Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pitlords 04-10-07, 07:35 PM	The Council of Gladius - The Fourth 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 Tavern thread to start off with, or the Courtroom if the question turns out to need an Elder decision. Link to The Council of Gladius (I), The Council of Gladius (II), and The Council of Gladius (III).
Pitlords 04-10-07, 07:40 PM	This post is reserved for topics under discussion. When a decision is made, the post containing that decision will be linked. Expanding the list of Improved Familiars [RESOLUTION] Revision of the allies section of the rules to exclude temporary allies [RESOLUTION] Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs [RESOLUTION] Fixing incorrect EL entries on low-EL monster tables [EL 3] [EL 4] Creating monster tables for ELs 11-16 [EL 11] [EL 12] [EL 13] [EL 14] [EL 15] [EL 16] Clarification on definitions and consequences of "defeat" [RESOLUTION] Restricting custom staffs [RESOLUTION] Resolving timing of the assassinate package [RESOLUTION] How allies are treated in the 3FC [RESOLUTION] Powerratings for Hunter fights [RESOLUTION] Revising the rules on questing ELs [RESOLUTION] Revising rules for wands [RESOLUTION] Rob Store and non-expendables [RESOLUTION] Another look at Diplomacy allies [RESOLUTION] Another look at Handle Animal [RESOLUTION] [REVISION] (tentative regarding ECL 4 list) Ally customization rules [RESOLUTION] An alternative to Diplomacy for allies (e.g. mercenaries, perhaps at ECL 4?) Listen checks for attacking and spellcasting, and the "matrix" method [RESOLUTION] Figuring out what to do with LOY [RESOLUTION 1] [RESOLUTION 2] The edges of maps [RESOLUTION] Random fight features [LIGHTING 1] [LIGHTING 2] How Intimidate works on allies without a CR [RESOLUTION] Cohort starting equipment Material from the D&D website, including Mind's Eye [REJECTED] Credit rebalancing Training Hall credit purpose: item refunds Credits to skip miniquests [RESOLUTION] Time it takes for crafting, for ghost shopping, and for animal training Monster spell/power lists Monster tactics guidelines Defintion of "humanoid-shaped" equipment [RESOLUTION] Making male and female characters have the same weight limitations Lessening the impact of the city "ceiling" [RESOLUTION]
Pitlords 04-10-07, 07:41 PM	Reserved.
MindWandererB 04-10-07, 07:45 PM	I've opened up a new Council thread so that I can edit the first couple of posts using the Pitlords account. Hopefully this will help us from losing track of incomplete arguments. Please continue the ongoing discussions here--and if I missed a topic, bump it here and I'll add it to the list.
hogarth 04-10-07, 08:51 PM	Another topic under discussion is removing the 2x CR 2 monster entries from the EL 3 monster table (and others). I'll see if I can find the post where I proposed my replacements. EDIT: Here it is. 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]
Erithmu 04-10-07, 08:52 PM	Clarification for Hunter and FFA fights on the terminology of 'defeated' and an edit to the rules thread.
Vathelokai 04-10-07, 09:17 PM	Another topic under discussion is removing the 2x CR 2 monster entries from the EL 3 monster table (and others). I'll see if I can find the post where I proposed my replacements. Ah cool. I was working on the monster lists, trying to clean them up and such.
McJarvis 04-10-07, 09:25 PM	Not sure if it was a council discussion-> but Staffs should be restricted to 2x charges used per use, as the rules say. [despite there being examples in the SRD of this rule being broken]
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 09:35 PM	Not sure if it was a council discussion-> but Staffs should be restricted to 2x charges used per use, as the rules say. [despite there being examples in the SRD of this rule being broken]We reverse engineer rules from the example items in the SRD all the time. I don't think we have any solid grounds to forbid this kind of reverse engineering while we allow people to create customized oathbows or shatterspike weapons.
MindWandererB 04-10-07, 09:37 PM	Another topic under discussion is removing the 2x CR 2 monster entries from the EL 3 monster table (and others). I'll see if I can find the post where I proposed my replacements. EDIT: Here it is. 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] The only one of those that looks particularly strange is bat swarm + animated object... I don't quite follow that logic.
McJarvis 04-10-07, 09:41 PM	We reverse engineer rules from the example items in the SRD all the time. I don't think we have any solid grounds to forbid this kind of reverse engineering while we allow people to create customized oathbows or shatterspike weapons. My reasoning was stated in another thread, but I can restate it here. Take the extreme example. A custom staff of anti-magic that uses 50 charges per use. 11(caster level) x 6(spell level) x 375gp(from staff section) / 50(reverse engineered part) = 495 gp for a one-time use staff of antimagic. This is a spell trigger item, but costs a significant amount less than the spell completion item that it is correlated to(Antimagic Scroll-> 6x11x50=3,300 gp) Take this in league with the fact that the staff rules specifically only say that you can "half the cost if you have the staff use two charges per use of the spell" & doesn't offer this as a variable in a formula, and I think it's pretty darn acceptable to require the max charges/use be 2/1. This should be a pretty simple ruling. It will stop characters of relatively low EL & caster level from using spell-trigger items of high value(like level 6+ spells) On top of it helping balance things more, it brings us more in-line with what the rules actually say is possible.
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 09:45 PM	Our staff rules require that we have at least two spells in the staff and that they be themed somehow. Also I'd never approve such an item.
hogarth 04-10-07, 09:46 PM	The only one of those that looks particularly strange is bat swarm + animated object... I don't quite follow that logic. An animated object (with enough hardness) would be immune to the nausea and damage from an bat swarm. Whether it makes logical sense is another matter. ;)
McJarvis 04-10-07, 09:47 PM	Our staff rules require that we have at least two spells in the staff and that they be themed somehow. Also I'd never approve such an item. Our staff rules are out of date-> they have been overturned by a FAQ/RotG(forget which) that specifically allowed for single-spell staffs. edit-> Though, by the logic of "let's follow RotG", they also state in black-and-white that the formula is "caster level x spell level x 375gp / (charges per use)"
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 09:53 PM	Our staff rules are out of date-> they have been overturned by a FAQ/RotG(forget which) that specifically allowed for single-spell staffs. The black market guidelines are CoCo house rules. We can and are using them to make custom items. I see no reason to do otherwise, regardless of RoTG or FAQ statements. Using the core rules a Ring of True Strike is 2000gp, but I'll never approve it. Should we create a new house rule to make that official? How about every other conceivable item? I think not. I get your point. You think the Harvester's staff is too powerful, and you can imagine making something even worse. Go ahead and try. I'll not approve it.
McJarvis 04-10-07, 09:57 PM	The black market guidelines are CoCo house rules. We can and are using them to make custom items. I see no reason to do otherwise, regardless of RoTG or FAQ statements. Using the core rules a Ring of True Strike is 2000gp, but I'll never approve it. Should we create a new house rule to make that official? How about every other conceivable item? I think not. I get your point. You think the Harvester's staff is too powerful, and you can imagine making something even worse. Go ahead and try. I'll not approve it. Honestly? This has little to do with the Harvester-> I've never had to deal with the idea of facing him in battle, nor will I ever(I really don't think Cat is coming back. Just call me a pessimist on that count) What I do see is a legitimate point that our current staff rules make mass credits very powerful. I see no reason why our current rules should adopt formulas that will eventually make staffs far more powerful than scrolls-> especially since we all know that people in charge of approving black market purchases are prone to error(MWB will gladly admit to that-> And you yourself approved an improved familiar for credits recently that isn't covered in Black Market rules at all.) I'd rather draw the "line" at 2 charges / use and have staffs be a pretty good option than play with the elders having to do calculations every time someone makes a request to see if the staff in question is too cost efficient. (especially since we already forbid people from buying wands with less than 50 charges, which is allowable by core rules so long as you're not crafting them with less than 50 charges.) As Cat himself said in the wand case-> Even though they're supported by the main rules & you might be able to buy them in a home game with ease, there is no way we'll ever let people buy wands with less than 50 charges here in CoCo. Why do the same with staffs?
hogarth 04-10-07, 09:59 PM	I get your point. You think the Harvester's staff is too powerful, and you can imagine making something even worse. Go ahead and try. I'll not approve it. McJarvis's original point was that it's ridiculous on the one hand for Caterane to rule that you can't buy a partially charged wand/dorje with 10 uses and on the other hand for the Elders to approve a staff with 10 uses. Either both should be O.K. or neither should be (IMO).
McJarvis 04-10-07, 10:01 PM	McJarvis's original point was that it's ridiculous on the one hand for Caterane to rule that you can't buy a partially charged wand/dorje with 10 uses and on the other hand for the Elders to approve a staff with 10 uses. Either both should be O.K. or neither should be (IMO). And my opinion really is that neither should be. Though I tried to abuse the idea of gather info/custom charges on wands, as soon as Cat told me no I realized why it was important that we not allow such things to happen. As way of "Voting" goes, MWB already expressed that he approved of this measure.
MindWandererB 04-11-07, 12:02 AM	I get your point. You think the Harvester's staff is too powerful, and you can imagine making something even worse. Go ahead and try. I'll not approve it.This is an approach I'd really rather not use. Let's make thing not approved by virtue of a rule we have, not case-by-case judgment calls. Since I was the one directly involved in the 1-spell-staff issues, I can tell you that the original ruling was based on RAW, not a house rule. We have no house rule that prohibits this, only a clarification, which RotG overturned. Between having a house rule about 1-spell staffs and having one about charge costs >2, I'd rather have the latter. Solves more problems. It would be easy enough to create a "Staff of Magic Freeze" or something to that effect that has Antimagic Field at 5 charges, and Ray of Frost at 50 charges.
Vathelokai 04-11-07, 12:10 AM	Using the core rules a Ring of True Strike is 2000gp,I see this one all the time and it continues to bug me. Look close at the chart, in the footnotes. Continuous items can not be made from spells with a durration shorter than round per level. Now on the core rules, you can make an x/day truestrike item as a command word item, but since it can't be a continuous item in the first place, it cannot be made into a charged ring either. [/rant] But I digress... Our staff rules require that we have at least two spells in the staff and that they be themed somehow. Also I'd never approve such an item. Not that I don't trust your judgement, but I feel safer having a rule instead of a gentlemens agreement; though I have no opinion yet on what rule that might be.
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 12:12 AM	This is an approach I'd really rather not use. Let's make thing not approved by virtue of a rule we have, not case-by-case judgment calls.Nothing short of case by case judgment calls can possibly be sufficient. We cannot houserule every possible abusable magic item. At some point only judgment will be sufficient. When someone asks for a ring of AMF 1/day, then I've got to say no. Even if they have the 80,000gp to fork over for it. Same goes for the ring of true strike. Totally legal item by core rules, but not balanced.
MindWandererB 04-11-07, 12:25 AM	Nothing short of case by case judgment calls can possibly be sufficient. We cannot houserule every possible abusable magic item. At some point only judgment will be sufficient. When someone asks for a ring of AMF 1/day, then I've got to say no. Even if they have the 80,000gp to fork over for it. Same goes for the ring of true strike. Totally legal item by core rules, but not balanced. It's true that we can't anticipate every possible abusable item, but when there's a whole category of such, it might be easier to have a rule covering it.
Macbrea 04-11-07, 01:13 AM	Hmmm, need that truestrike to be greater then 1 swift action? Gloves of Silenced Truestrike (always on) Crafted by sorcerer. That way it was full round spell when he casted it!
Vathelokai 04-11-07, 01:50 AM	Not quite. An item has to be 'rounds/lv' to be continuous. The durration of truestrike is 1 round. Note that the footnote on the chart says rounds; plural. But this is all quite beside the point.
Hirumajoe 04-11-07, 08:34 AM	Nothing short of case by case judgment calls can possibly be sufficient. We cannot houserule every possible abusable magic item. At some point only judgment will be sufficient. When someone asks for a ring of AMF 1/day, then I've got to say no. Even if they have the 80,000gp to fork over for it. Same goes for the ring of true strike. Totally legal item by core rules, but not balanced. So wait... You're willing to approve a 5 charge Anti-magic field staff, but a 1/day AMF ring is out? A 1/day AMF ring is usable once a 3FC. At the same rate of use, an AMF staff that uses 5 charges per use will last 30 fights. A 1/day AMF ring costs 1,800*6*11/5 = 23,760 gp while that staff costs ~9,900 gp. Even if you add in the extra spell like detect magic, it only costs ~10,500 gp. The ring costs twice as much, so an equivalent investment will last you 60 fights worth. Only catch is you need a level of cleric, wizard, sorcerer, or a decent UMD skill. Is the restriction to the most powerful classes (that or a skill monkey) what makes this acceptable to you while the ring is not? I'm not saying your decision is wrong, but I'd like to know the reasoning how you reached it. I'm also suddenly curious as to how many characters have actually fought in 60 fights on the CoCo board.
hogarth 04-11-07, 08:43 AM	So wait... You're willing to approve a 5 charge Anti-magic field staff, but a 1/day AMF ring is out? [Good analysis deleted] I'm not saying your decision is wrong, but I'd like to know the reasoning how you reached it. I'm also suddenly curious as to how many characters have actually fought in 60 fights on the CoCo board. I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I've noticed that Sauro and Telin consider charged items to be throwing away money; they put a high premium on permanent items even though (as you say) a charged item might last for a character's entire career (especially if the character gets frozen at some point). Note, however, that permanent items have significantly better resale values; in the case of self-crafted items, you can get all of your money back and reinvest it in something else with no loss.
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 09:13 AM	I wrangled with Cat over that staff for a while. His reasoning was sound. Basically since its a spell trigger item, it takes loosing several caster levels. Effectively a casting class becomes a non-casting class while the item is being used. So a Ring could be used by a fighter to make himself immune to every mage, while a mage using the staff suppresses all his class features. He made the point that he'd never approve an AMF item for a non-caster to use.
TheMagister 04-11-07, 09:18 AM	Yeah. That's equality at work for ya. Cat really is a world-class debate master.
McJarvis 04-11-07, 09:20 AM	I wrangled with Cat over that staff for a while. His reasoning was sound. Basically since its a spell trigger item, it takes loosing several caster levels. Effectively a casting class becomes a non-casting class while the item is being used. So a Ring could be used by a fighter to make himself immune to every mage, while a mage using the staff suppresses all his class features. He made the point that he'd never approve an AMF item for a non-caster to use. So what if the item wants to be used by a team with a caster and a non-caster? or a Gish? or....(fill in the blank) Imagine, if you will, Artificer eventually crafting an anti-magic item & right after getting it approved teaming up with Tessero(or some other more-or-less straight warrior build). Artificer could keep his antimagic field item on his teammate, ask for the same in return, & effectively bypass your little approval process. He could do the same just by taking a cohort(or TIM could, more realistically). All it takes is 1 level of cleric with the magic & war domains(weapon focus negates loss of BAB almost) Approving or disapproving items based on the character that asks for it is as off-base as approving or disapproving items based on the player that asks for them. Items come as-is, and we can't just approve or disapprove based on how useful the item in question would be for a specific character...can we?
Horatius 04-11-07, 09:25 AM	Was there to be any more discussion of the 3FC vs 1/3 rule? The point that the 3FC makes the 1/3 rule obsolete is a good one, and even if it were not done away with entirely it could be relaxed to 1/2 to give spellcasters more flexibility.
TelinArtho 04-11-07, 09:44 AM	Was there to be any more discussion of the 3FC vs 1/3 rule? The point that the 3FC makes the 1/3 rule obsolete is a good one, and even if it were not done away with entirely it could be relaxed to 1/2 to give spellcasters more flexibility. I still feel that casters do just fine in the 1/3 rule within the 3FC. If a new debate comes up - I would vote to uphold it. Removing the 1/3 rule allows the caster to go nova on his first fight and then retire without consequence. By having the 1/3 rule in place, he might be able to do it in the 2nd week - but more likely has to wait until the 3rd week to fully go nova. By that time - a player has invested more time in the character and in the CoCo. Plenty of casters are having little trouble succeeding in the lower ECLs even with it - so I see no need to remove or change it at this time.
hogarth 04-11-07, 09:57 AM	Approving or disapproving items based on the character that asks for it is as off-base as approving or disapproving items based on the player that asks for them. Items come as-is, and we can't just approve or disapprove based on how useful the item in question would be for a specific character...can we? I agree -- if an item can be bought by a PsyWar 1/Cleric 6, then it should be purchaseable by a Cleric 1/Fighter 6, too. The worst part is that there's a perfectly acceptable alternative to making the ol' 10-use staff: buying 10 scrolls instead. But with the staff, you get to save money and credits and it's a strictly better item (doesn't provoke AoOs, no caster level check required)! It's exactly the same situation as buying an undercharged wand which Cat overruled "for obvious reasons". Let's all take a moment to savour the cognitive dissonance. ;)
Hirumajoe 04-11-07, 10:02 AM	The worst part is that there's a perfectly acceptable alternative to making the ol' 10-use staff: buying 10 scrolls instead. But with the staff, you get to save money and credits and it's a strictly better item (doesn't provoke AoOs, no caster level check required)! Actually... Can an 8th level character fit 10 scrolls of AMF under the expendable cap? Lets see: 8*8*50 = 3200 gp cap. Each of those AMF scrolls costs 25*6*11 = 1650 gp. An 8th level character can at most carry one AMF scroll. He can't actually have one available every fight. So the staff lets you do something that a scroll user is not allowed to do under the current rules. Namely using an AMF every fight at ECL 8. Interestingly, the first level you could carry 3 AMF scrolls (one per fight) would be at ECL 10. And would leave you a whole 50gp spare in your expandables cap.
TelinArtho 04-11-07, 10:09 AM	Since I've been pretty silent on the issue - it is about time for me to speak up as well. Here's where I stick things: 1. Staff spells for custom staffs should not cost more than 2 charges per use. The rules in the SRD only mention allowing it for 2 charges, and by allowing it down to 50 charges/use makes it very abusable. I'd be willing to amend this to three charges to put the custom ones on the same level as the existing ones - but not more than three charges. 2. Staffs can be created with only one spell. I would still prefer to see more than one and a thematic design - but that isn't absolutely required. 3. Purchasing staffs will spells that are above your ECL (for instance Harvey's CL11 staff bought at ECL8) should not be allowed at all. We already have an avenue for purchasing things above your ECL in the form of wands and scrolls. Staffs are simply better in all ways to either one of them - so I'd rather see them restricted to ECL without a backdoor in the blackmarket.
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 11:27 AM	At the very least, we should maintain the ability to reverse engineer items in the SRD. Although the SRD section on crafting items only mentions using 2 charges on a single spell from a staff, there are clear examples of using more charges. Since the Staff of Life uses 5 charges for a single use of it's resurrection ability, we should also allow similar strategies to be used for making custom items. If there is going to be any limit on the highest number of charges for such an item to use, that limit should be 5 charges and no less (unless you want to ban the staff of life and make the limit 3 charges). If we don't allow this, then we should also not allow characters to craft custom shatterspike items or oathbows or any similar reverse engineered items. You're asking to pick all the mushrooms off the pizza. I don't like the strategy of picking bits and pieces out of the rules that you don't like and banning them. This is the Core Coliseum, not the Core Rules We Like Coliseum. The ECL limit is a reasonable idea, but it's probably overkill and will stifle many options. There's not a big difference between a Staff of Fire with CL8 and CL15, and your ECL limit eliminates the option to buy the higher CL staff. If anything the reasonable choice would be to total number of items a character can have which are above their ECL. Why not say fighters below ECL15 cannot have +5 swords w/o credits because that's an item created by a caster above their character level. Or limit stat boosting items and everything. In addition say that everyone can only have a certain maximum number of items above their ECL regardless of how many credits you spend.
Rauul 04-11-07, 11:33 AM	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? Sauro and telin voted yea.. Waiting on the other elders for votes yea or nay.. (this got lost in the move)
hogarth 04-11-07, 11:36 AM	If we don't allow this, then we should also not allow characters to craft custom shatterspike items or oathbows or any similar reverse engineered items. You're asking to pick all the mushrooms off the pizza. I don't like the strategy of picking bits and pieces out of the rules that you don't like and banning them. This is the Core Coliseum, not the Core Rules We Like Coliseum. Really? So we can use Polymorph as written and create wands of whatever we like without charges now? When was the changeover? ;)
Rauul 04-11-07, 11:39 AM	why don't staffs fall under the +2 CL rule as Scrolls and other things being purchused... (even thou i don't agree with the +2 cl rule as it's acually a +4 ECL rule to most things)
McJarvis 04-11-07, 11:40 AM	This is the Core Coliseum, not the Core Rules We Like Coliseum. I can't believe you actually believe that. We've never had a policy of "If it's core, anything goes!" Always game balance must be taken into perspective. This is why we can't buy wands at less than 50 charges: As Cat put it, this would just make the game un-balanced. (edit-> As Hogarth mentioned, many other house-rules have been put into effect too. :)) Not all items can be reverse engineered-> the circlet of persuasion. is a really good example of this. Since staffs are more similar to wands/potions/scrolls than they are to that Oathbow/Shatterspike you keep talking about, we should naturally judge them with this in mind. Our other expendables have house-rules that keep them all within the same power-level of each other. I don't know why you're being so defensive about this-> It isn't a matter of anyone arguing for a more powerful character, but rather everyone but you thinks Staffs need to be restricted in CoCo like they are in the item-creation rules. The fact that there are staffs given with more than 2 charges/use is irrelevant-> We have no way of knowing how the game designers balanced that, and it would be immature to believe it is merely a matter of applying a formula.
TelinArtho 04-11-07, 11:56 AM	At the very least, we should maintain the ability to reverse engineer items in the SRD. Although the SRD section on crafting items only mentions using 2 charges on a single spell from a staff, there are clear examples of using more charges. Since the Staff of Life uses 5 charges for a single use of it's resurrection ability, we should also allow similar strategies to be used for making custom items. If there is going to be any limit on the highest number of charges for such an item to use, that limit should be 5 charges and no less (unless you want to ban the staff of life and make the limit 3 charges). Well I wasn't aware of the existance of the 4 and 5 charge staves. In light of that - I have less issue with allowing up to 5 charges per. I have reservations - but less issue. The ECL limit is a reasonable idea, but it's probably overkill and will stifle many options. There's not a big difference between a Staff of Fire with CL8 and CL15, and your ECL limit eliminates the option to buy the higher CL staff. If anything the reasonable choice would be to total number of items a character can have which are above their ECL. Why not say fighters below ECL15 cannot have +5 swords w/o credits because that's an item created by a caster above their character level. Or limit stat boosting items and everything. In addition say that everyone can only have a certain maximum number of items above their ECL regardless of how many credits you spend. The reason why I want to remove this as an option is not so much for spells that a character at that particular level could already cast, but much more for spells that the character (or an equivalent character at the same ECL) couldn't cast at that ECL. The difference between a 8d6 fireball and a 10d6 fireball is not my issue. Allowing a character access to, for example, Anti-magic Field at ECL8 when a normal caster can't until ECL11 seems a little much. If it is under the restrictions of our expendable cap (as a scroll), then the abuse of it is well limited. Since staves are outside of the cap though - allowing someone to have access to a higher level spell can be very unbalancing. As to limiting stat-boosting items or magic weapons - these are very well restricted by the expense of the item on its own or by the ability to craft it by the character.
hogarth 04-11-07, 12:09 PM	What I'd really like to hear Sauro (or Caterane) answer is this question: "Why is buying a staff with 10 uses of Extended Blacklight allowed, when buying a wand with 10 uses of Extended Blacklight is not allowed?" (Bonus points if the answer involves defending the purity of the Rules of Gladius. In my opinion, that's like putting a chastity belt on Paris Hilton.) :P
Zevox 04-11-07, 12:20 PM	View Post 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? Sauro and telin voted yea.. Waiting on the other elders for votes yea or nay.. (this got lost in the move) To recap, we also had the suggestions of removing the vermin from that list (due to being mindless) and adding a Dretch at ECL 7 or 9. Oh, and the types of Mephit other than Ice at CL 7, of course. Zevox
Hirumajoe 04-11-07, 12:25 PM	What I'd really like to hear Sauro (or Caterane) answer is this question: Why is buying a staff with 10 uses of Extended Blacklight allowed, when buying a wand with 10 uses of Extended Blacklight is not allowed? (Bonus points if the answer involves defending the purity of the Rules of Gladius. In my opinion, that's like putting a chastity belt on Paris Hilton.) :P For the same reason that buying a staff with 25 uses of Extended Blacklight is allowed (and will still be allowed at ECL 5 or 7), when buying a wand with 25 uses of Extended Blacklight is not allowed. Its merely a matter of scale. And how you determine where you draw the line. Sauro has suggested 5 charges per use, because we have precedent in the SRD. And I can understand that, and I also know why Telin is willing to go along with it if pressed. Since its a clear and defendable position with an example from the SRD. For the same reason that people would prefer 2, since there's clearly a statement about it in the SRD. Otherwise, where do you draw the line on that scale of 1 to 50? Any other number is a personal judgement call without benefit of falling back on rules in any way. We know that 1 charge wands or staffs are a problem. As are 2 charge wands. How about 5? 6? 7? Since there's no good indication in the SRD on where to make the cutoff for wands, we choose the "1" option (i.e. needs 50 charges). Its the most conservative option. For staves we have precedence and statements and can easily say "2" or "5". Are we letting the staff option be stronger. Yes, we are. But such is the nature of the rules. Is it unbalanced? Dunno. Certainly feels that way when I see an ECL 8 with AMF. But that's a seperate issue with regards to max CL. Extended Blacklight in and of itself, in the hands of an ECL 8 character? Doesn't bother me as much. Simply because I know the character could have done it anyways himself. But yeah, I tend to side with Telin on the max CL issue. I don't want to see Staves of Power Word Kill CL 17 in the hands of a Fighter 10/Cleric 1... My non-elder two cents.
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 03:10 PM	I can see this line of argument, and I'm fairly certain Cat would also see this line of argument as a continuation of the ongoing campaign to force rule adjustments to invalidate his characters and the strategies they employ. I feel that we shouldn't continue to push Cat away by trying to force rules changes that target his characters alone. No other character currently active has purchased a staff of anything. Thus, although I'm not against regulating staffs in general, I am against regulating staffs in such a manner where the only existing staff is no longer legal. So how to go forward from here? I suggest the 5 charges/use as the maximum allowed for a staff. Furthermore, we can make staffs more expensive by saying that you need to at least two spell effects and the highest level spell must be within 3 levels of the next highest level spell (thereby staffs will be less gp efficient than wands). Also we can limit the CL of the staffs to the caster level of the character, but allow a player to acquire items of higher CL by spending 5 credits for each CL the item exceeds your own CL. Finally no single item can cost more than xx credits (perhaps 40 or 50), thus placing a ceiling on the most powerful thing you can get with credits.
TelinArtho 04-11-07, 03:26 PM	There is one other character with a staff - Saffron Brass. You mistake my intentions. I felt there were issues with Staves the moment I saw Cat's staff approved. This had nothing to do with Cat, but rather with the staff itself. An ECL8 character should not have access to a staff at CL11. If the character wants something above his ECL - he still has plenty of viable options: 1. Wands for spells up to SL 4. (and with a nominal credit expenditure) 2. Scrolls for higher SLs - as long as they fit under the expendable cap. (also with a nominal credit expenditure) As to putting a cap on the maximum credits for a single item - I don't see this ever coming up. Cat is the only one (well - okay Huan and a few others at the moment) who can actively spend that many credits on an item. That doesn't mean that allowing a select few to get it anyway makes it balanced.
SoulLord 04-11-07, 06:33 PM	so what is the problem? Even though a 5 charge limit sounds very reasonable to me the problem seems to be gladiators using higher level spells than they should be allowed. Why not ban the use of things with cl higher than the gladiator rather than again nerf wizards.
McJarvis 04-11-07, 06:38 PM	Honestly Sauro, I don't think we should be considering Cat's characters in this discussion at all. He's left the boards now(for good, so far as I personally know...) & it should be abundantly clear that he is no issue in this debate, nor do I think he could take it as such if he did come back. The *truth* of the matter is that higher ECL's are being opened soon and staffs will be fair game to anyone with credits. I still fail to see why you would fight against this so much, since it really only makes sense. Your arguments don't even rest on anything but "reverse engineering" other magical items, but we have a clear-cut formula from which to engineer staffs.(conversely, we *don't* have already existing formulas with which to calculate those reverse engineered items) Why are you deviating from your normal "We use the rules and nothing but the rules" stance?
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 07:06 PM	I suppose the next question is to ask what precisely was the problem with the Harvester's AMF staff? You suggest the CL was too high for the Harvester's ECL8 status? If that's the case, then I'd ask if a CL11 Staff of of Earth and Stone would be a problem for you? How about a CL10 Staff of Frost? Or even a CL13 Staff of Illusion? Or modify a Staff of Fire so that it's CL 15 instead of CL8, then is it a problem? I don't think there's a specific problem with the caster level at all. Would you disapprove of a CL11 Staff of Detect Magic on a staff owned by an ECL8 character? Perhaps it's the spell level that's at issue. Would there be much complaint against a Staff of True Sight at CL11, or a Staff of Mass Bull's Strength, or a Staff of Heal, or a Staff of Stone Tell, or a Staff of Globe of Invulnerability, or a Staff of Stone to Flesh, or a Staff of Wall of Iron, or Staff of Circle of Death or even Delayed Blast Fireball at CL13 if any of these were owned by a ECL8 character? I think not. Next I would ask if there would be terrible outcry if say Raskos or Vandelar were to be the character wielding the staff in question. Pure arcane spell casters effectively nullify themselves with the AMF effect, and there would be little reason to be concerned if paired against a wizard who spends 10,000gp on a staff that inactivates himself. Rather the issue appears to be simply with respect to the AMF spell separate from all other spells cast at CL11 and specifically when the Harvester is wielding the item. Yes Staffs are better than wands. Yes you can make staffs that cast higher level spells than wands can manage. Yes the spells cast by a staff are more effective than those cast by a wand. Yes staffs allow you to gain expendable spell effects that are outside of the expendable cap. That's just how the rules are currently structured. So far from the argument, I've gathered that the Anti-Magic Field is considered to be too powerful for a character at ECL8, especially when it's The Harvester. The argument about CL being too high is disingenuous. With proper credit expenditure, we allow CL9 MM wands at ECL5. There's no suggestion to nerf that. Cat payed extra credits to gain access to the staff of CL11. Why should that be different from buying a wand at CL10 when you are ECL7? Generally we do limit the CL of items, but that limit can be increased with credits. Staffs should be no different from everything else. Honestly Sauro, I don't think we should be considering Cat's characters in this discussion at all. He's left the boards now(for good, so far as I personally know...) & it should be abundantly clear that he is no issue in this debate, nor do I think he could take it as such if he did come back. The *truth* of the matter is that higher ECL's are being opened soon and staffs will be fair game to anyone with credits. I still fail to see why you would fight against this so much, since it really only makes sense. Your arguments don't even rest on anything but "reverse engineering" other magical items, but we have a clear-cut formula from which to engineer staffs.(conversely, we *don't* have already existing formulas with which to calculate those reverse engineered items) Why are you deviating from your normal "We use the rules and nothing but the rules" stance? Apparently you know something that I don't. As far as I know, both myself and MWB are operating under the assumption that Cat will be returning after some weeks off. Both himself and I are reluctant to institute a myriad of changes in his absence. And I'm doubly reluctant to institute changes that directly effect his characters (and no others). Regardless of that, the SRD both contains rules for creating your own custom magic items and a host of example magic items. There are several cases where the example magic items deviate from the rules for creating custom items. However we still use them as written, and in some cases we even use those examples to create other custom items not specifically priced by the normal custom item rules. With staffs we are using precisely the same approach, and there is no good reason to deviate from that well established approach. I just don't see any legitimate reason to nerf the RAW on staffs and not everything else.
Maraxus 04-11-07, 07:07 PM	I would vote, that Wands and Staffs go into the restricted expendable cap as well, wands with 1/10th their value and Staffs with "highest charge use"/10th their value. The 10 is up to adjustment.
McJarvis 04-11-07, 07:17 PM	So far from the argument, I've gathered that the Anti-Magic Field is considered to be too powerful for a character at ECL8, especially when it's The Harvester. ::Rant:: You apparently didn't read anything anyone said, since it has been stated multiple times that this has nothing to do with Cat or the Harvester. Try reading our posts every once and a while Sauro-> I do you the favor of reading your words, no matter how often they apparently ignore what I have to say. ::/Rant:: Your individual examples of "unpowerful" spells available at low ECL's is completely off base. If I said you could buy an item of "Refuge" at ECL 12 I doubt many people would balk, even though it's a 9th level spell. I used AMF as an example because in my opinion, it is one of the most powerful high-level spells in the game. (when used tactically soundly) Comparing Staffs to Wands was the start-> but my point was that Staffs are better than scrolls when treated this way. I then backed up the argument with quotes from Cat himself that said spell-trigger items should never be better than spell-completion items cost-wise. On top of all of that, Cat himself refused wands with 10 charges(despite this being completely allowable within the rules) because this would make wands too powerful. Using the same logic towards Staffs only makes sense. Regardless of that, the SRD both contains rules for creating your own custom magic items... Again, you didn't read what I actually said. Since there is a clear-cut way to calculate the cost of Staffs, I see no reason to break those existing rules just so we can create other staffs with 3charges/use(especially when we have no idea of how the creators might have come around to choosing the spells available on the ones that are listed) No where have I even hinted that we should ban the use of staffs that exist with these optimal charge-rates, I've only been talking about rules for custom staffs. All that aside, I'm pretty sure the remaining Elder will be tired of me having to re-iterate these points again and again when he gets around to coming to this thread. I'm done on the topic. RE: Cat: After the way the board has treated him, I guess what I'm saying is that if I were he, I would turn around and never come back. I know MWB convinced him to just take a few weeks off & then come back, but the way it's been relayed on the boards it really didn't sound like he's coming back(to me). But that's me-> I don't take such gruff for very long when it's aimed at me personally. Regardless, as I stated at the begining of my post-> It's stupid for you to think this has anything to do with him. I'm the one that brought it up & I have nothing to gain from taking down Cat's chars.
MindWandererB 04-11-07, 07:54 PM	RE: Cat: After the way the board has treated him, I guess what I'm saying is that if I were he, I would turn around and never come back. I know MWB convinced him to just take a few weeks off & then come back, but the way it's been relayed on the boards it really didn't sound like he's coming back(to me). But that's me-> I don't take such gruff for very long when it's aimed at me personally. Regardless, as I stated at the begining of my post-> It's stupid for you to think this has anything to do with him. I'm the one that brought it up & I have nothing to gain from taking down Cat's chars.Okay, apparently I need to clarify this. Cat has not, to my knowledge, made a decision about whether he's coming back. We'll know when he says something. For the time being, I'm covering my bases for both contingencies: I'm making sure everything that needs to get done will get done if Cat doesn't come back (e.g. finding both a guildmaster and a backup for CEF), but I also don't want to tear things up too badly in the event that he does. Since Cat is, so far, the only one with an arguably abusive staff, his is the only character that would be affected by any decision we made. Much of the problem has to do with AMF--having it as a spell-trigger item does allow for some very, very potent options on melee characters. Imagine if I have a staff of AMF to Gakhnalak, with his 1 sorcerer level. Even at an ECL equal to its minimum CL of 11, it would be incredibly powerful. And even at its maximum price of 24,750 gp (at 2 charges/use and no other spell), it's a good buy. I can't think of any other spell that we haven't already banned or restricted that has as much potential. What threw us all for a loop was the combination: getting said staff for a significant discount, and entering it in at ECL 8, and debuting it at the Iron Man--in which, I might add, the majority of characters are casters, and most of the non-casters are heavily dependent on magic in some form anyway. Some questions that are on my mind: Do we want to be able to convert credits into cash? That's basically what we're doing by allowing high-charge staffs. A 5-charge/use staff is like having 10 scrolls, except that it's cheaper, doesn't apply to the cap, can be used with only one caster level (or less UMD), can be used in armor, and benefits from feats, higher stats, and caster level. At 1 charge/use, it's less abusable (few of the most potent spells are liable to be used 50 times before hitting the next frozen league); at 2 charges/use, it's a bit more so, and at 5 charges/use, it's like money in your pocket. Do we want credit-rich players to be able to break the ECL limits? Few PCs have the wherewithal to deal with stuff above their level, especially like this. Imagine if we allowed a 5-charge wand of Call Lightning at ECL 3? Pricey but affordable, and could probably win 5 fights all by itself. And then there are those Magic Missile wands: 6750 gp is something that can be ponied up at ECL 5 or 6, if you save well, and then you become death incarnate unless someone has Shield, or can kill you very, very quickly. These are questions I've been wrestling with every since I got here; credits are supposed to add options, not power. These issues blur that border.
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 07:54 PM	Obviously this whole discussion, regardless of lip service to the contrary, has everything to do the one AMF staff at ECL11 purchased by The Harvester a couple weeks ago. Any statement to the contrary is simply not true, and I've been ignoring it. There was no discussion about staffs when Saffron Brass purchased one months ago. Why not? Because it wasn't a problem to anyone. Now we can try to divest ourselves of the origin of this discussion, and claim we are arguing in the abstract about rules not about The Harvester. But I don't really buy it. Cat wouldn't either. That aside. Spell trigger items are always better than spell completion items. They always cost less gp/use, they can be made ready as weapons (on the move), they don't require somatic or verbal spell components (usable in a grapple). They are better in so many ways it's hard to make sure you have named them all. The very idea that anyone would say a spell completion item should be more cost effective is silly, and whomever said such a thing is simply wrong. There is a clear hierarchy of expendable magic items. The least useful and most expensive are potions, scrolls are better in most situations if you can use them, wands are cheaper and better than scrolls in most ways, and staffs are the best in every way. That's simply the RAW. What you are trying to do is equalize one of the aspects that makes staffs superior to wands. And you are trying to do this despite there being clear examples in the SRD which contradict your suggestion. This is just another example of people trying to write rules that contradict the RAW simply because they don't like the rules as written. I fight that whenever it happens. You point at the creating custom items rules and say there's a limit of 2 charges/ use of an ability. While I point to the Staff of Life and say that there is an example of using 5 charges/ use of an ability (and it's priced correctly for that to be the case). The "clear-cut" way of calculating costs of staffs that you favor is not sufficient to create most of the example staffs in the SRD, and it's different from the way we've been doing it for a while. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that there's legitimate reason to make custom staffs follow more stringent pricing rules than those provided as example staffs. The fact that staffs are better than wands or scrolls is not a reason to change the way that staffs are priced. Staffs are intended to be better than wands and scrolls. If AMF is an overpowered spell, then perhaps we should have a different discussion about that. Making the discussion about nerfing staffs is not the correct place to put the emphasis if AMF is really the problem. Edit: Was writing as MWB was writing apparently.
SoulLord 04-11-07, 08:00 PM	wands with less than 50 charges are not allowed Staff with less than 50 charges are not allowed. staff > wand > scroll what it is being proposed is that custom staffs should not be allowed to spend more charges than (1,2,5,x) as a special house rule. this won't stop staffs from having higher level spells than a gladiator should be allowed to cast which seems to be the real problem to me.
Rauul 04-11-07, 08:01 PM	Well i am Gonna toss my 2 cents in.. not that it will matter at all Since i am a firm believer that if you have the feats to make something you shouldn't have to Pay credits... but thats My opionion... Staff Spells = ECL of the caster Staff Spells > ECL of caster Should require a Quest (3 weeks)= to the Highest CL Spell... Anti-magic staff= ECL 11 Quest(3 weeks) For a total of -- credits.. (15 for the Staff +5 credits per CL over your CL (not ecl)+ 3 for the Quest)+ the gold to have it made.. (before the quest) Yes it maybe more complicated but it would also be balancing out the power.. Example the ECL 8 character needs to defeat 3 CA 11 monsters to get it made (simular to wanting Int weapons)
Erithmu 04-11-07, 08:05 PM	(4 post ninja'd ... last post I read before writing this was McJ at #50) I'm not even sure I should be saying anything here ... but lemme preface by stating that the following emotions were felt by me before Loddick had to fight team Fugue. I though the staff was unfair as it was obviously a use of the rules that was abusive to the spirit of the game. Now understand that I am much more interested in the spirit of the game, and I know flat out that I could not do the job of an elder around here, I just do not have the time nor the energy to sort through layers and layers of rules. I am here to have fun and competition at the same time. I don't have a problem with the CL 11 on the staff (it would have to be as such in order to cast the spell) what irked me more was that it was requested (roughly) half a week before the IMT, with obvious plans to use it within the IMT. The abusive part was using the full extent of the rules to make the staff affordable at this level. (5 charges per use, using a 0th level spells to count as the secondary spell, and 5 charges for that as well.) That being said I don't have a problem with the staff itself, but rather its design and effect on the greater CoCo community. Consider: Cat has taken (what I hope) is a couple of weeks off. But when looking at the greater effect that one item is having on the community as a whole I am more inclined to ask is the prestige of winning worth the cost of losing members of a community. There are other members of this community that like to win just as much as Cat does, I know that TM, ToK, McJ, and Mitza can get just as uppity as Cat does. I know that I can as well. Many of the elder moves for the ECL 3/4 leagues have been made with this in mind: No diplo/HA allies, no odd fights (hunter/team/FFA), no miniquesting, no credits. But when they reach ECL 5 they are thrown into a whole new game, I think the same consideration for the community should be taken in to account at the higher leagues and even more so as this is the supply of pitlords, elders, respected members of the community. Personal attacks aside, if a majority of the community is against something, then elders should take note. Credits are a blessing an a curse in this system, they allow creative builds, creative items (I don't think that Indri's intellegent glaive is all that over powered.) but there is a very fine line between what is creative, what is powerful, and what is abusive. I mean in a wizard vs wizard fight, a player could build a very effective grappling wizard (Look at Elebin ECL14) that would use AMF and still be effective. Granted it is ECL 15 before he can do it, but it does shut any wizard down, and without credits. I think the staff was a mistake to approve not because it is powerful, but because it sacrificed the community in order to win. This is a game, and the second it proves to not be then something should be fixed. Please do not take this as an attack on the elders or a specific person, I have tried to be fair to everyone. I have a great time here, I have made some good friends who I enjoy and treasure meeting on the battlefield (well some less than others 'cause they woop up on me). a little more than my 2cp -Rith
hogarth 04-11-07, 08:24 PM	Frankly, I don't care what Caterane does or does not do with his characters, as long as the rules are clear and consistent. This is just another example of people trying to write rules that contradict the RAW simply because they don't like the rules as written. I fight that whenever it happens. Well, the rules give a price for a wand with 10 charges, and yet you can't buy one, even with credits. Why is that? Why are you not fighting to overturn that?
Rauul 04-11-07, 08:39 PM	WOW you all need a time out... So leave Staffs alone before someone saids something they will regret.. and go back to Improved Familiars and Cohort eq (non expendables)
McJarvis 04-11-07, 08:44 PM	WOW you all need a time out... So leave Staffs alone before someone saids something they will regret.. and go back to Improved Familiars and Cohort eq (non expendables) *lol* You're so self-serving ;)
Rauul 04-11-07, 09:10 PM	*lol* You're so self-serving ;) Well yes and No... as stated the Staffs effect 2 charaters(one who is on Vacation and the other who is in IMT)... while improved familiars can effect all wizards and Socs who take the feat... So yea i maybe self serving but I am Self serving for the betterment of CoCo (and the fact i Love my earth Mephit Famililar and don't wanna dish out 10 credits for the UA Varient to bring in a 7HD skeleton)
Hirumajoe 04-11-07, 09:17 PM	Edit: Ninja'd by a couple posts... Not surprised though. Having given this subject (staves/wands/expendables) some more thought I now present a rather long, but I hope clear set of questions that need to be answered. Let me begin by asking "Why do we have an expendables cap?" I admit my ignorance. I haven't been around that long and I don't know what the original arguments for and against it were, but apparently it was agreed to. (Nor am I arguing it shouldn't be there, but I'm just working with the rules as currently implimented). Then let me ask the next question, "Why are staves and wands not covered by the expendable cap?" Clearly, there must be a reason that lies in the fundamental differences between scrolls and potions compared to staves and wands. Since staves and wands are clearly better in the execution than scrolls, it must be some other factor inherent in the nature of the objects themselves. The only other difference between scrolls and wands/staves is the fact that they are bulk purchases. They require a large up front investment and that requires an opportunity cost of other expendables. You trade flexibility for sheer power. If I'm missing some other fundamental difference please point it out. Thus, if wands and staves are not to be placed under the expendables cap, they must maintain that fundamental difference. Otherwise by the exact same arguments that lead to the expendables cap for scrolls and potions, wands and staves should fall under it also. This (I believe) is the reason why Cat denied McJarvis' semi-charged wands. If you're allowed to purchase 1 charge wands or 50 charge per use staves, then the expendable cap is completely and utterly meaningless. Thus we are forced to decide on when a Staff/Wand becomes too much like a scroll/potion. This is not a question of RAW or reverse engineering magic items. This is purely a question of balance for here in the CoCo. The "expendables cap" is certainly not RAW but we have it here anyways. So now, the million dollar question: "How many charges are needed before a wand/staff is not like a scroll/potion?" If you can answer all three of the above bolded questions, you have your answer as to why and how much staves need to be limited. I personally don't have the right answers. Nor does RAW I think, since the designers weren't the ones to impliment an expendables cap, the CoCo was. I will throw out an interesting alternative which hasn't been proposed, but might make for a possible compromise, which is to not limit staves/wands more than we have previous to this point, but to include them in the expendables cap. (I'm merely pointing it out as an option, that might be consistent with both the RAW and our current house rules - not that this is necessarily the best option of resolving the current discussion). If wands/staves are covered under the expendables cap, then there's no problem with allowing a 1 charge wand. How could there be when we allow single use scrolls. (Other than the fact that its roughly 60% of the cost and better in activation than a scroll... But such is the nature of the RAW rules.) Similarly, you let the higher spell limit be handled as it has been, since you won't be able to fit many higher level spells under the cap. Its a compromise, since it doesn't rule out 50 charge per use staves or 9th level spells being available at ECL 11 but at the same time it enforces the same "balancing" factor thats currently enforced on scrolls. The other options are to enforce a maximum charges per use (as McJarvis proposes) and possibly consider a maximum CL (as Telin advocates) (since I will point out that with the expendables cap, a character cannot take 3 6th level scrolls with him - thats clearly a balancing factor inherent in the expendables cap which is not in place on staves). Edit: A third option is to eliminate the expendables cap also and not restrict wands/staves (which is kinda like placing wands/staves under it in a strange way). This would also lead to self consistent rules. Just some more food for thought anyways.
McJarvis 04-11-07, 09:38 PM	@Hirm: I'm about to fall unconscious, but I can answer pretty quickly why there's an expendable cap. There wasn't always an expendable cap, but then we found out that certain characters(like ToK, Cat, myself) would start an ECL 3 character with 2k+ gp in expendables. The point wasn't to use that many expendables per fight, but rather just to have the options...especially if you were a wizard...or worse, a cleric with scribe scroll. Imagine having 2 copies of every remotely useful spell at your disposal, and your opponent not knowing at all what you were going to throw at them. Characters like the Harvester/(What Artificer will eventually be) are remnants of this sort of thinking, except they now use Staffs and Wands to get around the expendable cap. Oh-> and this strategy is very potent.
Vathelokai 04-11-07, 09:53 PM	I havn't really much to add; seems all sides have made their points and we just need to think on it. As for the Cat debate: I've seen other players come up with something rediculously overpowered, and then we instituted rules to limit that (remember longarcher?). It was because one player broke the system. Now when this was proposed on Cat's characters he gets special privlage? Cat has taken a lot of abuse, and most of it was completely unwaranted. I don't want to sound like I'm against him (I'm not), but it (in my opinion) it was a game breaking item. No one likes to have their build nerffed, but I've had it happen to me, and I fought it for weeks, but when the post was set in the rules thread I dropped it. I went with the new rules. Obviously this whole discussion, regardless of lip service to the contrary, has everything to do the one AMF staff at ECL11 purchased by The Harvester a couple weeks ago. Any statement to the contrary is simply not true, and I've been ignoring it. There was no discussion about staffs when Saffron Brass purchased one months ago. Why not? Because it wasn't a problem to anyone. There's a deeper reason to no one objecting to that one. The first version was a CL 20 staff of spell resistance, 5 charges for SR, and 50 charges for lv 0 resistance. But guess what; I don't have those kind of credits. Second version was shot down in the black market; MWB and I discussed it, and MWB won. The version Saffron has now is the product of that. I didn't fight it because 1) I respect authority (here at least), and see no gain from fighting it, and 2) I thought the item was game breaking and was interested to see if the powers at be thought so as well. I believe the overall consensus is that the 'item for item' rule worked for Saffron's staff, but didn't work for Harvester's staff. Thus all the arguements for to have a house rule instead of the item for item rule. Done ranting now. Time to go put my daughter to bed.
SauroGrenom 04-11-07, 11:29 PM	These are questions I've been wrestling with every since I got here; credits are supposed to add options, not power. I agree in principal, but I also know that options are power in CoCo. It's impossible to dissociate those two. If something represents too many options or too potent of an option, then it's imbalanced in our game setting. This is why Gish characters are generally more potent, and this is the fundamental reason behind the polymorph nerf and the expendables cap. I agree that Credits should represent more options, not more wealth and more power. That's a very cerebral concept that's not always clear in it's implementation. More importantly I think that this current line of discussion should really revolve around the AMF spell and it's use with respect to magic items mimicking the effect. Your point about giving an AMF item to Gakhnalak is well made. The way the core rules are written, a 1 level dip into several classes results in the ability to use this spell effect in conjunction with certain magic items. That is the imbalance that is truely at the heart of this fracas. Personally I don't have any problem with a character casting AMF directly. To do so a character must be a CL11 caster, and castign directly involves sacrificing all the power associated with that. If the caster doesn't have nearly that much casting ability then the balance is skewed, and they probably shouldn't have access to that spell. So I propose that we make a new house rule and semi-ban the AMF spell. Specifically we can state that AMF cannot be a spell effect produced by any item, including but not limited to scrolls, powerstones, staffs, psicrowns, wands, dorjes, wondrous items or universal items. Pricing on wands, and staffs may be something worth reconsidering at some point. I'm not convinced by the arguments sated so far at this point. Regardless of all that, I think we can deal with the underlying AMF balance problem w/o needing to complicate everything with discussion of staff and wand purchasing options.
McJarvis 04-12-07, 06:53 AM	I actually disagree with this-> I consider AMF to be a balancing force at later levels for fighter-types to cast(using whatever means they need) in order to fend off mages touting around things like Force Cages, Symbols, and other difficult to block spells. The only thing a ban of the spell from expendables will do is make clerics with the magic or protection domain unstoppable. (that is, clerics that are geared to be gishes) I would, however, agree that AMF shouldn't be accessible until ECL 11. And I still disagree with the staff pricing rules.
hogarth 04-12-07, 07:12 AM	So I propose that we make a new house rule and semi-ban the AMF spell. Specifically we can state that AMF cannot be a spell effect produced by any item, including but not limited to scrolls, powerstones, staffs, psicrowns, wands, dorjes, wondrous items or universal items. This does not address my complaint at all. Why can a staff be bought with 10 uses, but not a wand/dorje? Either both are balanced options (since they cost the same and have the same effect), or neither are. If someone wants to buy an item of AMF, I don't have any problem with that.
TheMagister 04-12-07, 07:45 AM	If someone wants to buy an item of AMF, I don't have any problem with that. I feel the same way as Hogarth on the quoted statement. I also agree with Sauro as to the staff's inherent superiority over wands and scrolls (you're certainly paying for it; it had better be superior!). I have only a small problem with using credits to buy access to spell-trigger items with caster/manifester levels higher than the character's ECL. I think it becomes more unbalanced the more credits a person has. Perhaps an exponential or multiplicative credit cost should apply as the gulf between the ECL of the character and the CL/ML of the spell-trigger item widens? ECL of example character: 9. CL of desired item: 13. Difference: 4. Current Cost: 20 credits. Proposed change: [(ECL ∆ CL)2*3] 4*4*3 = 48 credits. Difference: 2. Current Cost: 10 credits. 2*2*3= 12 credits. Difference: 1. Current cost: 5 credits. 1*1*3 = 3 credits. Difference: 5. Current cost: 25 credits. 5*5*3 = 75 credits. Difference: 6. Current cost: 30 credits. 6*6*3 = 108 credits. So this way, if you're gonna have a game-breaking item (say, 5 CL above your ECL), you're going to have had to put in some major contributive time to the CoCo. Even so, chances are you're only gonna be able to do it once or twice because it's so cost prohibitive (75 creds + 15 creds for a custom item!). DnD isn't DnD without a few "OMG!" items in it. If you wanna beat AMF, pack a Conjuration (no SR) spell backup offense. If you're not prepared for an AMF in your league, that's just too bad, IMO. A wand of Extended Acid Arrow can make your opponent really regret that AMF in a few rounds. Can you think of a way to cope with 6d4 acid damage/round? Without Magic to increase your touch AC or provide resistance? Pack an extra wand with energy substitution (electricity) Acid Arrow (no extra cost monetarily) for added insurance. All in all, you've spent less than the staff's owner, and he'll run out of charges first, AND your tools are useful in more situations. ...And the "Give a cp, take a cp" has another 2cp in it. TM
hogarth 04-12-07, 08:20 AM	I also agree with Sauro as to the staff's inherent superiority over wands and scrolls (you're certainly paying for it; it had better be superior!). :confused: A CL 8 staff of one spell and a CL 8 wand of one spell cost exactly the same; there's just a higher minimum price for staffs vs. wands/dorjes. Of course the staff will be superior, but I still haven't seen a coherent argument explaining why allowing a wand of 10 charges would be the end of the world and allowing a staff of 10 charges is fine (not to mention buying magical ammunition in quantities smaller than 50). The only justifications I've seen so far from Sauro are "Staffs are different because they're different" (duh), "Quit picking on Caterane", and "Antimagic Field is the problem, not staffs".
Hirumajoe 04-12-07, 08:30 AM	At the very least, I would like to see the 5 charges per use cap be added. Since everyone seems to be willing to agree to at least that (even if some people would like to see it further reduced). It cuts off the worst possible abuses. Consider the following: Higher ECL leagues open up. Grab a 12th level caster and give him Craft: Weaponsmithing skill, Gather Information, and the Craft Staff feat. You proceed to use blackmarket connections every week (with say a 700 gp cap) to self craft a 50 charges per use 6th level, 11th caster staff (since the staff lets you use it at CL 12 anyways...) This compares favorably to the self crafted scroll 6th level, 12th caster level for 900 gp. (Admittedly, it requires a different feat and an extra skill: Craft Weaponsmithing to pull it off). After a few weeks, you've got your very own set of expendable cap excluded 1 shot magic items at no credit cost. If the 5 charges per use maximum is in effect, you're limited to 1st level spells, because of the 8th level caster minimum. Even at something like level 16 with a 1000 gp blackmarket cap, you still can only do 1st level spells. (1000-150 = 850/(10*7.5*8) = 1.4 ) Thus you could in principle afford a 1.4th level spell. :) Your cap would have to be 1350 before you could afford to craft credit free staves of 2nd level, 8th caster level. This I think does limit the worst of the possible abuses. Otherwise you're paying a minimum of 15 credits every time you want that different expendable, where as with scrolls thats not necessary. So in light of the reason of the expendables cap (to prevent 101 options being available) this seems to do a reasonably good job.
Hirumajoe 04-12-07, 08:54 AM	:confused: A CL 8 staff of one spell and a CL 8 wand of one spell cost exactly the same. Of course the staff will be superior, but I still haven't seen a coherent argument explaining why allowing a wand of 10 charges would be the end of the world and allowing a staff of 10 charges is fine (not to mention buying magical ammunition in quantities smaller than 50). The only justifications I've seen so far from Sauro are "Staffs are different because they're different" (duh), "Quit picking on Caterane", and "Antimagic Field is the problem, not staffs". Here are the only differences: A) A custom wands costs 5 credits and staff costs 15 credits. B) A staff must be at a minimum of 8th level, while a wand does not. C) A staff includes a masterwork quarterstaff component (150-300 gp). D) Crafting staves requires a higher level feat (12th which was at the time beyond our ECL cap). Therefore, the answer must be: A) It costs 3 times the credits B) It has a minimum cost higher than wands minimum (which I know, I know doesn't answer your specific question on 8th level wands, but I'm willing to bet McJarvis wasn't asking for 8th level semi-charged wands when Cat made his decision) which makes it virtually impossible to use effectively with blackmarket connections C) It includes a static cost of 150-300 gp. D) Crafting staves yourself is a higher level activity that isn't an issue currently, thus making scrolls more efficient if you craft them yourself as compared to staves. Whether those are good answers or not, I don't know, but there they are. Its the only things which differ as far as I can tell.
hogarth 04-12-07, 09:10 AM	C) A staff includes a masterwork quarterstaff component (150-300 gp). I don't think this one is strictly true. It says in the SRD: The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the staff--375 gp x the level of the highest-level spell x the level of the caster, [etc.] If you look at the staffs in the SRD, I don't believe any of them have the price of a masterwork quarterstaff included factored in. Your other points are valid, but they seem to add up to effectively saying "Doing an end-run around the expendables cap is O.K. as long as the spell has a high enough caster level". I don't know if that's a great balancing factor. EDIT: On a slightly unrelated note, I'd like to suggest adding a guideline that at least one spell in any staff has to cost 1 charge per use. Every staff I've ever seen in official products has followed that rule.
Hirumajoe 04-12-07, 10:55 AM	I don't think this one is strictly true. It says in the SRD: If you look at the staffs in the SRD, I don't believe any of them have the price of a masterwork quarterstaff included factored in. Your other points are valid, but they seem to add up to effectively saying "Doing an end-run around the expendables cap is O.K. as long as the spell has a high enough caster level". I don't know if that's a great balancing factor. EDIT: On a slightly unrelated note, I'd like to suggest adding a guideline that at least one spell in any staff has to cost 1 charge per use. Every staff I've ever seen in official products has followed that rule. Hmm... Didn't realize the quarterstaff was built into the cost. I wonder, does that mean you can get an Adamantine staff on the cheap? At the very least Darkwood. I'll have to remember that. Anyways, as it stands wands and staves naturally do an end run around the expendables cap in terms of sheer power. I mean 50 charges does that just as well as 10. Its at the same ratio of cost to effect. Heck, if you have craft wands, you can make a 50 charge wand, use 10, then sell it back at no loss on the 40 leftover charges. So if you don't expect to use all 50, no problem. However, if the expendables cap was intended to limit options as opposed to power (which is what McJarvis indicated) at that point, higher caster level requirements do somewhat help that problem, since it makes the item more expensive (more powerful yes, but less versatile, since that gold can't be used on a different effect). Is it enough to be within the spirit of the expendables cap, I don't know. I don't have the experience enough to judge that balance in the CoCo environment. However I'd like to point out that if you've filled up your expendables limit and then add even a single wand with 50 charges, you're already going over the limit anyways. Not sure what to say about this. I mean, a level 10 character could easily afford 10 2nd level/3 CL wands for 4,500 a piece and still fill in his 5,000 expendables cap. Or heck, if he has the craft wand feat, he could get 20, and be able to sell any used portions back at cost. Without using a single credit and within the current rules. (Actually, isn't that what the Artificer of Gladius is up to McJarvis? :D ) So if you're worried about doing an end run around the expendables cap, I'm afraid that its already possible, even with the 50 charge requirement on wands. In the case of custom staves, I think we do need to limit the charges per use to some degree. Otherwise we have the degenerate case of 50 charges per use. Although I suppose spending 15 credits per single use item gets credit expensive fast. But as far as principles go, it shouldn't allowed. It like saying: "Yes we know this certain type of strategy is unbalancing, so we've created a house rule to prevent you from doing it (expendables cap) unless you happen to have been around for several months and acquired a horde of credits." Its the wrong type of message to send. An 8th level caster level minimum, along with a 5 charge per use cap, means a 1st level spell costs a minimum investment of 1200 gp. Compared to 25 gp for a single scroll. Thats a factor of 48. Then again, once you start passing the 8th level caster limit (on 5th level and higher spells) then the ratio drops to 6. Again, is this enough of investment to cut your options meaningfully? Don't know. And given that its outside of the expendables cap already, does it matter? But at the end of the day, if 10 charge wands are out, and 10 charge staves are in, well, just go with 10 charge staves until its proven to be abusive. The old tried and true method to get things changed.
McJarvis 04-12-07, 11:07 AM	RE: Staffs/Wands & how they relate to expendibles The reason Staffs & Wands are not recorded as expendables is because they are essentially regular perm. items. A wand of Mage Armor, for instance, will run an entire gladiators life and then some. A wand of Magic Missiles, while much more fluid, will still run a character 2->3 levels.(look at Artificer: he uses magic missile almost exclusively & his lvl 1 wand of magic missiles has run him all the way to ECL 5 so far, and it's still chuggin) Thus they are not "expendable". Of course, when you make a staff with 5 charges/use, it will last about as long as that magic missile wand. Surely we can't start treating staffs of this nature like expendibles. edit-> moved the last paragraph of this to the tavarn, since it is off-topic.
Zevox 04-12-07, 11:42 AM	I don't think this one is strictly true. It says in the SRD: If you look at the staffs in the SRD, I don't believe any of them have the price of a masterwork quarterstaff included factored in. Actually, if you look at the "creating magic items" table that lists miscellaneous price modifiers for items (such as how much more you pay for spells with xp/material components), you'll note that staffs have a flat item cost of 300 gp for a masterwork quarterstaff listed there. Saffron's staff includes this cost (though in her case it was a tiny mithril quarterstaff instead), and you can feel free to toss Harvester in prison for not including it in his (though obviously it won't mean anything unless Cat returns). Zevox
hogarth 04-12-07, 12:03 PM	Actually, if you look at the "creating magic items" table that lists miscellaneous price modifiers for items (such as how much more you pay for spells with xp/material components), you'll note that staffs have a flat item cost of 300 gp for a masterwork quarterstaff listed there. Nevertheless, the text says that the material costs are subsumed and "text trumps table". Also, the text formula agrees with the staff prices listed in the DMG. E.g. the staff of Charming costs (750 x 4 x 8 / 2) + (750 x 0.75 x 1 x 8) = 16500 gp. Note that the number 300 does not occur in that formula.
SoulLord 04-12-07, 12:24 PM	There is one thing that keeps getting tossed around "House rule" you cannot buy wands with less than 50 charges the staffs are the same you cannot have them with less than 50 charges. The rules allow that staffs use more charges to power certain effects. And even though I agree that 5 is a reasonable number to prevent abuse. It doesn't stop the real problem; having higher level stuff than your gladiator is supposed to have.
McJarvis 04-12-07, 12:36 PM	@SoulLord: Just to make sure you don't feel ignored, I'm going to go ahead and thank you for continuing to bring that up. It really is the crux of the problem that Sauro seems to think everyone is worried about(AMF at ECL8), even if it isn't exactly what I've been trying to get at :)
hogarth 04-12-07, 12:47 PM	It really is the crux of the problem that Sauro seems to think everyone is worried about(AMF at ECL8), even if it isn't exactly what I've been trying to get at :) Note, however, that I (personally) am not complaining about that. If someone wants to purchase a scroll of AMF at level 8 (or level 3, as far as I'm concerned), go right ahead. Or even a dorje of Null Psionic Field with 50 charges (if you can afford it). My only complaint is that the ability to buy staffs with < 50 uses is just as objectionable as the ability to buy wands/dorjes with < 50 uses, just at a different price scale. (Well, I have lots of other complaints too, like the unlimited use of expensive expendables in frozen fights, but that's the one that's relevant to the topic at hand.)
SauroGrenom 04-12-07, 12:48 PM	It doesn't stop the real problem; having higher level stuff than your gladiator is supposed to have.Is this such a big problem? We've allowed it since the inception of CoCo in one way or another. We allow characters to craft things far above their ECL all the time. Pearls of Power are crafted way above the CL of any currently active PC. Technically any +3 weapon requires a CL9 caster. Also any +2 stat boost item requires a CL of 8. But we allow those things at whatever level you can afford one. If I go looking, I'm sure there would be other examples of items we allow people to use which are above their ECL. We've been allowing credits to be used to purchase a limited quantity of stuff above your ECL since the very beginning of CoCo. This isn't much of a problem.
McJarvis 04-12-07, 12:58 PM	We've been allowing credits to be used to purchase a limited quantity of stuff above your ECL since the very beginning of CoCo. This isn't much of a problem. That isn't true at all. There used to be no credit cost, and then it was determined that if just anyone could access high CL effects(scrolls of CL9 magic missile at ECL4->5 were of particular concern), then they could effectively save those up just to deal with the 1 or 2 character types that they couldn't deal with. Thus they started costing credits(after lengthy debate), on the general assumption that no one had enough credits to use mass amounts of them on expendible-type equipment on a regular basis. The only way you're on base with that comment is with regards to perminant magic items-> but we're talking about charged equipment here.
SauroGrenom 04-12-07, 01:04 PM	My only complaint is that the ability to buy staffs with < 50 uses is just as objectionable as the ability to buy wands/dorjes with < 50 uses, just at a different price scale. (Well, I have lots of other complaints too, like the use of expensive expendables in frozen fights, but that's the one that's relevant to the topic at hand.)In a normal game the GM decides what equipment the player gets to have. So the GM exercises his authority to dish what he thinks players should and shouldn't get and what they can and cannot do. In CoCo we have a market place where you can buy whatever you want. We also have an aversion to allowing anyone to exercise judgment that restricts what you can and cannot do. So we have rules instead. Wherever possible we try to stick to the RAW. Yes the RAW describes pricing on wands of less than 50 charges. But it doesn't say you can craft them with less than 50 charges, nor does it say you can buy them with less than 50 charges. It's entirely within the scope of GM authority to decide if you can get a 3 charge wand of invisibility. Our GM (the rules) says no dice, you cannot buy "used" items with less than maximum number of charges. It's unrelated that staffs can be made to use multiple charges on a single activation of one or another power. Staffs are still purchased at 50 charges. If that 50 charges is 10 uses, so be it. That's a distinctive feature of staffs that's described in the rules and we are shown several examples. The rules clearly allow that. Objectionability is not an issue for me. I don't care if a wand of stoneskin with 10 charges is the same price as a staff of stoneskin and resistance with 5charges/use. Yes, they are nearly identical items. The difference is the wand is not 50 charges and the staff is 50 charges. Our rules allow the staff, not the wand. By the time we make it to ECL17 and our characters have lots of wealth, perhaps staffs with 5 charges/use will be a big problem. But right now it's not a problem, and I don't foresee it being a problem between now and the next level where everything is frozen.
SauroGrenom 04-12-07, 01:16 PM	That isn't true at all. There used to be no credit cost, and then it was determined that if just anyone could access high CL effects(scrolls of CL9 magic missile at ECL4->5 were of particular concern), then they could effectively save those up just to deal with the 1 or 2 character types that they couldn't deal with. Thus they started costing credits(after lengthy debate), on the general assumption that no one had enough credits to use mass amounts of them on expendible-type equipment on a regular basis. The only way you're on base with that comment is with regards to perminant magic items-> but we're talking about charged equipment here.OK, Fine. I wasn't here at the very beginning of CoCo. The board was running for over a year before I joined. So credit cost on high level expendables was added in at a later point. But if you want to be pedantic, go ahead. I'll restate my point as follows. We have well established rules that have been in place for many months that provides a mechanism for people to purchase a limited amount of expendable equipment with a CL above their ECL. In almost every case, there has been little to no protest when these items are used by one or another character. I don't think there is sufficient reason to prevent a player from spending credits so that his ECL6 character can buy a ML12 Stone of Vigor. In other words, in almost every case there is no problem if a person is using a limited number of spell effects above their ECL.
McJarvis 04-12-07, 02:06 PM	OK, Fine. I wasn't here at the very beginning of CoCo. The board was running for over a year before I joined. So credit cost on high level expendables was added in at a later point. But if you want to be pedantic, go ahead. . You have a distinct inability to see the greater picture of things. If such things as high CL expendibles were allowed in the past, and then it was ruled they were overpowered, they are hardly "not much of a problem", as you stated.
hogarth 04-13-07, 08:36 AM	In CoCo we have a market place where you can buy whatever you want. We also have an aversion to allowing anyone to exercise judgment that restricts what you can and cannot do. So we have rules instead. Wherever possible we try to stick to the RAW. Yes the RAW describes pricing on wands of less than 50 charges. But it doesn't say you can craft them with less than 50 charges, nor does it say you can buy them with less than 50 charges. It's entirely within the scope of GM authority to decide if you can get a 3 charge wand of invisibility. Our GM (the rules) says no dice, you cannot buy "used" items with less than maximum number of charges. It's unrelated that staffs can be made to use multiple charges on a single activation of one or another power. Staffs are still purchased at 50 charges. If that 50 charges is 10 uses, so be it. That's a distinctive feature of staffs that's described in the rules and we are shown several examples. The rules clearly allow that. No. Here are the facts: There is no rule that explicitly allows one to create a staff with an ability that costs five charges. There is no rule that explicitly lists the value for a staff that uses five charges per use (other than the Staff of Life). There is a rule that explicitly lists the value for any charged item that has less than 50 charges left. With all of your lip service towards the principle of not making up rules, it's bizarre that you have no problems with made-up rules for #1 and #2, but you refuse to use the existing rule for #3. I don't expect you to change your opinion, but please don't try to claim that "the rules says so" when it's clearly a CoCo house rule. Just to clarify -- I don't have any problem with house rules in general, but they should be clearly indicated as such.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 09:18 AM	All we need is one example of the price of an effect to use that in calculating the price of custom items. We have use this with respect to oathbows and shatterspike weapons, and rino-hide armors, and there are probably others I cannot think of right now. The Staff of Life is one such example of an item that uses a clearly and easily calculated formula for pricing. This strategy is perfectly allowable by our rules and Core Rules (as far as I'm concerned). Denying anyone the option to buy items of less than 50 charges isn't core, nor did I say it was. Rather I said that acquisition of items with decreased charges is controlled by the GM. In our setting, we've decided for balance reasons to not allow purchasing wands or dorjes or staffs with less than 50 charges. This is a decision not with respect to pricing of items, but rather with respect access to items. You can sell your used wand of MM at 1/2 of market price. You can calculate the value of the item using the core rules that govern pricing of these things. We do use your rule #3 whenever someone sells such an item. However there is noting in the core rules or otherwise that requires us to make used items available for purchase by characters. The fact that 50 charges on a staff can be 10 uses of the staff is a function of the core rules allowing staffs to use a maximum of at least 5 charges on a single use. That's all core rules and has nothing to do with our restriction to limit purchased items to 50 charges. Perhaps what's happening here is a confusion between core rules that govern pricing of magic items and our house rules that regulate access to magic items. There is no core rules that govern access to magic items. That is controlled entirely by the nature of the setting you play in and the way the GM wishes to structure that setting. We are not ignoring core rules, or even creating house rules that contradict core rules in any sense. Rather we have our own house rules, instead of GM judgment, that govern the access to custom magic items (issues not covered by core rules).
Rauul 04-13-07, 09:34 AM	OK, So SauroGrenom proposed we add the following which all cost 5 credits to gain access to: CL9 - Dretch 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 Can we gets some votes yea or nay? This is the latest list, with the mindless vermin removed and the Dretch added So the Elders can vote on something...
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 09:38 AM	This is the latest list, with the mindless vermin removed and the Dretch added So the Elders can vote on something... MWB gave me approval of the previous list by PM. He expressed reservations about the vargoile, but said that it was OK to try out and we'd amend the list at a later time if needed. Personally I don't want to see the Dretch on that list. It's too much like a cohort. We already have the mephits, and I think they are too much (cannot do anything about it though). The vermin are not overpowered, and I think they offer some variety w/o hurting anything.
Rauul 04-13-07, 09:42 AM	MWB gave me approval of the previous list by PM. He expressed reservations about the vargoile, but said that it was OK to try out and we'd amend the list at a later time if needed. So thats 3 votes yea.. so His Earth mephit is legal and corrupter can escape from the prison.. All is good back to your arguing about Silly staffs and stuph...
hogarth 04-13-07, 09:50 AM	Personally I don't want to see the Dretch on that list. It's too much like a cohort. If anyone takes a dretch as an improved familiar and it proves to be overpowered, I will gladly eat my hat. :tiphat: :cookie:
Rauul 04-13-07, 09:52 AM	MWB gave me approval of the previous list by PM. He expressed reservations about the vargoile, but said that it was OK to try out and we'd amend the list at a later time if needed. Personally I don't want to see the Dretch on that list. It's too much like a cohort. We already have the mephits, and I think they are too much (cannot do anything about it though). The vermin are not overpowered, and I think they offer some variety w/o hurting anything. Acually would the vermin be mutants and have a 1 int.. As they are familiars? (and to get fiendish and celestrial templates they need 1 int i believe)
Rauul 04-13-07, 09:55 AM	If anyone takes a dretch as a cohort and it proves to be overpowered, I will gladly eat my hat. :tiphat: :cookie: Funny you should say that since Dretch isn't on the leadership Cohort list.. but is on the Diplomacy Allys list So guess technically you won't have to eat your hat ever...
hogarth 04-13-07, 09:55 AM	Acually would the vermin be mutants and have a 1 int.. As they are familiars? (and to get fiendish and celestrial templates they need 1 int i believe) All familiars have an intelligence score as given by the familiar abilities table. I would suggest that a vermin familiar would change its type to "magical beast" (just like an animal familiar changes type), though. Now to give Reginald's cohort a monkey familiar -- people might not like a hawk pointing a dorje, but surely a monkey can!
Rauul 04-13-07, 09:59 AM	All familiars have an intelligence score as given by the familiar abilities table. I would suggest that a vermin familiar would change its type to "magical beast" (just like an animal familiar changes type), though. Now to give Reginald's cohort a monkey familiar -- people might not like a hawk pointing a dorje, but surely a monkey can! Bah Monkeys throw Poo they don't point sticks or know what way to point a Dorge!!! but they know how to throw Poo
Hirumajoe 04-13-07, 10:14 AM	Perhaps what's happening here is a confusion between core rules that govern pricing of magic items and our house rules that regulate access to magic items. There is no core rules that govern access to magic items. That is controlled entirely by the nature of the setting you play in and the way the GM wishes to structure that setting. We are not ignoring core rules, or even creating house rules that contradict core rules in any sense. Rather we have our own house rules, instead of GM judgment, that govern the access to custom magic items (issues not covered by core rules). Well, I think the confusion is understandable. Since the reasons behind both (our house rule restricting availability of wands to those with a full 50 charges) and an argument for restricting the charges per use on a staff are virtually (but not exactly) identical. Unless the fully charged house rule was just arbitrarily implimented without an actual balance consideration behind it, and perhaps should be revisted in that case. The only possible differences in argument can come from those I listed earlier (the higher level crafting feat, the 8th level minimum caster level, the masterwork quarterstaff, and the 15 credits versus 5). Since there must be some reason why we restrict access to a full 50 charges, I'd like to hear Sauro's reason(s) why he believes the fully charged house rule on magic item availability should be there (or if he doesn't agree with it, why?).
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 12:22 PM	Well, I think the confusion is understandable. Since the reasons behind both (our house rule restricting availability of wands to those with a full 50 charges) and an argument for restricting the charges per use on a staff are virtually (but not exactly) identical. Unless the fully charged house rule was just arbitrarily implimented without an actual balance consideration behind it, and perhaps should be revisted in that case. Since there must be some reason why we restrict access to a full 50 charges, I'd like to hear Sauro's reason(s) why he believes the fully charged house rule on magic item availability should be there (or if he doesn't agree with it, why?).The rule to limit purchasing wands and staffs to only buying those with 50 charges is in place not arbitrarily. It's there for balance reasons. As stated before, wands are superior to scrolls in almost every way. They cost less/use. They can be drawn as a weapon (on the move). They can be used w/o provoking an AoO. They do not require a CL check or minimal ability score to use them. They can be used w/o somatic and verbal components (in a grapple). Scrolls have none of those properties. The only way that scrolls are superior in combat is that they can hold higher level spells. So if wands with low numbers of charges were available, scrolls would be obsolete and the expendables cap would be totally meaningless. This is the balance reason to limit access to wands and require purchased wands to have 50 charges. I know you and others have been harping on the fact that the same balance concern can be applied to staffs if we allow access to staffs w/o any limit on the number of charges/use. And as I've said several times now, I don't have any problem with placing a limit on the number of charges/use for a staff. In fact I think it's a good idea. But if such a limit were in place, it should follow the guidelines of the example items an the SRD and at least allow a character to recreate those items (or something nearly identical). So any limit on the number of charges/use should be no lower than 5. Any number lower than that invalidates more and more SRD example staffs. That would be effectively banning the Staff of Life or anything similar. In fact if the suggested limit of 2charges/use were applied, then about 3/4 of all SRD staffs would be illegal. I disagree with that, and I don't think we should make house rules that limit access to staffs to such a degree that even one staff in the SRD, or trivially modified versions of those same staffs, are not available.
TelinArtho 04-13-07, 01:26 PM	Okay - I think we've got to put this to a formal vote. We can go on endlessly around the issue(s), but if it continues on like this - nothing gets done. Options: 1. Keep the rules the way they are now in relation to staves. 2. Add a restriction to staves to limit the number of charges per use to 5. 3. Add a restriction to staves to limit the SL of the spells within staves to the (ECL+1)/2 (rounded down) of the character without a backdoor in the blackmarket. The CL of the staff can be higher than the ECL of the character, but that would cost credits. I modified my original proposal for item 3, because the CL of the staves are not the issue (in my opinion), but rather access to spells at a higher SL than a full caster would have access to at that time. (Note that 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive. Also note that any elder may add an option in here if he feels that I missed something (certainly possible - there's been plenty of discussion on the subject) I vote for 2 and 3.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 01:44 PM	I'd vote for 2. Not 3. We can probably do better. Not all spell effects above the typical SL aer going to be big problems. I'd vote for 4 a semi-nerf on AMF as follows: 4. No magical item can produce the Anti Magic Field spell effect. Also to help calm fears about the potency of staffs relative to wands and scrolls we can replace the blackmarket entry that says You may pay 15° to get the right to buy Custom Thematic Staffs. A Staff must have at least 2 different spells stored and must be at least CL 8. All spells must be related in some way, and the GM decides whether the composition is a valid one. A new staff always comes with 50 charges. Note that you also have to pay for a higher CL if yours is not high enough (see 'Custom Spell Trigger Items' above). Example: Staff of the Night (Entropic shield, Darkness, Deeper Darkness) with this:You may pay 15° to get the right to buy Custom Thematic Staffs. A Staff must have at least 2 different spells stored and must be at least CL 8. All spells must be related in some way, and the GM decides whether the composition is a valid one. Also the highest level spell of spell level A must be paired with a second spell of at least spell level A-3. A new staff always comes with 50 charges. No ability of the staff can use more than 5 charges/use, and no ability can use a number of charges/use greater than spell level(0 level spells use 1 charge). Note that you also have to pay for a higher CL if yours is not high enough (see 'Custom Spell Trigger Items' above). Example: Staff of the Night (Entropic shield (1 charge), Darkness (2 Charges), Deeper Darkness (3 Charges)) This change has the effect of making staffs more expensive/use relative to wands. This prevents staffs with Wish and Read Magic. Also it prevents making a cheap staff that uses 5 charges for a MM spell. The added benefit is that none of the SRD staffs violate these guidelines.
Zevox 04-13-07, 01:47 PM	2. Add a restriction to staves to limit the number of charges per use to 5. I'm no Elder, but that'd be my vote. Staffs inherently have the ability to use more charges/use than just 1 or 2 (as displayed by many SRD/DMG examples), and since 5 is the max we have an example for, I'd say we use that as a cap. The CL of the staff can be higher than the ECL of the character, but that would cost credits. Note that this rule already exists: The Cap on Expendables It has proven that Expendables (Scrolls, Powerstones, Potions, and Tattoos) are too powerful in the CoCo if given unlimited access. That's why there are several limitations: There is an overall cap on Expendables and Charged Items (Wands, Staffs, etc) in that they can only have a CL or ML of up to your ECL. The Blackmarket of Gladius offers a backdoor, though. Zevox
TelinArtho 04-13-07, 01:58 PM	@Sauro - the problem with some of those additions is that staffs have been "clarified" so that they are not required to have 2+ spells in them. 1 spell staves are allowed. I am aware that we have a back door on CL. I am suggesting we close off the backdoor for higher SL. I'll be back with more later.
MindWandererB 04-13-07, 02:20 PM	I am definitely in favor of option 2. I'd personally support even greater restriction--the Staff of Life may use 5 charges. but the item creation rules say 1-2 charges only, and the developers explicity say that they don't follow the item creation rules in all cases (they probably thought that packing 25 Resurrections would be ridiculous--plus, the staff would be completely unaffordable in that case). I don't think 3 is necessary--although with the Thaw coming, we may see examples where it might be. We can add this rule in that eventuality. As for 4... I worry that it may, in fact, be necessary. A staff of AMF on Gakhnalak would be bad enough; imagine a shirt of AMF on a character like Thwap McSmash. Even the Ring of Spell Storing with AMF has deadly potential (BTW, will we be seeing those half-dragon treants any time soon?). Oh, and unless we decide now to house-rule otherwise, the 1-spell staffs are legal now.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 03:20 PM	@Sauro - the problem with some of those additions is that staffs have been "clarified" so that they are not required to have 2+ spells in them. 1 spell staves are allowed.I've searched both the FAQ and the RoTG articles, and found nothing that indicates this to be the case. A reference will be necessary to convince me otherwise. Even if found, I think it would be worth deciding that the SRD examples are the primary rules source on this issue and therefor trump lesser rules sources.
MindWandererB 04-13-07, 03:26 PM	First of all, here's your reference: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070307a Second of all, examples are never exclusionary. So there are no staffs with only one spell. There are also no staffs with Antimagic Field. There are no staffs that cost 4 charges/function (1, 2, 3, and 5 only). There are no staffs made of darkwood. There are no staffs that are enchanted as double weapons, only as single weapons. Need I go on?
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 04:20 PM	First of all, here's your reference: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070307a Second of all, examples are never exclusionary. So there are no staffs with only one spell. There are also no staffs with Antimagic Field. There are no staffs that cost 4 charges/function (1, 2, 3, and 5 only). There are no staffs made of darkwood. There are no staffs that are enchanted as double weapons, only as single weapons. Need I go on? I wasn't aware of Ask Wizards as being an official rules source to us, especially when it's providing a "clarification" that's contradictory to our setting rules and abusable in our game setting. I think we should ignore it. All other rules sources I can see speak of staffs as having powers (including SRD and RoTG). That plural nature can easily be considered to be a limitation, and it so happens to be one that is in agreement with the rules as written in the blackmarket. There is a SRD staff with a 4 charges/function. You must have missed the Staff of Woodlands Animate Plants ability (4 charges). That's really beside the point. I get you. I understand that examples are not exclusionary, especially with respect to magic items. However let's not forget that in leu of a GM deciding on a case by case basis, we get to decide what's allowable in our marketplace of magic items. By doing so we are not limiting what can and cannot be done in theory, rather we are simply limiting what can be purchased or crafted. What Ask Wizards says is not unbalanced in a general sense, is indeed unbalanced in our setting as we have described in detail. We are not obligated to make anything they state as being purchasable or craftable in our setting. If we do so, then lots of non-core Eberon things suddenly get shoved into CoCo.
MindWandererB 04-13-07, 05:12 PM	Ask Wizards is no less an official source for us than RotG. In fact, since Ask Wizards is written by the Sage, who writes the FAQ, I consider it to be a superior source to RotG.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 05:26 PM	Ask Wizards is no less an official source for us than RotG. In fact, since Ask Wizards is written by the Sage, who writes the FAQ, I consider it to be a superior source to RotG.I think in this case we need to draw a line between what the rules allow in theory and what the CoCo marketplace allows to be purchased. Perhaps staffs with 1 spell are simply not available in the CoCo market. Only the archmage who lives in the northern wastes knows how to make them and never sells them. Or we could allow people to craft them, but not buy them. In any case I think we can find our solution by having a conversation about magic item availability w/o getting into a discussion about what is or isn't possible to exist. As has been pointed out, and I think is generally agreed, staffs represent a bit of a balance issue for CoCo. My suggestion above is a very reasonable restriction that simply limits availability in such a way that all SRD staffs are still legal, but common abuses are prevented. Consider it a limitation on magic item availability not magic item possibility.
NiQil 04-13-07, 08:25 PM	I've kept quiet on the issue, and don't really want to add any further to the uproar, but with regard to the staff issue, I can get behind option 2 as well.
Vathelokai 04-13-07, 09:17 PM	I agree (for what it's worth) with the house rules proposed by Sauro. I also lean favorably toward Telin's proposal to cut off the back door for charged Items (but not for expendables).
Abyssal Stalker 04-17-07, 11:23 AM	This is a topic that has been discussed before and once again surfaced. It concerns allies and how they are treated in conjunction with the 3FC rule. Now we seem to have a situation where allies follow the same 3FC as the main character. Or actually I don't find anything in our rules that would say so, but I have been told that this is how they should be handled. This leads to a situation where a character with multiple allies can have a "fresh" ally for every fight. It isn't a problem in the first fight, but in the third fight a fresh ally gets to burn all his arsenal. For example a wizard cohort that fights only in the third fight of the cycle has a huge advantage. I see two simple options to solve this: 1) Limit all allies with a flat 1/3 restriction in every fight. No carried over spells or anything else. This option doesn't follow the spirit of our 3FC rule. 2) We create a different 3FC for allies. They follow in every way the 3FC rule, but so that only those fights that they have been in count. In addition, their cycle is always restored at the same time as the main characters. This may sound difficult, but is actually very simple and follows the spirit of our 3FC rule. I favor option 2. Mostly it won't even affect anything. If you like to have the same ally with you in every fight, then they just follow the same cycle as you and you don't have to do any extra paperwork. This adds some paperwork to those who have several different allies and wish to swap them between fights. But they deserve it :)
MindWandererB 04-17-07, 04:04 PM	This is a topic that has been discussed before and once again surfaced. It concerns allies and how they are treated in conjunction with the 3FC rule. Now we seem to have a situation where allies follow the same 3FC as the main character. Or actually I don't find anything in our rules that would say so, but I have been told that this is how they should be handled. This leads to a situation where a character with multiple allies can have a "fresh" ally for every fight. It isn't a problem in the first fight, but in the third fight a fresh ally gets to burn all his arsenal. For example a wizard cohort that fights only in the third fight of the cycle has a huge advantage. I see two simple options to solve this: 1) Limit all allies with a flat 1/3 restriction in every fight. No carried over spells or anything else. This option doesn't follow the spirit of our 3FC rule. 2) We create a different 3FC for allies. They follow in every way the 3FC rule, but so that only those fights that they have been in count. In addition, their cycle is always restored at the same time as the main characters. This may sound difficult, but is actually very simple and follows the spirit of our 3FC rule. I favor option 2. Mostly it won't even affect anything. If you like to have the same ally with you in every fight, then they just follow the same cycle as you and you don't have to do any extra paperwork. This adds some paperwork to those who have several different allies and wish to swap them between fights. But they deserve it :) There's another option, a hybrid (let's call it option 3): (Edit: This is actually the same as option 2) [A]n ally whose cycle corresponds to that of the PC uses the same 3FC as the PC. An ally that was absent during a fight in the cycle (including if the ally was prebuffed, but the player opted to leave them out of it) is treated as if that fight simply never happened for it. Example: Tom the thaumaturgist has a psion cohort and a bearded devil planar ally. He brings the psion in fight 1. The psion uses the same rules as PCs, so it can use 1/3 of its PP in this fight. In fight 2, he brings the bearded devil. Since this is the bearded devil's first fight in the cycle, it can use its battle frenzy ability once (1/3 of 2/day). In fight 3, he brings the psion back. Since this is the psion's second fight in the cycle, he can again use 1/3 of his PP, plus any that he saved from Fight 1. After that fight, the whole party resets.
TelinArtho 04-17-07, 04:10 PM	How does that differ from option 2? Anyway - I could get behind either option 2 or the new option 3 (which looks a lot like option 2 just reworded...).
hogarth 04-17-07, 04:11 PM	There's another option, a hybrid (let's call it option 3): an ally whose cycle corresponds to that of the PC uses the same 3FC as the PC. An ally that was absent during a fight in the cycle (including if the ally was prebuffed, but the player opted to leave them out of it) is treated as if that fight simply never happened for it. As far as I can tell, that's exactly what #2 is: follow the same 3FC as the master, but skipped fights don't count. Am I missing something? :confused:
MindWandererB 04-17-07, 04:47 PM	As far as I can tell, that's exactly what #2 is: follow the same 3FC as the master, but skipped fights don't count. Am I missing something? :confused: Nope, you're not missing something. I did--I didn't see the sentence about restoring the cycle along with the PC. My bad--I thought that option would have allowed the ally to be on Fight 3 when the PC was on fight 1.
McJarvis 04-17-07, 08:47 PM	I'd like for the Assassinate attack package to have the target of the assassination be flat-footed. If this thing is really for rogues, what good is it if they can't sneak attack?
MindWandererB 04-17-07, 09:17 PM	I'd like for the Assassinate attack package to have the target of the assassination be flat-footed. If this thing is really for rogues, what good is it if they can't sneak attack? I think that was assumed, wasn't it?
McJarvis 04-17-07, 09:19 PM	I think that was assumed, wasn't it? If may sound like hoof beats, but I'll wait to decide on whether I think it's a horse or a zebra until I know what land-mass I'm on :) Right now, as worded, you're attacking them with a standard action...not against their flat-footedness.
MindWandererB 04-17-07, 09:33 PM	Let me rephrase: I think it was assumed, and I'm asking for confirmation from someone else who may remember what was decided when the rule was created.
TelinArtho 04-17-07, 09:36 PM	Well - it better be flat-footed... what with all of the new rogues coming about (mine included...) I don't know myself- I'll check my archives tomorrow if no one dredges up the posts by then (I have most of the important threads saved locally on my other computer for just this kind of research...)
Zevox 04-17-07, 09:50 PM	Let me rephrase: I think it was assumed, and I'm asking for confirmation from someone else who may remember what was decided when the rule was created. I'm pretty sure it was, yeah. I remember expressing concern over the kind of damage someone like Baelin could do with that before it was altered to apply only to allies. Zevox
Macbrea 04-18-07, 09:59 AM	Actually, it is not assumed to be flat-footed. As a rogue or Barbarian doesn't loose their dexterity and shouldn't ever. If your facing a rogue you suddenly don't gain any special abilities that state they are flat-footed. They don't need to know your there to keep their dex. What it does assume is the combat hasn't started and people without uncanny dodge or combat reflexes are considered in the same state they would be before their initiative. Someone with uncanny dodge gets to keep their dexerity and someone with combat reflexes gets to make attacks of oppurtunity against they incoming attack.
Erithmu 04-18-07, 10:16 AM	Here is an odd question: When would the assassinate package take place relative to the fight? right before? 1hr before? etc etc
hogarth 04-18-07, 10:22 AM	Here is an odd question: When would the assassinate package take place relative to the fight? right before? 1hr before? etc etc I would assume that it occurs immediately before the fight (for all intents and purposes). So fast healing wouldn't get rid of any damage until the fight began (say). Of course, like all skill packages this one only got nebulously defined before Cat got bored and started futzing around with the Guild rules instead. (j/k ;))
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 10:49 AM	For anyone who wants to look up the original discussion about the attack/defend packages, I direct you to Council III starting around post 141. From what I can tell - the intent was to have an attack against the opponent with just prebuffed values. So if you could prebuff poison (either from a previous fight or the ability to do it safely on your own), you had a distinct advantage. Sneak attack would apply. Interestingly enough - Greater Psionic Shot/Weapon were excluded as possibilities because "they could not be prebuffed" - but that tidbit was pretty much overlooked in the conversation - so it might have been dropped as swiftly as it was mentioned. There was mention that healing was allowed if the healing was prebuffed - so my guess is that fast healing might be okay here - still reading though to be sure... EDIT: The discussion ranges over 60+ posts - so be prepared to read a lot if you venture that way... Ironically enough it led directly into a conversation about how to improve experiences for newer players - ie - the implementation of the new quickstart guides...
McJarvis 04-18-07, 11:41 AM	Given your synopsis, I find it ironic that an assassin can not death attack(read: assassinate) an opponent's ally with the assassinate skill package. (no way to pre-buff "3 rounds of observation") o_O
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 11:43 AM	Well, it could be a matter of allowing the death attack as a prebuff but only on an opponent's ally. As it is right now though - that is correct.
MindWandererB 04-18-07, 01:21 PM	Okay. It sounds like it's pretty clear that the attack takes place pre-initiative. If that means the target loses Dex, then they lose Dex. What's unclear are: - Does the attack take place enough before initiative that the victim can be healed? What about fast healing/regeneration? (My opinion: since there's no fixed amount of time involved, I think it's easiest to say that the attack takes place at Initiative Count 0. Otherwise, we need to state exactly how many rounds take place in between the attack and the fight--although that could be made equal to the time roll. Both are viable options; the latter nerfs this ability somewhat.) - Can the assassin prebuff observing the victim for 3 rounds? (That could be just sick and wrong.)
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 01:30 PM	Okay. It sounds like it's pretty clear that the attack takes place pre-initiative. If that means the target loses Dex, then they lose Dex. What's unclear are: - Does the attack take place enough before initiative that the victim can be healed? What about fast healing/regeneration? (My opinion: since there's no fixed amount of time involved, I think it's easiest to say that the attack takes place at Initiative Count 0. Otherwise, we need to state exactly how many rounds take place in between the attack and the fight--although that could be made equal to the time roll. Both are viable options; the latter nerfs this ability somewhat.) - Can the assassin prebuff observing the victim for 3 rounds? (That could be just sick and wrong.) I would prefer to see the assassinate take effect just before the combat. There was only one mention of possibly healing between the assassinate and the combat - and that was only if the possibility was mentioned as a prebuff (as in before choices are rolled). If this was allowed - anyone with access to a wand of Cure Light Wounds can prebuff it indefinitely and protect their ally without worry about the assassinate package unless the attack was enough to draw the ally down to -10 in one strike. I would have no problem with the assassin prebuffing the observation of the victim for 3 rounds for several reasons: 1. Its a class feature that would otherwise never be used in the arena. 2. It is a makeable saving throw vs death. Since this is only on an ally - this isn't the end of the world either. 3. Assassins have poison use - so they have another route to help death along. This actually reminds me - we do need to iron out when the attack occurs in the event of poison being used in the attack (and this would also apply to ambushes and traps in some cases) - most notably for the secondary effect saving throw.
McJarvis 04-18-07, 01:30 PM	- Can the assassin prebuff observing the victim for 3 rounds? (That could be just sick and wrong.) Really? The intimidate _single skill_ allows you to more or less without fail remove an enemies' ally from the battle(or multiple allies even). I don't see how a death attack is any more dangerous.
Hirumajoe 04-18-07, 01:35 PM	Okay. It sounds like it's pretty clear that the attack takes place pre-initiative. If that means the target loses Dex, then they lose Dex. What's unclear are: - Does the attack take place enough before initiative that the victim can be healed? What about fast healing/regeneration? (My opinion: since there's no fixed amount of time involved, I think it's easiest to say that the attack takes place at Initiative Count 0. Otherwise, we need to state exactly how many rounds take place in between the attack and the fight--although that could be made equal to the time roll. Both are viable options; the latter nerfs this ability somewhat.) - Can the assassin prebuff observing the victim for 3 rounds? (That could be just sick and wrong.) I'd agree with your assessment on the timing. Although if it happens literally on initiative count 0, that leads to all sorts of interesting interactions with the Scout package. Since if you have multiple rounds, those must be occuring before the initiative count also. Can you use Scout prebuff rounds to buff, and then use your assassinate attack fully buffed with short duration abilities? As for prebuffing observing the victim for 3 rounds, that has farther reaching implications than just the Assassinate package. If you allow observation for 3 rounds, then an assassin can prebuff observing his main opponent, and once the fight starts, has 3 rounds in which to try and sneak attack him for a death attack. Given that Assassin's have access to dimension door and probably can qualify for the Ambush package easily, this could be an easily achieved scenerio. Then again, perhaps rogues/assassins need the break. :) Personally, I agree with Telin, I don't see a problem with it being used on Allies, but you may want to consider if you want it being used on PCs.
hogarth 04-18-07, 01:54 PM	Really? The intimidate _single skill_ allows you to more or less without fail remove an enemies' ally from the battle(or multiple allies even). I don't see how a death attack is any more dangerous. I have nothing to add; I just like the phrase "more or less without fail". ;) Actually, I lied. I have one thing to add -- Intimidate takes up your Free Activity and Assassinate doesn't. And I don't know why Telin said that an assassin's death attack "would otherwise never be used in the arena". How hard is it to remain hidden for three rounds?
Abyssal Stalker 04-18-07, 02:01 PM	Yeah, assassins are just what they are - assassins. The fight tends to end before it even starts. That's the whole point of being an assassin. Rogues and other sneak attackers are actually quite boring to watch. The either end everything before it starts or they hide their opponents to starvation...
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 02:04 PM	I have nothing to add; I just like the phrase "more or less without fail". ;) Actually, I lied. I have one thing to add -- Intimidate takes up your Free Activity and Assassinate doesn't. And I don't know why Telin said that an assassin's death attack "would otherwise never be used in the arena". How hard is it to remain hidden for three rounds? While studying the victim, the assassin can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. If a regular character can't figure out a way to detect an assassin in three rounds - then yes. However, the methods to detect hiders are not exactly few nor are they far between...
MindWandererB 04-18-07, 02:07 PM	I have nothing to add; I just like the phrase "more or less without fail". ;) Actually, I lied. I have one thing to add -- Intimidate takes up your Free Activity and Assassinate doesn't. And I don't know why Telin said that an assassin's death attack "would otherwise never be used in the arena". How hard is it to remain hidden for three rounds? Because tha victim cannot "detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy." Note that detection isn’t limited to vision only; being invisible isn’t enough if the target hears the assassin sneaking up behind him. Similarly, if a hidden assassin cast a spell that was overheard or otherwise detected by the victim, the studying would be wasted.That can be really tough to pull off.
hogarth 04-18-07, 02:11 PM	If a regular character can't figure out a way to detect an assassin in three rounds - then yes. However, the methods to detect hiders are not exactly few nor are they far between... I don't remember hearing any complaints from anyone that hiding is too tough to pull off in the CoCo; on the contrary, it seems fairly easy to boost your Hide skill with Elixirs of Hiding and tattoos of Chameleon. I was under the impression that remaining undetected after sniping/attacking was the tough part. Of course hiding doesn't help vs. blindsight or touchsight, but c'est la vie.
MindWandererB 04-18-07, 02:24 PM	I don't remember hearing any complaints from anyone that hiding is too tough to pull off in the CoCo; on the contrary, it seems fairly easy to boost your Hide skill with Elixirs of Hiding and tattoos of Chameleon. I was under the impression that remaining undetected after sniping/attacking was the tough part. Of course hiding doesn't help vs. blindsight or touchsight, but c'est la vie. I reiterate: against a Death Attack, you need to do more than just hide. You need to be completely undetected, per FAQ. That means a good Listen check, scent, blindsense, tremorsense, etc. will prevent it from happening. That makes it all but impossible to assassinate an animal--there are few that have none of those abilities.
McJarvis 04-18-07, 02:29 PM	I reiterate: against a Death Attack, you need to do more than just hide. You need to be completely undetected, per FAQ. That means a good Listen check, scent, blindsense, tremorsense, etc. will prevent it from happening. That makes it all but impossible to assassinate an animal--there are few that have none of those abilities. A hide from animals potion might do the trick :)
Abyssal Stalker 04-18-07, 02:40 PM	A hide from animals potion might do the trick :) Can we buy custom potions "hide from humanoids" for 15o? :)
Macbrea 04-18-07, 02:46 PM	We call those potions of invisibility.. they are much cheaper.
McJarvis 04-18-07, 03:00 PM	Perhaps crawling tattoos of cloud mind...
Macbrea 04-18-07, 03:03 PM	You cannot use a crawling tattoo as a prebuff. It has to hit you.. :P
hogarth 04-18-07, 03:03 PM	How about a scroll of Tree Shape? Oh...I guess that'd only work on the Forest map (and maybe the City map). ;) I reiterate: against a Death Attack, you need to do more than just hide. You need to be completely undetected, per FAQ. [..] That makes it all but impossible to assassinate an animal--there are few that have none of those abilities. I wasn't talking about the Assassinate action (I agree that you can't reliably prebuff the necessary 3 rounds of study), I was talking about using Death Attack in the arena. It still seems quite possible to me (even if Telin has his doubts).
Macbrea 04-18-07, 03:06 PM	I am not sure the horse would notice anything unusual about a tree. I think your safe on any of the maps with that one.
Rauul 04-18-07, 09:26 PM	tree shape, meld with stone, anything like that will allow you to observe for 3rds i would think... but thats just me..
Rauul 04-19-07, 02:29 PM	Well i looked through it.. and i think i brought them all up to date... take a look before flaming me to much... I tried to eliminate the Auto wins/looses that would need to be rerolled, and took 2 of the templates off (they are annoying by most everyones standards) The Underlined ones are the New entrys, the changed ones are all the 3 CR 2 moved to 2 CR 2 so they equal CR 4 (fixed the ones that were pointed out) 4th-Level Monster Encounters 01: 1 Aranea [CR4] 02: 1 Hound Archon [CR4] 03: 1 Barghest [CR4] 04: 1 Dire Boar [CR4] 05: 1 Dire Wolverine [CR4] 06: 1 Gargoyle [CR4] 07: 1 Janni (Genie) [CR4] 08: 1 Griffon [CR4] 09: 1 Sea Hag [CR4] 10: 1 Harpy [CR4] 11: 1 five headed hydra [CR4] 12: 1 Mimic [CR4] 13: 1 Minotaur [CR4] 14: 1 gray ooze [CR4] 15: 1 Otyugh [CR4] 16: 1 Owlbear [CR4] 17: 1 Sea Cat [CR4] 18: 1 Centipede Swarm [CR4] 19: 1 Vampire Spawn [CR4] 20: 1 human warrior Wereboar [CR4] 21: 1 Pixie(Sprite) [CR4] 22: 1 Brown Bear [CR4] 23: 1 Polar Bear [CR4] 24: 1 Giant Crocodile [CR4] 25: 2 Ape [CR2] 26: 2 Black Bears [CR2] 27: 2 Bisons [CR2] 28: 2 Boars [CR2] 29: 2 Cheetahs [CR2] 30: 2 Crocodiles [CR2] 31: 2 Leopards [CR2] 32: 1 Rhinoceros [CR4] 33: 2 Large Viper snakes [CR2] 34: 1 Tiger [CR4] 35: 2 Wolverines [CR2] 36: 1 Human Cleric 4 [CR4] 37: 2 Giant Bombardier Beetles [CR2] 38: 1 Giant Stag Beetle [CR4] 39: 2 Huge Monstrous Centipede [CR2] 40: 2 Large Monstrous Spiders [CR2] 41: 1 very young Black Dragon [CR4] 42: 1 very young Blue Dragon [CR4] 43: 1 very young Green Dragon [CR4] 44: 1 Wyrmling Red Dragon [CR4] 45: 1 Young White Dragon [CR4] 46: 2 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR2] 47: 1 Very Young Brass Dragon [CR4] 48: 1 Wyrmling Silver Dragon [CR4] 49: 1 Chimera Skeleton [CR4] 50: 2 Owlbear Skeletons [CR2] 51: 1 Minotaur Zombie [CR4] 52: 2 Bugbear Zombie [CR2] 53: 1 Wyvern Zombie [CR4] 54: 2 medium animated objects [CR2] 55: 2 latern Archons [CR2] 56: 2 Azers [CR2] 57: 2 Blink Dogs [CR2] 58: 2 Dretches(Demon) [CR2] 59: 2 Quasit(Demon) [CR2] 60: 2 Choker [CR2] 61: 2 Dire Badgers [CR2] 62: 2 Dire Bats [CR2] 63: 2 Hippogriffs [CR2] 64: 2 Vargouilles [CR2] 65: 2 Worgs [CR2] 66: 2 3rd level Astral Constructs(Psionic) [CR2] 67: 2 Folugub(Psionic) [CR2] 68: 1 Phrenic Shadow(Psionic) [CR4] 69: 1 Phrenic Ankheg(Psionic) [CR4] 70: 2 Flesh Harrower Puppeteers [CR2] 71: 2 Thought Eaters(Psionic) [CR2] 72: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 4 [CR4] 73: 1 Wood Elf Druid with Animal Companion 4 [CR4] 74: 1 Half-Celestial Dryad [CR4] 75: 1 Half-Fiend Hell-Hound [CR4] 76: 1 Halforc Druid 2 & 1 Orc Babarian2 [CR2] 77: 2 Duergar Fighter1 [CR2] 78: 2 Halfgiant Psychic Warrior1 [CR2] 79: 4 Lemures(Devil) [CR1] 80: 1 Gnoll Ranger 3 [CR4] 81: 1 Derro Sorcerer 1 [CR4] 82: 1 Formian Warrior & 3 Formian Workers [CR3 & CR1/2] 83: 1 Ghast & 1 Ghoul [CR3+CR1] 84: 4 Grimlocks [CR1] 85: 1 Hobgoblin Fighter 4 [CR4] 86: 1 Kobold Adept 7 [CR4] 87: 1 Lizardfolk Druid3 [CR4] 88: 1 human Babarian1/afflicted Wereboar [CR4] 89: 1 Wild elf Ranger1 on Pegasus [CR1+CR3] 90: 1 Aasimar Paladin4 [CR4] 91: 2 Sahuagin [CR2] 92: 1 Satyr with pipes [CR4] 93: 2 shocker lizards [CR2] 94: 2 Skum [CR2] 95: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 4 [CR4] 96: 2 Thoqqua [CR2] 97: 1 Troglodyte Cleric 3 [CR4] 98: 2 Halfling rogue 2 [CR2] 99: 1 gnome Illusionist3 & 1 gnome rogue 1 [CR3+CR1] 00: 1 dwarf cleric 2/fighter2 [CR4]
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 02:33 PM	@Rauul - it would be helpful to me to see what you actually changed (perhaps bold the entries that changed with a note of what changed). @MWB - Please update the Discussions post at the beginning of the thread about staves. As far as I can tell - it was unanimously agreed to restrict staves to a maximum of 5 charges per use. Some people voted in favor of restricting AMF to just being castable (as in - not placed in an item). I don't think any of the elders agreed with my proposal to restrict SL in staves to be no greater than the (ECL of the character +1)/2.
hogarth 04-19-07, 02:40 PM	76: 1 Halforc Druid 2 & 1d3 Orc Babarian2 [CR2] This should be 1 Druid + 1 Barbarian. 82: 1 Formian Warrior & 1d3+1 Formian Workers [CR3 & CR1/2] I think this should be 1 Warrior + 3 (?) Workers.
Rauul 04-19-07, 02:54 PM	@Rauul - it would be helpful to me to see what you actually changed (perhaps bold the entries that changed with a note of what changed). @MWB - Please update the Discussions post at the beginning of the thread about staves. As far as I can tell - it was unanimously agreed to restrict staves to a maximum of 5 charges per use. Some people voted in favor of restricting AMF to just being castable (as in - not placed in an item). I don't think any of the elders agreed with my proposal to restrict SL in staves to be no greater than the (ECL of the character +1)/2. Updated it, so you can see what ones i replaced..
Sunwolf 04-19-07, 02:54 PM	90: 1 Aasimar Paladin4 [CR4] Isn't this one a CR 5 since the Aasimar has a +1 level adjustment?
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 02:56 PM	Isn't this one a CR 5 since the Aasimar has a +1 level adjustment? Nope. CR4, but ECL5.
Rauul 04-19-07, 02:58 PM	Isn't this one a CR 5 since the Aasimar has a +1 level adjustment? thats ok the white wyrmlings are like ecl 6 and cr 2... go figure..
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 03:00 PM	@Rauul - I would prefer to see the original entries back in those spots. Why? Because they provide a nice variety to the list that you remove by taking them out.
Pitlords 04-19-07, 03:04 PM	Okay - I think we've got to put this to a formal vote. We can go on endlessly around the issue(s), but if it continues on like this - nothing gets done. Options: 1. Keep the rules the way they are now in relation to staves. 2. Add a restriction to staves to limit the number of charges per use to 5. 3. Add a restriction to staves to limit the SL of the spells within staves to the (ECL+1)/2 (rounded down) of the character without a backdoor in the blackmarket. The CL of the staff can be higher than the ECL of the character, but that would cost credits. I modified my original proposal for item 3, because the CL of the staves are not the issue (in my opinion), but rather access to spells at a higher SL than a full caster would have access to at that time. (Note that 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive. Also note that any elder may add an option in here if he feels that I missed something (certainly possible - there's been plenty of discussion on the subject) I vote for 2 and 3.Option 2 was the only one with a clear majority. We'll hold the others (as well as option 4, banning AMF in items) in reserve should they prove necessary later on.This is a topic that has been discussed before and once again surfaced. It concerns allies and how they are treated in conjunction with the 3FC rule. Now we seem to have a situation where allies follow the same 3FC as the main character. Or actually I don't find anything in our rules that would say so, but I have been told that this is how they should be handled. This leads to a situation where a character with multiple allies can have a "fresh" ally for every fight. It isn't a problem in the first fight, but in the third fight a fresh ally gets to burn all his arsenal. For example a wizard cohort that fights only in the third fight of the cycle has a huge advantage. I see two simple options to solve this: 1) Limit all allies with a flat 1/3 restriction in every fight. No carried over spells or anything else. This option doesn't follow the spirit of our 3FC rule. 2) We create a different 3FC for allies. They follow in every way the 3FC rule, but so that only those fights that they have been in count. In addition, their cycle is always restored at the same time as the main characters. This may sound difficult, but is actually very simple and follows the spirit of our 3FC rule. I favor option 2. Mostly it won't even affect anything. If you like to have the same ally with you in every fight, then they just follow the same cycle as you and you don't have to do any extra paperwork. This adds some paperwork to those who have several different allies and wish to swap them between fights. But they deserve it :)Option 2 seems like the clear winner.Okay. It sounds like it's pretty clear that the attack takes place pre-initiative. If that means the target loses Dex, then they lose Dex. What's unclear are: - Does the attack take place enough before initiative that the victim can be healed? What about fast healing/regeneration? (My opinion: since there's no fixed amount of time involved, I think it's easiest to say that the attack takes place at Initiative Count 0. Otherwise, we need to state exactly how many rounds take place in between the attack and the fight--although that could be made equal to the time roll. Both are viable options; the latter nerfs this ability somewhat.) - Can the assassin prebuff observing the victim for 3 rounds? (That could be just sick and wrong.)The consensus seems to be that 1) the attack takes place immediately before the first round of battle (whether that's a suprise round, a prebuff round, or whatever). For poisons or other attacks where subsequent timing is an issue, start counting from there (so if there's an assassination, a prebuff round, and a surprise round, then poison would kick in 8 rounds into the fight).Well i looked through it.. and i think i brought them all up to date... take a look before flaming me to much... I tried to eliminate the Auto wins/looses that would need to be rerolled, and took 2 of the templates off (they are annoying by most everyones standards) 4th-Level Monster Encounters 01: 1 Aranea [CR4] 02: 1 Hound Archon [CR4] 03: 1 Barghest [CR4] 04: 1 Dire Boar [CR4] 05: 1 Dire Wolverine [CR4] 06: 1 Gargoyle [CR4] 07: 1 Janni (Genie) [CR4] 08: 1 Griffon [CR4] 09: 1 Sea Hag [CR4] 10: 1 Harpy [CR4] 11: 1 five headed hydra [CR4] 12: 1 Mimic [CR4] 13: 1 Minotaur [CR4] 14: 1 gray ooze [CR4] 15: 1 Otyugh [CR4] 16: 1 Owlbear [CR4] 17: 1 Sea Cat [CR4] 18: 1 Centipede Swarm [CR4] 19: 1 Vampire Spawn [CR4] 20: 1 human warrior Wereboar [CR4] 21: 1 Pixie(Sprite) [CR4] 22: 1 Brown Bear [CR4] 23: 1 Polar Bear [CR4] 24: 1 Giant Crocodile [CR4] 25: 2 Ape [CR2] 26: 2 Black Bears [CR2] 27: 2 Bisons [CR2] 28: 2 Boars [CR2] 29: 2 Cheetahs [CR2] 30: 2 Crocodiles [CR2] 31: 2 Leopards [CR2] 32: 1 Rhinoceros [CR4] 33: 2 Large Viper snakes [CR2] 34: 1 Tiger [CR4] 35: 2 Wolverines [CR2] 36: 1 Human Cleric 4 [CR4] 37: 2 Giant Bombardier Beetles [CR2] 38: 1 Giant Stag Beetle [CR4] 39: 2 Huge Monstrous Centipede [CR2] 40: 2 Large Monstrous Spiders [CR2] 41: 1 very young Black Dragon [CR4] 42: 1 very young Blue Dragon [CR4] 43: 1 very young Green Dragon [CR4] 44: 1 Wyrmling Red Dragon [CR4] 45: 1 Young White Dragon [CR4] 46: 2 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR2] 47: 1 Very Young Brass Dragon [CR4] 48: 1 Wyrmling Silver Dragon [CR4] 49: 1 Chimera Skeleton [CR4] 50: 2 Owlbear Skeletons [CR2] 51: 1 Minotaur Zombie [CR4] 52: 2 Bugbear Zombie [CR2] 53: 1 Wyvern Zombie [CR4] 54: 2 medium animated objects [CR2] 55: 2 latern Archons [CR2] 56: 2 Azers [CR2] 57: 2 Blink Dogs [CR2] 58: 2 Dretches(Demon) [CR2] 59: 2 Quasit(Demon) [CR2] 60: 2 Choker [CR2] 61: 2 Dire Badgers [CR2] 62: 2 Dire Bats [CR2] 63: 2 Hippogriffs [CR2] 64: 2 Vargouilles [CR2] 65: 2 Worgs [CR2] 66: 2 3rd level Astral Constructs(Psionic) [CR2] 67: 2 Folugub(Psionic) [CR2] 68: 1 Phrenic Shadow(Psionic) [CR4] 69: 1 Phrenic Ankheg(Psionic) [CR4] 70: 2 Flesh Harrower Puppeteers [CR2] 71: 2 Thought Eaters(Psionic) [CR2] 72: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 4 [CR4] 73: 1 Wood Elf Druid with Animal Companion 4 [CR4] 74: 1 Half-Celestial Dryad [CR4] 75: 1 Half-Fiend Hell-Hound [CR4] 76: 1 Halforc Druid 2 & 1d3 Orc Babarian2 [CR2] 77: 2 Duergar Fighter1 [CR2] 78: 2 Halfgiant Psychic Warrior1 [CR2] 79: 4 Lemures(Devil) [CR1] 80: 1 Gnoll Ranger 3 [CR4] 81: 1 Derro Sorcerer 1 [CR4] 82: 1 Formian Warrior & 1d3+1 Formian Workers [CR3 & CR1/2] 83: 1 Ghast & 1 Ghoul [CR3+CR1] 84: 4 Grimlocks [CR1] 85: 1 Hobgoblin Fighter 4 [CR4] 86: 1 Kobold Adept 7 [CR4] 87: 1 Lizardfolk Druid3 [CR4] 88: 1 human Babarian1/afflicted Wereboar [CR4] 89: 1 Wild elf Ranger1 on Pegasus [CR1+CR3] 90: 1 Aasimar Paladin4 [CR4] 91: 2 Sahuagin [CR2] 92: 1 Satyr with pipes [CR4] 93: 2 shocker lizards [CR2] 94: 2 Skum [CR2] 95: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 4 [CR4] 96: 2 Thoqqua [CR2] 97: 1 Troglodyte Cleric 3 [CR4] 98: 2 Halfling rogue 2 [CR2] 99: 1 gnome Illusionist3 & 1 gnome rogue 1 [CR3+CR1] 00: 1 dwarf cleric 2/fighter2 [CR4] 36: 1 Giant Ant queen & 1d3 Giant Ant Soldiers [CR2] -> 1 Human Cleric 4 [CR4] - - This should just stay as 1 queen and 1 soldier. 72: 1 Half-Celestial Unicorn [CR4] -> 1 Wood Elf Ranger 4 [CR4] 73: 1 Half-Fiend Ogre [CR4] -> 1 Wood Elf Druid with Animal Companion 4 [CR4] - - Templates are much less annoying than class levels. There's no reason to change these. 82: 1 Formian Warrior & 1d3+1 Formian Workers [CR3 & CR1/2] - - Didn't catch that one, eh? Should be 2 workers. 95: 1 Locust swarm & 1 Spider swarm [CR3+CR1] -> 1 Grey Elf Wizard 4 [CR4] - - That one, I can live with. Not too interesting, but there is such a thing as too many swarms.
Rauul 04-19-07, 03:13 PM	@Rauul - I would prefer to see the original entries back in those spots. Why? Because they provide a nice variety to the list that you remove by taking them out. the main reason i took the half-fiend orge and half-celestrial unicorn off is because of the +4 level adjustment Puts them out of the range of ANY ECL 4 charater to deal with.. And i believe they add 2 to the CA so it would make the monsters CA 5 not 4.. Honestly think all templates should be removed and added only on a roll of 99-100 but thats me..
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 03:23 PM	the main reason i took the half-fiend orge and half-celestrial unicorn off is because of the +4 level adjustment Puts them out of the range of ANY ECL 4 charater to deal with.. And i believe they add 2 to the CA so it would make the monsters CA 5 not 4.. Honestly think all templates should be removed and added only on a roll of 99-100 but thats me.. Half-celestial and Half-fiend only add +1 CR for HD 5 or less. As to the rest of your comments - I can only comment that not everyone shares your opinion.
MindWandererB 04-19-07, 03:24 PM	the main reason i took the half-fiend orge and half-celestrial unicorn off is because of the +4 level adjustment Puts them out of the range of ANY ECL 4 charater to deal with.. And i believe they add 2 to the CA so it would make the monsters CA 5 not 4.. Honestly think all templates should be removed and added only on a roll of 99-100 but thats me.. Nope, at 4 HD their CR is increased by only 1. They're perfectly legit.
Rauul 04-19-07, 03:34 PM	Well i gave it a shot.. you don't like it don't use it.. No way to please everyone.. personnelly i feel SP 14 on a 4hd monster is a little much for ECL 4 charaters to deal with Along with the Flight, and DR and other things (as outsiders they also get all weapon proficencys) ect.. So I tried, I failed No biggie..
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 12:21 PM	New topic added to the list, which probably no one cares about but me: in doing the roster for this week, I encountered the powerrating rules for Hunter fights for ths first time: Power-Rating Calculation: Base PR of Defeated Target/Character*100 (each individually) minus (if killed) Character/Hunter*100.For those who don't speak that brand of gibberish, it basically means that each individual "hunt" is treated as an entire fight for the purposes of PR. That means that if, for example, four PR 1000 characters were in one hunter fight together, and one of those characters managed to get credit for all three kills, then the winner would skyrocket to 1300 PR. That just doesn't seem right. I thought about just dividing the PR change by the number of opponents, but that doesn't seem right, either (since then, in the above example, each of the losers would lose only 33 PR). If you divide the winner's reward but not the losers' penalty, then someone who kills their target but is killed themselves ends up in the hole (in the above example, they'd get +33 and -100). Any thoughts?
McJarvis 04-24-07, 12:39 PM	Hunter fights are already much like having to fight multiple fights during a 3FC. I see no problem with letting someone's PR skyrocket for taking out three people before they could muster anything to kill each other with.
hogarth 04-24-07, 12:43 PM	Hunter fights are already much like having to fight multiple fights during a 3FC. I see no problem with letting someone's PR skyrocket for taking out three people before they could muster anything to kill each other with. Note that a free-for-all fight (which also involves fighting multiple fights) has a completely different calculation, though. For both of them (FFA and Hunter), I'd recommend a formula that's based on the number of targets killed.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 01:11 PM	Bah.. let them gain PR.. Watch the effects if someone low gets a good Hunter match! Char 1 Char 2 Char 3 Char 4 Start 700 1250 1500 1260 End 1273 1071 1286 1080
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 01:16 PM	Great example... as hard as that would be to pull off, see how the Failure character and the Great Renown one are now almost tied. That shouldn't happen from just one fight. Of course, that only happens if the Failure manages to get credit for all three kills--not so hard to do in an FFA, but hell in a 4-way Hunter.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 01:19 PM	Well, it's not that hard to get down to 700.. I have perfected that trick.. now.. to just get a decent hunter match!
McJarvis 04-24-07, 01:28 PM	Great example... as hard as that would be to pull off, see how the Failure character and the Great Renown one are now almost tied. That shouldn't happen from just one fight. Of course, that only happens if the Failure manages to get credit for all three kills--not so hard to do in an FFA, but hell in a 4-way Hunter. Again-> winning a hunter fight like that hands-down is, in my mind, equal to winning three fights. That's why it *should* equalize the GR char & the FA char.
Zevox 04-24-07, 01:31 PM	Gotta agree with McJarvis MWB - don't see why this is a problem myself. But of course, I've never much cared about power ratings, so thats probably affecting my opinion here. Zevox
Rauul 04-24-07, 01:34 PM	Gotta agree with McJarvis MWB - don't see why this is a problem myself. But of course, I've never much cared about power ratings, so thats probably affecting my opinion here. Zevox I never really figured out the power ratings... all i know is i have one failure, 1 on the edge of failure, 1 who lives in prison, and one who hides in the shadows...
Macbrea 04-24-07, 01:38 PM	The only real effects of being high or low on your power ratings is the following best I can tell. 1) Effects leadership score with renown level. 2) Guilds use it during operations to determine how much damage is done.
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 01:41 PM	All right, fair enough. If I'm the only one who thinks it's a bit odd, then never mind. There are still several active topic on the second page of this thread; if anyone wants to run with one of those, please do.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:00 PM	On the temporary allies statement. In the rules of gladius for magic spells creating allies it is not very clear. Strict reading of that should result in anyone casting a summons monster spell being limited by MaxCA and penalized xp and gold for doing such. This would limit the amount of allies brought into the arena but would unfairly represent that series of spells in D&D. The passage in question is: 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, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA. Special: a spellcaster may create a Homunkulus. Because of the 'ect' statements and the inclusion of animate objects (1rnd/level) the correct reading of that should include 'Summons monster I' Spells. I am not quite sure that was the intent. It would limit down summoners excessively.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:03 PM	I believe the intent was to charge for allies with greater then a one day duration.
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 02:10 PM	Right... I'm pretty sure that the Animate Objects was in reference to Permanency. What if we altered it as follows: Spells, Powers, and Abilities: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA.One thing I'd want to clarify is allies created or summoned through items. The way it's phrased here, a Bronze Griffon that was activated in the previous fight and is still going would count as an ally--I'm not sure whether I have a problem with that. But allies created through other means (e.g. Golem Manual) should definitely count. Edit: It's not just allies that are semipermanent--Planar Ally defnitely counts.
Abyssal Stalker 04-24-07, 02:12 PM	The EL6 monster table had also some entries that resulted in a CR7 encounter. I've fixed it and marked the changed entries. 6th-Level Monster Encounters 1 3 Ankhegs [CR 3] 2 1 Annis Hag [CR 6] 3 2 Aranea [CR 4] 4 1 Average Salamander [CR 6] 5 1 Average Xorn [CR 6] 6 1 Babau [CR 6] 7 2 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 2 Centipede Swarms [CR 4] 13 1 Chain Devil [CR 6] 14 3 Deinonychos [CR 3] 15 1 Digester [CR 6] 16 2 Dire Boars [CR 4] 17 1 Dire Lion and 1 Lion [CR 5] [CR 3] 18 3 Dryads [CR 3] 19 3 Ettercaps [CR 3] 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 3 Formian Warriors [CR 3] 25 1 Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede [CR 6] 26 1 Giant Constrictor Snake and 2 Large Vipers [CR 5] [CR 2] 27 2 Giant Crocodiles [CR 4] 28 2 Giant Stag Beetles [CR 4] 29 3 Giant Wasps [CR 3] 30 1 Girallon [CR 6] 31 2 Gray Oozes [CR 4] 32 1 Gray Render Zombie [CR 6] 33 2 Griffons [CR 4] 34 1 Half-Celestial Griffon [CR 6] 35 1 Half-Fiend Minotaur [CR 6] 36 3 Hell Hounds [CR 3] 37 3 Howlers [CR 3] 38 1 Huge Animated Object and 1 Large Animated Object [CR 5] [CR 3] 39 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2] 40 3 Huge Vipers [CR 3] 41 3 Juvenile Arrowhawks [CR 3] 42 1 Lamia [CR 6] 43 3 Large Monstorus Scorpions [CR 3] 44 3 Magmins [CR 3] 45 1 Manticore and 1 Yeth Hound [CR 5] [CR 3] 46 3 Medium Elementals 1d4 for type [CR 3] 47 1 Megaraptor [CR 6] 48 3 Mephits (1d10 for type) [CR 3] 49 2 Minotaur Zombies [CR 4] 50 2 Minotaurs [CR 4] 51 1 Nightmare and 1 Flamebrother Salamander [CR 5] [CR 3] 52 2 Otyughs [CR 4] 53 2 Owlbears [CR 4] 54 1 Phase Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2] 55 2 Rhinoceroses [CR 4] 56 3 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 2 Tigers [CR 4] 62 3 Troll Skeletons [CR 3] 63 2 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 1 Deinonychus Dinosaurs [CR 4] [CR 3] 67 1 1st-level Wereboar Fighter and 1 Boar [CR 5] [CR 2] 68 1 2nd-level Werewolf Fighter and 2 Wolves [CR 5] [CR 1] 69 1 2nd-level Bugbear Rogue and 1 Mephit (1d10 for type) [CR 4] [CR 3] 70 1 2nd-level Ogre Barbarian and 1 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR 5] [CR 2] 71 1 3rd-level Azer Fighter and 1 Heavy Warhorse [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 1 Giant Bombardier Beetle [CR 5] [CR 2] 75 1 Chimera Skeleton and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3] 76 1 Ettin Skeleton and 1 Owlbear Skeleton [CR 5] [CR 2]/B][B]77 1 Fiendish Dire Ape and 1 Dire Ape [CR 4] [CR 3] 78 1 Five-Headed Cryohydra [CR 6] 79 1 Harpy and 1 Giant Praying Mantis [CR 4] [CR 3] 80 1 Hound Archon and 1 Griffon [CR 4] 81 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Ettercap [CR 5] [CR 3] 82 1 Janni and 1 Medium Air Elemental [CR 4] [CR 3] 83 1 Large Elemental and 2 Small Elementals (1d4 for type) [CR 5] [CR 1] 84 1 Mummy and 2 Ghouls [CR 5] [CR 1] 85 1 Sea Hag and 1 Wyrmling Black Dragon [CR 4] [CR 3] 86 1 Shadow Mastiff and 1 Imp [CR 5] [CR 2] 87 1 Troll and 1 Ogre [CR 5] [CR 3] 88 1 Vampire Spawn and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3] 89 1 Wraith and 1 Wight [CR 5] [CR 3] 90 1 Wyvern Zombie and 1 Troll Skeleton [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] For MWB's convenience I'll post the same table again without the bolding. 6th-Level Monster Encounters 1 3 Ankhegs [CR 3] 2 1 Annis Hag [CR 6] 3 2 Aranea [CR 4] 4 1 Average Salamander [CR 6] 5 1 Average Xorn [CR 6] 6 1 Babau [CR 6] 7 2 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 2 Centipede Swarms [CR 4] 13 1 Chain Devil [CR 6] 14 3 Deinonychos [CR 3] 15 1 Digester [CR 6] 16 2 Dire Boars [CR 4] 17 1 Dire Lion and 1 Lion [CR 5] [CR 3] 18 3 Dryads [CR 3] 19 3 Ettercaps [CR 3] 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 3 Formian Warriors [CR 3] 25 1 Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede [CR 6] 26 1 Giant Constrictor Snake and 2 Large Vipers [CR 5] [CR 2] 27 2 Giant Crocodiles [CR 4] 28 2 Giant Stag Beetles [CR 4] 29 3 Giant Wasps [CR 3] 30 1 Girallon [CR 6] 31 2 Gray Oozes [CR 4] 32 1 Gray Render Zombie [CR 6] 33 2 Griffons [CR 4] 34 1 Half-Celestial Griffon [CR 6] 35 1 Half-Fiend Minotaur [CR 6] 36 3 Hell Hounds [CR 3] 37 3 Howlers [CR 3] 38 1 Huge Animated Object and 1 Large Animated Object [CR 5] [CR 3] 39 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2] 40 3 Huge Vipers [CR 3] 41 3 Juvenile Arrowhawks [CR 3] 42 1 Lamia [CR 6] 43 3 Large Monstorus Scorpions [CR 3] 44 3 Magmins [CR 3] 45 1 Manticore and 1 Yeth Hound [CR 5] [CR 3] 46 3 Medium Elementals 1d4 for type [CR 3] 47 1 Megaraptor [CR 6] 48 3 Mephits (1d10 for type) [CR 3] 49 2 Minotaur Zombies [CR 4] 50 2 Minotaurs [CR 4] 51 1 Nightmare and 1 Flamebrother Salamander [CR 5] [CR 3] 52 2 Otyughs [CR 4] 53 2 Owlbears [CR 4] 54 1 Phase Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2] 55 2 Rhinoceroses [CR 4] 56 3 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 2 Tigers [CR 4] 62 3 Troll Skeletons [CR 3] 63 2 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 1 Deinonychus Dinosaurs [CR 4] [CR 3] 67 1 1st-level Wereboar Fighter and 1 Boar [CR 5] [CR 2] 68 1 2nd-level Werewolf Fighter and 2 Wolves [CR 5] [CR 1] 69 1 2nd-level Bugbear Rogue and 1 Mephit (1d10 for type) [CR 4] [CR 3] 70 1 2nd-level Ogre Barbarian and 1 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR 5] [CR 2] 71 1 3rd-level Azer Fighter and 1 Heavy Warhorse [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 1 Giant Bombardier Beetle [CR 5] [CR 2] 75 1 Chimera Skeleton and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3] 76 1 Ettin Skeleton and 1 Owlbear Skeleton [CR 5] [CR 2] 77 1 Fiendish Dire Ape and 1 Dire Ape [CR 4] [CR 3] 78 1 Five-Headed Cryohydra [CR 6] 79 1 Harpy and 1 Giant Praying Mantis [CR 4] [CR 3] 80 1 Hound Archon and 1 Griffon [CR 4] 81 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Ettercap [CR 5] [CR 3] 82 1 Janni and 1 Medium Air Elemental [CR 4] [CR 3] 83 1 Large Elemental and 2 Small Elementals (1d4 for type) [CR 5] [CR 1] 84 1 Mummy and 2 Ghouls [CR 5] [CR 1] 85 1 Sea Hag and 1 Wyrmling Black Dragon [CR 4] [CR 3] 86 1 Shadow Mastiff and 1 Imp [CR 5] [CR 2] 87 1 Troll and 1 Ogre [CR 5] [CR 3] 88 1 Vampire Spawn and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3] 89 1 Wraith and 1 Wight [CR 5] [CR 3] 90 1 Wyvern Zombie and 1 Troll Skeleton [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]
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:13 PM	Can you add the word 'Permanent' before Animate Object. So, that that is clearer? Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Permanent Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. I know.. odd but slightly clearer on it.
hogarth 04-24-07, 02:23 PM	Right... I'm pretty sure that the Animate Objects was in reference to Permanency. What if we altered it as follows: One thing I'd want to clarify is allies created or summoned through items. The way it's phrased here, a Bronze Griffon that was activated in the previous fight and is still going would count as an ally--I'm not sure whether I have a problem with that. By the way, the list above mentions that Dominate can be used to bring in an ally. How would that work? McJarvis suggested it as a possibility for a vampire gladiator, but I don't know how one can prebuff an effect that allows a saving throw.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 02:26 PM	@Hogarth: As stated in the tavarn thread, prebuffing an effect that requires a saving throw is only possible if: 1) There is no penalty for failure 2) You can effectively do it an unlimited # of times per day. The vampire meets these requirements. Very few other people do.
hogarth 04-24-07, 02:27 PM	The EL6 monster table had also some entries that resulted in a CR7 encounter. I've fixed it and marked the changed entries. I'd personally suggest changing the CR 5 + CR 2 and CR 4 + CR 3 to all be CR 5 + CR 3 for consistencies' sake. YMMV.
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 02:29 PM	Can you add the word 'Permanent' before Animate Object. So, that that is clearer? Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Permanent Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. I know.. odd but slightly clearer on it.Is that necessary? It mentions prebuffs specifically now, and if you prebuff Animate Objects, it won't last until the fight.By the way, the list above mentions that Dominate can be used to bring in an ally. How would that work? McJarvis suggested it as a possibility for a vampire gladiator, but I don't know how one can prebuff an effect that allows a saving throw....I'm not sure. It has a duration of 1 day/level... I would guess that you would have to go on a miniquest for it, and it would last for 1 cycle per 7 days (which would be a maximum of 5 cycles if Extended and cast at minimum 18th level).
hogarth 04-24-07, 02:30 PM	@Hogarth: As stated in the tavarn thread, prebuffing an effect that requires a saving throw is only possible if: 1) There is no penalty for failure 2) You can effectively do it an unlimited # of times per day. The vampire meets these requirements. Very few other people do. As I said before, I believe there is a penalty for failure. Presumably, you're telling your dominated buddy to "sit still" while you dominate him again. If he knows that you're trying to do it (wouldn't take a genius IMO), then he would get a saving throw to resist the command as being against his nature. Note: I realise you disagree about what "against [one's] nature" means. ...I'm not sure. It has a duration of 1 day/level... I would guess that you would have to go on a miniquest for it, and it would last for 1 cycle per 7 days (which would be a maximum of 5 cycles if Extended and cast at minimum 18th level). So would you need a new miniquest every time you want a dominated buddy? And would the buddy be required to actually his save in the miniquest or would a successful miniquest mean that he automatically fails his save?
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 02:31 PM	Deleted for stupidity.
Abyssal Stalker 04-24-07, 02:32 PM	I'd personally suggest changing the CR 5 + CR 2 and CR 4 + CR 3 to all be CR 5 + CR 3 for consistencies' sake. YMMV. I realize that there is some variation, but they are all CR6 encounters according the encounter calculator. I don't really see any problem in them, because your ability to beat the monster fight depends entirely on the roll. Some encounter with lower CR creatures can be significantly more difficult to beat than one with higher CR creatures if you aren't properly prepared for anything.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:34 PM	Hmmm, means I need to dismiss Relanex's Mount spell. It costs him exp but serves no purpose anymore.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 02:36 PM	Note: I realise you disagree about what "against [one's] nature" means. The problem with your definition of "against one's nature" is that being dominated in the first place is against the nature of any free-thinking creature. Does this mean they automatically get to re-roll a save with a +2 to their will save? Of course not! So would you need a new miniquest every time you want a dominated buddy? And would the buddy be required to actually his save in the miniquest or would a successful miniquest mean that he automatically fails his save? I'd imagine you would need a miniquest, yes. And I'd imagine that you'd have to dominate him in combat, much the same way a Cleric would have to kill his to-be skeleton without destroying the body completely. ...Unless the "reward" is defeating a guardian, and then taking your time to dominate the poor soul who was kept captive by the guardian.
hogarth 04-24-07, 02:40 PM	The problem with your definition of "against one's nature" is that being dominated in the first place is against the nature of any free-thinking creature. Does this mean they automatically get to re-roll a save with a +2 to their will save? Of course not! Creatures already get an "automatic" save when you try to dominate them to reflect the fact that they're trying to resist the domination; I don't see why they would get two saves. Note that a creature only gets a new save when there's a specific order that goes against its nature. Continuing to carry out a previous order doesn't give a new save. Neither does just being dominated without having any specific orders.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 02:43 PM	Creatures already get an "automatic" save when you try to dominate them to reflect the fact that they're trying to resist the domination; I don't see why they would get two saves. Note that a creature only gets a new save when there's a specific order that goes against its nature. Continuing to carry out a previous order doesn't give a new save. Neither does just being dominated without having any specific orders. ....then why is there an issue? You don't need to give them a direct order to re-dominate them. Hell, you could even have a big brunch every morning and do it then while talking to them.
hogarth 04-24-07, 02:48 PM	....then why is there an issue? You don't need to give them a direct order to re-dominate them. Hell, you could even have a big brunch every morning and do it then while talking to them. Sigh. According to the Rules of the Game article, they don't get a save if it's something that your co-worker (or some other person with a Friendly [but not Helpful] attitude) might do for you. At lunch today, I told my co-worker to sit still while I put mind-control drugs in his food. Imagine my surprise when he refused! ;) If you're claiming that the dominated buddy doesn't realise he's being dominated at all, I guess that's possible. But I suspect that would only apply with really dumb creatures.
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 02:54 PM	I realize that there is some variation, but they are all CR6 encounters according the encounter calculator. I don't really see any problem in them, because your ability to beat the monster fight depends entirely on the roll. Some encounter with lower CR creatures can be significantly more difficult to beat than one with higher CR creatures if you aren't properly prepared for anything. Yeah... I'm in the process of changing these before I put up the revised table. The encounter calculator rounds a bit; we shouldn't do that. Each encounter should be precisely the correct EL, by the formula. I'm almost done. You still get a credit, though.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 03:14 PM	Sigh. According to the Rules of the Game article, they don't get a save if it's something that your co-worker (or some other person with a Friendly [but not Helpful] attitude) might do for you. At lunch today, I told my co-worker to sit still while I put mind-control drugs in his food. Imagine my surprise when he refused! ;) If you're claiming that the dominated buddy doesn't realise he's being dominated at all, I guess that's possible. But I suspect that would only apply with really dumb creatures. I see your point oh-so-clearly now. How could I forget that every time I've ever tried to mind-control someone I told them I was doing it while I was doing? Obviously I wouldn't just do it without them knowing by messing with their TV, putting stuff in their food, or staring at them in the eyes every now and again.
hogarth 04-24-07, 03:31 PM	I see your point oh-so-clearly now. How could I forget that every time I've ever tried to mind-control someone I told them I was doing it while I was doing? Sometimes people put 2 and 2 together. "Hey, how come every time I hang out with Joe and look in his eyes, I suddenly get the urge to become his personal servant? It must be his aftershave." ;)
McJarvis 04-24-07, 03:32 PM	Sometimes people put 2 and 2 together. "Hey, how come every time I hang out with Joe and look in his eyes, I suddenly get the urge to become his personal servant? It must be his aftershave." ;) Maybe it's love? :)
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 03:38 PM	Haven't you ever seen the commercials for Axe?
McJarvis 04-25-07, 07:30 PM	I've been informed that we can change at least one rule, if everyone agrees on it. I'd like the ban on questing at ECL 3 to be lifted. There's no way this confuses new players & it's just something that I'd like to be able to do. ~McJ~
SauroGrenom 04-25-07, 09:03 PM	If we get to change one rule and only one rule. I'd totally ditch Diplomacy Allies before anything else. HA allies aren't as bad right now, but they should probably be reworked as well. These allies scale with CR instead of ECL, and it totally throws off the balance of combat as levels increase. It will get terribly bad as the higher leagues open up. The monsters will totally outshine the characters.
McJarvis 04-25-07, 09:41 PM	Alas Sauro, the one rule I spoke of was the specific one I mentioned, none other :)
Macbrea 04-25-07, 09:44 PM	Are we not able to quest until 5th at all?
McJarvis 04-25-07, 09:45 PM	Are we not able to quest until 5th at all? Nay-> Only ECL 3 is banned from this.
TelinArtho 04-25-07, 11:44 PM	What exactly are you questing for at ECL3? You aren't allowed to gain allies at ECL3 other than purchased ones or class allies. I suppose you could qualify for a prestige class - but there's no prestige class that you can qualify for (that I know of) by ECL4. And of course, if you're in a guild - you can quest if you are needed.
Rauul 04-26-07, 12:01 AM	What exactly are you questing for at ECL3? You aren't allowed to gain allies at ECL3 other than purchased ones or class allies. I suppose you could qualify for a prestige class - but there's no prestige class that you can qualify for (that I know of) by ECL4. And of course, if you're in a guild - you can quest if you are needed. Well if shadow looses hit last fight of his 3fc he will be 150 exp away from leveling to 4... so taking a Miniquest to kill a person just to watch them die (assassin prere) would be a fine time to do it... to level and get it out of the way..
Malither76 04-26-07, 12:02 AM	Diplomacy allies really need fixed, CR way beats level adj. remember the game is designed for a CR creature to fight 4 PC's of that level. And you can get these guys with a skill this beats the crap out of leadership
McJarvis 04-26-07, 12:49 PM	What exactly are you questing for at ECL3? You aren't allowed to gain allies at ECL3 other than purchased ones or class allies. I suppose you could qualify for a prestige class - but there's no prestige class that you can qualify for (that I know of) by ECL4. And of course, if you're in a guild - you can quest if you are needed. RP, actually. And guilds can't just send you on any old quest-> they need a mission or something. RE: Dip allies: No opinion on the matter, but I believe this is Cat's project. There's no way anyone here will be able to remove Dip allies(I believe MWB is in favor of keeping things around that Cat wanted to keep, and he was quote clear on that issue). Regardless-> no changes will happen until Cat comes back & tells us if the change is for good. The ECL3 questing issue, however, is something that is not major and is pointless-> Quests are not that much more complex than other mechanics, they don't influence the regular pairings, etc, etc.
hogarth 04-26-07, 01:03 PM	What exactly are you questing for at ECL3? You aren't allowed to gain allies at ECL3 other than purchased ones or class allies. I suppose you could qualify for a prestige class - but there's no prestige class that you can qualify for (that I know of) by ECL4. And of course, if you're in a guild - you can quest if you are needed. The main reason I have found to quest (at low levels) is in order to avoid going up a level in the middle of a 3FC. A character starts with 3200 xp, so if he wins his first 3 fights he'll earn 2700 xp (leaving aside adjustments for allies, multiplayer fights, etc.) -- 100 xp shy of level 4. So it's worthwhile (in my opinion) to go on an EL 1 out-of-cycle miniquest, go up a level, and buy supplies with a higher expendable cap. That's by far the most frequent reason that I've had my characters go on miniquests.
TelinArtho 04-26-07, 01:13 PM	So your reasoning for allowing it is so you can get around one of the relative restrictions of the 3FC? Not exactly a convincing argument... (especially in the face of an experienced player doing this, yet the beginner (who doesn't know "better"), doesn't and then is at a "disadvantage")
hogarth 04-26-07, 01:18 PM	So your reasoning for allowing it is so you can get around one of the relative restrictions of the 3FC? Not exactly a convincing argument... (especially in the face of an experienced player doing this, yet the beginner (who doesn't know "better"), doesn't and then is at a "disadvantage") It's not "my reasoning for allowing it". I have no problem with disallowing miniquesting for 3rd level characters. (I would have no problem with disallowing all miniquesting, for that matter!) I was just trying to answer your question: "Why would a level 3 character go on a miniquest?"
Macbrea 04-26-07, 01:32 PM	What exactly are you questing for at ECL3? You aren't allowed to gain allies at ECL3 other than purchased ones or class allies. I suppose you could qualify for a prestige class - but there's no prestige class that you can qualify for (that I know of) by ECL4. And of course, if you're in a guild - you can quest if you are needed. Well, example: Lars wants to be a Pyrokineticist. He will qualify for it if he can manage to burn down a building before he reaches his 6th level. Due to the way the rules are written. He is only allowed to quest once per level. So, if Lars attempts to burn down a building but fails at both 4th and 5th. He will not be allowed to take Pyrokineticist. Since, it only requires burning down a building which could have been done in the 1st - 3rd level without any real problems. Lars would like as many chances to burn down the city as he can get!
MindWandererB 04-26-07, 01:56 PM	However, the thing to be avoided is the experienced players taking advantage of a loophole in the questing rules that the inexperienced players might not know about. "I didn't know I could go on an EL 1, out-of-cycle miniquest just to level up! I levelled up in fight 1 of my cycle and now I'm getting pummelled because I couldn't buy more expendables!" What if we limited miniquests at ECL 3 to in-cycle?
Rauul 04-26-07, 01:57 PM	Well, example: Lars wants to be a Pyrokineticist. He will qualify for it if he can manage to burn down a building before he reaches his 6th level. Due to the way the rules are written. He is only allowed to quest once per level. So, if Lars attempts to burn down a building but fails at both 4th and 5th. He will not be allowed to take Pyrokineticist. Since, it only requires burning down a building which could have been done in the 1st - 3rd level without any real problems. Lars would like as many chances to burn down the city as he can get! Thats the same way with Shadow and joining assassin... he would like as many chances as he can get to kill people for no reason other than to see them die!!
McJarvis 04-26-07, 01:58 PM	So your reasoning for allowing it is so you can get around one of the relative restrictions of the 3FC? Erm...no...I wanted to create a character that did a full quest every level. Not just MQ to level up. (though I guess you're responding to Hogarth?)
Rauul 04-26-07, 02:02 PM	However, the thing to be avoided is the experienced players taking advantage of a loophole in the questing rules that the inexperienced players might not know about. "I didn't know I could go on an EL 1, out-of-cycle miniquest just to level up! I levelled up in fight 1 of my cycle and now I'm getting pummelled because I couldn't buy more expendables!" What if we limited miniquests at ECL 3 to in-cycle? Does it really matter that much... if by the time a 3fc is over a player (well i did anyways) read the different quests and then read the quest rules.. and if they get Pummelled they learn.. (your allowed 1 Miniquest per level so it's not like it will go unnoticed)
Macbrea 04-26-07, 02:06 PM	I don't think we should allow any out of cycle miniquesting/questing.
Abyssal Stalker 04-26-07, 02:12 PM	I don't think we should allow any out of cycle miniquesting/questing. We should. For example, Lemminkäinen couldn't have joined PSI before going on the campaign if there wasn't for out of cycle miniquests.
TelinArtho 04-26-07, 02:13 PM	Erm...no...I wanted to create a character that did a full quest every level. Not just MQ to level up. (though I guess you're responding to Hogarth?) I was responding to Hogarth. It occurs to me though - aren't you allowed to do a regular quest at ECL3? The reason I ask now is I just realized that Bulgar did one at ECL3 and had no problems. As long as the quest goal is not to gain an ally that is illegal at that level, it shouldn't be a problem. @MWB - I would agree with the proposal to restrict miniquests to in-cycle at ECL3 (and at other ECLs for that matter...)
Macbrea 04-26-07, 02:15 PM	Then he should have done an in cycle miniquest. Reset his cycle and gone on a campaign. It can easily be assumed all characters sleep the night before heading out on any campaign they might be going on.
Erithmu 04-26-07, 02:31 PM	Then he should have done an in cycle miniquest. Reset his cycle and gone on a campaign. It can easily be assumed all characters sleep the night before heading out on any campaign they might be going on. Except there is a note that a character in cycle can't join a campaign.
Macbrea 04-26-07, 02:36 PM	Which is why I am for changing it to make all fights in cycle and campaigns reset you whereever you are. In reality if you knew you were going on some trip you would sleep the night before to be refreshed. The miniquest to finish a quick task before you head out on the campaign isn't unrealistic.
Guildmaster (WAR) 05-02-07, 08:15 PM	@Guildlords - what's the deal with denying WAR the delivery of their last 75 RES-PTS from Dentinia? Nobody's raiding that trade route (as of last week). Edit: I get you, I think. You're taking it on yourself to edit our bookkeeping when you roll the Random Events. I've been doing that for Guildlords, using the Random Events as something that starts this week and kills the resources that were shipped this week (and wouldn't arrive in Gladius until next week). So either I'm mixed up or you are. Either way, I'm either out some RES-PTS (from past shipments) or owed some (from this shipment -- no one was raiding Dentenia Library last week).
Zevox 05-02-07, 08:45 PM	@Guildlords - what's the deal with denying WAR the delivery of their last 75 RES-PTS from Dentinia? Nobody's raiding that trade route (as of last week). Edit: I get you, I think. You're taking it on yourself to edit our bookkeeping when you roll the Random Events. I've been doing that for Guildlords, using the Random Events as something that starts this week and kills the resources that were shipped this week (and wouldn't arrive in Gladius until next week). So either I'm mixed up or you are. Either way, I'm either out some RES-PTS (from past shipments) or owed some (from this shipment -- no one was raiding Dentenia Library last week). I've always been under the impression that raids affect the week they occur (makes sense, wouldn't you say?). Never seen anything to make me think otherwise, and certainly I've been treating the raids on the EHTC's routes as such (and MWB has been accepting it as that - we've had some instances where I forgot, and he pointed it out to me via PM). As such, I'm pretty sure I'm right here. MWB, care to chime in? Zevox
Guildmaster (WAR) 05-02-07, 08:52 PM	Hey, I just wanna make sure I'm doing it right. If I'm not (and I haven't been), then I need to do a 5 week audit and gain some shipments back.
MindWandererB 05-02-07, 11:40 PM	I've always been under the impression that raids affect the week they occur (makes sense, wouldn't you say?). Never seen anything to make me think otherwise, and certainly I've been treating the raids on the EHTC's routes as such (and MWB has been accepting it as that - we've had some instances where I forgot, and he pointed it out to me via PM). As such, I'm pretty sure I'm right here. MWB, care to chime in? Zevox Yeah... I had assumed it was for the current week, as well (as Zevox says, it makes more sense), but it would probably be easier in the future if it were for the following week. Either way, someone needs to do an audit--but on the other hand, auditing EHTC would be a lot harder than doing it for WAR. It would probably be best if it affected the current week, since an enterprising guildmaster could look up the random events before the deadline and make trade decisions based on who gets raided. Plus, if a Campaign trade agreement is formed, the first week that involves it should be out of 1d5 rather than 1d4.
TheMagister 05-03-07, 02:35 AM	Hey, that's fine with me. One less thing to check when I'm doing my bookkeeping. I do think I owe myself about +50 extra RES, though. I'll look it up when I care a little more. :) Thanks! TM
Guildmaster (WAR) 05-03-07, 04:08 AM	Turns out its +75 RES-PTS, and it all evens out (wasn't raided last week, was raided this week), so my original totals were correct, even if the way I arrived at them was wrong. I sent corrected totals to the Guildlords' PM box. TM
MitzaVolchenko 05-03-07, 12:30 PM	I was responding to Hogarth. It occurs to me though - aren't you allowed to do a regular quest at ECL3? The reason I ask now is I just realized that Bulgar did one at ECL3 and had no problems. As long as the quest goal is not to gain an ally that is illegal at that level, it shouldn't be a problem. @MWB - I would agree with the proposal to restrict miniquests to in-cycle at ECL3 (and at other ECLs for that matter...) I could have sworn that quests and/or MQ's were denied at ECL3...seems I was assigned one and had it turned into a monster fight by Cat because of that. Either way, I have never understood clearly what was allowed in or out of cycle. I would favor keeping everything in cycle but removing the restriction of only starting quests at the start of a 3FC. I wouldn't mind taking a character that is on third fight of the cycle and just refreshing their cycle in week two of the quest. As for campaigns, I agree with Macbrea...refresh and just head out. Campaigns are a rare enough occurrence that you you aren't going to see that abused.
McJarvis 05-03-07, 01:11 PM	Quests of any sort not-related to guildstuffs are banned from ECL 3. Cat stopped me several times from questing with various characters because of this.
MindWandererB 05-03-07, 01:47 PM	All right, here's what I'm thinking at this point. Campaigns: A character can abandon a cycle in order to join a campaign. ECL 3 quests: Allowed, but restricted to in-cycle only. Out-of-cycle miniquests at other levels: I'm hesitant to nix these, simply because I hate the idea of failing at "mandatory" quests (for allies or PrCs). If these are banned, then I'm going to start going on a miniquest every level to qualify for an ally that I might not be able to take for many, many levels. There has to be a better solution. Starting non-guild quests mid-cycle: I'm indifferent, really. We have a mechanic to support it, so it's possible. Non-guild full quests are so rare at this point, plus you can only do one per level anyway, so I don't see it as a real issue.
TelinArtho 05-03-07, 01:54 PM	I agree for pretty much all of them. For non-guild quests mid-cycle - note that this is usually worse for the character unless the questlord gives some of the quest rewards during the quest - because the character won't have access to all of his/her money for the first one or two weeks of the quest. Given that it is a bit of a sacrifice for the character because of this - I have no problem with it (you willingly shoot yourself in the foot - go ahead...)
Zevox 05-03-07, 02:23 PM	Out-of-cycle miniquests at other levels: I'm hesitant to nix these, simply because I hate the idea of failing at "mandatory" quests (for allies or PrCs). If these are banned, then I'm going to start going on a miniquest every level to qualify for an ally that I might not be able to take for many, many levels. There has to be a better solution. Um, MWB, out-of-cycle MQs don't prevent you from failing and not being able to retry for another level. They still count as your 1 quest/level as normal - why wouldn't they? Ceilia just ran into that issue last level, when she failed her first MQ to get her Djinni skeleton and had to wait until she leveled up to try again. That MQ was out-of-cycle. Zevox
TelinArtho 05-03-07, 02:44 PM	I'd just suggest that you can only have one successful non-guild MQ per level. This would solve the issue of "failure" - since failing a MQ is still "bad" - its not like people will be using it to sandbag their future results (you don't get rewards, but you still use items). It would simultaneously remove everyone's concern about qualifying for prestige classes or getting a wanted ally.
MitzaVolchenko 05-03-07, 02:46 PM	What is the logic behind keeping a double rule instead of blanketing it as all are in cycle? It behooves folks to go fresh, but if they wanna go mid-cycle, who cares? What is the logic behind not allowing any Quest anyone wants regardless of ECL? (Yeah yeah yeah ECL 3's that appear take a questlord anddisappear, but really so what?) What happens when a needed quest fails and stymies the character's advancement? Do we really like this? The example of that which annoys me is Leadership allies...you have to spend a feat and may have to wait several levels to get your stupid cohort if you have bad quest luck. Psicrystal as well...unless we don't quest for our own cowardice...I have never been clear on that.
MindWandererB 05-03-07, 02:50 PM	Um, MWB, out-of-cycle MQs don't prevent you from failing and not being able to retry for another level. They still count as your 1 quest/level as normal - why wouldn't they? Ceilia just ran into that issue last level, when she failed her first MQ to get her Djinni skeleton and had to wait until she leveled up to try again. That MQ was out-of-cycle.One advantage of out-of-cycle MQs is that they can be held at an EL less than your ECL. Celia's first attempt at the djinni could have been as low as EL 3, which I'm sure you wouldn't have failed.I'd just suggest that you can only have one successful non-guild MQ per level. This would solve the issue of "failure" - since failing a MQ is still "bad" - its not like people will be using it to sandbag their future results (you don't get rewards, but you still use items). It would simultaneously remove everyone's concern about qualifying for prestige classes or getting a wanted ally.Now that's a pretty darn good idea. So it sounds like the "fix" we're looking for is to make all miniquests in-cycle, to allow retries in the same level, and to allow full quests to be started mid-cycle. Can we agree on that?
TelinArtho 05-03-07, 02:52 PM	The original reason to restrict it was to help keep the population of pitlords in play. With more and more miniquests - we were having issues with having enough pitlords. Since a good number of the miniquests were happening at ECL3-4 - removing them was a solid step. This was also the motivation behind removing the requirement to MQ for guild membership at ECL3 and 4. However, I do think that allowing 1 successful MQ/quest per level would alleviate just about every issue out there.
MitzaVolchenko 05-03-07, 03:04 PM	Sounds better...easier on the books anyway.
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 04:08 AM	Quick non sequiteur: Here's the EL 16 encounter table I came up with. As the ELs go up, once certainly has to become more... exotic. Please check for errors, or for anything that just seems unplayable.01: 1 Hound Archon Hero (CR 16) 02: 1 Horned Devil (CR 16) 03: 1 Greater Stone Golem (CR 16) 04: 1 Nightwalker (nightshade) (CR 16) 05: 1 Planetar (angel) (CR 16) 06: 3 Thought Slayers (psionic) (CR 13) 07: 2 Astral Devas (angel) (CR 14) 08: 2 Trumpet Archons (CR 14) 09: 4 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12) 10: 3 Beholders (CR 13) 11: Demon troupe: 1 Nalfeshnee, 1 Hezrou, and 3 Vrocks (CR 14, 11, 9) 12: 3 Ice Devils (CR 13) 13: 1 Dragon: Old Black; Mature Adult Green, Blue, or Copper; Adult Gold (1d5) (CR 16) 14: 2 Dragons: Mature Adult Black; Adult Blue or Copper (1d3) (CR 14) 15: Dragon family: 1 Mature Adult and 3 Young Adult Brass, or 1 Adult and 3 Juvenile Red or Silver (CR 15 and 10) 16: 3 Ghaele Eladrin (CR 13) 17: 3 Storm Giants (CR 13) 18: 3 Iron Golems (CR 13) 19: 4 Leonal Guardinals 20: 2 Werewolf Lords (CR 14) 21: 2 Nightwings (nightshade) 22: 4 Ropers (CR 12) 23: 4 Psion-Killers (psionic) (CR 12) 24: 3 Thought Slayers (psionic) (CR 13) 25: 1 Elite-array Marut (inevitable) (CR 16) 26: 1 Elite-array Neothelid (psionic) (CR 16) 27: 2 Celestial Frost Worms (CR 14) 28: 4 Celestial Guardian Nagas (CR 12) 29: 1 Fiendish Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR 16) 30: 2 Fiendish Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 14) 31: 3 Fiendish Harpy Archers (CR 13) 32: 4 Fiendish Fire Giants (CR 12) 33: 1 Half-Celestial Storm Giant (CR 16) 34: 2 Half-Celestial Hill Giant Dire Wereboars (CR 13) 35: 4 Half-Celestial Yrthak (CR 12) 36: 3 Half-Celestial or Half-Fiend Dragons: Adult White; Young Adult Brass; Juvenile Red or Silver (1d4) (CR 13) 37: 1 Half-Fiend 12-Headed Pyro- or Cryohydra (CR 16) 38: 2 Half-Fiend Troll Hunters (CR 14) 39: 2 Half Dragon Purple Worms (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 40: 4 Half-Dragon Noble Salamanders (1d10 for type) (CR 12) 41: 5 Half-Dragon Triceratops (1d10 for type) (CR 11) 42: Roll on EL 14 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type) 43: 1 Phrenic Dragon: Adult Green; Young Adult Red or Silver (1d3) (CR 16) 44: 2 Phrenic Dread Wraiths (CR 14) 45: 3 Phrenic Formian Myrmarchs (CR 13) 46: 4 Phrenic Gray Slaadi (CR 12) 47: 3 Ghost Dragons: Adult Black; Young Adult Green, Blue, or Copper; Juvenile Gold (1d5) (CR 13) 48: 4 9th-level Githzerai Ghost Monks (CR 12) 49: 1 14th-level Kobold Ghost Sorcerer (CR 16) 50: 1 14th-level Svirfneblin (gnome) Lich Adept (CR 16) 51: 1 12th-level Aquatic Elf Lich Cleric and 3 7th-level Malenti (sahuagin) Vampire Rangers (CR 14 and 11) 52: 1 10th-level Gargoyle Vampire Fighter (CR 16) 53: 1 Cloud Giant Were-Roc (CR 16) 54: 3 Frost Giant Were-Polar Bears (CR 13) 55: 2 10th-level Half-Giant Were-Dire Ape Psychic Warriors (CR 14) 56: 1 12th-level Aranea Sorcerer (CR 16) 57: 4 11th-level Greater Barghest Monks (CR 12) 58: 1 10th-level Babau Rogue (CR 16) 59: 1 12th-level Succubus Paladin of Slaughter (CR 16) 60: 2 9th-level Bearded Devil Fighters (CR 14) 61: 1 14th-level Stone Giant Elder Druid (CR 16) 62: 1 8th-level Lammasu Cleric (CR 16) 63: 3 9th-level Medusa Wilders (CR 13) 64: 4 10th-level Mephit Soulknives (mixed types, 1d10 for each) (CR 12) 65: 2 8th-level Mind Flayer Psions and 2 11th-level Grimlock Barbarians (CR 12) 66: 1 Nymph 6th-level Wizard/6th-level Mystic Theurge (CR 16) 67: 3 12th-level Grig (sprite) Bards (CR 13) 68: 1 10th-level Xill Ranger (CR 16) 69: 1 11th-level Yuan-Ti Abomination Cleric and 1 Yuan-Ti Halfblood 9th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 14) 70: 1 11th-level Unbodied Psion Telepath (psionic) (CR 16) 71: 1 16th-level Locathah Barbarian (CR 16) 72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard and 1 15th-level Dwarf Aristocrat (CR 14) 73: 4 12th-level Aasimar Clerics (CR 12) 74: 2 14th-level Xeph Druids (CR 14) 75: 4 12th-level Hobgoblin Fighters (CR 12) 76: 1 16th-level Half-Orc Monk (CR 16) 77: 2 14th-level Maenad Paladins (CR 14) 78: 3 13th-level Halfling Rangers (CR 13) 79: 3 13th-level Orc Rogues (CR 13) 80: 3 13th-level Elan Sorcerers (CR 13) 81: 1 16th-level Tiefling Wizard (CR 16) 82: 3 13th-level Grey Elf Psions (CR 13) 83: 1 16th-level Wild Elf Psychic Warrior (CR 16) 84: 1 16th-level Dromite Wilder (CR 16) 85: 1 15th-level Troglodyte Soulknife (CR 16) 86: 1 16th-level Duergar (psionic) Expert (CR 16) 87: 1 Phrenic Fiendish Colossal Monstrous Spider (CR 16) 88: 2 Half-Celestial Phrenic Dire Tigers (CR 14) 89: 1 Celestial Half-Dragon Elder Black Pudding (CR 16) 90: 1 Half-Fiend Half-Dragon 12-headed Hydra (CR 16) 91: 3 Ghost Fiendish Spirit Nagas (CR 13) 92: 3 Ghost Celestial Dire Sharks (CR 13) 93: 2 Phrenic Elder Elementals (1d4 each for type) (CR 14) 94: 4 Phrenic Half-Dragon Destrachans (CR 12) 95: 1 Ghost Fiendish Kraken (CR 16) 96: 2 Half-Fiend Wereviper (huge) Ogre Magi (CR 14) 97: 2 Glabrezu (demon) and 2 Retrievers (demon) (CR 13 and 11) 98: 2 Death Slaadi and 2 Cauchemar Nightmares (CR 13 and 11) 99: 2 Celestial Chargers (unicorn) and 2 Half-dragon Celestial Lammasu (CR 13 and 11) 100:2 Mummy Lords and 2 Devourers (CR 13 and 11)
Guildmaster (WAR) 05-04-07, 05:57 AM	{claws at eyes} Aiee! The templates! :) Still, I understand the conundrum of such high EL encounters. There are only so many super-powerful monsters available to choose from. {puts on shades} We'll just have to deal, I guess. Edit: 1 Celestial Half-Dragon Elder Black Pudding (CR 16) How on earth do you beat that?! SR 25, resistance 10 to acid, cold, and elec, immunity to one energy type (and if it's fire, you're screwed a little more), Intelligence of 5 (so it's smart enough to track you down), eats weapons, HD bumped to 1d12s, it has wings (I'd like to see that ooze) and average maneuverability, it gains claw and bite attacks (!?), and a breath weapon (since it has no mouth...). Forget beating it. I want someone to draw it. I'd like to see what that monstrosity would look like. Something like a chaos beast, I'd imagine. A chaos beast on crack! :D TM
Hirumajoe 05-04-07, 07:18 AM	Edit: How on earth do you beat that?! SR 25, resistance 10 to acid, cold, and elec, immunity to one energy type (and if it's fire, you're screwed a little more), Intelligence of 5 (so it's smart enough to track you down), eats weapons, HD bumped to 1d12s, it has wings (I'd like to see that ooze) and average maneuverability, it gains claw and bite attacks (!?), and a breath weapon (since it has no mouth...). TM Actually, its intelligence should be 3. Since you can't apply the Celesital template directly to an Ooze. Applying the Half-dragon template means its still non-intelligent (since null plus 2 is still null I believe). Only after that does the intelligence become 3 via the Celestial template. I don't think you get to retroactively add the intelligence. (I.e apply Half-dragon template. Stop. Now apply Celestial template to this new creature. Stop. Done.) Although I admit it seems slightly dubious using one template to change the type so that a second template which normally doesn't can be used to apply to it. Presumably there was a reason they left out Oozes from the Celestial selection, possibly due to the fact that they are mindless. Shrug. Certainly legal though.
Sjiggie 05-04-07, 07:43 AM	Well the black pudding stays a nigh unbeatable opponent even with an Int of only 3 ;) FYI: I'm working on the EL14 table almost halfway done now but will finish it tommorow probably.
Hirumajoe 05-04-07, 07:55 AM	Well the black pudding stays a nigh unbeatable opponent even with an Int of only 3 ;) FYI: I'm working on the EL14 table almost halfway done now but will finish it tommorow probably. Its not that bad. Psionic Gish Strategy: Entangling ectoplasm for 5pp prevents the thing from flying for 5 rounds (plus fall damage!). It gets a single breath weapon per day, and then you just pound it from the air with sling stones from a +1 sling. And if its on a map where you can't fly, its likely that its squeezing, being Huge and all... Pure Caster Strategy: Save or die spells. Its SR is only good for 50/50 odds at ECL 16. And if the caster has any spell penetration feats, its good as dead. Since its a Dragon, it doesn't get all the cool immunities of Oozes but still has all bad saves. Pure Melee Strategy: Depends on your magic items and allies. If you've got faster movement, you can stay at range and bombard with sling stones. If not, I hope you have some monk levels or can get a death from massive damage style crit...
Abyssal Stalker 05-04-07, 08:16 AM	Its not that bad. Psionic Gish Strategy: Entangling ectoplasm for 5pp prevents the thing from flying for 5 rounds (plus fall damage!). It gets a single breath weapon per day, and then you just pound it from the air with sling stones from a +1 sling. And if its on a map where you can't fly, its likely that its squeezing, being Huge and all... Pure Caster Strategy: Save or die spells. Its SR is only good for 50/50 odds at ECL 16. And if the caster has any spell penetration feats, its good as dead. Since its a Dragon, it doesn't get all the cool immunities of Oozes but still has all bad saves. Pure Melee Strategy: Depends on your magic items and allies. If you've got faster movement, you can stay at range and bombard with sling stones. If not, I hope you have some monk levels or can get a death from massive damage style crit... Like it would fail the DC15 fortitude save?
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 12:39 PM	Actually, its intelligence should be 3. Since you can't apply the Celesital template directly to an Ooze. Applying the Half-dragon template means its still non-intelligent (since null plus 2 is still null I believe). Only after that does the intelligence become 3 via the Celestial template. I don't think you get to retroactively add the intelligence. (I.e apply Half-dragon template. Stop. Now apply Celestial template to this new creature. Stop. Done.) Although I admit it seems slightly dubious using one template to change the type so that a second template which normally doesn't can be used to apply to it. Presumably there was a reason they left out Oozes from the Celestial selection, possibly due to the fact that they are mindless. Shrug. Certainly legal though.The WotC site has been doing a series on examples of exactly this--for instance, applying the half-troll template to an outsider so you can make it a lycanthrope. I'm pretty sure that null stops being null if you change the creature type. For instance, Celestial Vermin become Magical Beasts with an Int of 3. So changing an Ooze to a Dragon should give it an Int of 2. End result is the same, since Celestial minimum Int is 3. In all of those cases, you apply the templates in order from right to left. So it's a Half Celestial (Phrenic Dire Tiger), rather than a Phrenic (Half-Celestial Dire Tiger), which would be illegal. No objections other than the difficulty? Okay, it makes the list. I'll start tackling EL 15 later today.
Erithmu 05-04-07, 12:51 PM	No objections other than the difficulty? Okay, it makes the list. I'll start tackling EL 15 later today. I would worry about the number of character class things that require personal customization as determined by the pitlord. Building the character could be more difficult than running the fight. And with somewhere around 55 - 89 all having class levels, I think that it would just become a burden for pitlords to make these things ... and then to do them without errors.
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 01:28 PM	I would worry about the number of character class things that require personal customization as determined by the pitlord. Building the character could be more difficult than running the fight. And with somewhere around 55 - 89 all having class levels, I think that it would just become a burden for pitlords to make these things ... and then to do them without errors. Yeah... I worried about that. I made sure that no creature had more than 2 'things' that had to be applied (like class levels or templates). But each one is single-classed, with the exception of the Nymph Mystic Theurge, and ability scores use the Elite Array, so all you have to do is pick a few skills to max, feats, prepared spells, and equipment. I don't think it's that bad. Oh, and @TM: Two PCs have fought the Half-Dragon Black Pudding already. I cracked up the first time it happened--I forget who ran it, but it was hilarious. I couldn't read more than a sentence or two at a time without stopping to laugh.
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 02:00 PM	All right, here's what I'm thinking at this point. Campaigns: A character can abandon a cycle in order to join a campaign. ECL 3 quests: Allowed, but restricted to in-cycle only. Out-of-cycle miniquests at other levels: I'm hesitant to nix these, simply because I hate the idea of failing at "mandatory" quests (for allies or PrCs). If these are banned, then I'm going to start going on a miniquest every level to qualify for an ally that I might not be able to take for many, many levels. There has to be a better solution. Starting non-guild quests mid-cycle: I'm indifferent, really. We have a mechanic to support it, so it's possible. Non-guild full quests are so rare at this point, plus you can only do one per level anyway, so I don't see it as a real issue. So it sounds like the "fix" we're looking for is to make all miniquests in-cycle, to allow retries in the same level, and to allow full quests to be started mid-cycle. Can we agree on that?I'm going to take the lack of argument as an agreement. So, to paraphrase: Quests and Miniquests are allowed at all ECLs, but most always be in-cycle. This means that the minimum EL will always be your ECL. Quests and Campaigns can be started mid-cycle. For campaigns, your cycle will be reset; for quests, your cycle will reset in the middle. You may have only one successful quest or miniquest per level. Failures don't count. Edit: Actually, I'm making it so that only failures on quests that benefit your character don't count. I don't want people using up PL resources repeatedly trying to tackle monsters well above their ECL. It's an unlikely abuse, but it's possible.
Erithmu 05-04-07, 02:18 PM	I'm going to take the lack of argument as an agreement. So, to paraphrase: Quests and Miniquests are allowed at all ECLs, but most always be in-cycle. This means that the minimum EL will always be your ECL. Quests and Campaigns can be started mid-cycle. For campaigns, your cycle will be reset; for quests, your cycle will reset in the middle. You may have only one successful quest or miniquest per level. Failures don't count. :thumbsup: Suggestion for next item of discussion: Definition of what is considered 'Defeated' for the purposes of Hunter/FFA (and to a lesser extend 1v1 fights w/ allies) fights as well as what happens to allies (wisked away, remain to fight?)
hogarth 05-04-07, 06:06 PM	The abuses that come to my mind are due to the fact that no one can force a gladiator to "fight hard" on a miniquest. So Reginald Molehusband (say) can try a miniquest for a Diplomacy ally as his first first of a cycle. He makes a mediocre effort, using some of his available power points but no expendables, and he gives up before his allies can die. Then for the second fight of his cycle, he tries again, but again he doesn't try his hardest. Then for his third fight of the cycle, he can "go nova" in the arena because he conserved his resources on the first two fights, and he can keep trying for his Diplomacy ally for as long as it takes. The larger question (to me) is "Why do we force people to go on miniquests?" I'll tackle that question later. I'm going to take the lack of argument as an agreement. So, to paraphrase: Quests and Miniquests are allowed at all ECLs, but most always be in-cycle. This means that the minimum EL will always be your ECL. Quests and Campaigns can be started mid-cycle. For campaigns, your cycle will be reset; for quests, your cycle will reset in the middle. You may have only one successful quest or miniquest per level. Failures don't count. Edit: Actually, I'm making it so that only failures on quests that benefit your character don't count. I don't want people using up PL resources repeatedly trying to tackle monsters well above their ECL. It's an unlikely abuse, but it's possible.
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 06:25 PM	The abuses that come to my mind are due to the fact that no one can force a gladiator to "fight hard" on a miniquest. So Reginald Molehusband (say) can try a miniquest for a Diplomacy ally as his first first of a cycle. He makes a mediocre effort, using some of his available power points but no expendables, and he gives up before his allies can die. Then for the second fight of his cycle, he tries again, but again he doesn't try his hardest. Then for his third fight of the cycle, he can "go nova" in the arena because he conserved his resources on the first two fights, and he can keep trying for his Diplomacy ally for as long as it takes. The larger question (to me) is "Why do we force people to go on miniquests?" I'll tackle that question later. The only way to pull that off is if you're questing for something in particular, like an ally. I suppose you could go on the quest to qualify for assassin when you're a paladin, but I hope we all have more integrity than that. Otherwise, you can do this once per level only.
Zevox 05-04-07, 07:42 PM	Since MWB reminded me of these, heres a revised version of the EL 11 encounter table I came up with a while back. This one any good? 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 Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 15: Advanced (11 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 11] 16: Fiendish Caller in the Darkness [CR 11] 17: Phrenic Efreeti [CR 11] 18: Young Adult Dragon (Blue, Green, or Copper; roll 1d3 for type) [CR 11] 19: Phrenic Young Adult White Dragon [CR 11] 20: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear [CR 11] 21: Ogre Mage Were-Dire Bat [CR 11] 22: Celestial Half-Dragon Black Pudding (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 23: Phrenic Half-Fiend Gray Glutton [CR 11] 24: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 1 [CR 11] 25: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 8 [CR 11] 26: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 6 [CR 11] 27: 2 Phrenic Succubi (Demons) [CR 9] 28: 2 Night Hags [CR 9] 29: 2 Rocs [CR 9] 30: Ten-Headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (roll 1d2 for type) [CR 11] 31: 2 Androsphinxes [CR 9] 32: 3 Erinyes (Devils) [CR 8] 33: 2 Zelekhuts (Inevitables) [CR 9] 34: 1 Greater Fire Elemental and 1 Greater Air Elemental [CR 9] 35: 2 Yrthaks [CR 9] 36: 2 Spirit Nagas [CR 9] 37: 2 Vrocks (Demons) [CR 9] 38: 1 Rakshasa and 1 Efreeti [CR 10 and CR 8] 39: 1 Coautl (Psionic) and 1 Elder Arrowhark [CR 10 and CR 8] 40: 3 Morghs [CR 8] 41: 3 Efreeti [CR 8] 42: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 9 [CR 11] 43: 1 Troll Hunter [CR 11] 44: 1 Gnoll Ranger 5, 2 Invisible Stalkers, 1 Greater Shadow [CR 6, CR 7, and CR 8] 45: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 3 [CR 11] 46: 1 Wood Elf Druid 9 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 9 and 7] 47: 1 Gnome Abjurer 8 and 2 Shield Guardians [CR 8] 48: 1 Half-Fiend Chimera and 2 Half-Fiend Manticores [CR 9 and 7] 49: 1 Tiefling Necromancer 10 and 1 Flesh Golem [CR 10 and CR 7] 50: 2 Half-Dragon Remorhazes [CR 9] 51: 1 Kobold Sorcerer 7 and 1 Half-Dragon Gorgon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 10 and CR 7] 52: Advanced (11 HD) Cerebrelith [CR 11] 53: 2 Avoral Guardianals [CR 9] 54: 1 Ten-Headed Hydra (Pyro or Cryo) [CR 11; roll 1d2 type] 55: Hill Giant Ranger 1/Horizon Walker 4 [CR 11] 56: Elite Advanced (12 HD) Inevitable Zelekhut [CR 11] 57: Elite Advanced (12 HD) Vrock (Demon) [CR 11] 58: Advanced (12 HD) Night Hag [CR 11] 59: Elite Coautl (Psionic) [CR 11] 60: Elite Bebilith (Demon) [CR 11] 61: Elite Rakshasa [CR 11] 62: 1 Rakshasa with Elder Arrowhawk mount [CR 10 & 8] 63: 3 Ogre Mages [CR 8] 64: 3 Hellwasp Swarms [CR 8] 65: 1 Ogre Mage and 2 Shield Guardians [CR 8] 66: 2 Half-Dragon Chimaeras [CR 9; roll 1d10 type] 67: 1 Drow Cleric 7 and 2 Driders [CR 8 and 7] 68: 4 Invisible Stalkers [CR 7] 69: 2 Lillenids and 2 Nymphs [CR 7] 70: 1 Androsphinx and 1 Gynosphinx [CR 9 and CR 8] 71: 4 Spectres [CR 7] 72: 4 Huge Elementals (1 of each type) [CR 7] 73: 2 Half-Celestial Dragonnes [CR 9] 74: 3 Dark Nagas [CR 8] 75: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 9 [CR 11] 76: 1 Half-Fiend Wood Elf Cleric 9 [CR 11] 77: 1 Elite Phrenic Lammasu [CR 11] 78: 1 Half-Giant Psychic Warrior 9 with Advanced (13 HD) Phrenic Pegasus mount [CR 9] 79: 1 Treant and 2 Half-Celestial Tendriculos [CR 8] 80: 2 Sahuagin 7th-level Rangers [CR 9] 81: 2 Nessian Warhounds [CR 9] 82: 3 Titan Skeletons [CR 8] 83: 1 Duergar Fighter 7/Dwarven Defender 3 [CR 11] 84: 1 Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 [CR 11] 85: 2 Advanced (12 HD) Bralani Eladrins [CR 9] 86: 1 Ice Mephit Wilder 9 [CR 11] 87: 1 Werewolf Human Druid 9 [CR 11] 88: 1 Unbodied Psion 6 [CR 11] 89: 1 Ghost Young Gold Dragon [CR 11] 90: 1 Elite Fire Giant [CR 11] 91: 1 Tiefling Wizard 9 with Advanced (10 HD) Phrenic Nightmare mount [CR 9] 92: 1 Ghost Pixie Rogue 5 [CR 11] 93: 1 Elite Gray Slaad 94: 1 Gray Slaad and 1 Blue Slaad [CR 10 and CR 8] 95: 4 Green Slaadi [CR 7] 96: 3 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk Skeletons [CR 8] 97: 3 Elder Xorns [CR 8] 98: 2 Advanced (12 HD) Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts [CR 9] 99: 1 Advanced (12 HD) Elite Half-Fiend Winter Wolf [CR 11] 100: 1 Vampire Half-Giant Cleric 8 [CR 11] Zevox
hogarth 05-04-07, 08:02 PM	The only way to pull that off is if you're questing for something in particular, like an ally. I suppose you could go on the quest to qualify for assassin when you're a paladin, but I hope we all have more integrity than that. Otherwise, you can do this once per level only. There's no shortage of things to miniquest for. A more likely scenario is that a cleric fights his first and second fights of the cycle and then levels up in the middle of the cycle. Then he turns his third fight into a quest for something (diplomacy ally, undead ally, whatever) so that he doesn't have to face another gladiator before buying equipment. If he wins, he gets an ally and if he loses it doesn't count towards his record. So I'd recommend something like having in-cycle miniquests count as monster fights in terms of win/loss records just so that there's at least some kind of downside to losing. My larger question is: why do we make characters miniquest to become a War Mind, Blackguard, Assassin, etc.? Can't I read the Talariic Codex/encounter an evil outsider/kill someone before I come to Gladius? Are we trying to make it more difficult to take those particular prestige classes?
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 08:03 PM	You still have some of the CR's calculated wrong. For instance, the Ice Mephit Wilder: First, monsters with PC classes automatically use the Elite array. Second, the CR is short: CR 3 + 2 unassociated class levels + 5 levels beyond its HD = CR 9. The Vampire Half-Giant is off, too: CR 1 + 9 levels + Vampire = CR 12. There might be others; this is just a quick scan. I'm not a big fan of HD advancement, but I guess there's nothing technically wrong with it. And 2 templated black puddings? Show some mercy, man.
Zevox 05-04-07, 08:19 PM	You still have some of the CR's calculated wrong. For instance, the Ice Mephit Wilder: First, monsters with PC classes automatically use the Elite array. Second, the CR is short: CR 3 + 2 unassociated class levels + 5 levels beyond its HD = CR 9. The Vampire Half-Giant is off, too: CR 1 + 9 levels + Vampire = CR 12. There might be others; this is just a quick scan. I'm not a big fan of HD advancement, but I guess there's nothing technically wrong with it. And 2 templated black puddings? Show some mercy, man. Ah, right, I always forget the wonky 'associated/unassociated" rules for monsters with class levels. So, 2 more levels for the Mephit. I'll do a scan for other things that need that taken care of. How does the Half-Giant have a CR 1 base? I don't see anything in its entry indicating it counts as +1 CR beyond its class levels, and I know that LA+1 isn't counted in CR... HD advancement - nor am I, to be honest. I'm mostly following recommendations I got with the last list, and using advanced monsters was one of them. I tried to stick to ones that didn't need to add a lot for the most part - I think there were two that went from 6 HD to 12, but that was the worst of it. I put in two Black Puddings? Ah, so I did. Heh, the first half of the list is from the original, the second is what I made up today, which explains that. Hm, what to replace the second with... an Unbodied Psion 6 sounds good. Zevox
Zevox 05-04-07, 08:24 PM	Okay then, I'm not sure, do I have these monsters correct CR-wise? I think they're the only ones that might yet be wrong (pending the clarification on the Half-Giant Vampire of course). 80: 2 Sahuagin 7th-level Rangers [CR 9] 84: 1 Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 [CR 11] 92: 1 Ghost Pixie Rogue 5 [CR 11] Zevox
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 08:24 PM	How does the Half-Giant have a CR 1 base? I don't see anything in its entry indicating it counts as +1 CR beyond its class levels, and I know that LA+1 isn't counted in CR...Because a half-giant Warrior is CR 1. If a Warrior of that race is CR 1/2, then its CR is equal to its class levels. But if it's 1, then you subtract 1 (or give it NPC levels instead). See drow, svirfneblin, duergar, etc. for examples.
Zevox 05-04-07, 08:26 PM	Because a half-giant Warrior is CR 1. If a Warrior of that race is CR 1/2, then its CR is equal to its class levels. But if it's 1, then you subtract 1 (or give it NPC levels instead). See drow, svirfneblin, duergar, etc. for examples. All those other races actually say they have CR +1 for class levels, though. Half-Giants don't. Still, if you're certain, I'll subtract a Cleric level from it. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 08:27 PM	Okay then, I'm not sure, do I have these monsters correct CR-wise? I think they're the only ones that might yet be wrong (pending the clarification on the Half-Giant Vampire of course). 80: 2 Sahuagin 7th-level Rangers [CR 9] 84: 1 Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 [CR 11] 92: 1 Ghost Pixie Rogue 5 [CR 11] Zevox The kobold and the pixie, definitely (aside from the egregeous "rouge"). FOr the sahuagin, it depends on whether Ranger is associated, but seeing how that's it's favored class, I'd say it is and it's correct.
Zevox 05-04-07, 08:29 PM	The kobold and the pixie, definitely (aside from the egregeous "rouge"). FOr the sahuagin, it depends on whether Ranger is associated, but seeing how that's it's favored class, I'd say it is and it's correct. Caught the Rogue thing even before you hit the quote button ;) (see the quote in your post). Anyway then, I think the list should be ready, if theres nothing else wrong. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-04-07, 08:44 PM	Caught the Rogue thing even before you hit the quote button ;) (see the quote in your post). Anyway then, I think the list should be ready, if theres nothing else wrong. Zevox Then, done! +2°.
MindWandererB 05-05-07, 01:16 AM	Here's my go at EL 15. Took a page from Zevox's book--for some reason it seemed even harder than EL 16.01: 1 Marut Inevitable (CR 15) 02: 1 Vampire, half-elf monk9/Shadowdancer4 (MM default) (CR 15) 03: 1 Mummy Lord (CR 15) 04: 1 Neothelid (Psionic) (CR 15) 05: 1 Elite Trumpet Archon (CR 15) 06: 1 Elite Astral Deva (angel) (CR 15) 07: 1 Elite Nalfeshnee (demon) (CR 15) 08: 1 Elite Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 15) 09: 2 Beholders (CR 13) 10: Demon troupe: 1 Glabrezu, 1 Succubus, and 3 Vrocks (CR 13, 7, and 9) 11: 4 Barbed Devils (CR 11) 12: 1 Dragon: Old White; Mature Adult Brass; Adult Bronze, Red, or Silver (1d5) (CR 15) 13: 2 Dragons: Adult Green (CR 13) 14: 3 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze (CR 12) 15: Dragon Family: 1 Mature Adult and 3 Young Adult Black, or 1 Adult and 3 Juvenile Copper (CR 14 and 9) 16: 2 Ghaele Eladrin (CR 13) 17: 4 Elder Elementals, 1 of each type (CR 11) 18: 1 Celestial Charger (unicorn) and 1 Golden Protector (lammasu) (CR 13) 19: 1 Werewolf Lord and 1 Displacer Beast Pack Lord (CR 14 and 12) 20: 3 Night Hags and 3 Cauchemar Nightmares (CR 9 and 11) 21: 2 Death Slaadi (CR 13) 22: 3 Celestial Guardian Nagas (CR 12) 23: 1 Celestial Cloud Giant and 1 Fiendish Cloud Giant (CR 13) 24: 2 Fiendish Harpy Archers 25: 4 Half-Celestial Treants (CR 11) 26: 3 Half-Fiend Frost Giants (CR 12) 27: 1 Half-Dragon Celestial Charger (unicorn) (CR 15) 28: 3 Half-Dragon Fire Giants (CR 12) 29: Roll on EL 13 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type) 30: 1 Phrenic 11-headed pyro- or cryohydra (CR 15) 31: 4 Phrenic Avorals (guardinal) (CR 11) 32: 1 Phrenic Rakshasa and 1 Phrenic Cauchemar Nightmare (CR 12 and 14) 33: 4 Phrenic Hellwasp Swarms (CR 11) 34: 1 Ghost Storm Giant (CR 15) 35: 4 Ghost Dire Sharks (CR 11) 36: 1 11th-level Forest Gnome Lich Bard and 1 Iron Golem (CR 13) 37: 3 Hill Giant Were-Dire Bears (CR 12) 38: 1 13th-level Halfling Were-Hawk Psychic Warrior (CR 15) 38: 2 9th-level Minotaur Vampire Fighters (CR 13) 40: 1 Celestial Phrenic Androsphinx and 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Gynosphinx (CR 14 and 12) 41: 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Delver (CR 15) 42: 1 Half-Fiend Phrenic Dragon Turtle (CR 15) 43: 2 Half-Dragon Celestial Rocs (CR 13) 44: 3 Half-Fiend Half-Dragon Dark Nagas (CR 12) 45: 1 11th-level Derro Savant and 2 9th-level Derro Savants (CR 13 and 11) 46: 2 12th-level Hound Archon Monks (CR 13) 47: 1 7th-level Erinyes (devil) Paladin of Tyrrany (CR 15) 48: 1 6th-level Drider Cleric and 1 6th-level Drider Wizard (CR 13) 49: 2 12th-level Ettin Rogues (CR 12) 50: 1 14th-level Janni Druid (CR 15) 51: 1 6th-level Elder Stone Giant Sorcerer and 2 4th-level Stone Giant Barbarians (CR 12) 52: 1 12th-level Githyanki Fighter and 1 Young Adult Red Dragon (CR 13) 53: Githzerai Rrakkma: 1 11th-level Githzerai Sorcerer and 5 8th-level Githzerai Monks (CR 12 and 9) 54: 1 14th-level Harpy Wilder (CR 15) 55: 1 12th-level Invisible Stalker Psion (shaper) (CR 15) 56: 1 9th-level Lamia Psychic Warrior (CR 15) 57: 4 8th-level Magmin Barbarians (CR 11) 58: 3 8th-level Mind Flayer Rogues (CR 12) 59: 1 12th-level Nixie Bard and 2 12th-level Human Warriors (CR 13 and 11) 60: 1 9th-level Half-Celestial Centaur Ranger (CR 15) 61: 1 10th-level Half-Fiend Choker Soulknife (CR 15) 62: 5 7th-level Ghost Dryad Wilders (CR 10) 63: 3 3rd-level Fiendish Medusa Psychic Warriors (CR 12) 64: 1 14th-level Lizardfolk Barbarian (CR 15) 65: 4 11th-level Dromite Bards (CR 11) 66: 1 12th-level Kuo-Toa Cleric and 1 12th-level Kuo-Toa Monk (CR 13) 67: 2 12th-level Drow Druids (CR 13) 68: 1 15th-level Xeph Fighter (CR 15) 69: 1 15th-level Wild Elf Monk (CR 15) 70: 2 12th-level Half-Giant Paladins (CR 13) 71: 3 11th-level Half-orc Rangers (CR 12) 72: 1 15th-level Tallfellow Halfling Wizard (CR 15) 73: 3 12th-level Gnoll Soulknives (CR 12) 74: 2 15th-level Goblin Adepts (CR 13) 75: 3 14th-level Kobold Experts (CR 12) 76: 1 Troglodtye 5th-level Fighter/9th-level Blackguard (CR 15) 77: 1 Blue 14th-level Enchanter/1st-level Archmage 78: 1 Half-Elf 14th-level Cleric/1st-level Hierophant 79: 1 Elan 5th-level Psion (seer)/10th-level Metamind (CR 15) 80: 1 Pixie (sprite) 5th-level Psion (egoist)/6th-level Psion Uncarnate (CR 15) 81: 2 Maenad 5th-level Bard/8th-level War Minds (CR 13) 82: 1 Human 5th-level Psychic Warrior/8th-level Elocator and 1 Human 5th-level Rogue/8th-level Assassin (CR 13) 83: 1 Elite Half-Dragon Elder Black Pudding (CR 15) 84: 1 Elite Fiendish Purple Worm (CR 15) 85: 1 Elite Celestial Frost Worm (CR 15) 86: 2 Elite Half-Dragon Legendary Tigers (CR 13) 87: 2 Thought Slayers (psionic) (CR 13) 88: 3 Psion-Killers (CR 12) 89: 2 Advanced (27 HD) Bulette (CR 13) 90: 1 Advanced (26 HD) Retriever (demon) (CR 15) 91: 3 Advanced (25 HD) Bodaks (CR 12) 92: 1 Advanced (25 HD) Kolyarut (inevitable) (CR 15) 93: 2 Advanced (24 HD) Behir (CR 13) 94: 1 Advanced (24 HD) Chaos Beast (CR 15) 95: 3 Advanced (23 HD) Elder Arrowhawks (CR 12) 96: 3 Advanced (21 HD) Yrthak (CR 12) 97: 2 Advanced (21 HD) Noble Salamanders (CR 13) 98: 1 Advanced (19 HD) Cerebrelith (psionic) (CR 15) 99: 1 Advanced (18 HD) Ice Devil (CR 15) 100:1 Advanced (18 HD) Leonal (guardinal) (CR 15)
Zevox 05-05-07, 02:33 AM	Good heavens man! Those are some terrifying epic HD monsters you've got there! A 40 HD Elemental... sweet Jesus, even at level 15 I don't see anyone beating that unless it rolls a natural 1 vs a save-or-die. I know I put a few evil ones into that EL 11 list (the Ettin Were-Legendary Bear, Titan Skeletons, and templated Black Pudding mainly), but some of those are just insane. The only things that normally get HD that high before epic CRs are Dragons and the Tarrasque. And some of those are in groups of 3 or 4... Might I suggest at least taking out that Elemental? Those things are scary enough as is, but advanced to HDs of that level... ow. Off the top of my head, you could replace it with things like 2 Thought Slayers (EL 13), 3 Psion Killers (EL 12), or even a 19 HD Cerebrelith (CR 15) and it'd be much more sane. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-05-07, 02:47 AM	Good heavens man! Those are some terrifying epic HD monsters you've got there! A 40 HD Elemental... sweet Jesus, even at level 15 I don't see anyone beating that unless it rolls a natural 1 vs a save-or-die. I know I put a few evil ones into that EL 11 list (the Ettin Were-Legendary Bear, Titan Skeletons, and templated Black Pudding mainly), but some of those are just insane. The only things that normally get HD that high before epic CRs are Dragons and the Tarrasque. And some of those are in groups of 3 or 4... Might I suggest at least taking out that Elemental? Those things are scary enough as is, but advanced to HDs of that level... ow. Off the top of my head, you could replace it with things like 2 Thought Slayers (EL 13), 3 Psion Killers (EL 12), or even a 19 HD Cerebrelith (CR 15) and it'd be much more sane. Zevox I'll take a look at it later, but you're probably right. One of the self-imposed restrictions is that I try very, very hard to use the "organization" entries correctly. Edit: All right, the worst offenders have been changed. I simply forgot to go through the psionic material for multiples. Although it still has over 900 HP worth of Chuul.... Edit 2: Those Chuul are gone; I'll probably make a few more changes vis-a-vis templated psionic creatures. Edit 3: Okay, take a look now.
Sjiggie 05-05-07, 05:52 PM	100:2 Mummy Lords and 2 Devourers (CR 13 and 11) Mummy Lords are CR 15 creatures the are listed wrong in the back of the MM as CR 13 but their entry list them as CR 15 as does the SRD. Here is my take at the EL 14 table. Please review and criticise 01: 1 Trumpet Archon (CR14) 02: 1 Astral Deva (Angel) (CR14) 03: 1 Nalfeshnee (Demon) (CR14) 04: 1 Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 14) 05: 1 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR14) 06: 1 Werewolf Lord (Lycanthrope) (CR14) 07: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Gold Dragon; Adult Blue or Copper; Mature Adult Black (CR 14) 08: 2 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12) 09: 2 Elder Black Pudding (CR 12) 10: 2 Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 12) 11: 2 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze Dragon; Adult Brass Dragon; Mature Adult White Dragon (CR 12) 12: 2 Frost Worms (CR 12) 13: 2 11-Headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra (CR 12) 14: 2 Kolyarut (Inevitable) (CR 12) 15: 2 Leonel (Guardinal) (CR 12) 16: 2 Collosal Monstrous Scorpion (CR 12) 17: 2 Purple Worms (CR 12) 18: 2 Psion Killers (CR 12) 19: 2 Roper (CR 12) 20: 3 Barbed Devils (CR 11) 21: 3 Cauchemare (Nightmare) (CR 11) 22: 3 Devourer (CR 11) 23: 3 Dragons: Juvenile Gold Dragon; Young Adult Green, Blue or Copper Dragon; Adult Black Dragon (CR 11) 24: 3 Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) (CR 11) 25: 3 Cloud Giants (CR 11) 26: 3 Stone Golem (CR 11) 27: 3 Half-celestial 9th level Human Paladin (CR 11) 28: 3 Golden Protector (Celestail Half-Dragon Lammasu) (CR 11) 29: 3 Harpy Archer (CR 11) 30: 3 Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (Lycanthrope) (CR 11) 31: 3 Hezrou (Demon) (CR 11) 32: 3 10-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 11) 33: 3 12-Headed Hydra (CR 11) 34: 3 Collosal Monstrous Spider (CR 11) 35: 3 Retriever (Demon) (CR 11) 36: 3 Troll Hunter (CR 11) 37: 4 Colossal Animated Object (CR 10) 38: 4 Bebilith (Demon) (CR 10) 39: 4 Couatl (CR 10) 40: 4 Formian, Myrmach (CR 10) 41: 4 Fire Giant (CR 10) 42: 4 Clay Golem (CR 10) 43: 4 11-Headed Hydra (CR 10) 44: 4 9-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 10) 45: 4 Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (CR 10) 46: 4 Guardian Nage (CR 10) 47: 4 Rakshasa (CR 10) 48: 4 Noble Salamander (CR 10) 49: 4 Gray Slaad (CR 10) 50: 3 Half-Dragon Frost Giants (1d10 for type) (CR 11) 51: 1 Half-Dragon Leonal (Guardian) (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 52: 1 Half-Dragon Displacer Beast Pack Lord (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 53: 1 Half-Fiend Cloud Giant (CR 14) 54: 1 Half-Fiend Harpy Archer (CR 14) 55: 1 Half-Fiend Cauchemar (Nightmare) (CR 14) 56: 1 Half-Fiend Troll Hunter (CR 14) 57: 1 Phrenic Barbed Devil (Devil) (CR 14) 58: 1 Phrenic Devourer (CR 14) 59: 1 7th-level Chimera Barbarian (CR 14) 60: 2 4th-level Stone Giants Fighter (CR 12) 61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14) 62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14) 63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12) 64: 3 8th-level Yuan-ti Pureblood Rangers (CR 11) 65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12) 66: 1 6th-level Dark Naga Sorcerer (CR 14) 67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14) 68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14) 69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5) 70: 2 8th-level Areana Sorcerer (CR 12) 71: 2 11th-level Githyanki Wilder (CR 12) 72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard (CR 14) 73: 1 14th-level Dwarf Fighter (CR 14) 74: 1 14th-level Elf Wizard (CR 14) 75: 1 14th-level Half-orc Barbarian (CR 14) 76: 1 14th-level Halfling Rogue (CR 14) 77: 1 13th-level Drow Cleric (CR 14) 78: 1 13th level Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (CR 14) 79: 1 12th-level Human Lich Wizard (CR 14) 80: 1 Ice Devil (Gelugon) + 2 Bone Devil (Osyluth) (CR 13) (CR 9) 81: 1 Storm Giant + 2 Rocs {CR 13) (CR 9) 82: 1 Glabrezu (Demon) +2 Vrocks (Demon) (CR 13) (CR 9) 83: 1 8th-level Celestial Charger (Unicorn) Cleric (CR 14) 84: 1 Advanced (22HD) Iron Golem (CR 14) 85: 1 Advanced (14HD) Ghaele (Eladrin) (CR 14) 86: 1 5th-level Avoral (Guardian) Paladin (CR 14) 87: 2 5th-level Dragonne Paladin (CR 12) 88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10) 89: 2 6th-level Xill Rogue (CR 12) 90: 1 9th-level Unbodied Psion (CR 14) 91: 3 7th-level Gargoyle Fighter (CR 11) 92: 1 9th-level Weretiger (Lycanthrope) Ranger (CR 14) 93: 1 12th-level Human Ghost (CR 14) 94: 3 Advanced (22HD) Triceratops (CR 11) 95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10) 96: 4 Advanced (22HD) Dire Tiger (CR 10) 97: 3 Advanced (16HD) Destrachan (CR 12) 98: 1 6th-level Athach Barbarian (CR 14) 99: 3 Fiendish Yrthak (CR 11) 100: 2 Fiendish Razor Boars (CR 12)
templer10 05-05-07, 06:02 PM	4 9 headed cryo/pyro hydra - that's 36! breath weapons every 2d4 rounds. you will need CL 8 ressist energy or ML 9 energy adaptation - NOT what i call cheap expendables - even at that level - and a correct identification to negate that and you still have to deal with the insane rapid healing and the 36 attacks per round (in theory anyway). btw- anyone thought that with higher ECLS we are going to need some bigger maps probably, i mean wher edo you put 4 collosal animated objects- you can barely fit that in the plains....
Zevox 05-05-07, 06:03 PM	I'll take a look at it later, but you're probably right. One of the self-imposed restrictions is that I try very, very hard to use the "organization" entries correctly. Edit: All right, the worst offenders have been changed. I simply forgot to go through the psionic material for multiples. Although it still has over 900 HP worth of Chuul.... Edit 2: Those Chuul are gone; I'll probably make a few more changes vis-a-vis templated psionic creatures. Edit 3: Okay, take a look now. Better. I was kinda scared when I noticed the two elite legendary tigers (not sure if they were there before or not, but I just noticed them), but I suppose they're not that bad given they can't fly. Thats a lot of hp they'll have though - probably close on 800 between them after the con boost from being elite. Otherwise, outside of what Sjiggie said about the Mummy Lord, looks good to me. Zevox
Hirumajoe 05-05-07, 06:10 PM	Better. I was kinda scared when I noticed the two elite legendary tigers (not sure if they were there before or not, but I just noticed them), but I suppose they're not that bad given they can't fly. Thats a lot of hp they'll have though - probably close on 800 between them after the con boost from being elite. Zevox Are you refering to the two Half-Dragon elite legendary tigers? In which case they do fly... At 100' (Average).
Zevox 05-05-07, 06:47 PM	Are you refering to the two Half-Dragon elite legendary tigers? In which case they do fly... At 100' (Average). Oh. Missed that part. Yeah... and Half-Dragon is yet another +2 con too... not to mention the +8 str... ow. Zevox
NiQil 05-05-07, 07:01 PM	Oh. Missed that part. Yeah... and Half-Dragon is yet another +2 con too... not to mention the +8 str... ow. Zevox And what are those will saves again?
Zevox 05-05-07, 07:08 PM	And what are those will saves again? +12, before any wisdom boost from the elite array. Zevox
NiQil 05-05-07, 07:32 PM	+12, before any wisdom boost from the elite array. Zevox In other words, no problem for any finger-wiggler worth his salt to be able to assault that Will save with a few save-or-dies at that level. Melee characters, on the other hand, may just want to sit down and cry.
MindWandererB 05-06-07, 02:47 AM	I hade already fixed the mummies in the final version--caught that as I was doing the EL 15 table. I wouldn't have done the EL 14 table that way--many creatures listed as "solitary" that are in groups, some of them large--but there's nothing technically wrong with it at a glance. I'll do the math on the class levels a bit later.
MindWandererB 05-07-07, 05:26 PM	01: 1 Trumpet Archon (CR14) 02: 1 Astral Deva (Angel) (CR14) 03: 1 Nalfeshnee (Demon) (CR14) 04: 1 Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 14) 05: 1 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR14) 06: 1 Werewolf Lord (Lycanthrope) (CR14) 07: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Gold Dragon; Adult Blue or Copper; Mature Adult Black (CR 14) 08: 2 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12) 09: 2 Elder Black Pudding (CR 12) 10: 2 Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 12) 11: 2 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze Dragon; Adult Brass Dragon; Mature Adult White Dragon (CR 12) 12: 2 Frost Worms (CR 12) 13: 2 11-Headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra (CR 12) 14: 2 Kolyarut (Inevitable) (CR 12) 15: 2 Leonel (Guardinal) (CR 12) 16: 2 Collosal Monstrous Scorpion (CR 12) 17: 2 Purple Worms (CR 12) 18: 2 Psion Killers (CR 12) 19: 2 Roper (CR 12) 20: 3 Barbed Devils (CR 11) 21: 3 Cauchemare (Nightmare) (CR 11) 22: 3 Devourer (CR 11) 23: 3 Dragons: Juvenile Gold Dragon; Young Adult Green, Blue or Copper Dragon; Adult Black Dragon (CR 11) 24: 3 Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) (CR 11) 25: 3 Cloud Giants (CR 11) 26: 3 Stone Golem (CR 11) 27: 3 Half-celestial 9th level Human Paladin (CR 11) 28: 3 Golden Protector (Celestail Half-Dragon Lammasu) (CR 11) 29: 3 Harpy Archer (CR 11) 30: 3 Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (Lycanthrope) (CR 11) 31: 3 Hezrou (Demon) (CR 11) 32: 3 10-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 11) 33: 3 12-Headed Hydra (CR 11) 34: 3 Collosal Monstrous Spider (CR 11) 35: 3 Retriever (Demon) (CR 11) 36: 3 Troll Hunter (CR 11) 37: 4 Colossal Animated Object (CR 10) 38: 4 Bebilith (Demon) (CR 10) 39: 4 Couatl (CR 10) 40: 4 Formian, Myrmach (CR 10) 41: 4 Fire Giant (CR 10) 42: 4 Clay Golem (CR 10) 43: 4 11-Headed Hydra (CR 10) 44: 4 9-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 10) 45: 4 Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (CR 10) 46: 4 Guardian Nage (CR 10) 47: 4 Rakshasa (CR 10) 48: 4 Noble Salamander (CR 10) 49: 4 Gray Slaad (CR 10) 50: 3 Half-Dragon Frost Giants (1d10 for type) (CR 11) 51: 1 Half-Dragon Leonal (Guardian) (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 52: 1 Half-Dragon Displacer Beast Pack Lord (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 53: 1 Half-Fiend Cloud Giant (CR 14) 54: 1 Half-Fiend Harpy Archer (CR 14) 55: 1 Half-Fiend Cauchemar (Nightmare) (CR 14) 56: 1 Half-Fiend Troll Hunter (CR 14) 57: 1 Phrenic Barbed Devil (Devil) (CR 14) 58: 1 Phrenic Devourer (CR 14) 59: 1 7th-level Chimera Barbarian (CR 14) 60: 2 4th-level Stone Giants Fighter (CR 12) 61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14) 62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14) 63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12) 64: 3 8th-level Yuan-ti Pureblood Rangers (CR 11) 65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12) 66: 1 6th-level Dark Naga Sorcerer (CR 14) 67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14) 68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14) 69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5) 70: 2 8th-level Areana Sorcerer (CR 12) 71: 2 11th-level Githyanki Wilder (CR 12) 72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard (CR 14) 73: 1 14th-level Dwarf Fighter (CR 14) 74: 1 14th-level Elf Wizard (CR 14) 75: 1 14th-level Half-orc Barbarian (CR 14) 76: 1 14th-level Halfling Rogue (CR 14) 77: 1 13th-level Drow Cleric (CR 14) 78: 1 13th level Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (CR 14) 79: 1 12th-level Human Lich Wizard (CR 14) 80: 1 Ice Devil (Gelugon) + 2 Bone Devil (Osyluth) (CR 13) (CR 9) 81: 1 Storm Giant + 2 Rocs {CR 13) (CR 9) 82: 1 Glabrezu (Demon) +2 Vrocks (Demon) (CR 13) (CR 9) 83: 1 8th-level Celestial Charger (Unicorn) Cleric (CR 14) 84: 1 Advanced (22HD) Iron Golem (CR 14) 85: 1 Advanced (14HD) Ghaele (Eladrin) (CR 14) 86: 1 5th-level Avoral (Guardian) Paladin (CR 14) 87: 2 5th-level Dragonne Paladin (CR 12) 88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10) 89: 2 6th-level Xill Rogue (CR 12) 90: 1 9th-level Unbodied Psion (CR 14) 91: 3 7th-level Gargoyle Fighter (CR 11) 92: 1 9th-level Weretiger (Lycanthrope) Ranger (CR 14) 93: 1 12th-level Human Ghost (CR 14) 94: 3 Advanced (22HD) Triceratops (CR 11) 95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10) 96: 4 Advanced (22HD) Dire Tiger (CR 10) 97: 3 Advanced (16HD) Destrachan (CR 12) 98: 1 6th-level Athach Barbarian (CR 14) 99: 3 Fiendish Yrthak (CR 11) 100: 2 Fiendish Razor Boars (CR 12) Some of those are just odd. 4 Hydra? A Half-Fiend Fiend? Again, not techically wrong, but.... There are mistakes with the class levels, as I suspected. 61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14) - Unassociated. Needs to be 8th level. 62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14) - You need a race on that one. 63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12) - Bizarre as it may seem, ranger is unassociated with creatures that have no stealth or other rangerlike abilities. These would have to be level 11. 65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12) - Again, no race. 67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14) - Again, unassociated, since it has no innate manifester level. It gets to be level 10. 68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14) - 7 racial HD and 4 class HD makes 11, so the template adds +3 CR. That's CR 15. Unfortunately, if you drop a class level, it falls to CR 13. 69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5) - This comes out oddly; the math makes it come out as a CR 13.5, not 14. Don't trust the online calculator for this; it rounds. 88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10) - Same as the ettin. They have to be level 9. 95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10) - First of all, Shield Guardians are CR 8. Second, this comes out to CR 13.5 again.
Rauul 05-07-07, 05:40 PM	this should be a simple one.. but it seems to have gotten passed over yet again...(3rd time i believe) Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs I suggested No Expendables and using the NPC chart for starting income (or allowing the Player to outfit them the week they get then by buying within cycle (Again No expendables)) but thats just me..
Sjiggie 05-07-07, 08:27 PM	Some of those are just odd. 4 Hydra? A Half-Fiend Fiend? Again, not techically wrong, but.... There are mistakes with the class levels, as I suspected. 61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14) - Unassociated. Needs to be 8th level. 62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14) - You need a race on that one. 63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12) - Bizarre as it may seem, ranger is unassociated with creatures that have no stealth or other rangerlike abilities. These would have to be level 11. 65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12) - Again, no race. 67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14) - Again, unassociated, since it has no innate manifester level. It gets to be level 10. 68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14) - 7 racial HD and 4 class HD makes 11, so the template adds +3 CR. That's CR 15. Unfortunately, if you drop a class level, it falls to CR 13. 69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5) - This comes out oddly; the math makes it come out as a CR 13.5, not 14. Don't trust the online calculator for this; it rounds. 88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10) - Same as the ettin. They have to be level 9. 95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10) - First of all, Shield Guardians are CR 8. Second, this comes out to CR 13.5 again. I will go over the points you adressed later this week. Some CR are calculated as 13.9 or 13.8 I didn't use the wizards encouter calculator because I knew that it rounds the number.
Rauul 05-08-07, 05:40 AM	Don't know if anyone is working on ECL 12 Monsters list.. but here is one i have been working on (only 1-51 done so far) can you tell me if i am doing it right? 01: Half-dragon Athach [CR 12] 02: Advanced (12hd) Hezrou (Demon) [CR 12] 03: Advanced (12hd) Retriever (Demon) [CR 12] 04: vampire Centaur Ranger Level 7 With Dire wolf Animal Companion [CR 12] 05: Drider Half-dragon Sorcerer 3(9) [CR 12] 06: Advanced (25hd) Elder Earth Elemental [CR 12] 07: Advanced (25hd) Elder Fire Elemental [CR 12] 08: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12] 09: Hill Giant Dire Wereboar Fighter 1 [CR 12] 10: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12] 11: Eleven-Headed Hydra-Pyro [CR 12] 12: Vampire Human wizard Level 10 [CR 12] 13: Advanced (10hd) Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 12] 14: Advanced (19hd) Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12] 15: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 2 [CR 12] 16: Advanced (13 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 12] 17: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear Fighter 1 [CR 12] 18: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 9 [CR 12] 19: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 7 [CR 12] 20: Hill Giant Ranger 1/Horizon Walker 5 [CR 12] 21: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Inevitable Zelekhut [CR 12] 22: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Vrock (Demon) [CR 12] 23: Advanced (13 HD) Night Hag [CR 12] 24: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 4 [CR 12] 25: 1 Wood Elf Druid 10 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 10 and 7] 26: 1 Drow Cleric 8 and 2 Driders [CR 9 and 7] 27: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 10 [CR 12] 28: 1 Half-Fiend Wood Elf Cleric 10 [CR 12] 29: 1 Vampire Half-Giant Cleric 9 [CR 12] 30: 1 Air Mephit Psion 9 [CR 12] 31: 1 Magma Mephit Sorcerer 9 [CR 12] 32: 1 Earth Mephit soulknife 9 [CR 12] 33: 1 Ice Mephit Wizard 9 [CR 12] 34: 1 Werewolf Wood Elf Druid 10 [CR 12] 35: 1 Unbodied Psion 7 [CR 12] 36: 1 Half-Celestial Guardian Naga [CR 12] 37: Advanced (10 HD) Half-Fiend Spirit Naga [CR 12] 38: 1 Frost Worm [CR 12] 39: 1 Fiendish Fire Giant [CR 12] 40: 1 Half-Dragon Stone Giant Elder 1 Half-Dragon Paragon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12] 41: 3 Gray Render Zombie [CR 12] 42: 1 Ooze Mephit wizard 9 [CR 12] 43: 1 Steam Mephit druid 9 [CR 12] 44: 1 Salt Mephit Bard 9 [CR 12] 45: 1 Human Fallen Paladin 6 blackguard 6 [CR 12] 46: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 6 Sorcerer 2 Arcane Archer 4 [CR 12] 47: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 3 Cleric 3 Mystic Theurge 6 [CR 12] 48: 1 Elan Psion 3 Wizard 3 Cerebremancer 6 [CR 12] 49: 1 Half-giant Psiwarrior 5 war mind 6 [CR 12] 50: 1 Githzerai Monk 11 [CR 12] 51: 1 Githzerai Monk 5 psionic Fist 6 [CR 12]
MindWandererB 05-08-07, 03:56 PM	Don't know if anyone is working on ECL 12 Monsters list.. but here is one i have been working on (only 1-51 done so far) can you tell me if i am doing it right? 01: Half-dragon Athach [CR 12] 02: Advanced (12hd) Hezrou (Demon) [CR 12] 03: Advanced (12hd) Retriever (Demon) [CR 12] 04: vampire Centaur Ranger Level 7 With Dire wolf Animal Companion [CR 12] 05: Drider Half-dragon Sorcerer 3(9) [CR 12] 06: Advanced (25hd) Elder Earth Elemental [CR 12] 07: Advanced (25hd) Elder Fire Elemental [CR 12] 08: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12] 09: Hill Giant Dire Wereboar Fighter 1 [CR 12] 10: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12] 11: Eleven-Headed Hydra-Pyro [CR 12] 12: Vampire Human wizard Level 10 [CR 12] 13: Advanced (10hd) Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 12] 14: Advanced (19hd) Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12] 15: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 2 [CR 12] 16: Advanced (13 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 12] 17: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear Fighter 1 [CR 12] 18: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 9 [CR 12] 19: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 7 [CR 12] 20: Hill Giant Ranger 1/Horizon Walker 5 [CR 12] 21: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Inevitable Zelekhut [CR 12] 22: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Vrock (Demon) [CR 12] 23: Advanced (13 HD) Night Hag [CR 12] 24: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 4 [CR 12] 25: 1 Wood Elf Druid 10 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 10 and 7] 26: 1 Drow Cleric 8 and 2 Driders [CR 9 and 7] 27: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 10 [CR 12] 28: 1 Half-Fiend Wood Elf Cleric 10 [CR 12] 29: 1 Vampire Half-Giant Cleric 9 [CR 12] 30: 1 Air Mephit Psion 9 [CR 12] 31: 1 Magma Mephit Sorcerer 9 [CR 12] 32: 1 Earth Mephit soulknife 9 [CR 12] 33: 1 Ice Mephit Wizard 9 [CR 12] 34: 1 Werewolf Wood Elf Druid 10 [CR 12] 35: 1 Unbodied Psion 7 [CR 12] 36: 1 Half-Celestial Guardian Naga [CR 12] 37: Advanced (10 HD) Half-Fiend Spirit Naga [CR 12] 38: 1 Frost Worm [CR 12] 39: 1 Fiendish Fire Giant [CR 12] 40: 1 Half-Dragon Stone Giant Elder 1 Half-Dragon Paragon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12] 41: 3 Gray Render Zombie [CR 12] 42: 1 Ooze Mephit wizard 9 [CR 12] 43: 1 Steam Mephit druid 9 [CR 12] 44: 1 Salt Mephit Bard 9 [CR 12] 45: 1 Human Fallen Paladin 6 blackguard 6 [CR 12] 46: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 6 Sorcerer 2 Arcane Archer 4 [CR 12] 47: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 3 Cleric 3 Mystic Theurge 6 [CR 12] 48: 1 Elan Psion 3 Wizard 3 Cerebremancer 6 [CR 12] 49: 1 Half-giant Psiwarrior 5 war mind 6 [CR 12] 50: 1 Githzerai Monk 11 [CR 12] 51: 1 Githzerai Monk 5 psionic Fist 6 [CR 12] At a quick glance, there are several of those that are incorrectly calculated. For instance CR 10 + CR 7 + CR 7 is EL 11.5. Also double check the associated and unassociated class levels. I don't have time right now to check all the HD advancements. With that, I'm laying claim to the EL 13 table for myself. I have a few ideas for entries that I'm not willing to part with, so that will be my next project, and complete the set until we need EL 17+.
McJarvis 05-08-07, 06:03 PM	RE: Rob Store package & expendables. I really think the "Rob Store" package should include items beyond expendables. Items I'm specifically thinking of are things like a quiver of arrows, a dose of poison, an elixir of hiding, an arrow of sleeping, and at higher levels: arrow of slaying, a wand, etc. I'm pretty sure Rob Store got the language it did for balance reasons on the side of "Burglary", but it really doesn't need it. The store isn't in danger of not being able to fight back if you take all of it's arrows ;)
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 08:37 PM	RE: Rob Store package & expendables. I really think the "Rob Store" package should include items beyond expendables. Items I'm specifically thinking of are things like a quiver of arrows, a dose of poison, an elixir of hiding, an arrow of sleeping, and at higher levels: arrow of slaying, a wand, etc. I'm pretty sure Rob Store got the language it did for balance reasons on the side of "Burglary", but it really doesn't need it. The store isn't in danger of not being able to fight back if you take all of it's arrows ;) That seems reasonable--I can't see any abuse offhand. I think it's time to tackle the issue of wands and other expendables. The way I see it, here's the situation as it stands: Wands: Restricted to DMG list only for both what spells can be used and their caster level; other options with credits. Potions: Same as wands. Scrolls: Although there is a DMG list, scrolls are allowed of any spell and at any level, even including metamagic. Psionic items: There is no list; all powers are allowed and at any ML, and with metapsionics. There are a couple of ways to make this a little more consistent. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion. Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2). As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.If the limitations are made more stringent, we might cut the cost (for instance, allow a character to buy a certain expendable an unlimited number of times for a flat fee). It's also worth mentioning at this time that the "Living Characters" add-on might provide an alternative way of obtaining limit-breaking items. That's still in the brainstorming stage, though.
Macbrea 05-09-07, 09:25 PM	I am for option 2.
McJarvis 05-09-07, 09:31 PM	#2 gives credits a dramatic power edge instead of merely additional options, particularly in the case of enlarged dorjes. (spend credits, improve your item for no gp cost. spending credits in this case is always preferable.)
hogarth 05-09-07, 09:38 PM	No matter what gets decided, I would vote for #5.
NiQil 05-09-07, 09:40 PM	I would vote for option 1. Option 2 puts our expendable rules in direct violation of the RAW. I have no problem with wands/scrolls, etc being able to be made with any qualifying spell. As long as the rest of our expendable restrictions stay in place (max CL is your ECL for charged items, scrolls/stones max is ECL+2, etc), I think this would be the easiest to implement and probably the option that most closely resembles the RAW, as well as the one that requires the smallest adjustment to the rest of our houserules.
McJarvis 05-09-07, 10:05 PM	I know it's a minor issue, but if I could get elders(NiQil :P ) to vote on the Rob Store issue that led into the expendables discussion, that'd be super.
Rauul 05-09-07, 10:56 PM	If i had a Vote I would say Option 2 with the option 5 clause
Zevox 05-09-07, 11:29 PM	There are a couple of ways to make this a little more consistent. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion. Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2). As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.If the limitations are made more stringent, we might cut the cost (for instance, allow a character to buy a certain expendable an unlimited number of times for a flat fee). I'm sure I'll surprise no one by saying I'm all for #1. I see no reason whatsoever for the table-based restriction on wands/potions/oils, especially when we don't use the table on scrolls, and have no tables to use on psionic items. I don't like the idea of #3, limiting everything to minimum CL/ML - unless we want to make expendables much weaker, which with the cap in place I don't think we do, theres neither need for nor benefit to that. I will add, however, that I would be fine with #2, with the provision spelled out in #5 (in other words, open for anything except metamagic/psionic, which cost credits, but those that can craft them don't need to pay for metamagic/psionic items). I do like how that eliminates the free energy substitution and enlarge power items, but it would be silly to prevent those that can make them themselves from doing so without credits. Zevox
Zevox 05-09-07, 11:33 PM	I know it's a minor issue, but if I could get elders(NiQil :P ) to vote on the Rob Store issue that led into the expendables discussion, that'd be super. *shrugs* MWB already said he thought it was fine. I agree with him - it doesn't seem too terribly abusable to me. I'm well aware of how slowly the multiplier for those packages grows (Featylec can only burgle about twice the amount of items now that he could back at level 4, and he has always maxed out his search skill) - I doubt anyone could even get a CL/SL 1 Wand until level 10 or higher at bare minimum. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-10-07, 12:28 AM	Option #2 + option #5 for expendables/items.
Vathelokai 05-10-07, 01:26 AM	this should be a simple one.. but it seems to have gotten passed over yet again...(3rd time i believe) Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs I suggested No Expendables and using the NPC chart for starting income (or allowing the Player to outfit them the week they get then by buying within cycle (Again No expendables)) but thats just me..I appologize, but I missed the original context. Which NPCs are you refering to? Hired warriors, allies, random 'monster' opponenets? RE: Rob Store package & expendables. I really think the "Rob Store" package should include items beyond expendables. Items I'm specifically thinking of are things like a quiver of arrows, a dose of poison, an elixir of hiding, an arrow of sleeping, and at higher levels: arrow of slaying, a wand, etc. I'm pretty sure Rob Store got the language it did for balance reasons on the side of "Burglary", but it really doesn't need it. The store isn't in danger of not being able to fight back if you take all of it's arrows ;) Sounds fine to me. You would have to have a mighty high modifier to get the dangerous stuff, and that won't be possible until you have to deal with characters who can avoid such things. Of course, if you figure out how to break it (slayer or dislocator arrows may be an issue), we will have to review it. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion. Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2). As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements. I like 1. I could see a combo of 3 and 5 working well. I wonder about the higher leagues opening up - not having to pay 15 credits for my customs staffs will be potentially abuseable.
Zevox 05-10-07, 02:02 AM	I wonder about the higher leagues opening up - not having to pay 15 credits for my customs staffs will be potentially abuseable. Well now we're not talking about staffs here, are we? I see the discussion involving scrolls, potions/oils, and wands, plus their psionic equivalents, based on what MWB wrote. Staffs/Psicrowns are another story - being as heavily customizable they are they more closely resemble custom wondrous items than expendable magic items. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 03:22 AM	Well now we're not talking about staffs here, are we? I see the discussion involving scrolls, potions/oils, and wands, plus their psionic equivalents, based on what MWB wrote. Staffs/Psicrowns are another story - being as heavily customizable they are they more closely resemble custom wondrous items than expendable magic items. Zevox Right; staffs, like psicrowns, would continue to be treated as they are in any event. Either you pick from the pregenerated ones, or you go to the blackmarket.
templer10 05-10-07, 06:13 AM	not that i have a say in this But i think option 3 is the worst possible - especially when taking into account the higher ECL's opening up since it will make essentially all augmantable powers useless at above ecl 3-4 and some powers completely useless (expansion, compression, grease etc) when used in dorja, stones - also it seem 2 much of a nerf compared to wands and scrolls which carry no such limit (unless you are meaning to also limte scrolls/wands). adding option 5 to either option 3 or 2 is plain a bad idia in my opinion - craft feats are already very powerfull here - do we really need to make them a must have for every caster? option 4 will just create/maintain the inconsistency we have now which is bad. option 2- while bearable is less desirable in my opinion then option 1 for the obvios reason that it gives credits even more power then before. i favor option 1 for it's simplicity and the fairness and greater balance across the board it will cerate between psionics and magic. p.s. - do remmber that and dorjas are still more expensive to make (when augmanted) then wands of equal caster level so there is really no reason to limit dorjas - the price is a good limitatation - until about ML4 for example - e-ray is more or less a good investment but beyond that the price gets ridiculos and the ands price stay consistent across the board. ML5 dorja of enlarged e-ray - 75 range - 5d6 dmg - Avg - 17.5 (and it needs to hit) 11250 GP MM (cl9) wand - 190 range, 5d4+5 dmg - 17.5 avg (and it doenst ned to hit) 6750 GP.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 08:26 AM	I really think #2 should be striked from the list. Rule 0 of credits is that they merely offer more options, not more power. In the case of psionic metamagic(enlarge), they would merely be offering more power.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 01:26 PM	*shrugs* MWB already said he thought it was fine. I agree with him - it doesn't seem too terribly abusable to me. Sounds fine to me. You would have to have a mighty high modifier to get the dangerous stuff, and that won't be possible until you have to deal with characters who can avoid such things That seems reasonable--I can't see any abuse offhand. 2 Elders and a GM have voted. Does that make it legit?
Sunwolf 05-10-07, 02:02 PM	Procedural question on when the leagues 10-15 open: Do all frozen characters reset their 3FC when the lvl 10 and up league opens so everyone starts on even footing?
TelinArtho 05-10-07, 02:14 PM	2 Elders and a GM have voted. Does that make it legit? I would also agree that it is not terribly abusable - so that gives you three elders.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 02:28 PM	I would also agree that it is not terribly abusable - so that gives you three elders. Excellent. My plans procede smoothly :emp: Really-> it isn't for anything broken, just versatility. You never know when a 20-stack of alchemical silver arrows can come in handy, or a dose of poison against an opponent without an anti-toxin vial. [or an elixir of hiding, in case you already bought that tattoo of chameleon] RE: How high can it get? At level 10 I'd say 2 +5 items is reasonable. With the build I'm thinking of you could get a +7 or +8 dex bonus at that point too. 6+8(dex)+2(synergy/tool)+5(item)=21. Squared= 441 Nothing major. Still nice, though. (especially when compared to perform/craft/other money-making skills) Maybe even a level 0 wand for delivering sneak attacks with.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 02:32 PM	From a world point, 3+5 probably makes the most sense (although anything mentioned specifically in the SRD or their psionic equivalents still would not require credits, e.g. wand of magic missile at CL 3, or augmented tattoos that improve AC or attack bonus, as such things are mentioned as higher level potions)--higher-level items aren't illegal, so you can make them yourself without credits, but they're also not common, so you need credits to buy them. 3 without 5 is a bad idea, as templer10 pointed out.
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 03:12 PM	All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion. Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2). As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.If the limitations are made more stringent, we might cut the cost (for instance, allow a character to buy a certain expendable an unlimited number of times for a flat fee). It's also worth mentioning at this time that the "Living Characters" add-on might provide an alternative way of obtaining limit-breaking items. That's still in the brainstorming stage, though. I'm favor a version of #2 with the typical cap for expandable items CL. Tattoos and potions and magic times with charges being max CL equal to ECL allowing credits to buy items of higher CL. So expendable items w/o a required class feature to use them all fall into this category. Metamagic versions could be available with credits. Then wands and scrolls (and psionic equivalents) being allowed at caster level+2 with credits required for higher CL or metamagic. Then we can treat staffs like wands, except use some of the ideas proposed earlier to prevent them from being better than wands.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 03:18 PM	2 Elders and a GM have voted. Does that make it legit? Yep, pretty much. I'll edit that rule now. Edit: Although, the rule does still say just one item. That would rule out the silver arrows. But that seems like a very appropriate use of the ability as well, so I'll tweak it a little. Now to tabulate all the opinions on the wand thing....
TelinArtho 05-10-07, 03:24 PM	I'm still trying to divide my thought process between option 1 and option 2 with 5. I agree that the main point of credits is to provide options not power. For this reason, I'm not too keen on option 2 because Enlarge Power is not adding an option - but is free power. Energy Substitution really isn't more power - but by the virtue of diversity it is (in which case, the argument is essentially options=power). In other words - I am leaning towards option 1. That said - if the community could agree to 2+5 - I think that might be a "better" solution overall.
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 03:34 PM	I strongly dislike option 5. Crafting feats are already overpowered in CoCo because of the importance of the wealth/xp ratio. Giving people with the craft feats access to anything they can imagine is terribly overpowered.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 03:51 PM	I think it's time to tackle the issue of wands and other expendables. The way I see it, here's the situation as it stands: Wands: Restricted to DMG list only for both what spells can be used and their caster level; other options with credits. Potions: Same as wands. Scrolls: Although there is a DMG list, scrolls are allowed of any spell and at any level, even including metamagic. Psionic items: There is no list; all powers are allowed and at any ML, and with metapsionics. There are a couple of ways to make this a little more consistent. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion. Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2). As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.If the limitations are made more stringent, we might cut the cost (for instance, allow a character to buy a certain expendable an unlimited number of times for a flat fee). I'm favor a version of #2 with the typical cap for expandable items CL. Tattoos and potions and magic times with charges being max CL equal to ECL allowing credits to buy items of higher CL. So expendable items w/o a required class feature to use them all fall into this category. Metamagic versions could be available with credits. Then wands and scrolls (and psionic equivalents) being allowed at caster level+2 with credits required for higher CL or metamagic. Then we can treat staffs like wands, except use some of the ideas proposed earlier to prevent them from being better than wands. I like 1. I could see a combo of 3 and 5 working well. I wonder about the higher leagues opening up - not having to pay 15 credits for my customs staffs will be potentially abuseable. I'm sure I'll surprise no one by saying I'm all for #1. I see no reason whatsoever for the table-based restriction on wands/potions/oils, especially when we don't use the table on scrolls, and have no tables to use on psionic items. I don't like the idea of #3, limiting everything to minimum CL/ML - unless we want to make expendables much weaker, which with the cap in place I don't think we do, theres neither need for nor benefit to that. I will add, however, that I would be fine with #2, with the provision spelled out in #5 (in other words, open for anything except metamagic/psionic, which cost credits, but those that can craft them don't need to pay for metamagic/psionic items). I do like how that eliminates the free energy substitution and enlarge power items, but it would be silly to prevent those that can make them themselves from doing so without credits. I would vote for option 1. Option 2 puts our expendable rules in direct violation of the RAW. I have no problem with wands/scrolls, etc being able to be made with any qualifying spell. As long as the rest of our expendable restrictions stay in place (max CL is your ECL for charged items, scrolls/stones max is ECL+2, etc), I think this would be the easiest to implement and probably the option that most closely resembles the RAW, as well as the one that requires the smallest adjustment to the rest of our houserules.I'm still trying to divide my thought process between option 1 and option 2 with 5. I agree that the main point of credits is to provide options not power. For this reason, I'm not too keen on option 2 because Enlarge Power is not adding an option - but is free power. Energy Substitution really isn't more power - but by the virtue of diversity it is (in which case, the argument is essentially options=power). In other words - I am leaning towards option 1. That said - if the community could agree to 2+5 - I think that might be a "better" solution overall.So as for elders, we have: Sauro: Option 2. Vath: Option 1 or 3+5. Zevox: Option 1 or 2+5. NiQil: Option 1. Telin: Option 1 or 2+5. Myself: Option 2+5. Community votes: One for 1, one for 2, two for 2+5, one for 3+5, one for just plain 5. That comes down to a community preference for 2+5. I think we can clearly say that the "finalists" are options 1 and options 2+5. So, to facilitate discussion, I have some questions for the elders: @NiQil: You say that option 2 is in violation of RAW. Since RAW says nothing about credits, I'm not sure how that's possible. No matter what, all RAW-legal items will be available; some will cost credits, is all. So what exactly do you mean? @Vath: Just to re-state, staffs are not included in this. They'll be treated as they always were. @Telin and the others who have voiced a similar concern: yes, Enlarge Power on a metapsionic item is "free power." So is Energy Substitition, to a lesser extent. When facing Elrick this week, I was clearly reminded of the power of credits in this regard (the dude has Produce Flame of three different energy types!). On the other hand, the plethora of such items in the game is silly, IMO. I'd almost want to ban +0 adjustment metamagic from items altogether, except then it would be in violation of RAW. I have to admit that I'm of two minds on this one. So to make a final decision, I'd like the Elders to re-think their positions one last time, especially Sauro (since he voted for neither of the two popular options). If no one wants to change their opinions, it looks like option 1 is the slight winner, and we'll go with that. But I'll wait to see if anyone wants to make that a stronger win, or turn it the other way. (BTW, let me say how pleased I am with our current set of elders! Not only did every single one of you vote--I don't know how long it's been since that happened--but you did it within 24 hours!)
McJarvis 05-10-07, 03:59 PM	@Telin and the others who have voiced a similar concern: yes, Enlarge Power on a metapsionic item is "free power." So is Energy Substitition, to a lesser extent. When facing Elrick this week, I was clearly reminded of the power of credits in this regard (the dude has Produce Flame of three different energy types!). On the other hand, the plethora of such items in the game is silly, IMO. I'd almost want to ban +0 adjustment metamagic from items altogether, except then it would be in violation of RAW. I have to admit that I'm of two minds on this one. Sweet, I'm the "others" now :-) Really I have no objection with energy substituion being put on expendibles for credits. It is certainly more options-> but any class has multiple types of energy damage from various spells(indeed-> kineticists kill energy substituion every time) The problem is really how we deal with meta-psionic items. That expending of the focus is there for a reason, otherwise there would be little reason not to use meta-psionics. Examples: Would you rather have a 10PP(10d6) Energy Missile or a 10PP Empowered (7d6+(1/2)7d6) energy missile? The saves should be high enough not to matter at this point. On the metamagic side you actually have to sacrifice something to apply the feat. Would you rather have a 1 PP energy ray(25 ft) or a 1 PP enlarged energy ray(50 ft)? The higher in level you go to more pronounced this type of thing becomes. Expending your focus is the control device. edit-> Don't get me wrong-> I know it's black and white in RAW regarding how the expending the focus on expendibles works. I'm just saying that this is the central reason why credits would = power in this case.
templer10 05-10-07, 04:07 PM	The higher in level you go to more pronounced this type of thing becomes. Expending your focus is the control device. i beg to differ- swhen you get high enough- you can either get 2 focuse's or regain it with move action so it's not much of a "control" device- the real control device of metapsionic feats (the non +0) is that until around level 9 it pay off more to augment it then to to use metapsioninc feats on them.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 04:09 PM	i beg to differ- swhen you get high enough- you can either get 2 focuse's or regain it with move action so it's not much of a "control" device- the real control device of metapsionic feats (the non +0) is that until around level 9 it pay off more to augment it then to to use metapsioninc feats on them. Well, I didn't say it was a *great* control device ;)
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 04:14 PM	Now we have a new problem: Yet again, we are without a guildmaster. It seems that despite our voting, the replacement for EYE has fallen flat, like its predecessor. And unfortunately, LOY has only four members, one of whom just stepped down, one of whom is willing to take the spot temporarily only, and two are guildmasters of other guilds. We have a few options. Have someone else join LOY with the express purpose of becoming its guildmaster. This would be the simplest solution, if we could get a volunteer. Replace LOY with yet another guild. The runner-up (well, actually the winner, except that Cat overruled it) in our last set of votes was the hedonist/anarchist Chaotic Evil-themed guild; perhaps that might work better. On the other hand, that would also require a new guildmaster to volunteer. Have another vote for a new guild, but do it with our feet. Rather than have a popularity contest, people could simply state which of their characters they would have join the guilds on the ballot. This would be the best way of assuring popularity. But again, someone would have to be willing to take charge. Nuke LOY off the face of the map. To maintain balance, we would have to remove three districts completely (so that the guilds next to where LOY was don't have advantage). So Merisia and Kailo would become uninhabitable, and I think so would High Traversam (when Cat was in charge of CEF, he was willing to let another guild build through his territory to get there). Create a new guild system--one with fewer guilds (I'm thinking five is about all we can handle practically, maybe six). I want that to be the last resort because it will take an immense amount of time to pull off, and it would be something of a waste of all the effort Cat and Sauro put in creating the current one, which has been active for only 9 months now. On the other hand, with Cat gone, we could create a system the rest of us want to play, rather than the one he wanted. Sauro and I have been juggling ideas for a very long time now, and I still have the poll that shows what our preferences were. Hirumajoe would just have to hold down the fort while we created the new system.Those options are listed in my own decending levels of preference, but it's not entirely under my control.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 04:20 PM	Would you rather have a 10PP(10d6) Energy Missile or a 10PP Empowered (7d6+(1/2)7d6) energy missile? The saves should be high enough not to matter at this point. On the metamagic side you actually have to sacrifice something to apply the feat.You do? Would you rather have an Empowered 9-die Fireball or a regular 9-die Cone of Cold? And templer10 is right: it's not much of a control device when you get Psionic Meditation. It becomes like a sorcerer's metamagic, except that you can do half the action in a previous round.
Zevox 05-10-07, 04:24 PM	And templer10 is right: it's not much of a control device when you get Psionic Meditation. It becomes like a sorcerer's metamagic, except that you can do half the action in a previous round. Indeed. Istima is going to be proving this as soon as he levels up - he already has Empower Power, an next level he picks up Psionic Meditation. Since he auto-succeeds on refocusing checks, the focus issue won't be one at all for him - he'll be able to pop off 8d6 Empowered energy bolts, energy rays, or crystal shards, or even 2d4 empowered ego whips, every round. Zevox
Yitzi 05-10-07, 04:41 PM	Now we have a new problem: Yet again, we are without a guildmaster. It seems that despite our voting, the replacement for EYE has fallen flat, like its predecessor. And unfortunately, LOY has only four members, one of whom just stepped down, one of whom is willing to take the spot temporarily only, and two are guildmasters of other guilds. We have a few options. Have someone else join LOY with the express purpose of becoming its guildmaster. This would be the simplest solution, if we could get a volunteer. Replace LOY with yet another guild. The runner-up (well, actually the winner, except that Cat overruled it) in our last set of votes was the hedonist/anarchist Chaotic Evil-themed guild; perhaps that might work better. On the other hand, that would also require a new guildmaster to volunteer. Have another vote for a new guild, but do it with our feet. Rather than have a popularity contest, people could simply state which of their characters they would have join the guilds on the ballot. This would be the best way of assuring popularity. But again, someone would have to be willing to take charge. Nuke LOY off the face of the map. To maintain balance, we would have to remove three districts completely (so that the guilds next to where LOY was don't have advantage). So Merisia and Kailo would become uninhabitable, and I think so would High Traversam (when Cat was in charge of CEF, he was willing to let another guild build through his territory to get there). Create a new guild system--one with fewer guilds (I'm thinking five is about all we can handle practically, maybe six). I want that to be the last resort because it will take an immense amount of time to pull off, and it would be something of a waste of all the effort Cat and Sauro put in creating the current one, which has been active for only 9 months now. On the other hand, with Cat gone, we could create a system the rest of us want to play, rather than the one he wanted. Sauro and I have been juggling ideas for a very long time now, and I still have the poll that shows what our preferences were. Hirumajoe would just have to hold down the fort while we created the new system.Those options are listed in my own decending levels of preference, but it's not entirely under my control. I vote against 4 and 5, I'm a bit partial to 3. Actually, I have an idea for a new guild (a sort of mix of CEF and LOY, if it does come to that, I'd be willing to submit it), but I'm planning to leave for a year or so in a few months so I certainly wouldn't be able to guildmaster it.
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 05:00 PM	I feel like I really need to make the case for "Not #5". I hope that some of you who voted for 2+5 will switch to the #2 camp. There are a cpule reasons I really dislike #5. First is that we would be treating wands and scrolls as different from all other magic items. If a character wants to craft a custom bracers that casts empowered scorching ray 2/day, then we require 15 credits for this item. We require 15 credits even if the item has "charges" instead of being usable 2/day or even if the character has the feats to craft this item. However we are suggesting that the wand feat and the same empowered metamagic can be applied together for no credit cost. This is a prejudiced rule that obviously favors wand crafting feats over similar wondrous items or potions (and thus favors the classes that can use spell trigger or spell completion items). Do casters really need to have more spell casting options than they currently have against the relatively confined options of non-caster? This will result in a flood of unregulated energy substituted wands or scrolls, and it will make the scribe scroll and craft wand feat vastly more powerful than they currently are. Do casters really need a huge boost in the number of spell options they can buy for 1/2 price? Think of the implications... every wizard with the energy substitution feat will have scrolls or wands against all energy types. All those high LA races with energy resistance suddenly become meaningless. This is a decision that has major implications, and it casues a balance shift in the game. And that shift is more power to casters, and less ability for non-casters to resist that power. Further this decision to open up wands of various options is one that devalues credits. There needs to be some way in which the credits are still valuable. Putting a credit cost into place for gaining items with metamagic feats applied is a great way to allow credits to retain some value. A credit cost to use metamagic will not stop these options from being available, it will simply limit the frequency which the power shift caused by these items impacts characters. I think we can all agree on some kind of change to the rules that govern access to some magic items, but we should not loose sight on how access to magic items of particular types will modify the balance of power in our game.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 05:09 PM	Keep in mind that this "abuse" costs a minimum of three feats: an item creation, Energy Substitution, and at least one other metamagic feat. And even that only buys you one additional energy type. Whereas a psion enjoys the same benefit with no cost at all, for four energy types. The devaluation of credits is a good point, but not all that much. Credit-cost wands of any sort are very rare birds; I think I've seen only two such blackmarket requests the whole time I've been here. There is one other good point hidden in all that: Craft Wand and Scribe Scroll are already potent feats. #5 makes them more so. But again, only marginally; if you make half your items with Energy Substitution (sonic), then an opponent with Resist Energy becomes much more dangerous.
Rauul 05-10-07, 05:17 PM	This will result in a flood of unregulated energy substituted wands or scrolls, and it will make the scribe scroll and craft wand feat vastly more powerful than they currently are. Do casters really need a huge boost in the number of spell options they can buy for 1/2 price? Think of the implications... every wizard with the energy substitution feat will have scrolls or wands against all energy types. All those high LA races with energy resistance suddenly become meaningless. This is a decision that has major implications, and it casues a balance shift in the game. And that shift is more power to casters, and less ability for non-casters to resist that power. Further this decision to open up wands of various options is one that devalues credits. There needs to be some way in which the credits are still valuable. Putting a credit cost into place for gaining items with metamagic feats applied is a great way to allow credits to retain some value. A credit cost to use metamagic will not stop these options from being available, it will simply limit the frequency which the power shift caused by these items impacts characters. I think we can all agree on some kind of change to the rules that govern access to some magic items, but we should not loose sight on how access to magic items of particular types will modify the balance of power in our game. Sauro... you have this problem right now with Psionic Dorjes and powerstones... Look at Lord Lorian and Elrick for Some examples(only ones i can think of off the top of my head).. Augmented, energy susptitution ect.. We have what 1-2 players who can craft wands... and maybe 1-2 who can craft Dorjes.. (why craft when they can buy them with the augmented powers ) Honestly Everyone make the craft feats to be so powerful when they aren't... they are a feat.. Craft feats should be as Powerful as any other feat.. And Don't tell me craft feats are as powerful as Say rapid shot or manyshot, or psionic shot.. they cost credits (5-15) to use and save you 1/2 the gold from a Specific type of Crafted magic items... (all crafting feats already have Minimum level req to have) IMHO Having the craft feat Should cost you some credits (just to get an item Approved) But shouldn't cost you as much as the Joe blow buying the same items.. (1/2 gold cost for cradting should = 1/2 the credit cost for crafting)
Erithmu 05-10-07, 05:26 PM	Crafting: I am persuaded in Sauro's explaination of why he dislikes 5. I'm not sure if I have voted here (don't think I have) but while I was leaning towards a 2+5 (mostly due to the gp cost of developing the wands and the feat investment as limiting factors.) I think 2 would probably be the better option for board balance. I am assuming that the CL/ML caps are still in place from the old rules. Guilds: On a personal level I would like to see 4 followed by 5 at the end of this cycle. As a former guildmaster there was just too much paperwork to do. I'm not saying that a new system wouldn't have it's own ins and outs but I think there needs to be a MUCH simpler method of propagating guilds that can be more useful for RP outlets. Most guild now run 2 CAPs to send one member on a Mission that has no major RP interaction with the rest of the guild other than the NPCs. In the aftermath I'm not sure what 5 (or so) guilds would remain, but I think this board is stretched for resources as it is. I fully expect that once Sauro starts Med School we will see very very little of him. Of the 6 current guildmasters 5 are elders and 1 is a very vocal member of this community. Of the backups (listed) 2 are not even around anymore, 1 is listed as the guildmaster of another guild, one is myself, and the other 2 I see from time to time on the boards and are active in participation. Give me something simple, very few RTS games have over 2 or 3 resources to manage.
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 05:33 PM	The energy type versatility of psions, well that's his schtick. Psion's cannot put you to sleep, or render you helpless, or nauseated or fearful. Other casters have more limited energy attacks, but they get more options of various kinds that psion's don't get. Also psion's get fewer powers known than a sorcerer. They need the powers they do know to be versatile, otherwise the class gets pigeon holed. Monks suffer from MAD, but I don't see anyone arguing that they should get stat boosting items free of credits just because clerics get stat boosting spells free of credits. The devaluation of credits is a good point, but not all that much. Credit-cost wands of any sort are very rare birds; I think I've seen only two such blackmarket requests the whole time I've been here. You make my point. Credit cost wands and scrolls should be rare birds. Metamagiced versions of wands/dorjes/scrolls/powerstones should also be rare birds. If we allow these items w/o credits, then suddenly they are not rare birds any more. The relevant crafting feats will become vastly more powerful than they currently are. They effectively make options that previously required credits, into new options that can be had w/o credits. It's a powershift that grants more options to casters and way more options to crafters. Crafters and casters are already some of the most powerful character types. Do they really need an additional boost?
MitzaVolchenko 05-10-07, 05:36 PM	I feel like I really need to make the case for "Not #5". I hope that some of you who voted for 2+5 will switch to the #2 camp. There are a cpule reasons I really dislike #5. [quote] Create a random chart to apply to the insane psionic items, and I'll join your camp. Until then, my voice favors allowing them to be crafted. [quote=SauroGrenom] First is that we would be treating wands and scrolls as different from all other magic items. If a character wants to craft a custom bracers that casts empowered scorching ray 2/day, then we require 15 credits for this item. We require 15 credits even if the item has "charges" instead of being usable 2/day or even if the character has the feats to craft this item. However we are suggesting that the wand feat and the same empowered metamagic can be applied together for no credit cost. This is a prejudiced rule that obviously favors wand crafting feats over similar wondrous items or potions (and thus favors the classes that can use spell trigger or spell completion items). Do casters really need to have more spell casting options than they currently have against the relatively confined options of non-caster? I would still always favor making an item over making a wand. Items are permanent and you only pay for them once. Of course I would also never make them non-refreshing charged items. This will result in a flood of unregulated energy substituted wands or scrolls, and it will make the scribe scroll and craft wand feat vastly more powerful than they currently are. Do casters really need a huge boost in the number of spell options they can buy for 1/2 price? I favor banning the entirety of the not really 3.5 rules. They don't actually mesh with 3.5 that well and had the misfortune of being written with just enough knowledge of what was coming in 3.5 to make them 3.25 and appear as if they do mesh. Think of the implications... every wizard with the energy substitution feat will have scrolls or wands against all energy types. All those high LA races with energy resistance suddenly become meaningless. At the level where this might become an issue, the ER of those races is already fairly minimal against real casters/manifesters. What this would affect is characters that rely on items or cheap bought scrolls that they can cast thanks to their one level in a casting class. This is a decision that has major implications, and it casues a balance shift in the game. And that shift is more power to casters, and less ability for non-casters to resist that power. Further this decision to open up wands of various options is one that devalues credits. There needs to be some way in which the credits are still valuable. Putting a credit cost into place for gaining items with metamagic feats applied is a great way to allow credits to retain some value. Cat was loud about this one. The result of every informal poll on the topic is that pitlords don't keep pitlording for the credits. We pitlord to keep the community running. I don't really object to keeping a credit cost on the metamagic modifications for those that can't just create the item ontheir own. That makes some degree of sense as it indicates that the person purchasing the item had to find someone with the three feats needed to make the item. A credit cost to use metamagic will not stop these options from being available, it will simply limit the frequency which the power shift caused by these items impacts characters. I think we can all agree on some kind of change to the rules that govern access to some magic items, but we should not loose sight on how access to magic items of particular types will modify the balance of power in our game. I favor things that balance the game to less of a have and have not society. When I am feeling a litte better, I will be back pitlording. I don't begrudge those that don't the right to be competitive, and at some levels that means getting to have certain toys. You will note that I have never bought an item on the black market...probably should as I think Sybil actually qualifies for a discount, but the imbalance between magic and psionics is absurd. The idea that even though I bought the feats, I can't use them, is absurd. I also favor doing away with Leadership cohort quests and quests for on'e cowardice (psicrystals...though I am still not clear if we require that one). If you buy the feat, you shouldn't be made to jump through hoops to get its benefit.
Rauul 05-10-07, 05:38 PM	Well how about Option 2 + Option 6 (if you can craft the item it costs you 1/2 the credits a person buying the item would pay)
TelinArtho 05-10-07, 05:43 PM	I have to admit - I'm not sure where I am with the wand issue now... Sauro's post is very much true - and I don't know if I want to get behind removing credits for crafting them. It certainly does require feat investment - but that's not really a powerful argument in this case (at least to me). What I'm not sure about the entire issue is whether metamagic is such an issue that we need to carefully restrict it or whether wands in particular are such a beast (and by extension metapsionics and dorjes). The truth is - we're only seeing the major usage of wands/dorjes because of the implementation of the expendable cap. Before the cap - how many people had wands at all? (I don't think I remember even one...) Perhaps the cap needs to be modified to encompass all charged items (and broadened). If wands fit within the cap - I don't think credits are really necessary for them anymore. Why would someone pick a single wand of energy substituted produce flame, when they could potentially pick half a dozen such scrolls with all of the energies covered if they both fell under the cap? -------------------------------------------- On the matter of the guild game - I have to say I'm completely lost. I'm doing my best to give an appearance of stability, but frankly I'm not sure how to do much more than the exact actions I've done so far. CEF as a guild is going to be down to 6 members as of next week. Of these - 2 players control 4 of the characters. I've been trying to find a decent solution for membership - but there's just not many players around in the CoCo these days - and even fewer of a dynamic that would fit within the CEF's purpose. I've been of the opinion that the guild game right now is causing more trouble than it is truly worth. The board itself is in a rough state right now and frankly I'm not real sure it is helping the board at all. CoCo once had a decent number of players coming in and through. Now - we have occasional passers-by - and I think we are having trouble keeping up membership in general. If given a choice - I would suggest suspending the guild game until, at the least, the adjustments of having a new GM are settled in. Everyone's got a lot on their plate adjusting and I think tempers are probably a little shorter - especially with the weather in the US getting better (so the inclination is to go offline and enjoy the weather rather than spend it on a computer...). That's just a thought. Take it for what its worth.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 06:00 PM	I feel like I really need to make the case for "Not #5". I hope that some of you who voted for 2+5 will switch to the #2 camp. There are a cpule reasons I really dislike #5. First is that we would be treating wands and scrolls as different from all other magic items. If a character wants to craft a custom bracers that casts empowered scorching ray 2/day, then we require 15 credits for this item. We require 15 credits even if the item has "charges" instead of being usable 2/day or even if the character has the feats to craft this item. However we are suggesting that the wand feat and the same empowered metamagic can be applied together for no credit cost. I addressed the world aspect of this is post 287: it's not that the abnormal wands/scrolls/potions are illegal like bracers of schorching ray, they're just really hard to find, so if you want to buy them you need to use contacts (i.e. credits) to do so. As for the game aspect, the explanation is simple: wands/scrolls/potions are clearly defined in what they can do and how much they cost, so there is little effort needed to approve them. Custom items not in the SRD need to be approved, so they need credits. This is a prejudiced rule that obviously favors wand crafting feats over similar wondrous items or potions (and thus favors the classes that can use spell trigger or spell completion items). Do casters really need to have more spell casting options than they currently have against the relatively confined options of non-caster? first of all, potions would be no different than wands and scrolls. And what spells will they gain new options to that is so effective? The two main cases I can think of are heightened spells (especially from scrolls) and wands of damage effects that increase significantly with CL (magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, etc). The former should be included, as otherwise it weakens the benefits of heighten spell significantly, and strongly nerfs necromancers and enchanters. The latter is in the SRD for the most part anyway-and I hope you don't think we should exclude something mentioned in the DMG! This will result in a flood of unregulated energy substituted wands or scrolls, and it will make the scribe scroll and craft wand feat vastly more powerful than they currently are. Do casters really need a huge boost in the number of spell options they can buy for 1/2 price? First of all, it won't make scribe scroll any more powerful, it will just prevent it from being weakened considerably, since the current rule is that applying a higher CL or metamagic to a self-scribed scroll requires no credits. As for craft wand, what sorts of wands are used often? Damage and healing-anything else doesn't see enough use. And healing spells don't get much boost from CL (except heal, but that can't go in a wand anyway). So what are some examples of wands this would allow and are likely to be used? Magic Missile at level 3, 5, 7, or 9. Fireball or lightning bolt at higher levels. These are already in the SRD, meaning that at the moment they are allowed, for crafting or buying. Think of the implications... every wizard with the energy substitution feat will have scrolls or wands against all energy types. All those high LA races with energy resistance suddenly become meaningless. They would need to take the feat 4 times, one for each type they want to change to. They could more easily just have spells of multiple types-a fireball for fire, a lightning bolt for electricity, etc. This is a decision that has major implications, and it casues a balance shift in the game. And that shift is more power to casters, and less ability for non-casters to resist that power. And applying #2 or #3 to scrolls without #5 causes a bigger balance shift, with far less power to certain types of casters. Further this decision to open up wands of various options is one that devalues credits. There needs to be some way in which the credits are still valuable. Yeah. like leadership, going on quest and campaigns, having more than 2 characters active, custom wondrous items/staffs/rings, starting at higher than 3 ECL, custom allies...those things permitted without credits with this are only a small percentage of credit use. A credit cost to use metamagic will not stop these options from being available, it will simply limit the frequency which the power shift caused by these items impacts characters. I think we can all agree on some kind of change to the rules that govern access to some magic items, but we should not loose sight on how access to magic items of particular types will modify the balance of power in our game. But if we apply what you suggest, it will shift the balance of power the other way. Perhaps the following would be a legitimate compromise: #2, but the following things do not need credits in any case: 1. self-crafted scrolls and powerstones, regardless of CL/ML and metamagic (as of now, they do not need credits) 2. potions/tattoos that grant some form of protection or an enhancement bonus to weapons may be bought or made at the minimum CL/ML for a given bonus (so barkskin CL 12 for +5 bonus is allowed, but barkskin CL 11 for +4 bonus is not, since the +4 can be gained with CL 9) (this is based on observation of which higher-than-base-CL potions are in the SRD, tattoos have the same rules to create parity.) 3. wands holding a nondamaging spell with a save may have the heighten spell feat, so long as they are heightened by an even number of levels. (based on generalization of heightened wands in the SRD). Dorjes with the same type of spell may be augmented to increase the DC, also only to the minimum extend to increase the DC by an even amount (again, parity) 4. wands holding a spell with damage dependent (directly as in the case of fireball or indirectly as in the case of magic missile or call lightning) on spell level may have any CL. (again, based on wands in the SRD). Dorjes may similarly be augmented to add damage dice. 5. dorjes and tattoos may be augmented to increase the types of creatures affected (this is analogous to using a different spell-since hold monster is allowed despite hold person being available, augmenting to affect nonhumanoids should also be allowed).
McJarvis 05-10-07, 06:05 PM	especially with the weather in the US getting better (so the inclination is to go offline and enjoy the weather rather than spend it on a computer...). You pretty much nailed me on this one. I'm an active biker & on top of that I just met a nice young lady :-)
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 06:18 PM	We're getting pretty far afield here. Let me address some key points: @Mitza: I share your trepidation about the 3.0 SRD, but I'm comforted by the fact that virtually all of it has made it into 3.5 material. Energy Substitition is in Complete Arcane (with the sonic option removed), Blacklight is in Spell Compendium (unchanged), Divine Might is in Complete Divine (unchanged). The only big change is the Madness domain, which is pretty nuts in the Divine SRD, but not many are abusing it. Oh, and psicrystals don't require a quest. I don't know that they ever did. @Telin: It might be possible to add wands/dorjes to the expendable cap (perhaps at 1/5 their actual value), but that would just transpose the credit problem: then folks will be creating wondrous items with 50 charges. A more global rule might solve that (1-use items all go under the cap, and 50-charge items count at 1/5 their value). @Sauro: do you really think that metamagic wands/scrolls would proliferate so badly if they could be crafted without credits? How many characters even have Energy Substitution? How many have both it and Scribe Scroll/Craft Wand? Would many character rebuild so that they could? Especially considering the horrible save DCs on items? You might see it on Produce Flame, Scorching Ray, Shocking Grasp, etc., but even then not much. Also, recall our discussion about using the Prestige system for this kind of thing. If Prestige gets you better market connections, it's kind of strange that you need those connections when you can make something yourself. -=-=-=-=-=-=- Now, the guilds.... I fear that Telin might be right. Even though TLT, with seven different players, has a pretty strong membership compared to some of the other guilds, it's hard getting anyof the members to do anything. And the guildmasters: one is resigning, one is new and is only doing it because someone has to, and two have been frustrated with the system but also keep up with it because it needs to be done. I think only Zevox and myself are actually enjoying it, and TM is just cool that way. It may be time to just suspend the guild system until a new one can be worked out... which would be a secondary priority to setting up the Living Characters system. I especially want to hear the opinions of the other guildmasters, but I'd like to hear from others, as well--the guild game has become a 7-way strategy game rather than a community thing, and that was never the intent (I don't think). If it needs to be suspended, or even rebuilt from scratch... well, I won't say I wasn't expecting it.
TheMagister 05-10-07, 06:30 PM	Too cool to be an elder! HA! (I'm kidding, I don't really want to be an elder anyways.) I'm enjoying the guild game. I've got WAR on a pretty nice track (though I envy the hell out of PSI's gold production...that's just damned impressive). I agree that it's become more of a strategy game and less of an RP generator, which is the primary reason it exists at all. We do need something to advance Gladius' "story". OR we can just exist here forever. It's a nice place to park for awhile. Re: LOY Let LOY go quietly into the night. Declare that the districts LOY controlled and any others that need to be uncontrollable for the nonce to be overcome by EL 20 rioters. By the time we get that big, the person who knocks those rioters out will deserve to have those territories. Re: anyone else who doesn't enjoy guildmastering - Stop! Join a different guild! Start enjoying the guild game from a different perspective! If the paperwork is a bother, walk away. Fill those other districts with rioters as well. STrategic placement of the correct EL rioters would lead to interesting tactical developments. LET CEF rip itself apart from the inside out as the evil puppeteer that really leads things is unmasked for the fiend that he is. Anyone else that wants out can easily find RP reasons to do so. That's my totally unproductive viewpoint. I like the guild system the way it is. I think I'm finally getting a handle on it, and I finally have a (halfway decent) plan for WAR. I don't want to stop. I think we need more story-based interactive guild quests. If we get the rioters thing going, we'll have to band together to drive them off. Root hog, or die. Puts some suspense back into things, too. TM
Macbrea 05-10-07, 06:33 PM	1/5 the value seems a tad low. Example: Relanex at 10th can easily afford to make a Wand of Fireball (10th) and probably will. Cost is 22,500gp / 5 = 4,500gp At 10th his cap is 10 x 10 x 50 = 5,000gp. The making of one wand by those standards would pretty much reduce his expendable cap to 500gp. I think that is a tad too drastic. Though, I may be the only person that is willing to make the upper level wands.
MitzaVolchenko 05-10-07, 06:43 PM	Now, the guilds.... I fear that Telin might be right. Even though TLT, with seven different players, has a pretty strong membership compared to some of the other guilds, it's hard getting anyof the members to do anything. And the guildmasters: one is resigning, one is new and is only doing it because someone has to, and two have been frustrated with the system but also keep up with it because it needs to be done. I think only Zevox and myself are actually enjoying it, and TM is just cool that way. It may be time to just suspend the guild system until a new one can be worked out... which would be a secondary priority to setting up the Living Characters system. I especially want to hear the opinions of the other guildmasters, but I'd like to hear from others, as well--the guild game has become a 7-way strategy game rather than a community thing, and that was never the intent (I don't think). If it needs to be suspended, or even rebuilt from scratch... well, I won't say I wasn't expecting it. I enjoy my time in my guild threads, but the rules for the game overall are just too complex. I am sorta starting to get it, but it hasn't been easy. The RP is the draw for me. I liked the old system where the results in the arena made a difference to the guild, but the guild didn't affect what a character could or could not do away from the guild (ie the free quests, etc.). There was a certain point of pride that at one point Zwei was a top earner for EHTC. There was fun rp related to the character's swaggering in and playing the 'my tithe is bigger than yours' game. Building the guilds under the old system was more fun and less confrontational. Though, the confrontation related RP was fun for a while until folks started getting real world upset about it... @Mitza: I share your trepidation about the 3.0 SRD, but I'm comforted by the fact that virtually all of it has made it into 3.5 material. Energy Substitition is in Complete Arcane (with the sonic option removed), Blacklight is in Spell Compendium (unchanged), Divine Might is in Complete Divine (unchanged). The only big change is the Madness domain, which is pretty nuts in the Divine SRD, but not many are abusing it Those are all sources that are not legal for CoCo...if we are going to use that to justify it, when do I get to make my ranger-dervish-shadowdancer? There is a lot of great 3.5 material out there that isn't Core Rules. I am enjoying my trip through rogue-dom to Beast Heart Adept in my Sunday TT game greatly. Let me know when I am allowed to do that here...wanna talk a bout a nightmare...try handing someone a class ally Behir...all the big blue lovin' without the xp bite and it knows how to flank for the sneak attack :P
Yitzi 05-10-07, 07:17 PM	I'm sort of enjoying the guild system, so I'll give a not-very-strong vote in favor of keeping it. BTW, what is Living Characters?
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 07:18 PM	@Sauro: do you really think that metamagic wands/scrolls would proliferate so badly if they could be crafted without credits? How many characters even have Energy Substitution? How many have both it and Scribe Scroll/Craft Wand? Would many character rebuild so that they could? Especially considering the horrible save DCs on items? You might see it on Produce Flame, Scorching Ray, Shocking Grasp, etc., but even then not much. OK, I was just riding my bike home and trying to make it before the rain hits. During this, I had a realization about this whole wands thing. First this list muddies the water with two different requests presented as a single request with various solutions. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes. All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion. Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2). As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements. When MWB pitched this idea to me via IM, he talked about it as something to create equality between the options for psionics and non-psionics items. Choices 1,2,3 and 4 are all in that direction. However choice 5 muddies the water by adding in a confusing factor. Choice 5 is about crafters rights, not about parity between psionics and non-psionics. Of the options 1-4 we see that 2 is the obvious favorite, it's not imbalanced, and it provides the equality that we want. Also it has a nice balance with respect to credit value (credits not needed for wands but needed for metamagic). Option 5 is a totally different issue, and shouldn't be included in this discussion. Option 5 is about giving crafters more power and more options. This idea is about shifting the balance of power in CoCo and making particular types of builds more powerful. I think that crafters are already powerful enough. I see no good reason to make them more powerful. But regardless of opinion on that issue, it shouldn't be discussed in the mix with the issue of treating wands and dorje's the same. Also, recall our discussion about using the Prestige system for this kind of thing. If Prestige gets you better market connections, it's kind of strange that you need those connections when you can make something yourself.Easy to rationalize. You need unusual material components to create items with metamagic spells. Your connections grant access to those raw materials if you are crafting. If you are just buying, your connections grant access to the finished product. ====== About Guilds... H'uu. I really wish we could finish one discussion before starting the next, but you ask for my opinion... I have mixed feelings. First I like the sense of history that PSI has. I would hate to have that broken. I think the bookkeeping, and rules are unnecessarily complicated for either a strategy game or an RP platform. None the less I've developed a strategy that is working, and a system of upkeep on the administrative obligations that I can easily manage. I think the competitive, destroy your neighbor in a race for resources, nature of this game is destructive to the community as a whole (evidence the whole WAR vs CEF and it's fallout). The idea of a "winner" is ridiculous for an RP platform. We could keep playing, but honestly I just don't see the guild "wars" ever taking place. PSI isn't interested in taking over any more districts. Once the three we have now are fully developed, we'll be swimming in cash and guild points. There's no reason to fight with someone unless they come after us. I can see all the guilds having a similar situation. The only difference is how long it takes to get there. The guild game has a sort of inertial of its own that could lead us to continue it, but it has certainly missed the mark on its original mission. It does serve a purpose that none have mentioned yet. The guildmaster positions are another way for people to get involved in the board as volunteers. There's no coincidence that 4 of 5 elders are guildmasters, and the game master is also a guildmaster. By volunteering as a guildmaster, it's a steppingstone to greater involvement in the board community. It's a way to prove you have the staying power and responsibility to be an elder when the next opening shows up. I could keep playing, and I could see remaking the game in a different image, as an RP platform this time.
MitzaVolchenko 05-10-07, 07:50 PM	Grrr...I hate agreeing with Sauro, but there ya have it. #5 is more of a seperate debate...I am still for it, but it should not be a rider on the other issue. On guilds...they are a very narrow opportunity. There are a very limited number of spots with no room to expand and let others get involved with it. As has been said, it is a strategy game for 7 people that has the rest of us tagging along and some pretty nice advantages for the people that call the shots. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not slamming anyone. I am stating the situation as I see it.
hogarth 05-10-07, 07:58 PM	On guilds...they are a very narrow opportunity. There are a very limited number of spots with no room to expand and let others get involved with it. As has been said, it is a strategy game for 7 people that has the rest of us tagging along and some pretty nice advantages for the people that call the shots. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not slamming anyone. I am stating the situation as I see it. I agree with you 100%. I think running campaigns or quests (that aren't just miniquests for allies, etc.) contributes about 10 times as much to the role-playing aspect of the boards than the guild game does. Maybe we could focus more energy on that.
Zevox 05-10-07, 08:11 PM	Hold the phone, are we actually considering adding wands to the expendable cap? Please, no. I still believe, as I did when the cap was first put in, that there is no need for that. Wands are a significant cost for 50 uses of a single spell, if someone is going to sink all that money on a single spell, theres no reason not to let them. As for the rest of the wand debate, I still support option #1 as the most fair. I see no particular reason to restrict what scrolls, potions, and wands are available beyond what the rules as written already do (which amounts to that potions need to be level 3 or less and not personal range while wands need to be level 4 or less). We've had metapsionic and metamagic feats open for scrolls and psionic items for a long time, and I haven't seen anything to convince me that was a problem, so I don't think theres a particular need to restrict them. As for #2, I can see Sauro's point. As silly as I think it is that someone with a craft feat and a metamagic feat couldn't make the metamagic item without credits, its probably best not to make any feats able to bypass a credit cost. I will restate though that I support #1 above #2. ----------------------------------------------------------- Guilds: Aw darn, I just started a new character who was going to join LOY and we might soon be losing them. I was looking forward to the RP I expected Kathren to spark too. Anyway, on the mention MWB made of who is having fun, I don't know if you want to toss me into that category fully. Certainly I enjoy the RP always, but that can exist without the formal system we have. I was having a lot of fun during the periods of conflict (EHTC vs CEF/TLT and WAR vs CEF), but the present peace is just dull. I really don't want to design a new Guild system at this point. I just took over as Guildlords, and don't know if I could contribute to such a rebuild very well. And I think that, regiments aside, the present system is pretty good. Or would be, if there were conflict going on to get everyone more involved, anyway. I do hope that someone is willing to take over LOY, personally. I really like the place, and don't want to see it go. Zevox
Yitzi 05-10-07, 08:22 PM	The real problem with #2 and 3 is that all sorts of things even on the magic side that used to be free now require credits. e.g. heightened scrolls, wands of magic missile at level 7, etc.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 08:33 PM	So: Regarding wands and such: we shelve the issue of what self-crafters can get, for now. That leaves the only question as whether metamagic should be allowed on expendables w/o credits. It's looking like the more popular answer is yes. And we definitely need to think about new uses for credits to make up for this relaxation. Regarding guilds: A restart clearly seems like an unpopular suggestion right now. Then it comes down to whether anyone else is willing to step up as a guildmaster, whether it's for LOY or for any theoretical replacement. LOY will go on at least as long as Hirumajoe is willing to hold the spot; if he's through with it before someone else volunteers, LOY and its districts will fall victim to some horrible disaster.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 08:40 PM	So: Regarding wands and such: we shelve the issue of what self-crafters can get, for now. That leaves the only question as whether metamagic should be allowed on expendables w/o credits. It's looking like the more popular answer is yes. And we definitely need to think about new uses for credits to make up for this relaxation. Custom spells?
SoulLord 05-10-07, 08:40 PM	Well I would go for #2 with #5 but then again I'm totally biased by #1 Vandelar would probably be hit by the nerf #2 I'm strongly against further nerfing the wizards...again. but then again I'm totally biased.
Rauul 05-10-07, 08:48 PM	Well I suggested to ToK and Cat about Custom spells... 5 credits per spell level for any Spell in the Spell Compendium (or any of the WoTc Books.. approved with a full write up for the spell in the blackmarket) Certain spells like summon Undead 1-9 wouldn't be allowed of course.. Also the Mines eye Psionic powers to go with this.. But hey it was just an Idea...
Zevox 05-10-07, 08:50 PM	Custom spells? *Ding* We have a winner! Once the Wand/Guild issues are settled, mayhaps we can get Vath to repost his ideas on that? I remember last time he made those I quite liked them. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 08:53 PM	Well I suggested to ToK and Cat about Custom spells... 5 credits per spell level for any Spell in the Spell Compendium (or any of the WoTc Books.. approved with a full write up for the spell in the blackmarket) Certain spells like summon Undead 1-9 wouldn't be allowed of course.. Also the Mines eye Psionic powers to go with this.. But hey it was just an Idea... Stuff from noncore publications is right out. Not only is reprinting them illegal, there are balance issues, and besides, it's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do here. It also penalizes those who don't own the books (since they can't peruse them for things they'd like to buy). The online material (e.g. Mind's Eye), however, is going to happen. It's a slightly lower-priority than some of these other concerns, but it's on the docket.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 08:59 PM	And of course, if a player wants to design something, same as we do for custom items...
TelinArtho 05-10-07, 09:36 PM	Regarding guilds: A restart clearly seems like an unpopular suggestion right now. Then it comes down to whether anyone else is willing to step up as a guildmaster, whether it's for LOY or for any theoretical replacement. LOY will go on at least as long as Hirumajoe is willing to hold the spot; if he's through with it before someone else volunteers, LOY and its districts will fall victim to some horrible disaster. Well - I'm glad to see the other guildmasters are willing to keep going then. I will continue with what I can in CEF and doing my best. As to anyone who feels they are merely along for the ride - you can always come to the CEF - because I have no plans laid out yet and am so clueless that I ask for advice each and every week - sometimes twice or more... In all seriousness though - if anyone has any character designs that they want to try out and roleplay in the CEF - let me know. Its getting a little lonely after this week when our membership drops from 10 to 6 all of a sudden...
NiQil 05-10-07, 10:16 PM	Ye gods! I go to work for one day, come home, and the thread threw up. Alright....on the whole wand thing... @ MWB: In regards to your question about my assertion that option 2 puts in violation of RAW....here's why: By the RAW, getting free Enlarge on dorjes or free Energy Substitution in wands is 100% allowed. By assigning a credit cost to metamagic/metapsionic additions to wands, you are now saying that a new player with no credits cannot do something that is allowed by the RAW. You have to keap in mind that credits are supposed to be about giving options, not taking them away. By assigning a credit cost to adding those feats to wands a dorjes, you are taking away options. And more importantly, you are taking away options that there are no reason to take away. Is it really so overpowered if a dorje has extra range? Or that you can get a wand of Frosty Produce Flame? I don't think so. Metamagic is a staple of a wizard's arsenal. If a wizard is willing to pony up the gp to buy that heightened fireball, why should we disallow that? If a psion is willing to get that Twinned Crystal Shard dorje, why is that an issue? I don't see the balance problem there that would require a nerf. So my opinion remains set on option 1. Regarding the guilds: Touchy subject for me....and the world is about to end as well....but I agree with Mitza. I had more fun with the guilds when what the character did in the arena meant something to the guild. I liked the old version. Was it sometimes an exercise in bookkeeping? Yes. But I think it worked better than the current version. Under that system, at most, we had to adjust the costs of some rooms or change how many people could fit in a room. It seems like the current system has changes almost every week. I ducked out on the guilds when the new system came into effect, and have not regretted it once.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 10:25 PM	We could keep playing, but honestly I just don't see the guild "wars" ever taking place. PSI isn't interested in taking over any more districts. Once the three we have now are fully developed, we'll be swimming in cash and guild points. There's no reason to fight with someone unless they come after us. Actually, you've been expanding into a district that LOY already expanded into. Eventual ware fare was unavoidable for PSI.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 10:57 PM	@ MWB: In regards to your question about my assertion that option 2 puts in violation of RAW....here's why: By the RAW, getting free Enlarge on dorjes or free Energy Substitution in wands is 100% allowed. By assigning a credit cost to metamagic/metapsionic additions to wands, you are now saying that a new player with no credits cannot do something that is allowed by the RAW. You have to keap in mind that credits are supposed to be about giving options, not taking them away. By assigning a credit cost to adding those feats to wands a dorjes, you are taking away options. And more importantly, you are taking away options that there are no reason to take away. Is it really so overpowered if a dorje has extra range? Or that you can get a wand of Frosty Produce Flame? I don't think so. You're right; metamagic on wands is permitted by RAW. So is the creation of custom items and spells, the use of expendables above one own's ECL, etc. etc. In these cases, credits are indeed uses to grant options that we normally disallow. (And that's not even mentioning the things that are legal in RAW that we probibit outright.)
Yitzi 05-10-07, 11:03 PM	About LOY's membership problems: I don't think it's the alignment restriction, it's that there is no type of character that they appeal to. CEF is for paladins/good clerics, EHTC is for bad guys, PSI is for psionics, WAR is for fighters, barabians, and monks (and maybe rangers), TLT is for druids, and TAO is for wizards (and sorcerors and maybe bards). Of course, that doesn't mean that only people of those groups are in there, but it provides another way to attract people to your guild. For that reason, the best replacement for LOY, if it comes to that, might be one that is the ideal home for rogues and bards...a sort of theives guild or similar.
NiQil 05-10-07, 11:03 PM	You're right; metamagic on wands is permitted by RAW. So is the creation of custom items and spells, the use of expendables above one own's ECL, etc. etc. In these cases, credits are indeed uses to grant options that we normally disallow. (And that's not even mentioning the things that are legal in RAW that we probibit outright.) Ah yes, but in the cases you have mentioned, the credit limitation is for balance purposes. What balance purpose is served by a credit limitation here? I certainly don't see one.
Zevox 05-10-07, 11:12 PM	For that reason, the best replacement for LOY, if it comes to that, might be one that is the ideal home for rogues and bards...a sort of theives guild or similar. ...you mean sort of like the EHTC? Zevox
Rauul 05-10-07, 11:19 PM	...you mean sort of like the EHTC? Zevox Except that EHTC has zero Rogues or assassins in it's ranks... Yet.. Has a Dragon, vampire, Half-devil, and Some nasty evil Necros and various other evils.. but no thieves.. As for a Rogue Guild... LoY would be a perfect "Front" for one... And well Assassins work for gold.. What better Front that an Guild Dedicated to restore the Monarchy.. when in reality they are Just People who wanna control and Bully..
Zevox 05-10-07, 11:23 PM	Except that EHTC has zero Rogues or assassins in it's ranks... Yet.. Has a Dragon, vampire, Half-devil, and Some nasty evil Necros and various other evils.. but no thieves.. As for a Rogue Guild... LoY would be a perfect "Front" for one... And well Assassins work for gold.. What better Front that an Guild Dedicated to restore the Monarchy.. when in reality they are Just People who wanna control and Bully.. The EHTC had a Bard in it, until I retired Annalina last week. We have an old member, Baelin, who is a Rogue/Assassin who is going to be returning when Malither finds the time to an MQ for him. Rogues and Bards just aren't common classes in the CoCo at all, so you're not likely to find them in great numbers anywhere. As for the latter, LOY sort of has a member like that already. Mithos Durrol wants to put a puppet King on the throne, controlled by himself and his church (that of the God of Corrupt Politicians and ex-Archdevil Gargauth). Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 11:39 PM	I believe that we have a decision with respect to wands. Also we have a decision with respect to LOY at least until Hirumajoe decides he doesn't want to run the post any more. So I think we should move on to the next thing on the plate... Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs Clarification on definitions and consequences of "defeat" Reworking the Diplomacy or Handle Animal rules Which one is next? Guess which one I want to tackle?
Zevox 05-10-07, 11:45 PM	I believe that we have a decision with respect to wands. Not quite, by my count. We have myself and NiQil for unrestricting them entirely, and you for restricting metamagic ones to credit-only. Telin said he wasn't sure, and Vath has yet to speak up since MWB called for final opinions. Zevox
TheMagister 05-11-07, 07:05 AM	If such a thing matters: I'm for unrestricting them entirely. (Option #1.) I also kinda liked the idea of placing wands under the expendable cap. Yes, they're expensive and have the effect of pigeonholing your character's options. But they're wands, and are very powerful. While it doesn't seem like they'd fit into an expendable cap, there is another option for wands that was kinda slapped down: partially charged wands. We could re-instate the "spend credits to buy partially charged wands" practice. That way they could be engineered to take up less space in the character's expendable cap (more options!). Just an idea.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 08:10 AM	For that reason, the best replacement for LOY, if it comes to that, might be one that is the ideal home for rogues and bards...a sort of theives guild or similar. When LOY was created we had a vote for which guild people would like the most-> Thieves guild won, and then Cat nixed it in favor of his own idea. [Under the idea that a thieves guild would be "unbalancing" because CEF had too many opponents already] Hell, I wasn't even allowed to rename the guild to my own liking.
Macbrea 05-11-07, 08:54 AM	The problem with the current guild system is there is too many guilds to players. And little reason for players to actually be part of the guilds. As a result unless the guild has some flavor people want to play by to explore the character then they will choose to be part of a guild. Lets look at the options: The Celestial Expeditionary Forces (CEF) - The forces of good fighting against those that harm others. This is an obvious guild for those that want to play good guys. East Habari Trading Company (EHTC) - The forces of evil hiding behind the guise of a trading company from East Habari. This is also an obvious guild for those that want to explore a dark character. The Warfare Alliance (WAR) - The warriors guild. This guild is a gathering place for those that are bent toward the martial skills. The Psi Consortium (PSI) - The psionicist guild, those that are bent toward the psionics. The Arcane Order (TAO) - The mages guild, those that are bent toward the arcane arts. The Living Tree (TLT) - A gathering place for rangers, druids and those with a bent toward nature. The Loyalists (LOY) - A group of individuals that are trying to get an NPC into power. As you notice, the first two easily are aspects of the blood war. They attract players fairly quickly to be one side or the other. The next four are play style specific guilds. They attract birds of the same feather. As a result they have membership that seems to fit in the mold. LOY isn't like the rest of the guilds. As a result unless someone is making a character to try and build a story-line set up by the gamemaster. It isn't going to develop into anything. Replacing it would result in you having to choose a play-style specific guild. EYE was play-style specific the only problem we had is that in CoCo Rogues are generally not very powerful. As a result people don't play them. This resulted in very low membership. It probably would be best to just let LOY die in place. Have the members of the guild move on to something else. Have the NPC put to death by the city council for sedition. Yes, this opens up those districts for those around it. It was going to happen anyways during war. In theory guilds should come into being and disappear throughout the process.
Yitzi 05-11-07, 10:03 AM	Perhaps the random events could be changed so one of them is a new guild begins to form if there are currently less than 7--when that happens everybody submits their ideas, we have a vote, and the winner is formed as a new guild if it can attract enough members in however much time.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 10:04 AM	On the topic of getting more players involved-> Why not set up a PC-based "Mercenary" guild if LOY leaves? No stats, no HQ, just a game mechanic by which players not interested in Guild RP can offer their services for Guilds to hire for missions/etc. Specifics for balance and flavor purposes could be hammered out, of course. Maybe a running total of how much GP to “Guild” has garnered could be kept, along with a scoreboard of the most gp-taken in characters.
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 10:57 AM	(For the below post - I refer to wands. Please replace wands with wands/dorjes as needed...) Ah yes, but in the cases you have mentioned, the credit limitation is for balance purposes. What balance purpose is served by a credit limitation here? I certainly don't see one. I just wanted to bring something up here. If we consider credit usage a balancing mechanism - it is a poor one. If credits should not equal power - then using credits to "balance" our game is not the way to go. As said before - credits should be used to open up options. All that said - I'm still on the horse about which side to come down on. No credits for wands is one way to go - but it frankly means that casters will likely invest in those rather than scrolls for often used spells - and thus will open up their expendables for more variety and by extension make casters more powerful. With the latest Ask Wizards making it so that my summoners can apply their Augmented Summoning feat to spells from a wand or scroll - this will make a big difference. If that is the case, I would feel more comfortable if we found a way to categorize wands under the expendable cap. If we keep credits on some wands (and only limit those altered by metamagic or those that would cost credits anyway (higher CL than the ECL, etc)), this would keep some of the "free" enhancements down (refer back to balance, poor - above). Talking this out to myself though - I think I have my answer. Allow the wands to have no credits for now. Reserve the right to modify the rules to add them into the expendable cap if my fear becomes reality - that this gives casters too much more advantage.
Yitzi 05-11-07, 11:08 AM	All that said - I'm still on the horse about which side to come down on. No credits for wands is one way to go - but it frankly means that casters will likely invest in those rather than scrolls for often used spells I don't think there are any often used spells whose wands are not already free. Maybe higher levels of acid arrow and scorching ray, but what else?
Zevox 05-11-07, 11:15 AM	I don't think there are any often used spells whose wands are not already free. Maybe higher levels of acid arrow and scorching ray, but what else? Shield and Mage Armor come to mind. I know my intent is to get wands of shield at CL 2 for three of my characters - Eraca (who can craft it herself), Mithos, and Kathren (who will be able to craft it herself at level 5), and Mage Armor for Mithos as well (though I imagine most casters will stick to extending a memorized mage armor at higher levels so they don't need to cast it in-battle at all). I could see Clerics, particularly those who just take a dip in the class, investing in wands of Shield of Faith. I don't have intentions of doing that (my one cleric gets the best mileage out of that by casting memorized ones), but I imagine some may. Beyond those, the only thing that jumps to mind is that some gishes may want True Strike in wand form. Thats the only one I'm actually worried about, to be honest. 50 uses of that for 750 gp is a mighty good deal. Zevox
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 11:25 AM	Zevox covered many of the ones I was thinking of - but also Expeditious Retreat, Shocking Grasp at various CLs, Ray of Enfeeblement,etc. Later on - Mirror Image and enhancement spells (Bull's Strength, etc) come to mind as well. Basically anything that a caster might now have multiple scrolls of with the anticipation of using them in most battles, can now invest a modicum to essentially free up all of that space in the expendables cap. Anything that could be used that doesn't require a saving throw or that doesn't benfit hugely from the CL of the wielder.
TheMagister 05-11-07, 11:27 AM	Beyond those, the only thing that jumps to mind is that some gishes may want True Strike in wand form. Thats the only one I'm actually worried about, to be honest. 50 uses of that for 750 gp is a mighty good deal. Zevox Pssh. Telveren Trueblade reamed Sdentch with a memorized one + power attack + divine might. As long as they have to be able to cast it in the first place to use it, I don't think it's too big a deal. Take a round off, deal damage. It has pros and cons. Now if HOOD could do it... then we have a problem.
Yitzi 05-11-07, 11:27 AM	Shield/mage armor/shield of faith are not used so often that allowing them as wands would be such a big deal. After all, how many characters have been in anywhere near 50, or even 25 (assuming use 2/battle) battles so far? True strike could be a concern, but remember that it costs a standard action to use, so it's only worth it if it more than doubles your chance to hit.
SoulLord 05-11-07, 11:29 AM	On guilds. besides being a place for like minded individuals to hang out the guild is supposed to be a fun place for us to have gladiators in. Some of the most fun moments was for example when many of the guilds assisted tao in reclaiming their campus. Would that be possible under the current guild rules? I don't think so. between saving actions building defending and the like most of the impromptu fun stuf that we could do before is disencouraged. I would like to see more storilines developed and searched by the guildmasters.
Zevox 05-11-07, 11:34 AM	Zevox covered many of the ones I was thinking of - but also Expeditious Retreat, Shocking Grasp at various CLs, Ray of Enfeeblement,etc. Later on - Mirror Image and enhancement spells (Bull's Strength, etc) come to mind as well. Basically anything that a caster might now have multiple scrolls of with the anticipation of using them in most battles, can now invest a modicum to essentially free up all of that space in the expendables cap. Anything that could be used that doesn't require a saving throw or that doesn't benfit hugely from the CL of the wielder. Mirror Image and Bull's Strength were already available without credits anyway. We have I think two of the former (one on Macbrea's Relanex and one on my Eraca) and none of the latter out of every wizard in the CoCo. Shocking Grasp was available too, albeit at CL 1 only. Considering how many wizards here prohibit necromancy, I doubt ray of enfeeblement will be a big deal. And I also doubt expeditious retreat will get put into wand form much, since its quickly eclipsed by Fly and Phantom Steed. And remember all of these things are very costly. Its not like any old level 4 wizard can be walking around with all of the wands he likes. At higher levels you may see folks with a variety of them, but at lower levels surely there won't be much of an increase in their presence. Zevox
TheMagister 05-11-07, 11:36 AM	Rubicanti carries three dorjes.
SoulLord 05-11-07, 11:37 AM	On Rogues (and maybe bards) Are rogues limited in the current arena environment? rogues need to be able to hide effectively this is hampered by #1 autospot rule #2 tons of creatures with scent #3 limits of magic items allowed to buy while a multi class or magic domain cleric has no such limitations rogues have a very hard time to get their hands on items that could give them an edge on the arena. What should be made so rogues can be competitive in the arena? tips, suggestions?
Macbrea 05-11-07, 11:48 AM	I guess the problem with adding it to the expendable cap at 1/5th the amount is that it results hitting that cap really quickly. Example: Relanex in 3 weeks will have the following items: Wand of Fireball (50) [CL 8] 18,000gp Wand of Magic Missile (37) [CL 5] 3,750 gp -> 2,775gp? Wand of Mirror Image (40) [CL 3] 4,500 gp -> 3,600gp? Total value 25,350 gp -> Current value 24,375 gp Assuming 1/5th that is 5,070 gp -> current 4,875 gp His current expendable cap is: 8 x 8 x 50 = 3,200 gp The items he hasn't is out of line with a wizard of his level. Yet if the 1/5th rules was implemented and calculated straight off the cap he would be over the amount he is really allowed to carry. I think 1/5th is too low.
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 12:15 PM	On Rogues (and maybe bards) Are rogues limited in the current arena environment? rogues need to be able to hide effectively this is hampered by #1 autospot rule #2 tons of creatures with scent #3 limits of magic items allowed to buy while a multi class or magic domain cleric has no such limitations rogues have a very hard time to get their hands on items that could give them an edge on the arena. What should be made so rogues can be competitive in the arena? tips, suggestions? We've already done lots to allow rogues to hide effectively. We have new maps with lots of cover. We have skill packages that allow rogues to use non-combat skills to gain tactical advantage. There are lots of core items that grant bonuses to hide skills that all stack. There's no way we are going to ban scent, or change the autospot rule, or make it easier to buy custom hiding items.
TheMagister 05-11-07, 12:16 PM	But we could re-examine (and hopefully repeal) the "any attack can be heard with a DC 0 listen check" rule extrapolation. Really, we could!
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 12:16 PM	Shield/mage armor/shield of faith are not used so often that allowing them as wands would be such a big deal. After all, how many characters have been in anywhere near 50, or even 25 (assuming use 2/battle) battles so far? True strike could be a concern, but remember that it costs a standard action to use, so it's only worth it if it more than doubles your chance to hit. Well - of my own characters: Kraegin (ECL10) - 24 fights, 3 full quests Sir Valkin (ECL10) - 23 fights, 3 miniquests, 4 full quests (one failed) Anakala (ECL6) - 20 fights, 2 miniquests Just to give a few examples... With the frozen leagues opening up - the possibility of 25+ or 50+ fights is certainly within reach...
McJarvis 05-11-07, 12:21 PM	RE: Rogues: The general concensus of a good number of people present at CoCo is: 1) Rogues get tons of skill packages, which helps balance them. This is why there are rogues running rampant everywhere using these skill packages, and not merely multiclassed characters & human paragons taking advantage of them. 2) Hiding is annoying, so we're just going to ignore that it is a difficult-to-use tactic in the first place & place even more restrictions on it. Then we'll add a few spots of concealment on various maps and act like nothing is wrong, since we've given them concealment on a few maps. This obviously makes the rogue impervious to tactics like sending scent-able critters into the concealment or landing area effect spells behind the only tree in sight. So you see, they have a strong leg to stand on. Don't expect hider builds to get any help. :P
TheMagister 05-11-07, 12:31 PM	{sniff} {sniff} "I smell the sarcasm burning, dear."
McJarvis 05-11-07, 12:36 PM	I remember the good old days when things like this came up and the elders just shrugged & said, "Let's face it, Bards and Rogues just are not made for the arena" instead of trying to pretend like Rogues are actually balanced in the format. -_-
Zevox 05-11-07, 12:42 PM	But we could re-examine (and hopefully repeal) the "any attack can be heard with a DC 0 listen check" rule extrapolation. Really, we could! Well, you've got one Elder now who is all for that one at least. ...but if we may get back to the issues still unresolved at hand. Firstly, how to resolve the issues with wands and potions/oils. If I'm not mistaken, Telin just voted for the total removal of the restriction on at least a trial basis. Which makes it 3 Elders for that, 1 for unrestricting everything but adding a restriction to metamagic/psionic, and 1 yet to chime in (and presently dealing with a RL emergency). A clear majority, and it seems in keeping with many of the community comments, so I think we have our result there. Theres also the discussion about adding Wands to the expendable cap, albeit with Telin's decision to allow a trial time for unrestricted wands that may no longer be as serious a discussion. I'll reiterate that I'm completely against that. If need be, I'll keep reiterating my reasons, but for now I'll presume the fact that I did so just yesterday means its not necessary at the moment. Lets see what MWB has to say on that before continuing on further tangents, eh? I'd rather not leave something important behind in the flow of conversation here. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 01:02 PM	I don't think there are any often used spells whose wands are not already free. Maybe higher levels of acid arrow and scorching ray, but what else? If you look at all of the classes that use wands naturally but are limited to the list and therefore fubarred by it, that opens up quite a lot. Macbrea did a nice break down of how many wnads onthe chart apply to which casters. Druids, bards, and rangers are pretty much nerfed on wands by the book chart. I know when I bought Sybil's last wand (Mirror Image) it was because what I really wanted is unavailable on that chart.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 01:13 PM	Druids, bards, and rangers are pretty much nerfed on wands by the book chart. I know when I bought Sybil's last wand (Mirror Image) it was because what I really wanted is unavailable on that chart. Most of the good Bard ones(Mirror Image, Silence) are actually on the wizard list+they can use UMD to access any other list they want anyway.. I agree on Druid/Ranger, though.
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 01:14 PM	Most of the good Bard ones(Mirror Image, Silence) are actually on the wizard list+they can use UMD to access any other list they want anyway.. I agree on Druid/Ranger, though. UMD is unreliable at best...and I want Tiny Hut!
McJarvis 05-11-07, 01:16 PM	UMD is unreliable at best...and I want Tiny Hut! At best you've got a +3(cha)+8(ranks)+3(skill boost feat)+2(other feat)+3(tool)=+19, autosuccess on wands at level 5. 2 feats & 900 gp. :-)
TheMagister 05-11-07, 01:18 PM	A UMD "tool"? {looks sideways at McJ} OH. A UMD skill item. I gotcha.
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 01:18 PM	At best you've got a +3(cha)+8(ranks)+3(skill boost feat)+2(other feat)+3(tool)=+19, autosuccess on wands at level 5. 2 feats & 900 gp. :-) And two feats invested into being a low DC second rate caster at the expense of being a top notch rogue or bard...all of which is beside the point that the really fun and interesting wands are not on the chart...come on, rapid shot archer with Tiny Hut...read the spell, it rocks.
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 01:29 PM	I believe that we have a decision with respect to wands. Also we have a decision with respect to LOY at least until Hirumajoe decides he doesn't want to run the post any more. So I think we should move on to the next thing on the plate... Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs Clarification on definitions and consequences of "defeat" Reworking the Diplomacy or Handle Animal rules Which one is next? Guess which one I want to tackle? Well aside from your own diabolical plans I think we should at least resolve the defeat question - since that is a constant issue in multi-player fights and would be best resolved sooner rather than later. On the issue of defeat, there needs to be concensus on the following: 1. At what point is a character out of a fight? 0hp or less, -10 or less? This issue is primarily a question in multiplayer fights, but also has prevalence when the character has an ally. In that way this ties to the second question: 2. How does his/her allies react to him being out of the fight? What if the ally has healing? So - discuss.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 01:32 PM	come on, rapid shot archer with Tiny Hut...read the spell, it rocks. Somehow I forget how the "Read the spell, it rocks" arguement is supposed to convince people that wands shouldn't be restricted ;)
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 01:40 PM	Well aside from your own diabolical plans I think we should at least resolve the defeat question - since that is a constant issue in multi-player fights and would be best resolved sooner rather than later. On the issue of defeat, there needs to be concensus on the following: 1. At what point is a character out of a fight? 0hp or less, -10 or less? This issue is primarily a question in multiplayer fights, but also has prevalence when the character has an ally. In that way this ties to the second question: 2. How does his/her allies react to him being out of the fight? What if the ally has healing? So - discuss. It makes it simpler to declare unconsciousness as out of the fight and allies magically go poof, but this kinda defeats the purpose of some allies. There are a lot of allies that can heal their friend, and I have seen fights where the ally had a strong chance of putting the opponent to -10 in the round following the one where the master goes to -1. When I first started we went to bleed out to determine where someone ended up in FFA/Hunter/Team. That is why I still occasionally include "when someone drops put another arrow in them to be sure" in my tactics. On the one hand, I hate the proliferation of allies, on the other they are a valid part of builds. I rather think that going back to bleed out across the board would be nice. It forces people in multiplayer fights to make the decision to end a foe or risk him stabilizing and displacing them in the rankings.
Zevox 05-11-07, 01:46 PM	And two feats invested into being a low DC second rate caster at the expense of being a top notch rogue or bard...all of which is beside the point that the really fun and interesting wands are not on the chart...come on, rapid shot archer with Tiny Hut...read the spell, it rocks. I fail to see how an immobile area of total concealment is going to be of much help. Anyone with an AoE spell won't be bothered by it, and anyone who wants to melee you isn't impeded by it. And anyone who doesn't fit those categories isn't going to be stupid enough to sit in your sights and take shots. Really, you'd be much better off with Blacklight, in spite of its much shorter duration. On the issue of defeat, there needs to be concensus on the following: 1. At what point is a character out of a fight? 0hp or less, -10 or less? This issue is primarily a question in multiplayer fights, but also has prevalence when the character has an ally. In that way this ties to the second question: 2. How does his/her allies react to him being out of the fight? What if the ally has healing? So - discuss. As long as I've been here, we've always used -10 with allies continuing until their master reaches that point. Was there some call to change this? Zevox
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 01:55 PM	@Zevox - that is not the rule for all fights. Hunters in particular have "special" rules for declaring when someone is down. FFAs are silent on the issue - but it still has come up. Better to just get it ironed out to be sure - especially since it was brought up as an issue (so it obviously has been a question in a few peoples' minds (myself included...)).
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 01:59 PM	As long as I've been here, we've always used -10 with allies continuing until their master reaches that point. Was there some call to change this? ZevoxIf I recall correctly, there is some kind of difference in the way being out of the battle is defined in free for all fights and hunter fights.
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 02:00 PM	I fail to see how an immobile area of total concealment is going to be of much help. Anyone with an AoE spell won't be bothered by it, and anyone who wants to melee you isn't impeded by it. And anyone who doesn't fit those categories isn't going to be stupid enough to sit in your sights and take shots. Really, you'd be much better off with Blacklight, in spite of its much shorter duration. Zevox Drop one on the plains. If they enter it, dash off and drop another. Use one as a decoy. They can't tell if you are in it, or if you are in it with your three summoned monsters, or if the summoned monsters are in it and you are elsewhere. I tend to think outside the box on tactics. That is actually why I created a bard as my first character. I have been disappointed to find that thinking outside the box only sorta works in CoCo...depends on the pitlord and is nerfed by a lot of our little house foibles like the delay rule and the removal of charm, etc. as viable arena options.
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 02:01 PM	Drop one on the plains. If they enter it, dash off and drop another. Use one as a decoy. They can't tell if you are in it, or if you are in it with your three summoned monsters, or if the summoned monsters are in it and you are elsewhere. I tend to think outside the box on tactics. That is actually why I created a bard as my first character. I have been disappointed to find that thinking outside the box only sorta works in CoCo...depends on the pitlord and is nerfed by a lot of our little house foibles like the delay rule and the removal of charm, etc. as viable arena options. If the caster leaves the area, the spell ends...
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 02:05 PM	If the caster leaves the area, the spell ends... Not the point...point is that the assertion that there are only a few useful spells not already available as wands out there is silly. I can think of a number of fun spells, like tiny hut, that are fun to play with, but I refuse to pay credits for something that I very strongly don't believe should have a credit cost.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 02:12 PM	Drop one on the plains. If they enter it, dash off and drop another. Use one as a decoy. They can't tell if you are in it, or if you are in it with your three summoned monsters, or if the summoned monsters are in it and you are elsewhere. I tend to think outside the box on tactics. That is actually why I created a bard as my first character. I have been disappointed to find that thinking outside the box only sorta works in CoCo...depends on the pitlord and is nerfed by a lot of our little house foibles like the delay rule and the removal of charm, etc. as viable arena options. At best this buys you buff time. On the plains they can just sit on the opposite side of the map outside of range(indeed: perhaps using a tower shield to gain total cover from you). Due to the way delay penalties work in CoCo, you will be forced to exit your sphere. Thinking outside of the box is fine-> thinking outside of the box in abusive ways that try to hijack your opponents tactics is not.
Yitzi 05-11-07, 02:16 PM	Not the point...point is that the assertion that there are only a few useful spells not already available as wands out there is silly. I never said there are only a few useful spells not already out there as wands, I said there are only a few spells used often enough to make wands worthwhile not already out the as wands. Mage armor is an incredibly useful spell, but it usually doesn't see enough use to make a wand a good investment.
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 02:34 PM	OK, so I think the wand discussion is over. We may need to revisit it again as levels increase and it becomes possible to have many wands. But for now, I think we are finished with that discussion. The elders have decided to make wand of all kinds imaginable available to everyone for purchasing or crafting.
MindWandererB 05-11-07, 02:36 PM	Well aside from your own diabolical plans I think we should at least resolve the defeat question - since that is a constant issue in multi-player fights and would be best resolved sooner rather than later. On the issue of defeat, there needs to be concensus on the following: 1. At what point is a character out of a fight? 0hp or less, -10 or less? This issue is primarily a question in multiplayer fights, but also has prevalence when the character has an ally. In that way this ties to the second question: 2. How does his/her allies react to him being out of the fight? What if the ally has healing? So - discuss. What I'd like to see is something like this: For the purposes of rank ordering (for FFAs and Hunter fights), you have lost if you fall to -1 hit points. For all other purposes, you (and your allies) are still in it until you reach -10 HP. In the event of two characters simultaneously falling into negatives (such as a disabled character attacking), the "tie" is broken by whichever dies first. If neither dies, or if both die simultaneously, then those characters tie.
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 02:41 PM	So if you have an ally capable of healing you in a FFA or hunter - but you fall to -1 - you can come back and kill the rest, but doing so still nets you the placement when you fell to -1? What about regeneration or non-lethal damage? I'd probably go with -10 as the rule. It is unlikely to see someone come back from -10 (dead) unless someone starts casting raise dead during the battle... ( 1 minute casting time...)
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 02:43 PM	What I'd like to see is something like this: For the purposes of rank ordering (for FFAs and Hunter fights), you have lost if you fall to -1 hit points. For all other purposes, you (and your allies) are still in it until you reach -10 HP. In the event of two characters simultaneously falling into negatives (such as a disabled character attacking), the "tie" is broken by whichever dies first. If neither dies, or if both die simultaneously, then those characters tie. What happens is say Retikos falls to -7, then his cleric cohort heals him. Then they come back to win it all? Does Retikos still only get rewards as if he lost at the time he fell to -7. Edit: Also there are feats like DieHard which would now be useless.
Zevox 05-11-07, 02:46 PM	Looks like Telin and Sauro already got to what I was thinking, so I'll just say I'm with them. I'd like to see the -10 rule applied across the board. I can tell you I recall feeling quite cheated in one instance where Destra was in a hunter fight, got knocked out (negative hps but not dead) second to last, and then her wolf animal companion killed her target, but the winner got the credit for the kill because she was technically "defeated" by the hunter match definition of such. Zevox
Yitzi 05-11-07, 02:50 PM	Even if the -10 rule is applied in a hunter match, once you knock your target below 0, you should get their target (at least until and unless they wake up), that way the quetion of "should I put in that extra arrow or not) becomes meaningful (otherwise of course you do, as you can't move on to the next until this one is fully dead).
TheMagister 05-11-07, 02:57 PM	Even if the -10 rule is applied in a hunter match, once you knock your target below 0, you should get their target (at least until and unless they wake up), that way the quetion of "should I put in that extra arrow or not) becomes meaningful (otherwise of course you do, as you can't move on to the next until this one is fully dead). One of the matches (I'm pretty sure it's the hunter match) already had language to that effect in the description.
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 03:03 PM	What happens is say Retikos falls to -7, then his cleric cohort heals him. Then they come back to win it all? Does Retikos still only get rewards as if he lost at the time he fell to -7. Edit: Also there are feats like DieHard which would now be useless. We may want to word it as unconscious. Diehard would then be fine without additional verbiage as it allows you to act until truly dead at -10.
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 03:12 PM	On the other side of the issue, I recall a free for all where a character who was the second to last fighting was actually the first dead. In this case the first two characters to go down both stabilized in the negatives. The winner was able to blast the guy into death, then walk around to finish off the other two.
Rauul 05-11-07, 03:19 PM	OK, so I think the wand discussion is over. We may need to revisit it again as levels increase and it becomes possible to have many wands. But for now, I think we are finished with that discussion. The elders have decided to make wand of all kinds imaginable available to everyone for purchasing or crafting. Shouldn't be a problem With wands since they cap at 4th level spells... And most 4th level spells and below have a 10d cap in them somewhere.. Unless you wanna pay for the level 10 maximized fireball wand... (good luck finding that cash)
Macbrea 05-11-07, 03:21 PM	You cannot buy a level 10 maximized fireball wand. That would be a 7th level spell in a wand. Which is illegal.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 03:25 PM	You cannot buy a level 10 maximized fireball wand. That would be a 7th level spell in a wand. Which is illegal. Actually, you're thinking of a heightened Fireball to 7th level. A Maximized fireball is still a 3rd level spell.
TelinArtho 05-11-07, 03:32 PM	Read please: Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
Rauul 05-11-07, 03:33 PM	Actually, you're thinking of a heightened Fireball to 7th level. A Maximized fireball is still a 3rd level spell. Nope.. cause it is memorized 4 levels higher than normal would make it a 7th level spell and therefore illegal for a wand.. :)
Macbrea 05-11-07, 03:34 PM	Yup, yup.. takes a 7th level spell slot and therefor shouldn't be built using the wand rules. He is right in the fact the DCs would be a massive 14!
Rauul 05-11-07, 03:35 PM	So what was the ruling by the Elders and GM on wants, scrolls, Powerstones.. ect.. Cause you all confuse poor old me with your ramblings about guilds.. So what was the ruling?
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 03:55 PM	For the defeat definition, how about this: A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat. If the character has allies or the Diehard feat, they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example).
SauroGrenom 05-11-07, 03:55 PM	So what was the ruling by the Elders and GM on wants, scrolls, Powerstones.. ect.. Cause you all confuse poor old me with your ramblings about guilds.. So what was the ruling? You get everything with no credit cost.
Rauul 05-11-07, 04:01 PM	You get everything with no credit cost. So option 1 i take it?
Zevox 05-11-07, 04:02 PM	For the defeat definition, how about this: A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat. If the character has allies or the Diehard feat, they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example). Sounds good to me. Covers all the bases nicely as near as I can tell. :thumbsup: Zevpx
McJarvis 05-11-07, 04:02 PM	Yup, yup.. takes a 7th level spell slot and therefor shouldn't be built using the wand rules. He is right in the fact the DCs would be a massive 14! But the slot a spell takes doesn't determine it's spell level. Heighten spell's actual function is it increases the spell level of a spell. This is why a maximized fireball is still stopped by the minor glove of invulnerability. (& You can create things like maximized/empowered fireball wands)
Zevox 05-11-07, 04:04 PM	But the slot a spell takes doesn't determine it's spell level. Heighten spell's actual function is it increases the spell level of a spell. This is why a maximized fireball is still stopped by the minor glove of invulnerability. (& You can create things like maximized/empowered fireball wands) Right on all counts except for the viability of the empowered/maximized fireball wand. See Telin's post here. Zevox
McJarvis 05-11-07, 04:06 PM	Right on all counts except for the viability of the empowered/maximized fireball wand. See Telin's post here. Zevox I see...I supposed if they spell it out then I must concede the point to Telin. Macbrea is still wrong though ;) edit-> Though I understand the intent of the rules Telin posted, they didn't actually change anything. When you apply most metamagic feats there is no "new higher spell level", just "higher spell slot". Not that I'm expecting us to follow the RAW in this case ;)
Rauul 05-11-07, 04:11 PM	I see...I supposed if they spell it out then I must concede the point to Telin. Macbrea is still wrong though ;) edit-> Though I understand the intent of the rules Telin posted, they didn't actually change anything. When you apply most metamagic feats there is no "new higher spell level", just "higher spell slot". So if you want a Maximized Fireball you have to make it into a staff... Basicly
Vathelokai 05-11-07, 05:12 PM	For the defeat definition, how about this: A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat. If the character has allies, Diehard feat, or another method of returning to positive hp they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example). I would add the bold portion above (just in case - eg. contingencies or something). No need to list them all, really. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with that being the rule for all types of fights (I very much dislike having different rules for each type).
Usurpator 05-11-07, 06:31 PM	Create a new guild system--one with fewer guilds (I'm Thinking five is about all we can handle practically, maybe six). I want that to be the last resort because it will take an immense amount of time to pull off, and it would be something of a waste of all the effort Cat and Sauro put in creating the current one, which has been active for only 9 months now. On the other hand, with Cat gone, we could create a system the rest of us want to play, rather than the one he wanted. Sauro and I have been juggling ideas for a very long time now, and I still have the poll that shows what our preferences were. Hirumajoe would just have to hold down the fort while we created the new system. I got plenty of ideas too, never really worked them out extensively since pretty much everything wound up vetoed by Cat previously. I had serious complaints about the original system, liked the improvements of the second ruleset, but still saw lots of problems, problems which I think continue to occur to this day. My ideas do involve the basic concept of the current ruleset (as a kind of strategy / resource management game played by Guildsmasters) to be overturned.
Usurpator 05-11-07, 07:20 PM	My principles for a successfull Guilds system here in the CoCo: 1. Anyone can start a guild at any time. Yep, Gladius can have an unlimited number of Guilds. If you want to start the Church of Asmodeus, you can! This should give any player that wants to put some effort into it an outlet for his creative RP juices, and not force them into a predetermined straightjacket set by the rules. It also helps to preserve all current guilds (for those guildmasters that desire to continue them) as RP entities. 2. Anyone is free to join any guild, there are no rule-based restrictions. Guild founders/guildmasters can of course refuse any applicant for RP reasons. Guildmasters may set up their guild democratically and have its members vote for each new applicant. The sky’s the limit. Guilds don’t need artificial limitations. Guilds need the possibilities of spies and traitors joining the ranks. 3. The guilds are integrated with regular CoCo activities. Any regular CoCo activities will affect the guilds. The guilds game is subservient to the core CoCo activities. It is *not* a separate game. It is an extension of the CoCo that provides a somewhat structured RP outlet for the gladiators. 4. All guild interaction is determined solely by the actions of their members. What happens with the Guilds should not be the result of the guildmasters playing a separate game between themselves, opposed by other guildmasters and random events. The guilds do not initiate activities, they respond to activities. Activities make the guilds, not vice versa. Guilds with popular and victorious gladiators, questers or in regular Gladius activities (arena fights, quests, campaigns etc.) are the dominant guilds, not those with a slew of inactive members and millions of gold in the bank. In short, a Guild is only as great as the deeds of its members. 5. Mandatory administrative duties will be minimal. Lots of things about the guilds do not have to be expressed in numbers or meticously recorded. Recording exactly how many dishwashers are needed for each room in your guild HQ is not the way to go. GAP, CAP’s, gold they are fairly irrelevant. There is plenty of bookkeeping that needs to be done already in the Core Coliseum. 6. The goal of guilds is to wield influence in Gladius and surrounding lands. It is not the a game goal to ‘defeat’ or ‘destroy’ the other guilds, although they might become RP goals. Going out to permanently damage or disable your opponent is simply detrimental to everyone’s enjoyment, just as it would be in the arena. The only game goal is to gain popularity or influence with NPCs. Such a thing is achieved by doing things the NPCs admire: fighting (and even better winning) arena fights, finishing quests and going on campaigns. A ‘popularity contest’ (with corresponding keeping of a popularity rating) is really the only mandatory bookkeeping I desire for the Guilds. Guilds could still have wars of course, and rob each other’s treasuries, but they will do so in the form of an arena fight, quest or campaign (the questlike missions were a good idea IMO). Additional guild rules will be an extension of these principles. For example: a guild can still own buildings, but they will be ‘bought’ by popularity, not by gold, CAP’s or other things. Each building should have a PC ‘custodian’. Only when such a custodian is active (arena, quest or campaign), will the building generate a particular effect for that guild. More importantly, PCs can not only ‘buy’ buildings with their popularity, but also ‘titles’, which can be an excellent RP tool, especially if some of the titles in Gladius are limited in number.
hogarth 05-11-07, 09:50 PM	I don't think there are any often used spells whose wands are not already free. Maybe higher levels of acid arrow and scorching ray, but what else? If you're just talking about wizard/sorcerer wands, the selection is decent, but it's much less so for druids, paladins and rangers. I believe on two separate occasions people tried to buy wands of Entangle and were told "you can't".
MindWandererB 05-11-07, 09:58 PM	For the defeat definition, how about this: A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat. If the character has allies or the Diehard feat, they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example). So we have a character at 0 HP. Rather than attacking one last time, he opts to pull an animal out of his bag of tricks. So now he gets ten extra rounds for the other character to kill each other off?
hogarth 05-11-07, 10:10 PM	For the defeat definition, how about this: A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat. If the character has allies or the Diehard feat, they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example). Personally, I kind of like the existing Hunter fight definition of "defeated": "target is dead, unconscious, or helpless with no chance to rejoin on its own" and once you're "defeated", your allies surrender. I'd like to see that extended to all fights. It helps avoid lame situations where a person is knocked first in a free-for-all, but ends up in first place because no one bothered to kill his toad familiar (or whatever).
McJarvis 05-11-07, 10:14 PM	ends up in first place because no one bothered to kill his toad familiar (or whatever). That is one *****in toad. edit-> Wow...that's the first time I've ever been censored by the WotC forums. :-O
NiQil 05-11-07, 10:16 PM	Personally, I kind of like the existing Hunter fight definition of "defeated": "target is dead, unconscious, or helpless with no chance to rejoin on its own" and once you're "defeated", your allies surrender. I'd like to see that extended to all fights. It helps avoid lame situations where a person is knocked first in a free-for-all, but ends up in first place because no one bothered to kill his toad familiar (or whatever). I pretty much agree with hogarth here...I think the existing definition is fine, it just needs to be extended to all fights.
MitzaVolchenko 05-11-07, 11:28 PM	I pretty much agree with hogarth here...I think the existing definition is fine, it just needs to be extended to all fights. My only problem with that is that certain types of allies have the ability to heal a gladiator. Think about a celestial charger...he can heal his rider even if the paladin in question is unconscious. Many familiars have the ability and intelligence to pour a healing draught down their master's throat. What about leadership cohorts who can cast healing, use wands/potions/etc? Those allies are part of the character build. They cost feats or are class allies which are calculated into the strength of the class as part of what makes them balanced to other classes. What about mercenaries? My cleric merc happened to be out of line of fire for that lightning bolt, but because I wasn't, he can't heal me? I just lose? That is a wee bit lame.
hogarth 05-11-07, 11:42 PM	My only problem with that is that certain types of allies have the ability to heal a gladiator. Just to clarify, when I say "target is dead, unconscious, or helpless with no chance to rejoin on its own", I would consider that a gladiator with a healing ally has a "chance to rejoin on [his] own". I just would like to rule out shenanigans in situations where someone's horse/psicrystal/familiar is alive, but the master has no chance to return to the fight.
NiQil 05-11-07, 11:54 PM	Just to clarify, when I say "target is dead, unconscious, or helpless with no chance to rejoin on its own", I would consider that a gladiator with a healing ally has a "chance to rejoin on [his] own". I just would like to rule out shenanigans in situations where someone's horse/psicrystal/familiar is alive, but the master has no chance to return to the fight. Ditto
Vathelokai 05-12-07, 12:43 AM	That seems to be exactly what Sauro and I had posted above. Sounds official to me (unless I'm misunderstanding).
MitzaVolchenko 05-12-07, 07:14 AM	Just to clarify, when I say "target is dead, unconscious, or helpless with no chance to rejoin on its own", I would consider that a gladiator with a healing ally has a "chance to rejoin on [his] own". I just would like to rule out shenanigans in situations where someone's horse/psicrystal/familiar is alive, but the master has no chance to return to the fight. The proposal that I was responding to leaves it ambiguous as to whether an ally can bring someone up or kill the target on their master's behalf or if all allies go poof upon them dropping unconscious. That has to be clear or it will be argued. The first proposal of -10 across the board alleviates the need for that clarification. To be clear what I agree with is: The rule for out of the fight is -10. Until the PC hits -10 all allies, etc continue to fight as they normally would. In some cases that is not at all, but in the case of any ally capable of deciding on its own or in the case of trained animals which will fight on if they have been given the attack command, the ally can still win the day for its master. This requires that opponents must strike killing blows and not simply leave someone bleeding and head off for a new target while the first target's allies are operational. Upon hitting -10 the allies of course retire from the field.
hogarth 05-12-07, 09:22 AM	That seems to be exactly what Sauro and I had posted above. Sounds official to me (unless I'm misunderstanding). Not quite -- Sauro and you want allies to fight on until the master reaches -10 hp. Here's the wording of what I'd like to see: "If a gladiator is dead, unconscious, or otherwise helpless with no chance to rejoin the battle, then he and his allies surrender immediately." See -- no mention of -10 hp at all. It's only one sentence, and the intent is clear (to me at least). Why should a gladiator's allies continue to fight when their master has definitively lost?
MitzaVolchenko 05-12-07, 01:45 PM	Not quite -- Sauro and you want allies to fight on until the master reaches -10 hp. Here's the wording of what I'd like to see: "If a gladiator is dead, unconscious, or otherwise helpless with no chance to rejoin the battle, then he and his allies surrender immediately." See -- no mention of -10 hp at all. It's only one sentence, and the intent is clear (to me at least). Why should a gladiator's allies continue to fight when their master has definitively lost? Plese note my example. Player A with an imp familiar drops to -2HP. Player B has 2 HP's left and no allies. Player A's imp should be allowed to either pour a potion down his master's throat or charge the foe and knock him into unconsciousness. The imp is a class ally. It is smart. It is loyal. It has a reason to fight to the really bitter end.
hogarth 05-12-07, 03:41 PM	Plese note my example. Player A with an imp familiar drops to -2HP. Player B has 2 HP's left and no allies. Player A's imp should be allowed to either pour a potion down his master's throat or charge the foe and knock him into unconsciousness. The imp is a class ally. It is smart. It is loyal. It has a reason to fight to the really bitter end. If the imp has a potion of healing, that's fine; I don't have any problem with servants from helping the master back to consciousness. In that case there is a chance to rejoin the battle. But I personally dislike a unconscious person winning a fight over a conscious person and I believe Niqil feels the same way.
Zevox 05-12-07, 03:49 PM	I'm going to have to side with Sauro and Mitza on this. I'd rather see something wierd like MWB described than be told that an ally can't help you if you fall below 0 hp unless it can heal you. If the ally has the ability and will to fight on, it should (note those conditions - a toad familiar or Psicyrstal doesn't have the ability to fight on, and things like handle animal allies that haven't been told to fight lack the will, so they won't qualify). Zevox
NiQil 05-12-07, 03:58 PM	I'm going to have to side with Sauro and Mitza on this. I'd rather see something wierd like MWB described than be told that an ally can't help you if you fall below 0 hp unless it can heal you. If the ally has the ability and will to fight on, it should (note those conditions - a toad familiar or Psicyrstal doesn't have the ability to fight on, and things like handle animal allies that haven't been told to fight lack the will, so they won't qualify). Zevox And what that does is make the already overpowered allies even more overpowered. The fight is supposed to be between gladiators, not between their allies. Can you honestly say that if you are fighting someone who hired a merc, and you kill the opponent but the merc kills you that you think that's fair? Edit: Also, what this does is make 'suicide bomber' tactics much easier to do. Take the fight that MWB had a few weeks back with the whole Share Pain/lava issue. What if the caster of Share Pain had had a psicrystal? Are you now saying that since both character's hit -10 at the same time that the owner of the psicrystal would have won, just because the psicrystal was still alive? That seems ludicrious to me. Let's all run out and buy antfarms and stick them in our backpack, because if I die, but the ants live, the ants *could maybe kinda sorta eventually break out of their farm and attack the other player, so I win because the ants live? And yes, I am giving extreme and silly examples here...but I'm trying to prove a point.
MitzaVolchenko 05-12-07, 04:07 PM	And what that does is make the already overpowered allies even more overpowered. The fight is supposed to be between gladiators, not between their allies. Can you honestly say that if you are fighting someone who hired a merc, and you kill the opponent but the merc kills you that you think that's fair? Edit: Also, what this does is make 'suicide bomber' tactics much easier to do. Take the fight that MWB had a few weeks back with the whole Share Pain/lava issue. What if the caster of Share Pain had had a psicrystal? Are you now saying that since both character's hit -10 at the same time that the owner of the psicrystal would have won, just because the psicrystal was still alive? That seems ludicrious to me. They paid for the merc. Don't like the power of allies, change the ally rules. Don't like the power of mercs, remove them. I don't agree with seeing a class ally or feat ally be useless because of an artificial definition of the end of a fight. If you were in a TT solo game and the ogre drops your paladin to -2, wouldn't you want your gm to have your celestial charger heal you? What if you were a druid? Wouldn't you want the dire wolf you raised from a pup to kill the ogre giving you the chance of stabilizing and surviving? Note that I actually have a vested interest in getting rid of the allies...my bard has a dog that is an rp asset. I haven't even bought in the one character I have made to use allies and then it will be a leadership cohort and followers (though now that I look at Willow, wow she can abuse the Handle Animal rules too). Edit: Nobody is saying that a living ally=a victory. The victory condition is -10 for your opponent, not your alllies remaining alive after you hit -10.
hogarth 05-12-07, 06:40 PM	I don't agree with seeing a class ally or feat ally be useless because of an artificial definition of the end of a fight. These are arena battles, after all. There's nothing wrong with having rules covering when one side has lost. Especially considering that this is already the rule for Hunter fights. MitzaVolchenko's alternate ending to Rocky: "...and Rocky's down! Apollo Creed is the winner! But wait a second -- a skinny woman in the crowd just threw a beer bottle at Apollo's head and knocked him out! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new heavyweight champion -- Rocky Balboa!!! Let's congratulate him as soon as he wakes up." ;)
NiQil 05-12-07, 06:51 PM	They paid for the merc. Don't like the power of allies, change the ally rules. Don't like the power of mercs, remove them. I don't agree with seeing a class ally or feat ally be useless because of an artificial definition of the end of a fight. If you were in a TT solo game and the ogre drops your paladin to -2, wouldn't you want your gm to have your celestial charger heal you? What if you were a druid? Wouldn't you want the dire wolf you raised from a pup to kill the ogre giving you the chance of stabilizing and surviving? Note that I actually have a vested interest in getting rid of the allies...my bard has a dog that is an rp asset. I haven't even bought in the one character I have made to use allies and then it will be a leadership cohort and followers (though now that I look at Willow, wow she can abuse the Handle Animal rules too). Edit: Nobody is saying that a living ally=a victory. The victory condition is -10 for your opponent, not your alllies remaining alive after you hit -10. And no one is saying that if an ally can heal you, that you should be counted as defeated. If your celestial charger can bring you back from negative hp, then by all means, let them do so. What I *am saying is that if you have no way to heal yourself, and your celestial charger can't heal you, then why should you win because your celestial charger killed me before you bled out?
MitzaVolchenko 05-12-07, 08:57 PM	And no one is saying that if an ally can heal you, that you should be counted as defeated. If your celestial charger can bring you back from negative hp, then by all means, let them do so. What I *am saying is that if you have no way to heal yourself, and your celestial charger can't heal you, then why should you win because your celestial charger killed me before you bled out? Because my clestial charger is part of my class? I paid to put his barding on him, I used a quest to go get him, blah blah blah. While you know I dislike the proliferation of dog and pony shows, I cannot see it as fair that the items that you pay for and get penalized for are not valid right up until you are actually dead. If the difference between your opponent being able to put another arrow in you and them dying is an attack from your ally, that fight was really too close for them to be calling it a decisive victory. So yeah, I guess I am saying that if my ally can kill you before I bleed out, I win. Is it too much to ask that you actually take the time to kill me?
templer10 05-12-07, 09:45 PM	Because my clestial charger is part of my class? I paid to put his barding on him, I used a quest to go get him, blah blah blah. While you know I dislike the proliferation of dog and pony shows, I cannot see it as fair that the items that you pay for and get penalized for are not valid right up until you are actually dead. If the difference between your opponent being able to put another arrow in you and them dying is an attack from your ally, that fight was really too close for them to be calling it a decisive victory. So yeah, I guess I am saying that if my ally can kill you before I bleed out, I win. Is it too much to ask that you actually take the time to kill me? i think the problem with your approach is that if it's not such a close fight- but if someone is a clear winner who say wasnt even hurt spent most of his power (Spells, pps etc) on his opponent leaving his ally unharmed and that ally afterwards by luck and the dice gods actually manage to kill the other guy in say 20 or so rounds - in which case if his master stabilized on his own - he will win despite the master "lost" the fight 20 rounds ago. an easy (if not exacly legal by Raw) solution to that is that if it's a situation that fighter has been brought to negetives and that fighter's Ally cant heal - the fighter in the negatives CANT stabilize on his own (forgo the usual 10% per round chance) - he will lose 1 HP a round and die at -10 no matter what anywhere from 1 to 9 rounds later (depend how much in the negetives he started with) - and when he die- the ally surrenders. this will give you an option for the ally to win the fight for you if it is really a matter of 1 more hit to kill the other guy, and on the other hand wont make the situation when the fight is really between the ally and the other fighter.
Vathelokai 05-12-07, 10:10 PM	I think we've thoroughly beaten this horse... target is dead, unconscious, or helpless with no chance to rejoin on its own" and once you're "defeated", your allies surrender A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat, or another method of returning to positive hp. If the character has allies, Diehard feat, or another method of returning to positive hp they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example). If a gladiator is dead, unconscious, or otherwise helpless with no chance to rejoin the battle, then he and his allies surrender immediately. So (If I'm following things right) the only argument we have is on whether your allies can keep fighting if your unconscious? We all agree that they should be allowed to heal you up if they have the capability, right? So lets have a little straw poll: 1) once your unconscious, you and your allies are out. 2) once your unconscious, your allies can try to heal you up, but not keep fighting. 3) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC wins (weather your PC is dead or not). 4) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC only win if your PC hasn't gone to -10 hp yet. Bonus question: if you die and there are potentially deadly spell effects occurring (summon monster, acid fog, etc.)... 1) the spells end when a character is 'defeated'. 2) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are unconscious. 3) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are dead.
McJarvis 05-12-07, 10:51 PM	OOOOOO, Zevox just reminded me of a burning issue in my head :) Expendables should be priced at book value rather than crafting value for the purposes of expendable caps. Vote now! (or que it) ;) Reasoning: It just makes sense.
Yitzi 05-12-07, 11:09 PM	I think we've thoroughly beaten this horse... So (If I'm following things right) the only argument we have is on whether your allies can keep fighting if your unconscious? We all agree that they should be allowed to heal you up if they have the capability, right? So lets have a little straw poll: 1) once your unconscious, you and your allies are out. 2) once your unconscious, your allies can try to heal you up, but not keep fighting. 3) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC wins (weather your PC is dead or not). 4) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC only win if your PC hasn't gone to -10 hp yet. Bonus question: if you die and there are potentially deadly spell effects occurring (summon monster, acid fog, etc.)... 1) the spells end when a character is 'defeated'. 2) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are unconscious. 3) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are dead. I vote 4 and 3 respectively. OOOOOO, Zevox just reminded me of a burning issue in my head :) Expendables should be priced at book value rather than crafting value for the purposes of expendable caps. Vote now! (or que it) ;) Reasoning: It just makes sense. No. The whole point of scribe scroll is being able to use twice as many scrolls, what you're suggesting would make that not be the case.
McJarvis 05-12-07, 11:10 PM	No. The whole point of scribe scroll is being able to use twice as many scrolls, what you're suggesting would make that not be the case. The point of scribe scroll is to get a discount on scrolls. The point of the expendable cap is to limit the # of expendables a gladiator has access to. What I'm suggesting would reign in the wizards and divine scroll'ers, not defeat the purpose of scribe scroll.
Zevox 05-12-07, 11:12 PM	And what that does is make the already overpowered allies even more overpowered. The fight is supposed to be between gladiators, not between their allies. Can you honestly say that if you are fighting someone who hired a merc, and you kill the opponent but the merc kills you that you think that's fair? I know you think allies are overpowered and seem to hate them with a passion. I happen to disagree - if you have a way to get allies, your opponent has to deal with you and your allies. Just because you think things should be simple 1-on-1s with no other living thing involved doesn't mean thats how it works. For the Merc thing, if my opponent is dead (-10 hp), then the Merc is too late to kill me. If I bring a foe to negative hps but not -10 and the Merc finishes me before I can manage another attack to finish off that foe, yes, I think thats fair. They paid for the Merc, they're losing rewards to have his aid, this is something I think they should get out of that. Edit: Also, what this does is make 'suicide bomber' tactics much easier to do. Take the fight that MWB had a few weeks back with the whole Share Pain/lava issue. What if the caster of Share Pain had had a psicrystal? Are you now saying that since both character's hit -10 at the same time that the owner of the psicrystal would have won, just because the psicrystal was still alive? That seems ludicrious to me. First, the very post you quoted says that example doesn't work. Psicrystals aren't able to fight (no attacks of their own), so they don't qualify for the definition I gave (and I even used them as an example of what wouldn't qualify...). Second, when I said I agree with Mitza and Sauro, I meant that to include the "-10 hp means the fight is over no matter what" clause. I think we've thoroughly beaten this horse... So (If I'm following things right) the only argument we have is on whether your allies can keep fighting if your unconscious? We all agree that they should be allowed to heal you up if they have the capability, right? So lets have a little straw poll: 1) once your unconscious, you and your allies are out. 2) once your unconscious, your allies can try to heal you up, but not keep fighting. 3) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC wins (weather your PC is dead or not). 4) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC only win if your PC hasn't gone to -10 hp yet. Bonus question: if you die and there are potentially deadly spell effects occurring (summon monster, acid fog, etc.)... 1) the spells end when a character is 'defeated'. 2) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are unconscious. 3) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are dead. First question - #4. Second question - #3. PS - You know you need to vote on such issues now too ;) . OOOOOO, Zevox just reminded me of a burning issue in my head ;) Expendables should be priced at book value rather than crafting value for the purposes of expendable caps. Vote now! (or que it) ;) Reasoning: It just makes sense. No. That was one of the things I quite liked when the expendable cap was put into effect, and it makes more sense to me to let characters that can make those themselves treat them as the value they actually paid for them. Else the cap becomes insanely restrictive on casters at low levels (3 CL 2 scrolls of shield becomes over 1/3 of your cap at level 3!). Zevox
McJarvis 05-12-07, 11:13 PM	No. That was one of the things I quite liked when the expendable cap was put into effect, and it makes more sense to me to let characters that can make those themselves treat them as the value they actually paid for them. Else the cap becomes insanely restrictive on casters at low levels (3 CL 2 scrolls of shield becomes over 1/3 of your cap at level 3!). Zevox Because casters are so underpowered at low levels right now? o_O I really don't think the cap would be "insanely restrictive" on casters-> it might be an actual challenge for them to choose which scrolls to bring, though. And _maybe_ they wouldn't be able to fully buff every single fight(of horrors)
Zevox 05-12-07, 11:18 PM	Because casters are so underpowered at low levels right now? o_O Thats when they're at their weakest, to be sure. They sure as hell can't use weapons with any decent level of skill, and at that level their spells are so few and the expendable cap low enough that they can hardly afford offensive scrolls. If they don't have a magic missile wand or their foe has the shield spell, they're in trouble if those 3-4 spell levels per fight they get aren't enough to win it. Not that they're not capable characters even at that level, but they're sure as hell not in need of nerfing. Zevox
Yitzi 05-12-07, 11:19 PM	The point of scribe scroll is to get a discount on scrolls. In order to let you use twice as many for the same price. For most people, the primary restriction on scrolls is the expendable cap, not the price, so this change would severely nerf scribe scroll, and with it most wizards. It's way too big a change.
McJarvis 05-12-07, 11:22 PM	In order to let you use twice as many for the same price. For most people, the primary restriction on scrolls is the expendable cap, not the price, so this change would severely nerf scribe scroll, and with it most wizards. It's way too big a change. ...except there is no expendable cap in D&D, so your idea that the point of scribe scroll is to be able to pack as many scrolls under the expendable cap as possible is somewhat off-base. @Zevox: Casters have the edge at low levels, and this becomes even greater at high levels. The expendable cap at present is more of a burden to warrior-types who require potions* than it is to casters(who it was made to "nerf", as you put it, in the first place). I'm not sure why you would think casters would need a way around something created soley to keep them in check. Unless you'd like to remove it entirely...(and go back to the days when casters would spend 2k on expendables at ECL3 to get an auto-victory) *Or worse-> Tattoos. Think about the barbarians out there that only get 3 ML 1 Force Screen tats.
McJarvis 05-12-07, 11:28 PM	Add-on: You bring up another problem: the 1/3 rule. This is largely why expendables for wizards are used the way they are: to offset that low "3 SL in the first fight" if you need more than just that. Perhaps if expendables were not so easy to come by we could get rid of the 1/3 rule. Issues with "going nova" are actually somewhat transparent: Someone could easily bog themselves down with tons of scrolls, use them all on fight 1, as well as a wand...plus their 3 SL's.
Vathelokai 05-12-07, 11:38 PM	PS - You know you need to vote on such issues now too ;) .:shifty: #4 and #3, respectively. As for expendables: I was against pretty much every 'nerf' put on wizards. But having seen these rules in effect, I'm okay with where they stand now. If there is a movement to go with all market price on the expendible cap, then I might be persuaded. I've seen rule after rule try to slow down the 'dominance' (giggle) of wizards. It never works*. You could take away all their toys and they'll still be tough opponents (you'll just see more save or die and wand wielder types). * I do think some of the rules 'worked' in the since that they balanced things. The polymorph rulings for example.
Zevox 05-12-07, 11:50 PM	@Zevox: Casters have the edge at low levels, and this becomes even greater at high levels. Of course they do - casters have the edge at any level because in D&D, magic is more powerful than mundane abilities. And of course this becomes greater at higher levels, because more potent magic becomes available to them then. Theres no changing that, its a basic fact of the game. Those who can manipulate matter with their thoughts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html) (:)) are more powerful than those who cannot. The expendable cap at present is more of a burden to warrior-types who require potions* than it is to casters(who it was made to "nerf", as you put it, in the first place). I'm not sure why you would think casters would need a way around something created soley to keep them in check. Unless you'd like to remove it entirely...(and go back to the days when casters would spend 2k on expendables at ECL3 to get an auto-victory) *Or worse-> Tattoos. Think about the barbarians out there that only get 3 ML 1 Force Screen tats. The cap is doing its job just fine as near as I can tell. It prevents the kind of levels of expendables that Barthleby and The Harvester had that originally prompted its inclusion (I don't recall exactly, but I think each had about 10k gp worth of expendables on them at level 7 or 8 when the cap was implemented). It seems to me that the ability to treat items as the cost you paid for them is the only reason the cap isn't too low at this point. As for warriors, they don't really need many potions. My own warrior/sniper Featylec has always gotten by with a few SoF, protection from good/evil, and magic weapon potions/oils, plus a handful of tattoos later on, and at recent levels some more expensive potions that help keep him hidden from magical detection; and my monk Indrithia was pretty similar. Tattoos are an issue, aye, but thats a problem of their price being almost universally doubled (if someone could find a power that would be useful as a tattoo and isn't personal range, I'd be shocked). From level 4 on the cap is high enough to accommodate them. Add-on: You bring up another problem: the 1/3 rule. This is largely why expendables for wizards are used the way they are: to offset that low "3 SL in the first fight" if you need more than just that. Perhaps if expendables were not so easy to come by we could get rid of the 1/3 rule. Issues with "going nova" are actually somewhat transparent: Someone could easily bog themselves down with tons of scrolls, use them all on fight 1, as well as a wand...plus their 3 SL's. IIRC, MWB spoke on that pretty solidly once before, saying he agreed with Cat's reasoning on that and wasn't changing it, period. I happen to agree that it would be fine to remove it (although not that this would make tightening the expendable cap okay), but if he doesn't, that doesn't matter. Zevox
Yitzi 05-13-07, 12:24 AM	...except there is no expendable cap in D&D, so your idea that the point of scribe scroll is to be able to pack as many scrolls under the expendable cap as possible is somewhat off-base. No, it is to pack as many scrolls under those factors limiting scroll use as possible. In TT D&D, that's price. In CoCo, that's price and expendable cap.
McJarvis 05-13-07, 08:21 AM	IIRC, MWB spoke on that pretty solidly once before, saying he agreed with Cat's reasoning on that and wasn't changing it, period. I happen to agree that it would be fine to remove it (although not that this would make tightening the expendable cap okay), but if he doesn't, that doesn't matter. Zevox I agreed with him at the time, but now that I think about it the reasoning doesn't make sense. The point is to prevent people from "Nova"ing one their first fight & sacrificing a win on fight 3. People can just as easily store (450/75(crafted)) 6 level 2 spells in their expendable cap. Try dealing with not only those 15->17 SL's the caster has, but the extra 12 they keep under expendables. The 1/3 cap isn't stopping _anyone_ from going nova. (they could just blow 12 SL's in expendables, then second fight blow 10->12 more from spell-slots, and then lose their third fight) The fact that they're terribly GP ineffecient isn't really the point: since it was generally assumed that "nova"-ers don't think about the future. RE: Scribe Scroll: Look, Sorcs can survive without it(despite already being behind the game progression-wise). Psions survive without it, wilders do, clerics/druids do. I don't see why Wizards need to be pampered with this way to get around the expendable limit. The other full-casters all seem to do fine. I'm totally not buying anyone saying "Wizards would be unfairly disadvantaged" by adjusting the cap this way. [Especially given that psions/sorcs are comparable in their lack of melee ability]
McJarvis 05-13-07, 08:25 AM	No, it is to pack as many scrolls under those factors limiting scroll use as possible. In TT D&D, that's price. In CoCo, that's price and expendable cap. Not really. The power of scribe scroll is to reduce the amount of expendable spending that you spend as a character. Not to "get more spells per level". Hell, I've run plenty of wizards with almost all their cash stored in scrolls. The "expendables are powerful" thing applies more to tabletop sessions than most people around here think...
Usurpator 05-13-07, 09:11 AM	Allies: My vote for option 1. It's neat, clean and simple. The gladiators are not fighting real fights, they are pursuing ritual gladiatorial combat. The goal/purpose of this ritual combat is to defeat your opponent, not kill your opponent AND all his allies. When two knights face each other, the combat is over when one goes unconscious. Not when the unconscious knight's mount is massacred as well (even though that mount may have a good chance to kill the other knight). If the combat were for real (say a quest or campaign), sure, allies will fight on to the last (or pour curing potions), but not in Arena combat. It was the multiplayers fights that caused the 'defeated' rule to be instituted originally (I remember suggesting it) because of other gladiators curing their opponents back into the fight after others had defeated them, screwing up the rankings and being generally unfair. It was decided then that even though it was allowed to do so, and the cured gladiator could still affect the final outcome, as far as himself was concerned, he was still defeated. Balance-wise I think allies are very strong in the CoCo, and a build with a good win-to-loss record without allies it is nearly impossible to do. Besides that, lots of allies increase the burden on Pitlords, but both these arguments are only indirectly relevant to this issue, and should be discussed if/when revamping the allies rules.
hogarth 05-13-07, 09:20 AM	So lets have a little straw poll: 1) once your unconscious, you and your allies are out. 2) once your unconscious, your allies can try to heal you up, but not keep fighting. 3) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC wins (weather your PC is dead or not). 4) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC only win if your PC hasn't gone to -10 hp yet. I vote for none of these. Instead, I vote for what I proposed (which is sort of like #2 or #3) -- if you still have a chance to return to the battle (for instance, if your ally has a healing potion he can feed to you) then your allies can take whatever actions they like, but if there's no way for you to return to battle the allies surrender. Bonus question: if you die and there are potentially deadly spell effects occurring (summon monster, acid fog, etc.)... 1) the spells end when a character is 'defeated'. 2) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are unconscious. 3) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are dead. I vote for #2 or #3, but I would change "unconscious/dead" to "unable to return to battle".
Salrantol 05-13-07, 10:22 AM	#4* & #3 The * is to say that once you're dead, since you can no longer win, the allies just surrender.
Yitzi 05-13-07, 10:44 AM	Post removed, should have beeen in the tavern
MitzaVolchenko 05-13-07, 12:02 PM	Allies: My vote for option 1. It's neat, clean and simple. The gladiators are not fighting real fights, they are pursuing ritual gladiatorial combat. The goal/purpose of this ritual combat is to defeat your opponent, not kill your opponent AND all his allies. When two knights face each other, the combat is over when one goes unconscious. Not when the unconscious knight's mount is massacred as well (even though that mount may have a good chance to kill the other knight). Sybil would like to say that you are smoking something...and you really shouldn't buy things to smoke from disreputable looking gnomes on street corners. My bard fights to make ends meet, not to go out and bow to her opponent and fight fair. My votes on allies are #4 & #3 respectively. We have two rabidly anti-ally elders that are capable of making fine points regarding the allies rules. If there is going to be balance imposed, I suggest that it be done through changes to the ally rules, not some artificial constructions of what constitutes defeat. All of those saying how unfair it is that the horse might beat them, just put an extra stab/arrow/magic missile into your opponent and be done with it...they are helpless. If it was a close enough match that you couldn't do that before a hoof to the head got you, then you didn't have a solid enough victory.
Usurpator 05-13-07, 12:10 PM	All of those saying how unfair it is that the horse might beat them, just put an extra stab/arrow/magic missile into your opponent and be done with it...they are helpless. If it was a close enough match that you couldn't do that before a hoof to the head got you, then you didn't have a solid enough victory. Good point. Still I don't think it would feel fair to me in a limited amount of situations. But then again, those situations are rare, so I can live fine with the other rules as well. In a multiplayer match with ranking based on first-down, last-down, I still think we need the old rule. As I said before, the problem with the power of allies in general is a different from this thing.
Malither76 05-13-07, 02:21 PM	#4.#3 respectively, The only Ally's that really need addressing is Diplomacy allies, they are way broken.
SauroGrenom 05-14-07, 01:14 AM	#4.#3 respectively, The only Ally's that really need addressing is Diplomacy allies, they are way broken.Not True in my opinion. Advanced allies are all broken. All the allies based on CR instead of ECL are broken. The only reason that diplomacy allies are used almost exclusively is because they are the most broken. If and when that hole is plugged, there will be other "best" choices. That will probably be the advanced purchased allies next. Then if/when that's fixed, the advanced HA allies... And so on. With respect to the issue of defining defeat, I like my definition above. It corresponds to Vath's #4 and #3, although I prefer my wording.
Zevox 05-14-07, 01:27 AM	Given it looks like we have a popular choice on the defeated definition issue, might I ask for a slight add-on to that? Namely, the definition I gave for allies that qualify for extending the fight while you're in negative hps - allies that are both able and willing to continue fighting. This would plug the hole of a wizard with a toad familiar in an FFA getting a higher rank just because no one though he was worth an extra attack, or similar situations. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-14-07, 01:33 AM	Given it looks like we have a popular choice on the defeated definition issue, might I ask for a slight add-on to that? Namely, the definition I gave for allies that qualify for extending the fight while you're in negative hps - allies that are both able and willing to continue fighting. This would plug the hole of a wizard with a toad familiar in an FFA getting a higher rank just because no one though he was worth an extra attack, or similar situations. Zevox That's an excellent point. I agree. This does leave it to the pitlord to decide which allies qualify as being able to make a meaningful contribution to the battle. I can live with that.
hogarth 05-14-07, 07:19 AM	That's an excellent point. I agree. This does leave it to the pitlord to decide which allies qualify as being able to make a meaningful contribution to the battle. I can live with that. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page here, let's take a look at an actual example. Here's a hunter fight with Kervan, Torel and Reginald Molehusband: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10807801&postcount=312 The result: Kervan was knocked unconscious by a grappling horse, then Reginald's psicrystal knocked Torel into negative hit points, and finally Torel's animal companion killed Reginald. So, since it was a Hunter fight, the results were Reginald - first place Torel - second place Kervan - third place Under the new rules, the results would have been Torel - first place Reginald - second place Kervan - third place Now here's the sticking point for me: let's say Kervan had a pet rat. (Replace "rat" with the useless ally of your choice, if you like.) Then under the new rules, the results would have been Kervan - first place Torel - second place Reginald - third place Surprise! Kervan goes from last place to first, thanks to Willard the rat. I'm sorry to say, but this just seems dumb to me. In a multi-person fight, you can't always spare the time to deliver a coup de grace on an unconscious enemy, let alone hunt down any donkeys or rats or skeletons he might have waiting in the wings. Like I said before, an ally with a healing potion or something would be a different matter. Remind me to not make an allip gladiator -- it can't even kill anyone, it can only drain their Wisdom to zero. The best he can manage is a stalemate, or hope the opponent starves to death!
TelinArtho 05-14-07, 10:38 AM	1) once your unconscious, you and your allies are out. 2) once your unconscious, your allies can try to heal you up, but not keep fighting. 3) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC wins (weather your PC is dead or not). 4) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC only win if your PC hasn't gone to -10 hp yet. Bonus question: if you die and there are potentially deadly spell effects occurring (summon monster, acid fog, etc.)... 1) the spells end when a character is 'defeated'. 2) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are unconscious. 3) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are dead. Well with this many taking on #4 and #3 - I think I can get behind that as well. As to Zevox's comment about defining the "allies that can contribute" - I'd rather not leave this to pitlord interpretation. That said, in most cases, I suspect the cases where an ally couldn't effectively contribute would be easily resolved with a CDG (in which case, the ally is taken away on the character's death). If it can effectively contribute - such that the danger makes it tough/impossible to CDG - then it stands to reason that it can contribute. I'd prefer to just force the player to either a) risk the person not bleeding out in time or b) take the action to CDG.
Yitzi 05-14-07, 10:49 AM	Remind me to not make an allip gladiator -- it can't even kill anyone, it can only drain their Wisdom to zero. The best he can manage is a stalemate, or hope the opponent starves to death! First of all, allips have an LA of -, meaning that they cannot be allies or PCs. Secondly, I think that if someone and all his allies are unconsious, they are out even if they're still alive. So your allip would be able to win, he would just need to Wis drain the enemy and its allies (and once the gladiator is out, the allies will be a lot easier to take out).
McJarvis 05-14-07, 11:46 AM	First of all, allips have an LA of -, meaning that they cannot be allies or PCs. Oooo-> Classic mistake. Correcting an old-timer like Hogarth on a seemingly simple mistake. Allip +3(LA) 4(HD) ;)
Yitzi 05-14-07, 12:03 PM	Oooo-> Classic mistake. Correcting an old-timer like Hogarth on a seemingly simple mistake. ;) So an LA of - does not mean it is unavailable for being a gladiator? Because the SRD says it has an LA of -, the CR is 3.
McJarvis 05-14-07, 12:12 PM	So an LA of - does not mean it is unavailable for being a gladiator? Because the SRD says it has an LA of -, the CR is 3. Check out the rules of gladius thread under available classes. Some of the LA's were taken from non-core sources so that we could play them if we wanted to. (specifically: there are many undead options, since Libris Mortis made those LA's available)
TelinArtho 05-14-07, 12:13 PM	@Yitzi - some of the undead are listed with LA in the rules thread because we have taken the LA that were suggested in Libris Mortis. We did not come up with them out of the air and it was a measure to hopefully increase the options for undead characters from beyond just ghosts and liches.
Yitzi 05-14-07, 12:18 PM	ok, although perhaps the fact that the LA is from non-core should be noted in the rules.
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-07, 12:28 PM	Surprise! Kervan goes from last place to first, thanks to Willard the rat. I'm sorry to say, but this just seems dumb to me. In a multi-person fight, you can't always spare the time to deliver a coup de grace on an unconscious enemy, let alone hunt down any donkeys or rats or skeletons he might have waiting in the wings. Like I said before, an ally with a healing potion or something would be a different matter. Remind me to not make an allip gladiator -- it can't even kill anyone, it can only drain their Wisdom to zero. The best he can manage is a stalemate, or hope the opponent starves to death! With the new victory conditions, each of those comabatants that went down would receive another attack to kill them. Tactics would change from 'hit him until he falls over, ignore his allies' to 'strike a killing blow before moving on, deal with his allies as needed'. I know that I have written a lot of tactics that pretty much said, ignore the allies go for my opponent. This is knowing that his allies quit as soon as I knock him out. I should have to put that one more arrow into him to get rid of his friends. While there is life, there is hope. I want to see us banish all hope :)
Zevox 05-14-07, 12:37 PM	Now here's the sticking point for me: let's say Kervan had a pet rat. (Replace "rat" with the useless ally of your choice, if you like.) Then under the new rules, the results would have been Kervan - first place Torel - second place Reginald - third place Surprise! Kervan goes from last place to first, thanks to Willard the rat. I'm sorry to say, but this just seems dumb to me. In a multi-person fight, you can't always spare the time to deliver a coup de grace on an unconscious enemy, let alone hunt down any donkeys or rats or skeletons he might have waiting in the wings. Like I said before, an ally with a healing potion or something would be a different matter. Um, hogarth, I just gave a proposition to prevent idiotic situations like that, and Sauro agreed it was a good idea. Observe: Given it looks like we have a popular choice on the defeated definition issue, might I ask for a slight add-on to that? Namely, the definition I gave for allies that qualify for extending the fight while you're in negative hps - allies that are both able and willing to continue fighting. This would plug the hole of a wizard with a toad familiar in an FFA getting a higher rank just because no one though he was worth an extra attack, or similar situations. Zevox That's an excellent point. I agree. This does leave it to the pitlord to decide which allies qualify as being able to make a meaningful contribution to the battle. I can live with that. @ Sauro - As can I. It should be obvious in nearly all situations anyway. Things like Dire Bats, Warhorses, and Leadership Cohorts count, things like most familiars, Pscrystals, or an Eagle animal companion don't, and so on. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-14-07, 01:01 PM	With the new victory conditions, each of those comabatants that went down would receive another attack to kill them. Tactics would change from 'hit him until he falls over, ignore his allies' to 'strike a killing blow before moving on, deal with his allies as needed'. It should be noted that unless you have ranks in heal, you are unable to tell if a person is unconscious or dead.
McJarvis 05-14-07, 01:04 PM	It should be noted that unless you have ranks in heal, you are unable to tell if a person is unconscious or dead. This entire discussion could make heal/bluff more valuable, since a valid tactic could suddenly be "fall over dead so opponent will go after ally. Once they are out of sight, get up & heal, then ....."
MindWandererB 05-14-07, 01:04 PM	I respect the fact that a lot of discussion has gone into this while I was AFK for the weekend, but I've been putting some thought into it, too. Here are the key points on my mind. In a Hunter or FFA, you should be free to move on to another opponent once your current victim has gone down. It makes no sense, and is very un-D&D-like, to have to CdG every unconscious opponent to make sure you get the credit. Not all allies are willing and able to fight; not all allies are willing and able to heal. Both are important factors. I prefer to leave as little as possible to pitlord discretion. The rules should cover all situations if at all possible. So here's the rule I was considering. A character is considered defeated, but not out of the fight, when rendered unconscious via HP damage (phrased this way to account for Diehard). Allies are removed from the fight only at death. If an unconscious character is restored to consciousness somehow, their earlier "defeated" status is retroactively revoked. Pitlords must continue to run the fight until all but one PC is dead (not just defeated), unless all PCs are unconscious and stable, with no further ability to deal or restore damage, in which case this "tie" is won by the PC with the fewest negative HP. I think that covers everything. I greatly dislike the idea of a character getting an extra lease on life because they have an ally somewhere, who may not even be actively contributing to the fight. In 2-character matches, it's not much of an issue, but I'd really hate to see one character go down in round 5, and a second in round 10, but the second character to go down places last because the first one had a cat familiar who was under orders to attack when all but one opponent were down. (Hey, a cat may not be a scary ally, but it is capable of dealing damage. In the event of a disabled character knocking themselves out, the cat could easily and legitimately make a difference.)
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-07, 01:31 PM	So here's the rule I was considering. A character is considered defeated, but not out of the fight, when rendered unconscious via HP damage (phrased this way to account for Diehard). Allies are removed from the fight only at death. If an unconscious character is restored to consciousness somehow, their earlier "defeated" status is retroactively revoked. Pitlords must continue to run the fight until all but one PC is dead (not just defeated), unless all PCs are unconscious and stable, with no further ability to deal or restore damage, in which case this "tie" is won by the PC with the fewest negative HP. Nice wording, but does that mean that the ally in question has to have a means to return its master to consciousness even it successfully kills the remaining opponents? Otherwise its master stays in the same spot in the 'defeated' ranking?
Macbrea 05-14-07, 01:32 PM	It should be noted that unless you have ranks in heal, you are unable to tell if a person is unconscious or dead. It should be noted that tactics written like: If my opponent falls over unconscious put one final arrow in the person to ensure they are dead, does indead mean put another arrow in their body in order to ensure they are dead. Lets do simple math: Longbow +1 on CDG against opponent with -1 hps. Minimum damage = 6, average damage ~ 13. Yes, it appears that final arrow may result in the character death most of the time.
McJarvis 05-14-07, 01:37 PM	It should be noted that tactics written like: If my opponent falls over unconscious put one final arrow in the person to ensure they are dead, does indead mean put another arrow in their body in order to ensure they are dead. Lets do simple math: Longbow +1 on CDG against opponent with -1 hps. Minimum damage = 6, average damage ~ 13. Yes, it appears that final arrow may result in the character death most of the time. He was saying that to tell the difference between an opponent is unconcious/bleeding to death & one that is already dead(-10 hp), you would need ranks in heal. Your tactics would require an arrow to the face of anyone who falls over, not just the unconcious ones.
MindWandererB 05-14-07, 01:56 PM	Nice wording, but does that mean that the ally in question has to have a means to return its master to consciousness even it successfully kills the remaining opponents? Otherwise its master stays in the same spot in the 'defeated' ranking? In a one-on-one fight, that would mean that the ally would have to make the opponent reach -10 HP before their master did (because order of defeat is irrelevant in such a fight). In an FFA or Hunter fight, all the ally would be able to do is influence the outcome for the characters that are still in it. I'm also considering a line to simplify FFA/Hunter fights in most cases: that when all but two PCs are dead, you just follow the rules for 1-on-1 fights. It doesn't make a difference most of the time, but I can imagine situations where that clause might make things easier.
hogarth 05-14-07, 02:32 PM	So here's the rule I was considering. A character is considered defeated, but not out of the fight, when rendered unconscious via HP damage (phrased this way to account for Diehard). Allies are removed from the fight only at death. If an unconscious character is restored to consciousness somehow, their earlier "defeated" status is retroactively revoked. Pitlords must continue to run the fight until all but one PC is dead (not just defeated), unless all PCs are unconscious and stable, with no further ability to deal or restore damage, in which case this "tie" is won by the PC with the fewest negative HP. I would suggest changing the phrase "unconscious via HP damage" since it ignores the possibility of removing an opponent with ability damage, Stone to Flesh, Plane Shift, etc. The phrase "no chance to rejoin the fight on its own" should cover most possibilities, I think. In fact, I don't know why "death" should have a special status either -- if my egoist cohort can manifest Psionic Revivify on me, why should death count as losing the fight?
Yitzi 05-14-07, 02:53 PM	So here's the rule I was considering. A character is considered defeated, but not out of the fight, when rendered unconscious via HP damage (phrased this way to account for Diehard). Allies are removed from the fight only at death. If an unconscious character is restored to consciousness somehow, their earlier "defeated" status is retroactively revoked. Pitlords must continue to run the fight until all but one PC is dead (not just defeated), unless all PCs are unconscious and stable, with no further ability to deal or restore damage, in which case this "tie" is won by the PC with the fewest negative HP. Sounds good, only thing that needs to be clarified is the following situation: Hunter fight, A->B->C->D->A. A is knocked unconsious by D, D then kills B, then A's cleric ally heals him. It needs to be clear in the new version that the rule is that D gets credit for killing B, so long as he was taken out (either unconscious from which he did not recover or dead) before A was woken up.
Zevox 05-14-07, 02:55 PM	Meh, I still prefer the definitions we were discussing before. Yes, it leaves it up to pitlord discretion what allies are able to fight on, but it shouldn't exactly be a difficult choice to make most of the time. And under the present suggestion, issues like the one I went through with Destra once still exist - Destra in hunter fight was knocked unconscious but not dead, then the round thereafter her wolf animal companion killed her target, but the one who was hunting her got credit for the kill. I know I felt cheated when that happened, and I'd rather that type of thing not be allowed to happen again. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-07, 03:23 PM	I think this is getting a little complex and agree with Zevox more than not. Either allies are valid and useful in order of ranking or not...all ornothing, no in between. Either dead is dead, or it is some imposed and artificial rule that te arena imposes.
MindWandererB 05-14-07, 03:33 PM	Meh, I still prefer the definitions we were discussing before. Yes, it leaves it up to pitlord discretion what allies are able to fight on, but it shouldn't exactly be a difficult choice to make most of the time. And under the present suggestion, issues like the one I went through with Destra once still exist - Destra in hunter fight was knocked unconscious but not dead, then the round thereafter her wolf animal companion killed her target, but the one who was hunting her got credit for the kill. I know I felt cheated when that happened, and I'd rather that type of thing not be allowed to happen again. Zevox Well, here's the problem there. Hunter fight: A->B->C A knocks B unconscious. B has no chance to rejoin on his own, but has allies. Therefore, A's target switches so C. My proposal: yes, if B's allies defeated C, A would get the credit. Zevox's proposal: If A moves on to C and defeats them, B gets the credit, even if B's allies have nothing to do with it. Either way is problematic in some respects. As for making a judgment call about what allies can fight on--it's often not clear, and it will become even more unclear if it can be abused. For instance, a wizard sends his cat familiar to hide in the forest at the beginning of the fight, wait there for, say, 30 rounds, then come in and attack. It's a minor threat but a nonzero one. Even an Expanded psicrystal can perform an unarmed strike for 1 point of damage. Even if such allies end up being utterly ineffective, they do have some chance, and could extend the "life" of the PC long enough to push them up a rank. It seems like one of the main complaints is with Hunter fights. Perhaps the best fix there would be to change the Hunter rules. For instance, we could say that you can get credit for defeating an opponent even if you're only unconscious (if, for example, you still have allies or ongoing damaging spell effects). In the above example, that would mean that A would get credit for defeating B, but B would get credit for defeating C (just as if B beat C first and was then defeated by A). This does force A to either kill the allies or CdG B, but at least it makes it clear-cut, and prevents B's allies from doing A's work for him. It also circumvents the problem described by Yitzi, above. Another point that I didn't make clear earlier is that I want to avoid mentioning allies because allies aren't the only way to kill someone after you're already down. A Black Tentacles could do so just as easily, for instance. Or you could grapple someone and move them into the lava, rendering them unconscious and you conscious, but then have both characters die the following round. Or many other possibilities. Another alternative would be to simply play to the death in all cases. A character is not considered defeated unless killed. If you use Flesh to Stone, you're stuck chipping your opponent into pieces with a mining pick (after all, they could have an ally with Break Enchantment) or else it doesn't count. In an FFA/Hunter fight, it means you'll have to CdG or otherwise finish off an unconscious opponent to get credit. Or, we could just stick with the "no way to rejoin or contribute to the fight" language. That has the unintended side effect of having a fighter cohort with a CLW potion just beat your opponent to death after you're down. It also means that allies without healing options are out of the picture--but that may not be a bad thing.
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-07, 03:36 PM	In your scenraio, what prevents the player that put the wizard on the ground from killing his helpless foe?
MindWandererB 05-14-07, 03:41 PM	In your scenraio, what prevents the player that put the wizard on the ground from killing his helpless foe? Intrinsically, none. But in an FFA, the character that did so may have another PC to worry about. Best-case scenario, that's a standard action used to finish the wizard off. Worst-case, the character might be employing a heavily evasive strategy, and may not be able to stay to finish the wizard off without risking being caught in a deathtrap by the other character.
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-07, 03:49 PM	Intrinsically, none. But in an FFA, the character that did so may have another PC to worry about. Best-case scenario, that's a standard action used to finish the wizard off. Worst-case, the character might be employing a heavily evasive strategy, and may not be able to stay to finish the wizard off without risking being caught in a deathtrap by the other character. That is always a risk in multiplayer battles. Why does it make so much difference that it is another hit to kill them rather than another hit to knock them out?
Usurpator 05-14-07, 03:56 PM	I seem to remember the problem with people disabling (but not killing) opponents that were not their current target in group fights and when they killed their target coming back for the CdG. And the reverse, people waiting for a target to get heavily wounded by another and then trying to deliver the killing blow. People curing their opponents because they want 'the kill' instead of another getting it. The current rule was instituted partially to prevent weird meta-gaming actions that people had the tendency to perform in order to get better rewards, instead of just going out and fighting. This is not a problem in a duel, but it is in an FFA and Hunter fights.
MindWandererB 05-14-07, 07:03 PM	I seem to remember the problem with people disabling (but not killing) opponents that were not their current target in group fights and when they killed their target coming back for the CdG. And the reverse, people waiting for a target to get heavily wounded by another and then trying to deliver the killing blow. People curing their opponents because they want 'the kill' instead of another getting it. The current rule was instituted partially to prevent weird meta-gaming actions that people had the tendency to perform in order to get better rewards, instead of just going out and fighting. This is not a problem in a duel, but it is in an FFA and Hunter fights.Many of these are problems as things stand, as well. If A beats B, C could then turn around and cure B, and then what happens? I'm starting to think that the "no way to recover on their own" is still the best way to go. This would mean that if you have allies, but they're incapable of restoring you to consciousness, they're gone. One further possibility: when you're unconscious or otherwise "permanently" disabled, you're out, but that "loss" is retroactively revoked if you are in fact restored. That would mean that if A beats B and moves on to defeat C, but B's ally subsequently revives B, then B gets the credit for the defeat of C. The rankings are only "finalized" when there's only one gladiator standing. Recall also that we're talking about two issues: when is the PC considered to have lost, and when are their allies removed from the arena? Again, I'd like to go with an all-inclusive rule here, rather than distinguishing between different types and abilities of allies; this would mean that allies would stick around no matter what, possibly helping their owner's rivals (although the player could include a "surrender" clause to prevent this).
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-07, 08:01 PM	That devalues anything but a healing ally. If we are just going to say that defeat is not death, fine, but don't dance around as if that is not what we are doing. I wish to see a return to death=defeat, period.
Rauul 05-14-07, 09:09 PM	I only have 1 charater who has any part of this..that being the corrupter... That his Diehard Cleric cohort or his Earth mephit (who has potions of healing) would have the int to heal him up if he isn't dead as they both have the power to do so.. Dead is -10hps.. whats an extra MM or an arrow to make sure your opponent is dead.. or axe swing.. Maybe in mass combat it would be hard to reconize but hey "war is hell" and thats the way the cookie crumbles
Zevox 05-14-07, 09:20 PM	I'm starting to think that the "no way to recover on their own" is still the best way to go. This would mean that if you have allies, but they're incapable of restoring you to consciousness, they're gone. So then if Asran is knocked to -1 hp, the fact that Senorda is still in perfect condition, shape-shifted into a form that will easily tear his foe limb from limb on her next action doesn't matter a lick? *shakes his head* No, I don't like that one at all. Mitza may well have the right idea there. Just say that death = defeat and allies leave. Whatever the situation, you need to finish your foe off for them to be out. Then all that'll happen is characters will take an extra attack or two to finish things if they manage to knock their foe unconscious but not dead. For most fights, it won't mean anything - if the foe has no allies to worry about, just presume that once your foe is unconscious you CDG them. In an FFA if, you could attack your foe a minute ago you can surely still do so, so it shouldn't be a problem to finish the job. The only thing I'd suggest that'd need to be changed is that we should allow distinguishing between unconscious and dead without ranks in heal. Zevox
Rauul 05-14-07, 09:40 PM	So then if Asran is knocked to -1 hp, the fact that Senorda is still in perfect condition, shape-shifted into a form that will easily tear his foe limb from limb on her next action doesn't matter a lick? *shakes his head* No, I don't like that one at all. Mitza may well have the right idea there. Just say that death = defeat and allies leave. Whatever the situation, you need to finish your foe off for them to be out. Then all that'll happen is characters will take an extra attack or two to finish things if they manage to knock their foe unconscious but not dead. For most fights, it won't mean anything - if the foe has no allies to worry about, just presume that once your foe is unconscious you CDG them. In an FFA if, you could attack your foe a minute ago you can surely still do so, so it shouldn't be a problem to finish the job. The only thing I'd suggest that'd need to be changed is that we should allow distinguishing between unconscious and dead without ranks in heal. Zevox Oh i so agree... As for the heal ranks needed to tell if a person is meerly dead or uncon.. wouldn't it be a heal DC 15.. (this would account for the rouge charater who is buffed up and playing dead.. to be able to make sure they only have to face 1 opponent... Bluff check, disquise check ect.. ) yea yea i know not many people take ranks of heal... Not my problem.. easiest to make sure they are dead... CDG works wonders..
hogarth 05-14-07, 11:03 PM	In your scenraio, what prevents the player that put the wizard on the ground from killing his helpless foe? Not every neutralized foe can be killed in one blow. Let's say that Lady Indivara is facing Sir Valkin and Aerryl in a free-for-all. She traps Sir Valkin with her Iron Bands of Bilarro and he can't escape -- his Str check and Escape Artist are too low and he didn't hear the command word. In that case, is Indivara going to sit there and whittle away at Sir Valkin's hit points (he's immobile but not helpless, so no coup de grace) while Aerryl turns her into a pincushion? That would be a...unique...strategy. Realistically, either Indivara or Aerryl will die and Sir Valkin will end up comfortably in second place even though he was neutralized first. Ditto for Flesh to Stone. It's at least as permanent as death; each can be fixed by a fifth level spell!
MitzaVolchenko 05-15-07, 12:18 AM	Not every neutralized foe can be killed in one blow. Let's say that Lady Indivara is facing Sir Valkin and Aerryl in a free-for-all. She traps Sir Valkin with her Iron Bands of Bilarro and he can't escape -- his Str check and Escape Artist are too low and he didn't hear the command word. In that case, is Indivara going to sit there and whittle away at Sir Valkin's hit points (he's immobile but not helpless, so no coup de grace) while Aerryl turns her into a pincushion? That would be a...unique...strategy. Realistically, either Indivara or Aerryl will die and Sir Valkin will end up comfortably in second place even though he was neutralized first. Ditto for Flesh to Stone. It's at least as permanent as death; each can be fixed by a fifth level spell! Pretty sure that ruling went the other way as far as CDG on the bands...but no, she burrows into the ground with him and either kills him there or leaves him to suffocate while she hunts Aerryl. Killing blow is accounted for, andyah if Indi decides to let him suffocate and goes after Aeryl, then she risks taking third instead of second. If she kills him, she takes absolute second and possibly first. I have no problem with that, but the only magic item of is type in the game is a bad example. It just means that you write tactics to account for killing, not wounding to unconsciousness.
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 01:55 AM	If we were to go with the defeated=dead option, what about Usurpator's concerns: in a Hunter fight, rendering your non-target unconscious and then killing your target, or healing up your non-target so that you can take them as your own target later? I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but it would cause a fairly substantial change in tactics for hunter fights.
Zevox 05-15-07, 02:00 AM	If we were to go with the defeated=dead option, what about Usurpator's concerns: in a Hunter fight, rendering your non-target unconscious and then killing your target, or healing up your non-target so that you can take them as your own target later? I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but it would cause a fairly substantial change in tactics for hunter fights. As long as we allow healing of unconscious characters, thats a potential occurance. It could happen under the rules we've been working with since I got here. It seems to me that one isn't going away. I'm more bothered by hogarth's note about Flesh to Stone and the like. If only there were an easy way to simply count those as "dead" and be done with it... Zevox
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 02:09 AM	As long as we allow healing of unconscious characters, thats a potential occurance. It could happen under the rules we've been working with since I got here. It seems to me that one isn't going away. I'm more bothered by hogarth's note about Flesh to Stone and the like. If only there were an easy way to simply count those as "dead" and be done with it... Zevox Yeah, that one bugs me, too. We may just have to add a special clause for spells that cause permanent incapacitation without technically killing*. Fortunately, there aren't many effects like that. The only things that make it truly problematic are that 1) Stone to Flesh has a standard-action casting time, unlike Raise Dead (and even Break Enchantment) which aren't feasible to cast during combat, and 2) Even Baleful Polymorph, Decerebrate, and the like still leave the subject in a condition where you can kill them. *Or perhaps just effects that transmute the target into an object.
Usurpator 05-15-07, 03:30 AM	Mitza and Zevox, I do not think allies are devalued in any way, they will still be a powerful factor. But as I said before, death = defeat is fine with me for one on one fights, it just runs into a few problems with Hunter and FFA fights. We can just keep have seperate defeat criteria for each, no? And yes, dead is not good as a criteria, it should be replaced by a extensive list of 'defeated' conditions. On the other hand, we still have the 10-round max. delay criterium. If a Gladiator (for whatever reason) is unable to take offensive action after such a time, he is considered disqualified. So, defeat = death or inability to take offensive action after 10 rounds of non-action have passed (regardless if allies are still in the fight and might cure the gladiator).
hogarth 05-15-07, 06:54 AM	The only things that make it truly problematic are that 1) Stone to Flesh has a standard-action casting time, unlike Raise Dead (and even Break Enchantment) which aren't feasible to cast during combat, and 2) Even Baleful Polymorph, Decerebrate, and the like still leave the subject in a condition where you can kill them. Note that Psionic Revivify has a standard action manifesting time and is not terribly expensive -- it's quite feasible to use in combat.
Usurpator 05-15-07, 08:21 AM	Note that Psionic Revivify has a standard action manifesting time and is not terribly expensive -- it's quite feasible to use in combat. 'Death' simply is not a good criterium for being considered defeated. There are loads of exceptions, like undead which are already.... dead. So you can't kill them, just destroy them. Casting times are also poor measures of safety. I have used Limited Wish in real games to get around some of the more restrictive casting times. Awaken in 1 round instead of 24 hours casting time, no prob. I think if we do not use the 'unable to return to the fight on his own' criterium, we should use the 'has been unable or unwilling to take offense action for 10 consecutive rounds' as criterium. Which means that allies would have 10 rounds to get their master back into the fight, if they can. If they fail their master is disqualified regardless of his actual status (dead, petrified, reduced to 0 Str, banished, destroyed, insane, bound & chained, whatever.....)
Yitzi 05-15-07, 10:13 AM	Not "unable or unwilling", just "unable". If it's unwilling, then he is forced to stop avoiding battle (10 round limit) but does not auto-lose.
hogarth 05-15-07, 10:31 AM	I think if we do not use the 'unable to return to the fight on his own' criterium, we should use the 'has been unable or unwilling to take offense action for 10 consecutive rounds' as criterium. Which means that allies would have 10 rounds to get their master back into the fight, if they can. If they fail their master is disqualified regardless of his actual status (dead, petrified, reduced to 0 Str, banished, destroyed, insane, bound & chained, whatever.....) I came up with an almost identical criterion, although I would have phrased it as "if a gladiator hasn't performed any action other than a free action for 10 rounds, he's disqualified". I ended up rejecting it because it's quite possible to be dazed or stunned (say) for 10 rounds but still recover.
Usurpator 05-15-07, 12:18 PM	I came up with an almost identical criterion, although I would have phrased it as "if a gladiator hasn't performed any action other than a free action for 10 rounds, he's disqualified". I ended up rejecting it because it's quite possible to be dazed or stunned (say) for 10 rounds but still recover. While true I still think that a gladiator should be disqualified if he were stunned, dazed, petrified or whatever for 10 or more rounds. If you don't try to engage in combat for 10 rounds (willingly, unwillingly for whatever reason) the fight should be ended. If not, you could have gladiators self-stun (so to speak) themselves, recover in 30 minutes or so (or have their ally heal them after said time), and then engage in the fight just to have their opponent's buff expire or mess up their tactics. Obviously such ploys are against the spirit of the rules, therefore my unable/unwilling clause. If a gladiator caused another gladiator to be totally disabled for 10 rounds or more, I think the opponent should be granted victory. Case in point. Wizard A casts Stone to Flesh on flying wizard B, wizard B fails save. Fly spell causes stoned wizard to keep hovering in the air. Wizard A pelts the hovering stone barrier with attacks, but has not the spells or weaponry to destroy the floating statue nor take flight himself. What happens? Draw? Not according to me, after 10 rounds I think the petrified wizard should be disqualified. Other example: gladiator A paralyzes invisible gladiator B, and then goes on to engage gladiator C but loses and is killed. Now gladiator C needs to kill A, unfortunately he has no means of detecting invisibility and no way to know the location of gladiator A. Should the Pitlord have him spent dozens of rounds trying nearly impossible Spot checks all around the map in hopes of finding gladiator A before the invisibility/paralysis wears off? Not to me, I think A should be disqualified if he does not manage to recover (through own means or through allies) within those 10 rounds. Additionally, it might be possible for a gladiator to make only free actions and still actively trying to engage in combat. One of my drawing-board builds uses free actions to move around, for example. 10 consecutive rounds of such isn't likely, but still possible.
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 12:30 PM	I can't say I agree with this Usurpator. If you are able to immobilize your opponent for 10 rounds they are automatically disqualified? So a CL10 Ghoul Touch automatically declares the loss to that player - even if that player is undetectable to the others? CL1 sleep? If the fact that they are immobilized is not up to their abilities - they should not be disqualified.
Usurpator 05-15-07, 12:50 PM	I can't say I agree with this Usurpator. If you are able to immobilize your opponent for 10 rounds they are automatically disqualified? So a CL10 Ghoul Touch automatically declares the loss to that player - even if that player is undetectable to the others? CL1 sleep? If the fact that they are immobilized is not up to their abilities - they should not be disqualified. I'm not taking about immobilized, I'm taking about unwilling or unable to try and engage in combat. For some psionicists such immobility would not be a problem at all. If one gladiator chooses an avoidance tactic, I don't think he should be rewarded when the opponent disables him/her for an extended period of time. I can imagine there are cases where my proposal would feel 'unfair'. Its hardly a perfect rule. The classical case of a paralyzed person coming out of paralysis in 11 rounds, and the opponent futily trying to CdG him/her for 10 rounds but failing due to DR or whatever. I'm just trying to find an acceptable alternative to 'death' (which is clearly unacceptable) and 'unable to return to the fight under your own power' (which others found understandably unacceptable). 10 rounds seemed the best arbitrary limit to end a fight that isn't going anywhere (or at least, isn't going anywhere soon).
MitzaVolchenko 05-15-07, 01:35 PM	Will someone please let me know when something is actually decided here? I am not terribly interested in reading through a debate of each possible spell or power's effect on the end of a fight. Defeat=death. If not, CLEAR definition of defeat with absolutely no room for wiggling. NO using 'unwilling' or wishy washy 'unables.' No setting an artificial ten round limit either...some maps and some spells/powers/circumstances can easily delay someone more than ten rounds.
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 01:39 PM	@Mitza - MWB's been very good about linking the resolved issues once they are resolved in the 2nd post of this thread. He also includes the current issues that are on the table in that post.
MitzaVolchenko 05-15-07, 01:45 PM	@Mitza - MWB's been very good about linking the resolved issues once they are resolved in the 2nd post of this thread. He also includes the current issues that are on the table in that post. Thanks :) Very useful.
MitzaVolchenko 05-15-07, 01:57 PM	Monster fights and experience. As MWB knows (because I have whinged him into figuring the rewards for my last several monster fights), I hate calcualting the rewards for them...one ECL5 vs 2CR3's+4CR 1/2's=Mitza is bored and angry and going to watch TV. Sure, I can use the calculator and then adjust for allies, but really, if the EL charts are correct and supposed to be equivalent to a gladiator of that ECL, why are we fussing about it? Why don't we just use the same chart?
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 02:00 PM	Case in point. Wizard A casts Stone to Flesh on flying wizard B, wizard B fails save. Fly spell causes stoned wizard to keep hovering in the air. Wizard A pelts the hovering stone barrier with attacks, but has not the spells or weaponry to destroy the floating statue nor take flight himself. What happens? Draw? Not according to me, after 10 rounds I think the petrified wizard should be disqualified. Other example: gladiator A paralyzes invisible gladiator B, and then goes on to engage gladiator C but loses and is killed. Now gladiator C needs to kill A, unfortunately he has no means of detecting invisibility and no way to know the location of gladiator A. Should the Pitlord have him spent dozens of rounds trying nearly impossible Spot checks all around the map in hopes of finding gladiator A before the invisibility/paralysis wears off? Not to me, I think A should be disqualified if he does not manage to recover (through own means or through allies) within those 10 rounds.The first example is impossible for two reasons. One, a petrified character is an object, not a creature, and is thus an illegal target for Fly, which ends instantly. Wizard A can then pelt the fallen wizard with whatever he can. The bigger problem here is that petrified creatures have no hit points and cannot be killed. Either we rule that transmutation into an object counts as dead, or we create a special rule about such effects, or every wizard with Stone to Flesh is going to have to start packing a mining pick. Second example: if A somehow manages to paralyze an invisible opponent (difficult at best), then he'd better darn well be able to find and finish him off before the paralysis wears off (unless the Invis wears off first). If he can't, it's a bad tactic for him. I definitely don't want to see a basic Sleep spell cause a loss without a CdG, or worse, a Brain Lock. My current thoughts (still, subject to change): defeat = death. Exception 1: If the PC has an ally capable of raising the PC from death, the ally has 10 rounds to do so before the defeat is declared. In a multiplayer fight, the defeat is considered to take place at the time of death if the character is not later raised. Exception 2: If the PC is transmuted into an object or is otherwise somehow disabled while making it impossible to technically die, the PC is considered dead (unless there is an ally capable of reversing the condition, in which case exception 1 applies).
Usurpator 05-16-07, 06:32 PM	Will someone please let me know when something is actually decided here? I am not terribly interested in reading through a debate of each possible spell or power's effect on the end of a fight. Defeat=death. If not, CLEAR definition of defeat with absolutely no room for wiggling. NO using 'unwilling' or wishy washy 'unables.' No setting an artificial ten round limit either...some maps and some spells/powers/circumstances can easily delay someone more than ten rounds. For Duels: Defeat on death (for living creatures) or destruction (for others). It means that things like Psionic Revivication do not avert defeat, but it also means that a Ghost that reforms automatically due to its Rejuvenation ability does not become undefeatable. This means that petrification and insanity do not win the fight, you must kill/destroy your opponent as well. It means that disabling your opponent in the arena in such a manner that you are unable to kill/destroy it, but your opponent is also rendered unable to do the same to you will result in a draw. Effects like Imprisonement and Banishment can result in a defeat because those can force the opponent out of the Arena for 10 or more rounds (which is a separate loss condition). Mitza, considering openness of this game there will probably always be some wiggling room. For FFA and Hunter fights, I still don't agree that someone petrified on the very first action of a 4-way fight should have a chance to come out in second place. Maybe an addendum to the current rule like: 'if a gladiator has not actively rejoined the fight and he is killed or destroyed by the last active gladiator left, he is considered defeated at the point he was removed from being actively in the fight'
Vathelokai 05-17-07, 12:41 AM	Here's a radical suggestion. Get rid of hunter fights. I've never liked them anyway, and it fixes 75% of our 'whose dead when' problems. For duels say unconcious is victory. For multiplayer fights say dead is victory. It seems so simple... ;) But I'm serious. Any takers?
Erithmu 05-17-07, 12:52 AM	Here's a radical suggestion. Get rid of hunter fights. I've never liked them anyway, and it fixes 75% of our 'whose dead when' problems. For duels say unconcious is victory. For multiplayer fights say dead is victory. It seems so simple... ;) But I'm serious. Any takers? :thumbsup:
NiQil 05-17-07, 12:53 AM	Here's a radical suggestion. Get rid of hunter fights. I've never liked them anyway, and it fixes 75% of our 'whose dead when' problems. For duels say unconcious is victory. For multiplayer fights say dead is victory. It seems so simple... ;) But I'm serious. Any takers? I have to say, the idea has been bouncing around in my head as well. It seems like every time we have an issue with how something works in a fight, hunter fights are the biggest bump in the road. I could easily get behind discontinuing them altogether. It might be nice to replace them with something else, but that would be another discussion for another day. That would only leave us with FFA's as the most complicated fight, and since that is based on a different set of rules from hunter (that being a last man standing mentality), it is much easier to define when someone is out of an FFA.
SauroGrenom 05-17-07, 12:55 AM	You know... I like that idea. It follows the KISS rule.
MindWandererB 05-17-07, 02:41 AM	We still need a special clause for conditions like petrification, and for characters with the ability to be raised from the dead. And I'd really like to have something to replace it with.... I can easily substitute FFAs for Hunters for the time being. We can talk about a replacement format as the third add-on on our list (after random features and Living Characters).
Usurpator 05-17-07, 07:26 AM	We still need a special clause for conditions like petrification, and for characters with the ability to be raised from the dead. And I'd really like to have something to replace it with..... Actually, we don't. Dead is dead, characters will be raised by the Gladius aura anyway, so it would require a weirdly constructed rule, must be raised within x time and only by persons x. That is why I proposed the 10 rounds in the first place. Petrification is neither dead nor destroyed, so it would be required to kill or destroy a petrified character to defeat it, just like it is required to kill a polymorphed or paralyzed character. I don't see why you don't want paralyzed characters to count as defeated, but do want to count petrified characters as defeated, that's just arbitrary. If we go with Mitza's idea, and keep it as simple as possible, 'dead or destroyed' suffices. We don't need to accomodate people with revivication powers to avoid a lose condition.
MindWandererB 05-18-07, 01:20 PM	Actually, we don't. Dead is dead, characters will be raised by the Gladius aura anyway, so it would require a weirdly constructed rule, must be raised within x time and only by persons x. That is why I proposed the 10 rounds in the first place. Petrification is neither dead nor destroyed, so it would be required to kill or destroy a petrified character to defeat it, just like it is required to kill a polymorphed or paralyzed character. I don't see why you don't want paralyzed characters to count as defeated, but do want to count petrified characters as defeated, that's just arbitrary. If we go with Mitza's idea, and keep it as simple as possible, 'dead or destroyed' suffices. We don't need to accomodate people with revivication powers to avoid a lose condition. This makes Flesh to Stone and Psionic Revivify utterly worthless. If dead is defeated, there's no opportunity to use Psionic Revivify. And petrified characters are objects; they cannot be killed in the normal sense. (I suppose you could destroy the object by dealing several hundred points of damage to it, but that's a little silly, and doesn't technically follow the letter of this law anyway). Oh, and as for not "needing to accomodate people with revivication powers," I just don't agree. Powers that have clear uses in a normal situation should have those uses, despite any arbitrary rules we establish.
McJarvis 05-18-07, 01:26 PM	This makes Flesh to Stone and Psionic Revivify utterly worthless. If dead is defeated, there's no opportunity to use Psionic Revivify. And petrified characters are objects; they cannot be killed in the normal sense. (I suppose you could destroy the object by dealing several hundred points of damage to it, but that's a little silly, and doesn't technically follow the letter of this law anyway). Sundering the statue would work. Oh, and as for not "needing to accomodate people with revivication powers," I just don't agree. Powers that have clear uses in a normal situation should have those uses, despite any arbitrary rules we establish. Like Psychic reformation? I think making complex rules to accomodate one or two powers/spells is a bad idea.
Usurpator 05-18-07, 01:45 PM	This makes Flesh to Stone and Psionic Revivify utterly worthless. Flesh to Stone worthless, why? Your opponent is effectively defeated. You just have to deliver the final blow, exactly the same as with Baleful Polymorph or Feeblemind, they are not worthless, right? I don't know why you want to declare instant defeat with Petrification, but not with the other powers. People can be transformed back from Stone to Flesh you know? Additionally, you can petrify yourself with the Statue spell, I suppose that would be counted as auto-defeat? If dead is defeated, there's no opportunity to use Psionic Revivify. Yes, one meazly power nullified. What are the actual odds that a character's ally uses Psionic Revivify on its masters? I don't think we'll see it in the next year or two. It's a trivial concern IMO. And petrified characters are objects; they cannot be killed in the normal sense. (I suppose you could destroy the object by dealing several hundred points of damage to it, but that's a little silly, and doesn't technically follow the letter of this law anyway). Undead or constructs cannot be killed in the normal sense too. That's why I mentioned 'destroy'. Any object has hit points, and you can destroy them by bringing these to zero or less. It is no more silly than whittling down the hit points of a paralyzed character, which is what you want. My new proposal is an answer to Mitza's call to make the official defeat conditions as simple as possibly. If the only casualty is the possibility of negating a posible Psionic Revivify used by an ally, I'm quite happy with that. Let's just cross that hurdle when we get there.
Usurpator 05-18-07, 01:53 PM	I suppose you could destroy the object by dealing several hundred points of damage to it, but that's a little silly, and doesn't technically follow the letter of this law anyway. Techinally, I said 'dead or destroyed' To destroy an object: Hit Points: An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined. Stone, hardness 8, 15 hp. inch of thickness A statue of a human is like, 12 inches thick? So 180 hp damage. Not too bad. You might have to do the same damage to a baleful polymorphed fighter at that level. Just gives the allies a possible window of reversing the petrification or taking out the gladiator.
Zevox 05-18-07, 01:56 PM	Flesh to Stone worthless, why? Your opponent is effectively defeated. You just have to deliver the final blow, exactly the same as with Baleful Polymorph or Feeblemind, they are not worthless, right? I don't know why you want to declare instant defeat with Petrification, but not with the other powers. People can be transformed back from Stone to Flesh you know? They can't return themselves to normal, though. Unless they have an ally that can cast Stone to Flesh, Flesh to Stone should count as defeat - its irreversible, and pointless to force people to chip away at a statue to beat a petrified foe. Additionally, you can petrify yourself with the Statue spell, I suppose that would be counted as auto-defeat? The statue spell allows changing back at will and dismissal by the caster. Big difference between that and permanent petrification. Yes, one meazly power nullified. What are the actual odds that a character's ally uses Psionic Revivify on its masters? I don't think we'll see it in the next year or two. It's a trivial concern IMO. Given the number of Egoists we get around here, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one decided to take that power and use it with Psionic Contingency as a prebuff before each cycle. Any object has hit points, and you can destroy them by bringing these to zero or less. It is no more silly than whittling down the hit points of a paralyzed character, which is what you want. It most certainly is. Paralyzed is a temporary condition from which the subject will always recover on their own. Petrification by Flesh to Stone is permanent unless another being casts Stone to Flesh to negate it. Zevox
Usurpator 05-18-07, 03:09 PM	Zevox, I feel your arguments are contradicting each other. 1. There are disabling conditions that have a duration of 'permanent' but are reversible by external actions. Examples: death, destruction, flesh to stone, baleful polymorph, feeblemind, temporal stasis, strength drain etc. You want to count some of these (like flesh to stone) as instant defeat but not others (like death, or perhaps, Temporal Stasis?). 2. There are disabling conditions that have a duration of several hours to several days which are reversible by external actions. Examples: destruction of a Ghost, Symbol of Sleep, Forcecage, Magic Jar, strength damage. You want to count none of these as defeats, right? 3. There are disabling conditions that have a duration of several rounds to several minutes. Examples: hold person, ghoul touch, sleep etc. etc. You want to count none of these as defeats, right? Is what you are saying is that a reversible disabling condition of 'permanent' should not (theoretically) be reversible by a present ally to count as a defeat. So if a gladiator is baleful polymorphed, it is not neccessary for his opponent to kill said animal, if an ally does not possess the ability to reverse the condition, and thus the fight is immediately ended on any baleful polymorph (even if an ally is on the verge of killing the polymorphing wizard?). On the other hand, if it is reversible, gladiators should actually kill/destroy the permanently disabled opponent (or kill the ally). If it is a non-permanent duration (but a duration with a long or short time) the gladiator is required to kill/destroy his opponent, even if it is sleeping through a Symbol of Sleep and nobody can wake him for a long time and he has no allies? And of course, we need exceptions for such things as Ghosts, for the Rejuvenation ability would make them undefeatable, since their destructions is not permanent, and they can return by themselves eventually. I don't know if that is your rule and intention, but it sounds complicated and needs lot's of exceptions and adjucation and feels weird too (immediate defeat on baleful polymorph?).
Yitzi 05-18-07, 05:14 PM	I would say 1 and 2 should count, 3 should not, and if it can be reversed by an ally within 1 hour, and the ally does so, it does not count. And yes, that does mean that if your ally has raise dead, the ally must be killed too for you to lose...but you win only if the ally actually casts the spell before he's killed (unlikely with a 1 minute casting time) (even if the ally kills the enemy, you lose unless the ally then expends his raise dead plus material costs)
Usurpator 05-18-07, 06:03 PM	I would say 1 and 2 should count, 3 should not, and if it can be reversed by an ally within 1 hour, and the ally does so, it does not count. Something like that was my first instinct/idea too. Only I didn't take one hour as the (abitrary) time limit, but 10 rounds, since that is the current time for the delay penalty to avoid defeat kicks in. If a gladiator forces his opponent into inactivity for 10 consecutive rounds, then he should win was my idea. Others pointed out that this would not experienced as fair in certain cases, and made for an overly complicated rule. I then proposed the 'death/destruction' criterium.
SauroGrenom 05-18-07, 06:11 PM	Can we get a summary please?
MindWandererB 05-18-07, 06:44 PM	I generally agree with that, too, but I'm not convinced of all the items on list #2. For instance, Magic Jar has one heck of a duration, but the caster has to give up his own body for the duration... it's like putting Brain Lock under this category and assuming the manifester mantains concentration forever. I'm also hesitant about anything with a nonpermanent duration, even if it's hours or days, counting as defeat. And I'm okay with making an exception for ghosts (they have so many special rules anyway...).
TheMagister 05-18-07, 07:52 PM	Lemme tell you, the first thing I though of when someone mentioned Flesh to Stone was a zookeeper/ally machine who turned into stone to make himself immune to sneak attacks or anyone who deals low damage after sending his allies out to kill his opponent. Low risk, possible high reward. Only usable in some situations, but definitely not an "auto-loss". It'd be a loss when all of his allies were killed, though. TM
Zevox 05-18-07, 10:46 PM	I feel your arguments are contradicting each other. How so? I'm essentially saying that effects which render you unable to fight and are permanent in duration should count as defeat unless you or an ally are capable of reversing them. Plus of course my previous point about allies being allowed to continue fighting until you are actually dead or effectively so (petrified for example). 1. There are disabling conditions that have a duration of 'permanent' but are reversible by external actions. Examples: death, destruction, flesh to stone, baleful polymorph, feeblemind, temporal stasis, strength drain etc. You want to count some of these (like flesh to stone) as instant defeat but not others (like death, or perhaps, Temporal Stasis?). Yup, though as above, incorrect about which. Those that render you unable to fight (death, flesh to stone, temporal stasis, baleful polymorph, etc) would count as defeat unless you or an ally can reverse them, those that don't cause that (Feeblemind is the only one you mentioned which counts) don't. 2. There are disabling conditions that have a duration of several hours to several days which are reversible by external actions. Examples: destruction of a Ghost, Symbol of Sleep, Forcecage, Magic Jar, strength damage. You want to count none of these as defeats, right? Yup. 3. There are disabling conditions that have a duration of several rounds to several minutes. Examples: hold person, ghoul touch, sleep etc. etc. You want to count none of these as defeats, right? Yup. So if a gladiator is baleful polymorphed, it is not neccessary for his opponent to kill said animal, if an ally does not possess the ability to reverse the condition, and thus the fight is immediately ended on any baleful polymorph (even if an ally is on the verge of killing the polymorphing wizard?). No, that would fall under the whole previous argument about allies being allowed to continue fighting until you are actually dead. If it is a non-permanent duration (but a duration with a long or short time) the gladiator is required to kill/destroy his opponent, even if it is sleeping through a Symbol of Sleep and nobody can wake him for a long time and he has no allies? Yup. Even if the sleep spell will take a long time to wear off, you should have to CDG the sleeper to win. Or would you rather allow the basic sleep spell (duration 1 minute/level) to be an instant win if it works? Or Drow Poison, which is unconsciousness for 2d4 hours? And of course, we need exceptions for such things as Ghosts, for the Rejuvenation ability would make them undefeatable, since their destructions is not permanent, and they can return by themselves eventually. Unless I'm mistaken, a Ghost's destruction would take it out of the arena for more than 10 rounds, making it lose because of that rule anyway. Zevox
Usurpator 05-19-07, 05:07 AM	How so? I'm essentially saying that effects which render you unable to fight and are permanent in duration should count as defeat unless you or an ally are capable of reversing them. Plus of course my previous point about allies being allowed to continue fighting until you are actually dead or effectively so (petrified for example). Well, it just rests to me to show some means in which a creature you deem 'permanently unable to fight' can still fight back. Baleful polymorph is obvious of course, I can think of several Psions that would make a mean opponent even if Baleful Polymorphed into a frog. The Magister already mentioned the self-petrified summoner (swarms would be a nice idea here). I can sure I can think of something else (and it is not true what MindwandererB stated that a petrified creature turns into an object and is an illegal target for person spell, it is still alive, and thus still a creature). I simply see no reason that if WoTC decided to change the duration of Flesh to Stone from 'permanent' to '1/year per level' to suddenly start requiring opponent to break the statue. It's much simpler to state that they need to always break the statue (dead/destroyed). Yup, though as above, incorrect about which. Those that render you unable to fight (death, flesh to stone, temporal stasis, baleful polymorph, etc) would count as defeat unless you or an ally can reverse them, those that don't cause that (Feeblemind is the only one you mentioned which counts) don't. Reverse them within what time, in a year? Reverse them without leaving the arena? I don't think allies are bound by the 10 round delay rule. All in all, I think the discussion is mostly academic. We already see Pitlords have gladiators surrender in many cases they judge the gladiator 'unable to continue fighting'. Pitlord probably can make good judgements concerning such issues. This discussion is only relevant to me on two issues. 1. How long can/should allies fight on and 2. When is someone counting as defeated in multiplayer fights. If an ally survives a four-way multiplayer fight, where his master is petrified on the first round of combat, does the ally really need to use the scroll of break enchantment to free his master, or is his master declared the winner without him using said scroll? Many other problems we can get to when we get there, like what happens if I capture a person in a forcecage for 14 hours. Is he allowed to relearn spells if the total fight time passed the 'day' from the 3FC? ;)
Abyssal Stalker 05-19-07, 08:31 AM	It's much simpler to state that they need to always break the statue (dead/destroyed). What if the caster of Flesh to Stone is unable to destroy the statue? Say, he has no way to deal enough damage to bypass the hardness. Who wins the fight? The fellow who has been turned to a statue or the one dancing around him?
Usurpator 05-19-07, 09:27 AM	What if the caster of Flesh to Stone is unable to destroy the statue? Say, he has no way to deal enough damage to bypass the hardness. Who wins the fight? The fellow who has been turned to a statue or the one dancing around him? Then it's a draw, same as any similar situation with two gladiators unable to hurt each other. If you use Temporal Stasis on your victim and are unable to release him/her/it, then you have effectively forced a draw when you follow the 'death/destroyed' rule.
McJarvis 05-19-07, 11:24 AM	What if the caster of Flesh to Stone is unable to destroy the statue? Say, he has no way to deal enough damage to bypass the hardness. Who wins the fight? The fellow who has been turned to a statue or the one dancing around him? If you're using flesh to stone & don't have a plan for how to destroy a statue, then I'd say you deserve what you get.
Rauul 05-19-07, 11:51 AM	If you're using flesh to stone & don't have a plan for how to destroy a statue, then I'd say you deserve what you get. Hmm you can CDG a someone turned to stone... Coup de Grace As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target. You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace). Flesh to Stone dosen't make a person immune to criticals... So whats the problem... may take a few hits.. may have people spend gold to have a weapon made of Adamantine.. may just say WTF i can't hurt this guy... i screwed up.. (besides how many level 12 casters do you know)
Abyssal Stalker 05-19-07, 11:59 AM	Then it's a draw, same as any similar situation with two gladiators unable to hurt each other. If you use Temporal Stasis on your victim and are unable to release him/her/it, then you have effectively forced a draw when you follow the 'death/destroyed' rule. Well that just sounds a bit silly to me. Do you guys mean that medusae don't beat their opponents? Or gorgons? Do we really have to pick the route where we must chop our enemies to thumb-sized pieces, then sink them into acid and then put the container to priso to 1000 years, just to make sure that the opponent stays that way? I really feel that forcing the opponent into a state where he can't do anything should be enough. Just look at the number of fights where the winner has been decided by other means than plain death. Have they all been judged mistakenly? I understand where you are going. You want to find a wording that leaves no room for different intreperations. I think that all the pitlords are able to judge when the fight is over for the other participant - as long as we have guidelines on how to deal with allies. Anyway, I'm fine with the ruling that is made.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 12:09 PM	This is just silly guys... Once you are subject to flesh to stone, you are no longer a creature. You become an object. Objects are obviously immune to critical hits. OK let's try and make some headway on this issue. The basic question is: How do we define defeated? I think we can use the following definition: "A character is defeated when it reaches an incapacitated state that the character, or allies, is incapable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle."
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 12:12 PM	"A character is defeated when it reaches an incapacitated state that the character, or allies, is incapable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle." That sounds good to me. I'm willing to trust our pitlords on this.
NiQil 05-19-07, 12:13 PM	This is just silly guys... Once you are subject to flesh to stone, you are no longer a creature. You become an object. Objects are obviously immune to critical hits. OK let's try and make some headway on this issue. The basic question is: How do we define defeated? I think we can use the following definition: "A character is defeated when it reaches an incapacitated state that the character, or allies, is incapable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle." I could agree to this, and I would also like to point out another problem with the death/defeated idea... What would you do with a rogue whose only weapon is a sap? He has no way to CDG since he cannot deal lethal damage, but he can knock his opponent unconscious using the sap and sneak attacks. Would you say that said rogue should not win because he has no way to deal lethal damage?
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 12:39 PM	Well that's three elders, so unless MWB feels he needs to trump everyone's opinion on this, we have a majority. Next issue? I think that's Diplomacy Allies...
TelinArtho 05-19-07, 12:56 PM	I will agree as well - just to give closure to the issue. Who says Diplomacy allies are next? Is it even on the to-do list?
TelinArtho 05-19-07, 12:58 PM	This post is reserved for topics under discussion. When a decision is made, the post containing that decision will be linked. Expanding the list of Improved Familiars [RESOLUTION] Revision of the allies section of the rules to exclude temporary allies [RESOLUTION] Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs Fixing incorrect EL entries on low-EL monster tables [EL 3] [EL 4] Creating monster tables for ELs 11-16 [EL 11] [EL 15] [EL 16] Clarification on definitions and consequences of "defeat" Restricting custom staffs [RESOLUTION] Resolving timing of the assassinate package [RESOLUTION] How allies are treated in the 3FC [RESOLUTION] Powerratings for Hunter fights [RESOLUTION] Revising the rules on questing ELs [RESOLUTION] Revising rules for wands [RESOLUTION] Rob Store and non-expendables [RESOLUTION] Another look at Diplomacy allies Listen checks for attacking and spellcasting Looks like it is - okay - let's go for it. Personally I like having the option for diplomacy allies, but I would prefer to reduce options on them. Namely - no advanced and no elite versions. With the existing restrictions that don't allow them at ECL3-4, I think this cuts down on most of the opposition without completely doing away with it.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 12:59 PM	I will agree as well - just to give closure to the issue. Who says Diplomacy allies are next? Is it even on the to-do list? Yep. Post 2 of this thread (I think). Technically the NPC equipment and customization guidelines is higher on the list, but I have no idea where to start on something like that (and that was higher than the clarification of defeat).
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 01:03 PM	I had an odd sort of overhaul idea for them... Could we get rid of diplomacy allies as they stand, then massively increase the mercenaries. Then allow all the current diplo-allies skill stuff to apply to the mercs (or create new variants of it.) This keeps builds from being one super wimpy human with one hoss monster running the show. Also, it allows us to keep a tight reign on what is allowed (we could allow a modified monster to the mercs thread, but it would require elder/gm approval).
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 01:20 PM	My bone with diplomacy allies is three fold: First this is totally not core. It's not even close to core in any reasonable manner. I've used diplomacy allies for a while, and I think they are totally overpowered. W/O Yaurl, Raskos would have been toast in so many of the IMT battles so far. Often the ally counts more than the main character. Second is that we use CR instead of ECL to regulate the permissible allies. At lower levels this isn't much of a problem, but with advanced allies and advanced ECL the CR of opponents scales to much more powerful creatures than characters at the same ECL. There are so many examples that could be named if necessary. Third is that Diplomacy is a class skill of Clerics, Druids, Bards, Monk, Paladins, and Rogues. The potency of diplomacy allies (and HA allies to a lesser extent) is such that they outclass the actual class allies of characters at the same level. Especially with respect to Bards, Clerics and Paladins (who use CHA anyway for class features). With our diplomacy allies (and to a lesser extent HA allies) we have created a totally non-core rules system that allows some classes to have a new class feature that is totally more powerful than a druid's animal companion at the same level. We are effectively introducing a new optional class feature of incredible power and making it available to a subset of character classes. I want to put diplomacy allies on the chopping block. Diplomacy has other functions in CoCo now. It plays a roll in one of the skill packages, and we could add more (like Vath's idea of a roll with mercenaries). Also I think we should rework our allies rules in general to take into account ECL instead of CR. CR scales poorly with ECL. A monster receives 2-4 HD for every +1 CR and that could be +4 ECL. The farther up the ladder you go, the more of a difference there is between ECL and CR. We need to use ECL all the time. And in those situations where the base creature has no LA listed, we need to use some kind of calculation to create one.
Zevox 05-19-07, 01:20 PM	Well, it just rests to me to show some means in which a creature you deem 'permanently unable to fight' can still fight back. Baleful polymorph is obvious of course, I can think of several Psions that would make a mean opponent even if Baleful Polymorphed into a frog. I know this argument is done with now, but I just have to point this out. If you know of such Psions, you know of Psions with the ability to break the rules of that spell: The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features. ...alrighty, next issue is diplomacy allies then. I'll wait and see what kind of suggestions we get on that. I personally don't care what we do about 'em - they don't seem too terrible under the present rules to me, but if they do others, fine, lets switch 'em around again. Zevox
Malither76 05-19-07, 01:40 PM	I am 100% with Sauro, completely not core and CR we all know is a representation for an appropriate challenge for 4 characters of the same level of CR which is way unbalancing, Diplomacy allies should be gotten rid of all together.
Hirumajoe 05-19-07, 02:00 PM	To be fair, CR was limited to a single maximum of CR -4. And a 25 point buy character is I believe the standard used to balance those CR, not a 36 point buy, which is probably worth a LA of +1 or +2 from stats. But even under those restrictions they're still a 50% power increase according to the CR calculations. For example a CR 6 ally is equivalent to a 25 point buy ECL 10 character (50/50 odds). One of our ECL 10 characters is probably closer to ECL 11 or 12 compared to normal point buy characters. Still, an ECL 12 character and an ECL 10 character is presumably 50% more powerful than an ECL 12 character. I would tend to agree they should go. We already have a core mechanism for gaining an ally if you want one, the leadership feat.
NiQil 05-19-07, 02:19 PM	Based on the responses so far on the diplomacy allies topic, I think a preliminary vote is in order. Either we A) Scrap the diplomacy allies altogether and come up with something new for diplomacy to be used for or B) We keep diplomacy allies and rework the rules or C) We keep diplomacy allies and leave the rules as they stand. The results of this would kind of tell us what we need to work on. No sense killing ourselves on fixing them if we are going to scrap and replace them or leave them alone.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 02:39 PM	I want to scrap diplomacy allies altogether. AND I want to rework our handle animal and purchased allies to use a mechanic similar to ECL instead of CR.
Usurpator 05-19-07, 02:41 PM	"A character is defeated when it reaches an incapacitated state that the character, or allies, is incapable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle." Fine be me. Does it matter how long the incapacitated state lasts? Is 1 round sufficient?
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 02:46 PM	Fine be me. Does it matter how long the incapacitated state lasts? Is 1 round sufficient?Such as?
Usurpator 05-19-07, 02:47 PM	I want to scrap diplomacy allies altogether. I'm not an Elder, so no vote from me, but I would not shed a single tear if diplomacy allies are scrapped altogether. Cohorts are already an extremely powerful option in the CoCo if you ask me. Consderations - Diplomacy allies are extremely powerful to the point of being unbalanced. - Diplomacy allies are completely non-core. - Diplomacy allies give Pitlords extra headaches (much more difficult to run a fight with dozens of allies running around) - CoCo basis is about duels between two gladiators, not between two groups of adversaries.
Usurpator 05-19-07, 02:50 PM	Such as? Color Spray: knocked unconscious for 2 rounds. Gladiator can do nothing to reverse said condition, neither can allies.
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 02:53 PM	I want to scrap diplomacy allies altogether. AND I want to rework our handle animal and purchased allies to use a mechanic similar to ECL instead of CR. I'm behind you on that; though I'd like to rework all the purchased allies (including Mercs - I think they should stay).
MindWandererB 05-19-07, 02:57 PM	Well, even though the discussion on defeat seems to be over, I'll just say that I'm fine with it, with two minor edits: "A character is defeated when it reaches a state in which the character can in no possible way harm its opponent, that neither the character, nor allies, nor the passage of time, nor the cessation of concentration of the opponent, is capable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle." That defines "incapacitated" a little bit more clearly. Otherwise, effects that stun or paralyze the character for 1 round would count as defeat, as would Brain Lock if neither character had any allies--and worse, an ally like a psicrystal or toad could make a difference here, as it could harass the manifester and force him to lose concentration; even if it didn't do so, it could, which would force the manifester to find some alternate means of finishing the opponent off. It also makes it clear that Feeblemind doesn't count (even though it could be loosely considered "incapacitation"), nor does Baleful Polymorph on a psion unless the second save is failed. This definition, and the one you had all agreed on, still requires an exception (or at least a clarification) for ghosts, but as I said, I'm okay with that. Comments of yay or nay would be appreciated; it's just different enough from the previous version that I'd like confirmation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I agree with Sauro 100%. I've always hated Diplomacy as a way of getting allies; it violates my rule of "things that a real DM would think we were crazy for allowing." And as for power, it's bad even without the ability to advance HD of allies, but that option makes it truly sick. I don't think anyone would argue whether Raskos would have made it to the semifinals of IMT without Yaurl's help (or at least, without a great deal more difficulty). I would support another use for Diplomacy (Political Career is nice but not that nice; it's even in a strict sense counterproductive, since it effectively decreases profession/craft gp). Adding more mercenaries is also an idea; I have no problem with approving a binge of new mercenaries (although I would want at least one, and possibly two other elders looking over each submission before they'd be approved). There could also be some exotic mercenaries that would fill come of the niches currently being filled by Diplomacy allies, such as intelligent mounts and ultra-fast scouts. (One use of Diplomacy could still be to get discounts on such mercs). Edit: Handle Animal would be tough to squeeze into an ECL mechanic. There's just no LA given for animals. I've heard of approximate formulae, but that's all they are, approximate. Plus, the lack of intelligence of animals (and the need for tricks) makes them considerably weaker than a creature of equal power and just 1 Int higher. I haven't seen that handled animals have been particularly problematic or unbalancing in the arena. You might be satisfied with one simple change: that their effective CR goes up by 1 for each additional HD. That prevents uber-advanced animals that are immensely more powerful than intended.
NiQil 05-19-07, 02:59 PM	Yay on the final 'defeated' definition, and my opinion mirror's Sauro's on the allies, both diplomacy and handle animal.
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 03:09 PM	:thumbsup: defeated definition. :thumbsup: MWBs opinion on allies.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 03:10 PM	OK, we are moving fast here... I agree with MWB's edited version of the definition of defeat. Also we nearly have a majority now to nix diplomacy allies. This is my idea for a reworking on the other kinds of allies: We calculate the ECL of a HA or purchased ally using a LA if it's available. Otherwise we use CR to replace LA in the calculation of ECL. Then these and all allies must fit under the MaxCA of the character.
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-07, 03:59 PM	I think the discussion on allies probably needs a bit more reason and less 'I hate allies.' You are looking at essentially retiring a lot of PC's if you remove them entirely.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 04:02 PM	I think the discussion on allies probably needs a bit more reason and less 'I hate allies.' You are looking at essentially retiring a lot of PC's if you remove them entirely. The idea is to remove diplomacy allies. Other allies are more core than the diplomacy allies. Those other allies need to be brought into line with what you get with the leadership feat.
NiQil 05-19-07, 04:12 PM	I think the discussion on allies probably needs a bit more reason and less 'I hate allies.' You are looking at essentially retiring a lot of PC's if you remove them entirely. In my opinion, if a build is so weak that it can't stand on it's own without it's diplomacy allies, then it probably needs to be retired anyway. This about PC vs PC, after all. Somewhere along the lines I think that was forgotten.
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-07, 04:17 PM	I agree to a point, but people have spent a lot of time and effort into acquiring their allies...it should be considered prior to just erasing them.
NiQil 05-19-07, 04:20 PM	I agree to a point, but people have spent a lot of time and effort into acquiring their allies...it should be considered prior to just erasing them. There is always the possibility of 'grandfathering' existing builds I suppose...just not allow any new ones going forward. Or an alternative would be to offer a full refund of the ally and any unused equipment at full price....and maybe the refund of any credits spent acquiring said ally.
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-07, 04:26 PM	Certainly good possibilities...we may want to look at what exactly makes diplo allies so rough.
NiQil 05-19-07, 04:36 PM	Certainly good possibilities...we may want to look at what exactly makes diplo allies so rough. I think the problem is that there isn't any one thing that does...I think it is a combination of everything that causes the problem. I don't think there is one thing that we could point to and say 'Let's fix this' and they would suddenly be ok. If there were, I think we would have found it long ago.
Zevox 05-19-07, 05:19 PM	I've got to ask - is there any particular reason at all to change Handle Animal allies? I can understand wanting to change the rules on advancing them just fine, but at their essence they seem to me to be just fine as they are. None of them actually have an LA, so theres no point to the proposal for them to use ECL instead of CR. The only ones on there I would call a problem are the epic ones (Legendary Tiger/Bear). I do have some reservations about making purchased allies use ECL instead of CR. That would mean you can't use Pegasi or Giant Eagles or Owls until ECL 8, or Griffons until ECL 12 (Sauro, you were complaining before how those started to become less than useful as early as ECL 10). That seems a bit extreme to me, particularly since, like HA allies, I don't think these are a problem unless they're advanced. Also, the requirement that the allies fit under the character's max CA seems pointless to me. All that does is prevent the character having more allies than they can bring into on fight, which would mean characters can't have things like backup mounts anymore, or have Leadership and get both their cohort and their followers. I don't agree with doing that. As for Diplomacy, I'll abstain from that conversation. Like I said, I don't particularly care what gets done with them - whatever everyone else decides on is fine by me. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 06:04 PM	No matter what kind of allies we allow, there will be an easiest to exploit. People will gravitate to that method of exploitation. For me the rule of thumb should be that none of our non-core allies (HA and Purchased) should be better than those available through either the leadership feat or class features at the same level. The only classes that have allies are as follows: Druid/Ranger Wizard/Sorcerer Paladin Black Guard Shadowdancer Thaumaturge ThrallHerd And a couple UA variant versions of the above I think I got them all with that list, but I could have missed a few. Then there is the Leadership Cohort, and we should try to ensure that character's don't get to have tougher companions by purchasing or using skills that you can get with leadership. A giant Owl is not a viable leadership cohort till ECL9. Why should you purchase a giant Owl and use them in combat before that? Using our current rules for a nominal gold investment, you can be ECL7 and flying around on your giant owl. At ECL9 a paladin has a heavy warhorse with +4 HD, +6 AC, +2 Str, Improved Evasion, shared saves and +10 speed. At ECL7 a paladin has a heavy warhorse with +2 HD, +4AC, +1 Str, Improved Evasion and Shared saves. At ECL7 (and 9) a druid has a dire wolf, rino, brown bear, lion or a few other similar animals. If you had the choice to buy a paladin's mount at ECL7 or buy a Giant Owl or buy a dire wolf, then which one would you choose? Almost everyone would choose the Giant Owl (or pegasus at the same level). Now if we use an ECL calculation instead, you find that the same giant owl is being compared to the better paladin's mount (with +4hd and +6 AC and +10 speed). Also it's being compared to a druid's companion which will shortly upgrade to Megaraptor, Polar Bear or Dire Lion. This is a far more favorable comparison for the class feature allies compared to the purchasable allies. Now the differences become more extreme as levels increase. Say we are ECL16. An advanced elite Griffon with 21HD is CR10 (and has an epic feat!) Compare that to a heavy warhorse with +8hd (total 12hd), +10AC, +4 Str, SR21 and a hand full of previously mentioned abilities. Also compare the elite advanced Griffon to a Dire Tiger, Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops. Then compare the 21HD elite advanced griffon to the 11HD leadership cohort griffon at the same level. In every case, given the option to fork over cash for allies from the class features or allies purchased, most everyone will choose the purchased allies. Now this was just a comparison between using purchased allies. We could easily do something similar with HA allies. A tyrannosaurus (CR8) requires a HA of 23. So if you focus a bit of skill points and have +4 CHA bonus and max ranks and a +5 skill boost item... that's available at ECL12 easily. By the time you make it to ECL16 when the druids get a tyrannosaurus, then you can advance your HA ally by probably 5 HD or even more if you boost that skill item up some and get a CHA boost and a MW tool. So once again the CoCo house rules ally proves to be vastly superior to the one you get with a class feature. That's just wrong to me. I can see there being some way to get allies through HA skills, or purchasing them in the market, but for those two ways to be vastly superior to anything you can get with a class feature is not balanced in my opinion.
Zevox 05-19-07, 06:19 PM	So once again the CoCo house rules ally proves to be vastly superior to the one you get with a class feature. That's just wrong to me. I can see there being some way to get allies through HA skills, or purchasing them in the market, but for those two ways to be vastly superior to anything you can get with a class feature is not balanced in my opinion. Then I think you're looking at a slightly unrealisitc goal there. From the start, a light warhorse, which can by the core rules be purchased by anyone for 150 gp, are superior to Druid animal companions (the most potent class ally up until Paladins get theirs) up until level 4 at least (when they get access to things like Dire Bats), but I sure as hell don't think we ought to be making it impossible to get them at level 3. I can surely sympathize with the desire to make advanced allies less powerful - those I fully agree are an issue. As I said though, I don't agree with the proposed change to purchased allies. ...also, an aside, note that Paladins have alternative mounts as well (page 204 of the DMG). At level 6 they can have a Hippogriff at +2 HD, +4 natural armor, etc. At level 7 they can have a Pegasus, Giant Eagle, or Giant Owl at such, and at level 8 they can have a Griffon (and other things of course, I'm just picking up the most popular ones from around here). So even just class allies allow you to have those earlier than using their ECL in our present system would. Zevox
NiQil 05-19-07, 06:22 PM	[snip] but I sure as hell don't think we ought to be making it impossible to get them at level 3. I do LOL
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-07, 06:30 PM	I do LOL So we should never make a mounted fighter build unless we are buying it in at a higher level?
NiQil 05-19-07, 06:34 PM	So we should never make a mounted fighter build unless we are buying it in at a higher level? Exactly. In fact, I would be happy if we banned all mounts altogether. And all classes with mounts LOL. Don't take this seriously..it's just me being my usual horse-bashing self.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 06:36 PM	Then I think you're looking at a slightly unrealisitc goal there. From the start, a light warhorse, which can by the core rules be purchased by anyone for 150 gp, are superior to Druid animal companions (the most potent class ally up until Paladins get theirs) up until level 4 at least (when they get access to things like Dire Bats), but I sure as hell don't think we ought to be making it impossible to get them at level 3. Clearly we don't allow anyone to buy any thing or ally they want at any level. The game expects the GM to decide what's available at any given level, and CoCo uses our allies coefficient to limit what allies you can have at any given level. If gold alone were the restriction, there would be self raised giant eagles and spider eaters at ECL3. According to the core rules as you say, these allies should be available for our ECL3 gladiators. However this argument is just preposterous. We should not just use gp value as the sole limiting factor in what characters can have. We can and should exercise some sense of judgment and apply a rule more restricting than just what you can afford with your pile of gold. I think that an ECL limit in line with what the leadership feat allows is a fantastic rule of thumb to help set a reasonable limit on access to allies.
Zevox 05-19-07, 06:42 PM	We can and should exercise some sense of judgment and apply a rule more restricting than just what you can afford with your pile of gold. Of course we should. I never disagreed with that one. I simply happen to think, as far as non-advanced purchased and handle animal allies go, our present rules accomplish this just fine. And given that, aside from NiQil's neverending tirade about horses, I haven't heard anyone say they considered those ally categories unbalanced ever, I suspect I'm not alone in that. I think that an ECL limit in line with what the leadership feat allows is a fantastic rule of thumb to help set a reasonable limit on access to allies. Of course, the leadership feat also presupposes that the ally has 25 point buy and the ability to advance just like a PC does. Thats not the case for purchased allies. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-19-07, 07:05 PM	Regarding existing characters: I'm against "grandfathering." No character should have options that new characters do not. If the build relies heavily on allies, then they need to rework the character to get leadership, Handle Animal, or a purchased ally, or they need to hire mercs a lot. Such changes would be free, of course, and any gp penalties taken for ally quests would be refunded. Sauro, you're off on the Owl: it's a legal leadership cohort by ECL 8. Being CR 3, it would have been a legal purchasable ally at ECL 7. Not a big difference, especially considering the Leadership one would have elite stats (and would be considered CR 4). Of course, a feat is a much greater price to pay than 5,000 gp for a purchased adult, but then the feat lets you improve it for "free" (including class levels, which makes a tremendous difference). The griffon is a much better example: it would make a legal cohort at ECL 12, but can be used at ECL 8 by our rules. Even counting the +1 CR for eliteness, that's a 3-level difference. And I'll certainly agree that a griffon is a potent ally through ECL 10. Note also that an adult costs 8500 gp. (And it's worth mentioning the Bronze Griffon, which costs only 1500 gp more, can probably be used in all three fights anyway, and can even be re-used if killed, plus it only penalizes your rewards if you bring it in to a fight prebuffed. And it can even be crafted for a mere 5000 gp at as early as ECL 11!). So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR). Looking at Sauro's other concerns, regarding Handle Animal: True, a druid needs to be level 16 to get a tyrannosaurus (with Link and Share Spells, both potent, potent bonuses). But they can get an ape or black bear (CR 2) at level 4, and a brown bear or rhinoceros (CR 4) at level 7. The problem is that animal CR slows down in scale; even the legendary tiger caps out at CR 10 mainly because it's not too bright and can't fly. For druids, that's a smaller problem, but CR stops being an adequate measure of power for an animal that's guided and equipped by an intelligent PC. Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table.
Sjiggie 05-19-07, 09:08 PM	Clearly we don't allow anyone to buy any thing or ally they want at any level. The game expects the GM to decide what's available at any given level, and CoCo uses our allies coefficient to limit what allies you can have at any given level. If gold alone were the restriction, there would be self raised giant eagles and spider eaters at ECL3. According to the core rules as you say, these allies should be available for our ECL3 gladiators. However this argument is just preposterous. We should not just use gp value as the sole limiting factor in what characters can have. We can and should exercise some sense of judgment and apply a rule more restricting than just what you can afford with your pile of gold. I think that an ECL limit in line with what the leadership feat allows is a fantastic rule of thumb to help set a reasonable limit on access to allies. I agree with you here whe should not let make new rules when we have a guidline we can follow in the core rules. When a class ability let you get that ally earlier, for instance with a paladin special mount it shouldn't mean it is open game for every class with diploamcy/handle animal allies. Sauro, you're off on the Owl: it's a legal leadership cohort by ECL 8. Being CR 3, it would have been a legal purchasable ally at ECL 7. Not a big difference, especially considering the Leadership one would have elite stats (and would be considered CR 4). Of course, a feat is a much greater price to pay than 5,000 gp for a purchased adult, but then the feat lets you improve it for "free" (including class levels, which makes a tremendous difference). The griffon is a much better example: it would make a legal cohort at ECL 12, but can be used at ECL 8 by our rules. Even counting the +1 CR for eliteness, that's a 3-level difference. And I'll certainly agree that a griffon is a potent ally through ECL 10. Note also that an adult costs 8500 gp. (And it's worth mentioning the Bronze Griffon, which costs only 1500 gp more, can probably be used in all three fights anyway, and can even be re-used if killed, plus it only penalizes your rewards if you bring it in to a fight prebuffed. And it can even be crafted for a mere 5000 gp at as early as ECL 11!). So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR). I don't like that allies can be advancent with only a gold and credit cost. It totally breaks the balance of the game and as others have said it is still a game where gladiators face off against each other not against the gladiator who sits back and have his allies fight his battle. If someone uses leadership for such an ally he is paying with a feat for it while the purchased variant only has to invest gold this not fair I think. Looking at Sauro's other concerns, regarding Handle Animal: True, a druid needs to be level 16 to get a tyrannosaurus (with Link and Share Spells, both potent, potent bonuses). But they can get an ape or black bear (CR 2) at level 4, and a brown bear or rhinoceros (CR 4) at level 7. The problem is that animal CR slows down in scale; even the legendary tiger caps out at CR 10 mainly because it's not too bright and can't fly. For druids, that's a smaller problem, but CR stops being an adequate measure of power for an animal that's guided and equipped by an intelligent PC. Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table. Can't we compare wich animals are available to a druid to come up with a rule for handle animal allies and make a ruling based on that. I don't have my books with me now but I think that would come the closest to what is balanced and what not. -Sjiggie
hogarth 05-19-07, 09:13 PM	Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table. One idea that was proposed in the past is having characters with non-class allies fight in a division corresponding to the total EL of the character + allies. For instance, an ECL 3 character with a CR 1 light warhorse is an EL 4 encounter, so the "team" could fight in the level 4 division; similarly, an ECL 6 character with an ECL 4 cohort would fight in the level 7 division. We already allow teams to fight at a division above them, so allowing it for a character + allies isn't a big stretch.
Zevox 05-19-07, 09:28 PM	One idea that was proposed in the past is having characters with non-class allies fight in a division corresponding to the total EL of the character + allies. For instance, an ECL 3 character with a CR 1 light warhorse is an EL 4 encounter, so the "team" could fight in the level 4 division; similarly, an ECL 6 character with an ECL 4 cohort would fight in the level 7 division. We already allow teams to fight at a division above them, so allowing it for a character + allies isn't a big stretch. ...yes it is. Do we really need to go through this argument again? I thought we'd closed the book on this one last time. That just isn't a feasible solution, for plenty of reasons I'm sure you recall. So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR). The advancement thing I'd be fine with. Elite Array... eh, I don't think its that big a deal as-is personally (plus our current rules for handling it are the core ones), but if you really want to change it I'd be fine with +2 CR. Customization I don't think should be removed outright - theres a few ways to abuse it (IUS/Deflect Arrows/Improved Grapple on large allies chiefly), but far more that I'd see as acceptable (Flying mounts getting Flyby Attack/Hover/Wingoever/etc, for instance). Perhaps create a list of acceptable feats that can be customized with? I'd be happy to make such a list if that were acceptable. Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table. Hm, perhaps. Like I said, I don't think they're a problem as-is though. Seriously, the best uses we've seen of it are Dire Bats and Hippogriffs. Once the advancing rules are changed, I don't think anything in our present HA rules are a problem except for the Legendary animals. Zevox
hogarth 05-19-07, 09:44 PM	...yes it is. Do we really need to go through this argument again? I thought we'd closed the book on this one last time. That just isn't a feasible solution, for plenty of reasons I'm sure you recall. The only compelling reason I remember was Caterane saying "We're not going to do this." If we can have teams of PCs, we can have teams of PCs and NPCs.
Zevox 05-19-07, 10:16 PM	The only compelling reason I remember was Caterane saying "We're not going to do this." If we can have teams of PCs, we can have teams of PCs and NPCs. The fact that characters are allowed to choose whether to bring allies in and we don't want to take that away? The fact that you'd have characters getting paired in different leagues perhaps weekly depending on whether they brought allies or not? The fact that any method of resolving the above results in far more trouble for Pitlords than its worth? Come on now, you can't tell me you don't remember things like that. Those are just the most prominent reasons, too. Zevox
hogarth 05-19-07, 10:22 PM	The fact that characters are allowed to choose whether to bring allies in and we don't want to take that away? The fact that you'd have characters getting paired in different leagues perhaps weekly depending on whether they brought allies or not? The fact that any method of resolving the above results in far more trouble for Pitlords than its worth? Come on now, you can't tell me you don't remember things like that. Those are just the most prominent reasons, too. I remember them -- I just didn't find them compelling at all. Why is it so difficult to have the player list the league in which he wishes to compete in the title line of his post? It's a trivial thing to do.
Zevox 05-19-07, 10:27 PM	I remember them -- I just didn't find them compelling at all. Why is it so difficult to have the player list the league in which he wishes to compete in the title line of his post? It's a trivial thing to do. The real issue seemed to be with people who like mounted characters but don't want to pay for the distinct advantage they have over those who wish to fight without allies. See reason #3 of the above post. Having to check what league each and every character is in when making the pairings each week makes things much tougher on Pitlords. Zevox
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 10:30 PM	Then let us ask MWB if he thinks it's practical. It's his duty, and if he feels like it, then that's up to him. (I'm doubting he needs the extra workload, though.) Still thinking about the allies stuff...
hogarth 05-19-07, 10:30 PM	See reason #3 of the above post. Having to check what league each and every character is in when making the pairings each week makes things much tougher on Pitlords. :confused: Doesn't Pitlords already check what league people compete in? I think we can accept the player at his word if he says he's competing in the level 6 league (say).
Yitzi 05-19-07, 10:41 PM	Only I didn't take one hour as the (abitrary) time limit, but 10 rounds, since that is the current time for the delay penalty to avoid defeat kicks in. The delay penalty does not cause defeat, it just forces the delayer to stop delaying. Only leaving the arena causes defeat after 10 rounds.
Zevox 05-19-07, 10:54 PM	:confused: Doesn't Pitlords already check what league people compete in? I think we can accept the player at his word if he says he's competing in the level 6 league (say). The only time he needs to bother with that at the moment is when folks level up. If that idea were implemented, he'd wind up doing it with every character every week. Zevox
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 11:03 PM	The delay penalty does not cause defeat, it just forces the delayer to stop delaying. Only leaving the arena causes defeat after 10 rounds. There are two delay penalties, both 10 rounds (bad wording in them there rules) If you avoid combat for 10 rounds, you are 'forced' back into combat. If you leave the arena entirely for 10 rounds (teleport, planeshift, etc.) then you loose the fight. *EDIT* duh... you just said that. What I was meaning was that Usurpator ment the 'leave arena for 10 rounds' rule as the basis of his arguement.
Yitzi 05-19-07, 11:25 PM	But since he was discussing inactivity, the natural assumption is that he was thinking of the inactivity penalty (especially since that is the only one that can really be called a "delay penalty"), so if he meant the other one he should have said so explicitly.
Malither76 05-20-07, 02:23 AM	competing in a higher level slot is dumb. Class allies are considered part of an opponents level, its a balancing issue you can't penalize a palidan and make him compete in a higher Level just b/c he hit level 5 and now has a mount.
Usurpator 05-20-07, 04:19 AM	But since he was discussing inactivity, the natural assumption is that he was thinking of the inactivity penalty (especially since that is the only one that can really be called a "delay penalty"), so if he meant the other one he should have said so explicitly. Actually, I did mean the inactivity penalty. I've seen Pitlords declare defeat over this, or hamper a gladiator so much it meant defeat. Point of the rule is: you are not allowed to be a non-participant to the fight 10 consecutive rounds or more, for whatever reason.
hogarth 05-20-07, 08:48 AM	competing in a higher level slot is dumb. Class allies are considered part of an opponents level, its a balancing issue you can't penalize a palidan and make him compete in a higher Level just b/c he hit level 5 and now has a mount. Read what I said again. I was referring to NON-class allies. Of course class allies are party of an opponent's CR.
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 01:30 PM	:confused: Doesn't Pitlords already check what league people compete in? I think we can accept the player at his word if he says he's competing in the level 6 league (say). It's Pitlords job to do the pairings correctly. In order to do that, all the pairings must be made against fair opponents. Our mechanism for that is the character's roster. It's Pitlords who keeps the roster updated and makes sure it's all correct. If we have a system where encounters are based on encounter level of the character and his allies, then we deal with various complications. If an ally dies, or is not brought along for a particular week, the EL of the character can go down. If a MQ results in a new ally, then the EL of the character can go up. All of these things can and will cause characters to shift up and down on the roster at any given time. That greatly increases the chances of a mistake. Each mistake is more work for Pitlords to fix... and so on. A change over to an EL type of pairings system has some imagined benefits. However it also puts an unnecessary strain on our volunteer administrators. The benefit is just not nearly great enough to counter the additional hassle.
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 02:18 PM	Regarding existing characters: I'm against "grandfathering." No character should have options that new characters do not. If the build relies heavily on allies, then they need to rework the character to get leadership, Handle Animal, or a purchased ally, or they need to hire mercs a lot. Such changes would be free, of course, and any gp penalties taken for ally quests would be refunded.I agree. Grandfathering is not in our best interest as a fare community for competition. Rather I like the idea of refunding credits and allowing free editing of characters that use the now illegal types of allies. The griffon is a much better example: it would make a legal cohort at ECL 12, but can be used at ECL 8 by our rules. Even counting the +1 CR for eliteness, that's a 3-level difference. And I'll certainly agree that a griffon is a potent ally through ECL 10. Note also that an adult costs 8500 gp. (And it's worth mentioning the Bronze Griffon, which costs only 1500 gp more, can probably be used in all three fights anyway, and can even be re-used if killed, plus it only penalizes your rewards if you bring it in to a fight prebuffed. And it can even be crafted for a mere 5000 gp at as early as ECL 11!). So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR).Although I feel it's a major compromise, I can get on board with this. We nix all the advanced and customized allies. Advnced HD is a huge problem, and customization is also a problem to a lesser extent (grappling horses). Perhaps we can allow the Elite array, but say that such things are not available until after the character's ECL is +5 above the minimum for the purchased ally. So the Elite Griffon would be unavailable till ECL13, although you can get a normal one at ECL8. Looking at Sauro's other concerns, regarding Handle Animal: True, a druid needs to be level 16 to get a tyrannosaurus (with Link and Share Spells, both potent, potent bonuses). But they can get an ape or black bear (CR 2) at level 4, and a brown bear or rhinoceros (CR 4) at level 7. The problem is that animal CR slows down in scale; even the legendary tiger caps out at CR 10 mainly because it's not too bright and can't fly. For druids, that's a smaller problem, but CR stops being an adequate measure of power for an animal that's guided and equipped by an intelligent PC. Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table.We all know that druids have the most powerful class allies (aside from thralls and cohorts). Personally I have no problem if low level druids have more powerful companions than what you can get with the HA skill, but it does bother me if HA skill grants more powerful allies at higher levels compared to a druid's companion at the same level. Since animals have low CR as they increase in power, we cannot use CR as a reasonable limit. Your suggestion for a HD dependent limit is probably the best. We can use the progression of HD with the druid companion as a guideline. The druid companion gains +2hd for every 3 class levels. So I'll suggest that we limit the total animal HD you can control (ie list on the character sheet) with your HA skill is limited to (Coefficient of skill Allies) CsA=HA/2 (Character's HA score). I can work through an example to see what we end with...Say we have a 10th level character with +2 Cha mod and +5 skill item and +2 tool and max skill ranks. That gives a HA skill of 22. And that allows a total of 11 animal HD to have control over. That allows an Elephant, Giant Croc, Polar Bear, Rino, Elasmosaurus, Mega Raptor and Dire Lion. Those are all creatures that are available to a druid at about ECL7 or 10. Looks pretty reasonable to me. This will probably be treated as a new class feature that will increase the popularity of classes with HA as a class skill. So that's Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Black Guard, Horizon Walker and Lore Master. Among these, Druid is probably the only one that's already a very popular class. So my general sense is that we won't mess with the balance of power too much.
Sjiggie 05-20-07, 04:33 PM	Some of those are just odd. 4 Hydra? A Half-Fiend Fiend? Again, not techically wrong, but.... There are mistakes with the class levels, as I suspected. 61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14) - Unassociated. Needs to be 8th level. 62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14) - You need a race on that one. 63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12) - Bizarre as it may seem, ranger is unassociated with creatures that have no stealth or other rangerlike abilities. These would have to be level 11. Ranger is an associated class see below 65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12) - Again, no race. 67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14) - Again, unassociated, since it has no innate manifester level. It gets to be level 10. 68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14) - 7 racial HD and 4 class HD makes 11, so the template adds +3 CR. That's CR 15. Unfortunately, if you drop a class level, it falls to CR 13. 69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5) - This comes out oddly; the math makes it come out as a CR 13.5, not 14. Don't trust the online calculator for this; it rounds. 88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10) - Same as the ettin. They have to be level 9. Ranger is assoiciated Barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger are associated classes for a creature that relies on its fighting ability. Rogue and ranger are associated classes for a creature that relies on stealth to surprise its foes, or on skill use to give itself an advantage. Ranger appears twice on the list so it is associated when it improves fighting abilities what it does by the ettin and the Janni. 95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10) - First of all, Shield Guardians are CR 8. Second, this comes out to CR 13.5 again. I used an calculater and it comes out at 13.9 in that one so I think this is a correct entry on the EL 14 table this also applies for the goblins and winter wolves. Okay I was a bit busy lately so I didn't have the time to pdate the EL 14 list but finally I made some changes to it and here it is. 01: 1 Trumpet Archon (CR14) 02: 1 Astral Deva (Angel) (CR14) 03: 1 Nalfeshnee (Demon) (CR14) 04: 1 Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 14) 05: 1 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR14) 06: 1 Werewolf Lord (Lycanthrope) (CR14) 07: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Gold Dragon; Adult Blue or Copper; Mature Adult Black (CR 14) 08: 2 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12) 09: 2 Elder Black Pudding (CR 12) 10: 2 Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 12) 11: 2 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze Dragon; Adult Brass Dragon; Mature Adult White Dragon (CR 12) 12: 2 Frost Worms (CR 12) 13: 2 11-Headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra (CR 12) 14: 2 Kolyarut (Inevitable) (CR 12) 15: 2 Leonel (Guardinal) (CR 12) 16: 2 Collosal Monstrous Scorpion (CR 12) 17: 2 Purple Worms (CR 12) 18: 2 Psion Killers (CR 12) 19: 2 Roper (CR 12) 20: 3 Barbed Devils (CR 11) 21: 3 Cauchemare (Nightmare) (CR 11) 22: 3 Devourer (CR 11) 23: 3 Dragons: Juvenile Gold Dragon; Young Adult Green, Blue or Copper Dragon; Adult Black Dragon (CR 11) 24: 3 Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) (CR 11) 25: 3 Cloud Giants (CR 11) 26: 3 Stone Golem (CR 11) 27: 3 Half-celestial 9th level Human Paladin (CR 11) 28: 3 Golden Protector (Celestial Half-Dragon Lammasu) (CR 11) 29: 3 Harpy Archer (CR 11) 30: 3 Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (Lycanthrope) (CR 11) 31: 3 Hezrou (Demon) (CR 11) 32: 1 14th level Maenad Wilder (CR 14) 33: 3 11th level Xeph Soulknife (CR 11) 34: 3 Collosal Monstrous Spider (CR 11) 35: 3 Retriever (Demon) (CR 11) 36: 3 Troll Hunter (CR 11) 37: 4 Colossal Animated Object (CR 10) 38: 4 Bebilith (Demon) (CR 10) 39: 4 Couatl (CR 10) 40: 4 Formian, Myrmach (CR 10) 41: 4 Fire Giant (CR 10) 42: 4 Clay Golem (CR 10) 43: 2 Advanced (11HD) Phrenic Wyverns (CR 12) 44: 4 Advanced (15HD) Yrthak (CR 10) 45: 4 Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (CR 10) 46: 4 Guardian Nage (CR 10) 47: 4 Rakshasa (CR 10) 48: 4 Noble Salamander (CR 10) 49: 4 Gray Slaad (CR 10) 50: 3 Half-Dragon Frost Giants (1d10 for type) (CR 11) 51: 1 Half-Dragon Leonal (Guardian) (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 52: 1 Half-Dragon Displacer Beast Pack Lord (1d10 for type) (CR 14) 53: 1 Half-Fiend Cloud Giant (CR 14) 54: 1 Half-Fiend Harpy Archer (CR 14) 55: 1 Phrenic Cauchemar (Nightmare) (CR 14) 56: 1 Half-Fiend Troll Hunter (CR 14) 57: 1 Phrenic Barbed Devil (Devil) (CR 14) 58: 1 Phrenic Devourer (CR 14) 59: 1 7th-level Chimera Barbarian (CR 14) 60: 2 4th-level Stone Giants Fighter (CR 12) 61: 2 8th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14) 62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Dwarf Cleric (CR 14) 63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12) 64: 3 8th-level Yuan-ti Pureblood Rangers (CR 11) 65: 1 Elven Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Elven Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12) 66: 1 6th-level Dark Naga Sorcerer (CR 14) 67: 1 10th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14) 68: 1 4th-level Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14) 69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5) 70: 2 8th-level Areana Sorcerer (CR 12) 71: 2 11th-level Githyanki Wilder (CR 12) 72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard (CR 14) 73: 1 14th-level Dwarf Fighter (CR 14) 74: 1 14th-level Elf Wizard (CR 14) 75: 1 14th-level Half-orc Barbarian (CR 14) 76: 1 14th-level Halfling Rogue (CR 14) 77: 1 13th-level Drow Cleric (CR 14) 78: 1 13th level Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (CR 14) 79: 1 12th-level Human Lich Wizard (CR 14) 80: 1 Ice Devil (Gelugon) + 2 Bone Devil (Osyluth) (CR 13) (CR 9) 81: 1 Storm Giant + 2 Rocs {CR 13) (CR 9) 82: 1 Glabrezu (Demon) +2 Vrocks (Demon) (CR 13) (CR 9) 83: 1 8th-level Celestial Charger (Unicorn) Cleric (CR 14) 84: 1 Advanced (22HD) Iron Golem (CR 14) 85: 1 Advanced (14HD) Ghaele (Eladrin) (CR 14) 86: 1 5th-level Avoral (Guardian) Paladin (CR 14) 87: 2 5th-level Dragonne Paladin (CR 12) 88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10) 89: 2 6th-level Xill Rogue (CR 12) 90: 1 9th-level Unbodied Psion (CR 14) 91: 3 7th-level Gargoyle Fighter (CR 11) 92: 1 9th-level Weretiger (Lycanthrope) Ranger (CR 14) 93: 1 12th-level Human Ghost (CR 14) 94: 3 Advanced (22HD) Triceratops (CR 11) 95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10) 96: 4 Advanced (22HD) Dire Tiger (CR 10) 97: 3 Advanced (16HD) Destrachan (CR 12) 98: 1 6th-level Athach Barbarian (CR 14) 99: 3 Fiendish Yrthak (CR 11) 100: 2 Fiendish Fire Giants (CR 12)
Zevox 05-20-07, 06:45 PM	Although I feel it's a major compromise, I can get on board with this. We nix all the advanced and customized allies. Advnced HD is a huge problem, and customization is also a problem to a lesser extent (grappling horses). Allow me to repeat my request about customizing - since its only certain options with customization that are an issue, lets create a list of allowable feats for customization. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, eh? Heres an example I came up with: Ability Focus Acrobatic Agile Alertness Athletic Awesome Blow Blind-Fight Cleave Diehard Dodge Endurance Fleet of Foot Flyby Attack Great Cleave Great Fortitude Hover Improved Bull Rush Improved Critical Improved Flyby Attack Improved Initiative Improved Natural Armor Improved Natural Attack Improved Multiattack Iron Will Lightning Reflexes Mobility Multiattack Power Attack Power Critical Reckless Offense Run Skill Focus Snatch Spring Attack Stealthy Toughness Weapon Finesse Weapon Focus Wingover So I'll suggest that we limit the total animal HD you can control (ie list on the character sheet) with your HA skill is limited to (Coefficient of skill Allies) CsA=HA/2 (Character's HA score). I can work through an example to see what we end with...Say we have a 10th level character with +2 Cha mod and +5 skill item and +2 tool and max skill ranks. That gives a HA skill of 22. And that allows a total of 11 animal HD to have control over. That allows an Elephant, Giant Croc, Polar Bear, Rino, Elasmosaurus, Mega Raptor and Dire Lion. Those are all creatures that are available to a druid at about ECL7 or 10. Looks pretty reasonable to me. Eh, I don't know. It seems a might bit restrictive to me. Its not like everyone who uses the skill is going to have custom items to boost it you know - more realistically, your hypothetical ECL 10 character would have max ranks, the +2 tool, and -1 to +2 charisma, for a total modifier of +14 to +17, and thats presuming they're not multiclassed with a class that has HA as a cross-class skill or kept it at max in spite of such. So only 7-8 HD worth of animals. Seems a little low for that much investment in the skill. Making it HD=HA mod would be too much, though. Perhaps 2/3*HA? That gives a character with +12 HA access 8 HD worth of animals, +15 is 10, +18 is 12, etc. I do like how either of these takes care of the Legendary Animals option - limiting the HD you can have prevents those 20+ HD monsters from showing up for a good long time, if ever. Zevox
TheMagister 05-20-07, 07:19 PM	I haven't spoken up on the Diplomacy/HA issue yet, because I feel that I don't totally understand the ramifications of changes that we make. Nevertheless, I do have a tentative opinion. Druids and Rangers and Paladins have class allies that are an inherent part of their class's "power". Classes with Handle Animal as a class skill have the ability to befriend animals as an inherent part of their individual class's power. Classes with Diplomacy as a class skill have the ability to befriend and recruit allies as an inherent part of their individual class's power. Force of personality is a weapon in its own right. Charisma and Handle Animal and Diplomacy may be the rapier to Strength's bludgeon, but can be should be effective just the same. In my opinion, Diplomacy should be left just as it is for use by BARDS as a house rule. For everyone else that has Diplomacy as a class skill, water it down as you wish. Handle Animal should be left just as it is for use by Barbarians, Rangers, and Fighters. For everyone else that as Handle Animal as a class skill, water it down as you wish. Say that clerics and paladins are too devoted to their gods to make friendships as strong as those that a Bard could. Say that druids have the same issue, and also cannot form bonds with animals more powerful than their companions. I realize that this is completely out of the box. I know. But I think we have an opportunity here to give some of the "inferior" classes a little boost to make them more competitive. Just an idea, and not particularly well thought-out. TM
Zevox 05-20-07, 07:22 PM	...so then 1 level in Bard gives you access to our present diplomacy rules? Or do only pure Bards count as Bards? *shakes head* Sorry TM, but sounds like a bad idea to me. If the rules get changed, they get changed for everybody. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 07:23 PM	Allow me to repeat my request about customizing - since its only certain options with customization that are an issue, lets create a list of allowable feats for customization. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, eh? Heres an example I came up with: Ability Focus Acrobatic Agile Alertness Athletic Awesome Blow Blind-Fight Cleave Diehard Dodge Endurance Fleet of Foot Flyby Attack Great Cleave Great Fortitude Hover Improved Bull Rush Improved Critical Improved Flyby Attack Improved Initiative Improved Natural Armor Improved Natural Attack Improved Multiattack Iron Will Lightning Reflexes Mobility Multiattack Power Attack Power Critical Reckless Offense Run Skill Focus Snatch Spring Attack Stealthy Toughness Weapon Finesse Weapon Focus WingoverWe're talking about animals available on the open market. Customizations like this seam totally appropriate for a cohort or an animal companion, but for a creature you simply buy on the open market these kinds of customizations are a bit too much. Spring Attack? Reckless Offense? Blind Fighting? These are things that totally set off my DM sense. Customizations like that can be very powerful, and I think they should be reserved for characters who invest more than a few gp into an ally. Class allies and cohorts are IMO the only place where feat and skill customizations belong. Eh, I don't know. It seems a might bit restrictive to me. Its not like everyone who uses the skill is going to have custom items to boost it you know - more realistically, your hypothetical ECL 10 character would have max ranks, the +2 tool, and -1 to +2 charisma, for a total modifier of +14 to +17, and thats presuming they're not multiclassed with a class that has HA as a cross-class skill or kept it at max in spite of such. So only 7-8 HD worth of animals. Seems a little low for that much investment in the skill. Making it HD=HA mod would be too much, though. Perhaps 2/3*HA? That gives a character with +12 HA access 8 HD worth of animals, +15 is 10, +18 is 12, etc.A skill item costs 2500gp (less if you craft it). The MW tool costs 55gp. With allowing any kind of HA allies, we are effectively inventing a new optional class feature. Core rules doesn't describe any way to get animals other than the purchased allies we already have listed (and class features). It does describe how to train and rear animals, so we are using that ambiguity to invent a new mechanic to control that. My suggestion (max total HD=HA/2) is already more generous than the core class feature of a druid's animal cohort if you choose to make minor gp investments (2500gp @ ECL10 is peanuts). With you lesser investment resulting in 8HD @ ECL10 you already are allowing Giant Croc, Rino, Polar Bear and Megraptor. Those are all creatures from the Druid's animal companion lists at ECL 7 and 10. My more restrictive proposal is already providing a new class feature that's as powerful as the druid's animal companion with only moderate investment. If we use a more permissive system it will become the next target for abuse. Players will naturally try to exploit the system, and someone will use every reasonable measure to boost the HA skill resulting in animals more powerful than the druid's animal companion at the same level. I think we should shy away from inventing a new class feature potentially more powerful than the core class features.
TheMagister 05-20-07, 07:29 PM	...so then 1 level in Bard gives you access to our present diplomacy rules? Or do only pure Bards count as Bards? *shakes head* Sorry TM, but sounds like a bad idea to me. If the rules get changed, they get changed for everybody. Zevox Oh, come on. Take another look and put some brainpower into it. Don't dismiss it just because I'm TM. :) Monks have a stunning fist acquisition system, for example: for every monk level, +1 stunning fist/day. For every 4 levels in other classes, +1 stunning fist/day. Bards (could) have an ally acquisition system. For example: for every Bard Level, +1 HD/ECL/whatever. For every 2/3/4/whatever non-Bard levels, +1 HD/ECL/whatever. Everything's malleable in this situation, since we're wanting to change the very framework by which our players can acquire and use allies.
Zevox 05-20-07, 08:11 PM	We're talking about animals available on the open market. Customizations like this seam totally appropriate for a cohort or an animal companion, but for a creature you simply buy on the open market these kinds of customizations are a bit too much. Spring Attack? Reckless Offense? Blind Fighting? These are things that totally set off my DM sense. Customizations like that can be very powerful, and I think they should be reserved for characters who invest more than a few gp into an ally. Class allies and cohorts are IMO the only place where feat and skill customizations belong. ...then I guess we just have different opinions on that one. Not a one of those feats seems problematic to me, and ordering special training for a creature you're looking to purchase sounds perfectly acceptable to me. Lets see what the others have to say about it then. A skill item costs 2500gp (less if you craft it). And 5 credits - credits not everyone has/is willing to spend on such an item. Presuming that anyone looking to use the ability is going to spend credits on it is something I don't think we should be doing. The MW tool costs 55gp. 50, actually. With allowing any kind of HA allies, we are effectively inventing a new optional class feature. Core rules doesn't describe any way to get animals other than the purchased allies we already have listed (and class features). It does describe how to train and rear animals, so we are using that ambiguity to invent a new mechanic to control that. What we're doing is deciding how we're going to adjudicate the option of using handle animal to rear and train animals - an option which is perfectly core, and left ambiguous and as such up to DM adjudication. Thats not creating a new class feature, its just deciding how we'll work an existing but ambiguous one. My suggestion (max total HD=HA/2) is already more generous than the core class feature of a druid's animal cohort Um, a Druid's animal companion often has about the same HD as the Druid himself. Your proposal is not more generous than that from where I'm sitting. In any event, my main concern with this should perhaps be more bluntly stated - its the fact that this cap is on how many HD total of HA allies the character can have, not just the max HD any individual ally can have, which means that a character who wants, say, two 4 HD animals needs a full +16 modifier just for that. That seems a bit much to me - Archdevil Asran has had that much in the form of his two Dire Bats since his inception, which hasn't seemed a bad/abusive situation to me (even with them, hes lucky his wins outnumber his losses, to be honest), yet he only now (at ECL 10) has the +16 modifier he would need to have them under this proposal. That just strikes me as a bit more restrictive than is necessary. Zevox
Zevox 05-20-07, 08:20 PM	Oh, come on. Take another look and put some brainpower into it. Don't dismiss it just because I'm TM. :) Come on now my friend, you know I wasn't dismissing it just because it came from you. I just don't like the idea of giving specific classes access to more powerful versions of our ally rules than others at all. The rules with regards to things like this should apply to everyone across the board as far as I'm concerned. Zevox
TheMagister 05-20-07, 08:46 PM	Pssh. Reference the long-standing (and recently debunked) free dorjes vs. restricted wands ruling to know why I felt comfortable even proposing such an "inequality". ;) TM
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 09:35 PM	Um, a Druid's animal companion often has about the same HD as the Druid himself. Your proposal is not more generous than that from where I'm sitting.The difference is that a druid cannot do anything to get a more powerful animal companion. There is no core mechanic for a druid to permanently enhance his animal companion in any manner. However if we allow skills to be the game element that dictates the power of a class feature, we open up lots of various ways to "buff" that class feature. Items, feats, associated stat modifiers and so on all become options to improved a class feature. As long as there is some kind of relationship between skill points and animal HD, there will be the some mechanisms to gain a more powerful ally by focusing some resources. A skill point based system will be "front loaded" in that at lower levels you will be able to get more. At higher levels my proposed system doesn't scale as well as the druid's animal companion unless you invest feats or custom skill boosting items into it. Even w/o investing feats, using my proposed system a 20th level barbarian can easily get +38 HA (23skill+3(cloak+6cha)+2Tool+10item). That's a 19hd HA ally for the price of 46,050gp, and it compares well to the 20HD tyrannosaurus of a 20th level druid. If unwilling to invest credits into a custom item, the same character can have an ally with 14hd, and that kicks the butt out of anything that a ranger animal companion could do at that same level. In any event, my main concern with this should perhaps be more bluntly stated - its the fact that this cap is on how many HD total of HA allies the character can have, not just the max HD any individual ally can have, which means that a character who wants, say, two 4 HD animals needs a full +16 modifier just for that. That seems a bit much to me - Archdevil Asran has had that much in the form of his two Dire Bats since his inception, which hasn't seemed a bad/abusive situation to me (even with them, hes lucky his wins outnumber his losses, to be honest), yet he only now (at ECL 10) has the +16 modifier he would need to have them under this proposal. That just strikes me as a bit more restrictive than is necessary. Put on the Hat of a GM. Think of this from a GM perspective not from the perspective of a player who's looking at having one of his character nerfed. The whole point of this discussion is that for a long time we have been too permissive with allies. Diplomacy allies were the most often abused, because it's easier to abuse those kinds of allies. The diplomacy skill has lots of synergies, and the allies on that list includes outsiders and dragons. HA allies as we now use them are very similar to Diplomacy allies. The only major difference is that they are all animals instead of dragons and outsiders. If/when we remove the option to abuse the diplomacy rules, HA allies are the next on the list for abuse. Now we are (as you say) "not creating a new class feature, its just deciding how we'll work an existing but ambiguous one." I think the most reasonable guideline for this is to look at similar class features, and describe something that produces comparable potency. I've proposed a system that keeps HA allies largely in line with the most powerful animal allies in the game. It actually produces comparable allies to to a druid's companion all the way from ECL10 to ECL20 (assuming some investment in supporting equipment). This is better than a familiar, better than a shadow companion, better than a fiendish servant, better than a ranger's companion and at certain point in the ECL scale with proper optimization it's even better than a druid's animal companion. Yet still you are telling me that this proposal is too restrictive! It's already the best animal companion in the whole freaking game!
TelinArtho 05-20-07, 09:53 PM	So much has been discussed since the issue was brought up the other day for discussion. I'm sure I haven't followed most of it - I will review it more tomorrow - but I did want to chime in with a suggestion. Rather than remove elements whole-cloth from the CoCo - why not strip down the elements that could be causing the issue. I suggested this was likely advancement and elite ability arrays specifically on diplomacy allies (though it wouldn't be a stretch to apply it to animal allies as well). Yes this doesn't satisfy Sauro because it still allows some to have "stronger" allies than the "strongest class allies" - the animal companion. However, by just stepping it down - it helps determine if it needs to go further and has the side benefit of taking down what I have seen as the "worst offenders." What this does keep is a nice variety of options that people have without alienating some by saying that they have been "exploiting the system." In general - I'm opposed to a system imposed that bases the maximum HD off of a skill. If at any point it means that a straight fighter wouldn't be able to pick up a light warhorse - I would say that is the point where we have gone too far. When I am able to read further the posts since Friday - I will offer more specific comment.
Zevox 05-20-07, 10:17 PM	Put on the Hat of a GM. Think of this from a GM perspective not from the perspective of a player who's looking at having one of his character nerfed. ...I'm not looking at having any of my characters nerfed. Like I said, Asran has enough HA to keep his Dire Bats even under this proposal. Ceilia's Hippogriff would be unaffected as well. What I'm seeing is that the proposal prevents what I consider to be perfectly reasonable use of the HA allies which I've done in the past, and when our restrictions start preventing reasonable things like that, I have reservations about them. HA allies as we now use them are very similar to Diplomacy allies. The only major difference is that they are all animals instead of dragons and outsiders. If/when we remove the option to abuse the diplomacy rules, HA allies are the next on the list for abuse. That one major difference is quite a huge one. Animals are significantly weaker than anything our Diplomacy rules have allowed. Most of them can be avoided with simple flight, and those that can't tend not to be too tough in a fight past the lowest levels. This of course being once the option to advance them is taken away. This is better than a familiar Because familiars are weak combatants to begin with. Even the Improved ones are minor threats overall. They're not intended for combat. better than a shadow companion Not in all situations, but I suppose in the brute force department, yes. Of course, brute force isn't what a shadow companion is about. better than a fiendish servant Because those are little better than familiars anyway (seriously, the most powerful combatant in the list is a Fiendish Heavy Horse - not even a Warhorse, a plain horse). better than a ranger's companion Because those are supposed to be weak overall anyway. and at certain point in the ECL scale with proper optimization it's even better than a druid's animal companion. With optimization that requires credits and heavy gold investment, where the Druid's animal companion costs squat. Hells, if we don't allow any feat customization at all, I'd say this is never better than a Druid's animal companion. It's already the best animal companion in the whole freaking game! I'd say Paladin special mounts are the best, actually, presuming they take one of the alternate mounts. Things like an automatically advancing Dire Lion or Griffon are tougher than anything a Druid gets. And better than anything our HA skill lets you get, barring again the Legendary animals. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 10:25 PM	In general - I'm opposed to a system imposed that bases the maximum HD off of a skill. If at any point it means that a straight fighter wouldn't be able to pick up a light warhorse - I would say that is the point where we have gone too far. FYI, Don't get confused about what we are suggesting with respect to HA allies and purchased allies. Here is a quick summary. So far my suggestions as as follows: Diplomacy allies go completely (totally non-core and abusable) Purchased allies cannot be advanced or customized, but the elite array is available at 5 levels above the minimum. Thats ECL8 to buy a griffon, and ECL13 to buy an elite one. HA allies listed on the sheet are limited to total HD=HA/2 TM suggests: Some kind of Bard specific Diplomacy Ally system. (not specified) Zevox suggests: Purchased allies can be customized and made elite but not advanced by HD. HA allies should be more permissive than my suggestion above. (not specified) MWB here: I'm not sure about his position on diplomacy allies. Purchased allies limited advancement and customization (Perhaps allowing the elite array at +2CR) HA allies replace the CR mechanic with either an arbitrary table or a HD mechanic of some kind.
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 10:55 PM	What I'm seeing is that the proposal prevents what I consider to be perfectly reasonable use of the HA allies which I've done in the past, and when our restrictions start preventing reasonable things like that, I have reservations about them.Allies are hands down the most important element in our game. Something has happened where our CoCo battles at mid to high levels are as often as not battles between groups of combatants. I see this as a bad thing, and all my suggestions are an effort to reverse that. Our game has become more about what groups of allies can do, than about what a character is capable of. Building a successful character is partly about building a successful team of combatants. I see that as a problem. All my suggestions are aimed at dealing with that problem from both directions. I think that to a large extent, we should decrease the potency of allies acquired through our skills systems, and we should increase the investment required to get them. Because familiars are weak combatants to begin with. Even the Improved ones are minor threats overall. They're not intended for combat...Not in all situations, but I suppose in the brute force department, yes. Of course, brute force isn't what a shadow companion is about...Because those are little better than familiars anyway (seriously, the most powerful combatant in the list is a Fiendish Heavy Horse - not even a Warhorse, a plain horse)...Because those are supposed to be weak overall anyway.So you are saying that since the class feature allies described by the game designers for every class sucks in combat, that we should take an ambiguous undetailed few sentences in the rules to design a new class feature ally that is totally more powerful than all the others. I have the opposite response to the fact that most class feature allies suck in combat. I get the sense that a character's combat presence should be mostly about what the character does, not what his class feature allies do. If the class feature allies of almost every class has a relatively minor roll in combat, then I get the sense that our newly described class feature ally should be similar to the other 4 or 5 class features, not vastly superior to all of them. With these old allies rules, that predate most of us beginning in CoCo, we have a system that allows house ruled allies or purchased allies to be vastly superior to anything you can get with your normal class features. I think we should take this opportunity to reverse that.
Zevox 05-20-07, 11:23 PM	<Snip - Short version: Sauro sees teams of allies as a bad thing> Then I think we've hit a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't see that as a bad thing. I see them as making battles around here more interesting - adding options, and thus tactical complexity and potential character ideas. I've never held the preconception that battles around here are principally supposed to be 1-on-1s between two characters, so my opinions are going to differ from those of someone who does (obviously, you and NiQil fall into that category). So you are saying that since the class feature allies described by the game designers for every class sucks in combat, that we should take an ambiguous undetailed few sentences in the rules to design a new class feature ally that is totally more powerful than all the others. No, I'm saying that faulting handle animal allies for being superior combatants to class allies that are meant to be weak is a silly thing to do. I think that, comparing what we have for handle animal allies to Druid animal companions and Paladin special mounts, both of those are superior once advancing the HA allies is taken out of the equation, so we don't have the issue of the mechanic being too powerful. I think that your proposed restriction on just how many HA allies are allowed is a bit too much - not that much off, but a bit, hence my suggestion of the slightly more lenient 2/3*HA restriction* - and I feel that you shouldn't be presuming that those that invest in the skill are going to purchase custom items to do it (as you thus far always have). Thats what I think of the discussion at present. *Another suggestion in line with my reasoning for that would be to go with your 1/2 HA restriction, but only make it a restriction on the max HD of any given animal, not on the total of all you can have. That would allow multiple weak animals if desired, but keep the strength of each individual to the low rates you desire. With these old allies rules, that predate most of us beginning in CoCo, we have a system that allows house ruled allies or purchased allies to be vastly superior to anything you can get with your normal class features. I think we should take this opportunity to reverse that. Using even just pure core (i.e. no advancing, customizing, or elite array), purchased allies are vastly superior to most class allies - except for Druid animal companions and Paladin special mounts, no class ally is stronger than a purchased Griffon. Thats core. I see no problem with that, and have no desire to reverse that. Zevox
TheMagister 05-20-07, 11:32 PM	There is the matter of "bang for your buck". Class allies are generally infinitely renewable. Purchased allies are a one-shot kind of thing, renewable only with the expenditure of more gold. The Nimbus makes purchased allies infinitely renewable. In a TT game, a high level purchased ally that gets fried by a dragon represents a 3000-6000 gp loss. A class ally that gets fried by a dragon represents a 24 hr ritual to replace said ally (i.e. - nothing). Even the loss of 100 xp is a relatively small price to pay. What if we made purchased allies "non-refundable" and made the Nimbus not restore them if they die? Now THERE's a limiting factor! TM
NiQil 05-20-07, 11:34 PM	Or as an alternate idea...make class allies always renewable, so that they are available in every fight, regardless of what happens to them. Or we could even do both.
TheMagister 05-21-07, 12:44 AM	Or as an alternate idea...make class allies always renewable, so that they are available in every fight, regardless of what happens to them. Or we could even do both. The more I think of making purchased allies killable, the more I like it. Everything in the RAW says that you can have them. NOTHING in the RAW says that you get to keep them for free after then die.
Zevox 05-21-07, 12:51 AM	Yeah, I'll take Sauro's ideas over that one. I do not want to spend 8.5k gp on a Griffon, then have it all go to waste the next fight because I get matched with a foe who hates allies and decides he wants to kill it and permanently hurt me rather than try to win the match. Besides, we've in the past avoided allowing your opponent to financially damage you, which such a rules change would do. Zevox
TheMagister 05-21-07, 01:06 AM	And in a TT game? I would like to think that paying that kind of money and taking that kind of risk would make the "disposable allies" bent that we see a lot of slow down a little. And if you have 8.5k to spend on a griffon, save up an extra 1.5 and buy a bronze figurine instead. I know that I sound heartless. But I happen to agree with Sauro that allies really are the pinnacle of strength here, and I also agree that they shouldn't be. They're so good, and so useful, that they should be hard to get and expensive to own. Just like they are in a TT game. The leadership feat isn't without its downside. The character is supposed to undertake the feeding and care of all those followers, too. The leadership feat awards a cohort that's 2 levels lower than the leader is, but bestows a cost on that cohort (not only the cost of the feat, but the monetary cost of outfitting that cohort and all the followers that come later). I don't think non-allies should be disposable. I think that when they die, there should be repercussions, both monetarily and reputation-wise. It's the ultimate balancing factor.
Zevox 05-21-07, 01:11 AM	And in a TT game? In a TT game you won't have opponents deliberately attacking your ally just to spite you. In a TT game foes who do attack your ally will almost always stop just when they're no longer able to fight. In a TT game you're in a party that most likely has a healer, making death much less likely for anybody, allies included, and resurrection is a possibility at upper levels. Because you're in a party in a TT game, your foes have many more important targets to focus on than that horse you're riding. The CoCo is not a TT game. Zevox
TheMagister 05-21-07, 01:26 AM	Everything that you say is true. Still, I have some return points. In a TT game you won't have opponents deliberately attacking your ally just to spite you. If I'm up against a zookeeper who is marginally tough, but his Dire Ape is kickin' my butt, you can BET that I'm going to focus on the Dire Ape until it goes down. I won't do it "to spite you", but I'll do it so I don't have to worry about it kicking my butt anymore. If you heal it, I'll kill it until you can't. If you've got Raise Dead, more power to you. In a TT game foes who do attack your ally will almost always stop just when they're no longer able to fight. In the CoCo, rounds matter. If the zookeeper is incapable of life-threatening offense because he's so focused on allies that allies become his only strength, then that's his problem. HE gave me enough time to safely take his ally to -10 instead of turning my attention onto him because he's still a credible threat. In a TT game you're in a party that most likely has a healer, making death much less likely for anybody, allies included, and resurrection is a possibility at upper levels. Hey, who says that our gladiators don't have access to Raise Dead and other assorted "bring back the dead" spells? I didn't. That's what NPC spellcasting is for. Let the ZOOKEEPER keep 5k in his back pocket for those dead allies. Because you're in a party in a TT game, your foes have many more important targets to focus on than that horse you're riding. So that makes it more dangerous to have your character rely so heavily on his mount. So a mounted character has to {gasp} branch out and not be so focused on mounted combat! All the super-charge-paladins will be so heartbroken. The CoCo is not a TT game. Zevox Too true, too true. But it's supposed to somewhat emulate it. Having recycleable allies does not. To my suddenly enlightened mind, part of the reason purchased allies are so powerful is because they're so expensive to buy, keep, and replace. Greater power for more risk. It's all so clear! Now, I'm just a voice here. But to me, this makes sense. I'm not saying that exactly what I'm proposing is the perfect way (though reading over it, I've managed to imply just that). I expect that you guys (the elders) should mix and match and fix stuff so that it all balances out. But I think that it at least bears thinking about, and that I think that it's a step in the right direction. TM
Erithmu 05-21-07, 01:29 AM	Besides, we've in the past avoided allowing your opponent to financially damage you, which such a rules change would do. ZevoxSeen it happen ... Ask MWB & Macbrea about that one.
TheMagister 05-21-07, 01:30 AM	Good point. The "make him spend those wand charges" strategy.
Erithmu 05-21-07, 01:40 AM	All I am saying is that Mac saw that it was worth it to trade wand charges for the win. I know I have written tactics where I have gone after the ally knowing that I might have to face the same character again sometime in the next couple of fights and might not have to fight him and his ally. With the 3FC it is sometimes worth killing the ally (especially in smaller sized leagues) so that you don't have to fight the ally next time.
Zevox 05-21-07, 01:47 AM	If I'm up against a zookeeper who is marginally tough, but his Dire Ape is kickin' my butt, you can BET that I'm going to focus on the Dire Ape until it goes down. I won't do it "to spite you", but I'll do it so I don't have to worry about it kicking my butt anymore. If you heal it, I'll kill it until you can't. If you've got Raise Dead, more power to you. I was referring to the types of things that some folks would pull just to spite anyone who uses allies (thinking of a certain Elder whose name has a rarely-used letter of the English language in the center of it here) - there are folks out there who, if such a rule were implemented, will decide its better to take all the time in the world to kill your ally/allies than it is to try to win the fight. Not because its a good idea to do so, but just to make sure you lose the ally and every penny you spent on it. In the CoCo, rounds matter. If the zookeeper is incapable of life-threatening offense because he's so focused on allies that allies become his only strength, then that's his problem. HE gave me enough time to safely take his ally to -10 instead of turning my attention onto him because he's still a credible threat. See above - not everyone is going to stop attacking the ally when its out of the running for the match, whether it would be smart to do so or not. Hey, who says that our gladiators don't have access to Raise Dead and other assorted "bring back the dead" spells? I didn't. That's what NPC spellcasting is for. Let the ZOOKEEPER keep 5k in his back pocket for those dead allies. The resurrection thing was rather a secondary point (but to add, generally the entire party will pitch in when such a thing does become necessary in a TT game, something that also can't happen here). The main point - and this is a big one I think - is that not everyone around here has such easy access to healing as most TT parties do. Some (see: Fighters, Barbarians, Wizards, Psions, Psychic Warriors, etc) have none at all unless they cart around healing potions, which aren't exactly cost-effective, and thus aren't popular. So that makes it more dangerous to have your character rely so heavily on his mount. So a mounted character has to {gasp} branch out and not be so focused on mounted combat! All the super-charge-paladins will be so heartbroken. Its already more dangerous, given you can lose your mount and not have one for subsequent fights. And not all mounted combat characters are like that - from my own, Ceilia and Mithos are by no means built around charging, and Istima doesn't even have it as an option, yet they'd all be hurting bad from the loss of their mounts. Istima would be out 6k gp. Ceilia would have to mniquest for hers again (and later on would be out cash when she gets a Griffon), and after his MQ this week Mithos would also have to MQ for his again. To say nothing of the RP implications for the two that actually care about their mounts (or for that matter the RP situation with why the Nimbus suddenly isn't working on those any more). Too true, too true. But it's supposed to somewhat emulate it. Having recycleable allies does not. True. Having recycleable allies is one of the balance issues required for the CoCo environment but not the TT one. Seen it happen ... Ask MWB & Macbrea about that one. The Brooch of Shielding Aerryl lost? That thing was made to be used up. Tragic that it got used up in one fight, but still only did what it was supposed to do. Not the same as allies. Good point. The "make him spend those wand charges" strategy. Expendables the character can choose when to use and when not to use. Expendables are made to be expended. Allies are not made to be expended. Big difference. Zevox
TheMagister 05-21-07, 01:56 AM	I contend that purchased allies are made to be expended. They're a cost for a benefit. I was referring to the types of things that some folks would pull just to spite anyone who uses allies (thinking of a certain Elder whose name has a rarely-used letter of the English language in the center of it here) - there are folks out there who, if such a rule were implemented, will decide its better to take all the time in the world to kill your ally/allies than it is to try to win the fight. Not because its a good idea to do so, but just to make sure you lose the ally and every penny you spent on it. So institute a "no spite" rule. If an ally is knocked out, it can no longer be targeted. If it bleeds to death, that's tough. If you can't heal it, surrender and keep your ally. Combat cleric then 'ports on in and one Cure Minor Wounds later you're golden. You lose the fight, but get to keep your ally. Barring the odd crit, you'll always have the choice on whether or not to "expend" your purchased ally. Its already more dangerous, given you can lose your mount and not have one for subsequent fights. And not all mounted combat characters are like that - from my own, Ceilia and Mithos are by no means built around charging, and Istima doesn't even have it as an option, yet they'd all be hurting bad from the loss of their mounts. Istima would be out 6k gp. Ceilia would have to mniquest for hers again (and later on would be out cash when she gets a Griffon), and after his MQ this week Mithos would also have to MQ for his again. To say nothing of the RP implications for the two that actually care about their mounts (or for that matter the RP situation with why the Nimbus suddenly isn't working on those any more). So buy Ceilia a magic carpet or boots of flying. Istima has to learn powers or have on hand items that boost her AC by 4 and gain her all that extra movement. WHERE would you find and HOW MUCH would you pay for a permanent item that 1) added a 120' fly speed, 2) added a +4 mod to your AC that stacks with everything, 3) added another set of actions in each round, and 4) can contribute to offense. It'd be about as much as a bronze griffon and have a limited number of uses a day, I'll tell you that much. TM
Zevox 05-21-07, 02:24 AM	I contend that purchased allies are made to be expended. They're a cost for a benefit. We disagree on the first. On the second - aye, they're a gold cost for a benefit. Not a gold cost you're expected to continually pay over and over again, like with scrolls. My point throughout here is that in a TT game, there are many factors that make your allies likely to have long life spans, if they die at all. Here, most (if not all) of those factors are gone, including the most important ones, and so a balancing factor is needed. Enter the Nimbus - solves all the problems in a hurry. Removing it creates more problems than it solves in my eyes, so I will remain solidly against this. So buy Ceilia a magic carpet or boots of flying. Istima has to learn powers or have on hand items that boost her AC by 4 and gain her all that extra movement. Istima is a he, and is built around mounted manifesting. I picked his discipline based solely on the fact that it had ride as a class skill even. And to toss a totally RP issue into the mix for him, he participates in the arena because he knows no one gets killed there - if suddenly his beloved mount can be killed there, he'd probably stop competing. Theres no such thing as a magic carpet here - Correction, there is a carpet of flying I never noticed (and it would be totally out-of-character for Ceilia to start using one). And Ceilia wants Boots of Speed and is designed around mounted combat anyway. Yeah, I'll stop myself before I get to ranting about this, but suffice to say that in our environment I do not see penalizing those who choose mounted combat as part of their strategy for doing so as a good choice at all. Zevox
TheMagister 05-21-07, 02:41 AM	I thank you for continuing to discuss this with me, I think we're tiptoeing around a path that may lead to a solution. We disagree on the first. On the second - aye, they're a gold cost for a benefit. Not a gold cost you're expected to continually pay over and over again, like with scrolls. My point throughout here is that in a TT game, there are many factors that make your allies likely to have long life spans, if they die at all. Here, most (if not all) of those factors are gone, including the most important ones, and so a balancing factor is needed. Enter the Nimbus - solves all the problems in a hurry. Removing it creates more problems than it solves in my eyes, so I will remain solidly against this. Re: the Nimbus - I don't want to do away with it! It's too good of an RP lynchpin that everything hangs on. Re: factors that kill allies - Just because things are a certain way now doesn't mean they have to stay that way. If we introduce factors into the CoCo environment that protect allies from death but leave a tangible risk that must be taken into account by a purchaser that they might die and have to be replaced, then that'll be a possible step towards solving our problem! Instituting ally-specific rules such as: 1) if an ally is disabled or unconscious, it can no longer be targeted by any effect that could cause its death. 2) Miniquests are no longer needed to acquire purchasable allies (including corpses). 3) A gladiator can surrender to avoid an ally's death. {Arena Moderator} "Attention Ceilia! Your ally will expire permanently in six seconds! Do you wish to surrender?" House rules like these make keeping an ally alive something that can be controlled by a player more than 95% of the time (and I'm referring to crits that immediately kill allies). Istima is a he, and is built around mounted manifesting. I picked his discipline based solely on the fact that it had ride as a class skill even. And to toss a totally RP issue into the mix for him, he participates in the arena because he knows no one gets killed there - if suddenly his beloved mount can be killed there, he'd probably stop competing. Theres no such thing as a magic carpet here (and it would be totally out-of-character for Ceilia to start using one). And Ceilia wants Boots of Speed and is designed around mounted combat anyway. I always think Istima is a "she". Sorry about that. So Istima's built around mounted combat. Two generations of dungeon-delving paladin players say "So what?! We've been forced to leave our mounts outside for twenty years!" If Istima cares more about his mount than his livelyhood, then he should buy a bronze griffon or pay 15 credits for a "bronze pegasus" with a faster move speed. Re: Magic Carpets - what do you mean, "there's no such things as magic carpets here"? Of course there are! They're in my DMG, anyhow. A wizard with overland flight and CWI can make one for 10,000 gp. I'm saying that the option is there for us if we make an effort to fit it in. TM
TheMagister 05-21-07, 02:43 AM	suffice to say that in our environment I do not see penalizing those who choose mounted combat as part of their strategy for doing so as a good choice at all. Zevox Oh, and I can't see this as "penalizing" mounted combat-oriented characters. All I can see it as is forcing such characters to cope with the "real" problem of keeping and losing mounts.
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 08:15 AM	Zevox, I'm not suggesting that purchased allies need to fit under the HA restriction. My suggestion is that purchased allies are limited by the normal CR restrictions. Only allies gained using the HA skill (at no gp cost) will be limited to the HA restriction. Go ahead and buy your mounts as long as you are the correct ECL.
Macbrea 05-21-07, 08:20 AM	All I am saying is that Mac saw that it was worth it to trade wand charges for the win. I know I have written tactics where I have gone after the ally knowing that I might have to face the same character again sometime in the next couple of fights and might not have to fight him and his ally. With the 3FC it is sometimes worth killing the ally (especially in smaller sized leagues) so that you don't have to fight the ally next time. Here is the deal on that. A wand of Magic missiles [CL 9] = 6,750gp, which is what Mektos was carrying at the time. The average damage on that wand is 17.5 damage per charge. The cost of each charge is 135gp. A brooch of shielding has 101 hps protection for 1500gp. This means the average number of shots to kill a brooch of shielding is 6 or 810gp. It cost me a total of 9 charges to win that fight. So.. 1,215gp to win a 7th level fight. The reason I state make my opponent expend the charges even when I know i am going to loose a match. I want them to expend the charges. If we allow a player to get to 10th without using up wands then they will have a huge amount of power at the fingertips. Simple surrenders do cost other gladiators in the end.
templer10 05-21-07, 08:38 AM	There is the matter of "bang for your buck". Class allies are generally infinitely renewable. Purchased allies are a one-shot kind of thing, renewable only with the expenditure of more gold. The Nimbus makes purchased allies infinitely renewable. In a TT game, a high level purchased ally that gets fried by a dragon represents a 3000-6000 gp loss. A class ally that gets fried by a dragon represents a 24 hr ritual to replace said ally (i.e. - nothing). Even the loss of 100 xp is a relatively small price to pay. What if we made purchased allies "non-refundable" and made the Nimbus not restore them if they die? Now THERE's a limiting factor! TM iam sorry to say you are totally wrong here- class allies ARENT tottaly renewable as you say- they are just totally renewable becuase of the nimbus. normaly (in TT) when a wizard loses his familiar he loses 200 XP/level (or 100/level if he makes DC 15 fort) - that's not so little. also (in TT) a slain or dismissed familiar cant be replaced for a year and a day. a paladin who loses the speciel mount - cant resummon it for 30 days and get combat penalties for the duration. a shadowdancer who loses his shadow companion loses 200 xp/level (100/level if fort DC 15 is made) and cant resummon another 1 for 30 days. so you see -exept for the druid - there are some massive penalties for losing the class allies so you cant really nerf regular allies without doing the same for the class allies which in effect will eliminate alllies alltoghter from the CoCo. Also- in response to what you said that allies arent very likely to die unless there is a lucky crit etc and peeps can just surrender in order to avoid losing that 6,000 GP ally that idea create a whole host of problems: first, it's definently possible that in higher ECLs (just when you get that 6K gold ally) a normal attack will do a lot more then 11 damage in 1 hit (assuming said ally wa left with 1 HP) - EVEN when not aimed at the ally (aoe spells anyone?) so you can kill ally without the fighter even having a chance to surrender. (in the relativly short time i am pitlording - 33 fights so far- i had seen it happen more then once). second, by forcing fighters to surrender to avoid losing ally you can create a whole new way to win a fight - Cant hit that massive AC?, his saves are 2 high? NO PROBLEM - just attack the ally and eventually the fighter will surrender to avoid losing that 6k investment. third- sometimes you need to sacrifice an ally to gain time, distance, whatever - for example putting even a weak ally in the way of an enemy in a small map so he has to kill the ally to get to you so you gain some rounds to do whatever - it's a legitemate tactic in this 1v1 situation that wont be possible in your system.
Yitzi 05-21-07, 08:40 AM	I don't like the "make purchased ally death permanent" idea. I have no intention of using purchased allies, and I still don't like the idea-it's too much of a cost at times. I know in a TT game dead allies need to be ressurected or stay dead, but in a TT game, dead PCs also need to be resurrected or stay dead, why should one differ from the other? I would say that the best way to do it would be to say that non-class allies decrease not only the XP/GP gained, but also the GP/XP ratio to a small degree-a sort of mainenance cost. So instead of maxed out allies causing -25% XP/-25% GP, it might be something like -20% XP/-30% GP. That way, allies are more like expendables-they decrease your available cash per level when you use them, but at a rate that can be controlled and is not crippling.
TelinArtho 05-21-07, 10:43 AM	Actually - this recent discussion brings up a suggestion that was discussed before but never implemented: make allies cost GP/fight rather than xp+gp/fight. This would alleviate the need to impose a replacement cost on the ally, but it would simulate the resources spent to upkeep those allies. If I recall correctly, at the time it was discussed, it was fairly universally agreed upon. Not sure on that - you can bet I'll look it up later today if I get the chance. To be clear - this would only affect allies that count for the penalty now (so not the class allies). Anyway - I'm still catching up on the discussion. So I'll be back with more later.
hogarth 05-21-07, 11:47 AM	Actually - this recent discussion brings up a suggestion that was discussed before but never implemented: make allies cost GP/fight rather than xp+gp/fight. This would alleviate the need to impose a replacement cost on the ally, but it would simulate the resources spent to upkeep those allies. If I recall correctly, at the time it was discussed, it was fairly universally agreed upon. Not sure on that - you can bet I'll look it up later today if I get the chance. To be clear - this would only affect allies that count for the penalty now (so not the class allies). This suggestion sounds quite reasonable to me. At least it more closely matches a tabletop game where you might conceivably be able to hire mercenaries rather than get creatures to fight for you for free.
Hirumajoe 05-21-07, 12:08 PM	I'm not sure if the guildmasters or the Elders should be voting on this, but since most are both... At this point in time, most guildmasters are interested in maintaining a peaceful situation. LOY's positioning does not allow that. It has to pick a fight with someone, or force someone else to pick a fight. Given that my tenure as Guildmaster is limited, and no obvious successor is in sight, I move that LOY be decommissioned as a full fledged guild to avoid the inevitable spiral into conflict thats going to result. Of course, nothing is preventing people from continuing the LOY RP, and or trying to convince remaining actual guilds they should lend support to the true monarchy. :) The resulting removal of 3 districts is probably still up for discussion, although I'd back Sauro's suggestion at this point, nuking the 3 unclaimed northern outer districts (i.e. High Traversam, Luna March, and Chanadar Forest). This leaves each remaining guild either with 3 districts now, or 3 easily accessable districts (Kailo->Tao and Merisia->TLT, War -> Upper Merx, EHTC -> Plains). And as also suggested by Sauro, a redraw of the borders of Yurynwood. However, if the majority of people feel I should continue, I will. But to play properly I'm going to have to take some aggressive actions. And someone isn't going to like them. Then again, perhaps some good old fashioned skullduggery and outright warfare is what the guild game needs. Thanks for your consideration.
TelinArtho 05-21-07, 12:14 PM	Okay - I want to separate the current issue on board, because we've gone far astray from Diplomacy allies. Just for the record, the elder votes on the diplomacy subject: Keeping and modifying diplomacy rules: TelinArtho Removing them entirely: Sauro, Vath, NiQil, (MWB) Abstain: Zevox This removes them entirely. I certainly would've preferred to see them stay with modification - but I guess that's the way it works some time. On the matter of handle animals, I'm not sure really where the votes fall: Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB) Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil I haven't seen a certain position from Vath on the matter and I have seen Zevox and MWB put out suggestions to change them - after stating that they felt they weren't a problem. The exact details on how to change them are certainly muddied at this point though...
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 12:16 PM	Joe and other guildmasters, I just don't see there being enough membership right now and interest to maintain all the guilds. The game can function w/o 7 guilds. It's probably best for us to go that way if there is none to continue after your absence. Then again, I'm looking down the barrel.
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 12:37 PM	On the matter of handle animals, I'm not sure really where the votes fall: Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB) Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil I haven't seen a certain position from Vath on the matter and I have seen Zevox and MWB put out suggestions to change them - after stating that they felt they weren't a problem. The exact details on how to change them are certainly muddied at this point though... So far there are two suggestions on how to change HA allies. I'm suggesting total animal HD = HA/2 Zevox has suggested max animal HD = HA/2. Or total animal HD = HA x 2/3
Abyssal Stalker 05-21-07, 01:10 PM	Joe and other guildmasters, I just don't see there being enough membership right now and interest to maintain all the guilds. The game can function w/o 7 guilds. It's probably best for us to go that way if there is none to continue after your absence. Then again, I'm looking down the barrel. What if LOY would be turned into a PMG, or several PMGs that are located in the districts that LOY currently occupies? That would keep LOY in the game in a certain level and make others work their way to the districts. I don't know if this creates an imbalance on the map too big.
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 01:16 PM	Hoo... once again, I have a lot to catch up on. Let me do what I can. Handle Animal ally limitations: I'm noticing that a key part of the "balancing" equations include a custom Handle Animal magic item. I see that as a problem-if you want to have a level-appropriate ally, you'll need to fork out credits. Here's one of those cases where credits=power; a custom item would literally allow you to get a stronger ally. I've noticed it before, especially on Cat's characters, and I think now is the time to step in. I want to change it so that credit-only items never help you to get allies. Period. Let me clarify that I'm also in favor of changing the HA equation, for the reason I argued earlier. Even creating an arbitrary, line-item list is an option (though one I'd rather avoid). Also, I'm strongly against letting allies of any kind stay dead when killed. The CoCo is a much more lethal environment than a TT game--heck, PCs die more than half the time here. In a TT game, allies are more likely to die than PCs, but they can still last a long time if you take good care of them (like, not sending the guard dog to attack ogres). @Sjiggie, ah, I didn't notice Ranger was listed twice. The new list looks good except for those two for which you used the online calculator against my insistence. Each item needs to be EL 14, and they're not. Since it's just two items, I'll go ahead and change those myself; you can consider the list approved. Some of the items may need to be changed if they turn out strangely--I can't imagine 4 Colossal Animate Objects posing a credible threat at ECL 14--but that can be done later. @Zevox: I'd really rather avoid a list of approved feats for allies; lists are generally worse than formulas or general rules (plus, Fleet of Foot is easily one of the most powerful feats for a mount). On the other hand... it opens up the option of allowing feats that aren't on the list as blackmarket options, or otherwise penalized. We need more uses of credits right now anyway, and this would finally open up that option of psionic feats on animals. It's just a thought, and it's secondary to the main discussion, but I think I like it. @TM: It makes me very queasy to give a flat-out power boost to unpopular classes. It's one thing to change the rules for everyone in such a way that it impacts certain classes more than others; it's quite another to effectively add class abilities. It's not our job to fix weak classes. (Arguably, by Cat's logic, it is our job to make noncombat features usable in combat, but of the classes you mention, only Bard and Ranger could be considered to fall into that description--and then, so would Druid). One more random idea on this subject I'm considering: line-item lists of approved allies. I cannot disagree with NiQil that light warhorses are incredibly powerful at ECL 3--they're easily as strong as a level 3 Warrior in many cases. Forcing ECL 3 characters to get along with a plain old horse (rather than a warhorse) could be a good idea. Re; LOY becoming PMGs: That's probably a good idea. If TLT and TAO move into their old districts, it gives them an "out" to avoid cutting down the PMGs that were already in their way (The Church of Denth and the Swampers). Probably not in Gladius Park, though. The one in Merisia should be LG and EL 9 (same as their highest-level character, Valen); what about the one in Kailo?
Hirumajoe 05-21-07, 01:43 PM	Re; LOY becoming PMGs: That's probably a good idea. If TLT and TAO move into their old districts, it gives them an "out" to avoid cutting down the PMGs that were already in their way (The Church of Denth and the Swampers). Probably not in Gladius Park, though. The one in Merisia should be LG and EL 9 (same as their highest-level character, Valen); what about the one in Kailo? Following the logic of using Valen as the base for the Merisia PMG, then use the remaining characters as the base for the Kailo. ECL 6 + ECL 5 + ECL 4 (TAG- old member) or ECL 3 (Kathren - new member applying) is something like an ECL 8. Either LG or LN.
Usurpator 05-21-07, 01:55 PM	Haven't said a lot about the allies and handle animal issues, since I think they are handled excellently by the posters here. Few notes: Handle Animal ally limitations custom HA credit items need to go, really hated the weird Diplomacy/HA items that Cat had his characters self-craft. Especially when he let clerics craft HA items, what's up with that, should be Druid only. Also, I have plenty of characters with non-maxed HA (lots with Cha 8 and HA even), would hate to think that the rules only cater to ultra-specialists. Allies that stay dead No. It promotes griefing. We don't let equipment stay destroyed for the same reason. Customizable Allies I really want to keep this as restrictive as possible. Be creative with your characters, the rules were specifically balanced for creating those, they weren't balanced with allies/animals in mind. Improved Grapple warhorses simply aren't CR 1 however you look at it. Bard allies pump It's not RAW, were rebalancing a class because we perceive it as weak. Sorry TMG. Item list of approved allies by level I would like that. However, a light warhorse at lvl 3 isn't that strange a thing. TT games easily have that. I'm more for balancing it in another way, like a fixed gp. sum for bringing an ally into the arena. A CL3 wand of magic missiles is also really powerful in the ECL3 League, but at least users tend to pay a couple hundred gp. to use it for a win. Bring a light warhorse? Pay 75 gp. (or something to that effect).
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 02:02 PM	Handle Animal ally limitations: I'm noticing that a key part of the "balancing" equations include a custom Handle Animal magic item. I see that as a problem-if you want to have a level-appropriate ally, you'll need to fork out credits. In my examples, I'm assuming that there are custom skill items because I want to describe the reasonable upper limit of the class feature we are inventing. If we use a skill, and we don't take custom items into consideration, then we will end up with allies more powerfull than we bargained for. Here's one of those cases where credits=power; a custom item would literally allow you to get a stronger ally. I've noticed it before, especially on Cat's characters, and I think now is the time to step in. I want to change it so that credit-only items never help you to get allies. Period.A noble goal there... but it effectively requires that we detach ally acquisition from all skills (or make custom skill items credit free). If you want to go that far, then that's OK. But it's more extreme than anyone else is suggesting. Let me clarify that I'm also in favor of changing the HA equation, for the reason I argued earlier. Even creating an arbitrary, line-item list is an option (though one I'd rather avoid).If the HA skill is not the basis of some kind of equation, then what would be? The HA skill is the obvious choice, but perhaps we can use class levels, or ranks in the skill, or an arbitrary table. One more random idea on this subject I'm considering: line-item lists of approved allies. I cannot disagree with NiQil that light warhorses are incredibly powerful at ECL 3--they're easily as strong as a level 3 Warrior in many cases. Forcing ECL 3 characters to get along with a plain old horse (rather than a warhorse) could be a good idea.Again this is an arbitrary table, and perhaps not an unreasonable idea. But above you express reservations against an arbitrary list of feats. This seams similar.
Yitzi 05-21-07, 02:04 PM	Improved Grapple warhorses simply aren't CR 1 however you look at it. They are if you don't allow the "grapple" trick to be taught. That way the feat is only useful if: A. Someone wants to grapple them (in which case I presume they can handle it) or B. You can make the DC 25 HA check to "push" the horse. And if you can make a DC 25 check often enough to make it worthwhile, then you've probably expended enough that you whould be allowed to do it.
Abyssal Stalker 05-21-07, 02:04 PM	Following the logic of using Valen as the base for the Merisia PMG, then use the remaining characters as the base for the Kailo. ECL 6 + ECL 5 + ECL 4 (TAG- old member) or ECL 3 (Kathren - new member applying) is something like an ECL 8. Either LG or LN. What if they were a powerful PMG, something like 12+. That would make them a powerful entity on the map and it would require higher-level characters to attack them. After all, they have several structures that should probably increase their ECL. The question is: do we want them to be an easily beatable group or a powerful one. Their attitude towards other guilds should probably reflect their current attitude.
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 02:20 PM	In my examples, I'm assuming that there are custom skill items because I want to describe the reasonable upper limit of the class feature we are inventing. If we use a skill, and we don't take custom items into consideration, then we will end up with allies more powerfull than we bargained for. A noble goal there... but it effectively requires that we detach ally acquisition from all skills (or make custom skill items credit free). If you want to go that far, then that's OK. But it's more extreme than anyone else is suggesting. You misunderstand me. I think the best solution would be to make it so that +skill items simply cannot add to any formulas used to determine ally acquisition. A +5 Handle Animal item could help you train an animal, but it wouldn't help you gain a more powerful ally. If the HA skill is not the basis of some kind of equation, then what would be? The HA skill is the obvious choice, but perhaps we can use class levels, or ranks in the skill, or an arbitrary table.Again, you misunderstand me. It can be based on HA, but not on CR. Either an HD-based formula or an arbitrary table are the ways I'm leaning.Again this is an arbitrary table, and perhaps not an unreasonable idea. But above you express reservations against an arbitrary list of feats. This seams similar.Yeah, I know. I think I feel much the same way about it that WotC does. Look at animal companions from 3.0 to 3.5. Originally, it was an HD-based formula. They realized that this formula just didn't work. You could add-on ways to advance existing animals, you could invent new animals, you could do a ton of different things, but ultimately they decided to just create a list because no formula came out to be balanced enough across all situations. Like them, I'd rather use a formula when I can, but only if we can make it work.
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 02:24 PM	What if they were a powerful PMG, something like 12+. That would make them a powerful entity on the map and it would require higher-level characters to attack them. After all, they have several structures that should probably increase their ECL. The question is: do we want them to be an easily beatable group or a powerful one. Their attitude towards other guilds should probably reflect their current attitude.Also, do we want them to be beaten, or to stay in the game? If TAO and TLT are going to move into their districts, their EL and alignment will determine this. If it's easier to contact and befriend them, we will; if it's easier to kill them, we'll do that. Moderately high EL and compatible alignment shift us toward the former; low or extremely high EL and disparate alignment shift us toward the latter.
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 02:38 PM	Also, do we want them to be beaten, or to stay in the game? If TAO and TLT are going to move into their districts, their EL and alignment will determine this. If it's easier to contact and befriend them, we will; if it's easier to kill them, we'll do that. Moderately high EL and compatible alignment shift us toward the former; low or extremely high EL and disparate alignment shift us toward the latter. Honestly with the idea to eliminate some districts, I was looking forward to having some of the super PMG's taken out of the game and the high traversham problem getting fixed. That district is a distinct advantage for CEF, and I complained about it to Cat in the beginning. He totally ignored me, but we have a chance to fix that now. The map is kind of crowded with PMG's right now. There are 6 or 7 of them running around. Then there's the pirates and highwaymen. These groups clearly outnumber the guilds, and if we are loosing another guild and gaining 2 more PMG's that puts the guilds outnumbered almost 2 to 1. I'd rather not pass up the chance to "fix" some imbalances on the map.
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 02:43 PM	You misunderstand me. I think the best solution would be to make it so that +skill items simply cannot add to any formulas used to determine ally acquisition. A +5 Handle Animal item could help you train an animal, but it wouldn't help you gain a more powerful ally. Again, you misunderstand me. It can be based on HA, but not on CR. Either an HD-based formula or an arbitrary table are the ways I'm leaning.Yeah, I know. I think I feel much the same way about it that WotC does. Look at animal companions from 3.0 to 3.5. Originally, it was an HD-based formula. They realized that this formula just didn't work. You could add-on ways to advance existing animals, you could invent new animals, you could do a ton of different things, but ultimately they decided to just create a list because no formula came out to be balanced enough across all situations. Like them, I'd rather use a formula when I can, but only if we can make it work. Well... the only formula that I can think would work and not be affected by skill items is something based on ranks in the associated skill. Perhaps we could allow feats to play a roll in the score also. But this at-least cuts our stat boosting items and MW tools and items that boost your associated stat. Honestly the arbitrary table idea may be the best way to go. That has the potential to be a comprehensive table that covers all purchased and HA allies and listing associated costs and requirements to gain each.
Erithmu 05-21-07, 02:46 PM	RE: HA allies Assuming we are going to keep HA allies in some form: Could the formula for allies be based off HA ranks rather than HA mod (like we have some skill packages). This would allow for a very strong streamlining of what certain ECL's could gain with max HA ranks being defined as ECL +3. There would still be a need for some pluses for training and rearing. Just throwing this out there. There is always room for modification.
McJarvis 05-21-07, 03:03 PM	Well... the only formula that I can think would work and not be affected by skill items is something based on ranks in the associated skill. Merely saying Ranks+associated stat(charisma) would be good enough. +stat items are pretty expensive, so abuse would be minimal. (and Cha is kind of a dump stat, so it'll be a sacrifice either way)
TelinArtho 05-21-07, 04:16 PM	I will say this again - but I would prefer that this discussion be separated from the diplomacy issue (since it apparently has been decided already and I'd like to close the book on one issue before moving on to the next). Well - if we were going to go the route to adjust the handle animal list to be ranks rather than bonus - I'd like to see a modified list so I know what we're getting into. While I know some people might feel a warhorse is a tough ally for ECL3, I don't think it is unreasonable to have one at that level. I certainly feel that taking them out of the equation and only allowing a light/heavy horse (non-war) at that ECL would be a bad move. Controlling the mount in battle takes a move action each round and is a DC20 check - that's a huge penalty. Also - how do you plan on differentiating that table when the CR and HD of Light/Heavy horse and Light Warhorse are all the same? Anyway - I am having a hard time approving/dissenting against an idea without something to work with in hand.
Zevox 05-21-07, 04:23 PM	Zevox, I'm not suggesting that purchased allies need to fit under the HA restriction. My suggestion is that purchased allies are limited by the normal CR restrictions. Only allies gained using the HA skill (at no gp cost) will be limited to the HA restriction. Go ahead and buy your mounts as long as you are the correct ECL. I never thought that. What made you think I did? Actually - this recent discussion brings up a suggestion that was discussed before but never implemented: make allies cost GP/fight rather than xp+gp/fight. This would alleviate the need to impose a replacement cost on the ally, but it would simulate the resources spent to upkeep those allies. If I recall correctly, at the time it was discussed, it was fairly universally agreed upon. Not sure on that - you can bet I'll look it up later today if I get the chance. To be clear - this would only affect allies that count for the penalty now (so not the class allies). Just as last time this was brought up, I think its a good idea. Doing that would institute a real penalty for using the allies. @Zevox: I'd really rather avoid a list of approved feats for allies; lists are generally worse than formulas or general rules (plus, Fleet of Foot is easily one of the most powerful feats for a mount). On the other hand... it opens up the option of allowing feats that aren't on the list as blackmarket options, or otherwise penalized. We need more uses of credits right now anyway, and this would finally open up that option of psionic feats on animals. It's just a thought, and it's secondary to the main discussion, but I think I like it. *blinks* Well, thats quite a turn around. So, eh, shelf the idea for now, bring it back up when we're done with diplomacy/ha/purchased allies? Merely saying Ranks+associated stat(charisma) would be good enough. And feats (*points to Ceilia's Animal Affinity feat*), at least. I'm kinda skeptical about removing custom items from the HA equation, but maybe thats just because Ceilia would lose her Hippogriff if it weren't for hers. In any event, I think a more concrete suggestion for the new formulas is in order. Anyone have any ideas? Re: LOY - I guess with only three players even interested in them anymore, they've gotta go. I don't know about making them a PMG - personally, if they're gonna go, I'd prefer to just let them go, remove the three outskirts districts from the map, and get on with the game. That takes care of the districts issue entirely, while making them a PMG just makes it a little tougher to get ahold of their districts. Once they go, I'll be looking for new Guilds for Kathren and Mithos anyway - Kathren will almost certainly join TAO, and Mithos will need to choose between joining TAO for appearances' sake or coming up with a reason to discreetly contact the EHTC - so I've no particular interest in keeping them around as a PMG personally. Zevox
McJarvis 05-21-07, 04:24 PM	You can just give them the combat riding trick package to avoid the "move action to control", right? Kind of similar to riding dogs that get trip attacks when you train them? Once you slap the combat riding skill package on a horse, the only difference between non-war and war versions are physical stats and ability to attack while bearing a rider.
McJarvis 05-21-07, 04:28 PM	I'd support the lack of magical +skill item bonus to ally checks. We're already super-lenient with the magical + skill items, especially considering how restrictive we are on mundane + skill items.
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 04:48 PM	You can just give them the combat riding trick package to avoid the "move action to control", right? Kind of similar to riding dogs that get trip attacks when you train them? Once you slap the combat riding skill package on a horse, the only difference between non-war and war versions are physical stats and ability to attack while bearing a rider. Exactly. So not a big deal if you have the HA to train them yourself. Re: LOY: Okay, it's clearly dead. The PCs will disperse. As for PMGs, I personally don't think we have too many--plus, since they can appear as random events, all non-home districts will eventually have one anyway. (And I'd prefer a full PMG to a street gang or rioters.) Also to address Sauro's concern, notice that by whacking off the three northern districts, we'd lose two PMGs anyway. But that's my opinion, which is basically cancelled out my Zevox's (as Guildlords). That leaves Sauro's vote against them, and (I think) Hirumajoe in favor. What about TM's, Telin's, and Vath's opinions? Especially Vath, since it affects TAO most directly.
TelinArtho 05-21-07, 04:53 PM	I don't really care either way to be honest. They affect CEF the least. As for the extra districts - I never noticed that CEF had an advantage there - but if that is the case, I have no problem seeing it go either.
TheMagister 05-21-07, 07:53 PM	Exactly. So not a big deal if you have the HA to train them yourself. Re: LOY: Okay, it's clearly dead. The PCs will disperse. As for PMGs, I personally don't think we have too many--plus, since they can appear as random events, all non-home districts will eventually have one anyway. (And I'd prefer a full PMG to a street gang or rioters.) Also to address Sauro's concern, notice that by whacking off the three northern districts, we'd lose two PMGs anyway. But that's my opinion, which is basically cancelled out my Zevox's (as Guildlords). That leaves Sauro's vote against them, and (I think) Hirumajoe in favor. What about TM's, Telin's, and Vath's opinions? Especially Vath, since it affects TAO most directly. I'm okay with whacking the three northern districts. I'm not really okay with two powerful and influential PMGs just "poof"-ing out of existence. I (in particular) feel a romantic connection with the Church of Denth because they're responsible for the death of Sdentch (whom I actually miss...she was fun). The CoD is the one PMG that I look at and think "MAN, that's gonna be a tough nut to crack...". As for converting LOY into a PMG: I think we should make it a story-related move. Example: "In a daring move, Lady Mortiniella and her Loyalist cronies have declared Council Member status for the Lady Mortiniella following the mysterious disappearance of High Councilman Gered Vartenian. Apparantly, Lady Mortiniella was able to produce irrefutable documents signed by the High Councilman that conferred his powers and responsibilities onto the Lady in the event of his inability to fulfill his duties. While the papers are of a temporary nature, they appear to be completely binding (this from an unnamed source in the Council). The other members of the Council are infuriated at the coup, but are left powerless against the document for fear of angering High Councilman Vartenian if and when he should return. The High Councilman is known for swift and terrible judgement, and the weight of his wrath is considerable -- as everyone knows, he is a learned Archmage. The Loyalists, who now have all the power and influence of the seat of the Council behind them, have entrenched themselves in the Kailo and Merisia districts, where strongly fortified buildings manned by grim defenders have appeared seemingly overnight. The Loyalists have proven to be close-mouthed about their intentions, and attempts at negotiation are rebuffed at the door. The Loyalist's strength is estimated at EL ??. More on this story as it develops." Something like that. I dunno what strength the PMG should be, and I don't want to venture guesses because such a value would only indirectly influence WAR, and would directly set how difficult it would be to befriend/remove the PMG before moving into those districts.
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 08:08 PM	I'm not really okay with two powerful and influential PMGs just "poof"-ing out of existence. I (in particular) feel a romantic connection with the Church of Denth because they're responsible for the death of Sdentch (whom I actually miss...she was fun). The CoD is the one PMG that I look at and think "MAN, that's gonna be a tough nut to crack..."I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Denthians really were just too darn powerful; they still will be if allowed to remain. I always felt TAO was at a disadvantage because they were pretty much forced to expand in that direction. On the other, the RP element is too good to pass up. Bear this in mind, though: Those districts aren't getting blasted away in a nuclear explosion. They're still there; there's just some reason the guilds can't, or won't, expand that way, just like they won't expand southward into the Laki Wetlands. One darn good reason might be that the Denthians moved out of the forest and conquered Briggehoseler and Sothlarch, expanding their influence into High Traversam and the Luna Marsh. (I just noticed; the world map has it as "Luna Marsh," but the guild stuff has it as "Luna March.") They're too tough to take down with mere guild action now; dislodging them might be a goal for a global event or a campaign.
SauroGrenom 05-21-07, 08:10 PM	I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Denthians really were just too darn powerful; they still will be if allowed to remain. I always felt TAO was at a disadvantage because they were pretty much forced to expand in that direction. On the other, the RP element is too good to pass up. Bear this in mind, though: Those districts aren't getting blasted away in a nuclear explosion. They're still there; there's just some reason the guilds can't, or won't, expand that way, just like they won't expand southward into the Laki Wetlands. One darn good reason might be that the Denthians moved out of the forest and conquered Briggehoseler and Sothlarch, expanding their influence into High Traversam and the Luna Marsh. (I just noticed; the world map has it as "Luna Marsh," but the guild stuff has it as "Luna March.") They're too tough to take down with mere guild action now; dislodging them might be a goal for a global event or a campaign.I really like this idea.
TheMagister 05-21-07, 08:13 PM	I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Denthians really were just too darn powerful; they still will be if allowed to remain. I always felt TAO was at a disadvantage because they were pretty much forced to expand in that direction. On the other, the RP element is too good to pass up. Bear this in mind, though: Those districts aren't getting blasted away in a nuclear explosion. They're still there; there's just some reason the guilds can't, or won't, expand that way, just like they won't expand southward into the Laki Wetlands. One darn good reason might be that the Denthians moved out of the forest and conquered Briggehoseler and Sothlarch, expanding their influence into High Traversam and the Luna Marsh. (I just noticed; the world map has it as "Luna Marsh," but the guild stuff has it as "Luna March.") They're too tough to take down with mere guild action now; dislodging them might be a goal for a global event or a campaign. Come on! A joint guild mission between TAO and WAR with three or four ECL 10s could take 'em. I'd take odds against the Denthians if Ceilia at ECL 10, Hood at ECL 10, and two ECL 10 wizards went out there with bad intentions. TAO and WAR even have a good past history (I've been wanting to spend NEG on improving our relations, but things have been so quiet for so long I didn't wanna throw even that much of a pebble into the Gladosian pond). EL 13 isn't too tough, IMO. It's a little tough, and darned near impossible by yourself. With help, it could be done. WAR/TAO/EHTC joint effort? {hmmm} TM
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 08:24 PM	First of all, the op rules allow no more than 3 characters. To get even odds, that'd take ECL 13 characters to hit their EL of 16. You honestly think ECL 10 Celia, Hood, and, say, Vandelar could take on, oh, three beholders? Or a planetar? And that's not even getting into the icky stuff like the Stone Giant Druid. But more importantly, that district has to go. So the only way to keep the Denthians would be to relocate them, and that would be very uncool to whoever we dumped them on. (And BTW, TLT and TAO have been planning to take them down jointly as well; it would likely be a 3-way effort between those three guilds at least. Speaking of which... it looks like it's time for TLT to have a word with WAR. Have to think about that for when Zwei is done.)
McJarvis 05-21-07, 08:51 PM	First of all, the op rules allow no more than 3 characters. You could form a up to 4 person team. [if you're really dedicated and want to forge 4 people together]
TheMagister 05-21-07, 09:22 PM	For some reason I thought that they were EL 13. My bad.
Abyssal Stalker 05-22-07, 01:03 AM	Shouldn't we be having ECL10+ characters pretty soon as the higher leagues are opening. They should be able to press on the high ECL groups.
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 05:27 PM	Since no one is expressing strong opinions about LOY becoming PMGs, I'm excercising GM authority and saying that they are. Now, I notice that LOY is actually NG right now, not LG as they claim they are. However, TLT is also NG right now, so making them NG would give us too much of an advantage (especially compared to the Swampers we're removing). So The Loyalists will be LG, EL 9 (representing the bulk of their strength), located in Merisia. As for their "secondary branch," I'm going to leave the RP factor up to Zevox, parially because Mithos is a built-in reason why the organization might split apart, and partially because his members are half the guild. Their alignment will be LN (again, to make it challenging but not impossible for TAO to move in with them), their EL will be 8, and they'll be located in Kailo. These groups, and the removal of the three northern districts, will go into effect as of next week, as if they came into existence this week. Zevox, Hirumajoe, and McJarvis, I invite you to RP the demise of LOY in their thread.
Zevox 05-22-07, 05:34 PM	As for their "secondary branch," I'm going to leave the RP factor up to Zevox Please, don't. You'll recall I was one of those who did express an opinion about making them a PMG, and that was that I'd prefer we didn't. I'd rather they just disband quietly, like the EYE did, and Mithos and Kathren give up on them as failed and move on. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 05:41 PM	Please, don't. You'll recall I was one of those who did express an opinion about making them a PMG, and that was that I'd prefer we didn't. I'd rather they just disband quietly, like the EYE did, and Mithos and Kathren give up on them as failed and move on. Zevox Oookay. I'll come up with something, I guess.
SauroGrenom 05-22-07, 05:47 PM	I also expressed an opinion on the fate of LOY. I'd rather they not become PMG's. But if you have something interesting in mind, then go for it.
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 05:53 PM	I misspoke that no one had strong opinions, but opinions were mixed. Rather, I think that while it would keep complexity down to remove them entirely, it would be both more interesting and more balanced to leave them as PMGs. Besides, we're losing two PMGs, so adding two doesn't really change anything.
MitzaVolchenko 05-22-07, 09:35 PM	I misspoke that no one had strong opinions, but opinions were mixed. Rather, I think that while it would keep complexity down to remove them entirely, it would be both more interesting and more balanced to leave them as PMGs. Besides, we're losing two PMGs, so adding two doesn't really change anything. I agree that something should fill the vacuum rather than giving away essentially free space with no fight.
Hirumajoe 05-23-07, 11:53 AM	I agree that something should fill the vacuum rather than giving away essentially free space with no fight. But what about the other guilds which have expanded into 3 districts "without a fight". As far as I can tell, the guildmasters don't want to be engaging in hostilities all that much at this point in time. Hence my desire to disband LOY before this week, since I would have started hostile actions this week. (Admittedly with a rather limited roster, but still, you do what you can). Actually, what is the point of having ECL 16 PMGs when no group can possibly field an equal ECL force to even contact them, let alone remove them, while others don't have to deal with them at all? In any case, for as long as I'm around, you're free to use Valen as the basis of a PMG or two. Heck, if you want to use him as the "monster" for them for operations to contact or eliminate any remaining PMG, thats fine too. I'd say just set it to two ECL 9 PMGs, which seems like a reasonable comprimise from full fledged guild to absolutely free. Those are faily easily dealt with in the course of a few weeks, either by contact and negotiation, or by simply removal by high ECL 9-10 characters. It requires the investment of a few weeks, but really thats not all that different from LOY sticking around for a few more weeks then going puff later. In any case, I need to figure out some RP to let Zevox's characters just cut clean from the group. Death of Lady Mortinella might handle that well (since his LOY characters seem to nobility inspired - and well the remaining Valen is anything but...) On a mostly unrelated note: I did like McJarvis' suggestion of a Mercanary "Guild". Not a game playing guild, but a location through which non-guilded characters could sell their services to guilds. Such that you don't need the strongest character roster in order to compete. It'd cost some gold, just like outsources point production and processing costs, related to the ECL of the character. The guild could "pay" the amount of gold earned by the gladiator (I.e. ECL 3 wins pays 900 gp, ECL 3 loses, guild pays 300 gp). Hiring would be a free action. Probably couldn't use them for reactions due to the timing, but being able to use them for operations would still be useful. It also in principle lets you hire "specialists" with skill sets your current characters don't have. This would make the fact that didn't have enough interest in the guilds themselves. I'm willing to bet more people would interested in one shot work than an actual guild comittment. And if no one does have an interest in it, well, it doesn't really matter all that much. And I could imagine RPing the demise of LOY into such an organization. At which point you could argue PMGs don't result, but rather all the remaining net worth gets delcared neutral and doesn't affect anything (being the RP reason why the districts are now "empty").
McJarvis 05-23-07, 12:58 PM	On a mostly unrelated note: I did like McJarvis' suggestion of a Mercanary "Guild". Not a game playing guild, but a location through which non-guilded characters could sell their services to guilds. Such that you don't need the strongest character roster in order to compete. It'd cost some gold, just like outsources point production and processing costs, related to the ECL of the character. The guild could "pay" the amount of gold earned by the gladiator (I.e. ECL 3 wins pays 900 gp, ECL 3 loses, guild pays 300 gp). Hiring would be a free action. Probably couldn't use them for reactions due to the timing, but being able to use them for operations would still be useful. It also in principle lets you hire "specialists" with skill sets your current characters don't have. This would make the fact that didn't have enough interest in the guilds themselves. I'm willing to bet more people would interested in one shot work than an actual guild comittment. And if no one does have an interest in it, well, it doesn't really matter all that much. And I could imagine RPing the demise of LOY into such an organization. At which point you could argue PMGs don't result, but rather all the remaining net worth gets delcared neutral and doesn't affect anything (being the RP reason why the districts are now "empty"). This Merc guild could be called on par with a theives guild(or chaotic themed guild). No official structure[Or even buildings?], but still a force in Gladius that can be used. It's what the voting originally wanted, it's less paperwork[no weekly actions], and it's not a purely-RP based guild.
MindWandererB 05-23-07, 01:19 PM	Well, Zevox has made it clear that he doesn't want his characters to have anything to do with the fate of LOY. I've written up something that makes sense--a schism based on how to achieve LOY's overall goals--which I was planning on posting to the Guild thread after the guild actions go up this week.
Vathelokai 05-24-07, 09:02 AM	On the matter of handle animals, I'm not sure really where the votes fall: Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB) Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil I haven't seen a certain position from Vath on the matter and I have seen Zevox and MWB put out suggestions to change them - after stating that they felt they weren't a problem. The exact details on how to change them are certainly muddied at this point though... Havn't had much time to do the math on how HA would work out. I'm leaning toward leaving them as is for now. I could see small changes being helpful, but as the rules stand, I'm okay with them. So officially, I'll call that abstain. Unfortunately that puts us at a tie. So far there are two suggestions on how to change HA allies. I'm suggesting total animal HD = HA/2 Zevox has suggested max animal HD = HA/2. Or total animal HD = HA x 2/3 I agree with MWB that custom handle items are a problem. Using total HA score creates issues like that.... hrrmmm. Late for work... gotta run.
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 01:12 PM	I’ve been thinking on this idea of making a list of allowed allies to be had with HA. So I made up the following list using the Druid’s animal companion list, and adding in everything you can purchase as well. I loosely used the ECL-4=CR mechanic when the creature can be purchased. When it’s an animal for the HA skill, I used the druid’s animal companion list to find something similar and put it in the same category. The basic trend I used was that a HA skill animal ally should become available 2 levels after the druid gets his. I fudged it a bit at the low end. This list would govern only allies acquired by purchasing them or by the HA skill, not allies from class features or leadership allies. We should also say that nothing on the below list can be advanced by racial HD. To be more restrictive (and prevent grappling horses and similar obscene inventions), I'd suggest we also not allow any of the allies from the below list to have customized feats (skills and the elite array are probably OK). 3:baboon, badger, bat, cat, camel, dire rat, dog, donkey, eagle, hawk, light horse, lizard, monkey, mule, owl, pony, rat, raven, snake (Small or Medium viper), toad, weasel 4: Heavy Horse, Hyena, Riding Dog, War Pony, Wolf 5: Light Warhorse, Pseudodragon (Dragon) 6: Heavy Warhorse, Ape, Black Bear, Bison, Boar, Cheetah, Crocodile, Dire Bat, Dire Badger, Dire Weasel, Hippogriff (Magical Beast), Leopard, Monitor Lizard, Snake (constrictor), Snake (large viper), Wolverine 7: Swarms (Bat or Rat), Giant Eagle (Magical Beast), Giant Owl (Magical Beast), Pegasus (Magical Beast) 8:Brown Bear, Crocodile (giant), Deinoychus, Dire Ape, Dire Boar, Dire Wolf, Dire Wolverine, Elasmosaurus, Griffon (Magical Beast),Lion, Rhinocerous, Snake (huge viper), Tiger 9: Spidereater (Magical Beast) 10: 11: Flesh Golem (Construct) 12: Dire Lion, Megaraptor, Polar Bear, Snake (giant constrictor), Shield Guardian (Construct) 13: 14: Clay Golem (Construct) 15: Dire Bear, Elephant, Stone Golem (Construct) 16: Psion-Killer (Construct) 17: Iron Golem (Construct) 18: Dire Tiger, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus 19: 20: Roc The listed animals, magical beasts, construct, and dragons can all be acquired at the listed minimum ECL at the prices in the rules thread (and the SRD). This table would replace the CR= ECL-4 mechanic (although I largely followed it and the druid’s animal companion list to make the above table). If we allow the elite array on purchased allies, then those should be bumped up at least two ECL (so elite heavy warhorse at ECL8). Our HA mechanic can be left the same (which allows custom items to effect your HA allies), or switched to something based on ranks and feats associated with the skill. If the desire to remove the effects of custom skill items is sincere, then we will need a new HA mechanic. My HA/2=Max total HD mechanic allows skill items to effect the allies. So I propose the following in its place: Max Total HD = HA Ranks + Feats -5 This scales with ECL better than the druid’s animal companion, but it also is limited by the above table. So a character with max ranks in the skill at ECL 14 will find they have room to have two Dire Lions if they choose.
Usurpator 05-24-07, 01:36 PM	So I propose the following in its place: Max Total HD = HA Ranks + Feats -5 Nice work. However if your table is based on the CR/power of animals, and the number of allies based on HD, due to the use of two separate mechanisms, you will probably see an increase in 'bang-for-buck' allies. When left with the choice between different CR3 creaturesm the choice become obvious. You're better of with two 3HD CR 3's than one 6HD CR3 in most cases. Also, normally a 18HD tyrannosaur would require 23 ranks when maxed out, so a level 19 character.
Zevox 05-24-07, 01:41 PM	Max Total HD = HA Ranks + Feats -5 Shouldn't your charisma score get factored in there, being as its the skill's ability modifier? I can understand removing items, but why not include charisma in this? Also, in your list, you forgot Hippogriffs, which can be both purchased and had through Handle Animal. ECL 6 looks like the spot to give them (thats where they're available under our present rules, and they're weaker than the flying mounts you have at ECL 7). Zevox
Macbrea 05-24-07, 01:53 PM	Is that list assuming that all characters with Ride skill must actually have skill in Handle animal to own the animal? In case anyone was wondering: Classes with Handle Animal: Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Aristicrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior Classes with Ride: Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Aristicrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior, Ranger
Hirumajoe 05-24-07, 02:00 PM	Classes with Ride: Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Aristicrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior You seem to be missing Ranger in that list which does have ride.
Zevox 05-24-07, 02:02 PM	Is that list assuming that all characters with Ride skill must actually have skill in Handle animal to own the animal? No, it isn't. He mentioned that the list would apply to purchased allies as well as handle animal ones. Zevox
Macbrea 05-24-07, 02:08 PM	You seem to be missing Ranger in that list which does have ride. Me? No... it was always up there! :P
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 02:44 PM	Shouldn't your charisma score get factored in there, being as its the skill's ability modifier? I can understand removing items, but why not include charisma in this? Also, in your list, you forgot Hippogriffs, which can be both purchased and had through Handle Animal. ECL 6 looks like the spot to give them (thats where they're available under our present rules, and they're weaker than the flying mounts you have at ECL 7). ZevoxRight. I put the Hippogriff in the list. Also they are magical beasts, so not available for the HA skill (even though the int is 2 they are not animals). I left the associated stat out simply because it leaves items of all kinds out of the equation totally. I'm sure that most characters will use the cloak slot for a cloak of resistance, and the cha item will be reslotted into something else (credits again work there way into the equation). Also it makes a mechanic that scales with level in lock step and is not open to manipulation by things like templates or items or strange races.
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 02:49 PM	Is that list assuming that all characters with Ride skill must actually have skill in Handle animal to own the animal?No. Let me clarify. The table lists what minimum ECL is that allows you permission to gain a purchased, or HA ally. This replaces the CR-4 mechanic we have been using. Our purchase price remains the same for all purchased allies, but advanced HD or feat customization are not allowed. HA allies can be acquired with a quest as we are currently using them. The total HD of HA allies allowed to be on your sheet is given by the following formula: Max Total HD = HA Ranks + Feats -5
TelinArtho 05-24-07, 02:51 PM	Sauro - that list needs to be modified to include the vermin as well. Also I'd love to hear an explanation for the following: Light Horse (ECL3) - CR1, 3HD Heavy Horse (ECL4) - CR1, 3HD Light Warhorse (ECL5) - CR1, 3HD Heavy Warhorse (ECL6) - CR2, 4HD When weighed in with these: Riding Dog (ECL4), CR1, 2HD War Pony (ECL4), CR1/2, 2HD I'm also not sure why the Pseudodragon, Griffon, Giant Eagle or Giant Owl are on the list - since those were originally covered by diplomacy allies, and are still covered under Leadership. Note that a griffon is not available as a leadership ally until ECL10... As an aside to all of this though, the vote on Handle Animal was pretty much at a tie with MWB as the tie breaker I thought: Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB) Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil Abstain: Vathelokai
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 02:54 PM	Nice work. However if your table is based on the CR/power of animals, and the number of allies based on HD, due to the use of two separate mechanisms, you will probably see an increase in 'bang-for-buck' allies. When left with the choice between different CR3 creaturesm the choice become obvious. You're better of with two 3HD CR 3's than one 6HD CR3 in most cases. Also, normally a 18HD tyrannosaur would require 23 ranks when maxed out, so a level 19 character. There will be some strategic choices to make, but I think that all options will be relatively balanced as much as possible. The T-Rex could become available for a 18th level character if they take feats in HA. I think there's two feats that give a bonus to HA (animal affinity and skill focus). If you chose to have either of those, it's possible to have a T-Rex at ECL18.
Zevox 05-24-07, 02:59 PM	Right. I put the Hippogriff in the list. Also they are magical beasts, so not available for the HA skill (even though the int is 2 they are not animals). HA is allowed to be used on Magical Beasts in core, so long as they have int 1 or 2 (in fact, anything with int 1 or 2 is allowed). They just have +5 to the DC for anything. Many Magical Beasts, Hippogriffs included, are even on our current list of HA allies. I left the associated stat out simply because it leaves items of all kinds out of the equation totally. I'm sure that most characters will use the cloak slot for a cloak of resistance, and the cha item will be reslotted into something else (credits again work there way into the equation). Also it makes a mechanic that scales with level in lock step and is not open to manipulation by things like templates or items or strange races. So, you think its a big deal that someone might get a small (+1-3) boost to that for 4-36k gp from charisma plus items?? That seems a bit extreme to me - those things are quite expensive for small boosts, unlike custom items for the skill itself. Plus what about those who already have a high charisma, such as Paladins, and normally get that added to their HA score to determine what they can do? And what of special races with LAs but high charismas, such as Half-Celestials or Half-Fiends - are they just screwed because of their LA unless they take feats? And what of those with a charisma penalty to the score - why should they get to ignore that? Sorry, but it sounds like a bad idea to me. Zevox
Macbrea 05-24-07, 03:04 PM	You can train anything with handle animal... if you use the epic uses of the skill. .:P
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 03:09 PM	Sauro - that list needs to be modified to include the vermin as well.Are vermin allowed for HA skill with pre-epic levels in the skill? I don't think so. Also I'd love to hear an explanation for the following: Light Horse (ECL3) - CR1, 3HD Heavy Horse (ECL4) - CR1, 3HD Light Warhorse (ECL5) - CR1, 3HD Heavy Warhorse (ECL6) - CR2, 4HDIt's so easy to criticize. Ok, so the reasoning is as follows. The light horse is the weakest of these. It's clearly the best on the list of other ECL3 animals. It's not a warhorse, so you cannot fight with it as you would with a warhorse. It's got a much lower attack bonus and fewer attacks in the full attack string than the warhorse version. The heavy horse is stronger, and does more damage and has a better attack bonus. It's large and compares well to the other things on the list at the same level in combat ability. The light warhorse is the same strength as the heavy horse, has a better movement, more HP and better attacks. It's clearly superior. The heavy warhorse is better still than the light warhorse with more HP and better attacks and higher strength. When weighed in with these: Riding Dog (ECL4), CR1, 2HD War Pony (ECL4), CR1/2, 2HDThe riding dog is probably better than the war pony, but not by much. The dog has one attack with the trip, while the pony does less damage with two attacks. Otherwise they are nearly identical. Neither of these belongs in the ECL3 category, because they are trained for war and that's a huge advantage on the battlefield. I'm also not sure why the Pseudodragon, Griffon, Giant Eagle or Giant Owl are on the list - since those were originally covered by diplomacy allies, and are still covered under Leadership. Note that a griffon is not available as a leadership ally until ECL10...These guys are on the list because they are all purchased allies (fyi, only griffon was on the diplomacy list). The restrictions for what ECL they can be purchased at is simply translated to the table instead of using the CR+4 mechanic. This list shouldn't have any effect on the leadership feat.
MindWandererB 05-24-07, 03:18 PM	Sauro - that list needs to be modified to include the vermin as well. Also I'd love to hear an explanation for the following: Light Horse (ECL3) - CR1, 3HD Heavy Horse (ECL4) - CR1, 3HD Light Warhorse (ECL5) - CR1, 3HD Heavy Warhorse (ECL6) - CR2, 4HD When weighed in with these: Riding Dog (ECL4), CR1, 2HD War Pony (ECL4), CR1/2, 2HD I'm also not sure why the Pseudodragon, Griffon, Giant Eagle or Giant Owl are on the list - since those were originally covered by diplomacy allies, and are still covered under Leadership. Note that a griffon is not available as a leadership ally until ECL10... As an aside to all of this though, the vote on Handle Animal was pretty much at a tie with MWB as the tie breaker I thought: Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB) Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil Abstain: VathelokaiAfter seeing what can happen at high levels, I recognize that the rules do need to be reworked. Animal CRs just stop making sense. I actually agree with Sauro's call on the mounts. The heavy warhorse stays where it is. The light horse is the basic mount. And the other two are scaled in between. CR and HD don't always represent how useful a creature is in combat--for instance, you can't argue that a light horse and a light warhorse are equally useful. Similarly, the riding dog and warpony are like a light warhorse, but somewhat weaker. If anything, the riding dog is a potent choice, even at ECL 4--I'd be tempted to put it at ECL 5 if it weren't for the fact that it's a valid animal companion at druid 1. Now, the one question would be, how does this factor in with XP penalties? What about with multiple allies? Do we just keep using CR? If not, the only CR-using allies that are left will be undead, I think (and some weak Planar Allies). Edit: We had added vermin to the list as a house rule. Arguments were made for and against that addition. Also: while we're at this... should we take the swarms off the list? It's always annoyed me that it's feasible (and in fact not that difficult) to train a swarm of 5,000 bats. I tried to prove this by abusing it with Aerryl, but she hasn't done such a good job with that (she keeps getting paired with area-spell users).
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 03:24 PM	So, you think its a big deal that someone might get a small (+1-3) boost to that for 4-36k gp from charisma plus items?? That seems a bit extreme to me - those things are quite expensive for small boosts, unlike custom items for the skill itself. Plus what about those who already have a high charisma, such as Paladins, and normally get that added to their HA score to determine what they can do? And what of special races with LAs but high charismas, such as Half-Celestials or Half-Fiends - are they just screwed because of their LA unless they take feats? And what of those with a charisma penalty to the score - why should they get to ignore that? Sorry, but it sounds like a bad idea to me.Look. I thought the HA/2 mechanic was reasonable. But if the desire is to remove credits from making a character "better" then we should keep items out of the equation. the gp cost was never a concern. We are only talking about using credits or even possibly using credits to gain some modicum of an advantage. We are already building an artificial use of the skill if we don't allow bonuses from certain items to apply. One artificial, another artificial. No big difference. Leaving out the cha modifiers simply locks the potency of allies into a rigid relationship with character level. I find that attractive because there are only two things that can effect the HA allies. That's feats and class levels. And there's plenty of flexibility in that. If you leave the Cha modifier in, you open up another avenue for characters to massage the system with credits and gold. HA is allowed to be used on Magical Beasts in core, so long as they have int 1 or 2 (in fact, anything with int 1 or 2 is allowed).I don't see that. Where is it? All I can see is that the HA skill refers to animals only. If you used it on anything with Int of 2 or less, then HA would be usable on people with ability damage. Telin, The fact that Zevox is debating this suggests that he thinks that there should be some kind of change. You should move his name to the other side of the voting block.
TelinArtho 05-24-07, 03:25 PM	The reason I've been trying to avoid these changes is all were doing is removing options. Diplomacy, while abusable in theory, was not used a lot and the few times it was used it was not abused terribly with a few exceptions. Handle animal - similiarly - is not "abused" really except when the rules allowed it (forgery, customized warhorses at ECL3, etc). Removing Vermin from the list of possibilities is just another door that's being shut. I don't like it. Yes, I think I am the only one affected by it.
Macbrea 05-24-07, 03:28 PM	Special You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do. In the skill itself.
MindWandererB 05-24-07, 03:31 PM	Look. I thought the HA/2 mechanic was reasonable. But if the desire is to remove credits from making a character "better" then we should keep items out of the equation. the gp cost was never a concern. We are only talking about using credits or even possibly using credits to gain some modicum of an advantage. We are already building an artificial use of the skill if we don't allow bonuses from certain items to apply. One artificial, another artificial. No big difference. Leaving out the cha modifiers simply locks the potency of allies into a rigid relationship with character level. I find that attractive because there are only two things that can effect the HA allies. That's feats and class levels. And there's plenty of flexibility in that. If you leave the Cha modifier in, you open up another avenue for characters to massage the system with credits and gold. I don't see that. Where is it? All I can see is that the HA skill refers to animals only. If you used it on anything with Int of 2 or less, then HA would be usable on people with ability damage. Telin, The fact that Zevox is debating this suggests that he thinks that there should be some kind of change. You should move his name to the other side of the voting block.Re: non-animals: look closer: Special: You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.As for Charisma... I think it should stay in. Boosting Charisma with items is expensive for just a couple of points. Certainly Skill Focus and Animal Affinity should help. These bonuses also help compensate for LA (especially Charisma; all races with a Cha boost have LA). Lastly, +Cha items already help with Leadership, so I don't see how this should be any different. The real abuse was with the custom +skill items, which were cheap in the GP department.
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 03:31 PM	The reason I've been trying to avoid these changes is all were doing is removing options.I can understand that. But also I think we've been a bit to permissive with options at low level so far. Really all we are doing here is moving the eligibility to a higher ecl for some of these options. Diplomacy allies are kind of broken (look at Yaurl). I don't think we can really seriously consider that they aren't. That's simply a very very powerful house ruled class feature.
Zevox 05-24-07, 03:35 PM	Telin, The fact that Zevox is debating this suggests that he thinks that there should be some kind of change. You should move his name to the other side of the voting block. Oh no, I still think that our existing HA rules are just fine. I'm just basically resigned to the fact that those who disagree are going to push hard enough to get some changes made (plus we just had MWB weigh in in favor of a change being made), so I'm arguing against changes I think are bad ideas or unreasonable. Zevox
TelinArtho 05-24-07, 03:36 PM	Telin, The fact that Zevox is debating this suggests that he thinks that there should be some kind of change. You should move his name to the other side of the voting block. After seeing what can happen at high levels, I recognize that the rules do need to be reworked. Animal CRs just stop making sense. Fine - make changes. I was only going by what I had seen on the "official" vote that was levvied. I didn't realize that everyone had changed position. That said, I'd like to see further tweaks to that list - a hippogriff on the same level as a Heavy warhorse. Talk about differences in effectiveness... I realize I'm being emotional about this - so I need to step back. When I do come back (later - like an hour...) I'm hoping not too much has changed...
MindWandererB 05-24-07, 03:39 PM	I can understand that. But also I think we've been a bit to permissive with options at low level so far. Really all we are doing here is moving the eligibility to a higher ecl for some of these options. Diplomacy allies are kind of broken (look at Yaurl). I don't think we can really seriously consider that they aren't. That's simply a very very powerful house ruled class feature. Which is why I would promptly like to start adding mercenaries. They're a perfectly feasible mechanic, and should make up for the decrease in ally options. I'd really like to see at least three or four standard mercs per ECL, plus at least one per level that could serve as a mount.
Macbrea 05-24-07, 03:40 PM	Wrong thread...
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 03:55 PM	Now, the one question would be, how does this factor in with XP penalties? What about with multiple allies? Do we just keep using CR? If not, the only CR-using allies that are left will be undead, I think (and some weak Planar Allies).We still need the Max CA mechanic. We cannot get rid of that. If we got rid of that, then we would see a proliferation of multi ally characters who have HA, purchased allies, leadership allies, class feature allies and the whole works each one being under the maximum allowed for that type of ally at that ECL. Also: while we're at this... should we take the swarms off the list? It's always annoyed me that it's feasible (and in fact not that difficult) to train a swarm of 5,000 bats. I tried to prove this by abusing it with Aerryl, but she hasn't done such a good job with that (she keeps getting paired with area-spell users).I considered taking them off as well. That's why I moved them higher up the list. Instead of removing them entirely, they go to a spot where the warrior types are more likely to have an energy weapon that can damage them. If you want to take them off, it wouldn't hurt my feelings but I think they are OK at higher ECL when characters are more likely to be able to handle them.
TelinArtho 05-24-07, 05:43 PM	I've spent some more time looking over the list since it is apparent that something is going to get changed. There's a bunch of things that scream out to me on here. Any of the golems vs Roc at ECL20. Especially when you consider that anything that is larger than large can face some huge penalties on some maps, compounded by a flying house rules - frankly the Roc isn't a great ally in the CoCo except on the plains map and situationally on the arena and city map. In fact - it might not even be worth including creatures on the ally list that are larger than huge. The cost for them would be high and their benefit so highly situational - that making exceptions for them would be a headache. Even huge creatures are debatable.
Usurpator 05-24-07, 06:30 PM	Any of the golems vs Roc at ECL20. Especially when you consider that anything that is larger than large can face some huge penalties on some maps, compounded by a flying house rules - frankly the Roc isn't a great ally in the CoCo except on the plains map and situationally on the arena and city map. I'm pretty sure by the time I/we get to those levels, CoCo rules/map etc. will have been changed a lot. I'm not worrying too much about levels 15+....
TelinArtho 05-24-07, 06:37 PM	I'm pretty sure by the time I/we get to those levels, CoCo rules/map etc. will have been changed a lot. I'm not worrying too much about levels 15+.... If that's the case, why this statement from MWB? After seeing what can happen at high levels, I recognize that the rules do need to be reworked. Animal CRs just stop making sense. In any case, I'm working on revising the list that Sauro made with the additions for the vermin. I haven't been given a good reason to remove vermin thus far - so I will be self serving enough to keep them in so I don't need to retire another character... It'll be posted tomorrow.
Khaim 05-24-07, 06:42 PM	By the way, if a lot of the concern is over custom +skill items... Couldn't you just charge more for them? I mean, all such items have to be approved, no? So just say "+Handle animal items cost five times as much as they normally would", or ten times, and leave it at that.
Usurpator 05-24-07, 06:43 PM	In any case, I'm working on revising the list that Sauro made with the additions for the vermin. I haven't been given a good reason to remove vermin thus far - so I will be self serving enough to keep them in so I don't need to retire another character... I'm just hoping for that it still remains possible to have a trio of wolves and a horse at ECL7, but seeing as that is 9 HD total, and at that ECL you can get only 5 HD with Sauro's current proposal, it's not going to happen. Power wise, I don't think three wolves and a light warhorse is a problem at ECL7, and you still got max. CA to counter the number of allies brought into a fight, but hey, if the new rules force me to quest for a new and more power animal ally every two levels or so, who am I to argue?
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 06:43 PM	I've spent some more time looking over the list since it is apparent that something is going to get changed. There's a bunch of things that scream out to me on here. Any of the golems vs Roc at ECL20. Especially when you consider that anything that is larger than large can face some huge penalties on some maps, compounded by a flying house rules - frankly the Roc isn't a great ally in the CoCo except on the plains map and situationally on the arena and city map. In fact - it might not even be worth including creatures on the ally list that are larger than huge. The cost for them would be high and their benefit so highly situational - that making exceptions for them would be a headache. Even huge creatures are debatable.You say you have a "bunch" of things to discuss, but only mention 1. What are the others? With respect to the Roc. I gave it that position due to the fact that it has the same number of HD as the T-Rex, except it can fly. That makes it significantly more valuable on most of our maps. Also it has a better full attack sequence (with 3 attacks instead of 1). Also it has a few more HP and all the cool flying maneuver feats. Besides at ECL20, that's kind of a non-issue for us right now. Keep in mind that the golems are all purchased or crafted allies. They cost bunches of cash, while the HA allies cost nothing but skill points.
Usurpator 05-24-07, 06:46 PM	By the way, if a lot of the concern is over custom +skill items... Couldn't you just charge more for them? I mean, all such items have to be approved, no? So just say "+Handle animal items cost five times as much as they normally would", or ten times, and leave it at that. They are custom items. They cause trouble. Hence, they should be forbidden. That is the general rule with custom items right, they are not allowed if they cause balance problems? No need to make all kinds of exception rules for them. CoCo made custom rules for Handle Animal and Diplomacy that made those skills a lot more powerful than in a regular game, and then it allowed cheap items that enhanced the power of those skills even more. At that point, we're not playing regular D&D anymore, but some other game.
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 07:18 PM	Tellin, The Vermin aren't terribly overpowered, but it's a stretch to allow them to be commanded by HA at all. The skill says you can only command creatuers with an Int of 1 or 2. Vermin, w/o any Int score, are not eligible. Only the epic rules provides a mechanic for it, and they require DC of 35+HD! If you really feel the need, go ahead and find places for them. The reason I didn't include them is because I'm trying to go back to something more core rules and less house rules. Anyway, I've made some edits to the Allies posts as follows to show what they would look like. So check it out. Most of the stuff isn't changed, but there is a new section and some revisions to the HA section. I put in a bunch more magical beasts and things with an Int of 1 or 2. I used the epic feat that gives druids the option to have a magical beast animal companion as the guideline for most of those into the Minimal ECL table (that may be too generous, we can still revise it). I took out the aquatic creatures and the Hydra. The aquatic creatuers I took out because we aren't an aquatic setting (makes the translation job easier). The Hydra I took out because it's kind of ridiculous. If I had a HA ally, it would be a hydra, and I'd put boots of flying on the thing and a few custom items. Also I left the epic level HA allies on the HA list, but they aren't on the Minimal ECL list because they are epic and the minimal ECl list only goes up to 20. The Rules of Gladius: Allies I Ally Categories and Acquiring Allies Many characters make use of the assistance of allies, be it a mount that bears a paladin into combat, or the sorcerer's cleric cohort who heals him during the fight. They are divided into several categories (see below) which determines how the allies is being handled in the Core Coliseum. For a full list of all available allies see FAQ: Allies II. Class Feature Allies: Druids/Rangers receive an animal companion, Paladins receive a special mount, Wizards/Sorcerers receive a familiar, and some Prestige Classes allow for class allies. These class feature allies do not require a share of the character's xp or gold, nor do they count against the ally power limit (see below for details on maximum allies allowed). The exceptions are Planar Cohorts (for Thaumaturgs) and Thralls (for Thrallherds). Both these ally types count against your capacity of how many allies you can bring in; they do, however, not require a share of xp or gold, just like all class allies. Unless otherwise noted the character must go on a Quest to acquire a class ally. Class feature allies use the 25 pt buy to determine ability scores if they have a LA listed (planar cohort, thrall), else, if the ally has no LA (paladin mount, wizard familiar, etc) it uses the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever bonus it gets from being a class ally. Allies of my Ally: It might of course happen that you have an ally who has class allies on his own, like in case of a druid cohort who has an animal companion, or a thaumaturg's planar cohort might be a thrallherd whose thralls are sorcerers with familiars, and so on. To prevent the creation of a long string of allies, leadership-like class allies (thaumaturg's cohort and thralls) of your class ally do always count against your maxCA (see below). That means, you may use your cohort's class ally but it counts against your limit and might prevent to make use of your own cohort. If the class ally of your ally is a non-ECL creature, it can enter for free and does not count against your limit. Purchased Allies: If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirements, you may buy any of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/goodsAndServices.html). You do not have to go on a Quest to acquire these animals. You simply pay the price and they are yours if your ECL is sufficient. Bought animals are trained if listed as such while Exotic allies always come untrained. They count for calculating what additional allies you may bring in and you suffer xp and gp penalties for using them. The animals that can be bought are the following: guard dog, riding dog, donkey, heavy horse, light horse, heavy warhorse, light warhorse, pony, and war pony. Bought animals always use the abilities presented in their Monster Manual entry. You can also buy other types of allies although these are much more expensive. These Exotic Allies include the Giant Eagle, Griffon, Hippogriff, Giant Owl, Pegasus, Pseudodragon, Spidereater, Flesh Golem, Clay Golem, Stone Golem (incl. Greater Stone Golem), Iron Golem, Psion-Killer and the Shield Guardian. See FAQ: Allies II for more information on these exotic allies. Handle Animal Allies: If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirement, you may tame and train an animal with the Handle Animal Skill (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#handle-animal). This requires two steps. First, you must find the animal in question. You will need to take part in a Miniquest for this purpose (or a regular 3-week Quest if you want) and your Handle Animal skill and ECL must be sufficient for this animal (see FAQ: Allies II for a complete list). Once aquired, it can be used although those animals are always untrained. The second step is training the animal. This requires a certain amount of time (see the FAQ: Skills (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576) Handle Animal description for details on training and time), and a Handle Animal check, which you must take 10 on. Once both steps are completed, you have your animal ally. Note that all Handle Animal allies require a share of your xp and gold if they participate in a fight (see below for details). Handled Animals always use the abilities presented in their entry. Leadership Allies (Cohorts): The Leadership feat is one of the most common ways to get a cohort. You need to go on a quest to find your Leadership cohort. Note that there are two important differences between Leadership cohorts in the Core Coliseum and the rules written down in the PHB. Firstly, Leadership cohorts do not keep track of XP, and do not use the method of advancement outlined in the PHB. Instead, they are always at the maximum level allowed by your Leadership score (see DMG,p106). For example, if your Leadership score is 17, your cohort would be level 12. You may have your cohort be lower in level than what would be allowed by your Leadership score, if you like; however, you cannot "regress" your cohort in levels. If, for example, your cohort was level 10 at one point, then he may never drop below level 10 from then on. If your Leadership score drops for some reason, and is no longer sufficient for your cohort, then your cohort will not help you in any way until you get your Leadership score back up again. Secondly, Leadership cohorts, like most other cohorts, require a share of your XP and gold (see below). All leadership allies use the 25 pt-buy method to determine ability scores. Leadership Modifiers: Special circumstances may modify your Leadership score (DMG,p106/107). If you have a familiar, a special mount, or an animal companion (all from a class feature), your leadership score drops by 2. If you recruit a cohort of different alignment, your leadership score drops by 1. If you caused the death of your cohort (outside the Nimbus only), your leadership score permanently drops by 1 per deceased cohort. Other modifiers, like Reputation or Leader behaviour do not apply yet. However, sooner or later we will introduce Special Events and Reputation of Characters which may influence your leadership score further. Spells, Powers, and Abilities: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA. Planar Ally Spells: A caster can call a specific planar ally to aid him in his fights, provided he can communicate verbally or telepathically. The spell and ally must be prebuffed normally and counts against the maxCA. Thanks to the Nimbus, the task is always 'non-hazardous' which positively affects the payment. A min/lvl task begins with the next fight while an hour/lvl (or longer) task begins with the casting of the spell and has to survive the time roll. Improved Ally: Thaumaturgs can use their Improved Ally class ability to decrease the payment further (by half; stacks with non-hazardous) by bringing the Planar Ally attitude to 'helpful' (see PHB,p72) and you always take 10 on this check. If the ally shares your alignment, it is friendly (Dc20); it is indifferent if its alignment is one step away from your own (Dc30), and it is unfriendly in case of two steps (Dc40). Note that is must always share at least one aspect of your alignment. Special: If you pass the 'helpful' Dc by X or more, the planar ally fights for free. X is the number of HD of the called ally. Ally Alignments: Planar Allies with an 'Always' alignment listed always have that alignment. If only one part is listed as 'Always' (eg. always good) then the other component is free to pick by the player. If the planar ally has a 'Usually' alignment listed, it can be anything within one step (eg. usually CE can also be NE or CN). An alignment entry of 'Often' can be up to two steps away (eg CE can be anything but LG, LN, or NG). Alignments listed as 'Any' are up for the player to decide. Mercenaries: Any character may recruit one or more Mercenaries from the Mercenaries Guild. Asides requiring the usual share of your XP and gold for bringing in an ally (see below), Mercenaries also require an extra amount of gold on top of that for hiring them. You can recruit an available Mercenary by sending a PM to Pitlords. Once a mercenary is hired by a gladiator, it is not available to other gladiators until his task is complete. First come, first serve. Mercenaries always use the 25 pt-buy method to determine ability scores. The fees for Mercenaries are listed under Used Items in the fight by the Pitlord of that fight. Mercenary Price to ECL hire 1 100 2 200 3 300 4 400 5 533 6 666 7 866 8 1,133 9 1,500 10 1,933 11 2,500 12 3,266 13 4,333 14 5,666 15 7.333 16 9,333 17 12,000 18 15,666 Ally Spellcasting and Crafting First of all, allies may not craft any items; neither mundane nor magical ones. Cohorts with levels in a spellcasting class can aid the character by casting spells on him. Basically, these buff spells have the same limitation that every prebuff has (minimum 16 hours) so the Cohort can cast mage armor or nondetection on the gladiator if it is a viable prebuff. The cohort can of course also cast spells on himself. However, there are some limitations to what a cohort may cast. Obviously, the spell cannot have a range of personal unless the Cohort casts it on himself. If the spell has a material component, the gladiator must provide it. Since the Cohort has no XP he cannot cast any spells with an XP component at all. The cast spells must be marked off (either by silvering it out or using strikethrough) on the spell-list. Like with player characters, these prebuffs follow the same rules for prebuffs. As long as the cohort casts a single spell on the gladiator (or assists him in any other way) the cohort is considered to be participating in the fight, even if the gladiator leaves the cohort at home. The cohort took an active part in increasing the chances for a win so the ally rule applies normally. Customizing Allies Advancing a Monster by Elite Ability Array All basic monsters are assumed to have the Standard Ability Array (all 10's or 11's). You can assign those monsters Elite Ability Array (15,14,13,12,10,8) by increasing its CR by 1. But how can you do this? Let's take a wolf. First, you have to determine its ability modifiers. To do this, you need to look at its abilities: 13, 15, 15, 2, 12, 6 (since it is an animal, its mental abilities won't change so you can just forget about them here). Substract 10 from these abilities, and round it down if uneven. That's your ability modifier. So the wolf's modifiers are Strength+2, Dexterity+4, and Constitution+4. Now you just have to assign these to the new elite array (you take the three highest ones, of course) 15, 14, 13. Let's assign the 15 to strength, the 14 to constitution, and the 13 to dexterity, add the wolf modifiers, and you will end up with a wolf having these abilities: Str17, Dex17, Con18, Int2, Wis12, Cha6. All this has an impact on its attacks, AC, hitpoints, skills, special abilities, and of course, the Challenging Rate! Note that Elite Allies cost more gold than their normal counterparts (see FAQ: Allies II). Customizing creatures: How can I do that? 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 skills. 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! 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 handle animal cost credits to customize: you have to pay 5° if you want to relocate skill points. Post your request in the Blackmarket (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641) and link the Pitlords answer. See FAQ: Allies II for increased prices. The Cap on Allies You may have any number of cohorts or allies. However, there is a limit to how many you can have helping you in any given battle. ("helping" means anything from actually being present in the Arena or quest to fight with you, to just casting a pre-buff on you. If a cohort or ally had anything to do with your fight, it will count against the limit). Any ally you want to bring into a fight, quest or whatever must be prebuffed! For more information on Prebuffs, see Arena Combat II. Also your character’s ECl must mee the Minimal ECL Requirement to use purchased or Handle Animal allies. The formula for allies: CA = coefficient of allies Aecli = ECL of the i'th Ally (0 if LA is '-') Acri = CR of the i'th Ally (0 if LA is not '-') CA = sum(Aecli+Acri) Example: Johnny Uncarismatic is an 10th level human cleric. He has the leadership feat, but only has leadership score of 4. If he brought in his cohort (ECL 4) rode a light warhorse (CR1) and had raised an Ogre Skeleton (CR2) and a wolf skeleton (CR1). He would have a CA=sum(4+1+2+1)=8. Maximum CA: The maximum CA a gladiator may bring into each fight is equal to his ECL-2, and no individual ally may have an Aecl>ECL-2 or an Acr>max(ECL-4,1). Explanation: What does Aecl>ECL-2 mean? If all of your Allies have an ECL (ECL=LA+HD), then you should simply add their ECLs together. The result must be at least 2 less than your own ECL. So, for example, our ECL 10 cleric could have a single ECL 8 cohort, or two ECL 3 and one ECL 2 ally, or any other combination adding up to 8 (his ECL-2). That is meant by Aecl>ECL-2. Explanation: What does Acr>max(ECL-4,1) mean? If your Allies do not have a LA, then you need to use their CR to calculate your ally limit. Your Ally's CR must be 4 lower than your ECL. This rule does not count for allies of CR 1 or lower. That is meant by Acr>max(ECL-4,1). To determine the maximum amount of allies you can bring in (CA) you have to add all allies ECL's (if they have a LA) and CR's (if they do not have a LA), and this sum must not be greater than your ECL-2. Exception: Class allies Class allies are allies that come from a class feature, like a wizard's familiar, a druid or ranger animal companion, or a paladin warhorse. These allies never require a share of xp. Except for thralls and planar cohorts, they do not even count against your maxCA. Allies and Fight Rewards Many allies have an impact on the rewards (xp and gp) you get at the end of a fight. If you receive the help of any cohort or ally in a battle, you lose a certain amount of the XP and gold you would have gotten in that fight. Your allies do not get any of this XP or gold; it is simply lost. The number and power of allies helping determines the amount of xp and gp penalty. You recieve (CA/maxCA*25) in % less xp and gp for winning a fight. Similarly you receive opponents opponents (CA/maxCA*25) in % more xp and gp for defeating a gladiator that uses allies. These modifications to your rewards are added after any other calculations. That means, even in case of a loss, these modifications are applied AFTER the cap on how much you get if you lose (see Rules: Battles I for details on xp and gp caps). Example: (penalty applies to xp and gold) Level 3 gladiator (max CA=1) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/1*25); not permitted=>Minimal ECL Requirement ...a trained dog [CR1/2] (CA=1/2): (0.5/1*25); 12.5% penalty ...a level 1 merc [ECL1] (CA=1): (1/1*25); 25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): not permitted => maxCA=1 Level 4 gladiator (max CA=2) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/2*25) = not permitted=>Minimal ECL Requirement ...two trained wolves [2xCR1] (CA=2): (2/2*25) = 25% penalty ...a level 2 merc [ECL2] (CA=2): (2/2*25) = 25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): not permitted => Acr>max(ECL-4,1) Level 5 gladiator (max CA=3) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/3*25) = 8.33% penalty ...three human zombies [3xCR1/2] (CA=1.5): (1.5/3*25) = 12.5% penalty ...three level 1 mercs [3xECL1] (CA=3): (3/3*25) = 25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): not permitted => Acr>max(ECL-4,1) Level 6 gladiator (max CA=4) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/4*25) = 6.25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): (2/4*25) = 12.5% penalty ...a direbat [CR2] (CA=2): (2/4*25) = 12.5% penalty ...a level 1 and a level 2 merc [ECL=3] (CA=3): (3/4*25) = 18.75% penalty ...an ogre zombie [CR3] (CA=3): not permitted => Acr>max(ECL-4,1) Multiplayer Fights: If you face more than one gladiator, you calculate xp and gold for each opponent gladiator seperately, add the results together, and divide it by the number of allied gladiators you have. In Multiplayer Fights, one of the participants might bring in an ally. The penalty for bringing in an ally always applies only to the one who brought it in. The reward bonus for the ally is always evenly distributed among all opponents of the character with the ally. Death of an Ally If a cohort or ally dies in one of the various Battles of Gladius (or otherwise inside the Nimbus), it is True Ressurected, re-summoned, re-animated, or otherwise made whole again, for free, after the 3-Fight Cycle is complete. There will be no negative side-effects from losing an ally (eg paladin's mount, familiar). Until then, however, the ally is not available and cannot assist you in any way. He's basically... dead. This is similar outside the Nimbus (Quests, Campaigns) with one exception: if it was a leadership ally, your leadership score drops by 1 for each cohort that died. Back to the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6463399) The Rules of Gladius: Allies II Minimal ECL Requirements Allies acquired by purchasing them with gold or through the use of the Handle Animal skill can only aid you in a battle if your ECL meets the Minimal ECL Requirement on the list below. The Minimal ECL Requirement only applies to purchased with gold or acquired through the Handle Animal skill. An Elite version of any of the listed creatures increases the Minimal ECL Requirement by +2. 3:baboon, badger, bat, cat, camel, dire rat, dog, donkey, eagle, hawk, light horse, lizard, monkey, mule, owl, pony, rat, raven, snake (Small or Medium viper), toad, weasel 4: Brain Mole, Heavy Horse, Hyena, Riding Dog, Stirge, War Pony, Wolf 5: Light Warhorse, Pseudodragon (Dragon), Darkmantle 6: Heavy Warhorse, Ape, Black Bear, Bison, Boar, Cheetah, Crocodile, Dire Bat, Dire Badger, Dire Weasel, Hippogriff, Leopard, Monitor Lizard, Shocker Lizard, Snake (constrictor), Snake (large viper), Wolverine 7: Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Pegasus , Phantom Fungus, Rust Monster 8: Brown Bear, Carrion Crawler, Crocodile (giant), Deinoychus, Dire Ape, Dire Boar, Dire Wolf, Dire Wolverine, Elasmosaurus, Griffon, Lion, Rhinocerous, Snake (huge viper), Tiger 9: Ankheg, Cockatrice, Owlbear, Spidereater 10: 11: Flesh Golem, Grey Glutton, 12: Basilisk, Digester, Dire Lion, Girallon, Megaraptor, Polar Bear, Snake (giant constrictor), Shield Guardian 13: 14: Clay Golem 15: Bulette, Dire Bear, Elephant, Stone Golem 16: Psion-Killer 17: Iron Golem 18: Dire Tiger, Gorgon, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus 19: 20: Roc The List of Allies - Handle Animal If your character meets the Minimal ECL requirements, you may acquire animal allies using the Handle Animal skill. If you have the sufficient Handle Animal but are not high enough in ECL, then you can still quest for the ally and train it, but it may not be of any assistance until you meet all requirements. All handled animals come untrained and must have an Int of 1 or 2. Your character has a Coefficient of Handle Animals (cHA): cHA(max) = Ranks in HA + Cha Modifier + Feat Bonuses The total cHA cost of all Handle Animal allies must not exceed the character’s cHA(max). The cHA cost of each ally is calculated using the following equation: cHA cost* = HD + CR *Creatures that are not animals have a +5 cHA cost. +01 cHA: Bat, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 5, fly 40 (good), diminutive [CR 1/10] +01 cHA: Cat, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 30, tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Lizard, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 20, climb 20, tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Rat, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 15, climb 15, swim 15, tiny [CR 1/8] +01 cHA: Raven, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Toad, 1 hp (1/4hp), speed 5, diminutive [CR 1/10] +01 cHA: Viper Snake, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 15, climb 15, swim 15, tiny [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Weasel, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 20, climb 20, tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Baboon, 5 hp (1HD), speed 40, climb 30, medium [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Badger, 6 hp (1HD), speed 30, burrow 10, small [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Dire Rat, 5 hp (1HD), speed 40, climb 20, small [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Dog, 6 hp (1HD), speed 40, small [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Eagle, 5 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 80 (average), small [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Hawk, 4 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 60 (average), tiny [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Monkey, 4 hp (1HD), speed 30, climb 30, tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Owl, 4 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Viper Snake, 4 hp (1HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, small [CR 1/2] +02 cHA: Donkey, 11 hp (2HD), speed 30, medium [CR 1/6] +02 cHA: Pony, 11 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1/4] +02 cHA: War Pony, 13 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1/2] +03 cHA: Hyena, 13 hp (2HD), speed 50, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Riding Dog, 13 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Viper Snake, 9 hp (2HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Wolf, 13 hp (2HD), speed 50, medium [CR 1] +04 cHA: Camel, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Heavy Horse, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Light Horse, 19 hp (3HD), speed 60, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Light Warhorse, 22 hp (3HD), speed 60, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Mule, 22 hp (3HD), speed 30, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Viper Snake, 13 hp (2HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, large [CR 2] +05 cHA: Black Bear, 19 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Boar, 25 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Cheetah, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Constrictor Snake, 19 hp (3HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Crocodile, 33 hp (3HD), speed 20, swim 30, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Dire Badger, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, burrow 10, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Dire Weasel, 13 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Leopard, 19 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Monitor Lizard, 22 hp (3HD), speed 30, swim 30, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Wolverine, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, climb 10, burrow 10, medium [CR 2] +06 cHA: Ape, 29 hp (4HD), speed 30, climb 30, large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Brain Mole, 3 hp (1HD), speed 15, burrow 15, tiny [CR 1/2] +06 cHA: Dire Bat, 30 hp (4HD), speed 20, fly 40 (good), large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Heavy Warhorse, 30 hp (4HD), speed 50, large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Stirge, 5 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/2] +07 cHA: Bison, 37 hp (5HD), speed 40, large [CR 2] +07 cHA: Darkmantle, 6 hp (1HD), speed 20, fly 30 (poor), small [CR 1] +07 cHA: Deinonychus, 34 hp (4HD), speed 60, large [CR 3] +08 cHA: Dire Ape, 35 hp (5HD), speed 30, large [CR 3] +08 cHA: Lion, 32 hp (5HD), speed 40, large [CR 3] +09 cHA: Dire Wolf, 45 hp (6HD), speed 50, large [CR 3] +09 cHA: Dire Wolverine, 45 hp (5HD), speed 30, climb 10, burrow 10, large [CR 4] +09 cHA: Viper Snake, 33 hp (6HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, huge [CR 3] +09 cHA: Shocker Lizard, 13hp (2HD), speed 40, climb 20, small [CR 2] +10 cHA: Brown Bear, 51 hp (6HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +10 cHA: Hippogriff, 25 hp (3HD), speed 50, fly 100 (average), large [CR 2] +10 cHA: Phantom Fungus, 15 hp (2HD), speed 20, medium [CR 3] +10 cHA: Tiger, 45 hp (6HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Ankheg, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, burrow 20, large [CR 3] +11 cHA: Carrion Crawler, 19 hp (3HD), speed 30, climb 15, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Dire Boar, 52 hp (7HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +11 HA: Folugub, 30 hp (4HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +11 cHA: Giant Crocodile, 59 hp (7HD), speed 20, swim 30, huge [CR 4] +12 cHA: Polar Bear, 68 hp (8HD), speed 40, swim 30, large [CR 4] +12 cHA: Rhinoceros, 76 hp (8HD), speed 30, large [CR 4] +13 cHA: Cockatrice, 27 hp (5HD), speed 20, fly 60 (poor), small [CR 3] +13 cHA: Dire Lion, 60 hp (8HD), speed 40, large [CR 5] +13 cHA: Rust Monster, 40 hp (5HD), speed 40, medium [CR 3] +14 cHA: Megaraptor, 79 hp (8HD), speed 60, large [CR 6] +14 cHA: Owlbear, 52 hp (5HD), speed 30, large [CR 4] +14 cHA: Spider Eater, 42 hp (4HD), speed 30, fly 60 (good), large [CR 5] +16 cHA: Basilisk, 45 hp (6HD), speed 20, medium [CR 5] +16 cHA: Giant Constrictor Snake, 63 hp (11HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, huge [CR 5] +17 cHA: Elasmosaurus, 111 hp (10HD), speed 20, swim 50, huge [CR 7] +18 cHA: Elephant, 104 hp (11HD), speed 40, huge [CR 7] +18 cHA: Girallion, 58 hp (7HD), speed 40, climb 40, large [CR 6] +19 cHA: Digester, 68 hp (8HD), speed 60, medium [CR 6] +19 cHA: Dire Bear, 105 hp (12HD), speed 40, large [CR 7] +21 cHA: Bulette, 94 hp (9HD), speed 40, burrow 10, huge [CR 7] +21 cHA: Gorgon, 85 hp (8HD), speed 30, large [CR 8] +21 cHA: Gray Glutton, 85 hp (9HD), speed 40, huge [CR 7] +24 cHA: Dire Tiger, 120 hp (16HD), speed 40, large [CR 8] +25 cHA: Triceraptos, 196 hp (16HD), speed 30, huge [CR 9] +26 cHA: Tyrannosaurus, 180 hp (18HD), speed 40, huge [CR 8] +27 cHA: Roc, 207 hp (18HD), speed 20, fly 80 (average), gargantuan [CR 9] +29 cHA: Legendary Bear, 230 hp (20HD), speed 50, large [CR 9] +31 cHA: Frost Worm, 147 hp (14HD), speed 30, burrow 10, huge [CR 12] +33 HA: Purple Worm, 200 hp (16HD), speed 20, burrow 20, gargantuan [CR 12] +36 cHA: Legendary Tiger, 305 hp (26HD), speed 50, large [CR 10] The List of Allies - Gold You may buy any one of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/goodsAndServices.html) (PHB,p129). Normally, these animals come trained but you may optionally request them to be untrained. If you choose so, then the animal knows no trick at all but you can train it (or have it trained for money if you can't do it) to your liking. For a small price you can exchange the standard skill points on these animals. 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 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641)). The animals that can be bought are the following: Guard Dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#dog) (25 gp) [Elite: 50 gp] Riding Dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#riding-dog) (150 gp) [Elite: 300 gp] Donkey (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#donkey) (8 gp) [Elite: 16 gp] Heavy Horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (200 gp) [Elite: 400 gp] Light Horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (75 gp) [Elite: 150 gp] Heavy Warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (400 gp) [Elite: 800 gp] Light Warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (150 gp) [Elite: 300 gp] Pony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#pony) (30 gp) [Elite 60 gp] Warpony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#war-pony) (100 gp) [Elite: 200 gp] Additionally, you can buy exotic mounts but they cost much more gold. It also depends wether you buy them as an egg, as youth, or as a trained version. Since Gladius has a real time progression it doesn't make much sense to buy a griffon egg unless you really want to wait a couple of years until it is fully functional. However, you have almost unlimited time (from your adulthood to your current age) you can buy an egg before you enter Gladius so that the mount is already grown up and ready. The following beasts come untrained. Trained versions cost more, depending on the beast. Pseudodragons do not need to be trained. You can also exchange their feats and skill points which costs extra gold (treat skill points as one feat for pricing purposes). 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 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641) for details) and increases the CR. Available exotic beasts are: Giant Eagle (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersEtoF.html#giant-eagle) (Egg 2500 gp, Adult 4000 gp) [Elite: +2500 gp] Griffon (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#griffon) (Egg 3500 gp, Adult 7000 gp)[Elite: +3500 gp] Hippogriff (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersHtoI.html#hippogriff) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp)[Elite: +2000 gp] Giant Owl (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#giant-owl) (Egg 2500 gp, Adult 4000 gp)[Elite: +2500 gp] Pegasus (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#pegasus) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp)[Elite: +2000 gp] Pseudodragon (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#pseudodragon) (Egg 10000 gp, Adult 20000 gp)[Elite: +5000 gp] Spidereater (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersS.html#spider-eater) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp)[Elite: +2000 gp] The most famous mastersmiths and the mightiest wizards opened a jointed guild that specializes on constructs. The following constructs can be purchased though you should make sure you have enough gold with you. Homunkuli are never sold. Flesh Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#flesh-golem) (20.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Clay Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#clay-golem) (40.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Stone Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#stone-golem) (90.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Greater Stone Golem (196.000 gp) Iron Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#iron-golem) (150.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Shield Guardian (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersS.html#shield-guardian) (120.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] The List of Allies - Leadership Naturally, all of the legal PC races are also legal races for Leadership allies. Beyond that, however, there are a number of cohort-only races that are valid Leadership allies. Remember that the maximum ECL your cohort may have is your ECL-2. Level Racial Start Leadership Race Adj. HitDice ECL Score Worg +1 4 5 7 Blink Dog +2 4 6 9 Eagle, Giant +2 4 6 9 Owl, Giant +2 4 6 9 Pegasus +2 4 6 9 Mephit (all types) +3 3 6 9 Yeth Hound +3 3 6 9 Hell Hound +3 4 7 10 Shadow Mastiff +3 4 7 10 Unicorn +4 4 8 12 Howler +3 6 9 13 Manticore +3 6 9 13 Winter Wolf +3 6 9 13 Griffon +3 7 10 14 Nightmare +4 6 10 14 Chimera +2 9 11 16 Sphinx, Gynosphinx +4 8 12 17 Sphinx, Hieracosphinx +3 9 12 17 Dragonne +4 9 13 19 Sphinx, Criosphinx +3 10 13 19 Gray Render +5 10 15 21 Hell Hound, Nessian +4 12 16 23 Sphinx, Androsphinx +5 12 17 24 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. The List of Allies - Improved Familiar The following is a list of legal allies that can be obtained with the Improved Familiar feat, in addition to the familiars listed in the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/featsAll.html#improved-familiar). You must have the indicated sorcerer and/or wizard caster level, and, if an alignment is listed, your alignment can be removed from that of the familiar by no more than one step (the familiar automatically changes to your alignment, but its listing in the Monster Manual/SRD cannot be more than one step away from yours). Any familiar chosen from this list costs 5 credits. Minimum Caster Creature Level Alignment Archon, Lantern 9th LG Vargouille 9th NE Darkmantle 7th N Mephit (any) 7th N Brain Mole 5th Celestial or Fiendish Template on one of the creatures listed below 5th Any G/Any E Dire Rat 3rd Badger 3rd Dog 3rd Eagle 3rd Monkey 3rd Snake, Small Viper 3rd Giant Fire Beetle 3rd Small Monstrous Centipede 3rd Small Monstrous Scorpion 3rd Small Monstrous Spider 3rd Back to the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6463399)
templer10 05-24-07, 07:39 PM	Tellin, The Vermin aren't terribly overpowered, but it's a stretch to allow them to be commanded by HA at all. The skill says you can only command creatuers with an Int of 1 or 2. Vermin, w/o any Int score, are not eligible. Only the epic rules provides a mechanic for it, and they require DC of 35+HD! If you really feel the need, go ahead and find places for them. The reason I didn't include them is because I'm trying to go back to something more core rules and less house rules. Anyway, I've made some edits to the Allies posts as follows to show what they would look like. So check it out. Most of the stuff isn't changed, but there is a new section and some revisions to the HA section. I put in a bunch more magical beasts and things with an Int of 1 or 2. I used the epic feat that gives druids the option to have a magical beast animal companion as the guideline for most of those into the Minimal ECL table (that may be too generous, we can still revise it). still working on this one.The Rules of Gladius: Allies II Minimal ECL Requirements Allies acquired by purchasing them with gold or through the use of the Handle Animal skill can only aid you in a battle if your ECL meets the Minimal ECL Requirement on the list below. The Minimal ECL Requirement only applies to purchased with gold or acquired through the Handle Animal skill. 3:baboon, badger, bat, cat, camel, dire rat, dog, donkey, eagle, hawk, light horse, lizard, monkey, mule, owl, pony, rat, raven, snake (Small or Medium viper), toad, weasel 4: Brain Mole, Heavy Horse, Hyena, Riding Dog, Stirge, War Pony, Wolf 5: Light Warhorse, Pseudodragon (Dragon), Darkmantle 6: Heavy Warhorse, Ape, Black Bear, Bison, Boar, Cheetah, Crocodile, Dire Bat, Dire Badger, Dire Weasel, Hippogriff, Leopard, Monitor Lizard, Shocker Lizard, Snake (constrictor), Snake (large viper), Wolverine 7: Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Pegasus , Phantom Fungus, Rust Monster 8: Brown Bear, Carrion Crawler, Crocodile (giant), Deinoychus, Dire Ape, Dire Boar, Dire Wolf, Dire Wolverine, Elasmosaurus, Griffon, Lion, Rhinocerous, Snake (huge viper), Tiger 9: Ankheg, Cockatrice, Owlbear, Spidereater 10: 11: Flesh Golem, Grey Glutton, 12: Basilisk, Digester, Dire Lion, Girallon, Megaraptor, Polar Bear, Snake (giant constrictor), Shield Guardian 13: 14: Clay Golem 15: Bulette, Dire Bear, Elephant, Stone Golem 16: Psion-Killer 17: Iron Golem 18: Dire Tiger, Gorgon, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus 19: 20: Roc The List of Allies - Handle Animal If your character meets the Minimal ECL requirements, you may acquire animal allies using the Handle Animal skill. If you have the sufficient Handle Animal but are not high enough in ECL, then you can still quest for the ally and train it, but it may not be of any assistance until you meet all requirements. All handled animals come untrained and must have an Int of 1 or 2. Your character has a Coefficient of Handle Animals (cHA): cHA(max) = Ranks in HA + Cha Modifier + Feat Bonuses The total cHA cost of all Handle Animal allies must not exceed the character’s cHA(max). The cHA cost of each ally is calculated using the following equation: cHA cost* = HD + CR *Creatures that are not animals have a +5 cHA cost. +01 cHA: Bat, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 5, [COLOR=Indigo]fly 40 (good), diminutive [CR 1/10] +01 cHA: Cat, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 30, tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Lizard, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 20, climb 20, tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Rat, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 15, climb 15, swim 15, tiny [CR 1/8] +01 cHA: Raven, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Toad, 1 hp (1/4hp), speed 5, diminutive [CR 1/10] +01 cHA: Viper Snake, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 15, climb 15, swim 15, tiny [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Weasel, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 20, climb 20, tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Baboon, 5 hp (1HD), speed 40, climb 30, medium [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Badger, 6 hp (1HD), speed 30, burrow 10, small [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Dire Rat, 5 hp (1HD), speed 40, climb 20, small [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Dog, 6 hp (1HD), speed 40, small [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Eagle, 5 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 80 (average), small [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Hawk, 4 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 60 (average), tiny [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Monkey, 4 hp (1HD), speed 30, climb 30, tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Owl, 4 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Viper Snake, 4 hp (1HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, small [CR 1/2] +02 cHA: Donkey, 11 hp (2HD), speed 30, medium [CR 1/6] +02 cHA: Pony, 11 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1/4] +02 cHA: War Pony, 13 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1/2] +03 cHA: Hyena, 13 hp (2HD), speed 50, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Riding Dog, 13 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Viper Snake, 9 hp (2HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Wolf, 13 hp (2HD), speed 50, medium [CR 1] +04 cHA: Camel, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Heavy Horse, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Light Horse, 19 hp (3HD), speed 60, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Light Warhorse, 22 hp (3HD), speed 60, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Mule, 22 hp (3HD), speed 30, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Viper Snake, 13 hp (2HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, large [CR 2] +05 cHA: Black Bear, 19 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Boar, 25 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Cheetah, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Constrictor Snake, 19 hp (3HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Crocodile, 33 hp (3HD), speed 20, swim 30, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Dire Badger, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, burrow 10, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Dire Weasel, 13 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Leopard, 19 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Monitor Lizard, 22 hp (3HD), speed 30, swim 30, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Wolverine, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, climb 10, burrow 10, medium [CR 2] +06 cHA: Ape, 29 hp (4HD), speed 30, climb 30, large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Brain Mole, 3 hp (1HD), speed 15, burrow 15, tiny [CR 1/2] +06 cHA: Dire Bat, 30 hp (4HD), speed 20, fly 40 (good), large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Heavy Warhorse, 30 hp (4HD), speed 50, large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Stirge, 5 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/2] +07 cHA: Bison, 37 hp (5HD), speed 40, large [CR 2] +07 cHA: Darkmantle, 6 hp (1HD), speed 20, fly 30 (poor), small [CR 1] +07 cHA: Deinonychus, 34 hp (4HD), speed 60, large [CR 3] +08 cHA: Dire Ape, 35 hp (5HD), speed 30, large [CR 3] +08 cHA: Lion, 32 hp (5HD), speed 40, large [CR 3] +09 cHA: Dire Wolf, 45 hp (6HD), speed 50, large [CR 3] +09 cHA: Dire Wolverine, 45 hp (5HD), speed 30, climb 10, burrow 10, large [CR 4] +09 cHA: Viper Snake, 33 hp (6HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, huge [CR 3] +09 cHA: Shocker Lizard, 13hp (2HD), speed 40, climb 20, small [CR 2] +10 cHA: Brown Bear, 51 hp (6HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +10 cHA: Hippogriff, 25 hp (3HD), speed 50, fly 100 (average), large [CR 2] +10 cHA: Phantom Fungus, 15 hp (2HD), speed 20, medium [CR 3] +10 cHA: Tiger, 45 hp (6HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Ankheg, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, burrow 20, large [CR 3] +11 cHA: Carrion Crawler, 19 hp (3HD), speed 30, climb 15, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Dire Boar, 52 hp (7HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +11 HA: Folugub, 30 hp (4HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +11 cHA: Giant Crocodile, 59 hp (7HD), speed 20, swim 30, huge [CR 4] +12 cHA: Polar Bear, 68 hp (8HD), speed 40, swim 30, large [CR 4] +12 cHA: Rhinoceros, 76 hp (8HD), speed 30, large [CR 4] +13 cHA: Cockatrice, 27 hp (5HD), speed 20, fly 60 (poor), small [CR 3] +13 cHA: Dire Lion, 60 hp (8HD), speed 40, large [CR 5] +13 cHA: Rust Monster, 40 hp (5HD), speed 40, medium [CR 3] +14 cHA: Megaraptor, 79 hp (8HD), speed 60, large [CR 6] +14 cHA: Owlbear, 52 hp (5HD), speed 30, large [CR 4] +14 cHA: Spider Eater, 42 hp (4HD), speed 30, fly 60 (good), large [CR 5] +16 cHA: Basilisk, 45 hp (6HD), speed 20, medium [CR 5] +16 cHA: Giant Constrictor Snake, 63 hp (11HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, huge [CR 5] +17 cHA: Elasmosaurus, 111 hp (10HD), speed 20, swim 50, huge [CR 7] +18 cHA: Elephant, 104 hp (11HD), speed 40, huge [CR 7] +18 cHA: Girallion, 58 hp (7HD), speed 40, climb 40, large [CR 6] +19 cHA: Digester, 68 hp (8HD), speed 60, medium [CR 6] +19 cHA: Dire Bear, 105 hp (12HD), speed 40, large [CR 7] +21 cHA: Bulette, 94 hp (9HD), speed 40, burrow 10, huge [CR 7] +21 cHA: Gorgon, 85 hp (8HD), speed 30, large [CR 8] +21 cHA: Gray Glutton, 85 hp (9HD), speed 40, huge [CR 7] +24 cHA: Dire Tiger, 120 hp (16HD), speed 40, large [CR 8] +25 cHA: Triceraptos, 196 hp (16HD), speed 30, huge [CR 9] +26 cHA: Tyrannosaurus, 180 hp (18HD), speed 40, huge [CR 8] +27 cHA: Roc, 207 hp (18HD), speed 20, fly 80 (average), gargantuan [CR 9] +29 cHA: Legendary Bear, 230 hp (20HD), speed 50, large [CR 9] +31 cHA: Frost Worm, 147 hp (14HD), speed 30, burrow 10, huge [CR 12] +33 HA: Purple Worm, 200 hp (16HD), speed 20, burrow 20, gargantuan [CR 12] +36 cHA: Legendary Tiger, 305 hp (26HD), speed 50, large [CR 10] The List of Allies - Gold You may buy any one of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/goodsAndServices.html) (PHB,p129). Normally, these animals come trained but you may optionally request them to be untrained. If you choose so, then the animal knows no trick at all but you can train it (or have it trained for money if you can't do it) to your liking. For a small price you can exchange the standard skill points on these animals. 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 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641)). The animals that can be bought are the following: Guard Dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#dog) (25 gp) [COLOR=Darkorchid][Elite: 50 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Riding Dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#riding-dog) (150 gp) [Elite: 300 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Donkey (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#donkey) (8 gp) [Elite: 16 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Heavy Horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (200 gp) [Elite: 400 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Light Horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (75 gp) [Elite: 150 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Heavy Warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (400 gp) [Elite: 800 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Light Warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (150 gp) [Elite: 300 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Pony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#pony) (30 gp) [Elite 60 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Warpony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#war-pony) (100 gp) [Elite: 200 gp] [Custom: +100/feat] Additionally, you can buy exotic mounts but they cost much more gold. It also depends wether you buy them as an egg, as youth, or as a trained version. Since Gladius has a real time progression it doesn't make much sense to buy a griffon egg unless you really want to wait a couple of years until it is fully functional. However, you have almost unlimited time (from your adulthood to your current age) you can buy an egg before you enter Gladius so that the mount is already grown up and ready. The following beasts come untrained. Trained versions cost more, depending on the beast. Pseudodragons do not need to be trained. You can also exchange their feats and skill points which costs extra gold (treat skill points as one feat for pricing purposes). 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 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641) for details) and increases the CR. Available exotic beasts are: Giant Eagle (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersEtoF.html#giant-eagle) (Egg 2500 gp, Adult 4000 gp) [Advanced: +1000 gp/HD] [Elite: +2500 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] Griffon (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#griffon) (Egg 3500 gp, Adult 7000 gp) [Advanced: +1000 gp/HD] [Elite: +3500 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] Hippogriff (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersHtoI.html#hippogriff) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp) [Advanced: +1000 gp/HD] [Elite: +2000 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] Giant Owl (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#giant-owl) (Egg 2500 gp, Adult 4000 gp) [Advanced: +1000 gp/HD] [Elite: +2500 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] Pegasus (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#pegasus) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp) [Advanced: +750 gp/HD] [Elite: +2000 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] Pseudodragon (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#pseudodragon) (Egg 10000 gp, Adult 20000 gp) [Advanced: +5000 gp/HD] [Elite: +5000 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] Spidereater (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersS.html#spider-eater) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp) [Advanced: +750 gp/HD] [Elite: +2000 gp] [Custom: +1000/feat] The most famous mastersmiths and the mightiest wizards opened a jointed guild that specializes on constructs. The following constructs can be purchased though you should make sure you have enough gold with you. Homunkuli are never sold. Flesh Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#flesh-golem) (20.000 gp) [Advanced: +2000 gp/HD] [Elite: +10000 gp] Clay Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#clay-golem) (40.000 gp) [Advanced: +3000 gp/HD] [Elite: +10000 gp] Stone Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#stone-golem) (90.000 gp) [Advanced: +5000 gp/HD] [Elite: +10000 gp] Greater Stone Golem (196.000 gp) Iron Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#iron-golem) (150.000 gp) [Advanced: +8000 gp/HD] [Elite: +10000 gp] Shield Guardian (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersS.html#shield-guardian) (120.000 gp) [Advanced: +8000 gp/HD] [Elite: +10000 gp] The List of Allies - Leadership Naturally, all of the legal PC races are also legal races for Leadership allies. Beyond that, however, there are a number of cohort-only races that are valid Leadership allies. Remember that the maximum ECL your cohort may have is your ECL-2. Level Racial Start Leadership Race Adj. HitDice ECL Score Worg +1 4 5 7 Blink Dog +2 4 6 9 Eagle, Giant +2 4 6 9 Owl, Giant +2 4 6 9 Pegasus +2 4 6 9 Mephit (all types) +3 3 6 9 Yeth Hound +3 3 6 9 Hell Hound +3 4 7 10 Shadow Mastiff +3 4 7 10 Unicorn +4 4 8 12 Howler +3 6 9 13 Manticore +3 6 9 13 Winter Wolf +3 6 9 13 Griffon +3 7 10 14 Nightmare +4 6 10 14 Chimera +2 9 11 16 Sphinx, Gynosphinx +4 8 12 17 Sphinx, Hieracosphinx +3 9 12 17 Dragonne +4 9 13 19 Sphinx, Criosphinx +3 10 13 19 Gray Render +5 10 15 21 Hell Hound, Nessian +4 12 16 23 Sphinx, Androsphinx +5 12 17 24 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. The List of Allies - Improved Familiar The following is a list of legal allies that can be obtained with the Improved Familiar feat, in addition to the familiars listed in the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/featsAll.html#improved-familiar). You must have the indicated sorcerer and/or wizard caster level, and, if an alignment is listed, your alignment can be removed from that of the familiar by no more than one step (the familiar automatically changes to your alignment, but its listing in the Monster Manual/SRD cannot be more than one step away from yours). Any familiar chosen from this list costs 5 credits. Minimum Caster Creature Level Alignment Archon, Lantern 9th LG Vargouille 9th NE Darkmantle 7th N Mephit (any) 7th N Brain Mole 5th Celestial or Fiendish Template on one of the creatures listed below 5th Any G/Any E Dire Rat 3rd Badger 3rd Dog 3rd Eagle 3rd Monkey 3rd Snake, Small Viper 3rd Giant Fire Beetle 3rd Small Monstrous Centipede 3rd Small Monstrous Scorpion 3rd Small Monstrous Spider 3rd Back to the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6463399) Isnt the "hate" for the light/heavy warhorse is going a bit 2 far? yes a light warhorse at ECL 3 is strong, yes it's attacks can be deadly at that level BUT it has an importent function. a lot of caster types - especially slow/small size one's use light warhorses (that's what i do anyway) to get physicly weak char's away from melee chars. a lot of melee types use light warhorse to those spellcasters before they can magica missile, acid arrow etc them to death. and in the end - dont forget that even Pure melee chars suffers since without it- since otherwise - anyone with a speed boost (monk, barbarians, speed of thought) is essentially unmeleeable in the arena. you say - well you can get a light horse and that's good enough after all it has the same speed doesnt it? - but it ISNT good enough since even with ride as class skill you cant reliably use it for anything really in combat since at best you will get 50% or so that the horse will actually do what you want it 2 do. at ecl 5 which is when by this system you can first get the light warhorse almost every charcter built halfway decent can nuke that horse to oblivion in 1 - 3 hits/spells and it's only real use is the speed boost and the armor bonus which it will give you some of the time until it's fairly easly killed. in fact to be able to count on a light warhorse at all you need to have 2 or 3 of them at ECL 5 so you can have 1 per fight. p.s. heavy warhorse at ECL 6? you got to be kidding me right? when i can get a Hippogriff?
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 07:47 PM	p.s. heavy warhorse at ECL 6? you got to be kidding me right? when i can get a Hippogriff? Are you kidding me? Have you read the CoCo rules? The heavy warhorse is now using the current rules only allowed at ECL6 or above. Cummon. The light warhorse at ECL3 is deadly, to much so. The important function you want is a light horse trained in combat riding. That's a much weaker "mount" more on par with the ECL3 league. The light horse cannot attack while the rider attacks. If trained in war, it won't freak in battle, but it also won't attack while the rider is doing something else. IMO that's a much more balanced "mount". The Hippogiff at ECL6 is a carry over from our CR+4 rule.
templer10 05-24-07, 07:49 PM	Are you kidding me? Have you read the CoCo rules? The heavy warhorse is now using the current rules only allowed at ECL6 or above. Cummon. The light warhorse at ECL3 is deadly, to much so. The important function you want is a light horse trained in combat riding. That's a much weaker "mount" more on par with the ECL3 league. The light horse cannot attack while the rider attacks. If trained in war, it won't freak in battle, but it also won't attack while the rider is doing something else. IMO that's a much more balanced "mount". The Hippogiff at ECL6 is a carry over from our CR+4 rule. he- i never bothered with heavy warhorse so didnt notice - and if you get a light horse trainded for war you wont hear anything from me - but do they come this way (iam not 2 strong on that part of the rules).
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 07:57 PM	he- i never bothered with heavy warhorse so didnt notice - and if you get a light horse trainded for war you wont hear anything from me - but do they come this way (iam not 2 strong on that part of the rules). Typically light horses come trained for riding. We can add a 50gp cost to switch the riding training package over to combat riding.
Zevox 05-24-07, 09:29 PM	@ Sauro - At first glance, looks pretty acceptable to me. I think I have to agree to a certain degree about the horses though. While I agree that a Light Warhorse is a bit much at ECL 3, waiting until ECL 5 for it seems a bit steep to me. Plus the Heavy Horse is hardly any better than the Light one, having just +1 attack higher, being able to carry some more weight, and being slower than a Light one. May I suggest moving the Light Warhorse down to ECL 4 and the Heavy Horse to ECL 3? Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-24-07, 11:35 PM	@ Sauro - At first glance, looks pretty acceptable to me. I think I have to agree to a certain degree about the horses though. While I agree that a Light Warhorse is a bit much at ECL 3, waiting until ECL 5 for it seems a bit steep to me. Plus the Heavy Horse is hardly any better than the Light one, having just +1 attack higher, being able to carry some more weight, and being slower than a Light one. May I suggest moving the Light Warhorse down to ECL 4 and the Heavy Horse to ECL 3? ZevoxI want to compromise to make the proposal acceptable to everyone, but I'm hesitant to agree with your request. My reason is simple. If you compare the Light Warhorse to everything else on the ECL4 list, it's clearly the best. Compare a Light Warhorse to Riding Dog, Wolf, or Hyena... The light warhorse is superior to all of those in every way. It's bigger, has more HP, has a better attack, it's trained to carry a rider into combat, it can attack while the rider attacks, it's even more resistant to trips. Now compare the Heavy Horse to all of those same creatures, and you get a much more even comparison. Compared to a Riding Dog, Wolf or Hyena, the Heavy Horse has more HP but a weaker attack. Rather, I think we can make some clear mechanism so that everyone can purchase light and heavy horses with the combat riding package. That will allow people to have mounts that are effective as mounts, but not allow mounts that are powerful combatants until a few levels higher where their significance as combatants is overshadowed by the characters.
Vathelokai 05-24-07, 11:48 PM	Hmm... havn't much to add. I like the direction things are going; but I don't want to see it go much further. I think we should keep the vermin. They're fun, and they aren't overpowered. Usually I would get behind the 'core only' philosophy, but I want them to stay. I do notice a trend towards being emotional over things (and not just Telin).
MindWandererB 05-25-07, 12:18 AM	And now for something completely different:01: 1 Beholder [CR 13] 02: 1 Celestial Charger (unicorn) [CR 13] 03: 1 Ghaele Eladrin [CR 13] 04: 1 Glabrezu demon [CR 13] 05: 1 Storm Giant [CR 13] 06: 1 Iron Golem [CR 13] 07: 1 Hydra, 12-headed cryo- or pyro- (1d2) [CR 13] 08: 1 Ice Devil [CR 13] 09: 1 Lich, 11th-level human wizard (MM default) [CR 13] 10: 1 Death Slaad [CR 13] 11: 1 Thought Slayer (psionic) [CR 13] 12: 3 Cerebreliths (psionic) [CR 10] 13: 3 Couatl (psionic) [CR 10] 14: 2 Barbed Devils [CR 11] 15: 1 Dragon, Adult Green; Young Adult Red or Silver (1d3) [CR 13] 16: 2 Dragons, Adult Black [CR 11] 17: 3 Dragons, Young Adult Brass; Juvenile Red or Silver (1d3) [CR 10] 18: 4 Greater Elementals, one of each type [CR 9] 19: 3 Formian Myrmarchs [CR 10] 20: 3 Fire Giants [CR 10] 21: 3 Clay Golems [CR 10] 22: 4 Avoral Guardinals [CR 9] 23: 2 Hill Giant Dire Wereboars [CR 11] 24: 4 Guardian Nagas [CR 10] 25: 4 Green Slaadi [CR 9] 26: 3 Celestial Elder Arrowhawks [CR 10] 27: 3 Fiendish Athaches [CR 10] 28: 3 Phrenic Bodaks [CR 10] 29: 4 Half-Fiend Chimeras [CR 9] 30: 4 Half-Dragon Chuul (1d10 for type) [CR 9] 31: 1 Phrenic Bebilith demon [CR 13] 32: 4 Elite Destrachans [CR 9] 33: 3 Elite Bone Devils [CR 10] 34: 2 Half-Dragon Triceratops [CR 11] 35: 2 Phrenic Tyrannosaurus [CR 11] 36: 1 Adult Black Dragon and 4 Half-Fiend Young Black Dragons [CR 11 and 7] 37: 1 Celestial Cloud Giant [CR 13] 38: 3 Fiendish Gorgons [CR 10] 39: 4 Elite Mind Flayers [CR 9] 40: 3 Half-Fiend Dark Nagas [CR 10] 41: 1 Half-Celestial Gynosphinx, 1 Half-Fiend Gynosphinx, and 1 Phrenic Gynosphinx [CR 10] 42: 1 Fiendish Troll Hunter [CR 13] 43: 1 Phrenic Legendary Tiger [CR 13] 44: Roll on EL 11 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type) [Varies] 45: 3 Aboleth Ghosts [CR 9] and 3 5th-level Skum Barbarians [CR 7] 46: 3 Ghost Hellwasp Swarms [CR 10] 47: 3 Ettin Giant Wereoctopi [CR 10] 48: 1 Elite Kolyarut Inevitable [CR 13] 49: 1 Elite Leonal Guardinal [CR 13] 50: 2 Elite Half-Celestial Behir [CR 11] 51: 1 Elite Phrenic Stone Giant Elder [CR 13] 52: 1 Celestial Phrenic Gray Render [CR 13] 53: 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Dire Tiger [CR 13] 54: 3 Half-Fiend Phrenic Lamias [CR 10] 55: 1 4th-level Night Hag Druid and 1 Cauchemar Nightmare [CR 11] 56: 1 3rd-level Rakshasa Sorcerer [CR 13] 57: 1 11th-level Dryad Wilder and 1 Phrenic Treant [CR 12 and 10] 58: 1 Unbodied 4th-level Sorcerer/6th-level Cerebremancer [CR 13] 59: 1 7th-level Babau demon Soulknife [CR 13] 60: 1 12th-level Pseudodragon Psychic Warrior [CR 13] 61: 4 6th-level Giant Owl Fighters [CR 9] 62: 1 9th-level Werebear Paladin [CR 13] 63: 1 10th-level Grig Ranger and 1 10th-level Nixie Bard [CR 11] 64: 3 3rd-level Lillend Dragon Disciples [CR 10] 65: 1 Githyanki 7th-level Fighter/5th-level Blackguard [CR 13] 66: 1 9th-level Janni Duelist [CR 13] 67: 1 6th-level Intellect Devourer Pyrokineticist [CR 13] 68: 1 6th-level Invisible Stalker Rogue [CR 13] 69: 3 9th-level Azer Monks [CR 10] 70: 1 Vampire Harpy Archer [CR 13] 71: 3 9th-level Blue Vampire Adepts [CR 10] 72: 1 10th-level Svirfneblin Lich Cleric [CR 13] 73: 1 13th-level Forest Gnome Barbarian [CR 13] 74: 4 7th-level Wererat Bards [CR 9] 75: 1 13th-level Hobgoblin Cleric [CR 13] 76: 1 13th-level Aasimar Druid [CR 13] 77: 2 10th-level Lizardfolk Fighters [CR 11] 78: 2 11th-level Tiefling Monks [CR 11] 79: 2 11th-level Deep Halfling Paladins [CR 11] 80: 1 12th-level Half-Giant Ranger [CR 13] 81: 2 11th-level Dromite Rogues [CR 11] 82: 3 9th-level Green Hag Sorcerers [CR 10] 83: 1 13th-level Goblin Wizard [CR 13] 84: 2 11th-level Xeph Psions [CR 11] 85: 1 5th-level Mohrg Psychic Warrior [CR 13] 86: 2 8th-level Shadow Mastiff Wilders [CR 11] 87: 1 13th-level Elan Soulknife [CR 13] 88: 1 7th-level Shambling Mound Ghost Fighter [CR 13] 89: 2 Advanced (21 HD) Elder Xorn [CR 11] 90: 1 Advanced (18 HD) Vrock demon [CR 13] 91: 1 Advanced (24 HD) Androsphinx [CR 13] 92: 1 Advanced (27 HD) Caller in Darkness (psionic) [CR 13] 93: 2 Advanced (16 HD) Hellcat devils [CR 11] 94: 4 Advanced (13 HD) Wyverns [CR 9] 95: 1 Advanced (24 HD) Dread Wraith [CR 13] 96: 4 Advanced (12 HD) Bralani Eladrin [CR 9] 97: 1 Advanced (18 HD) Formian Myrmarch [CR 13] 98: 1 Advanced (22 HD) Stone Golem [CR 13] 99: 1 Elite Advanced (19 HD) Lammasu [CR 13] 100:2 Elite Advanced (18 HD) Dire Bear [CR 13]
SauroGrenom 05-25-07, 12:37 AM	Woe and damnation! 3 formian mymarch! As is one wasn't enough. Yikes! A phrenic legendary tiger! Has 36 SR, manifests better than an a 20th level wilder and has 26 HD to boot!
MindWandererB 05-25-07, 01:12 AM	Woe and damnation! 3 formian mymarch! As is one wasn't enough. Yikes! A phrenic legendary tiger! Has 36 SR, manifests better than an a 20th level wilder and has 26 HD to boot! As for the Formian: Organization: Solitary, team (2-4), or platoon (1 plus 7-18 workers and 6-11 warriors)So that one's right in line. As for the tiger... it's less absurd than some of the other critters at around these ELs. And hey, it doesn't fly. This time.
Zevox 05-25-07, 02:15 AM	I want to compromise to make the proposal acceptable to everyone, but I'm hesitant to agree with your request. My reason is simple. If you compare the Light Warhorse to everything else on the ECL4 list, it's clearly the best. Compare a Light Warhorse to Riding Dog, Wolf, or Hyena... The light warhorse is superior to all of those in every way. It's bigger, has more HP, has a better attack, it's trained to carry a rider into combat, it can attack while the rider attacks, it's even more resistant to trips. Now compare the Heavy Horse to all of those same creatures, and you get a much more even comparison. Compared to a Riding Dog, Wolf or Hyena, the Heavy Horse has more HP but a weaker attack. To be honest, now that you mention it, I'm not sure why you have the ECL 4 list at that level. It seems to me that every one of those should be acceptable at level 3. I mean, Wolves and Riding Dogs are available to Druids from level 1, and by level 3 they have +2 HD. Plus its not like any of that bunch are at all strong animals - stronger than the ECL 3 ones, yeah, but the ones you have there aren't meant for combat to begin with (seriously - mules, camels, and donkeys are meant as pack animals, and most of the rest of them are familiar options). Seems to me that whole level could be moved down and the Light Warhorse be made the only new one at ECL 4, and we'd be perfectly fine. Zevox
TelinArtho 05-25-07, 09:32 AM	You say you have a "bunch" of things to discuss, but only mention 1. What are the others? With respect to the Roc. I gave it that position due to the fact that it has the same number of HD as the T-Rex, except it can fly. That makes it significantly more valuable on most of our maps. Also it has a better full attack sequence (with 3 attacks instead of 1). Also it has a few more HP and all the cool flying maneuver feats. Besides at ECL20, that's kind of a non-issue for us right now. Keep in mind that the golems are all purchased or crafted allies. They cost bunches of cash, while the HA allies cost nothing but skill points. Excuse me if I didn't have enough time to write everything out yet. I was trying to remain calm and composed and found myself not being that way - so I provided a token example. If you prefer - read my post saying "For Example..." to start off the second paragraph. Zevox mentioned one of the changes I was going to propose to the list. Pretty much take all of the animals you have at ECL4 and put them down to ECL3. Then move the light warhorse down to ECL4 and the heavy warhorse to ECL5. I think the only other change I actually made to my list at that point was the griffon - which should be bumped up to ECL10 - since that's the earliest we can get one via leadership (and to paraphrase many of you who have disagreed with me so far - "none of the allies should be stronger than the class allies or leadership allies up to that point." As to the Roc vs Golems question - saying that because golems are expensive doesn't mean that allowing them at a level makes it balanced. The Roc may look good "on paper" but in the current CoCo environment is severely limited. In the sewer, cavern and temple it has to squeeze to start and in the sewer - it will never stop squeezing. In the forest and city - it can only fly once it reaches the center square - and only there to a maximum of 30ft elevation. Check the maneuverability on it and see how restrictive that is... In the arena - it can fly in most places, but if the opponent chooses to hide in one of the 5 sets of clusters - it again becomes easy to evade. The only place where the Roc would do well is the unrestricted plains map. And yes - I would love to gain an ally that is effective on one out of 7 maps... Campare that to the T-Rex who has a superior land speed - so that when it is squeezing, it can still actually move a decent distance (rather than the Roc's impressive 2 squares per move action...) As for vermin, I am not giving up yet and here are my level recommendations for them: 3: Tiny/Small/Medium Centipede, Tiny/Small Scorpion, Tiny/Small Spider 4: Giant Worker Ant, Medium Scorpion, Medium Spider, 5: Large Centipede, Giant Bee 6: Giant Ant Soldier, Giant Bombadier Beetle, Large Monstrous Spider, 7: Giant Ant Queen, Giant Praying Mantis, Giant Wasp, Large Scorpion, Huge Centipede, Spider Swarm 8: Locust Swarm, Giant Stag Beetle 9: Huge Spider, Centipede Swarm, 10: Gargantuan Centipede 11: Huge Scorpion 12: Gargantuan Spider, 13: Colossal Centipede 14: Gargantuan Scorpion 15: Colossal Spider 16: Colossal Scorpion I have no problem having big creatures in the ECL10+ range because the usefulness of those creates varies hugely by map and decreases significantly as the size increase. Huge creatures find restrictions in movement on all maps other than the arena and plains. They have easier restrictions in the city and forest map - but still face plenty of squeezing. Gargantuan creatures even find restrictions in the arena map and have great trouble in the city and forest unless they are in the central area of the city. While none of them fly normally above ECL9, there is certainly the players' option to equip or enchant the creatures in that way.
MindWandererB 05-25-07, 11:14 AM	It is true that light warhorses are much less of a problem at ECL 4. Riding dogs... they're borderline, but I can see continuing to allow them at ECL 3. And I have to admit that it does make sense to stagger the heavy warhorse and the hippogriff. And after noting that Reduce Animal doesn't work on creatures larger than Huge (or smaller than Small), I'd say that the Roc doesn't have to be that high, either. Dangerous on the Plains, potentially (barely) useful in the City and Arena, useless anywhere else. In fact, it might even be a good idea to remove Gargantuan+ critters from the list entirely, since they're complicated and unlikely to be a good choice. Looks like my EL 13 list passes muster. That leaves only EL 12.
Zevox 05-25-07, 11:36 AM	In fact, it might even be a good idea to remove Gargantuan+ critters from the list entirely, since they're complicated and unlikely to be a good choice. I'd agree to that. Huge creatures are tough enough to deal with in the arena (I once had to run a fight for Uilo in the city where she used her Rod of the Python and rode the huge snake it summoned - slow, slow going), anything bigger would be a total pain anywhere but the plains. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-25-07, 11:50 AM	Hmmm...about to eliminate another ECL that I like running fights for...you make me deal with panicky mounts at ECL3, and you can take me off of the list of folks that think low ECL fights are worth running at all. I think the issue with HA allies has been extreme proliferation and the interaction between ECL and CR. Vermin-no opinion. HA restrictions...rather than making charts and trying to say things like "well gargantuan animals are a hinderance on most maps" or "they are pricey" find a formula that makes the CR-ECL interaction work. Then if some fool wants to squeeze and oversized parakeet into the sewer, that is their tactical problem...though really just summon something and then step behind the big tub of feathers and white meat...perfect meatshield. Macbrea...do your lady a favor and make up one of your crazy stat blocks for who uses and potentially abuses HA. The more I read all of this the more I find myself thinking it better to just leave the rules alone. Allies are annoying, but this is getting too restrictive at the high levels and looking too much like a lot of extra work at the low levels.
MitzaVolchenko 05-25-07, 11:51 AM	I'd agree to that. Huge creatures are tough enough to deal with in the arena (I once had to run a fight for Uilo in the city where she used her Rod of the Python and rode the huge snake it summoned - slow, slow going), anything bigger would be a total pain anywhere but the plains. Zevox How many of them do we have? How many problems have the caused? Is anyone likely to choose them in the future? The answers are: none, none, not very. I still want the choice.
Zevox 05-25-07, 11:56 AM	I think the issue with HA allies has been extreme proliferation and the interaction between ECL and CR. Um, you sure you're not mixing up HA allies and purchased ones? I can name all of six characters in the arena at present who use HA for allies (Aerryl Nalladar, Ceilia Durrol, Zax Kar Nissex, Archdevil Asran, Nexa, and Mithos Durrol). Plus, HA allies don't have an ECL, so thats not an issue with them. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-25-07, 11:57 AM	Um, you sure you're not mixing up HA allies and purchased ones? I can name all of five characters in the arena at present who use HA for allies (Aerryl Nalladar, Ceilia Durrol, Zax Kar Nissex, Archdevil Asran, and Mithos Durrol). Plus, HA allies don't have an ECL, so thats not an issue with them. Zevox Sorry MWB...I kow you hate this...probably more than Cat did :) ECL=CR=EL...please see years of posts on the subject.
Zevox 05-25-07, 11:59 AM	Sorry MWB...I kow you hate this...probably more than Cat did :) ECL=CR=EL...please see years of posts on the subject. Never has, never will. I really don't understand why you keep making such posts. Aside from monster fights, we've never treated them as such. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-25-07, 12:35 PM	Hmmm...about to eliminate another ECL that I like running fights for...you make me deal with panicky mounts at ECL3, and you can take me off of the list of folks that think low ECL fights are worth running at all.This has been brought up before... several times... the reply is the same now as it was all those previous times it was suggested. That answer is as follows: Get your non-war horses trained in the combat riding package. Then the only difference between the light horse trained in combat riding and the light warhorse is that the warhorse has more strength, more hp and a more powerful attack that can be used in the same round as the rider's attack. These factors have little or nothing to do with the value of the horse as a mount, they have everything to do with the value of the horse as a combatant. To be honest, now that you mention it, I'm not sure why you have the ECL 4 list at that level. It seems to me that every one of those should be acceptable at level 3. I mean, Wolves and Riding Dogs are available to Druids from level 1, and by level 3 they have +2 HD. Plus its not like any of that bunch are at all strong animals - stronger than the ECL 3 ones, yeah, but the ones you have there aren't meant for combat to begin with (seriously - mules, camels, and donkeys are meant as pack animals, and most of the rest of them are familiar options). Seems to me that whole level could be moved down and the Light Warhorse be made the only new one at ECL 4, and we'd be perfectly fine.Think of it this way... Under our current CR+4 rules, the heavy warhorse is first available at ECL6. Scale all the mounts behind that in order of potency as combatants, and you get the order I suggested. There are plenty of things on the ECL3 list that would be fine mounts for a small character if trained in the combat riding package. It also makes a clear distinction between medium sized mounts trained for war, and those same creature not trained for war. The warpony, riding dog and war horses are all clearly superior combatants but equivalent mounts to non-war versions of these same creatures that are trained with the combat riding package. No one in their right mind would ever choose a guard dog over a riding dog as either a mount or an animal ally. What you are advocating for is access to a more powerful combatant ally, not a more reasonable mount at that ECL. Zevox mentioned one of the changes I was going to propose to the list. Pretty much take all of the animals you have at ECL4 and put them down to ECL3. Then move the light warhorse down to ECL4 and the heavy warhorse to ECL5. I think the only other change I actually made to my list at that point was the griffon - which should be bumped up to ECL10 - since that's the earliest we can get one via leadership (and to paraphrase many of you who have disagreed with me so far - "none of the allies should be stronger than the class allies or leadership allies up to that point."Our current CR+4 rules doesn't allow a heavy warhorse till ECL6. I don't think we should be more permissive than that. Besides the CR+4 mechanic will still exist and apply to all allies (like animated undead). So there's no point in putting the Heavy warhorse down to ECL5 on the minimal ECL requirements list. It will still be banned at ECL5 due to the CR+4 restriction. About the griffon, it got the ECL8 slot due to a carry over from the CR+4 rules (these same rules placed the pegasus, hippogriff, giant owl and giant eagle). I would have no problem with moving the griffon and/or some of the other exotic flying mounts up 1 or 2 ECL on the list. I think the lower level vermin are alright, but once they get bigger, it's obscene. A Colossal Scorpion has 300hp, 40HD, threatens an area 100' wide (70' tall), has a +34 attack with improved grab and +58 grapple check and a poison DC of 33! And you are suggesting that a 16th level character in the Temple would be a fair matchup for this creature along side a 16th level main character? Bah! That creature makes Yaurl look like a cupcake. Edit: Put that colossal scorpion next to a caster, and imagine what you can do with polymorph... Polymorph the thing into just about any colossal or gargantuan creature you can fit under the 15hd maximum.
TelinArtho 05-25-07, 01:03 PM	The fact of the matter is that no one uses heavy warhorses now. I can think of only one since I've been here (other than Sir Valkin's special mount anyway) and that was Pittbull's Boraxx and his heavy "warpigs." If your issue is that some things are "clearly better" and that "no one in their right mind" would take a guard dog over a riding dog - this case is even more so for the heavy warhorse vs the hippogriff. That said, there are reasons to pick up guard dogs versus riding dogs - CR1/3 vs CR1 - guard dogs can give you mass attacks that riding dogs cannot. Yes guard dogs won't be ridden into combat - but they can be used very effectively (and for some non-effective uses - see Tan and Fjord Thunderbird). Bless and bardic abilities synergize REAL well with multiple allies like that. I'm not sure that the ECL-4 mechanic would really need to be kept in place, or if maybe it is reasonable to make an exception with the heavy warhorse. In either case, I don't think we'll be seeing an influx of heavy warhorses anyway because they are so inferior to Hippogriffs and not impressive enough over Light Warhorses. As to the vermin - I want to bring up something. Colossal creatures have a space of 25ft. In the sewer map - they wouldn't even be able to squeeze in there (ceiling is 10ft) without making escape artist checks. In the temple map - due to the upper level - they would have to make escape artists checks to move into the main area. Once there - they would still be squeezing due to the 20ft ceiling. The cavern map - they would be squeezing from the start and would need to make escape artist checks to leave any of the starting areas. In the city and forest - they would have designated paths to move through - because they just wouldn't fit through certain streets and paths - and still would have trouble in some areas. The only maps they can move relatively unhindered is the arena and plains maps. As to the threatened area - you are simply wrong (30ft to a side and a 20ft reach). When squeezing it is reduced to 15-20ft with a 20ft reach.... --------------------------- Gargantuan creatures face fewer of these penalties - but still squeeze in the cavern, sewer and temple maps in at least some of the places; still have trouble navigating some of the streets and paths in the forest and are still relatively unhindered in the arena and plains. ------------------------------- Since the terms to win a fight are based on beating the owner and not the creature - and the fact that the creatures are fairly beatable on their own - I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility for a level 16 character to fight another level 16 character with a CR9 ally. While it makes Yaurl look like a cupcake - the vermin is mindless, has no flight, and no DR. Oh and lets not forget - no feats.
SauroGrenom 05-25-07, 01:12 PM	Lemmi has an elite heavy warhorse. It sounds to me that we should move the hippogriff up a step or two rather than move the horse down. The CR+4 mechanic is really necessary for animated undead, planar allies, and allies granted by unusual racial abilities (like shadow spawn). I suppose we could replace those things with the Minimal ECL Requirements, but it's a huge job and would have almost every monster in the book. Every skeleton version, every zombie version, every animated object and I don't know what else. As to the threatened area - you are simply wrong (30ft to a side and a 20ft reach). When squeezing it is reduced to 15-20ft with a 20ft reach.... Space/Reach: 40 ft./30 ft.
TelinArtho 05-25-07, 01:22 PM	Hmm - apologies, I didn't realize it was one of the "exceptional" cases for colossal sizes. Still - it doesn't change that it cannot function at all in the sewer, cannot function in the temple without escape artist checks to get to the main section (and then squeezes for the duration), squeezes all the time in the starting area of the cavern and has to make escape artist checks to get out of the starting areas; has to squeeze in the city and forest except in a few rare places and is relatively unhindered in the arena and plains. As to whether to move the hippogriff up - I could frankly care less - same with moving the heavy warhorse down. I still think it is absurd to have to wait until ECL5 to pick up a light warhorse. I think it is funny that you don't want to do the "huge job" of adjusting the ECL-4 mechanic but have no problem overhauling the entire rest of the allies in our game... ironic even. Anyway - I've presented my arguments for and against the updated list and even proposed what changes I would make to it. I see no point in wasting breath arguing the fine points about one creature or another.
McJarvis 05-25-07, 01:29 PM	If my opinion matters at all-> I'm all for the nerfing of non-class allies as much as possible, since very few of my characters rely on them. [A horse is a horse to the good General Zaroff ;)] edit-> My point being, horses/mounts are not overpowered in low levels because of their hp or ability to attack: but rather the rules surrounding being mounted that let you ignore certain things. Like being able to use a wand while double moving, or casting a spell while double moving, or ....etc, etc. Who needs expeditious retreat when having a mount does as good a job? It is pretty much not important(IMO) which horses are allowed at which ECLs, except for the heavy warhorse(because of more hd+more hp), by which level there are better ways of avoidance. [flying, flying mounts, etc, etc.]
Abyssal Stalker 05-25-07, 01:36 PM	Lemmi has an elite heavy warhorse. It sounds to me that we should move the hippogriff up a step or two rather than move the horse down. The reason why no one has a heavy warhorse is probably that you can get a flying mount at those levels with our current rules. They are far more superior to heavy warhorses and thus rare people can find a reason to take a heavy warhorse. Lemminkäinen has one more for flavor. I could've built him with a flying mount, but since I created him for Sauro's campaign, I wanted to do something else for change.
SauroGrenom 05-25-07, 01:40 PM	I didn't rewrite the whole allies rules, just the section on HA allies. To put in all creatures, it would be reproducing almost the entire SRD at least 3 times over as zombies, then skeletons, then as flesh and blood. On the temple map, and most of the others, all the obstacles are rather meaningless for a creature of that size. Check it out. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=temple;n=Effect,9,22,8; o=Effect,9,22,20 W/o even moving it threatens nearly 3/4 of the map. If you can move it some, then it threatens more than that. My point is that we just aren't equipped to deal with creatures of that size. They don't fit well into our maps. Perhaps MWB is correct in that we shouldn't put creatures larger than Huge on the list at all. It's a reasonable suggestion.
TelinArtho 05-25-07, 01:58 PM	I don't think you understand Sauro the significance of the need to make escape artist checks to even move: Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn’t as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC. When a Large creature (which normally takes up four squares) squeezes into a space that’s one square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies two squares, centered on the line between the two squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into. A creature can squeeze past an opponent while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square. To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space’s width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can’t attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC. Action: Making an Escape Artist check to escape from rope bindings, manacles, or other restraints (except a grappler) requires 1 minute of work. Escaping from a net or an animate rope, command plants, control plants, or entangle spell is a full-round action. Escaping from a grapple or pin is a standard action. Squeezing through a tight space takes at least 1 minute, maybe longer, depending on how long the space is. So - in the sewer and in the temple - where the starting areas are 10ft high - the colossal creatures (any colossal creature is at least 30ft) are forced to make escape artist checks to move. Until they get out of that condition (never in the sewer and only on the lower area of the temple), they cannot even attack. Note that it takes "at least one minute" to squeeze out of this area with successful checks (Hmmm... DC30 Escape Artist checks with a creature with no ranks in the skill and a -1 dex modifier...). I hope you are packing some serious Grease there... If they do get into the area - they would still suffer a -4 to attack, -4 to AC, move at half speed. I'm not threatened in the least by a creature that cannot attack. I am threatened even less by a creature that suffers those kinds of penalties and moves slowly. Anyway I don't have a problem taking those monsters off of the list - but I don't particularly see the need either. Colossal, Gargantuan and to a much lesser extent, Huge creatures are all severely hindered by 3-5 of the maps. I don't know of anyone who would take an ally with such an "expensive" overhead to not be usefull 42-71% of the time.
Zevox 05-25-07, 02:24 PM	Think of it this way... Under our current CR+4 rules, the heavy warhorse is first available at ECL6. Scale all the mounts behind that in order of potency as combatants, and you get the order I suggested. There are plenty of things on the ECL3 list that would be fine mounts for a small character if trained in the combat riding package. It also makes a clear distinction between medium sized mounts trained for war, and those same creature not trained for war. The warpony, riding dog and war horses are all clearly superior combatants but equivalent mounts to non-war versions of these same creatures that are trained with the combat riding package. No one in their right mind would ever choose a guard dog over a riding dog as either a mount or an animal ally. What you are advocating for is access to a more powerful combatant ally, not a more reasonable mount at that ECL. I'm advocating access to a more powerful mount at an earlier level because at that level its no longer a problem, Sauro - wasn't disallowing it until that point the whole reason for these minimum ECLs? Like I said, waiting until ECL 5 for a Light Warhorse seems too much to me. Yes, if you look solely at the effectiveness of horses as combatants and which has any statistical advantage over which at all, they rank in the order you say. Take a look at their actual effectiveness relative to each other though, not just what order they come in. A Heavy Horse is barely better at combat than a Light one at all (+1 attack and it can carry 50 lbs more), and in order to gain that it loses 10ft of speed. They're about the same in overall effectiveness, so theres no reason to make characters wait until ECL 4 to get it (to be honest, I doubt anyone even at ECL 3 would sacrifice that 10 feet of speed to use it). And yes, nobody would pick a Guard Dog over a riding Dog as a mount, because a Guard Dog isn't meant as a mount to begin with. I can't see any reason whatsoever not to allow a Riding Dog at ECL 3. Unless you wish to force ECL 3 characters to use either no mount/allies at all or the absolute weakest ones that no one would ever normally consider, that is, which is something I don't have any inclination to do. I'll repeat again my suggestion - move the ECL 4 allies down to ECL 3, and the Light Warhorse to ECL 4. It sounds to me that we should move the hippogriff up a step or two rather than move the horse down. Let me just say I'm against that one, too. Yes, a Hippogriff is a better mount than a Heavy Warhorse, due to exactly one thing - it can fly. Combat-wise, they're about even - the horse does more damage with its hooves than the Hippogriff does with its claws, the Hippogriff does more damage with its bite than the Horse does with its, the Horse has more hp, and the Hippogriff has barely better AC. Unless you think its unreasonable to allow a flying mount at ECL 6 (I don't - wizards start flying at ECL 5 anyway), theres no reason to move it up. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-25-07, 03:19 PM	How many of them do we have? How many problems have the caused? Is anyone likely to choose them in the future? The answers are: none, none, not very. I still want the choice.I disagree; the answers are none, very few, and highly. Some wise guy will take the Roc just for the times it will be useful (Plains and Arena), and several people will simply fail to see how it could be a problem (as Telin and Sauro are arguing right now). For those of you proposing to move the heavy warhorse down to ECL 5, how do you suggest we deal with the CR<=ECL-4 rule?
TelinArtho 05-25-07, 03:31 PM	I'm sorry MWB - my mind reading capabilities are offline this week. What questions are you answering? That said - I actually was thinking originally that we were getting rid of the ECL-4 mechanic for this new table that Sauro was making. If we're not and creating a special table just for animals and such - I'm even more against it than before... Its a layer of overhead that newer players have to adjust to that is not a mechanic of D&D. Still if we are adjusting the "special cases of animals," I don't see why we are ignoring the "special cases of zombies, skeletons and purple people eaters." I am fine with leaving the heavy warhorse at ECL6 - because frankly it isn't worth it in most circumstances - the light warhorse is the "perfect" mount for most characters pre-flight (and for some - post-flight). I would still prefer to see the light warhorse dropped to ECL4 and the current ECL4 animals dropped to ECL3, because I think it is overly restrictive to make it unavailable at ECL3. To restrict it all the way to ECL5 is too far. Also - I forgot to comment on a question that was asked and then answered later by Sauro. The light horses for ECL3 should be able to be purchased for the market price listed in the Equipment SRD with the combat riding package already learned. Charging an extra 50gp for the training of the combat riding package might be reasonable in cases where warhorses were not available to the average man, but in cases where it is restricted because of "rules of a game that doesn't exist..." - it becomes absurd. Hmm - let's see 150gp for a wartrained mount vs 75gp +50gp for a skittish riding horse that won't run away at the first sign of battle...
Zevox 05-25-07, 03:38 PM	Ooh, I just noticed something about horses that might change the whole discussion on them. Want to know why non-Warhorses have such inferior attacks to their War-trained cousins? Here ya go: A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack. Its hoof attack is treated as a secondary attack and adds only half the horse’s Strength bonus to damage. (These secondary attacks are noted with an asterisk in the Attack and Full Attack entries for the heavy horse and the light horse.) In other words, allow them to be trained for combat riding, and their major disadvantages disappear. Their attacks stop being secondary, and they get full strength to damage. They just become Light Warhorses with 2 less strength and con and 1 less natural AC. Still weaker, but only by 1 attack/damage, a little carry capacity, 1 AC, and 3 hp - even at ECL 3, thats not much. And of course, don't allow them to be trained for combat riding, and theres no mount for ECL 3 characters. Zevox
TelinArtho 05-25-07, 03:43 PM	Actually - the condition that specifies that they cannot attack while mounted still applies there - so if you are not riding the horse - you are correct. If you are riding the horse - it gets no attacks.
Zevox 05-25-07, 03:56 PM	Actually - the condition that specifies that they cannot attack while mounted still applies there - so if you are not riding the horse - you are correct. If you are riding the horse - it gets no attacks. Hm, good point, I forgot they had that. Zevox
Khaim 05-25-07, 03:57 PM	Or we could just houserule it to work the way we want. I don't think it's needed though, as Telin points out.
Vathelokai 05-27-07, 12:26 AM	Not had much time to read until today; throwing out opinions... Horses - I think going with the lower ecl would be for the best. Mounts and mount builds are classic and making PCs go without for a while seems wrong to me. Not sure about the math behind it yet (the ecl to cr arrangement). Other creatures - I have yet to see the updated list (are we still debating the old list from the last page?), so I'll hold judgment on moving other things up and down. Massive creatures - It's really not our place to say if someone should make a completely inviable build. If they want a Roc, let 'em have it. Also, it was occasionally mentioned that we would get new higher ECL maps once the higher leagues opened. Should we still persue that? That could change the massive creature debate a bit.
NiQil 05-27-07, 12:29 AM	Not had much time to read until today; throwing out opinions... Horses - I think going with the lower ecl would be for the best. Mounts and mount builds are classic and making PCs go without for a while seems wrong to me. Not sure about the math behind it yet (the ecl to cr arrangement). Other creatures - I have yet to see the updated list (are we still debating the old list from the last page?), so I'll hold judgment on moving other things up and down. Massive creatures - It's really not our place to say if someone should make a completely inviable build. If they want a Roc, let 'em have it. Also, it was occasionally mentioned that we would get new higher ECL maps once the higher leagues opened. Should we still persue that? That could change the massive creature debate a bit. I would say that new maps are unlikely unless we choose to abandon the mapper altogether. Dracazar isn't around to update things, so unless MWB has some luck in that department, the mapper can't be updated. We can certainly create the maps, but we would have to run fights on them the old-fashioned way (for you rookies, that would be before the mapper when we had to travel to our tabletop games in 12 ft of snow uphill both ways and had to create our own maps for battles!).
McJarvis 05-27-07, 08:53 AM	had to create our own maps for battles!). *shudder*
MitzaVolchenko 05-27-07, 10:41 AM	Ya know, Drac may not be around at the moment, but I know of at least one person that understands the code for that page because he wrote the AoE add on for it...and while he doesn't play here anymore, he is still in contact :) "Pixies Rule! Donak Drools!"
SauroGrenom 05-27-07, 01:43 PM	I was able to get in touch with Drac. He is happy to hear from MWB, and I tried to get these two in touch with one another. I don't know if they have chatted or not.
SauroGrenom 05-27-07, 02:21 PM	Taking into consideration some of the comments from Telin and MWB, I've revised the below list. It now includes all the vermin. Also as MWB suggested, I took out anything bigger than Huge. Also as has been suggested I moves some of the classic mounts. You'll notice that the Heavy Warhorse got moved down to ECL5, (although tougher, it's not superior in every way to the light warhorse). The Griffon got moved up a rung as well. I however did not move the Light Warhorse down as suggested by some. My reasons are as follows. I did a quick survey of the HP total of all our ECL4 and ECL5 characters. Right now our ECL4 characters have an average of 27hp and ECL5 averages 34hp. I think it's a bad idea to put characters at ECL4 with only 27hp up against a war trained mount who can attack 3 times per round and give the rider a 60 movement speed and +4 AC. Most characters who are not also mounted have little or no chance of escaping from this kind of situation. The Light Warhorse effectively increases the damage output of a melee character by an average of 11hp/round (assuming the hoof attacks hit). With a single charge, most characters can be slain by the combination of the rider's and mount's attacks in a single round. At ECL4 with 27hp that's devastating, and there's nothing most characters can do to avoid that unless they can kill the rider or mount before melee begins. However at ECL5, then 3rd level spells come into play and the HP average increases significantly. At this level, low HP characters have more wealth and spells resources to spend. That provides the opportunity for a counter to melee from the overpowering mounts. So to summarize: The ECL3 list includes mostly creatures that have a CR less than 1. Also the Light Horse is here, where it can be trained in combat riding to provide mounted combat options, but it has limited potency as an attacker. The ECL4 list includes creatures with increased combat effectiveness. Also war trained mounts with a single natural attack are found here. Some of the CR1 vermin are here as well. The ECL5 list includes the war trained horses, and the first significant threat flying allies (not flying mounts for medium characters). The ECL6 list includes creatures that are significantly more threatening as melee combatants. Also the first flying mount for a medium character is found here. The ECL 7+ use the CR+4 mechanic or the druid animal companion list (two level above the minimal druid level), or the epic feat for a magical beast druid companion (again two levels above the minimal druid level). 3: Baboon, Badger, Bat, Cat, Camel, Dire Rat, Dog, Donkey, Eagle, Hawk, Light Horse, Lizard, Monkey, Mule, Owl, Pony, Rat, Raven, Snake (Small or Medium Viper), Toad, Weasel, Tiny or Small Monstrous Spider, Tiny/Small/Medium Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small Monstrous Scorpion 4: Brain Mole, Heavy Horse, Hyena, Riding Dog, Stirge, War Pony, Wolf, Giant Ant Worker, Medium Monstrous Spider 5: Light Warhorse, Heavy Warhorse, Pseudodragon (Dragon), Darkmantle, Large Monstrous Centipede, Giant Bee 6: Ape, Black Bear, Bison, Boar, Cheetah, Crocodile, Dire Bat, Dire Badger, Dire Weasel, Hippogriff, Leopard, Monitor Lizard, Shocker Lizard, Snake (constrictor), Snake (large viper), Wolverine, Giant Ant Soldier, Giant Bombardier Beetle, Large Monstrous Spider 7: Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Pegasus, Phantom Fungus, Rust Monster, Giant Ant Queen, Giant Praying Mantis, Giant Wasp, Large Monstrous Scorpion, Huge Monstrous Centipede 8: Brown Bear, Carrion Crawler, Crocodile (giant), Deinoychus, Dire Ape, Dire Boar, Dire Wolf, Dire Wolverine, Elasmosaurus, Lion, Rhinoceros, Snake (huge viper), Tiger, Giant Stag Beetle 9: Ankheg, Cockatrice, Griffon, Owlbear, Spidereater, Huge Monstrous Spider 10: 11: Flesh Golem, Grey Glutton, Huge Scorpion 12: Basilisk, Digester, Dire Lion, Girallon, Megaraptor, Polar Bear, Snake (giant constrictor), Shield Guardian, Huge Monstrous Scorpion, 13: 14: Clay Golem 15: Bulette, Dire Bear, Elephant, Stone Golem 16: Psion-Killer 17: Iron Golem 18: Dire Tiger, Gorgon, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus 19: 20:
Guildmaster (WAR) 05-27-07, 05:18 PM	A series of guild questions: 1) How many upgrades/facilities can I destroy with one GAP? 2) Must I have the Guild Points in the same district as the Facilities that process that specific type of guild points? 3) Why doesn't everyone else keep track of where their gold/guild points are when dealing with multiple districts? Couldn't that be important in the future? Isn't that important now when limits on treasuries and storage spaces matter? (Starcraft II plug: You must construct more pylons!) 4) Didn't there used to be a restriction against using the "Commission" GAP to process a type of Guild Points that a Guild already processed in a given week's actions?
SauroGrenom 05-27-07, 05:41 PM	A series of guild questions: 1) How many upgrades/facilities can I destroy with one GAP? 2) Must I have the Guild Points in the same district as the Facilities that process that specific type of guild points? 3) Why doesn't everyone else keep track of where their gold/guild points are when dealing with multiple districts? Couldn't that be important in the future? Isn't that important now when limits on treasuries and storage spaces matter? (Starcraft II plug: You must construct more pylons!) 4) Didn't there used to be a restriction against using the "Commission" GAP to process a type of Guild Points that a Guild already processed in a given week's actions? 1) Depends. With a [Build] GAP you can only remove 1000hp per GAP. With a [Construction]: Demolish GAP you can remove more HP. 2) From what I understand the Storage must be in the district that produces points unless you use a caravan to move them. However points can be processed in any place from any place. 3) Multiple accounting is a total pain in the arse. If there were offensive actions taking place, then it would make a difference if you lost a chapter house. 4) Yes. You can only process the same kind of guild points 1/week. So you cannot use [Commission] Order Processing to process Con points in the same week when you also use [Construction] Construct Building. However you can use [Commission] Commission Project and apply it to a structure in the same week as you use [Construction] Construct Building. This is because [Commission] Commission Project is not processing guild points (someone else is doing the processing of guild points not your guild). Note that [Construction] Construct Building is not allowed to be used on an economic structure, so you cannot use it to accelerate your economic expansion. But it can be used for walls, headquarters and special structures at the same time as you are using a [Build] GAP to put up economic structures.
Zevox 05-27-07, 08:59 PM	Alright, I'll concede the point on the Light Warhorse. There is good reason for putting it at ECL 5. For the ECL 4 creatures though, I still disagree highly. I can't understand why we should restrict any of those from the ECL 3 league. I'd just be repeating myself to state my reasons at this point, but in essence its that none of them are at all a problem at ECL 3, which was IIRC the whole point of the minimum level restrictions, and certainly all of them are weaker than the average Druid animal companion at that level, which was one of the things you said you'd base the list on. If no one else feels this way, so be it, I'll shut up about it, but otherwise I'll just keep fighting it. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-27-07, 09:18 PM	I have an issue with creating yet another chart. I object to forcing mounted fighters to either not be mounted for two levels or pay an absurd amount comparatively for their mount. I asked where the abuse of HA allies was coming in, and haven't seen a significant answer to that. Is a light warhorse a significant ally at ECL3? sure...it is also a hefty xp/gp penalty and not so useful on many maps. Fortunately, I am about to be a campaignlord for my credits and can just quit running fights when the new chart makes life a pain in the rump.
Zevox 05-27-07, 09:37 PM	I have an issue with creating yet another chart. I object to forcing mounted fighters to either not be mounted for two levels or pay an absurd amount comparatively for their mount. Erm, with Sauro's suggestion, you'd be paying less for a combat riding-trained light horse than for a light warhorse (75 gp light horse + 50 gp trained = 125 gp vs 150 gp light warhorse). I asked where the abuse of HA allies was coming in, and haven't seen a significant answer to that. Welcome to "why I'd prefer we didn't change those rules at all". I'm the chief one using HA allies at this point (3 of my characters do, which is almost half the HA users in the arena right now), and I don't see them as being a problem, with only two exceptions that aren't even available at the ECLs we have yet (those two being the Legendary Tiger and Bear). Is a light warhorse a significant ally at ECL3? sure...it is also a hefty xp/gp penalty and not so useful on many maps. At ECL 3, its more than a significant ally - it alone is a match for a typical gladiator at that level. Its hp is about that of the average warrior at that level. It has three attacks, two with decent (for that level) attack bonuses, which can be boosted easily (via minor spells like Bless, depending on the character). Its AC normally isn't outstanding, but any warrior with maxed out ride and the Mounted Combat feat at that level can make it all but unassailable, and just buying it good armor can make it decent if you don't want to invest in those. Plus it has scent for finding sneaks and a 60' speed, enough to catch even a wizard using expeditious retreat. As for maps, all ECL 3 fights take place in the arena. And I've got to say, now that the Forest has been changed, theres really only one map where it isn't as useful an ally as usual, and thats the sewer, where its slowed continually. Anywhere else, even if it doesn't get to charge, it gets its full speed, so it can surely get to melee if the foe can't fly, which no one can before level 5, at which point those 3 attacks and good hp/ac take hold. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 05-27-07, 09:45 PM	Let me see...25gp difference for an ally that can attack while I do or one that can't and is weaker...hmmm...let me not think about that. As for maps,...temple, city, sewer all have issues for large mounts. As I said make up any rule ya'll want...not gonna be me pitlording that mess.
Zevox 05-27-07, 09:51 PM	Let me see...25gp difference for an ally that can attack while I do or one that can't and is weaker...hmmm...let me not think about that. I'm not saying the light horse is up to the strength of the light warhorse. It most certainly isn't. But thats precisely the point behind the idea of disallowing the light warhorse until later - its so potent an ally at level 3 that it alone can win a battle. Thats overpowering. So its a good idea to do something about it. Making the light horse available combat-trained cheaply solves the issue of mounted combat builds not having a decent mount at that level, hence the chart. As for maps,...temple, city, sewer all have issues for large mounts. The sewer is the only one I think you're right on. The city and temple limit everyone else just as much as the horse - in fact, the horse's high jump mod actually makes the temple less of an issue for it than it is for most PCs - so they're not a problem for them at all. Zevox
templer10 05-27-07, 09:58 PM	I'm not saying the light horse is up to the strength of the light warhorse. It most certainly isn't. But thats precisely the point behind the idea of disallowing the light warhorse until later - its so potent an ally at level 3 that it alone can win a battle. Thats overpowering. So its a good idea to do something about it. Making the light horse available combat-trained cheaply solves the issue of mounted combat builds not having a decent mount at that level, hence the chart. The sewer is the only one I think you're right on. The city and temple limit everyone else just as much as the horse - in fact, the horse's high jump mod actually makes the temple less of an issue for it than it is for most PCs - so they're not a problem for them at all. Zevox that jump mod is all but useless without the ranks in ride (if you want to ride the horse anyway).
MitzaVolchenko 05-27-07, 10:07 PM	The sewer is the only one I think you're right on. The city and temple limit everyone else just as much as the horse - in fact, the horse's high jump mod actually makes the temple less of an issue for it than it is for most PCs - so they're not a problem for them at all. Zevox The city has a lot of places that are squeezing for the horse and horses can no longre fit in the center of the temple...they also have to square off movement or jump in the temple to get to the center floor.
Zevox 05-27-07, 10:26 PM	that jump mod is all but useless without the ranks in ride (if you want to ride the horse anyway). If you don't have ranks in ride, you're obviously not a mounted combat build. The city has a lot of places that are squeezing for the horse and horses can no longre fit in the center of the temple...they also have to square off movement or jump in the temple to get to the center floor. Granted, there are places a horse would have to squeeze on the city. Good luck getting it there though - you'd need to get real lucky for the engagement to start there, given that waiting in one of them is likely get you kicked by the delay penalty. And once it catches you, you'll be getting kicked by those hoofs a fair amount before you get to the narrower areas. As for the temple, like I said, thats what Jump is for, and they have better jump than most PCs (which allows them to jump up/down to and from the outer ledges more easily than most PCs). They have to squeeze in the center of that map, but anyone hiding from them there (and risking falling in the lava when they jump) probably isn't any good in melee anyway. Zevox
TelinArtho 05-29-07, 03:41 PM	@Sauro - the Medium Monstrous Scorpion is for some reason missing from that list. You might also boost the mule up with the light warhorse and heavy warhorse since they are "clearly" superior to the light and heavy horse since it can attack with a rider and deals the same damage as a light warhorse (just without the secondary bite...). I still disagree that this list is necessary, but if it is going to be implemented, these are some of the things I'm seeing.
Erithmu 06-01-07, 03:49 PM	Add to list of things to discuss: Thaumaturgist: Planar Cohort ... 1) Is there an alignment requirement/restriction that the cohort needs to be within a certain number of steps? 2) Is there the ability to level up your Cohort? (ex: Hound Archon and then add class levels or HD as advancement allows) 3) Is there the ability to summon Cohorts w/ no LA? (ex: Lantern Archon, Avoral) If so how is ECL determined for MaxCA, or is there for the purposes of advancement?
TelinArtho 06-01-07, 03:57 PM	Since the planar cohort is essentially a leadership cohort without the requirement for the feat, I would suggest the following: 1. Planar cohorts follow the same rules as regular cohorts (in the SRD and in the CoCo - advances automatically and never above ECL-2, etc). 2. Planar cohorts should be at the least aligned with the character's religion (at most 2 steps away and never an opposed alignment-as per the LPA guidelines). 3. Cohorts would have to have an LA, because otherwise there is no way to calculate their ECL (without introducing a house rule). (These are the rules I would use if Kraegin were of the appropriate level right now (which he isn't...)).
Vathelokai 06-03-07, 12:38 AM	Since the planar cohort is essentially a leadership cohort without the requirement for the feat, I would suggest the following: 1. Planar cohorts follow the same rules as regular cohorts (in the SRD and in the CoCo - advances automatically and never above ECL-2, etc). 2. Planar cohorts should be at the least aligned with the character's religion (at most 2 steps away and never an opposed alignment-as per the LPA guidelines). 3. Cohorts would have to have an LA, because otherwise there is no way to calculate their ECL (without introducing a house rule). (These are the rules I would use if Kraegin were of the appropriate level right now (which he isn't...)). I can get behind all of those. They sound reasonable to me. It does seem like a combo of leadership and planar ally.
Usurpator 06-03-07, 07:48 AM	Requesting a change in Monster Fight rules: A player can choose when assigned a monster fight (before knowing what he fights) to just skip a week (being counted as inactive) instead of being forced to fight. Reason: I don't see any need to force people to do monster fights that don't want to. People aren't forced to do quests and campaigns as well, and frankly, the whole monster fight thing is not at all in line with CoCo philosophy.
Usurpator 06-03-07, 08:37 AM	I move to change the rules about Monster fights to make monsters adhere to the 3FC (and corresponding 1/3 rule). Now it's not fair.
Yitzi 06-03-07, 08:48 AM	Of course it is. In a TT game, the assumption is that you fight monsters when they have full spell use and that they will use them all, so the CR takes that into account. The CoCo equivalent of fighting multiple fights/day is the 3FC, if one does not apply to monsters, neither should the other.
Usurpator 06-03-07, 08:53 AM	Of course it is. In a TT game, the assumption is that you fight monsters when they have full spell use and that they will use them all, so the CR takes that into account. The CoCo equivalent of fighting multiple fights/day is the 3FC, if one does not apply to monsters, neither should the other. Yitiz, of course it is not. in a TT fight monster have A. not a purely CoCo selection of powers/spells (as they do here) and B. you don't fight monsters of the same CR/EL. If you do meet such a challenge, you always have the ability to go Nova yourself and then 'get out/rest'. The fact that both parties use different rules, is the whole basis for it being unfair. But I would like to hear the Elders on this, and if you want to discuss this, we should take it to the Tavern.
Malither76 06-03-07, 11:42 AM	Planar cohort already has rules listed that the cohort has to have a level adjustment and it can't be more the ECL-2 of the character, so a cleric 7 Thaumaturgist 5, could have a anything that has an ECL of 10 or less assuming leadership score is high enough. So you would not be able to get anything that does not have a Level Adjustment.
Erithmu 06-06-07, 10:58 AM	Add to docket: It is my current understanding that guild members who craft items are considered 'inactive' for the purposes of guild membership rules. I would like consideration on changing that rule that crafting does not count towards being inactive, but does not count as being active. This would result in inactivity being counted according to weeks where the character does nothing. Example/Reasoning: Owen (member of TAO) will be coming back from a campaign in August with more than 40k gold in his bank account. 80k market = 11 weeks that could be spent crafting. Under the current rules he would have to leave the guild and then rejoin. Under the suggested change he could be inactive 8 weeks +11 weeks for his crafting. As the higher level leagues open I don't want to penalize guilds who have members that craft for long periods of time. (I'm sure PSI will be in the same boat w/ Istima, Psibeast, and Kilp; TLT also has a large number of crafters.)
Usurpator 06-08-07, 03:06 AM	Moving the change the expendables cap rule from: You can own only x gp. of expendables at ECL X to You can bring only x gp. of expendables to a 3FC. Additional expendables should be noted under 'at home' and must remain there for the 3FC. This to solve the problem that scribers (and brewers even) really must scribe between 3FC's, even if they have only a couple of hundred gp.'s worth to scribe, since they might (or might not) violate the current rule. The current rule is purely meant as a balancing factor in the 3FC, the new rule still provides exactly the same balance.
NiQil 06-08-07, 07:44 AM	Moving the change the expendables cap rule from: You can own only x gp. of expendables at ECL X to You can bring only x gp. of expendables to a 3FC. Additional expendables should be noted under 'at home' and must remain there for the 3FC. This to solve the problem that scribers (and brewers even) really must scribe between 3FC's, even if they have only a couple of hundred gp.'s worth to scribe, since they might (or might not) violate the current rule. The current rule is purely meant as a balancing factor in the 3FC, the new rule still provides exactly the same balance. I would not be in favor of this change. Currently, we allow parties to snag items listed at home in between fights in the 3FC. Making this change would mean that we would have to disallow that. I see many more people using this option than worrying about how many expendables they have. This would mean that things like the high dex/low str builds that store things at home and only grab them when they run low (arrows, tanglefoot bags, etc) would be penalized at the expense of expendables. It would also probably require the retooling of many existing characters who have built their characters upon what weight they can carry...forcing them to now carry more because they *might use it at some point in 3 fights may cause lots of rebuilds that I don't think are needed.
McJarvis 06-08-07, 10:20 AM	I would not be in favor of this change. Currently, we allow parties to snag items listed at home in between fights in the 3FC. Making this change would mean that we would have to disallow that. I see many more people using this option than worrying about how many expendables they have. This would mean that things like the high dex/low str builds that store things at home and only grab them when they run low (arrows, tanglefoot bags, etc) would be penalized at the expense of expendables. It would also probably require the retooling of many existing characters who have built their characters upon what weight they can carry...forcing them to now carry more because they *might use it at some point in 3 fights may cause lots of rebuilds that I don't think are needed. I feel like this is an unimaginative complaint. It would be easy to make it only expendables that are not accessible from home in between fights.
Erithmu 06-08-07, 10:22 AM	A more elegant rule might be to have scrolls that are scribed during the 3FC (which are unavailable during that 3FC anyways) to not count towards the expendable cap, since they don't 'technically' exist until the end of the 3FC 'day'
Usurpator 06-08-07, 10:44 AM	A more elegant rule might be to have scrolls that are scribed during the 3FC (which are unavailable during that 3FC anyways) to not count towards the expendable cap, since they don't 'technically' exist until the end of the 3FC 'day' Well sure, we can make an extra heading unavailable expendables which cannot be accessed during any 3FC, and from which items can only be transferred to At Home or Equipment sections (to the maximum allowed) between 3FC's. NiQil: I feel your argument is overly legalistic. I would appreciate it if you try to think with me, rather than interpreting my suggestions literally and then just trying to find fault without thinking of obvious solutions to your reasonable concerns yourself.
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 11:24 AM	Well I would rather it not be in the "At Home" section but would be fine with it in a "Unavailable Expendables" section. That seems reasonable to me.
Vathelokai 06-09-07, 08:29 AM	I can also support an 'Unavailable Expendables' or 'Not available this Cycle' section. It seems the least rule-like of the proposed rules.
Rauul 06-09-07, 12:47 PM	I can also support an 'Unavailable Expendables' or 'Not available this Cycle' section. It seems the least rule-like of the proposed rules. Not a bad rule for when crafting less than 1k worth of scrolls during a 3fc, The player would have to remeber to that if he has over his cap to sell over the break.. I can picture some prison violations coming from this...
NiQil 06-09-07, 01:04 PM	Well sure, we can make an extra heading unavailable expendables which cannot be accessed during any 3FC, and from which items can only be transferred to At Home or Equipment sections (to the maximum allowed) between 3FC's. NiQil: I feel your argument is overly legalistic. I would appreciate it if you try to think with me, rather than interpreting my suggestions literally and then just trying to find fault without thinking of obvious solutions to your reasonable concerns yourself. @ Usurpator: Quite frankly, I am getting tired of having my opinions bashed just because you don't happen to agree with them. I don't know what it is that you seem to have problem with about me, but it needs to stop. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and continuing to bash mine because you don't agree with them is not acceptable. Further problems in this area will not be tolerated. End of line.
NiQil 06-09-07, 01:08 PM	Not a bad rule for when crafting less than 1k worth of scrolls during a 3fc, The player would have to remeber to that if he has over his cap to sell over the break.. I can picture some prison violations coming from this... The problem I have with this issue is that the whole reason the expendables cap was created is that it is supposed to limit any character's dependability on expendables. With our environment that allows unlimited access to them, the focus needs to be on who has the better character, not who has the better expendables. Apparantly no one else remembers how many thousands of gp of expendables some of our old players used to carry before the cap came around (Cat and KU immediately come to mind). To refresh your memory, go through the old posts in the Training Hall...I believe the posts for those PCs to refund all of their expendables are still there. It was stupid how many expendables they had. Allowing a PC to build up their expendables on their sheet (regardless of whether they can bring them to a fight or not) is exactly what the expendable cap was designed to prevent. I know, because it was my idea.
TelinArtho 06-09-07, 01:29 PM	I don't understand where the issue really is NiQil. This method would allow someone with the ability to scribe scrolls, etc to craft expendables during the 3FC. Since the expendables are not usable during the current 3FC we would not be allowing them access to more expendables than they are currently - this would just allow people with scribe scroll to scribe during the 3FC. In between 3FCs, if they find they are over their allowed amount - they just sell back the excess before the start of the next 3FC. Like I said - I don't understand your misgivings about this - because all it really does is allows crafters to actually use the free activity to craft during the 3FC - which currently is not really usable.
NiQil 06-09-07, 01:39 PM	I don't understand where the issue really is NiQil. This method would allow someone with the ability to scribe scrolls, etc to craft expendables during the 3FC. Since the expendables are not usable during the current 3FC we would not be allowing them access to more expendables than they are currently - this would just allow people with scribe scroll to scribe during the 3FC. In between 3FCs, if they find they are over their allowed amount - they just sell back the excess before the start of the next 3FC. Like I said - I don't understand your misgivings about this - because all it really does is allows crafters to actually use the free activity to craft during the 3FC - which currently is not really usable. Now, first, let me clarify. We seem to be talking about two different things. What I am talking about is that the idea seems to be to make the expendable cap count for only the amount you can bring with you in a 3FC, rather than the total you can own at any given time. I am against this, because it allows the possibility of hoarding expendables, regardless of when they are used. What I am gather from your post is that you are wanting to allow expendables to be listed under a seperate section on the sheet that are not useable in a 3FC, but are still allowed to be listed on the sheet as owned. However, you also state that at the end of the 3FC, if they are over the cap, they would have to sell back the excess that they are over the cap. If that is what we are talking about, then I could support that, and it could even be extended to all items that are crafted as a free activity. However, if we are talking about what I think we are talking about (the first paragraph), then I will oppose that.
Rauul 06-09-07, 01:56 PM	The problem I have with this issue is that the whole reason the expendables cap was created is that it is supposed to limit any character's dependability on expendables. With our environment that allows unlimited access to them, the focus needs to be on who has the better character, not who has the better expendables. Apparantly no one else remembers how many thousands of gp of expendables some of our old players used to carry before the cap came around (Cat and KU immediately come to mind). To refresh your memory, go through the old posts in the Training Hall...I believe the posts for those PCs to refund all of their expendables are still there. It was stupid how many expendables they had. Allowing a PC to build up their expendables on their sheet (regardless of whether they can bring them to a fight or not) is exactly what the expendable cap was designed to prevent. I know, because it was my idea. Oh i understand what your saying, don't get me wrong.. but i think i know whats they are talking about also.. Your allowed to craft items during your 3fc if under 1000 gp value, instead of guarding and money making.. (1 day of crafting) but the items are not usable till after the 3fc, now if they craft say 300 gp of first level spell scrolls, even when their cap is full, right now puts them in violation, with this the cap is not violated since the items aren't accessable, after the 3fc they can refresh their expendables, and any axcess is sold, no harm no foul, if on their first fight of the 3fc they have anything in their home that would put them over the cap (forgot to sell) then then they are a prison violation and unable to use expendables for the 3fc..
Usurpator 06-09-07, 02:40 PM	The problem I have with this issue is that the whole reason the expendables cap was created is that it is supposed to limit any character's dependability on expendables. The expendables cap was created to limit a character's dependability on them *during a fight*. It is not supposed to limit them in any other way. Currently it does. Allowing a PC to build up their expendables on their sheet (regardless of whether they can bring them to a fight or not) is exactly what the expendable cap was designed to prevent. I know, because it was my idea. NiQil, you drawing a illogical conclusion. What you are saying is like "encumbrance limits where designed to limit the amount of equipment a character can carry. Allowing a character to build up equipment at home is exactly what the encumbrance limit is designed to prevent." As far as I know, that is not correct reasoning. Fact of the matter is, the 3FC combined with crafting rules and expendables limit makes it very hard to craft stuff during the 3FC (which is/was clearly intended by the rules to be possible). Also, it might cause such a thing as a 'potential violation', which is quite a weird, which might or might not occur based on circumstances the violator has no complete control over. I think these are unintended side-effect of the new rules, and I just like to fix the side-effects without touching the purpose behind the rule, which I fully support. I don't think anyone here is arguing for allowing more expendables, at least, I haven't seen them. The major argument (as far as I can see) against introducing a separate section for 'unusable expendables' is that it creates yet another section on an already busy sheet. Any other effects are not unique to it, they are also valid for the way we play it now. Alternately, you can just make a rule people aren't allowed to craft expendables during a 3FC, which also solves the problems.
Usurpator 06-09-07, 02:47 PM	Proposed Rule (rephrased): Characters must note any expendables they want to keep over their cap in a special section on their sheet titled 'expendables not available'. During a 3FC they can add expendables to this section by crafting, but cannot use or take anything from it. Between 3FC's characters can shift expendables from this sections to other sections on their sheet (like At Home, or in carried Equipment). Of course, they still have to abide by the expendables cap, so they cannot move stuff out of this section that would bring them over their cap. Expendables that cannot be moved out (because they violate the cap) just stay in this section until the time the character can and wants to move them out of the section.
NiQil 06-09-07, 03:15 PM	Proposed Rule (rephrased): Characters must note any expendables they want to keep over their cap in a special section on their sheet titled 'expendables not available'. During a 3FC they can add expendables to this section by crafting, but cannot use or take anything from it. Between 3FC's characters can shift expendables from this sections to other sections on their sheet (like At Home, or in carried Equipment). Of course, they still have to abide by the expendables cap, so they cannot move stuff out of this section that would bring them over their cap. Expendables that cannot be moved out (because they violate the cap) just stay in this section until the time the character can and wants to move them out of the section. Let me give two examples. Both at ECL 3. One is what I think most of those that have voiced an opinion are agreeing to. The other is what you seem to be proposing and what I oppose. The PC's sheet has three sections. Equipment Carried, At Home and Unavailable. In fight 1 of this PC's 3FC, he uses x gp in expendables from the Equipment Carried section. In fight 2 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+1 expendables from the Equipment Carried section. In fight 3 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x+1 expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y+1 gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+2 expendables from the Equipment Carried section. Now, in order for this PC to start a new 3FC, the total cap value of all three sections cannot exceed 450 gp. So he shifts y expendables and y+1 expendables to either Equipment Carried or At Home, leaving the Unavailable section empty. If he is now over the cap, he sells whatever is putting him over. The PC's sheet has three sections. Equipment Carried, At Home and Unavailable. In fight 1 of this PC's 3FC, he uses x gp in expendables from the Equipment Carried section. In fight 2 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+1 expendables from the Equipment Carried section. In fight 3 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x+1 expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y+1 gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+2 expendables from the Equipment Carried section. Now, in order for this PC to start a new 3FC, the total cap value of the Equipment Carried and At Home sections cannot exceed 450 gp. So he shifts y expendables and y+1 expendables to either Equipment Carried or At Home, leaving any excess in Unavailable. If he is now over the cap in total expendables value, then anything that is putting hom over the cap must be in Unavailable. The biggest difference is that what you seem to be proposing is making the Unavailable section not count against the cap at any time, and thereby providing a place where a PC can hoard expendables. I oppose hoarding, as this is the reason the cap was created to begin with. I have no problem with allowing players to exceed the cap if they are crafting things that they can't use yet anyway, as long as they are under the cap at the beginning of their next 3FC. I have no problem with example 1. I will oppose example 2.
Usurpator 06-09-07, 04:08 PM	The biggest difference is that what you seem to be proposing is making the Unavailable section not count against the cap at any time, and thereby providing a place where a PC can hoard expendables. I oppose hoarding, as this is the reason the cap was created to begin with. I have no problem with allowing players to exceed the cap if they are crafting things that they can't use yet anyway, as long as they are under the cap at the beginning of their next 3FC. Thanks NiQil, it's clear why you oppose it now. I'm just really amazed that you would read the intention of the cap rule that way. Personally I don't think it was ever intended as a measure against hoarding just as I think the encumbrance rule isn't intended to function against hoarding. Similarly, I think that hoarding things that you can't use in fight and doesn't affect a fights in any way doesn't serve any purpose. The power of expendable users was not determined by the fact that they had a hoard of expendables, it was determined by the fact that they had a hoard of expendables *available to them in the fight*. I still can't figure out how you think hoarding things that aren't available in fights are upsetting any power balance in any way. Sorry if I seem dense or something, I just don't know how it's gonna have a significant impact expect for forcing crafting gladiators to sit out a week to craft expendables they want for next fight. Look at it this way: every non-crafting gladiators have an infinitely large 'not available' section. They can just buy *anything* they need prior to the next 3FC by paying gold. It's like they have a virtual warehouse of stuff (the Gladius shops) available to them. You are against this as well? Do you think that being able to choose from a large hoard of stuff just by paying gold just prior to a 3FC is somehow unbalancing. Crafting gladiators can't craft directly prior the 3FC like with those that buy expendables (at least, not with sitting out a week), so they must craft in advance. Not knowing what they are going to use up in the next fight already puts them at a disadvantage, since they might scribe a scroll of invisibility, while they end up not using the scroll they intended to replace. If they also have to face an expendables cap, while what they craft really doesn't interfere in any way with the current 3FC, I don't think that is intended. NiQil, I sincerely hope you can see that I'm truly confused about why you are objecting so on the basis of 'the intention of the rule', I just am unable to see what your issue is.
TelinArtho 06-09-07, 04:55 PM	All I am agreeing with is scenario 1 above. While I don't feel that scenario 2 is all that much more complicated - I would rather see people adhere to the expendable cap before entering the 3FC. The unavailable section would only be necessary for those crafting items mid-cycle that they would use during a normal cycle.
Salrantol 06-09-07, 05:10 PM	Besides, you can sell crafted items for what you crafted them for, so you're out nothing if you craft a replacement for something you don't use.
Usurpator 06-09-07, 05:43 PM	All I am agreeing with is scenario 1 above. While I don't feel that scenario 2 is all that much more complicated - I would rather see people adhere to the expendable cap before entering the 3FC. The unavailable section would only be necessary for those crafting items mid-cycle that they would use during a normal cycle. This could be done, but this still leaves the unforseeable violation issue. And I don't see anyone giving a reason for prefering scenario 2. At least, you say you prefer people adhere to the expendable cap, but you don't say why you prefer it Telin. Again, what does it matter (except for the bookkeeping of course) if gladiators do or don't have extra expendables in storage....
Usurpator 06-09-07, 05:44 PM	Besides, you can sell crafted items for what you crafted them for, so you're out nothing if you craft a replacement for something you don't use. A good point Salrantol. So what gladiators do is precraft expendables and sell the excess for half price (and get their money back) when they start a new 3FC. That is a bit more bookkeeping, but I guess if it keeps everybody happy....
NiQil 06-09-07, 05:46 PM	This could be done, but this still leaves the unforseeable violation issue. And I don't see anyone giving a reason for prefering scenario 2. At least, you say you prefer people adhere to the expendable cap, but you don't say why you prefer it Telin. Again, what does it matter (except for the bookkeeping of course) if gladiators do or don't have extra expendables in storage.... And the same question can be asked in the reverse...if it doesn't matter, then why so insistant that a PC be able to hoard expendables?
Rauul 06-09-07, 05:50 PM	This could be done, but this still leaves the unforseeable violation issue. And I don't see anyone giving a reason for prefering scenario 2. At least, you say you prefer people adhere to the expendable cap, but you don't say why you prefer it Telin. Again, what does it matter (except for the bookkeeping of course) if gladiators do or don't have extra expendables in storage.... Only reason i can see for this really is for when Someone levels midcycle, they can get Some expendables (the difference they gained on leveling).. is just extra book keeping and longer character sheet for the rest..
hogarth 06-09-07, 05:57 PM	And the same question can be asked in the reverse...if it doesn't matter, then why so insistant that a PC be able to hoard expendables? I think it just saves some time that would need to be spent crafting items out-of-cycle later.
Usurpator 06-09-07, 06:20 PM	And the same question can be asked in the reverse...if it doesn't matter, then why so insistant that a PC be able to hoard expendables? I'm PM-ed you the answer to this. It doesn't have *any* influence on the fight but it does have influence on a player's administrative duties, since you have to sell all excess stuff prior to your next 3FC, and note all those sales in accounting. For those things you might want in your next 3FC (because you crafted them as replacements in advance, but after the 3FC saw you didn't use up the originals, and thus didn't need the replacements) you must again craft them as potential replacements (and Pitlord's must put it in the result line) while it is more conveniently to just keep what you crafted. No fight effect, only administrative hassle effect. If two options are neutral with respect to something, I'll choose the one with the least administrative hassle above the other. I'm also fine with the following solution: If a gladiator has taken any 'craft items' free activities during the 3FC, then after the 3FC is done, he can craft up to 1,000 gp. for each of these free activities taken without needing extra activations. The items are available for the next 3FC. That cleanly removes any extra section in the sheet, and adresses your perceived problem as well I think, NiQil.
Zevox 06-09-07, 06:47 PM	I'd be fine with either of the options NiQil mentioned. Like Usurpator, I have no idea why NiQil is so bothered by the idea that a character may have a hoard of expendables they're completely incapable of using for their fights, but if others deem it necessary I have no problem preventing it from happening either. I'm not so sure about the alternative Usurpator just suggested, since it effectively gives characters free crafting, but hopefully we can get an agreement on one or the other of the initial suggestions anyway. Add to docket: It is my current understanding that guild members who craft items are considered 'inactive' for the purposes of guild membership rules. I would like consideration on changing that rule that crafting does not count towards being inactive, but does not count as being active. This would result in inactivity being counted according to weeks where the character does nothing. Example/Reasoning: Owen (member of TAO) will be coming back from a campaign in August with more than 40k gold in his bank account. 80k market = 11 weeks that could be spent crafting. Under the current rules he would have to leave the guild and then rejoin. Under the suggested change he could be inactive 8 weeks +11 weeks for his crafting. As the higher level leagues open I don't want to penalize guilds who have members that craft for long periods of time. (I'm sure PSI will be in the same boat w/ Istima, Psibeast, and Kilp; TLT also has a large number of crafters.) If MWB is fine with this when he returns, I'd be happy to alter the present Guild rules for it. Thats always been a point I was confused and annoyed at personally, ever since Cat told me that the time Va'ria spent crafting didn't count towards her membership status way back when the new system first started. Since the planar cohort is essentially a leadership cohort without the requirement for the feat, I would suggest the following: 1. Planar cohorts follow the same rules as regular cohorts (in the SRD and in the CoCo - advances automatically and never above ECL-2, etc). 2. Planar cohorts should be at the least aligned with the character's religion (at most 2 steps away and never an opposed alignment-as per the LPA guidelines). 3. Cohorts would have to have an LA, because otherwise there is no way to calculate their ECL (without introducing a house rule). (These are the rules I would use if Kraegin were of the appropriate level right now (which he isn't...)). I can get behind those too. Though I wouldn't mind if we added a way to get Planar Cohorts without an existing LA/ECL, but thats something to save for the future. Requesting a change in Monster Fight rules: A player can choose when assigned a monster fight (before knowing what he fights) to just skip a week (being counted as inactive) instead of being forced to fight. Reason: I don't see any need to force people to do monster fights that don't want to. People aren't forced to do quests and campaigns as well, and frankly, the whole monster fight thing is not at all in line with CoCo philosophy. I'm not so sure about this, for various reasons. Among them being: people waiting to opt out until after the monster is rolled so they can choose to fight when they think they can win and not to when they can't (and that if we made it illegal to opt out after the roll was made some pitlords who make the roll on Wednesday as soon as pairings are made may accidentally screw over a player who would have opted out), that it seems very strange to allow players to opt out of this type of fight but no other, that monster fights serve a purpose in the CoCo aside from just giving characters with no opponent a foe (namely, encouraging characters to pick up knowledge skills and items they would likely otherwise not buy, such as weapons of different materials, bless/corrupt weapon oils, etc) and that not everyone seems to agree with just what the above-mentioned "CoCo philosophy" is. If everyone else is okay with it, then so be it, but I have reservations personally. I move to change the rules about Monster fights to make monsters adhere to the 3FC (and corresponding 1/3 rule). Now it's not fair. Agreed. That one is quite annoying. Zevox
McJarvis 06-09-07, 06:48 PM	Only reason i can see for this really is for when Someone levels midcycle, they can get Some expendables (the difference they gained on leveling).. is just extra book keeping and longer character sheet for the rest.. Nobody is suggesting anything that would allow for this. The only change being asked for is an unavailable section[which you couldn't dip into mid-3FC, regardless of whether you level or not], which would only be useful for people who craft expendables mid-cycle. Given that it is "optimal" to sit out in between cycles to craft items, I'm not sure why there is resistance to the idea. The is no strategic advantage to dedicating gp to inaccessible items, expendables or not.
Usurpator 06-09-07, 07:39 PM	I'm not so sure about this, for various reasons. Among them being: people waiting to opt out until after the monster is rolled so they can choose to fight when they think they can win and not to when they can't Agreed, that shouldn't be possible (and I never desired or suggested that). People have to state in advance (like the solution of adding NMF to your title line) that they rather don't fight at all instead of getting a monster fight. Obviously you can't wait and look what you get. that it seems very strange to allow players to opt out of this type of fight but no other, that monster fights serve a purpose in the CoCo aside from just giving characters with no opponent a foe (namely, encouraging characters to pick up knowledge skills and items they would likely otherwise not buy, such as weapons of different materials, bless/corrupt weapon oils, etc) and that not everyone seems to agree with just what the above-mentioned "CoCo philosophy" is. If everyone else is okay with it, then so be it, but I have reservations personally. The knowledge skills came a lot later than monster fights and making them optional does not make them invaluable to the ones that do have them and want monster fights. Also, they remain valuable in MQ, Quests and Campaigns. Also, everyone knows that characters made for CoCo are a lot different from characters made for a regular campaign. I know Caterane had some fancy of making the CoCo resemble regular campaigns as much as possible. I don't agree with that vision myself, but it is a valid vision. I just feel that both visions can co-exist by making some elements (like Monster Fights, MQ, Quests and Campaigns) optional elements. Personally I feel there is no need to force harder-than-average and RP-less MQ's that monster fights effectively are down someone's throat for the sake of 'making CoCo resembling table top games more'. I also would not appreciate it if going on a campaign would become mandatory for 10th lvl characters or something like that.
Usurpator 06-09-07, 07:56 PM	I'm not so sure about the alternative Usurpator just suggested, since it effectively gives characters free crafting, but hopefully we can get an agreement on one or the other of the initial suggestions anyway. It doesn't give 'free crafting' you still have to spend your free activities on crafting just like before. What it does do is make you able to decide what expendables to get after you have completed your 3FC, just like other expendables users that don't craft anything themselves do. IMO pre-emptive replacement of expendables is a weird thing to do. I'm not surprised if many don't want to deal with the hassle and just take another activation doing nothing else but crafting just to bypass all the headaches that currently go with in-cycle crafting. Most people used to scribe scrolls after fights all the time before in the CoCo even though it was against the rules then, just because it seemed to everyone to be the intuitive thing to do. Hell, even Cat did it at times, and he was vehemently opposed to deciding what to craft after-fight.
hogarth 06-09-07, 08:49 PM	To be specific, the proposal is that if a player puts [No Monster Fights] (or the equivalent) in their character's subject line and the pairings come up with a monster fight for that character, the GM will leave the character unpaired completely. So there wouldn't be any chance of getting paired and then backing out -- the character just wouldn't be paired in the first place. It would be a little more work for the person doing the pairings (since he would have to check the subject line of the character), but on the other hand: Players who don't like monster fights will be happier. Players who do like monster fights won't be affected. This results in a net increase in player satisfaction. A pitlord who would otherwise be assigned to an unwanted monster fight can be assigned elsewhere. This results in a net increase in pitlord availability. I can understand your argument that fighting monster fights may create a more well-rounded character. But personally I think that saying "Suffering through monster fights makes for a better character" is a little like telling people "Eat your vegetables and then you can have your dessert". I prefer my hobbies to be all "dessert"; I get enough "vegetables" at work. :D I'm not so sure about this, for various reasons. Among them being: people waiting to opt out until after the monster is rolled so they can choose to fight when they think they can win and not to when they can't (and that if we made it illegal to opt out after the roll was made some pitlords who make the roll on Wednesday as soon as pairings are made may accidentally screw over a player who would have opted out), that it seems very strange to allow players to opt out of this type of fight but no other, that monster fights serve a purpose in the CoCo aside from just giving characters with no opponent a foe (namely, encouraging characters to pick up knowledge skills and items they would likely otherwise not buy, such as weapons of different materials, bless/corrupt weapon oils, etc) and that not everyone seems to agree with just what the above-mentioned "CoCo philosophy" is. If everyone else is okay with it, then so be it, but I have reservations personally.
Salrantol 06-09-07, 11:38 PM	I'm not so sure about the alternative Usurpator just suggested, since it effectively gives characters free crafting, but hopefully we can get an agreement on one or the other of the initial suggestions anyway.I think with a slight modification it would work fine--since the characters don't get the items crafted until the end of the 3FC anyway, just switch the Craft free action to creating a pool of 1000 gp worth of crafting to occur at the end of the 3FC. Only part I can't figure out is how to list it--do we have the player PM their third fight pitlord with a list of what they've crafted for the 3FC? Do we require that it be included in tactics for week 3 "Craft X, Y, Z, and replacements for scrolls used this fight"? Or as an alternative, we can include an option for the third fight of a 3FC to have the ability to add "and replacements for expendables used this fight" to crafting requests, which bypasses all problems with extra expendables. If it ends up bringing the request over 1000 gp, it wouldn't take, and would require a full action (since it'd take that anyway), but otherwise would be seamless.
MindWandererB 06-11-07, 01:48 AM	Re: Guild (in)activity: the proposed change sounds good to me. While we're at it, I'd like to change the rule from 2 months of inactivity to 9 weeks; using months was always at odds with the rest of our game, and using weeks would make it easier to implement this change. Re: Planar Cohorts: I'm not sure. The creature needs to be one you can summon with PA, and you can't normally summon advanced monsters with those spells. On the other hand, the cohort is a specific individual, so it's not impossible that such a creature could level. Equipment and stats would be greatly affected: our cohort rules state that they're naked by default (not true for PAs), and stats for cohorts are 25-point buy (PAs are normally standard scores). Re: Opt-out on monster fights: I feel moderately strongly against this. I feel like PCs should be designed with monsters at least partially in mind. A PC in a TT game without a way to beat most DR types, circumvent common immunities, etc. is just asking for trouble. Should CoCo PCs be different? I don't think so; clearly, some people do. That being said, what's most important is for us to have fun. If monster fights just aren't fun for a number of people, that's a valid concern. I would start by asking why that is. What's so different about a monster from a fellow PC? Would it matter if the format were changed (to seperate thread), or the rules (doesn't count as a loss for PR/win ratio)? Re: Monster equipment: This is potentially a large discussion. I'd like to see a formal set of recommendations and rules for equipping monsters. Things like credit-cost items and expendables are obvious inclusions; I'd also like suggestions as to what kinds of equipment they should have (e.g. special-material weapons, unusual items, etc.). I recall a monster with a mess of crawling tattoos of Ego Whip that was not much like a typical monster of its type would have fought. Re: proposed expendables changes: I cannot honestly see what the problem is as things stand. Crafted items are not added to your gear until the end of the 3FC, so there's no risk of going over your cap mid-cycle. If you end up over the cap, you can sell back any items in excess at no loss. The only problem that's been hinted at that I recognize is the issue of mid-cycle levelling, and not being able to take advantage of the higher cap right away--a problem which is not solved by the currently popular proposal.
hogarth 06-11-07, 07:10 AM	Re: Opt-out on monster fights: I feel moderately strongly against this. I feel like PCs should be designed with monsters at least partially in mind. A PC in a TT game without a way to beat most DR types, circumvent common immunities, etc. is just asking for trouble. Should CoCo PCs be different? I don't think so; clearly, some people do. That being said, what's most important is for us to have fun. If monster fights just aren't fun for a number of people, that's a valid concern. I would start by asking why that is. What's so different about a monster from a fellow PC? Would it matter if the format were changed (to seperate thread), or the rules (doesn't count as a loss for PR/win ratio)? I can only speak for myself, but what I dislike about monster fights is (a) the wide difference in difficulty levels between monsters on the list and (b) the fact that you have to fight the pitlord, not another player. With regards to (a), I looked at about 4 months' worth of monster fights and I found that the success rate vs. monsters without equipment was 81% (17/21) and that the success rate vs. monsters with equipment was 39% (7/18). So one type is 40% easier than the other -- you're three times as likely to lose vs. a monster with equipment. I realise the same applies with gladiators (some are easy to beat, some are hard), but even if don't win you can often make a victory costly for your opponent; monsters have no motivation to save expendables (or spells, power points, x/day abilities, etc.) so they can "go nova" every fight. With regards to (b), I don't think anyone will be shocked if I suggest that some pitlords/questlords are tougher in monster fights than others. So my winning chances may depend on whether I get Ms. Nice or Mr. Nasty. For a player-vs-player battle, it shouldn't matter -- as long as the pitlord is impartial and gives a good-faith effort, one is as good as another (in theory). As I said, allowing people to opt out of monster fights should satisfy people who are unhappy with the status quo (since they can ignore the issue altogether) and should satisfy people who are happy with the status quo (since they won't see any difference with their characters). [Note: I'm glad we've managed to stay away from arguments like: "This is part of the purpose of the Core Coliseum and it always has been. There is no question of removing such an important part of this group."]
McJarvis 06-11-07, 08:17 AM	Re: proposed expendables changes: I cannot honestly see what the problem is as things stand. Crafted items are not added to your gear until the end of the 3FC, so there's no risk of going over your cap mid-cycle. If you end up over the cap, you can sell back any items in excess at no loss. The only problem that's been hinted at that I recognize is the issue of mid-cycle levelling, and not being able to take advantage of the higher cap right away--a problem which is not solved by the currently popular proposal. The reason for it is so that the free activity is not wasted. With the new plan a gladiator would only need to spend 1 free activity to gain 1000gp of expendables-> which very well could last 3 3FC's or more. With the current rules, the gladiator would have to spend 1 free activity per 3FC to keep scrolls up.
Rauul 06-11-07, 08:21 AM	Re: Opt-out on monster fights: I feel moderately strongly against this. I feel like PCs should be designed with monsters at least partially in mind. A PC in a TT game without a way to beat most DR types, circumvent common immunities, etc. is just asking for trouble. Should CoCo PCs be different? I don't think so; clearly, some people do. here is my problem with a Monster vs Player fight... Challenge Rating = Experience Level Only in a Monster fight is CR = to ECL, all along we are told this isn't true, That Coco don't operate under that policy... then in ECL 6 you get hit with a Sea Hag Vampire (CR 6 (3 hit dice of monsterous humanoid, now undead (d12) with a +8 Level Adjustment) = ECL 11) By rights.. thats like facing off an ECL 6 character vs Abysall Stalker's vampire at ecl 10 (Double standard treasure: 11,200 gp) Templates add Level adjustments.. but since in Monster fights it's CR = ECL the level adjustments mean nothing... ECL should not equal CR.. ECL should equal Hitdice +level adjustments..
McJarvis 06-11-07, 11:45 AM	For monster fights: Why not only use CR where ECL is unavailable?(LA-less races) This should put a stop to some of the more nasty "most PCs auto-lose" fights.
MindWandererB 06-11-07, 12:20 PM	For monster fights: Why not only use CR where ECL is unavailable?(LA-less races) This should put a stop to some of the more nasty "most PCs auto-lose" fights. And would create others--since if we use ECL, then we have to use 36-point buy, like a PC, to be fair. Which also means a lot more work for the pitlords, since they'd have to advance the stats on nearly every monster they ran. Furthermore, they'd also have to have CoCo-optimized equipment and feats if they were to present an appropriate challenge (again, like a PC).I can only speak for myself, but what I dislike about monster fights is (a) the wide difference in difficulty levels between monsters on the list and (b) the fact that you have to fight the pitlord, not another player. With regards to (a), I looked at about 4 months' worth of monster fights and I found that the success rate vs. monsters without equipment was 81% (17/21) and that the success rate vs. monsters with equipment was 39% (7/18). So one type is 40% easier than the other -- you're three times as likely to lose vs. a monster with equipment. I realise the same applies with gladiators (some are easy to beat, some are hard), but even if don't win you can often make a victory costly for your opponent; monsters have no motivation to save expendables (or spells, power points, x/day abilities, etc.) so they can "go nova" every fight. With regards to (b), I don't think anyone will be shocked if I suggest that some pitlords/questlords are tougher in monster fights than others. So my winning chances may depend on whether I get Ms. Nice or Mr. Nasty. For a player-vs-player battle, it shouldn't matter -- as long as the pitlord is impartial and gives a good-faith effort, one is as good as another (in theory). As I said, allowing people to opt out of monster fights should satisfy people who are unhappy with the status quo (since they can ignore the issue altogether) and should satisfy people who are happy with the status quo (since they won't see any difference with their characters).Based on (a), it looks like standardizing equipment would go a long way towards fixing this--I know I lose to Telin's monsters a bit more often than to others', mostly because he equips them well. I think trying that might be a better first step than a more drastic change. As for (b), how is that different from a fight vs. a PC? Some players have better strategies than others. I would like to see more pitlords writing formal, PC-quality tactics for their monsters before running their fights, but other than that, I don't really think it's a problem. [Note: I'm glad we've managed to stay away from arguments like: "This is part of the purpose of the Core Coliseum and it always has been. There is no question of removing such an important part of this group."]Ah, Cat's favorite argument. I don't think you'll be seeing that one very often anymore. Vision is a great thing, but so is flexibility.
Usurpator 06-11-07, 12:55 PM	Re: Opt-out on monster fights: I feel moderately strongly against this. I feel like PCs should be designed with monsters at least partially in mind. A PC in a TT game without a way to beat most DR types, circumvent common immunities, etc. is just asking for trouble. Should CoCo PCs be different? I don't think so; clearly, some people do. Monster fights were designed to give gladiators who don't have an opponent something to do. Somehow a long the way it become an obligation instead of an option. I hate to shatter this illusion that keeps coming up, but CoCo PCs are *nothing* like TT PCs. I had written a whole list of arguments explaining the differences, but you just try to convince your TT friends that CoCo characters are like regular characters after telling them about the battle for 'top CoCo dog' was settled between a Monk Were-Direbat and a Phrenic Old Wizard-Psion-Cerebremancer riding a large advanced Yeth Hound and using a wand of magic missiles as his primary killing weapon. CoCo PCs are designed to for very tough solo fights, while TT games PCs are designed for easy cooperative fights and lots of non-fighting encounters besides. That being said, what's most important is for us to have fun. If monster fights just aren't fun for a number of people, that's a valid concern. I would start by asking why that is. What's so different about a monster from a fellow PC? Would it matter if the format were changed (to seperate thread), or the rules (doesn't count as a loss for PR/win ratio)? A. Lack of Information Most of the time I don't have *any* information about what monster I am facing. In fights against a fellow PC I have complete information (including a fight history). That makes monster fights a completely different challenge. I have loads of fun analyzing my opponent, studying his sheet and past fights, and trying to predict his tactics. This is largely impossible in monster fights. B. Swingy Challenges There are a lot of monsters that my characters have little hope of beating unless they pull some kind of evasion trick. Flying/superior movement + ranged attacks are very effective against a large portion of the monsters. I don't like spending a scroll of Fly for a near auto-win, neither do I like not spending the scroll for a near auto-lose. Near auto-win / near auto-lose fights devalue the importance of tactics and builds. Against a lot of monsters your tactics or build really isn't that important. A single expendable or item might be very important though. C. Monster fights don't have opponents I'd like to test my mettle against another person, not against a neutral arbiter. I love reading my opponent's tactics. Additionally, I can do monster fights perfectly fine myself at home. I'll get my character, write general tactics, roll a monster from the list, adapt tactics if I happen to identify the monster and write tactics for the monster and then run it. Because I can't improvise (like in a MQ or TT game) running a scripted fight against a monster with generic tactics is pretty easy. I don't need Pitlords to do that, I think that's a waste of time. Let's not forget that a monster fight takes one Pitlord for one player. For other fights one Pitlord services two or more players. Combining this with the fact that Pitlord services are at a premium, and I don't like the monster fights, I don't understand why it is neccessary for me to do them. The CoCo is not a well-rounded gladiator contest, it is a PC vs. PC arena.
hogarth 06-11-07, 01:15 PM	Based on (a), it looks like standardizing equipment would go a long way towards fixing this--I know I lose to Telin's monsters a bit more often than to others', mostly because he equips them well. I think trying that might be a better first step than a more drastic change. Let me try to explain things a different way. It seems like you're starting with the assumption that monster fights are basically fun, but a few tweaks to the system would make them more fun. But I'm saying that I think that monster fights are basically a chore (one that's either too easy or too hard depending on whether the monster is dumb or smart); a few tweaks to the system might change the ratio of hard/easy fights, but they would still be a chore. So why not allow a simple solution that rids me of a chore and still allows you to have fun?
McJarvis 06-11-07, 01:22 PM	RE: Using ECL: It may not change the difficulty(_may_ not), but at least the monster fight would be closer to a normal fight. RE: Removing monster fights entirely? I love this idea-> and frankly wouldn't object to facing an opponent one ECL higher than my character every once and a while just to avoid them. Since our rewards change depending no the level of difficulty of the fight, even if you lose you are better off than if you faced off against a random monster & lost. And if you win, the rewards are sweet indeed. Of course, the gladiator at the higher ECL is somewhat hurt[lower rewards either way]
MindWandererB 06-11-07, 01:27 PM	Monster fights were designed to give gladiators who don't have an opponent something to do. Somehow a long the way it become an obligation instead of an option.Actually, it's the other way around. Monster fights were part of CoCo before PvP battles were. PCs were originally designed to be able to fight monsters primarily, and other PCs secondarily.I hate to shatter this illusion that keeps coming up, but CoCo PCs are *nothing* like TT PCs. I had written a whole list of arguments explaining the differences, but you just try to convince your TT friends that CoCo characters are like regular characters after telling them about the battle for 'top CoCo dog' was settled between a Monk Were-Direbat and a Phrenic Old Wizard-Psion-Cerebremancer riding a large advanced Yeth Hound and using a wand of magic missiles as his primary killing weapon. CoCo PCs are designed to for very tough solo fights, while TT games PCs are designed for easy cooperative fights and lots of non-fighting encounters besides.I wouldn't say "nothing," but you're right--they're pretty different. I'd like to keep those differences to a minimum (eliminating absurdities like Diplomacy allies), but some are unavoidable (like the uselessness of many skills, and the value of expendables). The utter inability to handle monster opponents may be a difference that can be avoided.A. Lack of Information Most of the time I don't have *any* information about what monster I am facing. In fights against a fellow PC I have complete information (including a fight history). That makes monster fights a completely different challenge. I have loads of fun analyzing my opponent, studying his sheet and past fights, and trying to predict his tactics. This is largely impossible in monster fights. B. Swingy Challenges There are a lot of monsters that my characters have little hope of beating unless they pull some kind of evasion trick. Flying/superior movement + ranged attacks are very effective against a large portion of the monsters. I don't like spending a scroll of Fly for a near auto-win, neither do I like not spending the scroll for a near auto-lose. Near auto-win / near auto-lose fights devalue the importance of tactics and builds. Against a lot of monsters your tactics or build really isn't that important. A single expendable or item might be very important though. C. Monster fights don't have opponents I'd like to test my mettle against another person, not against a neutral arbiter. I love reading my opponent's tactics. Additionally, I can do monster fights perfectly fine myself at home. I'll get my character, write general tactics, roll a monster from the list, adapt tactics if I happen to identify the monster and write tactics for the monster and then run it. Because I can't improvise (like in a MQ or TT game) running a scripted fight against a monster with generic tactics is pretty easy. I don't need Pitlords to do that, I think that's a waste of time.All valid complaints. One of my biggest concerns is balance. When a player knows that a PC will never face a monster, they never have to prepare for such a fight. That frees up some of their resources to focus even more on beating PCs. Players that are willing to face monsters will therefore be a bit weaker in a vs. battle than ones who are not. I'm afraid that most players would take the opt-out, given this consideration. I know I would--I lose more often to monsters than to PCs by a substantial margin.
Usurpator 06-11-07, 01:36 PM	One of my biggest concerns is balance. When a player knows that a PC will never face a monster, they never have to prepare for such a fight. That frees up some of their resources to focus even more on beating PCs. Could you give a few examples of that? Could other people here give examples in how they equipped their gladiators differently in preparation for monster fights? In my opinion those extra resources devoted are fairly minimal. Perhaps a blunt weapon and a few silver arrows. No PC is going to get an holy weapon on the 1% odds that he might fight a monster with DR 10/Good someday. And insofar those extra resources are devoted, they rarely outstrip the gold reserves that gladiators have. Only if the chosen resources actually make a gladiator unable to pay other things (an opportunity cost) is it actually a penalty. I don't think that is generally true. I don't know if many people will try and opt-out of monster fights, but if many do, it should be a clear sign that many don't desire it for a variety of reasons. Besides, it's not like monster fights are lost, we still retain the more pleasant version of it in the form of a MQ, for all Pitlords and players who still like to fight monsters.
hogarth 06-11-07, 01:41 PM	I'm afraid that most players would take the opt-out, given this consideration. I know I would--I lose more often to monsters than to PCs by a substantial margin. See, this is the crux of the argument, IMO. If most players would choose not to do something that's ostensibly fun, why should we force them to?
Usurpator 06-11-07, 01:59 PM	See, this is the crux of the argument, IMO. If most players would choose not to do something that's ostensibly fun, why should we force them to? We might because of some kind of trade-off or balance issue. Some people may not like to fight on certain maps, since it would disadvantage their character, some characters might not want to fight certain other gladiators, since they won't stand a chance against them. Obviously the tradeoff in such a case would be that other gladiators would love to fight on a certain map, or would love to have good odds of victory. Obviously, a map that nobody likes should be changed. The only trade-off I can currently think of is that some Pitlords like to have monster fights (just for doing them, or for earning credits) and won't get enough if the rule is made optional. EDIT: of course, another major reason for keeping them might be: "we have put a lot of effort into streamlining monster fights, if we make it optional and most people won't do monster fights anymore, that effort is wasted."
Yitzi 06-11-07, 05:17 PM	If we do eliminate monster fights (or allow full knowledge), then there probably should be a new use for the associated knowledge skills.
Sjiggie 06-11-07, 06:36 PM	Why can't we run the monster fights as a MQ. A MQ takes one pitlord for 1 player and monster fights do the same. This way if you don't have the knowledge you have to adapt when you get to see your opponent and if you have the appropiate knowledge skill you can begin with your tactics from the start.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 08:51 AM	Immediate correction: I think the Troll should use ECL instead of CR. Merely putting a few acid/fire resist potions on this combatent makes it require dispel-magic to beat, and even then the opponent is a seriously tough kill. [Plus he has more hd than any ECL5 gladiator that he'll face...] Regeneration/energy shouldn't be put as low as ECL7[or 5, if a troll is on the CR5 monster list...haven't checked] As-is, this opponent more or less requires egowhip, dispel magic/psionics, or a seriously long-lasting opponent.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 09:07 AM	Resistance won't make it unkillable. A troll is horridly easy to take down. Shoot it til if falls over from subdual. Then run up and strike it 100 extra times. At this point it's subdual should be such that it won't wake up for an hour. Then start choking it to death. It will sufficate and die fairly quickly.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 09:11 AM	Resistance won't make it unkillable. A troll is horridly easy to take down. Shoot it til if falls over from subdual. Then run up and strike it 100 extra times. At this point it's subdual should be such that it won't wake up for an hour. Then start choking it to death. It will sufficate and die fairly quickly. 1) Making it fall over from subdual isn't that easy to begin with 2) Expecting every gladiator to know this....?
Usurpator 06-12-07, 09:15 AM	Resistance won't make it unkillable. A troll is horridly easy to take down. Shoot it til if falls over from subdual. Then run up and strike it 100 extra times. At this point it's subdual should be such that it won't wake up for an hour. Then start choking it to death. It will sufficate and die fairly quickly. Most monsters are easy to take down when you can stay at range (fast movement, flight) and can attack them from range. But if I roll a Troll against a gladiator that can stay at range, should I reroll to avoid an auto-win? Even then, give the troll a potion of Fly, and it's trouble all over again. I'd like to see the ECL5 gladiator that can kill a fire-resisted flying Troll without resorting to dispel magic.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 09:27 AM	But if I roll a Troll against a gladiator that can stay at range, should I reroll to avoid an auto-win? Even then, give the troll a potion of Fly, and it's trouble all over again. I'd like to see the ECL5 gladiator that can kill a fire-resisted flying Troll without resorting to dispel magic. Egowhip, but that's about it.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 09:38 AM	1) Making it fall over from subdual isn't that easy to begin with 2) Expecting every gladiator to know this....? Heal of 0 ranks will tell you a creature is unconscious for free. Putting 100 more sword blows into it without the arena saying the match is over will inform the character that something else needs to be done. Choking it til it sufficates will set off the arena to tell them they are done. I would assume gladiators know when they are allowed to leave the arena. There is something that tells them the fight is over. They have been doing this for sometime. And knocking over a troll with subdual is about as hard as knocking over the tattoo wielding warrior. So, yeah.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 09:51 AM	But, yes, that is playing for the arena not for reality. In truth, doing that in a real game will probably still get you the experience for encountering and defeating a troll. It would reform at that location probably a day or two later. But, it was encountered and defeated. The gladiator is assumed to be playing to the rules of the arena. Not to rules of normal combat. This is represented by the delay penalty and the fact you loose the match if you find yourself out of the arena for 10 rounds.
Yitzi 06-12-07, 10:52 AM	That's how you win-knock the troll unconscious, take it out of the arena, return, and wait 10 rounds. Or use the choking method.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 11:08 AM	Someone brought up a good point in the FotW thread-> banning expendables use on monsters could solve alot of the "equipped monsters win easily" problems. On the other hand, potions of fly/spider climb easily keep fights from being auto-losses[and in some cases, turn them into auto-wins]
SoulLord 06-12-07, 11:31 AM	I like monster fights rather than not fighting but I agree that a "softer" equipment list could be desirable. as an alternative from monsters why not just pick mercenaries or retired gladiators from the coco roster.
templer10 06-12-07, 11:35 AM	Ill like to jump on the Monster fights need to be reworked or canceled bandwagon - as they are now - a monster can (and iam repeating points said already) a)blow all it's spells/pps power per day on 1 fight. B)buy full load of expendbles for 1 fight and use it (and yes i know they are supposed to be bought as for 3 weeks but that doesnt happen - look at lord lorian's fight this week- troll used 1000 GP worth of expendbles). C)have significan numeriacal adventage on gladiators - in some maps haveing a lot of weak monsters is an adcantage (prevent evasion tactics etc) D)monsters are over optimized (the one with gear) above and beyond the reasonble and more like a gladiator will. e)the pitlord more often then not - will react to situations that come up in the fight despite not having written them in tactics f)a fighter rarely know what he is facing exacly. the monster ALWAYS KNOW. (and yes i know you arent supposed to look at the char but that usually isnt the case) there are many more reasons - these just what i wrote in a flash- my suggestions on improvments- 1)make all monster fights in seperate thread fights since they are essentially gladiator VS pitlord and the pitlord iam afraid ISNT nutral. 2)make it easier to identify monsters or give full knowladge prior to fight. 3)make monsters subject to the 1/3 rule (to compensate give NPC's which are classed 32/36 point buy). 4)make monster to be able to buy only 1/3 of teh normal expendble cap or Buy per ECL but can use only 1/3 of it (to make sure monsters dont blow all their expendbles on 1 fight
Usurpator 06-12-07, 12:16 PM	f)a fighter rarely know what he is facing exacly. the monster ALWAYS KNOW. (and yes i know you arent supposed to look at the char but that usually isnt the case) From what I heard you are supposed to look at the char and then write tactics, so it's even worse. Just suppose we would do PC fights like this: 1. Your opponent with full knowledge of your stats and equipment. 2. Your opponent not hampered by the 1/3rd rule. 3. Your opponent not concerned with conserving expendables. 4. Your opponent fighting in a league equal to his CR 5. You with no knowledge about your opponent. 6. You hampered by the 1/3rd rule. 7. You concerned with conserving expendables. 8. You fighting in a league equal to your ECL. And then the fight is run by the Pitlord who also created and wrote tactics for your opponent. If PCs were to fight like this, it would be obvious that the first one would win most encounters barring luck or some extraordinary other circumstance. If monster fights have 50/50 odds, that would seem to indicate that monsters aren't trying as hard to win their fights as PCs do. Probably Pitlords are lenient in choosing equipment, and lenient in writing tactics. Personally I don't like it that Pitlord leniency has such a big impact on monster fight results.
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 12:29 PM	Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following: 1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below. 2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows:75-80% of the creature's wealth goes into Andy Collins' Big Six: weapons (primary melee and ranged), armor (& shield), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and ability-score boosters. For weapons and armor, the pitlord should choose upgraded versions of the monster's default equipment, if they have any--and, of course, they should be skipped for monsters without proficiency. Monsters of at least CR 4 should have backup silver weapons, and ones of at least CR 5 should have cold iron as well. Creatures with a PP reserve of at least 2 should have Deepcrystal as their primary weapons, and ones with Improved Sunder should have adamantine (in both cases, if they can afford it). 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth. The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided. 3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead. Thoughts?
McJarvis 06-12-07, 12:29 PM	edit *post snipped*-> In restrospect, I just said a bunch of words & didn't add anything. I like MWB's suggestion. Especially the 10% expendables cap & set list of expendables. Might want to set a CL range in there. [& the types of chars that can craft them] Might want to add some tattoos on there for certain types of critters. [ I think a lion could use a tattoo if trained]
Usurpator 06-12-07, 12:42 PM	Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following: Thoughts? It is a start, (EDIT: and an excellent start at that) but I prefer my earlier suggestions as well as suggestions by others (like the MQ option). If we are continuing the 'experiment' to make monster fights fair and/or more interesting, I suggest that until we find the right balance we institute a temporary 'No Monster Fight' option for those that don't desire to participate in such experiments.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 12:44 PM	I think a lion could use a tattoo if trained True, but if it was trained, you would have a master ... if it isn't trained ... then is it really going to let someone inscribe a tattoo with sharp pointy objects?
McJarvis 06-12-07, 12:46 PM	Experimentation isn't a bad idea. I'd be willing to run some mock-monster fights[or just some real ones in the arena, as I've opted to do pitlord-wise] to see how fully fleshed out monsters do. [All statistics we can gather are ultimately flawed, since many fights are just given away due to the pitlords not wanting to deal with gladiators.] I, on the other hand, am willing to go the exta mile & plan the monster correctly, then read the character sheet, then etc. [and genuinely believe I am capable of being impartial(I mean, who cares if I win, right? :) ). Lorians fight this week was merely a matter of not having proper limitations in place regarding equipment.]
McJarvis 06-12-07, 12:46 PM	True, but if it was trained, you would have a master ... if it isn't trained ... then is it really going to let someone inscribe a tattoo with sharp pointy objects? I'm not sure that's how psionic tattoo's are delivered. [by needle, that is]
McJarvis 06-12-07, 12:59 PM	Questions regarding monster fights-> 1) Do we use the standard feats listed in the MM, or is that editable? I ran the standard in Lorian's fight because I wanted to give him a chance. 2) Point buy-> we just use stats straight out of the book, right? Standard list of equipment: I think it would be fair to instruct the pitlord to equip the monster to deal with a number of different issues. MWB once told me in chat that you need a plan for invisibility, flight[ranged], melee, and high saves-> and once you've got those covered you're ready for most fights. [This is VERY paraphrased-> he might have had a different list even] "Guidelines" of what to prepare the monster for, regardless of the gladiator at hand, would be a good rule of thumb to tell if a monster was too tweaked vs a specific opponent. edit-> RE: Standard potion list: Enlarge person is not an issue since most monsters are not valid targets. Tat's of expansion are, and [i]potions of alterself are definately in that category. Most of the "standard potion list" in the SRD should be OK, though, and I'd suggest we point to that with a "banned list" rather than making an extensive list of things that are allowed. Also, we need a firm ruling on whether monsters can use credits. edit#2-> Man, sorry for all the posts. Boring day at work.
hogarth 06-12-07, 01:06 PM	Experimentation isn't a bad idea. I'd be willing to run some mock-monster fights[or just some real ones in the arena, as I've opted to do pitlord-wise] to see how fully fleshed out monsters do. [All statistics we can gather are ultimately flawed, since many fights are just given away due to the pitlords not wanting to deal with gladiators.] I would argue the exact opposite -- basing results on how one pitlord handles monsters is ultimately flawed, since that pitlord will not be handling 100% of monster fights in practice. Unless you're volunteering for the new position of Monsterlord (tm), that is.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 01:20 PM	I would argue the exact opposite -- basing results on how one pitlord handles monsters is ultimately flawed, since that pitlord will not be handling 100% of monster fights in practice. Unless you're volunteering for the new position of Monsterlord (tm), that is. Given that there are only 1->3 monster fights a week, that's not a terrible suggestion. Perhaps two people with a similar mindset could volunteer for the jobs & keep an eye on each other[to prevent arbitrary decisions]
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 01:25 PM	Questions regarding monster fights-> [I've asked these before, but always forget the answer...] 1) Do we use the standard feats listed in the MM, or is that editable? I ran the standard in Lorian's fight because I wanted to give him a chance. 2) Point buy-> we just use stats straight out of the book, right?Unless the monster has class levels or is elite, you use the stats as they are printed. And if it has feats listed (always true except for dragons and monsters with extra HD), you use those. Standard list of equipment: I think it would be fair to instruct the pitlord to equip the monster to deal with a number of different issues. MWB once told me in chat that you need a plan for invisibility, flight[ranged], melee, and high saves-> and once you've got those covered you're ready for most fights. [This is VERY paraphrased-> he might have had a different list even] "Guidelines" of what to prepare the monster for, regardless of the gladiator at hand, would be a good rule of thumb to tell if a monster was too tweaked vs a specific opponent.That's exactly what I was going for, which is why I went in the direction of creating a list of things to choose from rather than a list of prohibitions. First of all, it simplifies the pitlord's job by not having to look through the SRD/DMG for items. Second, it forces the pitlord to prepare for multiple situations--if Prot. Evil potions are standard equipment, the pitlord doesn't even have to consider its value as an anti-summon measure. Everything on the draft I proposed is either a standard buff to augment the creature's existing abilities, or a countermeasure against a frequently-occurring threat. As for taking monster fights off the docket entirely, even temporarily: I just don't see how. Many can be avoided by using interleague fights and FFAs, but that's not an option at ECL 3. Unless we always have one (and exactly one, unless it's randomly determined) ECL 3 PC that can be taken off the pairings in the event of an odd number of gladiators, there's going to be a monster fight. In any event, they still need to be balanced for the sake of quests, especially guild operations. Re: credits: I knew there was something I forgot to mention... editing it in.
SauroGrenom 06-12-07, 03:56 PM	Sorry for being out of it, but where are we on what discussions? We've talked about but not decided on anything to do with: Diplomacy allies, Handle animal allies, purchased allies advanced allies allies with a CR and no ECL Monster fights (removing them or not) Monster equipment (standard lists) And I think there were a couple other things brought up in the midst as well. So what's on the table for discussion right now?
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 04:07 PM	Diplomacy allies: nonexistent, at the moment. I'm encouraging mercenary submissions. Handle Animal allies: no change at present--when I left, there was nothing remotely resembling a consensus on the "list." Same goes for the other allies. Monster fights: Still possible, but I'll try to do pairings in such a way as to avoid them as much as possible, for the time being, since it seems more people dislike than like them. Monster equipment: not much headway; I proposed a draft a few posts ago, which there's been little comment on yet.
Hirumajoe 06-12-07, 04:16 PM	Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following: *Snip* Thoughts? I like the proposed suggestions. It certainly limits the permutations you have to consider as a pitlord. And you can make some basic assumptions no matter the monster as a player (i.e. it either will fly naturally or will have a potion of fly at the higher ECLs). At the moment, I don't see a down side to any of these.
SauroGrenom 06-12-07, 04:26 PM	Diplomacy allies: nonexistent, at the moment. I'm encouraging mercenary submissions. In this case, you need to edit the rules thread ASAP. I just set my characters to ready for the arena after checking the rules thread, and now you're telling me that some of them are in violation of the rules that are not yet edited.
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 04:29 PM	In this case, you need to edit the rules thread ASAP. I just set my characters to ready for the arena after checking the rules thread, and now you're telling me that some of them are in violation of the rules that are not yet edited. Yeah, I didn't have time before I left for vacation. Some of the references to Diplomacy allies are gone, but there are just so many! I just finished with the roster (finally), so I'll take another look.
SauroGrenom 06-12-07, 06:23 PM	OK, let's try to continue to make some progress. This allies thing is still open for discussion. The following is my best so far considering all the various comments from the elders on the issue. So what I've been able to work out is a mechanism where the Minimal ECL Requirement replaces the CR+4 mechanic and the ECL+2 mechanic. The allies gained by things like planar ally and animate undead are so monstrously numerous that a list is not practical right now. I looked into it, and there would be at least a thousand possible things to put on that list. I haven't gotten that far. I'm totally open to specific suggestions or comments. The general theme here is that our CoCo house rule allies and purchased allies should come back down to earth and be just a step behind allies gained by class features and feats. To summarize: diplomacy will be worked into mercenaries some how (not yet worked out), HA allies will come into line with being a bit behind the druid cohort at any level, purchased allies will be balanced as best we can considering the general CoCo environment and the druid cohorts, and advanced HD or customized feats on HA or purchased allies won't be available (although leadership and class allies could do that). The Rules of Gladius: Allies I Ally Categories and Acquiring Allies Many characters make use of the assistance of allies, be it a mount that bears a paladin into combat, or the sorcerer's cleric cohort who heals him during the fight. They are divided into several categories (see below) which determines how the allies is being handled in the Core Coliseum. For a full list of all available allies see FAQ: Allies II. Class Feature Allies: Druids/Rangers receive an animal companion, Paladins receive a special mount, Wizards/Sorcerers receive a familiar, and some Prestige Classes allow for class allies. These class feature allies do not require a share of the character's xp or gold, nor do they count against the ally power limit (see below for details on maximum allies allowed). The exceptions are Planar Cohorts (for Thaumaturgs) and Thralls (for Thrallherds). Both these ally types count against your capacity of how many allies you can bring in; they do, however, not require a share of xp or gold, just like all class allies. Unless otherwise noted the character must go on a Quest to acquire a class ally. Class feature allies use the 25 pt buy to determine ability scores if they have a LA listed (planar cohort, thrall), else, if the ally has no LA (paladin mount, wizard familiar, etc) it uses the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever bonus it gets from being a class ally. Allies of my Ally: It might of course happen that you have an ally who has class allies on his own, like in case of a druid cohort who has an animal companion, or a thaumaturg's planar cohort might be a thrallherd whose thralls are sorcerers with familiars, and so on. To prevent the creation of a long string of allies, leadership-like class allies (thaumaturg's cohort and thralls) of your class ally do always count against your maxCA (see below). That means, you may use your cohort's class ally but it counts against your limit and might prevent to make use of your own cohort. If the class ally of your ally is a non-ECL creature, it can enter for free and does not count against your limit. Purchased Allies: If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirements, you may buy any of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/goodsAndServices.html). You do not have to go on a Quest to acquire these animals. You simply pay the price and they are yours if your ECL is sufficient. Bought animals are trained if listed as such while Exotic allies always come untrained. They count for calculating what additional allies you may bring in and you suffer xp and gp penalties for using them. The animals that can be bought are the following: guard dog, riding dog, donkey, heavy horse, light horse, heavy warhorse, light warhorse, pony, and war pony. Bought animals always use the abilities presented in their Monster Manual entry. You can also buy other types of allies although these are much more expensive. These Exotic Allies include the Giant Eagle, Griffon, Hippogriff, Giant Owl, Pegasus, Pseudodragon, Spidereater, Flesh Golem, Clay Golem, Stone Golem (incl. Greater Stone Golem), Iron Golem, Psion-Killer and the Shield Guardian. See FAQ: Allies II for more information on these exotic allies. Handle Animal Allies: If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirement, you may tame and train an animal with the Handle Animal Skill (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#handle-animal). This requires two steps. First, you must find the animal in question. You will need to take part in a Miniquest for this purpose (or a regular 3-week Quest if you want) and your Handle Animal skill and ECL must be sufficient for this animal (see FAQ: Allies II for a complete list). Once aquired, it can be used although those animals are always untrained. The second step is training the animal. This requires a certain amount of time (see the FAQ: Skills (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576) Handle Animal description for details on training and time), and a Handle Animal check, which you must take 10 on. Once both steps are completed, you have your animal ally. Note that all Handle Animal allies require a share of your xp and gold if they participate in a fight (see below for details). Handled Animals always use the abilities presented in their entry. Leadership Allies (Cohorts): The Leadership feat is one of the most common ways to get a cohort. You need to go on a quest to find your Leadership cohort. Note that there are two important differences between Leadership cohorts in the Core Coliseum and the rules written down in the PHB. Firstly, Leadership cohorts do not keep track of XP, and do not use the method of advancement outlined in the PHB. Instead, they are always at the maximum level allowed by your Leadership score (see DMG,p106). For example, if your Leadership score is 17, your cohort would be level 12. You may have your cohort be lower in level than what would be allowed by your Leadership score, if you like; however, you cannot "regress" your cohort in levels. If, for example, your cohort was level 10 at one point, then he may never drop below level 10 from then on. If your Leadership score drops for some reason, and is no longer sufficient for your cohort, then your cohort will not help you in any way until you get your Leadership score back up again. Secondly, Leadership cohorts, like most other cohorts, require a share of your XP and gold (see below). All leadership allies use the 25 pt-buy method to determine ability scores. Leadership Modifiers: Special circumstances may modify your Leadership score (DMG,p106/107). If you have a familiar, a special mount, or an animal companion (all from a class feature), your leadership score drops by 2. If you recruit a cohort of different alignment, your leadership score drops by 1. If you caused the death of your cohort (outside the Nimbus only), your leadership score permanently drops by 1 per deceased cohort. Other modifiers, like Reputation or Leader behaviour do not apply yet. However, sooner or later we will introduce Special Events and Reputation of Characters which may influence your leadership score further. Spells, Powers, and Abilities: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. You must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement of CR+4 for these allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA. Planar Ally Spells: A caster can call a specific planar ally to aid him in his fights, provided he can communicate verbally or telepathically. The spell and ally must be prebuffed normally and counts against the maxCA. Thanks to the Nimbus, the task is always 'non-hazardous' which positively affects the payment. A min/lvl task begins with the next fight while an hour/lvl (or longer) task begins with the casting of the spell and has to survive the time roll. Improved Ally: Thaumaturgs can use their Improved Ally class ability to decrease the payment further (by half; stacks with non-hazardous) by bringing the Planar Ally attitude to 'helpful' (see PHB,p72) and you always take 10 on this check. If the ally shares your alignment, it is friendly (Dc20); it is indifferent if its alignment is one step away from your own (Dc30), and it is unfriendly in case of two steps (Dc40). Note that is must always share at least one aspect of your alignment. Special: If you pass the 'helpful' Dc by X or more, the planar ally fights for free. X is the number of HD of the called ally. Ally Alignments: Planar Allies with an 'Always' alignment listed always have that alignment. If only one part is listed as 'Always' (eg. always good) then the other component is free to pick by the player. If the planar ally has a 'Usually' alignment listed, it can be anything within one step (eg. usually CE can also be NE or CN). An alignment entry of 'Often' can be up to two steps away (eg CE can be anything but LG, LN, or NG). Alignments listed as 'Any' are up for the player to decide. Mercenaries: If the character meets the Minimal ECL Requirement of ECL+2, any character may recruit one or more Mercenaries from the Mercenaries Guild. So if a character wishes to hire an ECL5 mercenary, they must be at least ECL7. Asides requiring the usual share of your XP and gold for bringing in an ally (see below), Mercenaries also require an extra amount of gold on top of that for hiring them. You can recruit an available Mercenary by sending a PM to Pitlords. Once a mercenary is hired by a gladiator, it is not available to other gladiators until his task is complete. First come, first serve. Mercenaries always use the 25 pt-buy method to determine ability scores. The fees for Mercenaries are listed under Used Items in the fight by the Pitlord of that fight. Mercenary Price to ECL hire 1 100 2 200 3 300 4 400 5 533 6 666 7 866 8 1,133 9 1,500 10 1,933 11 2,500 12 3,266 13 4,333 14 5,666 15 7.333 16 9,333 17 12,000 18 15,666 Ally Spellcasting and Crafting First of all, allies may not craft any items; neither mundane nor magical ones. Cohorts with levels in a spellcasting class can aid the character by casting spells on him. Basically, these buff spells have the same limitation that every prebuff has (minimum 16 hours) so the Cohort can cast mage armor or nondetection on the gladiator if it is a viable prebuff. The cohort can of course also cast spells on himself. However, there are some limitations to what a cohort may cast. Obviously, the spell cannot have a range of personal unless the Cohort casts it on himself. If the spell has a material component, the gladiator must provide it. Since the Cohort has no XP he cannot cast any spells with an XP component at all. The cast spells must be marked off (either by silvering it out or using strikethrough) on the spell-list. Like with player characters, these prebuffs follow the same rules for prebuffs. As long as the cohort casts a single spell on the gladiator (or assists him in any other way) the cohort is considered to be participating in the fight, even if the gladiator leaves the cohort at home. The cohort took an active part in increasing the chances for a win so the ally rule applies normally. Customizing Allies Advancing a Monster by Elite Ability Array All basic monsters are assumed to have the Standard Ability Array (all 10's or 11's). You can assign those monsters Elite Ability Array (15,14,13,12,10,8) by increasing its CR by 1. But how can you do this? Let's take a wolf. First, you have to determine its ability modifiers. To do this, you need to look at its abilities: 13, 15, 15, 2, 12, 6 (since it is an animal, its mental abilities won't change so you can just forget about them here). Substract 10 from these abilities, and round it down if uneven. That's your ability modifier. So the wolf's modifiers are Strength+2, Dexterity+4, and Constitution+4. Now you just have to assign these to the new elite array (you take the three highest ones, of course) 15, 14, 13. Let's assign the 15 to strength, the 14 to constitution, and the 13 to dexterity, add the wolf modifiers, and you will end up with a wolf having these abilities: Str17, Dex17, Con18, Int2, Wis12, Cha6. All this has an impact on its attacks, AC, hitpoints, skills, special abilities, and of course, the Challenging Rate! Note that Elite Allies cost more gold than their normal counterparts (see FAQ: Allies II). Customizing creatures: How can I do that? 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 skills. 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! 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 handle animal cost credits to customize: you have to pay 5° if you want to relocate skill points. Post your request in the Blackmarket (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641) and link the Pitlords answer. See FAQ: Allies II for increased prices. The Cap on Allies You may have any number of cohorts or allies. However, there is a limit to how many you can have helping you in any given battle. ("helping" means anything from actually being present in the Arena or quest to fight with you, to just casting a pre-buff on you. If a cohort or ally had anything to do with your fight, it will count against the limit). Any ally you want to bring into a fight, quest or whatever must be prebuffed! For more information on Prebuffs, see Arena Combat II. Also your character’s ECL must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement for any allies you bring. The formula for allies: CA = coefficient of allies Aecli = ECL of the i'th Ally (0 if LA is '-') Acri = CR of the i'th Ally (0 if LA is not '-') CA = sum(Aecli+Acri) Example: Johnny Uncarismatic is an 10th level human cleric. He has the leadership feat, but only has leadership score of 4. If he brought in his cohort (ECL 4) rode a light warhorse (CR1) and had raised an Ogre Skeleton (CR2) and a wolf skeleton (CR1). He would have a CA=sum(4+1+2+1)=8. Maximum CA: The maximum CA a gladiator may bring into each fight is equal to his ECL-2. Explanation: If all of your Allies have an ECL (ECL=LA+HD), then you should simply add their ECLs together. The result must be at least 2 less than your own ECL. So, for example, our ECL 10 cleric could have a single ECL 8 cohort, or two ECL 3 and one ECL 2 ally, or any other combination adding up to 8 (his ECL-2). That is meant by Aecl>ECL-2. Explanation: If your Allies do not have a LA, then you need to use their CR to calculate your ally limit. Also you must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement to bring these allies with you. To determine the maximum amount of allies you can bring in (CA) you have to add all allies ECL's (if they have a LA) and CR's (if they do not have a LA), and this sum must not be greater than your ECL-2. Exception: Class allies Class allies are allies that come from a class feature, like a wizard's familiar, a druid or ranger animal companion, or a paladin warhorse. These allies never require a share of xp. Except for thralls and planar cohorts, they do not even count against your maxCA. Allies and Fight Rewards Many allies have an impact on the rewards (xp and gp) you get at the end of a fight. If you receive the help of any cohort or ally in a battle, you lose a certain amount of the XP and gold you would have gotten in that fight. Your allies do not get any of this XP or gold; it is simply lost. The number and power of allies helping determines the amount of xp and gp penalty. You recieve (CA/maxCA*25) in % less xp and gp for winning a fight. Similarly you receive opponents opponents (CA/maxCA*25) in % more xp and gp for defeating a gladiator that uses allies. These modifications to your rewards are added after any other calculations. That means, even in case of a loss, these modifications are applied AFTER the cap on how much you get if you lose (see Rules: Battles I for details on xp and gp caps). Example: (penalty applies to xp and gold) Level 3 gladiator (max CA=1) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/1*25); not permitted=>Minimal ECL Requirement ...a trained dog [CR1/2] (CA=1/2): (0.5/1*25); 12.5% penalty ...a level 1 merc [ECL1] (CA=1): (1/1*25); 25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): not permitted => maxCA=1 Level 4 gladiator (max CA=2) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/2*25) = not permitted=>Minimal ECL Requirement ...two trained wolves [2xCR1] (CA=2): (2/2*25) = 25% penalty ...a level 2 merc [ECL2] (CA=2): (2/2*25) = 25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): not permitted => Acr>max(ECL-4,1) Level 5 gladiator (max CA=3) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/3*25) = 8.33% penalty ...three human zombies [3xCR1/2] (CA=1.5): (1.5/3*25) = 12.5% penalty ...three level 1 mercs [3xECL1] (CA=3): (3/3*25) = 25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): (2/3*25) = 16.7% penalty Level 6 gladiator (max CA=4) brings in ...a light warhorse [CR1] (CA=1): (1/4*25) = 6.25% penalty ...a heavy warhorse [CR2] (CA=2): (2/4*25) = 12.5% penalty ...a direbat [CR2] (CA=2): (2/4*25) = 12.5% penalty ...a level 1 and a level 2 merc [ECL=3] (CA=3): (3/4*25) = 18.75% penalty ...an ogre zombie [CR3] (CA=3): not permitted => Acr>max(ECL-4,1) Multiplayer Fights: If you face more than one gladiator, you calculate xp and gold for each opponent gladiator seperately, add the results together, and divide it by the number of allied gladiators you have. In Multiplayer Fights, one of the participants might bring in an ally. The penalty for bringing in an ally always applies only to the one who brought it in. The reward bonus for the ally is always evenly distributed among all opponents of the character with the ally. Death of an Ally If a cohort or ally dies in one of the various Battles of Gladius (or otherwise inside the Nimbus), it is True Ressurected, re-summoned, re-animated, or otherwise made whole again, for free, after the 3-Fight Cycle is complete. There will be no negative side-effects from losing an ally (eg paladin's mount, familiar). Until then, however, the ally is not available and cannot assist you in any way. He's basically... dead. This is similar outside the Nimbus (Quests, Campaigns) with one exception: if it was a leadership ally, your leadership score drops by 1 for each cohort that died. Back to the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6463399) The Rules of Gladius: Allies II Minimal ECL Requirements Allies acquired can only aid you in a battle if your ECL meets the Minimal ECL Requirement. An Elite version of a purchased or Handle Animal ally increases the Minimal ECL Requirement by +2. Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, create spawn, etc.) allow a character to summon, create, or control allies. The potential combinations of these kinds of allies are so numerous that it is difficult to list them all at this time. In such cases the Minimal ECL Requirement = CR+4. So to bring a Nightmare Skeleton (CR3), you must have an ECL of 7. The Minimal ECL Requirement of Leadership allies or Mercenaries is equal to ECL +2. So for an 8th Level Human Cleric Mercenary ally, you must have an ECL of 8+2=10 to bring this ally. 3: Baboon, Badger, Bat, Cat, Camel, Dire Rat, Dog, Donkey, Eagle, Hawk, Light Horse, Lizard, Monkey, Owl, Pony, Rat, Raven, Snake (Small or Medium Viper), Toad, Weasel, Tiny or Small Monstrous Spider, Tiny/Small/Medium Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small Monstrous Scorpion 4: Brain Mole, Heavy Horse, Hyena, Mule, Riding Dog, Stirge, War Pony, Wolf, Giant Ant Worker, Medium Monstrous Spider, Medium Monstrous Scorpion 5: Light Warhorse, Heavy Warhorse, Pseudodragon (Dragon), Darkmantle, Large Monstrous Centipede, Giant Bee 6: Ape, Black Bear, Bison, Boar, Cheetah, Crocodile, Dire Bat, Dire Badger, Dire Weasel, Hippogriff, Leopard, Monitor Lizard, Shocker Lizard, Snake (constrictor), Snake (large viper), Wolverine, Giant Ant Soldier, Giant Bombardier Beetle, Large Monstrous Spider 7: Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Pegasus, Phantom Fungus, Rust Monster, Giant Ant Queen, Giant Praying Mantis, Giant Wasp, Large Monstrous Scorpion, Huge Monstrous Centipede 8: Brown Bear, Carrion Crawler, Crocodile (giant), Deinoychus, Dire Ape, Dire Boar, Dire Wolf, Dire Wolverine, Elasmosaurus, Lion, Rhinoceros, Snake (huge viper), Tiger, Giant Stag Beetle 9: Ankheg, Cockatrice, Griffon, Owlbear, Spidereater, Huge Monstrous Spider 10: 11: Flesh Golem, Grey Glutton, Huge Scorpion 12: Basilisk, Digester, Dire Lion, Girallon, Megaraptor, Polar Bear, Snake (giant constrictor), Shield Guardian, Huge Monstrous Scorpion, 13: 14: Clay Golem 15: Bulette, Dire Bear, Elephant, Stone Golem 16: Psion-Killer 17: Iron Golem 18: Dire Tiger, Gorgon, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus The List of Allies - Handle Animal If your character meets the Minimal ECL requirements, you may acquire animal allies using the Handle Animal skill. If you have the sufficient Handle Animal but are not high enough in ECL, then you can still quest for the ally and train it, but it may not be of any assistance until you meet all requirements. All handled animals come untrained and must have an Int of 1 or 2. Your character has a Coefficient of Handle Animals (cHA): cHA(max) = Ranks in HA + Cha Modifier + Feat Bonuses The total cHA cost of all Handle Animal allies must not exceed the character’s cHA(max). The cHA cost of each ally is calculated using the following equation: cHA cost* = HD + CR *Creatures that are not animals have a +5 cHA cost. +01 cHA: Bat, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 5, fly 40 (good), diminutive [CR 1/10] +01 cHA: Cat, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 30, tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Lizard, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 20, climb 20, tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Rat, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 15, climb 15, swim 15, tiny [CR 1/8] +01 cHA: Raven, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Toad, 1 hp (1/4hp), speed 5, diminutive [CR 1/10] +01 cHA: Viper Snake, 1 hp (1/4HD), speed 15, climb 15, swim 15, tiny [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Weasel, 2 hp (1/2HD), speed 20, climb 20, tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Baboon, 5 hp (1HD), speed 40, climb 30, medium [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Badger, 6 hp (1HD), speed 30, burrow 10, small [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Dire Rat, 5 hp (1HD), speed 40, climb 20, small [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Dog, 6 hp (1HD), speed 40, small [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Eagle, 5 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 80 (average), small [CR 1/2] +01 cHA: Hawk, 4 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 60 (average), tiny [CR 1/3] +01 cHA: Monkey, 4 hp (1HD), speed 30, climb 30, tiny [CR 1/6] +01 cHA: Owl, 4 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/4] +01 cHA: Viper Snake, 4 hp (1HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, small [CR 1/2] +02 cHA: Donkey, 11 hp (2HD), speed 30, medium [CR 1/6] +02 cHA: Pony, 11 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1/4] +02 cHA: War Pony, 13 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1/2] +03 cHA: Hyena, 13 hp (2HD), speed 50, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Riding Dog, 13 hp (2HD), speed 40, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Viper Snake, 9 hp (2HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, medium [CR 1] +03 cHA: Wolf, 13 hp (2HD), speed 50, medium [CR 1] +04 cHA: Camel, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Heavy Horse, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Light Horse, 19 hp (3HD), speed 60, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Light Warhorse, 22 hp (3HD), speed 60, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Mule, 22 hp (3HD), speed 30, large [CR 1] +04 cHA: Viper Snake, 13 hp (2HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, large [CR 2] +05 cHA: Black Bear, 19 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Boar, 25 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Cheetah, 19 hp (3HD), speed 50, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Constrictor Snake, 19 hp (3HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Crocodile, 33 hp (3HD), speed 20, swim 30, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Dire Badger, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, burrow 10, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Dire Weasel, 13 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Leopard, 19 hp (3HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Monitor Lizard, 22 hp (3HD), speed 30, swim 30, medium [CR 2] +05 cHA: Wolverine, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, climb 10, burrow 10, medium [CR 2] +06 cHA: Ape, 29 hp (4HD), speed 30, climb 30, large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Brain Mole, 3 hp (1HD), speed 15, burrow 15, tiny [CR 1/2] +06 cHA: Dire Bat, 30 hp (4HD), speed 20, fly 40 (good), large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Heavy Warhorse, 30 hp (4HD), speed 50, large [CR 2] +06 cHA: Stirge, 5 hp (1HD), speed 10, fly 40 (average), tiny [CR 1/2] +07 cHA: Bison, 37 hp (5HD), speed 40, large [CR 2] +07 cHA: Darkmantle, 6 hp (1HD), speed 20, fly 30 (poor), small [CR 1] +07 cHA: Deinonychus, 34 hp (4HD), speed 60, large [CR 3] +08 cHA: Dire Ape, 35 hp (5HD), speed 30, large [CR 3] +08 cHA: Lion, 32 hp (5HD), speed 40, large [CR 3] +09 cHA: Dire Wolf, 45 hp (6HD), speed 50, large [CR 3] +09 cHA: Dire Wolverine, 45 hp (5HD), speed 30, climb 10, burrow 10, large [CR 4] +09 cHA: Viper Snake, 33 hp (6HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, huge [CR 3] +09 cHA: Shocker Lizard, 13hp (2HD), speed 40, climb 20, small [CR 2] +10 cHA: Brown Bear, 51 hp (6HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +10 cHA: Hippogriff, 25 hp (3HD), speed 50, fly 100 (average), large [CR 2] +10 cHA: Phantom Fungus, 15 hp (2HD), speed 20, medium [CR 3] +10 cHA: Tiger, 45 hp (6HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Ankheg, 28 hp (3HD), speed 30, burrow 20, large [CR 3] +11 cHA: Carrion Crawler, 19 hp (3HD), speed 30, climb 15, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Dire Boar, 52 hp (7HD), speed 40, large [CR 4] +11 cHA: Folugub, 30 hp (4HD), speed 40, medium [CR 2] +11 cHA: Giant Crocodile, 59 hp (7HD), speed 20, swim 30, huge [CR 4] +12 cHA: Polar Bear, 68 hp (8HD), speed 40, swim 30, large [CR 4] +12 cHA: Rhinoceros, 76 hp (8HD), speed 30, large [CR 4] +13 cHA: Cockatrice, 27 hp (5HD), speed 20, fly 60 (poor), small [CR 3] +13 cHA: Dire Lion, 60 hp (8HD), speed 40, large [CR 5] +13 cHA: Rust Monster, 40 hp (5HD), speed 40, medium [CR 3] +14 cHA: Megaraptor, 79 hp (8HD), speed 60, large [CR 6] +14 cHA: Owlbear, 52 hp (5HD), speed 30, large [CR 4] +14 cHA: Spider Eater, 42 hp (4HD), speed 30, fly 60 (good), large [CR 5] +16 cHA: Basilisk, 45 hp (6HD), speed 20, medium [CR 5] +16 cHA: Giant Constrictor Snake, 63 hp (11HD), speed 20, climb 20, swim 20, huge [CR 5] +17 cHA: Elasmosaurus, 111 hp (10HD), speed 20, swim 50, huge [CR 7] +18 cHA: Elephant, 104 hp (11HD), speed 40, huge [CR 7] +18 cHA: Girallion, 58 hp (7HD), speed 40, climb 40, large [CR 6] +19 cHA: Digester, 68 hp (8HD), speed 60, medium [CR 6] +19 cHA: Dire Bear, 105 hp (12HD), speed 40, large [CR 7] +21 cHA: Bulette, 94 hp (9HD), speed 40, burrow 10, huge [CR 7] +21 cHA: Gorgon, 85 hp (8HD), speed 30, large [CR 8] +21 cHA: Gray Glutton, 85 hp (9HD), speed 40, huge [CR 7] +24 cHA: Dire Tiger, 120 hp (16HD), speed 40, large [CR 8] +25 cHA: Triceraptos, 196 hp (16HD), speed 30, huge [CR 9] +26 cHA: Tyrannosaurus, 180 hp (18HD), speed 40, huge [CR 8] +27 cHA: Roc, 207 hp (18HD), speed 20, fly 80 (average), gargantuan [CR 9] +29 cHA: Legendary Bear, 230 hp (20HD), speed 50, large [CR 9] +31 cHA: Frost Worm, 147 hp (14HD), speed 30, burrow 10, huge [CR 12] +33 cHA: Purple Worm, 200 hp (16HD), speed 20, burrow 20, gargantuan [CR 12] +36 cHA: Legendary Tiger, 305 hp (26HD), speed 50, large [CR 10] The List of Allies - Gold You may buy any one of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/goodsAndServices.html) (PHB,p129). Normally, these animals come trained but you may optionally request them to be untrained. If you choose so, then the animal knows no trick at all but you can train it (or have it trained for money if you can't do it) to your liking. For a small price you can exchange the standard skill points on these animals. 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 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641)). The animals that can be bought are the following: Guard Dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#dog) (25 gp) [Elite: 50 gp] Riding Dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#riding-dog) (150 gp) [Elite: 300 gp] Donkey (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#donkey) (8 gp) [Elite: 16 gp] Heavy Horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (200 gp) [Elite: 400 gp] Light Horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (75 gp) [Elite: 150 gp] Heavy Warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (400 gp) [Elite: 800 gp] Light Warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse) (150 gp) [Elite: 300 gp] Pony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#pony) (30 gp) [Elite 60 gp] Warpony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#war-pony) (100 gp) [Elite: 200 gp] Additionally, you can buy exotic mounts but they cost much more gold. It also depends wether you buy them as an egg, as youth, or as a trained version. Since Gladius has a real time progression it doesn't make much sense to buy a griffon egg unless you really want to wait a couple of years until it is fully functional. However, you have almost unlimited time (from your adulthood to your current age) you can buy an egg before you enter Gladius so that the mount is already grown up and ready. The following beasts come untrained. Trained versions cost more, depending on the beast. Pseudodragons do not need to be trained. You can also exchange their feats and skill points which costs extra gold (treat skill points as one feat for pricing purposes). 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 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396641) for details) and increases the CR. Available exotic beasts are: Giant Eagle (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersEtoF.html#giant-eagle) (Egg 2500 gp, Adult 4000 gp) [Elite: +2500 gp] Griffon (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#griffon) (Egg 3500 gp, Adult 7000 gp)[Elite: +3500 gp] Hippogriff (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersHtoI.html#hippogriff) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp)[Elite: +2000 gp] Giant Owl (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#giant-owl) (Egg 2500 gp, Adult 4000 gp)[Elite: +2500 gp] Pegasus (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#pegasus) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp)[Elite: +2000 gp] Pseudodragon (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersOtoR.html#pseudodragon) (Egg 10000 gp, Adult 20000 gp)[Elite: +5000 gp] Spidereater (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersS.html#spider-eater) (Egg 2000 gp, Adult 3000 gp)[Elite: +2000 gp] The most famous mastersmiths and the mightiest wizards opened a jointed guild that specializes on constructs. The following constructs can be purchased though you should make sure you have enough gold with you. Homunkuli are never sold. Flesh Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#flesh-golem) (20.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Clay Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#clay-golem) (40.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Stone Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#stone-golem) (90.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Greater Stone Golem (196.000 gp) Iron Golem (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersG.html#iron-golem) (150.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] Shield Guardian (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersS.html#shield-guardian) (120.000 gp)[Elite: +10000 gp] The List of Allies - Leadership Naturally, all of the legal PC races are also legal races for Leadership allies. Beyond that, however, there are a number of cohort-only races that are valid Leadership allies. Remember that the maximum ECL your cohort may have is your ECL-2. Level Racial Start Leadership Race Adj. HitDice ECL Score Worg +1 4 5 7 Blink Dog +2 4 6 9 Eagle, Giant +2 4 6 9 Owl, Giant +2 4 6 9 Pegasus +2 4 6 9 Mephit (all types) +3 3 6 9 Yeth Hound +3 3 6 9 Hell Hound +3 4 7 10 Shadow Mastiff +3 4 7 10 Unicorn +4 4 8 12 Howler +3 6 9 13 Manticore +3 6 9 13 Winter Wolf +3 6 9 13 Griffon +3 7 10 14 Nightmare +4 6 10 14 Chimera +2 9 11 16 Sphinx, Gynosphinx +4 8 12 17 Sphinx, Hieracosphinx +3 9 12 17 Dragonne +4 9 13 19 Sphinx, Criosphinx +3 10 13 19 Gray Render +5 10 15 21 Hell Hound, Nessian +4 12 16 23 Sphinx, Androsphinx +5 12 17 24 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. The List of Allies - Improved Familiar The following is a list of legal allies that can be obtained with the Improved Familiar feat, in addition to the familiars listed in the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/featsAll.html#improved-familiar). You must have the indicated sorcerer and/or wizard caster level, and, if an alignment is listed, your alignment can be removed from that of the familiar by no more than one step (the familiar automatically changes to your alignment, but its listing in the Monster Manual/SRD cannot be more than one step away from yours). Any familiar chosen from this list costs 5 credits. Minimum Caster Creature Level Alignment Archon, Lantern 9th LG Vargouille 9th NE Darkmantle 7th N Mephit (any) 7th N Brain Mole 5th Celestial or Fiendish Template on one of the creatures listed below 5th Any G/Any E Dire Rat 3rd Badger 3rd Dog 3rd Eagle 3rd Monkey 3rd Snake, Small Viper 3rd Giant Fire Beetle 3rd Small Monstrous Centipede 3rd Small Monstrous Scorpion 3rd Small Monstrous Spider 3rd Back to the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6463399)
hogarth 06-12-07, 06:55 PM	Yeah, I didn't have time before I left for vacation. Some of the references to Diplomacy allies are gone, but there are just so many! I just finished with the roster (finally), so I'll take another look. If I can suggest just one more thing: could you change the wording on prebuffed vs. non-prebuffed allies to clarify the status of Figurines of Wondrous Power? I just want it to be crystal clear that if they are prebuffed they reduce your awards, but if activated in the arena they do not.
TelinArtho 06-12-07, 07:10 PM	I still don't really know what to say about this list. I guess I'm lucky that only one character will have changes right now - but that's only because the ones who would've had changes are well above the range the minimum ECL requirements. All I really have to say about this is that yet another one of my characters will get retired because he will no longer have the same concept behind him (he can't).
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 07:49 PM	If I can suggest just one more thing: could you change the wording on prebuffed vs. non-prebuffed allies to clarify the status of Figurines of Wondrous Power? I just want it to be crystal clear that if they are prebuffed they reduce your awards, but if activated in the arena they do not. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any.I don't see how that could be any more clear.
hogarth 06-12-07, 08:11 PM	I don't see how that could be any more clear. Because none of the examples given are magic items. Also, Figurines of Wondrous Power did not affect rewards in the past. At any rate, adding one more example to the list couldn't hurt. Note that some Figurines of Wondrous Power (and other magic allies) don't clearly have a listed CR, either (like the Ebony Fly, Obsidian Steed, Onyx Dog and Stone Horses, for example).
SauroGrenom 06-12-07, 08:21 PM	I still don't really know what to say about this list. I guess I'm lucky that only one character will have changes right now - but that's only because the ones who would've had changes are well above the range the minimum ECL requirements.I really thought about a few different options for how to keep purchased an HA allies similar to allies gained by class features. If we keep using CR, animals get out of hand since their CR maxes out at about 10. Both Raskos and Kracknol would get hit hard by the recommendations I've given above. In fact without his advanced griffon, I'm having real trouble figuring out what to do with Kracknol to keep him competitive.
NiQil 06-12-07, 09:33 PM	Just for the record...on the active issues, I am keeping up with them (some have wondered about my lack of a voice towards particular topics)...I just haven't had anything to add that hasn't already been said by others....but I'll chime in when necessary.
Zevox 06-12-07, 11:07 PM	[Broken Record]I still feel that the ECL 4 list should be moved down to ECL 3. Not a single one of those creatures would be problematic at that level. Most of them are available to Druids from level 1, and are +2 HD as Druid companions at level 3. I can see no reason to force any of them to be waited for until ECL 4.[/Broken Record] New Suggestion: Remove the note about class allies without a specified method of obtaining them. None of them lack that, so its a completely useless note. Just be blunt and say that class allies do not need to be quested for. Repeat Suggestion: After the basics of the new allies rule system are agreed upon, can we consider keeping customization of allies in a more limited form again? I still feel that cutting that out entirely for a handful of abusive combinations (chiefly the grappling horse thing, IIRC) is a bit over the top. Other than those (the first being the one I feel strongest about), I'm okay with the changes as proposed by Sauro above. Zevox
MindWandererB 06-13-07, 01:37 AM	[Broken Record]I still feel that the ECL 4 list should be moved down to ECL 3. Not a single one of those creatures would be problematic at that level. Most of them are available to Druids from level 1, and are +2 HD as Druid companions at level 3. I can see no reason to force any of them to be waited for until ECL 4.[/Broken Record]I'd like to see a vote on this at this point. There should probably be something at ECL 4. Repeat Suggestion: After the basics of the new allies rule system are agreed upon, can we consider keeping customization of allies in a more limited form again? I still feel that cutting that out entirely for a handful of abusive combinations (chiefly the grappling horse thing, IIRC) is a bit over the top.I want to avoid line-item prohibitions. If we allow feat customization, we allow grappling, arrow-deflecting horses, which are ridiculous (although adding a credit cost would help). I'm okay with adding hit dice (at +1 minimum ECL per HD) and elite scores (at +1 or +2 minimum ECL), and skill customization should present no problem.
Abyssal Stalker 06-13-07, 07:06 AM	Diplomacy allies: nonexistent, at the moment. I'm encouraging mercenary submissions. Handle Animal allies: no change at present--when I left, there was nothing remotely resembling a consensus on the "list." Same goes for the other allies. Monster fights: Still possible, but I'll try to do pairings in such a way as to avoid them as much as possible, for the time being, since it seems more people dislike than like them. Monster equipment: not much headway; I proposed a draft a few posts ago, which there's been little comment on yet. I like monster fights, not those that are auto-losses, but otherwise they are OK.
Salrantol 06-13-07, 07:40 AM	Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following: 1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below. I disagree, at least with regard to none. The creatures who have "none" in their treasure entry tend to be those that cannot use treasure, or who are unintelligent and thus do not use treasure, so it would dramatically skew the creature's power. 2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows:75-80% of the creature's wealth goes into Andy Collins' Big Six: weapons (primary melee and ranged), armor (& shield), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and ability-score boosters. For weapons and armor, the pitlord should choose upgraded versions of the monster's default equipment, if they have any--and, of course, they should be skipped for monsters without proficiency. Monsters of at least CR 4 should have backup silver weapons, and ones of at least CR 5 should have cold iron as well. Creatures with a PP reserve of at least 2 should have Deepcrystal as their primary weapons, and ones with Improved Sunder should have adamantine (in both cases, if they can afford it). 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth. The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided.I agree, that sounds quite reasonable. 3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead.A far overdue decree.
Macbrea 06-13-07, 07:53 AM	I vote also for the 'I like monster fights' category... just to be on record.
TelinArtho 06-13-07, 10:46 AM	I don't know what to say at this point. If it is clear we are going to change it - then let's give Sauro's list a try. Just a question - now that the entire ally system has been revamped - are we allowing non-purchased allies in before ECL5? If not - they you might as well move the non-purchased allies in that list up to ECL5 to start with (to avoid confusion). If we need to adjust the list further later - that's fine. I just find it frustrating to continue to talk about all of this restriction while I have characters that would no longer work under said restriction. I would prefer to just implement it now - take out the offending parties and see how it works. @Zevox's comment - I would be fine with moving the animals in the ECL4 list down to ECL3, but unless things change in the rules on the allies in general - the non-purchased allies are still not available until ECL5 anyway.
TelinArtho 06-13-07, 11:13 AM	Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following: 1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below. 2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows:75-80% of the creature's wealth goes into Andy Collins' Big Six: weapons (primary melee and ranged), armor (& shield), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and ability-score boosters. For weapons and armor, the pitlord should choose upgraded versions of the monster's default equipment, if they have any--and, of course, they should be skipped for monsters without proficiency. Monsters of at least CR 4 should have backup silver weapons, and ones of at least CR 5 should have cold iron as well. Creatures with a PP reserve of at least 2 should have Deepcrystal as their primary weapons, and ones with Improved Sunder should have adamantine (in both cases, if they can afford it). 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth. The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided. 3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead. Thoughts? Just a clarification. Before the monster started with the equipment listed in its entry and the money it gained from the treasure entry was in addition to this basic equipment. Is this still the case? For the upcoming miniquest for Ephraim, since it is a non-guild mission/operation - I am going to try out this method with the creature I chose. After the fight, I'll show what equipment the creature had and what equipment it would've had with the previous "rules" on the matter.
Erithmu 06-13-07, 11:27 AM	Just a clarification. Before the monster started with the equipment listed in its entry and the money it gained from the treasure entry was in addition to this basic equipment. Is this still the case? For the upcoming miniquest for Ephraim, since it is a non-guild mission/operation - I am going to try out this method with the creature I chose. After the fight, I'll show what equipment the creature had and what equipment it would've had with the previous "rules" on the matter. Oh Joy ... Bring it on ... just don't roll like last time.
MindWandererB 06-13-07, 11:46 AM	Just a clarification. Before the monster started with the equipment listed in its entry and the money it gained from the treasure entry was in addition to this basic equipment. Is this still the case?I hadn't considered changing that, and I don't particularly see any need to (yet). Remember that its cash can be used to upgrade its starting equipment, even in ways you can't usually upgrade an existing item (e.g. from normal to masterwork).
TelinArtho 06-13-07, 12:01 PM	I just wanted to make sure. In most cases - it is not a big deal (a medusa with a short bow and dagger; a frost giant with armor and a sword). In some cases the difference is quite a big deal - the bralani for instance.
SoulLord 06-13-07, 12:01 PM	Totally confused by the allies stuff going on. is this right? "a character can only get an ally equal to cr -4" so a 5th level human can only get a cr 1 thing? the way I though it worked was cr-2 so a 10th lvl character was allowed to have a cr8 ally.
TelinArtho 06-13-07, 12:04 PM	Its always been (since I've been here), MaxCR = (ECL-4,1) and MaxECL = (ECL-2) That means a level 10 character could have an ECL8 leadership cohort or a CR6 ally. A level 10 character could never have a CR 8 ally unless the ally was using the ECL method (leadership) and also had an ECL8.
SauroGrenom 06-13-07, 01:01 PM	What do do about creatures like the Naga or Rakshasa? These creatures simply list their spell casting ability as being equivalent to a sorcerer of x level. Then a list of known spells is provided. Often many of those listed spells are largely useless in the CoCo environment, so does the pitlord have the option to drop silent image for another more useful spell? How about other similar "customizations"? Especially when you start using advanced versions of monsters or dragons, the pitlord has lots of room to build a monster with feats and skills that work well on the given map or against the given character.
MindWandererB 06-13-07, 01:09 PM	What do do about creatures like the Naga or Rakshasa? These creatures simply list their spell casting ability as being equivalent to a sorcerer of x level. Then a list of known spells is provided. Often many of those listed spells are largely useless in the CoCo environment, so does the pitlord have the option to drop silent image for another more useful spell? How about other similar "customizations"? Especially when you start using advanced versions of monsters or dragons, the pitlord has lots of room to build a monster with feats and skills that work well on the given map or against the given character. Those lists of spells are always described as "typical." We have two choices: either use all these lists as written (since these were the lists with which the creature's CR was determined through playtesting), or create standardized lists of CoCo-friendly spells. The former would be much easier; the latter would be more generalizable (to, say, dragons, and even NPC spellcasters).
McJarvis 06-14-07, 04:28 PM	I would like to suggest a complete revision of our listen rules so that they are more pitlord friendly & more understandable added to the council's docket. [this includes getting rid of those "close but not quite" listen rolls, clarifying attacking=DC0 listen check advice given in past, & other types of things] More specifically: I want listen checks to be a simple Move vs listen with two or three possible outcomes. Some ideas that wouldn't involve our current "template+roll" technique: 1) General direction(no distance) 2) Exact direction(no distance) 3) General direction + distance 3) Pinpoint (exact direction+distance, in effect) Some ideas to solve the "attack listen DC" 1) Attacks can not be pinpointed, but general direction can be determined[This would effectively be the "battle" DC under listen rules] 2) Listen DC of 0 for all attacks, period Other topics: 1) Do silenced spells make noise that can help pinpoint the caster? 2) Could a caster with improved invisibility be pinpointed if s/he cast scorching ray at someone? 3) How to mitigate other types of listen checks. [and where exactly MS comes into play] Any elder gonna back me on this?
TelinArtho 06-14-07, 04:31 PM	Reviewing the listen checks are already on the docket to be reviewed. Let's finish up the handle animal situation and the monster equipment that are already on discussion first.
Macbrea 06-14-07, 04:32 PM	The Current template is based off Invisibilities statement out of the SRD. It was deemed too harsh of a penalty. A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.” It’s practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature. A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location. So.. strickly by the books you can only figure out where someone is if you make your listen check by 20. By the rules.
McJarvis 06-14-07, 04:34 PM	Reviewing the listen checks are already on the docket to be reviewed. Let's finish up the handle animal situation and the monster equipment that are already on discussion first. They're only on the docket for attacking/spellcasting. Not an entire revision of the currently flawed "shrinking area" rules, as well as determining what MS can do[is it for movement between squares, is it for move-actions, is it for...etc, etc]. No problem on finishing other discussions first-> I just want to be sure everything is on the docket :)
MindWandererB 06-14-07, 04:50 PM	I modified the entry accordingly. I've always hated our house rule there, myself. I have an alternative proposal, but I'll save it for when we get to it.
TelinArtho 06-14-07, 04:55 PM	So to help move along the handle animal issue - what exactly are we waiting for? A vote on whether to accept it or not?
MindWandererB 06-14-07, 05:35 PM	Pretty much... I've seen a lot of conflicting opinions thrown around. I don't think any two people have agreed 100%. If someone can collect all the various proposals and put them together so they can be voted on, that would be helpful. (I'd do it, but my plate is a tad full at the moment).
hogarth 06-15-07, 07:41 AM	Pretty much... I've seen a lot of conflicting opinions thrown around. I don't think any two people have agreed 100%. If someone can collect all the various proposals and put them together so they can be voted on, that would be helpful. (I'd do it, but my plate is a tad full at the moment). Here's my non-binding two cents on the issue: I don't think the Table o' Animals is any worse than the current rules, but it seems pretty clumsy (especially since you would have to make a table for every type of ally and that seems like a pain). If it were up to me (and it's not), I'd try something simple like: Each ally has a CA. For creatures with a level adjustment, their CA is equal to their ECL. For creatures without a level adjustment, their CA is equal to their CR+2. A gladiator's maxCA is equal to her ECL-2. So an 8th level gladiator can bring in a 6th level mercenary (CA 6) or two wolves (two CA 3 allies). On top of this, a gladiator can always bring in one (1) animal from the following list without penalty: Light horse Pony Donkey Guard dog See? Much shorter. Of course, it means you can't bring in an army of CR 1/6 donkeys or piddly little undead -- too bad. Let the flaming commence! :D
McJarvis 06-15-07, 08:31 AM	*flame mode engaged* I can see it now: every gladiator this side of sunday suddenly decides they need an attack dog... *flame mode disengaged* ;)
hogarth 06-15-07, 08:57 AM	I can see it now: every gladiator this side of sunday suddenly decides they need an attack dog a light horse... There -- I fixed it for you. (Why would anyone choose a 1 HD dog over a 3 HD horse?) EDIT: I rephrased the sentence to make my point clearer: one "free" animal, no more.
TelinArtho 06-15-07, 01:54 PM	I've spent the better part of two hours combing through the posts since ~post 600. Unfortunately, there's been a lot said, and several have weighed in different opinions on the matter. In post 615, I suggested to adjust the ally penalty to be only a GP penalty (so that it actually is a penalty) [Not my original suggestion - I just brought it back up for discussion since it wasn't implemented in Cat's time]. hogarth agreed with this proposal. Zevox later added his support to this in post 635 In post 618, I tallied up the then-current votes on Handle Animals and Diplomacy: Okay - I want to separate the current issue on board, because we've gone far astray from Diplomacy allies. Just for the record, the elder votes on the diplomacy subject: Keeping and modifying diplomacy rules: TelinArtho Removing them entirely: Sauro, Vath, NiQil, (MWB) Abstain: Zevox This removes them entirely. I certainly would've preferred to see them stay with modification - but I guess that's the way it works some time. On the matter of handle animals, I'm not sure really where the votes fall: Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB) Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil I haven't seen a certain position from Vath on the matter and I have seen Zevox and MWB put out suggestions to change them - after stating that they felt they weren't a problem. The exact details on how to change them are certainly muddied at this point though... Vath spoke up in post 657 indicating that he felt they were generally fine as is - maybe some tweaks needed to be implemented. He decided to abstain at that time from the discussion. Then we got into a discussion on how to handle the animals, and Sauro and MWB eventually drifted to a list based on ECL to determine what is available at particular ECLs. I will note that both myself and Zevox have noted reservations about this list. The initial list was posted in post 658. An updated list was posted later on and the two major points from it were both from me and Zevox - where we feel the ECL4 list should be moved down to ECL3 and Light Warhorses down to ECL4 and Heavy Warhorses down to ECL5. In post 703, MWB suggested removing creatures larger than Huge and smaller than small from the list to weed out troublesome entries that become difficult to "balance" with our maps. A new list was posted in post 730 with the vermin finally included. Sauro included an in depth explanation for the issues around the light warhorse. In post 733, Zevox conceded the point about Light Warhorses at ECL5, but not the ECL4 animals. In post 824 - Sauro posted the latest Allies revisions. Since then - I posted that I'm still not fond of the change but that I'd rather see it implemented and dealt with rather than the constant back and forth. Zevox posted that he still isn't conceding the point about ECL4 animals. I posted, somewhat in response to this asking if we can have non-class, non-purchased allies earlier than ECL5. I have not received an answer to this question. If the answer is no - then the point of moving them down to ECL3 is kind of moot. And then of course the entirely new proposal posted by hogarth. ------------------------------- There's your rehash MWB - make use of it as you will.
MindWandererB 06-15-07, 02:25 PM	Thanks a ton, Telin. Wow, what a mess. No wonder we haven't gotten anywhere. And that's without bringing up customization at all! I would prefer to avoid non-class, non-purchased allies until ECL 5, because new players won't know about them and will be completely confused and discouraged when they run up against them. ECL 4 is a possibility, but considering that it's possible to reach ECL 4 in only 4 weeks, that may not be enough time to learn the ally rules. If you use a build that relies heavily on these allies from the get-go, you might want to invest 10 credits to skip the lower ECLs. And yes, it would make sense to move those allies up to the ECL 5 list to avoid confusion. @hogarth: in some ways, that's even more restrictive than Sauro's list. For instance, it moves the heavy horse, warpony, and riding dog up to a minimum ECL of 5. It also increases the penalty on CR-based allies, and lowers the total number of them you can take. I like the fact that it's an algorithm rather than a complete list, though. I haven't compared all the numbers on Sauro's list to the monsters' CRs. Is that list basically CR-based once you get to ECL 6? If so, then the best way might be to use a list for ECLs 3-5, and a formula after that.
TelinArtho 06-15-07, 02:35 PM	Here's the list revised with the purchased allies only at ECL3 and 4 and then the rest at ECL5 3: Dog, Donkey, Light Horse 4: Heavy Horse, Mule, Riding Dog, War Pony, 5: Baboon, Badger, Bat, Cat, Camel, Dire Rat, Eagle, Hawk, Lizard, Monkey, Owl, Pony, Rat, Raven, Snake (Small or Medium Viper), Toad, Weasel, Tiny or Small Monstrous Spider, Tiny/Small/Medium Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small Monstrous Scorpion, Brain Mole, Hyena, Stirge, Wolf, Giant Ant Worker, Medium Monstrous Spider, Medium Monstrous Scorpion Light Warhorse, Heavy Warhorse, Pseudodragon (Dragon), Darkmantle, Large Monstrous Centipede, Giant Bee
SauroGrenom 06-15-07, 05:00 PM	I haven't compared all the numbers on Sauro's list to the monsters' CRs. Is that list basically CR-based once you get to ECL 6? If so, then the best way might be to use a list for ECLs 3-5, and a formula after that. I used the following rules: Creatures that are listed on the druid animal companion list or on the epic druid's magical beast animal companion feat appear on my list 2 ECL above where the druid gets them. There are some exceptions around ECL3 and 4 where a tougher creature appears at ECL4 instead of ECL3. But the proposed change that Telin just showed makes this moot. Creatures that are "crafted" appear at ECL= CR+4 (this is mostly golums). Creatures that are vermin appear where Telin suggested (I think this is at ECL=CR+4, but I haven't checked them all). Note the griffon appears at ECL9 even though it's probably the most powerful flying mount at that time and won't be a leadership cohort till ECL 12. ECL9 is +2 levels above the minimal druid level required if you have the epic magical beast companion feat.
Usurpator 06-15-07, 05:15 PM	Dear Elders, Could you please look into the whole advancement/custom creatures issue as well? My proposal: no advancement at all. The system is not built for properly balancing advanced/customized creatures when used as allies (and moderately balanced when using them as opponents). A less extreme proposal is: any advancement is worth at least +1 CR. This avoids the credits only basic advancement of +2 HD (or +5, +8 etc.).
Zevox 06-15-07, 05:26 PM	Dear Elders, Could you please look into the whole advancement/custom creatures issue as well? My proposal: no advancement at all. The system is not built for properly balancing advanced/customized creatures when used as allies (and moderately balanced when using them as opponents). A less extreme proposal is: any advancement is worth at least +1 CR. This avoids the credits only basic advancement of +2 HD (or +5, +8 etc.). That got mentioned at the beggining of the ally conversation, actually. Sauro recommended removing advancement outright, since it was the biggest cause of imbalance in allies, and no one disagreed, so I think thats more or less happening. He also asked to remove customization, but I did disagree with that and ask that we consider keeping it in a more limited form. That one has basically been shelved until the current ally discussion are done with. ...and on those, my opinion is still the same. Move those things at the ECL 4 list down to ECL 3. I can understand the change Telin made for allies we don't allow in the lower leagues anyway, but I still think theres absolutely no reason to disallow things like Riding Dogs and Heavy Horses at ECL 3. Zevox
SauroGrenom 06-15-07, 06:13 PM	...and on those, my opinion is still the same. Move those things at the ECL 4 list down to ECL 3. I can understand the change Telin made for allies we don't allow in the lower leagues anyway, but I still think theres absolutely no reason to disallow things like Riding Dogs and Heavy Horses at ECL 3.Put a heavy horse with heavy barding in a room with a 3rd level human monk, and see how often the monk wins. That's a closer fight than you might first assume. Put the "main" 3rd level character in there as well, and your monk's chances are slim. @ ECL4 at least the monk has an edge over the horse on HP and unarmed strike damage. Give the horse barding and the monk could be in trouble one on one. Allow feat customization, and make it a grappling horse with armor spikes on that barding... then your monk is in real trouble at ECL3. My point is that allies should augment a character, not be necessary to compete. As it is now, and if we allow war trained mounts at ECL 3, allies are nearly necessary to compete at low levels. By the time the main characters advance a few more levels, the combat effectiveness of allies becomes slightly smaller relatively. At ECL4 the monk can grapple with the mounted sorcerer, and hope to survive 3 rounds to cause enough damage to take down the main character and ignore the combat effectiveness of the mount. At ECL3, a monk who eats 3 rounds of full attacks from a heavy horse isn't likely to survive long enough to take down the main character.
Erithmu 06-15-07, 06:45 PM	New Docket Item: How does Red Wizard circle magic work in terms of rewards for allies considering the effect is not removable by any means within the CoCo arena. Edit: if you are doing archiving, you might also link the Planar Cohort and Guild inactivity rulings to your docket post on page 1.
Zevox 06-15-07, 07:26 PM	Put a heavy horse with heavy barding in a room with a 3rd level human monk, and see how often the monk wins. That's a closer fight than you might first assume. Put the "main" 3rd level character in there as well, and your monk's chances are slim. @ ECL4 at least the monk has an edge over the horse on HP and unarmed strike damage. Give the horse barding and the monk could be in trouble one on one. Allow feat customization, and make it a grappling horse with armor spikes on that barding... then your monk is in real trouble at ECL3. My point is that allies should augment a character, not be necessary to compete. As it is now, and if we allow war trained mounts at ECL 3, allies are nearly necessary to compete at low levels. By the time the main characters advance a few more levels, the combat effectiveness of allies becomes slightly smaller relatively. At ECL4 the monk can grapple with the mounted sorcerer, and hope to survive 3 rounds to cause enough damage to take down the main character and ignore the combat effectiveness of the mount. At ECL3, a monk who eats 3 rounds of full attacks from a heavy horse isn't likely to survive long enough to take down the main character. Oh come on, a Heavy Horse is hardly any tougher than a Light one! Its only 2 strength points better with the damage for the hooves up from d4 to d6, and in exchange it suffers -10ft to its speed, which is one of the main reasons most people take horses. Its AC is mediocre even with armor (and any armor that would bring it up to good levels will both slow it, making it possible to just avoid it, and cost a hell of a lot more than most characters are willing to spend at that level). And neither is even allowed to attack when being ridden anyway. Any decently well-designed 3rd level character has little to fear from one unless their AC is just as mediocre as its is and the horse's master doesn't want to ride it. Certainly any good ECL 3 Monk will have good dex and wisdom, plus AC buffs (potion/scroll of mage armor/stone of inertial armor, stone/tattoo of force screen or scroll of shield if they're a wizard, potion/scroll of shield of faith, etc) to ensure the thing can't hit without some significantly lucky rolls. Really, I'd gladly pit my old Xeph Monk Indrithia at ECL 3 against a Heavy Horse any time, and I doubt she'd lose very often (and she was a straight Monk even when I retired her), and then only to the dice, not the horse. Also, with customization, like I said, I'd like to keep that in a more limited form, which would include getting rid of the "grappling horses" idiocy. Zevox
Rauul 06-15-07, 07:27 PM	New Docket Item: How does Red Wizard circle magic work in terms of rewards for allies considering the effect is not removable by any means within the CoCo arena. Edit: if you are doing archiving, you might also link the Planar Cohort and Guild inactivity rulings to your docket post on page 1. i thought red wizard Circle magic worked like Allies, they are prebuffed like everything else and count as Allies (even though they aren't in combat, they cast spells that do effect the character)
Erithmu 06-15-07, 07:31 PM	i thought red wizard Circle magic worked like Allies, they are prebuffed like everything else and count as Allies (even though they aren't in combat, they cast spells that do effect the character) Thats what I'm looking for clarification on. I'm getting ready to build my leadership cohort for my Red Wizard and need to figure out if I cap him at the max ECL or lower his level so that I can buff some followers to run circle magic. And is it for a single fight, or just the first fight of the 3FC.
Zevox 06-15-07, 07:35 PM	Our rules clearly say that allies that affect you in any way prior to the fight count towards the limit, whether they come into the fight or not, which means that if you have allies participating in circle magic, they do indeed count towards that. Wheres the confusion there? As for the second question, don't see how theres any confusion there either. The Red Wizard entry says the abilities gained from circle magic last 24 hours or until expended, so anything you get from circle magic will last all three fights or until used up. Zevox
Erithmu 06-16-07, 10:43 AM	Re: Red Wizards ... ok ... @MWB: There are a couple of Diplomacy Ally References in the quickstart guides in the Character Threads.
Vathelokai 06-16-07, 12:25 PM	I don't know what to say at this point. If it is clear we are going to change it - then let's give Sauro's list a try. I'll second that. We can try it as it stands, and review it in a few months to make sure it's working the way we intended.
TelinArtho 06-18-07, 12:10 PM	I was just about to set out an official vote on this, but I think its past that point. The decision about whether to leave Handle Animal alone or to change it was made already. So at this point it is a vote of whether to implement the list that Sauro has added or to not implement it. For the sake of sanity, I vote to implement it. This is not because I feel that HA allies are a problem, but because I seem to be in a minority about keeping them as is. I would rather have the rules changed now than to keep "broken" rules in place while we discuss it. We need to move on from this issue - so let's get going.
SauroGrenom 06-18-07, 05:40 PM	For the sake of putting to rest any hard feelings, I'd like to address the concerns about using a list for purchased and HA allies. The more I looked at things, the more I became convinced that some kind of equation based on CR or skill levels or ECL or HD wasn't going to be very general. The light warhorse is CR 1 and a heavy warhorse CR2, but the heavy warhorse is not 2x as powerful in combat (+1HD, +2 Strength, increased size damage dice). So CR wasn't a reasonable measure of combat effectiveness either as an opponent or as an ally. For some reason the game designers decided that a Megaraptor (CR6) is a reasonable ally for an ECL10 druid, while six levels later the ECL16 druid gets an ally who's CR increases by only 2 (dire tiger CR8). Also there is some reason that both the Elasmosaurus (CR7) and the Lion (CR3) are equivalent and available to ECL7 Druids. I simply cannot figure it out. I assume that there was some extensive play testing that determined these rankings. I think we should try a similar play testing kind of approach to solve the same problem. Our list can be expanded to include other things in the future, like planar allies, animated objects or even undead. The general idea I'm trying to advance is that the allies shouldn't be stealing the show. The allies should be significant, but when they are doing all the heavy lifting then we have a balance problem. (like Raskos and Yaurl, or a Druid and a well equipped advanced Hydra, or Kracknol and the advanced griffon allies) The other things to consider to close this issue are advancement and customization of purchased, Handle Animal and other allies (like animated objects, golums, spawn, undead or planar cohorts).
Zevox 06-18-07, 05:59 PM	My position hasn't changed. Like Telin, I feel our present rules are fine (with the advancement option removed). But I would be willing to use Sauro's proposal, with the ECL 4 allies moved down to ECL 3 (edit: and of course Telin's change for allies that wouldn't be available until ECL 5 anyway to avoid confusion). If they aren't, my vote would be to keep our current system, just with advancement removed. Zevox
Vathelokai 06-18-07, 10:49 PM	Sounds like we have a tentative consensus to try the list. What's next? Custom advanced allies or something from the docket? # Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs # Fixing incorrect EL entries on monster tables EL 5-10 # Creating monster tables for EL 12 # An alternative to Diplomacy for allies (e.g. mercenaries) # Listen checks for attacking and spellcasting, and the "matrix" method
SauroGrenom 06-18-07, 11:03 PM	I think we should cover the advanced and customized allies first to complete the issue. We can break it down into four questions: (1)Do we allow allies advanced with racial HD or class levels? (2)Do we allow customization of the feats found in the monster entries? (3)Do we allow customization of the skill points? (4)Do we allow non-standard or elite ability arrays? My answers to these questions are as follows: (1)Only class feature allies and leadership allies can be advanced. (2)No. (3)Yes. At a cost of 2 or 5 credits. (4)Yes. At a cost of 5 credits and increased Minimal ECL Requirement of +2.
MindWandererB 06-18-07, 11:06 PM	I've marked the discussion as resolved, and will post The List and related rules into the rules thread within the week. We should probably hash out ally customization before moving on to an entirely different topic. Regarding HD: Options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to 1 ECL per HD, 4) change to 1 ECL and 1 CR per HD. (3 and 4 are different as regards multiple allies and rewards.) Regarding feats: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) allow customization with certain restrictions with gp/credits (for gold/HA allies, respectively), 3) allow customization with restrictions and with credits only, 4) allow customization without restriction with gp/credits, or 5) allow customization without restriction with credits only. Regarding elite array: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to a higher cost in CR, 4) change to a higher cost in ECL. Regarding skills: 1) not allowed, 2) allowed with gp/credits, 3) allowed with credits only. Edit: Heh... obviously Sauro and I are on the same page.
Zevox 06-18-07, 11:17 PM	Regarding HD: Options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to 1 ECL per HD, 4) change to 1 ECL and 1 CR per HD. (3 and 4 are different as regards multiple allies and rewards.) 1. Regarding feats: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) allow customization with certain restrictions with gp/credits (for gold/HA allies, respectively), 3) allow customization with restrictions and with credits only, 4) allow customization without restriction with gp/credits, or 5) allow customization without restriction with credits only. 2. Regarding elite array: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to a higher cost in CR, 4) change to a higher cost in ECL. 2. Regarding skills: 1) not allowed, 2) allowed with gp/credits, 3) allowed with credits only. 2. My opinions. Zevox
Vathelokai 06-18-07, 11:26 PM	I think we should cover the advanced and customized allies first to complete the issue. We can break it down into four questions: (1)Do we allow allies advanced with racial HD or class levels? (2)Do we allow customization of the feats found in the monster entries? (3)Do we allow customization of the skill points? (4)Do we allow non-standard or elite ability arrays? My answers to these questions are as follows: (1)Only class feature allies and leadership allies can be advanced. (2)Only if the creature has an int of 3 or higher (3)Yes. At a cost of 2 or 5 credits. (4)Yes. The rules for this are okay as-is
NiQil 06-18-07, 11:28 PM	I've marked the discussion as resolved, and will post The List and related rules into the rules thread within the week. We should probably hash out ally customization before moving on to an entirely different topic. Regarding HD: Options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to 1 ECL per HD, 4) change to 1 ECL and 1 CR per HD. (3 and 4 are different as regards multiple allies and rewards.) Regarding feats: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) allow customization with certain restrictions with gp/credits (for gold/HA allies, respectively), 3) allow customization with restrictions and with credits only, 4) allow customization without restriction with gp/credits, or 5) allow customization without restriction with credits only. Regarding elite array: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to a higher cost in CR, 4) change to a higher cost in ECL. Regarding skills: 1) not allowed, 2) allowed with gp/credits, 3) allowed with credits only. Edit: Heh... obviously Sauro and I are on the same page. 1. 1 2. 1 3. 2 4. 1
TelinArtho 06-19-07, 05:00 PM	Since we have 2 sets of questions, and everyone has responded to a different set, I'll just respond to both... I've marked the discussion as resolved, and will post The List and related rules into the rules thread within the week. We should probably hash out ally customization before moving on to an entirely different topic. Regarding HD: Options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to 1 ECL per HD, 4) change to 1 ECL and 1 CR per HD. (3 and 4 are different as regards multiple allies and rewards.) Regarding feats: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) allow customization with certain restrictions with gp/credits (for gold/HA allies, respectively), 3) allow customization with restrictions and with credits only, 4) allow customization without restriction with gp/credits, or 5) allow customization without restriction with credits only. Regarding elite array: options are 1) ban it entirely, 2) leave it as-is, 3) change to a higher cost in CR, 4) change to a higher cost in ECL. Regarding skills: 1) not allowed, 2) allowed with gp/credits, 3) allowed with credits only. Edit: Heh... obviously Sauro and I are on the same page. HD - 1 Feats - 1 Elite array - 1 Skills - 1 (1)Do we allow allies advanced with racial HD or class levels? (2)Do we allow customization of the feats found in the monster entries? (3)Do we allow customization of the skill points? (4)Do we allow non-standard or elite ability arrays? 1. No 2. No 3. No 4. No.
MindWandererB 06-19-07, 05:19 PM	Summary: HD: 5 votes for banning entirely. Resolved. Feats: 3 votes for banning entirely, one for a rule similar to what we already have, and one restricting customization to Int 3 or higher creatures. Looks like that one's Resolved, too. Skills: 2 votes for banning, 2 votes for credits only, and one vote for credits or gp. Not resolved. Elite array: One for banning, one for keeping but decreasing availability/increasing cost, and three for leaving as-is. I disagree with it, but the majority has spoken. Resolved.
Zevox 06-19-07, 05:20 PM	So then, that summarizes as: 1) HD Advancement: For: None. Against: Sauro, Vath, NiQil, Zevox, Telin. 2) Feat Customization: For: Zevox (in a limited form), Vath (for creatures int 3+). Against: Sauro, NiQil, Telin. 3) Elite Array: For: Zevox (keep as-is), NiQil (keep as-is), Vath (keep as-is), Sauro (5 credits and +2CR). Against: Telin. 4) Skill Customization: For: Zevox (as-is), Sauro (at 2-5 credit cost), Vath (at 2-5 credit cost). Against: Telin, NiQil. Unless MWB weighs in on the less-supported side of one then, we've got the reults of: Ban: HD advancement, feat customization. Allow: Elite Array, skill customization. There were suggestions to change both of those that the results say we allow, which we should iron out next I suppose. I believe both are fine as-is (5 credits for skill/elite array HA allies, just increased gp cost for purchased ones), but if a change must be made, I'd agree with a 2 credit cost for the skill customization. I don't think that the elite array needs to raise the CR any more than it already does. Edit: Well, looks like MWB and I are on the same page. Zevox
Macbrea 06-20-07, 05:05 PM	Posting this over here for discussion when we get a chance: Arena boundry issue: It probably should be stated on maps that don't have obvious walls that there either are or arent walls at the edge of the arena. The reason for this is the following: Is it legal to use telekinesis to move a character in a telekinetic grapple outside of the arena and hold them there for 10 rounds?
McJarvis 06-20-07, 05:07 PM	Is it legal to use telekinesis to move a character in a telekinetic grapple outside of the arena and hold them there for 10 rounds? It would also be somewhat amusing to grapple someone and force both of you out of the arena, thus creating a draw situation.
hogarth 06-20-07, 05:19 PM	Posting this over here for discussion when we get a chance: Arena boundry issue: It probably should be stated on maps that don't have obvious walls that there either are or arent walls at the edge of the arena. The reason for this is the following: Is it legal to use telekinesis to move a character in a telekinetic grapple outside of the arena and hold them there for 10 rounds? Or you could even use a telekinetic thrust to throw a player out. Also, what happens when a player uses Charm Person, Fear or Suggestion to get another player to leave the arena?
Guildmaster (PSI) 06-20-07, 05:41 PM	oops...
SauroGrenom 06-20-07, 05:42 PM	Or you could even use a telekinetic thrust to throw a player out. Also, what happens when a player uses Charm Person, Fear or Suggestion to get another player to leave the arena? Hmmm... With the charms, it would probably fall under the rules of ordering surrender. In other words, it would be equivalent to killing yourself. Most charms are not powerful enough to compel someone to kill themselves.
McJarvis 06-21-07, 11:15 AM	I'd like to see lighting effects finally be added to the docket. [Random darkness level for each fight] Planar effects could be added too since the ECL10+ leagues are open.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 12:19 PM	Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following: 1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below. 2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows:75-80% of the creature's wealth goes into Andy Collins' Big Six: weapons (primary melee and ranged), armor (& shield), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and ability-score boosters. For weapons and armor, the pitlord should choose upgraded versions of the monster's default equipment, if they have any--and, of course, they should be skipped for monsters without proficiency. Monsters of at least CR 4 should have backup silver weapons, and ones of at least CR 5 should have cold iron as well. Creatures with a PP reserve of at least 2 should have Deepcrystal as their primary weapons, and ones with Improved Sunder should have adamantine (in both cases, if they can afford it). 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth. The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided. 3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead. Thoughts? Are we going forward with this proposal? McJarvis and Usurpator both chimed in saying it was a start, Hirumajoe also felt it was a good start. Abyssal Stalker and MacBrea both commented that they liked monster fights (without any comment on whether they felt the proposed solution was needed). Salrantol commented on the specifics but didn't add any suggestions that I saw. I felt the solution was solid and used it in the recent miniquest for Ephraim's entry into CEF. I don't know that it was indicative of anything - but I did provide the equipment for the "old" way and this proposed solution as a counterpoint. Sauro asked about what to do with creatures with spell lists, and this was proposed by MWB afterwards: What do do about creatures like the Naga or Rakshasa? These creatures simply list their spell casting ability as being equivalent to a sorcerer of x level. Then a list of known spells is provided. Often many of those listed spells are largely useless in the CoCo environment, so does the pitlord have the option to drop silent image for another more useful spell? How about other similar "customizations"? Especially when you start using advanced versions of monsters or dragons, the pitlord has lots of room to build a monster with feats and skills that work well on the given map or against the given character. Those lists of spells are always described as "typical." We have two choices: either use all these lists as written (since these were the lists with which the creature's CR was determined through playtesting), or create standardized lists of CoCo-friendly spells. The former would be much easier; the latter would be more generalizable (to, say, dragons, and even NPC spellcasters). (From looking through this - I got my answer - no we are not yet using it. However, since it is a topic we need to resolve - preferably quickly - I provided the above to further that cause)
Macbrea 06-21-07, 12:24 PM	I would suggest that creatures that are suppose to have a weapon be granted it in addition to their standard equipment. Example: The Noble Fire Salamander states 'Double Standard (16,000gp x 2) plus a +3 Long Spear' The creatures statistic line is calculated as if it is weilding the 18,310gp item. If you were required to buy that with standard wealth for a CR 10 creature then it would not have enough money to buy the item it says it gets for free.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 12:30 PM	I would suggest that creatures that are suppose to have a weapon be granted it in addition to their standard equipment. Example: The Noble Fire Salamander states 'Double Standard (16,000gp x 2) plus a +3 Long Spear' The creatures statistic line is calculated as if it is weilding the 18,310gp item. If you were required to buy that with standard wealth for a CR 10 creature then it would not have enough money to buy the item it says it gets for free. This was asked (by me) and answered (by MWB) before (sorry I didn't quote it before): Just a clarification. Before the monster started with the equipment listed in its entry and the money it gained from the treasure entry was in addition to this basic equipment. Is this still the case? I hadn't considered changing that, and I don't particularly see any need to (yet). Remember that its cash can be used to upgrade its starting equipment, even in ways you can't usually upgrade an existing item (e.g. from normal to masterwork).
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 12:32 PM	I would suggest that creatures that are suppose to have a weapon be granted it in addition to their standard equipment. Example: The Noble Fire Salamander states 'Double Standard (16,000gp x 2) plus a +3 Long Spear' The creatures statistic line is calculated as if it is weilding the 18,310gp item. If you were required to buy that with standard wealth for a CR 10 creature then it would not have enough money to buy the item it says it gets for free. That was an omission; Telin asked about it earlier, and I had agreed with the same conclusion you had. I'll clarify that in the final version. Any other comments on the draft? My particular concerns are 1) unintelligent creatures with items, and 2) the exact list of expendables. @McJarvis: I'm working on a draft for that, too. I'll put it up in the not-too-distant future.
templer10 06-21-07, 01:45 PM	That was an omission; Telin asked about it earlier, and I had agreed with the same conclusion you had. I'll clarify that in the final version. Any other comments on the draft? My particular concerns are 1) unintelligent creatures with items, and 2) the exact list of expendables. @McJarvis: I'm working on a draft for that, too. I'll put it up in the not-too-distant future. i like the list - but i dont think unintelligent creatures should have items especially if ther int reads as None. the primary reason being they wouldnt know what to do with this items (mostly) and the secondery is that their CR is calculated as with no Gear - giving them any gear increase their CR.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 01:48 PM	i like the list - but i dont think unintelligent creatures should have items especially if ther int reads as None. the primary reason being they wouldnt know what to do with this items (mostly) and the secondery is that their CR is calculated as with no Gear - giving them any gear increase their CR. The CR of all monsters is calculated as with no gear other than what's in their description. They can easily use continuous-use items, especially protective ones. Assume someone else equipped them and sent them off. Here's my draft of the random features rules. Feel free to comment now or later. It's based on the draft Cat was working on, with a large number of tweaks to make it more playable. For each fight, I'll roll this. However, I'd prefer to do it offline with real dice for time reasons. With the pairingsmaker, there's no quality control on me anyway. Ideally, Usurpator could implement the finalized rules into his program, but I wanted to design them in such a way that I could roll them manually if I had to (Cat's original proposal would have made that impossible, rolling each feature for each fight). 01-75: No special feature 76-100:Roll for special feature Special features: 01-30: Illumination 31-55: Weather 56-80: Temperature 81-90: Interference 91-95: Planar 96-100:Roll again twice Illumination 01-25: Very bright light. Characters with light sensitivity suffer its effects. 26-60: Dim light (twilight). Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. 61-85: Dark (moonlit night). 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. 86-100:Pitch black (overcast night). All characters are considered blind. Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. Special: The Cavern and Sewer can never have "very bright light." Weather 01-16: Light Fog. Creatures between 30 and 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 17-26: Heavy Fog. Creatures within 5 feet have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 27-42: Rain. Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. 43-57: Snow. As rain, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). 58-62: Sleet. As rain, but impedes movement as snow, and protected flames are extinguished 75% of the time. 63-67: Hail. Listen checks take a -4 penalty. Impedes movement as snow. 68-82: Thunderstorm. Spot, Search, and Listen checks take a -8 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by three quarters. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible; ranged spell attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Severe winds cause Small creatures to be knocked down and Medium ones to be checked unless they make a DC 15 Fortitude save each round (flying creatures are treated as one size category smaller). 83-97: Snowstorm. As thunderstorm, but impedes movement as snow. 98-99: Windstorm. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 75% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks are at -8. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible (ranged spell attacks are at -2). Small or smaller creatures are blown away, Medium creatures are knocked down, and Large or Huge creatures are checked unless they make a DC 18 Fortitude save each round. 100: Blizzard. As windstorm, but impedes movement as snow. Special: None of this has any effect in the Cavern, Sewer, or Temple map. Temperature 01-30: Cold weather. For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. 31-60: Very hot weather. For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Metal armor causes a -4 penalty on these saves. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. 61-78: Severe cold. As cold weather, but five additional checks must be made (it is assumed that the weather changed from "cold" to "severely cold" within the last hour). Winter clothing reduces this effect to the same as cold weather. 79-97: Severe heat. As very hot weather, but five additional checks must be made (it is assumed that the weather changed from "very hot" to "severely hot" within the last hour). 98-99: Extreme cold. As severe cold, but each character takes 1d6 lethal cold damage as soon as the fight begins and once per minute thereafter, plus they must make a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check) or take an additional 1d4 points of nonlethal cold damage. Anyone wearing metal armor is affected as if by the chill metal spell (no save). 100: Extreme heat. As severe heat, but each character takes 1d6 lethal fire damage as soon as the fight begins and once per minute thereafter, plus they must make a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check) or take an additional 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Anyone wearing metal armor is affected as if by the heat metal spell (no save). Special: If a result of snow, sleet, hail, or snowstorm is also rolled, treat any "heat" condition as the equivalent "cold" condition. Interference 01-15: Surprise!: All characters start in the same box. 16-40: Monster!: Every character faces one random unknown monster of CR=ECL-4 in addition to his opponent. Monsters only attack their assigned PC. 41-70: Traps!: At the beginning of the fight, all players face a trap of CR=ECL-4. Treat it exactly as if the opponent had set it (including how to avoid it; see the "Set Trap" Defend Skill Package here). 71-100: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. Once during the fight, each PC may make an opposed Diplomacy check; if successful, the crowd's effect on that PC and their allies is suppressed for 1 round per point by which the PC beat the opponent's check. Planar Effects 01-35: Physical Trait 36-65: Alignment Trait 66-90: Magic Trait 91-100:Roll twice on this table, rerolling duplicate rolls. Planar Effects--Physical Traits 01-30: Heavy Gravity: Attack rolls and Balance, Climb, Jump, Ride, Swim, and Tumble checks incur a –2 circumstance penalty. All item weights are effectively doubled. Weapon ranges are halved. Falling damage is increased to 1d10 per 10 feet fallen. 31-60: Light Gravity: Attack rolls and Balance, Ride, Swim, and Tumble checks suffer a -2 circumstance penalty, but Climb and Jump checks gain a +2 circumstanbce bonus. All items weigh half as much. Weapon ranges double. Falling damage is decreased to 1d4 per 10 feet fallen. 61-80: Subjective Gravity: As a free action once per round, any character can decide which way is down. Unattended objects and unintelligent creatures float in place. 81-90: Fast-Flowing Time: The time roll for this week is effectively doubled for characters in this fight. 91-100:Slow-Flowing Time: The time roll for this week is effectively zero for characters in this fight. Special: Subjective Gravity should be rerolled as a different planar effect if rolled in the forest or plains. Planar Effects--Alignment Traits (roll once for Good/Evil and once for Law/Chaos) 01-30: Mildly Good-Aligned . . . Mildly Law-Aligned: Evil/Chaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks. 31-60: Mildly Evil-Aligned . . . Mildly Chaos-Aligned: Good/Lawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks. 61-70: Strongly Good-Aligned . . Strongly Law-Aligned: Nongood/nonlawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks, and evil/chaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Intelligence and Wisdom-based checks, including Will saves. 71-80: Strongly Evil-Aligned . . Strongly Chaos-Aligned: Nonevil/nonchaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks, and good/lawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Intelligence and Wisdom-based checks, including Will saves. 81-95: Mildly Neutral-Aligned: No effect. 96-100:Strongly Neutral-Aligned: Nonneutral characters suffer a -2 penalty on Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma-based checks, including Will saves. Special: These penalties stack. Also note that penalties to skill checks may affect the use of free activities and skill packages. Special: Remember that the "neutral-aligned" effects apply only on the axis for which they were rolled, so a plane could be both mildly lawful and strongly neutral. Planar Effects--Magic Traits (Apply to psionics and spell-like abilities as well) 10-25: Wild Magic: Every time a spell is cast, the caster must pass a CL check Dc15+SL or face wild magic effects (DMG p.150, or here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/planes.html)) 26-50: Impeded Magic: To cast an spell, the caster must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the level of the spell). If the check fails, the spell does not function but is still lost as a prepared spell or spell slot. 51-75: Enhanced Magic: Any spell cast automatically has a metamagic or metapsionic feat applied to it at no cost (each effect applies equally well to spells and powers). Roll 1d16 (1:EMP|2:ENL|3:EXT|4:MAX|5:QUI|6:SIL|7:S TI|8:WID|9:BUR|10:CHA|11:DEL|12:TWI|13:E .S|14:REA|15:REP|16:SUB) 76-100:Limited Magic: Spells of 1d3 <random> schools do not work (remember psionic/magic transparency!). Roll 1d8 (1:ILL|2:ENC|3:CON|4:NEC|5:EVO|6:DIV|7:T RA|8:ABJ and Psychoportation)
Salrantol 06-21-07, 02:00 PM	Please tell me we are notified of the unusual circumstances before writing tactics?
McJarvis 06-21-07, 02:02 PM	I hate to just add thing after thing-> If I'm wrong that's great, but I believe we need to hammer out exactly what kinds of allies can be scared by Intimidate & how the CR is calculated for class allies like animal companions/familiars [or at least this needs to be added to the intimidate rules]
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 02:06 PM	Please tell me we are notified of the unusual circumstances before writing tactics? Of course. It would be added right next to the map.
Zevox 06-21-07, 02:19 PM	17-26: Heavy Fog. Creatures within 5 feet have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. Um, over the top much? Seriously, if theres no way to get around this, then except for the odd character with Blindsense/sight, Touchsight, or some magical detection spells, this is going to lead to matches where characters spend dozens of rounds wandering blindly hoping to blunder into their foe. Probably not a great idea. 68-82: Thunderstorm. Spot, Search, and Listen checks take a -8 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by three quarters. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible; ranged spell attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Severe winds cause Small creatures to be knocked down and Medium ones to be checked unless they make a DC 15 Fortitude save each round (flying creatures are treated as one size category smaller). As when Cat made these suggestions, I'm very much so against any random condition which may be as crippling as that. Completely preventing ranged attacks utterly shuts down some characters, making the fight decided by the dice roll getting them this condition. No fun for anyone there. 71-100: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. Once during the fight, each PC may make an opposed Diplomacy check; if successful, the crowd's effect on that PC and their allies is suppressed for 1 round per point by which the PC beat the opponent's check. See the above, but with sneaks instead of archers. 01-30: Mildly Good-Aligned . . . Mildly Law-Aligned: Evil/Chaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks. 31-60: Mildly Evil-Aligned . . . Mildly Chaos-Aligned: Good/Lawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks. These seem kinda pointless. That'd be a penalty to what, bluff and handle animal checks in our environment? 81-95: Mildly Neutral-Aligned: No effect. And this one is totally pointless. You rolled getting a special effect for the battle, but that special effect turns out to be nothing at all? Why even have this as an option? Zevox
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 02:20 PM	We'd need to iron out a random list of traps for each CR for the Traps situation. Also - restrictions to the effects according to ECL would be great - ECL3 does not suffer the effects at all; ECL10+ are the only ones that get planar, etc. I'm not sure I understand how subjective gravity would work out...
Usurpator 06-21-07, 02:25 PM	Rather than making some kind of balanced addition in random arena conditions, you should specifically pick and construct conditions that add a fun factor to the fights. It should make fight more interesting without paining the Pitlord with too much administrative duties.
hogarth 06-21-07, 02:52 PM	Different levels of illumination are easy to implement with any map. But for the more exotic stuff (like traps, high winds, or subjective gravity), maybe we could create some new maps that use them (like a trap-infested tomb map, a windy mountaintop map or an astral plane map). Of course, the big problem with that is that we couldn't use any new maps with Dracazar's handy mapping program without getting him to add them in first. By the way, I agree with Zevox -- there shouldn't be any conditions which make "X" impossible (where "X" is a popular technique like ranged combat, spellcasting, flying, etc.) More difficult, maybe; but impossible, no.
Khaim 06-21-07, 03:11 PM	As a side note: It would be cool to be able to challenge another gladiator, specifying traits. So maybe you'd have a darkvision character challenge a human one bracket up, with the handicap of fighting in pitch blackness. Or something like that.
NiQil 06-21-07, 03:13 PM	The CR of all monsters is calculated as with no gear other than what's in their description. They can easily use continuous-use items, especially protective ones. Assume someone else equipped them and sent them off. Here's my draft of the random features rules. Feel free to comment now or later. It's based on the draft Cat was working on, with a large number of tweaks to make it more playable. For each fight, I'll roll this. However, I'd prefer to do it offline with real dice for time reasons. With the pairingsmaker, there's no quality control on me anyway. Ideally, Usurpator could implement the finalized rules into his program, but I wanted to design them in such a way that I could roll them manually if I had to (Cat's original proposal would have made that impossible, rolling each feature for each fight). 01-75: No special feature 76-100:Roll for special feature Special features: 01-30: Illumination 31-55: Weather 56-80: Temperature 81-90: Interference 91-95: Planar 96-100:Roll again twice Illumination 01-25: Very bright light. Characters with light sensitivity suffer its effects. 26-60: Dim light (twilight). Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. 61-85: Dark (moonlit night). 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. 86-100:Pitch black (overcast night). All characters are considered blind. Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. Special: The Cavern and Sewer can never have "very bright light." Weather 01-16: Light Fog. Creatures between 30 and 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 17-26: Heavy Fog. Creatures within 5 feet have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 27-42: Rain. Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. 43-57: Snow. As rain, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). 58-62: Sleet. As rain, but impedes movement as snow, and protected flames are extinguished 75% of the time. 63-67: Hail. Listen checks take a -4 penalty. Impedes movement as snow. 68-82: Thunderstorm. Spot, Search, and Listen checks take a -8 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by three quarters. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible; ranged spell attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Severe winds cause Small creatures to be knocked down and Medium ones to be checked unless they make a DC 15 Fortitude save each round (flying creatures are treated as one size category smaller). 83-97: Snowstorm. As thunderstorm, but impedes movement as snow. 98-99: Windstorm. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 75% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks are at -8. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible (ranged spell attacks are at -2). Small or smaller creatures are blown away, Medium creatures are knocked down, and Large or Huge creatures are checked unless they make a DC 18 Fortitude save each round. 100: Blizzard. As windstorm, but impedes movement as snow. Special: None of this has any effect in the Cavern, Sewer, or Temple map. Temperature 01-30: Cold weather. For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. 31-60: Very hot weather. For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Metal armor causes a -4 penalty on these saves. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. 61-78: Severe cold. As cold weather, but five additional checks must be made (it is assumed that the weather changed from "cold" to "severely cold" within the last hour). Winter clothing reduces this effect to the same as cold weather. 79-97: Severe heat. As very hot weather, but five additional checks must be made (it is assumed that the weather changed from "very hot" to "severely hot" within the last hour). 98-99: Extreme cold. As severe cold, but each character takes 1d6 lethal cold damage as soon as the fight begins and once per minute thereafter, plus they must make a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check) or take an additional 1d4 points of nonlethal cold damage. Anyone wearing metal armor is affected as if by the chill metal spell (no save). 100: Extreme heat. As severe heat, but each character takes 1d6 lethal fire damage as soon as the fight begins and once per minute thereafter, plus they must make a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check) or take an additional 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Anyone wearing metal armor is affected as if by the heat metal spell (no save). Special: If a result of snow, sleet, hail, or snowstorm is also rolled, treat any "heat" condition as the equivalent "cold" condition. Interference 01-15: Surprise!: All characters start in the same box. 16-40: Monster!: Every character faces one random unknown monster of CR=ECL-4 in addition to his opponent. Monsters only attack their assigned PC. 41-70: Traps!: At the beginning of the fight, all players face a trap of CR=ECL-4. Treat it exactly as if the opponent had set it (including how to avoid it; see the "Set Trap" Defend Skill Package here). 71-100: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. Once during the fight, each PC may make an opposed Diplomacy check; if successful, the crowd's effect on that PC and their allies is suppressed for 1 round per point by which the PC beat the opponent's check. Planar Effects 01-35: Physical Trait 36-65: Alignment Trait 66-90: Magic Trait 91-100:Roll twice on this table, rerolling duplicate rolls. Planar Effects--Physical Traits 01-30: Heavy Gravity: Attack rolls and Balance, Climb, Jump, Ride, Swim, and Tumble checks incur a –2 circumstance penalty. All item weights are effectively doubled. Weapon ranges are halved. Falling damage is increased to 1d10 per 10 feet fallen. 31-60: Light Gravity: Attack rolls and Balance, Ride, Swim, and Tumble checks suffer a -2 circumstance penalty, but Climb and Jump checks gain a +2 circumstanbce bonus. All items weigh half as much. Weapon ranges double. Falling damage is decreased to 1d4 per 10 feet fallen. 61-80: Subjective Gravity: As a free action once per round, any character can decide which way is down. Unattended objects and unintelligent creatures float in place. 81-90: Fast-Flowing Time: The time roll for this week is effectively doubled for characters in this fight. 91-100:Slow-Flowing Time: The time roll for this week is effectively zero for characters in this fight. Special: Subjective Gravity should be rerolled as a different planar effect if rolled in the forest or plains. Planar Effects--Alignment Traits (roll once for Good/Evil and once for Law/Chaos) 01-30: Mildly Good-Aligned . . . Mildly Law-Aligned: Evil/Chaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks. 31-60: Mildly Evil-Aligned . . . Mildly Chaos-Aligned: Good/Lawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks. 61-70: Strongly Good-Aligned . . Strongly Law-Aligned: Nongood/nonlawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks, and evil/chaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Intelligence and Wisdom-based checks, including Will saves. 71-80: Strongly Evil-Aligned . . Strongly Chaos-Aligned: Nonevil/nonchaotic characters suffer a -2 penalty on Charisma-based checks, and good/lawful characters suffer a -2 penalty on Intelligence and Wisdom-based checks, including Will saves. 81-95: Mildly Neutral-Aligned: No effect. 96-100:Strongly Neutral-Aligned: Nonneutral characters suffer a -2 penalty on Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma-based checks, including Will saves. Special: These penalties stack. Also note that penalties to skill checks may affect the use of free activities and skill packages. Special: Remember that the "neutral-aligned" effects apply only on the axis for which they were rolled, so a plane could be both mildly lawful and strongly neutral. Planar Effects--Magic Traits (Apply to psionics and spell-like abilities as well) 10-25: Wild Magic: Every time a spell is cast, the caster must pass a CL check Dc15+SL or face wild magic effects (DMG p.150, or here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/planes.html)) 26-50: Impeded Magic: To cast an spell, the caster must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the level of the spell). If the check fails, the spell does not function but is still lost as a prepared spell or spell slot. 51-75: Enhanced Magic: Any spell cast automatically has a metamagic or metapsionic feat applied to it at no cost (each effect applies equally well to spells and powers). Roll 1d16 (1:EMP|2:ENL|3:EXT|4:MAX|5:QUI|6:SIL|7:S TI|8:WID|9:BUR|10:CHA|11:DEL|12:TWI|13:E .S|14:REA|15:REP|16:SUB) 76-100:Limited Magic: Spells of 1d3 <random> schools do not work (remember psionic/magic transparency!). Roll 1d8 (1:ILL|2:ENC|3:CON|4:NEC|5:EVO|6:DIV|7:T RA|8:ABJ and Psychoportation) Wow.....in it's current format, I would vote to not include that at all. That is way way way too many variables to plan around. When I originally suggested this stuff to Cat way back when, the idea was to take a few things and implement them uniformly over all fights that week, similar to the time roll. So as an example, when posting the time roll, you would also post what the lighting is in all arenas that week, what the temperature is, etc. Having all of those things rolled for each fight just seems like overkill to me. Having said that, there are also many many of those options I would not be in favor of. The ones that immediately jumped out at me are the entire Interference category. Those are all way over the top and, in my opinion, need to go away entirely. If I were going to design this idea with the idea that each fight gets its own set of variables as you propose, every fight would get an illumination roll, a temperature roll, and a weather roll, and that would be it. Eliminate the Interference and Planar categories entirely. In my opinion, illumination, temperature and weather should be all we worry about. We can then hammer out the variables under each category from there. I am really really not in favor of the Interference and Planar categories at all.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 03:16 PM	Um, over the top much? Seriously, if theres no way to get around this, then except for the odd character with Blindsense/sight, Touchsight, or some magical detection spells, this is going to lead to matches where characters spend dozens of rounds wandering blindly hoping to blunder into their foe. Probably not a great idea. As when Cat made these suggestions, I'm very much so against any random condition which may be as crippling as that. Completely preventing ranged attacks utterly shuts down some characters, making the fight decided by the dice roll getting them this condition. No fun for anyone there. See the above, but with sneaks instead of archers. These seem kinda pointless. That'd be a penalty to what, bluff and handle animal checks in our environment? And this one is totally pointless. You rolled getting a special effect for the battle, but that special effect turns out to be nothing at all? Why even have this as an option? Zevox The existing conditions in the DMG were Cat's and my starting point; the "Interference" conditions were his ideas. Some of them are very potent, some of them are not. For the alignment traits, the weak and nonexistent ones are on there because you roll twice. For instance, a plane could be mildly neutral on the law/chaos axis, but strongly evil. I don't think the sneaks would be totally crippled necessarily, due to the Cha check option. But it's still pretty crippling to them. Maybe if we reduced it from a pinpoint to a general area? @NiQil: Making the conditions apply to all fights would certainly simplify things.
Zevox 06-21-07, 03:17 PM	As a side note: It would be cool to be able to challenge another gladiator, specifying traits. So maybe you'd have a darkvision character challenge a human one bracket up, with the handicap of fighting in pitch blackness. Or something like that. You can already do that. Challenge matches can have any terms that the two+ combatants agree to - pre-selected map, certain spells forbidden, whatever. Zevox
Zevox 06-21-07, 03:19 PM	For the alignment traits, the weak and nonexistent ones are on there because you roll twice. For instance, a plane could be mildly neutral on the law/chaos axis, but strongly evil. I still don't follow. You have things on there which are essentially non-factors because they may be one of two things rolled? Hows that any different from having one thing that actually matters rolled then? Zevox
Erithmu 06-21-07, 03:20 PM	A request to the council: deal with a couple of the other issues that have been highly and hotly requested topics. Or issues that affect our current rule set before dealing with the environment topics ex: DC 0 listen rule, Intimidate, edges of maps ...
McJarvis 06-21-07, 03:21 PM	every fight would get an illumination roll, a temperature roll, and a weather roll, and that would be it. Eliminate the Interference and Planar categories entirely. I agree with this the most. I'd rather see something simple that applied to all fights for the week than something that required tons of rolls. [and in the arena format, even with it's morphic qualities, we're going to run into RP problems with planar effects]
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 03:25 PM	I still don't follow. You have things on there which are essentially non-factors because they may be one of two things rolled? Hows that any different from having one thing that actually matters rolled then?In TT D&D, alignment traits usually go together. My options were to either create one table with every single meaningful combination on (e.g. mildly lawful, strongly evil; strongly neutral, mildly good; etc.) or use the table I came up with. Or use Cat's table, which used the Great Wheel cosmology.A request to the council: deal with a couple of the other issues that have been highly and hotly requested topics. Or issues that affect our current rule set before dealing with the environment topics ex: DC 0 listen rule, Intimidate, edges of maps ...That's probably a good idea. I posted my draft so people could think about it, but we should deal with the other things first.
NiQil 06-21-07, 03:40 PM	In TT D&D, alignment traits usually go together. My options were to either create one table with every single meaningful combination on (e.g. mildly lawful, strongly evil; strongly neutral, mildly good; etc.) or use the table I came up with. Or use Cat's table, which used the Great Wheel cosmology.That's probably a good idea. I posted my draft so people could think about it, but we should deal with the other things first. Here is my counter proposal of the variable effects. This would be rolled for each fight. Alternately, a single roll could be done for all fights that week. I bolded the ones that I changed, and either deleted or struck out things that I don't think should be there. You'll note quite a huge difference in the number of variables. Interference, Temperature and Planar are gone. I eliminated Temperature since it doesn't really make sense to have both temperature and weather....how would we explain an extremely hot temperature with a snowstorm? I would be open to combining temperature and weather into one category, however. All fights receive an Illumination roll and a Weather Roll. Illumination 01-25: Afternoon. Characters with light sensitivity suffer its effects. 26-60: Sunset. Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. 61-85: Evening. 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. 86-100: Dead of night. Characters cannot see more than 10 ft without a light source. Low-light vision will double these distances. Spot check penalties for distance inside these ranges are quadrupled, and outside of these distances are impossible. Anything outside of your visual range gains total concealment. Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. Special: The Cavern and Sewer can never have "very bright light." Weather 01-16: Light Fog. Creatures at a distance greater than 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 17-26: Heavy Fog. Creatures between 30 ft and 60 ft away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 27-42: Rain. Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. 43-57: Snow. As rain, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). 58-62: Sleet. As rain, but impedes movement as snow, and protected flames are extinguished 75% of the time. 63-67: Hail. Listen checks take a -4 penalty. Impedes movement as snow. 68-82: Thunderstorm. Spot, Search, and Listen checks take a -8 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by three quarters. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible at ranges greater than 60 ft; ranged spell attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Severe winds cause Small creatures to be knocked down and Medium ones to be checked unless they make a DC 15 Fortitude save each round (flying creatures are treated as one size category smaller). 83-97: Snowstorm. As thunderstorm, but impedes movement as snow. 98-99: Windstorm. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 75% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks are at -8. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible at ranges greater than 30 ft (ranged spell attacks are at -2). Small or smaller creatures are blown away, Medium creatures are knocked down, and Large or Huge creatures are checked unless they make a DC 18 Fortitude save each round. 100: Blizzard. As windstorm, but impedes movement as snow. Special: None of this has any effect in the Cavern, Sewer, or Temple map.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 03:49 PM	A request to the council: deal with a couple of the other issues that have been highly and hotly requested topics. Or issues that affect our current rule set before dealing with the environment topics ex: DC 0 listen rule, Intimidate, edges of maps ... Agreed! DC 0 Listen Rule: I like it the way it is. We discussed it at great length when we decided this. It was the closest thing we could come up with in the core rules. I'd rather not make up a new house rule for this. As for the house rule on the beating the listen DC by less than 20, that's a total house rule. I think it's a reasonable house rule. It's not complicated, and the rules are not clear on how to deal with things where the listen check DC is exceeded but not high enough to pinpoint. Intimidate: I'm not sure what the question is there. Edge of Maps: Well this could be done in a simple way or a more complicated and potentially interesting way. The simple way is to just not be able to cross the boundary of the arena. There's a wall or something. The more complicated way is to consider the boundary like the edges of a sumo wrestlers ring (ie victory requires staying inside). Personally I could go either way. But I slightly prefer keeping things simple in this sense. We have lots of other ways to make our battles complicated, we don't need one more.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 03:57 PM	Here is my counter proposal of the variable effects. This would be rolled for each fight. Alternately, a single roll could be done for all fights that week. I bolded the ones that I changed, and either deleted or struck out things that I don't think should be there. You'll note quite a huge difference in the number of variables. Interference, Temperature and Planar are gone. I eliminated Temperature since it doesn't really make sense to have both temperature and weather....how would we explain an extremely hot temperature with a snowstorm? I would be open to combining temperature and weather into one category, however. All fights receive an Illumination roll and a Weather Roll. Illumination 01-25: Afternoon. Characters with light sensitivity suffer its effects. 26-60: Sunset. Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. 61-85: Evening. 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. 86-100: Dead of night. Characters cannot see more than 10 ft without a light source. Low-light vision will double these distances. Spot check penalties for distance inside these ranges are quadrupled, and outside of these distances are impossible. Anything outside of your visual range gains total concealment. Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. Special: The Cavern and Sewer can never have "very bright light." Weather 01-16: Light Fog. Creatures at a distance greater than 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 17-26: Heavy Fog. Creatures between 30 ft and 60 ft away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. 27-42: Rain. Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. 43-57: Snow. As rain, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). 58-62: Sleet. As rain, but impedes movement as snow, and protected flames are extinguished 75% of the time. 63-67: Hail. Listen checks take a -4 penalty. Impedes movement as snow. 68-82: Thunderstorm. Spot, Search, and Listen checks take a -8 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by three quarters. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible at ranges greater than 60 ft; ranged spell attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Severe winds cause Small creatures to be knocked down and Medium ones to be checked unless they make a DC 15 Fortitude save each round (flying creatures are treated as one size category smaller). 83-97: Snowstorm. As thunderstorm, but impedes movement as snow. 98-99: Windstorm. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 75% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks are at -8. Ranged weapon attacks are impossible at ranges greater than 30 ft (ranged spell attacks are at -2). Small or smaller creatures are blown away, Medium creatures are knocked down, and Large or Huge creatures are checked unless they make a DC 18 Fortitude save each round. 100: Blizzard. As windstorm, but impedes movement as snow. Special: None of this has any effect in the Cavern, Sewer, or Temple map. I'm curious why you struckout the City lights. Those rules were lifted straight from the DMG, and they make sense to me. And weather in the sewer? As for the ones you changed, I would rather take them out entirely than make stuff up. The existing rules were out of the DMG; I'd rather not have thunderstorms at all than have them operate differently from RAW. You'll also note that I had a "special" comment for the Temperature table, where if you got snow+heat, it would be converted into cold (which is why heat effects were slightly less common than cold ones). Finally, regarding the "dead of night"/"pitch black" conditions: when we do implement lighting, people are going to want to carry light sources. That's why I didn't mind total darkness. I also don't want to phrase them so that they're specific to the time of day, because then they make no sense indoors or underground.
NiQil 06-21-07, 04:01 PM	Let me weight in for the first time on the DC 0 Listen check. Though it may be the closest thing to a core rule we have, it is still a house rule. Since we are already using a house rule, I see no reason a different house rule cannot be explored in it's place. It's painfully obvious that a good bulk of our players do not like the rule as it stands (otherwise they wouldn't want it reexamined in the first place). So since we know that anything we use, whether it is the DC 0 or something else, is going to be a house rule, lets at least make a house rule that most everyone can live with.
Macbrea 06-21-07, 04:04 PM	Finally, regarding the "dead of night"/"pitch black" conditions: when we do implement lighting, people are going to want to carry light sources. That's why I didn't mind total darkness. I also don't want to phrase them so that they're specific to the time of day, because then they make no sense indoors or underground. I should be noted that 30% of all magic weapons give off glowing light. A player with a magic weapon should have to make a permanent decision on each weapon they have wether it gives off light. This actually should effect the current arena fighting as it effects hiding.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 04:04 PM	Agreed! DC 0 Listen Rule: I like it the way it is. We discussed it at great length when we decided this. It was the closest thing we could come up with in the core rules. I'd rather not make up a new house rule for this. As for the house rule on the beating the listen DC by less than 20, that's a total house rule. I think it's a reasonable house rule. It's not complicated, and the rules are not clear on how to deal with things where the listen check DC is exceeded but not high enough to pinpoint. Intimidate: I'm not sure what the question is there. Edge of Maps: Well this could be done in a simple way or a more complicated and potentially interesting way. The simple way is to just not be able to cross the boundary of the arena. There's a wall or something. The more complicated way is to consider the boundary like the edges of a sumo wrestlers ring (ie victory requires staying inside). Personally I could go either way. But I slightly prefer keeping things simple in this sense. We have lots of other ways to make our battles complicated, we don't need one more. I for one strongly dislike the current Listen rule as regards the "matrix method". It's not even that close to RAW. RAW gives direction on a slightly successful Listen check. Take the following example: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,29,48;b= Name,M,31,48;o=Effect,32,47,4 If A is trying to hear B, but succeeds by 0-4, then by our current rules, A could think B is anywhere in the gray radius--including the exact opposite direction. By RAW, that's impossible, since you know the correct direction. Also, by RAW, when you get a pinpoint, you know it; if you don't, you know you didn't. Our rules deny that. I don't mind house-rules for the intermediate cases, but I strongly believe that for a successby 0, we should follow RAW exactly. Re: Intimidate: Our Intimidate rules are based on CR. Many allies (including most class allies) have no CR. Edge of maps: I'd rather just make the edges impenetrable barriers. It's artificial, but to do otherwise is both more complicated, more cumbersome on the pitlord (can't map someone off the edge), and cheese-vulnerable. (Addendum: while we're at it, I wouldn't mind applying this to the height max on the City as well. I'm amazed no one's tried a ring-out victory that way yet.)
NiQil 06-21-07, 04:05 PM	I'm curious why you struckout the City lights. Those rules were lifted straight from the DMG, and they make sense to me. And weather in the sewer? As for the ones you changed, I would rather take them out entirely than make stuff up. The existing rules were out of the DMG; I'd rather not have thunderstorms at all than have them operate differently from RAW. You'll also note that I had a "special" comment for the Temperature table, where if you got snow+heat, it would be converted into cold (which is why heat effects were slightly less common than cold ones). Finally, regarding the "dead of night"/"pitch black" conditions: when we do implement lighting, people are going to want to carry light sources. That's why I didn't mind total darkness. I also don't want to phrase them so that they're specific to the time of day, because then they make no sense indoors or underground. The reason I did that is one of uniformity. I don't think it is fair to have maps be unaffected by any of the conditions we decide upon. Saying that there can be no weather in the sewer just because it is a sewer does not account for the possibilily of magically created weather put there for the express purpose of the arena duels. Same with the cavern. There are RP reasons that can be made up to get around those types of things. I also altered the pitch black conditions because I am also of the opinion that something like making all characters blind is a bit too powerful...also the same reason I modified the wind effects for the weather selections. No ranged attacks is not something I ever want to see in an arena fight. And the flavor text thing is easily adjustable...those were just the first things that came to mind.
Macbrea 06-21-07, 04:07 PM	Darn it! I just got telekinesis exactly for the city fights!
McJarvis 06-21-07, 04:08 PM	I should be noted that 30% of all magic weapons give off glowing light. Ever try to find your way in the dark using your glow-in-the-dark t-shirt? Regardless-> Absolute darkness won't have a terribly big effect, given the cheapness of perminant flame NPC casting. [It will effectively be the same as low-light, except dark vision peeps won't be auto-spotted]
Macbrea 06-21-07, 04:10 PM	Light Generation Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions. It's alittle heavier then day-glow.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 04:13 PM	Ever try to find your way in the dark using your glow-in-the-dark t-shirt?Ever try to do it with a really high-quality, large, fully-charged glow-in-the-dark object? It's quite doable, brighter than candlelight for a while. And Macbrea is quite right.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 04:18 PM	So many things to address... Listen check - the matrix is something that I think works fine. It even says that you rule out ones that are "impossible" - so in the case presented by MWB - the ones in the opposite direction would be ruled out accordingly. In most cases, people need the pinpoint to bother attacking and in the others - they just need the general direction. The distinction about "beating a check by 20" to pinpoint is an aftereffect of the invisibility spell and I think it works just fine. As to the listen DC of attacks - I've always felt that a MS check at -20 was good enough there (that's what I use in my home games anyway), but I'm willing to discuss it. A flat DC0 doesn't make any sense to me really. For intimidate - something to clarify it would certainly help. One proposal I saw was to advance the creature of that type by the HD it was given. So a familiar is normally a magical beast with a CR of x (where x is the CR of the base animal/monster). As the PC advances, the CR increases according to the number of HD the creature gains as the PC advances. I think that is reasonable - but it might have flaws I didn't consider. For edge of maps - I thought the only one where you could forcibly go out of bounds was the city map. I don't care one way or the other about whether it is kept - save or dies are common at all levels - making Telekinesis, Reverse gravity or any number of others as save or dies is not a big deal to me. As to the environment effects - I do think that starting off small would probably be a little better...
Macbrea 06-21-07, 04:32 PM	Telekinesis doesn't have a save. It's a grapple check with the casters check being CL + INT.
McJarvis 06-21-07, 04:33 PM	RE: Listen checks[Matrix]-> The matrix is a big deal for any pitlord who has to run a fight with a super-hider[which don't exist right now because of our hard-lined rules]. I think a simple "normal" listen & "dc+20 to pinpoint' listen are more than enough. [And they are all the rules give anyway] RE: Listen checks[DC0] The primary problem with this ruling is that it is completely arbitrary & was taken from text that I think wasn't meant to be applied to all attacks. Even if we re-clarified it as "weapon attacks" I'd be fine with it. Right now it's the same check to hear a gun or a bow-> and that just isn't right. [especially given how quiet bows are] Frankly, I'm sorry I ever pointed everyone to the rules for invisible foes in the first place: it really isn't applicable. Just keep in mind that on the above two issues anything we decide will be a house rule. Also keep in mind that neither are very popular at the present moment when people actually have to deal with them. [Though most pitlords ignore the matrix, so...] ~McJ~
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 04:37 PM	Listen check - the matrix is something that I think works fine. It even says that you rule out ones that are "impossible" - so in the case presented by MWB - the ones in the opposite direction would be ruled out accordingly. In most cases, people need the pinpoint to bother attacking and in the others - they just need the general direction. The distinction about "beating a check by 20" to pinpoint is an aftereffect of the invisibility spell and I think it works just fine.I don't see anything about ruling out impossible locations in our rules--and how the the character to know what's impossible and what isn't, unless it's in a solid object? Most importantly, our rules don't let someone know if they got a pinpoint, so you have to roll the matrix every time. It's a pain. As to the listen DC of attacks - I've always felt that a MS check at -20 was good enough there (that's what I use in my home games anyway), but I'm willing to discuss it. A flat DC0 doesn't make any sense to me really.I'd go along with that.For intimidate - something to clarify it would certainly help. One proposal I saw was to advance the creature of that type by the HD it was given. So a familiar is normally a magical beast with a CR of x (where x is the CR of the base animal/monster). As the PC advances, the CR increases according to the number of HD the creature gains as the PC advances. I think that is reasonable - but it might have flaws I didn't consider.It makes sense, but it does end up with very low CRs for high-level familiars. For edge of maps - I thought the only one where you could forcibly go out of bounds was the city map. I don't care one way or the other about whether it is kept - save or dies are common at all levels - making Telekinesis, Reverse gravity or any number of others as save or dies is not a big deal to me.Some things, like Telekinetic Maneuver, are a little harder to resist than other save-or-dies. And if we extend this rule to the edges of the plains, forest, and city, then a simple bull rush could do it.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 04:46 PM	Generally I agree with Telin's suggestions. With the following exception. As to the listen DC of attacks - I've always felt that a MS check at -20 was good enough there (that's what I use in my home games anyway), but I'm willing to discuss it. A flat DC0 doesn't make any sense to me really.I really don't like the idea of stretching the move silently skill to be a "do anything silently" skill. As far as I'm concerned "move" means to move from one square on the map to another square. This applies in all cases where something happens if a character "moves". It applies to the Wall of Thorns causing damage, and it applies to balance checks and moving, and it applies in all other cases where something happens when you "move". The Move Silently skill only applies to moving silently. That's it. Any other kind of action that makes noise wouldn't be effected by this skill. There would be a cast silently skill, or an attack silently skill, or a communicate silently skill, or a fart silently skill if the game were to make it possible to do any of these things silently. Since those skills don't exist, those kinds of actions always make noise. If you want to invent a house rule for a new skill called cast silently, or silent archery, or whatever, then I suppose we could discuss that. But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently".
Khaim 06-21-07, 04:54 PM	If you want to invent a house rule for a new skill called cast silently, or silent archery, or whatever, then I suppose we could discuss that. But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently". I have to say, the latter seems more in keeping with the rules than the former. It seems silly to say "well, despite the fact that you can walk through a cavern of bats without being heard, your dagger makes exactly the same sound as Fighty McClanksalot and his greatsword over here." Oh, actually: In the case of people trying to be quiet, the DCs given on the table could be replaced by Move Silently checks, in which case the indicated DC would be their average check result. I think part of the problem isn't actually that it's a flat DC, but that it's such a low DC. I mean, DC 0 is for people talking in a normal voice. The swish of a sword (or whatever) seems like it would be a lot quieter than that. Regardless, I think Listen vs Move Silently would be best, maybe with some penalty on the MS check. Then again, I'm not an elder.
McJarvis 06-21-07, 04:54 PM	But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently". Yeah, you want to interpret it as "everything other than movement is as loud as a gunshot" :rolleyes:
Khaim 06-21-07, 04:55 PM	Also this: Action None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.
NiQil 06-21-07, 04:57 PM	Generally I agree with Telin's suggestions. With the following exception. I really don't like the idea of stretching the move silently skill to be a "do anything silently" skill. As far as I'm concerned "move" means to move from one square on the map to another square. This applies in all cases where something happens if a character "moves". It applies to the Wall of Thorns causing damage, and it applies to balance checks and moving, and it applies in all other cases where something happens when you "move". The Move Silently skill only applies to moving silently. That's it. Any other kind of action that makes noise wouldn't be effected by this skill. There would be a cast silently skill, or an attack silently skill, or a communicate silently skill, or a fart silently skill if the game were to make it possible to do any of these things silently. Since those skills don't exist, those kinds of actions always make noise. If you want to invent a house rule for a new skill called cast silently, or silent archery, or whatever, then I suppose we could discuss that. But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently". See...I think just the opposite. I think that Move Silently is the skill that should be used whenever you want to try and do anything silently. Let me point out something from the SRD to support this point: Action: None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action. Emphasis mine. Right there in the RAW...move silently is included in your movement or other activity. So if you are reading the Move Silently skill in the literal sense and taking it to mean that it only works when you actually move, then what would they be referring to when talking about 'other activities'?
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 05:28 PM	I have to say, the latter seems more in keeping with the rules than the former. It seems silly to say "well, despite the fact that you can walk through a cavern of bats without being heard, your dagger makes exactly the same sound as Fighty McClanksalot and his greatsword over here." Bah. It doesn't matter who casts Shout. It makes the same sound. Otherwise it wold be possible to silently ring a bell, or silently explode an A-bomb. Rubbish. Oh, actually: I think part of the problem isn't actually that it's a flat DC, but that it's such a low DC. I mean, DC 0 is for people talking in a normal voice. The swish of a sword (or whatever) seems like it would be a lot quieter than that. Regardless, I think Listen vs Move Silently would be best, maybe with some penalty on the MS check. Then again, I'm not an elder.Those things in the table given by the Listen skill already are in direct contradiction with the statement below the table that you quote. An owl doesn't have a MS skill high enough to average a 30 on a move. The table is an ad-hoc production that's intended to give the GM a frame of reference to create listen DC's on the fly. It's not a good use for us in CoCo, because we rely on hard rules instead of GM judgment to decide things. NiQil, The "other activities" is intended to be a blanket statement that covers forms of movement that can be confused with movement in the classical sense of walking around. Things like climbing, flying, gliding, swimming, riding in a wagon or other modes of movement that could be argued are different from walking around. If we extend the Move Silently skill to become a Do Anything Silently, then let's take that to the logical extreme and see if it makes sense. Say that a character is particularly skilled in the new Do Anything Silently skill. Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Or ring a bell silently, or use a sonic attack silently, or set off a hand grenade... silently, or sing some bardic music silently, or bluff an opponent silently, or silently utter a command word, or silently cast a spell, or silently tell a Yo Momma joke. You get the picture. It's ridiculous that a skill can allow you to do anything silently.
NiQil 06-21-07, 05:34 PM	Bah. It doesn't matter who casts Shout. It makes the same sound. Otherwise it wold be possible to silently ring a bell, or silently explode an A-bomb. Rubbish. Those things in the table given by the Listen skill already are in direct contradiction with the statement below the table that you quote. An owl doesn't have a MS skill high enough to average a 30 on a move. The table is an ad-hoc production that's intended to give the GM a frame of reference to create listen DC's on the fly. It's not a good use for us in CoCo, because we rely on hard rules instead of GM judgment to decide things. NiQil, The "other activities" is intended to be a blanket statement that covers forms of movement that can be confused with movement in the classical sense of walking around. Things like climbing, flying, gliding, swimming, riding in a wagon or other modes of movement that could be argued are different from walking around. If we extend the Move Silently skill to become a Do Anything Silently, then let's take that to the logical extreme and see if it makes sense. Say that a character is particularly skilled in the new Do Anything Silently skill. Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Or ring a bell silently, or use a sonic attack silently, or set off a hand grenade... silently, or sing some bardic music silently, or bluff an opponent silently, or silently utter a command word, or silently cast a spell, or silently tell a Yo Momma joke. You get the picture. It's ridiculous that a skill can allow you to do anything silently. Since you obviously have no interest in a serious discussion on the issue, I will simply leave my opinion as it stands. Apparantly you have intimate knowledge of what the creators intended that the rest of us do not have. So feel free to do as you will. I've said all I have to say.
Vathelokai 06-21-07, 05:36 PM	Here's my ideas: Environmental stuff Have an illumination and weather roll the same way there is a time roll. Put it right next to the time roll. All players have to deal with the same weather Con - less variaty Pro - faster, easier, and everyone can help each other in the fight of the week since we will all be using the same variable (and for RP reasons, it makes some sense, for weather at least) Planar events and other randomness should have their own maps. It's not that hard, and I think waiting a while to implement them is a good idea. Random events like traps and crowds are definitely neat. I like them, but I'm warry; need to think on that one. Listen I have no problem with the rules as they are now. I have no problem with the "DC0" stuff. So for now, I'm leaning toward status quo. For move silent; I'm agreeing with NiQil - I do think it's the 'do most things quietly' skill. At least that's the way I've always seen it. There are some things it just doesn't work on. But I think by move they mean move between spaces, move your arm, move your backpack, move a jingle bell into your pocket from a store shelf, etc. Edge of maps I'm kind of iffy on this. I imagine that if this is implemented it will work out maybe once or twice before everyones tactics include "stay more than 30 ft from the edge of the map." Then it'll just be another wierd rule to catch people off guard with. Intimidate I'm not sure; I think setting a familiars intimidate value as their hd would be a bit low, and treating them as an extension of the caster (i.e. as though they had ECL of their master) is a bit high. I think going with the racial HD to see if it works well is a good idea for now.
Vathelokai 06-21-07, 05:40 PM	Sauro, I think you're misinterpreting things (or perhaps blowing off steam from work?). I don't believe anyone is saying 'do everything silently'. More like 'Do a lot of different types of motion silently'. Quite a difference.
McJarvis 06-21-07, 05:43 PM	If we extend the Move Silently skill to become a Do Anything Silently, then let's take that to the logical extreme and see if it makes sense. ok Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Or ring a bell silently, or use a sonic attack silently, or set off a hand grenade... silently, or sing some bardic music silently, or bluff an opponent silently, or silently utter a command word, or silently cast a spell, or silently tell a Yo Momma joke. You get the picture. It's ridiculous that a skill can allow you to do anything silently. 1) Allies have to pass a listen check to haer such instructions 2) You can ring a bell silently-> by clamping your hand around the bell itself while "ringing" it. 3) You could easily throw a hand grenade such that it lands softly. The action of pulling the pin & throwing the grenade is not making the sound you're thinking of. 4) Again, you'd have to hear the bardsong to be affected by it. This is specified in the rules for bardsong. etc, etc. [none of this was _really_ important...sigh] As NiQil pointed out, you are obviously not really interest in serious discussion anymore & just trying to bull-rush your ideas into perminance, like you seem to always want to do.
Hirumajoe 06-21-07, 05:57 PM	If we extend the Move Silently skill to become a Do Anything Silently, then let's take that to the logical extreme and see if it makes sense. Say that a character is particularly skilled in the new Do Anything Silently skill. Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Or ring a bell silently, or use a sonic attack silently, or set off a hand grenade... silently, or sing some bardic music silently, or bluff an opponent silently, or silently utter a command word, or silently cast a spell, or silently tell a Yo Momma joke. You get the picture. It's ridiculous that a skill can allow you to do anything silently. Right now, we're taking it to the other logical extreme, i.e. "everything should have a DC 0 listen check unless otherwise stated." And why can't you tell a silent Yo Momma joke... or give someone order silently? The person you're trying to tell obviously has to make a listen check to hear you. Nothing wrong with that and in fact makes more sense than the "automatically hears you" that we use right now. Why should you always speak in an exactly DC 0 loud voice. Seems to me you should be able to choose the DC at which you speak. Or ring a bell covered by your hand to muffle it to some specific DC. I see nothing wrong there. I'd argue you should be able to choose the DCs in those cases, even without having the Move Silently skill. I'm pretty sure I can whisper to someone 5' away so that someone 60' away can't hear me in real life, and I'm not exactly what you'd call a rogue. :) And as for silently cast a spell, there is a feat to do so. And there are explicit rules stating you must speak in a strong voice otherwise. So in that case, you wouldn't be allowed to cast it if your voice is below some minimum DC, whatever a strong voice is ruled to be. (Most likely the DC 0 that we use now). Besides, is a skill which determines how quietly you do everything as silly as a skill which lets you do anything hidden? As it stands, you can cast a spell while using the hide skill. You run while hidden. You can ring that bell while hidden. You can tell that joke while hidden. Heck, you can attack, albeit with a -20 penalty, and remain hidden, either using the snipe option, or if you have concealment during the whole attack you can attack in melee while hidden. In the FAQ and says so right in the hide skill. Heck, I think you can full attack and remain hidden according to those rules. "It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging." I say we just port over the hide rules to the move silently rules, as Telin indicated earlier (i.e. Attacks are at Move Silently -20). Makes it worse for hiders at the low levels, but somewhat easier at the really high levels (at which point counters are just a tattoo of touchsight away...) Edit: McJarvis was apparently way ahead of me...
Khaim 06-21-07, 05:58 PM	Bah. It doesn't matter who casts Shout. It makes the same sound. Otherwise it wold be possible to silently ring a bell, or silently explode an A-bomb. Rubbish. True! (Well, actually, a higher CL makes a louder Shout, but that's not your point.) None of these things would be covered by Move Silently, because it's not the character making the sound. Except in the case of the bell, and then I would say that yes, you can silently ring a bell. There's not much point though, unless it's a magic bell activated by ringing it. Say that a character is particularly skilled in the new Do Anything Silently skill. Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Only if their allies can hear silent instructions. That would be one hell of an epic Listen check, to hear silent sounds. Wow! In all seriousness, using Move Silently + Listen checks for your allies makes all kinds of sense. If you and your friends have very good (i.e. superhuman) hearing and your enemies don't, of course you'll speak to each other as quietly as you can. It's like a secret language! And it fits easily into the rules. Or ring a bell silently, You already said this one or use a sonic attack silently, Sure, why not? Subsonics, anyone? Although I would say that spell effects would require some sort of spellcraft check to silence, not the mundane Move Silently. or set off a hand grenade... silently, Again, why not? Mind you, the hand grenade exploding won't be silent. or sing some bardic music silently, There are actual rules for this in one of the splatbooks. It's a feat, I think. or bluff an opponent silently, Duh. Body language. In fact I would assume that most of our combat bluffs are "silent" anyways, although of course your opponent needs to be able to percieve you in some way to be able to bluff him. or silently utter a command word, I get the feeling that command words, being magic, require a certain volume of noise to work. Otherwise I'd say sure, why not? or silently cast a spell, See above; magic requires noise, not lip movement. Your key falacy here is implying that you can make noise-based actions silent. You can't, not without invalidating the action, and no one has suggested otherwise.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 05:59 PM	As NiQil pointed out, you are obviously not really interest in serious discussion anymore & just trying to bull-rush your ideas into perminance, like you seem to always want to do.Whenever you and I fall on opposite sides of an issue, you come out with the same kinds of statements as the above. I find it tiring. Please don't bother to post such comments, and keep them to yourself in the future. I'd really appreciate it.
MitzaVolchenko 06-21-07, 06:17 PM	Whenever you and I fall on opposite sides of an issue, you come out with the same kinds of statements as the above. I find it tiring. Please don't bother to post such comments, and keep them to yourself in the future. I'd really appreciate it. Lets all place nice, folks. I agree with NiQil on this one. Move Silently is included when doing any activity...say trying to rustle through your pack for the alch fire while crouching by the pilings of a lizardman dwelling. Sure you may make noise doing it, but your ability to use fine dextereity to make sure that your bedroll cushions the sound of the flasks clinking around while you find the right one makes sense. Itisnot the 'do anything silently' skill, it is the skill that applies anytime dexterity makes a difference. You can't shout silently, but other than having a quick tongue, dexterity has nothing to do with shouting....excpet perhaps to run away from whatever your shout drew.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 06:21 PM	About the silent everything skill: Khaim, Joe and McJ and others, You guys are arguing that a short parenthetical clause that appears in the description of the listen skill extends the move silently skill to become a do everything silently skill. All I'm saying is that cannot be true. "Everything" is a big group. There are lots of things in the group "everything" that require making sound and being heard as part of the intended actions. So it's unreasonable to suggest that move silently can be used for everything. Now on the other side of the issue, there are plenty of things that do not require sound as an essential part of the action. Walking down a hall, drawing a sword, sticking that sword in between someone's ribs, opening a creaky door, uttering a command word and so forth can be conceived as being done with some skill at doing it quietly. The sounds associated with all of those actions are unwanted and unnecessary for the actions to have the desired effects. The major difference is that the SRD has detailed rules about only one of those things. Those rules clearly apply to movement. The move silently skill has no reference to doing anything except moving. If you want to use the move silently skill to do other things than move quietly, then you're making up new rules. There's nothing n the SRD about an ad-hoc -20 penalty for attacking with the move silently skill. There's nothing about silent command words, or silent lock picking, or silent anything expect silent moving (and the silent spell feat). It's tempting to create some kind of list of "reasonable" actions to do silently with various DC modifiers applied to the move silently skill. Like what Telin suggested with attacking silently with a -20 modifier to a MS skill check. But doing so is totally inventing new rules. I don't like inventing new rules unless it's necessary as a part of our setting, and I avoid inventing new rules whenever possible. This is the reason why I've always advocated for a simple DC0 listen DC on attacks. It's in the SRD section on invisibility, and we've got nothing else in the SRD to go on that reasonably contradicts that clear and simple rule.
Khaim 06-21-07, 06:29 PM	About the silent everything skill: Khaim, Joe and McJ and others, You guys are arguing that a short parenthetical clause that appears in the description of the listen skill extends the move silently skill to become a do everything silently skill. All I'm saying is that cannot be true. "Everything" is a big group. There are lots of things in the group "everything" that require making sound and being heard as part of the intended actions. So it's unreasonable to suggest that move silently can be used for everything. I think you may be the only one pushing for us pushing for "everything". I actually just want "everything that doesn't require noise", which eliminates 99% of your objections.
Usurpator 06-21-07, 06:33 PM	The major difference is that the SRD has detailed rules about only one of those things. Those rules clearly apply to movement. The move silently skill has no reference to doing anything except moving. If you want to use the move silently skill to do other things than move quietly, then you're making up new rules. There's nothing n the SRD about an ad-hoc -20 penalty for attacking with the move silently skill. There's nothing about silent command words, or silent lock picking, or silent anything expect silent moving (and the silent spell feat). Sauro, While I think your general point is right on, your vision is a bit extreme, in the sense that your strict reading of the rule just isn't applicable. There are characters that move silently and draw weapons, draw ammo, draw scroll and potions, do all kinds of things not related to moving and are not broadcasting DC 0 Listen check sounds. I don't think any Pitlord has ever considered to give the opponent of a hiding rogue that draws a weapon a DC 0 Listen check. It seems natural that the Move Silently checks includes such things. It is just a question of: what more should such checks include? Many people think it is quite reasonable to include things like ranged attacks too. They can easily imagine that you could make an effort to make less noise when doing that, just as you could make an effort to make less noise when drawing a weapon. I don't think you will have many supporters if you continue to advocate 'drawing a weapon creates a DC 0 Listen check and is unaffected by move silently'
Khaim 06-21-07, 06:34 PM	You know, all this DC 0 business comes from a single line, but right under that line is: Invisible Creature Is… In combat or speaking 0 Moving at half speed Move Silently check result So, obvious question: what if my character is "in combat" but is "moving at half speed"? I would argue that the two words "in combat" are ill-concieved, misleading, and don't really help the game much. It's equivalent to talking for Pelor's sake! So basically, yes, I am all for getting rid of a terrible RAW and using a much more sensible "house rule". It's not like it hasn't been done before.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 06:39 PM	I think you may be the only one pushing for us pushing for "everything". I actually just want "everything that doesn't require noise", which eliminates 99% of your objections. The rest of my post, which you didn't quote, addresses this criticism specifically. You are suggesting that the MS skill applies to certain things beyond movement. But the SRD listen skill description only tells us, as you quoted above, that MS can be use in place of the listed DC's for things people are trying to do quietly. This is not clearly detailed anywhere. It's not mentioned anywhere else. It's a dangling parenthetical clause that some are suggesting should be used as a basis to hook all sorts of "reasonable" house rules onto it. All I'm saying is that we don't have core rules to describe how to do this. And I don't think we should invent house rules from whole cloth to describe a new imagined, but reasonable, use of the Move Silently skill. And we should especially not do it when attacks are given a listen DC in the core rules, and there is no mention of a way to modify that listen DC with any skill of any kind. Although it may be reasonable to have some skill that allows you to perform some actions quietly, it's not in the core rules, and there are several places where it would be reasonable to mention such a skill... none of those places lists anything as applicable to the issue. So instead of inventing new rules that some people will like better than the core rules, I think we should just use the core rules without unnecessary modification.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 06:51 PM	So instead of inventing new rules that some people will like better than the core rules, I think we should just use the core rules without unnecessary modification.This statement assumes that there are core rules for this situation. There aren't. Anything we decide is going to be a house rule. The DC 0 might be the closest thing to RAW we were able to find, but that doesn't make it RAW.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 06:54 PM	Sauro, While I think your general point is right on, your vision is a bit extreme, in the sense that your strict reading of the rule just isn't applicable. There are characters that move silently and draw weapons, draw ammo, draw scroll and potions, do all kinds of things not related to moving and are not broadcasting DC 0 Listen check sounds. I don't think any Pitlord has ever considered to give the opponent of a hiding rogue that draws a weapon a DC 0 Listen check. It seems natural that the Move Silently checks includes such things. It is just a question of: what more should such checks include? Many people think it is quite reasonable to include things like ranged attacks too. They can easily imagine that you could make an effort to make less noise when doing that, just as you could make an effort to make less noise when drawing a weapon. I don't think you will have many supporters if you continue to advocate 'drawing a weapon creates a DC 0 Listen check and is unaffected by move silently'I'm not advocating that everything should have a listen DC of 0. Rather I'm saying that we have a clear table that says being in combat has a listen DC of 0, and that the move silently skill has no rules to describe it being used to do anything silently except move. The table is rather reasonably being interpreted as attacking has a listen DC of 0. This same table shows other combat actions as having listen DC modified by a move silently check. Whomever wrote that table was clearly thinking about the move silently skill, and decided it wasn't relevant to "being in combat" (which we interpret as attacking). All I'm really saying is that the suggestion to, invent a new use for MS and invent a new modifier to the MS skill check to apply to the new use is making up new house rules that cover territory where the core rules already have rules. This is a suggestion to overwrite a core rule with a new house rule. I oppose that.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 06:59 PM	This statement assumes that there are core rules for this situation. There aren't. Anything we decide is going to be a house rule. The DC 0 might be the closest thing to RAW we were able to find, but that doesn't make it RAW. But there is a core rule to cover this. It's in the table Listen Check DCs to Detect Invisible Creatures (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/abilitiesAndConditions.html). We've decided to interpret being "in combat" as an attack. What else can you interpret being "in combat" as? In fact this is a rather lenient interpretation of the rules. Other options of a way to interpret that are more damaging to sneaky character types. Otherwise just standing there has a DC 0 listen check after initiative has been rolled. I don't think we should do that. Attacking is more reasonable as a action that provokes a listen check.
Hirumajoe 06-21-07, 07:02 PM	I think the fundamental problem is the core rules that we do have on the subject are poorly worded. I don't think anyone would be arguing if it clearly stated "Attacks are DC 0 to hear". Unfortunately, it uses the vague wording of "in combat". I understand your desire to limit unnecessary house rules, but as it stands, the DC 0 listen check for any attack is a house rule (or perhaps a house ruled clarification of the term "in combat"). Clearly there's enough room for interpretation. The fact of the matter is, a game master is supposed to come in and say "I think X is Y DC loud." It explicitly says so. Your Listen check is either made against a DC that reflects how quiet the noise is that you might hear, or it is opposed by your target’s Move Silently check. Either your game master sets the DC or you make an opposed role. Obviously they didn't want to put in a table for every possible action ever, and thus a human with common sense is supposed to step in and make a decision. At the moment, we've done the first one, set a DC. We've codified the decision that all attacks are DC 0. What many of us are advocating is no more or less house rule-ish in codifying Move Silently - 20. The game has left that up to the game master and we, as a group, are exercising that game master role. There's plenty of example of "practically impossible" rolls getting a -20 penalty, such as in the hiding rules, which are extremely similar. Except that it explicitly lists attacks in there. Where as they didn't explicitly list attacks in the Move Silently or Listen skills. Alot of things are left up to the Game master's common sense, and I believe this is one of those cases. In which case I don't think its wrong for the majority opinion to hold, since there is no core rule to override. Does that make sense? Edit: Sigh, I'm going to slowly apparently. :) But there is a core rule to cover this. It's in the table Listen Check DCs to Detect Invisible Creatures. We've decided to interpret being "in combat" as an attack. What else can you interpret being "in combat" as? In fact this is a rather lenient interpretation of the rules. Other options of a way to interpret that are more damaging to sneaky character types. Otherwise just standing there has a DC 0 listen check after initiative has been rolled. I don't think we should do that. Attacking is more reasonable as a action that provokes a listen check. In combat could mean pinpointing the person being attacked as opposed to the attacker. Or exactly in the middle of two opponents. Or whichever square the attack hit on a colossal creature. How about that -10 DC for in battle in the listen skill description? Do we automatically pinpoint everyone in the battle by making a DC -10 check by over 20 (I.e. DC 10 effectively)? Handy for figuring out the starting squares of your opponents, no? So yes, I believe "in combat" has many ways of being interpreted. If they had intended to include the very explicit and well defined attack action as a DC 0 listen check, they why don't they explicitly list it *anywhere*. They do in the hide rules. Everywhere in the listen rules its either "combat" or "battle" - words which are not defined anywhere.
Khaim 06-21-07, 07:10 PM	The rest of my post, which you didn't quote, addresses this criticism specifically. You are suggesting that the MS skill applies to certain things beyond movement. But the SRD listen skill description only tells us, as you quoted above, that MS can be use in place of the listed DC's for things people are trying to do quietly. This is not clearly detailed anywhere. It's not mentioned anywhere else. It's a dangling parenthetical clause that some are suggesting should be used as a basis to hook all sorts of "reasonable" house rules onto it. All I'm saying is that we don't have core rules to describe how to do this. And I don't think we should invent house rules from whole cloth to describe a new imagined, but reasonable, use of the Move Silently skill. And we should especially not do it when attacks are given a listen DC in the core rules, and there is no mention of a way to modify that listen DC with any skill of any kind. Make up your mind. Either throwaway one lines can be used as rules, or they can't. Either way, we have either a) no rules or b) a contradiction and thus the rules by themselves aren't enough. We need a house rule.
Khaim 06-21-07, 07:11 PM	For the record, I would like the MS check to not suffer a -20 penalty, as that's in many cases louder than DC 0. Of course my vote doesn't count, but I don't want people arguing for -20 on my behalf.
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 07:11 PM	There's also a DC of MS-20 for charging. Isn't charging an attack? Does that mean that an uberhider with a +40 Hide is actually quieter when charging than wen just standing and attacking?
Khaim 06-21-07, 07:13 PM	There's also a DC of MS-20 for charging. Isn't charging an attack? Does that mean that an uberhider with a +40 Hide is actually quieter when charging than wen just standing and attacking? Charging is running. That's where the -20 comes from, I believe. Edit: What I mean is, "charging" is basically "run for my move action then attack" with some special rules tacked on. Put another way, you're moving twice your speed and doing other stuff, which means you have to be moving faster than "double move" speed. That means you're running, which means you take -20. At least that's how I consider it. The -20 has nothing to do with the sword swing and everything to do with you barrelling across the battlefield to swing it.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 07:14 PM	I understand your desire to limit unnecessary house rules, but as it stands, the DC 0 listen check for any attack is a house rule (or perhaps a house ruled clarification of the term "in combat"). Clearly there's enough room for interpretation.Absolutely. I'd call it a clarification personally, not a house rule. For me house rules are stuff made up to be reasonable, while clarifications are reasonable ways of interpreting what's not clearly written in the rules. That's a fine line in some cases, but right now I feel we are using a clarification, and the suggestions to change are all totally house rules.At the moment, we've done the first one, set a DC. We've codified the decision that all attacks are DC 0. What many of us are advocating is no more or less house rule-ish in codifying Move Silently - 20. The game has left that up to the game master and we, as a group, are exercising that game master role. There's plenty of example of "practically impossible" rolls getting a -20 penalty, such as in the hiding rules, which are extremely similar. Except that it explicitly lists attacks in there. Where as they didn't explicitly list attacks in the Move Silently or Listen skills.Well we've got to interpret the rules in some way. Clearly the table we are all talking about shouldn't be ignored. So if not interpreting "in combat" as an attack, what other reasonable interpretation should we use? Alot of things are left up to the Game master's common sense, and I believe this is one of those cases. In which case I don't think its wrong for the majority opinion to hold, since there is no core rule to override. Does that make sense?Sort of. At least if there can be another reasonable interpretation of the "in combat" rule, then we should invent a house rule to cover the attack thing. Personally, I see that we have an ambiguous core rule that is the most reasonable thing in the SRD to fill that gap in the rules about attacking with silence. Also we have an ambiguous core rule that shouldn't be ignored. To me the obvious choice is to kill two birds with one stone here and use the ambiguous "in combat" rule to fill the gap in listen dc for an attack. But if there were another way to solve both these issues with equal simplicity and elegance, then I'd have no further grounds for protest.
Khaim 06-21-07, 07:17 PM	But if there were another way to solve both these issues with equal simplicity and elegance, then I'd have no further grounds for protest. "An attack makes noise, and can be heard with a Listen check opposed by the attacker's Move Silently check." Also "Spells with vocal components can be heard with a DC 0 Listen check."
Hirumajoe 06-21-07, 07:29 PM	Sort of. At least if there can be another reasonable interpretation of the "in combat" rule, then we should invent a house rule to cover the attack thing. Personally, I see that we have an ambiguous core rule that is the most reasonable thing in the SRD to fill that gap in the rules about attacking with silence. Also we have an ambiguous core rule that shouldn't be ignored. To me the obvious choice is to kill two birds with one stone here and use the ambiguous "in combat" rule to fill the gap in listen dc for an attack. But if there were another way to solve both these issues with equal simplicity and elegance, then I'd have no further grounds for protest. Ok, that makes sense to me. How about we throw in the 3rd case which we also have ill defined, the sound upon hitting a target? I.e., what sounds does an arrow make hitting a Tower Shield or an unarmored opponent. What if we set the "In combat" DC 0 listen check to equate to the sound on impact. Since virtually all weapons I know of require significant force to deal damage (especially to a Full platemail wearing Fighter), the sound pin pointed from "in combat" is the point of impact. Since thats where most of the energy is going to be converted to vibrations and sound waves. Thus, with a ranged attack, you hear the arrow impacting at DC 0, you can tell what it hit with a DC 0 + 10 (working off the whisper rules) and you can tell exactly where it hit with a DC 0 + 20. We then set attacking silently to "practically impossible" move silently - 20. The same as "charging" - which is a well defined violent action, and similar to the hiding - 20 rules. We now have dealt with 2 situations and an ill-defined table listing with 2 house rules. How's that for efficiency? Not as good as yours, but does cover more ground. :) Edit: Of course this doesn't explain how rogues in books and movies are able to slit people's throats silently and without raising alarms...
hogarth 06-21-07, 07:30 PM	My two cents: I don't mind the DC 0 Listen check for a bow shot, personally -- if you're really worried about it, get an oil or wand of Silence What seems dubious is the idea that manifesting a power or casting a spell with no verbal component is still a DC 0 check to detect (as long as it's an "attack")! Why should a Silent Hold Person spell be audible? Or a Telekinetic Thrust that has had the display suppressed?
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 07:40 PM	In combat could mean pinpointing the person being attacked as opposed to the attacker. Or exactly in the middle of two opponents. Or whichever square the attack hit on a colossal creature. How about that -10 DC for in battle in the listen skill description? Do we automatically pinpoint everyone in the battle by making a DC -10 check by over 20 (I.e. DC 10 effectively)? Handy for figuring out the starting squares of your opponents, no? So yes, I believe "in combat" has many ways of being interpreted. If they had intended to include the very explicit and well defined attack action as a DC 0 listen check, they why don't they explicitly list it *anywhere*. They do in the hide rules. Everywhere in the listen rules its either "combat" or "battle" - words which are not defined anywhere.At the end here, you basically making my point for me. If the rules designers had intended for it to be possible to attack someone silently, they would have probably mentioned it someplace. But it's not mentioned anywhere. It's clear that you can hear battle, and hear people in combat. Listen DC's are given for those things. Attacks are part of being in combat and part of battle. But it's not clear how to break it down into listen DC's for attacks. In fact, from looking at these skills, it's clear that carrying out combat silently or completely hidden is not intended to be an easy thing if at all possible. Last time we discussed this, I advocated for the -10 DC Listen thing as the closest and most clearly described relevant rule on the issue. But that was widely considered overkill, and we compromised on the DC0 listen check for attacks. But so far none of the recommended interpretations of "in combat" are very elegant. Suggesting that a ranged attacker isn't "in combat" at his location, but rather at the location of the target or half way between sounds not right. An attack makes noise, and can be heard with a Listen check opposed by the attacker's Move Silently check." Also "Spells with vocal components can be heard with a DC 0 Listen check."This suggestion only approaches half of the issue. Let me explain once more, perhaps more clearly this time. We have two things in the rules that are not clear. 1) There is no mechanism to describe the listen DC of an attack (which should reasonably produce a sound of some kind). 2) There is a rule that describes being "in combat" as having a listen DC of 0. So there are two questions to be resolved. 1) What's the listen DC of an attack? 2) What does it mean to be "in combat" with a listen DC of 0? Our current resolution of both of these problems is this: Being in combat happens whenever you attack and has a listen DC of 0. Our current resolution is elegant (and therefore appealing) in that it uses the answer of one question to solve the other as well. I cannot imagine another way of solving both these ambiguities with equal elegance. That's not to say that another way doesn't exist, I just don't see it right now. As I said, if alternative equally elegant solutions can be found to answer both questions 1) and 2), then I'll have no further grounds for protest. But if we only solve one and not the other, then we are back sliding to a state of greater ambiguity. Your suggestion solves only question 1) not 2).
Hirumajoe 06-21-07, 07:50 PM	At the end here, you basically making my point for me. If the rules designers had intended for it to be possible to attack someone silently, they would have probably mentioned it someplace. But it's not mentioned anywhere. It's clear that you can hear battle, and hear people in combat. Listen DC's are given for those things. Attacks are part of being in combat and part of battle. But it's not clear how to break it down into listen DC's for attacks. In fact, from looking at these skills, it's clear that carrying out combat silently or completely hidden is not intended to be an easy thing if at all possible. I think we're in write/delay mode. Hopefully you'll get to my suggestion post next. :) I'm (obviously from my argument) interpreting the lack of explicitness as leaving it up to the GM. Some GMs are going to feel that an attack always needs a certain amount of force and you can't attack quietly. Others are going to think of the classic rogue throat slitting or throwing a knife silently. There are these border line cases (such as that rogue sneaking into the castle and taking out guards) where its clearly an attack, but not clearly out and out combat that they perhaps didn't want to rule out. I admit, I'm interpreting a lack of something without knowing the writer's mind, but so are you, either way you look at it. How about this: Try punching into the air, moving your fist. Pretty quiet, no? Try punching a wall or table now, just as hard. Much, much louder. Admittedly, a bow string does vibrate, but that can be damped (hence modern day bow silencers... which are nothing more than puff balls on your string). Also thrown weapons certainly should be nearly silent to throw. However, if they're impacting on a metal armor, that should ring loud and clear. Hence, my suggestion to interpret the DC 0 listen check, the fixed check, as the point of impact, since any successful attack must impact with a certain amount of force, and hence noise potential.
McJarvis 06-21-07, 08:12 PM	Whenever you and I fall on opposite sides of an issue, you come out with the same kinds of statements as the above. I find it tiring. Please don't bother to post such comments, and keep them to yourself in the future. I'd really appreciate it. If you don't wish for me to converse in this discussion, I won't. However, objecting to me calling you stubborn & unwilling to consider alternatives (especially when everyone seems to disagree with you on the point of an across-the-board DC 0 listen check for attacking being "reasonable") is equivalent to me objecting to someone calling me blunt. I know what I am and wouldn't deny it[or ask someone not to mention it]: I'd like it if you'd do the same from time to time. [Though, of course, you are free to be who you are.] Besides, this debate is moving way too fast for me to keep up with ;) [& Hirm is much better at breaking things down than I, I've learned from experience. All I'm good at is determining what is and isn't breakable....] ~McJ~
Khaim 06-21-07, 08:18 PM	2) What does it mean to be "in combat" with a listen DC of 0? Well, given that the rest of that table is averages, maybe it's just the take 10 check of someone with no ranks and no Dex mod. In other words, a MS check at -10. Which, come to think of it, is not a bad idea.
Zevox 06-21-07, 10:49 PM	I haven't had time to go over all the discussions/arguing thats gone on since I left for work seven hours ago, but heres my opinions on the issues that had just been put on the table at the time. Re: DC 0 Listen Rule - I despise this house rule. Its based on what I believe is a total misinterpretation of a vague table, and completely nerfs sneak characters, who are the absolute last character type to need nerfing, especially here. My vote is to get rid of it. Personally, I don't think that there should be a listen check allowed to hear an attack - or at least if there were, I'd put it at an epic DC myself, since anything short of a bullwhip doesn't make a hell of a lot of noise from just being swung/pulled/etc through the air alone. I'm not crazy about extend move silently to include attacks, but it would certainly be better than what we have now, if we must have a rule for giving attacks a listen check. Re: Matrix-style listen results - That house rule I happen to like, actually. Its simple to learn and makes sense to me. If the consensus is to get rid of it, I won't protest too much, but I think its one of our better house rules. Re: Map Edges - I'm with MWB, I'd rather we not allow pushing and holding someone off the edge of a map to be an auto-win. Re: Intimidate - Mayhaps we could simply change our CR-base intimidate rules to be HD-based, the way the core version is? Seems to me thats a simple fix. Makes intimidating a bit harder than it presently is on some creatures, but I'm fine with that personally. Zevox
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 11:04 PM	Ok, that makes sense to me. How about we throw in the 3rd case which we also have ill defined, the sound upon hitting a target? I.e., what sounds does an arrow make hitting a Tower Shield or an unarmored opponent. What if we set the "In combat" DC 0 listen check to equate to the sound on impact. Since virtually all weapons I know of require significant force to deal damage (especially to a Full platemail wearing Fighter), the sound pin pointed from "in combat" is the point of impact. Since thats where most of the energy is going to be converted to vibrations and sound waves. Thus, with a ranged attack, you hear the arrow impacting at DC 0, you can tell what it hit with a DC 0 + 10 (working off the whisper rules) and you can tell exactly where it hit with a DC 0 + 20. We then set attacking silently to "practically impossible" move silently - 20. The same as "charging" - which is a well defined violent action, and similar to the hiding - 20 rules. We now have dealt with 2 situations and an ill-defined table listing with 2 house rules. How's that for efficiency? Not as good as yours, but does cover more ground. :) Edit: Of course this doesn't explain how rogues in books and movies are able to slit people's throats silently and without raising alarms...Your idea here works to a certain extent. But I think the way we are doing it now is far simpler and easier to run in a battle. Characters that hide are already complicated to run in a battle. This difference between where an arrow hits, and the sound of the bow string doubles the complexity of every ranged attack. Also thrown weapons certainly should be nearly silent to throw. However, if they're impacting on a metal armor, that should ring loud and clear. Hence, my suggestion to interpret the DC 0 listen check, the fixed check, as the point of impact, since any successful attack must impact with a certain amount of force, and hence noise potential.This throws another club at the pitlord to juggle. One more twist that a pitlord could fail to follow correctly. We need a rule that's simple and elegant. You said it best hear We now have dealt with 2 situations and an ill-defined table listing with 2 house rules. How's that for efficiency? Not as good as yours, but does cover more ground. :) Your suggestion is more complicated, flexible and not as good as what we do now. I'm just not compelled to change things to just make them more complicated and more flexible and less elegant and less simple and all for what reason? It seams that people want to make the "nay nay plink* hide" builds more complicated to pitlord and possibly more successful. I certainly feel the value of improvement offered here is no where near the cost of labor to pitlords and the increased complication of the rules.
MitzaVolchenko 06-22-07, 12:30 AM	"In combat" is sketchy. The Rules under listen are not. Your Listen check is either made against a DC that reflects how quiet the noise is that you might hear, or it is opposed by your target’s Move Silently check. In the case of people trying to be quiet, the DCs given on the table could be replaced by Move Silently checks, in which case the indicated DC would be their average check result. I don't know what is so darned hard about that. If someone is making a melee strike, the move silent is only to hear them coming as they are auto-spotted when they come adjacent. The only other alternative that I can think of is superimposing a chart of listen DC's. DC 15 drawing a wand DC 10 rummaging for belly button lint. DC 5 a sniper's bow string DC 10 Corruptor trying to explain quantum physics to a zombie mule. C'mon folks, lets not get silly about this. There is a rule to cover it even if it isn't where you want it to be.
Rauul 06-22-07, 01:41 AM	DC 10 Corruptor trying to explain quantum physics to a zombie mule. C'mon folks, lets not get silly about this. There is a rule to cover it even if it isn't where you want it to be. You try teaching a mindless zombie quantum physics ... the dc 10 would be the reanimation from loosing his temper.. All joking aside... everyone take a step back and count to 100.. then continue argueing on how to nerf the sneaky peeps again... Shadow will appreciate another nerfing... Poor bards are so darn powerful..
Hirumajoe 06-22-07, 06:45 AM	I'm just not compelled to change things to just make them more complicated and more flexible and less elegant and less simple and all for what reason? It seams that people want to make the "nay nay plink* hide" builds more complicated to pitlord and possibly more successful. I certainly feel the value of improvement offered here is no where near the cost of labor to pitlords and the increased complication of the rules. Rereading what I wrote, I don't think I was clear in explaining what the game effects would be. Most of what I was saying in the previous post was meant as emphasis as to why a single fixed listen check should be applied. I wasn't advocating a different set of rules for thrown and bows and so forth compared to each other or melee weapons. The game effects would be as follows with the DC 0 to hit on impact, MS -20 to hear the origin of an attack: 1)For any attack action (not spell casting necessarily unless it includes something like throwing a weapon), Move Silently - 20 (per charge and Hide attack ideas of "practically impossible" - so a single opposed roll that really matters) 2) For non-reach melee, you could detect both the attack and defender with a DC 0 check. 3) For non-reach melee, you could pinpoint both the attacker and defender with a DC 0 + 20 check. (Note that an attacked character already knows the location of his attacker in non-reach melee - so no rolls really necessary except in a multiple character situation - i.e. "hearing combat" by a third party). 4) For reach melee, you pinpoint the defender's square with a DC 0 + 20 check. (Note an attacked character already knows the direction of his attacker if he's being attacked with reach - so again no rolls necessary except by a third party). 5) For ranged (such as spells with physical effects such as rays and normally bow shot arrows), you detect that you've hit something with a DC 0 check. 6) For ranged you pinpoint where you've hit with a DC 0 + 20 check. 7)For any attack, you can tell the general type of thing that has been hit and rough idea by what with a DC 0 + 10 check (per the whisper rules of being able to hear enough to make out what is said - similarly hearing enough to make out what hit what) In most cases, all you really care about is the first one. It just a MS and Hide opposed roll, just like every other round, just with -20 modifiers (convient to keep them the same actually). So its not really more work. All the other points are very specific to certain situations, but it at least it covers them if someone does need to know, such as in team fights and so forth. It also answers the question of "Can I tell what I've hit by sound?" For most hider fights, you're only rolling that one opposed MS -20 check (plus presumably that one opposed hide check) each round. However, those other points will occassionally come up. (Can I hear if I've hit the tower shield or someone in full platemail inside that Blacklight area? - Well, can you beat a DC 0 + 10 plus range modifiers check?) Is it more house rules? Definitely. But they're house rules for which we only have a vague, single table reference. I've essentially defined "in combat" as something hitting something. It also has the bonus of letting a clever player do the following: Throw a pebble and make a sound "over there", where the pebble hit. Which I think is kinda cool and a classic rogue move. :) So in conclusion: It keeps MS and Hide modifiers the same (-20 to attack, -1 per 10', -5 to full move, etc) so no additional number crunching there. Its the same number of rolls you'd have on a just a "move turn". It moves a silent feat spell listen DC 0 check from the caster to where it hit. (I admit, a fireball should make a "boom" - but it should make it where it actually explodes). It covers some more unusual cases. Its an advantage to dedicated hiders, and those who aren't dedicated are going to use Silence anyways so there no real shift in power except to underplayed classes. Thats about as clear as I can make it. I'll leave it up to people's judgement now. Note for those concerned about MS -20 versus just MS rolls: For most untrained individuals, such as Wizards with invisibility, MS - 20 is worse than the DC 0 check. However, for actual rogues types, this gets better when they pass a net + 10 MS hide modifier, which isn't too hard to do by ECL 3 or 4 if they actually put some skill points into it.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 08:21 AM	Creating a list to expand on the list in the listen check wouldn't be too hard. It would look something like: Listen DC Sound -10 Clang of metal weapon on Metal armor -10 Someone shouting -10 Sound of a bell ringing -8 Clang of metal weapon on Wooden/Hide armor -8 Someone singing -7 Sundering a metal weapon -5 Sundering a wooden weapon -5 Delivering a coup de grace -5 Being the person who is tripped -5 Opening a rusty lock -2 Lighting a torch -2 Reading a scroll with verbal component -2 Ordering an animal with handle animal 0 People talking 0 Casting a spell with verbal component 0 Escaping a net 2 Landing from a jump 3 Crossbow string 3 Ready a shield made of metal 3 Person in armor walking slowly on stone 5 Bow string 5 Person in armor walking slowly on dirt 5 Attack with a sling 5 Opening a closed door 5 Standing up from prone 5 Ready a shield made of wood 5 Throwing a weapon 5 Dropping an object (-2 per lb over 10lbs) 5 Opening a lock 7 Person in armor walking slowly on sand 8 Reading a scroll without a verbal component 8 Unarmed person try to not make sound on stone 10 Unarmed person try to not make sound on dirt 10 Drawing a weapon from a sheath or quiver 10 Drawing a weapon like object from a sheath 10 Being within 15ft of an Auditory display 10 Applying bandages with heal skill 12 Unarmed person try to not make sound on sand 15 People whispering 15 Drinking a potion or applying an oil 15 Retrieving an object from a pack 15 Preparing a splash weapon This list could be expanded if an action becomes too common place. These of course are totally my opinions on what the numbers should be but if we build a complete list of the most common actions. Then it falls on the pitlord to decide how much sound based off the guideline was created by a specific object, not covered under the list. My list includes bonuses for favorable and unfavorable conditions based off materials.
SauroGrenom 06-22-07, 09:09 AM	Creating a list to expand on the list in the listen check wouldn't be too hard. It would look something like: Listen DC Sound -10 Clang of metal weapon on Metal armor -10 Someone shouting -10 Sound of a bell ringing -8 Clang of metal weapon on Wooden/Hide armor -8 Someone singing -7 Sundering a metal weapon -5 Sundering a wooden weapon -5 Delivering a coup de grace -5 Being the person who is tripped -5 Opening a rusty lock -2 Lighting a torch -2 Reading a scroll with verbal component -2 Ordering an animal with handle animal 0 People talking 0 Casting a spell with verbal component 0 Escaping a net 2 Landing from a jump 3 Crossbow string 3 Ready a shield made of metal 3 Person in armor walking slowly on stone 5 Bow string 5 Person in armor walking slowly on dirt 5 Attack with a sling 5 Opening a closed door 5 Standing up from prone 5 Ready a shield made of wood 5 Throwing a weapon 5 Dropping an object (-2 per lb over 10lbs) 5 Opening a lock 7 Person in armor walking slowly on sand 8 Reading a scroll without a verbal component 8 Unarmed person try to not make sound on stone 10 Unarmed person try to not make sound on dirt 10 Drawing a weapon from a sheath or quiver 10 Drawing a weapon like object from a sheath 10 Being within 15ft of an Auditory display 10 Applying bandages with heal skill 12 Unarmed person try to not make sound on sand 15 People whispering 15 Drinking a potion or applying an oil 15 Retrieving an object from a pack 15 Preparing a splash weapon This list could be expanded if an action becomes too common place. These of course are totally my opinions on what the numbers should be but if we build a complete list of the most common actions. Then it falls on the pitlord to decide how much sound based off the guideline was created by a specific object, not covered under the list. My list includes bonuses for favorable and unfavorable conditions based off materials.Ugh... One more house ruled table to add to the rules. Furthermore it's a table that must be referenced frequently. Lastly some of the things on the list are complicated. What happens if you use attack with a club? Wooden weapons aren't on that list. Lists like this are not practical. They cannot possibly cover all things.
Khaim 06-22-07, 09:43 AM	Creating a list to expand on the list in the listen check wouldn't be too hard. It would look something like: Um, a lot of those are clearly Move Silently checks; even Sauro would agree with that. People walking in armor, for example. Regardless, I'm not sure a big table is the best answer. I think a simple, easy to remember rule is a better idea.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 09:48 AM	Those DCs for people in armor are taken straight off the Listen table as examples.
McJarvis 06-22-07, 09:49 AM	Ugh... One more house ruled table to add to the rules. Furthermore it's a table that must be referenced frequently. Lastly some of the things on the list are complicated. What happens if you use attack with a club? Wooden weapons aren't on that list. Lists like this are not practical. They cannot possibly cover all things. Bolded for emphasis. I'd really rather not do anything that would lead to a situation of this sort: Pitlord: Fight posted Gladiator A: Looks good! Gladiator B: Ut oh! I clearly deserve 5 listen checks for the following situations, please bother to read the Big-Listen-Table-O-Matic next time! ;)
Khaim 06-22-07, 09:52 AM	Those DCs for people in armor are taken straight off the Listen table as examples. So how come you have "examples" on the same table as "rules"? In any case, I think that's part of my problem. DC 0 check seems like an "example", namely, an example of the typical fighter who isn't worried about being heard. I mean, there's a lot of yelling and screaming in a typical battle. To be fair, I'm not sure what the DC for a bowshot should be, but I'm quite sure that DC 0 is several hundred decibels too loud.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 09:55 AM	Actually, believe it or not. The listen rules were designed that the GM in a game had to make up DCs based off how loud items were. That is what we call... running the game. Since, that isn't possible in CoCo we have to make up a house rule to cover the consequences of not allowing our pitlords to make up the values a normal GM would be required to make. A wooden club vs metal would in truth be -8, assuming metal on metal is -10 with unfavorable cirumstance to listen check of wood against metal. Wood against hide would be -10 (+2 wood weapon) (+2 hide armor) = -6. Using the Unfavorable effects in the skill rules. Yes, I am apply real rules to values that are on a chart in the book. I am also fudging to make up base actions based off commonly done actions. And yes, it is yet another rule that would have to be remembered. The favorable/unfavorable section of the skill section of the rule book is the most forgotten section of the rules in my opinion. It exists for a reason.
McJarvis 06-22-07, 10:10 AM	The favorable/unfavorable section of the skill section of the rule book is the most forgotten section of the rules in my opinion. It exists for a reason. That may be-> but we have ignored these sections for spot checks[thus inanimate objects are always auto-spotted if they have anything less than total cover] & I believe something similar will likely be needed for listen checks. [To avoid long tables.]
hogarth 06-22-07, 10:12 AM	I'm not a fan of the "Big-Ass Table o' Made-Up Numbers" -- I'd rather have a simple house rule that's sometimes a bit clunky than a lengthy set of house rules that try to cover every situation. I'd be happy with something like: -making a melee or ranged weapon attack requires a Move Silently roll to be done quietly -a successful hit can be heard with a DC 0 listen check -a silent spell or power cannot be heard
Khaim 06-22-07, 10:19 AM	I'm not a fan of the "Big-Ass Table o' Made-Up Numbers" -- I'd rather have a simple house rule that's sometimes a bit clunky than a lengthy set of house rules that try to cover every situation. I'd be happy with something like: -making a melee or ranged weapon attack requires a Move Silently roll to be done quietly -a successful hit can be heard with a DC 0 listen check -a silent spell or power cannot be heard I would agree with that, with the addition of "any magical effect that requires speaking (spell with vocal component, command word, bard song) can be heard with a DC 0 Listen check".
Zevox 06-22-07, 10:22 AM	I would agree with that, with the addition of "any magical effect that requires speaking (spell with vocal component, command word, bard song) can be heard with a DC 0 Listen check". No need - thats an undisputed core rule anyway (DC 0 listen check to hear someone speaking is right in there with the basic listen rules). Zevox
Rauul 06-22-07, 10:24 AM	Bolded for emphasis. I'd really rather not do anything that would lead to a situation of this sort: Pitlord: Fight posted Gladiator A: Looks good! Gladiator B: Ut oh! I clearly deserve 5 listen checks for the following situations, please bother to read the Big-Listen-Table-O-Matic next time! ;) And this is different from how it is now?? In what way??
Macbrea 06-22-07, 10:25 AM	Bows are not silent. Bow silencers reduce the volume of a bow by 20 db. To quote a hunting article: Bow string silencers will help reduce the sound the bow string makes when an arrow is released. Even with today's fast bows shooting at over 300 feet per second, string silencers will reduce the number of times a deer will "jump string." Keep in mind that sound travels at about 1120 fps. The time difference between the speed of sound and the string noise on arrow release is all the time a deer needs to move out of the way. Silencing your hunting bow for the upcoming season is not time-consuming, and it is smart. A quiet hunting bow consists of a solid noise dampening system. This indicates that it makes quite a bit of noise. Assuming that the average range you shoot a deer at is 30 yards or 90 feet. -9 to hearing in DnD terms. Assuming a deer is a 2HD creature with wisdom 14 and +4 racial bonus to hearing checks. That means with Max ranks it has Listen check +11. The silencer (+2 tool bonus) seems to be able to make up the difference to bring the chances of the deer being able to move out of the way to dead even. So, you might be correct in that it is MS vs Listen. The deer isn't able to apply it's dex bonus until it hears the shot. This is making a listen check vs a sound. This would seem to indicate that the sound of the bow is either a factor of the archers skill or it makes the same sound no matter what.
Khaim 06-22-07, 10:48 AM	Hey, keep your "real world" out of our arena.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 10:52 AM	I was using an example: And a statement that bow shots aren't those magic make no sound mystic objects. They have a volume. You could be right that the Hunters skill in MS determines wether the deer can actually hear the bowshot. But I have a feeling that the bow makes the sound at the time of the attack. And that sound has a set number. No matter what the archer wishes that bow to sound like, unless he can magically silence the bow or apply tool modifiers to the bow. It makes a sound. His ability to MS helps get him into position, it doesn't help him once he activates an item on the sound an item makes. Which was why I said that a bow should have a volume (DC) set to it and any time you fire that bow it should have a set number.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 10:55 AM	A perfect example of this would be the rogue with the horn blasting. The rogue sneaks along til he gets to within 20ft of his opponent. This is clearly a MS check. He then activates the horn of blasting at his opponent. This item clearly has it's own sound. The MS check no longer applies and the DC of the sound created by the horn of blasting is used vs the targets Listen check to determine were the horns sound came from. It is pretty obvious in this case no matter what the rogue wanted to do the horn made the sound.
McJarvis 06-22-07, 11:01 AM	The problem with your deer example is that it just plain doesn't translate to D&D. The deer may be able to hear that an attack is taking place, but I highly doubt that it could pinpoint where you are. Even if it could: in D&D terms it wouldn't have its dex to AC. . The arrow misses because the deer moves & the arrow is already in the air going toward the spot the deer was at. Since D&D doesn't take into account arrows traveling through the air(time between firing & hitting is instantanious), such examples of "hearing shots" are more or less null & void. Take more historical examples of Indian raiding parties being deadly because the bow was so silent [I]as compared to other forms of combat, and you have a better look at how attacking silently might work. All this is immaterial, though, because real-world examples can't be a part of our interpretation of the rules[as weird as that may sound] ~McJ~
Macbrea 06-22-07, 11:08 AM	It could possibly pinpoint the attack. It has a +11 listen check. It seems to be able to make the DC +20 + (+9 for distance) a good amount of time if the hunters have to worry about silencing their bows. So, that means if the deer took 10 to hear the shot the DC of an unsilenced bow would have to be 21-29 = -8. Slightly less quiet then the clang of battle.
hogarth 06-22-07, 11:10 AM	Which was why I said that a bow should have a volume (DC) set to it and any time you fire that bow it should have a set number. Again -- I'd rather have a simple "one-size-fits-all" rule than a table of empirically determined decibel levels and corresponding Listen DCs. To me, D&D is meant to be an entertaining game, not a perfect simulation of real life. Game rules don't have to be 100% realistic. For instance, I've heard there's a game where a castle can chase down and kill an armed horseman, and then on the next round a single bishop can destroy that self-same castle! Ridiculous -- I doubt it'll ever catch on. ;)
Macbrea 06-22-07, 11:11 AM	Simple. Use the chart in the book and Call a bowshot an attack.
Khaim 06-22-07, 11:17 AM	You know, just making the check DC 10 would be fine too. It's the flat nature, it's the low DC that many players are upset about.
Sjiggie 06-22-07, 11:19 AM	Or to make a difference between melee and ranged attacks. Melee weapons bouncing on armor clearly make a louder noise than bows do. So why not make the ranged listen DC 10 and the melee DC 0
hogarth 06-22-07, 11:30 AM	Simple. Use the chart in the book and Call a bowshot an attack. (Actually the chart says "in combat" not "an attack".) I don't have a problem with that. I just don't like adding a new house rule for every little situation (like "winged creatures can't fly in narrow spaces" or "a 3rd level character can't have a heavy horse").
Macbrea 06-22-07, 11:33 AM	The DC of a bow is increased by +1 per 10ft from the target. A Bowtech guardian composite longbow has a listed sting volume of 86 db coming off the string at the time of shooting. To give you an idea: Office interior or ordinary conversation = 60 db Passing car at 10 ft. or garbage disposal at 3 ft = 80db Passing bus or truck at 10 ft. or food blender at 3 ft. = 90db That might tell you how loud your silent bow really is.
McJarvis 06-22-07, 11:38 AM	That might tell you how loud your silent bow really is. Yeah, because we're so using modern bows. <_< >_> edit-> Oh, right-> and sound definately has a linear decay rate with no minimum in real life too! [if you were trained well enough to listen you too could hear that bowshot over in tokyo]
Macbrea 06-22-07, 11:40 AM	I am not sure an ancient bow is suddenly going to have a huge amount less sound.
Khaim 06-22-07, 11:53 AM	The DC of a bow is increased by +1 per 10ft from the target. A Bowtech guardian composite longbow has a listed sting volume of 86 db coming off the string at the time of shooting. To give you an idea: Office interior or ordinary conversation = 60 db Passing car at 10 ft. or garbage disposal at 3 ft = 80db Passing bus or truck at 10 ft. or food blender at 3 ft. = 90db That might tell you how loud your silent bow really is. To be fair, all those examples are sustained sounds. A bowstring, if I know what a "bow" is, makes a rather sharp sound.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 12:51 PM	The sound still exists for even a split second. Same thing as saying a gunshot is 140db, which is the same as the threshold of pain for the human hearing. I personally have lost my middle hearing from laying next to a Bradley firing is chaingun. And your pretty much right Mcj. the decay is linear in DnD. But, I was just pointing out that the sound of the bow is louder then a word spoken (DC 0, 60 db) vs a bow (DC ??, 86db).
SauroGrenom 06-22-07, 01:18 PM	Sigh... So far TM, MWB, NiQil and Zevox have chimed in on the change everything about attack listen DC's side of this issue. Only Vath and I have voted for no change. Since our rules are constantly in a state of flux, and appear to change at the whim of the majority, and the elegance and simplicity of the rule we are currently using appears to sway no-one, and this discussion of various options seams to be making rather slow progress... I'm going to skip past criticizing the already proposed idea. I simply am going to say that they are far more clunky and complicated than what we currently use, and if we are going to change the rules we should change them for the better. So I identify the following necessary characteristics for a replacement rule: 1) It should be simple, and preferably makes the battles easier for pitlords than what we already use. 2) It should answer the questions about what it means to be "in battle" and what the listen DC for an attack is. My solution is going to be a bit complicated on the rules side. But it will be simple to implement in the battles. It starts with answers to the two central questions. Bare with me for a bit while I describe all the parts. There will be three parts. First, we decide that there is no listen DC for attacks. They simply cannot be heard. There is none listed in the SRD, and we simply say attacks cannot be detected with a listen check. Second we decide that being in combat is simply that... being in combat. There is a listen DC of 0 to locate anyone who's "in combat" and there is no skill that can be applied to modify that listen DC (although distance modifiers still apply). Every round that a character is "in combat" there is a chance to be heard, regardless of their actions or skills. Third we create a new skill package that allows some characters to dodge the "in combat" status for a while (perhaps replacing Ambush). This will be a skills package that is both attack and defend (and therefore useful in all combats). Our new skill package we can call "Snipe" for lack of a better word. During this time when the character is not "in combat", only movement and spell casting will result in a listen check. Snipe will allow a character to remain "out of combat" for a number of rounds. At the beginning of the battle, an opposed check is used to determine a number of rounds where the character is not considered to be "in combat". We can debate the details of what skills to use on the opposed check, and how to transform that result into a reasonable number of rounds. Right now, I'd rather not get bogged down in that. The effect of these three decisions is that there will be a limited time at the beginning of a combat where a rogue character can act or otherwise attack without fear of revealing their position with an extra listen check. This allows characters to be roguish or otherwise evasive relatively easily for a while, but not for an indefinite period of time. This should be sufficient for the roguish character to gain the upper hand in whatever way they need. Also it makes the job of the pitlord easier. Instead of rolling opposed listen checks (with a table of various modifiers as have been suggested by others), the pitlord only rolls once at the beginning of the battle. That roll serves to replace several other rounds worth of rolling. Hopefully the rogue has finished the job by that time, if not his job suddenly becomes much harder as the pitlord uses the simple DC 0 Listen check for every following round regardless of the rogue's actions. This gives the rogue freedom but also a time limit after which the rogue is pressured, thus avoiding combats that go on for hundreds of rounds worth of skill checks. This is the best I can come up with, and I consider it a reasonable compromise that considers implementation, fairness and simplicity together in a way that doesn't hand the world to sneaky characters, but also doesn't prevent them from functioning.
MindWandererB 06-22-07, 02:30 PM	First, we decide that there is no listen DC for attacks. They simply cannot be heard. There is none listed in the SRD, and we simply say attacks cannot be detected with a listen check. That might be a bit severe. I don't think anyone is arguing for total silence. (Recanted, see below.) Second we decide that being in combat is simply that... being in combat. There is a listen DC of 0 to locate anyone who's "in combat" and there is no skill that can be applied to modify that listen DC (although distance modifiers still apply). Every round that a character is "in combat" there is a chance to be heard, regardless of their actions or skills.That would be the current rule. It seems to be unpopular to the majority. Third we create a new skill package that allows some characters to dodge the "in combat" status for a while (perhaps replacing Ambush). This will be a skills package that is both attack and defend (and therefore useful in all combats). Our new skill package we can call "Snipe" for lack of a better word. During this time when the character is not "in combat", only movement and spell casting will result in a listen check.You call that simple and elegant? That's the most complex proposal so far. It transforms the Hide/MS sneak into a totally different animal. Moreover, it forces them to rely on speed, which is usually antithetical to stealth. I'm going to call the discussion portion of this topic closed and call for a vote. Clearly, folks don't see eye-to-eye, and it's not going to happen. I'm vetoing the "table method" (for the reasons many have stated), and the skill package method. Here are your choices: 1) DC 0 to hear an attack, as now. 2) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, DC 0 to hear the point of impact of a successful attack. 3) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, nothing for the impact. 4) Attacks are impossible to hear. We'll deal with definitions of "attack" afterwards, if need be, but these are the only feasible solutions on the table, IMO. ((Regarding the bow thing: a flat DC for a bowstring is tempting, but I also know that there is some variability there based on your technique. Furthermore, a high-MS character may have modified their bow to be quieter. The deer example is also slightly strange because the deer is, up to a certain point, more likely to hear the shot and have time to dodge when you're further away.))
Zevox 06-22-07, 02:39 PM	That might be a bit severe. I don't think anyone is arguing for total silence. *raises hand* I was. (Although Sauro's proposal is a far cry from what I would prefer in every other area.) My vote is to get rid of it. Personally, I don't think that there should be a listen check allowed to hear an attack 1) DC 0 to hear an attack, as now. 2) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, DC 0 to hear the point of impact of a successful attack. 3) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, nothing for the impact. If thats our only options, I vote #3. Having a DC 0 check to hear the point of impact may make sense, but its just an additional pointless complication in practice, since you either already know where an attack hit (you or an ally) or don't care (it missed). Zevox
McJarvis 06-22-07, 02:46 PM	I am one mind with Zevox on this issue. (sblocked since discussion is closed) Making attacks not making any sound may not make logical sense-> but logic dictates that if I throw a pebble into some brush it would be very hard to find, yet under our current rules it is automatically found just by glancing. Sometimes very simple is better. [And sneak builds certainly won't "dominate" the format if there is no listen DC for attacks] Of course, I am more interested in our discussions of what constitutes an attack...
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 03:02 PM	I could get behind any of them really. As I said elsewhere - I use a MS-20 roll in my games generally - which works out often to be somewhere around 1 or 3. As to whether the attack can be heard on the stopping point - I guess that's only a matter for the multiplayer fights or fights where the main character and the ally are not together. I guess, my result would be 2 in that case.
MindWandererB 06-22-07, 03:52 PM	*raises hand* I was. (Although Sauro's proposal is a far cry from what I would prefer in every other area.)My bad. I've changed the ballot accordingly.
Zevox 06-22-07, 04:37 PM	1) DC 0 to hear an attack, as now. 2) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, DC 0 to hear the point of impact of a successful attack. 3) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, nothing for the impact. 4) Attacks are impossible to hear. #4, then. Though if, as I suspect will be the case, I turn out to be the only voting for that, I'll support #3 instead. Zevox
SauroGrenom 06-22-07, 05:32 PM	#1
SauroGrenom 06-22-07, 08:18 PM	I have permission from MWB to reopen this discussion. So far, I've only publicly talked about one of the reason's that I don't want to change this Listen DC 0 rule. He's suggested that I talk about both sides of this. The complete reason that I oppose any change on this rule is two fold. The first is what I've been describing so far. The second relates to the place and effect of stealth as a strategy in our community. To summarize that is: First, the core rules are ambiguous about how to conduct combat silently and hidden. Apparently the game designers were thinking about group combat and not about some guy hiding and waiting every couple rounds to attack silently in the middle of a battle where his friends are about to get killed by the BBEG. There are several aspect to this. In order to make a totally stealthy combat strategy effective, we need to fill the gaps in the rules. Also the mechanics we currently have in Core Rules for hiding and silence don't appear to be intended for repeating every round of combat. They are mostly about how to regulate the initiation of combat. So the rules we are given don't fit very well for the task at hand. Even if we fill in the gaps we end up with a tedious battle system with a half dozen opposed checks every round that and changing distance modifiers that force combat to be very long and complicated to run. So a simple patch, like our MS-20 suggestion, is a meager fix to a rather big problem. Also it's a total house rule that leaves us with a new question of what does it mean to be "in combat" (previously defined as attacking). That is not at all resolved by this suggestion. So we are patching up a clunky rules system for silent combat and leaving "in combat" undefined and ignored. I suppose that we can create a new rule for the listen dc of an attack (like the MS-20). But if so, we must also create an alternative definition of being "in combat". The only thing that I can read from the rules is that once you roll initiative you are in combat regardless of what you do, and it's far more restrictive to say that lying on the ground unconscious you make more noise than you do moving around before the combat. There's no other reasonable way to interpret the "in combat" rule that has been suggested here, and it's a new problem created by the MS-20 suggestion. The second major argument is that stealth strategies are terribly annoying and taxing to pitlord. This sounds trivial at first, but it's not. We have been on the verge of a State of Emergency for 2 weeks in a row. Also we all can reasonably predict that since the stealth rules are clunky and complicated stealth battles will be longer battles that are more difficult to pitlord and will result in more complaints from players who think one or another thing wasn't handled correctly. There are many modifiers that change all the time with respect to the stealth skills and the conditions of a battle in each round. Whenever a pitlord runs 25 rounds of combat of a stealth battle, the time invested is more than two archer battles that end in 10 rounds each. I understand that stealthy assassin types are a fantasy archetype, and that they are especially attractive in a solo combat setting. But even so, this kind of combat is not fun to run as a pitlord, and it's seriously more time consuming to pitlord. As elders we shouldn't ignore this fact. The convenience of our pitlords to serve our community should be something we guard carefully. And personally I don't think it's fun to fight stealth characters, or pitlord for them, or write tactics for or against them. Personally I feel that a proliferation of stealth characters will inconvenience our pitlords and generally annoy people more than satisfy anyone. To summarize, we've basically got poor core rules to govern stealthy combat. And if we invent a few house rules to govern stealthy combat, then we get a clunky combat system which is really annoying and difficult to play and leaves other things open to further interpretation (the "in combat" thing). For all this work writing new rules, ignoring core rules that may apply (the "in combat" thing) and using these house rules in all our battles, what do we get? It seams all we get is to make Stealth a barely viable, terribly annoying, not much fun to play or pitlord kind of strategy to use. I certainly don't think the change is worth it. That's it. I've said my peace. If the other elders all disagree, then I'll not comment further.
NiQil 06-22-07, 09:18 PM	I'll take option 3 for $1000, Alex. I like the MS-20 rule. It coincides with the sniping rules, so that a sniper needs both hide and move silently in excess, and also gives someone being sniped a chance to hear the attack, even if they don't see it. It may give them at least a general direction, which in turn will help finding the opponent faster, resulting in faster sniping fights (to address Sauro's latest post).
SauroGrenom 06-22-07, 09:46 PM	It may give them at least a general direction, which in turn will help finding the opponent faster, resulting in faster sniping fights (to address Sauro's latest post).It should be publicly noted that it's easier to boost the MS skill than to boost the listen skill. And thus even with the -20 modifier to the MS skill, it won't be difficult to snipe with impunity. There are several reasons that the attacker receives a larger benefit here than the defender. First the distance modifier benefits the attacker. Also skill items benefit the attacker greater than the defender. The price of a +MS item and a + listen item are the same, but the sniping character uses it in every battle, while the defender only uses it against snipe characters. So the cost produces benefit for a listener only a fraction of the time and a greater opportunity cost. Thus a net benefit to the sniper who uses the item every battle. Also MS is a dex skill, and that's a stat related to ranged attacks. Clearly any hide build will use maxed Dex and ranged attacks and gets synergy on their ranged attacks and move silently skills. However Listen is a Wis skill, and Wisdom is a dump stat for many types of builds. Only druids and monks consistently have high wisdom as well as the listen skill. Also Listen is not a class skill for many character classes. In fact most character classes will have spot and listen checks that fall farther and farther behind the sniper as levels increase where the sniper advances by +1 every level and the listener advances by +1/2 if they have spare skill points. If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun. Edit: I said all this over IM with MWB, but didn't include it in my last post because I didn't think it would be necessary to note. But when NiQil said that he though a -20 modifier to MS check would be enough to ensure that sniping battles resolved more quickly, then I felt it was necessary to describe how this was not likely to actually be the case, especially as levels increase.
Erithmu 06-22-07, 09:54 PM	Ok ... no one did the ECL 12 chart for monsters ... funny! Goes back to preping his ECL 12 mission
hogarth 06-22-07, 10:17 PM	If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun. I've said this a few times already -- if anyone really wanted to be unhearable, all they need is a scroll/potion/wand of Silence. The availability of those things hasn't resulted in any unbeatable snipers so far that I've seen. I don't think any of the proposed new rules will result in one, either. On the other hand, I really don't think the current rule is that much of a hindrance to playing a sniper, McJarvis's melodramatic pronouncements notwithstanding. I think the lack of them is due more to the fact that sniping is hard to pull off on some maps (like the Plains or a small map like the Cavern) and it results in a fairly dull fight when it succeeds. YMMV.
NiQil 06-22-07, 10:25 PM	It should be publicly noted that it's easier to boost the MS skill than to boost the listen skill. And thus even with the -20 modifier to the MS skill, it won't be difficult to snipe with impunity. There are several reasons that the attacker receives a larger benefit here than the defender. First the distance modifier benefits the attacker. Also skill items benefit the attacker greater than the defender. The price of a +MS item and a + listen item are the same, but the sniping character uses it in every battle, while the defender only uses it against snipe characters. So the cost produces benefit for a listener only a fraction of the time and a greater opportunity cost. Thus a net benefit to the sniper who uses the item every battle. Also MS is a dex skill, and that's a stat related to ranged attacks. Clearly any hide build will use maxed Dex and ranged attacks and gets synergy on their ranged attacks and move silently skills. However Listen is a Wis skill, and Wisdom is a dump stat for many types of builds. Only druids and monks consistently have high wisdom as well as the listen skill. Also Listen is not a class skill for many character classes. In fact most character classes will have spot and listen checks that fall farther and farther behind the sniper as levels increase where the sniper advances by +1 every level and the listener advances by +1/2 if they have spare skill points. If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun. Edit: I said all this over IM with MWB, but didn't include it in my last post because I didn't think it would be necessary to note. But when NiQil said that he though a -20 modifier to MS check would be enough to ensure that sniping battles resolved more quickly, then I felt it was necessary to describe how this was not likely to actually be the case, especially as levels increase. I don't necessarily think that it will speed up or slow down sneaks and sniping at all...just that it has the potential to in some cases. I just meant that there is a benefit to each side. MS is easier to boost for most sneaks, but at the same time it gives those fighting the sneaks another option to try and find them. Listen is a class skill for more classes than Spot is, afterall....even if it is only one class more. And quite frankly most of the classes that have listen as a class skill need the help anyway, in my opinion. Those with Listen: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Psion (Seer), Soulknife, Wilder Those with Spot: Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Psion (Seer), Soulknife, Wilder
McJarvis 06-22-07, 10:31 PM	If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. I really can't help but think you have this opinion due to an inability to optimize stealth characters. Let's look at factors that add up to "uberhiders" being able to snipe with impunity, even at a -20 check to hide (and a way in which they can already snipe with impunity, should they desire): Size modifiers: Small creatures get a +4 to hide. They do NOT get a bonus to MS Racial Mods: Forest gnomes, of course, give a +4 to hide Chameleon: A very cheap power that gives a +10 Skill feats/Psicrystals: +3 per feat, +2 for the combo feats. Total +8 Magical + skill items: +varies via level And finally ranks & dex. MS shares ranks, dex, & the feats-> but you'd be pretty hard pressed to dedicate feats to both skills[or at least, looking at a level 6->9 build before you get to spend feats on things that really help combat]. MS doesn't get size mods(!), you can't get racial mods for both in any large quantity, & there is no chameleon for MS [other than the silence spell-> but this spell negates the DC 0 attack check anyway. I'll give you the magical item, even though buying it in both hide & MS is impractical. Uberhiders can generally, at low levels, beat out the highest spot checks by only 1 or 2 while sniping.[assuming worst vs best scenarios] MS, on the other hand, loses out to at least (size+racial+chameleon+feats) = -24 of a handicap on MS under hide. Take into account that MS is already practically worthless, given that a forest gnome cleric with the trickery domain could just go in at ECL 3 & cast silence//snipe with a maxed out hide check, and this just further outlines why MS is not the issue you should be attacking here. [and the listen DC of 0 or -10 isn't going to change anything since he's using silence] This is further punctuated by ghosts, who don't succumb to touchsight[which is the bane of hiders], don't give off scent[another failing of hiding builds], & automatically don't make any noise. Hide is the problem. If you don't want sniper builds: get rid of hide in the arena. Don't try to push weak MS rules that people don't like or agree with, since these rules just treat the surface problems that you seem to be worried about. [Though two of my current character concepts use it, I really wouldn't mind seeing hiding be banned in the arena format. Spot, Listen, Hide, & MS checks are annoying anyway ;), & as Sauro pointed out are used in non-combat settings at tabletop most of the time ]
Macbrea 06-22-07, 11:05 PM	It will get alittle extreme with just Yorick at ECL 5. +19 Hide (+39 with items) +15 Move Silently Tattoo of Chameleon +10 Elixer of Hiding +10 Cast darkness for concealment 20ft radius Cast ghost sounds of sound of 12 people shooting crossbows Can stand in darkness and sniping. You must roll 35 plus his die roll to hear him. And 19 plus his die roll to spot him. You have far better chance of spotting him then ever figuring were he is.
Khaim 06-22-07, 11:13 PM	If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. As everyone else has already said: Silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm).
Zevox 06-22-07, 11:59 PM	If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. Right, because we have so many snipers in the arena, and every other thing we've implemented that would supposedly help them has resulted in such and influx of them :rolleyes: . This wasn't the case before we starting using this house rule for hearing attacks, it won't be the case after we stop using it. You're exaggerating Sauro. Greatly. If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun. And this is any different from a low will save character who auto-loses to a mage that targets that (see Va'ria vs Sdentch, for instance) how? Or what about a melee monster who auto-loses to a flying archer or spell-slinger (see Izumi vs Torel, for instance)? Or a sneak who auto-loses to a Psion with touchsight (see Featylec vs Loddick, for instance)? Theres some matches where the winner is clear as day, simply because of the interaction between the two character types. Thats not a problem, thats just how the game works. Zevox
Vathelokai 06-23-07, 12:40 AM	Sheesh... I'll vote for 3. That gives a majority (telin, zevox, vath, niqil). There's no good solutions to this one. We should really stop fighting so hard. We're only irritating each other, and to no good end.
Usurpator 06-23-07, 02:17 AM	I like the MS-20 rule. It coincides with the sniping rules, so that a sniper needs both hide and move silently in excess, and also gives someone being sniped a chance to hear the attack, even if they don't see it. Actually, by deduction it should be MS-10. Listen is opposed by a Move Silent. The base DC to hear an attack is DC 0. Base DC's are based on a non-skilled person taking 10. For the DC to be 0, there would be a -10 penalty on the check. With a -20 penalty most people will be actually louder when attacking than people talking, a -10 penalty will be closest to the current rule.
MindWandererB 06-23-07, 03:35 AM	Sheesh... I'll vote for 3. That gives a majority (telin, zevox, vath, niqil). There's no good solutions to this one. We should really stop fighting so hard. We're only irritating each other, and to no good end.Actually, Telin was for 2, but that's still close enough. If this really does create an influx of stealth builds, and the feared increase in pitlord workload, then we'll address it. Subtopics: 1) Should the DC be MS, MS-10, or MS-20? MS-0 would be the "default" for quiet actions, MS-10 is the inference from the table, and MS-20 is most like the charging and sniping rules. 2) What constitutes an attack? Options are A) Any attack made by a melee, ranged, or natural weapon, B) Anything requiring an attack roll to hit, C) Anything requiring an attack roll to hit or that allows a reflex save to avoid or mitigate, D) Anything that deals damage, E) Anything that targets an enemy or includes an enemy in its AoE (per Invisibility), or F) some combination that I'm not thinking of right now. I'm trying to cover options that include effects which I would imagine might make noise (scorching ray? lightning bolt? magic missile? breath weapons? ray of enfeeblement?). Obviously, your imaginations may have different conclusions, and how to implement those are another story.
Usurpator 06-23-07, 03:46 AM	2) What constitutes an attack? E) Anything that targets an enemy or includes an enemy in its AoE (per Invisibility), Option E. seems to be far the easiest and most convenient choice, and the least subject to possible abuse.
McJarvis 06-23-07, 08:27 AM	Option E. seems to be far the easiest and most convenient choice, and the least subject to possible abuse. Can we put an addendum on that that if a mage stills a spell(or casts a spell with no somatic components) he effectively casts it silently for MS purposes? This would require Still+Silent to avoid any listen checks while casting.... Or option E but add in that the attack must require physical movement. [Psionics are covered too then]
Khaim 06-23-07, 10:19 AM	I am very against allowing the mudane skill Move Silently to be applied to magic effects. At all. In other words, only normal weapons make sound like this. If we want to have spells/powers make sounds, then I would consider that a house rule. Not an unreasonable one, mind you. It should certainly require Spellcraft/Psicraft to silence, not Move Silently.
Zevox 06-23-07, 10:43 AM	1) Should the DC be MS, MS-10, or MS-20? MS-0 would be the "default" for quiet actions, MS-10 is the inference from the table, and MS-20 is most like the charging and sniping rules. Eh, I don't really care personally. Whatever the others would like to do with that is fine by me. 2) What constitutes an attack? Options are A) Any attack made by a melee, ranged, or natural weapon, B) Anything requiring an attack roll to hit, C) Anything requiring an attack roll to hit or that allows a reflex save to avoid or mitigate, D) Anything that deals damage, E) Anything that targets an enemy or includes an enemy in its AoE (per Invisibility), or F) some combination that I'm not thinking of right now. I'm trying to cover options that include effects which I would imagine might make noise (scorching ray? lightning bolt? magic missile? breath weapons? ray of enfeeblement?). Obviously, your imaginations may have different conclusions, and how to implement those are another story. For using MS to attack silently? Obviously, it has to be A. Allowing spells/powers to be used silently with MS just makes no sense at all. Powers already can be silenced by suppressing displays, and spells have a metamagic feat for casting silently. Theres no need to force them to make further noise than that, nor any need to tell Psions that they can no longer silence their powers without MS. Zevox
NiQil 06-23-07, 12:21 PM	Eh, I don't really care personally. Whatever the others would like to do with that is fine by me. For using MS to attack silently? Obviously, it has to be A. Allowing spells/powers to be used silently with MS just makes no sense at all. Powers already can be silenced by suppressing displays, and spells have a metamagic feat for casting silently. Theres no need to force them to make further noise than that, nor any need to tell Psions that they can no longer silence their powers without MS. Zevox I would agree here...I think for the express purposes of this check, it should be either A, or at the very worst B, since that is how an attack is defined by the core rules. If we choose anything other than B, then we need to make it expressly clear that this definition is only to be used as it relates to this check.
Rauul 06-24-07, 03:59 AM	I would agree here...I think for the express purposes of this check, it should be either A, or at the very worst B, since that is how an attack is defined by the core rules. If we choose anything other than B, then we need to make it expressly clear that this definition is only to be used as it relates to this check. MS -10 with a -1 or -2 to the listen roll per 5ft (in the arena other maps should be different) As for MS Quieting spells... not Silencing spells the Spells.. I have to Agree.. A person who is "TRAINED" in being silent... Should be able to make a MS roll to say the verbal components under thier breath so as to not be heard.. Silenced Spells with metamagic = no longer need to use the vocal componets of a spell... can cast underwater ect.. MS spells would be Vocal componets needed still but the caster is TRAINED to acually speak the componets So low that it is hard to hear the caster to pin point him casting.. Just something to think about...
TheMagister 06-24-07, 07:33 AM	As for MS Quieting spells... not Silencing spells the Spells.. I have to Agree.. A person who is "TRAINED" in being silent... Should be able to make a MS roll to say the verbal components under thier breath so as to not be heard.. Silenced Spells with metamagic = no longer need to use the vocal componets of a spell... can cast underwater ect.. MS spells would be Vocal componets needed still but the caster is TRAINED to acually speak the componets So low that it is hard to hear the caster to pin point him casting.. Just something to think about... This view is something that I totally cannot agree with. The Verbal component of spellcasting has to be spoken in a clear and firm voice (I could look up the exact wording, but it's not important -- enough people can back me up on my memory of this point). There is no way bodily coordination and training in stealth can make you talk any quieter for purposes of spellcasting. I can see people training in how to more quietly throw a dagger or swing a sword or even shoot a bow (when you learn not to let the bowstring slap the wristguard, for example). Personally (and this is just me), I think it's stupid that a defender who just got impaled by an arrow or other ranged attack (even a spell-based one like a ray) can't infer his attacker's direction via the angle of the attack. That's just common sense. Even if you heard nothing and saw nothing, you know you got hit with an arrow "from over there somewhere". (and so I cast scorn on a suggested houserule and then spout baloney about one of my own...I'm squirrely sometimes!) TM
Rauul 06-24-07, 12:57 PM	This view is something that I totally cannot agree with. The Verbal component of spellcasting has to be spoken in a clear and firm voice (I could look up the exact wording, but it's not important -- enough people can back me up on my memory of this point). There is no way bodily coordination and training in stealth can make you talk any quieter for purposes of spellcasting. I can see people training in how to more quietly throw a dagger or swing a sword or even shoot a bow (when you learn not to let the bowstring slap the wristguard, for example). Personally (and this is just me), I think it's stupid that a defender who just got impaled by an arrow or other ranged attack (even a spell-based one like a ray) can't infer his attacker's direction via the angle of the attack. That's just common sense. Even if you heard nothing and saw nothing, you know you got hit with an arrow "from over there somewhere". (and so I cast scorn on a suggested houserule and then spout baloney about one of my own...I'm squirrely sometimes!) TM Acually it saids you have to have a Strong voice, can't be gaged, and 20% failure if deafened... nothing said about having to scream it or how loud it has to be said... I have seen some people who have a strong clear voice who is very quiet when giving commands in a combat situation.. IE every drill Sargent in the Army... As for always knowing where an Attack is coming from when Shot.. I Disagree.. Having been Shot 3 times for Uncle Sam.. i can tell you that a Well placed Sniper can take 2 shots from a Location before his Location is Compromised.. even against one target.. 99.9% of the time a Sniper's Location is only found after the 3rd shot... or Ballistics Tests after he is long gone.. But thats real life... not D&D... i'm sorry... will keep quiet now..
templer10 06-24-07, 01:50 PM	As for always knowing where an Attack is coming from when Shot.. I Disagree.. Having been Shot 3 times for Uncle Sam.. i can tell you that a Well placed Sniper can take 2 shots from a Location before his Location is Compromised.. even against one target.. 99.9% of the time a Sniper's Location is only found after the 3rd shot... or Ballistics Tests after he is long gone.. But thats real life... not D&D... i'm sorry... will keep quiet now.. i agree that with a Bullet you dont always can tell- an arrow is something diffrent - if nothing else- you know the general angle of attack -it has a point after all. btw- about bullets- personaly experience - 12 shots at us/me without finding the guy - did help him he was almost a mile away.
Rauul 06-24-07, 01:53 PM	i agree that with a Bullet you dont always can tell- an arrow is something diffrent - if nothing else- you know the general angle of attack -it has a point after all. btw- about bullets- personaly experience - 12 shots at us/me without finding the guy - did help him he was almost a mile away. Personnel Experience.. if it took me 12 shots to shoot a person.. i would of been dishonorably discharged
templer10 06-24-07, 01:55 PM	Personnel Experience.. if it took me 12 shots to shoot a person.. i would of been dishonorably discharged Actualy he was shooting at a Platoon of infantry, he got some - it wasnt fun. i could tell you more - but ill have to shoot you.. p.s. - you did catch the from almost a mile away right?
Rauul 06-24-07, 02:23 PM	Actualy he was shooting at a Platoon of infantry, he got some - it wasnt fun. i could tell you more - but ill have to shoot you.. p.s. - you did catch the from almost a mile away right? yup i got the from a mile away... only 1 question... why so close... And yea i can tell you much more but i hate hiding the bodies... takes to much time..
TheMagister 06-24-07, 02:25 PM	Take it to the Tavern, fellas.
TelinArtho 06-26-07, 12:24 PM	Eh, I don't really care personally. Whatever the others would like to do with that is fine by me. For using MS to attack silently? Obviously, it has to be A. Allowing spells/powers to be used silently with MS just makes no sense at all. Powers already can be silenced by suppressing displays, and spells have a metamagic feat for casting silently. Theres no need to force them to make further noise than that, nor any need to tell Psions that they can no longer silence their powers without MS. Zevox I would agree here...I think for the express purposes of this check, it should be either A, or at the very worst B, since that is how an attack is defined by the core rules. If we choose anything other than B, then we need to make it expressly clear that this definition is only to be used as it relates to this check. I would also go with A for the MS check on attacks for the same reasoning mentioned by Zevox above. As for the penalty - as I said before, I use -20 in my home games. I would be fine with a -10, but I think no modifier is way too generous.
TelinArtho 06-27-07, 01:32 PM	Bump - let's get this issue resolved so we can move on. New item to add to the docket - Allow Mercs at ECL4 (maybe even ECL3...)?
Rauul 06-27-07, 01:56 PM	Bump - let's get this issue resolved so we can move on. New item to add to the docket - Allow Mercs at ECL4 (maybe even ECL3...)? Personnelly i wouldn't allow ECL 3 due to new players being hijacked with a player who hired a merc.. ECL 4 thou would give them time to learn about mercs.. Would also like to propose a new Automatic Skill Package 5 Ranks of Diplomacy 5 Ranks of Knowledge local 5 ranks of Gather Information. . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in all 3 skills . Effect: You remove your XP Penalty by a percentage equal to the sum of all 3 skill modifiers When using Allies. Calculate gold rewards from that new XP value.
MindWandererB 06-27-07, 01:56 PM	Bump - let's get this issue resolved so we can move on. New item to add to the docket - Allow Mercs at ECL4 (maybe even ECL3...)? Definitely not ECL 3. I don't want new players to get sideswiped by a mercenary when they didn't even know they existed or how to get them. Even ECL 4 is pushing it, especially since they're so rarely used as it is.
templer10 06-27-07, 02:07 PM	Would also like to propose a new Automatic Skill Package 5 Ranks of Diplomacy 5 Ranks of Knowledge local 5 ranks of Gather Information. . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in all 3 skills . Effect: You remove your XP Penalty by a percentage equal to the sum of all 3 skill modifiers When using Allies. Calculate gold rewards from that new XP value. isnt that essentially a nerfed political career?
Rauul 06-27-07, 02:12 PM	isnt that essentially a nerfed political career? Actually as an automatic skill package it would work with Political Career.. together they would make getting Mercs/Cohorts profitable but would lower other skills if a Player was to make concentrate on them..
TelinArtho 06-27-07, 02:18 PM	Definitely not ECL 3. I don't want new players to get sideswiped by a mercenary when they didn't even know they existed or how to get them. Even ECL 4 is pushing it, especially since they're so rarely used as it is. Well there's two of reasons why Mercs aren't used now, in my opinion: 1. They are effective to builds that are built to use leadership later on. That means, in many cases, that the character built to use leadership will only use mercs until ECL6. Since mercs are only an option starting at ECL5 - that's a pretty narrow gap... 2. There are a very limited number of mercs currently on the list. Of those, at ECL5 - you have a choice of 4 of them - Jazer, Barak (both ECL1), Trillian (ECL2) and the gnome illusionist (ECL3). In an ECL5 match - neither ECL1 character is a solid choice (Barak's HP and AC are too low to get him to survive - Jazer's whopping one SL isn't going to be enough in many cases and he's not a solid fighter either; the gnome illusionist's spell selection and his personality make him unreliable to bring in as well. The "best" shot would be with Trillian - but then again - everyone already knew that - she's the one who has been hired the most...
lonewolf 06-28-07, 06:38 AM	I´d like to readress an old topic: Hide in Plain Sight. At the moment if a character has Hide in Plain Sight, pitlords only allow sniping without concealment with the usual -20 penalty on the hide check. I think that the character using HipS should have another option: Attack normally(and become visible while doing it) and then use your move action to hide again without the -20 penalty. Your not hiding while attacking but after your attack. That would make it possible for the enemy gladiator to prepare an attack or spell for the moment between the Shadowdancer attacks and hides, but it also gives the shadowdancer much better chances of not getting caught in the other ones turn. What is your opinion on this?
Salrantol 06-28-07, 06:59 AM	I would also like to make a proposal: Monster fights that involve creatures with class levels should give the pitlord 2 credits. Making the opponent is as much work as running a fight in those situations, so the whole job is as much work as two fights.
Hirumajoe 06-28-07, 08:27 AM	I´d like to readress an old topic: Hide in Plain Sight. At the moment if a character has Hide in Plain Sight, pitlords only allow sniping without concealment with the usual -20 penalty on the hide check. I think that the character using HipS should have another option: Attack normally(and become visible while doing it) and then use your move action to hide again without the -20 penalty. Your not hiding while attacking but after your attack. That would make it possible for the enemy gladiator to prepare an attack or spell for the moment between the Shadowdancer attacks and hides, but it also gives the shadowdancer much better chances of not getting caught in the other ones turn. What is your opinion on this? How is that not allowed right now? If a character has HIPS and uses a standard action to attack, then a standard action to move while remaining within 10' of shadows, by definition he gets a standard hide check (since hiding is part of a move action). It doesn't matter if its a ranged or melee attack. Where is this house rule that prevents a character from hiding while taking a move action?
lonewolf 06-28-07, 08:36 AM	How is that not allowed right now? If a character has HIPS and uses a standard action to attack, then a standard action to move while remaining within 10' of shadows, by definition he gets a standard hide check (since hiding is part of a move action). It doesn't matter if its a ranged or melee attack. Where is this house rule that prevents a character from hiding while taking a move action? There is no houserule here, but it was nonetheless denied to me when I last played The Chameleon. I didnt argue hard enough to convince everyone that I was right back then, so I am trying now.
TelinArtho 06-28-07, 09:51 AM	I´d like to readress an old topic: Hide in Plain Sight. At the moment if a character has Hide in Plain Sight, pitlords only allow sniping without concealment with the usual -20 penalty on the hide check. I think that the character using HipS should have another option: Attack normally(and become visible while doing it) and then use your move action to hide again without the -20 penalty. Your not hiding while attacking but after your attack. That would make it possible for the enemy gladiator to prepare an attack or spell for the moment between the Shadowdancer attacks and hides, but it also gives the shadowdancer much better chances of not getting caught in the other ones turn. What is your opinion on this? Well - I don't think you'll get much support for this. Hiding in the same round that you attack nets you a -20 penalty: Sniping: If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot. I would also like to make a proposal: Monster fights that involve creatures with class levels should give the pitlord 2 credits. Making the opponent is as much work as running a fight in those situations, so the whole job is as much work as two fights. Monster fights are generally much easier to run though - so the extra work on the monster itself is negligible. Also - there's nothing forbidding you from using a pre-used monster roll for a fight (for instance the combination you have to run has been used at least once before (and I believe a 2nd time...)).
Hirumajoe 06-28-07, 09:58 AM	Well - I don't think you'll get much support for this. Hiding in the same round that you attack nets you a -20 penalty: Telin, normally you can't hide at all after an attack because your opponent's attention is on you. Thats the reason sniping is there. If you don't care if your opponent's attention is on you, its not at a -20 penalty to hide when you take your move action. If a HIPS person moves to where there are no shadows, gets auto-spotted, and then moves back to shadows, does he take a -20 penalty to his hide check? Basically, instead of using the snipe action, Lonewolf is asking to standard action "something", then take a move action, which hide is automatically used with. He's arguably auto-spotted during the attack (since he's not even bothering to roll the dice). In any case, this covered explicitly in the FAQ, which I now quote: Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is, invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack? What if the character has the camouflage or hide in plain sight class features? Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her (even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a character to make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with reach). Even if the character has Spring Attack, she simply can’t make a Hide check while she is being observed. As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding place within the plants, having never left the area of concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide check. The third part of your question changes the situation entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re incredibly effective. A character with the hide in plain sight class feature (described on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) can make a Hide check even if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver). The character could attack a foe, then move to a place with sufficient cover or concealment to allow a Hide check, making the Hide check as part of movement. The character doesn’t need Spring Attack to pull this off, although that feat would allow her to move (potentially from a place of hiding, although that’s not necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a place of hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she delivers the attack. The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to hide after the attack. Put all three of these elements together—such as in the hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get: 1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment). 2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be considered hiding when he attacks). 3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or concealment while in natural terrain). 4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!” Note step 3 at the end is a new Hide check at no penalty (since its seperate and distinct from hiding while attacking.)
TelinArtho 06-28-07, 10:04 AM	Well - then I concede my point above. I don't think this will help things really - it just means that high level sneaks might have a situation of auto-wins and auto-loses (assuming the character can "force" there to be no shadows around...) - but that does appear to be the way the rules are. That said - there still would be a hide check with the -20 penalty, especially since the victim of this maneuver should (I hope) ready to attack on sight...
Hirumajoe 06-28-07, 10:12 AM	Well - then I concede my point above. I don't think this will help things really - it just means that high level sneaks might have a situation of auto-wins and auto-loses (assuming the character can "force" there to be no shadows around...) - but that does appear to be the way the rules are. That said - there still would be a hide check with the -20 penalty, especially since the victim of this maneuver should (I hope) ready to attack on sight... Oh, that I agree totally with. And if you don't think it will help the situation, then house rule it. I'm just arguing from how the rules stand right now, not "the way it should be". I have no arguments for or against that type of discussion. Although I probably don't think its so bad since I'm thinking from Valen Sky's technique (or soon to be technique at ECL 11). Become a large monster and hide in your opponent's shadow while attacking with reach. Really, nothing different from what he's doing now, so no slow down in killing speed on my end. :)
Usurpator 06-28-07, 01:09 PM	Bah, the Shadow Dancer's Hide in Plain Sight is just a load of crap. Drop a dagger on the ground in a brightly lit room and look, a tiny shadow. Poof, the Shadowdancer disappears within that shadow, undetectable by a person standing 5 ft. away. Yeah, right, sure. Hide in Plain Sight sec. still requires you to find a decent place to hide in. And people still saw where you hid and might just walk around the cover to reveal you or attack the square you hid in. Combining it with the shadowdancer ability is plain silly if you ask me and a perfect example of poorly thought out rules that defy any kind of sense.
MindWandererB 06-28-07, 07:15 PM	Minor thing: I was looking for a new animal ally for Aerryl, and in my comparison process I was looking at the lion (min. ECL 8). It seems to be significantly weaker than the other options available at that level, notably the tiger. Any objection if I bump it back down to min. ECL 7? It seems more comparable there.
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 02:40 PM	:bump: Let's get some resolution on open topics. 1) Listen checks for attacking: the consensus is that this applies to attacking with a manufactured or natural weapon only. No rays, no touch spells, and definitely not anything else. As for the DC, there has been unenthusiastic support for MS-20. Any objections to this as the final ruling? 1b) The other part of this was the "matrix method." I dislike it, Zevox and Telin like it (although Telin liked it because he didn't play it quite the way it was written). Other opinions? 2) Environmental effects: Seems like Cat's grandiose ideas do not meet with approval. So we're going with lighting conditions and mild weather effects only. And it looks like the easiest way is to have them apply to all fights the same. Here's my revised proposal for the tables: Illumination O=====O============O==================== =======O |Roll | Conditions | Examples | Effects O=====O============O==================== =======O |01-15|Bright light|noon, daylight | Creatures with vulnerabilities to light suffer those effects. |16-65|Normal light|cloudy day, light | No effect. |66-85|Dim light |dawn/dusk, torchlight | Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. |86-95|Dark |moonlit night, candlelight | 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. Superior low-light vision negates. |96-00|Pitch dark |no light | Pitch black (overcast night). All characters are considered blind. O=====O============O==================== =======O Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. (The City rules are optional, but I really like them. You can discuss it.) Weather O=====O============O |Roll | Conditions | Effects O=====O============O |01-45|Light winds |No effect. |46-55|Strong winds|Unprotected flames are extinguished. Listen checks and ranged weapon attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Tiny or smaller creatures must make a DC 10 Fortitude save each round or be knocked down. |56-58|Severe winds|Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected flames have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks and ranged weapon attack rolls suffer a -4 penalty. A DC 15 Fortitude save each round is needed to prevent Medium creatures from being checked, Small creatures from being knocked down, and Tiny creatures from being blown away. |59-68|Light Fog |Creatures more than 60 feet away have concealment. |69-73|Moderate Fog|Creatures between 30 and 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. |74-83|Rain |Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. |84-88|Downpour |As Rain and Moderate Fog combined. |89-93|Very Hot |For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Metal armor causes a -4 penalty on these saves. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. |94-98|Very Cold |For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. |99-00|Snow |As Rain and Cold combined, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). O=====O============O Notes: For wind effects, flying creatures are considered one size category smaller than their actual size. 3) No one objects to me moving the lion, so I'm doing it. 4) We'll just declare map edges to be inviolate. Out of convenience, no one can move off the edges, nor attempt to move anyone off. 5) I'm bumping this: 1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below. 2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows: 75-80% of the creature's wealth goes into Andy Collins' Big Six: weapons (primary melee and ranged), armor (& shield), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and ability-score boosters. For weapons and armor, the pitlord should choose upgraded versions of the monster's default equipment, if they have any--and, of course, they should be skipped for monsters without proficiency. Monsters of at least CR 4 should have backup silver weapons, and ones of at least CR 5 should have cold iron as well. Creatures with a PP reserve of at least 2 should have Deepcrystal as their primary weapons, and ones with Improved Sunder should have adamantine (if they can afford it, in both cases). No more than 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth. The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided. 3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead. 4) Any gear mentioned in the creature's stat block doesn't count toward its treasure value. It can upgrade its default items out of its funds, including types of upgrading which are normally illegal (like changing a normal weapon into a masterwork one).
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 02:53 PM	1 - I am in agreement with the stated solution (only on manufactured or natural attacks, -20 MS check). 1b - Yes I like the matrix method - and I'm not sure that I'm "doing it wrong..." but I guess I might be. What part was wrong? 2 - For the most part I am fine with the darkness effects. One thing - it might be good to include a tid-bit about superior low-light vision. Since Low-light vision negates the penalties of the Dim light - is there anything more for a superior low-light vision (dragons for instance)? I need to read more about the weather to be sure on that. 3 - I have no problem moving the lion down. 4 - Is this going to change the current rules on the city map? If so - this should be made in an announcement and the text on the map itself needs to be changed. If not - then you need to mention it on the map that it is an exception. In either case - no problem from me. 5 - I think the monster gear guidelines are good and should, hopefully, reduce some of the complaints about the monster fight "variability." I am already using that method for my future quests and comparing them to what I might have done under the previous rules. [EDIT] About the listen matrix - I said that you could "ignore" the values that were out of the realm of reason. It does appear that I was wrong that it was included in the text, but I think by adding it - it helps things considerably. It means that the closer you are to someone, the "easier" it is to narrow down their location - both by the sound clues and also visual and other sensory clues (scent for instance).
Zevox 06-29-07, 02:59 PM	1) None whatsoever, though like I said, I'm fine with any of the proposed penalties (or lack thereof). 2) I'm assuming the environmental effects don't occur in indoors maps (temple, cave, sewer, arena)? Lets see.... hm, severe winds might be a bit tough on players and pitlords alike. Medium creatures making DC 15 fortitude checks every round just to move? Might lead to some terribly long fights and annoyed pitlords. Snow's "all terrain is difficult" clause might lead to similar issues. Wasn't complaints about that the reason we changed the forest map? 3) Works for me. While you're at it, don't suppose you could move those ECL 4 creatures down? ;) (Sorry, but I'm probably going to be like TM was with the flurry touch ruling about that.) 5) I'd agree, except I really dislike the idea of giving equipment to creatures that aren't supposed to have it at all as a house rule. Take that out, and I'm good with it. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 03:09 PM	For the snow - I think the issue with the forest map was all of the complexities at once - half-movement for flyers, hampered terrain for most of the map, extreme hampered terrain on some of the map, trees at every 20ft or so to block LOS - you had so few ways to engage the enemy that it was frustrating. I think in most maps the snow would make things move a little slower - but ultimately be better than the original forest map (though snow on the forest map will be just as bad as it used to be - luckily it won't happen nearly as often...). As to the winds - would the Dwarven stability help with regard to this? What about quadrupeds and such. DC15 checks every round would certainly get annoying though - especially since there are so few ways to "get around" the penalty (pretty much - control winds/control weather - is that it?).
Rauul 06-29-07, 03:33 PM	Before you Elders get off track again... Can you PLEASE finish 1 discussion that was started when MWB made this Council page... Cohorts.. from the leadership feat Come Naked as a Jaybird here at Coco.. and honestly that just don't seem right.. Can they come as if Built as a NPC With 0 Expendables, and only equipment that they can use (maybe allow them to Spend the gold received on the miniquest for in cycle Purchases) Because if you get a Cohort midcycle (fight 1-2) your out of luck on equipping them for the rest of the cycle.. This is Even more important now that there is No Out of Cycle Miniquests, and Miniquests have been changed so you can do 1 per level till you actually Succeed in one...
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 03:45 PM	Before you Elders get off track again... Can you PLEASE finish 1 discussion that was started when MWB made this Council page... Cohorts.. from the leadership feat Come Naked as a Jaybird here at Coco.. and honestly that just don't seem right.. Can they come as if Built as a NPC With 0 Expendables, and only equipment that they can use (maybe allow them to Spend the gold received on the miniquest for in cycle Purchases) Because if you get a Cohort midcycle (fight 1-2) your out of luck on equipping them for the rest of the cycle.. This is Even more important now that there is No Out of Cycle Miniquests, and Miniquests have been changed so you can do 1 per level till you actually Succeed in one... I'll add this to the docket. I promise we'll get back to it, but let's finish these items first.
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 03:49 PM	@Rauul - I don't see that on the list of topics currently on discussion. For that matter - it isn't on "my" first page (10 posts) and I didn't see it after a quick review of the first 50 posts... So where was this brought up? Giving cohorts free equipment certainly won't happen. That's about the only thing that prevents cohorts from being even more powerful than they already are (they cost an investment in a feat and the money to equip them). As to equipping them mid-cycle - that would need to be discussed, but I assume it will probably need to lead to a revision about other allies received mid-cycle as well (for instance, new animal companions, the paladin/blackguard's special mount, etc). I don't see a huge number of people complaining about the way it is though (and I have yet to use leadership myself here), so I'm not sure that this topic has enough to merit discussion behind it.
MitzaVolchenko 06-29-07, 03:59 PM	Regarding weather conditions like very hot or very cold, many characters have endure elements or the like, but if it is assessed at the start of the week retroactive, they can't use those spells to help out. That could be a real caster killer in short order...point of fact there are several casters that could end up unconscious from non-lethal if they catch a 6 hour interval...and no way to know if htey need to pre-buff a heal to eliminate fatigue.
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 04:15 PM	[EDIT] About the listen matrix - I said that you could "ignore" the values that were out of the realm of reason. It does appear that I was wrong that it was included in the text, but I think by adding it - it helps things considerably. It means that the closer you are to someone, the "easier" it is to narrow down their location - both by the sound clues and also visual and other sensory clues (scent for instance).We have no definition for "realm of reason" right now. Clearly inside a solid object is unreasonable. But how does the listener have any idea that where he thinks the other character is is exactly the wrong direction? But the biggest reason I dislike this method is that it: 1) requires me to use the charts, and thus have the matrices open the whole time I'm running the fight, 2) requires an extra die roll, which 3) raises the possibiltity of targeting a square that is not only wrong, but has some other creature in it, and 4) take a while to count up all the "impossible" squares and reduce the d# by the appropriate amount. I'd rather see something that gives a conical spread rather than a spherical one. As I said before, I'd like the listener to be able to determine the approximate direction, "rounded" to the nearest cardinal or ordinal direction, if the check is successful. Optionally, the listener might learn the distance on a moderately successful roll (e.g. beats the DC by 10). http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,15,32,15 ,37,15,32,20,37;b=Name,M,15,37;c=Name,M, 20,37;d=Name,M,19,33;e=Name,M,16,34;f=Na me,M,17,37 Red is the listener. The results would be: Blue: North. Green: Northeast. Magenta: East. (Even though magenta is not due east, it is closer to due east than to due northeast, or to any other direction.) Brown: Northeast. (Brown's corner touches a point that is due northeast of Red; it is half a square away from precisely north.) Olive: Northeast. (Technically, this spot is exactly 1.5 squares away from both due north and due northeast. However, it is in exactly the same direction from Red as Brown is, so the result should be the same.)Now I admit, this isn't a huge improvement, since it still uses something matrix-like, but it doesn't require four different diagrams, and it is closer to RAW (IMO). Re: severe winds: that is perhaps a bit much. Other than eliminating that possibility (which is an option), we could require fewer checks, or make it so that rolling is not required (sort of like a take 20--assume each result from 1-20 occurs during each 20 rounds, and establish a sequence). There was debate about indoor weather before. Some wanted it, some didn't. A comment on Superior LLV is indeed called for.
Macbrea 06-29-07, 04:17 PM	I have a silly question on the light effects. Yorick takes 1 con damage per hour when exposed to direct sunlight. Is he allowed to prebuff his darkness at will to prevent this or does he start dead before the match starts?
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 04:17 PM	Regarding weather conditions like very hot or very cold, many characters have endure elements or the like, but if it is assessed at the start of the week retroactive, they can't use those spells to help out. That could be a real caster killer in short order...point of fact there are several casters that could end up unconscious from non-lethal if they catch a 6 hour interval...and no way to know if htey need to pre-buff a heal to eliminate fatigue.I have a silly question on the light effects. Yorick takes 1 con damage per hour when exposed to direct sunlight. Is he allowed to prebuff his darkness at will to prevent this or does he start dead before the match starts?It would be reasonable to allow such effects to break the rule about pre-buffs having to be on the character sheet. We could allow character to apply an effect every hour on the hour, as long as they always did it exactly every hour (edit: or more often, in Yorick's case) (no matter how much time was rolled).
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 04:24 PM	Well the only way to avoid having a random roll (with a varying chance of successfully guessing) after a non-pinpointed listen check (in my opinion) is to eliminate the possibility of targetting via "some" square in the radius. If we say that all non-pinpoints are untargettable - then we get into a question of just how big does an AoE need to be to make it targettable on the "listened" area of the opponent. The matrix is clunky, but frankly is usable. For the winds - this really kills any builds that are tiny. Small is even pretty risky in this environment... I can't imagine how a non-burrowing dragon would even be able to do anything but lie prone... Not sure how to solve that though...
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 04:30 PM	Well the only way to avoid having a random roll (with a varying chance of successfully guessing) after a non-pinpointed listen check (in my opinion) is to eliminate the possibility of targetting via "some" square in the radius. If we say that all non-pinpoints are untargettable - then we get into a question of just how big does an AoE need to be to make it targettable on the "listened" area of the opponent.See, that's exactly what I disagree with. By RAW, you'd have no idea except by inference. If you beat the DC by less than 20, you hear something "off that way somewhere." In a dungeon room, that might be enough info to guess where to drop a fireball. On the open plains, it would be pretty useless unless you have something else to go by (like if you figure that the only way you'll make the check is if they're close to you).
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 04:31 PM	See, that's exactly what I disagree with. By RAW, you'd have no idea except by inference. If you beat the DC by less than 20, you hear something "off that way somewhere." In a dungeon room, that might be enough info to guess where to drop a fireball. On the open plains, it would be pretty useless unless you have something else to go by (like if you figure that the only way you'll make the check is if they're close to you). So what you are saying is that if the opponent is not pinpointed - then the listener can't take a random guess? (I'm serious - I didn't expect that response from you)
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 04:47 PM	So what you are saying is that if the opponent is not pinpointed - then the listener can't take a random guess? (I'm serious - I didn't expect that response from you) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing in RAW to support this ability, unless, as I said, you can make it from inference. Or to put it another way, the area you could make a guess in should a cone rather than a spread (since you learn direction but not distance).
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 04:51 PM	Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing in RAW to support this ability, unless, as I said, you can make it from inference. Or to put it another way, the area you could make a guess in should a cone rather than a spread (since you learn direction but not distance). Well, like I said - I am surprised. Not sure if I can get behind this. Essentially it gives invisible folk the ability to stay completely undetected unless the listen check is just perfect. For someone that has access to Greater Invisibility - it would simply be deadly if the victim doesn't have see invisibility, invisibility purge (and have the opponent in the radius), etc. I'll give it some down time thought and come back to it.
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 04:57 PM	It come down to whether we want to follow the RAW or make a conscious nerf. I'm not necessarily saying that deviating from the RAW is bad--I just dislike our current method because I personally find it difficult. Maybe it's just because I get a lot of fights involving junk like Obscuring Mist (Zevox: remember Asran vs. Uilo? I recall using the bloody matrix a lot for that one. And I used it a lot in Loddick's recent quest, with him using his Ring of Invis like crazy).
TelinArtho 06-29-07, 05:19 PM	[Umm - Faelto never met Asran...] Well, I think it comes down to a question of being able to remain impartial for the pitlord. Take two examples: One character just barely hears his opponent (beats the check by 0 or 1) and narrows it down to be eastward and around 60ft away (could be as close as 40ft, or as far away as 80ft or so). He knows his opponent is in that direction so he moves 40ft due east and listens again. (Our current system) Now this character listens again and successfully hears his opponent (beats the check by 16). The pitlord knows the opponent is 4 squares to the east and 1 north. Since the general direction is eastward, he moves the character in that direction 30ft. In a parallel universe, instead the invisible opponent is now 4 squares to the east. Since the general direction is eastward, he moves the character in that direction 30ft - and he bumps into the invisible opponent. In other words - without a way to "guess" at the direction or location, we get into a situation where the pitlord has to make a questionable "on the fly" decision that will end up favoring one player or the other. The matrix however, removes this as a possibility. It allows the pitlord to make a random roll for the person to "decide" where the opponent is and work towards that. A conical matrix might be a better solution - but would certainly require some work to make it usable.
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 05:25 PM	It was Uilo, my bad. Well, clearly there should be rules about it. Thus my proposal above. There should be no judgment call needed--and I'm not sure why there is one, in your example. The one character just happened to bump into the other. Of course, this could produce silly tactics like "move to one square north of due east from him, and do X."
Hirumajoe 06-29-07, 05:37 PM	It was Uilo, my bad. Well, clearly there should be rules about it. Thus my proposal above. There should be no judgment call needed--and I'm not sure why there is one, in your example. The one character just happened to bump into the other. Of course, this could produce silly tactics like "move to one square north of due east from him, and do X." But there was a judgement call, in the first one, the pitlord choose to move through an adjacent space where as in the second situation he choose to move through the opponent's space. Why didn't the character move east, east, east, south in the second case? The results of the exact same set of information and tactics in identical situations with no random component should (ideally) be invariant with regards to the exact direction. A rotation of the map by 5 degrees or 180 degrees shouldn't make a difference to whether a character is found or not.
Zevox 06-29-07, 07:09 PM	But the biggest reason I dislike this method is that it: 1) requires me to use the charts, and thus have the matrices open the whole time I'm running the fight, 2) requires an extra die roll, which 3) raises the possibiltity of targeting a square that is not only wrong, but has some other creature in it, and 4) take a while to count up all the "impossible" squares and reduce the d# by the appropriate amount. Odd, none of those have ever been a problem for me. For #1, its easy to remember how many squares to roll for the better results, and for the worse ones I rarely have a character who had such a poor listen result actually waste a shot on what would almost surely be a wrong guess. For #2, for those instances where its necessary, doesn't bother me at all. For #3, clearly if the listen result produces a square with another creature in it, it was wrong, so theres no need for the character to do anything further. For #4, I never bother with that, I just have characters not shoot if the result is an impossible spot. Zevox
NiQil 06-29-07, 09:24 PM	:bump: Let's get some resolution on open topics. 1) Listen checks for attacking: the consensus is that this applies to attacking with a manufactured or natural weapon only. No rays, no touch spells, and definitely not anything else. As for the DC, there has been unenthusiastic support for MS-20. Any objections to this as the final ruling? I would add that it also applies to unarmed attacks. I am fine with MS-20...I think it synergizes with the sniping rules. We can always lessen it later if it becomes an issue. :1b) The other part of this was the "matrix method." I dislike it, Zevox and Telin like it (although Telin liked it because he didn't play it quite the way it was written). Other opinions? I really have no opinion one way or the other here, though I will say that for simplicity sake, it may be good to just leave well enough alone. :2) Environmental effects: Seems like Cat's grandiose ideas do not meet with approval. So we're going with lighting conditions and mild weather effects only. And it looks like the easiest way is to have them apply to all fights the same. Here's my revised proposal for the tables: Illumination O=====O============O==================== =======O |Roll | Conditions | Examples | Effects O=====O============O==================== =======O |01-15|Bright light|noon, daylight | Creatures with vulnerabilities to light suffer those effects. |16-65|Normal light|cloudy day, light | No effect. |66-85|Dim light |dawn/dusk, torchlight | Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. |86-95|Dark |moonlit night, candlelight | 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. Superior low-light vision negates. |96-00|Pitch dark |no light | Pitch black (overcast night). All characters are considered blind. O=====O============O==================== =======O Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. (The City rules are optional, but I really like them. You can discuss it.) Weather O=====O============O |Roll | Conditions | Effects O=====O============O |01-45|Light winds |No effect. |46-55|Strong winds|Unprotected flames are extinguished. Listen checks and ranged weapon attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Tiny or smaller creatures must make a DC 10 Fortitude save each round or be knocked down. |56-58|Severe winds|Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected flames have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks and ranged weapon attack rolls suffer a -4 penalty. A DC 15 Fortitude save each round is needed to prevent Medium creatures from being checked, Small creatures from being knocked down, and Tiny creatures from being blown away. |59-68|Light Fog |Creatures more than 60 feet away have concealment. |69-73|Moderate Fog|Creatures between 30 and 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. |74-83|Rain |Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. |84-88|Downpour |As Rain and Moderate Fog combined. |89-93|Very Hot |For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Metal armor causes a -4 penalty on these saves. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. |94-98|Very Cold |For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. |99-00|Snow |As Rain and Cold combined, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). O=====O============O Notes: For wind effects, flying creatures are considered one size category smaller than their actual size. There are three things that really jump out at me here. 1) Pitch Darkness. This should not make everyone blind. Casters will continue to have a severe advantage in this regard, do to the available of level 0 light spells that melee characters have no access to. Costs them nothing, but gives them a huge advantage. I am very much against the blindness effect. 2 & 3) The very hot and very cold items. I am very much against including anything that is going to cause damage to a character before they enter the arena that isn't being caused by their opponent. This goes against everything else we have available as an arena condition. I have no problem with those options being there, but I feel that the results should not include taking damage, even if that is the core way to do it. A 15 hp wizard with an average fort save could end up unconscious on a 6 hour roll by failing a few of those checks. I would be highly irritated if I was running a character who had that happen to him. Also, as a sidenote, I would suggest rolling these into availability along the same lines as we currently do our maps, so that newbies have a chance to get acclimated to things. So maybe add in the light conditions as of ECL 4, and then add the weather as of ECL 5, similar to how the maps and multi-player fights are restricted in the low leagues. :3) No one objects to me moving the lion, so I'm doing it. Aye :4) We'll just declare map edges to be inviolate. Out of convenience, no one can move off the edges, nor attempt to move anyone off. This may be ok for metagame purposes, but we still need an RP reason for this. :5) I'm bumping this: 1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below. 2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows: 75-80% of the creature's wealth goes into Andy Collins' Big Six: weapons (primary melee and ranged), armor (& shield), ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor, and ability-score boosters. For weapons and armor, the pitlord should choose upgraded versions of the monster's default equipment, if they have any--and, of course, they should be skipped for monsters without proficiency. Monsters of at least CR 4 should have backup silver weapons, and ones of at least CR 5 should have cold iron as well. Creatures with a PP reserve of at least 2 should have Deepcrystal as their primary weapons, and ones with Improved Sunder should have adamantine (if they can afford it, in both cases). No more than 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth. The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided. 3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead. 4) Any gear mentioned in the creature's stat block doesn't count toward its treasure value. It can upgrade its default items out of its funds, including types of upgrading which are normally illegal (like changing a normal weapon into a masterwork one). My opinion is somewhat biased on this one, so I'll refrain from responding.
hogarth 06-29-07, 09:33 PM	See, that's exactly what I disagree with. By RAW, you'd have no idea except by inference. If you beat the DC by less than 20, you hear something "off that way somewhere." I agree -- but the rules have nothing to say on what "off that way" means. Does that mean that you know the exact direction but not the range (and thus could likely hit with a Lightning Bolt) or roughly the direction and range (and thus could likely hit with a Fireball) or none of the above? Our current method is just saying "(b) roughly the direction and range" in a quantifiable way. Personally, I've always found it to be one of the least objectionable house rules around here. But then again, I don't feel that sneaky characters are being short-changed in the CoCo and some people feel strongly that they are.
MindWandererB 06-29-07, 09:46 PM	I would add that it also applies to unarmed attacks. I am fine with MS-20...I think it synergizes with the sniping rules. We can always lessen it later if it becomes an issue.All right, that constitutes a majority on that item. I've added it to the rules (in the skills section). I really have no opinion one way or the other here, though I will say that for simplicity sake, it may be good to just leave well enough alone.That constitutes a majority against me. Oh, well. There are three things that really jump out at me here. 1) Pitch Darkness. This should not make everyone blind. Casters will continue to have a severe advantage in this regard, do to the available of level 0 light spells that melee characters have no access to. Costs them nothing, but gives them a huge advantage. I am very much against the blindness effect.And melee characters have access to torches, lanterns, Continual Flame via NPC spellcasting, and so on. It's no harder to equip yourself with those things than to prepare Light. 2 & 3) The very hot and very cold items. I am very much against including anything that is going to cause damage to a character before they enter the arena that isn't being caused by their opponent. This goes against everything else we have available as an arena condition. I have no problem with those options being there, but I feel that the results should not include taking damage, even if that is the core way to do it. A 15 hp wizard with an average fort save could end up unconscious on a 6 hour roll by failing a few of those checks. I would be highly irritated if I was running a character who had that happen to him.That seems to be an item of common concern. Would it help if this stuff didn't happen until ECL 5? Right now, the only character anywhere close to being that weak in the ECL 5 league is Oynck Topsy'turvy, and that's because he's in a team. This may be ok for metagame purposes, but we still need an RP reason for this.Mmph. I have no clue. Any ideas?
NiQil 06-29-07, 10:07 PM	And melee characters have access to torches, lanterns, Continual Flame via NPC spellcasting, and so on. It's no harder to equip yourself with those things than to prepare Light. But you fail to see the larger picture. A cleric or wizard can cast it on themselves and still have hands free to cast, hold scrolls, etc. All while not really using any resources (since 0 level spells are so insignificant that we don't even hold them to the 1/3rd rule). A fighter carrying a sword and a shield or a two-handed weapon, on the other hand, is now greatly handicapped because he now has to worry about holding a light source, so now he may have to not use his shield, or not use his primary weapon. Or he has to pay for an NPC caster to give him continual light. Or wait until he gets a magical weapon. Edge: Casters. I am very much opposed to the blindness effect. That seems to be an item of common concern. Would it help if this stuff didn't happen until ECL 5? Right now, the only character anywhere close to being that weak in the ECL 5 league is Oynck Topsy'turvy, and that's because he's in a team. I don't think that having an effect that deals damage is something we should do, period. Even a 5th level fighter could be unconscious before a fight on a high time roll, a few failed saves combined with, say, someone using a trap on them. I think it is a can of worms that we should avoid entirely. I don't think arena effects should cause damage to a player before a fight, period. Mmph. I have no clue. Any ideas? The first thing that immediately comes to mind is an arena-generated force cage-like effect.
MitzaVolchenko 06-30-07, 01:03 AM	That seems to be an item of common concern. Would it help if this stuff didn't happen until ECL 5? Right now, the only character anywhere close to being that weak in the ECL 5 league is Oynck Topsy'turvy, and that's because he's in a team. Sybil is ECL7...on a 6 hour shift with 6 failed fort saves for cold, she walks in 4 HP from unconscious...and she does not get access to Endure Elements...so do we all buy winter clothes? How about extra waterskins? Or hey, spend a lot of cash on an item to negate the effect...I am with NiQil on this...damage should come from opponents, not weather. I am good with arena conditions making things interesting for fighters, but not with them killing fighters before they ever make it to the arena.
MindWandererB 06-30-07, 02:29 AM	But you fail to see the larger picture. A cleric or wizard can cast it on themselves and still have hands free to cast, hold scrolls, etc. All while not really using any resources (since 0 level spells are so insignificant that we don't even hold them to the 1/3rd rule). A fighter carrying a sword and a shield or a two-handed weapon, on the other hand, is now greatly handicapped because he now has to worry about holding a light source, so now he may have to not use his shield, or not use his primary weapon. Or he has to pay for an NPC caster to give him continual light. Or wait until he gets a magical weapon. Edge: Casters. I am very much opposed to the blindness effect.NPC services for Continual Flame costs a whopping 110 gp. Put it on a nonmagical hat or ring. Problem solved. Sure, it can be dispelled, and that's a strategic option a caster will have to weigh. Of course, if you buy three or four, that stops being an option. And a torch or lantern may still be a good idea, depending on what your opponent packs. Complete darkness is the #1 fighting condition in Dungeons and Dragons, because it's the natural lighting condition in a dungeon. In many campaigns, it's more common than daylight. IMO, it should be replicated here if at all possible.
Abyssal Stalker 06-30-07, 06:47 AM	It would be reasonable to allow such effects to break the rule about pre-buffs having to be on the character sheet. We could allow character to apply an effect every hour on the hour, as long as they always did it exactly every hour (edit: or more often, in Yorick's case) (no matter how much time was rolled). Does the daylight condition destroy Jonathon in one round?
Usurpator 06-30-07, 11:33 AM	I can only say that I'm totally opposed to introducing all kinds or weird conditions. It either means we are giving the enviroment a more and more important role than character and his tactics. And since the enviroment is effectively randomly determined (like the map) we are giving random factors a bigger and bigger influence in deciding a fight. The dice are fickle enough already, we don't need more of random conditions. As the 3.5 DMG wisely states, any form of randomness favors the weaker characters. If it's a simple matter to counter enviroments, why don't we require all PCs to spend some extra gold on winter clothes, extra water, a everburning torch with a holder sticking out of a backpack etc....
Abyssal Stalker 06-30-07, 12:09 PM	I don't think we are adding randomness. The environmental effects are determined before the fights and everybody should be able to prepare for them in their equipment and tactics. It's just a matter of bringing certain weaknesses/benefits into the equation. A good example would be darkvision and light sensitivity. Do you think that the new maps have made CoCo less fun? I think it is good to find a use for abilities that now have no effect. They are a balancing factor in the game that we are ignoring at the moment.
Zevox 06-30-07, 12:24 PM	My thinking is more along the lines of what Abyssal said. Personally, I love having various maps to fight on, and would never choose to go back to the one-map per match type days (this is one reason I no longer like playing at ECL 3 much - I don't like being stuck with just the arena map). Yes, they sometimes can play a major role in determining the match's outcome - a flying archer in the sewer or a sneak on the plains is in trouble, while a Griffon-mounted fighter can clean up on the plains or a skilled Rogue can overcome foes in the forest he would not otherwise stand much of a chance against - but overall I think that just adds to the fun of the game, since it allows characters to come up with new creative ways to use or overcome the terrain. Whatever we do with the weather effects, I definitely want to see the lighting ones put into the CoCo at some point. They make things like darkvision, low-light vision, superior low-light vision (see Aquatic Elves), keen senses (see dragons), daylight sensitivity, and light-producing items and spells have relevance here where they otherwise would not. Such things are a major issue in any normal D&D game, so it'd be nice if they have some use here (before it gets brought up, yes, I know we're not a normal D&D game, but in this area at least I can't see a problem with making us more like one). Zevox
NiQil 06-30-07, 01:00 PM	Let me be clear on my position here, since it seems there may have been some confusion on it. I am 100% in favor of adding lighting conditions. I am 100% in favor of adding weather conditions. All I am objecting to is the proposed results of a pitch black roll, and the very hot and very cold rolls. I think those both need to be redone. NPC services for Continual Flame costs a whopping 110 gp. Put it on a nonmagical hat or ring. Problem solved. Sure, it can be dispelled, and that's a strategic option a caster will have to weigh. Of course, if you buy three or four, that stops being an option. And a torch or lantern may still be a good idea, depending on what your opponent packs. Complete darkness is the #1 fighting condition in Dungeons and Dragons, because it's the natural lighting condition in a dungeon. In many campaigns, it's more common than daylight. IMO, it should be replicated here if at all possible. You are proving my point for me here. Your proposed solution to the pitch black roll is to make those who can't cast spells spend money to counter the problem. That is, in my opinion, the epitome of being unbalanced. You may view this as trivial due to the low cost involved, but it still requires non-casters to do something that casters won't have to do. You say that pitch blackness is most common in D&D. I would agree with that. However, what you also seem to be forgetting is that in a TT game, there is usually one person who is designated to hold the light source. That person is almost always the person that it will hamper the least. In every TT game I have ever been involved in, that is done intentionally, so as not to handicap the other characters. That is not any option here. Let me give you an example. Suppose I go and build a human rogue who wants to be a sniper. I have no access to darkvision, and no access to low-light vision. And I have no ranks in Use Magical Device. So far, all of these conditions are very common here. What your proposal says is that my rogue now has to either not be a sniper because he will have to hold a light source and thus cannot use his bow, or he has to pay to get a spell cast on himself or some of his equipment that will then give away his location. Does that seem fair to you in any way? Same thing with my previous examples on the very hot and very cold weather effects. I do not think it is fair to have an arena effect cause damage to a player. I have no objections to penalties, but no damage.
hogarth 06-30-07, 05:05 PM	I can only say that I'm totally opposed to introducing all kinds or weird conditions. It either means we are giving the enviroment a more and more important role than character and his tactics. And since the enviroment is effectively randomly determined (like the map) we are giving random factors a bigger and bigger influence in deciding a fight. The dice are fickle enough already, we don't need more of random conditions. As the 3.5 DMG wisely states, any form of randomness favors the weaker characters. I wouldn't say I'm totally opposed to enrivonmental effects of some kind; in some cases, I think some lighting/weather conditions should be defined more clearly than they are now (for instance, you need to know the base wind strength if a druid wishes to cast Control Winds). But I have to say that any lighting/weather condition that can kill or badly damage an opponent as soon as he steps into the arena is super-lame (for instance, bright sunlight for a vampire or very hot/cold temperatures for a particularly feeble gladiator). My preference would be to have lighting and weather conditions associated with particular maps rather than randomly generated (e.g. the cavern is pitch black with no wind, the plains are brightly lit with a light breeze, the city map is cloudy with a light rain, etc.). You say that pitch blackness is most common in D&D. I would agree with that. However, what you also seem to be forgetting is that in a TT game, there is usually one person who is designated to hold the light source. That person is almost always the person that it will hamper the least. In every TT game I have ever been involved in, that is done intentionally, so as not to handicap the other characters. That is not any option here. Let me give you an example. Suppose I go and build a human rogue who wants to be a sniper. I have no access to darkvision, and no access to low-light vision. And I have no ranks in Use Magical Device. So far, all of these conditions are very common here. What your proposal says is that my rogue now has to either not be a sniper because he will have to hold a light source and thus cannot use his bow, or he has to pay to get a spell cast on himself or some of his equipment that will then give away his location. NiQil, doesn't this same argument basically apply to many of the light/weather conditions in the table, not just pitch blackness? I don't know why you're getting hung up on that condition in particular but not others. E.g. "I want to play a human archer who attacks from a distance, but I can't see through fog so my concept is ruined." "I want to play a sneak attacking human rogue, but I can't sneak attack in somewhat dark conditions so my concept is ruined." "I want to play a tiny flying creature, but I'm helpless in a severe wind so my concept is ruined." "I want to play a vampire, but in sunlight I die so my concept is ruined."
NiQil 06-30-07, 05:17 PM	So I used a bad example....sue me. But the point remains. To me, the result of a pitch black map results in an unbalanced advantage before you ever step foot in the arena. Is it a small one? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an unbalanced advantage, in my opinion. All of that being said, however....I do like your idea about making the conditions specific to the maps, rather than randomly rolled. We still get the randomness since the map is random, the low leagues aren't affected right away, and all of the explanations can be added right into the map descriptions. I could easily get behind that. I would also not have as much of a problem with the pitch black condition in just the cavern or forest or something, vs being possible on all of the maps. But I would still want the very hot and very cold items changed to take away the part about dealing damage.
Rauul 06-30-07, 05:18 PM	Why am i pictureing Pitch black being rolled, and a human Mage casts Blacklight and can see normally.. Weather effects can be handled easily with a NPC caster to Prebuff Endure Elements, Pitch Black is Easily countered with a 2nd level prebuff of Darkvision (can be made permanent) Granted with 3 fights = 1 day they shouldn't change EVERY fight (1-2 shifts on the chart maybe) Please see the Note about Magic weapon's and Light Light Generation Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions. As for maps.. would love to see more Maps... Ice Caves, Lava rivers... Sulfur pits.. For ECL 10-15's :devil:
Rauul 06-30-07, 05:28 PM	E.g. "I want to play a human archer who attacks from a distance, but I can't see through fog so my concept is ruined." And Fog is any different that the Psi power that grants total concealment.. or Improved invisibility? "I want to play a sneak attacking human rogue, but I can't sneak attack in somewhat dark conditions so my concept is ruined." Won't comment on the delay penalty already "I want to play a tiny flying creature, but I'm helpless in a severe wind so my concept is ruined." thats what you get for playing tiny creatures.. Every creature has a weakness.. "I want to play a vampire, but in sunlight I die so my concept is ruined."If i am paying for 8 LA to play a vampire... who has 1 weakness being daylight... he Should be prebuffing darkness, deeper darkness, Armor of darkness.. or Spending a few credits for something to eliminate his one and only real weakness... Sorry Abyssal
MindWandererB 06-30-07, 06:41 PM	@NiQil: That's a very good point. It's a parallel in many ways to why I insisted, when we first instituted the 3FC, that everyone be healed (or else CLW-wand users would be massively favored). Regarding map specificity: I'd rather not. The interaction of condition and map will add tremendous variety to our fights: instead of 7 battle circumstances, we'll have over 200. Maybe less, if we rule out "impossible" combinations (like rain in the cavern).
hogarth 06-30-07, 11:42 PM	Regarding map specificity: I'd rather not. The interaction of condition and map will add tremendous variety to our fights: instead of 7 battle circumstances, we'll have over 200. Maybe less, if we rule out "impossible" combinations (like rain in the cavern). Not every kind of variety makes battles more enjoyable (either for player or pitlord). For instance, consider the Downpour weather condition combined with Pitch Darkness light condition on the Forest map where the gladiators are two humans without magical light sources -- it'll take forever for them to find each other. Wasn't that why we changed the Forest map: to avoid that kind of situation? And let's be honest about the "variety" this really offers -- almost all of the conditions give either concealment or penalties to spot/listen/ranged attacks. (The notable exceptions are hot and cold weather where the purpose is to charge you 10 gp per 3FC for a casting of Endure Elements. ;)) Saying that counts as 200 different variations is overstating matters a tad, IMO.
Zevox 07-01-07, 12:41 AM	@ NiQil - I've gotta say, I think you're overreacting. Yes, casters can get access to light for those conditions easier than non-casters. They can also get access to flight easier than non-casters, and protections from magic missile spells, and any number of other things. Thats how they work. Such advantages are a part of the class - they trade physical durability and prowess for the ability to reshape matter with their thoughts. If a non-caster wants to do what a Wizard can do, they need to cough up gold for an item. Thats how they work. This isn't even an expensive advantage to close - nab a lantern and hang it from your mount's saddle, stick an active glowrod in your belt, or just buy a magical weapon or get continual flame cast on something by an NPC. Or even just buy a 25 gp oil of light and get that very spell the wizard is using for yourself. I really don't think this is a valid reason to change that condition. Zevox
Vathelokai 07-01-07, 01:22 AM	Listen checks for attacking: MS-20 sounds good. "Matrix" listening: I'm in favor of it over the RAW. Unless something proposes something that is an improvement (like the hypothetical cone system), I think we should stay with that we've been using. Environmental conditions: I'm with NiQil on the extreme hot and cold. We should not have the arena killing people before the fight (as real as it may be). Also agree on starting the effects at higher leagues. -However I think darkness/daylight should be allowed. Edge of maps: I like the inviolate rule, as long as the city map 'roof' is left alone (I've been waiting so long for reverse gravity... :evillaugh ) Monster gear: I'm kind of iffy on this one. I know equipped vs unequipped monster fights are a big problem, but I hate to see my dragons have their funds reduced.... I'll just abstain on that. Lighting and weather specific to each map: Not a bad idea, but I still like rolling for them. I'll suggest again having one roll tied into the pairings roll so everyone has the same light and same weather for the week. More super-cool fun time maps for high leagues: I'm all about it.
Usurpator 07-02-07, 02:18 PM	Relatively simple question: if you fall do you end up prone? I think it is rather difficult to fall and not end up prone. Grease Conjuration (Creation) Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target or Area: One object or a 10-ft. square Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: See text Spell Resistance: No A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. This save is repeated on your turn each round that the creature remains within the area. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check. Failure means it can’t move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Balance skill for details). The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item. A saving throw must be made in each round that the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item. A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and on grapple checks made to resist or escape a grapple or to escape a pin. Material Component: A bit of pork rind or butter. Greased creature that fell, prone or not prone? Of course, asked in relation to falling of your mount when it's dead. When your mount dies you fall off. You can reduce damage from the fall, but obviously not prevent the fall itself. How do you end up after falling. More general, a PC falls down a building in the city map. Does he end up prone or not?
TelinArtho 07-02-07, 02:21 PM	As said in the FotW thread, I believe that in most cases that this has come up - a successful soft fall (ride check) or jump down or tumble allows you to remain standing (and reduces damage according to the skill description). A failed check results in remaining prone. My vote would be for that.
TheMagister 07-02-07, 03:21 PM	If I had a vote, I'd vote that you end up prone -- pass or fail. A successful check mentions nothing about negating the prone condition that logically happens after a fall, it only mentions negating the damage. The only ways a creature can descend a distance without walking down stairs or a slope and not end up prone is by use of the Jump skill or by use of some method of flight. It IS funny that even in the environmental hazard "Falling" on page 303 of the DMG, there's no mention of becoming prone after a fall... TM
MindWandererB 07-02-07, 03:30 PM	Even more funny is that falling asleep doesn't appear to make you go prone. In fact, in one of the accessories, there's a spell that does nothing but make the target fall prone, and, IIRC, there are lower-level spells that would logically include that as a side effect. My 2 cents: if you make the Jump check or the Tumble check to reduce the damage, it doesn't make much sense that you'd land prone. Try to picture that in your mind.
TheMagister 07-02-07, 04:12 PM	Go jump off a 15' roof. Even if you don't twist an ankle, I guarantee that you'll end up prone, at least while you're rolling out the kinetic energy.
MitzaVolchenko 07-02-07, 04:58 PM	Sybil has a bronze griffon figurine, but does not have the stats for the griffon on her sheet. EDIT - Furthermore, a griffon is not a valid ally for an ECL7 character, since it is a CR4 creature. The griffon may not be prebuffed. (See discussion in FotW) The item that produces the griffon is relatively expensive. It is a magic item, not an ally. I included it as pre-buff because it was still active from fight one...I suppose one could pre-buff it as bring active figurine instead of bring griffon...same difference. I don't think that I should place a stat block on the sheet, but I suppose I can add a thousand characters for it, if for some reason we want to do that...we don't for other summoing type items like bags of tricks and wands.
TelinArtho 07-02-07, 05:07 PM	Just because it is expensive, doesn't mean the item is balanced enough for allowance in the CoCo. A pre-buffed bronze griffon counts against the maximum number and quality of allies you can bring into a fight. At ECL7 - you are not allowed to bring in a CR4 ally. Just because it cost you about 30-40% of your total cash (starting cash for a level 7 character is 20k - characters that start at ECL3 would have more than that - especially if they used money-making activities), doesn't mean you are allowed to break the fundamental ally rules. Whether you can use it during the battle is up for discussion, but bringing it in pre-buffed (even as a leftover duration from the previous fight) is certainly out of the question. As to adding it to your character sheet - it is required because it is an ally you can prebuff. You cannot prebuff the summon monster spells (because they would expire) and you cannot prebuff using a bag of tricks (because it would expire).
MitzaVolchenko 07-02-07, 05:10 PM	I argue that it is not an ally, it is an item with an ongoing effect...in essence an item cast spell that has a duration long enough to occasionally carry over to future fights.
TelinArtho 07-02-07, 05:14 PM	I argue that it is not an ally, it is an item with an ongoing effect...in essence an item cast spell that has a duration long enough to occasionally carry over to future fights. Well - if you cast Mount - that would create a Light horse to bring in. If you had a long enough duration on it - and the effect was still on-going - yes - that would cost you an ally as well. Same thing with the planar ally spells. Anything that is a prebuffed ally (even from sources of spells and items) is going to go against the Maximum cap on allies. I want to note as well that a griffon is not allowed by the new ally rules until ECL9.
MitzaVolchenko 07-02-07, 05:23 PM	Well - if you cast Mount - that would create a Light horse to bring in. If you had a long enough duration on it - and the effect was still on-going - yes - that would cost you an ally as well. Same thing with the planar ally spells. Anything that is a prebuffed ally (even from sources of spells and items) is going to go against the Maximum cap on allies. I want to note as well that a griffon is not allowed by the new ally rules until ECL9. I've seen rewards written both ways on that one...and frankly, I haven't read the new ally rules, nor do I particularly intend to. They have changed so often that until we are absolutely sure we are done with them, I don't need the extra and likely soon to be wrong information in my brain. I know that Sliver's Bag was never counted against her and that it produced more allies than she was allowed by ECL in a single fight on more than one occasion. At the time the ruling was that items were not to be included in nor considered as allies. If that ruling is going to change, fine, but it needs to go in print and a lot of folks' stuff needs to be reconsidered. If the item is legal to have in a fight then its ongoing effect is legal to continue if duration allows.
hogarth 07-02-07, 05:52 PM	If that ruling is going to change, fine, but it needs to go in print and a lot of folks' stuff needs to be reconsidered. If the item is legal to have in a fight then its ongoing effect is legal to continue if duration allows. The current rule is very simple -- if you bring a creature (prebuffed) into the arena with you, it counts against your maximum allies. If you create an ally within the fight, it doesn't count for that fight. I asked MWB to specifically state in the rules that Figurines of Wondrous Power counted against maximum allies when prebuffed, but he said there was no point since the rules are perfectly clear. Note that a Bag of Tricks is just fine: you can never prebuff one of the animals anyways, since the duration is too short.
MitzaVolchenko 07-02-07, 06:25 PM	The current rule is very simple -- if you bring a creature (prebuffed) into the arena with you, it counts against your maximum allies. If you create an ally within the fight, it doesn't count for that fight. I asked MWB to specifically state in the rules that Figurines of Wondrous Power counted against maximum allies when prebuffed, but he said there was no point since the rules are perfectly clear. Note that a Bag of Tricks is just fine: you can never prebuff one of the animals anyways, since the duration is too short. I am afraid it is not perfectly clear. The 'ally' gained is above allowable for the ECL it appears...of course so are several bags of tricks dependent upon the character. How does this get handled? I have no problem taking an exp/gold hit for having it pre-buffed as an ongoing effect. I do have a problem with whether or not it is legal and exactly what constitutes an ally. As it stands I can legaly use it, but I can't actually use it as written because that is pre-buffing an illegal ally. However, it is within my allowed magic item cost/CL range.
MindWandererB 07-02-07, 06:35 PM	Here's the rule as it stands: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. You must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement of CR+4 for these allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA.Is this really that unclear? If it's prebuffed, it counts; if not, it doesn't. I can add the Figurine as a clarification if it's truly necessary, but I don't see how it's any different from a scroll of Animate Dead or a Golem Manual.
MitzaVolchenko 07-02-07, 07:28 PM	You must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement of CR+4 for these allies. Does this apply to normal summons? Summone Nature's Ally? Animate Object is still in there and is rounds/level. Bags of Tricks? Yes. I want this rule so clarified as to have absolutely no questions about it ever again. So clarify for mount and phantasmal steed while you are at it...just what is a summoned mount with no stats but still granting a mount worth in CR?
Macbrea 07-02-07, 07:31 PM	Is phantom steed a (quasi-horse-like creature) an infinite CR?
MindWandererB 07-02-07, 07:55 PM	Does this apply to normal summons?Only if you prebuff them (meaning that the duration would have to be at least 1 hour + 1 round).[/quote] Summone Nature's Ally?Same thing. If you somehow increase the duration to make prebuffing it possible, then you'd be penalized. Animate Object is still in there and is rounds/level.Yes, but it can be Permanencied.Bags of Tricks?Duration is 1 hour, so at best it would expire just before the fight started. So clarify for mount and phantasmal steed while you are at it...just what is a summoned mount with no stats but still granting a mount worth in CR?Mount has a CR (1 or 1/2). Since Phantom Steed doesn't have one, there's no penalty at this time. Once again: if it's prebuffed, it counts. If not, it doesn't. Period. End of story. End of confusion (except for CR-less things; that, I can clarify). I still don't see why it's needed, but is this any clearer? Spells, Powers, and Abilities: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), items (Figurine of Wondrous Power, Golem Manual, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. Such allies must also meet all other ally requirements (Minimal ECL, maximum CR, etc.). Allies that are created after a fight begins (e.g. Summon Monster, or activating a Figurine of Wondrous Power), and ones without a CR or ECL, do not result in a penalty. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA.
Rauul 07-02-07, 08:42 PM	So basically Figureines are worthless, unless they can be deactived at the end of a fight and reactivated in the next fight.. So they need to be made 3/day use items.. and that would be kicked out of the blackmarket because it changes an existing item... So basically Figurines are worthless till ECL 9-10 due to this ruling.. Why not just ban them.. saves the problem of pulling rules out of a hat.. Or have them fall under the wondrous item rule that 1 shot items fall under.. since basically you have just made them a 1 shot item
Macbrea 07-02-07, 09:02 PM	They are two shot items. And you can dismiss the creature.
hogarth 07-02-07, 11:02 PM	Is this really that unclear? If it's prebuffed, it counts; if not, it doesn't. I can add the Figurine as a clarification if it's truly necessary, but I don't see how it's any different from a scroll of Animate Dead or a Golem Manual. As I said before, the rules used to be worded almost identically and yet it was still legal to bring in a pre-buffed Bronze Griffon without counting towards your ally limit. If the interpretation has changed, it's worth pointing it out (IMO). So basically Figureines are worthless, unless they can be deactived at the end of a fight and reactivated in the next fight.. So they need to be made 3/day use items.. and that would be kicked out of the blackmarket because it changes an existing item... So basically Figurines are worthless till ECL 9-10 due to this ruling.. Why not just ban them.. saves the problem of pulling rules out of a hat.. You're crazy!! A Bronze Griffon is underpriced as it is, IMO. A fairly tough, intelligent ally that is guaranteed to last two out of three fights that doesn't count towards your ally limit? Compare it to a custom command word item of Summon Nature's Ally V usable twice a day, which would cost 9*5*1800*2/5=32,400 gp -- and that would only last 9 rounds per use, not 6 hours!
MitzaVolchenko 07-02-07, 11:09 PM	So to be clear, the item I paid for should be good for 12 hours but isn't because I have to activate it within the fight or have an illegal ally. I can keep it and dismiss it so that it just isn't available for one fight or I can refund it and do something else with my 10k? Still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but good enough, and yes the rule clarification is better. Phantasmal Steed does need to be assigned a rating and htere may beother items that need to be assigned a rating as well...I'll ahve to dig through the lists to see if there are.
lonewolf 07-03-07, 02:32 AM	Since noone objected against my interpretation of the use of Hide in Plain Sight, can I assume that it is valid and accepted? If yes, could an Elder please confirm this to avoid future confusion? Thanks
Usurpator 07-03-07, 03:38 AM	Even more funny is that falling asleep doesn't appear to make you go prone. In fact, in one of the accessories, there's a spell that does nothing but make the target fall prone, and, IIRC, there are lower-level spells that would logically include that as a side effect. Well, whel you 'fall' asleep (pun intented) things would happen as if you normally fell asleep. For humans this would mean going prone if they were standing up. For horses, not as much. It also doesn't say that you go prone when you die or go unconscious in the rules, but I don't think we have to argue over that. If a humanoid falls, falls asleep, goes unconscious, dies, he ends up prone. I don't think D&D actually needs to spell out rules for things that are identical to things that happen in our world, they just have to spell out rules for things that are not.
Abyssal Stalker 07-03-07, 08:02 AM	Shouldn't this houserule include also spellcasting services: Augmented Powerstones/Tattoos: For every two manifester levels above the minimum, the power level increases by one. This directly affects the pricing of such items. It only applies to augmented stones and tattoos. Unaugmented ones use the normal formula. Example (augmented): VigorA [ML 5] = 25*5*3 = 375 gp [+25 hp] Example (unaugmented): Vigor [ML 5] = 25*5*1 = 125 gp [+5 hp] I'm looking at Kracknol's augmented ML5 dissipating touches 50gp per casting...
Hirumajoe 07-03-07, 08:25 AM	Just to add to the pile of things that probably should be considered: Repealing the double horizontal distance needed by winged fliers. As it stands on the Forest map, its a pain in the neck to figure out where the flier needs to squeeze between all the trees and when they don't have to, adding to Pitlord work load for no good reason.
Zevox 07-03-07, 12:05 PM	Even more funny is that falling asleep doesn't appear to make you go prone. In fact, in one of the accessories, there's a spell that does nothing but make the target fall prone, and, IIRC, there are lower-level spells that would logically include that as a side effect. Theres a first-level Cleric spell that specifically can cause a foe to go prone, among other things, to boot: Command. Zevox
Zevox 07-03-07, 02:02 PM	Since noone objected against my interpretation of the use of Hide in Plain Sight, can I assume that it is valid and accepted? If yes, could an Elder please confirm this to avoid future confusion? Thanks The FAQ itself explicitly confirms that you're correct. It doesn't get much less arguable than that. Zevox
TheMagister 07-03-07, 03:58 PM	Re: The use of NEG-PTS to befriend other guilds. It's too easy. With the amount of NEG-PTS WAR generates, I could be friends with every guild in a matter of weeks. I could attack you, and then make it like it never happened if I played my cards right. I think that the only way to "force" a guild's attitude of your guild to rise should be through full quests to process NEG-PTS, or through joint quests as a bonus free effect of quest completion (e.g. - a joint quest for "x" object succeeds. As a free action, both involved guilds may process ECL*100 NEG-PTS for the express purpose of improving inter-guild attitudes, targeted only on guilds that had characters participating in the quest - at no gp cost). I have no problem with processing NEG-PTS with an associated gp cost to befriend PMGs and districts. But to befriend other guilds? That's tantamount to using the Diplomacy skill to "force" a fellow player's character to not attack you in the arena. Just seems too easy. TM
SoulLord 07-03-07, 04:45 PM	Quick question on spellcasting services. If a spellcaster is lent by a gladiator a rod of extend spell the gladiator would only be charged for the normal spell cost, not the increased cost for an extended spell right? CL5 * SL3 * 10 = 150gp CL7 * SL4 * 10 = 280gp And by that regard the 3FC even if it takes place over 3 weeks it's assumed it takes place in 1 day with 1d6 hour intervals between fights. now spells with a duration of days can they be prebuffed and not count against your SL for the fights? or we assume that outside this 3 fights(weeks) casters are forbidden to cast any more spells until their next fight.
MindWandererB 07-03-07, 05:59 PM	Re: The use of NEG-PTS to befriend other guilds. It's too easy. With the amount of NEG-PTS WAR generates, I could be friends with every guild in a matter of weeks. I could attack you, and then make it like it never happened if I played my cards right. I think that the only way to "force" a guild's attitude of your guild to rise should be through full quests to process NEG-PTS, or through joint quests as a bonus free effect of quest completion (e.g. - a joint quest for "x" object succeeds. As a free action, both involved guilds may process ECL*100 NEG-PTS for the express purpose of improving inter-guild attitudes, targeted only on guilds that had characters participating in the quest - at no gp cost). I have no problem with processing NEG-PTS with an associated gp cost to befriend PMGs and districts. But to befriend other guilds? That's tantamount to using the Diplomacy skill to "force" a fellow player's character to not attack you in the arena. Just seems too easy. TM Not only is it too easy, but it makes little RP sense. Kervan left WAR's headquarters with them ready to string him up by his toenails, but then he goes home and throws 1000 NEG-PTS at them. I, too, have always felt it was like using Diplomacy to influence a PC. However, your other suggestions are already built in to the rules. So should we just eliminate the [NEGOTIATE] => Befriend Guild GAP? (And fix the other rules so they don't refer to it.) And while we're at it, we should assign costs to Political Negotiations, currently the only trait-based GAP that uses no PTS.
MindWandererB 07-06-07, 02:18 PM	Let's get the old discussions moving again: 1) We seem to almost have the environmental effects agreed on. The only issues still up in the air are whether the "pitch dark" condition should be on there, and whether the map should restrict or change the options available (and if so, how; with magic, anything is possible, but not necessarily probable). I also have another proposal for the "cold" effect. See the "snow" entry for it ("cold" would no longer occur on its own). Illumination O=====O============O==================== =======O |Roll | Conditions | Examples | Effects O=====O============O==================== =======O |01-15|Bright light|noon, daylight | Creatures with vulnerabilities to light suffer those effects. |16-65|Normal light|cloudy day, light | No effect. |66-85|Dim light |dawn/dusk, torchlight | Distance penalties for Spot checks are doubled, and Hide checks can be made without cover or concealment. Low-light vision negates. |86-95|Dark |moonlit night, candlelight | 20% concealment. Distance penalties for Spot checks are quadrupled. Low-light vision reduces this penalty to double. Superior low-light vision negates. |96-00|Pitch dark |no light | Pitch black (overcast night). All characters are considered blind. O=====O============O==================== =======O Notes: Darkvision negates all penalties within its area of effect. Light sources can be used to negate or moderate the effects within their radius. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. Weather O=====O============O |Roll | Conditions | Effects O=====O============O |01-45|Light winds |No effect. |46-55|Strong winds|Unprotected flames are extinguished. Listen checks and ranged weapon attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. Tiny or smaller creatures must make a DC 10 Fortitude save each round or be knocked down. |56-58|Severe winds|Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected flames have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Listen checks and ranged weapon attack rolls suffer a -4 penalty. A DC 15 Fortitude save each round is needed to prevent Medium creatures from being checked, Small creatures from being knocked down, and Tiny creatures from being blown away. |59-68|Light Fog |Creatures more than 60 feet away have concealment. |69-73|Moderate Fog|Creatures between 30 and 60 feet away have concealment. Nothing further away can be seen. Darkvision doesn't help. |74-83|Rain |Spot and Search checks take a -4 penalty, and Listen checks take a -2 penalty. If other conditions (natural or magical) impede visibility, vision ranges are reduced by half. Unprotected flames are extinguished, and protected ones have a 50% chance of being extinguished. Ranged attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty. |84-88|Downpour |As Rain and Moderate Fog combined. |89-93|Very Hot |For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d4 points of nonlethal fire damage. Metal armor causes a -4 penalty on these saves. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. |94-98|Very Cold |For every hour that has passed since the previous battle (time roll), each character and ally makes a DC 15 Fortitude save (DC +1 for every previous check). Each failed check deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage. A character with a total Survival score of +5 or higher gains a +2 bonus on these saves if he is the attacker, or a +4 bonus if he is the defender. This bonus can be extended to one ally for every point of Survival above 5. Any character who takes damage this way is considered fatigued until the damage is healed. |99-00|Snow |As Rain and Cold combined, but does not extinguish flames. All squares are considered difficult terrain (2 squares of movement). For every 30 rounds of battle, each creature must make a Fortitude save (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage and become fatigued until the damage is healed. O=====O============O Notes: For wind effects, flying creatures are considered one size category smaller than their actual size. 2) There have been only two voices regarding the monster gear guidelines: Telin likes them as they are, and Zevox likes them except that he wants creatures with treasure entries of "none" to continue to have nothing. NiQil actively abstained, which leaves Vath and Sauro. At the least, we need a tiebreaker on monsters with "none." 3) I'd like Zevox's opinion on the Negotiation issue TM raised.
Erithmu 07-06-07, 03:59 PM	Something to put in mind with the weather effects is to consider the spell Control Weather and what effects it could have on the manual roll ... followed by what happens if there are two casters using it on the same prebuff.
Adolfo_Mondschein 07-06-07, 10:46 PM	1) Pitch black seems ok to me, it would make light items and such more important. It would also help folks with darkvision. If not that, at least really dark with a higher miss chance or something. Also, what about shadows and other places logic would dictate is dark, like under a bunch of trees or behind a wall? I'm not sure how it's handled in CoCo. 2) I don't think creatures who have no treasure should have gear, sometimes thats a balance issue. I'd rather not picture why a dire tiger with a cloak of resistance, a potion of invisibility and fly, belt of giants strength +4, and rings either...
Vathelokai 07-06-07, 11:14 PM	I like the weather chart. I think I'd even lower the snow checks to once per 20 rounds (take that, snipers :P).
Zevox 07-07-07, 02:26 AM	Let's get the old discussions moving again: 1) We seem to almost have the environmental effects agreed on. The only issues still up in the air are whether the "pitch dark" condition should be on there, and whether the map should restrict or change the options available (and if so, how; with magic, anything is possible, but not necessarily probable). I also have another proposal for the "cold" effect. See the "snow" entry for it ("cold" would no longer occur on its own). As I said before, I'm fine with the darkness condition. The snow effect... I still have reservations about the "all terrain is difficult" part, but otherwise, I'm good with. If you wanted to take Vath's suggestion and move the time it takes to kick in down, I'd be fine with that, too (once per 30 rounds, at present, looks to me like it'll rarely kick in). Not sure why he thinks it'll bother snipers, but *shrug*. I am still quite concerned about the severe winds checking medium creatures, though. Imagine two wizards going at it in those conditions... or, say, Vandelar vs Baelin occurring with that effect on. Could drag things out quite a lot, not to mention all the dice rolling from making those saves every single round. 3) I'd like Zevox's opinion on the Negotiation issue TM raised. I'm not sure what I think of it. Making it impossible to raise another Guild's attitude without questing seems a bit extreme to me, but then again being able to raise it without mutual consent like TLT did with WAR leaves a bad taste in my mouth too (so the EHTC could just spend a couple of weeks worth of points and suddenly the CEF is our best friends? Yeah, right...). Perhaps make it so that negotiation to raise attitude with another Guild can only be done if both Guilds do so in the same week? It lets them know one of the other Guild's actions for the week early, true, but it takes care of the problem, and I really don't think that theres any serious way to abuse it - or anyone among the Guildmasters who would, either. I do think you're right about assigning a point cost to the treaties though. I've always wondered why those didn't have one already. Zevox
hogarth 07-07-07, 09:54 AM	I am still quite concerned about the severe winds checking medium creatures, though. Imagine two wizards going at it in those conditions... or, say, Vandelar vs Baelin occurring with that effect on. Could drag things out quite a lot, not to mention all the dice rolling from making those saves every single round. That's my concern about the "Medium Fog" and "Downpour" conditions, too. The outdoor maps are all quite large (Forest, City, Plains) -- a foggy fight could turn into a big boring game of "Marco Polo" or "Blind Man's Bluff", especially if one of the players doesn't wish to be found. Wasn't that why we changed the Forest Map recently: to avoid that type of situation?
MindWandererB 07-07-07, 05:50 PM	And one more item to take a look at: a draft of the EL 12 monster table, the last one missing. Enjoy. 01: 1 Frost Worm [CR 12] 02: 1 Kolyarut Inevitable [CR 12] 03: 1 Leonal Guardinal [CR 12] 04: 1 Purple Worm [CR 12] 05: 1 Roper [CR 12] 06: 1 Psion-Killer (psionic) [CR 12] 07: 1 Dragon: Mature Adult White; Adult Brass; Young Adult Bronze (1d3) [CR 12] 08: 3 Dragons: Young Adult Black; Juvenile Copper or Bronze; Young Gold (1d4) [CR 9] 09: 2 Couatl (1d2: normal or psionic version) [CR 10] 10: 2 Noble Salamanders [CR 10] 11: 3 Vrock Demons [CR 9] 12: 3 Bone Devils [CR 9] 13: 3 Frost Giants [CR 9] 14: 3 Spirit Nagas [CR 9] 15: 3 Night Hags [CR 9] 16: 3 Yrthaks [CR 9] 17: 2 Legendary Tigers [CR 10] 18: 1 Fire Giant and 1 Juvenile Red Dragon [CR 10] 19: 1 Elite Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) [CR 12] 20: 1 Hezrou Demon and 2 Succubus Demons [CR 11 and 7] 21: 1 Barbed Devil and 2 Hellcats [CR 11 and 7] 22: 1 Cloud Giant and 1 Advanced (21 HD) Griffon [CR 11 and 9] 23: 1 Stone Golem and 1 Delver [CR 11 and 9] 24: 1 Dread Wraith and 2 Invisible Stalkers [CR 11 and 7] 25: 3 Elite Elder Arrowhawks [CR 9] 26: 3 Elite Athaches [CR 9] 27: 3 Elite Bodaks [CR 9] 28: 4 Destrachans [CR 8] 29: 3 Elite Erinyes [CR 9] 30: 3 Elite Efreet [CR 9] 31: 4 Stone Giants [CR 8] 32: 4 Gorgons [CR 8] 33: 3 Mohrgs and 3 Gray Render Zombies [CR 8 and 6] 34: 3 Elite Dark Nagas [CR 9] 35: 2 Ogre Mages and 3 4th-level Ogre Barbarians (MM default) [CR 8 and 7] 36: 3 Elite Gynosphinxes [CR 9] 37: 4 Hellwasp Swarms [CR 8] 38: 4 Treants [CR 8] 39: 1 Basilisk, Abyssal Greater [CR 12] 40: 1 Black Pudding, Elder [CR 12] 41: 1 Displacer Beast Pack Lord [CR 12] 42: 1 Hydra, 11-headed pyro- or cryo- [CR 12] 43: 1 Monstrous Scorpion, Colossal [CR 12] 44: 1 Celestial Guardian Naga [CR 12] 45: 5 Celestial Wyverns [CR 7] 46: 4 Celestial Digesters [CR 8] 47: 4 Fiendish Megaraptors [CR 8] 48: 5 Fiendish Gauths [CR 7] 49: 1 Fiendish Fire Giant [CR 12] 50: 2 Gray Slaadi [CR 10] 51: 3 Green Slaadi [CR 9] 52: 4 Blue Slaadi [CR 8] 53: 1 Phrenic Roc [CR 12] 54: 1 Phrenic Rakshasa [CR 12] 55: 2 Phrenic Chuul [CR 10] 56: 4 Phrenic Ettins [CR 8] 57: 1 Half-Celestial Delver [CR 12] 58: 1 Half-Celestial Dragon Turtle [CR 12] 59: 2 Half-Celestial Behir [CR 10] 60: 3 Half-Celestial Gray Gluttons [CR 9] 61: 1 Half-Fiend Gynosphinx and 1 Half-Celestial Gynosphinx [CR 10] 62: 1 Half-Fiend Frost Giant [CR 12] 63: 3 Half-Fiend Umber Hulks [CR 9] 64: 4 Half-Fiend Lamias [CR 8] 65: 1 Half-Dragon Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (1d10 for type) [CR 12] 66: 2 Half-Dragon Giant Octopi (1d10 for type) [CR 10] 67: 3 Half-Dragon Driders (1d10 for type) [CR 9] 68: 4 Half-Dragon Girallons (1d10 for type) [CR 8] 69: Roll on EL 10 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type) [varies] 70: 3 Vampire Fiendish Green or Annis Hags (1d2) [CR 9] 71: 1 Hill Giant Giant Weresquid [CR 12] 72: 2 7th-level Ettercap Barbarians [CR 10] 73: 1 10th-level Dryad Bard and 1 9th-level Human Bard [CR 11 and 9] 74: 1 11th-level Minotaur Cleric [CR 12] 75: 1 12th-level Lizardfolk Druid [CR 12] 76: 4 2nd-level Xill Fighters [CR 8] 77: 2 8th-level Wererat Monks [CR 10] 78: 1 12th-level Dromite Paladin [CR 12] 79: 2 8th-level Satyr Rangers [CR 10] (w/o pipes) 80: 3 6th-level Bralani Eladrin Rogues [CR 9] 81: 2 9th-level Harpy Sorcerers [CR 10] 82: 1 10th-level Vampire Spawn Wizards [CR 10] 83: 4 6th-level Cloaker Psions [CR 8] 84: 1 8th-level Hound Archon Psychic Warrior [CR 12] 85: 3 8th-level Mummy Soulknives [CR 9] 86: 1 11th-level Greater Barghest Wilder [CR 12] 87: 3 Medusa Ghosts [CR 9] 88: 1 11th-level Half-Orc Lich Adept [CR 12] 89: 1 11th-level Human Vampire Aristocrat [CR 12] 90: 1 15th-level Kobold Adept [CR 12] 91: 1 12th-level Blue Fighter [CR 12] 92: 1 10th-level Goblin Psychic Warrior and 1 8th-level Worg Psychic Warrior [CR 10] 93: 1 8th-level Troll Ranger and 1 Triceratops [CR 11 and 9] 94: 1 12th-level Xeph Psion [CR 12] 95: 1 Wild Elf Battle Sorcerer 8/Arcane Archer 4 [CR 12] 96: 1 Aasimar Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 4 [CR 12] 97: 1 Duergar Ranger 4/Slayer 7 [CR 12] 98: 1 Advanced (19 HD) Dragonnes [CR 12] 99: 2 Advanced (18 HD) Bulettes [CR 10] 100:2 Advanced (18 HD) Intellect Devourers [CR 10]
Zevox 07-07-07, 05:53 PM	That's my concern about the "Medium Fog" and "Downpour" conditions, too. The outdoor maps are all quite large (Forest, City, Plains) -- a foggy fight could turn into a big boring game of "Marco Polo" or "Blind Man's Bluff", especially if one of the players doesn't wish to be found. Wasn't that why we changed the Forest Map recently: to avoid that type of situation? Hm, interesting points. Perhaps we could consider just implementing the lighting effects first, then afterwards looking at the weather conditions? It seems the former are much more desired and less contentious than the latter. Zevox
NiQil 07-07-07, 06:39 PM	I'll renew my objection to the blindness effect. No point in rehashing it...just gonna leave it out there.
MindWandererB 07-08-07, 01:26 AM	Despite NiQil's reservations, we have three votes in favor of at least trying the lighting conditions the way they are. Now, we still have to decide how the maps vary, if at all. Here are some proposals: 1) Lighting applies equally to all maps. It's magic. 2) "Bright light" never applies indoors (i.e. Cavern, Sewer, Temple). Everything else is fair game. (Alternatively, the Temple map may still be affected; it could be a temple of Pelor, for instance.) 3) Indoor maps (or at least the cavern and sewer) never get any brighter than some other, sub-normal brightness. 4) Other? I'm in favor of either option 1 or 2. 3 will slow things down too much and change the dynamics of those maps. This might also be a good time to hammer down some more formal definitions of "shadow" for Shadowdancer abilities and HiPS.
NiQil 07-08-07, 01:37 AM	For option 2, if you are going to list that bright light never occurs indoors...then by the same logic pitch black should never occur out of doors, due to moon and starlight. However, I would vote for 1.
Zevox 07-08-07, 01:53 AM	1) Lighting applies equally to all maps. It's magic. 2) "Bright light" never applies indoors (i.e. Cavern, Sewer, Temple). Everything else is fair game. (Alternatively, the Temple map may still be affected; it could be a temple of Pelor, for instance.) 3) Indoor maps (or at least the cavern and sewer) never get any brighter than some other, sub-normal brightness. 4) Other? I'll take 1. Much as bright light in a sewer or cave doesn't make a lot of sense, its the simplest way to do it, and there are some possible explanations at least (light leaking in through cave entrance, manholes or drains in roof of sewer, etc). This might also be a good time to hammer down some more formal definitions of "shadow" for Shadowdancer abilities and HiPS. Thoughts: In bright light, either there are none, or only characters cast shadows. In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere. In dim/dark/pitch light, shadows are everywhere. Any light-producing spell/item removes shadows within its clear illumination radius. Simple enough? Zevox
MindWandererB 07-08-07, 02:37 AM	For option 2, if you are going to list that bright light never occurs indoors...then by the same logic pitch black should never occur out of doors, due to moon and starlight.Clearly you have never been way out in the countryside, where there is no light pollution, on a heavily overcast night with a new moon. You literally can't see your hand in front of your face.In bright light, either there are none, or only characters cast shadows.I would extend that to statues, pillars, buildings, trees, etc. Even at high noon (which doesn't really exist except at the equator), those objects still cast some shadows because they're not perfectly smooth. In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere.I would extend that "shadows everywhere" to the Arena, as well, due to its PC-ly morphic properties. The rest seems fine to my eye.
NiQil 07-08-07, 02:46 AM	Clearly you have never been way out in the countryside, where there is no light pollution, on a heavily overcast night with a new moon. You literally can't see your hand in front of your face.I would extend that to statues, pillars, buildings, trees, etc. Even at high noon (which doesn't really exist except at the equator), those objects still cast some shadows because they're not perfectly smooth. In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere.I would extend that "shadows everywhere" to the Arena, as well, due to its PC-ly morphic properties. The rest seems fine to my eye. Heh....oh ye of little faith. I grew up on a farm in the western Nebraska panhandle. Even under the conditions you describe, light is still there. I am legally blind, and *I could see in those conditions.
TheMagister 07-08-07, 07:23 AM	I would extend that "shadows everywhere" to the Arena, as well, due to its PC-ly morphic properties. The rest seems fine to my eye. I would say that in magically induced bright light, the light has no source, or rather, the arena itself is the source. Therefore, there are no shadows because light is coming from EVERYWHERE. TM
Erithmu 07-08-07, 10:05 AM	33: 3 Mohrgs and 3 Gray Render Zombies [CR 8 and 6] 35: 2 Ogre Mages and 3 4th-level Ogre Barbarians (MM default) [CR 8 and 7] 45: 5 Celestial Wyverns [CR 7] 48: 5 Fiendish Gauths [CR 7] 97: 1 Duergar Ranger 4/Slayer 7 [CR 12] I have some minor covets about these monster combinations. The first 4 I have an issue with the number of monsters on the table. 5-6 monsters uses up all the pins on the mapper without accounting for the PC, or any allies the PC might bring. I think this is just a little too much chaos on a map to subject a Pitlord to. The Duergar ... no manifesting base class? ... I mean ... just add 1 level of psion or PW in there ... please ... Other than that ... looks like a good list even if there are things on there I would never want to encounter.
MindWandererB 07-08-07, 05:18 PM	We have several encounters with 5 monsters in the existing tables, and even a couple of 6's. The duergar was an experiment of sorts--it's perfectly possibly to qualify for Slayer without a manifesting class, and it's full BAB with several special abilities, so I'm not sure it would be that horrible. Edit: I also prefer to avoid multiclassing as much as possible when it comes to NPCs. More work on the pitlord.
Adolfo_Mondschein 07-08-07, 05:28 PM	I'll take 1. Much as bright light in a sewer or cave doesn't make a lot of sense, its the simplest way to do it, and there are some possible explanations at least (light leaking in through cave entrance, manholes or drains in roof of sewer, etc). Thoughts: In bright light, either there are none, or only characters cast shadows. In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere. In dim/dark/pitch light, shadows are everywhere. Any light-producing spell/item removes shadows within its clear illumination radius. Simple enough? Zevox This sounds good to me! :)
templer10 07-08-07, 05:37 PM	We have several encounters with 5 monsters in the existing tables, and even a couple of 6's. The duergar was an experiment of sorts--it's perfectly possibly to qualify for Slayer without a manifesting class, and it's full BAB with several special abilities, so I'm not sure it would be that horrible. it's also not a lot diffrent then 4 level 11 rangers - althrough i dont really WANT to face 4 durager with BaB of +9-10 and level 9 or so manifestating with no 1/3 rule... (1 - egoist - methamorphasis cheese, 1 kintesicest energy missile cheese, 1 all telekenesis powers, 1 psioninc gish/archer - and iam not thinking very hard here),
MindWandererB 07-08-07, 05:57 PM	it's also not a lot diffrent then 4 level 11 rangers - althrough i dont really WANT to face 4 durager with BaB of +9-10 and level 9 or so manifestating with no 1/3 rule... (1 - egoist - methamorphasis cheese, 1 kintesicest energy missile cheese, 1 all telekenesis powers, 1 psioninc gish/archer - and iam not thinking very hard here), Eh? It's one creature, not four.
templer10 07-09-07, 06:03 AM	Eh? It's one creature, not four. oops - my bad- well put that in ECL 15 or what not.
lonewolf 07-10-07, 11:12 AM	I´d like to adress the topic of Prestigous Classes (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedPrestige.html) from Unearthed Arcana. They are just as open source as the racial paragon classes and their powerlevel is IMHO not higher than those or the class variants. So I see no reason why not allowing them with the same credit cost as the other unearthed variants.
MindWandererB 07-10-07, 12:30 PM	I´d like to adress the topic of Prestigous Classes (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedPrestige.html) from Unearthed Arcana. They are just as open source as the racial paragon classes and their powerlevel is IMHO not higher than those or the class variants. So I see no reason why not allowing them with the same credit cost as the other unearthed variants. The reason is this: If you use any of the variant classes presented here, the standard version of the class should be unavailable. For instance, you shouldn't include both the standard paladin character class and the paladin prestige class in the same game.Not just restricting them from both being on the same character, but restricting them from even being in the same game. I should also point out that this is the same language used for generic classes: "If you use these generic classes, you shouldn't also use the standard character classes (or variants of those classes)." This makes the prestigious classes more of an optional rule than additional classes.
TelinArtho 07-10-07, 12:36 PM	Well, that's certainly a valid reason to not include them then.
Abyssal Stalker 07-10-07, 01:21 PM	Shouldn't this houserule include also spellcasting services: Augmented Powerstones/Tattoos: For every two manifester levels above the minimum, the power level increases by one. This directly affects the pricing of such items. It only applies to augmented stones and tattoos. Unaugmented ones use the normal formula. Example (augmented): VigorA [ML 5] = 25*5*3 = 375 gp [+25 hp] Example (unaugmented): Vigor [ML 5] = 25*5*1 = 125 gp [+5 hp] I'm looking at Kracknol's augmented ML5 dissipating touches 50gp per casting... BUMP.
MindWandererB 07-10-07, 02:34 PM	I've always thought so. Any more thoughts on lighting conditions/shadows? I'd like to implement this in a couple of weeks, and leave at least two Wednesdays so everyone has a chance to buy light sources between cycles.
SauroGrenom 07-10-07, 04:12 PM	I'm a bit deluged under things right now to give some serious thought to the lighting idea. It seams reasonable at first, but I'm also skeptical. It's just one more thing that we are asking people to consider as they run fights. It has the effect of making fights more complicated. Now our pitlords must also keep track of the lighting effects of everyone's light sources? Ugh. This is more tracking of details on the maps, how distant are you from the torch? Your x feet away... click, *check SRD* for a continual light spell that's in shadowy illumination, so x and y penalties apply... and the pitlord rolls a miss chance. Right now I'm just thinking it's unnecessary to force our pitlords to do more things to run our battles. We have a shortage of pitlords, and I don't want to do anything to make their jobs harder. This idea adds in a bunch of distance calculations for every time someone moves, then applies miss chances all over the place. Lots of more work for a volunteer to do, and lots more places for an unhappy player to point at looking for problems. I'd vote no. The house rule Abyssal mentions is specific. It applies to stones and tattoos. There are good reasons to lump manifesting services in there, or to not do so, but at this time we haven't put that into the rules specifically. I can argue for it either way.
MindWandererB 07-10-07, 06:17 PM	I'm a bit deluged under things right now to give some serious thought to the lighting idea. It seams reasonable at first, but I'm also skeptical. It's just one more thing that we are asking people to consider as they run fights. It has the effect of making fights more complicated. Now our pitlords must also keep track of the lighting effects of everyone's light sources? Ugh. This is more tracking of details on the maps, how distant are you from the torch? Your x feet away... click, *check SRD* for a continual light spell that's in shadowy illumination, so x and y penalties apply... and the pitlord rolls a miss chance. Right now I'm just thinking it's unnecessary to force our pitlords to do more things to run our battles. We have a shortage of pitlords, and I don't want to do anything to make their jobs harder. This idea adds in a bunch of distance calculations for every time someone moves, then applies miss chances all over the place. Lots of more work for a volunteer to do, and lots more places for an unhappy player to point at looking for problems. I'd vote no.Er... the motion to add lighting conditions in general has already passed; it's the details that still need discussion. I'd really appreciate it if someone other than Zevox spoke up about the shadows thing. The weak consensus about map specificity so far is that here is none (high noon in the sewers!).
lonewolf 07-11-07, 12:16 AM	Although it might be late, I have to agree with Sauro. additional work for pitlords is bad. While it might be interesting to see those different weather conditions, I think it will get old after a few months and then all that is left is the increased workload.
Zevox 07-11-07, 12:26 AM	The same could be said of the maps (balancing and climbing all over the city and forest maps? More sneak-friendly maps? A different map for every fight? Yep, more work for the pitlord all over there), and yet I don't think anyone would argue adding those was a bad idea (I know I'd never want to go back to the old days when each battle type had just one map). Personally, I'm looking forward to having lighting conditions added - things like Low-Light Vision, Darkvision, and light-producing items and spells will finally have relevance to the arena, and to be sure these aren't any more work for pitlords than running a fight in the forest or city map is compared to the arena or cavern. (Yeah, I know I said that before, but I felt it bore repeating.) Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 07-11-07, 10:41 AM	Can we get aruling for display suppressed psionic items...specifically tattoos. It is a fairly easy psicraft check for the NPC who is actually manifesting the power to make...generally by taking ten for the powers that can be placed in tattoos.
hogarth 07-11-07, 10:45 AM	Can we get aruling for display suppressed psionic items...specifically tattoos. It is a fairly easy psicraft check for the NPC who is actually manifesting the power to make...generally by taking ten for the powers that can be placed in tattoos. In my opinion, that makes about as much sense as crafting a scroll with a built-in Concentration check for casting defensively. YMMV, of course, but I don't know of anyhing in the rules that even suggests such a thing is possible. HOWEVER, I don't find any indication that tapping a tattoo creates a display of any kind any more than drinking a potion would. It's not manifesting a power.
TelinArtho 07-11-07, 10:49 AM	I don't see anything that indicates that the tattoos can be made without the displays. For that matter - it is a concentration check - not a psicraft check.
hogarth 07-11-07, 10:59 AM	I don't see anything that indicates that the tattoos can be made without the displays. On the other hand, I don't see anything saying that tattoos have displays at all. Tapping a tattoo is just an action like drinking a potion (as far as I know).
TelinArtho 07-11-07, 11:39 AM	Er... the motion to add lighting conditions in general has already passed; it's the details that still need discussion. I'd really appreciate it if someone other than Zevox spoke up about the shadows thing. The weak consensus about map specificity so far is that here is none (high noon in the sewers!). Sorry - forgot to respond to this sooner. For shadows I think I like the definitions that Zevox has set out. I do think this will be more work for our pitlords, but I don't think it should be stopped because of that. I would like to hear from people who would pitlord now but don't because of one reason or another. If its something that we can resolve, we should look into it. Other than that - we just need more volunteers...
templer10 07-11-07, 12:25 PM	Sorry - forgot to respond to this sooner. For shadows I think I like the definitions that Zevox has set out. I do think this will be more work for our pitlords, but I don't think it should be stopped because of that. I would like to hear from people who would pitlord now but don't because of one reason or another. If its something that we can resolve, we should look into it. Other than that - we just need more volunteers... I didnt follow the whole discussion but if 1 of the options is darkness over teh whole arene (And i think it is) that gives concealment- i just cringe at the though of A)it means once someone is hidden and good at it he is almost impossible to spot. B)rolling all those miss chance rolls... the first option for me as a pitlord is a bloody nightmare - this is what i had to deal with THIS week essentialy and the concerns that it creates makes running sneak fights even harder and unfun. (rolling in each round, opposed move silent, hide, listen, spot yuck). p.s. - it also makes sneaking 2 easy when normally to get that kind of effect (or similar) you had to be a shadow dancer or take some hefty LA.
hogarth 07-11-07, 12:35 PM	I do think this will be more work for our pitlords, but I don't think it should be stopped because of that. I would like to hear from people who would pitlord now but don't because of one reason or another. If its something that we can resolve, we should look into it. What turned me off of (regular) pitlording is running battles where one (or both) of the combatants' strategies involves stretching out the battle as long as possible. I just don't have time for that. So adding the possibility of having pitch blackness on the city map (for instance) probably makes things worse in my case. I do agree that adding lighting conditions is interesting, though. That's why I suggested associating lighting (or weather) conditions to specific maps where they will cause the least harm. For instance, pitch blackness in the cavern map wouldn't be nearly as bad as pitch blackness on the city map (since the cavern is small enough that you shouldn't have to blunder around forever trying to find your opponent). Just my $0.02.
lonewolf 07-11-07, 01:21 PM	Is there a reason why the amount things you can craft in one week doesnt depend on the ECL of the character in question? I find it a bit strange that an ECL3 wizard can craft scrolls worth 1/3 his total money as a free action and an ECL15 wizard has to spend 10 weeks of full actions crafting items of a similar worth. Until now this problem wasnt that big of a deal but now as the higher lvl leagues have opened the problem will start to bug people. PS: The reason why I am writing this is not because I have crafting characters, but because the houserule for ghosts to buy equipment is copied from our crafting rule with similar hard limits. I can accept that it should be harder for ghost to get equipment, but Samuel is coming into ECLs where he will soon spend more time shopping than fighting in the arena, and I dont think that this is how it is supposed to work.
MindWandererB 07-11-07, 01:37 PM	Is there a reason why the amount things you can craft in one week doesnt depend on the ECL of the character in question? I find it a bit strange that an ECL3 wizard can craft scrolls worth 1/3 his total money as a free action and an ECL15 wizard has to spend 10 weeks of full actions crafting items of a similar worth. Until now this problem wasnt that big of a deal but now as the higher lvl leagues have opened the problem will start to bug people. PS: The reason why I am writing this is not because I have crafting characters, but because the houserule for ghosts to buy equipment is copied from our crafting rule with similar hard limits. I can accept that it should be harder for ghost to get equipment, but Samuel is coming into ECLs where he will soon spend more time shopping than fighting in the arena, and I dont think that this is how it is supposed to work. The reason, of course, is that it's RAW: you can craft 1000 gp per day. We loosen that a bit my allowing one to craft multiple items in a day (by RAW, even a scroll of acid splash takes you a whole day). Re: Hogarth's comment: it's a good point. On the other hand, on the large maps, especially the forest, even a little bit of darkness would slow things down considerably.
lonewolf 07-11-07, 04:12 PM	I can accept the official rules for crafting. But I still question our houserule on shopping for ethereal items. At ECL 15 you get 22000gp for a victory. that means 3 weeks shopping for each victory you make and another week if you lose. => after each 3FC you have to spend on average 5.5 weeks only shopping. Is this really what we want? Because this isnt something that nerfes ghosts, it just makes them less fun to play.
MindWandererB 07-12-07, 04:03 PM	On the other hand, I don't see anything saying that tattoos have displays at all. Tapping a tattoo is just an action like drinking a potion (as far as I know).This should probably go to the courtroom rather than this thread, then.I can accept the official rules for crafting. But I still question our houserule on shopping for ethereal items. At ECL 15 you get 22000gp for a victory. that means 3 weeks shopping for each victory you make and another week if you lose. => after each 3FC you have to spend on average 5.5 weeks only shopping. Is this really what we want? Because this isnt something that nerfes ghosts, it just makes them less fun to play.I wasn't involved in the original decision on this. I could see rebalancing it to be one week of shopping per win. ...and it may be worth considering for crafters, as well. Potentially spending 10 weeks crafting after a cycle of all wins is just silly. It works in TT because downtime is "off-screen," but here it's a bit excessive. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Since the lighting discussion seems to be over, I'm going to call it. We'll use the table as it is, and the shadow effects Zevox proposed. They'll go into effect August 1.
Abyssal Stalker 07-12-07, 04:09 PM	This should probably go to the courtroom rather than this thread, then.I wasn't involved in the original decision on this. I could see rebalancing it to be one week of shopping per win. ...and it may be worth considering for crafters, as well. Potentially spending 10 weeks crafting after a cycle of all wins is just silly. It works in TT because downtime is "off-screen," but here it's a bit excessive. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Since the lighting discussion seems to be over, I'm going to call it. We'll use the table as it is, and the shadow effects Zevox proposed. They'll go into effect August 1. What's the ruling with light and vampires? About crafting: Why don't we make crafting ECL dependent. Something like max value = ECL x 2000gp. So ECL 3 can craft up to 6000/week but an ECL 10 can craft up to 20k/week.
MindWandererB 07-12-07, 04:37 PM	What's the ruling with light and vampires? About crafting: Why don't we make crafting ECL dependent. Something like max value = ECL x 2000gp. So ECL 3 can craft up to 6000/week but an ECL 10 can craft up to 20k/week. Vampires will be in trouble in the "bright light" condition. Although the rule itself confuses me: "It can take only a single move action or attack action and is destroyed utterly in the next round if it cannot escape." There's no such thing as an "attack action." Do they mean a standard action? A single attack? In the interests of leniency, I'd give them the standard action (alowing them to put up some kind of protection).
Zevox 07-12-07, 10:08 PM	What's the ruling with light and vampires? "Get some darkness magic"? ;) Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 07-13-07, 12:55 AM	"Get some darkness magic"? ;) Zevox Yep, and die on a simple dispel magic...
lonewolf 07-13-07, 02:22 AM	Maybe a Hello Kitty Umbrella? :P
Abyssal Stalker 07-13-07, 04:26 AM	Maybe a Hello Kitty Umbrella? :P Hey, don't try to sell us your character's fan products! :P Seriously, I'm only asking because I need to know - I don't mean to rant or anything. Sunlight vulnerability is a balancing factor on my character, so that's only fair - allthough really hard to take into consideration.
Rauul 07-13-07, 10:14 AM	Hey, don't try to sell us your character's fan products! :P Seriously, I'm only asking because I need to know - I don't mean to rant or anything. Sunlight vulnerability is a balancing factor on my character, so that's only fair - allthough really hard to take into consideration. I would suggest getting multiple darkness items... some enchanted, some not enchanted.. things like Smokestick's, and yea i know 15 credits to get darkness 2/day items sucks but for gravebound would be extremely lifesaving..
templer10 07-13-07, 10:46 AM	Can we get a resolution aobut the monster equpment thing - from what i gather from the discussion in the FOTW thread at least telin and vath agree with what was proposed By MWB. and ther is no better reason then the fight this week where the pitlord bought for the monster - over 2k of expendbles for an ECL 3 fight.
Macbrea 07-13-07, 11:08 AM	By the way guys, Let me talk to Mal-2 and see if I can get the code for the Mapper from him. He has a copy of it somewhere on his system. He has already coded a bunch of add-ons to the mapper to represent darkness on the maps. The effect is to put down a light source on a spot and show darkness out a range from him. We will see what he has left of the system on his machine. For those that are wondering. Dracazar coded the mapper with pins. Mal-2 coded the line of sight item and the tamplates. The front end was later coded by Drac.
MindWandererB 07-13-07, 12:51 PM	By the way guys, Let me talk to Mal-2 and see if I can get the code for the Mapper from him. He has a copy of it somewhere on his system. He has already coded a bunch of add-ons to the mapper to represent darkness on the maps. The effect is to put down a light source on a spot and show darkness out a range from him. We will see what he has left of the system on his machine. For those that are wondering. Dracazar coded the mapper with pins. Mal-2 coded the line of sight item and the tamplates. The front end was later coded by Drac. So Mal-2 may also have a copy? That's good to know. Out of all our original coders (Dracazar, Mal-2, and Usurpator), only the last is still around, and irregularly. If Mal-2 can create an updated version, there is a site available where it can be hosted. Or I can probably get Drac to use the updates (he's not hard to find).
Macbrea 07-13-07, 01:22 PM	Well, I work with Mal-2 every weekday. He asked me if I wanted him to dig around in his code and see if he can find it. I know at one point he was showing me the lighting effects. And when I asked him about it. He said it was coded, but not implemented in the edition that is online. I will have to look over the code, he said the code was a tad sloppy because it was on the fly coding of a tool vs professional style work. --Note: both me and him are programmers
Macbrea 07-13-07, 02:23 PM	Hmm, Talked to Mal-2. He gave me a version 1.5 of the data plus his additions, Current version, we use is version 1.72. I did learn a very interesting fact. Dracazar has specially set up his php server to be able to work with wizards of the cost boards. You cannot just post to the boards using & in the url and get it to show the images. An example of that would be plain http://wormhole.ath.cx/coco/coco.php?map=arena&v=1&a=Torg,M,13,13&b=Joe,M,-5,-5 URL http://wormhole.ath.cx/coco/coco.php?map=arena&v=1&a=Torg,M,13,13&b=Joe,M,-5,-5 IMG http://wormhole.ath.cx/coco/coco.php?map=arena&v=1&a=Torg,M,13,13&b=Joe,M,-5,-5 On Dracazar's version it is hacked to auto-repace ; with & in incoming URLs. So, I am willing to modify it with the code but will have to work with Dracazar on setitng it back up. Unless someone is willing to hack their PHP server to exchange ; for & :P
McJarvis 07-15-07, 04:34 PM	Mind's Eye (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12798439&postcount=151) content should be added to the docket. I've taken the liberty of editing out many things that would be nonsensical in CoCo. [Ie-> anything refering to Complete Psionics, other non-core material, etc] If there is anything I am posting that looks wrong or like it shouldn't be included-> speak up when the time is right. [ie-> whenever the current topic becomes Mind's Eye] If this is way too early: no worries. I only picked today because I had an entire afternoon available to finally get this post formating stuff down, and figured I'd do it since I promised MWB I would :) edit-> Ran out of time...prestige classes taking much longer than the powers/feats/variant classes did. I will finish during this week, for sure though. [I'm about 90% done] edit#2-> It's all up there now.
Sjiggie 07-15-07, 05:25 PM	I'm don't know how I should treat the Pincer staff. It is listed under the special attacks head of the Kuo-Tao in the mm page 163 under the discription it says that it is an exotic weapon but it doesn't have a cost listed. Comes an Kuo-Tao character equipped with the pincer staff or s it unavailble in the CoCo? Here is the MM entry of the pincer staff. Many Kuo-Tao fighters and all whips of 7th level of higher carry this Large exotic weapon. A pincer staff deals 1d10 points of bludgeoning damage, threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20, and deals double damage on a critical hit. It has 10-foot reach and cannot be used against an adjacent opponent. A wielder that hits an opponent of at least Small but no larger than Large can attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the wielder wins the grapple check, the staff establishes a hold and grabs the opponent, dealing 1d10 points of damage each round the hold is maintained.
MindWandererB 07-16-07, 08:28 PM	Mind's Eye (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12798439&postcount=151) content should be added to the docket. I've taken the liberty of editing out many things that would be nonsensical in CoCo. [Ie-> anything refering to Complete Psionics, other non-core material, etc] If there is anything I am posting that looks wrong or like it shouldn't be included-> speak up when the time is right. [ie-> whenever the current topic becomes Mind's Eye] If this is way too early: no worries. I only picked today because I had an entire afternoon available to finally get this post formating stuff down, and figured I'd do it since I promised MWB I would :) edit-> Ran out of time...prestige classes taking much longer than the powers/feats/variant classes did. I will finish during this week, for sure though. [I'm about 90% done] edit#2-> It's all up there now. I was going to tackle this once variable conditions were out of the way, but what the heck. Mind's Eye was not intended to be the only material included under this initiative; any usable content posted on WotC's web site, including previews, were to be up for grabs (after approval). I'll add it to the docket.
McJarvis 07-16-07, 08:33 PM	I was going to tackle this once variable conditions were out of the way, but what the heck. Mind's Eye was not intended to be the only material included under this initiative; any usable content posted on WotC's web site, including previews, were to be up for grabs (after approval). I'll add it to the docket. I'll start scouring the site for things to add & write them up.
Erithmu 07-16-07, 08:45 PM	I was going to tackle this once variable conditions were out of the way, but what the heck. Mind's Eye was not intended to be the only material included under this initiative; any usable content posted on WotC's web site, including previews, were to be up for grabs (after approval). I'll add it to the docket. I smell a can of worms on this topic ... not your supermarket size ... but your bulk size.
MindWandererB 07-16-07, 08:52 PM	I smell a can of worms on this topic ... not your supermarket size ... but your bulk size. It is indeed. Which is why I wanted to get most of our main issues out of the way first. That and the Community of Gladius add-on were the two initiatives Cat was working on when he left, so I feel obligated to give them an effort.
McJarvis 07-16-07, 09:05 PM	It is indeed. Which is why I wanted to get most of our main issues out of the way first. That and the Community of Gladius add-on were the two initiatives Cat was working on when he left, so I feel obligated to give them an effort. So much work will be required just to scour the site & get these things in post-form that I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to get done with current issues. I'm just now realizing how many alternate races & templates are available. (And Mind's Eye was relatively easy to convert compared to the pdf's I'm looking through now)
MindWandererB 07-17-07, 01:19 AM	Since Zodiac is in imminent danger of reaching this point, I'd like to institute that minimum PR rule we'd considered before. A minimum base PR of 350 approximately indicates that a character is as strong as an average character 3 ECLs below them, and I think that's about as low as we need to go. Any lower than that, and a Great Renown character would be dropped all the way down to about average with one loss (a 1500 losing to a 350 would end up at 1072). Any objections to instituting 350 as the lowest a PR can go?
Zevox 07-17-07, 01:43 AM	None from me. Zevox
Vathelokai 07-17-07, 01:49 AM	Since Zodiac is in imminent danger of reaching this point, I'd like to institute that minimum PR rule we'd considered before.Blast! Caught at my game... :)A minimum base PR of 350 approximately indicates that a character is as strong as an average character 3 ECLs below them, and I think that's about as low as we need to go. Any lower than that, and a Great Renown character would be dropped all the way down to about average with one loss (a 1500 losing to a 350 would end up at 1072). Any objections to instituting 350 as the lowest a PR can go? I'm all for it.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 07:23 AM	Before any chatter starts on the Web enchancement stuff-> I'd like it agreed on that we will either allow or disallow things, but not allow them with changes. With UA stuff this was fine...but since we can only link sources it's going to be a mess if we start making changes, especially for newcomers. Additionally, there's going to be so much content that I think just outright not including anything that gives two/five elders the willies should be appropriate[unless this gets out of hand] Additionally, there should be some agreement on credit costs before we delve into the stuff. I don't feel comfortable charging 10 creds per item if, for instance, new powers/spells are required to play a prestige class appropriately. 10 creds for a prestige class or race is fine, but I think new feats/powers/spells should have either a reduced cost[1 cred per] or no cost. Maybe no cost if it's a spell/power that a non-core class gives you access to or something like that. Once these two issues are done, we've concluded the current council discussions, & I've finished compiling the content lists/url links...then we will finally be able to get to charging into the "meat" of the content :). I'll be stripping away anything obviously broken, so hopefully the majority of the job will just be pruning here and there. ~McJ~ edit-> I'm not sure if I'm overstepping my "bounds" here [since I am just a normal member in every official sense of the word], so if I'm being too pushy just let me know. I just really like the idea of adding the new content to the site in a smooth manner so that no one gets a sour taste in their mouth over these changes. This is going to be like UA2, and there will likely be hard feelings if someone doesn't dedicate their time to the task. [And I believe all the elders have board administration duties already, and I just happen to have more free time since I'm not currently running characters or pitlording]
hogarth 07-17-07, 08:22 AM	Before we add any web enhancement stuff, can we at least get some elders to comment whether they're in favour of it or not? It sounds like Zevox, MWB and Sauro are interested in it, but I'd like to hear from the other Elders (although I suspect we'll just get abstentions from NiQil and Telin). My preference is to be conservative in adding new rules, especially if those rules cost credits to use. I don't have many credits at my disposal, so every time more credit-only options open up I have a couple of problems: I have to decide on the one option (out of dozens) that I really, really want because that will be pretty much all I can afford. Ten credits means pitlording ten fights; since each fight takes me 5 hours (or so), that's about 50 hours of "work" -- more than a week of working full time, effectively. Even once I decide to spend some credits on something, it probably entails starting a new character at level 3 again. Since I can only run two characters (or one character on a miniquest) without spending credits, it'll take me a long time to build that character up to level 7 or so, at which point better options will probably get added, forcing me to think about starting over again. The same goes with any other rules change; if it makes my old concept obsolete, I would have to start over again to use the new version of the rules. The people who get the most benefit from new credit options are Elders, Guildmasters (note that those two categories have a lot of overlap!), and a few prolific pitlords (some of whom have the "advantage" of being single or in school). I don't begrudge anyone the credits they have earned; if it weren't for the Elders, Guildmasters and Pitlords on this group, it would have fallen apart long ago! But don't think that everyone gets the same benefit from new opportunities to spend credits.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 08:50 AM	I had originally suggested to MWB in chat that we might either reduce or eliminate the credit cost for UA material with the introduction of this new stuff: he didn't seem too keen on the idea. IMO charging credits for new material is more or less a control device to keep things from getting out of hand while we decide whether the stuff is too potent or not. Since nothing from UA has turned its head yet, we could probably start freeing up some of it.
Sjiggie 07-17-07, 09:00 AM	I'm not in favor or reducing the cost of the UA material. We don't see them used often but that is probably because of the credit cost. When we reduce or eliminate the credit cost we'll see more and more build involving UA material which can tip the balance that we have now. Adding more options always offsets the balance we have here now and we most not forget that this is the Core Coliseum where characters are made using only core material. We already added the UA material since it is in the SRD but adding even more material from web enchantments from other books that are not core we can consider to change the name of this forum because it won't use the core rules anymore but anything you can find on the wizards website and get it approved. -Sjiggie
Macbrea 07-17-07, 09:02 AM	On the Matter of credits, generally, over time they have become devalued with various changes. We used to get 1 credit for a fight and 1 credit if we mapped the fight. Then with the addition of the mapper it was decided that the cost of starting a character above level 3 would change from 4 credits to 5 credits per level. To somehow make math easier? Anyways, With this change came the reduction of credits for mapping from 1 to .1 per map maximum 1 credit, til finally it was just done away with. There was also a change in prison from .1 per violation to .3 per violation to make math easier. So, unless your a guildmaster or Elder your pretty much going to have to run a huge number of fights. The idea that removing the value of credits by increasing all the costs will result in more pitlords is crazy. We used to do it in the army all the time but in a different fashion. We marched 25 miles until everyone was horridly tired. Then we would march by the barracks about 5 to 10 times each time taking a 1 mile loop. This didn't want to make people march further. It just results in those that cannot stick with it to fall out.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 09:02 AM	We already added the UA material since it is in the SRD We added it because it is open source & available for all to see. It isn't in the SRD @Mac: I'm pretty sure none of those changes were just to make the Math easier :)
Macbrea 07-17-07, 09:06 AM	This hasn't been core coliseum for a couple years. We have added house rules and effects for most of that time. The goal was a living gladius with intersting options. The reason that it is set up to use mostly the SRD is because they didn't want to make you have to buy all the books to play. Web enhancements are free... they are on the web.
Macbrea 07-17-07, 09:07 AM	W @Mac: I'm pretty sure none of those changes were just to make the Math easier :) Let me find the original post by Cat... that was the excuse given.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 09:08 AM	This hasn't been core coliseum for a couple years. We have added house rules and effects for most of that time. The goal was a living gladius with intersting options. The reason that it is set up to use mostly the SRD is because they didn't want to make you have to buy all the books to play. Web enhancements are free... they are on the web. Nod. We started with Core rules for simplicity & the assurance that everyone had access to them. We've been expanding in every way that we could in such a way that is controlled[things don't get out of hand] & so that the initial intention that people have access to the material still holds.
Hirumajoe 07-17-07, 09:28 AM	Before any chatter starts on the Web enchancement stuff-> I'd like it agreed on that we will either allow or disallow things, but not allow them with changes. With UA stuff this was fine...but since we can only link sources it's going to be a mess if we start making changes, especially for newcomers. Additionally, there's going to be so much content that I think just outright not including anything that gives two/five elders the willies should be appropriate[unless this gets out of hand] I totally agree with the above. Its one thing to add material where it obvious the official source is. Its quite another where you have conflicitng sources and one of them is buried deep in the rules thread. Once these two issues are done, we've concluded the current council discussions, & I've finished compiling the content lists/url links...then we will finally be able to get to charging into the "meat" of the content :). I'll be stripping away anything obviously broken, so hopefully the majority of the job will just be pruning here and there. ~McJ~ By the way, I appreciate the work you're putting into this. It does look like interesting material. As you say, there probably will have to be some pruning (as was done with some of the UA stuff) but most of it looks portable to the CoCo.
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 10:21 AM	To address the powerrating issue - I agree with it as well. As to adding more options through the Mind's Eye stuff and the web enhancements - I'm going to be skeptical about anything added - but will be for it as long it is looked over extensively. Personally, I don't deal alot with psionics, so the stuff in the Mind's Eye has no interest to me and I don't necessarily know the implications of one power over another. Some of the discussion about it in the tavern has me very wary of it though - which does concern me. I'd like to get the guidelines for equipping monsters finished up real soon. I am satisfied that it will help monster fights and quests, etc by having a set of guidelines to follow rather than the loose statements in use now.
Macbrea 07-17-07, 10:41 AM	Hmm, the statement about the credit increase of starting at a higher level making math easier must have come from an IM with Cat. What i did find was an unanswered question for Zevox. Due to the state of emergency, I've also made some slight adjustments to credit prices (advanced allies 2° => 5°, Ally feat switch 2° => 5°, and Higher League entry 4° => 5°). Others might follow if necessary. @ Pitlords: Is that credit raise for higher-level starting characters permanent, or just until the State of Emergency ends? I've got an ECL6 character I was planning on activating shortly after Alboreth finished his quest, but if the price jumps from 12° to 15° that'll mean I have to wait another two weeks at least to get him going. Just wondering. Searching through the thread, Cat gets angry at everyone for not letting him use 10 rats in a cage to aid another to increase his AC. Argues a bunch that week over his fight and then states he is going to leave if his changes don't go through, Over the next few weeks he implements a bunch of changes in the rules thread without consulting anyone.
Erithmu 07-17-07, 10:42 AM	I think I need to put forth a member vote against adding the web content. This is not to say that I don't appreciate the work that McJ has done, nor does it say that I haven't thought over some builds with the web content classes (Knight phantom ... ), but I feel that there are some consequences to the CoCo that might not be seen here. With the introduction of the web content material I get the feeling that there will be continued arguments over why something is allowed and something isn't. In addition to all the PrCs there are feats, spells, and even items that are not listed in the SRD that will need approval, and most likely discussion. I think this discussion will take away from the elder's ability to develop the CoCo into a community. There are some very very broken things in the web content (Dweomer Keeper), and other things that are just flat out better than other PrCs (Knight Phantom vs Eldrich Knight). I echo Macbrea's feelings with the separation of the credit 'wealthy' and credit 'poor'. Having used a few UA variants (4) within the CoCo, and played with some builds outside the CoCo environment I don't think most of that material is broken, but rather offers flavor options most of the time. This does still require a significant amount of time to get most of those, but then again I can do most fights in under 2 hours if the tactics are moderately written or better, but for some people they take their time. I think that Niqil's statement of 'Credits should give options, not power' has some validity here. Most of the web content is more powerful than many of the things we have in the SRD, most of UA included. Most of the newer books in DnD have had some form of a power creep. Outside of the CoCo I very very rarely see a build that has fighter, or even Barbarian (unless they are going for a rage PrC) From a fight standpoint: I think that there is the potential to make life on pitlord's harder. Depending on how much we can post into character sheets; we may have to link most of the things and then a pitlord has to be wary of the class in question. This could also make error checking difficult as we may have to have rules interpretations on things. As to my above 'worms' comment ... I don't think the headache that will come with adding the material is worth it.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 10:48 AM	There are some very very broken things in the web content (Dweomer Keeper), and other things that are just flat out better than other PrCs (Knight Phantom vs Eldrich Knight). I had already planned on not including the Knight Phantom, since it was obviously the "upgraded Eldrich Knight" when it first came out. I think that pointing to the obviously broken stuff is a bit too easy of a way of discrediting the stuff that is really solid and good. [Like most of the Mind's Eye, which is the majority of what I've looked at]. In general, I'd say that we should hold off on saying the stuff is too powerful until you see what we're actually dealing with. [Look at UA: we had to put a stop to several things there, or change them because they were better outright[like domain wizards] From a fight standpoint: I think that there is the potential to make life on pitlord's harder. Depending on how much we can post into character sheets; we may have to link most of the things and then a pitlord has to be wary of the class in question. This could also make error checking difficult as we may have to have rules interpretations on things. As to my above 'worms' comment ... I don't think the headache that will come with adding the material is worth it. I believe the credit cost will prevent most of this, as it has with the UA stuff. I could be wrong, I suppose...[over time it will eventually drain on Pitlord resources, to be sure.] But then again-> the same things were said about the psionic portion of the SRD in the first place.
waywreth 07-17-07, 11:21 AM	I think I need to put forth a member vote against adding the web content. I'd just like to mention that I'd be in this camp as well. I think we have enough rules/arguments with the content we have now, and I can still think of multiple viable builds that haven't even been touched yet. I thought Erithmu's post was quite on point - especially on the point the web content simply is more powerful than the SRD campaign (case in point - in my tabletop campain we banned all classes from the PHB just for variety and the characters are far more powerful than anything here). And not to pick on you McJarvis - but you mentioned you were going to exclude the Knight Phantom. Simple things like that, since that's a banned class which will need a section to cross reference allowed and banned classes, make the CoCo even more complicated than it already is (and believe me, it's extremely complex, even for a beginning player). Just my thoughts.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 11:55 AM	And not to pick on you McJarvis - but you mentioned you were going to exclude the Knight Phantom. Simple things like that, since that's a banned class which will need a section to cross reference allowed and banned classes, make the CoCo even more complicated than it already is (and believe me, it's extremely complex, even for a beginning player). Just my thoughts. We wouldn't need to mention anything as "banned": we'd merely have a page with links that pointed to additional things we can use. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we just say "ok, if you can find it on the Wizards website then you can use it here!" We would have a concrete list of additional material allowed for use in the CoCo.
Macbrea 07-17-07, 12:16 PM	Oddly, why did you choose to ban the class? Wouldn't it be better to expose all classes and have people vote if the class is too power vs have you do it?
McJarvis 07-17-07, 12:19 PM	Oddly, why did you choose to ban the class? Wouldn't it be better to expose all classes and have people vote if the class is too power vs have you do it? It's in the interest of saving the elders time. I'll leave in things I'm unsure of: but some classes are obviously too over the top. As I said-> this won't be a typical "people vote for it" procedure. If any two elders express that they want something removed, I'm game to remove it from the list. I'd rather not include something we should have included than include something we shouldn't have. Regarding this class in particular? You have to spend one more feat & in return get not only armored-casting, but you get upgraded phantom steeds as you level up through the class. This is obviously better than the EK, and thus shouldn't be included. [There are more benefits: but the point is that the benefits overwhelm the downsides pretty quickly.]
Erithmu 07-17-07, 01:11 PM	@McJ: I'm still not convinced. (Also Knight phantom has d8 HD, and a decent skill list) I just spent about ... 30 min looking through the book excerpts. Some of them have the full feat list of the book (without expanded descriptions) There are three new base classes (that I can remember off the top of my head: Archivist, Spellthief, Marshal) I mean I just don't see the benefits outweighing the costs. Adding new material that makes things more complex for pitlords to run, new rules and/or variants for new players to learn and encounter, and more ways for (IMO) the people who have time to invest in this place to become stronger (pointing the finger at myself here as well). I think if we want to have a CoCo 'club' then we should go ahead, but if we want to grow this community, we need to grow it with what we have rather than trying to throw new ideas and new options that require hefty rules. If we want to do something to improve this place we should get the things we have going and improve them (ex: fights in the arena/lighting, streaming lining pitlording or a guild system that someone besides an elder can walk into and run after 1 day) I just think there are better ways to improve this place. This is also not to take a swing at the work has been put into the things I have mentioned here. I really do enjoy this place and like the direction things are moving. I would run a guild if I had the time to delve into the guild rules system, but I really don't have that kinda time (the main reason I stepped down from Guildmaster when the current system went into play, I think Niqil did the same). I would rather see movement to streamline and simplify the things that make the CoCo work (fights, maps, quests) than add things that add a level of complexity that is outside the core rules (ie: I support the decision to add lighting/weather options ... and then streamline the effects as we try them out, I want to be able to cast control weather and set my own conditions.)
McJarvis 07-17-07, 01:19 PM	I just spent about ... 30 min looking through the book excerpts. Some of them have the full feat list of the book (without expanded descriptions) There are three new base classes (that I can remember off the top of my head: Archivist, Spellthief, Marshal) Lists of feats without descriptions would obviously not get in[we need full content]. Any prestige class that references stuff we don't have access to wouldn't be allowed[Chameleon] All in all, I think this is "how much" we'll be getting: About 4 or 5 new base classes About 10->15 prestige classes The feats/powers/spells. It should add up to be just a little more than the psionic rules.
SauroGrenom 07-17-07, 01:29 PM	Since Zodiac is in imminent danger of reaching this point, I'd like to institute that minimum PR rule we'd considered before. A minimum base PR of 350 approximately indicates that a character is as strong as an average character 3 ECLs below them, and I think that's about as low as we need to go. Any lower than that, and a Great Renown character would be dropped all the way down to about average with one loss (a 1500 losing to a 350 would end up at 1072). Any objections to instituting 350 as the lowest a PR can go? Agreed. With respect to the web content, I'm in that camp that doesn't want to open the door carte blanch. We already are having a problem of being on the verge of a SoE almost every week. There was once a time when we had far more regular members. On the Matter of credits, generally, over time they have become devalued with various changes. We used to get 1 credit for a fight and 1 credit if we mapped the fight. Then with the addition of the mapper it was decided that the cost of starting a character above level 3 would change from 4 credits to 5 credits per level. To somehow make math easier? Anyways, With this change came the reduction of credits for mapping from 1 to .1 per map maximum 1 credit, til finally it was just done away with. There was also a change in prison from .1 per violation to .3 per violation to make math easier. So, unless your a guildmaster or Elder your pretty much going to have to run a huge number of fights. The idea that removing the value of credits by increasing all the costs will result in more pitlords is crazy. We used to do it in the army all the time but in a different fashion. We marched 25 miles until everyone was horridly tired. Then we would march by the barracks about 5 to 10 times each time taking a 1 mile loop. This didn't want to make people march further. It just results in those that cannot stick with it to fall out. Macbrea hit it precisely here. I think we keep loosing our pitlords because the battle are getting harder to run, the rules are getting more complicated, the credits are getting devalued, and real life occasionally takes someone out of the picture. Most of our changes are incremental, so those of us involved on a daily basis don't notice much of a increased difficulty. But new people keep seeing the activation energy getting higher. I see several major traits of our environment that make it hard to pitlord. The primary issue is that there is an ongoing desire to allow any conceivable part of the rules to become a part of our arena battles. Increased options is a good thing to a certain extent. But it should be modulated by a sense of judgment concerned with how hard it is to run our community. Many options for character classes are one thing. That doesn't effect the pitlord except when you must look up an unusual class feature. For all the web material, this becomes a serious problem since these classes mostly have unusual class features as their distinctive abilities. So every time you get one of these strange characters, you need to look up the special class online. A larger problem is vague and not detailed parts of the rules being used as a thin basis to build complicated and labor intensive house rules that govern round by round effects in battles with specific character types. Our rules for stealth in battles allow characters to generate hundreds of rolls for the pitlord to track w/o ever interacting directly in a manner that damages an opponent. Add in lighting effects. Then weather. Then we can throw in a pack of trained animals. Then we have a battle with thousands of dice rolls, and it's a cluster**** to pitlord this. And we award 1 credit? I'm just not liking the direction we are going right now. Everything is getting more complicated to pitlord all the time. And no-one seams to be remembering our poor pitlords make all this whole game run, and all our recent house rules effect them more than the players. Players rights are great, it's more fun to play. In all of our recent decisions we have been advocating more options for players. But we need to remember the pitlords when we make rules decisions. Without them, this whole game doesn't work, and we are dumping on them recently. The stealth rules, with opposed skill checks and distance modifiers every action, will be a mess to pitlord. The lighting rules can result in miss chances all the time and thus be a mess to pitlord. The allies rules have and always will increase the number of participants, and thus increase complexity of battles. Cat had some pipe dreams, and there's a reason they were pipe dreams. That reason is that there was no clear simple way to implement those ideas. Perhaps they should simply stay ideas, for now at least. Right now I'm not pitlording because this month has been moving and next week is when I start Med School. I'm expecting to have some free time, but with all the variables, I could get a battle in darkness, with two stealth characters and 3 allies on the plains. Or I could get a battle with two alpha strike characters in the cavern. One of these will take me 5 hours, and be a very tough fight to pitlord. The other I can bang out in less than an hour. With that kind of uncertainty, I'd rather not take the risk of getting a fight I cannot pitlord in my free time. If anything instead of making more options for players to build unusual characters with web content classes, I'd rather we figure out some way to make it easier for pitlords to run battles with our new lighting effects or simplify the way allies effect the battle or do something to make stealth battles easier and faster to run. Until we have a surplus of pitlords, we shouldn't be looking for ways to make being a player more attractive.
MindWandererB 07-17-07, 02:23 PM	Searching through the thread, Cat gets angry at everyone for not letting him use <something ridiculous>. Argues a bunch that week over his fight and then states he is going to leave if his changes don't go through, Over the next few weeks he implements a bunch of changes in the rules thread without consulting anyone.Hmmm... when did that not happen? I recall the original situation: Cat increased the price for exactly the reason Sauro just mentioned: he wanted creating and playing new characters to be less of a draw, to cut down on the number of characters in play and thus reduce pitlord workload. However... I actually have a different take, almost the opposite. Consider the following: Each player can activate two characters a week credit-free. Any characters beyond that cost 1 credit. To earn one credit, a player has to run a fight involving 2 characters. Conclusion: by running and paying for one extra character, the net coverage of activated characters is improved by one. Now, that doesn't take other sources of credit into account, and it doesn't work when a player would have activated only 1 character, but otherwise it works. (Okay, except for NiQil, but his activation patterns just baffle me.) Re: Sauro's other comment: I wish it was easier to standardize credit earnings. If anyone can think of a reliable method to increase rewards for a stealth duel in the forest as compared to a surrender, I'd love to hear it. And there's a certain disparity between other credit-earning methods (Pitlords and Guildlords are among the more difficult admin duties; Scribelords [when the Newspaper is inactive], Blackmarket/Traininghall, and Guildmaster are easier. I have no experience with the Prisonlords job). One partial solution would be to "split the stock," in a sense: multiply all current credits and credit costs by 10, and grant finer control over small differences (e.g. Guildmaster could be worth only 7, and newspaper articles could be worth 2). That doesn't fix inequalities in fight difficulty, but it sets up a framework for it.
Macbrea 07-17-07, 02:24 PM	Currently, I have most of the code for addition to the mapper to allow for light sources and the dim shadowy area around the light source. I need to get a copy of Drac's current code to insert the new code into.
Macbrea 07-17-07, 02:36 PM	Currently, I am taking a break from pitlording but only because I am getting ready to goto Gencon and my Company I work for is in the middle of a Merger. As a result my days consist of me getting home, sitting down to relax and trying to take my mind off stuff. It is also the reason I am only really activating characters like Razorfang. Which is basicly, free credits for whatever pitlord has to run him and moves up my opponent at a win rate. It's a two fold action of taking a break and moving character up into the range to fight my other characters later. But, when I do pitlord the problem is: 1 credit equals Run fight (4 hours) + Listen Complaints and edits (0 to 6 hours). As many of you figured out, if my fight exceeds 8 hours of running I don't really care to edit it much more. At some point you have to say enough is enough. So, the theory that if we make things more expensive it will motivate the person to do more! Must be some crazy european theory. :P 'If the peasant refuses to work put him on half rations, that will motivate him to work!'
hogarth 07-17-07, 03:03 PM	So, the theory that if we make things more expensive it will motivate the person to do more! Must be some crazy european theory. :P 'If the peasant refuses to work put him on half rations, that will motivate him to work!' I thought the mindset was more like: "I (as an Elder + Guildmaster) have lots of unused credits. So there is a 'problem' with an oversupply of credits: either things aren't expensive enough, or adding maps to fights gives too many credits, or there aren't enough things to spend credits on. So I will 'fix' the 'problem' by adding more ways to spend credits and by simultaneously making existing credit prices more expensive and removing the ability to earn credits for adding maps." "Good news, peasants! Not only has the cost of bread doubled, but now your wages have been cut and the markets have plenty of caviar to buy! Now if you work three times as hard, you can enjoy the best caviar sandwiches you can imagine!" ;)
SoulLord 07-17-07, 03:10 PM	Motivation there are 4 facets of motivation internal/external, positive/negative the ones with the biggest impact are always internal external positive.- earn credits motivation is lost as soon as credits are no longer given (or they are devalued) internal positive.- I want to pitlord because it's fun has things lately made pitlording more fun?
SauroGrenom 07-17-07, 03:46 PM	MWB, You are making the discussion about credit value and some kind of relation between that an the work involved in earning the credits. We can go there, and there can be some valuable discussion about that. But that's not where I was going with my comments. But I think that's an easy thing to talk about, and we can easily make an improvement or two with that kind of approach. Last week the Credit Awards were as follows broken into various kinds: 7 Guild Related: 6 GuildMasters 1 Guildlords 4 Administration (Blackmarket-1/2, Traininghall-1/2, Prison-1, Pitlords-2) 26 Pitlording 10 Questlords 6 Campaignlords Looking at this, the Questlords and Guildmasters are the only ones who are probably making too many credits for the work involved. Quests should probably make only 1/2 credit per character involved. One idea is that a guildmaster "activate" a guild like a character instead of earning credits for maintaining it. Since the guild game is largely for the benefit of the guildmaster's who get to participate in the guild strategy game, it's reasonable that they should pay to play. Personally I'd be willing to use PSI as a character activation each week. I can activate one other character, or fork over a credit to play. Those are the only changes I'd suggest. My previous comments were exploring the point that most of our recent rules changes don't consider how they effect the pitlord's job of running a battle (the internal negative motivators for a pitlord's job). Generally they increase the randomness of how hard it is to run a battle. Simple battles will still exist, but crazy hard ones will also be possible. A single fight could be 1 hour... could be 8 hours. So pitlording becomes a more risky way of spending your time. Scaling credit rewards with that time spent doesn't strike me as the correct way to deal with the problem. Rather we should structure the rules so that all the different play styles available are similarly difficult to pitlord (IE have a similar number of dice rolls or changing modifiers per round).
templer10 07-17-07, 03:51 PM	i would like to join the - ther earent enough credits given bandwagon. i regulerly pitlord 3 or so fights per week and that is streching me pretty thin and it can take me from 6 to 20 hours in total (run time + argue time + rerun time + again argue time) and then to get only 1 credit for it.... now i dont do it only for the credits - i do it becuase it's fun, but it IS a LOT of work. also - when we get to sneaks fight which i think EVERY pitlord hates - it's suddnly NOT fun to run the fight and as a result i usuallt do not as good a job - and it still take twice as long. i think credits give for pitlording fights should be increased becuase of all those reason stated and also becuase i suspect that when the credit system was first instituted it was easier to run fights (less rules, less options). now about elders+guildlords having 2 much credits - well they earned it - they should be able to spend it so i dont have a problem with it. MWB (i think) said that you cant find a way to give extra credits for "hard fights" (i.e. sneak fights) that's fairly simple - i imagine most peeps at wendsday/thursday check what they have to pitlord - you can say that anyone with rogue/assasin/shadodance (Etc) levels is considered a sneak and also decide on an arbitary number in the Hide skill which beyond it a char is considered a "sneak" even if he is not of those classes (i would say around +10 for ECL3 gaining around +1/level) - then said pitlord can pm PITLORDS saying i have to run X fights with sneaks - please award Y extra credits (with Y beyond decided earlier obviosly). it's not flawless but it is workable.
Erithmu 07-17-07, 04:02 PM	I feel the discussion shifting away from WOTC material to credits and 'rewards vs time' I have already said my piece regarding the WOTC material, but if we move into the 'rewards/credits/time' discussion I'll add my two cp.
hogarth 07-17-07, 04:08 PM	I feel the discussion shifting away from WOTC material to credits and 'rewards vs time'. Regarding the web site material, my vote would be "don't include it" because WotC can remove articles from their web site at any time and we're not allowed to reproduce the relevant rules without permission.
Macbrea 07-17-07, 04:30 PM	Here is my opinion on using the Web materials and other materials. I currently own all of the regular and ebberron books. I have no problem looking up the minds eye stuff on the web and am willing to run it. It should be noted though that the material other then the web may not be available to all pitlords. And we need to be careful what we do allow. I do not feel that McJ should be making any decisions on prescreening the classes before putting them up for the elders to vote on.
McJarvis 07-17-07, 04:49 PM	I do not feel that McJ should be making any decisions on prescreening the classes before putting them up for the elders to vote on. That is more or less the way it'll have to be. There's too much raw content on the Wizards site for me not to make snap judgements on what will get filtered through here...unless you want elders bogged down with "votes"[as you called them] on material from now until 2010. I'm pretty sure that folks around here trust my judgement on what is "obviously broken" or "obviously incompatible with CoCo" in this regard.
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 04:53 PM	For credit rewards - I don't know that there's a reasonable way to "fix" it, unless the person in the Pitlords roll takes on a whole lot more work. Analysing the credit costs for fights before or after the fact would not be a simple thing to do really without either a load of more PMs or without a specific mention in a thread somewhere. Adjusting the scale of credits is certainly reasonable though - the work I do on my guildmaster side is certainly less work than the pitlords work I have done. I'd even go so far as agree with Sauro somewhat that the guildmasters should pay for the benefit - but the problem there is that I took this role because no one else stepped up. If we take away the credit benefit AND apply a cost to it - that might just drop off the remaining guildmasters. At the time I took the position, the credit benefit helped justify the time I spent on it (because at the time I did not see the benefit to continuing the guild game). Now that I have spent the time to learn the system - I don't necessarily need the credits earned to justify my time. But granularity on credits may help some things work out. I don't have any delusions that it would increase pitlording by just adjusting it, but it might be worth exploring. As to our recent shortage of pitlording - I'm not too concerned about it yet. If we continue to have pitlording shortages by the time the school year starts (for those in school/college anyway) - then I'd be willing to admit there might be issues. Right now - I'm chalking up the lack of active pitlords to the niceness of the weather in my area... (and associating it with the rest of the world... yes - I am delusional - just not about some things...). As to templer10's comments about sneak fights - I guess I'll just have to disagree with you. I don't dislike sneak fights. I do dislike fights where people refuse to engage. This applies to some sneak fights - but it mostly applies to the free-for-all fights where one or more participants hangs back for 9+ rounds. Or worse - the fights where they specifically engage only once every 10 rounds to "get around" the delay penalty but still be able to run out their opponent's buffs... I did complain about the toughness to run fights on the forest map before they were changed - but that was a whole different beast - and it didn't matter what the classes of the characters involved were at the time... But that's me and frankly - I don't feel we can adjust the credit rewards for the perceived difficulty to run fight A or to run fight B.
Zevox 07-17-07, 05:53 PM	Re: New Material - Given the generally against opinion, I'd say we be very slow and selective about what we add, if anything is added. Start with the Mind's Eye stuff, and then look at other things later, if at all. I'd personally be interested in seeing such options added, but we have to make absolutely sure we're not introducing anything thats overpowered for our environment or complicating things too much for the Pitlords to handle. Re: Credits - I'll just comment on Sauro's note about Guildmaster credits. I can tell you right away that the entire initial reason I took on the Guildmaster post was the credit, and even with that benefit I hesitated for days before accepting the post (partially because it was the EHTC, and at the time I still intended to be mostly involved with the CEF, but also because of the daunting task of keeping track of the rules and organizing the Guild). Granted now I do feel a certain sense of loyalty to the EHTC, so if we really feel its necessary to stop giving Guildmaster credits out, very well (note: I don't feel it is myself). But charging credits to be a Guildmaster is out of the question in my mind. The week-to-week upkeep and updates may not be much work, but dealing with all the planning necessary and keeping track of the rules for that optional side game is not something I'd ever pay to be allowed to do. Hmm, the statement about the credit increase of starting at a higher level making math easier must have come from an IM with Cat. What i did find was an unanswered question for Zevox. Due to the state of emergency, I've also made some slight adjustments to credit prices (advanced allies 2° => 5°, Ally feat switch 2° => 5°, and Higher League entry 4° => 5°). Others might follow if necessary. @ Pitlords: Is that credit raise for higher-level starting characters permanent, or just until the State of Emergency ends? I've got an ECL6 character I was planning on activating shortly after Alboreth finished his quest, but if the price jumps from 12° to 15° that'll mean I have to wait another two weeks at least to get him going. Just wondering. Searching through the thread, Cat gets angry at everyone for not letting him use 10 rats in a cage to aid another to increase his AC. Argues a bunch that week over his fight and then states he is going to leave if his changes don't go through, Over the next few weeks he implements a bunch of changes in the rules thread without consulting anyone. Man, I'd almost forgotten about that. That was way back before I activated Asran (the character in question in that quote). Hm, perhaps we could consider bringing that character activation cost back down to 4 credits/level now - that'd be one way to increase the value of credits at present (and to be perfectly honest, I have no idea why Cat thought that change would help with the SoE...). Zevox
Macbrea 07-17-07, 06:09 PM	Honestly, the reason he changed the cost is he wanted everything to be an increment of 5 credits. So, if you bought anything it would cost some adjustment by 5.
MindWandererB 07-17-07, 06:19 PM	As Rith says, this has really become two debates. We can talk about an adjustment to the credit economy after looking at some of the new material. I think there are several items that can be approved without much discussion, such as the alternate class abilities and some of the PrCs (like the Psychic Theurge).
McJarvis 07-17-07, 09:49 PM	I think there are several items that can be approved without much discussion, such as the alternate class abilities and some of the PrCs (like the Psychic Theurge). Of the material I posted from Mind's Eye, I think there are only a few hot-topics. Wilder Variant. Zevox believes this is too powerful, and given the hesitancy of people to accept Mind's Eye-> I'm inclined to go with him. While I see the upside of Volatile mind in the right environment[if ego whip builds were popular, for instance], I can see that the variant is more useful in 90% of circumstances. Crystal Master. This has been discussed in the tavaran-> Hirm gave a pretty good example of how the class isn't really better than the phrenic template. Meditant//Related feats. I think everyone agreed this must go. Body Leech. I question whether this class is even appropriate to include in CoCo, since there will undoubtable need to be many rulings made on how its mechanics work out. Elders comment as you will. I don't believe I missed anything, but if you object to anything else in Mind's Eye feel free to bring it up. I didn't look into it too much, but the "Reach" power might be another hot button. [since it can be stacked with expansion] edit-> Oh! And the PsiWarrior variant shouldn't be allowed to work with the Psychic Weapon Master[Soul Bound weapon too similar to the Bonded Weapon]
McJarvis 07-17-07, 10:07 PM	[double post]
Sjiggie 07-17-07, 11:51 PM	Just before the discussion about adding the Mind Eye and other web enchantment stuff I raised a question about the Pincer staff from the Kuo-Tao. The pincer staff is a weapon used by the Kuo-Tao and is listed under the monster entry of it. Now when you read the description is says that it is an exotic weapon but it is listed under the special attacks entry of the Kuo-Tao. Now I want to know if: 1. All Kuo-Tao come equipped with the pincer staff. 2. If there is a cost related with it. 3. If the uo-Tao are proficient with it. It is not listed as an attack option in the (Full) Attack line but it is listed under the special attack line. There was some discussion about the staff in the tavern where some said it isn't allowed just like the sleep arrows of the pixie and others said that if the Kuo-Tao come equipped with the pincer staff that the Ghaele should come equipped with the holy sword listed under his attack entry. I think that the Pincer staff is different on both arguments. The Pixie's special arrows is an Ex ability while the Pincer staff is a weapon and the Ghaele holy weapon is a weapon that is available through gold that any creature could have bought and it could easily be another weapon with different enchantments. Without the holy sword a Ghaele would still be a Ghaele. It doesn't change its entry in the mm/srd while removing the Pincer staff from the Kuo-Tao would change the mm entry. For reference here is the Pincer staff described as in the mm: Many Kuo-Tao fighters and all whips of 7th level of higher carry this Large exotic weapon. A pincer staff deals 1d10 points of bludgeoning damage, threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20, and deals double damage on a critical hit. It has 10-foot reach and cannot be used against an adjacent opponent. A wielder that hits an opponent of at least Small but no larger than Large can attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the wielder wins the grapple check, the staff establishes a hold and grabs the opponent, dealing 1d10 points of damage each round the hold is maintained.
McJarvis 07-18-07, 07:31 AM	I don't think Kuo-Tao's are common enough for it to be a problem to grant them the weapon as a racial ability. [no gp amount- must pay for "upgrades" per NPC monster rules]
NiQil 07-18-07, 10:47 PM	Sheesh....I leave for like 3 days and McJ goes klepto on the thread. Regarding the Mind's Eye & associated: Let me be as blunt as I can while being as nice as I can.......no. Not now, not next week, not next year. Just no. In this case, I think the simplest thought is the best. Less is more. We are the CORE Coliseum. We have our share of houserules just like any game does, but we are the Core Coliseum. Core = DMG, PHB, MM. Some people consider the XPH to be an unnamed core book (me among them). The UA material is as far as I want this place to stretch, source-wise. Even that makes me iffy, though I own the book and am familiar with most of it's content, so I know where the issues are. By adding more sources, we have to account for all new issues created by them. We have a hard enough time coping with the issues created by the core material. Putting the legalities of whether we can even post that kind of stuff here aside for a moment, I am of the opinion that this material should not be added. To add a sort of side-swiping comment about the material.....why do you think it is web-only? Obviously it wasn't good enough to make it into a published source-book (excepting errata-type material). Why do you think that is? No (or not enough) playtesting? Possible. Not balanced? Possible. But there is some reason that that material did not make it into a source-book. Some of it may just be to draw people to the website, but I doubt that is the only reason. Something caused that material to not be book publish-worthy. So, in short, no. Expanding our source material is the last thing we need right now. I would rather talk about disallowing the divine section of the SRD and the UA material before I would want to discuss expanding our source material base.
MindWandererB 07-19-07, 02:15 AM	Perhaps I should take a step back and explain why I was interested in adding that stuff. 1) Cat was working on it. He also wasn't the only one thinking about it. Although, his intention was to use it as a reward for pitlording massive amounts of fights (he wanted to debut it when Telin hit 100, but obviously he missed that deadline). 2) The reason why we're the Core Coliseum is because of information limitations. That's why the whole SRD is included, not just the PHB/MM/DMG. By that logic, web enhancements are not impossible. 3) The more options we have, the better. Although there is a vast number of combinations of classes, races, and feats possible, folks do get bored. There's a certain evolution of players here: a beginning player typically takes a single-class favorite of theirs, then a "standard" optimized character (tripper, straight caster, etc.), then tries one or two exotic things, and if they're still around after that we're lucky. Greater versatility helps us maintain a larger member base.
hogarth 07-19-07, 07:03 AM	1) That's neither here nor there. 2) This is a valid point, but as I said -- the new stuff is not Open Content and Wizards of the Coast can remove it from their web site at any time. It's not likely, I admit, but I kind of like the idea of using all Open Content (plus a few non-Open things from the Core books). 3) The problem I have with this argument is that the new stuff is so credit-expensive that Elders/Guildmasters are the only ones who can afford to use the new options on a regular basis. For credit-poor players, adding new material makes little difference except possibly raising the average power level of one's opponents a little. So "maintaining a larger member base" is a dubious justification when just a few people will use the material. Don't get me wrong -- if Wizards puts out more Open Content, I would be glad to add it. But I would suggest all Open Content should be available without credits. Perhaps I should take a step back and explain why I was interested in adding that stuff. 1) Cat was working on it. He also wasn't the only one thinking about it. Although, his intention was to use it as a reward for pitlording massive amounts of fights (he wanted to debut it when Telin hit 100, but obviously he missed that deadline). 2) The reason why we're the Core Coliseum is because of information limitations. That's why the whole SRD is included, not just the PHB/MM/DMG. By that logic, web enhancements are not impossible. 3) The more options we have, the better. Although there is a vast number of combinations of classes, races, and feats possible, folks do get bored. There's a certain evolution of players here: a beginning player typically takes a single-class favorite of theirs, then a "standard" optimized character (tripper, straight caster, etc.), then tries one or two exotic things, and if they're still around after that we're lucky. Greater versatility helps us maintain a larger member base.
McJarvis 07-19-07, 08:01 AM	3) The problem I have with this argument is that the new stuff is so credit-expensive that Elders/Guildmasters are the only ones who can afford to use the new options on a regular basis. You've made this point a few times, but I have to ask-> if you only have time to run two characters at once & enjoy running them to high levels, what exactly do you mean by a "regular basis"? I'm neither a guildmaster nor an elder, & I've never really felt a need for credits. [granted I don't care for custom items beyond skill ones, and of course I just don't consider anything I wouldn't be willing to pay for...like UA racial variants] edit-> On a more economy-based note: I think that UA/Other material would be more of an incentive if it just cost 5o per aspect. I know that when I first started playing I wasn't looking at what cost 10+ creds when planning how I would spend my creds, I was looking at the 1, 2, and 5's.
hogarth 07-19-07, 08:34 AM	You've made this point a few times, but I have to ask-> if you only have time to run two characters at once & enjoy running them to high levels, what exactly do you mean by a "regular basis"? I'm neither a guildmaster nor an elder, & I've never really felt a need for credits. [granted I don't care for custom items beyond skill ones, and of course I just don't consider anything I wouldn't be willing to pay for...like UA racial variants]. Wait -- that time that I thought you were the guildmaster of the Loyalists...was it all just a beautiful dream? ;) Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing how many people are using the UA stuff now. I know Erithmu has a druid variant and I'm using a couple of (credit-free) bloodlines, but I can't think of anyone else who isn't now (or formerly) a Guildmaster/Elder. I could easily be way off base, though. [For purposes of this discussion, we can define "regular basis" to be "more than twice" (say).]
McJarvis 07-19-07, 08:49 AM	Wait -- that time that I thought you were the guildmaster of the Loyalists...was it all just a beautiful dream? ;) I was-> but in the end my total credit earnings for the job were probably ~10 or 15 creds.[edit-> approx 4 months of guildmastering, 16 creds? still not even close to most of my cred earnings] Given that I have 40+ creds now & multiple characters fully armed with UA stuff, I'd say 10 or 15 isn't the issue here. The only reason I have that many is I took advantage of several credit offerings[specifically, doing 2 fights a week with the .5 creds per map deal] & I don't spend them on things other than what I really need. I guess my point is that creds are easily had for pitlords...assuming you don't have alot of late fights & just keep up with the routine. Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing how many people are using the UA stuff now. I know Erithmu has a druid variant and I'm using a couple of (credit-free) bloodlines, but I can't think of anyone else who isn't now (or formerly) a Guildmaster/Elder. I could easily be way off base, though. Pointing out that I *was* a guildmaster doesn't remove the fact that all the UA stuff I bought was with credits from pitlording. As stated-> if you want to spend your creds on items that's fine, but if you want to spend your creds on UA stuff that's a decision you'll have to make. ? edit-> Perhaps I'm not the "norm", but there are plenty of retired members with lots of creds. I don't pitlord an insane amount of fights[5, or whatever...though there are *some* weeks that I'll do that kind of thing] I understand going through spurts where you can't pitlord[as I am going through now], but for the most part I still think pitlording is worth the 1 cred/fight.
Erithmu 07-19-07, 09:03 AM	@Hogarth: I'm using 4 UA items at the moment: (Druid Variant, Human Paragon, Pal of Freedom, Cloistered Cleric) Most of these purchases are after my stint w/ EYE, but then again I run more quests than anything else. Lets see ... non Guildmasters/Elders ... Mitza: Pal of Freedom (Willowmoon) ToK: had a Cloistered Cleric in the IMT (Jur, purchased with a backlog of credits from CoCo generation 1) Hirmajoe: Human Paragon (Kai Engel) Dsugui: Half Dragon Paragon (Krug) Other than that it is mostly Elders/Guildmasters I know that Zevox gets summer off and watching him make 45 credits in 8 weeks is interesting. I think he is going to make it too. There are some who put in the time to save up and have fun with some of the stuff.
hogarth 07-19-07, 09:15 AM	Pointing out that I *was* a guildmaster doesn't remove the fact that all the UA stuff I bought was with credits from pitlording. O.K. -- let me put it another way. Most expensive (10+) credit stuff will only be purchased by a fairly small group of hardcore players (which -- not surprisingly -- has a large overlap with current/former Guildmasters/Elders). These hardcore players (in my opinion) are likely to stick around whether we add new material or not so it seems a bit disingenuous to use "maintaining a larger member base" as a reason to add new stuff. The best argument for adding stuff is "Having more choices is more fun". Everything should be weighed against that, not anything else (IMO). As stated-> if you want to spend your creds on items that's fine, but if you want to spend your creds on UA stuff that's a decision you'll have to make. I don't know if you're referring to me specifically, but I can make a list of what I've spent credits on so far: -5 credits for a Headband of Intellect +1 -5 credits for exchanging a feat -5 credits for exchanging a power (I think) -a few credits for activating more than 2 characters -5 credits for joining a campaign Currently I'm trying to save up to start a character at a higher level (7+) or maybe to join another campaign if one comes down the pipeline. But I don't have the time to run lengthy fights which require lots of edits so I'm stuck with volunteering to pick up specific fights that I know won't take as long (usually level 3-4 fights, for instance). Erithmu -- thanks for the list! Note that Tellish_of_Ket was an Elder, though.
McJarvis 07-19-07, 09:32 AM	O.K. -- let me put it another way. Most expensive (10+) credit stuff will only be purchased by a fairly small group of hardcore players (which -- not surprisingly -- has a large overlap with current/former Guildmasters/Elders). These hardcore players (in my opinion) are likely to stick around whether we add new material or not so it seems a bit disingenuous to use "maintaining a larger member base" as a reason to add new stuff. I could buy that....though I dunno if I would stick around forever if content was *never* added. Your logic seems to indicate that you want to create some sort of incentive program for new players. Perhaps a "Welcome to Gladius!" offering beyond the current 2 creds for your picture & 1 cred for your birthday things? I don't know if you're referring to me specifically I wasn't, but you're as good an example as any. but I can make a list of what I've spent credits on so far: -5 credits for a Headband of Intellect +1 -5 credits for exchanging a feat -5 credits for exchanging a power (I think) -a few credits for activating more than 2 characters -5 credits for joining a campaign So you've had access to 39(ish) creds? You've been here for about a year, so I'd say that's about right for the level of help that you're giving out. I had credits in store from when I did my first stint here for about a year[ish], so that would explain why I have approx double the credit-worth of you. [on top of my policy of pitlording at least once a week on average] I really feel that after a while the creds don't seem to matter anymore, but maybe that's just me. Erithmu -- thanks for the list! Note that Tellish_of_Ket was an Elder, though. Yeah-> though technically that was some sort of weird pseudo elder position. I'm still not sure what that was all about. edit-> The major problem here seems to be that there are those who have(power players) & those who just have want(casual players). The problem is that the power players are really the reason the board is able to run, so [I]any incentive program is going to inheriently favor them. [Unless they just stop spending credits, as happens with some old timers] Does this mean we should never expand what credits can do?
hogarth 07-19-07, 09:47 AM	I could buy that....though I dunno if I would stick around forever if content was *never* added. Your logic seems to indicate that you want to create some sort of incentive program for new players. Perhaps a "Welcome to Gladius!" offering beyond the current 2 creds for your picture & 1 cred for your birthday things? My question is: "If one accepts the premise that adding new classes/feats/races/whatever will encourage people to stay in the Core Coliseum, then why not make it available to everyone for free instead of reserving it mostly for people who are likely to stay anyway?" I really feel that after a while the creds don't seem to matter anymore, but maybe that's just me. I agree that credits aren't really that big a deal, but there are scads of things that I'd use (if only to try them out) if they didn't cost credits.
Zevox 07-19-07, 12:57 PM	Erithmu -- thanks for the list! Note that Tellish_of_Ket was an Elder, though. Which has no impact on his credits though, since Elders don't get paid credits just to be Elders. Zevox
MindWandererB 07-19-07, 02:05 PM	O.K. -- let me put it another way. Most expensive (10+) credit stuff will only be purchased by a fairly small group of hardcore players (which -- not surprisingly -- has a large overlap with current/former Guildmasters/Elders). These hardcore players (in my opinion) are likely to stick around whether we add new material or not so it seems a bit disingenuous to use "maintaining a larger member base" as a reason to add new stuff.The greatest credit draw has always been characters that start off at higher ECLs. So if we're going to make this comparison, we need to count every player who's ever started a character at ECL 5 or higher, or rebuilt a character ECL 5 or higher. That list would include nearly every player who's been here for more than four months or so. I did that before I was an Elder; so did Zevox, Telin, and Vath. (Sauro I don't know, just because he's the longest-standing elder of all, and NiQil almost never spends his credits except to run extra characters). And the number of other players who've done that is almost uncountable. Heck, several non-elders have shelled out the 35 credits to create or rebuild an ECL 10 character. Let's just take this to an elder vote: simply, who is in favor of adding at least some items from the WotC website, after being approved? I know most of you have expressed your opinions earlier in the thread, but let's make it clear right here.
TelinArtho 07-19-07, 02:19 PM	For me its really a tough decision. I have to weigh having more options with making things more complicated for newer players and for pitlords (both new and old). On the one hand, having more options will help keep this place "fresh and new" for some people - which might help keep the population up. On the other - if it makes certain people not want to pitlord because they are unfamiliar with the new rules or worse yet - not want to activate their characters because of these new rules, then I don't think they should be added. So - in other words - I am currently on the fence on the issue...
Zevox 07-19-07, 02:38 PM	Similarly, I've become quite hesitant here. The general opinion of our members seems to be pretty negative - McJarvis wants to see them added, and a couple have expressed an interest in one class or another, but most of the expressed opinions on the idea as a whole have been that they don't want it. Then again, that seemed to be the case with the UA stuff too, but it didn't bother Cat, and those haven't proved to be a problem yet, and I am a bit interested in seeing such new options added. For the moment, I'll give a tentative "yes", provided we review everything carefully and add things only very slowly. If other non-Elder opinions continue to come in with the answer "no" though, I'll change my answer to match that - I really don't want to be responsible for an Elder decision that goes against what the majority of our members want on such a potentially important issue. Zevox
templer10 07-19-07, 03:39 PM	If it matters iam on the yes column on the issue of new content (as long as it's slow and carefull) - But i really think that in order for peeps to enjoy the effect all those new things will bring they should have reduced credit prices otherwise it is just a perk given to those that already have the wealth sort to speak. p.s- dont add achivist even throguh it's web content - most broken class EVER...
lonewolf 07-19-07, 04:43 PM	p.s- dont add achivist even throguh it's web content - most broken class EVER... It is only broken if you have access to many noncore spells.
McJarvis 07-19-07, 07:00 PM	Then again, that seemed to be the case with the UA stuff too, but it didn't bother Cat, and those haven't proved to be a problem yet, and I am a bit interested in seeing such new options added. If it makes you feel any better: One of the reasons why Cat didn't mind ignoring everyone's nay-saying about adding new content was that the initial one[Psionics] went so amazingly well. I think the only content that we've added that has backfired so far was the ally system. [which, because we built it from the ground up, is inherently super-complicated.
McJarvis 07-19-07, 07:04 PM	It is only broken if you have access to many noncore spells. I'd agree with this. Given the class's lack of access to the Magic domain, lower hd, and weak BAB, I'd wager it wouldn't do well in CoCo at all as compared to the CoD. The biggest issue would be exactly what divine spells he could learn-> just the "free credit" divine spell-lists or the ones that creds can buy too? (Divine Bard) Might make an interesting mystic theurge or psychic theurge build, though. [Int is primary stat for divine class] All the same-> that's not here, but rather there.[in the far distant future] We're starting with Mind's Eye content.
hogarth 07-19-07, 07:13 PM	If it makes you feel any better: One of the reasons why Cat didn't mind ignoring everyone's nay-saying about adding new content was that the initial one[Psionics] went so amazingly well. And why is the Psionics material so popular? Because it doesn't cost any credits to use. :D
MindWandererB 07-19-07, 10:45 PM	And why is the Psionics material so popular? Because it doesn't cost any credits to use. :D And the UA material, while not free, has still been reasonably successful. Some variants are clearly better than others, but the fact remains that the UA stuff as a whole has fit into our game fairly well.
McJarvis 07-20-07, 01:13 PM	Of the material I posted from Mind's Eye, I think there are only a few hot-topics. Wilder Variant. Zevox believes this is too powerful, and given the hesitancy of people to accept Mind's Eye-> I'm inclined to go with him. While I see the upside of Volatile mind in the right environment[if ego whip builds were popular, for instance], I can see that the variant is more useful in 90% of circumstances. Crystal Master. This has been discussed in the tavaran-> Hirm gave a pretty good example of how the class isn't really better than the phrenic template. Meditant//Related feats. I think everyone agreed this must go. Body Leech. I question whether this class is even appropriate to include in CoCo, since there will undoubtable need to be many rulings made on how its mechanics work out. Elders comment as you will. I don't believe I missed anything, but if you object to anything else in Mind's Eye feel free to bring it up. I didn't look into it too much, but the "Reach" power might be another hot button. [since it can be stacked with expansion] edit-> Oh! And the PsiWarrior variant shouldn't be allowed to work with the Psychic Weapon Master[Soul Bound weapon too similar to the Bonded Weapon] :bump:
MitzaVolchenko 07-20-07, 02:46 PM	Just my two bent coppers, but new stuff tends to irritate me...part of my attraction to CoCo is that unluike my Sunday group, I don't have to have eleven resource books and the SRD handy in order to play (Ama'maianna=2 Abjurer-3Elf Paragon-2Master Specialist Abjurer-2 War Weaver-2 Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil). Anything that makes me rely on yet another source is a likely to be a 'no' in my world. If new content is VERY carefully considered and vetted, then perhaps okay.
Rauul 07-20-07, 03:12 PM	my 2 coppers... no new psionic stuph till psionics is brought into balance.. I mean honestly till we use the errata for complete psionics.. and quit finding broken things (touchsight is broken in regards to magic and even other psionic powers) as is energy ray/missile (that was errated to make it balanced)... the class like psionic assassin that gives manifester levels as well as the normal Assassin abilitys is out of balance for one... Just some things to think about before adding more stuph to here... Psionics is extremely powerful as is without more.. how about more non psionic things like Spells..
MindWandererB 07-20-07, 03:21 PM	:bump: Not gonna touch it until we have some sort of elder consensus to try it. So far we have Telin completely on the fence, Zevox with a tentative yes, NiQil with a firm no, and myself in the "yes" direction. Sauro said only that he doesn't want the whole set of Mind's Eye opened up, which I think we'd all agree with. Vath has said nothing. I'd really rather not go ahead with only one elder in favor of trying it (and that barely). That being said, perhaps a blow-by-blow might be facilitative. Prestige Classes Constructor: We've had astral construct specialists from time to time, although I know of none currently active. At the cost of 1-2 manifester levels and a couple of useless power selections, this PrC seems a little underpowered if anything. Crystal Master: I don't think so. Several of the gems grant pretty crazy abilities while psionically focused. Bonuses to any stat, PR, DR up to 6/-, up to +6 to AC and saves, automatic Escape Detection, automatic Touchsight... 1-2 manifester levels and 4 ranks in a useless skill aren't enough of a cost. Pyrokineticist variants: Meh, whatever. The damage penalties to alternative energy types seem balancing enough (although why make sonic different? 1d6-1 is almost statistically equivalent to 1d4). In our environment, they'd probably be weaker than the pyro, since Resist spells work equally for everything. Monsters and the rare PC with fire resistance would be the only exceptions. Sangehirn: Loses only 1 ML, requires one useless feat and one very unpopular skill, and can select new powers only from a very limited list which includes few powers I'd want. In exchange, you get d6 HD, medium BAB, DR 1/- per 2 class levels, fast healing up to 3, and the ability to use certain powers (Biofeedback, Vigor, Body Adjustment, Sustenance, Body Purification, and Suspend Life) on someone other than himself. Due mainly to the fairly crummy power list, I'm not too worried about this guy. A 3-level dip for a cohort, to get the ability to use Vigor, and perhaps Biofeedback, on the PC, would be my biggest concern, and I'm not at all sure it's a big one. Psychic Assassin: Marginally better than the core assassin, but only if you have a manifesting class already (see Psychic Rogue core class). Gaining normal ML progression for half the class levels, as opposed to the assassin spell list, seems a bit better, and this variant trades (Improved) Uncanny Dodge for some pretty nice options. I don't think it's overpowered in and of itself, but it's always cause for concern when something can be compared so directly and favorably to core material. Meditant: Requires the Psychic Meditation feat, which seems overpowered to me (PR of 5+ML for 1 hour? +2 to Int, Wis, and Cha?) Deep Psionic Meditation (also a requirement) only makes this worse. So I don't think so. Psychic Weapon Master: Massive feat requirements seem to be the balancing feature here; none of them are horrible feats, but none are great, either. Also can't use a special material weapon with any class benefits. The XP sacrifices would be a little wonky in our system, and could be abusable with moneymaking skills. However, my largest concern is with the crit enhancers, clearly based on the 3.0 Weapon Master (which never made it to 3.5, for good reason). How would you like a scythe with a 17-20 threat range, or a falchion with a 13-20 threat range, and the ability to increase crit damage by 1 multiplier (so 5x for the scyther, 3x for the falchion) once per day per two class levels? Add full BAB, half ML progression, bonus feats (including an extra +1 to Weapon Focus), and what effectively amounts to a free weapon (since it costs only XP), and we have a broken class. Psychic Theurge: In sharp contrast, a cookie-cutter PrC with mechanics basically identical to the Cerebremancer and Mystic Theurge. Should present no problems. Body Leech: The first red flag is that it gets website powers for free. The second is that it relies on the ability to have victims prepared 1000 feet or more away from the site of the battle. This is a great PrC for a villain, a poor one for a PC, and nearly unusable for us. Base Class Psychic Rogue: Compared to the core rogue, fewer skill points and slower sneak attack progression are the costs of having an ML progression inferior to that of a psychic warrior. The special abilities are also different, but seem reasonable (if not inferior to the core rogue). The power list is similar but inferior to that of the psychic warrior. I can't imagine how this guy could be broken. Alternative class features: Soulbound Weapon (Psychic Warrior): Spend a feat to soup up the power of Call Weaponry. I can't tell from the description whether you gain Weapon Focus as a bonus or if you're obligated to take it. If the latter, this seems like a reasonable use of a feat. If the former, it's too much--gain a feat and more in exchange for a feat? Hidden Talent (Soulknife): Er, no. Pure power over Wild Talent. Bonus Feats (Soulknife): With the limited feat selection that would apply in the SRD, this option is underpowered if anything. Some builds might have a use for it, though. Educated Wilder: Like Hidden Talent, this seems to be more of a balancing option (because the wilder is a weak class) than a balanced option. As such, it's probably not a good idea. Change Shape (Egoist): Useless in our environment. Energy Snap (Kineticist): I can't imagine how this would be a good choice in CoCo. Greater Animator (Kineticist): This too seems like a terrible choice. Personal Space (Nomad): Hardly seems worth a feat. Like Energy Snap, this seems more like a "flavor" option. Temporal Grace (Nomad): This might actually be a pretty good choice. As a feat replacement, it seems reasonable to me. Psychic Knowledge (Seer): I have no problem with this. It might be a smidge overpowered by the book (since in our environment, Bardic Knowledge is like Knowledge (everything)), but I don't think it would be unbalanced. Trinket (Shaper): Another "flavor" ability. Personal Construct (Shaper): This seems like a fine feat-like ability. Telepathic Communication (Telepath): If we were still using Diplomacy allies, this might have been a good choice. Now, I see no application for it. Harbinger (Telepath): An extra 5 PP for a chance of adding 1-3 to a mind-affecting power's DC? It might be worth it in some cases, but usually it's just better to augment or choose a different power. Might as well allow it. There are feats and powers as well, but I think the above is a good-enough starting point. To summarize, that's 4 PrCs, one base class, and six alternative class features that should be fine, one PrC and one class feature that are questionable, six class features that seem too weak to ever be useful, and four PrCs and two class features that are either overpowered or inappropriate (all in my opinion, of course).
MindWandererB 07-20-07, 03:27 PM	my 2 coppers... no new psionic stuph till psionics is brought into balance.. I mean honestly till we use the errata for complete psionics.. and quit finding broken things (touchsight is broken in regards to magic and even other psionic powers) as is energy ray/missile (that was errated to make it balanced)... Until that errata is published in a web-access or Open Game format, it's impossible for us to use. Just some things to think about before adding more stuph to here... Psionics is extremely powerful as is without more.. how about more non psionic things like Spells..We'll be careful about it, of course. As far as spells, there's not much to work with--nearly all of the spells on WotC's web site are 3.0. Many of them are 3.5-compatible, so we could consider it later... although I get the strong impression that we should take a break from add-ons for a while after this. @Mitza: You'll never need another source for CoCo besides the internet, and the core books we've already established. Anyone using any special options will have to link them to the source web page, and the Rules will link it as well.
Rauul 07-20-07, 04:44 PM	Until that errata is published in a web-access or Open Game format, it's impossible for us to use. We'll be careful about it, of course. As far as spells, there's not much to work with--nearly all of the spells on WotC's web site are 3.0. Many of them are 3.5-compatible, so we could consider it later... although I get the strong impression that we should take a break from add-ons for a while after this. @Mitza: You'll never need another source for CoCo besides the internet, and the core books we've already established. Anyone using any special options will have to link them to the source web page, and the Rules will link it as well. So i take it that you would rather add more NONE core things (psionics isn't core to begin with) than add to the Core material?
lonewolf 07-20-07, 04:47 PM	So i take it that you would rather add more NONE core things (psionics isn't core to begin with) than add to the Core material? :confused: I dont see where youre going with this. There is no Core material that we could add. All we can do is add noncore material...
MindWandererB 07-20-07, 04:55 PM	:confused: I dont see where youre going with this. There is no Core material that we could add. All we can do is add noncore material... I think what he's saying is that he'd rather add material to the core options, than add material to stuff that was itself an addition. We've already given core-rulebook material a similar treatment with the addition of UA material. Doing the same for Mind's Eye is just giving psionics more-or-less equal treatment.
Rauul 07-20-07, 05:22 PM	:confused: I dont see where youre going with this. There is no Core material that we could add. All we can do is add noncore material... well there is a very UNUSED ability of wizards to research personnel spells.. personnelly i would like to see this used.. maybe 2 credit per level of spell (+ the 1 week per level and the 1000 gp per level of spell researched) Gold and time is lost even if the spell is deamed by the elders/GM to be gamebreaking or abusive.. Example would be Corrupter's Touch of the Dead Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: Instantaneous/1 hour; see text Saving Throw: Yes Spell Resistance: Yes You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6) and The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage per two caster levels (maximum 10 str) unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. This spell would cost 6 credits to research if accepted as to not be to over powering for a level 3 spell, would also take 3 weeks of full activities and 3000 gp (that is gone no matter what) and require either being a member of a guild or a 10,000 gp library and/or a miniquest All this is in optional rules in Core books page 35 DMG (cost and time isn't in there but seemed reasonable.. think that may of been a 3.0 or 2nd edition thing)
MindWandererB 07-20-07, 07:57 PM	We've considered adding spell research to the rules in the past. Ultimately, it was decided to be too difficult to adjudicate.
Rauul 07-20-07, 08:16 PM	We've considered adding spell research to the rules in the past. Ultimately, it was decided to be too difficult to adjudicate. more difficult that digging through all the minds eye for more psionic things... shrug.. Both take balancing to be effective... one is core (optional) one isn't (as stated before psionics isn't even in the core rules) I will shut up now...
Rauul 07-20-07, 08:55 PM	Actually i will hush after this one... if you were to set up a Gladius Library thread, Set rules 2-5 credits per spell level of spell researched, 1000 gold and 1 week of full activity per spell level researched ... Using the guidelines of new spells on page 35 of the DMG, All casters could do this... even psionic could get new powers from it the same way (could also be used to research the minds eye stuph)... and all elders would have a say in rather a spell gets passed.. with the Elder in charge having the final say... (like sauro does for the black market) No Spells can be traded (like equipment) And if a Spell/ power is later ruled to overpowering, or game breaking then the spell is Erased from the Spell weave by the god of magic (the GM) with nothing refunded... personnel i can't see how this is more challenging than digging through all the Minds eye things in for Psionics and approving each knew feat/power and prestige class.. and regular classes... and it's in the DMG... Just something to think about before allowing in more none core material.. i am sure it will get dumped into file 13 and forgotten...
McJarvis 07-20-07, 09:57 PM	That being said, perhaps a blow-by-blow might be facilitative. Wow...was trying to avoid this kind of a massive discussion, but let's dive in :) [Anything not addressed is just hands-down agreed with] Prestige Classes Crystal Master: I don't think so. I don't think this is as bad as people seem to think-> but given that there are no good psion prestige classes to compare it to, I'm game for removing it. Sangehirn: Loses only 1 ML, requires one useless feat and one very unpopular skill, and can select new powers only from a very limited list which includes few powers I'd want. If you take psion/wilder levels again after starting in this class, can you pick from outside the list? That power-list isn't necessarily the end all of their powers. Psychic Assassin: Marginally better than the core assassin, I'm pretty sure it sux compared to the core assassin. Required ML 5 more or less labels it as a psi-rogue build only, unless you want to do Rogue 1/Egoist 5/Psi-Assassin X or something crazy like that. I played around with it for a while-> I still like the core assassin better. [half manifesting progression isn't good enough of a draw in my book] Psychic Weapon Master: Massive feat requirements seem to be the balancing feature here; none of them are horrible feats, but none are great, either. Also can't use a special material weapon with any class benefits. The XP sacrifices would be a little wonky in our system, and could be abusable with moneymaking skills. I think the weapon could be made out of deep crystal-> but yeah, no cold iron/silver/adamantine hurts. I don't think we'd charge the xp cost-> if it's good for magic crafters then it's good for this guy. However, my largest concern is with the crit enhancers, clearly based on the 3.0 Weapon Master (which never made it to 3.5, for good reason). How would you like a scythe with a 17-20 threat range, or a falchion with a 13-20 threat range, and the ability to increase crit damage by 1 multiplier (so 5x for the scyther, 3x for the falchion) once per day per two class levels? Add full BAB, half ML progression, bonus feats (including an extra +1 to Weapon Focus), and what effectively amounts to a free weapon (since it costs only XP), and we have a broken class. I'm not so sure. I think the prereqs are the killer: Able to manifest 3rd level powers sets min level at 5. Able to manifest 3rd level powers + have a +5 BAB boni sets min level at 7 [PsiWarrior-7] 6 feat requirement takes up most of your feats. Standard cheese tactics on deep-strike builds should be something like run/FoF, which further sinks feat investments. Add in that you can't really multiclass for large #'s of feats[fighter/ranger/barb/whatever] because of that 3rd level power restriction, and you have a tough class to get into. You won't be seeing the crit multipliers become an issue until much later in levels[when you'll be seeing level 5/6 spells]. I don't think it's an issue. Alternative class features: [list]Soulbound Weapon (Psychic Warrior): Spend a feat to soup up the power of Call Weaponry. I can't tell from the description whether you gain Weapon Focus as a bonus or if you're obligated to take it. If the latter, this seems like a reasonable use of a feat. If the former, it's too much--gain a feat and more in exchange for a feat? As it's written, you get weapon focus & another psionic feat at first level. It's too tempting to take a 1 level dip in: I'd say cut it. Hidden Talent (Soulknife): Er, no. Pure power over Wild Talent. Cut from my original list because it was "obviously better" Psychic Knowledge (Seer): I have no problem with this. It might be a smidge overpowered by the book (since in our environment, Bardic Knowledge is like Knowledge (everything)), but I don't think it would be unbalanced. Seer's don't have metamorph, so I don't see how it could be abused.
Vathelokai 07-20-07, 11:16 PM	Sorry I've been absents. Real life and all. I'll vent on that over in the tavern some time. As for restructuring credits; I'm all for it, but I think it can't be fixed by tweaks - it would need some sort of overhaul. I'll think on it. New content: I'm 75% against it. I was against the UA material as well. I came to the Core coliseum to play core stuff. I'm not against the minds eye stuff, or against UA; I just think that every few months we slide further from the COre. On bad days in the past, I used to call this place the CatCo, since it was less about core then about 'The Vision'TM. I would still be shakey on it even if the balance was perfect. That said, I'll review the material this weekend and give some feedback. Perhaps I should take a step back and explain why I was interested in adding that stuff. 1) Cat was working on it. He also wasn't the only one thinking about it. Although, his intention was to use it as a reward for pitlording massive amounts of fights (he wanted to debut it when Telin hit 100, but obviously he missed that deadline).Cat had dozen's of things he was working on. That doesn't carry much weight with me. This place is his baby, and that deserves something, but I'm not sure.... 2) The reason why we're the Core Coliseum is because of information limitations. That's why the whole SRD is included, not just the PHB/MM/DMG. By that logic, web enhancements are not impossible.Your logic's shakey here. It's pretty clearly laid out in the rules thread (over here, at the very bottom) what Cat originally thought of non-core material. Although Cat changed his tune later, It's good to remember his admontion: there were two arena's before this and they both failed within a year. I think that the reason we're the Core coliseum is so that we have a boundry, so things don't get out of hand, and the idea of an 'Open-Source Coliseum' is a later development. 3) The more options we have, the better. Although there is a vast number of combinations of classes, races, and feats possible, folks do get bored. There's a certain evolution of players here: a beginning player typically takes a single-class favorite of theirs, then a "standard" optimized character (tripper, straight caster, etc.), then tries one or two exotic things, and if they're still around after that we're lucky. Greater versatility helps us maintain a larger member base.I agree and disagree. It's a balancing act between the amount of options; too few is boring, too many is irritating/overwhelming or boring. Enought philosophizing; off to earn my elder title...
Vathelokai 07-21-07, 12:31 AM	Sorry this keeps getting lost... I'd hereby move to give it the price and weight of a halbard (10 gp, 12 lbs). Any objections? Just before the discussion about adding the Mind Eye and other web enchantment stuff I raised a question about the Pincer staff from the Kuo-Tao. The pincer staff is a weapon used by the Kuo-Tao and is listed under the monster entry of it. Now when you read the description is says that it is an exotic weapon but it is listed under the special attacks entry of the Kuo-Tao. Now I want to know if: 1. All Kuo-Tao come equipped with the pincer staff. 2. If there is a cost related with it. 3. If the uo-Tao are proficient with it. It is not listed as an attack option in the (Full) Attack line but it is listed under the special attack line. There was some discussion about the staff in the tavern where some said it isn't allowed just like the sleep arrows of the pixie and others said that if the Kuo-Tao come equipped with the pincer staff that the Ghaele should come equipped with the holy sword listed under his attack entry. I think that the Pincer staff is different on both arguments. The Pixie's special arrows is an Ex ability while the Pincer staff is a weapon and the Ghaele holy weapon is a weapon that is available through gold that any creature could have bought and it could easily be another weapon with different enchantments. Without the holy sword a Ghaele would still be a Ghaele. It doesn't change its entry in the mm/srd while removing the Pincer staff from the Kuo-Tao would change the mm entry. For reference here is the Pincer staff described as in the mm: Many Kuo-Tao fighters and all whips of 7th level of higher carry this Large exotic weapon. A pincer staff deals 1d10 points of bludgeoning damage, threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20, and deals double damage on a critical hit. It has 10-foot reach and cannot be used against an adjacent opponent. A wielder that hits an opponent of at least Small but no larger than Large can attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the wielder wins the grapple check, the staff establishes a hold and grabs the opponent, dealing 1d10 points of damage each round the hold is maintained.
Zevox 07-21-07, 01:22 AM	Sorry this keeps getting lost... I'd hereby move to give it the price and weight of a halbard (10 gp, 12 lbs). Any objections? Yes. It clearly has a unique special ability that is worth far more than that - seriously, grappling with a weapon for the weapon's damage? And its two-handed, so it gets str*1.5 to damage with that? Personally, I'd just say no to it - trying to assign a fair price is going to be too much trouble, and its clearly not an item designed for PC use. Zevox
McJarvis 07-21-07, 09:14 AM	Yes. It clearly has a unique special ability that is worth far more than that - seriously, grappling with a weapon for the weapon's damage? And its two-handed, so it gets str*1.5 to damage with that? Personally, I'd just say no to it - trying to assign a fair price is going to be too much trouble, and its clearly not an item designed for PC use. Zevox It's an exotic, though. I think the feat trade-off is good enough. Also note that you can't just make grapple attacks with it: so the touch attack aspect disappears [which, IMO, is one of the benefits of being a grappler]
Vathelokai 07-21-07, 06:57 PM	Kuo-toa weapon price Prices orc double axe 60 vs battleaxe 10 spiked chain 25 vs guisarme 9 dire flail 90 vs flail 8 double sword 100 vs longsword 15 Note: weapons compared on dice rolled for damage. So it looks like going from a regular weapon to an exotic one with a bonus ability has anywhere from a x3 to a x7 markup. So lets take it a step forward; a halbard costs 10 gp - we give the kuo-toa polearm a x10 markup for 100gp. It just seems to me like it should be allowed, since we allow the race to be played.
hogarth 07-21-07, 07:12 PM	It just seems to me like it should be allowed, since we allow the race to be played. Savage Species puts the price for a Pincer Staff at 8 gp. Just to clarify, are you saying anyone can buy one or just a Kuo-Toa? Savage Species also prices pixie memory loss arrows at 607 gp each, and sleep arrows at 107 gp each.
Sjiggie 07-21-07, 07:32 PM	Do note that the pincer staff in the savage species only deals 1d4 damage while the MM one deals 1d10 damage on a succesfull hit. Upping the cost to 50gp seems reasonable to me then.
MitzaVolchenko 07-21-07, 07:37 PM	Savage Species puts the price for a Pincer Staff at 8 gp. Just to clarify, are you saying anyone can buy one or just a Kuo-Toa? Savage Species also prices pixie memory loss arrows at 607 gp each, and sleep arrows at 107 gp each. Bah! They'll never give me the arrows...I'd consider rebuying Sliver for the memory arrows....could care less about sleep...
TheMagister 07-22-07, 10:47 AM	Can anyone seriously say that the pincer staff is more useful than a spiked chain? I have no problem with allowing them into the CoCo (since they're already Core). An exotic weapon price (the 100gp) sounds fine to me. TM
MindWandererB 07-22-07, 05:05 PM	Regarding monster-only gear: I think we need a more general ruling about such things. The pincer staff, the pixie arrows, satyr pipes... all are designed for monster use only. It's hard to tell whether those items were considered in the monsters' LA (although the satyr entry suggests they were). I'm not too worried about the pincer staff (mundane weapons are dirt cheap in the grand scheme of things), but it sets a precedent for the others that we need to be wary of. The memory loss arrows are an even bigger kettle of fish, because it's extremely questionable what a creature would do under their effects. They can't be used to force a surrender or the equivalent--the pixie would still have to defeat them somehow. Very messy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- There's one more small item I'd like folks to consider. NiQil, who hates miniquests, suggested that one might be able to use credits to avoid having to do one. I'm inclined to agree with his suggestion, that if someone really wants to avoid having to MQ for a PrC, ally, or whatever, then 3 credits is a reasonable price. Opinions?
Erithmu 07-22-07, 05:53 PM	There's one more small item I'd like folks to consider. NiQil, who hates miniquests, suggested that one might be able to use credits to avoid having to do one. I'm inclined to agree with his suggestion, that if someone really wants to avoid having to MQ for a PrC, ally, or whatever, then 3 credits is a reasonable price. Opinions? Miniquest counts as 2 activations ... make it 2 credits ... *shrugs* Edit: Although I can see the reasoning on 3 ... if you don't 'penalize' them then it doesn't change the cost. They also don't operate under a fight cycle. I might add the restriction can only be done between cycles, as that is when MQ allies would become available due to training, animating. For PrC stuff I think that there would be enough notice to spend the credits before leveling. Sorry thinking a little off the top of my head.
hogarth 07-22-07, 07:23 PM	There's one more small item I'd like folks to consider. NiQil, who hates miniquests, suggested that one might be able to use credits to avoid having to do one. I'm inclined to agree with his suggestion, that if someone really wants to avoid having to MQ for a PrC, ally, or whatever, then 3 credits is a reasonable price. Opinions? I've wondered this for a long time -- why do we force characters to do miniquests at all for PrC requirements that could easily have been met outside of the Core Coliseum (e.g. killing someone, finding the Talariic texts, peacefully contacting an evil outsider)? Since we're now able to repeat the same miniquest ad nauseum until we succeed, it's just a waste of time (if you're not interested in the roleplay aspect of it).
NiQil 07-22-07, 07:38 PM	I've wondered this for a long time -- why do we force characters to do miniquests at all for PrC requirements that could easily have been met outside of the Core Coliseum (e.g. killing someone, finding the Talariic texts, peacefully contacting an evil outsider)? Since we're now able to repeat the same miniquest ad nauseum until we succeed, it's just a waste of time (if you're not interested in the roleplay aspect of it). Which is part of the reason I made the proposal. For me, miniquests are a waste of time. I prefer the arena. I felt that giving people a way to achieve some of those things that currently require mini's, like qualifying for a PrC or guild entry or gaining a handle animal ally, without having to go through a mini if they don't want to, was a viable alternative. This way, people still have a free way to do it (mini's), but if they don't want to do a mini or are on a time crunch to get their character to a certain point by a certain date, they have an alternative. Plus, it gives another outlet to spend credits without, in my opinion, creating a situation that causes an imbalance of power.
Zevox 07-22-07, 08:53 PM	There's one more small item I'd like folks to consider. NiQil, who hates miniquests, suggested that one might be able to use credits to avoid having to do one. I'm inclined to agree with his suggestion, that if someone really wants to avoid having to MQ for a PrC, ally, or whatever, then 3 credits is a reasonable price. Opinions? I'd be fine with it. Sometimes I've wondered why we don't allow characters looking to enter PrCs with such prerequisites to simply be presumed to have done so in their backstory (mostly due to Asran - to be a Blackguard he had to quest to "make peaceful contact with an evil outsider," even though he grew up in Hell?), and this would be a way to allow that. Not that I'd actually have paid for such with Asran (I like RPing him too much, and with KU around it was even better), but it would've been nice just to know it was an option. Zevox
hogarth 07-23-07, 07:30 AM	I'm honestly at a loss to know why we require miniquests to enter some prestige classes. Does anyone have a rationale for it? (...other than "Caterane said so and it's always been that way.") :confused: In other words, why don't we just remove the requirement altogether rather than requiring credits to avoid it? (Please: do not use the argument "new uses for credits will increase the number of pitlords" unless you can back it up somehow.) I'd be fine with it. Sometimes I've wondered why we don't allow characters looking to enter PrCs with such prerequisites to simply be presumed to have done so in their backstory (mostly due to Asran - to be a Blackguard he had to quest to "make peaceful contact with an evil outsider," even though he grew up in Hell?), and this would be a way to allow that. Not that I'd actually have paid for such with Asran (I like RPing him too much, and with KU around it was even better), but it would've been nice just to know it was an option.
MitzaVolchenko 07-23-07, 08:28 AM	Which is part of the reason I made the proposal. For me, miniquests are a waste of time. I prefer the arena. I felt that giving people a way to achieve some of those things that currently require mini's, like qualifying for a PrC or guild entry or gaining a handle animal ally, without having to go through a mini if they don't want to, was a viable alternative. This way, people still have a free way to do it (mini's), but if they don't want to do a mini or are on a time crunch to get their character to a certain point by a certain date, they have an alternative. Plus, it gives another outlet to spend credits without, in my opinion, creating a situation that causes an imbalance of power. That is particularly true since you can fail as many as it takes to win without waiting a level to try again :)
MitzaVolchenko 07-23-07, 08:37 AM	Regarding monster-only gear: I think we need a more general ruling about such things. The pincer staff, the pixie arrows, satyr pipes... all are designed for monster use only. It's hard to tell whether those items were considered in the monsters' LA (although the satyr entry suggests they were). I'm not too worried about the pincer staff (mundane weapons are dirt cheap in the grand scheme of things), but it sets a precedent for the others that we need to be wary of. The memory loss arrows are an even bigger kettle of fish, because it's extremely questionable what a creature would do under their effects. They can't be used to force a surrender or the equivalent--the pixie would still have to defeat them somehow. Very messy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- There's one more small item I'd like folks to consider. NiQil, who hates miniquests, suggested that one might be able to use credits to avoid having to do one. I'm inclined to agree with his suggestion, that if someone really wants to avoid having to MQ for a PrC, ally, or whatever, then 3 credits is a reasonable price. Opinions? Any monster equipment that is actually an Ex is assuredly in the LA calculation. I would say any that have a save DC associated to the creature's stats would be as well. As for that silly ruling that you have to beat your opponent to death...it is just that...silly. Example: Sliver fires memory loss arrows into opponent until they can't remember why they are where they are. She then stows her bow and drops her invisibility. She flutters down and has to make a bluff check to convince them that they are in the wrong arena. They got a save...same as they would have for say drow poison which renders someone unconscious. And with memory loss they get a Sense Motive vs. her Bluff for an additional chance to not walk out of the arena and take a loss for being outside the arena for 10 rounds. There are more ways than brute DPS to win in D&D. It gets a little tiresome to have those constantly discounted in CoCo.
MindWandererB 07-23-07, 12:22 PM	As for that silly ruling that you have to beat your opponent to death...it is just that...silly. Example: Sliver fires memory loss arrows into opponent until they can't remember why they are where they are. She then stows her bow and drops her invisibility. She flutters down and has to make a bluff check to convince them that they are in the wrong arena. They got a save...same as they would have for say drow poison which renders someone unconscious. And with memory loss they get a Sense Motive vs. her Bluff for an additional chance to not walk out of the arena and take a loss for being outside the arena for 10 rounds. There are more ways than brute DPS to win in D&D. It gets a little tiresome to have those constantly discounted in CoCo.CoCo is basically about beating your opponent to death. You can't solve a problem diplomatically. You can't sneak your way around a dangerous encounter. You can't just decide to do something else. You have to fight. There are practical considerations, too; Charm Person should not be a save-or-die spell, for instance. Such effects can also be hard to adjudicate; Sense Motive vs. Bluff is certainly one reasonable way, but what if Sliver didn't take that option? How would the PC react? Particularly if the PC recognized that they were clearly in a combat situation but didn't know who the opponent was? It's messy.
Rauul 07-24-07, 02:33 PM	this isn't on the agenda... but has been brought up every time I talk about a rouges guild.. and a Player owned shop... so here goes There has been Talk about a living City... where Player Charaters can make Shops and sell items, make thier own personnel Thieves Guilds and effect the city as a whole... The first thing that i see when looking at Gladius is that is it really several Communities that make it up (Districts) each distric has thier own personality So the First thing is to break down the Districs into what they Tolerate and Intolerant and outright hate.. (the number i oput in there are just filler numbers not the real numbers) O==============- -======================================== ===============O |DISTRICT ||Humans |demi-humans|Goblinoids |Outsiders|Undead|Beasts| O==============- -======================================== ===============O |Arcadivius ||2000 |2000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Arkhein ||3000 |1000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Central Gladius||2000 |1000 |1000 |4000 |9000 |2000 | |Chandar Forest ||2000 |3000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Dragor Mounds ||2000 |3000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Duken Marina ||2000 |1000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |3000 | |Gawane ||2000 |1000 |2000 |3000 |9000 |1000 | |Gauterix ||2000 |1000 |3000 |1000 |9000 |2000 | |Gladius Park ||6000 |2000 |2000 |2000 |9000 |1000 | |Gorthyum ||2000 |1000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |High Traversam ||2000 |1000 |3000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Kailo ||2000 |1000 |2000 |2000 |9000 |1000 | |Kelartus ||2000 |1000 |1000 |3000 |9000 |1000 | |Luna March ||0000 |1000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |2000 | |Lower Merx ||2000 |1000 |5000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Merisia ||2000 |1000 |1000 |2000 |9000 |1000 | |Plains Naesitya||1000 |2000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |2000 | |Upper Merx ||2000 |1000 |2000 |3000 |9000 |1000 | |Valhamya ||2000 |1000 |1000 |1000 |9000 |1000 | |Vilis ||2000 |1000 |2000 |1000 |9000 |3000 | |Yurynwood ||1000 |2000 |1000 |2000 |9000 |1000 | O==============- -======================================== ===============O O===========O==========O | ATTITUDE | THRESHOLD| O===========O==========O |Hostile | 9000 | |Unfriendly | 6000 | |Indifferent| 4000 | |Friendly | 3000 | |Helpful | 2000 | |Fanatic | 1000 | O===========O==========O Once that is done, then each district gets to deside what tax rate they charge on Items sold there..(i suggest that the guild leaders who have the best influence in the districs set the % along with the Living City Elder) Each district would get that % from each piece of player created item sold from their collum, (see Player shops below) O==============- -======================================== ===============O |DISTRICT ||Weps|Armor|Scrolls|Potions|Crime|wonde r|wands|Alignment| O==============- -======================================== ===============O |Arcadivius ||5% |2% |6% |4% |2% |4% |3% | NE | |Arkhein ||3% | | | | | | | | |Central Gladius|| | | | | | | | | |Chandar Forest || | | | | | | | | |Dragor Mounds || | | | | | | | | |Duken Marina || | | | | | | | | |Gawane || | | | | | | | | |Gauterix || | | | | | | | | |Gladius Park || | | | | | | | | |Gorthyum || | | | | | | | | |High Traversam || | | | | | | | | |Kailo || | | | | | | | | |Kelartus || | | | | | | | | |Luna March || | | | | | | | | |Lower Merx || | | | | | | | | |Merisia || | | | | | | | | |Plains Naesitya|| | | | | | | | | |Upper Merx || | | | | | | | | |Valhamya || | | | | | | | | |Vilis || | | | | | | | | |Yurynwood || | | | | | | | | O==============- -======================================== ===============O 2-10% would be the lowest to highest O======O====O====O====O====O====O====O== ==O====O====O | |CG |NG |LG |LN |N |CN |NE |LE | CE | O=====- ====O====O====O====O====O====O====O====O ====O | CG <| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | NG <| 1 | | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | LG <| 2 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | LN <| 3 | 3 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | N <| 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | CN <| 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 3 | 2 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | NE <| 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | LE <| 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | | 1 | O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | CE <| 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | O=====- ====O====O====O====O====O====O====O====O ====O Alignment is number +1= Alignment Multiplier
Rauul 07-24-07, 02:34 PM	The Formula to buy a shop would be as follows Distric price + Attitude x Alignment - Diplomatic % (shops doing more that 1 type of busness Scrolls and potions use the highest % + 1/4 of the others to determine shop cost/setup) using Corrupter for an Example..Setting up a scroll shop in Arcadivius District price 6000 (%x1000)+ Additude [Indifferent] 4000 (4 from fanic x 1000) X 1(no change) =10,000-26% =7400 gp Now lets say he wanted to open one up in Valhamya who is helpful to humans and only charged 3% for scrolls District price 3000 (%x1000)+ Additude [Fanatic] 1000 (1 for fanic x 1000)=4000-26% =2960 gp weekly upkeep cost would be equal to the crime rate + Alignment x 100 12+1x100= 1300 a week to keep a Store open in a 12% crime rate district that matchs your alignment (is seriously in a players best interest to go on quests to drop the crime rates.. and to keep them low.. LOL) Still a Large investment in the hope that Players would rather pay 5% less for a scroll from him than from the average joe blow scroll dealer, or for Spell services from him than your NPC casters.. Crime rate is a little Different.. each distric has one.. this % is removed from the Profit of the Seller.. the Cost of doing busness.. In some districts this may be the Extorsion rate of the protection racket.. ect.. Players can do quests/miniquests to raise and lower this.. as well as normal player quests should adjust these percents as players and monsters on Quests tear of the districs.. (should be desided by the Living City Elder.. simular to how the Guild elder adjust for the guilds) Living City Elder's Job... Approve Shops purchuses, Items sold in shops, approve the items being sold (like the black market elder does), as well as once a week check quests to see if % raise or fall in districs... A player places a Commision in the Living City Thread... to have a Mitheral Full Plate armor made... the Armorers Deside if they want to put thier charater to full activites to make this item... once the price is agreeded to the Purchuser payes full price upfront, the crafter Starts the Crafting on next full cycle.... and when the item is crafted the Purchuser gets it... this goes for all items.. If a custom item is being commisioned via the Blackmarket.. then the buyer pays the credits.. not the crafter.. Example.. Gravebound commitions Corrupter to make a Pair of Boots, Winged.. Corrupter agrees, and sets his charater to Full activity crafting boots of Speed 16 days, Gravebound pays up front for the item.. 16,000 - (5% discount 5% guild discount)=10% = 14400 gp.. corrupter gains 6400- (crime rate 3%+ tax 5%)=8% = 5888 for his 3 weeks of work to buy or craft something for himself...
MindWandererB 07-24-07, 03:17 PM	In response: there are good points and bad points to that plan. First, the bad: I've said it a thousand times, but we will never allow any kind of add-on to affect character strength, with the exception of Leadership followers. If we allow characters who participate in sub-games to get main-game advantages, it basically obligates everyone to learn and participate in a complex, non-D&D sub-game if they want to be competitive. So getting any kind of discount for your characters is out of the question. However, the good: we (well, mostly just me) are working on the Community add-on, which will have some sort of economy of its own. Eventually, the guild system will be revamped to dovetail with the Community system, but we're looking very far in the future there. So, to address how your proposal would look in the upcoming system: District "personality": it's an interesting idea. That "personality" would be defined by the residents of that district, possibly as a modification to some default values like you propose. Sales: While characters can't benefit from subgame activities, it's possible for the main game to affect the subgame. There will also definitely be a way for characters to own businesses in this system. It would be difficult for every purchase of every character to be reflected in this system, but we might be able to work something out. More likely it would stay entirely within the subgame. It's an interesting idea, and I'll definitely keep the gist of it in mind as the elders and I work on the Community add-on.
Rauul 07-24-07, 05:29 PM	In response: there are good points and bad points to that plan. First, the bad: I've said it a thousand times, but we will never allow any kind of add-on to affect character strength, with the exception of Leadership followers. If we allow characters who participate in sub-games to get main-game advantages, it basically obligates everyone to learn and participate in a complex, non-D&D sub-game if they want to be competitive. So getting any kind of discount for your characters is out of the question. However, the good: we (well, mostly just me) are working on the Community add-on, which will have some sort of economy of its own. Eventually, the guild system will be revamped to dovetail with the Community system, but we're looking very far in the future there. So, to address how your proposal would look in the upcoming system: District "personality": it's an interesting idea. That "personality" would be defined by the residents of that district, possibly as a modification to some default values like you propose. Sales: While characters can't benefit from subgame activities, it's possible for the main game to affect the subgame. There will also definitely be a way for characters to own businesses in this system. It would be difficult for every purchase of every character to be reflected in this system, but we might be able to work something out. More likely it would stay entirely within the subgame. It's an interesting idea, and I'll definitely keep the gist of it in mind as the elders and I work on the Community add-on. So basically you don't want a living city.. where characters can actually effect the city and the community.. you want a static city.. filled with Epic wizards who manufacture magic devices for anyone with a gold coin.. not a place where player characters can actually effect the economy and develop over time... you have Players out there with Armor smithing and weapon smithing that get jack for having them except 1/2 price on their weapons/armor.. they can't even use them for making money during the time they aren't crafting their own equipment... How often in a players career do they use these skills... 3 times.. maybe.. But thats your call... really don't care if you use any of it or not... I just converted a living city we did online (2nd edition) formulas to Gladius formula base...
MindWandererB 07-24-07, 06:10 PM	So basically you don't want a living city.. where characters can actually effect the city and the community.. you want a static city.. filled with Epic wizards who manufacture magic devices for anyone with a gold coin.. not a place where player characters can actually effect the economy and develop over time... you have Players out there with Armor smithing and weapon smithing that get jack for having them except 1/2 price on their weapons/armor.. they can't even use them for making money during the time they aren't crafting their own equipment... How often in a players career do they use these skills... 3 times.. maybe.. But thats your call... really don't care if you use any of it or not... I just converted a living city we did online (2nd edition) formulas to Gladius formula base...<sigh> I don't really want to defend myself, but I will anyway. Yes, we can have a living city. Yes, the characters can affect the city and the community, when we get the add-on running. But the city cannot affect the players because that forces everyone to learn the city rules. Period. Imagine how you'd feel if you just wanted to play D&D, and you got trounced right off the bat by a player who got twice as much gear as you because they worked a system that had nothing to do with D&D and took them months to learn. The players with Craft (armor), etc. already get a fat benefit--I think that saving 8,250 gp on a suit of adamantine full plate is well worth a few skill ranks. If we allow them to use those skills to make money in addition to that, then the other Craft and Profession skills become useless. If you want to make money off a Craft skill, we have rules for that; you just can't do it with weapons, armor, bows, alchemy, poison, or traps. Remember, since we're a competitive environment, we have to consider things that aren't as important in a cooperative environment, and especially a 2nd Edition game (where balance was... questionable, anyway).
SauroGrenom 07-24-07, 06:35 PM	Also in defense of MWB's reply, we should note that 3rd edition is not intended to be an economy game with shopkeepers. It has been stated in several places by official wizards staff that there is no such thing as economy of scale in 3rd edition. DnD is intended to be about adventuring cooperatively with friends, storytelling and character development... not making money for a character. Rather what I think of as a Living Gladius is a mechanism for active storytelling and history development in a way that allows meaningful interaction between the stories and history of various characters. Our current game is heavy on character development(fighting and gaining rewards and leveling a character). And we are lighter on storytelling, history and adventuring in a cooperative manner. Guilds help build a framework for cooperative gaming and for history and character development. But there is also the strategy game framework that is a part of the guild game and is in fact most of the guildmaster's duties.
TheMagister 07-24-07, 07:47 PM	I know that as far as I am concerned, the Living Guilds system is responsible for about 75% of the reason I haven't gotten bored here, yet. I only like building characters that don't already exist. We're quickly reaching the point at which we will only be able to create permutations on previous builds: there's nothing new under the sun, in other words. The guild system is single-handedly responsible for at least two of my characters' personalities, and Sdentch and Hood are much more fun because of it. :) The strategy part of the guild game is secondary to me. I like it, but I don't love it. Hell, I'm barely keeping up as it is! Also, I personally find it difficult to maintain a grudge against an organization (the CEF) that's proving to be willing to help undermine itself for the sake of storyline. Gwar's no maniacal terrorist: if they're willing to change, then that's great. I consider my first guildmaster duty the creation of, participation in, and continuation of Gladosian storylines. I can only speak for myself in this, but I think that Vath and Telin are the same way. Sauro is not so much (RL is interfering -- GL with the med school!), and poor MWB and Zevox just don't have the time to participate the way they'd like to. I'm happy with the current stalemate. Times of unrest promote good RP. The Denthian storyline is rockin'. The surge of participation is a good hint that many people really like the RP aspect of the guild game. I'm not against change at all, but I am against change for the sake of change. It's workin' now. I think we should let it ride for awhile. TM
MindWandererB 07-24-07, 09:18 PM	TM has pretty much hit on exactly what I want to do with the RP side of things. The problems with the guild system are that 1) it does have that strategy subgame aspect of it, which few players pay any attention to, and 2) it's so much larger than each individual that only the guildmasters really have any control of where things go. That's my main reason for trying to get the Community going: my vision for that, hazy as it is, will allow each character to have control over his or her own destiny. Each one will have a story (should they choose to pursue that). They may or may not choose to influence any of the environmental factors, but the important thing is that each one will have some purpose beyond fighting in the arena and questing for allies. Something like a cross between TT D&D and an MMORPG. The other thing is that I'd really like the Newspaper to get started again. Having a brief paragraph about a fight, a quest, or a character, in a place where everybody looks whether they care about that character or not, really helps bring them life. Vath is supposed to be assembling a crack team of reporters, when he has time. (Interested parties: PM him.)
Sjiggie 07-25-07, 02:01 PM	Can I get a final ruling on the pincer staff. The opinions now are Vathelokai thinks it can be used with a price of 100gp and 12lbs weight Zevox is against allowing it Both McJarvis and TheMagister agree on letting PC use it MindwandererB want to have a general rule on monster equipment.
MindWandererB 07-25-07, 02:35 PM	Since neither McJ or TM are elders, we need at least one more elder opinion.
TelinArtho 07-25-07, 02:47 PM	On the basis that it would open up the can of worms of other monster equipment that is "difficult to balance" (pixie arrows and the like) - I'm fairly against it. It just looks like it will be a pain to maintain.
TheMagister 07-25-07, 11:25 PM	Since neither McJ or TM are elders, we need at least one more elder opinion. Boo! :) On the basis that it would open up the can of worms of other monster equipment that is "difficult to balance" (pixie arrows and the like) - I'm fairly against it. It just looks like it will be a pain to maintain. It's not like there are a whole bunch of monster-weapons to deal with, bro. A simple: "Any PC monster class can bring with it any non-magical equipment listed in its entry at no cost to the character. It is assumed that the monster PC began its adventuring career with access to such mundane and easily attainable equipment. Non-magical versions of magical weapons can be substituted. For example, a PC Bralani Eladrin would start off with a masterwork scimitar and a mighty (+4 str) composite longbow instead of a +1 holy scimitar and a +1 holy mighty (+4 str) composite longbow." Easy breezy. TM
lonewolf 07-28-07, 08:16 AM	From the Tavern: Can touchsight be used to locate an invisible manifested ghost? I would say no, but only have a noncore source to support this: ... Nonvisual Senses, such as blindsight, are either ineffective, or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures. In almost all cases, nonvisual senses are ineffective in detecting or pinpointing incorporeal creatures; blindsense, blindsight, scent and tremorsense are all useless. If the incorporeal creature chooses to make noise, it can be detected via normal hearing or by blindsense or blindsight based on acute hearing. If a creature possesses some other nonvisual sense, the DM should use best judgement in determining the effectiveness of that sense in detecting an incorporeal creature, using the preceding information as a guide. ... If I recall it correctly, there was already a discussion about this once and it was ruled in my favor. Can an Elder approve this?
waywreth 07-28-07, 10:12 AM	From the Tavern: I would say no, but only have a noncore source to support this: If I recall it correctly, there was already a discussion about this once and it was ruled in my favor. Can an Elder approve this? I would disagree. The power doesn't specify you can't see incorporeal forms. It says, "you can detect and pinpoint all creatures within 60 feet". Bolding is mine. Zevox said no in the Tavern, but I'd like a second opinion and to have it added to the house rules if the decision is final.
MindWandererB 07-28-07, 01:18 PM	First of all, this belongs in the Courtroom, not the Council. I agree with Zevox: touchsight relies on touch, and incorporeal creatures can't be felt. The description of the power trumps the accidental use of the word "all," IMO. That's like saying a targeted spell affects all creatures in a certain area, without accounting for the fact that you need LOS to target. Now for another topic: monster gear. Telin, you've been testing my proposed guidelines for a while now. Any conclusions?
Vathelokai 07-28-07, 01:29 PM	I've been testing them as well, though I havn't gotten to the dragon yet... So far so good.
TelinArtho 07-28-07, 01:57 PM	I think they work well so far.
templer10 07-28-07, 02:02 PM	on the monster gear situation - i think everyone would apriciate some kind of resolution to it soon. another point i want to raise - it's a fairly long standing tradition here (As i understand) that CR=ECL as far as monster fights are concerned, But the problem is that many MANY cases it really isnt and it creates a situation which the monster is so much more powerfull then the Gladitor that there is little point if any to actually running the Fight. the problem is there with just normal monsters but you cant really do much about it - the problem is multiplied many times over when you start dealing with templeted monsters which usually get exponensioly stronger with very little increase in CR. a few examples - 1)a half dragon Ogre - ECL 9 in the ECL 5 league. 2)Fiendish pherenic owlbear - ECL 9 at ECL 6 league 3)half celestial gryphon - ECL 13 at ECL 6 league 4)see hag vampire - ECL 11 at ecl 6 league. 5)5th level vampire fighter - ECL 13 at ecl 7 league 6)half fiend troll - ECL 14 at ecl 7 league 7)Fiensidh young red dragon ECL 20! at ECL 9 league (like dragons arent overpowered as is) 8)the many man half dragon/half fiend/half celestial things at ECL 9+ i know those lists have been here around for a while and adding template is a way to get variety on monsters But why give a gladiator an unbeatable opponent? it's not in any way shape or form "fun". i know we cant do away with mechanisem of CR=ECL completly But if we are doing for allies that if a monster has a Level adjusment listed we use that to calculate when you can use it an ally - why cant we use the same rule for monsters?
Hirumajoe 07-28-07, 05:11 PM	another point i want to raise - it's a fairly long standing tradition here (As i understand) that CR=ECL as far as monster fights are concerned, But the problem is that many MANY cases it really isnt and it creates a situation which the monster is so much more powerfull then the Gladitor that there is little point if any to actually running the Fight. Remember, monsters do not get near as much equipment as characters, nor do they get the 36 point buy. We're aiming for a 50/50 success rate while table top is aiming for around 100% success (assuming the characters work together well.) I personally think setting up CoCo characters against equal CR monsters is about the right level of difficultly. However, the fact of the matter is a single character doesn't have the options that an adventuring party has. the problem is there with just normal monsters but you cant really do much about it - the problem is multiplied many times over when you start dealing with templeted monsters which usually get exponensioly stronger with very little increase in CR. Actually, the challenge rating system is an exponential like system. A level 20 character is far stronger than 20 ECL 1 characters. Remember, +2 Cr is supposedly twice as tough. Thus you can have two ECL 6 Ogres or one ECL 9 Ogre. Versus a single ECL 5 character. :) But those ogres really aren't ECL 6 or 9 because they don't have the equivalent wealth. The really big difference is that CRs are designed for parties of 4. And its not the factor of 4 thats the problem, its the breadth of abilities that is. The breadth of abilities available tends to much smaller for a CoCo character compared to a full adventuring party, and thus, having the right abilities to deal with a certain monster can be a problem. Especially with arena focused builds (as opposed to monster focused builds). Unfortunately, there's not much you can do for that. a few examples - 1)a half dragon Ogre - ECL 9 in the ECL 5 league. 2)Fiendish pherenic owlbear - ECL 9 at ECL 6 league 3)half celestial gryphon - ECL 13 at ECL 6 league 4)see hag vampire - ECL 11 at ecl 6 league. 5)5th level vampire fighter - ECL 13 at ecl 7 league 6)half fiend troll - ECL 14 at ecl 7 league 7)Fiensidh young red dragon ECL 20! at ECL 9 league (like dragons arent overpowered as is) 8)the many man half dragon/half fiend/half celestial things at ECL 9+ Certain monsters, even without templates are simply going to be unbeatable for certain character types. For example, take a Greater Earth Elemental at ECL 9 in the sewers against *any* melee type. Btw, Fiendish young red dragon is ECL 21, not 20. :) Look on the bright side, it could have been two ECL 19 young red dragons. I'm pretty sure that would have been worse. On the other hand, at ECL 20, a fiendish young red dragon is going to be a push over. Even for a fighter. i know we cant do away with mechanisem of CR=ECL completly But if we are doing for allies that if a monster has a Level adjusment listed we use that to calculate when you can use it an ally - why cant we use the same rule for monsters? If you do that, you'll find monsters losing badly. Take that Half Dragon Ogre. You want a 4 HD Giant type monster going up against a level 9 Fighter? The Ogre has less than 40 hit points while the fighter has something like 72 or more depending on constitution. He'll have a better AC, better to hit and probably flying boots. Lets not even talk about a level 9 Wizard... Anyways, the template isn't the big problem. Just imagine replacing the template with a second copy of the monster. The issue is being able to deal with unique strengths and weaknesses of any particular monster with any particular build. With only a single character, its going to be virtually impossible (except possibly in the case of a properly prepared Wizard) to deal with all possible monster types. Since they're designed to show case different members of the party. Or even teamwork between party members.
templer10 07-28-07, 05:30 PM	Remember, monsters do not get near as much equipment as characters, nor do they get the 36 point buy. We're aiming for a 50/50 success rate while table top is aiming for around 100% success (assuming the characters work together well.) I personally think setting up CoCo characters against equal CR monsters is about the right level of difficultly. However, the fact of the matter is a single character doesn't have the options that an adventuring party has. the problem is that certein monsters on that list ARENT 50/50 - they are 99.9% chance to win against anyone - take that fiendish young red dragon - it's almost impossible to beat by any ECL 9 char- especially on maps with no buff up times - why do we want to subject peeps to monsters they have no chance to win against? p.s. - dragons under our current rules get from a lot more (at earlier ECL's) to about equal in Wealth to the league they are in.
Hirumajoe 07-28-07, 05:49 PM	the problem is that certein monsters on that list ARENT 50/50 - they are 99.9% chance to win against anyone - take that fiendish young red dragon - it's almost impossible to beat by any ECL 9 char- especially on maps with no buff up times - why do we want to subject peeps to monsters they have no chance to win against? A Kinestist 5/Psion Uncarnate 4 going Incorporeal for 10 rounds and tossing Cold Energy Missiles for 8d6-2 x2 damage probably wouldn't have too much trouble. A simple readied Entangling Ectoplasm (3pp) would have had the dragon falling to the ground from the air also. Wall of Stone, Ice Wall or Resilient sphere can give a Wizard prep time. Then once buffed, using Web and cold spells should be able to give a Wizard a chance. Caster level 9 with the two SR penetrating feats would make breaching the SR not a problem. Or use conjuration spells. Heck a straight up fighter with 100+ hit points, good AC, and a Cleric/Wizard cohort to buff him might also be able to do it. He buffs while getting to work (and preventing the dragon from reaching the fragile ally). I certainly don't think its a 99% win rate. Its tough, but not impossible. Edit: In regards to the triple wealth of dragons, that is an acknowledged problem, which is getting fixed, but changes do take time especially on an all volunteer board. And in any case, thats not an issue with ECL vs CR or templates.
SauroGrenom 07-28-07, 05:53 PM	another point i want to raise - it's a fairly long standing tradition here (As i understand) that CR=ECL as far as monster fights are concerned, But the problem is that many MANY cases it really isnt and it creates a situation which the monster is so much more powerfull then the Gladitor that there is little point if any to actually running the Fight. We have discussed this so many times. If I recall correctly, we've even discussed it with you a time or two in the past. The basic point is that CR->EL. That means that the CR of a monster tells us the Encounter Level of that monster (assuming an even battle with no allies, terrain or surprise advantages). Encounter level is not the same as Equivalent Character Level (ECL). What you are suggesting above is not true. It's not true here, it's not true in Core Rules, and it's not a basis for our policy that set's the difficulty of battles with monsters.
SoulLord 07-30-07, 01:43 PM	quick question can a guild opt out of the guild game?
MindWandererB 07-30-07, 02:02 PM	quick question can a guild opt out of the guild game? It's a mess if they do. Because of the way territories are set up, that leaves a gap. For instance, TAO's departure would leave CEF, TLT, and probably WAR with the advantageous position of having uncontested territory to move into. With LOY, we managed to wipe some districts off the map to compensate, but doing that again would get a little silly. I know the guild system is a drudge in some ways. I'm trying to work on the Community system before revamping the Guilds (because I want the two systems to interact well), but I certainly have ideas for Guildhall v.4.0.
lonewolf 08-01-07, 04:10 PM	I´d like to raise the issue on ghost shopping again. The last one who spoke about this issue was MWB: I wasn't involved in the original decision on this. I could see rebalancing it to be one week of shopping per win. ...and it may be worth considering for crafters, as well. Potentially spending 10 weeks crafting after a cycle of all wins is just silly. It works in TT because downtime is "off-screen," but here it's a bit excessive. I am sorry, but this limit is still very low(and this idea actually lowers the limit for ECL10 and lower). Personally I think one full activity to shop without gp-limit is the way to go, but its hard to be impartial here. And I would have no problems using that same rule for crafting.
SoulLord 08-01-07, 05:16 PM	Ah it would be a most welcome adition for crafting I see little use in having a character sit out for several weeks just to replenish what he used in a 3FC
TelinArtho 08-02-07, 11:09 AM	So what is holding up the guidelines for the monster equipment? If nothing - let's get the vote done already.
MindWandererB 08-02-07, 02:10 PM	So what is holding up the guidelines for the monster equipment? If nothing - let's get the vote done already. Well, since two questlords have playtested them, I feel comfortable with just adding them in, unless someone objects.
lonewolf 08-07-07, 10:32 AM	I´d like to raise the issue on ghost shopping again. The last one who spoke about this issue was MWB: I wasn't involved in the original decision on this. I could see rebalancing it to be one week of shopping per win. ...and it may be worth considering for crafters, as well. Potentially spending 10 weeks crafting after a cycle of all wins is just silly. It works in TT because downtime is "off-screen," but here it's a bit excessive. I am sorry, but this limit is still very low(and this idea actually lowers the limit for ECL10 and lower). Personally I think one full activity to shop without gp-limit is the way to go, but its hard to be impartial here. And I would have no problems using that same rule for crafting. :bump:
MindWandererB 08-07-07, 01:54 PM	Speaking of bumping, I'm finalizing the equipment guidelines. They may still be tweaked, but for now, we're going with what we've got. I'd like other opinions on lonewolf's issue.
TelinArtho 08-07-07, 02:06 PM	I've never really had a problem with the crafting rules the way they are now, but that's because I have a large number of characters that I can put in or take out as primary characters are away crafting or whatever. I would not oppose a change to allow the downtime to be reduced, because crafters seemingly are reduced because of this restriction, so all it does is add more active people, without reducing the paperwork. One activation for one week between cycles is enough to craft anything would be fine. This would extend as well to the ghost limitations. If we're only talking about ghosts - I have no problem leaving things as they are for crafting and only changing them for ghosts.
templer10 08-07-07, 02:09 PM	as just another player - i would love a change to the crafting rules since as peeps said before - they werent really designed for a COCO enviorment - a one week to craft anything seems reasonable enough and wont force you to bench a char for month+ stretch of time in the higher ECL's. about ghosts - same reasoning apply to same reasult - 1 week for everything.
hogarth 08-07-07, 02:18 PM	I'll take the contrarian position and say that I kind of like that crafting has a downside. It's a trade-off: a 50% discount on goods in exchange for slow advancement. I certainly don't think that crafters are at such a disadvantage that we need to change the rules to encourage more of them! On the other hand, I think it's ridiculous (and not supported anywhere in the core rules) that it takes a ghost a week to buy anything at all. Maybe we could add a monetary surcharge to ghostly purchases instead (to reflect the cost of getting an enterprising xill or ethereal filcher to ferry goods to the ethereal plane).
Erithmu 08-07-07, 02:23 PM	I would be for the 1 week for crafting. It just makes the game more 'fun' for the particular player. (I wasn't looking forward to the, roughly, 15 week crafting period that Owen was probably going to come back to.) I had honestly considered seeing if I could 'rent' some space in the astral plane to craft and then come back. I think anything to make a character non-static would be good, so I would go with the Ghost thing as well.
SauroGrenom 08-07-07, 03:12 PM	Crafting... *Shrug* It looks to me that the limit on crafting time in the core rules is there to prevent someone from crafting everything for the whole party, and thus doubling the party wealth and messing with balance. In a TT game environment, crafting feats can undermine the DM's authority to control treasure of the party. If the GM doesn't want the paladin to get a +5 holy avenger right now, because he's planning on the party getting beat by a villian then traveling to a old tomb to retrieve one at a latter stage in the campaign. But if the paladin has the cash and the cleric with the feats is willing... then the GM has to pull rank to stop it, and thus reveal that such an item is plot related. The long months and uninterrupted days of crafting for such an item gives the GM another way to control the party access to stuff in the middle of a campaign. He can let the cleric start crafting, and then find out they need the thing before the cleric can get it done... so the party goes on the planned adventure. In CoCo, we don't have a GM who's being undermined by crafting. Instead we have balance issues of crafters getting too powerful relative to those who cannot craft. As far as balance is concern, crafting has three major advantages and two major disadvantages. The advantages are that crafters get stuff at half price so they (1) have twice as much stuff (2)can swap out (sell) items with no loss of gold (3) get access to more powerful stuff at an early stage. The disadvantages are that the crafters spend (1) a feat (2) lots of time out of combat crafting and advance more slowly because of it. Some characters (wizards mostly, and Retikos is an example) craft nearly everything they own, and thus have nearly twice the equipment for their ECL. Our craft feats are already probably the second most powerful feats (behind leadership and ahead of mounted combat). At our next frozen level crafting feats translate into a possible extra 273,000gp !!!! That makes things possible that are not normally possible, (like a +5 vorpal sword or +5 tomb). You can have wealth equivalent to 2 or 3 ECL higher than your own. If we eliminate one of the disadvantages (not a problem for me), then we should also do something to one of the advantages to attempt to maintain some kind of balance. I'd suggest that we set a max on either the number or total value of crafted items (similar to the expendables cap for a gp mechanic or using a limit like 1 item/ECL not counting expendables).
SoulLord 08-07-07, 03:13 PM	For starters crafting doesn't scale with level you can only craft 7,000 gp wheter you are lvl 1 or lvl 20. So even though it's fine at lower levels it's just not fun for crafters at higher ones. Since we have the 3FC we can't have the stuff we craft until it's finished so I would say it's a reasonable trade off to be able to spend a week to craft the stuff you want. Otherwise I would say we should be able to craft 7,000 gp every cicle and have it available whenever it's ready even if it's in the middle of a 3FC. after all fighting takes less than an hour and you can use all the rest of the time to craft.
Zevox 08-07-07, 03:21 PM	*shrugs* I certainly agree the restriction on Ghosts is too great at present - that needs to change no matter what, and I'm fine with whatever for that. Whether we change crafting with it or not I'm ambivalent towards - I know there are some members here who feel crafting is too powerful and probably wouldn't want what would appear to them to be an increase in its power, but there again I also know the amount of time it takes to craft some items at higher levels get crazy (I'm considering getting Kathren Forge Ring at higher levels, and looking at some of the things she'd want... yeesh, so many months off...). Zevox
TelinArtho 08-07-07, 03:24 PM	Okay - then lets just leave the discussion for the ghosts for now and deal with the crafting later (if at all).
lonewolf 08-07-07, 03:25 PM	Its just that forcing a player to not have his character active during crafting isnt something that balances crafting, but it only makes it annoying for the player to do something optimzed. I would rather have a numerical disadvantage of crafting then the solution we have now. Same goes for ghosts.
MindWandererB 08-07-07, 04:16 PM	Seems like we have a consensus on ghosts: one week to buy as much as they want. As for the crafting... Sauro, bear in mind that crafting 273,000 worth of stuff (546,000 market price) takes 78 weeks--a year and a half! That's a lot to ask of a player, even if it's not all strung together. By point of comparison, assuming a character wins and loses equal numbers of fights, it takes 65 weeks (1 1/4 year) to reach ECL 16 from ECL 3--a bit slow but reasonable. The crafter you describe would take 143 weeks to get there: 2 3/4 years. That's pretty slow, especially when you consider that you'd have to activate the character every single week to do it.
SauroGrenom 08-07-07, 06:27 PM	As for the crafting... Sauro, bear in mind that crafting 273,000 worth of stuff (546,000 market price) takes 78 weeks--a year and a half! That's a lot to ask of a player, even if it's not all strung together. By point of comparison, assuming a character wins and loses equal numbers of fights, it takes 65 weeks (1 1/4 year) to reach ECL 16 from ECL 3--a bit slow but reasonable. The crafter you describe would take 143 weeks to get there: 2 3/4 years. That's pretty slow, especially when you consider that you'd have to activate the character every single week to do it.We were talking about accelerating or even eliminating the crafting time... No? I'm pointing out that that crafting time is one of the few things we have that make high level ridiculous crafting less viable. Right now crafting is already very powerful at ~ECL10 and at lower levels since you can double your wealth in a few weeks between cycles or quests. As levels increase crafting times become so long that it's not much useful... ie the system is realistically self limited. But if we make crafting faster, then this barrier is lost... and the logical consequence is that higher level characters will continue to craft at our new faster rate and receive greater benefits. The whole idea of faster crafting makes crafting better, and extends its value into higher levels. All I'm really saying is that if you want to remove or decrease that self limitation on crafting (imposed by the time required), then a preservation of balance at higher levels will require some other kind of limit.
Hirumajoe 08-07-07, 07:45 PM	In regards to crafting times, I'm with Sauro on this one. The fact that we don't have an xp cost associated with crafting gets magnified at the higher levels, where you get more gp per xp to work with. When you're ECL 3 and have 3200 xp and 3000 gp, if you self crafted all of that into magic items, you'd be "saving" 240xp. Not really a significant portion of a level. At ECL 10, its still not so bad, converting 51,000 gp into magic items saves you 4080 xp, not quite half a level. But at ECL 15 say, you're talking 210,000 gp and saving 16,800 xp. Thats more than an entire level. A character who did that in a table top game would only be 13th level compared to the 15th level characters around him. I understand the reasoning behind the no xp cost given the CoCo environment and rules, but you have to admit, there's a table top limiting factor in the form of xp which is absent here. The crafting time does kind of step in to fill that hole at the higher levels.
lonewolf 08-07-07, 07:55 PM	The crafting time does kind of step in to fill that hole at the higher levels. The problem is that that it just doesnt. If you want to do a character that uses crafting, you can do it with no penalties. You just have to be patient enough and have an optimized character. If there is a problem that crafting is too good(and it seems that many agree that it is), crafting time is not the right way to fix it. Instead we have to talk about ingame restrictions like increasing the crafting costs, limiting the number of items you can craft or similar. To balance crafting we have to stop trying to do it by penalizing the player and start penalize the character.
Hirumajoe 08-07-07, 08:27 PM	The problem is that that it just doesnt. If you want to do a character that uses crafting, you can do it with no penalties. You just have to be patient enough and have an optimized character. If there is a problem that crafting is too good(and it seems that many agree that it is), crafting time is not the right way to fix it. Instead we have to talk about ingame restrictions like increasing the crafting costs, limiting the number of items you can craft or similar. To balance crafting we have to stop trying to do it by penalizing the player and start penalize the character. I guess the other way to look at it is you can bypass the actual crafting time with credits. By paying 60 credits and starting a character at ECL 15, you can effectively craft his full 210,000 gp before he enters the arena. Admittedly, that is in fact 60 credits... But you can probably acquire those faster than you can wait the time to fully craft everything starting at ECL 3 onwards. I personally liked the old suggestion of moving crafting from a 50% discount down to a 30% discount (effectively paying 70%). Since the cost is 50% of base price plus 1/25th of base price in xp. Since 1xp is generally considered 5gp, that would be 50% +1/5th of base price, or 70% net cost. Given thats the exact ratio characters pay in the arena when casting spells that cost xp it seems consistent with the other rules we have. It certainly felt more "core" to me. Although this very topic has come up before and (obviously) been voted down. *Shrug*. I dunno, would people be willing to trade 100% more wealth for only 42% more wealth, but the ability to do it in a much shorter time span?
MindWandererB 08-07-07, 08:32 PM	Which reminds me: I'm implementing the option to skip a miniquest with 3 credits. I just don't see any harm in it, and no one else has objected.
hogarth 08-07-07, 08:45 PM	Which reminds me: I'm implementing the option to skip a miniquest with 3 credits. I just don't see any harm in it, and no one else has objected. Well, I had a question that nobody answered at all: Why are miniquests mandatory for meeting prestige class roleplay requirements? I'd still like an answer for that one. Are we trying to mildly discourage becoming a War Mind, Assassin or Blackguard? If not, why don't we make it optional?
MindWandererB 08-07-07, 09:46 PM	Well, I had a question that nobody answered at all: Why are miniquests mandatory for meeting prestige class roleplay requirements? I'd still like an answer for that one. Are we trying to mildly discourage becoming a War Mind, Assassin or Blackguard? If not, why don't we make it optional? It's pretty much the same answer as why crafting is at the rate of 1000 gp/day: because it's written in the rules that way. Hmm... I wonder if this would be a reasonable use of the Community add-on? Friendly contact with an evil outsider, studying under a Talariic master, even burning a building might make sense.
NiQil 08-07-07, 10:11 PM	Regarding the crafting issue: It seems to be that what this is coming down to is that most do not like all of the extra time that it takes, but feel that to do away with it makes crafting to powerful. As such, I have a couple of suggestions that might help in that area. They could be used together, or independently: 1) Currently, with regards to expendables, we allow crafters to hold an amount of expendables equal to the crafted value (not the market value) up to the cap for their level. What about using a similar idea for crafting? Instead of making the crafting 1000 gp/wk market (free activity) or 7000 gp/wk (full activity), why not make both of those values the crafting value, rather than the market value? This would effectively double the amount of things you could craft at one time. 2) Institute some sort of scaleable cap on how much can be crafted as a free or full activity that goes up as you level. Maybe for full activities it could be 1000 gp x your ECL (so 3000 at 3, 4000 at 4, etc), and maybe for free activities it would be equal to a winner's gp award at your ECL. So ECL 3 could craft up to 900 per free activity, ECL 4 1200, ECL 5 1500, etc. As I said, either one could be used to help with the time issue, and I think both of them together would all but solve it. As an example, Vandelar the Red, using both above changes, would be able to craft up to 12,000 gp worth of equipment priced at crafted value (or 24,000 market) as a full activity.
hogarth 08-07-07, 10:36 PM	It's pretty much the same answer as why crafting is at the rate of 1000 gp/day: because it's written in the rules that way. Hmm... I wonder if this would be a reasonable use of the Community add-on? Friendly contact with an evil outsider, studying under a Talariic master, even burning a building might make sense. But why not just allow a player to say it happened "outside of Gladius"? After all, we would allow a brand-new character to start as a Psychic Warrior 5/War Mind 1 without requiring a miniquest. My point is this: I don't mind requiring a successful miniquest to get a leadership cohort or a Handle Animal ally for the same reason that I don't mind having slow crafting times -- they're all a case of "getting something for nothing" so why not make people work a bit for it? At the very least a gladiator will be missing out on one free activity's worth of benefit. But I don't think that the same argument holds for entering prestige classes; what's so special about being an Assassin (or War Mind or Blackguard or Pyrokineticist) that it should require extra work to join? So here's my "vote": remove mandatory miniquests for those four prestige classes, and keep mandatory miniquests for everything else that requires one.
waywreth 08-08-07, 01:26 PM	Following up from the Tavern discussion... Do we have any rules about learning new powers? The current rules require the expenditure of xp (noted below for convenience). Could we spend gold instead or something? You can copy spells from another persons book... A psion also can research a power independently, duplicating an existing power or creating an entirely new one. If characters are allowed to develop new powers, use these guidelines to handle the situation. Any kind of manifester can create a new power. The research involved requires access to a retreat conducive to uninterrupted meditation. Research involves an expenditure of 200 XP per week and takes one week per level of the power. At the end of that time, the character makes a Psicraft check (DC 10 + spell level). If that check succeeds, the character learns the new power if her research produced a viable power. If the check fails, the character must go through the research process again if she wants to keep trying. Please note my goal isn't to create new powers, but instead have a way to get access to additional powers. If psions are like wizards, we should have a way to pick up lower level powers that were missed or not taken. My theory: Since spells cost 100gp per level in inks/oils, plus a wizard charges 50 gp x the spell's level for letting you copy one of his spells. That means spells are 150gp per level. Could new powers cost the same (or even some factor higher to represent the additional benefit)?
lonewolf 08-08-07, 01:31 PM	@waywreth: Psions are much more Sorcerers than Wizards. Adding additional powers known to a Psion shouldnt work without Feats at all. Inventing new powers and placing them into one of your newly gained Powers known slots is something completly different.
hogarth 08-08-07, 01:35 PM	Also note that there is a perfectly legal (as far as I know) method of adding powers: Psychic Chirurgery. Of course it's outrageously expensive in terms of credits and gp, but it's possible.
SoulLord 08-08-07, 01:55 PM	Regarding the crafting issue: It seems to be that what this is coming down to is that most do not like all of the extra time that it takes, but feel that to do away with it makes crafting to powerful. As such, I have a couple of suggestions that might help in that area. They could be used together, or independently: 1) Currently, with regards to expendables, we allow crafters to hold an amount of expendables equal to the crafted value (not the market value) up to the cap for their level. What about using a similar idea for crafting? Instead of making the crafting 1000 gp/wk market (free activity) or 7000 gp/wk (full activity), why not make both of those values the crafting value, rather than the market value? This would effectively double the amount of things you could craft at one time. 2) Institute some sort of scaleable cap on how much can be crafted as a free or full activity that goes up as you level. Maybe for full activities it could be 1000 gp x your ECL (so 3000 at 3, 4000 at 4, etc), and maybe for free activities it would be equal to a winner's gp award at your ECL. So ECL 3 could craft up to 900 per free activity, ECL 4 1200, ECL 5 1500, etc. As I said, either one could be used to help with the time issue, and I think both of them together would all but solve it. As an example, Vandelar the Red, using both above changes, would be able to craft up to 12,000 gp worth of equipment priced at crafted value (or 24,000 market) as a full activity. Since they are better than what we have now I like them an item worth 30,000 gp takes forever to craft under the current system; 5 weeks of inactivity
hogarth 08-10-07, 10:00 PM	I'm talking about the difference between complaining to get out of a monster fight vs complaining to get out of a monster fight and in to another fight that has already been rolled. The first time that happens, the whole 'no monster fight' thing that you mentioned doesn't work. I still don't get it. People make those sort of requests now already! "My character didn't get paired. Can't we turn fight X into a free-for-all?" Then MWB either changes the fight or doesn't as he sees fit. I don't understand why these pleas would suddenly cause things to "not work". :confused: I can only speak for myself. I would be delighted to sit out for a week if it meant avoiding a monster fight that I didn't choose.
MindWandererB 08-11-07, 12:30 AM	I still don't get it. People make those sort of requests now already! "My character didn't get paired. Can't we turn fight X into a free-for-all?" Then MWB either changes the fight or doesn't as he sees fit. I don't understand why these pleas would suddenly cause things to "not work". :confused: I can only speak for myself. I would be delighted to sit out for a week if it meant avoiding a monster fight that I didn't choose. And I try to avoid doing that as much as possible. If the pairing program worked infallibly, there would be no judgment calls required on my part. But because I have to decide between monster fights and other formats (most notably inter-league) on an ad-hoc basis, I can occasionally be talked out of it. What I did this week rubbed me the wrong way a bit, and I see now that I'd be right to regret it (bad precedent). Regarding monster fights, we have had this argument, whether you agree with the conclusion or not. If a PC is completely optimized against other PCs, and another PC is prepared to deal with monsters as well, the second PC is at a disadvantage. So in the interests of fairness, we either have monster fights at random, or we have no monster fights at all--no quests, no miniquests, no guild operations or missions, and possibly no campaigns. The only characters who would gear themselves toward monsters would be either "RP characters" (ones not intended to win) or quest/campaign-focused characters. If we go that route, this stops being the CoCo and becomes CoCo + Real Adventures, and there's already a forum for that. Ideally, I would in fact prefer to have more monster fights. The mission statement of the CoCo is to test out core-only builds. Doing so against monsters is a more "pure" way of accomplishing that than PvP. The very first CoCo battle was a monster battle (Harvester 1 vs. a Cauchemar, IIRC). The board has evolved in a different direction, but I still see monster preparedness as a key part of our game. As for monster spell lists, we have four choices that I can see: 1) Monsters use the spells they have listed as typical. Advantage: simple and standardized. Disadvantage: Many monsters and nearly all NPCs lack such a list. 2) Monsters follow spell selections in a fixed pattern. For instance, all psions might choose Ego Whip as their first second-level power, without exception. We could probably compile lists based on popularity among gladiators. Advantage: again, standardized. Disadvantage: Every monster turns out the same, plus there's a front-loaded effort on our parts. 3) Pitlords get to choose freely, as is now the case. Advantage: total adaptability. Disadvantage: No standardization, which leads to much resentment and whininess. 4) Monsters with a "typical" list have those to start with, and if they gain more (like an unbodied psion), we follow rule 2 or 3. Mixed advantages and disadvantages, as above. We should probably discuss before voting.
SauroGrenom 08-11-07, 04:30 PM	About monster spells/powers: I'd like to express my opinion as a guy who's recently run a champaign with various monsters and NPC's that are fighting the characters. CoCo characters have no "fat". No psion wastes a power known on detect psionics. No sorcerer has comprehend languages as a known spell. These spells are in the game even though they have no combat utility simply because the game has non-combat challenges where the spells could be useful. CoCo has no non-combat challenges, so no characters have these non-combat spells on their spell lists. But monsters do. Some very good tough villain monsters "waste" spell slots on RP value spells like disguise self. So for the monsters to fight in CoCo as well as they do in a normal game, then they need to be customized for CoCo. That customization should make it easy for our pitlords, and standardized for our players. There needs to be a reasonable application of common sense also. For example an Unbodied is incorporeal, so it shouldn't have a power that grants +2 natural armor (thicken skin). I'd favor #2. But failing that #3 is the best option.
McJarvis 08-11-07, 06:31 PM	At our next frozen level crafting feats translate into a possible extra 273,000gp !!!! That makes things possible that are not normally possible, (like a +5 vorpal sword or +5 tomb). As a general point: Crafting a Tome in CoCo's environment wouldn't help you very much. Most of the cost of tomes comes from the xp requirement of thier prereq spell[Wish] Since we haven't dealt with items which involve spells with xp requirement, the council will likely just rule on this in such a way that makes crafting tomes not worth it. [...as compared to just casting Wish yourself to get that +X bonus, though admittedly the tome would let you access the +5 version much earlier....just not at much of a discount. Maybe even more? Cost price+5x spell's XP price. Ouch!] The +5 Vorpal one is pretty scary, though. [not that that many crafters use craft magic arms/armor...]
NiQil 08-12-07, 12:37 AM	Alright....I am going to use Rith's character Owen as an example here. Under our current crafting rules, he is about to spend the next 19 weeks....yes....19 weeks....crafting with what he gained coming out of Sauro's campaign. Earlier, I proposed to allow the value of crafted items to use the out of pocket total, rather than the market total (like we do for expendables able to be placed on your sheet), to determine how much could be crafted as a full activity. His current market value of items is 132,500 gp. This rule change would allow him to cut that crafting time from 19 weeks to 10 weeks. I also proposed to make the amount you could craft in any one given free or full activity a scaleable amount. For free activities, it would be equal to a winner's gold share at your ECL, and for full activities, it would be your ECL x 1000. Using this rule change, we could cut his crafting time for the 132,500 worth of items down from 19 weeks to 12 weeks. Now, if we put the two rules together, we could take that 19 weeks of crafting 132,500 worth of stuff down to: (132,500 / 2 for the crafting value) = 66,250 (his ECL which will be 12 at the time of crafting x 1000) = 12,000 per full activity 66,250 / 12,000 per wk = 5.52 rounded to 6 weeks. That's an improvement of 13 weeks of crafting time just by making those two little tweeks.
Erithmu 08-12-07, 01:41 AM	Well I probably need to weigh in here a little since I seem to be causing a ruckus... Re: Crafting: @Sauro + others (Crafting needs a penalty gang): I understand your position with crafting needing some form of downside, and I do think that there needs to be some setback. I personally would love to see the XP rule kicked back in with a minor covet that crafted items can't be sold to prevent abuse. I would probably still craft as much as I do now with all of my characters and I'll their gear would still be as they are. I don't think that imposing a cap to crafted items (like we have for expendables) would be the thing to do. Crafting feats require a feat expenditure which is a significant expenditure to begin with. @Pro-shorten crafting time: Can't do it. I really line up w/ Sauro more than the others, although I think there could be some compromise in the middle, yet I know my dream option will probably not be an option. Options that I think would aid both camps: - Install something like Niqil has suggested with the scaling GP cost. I think a scaling option will be the only thing that will work 'well' in this setting. - Put the XP cost back into crafting. Now I know this opens up a huge can of worms but hear me out. This rule MUST be instated with the above statement of 'You can't sell items you spend XP on' or some other function to prevent abuse. (Abuse: Craft something for 500gp + 40xp, then sell item for 500gp means you effectively lose 40xp. This then would allow people to level up slower and accumulate more wealth for their level so that by ECL 10 someone could have the wealth of an ECL 12+ (This is a rough guess on a sleepy head). Now I could be missing something here where there is still a loophole for abuse in here somewhere). This would have to remove the existing XP rule that takes gp away as well. This limits the amount a person can craft as you can't 'de-level' If the crafting rules remain as is, I have a request that crafting of over a certain amount not be counted as an activation. I think 5 weeks could be a good marker, but I don't think it is fair to not only deny a Player the opportunity to have fun in the arena, but then to charge that Player for having a character that has no arena function, does not use Pitlord resources, and just requires the Player to update a post. @Sauro: minor nit-pick: At ECL 16 no one can craft tombs due to 2 points: 1)no one has wish or miracle 2) no one has 25000XP to drop to cast those spells under our current rules system. (or ever will for that matter, until ECL 25) Side Notes: I'm on my last bit of energy as I am writing this, so I apologize if I don't make sense. And I forget what the other thing I was going to say was ...
Hirumajoe 08-12-07, 10:00 AM	Well I probably need to weigh in here a little since I seem to be causing a ruckus... Re: Crafting: @Sauro + others (Crafting needs a penalty gang): I understand your position with crafting needing some form of downside, and I do think that there needs to be some setback. I personally would love to see the XP rule kicked back in with a minor covet that crafted items can't be sold to prevent abuse. I would probably still craft as much as I do now with all of my characters and I'll their gear would still be as they are. I don't think that imposing a cap to crafted items (like we have for expendables) would be the thing to do. Crafting feats require a feat expenditure which is a significant expenditure to begin with. Side Notes: I'm on my last bit of energy as I am writing this, so I apologize if I don't make sense. And I forget what the other thing I was going to say was ... I always thought the problem with the xp cost was the fact that for any given level, a crafter would have a higher gp to xp ratio (above and beyond the fact that they're crafting, but the fact that they get to redo fights in say, the 46,000 to 48,000 xp range (ECL 10) after crafting 2,000 xp worth (50,000 gp worth - not impossible at ECL 10), so they get an additional ~4,000 gp for re-earning the xp (but not losing the corresponding gp). Penalties cannot involve xp for the simple fact that in this environment, you're always fighting the same level. Thus xp is meaningless as a balancer. Only if you began a somewhat more complex system of recording xp earned versus current xp, and then matching based on xp earned would a cost be associated with paying xp. If you want to increase the cost of crafting, I think the 5gp per xp rule would probably be the easiest to impliment, resulting in a net craft cost of 70% rather than 50%, and would be consistent with current rulings. Rather than repealing the 5 gp per xp rule (which is what it sounds like you were suggesting - please correct me if that impression is wrong), which would make it beneficial, for example, to cast wish in this environment.
Erithmu 08-12-07, 10:20 AM	I thought the xp cost right now was xp * ECL multiplier for gp rewards. I have seen Telin do this w/ Kraegin with his Planar Ally stuff.
Hirumajoe 08-12-07, 10:34 AM	I thought the xp cost right now was xp * ECL multiplier for gp rewards. I have seen Telin do this w/ Kraegin with his Planar Ally stuff. Woops, I may have been getting the fixed 5gp per xp for casting services and the xp cost of self cast spells confused.
hogarth 08-15-07, 12:47 PM	I thought the xp cost right now was xp * ECL multiplier for gp rewards. I have seen Telin do this w/ Kraegin with his Planar Ally stuff. Notwithstanding what Telin may done in the past, that is not what the rules currently say. Experience Loss: Any loss in experience points as a result of casting a spell also results in the loss of 5 gold pieces per 1 xp. So it seems to imply that you do actually lose the xp, but you lose a chunk of gold as well. Can someone find a place where this rule has been amended?
TelinArtho 08-15-07, 12:51 PM	That looks like an old ruling - not sure when that was put in. However, this is the current item in the Rules of Gladius: Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies. There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes).
hogarth 08-15-07, 12:54 PM	Thanks Telin. Serves me right for searching on "xp" instead of "XP". :)
hogarth 08-22-07, 10:10 PM	New topic: I was looking through the EL 12 monster list and it raised some questions for me about "non-associated class levels". There's a Minotaur Cleric 11 listed on the EL 12 list; obviously this is only CR 12 if we assume that cleric is a non-associated class for minotaurs. But on the other hand, the SRD lists a Mummy Cleric 10 as CR 15 and a Celestial Unicorn Cleric 7 as CR 13; this implies that cleric levels can be "associated class levels" even for non-spellcasting creatures. Similarly, a Mummy Soulknife 8 is listed as CR 9 in the EL 12 list but a Babau Soulknife 7 is listed as CR 13 on the EL 13 list. So again one case is claiming Soulknife is an associated class and one is claiming it isn't. The problem is that it's not clear whether the list of associated class levels is meant to be a complete list or not (although the Mummy Lord and Celestial Charger examples suggest that cleric can be an associated class for a non-spellcaster, for instance). Personally, I'd prefer to see the monster lists (especially the EL 12 list) re-written to use either (a) associated PC class levels (e.g. a Minotaur Barbarian 8 instead of a Minotaur Cleric 11) or (b) non-associated NPC class levels (e.g. a Minotaur Adept 11 instead of a Minotaur Cleric 11). That way any ambiguity can be avoided. Any thoughts?
MindWandererB 08-22-07, 10:38 PM	There are rules in the MM about when a class is considered associated. The mummy and the unicorn break those rules, but then, so does the Improved Grappling Bebilith. Examples don't define the rule. I think both of those soulknives are my doing; my logic was that soulknives are stealth builds (no less than rangers, certainly) and thus are associated for babau.
NiQil 08-22-07, 11:19 PM	There are rules in the MM about when a class is considered associated. The mummy and the unicorn break those rules, but then, so does the Improved Grappling Bebilith. Examples don't define the rule. I think both of those soulknives are my doing; my logic was that soulknives are stealth builds (no less than rangers, certainly) and thus are associated for babau. Heh...soulknives are stealth builds? Not from where I'm sitting. I would put them in the category of a skirmisher, akin to the scout, monk and rogue. A ranger, though a weak one, I would still call a front line fighter-type.
hogarth 08-22-07, 11:25 PM	There are rules in the MM about when a class is considered associated. The mummy and the unicorn break those rules, but then, so does the Improved Grappling Bebilith. Do the mummy and unicorn break those rules? There's nothing that says that cleric is an associated class for them, but there's nothing that says it's a nonassociated class either. It just says: A spellcasting class is an associated class for a creature that already has the ability to cast spells as a character of the class in question, since the monster’s levels in the spellcasting class stack with its innate spellcasting ability. That's not the same as saying: A spellcasting class is an associated class only for creatures that already have the ability to cast spells, etc. So it sounds like you believe that the list of associated classes is a complete list and that (for instance) no creature can have monk as an associated class. That's one possible interpretation.
MindWandererB 08-23-07, 01:09 AM	Heh...soulknives are stealth builds? Not from where I'm sitting. I would put them in the category of a skirmisher, akin to the scout, monk and rogue. A ranger, though a weak one, I would still call a front line fighter-type. Well, I have three reasons. First is that they do have Hide and MS as class skills. Second is that they give this status to the ranger explicitly, and the soulknife is at least as stealthy. Third is that WotC has, with 4e, defined explicitly what they consider the four party roles to be, and a soulknife is a "striker," like a rogue or scout, if ever there was one.
lonewolf 08-25-07, 05:17 PM	I have 2 issues: - I request a new houserule in CoCo that allows the use of nondetection vs Touchsight. There are many people out there that think that touchsight is overpowered, and I believe this is a step in the right direction. Nondetection is obviously meant to protect against such spells, but since it was written long before touchsight, there was no way for the designers to include that it also protects against touchsight. - Bit by bit, we have removed ways for normal members to gain a sizeable amount of credits. There are no credits for maps in fight anymore, questlording multiplayer quests does no longer give a greater amount of credits than singleplayer quests. The only good way to gain larger amounts of credits at the moment(one which I used a lot lately) is auditing character sheets which gives comparably insane amounts of credits. Auditing a character takes (me) about double the time of running a fight(without possible reruns) and gives up to 6 times the credits. It is kinda boring and except the credits pretty unsatisfactional, so it should be better rewarded, but the difference at the moment is too much. My solution is not to lower the credit rewards for auditing, but instead to raise the credit awards for pitlording and multiplayer questlording again. Return the one credit/fight for good maps. Many pitlords stopped using our great mapgenerator because it is an additional workload which gives you nothing in return. This is a way to counter this. I agree that the old 2credits/player/week rewards for multiplayer quests was too much, but questlording 3 players is much more work then only a single one, so I propose a middle-way: (1 credit +1 for each player)/week The increased credit output would mean risking a greater activation of characters and thus a shortage of pitlords, so I would simultaneously increase the cost of each activated character after the 2nd to 2 credits, which would be the same as pitlording a fight with maps. If nothing is done about this situation, I would seriously consider stopping pitlording and gain my credits through audits, and I believe that that is in noones best interest.
MindWandererB 08-25-07, 07:14 PM	It is true that pitlording is pretty thankless these days, and one of the harder ways to earn credits. I've proposed before an "inflation" of credits, where we multiply all costs and rewards by 10, and tweak things from there based on how much effort they actually take.
NiQil 08-25-07, 07:27 PM	I have 2 issues: - I request a new houserule in CoCo that allows the use of nondetection vs Touchsight. There are many people out there that think that touchsight is overpowered, and I believe this is a step in the right direction. Nondetection is obviously meant to protect against such spells, but since it was written long before touchsight, there was no way for the designers to include that it also protects against touchsight. - Bit by bit, we have removed ways for normal members to gain a sizeable amount of credits. There are no credits for maps in fight anymore, questlording multiplayer quests does no longer give a greater amount of credits than singleplayer quests. The only good way to gain larger amounts of credits at the moment(one which I used a lot lately) is auditing character sheets which gives comparably insane amounts of credits. Auditing a character takes (me) about double the time of running a fight(without possible reruns) and gives up to 6 times the credits. It is kinda boring and except the credits pretty unsatisfactional, so it should be better rewarded, but the difference at the moment is too much. My solution is not to lower the credit rewards for auditing, but instead to raise the credit awards for pitlording and multiplayer questlording again. Return the one credit/fight for good maps. Many pitlords stopped using our great mapgenerator because it is an additional workload which gives you nothing in return. This is a way to counter this. I agree that the old 2credits/player/week rewards for multiplayer quests was too much, but questlording 3 players is much more work then only a single one, so I propose a middle-way: (1 credit +1 for each player)/week The increased credit output would mean risking a greater activation of characters and thus a shortage of pitlords, so I would simultaneously increase the cost of each activated character after the 2nd to 2 credits, which would be the same as pitlording a fight with maps. If nothing is done about this situation, I would seriously consider stopping pitlording and gain my credits through audits, and I believe that that is in noones best interest. I have to say that I am opposed to reintroducing map credits, and I am opposed to raising the cost of extra characters. The idea of credits is that you are supposed to have to put in some extra work for them. Using the mapper is not something I feel is extra work. In many cases, those that used it when credits were given have continued to use it, and those that didn't still don't. With very few exceptions, the mapper is still being used at the same pace it was when credits were available for it's used. All this did was make credits super easy to earn. We first tried reducing the amount of credits given for maps on several different occasions, and each time Cat and I found that those credits were still diluting the credit pool. Credits are supposed to require a little bit of work. With the mapper available, I don't consider adding maps to a battle all that much work. When credits were given for hand created maps from MS Paint or PSP, they meant much more. Similarly, raising the cost of activating more than two characters doesn't solve the problem either. Those parties will simply stop activating more characters, resulting in a surplus of pitlords and less need to have credits in the first place. The reason that credits are offered at such a high rate for audits is because they do require so much work. But they are also very tedious, so not many do them. What I would recommend is finding alternate means that we can add so that there are more options available to obtain credits.
whitebaron 08-25-07, 07:45 PM	i'm quite new to this, but in my opinion credits for fights should be given to a pitlord like this: Credits for Extra-Activation:x Credits for Pitlording: (fights+2)-(active characters)*2x So basically, you get the activation costs for both characters that you pitlord, if you do more fights than necessary to keep your credits even. btw: you talk about a surplus of pitlords like it's a bad thing. it isn't. its always better to have a bigger resource pool. i have to agree with lonewolf on the audit part - compared to the pitlording you'd need to get the credits for an ecl 8 audit, it would be piece of cake. its not as interesting, sure. but its definitely not as hard.
TelinArtho 08-25-07, 09:36 PM	You guys never did an audit of one of Cat's characters... I once did an audit of Uhmentarymster that took me three days... That aside - I think that the problem is not in the credtis gained from audits but the relative few gained from pitlording. Aside though - I think the main reason we are lacking in pitlords has NOTHING to do with the credits. People don't pitlord because they don't like it, don't like the "attention" it gives them, don't have the time. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the credits multiplied by ten across the board and then making fights worth 50% more than they are now (so 1 1v1 fight right now is 1 credit * 10 = 10 *1.5 = 15 credits). That said - I'm still one of the most frequent pitlords - so I stand the most to gain from this. That said - I still don't use credits all that often (other than for character activations mostly).
hogarth 08-25-07, 09:52 PM	Aaargh! Please, PLEASE do not devalue the credits that I have earned so far. The fact remains that a SMALL portion of people here have more credits than they can possibly use and thus they think credits should be devalued. But I worked hours and hours to get my modest number of credits and I don't want to see them made useless. What's so bad with having lots of credits floating around anyways? More choice = good in my book. I hate the idea that credit options should only be available to a select few and everyone else can go suck eggs.
MindWandererB 08-25-07, 10:14 PM	No one's talking about devaluing credits, just trying to equalize the amount of effort it takes to earn them. We could take the reverse approach: Multiply everyone's credits by 10 and make fights worth 10, but cut costs as well. With fights worth 15 and, say, 50 credits per ECL above 3rd, it would take 2 1/3 fights per ECL; if fights were worth 10 and each ECL above 3rd cost 25, it would take 2 1/2 fights per ECL, about the same. The difference would be in what happens to credits that are already "on the table," whether they'd be worth the same as before but could be earned more easily now, or they'd be worth more than before and are as easy to earn as ever.
NiQil 08-25-07, 10:22 PM	Rather than go to the route of the 10 factor, I would like to see the previous suggestion implemented. Award a credit for every PC your character involved. Normal fights would be 2 credits, interleague would be 3, etc. Pay a credit based on the complexity of the fight but taking account how many PC's are involved. We can also award credits for fights that involve monsters in the same manner.
Rauul 08-25-07, 11:04 PM	Rather than go to the route of the 10 factor, I would like to see the previous suggestion implemented. Award a credit for every PC your character involved. Normal fights would be 2 credits, interleague would be 3, etc. Pay a credit based on the complexity of the fight but taking account how many PC's are involved. We can also award credits for fights that involve monsters in the same manner. now thats an idea i like... Only reason i haven't retired Corrupter.. is that i have spent almost all my credits on him... and he is a failure.. or darn close to one..
Book5 08-26-07, 03:01 PM	Giving more credits for the real dirty jobs like pitlording has never been a bad idea. Use credit costs to contain "Core Breaches" meanwhile still allowing for experimentation with the weirder material. You can always come up with things for people to do if they want to pitlord... and there isn't enough players!? wouldn't that be keen! Also, Perhaps scaling credit rewards for auditing based on the ECL of the character being audited? More for harder and longer sheets with more fights and a campaign under their belt. hehe what about .1xLv of character? hehe. I would also like to be able to tip my pitlord. Small Pavlovian thing. ".3 credit in kudos" if you catch my meaning.
Rauul 08-26-07, 06:07 PM	I would also like to be able to tip my pitlord. Small Pavlovian thing. ".3 credit in kudos" if you catch my meaning. hmmmm We did have the Casino for Credit Gambling during The Ironman Tournie (i lost my arse) Would like to see something like that happen as a more permanent fixture.. Maybe make bets on the ECL 9-15 fights :)
TelinArtho 08-31-07, 11:16 AM	I'd like to iron out what qualifies something as "Humanoid-like" and non-Humanoid for the case of armors for unusual creatures. Below is all of the previous conversation I could find about it (stretching back to Tavern III): Okay - next one. Does the Mephit qualify as humanoid-like in terms of pricing armor? I suppose just the presence of the wings makes the answer no - but it doesn't hurt to check first... I remember discussing this before, but I don't remember the outcome. And I don't have time to search the Court Decisions right now. Hmm - I've been searching my own records because I don't remember this conversation coming up. I haven't found a previous conversation about it yet - but I'll keep looking. Nevermind... found a brief conversation in Tavern III... Date : 09-20-05 06:40 PM Along the same vein....would a half-dragon with wings need to have special armor made to be able to wear it with the wings? If so, what would be the cost and/or craft DC? Date : 09-20-05 06:45 PM Twice as much and the same DC. Essentially it is barding or armor made for a non-humanoid. From Tavern VI: Date : 07-27-06 02:19 PM Depends. If the monstrous humanoid is medium size and similar in shape to a regular humanoid (as in biped, stands upright, has 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head, etc), it costs the same as armor for a humanoid (ie 1100gp). For a large monstrous humanoid who is not similar in shape (ie Centaur) - the cost is based on the non-humanoid side of the table. For special materials that incorporate masterwork benefits, you should subtract this value before multiplying the cost. So while a mithril chain shirt would cost 1100gp for a medium human, one built for a large non-humanoid would be [100 (base) + (1000-150) (mithril minus [Ma] component)]*4 + 150 ([Ma] component) = 3950gp as opposed to 4400gp that you might suspect. Date : 07-27-06 02:26 PM So I guess that for a harpy it would cost 1100gp. It's basically a humanoid-shaped creature allthough it has wings. Or if it isn't humanoid enough, then I guess that it costs 1950gp. I think that 1100gp is still correct. Date : 07-27-06 02:31 PM The wings makes the difference (at least from my perspective) - so I would say it would cost 1950gp in that case. Personally I'm of the opinion that the "humanoid" price should only apply to creatures of the humanoid type - that way there's no judgement call. However, I've been told this is wrong before - so you never know... Date : 07-27-06 06:07 PM I'm inclined to say that being "humanoid" only requires being bipedal with two arms and a generally human like body shape. I would say that an Ettin is "humanoid" even though it is of the giant type and has two heads. Also a 4 armed Sahuagin mutant is humanoid even though it has 4 arms. The wings do not bother me. Nor would they make someone into a "non humanoid". For example if you apply the half celestial template to a human it is still humanoid. A harpy is in my opinion a "humanoid" for the purposes of humanoid or non humanoid armor (A gargoyle would also be humanoid). Also a succubus is humanoid although it has wings and is an outsider. A centaur is not humanoid because it has 4 leggs. I don't think there is going to be a good game mechanic we can fall back on in this case to easily decide what is a humanoid for the purpose of armor and what is not a humanoid. Take the Horned Devil and Ice Devil as examples. They both have two arms and two leggs, but the Ice Devil in particular looks distinctly not humanoid. It looks rather insect like. Also a Treant has two arms and two leggs but is distinctly not humanoid. A judgement call needs to be made in each case. This is why I would prefer to just flat out call anything that is Humanoid in type - counts as humanoid, while everything else is not. Yes it does mean that some outsiders get screwed (Tieflings and Aasimirs for instance), but at least it doesn't require any "special" consideration. For instance, a centaur counts as non-humanoid because of its 4 legs and horselike bottom. What if the armor wanted is merely a chain shirt? ...and elans. Don't forget elans! "Hey...I just went through some kind of mind ritual, and now none of my clothing fits any more!" Then the discussion disappears...
Hirumajoe 08-31-07, 02:01 PM	I'd like to point out that under the humanoid type uses humanoid rule, Lycanthropes can wear their armor in *any* form. Since they're always humanoid shapeshifters (or Giant shapeshifts). Not sure if thats an intentional side effect. It also means a Metamorphing/Polymorphing Half-Giant, Elan, or Tiefling is *much* stronger than the equivalent humanoid. Since suddenly their armor works with 95% of forms in the game, while the humanoid's doesn't. While its certainly an easier rule to enforce, I'm wondering if it will have unintended balance shifts. The rules of the game articles had a comment on this problem, although I'm not sure whether it really helps at the end since its still suggests examining it on a case by case basis. Equipment When a creature changes form, any equipment it has either remains worn or held by the new form (if that form is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. The DM must decide if the new form can handle the equipment. This is best decided on a case by case basis; however, Rules of the Game has previously suggested that one can divide creatures into types that have basically humanoid shapes and those that do not, as follows: Humanoid Shapes Nonhumanoid Shapes Fey Aberration Giant Animal Humanoid Dragon Monstrous Humanoid Elemental Outsider Ooze Vermin In this case, "humanoid" refers to a creature that walks upright on two legs, and has two arms, a head, and a torso. A humanoid might have a few extra limbs, such as an extra pair of arms, a pair of wings or a tail (or perhaps wings and a tail). The suggestions presented here are intended as general guidelines only. For example, most outsiders have generally humanoid bodies, but not all of them do. Likewise, some animals have bodies that fit the humanoid plan.
Eamane 08-31-07, 02:19 PM	Well. One advantage we have over a normal GM in this instance is that we are working in a closed system. We have only so many monsters against which we have to evaluate... so case by case is possible. Tedious, but possible. Allip Angel (Astral Deva, Planetar, Solar) Animated Object (Depends) Arenea (In change shape form) Archon (Hound, Trumpet) Athach ? Azer Barghest (Goblin form) Bodak Bugbear Choker ? Demon (Babou, Balor, Dretch, Glabrezu?, Hezrou?, Nalfeshnee?, Quasit, Succubus, Vrock) Derro Devil (Barbed, Bearded, Bone, Chain, Eriynes, Horned?, Imp, Pit Fiend) Devourer Dire Animal (Ape) Doppelganger Dragon, True (Bronze [Young+ using Alternate form], Gold [Using Alternate form], Silver [Using Alternate form]) Dryad Dwarf (All variants) Eladrin (Bralani, Ghaele) Elemental (Earth, Fire, Water) Elf (All variants) Ettercap Ettin Gargoyle Genie (Djinni, Efreeti, Janni) Ghoul Aboleth Achaierai Animated Object (Depends) Ankheg Arenea (In natural form) Archon (Lantern) Arrowhawk Assassin Vine Barghest (Wolf form) Basilisk Behir Beholder Belkir Blinkdog Bulette Carrion Crawler Centaur Chaos Beast Chimera Chuul Cloaker Cockatrice Couatl Darkmantle Delver Demon (Bebelith, Marilith, Retreiver) Destrachan Devil (Hellcat, Ice, Lemure) Digester Dinosaur (Deinonychus, Elasomosaurus, Megaraptor, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus) Dire Animal (Badger, Rat, Bear, Boar, Lion, Rat, Shark, Tiger, Weasel, Wolf, Wolverine) Displacer Beast Dragon, True (Black, Blue, Green, Red, White, Brass, Bronze [in natural form], Copper, Gold [in natural form], Silver [in natural form]) Dragon, Turtle Dragonne Drider Eagle, Giant Elemental (Air) Ethereal Filcher Ethereal Maruader Formians (Worker, Warrior Taskmaster, Myrmarch, Queen) Frost Worm Fungus (Shrieker, Violet) I've gone through up to a bit of G so far, encountered some that arn't clear cut. (Choker, several Demons and Devils, of specific note)
Sjiggie 08-31-07, 02:32 PM	As for the humanoid shape and wings question. I can't see why 2 little holes for the wings to fit through would double the price. I can see why an armor for a dog would cost double because the shape of the armor is entirely different. Just my 2 cents
TelinArtho 08-31-07, 02:44 PM	If we are going to come up with "the" list - I wonder if a third category should exist for creatures that simply can't wear armor. I would put Oozes, Lantern Archons, Will'o'Wisps, elementals, etc in this list because of their "morphic" like bodies.
Eamane 08-31-07, 02:49 PM	If we are going to come up with "the" list - I wonder if a third category should exist for creatures that simply can't wear armor. I would put Oozes, Lantern Archons, Will'o'Wisps, elementals, etc in this list because of their "morphic" like bodies. Well, given correct materials, most of those (with enough intelligence to use it, mind) can wear armor. Pretty much anything with a strength score; or a situation where it can have a strength score (incorporeal's can use ghost-touch armor) can wear armor. How do you armor an air elemental? Make it air-tight. Which is certainly feasible, if quite odd. I'd also hesitate to house-rule that these cant use armor because that 'makes sense'; it's really not the issue at the moment. Why add house-rules when there is no need for them? What is humanoid and isn't for pricing is needed, due to our exotic PCs/Cohorts.
whitebaron 09-01-07, 06:07 PM	*push* after about 4 hours of pitlording t10s fight, i'd really like to see the pitlording-credits issue resolved. only because he was lucky, did the fight last so short. with 3 vs 3 from the beginning, and 3 summons to check into it as well, i had to run 9 characters/animals/monsters in one single fight. now imagine what would happen in a 4 druid ffa.... worth: 1 credit. like an ecl3 fight with 3-5 rounds. so: make it extra credits for every additional combattant. (please?)
Eluria 09-01-07, 07:55 PM	Has anyone talked about the possibility of giving more credits based on ECL of combatants? That seems like another way to go. like 1 credit for pitlording ECL 3-6, 2 for 7-10, 3 for 11+?
templer10 09-02-07, 01:35 AM	*push* after about 4 hours of pitlording t10s fight, i'd really like to see the pitlording-credits issue resolved. only because he was lucky, did the fight last so short. with 3 vs 3 from the beginning, and 3 summons to check into it as well, i had to run 9 characters/animals/monsters in one single fight. now imagine what would happen in a 4 druid ffa.... worth: 1 credit. like an ecl3 fight with 3-5 rounds. so: make it extra credits for every additional combattant. (please?) Ill second that - and i HAD a FFA with 3 out of 4 chars being sneaks which is even worse then summoners - that took around 8+ hours to run.
lonewolf 09-02-07, 02:00 AM	- I request a new houserule in CoCo that allows the use of nondetection vs Touchsight. There are many people out there that think that touchsight is overpowered, and I believe this is a step in the right direction. Nondetection is obviously meant to protect against such spells, but since it was written long before touchsight, there was no way for the designers to include that it also protects against touchsight. :bump:
MindWandererB 09-02-07, 04:01 AM	@lonewolf: I think that argument is fallacious; Nondetection was written before Touchsight, but Escape Detection wasn't. They easily could have made Escape Detection cover Touchsight, but they didn't. Cerebral Blind works, but then Cerebral Blind is much more potent in general.
lonewolf 09-02-07, 04:49 AM	honestly I missed that escape detection exists. But reading through it I found something interesting: You (plus all your gear and any objects you carry) become difficult to detect by clairsentience powers such as clairvoyant sense, remote viewing, and psionic true seeing. If a clairsentience power or similar effect is attempted against you, the manifester of the power must succeed on a manifester level check (1d20 + manifester level, or caster level if the opponent is not a manifester) against a DC of 13 + your manifester level (maximum +10). Its clear that Escape detection doesnt ONLY works on clairsentience powers but also on similar effects. What similar effects are is not clearly regulated and I would argue that touchsight is such a similar effect. => Escape detection should work against Touchsight. And if Escape detection works, I see no reason why Nondetection shouldnt.
TelinArtho 09-02-07, 09:54 AM	@lonewolf - "Similar effects" would be effects that are similar to clairsentience powers (PLAs that are normally clairsentience powers, spells or SLA from the divination school, etc). A similar effect would not include a "detection" ability that is not within the realms of Divination/Clairsentience.
lonewolf 09-02-07, 09:56 AM	@lonewolf - "Similar effects" would be effects that are similar to clairsentience powers (PLAs that are normally clairsentience powers, spells or SLA from the divination school, etc). A similar effect would not include a "detection" ability that is not within the realms of Divination/Clairsentience. I think it can be interpreted both ways, which means an elder vote is probably the best solution.
NiQil 09-02-07, 10:18 AM	I think it can be interpreted both ways, which means an elder vote is probably the best solution. I come down on the side with MWB and Telin....I just don't see your line of thought as being in line with what is meant by the RAW.
whitebaron 09-02-07, 10:23 AM	@lonewolf - "Similar effects" would be effects that are similar to clairsentience powers (PLAs that are normally clairsentience powers, spells or SLA from the divination school, etc). A similar effect would not include a "detection" ability that is not within the realms of Divination/Clairsentience. being a long time magic & dnd player, i'd conclude the word similar like that: in magic, it's nothing that's not stated in errata. everything not explicitly mentioned is forbidden. in dnd, it's dm choice. similar is everything the dm rules as similar. (They use the wording similar just to avoid stating absolutes in case there are features/spells/abilities added in later versions of the game or other sources.) there is no indication whatsoever that a similar ability has to be a divination/clairsentience.
lonewolf 09-02-07, 10:39 AM	I also want you to look for a moment beyond RAW. We have banned/changed impalanced Core material before so this isnt without precedent. So why not change rules when there is a broad consensus that touchsight is too strong? And btw: Even after an Errata for the XPH came out, RAW still says that each pp spend in augmenting energy missile increases the DC by one and not every second like all other energy powers. Every sane DM will use his nerf stick on this and we should too(as far as I know, all users of energy missile in the CoCo DONT use the current RAW because it is clearly overpowered.) After that it is all a matter of degrees which rules should be changed and which not.
Vathelokai 09-02-07, 10:59 AM	I have to side with the elders. The rules clearly make touchsight too strong, but those are the rules. Something I've been considering for a while is collecting all the 'unofficial' errata from the Psionics book, that is things that were changed in the print version and never changed in the SRD. It's been noted on numerous occasions that some good nerfs/balances were placed in there. My idea is to collect them all and put them in one post, or one section on the rules thread. Do other elders have an opinion on this?
NiQil 09-02-07, 11:47 AM	I have to side with the elders. The rules clearly make touchsight too strong, but those are the rules. Something I've been considering for a while is collecting all the 'unofficial' errata from the Psionics book, that is things that were changed in the print version and never changed in the SRD. It's been noted on numerous occasions that some good nerfs/balances were placed in there. My idea is to collect them all and put them in one post, or one section on the rules thread. Do other elders have an opinion on this? I'm not at all opposed to at least examining the material, but for me, in order for us to use it, it would have to be an all or nothing thing. No cherry-picking which errata in that book we like and which we don't. So, as an example, while we may like the errata to energy missile, the errata to astral construct is something most people hate. Both would need to be added equally.
NiQil 09-02-07, 11:55 AM	I also want you to look for a moment beyond RAW. We have banned/changed impalanced Core material before so this isnt without precedent. So why not change rules when there is a broad consensus that touchsight is too strong? And btw: Even after an Errata for the XPH came out, RAW still says that each pp spend in augmenting energy missile increases the DC by one and not every second like all other energy powers. Every sane DM will use his nerf stick on this and we should too(as far as I know, all users of energy missile in the CoCo DONT use the current RAW because it is clearly overpowered.) After that it is all a matter of degrees which rules should be changed and which not. I have yet to seen it proven that touchsight is overpowered. Powerful for its leve, yes....but overpowered, I have yet to see. My opinion on the overpowered stick is that in order for something to be overpowered, it needs to be show that A) it is more powerful than something well above it, and B) it is so good that everyone picks it given the chance. I have yet to see that both of those conditions have been met with touchsight. I don't see every single manifester with touchsight. Do we see a lot? Yes. But not all, or even close to it. And I have yet to see that touchsight has been proven to be more powerful than something above it, spell or power. Maybe that would be the best place for you to start. Give us something concrete that shows that touchsight is better than spells and powers above it. I'm certainly willing to look at anything you can provide.....but as it stands I am not convinced.
lonewolf 09-02-07, 12:04 PM	True Seeing Clr 5, Sor/Wiz 6, Drd 7 This is the best spell that has roughly the same purpose. It doesnt let you automatically see everyone despite hide checks, which is the greatest power of touchsight IMHO. This power alone makes sneak builds obsolete. Except looking into the ethereal plane and looking through polymorphs(which doesnt help in the arena in any way), Touchsight does everything True Seeing does and more. The duration is longer, you dont need expensive material component, the range can be better if augmented. Is that what youre looking for?
NiQil 09-02-07, 12:17 PM	True Seeing Clr 5, Sor/Wiz 6, Drd 7 This is the best spell that has roughly the same purpose. It doesnt let you automatically see everyone despite hide checks, which is the greatest power of touchsight IMHO. This power alone makes sneak builds obsolete. Except looking into the ethereal plane and looking through polymorphs(which doesnt help in the arena in any way), Touchsight does everything True Seeing does and more. The duration is longer, you dont need expensive material component, the range can be better if augmented. Is that what youre looking for? It's a start... Now...on the flip side, what defeats True Seeing? Off the top of my head, hiding is the only thing. What defeats Touchsight? Well, to start with, a second level power...Cloud Mind. Everyone seems to forget about that. A little second level power has the ability to defeat the big bad Touchsight. Granted, it requires a failed save, but nonetheless, it defeats it. For all this talk about this power being overpowered....being able to use a 2nd level power to beat it sorta takes the wind out of those sails. The argument could be made that touchsight is overpowered (I won't offer an opinion on that topic yet)...but I don't think that it requires that houserules be made to allow other spells and powers to defeat it when one already exists.
lonewolf 09-02-07, 12:20 PM	Cloud Mind also defeats True Seeing. Nondetection defeats True Seeing. I would argue that Escape Detection also defeats True Seeing. EDIT: Also Cloud Mind just sucks. It has close range, breaks if you attack, works only on one creature and requires a failed will save. Plus if you have an ally he can grant you a second save against Cloud Mind. I havent seen anyone using Cloud Mind here and there is a reason for it.
Zevox 09-02-07, 12:53 PM	What defeats Touchsight? Well, to start with, a second level power...Cloud Mind. Everyone seems to forget about that. A little second level power has the ability to defeat the big bad Touchsight. Granted, it requires a failed save, but nonetheless, it defeats it. For all this talk about this power being overpowered....being able to use a 2nd level power to beat it sorta takes the wind out of those sails. The argument could be made that touchsight is overpowered (I won't offer an opinion on that topic yet)...but I don't think that it requires that houserules be made to allow other spells and powers to defeat it when one already exists. Cloud Mind beats Touchsight, but it also beats all other forms of detection, including True Seeing. It also only works on a single target, requires a low-DC (due to its level) save, and stops working once you attack that target, making it a very poor power for beating any detection abilities due to being very difficult to pull off and highly temporary. In any event, several other easily-accessed and pretty efficient things beat True Seeing (Nondetection & Escape Detection, mundane hiding, hide-in-plain-sight, etc), but what else beats Touchsight? Being incorporeal and the Slayer ability Cerebral Blind. Thats it. So you either use a very inefficient, in our arena nigh-useless power, take six (!) levels in a specific prestige class, or take an unusual template/race/PrC (Psion Uncarnate) to get an obscure special ability, or you get auto-detected by that power. Speaking of which, have you noticed just to what extent Touchsight auto-detects things? It not only auto-pinpoints foes, like with blindsense, but also causes you to auto-spot/hear them ("You do not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures"), and auto-defeats illusions (by a ruling I still disagree with, even things like Mirror Image here). There absolutely is no hiding from that thing without the above-mentioned scant few difficult to obtain and/or inefficient countermeasures, unlike with True Seeing (which, incidentally, is also a Psion power two levels above Touchsight). As for part 2 of your criteria, I think that should be obviously met already. Those scant few Psions or Wilders who don't take that power all keep powerstones of it with them as soon as they're able to purchase them. Note: I'm not necessarily endorsing whatever lonewolf is proposing here (still sifting through that), I just noticed that whether Touchsight was broken or not was being discussed, and as I feel strongly that it is, I decided to weigh in there. Zevox
lonewolf 09-02-07, 01:04 PM	The fix I would like to see is to remove the autospot sentence on Touchsight and have Touchsight be affected by Nondetection and escape Detection. That way it is still better than the lvl2 See Invisibility since it defeats Mirror Image, Displacement, darkness, fogs and similar, but it is not overpowered anymore. Unfortunately I doubt that an agreement on that can be reached, so I am trying to at least bring the second part of my proposal through here. btw: A few other things that touchsight defeats and True Seeing not: Fog, Darkness and any other concealment.
Eamane 09-02-07, 01:14 PM	Touchsight defeats Mirror Image/Illusions? Huh. Given that some illusions can manifest tactile sensation, I would say that it defeats low-level illusions, not necessarily all of them. That said, yeah, it's extremely powerful. It's one of the reasons we have very few dedicated stealth builds in the arena. Auto-losing vs Psions is not a good weakness when Psions compose such a high percentage of the combatants. Is it ban/house-rule worthy? I'm not so sure. Part of the reason why it's so powerful is the kind of environment it is in. Our maps are generally medium sized or smaller, with non-wall obstacles to block line of sight; that's a perfect situation for Touchsight, given it's range and ability to go around obstacles. If we had long-range low-obstacle, high-concealment maps (like plains when it's dark) it wouldn't be as effective. Of course, the reason we don't have those kinds of maps is that battles in them take a very long time to resolve. But in the end, Touchsight is not an offensive power. It's not even a defensive power. It's a utility power that counters stealth and only very rarely stops your opponent from being able to offensively engage you (sniper rogues are the only archetype whom Touchsight causes to deal less damage; and they would need to be within 30' anyways). In it's usage, Touchsight keeps battles from being one-sided. With it on, there is rarely a situation where one side cant attack the other. Personally? That's a good thing. I'm not terribly convinced that we have an obligation to make stealth viable in all situations. Stealth builds are like a combo deck in Magic: The Gathering; it tries it's hardest not to interact with it's opponent, but to do it's own thing until it beats it's opponent. Touchsight is the proverbial counter spell; it doesn't kill them, but it does disrupt them enough to allow your own game plan to start to have some impact on the situation. So I would not recommend changing Touchsight. If you do make it less powerful, do it slowly (perhaps reduce the auto-spot/listen to a +10 bonus), not a radical change (dropping an aspect of the power completely/banning it). See how much is fair and do just that much. I wouldn't enjoy a COCO flooded with stealth builds, to be honest.
NiQil 09-02-07, 01:29 PM	Considering that we have already had three Elders and our fearless leader weigh in stating that they do not agree with lonewolf's proposal, I think we can consider the issue settled. We do still have several things on the list to come to resolution on....I think the crafting adjustments and revamping pitlord credits are the most important. But not a lot of discussion on anything on our list recently.
MindWandererB 09-05-07, 06:11 PM	While I do think the credit issue is important, I think we have another issue on our hands: the guilds. Now granted, the guilds are particularly obtrusive right now with the Denth attacks. But we're skirting the edge of a SoE every week, and this week we probably won't be able to support those fights at all. And we haven't had any guild operations for a long time--those usually take pitlords, too. Most importantly, Zevox is having trouble of late finding the time to be Guildlords. I know I don't have the time. Neither does Sauro, and while Telin might be able to squeeze it in, it would take away from his pitlording and I don't think he has any interest anyway (had to pull his leg to get him to be guildmaster of CEF). Vath has been unenthusiastic about the guild system for a long time, and while TM gets more into the RP than anyone, he seems none too keen on the bookkeeping/math aspect of it (and, no offense man, but when I was guildlords I caught a lot of mistakes by you) and probably doesn't have time either. I think we need to at least consider suspending the guild game. While I enjoy it, and there are a lot of things a lot of us like about it, it may have gotten to the point of being more harm than good, especially to the CoCo a a whole. Our population is shrinking slowly but steadily, and while I could try to advertise for more players, we don't have the pitlords to cover an influx. I had hoped to make the guild system run at least until we got the Community off the ground to replace it, but I haven't had a whole lot of time to work on that, nor the inspiration to fill in many of the gaps in the system. When it is complete, it will take a lot less of our resources, as everyone will be responsible for their own property sheet (so guildmasters won't be needed, just Communitylords). Thoughts?
Zevox 09-05-07, 06:27 PM	Works for me. I have to admit, time issues aren't the whole of why I've been late with Guild stuff lately - my interest in it has waned quite a lot. Its just become far too pointless from my perspective: generating scant little RP (even the Denth thing is only loosely tied to the Guilds) and having its own internal rules coming to naught (honestly, with the efforts to keep any conflict from breaking out coming from TLT and CEF, I see no reason why we're even bothering with all this money and resource tracking, since nothing interesting will ever come of it that lasts more than the few weeks it'd take those two to kill whoever instigated it). If we just left it as an infrequently-used RP mechanism with no formal rules, I'd be as happy with it as I ever was - certainly happier with it than I am now. Zevox
SauroGrenom 09-05-07, 07:19 PM	The thing I most like about the guilds is the sense of history that has slowly built around it. I've actually planned a bit on starting some **** soon. At least I've submitted GAP to start recruiting leaders and more regiments with the goal of systematicially stomping all the PMG's and other annoyances around the map. THings would get started in about 3 weeks. In any case, I also see the burden that running the behemoth guild game represents. That burden is specially large when considered in light of the community benefit of a simple history. A simpler system can probably be put together which involves far less in the way of various details in flux (points or 20 kinds). In fact as I think over the best parts of running PSI, it's mostly the actions of characters that stands out. There's the quests that I was pitlord for, and the PC's who retired and became a part of the guild NPC structure (Zaroff was going to be the new leader of PSI's Psion corps). I like the aspects your character being a part of a continuous organization with history larger than the history of a single character. The whole geo-political rivalry thing was good as well, to setup a frame work for characters to like/trust or dislike/distrust one another. None of those good things really require that we do all the stuff that we now do. I agree that for now a suspension of the guild game is probably in the best interest of everyone. I've thought lots about the guild game and what I'd rather play. So I have a framework of ideas. I could formalize it and submit it in a couple weeks. I'd love to hear what others are thinking about the game. And I want to be perfectly clear that I don't think we should just stop the guilds permanently and rely on the community stuff to fill the gap. The guilds represent a history and continuity larger than a single character, and as such they are good contributors to our gladius setting. Community stuff is based on single characters, so the history and continuity isn't as strong with them as it is with a more formal guild.
MindWandererB 09-05-07, 08:12 PM	I definitely didn't mean to imply that the Community should replace the Guilds. I was working on the former under the assumption that we'd run the current guild system concurrently with the new community system, then later switch the guild system over to a revised system as well.
Vathelokai 09-05-07, 08:32 PM	Suspension sounds good to me as well. I'll be reverting back to the system I used before there was a guild system (basicly throw out 2 plot hooks in every quest I run, and encourage all members to go on quests). However continuing the Denth attacks sounds good too. Perhaps Denth could diversify; start attacking the populace as a whole. All arena monster fights could be Denth attacks until the Denth campaigns are finished.
TelinArtho 09-05-07, 11:16 PM	Well - on the matter of the Denth attacks - those were going to stop soon anyway (week 5 of either campaign). That said - I have supported the Guild system only because it was asked of me and because it helped keep it alive while it still "needed" to be alive. I haven't particularly enjoyed the guild game - so I would certainly have no problem setting it aside. The main reason I suggested the Denth attacks was to jumpstart the campaign. I certainly could have done just as well with a strong lead-in story - but the guild system provided an avenue with which to involve the city. I would like to think that the guild system was at least good for that - it helped get information into the history of the CoCo. But as I said before - I would not be sad to see it go. I have many pressing issues I can prioritize better. I suspect I could manage more pitlording without it, etc. Anyway - I would suggest just cancelling this week's attacks by Denth and proceed with the business as usual starting next week.
NiQil 09-05-07, 11:20 PM	My opinion of the guilds doesn't carry much weight anymore, since I have long since run rull speed away from them. But keeping them as an RP entity only and abolishing the game and all of the extra missions, raids, ect, is probably the way to go.
Rauul 09-05-07, 11:22 PM	start attacking the populace as a whole. All arena monster fights could be Denth attacks until the Denth campaigns are finished. Now thats an idea that i like..
Vathelokai 09-05-07, 11:23 PM	As I stated a long time ago (a year back?) I'll keep TAO running as an RP entity no matter what system or non-system there is. Sure, there's times where no one posts for a month but it never really stops, and is great for setting building. I think all the guilds could stay 'open'. Just change the each guildmasters 'job' to more of someone who keeps tabs on the running storylines. Seems there is a consensus.
TheMagister 09-06-07, 01:34 AM	The same with me and WAR. My mistakes were of the "I don't care enough to look up the exact rules" variety, along with your run-of-the-mill "didn't carry the one" errors. WAR has been a great RP platform, and the rivalry between CEF and WAR has been great, too. Nothing like righteous anger against "the man" to get a story going. But I'm tired of the bookkeeping. It's cumbersome, time consuming, and near-pointless. I think we could justifiably use the Denth invasion as a touchstone by which the guildleaders realize that only by banding together in the face of adversity do they stand a chance of affecting the city of Gladius as a whole. I think that, after this, Gwar, the Magister, Aerryl, Asran, Rhengarvin, and whoever runs PSI (I can never remember) get together to challenge the Council and kick them out. Then, those leaders rise as the new Council and start cleaning up the city. Each will have to come up with his own RP reasons for wanting to contribute (Asran's a toughie -- maybe Annalina steps up?). The RP vehicle needs to stay, though. These transitions take time, and the guilds could take a year or two to root out all the Council's strongholds. I figure once we get a few level 20s out there, we can have some truly epic campaigns. THE STORY. That's the most important thing. I always wished the Githyanki invasion could've been played out as well as this Denthian one. TM
MindWandererB 09-06-07, 04:20 AM	@TM: That is an awesome idea. One representative from each of the guilds, preferably a character played by the guildmaster, on a campaign to send the Council packing would be a phenomenal send-off for the guild system as it stands. I'm not sure what they'd put up in its place, but they can talk about that while we work on the Community and the new Guild system. If we're shutting the current guilds down, we might as well begin a discussion on the new system (again, not to ignore the credit problem, but both issues require some creativity and thus will take a little while to hammer out). I know Sauro has a lot of ideas about the guild system. I remember many of them, and I have several of my own. Here are some. Let me start with what I consider mandates: The guild system must not impact the regular game or the community system. The community system must also not impact the guild game. Both subgames need to be fully playable and at no disadvantage without the other, and arena combatants need to be at no disadvantage if they choose not to. The system must be simple. Not minimalistic, but easy enough to learn. The system must not require weekly maintainance. That's one of the worst parts of the game as it is, as far as keeping things smooth. There can be weekly opportunities to do things, but there should be no penalty if you miss a week, or several weeks, or even if you never do anything (although you may never improve, you won't be at a handicap). It must be drop-in, drop out. The disappearance of a guildmaster must not force us to make any major decisions about the game--either they pass on the reins, or a designated backup takes over, or the guild goes away quietly. Similarly, many people have asked to be able to create their own guilds, and I feel strongly that that should be an option (with Guildlords' approval). It must support play at all levels of development. In the current system, if we created a new guild, they'd be superfluous because they'd be too weak to compete. There must always be development-appropriate challenges and the theoretical ability to catch up. It should be both competitive and cooperative, with emphasis on the former. For those who prefer the latter, the Community system will meet that need. The guilds will be assumed to be antagonistic to one another until proven otherwise. As with the current system, an alliance may last only so long as it remains convenient. Now, based on what I've discussed with Sauro and others, here are some of the ideas I was considering. Each guild has a "level." That level will determine the basic abilities of the guild, as well as how quickly they advance when they are involved in operations and missions. Think of these things as analagous to skills and experience points. As level goes up, the guild's "skills" improve, and they level up when reaching a certain amount of "experience." The experience they earn will depend on the difference in level between their guild and the opposing one--too much of a difference and they get nothing (preventing them from picking on the weak). The "skills" idea is based on the Affiliations in the PHB II. I'm thinking there will be several of these: Violence, Espionage, and Negotiation (from that book) are good, and I'm also thinking Wealth would be a good one. There should be more, but we can invent those after coming up with good "executive powers" for each one. Each Operation/executive power would be an opposed check of some kind, or perhaps a check plus a battle (I'd prefer to avoid just a battle--that takes away the impact of the guilds' uniqueness and turns it into which guild has the strongest PCs). PHB II has many good ideas, but we need more diversity in attributes to get adequate diversity. I'm thinking each guild should have about two high skills and about two low ones, chosen at the time of creation, so we'd be looking at six to eight total skills (2 high, 2 low, and 2-4 average). I don't know that we need to keep structures, but if we do, they can provide check bonuses or penalties, special abilities, or unique executive powers (sort of analagous to magic items, loosely). The problem would be that there needs to be some sort of wealth-by-level equivalent so that a guild that's been around for a long time doesn't just amass a ton of structures (like an ECL 10 character with 500,000 gp worth of items). District presence/control/ownership is also a negotiable point. Many folks liked the idea of population pressure in the system, and this certainly helps spark conflict where otherwise everyone might just develop peacefully.* It would have to be such that if a guild's level is so different from your own that you wouldn't get experience for beating them in an operation, then they wouldn't impact your district control, either. Sort of like a street gang and a wizard enclave operating in the same place--while another street gang or a police force in the district would impact the gang, and another wizard enclave or a cathedral would impact the enclave, they don't impact each other because they operate at totally different scales. Because balance in level is less of an issue (although the executive powers will have to be carefully balanced), we can still carry on a legacy from the current system. I'm thinking we have a vote on what the power ranking of the guilds is right now (my opinion is CEF, PSI, TLT, EHTC, WAR, and TAO), and we start those off at levels 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5. If we have any takers, LOY and EYE could also make comebacks, starting at level 4. Any other guilds that are founded at the beginning would have a "signing incentive" of starting at level 3, otherwise new guilds begin at level 1. A guild must have at least 5 PCs played by at least 4 different players to be founded (including at the beginning), and it is disbanded if it falls below 4 PCs and 3 players, or if the guildmaster disappears or quits and no one wants to take over. Each guild must have a theme of some sort (unlike most guilds in MMORPGs) and that theme is subject to Guildlords' approval. *I should note that I am not a very competitive person, and am thus perhaps not the best to develop this aspect of the guild game. To be what it needs to be requires a level of competitiveness higher than what I usually prefer. But this isn't my game, it's our game. I'll get my jollies in the Community. I'll probably start a whole new thread to discuss this (and the Community system), but let's start here for now with some general ideas.
Zevox 09-06-07, 09:40 AM	I think that, after this, Gwar, the Magister, Aerryl, Asran, Rhengarvin, and whoever runs PSI (I can never remember) get together to challenge the Council and kick them out. Then, those leaders rise as the new Council and start cleaning up the city. Each will have to come up with his own RP reasons for wanting to contribute (Asran's a toughie -- maybe Annalina steps up?). Best leave Asran out of that entirely, TM. He barely cares if Gladius stands or falls at this point (to him, its a useful tool for the arena and, for the brief time they existed and potential to erupt again, inter-guild conflicts, but nothing more), much less who or what is in charge of it. Besides, he never has been and never will be in charge of the EHTC - never had any interest in running a mortal organization. Annalina has been the fill-in leader of the Guild in Virgo's absence for a while now, but shes also retired from the arena, so any campaign/quest that goes on will lack her. Not sure what we'd do for an EHTC character in such an event, really. Zevox
Erithmu 09-06-07, 10:26 AM	Just an idea that might be a good means of developing the guild system would be to use the 3.5 class system in terms of the leveling system. General idea would be to have the guild gain levels in classes. (generically speaking classes could be Diplomatic, Stealth/subterfuge, Combative, Magic, others) and then have skills based on the class description. Each guild would 'have' to choose a 'favored class' which would have the restriction of being the majority of the levels (greater than 50%) Pros: Easy to learn, XP is gained through the RP aspect of questing. (It could be added to run through the arena, but that raises the bookkeeping level) Cons: Developing the class/skill system and how that effects the guild game. Other stuff: - Maybe require that any guild mission/quest be required to have two characters on it so that the pitlord issue is less of a stressful thing - Maybe limit guild questing to only one guild quest active at a time to help pitlord issue. (I say active as opposed to per 3 weeks) *I just woke up about 20 min ago so I'm just putting for some ideas. I'm not sure how the competetive nature of the game would work either.
TelinArtho 09-06-07, 10:34 AM	There's a lot in MWB's post, but I did want to comment on this: Because balance in level is less of an issue (although the executive powers will have to be carefully balanced), we can still carry on a legacy from the current system. I'm thinking we have a vote on what the power ranking of the guilds is right now (my opinion is CEF, PSI, TLT, EHTC, WAR, and TAO), and we start those off at levels 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5. If we have any takers, LOY and EYE could also make comebacks, starting at level 4. Any other guilds that are founded at the beginning would have a "signing incentive" of starting at level 3, otherwise new guilds begin at level 1. I think much of the issue with the previous system is that it had no intention on being balanced at all. Not even an inkling of it. And I got the impression over time that the lack of balance was an issue with more than a few people. Since we have the opportunity to start with a clean slate, I would very much suggest starting with an even field rather than keep the legacy of the older system.
whitebaron 09-06-07, 11:07 AM	Never having a chance yet to play in any guild, i'd say I like the idea of Erithmu very much. Not only are many of the basic principles for classes etc. (including multiclassing!) already done, you could also take some principles of gladius as well for guild missions etc. - 1 would be free, for all further, have the guild pay 10 collective credits (as with active characters) - this also keeps pitlord demand lower. of course, guilds should be able to gain credits not only by donation of their members, but with other actions - like pitlording a mission for another guild, gives not personal credits, but e.g. 10 guild credits. as for guild starting, i'd like to propose something really different: let a guild start as lvl 0, with a guild founder, a co-founder, and maybe a third char. As other people join, they have to do some initial questing (like the current miniquests, run by any of the existing guild-members, with the usual restriction: your ecl in cycle(miniquest), choose ecl off-cycle(ques)) The gold and XP of such quests can be divided any way the quester wants, but at least xx% (havent thought of a good value yet) has to be guild-profit. once the guild hits a sum of ~6000GP+XP together (aka: worth lvl 3), they start out as a Level 3 Guild, and the initial founding phase is done. i could think of similar rules for guild quests/missions/campaigns. th guild should be able to have some impact on the coco chars as well (at least while they are questing for the guild!). i don't like that strict ruling out mwb used, since it really destroys any affiliation you might feel towards your guild. earn some kind of guild points per mission, which allows you to make use of the special abilities the guild classes give you. you need to pay xp/gold for it, in your guild quests/fights - this will make it a fair game towards those, that don't want to play in guilds... just some quick foughts from at work... will have to reformulate some of these for sure...
hogarth 09-06-07, 01:32 PM	My opinion on guilds -- I'd suggest not trying to create another new complicated strategy game. Maybe you could stick with something simple. For instance, you could give out "prestige points" for various things (like miniquests or quests that guild member go on, or number of posts in that guild's RP thread, or whatever). Then the guild with the most "prestige points" at any given time would be able to shamelessly flaunt them in front of its rivals. :) On an unrelated note, I have a question about traps. Does a manually reset trap that uses poison (e.g. the poisoned doorknob trap in the DMG) require the user to purchase a new dose of poison in order to use it again? The Rules of Gladius don't say anything about it, but the rules in the SRD sort of suggest that that's the case (since poison for automatically resetting traps is 20x as expensive).
TelinArtho 09-06-07, 01:45 PM	Hmm - it does seem to be silent on the issue. I'd probably say it does require a new dose each time it is used (which a manual reset is only usable once per 3FC anyway).
MindWandererB 09-06-07, 04:57 PM	About using a PC-like system for the guilds: I have a number of problems with it. It's something that I'd considered previously and rejected. Here's why: Experience: with PCs, you earn at least a little experience for beating something way below your level. You could theoretically progress from ECL 8 to 9 by killing nothing by CR 1/10 bats (at 20 XP a pop, it would take 400 of them, but you could do it). I don't want a level 8 guild to have any incentive to beat up on a level 1 guild, or even a level 3 guild. The multiclassing system isn't designed to handle skill points primarily. That's kind of an afterthought. If skills are the primary feature of the guilds, it needs a system designed to focus on them. I don't want the process of "levelling up" to be overly complex. Multiclassing is a complex system. Most importantly, it's possible to make very bad decisions when it comes to multiclassing. I never want it to get to the point where a guild realizes that they screwed up their "build" and won't be viable anymore--the point where if it were a PC, they'd retire it and create a new one. That's not an option for the guild system (well, not a good one). It must be designed so that all decisions that you can't un-make are equally viable. Regarding other comments: Rith's comment about guild quests: absolutely, quests will need to have a minimum of 2 participants. Maybe even a minimum of 2 for miniquests and a minimum of 3 for full quests. Telin's comment about balance: Due to the drop-in, drop-out design of the new system, we have to be able to support level inequality. If we can't support it from the beginning then we won't be able to support it ever. One of the reasons I wanted to start off with a disparity was that if we designed things badly, we'll know it sooner rather than later. Even if the six existing guilds start off on equal footing, any newly-created guilds won't be. So I don't think there's any point do doing as you ask. whitebaron's idea to pay credits to start higher than level 1: Er, maybe. I have mixed feelings, perhaps the greatest of which is that I don't want someone to spend credits, then have the guildmaster leave the following week. Or for the guildmaster to spend credits and then have all the members leave. Reminder to whitebaron: I do want to avoid having guilds keep GP. It involves more bookkeeping than it's worth. That's why I wanted a Wealth stat instead--it's more abstract, but it makes things simpler. Also @whitebaron: Sorry, I'm going to take a hard line on the stance that guild activity will never improve a character. There should never, ever, be any advantage, even an option you have to pay for, for guild members vs. non-guild members. Even if it only gives you an advantage on quests or monster fights and not in the arena, it's still a small advantage (allows you to level up faster by taking on stronger opponents with equal risk). The moment initiative is rolled, your guild affiliation should be irrelevant. @hogarth: Your proposal is similar to one I made a very, very long time ago. The problem was that abstract "points" aren't much better than pure RP. There needs to be more to the game than that besides just keeping score in random activities.
Erithmu 09-06-07, 05:20 PM	@MWB: I can see what you are saying about developing 'classes' so I'll leave that be for the time being. The following statements are made without a decent understanding of where the endgame (if there is one) would be for the guild game. Some of it too is getting a feel for what thinking has already taken place and to get an idea of what the ideas that have come before but may not have been voiced. Could we do something like a 'points system' where after a quest you can add a point to one of the abilities we set. (example might be Negotiation using the current system) From there those still have general effects on how the guild then operates Random events could be primary effects on these traits and serve to balance guilds to even but could still provide general boosts. (unless of course we want to removed them for the bookkeeping sake). I think it would be nice to remove much of the work from the guildlords stuff so that guilds basically run themselves and the only accounting is recording quests/miniquests that the guilds do.
whitebaron 09-07-07, 04:58 AM	first, i have to clear some things up that were misunderstood: 1) i absolutely don't want the players to have to pay credits for the guild for leveling up. paying credits for guild actions is just something that could be in place, but is not necessarily so. what i was proposing was some kind of founding phase for each guild, where you needed to do some initial quests, so as to encourage rp, while keeping "new guilds" from popping up like there's no tomorrow. 2) i just wanted the characters to be more included in their guilds, thats why i proposed sharing their xp to the guild, and getting something in return for it. so you pay xp for favors from the guild, which is nothing short from item shopping. -> you get something back for the money you invested in your guild - seems hardly an advantage or disadvantage, it' s just balancing. i dont see any reason why one should place his characters into other guilds any other week. 3) using guild favors on quests etc wouldn't allow you to level up faster - it might even be, that you level slower, since you need to spend a fixed factor of you xp for the guild. so, example: PC Verren quests for guild Firestarters, and gets a bonus item for doing so. he has to pay like 50% of his income to the guild. he needs to beat a CR6 encounter to have an actual gain in this. in CR5, income would be the same as in a normal arena fight. 4) the gp would be factored in in the guild-xp counter or however you want it to be called. if you want it to be a competitive game, you have at least one stat you have to track. (whether its called xp, fame, status doesnt matter) second, i'll bring in some refined ideas for guild classes: 1) multiclassing rules per se, are actually quite simple. you progress slower if you have too many classes that are not your favored one and that's about it. if you build classes to actually gain feat-like abilities (aka: fixed skills) or class-skills with skill points, there can be no other consequences for multiclassing - its not like we're building a multiclass paladin/blackguard/sorcerer/theurge or something, the abilities won't interact that badly, since classes are meant to do just some straightforward things. 2) Erithmu seems to be on par with me, that quests should give some bonus to a guild. it can be easily seen as xp, making harder quests for the members not only more rewarding for the pcs, but more rewarding for the guild as well. i won't take a simple point system for this - either you need to set increasing costs, or use a general fame/xp system. else, there will be one guild that specialises on completely one skill/stat (like wealth, or warfare) and will obliviate the others, if you want it to be/stay competitive. All systems that use point buy after initial creation without increasing costs fort further skill augmentations are bound to fail to specialists. 3) about the beating up smaller, easier pray: at lvl 8, you get nothing for 1/10 cr creatures, but apart from that: just set up another xp table for guilds then. and: guilds as such, aren't fighting, but their members are (most of the time). 4) about unviable decisions: if the skills are equally important, there can be no such things as really unbalanced decision. sure, you'll have to tweak with the rules for quite some time to do so, but hey - this is expected anyway. one final word: you want to make it competitive? then don't bother with things like strong guild beating up weaker guild too much. just give the weaker guilds the possibility to team up on the stronger guild to teach it a lesson it won't forget... too much regulation is the boon of newbies, but the bane of competition.
hogarth 09-07-07, 11:11 AM	@hogarth: Your proposal is similar to one I made a very, very long time ago. The problem was that abstract "points" aren't much better than pure RP. There needs to be more to the game than that besides just keeping score in random activities. Well, here's my point: How many people are playing the guild "game"? Six guildmasters, and two of them (TheMagister, Vathelokai) seem fairly indifferent to whether there's a guild game or not. I suppose there are other people out there who are interested in the wargame aspect of the guilds, but I don't think there are that many of them. But even if we concede the point that the guilds will die completely if there's no strategy game associated with them (debatable), what is the benefit that one guild gets from beating another? Bragging rights, maybe; it's not like we're going to allow one guild to destroy another -- at least I don't think that's on the agenda. So how is it all that different to say that one guild has 100 "Influence Points" vs another guild's 50 "Influence Points" instead of saying one has three fortresses and 50,000 gp vs one fortress and 25,000 gp? That's the part about the proposed Community of Gladius that I liked; it takes the idea of earning abstract points (that don't really affect much) and gives them a little more razzle-dazzle (e.g. now you can earn the right to call yourself Arch-Emperor Rubicanti, Lord of the Divine Palace of Flames). I don't think it needs to be that much different for guilds.
TheMagister 09-07-07, 02:04 PM	(e.g. now you can earn the right to call yourself Arch-Emperor Rubicanti, Lord of the Divine Palace of Flames). And at only thirteen years old! {wipes away a tear} I'd be so proud...
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 02:11 PM	Sorry TM - I've already laid claim to the "Arch-Emperor" title with Kraegin... You'll have to settle with "Head Peon Number 4, Assistant to the Grand Jester in servitude of the Arch-Emperor" Its a bit longer of a title to work with, but certainly suits him well :)
TheMagister 09-07-07, 02:29 PM	If you'll take a pageboy that'll burn your palace down around your ears, he'll take the job.
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 02:35 PM	I understand that the current drive is to work on the newer addons, but I am in need of a resolution to the armor question started ~40 posts back. Two characters I am working on hinge on whether they qualify as "Humanoid" for armor purposes: Half-Dragon Sahaugin mutant (4 arms) - no wings yet, but will have wings by ECL12. Mephits (wings) I can proceed with answers to just those two cases, but I'd rather see something concrete established.
Sjiggie 09-07-07, 03:20 PM	I would say when a creature has a general humanoid shape that it can wear Humanoid armor. An extra set of holes in the armor to fit extra arms, wings or maybe a tail shouldn't increase the cost of the armor. Now if a creature has a different shape than humanoid. For example a dragon then tho cost would be that for a non-humanoid because the shape is much more different then that from a humanoid.
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 03:27 PM	The point that I find humorous in this is that the armor for a 4-armed, winged half-dragon sahuagin mutant is probably a lot more complex than adjusting humanoid-like armor to be fitted for a medium-sized quadruped... A Dog afterall has 4 limbs (2 forelegs, 2 hindlegs). The Half-dragon sahuagin has 8 appendages... (2 legs, 4 arms, 2 wings) Yes, some of the angles on the arms would need to be adjusted, but many armors are not just "arm holes" - but actually armor covering the limbs.
Eamane 09-07-07, 03:38 PM	The point that I find humorous in this is that the armor for a 4-armed, winged half-dragon sahuagin mutant is probably a lot more complex than adjusting humanoid-like armor to be fitted for a medium-sized quadruped... A Dog afterall has 4 limbs (2 forelegs, 2 hindlegs). The Half-dragon sahuagin has 8 appendages... (2 legs, 4 arms, 2 wings) Yes, some of the angles on the arms would need to be adjusted, but many armors are not just "arm holes" - but actually armor covering the limbs. It may not be entirely logical, but given that a Sahuagin is definitely humanoid, the question becomes 'do extra limbs make it non-humanoid'? The answer is quite clearly; No. Follow-up question 'do wings make it non-humanoid'? Also clearly no. Now, if the base creature was a 4-armed flying underwater thing, would I call it humanoid out of the box? Probably not. I'd say it was an abomination with humanoid-like parts which allowed use of complex tools, but special armor. However, that's not the question, so as the changes are incremental, you get your armor without paying out the nose. Mephits in particular are described and pictured as humanoids with wings, if quite small ones. And since wings are fine, I would say so are Mephits. Of course, it's best to wait for an elder to chime in agreement/disagreement.
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 04:22 PM	Here's a request to put a mention of writing Monster Fight tactics for pitlords into the Rules of Gladius. I'll edit this post to include some of the guidelines I'd suggest. Very General Guidelines for Monster Fight tactics: Without even looking at the intelligence of the creature involved, basic tactics for monster fights should probably include most of the specific situations that might come up in a fight. How complex these ideas are will end up in the hands of the pitlord in question, but here's some general things to include: 1. How to handle allies of the opponent(s). [ie - Priority of Targets, what to do if blocked, etc] 2. How to handle special situations that often come up (grappling, tripping, disarming, entanglement, concentration, etc) Since the tactics are supposed to be written with the opponent in mind - it is not out of the question to include those things for even very limited intelligence/low wisdom creatures.
whitebaron 09-07-07, 04:33 PM	as for the armor issue: humanoid is defined mainly through the corpse-structure. but to make things easy, just quote wikipedia. ;) Usually, a fictional humanoid species has the same basic body outline as a human, being bipedal with hands which include fingers and opposable thumbs, but differs in details such as number of digits, coloring, ear form, presence of hair, average height and weight, size of nose, form of skin, "extras" such as horns, plates, claws, tails or multiple appendages, limb structure (such as having digitigrade legs) and taxonomic lineage (being descended from reptiles, fish, rodents, marsupials, or a phylum not evolved on Earth, perhaps, instead of primates). Reptilian humanoids are a common concept. as for the monster rule: i'd prefer to either leave non predatory animals out of the arena, or have them act like being "handle-animaled" - they could do anything that is within a trick, but nothing more specific. doing things like "move to avoid full attack, even if he can then charge", seem way out of line for an animal.
Eamane 09-07-07, 04:53 PM	Since the tactics are supposed to be written with the opponent in mind - it is not out of the question to include those things for even very limited intelligence/low wisdom creatures. While I'm not opposed to having clear tactics, I believe that having low intelligence/wisdom scores is a weakness that should be reflected in their behavior. High intelligence monsters are described time and time again as more dangerous, more powerful and more successful in the long-term than their low-intelligence but physically powerful counterparts. However, if the low-intelligence counterparts act in combat with the exact same problem-solving ability and tactical planning capability of their more intelligent versions... then that wouldn't really be true, would it? Simple creatures should act simply. Complex creatures should act complex or simply as it benefits them most. Your 'two points' of things to be covered cover everything which isn't appropriate for a creature with low intelligence, much less those with none! (Like skeletons) That's my two cents.
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 05:05 PM	Just remember that decision-making capability is not limited to intelligence. In fact, wisdom is probably a better indicator of cunning and prowess. Else - the "tactics" of pack animals (wolves, dogs, etc) would be "too sophisticated" when you look at their intelligence. Animals quite often size up their meals before approaching. For those that aren't actively hunting - they often size up their predator in order to best gauge how to handle it. The reason why I suggest the things I do is so I don't have to make a judgement call during a fight. For instance, my opponent is an experienced tripper and my monster is a large-sized quadruped with an Int of 3. Should I just write "Stomp opponent" in and move on? Okay - now the large-sized quadruped is tripped and based - should the beast get up? Or should it fight from prone? One of the biggest range of arguments I see in the arena (between two or among multiple players) is that a pitlord has to make a call in the fight because some situation that could be anticipated is not handled in the tactics. If I write a one line tactic for the less-intelligent monster, then I guarantee I don't have anything handled in the tactics. Yes, I am the pitlord in this case, so the call I make is the one that will be in the fight - but its still something that has to be done mid-fight - and in this case, AFTER the opposing persons' tactics have been read. Note that my suggestions call for how to handle situations, not how to auto-win. I don't suggest having animals grapple opponents that are much smaller (unless of course the animal is a natural grappler - like a bear). I don't suggest trips (unless it is something like a wolf), etc. My suggestions are there to cover the basics of "what to do if...?"
whitebaron 09-07-07, 05:40 PM	One of the biggest range of arguments I see in the arena (between two or among multiple players) is that a pitlord has to make a call in the fight because some situation that could be anticipated is not handled in the tactics. If I write a one line tactic for the less-intelligent monster, then I guarantee I don't have anything handled in the tactics. Yes, I am the pitlord in this case, so the call I make is the one that will be in the fight - but its still something that has to be done mid-fight - and in this case, AFTER the opposing persons' tactics have been read. the sophistication-grade of a tactic has nothing to do with its completeness. you should divide those two factors. while you are calling here for a guideline on WHAT has to be INCLUDED in a tactic, both eamane and me are expecting a call on something more deeply rooted in rpg: WHAT is ALLOWED for a low int/low wis creature? and what are the implications that poses? putting animals in an arena, makes such choices really difficult, especially if there are allies to the enemy. normally, a bison won't even realize who his opponent is until the fight is called off for eventually stomping on the humanoid instead of his allies. -edit- BTW: the rules don't even state that the pitlord has to do tactics for the monster, they don't state that you should equip your monster before looking at the enemy char's sheet, and they definitely don't state that you can not look at your "opponents" tactics before writing your own. so the rules section for monster fights is what i'd call incomplete and unusable.
MindWandererB 09-07-07, 06:34 PM	Actually, the rules do say that monster tactics have to be written (although they don't say that the pitlord must be the one to write them)--the "lore" section mentions tactics. You are right that they don't say the pitlord shouldn't equip the monster with particular regard to the PC they're fighting, but the current guidelines don't leave a lot of room to exploit that. The rules are hardly "unusable." We've been using them for over four years now. Maybe not professional, but certainly usable. Regarding Int and tactics: I'm of the opinion that a monster's Int is factored into its CR. A mindless undead and an intelligent one, all else being equal, are very different in difficulty. However, a strict set of tactics rules is not likely to work, as some creatures use very specific and moderately complex tactics despite low intelligence. Certainly, contingencies for probable situations should be included. For instance, a pack of wolves should have a system for hunting down an opponent with Invisibility. However, it would be inappropriate for that tactic to be "jump to the central island and ready an action to all move together to the edge of the lava upon hearing anyone approach, so they'll have to push through our line or fall in."
Rauul 09-07-07, 06:46 PM	personnely i keep the monsters tactics simple, but then again i keep my own tactics simple.. this is for 2 reason.. 1 i am not there to improvise so i have faith that the pitlord will use my charaters int/wis and improvise if needed, and 2nd is because the more complicated you make the tactics the more work on the pitlord.. (Hey you missed my contingency in Pm #4, paragraph 3, sub paragraph 6 on my Barbarian with a 8 int and 8 wis) more than 1 animal, that usually run in a pack.. should use pack tactics.. run thier opponent into the ground, surround and flank.. Single monsters in the arena i always thought they were brought in by animal handlers and ordered to kill their target.. (yes ignore everything else but thier target).. -- int monsters are very instinctive.. they will should be the simplest.. 1-3 int mobs should be almost as bad.. but they should also be cunning due to thier wis.. Monsters also follow a code.. Undead skeletons while being mindless and cunning (10 wis) are neutral evil and will attack anything just to kill it..
MindWandererB 09-07-07, 07:06 PM	About (non)humanoid armor, my take is this: why is nonhumanoid armor more expensive? It doesn't take any extra material, and it isn't inherently more complicated. I infer then that it's more expensive because armorers aren't used to the nonstandard designs, and therefore it takes longer for them to figure it out. This is true even for barding, to an extent--many medieval armorsmiths wouldn't know how to make barding, so you'd have to go to a specialist, who would charge more. Therefore, any alteration that would cause a notable change in armor design would cost extra. Wings? Some idiot armorsmith might make two tiny little holes for the wings to poke through--and then the client won't be able to get it on because the middles of the wings are larger than the base, or because their wings just don't bend that way. So you'd either have to assemble it in more pieces, so it can be locked around the wings after the fact, or you'd have to add great slashes so the wings can be folded into it. Either way, the armorer would have to get creative, and would be enititled to charge more. Multiple arms? Easier, but some types of armor would still be challenging (how do you protect the upper arm of the lower pair? You can't use a normal pauldron because it'll get in the way of the upper pair). Now, what makes no sense is that the "unusual shape" modifier multiplies the cost for special materials, as well. But that doesn't make any sense however you look at it, even when the creature is clearly nonhumanoid.
SauroGrenom 09-07-07, 08:02 PM	MWB makes a good point that intelligence and tactics are part of the CR of the monster. A Rakshasa is a classic master mind monster with great INT. These guys are expected to use items, buffs, minions and savvy tactics to earn the CR. So when a pitlord runs a Rakshasa and his 4 minions in a monster battle, then the tactics should reflect the monster's expected kind of intelligence and behavior. Skeletons... however are a different story. These things are tough mindless melee combatants. They have lots of HD, and in our CoCo rules they have equipment. Look at the CR8 dragon skeleton! That's a beast! Crazy HP and full attack ability on top of undead immunities and energy immunity. The CR7 cloud giant isn't much better. These things are nasty, and if run using savvy pitlord tactics with expectations of what the battle filed will look like and what the character can do, this is a nearly impossible battle unless you happen to be a cleric. Even then, good luck turning 19HD of undead as a ECL8 cleric. In a TT game, skeletons are the allies or servants of an intelligent foe who directs them. As GM, a stand alone Skeleton Dragon would spend at least two rounds feebly trying to squeeze through a narrow passage following the halfling enemy before starting to look around for another way. A skeleton or ooze would quickly forget about being in a battle with a foe it cannot sense... I think that it would be very hard for us to make formalized rules about how to deal with tactics for all monsters in a general sense. But I also feel that it's something that pitlords should consider. I'll take a stab at generalized tactics with the following: Mindless- Mindless creatures are assumed to have enough intelligence to use their attacks, special abilities or special qualities. They will move in a manner that best allows them to attack or that allows them to avoid obvious threats or impediments (difficult terrain, intervening lava and so on). They will also attack which ever foe is closest. They will fight till dead preferring the major attack form of the creature. They will not use tactical movement to avoid an AoO (5' step, withdraw actions) or to provide bonuses (aid other, flanking and so on). They will not execute special attacks (disarm or grapple) unless those are related to the abilities of the creature. They will not activate magic items. They will not use readied actions or change their place in the initiative order. Animal Intelligence- Creatures of animal intelligence will choose their targets and follow the desired target if it moves away. These creatures will choose a target which appears to be the easiest to slay. This is typically whomever is available for them to attack, is the smallest in size, and has the smallest weapon. These creatures will use tactical movement (charge, flanking, aid other, 5' steps or withdraw actions) to improve their chances of attacking. They will try to follow wounded opponents, but will also avoid taking unnecessary AoO's. They will attack a different foe if the wounded foe cannot be safely attacked. These creatures will work with their allies to concentrate attacks on a single foe. They will not shift initiative, use delayed or readied actions or activate magic items. They will only use special combat options (grapple, trip and so on) related to the abilities of their creature type (improved grab, pounce and so on). They will not "work as a team" in the sense of taking actions unnecessary for an individual creature's attacks which are beneficial to the attacks of another creature. For example if three wolves are attacking a halfling, the first 2 wolves will not consider that they may block the 3rd wolf from charging also. Also a wolf would take a 5' step so that he can get a flanking bonus, but the same wolf will not take a 5' step so that his ally will gain a flanking bonus. Sub-Human Intelligence (4-9) These creatures will communicate and function as a team if possible. They will inform one another of things they spot or observe. They will prioritize their targets depending on the ability of each to deal with the various targets or to slay weaker targets. They use tactical movement and special attack forms which they are equipped or specially capable of performing. They can activate magical items and use readied actions or change position in the initiative. They are not very good at formulating plans of actions. These creatures won't consider all the possible future effects of a given action. For example if a group of low intelligence orcs were dealing with an invisible opponent, they would be able to all talk and listen for the foe and even get readied actions set to attack. But those readied actions will all trigger in the order of initiative. They wouldn't plan the archers to attack first, then the axemen to charge after the arrows go in. Also the orc cleric may cast blade barrier in the best place to hurt his foes, but not consider that it will also be a problem for his own allies as the foes retreat behind the barrier. Normal Human Intelligence (10-15) These creatures can formulate plans and fight as well as any normal person could be expected to fight. They will not make logical deductions in the middle of a battle. For example, if a druid hears a rogue nearby casting, he won't be able to deduce that the spell is mirror image from recalling the rogue's limited list of scrolls. Nor will the druid deduce that by moving 20' east and angling the spell correctly, his wall of fire will be able to hit all the possible places that the rogue could be hiding. Also a Flame Brother Salamander would not be able to deduce that since he cannot spot the rogue in the expected place, it must have used invisibility. Rather this Salamander would think "He's hiding around here somewhere." And the creature would begin to search for the hidden foe. Exceptional Intelligence (16+) These guys are smart enough to do whatever the pitlord thinks is best in the given situation round by round. They are capable of any deduction that can be made given the information on the opponent's character sheet and the events of the battle. They are also capable of directing the actions of allies with lesser intelligence so that they function at this level of intelligence. OK, So that's a first pass with a few basic ideas on what a set of intelligence based guidelines would look like. As I read over it again, it covers some ground but also feels inadequate. Someone else may have better ideas, or it may be impossible.
whitebaron 09-08-07, 06:49 AM	gotta say some things here: @mwb+monster tactics. the rules clearly don't state when you have to do tactics, what you are allowed to do, or if you are allowed to base your equipment/tactics on the opponents capabilities. there are some hints that monsters actually get tactics, but all you can do by reading the rules is search for another monster fight and see how the pl has done it. even if you don't like my rules-interpretation, they lack sufficient information on monster fights. just because long time players have all interpretations set for how their monster fights have to be run, doesn't mean the rules are complete. @sauro: proposing tactic like that, sounds nice, but: are PCs then also limited by their intelligence? why should my dump stat fighter be allowed to take any and every intelligent options, when the "monster" counterpart is not? @mwb+armor: the rules are indeed strange for this. especially the "count in the masterwork" parts are really neither easy to calculate, nor intuitive. mithril chainshirt barding for large : (1000-150)*4+4*100 = 3800 mithril chainmail barding for large : (4000-150)*4+150*4 = 16.000 mithril fullplate barding for large: (9000-150)*4+1500*4 = 41400 i doubt anyone here has this listed correctly on his sheet(like elrick, at closer look, all of his prices are wrong - too high.). with these prices, noone would ever buy anything but a chainshirt. magical enhancement is so much cheaper... this gets even worse for huge and above. my take on this, how it should be (and not how it is done in dnd) is: multiply base armor cost (masterwork) *difficulty modifier + add the material cost * size modifier. counting them in for both seems very strange.
Vathelokai 09-08-07, 08:29 AM	Armor: I would take a hint from the strange wording of the control body power... You psychokinetically control the actions of any humanoid (including undead or outsiders with a humanoid physiology)... Rules as written are obviously irrational (humans can wear a breastplate, but the same human turned into a zombie can't !?) and seem to indicate that the writers intended a broader definition of humanoid; probably 2 armed biped. And the math for armor has always been wonky, in my opinion. So, I'd say we make this house rule: Armor for any creature that is not 2-legged, 2-armed, and 1-headed uses the unusual shape modifiers (including winged, multi-limbed, etc.). Although the PHB says to multiply any special materials cost with the unusual shape modifer, we have a house rule that you do not do that. For example <insert better example than I can come up with here>. Anyone with me?
Vathelokai 09-08-07, 08:35 AM	Monster Tactics: OK, So that's a first pass with a few basic ideas on what a set of intelligence based guidelines would look like. As I read over it again, it covers some ground but also feels inadequate. Someone else may have better ideas, or it may be impossible. Actually I think that's a pretty good guideline. At the least, it's worth reading before writing tactics for a monster fight. I think it feels inadequate because the list of possibilities in a fight is so expansive. I think maybe skimming over the condition summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) of the SRD for basic contingencies would be helpful.
TelinArtho 09-10-07, 03:59 PM	About (non)humanoid armor, my take is this: why is nonhumanoid armor more expensive? It doesn't take any extra material, and it isn't inherently more complicated. I infer then that it's more expensive because armorers aren't used to the nonstandard designs, and therefore it takes longer for them to figure it out. This is true even for barding, to an extent--many medieval armorsmiths wouldn't know how to make barding, so you'd have to go to a specialist, who would charge more. Therefore, any alteration that would cause a notable change in armor design would cost extra. Wings? Some idiot armorsmith might make two tiny little holes for the wings to poke through--and then the client won't be able to get it on because the middles of the wings are larger than the base, or because their wings just don't bend that way. So you'd either have to assemble it in more pieces, so it can be locked around the wings after the fact, or you'd have to add great slashes so the wings can be folded into it. Either way, the armorer would have to get creative, and would be enititled to charge more. Multiple arms? Easier, but some types of armor would still be challenging (how do you protect the upper arm of the lower pair? You can't use a normal pauldron because it'll get in the way of the upper pair). Now, what makes no sense is that the "unusual shape" modifier multiplies the cost for special materials, as well. But that doesn't make any sense however you look at it, even when the creature is clearly nonhumanoid. Special materials cost more for both the value of the material and for the difficulty in finding a skilled smith able to work with it. Picture the hardness of steel and compare that to the hardness of adamantium - that's a big difference. I've always considered the much higher cost on the non-humanoid armors to be because of the specialist smith to work with it. In the case of special materials - you would need another specialist. Combine the two and you have a very specialized smith... Armor for any creature that is not 2-legged, 2-armed, and 1-headed uses the unusual shape modifiers (including winged, multi-limbed, etc.). I think that first part would work out fine. I'll note that I don't agree with the second part - for the reason I put above. Yes it means that most centaurs will never get adamantium armor - but I didn't know that was a big issue anyway... (in other words - that would be a house rule in place that I don't really feel is necessary - the first part clarifies something that seems to be missing from the SRD/FAQ).
MindWandererB 09-10-07, 05:00 PM	I agree with Telin: although I'd jump at that house rule in my own game (in fact, in my home house rules I charge for special materials strictly based on weight), it's not core. We should limit ourselves to creating new rules when either the RAW are ambiguous or when it's needed for the CoCo environment to function. Neither is true here.
TelinArtho 09-10-07, 05:12 PM	Okay... so can I get a vote on the unusual armor classification: 2 arms, 1 head, 2 legs and walks upright (mostly) I've got a couple of characters that need this definition hammered out...
Vathelokai 09-10-07, 08:12 PM	I vote for it.
Eamane 09-10-07, 09:17 PM	Re: Armor While I can understand unusual armor costing more in an area dominated by strictly humanoid races, this argument falls a little flat when you bring up the concept of non-humanoid intelligent races with the capability and history of creating their own armor (Or for that matter, PCs making their own armor as is the common practice. ) Why would a Centaur, born and raised in a nation of centaurs, trained by a centaur armorsmith, have an easier time making armor for a Human, dwarf or halfling than for himself? Or an outsider native to another plane where the most common is 'humanoid + wings'. What armor is unusual or not is a extremely campaign dependent concept, imho. And isn't stuff like that up to the player? Re: Monster Tactics I agree, Sauro's proposal looks pretty good to me, it's internally consistent, if not exactly where I would place things, certainly extremely logical about them. And the reason why Monsters have limits on their tactics and PCs don't is because.. PCs are PCs. PCs don't have perfect knowledge of their opponents most of time, nor a presence round by round to speak up and change their tactics as the situation changes. Monsters -always- have perfect information and a presence in the fight as it unfolds, round by round. That's the OOC reason. The IC reason: PCs are heroes and exceptional, in every way. Even if they are stupid, they are stupid heroes (even if they are evil heroes). Monsters, even the really cool ones, are at best, antagonists.
SauroGrenom 09-10-07, 11:30 PM	I'm with Telin and MWB and Vath on the idea of armors have base cost only for creatures with 2 arms, 2 legs and 1 head. All other creatures have the unusual cost of armor.
TelinArtho 09-11-07, 03:25 PM	This post is reserved for topics under discussion. When a decision is made, the post containing that decision will be linked. An alternative to Diplomacy for allies (e.g. mercenaries, perhaps at ECL 4?) How Intimidate works on allies without a CR Cohort starting equipment Credit rebalancing Training Hall credit purpose: item refunds Time it takes for crafting and for ghost shopping Monster spell/power lists The armor question and resolution needs to be added - 3 elders plus MWB are in favor of the "2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head and walks upright" definition. Probably should add Monster Tactics to the current list. Any of the above on the current list of "let's get this resolved right away?" I'm just trying to keep things moving.
MindWandererB 09-11-07, 04:22 PM	Done, and thanks for the reminder. The armor thing should probably go in the Court Decisions, as well. (In fact, that discussion probably should have been in the Courtroom to begin with, but oh well.) The item refunds and crafting/shopping times are the easiest items to resolve, so we should probably do those before we get sidetracked again. After that, credit rebalancing and monster tactics are the ones I consider high priority--well, those and (re)building the guild and community systems, but that's a major challenge.
SauroGrenom 09-11-07, 07:22 PM	Since I'm running the traininghall, I'll give a proposal for credit costs to sell items at purchased price. Selling a single item costs 2-10 credits. The base cost is 2 credits for a permanent item that hasn't been used. The cost increases to 4 credits for permanent items used for 1 ECL or less, and for expendables not yet used. The cost increases by a further 2 credits for permanent items that have been used for a long time, increase the cost by 2 for each level that you have owned the item. The cost for a single item caps out at 10 credits to sell it at purchase price. So if a character wants to swap a flaming sword for a flaming greatsword, they spend 2 credits if it's a new purchase. If the purchase has been around for a long time, then it can cost a few more credits but there's a limit on that.
hogarth 09-11-07, 09:00 PM	Well, I don't feel too strongly about this issue but I dislike cases where a character with credits becomes more powerful than a character without. In the case of two identical characters where one sold an item for 1/2 price and one spent credits to sell an item for full price, it's exactly the same as trading credits for cash. On the other hand, I think it's clear that credits can be exchanged for power already, so one more use is probably nothing to get excited about. Since I'm running the traininghall, I'll give a proposal for credit costs to sell items at purchased price. Selling a single item costs 2-10 credits. The base cost is 2 credits for a permanent item that hasn't been used. The cost increases to 4 credits for permanent items used for 1 ECL or less, and for expendables not yet used. The cost increases by a further 2 credits for permanent items that have been used for a long time, increase the cost by 2 for each level that you have owned the item. The cost for a single item caps out at 10 credits to sell it at purchase price. So if a character wants to swap a flaming sword for a flaming greatsword, they spend 2 credits if it's a new purchase. If the purchase has been around for a long time, then it can cost a few more credits but there's a limit on that.
Salrantol 09-11-07, 09:44 PM	Well, I don't feel too strongly about this issue but I dislike cases where a character with credits becomes more powerful than a character without. In the case of two identical characters where one sold an item for 1/2 price and one spent credits to sell an item for full price, it's exactly the same as trading credits for cash. On the other hand, I think it's clear that credits can be exchanged for power already, so one more use is probably nothing to get excited about.It's not really more powerful to sell an item for full price than it is to have saved that money in the first place and then be buying the same new item.
hogarth 09-11-07, 09:58 PM	It's not really more powerful to sell an item for full price than it is to have saved that money in the first place and then be buying the same new item. But that's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing two people who bought an item (maybe something useful at lower levels but less useful at higher levels) who now want to sell it. The credit-user gets more money. End of story.
SauroGrenom 09-11-07, 10:21 PM	But that's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing two people who bought an item (maybe something useful at lower levels but less useful at higher levels) who now want to sell it. The credit-user gets more money. End of story.I've talked this over before, and well frankly you're making the wrong comparison. The real meaningfull comparison is between two characters which are run by Joe Perfect Player and Tom Imperfect Player who are building similar characters. Joe's character Perfect Peat has all the best stuff for his build, simply because Joe planned everything without error. He never purchased something that didn't turn out to be as good as planned. Tom's character Imperfect Ieda has tried lots of things out, and met with mixed results. Some ideas didn't pan out, other did. At ECL10 Peat is rocking with perfect equipment, while Ieda has not as much stuff. Tom can never catch up to Joe's characters unless he simply starts over from scratch. If Tom has no credits and he wants to compete with Joe, then he just starts over with a new character and does everything perfectly this time. With the new proposal, Tom has an option to "catch up" to Joe by simply spending a few credits to fix his purchasing mistakes. The option to sell items at full value doesn't create any power imbalance. There's always the option to start over and make only perfect purchasing decisions from the beginning at no credit cost. Rather the option to sell stuff simply offers imperfect players more flexibility to modify and adjust a build as they observe the effects of their purchasing decisions.
hogarth 09-11-07, 10:28 PM	The option to sell items at full value doesn't create any power imbalance. There's always the option to start over and make only perfect purchasing decisions from the beginning at no credit cost. Rather the option to sell stuff simply offers imperfect players more flexibility to modify and adjust a build as they observe the effects of their purchasing decisions. By that logic, the credit cost for selling an item should match the cost for totally rebuilding that character from scratch (since that's the no-credit alternative); it's an option that already exists and thus no new rule is needed. :rolleyes: Look, I don't have any real problem with credits buying a little extra power (since they do that already). But don't try to pretend that it's not trading credits for money :$$: :).
TheMagister 09-12-07, 10:21 AM	I'm feeling like hogarth is right in a technical sense, and that Sauro's heart is in the right place. {shrug} I'm a heart person. I don't see a problem with it. Also, isn't there already a mechanic for this in the Training Hall? Rubi spent 15 credits and xxxxx gp on an item that didn't work as well as I thought it would. I got a full refund on both credits and $$. I think that this is a case-by-case judgement call by the training hall moderator. If you pony up the 10K for a griffon statue at ECL 6 and then want a full refund at ECL 15 when its no good any more, I think the training hall mod just laughs at you. TM
TelinArtho 09-12-07, 10:35 AM	Well - right now it is kind of a judgement call and Sauro wants to set it out on paper essentially. I had much the same reservations as hogarth when Sauro proposed it among the elders originally. However I look at some decisions on my characters and do desire to change them (like Bulgar's sub-optimal choice of Breastplate instead of a Mithril Breastplate or Mithril Chain Shirt...) - but if it means eating the loss - I just won't bother because the minimal benefit from the "better" optimization isn't worth the ultimate loss in money (which in this case is only 500gp). I'm still holding my position on the matter. I certainly would rather not see a flurry of ECL15 characters refunding their Bronze Griffons that earned them victories for 9 levels...
lonewolf 09-12-07, 11:20 AM	Also, isn't there already a mechanic for this in the Training Hall? Rubi spent 15 credits and xxxxx gp on an item that didn't work as well as I thought it would. I got a full refund on both credits and $$. lucky you. I didnt get any credit refunds I paid for Karens advanced Pegasus which was later banned!
hogarth 09-12-07, 01:07 PM	I'm feeling like hogarth is right in a technical sense, and that Sauro's heart is in the right place. {shrug} [...] I'm a heart person. I don't see a problem with it.If you pony up the 10K for a griffon statue at ECL 6 and then want a full refund at ECL 15 when its no good any more, I think the training hall mod just laughs at you. Don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't have a problem with a "Lemon law" that would allow a gladiator to return a little-used item within a reasonable time period (1 or 2 fights)...with no credit cost. What I don't like is the idea of trading in your hippogriff for a pegasus, your pegasus for a griffon, your griffon for a...well, you get the idea. It's bad enough that a character can have Improved Grapple at low levels, use it a bunch of times, and then swap it out for Deflect Arrows at higher levels (when grappling starts becoming less effective) for a mere 5 credits.
TheMagister 09-12-07, 06:01 PM	{rolls eyes} Yeah. I remember how I felt when The Harvester miraculously showed up with Deflect Arrows when Hood hit ECL 8. ;)
Macbrea 09-16-07, 09:12 AM	I don't have a problem with the selling equipment at full cost for credits. In truth, though, I am one of the worst people for making equipment mistakes or needing to sell gear. Just take a look a Lord Frost. When he changed from Tiny to Small size, I had to sell all his armor and buy him new stuff.
Sjiggie 09-17-07, 11:35 AM	A bit of a different question regarding equipment: What if a character wants to change the material an item is made from. For example a character wants to change his +1 Greatsword into a +1 Deepcrystal Greatsword? Does he need to sell his +1 Greatsword (possible for full price with a credit cost) or can he spend some credits to change the material it is made from? -Sjiggie
Macbrea 09-17-07, 01:47 PM	This has always been the case. You must sell the Greatsword +1 to buy a Deepcrystal Greatsword +1.
TelinArtho 09-20-07, 03:47 PM	Since I'm running the traininghall, I'll give a proposal for credit costs to sell items at purchased price. Selling a single item costs 2-10 credits. The base cost is 2 credits for a permanent item that hasn't been used. The cost increases to 4 credits for permanent items used for 1 ECL or less, and for expendables not yet used. The cost increases by a further 2 credits for permanent items that have been used for a long time, increase the cost by 2 for each level that you have owned the item. The cost for a single item caps out at 10 credits to sell it at purchase price. So if a character wants to swap a flaming sword for a flaming greatsword, they spend 2 credits if it's a new purchase. If the purchase has been around for a long time, then it can cost a few more credits but there's a limit on that. Discussion has pretty much died down on the issue. Are there any reservations to prevent this being put to a vote or just approved? Any further comments to be had?
MindWandererB 09-20-07, 06:00 PM	Discussion has pretty much died down on the issue. Are there any reservations to prevent this being put to a vote or just approved? Any further comments to be had? I'm fine with that proposal. If no one voices an objection, we can add it in to the rules.
Rauul 09-20-07, 09:48 PM	was told this belongs here... so.. to save telin from jumping back and forth.. Ok something i have been thinking about With mercs.. now that MWB made it so 2 elders can approve one.. 1) When Hired they should be Hired for the full 3fc (so cost should be tripled) Unless your allowed to hire a different one each fight.. 2)Unlike Cohorts.. they are Hired guns that we pay.. They shouldn't take away from our Gold awards.. Exp awards i can understand.. 3) Can leadership feat (score) be used instead of Diplomacy to get them to change spells, hire cheaper.. ect..
whitebaron 09-21-07, 03:50 AM	1) When Hired they should be Hired for the full 3fc (so cost should be tripled) Unless your allowed to hire a different one each fight.. 2)Unlike Cohorts.. they are Hired guns that we pay.. They shouldn't take away from our Gold awards.. Exp awards i can understand.. 3) Can leadership feat (score) be used instead of Diplomacy to get them to change spells, hire cheaper.. ect.. i don't like #1. it's like saying you can only prebuff before the first fight. but: if your mercenary dies, you shouldn't be able to just get another one for the 3fc. if he survives, you can get another one. 2) the gold to xp ratio is there for a balancing reason. changing this by means of mercenaries seems like a non-viable option to me. 3) the only way to have leadership do this, would be if you have no cohort. (which is not the usual way you use leadership. :)) i'd like to see some kind of mercenary skill package: diplomacy + ??? where i think the second skill could as well be individually chosen for each mercenary. some favor brutish force (intimidate), other want the sensual approach (sense motive) while a wizard might want to discuss on matters of the planes. (not necessarily)
Rauul 09-21-07, 05:00 AM	i don't like #1. it's like saying you can only prebuff before the first fight. but: if your mercenary dies, you shouldn't be able to just get another one for the 3fc. if he survives, you can get another one. Well what i was trying to get at.. is that you can only buy NPC services (spells) at the beginning of a 3fc.. as mercs are a NPC service.. should be for the entire day..(3fc=1day) 2) the gold to xp ratio is there for a balancing reason. changing this by means of mercenaries seems like a non-viable option to me. Well here is the problem.. purchuse a level 4 merc for 400 gp for 1 fight.. you loose.. your now getting at a min 600 exp-25%/600gp-25%-400 to begin with.. show me the balance... 3) the only way to have leadership do this, would be if you have no cohort. (which is not the usual way you use leadership. :)) Acually leadership isn't just about cohorts.. it's about followers also.. Diplomacy don't add to leadership score.. i'd like to see some kind of mercenary skill package: diplomacy + ??? where i think the second skill could as well be individually chosen for each mercenary. some favor brutish force (intimidate), other want the sensual approach (sense motive) while a wizard might want to discuss on matters of the planes. (not necessarily) Diplomacy + Knowledge local=total% discount maybe when hiring mercs
Erithmu 09-21-07, 10:45 AM	@Rauul: About the Xp/Gp ratio: The Xp/Gp ratio is designed to make things even among all characters. There are ways to get more Gp relative to your Xp but they aren't that amazing. A better consideration for the hiring cost is more in line with an expendable, or with NPC spellcasting services. I have seen many people purchase dispel Magic for their ring of counterspells. Now ... if they never have a dispel magic cast on them, then they wasted 150gp for that fight cycle (although most of the time it is simply a deturent for casting a dispel) Technically when you win a fight you gain xp based upon a base modifier and then adjustments (Ally, Pol Carrer). After that you are awarded Gold based upon a multiplier. Now most Pitlords have an easy enough time just doing the percentage of both sides and calculating rewards. But if there is an ugly number then often pitlords can use the gp ratio to calculate rewards (Note: this ratio isn't perfect, but it gets very close)
TelinArtho 09-21-07, 11:12 AM	was told this belongs here... so.. to save telin from jumping back and forth.. Ok something i have been thinking about With mercs.. now that MWB made it so 2 elders can approve one.. 1) When Hired they should be Hired for the full 3fc (so cost should be tripled) Unless your allowed to hire a different one each fight.. 2)Unlike Cohorts.. they are Hired guns that we pay.. They shouldn't take away from our Gold awards.. Exp awards i can understand.. 3) Can leadership feat (score) be used instead of Diplomacy to get them to change spells, hire cheaper.. ect.. 1. Currently - mercs can be hired for individual fights and you can switch mercs based on what fight you are in and what you will need. I can understand the possibility of making them 3FC buys - but I don't know that it is necessary or even wanted. 2. Mercenaries are expensive, but at the same time, they bring to the table a lot. Cohorts are much better in some ways, but not in all ways. A cohort needs to have equipment bought in between cycles and has no money of his own. So in other words, a cohort costs you money in the equipment that he buys. A mercenary costs you money per fight, but you don't have to pay for all of his equipment. Let's take an example: A starting ECL6 character has 13500gp. If he has a cohort, he has to allocate a portion of that money to his cohort. Compare that to the ECL6 character who hires a mercenary every once in a while. He pays 400gp for a single fight, but in the end, he gets a cohort that comes with ~5600gp in equipment. The way I see it - Mercenaries are much more versatile for players to be able to use in special cases. For instance, your ECL5 character has a +1 Will Save and most of the rest of the league are "Save or Die" characters with an array of Will save spells. For the cheap cost of 300gp, he is able to hire an Illusionist to make him invisible and even create a silent image of himself to hopefully take away one of those targetted spells. He may not win the fight - but it gives him options other than "Ready to fire upon casting" or "Run Away if I am ever with xx feet." 3. As to whether using the Leadership score is good for mercs, I'd say probably not. Part of the purpose behind using diplomacy was to give that skill a use (let's ignore that at the time it was used for diplomacy allies...). Leadership is already a potent feat - I don't think it needs to be given a "boost" by having another benefit behind it.
TelinArtho 09-26-07, 02:25 PM	I just wanted to follow up on Rauul's reservations about mercs. Here's a quick look through of the cost of mercs if you hired a merc at the highest ECL by level and assuming you lost the fight: ECL 3 (ECL1 merc) 300-25% = 225gp -100gp = 125gp ECL 4 (ECL2 merc) 400-25% = 300gp -200gp = 100gp ECL 5 (ECL3 merc) 533-25% = 400gp -300gp = 100gp ECL 6 (ECL4 merc) 666-25% = 500gp -400gp = 100gp ECL 7 (ECL5 merc) 866-25% = 650gp -533gp = 117gp ECL 8 (ECL6 merc) 1133-25% = 850gp - 666gp = 184gp ECL 9 (ECL7 merc) 1500-25% = 1125gp - 866gp = 259gp ECL10 (ECL8 merc) 1933-25% = 1450gp - 1133gp = 317gp ECL11 (ECL9 merc) 2500-25% = 1875gp - 1500gp = 375gp As you can see - the margin for "profit" is pretty small here. That said - it is hardly this black and white. At ECL5 for instance, it is entirely reasonable for a player to be using 300gp worth of expendables per fight (two CL3 scroll for instance). An ECL3 merc could bring to the table almost double this amount (250gp) and barely costs more (300gp). The merc brings to the table an extra set of actions, attack rolls, etc. Or a character with Political Career can negate a good portion of the percentage penalty. Or a character with a money-making free activity could negate a good portion of the cost portion. The margin for loss is quite a bit smaller if you hire a merc that is not at the maximum ECL for your character. For instance, an ECL6 player with a +15 money-making skill hires an ECL3 merc. 3/4 * 25% = 18.75% penalty, 300gp 150gp from money-making If he loses, the picture is like this: 666gp - 18.75% = 541gp -300 +150 = 391gp.
whitebaron 09-26-07, 05:01 PM	well, i think there is one option to make the hiring costs cheaper, and still have the mercs priced appropriately: just have the hirer pay for used expendables on the merc, too.
TelinArtho 09-26-07, 05:04 PM	Some mercs have that written into their contracts already though :) Anyway - I think the prices are reasonable - you just need to be careful with them. I'm not the be-all end-all to this though - discuss to find a different solution and we'll see what can be done about it.
whitebaron 09-26-07, 05:16 PM	well, there is also another way to make them cheaper on the losing side - give the mercs a bonus in case of a win. so you don't pay 300 gold - you pay 200 gold + 100 bonus. optional money seems to be best practice in today's business world anyway, so why don't introduce it here. ;)
Eamane 09-26-07, 05:19 PM	well, there is also another way to make them cheaper on the losing side - give the mercs a bonus in case of a win. so you don't pay 300 gold - you pay 200 gold + 100 bonus. optional money seems to be best practice in today's business world anyway, so why don't introduce it here. ;) Thats not a bad idea. Fits very well into the standard D&D methodology of 'splitting the loot' in addition to flat fees to henchmen/cohorts/etc. Makes it less painful optimization-wise to 'take a chance' in hiring a mercenary. P.S: Telin, as you yourself pointed out, the 'additional free expendables' are anything but, as any well-designed mercenary with 'lots' of expendables makes the contractor pay for them.
Eluria 09-29-07, 02:19 PM	Re: Crafting times This doesn't at all concern me personally, having no high level characters, but it does concern CoCo enjoyment as a whole. I particularly like Psibeast, and watching Psi and Owen have to spend almost 1/3 of a YEAR crafting seems senseless. Crafting is already very powerful, and well represented here in CoCo (you'd probably be hard-pressed to find a handful of casters who don't have CWI), but making someone keep a character "busy" building things for that long seems ... painful. Obviously, the best system would be an ECL multiplier (like the ECL multipliers used in some skill packages, like Gather Information for example). I don't honestly know a good mathematical number to keep things fair, however.... ECL x 2000gp per week max crafting? Other options: --ECL / 2 = max # of weeks you are required to spend crafting; any cost beyond that time is waived (eg, Psibeast crafts for 14 weeks at ECL 13; crafting costs the normal amount, but time is capped at 6 weeks). --Cost per week is 7000gp + 1000gp per level above ECL7. --Crafting time is determined by cost to make items, rather than market price (halves all crafting times, basically). I think this should be addressed, since it seems like something most people are on board with, is not a major issue, and really doesn't impact balance nearly as much as it impacts fun.
Vathelokai 09-29-07, 02:36 PM	The two reasons I don't mind long craft times... -no one else in psibeasts league so by 'sitting out' for 3 months the league will fill up more. -I have lots of other active character that I can stay busy with while the others are crafting. Things I don't like -it is a real long time. I'm patient, but still... -the character counts as active even though they are taking up nearly no resources from the board (except one line of cut and paste in the pairings). What I think -crafting characters being 'inactive' would be good. Credits represent effort put into the boards, and costing to have 3 characters crafting doesn't seem quite right. -a crafting time cap would be good. I think a flat number would be better than a multiplier. 3 weeks (like a full 3FC of crafting)? 6? More than that doesn't fix the problem, less takes away one of the drawbacks of crafting.
Rauul 09-29-07, 02:43 PM	Well when crafting magical/Psionic items.. since there is no skill check (cause it's a feat) i would suggest using spellcraft/psicraft to speed up crafting example is Owen with a 25 spell craft.. would speed up his crafting by 25% or Psibeast with a Psicraft: +23 would speed up his crafting by 23% it's not alot but would save a little time..
SauroGrenom 09-29-07, 09:08 PM	I just had an idea of a way to "solve" the crafting dilemma. Allow a new kind of quest with a special quest goal. Make the Quest Goal: Craft Magic Item. This allows a character to craft a single magic item with a total crafting cost less than or equal to 2x the total gp rewards of the quest. Another option is make a way to spend credits to bypass the crafting time... That doesn't use credits to buy any advantage per se, just buys time... much like getting a new character at a higher ECL with credits. I'd suggest one of the following: 1)You can spend 5 credits to speed craft in 1 week a total market value of goods worth say ECL2x1000 2)You can spend 5 credits to speed craft any single item in one week.
whitebaron 09-30-07, 06:50 AM	actually, i think crafting costs you 1 credit per week. (one more active character) so why don't let players reduce their crafting time for 1 week/credit spent. there should be obviously still a minimum crafting time, like 2 or 3 weeks. -- i don't like option 2 of sauro, as it gives you a very costly item within one week. but option 1 will likely result in players always being able to speed-craft in 1 week. @ecl4, this is already 16.000 gold, which is way more than a typical ecl4 char has. @ecl10, this is already 100.000. about quests: well, this is an option, but this restricts players that like to do RPG quests quite harsh, as you can only do either of them.
templer10 09-30-07, 07:52 AM	actually, i think crafting costs you 1 credit per week. (one more active character) so why don't let players reduce their crafting time for 1 week/credit spent. there should be obviously still a minimum crafting time, like 2 or 3 weeks. -- i don't like option 2 of sauro, as it gives you a very costly item within one week. but option 1 will likely result in players always being able to speed-craft in 1 week. @ecl4, this is already 16.000 gold, which is way more than a typical ecl4 char has. @ecl10, this is already 100.000. about quests: well, this is an option, but this restricts players that like to do RPG quests quite harsh, as you can only do either of them. I like the 1 credit/week idia - with Minimum crafting time of 2 weeks. idia 2 of Saura can in fact give the item in 1 week and cheaper then it would be (in credits) then if he spend the whole time - now if it was say 10 credits that would be more reasonable (but then it should take just 1 week) - since there arent many items that take that long to make.
SauroGrenom 09-30-07, 12:09 PM	actually, i think crafting costs you 1 credit per week. (one more active character) so why don't let players reduce their crafting time for 1 week/credit spent. there should be obviously still a minimum crafting time, like 2 or 3 weeks. That's an idea, in fact it's a very elegant and simple idea. I like it. -- i don't like option 2 of sauro, as it gives you a very costly item within one week. Well, that's also what your idea does... Only it doesn't set an upper limit on the possible credit cost. but option 1 will likely result in players always being able to speed-craft in 1 week. @ecl4, this is already 16.000 gold, which is way more than a typical ecl4 char has. @ecl10, this is already 100.000. The point was to make a system that replaces normal crafting after a point where crafting normally is very slow. Perhaps the equation should be modified, but the main point is an exponential growth rate of crafting speed to keep up with the supralinear growth of wealth. about quests: well, this is an option, but this restricts players that like to do RPG quests quite harsh, as you can only do either of them.That's why I suggested that quest goal can be craft 2x cost of the quest rewards, so you can alternate between crafting quests and other kinds of quests or campaigns.
Rauul 09-30-07, 03:02 PM	I acually like the 1 credit/week crafting idea.. I see it as the Character is not really crafting but is overseeing the crafting by a bunch of people who owe him favors.. Example: Owen who has 19 weeks of crafting.. Could spend 10 credits and do all that crafting in 9 weeks.. Also Sauro your Crafting Quest idea is a good Idea Also.. Example: Psibeast could Quest (3 credits) and get the materials to Craft the skin that costs 96,000 gold. he could reduce it by 39000gp for a total crafting time of 57000gp (i would suggest 1 quest per item)
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 01:03 PM	Frankly - I'm fine with whatever decision comes down on speeding up crafting. I have no problem with sitting a character out for an extended amount of time, but that's because I have so many builds that I am working on that setting one down for a period of time is not that big of a deal to me. I have a new option I'd like to propose: Alternate battlefields. The specific one I want to see work out is an Aquatic option. When someone is paired against an Aquatic opponent (someone with the aquatic or water subtypes), and the aquatic character is the defender - the pairing is held underwater. Now - to not completely invalidate anyone's build here I propose that the attacker in this case be granted Water Breathing and a special Freedom of Movement that is not dispellable for the duration of the fight. If the attacker is also aquatic - then he is granted no special benefit. The Special Freedom of Movement here would be to allow the individual the benefits of Freedom of Movement (the spell) only as it pertains to negating the problems of being underwater. It would not apply for the other factors of FoM. There are many reasons I am interested in this. First off - it allows a little more variety in the battlefields. Secondly - it allows some builds (Merfolk, Kuo-toa, Sahuagin, etc) to utilize some of the more potent features of the race that are otherwise unused in the regular arena. Thirdly, it allows the use of aquatic animals (sharks, etc) and the use of aquatic-type spells. Downsides: Well - the big one here is that this gives ranged-builds that utilize mundane weapons a bit of trouble. They can use all of the regular melee weapons (because of the special FoM), but bows and such still don't function underwater. If this is truly that big of a deal - I'd be willing to extend the special FoM to these effects. The other major one that I can think of is Fire-typed spells. These don't work unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check at DC20+SL. I'm hoping this is met with an open mind - but please if there are other considerations that should be brought up - please mention them.
Rauul 10-03-07, 01:21 PM	Darn it... Shadow was going to hire a Merc for his Miniquest... and i forgot to ask... What has to happen to Hire a Merc.. (Trillian Tallbow) or am i to late??
lonewolf 10-03-07, 01:24 PM	@aquatic enviroment: Im not sure yet if I am for or against this, but one thing I can think of is that any arena should not be filled completely with water, but it should only be filled halfway. That way fliers still have the option of getting out of reach of any swimmer like normal.
Rauul 10-03-07, 01:29 PM	telin.. can you repost the List of Mercs that need reworking.. or Approved.. the list is Slim for All ECL's.. (to me each ECL should have 3 to choose from (melee/ranged, Divine, Arcane/Psionic))
hogarth 10-03-07, 01:38 PM	Re: Aquatic environment I'll say what I said before regarding light/weather conditions on maps: I'd rather see environment stuff attached to maps in a sensible way than have it glued on top of an existing map. For instance, I'd rather have a note saying "There is no natural light in the Cavern map, and there is no wind" or "There is only dim lighting in the Forest map, and there is a moderate breeze" rather than rolling randomly for light/weather conditions. That's just my preference, of course. So in this case, I'd rather see you create an Underwater map and get it added. The problem (as was mentioned before) with creating new maps is that we can't use Dracazar's mapping program, but that shouldn't prevent us from adding new maps ever again, IMO.
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 01:48 PM	@Rauul - you can request a merc at any time up until pairings (send a PM to Pitlords). I believe the rules currently state that you can't take Mercs on quests though (which is something I never understood, but meh). The list of mercs is in the fourth post of the Propose a Mercenary thread. If you want to ask for a specific one from that list, post in the tavern.
whitebaron 10-03-07, 01:49 PM	Re: Aquatic environment I'll say what I said before regarding light/weather conditions on maps: I'd rather see environment stuff attached to maps in a sensible way than have it glued on top of an existing map. For instance, I'd rather have a note saying "There is no natural light in the Cavern map, and there is no wind" or "There is only dim lighting in the Forest map, and there is a moderate breeze" rather than rolling randomly for light/weather conditions. That's just my preference, of course. So in this case, I'd rather see you create an Underwater map and get it added. The problem (as was mentioned before) with creating new maps is that we can't use Dracazar's mapping program, but that shouldn't prevent us from adding new maps ever again, IMO. i've got about 80% of dracazars mapper files here, just a few are missing. (but 1 very important, the basic index.php!) - i wanted to add the lighting, which is way more difficult than adding a new map. - but without getting all the files to start with, i won't do anything, as adding lighting has also much to do with the initial index file, where you should add lighting ranges etc.
Macbrea 10-03-07, 01:58 PM	did the code for adding the lighting help any? Mal-2 did a section of it but didn't finish it to give it dynamic variables. I never got back to altering it in order to get it to work correctly.
Macbrea 10-03-07, 02:01 PM	The problem we are having by the way is that Dracazar hacked his php server to accomidate wizards of the coast boards. Basicly, he recieves commas in the URL string and replaces them in the stream with &. This then sends the parameters the script. The problem comes in unless someone sets up a php server in that fashion. We cannot replace drac's server. Else all pictures would just be a url string.
whitebaron 10-03-07, 02:03 PM	did the code for adding the lighting help any? Mal-2 did a section of it but didn't finish it to give it dynamic variables. I never got back to altering it in order to get it to work correctly. i figured, if it's not complete, i won't take a further look at it. i notified mwb and you about the missing files, that's about all i did. since the source for all i got is you, it's mwb's turn now. @php-replaces: i figure this can be done via a few settings, gotta look into it - but first, see paragraph 2 ;)
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 02:10 PM	Well - I've been trying to get Dracazar's code for a while - if only to set up an alternative to his server in the case of planned/unplanned down time. My brother has his own host - and is a competent programmer - and is interested in not only hosting it - but improving it (mostly to allow for people to upload their own maps, to allow for more than the current number of tags, etc). As yet of course, he hasn't been given access to the programs - so he hasn't been able to work on it...
Macbrea 10-03-07, 02:25 PM	oh, his code is easy to get.. I have it. http://home.earthlink.net/~macbrea/coco/ for Version 1.5 + Mal-2's lighting information and http://home.earthlink.net/~macbrea/coco/COCO172/ for the current version 1.72 that is being used to produce the maps. What I do lack is the index.php file that is used for the front end. But that should be able to be reconstructed fairly easily. You will need the complete directories to get all the parts of the code.
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 02:27 PM	@aquatic enviroment: Im not sure yet if I am for or against this, but one thing I can think of is that any arena should not be filled completely with water, but it should only be filled halfway. That way fliers still have the option of getting out of reach of any swimmer like normal. There is a reason why I would be against this particular thing though. Attacks from outside of water to inside are treated as the person inside the water has improved cover. Meaning - the one in the water can pretty much hide at will, has a +8 to AC, +4 to reflex saves, etc. Yes - this means that the flier can't "get away" from the swimmer - but it creates a whole new set of problems that the pitlord has to deal with (in particular - just how deep certain areas are). I'll say what I said before regarding light/weather conditions on maps: I'd rather see environment stuff attached to maps in a sensible way than have it glued on top of an existing map. For instance, I'd rather have a note saying "There is no natural light in the Cavern map, and there is no wind" or "There is only dim lighting in the Forest map, and there is a moderate breeze" rather than rolling randomly for light/weather conditions. That's just my preference, of course. So in this case, I'd rather see you create an Underwater map and get it added. The problem (as was mentioned before) with creating new maps is that we can't use Dracazar's mapping program, but that shouldn't prevent us from adding new maps ever again, IMO. Well there's a couple of reasons why I don't want to create an underwater map for general use. First off - it means that underwater opponents are siloed into a specific map for that type of encounter. This suffers from the stagnation that we had with just one map. It also means the map is introduced into the general populace (who will find it annoying/difficult to use) without an aquatic character in the fight or will be so unused because it is restricted to fights consisting of one or more aquatic characters (because there are so few aquatic characters) Secondly - the current mapper doesn't support more maps. My proposal here is to minimize the excess effort on the pitlord, while providing an option for aquatic races. I would be happy to see more maps introduced - but I'd rather see aquatic maps be a feature that can be applied to any of the current maps (A water-filled forest works just as well as a kelp-filled ocean scene; the plains map as an open ocean; the temple as an underwater temple, etc) I want to introduce this option so that aquatic characters have a chance to utilize some of the features of their races that they cannot currently use. However, I also don't want it to be a burden to pitlord (which if it isn't supported by the mapper - it clearly is a burden). I know it will require some burden on the pitlord in just becoming acclimated to the underwater rules (as with the opponent(s)), but I'd rather that be the only burden to handle.
Macbrea 10-03-07, 02:38 PM	i figured, if it's not complete, i won't take a further look at it. i notified mwb and you about the missing files, that's about all i did. since the source for all i got is you, it's mwb's turn now. The lighting code itself is done. The dynamically taking in variables and applying it isn't. So, if you understand the basics of it. Then modifying this to accept some coordinates and applying it to a letter would finish it up. //Draw the light level and any light sources // $base_light_level: 0 = pitch black, 1 = shadowy, 2 = well-lit $base_light_level = 0; $lights[0]["x"] = 0; $lights[0]["y"] = 0; $lights[0]["radius"] = 6; $lights[0]["illumination"] = 2; $lights[1]["x"] = 1; $lights[1]["y"] = 10; $lights[1]["radius"] = 4; $lights[1]["illumination"] = 2; image_plot_lights($image_map, $map, $base_light_level, $lights); This is a hard-coded to put a two lights in a pitch black dungeon. One at 0,0 with radius 6 and a second one at 1,10 with radius 4. This needs to be changed to make two letters equal a dynamically inputted numbers. Just like the character positions. $lights takes in 4 modifiers. X position, Y position, Radius of circle and Illumination level. The code itself to do the lighting information just needs to be merged in functions.
Macbrea 10-03-07, 02:41 PM	I will merge them into version 1.8 this evening if I can get time. It should be pretty easy. The only issue I will have is I don't have a php server to test it on.
Rauul 10-03-07, 02:51 PM	@Rauul - you can request a merc at any time up until pairings (send a PM to Pitlords). I believe the rules currently state that you can't take Mercs on quests though (which is something I never understood, but meh). The list of mercs is in the fourth post of the Propose a Mercenary thread. If you want to ask for a specific one from that list, post in the tavern. thanks saved that page... Also sent a Pm to pitlords... i don't see anything on the hire mercs page about not being able to hire a merc for a MiniQuest.. but if that is a rule.. then no problem.. will do without..
hogarth 10-03-07, 02:55 PM	Well there's a couple of reasons why I don't want to create an underwater map for general use. First off - it means that underwater opponents are siloed into a specific map for that type of encounter. This suffers from the stagnation that we had with just one map. It also means the map is introduced into the general populace (who will find it annoying/difficult to use) without an aquatic character in the fight or will be so unused because it is restricted to fights consisting of one or more aquatic characters (because there are so few aquatic characters) Telin, if you think such a map will be annoying and difficult, then why are you proposing it? I want to introduce this option so that aquatic characters have a chance to utilize some of the features of their races that they cannot currently use. However, I also don't want it to be a burden to pitlord (which if it isn't supported by the mapper - it clearly is a burden). My issue is that you seem to be asking for aquatic characters to have a large advantage about 1/2 the time (when they're defending). That seems too frequent to me; I predict that we'd see a flurry of aquatic elves. ;) If we had an Undersea map, that'd give you an advantage about 10-15% of the time, which seems more reasonable to me.
Macbrea 10-03-07, 02:59 PM	What makes maps annoying and difficult is the fact we cannot easily change the server it's attached to. We could easily add 10 more maps to the code if we had them and ability to upload them to whatever server is being used. The real issue we are going to have is currently we are hoping Drac just doesn't ever take his server down. It's kind of a wish and prayer type thing. Mal-2 had a server up for a quick and dirty distance calculator, which you may notice in the FoTW thread as missing. This is because the server he had up collapsed and he never bothered to set his web server back up and public. It wasn't something he needed up and therefore didn't need to be fixed in his case. For us it meant we lost a tool.
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 03:09 PM	Telin, if you think such a map will be annoying and difficult, then why are you proposing it? You misunderstand what I said. An aquatic map with non-aquatic characters becomes an annoyance for all involved (because two non-proficient swimmers in a water map would have limited ability to get to each other). Similarly, if the aquatic map was restricted to one map out of 8 (assuming we added one map to the current tally of 7), and only when at least one aquatic character is involved, then the map becomes completely unused (unless the population of aquatic characters increases). As an aside to all of the previous responses, there is another hindrance for adding a map to our current list - it requires updating the Pairingsmaker as well. My issue is that you seem to be asking for aquatic characters to have a large advantage about 1/2 the time (when they're defending). That seems too frequent to me; I predict that we'd see a flurry of aquatic elves. ;) If we had an Undersea map, that'd give you an advantage about 10-15% of the time, which seems more reasonable to me. What you see as a "large advantage" is really only giving the aquatic character the ability to use portions of its LA half of the time that the aquatic character cannot currently use. The sahuagin has Blindsense, some decent skill boosts, rake attacks, speak with sharks ability that it cannot use out of its LA in the current arenas because all of them rely on being underwater. I pay for the LA - I should be able to use the abilities - even if only half the time. My proposal is to introduce the ability to use these features without an adverse affect on the opponents' abilities (hence the water breathing and Freedom of Movement). For what its worth - I don't think we'd see any more Aquatic Elves with this addition than without it - since Aquatic elves only gain the benefit of their swim speed (which is really not that much of a benefit - being only 10ft above normal).
hogarth 10-03-07, 03:21 PM	What you see as a "large advantage" is really only giving the aquatic character the ability to use portions of its LA half of the time that the aquatic character cannot currently use. An aquatic elf is probably the simplest example; it has +0 LA and is almost identical to a normal elf in terms of abilities. It seems to me that you're saying that for +0 LA, they should have the equivalent of a perfect maneuverability flight speed in half of all fights (whereas a non-aquatic foe gets the equivalent of an extremely crappy flight speed). That doesn't strike me as a +0 LA ability. To put it another way: To me this is like proposing that if a flying gladiator is the defender, then there's an unlimited flight ceiling on that particular map. Or if a burrowing gladiator is the defender, then the ground of that map is made out of dirt. Or if a climbing gladiator is the defender, then the map is full of (non-sticky) webs. After all, the flyer and the burrower and the climber have paid for their abilities with a level adjustment too, haven't they? Currently, some maps are great for flyers (Plains map) and some are good for burrowers (Plains) and some are good for climbers (City). There's even a map where a swimmer can show off (Forest). But no one has an advantage on every map.
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 03:53 PM	Well - the aquatic elf does have a nasty downside though - that whole "suffocation" issue if they are away from water for too long. I can see your point though. If I could just make use of some of the sahuagin's abilities outside of the water, I wouldn't even likely be pressing the issue (though I am interested in seeing water battles...). The movement mode is actually the least interesting thing for me about it (3-D fighting is often more of a chore than it is worth - hence why I prefer when the characters don't have flight capability...). I guess I can shelve the idea for now until we have the capacity to add a new map to the mapper and to the Pairingsmaker.
MindWandererB 10-03-07, 04:01 PM	I could imagine some way a sizeable underwater element be added, but half of all fights for an aquatic character is too much--the LA they get is probably under the assumption that most of their adventures will be on land. One option would be to add two additional maps (when we have the capacity): one that's all water (and every non-aquatic character would get the free water movement ability) and one that's islands on a sea. These would allow aquatic characters to showcase their skill at least some of the time, at a proportion more similar to what they might encounter in a real campaign. Edit: I just got messages from Dracazar (I haven't turned my IM program on in a while, I've been having computer glitches), and he says there is no index.php for the map script. He also suggests that someone who actually knows something about coding (i.e. not me) contacts him directly if they need help getting it to work. He's on Yahoo IM with the same ID as here, although expect some delay getting replies.
whitebaron 10-03-07, 04:04 PM	The problem comes in unless someone sets up a php server in that fashion. We cannot replace drac's server. Else all pictures would just be a url string. file .htaccess: ------------- RewriteEngine On RewriteRule (.*);(.*) $1&$2 RewriteRule (.*)php&(.*) $1php\?$2 took me about an hour since i am not really familiar with url_rewrite. this is all you need to get the dracazar php files running on an ordinary php distribution. anyone care for a tools of gladius thread, so we don't pollute/spam any more?
Macbrea 10-03-07, 04:21 PM	Give me a moment to dig... I can find it.
Rauul 10-14-07, 06:41 PM	I don't know rather to put this here or in Courtroom So i will put it here... I would like to propse that NPC's on Miniquests, Arena's monster combats.. Who have Acually Spells, Pps, Sl's (not Abilitys) just spells and powers be limited to 1/2 their normal.. Yes i know they get limited Expendables like we do, they also have limited money. and are built on a 25 point system.. but even so.. Fighting a monster with Full pps and spells who can use them all.. is harsh.. this wasn't a Problem back when we could do miniquests out of Cycle and use our full power, but since that has stopped i have seen Especially with Shadows Miniquests, that it is beyond hard.. 53 pps vs 4 sl's Again this would only apply to Monsters/NPC's with Spells / Powers Would have no effect on anything else on the NPC's..
SauroGrenom 10-14-07, 09:44 PM	Rauul, I understand your plight, but I'm not on the boat with you on that one... Sure NPC casters throw lots more PP than you do, but when facing spell casters who out gun you, then you shouldn't be trying to out gun them... Lateral thinking is required. Don't go head to head with a caster bigger than you. Besides if your opponent has 53pp, then he is a 7th level psion... and your 4 spell levels means you are a casting at ~5th level or less... Depending on your class and stats, you could be 3rd or 4th level. You're in a situation where you should know that trying to out blast him isn't going to work. Instead engage your anti-caster abilities. Get total concealment, haul out the alpha strike, use some invisibility keep your distance and throw down summoned allies. PC casters rarely use all the pp in a fight or a cycle. Psiwarriors are the exception, they have so few pp that they use them all up. Your NPC caster will have less power in any given punch, but more punches than the typical PC caster in a fight. Stack the PC caster vs the NPC caster, and the PC caster wins almost every time... So it seams to me that nerfing NPC casters won't fix the problem since they are far weaker then your peers the PC casters. And generally surviving against any caster is not about how many powers/spells they throw at you through the battle, rather it's about taking out the other guy before he can throw more than 2 or 3 spells/powers. With an NPC caster who has lower save DC's and less supporting expendables/equipment that should be easier than the same story vs your PC opponent.
MindWandererB 10-15-07, 02:54 PM	PC casters rarely use all the pp in a fight or a cycle. Psiwarriors are the exception, they have so few pp that they use them all up.Kineticists are often able to go through all theirs, as well, depending on who their victim is. The point is that NPCs are given the CRs they are based on the assumption that they will use everything they have. That may work out to an advantage for some NPCs more than others, but that's the way it goes. (And here's another reason I'm looking forward to 4e.) Speaking of 4e... I know we don't have very much of the rules yet, but everything I glean, I try to figure out how we're going to deal with. It actually looks like it will be much more friendly to our format than 3.5 is (though we'll still run the 3.5 game for as long as there's interest), but monsters may be hard to figure out--a level 5 monster poses no real threat to a level 5 PC.
Rauul 10-15-07, 02:59 PM	(And here's another reason I'm looking forward to 4e.) Speaking of 4e... I know we don't have very much of the rules yet, but everything I glean, I try to figure out how we're going to deal with. It actually looks like it will be much more friendly to our format than 3.5 is (though we'll still run the 3.5 game for as long as there's interest), but monsters may be hard to figure out--a level 5 monster poses no real threat to a level 5 PC. I kind of like the idea of 1/day, 1/ Encounter type abilitys... Maybe a thorn in the Butt for Pitlords.. but should make things interesting.. As for the Monsters... Will have to see how they work them.. I have a feeling there will be base monsters, and alot more templates.. (warrior template, Cultist template ect...)
McJarvis 10-15-07, 03:16 PM	Kineticists are often able to go through all theirs, as well, depending on who their victim is. The point is that NPCs are given the CRs they are based on the assumption that they will use everything they have. That may work out to an advantage for some NPCs more than others, but that's the way it goes. (And here's another reason I'm looking forward to 4e.) Speaking of 4e... I know we don't have very much of the rules yet, but everything I glean, I try to figure out how we're going to deal with. It actually looks like it will be much more friendly to our format than 3.5 is (though we'll still run the 3.5 game for as long as there's interest), but monsters may be hard to figure out--a level 5 monster poses no real threat to a level 5 PC. RE: Kineticists: As long as we're "fixing" things like Dispel Magic, why not "fix" energy missile, given that it was fixed in a splat book already? [thus confirming it was not meant to be the way it is.] RE: 4th Ed: We'll likely want to run some "beta" rounds to test the new rules & their interaction with our system. I think the 30 level spread is going to interfere with us a bit, given our limited player base. On the other hand, we may not have such a limited player base if old players come back to check out 4E in the arena format.
MindWandererB 10-15-07, 04:11 PM	Yeah, I think if we can get 4e functionality up and running in a timely manner, we'll be able to get a lot of people interested in pushing the limits of the new system. Especially since "core only" will mean "everything goes" at that point. I hope to advertise a few months before 4e comes out, so hopefully we'll have enough pitlords to handle the rush. Re: Energy Missile: Since the Dispel Psionics measure was passed, I certainly think the correction on EM should be applied (+1 DC per 2 PP, not per 1). Any objections?
hogarth 10-15-07, 04:13 PM	Re: Energy Missile: Since the Dispel Psionics measure was passed, I certainly think the correction on EM should be applied (+1 DC per 2 PP, not per 1). Any objections? As long as you leave Astral Construct alone, it's fine with me!
lonewolf 10-15-07, 04:22 PM	I agree. Any chance that now that we have a precedence for rulechanges, that we can also take a look at touchsight again? When I last proposed it the main objection everyone had was that nerfing one thing will open the floodgate to other changes. That is no longer the case. Also, are there any plans to replace the two open elder spots anytime? Beeing 2 Elders down is not that ideal for a longer amount of time...
hogarth 10-15-07, 04:26 PM	Also, are there any plans to replace the two open elder spots anytime? Beeing 2 Elders down is not that ideal for a longer amount of time... I nominate lonewolf!
MindWandererB 10-15-07, 04:30 PM	I agree. Any chance that now that we have a precedence for rulechanges, that we can also take a look at touchsight again? When I last proposed it the main objection everyone had was that nerfing one thing will open the floodgate to other changes. That is no longer the case. Also, are there any plans to replace the two open elder spots anytime? Beeing 2 Elders down is not that ideal for a longer amount of time... I put the request in some time ago... for some reason, NiQil and Zevox received their demotions to Core Coliseum Oldtimer, but Erithmu and Macbrea didn't get their promotions to Elder. Nonetheless, it's them, so they have full voting rights on Elder issues.
whitebaron 10-15-07, 04:33 PM	I put the request in some time ago... for some reason, NiQil and Zevox received their demotions to Core Coliseum Oldtimer, but Erithmu and Macbrea didn't get their promotions to Elder. Nonetheless, it's them, so they have full voting rights on Elder issues. would be nice to have such things covered in a news post, or similar thing - as most of us would still not know this if not for this post.
lonewolf 10-15-07, 04:35 PM	I nominate lonewolf! Im feeling flattered... :cool:
TelinArtho 10-15-07, 04:39 PM	would be nice to have such things covered in a news post, or similar thing - as most of us would still not know this if not for this post. It usually is announced when the new titles are in... they usually don't take that long to get (I think I got mine in 2 days...)
Rauul 10-15-07, 05:14 PM	I put the request in some time ago... for some reason, NiQil and Zevox received their demotions to Core Coliseum Oldtimer, but Erithmu and Macbrea didn't get their promotions to Elder. Nonetheless, it's them, so they have full voting rights on Elder issues. Congrats Erithmu and Macbrea!! Welcome to well Welcome to... Well heck you know.. Welcome to the headaches :)
Macbrea 10-15-07, 05:37 PM	Heh.. :P Thanks, as many of you might notice. I have been working on the mapper as I go. I am trying to get it to do lights that travel with the people and a couple of lights that stand still. Also, trying to get it to increase to more then 6 player objects. Cones are a tad difficult to do correctly.
Mal-2 10-16-07, 01:36 PM	Mal-2 had a server up for a quick and dirty distance calculator, which you may notice in the FoTW thread as missing. This is because the server he had up collapsed and he never bothered to set his web server back up and public. It wasn't something he needed up and therefore didn't need to be fixed in his case. For us it meant we lost a tool. In my defense, I didn't know anyone was actually using it. No one PMed me, emailed me, or IMed me to ask about it. I see several of the active players here face to face several times a week, including working 5 feet away from you Macbrea, and I would have immediately put it back up if any one of them had mentioned that anyone missed it.
TelinArtho 10-16-07, 01:41 PM	I'm not sure if anyone was using it. I know at one point, someone (not sure who) asked me to include it in the useful links in the FotW header post. When it went down, someone likewise pointed it out to me, but instead of removing the pointer to it (well - I did remove the URL, but not the reference), I did some good-natured ribbing... Now that it is back up - I'll make sure to fix the reference (assuming I remember - which isn't always the best assumption...)
MindWandererB 10-16-07, 06:32 PM	I'm not sure if anyone was using it. I know at one point, someone (not sure who) asked me to include it in the useful links in the FotW header post. When it went down, someone likewise pointed it out to me, but instead of removing the pointer to it (well - I did remove the URL, but not the reference), I did some good-natured ribbing... Now that it is back up - I'll make sure to fix the reference (assuming I remember - which isn't always the best assumption...) I was the person who pointed out that it wasn't there anymore. The page itself doesn't say anything about who created or is hosting it, so I had no idea who to contact about getting it back up again. Sorry about that. In other news: I'm thinking that the Intimidate on class feature allies could use a quick ruling. I'm thinking they should just be treated as having a CR equal to the PC's class level -2 (class allies being more loyal than allies acquired through other means, which have a CR cap of ECL -4, but only as far as the class that acquired them goes).
McJarvis 10-16-07, 06:50 PM	In other news: I'm thinking that the Intimidate on class feature allies could use a quick ruling. I'm thinking they should just be treated as having a CR equal to the PC's class level -2 (class allies being more loyal than allies acquired through other means, which have a CR cap of ECL -4, but only as far as the class that acquired them goes). 8+ECL to scare away? I think that's manageable. It more or less necessitates skill focus feats & custom skill items in order to pull off the pinnacle of what the skill does-> but that's good, because it reflects total devotion for the top gains. edit- handle animal might be a bit more difficult to boost that high, though...
TelinArtho 10-17-07, 11:58 AM	I was the person who pointed out that it wasn't there anymore. The page itself doesn't say anything about who created or is hosting it, so I had no idea who to contact about getting it back up again. Sorry about that. In other news: I'm thinking that the Intimidate on class feature allies could use a quick ruling. I'm thinking they should just be treated as having a CR equal to the PC's class level -2 (class allies being more loyal than allies acquired through other means, which have a CR cap of ECL -4, but only as far as the class that acquired them goes). And I presume this is the base amount which is further modified by the ally's wisdom and bonus to saves vs fear, etc? Sounds fine to me.
Vathelokai 10-18-07, 12:42 AM	Sounds good to me too.
whitebaron 10-21-07, 05:18 PM	i'd like to propose a change in the ways the full action "handle animal" and "gather information" is in the rules of coco. this is based on the free-to-full modifier of crafting. single crafting: 1000 gp full crafting: 7000 gp single handle animal: 1 trick full handle animal: 2 tricks. single gather info: 1 item full gather info: 2 items as one can easily see, this is not a fair ratio. characters built around handle animal or gather info, will always have more downtime due to their ineffective full actions. proposal handle animal: just say full action = up to 7 tricks. proposal gather info: change it to "up to two items, together costing less than the limit", and maybe increase the limit value to x* the value of the single activity. (x>=3)
Rauul 10-21-07, 07:05 PM	i'd like to propose a change in the ways the full action "handle animal" and "gather information" is in the rules of coco. this is based on the free-to-full modifier of crafting. single crafting: 1000 gp full crafting: 7000 gp single handle animal: 1 trick full handle animal: 2 tricks. single gather info: 1 item full gather info: 2 items as one can easily see, this is not a fair ratio. characters built around handle animal or gather info, will always have more downtime due to their ineffective full actions. proposal handle animal: just say full action = up to 7 tricks. proposal gather info: change it to "up to two items, together costing less than the limit", and maybe increase the limit value to x* the value of the single activity. (x>=3) I am not an Elder... but i have to Say.. it looks pretty balanced the way it is, Gather info gets items(credit free items of low power), crafting gets items (1/2 normal cost for items), teaching a animal to fight.. isn't getting an item.. it's getting a combat monster.. you want allies you take the Downtime required to train them/ outfit them.. U have to remeber at ECL 3-4, noone else has any allies other than druids (unless you count familiars and psicrystals that u can't train)... Allowing a Druid to train an Animal 7 tricks as a full action.. would be out of balance
whitebaron 10-21-07, 07:31 PM	the animal companion is fully trained, once i start into gladius. it's not about that - it's about trying to get more than one ally is about as nonsense as it can get. if, @ecl5 i want to have 3 wolves as allies, i can either abuse the defend trick and say - ok, they do whatever they want. or i can try to do it properly, which means - train 4 tricks to each of them, = 12 tricks = 6 weeks full actions. and: the balancedness is there as what it does. but it's not there concerning the ratio between free activity and full activity, which is 1:7 @ crafting and 1:2 @ all else.
whitebaron 10-24-07, 02:09 PM	1. *bump* and: the balancedness is there as what it does. but it's not there concerning the ratio between free activity and full activity, which is 1:7 @ crafting and 1:2 @ all else. 2. i think it would be a good idea, for topics that should be researched, with different variants to do, to introduce some help for the elders. as some of you seem to have lots of time one week, and hardly any time next two weeks, it would be a good idea to form some kind of short-term-working groups for issues at hand. the result of such a working group would be a report at the end of a given time (1-2 weeks) of what was discussed, and maybe give some paths of what could be done. reworking credits, reworking guild system, these are just two changes that pop up into my head, which seem to be on the list ever since i started playing here. to be able to do this, you would have to have: a) an elder who gives the official vision and is there to clarify issues that might be seen differently from such a group b) active people, that post in a thread what they think is best for a given problem. of course, this is not limited to elders or non-elders. ;) c) a volunteer to moderate the discussion in a thread, and write the final report. i think this could work out great. lingering coco-core rules changes, house rules etc. are best left for the prisonlord, gm or the traininghall/blackmarket-guys.
hogarth 10-24-07, 02:14 PM	the animal companion is fully trained, once i start into gladius. it's not about that - it's about trying to get more than one ally is about as nonsense as it can get. if, @ecl5 i want to have 3 wolves as allies, i can either abuse the defend trick and say - ok, they do whatever they want. or i can try to do it properly, which means - train 4 tricks to each of them, = 12 tricks = 6 weeks full actions. If this is your concern, maybe we could change it so that you can train any number of animals at once as long as you're teaching them all the same trick. Then maybe Reginald Molehusband can train his 6 bats in less than a year. :)
MindWandererB 10-25-07, 07:40 PM	Discussion moved from Tavern: Based on Telin's proposal, here's a slightly revised one. Prisonlords - 2 credits [since it includes the Courtroom maintenance as well] Scribelords (maintaining photos, birthdays, stories) - 1 credit when done Newspaper editor - 1 credit when done Training hall and Blackmarket - 1 credit General GM responsibility (Rules updates, etc) - 1 credit Prison violation - 1 credit Newspaper article/Story for a fight - 3 credits Prison Audit - 2 credits + 1 credit/2 levels Miniquestlording - 6 credits + 3 credits per additional character Questlording - 10 credits per week (30 credits per quest) + 5 credits per week per additional character Campaignlording - 10 credits per week (up to 150 credits for a 15 week campaign) + 10 credits/3 weeks on-time completion bonus Pairings - 5 credits (10 credits if a pick-up) Pitlording (2 person fight) - 10 credits Pitlording (3 person fight) - 15 credits Pitlording (4 person fight) - 20 credits Weekly GM Maintenance (roster, credit tracking, etc) - 15 credits Failing to clear a resolved prison post within 48 hours of notification: -2 credits Late fight: -20 credits (regardless of complexity) Missing fight: -30 credits Late miniquest: -16 credits Late quest: -10 credits per week Late campaign: no penalty, but no completion bonus if (# of encounters) < (# of weeks)The one thing requested that this doesn't do is distinguish between fight types (monster and ECL). Since some people like monster fights and some dislike them, I think we have to call that a wash. I'm not yet convinced that ECL inherently makes a big difference--it's just that high-level characters are more likely to have allies and have complex sets of contingencies and counter-contingencies, and low-level gladiators are more likely to be brutes or run out of spells quickly.
Rauul 10-25-07, 08:19 PM	Pitlording (4 person fight) - 20 credits Just to clear this up... this would be 4 player character fight (3 person team vs 1, FFA, ect..) Not a 2 character fight each with a Cohort...
MindWandererB 10-25-07, 08:37 PM	Just to clear this up... this would be 4 player character fight (3 person team vs 1, FFA, ect..) Not a 2 character fight each with a Cohort... Correct. Otherwise it would go up to 8 (4-person FFA with 4 cohorts).
Rauul 10-25-07, 09:04 PM	Correct. Otherwise it would go up to 8 (4-person FFA with 4 cohorts). remind me if i ever get a 4 person FFA and they all have cohorts... to put in for overtime and Claim Pitlord abuse...
SauroGrenom 10-25-07, 09:12 PM	Just to be clear, this proposal is also attached to the idea of "splitting the stock" on all current credit totals and all future credit costs. If that's the case, then I'm OK with the proposal as above. I must say that this does "cut" my pay by about 10 fold, but I'm not really using credits much right now anyway. Also I feel that running a campaign is more complicated and difficult that a 2 person fight. For me running a 2 person fight usually took about 4 solid hours. When I was running the Sands campaign, it took about 1 hour every round of combat and totaled about 7 or 8 hours /week with all the players and monsters on the field. The last battle took lots of time, just because there were 5 PC's and 5 NPC's and I had to basically run a battle with 10 guys and associated bronze griffons, animal companions, astral constructs and special mounts. Equating that to a normal arena battle strikes me as being a bit off. Furthermore each time I ran a battle, I had to make a new map. I didn't make a map for every battle, but about half of the time I made a map. I just think that running a campaign is harder than you are giving credit for above. You have to plan the encounter, make a map, and tie it all into a story.
Rauul 10-25-07, 09:17 PM	whats "splitting the stock" mean??
SauroGrenom 10-25-07, 09:30 PM	whats "splitting the stock" mean?? What I mean, and what was proposed before, is that all current credit totals are multiplied by 10. Also all credit costs are multiplied by 10. Basically a moment of hyper inflation of our credit currency, then equilibrium at the new total.
Vathelokai 10-25-07, 09:31 PM	I've been trying to think of an objective way of paying for fights, since I agree that ecl is not a great method. The only things I can think of are counting the total number of rolls or the number of rounds. Time spent would be the best, but trying to track that seems difficult.
SauroGrenom 10-25-07, 09:50 PM	I've been trying to think of an objective way of paying for fights, since I agree that ecl is not a great method. The only things I can think of are counting the total number of rolls or the number of rounds. Time spent would be the best, but trying to track that seems difficult. Counting the # of rolls/battle strikes me as being rather labor intensive... I'm OK with a base credit award for each battle. Perhaps the GM has an option to award a bonus of 5-15 credits if a battle is particularly hard or well done and the players or pitlord brings it to the GM attention.
Eamane 10-26-07, 02:14 AM	Counting the # of rolls/battle strikes me as being rather labor intensive... I'm OK with a base credit award for each battle. Perhaps the GM has an option to award a bonus of 5-15 credits if a battle is particularly hard or well done and the players or pitlord brings it to the GM attention. The COCO dice roller automatically tallies the number of rolls (of each type, no less) under each name; adding them together isn't that hard, a small moment of arithmetic.
McJarvis 10-26-07, 08:14 AM	Time spent would be the best, but trying to track that seems difficult. I don't think so. First of all- I would get far less credits than others. [Hogarth says one fight takes him three-four hours, my fights take me about half an hour]. Second of all- I'd be alot more prone to going to get snacks//playing halflife while I was running games.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 08:20 AM	i'll split my opinions on different things out into blocks, to make it more readable at a time. i believe that general inflation is no good idea. it makes it possible to fine-adjust credits, yes, but on the other hand, to much fine-adjustment is bound to create more unsatisfied people and lots of fine-changes to be done maybe each month? there a credit up, there one down, etc. as not every roll takes the same amount of time, this method is simply unfair. rapid shot, manyshot, more attacks due to twf/high bab, are likely to be resolved within a single action, are most of the time reused for further rounds, and some pitlords even enter the damage rolls with the attack rolls to save time. in addition to these problems, credits for the fights would have to be awarded after the fights are done, and accounting would be quite difficult. also it might encourage to do some junk rolls just to reach the next credit limit. introduction First of all, i want to stress that i want to keep the base unit 1 credit, not 10. that said, i assume here that all administrative tasks are worth 1 credit, with the exception of pairings/roster maintenance. as in my proposal pitlords will earn more than 1°, they still get less than before. Costs should stay the same. This should not be devalued, as even if sauro has to do little with the blackmarket in a week, its nonetheless his duty to be there, check on the items, think about their consequences(this should be added to the responsibilities of the blackmarket - see nettlesong example) etc. So they don't get all credits awarded based on their time invested, but also for the responsibility they take. (that's similar to real-life manager-payments, just not that high. ;) ) basic credits idea basically, i'd like to give about 1° for 1 hour of work. as monsters are not necessarily less work(sometimes they are, sometimes they are not), i'd keep them the same value as a pc. (1°/1hour - this might not be true for some administrative tasks, as they are not only rewarded with credits but prestige too. ) i assume a basic fight takes an experienced pitlord about 2 hours to run, with any excess of 2 hours to be a gift to gladius, or the pitlord getting interrupted by real-life issues. conditions that increase length: lighting, high levels, more characters in the arena, big map with hiding spaces. so: use a basic of 2° per fight. add 1° per additional participant add 1° for each team present. add 1° for difficult lighting conditions (for ecl5+, only dark or pitch black lighting condition) add 1° for difficult arena (i'd propose forest to be the only one, but am open-minded on city, or leaving this out alltogether) add 1° additional for FFA (not for interleague!) add 1° for fights ECL8-13 add 2° for fights ECL14+ don't add any credits for allies or cohorts, as they are part of the ECL of the player. you don't add ° for items, either. ;) some examples from my fights: team wadl ecl6 vs felice, pitch black, forest. 2(base)+1(team)+1(map)+1(pitch black) = 5 team wald ecl6 vs kilor vs bulgar FFA, plains, bright light. 2(base)+1(team)+1(additional participant)+1 (FFA) = 5 verren vs the needle, ecl3, arena. 2(base) = 2 Yorick vs Phasm, ecl7, forest, normal light. 2(base)+1(map) = 3 Elrick vs 3 Xills, ecl9, arena, normal light. 2(base)+1(ECL) = 3 all fights ecl5+ would get an additional credit in other lighting conditions. ECL 3 gets by default only 2° as there is no possibility to add anything else. ECL 4 Ralein Dreamstriker (Callix) vs. Snaga (The Dread Dormammu) : Taureus_Drakken [Arena] => 2 Wroth Korthek (Eluria) vs. Gwerdan "Twofist" Grummler (whitebaron) : templer10 [Arena]=> 2 Ackbar Stormsword (Taureus_Drakken) vs. Kai Engel (Hirumajoe) : whitebaron [Plains]=> 2 ECL 5 Unknown Monster vs. Darian Thorne (lonewolf) : Eamane [Forest]=> 3 ECL 6 The shadow (Rauul) vs. The Eternal Dreamless Sleep (Team) : whitebaron [Sewer]=> 3 Graashnak Vruuurk (Rauul) vs. Inzin Dar'ath (waywreth) : lonewolf [Sewer]=> 2 ECL 7 Gakhnalak Strongjaw (MindWandererB) vs. Unknown Monster : McJarvis [City]=> 2 ECL 10 Malik of Black Robe (Malither76) vs. Torel Silvanus (Erithmu) : templer10 [Sewer] [Week 2]=> 3 Therador Goldscale (lonewolf) vs. Unknown Monster : McJarvis [Temple]=> 3 ECL 11 Valen Sky (Hirumajoe) vs. Kervan Sheharath (MindWandererB) : templer10 [Temple]=> 3 Raskos the Jade Father (SauroGrenom) vs. Unknown Monster : Vathelokai [Plains]=> 3 ECL 12 Baelin the Shadow (Malither76) vs. Lord Lorian (templer10) vs. Kracknol (SauroGrenom): Erithmu [City] [All-vs-All]=> 5 this system gives max credits for 4 teams in a forest pitch black FFA, ECL 14+, at 2(base)+2(additional participants)+4(teams)+1(map)+1(lighting )+2(ecl)+1 FFA = 13 credits + free pass to your nearest mental asylum. I'd have miniquesting fixed to 2° + bonus values as given in the above paragrah. as lighting is not usually present in mqs, and the map is pitlord's descretion, no bonusses for that are awarded. questing on the other hand, seems to be a bit more time-consuming: as the player has to pay 1° to go on a quest, award that one credit additionally to the fight rewards you'd get for a monster fight of that player/players. so its 3+ bonus values above, for each week quested. never been on a campaign. but still, trying to estimate the time. as campaigns are prepared work, award all credits players have to spend to go on a quest to the campaignlord. add an additional 2° per week. less players=less work=less credits. the whole prison is over-credited. violations can be kept the same, for sake of motivating people to do them. audits will need some motivating factor too, but are way overpriced. 1° + (ECL-3)/3° are what i think it should be. maybe add bonus 1° for every 10 fights/encounters the audited character has.
Macbrea 10-26-07, 08:33 AM	We cannot make the system so difficult that the GM takes 12 hours just to figure out pairings and credits. It has to be somewhat simple. He cannot be expected to look up the amount of time or number of rolls that occured within a fight. Now, the problem I have with upping the credits and costs by 10x but reducing how much you get for doing jobs and increasing the penalties for late fight is that you have basicly devalued the credit again. You have made getting credits harder. Currently: Pitlording (2 person fight) - 1 credits Pitlording (3 person fight) - 2 credits Pitlording (4 person fight) - 3 credits Cost to start a character at level 7 = 20 credits Pitlord 11 (2 person fights) + 3 (3 person fights) + 1 (4 person fight) = 20 credits Proposed: Pitlording (2 person fight) - 10 credits Pitlording (3 person fight) - 15 credits Pitlording (4 person fight) - 20 credits Cost to start a character at level 7 = 200 credits Pitlord 11 (2 person fights) + 3 (3 person fights) + 1 (4 person fight) = 165 credits (not enough) This doesn't help the situation at all. All it does is inflate the price to do anything.
McJarvis 10-26-07, 09:46 AM	This doesn't help the situation at all. All it does is inflate the price to do anything. You're really jumping the gun there- I don't think we're even begining to consider credit cost re-adjustments yet. Right now the focus is on making sure the rewards are properly proportional to each other.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 09:57 AM	You're really jumping the gun there- I don't think we're even begining to consider credit cost re-adjustments yet. Right now the focus is on making sure the rewards are properly proportional to each other. this is why i wanted a seperate thread, with dedicated moderator to it, and a fixed goal. - here again everything is mixed up. i believe we have 3 issues to discuss at hand: 1) splitting credits. this is a basic method, which can be used if credit adjusting methods are not viable without using fractions. basically, everything stays the same, but x10. this has only to be considered if 2,3 don't work out without it. and i'd be very glad if it could be avoided, since getting 1° will be worth nothing and still there would be some tasks awarded with this. 2) reworking rewards. this is basically the amount of time invested, and the factor of responsibility the people need/want to take. this is over/underrepresented at pitlording, prison, and maybe some other things as well. 3) reworking costs. this is basically how much you can buy for your work put into it. this cannot be done independently of 2, but should be worked at after #2 is decided.
Macbrea 10-26-07, 10:13 AM	I guess, I am of the opinion that yes, it's fine to multiply the amounts by 10. As long as we start adding amounts that are worth less then and more then 10. The amounts suggested are fine. The only problem I have is we need to figure out costs based off what they really are worth. Just multiplying everything by 10 and not adjusting stuff is a horrid method. So, the real question comes down to if someone misses a fight do that loose 30 or 50 credits by that system. If the answer is 20 credits for a late fight plus 30 credits for a missed fight.
Macbrea 10-26-07, 10:17 AM	Also... Failing to clear a resolved prison post within 48 hours of notification: -2 credits I have a problem with this one. A perfect example: I had Yorick in a fight in which it was found my skill points were spent wrong. It was posted on Wedesday that I had a violation. The fight was failed to run for 2 weeks. As a result I could not edit the character sheet til 14 days later. I don't feel it is right for me to suddenly loose 24 credits because I was not allowed to edit the sheet. This then makes it were if you get an error you should just edit the sheet and send a pm to the pitlord that you surrender. Or you loose the credits.
McJarvis 10-26-07, 10:30 AM	Also... Failing to clear a resolved prison post within 48 hours of notification: -2 credits I have a problem with this one. A perfect example: I had Yorick in a fight in which it was found my skill points were spent wrong. It was posted on Wedesday that I had a violation. The fight was failed to run for 2 weeks. As a result I could not edit the character sheet til 14 days later. I don't feel it is right for me to suddenly loose 24 credits because I was not allowed to edit the sheet. This then makes it were if you get an error you should just edit the sheet and send a pm to the pitlord that you surrender. Or you loose the credits. I'm not sure why you think that people would stick to the rules & not consider these unusual circumstances. We're not writing a religion that needs to be infallible, after all :) And besides- the penalty isn't cumulative as written.
lonewolf 10-26-07, 10:38 AM	@Macbrea: I think you misunderstood something: "failure to clear a resolved prison post" is not the same as "Failure to correct a mistake posted in the prison" It means that if person A posts an error about persons B character, then person B corrects said error and informs person A about it, and then person A fails to remove the prison post within 48 hours he loses credits. Im not sure if that is really necessary, but I think that is what Telin meant here.
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 10:42 AM	Umm - I didn't include any of that. As to the "Failure to clear a resolved prison post" - that is not a good idea. I check in most days, but I don't always get a chance to do much - maybe read one or two posts. There are certainly weeks where I check in on Wednesday and Thursday and then disappear until Tuesday. I would be fine with a penalty for not resolving a prison post that results in a character being held out of pairings (as in - a penalty wouldn't kick in unless the prison post wasn't marked as closed after notification and after the prison post has existed for several weeks. That said - the situation is very rare - I don't know that the extra work of tracking who should get penalties is worth the effort on my end really.
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 11:03 AM	Discussion moved from Tavern: Based on Telin's proposal, here's a slightly revised one. Prisonlords - 2 credits [since it includes the Courtroom maintenance as well] Scribelords (maintaining photos, birthdays, stories) - 1 credit when done Newspaper editor - 1 credit when done Training hall and Blackmarket - 1 credit General GM responsibility (Rules updates, etc) - 1 credit Prison violation - 1 credit Newspaper article/Story for a fight - 3 credits Prison Audit - 2 credits + 1 credit/2 levels Miniquestlording - 6 credits + 3 credits per additional character Questlording - 10 credits per week (30 credits per quest) + 5 credits per week per additional character Campaignlording - 10 credits per week (up to 150 credits for a 15 week campaign) + 10 credits/3 weeks on-time completion bonus Pairings - 5 credits (10 credits if a pick-up) Pitlording (2 person fight) - 10 credits Pitlording (3 person fight) - 15 credits Pitlording (4 person fight) - 20 credits Weekly GM Maintenance (roster, credit tracking, etc) - 15 credits Failing to clear a resolved prison post within 48 hours of notification: -2 credits Late fight: -20 credits (regardless of complexity) Missing fight: -30 credits Late miniquest: -16 credits Late quest: -10 credits per week Late campaign: no penalty, but no completion bonus if (# of encounters) < (# of weeks)The one thing requested that this doesn't do is distinguish between fight types (monster and ECL). Since some people like monster fights and some dislike them, I think we have to call that a wash. I'm not yet convinced that ECL inherently makes a big difference--it's just that high-level characters are more likely to have allies and have complex sets of contingencies and counter-contingencies, and low-level gladiators are more likely to be brutes or run out of spells quickly. Couple of things I would suggest on this: 1. Prison audits "1/2 levels" - clarify it that it is per 2 levels from the starting ECL of the character (rather than a flat 1 credit per 2 levels of the character). 2. "Failing to clear a resolved prison post within 48 hours of notification: -2 credits" - This should be tied to the prison update, and I don't think it is really necessary unless the character involved would be held back from pairings. 3. As I said before - I don't particularly feel the prisonlords job is so complex as to warrant 2 credits for it (even for maintenance of the courtroom). @whitebaron - that solution, while comprehensive, is just too complex to make it work efficiently. @macbrea - currently a 2-person fight is worth 1 credit; a 3-4 person fight is worth 2 credits (not 3 for a 4-person fight). This means that under the "current" situation you have put out there, you only earn 19 credits and under the proposed solution, you earn 175 credits (110+45+20 = 175 not 165). The disparity is very small. So, the real question comes down to if someone misses a fight do that loose 30 or 50 credits by that system. If the answer is 20 credits for a late fight plus 30 credits for a missed fight. Under the current system, you lose the credits you gained and one more for being late and another credit if the fight is missing by pairings. So a 2-person fight is +1 credit; if it is then late, you get a -2 penalty; if it is missing, it is another -1 penalty, so the net loss is 2 credits. Under the proposal by MWB - you gain 10,15,20 credits for your fights. If the fight is late, you lose 20 credits (for a net loss of 10,5,0 credits); if it is then missing, another 30 credits are penalized (for a net loss of 40, 35, 30 credits). I like this for a couple of reasons. First off - the penalty for being late with more complex fights is lessened (since those are more likely to be late just on complexity). Secondly, it assesses a real penalty for having the fight missing.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 11:21 AM	@whitebaron - that solution, while comprehensive, is just too complex to make it work efficiently. i read it, but don't understand it. your proposed system is as complex as this one. also, you don't account for team fights, as there is easily a 5 player fight as our FFA. i'd still like to first have a take on "how much credits should be awarded for 1 hour of work" before any adjustments are made. i believe this would be a good starting point - just estimate how much work it is in hours, and you get the credit value directly from this estimation. as higher ecls and lighting conditions add to the length of a fight, you should add some credits for that as well. else, i'll have to do pitlording with "ecl 3 only" - as it gives way more credits for the time spent. most of the time, not the fight lasts long at higher ecls. but reading the tactics, valuing the options, is what does it. @audits: auditing a fairly new character is easier, but not as easy as that. you can't simply say "he has started at lvl 10, thus it's easy to check his sheet" - mistakes at creation time can be as hard to find as accounting issues. that's why i wanted to propose an audit reward based on fights AND ecl.
Macbrea 10-26-07, 11:31 AM	Can we change the cost to start a character above level 3 to promote not having a huge glut of level 3 character but characters in the middle range. Something like: Credits = (Level) * (Level + (LEVEL +1)) Level Current Adjusted Proposed 4 5 50 36 5 10 100 55 6 15 150 78 7 20 200 105 8 25 250 136 9 30 300 171 10 35 350 210 11 40 400 253 12 45 450 300 13 50 500 351 14 55 550 406 15 60 600 465 16 65 650 528 17 70 700 595 18 75 750 666 19 80 800 741 20 85 850 820 This lessons the starting the middle ranges. And promotes less monster fights.
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 11:44 AM	Let me explain my statement then. The current proposed solution has all credits adjusted at the start of the Fight week (ie - at pairings time). Even late penalties and missing penalties (I think) are adjusted at pairings time (just on the following week). In your system, the GM has to delve into each fight pairing and determine the appropriate credit award. This not only leads to a greater possibility of human error but is also highly variable. More importantly, not all of the factors you have listed there are "proven" to really make a difference in the difficulty of the fight. ECL8+ can often come down to a) one side surrenders or b) one side annihilates the other before the other gets to act. With variable number of credits among the individual fights - this adds more time onto the pairings and adds more time onto assessing late/missing penalties. As to the "5-player fight" FFA - this shouldn't have happened. It only happened because I made a mistake (something which MWB pointed out after the fact). As to audits - if the complexity is due to the fact that the character started off at a higher level, then there should be violation posts. Audits are really for identifying errors that creep up over time (miscalculation of exp, gold, etc). Violations are for identifying the errors that are made from character creation or over the course of single fights. Frankly - I would not be opposed to changing the audit rules to require more than one level up (because a starting ECL9 character who moves up to ECL10 is just not active enough to justify a full audit). On the matter of credits/hour - you will find the community has a vastly discordant view on how much time anything takes. My average time per fight hovers right around 45 minutes (over the course of around 300 fights). Some fights do certainly take more time - but a fair number of them still take a significant amount less. My shortest fights were 1 minute (from copying sheets for a surrender); my longest fight was 12 hours or so. Compare this to a prison violation. Most violations (for me) take a couple of minutes - maybe up to 5 for a reasonable violation (if I have to look up a rare rule or something I'm unfamiliar with). I have performed "audit-length" violations that took an hour or more as well. Miniquests and Quests require multiple posts over the course of the week (or multiple weeks). Sometimes individual posts take only a minute or two; others might take ten minutes. But these are my values - other people certainly have wildly different values. I just don't think we should be looking at this on a "paid for my time" basis. The CoCo has always been a "paid for Unit" - as in you have a flat-rate for fights, campaigns, violations, whatever. The only thing that deviates from this "paid for unit" is the audit system (which I feel gives too many credits).
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 11:47 AM	Can we change the cost to start a character above level 3 to promote not having a huge glut of level 3 character but characters in the middle range. Something like: Credits = (Level) * (Level + (LEVEL +1)) Level Current Adjusted Proposed 4 5 50 36 5 10 100 55 6 15 150 78 7 20 200 105 8 25 250 136 9 30 300 171 10 35 350 210 11 40 400 253 12 45 450 300 13 50 500 351 14 55 550 406 15 60 600 465 16 65 650 528 17 70 700 595 18 75 750 666 19 80 800 741 20 85 850 820 This lessons the starting the middle ranges. And promotes less monster fights. I don't see how this "promotes less monster fights" - but I wouldn't see any problem with adjusting the credit cost to be a little lower. I don't know that a "complex" formula (as in one that I can't determine off the top of my head) is really a great solution - but I suppose that's not a big deal either.
Macbrea 10-26-07, 12:57 PM	I promotes less monster fights because in the 6th to 9th range right now. We don't have many active characters. I guess the real way to prevent the huge number of monster fights that show up is to do away with them. If noone is active in your league, you don't get a fight. And the formula was presented to show how I got to then numbers in the chart. The chart can easily be posted to do away with any thought process in trying to figure out how it is derived.
McJarvis 10-26-07, 01:42 PM	I promotes less monster fights because in the 6th to 9th range right now. We don't have many active characters. I guess the real way to prevent the huge number of monster fights that show up is to do away with them. If noone is active in your league, you don't get a fight. An interesting side effect of this idea is that challenge fights might before more popular. not fighting]
whitebaron 10-26-07, 03:18 PM	[1] As to the "5-player fight" FFA - this shouldn't have happened. It only happened because I made a mistake (something which MWB pointed out after the fact). [2] I just don't think we should be looking at this on a "paid for my time" basis. The CoCo has always been a "paid for Unit" - as in you have a flat-rate for fights, campaigns, violations, whatever. The only thing that deviates from this "paid for unit" is the audit system (which I feel gives too many credits). [1] i think this is a pity. i really liked us in the ffa. there's no way for our team to ever enter a FFA again. we can't even be paired against another team - which would be very much fun. i greatly disagree with this. [2] you are talking about reworking credits to give more balanced rewards. if this is NOT a step towards pay per time than pay per unit, what is it? there'd be really no need to do anything at all then. what i propose is to do the payment on average time-values, so the ratio between credits awarded to the one and to the other are solid, and comprehensible. there's no need to track actual pitlording efforts. if you are slower, you'll be slower in all regards - but the ratio for e.g. audit to fight stays the same. tell me that i'm wrong. but credit rehaul is there to make it more fair, more balanced. what else would it do good for coco? devalueing some jobs obviously is the main interest here at the time, and that's something i pity.
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 03:53 PM	On the matter of the FFA - I would somewhat agree. However, controlling more than 4 players in any format is very cumbersome (especially if any of them have allies) and makes for a lot more work for a pitlord. Furthermore, pairings attempt to keep pitlords within their asked for limits. A 5-person FFA (or fight involving 5 total characters) would be the equivalent of 3 fights for a pitlord. How many pitlords are "signed up" for that much? A 7-person FFA (say 2 teams of 3 and a 3rd team of 1) would count as four fights. How many are signed up for that? [2] you are talking about reworking credits to give more balanced rewards. if this is NOT a step towards pay per time than pay per unit, what is it? there'd be really no need to do anything at all then. what i propose is to do the payment on average time-values, so the ratio between credits awarded to the one and to the other are solid, and comprehensible. there's no need to track actual pitlording efforts. if you are slower, you'll be slower in all regards - but the ratio for e.g. audit to fight stays the same. tell me that i'm wrong. but credit rehaul is there to make it more fair, more balanced. what else would it do good for coco? devalueing some jobs obviously is the main interest here at the time, and that's something i pity. Its not so much an overhaul to adjust the Pay per unit towards pay per time; it is much more an overhaul to adjust the Pay per Unit baseline. Its also not so much to "make it more fair, more balanced" - at least it isn't to me. It is about trying to find a way to keep people in the CoCo and contributing to the health of the CoCo. One thing I've come to realize is that I really don't care what the credit system is. I have done nearly every job that is possible here in the CoCo and I like doing them. I would love to find a way to get more people who are a part of the community also doing those jobs and get them to enjoy it. As to the matter of "devalueing some jobs" - I'm not sure that we're really doing that. Most of the things that I proposed decreasing the credit rewards on are elder responsibilities that, for the most part, take very little effort (in comparison to the more mundane tasks in the CoCo). I don't regret proposing that. The other exception are credits for audits - which I feel are generous in some cases (mostly for characters that started out at higher ECLs). What I don't see is something that makes an effort to see people pitlord more and for a longer period of time. Increasing the credit rewards for pitlording might increase the number of pitlords who pitlord for credits. But if it does - it only does so for the period of time that the pitlord needs credits. Since he is gaining credits faster - his period of time pitlording actually decreases as a result. That seems counter-productive. By the same token - decreasing the credits for pitlords might decrease the number of pitlords who pitlord for credits. Although it would take longer to get to the point that the pitlord has enough credits for what he wants - it might become too much. In other words - I feel the current ratio (for pitlording credits vs the cost of items using credits) is actually spot on, especially when you consider that pitlording is not the only method to gain credits and there are a number of alternative ways that are easier. The only portions of the current reward system that I have issue with are a) the administrative credits and b) the audit credits. Anyway - I feel like I'm all over the place here - so apologies if I seem a little random.
MindWandererB 10-26-07, 04:31 PM	Whoo... a lot of strong opinions here. Regarding simplicity: I don't want anything where I have to look anything up to award fight credits. I should be able to do it from the pairings alone. I don't mind a little bit of simple calculation, but if I need a calculator or have to follow any links, forget it. Re: clearing prison violations: no one's done it in a long time, but there have been several cases in the past where someone just never marked a violation as fixed, and it resulted in problems for the player. Especially for new players, prompt clearing is pretty important (since they don't know the system and how to appeal these things). I seem to recall that we lost at least one player over this. I made it "within 48 hours" rather than "before the rap sheet goes up" because the latter could potentially be 5 minutes. @Many of you: We're not devaluing anything. Period. Penalties are not going up, they're going down (with the possible exception of the prison thing). Rewards may be decreasing overall (most notably for audits, admin and 3-player fights), which is why I think dropping costs may be a good idea. The only people who get the short end of the stick are those who have previously paid for things that get cheaper, and those with admin responsibilities. @Macbrea: I like the idea of some sort of a new scale for higher ECLs. We do indeed get a glut of low-level characters, which does result in a few more monster fights because of absence of an opponent. Furthermore, it kind of sucks to plop down 30+ credits on a character concept that turns out not to work very well. In fact... I'm not sure that a geometric scale is a good idea, because while I don't really like the idea of a whole bunch of character jumping straight to level 20, we do get a lot of our more interesting character concepts at higher ECLs. I for one would really like to see some of the proposed concepts I've heard of, like the half-dragon treant and the succubus whatever-it-was. @whitebaron/Telin: I do think that time spent should be the basis of deciding how many credits each activity is worth. Not to track that amount of time, but to use it as a basis for comparison (e.g. if a standard fight takes the average pitlord an hour and a half, and pairings take 2 hours, then pairings should be worth about 13 1/3 credits). @Telin: Actually, I had meant for "missing" to be noncumulative with "late" (so a late 4-player FFA would cost you a net 10 credits). We can raise that a bit perhaps, but I realize that sometimes life gets in the way, and I don't want something like that to be crippling (like it was to poor Rauul, who was an awfully good sport about the whole thing). @Sauro: You're probably right--a campaign should be much like a quest in that the difficulty is a function of the number of players involved. It should probably be rewarded the same, although I do like the idea of a completion bonus.
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 04:40 PM	On the matter of the prison violation penalty - how about on the next Rap Sheet or the following Rap Sheet if the notice is within 48 hours of the next Rap Sheet. Having it tied to the Rap Sheet gives me a specific time to look for the penalty and therefore be able to quantify when things should be handled. On the matter of the missing fights - that makes more sense. I was a little surprised to see that you were increasing it a decent amount - but I was willing to see if it helped any...
Rauul 10-26-07, 04:44 PM	[1] i think this is a pity. i really liked us in the ffa. there's no way for our team to ever enter a FFA again. we can't even be paired against another team - which would be very much fun. i greatly disagree with this. First off.. having a team in a FFA shouldn't be allowed.. unless the team was 3 members of the FFA (where they have to fight each other) in that case i would have no problems :).. Seriously.. when you formed a 3 person team.. you made a Party, that should be on Quests/missions or A campaign.. In the Arena it's quickly makes a pitlord wonder why he is Pitlording.. [2] you are talking about reworking credits to give more balanced rewards. not even going to get into that... tell me that i'm wrong. but credit rehaul is there to make it more fair, more balanced. what else would it do good for coco? devalueing some jobs obviously is the main interest here at the time, and that's something i pity. people don't do the Jobs for Credits.. People don't write newspaper Articles for Credits.. they Do it because it's FUN, Because they want to.. Credits are a Bonus.. Only reason i dropped from 4 fights a week to 1 is my health.. i went neg credits after 2 weeks of being out of it... Am i Pitlording for credits.. Am i Quest lording for Credits.. Look at any of my active characters and show me where i spent credits (corrupter don't count.. (25 credits just to activate a failure).. Acually i may spend some credits later and Make me a Vampire/bard/assassin
lonewolf 10-26-07, 04:46 PM	I´ve thought about different credit rewards for monster fights, higher ECls, different lightning conditions, etc... And the result was that the gain is not worth the additional workload. I propose an flat increase in pitlord rewards without any circumstance modifiers except # of characters in a fight. In the long run every pitlord will get easy fights, hard fights and normal fights, so this will even itself out on its own. No reason to overregulate here.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 04:49 PM	@mwb: that's exactly what i was proposing for the fights, though people tend to read longer posts a bit sloppy. so i'll repost my initial proposal: give a base credit. (2°) give additional credit for every team present (1°) give additional credit for every other participant(team counts as one for this purpose) more than two. (1°) give additional credit for FFA (1°, optional could be stripped) give additional credit for higher ecl(1° or 2° proposed cut was at ecl8, but could be stripped too) give additional credit for difficult maps (1°, was even in the initial proposal highly optional) give additional credit for bad lighting (1° for pitch black or dark) @telin: by saying that some fights take longer or shorter, this is just personal luck for the pitlord. you seem to want to annihilate my arguments by sheer force, without ever wanting to change anything in that direction in the first place. :( @easier ways to earn credits: so, what are the easiest ways to earn credits, once audits are done with and devalued? @rauul: having only used credits once, you can't say i do it just for credits. but, on the other hand, seeing that i cannot do with the credits what i want to do with them, even if i pitlord for a half year longer, is frustrating. somewhere here, one said that it might stop people from pitlording one day. and thats the thing i totally agree with. if i am fed up or upset one week, i can still return and say to myself "i do it for the °" if not, i'll just leave it be, and coco has like 3 fights less for some weeks until i find the fun in it again.
Rauul 10-26-07, 04:52 PM	@Telin: Actually, I had meant for "missing" to be noncumulative with "late" (so a late 4-player FFA would cost you a net 10 credits). We can raise that a bit perhaps, but I realize that sometimes life gets in the way, and I don't want something like that to be crippling (like it was to poor Rauul, who was an awfully good sport about the whole thing). :banghead: I dun mind going neg credits.. only thing it really hurt was that shadow couldn't go on a campaign that was never started.. I felt bad for my fighters tho.. many went 2-3 weeks before the fight was finished.. But thats the main reason i am only doing 1 fight a week... because i will not let my health hold back the board.. Credits to me are a bonus.. they can collect dust or be used to bet on tournies :)
Macbrea 10-26-07, 04:53 PM	People do jobs for credits.... Generally, people like to be able to spend their money however they feel. In order to get the toys they want. That is the basic concept behind credits in the first place. They are adia-do cookies for work well done. They are meant to be spent on toys that are fun to play with. They are there to spend on experiements in things that are fun do play with. It's a fact. Now, people may say they are doing jobs for altruistic reasons, like I run because I want to see this run correctly. Yes, this is a reason but in the end. They like their toys. I like mine also. I have things I would like to spend my credits on. I pitlord because it gives me credits for my toys. :P Now, having said that I participate in discussions because I like to have a say in the direction of the game I am playing. I want to see it run in a fashion that I am willing to put the time into.
lonewolf 10-26-07, 04:54 PM	First off.. having a team in a FFA shouldn't be allowed.. unless the team was 3 members of the FFA (where they have to fight each other) in that case i would have no problems :).. Seriously.. when you formed a 3 person team.. you made a Party, that should be on Quests/missions or A campaign.. In the Arena it's quickly makes a pitlord wonder why he is Pitlording.. Are you saying that parties shouldnt figth in the arena? Why are you saying that? Because thats exactly what the three of us did: A team of gladiators that complements each other and intends to fight in the arena. people don't do the Jobs for Credits.. People don't write newspaper Articles for Credits.. they Do it because it's FUN, Because they want to.. Credits are a Bonus.. Only reason i dropped from 4 fights a week to 1 is my health.. i went neg credits after 2 weeks of being out of it... Am i Pitlording for credits.. Am i Quest lording for Credits.. Look at any of my active characters and show me where i spent credits (corrupter don't count.. (25 credits just to activate a failure).. Acually i may spend some credits later and Make me a Vampire/bard/assassin Your logic is flawed here. Just because credits are not the main reason why people do jobs doesnt mean that there is no need to award them fairly according to workload.
Rauul 10-26-07, 04:58 PM	Are you saying that parties shouldnt figth in the arena? Why are you saying that? Because thats exactly what the three of us did: A team of gladiators that complements each other and intends to fight in the arena. Fight in the Arena all you want.. fight other teams maybe with a challenge, fight in a FFA nope.. Free For All is All vs All, Not 3 vs 2 others..
lonewolf 10-26-07, 05:01 PM	Fight in the Arena all you want.. fight other teams maybe with a challenge, fight in a FFA nope.. Free For All is All vs All, Not 3 vs 2 others.. Do you think that because of balance reasons, or because of Flair-reasons?
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 05:16 PM	@telin: by saying that some fights take longer or shorter, this is just personal luck for the pitlord. you seem to want to annihilate my arguments by sheer force, without ever wanting to change anything in that direction in the first place. One second here. If I sounded at all as if I was trying to say your opinion/argument is wrong - then let me apologize - that was not my intent. I'm not sure to what you are referring here though. People do jobs for credits.... Generally, people like to be able to spend their money however they feel. In order to get the toys they want. That is the basic concept behind credits in the first place. They are adia-do cookies for work well done. They are meant to be spent on toys that are fun to play with. They are there to spend on experiements in things that are fun do play with. It's a fact. Now, people may say they are doing jobs for altruistic reasons, like I run because I want to see this run correctly. Yes, this is a reason but in the end. They like their toys. I like mine also. I have things I would like to spend my credits on. I pitlord because it gives me credits for my toys. :P Now, having said that I participate in discussions because I like to have a say in the direction of the game I am playing. I want to see it run in a fashion that I am willing to put the time into. I'm going to disagree with you Mac. I do what I do around the CoCo in order to keep the CoCo running as smoothly as I can do. Would I still do it if credits were not around? You betcha. Would I do it if credits were earned at 1/100th of the current rate - you betcha. I do use my credits from time to time, but in the end, I prefer running characters that are built within the base rules. The only thing I have reliably used my credits for is having more characters active at a given time, but even that I willingly drop down in order for the community to survive. I may say that I am doing what I do for altruistic reasons, but I also mean it.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 05:23 PM	@telin: you're an idealist. but you gotta face it - most people are around 20-40% idealist, rest is realist. so you need to write the rules for the other %, because, as you already said: the idealist keeps on going no matter what. having been a long-term webmaster of a community-website, with a staff of around 20-30 people, about 3-5000 regular readers, i can say this: you don't find too many idealists out there. and if you do, they most likely scare the realists away as they do the same work the others would do, for free. @rauul: just because you don't like teams, is that the only reason? i can't find a line of argumentation there, you just say it is wrong. - WHY?
McJarvis 10-26-07, 06:18 PM	I think the topic of whether credits are an effective motivator is pretty exhausted. It's obvious that there are a somewhat large sum of people who want credits [Mac, Rauul, Whitebaron, Hogarth, etc, etc] but that don't want to do the current insane amount of work to get them. That's cool- it means the credit system is somewhere in the right ballpark. If we were all idealists then we wouldn't have a credit system and lots of pitlords. [because everyone wouldn't run characters unless they could pitlord one fight per two they ran.] Using McDonalds as an example: I don't eat there for the prizes they offer in monopoly contests. Some people do. I also never expect to get the million dollar prize- but I sure do like it when I win those "free medium french fries". If I won the million dollar prize every time, Mcdonalds would go bankrupt. If there was only a million dollar prize[ie- credits are super hard to get], I wouldn't even bother to peel off the sticker because I [I]know I'm not gonna win. There's a balance to be had- McD's gives out free food. CoCo needs a source of free food. [if you see my analogy to its completion...] I think making higher level characters & running extra characters are a step in that direction: but maybe UA stuff is that too. Or maybe we need to offer more little stickers on our Big Macs[pitlording] instead of making them taste better. I dunno.
MindWandererB 10-26-07, 06:41 PM	Some people do it for the credits, some don't. Some are a little of both (e.g. Zevox and his spurt to activate Nimbus). @whitebaron: I have to think pretty hard for that proposal to work. That's a lot to add up in my head for 20-30 fights each week. The principle is sound, but I'm not a computer. @lonewolf: Pitlording being undervalued is only one of our problems. Many of the other credit sources are unbalanced as well. And there are several other areas (prison posts, newspaper articles) where it would be useful to award fractional credits under the current system.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 07:13 PM	@mwb: if you want to use such or a similar system, i'd volunteer to do it by hand until a proper calculation tool is made. @the comment towards lonewolf: we are already awarding fractional credits, in the prison. so the split to x10 would make sense. what most people don't like is the mixture of multiplying everything and in the same time try to reduce costs for some areas they feel should be pushed instead of cut.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 11:40 AM	Just throwing this out there: Would a bonus sum of credits when you hit certain fight #'s satisfy people? It would encourage routine pitlording[there's no way to get to 50 fights unless you buckle down and work it out] - and I'm pretty sure that in the long run people get the same number of big-fights that are a hassel to run. Example: 5 Fights- 1 cred 10 fights- 2 creds 15 fights- 2 creds 20 fights- 3 creds 25 fights- 3 creds 30 fights- 4 creds. Now granted, I would stand to be rewarded the most under this system[since I _am_ a routine pitlord], but I think it nicely encourages what we want. More or less creds depending on how many creds we want to disperse over this.
TelinArtho 10-30-07, 11:50 AM	Not a bad idea at all my friend - not a bad idea at all. I am concerned that this would give out a huge amount more credits though. I'd probably make the scale advance a little slower: 10 fights - 1 credit, 20 fights - 2 credits, 30 fights - 3 credits, 40 fights - 4 credits, 50 fights and every 10 fights after that - 5 credits. Might even be better to slow the scale to: 10/25/50/75/100/ and per 25 fights after that. For this to be implemented - it would probably be best to "reset" the counter of fights (otherwise some of us get an absurd bonus for no extra work). Perhaps give a one time bonus up to 5 credits for fights already done (so anyone who has already done 10 fights gets 1 credit, but anyone who has done 50 or more would just get 5.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 11:57 AM	I would go for 100 if we started with the current stats- 50 if we re-start everything. We want this ladder-ing technique to be accessible to everyone, not just the "uber-lords" ;) [of course- going beyond 50 will still reward you far more than anyone who just builds up to 10 fights]
templer10 10-30-07, 12:51 PM	Nice idia- but i wouldn't mind rewarding some overworked pitlords somewhat more substantioly for past work. . . . . an iam not saying that JUST beacuse iam well past 100 fights... honest...
whitebaron 10-30-07, 02:09 PM	i like that idea. it would allow people who show their dedication to coco amd earn more credits, just by consistently pitlording. i wouldn't flat it out too much on the high end though. someone pitlording 100/150/200 fights should get a bonus for that. like: 10 - 1 20 - 2 30 - 3 40 - 4 50 - 5 60-90 - 5 100 - 10 (bonus) 110-140 - 5 150 - 15 160-190 - 5 200 - 20 and so on. reward people staying that long. and: i'd convert the old fights into credits and reset that, too, though not at that high a rate - just give 5 credits for every 50 fights., 1 credit for every 10 below 50. just because you would get some high rewards, doesn't mean it is a bad resolution - you just don't like it, since it seems to favor yourself. ah yes, and another idea towards that system: don't count late fights for bonusses.
Macbrea 10-30-07, 03:58 PM	Not all late fights were completed by the pitlord and they have already been penalized for not finishing them. Example: Rauul (1°) <one> [Late:17/43] Rauul didn't finish those 17 fights at all. As a result he was awarded 17 credits for the fight and penalized 34 credits for not finishing them.
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 04:11 PM	Not all late fights were completed by the pitlord and they have already been penalized for not finishing them. Example: Rauul (1°) <one> [Late:17/43] Rauul didn't finish those 17 fights at all. As a result he was awarded 17 credits for the fight and penalized 34 credits for not finishing them. Yes and no. He finished some of those, but not others. For the ones he did finish, he was awarded 1 and penalized 2; for the ones he didn't finish, he was awarded 1 and penalized 3.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 04:12 PM	Not all late fights were completed by the pitlord and they have already been penalized for not finishing them. Example: Rauul (1°) <one> [Late:17/43] Rauul didn't finish those 17 fights at all. As a result he was awarded 17 credits for the fight and penalized 34 credits for not finishing them. Rauul didn't finish *any* of those? Wow... :-O That's alot of creds gone... edit- @MWB: I thought if it was late the penalty got negated, & if it wasn't finished at all the penatly brought you down to a net of -1?
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 04:22 PM	Rauul didn't finish *any* of those? Wow... :-O That's alot of creds gone... edit- @MWB: I thought if it was late the penalty got negated, & if it wasn't finished at all the penatly brought you down to a net of -1? Nope.There is a deadline at which time your assigned fight must be posted on the fights thread, in proper shape. This deadline is Tuesday 9 PM GMT. If you do not post your fight before that time is up, you lose the credit you received for running the fight plus you get a negative credit and your fight is free for the taking. You are still encouraged to post the fight because there is still more than a day before the new pairings are being rolled (Wednesday 12 PM PST/3 PM EST). If you don't post the fight at all by the next pairings, you lose another credit. In this case, your fight will be reassigned to another pitlord who runs it within the new week. Note that late fight will be marked behind your name.
Macbrea 10-30-07, 04:39 PM	The point of what I was saying is basically. It is a self fixing problem of not doing fights. Also, the GM should be prone to not let you take a huge number of fights if you have a large number of late fights. It is the original reason you went to red when you were over a certian percentage of your fights being late. The theory being. You couldn't take over X number of fights if you couldn't complete the fights you had in the past.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 04:47 PM	Yeah: right now it's just meant to embarass people ;) [especially me: who for some reason remains red week after week despite being way less than 10% [ie-20+ fights] ;) ]
whitebaron 10-30-07, 04:54 PM	The point of what I was saying is basically. It is a self fixing problem of not doing fights. self fixing, yes. but actually, nobody likes held-over fights. so i wouldn't give a reward for those fights, and not even for a bonus-system. but this was just an idea.
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 05:10 PM	self fixing, yes. but actually, nobody likes held-over fights. so i wouldn't give a reward for those fights, and not even for a bonus-system. but this was just an idea. Held-over fights wouldn't count at all... an on-time fight gives you +0/+1, a late fight gives you +1/+1, and a missing fight gives you +1/+0. It took me a while to figure out that's what Cat was doing--I didn't understand how people could have more late fights than total fights! But I figured it out before I started GMing, so it should all be accurate. @McJ: It's because you're speee-cial. (Coloring audited and corrected.)
McJarvis 10-30-07, 05:12 PM	@McJ: It's because you're speee-cial. (Coloring audited and corrected.) Wow. I really thought it was an inside joke- it initially bothered me months ago. :)
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 05:22 PM	Wow. I really thought it was an inside joke- it initially bothered me months ago. :) Nah... undoubtedly it just wasn't noticed when you went back up over the 10% mark, and then you left and it wasn't looked at again. New question: I know that overall, monster fights have about a 50/50 win rate. But has anyone examined whether characters with more successful records actually win more of those monster fights? They should, but there have been many cases where Great Renown or even long-undefeated characters get monster fights that are ridiculously stacked against them. I haven't noticed whether crappy characters are more likely to win monster fights than PC fights. If that's so, then the policy we have now that monsters are considered to have a PR of 1000 isn't really appropriate--PCs should just gain or lose 100 PR regardless. (The reasoning being that high-PR characters deserve to lose a lot if they're beaten by a low-PR character, and vice versa, but that's not really true with monsters.)
Hirumajoe 10-30-07, 05:37 PM	New question: I know that overall, monster fights have about a 50/50 win rate. But has anyone examined whether characters with more successful records actually win more of those monster fights? They should, but there have been many cases where Great Renown or even long-undefeated characters get monster fights that are ridiculously stacked against them. I haven't noticed whether crappy characters are more likely to win monster fights than PC fights. If that's so, then the policy we have now that monsters are considered to have a PR of 1000 isn't really appropriate--PCs should just gain or lose 100 PR regardless. (The reasoning being that high-PR characters deserve to lose a lot if they're beaten by a low-PR character, and vice versa, but that's not really true with monsters.) A quick glance for ECL 6-13 shows the following trends for the Great Renown characters: Name Wins/Losses (to monsters) Chameleon 3/2 Lord Lorian 6/2 Longshot 5/1 Elrick 5/1 Celia 0/0 Hood 5/1 Reginald 2/0 Maya Redwine 3/0 Strongjaw 0/0 Treetall Oakleg 2/0 Darian Thorne 1/0 Unholy Ninja 0/0 From this incomplete and most likely error ridden survey, I would conclude successful characters are in fact successful in monster fights. Just for comparison, Valen Sky has 1 win and 4 losses (and the one win was from way back at lower ECLs). He has a PR rating of 1228. Failure Tagged Characters vs monsters Name Wins/Losses Featylec Elendi 1/1 Lord Frost 0/0 Izumi 3/2 Snaga 0/0 Rubicanti 1/2 Vantis Dar'ath 0/0 Maeglin Eluch 0/0 Unfortunately, the statistics aren't as good in this case, so its hard to say if there is a trend or not. Only 10 fights here versus 40 in the great renown case. Edit: Added ECL 6 since it was easy and there were no other Great renowns... Might as well be complete. Edit 2: Adding all the failures Edit 3: Correcting Lord Lorian's numbers, as pointed out by Templer10 below
whitebaron 10-30-07, 05:45 PM	well, i think the main problem of monster fights is, that they are run inconsistently as well. depending on the pitlord and their knowledge of the monsters, what's their good tactics etc, the same fight can be very different. if i get a monster fight, it is likely that i don't know the monster at all. a player can write tactics for his pc more easily. thus i think monster fights to be highly dependent on pitlord monster-experience. this is something you cannot count in. -> fixed monster ratings would give more PR points if i understand that correctly. this should not be the case. i think default starting PR is right, just as a new character, since the pitlord might or might not know about how to play the monster right.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 08:35 PM	RE: Monster fights: No matter what fight you pitlord you have to do the actual pitlording. With monsters this can vary from easy to hard just as easily as regular fights can. On top of this you have to post monster info early, design a monster while forcing yourself not to metagame[under strict specifications that the monster be a generalist who can take on mages/ranged archers/melee monsters], buy equipment for the monster, write general tactics, and then analyze the "opponent" and design specific tactics. So we have. Run fight Versus Run fight Post knowledge checks design monster equip monster write general/specific tactics try your best not to metagame the entire time I'd say monster fights are alot more work- and they only service 1 person at a time. Most people will just slap a monster together & call it kosher, but I don't think that level of influence should reside with the pitlord. -> fixed monster ratings would give more PR points if i understand that correctly. this should not be the case. i think default starting PR is right, just as a new character, since the pitlord might or might not know about how to play the monster right. I think we should put a [I]cap of 100 PR change due to monster fights. What MWB is worried about is that he's facing the ugly truth this week[I think Lorian got close when I defeated his char with the troll/ogre team]: You have to be above 1666 PR to be immune to losing GR when facing a monster, and unfortunately win/losing a monster fight is like flipping a coin. You don't get a whole lot of say in it if you don't have knowledge skills.
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 08:43 PM	Although it was Gak that induced me to bring it up this time, it's templer10 who's suffered the most--he's lost over 200 PR to near-impossible monster fights in the past.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 11:35 PM	Although it was Gak that induced me to bring it up this time, it's templer10 who's suffered the most--he's lost over 200 PR to near-impossible monster fights in the past. Yeah- I understand. I haven't liked the rule for a long time. As stated- a 100 PR cap change on monster fights will work fine. Examples: Monster wins vs.... 5,000 PR: 4,900 PR [instead of 4,500 via current rules] 500 PR: 450 PR [instead of 400 via 100PR monster fights] etc, etc Monster loses vs... 5,000 PR: 5,020 PR [Instead of 5,100 via 100 PR monster fights] 500 PR: 600 PR [Instead of 700 via current rules] So a monster can't seriously bring you up or seriously bring you down. Since it's so hard for high rating people to go up in PR & it is easy for them to go down, the system should reflect that a little.
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 12:25 AM	Yeah- I understand. I haven't liked the rule for a long time. As stated- a 100 PR cap change on monster fights will work fine. Examples: Monster wins vs.... 5,000 PR: 4,900 PR [instead of 4,500 via current rules] 500 PR: 450 PR [instead of 400 via 100PR monster fights] etc, etc Monster loses vs... 5,000 PR: 5,020 PR [Instead of 5,100 via 100 PR monster fights] 500 PR: 600 PR [Instead of 700 via current rules] So a monster can't seriously bring you up or seriously bring you down. Since it's so hard for high rating people to go up in PR & it is easy for them to go down, the system should reflect that a little. I was thinking about the other side of things, too--many monster fights are absurdly easy (although I admit, often due to pitlord negligence). A low-PR character shouldn't get a huge jump from winning such a fight.
templer10 10-31-07, 02:57 AM	Although it was Gak that induced me to bring it up this time, it's templer10 who's suffered the most--he's lost over 200 PR to near-impossible monster fights in the past. Not to mention out of ALL of my losses on my GR chars, most ARE to monsters, p.s. - lorian lost 2 or 3 times to monsters, not 1. i was especially ticked off about losing a perfect record to 3 annis hag vampries in the sewers, talk about an autoloss... On the PR thing - i think a 100 PR win/loss for monster fight should be about right- it's not any easer for a GR char to Win those kinds of fights (other then the GR char is generaly better) so he shouldnt get less reward. p.s. - Mcjarvis - And it's nothing personall - since i had happen a LOT of monster figths, and i tend to read them even when i dont participate - i think the way you do them isn't always the most fair since you tend to super optimize monsters - a LOT more then most other pitlords, and they cant ALL be wrong...
Rauul 10-31-07, 03:29 AM	p.s. - Mcjarvis - And it's nothing personall - since i had happen a LOT of monster figths, and i tend to read them even when i dont participate - i think the way you do them isn't always the most fair since you tend to super optimize monsters - a LOT more then most other pitlords, and they cant ALL be wrong... Guess you have never had a Telin monster fight...
templer10 10-31-07, 04:00 AM	Guess you have never had a Telin monster fight... I did - Expet hating telins dice (and everyone do really) iam okay with his style. p.s. personally, if i run monster fights below my usuall level of competence in writing tactics Or optimization since i account for that the monster is harder then the avrage PC, and since the few times i DID write My usual level of tactics or in one case made a classed monster i pretty much won automaticly, and NOT beceuse the monster was particulary hard). p.s.s - if it seems iam pushing towards some standarized level of tactics writing like sauro offered a while back it's becuase i am (althrough i think sauro wrote them 2 smart).
Macbrea 10-31-07, 08:24 AM	Izumi 3/2 Izumi is very weird in her record. She has fought alot of the great renowns that are out there at this point. And she fairs horridly in non-regular fights. I have to figure out a good path to make her viable at some point. Monster 3 win, 2 loss Team Fight with monster as ally 0 win, 1 loss Team Fights 1 win, 3 loss Free for all/Hunter 0 wins, 3 loss Regular Fights 7 wins, 13 loss
McJarvis 10-31-07, 10:40 AM	i think the way you do them isn't always the most fair since you tend to super optimize monsters - a LOT more then most other pitlords, and they cant ALL be wrong... I'lll admit that I spend alot more time developing monsters than other pitlords- but I don't think that because the majority of pitlords don't want to spend the time it means I shouldn't. The problem with monster fights, IMO, is that the pitlord is the designer of the opponent AND the arbitrator of the fight. This leads to conflicts of issues, especially when pitlords want short fights- make the monster too easy, and you don't need to do as much work. Nobody complains[the monster has no advocate], and it's the perfect non-crime. I'll also note that standardized monster tactics "rules" based on intelligence are a terrible idea. You'd be better off stripping out all of the monsters with less than 10 int. I see no indication that CR is based on intelligence of tactics. [nor any indication that tactics should be dictated by int score. There's no such thing as Craft: (Master Tactics), and like I've said before- we certainly don't make PC's craft tactics based on intelligence. ] Instead of limiting monster's tactical ability, I'd prefer to see us say that all CR's are shifted down one level or something similar. [or remove those pesky knowledge rolls. Most of my challenges would be easy to overcome if the gladiator knew what he was facing]
whitebaron 10-31-07, 11:07 AM	i think knowledges are a nice addition to monster fights. it makes use of some of those never-else used skills. still, monster fights are a problem, as each monster tends to be optimized towards one goal. if the goal is in line with the character, the character is bound to lose, as ECL is no match to CR. (which is even acknowledged in the coco-rules.) else, he's likely to win. i'd make some default characters for each ECL, which are used according to the monster fight. Let monsters be gone for the arena. it really doesnt make sense, why a celestial lion should ever enter the arena in the first place.
templer10 10-31-07, 11:57 AM	i think knowledges are a nice addition to monster fights. it makes use of some of those never-else used skills. still, monster fights are a problem, as each monster tends to be optimized towards one goal. if the goal is in line with the character, the character is bound to lose, as ECL is no match to CR. (which is even acknowledged in the coco-rules.) else, he's likely to win. i'd make some default characters for each ECL, which are used according to the monster fight. Let monsters be gone for the arena. it really doesnt make sense, why a celestial lion should ever enter the arena in the first place. Ill support that - althrough it will never pass - we can also make said Monsters 36 point buy so it's "fair", Hell ill volunteer to make some of them and i can pretty much gurentee they will be anything BUT pushovers. another option is like was said before and by quite a few many people - do away with those knowladge rolls, after all - when it is all said and done, unless you already have those skills as class skills AND you have a hell of a lot of INT, you wont have very many ranks in those skills.
Macbrea 10-31-07, 02:14 PM	Monsters CR was never meant to be a fight vs a single opponent. It was meant to tax 25% of the resources of a four man group of the same level. As a result, some fights are going to be pushovers, while others are going to be impossible. ECL 9 1 Level 7 Half-Orc cleric and 3 Level 4 Orc Fighters 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro- Monster 1 can probably be defeated by every single character in ECL 9. As it is basically, a 1 on 1 fight with some peons. Monster 2 is probably impossible to almost every single character in the ECL 9 league. For a party of 4 characters of 25pt buy the first encounter would use about 10% of their resources. The second encounter would probably use about 25% but wouldn't be an impossible fight.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 02:18 PM	Monsters CR was never meant to be a fight vs a single opponent. It was meant to tax 25% of the resources of a four man group of the same level. As a result, some fights are going to be pushovers, while others are going to be impossible. ECL 9 1 Level 7 Half-Orc cleric and 3 Level 4 Orc Fighters 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro- Monster 1 can probably be defeated by every single character in ECL 9. As it is basically, a 1 on 1 fight with some peons. Monster 2 is probably impossible to almost every single character in the ECL 9 league. For a party of 4 characters of 25pt buy the first encounter would use about 10% of their resources. The second encounter would probably use about 25% but wouldn't be an impossible fight. It's worse than that. The Hyrdra is an auto-win for every ECL 9 character on account of it's lack of flight, 20 ft speed, and no ranged weapons.
Macbrea 10-31-07, 02:20 PM	It's not an autowin. I don't think a single one of them can generate the 18 damage a round nessessary to every kill it. Therefore, their flight is meaningless.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 02:23 PM	It's not an autowin. I don't think a single one of them can generate the 18 damage a round nessessary to every kill it. Therefore, their flight is meaningless. it's ego-whip bait & it's susceptible to save-or-die effects. I think that bridges over a fair number of gladiators. Especially with a +4 will save. [bleh] Of course, if you let me put a cloak of resistance on it and have it crunch down some pots of pro:evil....
Luni 10-31-07, 02:25 PM	Quick Question: Do monster fights take place on any map now? I remember them taking place mostly on the Cavern map to avoid stuff like flying PC's. Hydra's aren't that hard. Most of the maps, you can force the hydra to squeeze to get at you, making it very hard to hit the high AC players.
Macbrea 10-31-07, 02:31 PM	Monster fights can be on any map. And of the current ECL 9 characters there are a few that might be able to stand toe to toe with it after looking. Damage Per round. Kitty Melee ~1.5, Ranged ~17.6 Izumi Melee ~48, Ranged ~24 Relanex Melee 0, Ranged ~35 Hood Melee ~5, Ranged ~20 Aquin Melee ~53.5, Ranged ~4.5 Arden Melee ~37, Ranged ~15 Ceilia Melee ~19, Ranged ~15 None have ego whip.
Macbrea 10-31-07, 02:34 PM	And any none winged creature is an autoloss vs someone that can cast ego whip that can fly. The same could be said of any druid with flight and summon swarm. On summons swarm any animal that is damage by a bat swarm dies. Nothing it can do about it. They aren't smart enough to stop the bleeding.
whitebaron 10-31-07, 02:37 PM	fast healing 1 - enough. dr>5 - enough. you need not be smart, only tough. but that said - any unintelligent being should lose to a flyer.
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 02:50 PM	Monster fights can be on any map. And of the current ECL 9 characters there are a few that might be able to stand toe to toe with it after looking. Damage Per round. Kitty Melee ~1.5, Ranged ~17.6 Izumi Melee ~48, Ranged ~24 Relanex Melee 0, Ranged ~35 Hood Melee ~5, Ranged ~20 Aquin Melee ~53.5, Ranged ~4.5 Arden Melee ~37, Ranged ~15 Ceilia Melee ~19, Ranged ~15 None have ego whip. And if Aquin is forced into a ranged encounter and you think he'll be relying on his crossbow - you are dead wrong... That said - Aquin vs a hydra would be interesting.
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 02:56 PM	Monsters CR was never meant to be a fight vs a single opponent. It was meant to tax 25% of the resources of a four man group of the same level. As a result, some fights are going to be pushovers, while others are going to be impossible. ECL 9 1 Level 7 Half-Orc cleric and 3 Level 4 Orc Fighters 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro- Monster 1 can probably be defeated by every single character in ECL 9. As it is basically, a 1 on 1 fight with some peons. Monster 2 is probably impossible to almost every single character in the ECL 9 league. For a party of 4 characters of 25pt buy the first encounter would use about 10% of their resources. The second encounter would probably use about 25% but wouldn't be an impossible fight.Ironically... I have had the orc fight and lost it (with Besthirah), and while Aerryl didn't have the cryo/pyrohydra, she did fight the normal 8-headed hydra and won. And in both cases, much would depend on tactics. If that cleric is a smart leader, compared to the dumb hydra, those fights could easily be of equal difficulty. @Luni: Monster fights can be on any map, but the auto-win clause still applies. A Huge monster in the sewer is re-rolled.
lonewolf 10-31-07, 03:08 PM	Monster fights can be on any map. And of the current ECL 9 characters there are a few that might be able to stand toe to toe with it after looking. Damage Per round. Kitty Melee ~1.5, Ranged ~17.6 Izumi Melee ~48, Ranged ~24 Relanex Melee 0, Ranged ~35 Hood Melee ~5, Ranged ~20 Aquin Melee ~53.5, Ranged ~4.5 Arden Melee ~37, Ranged ~15 Ceilia Melee ~19, Ranged ~15 None have ego whip. while Kitty isnt ECL9 anymore(leveled on campaign), he would have a chance vs the hydra. It is not immune to his poison and the bag of tricks animals could do CDGs. Difficult? Sure, but not impossible.
Hirumajoe 11-01-07, 10:47 PM	Hopefully a quick new topic: I would like to suggest that Psychic Chirurgery be banned, since there currently seems to be a consensus that it not be used. This is just to get it codified and easily looked up for future players. Thanks, Hirumajoe
SauroGrenom 11-01-07, 11:00 PM	Hopefully a quick new topic: I would like to suggest that Psychic Chirurgery be banned, since there currently seems to be a consensus that it not be used. This is just to get it codified and easily looked up for future players. Thanks, Hirumajoe If you look at the discussion carefully, what's happened is that we've decided that any spell casting service costing over 3000gp isn't available at all. That's not "technically" a ban on psychic chirurgery, but it's effectively a ban on that and a number of other powers/spells with xp components.
Macbrea 11-02-07, 08:38 AM	What we are looking at currently is the following statement in the SRD under spellcasting services. See spell description for additional costs. If the additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available. As this currently is a rule in the SRD. This makes spellcasting services asking for something with a cost of 1000xp cost 5000gp and unavailable. It doesn't ban the spell for use by the 17th level psion. Which is in and of itself self regulating. At 17th level you cannot spend more experience then you have on hand at that level without dropping in Level. In CoCo we do not allow you to not level. Also, expenditure of experience in CoCo is also followed with an automatic expendature of 5gp per 1xp on self cast spells. This does mean that a character could stay at 17th for all of the powers in the book. But it should be noted that would take real life years to accomplish in our game. Fourth edition will probably be out long before we even contemplate opening up the 16-20th leagues also. So, this may be a moot point.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 09:08 AM	Not a bad idea at all my friend - not a bad idea at all. I am concerned that this would give out a huge amount more credits though. I'd probably make the scale advance a little slower: 10 fights - 1 credit, 20 fights - 2 credits, 30 fights - 3 credits, 40 fights - 4 credits, 50 fights and every 10 fights after that - 5 credits. Might even be better to slow the scale to: 10/25/50/75/100/ and per 25 fights after that. For this to be implemented - it would probably be best to "reset" the counter of fights (otherwise some of us get an absurd bonus for no extra work). Perhaps give a one time bonus up to 5 credits for fights already done (so anyone who has already done 10 fights gets 1 credit, but anyone who has done 50 or more would just get 5. I'm just gonna bump this so it doesn't get lost. More elder's comments on it would be great.
Macbrea 11-02-07, 09:28 AM	I am fine with the system of increased benefits for more fights over time. I honestly think though we need to evaluate the costs alittle though. IE. We have a cost for intelligent weapons that is based on someone creating one for a campaign and putting it into play. Then handing it to one of the characters and them deciding wether they want the item or not. Nothing else in our system works that way. The cost for starting characters above level 3 went from 4 credits per level to 5 credits in order to encourage more pitlording. This increase was like saying, "We shall punish you in order to get you to assist us more!" The increase was only suppose to last until after the state of emergency. But apparently it became permanent for some reason.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 09:32 AM	Well hey- I guess it solved the state of emergency then. On a related note- I have this rock to sell you that keeps dinosaur's away.... Elders: When you post be sure to post what kind of rewards "Scale" you'd like, if you'd like it at all. I think that'll be the major thing to decide on.
MindWandererB 11-02-07, 03:38 PM	Fourth edition will probably be out long before we even contemplate opening up the 16-20th leagues also. So, this may be a moot point.Remember, the plan is to keep both the 3e and 4e editions of CoCo going concurrently as long as there's interest. I imagine there will be for a long time--4e will take a while for people to adopt, and even with core-only, 3e gives you a lot more exotic options.I'm just gonna bump this so it doesn't get lost. More elder's comments on it would be great.It's a fairly minor benefit, so I have no problem with it. I'd like a reward that's more interesting and noteworthy (I wonder if I can get custom avatars? I did it once for Iron Man...), but credits would be something. I'm not crazy about it, though; +5 credits per 10 fights is almost like granting 50% more credits to CoCo veterans, which just isn't fair.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 03:41 PM	(I wonder if I can get custom avatars? I did it once for Iron Man...) I suggested custom titles a few weeks ago. I'm sure that'd be very manageable. As far as credit payouts go- I see no reason to give people extra credits depending on what they've done up until this date. As the parable in the New Testament goes- What wages we've agreed to pay are fair regardless of what we agree to pay to others- for they are OUR credits to pay with. [paraphrase]
whitebaron 11-02-07, 05:03 PM	Remember, the plan is to keep both the 3e and 4e editions of CoCo going concurrently as long as there's interest. I imagine there will be for a long time--4e will take a while for people to adopt, and even with core-only, 3e gives you a lot more exotic options.It's a fairly minor benefit, so I have no problem with it. I'd like a reward that's more interesting and noteworthy (I wonder if I can get custom avatars? I did it once for Iron Man...), but credits would be something. I'm not crazy about it, though; +5 credits per 10 fights is almost like granting 50% more credits to CoCo veterans, which just isn't fair. about the custom avatars and titles: while this would certainly appeal to some. others like their cash... and about dishing out more credits to veterans: why not? after all, they keep it going. its saying like prisonlords should get nothing for his work, since he gets this mostly for being a long-time user here... its just fair, not unfair, to give veterans a bonus for their DEDICATION. also, note that it takes a very long time to get to 50/100 fights again to get that much credits...
lonewolf 11-02-07, 05:13 PM	about the custom avatars and titles: while this would certainly appeal to some. others like their cash... and about dishing out more credits to veterans: why not? after all, they keep it going. its saying like prisonlords should get nothing for his work, since he gets this mostly for being a long-time user here... its just fair, not unfair, to give veterans a bonus for their DEDICATION. also, note that it takes a very long time to get to 50/100 fights again to get that much credits... 2nd
templer10 11-02-07, 05:28 PM	about the custom avatars and titles: while this would certainly appeal to some. others like their cash... and about dishing out more credits to veterans: why not? after all, they keep it going. its saying like prisonlords should get nothing for his work, since he gets this mostly for being a long-time user here... its just fair, not unfair, to give veterans a bonus for their DEDICATION. also, note that it takes a very long time to get to 50/100 fights again to get that much credits... 3rd :thumbsup:
MindWandererB 11-02-07, 06:08 PM	We have had complaints in the past that vets are able to earn credits more easily than newcomers, and thus when they create new characters, they have an advantage. On the topic of allies' CR vs. ECL: I'm thinking that the rule I just "discovered" may be against the intention of the rule. Should we say that Leadership and Leadership-like allies should use ECL, and the others CR? It seems odd that in our system, a basic purchased griffon would be treated the same as a griffon Leadership cohort with 25-pt. stat buy and skill/feat customization--and an Elite griffon would actually be higher.
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 06:16 PM	Intent is difficult to assay since none of us were around when the rules were really hammered out. But - like I said - it just hasn't been run that way for however long I've been here. I'm frankly fine with it - but if we do intend on using ECL when available, we should definitely change the Minimum ECL for the relavent allies (Pegasus (current minimum is ECL7, should be 8), Griffon (current minimum is 9, should be 12), etc, etc). The difference just becomes if you invest a feat in leadership, you can get the same ally as a purchased, just stronger in every way. Most of the complaints I see about allies come down to getting a particular ally before you could with leadership and this would certainly remove that possibility.
whitebaron 11-02-07, 06:24 PM	We have had complaints in the past that vets are able to earn credits more easily than newcomers, and thus when they create new characters, they have an advantage. this line of argumentation is void, as vets have more credits anyway. my first fight in the arena was against a battle sorceress (niqil) - my second against someone with custom items. people with credits always have an advantage. that said, i don't believe it to be bad that people who have definitely shared more than a month's worth of work, from their freetime, and dedicated it to coco, earn some extra credits.
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 06:29 PM	@MWB - mind updating the Link post to include the recent decisions on Dispel Magic and Energy Missile. If you need help locating the posts, let me know and I'll get them for you.
templer10 11-02-07, 06:37 PM	We have had complaints in the past that vets are able to earn credits more easily than newcomers, and thus when they create new characters, they have an advantage. On the topic of allies' CR vs. ECL: I'm thinking that the rule I just "discovered" may be against the intention of the rule. Should we say that Leadership and Leadership-like allies should use ECL, and the others CR? It seems odd that in our system, a basic purchased griffon would be treated the same as a griffon Leadership cohort with 25-pt. stat buy and skill/feat customization--and an Elite griffon would actually be higher. Since there is now no way to customize purchsed allies (expet by making them elite and that cost significantly more and credits) there really seem no reason to keep using their ECL since i dont think anyone would argue if i said that a pegasus gained through leadership is stronger then a reguler pegasus and usually stronger then an Elite one.
lonewolf 11-02-07, 06:38 PM	We have had complaints in the past that vets are able to earn credits more easily than newcomers, and thus when they create new characters, they have an advantage. Credits arent supposed to be an advantage. I know that they are, but that is mainly because of custom items that help some characters close weaknesses in a way characters without custom items cant. (which is why I am not really a fan of custom items, except those like odd ability boosters, or different body slots) Giving pitlords something to look forward to if they consistently continue to pitlord is a good thing. But we could add something else to attract new pitlords: - The first fight a new pitlord does gives out an extra 5 credits. This is one time for everyone, so there is no risk of credit inflation. New Pitlords immdiately have some cash on their hand and can see what they can do with their credits. It dramatically decreases the barrier for new players to try out pitlording(if I can get this neat bonus, why shouldt I try this out), and once they´ve done it, its likely that they continue doing it.
MindWandererB 11-02-07, 07:25 PM	@MWB - mind updating the Link post to include the recent decisions on Dispel Magic and Energy Missile. If you need help locating the posts, let me know and I'll get them for you. Energy Missile: found and linked. Dispel Psionics is obviously before it somewhere, but I can't find it. Re: Bonus credits for first fight: I'd say an extra 2-4 at most--5 is a lot, but I can see the incentive to get them 5 right away (the minimum anything costs). On the other hand, it would be beneficial in a sneaky kind of way to give, say, +3, which would leave them 1 credit short of being able to use them, and thus encourage them to earn that last credit elsewhere....
McJarvis 11-02-07, 08:04 PM	Re: Bonus credits for first fight: I'd say an extra 2-4 at most--5 is a lot, but I can see the incentive to get them 5 right away (the minimum anything costs). On the other hand, it would be beneficial in a sneaky kind of way to give, say, +3, which would leave them 1 credit short of being able to use them, and thus encourage them to earn that last credit elsewhere.... You can already get 1 for a picture and another 1 for lying about your birthday. Altogether it's 5. Oddly, I don't think I've ever been active in CoCo at my birthday time...
TelinArtho 11-03-07, 10:26 AM	And I've never officially sent my birthday in for the list... I did put up a picture on a bribe from Cat though :P @MWB - I'll do a search for the dispel psionics and get back to you. Heh - I forgot that we got it into the Courtroom. Anyway - that is already in the court decisions. Once we decide to make new accounts for the various 'lords I can add the energy missile to it as well.
TelinArtho 11-06-07, 05:31 PM	Was just looking over the EL9 Monster Fight table and noticed two entries: 33: 6 Dire Boars [CR 4] 46: 5 Owlbears [CR 4] Regardless of whether they should be on the table (5 owlbears really should be 6), I thought we were trying to restrict the monsters to 4 or less creatures. If that is the case, perhaps someone could come up with suitable replacements? EL7: 51: 3 Wererats and 6 Dire rats [CR 2 & CR1/3] EL7: 68: 8 Troglodytes and 2 monitor lizards [CR1 & CR2] EL7: 85: 2 Fiendish Ettercaps and 3 Fiendish Monstrous Spiders, medium [CR4 & CR1] EL8: 47: 3 ghasts (ghoul) and 6 ghouls [CR 3 and 1] EL8: 58: 5 advanced (5-HD) Shocker Lizards [CR 3] EL10: 32: 3 Werebears (lycanthrope) plus 4 brown bears [CR 5 and 4] EL10: 37: 1 Ravid plus 4 Huge animated objects [CR 5]
whitebaron 11-06-07, 05:34 PM	make it two half-dragons of those animals instead. ;) just forget this, miscalculated ecl.
Luni 11-06-07, 10:55 PM	Was just looking over the EL9 Monster Fight table and noticed two entries: 33: 6 Dire Boars [CR 4] 46: 5 Owlbears [CR 4] Regardless of whether they should be on the table (5 owlbears really should be 6), I thought we were trying to restrict the monsters to 4 or less creatures. If that is the case, perhaps someone could come up with suitable replacements? EL7: 51: 3 Wererats and 6 Dire rats [CR 2 & CR1/3] EL7: 68: 8 Troglodytes and 2 monitor lizards [CR1 & CR2] EL7: 85: 2 Fiendish Ettercaps and 3 Fiendish Monstrous Spiders, medium [CR4 & CR1] EL8: 47: 3 ghasts (ghoul) and 6 ghouls [CR 3 and 1] EL8: 58: 5 advanced (5-HD) Shocker Lizards [CR 3] EL10: 32: 3 Werebears (lycanthrope) plus 4 brown bears [CR 5 and 4] EL10: 37: 1 Ravid plus 4 Huge animated objects [CR 5] CR 1/3's to challenge ECL 7 characters? My ideas. You don't have to use them. :) 2 Were-Rat Rogue 2 and 2 advanced (6-HD) dire rats [CR 4 and CR 2] 1 Troglodyte Cleric 3 and Troglodyte Fighter 3 and Troglodyte Wizard 3 [CR 4] 2 Fiendish Ettercaps and 2 Fiendish Monstrous Spiders, Large [CR 4 and CR 2] 4 advanced (8-HD) Ghasts (ghoul) [CR 4] 4 advanced (5-HD) Shocking Lizards with Lightning Bolt effect for Lethal Shock [CR 4] 3 Werebears (lycanthrope) Barbarian 2 [CR 7] 1 advanced Ravid (5-HD) plus 3 Huge Animated Objects [CR 7 and CR 5]
hogarth 11-07-07, 12:08 AM	Would a bonus sum of credits when you hit certain fight #'s satisfy people? It would encourage routine pitlording[there's no way to get to 50 fights unless you buckle down and work it out] - and I'm pretty sure that in the long run people get the same number of big-fights that are a hassel to run. As far as I can tell, this would provide encouragement to the small number of people who have the time or ability to run lots of fights. I don't have any problem with that (although those are the players who are likely to have lots of credits anyway so it might just be another drop in the bucket), but isn't that what TelinArtho and templer10 were sort of complaining about (i.e. that if either of them took a break from pitlording we'd fall into a state of emergency)?
MindWandererB 11-07-07, 01:53 AM	CR 1/3's to challenge ECL 7 characters? My ideas. You don't have to use them. :) 2 Were-Rat Rogue 2 and 2 advanced (6-HD) dire rats [CR 4 and CR 2] 1 Troglodyte Cleric 3 and Troglodyte Fighter 3 and Troglodyte Wizard 3 [CR 4] 2 Fiendish Ettercaps and 2 Fiendish Monstrous Spiders, Large [CR 4 and CR 2] 4 advanced (8-HD) Ghasts (ghoul) [CR 4] 4 advanced (5-HD) Shocking Lizards with Lightning Bolt effect for Lethal Shock [CR 4] 3 Werebears (lycanthrope) Barbarian 2 [CR 7] 1 advanced Ravid (5-HD) plus 3 Huge Animated Objects [CR 7 and CR 5] Fixed. I took most of those suggestions.
McJarvis 11-07-07, 08:10 AM	As far as I can tell, this would provide encouragement to the small number of people who have the time or ability to run lots of fights. Ideally it would encourage people to put 1 fight in a week- which would make us break even Pitlord wise & no one would have to do more than one fight a week. This is about my average[my pitlording meter has been going about a year], and under this type of system my habits would be rewarded pretty well. If people just plain out don't have time to pitlord then any revision to the credits won't change anything. Ultimately our goal here is to get more pitlords -> not make credit purchases more accessible.
Macbrea 11-07-07, 08:16 AM	I am unable to put in more then 1 fight in a week when I am pitlording. As a result I am upto 58 fights at this point. It is possible to get up there in fights. It just takes awhile.
whitebaron 11-07-07, 08:21 AM	As far as I can tell, this would provide encouragement to the small number of people who have the time or ability to run lots of fights. I don't have any problem with that (although those are the players who are likely to have lots of credits anyway so it might just be another drop in the bucket), but isn't that what TelinArtho and templer10 were sort of complaining about (i.e. that if either of them took a break from pitlording we'd fall into a state of emergency)? on the contrary. it would not make me pitlord more or less. it is just a bonus for keeping on. i was really thinking about retiring pitlording (already) when the ffa hit me - like a very big rock. i've got around 20° - should be enough for my needs for quite some time. still, i figure i'm #2 in fights this month after t10.
McJarvis 11-07-07, 08:25 AM	on the contrary. it would not make me pitlord more or less. it is just a bonus for keeping on. i was really thinking about retiring pitlording (already) when the ffa hit me - like a very big rock. i've got around 20° - should be enough for my needs for quite some time. still, i figure i'm #2 in fights this month after t10. I see four pitlords that are taking 2 fights a week- and that ffa wasn't the only hard fight handed out in the last month ;) But yeah- essentially things like that ffa are the reason why I want to use this new rating system. Since I started again I've run ~5 fights- one of which was a monster ECL12 interleague fight. [where I had to do some impromtu calls to boot] This system would just reward us for getting those occasional nightmares.
lonewolf 11-07-07, 08:48 AM	The problem is that its not always clear if a fight is a "nightmare fight" or not. For example the ECL11 Druid vs Druid fight this week could have been a total nightmare, but then it wasnt. IMHO: The best way to do this is still that on the long run everything balances itself out. For every nightmare fight you get a surrender someday. So I still think that to not have an extremely complicated system, we need no additional modifiers on credit rewards beside number of PCs in the fight.
whitebaron 11-07-07, 09:33 AM	the idea about giving out extra credits for long term pitlords was not about fairness of rewarding for the possibility of nightmare fights- it was about motivating players to keep lording "just a bit longer" - whatever that means for the individual. its like the bonus system you get in any bigger company if you buy something... in the long run, you get rewards for being faithful. as for the multi-person fights: there are 2 issues i have with the current credit system in regard to this: a) FFA is more work than team fights. in a FFA, you get more different tactics. in a teamfight, you still get only one. (might be different for interleague, but actual teams try to scale out good tactics, which cannot work when you write it twice or in our case, thrice. ) It's easier to follow and easier to handle. that's why i wouldnt give 3 credits for a fight of WW, since its not that much more work. its the same as a 4 player FFA, which in fact is much more straining on the pl. b) allies and cohorts often are as hard to do as player-characters of a team. running my fight shadow+demarcos vs Eternal Dreamless sleep is an example of that. i needed about the same time for both teams, yet i get an additional credit (which is too much compared to the 1 you initially get for a fight) for the "team" compared to the "team with cohort" this might even get worse on higher ecls, though i have not encountered such a fight i had to do. so, when new credits are calculated, i'd love to see more bonus for FFAs. at least, a 3p FFA takes twice the time of a normal fight (2 players have to die instead of one) - might get even worse due to cross interactions. thus i think adding 1° for every player beyond the second is just not enough.
hogarth 11-07-07, 10:40 AM	Ideally it would encourage people to put 1 fight in a week- which would make us break even Pitlord wise & no one would have to do more than one fight a week. This is about my average[my pitlording meter has been going about a year], and under this type of system my habits would be rewarded pretty well. I could be way off base, but I think the people who have the time and inclination to pitlord 1 fight every week are already doing so. If people just plain out don't have time to pitlord then any revision to the credits won't change anything. Ultimately our goal here is to get more pitlords -> not make credit purchases more accessible. Two things: When I suggested that we just increase the credits for pitlording across the board, you suggested that we would get too many pitlords! I don't see how that would be a problem. Personally, I would like to see most optional rules available without credits (in the interest of a level playing field). I was thinking along the lines of allowing a full activity to earn a "virtual half-credit" towards buying an option. So if I wanted to create an ECL 3 UA variant druid, I would need to activate that character for 20 weeks before entering the ring (for instance).
McJarvis 11-07-07, 10:45 AM	When I suggested that we just increase the credits for pitlording across the board, you suggested that we would get too many pitlords! I don't see how that would be a problem. You're mis-quoting me there. When you first(and every time since then) suggested increasing credits for for each session you pitlord for, I was firmly in the camp of "I don't think 2 creds per fight will make a difference- and will devalue credits". This is different, though, since it doesn't reward just picking up a fight here and there- it rewards consistant 1/week+ pitlording. edit- Now that I think about it- I don't remember ANYONE ever saying we'll have "too many pitlords". RE: Slow credit earning. Credits really are not earned on a "per-character" basis like that- and if players could make use of actions like this then it effectively would be a 1 cred per week allotment, with a cost of .5 creds to play your characters. I don't really like that idea, since it just promotes inactivity. [And after all- we also want people playing & having fun here]
hogarth 11-07-07, 11:35 AM	edit- Now that I think about it- I don't remember ANYONE ever saying we'll have "too many pitlords". Sorry -- I think I am misquoting you. I believe you (or someone) said something to the effect that upping the number of credits for a fight radically might encourage a flurry of people pitlording once or twice, but not consistently over the long run. RE: Slow credit earning. Credits really are not earned on a "per-character" basis like that I don't think it's much different than using credits to skip crafting time or miniquests for allies. I don't really like that idea, since it just promotes inactivity. [And after all- we also want people playing & having fun here] I don't understand this sentence at all. How does allowing me to play any character of my choice (eventually) "promote inactivity" any more than crafting, training animal companions, etc.? :confused:
McJarvis 11-07-07, 11:37 AM	How does allowing me to play any character of my choice (eventually) "promote inactivity" any more than crafting, training animal companions, etc.? :confused: I never said I liked those rules either ;)
whitebaron 11-07-07, 01:08 PM	i don't like the idea either. any activity per a character is basically the equivalent to 1°. if you use 1° per week to gain 0.5°, that makes no sense. still, sitting out for such a long time promotes inactivity. that's why i want the handle animal rules changed for full actions.
hogarth 11-07-07, 01:12 PM	I never said I liked those rules either ;) Currently, if I want to play a level 8 character, all I have to do is create him at level 3 and fight every week. Even if he loses every fight, he'll eventually make it to level 8 in 50 weeks (maximum). Tedious, but possible. In theory, I'd like to have a similar option if I wanted to play an ECL 8 minotaur -- if I (tediously) activate the character for 50 weeks, then he's ready to enter the arena. Or I can skip the entire ordeal for the low price of 25 credits.
whitebaron 11-07-07, 01:21 PM	i must confess, that i didn't like those rules at first, too. but since many people pick up pitlording just to get credits at first, it's easy to see, that if you don't restrict such things to cost credits, it will even bring us closer to a state of emergency. empty activations are just an administrative burden to the gm, who needs to keep track of your active characters. in addition to that, waiting a whole year to play a character, doesn't seem right. it's better the way it is. you can always do some other work at coco to earn that credits you need. easiest way to do this is still auditing....
Macbrea 11-07-07, 01:48 PM	Having character sit out for long weeks isn't fun. It doesn't make the game any more interesting. What happens in truth, is someone puts a character 'Active til Xmas!' and goes about doing other stuff. Yes, that limits down how many activations they can have. But what it will eventually result is someone taking 2 to 3 months off just to write on two characters, 'Active til July'. This doesn't really seem to do much to make competition in the game. I am oddly the guy that would benefit most from being able to sit a character out because, in general I only activate one character a week. And I don't see me sitting one out as being productive to the rest of you. I like the idea of the bonus credits at marks because it promotes prolonged activite and dedication to pitlording. I like the idea of an expanding curve on character creation costs. The results would promote people to make characters in the 6 to 9 range.
hogarth 11-07-07, 01:52 PM	Having character sit out for long weeks isn't fun. It doesn't make the game any more interesting. What happens in truth, is someone puts a character 'Active til Xmas!' and goes about doing other stuff. Yes, that limits down how many activations they can have. But what it will eventually result is someone taking 2 to 3 months off just to write on two characters, 'Active til July'. This doesn't really seem to do much to make competition in the game. I am oddly the guy that would benefit most from being able to sit a character out because, in general I only activate one character a week. And I don't see me sitting one out as being productive to the rest of you. Oddly enough, I thought of you when I was writing down the idea. Razorfang the Worg and What's-his-name the Troglodyte were two examples I could think of where you planned on running them through a bunch of mostly-pointless fights in order to save on credits.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 08:55 AM	In truth, I would rather earn bonus credits for hitting marks then getting characters to sit out. I pitlord 1 fight a week. This is a nice slow pace in which to do this. When I get 15 fights normally I start a new character at level 6ish. This has been my pattern for alittle over 2 years of playing here. It is also the reason I am upto 58 fights. I love you guys that want to run 5-10 fights a week, but I simply don't have time to do it myself. I think they should be rewarded for their hard work and dedication to doing that. The idea of rewarding players for hitting marks makes sense. It means continued effort in the community reaps rewards. On the issue of new players running into credited items. It happens and most are pretty fine with it because they know they can do stuff to get credits and make their own fun toy. It's the way this community works. It isn't that hard to actually build up a small amount of credits for stuff it just comes in were the odd stuff. Now, with that said. I do think that the costs to start above level 3 is slightly out of wack. I think it promotes people to just start characters at level 3, resulting in a glut of level 3 fights. I would prefer it to be some kind of expanding costs charge. So people would be prone to make characters in the 6-9 rather then just skip that entirely. But that is me. I should also note that I am very prone to let fights go and not worry about my records. As a result you will notice that overall my characters have horrid records. This results in me very frequently debating wether to spend the credits or just build the character and let it loose it's way to the point I want to play it. If I choose to loose my way all the way to the point that I wish to play the character my tactics will be very short and without much care on how the fight is run. Examples of that is all of Razorfang's tactics have been really short. Also, some characters I build only have a purpose of pushing other characters into the brackets with my higher leveled characters. Razorfang and Varsh are very good examples of this. They were build to give wins to my opponents but to take resources from them. My opponent cannot just declare a win but has to expend minimal resources on them. They will win in the end and get full experience. As a result they will move up in levels.
Taureus_Drakken 11-15-07, 10:44 AM	Since MWB said he would take arguments for tailed creatures not having to pay double for certain suits of armor, I figure I will bring this up here. Suits of armor where a tail would not be restricted: (my opinion, just going by the images in the PHB) - Chain Shirt Okay, wow. I could have sworn that breastplate didn't have any restrictive components on the back of a character... So basically every other armor would require double-cost for a character with a tail. I guess I beat myself at my own argument... So if a character wants to be able to wear armor (other than a chain shirt) and cast Alter Self (insert tailed race), he/she would need a suit of armor tailored for a tailed character. Which would incur double the cost for said armor. With all this said, character's with a chain shirt should be able to freely (minus the cost of possibly scrolls) assume the form of a tailed race and not need a different suit of armor. This kind of nerfs people who don't rely on Mage Armor, but it is balanced. And I am not trying to get this solely for my character alone, but for everyone who feels like utilizing Alter Self (tailed race). ~Taureus~
McJarvis 11-15-07, 10:55 AM	I am still of the opinion that every humanoid race shouldn't have to wear "non humanoid armor" unless they are using something like Alternate form to take the form another "type" of creature. [example: Lycans turning into an animal] This means that merfolk, trog's, lizard folk, etc shouldn't need nonhumanoid armor. Maybe there's a flap in the back in armors in D&D- I dunno. [I suppose it would make taking a pitstop in between fights more convenient...] Regardless, I am not for restricting what the RAW allows in this facet. Broadening the restrictions I am neutral on. [such as removing the doulbe cost entirely, or only for specifically "humanoid shaped" races]
Taureus_Drakken 11-15-07, 01:16 PM	I am still of the opinion that every humanoid race shouldn't have to wear "non humanoid armor" unless they are using something like Alternate form to take the form another "type" of creature. [example: Lycans turning into an animal] This means that merfolk, trog's, lizard folk, etc shouldn't need nonhumanoid armor. Maybe there's a flap in the back in armors in D&D- I dunno. [I suppose it would make taking a pitstop in between fights more convenient...] Regardless, I am not for restricting what the RAW allows in this facet. Broadening the restrictions I am neutral on. [such as removing the doulbe cost entirely, or only for specifically "humanoid shaped" races] I agree with you, but trying to make an argument for MWB to listen to ended up failing. It is logical that humanoids with tails wouldn't have to wear non-humanoid armor. I am pretty sure that suits of armor don't fully encase the wearer, and that there is usually a gap along the bottom of the cuirass (breastplate on the back). If I am wrong, I can accept it and move on. I am not trying to fight against RAW. It just doesn't make sense to have to spend double gold for what amounts to a trap door for a tail. ~Taureus~
Macbrea 11-15-07, 02:28 PM	Strictly, going by the picture in the Monster manual the Tiefling has a tail. I am completely for saying tails are hardly ever really armored in any picture in fantasy and therefor do not require armor to cover them, Since, no extra material will be needed to accomidate a tail they should not be counted in figuring out if the creature is Humanoid shaped.
whitebaron 11-16-07, 01:31 PM	i'm currently thinking about doing a character that actually uses the blackmarket. checking for quite some stuff, i noted another big advantage for "them crafting people" - you can start having crafted everything you want (basically: having spent a full action, or more if you start at higher levels) without incurring any cost or penalties. though, if i make a new ECL 3 character that will use the blackmarket, most likely his first action would be to get some gather-information items. why is this activity not free before you start your character? the longer i read on free/full skill packages, the more it looks to me it was only intended to give "them not crafters" something to do, while keeping crafting the most powerful option around. crafting - full = 7*free gather info - full = 2*free starting equipment crafted = 100% starting equipment gotten from blackmarket = 0% what i propose: let blackmarket-using characters start with items worth up to their gather info (without gather-info items gained from bm)*ECL-Multiplier. you could limit it to non-custom-items, so no special charms etc, but skill enhancers with +x would be just fine. that way, it stays on par with crafting, and without giving to much of an advantage.
SauroGrenom 11-17-07, 07:50 PM	OK. There are a few topics of discussion going on here right now, and I need to sort of address them one at a time. First, the thing about armor. I'm not thrilled about the idea of having some kind of complicated rule about which armors cost extra and which ones don't depending on what body shape the player has... This would be a messy table made up from someone's judgment. In a home brew TT game, I'd have no problem with making a judgment on a case by case basis. However in CoCo, we don't have the same degree of flexibility with respect to how we can apply reasonable judgment on a case by case basis. Our rules are steadfast, and exceptions are generally not a good idea. Sorry Taureus, I really oppose the idea of making a special exception for the chain shirt and characters with tails. whitebaron, The issue is that free activities are intended to exist as a way to make non-combat skills useful in CoCo. In a typical game, the skill heavy classes get an advantage when they face non-combat challenges that can be overcome with skills. In CoCo arena battles, those non-combat encounters never appear. So free activities were invented with the intent of allowing non-combat skills to grant you a slight edge if used intelligently, but we don't want those skills to grant instant victory either. Now free activities have the potential to imbalance things. Many of them involve getting stuff for lower prices, or getting extra gold. One of the important things for CoCo is the wealth/xp ratio. If your wealth is extremely high, then you have an advantage at your ECL. If your xp is lost with retaining wealth, then it achieves the same end. So mechanisms where a character can quickly gain an advantage are actively prevented. Some skills also grant extra allies, and that's been nerfed several times in the past since the result was proven to be imbalanced. We still allow this to some extent, but the allies provided are minor compared to what they once were. You compare gather info to crafting, and the comparison doesn't take everything into consideration. Crafting skills have a rather distinct value that is greatest at early levels, and rapidly drops away as levels increase. For example Kracknol has a few ranks in crafting, and he's crafted most of his armor and weapons. In all this has saved him about 7000gp or so, but he's basically done crafting for the rest of his career. Those skill points are not very useful at this point and at higher levels, so the desired effect was achieved. Kracknol has invested a few points into his non-combat skills and gained a small advantage of better equipment at lower levels than he would have otherwise been able to buy them. Contrast this to your gather info idea. This benefits you the player... You're suggesting a new way to get out of spending credits. As a game administrator, I really don't like the gather info thing at all, but it's been around for a long time... The effect of this skill is to provide a back door that could be used to make credits unnecessary. The only thing that makes it not a huge problem for the administration of the game is that the gp value of stuff you can get is very low and mostly limited to minor expendables and magical arrows. You are suggesting to increase that limit, and provide a larger back door around the credit system. I think that's a very very bad idea.
whitebaron 11-18-07, 04:34 AM	You compare gather info to crafting, and the comparison doesn't take everything into consideration. Crafting skills have a rather distinct value that is greatest at early levels, and rapidly drops away as levels increase. while this might be true with crafting skills, i can see lots of higher level spellcasters craft magical stuff or at least use scribe scroll on a regular basis. basically, ~1/4-1/3 of the active characters are crafting with full activities. what i mainly suggested, would be to bring gather info(and handle animal...) on par with the crafting skills, concerning free to full ratio. and to allow blackmarket characters exactly what you can do with crafting characters, animal companions, etc - they start with their full activities already done. in the case of an animal companion, that's 3 weeks of full activities (6 tricks). in the case of crafting, its 1 full activitiy @ ECL3. Contrast this to your gather info idea. This benefits you the player... You're suggesting a new way to get out of spending credits. The current system penalises blackmarket players. As you need to do some full actions to get what crafting or druid characters get for free - the first few(1-3) full activities. The only thing that makes it not a huge problem for the administration of the game is that the gp value of stuff you can get is very low and mostly limited to minor expendables and magical arrows. I can second that. The GP value should stay low. Still, it doesn't make sense how the blackmarket is handled in some ways. examples: you can use a full 3fc to use the blackmarket for one item. but you cannot combine the value of a full activity into one item. this would be like saying "you can craft 7 items for a full activity, max worth: 1000" You are suggesting to increase that limit, and provide a larger back door around the credit system. I think that's a very very bad idea. actually, i just try to get blackmarket characters where they don't need to spend credits. currently, i'd need to spend credits on the blackmarket character, as it will most likely not be able to get even simple skill enhancers upfront - so, 5 weeks of full activities before i enter it into the arena. which would result into 5° for activating an additional character. The increase of the limit i'd suggest would _not_ affect the lower levels. but i find it strange, that you could barely get a +5 skill item at ECL15. (assuming 25 ranks in gather info, x 39 = 975 *full 3FC = 2925). the way i see gather info, it is used to toy around with minor magic items. but its hardly good at that. it's only readily available to the less influential classes anyway. I assume my half-elf build here, with gather info = max ranks, +2 racial +3 cha, +2 synergy +x custom item. i'll only get the item available via full activity, assuming that i want to get the other charms etc i want to use before my fights. ecl3: 13 ranks. Full: 2 items worth 221. i can only get a +2 skill Item using a full 3FC. ecl4: 14 ranks+1 item. Full: 2 items worth 280. i cannot get the +2 without full 3FC ecl5: 15 ranks+1 item. Full: 2 items worth 330 i can upgrade my skill enhancer to +2. ecl6: 16 ranks+2 item. Full: 2 items worth 432. not enough to upgrade to +3, but enough for other +2 ecl7: 17 ranks+2 item. Full: 2 items worth 494 i still cannot upgrade to +3. ecl8: 18 ranks+2 item. Full: 2 items worth 560. upgrade to +3 possible. ecl9: 19 ranks+3 item. Full: 2 items worth 660. upgrade to +4 barely missed. ecl10: 20 ranks+3 item. Full: 2 items worth 736. upgrade to +4 ecl11: 21 ranks+4 item. Full: 2 items worth 825. upgrade to +5 barely missed. ecl12: 22 ranks+4 item. Full: 2 items worth 910. upgrade to +5. ecl13: 23 ranks+5 item. Full: 2 items worth 1008. upgrade to +6 barely missed. ecl14: 24 ranks+5 item. Full: 2 items worth 1073. upgrade to +6 barely missed. ecl15: 25 ranks+5 item. Full: 2 items worth 1170. upgrade to +6. ecl16: 26 ranks+6 item. Full: 2 items worth 1280. upgrade to +7 barely missed. ecl17: 27 ranks+6 item. Full: 2 items worth 1353. upgrade to +7. ecl18: 28 ranks+7 item. Full: 2 items worth 1470. upgrade to +8 barely missed. ecl19: 29 ranks+7 item. Full: 2 items worth 1584. upgrade to +8 barely missed. ecl20: 30 ranks+7 item. Full: 2 items worth 1665. upgrade to +8. so: to get one of the key stats of such a build maxed out, i'd be better off using credits than gather info. in my example above, i can either use 8° (=8 full acitivities) to gain a +8 item over 20 levels. or i can pay 10° to have the +10 item at ~ ecl6 depending on my other spendings.
hogarth 11-19-07, 11:24 AM	Is there a specific reason that the Intimidate free activity doesn't require 5 ranks in Intimidate? It seems like it's kind of an odd man out in that regard.
McJarvis 11-19-07, 11:30 AM	Is there a specific reason that the Intimidate free activity doesn't require 5 ranks in Intimidate? It seems like it's kind of an odd man out in that regard. Probably because it's practically useless unless you max it out?
hogarth 11-19-07, 11:39 AM	Probably because it's practically useless unless you max it out? Well, to put it in context I'm creating an ECL 6, 1 HD ghost character. Since his max skill ranks are 4, there's not much he can do that's better than Intimidate +13; that's enough to scare away light horses, hippogriffs, etc.
whitebaron 11-19-07, 11:47 AM	i think this is just an oversight in the creation of skill packages. it should work like all others.
whitebaron 11-19-07, 04:23 PM	the river in the forest map needs clarification: a) what happens if you fall in? do you need to make a swim check? you end up prone, so moving out of the river is likely a full action - can you actually use swim to cross the river? if so, how fast are you, and how high is the DC? b) what happens if you are in? can you cast in it? can you get grappled in it? when do you drown? any modifiers to do then?
SauroGrenom 11-19-07, 08:34 PM	Sigh. I'll try explaining this again. while this might be true with crafting skills, i can see lots of higher level spellcasters craft magical stuff or at least use scribe scroll on a regular basis. basically, ~1/4-1/3 of the active characters are crafting with full activities. Not the issue here. Crafting modifies the character's wealth/xp ratio in an predictable way. That may be a problem for balance concerns, but that's now what you're talking about. So we'll drop that for now. The value of crafting and its effect on characters is besides the point here. Crafting and the gather info skill are totally on different plains of existence, the shouldn't be compared to one another. actually, i just try to get blackmarket characters where they don't need to spend credits. currently, i'd need to spend credits on the blackmarket character, as it will most likely not be able to get even simple skill enhancers upfront - so, 5 weeks of full activities before i enter it into the arena. which would result into 5° for activating an additional character. This is the whole problem. You want to change the rules to get stuff for your characters that would cost another player credits. This is not a suggestion to increase the value of gather info and make characters using this skill stronger. Rather this is a suggestion to make it so you don't need credits to get more custom stuff on your character. You're suggesting that we make a new way to not participate as a pitlord and still get all the cool custom stuff that goes with credits. That's not good for the credit economy. That totally devalues credits. Let me make an analogy. Say that there's a corner shop down street from your house. Inside of that shop is a coke machine that costs 50 cents for a can of coke. Also there's a pepsi fountain that's broke and dribbles pepsi. So the shop keeper says that it's OK to stand around and hold a cup out for a long time and fill a cup with pepsi for free if you have the patience to wait 30 minutes. You're asking the shop owner to install a new fountain that dribbles free pepsi 7 times faster, so you won't have to pay for coke and you won't have to wait for free pepsi. the way i see gather info, it is used to toy around with minor magic items. but its hardly good at that. it's only readily available to the less influential classes anyway. That's where you're wrong. Gather info is not for people to experiment with whatever they want w/o paying credits. Gather info is for people to get very very minor non-core items w/o paying credits. The expected items are not permanent magic items. It's almost totally restricted to nonstandard expendables and ammunition. so: to get one of the key stats of such a build maxed out, i'd be better off using credits than gather info. in my example above, i can either use 8° (=8 full acitivities) to gain a +8 item over 20 levels. or i can pay 10° to have the +10 item at ~ ecl6 depending on my other spendings. Awesome. I'd rather you pitlord 10 fights and get your item in a few weeks than you skirt the system for months and get the items for no credits. Basically your entire suggestion boils down to answering the following question: "How can I get more expensive custom magic items for my character w/o spending credits?" The answer is that you cannot, and I vehemently oppose creating a way to get more custom stuff w/o paying credits. Credits are the mechanism to reward people who contribute to running the community. We don't want to give out too many rewards for free, because that makes the rewards not special anymore and the value of the rewards drops.
Vathelokai 11-19-07, 09:52 PM	I'm behind Sauro on this one. It's nice to use your character to get custom expendables, but the skill was designed so that no one could avoid earning credits the normal way. It should stay that way.
whitebaron 11-20-07, 07:35 PM	after pitlording an average of 2 fights per coco-week, and just using my credits gotten once from auditing for an UA character, i feel i have to set things straight first. Every time i start something here or in the courtroom, i get shot down by a generic "you want to break the system so you need less credits" or "you want to overpower your character". this is absolutely NOT true, and i feel really insulted by those spiteful assumptions. Especially Sauro seems to be content to let everything "be as it is" - While this is a good basis for being an Elder(keeping the system stable), you should NOT use this as an argumentation basis. It is not nice to try to argue just to get an auto-reply stating that this was not the intention of [enter your discussion here]. I want to discuss changes about things that i feel are currently just not set right, not discuss why they are set like they are. I've structured my points in different sections, so you can view them independent of others. Most of them have simply been overlooked and ignored because other parts upset some folks... i'll set them up in the following way: first, an introduction, then a conclusion i draw. Please note that not all changes work good with the current system. this should not be a reason to shoot them down. Any other free activity that actually gets you an improvement over other characters, can be used upfront. crafting(both skills and magical), learning tricks, getting cohorts or similar allies if you start at higher levels, so everything that is not used to make money actually. So basically, as a blackmarket user, you'd be the last to start into the fighting, as you need to get your stuff as activities. The only problem is "how much" and "what" you can be allowed upfront. Buying skill enhancers for up to your gather value (always<300) is not that much of a balance problem. The main problem are seriously customized items(see rauuls charms) or stacks of like 5 human bane arrows, 5 elf bane arrows and so on. You should be able to start with gather-info items. But you should be limited in a way. Like allow only permanent items. Or allow only a fixed number of items(or would-be credits) used. And of course, they still need approval. Currently, the raise of the gather info multiplier is just a random number. it should be either a linear, exponential or decreasing function. I really don't care which one, BUT i strongly dislike the current system. The expendable rule is a nice example of something done easy, which increases in power over time, without overpowering other features. As gather info can be used as a mighty tool, i'd rather see a linear or decreasing approach. Exponential won't work, as high level characters would get really good custom items without paying credits. how to calculate such a formula is not that easy. let's try some reverse approach. first off, what is the maximum value an ecl20 char should be able to get? the current max value is around (23 ranks, 2h-e, 2feat, 2syn, 10 item 10 cha) 49x45x3 = 6615. for ecl3, this is 17x17x3 = 867 (you might be able to push it over 900) i'd say it would be enough to limit it to ECL*100, which is close to the current max values. see part III and IV why the slight increase proposed would not be game-breaking. a good formula might be: ECL*100*skill / (c+ECL), limited to ECL*100 (more maths in progress) note: maybe two formulas should be required for ecl 1-10 and ecl 11-20. c=20 or 25 for ecls above 10 could be worth a shot. (or reduce it to ecl-1 for ecl>10) ECL SKILL VALUE CURRENT 3 17 288 289 3 12 200 204 3 9 150 153 3 7 116 119 4 19 400 380 4 12 252 240 4 9 189 180 5 20 500 440 5 15 375 330 5 10 250 220 5 7 175 154 6 20 571 480 6 15 428 360 6 10 285 240 12 26 1155 910 12 15 666 525 12 10 444 350 15 30 1500 1170 15 10 500 390 20 35 2000 1575 ECL SKILL VALUE CURRENT 3 17 268 289 3 12 189 204 3 9 142 153 3 7 110 119 4 19 380 380 4 12 240 240 4 9 180 180 5 20 476 440 5 15 357 330 5 10 238 220 5 7 166 154 6 20 545 480 6 15 409 360 6 10 272 240 12 26 1114 910 12 15 642 525 12 10 428 350 15 30 1451 1170 15 10 483 390 20 35 1944 1575 Currently, the system uses only the market price of an item obtained via the blackmarket. i feel this is not right. the more credit an item would cost if you buy it normally, the more skills it should require. There is also a good ingame reason why you should do this: Items customized more strain your ability go get them to the last. You can not just go out and find sage to bring you that level of customization - you need an expert. (which is definitely harder to find) Credit cost should have an impact on the required skills. you can do this either with fixed factors: 1-5° = *1 10° = *1.25 15° = *1.5 or via another formula - in this case, i'd prefer the factor. (but would be: 100+(CreditCost-5)*5%) Depending on what you want it to be, you have two alternatives on the free to full ratio of gather information. either you disallow using more than one action to get an item. or you allow to combine full actions as well. Everything else is inconsistent. This poses a big problem, of course, as characters gathering information for a long time, could acquire pretty powerful custom items without paying any credits. Seeing that, disallowance seems to be the best way. Free and Full Action Gather Information should not be allowed to be combined for bigger items. To set-off the impact on the current system a bit, Full Action Gather Information should be able to combine the 2*Gather Info into a single item, but i'd still give a limit of ECL*100 for items available. While i first thought it highly unfair to gather information, i am now of a different mind - it is fair after all, for gather information, as it bypasses credits and thus has a doubled, if not tripled value to crafting. Still, with handle animal this is not so clear. It would be devastating to allow a druid to have his new animal companion or ha-ally start with all tricks, so we cannot simply say, ok *7 on handle animal, too. But there is another option. some players like to have their toys - like hawks, bats etc. only way to get them reasonably trained is to start at ecl5. if you could give them the option to rain more animals at once, this would be possible even if you don't start at higher ecls. While an animal has it limits on tricks it can learn in a week, the druid can teach much more at once. Full Action could be: Train 1 animal 2 tricks. or Train up to 7 Animals 1 Trick. the ecl-factor of other free actions is based on the same table as gather information. if gather info is changed, this should be applied to those other tables as well. actually this only effects burglary. burglary might have to be revisited as well - it's only really useful in lower levels, as you can only remove expendables and most players tend to dorjes, wands or permanent items anyway. maybe the definition of burglary should include all other magical items that have limited uses. I see no reason why you should be able to steal all 20 scrolls of magic weapon, but not the single +1 bane arrow. i know, it's a long post. take your time. i definitely took mine.
Hirumajoe 11-20-07, 08:10 PM	the river in the forest map needs clarification: a) what happens if you fall in? do you need to make a swim check? you end up prone, so moving out of the river is likely a full action - can you actually use swim to cross the river? if so, how fast are you, and how high is the DC? b) what happens if you are in? can you cast in it? can you get grappled in it? when do you drown? any modifiers to do then? There's an entire section in the SRD which covers questions like these. You could try here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm) and look under Aquatic terrain. Given the fact that its a fairly small river, and half of it is stagnant swamp, its probably safe to assume it is calm water. Also checking under the swim skill might also be useful in regards to determining your speed and so forth. Lastly, drowning is also covered in the SRD, and a link to the relevant rules can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#waterDangers). Hope that answers your questions. :)
SauroGrenom 11-20-07, 08:46 PM	Ok. I'm going to reply one last time. It seams like you're butting heads with other people in other threads, and perhaps getting a bit hot under the collar here as well. First off, let me set a few things straight. I cannot recall precisely when it was that I first started at CoCo... Let me check... A bit over two years ago I posted my first character. Since then I've advocated for lots of changes. I was responsible for the invention of the 3FC. I helped decide on the expendables cap. I was a mover participant in the discussions that plugged all the xp cost holes that allow a character to "burn" xp and become more wealthy at a given ECL. I personally advocated for nerfing the diplomacy allies and HA allies. I suggested we modify the appraise skill to give a better bonus. Over the years I've fought to change lots of things, and just about a month ago I asked the courtroom to help consider the balance of the dispel psionics power and we changed that and the energy missile power as well. So I don't always advocate for the status quo as you suggest. Rather I always try to advocate for what I think is the most balanced and appropriate solution that promotes the continued functioning of our community. That aside, I can fully understand your frustration with not finding people of like opinions on a particular subject. That's happened to me many times. Now to this particular suggestion of yours. For the third time, this suggestion is not about balance with respect to the abilities of the characters. You are clearly not suggesting to make gather info into a skill that makes characters more powerful. There is nothing that gather info gets that cannot be purchased with credits. So a character with gather info played by a player with credits to spend doesn't have anything extra compared to the character w/o gather info played by the same player. The fundamental issue, and the crux of this whole discussion, is that gather info is not a skill that benefits characters. It's a skill that decreases credit costs, and characters don't pay credits. Players pay credits. Thus the skill doesn't have benefits to anyone except players, and there isn't a compelling need to correct a power imbalance between players with credits and those w/o credits. So all the suggestions with respect to the gather info skill are moot unless you can convince me that there is a compelling need to make players with credits loose out on a nonexistant advantage of having credits. Your last two parts have totally different suggestions contained within them. The rate of training with HA is not something I've given much thought to. I'll have to get back to you on that one. Burglary is already a very potent ability. I've had my arse handed to me a couple times because someone stole a critical scroll or other expendable, so it's not clear to me that there's a compelling balance reason to make it more powerful. I don't want to aggravate you, or butt heads over this. So that's the last I'll say about this.
lonewolf 11-21-07, 04:32 AM	Now to this particular suggestion of yours. For the third time, this suggestion is not about balance with respect to the abilities of the characters. You are clearly not suggesting to make gather info into a skill that makes characters more powerful. There is nothing that gather info gets that cannot be purchased with credits. So a character with gather info played by a player with credits to spend doesn't have anything extra compared to the character w/o gather info played by the same player. The fundamental issue, and the crux of this whole discussion, is that gather info is not a skill that benefits characters. It's a skill that decreases credit costs, and characters don't pay credits. Players pay credits. Thus the skill doesn't have benefits to anyone except players, and there isn't a compelling need to correct a power imbalance between players with credits and those w/o credits. So all the suggestions with respect to the gather info skill are moot unless you can convince me that there is a compelling need to make players with credits loose out on a nonexistant advantage of having credits. The thing is, these arguments of yours are against gather information in general. You dont like the current use of gather information and I can respect that. But if were going to continue allowing the use of gather information, I see no reason why we shouldnt make it better. If suggestions how to make something better are met with "I dont like the whole idea anyway so I dont wanna do changes" without addressing the proposed changes, frustration is bound to build up. The basic idea to have the credit costs of an item have an influence on how easy/hard it is to get with gather information comes from me. Because personally I think such custom expendables of see invisibility or something are a much bigger balance concern than a cloak of charisma +1.
whitebaron 11-21-07, 04:34 AM	@joe: thnx. still, the speed of the river and the swim check could be given in the maps description, as are the balance-things. the main question to me is actually the speed of the river. i'll use calm water for now, but for easier pitlording it should be given what you need to get out or cross. stating DC 10 for mid-river, DC 5 near the logs as you can actually use the logs to grapple your way out, would be nice. this is a simple addition, and removes any questions that might be posed at a later time again. @sauro: i'll come back when the anger has settled. but for now: the suggestions are not about unbalancing or strengthening, they are about usability in the arena. also note, that 2 of my suggestions nerfed quite a bit of the blackmarket usage.
hogarth 11-21-07, 07:34 AM	But if were going to continue allowing the use of gather information, I see no reason why we shouldnt make it better. If suggestions how to make something better are met with "I dont like the whole idea anyway so I dont wanna do changes" without addressing the proposed changes, frustration is bound to build up. The real motive behind limiting Gather Information is the attitude towards credits. Even though we hear lip service to things like "I don't do anything for credits, I do it for the good of the Core Coliseum" and "Credits don't add power to characters", the general attitude is to be paranoid about "devaluing" them by giving out more. Any change to improve Gather Information would also be "devaluing" credits.
whitebaron 11-21-07, 07:38 AM	The real motive behind limiting Gather Information is the attitude towards credits. Even though we hear lip service to things like "I don't do anything for credits, I do it for the good of the Core Coliseum" and "Credits don't add power to characters", the general attitude is to be paranoid about "devaluing" them by giving out more. Any change to improve Gather Information would also be "devaluing" credits. please note that not everything that makes gather information "better" has to be seen in the "more power"-department. knowing where lonewolf stands on this matter, his "better" has to be seen as more user-friendly, not more powerful. pls note, that most of my suggestions would not change the powerlevel of gather info, and some of them would even nerf things you can do. -the woes of written communication - you are so easily misunderstood.
hogarth 11-21-07, 07:55 AM	please note that not everything that makes gather information "better" has to be seen in the "more power"-department. knowing where lonewolf stands on this matter, his "better" has to be seen as more user-friendly, not more powerful. pls note, that most of my suggestions would not change the powerlevel of gather info, and some of them would even nerf things you can do. -the woes of written communication - you are so easily misunderstood. I was only referring to the issue of using Gather Information for a newly made character (which is obviously better than what we have now). I didn't noticed that you proposed some additional changes until just now. Unless you can get a couple of Elders on your side (which seems unlikely given the prevailing "credit options should be scarce" attitude), I don't think the rules are going to change.
whitebaron 11-21-07, 09:19 AM	I was only referring to the issue of using Gather Information for a newly made character. this was just one part of it. you can always use lots of full activities to get such items upfront before your first fight, but again - that's completely different to what you can do with all other things, and really doesn't have any impact on the character as such - it's just a penalty you have to eat as a player if you want to make a gi-character. Unless you can get a couple of Elders on your side (which seems unlikely given the prevailing "credit options should be scarce" attitude), I don't think the rules are going to change. i don't want elders on my side or opposing my side. that's the crux of all this. if i'd wanted elders on my side, i'd have talked to them (single) upfront, found some allies, butted heads with others, and then have proposed something and tried to force it through with given allies. that is not how i'd suppose you should do things. i wanted a DISCUSSION going on - but i got only blank opposition without any indication of even acknowledging that i was trying to make it "better" without changing the powerlevel. i put in more time and consideration in that damn post down there than sauro ever had to read it and answer. talk about frustrating - that's there. if only someone would chime in to the discussion, i could accept things not getting changed, but like that - it's like getting shot down in front of a supermarket just because you bought the wrong bottle of milk.
hogarth 11-21-07, 10:49 AM	On an unrelated note, is there any reason that the minimum ECL to bring a warpony mount is 4, but the minimum ECL to bring a regular pony is 5?? I'm pretty sure that must be a typo! A pony should be ECL 3, same as a light horse.
Hirumajoe 11-21-07, 12:37 PM	Hi Whitebaron, I think the mis-communication going on here is that there are *two* discussions occurring. From what I see, both you and Sauro are putting alot of effort and thought into trying to be clear, but you're arguing about two different things. So let us define the two questions. (Physicist training showing here...) The first is what credits should be. The second is how they are gotten, which then relates how to balance the Gather Information type free activity (defined as the activity which lets you buy items without spending credits) against others. Unfortunately for this series of discussions, the second one turns out to be highly dependent on the first. From what I've seen, credits were designed to be a reward to people (not characters) helping maintain the CoCo. However, they are not supposed to provide additional power, just options. (Although through more options its generally hard to prevent some power seeping in, but they do try - hence the nature of the blackmarket approval process). As far as I can tell, you agree with this statement, as you haven't made any attempts to counter it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong or missed the appropriate post). I believe this is a standard interpretation of the elders as well. (Again, please correct me if I err here). So what are the implications of this answer? It means, a character that has been created with 100 credits doesn't have an advantage over one that has had 0 spent on him. He merely spends his gold elsewhere, on equally effective things. All they can do is change the "color" or "fluff" of the character, not the underlying strength. If a character who has had 100 credits spent on him does have a significant advantage, then the entire premise of the CoCo falls apart, namely fairly balanced characters going at it. (Ok, ok, ignore the Fighter vs Wizard fights...) Thus, we conclude two things: 1) Any implementation of the gather information free activity (as defined above) is balanced for a particular character (not player) because credits do not provide power. If they did, the CoCo breaks down. 2) No implementation of the gather information free activity (again defined above) will ever be as good as any other free activity, since other free activities actively increase the character's wealth or provide an mechanical advantage in combat. And then the player can spend their own credits to get the exact same things as the character with Gather Information did. So we come to the second question, which is what you've been discussing. Sauro has been discussing the first. As it stands there are two ways to effectively get credits. The first is do something for the CoCo which helps keep it running. The second is to use the gather information activities. You have been discussing ways to improve the gather information experience. However, given the conclusions from the first part, any implementation is balanced on a per character basis (in the sense that it is not overpowering - by definition it is weaker than all other free activities). Thus any changes to it cannot balance a character any more or less than its current form. So the only thing left for it to do is balance or unbalance it between players. So we know credits were designed as a reward for helping the CoCo. The gather information activities do not further that goal, since they are in no way related to helping the CoCo. But they can reduce the value of credits, by providing more of them. Say there have been 100 credits spent on a characer. Lets consider two cases. In the first, those 100 credits were earned by doing 100 hours worth of work for the CoCo (1 credit per hour - and yes thats probably a gross underestimate). Now in the second, lets assume 50 were earned by working for the CoCo at the same rate (1 credit per hour) and the second 50 were earned with gather information. Combined, those credits suddenly only represent 1/2 hour of work per credit. This has effectively devalued them. Thus, more items floating around gained through Gather Information must devalue credits, reducing the hours worked per credit. So in order to have a discussion of changing Gather Information, you need to discuss the first question: What are credits. Only then can you move on to improving or changing that free activity. I apologize for not discussing your particular ideas in improving it, but once we have discussed and come to an agreement on the first question, I will gladly do so. Also at this point, it may be appropriate to take this discussion to the tavern, as this thread already has a record of your suggestions and Elder responses.
SauroGrenom 11-21-07, 12:42 PM	On an unrelated note, is there any reason that the minimum ECL to bring a warpony mount is 4, but the minimum ECL to bring a regular pony is 5?? I'm pretty sure that must be a typo! A pony should be ECL 3, same as a light horse.Yea, must be a typo. Since the war trained pony cannot attack while carrying a rider unless it's a warpony, the pony should be grouped with the other similar mounts.
lonewolf 11-21-07, 01:16 PM	@Hirumajoe: The problem is that the assumption that custom magic items are not more powerful than normal magic items is a myth. Of course custom items are more powerful than normal items, otherwise the players wouldnt spend credits on them. They can give your characters options they otherwise couldnt get. Example: Rod of Arcane Objection [5 lbs][8910 gp] - See Invisibility and Shield, CL 3, 3/day each, on command This item is providing 2 very good spells to a character that has no other way of getting these spells without beeing a wizard or a magic domain cleric. The only core item that does something similar is the Hand of glory which is clearly much worse than this item for nearly the same cost. basically there are 2 ways of spending credits right now: - buy custom items, UA classes, UA races, ... - Start at a higher ECL The first one gives the character options. And options = power. Anyone who says differently is not facing the truth. And generally you can say that the more credits an item costs normally, the stronger it is. It always had balance issues and thats not going to change. Thats why I generally dont like custom items. The second results in a character that has the same power of a character of the same level, but it saves the player the time he would need to get that character to that level. It doesnt have any balance issues along with it which is why the majority of my credits were spend that way. Gather Information as it is now is a way for characters to gain more powerful items at the expense of skill ranks and full activities. I dislike the concept and would rather see that option removed completely. But if it is to stay, I think we should take a closer look on it and modify a few things. For example assuming that credit costs of items are related to the power of the item, gather information should take that into account.
Vathelokai 11-21-07, 11:35 PM	Every time i start something here or in the courtroom, i get shot down by a generic "you want to break the system so you need less credits" or "you want to overpower your character". this is absolutely NOT true, and i feel really insulted by those spiteful assumptions.I apologize if I have given you that impression. My online time is short due to real life concerns and I have been a bad elder at times by giving short and not well explained answers. Before I start, a quick history lesson: The gather info skill package was designed for a different era of CoCo. At the time of it's creation, you could only get items directly from the SRD without credits. Thus, potions and scrolls at anything but the minimum caster level, wands not on the magic item list, etc. all used to cost credits. So if you wanted a CL2 potion of enlarge person (the SRD one is CL5), then you had to pay up the credits. The gather info package was created to pass that. Now that we have changed the rule to be more flexible on CL of expendable magic items, gather info is seeing more 'truly custom' item usage. Anyway... Part 1: You should be able to start with gather-info items. But you should be limited in a way. Like allow only permanent items. Or allow only a fixed number of items(or would-be credits) used. And of course, they still need approval. I'm having trouble thinking of a reasonable way to limit it. A maxed out ecl3 character can get items of ~300 gp. There are no permanent items at that cost. What if you were allowed to use x3 of your gather info value? A character could possibly get a permanent item, but it would be quite minor. Some characters could start with one permanent item I could see allowing the PC to start with one item, but what is the benefit of that? One week saved? That doesn't seem much to me, but to others it might be meaningful. As you mentioned, bane arrows are 161gp a piece. How many should a character be allowed to start with? Other problems crop up at higher ecls. What about a maxed out succubus paladin starting with all the custom items they want? But I suppose it would be decent to give a custom item to someone already spending 20 credits on a character. Conclusion: I could accept a rule allowing gather info PCs to start with one custom item, but I don't find the idea compelling. However, this leads into a greater issue: time and playability. CoCo was created on the idea of a 'real time' progression. Each fight was (in RP) supposed to represent a week of life for the characters. Thus crafting and other skill usages were created to follow that path. The idea of reducing non-arena and non-quest activity time has gathered more support recently. I support that idea; the more time we are actively playing our characters (fighting/questing) and the less time passively playing (crafting/training), the more fun we have. It's something worth discussing outside the context of specific between-fight skill usages (with the intent to alter skill usages afterward). part II: improving over levels Currently, the raise of the gather info multiplier is just a random number. it should be either a linear, exponential or decreasing function. I really don't care which one, BUT i strongly dislike the current system. I'm not sure I understand your charts, but I would like to see a linear progression. I've never crunched the numbers, so I don't know how it really plays out (in theory or practice). What I think would work even better is to scrap the multipliers all together and work up a more simple system... part III: relate to credit costs Currently, the system uses only the market price of an item obtained via the blackmarket. i feel this is not right. the more credit an item would cost if you buy it normally, the more skills it should require... Credit cost should have an impact on the required skills. you can do this either with fixed factors...or another method. To be honest, credit costs are not based on an RP difficulty of finding items; they are based on how potentially powerful the item can be. (if it were based on rarity, one would be hard pressed to find a potion in Gladius, being that no one has the feat and demand is extremely high). But that is a bit beside the point. I imagine combining points II and III, but I've never been good at developing charts or equations. I'd even prefer a chart (saves me the time of opening my calculator to find my value; perhaps x=ecl and y=total GI mod), since I'm a bit math deficient. part IV:free to full discrepancies Depending on what you want it to be, you have two alternatives on the free to full ratio of gather information. either you disallow using more than one action to get an item. or you allow to combine full actions as well. Everything else is inconsistent.Indeed, but it is inconsistent in order to place a cap on what can be acquired. Such inconsistencies exist in other rules. It's a pain, but it's useful.This poses a big problem, of course, as characters gathering information for a long time, could acquire pretty powerful custom items without paying any credits... Seeing that, disallowance seems to be the best way... Free and Full Action Gather Information should not be allowed to be combined for bigger items. To set-off the impact on the current system a bit, Full Action Gather Information should be able to combine the 2*Gather Info into a single item, but I'd still give a limit of ECL*100 for items available. I would much rather see a higher multiplier (or whatever method develops from part II), and only allowing gather info to be used as a full activity for single items. part V: free to full comparison with other skills Suggestion: While an animal has it limits on tricks it can learn in a week, the druid can teach much more at once. Full Action could be: Train 1 animal 2 tricks. or Train up to 7 Animals 1 Trick. This again brings the question of time and playability. I feel that having that discussion would changes these rules faster than doing specific proposals. But as for handle animal; I do think that training takes a long time (~1 month per animal fully trained). I think speeding that up would good for players and PCs alike. part VI: ECL-factor of other skills ...this only effects burglary. burglary might have to be revisited as well...maybe the definition of burglary should include all other magical items that have limited uses... I've always wanted burglary to do such things. The problem is the radically different cost of items. If burglary is open to everything, stealing all of a PCs arrows is a piece of cake (unless the paranoid bugger spends over 500 gp in arrows). Another offense to reason; if something is sufficiently expensive, it can never be stolen (ioun stones are un-stealable despite having a mechanic for it in the srd!?). When the rule was first developed, these were the arguments we had, and no one was able to come up with a mechanic that allowed for the full range of equipment. Thus we have the 'only expendables' rule (since their costs are comparable). I spent a lot of time thinking on this one and came up with nothing; but I'm definitely open to ideas. I hope this is a more fulfilling response for you. I empathize with your frustrations; I've had them before.
Eamane 11-22-07, 02:08 AM	I apologize if I have given you that impression. My online time is short due to real life concerns and I have been a bad elder at times by giving short and not well explained answers. Before I start, a quick history lesson: The gather info skill package was designed for a different era of CoCo. At the time of it's creation, you could only get items directly from the SRD without credits. Thus, potions and scrolls at anything but the minimum caster level, wands not on the magic item list, etc. all used to cost credits. So if you wanted a CL2 potion of enlarge person (the SRD one is CL5), then you had to pay up the credits. The gather info package was created to pass that. Now that we have changed the rule to be more flexible on CL of expendable magic items, gather info is seeing more 'truly custom' item usage. Anyway... I'm having trouble thinking of a reasonable way to limit it. A maxed out ecl3 character can get items of ~300 gp. There are no permanent items at that cost. What if you were allowed to use x3 of your gather info value? A character could possibly get a permanent item, but it would be quite minor. Some characters could start with one permanent item I could see allowing the PC to start with one item, but what is the benefit of that? One week saved? That doesn't seem much to me, but to others it might be meaningful. As you mentioned, bane arrows are 161gp a piece. How many should a character be allowed to start with? Other problems crop up at higher ecls. What about a maxed out succubus paladin starting with all the custom items they want? But I suppose it would be decent to give a custom item to someone already spending 20 credits on a character. Conclusion: I could accept a rule allowing gather info PCs to start with one custom item, but I don't find the idea compelling. As a note, I should point out that at ECL 3, a character with crafting abilities saves less than a week (max of 6k market cost of crafted items vs 7k per week cap) so such a cap would be directly in line. As far as high level allowances go... also, why not? If you are spending that many credits, what is a few credits on the house with the right build? However, this leads into a greater issue: time and playability. CoCo was created on the idea of a 'real time' progression. Each fight was (in RP) supposed to represent a week of life for the characters. Thus crafting and other skill usages were created to follow that path. The idea of reducing non-arena and non-quest activity time has gathered more support recently. I support that idea; the more time we are actively playing our characters (fighting/questing) and the less time passively playing (crafting/training), the more fun we have. It's something worth discussing outside the context of specific between-fight skill usages (with the intent to alter skill usages afterward). The idea of each fight equaling a week is pretty much shot to heck and back before being decapitated by the 3FC. As the 3FC is now omnipresent, it's more like fight = 1/3rd a week... except for crafting, where it is alot more than that; how many people produce 7k worth of refined martial in two and a half or so days in real life? Much less in D&D, where even an epic craftsman isn't likely to do so well for himself. As far as gather information being based on credit amounts; this is a perfectly fine idea. Whether it should scale with the amount of gather information is another matter entirely thogh and I'm not sure that it should. Setting a flat cap of 10 credit or less items seems reasonable to me and what I would suggest. On the other hand, gather information is more or less designed to allow bane arrows; since otherwise you have to buy them in large groups which is ridiculously expensive. Or spend credits of course, but still.
mucki 11-22-07, 04:39 AM	[...] because credits do not provide power. If they did, the CoCo breaks down. I haven't been to CoCo long, so maybe my opinion is not based on enough experience, but I have to agree with lonewolf that credits do indeed provide power. However, I do not see this as a problem. Rather, it was something that I assumed to be true and expected even the first time I read the rules. So far I have made my chars with the premise that to have a fair chance against "credits-enhanced" opponents I would need to gain credits myself. Since gaining credits is however directly related to improving CoCo as a whole, I do not see that as unfair. After all, if you just sit around lazily and grab freebies, you cannot expect to be treated equally to a hard working CoCo maintainer. In short: I think that credits do provide power, and rightly so. If they would not, then CoCo would probably end up in a SoE or break down quite fast.
Stormwind 11-22-07, 09:21 AM	My 2c worth .... Credits provide options and thus they do provide power, however this has always been policed by the GM and the Elders such that the power that credits provide does not disrupt the balance. What does this mean? It means that there is a minor or negligible difference between characters which have used a lot of credits and characters that have not. To emphasize my point, consider that of the 12 Great Renown characters only 6 have used credits (Reginald Molehusband, Monsieur Hood, Celia Durrol, Elrick flamebrother, Longshot, & Lord Lorian). Furthermore in most of those cases, the characters have only 1 or 2 minor items that were obtained with credits (with Reginald of course being the major exception), thus indicating that it is unlikely that these items have been pivotal in these characters careers. I personally don't have the inclination to go through every single fight of those 6 characters to determine whether or not any of those purchases were pivotal in that characters victory streak, but I doubt it. In addition there are the other 6 great renown characters that have no credit purchases indicating (to me at least) that this mechanic seems fairly balanced. One could also consider all the other characters that do not have the great renown tag, but again I suspect that you would find a similar story there, showing that credit purchases do not automatically confer or equate to notable success in the CoCo. All that being said, the credit system currently depends on two things: 1) That members continue to do the work (that supports the CoCo) to earn credits 2) That the GM and the Elders continue to police credit purchases to ensure balance Personally, I am not found of the application of the Gather information skill to obtain credits simply because it allows people to bypass the hard work that credits are (and should be) awarded for. I would much rather see gather information have some other application. A character application rather than a player application. Storm
hogarth 11-22-07, 10:07 AM	To emphasize my point, consider that of the 12 Great Renown characters only 6 have used credits (Reginald Molehusband, Monsieur Hood, Celia Durrol, Elrick flamebrother, Longshot, & Lord Lorian). You missed Samuel Highground from your list (used credits to start above ECL 3). An interesting note with that list -- every current Great Renown gladiator above 7th level has used credits and none of the ones below 8th level has used them! I don't think there's any great meaning to that, though -- I think the best way to become a great Renown gladiator is to be a druid, cleric or psion (credits or no credits). I don't think anyone's claiming that credits provide an enormous power advantage, but I think every single one of my characters would have been improved by credit options (+1 or +3 ability items are a no-brainer).
lonewolf 11-22-07, 10:16 AM	You missed Samuel Highground from your list (used credits to start above ECL 3). An interesting note with that list -- every current Great Renown gladiator above 7th level has used credits and none of the ones below 8th level has used them! I don't think there's any great meaning to that, though -- I think the best way to become a great Renown gladiator is to be a druid, cleric or psion (credits or no credits). I don't think anyone's claiming that credits provide an enormous power advantage, but I think every single one of my characters would have been improved by credit options (+1 or +3 ability items are a no-brainer). Actually, Samuel started at ECL3, I just paid credits later on to gain the ghost template. And he also has a Vest of Resistance. :rolleyes:
whitebaron 11-22-07, 10:20 AM	ok, long post coming up: Now that we have changed the rule to be more flexible on CL of expendable magic items, gather info is seeing more 'truly custom' item usage. history lesson learned. so the rules surrounding the gi changed, making it less useful on expendables as you could buy most of them anyway. I'm having trouble thinking of a reasonable way to limit it. A maxed out ecl3 character can get items of ~300 gp. There are no permanent items at that cost. [...] Conclusion: I could accept a rule allowing gather info PCs to start with one custom item, but I don't find the idea compelling. the limiting factor is crucial here, yes. however, you could limit it in other ways than saying 1 full action - just limit it based on a characters starting wealth as well as his gi-value. 10% sounds good. about time & playability: i can see those issues going hand in hand with activities, but i decided not to further comment on it, as it is slightly OT to the gi-discussion. I'm not sure I understand your charts, but I would like to see a linear progression. I've never crunched the numbers, so I don't know how it really plays out (in theory or practice). What I think would work even better is to scrap the multipliers all together and work up a more simple system... i tried that first. the problem is, you need some measure to include your skills as well as your ecl. a resulting table would work out fine, but it would likely fill a thread of its own. my formula was based on the following idea: if you max out your gather info skill, you should be able to acquire an item with cost = your ecl*100. this is about what you could be able to do nowadays anyway. the problem is, that skill progression is not as linear as it seems to be. you got attributes/levels, attributes/enhancers, skill/enhancers, ranks. therefore any simple formula you'd try to do would have problems on one end. i based my formula on the lower end, thus its quite inaccurate at the highest ends. as not many characters end up that high, i think of this not as a problem. To be honest, credit costs are not based on an RP difficulty of finding items; credits are not either based on the power. a custom charm with 1 single use of obscuring mist costs as much credits as a custom staff. (15°) Indeed, but it is inconsistent in order to place a cap on what can be acquired. Such inconsistencies exist in other rules. It's a pain, but it's useful. I would much rather see a higher multiplier (or whatever method develops from part II), and only allowing gather info to be used as a full activity for single items. Currently, the x3 of a 3FC is more powerful than the cap on the full activity. Bringing it up to par, or even cancelling it from the free activities in order to keep it balanced, are both nice option. I've always wanted burglary to do such things. The problem is the radically different cost of items. If burglary is open to everything, stealing all of a PCs arrows is a piece of cake [...] I spent a lot of time thinking on this one and came up with nothing; but I'm definitely open to ideas. Well, you could open it up to magically enhanced items and charged items. so you cannot steal the normal arrows, but the one bane arrow. (note that every magical weapon would be out of reach automatically, as you'd need ECL 20 to reach over 2k value) - this on the other hand leaves out +1 armor - which could be subject to burglary at about ecl 14. (so, again, quite late) But i came up with similar difficulties to define limits - obviously, arrows would always be an easy prey. @joe, lonewolf, mucki: options are power. still, from a balancing point of view, those unearthed arcana contents and custom skill/ability enhancers are not a problem. only really customized items are. (as well as some LA-creatures are more powerful than their LA would suggest.) Gather Information should not even barely give you the same amount of choice you can get with credits - and that, it doesn't. even if you redid gi to give a flat ecl*100 items for anyone with more than 5 ranks, it would not break the game. and it would NOT devalue the credit system any more than it would now. actually, i'm having a pretty hard time understanding why buying small items would devalue credits as they are. NOBODY, repeat: NOBODY buys items like those that are gained via "use blackmarket" with credits. therefore, there is no actual relation. the credit cost is not even incorporated in your "use blackmarket" activitiy. all that counts is item value. and an item <2000 gp can hardly be powerful. useful tool, yes. but that's a bag of tricks, too. @stormwind: this is not about the general credit system. (btw: you missed samuel in your list, he used credits to get his ghost template) it works fine as it is. starting at higher ecls gives you a slight money increase(using less expendables), comparable to the earn money free activity. this in itself is nothing game-breaking or powerful. Personally, I am not found of the application of the Gather information skill to obtain credits simply because it allows people to bypass the hard work that credits are (and should be) awarded for. I would much rather see gather information have some other application. A character application rather than a player application. gather information allows you to bypass none of the hard work you do to earn credits. it allows you to get some items, which are incidentally managed via the same way as spending credits are. as those items are very minor, their use is rather limited. those items only give a very small edge. assuming you need to take a sub-par class, race and maybe a feat to get much out of the blackmarket, you already payd the costs for that edge. as a player, you don't save credits. you spend skillpoints on items you'd not bought with credits. anyone seeing themselves to spend credits on a hat of diplomacy+1 or gather info+2? - figured so. cf. my post in the tavern. i'll make a contest.
McJarvis 11-22-07, 10:24 AM	@joe, lonewolf, mucki: options are power. I'd like to point out that options are only power if they offer something that changes performance meaningfully over the standard options. For instance: if I'm racing, then the color of my car may be an option- but it is not a meaningful option. If I'm the only one in the race with access to an Dodge Neon SRT4 and everyone else is stick with a geo- well, that's an option that matters. Bringing us to... still, from a balancing point of view, those unearthed arcana contents and custom skill/ability enhancers are not a problem. only really customized items are. Which I think lends to the idea that custom items should be banned rather than expanding the options gather info provides.
lonewolf 11-22-07, 10:36 AM	Which I think lends to the idea that custom items should be banned rather than expanding the options gather info provides. Amen.
Stormwind 11-22-07, 11:53 AM	Actually, Samuel started at ECL3, I just paid credits later on to gain the ghost template. And he also has a Vest of Resistance. :rolleyes: My mistake. I should have clarified that the 6 great renown characters that I was discussing had acquired custom items that required credit expenditure. I wasn't considering other expenditures (like starting at a higher ECL) because I don't see any problems with other forms of credit expenditure simply because you can't get those credits for free like you can with gather information. gather information allows you to bypass none of the hard work you do to earn credits. it allows you to get some items, which are incidentally managed via the same way as spending credits are. as those items are very minor, their use is rather limited. those items only give a very small edge. assuming you need to take a sub-par class, race and maybe a feat to get much out of the blackmarket, you already payd the costs for that edge. as a player, you don't save credits. you spend skillpoints on items you'd not bought with credits. anyone seeing themselves to spend credits on a hat of diplomacy+1 or gather info+2? - figured so. Whilst I agree that the items that you can get with gather information are minor, that is not the point I was trying to convey. I was arguing that gather information effectively gives you free credits (which is a player reward), even though there is an associated skill cost (which is a character expense). However it is just my opinion that being able to bypass credit costs with gather information is wrong.
MindWandererB 11-23-07, 01:21 AM	I've caught up on this discussion, and just wanted to say a few things at this time. 1) I'm aware of the issues you're discussing, and the pros and cons to both sides. Well, all sides. 2) Options are power, true. I mainly use credits to make it so that my characters can be viable against common attack forms (my greatest weaknesses have been magic missiles and invis). If I knew how to define it, I'd be more in favor of allowing items that allowed a character to do what another character of the same level can do, than of allowing items that allow a character to do something that normally cannot be done at that level. But that's another argument altogether. 3) Credits being used for custom items is important, I think. Although credits' primary use is to start at a higher ECL, you can only have so many characters. A lot of us long-time players have a boatload of credits that we're not using because there's just nothing we want that badly. 4) This is an important one: I do think that Gather Info does help the character, rather than the player--at least, as intended. Very few players would spend credits to buy a single Bane arrow, or a +1 skill item, for instance. So even a player that had lots of credits wouldn't spend them this way. So the skill allows characters to get items thay wouldn't otherwise be able to get. It's the items that cause unique effects that are really troublesome--but that's more because of my point 2, I think.
mucki 11-23-07, 07:29 AM	I'd like to point out that options are only power if they offer something that changes performance meaningfully over the standard options. <snip> Which I think lends to the idea that custom items should be banned rather than expanding the options gather info provides. Well, I have a simple example that I think demonstrates that that even simple custom items add power, but at the same time are something that I would not want to miss. Of course, maybe my example comes from a gross misunderstand of the CoCo rules and therefore is not valid, in that case just point out my error and I'm happy (well i am happy with the way things are now anyway ...). What I have in mind is an ability+1 item. From what i understood so far, you cannot buy this, because the lists in the rules only have +2,+4,+6 items, and it is therefore not available without crafting or blackmarket. Now, nobody would argue that a +1 item is in any way broken (and if it is, then +2 would surly be twice as broken ?). However, there is a significant price difference between +1 and +2, meaning that I can buy it that much sooner. This leads me to the following options which are all quite powerful (especially in the lower leages): a) take off one point of the base attribute, but still get an even number in the end. So i could in effect pay a bit of money to get higher attribute boni. clearly a win. b) not having to use up a feat for crafting and instead being able to take a combat related feat. With the number of feats quite low at ecl3 usually this can give you a good edge. c) pay 1k gold instead of 4k to push one attribute bonus up by one. This saves me 3k gold which i can invest in MW items, expendables, wands, ... Now, that said, I do not think outlawing attribute+1 items because they are "custom" makes much sense. Since they are not "crucial" however (I can get somethign that fulfills the same role, just more expensive) I do not have problems to restrict them to people with credits. They are custom, they are good, but I have ways to easily work around that without credits (by spending more money). All in all, I think the system about buying stuff with credits makes sense as long as obvously broken items are prevented (of course even an innocent item might turn out to be a save-or-die effect without the save in the wrong hands ...). Random idea: Maybe the elders can put a "X fight trial period" on cases where they are not sure ? You get to use it for X fights, and if it is then considered too broken you get a full refund?
whitebaron 11-23-07, 09:22 AM	@mwb: the really customized items cause some trouble, yes. in relation to the gather information issue i have to stress that you don't get any real powerful items that way, as those customized items almost always include higher level spells, which are unavailable to gather info due to price. @mucki: you are misunderstanding the custom item definition used by coco. different ability bonus falls under another category, which costs less (not sure though if its 5 or 10) - the real baddies come from the 15° - do anything you want based on the magic item creation rules. like lonewolfs example - you could basically get many magic items with better abilities at a cheaper cost, if you only tried. about the +1 item: while it gives some early gold, it is nothing that offsets the benefits of magic item crafting. (which usually saves you money, and does not only lend it to you until you upgrade to the bigger version anyway @ecl8.)
mucki 11-23-07, 09:43 AM	@mucki: you are misunderstanding the custom item definition used by coco. different ability bonus falls under another category, which costs less (not sure though if its 5 or 10) - the real baddies come from the 15° - do anything you want based on the magic item creation rules. like lonewolfs example - you could basically get many magic items with better abilities at a cheaper cost, if you only tried. So what you are trying to say is that when people say "ban all custom items", they actually imply "ban all custom items which cost at least 15 credits" ? In that case I have to say that due to lack of experience i have no stance on that issue :)
Erithmu 11-23-07, 03:23 PM	Addendum to our definition of 'defeated' - A party is considered a single unit, and is defeated when all of it's members are removed from battle. When a single member of the party is killed their equipment remains in the field of battle. Edit: fixed from Lonewolf's notes
lonewolf 11-23-07, 04:37 PM	- A party is considered a single unit, and is defeated when both all of it's members are removed from battle. When a single member of the party is killed their equipment remains in the field of battle. corrected. :cool:
McJarvis 11-26-07, 10:02 AM	I'd be more in favor of allowing items that allowed a character to do what another character of the same level can do, than of allowing items that allow a character to do something that normally cannot be done at that level. But that's another argument altogether. The problem I have with this is that it doesn't allow classes to be unique. I'd say something that allows you to block magic missiles or see invis is on par with an item that lets you sneak attack as a rogue of your level. [since SA is usually not available to other classes either]. All of these items, IMO, should not be available to gladiators. [though I am well aware that there are examples of items that take away this uniqueness, like the ring of evasion]
MindWandererB 11-26-07, 10:39 PM	The problem I have with this is that it doesn't allow classes to be unique. I'd say something that allows you to block magic missiles or see invis is on par with an item that lets you sneak attack as a rogue of your level. [since SA is usually not available to other classes either]. All of these items, IMO, should not be available to gladiators. [though I am well aware that there are examples of items that take away this uniqueness, like the ring of evasion] I have mixed feelings. One one hand, you have a very good point. On the other, there are many abilities that are so powerful that you have a serious handicap if you don't have a good counter for them. The Hand of Glory is there for Invis, but there are other abilities that can break you if you can't defend yourself.
Erithmu 11-26-07, 10:41 PM	I would like to propose a rule change to Campaigns; Effective immediately. If Character Death occurs within the context of a campaign, the player has the option to be restored to life (by normal Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc methods) and continue on the campaign. Or be returned to the City of Gladius with the exp and gold accumulated over the course of the campaign retained. As it stands if a character dies on a campaign they are reset to the way they were before the campaign started minus the expendables that were used during the campaign, which is harsh considering that you have to invest credits to do this. The definition/rule change list above is open to comments/alterations.
MindWandererB 11-27-07, 12:43 AM	I would like to propose a rule change to Campaigns; Effective immediately. If Character Death occurs within the context of a campaign, the player has the option to be restored to life (by normal Raise Dead/Resurrection/etc methods) and continue on the campaign. Or be returned to the City of Gladius with the exp and gold accumulated over the course of the campaign retained. As it stands if a character dies on a campaign they are reset to the way they were before the campaign started minus the expendables that were used during the campaign, which is harsh considering that you have to invest credits to do this. The definition/rule change list above is open to comments/alterations. The normal GP cost for XP loss would have to apply, of course. I'm not sure about XP/GP rewards being full... maybe loser rewards (i.e. 1/3). Otherwise it's pretty generous, and the only incentive to try to win a hard fight is to keep going on with the campaign.
lonewolf 11-27-07, 04:32 AM	I have mixed feelings. One one hand, you have a very good point. On the other, there are many abilities that are so powerful that you have a serious handicap if you don't have a good counter for them. The Hand of Glory is there for Invis, but there are other abilities that can break you if you can't defend yourself. Thats my point. Some abilities are very powerful if you dont have the right counter. BUT I dont think that there should be a difference for such very important counters between credit users and others. Either such items should be open to everyone without credits or banned completely for the sake of balance.
McJarvis 11-27-07, 08:41 AM	I have mixed feelings. One one hand, you have a very good point. On the other, there are many abilities that are so powerful that you have a serious handicap if you don't have a good counter for them. The Hand of Glory is there for Invis, but there are other abilities that can break you if you can't defend yourself. I'm not sure that you've sufficently established the point that every character needs access to every counter. I mean, there's no item that lets you cast spells like a caster to make non-caster characters more powerful- why should we cover the weaknesses of the heavy-duty classes? By that logic a level 8-10ish rogue should be able to buy an item that gives him the cerebral blind ability, since that is something rogues really need.
hogarth 11-27-07, 09:18 AM	BUT I dont think that there should be a difference for such very important counters between credit users and others. Either such items should be open to everyone without credits or banned completely for the sake of balance. By that reasoning, anything that grants an ability that is unavailable anywhere else (e.g. most of the UA class variants) should be available without credits or banned. (I wouldn't have a problem with that.)
MindWandererB 11-27-07, 02:52 PM	I'm not sure that you've sufficently established the point that every character needs access to every counter. I mean, there's no item that lets you cast spells like a caster to make non-caster characters more powerful- why should we cover the weaknesses of the heavy-duty classes? By that logic a level 8-10ish rogue should be able to buy an item that gives him the cerebral blind ability, since that is something rogues really need. You're right; what I was getting at was that credit items allow builds that would ordinarily be totally non-viable because they have too many weaknesses to have a chance. Otherwise, I know that there are very few builds I can attempt that won't just keel over dead against any serious opponent.
McJarvis 11-27-07, 02:59 PM	You're right; what I was getting at was that credit items allow builds that would ordinarily be totally non-viable because they have too many weaknesses to have a chance. Otherwise, I know that there are very few builds I can attempt that won't just keel over dead against any serious opponent. Right- but where do we draw the line? Just at the "big 2" (invis, flying)? The rogue I mentioned painfully needs something to evade touchsight if he wants a fighting chance against any psion- but there's no way such an item would make it past the approval process. Should we make a custom item that blocks subdual damage[there IS no mechanic that represents this] just to block that feat? I mean- where do the custom counters end? What about when valen gets his cerebral blind/hide in plain sight combo? There's no way whatsoever to counter that[to my knowledge]- maybe a custom extraordinary(ie- non magical) item of "find valen"? :-) (edit- the list goes on and on. egowhips and the whole gang can show up- the truth of the matter is there are just ALOT of strategies that can not be blocked by a large portion of character classes) I guess I'm just worried that in order to play any build competetively at higher levels such custom items will necessitate credits. [because everyone else will have access to those counters]
Stormwind 11-28-07, 04:04 AM	<snip> What about when valen gets his cerebral blind/hide in plain sight combo? There's no way whatsoever to counter that[to my knowledge]- maybe a custom extraordinary(ie- non magical) item of "find valen"? :-) <snip> Actually Cerebral blind and HiPS are completely irrelevant to an incorporeal creatures ability to detect creatures in adjacent squares, to blindsense, to blindsight, and to a high listen skill. My point is that for any ability, I am willing to bet that I can find a counter without requiring custom items. Of course not every character will have access to every counter ... but there is no reason why they should! The CoCo (to me) is about creating viable and survivable builds and then testing them, not about creating Uber 'you can't touch this' characters which have a counter for everything that can be thrown at them. That said, where the line should be drawn with regards to custom items (available only with credits), is a tough call. I like the variety it provides but at the same time if a build depends on a particular item, then that's where I would draw the line. Basically allow things for flavour, but not for uberness.
lonewolf 11-28-07, 06:49 AM	I have a suggestion thats not gonna be popular, but I think it is necessary nonetheless: I believe we need to close leagues 10+ again. Looking at last weeks pairings, of the 11 leagues with characters in it we had 3 leagues with no fights, 2 more leagues with only one fight and 4 more with only 2 fights. Only the ECL3 & 4 leagues had 4 fights each. The week before had 8 leagues with a single fight(including 3 monster fights) and 2 more with only 2 fights. The weeks before that werent much better. There were times when we had more than double that amount of fights spread over only 7 leagues and it was a much healthier enviroment. Back then we said that we didnt have enough players to support more open leagues, and we were right. Now we have even fewer players and I firmly believe that we would need many more players to support the currently open leagues, not even counting the ECL14 & 15 leagues that are theoretically open but with no characters. At the moment in the leagues 5+ you have a very good chance of guessing who you are gonna fight before pairings and thats very bad. I myself am guilty of metagaming because of this(not activating characters if I dont think I have a chance) and I am sure that others do so as well. I see only 2 possible solutions: - many new players that start populating the lower levels - closing of the higher levels to force the oldtimers to come up with new character concepts and bring new characters into the lower levels. The first one is not something that can be done fast or influenced by us much and its a longterm goal that IMHO isnt very likely to succeed until 4E comes along. I know that we all like our high level toys, but if we continue like this I see bad long term consequences for CoCo.
hogarth 11-28-07, 07:54 AM	I have a suggestion thats not gonna be popular, but I think it is necessary nonetheless: I believe we need to close leagues 10+ again.. I never really understood why the leagues were closed in the first place other than to create a whole bunch of level 10 characters for a tournament (which turned out to be kind of a non-event, IMO). If a level 13 character wants to have a monster fight, or fight the same opponent again and again, what's the harm in that? As you said yourself, there are hardly any fights in those leagues so it's not like they're a drain on resources. EDIT: In fact, I figure all leagues should be open for business. Frozen fights are stupid -- use all of the expensive one-shot items you want (Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Symbol spells), you'll just get them back at the end of the cycle!
lonewolf 11-28-07, 08:29 AM	I never really understood why the leagues were closed in the first place other than to create a whole bunch of level 10 characters for a tournament (which turned out to be kind of a non-event, IMO). The leagues werent frozen for the Iron man Tournament. The reason to have frozen leagues was to have enough characters to populate all of the currently active leagues. If a level 13 character wants to have a monster fight, or fight the same opponent again and again, what's the harm in that? As you said yourself, there are hardly any fights in those leagues so it's not like they're a drain on resources. The problem is that at the moment you dont have a choice. You either fight the same guys over and over again or you dont fight at all. Fewer open leagues mean more characters in those open leagues and more diversity in the fights. Fewer rematches, fewer monster fights, more chances for multiplayer fights, .... As you said yourself, there are hardly any fights in those leagues so it's not like they're a drain on resources. The problem is not the drain on pitlords. The problem is the drain on lower level characters. Back when ECL10 and higher leagues were closed, if a character reached ECL10 the player would usually start up a new character at a lower ECL. Now players contiue to play their characters further up which leads to fewer low level characters and nearly empty leagues. EDIT: In fact, I figure all leagues should be open for business. Frozen fights are stupid -- use all of the expensive one-shot items you want (Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Symbol spells), you'll just get them back at the end of the cycle! Which is why there are no "normal" frozen fights anyway. Frozen characters can only do frozen quests, and do guild & community missions, but since both of those subgames dont work right now there would be no frozen fights at all. As I said: I really like the upper leagues, but unfortunately we just dont have the number of players required to populate all those leagues at the moment.
hogarth 11-28-07, 08:41 AM	The leagues werent frozen for the Iron man Tournament. The reason to have frozen leagues was to have enough characters to populate all of the currently active leagues. The problem is not the drain on pitlords. The problem is the drain on lower level characters. Back when ECL10 and higher leagues were closed, if a character reached ECL10 the player would usually start up a new character at a lower ECL. Now players contiue to play their characters further up which leads to fewer low level characters and nearly empty leagues. As I said: I really like the upper leagues, but unfortunately we just dont have the number of players required to populate all those leagues at the moment. I'm still not following your logic. It sounds like you're saying: The number of characters active in the higher leagues is tiny. (Agreed; there were only 5 characters active in the 11+ leagues during the last pairings.) If we had the higher leagues closed, there would be more lower level characters. (Maybe, but didn't we just agree that the drain on lower level characters is tiny? Would increasing the number of lower-level characters by 5 make a big difference somehow?) Taking that logic to the extreme, then you could argue that we should freeze all leagues except for level 3. That'd really encourage making new characters! ;) As an aside, I thought Caterane's logic for freezing the leagues was specifically to accumulate a group of characters with comparable high level (10) so that there would be a sizeable pool of gladiators to fill the higher leagues. It didn't seem to work, though.
McJarvis 11-28-07, 09:08 AM	The reason the 10+ leagues were frozen in the first place is that when the first two characters made it up there- one would always win and the other always lose. [I think it was a psiwarrior and a ghost]. Cat made the (wise) decision that such events are stupid and froze the ecl10+ leagues until more players got up there.
hogarth 11-28-07, 09:12 AM	The reason the 10+ leagues were frozen in the first place is that when the first two characters made it up there- one would always win and the other always lose. [I think it was a psiwarrior and a ghost]. Cat made the (wise) decision that such events are stupid and froze the ecl10+ leagues until more players got up there. I don't see how that's any better than the player of the psiwarrior voluntarily putting his character on hiatus until more ECL 10 opponents come along while still allowing the ghost character to fight a smorgasbord of EL 10 monsters (if he so desires).
Stormwind 11-28-07, 09:40 AM	I think it is also to the point is that higher ECL fights are a drain on pitlord resources due to to fact that many of them are monster fights. The fact that monster fights are themselves a drain on pitlords is a whole other topic, and not one that I think is necessary to discuss at this stage (although it might be if we have a few SoE's). Personally, I see no real problem of having the upper leagues open, however I do see the sense in trying to encourage more lower level characters. Perhaps I could suggest the following idea: Activating any ECL 10+ character costs 2 character activations. This cost is reduced to 1 character activation if the player also has an ECL 3-5 character active.
McJarvis 11-28-07, 09:41 AM	I don't see how that's any better than the player of the psiwarrior voluntarily putting his character on hiatus until more ECL 10 opponents come along while still allowing the ghost character to fight a smorgasbord of EL 10 monsters (if he so desires). There were no monster fights at the time.
lonewolf 11-28-07, 09:57 AM	I'm still not following your logic. It sounds like you're saying: The number of characters active in the higher leagues is tiny. (Agreed; there were only 5 characters active in the 11+ leagues during the last pairings.) If we had the higher leagues closed, there would be more lower level characters. (Maybe, but didn't we just agree that the drain on lower level characters is tiny? Would increasing the number of lower-level characters by 5 make a big difference somehow?) Taking that logic to the extreme, then you could argue that we should freeze all leagues except for level 3. That'd really encourage making new characters! ;) Actually, with the current number of active gladiators, I believe we can support about 4 or 5 leagues without constant rematches and a really healthy randomness in the pairings. But closing the leagues 8+ is not something I consider realistic to get through here, so I tried to do a step in the right direction. As an aside, I thought Caterane's logic for freezing the leagues was specifically to accumulate a group of characters with comparable high level (10) so that there would be a sizeable pool of gladiators to fill the higher leagues. It didn't seem to work, though. It didnt work because of the steady decline in players/characters total. We have to be realistic here: the higher leagues, the guild game, the community game, quests, campaigns, and many other things were designed with a much higher player population in mind. We dont have that population right now and we should take the consequences. Putting the guild game on hold was an important first step in that direction.
whitebaron 11-28-07, 09:59 AM	higher leagues definitely take players from the lower leagues. the question is, whether players like to play at lower levels. i know at least one example (templer10) who does not like the lower leagues at all for his characters. what i dont like about lower leagues is the lack of maps and other fight options. they were removed for a reason, but i don't like the reasoning behind it. actually, i like ecl4+ better than ecl3. the arena gets boring. maybe we should do something else - a 3 fight cap for new players, where they only get standard fights in the arena. older players have no problems with playing characters at ecl3 for interleague, ffa or other maps.
Macbrea 11-28-07, 10:09 AM	I have been able to decide who my opponents are going to be in the 6-9 league for about a year now. Those brackets have always been empty. That is a plain and simple fact. Here is what happens: Abyssal Stalker - Upper level character (10+) Erithmu - Plays highest Character (10+) Hirumajoe - Plays Highest (10+) Malither76 - Plays highest character (10+) SauroGrenom - Plays highest character (10+) SoulLord - Plays highest character (10+) TelinArtho - Generally player upper level character templer10 - Highest level character + 1 middle waywreth - Plays highest level character TheMagister - Plays highest character Macbrea - Generally plays 1 upper level character and 1 middle character. Hates 3-5th! MindWandererB - Plays all over the board lonewolf - Plays mid to high charcters (6+) Zevox - All over the place working on different stuff Vathelokai - Plays character til end Ackermanus - New (3rd and 4th) Callix - New (3rd to 5th) CrazyArtificer - New (3rd) Durzulgor - New (3rd) Eamane - New (4th) Korone - New (4th - 5th) Nurlithion - New (3rd) Taureus_Drakken - New player The Dread Dormammu - New Turanson - New bestelf - New john_0454120 - New whitebaron - Low level character (3-4) hogarth - Low level character (3-5) Rauul - Starts new character when character that reach 7th NiQil - Retires characters that reach 7th McJarvis - Retires character that reach 6th. Luni - Restarting old Timer Stormwind - Returning old timer (restarting) Dr Funk - Infrequent player Eluria - Infrequent player Salrantol - infrequent player Sjiggie - Infrequent player bgt - Infrequent player As you can see by this. In the middle brackets it won't be very filled with fights until the people in the 3rd to 5th level upto that point. I can activate my characters in that range but on average I get to fight the same 2 to 3 people. Spreading out the levels hasn't really changed much.
Macbrea 11-28-07, 10:14 AM	This was not meant to say someone wasn't a dedicated player. It is just general observations.
whitebaron 11-28-07, 10:22 AM	please note that i'm new, too. just because i talk to you in my IM doesn't make me any older here. ;) i simply don't have any higher than gwerdan (ECL5 since 2 weeks), and he's active every week. basically all of my active characters are active, if i can afford it. ;)
Macbrea 11-28-07, 10:40 AM	I understand. The point I was showing was that there are a large group of people playing there characters at the new bracket and alot of old timers that never interact because their characters aren't near the others. This is because most of us have tried about 20 different characters at this point. We know what we like to play and we are playing a concept out to the end. As a result the middle leagues end up thin. It isn't anyones particular fault at all. My guess is of the people playing at the 3-5 range right now. 1/3 will quit or become infrequent players, 1/3 will reach middle leagues working toward high, 1/3 will restart characters. This is pretty much the way it goes.
TelinArtho 11-28-07, 10:50 AM	And I disagree that I "Generally player upper level character" - I did the most recent two weeks, but before that it was my elemental priests (who just hit ECL5), my two specialists (who are ECL4) and Berri (who also just hit ECL4). I recognize that we need to have lower level characters around - which is why I try to have a few at each stage in order to help out populations wherever they are needed. I don't know that I agree with freezing the upper ECLs, but it is worth looking into. Maybe increasing the cost of activation would help (by indirectly increasing the pitlords or by directly reducing the number of characters the higher ECL player has active), but in reality that would likely only affect one player (templer10) - and he already does a number of fights per week. It might affect me as I get Kraegin, Sir Valkin and Aquin into the higher ECLs, but the reality is that I only pay attention to my credit count when it gets below 10... (which is to say - never...)
templer10 11-28-07, 10:57 AM	Actually for me iam working on getting Elrick to ECL 12 and either ill leave him there for a while or get him to 13 (i do have a nice new staff to test out...) then Ill probably start a new char, not sure what really But i certinly do hate playing at lower levels If nothing else then due to the reason i dont want free wins and ECL 3 tend to get a lot of builds that simply dont do very well. Also - chars i make tend to be nasty and i dont really want to force them on newer peeps.... And at least at higher ECL's peeps know that iam a mean S.O...:D
Erithmu 11-28-07, 11:55 AM	I think one fact to consider in refreezing the high level game, is that 10 characters are out on campaign. As it is right now when my campaign is done I should be sending back 3 lvl 13s (maybe 14), and 2 lvl 12/13s I would say wait till the campaigns finish and then see where we are at. They are both on sort of the final stretch. @Macbrea: that is about right for me, although my main issue is not getting in over my head right now. I just cleared out 2 characters to make room for new ones. Although my primary interest is to venture into the 'party' arena.
TelinArtho 11-28-07, 12:04 PM	A very valid point to bring up, though my campaign likely has one retired character coming out of it (I know lonewolf mentioned retiring Kitty at the end). I also fell short with planning out rewards and such - but I hope the players don't mind the slower pace...
Macbrea 11-28-07, 12:09 PM	Here is what I am looking at for character selection right now: Level 10 League Lord Frost would probably face either Malik the Black Robe or a Monster. Level 9 League Relanex Thines or Izumi will face Aquin or a Monster. Level 7 League Marcus Tallfellow is only a quest character. I should never take him in the arena until at least 12th. Yorick is cursed. If a Pitlord is assigned to him it will take at least two weeks. Level 6 League Razorfang's only purpose is to push people up in leagues. Level 3 league Lars just lack, interest in leveling him. Lord Matsuni will end up activating him after I finish my current cycle with Izumi.
hogarth 11-28-07, 12:14 PM	If the only goal is to get more gladiators in the higher leagues, then the simplest solution would be to make it cheaper to start characters at higher levels. Or maybe I'm the only one who balks at paying 20 credits to create a level 7 character.
templer10 11-28-07, 12:15 PM	Here is what I am looking at for character selection right now: Level 10 League Lord Frost would probably face either Malik the Black Robe or a Monster. Level 9 League Relanex Thines or Izumi will face Aquin or a Monster. Level 7 League Marcus Tallfellow is only a quest character. I should never take him in the arena until at least 12th. Yorick is cursed. If a Pitlord is assigned to him it will take at least two weeks. Level 6 League Razorfang's only purpose is to push people up in leagues. Level 3 league Lars just lack, interest in leveling him. Lord Matsuni will end up activating him after I finish my current cycle with Izumi. that's not neseceserly true- Inter leagues are fairly common now Which can definanatly shake things up.
lonewolf 11-28-07, 12:25 PM	If the only goal is to get more gladiators in the higher leagues, then the simplest solution would be to make it cheaper to start characters at higher levels. Or maybe I'm the only one who balks at paying 20 credits to create a level 7 character. The goal(at least MY goal) is to have more active characters in ALL the active leagues. Without changing the number of active players/characters the only way to do that is reducing the number of active leagues. But I get riths argument. Lets wait until the campaigns are over and then see how the situation is. PS: I would also suggest not starting any new campaigns any time soon. While they are much fun for those involved, the loss of such a big number of characters for a longer period of time from the normal arena is pretty tough.
Macbrea 11-28-07, 01:26 PM	What happens oddly if we freeze leagues is we loose players. We have players that only like to play their upper level characters. My original suggestion for the 10+ leagues was to remove 1 character on 1 monster fights. And make it 2 characters on 1 monster fights. Yes, I realize this slows up leveling but who cares. It means those people at level 13 cannot activate unless they have a partner or enemy.
MindWandererB 11-28-07, 04:22 PM	But I get riths argument. Lets wait until the campaigns are over and then see how the situation is.I agree. But I also concur with the problem. For instance, I'm not activating Aerryl this week only because I'm sick of fighting Elrick. An option we have, that we've never actually used, is to allow gladiators to fight in +/- 1 ECL of themselves, and give the standard handicap (1 prebuff and 1 surprise round) to the lower-level one.
hogarth 11-28-07, 04:33 PM	I agree. But I also concur with the problem. For instance, I'm not activating Aerryl this week only because I'm sick of fighting Elrick. I still don't get the logic behind freezing leagues, though. The end result is the same: Aerryl is inactive, except you would be forcing Elrick to be inactive too. Frankly, I don't think the end of the campaign(s) will make a huge difference. At least it didn't make much difference when the PSI campaign ended; Owen went into crafting mode, Psibeast fought a number of times (before going into crafting mode), Lemminkainen and Kilpquabjeg haven't been active and Istima's player is on hiatus.
MindWandererB 11-28-07, 04:36 PM	I still don't get the logic behind freezing leagues, though. The end result is the same: Aerryl is inactive, except you would be forcing Elrick to be inactive too. It is sort of a bass-ackward way of doing things, yeah. The result would be that Aerryl would be forcibly inactive, so I'd create a new character at a lower ECL to replace her--so I'd still be playing, just not the character I want.
Salrantol 11-28-07, 05:04 PM	Has there been a final decision on the Humanoid-type creatures not counting as "humanoid" for armor fitting question? I want to activate Enoch next week and need to know if I need to take his skills and scrolls to the Training Hall. Edit: As an alternative, does alter self allow one to disguise oneself as a tailed creature whose tail has been amputated? What if you're specifically disguising yourself as a specific member of that race whose tail has been amputated (met via quest if necessary)? If you couldn't do that, you certainly wouldn't deserve the +10 bonus to creating a disguise that you get from the spell.
SoulLord 11-28-07, 05:09 PM	That or only do frozen things like I have done with Vandelar when he reached the frozen leagues which is even less interaction with others. I should create a new character but I hesitate for a few reasons 1.- don't want to make a concept I have already done either here or in tabletop. 2.- don't want to make a losing gladiator even though it's concept could be interesting (competitive by nature don't like to lose) 3.- don't want to make a pitlord nightmare (druid with leadership + allies, stealth build) they are not fun to the pitlord and are very likely to get hit with the nerf stick sooner or later.
Stormwind 11-28-07, 05:19 PM	<snip> An option we have, that we've never actually used, is to allow gladiators to fight in +/- 1 ECL of themselves, and give the standard handicap (1 prebuff and 1 surprise round) to the lower-level one. Personally, I'd love for us to actually use the +/- 1 ECL fights, giving the lower level gladiator 1 prebuff and 1 surprise round. Regarding the lack of mid level gladiators, I suggest that we implement an incentive scheme of some sort to encourage older members to play lower level characters (or to contribute more to pitlording). This would help on two fronts and be fairly simple to implement, perhaps something like: Each active ECL10+ character costs 1 credit per week to activate (in addition to counting as an active character). This cost is negated for one ECL10+ character if the player also has a lower level character active (<ECL10). An active lower level character only negates the cost for one higher level character. For example If a player has 2 ECL 11 characters and 1 ECL 7 character active, then this costs them 2 credits that week (1 for having a third character active and 1 for one of the ECL 11 characters; the cost for the other ECL11 character is negated by having the ECL 7 character active).
Macbrea 11-28-07, 05:22 PM	The problem is CoCo goes in waves. Basically, we get alot of activity for awhile and that batch of people go up in levels. Then we have a few months lull and most of those players are in the middle bracket. At which point, new characters either started by someone with alot of credits to play with everyone else. Or you play with the new characters at the bottom of the heap. It's a pretty natural method of play. It is also the reason I suggested we do a system for starting characters based on an expanding scale for credit cost. So, that it's not unusual or horridly expensive to people to make character around ECL 6-8 range.
SoulLord 11-28-07, 05:36 PM	Regarding the lack of mid level gladiators, I suggest that we implement an incentive scheme of some sort to encourage older members to play lower level characters (or to contribute more to pitlording). This would help on two fronts and be fairly simple to implement, perhaps something like: Each active ECL10+ character costs 1 credit per week to activate (in addition to counting as an active character). This cost is negated for one ECL10+ character if the player also has a lower level character active (<ECL10). An active lower level character only negates the cost for one higher level character. For example If a player has 2 ECL 11 characters and 1 ECL 7 character active, then this costs them 2 credits that week (1 for having a third character active and 1 for one of the ECL 11 characters; the cost for the other ECL11 character is negated by having the ECL 7 character active). Interesting but wouldn't this put a strain on our pitlord population?
Stormwind 11-28-07, 05:42 PM	Interesting but wouldn't this put a strain on our pitlord population? It would depend. If we get a lot of people playing with only 2 active characters (1 high and 1 low level), then it might, however anyone who plays with more than 2 active characters should help to relieve it, as they would have to pay for the weekly credit costs. At least that's the idea. Unfortunately getting more characters at a lower level automatically has the effect of being more of a burden on our pitlords. I would hope that this might cancel that out a bit.
hogarth 11-29-07, 12:35 PM	Redirected from the FotW thread... from what i've seen, monster fights are pretty much autolosses unless you get very lucky ... you could at least give us a reroll. They're still running at about 50/50, so you don't have to be all that lucky. Actually, it's exactly a matter of luck -- luck with which monster you roll. For the benefit of people who weren't here at the time, I once went through 40 monster fights and calculated win/loss ratios. The monsters only had about a 45% win ratio (yay!), but when I broke it into two categories I saw a different story. Monsters with no treasure (mostly stupid, like animals, unintelligent undead, etc.) had about a 30% win ratio and monster with treasure (and capable of more sophisticated tactics) had about a 70% win ratio. So you're much better off with a dumb/poor opponent which is essentially decided by a coin flip (with the pitlord flipping again if he feels like it). :)
lonewolf 11-29-07, 12:43 PM	I always thought that monsters without class levels shouldnt have any equipment, and I believe I have said so multiple times. The CR of those monsters is calulated assuming that you run them exactly as printed in the MM. If youre starting to add equipment, the CR goes up, its as simple as that.
hogarth 11-29-07, 01:18 PM	I always thought that monsters without class levels shouldnt have any equipment, and I believe I have said so multiple times. The CR of those monsters is calulated assuming that you run them exactly as printed in the MM. If youre starting to add equipment, the CR goes up, its as simple as that. I've given up suggesting changes to the monster fight system. I'm convinced that the most elegant solution is to allow players to put something in their Title line to specify "No monster fights, please". Then players like Telin who like monster fights can have them, and those who don't like monster fights can sit out that week instead. No fuss, no muss, no mess!
Macbrea 11-29-07, 02:07 PM	I for one like monster fights. They break up the silliness of fightintg the same people mutliple times in a row.
MindWandererB 11-29-07, 03:15 PM	I've given up suggesting changes to the monster fight system. I'm convinced that the most elegant solution is to allow players to put something in their Title line to specify "No monster fights, please". Then players like Telin who like monster fights can have them, and those who don't like monster fights can sit out that week instead. No fuss, no muss, no mess! My argument against that option remains the same: by opting out of monster fights, you're eliminating a bunch of options you'd otherwise have to be prepared for. That leaves you able to devote more resources to PC-killing, and thus gives you an advantage. Anyone concerned about their win record would take this option.
hogarth 11-29-07, 03:33 PM	My argument against that option remains the same: by opting out of monster fights, you're eliminating a bunch of options you'd otherwise have to be prepared for. That leaves you able to devote more resources to PC-killing, and thus gives you an advantage. Anyone concerned about their win record would take this option. It almost makes me wish there was a "player-vs-player" arena (for those who only wish to fight other players, like in the original CoCo) and a separate "player-vs-environment" arena (for those who want to fight monsters, miniquest, etc.).
Stormwind 11-29-07, 03:53 PM	Regarding Monster fights: I personally quite like the option of monster fights. It can often provide a significant challenge especially when writing tactics. One thing that I do dislike due to its inconsistency is the autoloss reroll rule. More specifically the points that I dislike are: Pitlords are not all consistent with their use of the monster reroll rules (different pitlords will use different conditions for rerolling) A monster is rerolled if it would result in an autoloss for the monster. This is inconsistent with all other fights. Sometimes Character vs Character fights result in an autoloss, however these pairings are never rerolled. Furthermore if a monster fight would result in an autowin for the monster, it is also never rerolled. Personally I would like to see the autoloss reroll rules removed as IMHO they are too subjective, and furthermore I do not see any good reason for having them. Perhaps someone could explain the reason for having this rule as I can't see a logical reason for having it.
Macbrea 11-29-07, 06:06 PM	I agree. The rule on a monster being rerolled if it is hampered. Is crazy. It is fighting a 36pt buy character with unknown equipment. They are all hampered. Now. if a creature has been deamed too hampered more then 3 times. It should be removed from the list. Each creature should be able to beat a PR 1000 character about 50% of the time. Just because someone reaches great reknown shouldn't make it so that creatures are rerolled two or three times.
Macbrea 11-29-07, 06:19 PM	Here is purely a Pitlord call on a monster fight. You get Unknown monster vs an ECL 9 fight on the plains. You roll 4 winter wolves. Do you reroll the monster vs: 1) Monsieur Hood 2) Aquin 3) Relanex Thines 4) Izumi 5) All of the Above 6) None of the Above If the Answer isn't 5 or 6 then you are clearly biasing the decision based of information on the character sheet. That is an auto-win for three of those characters outright. But probably a loss for the fourth. And if the answer is 6. Then why is the monster even on the list.
McJarvis 11-29-07, 11:20 PM	And if the answer is 6. Then why is the monster even on the list. Whenever I ask questions like that the answer is usually "Well, it wouldn't be a reroll in the sewers/temple." But yeah- I would auto reroll that fight. Monsters need to have a way to deal with flight by that level. (frankly- I'm surprised that Izumi doesn't have flight) I think it'd be fairly easy to set up standard guidelines for re-rolling. The problem is that each individual map would have different requirements.
Hirumajoe 11-30-07, 12:15 AM	Whenever I ask questions like that the answer is usually "Well, it wouldn't be a reroll in the sewers/temple." But yeah- I would auto reroll that fight. Monsters need to have a way to deal with flight by that level. (frankly- I'm surprised that Izumi doesn't have flight) I think it'd be fairly easy to set up standard guidelines for re-rolling. The problem is that each individual map would have different requirements. Here's an off the wall suggestion. What if we had monster lists for each individual map. It'd be a ton more work up front, but you wouldn't have to worry about re-rolling because a Huge creature in the sewers, because they wouldn't be on the list. Just to throw it out there.
MindWandererB 11-30-07, 01:16 AM	Here's an off the wall suggestion. What if we had monster lists for each individual map. It'd be a ton more work up front, but you wouldn't have to worry about re-rolling because a Huge creature in the sewers, because they wouldn't be on the list. Just to throw it out there. I think it would probably be easier to come up with fixed rules about when rerolls should take place, i.e. no creatures without ranged attacks or flight on the plains (after a certain ECL? Flight is possible even at ECL 3), Huge monsters in the sewers, etc. I don't think there's anything that's totally non-viable on all maps, but if there is, it should be replaced.
Stormwind 11-30-07, 01:38 AM	I think it would probably be easier to come up with fixed rules about when rerolls should take place, i.e. no creatures without ranged attacks or flight on the plains (after a certain ECL? Flight is possible even at ECL 3), Huge monsters in the sewers, etc. I don't think there's anything that's totally non-viable on all maps, but if there is, it should be replaced. Although coming up with fixed rules about when rerolls should take place would improve the situation, I believe it would be difficult to come up with a set of rules that will always be used consistently, even by different pitlords. However, if the reroll rules aren't removed, then this is probably the next best solution. I would still like to hear the reasoning behind rerolling monster fights. If it is supposed to happen very rarely (when the monster has no chance to win), then why are the rules needed at all?
whitebaron 11-30-07, 04:06 AM	as the monsters are not officially rerolled when the player auto-looses, there should be no option the other way round. and i support lonewolfs suggestion - giving monsters even more equipment and take their original CR against a single player (CR was always based upon a balanced group, who can take on much more than a single player!) is just wanting monster fights to be more tough than arena fights. if this is the original reasoning "monster should be more of a challenge than pcs", i'll put an auto-resign against monsters in my title lines. after all, i'm here to do pvp fights - i can pvm any time i want in my tt group.
McJarvis 11-30-07, 08:25 AM	Here's a crazy suggestion: why not tell the pitlord that he can't look at the PC's character sheet when deciding specific(to the map) tactics? I'm convinced the only thing making monsters more powerful than PC's at present is the lack of knowledge for the PC. If the monster had that same kind of lack of knowledge, the PC would be able to depend on doing something a little off-the-wall and defeating the monster. RE: PC's vs CR of their level The reason we do this is that CR is supposed to represent something that will take about 20% of the resources of a party of that level. CoCo is not about "easy fights that take up 20% of your resources"- it is about tough fights that you have to think through.
McJarvis 11-30-07, 08:37 AM	RE: Monster viability Here are my big ones that I reroll for. If any particular monster in an encounter applies to one of these items- then I reroll it. Short Ranged or no ranged attack combined with a lack of maneuverability. [either no flight speed or a low speed overall(20 and lower) ] Too big for the map[sewers usually] ECL5+ no ranged attacks & no flight speed on any map where the monster's natural reach can't reach all squares in the map. ECL7+ no ability to detect invisible foes. [listen check must be maxed out if it wants to apply for this] Season to taste.
lonewolf 11-30-07, 08:49 AM	thats WAY to harsh IMHO. You assume that EVERY ECL5 character has access to flight? And EVERY ECL7 character has access to greater invisibility(normal invisibility isnt that dangerous)?
TelinArtho 11-30-07, 11:00 AM	The reroll for PC auto-wins actually predates the current monster list. Cat was getting a little upset about monster fights being "pushovers" - a couple of Xorns versus flying characters for instance (or some other flying vs non-ranged capable monster). He wanted to keep that reroll in there when the tables were rebuilt in order to prevent monster fights from being pushovers in the same respect. I happen to agree that some rerolls should happen (specifically - huge (or larger) creatures in the sewer, gargantuan (or larger) creatures in the temple and non-ranged capable/non-flying opponents on the plains map). I do want to reserve the right to reroll if the creature is not in the SRD (since I don't have the core books for 3.5).
Stormwind 11-30-07, 01:17 PM	The reroll for PC auto-wins actually predates the current monster list. Cat was getting a little upset about monster fights being "pushovers" - a couple of Xorns versus flying characters for instance (or some other flying vs non-ranged capable monster). He wanted to keep that reroll in there when the tables were rebuilt in order to prevent monster fights from being pushovers in the same respect. I happen to agree that some rerolls should happen (specifically - huge (or larger) creatures in the sewer, gargantuan (or larger) creatures in the temple and non-ranged capable/non-flying opponents on the plains map). I do want to reserve the right to reroll if the creature is not in the SRD (since I don't have the core books for 3.5). Actually, rerolls for map reasons (or because it isn't listed in the SRD) makes sense and I agree that that is reasonable. I personally object to rerolls based on knowledge of the opponent. How about adding notes into the monster lists stating precisely for each monster if it may be rerolled due to the map. For example adding notes to the EL 1 monster list according to the following criteria: Sewer - huge (or larger) creatures Temple - gargantuan (or larger) creatures Plains - non-ranged/non-flying opponents 1st-Level Monster Encounters d% Encounter Reroll 01-03 2 medium monstrous centipedes (vermin) Plains 04-08 2 dire rats Plains 09-10 2 giant fire beetles (vermin) Plains 11-13 2 small monstrous scorpions (vermin) Plains 14-16 2 small monstrous spiders (vermin) 17-20 2 dwarf warriors 21-22 2 elf warriors 23-25 1 darkmantle 26-28 1 krenshar Plains 29-30 1 lemure (devil) Plains 31-40 3 goblin warriors 41-50 4 kobold warriors 51-56 2 human warrior skeletons 57-62 2 human commoner zombies 63-71 3 tiny viper snakes Plains 72-80 2 orc warriors 81-85 2 stirges 86-90 1 spider swarm Plains 91-100 roll on 2nd-level table
McJarvis 11-30-07, 03:11 PM	I really feel like the city features easy avoidance for flyers/climbers as well. A bear or some similar animal will be auto-killed in the city by virtually any CoCo character. Otherwise I approve of Stormwind's method towards labeling the maps.
lonewolf 11-30-07, 03:15 PM	bears have a good climb modifier... :P
McJarvis 11-30-07, 03:20 PM	bears have a good climb modifier... :P Yeah, but their balance sucks- and in CoCo all climbers must be good balancers for some reason.
whitebaron 11-30-07, 03:23 PM	I really feel like the city features easy avoidance for flyers/climbers as well. A bear or some similar animal will be auto-killed in the city by virtually any CoCo character. i feel you have a pretty messed up perception of the average coco-character. many of them are not as powerful as you'd believe them to be. and avoidance does not mean that you actually can kill the opponent just by avoiding. will we start rerolling pairings just because a sneaky build is rolled for the plains? -> no. so it should be fair to have some monsters autolose, too. players autolose often enough. if you strike through those wins, it's not like 45% of monsters will win, it's more like 60-70% The reason we do this is that CR is supposed to represent something that will take about 20% of the resources of a party of that level. CoCo is not about "easy fights that take up 20% of your resources"- it is about tough fights that you have to think through. ok, so the fight should take up 80% of my ressources, but i only have 33% of them available? thank you for the example to prove my point. tough fights are good. monsters are not tough fights. they are taken from one concept (monster vs. party, pvm) to another (monster vs single player, pvp) without further thought about the consequences. as i already stated, monsters CR is always based upon balanced parties. they have several advantages you will never have as a single player: more people to take damage more options more ACTIONS! so, by decreasing a party from 4 to 1, you don't take 3/4th of its power. you basically cripple it.
Eamane 11-30-07, 04:18 PM	Well, here is the thing for me. COCO is, at it's heart, about the Arena. The arena is about two players putting forth their best effort (character) on an equal playing field. That's why they are seperated by ECL and why anything that has extremely unbalanced power in any given ECL is looked at very harshly. Monster fights are there so, if someone doesn't have another player to fight, they have something to fight. Since D&D uses CR to pair monsters to players, COCO uses CR to pair monsters to players. But wait! CR is based on a 4-man party, COCO is based on 1-man party. So why do we use CR again? The difference between CR and ECL is vast and has been pointed out again and again. COCO consistently uses ECL over CR in all things that it can (players, allies, scalable anything) except for monster fights. I think the concept of monster fights needs to be reevaluated. Take a step back and consider; is having the possibility of randomly fighting some wolves/hydras/dragons/angels in the arena worth the headache of extremely unbalanced fights, that almost always given one side a huge advantage? (i.e: The monster with an ECL more than twice that of the PC; or the PC with a way to completely negate the monsters melee-only attacks) Why not just have some NPCs? Or, more accurately, if you want to maintain the challenge; copies of former PCs that were mildly/greatly successful at the given ECL. It takes the 'monster' out of the fight, but also takes all the problems out of it, as nothing is unbalanced. If one of them is too troublesome, take it out and replace it with something else. There are plenty of builds for all relevant ECLs sitting around that can be utilized for this.
Rauul 11-30-07, 04:59 PM	So why do we use CR again? The difference between CR and ECL is vast and has been pointed out again and again. COCO consistently uses ECL over CR in all things that it can (players, allies, scalable anything) except for monster fights. This has been argued and argued and argued so much since i have been here and nothing has been changed... one of the reasons i am so looking forward to 4e is that there will be no more ECL and CR.. As well as alot of other changes i am sooo looking forward..
whitebaron 11-30-07, 05:52 PM	obviously, some of the elders like monster fights. most of the other coco-population dislikes them for various reasons. pitlords always seem annoyed and either do it sloppy for the players or sloppy against the players. it's a battle you can't win.
lonewolf 11-30-07, 05:57 PM	Maybe I havent come over right: I basically like the idea of monster fights. Mostly because of variety and the same reasons Telin likes them. However I would like them to be a bit rarer than they are now and a few balance issues fixed. But I´d rather have them the way they are now than not have them at all.
TelinArtho 11-30-07, 06:03 PM	I really don't like generalizations like the above. The vocal portion of the population seems to dislike them. To say that the vocal population is all of the population is certainly excluding the non-vocal from the situation. Aside from that - I did want to add something, specifically in response to Eamane's comments: The CoCo has long been away from 1 v 1 combat. To say that the CoCo is all about the arena and then qualifying that as 1 v 1 combat is simply incorrect. While it may have started that way, the expectation is to have a very wide range of situations that can happen. That said, some people like certain features of the CoCo, others like other features. To assume that we will be able to satisfy everyone's wants is probably a bad assumption. More specifically, by removing everything that is not wanted by any individual will, most likely, leave us with very little. For instance, player A doesn't like multi-player fights (so we cut out interleagues, monster fights including more than one monster, team fights, free for alls), player B doesn't like the forest map, player C doesn't like psionics, etc, etc. In my opinion it is not about restricting the options down to what everyone (or even a wide selection) of the population wants, and is much more about offering a wide selection of what anyone can find something to enjoy in. I can tell you, I balked when we introduced certain features. Over time, I have grown accustomed to them, and while I may still not like them - I recognize that some others do. By leaving them in - it does me no overt harm and in fact, broadens my understanding. Anyway - that's my opinion on the matter.
whitebaron 11-30-07, 06:06 PM	i didn't say all of them want to remove them totally. but still, the statement stands: a majority of players in coco don't like monster fights as they are now. and if you want to have clear numbers, you should put a poll.
Eamane 11-30-07, 07:47 PM	@Rauul I suppose. I'm not sure why nothing has changed, but eh. As far as 4E goes; I don't know exactly how they are going to do things, I have a feeling they are going to reduce/remove the overlap in statistics between monsters and players which is... meh. But that's another conversation. @Lonewolf If they were balanced, I wouldn't have any problem with them myself. I mentioned the good sides of monster battles I think; the possibility of fighting things that simply arn't present in the PC population. But there is a reason why there are no Hound Archons in the ECL 4/5 PC population, eh? @TelinArtho The emphasis wasn't supposed on it being one verses one, but on the player vs player aspect. FFAs, Teams, Team-Battles, even the very strange community contests are all quite solidly within this concept. My apology for giving the impression that I mainly wanted one on one fights. (We have lots of characters with allies anyways, so thats kind of out) There is value in leaving in aspects that other people enjoy even you don't, you are completely correct there. But I still feel that the reason for monster fights in general needs to be looked at again and clearly stated, then moved to match that goal. My understanding of monster fights is that they are stand-ins when no PCs are available to fight. With that definition, they are not currently successful and need some changes (in the monster list if nothing else). If there is some other definition that more closely matches their purpose, then we should be working towards that.
hogarth 11-30-07, 09:53 PM	That said, some people like certain features of the CoCo, others like other features. To assume that we will be able to satisfy everyone's wants is probably a bad assumption. More specifically, by removing everything that is not wanted by any individual will, most likely, leave us with very little. On the other hand, just because a feature of the Coco is liked by some, that's no reason to keep it forever. In the time I've been here, we've gotten rid of hunter fights (which I liked 1000 times more than monster fights!), Diplomacy allies, the use of Forgery, customized purchased allies, etc. I don't think there's anything special about monster fights that makes them closed for discussion. We could always have a poll and see who likes them and who doesn't. I think, going forward, I'll just use default tactics for monster fights. That way the pitlord can play both sides and be the referee at the same time, leaving the players out completely! :)
MindWandererB 11-30-07, 11:54 PM	Disclaimer: I started writing this last night and didn't have time to complete it. Didn't want to waste the effort, though. I would still like to hear the reasoning behind rerolling monster fights. If it is supposed to happen very rarely (when the monster has no chance to win), then why are the rules needed at all?Because there are actually a lot of times a reroll would be called for. Taking a look at EL 9, we have 21.75 monsters that would auto-lose against a flyer in the plains, arena, city, or usually the forest (the .75 being 3 of the 4 elementals), and 11 that would auto-lose in the sewers and possibly the cavern.
MindWandererB 12-01-07, 12:27 AM	as the monsters are not officially rerolled when the player auto-looses, there should be no option the other way round.There's no such thing as an auto-loss for a player--a player can always prepare themselves to at least have a chance at any situation. If they don't properly equip themselves (there's no character in any league that doesn't have at least a chance against almost any opponent if they invest in cold iron, silver, oils of magic weapon, bless weapon, and corrupt weapon, and a torch, all of which costs less than 300 gp).ok, so the fight should take up 80% of my ressources, but i only have 33% of them available? thank you for the example to prove my point. Not at all. The fight should take up 80% of your resources if it's going to be an easy one. TT D&D isn't geared toward a 50% chance of a TPK. tough fights are good. monsters are not tough fights. they are taken from one concept (monster vs. party, pvm) to another (monster vs single player, pvp) without further thought about the consequences.So is the entire CoCo. We've modified a cooperative PvM game and transformed it into a competitive PvP game. And yes, there has been thought about the consequences. A lot of it. This topic comes up frequently. so, by decreasing a party from 4 to 1, you don't take 3/4th of its power. you basically cripple it.So every CoCo character is crippled? Funny that they win half the time in both PvP and PvM contets. That's not a cripple if you ask me. And if this argument were true, then the CoCo teams would have a much better chance of winning than they've been demonstrating (more people to take damage, more options, and more actions, after all)--TEDS is doing far worse than any of templer10's other characters, for example. So why do we use CR again? The difference between CR and ECL is vast and has been pointed out again and again. COCO consistently uses ECL over CR in all things that it can (players, allies, scalable anything) except for monster fights.True. That's because monsters as opponents aren't supposed to use ECL. If anything, using CR for monster opponents should be better balanced than anything we do, because PvM is the format D&D was designed for. I think the concept of monster fights needs to be reevaluated. Take a step back and consider; is having the possibility of randomly fighting some wolves/hydras/dragons/angels in the arena worth the headache of extremely unbalanced fights, that almost always given one side a huge advantage? (i.e: The monster with an ECL more than twice that of the PC; or the PC with a way to completely negate the monsters melee-only attacks)I think it is worth it, yes. Monsters with high ECLs aren't the problem (typically), and I think there are very nearly as many PvE battles where the competitors are just as mismatched. Why not just have some NPCs? Or, more accurately, if you want to maintain the challenge; copies of former PCs that were mildly/greatly successful at the given ECL. It takes the 'monster' out of the fight, but also takes all the problems out of it, as nothing is unbalanced. If one of them is too troublesome, take it out and replace it with something else. There are plenty of builds for all relevant ECLs sitting around that can be utilized for this.While that does solve the problem of dealing with a lone gladiator at an ECL, it doesn't establish the diversification that many of us do like. Remember, the original goal of the CoCo was for a way members of the CharOp board could "test" their builds against one another, and it's kind of silly to have a general purpose build that can't beat most kinds of monsters.This has been argued and argued and argued so much since i have been here and nothing has been changed... one of the reasons i am so looking forward to 4e is that there will be no more ECL and CR.. As well as alot of other changes i am sooo looking forward..While I look forward to that, too, for us it means that we'll need to find a new way of balancing an encounter for our purposes. One monster of your level is a pushover, so we'll need to find something harder (probably a monster of a higher level, although how much higher is an unknown).
mucki 12-01-07, 04:19 AM	There's no such thing as an auto-loss for a player--a player can always prepare themselves to at least have a chance at any situation. If they don't properly equip themselves (there's no character in any league that doesn't have at least a chance against almost any opponent if they invest in cold iron, silver, oils of magic weapon, bless weapon, and corrupt weapon, and a torch, all of which costs less than 300 gp). I am nor really partial to any side in this discussion, but this statement seems biased in favor of monsters to me. Monsters have money and get equipment. If you say that players do not have auto-loss because they have equipment, then the same should apply to monsters which have equipment. As a player I have to spend a lot of money into contingency items (fly items for a melee player on the plains, etc ...). Monsters get those effectively for free (they reroll until they don't need it) and then spend that money elsewhere.
MindWandererB 12-01-07, 04:37 AM	I am nor really partial to any side in this discussion, but this statement seems biased in favor of monsters to me. Monsters have money and get equipment. If you say that players do not have auto-loss because they have equipment, then the same should apply to monsters which have equipment. As a player I have to spend a lot of money into contingency items (fly items for a melee player on the plains, etc ...). Monsters get those effectively for free (they reroll until they don't need it) and then spend that money elsewhere. For monsters that get equipment and can use it fully, such as giants, that's primarily true. A giant can use a bow and, if necessary, use a tattoo of Compression to fit in the sewers. Those should not be rerolled. They should only be rerolled if they need it and have no way of using it, like a hydra--it can't do anything in the plains or the sewer.
Macbrea 12-01-07, 08:07 AM	I have seen a few auto-loss vs monster fights. Most of the time it's the hydra has been rolled. Izumi's first fight was a fighter vs a swarm at ECL 3. There was no way to damage it at all. Therefore it was an autoloss.
McJarvis 12-01-07, 11:10 AM	I have seen a few auto-loss vs monster fights. Most of the time it's the hydra has been rolled. Izumi's first fight was a fighter vs a swarm at ECL 3. There was no way to damage it at all. Therefore it was an autoloss. That's because Izumi was not well equpped. As MWB pointed out- it isn't very much of a gp investment to "auto-loss-proof" yourself against monsters. [at least the sense of autoloss you provided here]
mucki 12-01-07, 01:45 PM	Well, considering that the original intention of the reroll rule was to prevent just the "bloody stupid" combinations (like hydra in sewers) wouldn't it make sense to just look over the monster list and determine those combinations beforehand ? Like someone suggested: just add a list of forbidden areas to each monster and whenever that comes up then reroll, and never reroll anything else ? Sure, the hydra might have a chance on the plains against some people, but most likely it hasn't and therefore has no real business on that map anyway. It would take the arbitrarity out of the reroll situation and would be quite a simple change actually.
SoulLord 12-01-07, 03:33 PM	ok I like monster fights so please don't add me to the most don't like mosnter fights side. It's better for me to have a monster fight than to sit out a week.
whitebaron 12-01-07, 03:44 PM	ok I like monster fights so please don't add me to the most don't like mosnter fights side. It's better for me to have a monster fight than to sit out a week. pls don't look at monster fight and not sitting out synonymous. in an ideal world, where coco would be populated by lots more of players and pitlords, there'd be no need for any monster fight as it is now. players like no action even less than monster fights, that much is clear. but when you look at pairings, and see: "monster fight for me" - wouldn't you rather do a pvp fight than pvm?
hogarth 12-01-07, 05:26 PM	ok I like monster fights so please don't add me to the most don't like mosnter fights side. It's better for me to have a monster fight than to sit out a week. Right, that's why I'd like to see players have a choice whether they have a monster fight or sit out. I don't have a problem with people saying "I think it's fun when my character has a monster fight". But that doesn't translate to "I think it's fun when hogarth's character has a monster fight". Why shouldn't we both have the maximum amount of fun that the law will allow? :)
McJarvis 12-01-07, 05:34 PM	Why shouldn't we both have the maximum amount of fun that the law will allow? :) I don't particularly like playing druids. Maybe I should get an option to opt out of such fights?
hogarth 12-01-07, 05:39 PM	I don't particularly like playing druids. Maybe I should get an option to opt out of such fights? I agree that you absolutely have the right to opt out of every fight where you play a druid. It's your druid, after all. :)
McJarvis 12-01-07, 05:44 PM	I agree that you absolutely have the right to opt out of every fight where you play a druid. It's your druid, after all. :) Oh- I misunderstood what you meant earlier, then. I'd agree you have the right to opt out of every fight where you're the monster.
SauroGrenom 12-01-07, 06:29 PM	I fall on the fence with respect to monster fights. I like them, I can understand why others don't. I think they are fun to write tactics against, if you know what you're fighting. Here's my idea for a compromise: Why don't we make a few fully detailed "monsters" for each ECL and post 10 them in the characters thread, or a "monsters" thread. I know that it will decrease the diversity of the monsters at each level from 100 different ones down to about 10, but we can still have a few fully described monsters. This allows players to guess what they may be against, and to know the monster foe nearly as well as they would know the PC foe. As far as I understand it, this kind of a system will help deal with the concerns that monsters are designed by the pitlords to defeat the players. Also it allows us to adjust the monsters over time to improve them, develop finely tuned strategies and equipment.
hogarth 12-01-07, 08:34 PM	Oh- I misunderstood what you meant earlier, then. I'd agree you have the right to opt out of every fight where you're the monster. On a serious note, you already have the ability to avoid activating a character if there is a type of opponent in the same bracket (like a druid, in the case of your example) that you don't want to fight. For instance, I gather that MWB isn't interested in having Kervan Sheharath fight Elrick Flamebrother for the umpteenth time, so he's not activating Kervan until Elrick goes up a level. But there's not really any corresponding thing you can do that will avoid monster fights (since they're possible at all ECL brackets).
McJarvis 12-01-07, 11:24 PM	On a serious note, you already have the ability to avoid activating a character if there is a type of opponent in the same bracket (like a druid, in the case of your example) that you don't want to fight. For instance, I gather that MWB isn't interested in having Kervan Sheharath fight Elrick Flamebrother for the umpteenth time, so he's not activating Kervan until Elrick goes up a level. But there's not really any corresponding thing you can do that will avoid monster fights (since they're possible at all ECL brackets). You could just not-activate if there is an odd number of gladiators ready to fight ;)
hogarth 12-02-07, 12:13 AM	You could just not-activate if there is an odd number of gladiators ready to fight ;) Even that wouldn't work since the pairingsmaker doesn't require an odd number of characters in a bracket before it assigns a monster fight (e.g. you could have a 3 person FFA and a monster fight, I think). But if there was a way to know a priori that I could avoid a monster fight (like not activating if there are an odd number of gladiators set ready), you bet your buns I would use it! :)
MindWandererB 12-02-07, 12:28 AM	Even that wouldn't work since the pairingsmaker doesn't require an odd number of characters in a bracket before it assigns a monster fight (e.g. you could have a 3 person FFA and a monster fight, I think).The program works that way, but I don't. If I see something like that, I'll change it to 2 normal fights. There's still a possibility, though; for instance, I might change the above to a 3-way FFA and an interleague with a lower league.
whitebaron 12-02-07, 11:36 AM	@sauro: i'd like that, too. what i'd like best if monster fights are to be held, would be to see the monster upfront and its equipment. still, monster fights in coco are only fillers. monsters are not there for diversity, they are there for players without pairing to still get a fight. if they originally were there for diversity, they'd be held more often.
templer10 12-02-07, 11:58 AM	I fall on the fence with respect to monster fights. I like them, I can understand why others don't. I think they are fun to write tactics against, if you know what you're fighting. Here's my idea for a compromise: Why don't we make a few fully detailed "monsters" for each ECL and post 10 them in the characters thread, or a "monsters" thread. I know that it will decrease the diversity of the monsters at each level from 100 different ones down to about 10, but we can still have a few fully described monsters. This allows players to guess what they may be against, and to know the monster foe nearly as well as they would know the PC foe. As far as I understand it, this kind of a system will help deal with the concerns that monsters are designed by the pitlords to defeat the players. Also it allows us to adjust the monsters over time to improve them, develop finely tuned strategies and equipment. I like this idia - one of the main beefs i have with monster fights is never knowing what odd expandble or wierd item or change in "normal" powers/spells a pitlord will hit me with (and that's when i even know what iam facing).
MindWandererB 12-03-07, 01:28 AM	still, monster fights in coco are only fillers. monsters are not there for diversity, they are there for players without pairing to still get a fight. if they originally were there for diversity, they'd be held more often.Why? We usually have about one FFA and one inter-league per week, and about 2 monster fights. So they're more common than the other alternative fight forms.
whitebaron 12-03-07, 02:16 AM	Why? We usually have about one FFA and one inter-league per week, and about 2 monster fights. So they're more common than the other alternative fight forms. yes, but the monster fights are only there to avoid players sitting out - you yourself stated that you avoid pvm if there is a legit pvp option. => that there are, in fact, monster fights, is not due to the rules wanting monster fights - it's due to the low player population. with a full active roster, the maximum of monster fights per week would be 1, as ecl 3 is the only bracket where you can do no FFA/interleague. monster fights are just more common than these, because we are on a low activity phase. if monster fights are there for another reason, it's well hidden. it also says in the rules, that if you don't get a match, you'll have to fight a monster. if this is not the role of a filler, what else is?
SoulLord 12-03-07, 01:11 PM	Question I see this which is something left from old times Race and Class - XP Loss House Rules Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies. There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes). Code: ECL XP : GP 1 1 : 1.0000 2 1 : 1.0000 3 1 : 1.0000 4 1 : 1.0000 5 1 : 1.0667 6 1 : 1.1111 7 1 : 1.2381 8 1 : 1.4167 9 1 : 1.6667 10 1 : 1.9333 11 1 : 2.2727 12 1 : 2.7222 13 1 : 3.3333 14 1 : 4.0476 15 1 : 4.8888 16 1 : 5.8333 17 1 : 7.0589 18 1 : 8.7037 19 1 :10.7018 20 1 :13.3333 Now I'm not sure why this extra gold goes up by level? why must a 20th level wizard casting limited wish pays 3999 gold in adition to the 300 xp cost when a 13th lvl wizard for the same spell pays 999 and 300 xp. Shouldn't it be like we do with scrolls and use minimum caster level cost for it?
Erithmu 12-03-07, 01:14 PM	Question I see this which is something left from old times Race and Class - XP Loss House Rules Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies. There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes). Code: ECL XP : GP 1 1 : 1.0000 2 1 : 1.0000 3 1 : 1.0000 4 1 : 1.0000 5 1 : 1.0667 6 1 : 1.1111 7 1 : 1.2381 8 1 : 1.4167 9 1 : 1.6667 10 1 : 1.9333 11 1 : 2.2727 12 1 : 2.7222 13 1 : 3.3333 14 1 : 4.0476 15 1 : 4.8888 16 1 : 5.8333 17 1 : 7.0589 18 1 : 8.7037 19 1 :10.7018 20 1 :13.3333 Now I'm not sure why this extra gold goes up by level? why must a 20th level wizard casting limited wish pays 3999 gold in adition to the 300 xp cost when a 13th lvl wizard for the same spell pays 999 and 300 xp. Shouldn't it be like we do with scrolls and use minimum caster level cost for it?It is designed to keep the XP/GP ratio across levels in check. There was abuse where people would craft items, lose xp, and then sell those items effectively gaining gp. Done enough you have someone who has twice the wealth as those in the same ECL and there is no balance.
SoulLord 12-03-07, 02:22 PM	There was abuse where people would craft items, lose xp, and then sell those items effectively gaining gp. Done enough you have someone who has twice the wealth as those in the same ECL and there is no balance. I understand that but this part is about casting spells oddly enough the penalty was removed from crafting while it remains for casting. so the caster is twice penalized for casting spells with an xp cost while the crafter is alleviated from any.
Erithmu 12-03-07, 02:56 PM	Ok ... lets see if I can do this justice when I'm in the middle of finals week ... Under old crafting rules (where we still charged xp) a wizard could craft items and then sell them at the same cost which effectively reduced their xp total (Iced's Marcus the Black I know did this). What this did is made them fight more fights at lower levels and have a better money ratio to XP than others at their level. Now at ECL 5 this isn't noticeable. We removed the xp for crafting to fix this after looking at a number of different options for resolving the situation. The rule that is quoted above was added after this ruling to deal with spells that cost XP (notably the Lesser planar ally stuff, or Permanency). Which brings us to Limited Wish. Without this rule in place you could do the following (not saying you would, but this being the CoCo ... someone would): 'I spend 4 weeks casting limited wish to reduce my xp to a number that is less than 300xp above ECL 13.' (ie I can't cast L. Wish because I don't have enough xp) Now you then fight a 3FC which, under most circumstances, does not give you enough xp to get to ECL 14. You then repeat the above L. Wish process and you get to keep all the gold you just mad and basically are a 'just into ECL 13' with ECL 14 wealth. Part of the 'removing xp cost from crafting' stuff was also done in combination with the new skill usages to gain money. It is not that you are being penalized twice, it is that you are being kept in check with other characters within the context of your ECL bracket. I hope that explains a little better why the rule is there, it is mostly to avoid abuse.
McJarvis 12-03-07, 03:45 PM	Could anyone say why we have the 5*[gp multiplier]*xp extra gp cost for spells but not crafting magical items? It would certainly remove the "Zero loss" effect of crafting[which I would argue is artificial, since normally you would lose the XP]
SoulLord 12-03-07, 04:50 PM	Ok ... lets see if I can do this justice when I'm in the middle of finals week ... Under old crafting rules (where we still charged xp) a wizard could craft items and then sell them at the same cost which effectively reduced their xp total (Iced's Marcus the Black I know did this). What this did is made them fight more fights at lower levels and have a better money ratio to XP than others at their level. Now at ECL 5 this isn't noticeable. We removed the xp for crafting to fix this after looking at a number of different options for resolving the situation. The rule that is quoted above was added after this ruling to deal with spells that cost XP (notably the Lesser planar ally stuff, or Permanency). Which brings us to Limited Wish. Without this rule in place you could do the following (not saying you would, but this being the CoCo ... someone would): 'I spend 4 weeks casting limited wish to reduce my xp to a number that is less than 300xp above ECL 13.' (ie I can't cast L. Wish because I don't have enough xp) Now you then fight a 3FC which, under most circumstances, does not give you enough xp to get to ECL 14. You then repeat the above L. Wish process and you get to keep all the gold you just mad and basically are a 'just into ECL 13' with ECL 14 wealth. Part of the 'removing xp cost from crafting' stuff was also done in combination with the new skill usages to gain money. It is not that you are being penalized twice, it is that you are being kept in check with other characters within the context of your ECL bracket. I hope that explains a little better why the rule is there, it is mostly to avoid abuse. I see so if to prevent abuse you eliminated the xp cost of crafting couldn't the same be done with limited wish and similar spells? some alternatives 1.- dont charge extra gp for xp costing spells (like we do with crafting already) 2.- do the dungeon master guide suggested conversion 1xp = 1gp 3.- limit the amount of xp that can be lost each level due to crafting, casting etc. (ex to level up from lvl X to lvl X+1 you need 10,000 xp the most you can lose before being restricted from using xp losing abilities is 10% of that 1,000 xp) 4.-Limit the extra gold cost associated with casting a spell with an xp to minimum caster level. I favor #1 but I'm open for discussing it Maybe since the high lvl leagues were not open at the time this was not adjusted as the crafting rules were
hogarth 12-03-07, 05:00 PM	Could anyone say why we have the 5*[gp multiplier]*xp extra gp cost for spells but not crafting magical items? It would certainly remove the "Zero loss" effect of crafting[which I would argue is artificial, since normally you would lose the XP] It's been proposed before. I think it's a great idea; a 30% discount is still worth a feat, IMO. But then again, if we really wanted to reform how useful feats are, we'd start with Leadership, wouldn't we? :)
Macbrea 12-03-07, 05:04 PM	I did notice some odd numbers with the having to expend gold with that exp cost. The Level 14 Wizard 13/Archmage 1 uses spell like ability Limited Wish to put up a symbol of fear. Cost: 10,000 xp, 40,476gp
TelinArtho 12-03-07, 06:12 PM	I fall on the fence with respect to monster fights. I like them, I can understand why others don't. I think they are fun to write tactics against, if you know what you're fighting. Here's my idea for a compromise: Why don't we make a few fully detailed "monsters" for each ECL and post 10 them in the characters thread, or a "monsters" thread. I know that it will decrease the diversity of the monsters at each level from 100 different ones down to about 10, but we can still have a few fully described monsters. This allows players to guess what they may be against, and to know the monster foe nearly as well as they would know the PC foe. As far as I understand it, this kind of a system will help deal with the concerns that monsters are designed by the pitlords to defeat the players. Also it allows us to adjust the monsters over time to improve them, develop finely tuned strategies and equipment. I still don't see why we should "go back" to a small monster list. The original monster lists had ~10-20 monsters on them. For the most part, the monster fights of that era were jokes - they were often auto-wins for the players involved. We then revised the list to 100 creatures and tweaked some of the other rules (for instance actually giving them equipment) - and now the solution is to cut the list back down... Anyway - I've done a complete list of the monster fights in the Battles III thread. Here's some relevant numbers: In that thread, there are 165 monster fights. Of those, 68 are wins by the monster and 97 are wins by the player. Of the wins by the monster, I found 7 are surrenders. Of these, one seems to be a surrender due to lack of tactics (rather than a specific surrender by the player). One of the seven is also a surrender due to player frustration (me - I had a bad week and my emotions got the better of me). Of the wins by players, I only saw 1 where the fight "should" have been rerolled (a non-flyer monster without ranged options vs a flyer). Of the 2 fights where I know there were rerolls, I can only say that neither one probably should have been rerolled. There's some information to work with.
Erithmu 12-03-07, 06:16 PM	I see so if to prevent abuse you eliminated the xp cost of crafting couldn't the same be done with limited wish and similar spells? some alternatives 1.- dont charge extra gp for xp costing spells (like we do with crafting already) 2.- do the dungeon master guide suggested conversion 1xp = 1gp 3.- limit the amount of xp that can be lost each level due to crafting, casting etc. (ex to level up from lvl X to lvl X+1 you need 10,000 xp the most you can lose before being restricted from using xp losing abilities is 10% of that 1,000 xp) 4.-Limit the extra gold cost associated with casting a spell with an xp to minimum caster level. I favor #1 but I'm open for discussing it Maybe since the high lvl leagues were not open at the time this was not adjusted as the crafting rules were1: It just isn't going to happen. Any XP cost that does not require a gp cost is open for abuse. 2: Page number reference? 3: We thought about doing a dual XP systems (XP gained to determine ECL bracket, and Total XP based on gains and loses to determine Char Level), but it was overly complex. 4: Still slightly open to abuse. Earliest XP cost spell/power (not banned in the CoCo) is Permanency/Incarnate. Gain one level and then your still limited by the lowest Caster level will still allow you to run the money issue at one ECL higher. I mean if someone wanted to take the time, they could basically gain infinite wealth. I also feel that your trying to link two unrelated issues. The issue that your wanting to get changed is gp cost related to xp cost. Yet you are trying to use removal of crafting xp cost to place a similar issue. If we were to reinstate xp into crafting, that xp would be subject to the gp cost rule as well. While it doesn't make any sense it is an easy and elegant fix to a problem that any character who has crafting feats (probably 30+% of the CoCo) would have to deal with. I mean, it would get to the point that it was cheaper to buy the item than craft it. If you want to see the gp cost removed there needs to be a clear explanation as to how it cannot be abused. The rules are as they are now to avoid abuse. If you want more history on it, you might need Telin to pull up the archives of this conversation.
MindWandererB 12-03-07, 06:20 PM	I see so if to prevent abuse you eliminated the xp cost of crafting couldn't the same be done with limited wish and similar spells?Because those are powerful spells (mostly), and they need some kind of limiting factor. Simply eliminating the XP cost would make them too good.
SoulLord 12-03-07, 06:45 PM	my mistake it was 5gp per xp to market price which would amount to 2.5 gp for self crafting purposes. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components or with XP components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. Each XP in the component costs adds 5 gp to the market price. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost and the base XP cost (both determined by the base price) plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item. ok since the potential for abuse still exists and it seems this is beyond our ability to come up with a reasonable alternative I'll just let the issue drop.
Erithmu 12-03-07, 06:48 PM	@SoulLord: you are always welcome to question things. I'm thankful that I was able to explain clearly as to why the rules are in place. I'm also thankful that you came to an understanding of what I was trying to say, and could see how it would negatively affect the CoCo. Bring up stuff anytime you want. Also if you want you can pick a different spell for Vandelar, although ... I think even Owen is going to pick Lim. Wish up for utility purposes.
SoulLord 12-03-07, 06:56 PM	I see the points made #1 they are powerful spells #2 removing the xp cost will make it even more powerful. #3 removing the gold cost will open the spell for abuse(by a few people......) unfortunately I don't see any solution I like around this particular predicament. I think I'll hold up for it for now maybe in the distant future I can come up with a reasonable alternative that will not open the spell to abuse.
hogarth 12-03-07, 07:58 PM	Anyway - I've done a complete list of the monster fights in the Battles III thread. Here's some relevant numbers: In that thread, there are 165 monster fights. Of those, 68 are wins by the monster and 97 are wins by the player. Can you send the data to me? I'd be interested in calculating the "smart monster/dumb monster" win/loss ratios on the fights (my sample size was only 40, but it was extremely suggestive).
TelinArtho 12-03-07, 09:53 PM	Well - I can post it tomorrow morning. I probably should have included it before - but didn't because... well I was lazy... Anyway - tomorrow morning (when I'm at the computer with it all).
whitebaron 12-04-07, 03:46 AM	@telin: i'd like to see them divided new/old monster fight rules. do you know when the current monster fights where introduced? battles III somewhere starts in the beginning of 2006. - way before my entry to coco. @limited wish & xp: actually i'd like to see it the other way round - have crafters lose xp again and make them lose additional gp - i think the coco environment is way to crafting-heavy anyway.
McJarvis 12-04-07, 07:13 AM	RE: Rerolls- unless you checked the roller, you won't find all of my rerolls. I tend to be inconsistant on posting the fact that it's a reroll in the setup/fight posts themselves.
McJarvis 12-04-07, 07:30 AM	Could anyone say why we have the 5*[gp multiplier]*xp extra gp cost for spells but not crafting magical items? It would certainly remove the "Zero loss" effect of crafting[which I would argue is artificial, since normally you would lose the XP] It's been proposed before. I think it's a great idea; a 30% discount is still worth a feat, IMO. But then again, if we really wanted to reform how useful feats are, we'd start with Leadership, wouldn't we? :) I'd like to repeat this for elder discussion. It only makes sense to me- and it certainly removes much of the "sell item" potential abuse that could go on. [Rith knows what I'm talking about] @Hogarth: I'm not even gonna touch leadership. I certainly don't like it- but I don't feel like rehashing the issue since it's been discussed so much.
TelinArtho 12-04-07, 10:37 AM	@telin: i'd like to see them divided new/old monster fight rules. do you know when the current monster fights where introduced? battles III somewhere starts in the beginning of 2006. - way before my entry to coco. Realize that there have been a number of monster fight rules that have changed over time. The old lists were removed before 2006, but beyond that - I'm not sure to which rules you are referring. RE: Rerolls- unless you checked the roller, you won't find all of my rerolls. I tend to be inconsistant on posting the fact that it's a reroll in the setup/fight posts themselves. I am aware that I don't know which ones have been rerolled - I stated as much. If you want to go through the roller and find all of your rerolls, I will happily add them here. I plan on going through and checking my own (since I know I have a few). Anyway - without much ado, here's the list of fights in Battles III: Chameleon and Aerryl vs Young Adult Black Dragon, Ogre Mage (Vathelokai) Noko vs. Bone Devil (TheMagister) Manzarf vs. Black Pudding (Pittbull) Kervan Sheharath vs 3 Troll Skeletons (Gonbow) Tatyana Malvont vs 3 Janni (Macbrea) Shadowsong vs Fiendish Phrenic Owlbear (Zelck) Dragonlily vs 1 Locust swarm & 1 Spider swarm (Krytos) -- Surrendered Ikhain al-Habari vs 2 Lantern Archons (McJarvis) Finael Owlguide vs Half-Celestial Unicorn (Erithmu) Auburn vs Half-Celestial Remorhaz (TelinArtho) -- Surrendered Danidus of the Sands vs Winter Wolf (Krytos) Durin vs Dwarf Fighter 2/Cleric 2 (Erithmu) Danidus of the Sands vs Mummy (Abyssal Stalker) Matthis Dar'ath II vs Half-Celestial Unicorn (Dsugui) -- Surrendered Featylec Elendi vs Hellcat (MitzaVolchenko) -- Surrendered Featylec Elendi vs Caller In the Darkness (Macbrea) Antalya vs 1 6-headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (Macbrea) -- Surrendered Durin vs Human Werebear (TelinArtho) Besthirah Lafali vs Half-Orc Cleric 7 and 3 Orc Fighter 4 (TelinArtho) Le Petit Guepe vs 3 Quasits (MitzaVolchenko) -- Surrendered (no tactics as far as I can see) Rubicanti vs Jann and 2 Air Elementals (MindWandererB) Razorfang vs 3 Azers (McJarvis) Valen Sky vs Stone Giant (Macbrea) Caspian vs Wyrmling Bronze Dragon (templer10) Kervan and Rubicanti vs Black Pudding and Xill (TelinArtho) Kronos vs Air Mephit (sonofzeal) Qwogi Drellfarrow vs Half-Giant Monk 1/Psi-Warrior 3 (Macbrea) Denshi vs 3 Ettins (MindWandererB) Durin vs Ogre Barbarian (SauroGrenom) Roulex Dalus vs 1 Ogre (Malither76) The Seeker vs Large Scorpion (Maraxus) Izumi vs Sverfineblin Adept 8 (TheMagister) Valen Sky vs 4 Cloakers (TelinArtho) El Rapido vs Vampire Sea Hag (Rauul) Tagg vs 2 Apes (Malither76) Kazero Zenigame vs Goblin Fighter 1 and Worg (Zevox) Gradak Tumblebelly vs Dire Wolf (templer10) Kervan Sheharath vs Formian Taskmaster and Half-dragon Ogre (Zevox) Kazero Zenigame vs Large Animated Object (templer10) Lord Lorian vs Babau (TheMagister) Kitaya vs Blue Shaper 5 (TelinArtho) Valen Sky vs Greater Earth Elemental (Macbrea) Zwei und'Vierzig vs 4 Ogres (templer10) Lord Lorian vs 2 Trolls (McJarvis) Gareth Irontower vs Noble Salamander (Macbrea) Zwei und'Vierzig vs 4 Cockatrices (Usurpator) Felice tu'Ria vs 2 Worgs (templer10) Kraegin vs 4 Phrenic Wraiths (Zevox) -- Surrendered Kervan Sheharath vs 3 Phthisics (Salrantol) Phaelen Ir'Kensor vs Formian Warrior (Salrantol) Elrick flamebrother vs Fiendish Young Red Dragon (lonewolf) Gaston Dar'ath vs 3 Efreeti (TelinArtho) Valen Sky vs Elite Phrenic Lammasu (TelinArtho) The Corruptor vs Ghost Will-o-Wisp (templer10) Dajeus vs Celestial Bison (whitebaron) Relanex Thines vs Roc (templer10) Brother Ryu vs 3 2nd-level Astral Constructs (templer10) Malik of Black Robe vs 4 Greater Barghests (templer10) Yorick vs Phasm (whitebaron) Longshot vs 3 Vampire Fiendish Annis Hags (TelinArtho) Gakhnalak Strongjaw vs 3 Vampire Spawn (McJarvis) Gwerdan "Twofist" Grummler vs Hieracosphinx (Vathelokai) Aquin vs 10-headed Hydra (Hirumajoe) Eternal Dreamless Sleep vs a Manticore and a Howler (McJarvis) Reginald Molehusband vs 3 Wraiths (McJarvis) Mineau Guwango vs Bronze Wyrmling Dragon (Vathelokai) Valen Sky vs Hound Archon Psychic Warrior 8 (McJarvis) Rubicanti vs 2 Boars (hogarth) Death and Pestilence vs Five Sahuagin, two Gnolls, and one Hyena (Zevox) Reginald Molehusband vs. Mimic (Hirumajoe) Perius vs Unknown Fiendish Umber Hulk (Erithmu) Walden the Unseen vs 4 Fiendish Harpies (Zevox) Tatyana Malvont vs 5 Fire Salamanders (Macbrea) Rusty Ryan vs 2 Dire Bats (Gonbow) Valek Usher vs Blue Shaper 4 (Maraxus) Namuh Naht Reggib vs Halfling Wererat Rogue 1 (TelinArtho) Perius vs 3 Celestial Otyughs (Zelck) Reginald Molehusband vs Blue Shaper 5 (TelinArtho) Valen Sky vs 3 Centaurs (McJarvis) Featylec Elendi vs 7 Ogres (HirumaJoe) Tatyana Malvont vs Remorhaz (Iced) Valek Usher vs Unbodied Psion 1 (Hirumajoe) Kraegin vs Half Silver Dragon Black Pudding (Maraxus) Wisp vs Dwarf Fighter 2/Cleric 2 (MitzaVolchenko) Antalya vs Ravid and 3 Large Animated Objects (Maraxus) Dronnar Darkjof Reborn vs Half-Fiend Invisible Stalker (MitzaVolchenko) Gorgox, the Scaly vs Giant Owl (Erithmu) Eraca Moralta vs 3 Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts (Erithmu) The Battlesong Duet vs Jann and 2 Medium Air Elementals (Maraxus) Monsieur Hood vs 2 Megaraptors (MindWandererB) Zassl vs 5 Dire Boars (Abyssal Stalker) Loddick Saffrion vs 4 Tiefling Specialists 5 (Evoker, Abjurer, Necromancer, Illusionist) (Vathelokai) Maya Redwine vs 3 Shocker Lizards (TelinArtho) Monsieur Hood vs 3 Harpies (Abyssal Stalker) Izumi vs 4 Dopplegangers (Abyssal Stalker) Hajj vs 2 Vargouilles (MitzaVolchenko) Gundmir Guldesdep vs 3 Skum (sonofzeal) Harbinger vs 2 Large Vipers (Horatius) Maya Redwine vs 2 Howlers (Erithmu) Torel Silvanus vs Human Bard 5 and Halfing Rogue 5 (TheMagister) The Battlesong Duet vs Elephant (Abyssal Stalker) Methos vs Lion (sonofzeal) Ihdald Seaslash vs Celestial Megaraptor (Sjiggie) Malik of Black Robe vs Chaos Beast (Rauul) -- Autowin for player (Flight vs non-flying monster) Valen Sky vs Phrenic Bullette (templer10) Graashnak Vruurk vs 2 Wyrmling White Dragons (Abyssal Stalker) Jar-red vs 2 Megaraptors (TheMagister) Relanex Thines vs 4 Aranea (Vathelokai) Bulgar Stronghammer vs Gray Ooze (templer10) Mithos Durrol vs 3 Apes (McJarvis) Corrupter vs Nymph (Macbrea) Monsieur Hood vs 3 Xills (TelinArtho) Mohmat Iptomor vs 2 Thoqquas (Sjiggie) Yorick vs 2 Worgs and 3 Goblins (McJarvis) The Battlesong Duet vs 6 Sahuagin (Macbrea) Malik of Black Robe vs 3 Half-dragon Giant Wasps (templer10) Malik of Black Robe vs 6 Ogres (Salrantol) Longshot vs Manticore and Howler (Yitzi) Arden Tarmik vs Chaos Beast (Salrantol) Zax Kar Nissex vs. Half-Celestial Satyr (with pipes) (Rauul) Severin Dimblade vs Doppleganger (McJarvis) Yakov vs Formian Warrior (TelinArtho) Arbin Softfoot vs Water Mephit (Sjiggie) Lord Lorian vs Human Bard 5 & Human Rogue 5 (Salrantol) Isaiah Shar vs Wyrmling Black Dragon (TelinArtho) Lady Liara vs 2 Ghasts (lonewolf) Kraegin vs Guardian Naga (lonewolf) Xanaver Valassar vs Wyrmling Brass Dragon (Salrantol) Lord Lorian vs 3 Carrion Crawlers (lonewolf) Gaston Dar'ath vs Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 (lonewolf) Longshot vs 3 Harpies (Salrantol) Treetall Oakleg vs 2 Otyughs (templer10) War Machine vs Blue Telepath 3 (Macbrea) Tiris Rush vs Owlbear (lonewolf) Elrick Flamebrother vs 4 Unbodied (lonewolf) Felice tu`Ria vs Ettin Skeleton (Rauul) Maya Redwine vs Hill Giant (TelinArtho) Felice tu'Ria vs 3 Azers (Sjiggie) Slade Tungsten vs Hobgoblin Fighter 4 (templer10) Lord Lorian vs 3 Half Celestial Gibbering Mouthers (lonewolf) Longshot vs Half-Celestial Wild Elf Sorcerer 8 (TelinArtho) Samuel Highground vs Werewolf Human Druid 9 (TelinArtho) Kilor Mintolo vs. Celestial Basilisk (Rauul) Lord Lorian vs 4 Bralani Eladrins (Zevox) Longshot vs Kobold Lich Adept 11 (Sjiggie) Elrick Flamebrother vs 3 Xills (whitebaron) Elrick Flamebrother vs 4 Half-Celestial Phase Spiders (TelinArtho) Longshot vs Half-blue dragon Triceratops (lonewolf) Lord Lorian vs 3 Ghost Fighters (TelinArtho) Erithmu Darkmane vs Adult Arrowhawk and Cockatrice (Eamane) Ialgo vs 4 Lemures (hogarth) The Chameleon vs 3 Dark Nagas (templer10) Samuel Highground vs 3 Elder Arrowhawks (TelinArtho) Elrick flamebrother vs Collosal Animated Object (lonewolf) Yorick vs 8 Troglodytes and 2 Monitor Lizards (templer10) Shadow Inquisition vs 3 Nixies (templer10) Elrick flamebrother vs 2 Sahuagin Mutant Rogue 7 (Macbrea) Darian Thorne vs 4 Grimlocks (Rauul) Samuel Highground vs Young Adult Silver Dragon (TelinArtho) Lord Lorian vs Huge Fire Elemental (Vathelokai) Therador Goldscale vs 2 Githzerai level 6 monk/level 1 Psionic Fist (McJarvis) Darian Thorne vs Gibbering Mouther (Eamane) Raskos and Kracknol vs Half-Dragon, Half-Giant Cleric and 4 Titan Skeletons (Vathelokai) Tanriel vs a Black Bear and a Light Warhorse (McJarvis) Lord Lorian vs Forest Gnome Lich, Cleric of Nerull 11 (Vathelokai) Severin Dimblade vs Huge Viper (McJarvis) (no ranged attack - Arena fight) Kraegin vs 4 Hobgoblin Werewolf Fighters (Zevox) (shouldn't have been rerolled) Samuel Highground ECL13 vs 6th-level Invisible Stalker Rogue (TelinArtho) (no means to affect a ghost) Samuel Highground ECL13 vs Storm Giant (TelinArtho) (huge in the sewers) Longshot ECL12 vs 3 Half-Fiend Umber Hulks (TelinArtho) (not in SRD) Elrick ECL10 vs 3 Spectres (TelinArtho) (daylight condition) Monsieur Hood ECL9 vs 2 Red Slaadi (TelinArtho) (not in SRD) Valen ECL9 vs 4 Half-Celestial Owlbears (TelinArtho) (shouldn't have been rerolled as far as I can tell... don't know what I was thinking. Fight was in sewer - maybe because they were too slow to be able to reach Valen) Besthirah ECL9 vs 4 Umber Hulk Zombies (TelinArtho) (not in SRD) Reginald ECL5 vs 2 Ankheg (TelinArtho)
hogarth 12-04-07, 10:45 AM	Realize that there have been a number of monster fight rules that have changed over time. The old lists were removed before 2006, but beyond that - I'm not sure to which rules you are referring. We got rid of "triple normal", "double normal" (etc.) treasure ratings. We also added some equipment guidelines.
whitebaron 12-04-07, 10:48 AM	at first glance, it looks like most of the won fights were against either a multitude of opponents (read: lots of lower CR-monsters) or pitlord-built PCs. i will look into this more closely in ~ 4-5hours. @telin: is there any way to pinpoint when the last monster-fight-ruleschange was? you said the lists are there from before the start of battles III - 2006.
hogarth 12-04-07, 10:51 AM	Telin -- there's at least one error in your data. Rubicanti won vs. Two Boars, he didn't lose.
TelinArtho 12-04-07, 10:52 AM	at first glance, it looks like most of the won fights were against either a multitude of opponents (read: lots of lower CR-monsters) or pitlord-built PCs. i will look into this more closely in ~ 4-5hours. @telin: is there any way to pinpoint when the last monster-fight-ruleschange was? you said the lists are there from before the start of battles III - 2006. The most recent change was ~6/29/07 which removed the double/triple rewards from creatures that had those and when the equipment guidelines were enacted. As to your observation, realize there are a greater number of player vs multiple monsters than player vs single monsters. Telin -- there's at least one error in your data. Rubicanti won vs. Two Boars, he didn't lose. Bound to happen - if you see others that I flubbed - let me know.
Macbrea 12-04-07, 10:58 AM	PITLORD Wins Losses Abyssal Stalker 5 1 Dsugui 0 1 Eamane 2 0 Erithmu 4 2 Gonbow 1 1 Hirumajoe 3 1 hogarth 1 1 Horatius 1 0 Iced 1 0 Krytos 0 2 lonewolf 9 1 Macbrea 5 7 Malither76 0 2 Maraxus 4 1 McJarvis 6 7 MindWandererB 1 2 MitzaVolchenko 3 2 Pittbull 0 1 Rauul 4 1 Salrantol 5 2 SauroGrenom 0 1 Sjiggie 5 0 sonofzeal 2 1 TelinArtho 13 9 templer10 8 9 TheMagister 2 3 Usurpator 0 1 Vathelokai 5 3 whitebaron 1 2 with pipes 1 0 Yitzi 1 0 Zelck 1 1 Zevox 3 3 Grand Total 97 68 Those are the quick numbers on that. EDIT: Odd someone got credited in my calculation the wrong way for a win vs a loss. Will take a second to find it.
lonewolf 12-04-07, 11:01 AM	I know there were multiple(2-3 IIRC) monster rerolls in Samuel vs Silver dragon, because huge size in the sewer.
TelinArtho 12-04-07, 11:09 AM	@Macbrea - that's the rubicanti fight that hogarth mentioned above - I fixed it in my list after the original post.
Macbrea 12-04-07, 11:12 AM	Ah, mine was based of the post not the numbers at the top. So, it's just a consolidation of the information you presented. Mostly out of curiousity.
lonewolf 12-04-07, 11:12 AM	looking at this list I start to figure out why I like monster fights so much: I seem to be really good at them! :D
hogarth 12-04-07, 11:45 AM	looking at this list I start to figure out why I like monster fights so much: I seem to be really good at them! :D Or at least GHOSTS are good at them... ;) By the way, I'm having a blast looking at this on-line D&D statistical data. Does that make me a nerd?
Macbrea 12-04-07, 11:59 AM	Those were you as pitlord. :P MONSTER Wins Loss 1 Locust swarm & 1 Spider swarm 1 0 1 Ogre 1 0 10-headed Hydra 1 0 2 Apes 1 0 2 Boars 0 1 2 Dire Bats 0 1 2 Ghasts 0 1 2 Githzerai 6 monk/1 Psionic Fist 0 1 2 Howlers 0 1 2 Lantern Archons 1 0 2 Large Vipers 0 1 2 Megaraptors 0 2 2 Otyughs 0 1 2 Sahuagin Mutant Rogue 7 0 1 2 Thoqquas 0 1 2 Trolls 1 0 2 Vargouilles 0 1 2 Worgs 1 0 2 Worgs and 3 Goblins 0 1 2 Wyrmling White Dragons 0 1 3 2nd-level Astral Constructs 1 0 3 Apes 0 1 3 Azers 1 1 3 Carrion Crawlers 0 1 3 Celestial Otyughs 0 1 3 Centaurs 0 1 3 Dark Nagas 0 1 3 Efreeti 1 0 3 Elder Arrowhawks 0 1 3 Ettins 1 0 3 Ghost Fighters 0 1 3 Half Celestial Gibbering Mouthers 0 1 3 Half-dragon Giant Wasps 0 1 3 Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts 0 1 3 Harpies 0 2 3 Janni 1 0 3 Nixies 0 1 3 Phthisics 1 0 3 Quasits 1 0 3 Shocker Lizards 0 1 3 Skum 0 1 3 Troll Skeletons 1 0 3 Vampire Fiendish Annis Hags 1 0 3 Vampire Spawn 1 0 3 Wraiths 1 0 3 Xills 0 2 4 Aranea 0 1 4 Bralani Eladrins 0 1 4 Cloakers 1 0 4 Cockatrices 1 0 4 Dopplegangers 0 1 4 Fiendish Harpies 0 1 4 Greater Barghests 1 0 4 Grimlocks 0 1 4 Half-Celestial Phase Spiders 0 1 4 Lemures 0 1 4 Ogres 1 0 4 Phrenic Wraiths 1 0 4 Tiefling Specialists 5 Evoker, Abjurer, Necromancer, Illusionist 0 1 4 Unbodied 0 1 5 Dire Boars 0 1 5 Fire Salamanders 0 1 6 Ogres 0 1 6 Sahuagin 0 1 6-headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra 1 0 7 Ogres 0 1 8 Troglodytes and 2 Monitor Lizards 0 1 Adult Arrowhawk and Cockatrice 0 1 Air Mephit 1 0 Babau 1 0 Black Bear and a Light Warhorse 0 1 Black Pudding 1 0 Black Pudding and Xill 1 0 Blue Shaper 4 0 1 Blue Shaper 5 1 0 Blue Telepath 3 0 1 Bone Devil 1 0 Bronze Wyrmling Dragon 1 0 Caller In the Darkness 1 0 Celestial Basilisk 0 1 Celestial Bison 1 0 Celestial Megaraptor 0 1 Chaos Beast 0 2 Collosal Animated Object 0 1 Dire Wolf 1 0 Doppleganger 0 1 Dwarf Fighter 2/Cleric 2 1 1 Elephant 0 1 Elite Phrenic Lammasu 1 0 Ettin Skeleton 0 1 Fiendish Phrenic Owlbear 1 0 Fiendish Umber Hulk 0 1 Fiendish Young Red Dragon 1 0 Five Sahuagin, two Gnolls, and one Hyena 0 1 Forest Gnome Lich, Cleric of Nerull 11 0 1 Formian Taskmaster and Half-dragon Ogre 1 0 Formian Warrior 1 1 Ghost Will-o-Wisp 1 0 Giant Owl 0 1 Gibbering Mouther 0 1 Goblin Fighter 1 and Worg 1 0 Gray Ooze 0 1 Greater Earth Elemental 1 0 Guardian Naga 0 1 Half Silver Dragon Black Pudding 0 1 Half-blue dragon Triceratops 0 1 Half-Celestial Remorhaz 1 0 Half-Celestial Satyr 0 1 Half-Celestial Unicorn 2 0 Half-Celestial Wild Elf Sorcerer 8 0 1 Half-Dragon, Half-Giant Cleric and 4 Titan Skeletons 0 1 Half-Fiend Invisible Stalker 0 1 Half-Giant Monk 1/Psi-Warrior 3 1 0 Halfling Wererat Rogue 1 0 1 Half-Orc Cleric 7 and 3 Orc Fighter 4 1 0 Hellcat 1 0 Hieracosphinx 1 0 Hill Giant 0 1 Hobgoblin Fighter 4 0 1 Hound Archon Psychic Warrior 8 1 0 Huge Fire Elemental 0 1 Human Bard 5 & Human Rogue 5 0 1 Human Bard 5 and Halfing Rogue 5 0 1 Human Werebear 1 0 Jann and 2 Air Elementals 1 0 Jann and 2 Medium Air Elementals 0 1 Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 0 1 Kobold Lich Adept 11 0 1 Large Animated Object 1 0 Large Scorpion 1 0 Lion 0 1 Manticore and Howler 1 1 Mimic 0 1 Mummy 1 0 Noble Salamander 1 0 Nymph 0 1 Ogre Barbarian 1 0 Owlbear 0 1 Phasm 1 0 Phrenic Bullette 0 1 Ravid and 3 Large Animated Objects 0 1 Reginald Molehusband vs Blue Shaper 5 0 1 Remorhaz 0 1 Roc 1 0 Stone Giant 1 0 Sverfineblin Adept 8 1 0 Unbodied Psion 1 0 1 Vampire Sea Hag 1 0 Water Mephit 0 1 Werewolf Human Druid 9 0 1 Winter Wolf 1 0 Wyrmling Black Dragon 0 1 Wyrmling Brass Dragon 0 1 Wyrmling Bronze Dragon 1 0 Young Adult Black Dragon, Ogre Mage 1 0 Young Adult Silver Dragon 0 1 No monster stands out as really large amount of losses.
lonewolf 12-04-07, 11:59 AM	Or at least GHOSTS are good at them... ;) By the way, I'm having a blast looking at this on-line D&D statistical data. Does that make me a nerd? well, I looked closely over your data, and there seems to be some kind of mistake: I count only 7 wins and 1 defeat of my characters in that list. 3-0 Samuel 1-1 The Chameleon 2-0 Darian Thorne 1-0 Therador Goldscale so not everything can be explained by beeing a ghost. Also those Denthian fights seem not to be in either of those lists. On purpose?
Macbrea 12-04-07, 12:05 PM	Heh.. those aren't your fights as a player. Those are your fights as being the pitlord. At 9 wins for the player and 1 loss for the monster you would be considered an easier pitlord to get.
TelinArtho 12-04-07, 12:06 PM	Yes - the Denthian fights were not "random" at all. Yes they were picked from a list, but I deliberately chose monsters to be on that list that would cause problems. I should get around to posting my full list at some point now that we are done with it. And as Macbrea pointed out - that's the record of the pitlord, not your record as a player in those fights. So when you are the pitlord, the monster seems to lose more often than the player (9 player wins, 1 monster win) EDIT - I edited my list above to include all of the fights where I rerolled a monster. I would love to have others provide their own data in there, but I'll have to rely on other pitlords information here.
McJarvis 12-04-07, 12:15 PM	I'm surprised that my record is so even. Perhaps I only remember the monster-wins because they seem to always be so controversial. [or there is an utter lack of complaint when the monster loses...]
lonewolf 12-04-07, 12:15 PM	lol funny that both those statistics are so similar for me(7-1 vs 9-1).
Erithmu 12-04-07, 12:34 PM	Fights to Add if you want more data: (All Battles II thread) Aerryl vs 8-headed Hydra (Erithmu) (PC win) Aerryl vs Efreeti (Erithmu) (Monster win 1 reroll - autowin, 3 Xorns: no way to reach Aerryl on mount) Aerryl vs Mind Flayer (Erithmu) (PC win 1 reroll - Phrenic Ettin in Arena: no real ranged attack/Phrenic weak vs strong will save) Famine vs (1d3+1) 2 Trogs + (1d3) 2 Monitor lizards (PC Win) Dameon vs Ettercap + 1d3 Spiders (PC loss) I went through my roller and basically found all my monster fights. One thing I noticed is that I have run LOTS of Guild Miniquests which are basically monster fights however those most Players can figure out what they are before the fight is over. However those would be a pain to go hunt up ... then again they should be in the questlog.
TelinArtho 12-04-07, 12:39 PM	Well - I specifically didn't include my MQs and some quests (where I rolled the monsters), despite the fact that I use the tables for them. I didn't include them because success/failure in those is a lot different than success/failure in a fight where tactics are submitted. I'm also reluctant to go older than Battles III without specifically excluding the ones with outdated rules (of which, there are still some in Battles III - I just don't know which ones). Any of the 1d3 X fights where the 1d3 was high or low would skew things unnecessarily.
Macbrea 12-04-07, 01:39 PM	Oddly, I am of the opinion that I refuse to reroll monsters no matter what I get. And I am at 5 wins and 7 losses for people I have pitlorded. It might have to do with, I have run alot of higher level fights.
McJarvis 12-04-07, 01:52 PM	I believe the troll fight I pitlorded over was the last monster fight before the current ruleset for monsters came about. [updated with mosnter equipment guidelines]
hogarth 12-04-07, 01:52 PM	I notice that Telin looks like a wimp: PCs 14, NPCs 8. Of course, if you split it up a bit it seems a bit more reasonable -- out of those 22 fights, monsters with equipment won 7 and lost 6; monsters with no equipment won 1 and lost 8.
templer10 12-04-07, 01:58 PM	I believe the troll fight I pitlorded over was the last monster fight before the current ruleset for monsters came about. [updated with mosnter equipment guidelines] i remmber - grumble grumble over that one.
McJarvis 12-04-07, 02:18 PM	i remmber - grumble grumble over that one. I consider the rules that spawned from it a complete success- if that makes you feel any better. The 75-80/10-15/10 guidelines are pretty solid.
MindWandererB 12-04-07, 05:03 PM	I'm also reluctant to go older than Battles III without specifically excluding the ones with outdated rules (of which, there are still some in Battles III - I just don't know which ones). Any of the 1d3 X fights where the 1d3 was high or low would skew things unnecessarily.The current equipment guidelines were proposed in late June and approved not long thereafter. As for when the random number of opponents was turned into a constant, I'm not sure, but it was before the IMT. It would be in the Council III thread somewhere, I think. And of course before that we were using the DMG tables, which went all over the place.
whitebaron 12-04-07, 05:26 PM	just did some other stats: #of monsters #monsterwin #playerwin #player-% 1 38 41 51.8 2 11 19 63.3 3 12 19 61.3 4 6 10 62.5 5 0 4 100.0 6 0 2 100.0 7 0 1 100.0 8 0 2 100.0 #monstertype #monsterwin #playerwin #player-% pure CR 51 70 57.9 Class Levels 7 16 69.6 CR+template 9 12 57.1 tendencies: if you fight more than one monster you're more likely to win. if the pitlord has to design an opponent, you're most likely to win as he'll rarely be fully optimized dnd templates seem to be well adjusted to CR. the hardest list to do is still missing: with equip/without equip. i think it's likely that those statistics are in favor for monsters with equipment and against monsters without. it might even out in total - but if you allow rerolling for an ill-suited monster for the given ecl, you shift this all in favor of the monsters.
MindWandererB 12-04-07, 05:39 PM	Which reminds me: many of those rerolls didn't take the monster's equipment into consideration. Many monsters can use ranged weapons and thus shouldn't be rerolled on the plains; they can even use tattoos of Compression to fight in the sewers. It's a handicap, but it's not an auto-win for the player.
Salrantol 12-04-07, 06:11 PM	Has there been a final decision on the Humanoid-type creatures not counting as "humanoid" for armor fitting question? I want to activate Enoch soonand need to know if I need to take his scrolls to the Training Hall. Edit: As an alternative, does alter self allow one to disguise oneself as a tailed creature whose tail has been amputated? What if you're specifically disguising yourself as a specific member of that race whose tail has been amputated (met via quest if necessary)? If you couldn't do that, you certainly wouldn't deserve the +10 bonus to creating a disguise that you get from the spell.:bump:
MindWandererB 12-04-07, 06:22 PM	I don't think the amputation thing would fly. For instance, you can't disguise yourself as a tailed creature that just happens to have gotten wings somehow. I don't think there was a consensus on the tailed humanoid thing yet. After some thought, I'd be inclined to suggest that troglodytes etc. shouldn't have to pay extra for armor, but gaining or losing a tail would cause any existing armor not to fit anymore (just as changing from a horse into a dire bat would cause barding not to fit anymore).
Macbrea 12-04-07, 10:42 PM	I am fine with that.. Most of the tailed creatures in the game aren't pictured with armor actually on their tail.
McJarvis 12-05-07, 07:27 AM	I don't think the amputation thing would fly. For instance, you can't disguise yourself as a tailed creature that just happens to have gotten wings somehow. I don't think there was a consensus on the tailed humanoid thing yet. After some thought, I'd be inclined to suggest that troglodytes etc. shouldn't have to pay extra for armor, but gaining or losing a tail would cause any existing armor not to fit anymore (just as changing from a horse into a dire bat would cause barding not to fit anymore). But changing from a horse to a bison(or a camel- 1 or 2 humped) WOULD fit? I'm not sure that "Regular logic" can be applied to the rules like that. Technically speaking, if I were in the "D&D Physics Engine" and gained 100 lbs due to bad diet, I would *still* fit in my armor. You might as well just say that what you're turning into has to be a the exact same species as what you are normally. I couldn't readily see a dwarf fitting in human armor, for instance. This isn't going to pan out for "common sense", no matter how many house rules you put on it.
hogarth 12-06-07, 09:00 AM	EDIT - I edited my list above to include all of the fights where I rerolled a monster. I would love to have others provide their own data in there, but I'll have to rely on other pitlords information here. Telin, wasn't Reginald Molehusband vs. Blue Goblin Shaper 5 a reroll? www.hwx.it/wizards.com/dice.php?sid=817 (As an aside, R. Molehusband vs. a Mimic probably should've been a reroll.)
McJarvis 12-06-07, 09:30 AM	(As an aside, R. Molehusband vs. a Mimic probably should've been a reroll.) I think a mimic would always be a reroll- regardless of map. With a 10 ft move speed and no ranged attacks, who thought that would be good arena fare?
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 10:23 AM	Telin, wasn't Reginald Molehusband vs. Blue Goblin Shaper 5 a reroll? www.hwx.it/wizards.com/dice.php?sid=817 (As an aside, R. Molehusband vs. a Mimic probably should've been a reroll.) Apparently it was. I just don't know why the rest of the session wasn't there (maybe it was one of the downtimes - so it got run on IC or something). Anyway - the monster info is there, so I'll update my list to include it.
hogarth 12-06-07, 11:05 AM	I've put the monster fight information in an on-line spreadsheet here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRmR5A2K8wZqJ-GLV5z_kLw I briefly analysed the data which I thought might have an effect on fights. An explanation of the columns: "Rich?" -- if the monster has treasure "Smart?" -- if the monster has an Int higher than 3 ">=3?" -- if there are 3 or more monsters involved in the fight "Drac/Und/Fey/.../Elem?" -- if the base creature has that particular type; note that I placed all skeletons/zombies under "Und" (because I felt like it) "Template?" -- if the monster has a template "PC?" -- if the monster has character levels "Flying?" -- if the monster can fly "Telin/McJ/templer/hogarth?" -- if the fight is by a particular pitlord (if I singled you out, don't take it personally :D) "Total" -- self-explanatory The analysis is at the bottom (rows 182..186). Basically, I calculated the probability of winning a fight if condition "X" is true (e.g. if one of the monsters could fly) and the probability of winning a fight if condition "X" is false. Some of the conditions had pretty small sample sizes; for instance, there were only three fights against creatures of type Fey (all wins for the PC). The average probability of victory for the PC is 59.4%. Here are the pushovers (PCs lose one-third of the time): Fey: 3 wins, 0 losses Humanoids: 18 wins, 6 losses Monstrous Humanoids: 12 wins, 3 losses (note: 2 of the 3 losses were against vampires) Animals: 13 wins, 4 losses Aberrations: 10 wins, 3 losses Elementals: 4 wins, 2 losses Monsters with character levels: 19 wins, 9 losses Here are the tough nuts (PCs win one-third of the time): Undead: 3 wins, 6 losses Giants: 4 wins, 9 losses Vermin: 1 win, 2 losses
McJarvis 12-06-07, 11:32 AM	I've put the monster fight information in an on-line spreadsheet here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRmR5A2K8wZqJ-GLV5z_kLw I briefly analysed the data which I thought might have an effect on fights. An explanation of the columns: "Rich?" -- if the monster has treasure "Smart?" -- if the monster has an Int higher than 3 ">=3?" -- if there are 3 or more monsters involved in the fight "Drac/Und/Fey/.../Elem?" -- if the base creature has that particular type; note that I placed all skeletons/zombies under "Und" (because I felt like it) "Template?" -- if the monster has a template "PC?" -- if the monster has character levels "Flying?" -- if the monster can fly "Telin/McJ/templer/hogarth?" -- if the fight is by a particular pitlord (if I singled you out, don't take it personally :D) "Total" -- self-explanatory The analysis is at the bottom (rows 182..186). Basically, I calculated the probability of winning a fight if condition "X" is true (e.g. if one of the monsters could fly) and the probability of winning a fight if condition "X" is false. Some of the conditions had pretty small sample sizes; for instance, there were only three fights against creatures of type Fey (all wins for the PC). The average probability of victory for the PC is 59.4%. Here are the pushovers (PCs lose one-third of the time): Fey: 3 wins, 0 losses Humanoids: 18 wins, 6 losses Monstrous Humanoids: 12 wins, 3 losses (note: 2 of the 3 losses were against vampires) Animals: 13 wins, 4 losses Aberrations: 10 wins, 3 losses Elementals: 4 wins, 2 losses Monsters with character levels: 19 wins, 9 losses Here are the tough nuts (PCs win one-third of the time): Undead: 3 wins, 6 losses Giants: 4 wins, 9 losses Vermin: 1 win, 2 losses Shouldn't vampires be under undead? This template in particular has far more to do with the player style of the critter than the base creature. [IMO] On the flip side- I'm willing to be the base creature of a zombie/skelleton has more to do with it's difficulty than the template. I didn't look at the numbers- but I'm willing to bet that this change to the stats will make undead look _really_ nasty.
whitebaron 12-06-07, 11:33 AM	the result for specific pitlords is not too surprising for me. - telins tendency is to stick pretty much to the rules and therefore he is exactly on the average - mcjs tendency is to reroll monsters, which shifts the advantage to the monsters - templer10 tends to optimize them as good as he can and play them as intelligent as he can. this also shifts win ratio to the monsters. i'd invalidate the statistical data gotten from everything that is below 10 fights, though. the deviation is to high to draw any conclusions. 1 additional fight for the feys can change it from 100% to 75%. also, the portion of smart is not really limiting to what the pitlord will do with the monster. if you compare it to my previous list, hogarth has a different approach then me. he double-entered certain values, while i decided to use CR, then CR+TP, then CLs. so a phrenic bugbear sorcerer would be only in the CL list. nice list, maybe i will take it some further. what i am really missing is the "non-rich" column. 98-51=37 wins for player 67-41=26 wins for monster => 58% win for player compared to the 55% of rich monsters. also, i feel that dividing a monster that rigorously gives no good (stochastical) analysis. but its fun to read nevertheless. ;)
McJarvis 12-06-07, 11:39 AM	@WB: On monster difficulty the result for specific pitlords is not too surprising for me. - telins tendency is to stick pretty much to the rules and therefore he is exactly on the average What are you talking about? PC's win 60% of the time with him- supposedly 50% is what we're shooting for. That aside- I maintain that I "stick pretty much to the rules" myself :P - mcjs tendency is to reroll monsters, which shifts the advantage to the monsters - templer10 tends to optimize them as good as he can and play them as intelligent as he can. this also shifts win ratio to the monsters. Both templer and myself have pitlorded for an odd number of monster fights- so there was no way for our stats to balance out to 50. (and note that monsters under us have only won one more time than the PC's) Even then- we're so close to 50% that it shows that we are probably the ones doing monster fights "the way they should be done".
templer10 12-06-07, 11:56 AM	- templer10 tends to optimize them as good as he can and play them as intelligent as he can. this also shifts win ratio to the monsters. ;) Actually - i don't - i play something unitelligent as unintelliegnt, and something intelligent with gear at about half as good as i can - if i spent half as much time on monster tactics as i spent on my own chars The percentege would be MUCH higher for monster wins.
whitebaron 12-06-07, 12:04 PM	@mcj: on the average meant: his percentage is very like the total percentage. yours is much lower. but you are right. i did the mistake looking at the statistical results rather than the numbers that led to them. @t10: how long do you take to create monster equip and tactics for non-obvious fights? all the statistics presented here are nice. but they still don't ask the important question: how many of them were close, and how many were really hopeless? e.g. i've seen the roc vs. flying caster fight on the plains. THAT was hopeless. it still would fall into the nonsmart, nonrich, animal part, which are all supposed to be easy. btw: i think we should cancel all PC-class "monsters" alltogether. being a psion, but having to invest 80% of your equip into armor or weapons, is just not how they are usually run, and therefore gives normal PCs a big edge. also, the 25pb vs. 36 pb, and lower wealth, makes pcs unless its an obvious mismatch very unlikely to win at any given CR. less so, if they have monster levels and LA. still i think the equipment rules should only be allowed for monsters that usually have equipment like bugbears, giants, goblins, . monsters that have no piece of equipment (like ropers, cloakers, intellect devourer, phasm) should not get items - their strength is bad enough without. or limit it to creatures actually inhabiting the prime material-plane. ;)
templer10 12-06-07, 12:13 PM	@mcj: @t10: how long do you take to create monster equip and tactics for non-obvious fights? when i assign gear i look at the monster and not the fight - i dont check opponent or map, i dont spent more then a few minutes on both gear or Tactics unless it's a caster then i have to select spells and such.
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 12:20 PM	Rocs are magical beats FWIW... As for the question of whether they were "close" or "really hopeless" - I looked at each fight and did this on my own. I focused specifically on the player losses that were surrenders: Dragonlily vs 1 Locust swarm & 1 Spider swarm (Krytos) -- Surrendered Auburn vs Half-Celestial Remorhaz (TelinArtho) -- Surrendered Matthis Dar'ath II vs Half-Celestial Unicorn (Dsugui) -- Surrendered Featylec Elendi vs Hellcat (MitzaVolchenko) -- Surrendered Antalya vs 1 6-headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (Macbrea) -- Surrendered Le Petit Guepe vs 3 Quasits (MitzaVolchenko) -- Surrendered (no tactics) Kraegin vs 4 Phrenic Wraiths (Zevox) -- Surrendered Of these - I can tell you that my surrender was not because I felt I couldn't win. The one with LPG appeared to be a case of no tactics submitted (rather than a surrender). In Auburn vs Half-Celestial Remorhaz - Vath stated that there were possibilities for winning, but that it would be expensive and difficult. Dragonlily had no method to affect a swarm (torch, alchemist's fire, etc) - but that's a shortcoming of the character, not of the monster. Similarly Featylec surrendered because he couldn't reliably deal damage to the hellcat (DR10/good). An oil of Bless weapon would be plenty to change this fight from "impossible" to a relatively even field. I'm not sure about the half-celestial unicorn fight - will have to look that one up again.
whitebaron 12-06-07, 12:33 PM	the most important conclusion i had from looking at the statistics is the following: only multiple monsters give players over +10% edge as supposed to 50-50 this is a bit reduced by overly harsh monsters, which get also equipment. also, monster fights are rarely close. one side has always the edge, depending on the main objective of the monster as opposed by the main objective of the pc. poison(or other effects) vs. immune, spell vs. high spell res or energy immunities hide vs. daylight and the obvious killers with to low a CR, like intellect devourer or phasm. specialist vs specialist (and we all have some kind of specialist build) is bound to be boring. either it's "my specialty beats yours, YAY!" or it's "well, i can do nothing". which reminds me of my playtest fight - it's boring, too. my 2 monster fights as a pitlord thus far were not close. @telin: rocs are gargantuan animals. and: i didn't mean the surrendered fights. i meant the really held fights. about the surrenders and preparation: it's easy to have more tools at hand at higher ecls. if you want to equip yourself with adequate defenses against lots of monster options at lower ecls, you'll likely end up scrapping some of the tools you'd want to use every fight - like kracknols fly, my grappling monks expansion, many a wizards standard scrolls, etc. this ends up in the comparison, "how many monster fights do i get compared to how many pc fights do i get" thus far, monster fights are fillers. they only occur if there are not enough PCs to be paired to. thus, it is much more likely to get paired than get a monster - go figure why players are not prepared well. once you hit ecl 5-7(depending on the build), this is easier, as most of your expendables can be afforded within 800-1500 gold. torches and similar tools are certainly something most players miss though.
hogarth 12-06-07, 12:58 PM	What are you talking about? PC's win 60% of the time with him- supposedly 50% is what we're shooting for. Despite what Telin may say, 50% (or any target ratio of wins/losses) has little to do with whether monster fights are "fair" or not. It reminds me of my last trip to Las Vegas. I went to my favourite casino -- the Laboured Metaphor -- to enter a 32-person poker tournament. I paid my $100 entry fee and other players started arriving. But by the time the tournament was supposed to start, there were only 27 people there so they cancelled the tournament. I suggested that we wait for more players to arrive, but the organizers said they had an even better idea -- they would give us each one spin on the roulette wheel instead. Apparently some people like the variety of being forced to play roulette against the house. I lost, of course. The organizers said: "Cheer up! Your chance of winning was still 1-in-32 so you have nothing to complain about, right?" I can't wait to go back there again! :D
McJarvis 12-06-07, 01:13 PM	I can't wait to go back there again! :D See- if you're happy with it then 50% is a good model to go after. Why were we arguing? ;)
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 01:38 PM	Here's the things I would consider as a "necessary" list if I want to avoid autolosses due to immunity/DR: 1. One item of cold iron (Cold Iron Dagger is only 4gp - 1d4 damage is far better against DR5/cold iron than 1d8 - arguably even 1d10...) 2. One item of Silver (Silver dagger is only 22gp) 3. A torch (1cp) 4. Oil of Bless Weapon (ECL4+) 5. Some sort of Magic weapon (scroll/potion/primary weapon) 6. A weapon of each type (P,S,B) For spellcasters, a number of these can be done without (since spells can be much more versatile), but for non-casters, this is a bare-bones list of what I would have or try to have, in most cases.
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 02:05 PM	Despite what Telin may say, 50% (or any target ratio of wins/losses) has little to do with whether monster fights are "fair" or not. I realize this was probably not meant with any sort of seriousness, but there is no need to single me out here. Yes, I have said that we are striving for about a 50% success rate and I have also said that I believe monster fights are fair. However, I do know the difference between random chance and skill. That said, the reason why I posted the entire list was not to give evidence to the former, but rather so it could provide evidence for the latter. Specifically, one poster's assertion that 40% were auto-wins for the player, 40% were auto-wins for the monster and 20% were actual contests one way or the other. I wanted to see if his perception was spot on or if it was off-base and if so, by how much. If 40% were auto-wins for the monsters, we should have much more evidence to this in the monster wins - ie - either more surrenders or more obvious monsters that won. Of the current list of monster wins, I don't think anyone would claim that all 67 wins are auto-wins for the monsters. If 40% were auto-wins for the players, then we are missing in the order of 100 fights that were "rerolled" due to this (or we need to identify more in the current list of successes that were "auto-wins").
McJarvis 12-06-07, 03:37 PM	@Telin: If vampires & zombies/skeletins were properly labelled, I believe undead would show a large win rate. Level/ability drain is incredibly powerful in this environment.
hogarth 12-06-07, 04:00 PM	I realize this was probably not meant with any sort of seriousness, but there is no need to single me out here. Yes, I have said that we are striving for about a 50% success rate and I have also said that I believe monster fights are fair. However, I do know the difference between random chance and skill. It's possible that other people have commented on the 50/50 (or better) win/loss ratio for monster fights as evidence of fairness. I just know that you've repeated that factoid on numerous occasions. That said, the reason why I posted the entire list was not to give evidence to the former, but rather so it could provide evidence for the latter. Specifically, one poster's assertion that 40% were auto-wins for the player, 40% were auto-wins for the monster and 20% were actual contests one way or the other. I wanted to see if his perception was spot on or if it was off-base and if so, by how much. I admit that I was off-base about the proportions based on the evidence at hand, and the terms "auto-win" and "auto-lose" are exaggerations. The statistics were an eye-opener! I'll restate myself this way: 14% of monster fights are much harder to win than average (undead + giants + vermin), 43.5% much easier to win than average (animals + humanoids + monstrous humanoids + fey + aberrations + elementals), and 42.5% are about right (everything else). Of course, you can group gladiators the same way (X% much better than average, Y% much worse than average, Z% about average). So what's the difference? No gladiator inherently has an "unfair advantage". By that, I mean that if I think character X's success is due to him being a psion/druid/cleric/whatever, or due to some nifty magic item, I can build a character that's exactly the same as that (leaving aside the issue of credit purchases) and presumably have an equal chance of winning as long as my tactics are up to snuff. But I'll never be able to play a vampire sea hag (let alone a vampire sea hag in the ECL 6 league!) or a 6-headed cryohydra. If an opponent has a random chance of getting an extremely strong ability that is unavailable to me, that's luck, not skill. In a normal arena fight, you're playing against an opponent who has something to lose. Even if they're heavily favored to win, you can still take some pride in making it a costly victory for your enemy. But fighting a monster is like betting against the house; they can use all the X/day abilities, spells, expendables, etc. that they want without any consequence. At any rate, an overall win/loss ratio of 50% is meaningless to me; the fact that "6 Sahuagin" is on the EL 7 list is no consolation when I have to fight "3 Young White Dragons". Of course, if you really think that 3 Young White Dragons are a fair opponent for an ECL 7 character, I'd be delighted to play such a team in the ECL 7 bracket (even with inferior NPC money and abilities). :)
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 04:02 PM	While powerful, level/ability drain is not without defenses. All undead, for instance, are immune to such an effect (so an undead PC would have no reason to worry). Clerics of a decent level would be able to turn/rebuke - possibly even destroy or command the types of creatures that have it. Death ward removes even the possibility of being hit with negative levels, ability drain can be restored with a restoration potion. As an aside to all of this - just about all ability drain/level drain abilities require melee attacks (the devourer is an obvious exception) or is a spell (enervation). If it is a melee attack - staying at range is an easy solution. All of that said - I don't understand how that factors into a discussion about whether monster fights are fair.
MindWandererB 12-06-07, 04:20 PM	At any rate, an overall win/loss ratio of 50% is meaningless to me; the fact that "6 Sahuagin" is on the EL 7 list is no consolation when I have to fight "3 Young White Dragons".Yes... and both Celia Durrol and Izumi are on the ECL 9 list. I'd argue that the difference is comparable, if not greater.
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 04:25 PM	Nitpicking individual entries as a basis for "Monster fights are not fair" is probably not the best route to go. 3 Young White dragons would certainly be a difficult fight, but against a high AC, high reflex save character or a character with a high AC and resist energy - their ability is much more limited. Bulgar happens to be my only ECL7 character right now, and since his purpose is specifically to oppose dragons, he might not be the "best" example - but I'd guess he would have a reasonable chance of success in such an encounter, particularly if the map was favorable to him (forest would be best of them all I would imagine; the plains and city maps would be reasonable. He might have more trouble on the smaller maps). My other characters that have already gone through ECL7 - Sir Valkin, Kraegin - would, in my opinion, have similar chances of success; Kraegin through spell superiority and Sir Valkin in his ability to dish out damage. In both cases, they would have resist energy available to take out the breath weapon threat. In both cases, they had reasonably high AC to keep the melee threat down. As to the statistics you are mentioning above, most of the result sets are just too small to make an overarching comment like that. Fey is an excellent example - 3 fights does not establish precedent. If we had 20+ results for each type - it would be much more reasonable to come to conclusions.
hogarth 12-06-07, 04:31 PM	Yes... and both Celia Durrol and Izumi are on the ECL 9 list. I'd argue that the difference is comparable, if not greater. ...and I can build an exact replica of Ceilia Durrol (given the time and credits) and enter Ceilia-Prime in the ECL 9 league. But I can't enter a phrenic ogre mage in the ECL 9 league even though it's a "fair fight". I thought I explained myself pretty well above, but I guess not. :( Nitpicking individual entries as a basis for "Monster fights are not fair" is probably not the best route to go. 3 Young White dragons would certainly be a difficult fight, but against a high AC, high reflex save character or a character with a high AC and resist energy - their ability is much more limited. O.K. -- so if it's fair, let me enter the team in the ECL 7 league.
McJarvis 12-06-07, 04:43 PM	@Telin: I wasn't trying to argue that monster fights are unfair- but that perhaps we should scale back the undead. I've only done 15ish fights & I know at least two of them were with level draining opponents(vamp spawn and wraiths)- and though I can't remember all my fights, I'm willing to bet there was at least one other. I don't think that anyone is arguing that any particular monster is unbeatable- but the exceptions leave a sour taste in peoples mouthes. It's one thing to lose to a Cat-ish character, since you know someone is on the other side of the table. It's another to lose against an arbitrary list of monsters because you happened to get a Cat-simulator. And yes- I would say that vamps are unreasonable overpowered for their CR. [nor would I say it's easy to turn them, since they are cleric hd-2CR+4 turn res= higher than cleric hd]. Needing to roll a DC 16 on a cha check? ouch. especially if you're already getting level drained in the first place, which boosts it to 18 or 20 depending on the undead level draining. Essentially- what I desire is some sort of process by which monsters that are innanely easy or innanely hard can be weeded out. I love the monster fights that are even matches- I hate the ones where the outcome is decided from the get-go. If a particular monster promises one of these outcomes every time- let's axe it.
TelinArtho 12-06-07, 04:53 PM	Okay hogarth, now I understand where you are coming from, and yes I still believe it is a fair fight. 3 Young White Dragons, CR4 each with 10 stats across the board plus racials, 3300gp spent in a very specific manner vs one ECL7 opponent with a 36 point buy and ~20000gp spent in any manner the player pleases. I won't let you add it to the roster (because we would need new rules on how to deal with how much money/exp such types would earn), but I still would wager that over time, the result would be about what we are looking for (about a 50% success rate). EDIT - @McJ Well - individual items on a list are certainly up for change if there is a good representation already. I haven't looked closely at the monster lists specifically for undead with ability/level drain - but if the numbers are high - replacement creatures wouldn't be out of the question. I suspect though that around 5% or less of the creatures on the list have those abilities (just a rough guess). If it is higher than that - small adjustments might be warranted.
MindWandererB 12-06-07, 06:16 PM	I would agree that the "100 monsters per ECL" doesn't have to be a sacred cow. I'd particularly be in favor of eliminating the NPCs with nothing but class levels (that's what the normal arena is for); I also agree that certain templates result in absurdly difficult fights, and some things (like the mimic) probably aren't worth keeping without a template. On the other hand, I see that the hardest fights in the spreadsheet are with giants, and that's no fault of our system--those are plug-'n'-play, as it were. My concern would be this: currently, monsters win only about 40% of the time. If the weakest monsters are removed (ones which would probably be rerolled anyway) as well as the strongest ones (like stone giant druids and high-HD lycanthropes), the net change will be even more against the monsters. If anything, monster fights should be made slightly harder than they are now, on average: despite the objections, a PC is more likely to win a monster fight than a gladiatorial one.
whitebaron 12-07-07, 04:11 AM	anyone want to chime in on "monsters are just fillers for non-paired characters?" @mwb: i don't have a problem with monster fights being close calls, or monster fights happening at all. BUT: i'll pitlord my 3rd monster fight probably today, 99% chance of loss. according to telin it's all due to the players being not well enough prepared. to be well prepared, you need to know your enemy. this obviously can obly happen if you have the knowledges needed (heavy skill investment). resist energy or similar is no good unless you have been hit at least once. same for bless, magic weapon etc - unless you are good enough at metagaming and deducting the charts, of course. so basically, first suck up 20-60 damage before you get to counter it, and the opponent might not even want to use his breath weapon a second time. (1d4 rounds?) what i'd propose first in regards to monster fights: get rid of everything with class levels, and the multi-monster fights. easier life for pitlords, harder fights for players, without even touching some uber-monsters. the pretty much autowin monsters can be singled out afterwards, as can be the pretty much autoloss monsters. i'd say this should only be done per map and cr. removing all monster teams with 3+ participants brings us down to 60:50, removing all monster teams with 2+ participants brings us down to 41:38. @telin: i want fights to be close. you have not yet proven in any way that the held fights were close, just their results were about equally likely to favor the monster or the player. many players tend to fight nevertheless, even if they don't stand a chance. (see WW this week - we knew what came, and had no chance) or like callix this week against mwbs pixie. with no means of seeing invisible things, he relies on minor spot and listen checks- on the plains i believe.
Macbrea 12-07-07, 08:58 AM	Honestly, I have run two of those giant wins the fight fights. I decided to just play the giant throws a rock game with the character. It is the most generic tactic for a giant based off tactics written within their description. The damage output alone overpowered the characters they faced. In both cases it was an archer vs a giant throwing boulders.
TelinArtho 12-07-07, 10:17 AM	anyone want to chime in on "monsters are just fillers for non-paired characters?" @mwb: i don't have a problem with monster fights being close calls, or monster fights happening at all. BUT: i'll pitlord my 3rd monster fight probably today, 99% chance of loss. according to telin it's all due to the players being not well enough prepared. to be well prepared, you need to know your enemy. this obviously can obly happen if you have the knowledges needed (heavy skill investment). resist energy or similar is no good unless you have been hit at least once. same for bless, magic weapon etc - unless you are good enough at metagaming and deducting the charts, of course. so basically, first suck up 20-60 damage before you get to counter it, and the opponent might not even want to use his breath weapon a second time. (1d4 rounds?) what i'd propose first in regards to monster fights: get rid of everything with class levels, and the multi-monster fights. easier life for pitlords, harder fights for players, without even touching some uber-monsters. the pretty much autowin monsters can be singled out afterwards, as can be the pretty much autoloss monsters. i'd say this should only be done per map and cr. removing all monster teams with 3+ participants brings us down to 60:50, removing all monster teams with 2+ participants brings us down to 41:38. @telin: i want fights to be close. you have not yet proven in any way that the held fights were close, just their results were about equally likely to favor the monster or the player. many players tend to fight nevertheless, even if they don't stand a chance. (see WW this week - we knew what came, and had no chance) or like callix this week against mwbs pixie. with no means of seeing invisible things, he relies on minor spot and listen checks- on the plains i believe. If someone can define what makes a "close" fight - I would happily categorize all of the existing fights. The problem is, "close" is subjective. Take for instance I fight I once ran where the player was up against a pair of dragons. I looked at the player and said to myself, oh that's too bad - he's probably going to lose this one. I didn't think it was going to be close, I thought it was going to be a slaughter. When I received the player's tactics, I still felt that way, but I could see he had a line that might work out. In the actual fight, I saw just how effective it was and the player managed to defeat the encounter without so much as a scratch. I can tell you that I looked over a number of the fights that have been held while I was making this list. I said at that time that I didn't feel there were a lot of auto-wins/auto-losses and even fewer that would have been had the character been prepared. I did not define "close" fights - because I have no way to quantify it. As to the rest of your comments, I wouldn't be opposed to having all groups of monsters be reduced to 3 critters or less. 4 is acceptable, but frankly even then it becomes much easier on the players (with some exception of course). I also wouldn't necessarily have a problem with removing some creatures with class levels, but I would necessarily say to remove them all.
Macbrea 12-07-07, 10:26 AM	Some fights are pretty much auto-losses for the character. Antalya vs 1 6-headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (Macbrea) -- Surrendered Vath looked at the fight and probably did simple math. 1d4+3/1d4+3/1d6+1 is full attack sequence of Antalya. Assuming you hit average. 5.5+5.5+4.5 = ~15.5/round Hydra has fast healing 16. Some creatures are hugely difficult for non-megadamage dealers to take down.
lonewolf 12-07-07, 10:33 AM	Therador has basically an autoloss this week: 4 halfdragon hound Archons. If you dont have enough knowledge skills to identify the color of the halfdragons and thus use the correct energy resistance, the breath weapons 4x 6d8 will kill you even if you succeed the reflex saves.
hogarth 12-07-07, 10:35 AM	Hydra has fast healing 16. Some creatures are hugely difficult for non-megadamage dealers to take down. Leaving aside the issue whether a hydra is a tough creature (because it'll just lead to "but if you had bought item X and used tactic Y, then you could've done Z..."), my argument is that it's unfair because a PC in the ECL 7 bracket can never get Fast Healing 16 as an innate ability. I'm still waiting for my chance to play a phasm in the ECL 7 bracket ("three young white dragons" has dropped into second place now). :)
Erithmu 12-07-07, 10:51 AM	I've said before I'm in the end of finals week over here, but in short I figure I need to add my 2cp here. (and I need a quick sanity break) - Pro-Monster fights - Not a fan of Auto-win or loss, and most of them would probably be due to a creature that really fits the CR system (aka needs party of 4) - Is thinking that a list of 100 is causing the problem where the lists are populated to fill as opposed to considering what might be a reasonable challenge (as most DM's do at the table before they run an encounter, and as I do for my quests/campaigns) - Not a fan of 'build a monster' (Valen vs Hound Archon PW ... I'm sorry for making that guy.)
Macbrea 12-07-07, 10:51 AM	Everytime a phasm has been used in the arena it has beaten it's opponent. Though, my only unfair to player fight was run using a phasm with 18 crawling tattoos of ego whip. I honestly couldn't figure out what an amorphious blob would want for items. :P
MindWandererB 12-07-07, 05:24 PM	So here's some opinions I've seen lately (looking at multiple threads): - Monster with class levels are bad; either they're just like PCs or the CRs are wacked; either way, designing them is work for the pitlord. - Monsters with templates can be a problem, depending on the template; high-HD lycanthropes are the worst. - Some monsters, like hydras, giants, hound archons, and dragons, are quite a bit harder than their CR would indicate. - Monsters have too much equipment for a variety of reasons. So here's some of what I'm thinking right now. - Monsters with class levels should probably just go. Possible exception: some templates, like lich, pretty much require class levels and should be retained. - Templates should be rarer and more carefully regulated. I'm thinking that a range of rolls at each EL (say, 20%) should be devoted to templates with some sort of rule about how to use them. It's unfortunate that many templates add varying amounts of CR, but it still might be possible (perhaps with a list). - Difficult monsters are hardly unbeatable; I know dragons and hydras have been beaten multiple times in the past, giants have always won, and I don't know about hound archons. Removing these would add a lot of skew in players' favor, so I'm against it at present. - Multiple monsters are easier than single ones and also harder on the pitlord. I'm thinking that at least pruning them down to a max of 3 might be good, and perhaps only individual monsters might be better. Yes, that favors the monsters on average, but the other changes I'm considering favor the PCs. - Equipment: Most people seem pretty satisfied with the regulations we're currently using (which do assume that the monster is prepared for many types of opponent). I'm particularly hesitant to use ECL since many monsters don't have one.
Hirumajoe 12-07-07, 06:02 PM	This probably a minor point in the grand scheme of things: Would it be possible to have attack/defend skill packages officially affect monster fights? If only to let skill monkies have their full set of abilities available? (This would espcially make sense if monster fights were reduced down to single opposing monsters).
SauroGrenom 12-07-07, 11:19 PM	I haven't contributed much to the discussion so far, but I've been reading along and getting a sense of the direction things are going and the ideas expressed so far. The first thing that comes to mind as a problem is a general one which most people are sort of dancing around and not directly talking about. The central problem I see is that monsters are a huge wild card for a player to deal with. You may have only the most cursory description of your opponent, and the list has a hundred things on it... so writing tactics is very very hard. Compare this to an arena battle, where you see the opponent's sheet and know precisely what you are up against. People have been complaining about monsters being hard to run as pitlords, and the monsters having too many abilities or being too powerful, but that's all easy things to complain about. The "real" problem is that some people feel that some monster fights aren't fair, and there's a variety of reasons they can point to as to why they lost this or that battle. These reasons are kind of fluffy, since lots of arena battles aren't fair (ie Sneaky vs Touchsight). When arena battle happen like that, people accept it because they knew the foes were built with the same rules system. Monsters get a different rules system, and they are built on the spot for each encounter. This last part is the major gripe. A particular monster may have abilities, equipment and so on that are particularly nasty vs one or another character. When this happens the players feel that they got a bum deal since the opponent turned out to be worse than they expected. To prevent this kind of griping, the monsters need to be "made" and agreed upon as being balanced before the random dice roll determines which monster you face. I suggest we make a bunch of monsters which can be fully fleshed out with a character sheet and items list and default tactics, like mercenaries. Then there would be nothing to complain about. When a pitlord rolls the dice, the opponent is chosen fully formed from the previously agreed upon pool of acceptable monsters. This protects our pitlords by shielding them from culpability if a player is pwned by a monster that happens to be good at defeting their style of character. Also it helps the pitlord by saving the the time to make a detailed or complicated monster with equipment. It may be a lot of work to put 100 fully detailed monsters at every ECL, but a smaller number should be manageable. If we had such a "CoCo Monster Manual" then we would avoid almost all of the problems.
MindWandererB 12-08-07, 01:28 AM	I think that's one problem, yes. Not necessarily the main one, but one. Of course, doing that would take a tremendous chunk out of the way we use Knowledge. If we do this--and yes, it's a lot of work, for which I'd offer credits if this is the way we go--we'd need to do the following: - Rethink Knowledge completely. - Start with individual monsters of CR 3, no class levels, no templates, and go up the scale. All these monsters need is gear. - Next would be some templates; probably just one or two uses of each template per CR. - Last would be monsters with class levels; I'm thinking of doing this WotC style and doing a multi-stage voting system. Perhaps 3 or 4 at each CR. - For multi-monster fights, rather than creating whole new entries, we'll just use multiples of monsters from lower ECLs. I'm thinking something along the lines of: 1-25: 1 monster 25-44: 2 monsters 45-54: 3 monsters 55-69: 1 templated monster 70-79: 2 templated monsters 80-86: 3 templated monsters 85-91: 1 class-levelled monster 92-96: 2 class-levelled monsters 97-100: 3 class-levelled monsters.
lonewolf 12-08-07, 07:57 AM	I´ll make one last try to show my opinion about equipment: Monsters without class levels should have no equipment except that which is already in the monster description. The Monster Manual was made as a guide for DMs to take a monster within and play it just as it is written there. There are examples of monsters with class levels in the Monster Manual that specifically have other equipment(Hound Archon Paladin, The Vampire examples, Illithid Sorcerer, Mummy Cleric...) but none of the other monsters do. Is this random? I think not. Does adding equipment increase the CR of Monsters? I think it clearly does. Monsters are balanced to be a challenge for a group at a certain ECL. Natural armor is often used as a substitute for armor on monsters that do not wear armor to bring the AC of the monster into a region that is a challenge at that level. Example: Hound Archon A Hound Archon is a melee fighting monster without armor. Thus the designers gave it +9 natural armor to get a final AC of 19 which is what you would expect for a CR4 creature. but if you take that same hound Archon and give it a potion of mage armor, a tatoo of Force screen and maybe a potion of shield of Faith it is suddenly nearly immune to ECL4 weapon attacks(that still would have to deal with his DR10/evil). Was the intention to have monsters balanced to work without equipment? I say yes. Does adding equipment have the potential to destroy that balance? I say yes. Now about that line "Intelligent monsters use useful parts of their treasure": IMHO this line was put there to avoid that situation where the party finds great items that the monster could have used but didnt. I would have no problem if a pitlord used the random treasure tables to determine the monsters treasure and then have the monster use everything from this random stuff. But optimizing equipment around monsters completely destroys the balance. I end my argument with another quote that greatly supports my view: If you choose to equip a monster with gear, use its ECL as its character level for purposes of determining how much equipment it can purchase. Generally, only monsters with an Advancement entry of “By character class” receive NPC gear; other creatures adding character levels should be treated as monsters of the appropriate CR and assigned treasure, not equipment.
Hirumajoe 12-08-07, 12:32 PM	Two last bits in regards to monster and their equipment: 1) Treasure is not *only* magic items. If you take a look at the random treasure tables, non-magic items, such as gems, art, and raw goods often make up something like 33-66% of a treasure (as opposed to NPC gear). Just looking at the treasure tables in the 3.0 DMG (sorry don't have 3.5). They have 3 columns. Coins, Goods, Items. The 20th level coins columns spits out 18,820 gp worth of coins on average. The goods columns spits out 18,617 gp on average. And the magic items spits out 36,000 gp on average. This is works out to be within 10% of the 80,000 gp they claim should be average. We hand out 220,000 gp worth of usable, custom tailored magic items to our 20th level monsters with treasure. Or roughly 5-6 times the usable amount a "standard" treasure would have. Also, when they do design Monsters with levels, like the Hound Archon Hero (11th level Paladin) they only hand it equipment equivalent to a 11th level paladin. Not a 16th level Paladin. (Its CR 16). 2) NPCs with Treasure section of the 3.0 DMG The gear that NPCs carry serves as the bulk of their treasure. The average value of an NPC's gear is listed on Table 2-44: NPC Gear Value, and examples of what specific gear a character of a given class and level would have are in the sample NPC descriptions, pages 49-57. NPCs may have treasure in addition to their gear, at your discretion, but an NPC's gear is already worth about three times the average value of a treasure of his or her level. Defeating NPC foes bring about great reward for treasure-seekers, but since the gear is mostly magic that the NPC can use against the characters (some of which is one-use), it all evens out. They were noting NPCs with gear *are* harder than your average encounter. Which is why its fine they give a greater reward. Also note, in a table top game, if you were to fight characters with NPC gear in *every* fight, you'd be 3 times richer than you should be. (Okay, maybe only 2 times if they burn 33% of their wealth in one shot-items...) Which is supposed to be a balancing factor.
MindWandererB 12-08-07, 07:14 PM	The main thing that makes me hesitant about that approach is that CoCo is an expendable-heavy environment, plus PCs often have abilities that normal PCs don't have. I think they need a few expendables, special-material weapons, etc. for them to be competitive at all.
mucki 12-09-07, 05:14 PM	I suggest we make a bunch of monsters which can be fully fleshed out with a character sheet and items list and default tactics, like mercenaries. Then there would be nothing to complain about. When a pitlord rolls the dice, the opponent is chosen fully formed from the previously agreed upon pool of acceptable monsters. I couldn't agree more. This is exactly what I think would help many of the problems with monster fights. There also would be a way to avoid all the huge initial cost of building up that list: build it up over time. Just define what is in the list first (ie: just monster type and HD or so) and whenever this particular monster comes up for the first time, the pitlord fleshes it out by making a char sheet and getting equipment. He has to do that now anyway, so that would not be extra work (except that he has to put a bit more thought into it). Then link the fight post to that specific monster entry and future monster fights can then use this monster.
TelinArtho 12-18-07, 01:37 PM	Using the categories that MWB posted before, I've gone through the ECL3 list and separated them out. It raises some questions in my opinion, but of course, it is a place to start from. 1-25: 1 monster 25-44: 2 monsters 45-54: 3 monsters 55-69: 1 templated monster 70-79: 2 templated monsters 80-86: 3 templated monsters 85-91: 1 class-levelled monster 92-96: 2 class-levelled monsters 97-100: 3 class-levelled monsters. 01: 1 Allip [CR3] 08: 1 ghast(ghoul) [CR3] 17: 1 shadow [CR3] 19: 1 wight [CR3] 02: 1 doppleganger [CR3] 20: 1 yuan-ti pureblood [CR3] 26: 1 centaur [CR3] 03: 1 wyrmling brass dragon [CR3] (combine the dragons as one entry) 76: 1 wyrmling black dragon [CR3] 77: 1 wyrmling blue dragon [CR3] 78: 1 very young white dragon [CR3] 82: 1 wyrmling bronze dragon [CR3] 83: 1 wyrmling copper dragon [CR3] 04: 1 ethereal filcher [CR3] 06: 1 ettercap [CR3] 09: 1 grick [CR3] 16: 1 rust monster [CR3] 49: 1 Temporal Filcher(psionic) [CR3] 05: 1 ethereal marauder [CR3] 23: 1 ankheg [CR3] 31: 1 giant eagle [CR3] 38: 1 giant owl [CR3] 39: 1 pegasus [CR3] 42: 1 unicorn [CR3] 07: 1 violet fungus(fungus) [CR3] -- remove? 15: 1 phantom fungus [CR3] 25: 1 assassin vine [CR3] 10: 1 hell hound [CR3] 11: 1 howler [CR3] 34: 1 formian warrior [CR3] 35: 1 magmin [CR3] 36: 1 mephit (roll 1d10 to determine type) [CR3] 37: 1 mephit (roll 1d10 to determine type) [CR3] -- remove (no need for a second entry) 24: 1 juveline arrowhawk [CR3] 40: 1 flamebrother salamander [CR3] 41: 1 juveline Tojanda [CR3] 44: 1 minor Xorn [CR3] 45: 1 Yeth hound [CR3] 13: 1 ogre [CR3] 14: 1 gelatinous cube (ooze) [CR3] 18: 1 locust swarm [CR3] 72: 1 giant praying mantis [CR3] 73: 1 giant wasp [CR3] 74: 1 large monstrous scorpion [CR3] 22: 1 large animated object [CR3] 53: 1 4th level Astral Construct(psionic) [CR3] 27: 1 deinonychus (dinosaur) [CR3] 28: 1 dire ape [CR3] 29: 1 dire wolf [CR3] 69: 1 Lion(animal) [CR3] 70: 1 huge viper snake [CR3] 30: 1 dryad [CR3] 21: 1 medium air elemental [CR3] 32: 1 medium earth elemental [CR3] 33: 1 medium fire elemental [CR3] 43: 1 medium water elemental [CR3] 46: 1 Crysmal(psionic) [CR3] 79: 1 Bugbear and 1 Gnoll [CR2 & CR1] 84: 1 Dire Badger and 1 Krenshar [CR2 & CR1] 85: 1 Dire Bat and 1 Darkmantle [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] 47: 3 Pseudodragons [CR1] 48: 3 gnolls [CR1] 52: 3 2nd level Astral Constructs(psionic) [CR1] 68: 3 Hyenas(animals) [CR1] 71: 3 wolves [CR1] 75: 3 medium monstrous scorpion [CR1] 12: 1 human werewolf warrior1 (lycanthrope) [CR3] 50: 1 halfling wererat rogue 1 [CR3] 61: 1 Troll skeleton [CR3] 65: 1 Ogre Zombie [CR3] 99: 1 Celestial Bison [CR3] 63: 2 Wolf skeletons [CR1] 98: 1 Celestial Black Bear and 1 Celestial Light Warhorse [CR2 & CR1] 00: 1 Fiendish Boar and 1 Fiendish Hyena [CR2 & CR1] 66: 3 Troglodyte Zombies [CR1] 54: 1 Drow Fighter2 [CR3] 55: 1 Blue Telepath3 [CR3] 59: 1 Hobgoblin Fighter2 & Goblin rogue1 [CR2+CR1] 58: 3 Orc Babarian1 [CR1] 51: 1 goblin fighter 1 + Worg mount [CR1+CR2] 56: 5 Orc Warrior1 [CR1/2] 57: 5 Hobgoblin Warrior1 [CR1/2] 60: 1 Kobold Adept2 & 3 Kobold Warrior1 [CR1 & CR1/2] 62: 1 Wolf skeleton & 1 Halforc Cleric2 [CR1+CR2] 64: 5 Stirges [CR1/2] 67: 5 Human commoner Zombies [CR1/2] 80: 1 Choker and 1 Drow Warrior1 [CR2 & CR1] 81: 1 Lantern Archon and 1 Human Paladin1 [CR2 & CR1] 86: 1 Dire Weasel and 1 Kobold Expert4 [CR2 & CR1]
MindWandererB 12-18-07, 03:56 PM	What are the questions you were thinking about?
TelinArtho 12-18-07, 04:03 PM	Well: 1. In your statement, you suggested starting with the ECL3 list and have the ECL4+ use multiples from the lists below it. However, if we started with the ECL3 list - then it would be populated completely with CR3 opponents only (because there is nothing to draw on for previous maps). This is not necessarily an issue - but I wanted to clarify it before I started working on a new list. 2. What to do about mixed groups (specifically things in the "other" category)? Obviously reducing numbers down is a good idea, but having special things like a goblin worg-rider or a cleric with some undead seem reasonable in my opinion. 3. What items should be avoided in the monster lists? For instance, most of the plants would be toast in any arena except for the forest (just because of their natural hiding ability - the forest would be a big bonus to them). Should specific maps be keyed as "ineligible" for certain creatures (as was suggested)? 4. Should the grouped entries exist? For instance, the "Roll 1d10 to determine type" for the mephits. This could be extended to the elementals and the dragons. Should it be extended to other entries? Should it be removed altogether?
MindWandererB 12-18-07, 04:50 PM	Well: 1. In your statement, you suggested starting with the ECL3 list and have the ECL4+ use multiples from the lists below it. However, if we started with the ECL3 list - then it would be populated completely with CR3 opponents only (because there is nothing to draw on for previous maps). This is not necessarily an issue - but I wanted to clarify it before I started working on a new list. 2. What to do about mixed groups (specifically things in the "other" category)? Obviously reducing numbers down is a good idea, but having special things like a goblin worg-rider or a cleric with some undead seem reasonable in my opinion. 3. What items should be avoided in the monster lists? For instance, most of the plants would be toast in any arena except for the forest (just because of their natural hiding ability - the forest would be a big bonus to them). Should specific maps be keyed as "ineligible" for certain creatures (as was suggested)? 4. Should the grouped entries exist? For instance, the "Roll 1d10 to determine type" for the mephits. This could be extended to the elementals and the dragons. Should it be extended to other entries? Should it be removed altogether? 1) Easy enough to create lists for CR 1 and 2 creatures. The CR calculations don't work quite the same way at those low levels, but it's close enough. 2) True. The problem with mixed groups is that you can't just use lower-level lists for them. There could be a couple of mixed groups at each level, and they'd just be exempt from appearing at higher levels. 3) Yeah, it should probably be on a map-by-map basis. ECL needs to be irrelevant, I'm afraid--ECL 5 was proposed for flight to be assumed, but there are tricks to get it earlier than that, and I don't want a bear in the arena to be an auto-win for an aasimar sorcerer. 4) I like doing it that way because otherwise those things become disproportionately likely. There shouldn't be 10 mephits on a list with 15 other creatures. Elementals are a little different (notably the air elemental), but dragons aren't. I'd rather leave them grouped, with the possible exception of the air elemental. That would either have to be: A) a separate entry (making it 3 times more common than the other elementals, which is weird); B) Part of the same entry, but with different reroll criteria (e.g. air elementals wouldn't be rerolled on the plains, but the others would), or C) it becomes a "forced choice" if the air elemental would be the only reasonable one (if you get an elemental on the plains, it's air; this has the same problem as A). I lean towards B.
TelinArtho 12-19-07, 10:51 AM	The problem is - designing lists for CR1 and CR2 creatures has no reward really. Essentially those would be used for the ECL3 and ECL4 lists and then dropped to never be used. For my rewrite of the ECL3 list, I'm using the existing ECL3 list (with the groupings I already marked) and grouping things up that make sense (like the dragons, elementals, etc) and will add in entries for anything that doesn't fit (like the ones that are in the "other" category) and add in notations on "map exemptions." For ECL3 I am planning on a slightly larger "1 monster" category (instead of just 25 creatures - it will likely end up being closer to 40). For the map exemptions though, I'm kind of torn. Once upon a time all monster fights were on the cavern map. When we moved them from that map to all of the maps and then later moved all ECL3 to the arena map - we essentially created a special category for ECL3... On another note, I'd like to get the oddity of CR vs EL worked out for ECL3 and ECL4. Since we are limiting monsters to a maximum of 3 - this problem doesn't exist for ECL5+ (which is great), but it still should be set for ECL3 and ECL4. Here's my proposal: 2 creatures is always the "mixed pair" for ECL3. ECL4 could be the "mixed pair" (CR3+CR1) or 2 CR2 creatures as normal. 3 creatures is CR1+2CR1/2 for ECL3; 3CR1 for ECL4 Doesn't allow for a huge variety in encounter type for those types, but at the same time - there aren't a huge number of those entries in those 2 ECLs anyway.
hogarth 12-19-07, 11:22 AM	@Telin: Before you go through and do a bunch of work, it might be worthwhile to first ask "What concerns are we solving with this proposed change?" If the answer is "None/not many", then maybe we should consider other options.
TelinArtho 12-19-07, 12:05 PM	Here are the specific items I am addressing: 1. Some entries have "too many" monsters - ie 3+. The new list will not have entries with more than 3 critters. 2. Some entries are inconsistent about the EL of the fight. The new list will be consistent (see my comment above). 3. Some entries should be limited to certain maps (ie - nonflyers without a possible ranged attack should not be placed on the plains map). All three of these would serve to remove the "Reroll for monster auto-loss" concerns that seem to be issue. I make no claim that this would make monster fights more "fair." Since I feel they are fair to begin with - if I were to make that claim I would not make any changes. I am working on this list because I have been frustrated for the last few weeks because of this issue. Since I didn't have more constructive things to add to the discussion, I decided I would begin the extensive work that needs to be done on issues that I do agree with.
hogarth 12-19-07, 12:39 PM	Here are the specific items I am addressing: 1. Some entries have "too many" monsters - ie 3+. The new list will not have entries with more than 3 critters. 2. Some entries are inconsistent about the EL of the fight. The new list will be consistent (see my comment above). 3. Some entries should be limited to certain maps (ie - nonflyers without a possible ranged attack should not be placed on the plains map). All three of these would serve to remove the "Reroll for monster auto-loss" concerns that seem to be issue. Did MWB propose removing the "reroll for autoloss" rule if we revise the list? If so, then I agree that it would address that concern. I make no claim that this would make monster fights more "fair." Since I feel they are fair to begin with - if I were to make that claim I would not make any changes. Well, let's consider fights with multiple weak monsters. MWB is proposing to remove them. I think monster fights are "unfair" because certain monsters are more powerful than their CR indicates. Removing fights with multiple weak monsters (which are generally easier than average) doesn't address this concern at all; in fact, if we strip out weak monster fights, then the "unfair" monsters may become more common. You think monster fights are fair and you like variety (let me know if I'm misstating your position). Therefore you should be neutral at best to removing weaker fights (like those with multiple weak monsters) and you should be mildly opposed to removing them on the grounds of variety. So who is supposed to see this change as an improvement?
McJarvis 12-19-07, 12:47 PM	So who is supposed to see this change as an improvement? I would, for one. Removing class levels from monsters helps pitlord workload and places more of the challenge in the laps of the monsters themselves rather than the savvy of the pitlord. Also, addressing the "autoloss" fights is something everyone has voice an opinion about.
hogarth 12-19-07, 12:56 PM	I would, for one. Removing class levels from monsters helps pitlord workload and places more of the challenge in the laps of the monsters themselves rather than the savvy of the pitlord. Sorry -- I changed my example from "monsters with class levels" to "multiple weak monsters" halfway through my post.
TelinArtho 12-19-07, 01:08 PM	@hogarth If you want me to restate my opinions about the minutiae of this argument - please just go back and reread the discussion (as I have been doing for the last several weeks). I do think monster fights are fair. 1. With regard to "too many" monsters - I am in favor of removing encounters with 4+ monsters because there have been a few who claimed this strained the pitlords in those cases. Anything I can do to hopefully improve the pitlording experience is certainly in my agenda. 2. With regard to "removing the reroll for autoloss" - I don't think it was "agreed" to remove it with those changes. That said - if we remove the cases where rerolls happen incorrectly and define the cases where rerolls happen precisely, then it removes the bulk of the concerns that have been voiced about the issue in the first place.
whitebaron 12-19-07, 01:16 PM	Removing class levels from monsters helps pitlord workload and places more of the challenge in the laps of the monsters well, under the current reworkings from telin, there would be monsters with class levels. i think we should just scrap them. monsters with class levels are after all the same as "weak gladiators". If they are not scrapped, they should be placed according to their ECL, not their CR. the full usage of expendables and class features as well as the lower wealth should suffice to offset the lower stats they get. if not, then promote them to 36pb. but what i absolutely don't like is a monster with class levels that is rated according to its CR. this would be like allowing varjo to play in the ecl3 bracket.
TelinArtho 12-19-07, 01:31 PM	removed.
CrazyArtificer 12-19-07, 01:32 PM	well, under the current reworkings from telin, there would be monsters with class levels. i think we should just scrap them. monsters with class levels are after all the same as "weak gladiators". If they are not scrapped, they should be placed according to their ECL, not their CR. the full usage of expendables and class features as well as the lower wealth should suffice to offset the lower stats they get. if not, then promote them to 36pb. but what i absolutely don't like is a monster with class levels that is rated according to its CR. this would be like allowing varjo to play in the ecl3 bracket. I must say that I agree with this vision. While a monster may not be that big of a deal compared to some characters, there are surely certain monster which can work amazingly well with class levels (ghosts for example). On the other hand it is certainly possible that some monsters become underpowered with this new classification, but in that case it's simply better to avoid using, imho.
MindWandererB 12-19-07, 04:39 PM	Here's my take: monster fights aren't on average "unfair" because PCs win at least as often as the monsters do. So that's not the issue. The problem being addressed here is pitlord judgment calls. Things like designing NPCs, choosing equipment, and deciding whether a monster should be a reroll can be standardized; many people, players and pitlords, are complaining about this. @whitebaron: the main reason I left monsters with class levels in is because of "monsters" that usually need class levels to exist; e.g. lycanthropes, vampires, liches, ghosts. I don't think those should be cut entirely, not should classics like medusa sorcerers or mind flayer psions. I do think that absurdities like stone giant druids should be cut. Perhaps we should use "associated class levels only" as the rule?
Stormwind 12-19-07, 04:43 PM	Here's my take: monster fights aren't on average "unfair" because PCs win at least as often as the monsters do. So that's not the issue. The problem being addressed here is pitlord judgment calls. Things like designing NPCs, choosing equipment, and deciding whether a monster should be a reroll can be standardized; many people, players and pitlords, are complaining about this. @whitebaron: the main reason I left monsters with class levels in is because of "monsters" that usually need class levels to exist; e.g. lycanthropes, vampires, liches, ghosts. I don't think those should be cut entirely, not should classics like medusa sorcerers or mind flayer psions. I do think that absurdities like stone giant druids should be cut. Perhaps we should use "associated class levels only" as the rule? I'd simply go by the monster entry. If under then monster entry it has 'advancement by class level' then allow it ... if not then don't. Just my 2c worth
whitebaron 12-19-07, 04:47 PM	on average, monster fights are not unfair. but the deviation from a close fight is really broad. from "stood no chance" to "had not a scratch" everything is possible. this is what i dislike most about monster fights. (and at that, level-adjusted monsters in the arena as player characters, but thats an entire different matter) i'd say favored classes only is a good cut. still, it's like a lower-rated PC. take as classic - the succubus sorcerer for example. as a PC, she'd be 6 leagues higher than as monster. or take a plain vrock - ecl 18, cr 9. i still believe, mixing cr and ecl is not a good way. edit@stormwind: the problem is, that you get really weird mixtures like that, which absolutely don't make sense, like the half-celestial gibbering mouthers. also, it gives pitlords headaches about how to best build this monster, how to equip it, etc. this should not be their concern, they are there to hold fights. - and that's it. else you'd have to give monster pitlords with classes and equipment another credit bonus...
whitebaron 12-27-07, 07:53 PM	seeing that speeding up crafting is finally put to use in the blackmarket, i've already got some extension that should be made: a minimum crafting time has to be set. i don't care if it's 1 week or 2,3,4 - but a decision should be made and put into the rules. else, by the current rules, it is possible to bypass every week - you can basically craft without need to activate your character.
lonewolf 12-27-07, 08:06 PM	seeing that speeding up crafting is finally put to use in the blackmarket, i've already got some extension that should be made: a minimum crafting time has to be set. i don't care if it's 1 week or 2,3,4 - but a decision should be made and put into the rules. else, by the current rules, it is possible to bypass every week - you can basically craft without need to activate your character. and that is bad because ....? If you spend the credits I dont care if you have your character active or not.
hogarth 12-27-07, 09:58 PM	Personally, I would prefer to see credits used only to get around tedious stuff like this (skipping crafting times, skipping miniquests, starting at higher levels, etc.) rather than the ability to buy more powerful options that are unavailable to everyone else. (I don't care about the ability to buy less powerful options, naturally. :))
CrazyArtificer 12-28-07, 04:38 AM	Speaking of credits, I'd like to see them awarded for good roleplaying. Although roleplaying isn't what the CoCo is about, I think we miss even a bit of it. It would be nice to have a few threads where you can roleplay (outside of the campaigns/quests threads) and maybe get 1 or 2 credits from time to time for exceptionally good roleplaying.
whitebaron 12-28-07, 07:59 AM	Speaking of credits, I'd like to see them awarded for good roleplaying. 2 problems here: a) you get rewarded for something that's supposed ot be fun anyway - credits are supposed to reward you for the work you put into coco. b) the definition of good roleplaying is very widely spread amongst different gamers. @lonewolf: at least one week should be needed. else it would be hard to track, too. no one thus far tried to craft without sitting out one week. but i just want it to be handled like this officially, and not just because the players decide it makes sense. - saves discussions later.
CrazyArtificer 12-28-07, 08:07 AM	2 problems here: a) you get rewarded for something that's supposed ot be fun anyway - credits are supposed to reward you for the work you put into coco. b) the definition of good roleplaying is very widely spread amongst different gamers. Main problem is that we completely lack roleplaying here, at least outside of quests and campaigns. a) is a valid point, but instead than reading it as a reward, just see it as an incentive to better roleplaying. As for point b), in a normal game you have a DM deciding what does good roleplaying means. We could have a couple of similar figures here, awarding credits at their discretion but following a few public criterias (roleplaying adeguate to mental scores, to backgroud, alignment etc). You could even use something different from credits, but I think roleplaying needs to be brought back to Gladius.
lonewolf 12-28-07, 08:14 AM	@lonewolf: at least one week should be needed. else it would be hard to track, too. no one thus far tried to craft without sitting out one week. but i just want it to be handled like this officially, and not just because the players decide it makes sense. - saves discussions later. Tracking wouldnt be a problem, since you always have the blackmarket post you can link your crafted stuff to. I see no reason for this rule and generally think that we should only invent rules when its necessary. CoCo is complicated enough.
TelinArtho 12-28-07, 08:49 AM	Main problem is that we completely lack roleplaying here, at least outside of quests and campaigns. a) is a valid point, but instead than reading it as a reward, just see it as an incentive to better roleplaying. As for point b), in a normal game you have a DM deciding what does good roleplaying means. We could have a couple of similar figures here, awarding credits at their discretion but following a few public criterias (roleplaying adeguate to mental scores, to backgroud, alignment etc). You could even use something different from credits, but I think roleplaying needs to be brought back to Gladius. Well, speaking for myself, I roleplay my characters as often as I have the time to do so. In other words - I haven't had the time lately. As to having a few threads specifically for roleplaying - that is the precise purpose of all of the various guild threads (and do feel welcome to post in any/all of them as often as you want). Rewarding credits for good roleplaying could only come from Scribelords (Vath) - and currently only in the form of writing a decent story/interaction for a fight. Stories for fights doesn't happen much anymore - but it certainly is a worthwhile option.
CrazyArtificer 12-28-07, 09:54 AM	Well, speaking for myself, I roleplay my characters as often as I have the time to do so. In other words - I haven't had the time lately. I perfectly understand that some people may have time constraint. Speaking of myself, I still have to write backgrounds for both my PCs. As to having a few threads specifically for roleplaying - that is the precise purpose of all of the various guild threads (and do feel welcome to post in any/all of them as often as you want). I read that most of those are dead threads anyway.. an active member over 10-11 can't surely roleplay that much. I guess quests and campaigns are the only ones which can really allow real roleplaying right now.. beside a few lines here and there on the board. Rewarding credits for good roleplaying could only come from Scribelords (Vath) - and currently only in the form of writing a decent story/interaction for a fight. Stories for fights doesn't happen much anymore - but it certainly is a worthwhile option. Again, while it's a nice thing to reward pitlords, we should also have some chances to earn something even for players.. don't we want to use credits? Find something else to give out. I understand that a couple of persons are making a huge work on this board, but the whole experience of "living Gladius" would benefit from this.
TelinArtho 12-28-07, 10:02 AM	For the record - you don't have to be the pitlord for the fight (nor do you even need to be one of the players invovled) in order to write a story for it. I know Huan used to write stories for just about all of his pitlorded fights and on numerous occasions, wrote stories for some other fights that he felt were memorable. The guild threads are "dead" in the way that the guild game is currently suspended. However, they are still more than open to roleplay. However, roleplaying needs interaction. If you don't roleplay - then someone else can't interact with you. So in a way - it is in the same catch-22 that mercenaries are in. For what its worth, you get out of the community what you yourself put in. If you want to see more roleplaying going on - I heartily recommend taking the ball and running with it.
CrazyArtificer 12-28-07, 10:20 AM	The guild threads are "dead" in the way that the guild game is currently suspended. However, they are still more than open to roleplay. However, roleplaying needs interaction. If you don't roleplay - then someone else can't interact with you. So in a way - it is in the same catch-22 that mercenaries are in. For what its worth, you get out of the community what you yourself put in. If you want to see more roleplaying going on - I heartily recommend taking the ball and running with it. May I ask why is it suspended? I love a few mercenaries in that thread, I planned to use at least a couple in the future fights.. I'm still low level though. I'll follow your advice and try to start a bit of roleplaying.. let's see what happens.
mucki 12-30-07, 04:51 AM	Rewarding credits for good roleplaying could only come from Scribelords (Vath) - and currently only in the form of writing a decent story/interaction for a fight. Stories for fights doesn't happen much anymore - but it certainly is a worthwhile option. Again, while it's a nice thing to reward pitlords, we should also have some chances to earn something even for players.. don't we want to use credits? Find something else to give out. I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. Everyone can write up stories for the gladius weekly (the local newspaper) about fights. So if you read a particulalry interesting fight in the battles thread, and want to make a story out of it, go for it. It doesn't matter if you pitlorded it, or played in that fight. At least thats how i understand the whole thing.
whitebaron 12-30-07, 06:45 AM	just again, summarizing what credits are meant to be: an incentive to do work for the community. of course, you can do it in an rp style, with stories being only one part (quest/campaignlording would be another nice option). If you play your character nicely in an RP way, that itself ought to be enough for the player. Giving credits away for this is like giving up credits entirely. While you can have fun gaining credits (i.e.: some of the fight you pitlord, all quests questlord, c's you campaignlord), credits should never be awarded for things that are only fun and only affect one player. Maybe there will be some advanced options with the guild or community game, later. But as of now, i don't think it would be wise to dish out credits for RP. as for RP guidelines, this will end up like this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html
CrazyArtificer 12-30-07, 07:18 AM	Yes, I got it.. My point was just that the self-imprinted motivation for roleplaying doesn't seem so strong in this board. That, added to a general lack of things to do beside the arena and quests, leads to a decreasing amount of active players (and therefore characters). I really like the whole CoCo idea, that's why I'd like to see it full with people rather than with the same 10-11 guys :)
TelinArtho 01-10-08, 10:15 AM	Okay here's a brief amendment I'd like to include on the Prebuff's section of the rules: 1. You must enter the arena wearing the armor (and shield if applicable) listed in your AC list. 2. You must list all items you wish to have equipped that take up slots on your person (and that are limited by the slotted magic item rules) when you have multiple items for that slot. For instance - if you have a brooch of shielding and an amulet of natural armor - you must specify which one is equipped by default. If you have prebuff rounds, surprise rounds you can change this equipment normally during that time. If you don't, you have to take rounds during the fight itself to make these changes. In the event that this information is not provided on the character sheet - it is the pitlords discretion to roll randomly which one is equipped at the start of the fight (and adjust tactics accordingly).
templer10 01-10-08, 10:20 AM	In the event that this information is not provided on the character sheet - it is the pitlords discretion to roll randomly which one is equipped at the start of the fight (and adjust tactics accordingly). Kind of harsh don't you think? It's a pretty damn rare thing to have 2 items in the same slot and even when it does happen it usually happen since someone just finished a 3FC and bought something and forgot he had something else in the same slot - Doing what you suggest would penalize that one who made a mistake quite heavily. Wouldn't just posting a violation about it in the prison be enough?
TelinArtho 01-10-08, 10:25 AM	When even 1 round can make a huge difference on these things - yes I think it is a big deal. I propose a "harsh" penalty because I have seen a number of people assume they can interchange things freely when their opponents assume they cannot. I am just proposing an ammendment. I am fine with a lesser penalty - but its not like this is the first time that you've had an issue like this come up before.
hogarth 01-10-08, 10:30 AM	I agree that equipment should be marked as "worn" or "not worn" (we can assume worn by default so that lazy players like me don't have to change anything :)). I also agree that genuine oversights should be dealt with in a sportsmanlike manner. . .
templer10 01-10-08, 10:33 AM	When even 1 round can make a huge difference on these things - yes I think it is a big deal. I propose a "harsh" penalty because I have seen a number of people assume they can interchange things freely when their opponents assume they cannot. I am just proposing an ammendment. I am fine with a lesser penalty - but its not like this is the first time that you've had an issue like this come up before. Actually - i think it's the second time, the first time was with Elrick (also stangly enough with a brooch of shielding). anyway - Especially in Higher ECL's when the gear list on a char tend to be Long (at least for me), And 1 round can make a big diffrence - I think doing what you suggest really is overly harsh - i don't know about you- but i wouldn't want to win a fight becuase the other guy overslept and wore the wrong neck wear in the morning (which is what you are essentially suggesting).
Erithmu 01-10-08, 10:41 AM	I would like to see something like Sauro has done. ex: Raskos listing the normal equipment slots and what items are there. All other items can be listed below. Some sheets kinda do this, but organize a list of equipment and list their slot
TelinArtho 01-10-08, 11:10 AM	I frankly don't care how people do it as long as it is done. I have seen way too many people list a shield on their AC and then use a 2-handed weapon in their tactics without taking off said shield. Maybe the penalty is harsh - fine. I can get behind a "sportsmanlike" rule here - but the purpose here is to get this stuff on to the character's sheet so that your opponent doesn't have to sit here and wonder if you have amulet x equipped by default or amulet y or periapt z...
MindWandererB 01-10-08, 05:26 PM	I think most people are doing it the way you suggest--not many people are getting two items on the same slot. However, I think the shield bit is unnecessary--we allow players to start with whatever they want in hand, and that's basically how shields work. I think they should be worn or not worn by default, based on what's in the AC section, but the character can specify otherwise (just like there's a default starting spot, but they can specify otherwise). If the shield cannot be changed, I'd also say that your items in hand must be prebuffed. And an argument can be made in favor of that, as well.
SauroGrenom 01-10-08, 06:21 PM	Hrm... I think we should either leave it as is, or swing to the other side and require prebuffed contents of your hands. As it is, the AC lists a component wise total showing how part of the AC is due to Armor, Shield, Dex and so on. If the shield bonus or some such is not applicable due to using a two handed weapon, then the pitlord should take note. That's part of the pitlord's job to do. If we allow people to fill their hands with whatever they want, then I see no reason to restrict the interchangability of shields or two handed weapons. As for the rest of the equipment slots, those should be prebuffed and time in battle should be used to swap equipment.
whitebaron 01-11-08, 04:55 AM	It always struck me as odd, that you have time to wait before the fight, but could do NOTHING to change your general gear, still you could start with whatever you wanted in your hands. so basically, someone with lots of scrolls, wands, etc. has an advantage against someone who wants to do the same with equipment. (choose your starting stuff) I can see that this might be prone to some abuse, but i cannot see that it is some major thing different to starting with whatever you like in your hands. If you want to introduce such a rule - you should also introduce the "starting with empty hands" or "prebuff hands" rules. And this would be a bad thing for some Characters, as you'd need to strap your shield on and draw your weapon any given fight. (basically: lose 1 round because you're a fighter not a caster) as for prebuffing: same goes for casters, if a bit less limiting. it just reduces movement options in the first rounds, not the casting abilities. since casters often(but not alway) stay in their squares while buffing, this might not sound like so bad a setback - still, you're crippling some players out of their usual tactics because of 2 incidents with items? ... I as a pitlord, will always allow to switch all gear upfront - unless ruled otherwise. Basically, you get to know all facts about your opponent, so you really can estimate what he's going to use. And it's not like many people WOULD ever afford that much different items in one slot.
McJarvis 01-11-08, 08:21 AM	It always struck me as odd, that you have time to wait before the fight, but could do NOTHING to change your general gear, still you could start with whatever you wanted in your hands. so basically, someone with lots of scrolls, wands, etc. has an advantage against someone who wants to do the same with equipment. (choose your starting stuff) ... I as a pitlord, will always allow to switch all gear upfront - unless ruled otherwise. Basically, you get to know all facts about your opponent, so you really can estimate what he's going to use. And it's not like many people WOULD ever afford that much different items in one slot. Switching all gear via tactics was allowed, it was abused, and that's why you have to prebuff all non-held gear now. ~McJ~
whitebaron 01-11-08, 08:54 AM	Switching all gear via tactics was allowed, it was abused, and that's why you have to prebuff all non-held gear now. ~McJ~ can you remember an actual example for that? also, i cannot find neither a rule that actually forbids this - nor a court decision.
Erithmu 01-11-08, 10:05 AM	Many fighters who ran full plate who were suddenly faced with a touch spellcaster would remove their armor for the bonus speed. They might do the same against archers so that they could catch up. The problem was more with the removal of items and then they choose to leave the items at home afterwards. It is similar to the prebuffing ally rules that we have. Back when Diplo allies were allowed (and no cap on allies) There was one character who had ... a griffon, a white dragon, and 2 advanced chokers and you didn't know which combination he was bringing. What we assume happens in a arena fight is that characters are teleported, they get a quick glance at their opponent and then step into their start box. This is why we don't prebuff hands, because we just assume that everyone has a quick moment to draw some weapon, or item before going into combat. And that in that time there isn't a thought to switch around equipment (ex: necklace of Nat. Armor for a Brooch of shield). Relevant ruling: Rules -> Battles II -> Pre-fight Actions -> Allies and Equipment
lonewolf 01-11-08, 10:12 AM	I would have no problem if we rule that you have to prebuff what is in your hands.
whitebaron 01-11-08, 12:04 PM	i already read this. it says nothing about which equipment is worn, just that all is carried. Equipment need not be prebuffed with but anything not listed in a special "At Home" section will be brought into the fight.
Hirumajoe 01-11-08, 12:22 PM	The difference between a shield or wand in hand, and switching an item is the number of actions. Its pretty much a move action to put something in your hands from gear or a free action if you're "moving into the box" for wands, weapons and shields, assuming you have a +1 BAB. To switch an item slot that is worn requires the equivalent of four move actions: Take the old item off, stow the old item, draw the new item out from gear, and put the new item on. Thats assuming that object in question is not armor, which has its own rules for adding and removing. So generally, starting with whatever item you want in hand is anywhere from no actions to two move actions. A single item to be replaced on the person *plus* starting with up to two items in hand is anywhere from four to six move actions, depending on what you want to start with. Basically one of these can be accomplished in a single "pre-battle" round if you will. The other one can't. Also, I wouldn't say a person with lots of scrolls is at an advantage to a person with lots of stuff though. Each scroll takes a move action to pull out, and if its not a one shot one, a move action to put back. Switching one item costs you as much time as using 2 different scrolls. (Draw, cast, drop, draw, cast, drop). Wands are different, because they can be drawn as a free action as part of move, but on the other hand, you usually don't want to just drop them. :) I could also see requiring you to pre-buff everything in your hands, but I don't have a strong feeling on it. It would just mean most people start with nothing in hand, and draw what they need in the first round. It would prevent 1st turn charges, runs and full-attacks, but after the 1st round it'd be pretty much business as usual. Edit: That means, if you have listed 20 weapons and a full plate on your sheet (outside the home section) you might have trouble with encumbrance. At least, you cannot leave the armor at home if you suddenly face a spellcaster. It looks like they were not completely explicit, but its certainly the intent of the rules that you be wearing the equipment you bring, except for those used with your hands. Otherwise the lines about trouble with encumbrance and leaving the armor at home would be moot. I've certainly seen it clarified by the Elders every time the question has come up as such (that armor and other things in your equipment section is worn unless otherwise pre-buffed - such if you want to antimate it with a spell...)
McJarvis 01-11-08, 12:26 PM	i already read this. it says nothing about which equipment is worn, just that all is carried. Equipment need not be prebuffed with but anything not listed in a special "At Home" section will be brought into the fight. By literal reading of the rules, unless it is specifically listed as equipped, it is assumed to be carried. I doubt this is how they were intended.
Stormwind 01-11-08, 04:17 PM	I think the simplest solution is to require that anything held in the hands be prebuffed. Further I would suggest that there are two choices for worn equipment: worn equipment must be marked as worn worn equipment is assumed to be worn. In the case of a conflict with two items using the same slot, neither item is considered worn. In the case of worn equipment, I prefer the first option.
whitebaron 01-11-08, 04:30 PM	well, lets all make it more and more complicated, instead of keeping it simple! i don't get the whole reasoning behind this, but if i have to mark worn equipment extra as worn, i'll write one line on the top of my sheet. "all equipment not at home is considered worn or carried"
Stormwind 01-11-08, 04:48 PM	I may not have been sufficiently clear about my point so let me clarify - The point of marking equipment as worn would be to mark it with the slot that it is worn in. For example: Eyes: Eyes of the eagle [1lbs][2500gp] Chest: Full-plate [50lbs][1500gp] Back: Clock of resistance [1lbs][1000gp] The point of this would of course be to prevent having two items in the same slot.
whitebaron 01-11-08, 05:28 PM	Back: Clock of resistance [1lbs][1000gp] i'd like to have that irl. my clocks always seem to break :) still, i got your point before. but i think it as superfluous. everyone knows where the items are to be located. especially pitlords should check that. while it would help to write the slots, i'd rather introduce a third section on the sheet: worn carried at home while giving the slots is nice, it is a lot of scribbling for something that is obvious in 99% of the time. also, i would not start to limit items hold in your hands. as someone already pointed out - this is just 2 move actions - and it's the same for both.
Stormwind 01-11-08, 08:12 PM	i'd like to have that irl. my clocks always seem to break :) still, i got your point before. but i think it as superfluous. everyone knows where the items are to be located. especially pitlords should check that. while it would help to write the slots, i'd rather introduce a third section on the sheet: worn carried at home while giving the slots is nice, it is a lot of scribbling for something that is obvious in 99% of the time. also, i would not start to limit items hold in your hands. as someone already pointed out - this is just 2 move actions - and it's the same for both. The worn section would effectively do the same thing as writing the slots ... either way it would prevent having multiple items per slot. I don't really care how it would be done ... I just think that it should be done somehow. As far as prebuffing held items ... I think it is worth doing for two reasons: If a character has multiple weapons, then they would either have to prebuff a weapon ... or they have to draw one after their initiative. I think this is a valid thing to have to prebuff, especially considering the scout & outmaneuver skill packages. At this stage two move actions can be significant. There is a difference in the number of move actions that would be required for different characters to ready their weapons (sword+shield = 1 move action +1 free action; two-handed weapon = 1 free action; 2 scrolls = 2 move actions; 2 powerstones = 2 move actions; etc ...) Thus this is not the same for any two characters.
whitebaron 01-12-08, 06:56 PM	if you have to draw two items, while NOT allowed to move, its always 2 move actions. (unless:quickdraw) so i don't think this is a good/valid argument for prebuffing your hands. about scout/outmaneuver: characters heavily relying on packages usually have lesser options what they will do than others. so, for them, prebuffing seems like a no-brainer - and it seems its more weapons and shields you're really after, not scrolls and stones...
Hirumajoe 01-13-08, 02:34 PM	if you have to draw two items, while NOT allowed to move, its always 2 move actions. (unless:quickdraw) so i don't think this is a good/valid argument for prebuffing your hands. Actually, giving quickdraw a boost sounds like a great reason to prebuffing your hands, now that you mention it. Of course it probably won't matter until later levels, but still... Giving this pre-buff stuff some more thought, I'm liking it more. Of course, sometimes people don't want to draw any items (like some casters or monks) or only one item, like a two-handed weapon, which means they would have only used one of those move actions. So fundamentally, different characters are going to use different amount of move actions for drawing stuff at the start of the fight. As far as I can tell, the two methods would incur the exact same amount of effort on behalf of the player (pre-buffing it on your character vs writing it out in your tactics) and text in the fight. From a consistency point of view, the current method gives two free move actions to every character to draw stuff, but not cast/manifest or other types of move/swift/free actions. This seems a little odd. The other method, of pre-buffing everything, doesn't run into this inconsistency. The current method currently rewards those with the most options (such as lots of expendables). The pre-buffing method would reward those who can make educated guesses on what they'll face (meta-gaming). Or who have character designs that don't need much stuff in hand (like monks) or took steps to mitigate drawing stuff (quickdraw - gasps are heard from the optimizer gallery...). about scout/outmaneuver: characters heavily relying on packages usually have lesser options what they will do than others. so, for them, prebuffing seems like a no-brainer - and it seems its more weapons and shields you're really after, not scrolls and stones... I'm confused by this statement. How does having the scout/outmaneuver package mean you have lesser (fewer?) options? Pre-buffing for them is a no brainer because - the few early actions matter alot to their opponent? or because they are going to not have meaningful options and will always pre-buff the same stuff? Or something else I'm missing out of this?
Hirumajoe 01-15-08, 07:38 PM	I'd to put forth a new proposal regarding the City map. I would like to see the instant loss at above 50' changed simply to unable to move above 50'. I think the intent of the map was to prevent wizards and others capable of flight from simply going to extreme heights and peppering opponents with long range spells (which the plains handles aptly) and negating the entire point of the buildings. I don't think it was meant to provide said wizards with another save or die option using summons or telekinesis. Currently the City map has the following clause: Maximum Altitude: Although Gladius City has no roof that would limit vertical movement, the city watch has many towers in the city with spyglasses and magic observation tools, and one thing they don't like are fights on the streets. Any characters who ascends higher than 50ft will be spotted by the city watch who instantly sends epic wizards to take the perpetrator hostage. Effectively, a character who moves higher than 50ft loses the match, no matter if he flew there voluntarily or not. I'd like to see it changed to something like: Maximum Altitude: Although Gladius City normally has no roof that would limit vertical movement, the city employs epic wizards to protect the city from collateral damage when gladiatorial fights spill out onto the streets. They place indestructible walls of force surrounding the location of the fight, including a ceiling at 50ft height. This prevents characters from ascending higher than 50ft. Thanks.
hogarth 01-16-08, 07:28 AM	I'd to put forth a new proposal regarding the City map. I would like to see the instant loss at above 50' changed simply to unable to move above 50'. I think the intent of the map was to prevent wizards and others capable of flight from simply going to extreme heights and peppering opponents with long range spells (which the plains handles aptly) and negating the entire point of the buildings. I don't think it was meant to provide said wizards with another save or die option using summons or telekinesis. Do you have a similar problem with the lava pool on the Temple map? I kind of like the idea of environmental dangers on the maps. The auto-loss thing is a little silly, I admit; I wouldn't mind if it was changed to be a 20d6 lightning bolt each round (or something like that).
lonewolf 01-16-08, 07:38 AM	I wouldn't mind if it was changed to be a 20d6 lightning bolt each round (or something like that). I dont like this half-measure. anything but a true autoloss opens the door to further abuses. if you do the 20d6 lightning bolts you can suddenly have blue dragons flying up there to be out of reach of melee fighters, or even monks with evasion moving a grapple up there. I can accept to remove the autoloss in the city, but if so remove it completely.
whitebaron 01-16-08, 09:01 AM	I can accept to remove the autoloss in the city, but if so remove it completely. i'm all in favor of tactics that exploit the environment. though, telekinetic thrust seems to me like a clear map-abuse. it seems like darian does nothing else these days, if the map allows it. ;) how does a different approach sound: Each round you stay above 50', you get hit by an enervation-like effect, which is not countered by anything. so: no saves, no touch attack, no miss chance, no immunities (so even if you are undead or somehow protected, it would work - basically it would be the epic wizard's way to remind you, without killing you. about the "how many" - level dice, i'm not so sure. but 2d4 sounds nice.
templer10 01-16-08, 09:10 AM	i'm all in favor of tactics that exploit the environment. though, telekinetic thrust seems to me like a clear map-abuse. it seems like darian does nothing else these days, if the map allows it. ;) how does a different approach sound: Each round you stay above 50', you get hit by an enervation-like effect, which is not countered by anything. so: no saves, no touch attack, no miss chance, no immunities (so even if you are undead or somehow protected, it would work - basically it would be the epic wizard's way to remind you, without killing you. about the "how many" - level dice, i'm not so sure. but 2d4 sounds nice. 2d4 negetive levels? how is that not an autoloss? why not just make it simple - Wall of force thing that is unpassable. if you want an element of enviromental danger - well you can always throw someone vs that wall and then have him fall 50 feet - that's always fun.
hogarth 01-16-08, 09:35 AM	I dont like this half-measure. anything but a true autoloss opens the door to further abuses. if you do the 20d6 lightning bolts you can suddenly have blue dragons flying up there to be out of reach of melee fighters, or even monks with evasion moving a grapple up there. Again, I don't see how this is much different than the lava pool in the Temple map.
whitebaron 01-16-08, 09:35 AM	well, at least you won't be dead immediately. ;) but the current ruling is just a tad to exploitable by anyone access to telekinetic thrust if it would do great harm if you were above ground, it would be ok with me. could be xd6 flat damage (not to be resisted or reduced by anyone/anything) as well. while it still makes some damage, it would likely not result in an immediate loss to a lvl 3 power. TK thrust in the temple as well the city is a save or die spell. this is far better than the spell was ever intended. i agree, it is fun. but how to counter it? only way is expansion/enlarge person and hope it does not get dispelled, or have a second charge handy.
Hirumajoe 01-16-08, 01:39 PM	Do you have a similar problem with the lava pool on the Temple map? I kind of like the idea of environmental dangers on the maps. The auto-loss thing is a little silly, I admit; I wouldn't mind if it was changed to be a 20d6 lightning bolt each round (or something like that). I don't mind environmental hazards either. I happen to like the acid pool in the Sewers map, or the potential for drowning in the forest map. The problem I have is when an environmental hazard turns into a save-or-die type effect. Which is really only usable by classes which are typically considered stronger anyways. I have less issue with the Lava in the temple. For a couple of reasons: 1) In principle, a straight warrior without any spells can get a wizard into the lava pond (probably won't happen) but its at least possible. Getting a wizard above 50' in the city just isn't. Its slightly more egalitarian. 2) You can get out of LOS of the lava in certain locations due to the statues. This prevents a single telekinetic thrust sending you to your doom immediately. I don't believe this is true on the city map anywhere. 3)I can actually imagine using the Use Rope skill to tie yourself to a statue on the temple map, I don't quite see that as likely on the City map without running into delay issues. Although, I personally wouldn't mind it if the lava effects were toned down some (not eliminated though). Possibly to the lava effects in the SRD. Namely: Lava Effects Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round. Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round). An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava. Since you can in principle swim in lava, unless someone is holding you down in it, you shouldn't be suffering total immersion. Although thats probably up for debate, and why they didn't use that language on the map in the first place.
Stormwind 01-16-08, 02:16 PM	well, at least you won't be dead immediately. ;) but the current ruling is just a tad to exploitable by anyone access to telekinetic thrust if it would do great harm if you were above ground, it would be ok with me. could be xd6 flat damage (not to be resisted or reduced by anyone/anything) as well. while it still makes some damage, it would likely not result in an immediate loss to a lvl 3 power. TK thrust in the temple as well the city is a save or die spell. this is far better than the spell was ever intended. i agree, it is fun. but how to counter it? only way is expansion/enlarge person and hope it does not get dispelled, or have a second charge handy. Actually it's not the only way to counter TK ... I can think of at least two other ways to counter/prevent it: Sniping: A good sniper could avoid being detected and thus avoid TK. Incorporeal: incorporeality lessens ... or negates the effects of TK.
whitebaron 01-16-08, 02:30 PM	ok, so because two types of characters have a chance, it's supposed to be fair game? i think the city map should have just something that makes the sky less usable to unusable, without giving away an auto-win. as already stated, most environmental effects in coco can be somehow avoided or lessened, only the city is immediate death.
hogarth 01-16-08, 02:55 PM	I don't mind environmental hazards either. I happen to like the acid pool in the Sewers map, or the potential for drowning in the forest map. The problem I have is when an environmental hazard turns into a save-or-die type effect. Which is really only usable by classes which are typically considered stronger anyways. I can certainly empathize with your last sentence. I have lots of ideas for new gladiators, but I keep thinking "what can I do against a psion with Shared Pain + Vigor, or Ego Whip, or Touchsight, or...?". It's just the nature of the game, though; if it weren't psions, I'd be complaining about clerics or wizards instead. And I'm 99% sure I'd be in favour of removing the auto-death aspect of the City map if an enemy had used it on me (instead of me using it on an enemy). ;) But I'd rather not see the City map become just like the Arena map but with differently shaped obstacles. (I know, I know -- there are still opportunities to climb on rooftops, etc. But still...)
Hirumajoe 01-16-08, 03:54 PM	But I'd rather not see the City map become just like the Arena map but with differently shaped obstacles. (I know, I know -- there are still opportunities to climb on rooftops, etc. But still...) I understand its just the way the game is, spell slingers are more powerful than non-spell slingers. But does that mean we should have house rules which turn a level 3 spell into a will-save or die (with very little in the way of mitigating factors, like the multiple saves on hold person or the +4 save modifier on Psionic Crush (which is mind affecting)? Or how about Summon Nature's Ally spells which becomes multiple rounds of save-or-die (Reflex) with Air Elementals? The question becomes, are we handing additional power out to spells such that they're no longer balanced correctly, even against other spells? On the city map, what 3rd level spell comes close to the effectiveness of Telekinetic thrust (cast by a 5th level caster to boot!). Regarding Arena/City similarity: The 50' auto-loss is different from the ceiling in the arena for a grand total of two effects: 1)Telekinesis/Telekinetic thrust type effects. 2) Flying bull rushes where the target is already in the air (otherwise you can't get the angle on them). Thats it. I just don't feel that those two cases are the major component of what differentiates the City from the Arena. The fact that the obstacles are large continuous things, rather than odd block formations with spaces in between side is fairly distinct. The lighting on the streets is fairly different. Roof top battles are fairly different (and make a ranged striker with balance much stronger than a melee without). Its also generally much more than a single move action to have the change to get LOS on your opponent (which is possible in the arena), so buffing is more supported on the City map.
hogarth 01-16-08, 04:51 PM	I understand its just the way the game is, spell slingers are more powerful than non-spell slingers. But does that mean we should have house rules which turn a level 3 spell into a will-save or die (with very little in the way of mitigating factors, like the multiple saves on hold person or the +4 save modifier on Psionic Crush (which is mind affecting)? That's why I suggested removing the "die" part from "save or die". Probably 20d6 is too much; is there any level of damage that you would find acceptable as a penalty for violating the height limit? Then a warrior might find it worthwhile using a potion of levitation or winged boots to force a grapple above the 50' limit if he thought he could outlast the damage. I'm probably biased -- I'd like to see new maps added with unusual effects (maps with high winds, very small maps, maps with subjective gravity, who knows?).
McJarvis 01-16-08, 04:56 PM	That's why I suggested removing the "die" part from "save or die". Probably 20d6 is too much; is there any level of damage that you would find acceptable as a penalty for violating the height limit? Then a warrior Share Pain/Vigor Psion might find it worthwhile using a potion of levitation or winged boots to force a grapple evade his opponent while raining down terror above the 50' limit if he thought he could outlast the damage. You had a typo- I fixed it for you.
MindWandererB 01-16-08, 05:00 PM	How about a compromise: If you move/are forced to move above the 50' mark, you're stopped there and are struck with an ECLd6 bolt of lightning? Both interesting and not abusable by sponges.
Hirumajoe 01-16-08, 05:17 PM	How about a compromise: If you move/are forced to move above the 50' mark, you're stopped there and are struck with an ECLd6 bolt of lightning? Both interesting and not abusable by sponges. I could buy that. An "electric fence" type wall of force. You may want consider changing the damage type to "force" instead of electric. Just a thought.
Erithmu 01-20-08, 12:54 AM	I could get behind an ECLd6, however I would like to point out that even still, at ECL 13 and up there is still a 'no save' AND die spell that kills in the city: Reverse Gravity (Yes I'm evil, and yes I'm planning on Owen purchasing it out of cycle) I would like to see an option of some other type so that it isn't just ... Death ... I kinda like the wall idea, but I think there needs to be something to enforce low flying. I would say a directed TK (no weight limit, no save) downward into the ground, possibly at an angle to get a target out of some type of spell effect holding them up. It still deals damage, gets them to the ground, and isn't overly broken. Still doesn't fix incorporeal stuff, but I'm just throwing out some ideas here.
mucki 01-20-08, 07:34 AM	Well, if its a wall of force that does damage, couldn't you just walk out of the reverse gravity area? At least thats what i would try to do (that and find a soft spot to fall on afterwards :) )
Stormwind 01-20-08, 09:17 AM	To be honest, if we are going to change the 'ceiling' of the city map, then I do think it should include a wall of force effect since this applies to all creatures (incorporeal and ethereal too). Perhaps it would be appropriate to combine this with an electric environmental effect (lightning). Note that I am suggesting an 'environmental' effect rather than a 'magic' effect simply because it is then consistent with other environmental effects (e.g. the lava in the temple, the acid in the sewers, etc) Thus I would suggest the following: An impassible wall of force at 50ft over the entire city. Lightning storms from 40ft-50ft over the city that do ECL x d6 electric damage to any character within that area. Thus the lightning storms could be a natural side effect of the wall of force (or something of the sort).
Rauul 01-20-08, 06:43 PM	Thus I would suggest the following: Thus the lightning storms could be a natural side effect of the wall of force (or something of the sort). Actually I wouldn't do Electrical Damage... I would have it do 6d6 Primal Damage (pure Divine Damage that is unprotectable against,) from 50ft to 70ft, 71ft to 90ft 12d6, and from 91ft to 100 ft 20d6.. At 100ft they hit a field of reverse Gravity (no Save) that forces them to take 3 rds and go back through the Curse (50ft in 3 rds and another 38d6 damage) this could be a Curse Damage to counter the effects of the Nimbus put on the City by Denth :) if Forced into this Area, the Person would have 1 rd to leave.. or be hit with the effects..
McJarvis 01-26-08, 12:21 PM	I do not see the point of the failure tags. Can we remove them? Reasoning. Removing them would mean a little less work for pitlords They only serve to handicap characters that are already not optimized. For new players who are not accustomed to solid CoCo Builds/tactics, they can be big red warning signs that this place isn't for them. That just isn't true. I have similar concerns for GR tags and the importance they place on PR/perfect records, but I understand a good number of people actually enjoy those- so no need to remove them. I don't think failure tags enrich the game for _anyone_
MindWandererB 01-26-08, 02:35 PM	Hm. They're there purely because of the Leadership feat, and Cat wanted to enable every mechanic that seemed enablable. Removing them wouldn't really save me any work (I still have to calculate PR). Although this does raise a question: does PR actually provide any useful information? McJ, since you're a math guy and I have no time, can you run a correlation coefficient between PR and win/loss ratio? If the R2 on that is high enough, it might be worth taking out PR altogether....
McJarvis 01-26-08, 02:39 PM	Although this does raise a question: does PR actually provide any useful information? McJ, since you're a math guy and I have no time, can you run a correlation coefficient between PR and win/loss ratio? If the R2 on that is high enough, it might be worth taking out PR altogether.... I can do that sometime next week[I have lots of deadlines early in the week]- but I think the problem is the assumption that a win record is a good indicator of lots of power. The PR's _should_ reflect how much you have won or loss- but they don't truely reflect the difficulty of the opponents. Even beating easy opponents you are gaurunteed a certain increase in PR- but coming close to beating a solid opponent nets you a slap in the PR-face. This is partly why I've been tracking whether PR is a good predictor of success- if betting on the higher PR gives you about the same returns as flipping a coin, then what good is PR as a tool of determining character strength? Add in factors such as some gladiators just giving up on fights on account of pitlord error & it being late in the week, and the PR system is hurt even more. As far as the mechanics go- I can see why Cat wanted them around- but I don't really like it. [more because of the big red failure tag than the negative to leadership] All that said- I think the Great Renown status is something that people do enjoy, so we shouldn't cut it just because it isn't accurate.
whitebaron 01-26-08, 03:01 PM	i would NOT use the current PR system. but that said, i like ratings-system. it would be very much better if we used some other, better system, like elo. i don't like the home-brewn PR used here, for two reasons: a) people tend to fall to quickly even if they lose against someone known to be stronger. on the contrary, beating someone that is not even close to your strength still nets you about 50 - which is way to much considering that you'd only get 100 for beating an equal. b) also, one win can easily push your PR from failure to normal, or from GR to normal. this should not be allowed to happen. someone with a 16-0 record losing to some newbie or wimp, will easily be pushed back to normality. i'll take two of hogarth's as my example. treetall(1790) vs. balthazar(669) treetall wins: 37 +/- for both. Seeing that it should be obvious for tretall to win, is easy. seeing why the loser still loses THAT much, isn't. balthazar wins: 268 +/- for both. This is way to much of a boost for balthazar. it equals beating 2.6 players of his level. also, treetall would fall back a lot more, since there's absolutely no mechanism to prevent you from falling an indefinite long way. another example: elrick(1982) vs. baelin(560) elrick wins: +/- 28 baelin wins: +/- 354 so: one win, and a complete failure is back on track to the same PR like someone who won 50% of his fights. one mistake, and great renown is just plain ordinary. @mcj: if you want to get rid of the failure tag, the reverse conclusion is to get rid of GR. maybe another system should be devised - like leadership modifiers according to your rating - which would be the same, but not as disheartening as the word "FAILURE" @mwb: no need to calculate over all of this. i can provide easy examples for this. samuel 13-8 GR, 1715 istima 13-6, 1319 valkin 15-9, 1167 hood 15-6 GR, 1602 even without doing the math, one can easily see that PR has nothing to do with win/loss records.
lonewolf 01-26-08, 03:35 PM	I agree with WB that the PR system could need a different take, but I also think that this is one of those things we should put on our TO DO- List for CoCo 4e. For these couple of months changing the systems is not worth it. As for the Failure tag: Im somehow under the impression that those players who play a character that loses so often that he finally gets the failure tag arent usually the players that care if their characters have a failure tag or not. If you are that competetive you are more likely to retire the character before he even hits the failure status. That beeing said, if we could find a nicer name instead of "Failure" it wouldnt hurt either. Maybe "Underdog" or something.
McJarvis 01-26-08, 03:37 PM	I suppose the opposite of "Great Renown" would be "Unknown"
CrazyArtificer 01-26-08, 03:44 PM	I agree with WB that the PR system could need a different take, but I also think that this is one of those things we should put on our TO DO- List for CoCo 4e. For these couple of months changing the systems is not worth it.. On the other hand, having 2 months to test any new system would allow to face the 4e with a working system. I don't think "Failure" is that big of a problem really.. If you really have problems with it just work harder with your character or simply retire it.
Salrantol 01-26-08, 05:15 PM	I suppose the opposite of "Great Renown" would be "Unknown"Except that the tag is supposed to reflect a character being known for being unsuccessful in the arena. That's why they'd have less of an appeal as a leader. See also the Fame bonus given in the proposed Community rules for the Failure tag.
MindWandererB 01-26-08, 06:32 PM	I agree with lonewolf--A new system for 4e is a good thing to consider, especially since the CR+CR=CR+2 formula won't hold anymore (which is the basis for our current Absolute PR = Relative PR*sqrt(2)^ECL-3 formula). But at this point, I'm not sure coming up with a new one for 3e is worth it.@mwb: no need to calculate over all of this. i can provide easy examples for this. samuel 13-8 GR, 1715 istima 13-6, 1319 valkin 15-9, 1167 hood 15-6 GR, 1602 even without doing the math, one can easily see that PR has nothing to do with win/loss records.Perhaps... but when you do do the math, you see that they're actually quite closely related. I went ahead and did it, and found that while win/loss ratio is only somewhat related to PR, win-loss difference is quite closely related, explaining 84.2% of the variance (in currently active characters). For retired characters, not quite as high (78.4%), but still up there. So it seems like PR doesn't really buy us much as far as telling us how successful a character has been. For 4e, since I'm pretty confident Leadership won't exist anymore, I see no need for an index like this. Wins and losses seem fine to me. It would also solve the nastiness that comes with mixing monster fights in with regular fights on the same index (we can even just stop counting monster fights in win/loss records--or measure them in a different way). If a Fame index is needed, it can be part of the Community sub-game and not a "core" mechanic.
McJarvis 01-26-08, 07:11 PM	Except that the tag is supposed to reflect a character being known for being unsuccessful in the arena. That's why they'd have less of an appeal as a leader. See also the Fame bonus given in the proposed Community rules for the Failure tag. Hey- would you want to follow a politician that neither you or anyone else had heard of before? ;)
Rauul 01-26-08, 07:22 PM	For 4e, since I'm pretty confident Leadership won't exist anymore, Don't know what you have read or seen... but Every Edition since Chainmail has had some way to get Followers, 1-2 editions was around 10th level, 3rd and 3.5 were with Feats.. Granted it used to be around character retirement when you got them..
Rauul 01-26-08, 07:23 PM	Hey- would you want to follow a politician that neither you or anyone else had heard of before? ;) Do you know who your Congressman and Senator's are?
McJarvis 01-26-08, 07:25 PM	Do you know who your Congressman and Senator's are? I live in DC. Our license plates say "Taxation without Representation" for a reason.
Rauul 01-26-08, 07:29 PM	I live in DC. Our license plates say "Taxation without Representation" for a reason. Well you do get a to Vote for a President.. and a Mayor who is on Cocaine.. so All is well
McJarvis 01-26-08, 08:02 PM	Well you do get a to Vote for a President.. and a Mayor who is on Cocaine.. so All is well The local government for DC is controlled by Congress- so we don't really get to determine our own fate except by their own fiat. The only vote DC'rs _really_ get is for prez - and yeah, I know who the current president is. :-)
MindWandererB 01-26-08, 08:43 PM	Don't know what you have read or seen... but Every Edition since Chainmail has had some way to get Followers, 1-2 editions was around 10th level, 3rd and 3.5 were with Feats.. Granted it used to be around character retirement when you got them.. The new edition seems heavily in favor of simplification, and one of the most maligned items against that has been a greater than 1:1 Player:Character ratio. Animal companions, familiars (as creatures), summons, etc. are all candidates for the chopping block, and I see no reason for cohorts to be different.
TelinArtho 01-26-08, 09:51 PM	I don't really care about tracking records or power ratings or anything - but I have no issue with keeping them either. If the idea here is that some newer (or not newer) players might be put off by a "failure" rating - I see no problem with dropping it. Likewise, great reknown has no effect on me - but if it is bothering someone somewhere - there's no harm in removing it. In general - I figure people that care about their records would record it - regardless of whether there is an official list or not. People that don't care - never bother to look at it in the first place.
Salrantol 01-27-08, 12:22 AM	Hey- would you want to follow a politician that neither you or anyone else had heard of before? ;)That depends--if he was some random guy off the street, no, but if he was, say, a congressman from Nebraska (and thus I would have little reason to know who he was) but I could actually check his record and it was the best of those campaigning for the post, yes. And as far as my congressman and senators go, yes I know who they are, but I usually voted for the other guy.:weep: But as far as Leadership goes in-game, I think the Great Renown and Failure tags should stay, since they have a rules meaning and a game effect. I'm not dead-set on the current PR system, but it works and is usually a pretty good indicator of past success, so any rival system would have to be a very good one and eliminate the flaws the existing system does have in order to earn my endorsement.
whitebaron 01-27-08, 06:20 AM	@sal: read up on ELO, then. there's a reason all major ranking systems are at least based on it (chess and go, easily two of the most played games world-wide use it directly, albeit with different parameters) @telin & recording ratings: yes, people who are interested in it, would record ratings in one way or the other. problem about that is, they also want to have some kind of competition. if you track it for yourself, you lack the major factor why you'd even start tracking - comparison to others. i don't care about GR or failure tags. - but if you remove one, you've got to remove the other. any kind of PR is better to me than none - since people usually like competition and comparison. @mwb: win-loss difference? Kervan (-5) : 1125 Valkin (+6): 1167 Kracknol (+7): 1038 Samuel (+5): 1715 i don't see any direct implication from win/loss records towards PR. and this is how it is to be meant, isn't it? beating up weaker opponents nets by far less PR than beating a GR. still, there are some weak points in the rating system - especially that there is no maximum amount to be lost or won, which makes fast changes really possible + annoying. (well, at least to the GRs out there. :))
McJarvis 01-27-08, 09:19 AM	The problem with using ELO is that most of the base assumptions, while true for Chess and Go, are not true for CoCo. First of all- I'm treating the characters as players, since the same "player" can have widely different records depending on what character s/he is playing. Performance of each player in each game is a normally distributed random variable. Performance varies widely from game to game depending on opponents, and even depending on what a character has faced previously in the 3FC the mean value of the performances of any given player changes only slowly over time. The value of performance of CoCo characters is actually the exact opposite- they tend to have very different performance values depending on level, which changes suddenly whenever they level. And in the case of chess the assumption was made that "Performance can only be inferred from wins, draws and losses." - but this isn't necessarily true, since a character can come into their own at a certain ECL, or they could even be paired against extremely easy opponents their entire career. The distinct differences between CoCo and these competitive formats is that CoCo is not a "neutral" game- it's possible to go into a game knowing that no matter who writes tactics, one character will lose - and that in CoCo there is no system by which "grand masters" will only face off against "Grand masters" for rankings. [though I'll admit- I'm only assuming there is such a system in Chess and Go] I'm not saying ELO won't work for CoCo- just that it will need to be significantly altered for our own purposes. I wonder if "Battle Bots" uses a rating system? Their format is pretty similar to ours.
CrazyArtificer 01-27-08, 12:19 PM	Do you know who your Congressman and Senator's are? Well.. at least you get to choose those with a vote. Here in Italy we had a recent law who just allows you to vote a party and then they decide who is nominated to the parliament. At least we can decide the Major and the Governor equivalent. Let's hope we can get rid of these politicians before we turn into another Argentina:rolleyes: Said this, I think ELO is a good solution. The normally distributed random variable is suitable even for this game, I believe. You use normality to approximate almost every phenomenon out there, so I don't see any reason why CoCo should be different. While it's true that a character may be stronger than another one, randomness is still a factor in many fights (on saving throws or attack rolls). The second point seems valid though.
MindWandererB 01-27-08, 12:41 PM	@mwb: win-loss difference? Kervan (-5) : 1125 Valkin (+6): 1167 Kracknol (+7): 1038 Samuel (+5): 1715 i don't see any direct implication from win/loss records towards PR. and this is how it is to be meant, isn't it? beating up weaker opponents nets by far less PR than beating a GRIt's not a perfect relationship (as I said, an R2 of only about 80%), but it's still highly predictive. You "happen" to have picked out the biggest exceptions to the pattern.
McJarvis 01-27-08, 01:44 PM	I don't see any reason why CoCo should be different. Essentially the biggest difference is that CoCo is a history-remembering game. If someone completely dominates me at Chess or Go, I learn and move on-that game doesn't actually impact any advantage/disadvantage I might hold over future opponents. If in CoCo, on the other hand, I get my brooch of shielding fried by an enterprising user of a magic missile wand, that's a hole of debt I'll carry for the rest of my career. Likewise- the 3FC forces all of our fights to be extremely interactive with up to four other fights(two from each gladiator's 3FC- future or past). It'd be like having a system where if you really get trounced in Chess in one game, you don't get one of your pawns in the next game. (Or playing Crazyhorse Chess and getting to keep taken pieces to the next game with you). I don't believe the ELO rating system would work on such a game.
CrazyArtificer 01-27-08, 01:59 PM	It'd be like having a system where if you really get trounced in Chess in one game, you don't get one of your pawns in the next game. (Or playing Crazyhorse Chess and getting to keep taken pieces to the next game with you). I don't believe the ELO rating system would work on such a game. As a Chess player I can tell you that starting with a pawn less would totally change the game itself, so surely a normal ELO wouldn't be very accurate. However we could figure out some weights based on wealth. I suppose that wealth is the most important factor in the CoCo relative to characters strenght.. I mean, if we take 2 fighters, probably the wealthier is the one which is going to win more. If we could add some weights which increase/decrease the standard rating based on your wealth and your opponent wealth we could still use an elo-like system, probably.
McJarvis 01-27-08, 04:46 PM	A conversation with Raul on IM just made me think of this: why not strip failure/GR tags from any level below ECL6? You can't even get leadership before then. (and it would make GR a tad bit even more prestigious, since it's easier to get GR at ECL5 than most other levels, IMO) This would also avoid the issue of newcomers getting the failure tag & being discouraged. [if you get past ECL5 you're not a newcomer anymore and probably hooked ;) ]
Rauul 01-27-08, 04:49 PM	A Conversation with McJarvis on IM we thought of this How about Since the Failure tags/ Great renown Tags are used for leadership (a ECL 6 feat) that it isn't placed on a ecl 5 or less character.. Since Ecl 3-4 can't earn a Great Renown Tag but they can earn a Failure tag.. and seeing a bright red Failure tag beside your character name is Quite disheartening (I should know, i have had 4 of my characters become failures before ECL 6)
whitebaron 01-27-08, 05:39 PM	@mcj: about elo: while you are right on the different fights effecting the competitiveness, i believe a 3FC might not be as important in 4e. about the second part of your critique on elo: well, no need to use it as-is with the current rather slow factors from chess. you could always up it to lets say, 200 maximum change? so if you have a 90% chance of a win, you net 20 PR? and if you lose, you lose 180 thirdly, the current system does not take the 3FC into account either. so there's basically no difference in what system you're using to track this, if you don't factor in which fight of the 3FC it is. @mwb: highly predictive(only 80%?) on such a small base-set of fighters, seems to me like pretty subjected to errors.
McJarvis 01-27-08, 05:40 PM	thirdly, the current system does not take the 3FC into account either. so there's basically no difference in what system you're using to track this, if you don't factor in which fight of the 3FC it is. My comments are more made because I'd like us to take this into account if possible. (I'm not trying to say the current system is better) A Psion coming into his third fight with most of his resources shouldn't get a good rating just because he can swamp a higher PR character.
whitebaron 02-18-08, 01:31 PM	a while back, a change to the credit system was discussed. looking at this weeks fights, i believe this still should be adressed. both lonewolf and me are stuck in big high lvl FFAs, and both will get 2° for this. the same, as rith will get for his ecl4 ffa. this is ridiculous! lonewolf got out of pins in the mapmaker in round 2 of his fight. my fight will contain 6 combattants, most of them flying. if anyone believes this to be still fun for those peanuts, i'd advise him to explicitly take on those fights, since i'll have pitlords to update my pitlording profile to only have ecl 3-5s from now on. on another note: it does not look that good to me, if you have to search for the council thread due to the inactivity in it. actually, there would be quite some matters to discuss, which are all iced or forgotten. :(
McJarvis 02-18-08, 01:34 PM	We seem to have an elder drought at the moment. I think we're going to get a new one(or two? Is Vath still around? I forget) any day now...I dunno the specifics though. I just know it isn't me, 'cause I didn't get the golden-ticket "do you want to be an elder?" PM. My guess would be lonewolf/storm/hirum? [pick one]? As far as the fairness of the credit system- I think most people are satisfied with the "simpler is better" approach. I have pulled quite a few tough fights in my time- and I think that over the long haul most people pull the same number of hard fights.
whitebaron 02-18-08, 01:46 PM	As far as the fairness of the credit system- I think most people are satisfied with the "simpler is better" approach. I have pulled quite a few tough fights in my time- and I think that over the long haul most people pull the same number of hard fights. it might be that simpler is better, but there are limits to what one person wants to do or can do. therefor, at least the following changes should be introduced: a) every participating ally counts as 1 character as well, especially those from leadership. my starting setup of the FFA would contain 7 different beings. Therador/Raskos/Scathers/Yaurl/Asran/Senorda/Arynat All of them can use items, move and think independently. b) let pitlords say how many credits they want to earn, instead of how many fights they want to do. If you do not have enough time for such a biggie like my fight, should you always say "ok, no fights this week"? this would damage pitlording-economy even further. in the time it took me to collect all setup data and read the tactics of the participants, i would have already run a medium-sized ecl3-5. for half the credits. i might be up all night for this one - for 1 more credit?
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 01:46 PM	Basically the problem with the current system (in terms of getting items resolved) is that it relies of MWB finding the time to take care of things. We (the elders and MWB) are restructuring in order to take some of MWB's workload off and putting up some better policy in terms of getting things done. That said - nothing happens overnight. As to missing elders - we lost MacBrea and Vath (though Vath will likely still be a lurker for a while) and gained Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer. I believe they are just waiting for their forum title changes. Don't be surprised when threads get remade over the course of the next few weeks as a result of all of the changes as posts get moved from "Pitlords" ownership to the elder-in-charge of that area.
lonewolf 02-18-08, 01:58 PM	As to missing elders - we lost MacBrea and Vath (though Vath will likely still be a lurker for a while) and gained Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer. Just curious: How where those new Elders chosen? Cause I must say Im a bit suprised to see a Elder that joined CoCo barely 3 Months ago(No offense Crazy)
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 02:13 PM	Any time there is an open seat for an elder, all of the remaining elders (and MWB) chime in with opinions on who they would like to see in the open seat. Typically, this includes a quick reasoning on how s/he has helped or provided for the CoCo, etc. After a quick round robin, we generally are able to narrow it down to the most suited out of the group and PMs are sent. If anyone declines, we just move to the next on the list. Being a relative newcomer is not a reason for exclusion (in fact, I was a relative newcomer the first time I was asked to be an elder (I declined my first time)), and just because you weren't asked this time doesn't mean you weren't considered.
whitebaron 02-18-08, 02:24 PM	it would be nice to see some of those discussions posted here, if not the actual discussion, at least the results. currently, it feels like no elder is doing anything except for the day-to-day business of prison, blackmarket and training hall (where rith is already helping sauro due to <no clue>) as a quite active coco participator, i feel like i'm left out in the open to dry on information. everything you do not ask, you'll know only long after. maybe it's about time for some Public Relations Lord?
Zevox 02-18-08, 02:34 PM	training hall (where rith is already helping sauro due to <no clue>) 'Rith is taking over the training hall. Sauro's schooling is leaving him with less time than before, so hes taking over Scribelords and the questlog. Zevox
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 02:35 PM	Well, the original process for selecting new elders was entirely up to the GM (in fact, technically, it still is). I'm not sure that it is appropriate to have it in open discussion (ie - "Why wasn't I considered for elder?" questions would derail the direction of the discussion; "Why would he say no to me being an elder" questions could get very personal, etc). As for 'Rith "helping" out Sauro - this is precisely due to the changes I mentioned. As I said - people are undergoing new roles and need to adjust to them. Rith is taking over the Blackmarket and training hall because Sauro was unable to do it more than once per week (and it really needs a more precise handling). Sauro has moved into the realm of the tales of gladius and questlog since that can be managed on a smaller scale and still be within his own time limitations. I'm pretty much staying where I am, but will be remaking the merc threads so that I can edit the original entries as needed without MWB's direct involvment. There's a lot of changes - I don't know them all off the top of my head - but there's a lot. These changes are solely in the responsibilities that some of the elders had and what new responsibilities have been assigned. As to feeling like you are left out in the open, I'm not sure what the problem is, so I'm not sure how to answer.
whitebaron 02-18-08, 02:43 PM	the problem is exactly that: elders roles change, some other things might change as well, and everything that we ever get is an answer WHEN somebody asks, else that information would not enter the coco forums at all. sauros switch to be scribelords is exactly one of those informations, that could be posted upfront. as could have the change to the city map. (wall of force with lightning - i guess noone really knew that passed already?) elder and personal discussions have nothing to do in the open, that much is sure. but since you already know WHO's gonna be elders, why not post it since they already agreed to do so? information is key, to happy people. currently i'm unhappy, and standing in the dark.
McJarvis 02-18-08, 02:48 PM	The question of why one does not receive eldership is largely pointless anyway. Technically elders are supposed to do more work than the rest of us, but many the vast majority of jobs around CoCo are completely up for grabs to volunteers. [for instance- mercenary work, pitlording, monster lists, 4E analysis, default char sheets generation, etc, etc, etc] Technically elders get to make final decisions in the courtroom, but it seems that general consensus is usually the way, since elders are rarely around in large enough force to make a decision. Not to sound corny- but it shouldn't be a matter of "Why didn't I get to be an Elder?" but rather more of a "What else can I do for CoCo to help it grow and become a better place?" I do have reservations about the "revolving door" on elderships nowadays. I'd like to see a solid group that sticks around for a good amount of time...if this rate of turn-over goes on much longer everyone in CoCo will be an old timer.
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 03:00 PM	I would like to see it be a more consistent bunch as well McJ - and one of the more pressing criteria for deciding who is on the short list is "Do we think they will be staying around the CoCo for a while?" But real life tends to trump things (Vath, MacBrea, Zevox are all good examples of elders whose roles were in need of replacement due to real life consequences) and there's no good way to supplant that. Of course, your example question ("What else can I do for CoCo to help it grow and become a better place") is also a criteria (in a manner of speaking anyway) on which we decide on. For the matter of the city's ceiling - that entry was edited into the Council decisions on January 29th and subsequently added to the rules. I don't know why some people missed this - I wasn't one of them, so I can't comment on it.
McJarvis 02-18-08, 03:05 PM	For the matter of the city's ceiling - that entry was edited into the Council decisions on January 29th and subsequently added to the rules. I don't know why some people missed this - I wasn't one of them, so I can't comment on it. Though you may not be aware, there are a significant number of CoCo's population that don't read every discussion like we do :).
whitebaron 02-18-08, 03:07 PM	do you really believe people actually read what was edited into the court decisions? changes like these need to be announced, to make it available to the public. it was not clear from the discussion that it was changed, so it might as well be that the final decision happened via IM. so - how are you actually supposed to know all this stuff thats going on and is edited in? there's no way you could expect players to read all those threads every week just to see such a change. in terms of PR/communication, i'd rate elders to non-oldtimers currently at 3 out of 10. elders to oldtimers is obviously a bit better, due to IM or other communication channels.
McJarvis 02-18-08, 03:11 PM	I'll just nip this one in the bud, shall I then? Since I post the weekly FotW thread anyway, I'll work on improving communication of rulings/changes to the rules/etc. If any decisions are made in the Elder circle that require a post in the thread, just PM me [or have 'Rith tell me in IM, since we chat almost every day] This will hopefully make newer members like WB/etc feel more included in goings-ons, even if they don't have time to read every thread in a given week. I'll admit I spend about hour-two on CoCo forums every day- so I perfectly understand why some members don't can't keep up. [Even some elders don't keep up]
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 03:25 PM	Well - the news section of the FotW is an excellent place for it (and is where I was keeping things like that when I was maintaining the FotW). @McJ - you may need to keep track of the discussions though if you want to have the information in time for pairings. As to not reading discussions, I'm still not sure what to say. We provide the following: 1. A set of rules that doesn't change on a daily basis, but that do change over time. For the current - you can always look at the rules. If you want to see recent decisions, looking at the Courtroom's Rulings and Houserules posts (and their respective "Edited on <date>" fields) is a solid place to look. I always add new entries to the bottom of each individual spoiler block. If you want to see recent Council decisions, the council decisions post is up to date as well. I can't guarantee that everyone will read everything. I can guarantee that the information that has been decided on has a place to be read from (and in the cases where that is not true - the new roles are working to change that to a fact).
McJarvis 02-18-08, 03:28 PM	@McJ - you may need to keep track of the discussions though if you want to have the information in time for pairings. I already follow everything except for the community playtesting. I suppose I could start following that too, at least from afar. The "chaotic" apparent-state of CoCo is likely because of the micro-decisions that don't get written down. For instance: Ego Whip/ Offensive Prescience. I know there are pitlords out there that would on-the-spot rule it not possible, and there are others who would allow it because by-the-rules it is legal. There are even more who would ask for a general consensus in the tavarn & rule based on that. Now when I used it we got lucky and it didn't matter for the fight AND we got a quick ruling in the courtroom- but that doesn't always happen. The end result is a vision of a chaotic ruleset that changes alot. Some of it is necessary(every fight with an error that the pitlord won't admit to can't be held-over). Some of it isn't....and maybe pitlords have a bit too much power to make on-the-spot rulings & stick to them regardless of accuracy.
whitebaron 02-18-08, 03:33 PM	@mcj: sounds like a good start, but this also has the limitation that everyone has to read the recent fotw threads, even if they only went on a 2 week holiday. i'd like to have some kind of public announcement thread, or change log, if you like that name. This will hopefully make newer members like WB/etc feel more included in goings-ons, even if they don't have time to read every thread in a given week. I'll admit I spend about hour-two on CoCo forums every day- so I perfectly understand why some members don't can't keep up. [Even some elders don't keep up] funny to read that i am a newbie and crazy is an elder. ;) also, even though i'm on quite extensively, i seem to have missed that decision ever going final. (i saw the proposal, though) @telin: well. the whole point is NOT having a complete and consistent ruleset, (coco runs this well already) but that changes to it can be found without having to search for change dates of threads, or digging through a thread with a few hundred pages to find the original discussion. return users like callix could have gone to such a place, read the changes, and would not have needed to actually go to the tavern and hope for some answering members redirecting him to all changes (and not forgetting anything that happened recently is hard as well if you're around all the time)
McJarvis 02-18-08, 03:41 PM	@mcj: sounds like a good start, but this also has the limitation that everyone has to read the recent fotw threads, even if they only went on a 2 week holiday. i'd like to have some kind of public announcement thread, or change log, if you like that name. That's not too bad of an idea. I think I'd be overstepping my bounds if I just started a new thread[I'm no elder, after all! I'm a newbie :) ], but I would more than happily throw new "update" posts into it describing new things coming to CoCo.
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 03:49 PM	@wb - I don't know that there is any way to please you. Here's the current proposed solution: 1. There is always one set of completely up-to-date rules (Rules of Gladius, to a lesser extent items in the Characters of Gladius thread (map/lighting specifics). 2. For weekly updates, McJ will be providing bullets in the FotW thread. 3. If you are gone on a more distinct hiatus, you can still go to the Council thread and look at the council decisions (which are all linked) and to the Court Decisions and House Rules (which, all new items will be at the bottom of their respective sections and linked. What more could we have here to make that work?
whitebaron 02-18-08, 04:24 PM	@mcj: sounds like a good start, but this also has the limitation that everyone has to read the recent fotw threads, even if they only went on a 2 week holiday. i'd like to have some kind of public announcement thread, or change log, if you like that name. i usually don't like to quote myself, but you seem to have missed that i already made a proposal. people usually want to have one place(at one specific location) to look for changes. also, having things on the bottom of the corresponding sblocks is nice, but still involves quite some work to check. you'd need to a) find the proper post, b) open all blocks c) figure out which item is new and which isnt. and thats not a good way to work it. about me never being satisfied: in my line of work, it is crucial to cut any unnecessary overhead - and maintaining rules in different places, and having to figure out changes everytime anew when you visit, is not something i'd call optimized. please don't try to take this out of an optimization level, to a personal level. i'm not good at dodging personals, i usually start something then (right mcj? :D)
McJarvis 02-18-08, 04:27 PM	please don't try to take this out of an optimization level, to a personal level. i'm not good at dodging personals, i usually start something then (right mcj? :D) Not only that, but every now and again you take things that are in an optimization level and accidently take them at a personal level ;)
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 04:40 PM	I know you made a proposal, but what I'm saying is we already have tools for that right now: if you need the changes from the last week - the FotW thread should suffice (or for a few weeks since FotW threads will be on the first few pages for upwards of a month or two). If you need the more "recent" changes - looking in the Council's 2nd post and the Courtroom's 2nd and 3rd posts should suffice. If you are new or just want to look over all of the rules - the Rules of Gladius and part of the Characters thread will do it. You can want to have "one place" to look for changes, but the fact of the matter is that we have multiple places where changes occur. Melding them together will not help matters (since they can get derailed and sometimes need extensive discussion) and over time - a chronological list isn't all that useful to anyone except people who know precise time frames to review. The court decisions posts are an excellent example of a chronological list. Originally they were stored as one post and disorganized (and in an obscure tavern post no less). Now, they are organized by subject in a visible spot. I can't see adding a fourth method here without devoting additional resources to it and since it would get cluttered over time - I am dubious on how beneficial it would actually be (except to people who know exactly when they left). EDIT: And for the record - I am not intending on making this a personal issue. I happen to be responding to your proposal - but I am responding to the proposal - not to the individual.
Hirumajoe 02-18-08, 04:45 PM	i usually don't like to quote myself, but you seem to have missed that i already made a proposal. people usually want to have one place(at one specific location) to look for changes. also, having things on the bottom of the corresponding sblocks is nice, but still involves quite some work to check. you'd need to a) find the proper post, b) open all blocks c) figure out which item is new and which isnt. and thats not a good way to work it. about me never being satisfied: in my line of work, it is crucial to cut any unnecessary overhead - and maintaining rules in different places, and having to figure out changes everytime anew when you visit, is not something i'd call optimized. please don't try to take this out of an optimization level, to a personal level. i'm not good at dodging personals, i usually start something then (right mcj? :D) What you're asking for is simply multiple search methods, which suit different players. One set (a comprehensive list in the Rules of Gladius and the Courtroom) for new players just coming in, and then another look up table for those who are around and just want to see whats changed recently when they disappear for 2 weeks, or who simply don't want to read through the courtroom decisions once a week. The later wouldn't be good for new players since it'd be effectively sorted by date rather than content. As for less overhead, its less for the players but more for the Elders. Depends on which side of the line you're looking from. And for what you want, you're going to need to maintain rules in multiple places. But yeah, I do see your point, and I don't think the overhead for the Elders would be much more. (Then again, I'm just starting and don't have a good feel for how much time this is going to eat up). Actually, if we could get the newspaper revived, it'd be a good place for the kinds of notifications WB wants. As council decisions get resolved, I'd be updating the first post, and sending a PM to the scribelord or who ever is taking care of the newspaper. Telin could possibly send a short pm when he edits the court room decisions. Or the scribe lord could simply take some time to go through decisions and note the new ones. Then a single post gets made each week, making it easy for WB or whoever to browse. Certainly it feels like thats part of what a Gladius newspaper should be. A record of important or interesting things. :) Of course, reviving it takes manpower. I've seen it start and stop over the time I've been here a couple of times. As a volunteer organization, the CoCo only gives back what people can put in. Anyways, my 2 cents. P.S. I'll be getting to restructuring/posting a new Council thread sometime this week (perhaps weekend) when I get a fair chunk of time (and after I finish my fight this week).
Rauul 02-18-08, 05:16 PM	me Personnelly I don't care who is an Elder... (I Normally think McJarvis as an Elder basically because he is outspoken and a pain in da butt) When i latch onto something that i think needs fixing i usually argue it till my hands get sore, and people are tired of hearing about it... I do try to get along with everyone tho.. and personnelly i would hate to be an elder... (i would be to much of an a$$hole) As for a who reads the rules/courtroom/council pages... i do.. since my first character was screwed over by me NOT reading it...
whitebaron 02-18-08, 05:21 PM	first of all: i was never talking about new users, and won't for the rest of this discussion. they need to read up everything already, so no need to do much about that. - it can't be helped. You can want to have "one place" to look for changes, but the fact of the matter is that we have multiple places where changes occur. Melding them together will not help matters (since they can get derailed and sometimes need extensive discussion) and over time - a chronological list isn't all that useful to anyone except people who know precise time frames to review. and this is the point i can't agree with. people use cross-referencing and links all the time. (thats why wikipedia, google and delicio.us are so successful) the rules themselves have cross-references in abundance. a timeframe is not only helpful to people who want to see when something happens, but also for the order if you ever need to figure something out that was related to each other. and even though those lists in the council etc. are chronological, you'll never know when the second-to-last item was added. i really like the idea of adding it to the newspaper. about putting something in: well, i'm sure i'm over 25 hours for coco per month. (this does only include pitlording and questing, not other things)
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 05:33 PM	Well, if each item in the respective lists that we currently have is linked - then you can follow said links to figure out when the original discussion happened. Since they are added in a chronological order - you can certainly find out (even if only by category) what the 2nd most recent decision is. I still don't understand what the benefit of knowing that - but there you go. What makes this even more difficult is that when the new council is opened, the old council will eventually go to the archive (as will old versions of the courtroom, etc) - so any links to those previous discussions will eventually be "useless" (in that they will then refer to the thread as a whole rather than the specific post within the thread).
CrazyArtificer 02-18-08, 06:29 PM	As to missing elders - we lost MacBrea and Vath (though Vath will likely still be a lurker for a while) and gained Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer. I believe they are just waiting for their forum title changes. That's exactly what I was doing. ;) Just curious: How where those new Elders chosen? Cause I must say Im a bit suprised to see a Elder that joined CoCo barely 3 Months ago(No offense Crazy) No offense taken lonewolf. I was surprised myself when I got that offer, but I hope to make myself useful to build the community
Rauul 02-18-08, 06:36 PM	No offense taken lonewolf. I was surprised myself when I got that offer, but I hope to make myself useful to build the community hold up... Elders are suppost to be USEFUL?? Since when... Normally they just tell me i can't do something!!! Good luck as an Elder... and I promise to pester you almost as much as i Do MjC and Telin... And MWB when he shows up on Trillian...
McJarvis 02-18-08, 06:38 PM	Good luck as an Elder... and I promise to pester you almost as much as i Do MjC and Telin... And MWB when he shows up on Trillian... I gave it some thought- I think I'm going to encourage this language you keep using that seems to elevate me to GM-status :)
CrazyArtificer 02-18-08, 06:41 PM	hold up... Elders are suppost to be USEFUL?? Since when... Normally they just tell me i can't do something!!! You know you can't talk like that to an Elder, right? :P
McJarvis 02-18-08, 06:42 PM	You know you can't talk like that to an Elder, right? I believe he was speaking to me, so we're all good ;)
Rauul 02-18-08, 06:44 PM	You know you can't talk like that to an Elder, right? :P Blah i talk like this all the time... Just ask around.. I am a pain in da butt :schemes: :bow: :schemes:
McJarvis 02-18-08, 06:44 PM	I think I'm done trying to dig you out of your own holes, raul... :)
MindWandererB 02-18-08, 06:52 PM	I'll just add my two cents: No one person has the time to do all that is being asked. Ideally, the person who created the FotW thread would also be up to date on any Council and Courtroom decisions, but we don't have any way to enforce that. If McJ wants to check those two threads for updates on a weekly basis and post them, that's up to him--but he doesn't always do the FotW thread starter, either. Alternatively, Telin and Joe could post weekly summaries in the FotW for their respective threads. Or the Newspaper is an option, but thus far I've utterly failed in getting anyone to be willing to make that a responsibility (even though it's a light task, IMO). Speaking of whom, I've delegated Courtroom and Council responsibilities to those two. They'll be responsible for, among other things, making sure discussions don't get lost in the cracks. Re: Elder decisions: I prefer not to make these public--it's one thing to praise a member and explain why they'd make a good elder, but it's quite another to say why other people aren't getting the same. I'd like everyone to think that they're under consideration at some level--which is true. The decision is ultimately made not based on any one factor: seniority, rules mastery, time availability, creativity, communication skills, and the ability to work well with others are all considerations, and they don't weigh the same every time (if the current elder pool is strong in one of those areas, we may take a new elder who's weaker in that area, as is the case with CA and seniority). We make a decision we feel is best for the ongoing well-being of the community. Also regarding seniority: there's a certain amount of burnout factor. We often select elders who've been around for a while, but then life takes over or they just need a break. Length of participation in the past is not the best predictor of how long someone will stick around in the future.
Rauul 02-18-08, 08:15 PM	any chance of getting the Newspaper out of archives?
MindWandererB 02-18-08, 09:42 PM	any chance of getting the Newspaper out of archives? Yes and no. No, the Powers that Be have decided not to do that anymore. They're trying to get the Battles of Gladius (I) out of archive, because it can't be loaded in there, but other threads aren't going anywhere. However, it isn't in the archive. It's here.
SauroGrenom 02-21-08, 01:04 AM	I'd like to do a bit of complaining about the monster fights... I know it's old hat, but there's something wrong. In the last 2 months, I've had a number of bad monster fights... Kracknol lost against Malik who was teamed with 3 celestial cloakers Kracknol lost against 3 9th level sorceress green hags Kracknol lost against Valen Sky teamed with 2 Xeph 11th level psions (Valen didn't do a thing in this battle and he beat Istima as well) Kracknol won against a celestial charger Now Raskos is paired with a half fiend frost giant... this guy has SR 24, 147 HP, extra equipment and we're fighting in the sewer... Yea that's a loss. So the 5 most recent monster fights, my characters have lost or will soon lose 4 of them. Perhaps my characters suck. But I don't think they suck that bad. Kracknol won 3 of his last 4 battles against 1 vs 1 PC's (he doesn't do well in free for all battles). I look at these patterns, and I don't know if they are reproduced by other players, but it feels like something is wrong. So very often the monsters on our monster lists are designed with complementing templates that make the encounters far more difficult than CR indicates... Like ghost medusa. At ECL 12 you expect anyone to survive 3 medusa ghosts? The weakness of a Medusa is low 33 hp for a CR7 monster and short range of it's save or die attack. But make it a ghost, then it becomes a way more powerful monster. Incorporeal type makes it take only 50% of damage, you effectively double the HP. Also the base monster has a good Cha score and the gaze attack is Cha based. Then there's the fact that now the DC goes up, and anyone makes 3 fort saves/round. Also the incorporeal monsters get to use cover from the ground... with the Cha modifier to AC and equipment these guys have Cha cloaks for sure... the AC increases about 5 or 7 points. So all the weaknesses of this deadly monster are decreased. Only a cleric has a reasonable chance of beating these guys. I feel like having encounters like this on the monster list is not a good idea. I'd rather sit out with my characters than face two elite half celestial behir or a phrenic legendary tiger (20HD animal with ML20 phrenic powers) as "fair" encounters for ECL 13 characters. I think we should consider suspending monster fights till we can revamp these monster lists with more reasonable encounters.
TelinArtho 02-21-08, 01:30 AM	As I have said before - the monster fight lists are being reworked with a very specific formula on what is allowed/not allowed and with a very specific composition of class levels and templated creatures. It will be a while before I am done up to ECL14 or 15 - but MWB already has the first couple and I'm working on the next few to send along in a couple of days (assuming I get the time to work on them). Until they have their chance to be redone entirely - I would appreciate it that the din about them die down for now. As for your specific complaints about the creature in this instance - I think this particular creature is a killer for Raskos. A full psion, or other caster - would tear it apart. I would suppose a decent melee build (Kracknol for instance) would also have a very fair chance against it. But with Raskos - who does not have a very high CL with which to overcome the SR - he might be in tough shape. That said - I don't think it is an auto-win for the giant at all.
MindWandererB 02-21-08, 02:07 AM	Also: there's been a lot of complaints--for as long as I've been here--that some monster fights are unfairly difficult. Perhaps that's so, but monster fights still have a 50/50 win rate. So if we were to take out a number of the more difficult creatures, the average difficulty of monster fights goes down, and it becomes easier to beat a monster than another PC (on average). Now... I respect the work you've put into it, Telin, but it occurs to me: is any list we come up with going to be fair? Many of the "unfair" fights are with multiple monster vs. one PC--a situation far removed from anything D&D was meant to handle. Others are with templates, class levels, or other advancement, which can frequently be problematic. Another complaint is that many monsters, particularly the ones with extra HD, are time-consuming to create, and are inconsistently done (two psions could be a kineticist and an egoist with optimized feats, or they could be two seers with hastily-chosen ones). Perhaps it would be better to sacrifice the versatility of things like class levels and templates in the interests of better balance and ease of use. The simple solution: use only monsters straight out of the book. No templates, no class levels, nothing elite or advanced. Then there's the choice of making them always single monsters, or having a random chance of being two monsters from the list two CRs down, or three from the list 3 CRs down. Now, I like templates. I really do. I especially like the way templates can be used to transform an unusable monster (like a kraken) into one that can actually fight (like a ghost kraken). Many of the monstrosities on the list right now are my fault. Maybe each CR could feature one or two simple, normal templates--or the list could include HD and a simple algorithm for randomly choosing a creature to receive the template. But I really can't argue that 4 phrenic opponents, or a ghost will-o-wisp, or a troll weretyrannosaurus, are reasonable challenges.
CrazyArtificer 02-21-08, 06:30 AM	I'd like to bring another issue to the attention of the Council. As some of you already know I sometimes have troubles finding a ruling in the rules thread. I find it a bit problematic at times, with related pieces of informations spread among several posts in the Rules. If the other Elders agrees, I'd like to rewiev that thread, trying to fix the most problematic (from my point of view, obviously) posts adding all the related informations so that someone hasn't to flip between posts. The idea would be to add the most informations on a specific topic in the same post, even at the cost of being redundant. At the same time rules become obsolete with time would be purged from the posts. Obviously any new posts would be then reviewed an approved by the other Elders as well. I have already a member who offered to help, but I prefer to wait your opinion to be sure we don't waste time.
hogarth 02-21-08, 07:35 AM	As I have said before - the monster fight lists are being reworked with a very specific formula on what is allowed/not allowed and with a very specific composition of class levels and templated creatures. The problem I have is with the asymmetry of player vs. monster fights: if a monster is on the EL N monster list, then it should be "fair" for me to have such a monster as a gladiator in the ECL N bracket (assuming I follow monster fight rules). So, for instance, if a level 13 xeph psion is on the EL 13 monster list, then it should be fair if I play a level 13 psion who can use all of his power points each battle (in exchange for using NPC money and the Elite ability array). Or it should be fair if I play a half-fiend frost giant (again in exchange for using NPC money and the Monster Manual stats). Looking forward to playing a phasm in the ECL 7 bracket, hogarth
McJarvis 02-21-08, 08:31 AM	Perhaps it would be better to sacrifice the versatility of things like class levels and templates in the interests of better balance and ease of use. I think this is a really strong point. Last week I got a brass dragon to vie against the dark one. With the restrictions on expendables and my only choosing 3 feats, it was still a tough fight- but I as a pitlord did not contribute to that challenge. (as opposed to, say, that famous "Troll with potions of acid and fire resist" encounter) The most I contributed was choosing bulls strength and mirror image- but I don't consider those "tough choices" when the thing has caster levels.
TelinArtho 02-21-08, 09:33 AM	@MWB - If we decide to pare down the monster lists further while I am working on these, that is not a big deal to me. I would like to see the next incarnation and see how they work - but until I am done reworking them - that's obviously not going to happen. If we want a much shorter list with just one or two templated creatures - it would go much faster, but I think it would end up tilting monster fights into the comically easy category once again.
McJarvis 02-21-08, 09:45 AM	@Telin: I'm not 100% familiar with the monsters available to us: but I think things like dragons, the phasm, trolls, etc, etc are all pretty good encounters non-templated. These are solid critters that don't depend on "fluff" tactics and are a decent challenge to take down- but not impossible. You might want to consider making a series of phasms for ECL7 with a favored polymorph form. This would decrease the challenge for pitlords, and remove the chance of the pitlord being mean and picking a form that is an _insane_ challenge. Do we have beholders in the current lineup? Or do we only use monsters in the SRD?
TelinArtho 02-21-08, 09:51 AM	We have some monsters in the current lineup that are in the MM and not the SRD. In my new lists, I am only using the SRD (since it is what I have). As for the templated creatures, I am taking extreme care on which combinations I am picking. For the Phasm, that is not a bad idea - but it probably won't be in my first draft for EL7. I will certainly consider it though - because that would help I think.
hogarth 02-21-08, 09:59 AM	You might want to consider making a series of phasms for ECL7 with a favored polymorph form. I like the Umbral Blot (www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/umbralBlot.htm) myself. :)
McJarvis 02-21-08, 10:11 AM	I like the Umbral Blot (www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/umbralBlot.htm) myself. :) There's a 15hd limit on the phasm's alternate form ability. Unless you're trying to say you'd prefer the phasm to not use alternate form...
hogarth 02-21-08, 10:15 AM	There's a 15hd limit on the phasm's alternate form ability. Unless you're trying to say you'd prefer the phasm to not use alternate form... What version of the SRD are you looking at? At www.d20srd.org, it just says "A phasm can assume any form of Large size or smaller as a standard action. A phasm can remain in its alternate form until it chooses to assume a new one or return to its natural form". The description of "Alternate Form" doesn't say anything about hit dice either. :confused:
McJarvis 02-21-08, 10:17 AM	What version of the SRD are you looking at? At www.d20srd.org, it just says "A phasm can assume any form of Large size or smaller as a standard action. A phasm can remain in its alternate form until it chooses to assume a new one or return to its natural form". The description of "Alternate Form" doesn't say anything about hit dice either. :confused: The official one. http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersO-R.rtf Alternate Form (Su): A phasm can assume any form of Large size or smaller as a standard action. This ability functions as a polymorph spell cast on itself (caster level 15th), except that the phasm does not regain hit points for changing form. A phasm can remain in its alternate form until it chooses to assume a new one or return to its natural form. CL=15, HD of target=15, so the max HD of destination form is 15HD.
TelinArtho 02-21-08, 10:18 AM	Alternate Form (Su): A phasm can assume any form of Large size or smaller as a standard action. This ability functions as a polymorph spell cast on itself (caster level 15th), except that the phasm does not regain hit points for changing form. A phasm can remain in its alternate form until it chooses to assume a new one or return to its natural form. CL15 Polymorph restricts the HD to 15 max.
hogarth 02-21-08, 10:18 AM	The official one. http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MonstersO-R.rtf Ah...you're missing the errata. Now it uses "Alternate Form", not Polymorph, and there's no mention of a hit dice limit.
McJarvis 02-21-08, 10:24 AM	Ah...you're missing the errata. Now it uses "Alternate Form", not Polymorph, and there's no mention of a hit dice limit. RotG ftw Limited forms. A creature with the alternate form special quality can assume one or more specific alternate forms, which are specified in the creature's description. The creature cannot use alternate forms that are not specified in the description. The phasm is limited to all forms that can be attained by a 15th CL polymorph spell. Even if the errata supposedly changed this[technically it says to delete the second line- but the SRD remains?], do you really think we would allow it in CoCo? Otherwise some 15th level egoist could get an metamorphasis of 15th level & metamorphic transfer the phasm to gain the form of some epic creature. That's obviously not going to happen- there is a 15HD cap.
hogarth 02-21-08, 10:27 AM	The phasm is limited to all forms that can be attained by a 15th CL polymorph spell. I repeat -- the errata has removed any mention of the Polymorph spell or CL 15. I quoted the exact wording above. Why don't you download the errata and see for yourself? Even if the errata supposedly changed this, do you really think we would allow it in CoCo? Otherwise some egoist could get an oversurged metamorphasis of 15th level & metamorphic transfers the phasm. That's obviously not going to happen- there is a 15HD cap. If you want to propose a hit dice cap, go ahead. But I thought you were against adding house rules. :D
McJarvis 02-21-08, 10:31 AM	Post was edited just before you hit reply, apparently. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp- such obvious holes in the rules will never fly here. I don't even need to be an elder to wave a nerf stick over that one.
McJarvis 02-21-08, 10:33 AM	But I thought you were against adding house rules. :D You can misquote me all day if you like- but it doesn't change the consistancy of my comments. I've stated time and time again that I am anti-house-rules unless absolutely necessary for balance-reasons. When it comes to characters of ECL10-15 obtaining epic monster-hood, there isn't even a question of what will happen.
hogarth 02-21-08, 11:46 AM	All kidding aside, I think we can all agree that the Phasm needs some house rules. But we should be specific on what to change. For instance, besides having a HD cap should a phasm be limited to Polymorph-only forms (e.g. no constructs/outsiders/etc., no incorporeal forms) even though Alternate Form doesn't forbid them?
McJarvis 02-21-08, 11:58 AM	All kidding aside, I think we can all agree that the Phasm needs some house rules. But we should be specific on what to change. For instance, besides having a HD cap should a phasm be limited to Polymorph-only forms (e.g. no constructs/outsiders/etc., no incorporeal forms) even though Alternate Form doesn't forbid them? I think we can cross that road when we come to it. If we go out and try to house-rule every loophole in the rules, we'll end up weighed down by rules. For a large portion of the game we need to trust the players to play nice. [Perhaps most notably, there are no egoists out there trying to do this- and if we put preferred forms on the phasms it isn't a problem]
MindWandererB 02-21-08, 03:36 PM	@MWB - If we decide to pare down the monster lists further while I am working on these, that is not a big deal to me. I would like to see the next incarnation and see how they work - but until I am done reworking them - that's obviously not going to happen. If we want a much shorter list with just one or two templated creatures - it would go much faster, but I think it would end up tilting monster fights into the comically easy category once again.Well, the trick would be to make it fair. There are clearly some monsters which have no reasonable chance in most our maps, and those should be limited by map. If the monsters as written in the MM are too easy on average, well... that means we're just too darn good at optimizing. Throwing in absurd critters like an 11th-level Minotaur Cleric at CR 12 or a Phrenic Hellwasp Swarm at CR 11 may bring the "average" out to a 50/50 ratio, but it still means that the fights are unfair, one way or the other. Given that we are 1) a competitive environment and 2) highly regulated, it might just not be worth keeping the "interesting" monster setups and combinations. Furthermore, I have long questioned Cat's original edict that the "monster" lists should include NPCs with no racial HD--that's what the regular arena fights are like anyway. And I have come to agree that unassociated class levels are a recipe for imbalance. Here's what I'm thinking. Start with all the monsters in the MM at a given CR. Remove all the monsters that are never viable (aquatic, speed <20). Add one example of each template that can be legally applied at that CR (e.g. there can't be liches below CR 10). These templates should be chosen to be interesting (especially if they make normally unviable monsters viable), but not overpowered (e.g. CR 3 vampires, will-o-wisp ghosts, high-HD lycanthropes). Add up to four class-levelled monsters: one warrior, one divine caster, one arcane caster/psion, one sneak. I say "up to" because if there's already an example of that category (like the troll hunter or a lich), then there shouldn't be a second. All of these should have a decent number of racial HD (say, at least 1/3 of their total HD) and should be associated class levels only. Apply map limitations to Huge monsters (no sewers or temple), Gargantuan or Colossal monsters (arena and plains only), and ones without flying or ranged attacks (no plains; arena and city are also out unless they can reach the ceiling). When pitlords roll monsters, start off with a 1d20 roll: on a 1-10, roll one monster of CR=PC's ECL; on an 11-14, roll one monster of CR=PC's ECL-2 and take two of them; on a 15-16, roll two different monsters of CR=PC's ECL-2; on a 17, roll one monster of CR=PC's ECL-1 and one of CR=PC's ECL-3, and on an 18-20, roll one monster of CR=PC's ECL-3 and take three of them. ECLs 3 and 4 need to work a little differently because the CR system doesn't add up right, but a similar formula can be used. Equipment: stays as-is, for now. We can consider another revision in the interests of simplification later--but leaving it as-is will alleviate worries that monsters will become too weak with this change.
hogarth 02-21-08, 03:49 PM	[Perhaps most notably, there are no egoists out there trying to do this- and if we put preferred forms on the phasms it isn't a problem] I thought we had a house rule that Metamorphic Transfer doesn't work on continuous abilities, so an egoist wouldn't be able to abuse the Phasm ability. It's just monster fights that can abuse the Phasm ability. :weep:
McJarvis 02-21-08, 03:51 PM	I thought we had a house rule that Metamorphic Transfer doesn't work on continuous abilities, so an egoist wouldn't be able to abuse the Phasm ability. It's just monster fights that can abuse the Phasm ability. :weep: I don't think it applies as continuous- though I guess I could be wrong about that...
MindWandererB 02-21-08, 03:54 PM	I don't think it applies as continuous- though I guess I could be wrong about that... I'd have to agree... it's an activated ability.
CrazyArtificer 02-22-08, 04:27 AM	I'd like to bring another issue to the attention of the Council. As some of you already know I sometimes have troubles finding a ruling in the rules thread. I find it a bit problematic at times, with related pieces of informations spread among several posts in the Rules. If the other Elders agrees, I'd like to rewiev that thread, trying to fix the most problematic (from my point of view, obviously) posts adding all the related informations so that someone hasn't to flip between posts. The idea would be to add the most informations on a specific topic in the same post, even at the cost of being redundant. At the same time rules become obsolete with time would be purged from the posts. Obviously any new posts would be then reviewed an approved by the other Elders as well. I have already a member who offered to help, but I prefer to wait your opinion to be sure we don't waste time. I'd appreciate an answer ;)
mucki 02-22-08, 06:40 AM	What I would find insanely useful would be an alphabetical index to *all* the rules of coco. A post that just links to the appropriate posts in the rules, courtrooms and councils. I would also help with that, so CA, if you already go over the rulings and can send me the topics of each summary post you are making, then I would make an index out of that.
hogarth 02-22-08, 06:41 AM	I'd appreciate an answer ;) I'm sure all reasonable suggestions for improvements will be considered. Of course, it may take several months/years of discussion before any changes actually get implemented. :)
TelinArtho 02-22-08, 12:08 PM	While I certainly agree that removing out-of-date rules in the rules thread, I'm not sure that duplicating information in order to remove the links is such a good idea. The organization of the information is deliberate - so it makes sense to me - but let me talk it out: Everything that a regular player needs is in the first group of post, everything that a pitlord/questlord, etc will need is in the next few posts. If we start moving the "advanced" information into the "beginner" posts - won't that hurt the ability of a newer player coming in to absorb the things he needs right away?
CrazyArtificer 02-22-08, 12:39 PM	The organization of the information is deliberate - so it makes sense to me - but let me talk it out: Everything that a regular player needs is in the first group of post, everything that a pitlord/questlord, etc will need is in the next few posts. If we start moving the "advanced" information into the "beginner" posts - won't that hurt the ability of a newer player coming in to absorb the things he needs right away? That's something I considered, as well. I thought that one could simply put "advanced" information between sblocks, something like this If you are a new player, don't bother reading this now. It is not necessary to begin with your first character. XYZ means... This way we could still mantain the current organization of the thread, which is now familiar to many oldtimers, but at the same time add everything related in those posts which helps the newcomers (like me. Believe it or not, but often I need to browse 5-6 posts before finding the rule I'm looking for)
hogarth 02-22-08, 01:04 PM	Believe it or not, but often I need to browse 5-6 posts before finding the rule I'm looking for Me too. So I've switched to copying the Rules thread into a text file and searching for what I want. Even so, it's sometimes hard to find a specific rule. For instance, I was looking for the rule that states that items with a limited number of uses are capped at a caster level less than or equal to a gladiator's ECL. It's under "Battles II"->"The Cap on Expendables" (even though wands/staffs/feather tokens/etc. are not "Expendables" in CoCo-speak), but it could just have easily been under "House Rules of the Core Coliseum" or "The Blackmarket" (sic) or "The Marketplace of Gladius" for all I know. So I searched for "caster level" (lots of results, but no luck), "casterlevel" (since Caterane sometimes spells it that way), "limited" (no luck), "uses" (no luck), and some other terms. Finally I searched for the right thing (either "charge" or " CL", I think) and I found it. But the one that really seems unnecessarily confusing to me is that the decisions in the Courtroom thread are divided into two posts -- "Clarifications" and "Houserules" -- each of which has a "Combat" section, an "Equipment" section, etc. So I always have to guess whether something is a "Houserule" or a "Clarification" before looking something up (it may be clear to some people, but it's not to me!), then I have to guess again whether it falls under "Combat" or "Magic" (for instance). If I were in charge of organizing things, I'm sure I could come up with something I like better, but I guarantee that someone else would find it more confusing. And so it goes...
CrazyArtificer 02-22-08, 01:13 PM	If I were in charge of organizing things, I'm sure I could come up with something I like better, but I guarantee that someone else would find it more confusing. And so it goes... Which is exactly why I'd like to keep the current format and just integrate it. Keeping that format people used to it can find things just as fast as now, while people with some problems in doing that may find it easier to have more infos on the same post.
MindWandererB 02-22-08, 03:19 PM	I really want to avoid duplicating info--what typically happens is that one set will get updated and the other won't, and confusion ensues. An alphabetical index is a great idea, though! If someone would like to work on that, I'll put it in the index post of the Rules thread (in an sblock). Even better would be if it could include links to the Courtroom, Black Market, and Training Hall for the relevant rules/rulings that exist in those threads. I rarely have trouble with "House Rules" vs. "Clarifications," conceptually, but I do typically open both sblocks before searching. I agree that the distinction is somewhat fine, and perhaps unnecessary. Perhaps if we swapped the superordinate and subordinate categories? @CA: Ironically, it looks like Cat did it that way from the beginning! It looks like he started off putting all the basic rules in Olive, and the advanced rules in Teal. I can't see any particular logic in the coloring now, though. I think an index would be a more elegant solution, for now. The drawback with putting things in sblocks is that Ctrl-F can't search within them. A more unified and consistent color scheme might do the trick, though--as long as it was posted in a way that people don't miss it.
CrazyArtificer 02-22-08, 03:31 PM	@MWB. Well, I'd say to start work on the alphabetical index right now. Then, once it is completed, we could fix the Rules thread with different colors, maybe adding a small legend to the top or to the bottom of each post, much like in this one. Obviously, we'd do that only if that was still needed after creating an alphabetical index. I'd like to create a team to work in it as fast as possible. Can I count on you mucki? Legend: Red: Immediate action to take Light Green: proposal for future
mucki 02-23-08, 01:48 PM	Well, my time is limited, but luckily this is work that i can start and continue in bits and pieces. If you want me to start with a specific thread, tell me which one you want. If you want an index for a future thread, then you can just tell me some index words, and I will add the appropriate post= links later.
mucki 02-24-08, 09:28 AM	Right, I just went ahead and started with the rules thread, and indexed the basic rules. If you find it usable in the way it is done (the link names are not sorted yet), then i will go on: # 3FC: Introduction, Spells, x/day A Activities: Free and Full activities, Introduction Allies: Introduction, Crafting, Cap, Rewards, Death, Cap #2, Campaigns Allies, Class: Introduction, Improved Familiar List Allies, Handle Animal: Introduction, List Allies, Leadership: Introduction, List Allies, Mercenaries: Introduction, Mercenary List Allies, Purchased: Introduction, List Allies, Spells: Introduction C Campaigns: Current Campaign Roster, Introduction, Requirements, Rewards, Allies, Death, Abandoning, Frozen Characters, Multiple: Activation costs, Parties Characters, Starting: Start XP, Abilities, HP, Gold, Start XP for higher ECL, Default Character Sheet Characters, Other: Character List, Retirement, Graveyard Characters, Maintenance: Ready Lines, Tactics, Updating Characters Classes: Allowed Crafting: XP/GP loss for spells, Free and Full activities, tools, craft feats, Allies D Deadlines: Deadlines E Expendables: Cap F Feats: crafting Fights, Environment: Delaying and Leaving the map, Maplist, Lighting table Fights, General: Deadlines, Time Progression, Overview, Lighting, Fight Types, 3FC, Ready actions, Death, Destroyed Items Fights, Pairings: Current Pairings Fights, Preparation: Attacker/Defender skill packages, Pre-Fight-Actions, Allies Fights, Rewards: Basic Rewards, Allies G Gold: Initial H Hitpoints: HP calculation P Pitlording: Basic Rewards, Late Penalties, Current Pitlords, Ally Reward Penalties Prison: Introduction, Q Questlording: Late Quest Penalties Quests: Current Quest Roster, Introduction, Goals, Mini vs. Full, Rewards, Death, Abandoning, Frozen R Races: Allowed Rules: Introduction, S Skills: Skill packages Spells: XP/GP loss for spells, 3FC T Templates: Allowed X XP, Loss: XP/GP loss for spells
CrazyArtificer 02-25-08, 09:06 AM	seems good mucki.. Sorry if it took so long to reply, but I've been a bit busy. Go on, and tell me what are you going to index next, so I can work on different topics.
mucki 02-26-08, 03:24 AM	Well, my plan was to complete the rules thread, and then start to integrate other threads (council, tavern, ...). Maybe you could start on the councils and then we can merge the two indices (which should be quick).
CrazyArtificer 02-27-08, 09:58 AM	That's fine with me. I'm a bit busy this week as well, but i'll do my best.
McJarvis 03-06-08, 09:39 AM	Came up in a fight this week- and I don't think this will take very long. I'd like to replace this monster on the EL9 monster list: 82: 1 Half-Dragon Black Pudding (1d10 to determine type) [CR 9] My reasons are A hoarde of rules issues that are not readily obvious This monster really isn't going to promote "good" feelings about monster fights. This monster is probably only viable on 1 or 2 maps. Instead, I'd like to replace it with this. 82: 1 Half-Dragon Bulette [CR 9] The Bulette is a classical D&D monster, and I find making one a half-dragon both interesting and a "normal" challenge. He has multiple ways to detect enemies, a decent speed when you add those half-dragon wings on, and in general is just thematically awesome.
mucki 03-09-08, 09:27 AM	Sorry it took me so long, but i was not at home last weekend. Here is the completed index of the rule thread, including the Characters of Gladius and Blackmarket of Gladius intro sections. I tried to order the links for each word in decreasing order of priority (ie: more detailed, specialist stuff comes later). # 3FC: Introduction, Spells, x/day A Activities: Introduction, Free and Full activities Alignment: Starting Alignment, Alignment Change Allies: Introduction, Crafting, Cap, Rewards, Death, Cap #2, Cap #3, Detailed XP/GP Rewards with samples, Campaigns, Advanced and Custom Allies costs Allies, Class: Introduction, Improved Familiar List, Training Allies, Handle Animal: Introduction, List, Training Allies, Leadership: Introduction, List Allies, Mercenaries: Introduction, Mercenary List Allies, Purchased: Introduction, List, Training Allies, Spells: Introduction B Banned Material: Index Blackmarket: Introduction, Custom Items, Thread, Credit costs C Campaigns: Current Campaign Roster, Introduction, Requirements, Rewards, Allies, Death, Abandoning, Frozen Campaignlording: Introduction, Starting, Tips, Encounters, Rewards (XP), Level Up, Treasure, Aftermath, Dice roller, Rewards (Credits) Characters, Multiple: Activation costs, Parties Characters, Starting: Start XP, Abilities, HP, Gold, Default Character Sheet, Start XP and credit cost for higher ECL Characters, Other: Character List, Retirement, Graveyard Characters, Maintenance: Ready Lines, Tactics, Updating Characters Classes: Allowed, Paragon Classes, Variant Classes, Variant Class Features, Bloodlines I, Bloodlines II Cognizance Crystal: Max PP houserule Crafting: Free and Full activities, tools, craft feats, XP/GP loss for spells, Allies, CL prerequisite houserule, faster crafting, custom crafting requeirements Credits: Introduction, Earning, Spending, late penalties D Deadlines: Deadlines Dispell Psionics: Augmentation houserule Dorjes: ML Limits, Augmentation E Elders: Introcution Energy Missle: DC houserule Equipment: Buying, Selling, Limits, Availability, Blackmarket, Custom Items, Traps, Credit costs, custom crafting requeirements, Monsters Eversmoking Bottle: Smoke houserule Expendables: Cap F Feats: Crafting Frozen Leagues: Introduction Fights, Environment: Maplist, Lighting table, Delaying and Leaving the map Fights, General: Deadlines, Time Progression, Overview, Lighting, Fight Types, 3FC, Ready actions, Death, Destroyed Items Fights, Pairings: Current Pairings, Power Rating Fights, Preparation: Pre-Fight-Actions, Attacker/Defender skill packages, Allies Fights, Rewards: Basic Rewards, Allies, Detailed XP/GP Rewards with samples Flight, Winged: narrow passage houserule Flight, maneuverability: change direction houserule G Gate: Banned Ghosts: Special Attacks, Equipment, Etheralness Ghost Touch: Weapons Gold: Initial Grapple: Mounted grapple houserule Guilds: Introduction, Leading, Joining, Operations, Wars H Hiding: Autospot, movement between covers, concealment form spells/items houserules Hitpoints: HP calculation House Rules: Index I Items: see Equipment L Leadership: Leadership score houserule M Miniquests: also see Quest, skipping Monster Fights: Introduction, Equipment, Lore, Encounter Lists, ECL 11+ Encounter Lists N NPC: Services P Pitlording: Current Pitlords, Basic Rewards, Late Penalties, Ally Reward Penalties, Introduction, Starting, How To, Tactics, Improvisation, Dice Roller, Mapmaker, Mistakes, Deadlines, Rewards (more details), Detailed XP/GP Rewards with samples, Monster Fights, Roster/Pairingmaker Polymorph: Knowldege, Size, Sharing, Magic Items house rules Polymorph Any Object: Restrictions houserule Potions: CL Limits Power Rating: Introcution Powerstones: ML Limits, Augmentation Prison: Introduction Psychic Reformation: Banned Q Questlording: Introduction, Starting, Maps, Tools, Encounters, Rewards (XP), Treasure, Confirmation, Dice Roller, Rewards (Credits), Late Quest Penalties Quests: Current Quest Roster, Introduction, Goals, Mini vs. Full, Rewards, Death, Abandoning, Frozen R Races: Allowed, Variant Races Ready Actions: Evading houserule Reincarnate: Banned Reputation: Introcution, Tags Rules: Introduction S Scrolls: CL Limits Skills: Skill packages Spell Immunity: Psionic transparency houserule Spells: 3FC, Copying Spellbooks, NPC Spellcasting Service, XP/GP loss for spells Spot: Autospot, movement between covers, concealment form spells/items houserules State of Emergency: Introduction T Tattoos: ML Limits, 2x price rule, Augmentation Templates: Allowed Tournaments: Introduction Traps: Introduction, Designing, Rules, CR, Using True Mindswitch: Banned U Unearthed Arcana: Variant Races, Paragon Classes, Variant Classes, Variant Class Features, Bloodlines I, Bloodlines II W Wands: CL Limits X XP, Loss: XP/GP loss for spells, Gold loss houserule Notes: Quests: Wrong Dice roller ? Campaigns: Wrong Dice roller ? Elders: with no more shared accounts, should something be noted here ? The index is already quite handy (imho), but for maximum efficiency the courtrooms and taversn should be added. CA, if you tell me what you are currently working on, then I'll pick something else and continue this next weekend.
CrazyArtificer 03-09-08, 08:41 PM	The index is already quite handy (imho), but for maximum efficiency the courtrooms and taversn should be added. CA, if you tell me what you are currently working on, then I'll pick something else and continue this next weekend. I am, I'm still a bit slow due to the huge amount of real life issues that came up all at once, unexpected :)
mucki 03-10-08, 09:48 AM	np, i'm not exactly fast aswell :) I'd just need to know which thread you are working on, so that i do not pick the same.
CrazyArtificer 03-10-08, 10:00 AM	I've started with the Council IV, and I planned moving to the Courtroom shortly after that.
whitebaron 03-11-08, 10:30 AM	With the permission of MWB or some elders, I'd like to start a CoCo 4e thread. What discussions should be contained therein? - possible changes to the coco environment from the things that are already known from 4e. - possible changes to be done with a system change, like rules-overhaul on not so optimal parts, or rethinking some of the packages. (we know already that there will be only such general skills as perception or acrobatics) - a list of direly needed things for 4e, like maps with more terrain-features - maybe initial guidelines for 4e for pitlords (since everybody is new to the environment) - introduction for players changing from 3.5 to 4e (may be "borrowed" or linked from other sources though, as long as its helpful) When will this all be done? -Whenever players see fit to chime in, they'd be welcome. -Proposals that seem to be "finalizable" would be put before the elders in the council. -Rules changes should be collected and reworked for the time the real release of 4e hits the shelves -Leaked Information should be incorporated as soon as it's found, some things can really be done already without the final rules. Who is in charge of this? i'd rather say noone. open discussion and information acquisition would be the main goal. still, there'd need to be one or two scribes who track stuff. I've got quite extensive online times, and know of at least 2-3 others, non-elders, who would fit that description.
MindWandererB 03-11-08, 06:07 PM	Permission granted. Please start off the thread with an index post: half to index confirmed info about 4e and half to index resolutions about how we'll approach it.
hogarth 03-12-08, 01:54 PM	Do characters automatically get added to the Retired/'Graveyard of Gladius" list after a certain period of inactivity? I noticed that some of my characters are in there; I prefer to think of them as "hibernating" rather than "dead". :)
MindWandererB 03-12-08, 02:03 PM	Do characters automatically get added to the Retired/'Graveyard of Gladius" list after a certain period of inactivity? I noticed that some of my characters are in there; I prefer to think of them as "hibernating" rather than "dead". :) Yes. Sometimes Prisonlords catches them, sometimes I do; I put a mess of them into retirement a couple of weeks ago to trim down the number of characters I have to sort through for pairings. Deleting their title lines would annoy me less and thus make this less likely, if you really want to keep them on the active roster.
hogarth 03-12-08, 02:14 PM	Yes. Sometimes Prisonlords catches them, sometimes I do; I put a mess of them into retirement a couple of weeks ago to trim down the number of characters I have to sort through for pairings. Deleting their title lines would annoy me less and thus make this less likely, if you really want to keep them on the active roster. I certainly don't want to put them on the active roster. I don't care if they're in the "Graveyard" as long as I'm free to "resurrect" them later (if I so choose). :)
Stormwind 03-12-08, 02:21 PM	I certainly don't want to put them on the active roster. I don't care if they're in the "Graveyard" as long as I'm free to "resurrect" them later (if I so choose). :) You can always 'resurrect' a character from the gladius graveyard simply by sending a PM to pitlords ...
mucki 03-16-08, 08:40 AM	I've started with the Council IV, and I planned moving to the Courtroom shortly after that. I was looking at the courtroom and now i am thinking: how exactly do we want to index them ? The summary at the start is relatively easy to do, but the thread itself is quite a mix of questions, answers and discussion. What would be nice would be a final post in the courtroom for each line of discussion that links to the relevant posts and summarizes the decision ...
CrazyArtificer 03-16-08, 11:07 AM	I was looking at the courtroom and now i am thinking: how exactly do we want to index them ? The summary at the start is relatively easy to do, but the thread itself is quite a mix of questions, answers and discussion. What would be nice would be a final post in the courtroom for each line of discussion that links to the relevant posts and summarizes the decision ... Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to do :)
McJarvis 03-18-08, 03:47 PM	Moved from Courtroom. In mentioning offhand that I intended to awaken a warhorse eventually in other threads here, I seem to have started concern of it being broken. Currently Awaken is not banned in CoCo- which makes it a perfectly legitimate buff for applicable targets. The catch is that for most categories of allies it actually renders them non allies. Examples of this include handle animal, animal companions, familiars, etc. However in CoCo we have gold-aquired allies, which remain valid targets. I pointed out that this is perfectly legal right now by our rules- and telin expressed a desire to talk about it before I just go and shell out credits for the awaken. :) So the issue is- do we ban awaken completely or allow it on gold-aquired allies? There is obvious abuse issues since awaken does not increase the CR of a creature[it is a spell-buff, and does not increase the CR of a creature any more than a wish granting an insight bonus to an ability stat would increase the CR of a creature]. It would be possible to, say, load up on regular dogs, cast awaken on every single of one of them, and have shlouds of hitdice of allies in the arena at relatively low levels. Hogarth suggested the idea of a sorcerer polymorphing into an animal, having awaken cast on him, and getting perminant stat buffs as a result. My personal desire was to awaken a light warhorse so I wouldn't need to teach it tricks for it to know how to work spells like fly/spider climb/etc that I cast on it(or custom items like command-activated winged horseshoes). Thorell[my gish-character] has no way to aquire allies except by purchasing them or animate dead(eventually around ECL9-ish). Purchasing a light warhorse and then casting awaken on it was one of his plans to remain mounted while having flight until he could afford something better.
mucki 03-19-08, 04:52 AM	Just a random idea about delay penalty: Maybe doing something to advance the fight should not reset the delay counter to 0, but only take 2 off the delay counter. That means, if you spend 10 rounds delaying, you would need 5 rounds advancing the fight to get another 10 full rounds of delaying, or 1 round advancing the fight, 2 delaying, 1 advancing, ... That would maybe make the "I hide and show up once every 10 rounds until his XYZ runs out" tactics a bit less boring, while still allowing people to hide for a longer time for buffing or other things ...
templer10 03-19-08, 05:57 AM	Just a random idea about delay penalty: Maybe doing something to advance the fight should not reset the delay counter to 0, but only take 2 off the delay counter. That means, if you spend 10 rounds delaying, you would need 5 rounds advancing the fight to get another 10 full rounds of delaying, or 1 round advancing the fight, 2 delaying, 1 advancing, ... That would maybe make the "I hide and show up once every 10 rounds until his XYZ runs out" tactics a bit less boring, while still allowing people to hide for a longer time for buffing or other things ... that sounds like a great idia - but then i hate delaying as a general rule. p.s - that rule doenst really apply to buffing - even i (who really likes to buff) dont buff for longer then 9 rounds...
whitebaron 03-19-08, 06:32 AM	buffing is advancing the fight. :) basically, everything you do that is not plain "wait" should be qualified as "advancing"
hogarth 03-19-08, 07:18 AM	Just a random idea about delay penalty: Maybe doing something to advance the fight should not reset the delay counter to 0, but only take 2 off the delay counter. That means, if you spend 10 rounds delaying, you would need 5 rounds advancing the fight to get another 10 full rounds of delaying, or 1 round advancing the fight, 2 delaying, 1 advancing, ... That would maybe make the "I hide and show up once every 10 rounds until his XYZ runs out" tactics a bit less boring, while still allowing people to hide for a longer time for buffing or other things ... I agree that a 10 round timer is probably too long. But I think you'd still get arguments over who is "advancing the fight" and who isn't. Is a slow melee fighter "advancing the fight" by taking cover until his opponent runs out of arrows? What else can he do? What about a flying character who wants to make dive attacks? If he takes more than 2 rounds to turn around for the next charge, does that count as "advancing the fight"? Etc.
whitebaron 03-19-08, 08:13 AM	I agree that a 10 round timer is probably too long. But I think you'd still get arguments over who is "advancing the fight" and who isn't. Is a slow melee fighter "advancing the fight" by taking cover until his opponent runs out of arrows? What else can he do? What about a flying character who wants to make dive attacks? If he takes more than 2 rounds to turn around for the next charge, does that count as "advancing the fight"? Etc. setting up repeated charges due to high maneuverability is part of combat-tactics, not really delaying. with the fighter vs. archer, it won't go without a discussion, that's for sure. who is delaying more? the magic-empowered archer who runs away repeatedly, or the full-plate fighter who caves in once he realizes he can't catch up? this part pretty much can never be decided. both want to fight, but both on different terms. about such, players and pitlords often argue (last seen: telins monster fight with one of sauros characters) - basically, i'm hoping 4e is bringing us much more in terms of team fights. (easier handling makes for easier fights, thus parties might be more viable than they are now) with an additional character in the fray, the run and gun theme would suddenly be much worse. currently, it is a tactic you see pretty much in every second character at ecl3.
hogarth 03-19-08, 09:39 AM	Just to add to whitebaron's comments, the problems I generally see are with asymmetrical characters, not with delaying per se: either characters who have a great defense (super-hiding, incorporeality, burrowing) but poor offense, or great offense (melee monsters) but poor mobility. Mr. Defense relies on lots of weak attacks while avoiding counterattacks, and Mr. Offense tries to force his opponent into range by exhausting his opponent's resources. Forcing players to make a token attack every 2 rounds instead of every 10 rounds won't really change those characters' tactics, I suspect.
McJarvis 03-19-08, 09:49 AM	As stated, if someone wants to delay they will. Wasn't it mitza that tried to burrow & find her opponent via temorsense on the plains map? That sort of thing just plain can't be mitigated except by a pitlord. In the same way, would it be delaying if I had thorell leave behind his camel & single move/active spot every round for the enemy in the forest? I believe that right now the delay penalty is fine, since it's a rough guideline for pitlords. This is implicit in that the "penalty" is un-defined.
whitebaron 03-19-08, 10:54 AM	I believe that right now the delay penalty is fine, since it's a rough guideline for pitlords. This is implicit in that the "penalty" is un-defined. if it is fine as it is and only pitlords will decide, then why is there another penalty for leaving the map? this makes no sense to me. whether i go ethereal, or burrow myself or be invisible against an opponent without means to break it - this is just the same thing. so why is there a HARD 10 round limit for one thing (e.g. etherealness / rope trick), and a SOFT 10 round limit for just the same thing (e.g. burrowing), which happens to be only different in terms of mechanics?
TelinArtho 03-19-08, 11:00 AM	Because the ability to affect something that goes ethereal/leaves the plane/moves 1000 miles with a teleport is much more difficult that affecting something that has just burrowed 5ft underground.
whitebaron 03-19-08, 11:07 AM	Because the ability to affect something that goes ethereal/leaves the plane/moves 1000 miles with a teleport is much more difficult that affecting something that has just burrowed 5ft underground. well, to most characters it's just the same. you usually don't have any burrowing features, and spells or attacks don't penetrate the earth/stone. what would you propose to do against something burrowing? in table top, you'd either go on and leave it be, or wait for hours and hours until it eventually comes out again (but only because the dm decides he wants to get it over with) the game mechanic of burrowing might be different to teleport or etherealness, the result in 99% of the cases is not different. (put simply: you cannot hit)
TelinArtho 03-19-08, 11:17 AM	Well a low level druid has SNA and wizards and clerics both have SM. Move earth would also be an option for those who have it. The gray and rust bags of tricks both have burrowing creatures on their lists as well. So while engaging someone who has burrowed is not always ideal - it doesn't mean it is impossible - certainly not 99% of the time. In fact - summoning something to engage someone underground could be a very nasty surprise for the burrower. The fact remains that the opponent is still in the arena - so his possible locations are limited by this. On counterpoint, the only way to engage someone who has gone ethereal/teleported away is to use the exact same method as that character and to have knowledge of where they went (which you won't have without - say - detect thoughts and 3 rounds of concentration or some divination method). But once this happens - the encounter is outside of the arena - ie - the pitlord has to make a new map according to the teleporter. I agree that burrowing does make things more difficult if you don't have the means to engage the burrower - but I certainly disagree that it is so unbalancing as to restrict it to a 10-round/fight maximum. The teleporting/ethereal options are much nastier for the pitlord/opponent in my opinion however, and do deserve such restrictions.
Stormwind 03-21-08, 11:11 AM	Discussion moved from Tavern to Council (21.02.2008) The Blackmarket rules as they pertain to intelligent items:You may pay 10° to get the right to acquire intelligent items. Such items may never be bought but are being given out on Quests and Campaigns. You may quest for an intelligent item, and can generally narrow the type of intelligent item (sword, backscraper), the rough price category, and the theme of the item (death, deception, goodness), but you may not determine its powers. This will be picked by the Quest- and Campaignlords. At the end of the Quest or Campaign, the character may decide wether he wants to keep the intelligent item (and pay the credit costs) or give it back and receive 3/4th of its gold value instead. If the intelligent item is subject to any of the other customizations, you must pay the combined credit costs. The Questlord's choice needs GM approval. So if I understand correctly, then I would need to do the following to acquire an intelligent magic item: Find a questlord Inform questlord of the preferred type, rough price, and theme of the item Go on a quest to acquire an intelligent item (questlord makes decisions on which specific powers the item has) (GM approves/disapproves of the item) Decide if the item that the questlord has designed is what I want, and if it is then I pay the 10 credits (and the gold cost) for the item. This seems unnecessarily complex to me, especially since the player might not get what they want (depending on the questlord), and it requires more work from the questlord, including designing the item and corresponding with the GM as to whether it is acceptable. Finally, this seems to be the only Blackmarket item that cannot be obtained via the Blackmarket (and doesn't require a Blackmarket post). In the end, IMHO, it makes it more unlikely for a player to experiment with the option of an intelligent item. I would like to suggest that this rule be changed as follows: The player posts the full description, theme and design of the intelligent item in the Blackmarket (including powers which must all fit a single theme) The player sends a single PM to the GM informing them that they have made a request for an intelligent item in the Blackmarket The GM approves/denies the item in a Blackmarket post The player must then go on a full quest to actually obtain the item This would simplify the process and also make it more consistent with any other Blackmarket purchase, although it would still require GM approval and a full quest. Comments/Thoughts?
TelinArtho 03-21-08, 11:13 AM	I have no problem with this revision and I suspect this is essentially how it was done for the lone intelligent item in the CoCo's history (that I know of anyway...).
Vathelokai 03-21-08, 11:59 AM	Sounds good to me.
Zevox 03-21-08, 12:43 PM	I have no problem with this revision and I suspect this is essentially how it was done for the lone intelligent item in the CoCo's history (that I know of anyway...). Ditto. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-21-08, 02:08 PM	Note that those instructions were written when the GM was doing everything. I have no problem delegating intelligent item approval to the Elder in charge of the Black Market, like everything else. I'll modify the rules now.
Erithmu 03-21-08, 02:13 PM	Note that those instructions were written when the GM was doing everything. I have no problem delegating intelligent item approval to the Elder in charge of the Black Market, like everything else. I'll modify the rules now. Some times I just need to reference a quote. Thanks for volunteering me :P Smiley included.
TelinArtho 04-01-08, 12:22 PM	In a monster fight this week, I realized that a line has been removed from the equipping monsters text - the one where it states that no particular item can be worth more than 50% of the monster's wealth. Was this an intentional removal or accidental? If it was intentional - can I get some reasoning as to why? Having a low level monster spent 75% of its wealth on a single item isn't so bad I suppose - but once they get closer to EL 10 or higher - it could certainly get messy... @whitebaron - I guess I don't have an issue with the fight with the current rules - but it does beg a question: When did we remove the rule that no single item for a monster can cost more than 50% of its total wealth? Full plate (1500gp) for a CR 2 monster (2000gp total cash) is a little more than I was expecting - but this was a rule, so I'm just curious when it was removed. EDIT: Actually - they do need to roll ML checks for those ML2 stones. Since that 4 AC could be a big difference - I would appreciate them added in.
McJarvis 04-01-08, 01:10 PM	Given that we have guidelines that restrict anything but a "big 6" item being over 50%, I don't see that as a problem.
whitebaron 04-01-08, 04:36 PM	In a monster fight this week, I realized that a line has been removed from the equipping monsters text - the one where it states that no particular item can be worth more than 50% of the monster's wealth. since we do not limit players on such expedenditures, i do not see the reasoning behind this one. limiting expendables and non-standard items is good and reasonable, but you were arguing about armor - would you argue about the fullplate on sunstroke as well?
TelinArtho 04-01-08, 05:13 PM	Like I said, this was once a guideline we had (before the current guidelines) and is something I was assuming was still in place (so it affected purchases made by monsters I have run since whenever the change went in). I happen to think that limiting any single item to 50% or less is a good idea anyway, because it can make it seem like you have built the creature specifically to counter that character's strengths (and I want to be clear I don't think you did this here). 75%-80% is supposed to be used on the "big 6" items. If you spend 75% of your total funds on a single item within that big 6 - how do you come up with the extra for the rest of the big 6? I don't know - I think I got a little put off by it at first because it was a change I hadn't noticed and it seemed (at first glance) that you were super-sizing their AC without giving them a fair account on their strengths - namely larger weapons (which is what one would expect from half-giants). I admit my initial impressions were emotional though and while I don't agree with your purchase choices - it is completely legal. Anyway - the issue can drop.
MindWandererB 04-01-08, 08:06 PM	would you argue about the fullplate on sunstroke as well?Why would you argue about a 750-gp purchase out of 3000 gp of starting funds? That's only 25%.
whitebaron 04-02-08, 03:10 AM	Why would you argue about a 750-gp purchase out of 3000 gp of starting funds? That's only 25%. this was just an example, that having a fullplate early on is nothing special. also, even those psychic warriors could be made into combat expertise, improved trip ones (like lonewolf suggested) who'd have the requisite int score to craft the fullplates themselves. @telin: since large weapons only cost double, they'd even had enough spare money to buy those large weapons - it was simply an oversight due to me not liking to equip monsters and thus making it as fast as possible. and good AC is an obvious (and simple) choice for someone with low HD.
whitebaron 04-11-08, 06:03 AM	i request a rules-change.: Currently, Interleague parties are treated like team-fights, which puts them into different boxes and thus, at an additional disadvantage against the higher level ECL character. almost any interleagues success i've seen thus far depended on the characters finding each other before the opponent finds them. as for team fights, that might be nice and all - but in interleague, it should be really treated the same as normal teams are - the combattants should start in one square, making this a lot fairer than it currently is.
McJarvis 04-11-08, 06:58 AM	Personally, I would like for teams to always start in the same square. I find the "find my ally before my opponent does" aspect to tactic writing extremely uninteresting.
lonewolf 04-11-08, 07:00 AM	Personally, I would like for teams to always start in the same square. I find the "find my ally before my opponent does" aspect to tactic writing extremely uninteresting. agreed
CrazyArtificer 04-11-08, 03:24 PM	Personally, I would like for teams to always start in the same square. I find the "find my ally before my opponent does" aspect to tactic writing extremely uninteresting. you get another vote.
TelinArtho 04-11-08, 03:55 PM	Teams starting in the same square would be more useful - it reduces the effort for the pitlord and helps the team-mates coordinate their tactics (rather than including tactics for "if we start in the same area" and for the converse). I agree.
SauroGrenom 04-11-08, 04:51 PM	It's sensible idea, and I'll get behind it.
MindWandererB 04-11-08, 04:54 PM	Done, then. I'll hunt around for the specific rules to change, may take me a little while.
Yitzi 04-14-08, 01:09 PM	I'd like to bring up a new argument regarding an issue (ethereal item purchase) that, according to the first page, apparently been discussed before but not resolved (TA said I could bring it up): According to our current system, the only way to spend currently owned gold on ethereal items (and for a ghost caster (or anyone else who doesn't use weapons or armor, such as a monk), that is pretty much the only way to spend his cash) is to spend 1000gp with a free activity or 7000 with a full activity. At lower levels, this is no problem, but at high levels you need several full activities for each fight, which is not how the CoCo is supposed to work. Perhaps the amount that can be spent should be linked to rewards for that level, in order to solve this issue.
McJarvis 04-14-08, 01:33 PM	I must admit, I do not fully understand why we penalize incorporeal characters in this way at all.
MindWandererB 04-14-08, 01:40 PM	I must admit, I do not fully understand why we penalize incorporeal characters in this way at all. It's one of those Gygaxian "it makes more sense this way" rules that Cat came up with.
McJarvis 04-14-08, 01:49 PM	It's one of those Gygaxian "it makes more sense this way" rules that Cat came up with. Then I move we remove these rules :) I'm sure I'll regret this later when I actually have Ghost opponents...
lonewolf 04-14-08, 02:38 PM	The rule was discussed and changed a while back into allowing Ghosts to by as much as they want with a single Full Activity. But it seems that the rule wasnt updated correctly. I never thought that this rule is necessary, but at the time an Elder vote decided to put that restriction on ghost shopping(not everything was done by Cat alone ;) ).
Yitzi 04-14-08, 04:02 PM	The rule was discussed and changed a while back into allowing Ghosts to by as much as they want with a single Full Activity. But it seems that the rule wasnt updated correctly. Well, if it could please be updated in the Rules of Gladius thread, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
SauroGrenom 04-14-08, 04:07 PM	Incorporeality is the ace of spades at certain levels. The extra cost for buying equipment on ghosts was put into place partly as a response to the balance concerns of playable ghosts. Against many characters @ ECL6-10, just being a ghost means you win. The ghost's ability damage coupled with the immunities means that clerics are the only characters well equipped to beat ghosts most of the time. Spell casters can deal damage to some extent with spells, and warrior types are up a crick till they get ghost touch backup weapons. Basically the point is that the inherent potency of how incorporality mixes with our infinite marketplace give bonus synergy to a ghost, and we should remember the effect of being a ghost on balance generally. If you go look at the ghost monster entry, ghosts get the equipment they died with, and there's no clear way to give them extra equipment. So any "mechanic" to get new equipment on a ghost is basically a CoCo house rule. We are free to build it however we want to accomplish the necessary balance.
McJarvis 04-14-08, 04:09 PM	Incorporeality is the ace of spades at certain levels. The extra cost for buying equipment on ghosts was put into place partly as a response to the balance concerns of playable ghosts. Against many characters @ ECL6-10, just being a ghost means you win. The ghost's ability damage coupled with the immunities means that clerics are the only characters well equipped to beat ghosts most of the time. Spell casters can deal damage to some extent with spells, and warrior types are up a crick till they get ghost touch backup weapons. Basically the point is that the inherent potency of how incorporality mixes with our infinite marketplace give bonus synergy to a ghost, and we should remember the effect of being a ghost on balance generally. If you go look at the ghost monster entry, ghosts get the equipment they died with, and there's no clear way to give them extra equipment. So any "mechanic" to get new equipment on a ghost is basically a CoCo house rule. We are free to build it however we want to accomplish the necessary balance. That's all fine and good- but how does "They wait out longer in between fights" translate to "balanced"? If I get slaughtered by a ghost now it won't be much of a consolation to me to think "oh, but he had to wait two or three weeks in-between cycles" I think I'd rather come up with a realistic balancing mechanic[such as barring ghosts from lower ECLs] than just make the player's journy more lengthy.
lonewolf 04-14-08, 04:14 PM	That's all fine and good- but how does "They wait out longer in between fights" translate to "balanced"? If I get slaughtered by a ghost now it won't be much of a consolation to me to think "oh, but he had to wait two or three weeks in-between cycles" I think I'd rather come up with a realistic balancing mechanic[such as barring ghosts from lower ECLs] than just make the player's journy more lengthy. I was just about to say nearly the exactly same thing. :)
SauroGrenom 04-14-08, 04:15 PM	Yea that's fine. I'm not trying to advocate for one thing or another, just remind people of the thought process that was going on which lead to the current rule.
hogarth 04-14-08, 05:23 PM	That's all fine and good- but how does "They wait out longer in between fights" translate to "balanced"? If I get slaughtered by a ghost now it won't be much of a consolation to me to think "oh, but he had to wait two or three weeks in-between cycles" I think I'd rather come up with a realistic balancing mechanic[such as barring ghosts from lower ECLs] than just make the player's journy more lengthy. By that argument, we shouldn't require any Full Activities for crafting, gathering information, etc. The activities aren't really balancing anything, they're just making the player's journey more lengthy.
McJarvis 04-14-08, 05:26 PM	By that argument, we shouldn't require any Full Activities for crafting, gathering information, etc. The activities aren't really balancing anything, they're just making the player's journey more lengthy. That depends on what you think the point of my argument was. I'm all for removing crafting from CoCo.
SauroGrenom 04-14-08, 07:17 PM	I'm all for removing crafting from CoCo. That's not such a bad idea...
lonewolf 04-14-08, 07:37 PM	That's not such a bad idea... or at least find some other way to balance it out. Forcing the player to spend extra time so that the character gets better is not a good idea IMHO.
whitebaron 04-15-08, 03:35 AM	or at least find some other way to balance it out. Forcing the player to spend extra time so that the character gets better is not a good idea IMHO. thats the basic of all full activities, and some of the free activities have to be seen in the same light. i have to admit - it's ok for me to increase character power if a player is willing to sit the character out for a while... but i can see two reasons as well why i don't like them full activities: -unbalancing: someone with a high int or high base skill points, can more easily save money than others, as he can spare those few skill points for crafting. CWI is not that bad a feat, too. for most casters, CWI already means doubling their money. -activity: it seems to me, sitting out characters has reason in some of the inactivity, especially with higher level characters sitting out for long times. not everyone is keen on having more than 2 active characters, even if it means 1 slot of active character is gone for 5 or 10 weeks... seeing that crafting increases character power as some blackmarket options do, i'd go for a similar approach there - let 7000gp not be a week sit out, but a credit deducted. (so: speed craft for everyone, but crafting has to be approved in BM) also, there's no way crafting can be removed from the current coco - to many characters rely on it.
CrazyArtificer 04-15-08, 06:26 AM	-unbalancing: someone with a high int or high base skill points, can more easily save money than others, as he can spare those few skill points for crafting. CWI is not that bad a feat, too. for most casters, CWI already means doubling their money. Agreed. That's the whole point of Uranedal. Craft. Craft. And craft again. Even if I'm less powerful than my usual tt caster (which heavily use metamagic) I've got twice the money. And that means I'm more powerful, in the end.
Yitzi 04-15-08, 08:19 AM	Or if you still think ghosts are too powerful at lower levels, and the best way to solve that is to force them to spend full activities to buy stuff, why not go with my original suggestion and scale the amount that can be bought with a given activity to gold rewards. That could actually increase the effect at lower levels (depending on how you do it), but make it not be crippling at higher ones (where ghosts are generally not believed to be overpowered.)
McJarvis 04-15-08, 08:37 AM	While I've wanted crafting removed for a long time, I realize that it was included too long ago to be removed. There are a host of reasons why it is too powerful, but I think those that are in love with crafting have and will always ignore these. --- Ghosts, on the other hand, are easy to remove from lower ECLs- so lets talk about that. Someone mentioned ecl's 6-9 I believe, so let's say no ghosts under ECL9 & remove the full-activity to get incorporeal equipment.
lonewolf 04-15-08, 10:13 AM	Ghosts, on the other hand, are easy to remove from lower ECLs- so lets talk about that. Someone mentioned ecl's 6-9 I believe, so let's say no ghosts under ECL9 & remove the full-activity to get incorporeal equipment. I gotta say, if were talking about removing some races from the lower ECLs, Ghosts shouldnt be top of the list. Pixies should be. Any magical weapon has a 50% chance of hitting a ghost and ghosts have terrible low hp without tricks. Pixies on the other hand can fly around with greater invisibility high SR and DR beeing much more difficult to deal with. sidenote: Note that there is no incorporeal, but only ethereal equipment. There is an important difference.
Stormwind 04-15-08, 10:24 AM	While I've wanted crafting removed for a long time, I realize that it was included too long ago to be removed. There are a host of reasons why it is too powerful, but I think those that are in love with crafting have and will always ignore these. --- Ghosts, on the other hand, are easy to remove from lower ECLs- so lets talk about that. Someone mentioned ecl's 6-9 I believe, so let's say no ghosts under ECL9 & remove the full-activity to get incorporeal equipment. Actually, it seems that you're making an assumption here that the problem with ghosts is the incorporeal equipment issue. Actually this is not the case at all. Currently there is no such thing as incorporeal equipment (since ghosts are the only 'incorporeal' creatures who can use any equipment). The question is actually about ethereal equipment. Personally I don't think that removing ghosts at ECL6-9 is a reasonable solution as it doesn't really solve anything. I would instead recommend that we remove the gold cap on full activities (not just ethereal equipment), for the following reasons: No limit on Full activities means that players are more likely to activate characters for fighting more often, which means that we would have more activity in the CoCo. Having characters 'sit out' for weeks and weeks and weeks while they are crafting/shopping as Full activities does absolutely nothing to benefit the CoCo
whitebaron 04-15-08, 10:54 AM	as it stands, we are currently penalizing the player for character-strength improvements. while i do not like that concept, i can live with it. what i would not like is crafting to become too easily accessible (read: without spending time or credits) since it would give "something for nothing" (anyone know that cheatcode? :D). power improvements done via crafting would cost basically about nothing, not to the player and not to the character. like that, noone would ever want to play something that is not a crafting caster... for the same reasons, i am fine with free activity ethereal shopping. but if it were ecl-based, all the better. this would of course, also have to affect the normal crafting - so if ethereal shopping gets better over the levels, crafting should too. (as a side note: gather info as well!)
DividingLine 04-15-08, 04:23 PM	You could make crafting into a free-only activity. Thus, it joins the ranks of all the other 'this makes your character better, but you do it instead of something else that would make your character better, and every time you do it you are slowly going up in ECL so you can just do it over and over to get amazingly powerful' options that are already present. Mind, as it stands, it would far and away be the most powerful free activity available, but isn't it really already that way? Rather than having them sit out and be inactive to get more powerful, they have to be active and competing to become more powerful. Just a thought from a lurker.
lonewolf 04-15-08, 04:38 PM	Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all. The amount of items crafted as a free activity would have to be ECL-dependend but this is an idea I like!
TelinArtho 04-15-08, 04:38 PM	That's just as effective as removing the ability to craft entirely (unless the 1000gp maximum is adjusted upwards) - because no one's going to waste a feat (or multiple feats) in order to save up to 500gp on a few items with a fairly low maximum on cost. A caster could create 1 PoP (1st) each fight, 1 PoP (2nd) every 4 fights, 1 PoP (3rd) every 9 fights ... 1 PoP (9th) every 81 fights. Mind you - I have little issue with removing crafting entirely (but it does have consequences to wizards (especially) since they are assumed to have scribe scroll to begin with in most cases) - but I don't see it happening any time soon and it would certainly mean grandfathering the current generation or dealing with a huge number of major changes.
lonewolf 04-15-08, 05:50 PM	As I said, the amount of crafting that can be done in such a free activity would have to be adjusted and improve as the crafter levels. The numbers can be tweaked to balance this out, but I like the general idea.
lonewolf 04-16-08, 05:00 PM	About the SR advance with HD or not issue: I know this has been decided already, but I have just found new evidence that it should advance: A Hound Archon has SR16 and the Hound Archon Hero(Paladin 11) has SR 27. If this is true for the Hound Archon, it should also be true for Pseudodragons, etc.
whitebaron 04-16-08, 05:52 PM	About the SR advance with HD or not issue: I know this has been decided already, but I have just found new evidence that it should advance: A Hound Archon has SR16 and the Hound Archon Hero(Paladin 11) has SR 27. If this is true for the Hound Archon, it should also be true for Pseudodragons, etc. i've got another thing to add: if this is true for pixies, why not for pseudodragons? i can't see anything in the rules to back that up, that this is in fact, different. just because the pseudodragon has no "as character" - block due to the addition of Level Adjustments only in 3.5, does not mean its game mechanics should be different.
TelinArtho 04-16-08, 10:13 PM	It doesn't work the same because there is a line in the advancement that specifically says that if it isn't mentioned as improving (as it does for the pixie and hound archon and doesn't for the pseudodragon) - it doesn't improve.
lonewolf 04-16-08, 10:41 PM	I missed that the Hound Archon has a "XXX as character" section. So while I still disagree on the issue, I concede that there is no new evidence to turn over the old decision.
hogarth 04-16-08, 11:03 PM	i've got another thing to add: if this is true for pixies, why not for pseudodragons? i can't see anything in the rules to back that up, that this is in fact, different. just because the pseudodragon has no "as character" - block due to the addition of Level Adjustments only in 3.5, does not mean its game mechanics should be different. I agree with you, but the FAQ specifically says otherwise.
whitebaron 04-17-08, 07:23 AM	I missed that the Hound Archon has a "XXX as character" section. So while I still disagree on the issue, I concede that there is no new evidence to turn over the old decision. it has no such section - at least not in the srd? @faq: there are some strange entries in the faq - this is certainly a part of those. by that reasoning, a pixie/sorcerer10 would have SR 15 as "monster" and SR 25 as PC, for example. since it works differently even here where it is explicitly stated, i don't see any reasoning for a pseudodragon PC not to have higher SR as well... but i can see this is back down to the good old loved rules terrorism nitpicking lawyerism exact reading. :rolleyes:
McJarvis 04-17-08, 07:45 AM	It isn't an accidental ommission. Since several creatures with SR gain 2/3 HD per CR, if there was a general rule of +1 SR per HD, adventurers would find such creatures practically immune to magic. That goes for monster fights too. While it may not make much sense, I'd rather go with what the rules say than create a specific advantage for monster characters that didn't exist in the first place.
whitebaron 04-17-08, 07:57 AM	It isn't an accidental ommission. Since several creatures with SR gain 2/3 HD per CR, if there was a general rule of +1 SR per HD, adventurers would find such creatures practically immune to magic. That goes for monster fights too. While it may not make much sense, I'd rather go with what the rules say than create a specific advantage for monster characters that didn't exist in the first place. i concur: it has nothing to do with accidental or not. whether there is a special "as characters" block has just something to do with spacing in the MM. each product has a distinct length, which is most of the time determined even before the contents are in - they could not possibly fit all the creatures that have a LA per 3.5 with a corresponding "as characters" block. They just took what they thought was the mostly liked, or what they got most emails/letters for. I have to say, that i am really glad about wizards decision to make monsters not have to adhere to player rules in 4e. while this will hit hard some people here in the coco that like always play the unusual, it makes life so much easier - without really hampering normal players in any way.
Yitzi 04-22-08, 11:35 AM	So is there a final decision about: crafting speed ethereal equipment aqursition speed minimum ghost ECL?
SauroGrenom 04-22-08, 07:11 PM	Telin and others, Perhaps this is just me with a desire to procrastinate on my assignment, but what would you think of changing the way crafting works as follows? Crafting for various items has strange balance issues. For expendables, crafting allows you to use them for a lower cost, but the expendables are still costing your character money. For permanent items, it's a totally different game, since the items are permanent and half price you get to have twice as much magical item power as the next guy. That's buying a lot of power for the price of a 3rd level feat. From a balance perspective, crafting scrolls, potions or wands has a cost and benefit that are more closely balanced. If you spend a feat, that scroll of invisibility is still going to cost you, just half as much. The feat decreases a loss. So if one were to complain about crafting, expendables crafting wouldn't be as much of a balance issue as crafting permanent items. So how about we house rule the craft wondrous items, craft universal items, craft magic arms & armor feats to allow you get custom items for -5 credits off the typical cost instead of at half price. This allows people to sacrifice a feat on the character sheet, for the benefit of the player... That's a paradigm shift from where we are usually functioning. Players spending credits to make more powerful characters changes to character sacrifices a feat to gain discounts for the player. I feel that something like this would be a huge draw for new players, who are interested in customization but intimidated by earning credits.
McJarvis 04-22-08, 07:18 PM	@Sauro- the reason scribe scroll is powerful is not because it saves you money, but because it lets you carry twice as many exp. items as other classes- four times as many if you are facing a fighter who has to use potions. Aside from that, I think I'd enjoy those custom rules on magic items. [though I should probably stipulate that I would be pro anything that removes advantages from casters]
MindWandererB 04-22-08, 08:35 PM	I feel a little queasy about that. Not only is it very different from a TT game, but if you look at the flip side of that, it's kind of like buying a feat with credits (if you don't bother getting the feat because you have credits to spare). It also introduces a huge legacy issue, because there are a ton of characters who've crafted, and not just magic items but mundane weapons and armor as well.
Yitzi 04-22-08, 09:32 PM	The other point to be considered is that it's weaker than it seems, since mages probably have less use for custom items (if they really need a spell not available through normal items, they can cast it, and they tend not to focus too much on skills, so a +10 cloak of elvenkind (10 credits) doesn't really help them that much.) Perhaps a better way would be to have a limit on how many gp of magic items can be crafted per level (proportional to level), to simulate the restriction caused by XP cost to craft.
whitebaron 04-23-08, 02:10 AM	there'd be another option: have players craft as much as they want, but let it cost them XP. not for their league they are playing in - so, a twofold XP count. one for their real progression, one for their progression through the tiers of play. this is something that actually could be adjusted - most crafters would not lose more than a level like that, and their increase in power would be reflected by them being one league higher.
MindWandererB 04-23-08, 02:54 AM	there'd be another option: have players craft as much as they want, but let it cost them XP. not for their league they are playing in - so, a twofold XP count. one for their real progression, one for their progression through the tiers of play. this is something that actually could be adjusted - most crafters would not lose more than a level like that, and their increase in power would be reflected by them being one league higher. We considered that idea once before; at the time, it was rejected for being unnecessarily complex.
whitebaron 04-23-08, 03:00 AM	We considered that idea once before; at the time, it was rejected for being unnecessarily complex. well - as much as i dislike crafting for its adjustment to the power of a given character - i believe its not that big an issue, as long as we penalize at least the player for it, i'm all good. i know that this is not the most healthily thing to do for our environment, but well - it's not like everyone that crafts would activate that specific character (or any other of his characters) just because he would have an additional slot ready.
whitebaron 04-25-08, 08:14 AM	another thing i noticed: has the coco any official stance on rounding for rewards? if the experience comes up 666.67 i have seen pitlords round, others take the lower amount. this calculator currently uses rounding, therefor using the exact values for calculation, leaves some differences to the original tables, most notably the losing rewards @ ecl 6+7 *bumped from tavern*? anyone can say something about that? it looks like the rewards in the standard reward section were always rounded down. if this is the case, then any other fractions should be removed from coco too. if not, it's likely better to round up for rewards, or use the exact values. it feels pretty incorrect to give someone with xxx.96 gp rewards or income almost 1 GP less per fight. i have seen both ends of rounding with my characters already - there should be something official on this, no?
CrazyArtificer 05-16-08, 11:06 AM	An interesting discussion about AoOs and withdrawing mounts come up in the FoTW (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15872370&postcount=35) thread. I couldn't find nothing on Courtroom, Council or Rules threads, so I'm bringing the discussion here for future reference. Only reference I found in the RoTG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a) is this: Withdraw: You can withdraw while mounted. Use your mount's speed rating. The first square you and your mount leave is not considered threatened and neither you nor your mount provoke attacks of opportunity when you leave that square. EDIT: just found another relevant piece (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a). When you and our mount move, you both are subject to attacks of opportunity from your foes (your mount might be the one actually doing the moving, but you're moving as well). For example, when you and your mount leave a threatened space, you both provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that threaten that space. A foe who can make multiple attacks of opportunity in a round (for example, a foe with a high Dexterity score and the Combat Reflexes feat) can make an attack of opportunity against you and one against your mount. As an optional rule, you might want to treat a rider and a trained war mount (or a special mount, such as a paladin's warhorse) as a single creature in battle. When the pair moves, they provoke one attack of opportunity for each foe that threatens them, not one each.
McJarvis 05-16-08, 11:28 AM	This kind of belongs in the courtroom, since it's a rules issue. That aside- in the past we have said a horse and rider must both withdraw in order to withdraw. [otherwise a horse could constantly be said to be in a "state of withdraw"] ;)
CrazyArtificer 05-16-08, 11:38 AM	This kind of belongs in the courtroom, since it's a rules issue. That aside- in the past we have said a horse and rider must both withdraw in order to withdraw. [otherwise a horse could constantly be said to be in a "state of withdraw"] ;) Hmm.. ok. Can we add this into the courtroom for future reference then? :)