Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 06-30-05, 03:39 PM	The Council of Gladius http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Struktur/HouseCommons.jpg Welcome to the Council of Gladius! This thread is open for everyone and its main purpose is to discuss current issues, and the future of this board. The normal procedure is that the GM announces a topic which will then be discussed. To find a quick solution, you should stay focused on that topic and not open a new one. Your opinion is valued here so add your 2 cents and participate in the discussions. This thread has replaced the Council of Elders and the House of Commons.
Jh316 06-30-05, 03:42 PM	I think that Intimidate could be used in a similar way as it was suggested Profession and the others be used, as long as the character's alignment allows going around and intimidating people for money in a mafia-esque manner. I know it's not the announced topic, but I'd probably have forgotten what I wanted to say by then.
Zerone 06-30-05, 04:59 PM	Concerning Diplomacy vs. Handle Animal... Diplomacy is for PC vs. NPC, not PC vs. PC. PC to PC is the Leadership feat, or role playing. Let me explain... Deinonychus (CR3) vs. Pegasus (CR3) Which one do you choose and by what method (for example you are a LG whatever)? Deino: Doesn't care about alignment and needs a +9 HA or a +? Dip. Pegasus: Needs +25 HA, or +7 Leadership, or the same if not easier +? Dip as the Deino because your alignments are closer. What's wrong with this picture, or am I missing something? *•. Z
Caterane 06-30-05, 05:28 PM	@Zoro: The deinonychus will need handle animal. Diplomacy would be used for creatures not covered by handle animal or by the market (like a pegasus) which fulfill the requirements (common language, susceptible, etc). There will be no creatures that overlap for the use of certain skills. @JH: Might be an idea but if you like you can do that with every skill. But then, where's the point when you can use every skill to make money? I'd say we stick to the obvious income skills (craft, profession, perform, sleight).
Sindorin 06-30-05, 05:30 PM	In the monster manual, it says clearly that you make a DC 25 Handle Animal check to raise the pegasus to adulthood, and a DC 10 Diplomacy check to make sure Mr. Pegasus likes you. This is one example of both skills being used towards an intelligent creature or beast. Some creatures have a price listed to have them trained professionally for life. In terms of Handle Animal, this is used for creatures that must be commanded by way of tricks. All you have to do to figure this out is read the skill description. Note to all - if we want to make previously useless skills have some form of purpose here, we need to make sure that they are implemented properly! Otherwise, it ain't CORE. I have become aware of a motion to have a "Gather Information" check be able to let the gladiator know of the opponent's starting location. In my opinion, this would be okay, however if both gladiators know each other's locations, I think it should cancel out, and to go even further Bluff should be able to counter it, and a Gladiator who puts ranks into both Sense Motive and Gather Information suddenly has something good for his going. This brings me to ask all of you: Do you think that the randomized start locations newly implemented have helped or hindered arena fighting, tactics, and pitlording?
Jh316 06-30-05, 05:48 PM	Well, let's see...Perhaps you could use the intimidate skill to give you a one-time discount on a certain type of item, but in the following weeks that type of item becomes slightly more expensive, to represent the merchants of it becoming unfriendly? It'd be kinda hard to implement and keep track of, though.
Caterane 06-30-05, 06:02 PM	Right. And this is our prime directive: we have to keep it simple! Whatever rule you propose, House or Commoners, please keep in mind that there is no room for complicated rules. If there's a way to make it simpler, do it.
Jh316 06-30-05, 06:21 PM	Well, for climb, maybe the sides of the arenas have surfaces with a high Climb DC that lead to platforms 15 or so feet off the ground that you can use ranged weapons from? Forgergy: Forging a coliseum official document, making the opponent show up x rounds late at a starting position the forger assigned in the document? As for Balance, perhaps the platforms in Climb are more like narrow ledges?
King Uther 06-30-05, 07:52 PM	Intimidate can be a pre-battle thing, where you try to demoralize your opponent before fighting. Climb could be a way to traverse all of the ledges and columns within the arena. Disable Device - there is a 30% chance that an arena battle has a trap. Open locks - there is a 30% chance a chest exists hidden in the arena, with a potion or the like hidden within, the DC rises with the items usefulness. Survival - there is a 30% chance that extreme weather conditions are emulated. Balance - during a battle where extreme weather occurs, make balance checks over certain parts of the terrain or fall prone.
Jh316 06-30-05, 08:04 PM	Well sure, but you can't use intimidate like that. By the rules, demoralizing your opponent only makes them shaken for one round.
Sindorin 07-01-05, 03:01 AM	Intimidate is not meant to be used on player characters, because they could react however they want; Intimidate is meant to influence NPC's.
Jh316 07-01-05, 03:29 AM	Personally, I don't see the point in having skills to make money. Unless it's some huge amount, you'd still be better off just going to the colliseum and having your tactics be "Stand in one spot and don't use any expendables."
Sunwolf 07-01-05, 09:23 AM	I'll ask this here too so people are likely to see it. Since there is apparently some confusion about this among the pitlords -- I would like an official ruling: Should lay on hand healing be subject to the 1/3 rule? Higher level monks will also get a healing pool (Wholeness of Body) so this question also applies to them. It is not limited in number of times a day it can be used but by how much healing is available. I have seen it ruled both ways (all available) and (1/3 available) so which way is the correct ruling? My comments: The 1/3 rule seems in general to be aimed at limiting spellcaster/manifester power. Lay on hands (and monk Wholeness of Body) abilities help increase capabilities of a partial or non-spellcasting classes. As such does it make sense to limit this kind of healing in the arena? If the answer is not clear cut can we get an Elder ruling?
Sunwolf 07-01-05, 10:11 AM	Personally, I don't see the point in having skills to make money. Unless it's some huge amount, you'd still be better off just going to the colliseum and having your tactics be "Stand in one spot and don't use any expendables." If the skills can be used *in addition* to fighting in the arena, then they are certainly worth while. Weapon and armor crafting skills should only earn at most half of what a non-arena related skill like craft baskets or profession cook might earn. Certainly having skills like diplomacy, gather info, bluff, sense motive have some use will tend increase character builds that are more similar to those found in real campaigns where such skills do get used on a regular basis.
Gonbow 07-04-05, 12:00 AM	Thing is that monks cannot combine twf with flurry. Quote "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" [PHB,p41]. The monk could use it if he attacks with his monk weapons (quarterstaff for example, plus headbutt). Monks (and anyone else, I gather) CAN use Two-weapon fighting with Flurry of blows, or unarmed strikes period. They could NOT in 3.0,as was qouted in the council thread, but that was changed in 3.5 See this thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=179686 Post number 7 outlines this, by a Wizards staff member. Qoute cut out of context, by the way, see the elder discussion thread for full details, yay.
SoulLord 07-04-05, 07:35 AM	If im not mistaken that same example is also somewhere in the most recent faq. where monks can do it. it also was in a dragon magazine whose number i dont remember
Zerone 07-06-05, 09:13 AM	Sell corpses: You can now sell a corpse to the Bonesnatchers that they sell on their own for half the price. You must be able to carry it home to Gladius of course, and you must be non-good. Extending Usage of Skills: I've proposed a chart and a formula for skills. Let's summarize it. If your character is set ready and participating in an arena fight, he can use Profession, Sleight of hand, Craft, and Perform to earn extra money that week. For Quests it is up to the Questlord to decide: while you should have problems crafting a weapon on a Quest or going pickpocketing in the wilderness, you might be able to perform in a tavern while in a village. You must link the Pitlords GM Avatar Post on the fights thread to a new header called "Incomes" or "Economics". Profession, Sleight of hand, Craft*, and Perform earn you: Income = skill (take 10)*ECL Cap = max 100 gp per ECL *Craft (weapons, armor, bows, alchemy, poison) earns you half that value (because these have a secondary function). I think it's a bad idea to allow more money. This is just one more thing we have to track. Where is this going to be posted so others can see that it is being done fairly? Sell corpses: This is abusable: I miniquest for a really easy/expensive creature that I wish to tame, adnwhoops, I killed it - 52 weeks in a row. Man I'm a bad trapper... At best this has to be limited to Monster fights selected by the Pitolrds account, but then extra money is left to chance, not an ability of the character. Bodies should not be able to be sold from Quests unless it is a quest to 'harvest' bodies for the Bonesnatchers, in whichcase you should be a member os some such thing. Extending Usage of Skills: The skills in question should only be usable if your character is active for the week. It should be added to your gp per week crafting limit, no matter the skill (whether it is a craft, perform, or some other skill), as it is taking time. It is unfair to limit a skills monetary value based on its effectiveness in the arena - they should all yeild the same. Otherwise we should grant xp bonuses and penalties to classes based on their effectivness in the arena. Hey Bard, becasue you are sub-par, you'll gain 50% more xp. Hey spellcasters, because you are uber classes, you'll be penalized 50% due to your effectiveness... Perhaps there could be another 'list' at the end of the character sheet like this, using the 'Perform' skill DC for the monetary value based off the Take 10 rule: Past Gains: Craft: Bowyer/Fletcher (+10) 29/July/05: DC 20 is 3d10 sp/day = 16.5 sp, x7 days = 11.55 gp for the week TO BE DISCUSSED (1) Gather information to learn opponoments starting position. DC? (The DC would depend on the ECL of the opponoment) Bad Idea. That was the point in our changing the arena, to cut down the the likelyhood of first round kills. Bad idea. (2) Appraise+Diplomacy chart or formula to gain discount when buying things. I like it, but it should fall under the limit of how much gp a character can spend in crafting per week. (3) Diplomacy to acquire allies: - Creatures with INT 3 or higher - Must be able to communicate - Same alignment (DC+5 for each step away) - Suspensible to diplomacy - Quest/Miniquest - Diplomancy DC increase by 2 for all allies for each additional ally Bad idea. Leadership is for PC to PC. Diplomacy is for PC to NPC. A character controlled/created NPC is a PC... Bad idea. In the exampole of the Pegasus I gave earlier: You can have a Pegasus at the same level you could have a Deinonychus. Which do you choose based on Arena effectiveness? Questions: - Range of creatures? By type? - Skill modifier to get ally? Confused by this part... *•. Z
Caterane 07-06-05, 01:27 PM	I think it's a bad idea to allow more money. This is just one more thing we have to track. Where is this going to be posted so others can see that it is being done fairly? [On the Battles of Gladius thread; the Pitlord adds it to the Summary] Sell corpses: This is abusable: I miniquest for a really easy/expensive creature that I wish to tame, adnwhoops, I killed it - 52 weeks in a row. Man I'm a bad trapper... At best this has to be limited to Monster fights selected by the Pitolrds account, but then extra money is left to chance, not an ability of the character. Bodies should not be able to be sold from Quests unless it is a quest to 'harvest' bodies for the Bonesnatchers, in whichcase you should be a member os some such thing. [You can only sell those which the Bonesnatchers can sell: the player races, and the income is small. If you quest for corpses, then the corpse value is calculated in your quest reward.] Extending Usage of Skills: The skills in question should only be usable if your character is active for the week. [as I said] It should be added to your gp per week crafting limit, no matter the skill (whether it is a craft, perform, or some other skill), as it is taking time. [too complicated; max income would be 1000 then -> useless at higher levels] It is unfair to limit a skills monetary value based on its effectiveness in the arena - they should all yeild the same. [Then why would I take profession when I can use Craft weapons to craft weapons AND earn the same money] Otherwise we should grant xp bonuses and penalties to classes based on their effectivness in the arena. Hey Bard, becasue you are sub-par, you'll gain 50% more xp. Hey spellcasters, because you are uber classes, you'll be penalized 50% due to your effectiveness... [This is nonsense] Perhaps there could be another 'list' at the end of the character sheet like this, using the 'Perform' skill DC for the monetary value based off the Take 10 rule: Past Gains: Craft: Bowyer/Fletcher (+10) 29/July/05: DC 20 is 3d10 sp/day = 16.5 sp, x7 days = 11.55 gp for the week [It will be a fixed amount] Gather information: Bad Idea. That was the point in our changing the arena, to cut down the the likelyhood of first round kills. Bad idea. I haven't set a DC yet, so don't judge before you know the chances. I assure you this will be useful only to those who max it out. Secondly, your character needs to be able to make use of that knowledge. Thrirdly, there are spells that do the same. Fourthly, you have invested skillpoints. Bad idea. Leadership is for PC to PC. Diplomacy is for PC to NPC. A character controlled/created NPC is a PC... Bad idea. In the exampole of the Pegasus I gave earlier: You can have a Pegasus at the same level you could have a Deinonychus. Which do you choose based on Arena effectiveness? It will not be the equivalent of Leadership; it will be less effective. And again (I've answered your example before), I quote myself: @Zoro: The deinonychus will need handle animal. Diplomacy would be used for creatures not covered by handle animal or by the market (like a pegasus) which fulfill the requirements (common language, susceptible, etc). There will be no creatures that overlap for the use of certain skills. A pegasus will NOT be available for diplomacy. A deinonychus will NOT be available for diplomacy. A dragon - who cannot be taken by any other skill or feat - might be available. - Range of creatures? By type? - Skill modifier to get ally? Range: Should we make a list of diplomacy allies, or should we just say "all dragons" Skill: What creatures can you get with what modifier
Luni 07-06-05, 09:20 PM	I have a question about poisons. Can you ready a dose of poison on a weapon, even though there is a chance of failure? If they had Poison Use from being an assassin I wouldn't mind, but otherwise I don't think they should be able to.
Sindorin 07-07-05, 03:16 AM	I played a drow a while back that used drow poison on some arrows. The pitlord made the check as I shot the arrow, and it failed. I then failed the save, and passed out before the fight even began. It was rather embarrassing, and this is why I don't use poison anymore. I'm not sure if this quallifies as precedent, or if it is simply one way to go about it. Since there are no rolls outside of the arena (except in quests, rolling pairings, and campaigns ;)) I'd imagine that this would be a logical procedure.
Shaken, not Stunned 07-10-05, 06:03 PM	@Sindorin- To put it like a twelve-year-old: "That's gay." It does seem to be a very good way to do it from a DMs perspective though. @Cat- I agree with zerone on all topics with the exception of his comments with regards to selling corpses. I don't think it is particularly advantageous (one of those "Do you want to play, or do you want to win?" situations). Obviously, on some topics you and were in agreement, even if you misunderstood one another. I am particularly interested in the discussions regarding gather information. I think if you allow it to do what you are suggesting it should be allowed to do, it will really change things.
Sindorin 07-10-05, 07:36 PM	Yeah, I was really ticked about it, but it helped me grow up a lot in the game because I hadn't been playing very long (hell, everyone here has probably been playing years longer than I have, and yet you people call me "elder" :)).
Caterane 07-10-05, 07:38 PM	But you're also one of the longest-standing members of the coco. You know the rules well enough; what you made an Elder was your knowledge of the workings of this board and your active participation.
McJarvis 07-10-05, 07:39 PM	Yeah, I was really ticked about it, but it helped me grow up a lot in the game because I hadn't been playing very long (hell, everyone here has probably been playing years longer than I have, and yet you people call me "elder" :)). hah...years played arn't a good correlation to maturity of gaming. I've been playing dnd for 10+ years, but only became "good" at understanding rules in the last year.
Sindorin 07-10-05, 08:09 PM	True, but still... I see everyone posting questions regarding rules I've either never heard of, or never cared to take note of... which is why I don't participate in a whole lot of discussion in the elders thread, except here and there, and when I do I have a habit of changing my mind alot.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-10-05, 09:03 PM	I have a question about poisons. Can you ready a dose of poison on a weapon, even though there is a chance of failure? If they had Poison Use from being an assassin I wouldn't mind, but otherwise I don't think they should be able to. Those with Poison Use (like the assassin prc) can freely pre-buff with poisons they have purchased or crafted. Otherwise, take a chance and roll the dice. I have used poison countless times and i was very fortunate to not have poisoned myself. Sometimes i was buffing like 5 or more arrows per fight for like 4 or 5 fights and never managed to poison myself. Evil powers that be blessed me i guess. -ToK
Sunwolf 07-11-05, 04:05 PM	Questions that came up on a fight this week -- Are Power Completion items (ie powerstones) usable in a grapple? Powerstones do draw AOOs when used. They are like scrolls in that respect. If they are usable, what kind of action are they to draw? (Are they equivlaent to a light weapon or a spell component?)
TelinArtho 07-14-05, 12:45 AM	I saw this as one of the issues Cat wanted to address, and since I'm new to the community, figured I could provide an outsider's point of view. Take the simplest case (other than heads-up): A vs B vs C One way is to award who wins with the most xp and gold, the one who is knocked out second the 2nd most, and the one who is knocked out first the least. The problem is when is "1st and 2nd" if they both get taken down in the same round? In a normal battle the prize won for the loser is x xp and y gp. The winner gets 3x xp and 3y gp. In a 3 person free-for-all - you could divvy it up as follows: The "loosingest" of the losers gets x xp and ygp. The middle place gets 2x xp and 2y gp. The winner gets 5x xp and 5y gp. I'm not sure if more than a 3 person free-for-all is in the works, but I think for each loser, you should get nx xp and ny gp where n is the number of people who went down before you +1 (so in a 10-person fight, the person who came in 2nd gets 9x xp and 9ygp). The person who wins the fight gets 3x xp and 3y gp more than the 2nd place finisher (in the 10-person fight, this person would get 12x xp and 12y gp). Now the xs and ys are going to be the tough numbers to figure out. Depending on how high you want it to scale. If x starts at 300xp, then in a 3 player fight the rewards are 300/600/1500; in a 10 person fight: 300/600/.../3600. The only real problem here is that I am assuming a level playing field (all the same ECL). Anyways, I just figured I'd get the ball rolling and see what falls.
Caterane 07-14-05, 09:57 AM	I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. First of all we need a definition on the ranking. Last man standing is the winner, second-last is 2nd, and so on. Problem is that rogues could hide till only one (weakened) gladiator is left, and even more than in a regular "rogue vs gladiatorX" arena fight, the sneaker has an even easier time to hide as the others cannot spend rounds looking for him with other threats around. But not just sneakers but everyone who delays and hides is at an advantage, and we might see a lot of such boring and annoying to moderate tactics (rogue hides, druid burrows, ghost vanishs into pillar, meld into stone, rope trick, etc etc). So is there another way to determine the ranking? An easy one so that every pitlord can calculate it. Or any idea on how to deal with the delay tactic?
Cerebus13 07-14-05, 10:08 AM	I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. First of all we need a definition on the ranking. Last man standing is the winner, second-last is 2nd, and so on. Problem is that rogues could hide till only one (weakened) gladiator is left, and even more than in a regular "rogue vs gladiatorX" arena fight, the sneaker has an even easier time to hide as the others cannot spend rounds looking for him with other threats around. But not just sneakers but everyone who delays and hides is at an advantage, and we might see a lot of such boring and annoying to moderate tactics (rogue hides, druid burrows, ghost vanishs into pillar, meld into stone, rope trick, etc etc). So is there another way to determine the ranking? An easy one so that every pitlord can calculate it. Or any idea on how to deal with the delay tactic?Lower the maximum delay time to 5 rounds, and change slightly how delaying rounds work. For every round spent avoiding combat, the player must spend a round actively seeking combat in order to fill up the rounds that they had used avoiding combat. Example: Player A avoid combat for 4 rounds. He has 1 round left to avoid combat before he is in violation. Wanting to build up some credit he enters combat for 2 rounds. A now has 3 rounds available to avoid combat with. The total number of rounds delayed can be increased back up to 10 if people feel this is too restrictive, but this helps get rid of the annoying tactic of avoiding for 10 rounds....fighting for 1 round....and then avoiding for another 10 rounds.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-14-05, 10:12 AM	I already posted a very simple solution in Elders, but no one has responded. "You get xp for whomever you down in the arena and 1/3 by the person you were downed by." a vs b vs c vs d A takes down b and c B takes down d, but A's summons finish him off. C never took anyone down D took down A before he himself was downed by B A gets win-equivalent xp for downing both b and c and loss-equivalent xp for d B gets win-equiv xp for D, and loss-equiv xp for A C gets loss-equiv xp for A D gets win-equic xp for A, and loss-equiv xp for B C, being the lazy one, trying to let them finish each other off, doesn't benefit by being one of the last to go down. He never dropped any opponents, and was basicaly a spectator until nearing the end. In the above scenario, everyone dies :), but you can see that A was very active and benefits more than C. B & D, are what you can expect...basically kill one than be killed. Very typical. Lazy C, needs to be more pro-active. A's summons are prolly the last thing in the arena, and i guess if there was a "Last man standing" bonus, A would get it. It's simple...use the regualr xp rules as per dmg and combine it with our faq exp of loser still gains you can't go wrong. -ToK
Salrantol 07-14-05, 10:21 AM	The problem with that, ToK, is how do we determine who took whom down? If E deals 15 damage to F and G deals the last 2 to knock him unconscious, who gets the credit, or how much credit? Or if E deals 15 damage to H, and F deals the last 30 to take him down, who gets the credit, or how much credit? And what happens if the deciding factor in the fight between E and G is the debuff that F put on E while they were fighting? Does F get any credit for that? It's not clearly delineated. We might need to do some kind of a point system. This is not an actual proposition, only a starting point: Each successful attack or damaging effect: X points, where X is the damage dealt. Each attack by a foe that misses because of an effect you placed on them: 1 point. Each foe you knock unconscious: Y/10, where Y is their total HP. Each foe you outlive: 1 point. Each attack that misses you: 1/10 of a point. Each foe made helpless by you that is slain by another: Y/10 where Y is their total HP. Again, just a starting point, not an actual formula proposal.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-14-05, 10:36 AM	I see what you are saying, but it will basically come down to strategy and how the people play it. First off, that would be metagaming, and i hope the pitlord is wise enough to understand that. You can't "wait until he's down to half or less, then fireball or blah, blah, blah." I used to give Cat heck for that all the time in the past. Constant metagaming tactics are a no-no, that's why there's a spell that tells you all that. So my above example would still stand. The x/y would get very complicated very fast. Heavy winners (points) in your formula would be those with AoE spells while the sneaky rogue gets almost nothing. i like Cerebus' suggestion about reducing the delay to 5 rds, that would make everyone jump up and fight a whole lot quicker without a need to calculate x/y's. -ToK
TelinArtho 07-14-05, 11:43 AM	Well, like I said, it was just to get things started (hoping to stir up new ideas from a new person or two). It might just be better to determine a single victor and everyone else is a "loser" - 2nd best is still losing. So only the last man standing would get credit for winning and the others would get credit for losing. I'm actually partial to that, so there's no question on who the winner is (and in the case where the summoned creatures are the ones that take down the opponent while the summoner is already down - well everyone loses :) . This way, even if you are able to dispatch one guy just fine - you still need to be able to take out the others. I would definitely agree that delays should be cut down - possibly to 5 rounds. You would probably also be better served if the arena had a different set of obstacles - but that might be opening an altogether different can of worms (right now we have 4 starting points that don't have LoS - to add more the terrain would need to be modified slightly).
xanadu 07-14-05, 12:51 PM	When I had free time, I used to play first person shooter games. I know these games had some sort of forumlas to decide in a FFA was most "valuable" that went beyond simple kills; if someone else has already done this work, why re-invent the wheel. Personally, I think it is going to be very difficult to dissuade people from delaying/hiding/camping in FFAs regardless of what ideas are bounced around. The only way to motivate everyone to fight is to make a victory completing an objective rather than last one standing. You can shorten the delay all you want, I will always tell the pitlord "delay max rounds" and enter intial combat "stalling" i.e. firing ineffective slings from far away because I want to win and I know I am not alone. If you played enough "capture the flag" type shooter games, you'll know people don't stall, buff, or delay - time is more of the enemy than the opponents. FFAs victors should complete some sort of objective rather than be last one standing or else stalling and delaying will be common practices. If this sounds too unorthodox I think the order of finishing should be decided by total damage inflicted; at least this will reward aggressive play.
King Uther 07-14-05, 01:16 PM	How about always make it 1on1on1on1, then make it paired. Gladiator A is paired with B, and C with D. In order to continue, you must kill your paired gladiator. An example. I am gladiator A. I have to kill B. I kill him, now my target moves to C. C and D have been delaying, so now C has two opponents. At this point I have the advantage of delaying, a reward of being aggressive and finishing first. I could ready my action to attack the winner, or strike them both with a fireball. It's my choice. Make it a reward to finish first, and illegal to attack someone who's not your designted opponent, except in the case of area attacks that attack your opponent and someone else.
Caterane 07-14-05, 01:18 PM	I have not much experience with computer games (except for Diablo II) but I am sure Tellish can tell us novels ;) Btw, I did reply to your suggestion, see Discussion thread. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that we should go with 1 winner and rest losers. That's easy to calculate. Addionally we should cut down the delay rounds to 5 which I would suggest to do for regular arena fights too. 10 rounds is just a very long time and 1 single shot resets it. You could basically run it 100 rounds with only shooting 10 times. And it would be consistent and not an extra rule. Rewards would then be calculated individually. Ok, let's give it a try next week. Then, other topic... you guys here are really productive; I think I'll move over here from the Council LOL Monster fights are still a cool idea but they need a different environment. Here's my proposal from the Council: My solution would be to make it what it is supposed to be: a dungeon encounter. The vast arena surely doesn't qualify as that. Fighting a dire bear in the arena is ridiculous; any level 3 PC with a potion of fly can kill it. Now imagine a direbear in a 50x50 room with a 10ft ceiling... I think we should create a special monster pit for these fights. Or better even, a mini dungeon so that there are some options for everyone. At the same time we decrease the level I roll on from ECL+1 to ECL+0, or ECL-1 even. This is imo the most elegant solution to our dilemna, and would fix monster fights. Now we need a map for them and this is where you come in: if anyone wants to present an idea, he is most welcome and I'll give out a credit for every good map you propose. As soon as one has been picked, we will enable monster fights again. Perhaps even next week?
Caterane 07-14-05, 01:23 PM	How about always make it 1on1on1on1, then make it paired. Gladiator A is paired with B, and C with D. In order to continue, you must kill your paired gladiator. An example. I am gladiator A. I have to kill B. I kill him, now my target moves to C. C and D have been delaying, so now C has two opponents. At this point I have the advantage of delaying, a reward of being aggressive and finishing first. I could ready my action to attack the winner, or strike them both with a fireball. It's my choice. Make it a reward to finish first, and illegal to attack someone who's not your designted opponent, except in the case of area attacks that attack your opponent and someone else. Actually Uther, I think that is a good idea for yet another arena fight type ;)
TelinArtho 07-14-05, 01:37 PM	Rewards would then be calculated individually. Ok, let's give it a try next week. Although I am new to the CoCo - I am willing to be a Guinea Pig for the all vs all fight. My character hasn't generated much discussion yet, so I presume everything is at least calculated right... I'll set him to ready in a little while.
King Uther 07-14-05, 01:37 PM	Monster fights can be easily resolved. Make it like the monster is owned by someone, who buys their equipment. When they send it into the arena, the monster is equipped with at least enough to pose a threat. If that's not fair, I can design 6-15 maps to take into account different terrain types, and make the character fight the monster on home turf.
Caterane 07-14-05, 01:51 PM	The list I roll the encounters on is called "Dungeon Encounters" so we should use this type of environment. Although a lion might live on plains, he wouldn't have a chance against a flying gladiator, home turf or not. As I said, present your maps. 1° per good one. If we have more than one good map we can even use all of them and roll randomly before every monster fight.
TelinArtho 07-14-05, 02:12 PM	@Cat - where should we put the maps (I presume in the Maps of Gladius - but I want to make sure)? I've got a couple I'm thinking of...
Caterane 07-14-05, 02:16 PM	Yep, that's the thread but also tell us here so that we don't confuse them with questlord maps.
TelinArtho 07-14-05, 05:12 PM	I'm about to post the first one - I'm making some notes about it now - sorry that it will be in characters for now - maybe someone can enhance it later. Its purpose is to keep a varied terrain - certainly more could be added, but I didn't want to make it too cluttered. Edit: Posted Creature Arena 1 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6697608)
Gonbow 07-14-05, 05:47 PM	Make a map and get credits hey? Hmmm... I think I'll take a shot at this. But can anyone suggest a good map creation program? The map's on that thread vary wildly in quality, and though I'm sure some of that is as much the creator as the program, having a good program cant hurt.
TelinArtho 07-15-05, 12:17 PM	This post is in response to ToK's post in the Elders' forum here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6704205) I don't know that doing a % of damage dealt will work, unless you can come up with a system to cover the damage that is healed. For instance, in a three player fight - each player has 40 hp. A deals 20hp damage to B B deals 10hp damage to C C deals 10hp damage tp B B has now taken 30 damage, so he heals with a cure light wounds, healing 1d8+1 damage. Who's damage is healed? /d
SoulLord 07-15-05, 12:26 PM	he he it gets worse! Imagine player A casts hold person on player B Sucessfuly then player C coup de graces player B! I think the simplest solution is to make it last man standing.
Cerebus13 07-15-05, 12:46 PM	Unfortunately both of these solutions to how FFA fights should work have flaws. #1 - Give XP based on amount of HP damage done. Flaws - AOE damage give inflated bonuses, people can abuse the system by recycling their HP totals with cure spells and then get damaged more inflating the XP even more. Possible solutions - Cap the total amount of XP that can be awarded. #2 - Last man standing Flaws - People will abuse delaying as much as possible to wait for everyone else to kill each other. Possible solutions - Lower delaying to 5 rounds. Implement a system where you have to "earn" back delaying rounds in a 1 to 1 basis by "participating" for X rounds. ---- Another alternative, one that people don't seem to like, is to award XP based on who gets the killing blow on a player. Some people argue that "so-and-so only did 1 damage but got the last hit in so he should only get a percentage of XP". However, in D&D the only way to determine a person's HPs is if they are at 0, <0, or if you have the Deathwatch spell. Deathwatch is Cleric only, and it is only a 30-foot range cone spell....so it doesn't see a lot of usage. This means that it is very hard for players to judge when an opponent is about to die, so they could not just wait until they are under 5 HPs and jump in for the kill. I would hate for my PC to lose a kill on someone due to a lucky shot from some rogue in the shadows, but it would encourage people to write a lot more aggressive tactics to ensure they kill their opponent. You want to be the last person to strike a blow against somebody, hiding will simply delay the battle until such time that you face the last person left. Abuse could still lay in that strategy...but limit delaying to 5 rounds and some other limitations could get rid of that.
SoulLord 07-15-05, 01:06 PM	I agree with the 5 round delay limit. its enough time to buff or get to a nice spot to attack. so last man standing 5 round delay. and well if you beat someone I guess you could use their stuff on the remaining opponents ;)
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 01:11 PM	It's easy to say it has flaws, everything does. Although i like your simple solution of "killing blow" it too has flaws. #1 - xp is capped in my example. You can't earn for than 100% of the players base hp for xp. Meaning if he rages/heals, he's still only worth 900xp/gp (ECL 3). I even used that in my first example to show you can't earn more than 100% of what a player is worth. #2 - players can co-ordinate to take out the mage with AoE first if they like. That is part of the strategy...and by saying ppl will abuse AoE you are assuming everyone will mass in one big group for that...again, not likely but it can happen. #3 - last man standing = bad idea. Sneaky rogue sniping every few rounds, thus not incurring delay tags, never really kills anyone just picks his nose in between shots, and eventually kills the AoE mage now that he's all spent. Does he get xp as if killing all 4? Heck no. Not in my opinion anyhow. #4 - xp should be base on performance, not cowardice. The more active you are, the more exp you get. Sneaky people have to be sneaky, and can still do lethal dmg from a surprise sneak attack, followed by a flank attack. -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 01:14 PM	...and well if you beat someone I guess you could use their stuff on the remaining opponents ;) Absolutely not unless you steal it while he's alive and fighting back. And this has been done in the past with sleight of hand rogues. Stealing pots off the gladiators belt (at random) and drinking them. If you stole a scroll, you'd have to decipher it with whatever means available to you before being able to cast it. If you stole a wand, you'd need to know the activation word and/or attempt to identify it somehow to utilize it. If you're a umd-rogue, just activate blindly. HOWEVER, once an opponent is killed something should happen to the body to make it either unlootable or just disappear entirely. Otherwise a gladiator could get stripped naked....not good. -ToK
Prince FyreDragon 07-15-05, 01:21 PM	Absolutely and this has been done in the past with sleight of hand rogues. Stealing pots off the gladiators belt (at random) and drinking them. If you stole a scroll, you'd have to decipher it with whatever means available to you before being able to cast it. HOWEVER, once an opponent is killed something should happen to the body to make it either unlootable or just disappear entirely. Otherwise a gladiator could get stripped naked....not good. One thing that immediately comes to mind is attach a character death-activated spell of some kind to all characters participating prior to entering the arena...maybe a COCO version of a dimension's door spell or something that carries a body and all equipment held by the dead character at the time of entry into the arena (not counting used expendables) outside of the arena for resurrection...take away that portion of possible abuse from a character death.
Cerebus13 07-15-05, 01:46 PM	@Tok How would you deal with healing in your example then? You could have the Pitlord keep track of damage dealt by each player and then subtract the healing from each of those totals equally....but we were aiming for something simpler I guess.
TelinArtho 07-15-05, 01:54 PM	Well, ToK - the only problem I had with your system is how to deal with healed damage. If someone is damaged by two sources and then is healed - who gets less xp? I haven't been able to come up with a idea on how to account for this. Healing could add to the total maximum damage dealt, but then a person's xp value per hp goes down pretty quickly (at least at 3rd level). Let's take a look and see what it does: Person A is 3rd level and has 30 hps (each hp is worth 30xp (900/30)). Person B deals 10 damage to person A in round 1 and Person C deals another 10 damage to person A in round 1. Person A, not liking this, grabs a potion of Cure Moderate Wounds (2d8+3) and heals 19 hp (maximum - boy is he lucky. At each of their attacks, the attackers would have gotten 300xp for each of their 10 damage hits. Now that he has healed however, he has 49 total hps to divide from. Now each one only gets 183.6 xp for those 10 points of damage. In the next round, each of the two opponents pummel player A again, and again, each one deals 10 damage - so he is now down to 9 hp. They have each dealt 20 points of damage and now have earned 367.3 xp. Player A, again dealing with the defensive, heals with another Cure Moderate wounds - healing another 19 points. ... In round x they finally deal enough damage to kill him. They've done 200 points of damage each, but yet they've only earned 450 xp. Instead of an hp being worth 30xp - they are now worth 2. ------------------------------ All in all - all of this is not difficult to calculate. I'm not particularly fond of it, but it isn't a horrible system to work with - just more numbers to keep track of. However, you might find that this is pretty bad for a wizard. Picture a 3rd level wizard with no con bonus (hp = 9). Each hp here is worth 100xp - and it is quite possible he'll die in a single hit (so no healing possible). In a multi-player fight, this means the wizard will be very quick work, while the cleric and paladin (who both have good, cheap ways to heal) are left to the end because they will be tougher to EARN from. Another thing to consider is the effect of cohorts and companions. Do they count towards the main character's hp total? If not, how do they effect the total xp earned (both if you have one and your opponent doesn't and vice versa). At 3rd level, I think this is all not too difficult to calculate, but later on, when more and more cohorts are brought in - I think it can get a little numbers heavy. In the end, I'm of the opinion (and that's all it is) that this is unnecessarily complicated. Last man standing doesn't require much calculation and with everyone else losing, there's little to handle in terms of xp calculation. Also, I'm also willing to try anything. Hence the reason I offered to be the guinea pig for the all vs all fights under the guidelines that Caterane has specified. /d
Cerebus13 07-15-05, 02:10 PM	@TelinArtho Adding to the total HPs like you suggested is probably the easiest way to still use ToK's proposal. The equation would work out to be: Total XP for killing Opponent / Total HPs = Total XP earned per HP of damage dealt So an ECL 3 fight has 900 XP earnable...and lets say there is a 30 HP cleric. At 30 HPs he is worth 30 HP/XP, but if he heals up a few times to say....57 HPs he is only worth 15.789~ HP/XP. This isn't too much more math for a Pitlord to deal with, and it is a heck of a lot more balanced than Last Man Standing. I am very much opposed to a Last Man Standing setup because people could simply avoid combat until the very end, no matter how much of a limitation you imposed on delaying tactics. People could make total defensive builds that fight (albiet with full Combat Expertise or Tumble) to avoid delaying, but are so ineffective due to their increased defense that they kill no one while lasting until the end. Not a fun prospect to kill 3 other opponents and then have to deal with a guy who has done nothing the entire battle.
TelinArtho 07-15-05, 02:36 PM	Well, like I said, I am willing to try anything. However, to finish this off, we still need to deal with the cohorts and such that are brought in as well. These are more difficult to work with, because they add a % of the total amount, but I guess it isn't too bad. 3rd level cleric has a Light Warhorse with him. The other 2 opponents don't have anything. Therefore - the cleric and warhorse are worth 900 and 225 respectively. As long as each creature has a separate xp value - I think this will work ok. On the other side, the cleric thinks the opponents are worth 675 each. The more I think about it - the less problem I have with it, but we must be okay with having a little bit more math involved (which I have no problem with, I might add) - be aware it opens the possibility for mistakes (and they would be tougher to pick up. /d
Cerebus13 07-15-05, 03:21 PM	Well, like I said, I am willing to try anything. However, to finish this off, we still need to deal with the cohorts and such that are brought in as well. These are more difficult to work with, because they add a % of the total amount, but I guess it isn't too bad. 3rd level cleric has a Light Warhorse with him. The other 2 opponents don't have anything. Therefore - the cleric and warhorse are worth 900 and 225 respectively. As long as each creature has a separate xp value - I think this will work ok. On the other side, the cleric thinks the opponents are worth 675 each. The more I think about it - the less problem I have with it, but we must be okay with having a little bit more math involved (which I have no problem with, I might add) - be aware it opens the possibility for mistakes (and they would be tougher to pick up. /dIgnore allies in the calculations I think, because killing them right now has no effect on your XP earned....you get a bonus no matter what. So instead of: N xp / P total hps you have... (N * ally mod) xp / P total hps
SoulLord 07-15-05, 03:26 PM	If people are so concerned about characters stalling then why not make an arena without obstacles. that way characters won't be able to hide as effectively.
Cerebus13 07-15-05, 03:29 PM	If people are so concerned about characters stalling then why not make an arena without obstacles. that way characters won't be able to hide as effectively.Mounted character + charge attack + Spirited Charge feat + no obstacles = ouch.
KerlanRayne 07-15-05, 06:46 PM	How about you track the amount of damage each PC does for the entire fight. After a four person fight is over, whoever did the most damage gets XP as if he defeated 3 opponents, send place gets XP for 2 wins, third place gets XP for one win, and last place gets XP for one loss. There would be an extra penalty is you died, says -10% to -25%, maybe a bonus for most damage and still not dying. Insta-kill effects would cound as damage equal to current HP +10. Me or someone else could refine and flesh this out later. KerlanRayne
Jindl 07-15-05, 06:53 PM	How about you track the amount of damage each PC does for the entire fight. After a four person fight is over, whoever did the most damage gets XP as if he defeated 3 opponents, send place gets XP for 2 wins, third place gets XP for one win, and last place gets XP for one loss. There would be an extra penalty is you died, says -10% to -25%, maybe a bonus for most damage and still not dying. Insta-kill effects would cound as damage equal to current HP +10. Me or someone else could refine and flesh this out later. KerlanRayne It's not the damage that should determine xp. One character may cast a devestating condition applying spell (like entangle or hold person), which allows the next person in initiative to 1-hit kill the target. The 1-hit killer shouldn't get all the xp, should he? My suggestion is to make it an assassin game. Each player is only allowed to attack his target or counterattack his assassin (attacks as determined by the invisibility spell, although nontargets can be unintended casualties of area effects; counterattack means after you are attacked you may counterattack your assassin). When your target dies, then you assume their target. Here's an example: A is assigned to kill C. B is assigned to kill D. D is assigned to kill A. Which leaves C assigned to kill B. These assignments are randomly rolled as part of pairings. A can only target C, or counterattack D. B can only target D, or counterattack C. Etc. If A kill's C, then A assume's C's target (meaning that A now target's B). If A were to counterattack D (who is targetting him), and kill D, then B would now target A. It may sound complicated, but its really very simple. The system does a good job of preventing multiple characters from teaming up on one PC, which also means that XP is much easier to divide. Xp would be awarded for each target that you defeat, using the normal rules. So if you assassinated 2 targets, before being killed by the 4th, then you would get xp for your two kills, while the 4th would only get xp for you. Pretty elegant, eh? -Jindl
SoulLord 07-15-05, 06:57 PM	It seems very good, somehow it reminds me of the old CCG of Jihad! VtM perhaps via magic you can only hurt your target and your attacker all others being inmune to damage caused directly or indirectly by you.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 06:58 PM	@Tellin & Cerebus: My example did have healing in it, and as you'll see the other person who had to deal the extra dmg, didn't get the extra xp. A max exp anyone is worth would be 900 xp, and the percentages were based on base hp dmg dealt. Ok, but anyhow Jindl has proposed and someone else as well, to do a target vs target battle. I'm all for it. I give up on my xp/hp system. lol Whatever is easier. -ToK
xanadu 07-15-05, 07:25 PM	Jindl's assassin idea sounds interesting. I know lots of college dorms do stuff like that during orientation, has anyone actually played this and does it work?
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 07:29 PM	Jindl's assassin idea sounds interesting. I know lots of college dorms do stuff like that during orientation, has anyone actually played this and does it work? We can always try it out this wednesday. -ToK
Cerebus13 07-15-05, 07:31 PM	Uh, the assigned target idea is good and all....but it isn't going to perfectly prevent people from teaming up on each other. A could be targetting B, but if C attacks A and B chooses to defend himself then A finds himself facing 2 opponents at once. In any event determining how to best run these fights is going to be a chore.
Luni 07-15-05, 08:40 PM	I like Jindl's idea! I actually have played it before when I was in school, about 15 years ago. Everyone was given a target. You were given about 5 minutes to hide in the forest (big forest). Then you run around trying to tag the person who is your target, while trying to avoid your target. When you tag one person, you get their target. Of course, you couldn't tag the person coming after you, you could just try and avoid them. Advice. When Cat does pairings, the Pitlord, decides who draws who, and sends them out to the peoples who tactics he works. It probably should be kept a secret. It probably would work best as a seperate thread, with a Pitlord moderator, instead of it being run by the Pitlord. Any issued tactics, would probably fall apart real fast. As for AE attacks, they should damage everyone equally. You don't get the xp if you accidently fry someone whom was caught in the AE. If you help player B take out player D with AE's, while you were going after player C, Player B still gets the xp.
Jindl 07-15-05, 09:08 PM	Re: Area effects - I think a rule that "If possible, area affects should only include your target" is a good place to start. Sometimes your target is going to be 5 ft away from another PC (like when they are trying to melee thier target), and it might not be possible to avoid including another PC in the area. But whenever possible, area effect spells should be placed to only include your target. I think you must give xp for any unintended casualties. It encourages players to be smart about their strategy. And keeping the starting assigned targets secret is a good idea too. You might not be so quick to even try to team up if your teammate could have you as a target. Something else to consider on the XP/GP rewards. When a PC is killed, split the rewards from that PC's death with every other PC that damaged him. So if "A" attacks his target "B", then "C" counterattacks his assassin "B", killing him, then both "A" and "C" would split the rewards for killing "B", and "A" would be assigned "C" as a target. This last part, ofcourse, makes any short term partnerships into VERY short term partnerships. -Jindl
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 09:15 PM	Something else to consider on the XP/GP rewards. When a PC is killed, split the rewards from that PC's death with every other PC that damaged him. So if "A" attacks his target "B", then "C" counterattacks his assassin "B", killing him, then both "A" and "C" would split the rewards for killing "B", and "A" would be assigned "C" as a target. This last part, ofcourse, makes any short term partnerships into VERY short term partnerships. -Jindl Then we are right back at square one. Divison of xp based on who you damaged. I like your original, basic idea first. You get xp for your target and noone else. If you start sharing xp, people will start sharing tactics and team up to split the dividends. Or the crazy-assed mage will just AoE like a madman, knowing he'll get half xp for someone that may not even be his target. I like it simpler. But i think what you are getting at is A targets B while B is hunting C, who in turn hunts D, who in turn hunts A. B turns to defend himself and wounds A. D catches up and finishes A off. Ya i can see that happening. :( More complications. hehe. Either way, whatever we come up with, we need to try it out this wednesday. -ToK
Jindl 07-15-05, 09:28 PM	Actually, what I am saying has nothing to do with actual damage. I'm reflecting back on the Core rule that divides XP/rewards between party members. Paraphrased, it could be: "The rewards for defeating an opponent are divided equally between all combatants that attacked that opponent." (Remember that attacks are defined by the invisibility test, with PC's responsible for the actions of all allies, including temporary allies resulting from spells/powers/magic items.) In an assassin game (which is the best name for what I proposed) it could work like this. (Initial Targetting: A->B->C->D. Initiative: B, C, A, D.) B attacks C, wounding him. C counterattacks B, wounding him. A attacks B, wounding him. D attacks A, wounding him. B counterattacks A, killing him. (The reward is evenly divided between B + D). C attacks D, wounding him. D attacks B, killing him. (The reward is evenly divided between A + C + D). C attackd D, killing him. (The reward belongs solely to C, since he was the only person to attack D.) The influence of area effects and AoO's should be minimal. You can't attack someone that is not your target, and you can only counterattack your assassin. Accidental casualties of area attacks must be kept to a minimum. Remember, an action is deemed an attack if it fails the invisibility test. And PC's are responsible for the actions of their allies (including summons, FoWP, astral constructs, etc.) I don't think we need to worry too much about area of effects granting a PC a share of everybody's XP. And teaming up is gonna be stupid, because as soon as your "team" kills another gladiator, your teamate instantly gets assigned you as a target (and guess who's next in initiative...) -Jindl
Tellish_of_Ket 07-16-05, 01:35 AM	the only thing i would be worried about is a fireball damaging the other 3 players and the mage automatically gets a share of everyone's exp. If we take the sharing out, i think it would be fine albeit a little anti-core. I guess we still need some work on it. The more i think about it though, the more i like my %dmg to hp for exp in my example...and use LL's suggestion of adding any rage, temphp, vigor, healing etc....to their max hp and then divy up the xp. Everyone benefits, and it could be a viscous game of deal-making and deal-breaking. Kinda like real life, lol. -ToK
Zerone 07-16-05, 02:00 AM	Lets think about tactics for a fight like this. How's a pitlord going to keep everything straight? If you wanted your character to act as you playing him, you'd have to write a book, with a chapter for each scenario... else it's up to the pitlord to run your character. While I don't mind the pitlord improvising a bit, I want to win or loose do to the tactics each gladiator wrote. That way there is no one to blame except oneself. This asks a great deal of the gladiator and the pitlords involved... *•. Z
Caterane 07-16-05, 05:06 AM	First of all, thanks for your participation and the speed with which we came up with good solutions astonished me. Let me comment on the proposed things. XP based on damage: is not going to work in any way. With a system as abstract as D&D you cannot base the rewards on only 1 part. The paralyzed PC who gets CDG by someone else, the weakened PC who got dispelled all his buffs and hit by some penalty spells (Ray of enf.etc) who gets killed by a fighter, clearly show that damage does not reflect anything. But even more problematic is the Pitlords job to track and in the end calculate it. That adds a lot of extra time to an already highly complicated fight. I like King Uther's idea which has been developed further by Jindl. However, it still needs some refinement. Counterattacks are not a good option because it makes it too complicated to run and to write tactics on, if not impossible. Instead you should be limited to attack only your assigned target. Even area spells only affect your target, for simplicities sake and to prevent any loopholes that might pop up. Then, A->B->C->D->A is not that good either. If I am A, and D is my hunter, then it would be better to buff and stand back, focusing on defending myself. Reason: what do I gain from defeating B early? If B is out, I have to kill C who is the only one who can occupy my hunter D. There's little to gain here. Instead, we need to make sure that as soon as you have killed your target, you get auto-assigned your hunter. That encourages everyone to kill fast and buff last. Finally, winner rewards - like in all arena fights - are only gained vs those you defeated. Against everyone else, you receive loser rewards. Writing tactics will be more complicated, that's true. There's of course always the possiblility to run it in a seperate thread. It might take longer than a week but you will also receive much more xp and gp in the end. If you write a tactic it needs to be longer but you can still focus on one enemy at a time. And as I said, the rewards are greater so your additional work will carry fruits. To prevent an increase of my own workload in doing pairings, the order in which the gladiators are posted on the Pairings post is also the order of their targets. Uhme vs Rook vs Rayos vs Zubair is A->B->C->D->A
Sindorin 07-16-05, 05:29 AM	That would be crazy if one manages to defeat everyone else by themselves - I mean, say things get locked down for the others (as which sometimes happens) and one guy who happens to have what it takes to bring the others down manages to just rack up three kills... That's like winning three arena fights in one week!!!
Tellish_of_Ket 07-16-05, 05:47 AM	You mean A vs B // C vs D [ab] vs [cd]. I can accept that. -ToK
Pitlords 07-16-05, 12:16 PM	@TelinArtho: Thanks for posting the map! You definately deserve a credit for it. There is one concern though: the central section can be easily blocked by spells, and a huge gladiator won't get through there at all. I think we should remove at least half of that wall. Asides from that, it looks nice. Anyone else who wants to earn credits?
Gonbow 07-16-05, 02:12 PM	Reading over the Elder's discussion so far, the 'open circle' assassin battle seems the most logical to me (E<==>A<==>B<==>C<==>D<==>E<==>A) There is some concern over players teaming up ... Just say NO TEAMING UP. I mean, is it all THAT hard to enforce? Especially if the exact designations are kept secret until the fight is run? (I.E: You know WHO is in the battle when you submit tactics, but not which two you will be fighting).
Caterane 07-16-05, 02:15 PM	If you don't know who you are fighting you cannot write tactics.
Gonbow 07-16-05, 02:19 PM	Sure you can. Since if you survive, your going to be fighting somone new anyways. And the point about it being mostly used for small groups is also valid; If you only have two other people.. Gasp! Your fighting both of them! If there are three other people, chances are good that your fighting any one of them. It's only with really big fights that the exact nature of your target becomes important. And making so someone cant defend themselves against someone attacking them is pretty silly. Stupid silly. Alternatively, you could set it so each person starts with one target, and they cant attack anyone but that target; until they defeat the target, or are affected by someone else. Each instance adds a new target to their 'list'. (The next person on the chain, or the person that attacked them, appropriately). Clunky... but if you really don't want more than one target starting out, the way to go?
Zerone 07-17-05, 04:06 PM	Concerning Concealment & Blur: Read the Faerie Fire spell description and tell me that you do not get to hide behind a Blur spell... *•. Z
xanadu 07-17-05, 06:00 PM	@Zerone, why would anyone ever use the darkness spell if blur provided all its benefits with no side effects at the same level? @Gonbow, tactics against a particular gladiator is at the heart of CoCo's purpose...if we dont know who we are fighting, then its up to the puitlord to do too much interpretation and then our gladiators turn into NPCs. @Caterene, I do not believe the no counterattack route is very good or realistic. I really think it would be crap if I have to find some hiding rogue while some jerk took potshots at me unable to defend myself. There has got to be a better way to prevent teaming up. I think teaming up would be natural people were actually there. They are not; the pitlord is running the fight. Maybe coming up for some guidelines for pitlords is the best way to prevent teaming up.
Caterane 07-17-05, 06:07 PM	How can the Pitlord know? Player A B and C all coincidently write to attack D. Intentionally or not, it seems logical to gang up on the most dangerous foe instead of throwing a fireball here, a lightning bolt there. Without our restriction, it will turn into a 2vs1 or 3vs1 fight. And you don't want to be on the receiving end.
xanadu 07-17-05, 07:08 PM	Here is what Cat posted in the Elders forum: A->B->C->D: Good thing is that you can easily tell who defeated how many gladiators, thus calculate the rewards easily. Also easiest way to write tactics on. Problem is that you cannot counterattack and seems a bit unfair but is necessary to prevent teams, and reward quick kills. Not quite sure on something. When you assassinate your target, are you then allowed to defend yourself? If not, what are you supposed to do? A<->B<->C<->D: Also a good variant of the one above. While counterattacks are now possible, the problem of teams comes up again, and more than ever: A&C vs B&D comes naturally since neither A and C (or B and D) cannot attack each other. This however is no team fight but an All vs All and it should be clearly distinguishable. Would an odd number of players solve this? F-A-B-C-D-E-F Who's B going to team up with? D and E - no! I suppose he could "team" up with D or E, but then he incurred the wrath of a 3rd and previously disinterested party. AvsBvsCvsD: That's free for all. Most interesting variant because everyone can attack you, and vice versa. Disadvantage is the problem of teaming up (let's say A is considered dangerous; might cause BCD to attack him together so he has no chance) and that sneakers can keep out of combat. Most importantly however is that we have no real and easy way to assign rewards I think the reward system need not be convoluted. It's simple, if you do anything that adversely affects a fallen gladiator, you gain of share of his XP - similar to regular D & D. Doesn't matter if you hit with a dagger for 1 HP and the wizard disintigrates them = those 2 get 50/50 share. This solves the hold person scenario. It also compells people not to hide; if they want XP, they better participate. It does bring up a potential problem with the fighter who misses 4 times with a greatsword and never gets a hit. I say too damn bad. I'd argue this is necessary to prevent Roger the wimpy rogue from standing 200 feet away from everyone and firing a sling at every contestent at -12 to hit claiming she did something useful. You want XP? Harm, incapacitate, or hinder someone - dont hide along the fringes leeching other people's hard earned XP. As far as the fighter who honestly tried and didn't hit; hey the line has to be drawn somewhere. Yes it sucks but hit next time and it is necessary for a simple XP system and to prevent Roger from cheesing his way through the FFA. The biggest drawback I can see is that gladitors will be in a rush to hurt everyone else so they get a share of XP. Opps, I just created the FFA scenario people want :) AvsB and CvsD: Easiest way to run such a fight but it has little difference to a regular arena fight. It'd be basically only 2 different fights in one arena. Rewards are easy to calculate and tactics can be written on it too. Still, that's not a real all vs all fight. I agree. Just 2 fights going on at the same time.
Caterane 07-17-05, 07:16 PM	(max number of players is 4) Using your system, if ABC gang up vs D, followed by AB vs C, they still all get a share of the xp.
xanadu 07-17-05, 07:39 PM	But Cat, how are you ever going to solve the gang-up problem? They are inherent in any FFA scenario. If the problem bothers you that much, then talking about an FFA is pointless because you never are going to eliminate that possibility. At least with my system, there is at least an incentive to go after every gladiator and not gang up. Here there is at least a penalty for the scenario you described. Besides, why would A B and C all trust each other? I got news for everyone here, I dont trust anyone and I am going to make sure I hit you over the head with a greataxe before you die because I want XP and gold; I will not stand side by side like some comrade in arms while going after poor old D. No, I will use D as a flanking bonus, power-attack for 2, and split B asunder.
SoulLord 07-17-05, 09:12 PM	How about this.. If a player has not done any significant harm to his target after 5 rounds he is eliminated. his assasain gets the points as if he had slain him. significant harm 10% hp lost or leave the target in a weakened state (entangled, paralized,cursed etc..)
Gonbow 07-17-05, 09:34 PM	Regarding people messaging each-other to team up on someone: Say it's illegal, and use the honor system. Now, while this might not work for people that know each-other outside of the boards, it presents a sticky problem for our would be cheaters. The person they message; are they going to go along with it? Or are they going to rebuff the offer and report the infraction? I'll state it now that I'd be one of the latter rather than the former, if it isn't allowed, it isn't allowed, end of story. We have to have trust in each-other at some point along the way; of course people that go out of their way to circumvent the rules will be a problem. The key is identifying and eliminating them or reforming them, just as you would in a table top game, because EVERYTHING is more fun when the people involed play fair.
Luni 07-18-05, 12:13 AM	How about this.. If a player has not done any significant harm to his target after 5 rounds he is eliminated. his assasain gets the points as if he had slain him. significant harm 10% hp lost or leave the target in a weakened state (entangled, paralized,cursed etc..) Won't work. Take random luck. I could touch attack someone with shocking grasp, and due to the dice hating me, roll under 10, 5 times in a row. I like the whole, got to do something every 5 rounds.
Caterane 07-18-05, 04:23 AM	Ok, I have thought about it while I was in my regeneration pod http://www.sebastian-sutor.de/smilies/borgsmile.gif It's a little bit of everything: - It works like we said A->B->C->D but once you have eliminated your target, you are free to attack whoever you want. That way, team-mates cannot time their efforts. You will also most likely engage your hunter once you're free instead of teaming up. Encourages hunters to kill quickly. - Five rounds delay time instead of 10 rounds. Prevents gladiators to keep out of the battle. Example: wizard who buffs for 10 rounds. - We use Xanadu's xp share system as an add-on. You gain win xp against those who you defeated and lose xp against the rest (like posted in the Rules), both only if you have damaged them at least once. This also encourages to kill your target fast so that you can damage the others too. - We make it known that teaming up is illegal and despisable. You will auto-lose the match if we find out, followed by a tar & feather ceremony :D. Pitlords also should watch out for such things in the tactics.
Zerone 07-18-05, 09:47 AM	How about this: Free for all. Each combatant has a mark. They do not know who their mark is. Xp is gain in the following fashion: • 33.33% xp/gp for entering the Arena. • 33.33% xp/gp if you kill someone before your mark dies/you kill your mark. • 33.33% xp/gp for winning. • Everyone gets the losing 33.33% xp/gp. • All players have an equal chance to get the extra 33.33% xp/gp, and they can use their 'talents' to achieve or to not achieve this, as there are no restrictions. • Losers are not restricted to 33% xp/gp gain. • The winner may not get 100% xp/gp. • All xp/gp gains are open to all penalties/increases for level/alley/companion/etc... • 5 round inactive rule, not 10. *•. Z
Caterane 07-18-05, 09:58 AM	Problems with that: - When have you killed someone in case of multiple attackers? If you dealt 1 hp? If you dealt the most hp? Oh and don't forget that hp are a very bad base to calculate rewards as I've shown several times now. - If you say 1 hp is enough, then everyone will surely get away with 66% xp, and the winner 100%; that's not much of a difference between losers and winner. - If you say most hp it's too much work for the already occupied pitlord. And hp systems are bad anyway. - How can it be that the winner gets out with less than 100%? - How does that prevent teaming up? - How do you calculate rewards for different ECLs if you go with a flat 33%? - How are we supposed to keep track of the mark? Who determines them? And you can attack anyone anyway? And get the same xp, mark or not? I don't understand the purpose of your whole system.
TelinArtho 07-18-05, 10:02 AM	I haven't chimed in for a while, but the more discussion about the fight, the more I am leaning towards having one winner and several losers and letting it be a complete free for all (and an honor system on colluding). Consider that my vote - for what its worth.
King Uther 07-18-05, 10:04 AM	That won't work, Zerone, because who wants to be in a fight where winning in a more hostile environment than normal could yield less experience and gold.
King Uther 07-18-05, 10:07 AM	What if on the A=>B=>C=>D=>A scenario, there was a wall dividing the arena completely, and didn't open up until you killed your mark? That way if you are the first one to kill, it's your choice on whom to go after next, or whether to wait and fireball them while they battle it out.
TelinArtho 07-18-05, 02:44 PM	Posted another map for possible inclusion. Its a lot more simple than the previous one, but I think it offers possibilities as well. Anyway, it can be found here: Capture the Flag (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6729310) Also, with regard to the previous map, I hadn't really considered the impact of the intermediate walls too much - but yes they could effectively be used to block passage with the proper spells. However, I don't necessarily think that this is that bad of a thing. For instance, given the 10 round rule of forfeiture a wizard puts up a wall of stone (or some other wall that lasts 10 rounds or more) to block a portion of the entry into his area. His opponent can try to circumnavigate it (because there are plenty of ways to get around). However, by trying to circumnavigate, he is still trying to get to his opponent. If the opposing wizard just sits there - does he not just forfeit his match? Seems a bit of a technicality, but if your character makes the battle impossible to win/lose for the other, then I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that your character should forfeit. Really, this case only works for the wall of stone or wall of iron (since all other walls have a duration) and wall of fire can be dealt with (its not that much damage, plus the opponent needs to maintain concentration on it. Anyway, like I said, I am fine with making modifications, but I'd need more specific coordinates of which walls to which you were referring. /d
Zerone 07-18-05, 03:18 PM	How about this: Free for all. Each combatant has a mark. They do not know who their mark is. Xp is gain in the following fashion: • 33.33% xp/gp for entering the Arena. • 33.33% xp/gp if you kill someone before your mark dies/you kill your mark. • 33.33% xp/gp for winning. • Everyone gets the losing 33.33% xp/gp. • All players have an equal chance to get the extra 33.33% xp/gp, and they can use their 'talents' to achieve or to not achieve this, as there are no restrictions. • Losers are not restricted to 33% xp/gp gain. • The winner may not get 100% xp/gp. • All xp/gp gains are open to all penalties/increases for level/alley/companion/etc... • 5 round inactive rule, not 10. *•. Z Problems with that: - When have you killed someone in case of multiple attackers? If you dealt 1 hp? If you dealt the most hp? Oh and don't forget that hp are a very bad base to calculate rewards as I've shown several times now. - If you say 1 hp is enough, then everyone will surely get away with 66% xp, and the winner 100%; that's not much of a difference between losers and winner. - If you say most hp it's too much work for the already occupied pitlord. And hp systems are bad anyway. - How can it be that the winner gets out with less than 100%? - How does that prevent teaming up? - How do you calculate rewards for different ECLs if you go with a flat 33%? - How are we supposed to keep track of the mark? Who determines them? And you can attack anyone anyway? And get the same xp, mark or not? I don't understand the purpose of your whole system. 1. As stated above: Free for all... 2. Kill = bringing a character to -10 HP. 3. Winner who does not kill his Mark/kill another character before his Mark is killed, gets 66.66%. 4. Who cares about teaming up. That is what roleplaying and alignments are for... plus you might team up with your mark and not get to kill him in time. 5. Take the average of all combatants (round down on .5 and up on .6). So, for 1 level 6, 2 level 7s and 1 level 8: 6+7+7+8= 28/4= 7, or level 7 encounter. Then each combatant gets their xp based off the encounter chart when compaired to their level. 6. Mark is handled randomly by the pitlord. No one knows who their mark is, so they have to fight everyone if they want more xp besides losing (33.33%) or just 66.66% for winning without killing someone before your mark dies/killing your mark. That won't work, Zerone, because who wants to be in a fight where winning in a more hostile environment than normal could yield less experience and gold. The whole point is to make people fight and to not team up. If you do not fight and win, you'll receive less xp. If you team up, there is a chance that you'll team with your mark, resulting in less xp.
Caterane 07-18-05, 05:24 PM	@Telin: Second map, second credit. Looks also good. Simple but ok. Ceiling 20ft is bad for groundbound beast. Perhaps 15ft so that they can jump up and attack. Just one thing: the x-axis needs to have a space in between, and every field must be recognizable (by an o), see Arena Map for guidelines. Let's gather some maps and vote on it later.
TelinArtho 07-18-05, 05:36 PM	@Caterane: Thanks for the credit. I'll make the changes you mentioned when I get a chance (either tonight or tomorrow). Also, I'm not sure what you mean about this: the x-axis needs to have a space in between As for the ceiling being 20 or 15 - I'm fine with it either way - I'll change it when I make the other changes. /d
TelinArtho 07-20-05, 10:55 AM	Added 'o's to all spaces. Still need to know what you mean by "the x-axis needs to have a space in between" /d
Luni 07-20-05, 11:04 AM	He means, so when you load the program into notepad, it looks like a perfect square. He wants your map to look like this. x x x x x x o o o x x o x o x x o o o x x x x x x Spaces help people like me with seeing the number on each grid. If it is all jumbled, I for one, fine it very hard to read. Jumbled xxxxx xooox xoxox xooox xxxxx
TelinArtho 07-20-05, 11:31 AM	Ah ha - that does make sense... Changes made.
Zerone 07-22-05, 03:20 AM	In all vs. all battles spellcasters/manifesters are at a severe disadvantage with 1/3 spells/pps. They are fighting twice the opponents or more, so it stands to reason that they should receive at least 2/3 spells/pps. Vorag Grishnak and Czernobog are at a great disadvantage in this weeks pairings - their strengths are 1/3 while the other combatants strengths are at full mast (higher hit points, damage, attack modifiers, etc.). I think the all vs. all pairings should be canceled for this week and be tested outside of the arena, as that way no one is subject to being a test dummy. Comments? *•. Z
LLMadCow 07-22-05, 03:52 AM	A fighter still has 100% of his HP and a everyone else is on even ground. It requires thinking outside of the box and may require having a broader range of spells, but is still quite doable with 1/3 memorization. You know, unless your target has managed to become completely invisible to you while your hunter is able to find and kill you at will. If that is the case, you should've sided with that LLMadCow guy and harassed Caterane more. Rumor has it that LLMadCow was really worried about balance issues in the All vs Battles and that many issues and debates were mentioned, but the stalwart Caterane would not, nay COULD NOT be swayed by silly arguements of A vs B vs C when there was always a D! No matter what size text LLMadCow used, the mighty Caterane stood firm. Size 9+ text did not yet exist, or Caterane might have reconsidered! Debates raged on for some time and they went back and forth. Post after mighty post. Font after incredible font. Smilie vs Smilie. It went on for days. In the end, here is what happened: the Council of Elders fell asleep on the table while LLMadCow was off on one of his rants and busy quoting vast portions of the SRD; as a result they didn't notice when Caterane The Great implemented the rules and regulations for the All vs Battles without going to vote. The above is tongue in cheek and does not mean that I have any intentions of trying to over throw our dictator. Our dictator, lord and master Caterane is a kind and benevolent ruler who treats all fairly and would never decapitate an Elder during a meeting for questioning his heritage. Nope. All hail Caterane the Great!
xanadu 07-22-05, 09:44 AM	Zerone brings up a goot point. I think that once a gladiator defeats his target, then perhaps they should be allowed to use more spells (maybe another 1/3) since they have to pick up another target and, in theory, another encounter. I dont think allowing full allotment at the beginning is fair or best.
LLMadCow 07-22-05, 10:50 AM	Zerone brings up a goot point. I think that once a gladiator defeats his target, then perhaps they should be allowed to use more spells (maybe another 1/3) since they have to pick up another target and, in theory, another encounter. I dont think allowing full allotment at the beginning is fair or best. And then do you fully restock the fighter with healing potions and misc other stuff he might have spent or would like to buy with his winnings from half way through the fight? No? SPELLCASTERS ARE MONSTERS. SPELLCASTERS EAT MUNDANES FOR BREAKFAST. The more focused the class, the more accurate this statement becomes. Yeah, spellcasters at low levels have few spells. Okay, so put a note at the top of your sheet that says you'd rather sit out a week than be in a multi fight. That's fine. At higher levels (15 - 20) if a Wizard cannot apply a solid beat down to a fighter, a ranger and a Barbarian with his 1/3 spell allotment, then the player didn't memorize the right spells. And mind you that is all 3 with 1/3! At lower levels laying the smack down against 2 shouldn't be an issue. Grab some potions and stock up on scrolls. LL
Prince FyreDragon 07-22-05, 11:02 AM	And then do you fully restock the fighter with healing potions and misc other stuff he might have spent or would like to buy with his winnings from half way through the fight? No? SPELLCASTERS ARE MONSTERS. SPELLCASTERS EAT MUNDANES FOR BREAKFAST. The more focused the class, the more accurate this statement becomes. Yeah, spellcasters at low levels have few spells. Okay, so put a note at the top of your sheet that says you'd rather sit out a week than be in a multi fight. That's fine. At higher levels (15 - 20) if a Wizard cannot apply a solid beat down to a fighter, a ranger and a Barbarian with his 1/3 spell allotment, then the player didn't memorize the right spells. And mind you that is all 3 with 1/3! At lower levels laying the smack down against 2 shouldn't be an issue. Grab some potions and stock up on scrolls. LL Unless those two happen to be monks who have earned that whole innate spell resistance thing...then wizard = red paste on the ground making nice fingerpainting art with his broken potions.
Caterane 07-22-05, 11:40 AM	I don't want to join a philosophical hypothetical discussion about wizards, their power, and the transition arena->real campaign again, so I'll keep it short. In the beginning of the coco, wizards could use all of their spells and could memorize them in their tactics. When we forced them to prememorize half of that on the sheet, a big discussion broke out, saying this would doom wizards. It wasn't their doom. And when we decided that they had to prememorize all of their spells, the same discussion went on. And again when we nerfed them further by introducing the 1/3 rule. I've read every horror scenario about the poor poor wizard but the reality did not confirm any of these. Wizards are still the most powerful class, and this panic-making now is highly hypothetical. When LivingGladius began, I didn't want to enter a wizard but Ashenai asked me to do so. He said we have to test wizards and psions with the 1/3 rule. And so I did. Looking at Uhmentarymster and knowing what he can do, I am not convinced that the most powerful class will end up without a chance in Multiplayer fights.
King Uther 07-22-05, 12:09 PM	The wizard won't be dead in a multiplayer fight. More than likely he'll win more than he loses, considering if he is the only spellcaster then he can use a plethroa of spells to deny detection followed by many spells that basically kill instantly. He can fly, summon minions to protect him from his hunter, and all with a flair unable to be duplicated by any class, since the wizard has the ability to essentially learn every spell.
Sindorin 07-22-05, 02:35 PM	I think it really depends on how the wizard is built.
Caterane 07-24-05, 12:12 PM	So now that we have seen 2 versions of the All vs All fight it is time to evaluate them, and I would be glad if Xanadu can share his experience here. I ran one myself and I found it very complicated to do so. Moreso, a slight change has a huge impact on the final result. And it can become frustrating to the pitlord if everyone hides. How am I to determine who delays if everyone is "invisibly looking for his opponoment"? A problem that came up in the 3 player fight (Xanadu's) is that of the reward. Player A kills B who kills C. A and B same rewards? According to the system yes but A was not allowed to attack C. Therefore I think we should give the Free For All version a try. There is of course the looming shadow of teaming up but we have to deal with that later if it becomes a problem. Unless we find a better reward system (not based on damage alone and most importanlty: easily calculatable!!) I suggest to do it that way: Rules Suggestion for a 4 Player All vs All match: Everyone has his target (A->B->C->D->A) but is free to attack whoever he wants. However, he will only receive xp for killed targets! That means, teaming up is less desirable as is delaying. You might win and still get out with fewer xp than others because of your inactivity or incompetence (or bad luck of course). You can however also kill your hunter, or severly weaken him if you so desire, or whoever is near. Finally, the question on how to handle and reward a 3 player FFA match. This is different as all participants are directly confronted with each other (unlike in a 4pl where A/C and B/D are no direct quarries). I would be inclined to make a seperate rule for these fights: a real FFA which is based on the ranking. Rules Suggestion for a 3 Player All vs All match: There are no targets. You can attack everyone. The last man standing receives 2x winner rewards, the second one 1xwinner rewards and 1x loser rewards, and the loser receives 2xloser rewards. Ok, tell me your opinion about both suggestions.
xanadu 07-24-05, 01:24 PM	With my FFA, the 5 round rule helped force a cautious wizard to do something. Pitlords need to keep that internal clock in mind and force gladiators to act aggressively but intelligently should 5 rounds go by. Invisibility is a potential problem in the "everyone is invisibly looking for his opponent" scenario. Certain classes are at an advantage here. LOL in my fight Ormos ran around the entire fight invisible and died while still being invisible :rofl: Bring a bag of flour. Or, if everyone drinks an invisibility potion, they'll all expire at the same time :D Not sure but invisibility was not a factor in my FFA. I think these fights add spice and would like to keep them in whatever form we eventually adopt. They are more difficult to pitlord, but I actually like doing these fights and the team one so let me ask Pitlords now to officially write them down as my preference. Cat's suggestion in 4 player FFA is easiest to figure out rewardwise and if that is the goal here, I'd say go with that. I'm not sure I think the 3 FFA suggstion is best. Last man standing means let the other 2 beat each other up. Hmm. [1] You can attack everyone. If you damage or disrupt a gladiator who dies, you get a "winners" share of XP for that gladiator. This encourages active gladiators, not hiders as they may win and only get losers share. A kills B - 900xp/gp B kills A - 900xp/gp [we've had fights with both gladiators in negatives] C does nothing but survives - 300 xp/gp [2] There are still targets. The fight worked fine except the rewards seemed unfair. You get a bonus % for last gladiator standing. (20%?) [3] Adopt the spirit of Cat's 4 player FFA system into the 3 player FFA. You can attack everyone but there are still targets. You must kill your target to get winners share. Once your target is killed, if you damaged or disrupted the other gladiator and you win, then you get another winners share. I like [3] best. You have an incentive to hurt both [hence nature of FFA] but you really want to make sure your target is dead [specific tactics vs specific target still come into play]. This eliminates the hiders and ensures the last one standing will gernerally get the most rewards.
Deadly Assassin 07-24-05, 06:59 PM	How about giving each gladiator a reward based on the number of other gladiators he defeated? If Guy A deals the lethal blow Guys B and C, he would get a winner's share for both. And then, if he got killed, he would also recieve a loser's share. If you're going to give rewards to those who hurt/distract another gladiator, you shouldn't give them a full winner's share, but maybe half. If you do, Guy A could just poke Guy B and then back off, letting Guy C kill Guy B, and then both Guys A and C would get the same reward (before finishing the fight, obviously). Or, we could just have a set reward level. Here's an example: 4 person ffa, ECL 3: Last man standing: 1500 XP/gold 3rd to die: 1150 XP/gold 2nd to die: 800 XP/gold 1st to die: 450 XP/gold 3 person ffa, ECL 3: Last man standing: 1150 XP/gold 2nd to die: 800 XP/gold 1st to die: 450 XP/gold Again, these are just examples, the numbers could be tweaked.
LLMadCow 07-24-05, 07:11 PM	Finally, the question on how to handle and reward a 3 player FFA match. This is different as all participants are directly confronted with each other (unlike in a 4pl where A/C and B/D are no direct quarries). I would be inclined to make a seperate rule for these fights: a real FFA which is based on the ranking. Rules Suggestion for a 3 Player All vs All match: There are no targets. You can attack everyone. The last man standing receives 2x winner rewards, the second one 1xwinner rewards and 1x loser rewards, and the loser receives 2xloser rewards. Does the last man standing get the option of CDGing himself for 3x winner rewards and 1x loser rewards? :P
nightbanegod 07-24-05, 07:14 PM	<snip> Rules Suggestion for a 3 Player All vs All match: There are no targets. You can attack everyone. The last man standing receives 2x winner rewards, the second one 1xwinner rewards and 1x loser rewards, and the loser receives 2xloser rewards. <snip> this is easily a VERY good idea and im VERY for it... it gives flavor to the competition...for example... parties A,B,C.. A & C start fighting right away and B stands off in a corner trying to be sneaky and then just pick off the winner of the A & C fight... then A looks at C and says hey hes just standing there ... LETS KILL EM then settle this fight later... now being sneaky for B wasnt such a good idea... however the climax comes as A finishes off B then gets backstabbed by C ... so theres plot twists EVERYWHERE and you really do have to take on everyone at once...just incase
Deadly Assassin 07-24-05, 07:23 PM	Does the last man standing get the option of CDGing himself for 3x winner rewards and 1x loser rewards? :P Actually, wouldn't it be 4x winner and 1x loser since he killed himself? (3 for killing the other gladiators, 1 for defeating himself and 1 for losing to himself)
nightbanegod 07-24-05, 07:24 PM	looking back at the worries people have for wizards ... i submit my wizard i just drew up, Dalamar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6773785&postcount=366), for a 4 person FFA vs ... really any other classes... and i would appreciate double the winners rewards that is finallly settled on as i have full confidence in his ability to decimate the other competitors.... yes AT LVL 3
xanadu 07-24-05, 07:34 PM	this is easily a VERY good idea and im VERY for it... it gives flavor to the competition...for example... parties A,B,C.. A & C start fighting right away and B stands off in a corner trying to be sneaky and then just pick off the winner of the A & C fight... then A looks at C and says hey hes just standing there ... LETS KILL EM then settle this fight later... now being sneaky for B wasnt such a good idea... however the climax comes as A finishes off B then gets backstabbed by C ... so theres plot twists EVERYWHERE and you really do have to take on everyone at once...just incase Tht might work in real life but not in an arena setting where all characters are controlled by pitlords and pre-written tactics. What will happen is A and C will fight until one is dead and then go after B. If I am character B, I will insert in my tactics not to interrupt the other gladiators if they are so kind to do my dirty work for as many rounds as I can :evillaugh
LLMadCow 07-24-05, 07:35 PM	Actually, wouldn't it be 4x winner and 1x loser since he killed himself? (3 for killing the other gladiators, 1 for defeating himself and 1 for losing to himself) Well, I was quoting/replying to the 3 Player Version, so there are only 2 other people to kill besides himself...
Deadly Assassin 07-24-05, 07:46 PM	looking back at the worries people have for wizards ... i submit my wizard i just drew up, Dalamar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6773785&postcount=366), for a 4 person FFA vs ... really any other classes... and i would appreciate double the winners rewards that is finallly settled on as i have full confidence in his ability to decimate the other competitors.... yes AT LVL 3 First, your Spot bonus should be 9...You wouldn't get a bonus from your familiar for having it and for being near it. (I'm basing this on the fact that I can only find the +3 bonus for having an owl as a familiar. If you know where it says that you get a +2 bonus on spot for being near it, please, tell me.) Next, how do you expect to decimate all if you can only cast 2 spell levels worth of spells, and have no weapon? Trust me, if you try to cast as many spells as you're thinking you can cast, you're mistaken. You would move 30' in one round if you wanted to cast a non-full round action spell, where as my monk, Ormos, would move 90' in a charge to grapple you (after using a tat of skate, of course). If the grapple succeeded, you couldn't cast any spells with somatic components, and any other spells would require a concetration check.
Deadly Assassin 07-24-05, 07:47 PM	Well, I was quoting/replying to the 3 Player Version, so there are only 2 other people to kill besides himself... Oh, lol, ok. :D
Mind Rogue 07-24-05, 11:49 PM	As someone who got to experiance the pain of being one of the guinnea pigs for the All vs. All matches, I can say that having someone attacking you whom you can't strike back is very difficult to deal with and severely complicates matters. It also doesn't make sense in the everyday point of view, and apparently the strategy broke down and Cat had Niobe attacking Santos anyway, even though Vorag was still her target. I think the [A vs B] vs [C vs D] option offers something. It allows you to strike back at the person who is attacking you (the problem that I had during the fight), plus it encourages people to work quickly so that they can get their hunter off their back and attack the weakened and helpless victims in the other bracket. It is a bit like running two fights at once, but it has the tinge of becoming one fight after a while. If you don't allow C or D to fight back at A while he takes advantage of finishing early, then there become heavy incentives for finishing quickly, since A would more or less decide whom he wants to fight by sniping off the other one. In this case, you might alot B single loser points (for being killed by A), C double loser points (for being killed by A and D), D half winner points and single loser points (for helping to kill C and being killed by A), and A gets win-and-a-half for killing B and helping to kill C. You would thus offer equal shares to everyone for each mark they encountered. It doesn't matter if you dealt 1 hp or 50, if you contributed to taking someone down, you get the same share (just like in an adventuring party). The two-way circle A <=> B <=> C <=> D <=> A is also a possibility, although people have commented that they don't like the possibility of ganging up. However, since A + C will gang up, and B and D will gang up, there might be two people (one from each group) who try evasive maneuvers so as to avoid pincer attacks like this. The simplist case would be a straight line, with B and C in the middle. Both B and C might decide they don't like the situation, and so they decide to leave, since the tables are obviously against them. Also, since as soon as you take the middleman out, your ally will become your enemy, it stands to be very cautious about doing team-tactics. This, of course, leads back to the original case of people using the run and snipe tactics. On a completely unrelated note, (except for purhaps the pilfering of pockets of fallen rivals), I think that adopting a manner of bookkeeping similar to the RPGA's Eberron: Mark of Heroes style of allowing 'resets' of equipment might be useful. From what I've noticed during my relatively recent time in CoCo is that the rich tend to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer, while the setting will, in the long run, favor using permanent items over one use ones. By the first part, I mean that if you win a fight, you will generally make enough that you can replace the items you spent and pocket some for something else, while if you lose, you barely make enough to replace that potion of Cure Moderate Wounds that you used, while everything else cannot be replaced, thereby making you weaker than before, and thus causing you to lose more matches, forcing you into a downward spiral (like what happened to Niobe). By the latter, if you use predominately permanent items that you can keep every encounter (such as a flaming sword), you will have more wealth in the long run then if you use one use items (such as flaming arrows). While this seems like a no-brainer statement, it should stand to be taken into account. A stereotypical dwarf fighter who has healing potions as his only temporary items might actually stand to win even if he loses (because he hasn't spent any wealth during the fight), while a spellcaster who uses lots of scrolls, or a rogue who likes to use expensive poisons, or such, needs to win just to come out ahead on expenditures. If a 3rd level gladiator was to spend one CMW potion for every match, and lose all the way up into the 4th level, he still has no more wealth than he did when he started, but now is one level up. Now assume that he still only spends one potion, but he simply wins four straight matches, he'll have spent 1/3 of his wealth away, leaving him with 2.400 gp. However, assuming he makes it with 3 wins and 1 loss (the minimum to advance), he'll have 1.800. If he also has to spend a CLW potion during each battle, he'll end up with 2.200 gp or 1.550 respectfully. For someone who's strategy actually involves using one use items, things can turn dirty really quickly once you fall behind the other gladiators. Also, since gladiators who win tend to have more wealth, the one who has won three times in a row will have a significant wealth advantage over the one who just pulled in for the first time, and it is likely that the newbie will actually have an advantage over one who keeps losing do to his wealth loss. The MoH style would encourage the use of single-shot items because after the fight you get them back. Also, it gets rid of having to change how the planar landscape works to fixing items, which for some reason doesn't replace my arrows, refill my potion, repair a thunderstone, and so on. It also makes it easier for someone to try and patch up a weakness that they were not aware of at first. It also makes sure that all gladiators of a given level are theoretically equal, so one loss somewhere where you spent most of your resources to make a narrow defeat doesn't destroy your carreer. To keep things in balance, you would still use the 5x rule on one-shot items, every gladiator of a given level would have the same base amount, certain percentages might have to be spent on permanent and one-use items, and limits can be applied to how expensive any one item can be (after the 5x rule), as well as how much of someone's equipment can be retooled between matches. You can even apply bonuses to wealth for having a high charisma or certain skills and feats (like they do for MoH).
Deadly Assassin 07-25-05, 02:07 AM	I think free-for-all fights should just be the gladiators go after whomever they spot first. Then, if they get attacked by someone else, they can turn and defend themselves. Also, here's a revision to my set rewards idea: You set a base reward (proportional to the ecl), which would be supplemented by the number of other gladiators defeated. So each gladiator in an ECL 3 ffa would get 450 XP/gold, + 900 XP/gold per each other gladiator they defeated, plus 300 XP/gold for being defeated. Now, I know what you're thinking, "What about those that didn't kill anyone...What do they get?" Easy. Give them twice the base reward. Basically, it would look like this: 4-way FFA, ECL 3: Last man standing: 450 XP/gold plus 900 per gladiator he defeated. This could total 1350 (if he defeated one other), 2150 (if he defeated two others), or 3150 XP/gold (if he killed all three other gladiators). 2nd and third to die: 450 XP/gold plus 300 for defeat plus 900 for each other gladiator they defeated (assuming they killed at least one other gladiator; if they didn't kill anyone, they get the same rewards as the 1st person to die). This could total 1650 (if they defeated one other) or 2550 XP/gold (if one gladiator killed two others). 1st to die/Anyone who didn't get a kill: 900 XP/gold. This total would remain the same. This way you are encouraged to get into the fray and kill the others instead of waiting until two are dead then coming out to finish off the third, as you could win but could receive less than the third man killed (iff he killed the other two).
Mind Rogue 07-25-05, 12:33 PM	Why have a "base amount" plus a defeated amount? Having both seems to be a little bit superfluous, since both essentially reward you for entering the fight and doing nothing. To me, it looks like that in general we are trying to reward 3 things: just going in (and possibly getting your butt kicked), taking a beating (and surviving), and for hurting your opponents (and defeating them). A possibility for fixing this might be in dividing up how an opponent delivers Xp. One part, worth 1/3 the normal amount (300 Xp for ECL 3) would be divided evenly between all of the combatants who were harmed by this gladiator, while the other part, worth 2/3 of the normal amount (600 Xp for ECL 3), is divided evenly between all gladiators who harmed that gladiator, presuming that gladiator falls. This works out to the normal amounts for a 1 on 1 fight, and if you alot that both members of a team fight are automatically considered to be both on their opponents (regardless of whether they did anything or not), then it works out for team battles as well. In a free for all match, where anyone can attack anyone, it rewards going in and getting everyone to attack you, since you'll get loser Xp from everyone, but it also encourages being sneaky, since you'll get winner Xp from everyone that you can help to drop. Also, since you getting smaller pieces (since you are sharing them), but more of them (because there are more opponents), this more or less works out to the equivalent of one fight for the winner and loser, and somewhere between a loss and a win for the middle people. If you think you should have to outlive your victim in order to get winner's Xp, then you could alot a double share to those people who survived to win and only half a share to those who lost, or even an extra share to whoever dealt the last blow. However, CdG a fallen enemy should not matter. Once the foe has fallen and cannot get back up for the remainder of the fight, she's done and those who defeated her should get experiance, and noone should be forced to take the time to CdG to get the "finisher" Xp. Oh, and one more benefit to the MoH style for money is that it reduces bookkeeping, since one doesn't have to worry about what items they spent in the past. It also encourages using your one-shot items against opponents whom you would normally opt to save them against (such as poison against a barbarian or a scroll of Sleep against a cleric) since you'll be restocked by the Gladius Quartermaster after the fight, but you'll have fewer of them to use (since they cost more) so you'll make sure you only have the one's you need.
Caterane 07-25-05, 04:02 PM	@MindRogue: Expendable items are not 1/d items. And 5x cost would make it uneconomic for those who don't want to spend 3000 gp for a single item. Your examples also use extremes. If someone loses all ECL3 matches than he lost 10 times in a row. I haven't seen that downward spiral you talked about as expendables are not as game-deciding as you depict them. And finally, this would be a new huge reformation in the middle of LG which is almost impossible to implement. Everyone would have to recreate his sheet.
Deadly Assassin 07-25-05, 05:36 PM	Why have a "base amount" plus a defeated amount? Having both seems to be a little bit superfluous, since both essentially reward you for entering the fight and doing nothing. To me, it looks like that in general we are trying to reward 3 things: just going in (and possibly getting your butt kicked), taking a beating (and surviving), and for hurting your opponents (and defeating them). Because people wouls start complaining that the system isn't fair if one gladiator killed the three others (in a 4-way) and got 2700 and they only got 300, nine times as much. And yes, you would want to reward people for having their gladiatr in a ffa fight to make them want to come back, and no, we wouldnt be rewarding survivors for surviving, but for defeating the others. And by lethal blow I don't mean one that reduces them to -10 hp or below, but one that drops them below 0 (because no one is going to try to cure them unless they have allies/cohorts).
Mind Rogue 07-25-05, 05:49 PM	Perhaps I should do some research on this phenominon and see if it really exists. If my theory is correct, those who use lots of one-shot items are likely to have streaks where then win several times until they get beaten, then since they can't make up enough to cover their losses for that fight, they will lose several times until they are lucky enough to win. Gladiators who rely on permanent items, however, will likely alternate between winning and losing with some regularity. As for downward spirals, you probably don't want to talk to Brogan Galanodel about that (record 1: 10). His one win came against Squibb, and that poor fellow doesn't have a win to his name (in fact, he retired). I bet that if we looked, we would find several other characters who lost several fights in a row, than gave up and became inactive because they were losing funds from all of their unprofitable losses (which I expect Brogan to do within a month, unless he wants to become the most losingest fighter in all of Gladius). The 5x cost for one-shot items was only an example (since it's the one used by Mark of Heroes). Something different, perhaps x3 or x2, could be implemented to make single-use items doable, but neither prohibitive nor overpowering. Regardless, for someone who tends to use these items, after a few fights the items pay for themselves. Also, the assumption here is not that they are 1/day items, but rather that either the gladiator is purchasing several copies of the same item (so he has another one for the next fight), or else that his supplier gives him another after he uses the first one, which essentially amounts to the same thing. Lastly, I do understand that something like this would require a major change in the colluseum. I think that in general, it would make matches more fair and it would reduce bookkeeping (since you don't have to track money garnered or items spent), and wouldn't be quite as drastic a change as you claim, since characters are only changing their equipment, and theoretically that would already be somewhere in the vincinity of the new value they are alloted. Also, since occasionally major changes do happen to Gladius (this is the second version after all), it could be inserted at the same time as some other drastic change.
xanadu 07-25-05, 06:26 PM	Mind Rogue, The system you propose rewards the reckless and prodigious when it comes to expendable items. This is not something we should enocurage; if anything, single shot items have more use and power here in CoCo than real D & D. Yes the poor get poorer, call it survival of the fittest. Economically minded characters should be rewarded as in real D & D there is always a tough choose to consume an expendable if you hear wierd noises and we wouldn't be sop quick to use our 100 gp vigor stones or what not whereas here that is the first thing we do at the starting bell or the sign of trouble in quests.
Caterane 07-25-05, 06:59 PM	Chain of the Lost 1,050 gp [From this fine silver chain hangs a black sapphire worth 1000 gp. The sapphire was the focus in a soul bind spell; the soul of a young woman is trapped in it. As Brogan aquires more souls, more gems will be added to the necklace.] Well, I better don't comment on that. Also, Brogan is not optimized. His only spell that could knock s.o. out is ghoul touch. Nothing else. All his 1st lvl slots are full with Ray of enfeeblements, not counting the Undetectable Alignment spell. I am pretty sure that our rules for expendables (which are also the official D&D rules btw) ain't the reason for Brogan's dilemna, if there is any. He has still more than 1200 gp left to scribe good spells. As for the other PCs, I haven't seen anyone being in a downward spiral because he lost twice in a row. That's surely not the case. Those who spend their money on expendables will be at an advantage at lower levels but they will miss that money later. The whole issue doesn't warrant such a reformation; infact I think we will be worse off if we implement that for many reason where I don't have the time to explain right now. I do realize one thing though: CoCo expendables rate far higher than in a real campaign. The reason for this is that you can a) instantly and at any time buy items, and b) buy exactly the item you want. In a campaign, you won't have the opportunity to buy expendables after every fight, not to mention magic items. Even if you are in a big city, you'll never have the variety you have here (ie everything in the books) ...unless you have Zeeker's shop card of course ;). No, the majority of your real PCs equipment has been found in dungeons, and has been picked by the DM and not the player. Unfortunately, this free-shopping is so closely tied to the nature of this board that I can't think of a good and easy way to simulate a campaign more closely. With campaigns and quests, we can take some burden of being a campaign simulation from arena fights but we still have to keep in mind that our characters might not be as perfectly equipped as they are here which distorts the testing to some extend but not so much as that you couldn't draw your conclusions from it. Keep in mind that everything you do has an impact on other things so you need to be careful with new implementations. That's the CoCo Butterfly Effect ;)
Zerone 07-27-05, 10:13 AM	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). In the DMG under Unusual Mounts: Suitable Mounts (p. 204), it states that a mount's CR should be no more than 3 less than your ECL and 4 less if it flies. So why the difference here in the CoCo? *•. Z
LLMadCow 07-27-05, 10:47 AM	In the DMG under Unusual Mounts: Suitable Mounts (p. 204), it states that a mount's CR should be no more than 3 less than your ECL and 4 less if it flies. So why the difference here in the CoCo? *•. Z The CoCo has gone with a different ruling for the simple reason that a mount is very often used as an ally combatant, and therefore part of the equation in maintaining balance in one on one encounters. IN RL adventures, and GM can modify many aspects on the fly or make changes as needed in advance to balance issues. In the arena, it does not work out this way. This limitation also serves to put a restriction on those who might wish to optimize a character in ertain directions and end up with monster Handle Animal skills, and walk into the arena riding a t-rex and commanding a small pack velociraptors that he just fed potions of fly. Flying, charging, pouncing, enlarged, enraged dire-velociraptors with INA, and they are hungry. Good luck there. LL PS - Beastmaster was the build. Awesome concept.
Zerone 07-27-05, 10:55 AM	:D I understand what you wrote and the way it is for fairness within the CoCo, however, it is only 1 CR more for the non-flying creature in the DMG (-3 vs. -4). The DMG is saying, 'because a creature flies, it is a little better than another monster with the same CR that cannot fly, hence the +1 CR when determining it's level for a suitable mount. What I'm asking is, why do we not have the -3 CR for non-flying and -4 CR for flying mounts/allies as it is described in the DMG instead of the flat -4 CR for anything? *•. Z
Caterane 07-27-05, 11:04 AM	Zoro, I should give you your own subboard here where you can test all your ideas and find out the hard way that they won't work. Here: we had initially ECL-5 but after a long long discussion we dropped it to ECL-4 as it is now yet it is risky. ECL-3 would be crazy: Level 10 character runs around with a 17 HD Cloud Giant skeleton :eek:
Zerone 07-27-05, 11:11 AM	Zoro, I should give you your own subboard here where you can test all your ideas and find out the hard way that they won't work. Here: we had initially ECL-5 but after a long long discussion we dropped it to ECL-4 as it is now yet it is risky. ECL-3 would be crazy: Level 10 character runs around with a 17 HD Cloud Giant skeleton :eek: Unfortunately it is in the Core Rules, and that is why I was asking. So instead a level 11 can have the 17 HD skeleton...?
SoulLord 07-27-05, 11:12 AM	actually -5 for flying and -4 for the rest seems better suited in my opinion. just compare having a flying mount to having an item that grants you the fly ability and even then the item won't be attacking.
Zerone 07-27-05, 11:15 AM	actually -5 for flying and -4 for the rest seems better suited in my opinion. just compare having a flying mount to having an item that grants you the fly ability and even then the item won't be attacking. The rule in the DMG is already set as 'fair' by the creators of this game. I understand this concept, and Cat's dilema to keep things fair. Instead. should we have the DMG reccomendations for CR and a house rule on the Hit Die to keep things fair? I like the concept of adding rules rather than changing existing ones. But that's me... Ideas/comments?
xanadu 07-27-05, 11:35 AM	I do think having a heavy warhorse at ECL 3 is a tremendous advantage. I also think that having to wait until ECL 6 to have one makes them virtually obsolete by then. My druid has been riding around on a Dire bat since he was 4th level and has compiled a miserable record since then.
Caterane 08-02-05, 04:56 PM	@ALL: I have a new addition in mind: Advanced Creatures! This idea of introducing advanced creatures has been dropped without a second thought in the Classic CoCo, and for good reason: the rigid system did not support such modifications. In LivingGladius however, it is easily possible. But what is advancing creatures? As with every species, there are stronger and weaker versions. The alpha wolf has more power than the youngsters. If you open your Monster Manual, you will find an entry called "Advancement". For many creatures, the entry says "by character class" or just "--" but there are also many that have something like (for the wolf) "Advancement: 3 HD (medium); 4-6 HD (large)". That means, a normal wolf has 2 HD but there are stronger wolves out there. Those with 4 HD even enjoy a size increase. I plan to allow such advancements. The MM has concrete rules on advancing creatures, and how it affects the CR. It also harmonizes well with the CoCo rules: if you want a wolf with more HD, you also need a better Handle animal modifier (it is based on HD) and it will also affect your allowed ally limit. One problem remains: Why should I get a 2 HD wolf when a 3 HD wolf has the same CR? (it increases by 1 for every 3 HD added) Sure, the 3 HD wolf requires a HA skill of one more but that's it. It shouldn't be much of a problem but if we allow all customizations at once, we might see too many non-standard creatures. That might or might not complicate a pitlords work and there might be more mistakes if people are supposed to advance their creatures on their own. For that reason, one simple solution would be that we only allow advancement if the CR increases at least by 1. That means, you can acquire the standard 2 HD wolf, of course, and a 5 HD advanced large wolf (remember: per 3 HD added, CR of animals+1). 8 HD do not exist as you can see above (max advancement: 6 HD). We should also keep our hands from templates for now until we see how advancement works. Ok, what do you think? Cat @Zoro: The CoCo is a highly complex system. One slight rule change may have huge impacts. If you would know how many sleepless nights Ashenai and I had spent to discuss just the CR issue, you would respect it more. Anyway, that won't change.
Luni 08-02-05, 05:04 PM	Interesting, Caterane... I like it.
Vathelokai 08-02-05, 05:21 PM	I thought adv. monsters were already allowed? I also thought we were using ECL for everything (ECL=HD+LvAdj)? I guess it's different for handle animal. I'm all for it.
Gonbow 08-02-05, 05:39 PM	I also like this. It does bring up another question of mine though; I like nonstandard characters myself... And while not strictly related, it is tangent. Can creatures with a LA and listed Advancement proceed along their Advancement rather than take character levels? Specific example, the Xill (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersTtoZ.html#xill) start out at 5 HD, and an LA of +4. Their advancement takes them all the way to 15 HD. By your ruling, you would be able to pick up a cohot at 5, 8, 11 and 14 HD, yes? But what about a Gladiator Xill? Could they take additional levels of Outsider? If they did, would they be allowed to mix and match with class levels? Or would they not be allowed class levels at all since they have a advancement listed?
Altaris13 08-02-05, 05:51 PM	I like the idea too, but also have some reservations about it. I know that as a DM I've come up with some pretty crazy monster encounters through the advancement options. If the CoCo were to enact this, I would prefer to see a two stage release. Stage One would be a 'testing' phase in which Pitlords use the Advancement rules for Monster Fights and in their Miniquests/Campaigns. Maybe have a requirement that Monster fights be with Advanced creatures? Stage Two would be a full roll out so allies & such become allowed for PCs.
Mind Rogue 08-02-05, 06:01 PM	I'd be a little warry of it myself. For someone who wants the advanced monster as their ally (or even their character), I think I would definitely say that each additional HD increases the ECL by one, regardless of whether the creature has ECL or not. So if someone was to have a wolf ally that is normally CR 1, adding the HD makes it effectively level 2 as an ally, even though it's CR isn't there yet. For a monster fight, it might work to use advanced monsters, although you never know. This reminds me a little bit of 3.0 when they suggested you double the HD to increase the CR by 2. That was a mistake. Hopefully, they'll do a little bit of standardizing in future editions so that a +1 HD is approximately +1 CR, or atleast no monster is no more than +2 HD/CR. With the +3 and +4 HD per CR that some monsters still get, their feats, BAB, HD, and saves can all shoot through the roof pretty fast when advancing them up.
Pitlords 08-02-05, 06:09 PM	@Gonbow: If a creature has at least 1 racial HD, you can continue to take racial HD if you want. The Xill may advance as a xill or as a class. An aasimar can only pick class levels. @Altaris/Mind: As a rule of thumb: if something proves to be unbalancing, it will be removed. Testing advanced mosnters in monster fights is not very effective, but I do plan a 3-stage introduction. Stage 1 as described above; stage 2 templates, stage 3 opens all advancements. 2 and 3 only if the previous stages work well. PS: A level animal is not worth +1 CR.
Gonbow 08-02-05, 06:10 PM	I'd be a little warry of it myself. For someone who wants the advanced monster as their ally (or even their character), I think I would definitely say that each additional HD increases the ECL by one, regardless of whether the creature has ECL or not. So if someone was to have a wolf ally that is normally CR 1, adding the HD makes it effectively level 2 as an ally, even though it's CR isn't there yet. For a monster fight, it might work to use advanced monsters, although you never know. This reminds me a little bit of 3.0 when they suggested you double the HD to increase the CR by 2. That was a mistake. Hopefully, they'll do a little bit of standardizing in future editions so that a +1 HD is approximately +1 CR, or atleast no monster is no more than +2 HD/CR. With the +3 and +4 HD per CR that some monsters still get, their feats, BAB, HD, and saves can all shoot through the roof pretty fast when advancing them up. Well, its obvious that for characters, +1 hd = +1 ECL. ECL is determined by HD + LA. The thing is, allies don't work off ECL, they work off CR. Which is why advanced monsters are slightly wonky. Basically speaking, advanced monsters just have extra levels in a 'type' and occasionally extra benefits. The monster types are inherently unbalanced, (Compare animal with outsider, or humanoid with dragon, for example) which means the hard and fast rule of +3 HD = +1 CR... Iffy. So yeah, this needs some testing for sure, but I think allowing more powerful versions of base creatures at levels where it is appropriate is a good thing (tm).
Prince FyreDragon 08-02-05, 06:32 PM	Well, its obvious that for characters, +1 hd = +1 ECL. ECL is determined by HD + LA. The thing is, allies don't work off ECL, they work off CR. Which is why advanced monsters are slightly wonky. Basically speaking, advanced monsters just have extra levels in a 'type' and occasionally extra benefits. The monster types are inherently unbalanced, (Compare animal with outsider, or humanoid with dragon, for example) which means the hard and fast rule of +3 HD = +1 CR... Iffy. So yeah, this needs some testing for sure, but I think allowing more powerful versions of base creatures at levels where it is appropriate is a good thing (tm). Did you really just say wonky? LOL I can see how this can be both good and bad....but as far as PC's are concerned, I would recommend playtesting a few here in the LG arena...maybe have the Elder's make up 2 each as test characters and then get a volunteer to run a variety of fights with them...1v1, 2v2, 3-for-all, 4-for-all, etc to see how they work in the arena before making them available to general gladiator builds. As for cohorts, that one will almost require a list of ECL's to be created for the advanced versions of creatures one by one due to the fact that some will get more for their ECL adjustment than others if we try and do it with some sort of uniform formula.
Caterane 08-02-05, 07:02 PM	We should probably restrict it furthermore to those creatures in the Handle Animal list of the FAQ: Allies (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466763), and go from there if it works.
Altaris13 08-02-05, 07:22 PM	We should probably restrict it furthermore to those creatures in the Handle Animal list of the FAQ: Allies (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466763), and go from there if it works. That's very reasonable!
Gonbow 08-02-05, 09:13 PM	Small nitpick about the Cohort and Allies FAQ... At the very end.. What happens if a cohort or ally dies? That depends. If a cohort or ally dies in the Arena (or otherwise inside the Nimbus), it is immediately True Ressurected, re-summoned, re-animated, or otherwise made whole again, for free. There will be no negative side-effects from losing an ally (eg paladin's mount, familiar). ^ | | Means that an ally is immediately brought back to full hit points and will continue to assist the gladiator in the combat that they perished in. 'Immediately' should probably be changed to 'after the given battle ends', yes?
Mind Rogue 08-02-05, 09:18 PM	Or reworded to how it works on Ysgard with "... rise again the next morning to continue eternal warfare."
GuardianAngel 08-03-05, 01:51 AM	Not sure where to put this, but I was reading about the Free for All matchs in the Concil of Elders. Now I was a hardcore Super Smash Brothers/Super Smash Brothers Melee. This video game had the same problem that you are talking about. I was always donkey kong. DnD terms he would be a grappler with the trip ability. Now the character Fox was a hard core range fighter. he had this laser beam that would stun you. When me and my friends would play. and saw or notice (becuase you see the whole screen not just what the battle infront of you is) a person could go after the other guy sitting their, now usually I would go and the guy I was fighting would follow me and now the person would shot at both of us. Makeing the other guy mad and we would then procced to beat him up. Just past exp. staying out of the battle usual draws more attention to you. Also you might want to make a special map for the Free for All. One that has alot less hideing spots and cover for people. You could have it so the outer wall moves in towards the center 10' or whatever per round. It should be the enviroment to stop people form hiding. Like say thier is a grp of Fighters on wolfs that circle and attack anyone hiding from the battle. They could even point out where the guys are. Like refrees in the game. You also might want to make it so you can;t stay out of battle for 10r. maybe 2r. and you could expand the Spellcasters 1/3 rule. maybe make it so they could only target 1/4 per other person or 1/3 per other person. the remander could be used for buffs. In a free for all the wizard would be the most hampered with the 1/3 rule. A fighter can swing his sword at every opponet and the rogue can shoot arrows at everyone, but the spellcaster would run out of battle very fast. Like if a archer would only be allows 5 arrows per battle or if the fighters sword breaks after the 8 swing. You can't limit anyone on the what they can do. But I disagree with the ability to only mem half of them and the other half in tatics. I can see what the rogue has and what the fighter has, so the spellcaster should be no diff.
McJarvis 08-03-05, 02:16 AM	Also you might want to make a special map for the Free for All. One that has alot less hideing spots and cover for people. Like a 20'x20' room. :)
Prince FyreDragon 08-03-05, 12:02 PM	Like a 20'x20' room. :) ...that's padded and soundproof...and you are shown to it by nice young men in their bright white coats....they're coming to take me away!!!!
Mind Rogue 08-03-05, 01:35 PM	Breathe, Guardian Angel, Breathe, and then try to use complete sentences and fewer run-ons. Asside from that, in some ways you are right that staying out of it can draw attention, but in the colluseum, the gladiators are probably going to go after either whom they think they have the best chance of defeating or whom will give them the best chance of survival. Usually, somebody standing off in a corner is neither, since by standing away, they are less likely to attack you, and they are probably in better health then the guy in melee with you. In Smash Brothers, it's usually a little bit easier to escape, especially with moves like Pikachu's quick attack, Zelda's teleport, or just about any move that can stun your opponent long enough to get you an exit, particularly Ness's PK fire. The other thing is that if you are hiding (or just ou of sight), your opponents probably aren't going to come after you because they don't know where you are, a luxury you don't usually have in SSBM, even if you grabbed the cloaking device. As for a more open arena, how do you suggest we go about that while making it incredibly difficult to have a shot at your opponent on the first turn (which, as it turns out, actually is possible if both of you stand in the very front of your boxes)? Almost all of the cover in the arena is actually set up so that it shades you when the match first starts against the players in the other starting boxes, and removing them would increase the likely hood of being blasted by a fireball before you've had a chance to act. It would also cause an increase in the number of people with Improved Initiative, which ordinarily I consider to be almost indispensible, while here it doesn't matter quite as much because you still can't affect each other anyway. Finally, granted that the 1/3 rule hurts spellcasters more than everybody else, but that is the intention. Speaking as someone who has one in the arena, I know that the limitation is annoying. However, she's so far won all of her first three fights, and only spent about 300 of her earnings from the first two matches, so I know that she's not underpowered. Also, you do have to memorize all of your spells in advance, so your foe does know exactly what's coming, and if they can't deal with an entangle spell, that is their own problem. However, trying to bump up the limitation during free-for-all matches could prove to be problematic. Granted that because you have more foes, you should be able to cast more spells. However, your foes also have more foes, who will in turn be pounding down on them, your opponents will also be, in general, weaker, and thus require fewer spells to mop up. One of your opponents will probably take up almost 1/3 of your spells, but it is likely that the other two will nearly wipe each other out, after which you only need to use that last spell, a scroll, or conventional methods to finish him off. Of course, it's possible that multiple opponents will gang up on you, but that just means that you need to be sly and crafty with your spells, and hopefully you actually picked ones that can debilitate multiple foes, rather than single person spells like the infamous hold person/cdg combo, which often doesn't work quite as well as you would like in multi. Now, while I'm speaking, could we can an official decision on whether in Team Matches, if teammates start in the same box or if they are in separate ones?
Caterane 08-03-05, 02:54 PM	@Guardian: Mindrogue is right. Spellcasters were way too powerful with their 1/3 spells. Just read Prof.Vandaeris Dre'Dandrahl fights (see ECL 18 league) and you will know. If you still don't agree, browse through this board and read all the past discussions on that topic. Also, the first version of the arena had no obstacles other than a few rocks. The one who won ini, won the match. It was as easy as that. Builds were build for a first-strike only which didn't reflect the reality at all. @all: See Tavern: Advanced Monsters now available.
madner 08-03-05, 04:15 PM	The 1/3 rule hurts the spellcasters when they don't need to be nerved, and is basicly useless on higher levels, especially with the proper items. What I did notice is that multiclass spellcasters are hurt badly by the rule, since they have even less spell levels, casting one spell per fight.
Pitlords 08-03-05, 04:56 PM	The 1/3 rule hurts the spellcasters when they don't need to be nerved, and is basicly useless on higher levels, especially with the proper items. What I did notice is that multiclass spellcasters are hurt badly by the rule, since they have even less spell levels, casting one spell per fight. What? Have you seen Uhmentarymster's record? Even with the 1/3 rule it is a 18 wins, 2 losses, and those losses were 1 round kills due to a lost ini. And multiclass casters? Look at the Elder. 15 wins, 2 losses. Now imagine they would have their full allotment...
madner 08-03-05, 05:16 PM	What? Have you seen Uhmentarymster's record? Even with the 1/3 rule it is a 18 wins, 2 losses, and those losses were 1 round kills due to a lost ini. And multiclass casters? Look at the Elder. 15 wins, 2 losses. Now imagine they would have their full allotment... I have left out half a sentance, ...nerving spellcasters at lower levels, when they don't need any, while it is useless on higher levels. If the charakter can cast his highest level spell every round of the fight, the rule is quite useless. At the same time, at lower levels it effectivly prevents casting for the entire battle. It seems like pure spellcasters have to sit tight, accepting losses on lower levels before dominating.
TelinArtho 08-03-05, 05:23 PM	But madner - before you try to follow up your statement, take a look at the characters he's pointing out: Uhmentarymster - 18 wins, 2 losses. His only 2 losses came at level 4. He won ALL 4 of his fights at level 3, and 2/4 at level 4. The Elder - 15 wins, 2 losses. He didn't lose a single fight until his 13th match (level 6). Just how does your point about "nerfing low level casters" pan out? Also, multiclass spellcasters are going to be weak anyway - but that's the hindrance of playing more than one class. You simply won't be as good as a straight single-classed character in either one - but hopefully, with good management of your character will have abilities that either single-classed character would have trouble with. /d
Mind Rogue 08-03-05, 05:35 PM	An option might be to make it so that you simply have access to 1/3 or your spells from each level (although I have no clue how this would affect manifesters). Thus, if a 3rd level character has 4 1sts and 3 2nds, he can use two 1st level spells and one second level and not two 2nds. You might allow for a higher level spell to be passed for a more useful lower level one, but whether you allow that mage to dump casting one of his second level spells in order to cast all of his firsts might be iffy. However, this keeps the rule a little more lively at higher levels, since a 9th level mage or above couldn't simply choose not to cast any of his lower level spells to get him access to more higher level ones. If he ordinarily gets 5 1sts, 5 2nds, 4 3rds, 3 4ths, and two fifths, he should be limited to only one fourth and one fifth level spell. Since this rule might actually give a caster more spell levels available, depending on how they ordinarily cast their spells, you might implement both rules, thereby hampering them slightly more than they are already. They would only be able to cast 1/3 of their spells from each level, but because of how the spell slots work, this might allow them to cast more than 1/3 sum of their slot levels, so you fix that and set that as a limit.
madner 08-03-05, 06:07 PM	But madner - before you try to follow up your statement, take a look at the characters he's pointing out: Uhmentarymster - 18 wins, 2 losses. His only 2 losses came at level 4. He won ALL 4 of his fights at level 3, and 2/4 at level 4. Just how does your point about "nerfing low level casters" pan out? How does that example not prove my point, the char lost all his matches on low levels. :D And those he won on level 3 he used twice hideus laughter + sleep. Also, multiclass spellcasters are going to be weak anyway - but that's the hindrance of playing more than one class. You simply won't be as good as a straight single-classed character in either one - but hopefully, with good management of your character will have abilities that either single-classed character would have trouble with. /d The point is that the rule has no effect if you can cast spells during the entire battle, has the intended effect if you have to pass a dice to win (did you notice the specialization on powers from spellcasters, with DC around 18-20?), and is probably more repressive then it should me if the char can cast two rounds. High level char are an example for the first, specialist for the second (how many MM sorceers have you seen? :D ) and multiclass for the third.
Luni 08-06-05, 04:39 PM	From the Rules of Galdius: Skills and Feats here. (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576&postcount=9) To decipher a scroll or address a powerstone, the item needs to be identified first. This can be done with a Spellcraft (scrolls) or Psicraft (powerstones) check. You are assumed to take 10 on the check, and you must pass the Dc of the item (Scrolls: Dc20+spell level; Powerstones: Dc15+power level). If you have access to the read magic spell, you do not need to make any spellcraft checks. Since Psychic Warriors don't get Psicraft as a class skill, they will almost never be able to address stones. Psicraft is a trained skill as well. There are many characters who don't have +6 to Psicraft for level 1 stones. I don't see why people can't take 20 on addressing power stones.
Prince FyreDragon 08-08-05, 03:32 PM	I had an idea regarding the FFA fights that I thought might add some flavor to them....since in these fights, in general, those involved are expending greater resources to survive, I thought it might be kinda cool to, in addition to the normal XP and gp rewards, offer an item of some kind as a prize...a little loot to go with your xp and cash. Could either be a predetermined prize that would be given to whoever won, or determine a prize for each combatant based on their character so that each person has the possibility of getting something useful. Prizes would be based on your ECL league, and could be anything from a small bundle of potions or powerstones or scrolls, to something as elaborate as a +1 enhancement to a weapon or armor that the winner possesses. There would probably have to be some kind of gp-value cap based on your ECL league as well. Thoughts?
Caterane 08-08-05, 03:51 PM	Since there are so many new characters, I want to get our skill discussion ressolved so that everyone gets a chance to put points into skills that were useless so far. We have talked about diplomacy in the Council for some time but got distracted by other issues. Now I want to finish that issue asap. General Question: What to do with Diplomacy? Nothing is set in stone. One idea is to use it like Handle Animal, just for different creatures. Other ideas were a discount based on the diplomacy score. It must not interfere with the Leadership feat. I thought about applying it to creatures with Intelligence 3-6 (opposed to 1-2 for HA), as the MM suggests. Here's a list of all creatures that fall into this category: (intelligence) Bodak (6) Chimera (4) Chocker (4) Dretch (5) Bearded devil (6) Chain devil (6) Crysmal (6) Displacer Beast (5) Displacer Packlord (5) White Dragons (6) Dragonne (6) Elementals (6) Ettercap (6) Ettin (6) Formian Worker (6) Gargoyle (6) Hill Giant (6) Gibbering Mouther (4) Gray Render (3) Grick (3) Griffon (5) Hell Hound (6) Nessian Hell Hound (4) Howler (6) Krenshar (6) Mephits (6) Mummy (6) Ogre (6) Otyugh (5) Rast (3) Remorhaz (5) Shadow (6) Greater Shadow (6) Shadow Mastiff (4) Red Slaad (6) Blue Slaad (6) Hieracosphinx (6) Tendriculous (3) Thoqqua (6) Troll (6) Udoroot (4) Vargouille (5) Worg (6) Wyvern (6) Yeth Hound (6) I've already summarized some guidelines in the Council. Here they are: a) You must be able to communicate permanently with the creature, either by language, a permanent spell, or telepathy. A mutual friendship is based on constant communication. If you have to cast tongues everytime you want to tell your beast something, it wouldn't be enough. This makes languages more important. This requirement limits the amount of swayable creatures. b) The creature must be susceptible for diplomacy. An Allip may be intelligent but such a being is surely not interested in anything (I could be wrong with the Allip but it is just an example; we would have to define the range of creatures). This would diminish the list of creatures further. c) You need the necessary skill modifier in diplomacy which depends on the creatures CR. Why CR? In case of animals - who don't have (m)any significant special abilities, their main power is determined by their HD. This is not necessarily the same for intelligent creatures. Many have spell-like or other powerful ablities which are not dependent on their HD. d) You have to quest/miniquest for the ally. Only permanent modifiers count so drinking a potion of eagle's splendor doesn't help. e) The alignment of the ally must match yours. For every step it differs, the DC increases by 5. There might be other limitations, for example, certain races might not work together (elf/drow, githyanki/githzerai, etc) while other receive boni even (githyanki/red dragon). f) We need to limit the amount of allies you may possess. I suggested that the Diplomacy requirement increases by 2 for all allies for each additional ally beyond the first. Else you could just quest for all dipl. allies and pick the best one in a fight.
Vathelokai 08-09-05, 06:58 AM	So, I've been think about magic items worn, since the whole 'were-octopus' discussion. Since we have monster fights now, I think it is kind of relevant. Since there are no core rules about what can wear what (except humanoids) how should this be adjudicated? Can monsters get magic items made for their race (like 3-finger gloves, tounge rings instead of finger rings, etc.)? Does it cost more? How far do magic items adjust to the wearer? Can tiny or huge creatures wear rings or necklaces? Obviously small creatures (like halflings) can wear human scale magic items. It seems that, in general, large creatures can as well. What about creatures that change in size? Enlarge spells change the size of gear, but were-shifting does not. What about other powers that change size? What about creatures that change size with age? Say a 3hd monster advances to 4hd and size catagory changes. Would that make some magic items unwearable? If I were to make a monster for a fight or as a PC, would I work these issues out with Pitlords/Cat or should I use my best judgement. Obviously, making a rule would be difficult, since most monsters would need their own description. I think the simplest way would be to allow race specific magic items at normal prices, and if a creature is not a humanoid then have a debate in the house of commons as to what they could wear. This might be to unwieldy for a monster fight though, so a quick PM to Pitlords could resolve it. Rules on size would have to be established, but that would be fairly straight forward. I'd say, a magic item can be used by someone +/- 1 size catagory of the intended wearer. So a medium necklace could be worn by a small or large creature.
Vathelokai 08-09-05, 07:09 AM	In response to the other debates: Diplomacy for low int creatures - yes Spellcasters - I'm fine with the 1/3 rule. Make some scrolls and memorize the stuff that needs a high DC. FFA fights - changing the map is a bad idea. It would be horrible for certian char. builds. However changing the 1/3 rule might not be so bad. If I understand the 'core' concept, then a party of adventurers should meet 3 or so encounters before resting. This makes the 1/3rd rule fairly accurate, and the quest variant (100% of spell lvs. over 3 fights, however you want to divide it up) very accurate. But in a FFA setting, the char are engaging far more than their ECL. It seems reasonable that in that specific circumstance, they could use more power. Creature magic items - I'm open to suggestions.
McJarvis 08-09-05, 12:53 PM	I had an idea regarding the FFA fights that I thought might add some flavor to them....since in these fights, in general, those involved are expending greater resources to survive, I thought it might be kinda cool to, in addition to the normal XP and gp rewards, offer an item of some kind as a prize...a little loot to go with your xp and cash. Could either be a predetermined prize that would be given to whoever won, or determine a prize for each combatant based on their character so that each person has the possibility of getting something useful. Prizes would be based on your ECL league, and could be anything from a small bundle of potions or powerstones or scrolls, to something as elaborate as a +1 enhancement to a weapon or armor that the winner possesses. There would probably have to be some kind of gp-value cap based on your ECL league as well. Thoughts? I don't think more prizes are necessary for these fights. If a gladiator gets *lucky* he can get xp/gp for multiple killings in a round as-is. Personally I think that makes these kinds of fights more desirable.(and at higher levels when mages get AoE spells? Wowza! Can't wait until we get our first red wizard boosting himself up to caster level 18 or so and blasting the other contenders with maximized/empowered random AoE effect)
SoulLord 08-09-05, 01:28 PM	The main issue I have with spellcasters is why can they only craft scrolls from the list in the dmg or the srd while psionist can craft anything.
Vathelokai 08-09-05, 05:40 PM	Unless I'm mistaken, the scrolls list (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicItemsSSW.html) in the SRD has every single spell on it. My beef with scrolls is that, if you make them yourself they still have min caster ability for the DCs. It's the rules, I know, but I don't think its right.
SoulLord 08-11-05, 03:02 PM	compare stone of augmented expansion to a scroll of shocking grasp caster lvl 5. one will cost you credits the other won't. and no, not all spells available as scrolls (BlackLight) Or think about wands compared to dorjes.
NiQil 08-11-05, 03:14 PM	One thing I noticed, with regard to buying powerstones, tattoos, and dorjes, is that because there is no list, you can buy any power you want in one of these items. The only problem with that, is that because you are not restricted to the psion-wilder list of powers, or restricted to the psychic warrior list, the costs for things are wonky. For instance, on the psion/wilder list, Biofeedback is an ml 2 power, and would require you to pay as an ml 2 + as a personal power to stick it in a tattoo. But on the psychic warrior list, Biofeedback is an ml 1 power, so you only have to pay the ml 1 + personal power cost to get a tattoo of it. That is a big cost difference, especially in the level 3 and 4 leagues. But, because there is nothing saying that we have to use one list or the other, it is legal. I'm sure there are several powers like this. Granted, that works in the favor of the players who get to pay the lower cost to get the same powers, but there should still be some sort of defined cost list. Maybe use the psion/wilder list as the default list, and require that that list be used for purchase of all powers in items, and then for powers that are not on those lists, they can be slotted in according to the ml they have on another list (an example of this would be Energy Missile, which is a Kinesist only power at ml 2). We should really lay down a concrete ml list for psionic powers in some form.
sloisel 08-11-05, 03:56 PM	The only problem with that, is that because you are not restricted to the psion-wilder list of powers, or restricted to the psychic warrior list, the costs for things are wonky. The same is true of scrolls. Cure moderate wounds is available to paladins as a CL3, spell level 2 (a cleric spell) instead of CL5 (ECL11) spell level 3 (a paladin spell), but nobody complains about that. Sebastien Loisel
NiQil 08-11-05, 04:02 PM	The same is true of scrolls. Cure moderate wounds is available to paladins as a CL3, spell level 2 (a cleric spell) instead of CL5 (ECL11) spell level 3 (a paladin spell), but nobody complains about that. Sebastien Loisel That is because there is already a set list of what spells are on scrolls and what their costs are. There exists no such list for psionics.
KerlanRayne 08-11-05, 05:32 PM	compare stone of augmented expansion to a scroll of shocking grasp caster lvl 5. one will cost you credits the other won't.I don't think either one costs credits. KerlanRayne
Caterane 08-11-05, 06:00 PM	@ALL: I've posted my suggestion for diplomacy above. Please tell me what you think about it and what other skills might find a use in the CoCo. Another idea would be that of a discount when buying things, or a bonus when selling stuff. Perhaps a formula based on diplomacy+appraise? Or discount value in % = skill modifier diplomacy or appraise, whichever is lower? Perhaps half of that? Or perhaps only for one purchase a week if active and it will be listed like teaching tricks/earning money? EDIT: more concrete suggestion: Take the lowest modifier of diplomacy and appraise. Once a week, if you are actively fighting, you may use your skills (the lower one of the two) to gain a discount for one item you buy (not craft). The discount is your modifier in %. You need to have at least 5 ranks in both skills to use this option. Example: Dipl+10, Appraise+8 -> Get 8% discount on one item. This can be modified easily. Perhaps include Sense motive/Bluff? Thoughts?
SoulLord 08-11-05, 07:11 PM	I don't think either one costs credits. KerlanRayne There are strict rules and limitations to certain magic items aswell as spells cast by NPCs on the gladiator. For most magic items, only those specifically printed in the DMG may be bought or crafted; scrolls and powerstones may have a maximum casterlevel of your ELC+2, and tattoos may always only be bought at minimum manifesterlevel. NPC Spellcasting Service is likewise restricted: you may only buy spells with a CL up to your ECL. All these items and spells are available at the Gladius Market Square. I interpreted this to mean that in the case of scrolls only those specifically printed were allowed to be bought or crafted. but I think you are right since the blackmarket only list a cost for scrolls higher than the allowed level.
sloisel 08-12-05, 04:56 AM	Take the lowest modifier of diplomacy and appraise. Once a week, if you are actively fighting, you may use your skills (the lower one of the two) to gain a discount for one item you buy (not craft). The discount is your modifier in %. You need to have at least 5 ranks in both skills to use this option. Good idea, but what makes diplomacy and appraise so special? What about sense motive, bluff, intimidate, or any of the social skills? Also, I'm not sure taking the minimum (especially if you have several skills) is the D&D way to do things. Sebastien Loisel
KerlanRayne 08-12-05, 05:04 AM	Spellcasters - I'm fine with the 1/3 rule. Make some scrolls and memorize the stuff that needs a high DC. FFA fights - changing the map is a bad idea. It would be horrible for certian char. builds. However changing the 1/3 rule might not be so bad. If I understand the 'core' concept, then a party of adventurers should meet 3 or so encounters before resting. This makes the 1/3rd rule fairly accurate, and the quest variant (100% of spell lvs. over 3 fights, however you want to divide it up) very accurate. But in a FFA setting, the char are engaging far more than their ECL. It seems reasonable that in that specific circumstance, they could use more power.How about increase resources depending on the challenge. In a 3 player match you get 1/2 instead of 1/3. For a 4 player match you get 2/3. KerlanRayne
Caterane 08-12-05, 06:57 AM	Makes it a bit complicated to note down 3 different sets of ressources. We can discuss this another time. Please, let's solve the skill issues first. @Sloisel: I know and it's just a brainstorming. I'm open to ideas on skill usages.
Altaris13 08-12-05, 07:20 AM	RE: Diplomacy & Appraise: Rather than using the lowest modifier, I'd think you should benefit from the combined modifiers in both skills. 10 Dip & 8 Appr (as in the example above) would a +18% to value on sold items, or an -18% discount on purchased items. That may be a sizeable chunk of money, but we're not using any skill rolls here or anything Just my rambling, coffee-deprived thoughts.
Caterane 08-12-05, 07:25 AM	That's WAY to much.
Vathelokai 08-12-05, 07:41 AM	Buying Things: I know it's a deviation from core rules, but what about inventing a synergy bonus. 12 Diplomacy (10 ranks 2 chr) + 2[syn] appraise (5 ranks 2 int) = 14%. Put a limit of one synergy to the check. Or not... Allies: Using diplomacy to gain intellegent animal allies seems perfectly reasonable.
michael_noah 08-12-05, 08:52 AM	I believe that the logic behind using the lower of the two is that, even if you are trying to get a good price with diplomacy, if you don't know how much the thing is worth, it doesn't do you any good at all. Also, it's going to be a huge gain in money if the discounts are even as high as that. In general, it's a bad idea to use skill modifiers for anything other than rolling skill checks. It would perhaps be more wise to use skill ranks, that way the amount of discount you can get is directly tied to Level, and the amount of investment. Using modifiers could lead to nymphs with twice as much equipment as everyone else, for example.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-12-05, 09:10 AM	I believe that the logic behind using the lower of the two is that, even if you are trying to get a good price with diplomacy, if you don't know how much the thing is worth, it doesn't do you any good at all. Also, it's going to be a huge gain in money if the discounts are even as high as that. In general, it's a bad idea to use skill modifiers for anything other than rolling skill checks. It would perhaps be more wise to use skill ranks, that way the amount of discount you can get is directly tied to Level, and the amount of investment. Using modifiers could lead to nymphs with twice as much equipment as everyone else, for example. Amen. That makes a lot of sense. Using the lower of your two in actual RANKS makes a lot more sense. That has my vote written all over it. -ToK
Caterane 08-12-05, 01:22 PM	I don't like the concept of basing it on ranks alone. That doesn't encourage to increase the skill by getting high abilities and items that help here. But I have found a good reference. In the Players Guide to Faerun, there's a feat called "Silver Palm" which is for merchants and gives you a +2 bonus on Appraise, Bluff, and Sense Motive. Coincidently, these skills could use a boost (opposed to diplomcy which now has a function) so I think we should go with that. Additionally, they are based on 3 different abilities so that you cannot create a front-loaded character who breaks any balance (like a cha nymph); you need all three skills. So now we need to find a formula for discounts based on these three.
michael_noah 08-12-05, 02:18 PM	Making it 3 different skills might be enough, because then you can't just spend some credits and get a +30 appraise item. I just suggest caution. Using skill modifiers (or checks) leads to things like fascinate DCs and Incantatrix metamagic hootenany.
SoulLord 08-12-05, 03:10 PM	I don't like the concept of basing it on ranks alone. That doesn't encourage to increase the skill by getting high abilities and items that help here. But I have found a good reference. In the Players Guide to Faerun, there's a feat called "Silver Palm" which is for merchants and gives you a +2 bonus on Appraise, Bluff, and Sense Motive. Coincidently, these skills could use a boost (opposed to diplomcy which now has a function) so I think we should go with that. Additionally, they are based on 3 different abilities so that you cannot create a front-loaded character who breaks any balance (like a cha nymph); you need all three skills. So now we need to find a formula for discounts based on these three. before finding a formula we need to asess how much of a discount you are willing to give. 3rd level characters start with 3000 gold by giving them a discount to buy stuff you would be "giving" them more money. what is the top a begining level character should get as a discount if he used all his money to buy stuff. 500? 1000? 2000?
nightbanegod 08-13-05, 02:46 PM	Sorry so wordy but i think alot and it gets complicated at times Another idea would be that of a discount when buying things, or a bonus when selling stuff. Perhaps a formula based on diplomacy+appraise? Or discount value in % = skill modifier diplomacy or appraise, whichever is lower? Perhaps half of that? Or perhaps only for one purchase a week if active and it will be listed like teaching tricks/earning money? EDIT: more concrete suggestion: Take the lowest modifier of diplomacy and appraise. Once a week, if you are actively fighting, you may use your skills (the lower one of the two) to gain a discount for one item you buy (not craft). The discount is your modifier in %. You need to have at least 5 ranks in both skills to use this option. Example: Dipl+10, Appraise+8 -> Get 8% discount on one item. This can be modified easily. Perhaps include Sense motive/Bluff? Thoughts? now its true that...RE: Diplomacy & Appraise: Rather than using the lowest modifier, I'd think you should benefit from the combined modifiers in both skills. 10 Dip & 8 Appr (as in the example above) would a +18% to value on sold items, or an -18% discount on purchased items. That may be a sizeable chunk of money, but we're not using any skill rolls here or anything Just my rambling, coffee-deprived thoughts. 18% is a rather nasty chunk of change even if its only 1 item once a week. However, the suggestion of making it 3 different skills to avoid someone just getting a +30 x skill item for massive discounts all around is also a bit too spread out. Perhaps we could try and settle this in the middle since getting that +30 x skill item would cost credits and some chunk of GP as well. We should simply make it that you add up your respective modifiers of Diplomacy, Appraise, Sense motive, Intimidate, Profession(merchant), Bluff, Gather information. Now any of the previous skills only get added into the equation if they individually have 5 or more ranks regardless of total modifier then we take to total number of skills possible above... being 7... and divide the total of all their total modifiers by 7 for an average modifier, this new modifier becomes your shopping skill in the LG market place, taking into consideration how well you come off with other merchants(diplomacy), how well you can identify quality items(appraise), how well you can spot a merchant lying through his "TOOTH"sense motive), how well you can impress your "interests" (intimidate), your competence at bartering(profession-merchant), your ability to downgrade what your looking at(bluff), and what you already know about the market place or a particular vendor before even shopping in his store(gather information) now i know this is lengthy and these skills might not be the most represenative, however, I thought it would be the most fair to include a number of different skills for this proposed shopping discount considering class skill lists can hamper who can get the discount since its not fair that a rogue can nearly always meet the skill requirements for ranks in skills whereas a fighter only has 1 of the above skills and a barbarian only has 2 of the above skills Possible variants of the skills i propsed would also include only dividing by a number of skills equal to the number of skills that have the appropriate amount of ranks, however this still leads people to pick one skill, max it out and grab that +30 item. So, you could also set a list of skills that would differ from class to class, and for multi class characters, they would have to take the list of skills they have access to that has the highest number of skills on it meaning if they want a discount they do have to diversify thier skill selection... And to not be counter productive to questing and arena fights, any skill that is included in the above formula should still be alowable for 2ndary functions like trying to figure out opponents starting position(if this usage of the skill is eventually allowed), intimidating during fights, as well as the various functions of skills neccessary while questing. In the end after you have your brand new skill modifier.... shopping(living gladius market)=1d20 + ? =total ranks of skills/number of different skills then it would still be only a function of a %... but making it a whole percent can still net a really high modifier like the previously proposed 18%.. so this would further be divided by either 2/5/10 ... depending on what the elders deem fair in the end... 10 seems the most reasonable since then it just drops a place value of your total sum meaning youll prolly end up with around 3% to 5% in the low lvls at most and then considering that something like a +1 greatsword cost 2350 gp... this discount would give you back 70.5 gp to 117.5 GP ... the discount will only get higher as time goes on in higher lvls... meaning you live in gladius longer and know how to shop with the vendors better for higher discounts...
Vathelokai 08-13-05, 03:57 PM	My vote always goes against any thing complicated. That being said, I think we should go the ultra-simple path with this one. Profession(merchant) gets you a (10+skill mod) % discount. Thats it. Although in real life, every single skill on the list would help "synergize" to help your shopping, this is a game. D&D in any form is over simplification. If the 'skill web' effect is really wanted, use a +2 synergy bonus from the appropriate skill, the same way craft applies to appraise checks. Say, your buying a sword; you could get a (10 +5 ranks +2 syn(weapons) +2 syn(appraise) = 19%) discount. Fractions that are less than a copper round in favor of the merchant (against the player). Use the exact same equation for sales. It can be used on every purchase. If I have been reading all of this correctly, this debate started with the idea of comming up with an arena use for 'non-combat skill.' I applaud the effort, but making up skill uses that do not really reflect the skill is bad form. Although you could appraise until you found a good price; intimidate merchants all day; gather information on sales; these skills were not designed to reflect the art of haggling. Profession(merchant) is. I think there are some skills which will not be usefull in the arena, ever. That is what campaigns and quests are about; making a character instead of a war machine.
Gonbow 08-13-05, 04:15 PM	It occurs, that if players have these skills to get discounts... Doesn't it make sense that the merchants would also have these skills to increase the prices? If you want something complicated, creature a sample merchant for various tiers of equipment with appropriate skill ranks to increase the prices of their products. I.E: 1-1000 gp would be a level one expert (or no affect at all) and 1001-5000 would be a level four or five expert or something else that seems fair. A factor everyone should be aware of is the prospect of a 'merchant' PC that buys items for other characters, making a small profit with every transaction. Wether that is something you all want is of course, something to be considered. That said, the combine all relevant skills and divide by seven (rounding down) makes sense to me, though I don't think intimidate should apply (which would make it a even number and thus easier to calculate), it is along the lines of my own thoughts on this.
Caterane 08-13-05, 07:14 PM	Thanks for your suggestions. I just want to remind you that the highest custom skill item in the CoCo is +10 (see Blackmarket), so no +30 item. The reason why I want to give skills coco uses is that this will encourage players to put points in skills that normally wouldn't appear in the coco. In the 2 years of coco history, there was no PC with profession or non-useful craft skill, knowledge skills were also useless as were basically most other skills aswell. Players had rather put their spare skill points as cross-class skills into listen and spot than on things like diplomacy or gather information, something they would do if their character would play in a real campaign. With the new skill initiative, I intend to make LG more realistic. That's the idea behind it. @Soullord: I'd prefer to not cap it in order to rewards those who specialize on it. @Nightbane: This is an interesting idea but it is too complicated. Pitlords and Players must be able to see it on a glance, and not try to remember which skills add to the discount and which not. @Vathelokai: Your idea is simple but my goal is to make existing skills useful, not getting discount rules. Profession merchant would be a new skill introduced just for the discount and we would still have nothing for appraise, sense motive, and other skills that find common use in real campaigns. Although Nightbanes suggesion of skills is interesting, I don't think we need all of them: diplomacy and profession already have a function, intimidate has no place in haggling, and gather information is also not related to buying things (it should more likely be used for the starting position thing). That leaves us with 3 skills: sense motive, bluff, appraise. Lowest one = discount. Advantages: This gives rogues and bards a boost because all of these are class skills for them; these classes can use it. It prevents single-skill focuses with high ability scores (nymph) and +10 items because you would have to raise all three of them. If someone really raises them all to 30 and higher, to prevent that someone buys too much at high levels, we restrict the usage of discount buying to one purchase per week and it must be listed in the headline just like training an animal or earning money with skills; and you have to be active to use it. It does not apply for material used to craft things. It is only useful when you buy a finished item. Example: Rogue 5 with 8 ranks in each, a +5 item in each, and a +2 ability modifier in the lowest skill, gives the rogue a 15% discount on one item a week, provided he is active. Since he will use it on the most expensive one he buys, this discount will sum up nicely; and increase the more points he puts into the skills. If there are no concerns or objections, I think we should start using that soon. Again, if you have suggestions for skill uses, tell us! Gather information must be useful too!
Gonbow 08-13-05, 07:30 PM	Gather Information suggestions: 1. Determine starting position, as already suggested. 2. Determine part/all of opponents tactics before submitting your own. (Complex) 3. Spread rumors to steal sponsorship and take gold from opponent. (Like Craft/Profession/Perform, but mean!) 4. Combine with another skill to gain favorable arena conditions (Diplomacy and/or Bluff? Appraise to figure out how much the arena lord wants?), such as choice of starting positions, choice of opponents starting position (higher DC), a higher initiative bonus.
Pittbull 08-13-05, 07:32 PM	Just a suggestion for gather information. We might use it for finding people, who want to sell their items like scrolls of <ecl+2 or spellcasterservice <ecl+2 without paying credits, because they are in great need of money.
NiQil 08-13-05, 07:41 PM	Just a suggestion for gather information. We might use it for finding people, who want to sell their items like scrolls of <ecl+2 or spellcasterservice <ecl+2 without paying credits, because they are in great need of money. Or, in a similar vein, allow a Gather Information check with an appropriate DC to find someone that is selling the particular item (i.e. a custom item) you are looking for and will sell it to you without having to pay credits for it. Cost would still be full price (Unless used in conjunction with the aforementioned skill combo for shopping, although it may want to be barred for this since we are already giving quite a lot), plus the cost of an XP that would have been required to make it, just like normal. Just no credits required.
Caterane 08-13-05, 07:46 PM	Wow Peter, that's a cool idea!! :love: That's better than the starting position thing (because this would require an increase in communication between player and pitlord, and we would have to base a formula on HD). Gather info is a class skill for rogues and bards. They could use it - once per week if active - to gain one (expendable?) item with no credit cost (or half credits?). That's also easily to explain as rogues and bards probably have better connections to the underworld. And you cannot combine it with earning money or getting a discount because it belongs to the 1 free action a week. Now the question is how to put it in rules! - All Blackmarket items? Expendables only? - No credit cost? Half cost? Credit discount? - How can this be tied to the skill modifier? PS: Since we now have several different 'free accompanying activities' that you can do while being active (teach trick, earn money, get discount, plus gather info now), we should come up with a name for such activities. Any ideas?
Mind Rogue 08-13-05, 07:51 PM	I think the purpose of finding how much of a discount we are willing to give somebody is not to set a hard and fast ceiling, but rather to use it as a baseline to figure out how much you can get back. For instance, 3rd levelers start with 3000 gp, and we decide that allowing them a refund of about 500 gp if they max everything out might be appropriate. This comes to being about 17%, so whatever method we choose to use, 17% should be the maximum that is easily achievable for the discount. So, say that we decide to use a straight Profession(Merchant) modifier as the basis for this. Most characters could easily have 6 ranks at this level, and divine caster types might have +3 through up to around +6 if they choose to go venerable with a self-crafted periapt of wisdom. So, feasibly, the maximum they could have would be +12, unless they somehow acquired a blackmarket +5 item which would cost more then they save. However, +4 Wis is probably more likely, giving them a net +10 bonus. Except that I'm forgetting that they can purchase a +2 tool, giving them +12 (+14 max). Right away, a 10% + modifier is obviously too high, since this raises it to 22%. While a 5% + modifier hits the target on the money, we still remember that we've demonstrated that it is possible to go over this, so we decide to go flat modifier%. That's still a sizable chunk of change (about 360 gp), which the person can take on every transaction. Of course, whatever we do, we're going to need to try to guesstimate it better, and try to come up with a manner that is balanced.
NiQil 08-13-05, 07:51 PM	Wow Peter, that's a cool idea!! :love: That's better than the starting position thing (because this would require an increase in communication between player and pitlord, and we would have to base a formula on HD). Gather info is a class skill for rogues and bards. They could use it - once per week if active - to gain one (expendable?) item with no credit cost (or half credits?). That's also easily to explain as rogues and bards probably have better connections to the underworld. Now the question is how to put it in rules! - All Blackmarket items? Expendables only? - No credit cost? Half cost? Credit discount? - How can this be tied to the skill modifier? I wouldn't limit it to rogues and bards....anyone that has a sufficient Gather Info should be allowed to do this....especially since they would be burning cross class skills to do it. I would allow it on all blackmarket items, with a DC set based on the total price of the item (including what would have to be paid in gold to cover the XP costs if any)...maybe work out some sort of formula or chart for this. Then it is a standard check of d20 + Gather Info modifier vs the DC of the item you are looking for. Still require the total cost to be paid, including gold for XP, and only allow it once per week for *active characters. Don't allow non-active characters to stock up (assuming they have gold to burn).
Caterane 08-13-05, 07:58 PM	It's of course available to every character with gather information. Rogues and Bards have it as class skill though which gives them another boost then can use. When making a formula we have to be careful to base it on the market price. If we allow for expensive items, you can easily get the cheaper scrolls for free anytime; if we focus on scroll prices, you can forget about expensive customs. What do you mean by DC of the item? And of course active only. I think we should require trick teaching to be active too, just to be consequent.
NiQil 08-13-05, 08:10 PM	It's of course available to every character with gather information. Rogues and Bards have it as class skill though which gives them another boost then can use. When making a formula we have to be careful to base it on the market price. If we allow for expensive items, you can easily get the cheaper scrolls for free anytime; if we focus on scroll prices, you can forget about expensive customs. What do you mean by DC of the item? And of course active only. I think we should require trick teaching to be active too, just to be consequent. By DC of the item, I meant that if we created a DC chart or some sort of DC formula based upon the gold value of the item, then each time you wanted to use this service, you would roll a Gather info Check vs the DC of the price of the item you are trying to buy. And if we do base it on the market price (which is fine), then you would still pay the total cost of the item plus any required gold for XP that would normally be used in its creation. I think a formula would be best, and I want to say that it should include something with regard to the character's ECL, so that higher level characters are not getting blackmarket scrolls with basically no check.
sloisel 08-14-05, 09:41 AM	That leaves us with 3 skills: sense motive, bluff, appraise. Lowest one = discount. I think this is basically good, but I still think there must be a better way than taking the minimum of three skills. I would like 1 skill point per level fighters to be tempted to take appraise, but right now the cost/benefit isn't there, given the "minimum 5 ranks" rule you gave in another post. Why not take the average? 1 skillpoint fighters will be tempted to take bluff, and skillful rogues still cannot get a higher discount than whatever maximum you were considering. +10 items only give 3.3% discount. Sebastien Loisel
Caterane 08-14-05, 09:52 AM	The 5 rank rule is important because else every character would earn money or get discounts and I would have to list 100 PCs a week in the Character actions post. 1 skill point fighters are 1 skill point fighters and no skill monkeys so they cannot and should not be able to get discount unless they make an investment in skills. There should be no maximum. If someone wants to specialize, let him do so. @NiQil: A seperate chart complicates things. You would have to browse to it and check for the credits everytime anew. I prefer a simple formula based on ECL. Interesting items would be higher level scrolls, tattoos, and custom potions. Skillmod+take20*ECL ECL 3, Gather+10: 90 gp ECL 5, Gather+10: 150 gp [useless] ECL 10, Gather+10: 300 gp [useless] ECL 15, Gather+10: 450 gp [useless] ECL 5, Gather+20: 200 gp [CL8 1st lvl scroll (200)] ECL 10, Gather+20: 400 gp ECL 15, Gather+20: 600 gp Hm, that's not worth it. [U]Skillmod*ECL² ECL 3, Gather+10: 90 gp ECL 5, Gather+10: 250 gp [CL10 1st scroll (250)] ECL 10, Gather+10: 1000 gp [too much for just +10] ECL 15, Gather+10: 2250 gp [opens the Blackmarket for most expendables] ECL 5, Gather+20: 500 gp ECL 10, Gather+20: 2000 gp ECL 15, Gather+20: 4500 gp That formula makes GI useless at low levels and is way too powerful at high levels. +10 should be no prob for a ECL 10 character. [U]Skillmod*10*ECL ECL 3, Gather+10: 300 gp ECL 5, Gather+10: 500 gp ECL 10, Gather+10: 1000 gp ECL 15, Gather+10: 1500 gp ECL 5, Gather+20: 1000 gp ECL 10, Gather+20: 2000 gp ECL 15, Gather+20: 3000 gp ECL 10, Gather+30: 3000 gp ECL 15, Gather+30: 6000 gp Hm. You still have to get 5 ranks so only bards and rogues can use GI at ECL 3 (which is ok). At ECL 10, it should be no problem to get +20 in GI however, which opens basically half the expendable Blackmarket. Comments? Any mathematicians here? Another idea would be to have it grant a credit discount. The above mentioned formulas are an all or nothing credit thing. An ELC 5 PC with Gather+20 could basically buy CL 20 scrolls :/ *Sigh*
sloisel 08-14-05, 11:02 AM	Any mathematicians here? I'm one, but I think there are others. I also don't think I can say anything particularly smart about this. The only thing I notice is that skills can easily increase faster than levels (adding 1 rank per level, but then also increasing attributes and getting +skill items.) So basically your skill*ECL smells like an ECL^2 to me, and skill*ECL^2 smells like an ECL^3 to me. This you wouldn't notice by looking at GI=10 for all levels. You'd notice it if you took, for instance, GI=level+5. If you have an ECL^1 scale, you'll make GI more useful at lower levels and less useful at higher levels. At ECL^2, if GI is useful at low levels then it's super great at high levels. ECL^3 is even more so. I think I would keep the power as low as possible. You could try something that only uses the GI skill without involving the ECL. Or involving sqrt(ECL) so that overall you're getting ECL^1.5. sqrt(ECL) can be just a "multiplier" table from ECL1 to ECL20. Scroll costs of high spell levels are CL^2 because the cost is 25*(CL)*(CL/2)=12.5*CL^2, essentially. Scroll costs for 1st level spells (or 2nd level spells, whatever, but with the level fixed) are CL^1 in cost. I guess that's where the problem is. If you can buy ECL^2, you'll be able to buy CL^1 in no time. If you can just buy CL^1, you won't be able to buy CL^2. Also, it's probably bad if you can buy scrolls much higher than your ECL. Sebastien Loisel
sloisel 08-14-05, 11:15 AM	I dunno, if you want other powers let me know. This is essentially GI (=ECL+5) * 10 * sqrt(ECL). The actual table would say ECL5-->GIx22gp. The GI=xx is an example with ECL+5. ECL 1, GI=6 x 10gp = 60gp ECL 2, GI=7 x 14gp = 98gp ECL 3, GI=8 x 17gp = 136gp ECL 4, GI=9 x 20gp = 180gp ECL 5, GI=10 x 22gp = 220gp ECL 6, GI=11 x 24gp = 264gp ECL 7, GI=12 x 26gp = 312gp ECL 8, GI=13 x 28gp = 364gp ECL 9, GI=14 x 30gp = 420gp ECL 10, GI=15 x 32gp = 480gp ECL 11, GI=16 x 33gp = 528gp ECL 12, GI=17 x 35gp = 595gp ECL 13, GI=18 x 36gp = 648gp ECL 14, GI=19 x 37gp = 703gp ECL 15, GI=20 x 39gp = 780gp ECL 16, GI=21 x 40gp = 840gp ECL 17, GI=22 x 41gp = 902gp ECL 18, GI=23 x 42gp = 966gp ECL 19, GI=24 x 44gp = 1056gp ECL 20, GI=25 x 45gp = 1125gp An optimized ECL 20 guy might have 24 ranks +10 ability +10 item, total 44 ranks, and would be able to bypass the black market for 1980gp. EDIT: an extended version of the preceding table, normalized so that you can get 2000gp of stuff at level 20. Here you can see the effect of various powers. 2000 is just a number, we can scale everything another way. http://www.math.mcgill.ca/loisel/gather-information.gif
Caterane 08-14-05, 12:17 PM	I like that formula of the first table. I've tried out some numbers and it seems to be very good. With +10, a lvl 3 PC could get a CL 3 potion, and with +12 he can even buy an item of up to 200 gp which allows for some tattoos, or a CL 8 scroll of 1st level. Good work Sloisel!! I'll give you a credit for it. _________________________ I was also thinking about taking away a bit of the emphasize on expandables by making the cap = your ECL (instead of ECL+2 as it is now). This puts the abilities of a character more into the foreground. Especially at lower levels, gladiators still tend to rely much more on scrolls and powerstones than on their own abilities. Also, makes Gather information more attractive at lower levels. Thoughts?
Pitlords 08-14-05, 12:27 PM	We also need a good name for all those activities that you can do while fighting in the arena. Any ideas? Never mind. I've called it "Free Activities".
Luni 08-14-05, 02:35 PM	I was also thinking about taking away a bit of the emphasize on expandables by making the cap = your ECL (instead of ECL+2 as it is now). This puts the abilities of a character more into the foreground. Especially at lower levels, gladiators still tend to rely much more on scrolls and powerstones than on their own abilities. Also, makes Gather information more attractive at lower levels. Thoughts? Hmm. I think lowering expendable cap might help. How many lvl 3 gladiators actually have CL 4-5 items anways?
NiQil 08-14-05, 02:43 PM	Hmm. I think lowering expendable cap might help. How many lvl 3 gladiators actually have CL 4-5 items anways? I am personally in agreeance with lowering the cap, but bear in mind a couple of things: Some potions, such as reduce person and enlarge person, have been cast as a CL 1 potion with a metamagic feat (in this case Quicken Spell) in order to make them into a potion. This still makes them a CL 1 potion when used in the arena, but when purchasing them, because of the extra 4 levels Quicken Spell takes up, it is a CL 5 spell as far as purchasing it. So it would take some of these potions that have this type of setup away from CL 3 and 4 characters entirely.
xanadu 08-14-05, 02:47 PM	Hmm. I am all for making these battles rely more on the characetr than expendables, but it is not unknown for 4th level characters to have come across or purchased a scroll of fly for instance. Maybe making it more difficult/expensive to aquire expendables over ECL might be a good compromise. I'm not sure credits are the anser here because that would give veteran CoCo members a huge edge in lower level fights. Ideas?
michael_noah 08-14-05, 03:14 PM	I am personally in agreeance with lowering the cap, but bear in mind a couple of things: Some potions, such as reduce person and enlarge person, have been cast as a CL 1 potion with a metamagic feat (in this case Quicken Spell) in order to make them into a potion. This still makes them a CL 1 potion when used in the arena, but when purchasing them, because of the extra 4 levels Quicken Spell takes up, it is a CL 5 spell as far as purchasing it. So it would take some of these potions that have this type of setup away from CL 3 and 4 characters entirely. I'm really unsure of whether this is correct, and it certainly makes zero sense.
MystErikEry 08-14-05, 04:05 PM	Enlarge/Reduce Persion Potion costs 250gp. 50 x level of spell x level of caster = 250 50 x 1 x A = 250 50 x A = 250 A = 250 / 50 A = 5 Thus, Enlarge/Reduce Person Potions, bought normally, are CL 5. (This isn't because of Metamagic; you could not Quicken a potion, anyway; just making the potion makes its activation a standard action, and Quicken would make it a fifth level spell, requiring CL 9th at least, and wouldn't be able to be made into a Potion!) Thus, it lasts 5 minutes instead of 1 minute (as a 50 gp Enlarge/Reduce Person would cost). That is all. (Oh, it also counts as having been cast by a CL 5 character, for the purposes of Dispel and such, of course)
nightbanegod 08-14-05, 04:09 PM	Enlarge/Reduce Persion Potion costs 250gp. 50 x level of spell x level of caster = 250 50 x 1 x A = 250 50 x A = 250 A = 250 / 50 A = 5 Thus, Enlarge/Reduce Person Potions, bought normally, are CL 5. (This isn't because of Metamagic; you could not Quicken a potion, anyway; just making the potion makes its activation a standard action, and Quicken would make it a fifth level spell, requiring CL 9th at least, and wouldn't be able to be made into a Potion!) Thus, it lasts 5 minutes instead of 1 minute (as a 50 gp Enlarge/Reduce Person would cost). That is all. (Oh, it also counts as having been cast by a CL 5 character, for the purposes of Dispel and such, of course) Finally some logic on the homefront... now with this math settled... is the potion issue done or not?
NiQil 08-14-05, 04:25 PM	Finally some logic on the homefront... now with this math settled... is the potion issue done or not? Actually, that is completely incorrect. The Reduce/Enlarge person potions are ECL 5 because they are level 1 spells using a 4 level boosing metamagic feat, Quicken Spell. The Quicken Spell portion of this potion allows the user of the potion to have the effect take place as soon as the potion has been drunk, rather than at the beginning of the next turn. Both of these spells normally have a casting time of one full round, thus their potions would be the same without the Quicken Spell added in. So it is an ECL 5 potion with relation to price. Now see below regarding metamagic and spell effects. Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description. So, even though the purchase price is ECL 5, the spell in the potion is still CL 1. Having to be a caster level 9 to create this potion has no bearing on the potion's CL or ECL. Potion, like scrolls, are always made at the minimum for the *spell in use, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Caterane 08-14-05, 04:32 PM	NiQil, that's completely wrong.
NiQil 08-14-05, 04:35 PM	NiQil, that's completely wrong. Support your argument, Cat. Which part do you think is completely wrong? I think the quotes from the SRD are pretty straightforward. If there is somewhere else in the SRD that says otherwise, I will be the first to say that I am wrong. But that is what the SRD says about metamagic feats.
Gonbow 08-14-05, 04:49 PM	Spell Level != ECL Does that explain the hole in your theory NiQil? That said, it IS a cool theory. ECL 5 only allows you to cast a level 3 spell, it would need to cost even more to be a level 4 spell.
NiQil 08-14-05, 05:04 PM	Spell Level != ECL Does that explain the hole in your theory NiQil? That said, it IS a cool theory. ECL 5 only allows you to cast a level 3 spell, it would need to cost even more to be a level 4 spell. Actually, spell level does *not equal ECL. Let me repeat a previous quote and add another.... As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, at least it is possible. Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up. The emphasized portion indicates that even though taking a 5th level slot (ECL 5), it is still a CL 1 Spell. And.. In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description. Again...this clearly states that the ECL of a spell (or potion, in this case) is *not the same as the CL of the spell being used. If there is more in the SRD that I am missing, please point it out. I am only going by what I am finding in the SRD.
Caterane 08-14-05, 05:05 PM	First of all, as a use-activated item, a potion is always a standard action to "activate". That overrides any casting time a spell might have. For that very reason, you cannot store quicken spells in potions, nor in scrolls, tattoos, powerstones, or wands. It's all written on DMG, p213. Now let me pluck your argument apart. Don't even know where to begin!! The Reduce/Enlarge person potions are ECL 5 (1) because they are level 1 spells using a 4 level boosing metamagic feat, Quicken Spell(2). The Quicken Spell portion of this potion allows the user of the potion to have the effect take place as soon as the potion has been drunk, rather than at the beginning of the next turn.(3) Both of these spells normally have a casting time of one full round, thus their potions would be the same without the Quicken Spell added in.(4) Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.(5) So it is an ECL 5 potion with relation to price.(6) Now see below regarding metamagic and spell effects. So, even though the purchase price is ECL 5, the spell in the potion is still CL 1.(7) Having to be a caster level 9 to create this potion has no bearing on the potion's CL or ECL. Potion, like scrolls, are always made at the minimum for the *spell in use, unless specifically stated otherwise.(8) (1) First of all, potions do not have an ECL (Effective Character level). That's for player characters and has nothing to do with a magic item. (2) The part about the quicken spell is complete nonsense. A quickened 1st level spell uses up a slot 4 SPELL levels higher, which would make it a 5th level spell. The minimum casterlevel (CL) for a 5th level spell is CL 9, not 5. You confused spell level with caster level. (3) You cannot apply quicken spell to a potion because it's always a standard action because "use-activated" method. (4) Tripple NO. Even IF a quicken spell could be applied - and that is NOT possible - even then what you said is completely wrong because it would make it's activation a free action, not a standard action. (5) Brrr. The quote you used is something completely different and has nothing to do with this issue here. The bolded text in your quote means that if you empower a fireball (3rd lvl spell) you have to memorize it at 5th level (3fireball+2empower), but it is still considered a 3rd level spell (for example, a minor globe of invulnerability would block an empowered fireball). (6) That's also wrong. If you apply a metamagic feat, it is still priced as the slot you memorized it in. The empowered fireball would still cost like a 5th level spell. (7) No. If you increase the spell level by a metamagic feat, you need to increase the caster level accordingly. Our empowered fireball (5th level slot) must be minimum CL 9 because that's the lowest CL one could cast an empowered fireball. (8) That's also not true. There are many potions that have a higher caster level and it is always based on a formula. For potions, this formula is Casterlevel*SpellLevel*50. From this formula, we have calculated backward the CL of the Enlarge potion. CL*1*50 = 250 |divide by 50 CL = 5 Sorry NiQil, but that was the absolutely wrongest nonsense statement I've ever read and ever will in my entire life. :P
Gonbow 08-14-05, 05:06 PM	The emphasized portion indicates that even though taking a 5th level slot (ECL 5), it is still a CL 1 Spell. 5th level slot = ECL 9 Yes, the spell is still a level 1 spell, but your minimum caster level is NINE now.
NiQil 08-14-05, 05:10 PM	5th level slot = ECL 9 Yes, the spell is still a level 1 spell, but your minimum caster level is NINE now. I think I see where some of the confusion is coming in, and it is my fault. When I refer to the ECL of the spell, I am not referring to the effective character level, but rather the effective level of the spell. Maybe a better way to word it would be ESL for effective spell level. So an Effective Spell level 5 spell (or potion) that is using a quickening feat would still be a caster level 1 potion with an effective spell level of 5. So the cost would be based on the effective spell level (250), but the power would work as a CL 1 spell. Does that make things clearer?
Caterane 08-14-05, 05:14 PM	I think I see where some of the confusion is coming in, and it is my fault. When I refer to the ECL of the spell, I am not referring to the effective character level, but rather the effective level of the spell. Maybe a better way to word it would be ESL for effective spell level. So an Effective Spell level 5 spell (or potion) that is using a quickening feat would still be a caster level 1 potion with an effective spell level of 5. So the cost would be based on the effective spell level (250), but the power would work as a CL 1 spell. Does that make things clearer? NiQil!! Please read my post above. You are still completely completely wrong. 1) A potion that is metamagicked also has a higher caster level! 2) You cannot apply quicken spell to a potion. 3) The cost is based on the increased casterlevel aswell as the increased metamackicked spell level. EDIT: Just so that you see... let's calculate your Quickened Enlarge Potion: Casterlevel * Spelllevel * 50 9 * 5 * 50 = 2250 gp
Gonbow 08-14-05, 05:16 PM	First of all, as a use-activated item, a potion is always a standard action to "activate". That overrides any casting time a spell might have. For that very reason, you cannot store quicken spells in potions, nor in scrolls, tattoos, powerstones, or wands. It's all written on DMG, p213. Interestingly enough, this is wrong. You can store quickened spells in everything except potions and oils. Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the kind of magic item or its activation method, unless the item description specifically states otherwise (see page 213 in the Dungeon Masters Guide). Potions (and oils) are an exception. Drinking a potion or applying an oil to yourself is always a standard action, no matter what the stored spell's casting time is. Administering a potion or oil to an unconscious ally is always a full-round action (see page 229 in the Dungeon Master's Guide). To see the full article, click here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041116a). Thus, if someone shells out the cash and credits for a quickened magic missile wand, they can use it thusly.
MystErikEry 08-14-05, 05:19 PM	Then why does it cost so much? If it's a first level spell, shouldn't it cost 50 gp? (first level spell * caster level 1 * 50 gp) ? If so, why doesn't everyone just use Maximized Empowered Quickened Potions? Or Wands, for that matter? While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal. So you have to use the minimum caster level required to cast a Quickened Level 1 spell (in this case, caster level 9). So the potion would cost (1 * 9 * 50) or far, far more than listed. No, this isn't the case. In addition, it specifically says that using metamagic puts spells into items as if they were a higher level. So you can't make a Quickened Potion anyway, as that'd be at least a fourth-level spell for the purposes of item creation (which really only bases the "spell leve" portion of the formula on the slot it's cast from), and you can only make potions from up to third level spells.
NiQil 08-14-05, 05:23 PM	NiQil!! Please read my post above. You are still completely completely wrong. 1) A potion that is metamagicked also has a higher caster level! 2) You cannot apply quicken spell to a potion. 3) The cost is based on the increased casterlevel aswell as the increased metamackicked spell level. 1. You are correct that a metamagic'd spell also has a higher caster level. However, that does not change how the spell in the potion functions. A metamagic'd spell still acts the same as the spell before it was metamagic'd for purposes of power, DC, duration, range, etc, unless the metamagic specifically adjusts one of those qualities. I have quoted this from the SRD many times. 2. I have not seen anything that says you cannot apply quicken spell to a potion. Please point me to the location where it says this in the SRD. 3. You are correct in that the cost is based on the spells metamagic'd spell level, hence the reason we have a CL 1 potion (Enlarge/Reduce Person) that is priced with a caster level 5. It's listed as a CL 1 potion because the power is used as a CL 1 power. But it is priced as a level 5 potion, because the effective caster level is 5 (due to the metamagic).
Gonbow 08-14-05, 05:25 PM	Then why does it cost so much? If it's a first level spell, shouldn't it cost 50 gp? (first level spell * caster level 1 * 50 gp) ? That is what everyone is trying to figure out. Misprint: They accidentally added a 2 on the cost, and it was copied into the SRD without double-checking, and the errata hunters haven't noticed it yet. Balance: A CL 1 Enlarge potion is specifically more expensive than other level 1 potions because it is more powerful, thus the price was artificially increased. Caster Level: Enlarge potions are assumed to have a caster level of 5, which results in the correct price. Which of these is right? Hell if I know. The third and first seem the most reasonable to me, however.
NiQil 08-14-05, 05:27 PM	I'm not going to debate this any more. I have seen nothing from the SRD to change my mind here, but obviously what I have said and quoted has not changed anyone else's mind. Do as you will.
Gonbow 08-14-05, 05:31 PM	3. You are correct in that the cost is based on the spells metamagic'd spell level, hence the reason we have a CL 1 potion (Enlarge/Reduce Person) that is priced with a caster level 5. It's listed as a CL 1 potion because the power is used as a CL 1 power. But it is priced as a level 5 potion, because the effective caster level is 5 (due to the metamagic). For the sake of argument, let us assume it is quickened. This increases the spell level to 5. To cast a level 5 spell, you need to be at least level 9 in a straight spell-casting class such as cleric, druid, wizard or sorcerer. Thus, to cast a quickened enlarge person normally, you have to be level 9. To put it into a potion, to start off with; you cant. It's a level 5 spell, it just wont fit. But lets say you can ignore this, as the base spell is a level 1; dubious, but for the sake of argument. It's minimum caster level is still 9. Thus, a quickened enlarge would cost 50 x 1 (spell level) x 9 (caster level) = 450. Not 250. I'm not sure where you are getting caster level 5 from.
Vathelokai 08-14-05, 05:37 PM	Since the recent business of skill rules has been resolved, I move that the following be reexamined. So, I've been think about magic items worn, since the whole 'were-octopus' discussion. Since we have monster fights now, I think it is kind of relevant. Since there are no core rules about what can wear what (except humanoids) how should this be adjudicated? Can monsters get magic items made for their race (like 3-finger gloves, tounge rings instead of finger rings, etc.)? Does it cost more? How far do magic items adjust to the wearer? Can tiny or huge creatures wear rings or necklaces? Obviously small creatures (like halflings) can wear human scale magic items. It seems that, in general, large creatures can as well. What about creatures that change in size? Enlarge spells change the size of gear, but were-shifting does not. What about other powers that change size? What about creatures that change size with age? Say a 3hd monster advances to 4hd and size catagory changes. Would that make some magic items unwearable? If I were to make a monster for a fight or as a PC, would I work these issues out with Pitlords/Cat or should I use my best judgement. Obviously, making a rule would be difficult, since most monsters would need their own description. I think the simplest way would be to allow race specific magic items at normal prices, and if a creature is not a humanoid then have a debate in the house of commons as to what they could wear. This might be to unwieldy for a monster fight though, so a quick PM to Pitlords could resolve it. Rules on size would have to be established, but that would be fairly straight forward. I'd say, a magic item can be used by someone +/- 1 size catagory of the intended wearer. So a medium necklace could be worn by a small or large creature.
Caterane 08-14-05, 05:39 PM	@NiQil: Scroll up. There are more than enough quotes by now. You confuse spell level with caster level and you misunderstand several different parts wrong, as well as mixing up parts of the SRD that have nothing to do with this issue. PS: The potion of enlarge person costs 250 gp because it is a 1st level unmodified non-metamackied spell at caster level 5. Formula: 1(spell-level)*5(casterlevel)*50 = 250 gp. A quickened Enlarge Person Potion would cost 5(spell level)*9(caster level)*50 = 2250 gp.
Vathelokai 08-14-05, 05:50 PM	Also note that drinking a potion is a standard action, even if it is quickened, as stated in the SRD quote in the Fight of the Week.
MystErikEry 08-14-05, 06:13 PM	I really would like to know what items a giant octopus can wear. I will note that any size increases, unless specifying otherwise, do not damage items. Magical items, anyway. Magical items automatically fit (except magical weapons, which remain the same size) the wearer, according to the DMG. However, lycanthropes specifically mention that items worn are broken when they transform into a larger shape (including armor). This indicates to me that magic items can't tell they're different sizes, unlike how they can with Polymorph (in which the items are resized with the wearer, or drawn in/dropped). What a creature can wear is also important for wildshaping druids, by the way. ^_^
nightbanegod 08-14-05, 07:18 PM	actually druids dont care about their gear in wildshape... since... Wild Shape (Su): At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the polymorph spell and... Polymorph: TransmutationThis spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. as well as... Alter self When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When you revert to your true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on your body they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items you wore in the assumed form and can’t wear in your normal form fall off and land at your feet; any that you could wear in either form or carry in a body part common to both forms at the time of reversion are still held in the same way. Any part of the body or piece of equipment that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form. so its either absorbed and not destroyed or just still funtional for a druid when they wild shape
Gonbow 08-14-05, 07:31 PM	actually druids dont care about their gear in wildshape... since... *snip* so its either absorbed and not destroyed or just still funtional for a druid when they wild shape Uhm. So they DO care about their gear, as we are trying to determine /what/ becomes absorbed and still functional, or what is rendered not? :P
nightbanegod 08-14-05, 07:54 PM	touche'
Caterane 08-17-05, 12:39 PM	First of all, let us find some guidelines for the House of Commons. This is the counterpart of the Elders Discussion Forum so we should focus on one issue at a time, and we should not post questions or things not related to the current or past announced topic here. Since there are only 2 Elders left (LLPittCow) the Council is nonfunctional, and will unless at least 3 more Elders return so the House takes over for that time. Any discussion - like the one about explaining NiQil what a caster level is :P does not belong here. Ok, the new issue is about... Guilds The EHTC is flourishing and recently we've seen old guilds being reativated aswell, like the Brotherhood of the Arcane. He had more than one guild in the past (see here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=228292)) but in the Classic CoCo there was no way to incorporate them into the system, and they stayed a roleplaying occurance only thus their interest diminished over time. In Living Gladius however we can easily incorporate them into the system and assign them purposes, benefits, drawbacks, or whatever we come up with. There is a lot of potential in there! We just have to find it. So here's the issue. What can we do with Guilds? How can we incorporate them into the system?
TelinArtho 08-17-05, 12:55 PM	Okay - well the first and foremost benefit of Guilds is for Prestige classes. Someone who wishes to become an Assassin - should probably go to the assassin's guild and fill out an application. Fields that must be filled out: "Have you ever killed someone just for the sake of killing him/her?" Etc. Not that all guilds would be built around this purpose, but then at least there is a purpose to some of them. I'm not sure that I agree that a character can only be a member of a single guild at a time, but I do think that in order to be a part of the guild someone must DO something - a quest, a challenged arena fight, part of a campaign maybe. OoC benefits might include a better forum to answer highly specific questions. For instance, the recent questions about the magic item body slots of non-humanoid creatures might be answered by the Beastiary Guild (who caters to all those who don't quite fit the mold...). Sometimes the tavern can get quite bogged down with questions - separating them into these guilds could help. /d
NiQil 08-17-05, 12:58 PM	First of all, let us find some guidelines for the House of Commons. This is the counterpart of the Elders Discussion Forum so we should focus on one issue at a time, and we should not post questions or things not related to the current or past announced topic here. Since there are only 2 Elders left (Sindorin, MadCow) the Council is nonfunctional, and will unless at least 3 more Elders return so the House takes over for that time. Any discussion - like the one about explaining NiQil what a caster level is :P does not belong here. Ok, the new issue is about... Guilds The EHTC is flourishing and recently we've seen old guilds being reativated aswell, like the Brotherhood of the Arcane. He had more than one guild in the past (see here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=228292)) but in the Classic CoCo there was no way to incorporate them into the system, and they stayed a roleplaying occurance only thus their interest diminished over time. In Living Gladius however we can easily incorporate them into the system and assign them purposes, benefits, drawbacks, or whatever we come up with. There is a lot of potential in there! We just have to find it. So here's the issue. What can we do with Guilds? How can we incorporate them into the system? Regarding Elders...don't you mean Pittbull and Madcow? Regarding guilds....I think they are a great idea. I see many people talking about them and looking for ones that would fit their characters. I see the biggest issue is someone having the time to fully run a guild like King Uther runs the EHTC. From what I have seen on that thread (and no slight to anyone else here), that guild would not go without King Uther. As far as incorporating them, I have a couple of ideas, again based on things I have seen in the EHTC thread. Currently, miniquests require no credits and quests minimal credits, with campaigns requiring the most. I think a good start would be to allow guild members participating in a quest related to their guild to not have to pay credits for it. They would still have to pay for non-guild related stuff, but this lets them roleplay the guild with a bit of a benefit. Maybe also a discount on campaigns if they are guild related (credit-wise, I mean). Do to some minor trash-talking between myself and members of the EHTC in the tavern thread, I think another good idea would be to allow members of guilds to challenge members of other guilds to duels...and maybe if they can find a pitlord to run it, have it set in the pairings for that week and assigned to the volunteering pitlord without either party having to pay credits for it. That seems to be the biggest thing that is holding lots of people back from things is credits. I don't know if any of these ideas are feasible...and they might need some tweaking...but that's just off the top of my head.
SoulLord 08-17-05, 01:09 PM	I see guilds as great tools to encourage roleplaying. but it's true that they need someone in charge willing to devote time to it. besides that they need members who want to participate on it. To encourage participation in the guild it definitely should have benefits. I guess it would depend on the guild the benefits they could get and on the participation of their members. for example I could well see the EHTC as having a blackmarket discount for its members. Or a discount in the arcane brotherhood to copy spells from another spellbook.
King Uther 08-17-05, 01:27 PM	I am not sure about the benefits/drawbacks issue, but the idea of a guild vs guild war sounds like a lot of fun.
Altaris13 08-17-05, 01:36 PM	I think SoulLord is on to something. Benefits should not be game-breaking. Nor should a player choose a guild for their PC based on the benefits said PC will gain. I also agree that membership should not be restricted to one guild, though some guilds may restrict membership as part of their "Code of Conduct." The use of Guilds is already a benefit, like TA mentioned, in that they can help you meet prereq's for PrCs. Guild VS Guild: The "war" can be handled somewhat easily, I think. Allow certain PCs to volunteer for multi-player fights. Basically, it would be an expansion on the "Team 2v2" fights, but along RP-orientated themes. Have some of these fights outside of the Arena, but not all of them would need to. Allow members of one guild to challenge members of another guild for free ONLY IF those guilds are diametrically or politically opposed. EX: League of Lightbringers vs Brotherhood of Darkness Paladin from LL can challenge the Barbarian from BD with no credit cost to either player. My main concern: Guilds are RP-focused (or should be.) As such, non-members really need to honor the "face" of a Guild. For example, the EHTC is only an "evil guild" in secret. In-characterly, they are a group of trades from East Habari who have banded together for mutual profit & protection. Some of their members have chosen to fight in the arena to earn fame & fortune other than their merchant careers. That should be honored "icly" by other players & PCs.
SoulLord 08-17-05, 01:45 PM	I am not sure about the benefits/drawbacks issue, but the idea of a guild vs guild war sounds like a lot of fun. It is but I think the EHTC dwarfs all other associations perhaps miniquests to further the agendas of each guild opposed to arena fights between guild members are more appropiate.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-17-05, 02:17 PM	In my opinion, before we open the flood gates to new abilities and special rewards for guild members, maybe start off with something really small, but also extremely beneficial to players without credits and to foment some awesome role-playing and that is to make challenges from one guild to another (or even intra-guild for those vying for promotion) to be credit free. That at least gives some benefit right there without disrupting the balance of the game. -ToK Eldest of them All.
NiQil 08-17-05, 02:26 PM	In my opinion, before we open the flood gates to new abilities and special rewards for guild members, maybe start off with something really small, but also extremely beneficial to players without credits and to foment some awesome role-playing and that is to make challenges from one guild to another (or even intra-guild for those vying for promotion) to be credit free. That at least gives some benefit right there without disrupting the balance of the game. -ToK Eldest of them All. I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. Use it as a jump-off point to see how things go, and then build from there.
Luni 08-17-05, 02:29 PM	In my opinion, before we open the flood gates to new abilities and special rewards for guild members, maybe start off with something really small, but also extremely beneficial to players without credits and to foment some awesome role-playing and that is to make challenges from one guild to another (or even intra-guild for those vying for promotion) to be credit free. That at least gives some benefit right there without disrupting the balance of the game. -ToK Eldest of them All. Great idea Tok!
SoulLord 08-17-05, 02:47 PM	ok what guilds do we know off? the merchant guild (alias EHTC) the arcane brotherhood ???????? ?????? ?????? And why would they In character be throwing challenges at one another? some ideas: the AB discovers the location of a (site of power,magic item,gold) near (x) at the same time as EHTC so it's a race of who can get there first and return with the price or secure the location. EHTC steals (quest) something from the halls of the brotherhood. brotherhood (quest) finds out about it, and issues a challenge for the return of such item?
Luni 08-17-05, 02:49 PM	Theres been talk in the tavern, of a good aligned guild coming together to oppose the EHTC. People were waiting to see what Caterane was going to do for guilds before making a new one.
Altaris13 08-17-05, 03:09 PM	There's only two members remaining in the Council of Elders. I have been here a little more than a month now, and I'd like to nominate a new member. He has been level-headed throughout everything I've seen him involved in. He has been dedicated since before my arrival to the threads/groups that he coordinates. He has offered assistance, guidance and support without equivocation. He has a solid understanding of the rules, experience here in the CoCo and is seemingly every-present. So, without further ado, I nominate King Uther to the position of Elder.
SoulLord 08-17-05, 03:20 PM	What guilds would the Players be interested in joining then? and who would be in charge of them? (we seem to be running out of elders..) And since a nomination has been given I add my vote for uther
Caterane 08-17-05, 03:33 PM	Thanks for your responses. Based on our experience with the first incarnations of guilds, we need to make it worthwhile to be in a Guild. We've already heard some good suggestions. - First of all, there's the roleplaying encouragement. You can play your character 'live' without the frame of a quest or campaign anytime you want. On the other hand, it should be required to participate in the Guild activities and discussion or risk to be expelled (Guildmaster's choice). - To ensure that only suitable characters join the guild, there must be requirements that must be met to enter the guild. For suitable characters, it should not be hard to join. If a Guildmember is willing to run a Quest for a newbie, the credit cost may be neglected. - The flexible nature of the LG CoCo allows us to incorporate small benefits to Guild Membership related to the theme of the guild. It should be of similar impact like the recently added skill benefits. Perhaps the Brotherhood gives a discount on copying spells into spellbook, and as proposed, the EHTC has a similar function like gather information, or gives a circumstance bonus to the three "trade" skills, depending on your rank in the guild. - With benefits come drawbacks. Why? Because those who do not want to join a guild should not be at a disadvantage or forced to join. - Guilds should be free to follow their own politics. If they declare war on another guild, they should be able to challenge members of said guild at no credit cost. Nice idea. Of course, it must be logical. Just because your guild is evil doesn't mean it can declare war on anyone. - That leads us to the next tier of Guilds: a supra-guild related system. The first wave of Guilds had powerratings which were the sum of their members' ECL. This or a similar powerrating should have an effect although I haven't figured out which one. That way, challenges to opposed guilds have a function and are more than just arena fights for 2 characters. If your character wins, he has damaged the other guild and strengthened his own, ie himself and his fellow guild-members. This aspect will be one of the most encouraging effects that will make guilds interesting and you will keep your fingers crossed for your fighting fellow guild member. PS: Only one guild per character. That's enough work and focus already. You can make other characters if you want to be in more guilds.
Altaris13 08-17-05, 03:40 PM	*snip* - That leads us to the next tier of Guilds: a supra-guild related system. The first wave of Guilds had powerratings which were the sum of their members' ECL. This powerrating should have an effect although I haven't figured out which one. That way, challenges to opposed guilds have a function and are more than just arena fights for 2 characters. If your character wins, he has damaged the other guild and strengthened his own, ie himself and his fellow guild-members. This aspect will be one of the most encouraging effects that will make guilds interesting. Great post, I agree with everything you just put forth Cat. However, I do have a concern about this last part. We may see a drop off of normal challenges. EDIT: Or rather, we may see an increase in challenges due to the lack of cred cost.
Caterane 08-17-05, 03:41 PM	I think we had 2 challenges since the beginning of LG in January...
Altaris13 08-17-05, 03:50 PM	Heh, just saw your other post Cat. :D Yeah, I figured the challenges were minimal. To further explain myself... Though I definately do like the idea of guild-based challenges that have no credit cost, I think there should be some form of offical approval both from the GM and from the respective guilds. This will serve two purposes: First: we can "play up" the contention between the challenger & challenged. It'll provide fodder for RP in the guilds and in the Tavern. Second: it also prevents "stupid" challenges from taking place. I don't want to see people challenging other characters where their own PC has a greatly-increased chance of winning. I think challenges should have some basis "In-character."
SoulLord 08-17-05, 03:52 PM	there was this sistem of influence I'll see if I can dig the book (it was from a vampire the masquerade game) basically each guild has a number of influence points. and this were used to affect several things in gladius the way I see it these points could be used to . get someone out of prision. get blackmarket stuff. get money. etc. as for drawbacks and benefits I like it. How about this Arcane Brotherhood. Alignment: Neutral requisites: able to cast arcane spells Benefits: cost to copy spells is reduced by half drawbacks: if you use this service in the week you must donate time to fellow guildmembers to let them copy from your spellbook (what does this mean? no time for earning money, or teaching tricks)
Caterane 08-17-05, 03:56 PM	Hey, that's a good idea. So some benefits can be automatic (eg. EHTC gives +x to the 3 trade skills, based on your guild rank) and others need to be done as a "Free Activity" (see FAQ: Skills on definition of Free Activities).
SoulLord 08-17-05, 04:38 PM	as for Rank within a guild For roleplaying purposes it should be defined by each guild to avoid the I create a lvl 20 character and now I run this place
nightbanegod 08-17-05, 04:55 PM	on the note of inter guild challenges and how it would benefit one guild for the win and hinder the other guild for the loss we could incorporate the power rating system into this guild influence ... so if a member of your guild challenges someone from another guild, you are hoping he wins since your guild will become more influential in gladius for RP or for purposes of hindering other guilds you could say that for a character that loses an intra guild challenge he ends up having to recover from injuries the following week ... effectively slowing down his Growth as a character and strengthening his own guild, This would make sense in the fact that it would make those free credit challenges very risky since it could involve your character being benched for a week however you could also maybe increase the exp reward for the fight so that at least the loser, even though hes benched for a week isnt losing that much like perhaps losers share and a half for the guild challenge, thus meaning he's only earning half losers share the following week but not actually competing, This would also reward the winner with winners share and a half, thus greatly increasing his guilds influence by his own personal increase in power the fact that inter guild challenges would need to be approved by both guild masters would also make sure that combatants were at least proportionally equal and that its not just a *stupid* onesided fight just a thought :P :P
Altaris13 08-17-05, 05:02 PM	as for Rank within a guild For roleplaying purposes it should be defined by each guild to avoid the I create a lvl 20 character and now I run this place Yeah, that'd be a definate problem (expensive credit-wise though.) But I think that we players would be mature enough not to worry about that. I haven't seen any craziness so far that would make me worry about this kind of thing. Still, there should be something preventing this from every happening.
Mind Rogue 08-17-05, 05:22 PM	Personally, I am a little bit worried about granting benefits for joining guilds. Credit-waving should probably be okay, since you're simply allowing something that bypassing LG restrictions, which normally has other ways out. However, cutting gp costs could get out of hand really quickly. For instance, with the Arcane Brotherhood, if you only require them to donate time on weeks where they scribe new spells, they could easily pay half for new spells one week, then create their magic items the next, so they effectively lose nothing for getting cheaper spells (meaning they have twice as much versitility. While I regularly craft scrolls with my druid, it would be easy to double-stock on something I would be likely to use the next week, which translates to a wizard by doing the same, leaving them the chance to copy spells the following week. Worst case, something comes up that they didn't expect to use, so either they have to go without it a week, buy the scroll for it, or else they have to push their new spell back a week. However, if you require them to donate their time every week, fewer people will join the Arcane Brotherhood because the money they save by scribing new spells outweighs that that they could save by crafting new scrolls or other magic items. It also means that Sorcerer's and Bards would have no incentive to join, since they are being penalized for the right to a priveledge that they can't use. Finally, it adds another layer of bookkeeping, since characters would have to mark on their sheet that they are guild members and keep track of all of their benefits, which others might not notice immediately and call as a violation ("Mialee, your spell should actually cost twice what it does"). So, in summery, waving credit requirements might be reasonable (since it only negates the requirement to pitlord fights to get the benefits), but giving cash-backs will generally either hurt the members, preventing enrollment, or else will greatly favor them, which hurts everyone else.
Zerone 08-17-05, 06:42 PM	On the concept of Guild Challanges, you could wager (as a Guild or individual) reputation points, gp/xp, cohorts/followers/Handled Animals, etc. Gambling in general on fights? I´ll wager 100 xp/gp that A will beat B in this weeks fight. We could even have odds based on current power ratings, etc. This would be hard to control/handle. It could just be limited to you betting on yourself winning, restricted by alignment/class/etc. Also brings up some other problems, but this is just a game after all... *•. Z
Tellish_of_Ket 08-17-05, 06:50 PM	On the concept of Guild Challanges, you could wager (as a Guild or individual) reputation points, gp/xp, cohorts/followers/Handled Animals, etc. Gambling in general on fights? I´ll wager 100 xp/gp that A will beat B in this weeks fight. We could even have odds based on current power ratings, etc. This would be hard to control/handle. It could just be limited to you betting on yourself winning, restricted by alignment/class/etc. Also brings up some other problems, but this is just a game after all... *•. Z Tried that, didn't work. Big problem with fightlords potential fixing fights to favor the outcome of certain matches. If it was just for fun, and not real gold or real xp or anything, maybe, but if you bet 25,000 gp on a 3:1 rated fight and win....well, that would upset the game balance TREMENDOUSLY, wouldn't you think? -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 08-17-05, 06:56 PM	Personally, I am a little bit worried about granting benefits for joining guilds. Credit-waving should probably be okay, since you're simply allowing something that bypassing LG restrictions, which normally has other ways out. However, cutting gp costs could get out of hand really quickly. For instance, with the Arcane Brotherhood, if you only require them to donate time on weeks where they scribe new spells, they could easily pay half for new spells one week, then create their magic items the next, so they effectively lose nothing for getting cheaper spells (meaning they have twice as much versitility. While I regularly craft scrolls with my druid, it would be easy to double-stock on something I would be likely to use the next week, which translates to a wizard by doing the same, leaving them the chance to copy spells the following week. Worst case, something comes up that they didn't expect to use, so either they have to go without it a week, buy the scroll for it, or else they have to push their new spell back a week. However, if you require them to donate their time every week, fewer people will join the Arcane Brotherhood because the money they save by scribing new spells outweighs that that they could save by crafting new scrolls or other magic items. It also means that Sorcerer's and Bards would have no incentive to join, since they are being penalized for the right to a priveledge that they can't use. Finally, it adds another layer of bookkeeping, since characters would have to mark on their sheet that they are guild members and keep track of all of their benefits, which others might not notice immediately and call as a violation ("Mialee, your spell should actually cost twice what it does"). So, in summery, waving credit requirements might be reasonable (since it only negates the requirement to pitlord fights to get the benefits), but giving cash-backs will generally either hurt the members, preventing enrollment, or else will greatly favor them, which hurts everyone else. Wholeheartedly agree. I would be adamantly opposed to any discounting fee to be associated with being a guild member. Paying 1° less for a challenge is extremely reasonable and doesn't break anything or upset the balance. It simply represents real world politics (and by real world, i mean the real, functioning world of Gladius). A reputation system could also be developed, but would be for role-playing and personal bragging right, and ascension within the guild, questing rights as set out by the guildmaster etcetera only. -ToK
Caterane 08-17-05, 07:42 PM	Ok, let's take the Brotherhood as an example, and the benefit would be to pay half the fee for scribing a spell into a spellbook (just an example) as a Free Activity. The wizard needs to be active to use this, and he can only use this on one spell a week. He would save 50 gp for a 2nd level spell (nothing for a 1st lvl spell because buying a scroll is cheaper than copying it from another wizard) in a week which is really not much and in line with what others earn from skills or discounts. Ok, this was just an example. We would have to check the impacts on a Guild's benefits throughout the levels. This is a one-time work. Then we come up with some drawbacks or requirements. We are not going to empower those who are in guilds more than regular PCs. In the example above, the wizard could not use his profession skills to earn money because you are limited to one free activity a week so the non-Guild wizard with some ranks in a skill can get the same gold. It's also not much more work. This action will be recorded in the Character actions post on the fights thread and must be linked like any other free activity to the place in question, here the spell you scribed under past expenditures. Or another example: The EHTC as a trading guild gives your character a circumstance bonus on a profession or craft of your choice of +1 per ECL. That's +3 at ECL 3, and +20 for the Harvester 2 if he would join. Still, in both cases, the bonus is ok. Even with a +50 skill, Harvey2 earns 1200 gp per week extra which is ok for lvl 20. You see, there are options that give a nice benefit without breaking anything. This is to encourage people to enter guilds, and in the end promote roleplaying and advance the World of Gladius. This is worth a slight bonus. Bets are a bad idea though.
Vathelokai 08-18-05, 09:13 AM	I think a good start would be to allow guild members participating in a quest related to their guild to not have to pay credits for it. They would still have to pay for non-guild related stuff, but this lets them roleplay the guild with a bit of a benefit. Maybe also a discount on campaigns if they are guild related (credit-wise, I mean). I absolutely agree. Or another method of handling this would be to allow 'guild mini-quests' that are one week and can have an ECL up to the characters ECL. The problem with giving credit-less 3 week quests is the potential for the +33% quest reward (see below). Since the guildmaster is running the quest, in most cases, there is a possibility for abuse. Obviously, I trust all the guilmasters, and the people who run quests, but it is better to stop this sort of suspicion before it starts. In my opinion, before we open the flood gates to new abilities and special rewards for guild members, maybe start off with something really small, but also extremely beneficial to players without credits and to foment some awesome role-playing and that is to make challenges from one guild to another (or even intra-guild for those vying for promotion) to be credit free.Guild challenges would be great, but there are no opposing guilds at the present time. I would suggest the intra-guild varient. For ETHC I could see fights for rank. For the BOAO I could see wizard duels (see further below). My vote goes toward making these types of challenges credit-free. so if a member of your guild challenges someone from another guild, you are hoping he wins since your guild will become more influential in gladius for RP or for purposes of hindering other guilds you could say that for a character that loses an intra guild challenge he ends up having to recover from injuries the following week ... effectively slowing down his Growth as a character and strengthening his own guild, This would make sense in the fact that it would make those free credit challenges very risky since it could involve your character being benched for a week however you could also maybe increase the exp reward for the fight so that at least the loser, even though hes benched for a week isnt losing that much like perhaps losers share and a half for the guild challenge, thus meaning he's only earning half losers share the following week but not actually competing,Again, this will be usefull once we have oppositional guilds. I like the idea of benching the losing character for a week. I think 'benched' characters should be able to do some activites. How about as a general rule, they can not do any activity that would make them money or provide a discount. This one needs more thought... So, in summery, waving credit requirements might be reasonable (since it only negates the requirement to pitlord fights to get the benefits), but giving cash-backs will generally either hurt the members, preventing enrollment, or else will greatly favor them, which hurts everyone else. Wholeheartedly agree. I would be adamantly opposed to any discounting fee to be associated with being a guild member. Paying 1° less for a challenge is extremely reasonable and doesn't break anything or upset the balance. It simply represents real world politics.Although my heart wants a discount, my mind agrees with ToK and MR. If a discount is incorperated it should have a maximum benifit equel to what other free activites give, and should have a drawback. Ok, let's take the Brotherhood as an example, and the benefit would be to pay half the fee for scribing a spell into a spellbook (just an example) as a Free Activity. The wizard needs to be active to use this, and he can only use this on one spell a week. He would save 50 gp for a 2nd level spell (nothing for a 1st lvl spell because buying a scroll is cheaper than copying it from another wizard) in a week which is really not much and in line with what others earn from skills or discounts. Ok, this was just an example. We would have to check the impacts on a Guild's benefits throughout the levels. This is a one-time work. Then we come up with some drawbacks or requirements. 25% scribe discount (25gp / page of spell) Lv. of Money saved Money made caster by free action by random skill 1-2 25 30 3-4 50 68 5-6 75 114 7-8 100 168 9-10 125 230 11-12 150 300 13-14 175 378 15-16 200 464 17-18 225 504 19-20 250 660 Random skill collum does not include skill focuses or stat modifiers. So this discount would only help the aspiring mage who refuses to put their skill pts into a skill or profession, and would put them at a disadvantage to the mage who did have a day job. Quest Rewards: Of course, even if you can use the item, the same amount in gold would still be better because it gives you much more freedom in what you can purchase. That gets even worse if you cannot use the item and lose half its value when you sell it. It is highly doubtful that every item you find on the Quest is just the one you wanted to buy anyway. [/b]For that reason, every Item is calculated with only 3/4 its market price for quest treasure purposes.[/b] That makes sure that there is a balance between gold and XP gained on a quest. Quest Completion Reward: (for 3-week Quests only!) If the player character completes the Quest - that is winning all three encounters plus completing whatever the plot required - he gets an additional Completion Reward of 33%. The Questlord just sums up the XP gained from all three encounters, and adds 1/3. This is what the character gets out of this Quest. I think that the 3/4 market price limit could be added to the afore proposed 'guild mini-quest.' For EHTC it could mean being sent on an 'aquisition' mission to get a fancy item. For BOAO, it could mean being rewarded for service to the guild with scrolls or strange magic items. This would obviously replace the standard gp gained from the quest. Since this is already in the rules, I do not see it breaking anything. Since the miniquest would be free, any item given as a reward would have to be CoCo legal. If an item would need a credit expenditure (such as headband of int +3) then the credits would have to be spent by the recipient of the item. Making money with skillsOnce a week, as a Free Activity, you can use certain skills to earn extra money if you have at least 5 ranks in that skill. These skills are Sleight of Hand, all Perform skills, all Profession skills, and some Craft skillsx. You may only use one skill at a time to earn money! You earn (Take10+skill modifier)*ECL gold pieces in a week. Once a week, as a Free Activity, you can haggle about one item if you have at least 5 ranks in bluff, sense motive, and appraise. For that one item, you get a discount equal to the skill modifier of the lowest of these three skills in percent. Crafting and Time: (paraphrase) You may craft items up to 1000 gp Marketprice without having to sit out. However, if you exceed that value, you cannot participate in any event. Your character is still considered active and may not do any Free Activities that week...you can craft 1000 gp's worth of market price in one day...7000 maximum for the week.Perhaps with the aid of a guild, a character could increase their rate of production by 10%. Just a thought. Random thoughts For intra guild fights in the BotAO, I would like to see the 1/3 magic rule dropped. This would only be for mage vs. mage, guild sponsered fights. I think it would be good for flavor and for testing mage builds against each other. Perhaps intra guild fights could have their own special rules; buff time, fight map, ect. could be specified by one or the other party. I think all guilds should have the enterence requirement of 'quest for the guild.' Guild power ratings would be difficult to track, and I think a full reputation system should be worked out before adding this to the guilds. Otherwise we end up in a situation were we have to work a reputation system around the partial rep. systems already in place. It could get out of hand, but what if the guild had its own credits? It could distribute these credits to members who cannot pay their own way to a quest, campaign, or item. Members could donate credits. This could allow a little team cooperation, without the book keeping of inter-character item sales. I am winded. Time to breathe....
sloisel 08-18-05, 09:26 AM	About the interguild fights -- Each guild could have a tiny bonus it grants when it's defeated in battle. So if your guild defeats the trading guild, you and your guildmates now get a +1 guild bonus (not cumulative with other guild bonuses) to trade skills. Another tiny "bonus" could be a tithe. If your guild defeats the "taxing guild", you and your guild-mates's active characters get (ECLx10gp) per week for free. If your guild is defeated, it loses all such guild bonuses it has accumulated. Or perhaps it loses a random guild bonus. Or perhaps the losing guild loses the guild bonus of the winning guild if it has it, or a random bonus otherwise. Your guild loses nothing if it has no guild bonuses. Sebastien Loisel
Tellish_of_Ket 08-18-05, 10:15 AM	There are already ways to earn money with skills, adding more benefits to earn free money for guild members just can't possibly be good. Hmm, Cat, i remember me suggesting the chart i sent you for sleight of hand, and at 20th level, making 1200'ish gp a week, you scoffed so hard, i thought you were gonna knock down the Eiffel Towers. Now suddenly because it's a "Guild" thing it's ok? I don't get you sometimes. :rolleye2: You knock my ideas, then come up with a variant of your own, and suddenly it's ok? :rolleye2: And my idea made even less money than yours. lol My "make money with skills" idea would be making less than what is currently in place, and mine was bad and unbalancing? Sometimes i just don't get ya. lol On the note of credit reduction for stuff, my only suggestion is to wave the 1° fee for challenges (both between guilds and intra-guild). However, i would not reccomend any credit reduction for quests/campaigns. These have the potential to give out great rewards and they must be earned. Otherwise there are many who would no longer submit maps, do audits, pitlord fights etc...and just ride the gravy train of free this and free that. The guild ranks, SHOULD be based on your ECL and power-rating...that's what it's there for, so lets start using it. Assigning a reputation system is very subjective. I mean, who do you decide gets the rep? And just how many new questlords/campaign lords are gonna pop up? We've already seen many quests dissolve to incompletion as well as a campaign. Now suddenly, everyone is a questlord/campaign lord and people will be clawing at each others backs to gain rep points and to power-play through quests and stuff. Anyhow, before i rant too much, i just think it's a very bad idea but i'm just one guy. Summary Challenges (both intra-guild, and between guilds) wave the 1° fee Rep system based on current power ratings/ECL of arena. Must "Quest" for membership. Discount Summary for Guild Members Blackmarket Items costing 5°-9° = 1° discount Only full fledged members and above can benefit from this discount. Blackmarket Items costing 10°-15° = 2° discount Only "xxx reputation" members and above can benefit from this discount Blackmarket Items costing 16°-20° = 3° discount Only "xxx+xxx rep" members and above can benefit from this discount. ....and that's about the long and short of it. -ToK
sloisel 08-18-05, 10:41 AM	Another inter-guild idea. We start off each guild with a single, unique token. Example tokens: Token of bowyers (for the archer's guild): 5% off market price for all bows, magical or not. Token of quest item insurance (for the questing guild): any items destroyed during a quest are partially reimbursed (say, 25%). Items damaged during a quest are repaired for free. Token of of taxation (for the tax collector guild): 10gp per ECL free each week for active characters. If you defeat a rival guild's member, you get one of that guild's tokens (you get nothing if that guild has no tokens.) (random token? choice of token? I dunno.) That guild loses that token. If a guild with 1 token is defeated by two other guilds in the same week, the one token will be given to one of the two winning guilds, randomly. Sebastien Loisel
King Uther 08-18-05, 11:16 AM	If it is a token exchange system, then it needs to be done properly. Such as..... You have 3 fights, each 1 on 1. The guild that wins 2 of 3 wins, that way everything isn't contingent on 1 gladiator.
Caterane 08-18-05, 11:21 AM	@Tok: Yeah you probably mean this post and if you read it again, then you see that I did not shoot down the earning itself, but that you wanted to a) use rolls outside the arena, b) the incomes were too low (5 gp a week?), and c) you wanted to enforce things like performing again next week, or end up in jail for a few weeks if sleight fails. The idea of earning money was proposed by me 2 posts above so I surely didn't oppose that 5 min later. But that's off-topic. A reputation system is for later so let's leave that out for now. We have to focus on one thing at a time. Also, let's don't talk about individual guild benefits but about the rules for guilds in general. - Inter-Guild Challenges for free is ok, provided the Guilds are at war (which shouldn't be too easy). - Intra-Guild struggles should be avoided for now. - Ranks based on powerrating. Agreed. - Direct Discounts for the Blackmarket are too good. Everyone would enter that guild. Instead, a guild bonus on gather information of +1 per ECL is acceptable ...if it suits the Guild's theme. Other guilds will have other benefits. - There will be no free Quests. That's totally unfair to those who are not in a Guild. Besides, we don't have so many QL to support every guildmember going on a free Quest. - On the other hand, going on a quest to enter the guild is acceptable, perhaps should be even mandatory. That means only those who show some commitment can participate. Earning 3 credits is no problem; there are more than enough ways to do that by now. Sloisel's idea about a drawback for all Guild members is cool but it needs to be refined. Only applicable to Challenges issues between Guilds at war, and only 1 such challenge may be issued in a week. Every Guild has a benefit token, and a drawback token. If your Guildmember wins, all members of that Guild A gets the token benefit of loser-Guild B, and Guild B gets the drawback token for one week from Guild A. Either that, or all Guild members cannot engage in any Free Activities for that week. This is a very elegant solution to balance guild vs non-guild members. If a player from your guild loses the challenge, you also suffer a drawback. Non-guild members don't risk that. Combined with some requirements to enter a guild in the first place, this seems the best way to balance Guilds. Thoughts?
Tellish_of_Ket 08-18-05, 11:55 AM	I believe i had a better post than that first draft, but oh well, it's neither here nor there. I like the new token idea, that way, non-guild members won't suffer any drawbacks. I'll agree to drop my °reduction for blackmarket items...yeah, bad idea. I stand by everything else i've said before...which has be reiterated a few times by others. wave ° for guild challenges. ranks based on power-ratings Must quest for membership. absolutely no ° reduction for quests/campaigns. -ToK
Pittbull 08-18-05, 02:10 PM	(1): Credit-reduction based on a gatherinformation-bonus! - I love this!! (2): No credits for interguild challanges is good too! (3): Ranking derives from the Powerscore, is much better than normal ECL. (4): It should be at least a miniquest to become a member of a guild. (5): No reduction of creditpaymemt for campaigns, but we shall consider characters on campaigns as free characters not counting as an active character. (6): Tokens are a nice idea, but we need to work them out. Seeing token as a right to do something special, like 5% discount on bows, that can be stolen from a another guild, is pretty cool! I like that, but need to pay attention that the tokens aren't too powerful. I posted this here, because I'd be so alone at the Elder's thread! :allalone: ;)
Altaris13 08-18-05, 03:01 PM	(5): No reduction of creditpaymemt for campaigns, but we shall shall consider characters on campaigns as free characters not counting as an active character. This is a great idea! Maybe we apply the same thing to characters on quests for their guilds?
Caterane 08-18-05, 05:06 PM	Campaigns are already so cheap there should be no complaining at all. Look at the work that goes into it so 5° is nothing for 6 months! Campaigns also should not be free because else you can just make a "campaign" character who never fights in the coco and has nothing to do with the roster. And free Quests or Questers not considered active is also unfair to those who are not in a guild asides from the fact that there is really no reason why that should be the case. Quests are ways to earn money and xp in conjunction with realistic campaign simulations. I don't see what these have to do with Guilds. Roleplaying will happen in the Guild threads too. Ok, let's see if we can make two examples for Guilds. Let's just take the two active ones: The East Habari Trading Company, and the Brotherhood of the Arcane. Obviously, that's a trading company, and a wizards guild. What could their entry requirements, their benefits, and their drawbacks be? We've discussed the general outlines so please stick to them when proposing something. Especially, I'd like to hear input from Uther (EHTC) and Vathelokai (BotA), the guildmasters. Perhaps we can make some test weeks for those two.
Gonbow 08-18-05, 05:45 PM	My two cents: Inter-guild challenges: Cool idea. Limiting it to 'at war' slightly less so, especially if there is actually a change in the power-rating of the guilds as a result of the challenge, challenging someone just to knock down their guild, even if you aren't at 'war' with it seems logical enough to me, and since the arena is non-lethal, it's not even that aggressive of an action, more of a friendly competition type things. Intra-guild challenges: These should be multi-player quests, with the reward being an increase/decrease in rank, as such it would cost 6 credits between the two players, and might not be a PHYSICAL challenge at all, perhaps two thieves go on a crime spree and he who steals the most wins, eh? Guild perks: Having a support system and active guildmaster is a decent enough perk already, if anything, I think having access to special mercenaries would be an interesting perk for guilds to have; Thieves and assassins for EHTC, Abberations and Magical Beats for the BOTA. Treat these as cohorts with ECLs rather than CRs to make sure they are balanced.
SoulLord 08-18-05, 08:14 PM	[COLOR=Gray] Especially, I'd like to hear input from Uther (EHTC) and Vathelokai (BotA), the guildmasters. Perhaps we can make some test weeks for those two. Wasn't Sindorin the guildmaster for the BotA? not that Vathelokai's opinion is not wanted
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 04:33 AM	Sindorin has retired from the CoCo and passed the reigns. I'm pretty much starting the thing from scratch. All suggestions would be appreciated.
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 05:06 AM	- Inter-Guild Challenges for free is ok, provided the Guilds are at war (which shouldn't be too easy).I see no reason why challenges could not be issued while not at war. The in character concept of the arena makes a great setting for settle their differences in a non violent manner, whereas 'war' would imply taking the battle outside of Gladius, so that both parties know the fight is serious. If the token idea is implemented then challenges would have to be common place. Also, I have trouble imagining the BotAO going to 'war' against the EHTC. Though they would obviously send spies in each others direction, escelation to open conflict seems unreasonable. - Intra-Guild struggles should be avoided for now.What I was proposing was not struggles for supremecy. I imagine wizard duels as a type of practice, or perhaps a way of blowing off steam for the members. The BotAO does admit all alignments, after all. I could also see the guildmaster pitting 2 members against each other before sending the winner out on a quest. - Ranks based on powerrating. Agreed.Seconded. - Direct Discounts for the Blackmarket are too good. Everyone would enter that guild. Instead, a guild bonus on gather information of +1 per ECL is acceptable ...if it suits the Guild's theme. Other guilds will have other benefits.Sounds fine. - There will be no free Quests. That's totally unfair to those who are not in a Guild. Besides, we don't have so many QL to support every guildmember going on a free Quest.Again, my suggestion: Mini-quests for the guild can be set at ECL -1 instead of the standard ECL-2. I understand the lack of quest lords. I also think that making 3 week quests free would be unreasonable. (1): Credit-reduction based on a gatherinformation-bonus! - I love this!! (2): No credits for interguild challanges is good too! (3): Ranking derives from the Powerscore, is much better than normal ECL. (4): It should be at least a miniquest to become a member of a guild.Absolutely. I have some more ideas for this that I will be putting up shortly. (5): No reduction of creditpaymemt for campaigns, but we shall consider characters on campaigns as free characters not counting as an active character.What do you mean by 'free characters?' I think char. on quests and campains should add to the power rating/ECL of the guild. Inactive char should not. A character may be on the far side of the world, but that does not mean s/he is not still an asset to the guild. Or were you refering to something else? (6): Tokens are a nice idea, but we need to work them out. Seeing token as a right to do something special, like 5% discount on bows, that can be stolen from a another guild, is pretty cool! I like that, but need to pay attention that the tokens aren't too powerful.This idea makes me nervous, as mentioned earlier. Inter-guild challenges: Cool idea. Limiting it to 'at war' slightly less so, especially if there is actually a change in the power-rating of the guilds as a result of the challenge, challenging someone just to knock down their guild, even if you aren't at 'war' with it seems logical enough to me, and since the arena is non-lethal, it's not even that aggressive of an action, more of a friendly competition type things.Agreed. Intra-guild challenges: These should be multi-player quests, with the reward being an increase/decrease in rank, as such it would cost 6 credits between the two players, and might not be a PHYSICAL challenge at all, perhaps two thieves go on a crime spree and he who steals the most wins, eh?I like this idea. However 6 creds seems a lot for members of the same guild to quest together. Guild perks: Having a support system and active guildmaster is a decent enough perk already.And if it stays that way then I wouldn't be offended. I would hate to see a guild boom, so that a bunch of char. get perks, then die off because the RP element didn't hold up. If anything, I think having access to special mercenaries would be an interesting perk for guilds to have; Thieves and assassins for EHTC, Abberations and Magical Beats for the BOTA. Treat these as cohorts with ECLs rather than CRs to make sure they are balanced. Great idea.Another problem that I see with the token system is that it requires that the characters be in one guild and one guild only. I don't like that idea, because it hinders RP. Why would someone in the merchant guild be barred from the mage guild? or the archery club? I could see two guilds at war barring membership, but that is an RP issue. We have the 'member of two guilds' problem right now. Nightbanegod is in EHTC and is joining the BotAO. I see no problem with letting him do this, since the prereq. for joining either guild are not contradictory.
Pittbull 08-19-05, 06:04 AM	but we shall consider characters on campaigns as free characters not counting as an active character.What do you mean by 'free characters?' I think char. on quests and campains should add to the power rating/ECL of the guild. Inactive char should not. A character may be on the far side of the world, but that does not mean s/he is not still an asset to the guild. Or were you refering to something else? At the moment everybody has two active character for free! If you want to have more, you have to pay a credit each week for one character.
Caterane 08-19-05, 07:52 AM	The thing with the war requirement can be dropped now that we have drawbacks on lost challenges. For the system to work it is necessary that a character is in only one guild. That alone settles this issue. It would also make things too complicated. And finally, guilds are not like a club, like you are in the football club as well as in the tennis club. Being in 2 guilds would be more like being in 2 political parties. Also, there is no need to be in more than one guild either as you can either increase the RP in your guild or make a new character who is in a different guild. Inter-Guild struggles may be an issue later but not now that we have to deal with the basics of Guilds. I prefer to see a guild as a unity instead of intriguing members. The Guildmaster makes sure that troublemakers are cast out. Rules so far: So far, we said that every guild has a benefit token and a drawback token. The benefit token can be used by all guild members every week as a Free Activity (or in conjunction with a Free Activity if the token is a bonus). If one of your members wins the Guild Challenge, you also get the benefit token from the defeated guild for one week, and impose your drawback token on the other guild for one week. Questions: - Should your own drawback token apply to your guild (until you impose it), or should it just 'slumber' until you impose it on a defeated guild? - Should defeated Guilds be prevented from the use of Free Activities for that one week in addition to the imposed drawback? Please be aware that the better the guild benefits are, the more we have to balance it against non-Guilders. -------- Let's try to put flesh to the bones for the 3 Guilds. As a benefit, I suggest to give the EHTC a bonus of +1/ECL to any one of the three trade skills (or distributed among them). That results in higher discounts for those who focus on trade (ie. bluff, sense motive, and appraise). After all, the EHTC is a trading company so the benefits should be related to that theme. The new Rogue Guild from Tellish should get a bonus to sleight of hand (+1/ECL), or alternatively on gather information. I've heard talk about an archer guild. A discount on bows is useless for you won't buy more than one or two bows in your carreer. A discount on arrows (incl magical ones) or the possibility to buy a stack of 5 magic arrows without credit costs (as a Free Activity up to XXX gp a week) is a different thing. No 2 Guilds should have the same benefits/drawbacks.
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 08:45 AM	Inter-Guild struggles may be an issue later but not now that we have to deal with the basics of Guilds. I prefer to see a guild as a unity instead of intriguing members. The Guildmaster makes sure that troublemakers are cast out. Is this up to guildmaster judgement? Are there any activities that would be strictly prohibited, other then the obvous Code of Conduct and Rules of Gladius? Rules so far: So far, we said that every guild has a benefit token and a drawback token. The benefit token can be used by all guild members every week as a Free Activity (or in conjunction with a Free Activity if the token is a bonus). If one of your members wins the Guild Challenge, you also get the benefit token from the defeated guild for one week, and impose your drawback token on the other guild for one week. Questions: - Should your own drawback token apply to your guild (until you impose it), or should it just 'slumber' until you impose it on a defeated guild? For the sake of balance, I would say yes. The problem is that it is hard to have a drawback that effects all members other than guild dues, loss of free activities, item buy restrictions, or increased credit costs. - Should defeated Guilds be prevented from the use of Free Activities for that one week in addition to the imposed drawback? Why not have one of the drawback tokens be 'no free activites'? Members of the guild are considered to have day jobs. If they pass the token, then the recipients cannot use free activities that week. Please be aware that the better the guild benefits are, the more we have to balance it against non-Guilders. The problem I am envisioning, is that the favor tokens would not be of much use to someone in another guild. The EHTC '+ECL to skills' token would be nearly useless to most mages (how many have you seen with 5 ranks in appraise, bluff, and sense motive?). Likewise, a discount to spell scribing, would be useless to most other guilds. -------- Let's try to put flesh to the bones for the 3 Guilds. As a benefit, I suggest to give the EHTC a bonus of +1/ECL to any one of the three trade skills (or distributed among them). That results in higher discounts for those who focus on trade (ie. bluff, sense motive, and appraise). After all, the EHTC is a trading company so the benefits should be related to that theme. The new Rogue Guild from Tellish should get a bonus to sleight of hand (+1/ECL), or alternatively on gather information. I've heard talk about an archer guild. A discount on bows is useless for you won't buy more than one or two bows in your carreer. A discount on arrows (incl magical ones) or the possibility to buy a stack of 5 magic arrows without credit costs (as a Free Activity up to XXX gp a week) is a different thing. No 2 Guilds should have the same benefits/drawbacks. Should all guild benefits revolve around purchasing items without paying credits? For example; the EHTC token allows '+ECL to haggling and bypasses the 5 rank minimum to haggle'. If the mythical archers get +ecl to buy arrows, what is the benefit? Why not be an archer for EHTC? What benifits would be usefull to steal from the BotAO? Credits waved on certain magic items or npc spell caster services? Scribing discounts, familiar grooming, etc. would not make the tokens worthwhile. The same problem arises with drawbacks. What drawback makes sense in character that would be a hinderence to all guilds? Other then loosing free activities, or having the losers guild bonus negated for a week, I can think of none.
SoulLord 08-19-05, 10:06 AM	A proposal on Intra guild Challenges. 1.-Only the guildmaster can issue such a challenge 2.-The challenged party chooses the gladiators to be facing for the challenge. this can be any gladiators from the same league. Example EHTC challenges the BotAO; BotAO would choose A gladiator from the challengers and a gladiator from the challenged to face off in the arena. Also it would be nice if in the first posts there was a roster of active members for each guild.
Caterane 08-19-05, 10:13 AM	The problem I am envisioning, is that the favor tokens would not be of much use to someone in another guild. The EHTC '+ECL to skills' token would be nearly useless to most mages (how many have you seen with 5 ranks in appraise, bluff, and sense motive?). Likewise, a discount to spell scribing, would be useless to most other guilds. First of all, the EHTC is a Trading Company foremost. Sure there are some dark secrets and underground activities but that would be the case for any evil trading company. It would be wrong to apply a benefit that does not relate to trading. Then, it can still be usefull to everyone. I presume that there will be a challenge every week, or at least every other week. That means members of powerful guilds - like the EHTC - benefit from the many different tokens they get by defeating other guilds. Defeated the Brotherhood? Cool for mages. Defeated the archers guild? Time to buy some arrows. I don't like the idea of restricting it to metagame effects like credit discounts. That takes a lot of flavor out of the guild. But much more importantly, it takes away A LOT from the Blackmarket! Credit waving should stay an exception!! It's acceptable for the Archer Guild example because archers are generally more dependent on expensive ammo than anyone else so their access to arrows helps to balance this type of character. Finally, a Guild does not depend on its benefits or drawbacks. Its survival depends on the roleplaying of its members! Keep that in mind. Is this up to guildmaster judgement? Are there any activities that would be strictly prohibited, other then the obvous Code of Conduct and Rules of Gladius? That was just flavor text. Intra-guild struggles are not possible. At least not in the beginning. We need to put guilds on firm legs first. The problem is that it is hard to have a drawback that effects all members other than guild dues, loss of free activities, item buy restrictions, or increased credit costs. Why not have one of the drawback tokens be 'no free activites'? Members of the guild are considered to have day jobs. If they pass the token, then the recipients cannot use free activities that week. What about loss of any side-activities, Free Activities and Crafting. If we now find another penalty for losing a guild challenge, it should be enough. We could for example create a supra-guild system that files all guilds. It should not depend on powerrating or members (alone) because that would just encourage to enter already big guilds. It should rather depend on Inter-Guild War results. With that we would have a method to control and affect any guild as a whole with whatever effect we come up with. Perhaps the top three guilds gain some extra benefits? This would also create a political hierarchical system; a step closer to a living world. Any ideas? A proposal on Intra [Inter] guild Challenges. 1.-Only the guildmaster can issue such a challenge 2.-The challenged party chooses the gladiators to be facing for the challenge. this can be any gladiators from the same league. Example EHTC challenges the BotAO; BotAO would choose A gladiator from the challengers and a gladiator from the challenged to face off in the arena. I think it should be picked randomly so that it can hit anyone. Guild A challenges Guild B; we check how many ECLs have gladiators in both guilds, then we roll randomly who fights. Also it would be nice if in the first posts there was a roster of active members for each guild. Definately. The current Guilds would have to be recreated. You need a new name with "Guild:" in it, the name must clearly show the purpose (like East Habaris TRADING COMPANY), the first posts must be done by a common Guild Account (so that the guild doesn't die with its founder), and there must be an "Embassy" as 2nd post for the new Guildlords CoCo Account.
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 10:15 AM	I just finished updating the first couple posts of the BotAO (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=229519) . It's all info. I'll clean it up for looks later.
Gonbow 08-19-05, 10:27 AM	Then, it can still be usefull to everyone. I presume that there will be a challenge every week, or at least every other week. That means members of powerful guilds - like the EHTC - benefit from the many different tokens they get by defeating other guilds. Defeated the Brotherhood? Cool for mages. Defeated the archers guild? Time to buy some arrows. EHTC getting benefits isn't the issue. BOTA defeating EHTC and getting a completely useless benefit (bonus to skills that no one has five ranks in, thus cant use). Also, the benefits/penalties should go into effect the week AFTER the challenge, because the challenges won't be determined until the end of any given week anyways, thus seriously messing with someones planning/making it hard to take advantage of some bonuses. Alternative EHTC bonus: ECL*1 (or maybe 2) gold a week. It's low enough that it shouldn't unbalanced anything (It's the equivalant of +1 to a skill that you use to make money), but appropriate for a company whose assumed purpose is to gather insane amounts of wealth for everyone (but more for those in the top, I.E: with higher ECLs).
Altaris13 08-19-05, 10:40 AM	EHTC getting benefits isn't the issue. BOTA defeating EHTC and getting a completely useless benefit (bonus to skills that no one has five ranks in, thus cant use). Also, the benefits/penalties should go into effect the week AFTER the challenge, because the challenges won't be determined until the end of any given week anyways, thus seriously messing with someones planning/making it hard to take advantage of some bonuses. Alternative EHTC bonus: ECL*1 (or maybe 2) gold a week. It's low enough that it shouldn't unbalanced anything (It's the equivalant of +1 to a skill that you use to make money), but appropriate for a company whose assumed purpose is to gather insane amounts of wealth for everyone (but more for those in the top, I.E: with higher ECLs). Seconded. This is well thought and definately preferable. It makes more sense, especially since not every member is a "trader." The wealth can easily be represented by "guards" earning their up-keep.
SoulLord 08-19-05, 11:52 AM	Originally posted by caterane I think it should be picked randomly so that it can hit anyone. Guild A challenges Guild B; we check how many ECLs have gladiators in both guilds, then we roll randomly who fights. BUt we should limit fights between guilds to at most 1 per week involving only 2 gladiators. otherwise lets say 10 gladiators of EHTC want to challenge the BotAO ..... there are not enough members in BotAO and even if they wwere im sure it's members would like to face gladiators from other guilds or free gladiators from time to time. Also what about declining challenges?
Caterane 08-19-05, 12:27 PM	BUt we should limit fights between guilds to at most 1 per week involving only 2 gladiators. otherwise lets say 10 gladiators of EHTC want to challenge the BotAO ..... there are not enough members in BotAO and even if they wwere im sure it's members would like to face gladiators from other guilds or free gladiators from time to time. [That's already been discussed and is set in stone] Also what about declining challenges? [Cannot be declined. If your guild is attacked, you have to defend it.] Also, the benefits/penalties should go into effect the week AFTER the challenge, because the challenges won't be determined until the end of any given week anyways, thus seriously messing with someones planning/making it hard to take advantage of some bonuses. [Of course. Else, how would you be able to use a Free Activity to make use of the captured token?] Alternative EHTC bonus: ECL*1 (or maybe 2) gold a week. It's low enough that it shouldn't unbalanced anything (It's the equivalant of +1 to a skill that you use to make money), but appropriate for a company whose assumed purpose is to gather insane amounts of wealth for everyone (but more for those in the top, I.E: with higher ECLs). [That's 6 gp at ECL 3, 20gp per week at lvl 10, and 40 gp a week at lvl 20. I don't call that well thought out. Sorry.] And as we've already said, it must be something that is being used either as or in conjunction with a Free Activity. Seconded. This is well thought and definately preferable. It makes more sense, especially since not every member is a "trader." The wealth can easily be represented by "guards" earning their up-keep. You guys want to make it easy for yourself. That's like saying no the thieves guild should not get a bonus on sleight of hand! Better give the money for free!! But a Guild's purpose is NOT to give out free money!!!!! No way. That would be totally unfair to those who are not in a guild! Guilds are THEMATIC organizations that helps those who relate to that theme. You can still benefit - I'm repeating myself here - by getting tokens from defeated guilds. And - I'm repeating myself again - the main reason why you are in a guild should be the roleplaying aspect. Actually, this token idea helps to sort the characters into the appropriate guilds. If ANY character can benefit from ANY guild's token, then the themes become useless. EHTC getting benefits isn't the issue. BOTA defeating EHTC and getting a completely useless benefit (bonus to skills that no one has five ranks in, thus cant use). That's what Vathe and I discussed some posts above, and that's why I proposed that: What about loss of any side-activities: Free Activities and Crafting. If we now find another penalty for losing a guild challenge, it should be enough. We could for example create a supra-guild system that files all guilds. It should not depend on powerrating or members (alone) because that would just encourage to enter already big guilds. It should rather depend on Inter-Guild War results. With that we would have a method to control and affect any guild as a whole with whatever effect we come up with. Perhaps the top three guilds gain some extra benefits? This would also create a political hierarchical system; a step closer to a living world. Any ideas? PS: Several times now, I've heard the argument that Guilds also have warrior guards and wizards even though they are no warrior or wizard guild. You are right of course, and these helpers are called NPCs which are assumed to be just there. Or do you think the mighty EHTC consists of 10 members who do all the jobs from washing clothes to guarding the door? No, the PCs are the main actors of guilds, and those should be related to the theme of the Guild. Wizards for the Brotherhood, Traders for the EHTC, Rogues for the Thieves Guild.
Luni 08-19-05, 12:37 PM	PS: Several times now, I've heard the argument that Guilds also have warrior guards and wizards even though they are no warrior or wizard guild. You are right of course, and these helpers are called NPCs which are assumed to be just there. Or do you think the mighty EHTC consists of 10 members who do all the jobs from washing clothes to guarding the door? You mean Virgo doesn't do the laundry? I thought that was his job.
King Uther 08-19-05, 12:38 PM	Guild Wars should be a less important thing than the overall world of Gladius. Guild War results should determine the strength of the guilds, but power level should do something. Otherwise why keep track of it? Guild War rules: 1. Challenges must be made in roleplay 2. If your guild loses a token, you have to wait one week before challenging to get it back. 3. The fights will be team fights except in specific occasions(like roleplay or above EL10). The reason for this is that while you get a 1 on 1 thing going, your team members will be somewhat random and prevent someone challenging someone they feel they can beat easily. 4. Guildmasters must accept the duel conditions 5. Winning an inter guild fight nets you 1 reputation point, while taking away a token nets you 2. Losing 2 fights in a row for your guild drops you by 1 point, and each consecutive loss another point. 6. Any 1 guild can only have 1 inter-guild fight each pairing. This prevents guild wars from becoming the primary gladiator fight.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-19-05, 12:40 PM	So far we have a very solid core idea of the basics to get started with. Would it be safe to accept applications for my guild? I just posted a new guild for rogues/assassins/bounty hunters. As soon as we can solidify anything, i will open it up to accepting members. -ToK
Gonbow 08-19-05, 12:42 PM	@Caterane What is the benefit for getting EHTC's +1 to trade skills for the wizard guild? Seriously. That is why I'm suggesting benefits that everyone can use; and yes, 20/40 gp at level 20 is nothing, but I thought we were trying to keep guilds from being an unbalancing factor? <shrugs> EHTC has very open requirements, so the wizards in the group can benefit from beating the arcane guild... but vice versa is not true, as the arcane guild has VERY strict requirements, and no one in the guild can benefit at all from beating EHTC. Even if the bonuses are piffling, that is unbalanced, neh?
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 12:53 PM	:P Guild Wars should be a less important thing than the overall world of Gladius. Guild War results should determine the strength of the guilds, but power level should do something. Otherwise why keep track of it? Good point. We should not waste energy. I think we should choose the total ECL method or some derivitive of the power ratings. Guild War rules: 1. Challenges must be made in roleplayYES! 2. If your guild loses a token, you have to wait one week before challenging to get it back.I like it. 3. The fights will be team fights except in specific occasions(like roleplay or above EL10). The reason for this is that while you get a 1 on 1 thing going, your team members will be somewhat random and prevent someone challenging someone they feel they can beat easily.I like this much better then the one on one fights. The flavor of the team fights fits better with 2 guilds going at it. 4. Guildmasters must accept the duel conditionsWill we have conditions? Will it be anything other then a standard gladiator fight? Or are you refering to 'who's fighting and when' as the conditions? 5. Winning an inter guild fight nets you 1 reputation point, while taking away a token nets you 2. Losing 2 fights in a row for your guild drops you by 1 point, and each consecutive loss another point.I really think we should wait on the reputation system. I'd hate to see the rep system come in parts and then we would have to fix it later. 6. Any 1 guild can only have 1 inter-guild fight each pairing. This prevents guild wars from becoming the primary gladiator fight.
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 01:01 PM	... as the arcane guild has VERY strict requirements... I do support your point, and sorry to tangent... I would like to open the requirements on the BotAO a bit. Origionaly it was a wizard organization. Without objection I propose the following. Wizards and sorcerers who can cast 2nd lv spells qualify. Characters of a magical vein (Clerics with the magic domain, Bards and rogues who specialize in UMD, magical beasts or aberations if anyone plays one) could also join, but they would have to undertake a 3 week quest, instead of the miniquest that spell casters take. Most likely, this would only be open to char. ECL 4 or higher. I think it follows the thematic element of a full study of magic, and allows a wider range of players to join in the RP.
Luni 08-19-05, 01:11 PM	I do support your point, and sorry to tangent... I would like to open the requirements on the BotAO a bit. Origionaly it was a wizard organization. Without objection I propose the following. Wizards and sorcerers who can cast 2nd lv spells qualify. Characters of a magical vein (Clerics with the magic domain, Bards and rogues who specialize in UMD, magical beasts or aberations if anyone plays one) could also join, but they would have to undertake a 3 week quest, instead of the miniquest that spell casters take. Most likely, this would only be open to char. ECL 4 or higher. I think it follows the thematic element of a full study of magic, and allows a wider range of players to join in the RP. Why not Bards who can cast 2nd level arcane spells? Not like there are many bards anyways.
Luni 08-19-05, 01:23 PM	My :twocents: I like the idea that guild members can do Miniquests of ECL -1. I like the miniquest or quest to join. As for rewards, they should be minor. Guilds should primarly be a RP thing. If someone wants to join a guild, and gets no benefit, it shouldn't really matter. We don't want guilds to give enough power to really change fights.
Caterane 08-19-05, 01:29 PM	@Caterane: What is the benefit for getting EHTC's +1 to trade skills for the wizard guild? Those who DO have ranks in these skills, benefit from it. It encourages other characters to put ranks into such skills. With the many skill points of wizards, it should be doable. Sorcerers have appraise on their class list and a high charisma, for bards they are class skills. Secondly, you have damaged the other guild by robbing their token and preventing them from the use of free activities. Thirdly, it is also about roleplaying. Fourthly, we will create a supra-guild system (I posted that twice now) that gives additional benefits/drawbacks from the success of the guild so that even if you cannot use the token, your guild advances within this supra-guild system. That is why I'm suggesting benefits that everyone can use; and yes, 20/40 gp at level 20 is nothing, but I thought we were trying to keep guilds from being an unbalancing factor? <shrugs> Unbalancing? No. Useless? Neither. Free money? Also no because: But a Guild's purpose is NOT to give out free money!!!!! No way. That would be totally unfair to those who are not in a guild! Guilds are THEMATIC organizations that helps those who relate to that theme. EHTC has very open requirements, so the wizards in the group can benefit from beating the arcane guild... but vice versa is not true, as the arcane guild has VERY strict requirements, and no one in the guild can benefit at all from beating EHTC. Even if the bonuses are piffling, that is unbalanced, neh? [We haven't set any requirements yet] Guild War rules: 1. Challenges must be made in roleplay [Ok] 2. If your guild loses a token, you have to wait one week before challenging to get it back. [No. You get it back automatically after 1 week. Else you would be forced to challenge the other guild which might be engaged in other challenges. It also creates a mux-ip.] 3. The fights will be team fights except in specific occasions(like roleplay or above EL10). The reason for this is that while you get a 1 on 1 thing going, your team members will be somewhat random and prevent someone challenging someone they feel they can beat easily. [Team-fights are better, right] 4. Guildmasters must accept the duel conditions [Let's keep this for later] 5. Winning an inter guild fight nets you 1 reputation point, while taking away a token nets you 2. Losing 2 fights in a row for your guild drops you by 1 point, and each consecutive loss another point. [Perhaps we should use a different name for that because reputation will play a role later. But the idea might be ok. What effects do you have in mind for those points?] 6. Any 1 guild can only have 1 inter-guild fight each pairing. This prevents guild wars from becoming the primary gladiator fight. [Yep, already discussed]
Gonbow 08-19-05, 01:50 PM	@Caterane Well, with the loosening of the restrictions on joining, it does make it slightly easier to imagine at least one member in the wizards guild being able to use the skills.. but honestly, wizards dont have all that many skill points. At most, they are getting 6 or 7 skill points a level for a very long time, and on average it is going to be closer to 5. Theyneed to get concentration and spellcraft, which eats up 2 right off the bat. To use the EHTC bonus they have to be at least level 7 and have spent a significant chunk of their skill points (6 per level) on cross class skills. Of course, it is much easier for bards and sorcerers, but those weren't my concern when I raised this point. In the end, what I'm saying is... If the benefits are too specific, gaining them isn't all that attractive. Yes, the hurting of the enemy guild is a useful action, but you could do that without all these guild-specific bonuses constantly trading hands... which IMHO, is the better way to do it. The miniquest bonus would be interesting enough for me to join a guild. Just my two cents.
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 01:54 PM	Why not Bards who can cast 2nd level arcane spells? Not like there are many bards anyways. I will add bards to the list. I forgot they were arcane.
Caterane 08-19-05, 02:11 PM	Gonbow, you complain that not every bonus of every other guild doesn't help every member of every guild. And as a solution you propose to give out free money (which is very very bad) and set to 1 gp per ECL per week which is as useless as the token you complain about. You also ignore my other points. The supra-guild system makes being in a guild an interesting thing with the SIDE-EFFECT of getting tokens from other guilds. You seem to join only because of the token, not for the roleplaying or the competition between guilds (which may very well have a game effect).
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 02:22 PM	Take a breath, everybody. Regarding Elders...don't you mean Pittbull and Madcow? LLCatCowBull? Resolved issues To ensure that only suitable characters join the guild, there must be requirements that must be met to enter the guild. For suitable characters, it should not be hard to join. it should be required to participate in the Guild activities and discussion or risk to be expelled (Guildmaster's choice). Guilds should be able to challenge members of another guild at no credit cost. Nice idea. Of course, it must be logical. Just because your guild is evil doesn't mean it can declare war on anyone. This should have a roleplay element. Only 1 such challenge may be issued in a week. Every Guild has a benefit token, and a drawback token. If your Guild wins, all members of that Guild A gets the token benefit of loser-Guild B, and Guild B gets the drawback token for one week from Guild A. Either that, or all Guild members cannot engage in any Free Activities for that week. So far, we said that every guild has a benefit token and a drawback token. The benefit token can be used by all guild members every week as a Free Activity (or in conjunction with a Free Activity if the token is a bonus). If one of your members wins the Guild Challenge, you also get the benefit token from the defeated guild for one week, and impose your drawback token on the other guild for one week. You get the tokens back automatically after 1 week. Else you would be forced to challenge the other guild to retrieve it, which might be engaged in other challenges. It also creates a mux-ip. Challenges cannot be declined. If your guild is attacked, you have to defend it. No two guilds may fight 2 weeks in a row. Challenges must be made in roleplay. The fights will be team fights except in specific occasions. We will create a supra-guild system (x3!) Topics for discussion Brainstorming on what the tokens should do. Tokens should have their basis in the guild theme. Tokens do not nessicarily have to give a benifit/drawback to the majority of the guild members. Tokens should augment a free activity, or provide a free activity. If tokens have a monetary value, it should not exceed the profession skill free activity gold value. If tokens provide a credit discount, it should only apply to one type of item (arrows, scrolls, etc.). The idea of ECL-1 miniquests has also been mentioned recently. Anything else I missed?
Caterane 08-19-05, 03:18 PM	Thanks Vathe, that's very helpful. Add: No two Guilds might fight two weeks in a row. New Idea for Supra-Guild System: As said, we will create a ranking system based on win/loss record of Inter-Guild Wars. What about that: Every guild has a Special Token which only applies if you are the top ranking guild and only as long as you are up there. This special token can even be something unique! Example: If the Celestial Forces (which I will re-open, don't ye doubt) are the top guild, they might acquire diplomacy and handle animal creatures with the 'celestial' template and may use them as long as they are top guild. This is not unbalancing as the CR increase of the celestial template flows into the maxCA but it is something special that no one else can get (templates are forbidden for such allies). This example is just from the top of my head and can be modified or changed completely but it shows what I mean. For the Arcane Brotherhood we might allow some pre-discussed and elder-approved Custom Spells for as long as they are top guild. This above everything else encourages to become top-guild. If the EHTC is top guild and the brotherhood second, then they wouldn't care about the trading benefit at all which deals with Gonbow's concerns too. This however also makes entry quests mandatory (or three miniquests if you can't afford the credits) so that people don't jump into the top guild just for the benefit. Comments?
TelinArtho 08-19-05, 03:42 PM	Not to dredge up more muck for the discussion, but once all of this guild info is in place, characters will be able to choose a different guild if they choose to right? Kraegin works alright in the EHTC, but there's definitely other options for him...
Caterane 08-19-05, 03:52 PM	We will have to start from scratch.
Luni 08-19-05, 03:55 PM	Thanks Vathe, that's very helpful. Add: No two Guilds might fight two weeks in a row. New Idea for Supra-Guild System: As said, we will create a ranking system based on win/loss record of Inter-Guild Wars. What about that: Every guild has a Special Token which only applies if you are the top ranking guild and only as long as you are up there. This special token can even be something unique! Example: If the Celestial Forces (which I will re-open, don't ye doubt) are the top guild, they might acquire diplomacy and handle animal creatures with the 'celestial' template and may use them as long as they are top guild. This is not unbalancing as the CR increase of the celestial template flows into the maxCA but it is something special that no one else can get (templates are forbidden for such allies). This example is just from the top of my head and can be modified or changed completely but it shows what I mean. For the Arcane Brotherhood we might allow some pre-discussed and elder-approved Custom Spells for as long as they are top guild. This above everything else encourages to become top-guild. If the EHTC is top guild and the brotherhood second, then they wouldn't care about the trading benefit at all which deals with Gonbow's concerns too. This however also makes entry quests mandatory (or three miniquests if you can't afford the credits) so that people don't jump into the top guild just for the benefit. Comments? I like that idea Cat. Just to bring up another point, what should players have to do to leave guilds. We don't want people running wild, joining the head guild to get the benefit, and then leave and join the next top guild.
Caterane 08-19-05, 04:11 PM	Luni, you quoted the answer to your question ;) [last sentence] And there are also the entry requirements.
Vathelokai 08-19-05, 04:19 PM	I think the enterence requirements should be broad. I would rather see a few, encompassing guilds, then many specific guilds. I think it's better for roleplay. In the BotAO, I have a tenetive set of requirements. The EHTC has the requirements non-good and greedy. I think either a class ability, alignment, or skill at 5 ranks would suffice.
King Uther 08-19-05, 04:19 PM	Well, if we start out from scratch then should I start a new thread? It would make categorization easier. I've wanted to change the front pag of the guild for a while, but feel Idon't have enough space for everything I want.
Caterane 08-19-05, 04:44 PM	Please do NOT open any new Guild threads yet. I am about to discuss the structure of the Guilds with our new Guildlords (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=388110): Tellish of Ket. Here some first guidelines: The first post must be posted by a Guild Account which will be passed on if the current Guildmaster cannot do it anymore. This makes sure the guild doesn't die with the abscense of its Guildmaster. This Account must be called "Guildmaster of X" (X=Guildname) to clearly show where the account belongs to and what function it has. The 2nd post is made by the Guildlords Board Avatar and is called "Embassy". Here, the Guildlord (Tok) will post all current effects on the Guild so that it's always at the top. Effects like captured benefit tokens, drawbacks, violations, etc. The 3rd+ posts are again made by the Guildmaster and he may post as many as he needs to organize the Guild (better too many than too few). The name of the Guild must be clearly showing its purpose, like East Habari Trading Company, or the Arcane Brotherhood, or Celestial Forces. Not acceptable is Dragon Breath Shadows which sounds more like a half-dragon guild. The name on the board must begin with "GUILD: X" (X=Name). I have to think about that some more. Guilds must be approved first!! They need to be checked for appropriate requirements, benefits, drawbacks, special tokens, if there isn't a similar guild etc etc. After that has been okay'd you can open the thread! There will be more guidelines so please do not open a guild at that time. PS: I think we can also use Guilds to audit sheets and make sure those in Prison come out soon. Perhaps imprisoned PCs don't count?
King Uther 08-19-05, 04:51 PM	Dang it. Already did.
Caterane 08-19-05, 04:54 PM	Let it die. You also have no members for now because you need to set requirements first which need to be approved. Actually the whole guild needs to be approved (of course, the EHTC is in; it's just about the specific rules for your guild like benefits, drawbacks, etc)
King Uther 08-19-05, 04:59 PM	What about all the players who have already contributed?
Caterane 08-19-05, 05:11 PM	No sweat Uther. We'll find a satisfying solution ;) Question: Any idea how the Guild Ranking System should look like? It should be based on win/loss between Guilds which is independent of the # of members. But what are the concrete rules? Nethertheless, the powerrating should anyhow flow into it too. Ideas? PS: You guys are really awesome! Look how quickly we've found a system! The House of Commons rocks http://www.counterhit.de/board/smile/top.gif
Vathelokai 08-20-05, 08:22 AM	Possible options for char. already in guilds. 1: wave the quest prerequisite 2: a second miniquest 3: start from scratch; full quests all around 4: the most active members don't need quests, but less active members do 4 is very subjective and could cause bickering. 3 would dump a huge workload on Uther. I think both 1 and 2 are reasonable. Since the rules for posting and guildmastering are being redefined, do I have to repost the BotAO and start a new guildmaster? If possible I would like to keep the Magister, because his name appears in many stories. I was thinking about posting a new thread anyway, since I think the title for BotAO is a bit long, and I wanted the word 'brotherhood' out of it.
Caterane 08-20-05, 10:02 AM	Please do NOT open any new Guild threads yet. I am about to discuss the structure of the Guilds with our new Guildlords (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=388110): Tellish of Ket. Here some first guidelines: The first post must be posted by a Guild Account which will be passed on if the current Guildmaster cannot do it anymore. This makes sure the guild doesn't die with the abscense of its Guildmaster. This Account must be called "Guildmaster of X" (X=Guildname) to clearly show where the account belongs to and what function it has. The 2nd post is made by the Guildlords Board Avatar and is called "Embassy". Here, the Guildlord (Tok) will post all current effects on the Guild so that it's always at the top. Effects like captured benefit tokens, drawbacks, violations, etc. The 3rd+ posts are again made by the Guildmaster and he may post as many as he needs to organize the Guild (better too many than too few). The name of the Guild must be clearly showing its purpose, like East Habari Trading Company, or the Arcane Brotherhood, or Celestial Forces. Not acceptable is Dragon Breath Shadows which sounds more like a half-dragon guild. The name on the board must begin with "GUILD: X" (X=Name). I have to think about that some more. Guilds must be approved first!! They need to be checked for appropriate requirements, benefits, drawbacks, special tokens, if there isn't a similar guild etc etc. After that has been okay'd you can open the thread! There will be more guidelines so please do not open a guild at that time. bump
NiQil 08-22-05, 03:40 PM	Since the new Council of Gladius thread is not yet opened, I figured I would post this here. Over in the Tavern thread, there is a discussion going on over whether or not monsters/animals/magical creatures require Armor Proficiency feats in order to wear barding without penalty. Also, in the Animal part of the SRD for monsters, there is a statement that no animal can use barding unless they are trained for war....but never defines what "trained for war" means. Some of us have said that it means the Combat Riding trick group (see Handle Animal skill), while others think that it might be something as simple as the Attack trick. So, 1)Do creatures require Armor Proficiency feats in order to wear barding without penalty just as PC's do? And 2)What should we use as the definition for the phrase "trained for war?"
Pittbull 08-22-05, 04:55 PM	I would say, "trained for war" is enough and combat-riding is the prerequesite for it. But I found no official rule either.
michael_noah 08-22-05, 05:00 PM	I disagree completely with this -"trained for war" gives armor proficiency for free- idea. I agree that such is implied in the animal type listing, but think that implication is not enough, especially when there is no mention of granting the proficiencies anywhere else. I also think that granting a feat to allies through a skill check seems far from resembling any other mechanic in DnD. It seems silly to me to think that an animal can be trained to wear armor without penalty in a few weeks, essentially for free, but that an intelligent being needs to spend one of his few precious feats on the ability.
Luni 08-22-05, 05:01 PM	I would say, "trained for war" is enough and combat-riding is the prerequesite for it. But I found no official rule either. But what about things that can't have riders? Talari isn't training a wolf in Combat Riding if she can never ride it. Why not simply make it the Attack trick.
Caterane 08-22-05, 05:06 PM	That (Combat Riding) would exclude all INT 1 animals from wearing armor, as well as all who do have one single trick not listed under combat riding. I don't think barding proficiency depends on 'come' or 'heel' which are part of combat riding however. I would rather say that the "Fighting" package should be sufficient. It allows INT 1 animals to wear barding (incl vermin) and leaves for INT 2 animals three other tricks open. Another possibility would be to say the 'attack' trick is enough which trains the animal to attack, which can be considered for combat, or war. Fact is that it is not clearly defined. I think that is a good opportunity to test the new Elder Wisdom in a poll.
Pittbull 08-22-05, 05:14 PM	@Michael: But I've never seen a warhorse with an armor-proficiency and there were a lot who wear armor (without a penalty). @Luni: Yes, that's a good point! Perhaps we need the trick "fight in amor"? Alltogether I believe, that "trained for war" is enough and it doesn't need the feat. I see it like the armor-proficiencies that fighters, babarians and others get as a class-ability, because of their education. @CAT: Mann, warst Du schnell! (Damn, you're fast!!)
michael_noah 08-22-05, 05:14 PM	That (Combat Riding) would exclude all INT 1 animals from wearing armor, as well as all who do have one single trick not listed under combat riding. I don't think barding proficiency depends on 'come' or 'heel' which are part of combat riding however. I would rather say that the "Fighting" package should be sufficient. It allows INT 1 animals to wear barding (incl vermin) and leaves for INT 2 animals three other tricks open. Another possibility would be to say the 'attack' trick is enough which trains the animal to attack, which can be considered for combat, or war. Fact is that it is not clearly defined. I think that is a good opportunity to test the new Elder Wisdom in a poll. I guess I'll give up after this, since I seem to be the only one who's going to vote against it. However, I'd like to call attention, once again, to the fact that this is in effect giving some things 3 free feats for some skill ranks and a few weeks effort. The fact that it makes no sense in that it excludes things that cannot be handled is just icing on the cake, as is the fact that it is based on a very slight implication in the Animal Type description that is not backed up anywhere else. @Michael: But I've never seen a warhorse with an armor-proficiency and there were a lot who wear armor (without a penalty). I agree that there's precedent, that doesn't mean that it's right. In fact... I have an idea to make fun of this...
Maraxus 08-22-05, 05:26 PM	Just to make sure nobody thinks that michael_noah is allown with his opinion: I agree there. ...It allows INT 1 animals to wear barding (incl vermin)... As said before, nobody forbits Animals (or Vermin) to wear armor. I think the usual barding is the equivalent of leather armor. Then there is masterwork studded leather armor, for a little more protection and the masterwork chain shirt for most protection. This has -1 to attack through armor check penalty, but +1AC /-1attack looks fair. With mithral chain shirt, this -1 is away or with mithral breastplate you get another +1 AC. Also taken into consideration, that one feat for armor proficency (light) is not much and you probably don't want to slow down your mount with medium armor anyway, you can not say, that it is forbitten for animals to wear armor.
Mind Rogue 08-22-05, 05:29 PM	How about either the 'fighting' or 'combat riding' tricks? Warhorses are trained for combat riding, and supposed be able to wear barding, while riding dogs are often trained for one or the other. The handle animal skill says that Warhorses and Riding Dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat and don't need training for this purpose, which I take to mean that they have already been taught the combat riding general purpose. Of course, I guess you could always rear and train one yourself and teach it a different purpose. However, I'm warry about using just the 'attack' trick because it also allows hunting and guard animals to wear barding and that probably isn't something they would normally wear, although if you want to base it off of a trick rather than a purpose, so that animals can be more custom trained, that would probably be the way to go. Also, the riding dog entry says that if they are trained for war, then they can make trip attacks like wolves do. Whatever we decide on for barding should probably also carry over to them for trip attacks.
NiQil 08-22-05, 05:45 PM	How about either the 'fighting' or 'combat riding' tricks? Warhorses are trained for combat riding, and supposed be able to wear barding, while riding dogs are often trained for one or the other. The handle animal skill says that Warhorses and Riding Dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat and don't need training for this purpose, which I take to mean that they have already been taught the combat riding general purpose. Of course, I guess you could always rear and train one yourself and teach it a different purpose. However, I'm warry about using just the 'attack' trick because it also allows hunting and guard animals to wear barding and that probably isn't something they would normally wear, although if you want to base it off of a trick rather than a purpose, so that animals can be more custom trained, that would probably be the way to go. Also, the riding dog entry says that if they are trained for war, then they can make trip attacks like wolves do. Whatever we decide on for barding should probably also carry over to them for trip attacks. Since I started this whole thing, I figured I should weight in... I think that if we can define what "trained for war" requires, that that is enough, per RAW to allow barding for any creature so trained. As for what trained for war should mean.....while I think Combat Riding best represents this, as Luni pointed out, some creatures will never get all of those tricks. I also think that just the Attack trick is too little. Therefore, I would recommend either the Fighting trick package (consisting of the tricks attack, down and stay as listed in the Handle Animal skill), or the Guarding trick package (consisting of the tricks attack, defend, down and guard as listed in the Handle Animal Skill). I think either of these supplies the necessary training to allow an animal so trained to wear barding. And, in reference to what Mind Rogue said about riding dogs, yes, whatever is defined here as "trained for war" should also extend to riding dogs being allowed to trip like wolves, as stated in the RAW.
Caterane 08-22-05, 06:19 PM	The point is that horses do not gain feats (no advancement) which would mean that there wouldn't be any warhorses with barding around. This clearly cannot be. We have one reference ("proficient with armor if trained for war") that implies that it is possible for warhorses to wear barding (and Michael, I don't think they mean 'wearing yes but with penalty' Note the word 'proficient'). We have now three different options what 'trained for war' could mean: (1) All 6 tricks of the Combat Riding package (2) The 3 tricks of the Fighting package (3) The attack trick Unless someone enlights us (with facts) we have to come up with our own definition of being trained for war. @Michael again: The armor proficiency feats are worth much less than other feats. I would pick a level of fighter/paladin/cleric/PrC anytime before I would take such a feat. It's not like giving a creature (here: an animal) three random free feats. Or would you allow your cleric player who just took a lvl fighter to pick three other feats instead of armor prof ;)
NiQil 08-22-05, 06:34 PM	This is a tough call. The combat riding package seems, to me at least, to best represent being trained for war. But at the same time, just the attack trick would be the simplest for everyone and would affect the least number of characters as far as adjustment of things that are already in play is concerned. And the Fighting package would seem to be a compromise between the two. I do want to address one point, however, with regard to what Luni said about her example of her wolf who wears barding but will never be ridden. Wolves aren't generally considered to be trained for war. Therefore, it would be logical that it would take special training for them to wear barding. If it were up to me, I think that I would vote for the combat riding package. It is going to cause lots of problems for various characters (expecially familiars and animal companions), but it seems to me to best represent what being trained for war should encompass as far as an animal is concerned.
SoulLord 08-22-05, 06:57 PM	I think it merits a trick of it's own after all it's not just about strapping some armor to a wolf to name something but it's that the wolf knows how to best use the armor to avoid damage. I would suggest making it a new trick and giving it for free to exisiting animals who have already used it. And to require it for new animals.
michael_noah 08-22-05, 09:27 PM	I won't post it again here, but I replied to Cat's post in the tavern. An example of how silly this is: I am a psion. I purposefully get Int drained down to 2. I have someone teach me whatever tricks are necessary to get free armor proficiencies. Now I have proficiency in whatever armor I want (with a DC 5 higher than for an animal). Then I have my INT drain removed. Now I'm a Psion that can wear armor with no penalty, and I didn't even have to spend a feat (or 3!) slots. Unless you want to argue that I should lose feats because I got more intelligent, this is perfectly reasonable under what the proposed system is.
Snommelp 08-22-05, 09:44 PM	A simple fix to that, michael_noah, is to prohibit Handle Animal checks made on anything besides animals. No humanoids, no magical beasts, not even normal beasts (those exist, right?), just animals.
Gonbow 08-22-05, 10:27 PM	A simple fix to that, michael_noah, is to prohibit Handle Animal checks made on anything besides animals. No humanoids, no magical beasts, not even normal beasts (those exist, right?), just animals. This would be a major deviation from RAW, for starters. And why not magical beasts? Beasts, normal, used to exist but was removed for redundancy in 3.5 (Dinosaurs used to be beasts, but are now just animals).
Snommelp 08-22-05, 11:36 PM	This would be a major deviation from RAW, for starters. And why not magical beasts? Beasts, normal, used to exist but was removed for redundancy in 3.5 (Dinosaurs used to be beasts, but are now just animals). Why not magical beasts? Because I just read the skill, and it always says "animal." I did not see any mention of any other creature type besides "animal." How would it be a deviation from the RAW? Thanks for telling me about beasts, BTW.
Gonbow 08-22-05, 11:45 PM	Read the 'special' section. 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. Thus, by RAW, you can use it on anything with an int of 1 or 2. As per the loop-hole mentioned earlier, yes, you would lose the tricks, because you no longer have an intelligence of 1 or 2. Since you did not gain FEATS persay, but rather, tricks.. which can only be known when your int is 1 or 2. In another tangent: Would I be allowed to purchase the following item as a custom time for Lortavos (when I can afford it, of course)? Amulet of Freedom of Speech (Item) This amulet allows the wearer to verbally communicate despite lacking the physical ability to do so. For example, an awakened animal or plant that could not normally form words can do so while wearing this item. Note that the amulet does not impart any language ability -- the wearer must have something to say. Caster Level: 7th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item; Market Price: 5,000. It's presented here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20020125a) on the Wizards Website...
Snommelp 08-22-05, 11:56 PM	Yeah... just saw that part... oops. It also says in Special to look in the Monster Manual for more information, so I did. I couldn't find any general section about training non-animals with Handle Animal, just creature-specific entries in some creature descriptions. Unless I missed something (again), I'd say that this is an indication of what can and can't be trained with Handle Animal. For example, Pegasi (Int 10) can be trained with Handle Animal, but Unicorns (also Int 10) can't, because they have no entry. What say you? Is this a sound theory?
Gonbow 08-23-05, 12:04 AM	Yeah... just saw that part... oops. It also says in Special to look in the Monster Manual for more information, so I did. I couldn't find any general section about training non-animals with Handle Animal, just creature-specific entries in some creature descriptions. Unless I missed something (again), I'd say that this is an indication of what can and can't be trained with Handle Animal. For example, Pegasi (Int 10) can be trained with Handle Animal, but Unicorns (also Int 10) can't, because they have no entry. What say you? Is this a sound theory? Basically, yes. To be trained with Handle Animal you need to be 1. An animal. 2. Have 1 or 2 intelligence. 3. Have a specific entry in your stat block (as per Pegasi). 4. Be vermin (in CoCo only). If any of the four apply, AFAIK, you can be trained. If none do, you cant. If they used to apply, but no longer do, you lose the benefits of training, I imagine.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-23-05, 12:41 AM	The point is that horses do not gain feats (no advancement) which would mean that there wouldn't be any warhorses with barding around. This clearly cannot be. We have one reference ("proficient with armor if trained for war") that implies that it is possible for warhorses to wear barding (and Michael, I don't think they mean 'wearing yes but with penalty' Note the word 'proficient'). We have now three different options what 'trained for war' could mean: (1) All 6 tricks of the Combat Riding package (2) The 3 tricks of the Fighting package (3) The attack trick Unless someone enlights us (with facts) we have to come up with our own definition of being trained for war. @Michael again: The armor proficiency feats are worth much less than other feats. I would pick a level of fighter/paladin/cleric/PrC anytime before I would take such a feat. It's not like giving a creature (here: an animal) three random free feats. Or would you allow your cleric player who just took a lvl fighter to pick three other feats instead of armor prof ;) Attack trick only would be my vote. -ToK
Caterane 08-23-05, 01:10 AM	But, note that the rules do not say "proficient if trained for war" anywhere. They merely say that those animals that are not trained for war are not proficient. I'd say the more likely reason that some horses can wear armor without penalty is that the feats listed in their entry are not the be all and end all, but that one could train a horse such that it had armor proficiencies - and they would take up a feat slot. I think you're venturing pretty far into house-rule territory here. If the game designers wanted warhorses to be proficient in armor, they would have listed it in their stat block, or they would have given a way to do it in the handle animal skill, or something. Nothing like this exists, because they need the feat, just like anyone else. It says not proficient if not trained for war. This means that if it is trained for war, it is proficient. If it has to use a feat then a light horse that is not trained for war (no war tricks) but has the armor proficiency could use barding. After that logic having the armor proficiency feat would mean 'trained for war' else it would contradict the reference 'not traind = not proficient' above. You could be right of course as well as any other option could be the correct one. Just don't give the designers more credit than they deserve by assuming they made themselves clear. I'll add your option to the poll later though.
Zerone 08-23-05, 01:19 AM	The point is that horses do not gain feats (no advancement) which would mean that there wouldn't be any warhorses with barding around. This clearly cannot be. We have one reference ("proficient with armor if trained for war") that implies that it is possible for warhorses to wear barding (and Michael, I don't think they mean 'wearing yes but with penalty' Note the word 'proficient'). We have now three different options what 'trained for war' could mean: (1) All 6 tricks of the Combat Riding package (2) The 3 tricks of the Fighting package (3) The attack trick Unless someone enlights us (with facts) we have to come up with our own definition of being trained for war. @Michael again: The armor proficiency feats are worth much less than other feats. I would pick a level of fighter/paladin/cleric/PrC anytime before I would take such a feat. It's not like giving a creature (here: an animal) three random free feats. Or would you allow your cleric player who just took a lvl fighter to pick three other feats instead of armor prof ;) 2. Animals/Insects are ignorant. To be trained for battle takes more than just Attack, otherwise you’d never get them off the wrong target/be able to command them after the first command. Heel would also be part of this, think of Police dogs - trained for combat, not attack. To me, attack is just that, attack. But if you wanted to train an ignorant being for battle it’d take more than just attack. There is no control in 'just attack'. Also, not sure where the topic came up of Warhorses/Warmounts not being able to wear armor because they need a feat... But logic is that if they did need the feat it would be detailed in the PHB somewhere, since they give all the details on barding - which is specifically for mounts - and since the PHB does not mention it or even hint at it makes this thought, at least for me, questionable...? Even more so when looking at Warhorses specifically - if the armor proficiency was needed, they’d definitely have it. :) *•. Z
Snommelp 08-23-05, 01:28 AM	Basically, yes. To be trained with Handle Animal you need to be 1. An animal. 2. Have 1 or 2 intelligence. 3. Have a specific entry in your stat block (as per Pegasi). 4. Be vermin (in CoCo only). If any of the four apply, AFAIK, you can be trained. If none do, you cant. If they used to apply, but no longer do, you lose the benefits of training, I imagine. Well, in that case, I don't suppose the psion from michael_noah's example could be trained anyway. Of course, even if it was allowed, I don't think the psion's powers would work (I'm not good with psionics, though) with such a low intelligence. Yes? No?
michael_noah 08-23-05, 08:38 AM	Also, not sure where the topic came up of Warhorses/Warmounts not being able to wear armor because they need a feat... But logic is that if they did need the feat it would be detailed in the PHB somewhere, since they give all the details on barding - which is specifically for mounts - and since the PHB does not mention it or even hint at it makes this thought, at least for me, questionable...? Even more so when looking at Warhorses specifically - if the armor proficiency was needed, they’d definitely have it. :) *•. Z Do you mean the entire section on armor that talks about the fact that if someone is not proficient, they take the armor check penalty on every attack roll and skill check involving movement? And the part that says that barding is armor? Also, if we're going to say that the Psion in the example forgets things as he gets smarter - just use a Druid instead. Free heavy armor proficiency for druids if they are trained while wildshaped.
Caterane 08-23-05, 08:46 AM	Well Michael, if you have any last minute suggestions on how to solve the problem that no animal would be ever proficient with armor if we choose your option, then your definition might become more popular ;)
michael_noah 08-23-05, 08:53 AM	@Cat, I agree that it seems strange. This should lead to a way to solve it that involves no free feats, no house rules, etc. Emphasis mine: Feats The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites. It specifically states that a monster's feats can be reassigned. So, any animal at all could possibly have armor proficiency, it would just need to be trained such that it had, say, light armor proficiency instead of Run.
LLMadCow 08-23-05, 09:30 AM	As tempting as it is to copy and paste VAST portions of the SRD all over for everyones viewing pleasure, I will distill it to this: Combat Riding, Fighting, Guarding and Hunting - all of the combat skill sets - include Attack and Down Combat Riding and Riding - the only riding skills sets - include Come and Heel. So, in order to ride an animal we can assume that you must teach it Come and Heel. If you combine the common aspects of the two, we are left with the Standard Combat Riding Package (6 Tricks) and the Limited Combat Riding Package (4 Tricks: Attack, Come, Down & Heel). The Limited Combat Riding Package has two skill slots left over for teaching an animal the Advanced Fighting or anything else you might want.... LL
Snommelp 08-23-05, 12:20 PM	Do you mean the entire section on armor that talks about the fact that if someone is not proficient, they take the armor check penalty on every attack roll and skill check involving movement? And the part that says that barding is armor? Also, if we're going to say that the Psion in the example forgets things as he gets smarter - just use a Druid instead. Free heavy armor proficiency for druids if they are trained while wildshaped. michael_noah, where are you getting the idea that you can train anything with an intelligence score of less than 3? Even the Special section (which I originally missed) states that you need to look in the Monster Manual to see which creatures can and cannot be trained. I looked; none of the PHB races can be trained, and the same is true for every humanoid I looked at.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 12:32 PM	This is what I see in the handle animal skill: "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. " That doesn't exclude anyone. Even if it is limitted somehow, a druid wildshaped gains the type Animal and is definitely eligible.
Gonbow 08-23-05, 12:34 PM	This is what I see in the handle animal skill: "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. " That doesn't exclude anyone. Even if it is limitted somehow, a druid wildshaped gains the type Animal and is definitely eligible. Except that training takes weeks. A druid cannot stay wildshaped for weeks (as far as I know), and even if they could, as soon as they reverted to normal form the 'training' would disappear. So that's not a problem.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 12:44 PM	Except that training takes weeks. A druid cannot stay wildshaped for weeks (as far as I know), and even if they could, as soon as they reverted to normal form the 'training' would disappear. So that's not a problem. A druid of 8th level can be wildshaped for the rest of his entire life if he wishes. Also, assuming that tricks go away when one's intelligence increases, or when one is no longer an animal, is purely supposition. It is also supposition to decide that the tricks would not return when one's intelligence or type once again make them elligible. In fact, if you examine other effects in DnD, such as antimagic fields and PrC prerequisites and benefits, you'll see that the standard is for such benefits to return when the necessary conditions occur again. Edit: Additionally, the point of my example is not to show how a character could become all-powerful by using this system, they may or may not be able to do so. The point is to show that DnD, and D20, does not provide for the awarding of free feats by making skill checks, and that introducing a mechanism that does such could lead to unforseen and unwanted consequences.
Gonbow 08-23-05, 12:52 PM	A druid of 8th level can be wildshaped for the rest of his entire life if he wishes. Also, assuming that tricks go away when one's intelligence increases, or when one is no longer an animal, is purely supposition. It is also supposition to decide that the tricks would not return when one's intelligence or type once again make them elligible. In fact, if you examine other effects in DnD, such as antimagic fields and PrC prerequisites and benefits, you'll see that the standard is for such benefits to return when the necessary conditions occur again. Okay, lets assume the training would resume when the druid is in that specific animal form again (Being trained as a horse isn't going to be very effective when your a dog, now is it?), lets look at the cost vrs the benefits... Req: 8th level Cost: Several weeks of sitting out and paying a professional trainer, special-made armor for that specific form which you need help to put on (and it takes 5x longer than normal), which has to abide by the normal druid restrictions (thus, be dragon-hide, making it cost even MORE). Benefit: One suit of armor for one of your animal forms that doesn't give you penalties. Wow. So terribly terribly unbalanced... when compared to say, some custom rhino-dragon chainmail... Yeeeah :P
michael_noah 08-23-05, 12:55 PM	Wow. So terribly terribly unbalanced... when compared to say, some custom rhino-dragon chainmail... Yeeeah :P Consider this - it would not require sitting out, as one is allowed to train and be active. It would also not require spending any money, as nothing prohibits one from training oneself. It is also not a minor benefit, as it is the difference between wearing breastplate and fullplate, that is 3 AC. All at essentially no cost.
Snommelp 08-23-05, 01:09 PM	This is what I see in the handle animal skill: "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. " That doesn't exclude anyone. Even if it is limitted somehow, a druid wildshaped gains the type Animal and is definitely eligible. Continue reading. It says to check the Monster Manual for more details (like I said already). Do that. You won't find any general area on Handling non-animals, just creature-specific information. And to continue the druid example: you have to drain your intelligence down to 2 in order to do this trick (if it works), so explain to me how you will have the mental capacity to even remember that you are supposed to be training yourself. Thus, you must be trained by someone else. Also, you haven't adressed the price, except to say "no it isn't," and you didn't even touch the time it takes to acquire this special armor. Correct me if I'm wrong with any of this, but please use quotes rather than just "no it isn't."
michael_noah 08-23-05, 01:21 PM	Continue reading. It says to check the Monster Manual for more details (like I said already). Do that. You won't find any general area on Handling non-animals, just creature-specific information. And to continue the druid example: you have to drain your intelligence down to 2 in order to do this trick (if it works), so explain to me how you will have the mental capacity to even remember that you are supposed to be training yourself. Thus, you must be trained by someone else. Also, you haven't adressed the price, except to say "no it isn't," and you didn't even touch the time it takes to acquire this special armor. Correct me if I'm wrong with any of this, but please use quotes rather than just "no it isn't." You must be using the Player's Handbook, while I am using the SRD. The SRD has no such limitation, so I can't really comment on it. It may be what they mean is, you can never train any creature that isn't specifically mentioned in the Monster Manual, but I don't think that's the case, especially since they put no limitation at all in the SRD. I also can't find anywhere in the handle animal description that requires animals to have an intelligence of 1 or 2. "Other Creatures" must, but animals only need to be animals. I know that the animal type says "always less than 3", but we already know that is just plain wrong, because wildshaped druids are animals, and their intelligence does not change. I'm not sure what you mean about the price, since it doesn't matter how much one charges oneself. It takes no time to acquire any armor because we live in a land of magical anything-you-want shops. I apologize if you missed it, but I editted my post above to reflect the real point of this example. I don't care if a druid or psion or anyone specific can do this. In fact, I already see another little wording issue that might stop it, but that's not the important bit.
Snommelp 08-23-05, 01:43 PM	You're right, we're using different sources. I'd go look the skill up again in the PHB, as well as Wild Shape, but I just packed my books, and I'm sure you know the SRD better than I do. EDIT: but, concerning the druid, you'd still have to wear armor that fit into the druid's restrictions, wild-shaped or not. Finding full-plate that a druid could wear would probably cost a pretty penny (and maybe credits, too), and the druid's the only one I can see pulling off this trick.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 01:49 PM	You're right, we're using different sources. I'd go look the skill up again in the PHB, as well as Wild Shape, but I just packed my books, and I'm sure you know the SRD better than I do. EDIT: but, concerning the druid, you'd still have to wear armor that fit into the druid's restrictions, wild-shaped or not. Finding full-plate that a druid could wear would probably cost a pretty penny (and maybe credits, too). Dragonhide fullplate costs twice what normal masterwork fullplate does. That's 1650*2= 3300. So you have to pay a 1650gp "druid tax", but it's definitely an upgrade from dragonhide breastplate, and way cheaper than any other way to raise your AC by 3. It also shouldn't cost anything in the way of credits any more than mithril equipment should.
Gonbow 08-23-05, 01:52 PM	You're right, we're using different sources. I'd go look the skill up again in the PHB, as well as Wild Shape, but I just packed my books, and I'm sure you know the SRD better than I do. EDIT: but, concerning the druid, you'd still have to wear armor that fit into the druid's restrictions, wild-shaped or not. Finding full-plate that a druid could wear would probably cost a pretty penny (and maybe credits, too), and the druid's the only one I can see pulling off this trick. Full plate for druids is easy. Dragonhide. No credits required ;)
Caterane 08-23-05, 02:26 PM	Another question that has yet to be solved is what it requires to just ride the animal or beast. On several occassions the books mention that a creature needs to be trained first before being able to act as a mount. This seems to be a problem similar in nature as our current issue.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 02:30 PM	Another question that has yet to be solved is what it requires to just ride the animal or beast. On several occassions the books mention that a creature needs to be trained first before being able to act as a mount. This seems to be a problem similar in nature as our current issue. As far as this goes, I think the following would be very reasonable: "Riding (DC 15): An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks." It is, of course, based on only this one passage that is hardly definitive. For things more intelligent than 2... I have no idea what would be required. I'd think that one could ride them as long as they were willing.
NiQil 08-23-05, 02:39 PM	@Cat Mind Rogue and I both touched on this earlier and it sorta got bypassed in the debate. In the listing for riding dogs, it says that if they are trained for combat like warhorses and warponies, they are able to make free trip attacks just like wolves can. Will our determination of what "trained for war" means also allow this to apply to riding dogs that meet the trained for war prereqs that the Elders are voting on?
michael_noah 08-23-05, 02:46 PM	A riding dog might be an ironclad example of "trained for war" not being the same as the Combat Riding trick set, or any subset of it. Riding dogs can fight while bearing a rider. I would guess that means that they have the Combat Riding package, just as warhorse. However, they cannot automatically make trip checks. They must have some additional training in order to make trip checks - they must be trained for war. Might I suggest then that being "trained for war" has nothing to do with handle animal at all?
Caterane 08-23-05, 03:19 PM	http://www.sebastian-sutor.de/smilies/think.gif
Mind Rogue 08-23-05, 03:39 PM	A riding dog might be an ironclad example of "trained for war" not being the same as the Combat Riding trick set, or any subset of it. Riding dogs can fight while bearing a rider. I would guess that means that they have the Combat Riding package, just as warhorse. However, they cannot automatically make trip checks. They must have some additional training in order to make trip checks - they must be trained for war. Might I suggest then that being "trained for war" has nothing to do with handle animal at all? Well, I could easily imagine that a "riding dog" might not actually be trained for riding. After all, if the riding dog is used for all working breeds, like St Bernards and Collies, it would be quite likely that most of them are actually trained for things besides riding, such as to be a sheep dog. These animals would not be trained for Combat Riding and would likely instead have other "profession oriented" tricks. Also, not being trained for combat, they probably wouldn't be able to attack with a rider or make trip attacks. However, by default, a purchased riding dog is taught the Combat Riding general purpose.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 03:42 PM	Well, I could easily imagine that a "riding dog" might not actually be trained for riding. After all, if the riding dog is used for all working breeds, like St Bernards and Collies, it would be quite likely that most of them are actually trained for things besides riding, such as to be a sheep dog. These animals would not be trained for Combat Riding and would likely instead have other "profession oriented" tricks. Also, not being trained for combat, they probably wouldn't be able to attack with a rider or make trip attacks. However, by default, a purchased riding dog is taught the Combat Riding general purpose. And by default, that dog cannot make trip attacks. See what's going on. Combat Riding does not imply "trained for war" From that follows that no subset of Combat Riding implies "trained for war" Edit: hah! beatcha! Just kidding.
Gonbow 08-23-05, 03:42 PM	Well, I could easily imagine that a "riding dog" might not actually be trained for riding. After all, if the riding dog is used for all working breeds, like St Bernards and Collies, it would be quite likely that most of them are actually trained for things besides riding, such as to be a sheep dog. These animals would not be trained for Combat Riding and would likely instead have other "profession oriented" tricks. Also, not being trained for combat, they probably wouldn't be able to attack with a rider or make trip attacks. However, by default, a purchased riding dog is taught the Combat Riding general purpose. Exactly. A default riding dog has Combat Riding. A default riding dog is NOT trained for war. Hence the implied difference between the two ;)
Caterane 08-23-05, 04:11 PM	Sounds like quod erat demonstrandum. After following this discussion it seems to be indeed Option 4. I think letting a player pick feats for handled animals is a cool thing that finally spices up the boring stereotype warhorse. Just exchange run and endurance with two feats you like. Tellish and LLMadCow already agreed that this would make things more interesting. We just have to find a way to limit it a bit. I think basic bought animals, or all bought animals could have the feats you want for free for a little more gold (just like adding elite stats increases the gold cost). For quested animals, you'd have to pay credits, let's say 1 per feat changed, because you cannot rely on that in a real campaign, and it prevents that every animal has random feats. And it's another way to spend credits on ;) Let's wait until we have the final results for the poll. If an Elder wants to change his mind based on this discussion, he can do it (that's why I wrote in bold letters that you should wait a day or three before voting ;) ). If it will be option 1, then you can attain armor proficiency by either getting the 6 tricks, or picking the feat.
Mind Rogue 08-23-05, 04:56 PM	Perhaps all three armor proficiencies are too much for tricks, but allowing combat riding to grant light armor proficiency would be appropriate, and only for animals, because of their poorly worded trait. This would grant some bonus to having handle animal, but not a lot, since having light armor proficiency generally doesn't do much anyway.
Cerebus13 08-23-05, 06:30 PM	What about Magical Beasts? (such as familiars?) They are not typically taught tricks, or at least I haven't seen any, so would they have to use feats to get armor?
Gonbow 08-23-05, 06:40 PM	What about Magical Beasts? (such as familiars?) They are not typically taught tricks, or at least I haven't seen any, so would they have to use feats to get armor? Well, as magical beasts with an intelligence of at least 6, familiars need to get the feats, or make do with mithril chain shirts/masterwork studded leather. Neither are very bad options, I might add... Also, given familiars get HD = Master's for all things determined by such... they could just get the feats, theorhetically. Is there any reason why familiars wouldn't gain feats from the HD alteration of beloning to a high-level master?
Luni 08-23-05, 06:46 PM	Well, as magical beasts with an intelligence of at least 6, familiars need to get the feats, or make do with mithril chain shirts/masterwork studded leather. Neither are very bad options, I might add... Also, given familiars get HD = Master's for all things determined by such... they could just get the feats, theorhetically. Is there any reason why familiars wouldn't gain feats from the HD alteration of beloning to a high-level master? Hmm. Until it came up here, I've never heard of people putting barding on their familiars. As for granting feats based on their supposed HD, that Hill Giant Sorcerer 1 has a familiar with more feats then intelligence. I'm certain that the HD only apply to spells and effects, not for feats and skill points and stat gains.
Cerebus13 08-23-05, 06:51 PM	Well, as magical beasts with an intelligence of at least 6, familiars need to get the feats, or make do with mithril chain shirts/masterwork studded leather. Neither are very bad options, I might add... Also, given familiars get HD = Master's for all things determined by such... they could just get the feats, theorhetically. Is there any reason why familiars wouldn't gain feats from the HD alteration of beloning to a high-level master?They do gain feats normally from HD advancement. I was just curious based on the discussion surrounding Handle Animal tricks and the granting of armor proficiency feats how Magical Beasts would be treated.
Huan 08-23-05, 06:52 PM	Well, as magical beasts with an intelligence of at least 6, familiars need to get the feats, or make do with mithril chain shirts/masterwork studded leather. Neither are very bad options, I might add... Also, given familiars get HD = Master's for all things determined by such... they could just get the feats, theorhetically. Is there any reason why familiars wouldn't gain feats from the HD alteration of beloning to a high-level master? HD progression would garner feats, from which there is nothing stopping them from taking armor proficiency feats. :) Like elsewhere, I think for beasts whose HD will not progress, they should take tricks to be able to then become proficient. Otherwise, taking the right feats is fine.
xanadu 08-24-05, 11:15 AM	Hmm. Until it came up here, I've never heard of people putting barding on their familiars. :rofl: :rofl: I think letting a player pick feats for handled animals is a cool thing that finally spices up the boring stereotype warhorse. Just exchange run and endurance with two feats you like. Tellish and LLMadCow already agreed that this would make things more interesting. We just have to find a way to limit it a bit. I think basic bought animals, or all bought animals could have the feats you want for free for a little more gold (just like adding elite stats increases the gold cost). For quested animals, you'd have to pay credits, let's say 1 per feat changed, because you cannot rely on that in a real campaign, and it prevents that every animal has random feats. And it's another way to spend credits on I like this idea a lot, though I'd say basic animals should be more "than a little gold" since you the purchaser are buying a very specific animal and they tend to be more expensive. The quested cost of 1 credit per feat sounds reasonable.
Mind Rogue 08-24-05, 12:47 PM	Well, even if we decide that tricks can't grant armor proficiency, we still need to decide what "trained for war" means so that riding dogs can make trip attacks. However, I personally think that it should grant light armor proficiency and possibly medium since the Animal traits suggest that an animal trained for war gains armor proficiency. Heavy armor might be a little extreme, however. Also, the example of the riding dog is not a counter example. If they just said that put down that riding dogs had the trip ability, all of them would have it, even those not specifically trained, and while the default riding dog may be trained for combat riding (and possibly war), not all of them are, so they have to clearify that not all riding dogs get trip.
Luni 08-24-05, 12:50 PM	Why don't we just create a "trained for war" trick?
Sunwolf 08-26-05, 12:27 PM	As one of the higher level monk players currently in Living Gladius I would like to bring up a couple of issues that should get rulings: 1) Improved Natural Attack Can monks take this feat to improve their unarmed strike damage? This is a issue with some controversy. I believe that in the past the Core Collesium (previous incarnation of Living Gladius) allowed monks to take this feat. Unfortunately, I can not prove this as links to the older monk gladiators like Rito and Brackin don't seem to be working for me. Can we have an elder ruling on this issue? 2) Psionic feats that apply to unarmed strikes: Can feats like 'psionic weapon' be used with unarmed strikes? A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured and natural weapon for spells and effects. Don't feats count as affects? From SRD: A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. Psionic Weapon [Psionic] You can charge your melee weapon with additional damage potential. Prerequisite Str 13. Benefit To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. Your attack with a melee weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus Psionic fist on the other hand includes natural weapons (like claws, bites etc) in its wording. Psionic Fist [Psionic] You can charge your unarmed strike or natural weapon with additional damage potential. Prerequisite Str 13. Benefit To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. Your unarmed strike or attack with a natural weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus. So what is the ruling on this set of feats? Can monks use psionic weapon with their unarmed strikes or must they use psionic fist?
Gonbow 08-26-05, 12:35 PM	Improved Natural Attack has already been ruled on; Monks can use this feat on their unarmed strikes. Psionic Weapon vrs Psionic Fist is plainly twisting the wording of the Monk unarmed strike... Psionic Fist is obviously designed to be used with unarmed strikes, thus, imho, you have to use Psionic Fist. However, I don't believe this has been specifically addressed as of yet, I'd be surprised if it were to go another way.
NiQil 08-26-05, 12:38 PM	Improved Natural Attack has already been ruled on; Monks can use this feat on their unarmed strikes. Psionic Weapon vrs Psionic Fist is plainly twisting the wording of the Monk unarmed strike... Psionic Fist is obviously designed to be used with unarmed strikes, thus, imho, you have to use Psionic Fist. However, I don't believe this has been specifically addressed as of yet, I'd be surprised if it were to go another way. I would very much like to see a post for the ruling regarding Monks being able to use Improved Natural Attack on their unarmed strike, since I believe Cat stated in the Tavern a week or two ago that they could *not (do to the results of a poll from a previous incarnation of CoCo) use this feat. @Cat Could you please clarify how CoCo stands on the monk<->INA feat issue?
sloisel 08-26-05, 12:40 PM	Why don't we just create a "trained for war" trick? Because this edition of rules of the game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a) seems to suggest that the training you need is "combat riding." Sebastien Loisel
Gonbow 08-26-05, 01:01 PM	I would very much like to see a post for the ruling regarding Monks being able to use Improved Natural Attack on their unarmed strike, since I believe Cat stated in the Tavern a week or two ago that they could *not (do to the results of a poll from a previous incarnation of CoCo) use this feat. @Cat Could you please clarify how CoCo stands on the monk<->INA feat issue? BAKA! The poll said that they COULD! Do we really have to go over this issue every two weeks?
NiQil 08-26-05, 01:04 PM	BAKA! The poll said that they COULD! Do we really have to go over this issue every two weeks? No...you are correct. I remembered what Cat had posted incorrectly. The poll said that it was allowed. I had to go back and look. My memory fails me yet again LOL.
Mind Rogue 08-26-05, 01:17 PM	No...you are correct. I remembered what Cat had posted incorrectly. The poll said that it was allowed. I had to go back and look. My memory fails me yet again LOL. That seems to happent quite a lot. :D
NiQil 08-26-05, 01:27 PM	That seems to happent quite a lot. :D Could be worse. I could spark debates all over the boards by offering a different viewpo......wait....nevermind. :smirk:
xanadu 08-26-05, 01:33 PM	Here is my problem with monks and improved unarmed strike. Let us say Roger the Red Dragon says: "I want improved natural attack." Don the DM says, "Ok, to which weapon do you want it to apply?" "What are you talking about, I'm a big badass Colossal Great Wyrm. I get it on all my weapons!" "No you don't. Now do you want it on your bite, claw, wing, or tail?" Meanwhile, Matilda the Monk walks up and says, "I want Improved natural attack and haha, I get it on my hands, head, feet, knee, elbows, and fingers all at the same time!" Monks are already given a tremendous advantage in being allowed to use the unarmed attack with the hands full or even feet tied! At 20th level, a monk gets 5 unarmed attacks with his full strength bonus and all at the next highest damage size modifier if you allow them this feat. Meanwhile, Mer-Man or any other creature who had legitimate natural attacks would have to take the feat 2,3 times to get the same effect. To that I say "Crap". Psionic fist is obviously there for monks; there is no way psionic weapon can apply to the unarmed attacks. Monk players always want to have there unarmed strikes count both ways. If they really are natural attacks, then maybe we should treat them as slam attacks rather than the monk progression. I really think the Improved Natural attack thing can only be applied to attacks that are inelligible for the magic weapon spell.
NiQil 08-26-05, 01:55 PM	Here is my problem with monks and improved unarmed strike. Let us say Roger the Red Dragon says: "I want improved natural attack." Don the DM says, "Ok, to which weapon do you want it to apply?" "What are you talking about, I'm a big badass Colossal Great Wyrm. I get it on all my weapons!" "No you don't. Now do you want it on your bite, claw, wing, or tail?" Meanwhile, Matilda the Monk walks up and says, "I want Improved natural attack and haha, I get it on my hands, head, feet, knee, elbows, and fingers all at the same time!" Monks are already given a tremendous advantage in being allowed to use the unarmed attack with the hands full or even feet tied! At 20th level, a monk gets 5 unarmed attacks with his full strength bonus and all at the next highest damage size modifier if you allow them this feat. Meanwhile, Mer-Man or any other creature who had legitimate natural attacks would have to take the feat 2,3 times to get the same effect. To that I say "Crap". Psionic fist is obviously there for monks; there is no way psionic weapon can apply to the unarmed attacks. Monk players always want to have there unarmed strikes count both ways. If they really are natural attacks, then maybe we should treat them as slam attacks rather than the monk progression. I really think the Improved Natural attack thing can only be applied to attacks that are inelligible for the magic weapon spell. While I can definitely see your reasoning on this, I don't think it is a big deal to allow monks to have it, since as a whole monks are generally considered to be a little underpowered. Cat stated that that was his reasoning as well, as well as the poll results. Most creatures that can use this feat (and I stress most, not all), and would actually take it over something else, in my opinion, aren't really underpowered like a monk is considered to be.
Mind Rogue 08-26-05, 02:03 PM	Well, my solution would be to allow INA to affect unarmed strikes (even fighters with Improved Unarmed Strike) but type both the INA feat and the monk's bonus so that they can't stack. This would make things simpler, allow for decent martial artists that aren't monks, and also serve as an example to allow psionic weapon to apply.
Gonbow 08-26-05, 02:05 PM	Well, my solution would be to allow INA to affect unarmed strikes (even fighters with Improved Unarmed Strike) but type both the INA feat and the monk's bonus so that they can't stack. This would make things simpler, allow for decent martial artists that aren't monks, and also serve as an example to allow psionic weapon to apply. There isn't a need for a solution though, it has already been voted on and rattified multiple times, here and elsewhere. And why /should/ psionic weapon apply? INA is a case for 'natural weapon', Psionic weapon is a case for 'manufactored weapon'. Really, I think only one of the two can apply in any given set of rulings.
Pittbull 08-26-05, 02:35 PM	I would say only psionic fist works on umarmed attacks.
michael_noah 08-26-05, 03:03 PM	I know that the INA thing is unclear, but the poll is the ruling for now. On the subject of Psionic Weapon, Can't we just follow the rules? It's not like monks are that good anyway. Your attack with a melee weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus. So, unless you want to argue that an unarmed strike, or a natural attack, for that matter, is not a melee weapon, it works with the feat. It doesn't matter if it's manufactured or not.
Gonbow 08-26-05, 03:11 PM	I know that the INA thing is unclear, but the poll is the ruling for now. On the subject of Psionic Weapon, Can't we just follow the rules? It's not like monks are that good anyway. So, unless you want to argue that an unarmed strike, or a natural attack, for that matter, is not a melee weapon, it works with the feat. It doesn't matter if it's manufactured or not. I'll argue that it is not for the purpose of the Psionic Weapon feat. Otherwise, why exactly have Psionic Fist? I know monks are a little underpowered, but removing a feat choice completely is a bit over the top, in my opinion.
NiQil 08-26-05, 03:19 PM	I'll argue that it is not for the purpose of the Psionic Weapon feat. Otherwise, why exactly have Psionic Fist? I know monks are a little underpowered, but removing a feat choice completely is a bit over the top, in my opinion. Well, psionic fist still applies to natural attacks. So it would still be useful for PC's that are of a psionic race/class and has natural attacks. Off the top of my head, if this race was something that was allowed in CoCo, I think the Thri-Keen would fit this bill (but I coudl be wrong). I doubt they are the only ones.
sloisel 08-28-05, 03:46 PM	Do/should the buffing rules apply to the following? 1) Which armor you have on when you start the fight (it takes minutes to put them on and take them off, and if you sleep 8 hours that leaves 15 hours 58 minutes or less that you can wear them per day, can't prebuff with armor!? :) Maybe not, but should you commit to which armor you wear on the character sheet?) 2) What's in your hands when you start the fight (move action per thing in your hand, does last as long as you want.) 3) What you're wearing (cloak of charisma or cloak of resistance?) If you don't need to declare which cloak you're wearing, once the pairings are done and you realize you don't need the high save DCs, can you switch to the cloak of resistance and yet keep the higher number of spell slots? 4) Do you need to carry large and bulky items on your person into the arena and then use whatever action type you need to drop them in your first round, or can you start with an empty apparatus of the crab (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#apparatusoftheCrab) lying in front of you? Can you bring a 10 ton rock behind which to hide into the arena? If after pairings you realise that a 10 ton rock is useless, shouldn't you have to drop it in your first round? Sebastien Loisel
NiQil 08-28-05, 04:08 PM	Do/should the buffing rules apply to the following? 1) Which armor you have on when you start the fight (it takes minutes to put them on and take them off, and if you sleep 8 hours that leaves 15 hours 58 minutes or less that you can wear them per day, can't prebuff with armor!? :) Maybe not, but should you commit to which armor you wear on the character sheet?) 2) What's in your hands when you start the fight (move action per thing in your hand, does last as long as you want.) 3) What you're wearing (cloak of charisma or cloak of resistance?) If you don't need to declare which cloak you're wearing, once the pairings are done and you realize you don't need the high save DCs, can you switch to the cloak of resistance and yet keep the higher number of spell slots? 4) Do you need to carry large and bulky items on your person into the arena and then use whatever action type you need to drop them in your first round, or can you start with an empty apparatus of the crab (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#apparatusoftheCrab) lying in front of you? Can you bring a 10 ton rock behind which to hide into the arena? If after pairings you realise that a 10 ton rock is useless, shouldn't you have to drop it in your first round? Sebastien Loisel 1) Technically, you are correct about the armor as far as time is concerned (with the exception of light armor, which can be slept in at no penalty, or by those with the Endurance feat, which allows sleeping in medium armor). However, I seriously doubt that prebuffing restrictions will ever apply to armor. 2) Most gladiators already specify what is in their hands upon entering the arena...for those that don't, the default is to enter with hands empty. 3) What you are carrying/wearing should already be specified on your character sheet. In your example, if you are carrying both cloaks, there is no reason you could not swap out which cloak you are wearing prior to entering the arena. The problem with that type of approach is that if you start carrying everything, you will eventually run into encumbrance issues. 4) This was an issue that Jindl's ghost Anna had to deal with on a regular basis. I believe it was determined (and someone correct me if I am wrong) that as long as either you or your allies/cohorts etc could bring it into the arena on their own, it was usable. So if you want to buy an elephant to cart things into the arena for you, feel free, but it will count as an ally of appropriate ECL.
Mind Rogue 08-28-05, 05:04 PM	Note that you are allowed to prebuff with things that you can do at will as well as those that last for 16 hours. This means, among other things, that a druid can start with her thousand faces ability already in effect because she can use it as much as she wants, while a fighter can wear whatever armor he wants and carry whatever weapon because he can change it "at will".
Caterane 08-28-05, 06:06 PM	The main reason however is to make things less complicated.
sloisel 08-30-05, 09:49 AM	Note that you are allowed to prebuff with things that you can do at will Ah, so you could prebuff with the shield spell if you had it at will? Good to know. At any rate, this answers my main question, which was whether I could change my armor according to the adversary, or change my cloak according to the adversary. Cheers, Sebastien Loisel
Pitlords 08-30-05, 04:34 PM	Guilds I've written up the main part about guilds which can be found in the Rules of Gladius - Advanced Rules: Guilds. Before we can let them begin, we have to discuss some things, and I would like to hear all your ideas. The sooner we find solutions, the sooner the Guilds will be up and running. Ok, first of all, please read the section about Guilds before reading on. Issue: The hierarchy is based on the powerrating of the Guild which is determined by its Guild Wars. This is fair as it rewards guilds based on their success and not the number of members. However, the powerrating of its combined members (based on the # of members and the powerrating of individual gladiators, not on guild war wins) should be anyhow incorporated too. Any ideas? Note that it must not have the effect that everyone wants to join the guild that has the most numbers anyway. Issue 2: I would like to hear comments, concerns, and ideas from all of you! I am sure there's a lot we can do with guilds so let's try to get the maximum out of it. PS: Please do not talk about another topic until we have come to a conclusion. Thanks.
SoulLord 08-30-05, 04:58 PM	In general i like it just a minor thing. Just so no guild is the punching bag for every other guild or at least to lessen the impact. "If a guild lost a war It can't be challenged the following week nor can it challenge another guild" Not only does it help guild members as to not be losing every week but it also increases the risk of losing a war and the rest of the guilds gaining up on rating while you have to sit out.
Usurpator 08-30-05, 05:00 PM	Issue: The hierarchy is based on the powerrating of the Guild which is determined by its Guild Wars. This is fair as it rewards guilds based on their success and not the number of members. However, the powerrating of its combined members (based on the # of members and the powerrating of individual gladiators, not on guild war wins) should be anyhow incorporated too. You can do several things of course. For example: you can introduce a threshold. Any guild above a threshold (say 10 members) gets a penalty to their power rating, depending on how many members they are over the threshold. You could say that guild power dilutes as many sycophants attempt to join the guild that is on top. That way you encourage people disperse among the guilds. Alternately, the most recent members that are beyond the threshold don't get benefits of the power token. Additionally, I guess that guilds with many members have an edge in guild wars anyway, so this is also a way in which to lessen that effect as well.
NiQil 08-30-05, 05:07 PM	One idea I had that might go with or replace the whole Guild War idea, is to just automatically each week have a guild have a team battle (just like it is written now for the wars, with random rolling and such) with every other active guild. In other words, the guilds are *constantly competing, as opposed to being at war. The tokens would still work, but that way, on the Pairings post each week, we can designate a section for Guild battles. So, as an example, if we start with 3 guilds, then each guild would fight the other two guilds each week, for a total of 3 guild fights each week (as it stands now). I think, rather than having "Guild Wars", we could call these the Gladius Games....something akin to a form of Olympics, where each guild sends a team against each of the other guilds. The only drawback I see is what happens when the number of guilds increase (maybe we would have to scale it back to 1v1 battles then). Regardless of how Guild Wars are done, one thing I would add to the random rollings of who participates, is that I would not allow the same character to participate two weeks in a row.
Vathelokai 08-30-05, 05:24 PM	I disagree with weekly fights. Guilds with small enrolement would constantly have all of their members fighting for the guild. And if there is an odd number of guilds, it makes the problem worse. Also from an RP standpoint, not all guilds would fight each other, at least not all the time. The 'no fighting 2 weeks in a row' rule, I like that. A more quest-like Olympics between the guilds might be a fun thing to do every now and then.
Gonbow 08-30-05, 06:21 PM	Okay, a bit of clarification... Is the Guild Token, the token that you get from a defeated guild and the Power Token one and the same, or are they all different? If the Guild Token (thus, tied to the guild's theme) is the one that gets swapped back and forth with winning/losing, my concern about unbalanced benefit from winning still stands. Re: Guild Wars I second the suggestion that fights between two guilds must be staggered; however, if the second guild wishes to rechallenge, then there should be no issue. Thus, a real war would result in the two guilds fighting every week, whereas a skirmish/normal competition would be once a month or something along those lines. Re: Guild Wars (Alternative) Perhaps fights in the arena should not be the only ways to advance in the hierachy? Perhaps competitive quests/miniquests between guilds should have the possibility of changing the hiearchy. This would open up the ability for influencing the hierachy without resorting to physical blows; but should not have undeclinable status of arena challenges. (IMHO)
xanadu 08-30-05, 11:44 PM	Originally Posted by Caterane I think letting a player pick feats for handled animals is a cool thing that finally spices up the boring stereotype warhorse. Just exchange run and endurance with two feats you like. Tellish and LLMadCow already agreed that this would make things more interesting. We just have to find a way to limit it a bit. I think basic bought animals, or all bought animals could have the feats you want for free for a little more gold (just like adding elite stats increases the gold cost). For quested animals, you'd have to pay credits, let's say 1 per feat changed, because you cannot rely on that in a real campaign, and it prevents that every animal has random feats. And it's another way to spend credits on Has there been any ruling here? One of my gladiators is going hunting on Wednesday :)
Vathelokai 08-31-05, 07:28 AM	Has there been any ruling here? One of my gladiators is going hunting on Wednesday :) Rules of Gladius thread has the new sections Allies I and Allies II. Hope you have some gold and credits saved up. @Guilds: I bring up an arguement from way back; It seems there is a guild power rating based on skirmishes, and a guild power rating based on membership. Why have both? Why not combine the two. ((total member power/total members)+(guild power)/2) or something along those lines? I'm not sure I like the idea of custom spells is TAO is in the top spot. Even though I know of a link to a full accounting of spells, it would still make the lives of the pitlords dificult, and be an expensive (possibly wastefull) excursion for the guild members.
Maraxus 09-01-05, 06:03 PM	Oh, great council, my last fight brought up a rule issue. Can a wilder with psi-like abilities use the wild surge to enhance his psi-like ability. Sources: Psi-Like Abilities (Ps): The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability, as is the manifestation of powers by creatures without a psionic class (creatures with the psionic subtype, also simply called psionic creatures). Usually, a psionic creature’s [/b]psi-like ability works just like the power of that name.[/b] A few psi-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described. Psi-like abilities have no verbal, somatic, or material components, nor do they require a focus or have an XP cost (even if the equivalent power has an XP cost). The user activates them mentally. Armor never affects a psi-like ability’s use. A psi-like ability has a manifesting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability description. In all other ways, a psi-like ability functions just like a power. However, a psionic creature does not have to pay a psi-like ability’s power point cost. Psi-like abilities are subject to power resistance and to being dispelled by dispel psionics. They do not function in areas where psionics is suppressed or negated. This can be taken for both sides: On the one hand it sais, psi abilities work like powers. On the other hand, it only sais they work that way, not that they should be treaded like that for outside effects. But then: All creatures with psi-like abilities are assigned a manifester level, which indicates how difficult it is to dispel their psi-like effects and determines all level-dependent variables (such as range or duration) the abilities might have. When a creature uses a psi-like ability, the power is manifested as if the creature had spent a number of power points equal to its manifester level, which may augment the power to improve its damage or save DC. However, the creature does not actually spend power points for its psi-like abilities, even if it has a power point reserve due to racial abilities, class levels, or some other psionic ability. Okay, here it uses "power" as a synonyme for "psi-like ability". And that the use of a psi-like ability manifests a power. However, these (together with wild surge) are two passages that are quite away from each other, so this could be unintentionally. And this fault is quite understandable. This is no law dokument, so it should be readable and putting "...the effect is equall to a power, manifested as if..." in there does not make it readable. And if the word is more important that the intention, then it does not say, that the character manifests the power, it only sais, that he uses an ability that then manifests the power.
Snommelp 09-05-05, 01:41 PM	GAHHH!!!! The mounted reach-weapon debate is getting on my nerves. MOTION: I move that the council come to a decision once and for all regarding mounted combat, reach weapons, and basing your opponent, and further, I move that the decision be posted in the Rules of Gladius so that I never have to see this thing debated again.
michael_noah 09-06-05, 10:14 AM	I know this has been debated before, but it is exceedingly clear. A rider shares his mounts space. All of it. That is why he can choose which square to attack from, why he can be attacked in any of the squares, etc. That is also why, when his mount is adjacent to a foe, he is also adjacent to the foe. It does not matter which square he chooses to attack from, because he is adjacent to the foe, and (most) reach weapons are unable to attack a foe that is adjacent.
Snommelp 09-06-05, 10:48 AM	It would appear that nobody likes the way All vs. All fights are currently handled. Therefore, I move that the rules for All vs. All fights be changed. MOVEMENT: It is moved that the rules for All vs. All fights, said rules beingIn an All vs All fight, everyone has a target which is determined by the order characters are listed in the Pairings Post: A -> B -> C -> D -> A. You may attack any gladiator but you will only get rewards for killed targets. Once you have defeated your target, you will immedeately and automatically get your target's target. You will receive winner rewards for every target of yours that has been defeatedx. If you have defeated no one you will still gain loser rewards as if you had fought a 1v1 match vs your target.be changed toIn an All vs. All fight, a character is granted rewards for each opponent that said character defeats. If a character does not defeat any opponents, that character receives a loser's reward as if he had lost in a 1v1 match.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-06-05, 10:57 AM	I know this has been debated before, but it is exceedingly clear. A rider shares his mounts space. All of it. That is why he can choose which square to attack from, why he can be attacked in any of the squares, etc. That is also why, when his mount is adjacent to a foe, he is also adjacent to the foe. It does not matter which square he chooses to attack from, because he is adjacent to the foe, and (most) reach weapons are unable to attack a foe that is adjacent. Exactly. Please, people. There is no SPECIAL ruling needed. The rules are 100% unambiguous. -ToK
Caterane 09-06-05, 12:26 PM	Guilds I've written up the main part about guilds which can be found in the Rules of Gladius - Advanced Rules: Guilds. Before we can let them begin, we have to discuss some things, and I would like to hear all your ideas. The sooner we find solutions, the sooner the Guilds will be up and running. Ok, first of all, please read the section about Guilds before reading on. Issue: The hierarchy is based on the powerrating of the Guild which is determined by its Guild Wars. This is fair as it rewards guilds based on their success and not the number of members. However, the powerrating of its combined members (based on the # of members and the powerrating of individual gladiators, not on guild war wins) should be anyhow incorporated too. Any ideas? Note that it must not have the effect that everyone wants to join the guild that has the most numbers anyway. Issue 2: I would like to hear comments, concerns, and ideas from all of you! I am sure there's a lot we can do with guilds so let's try to get the maximum out of it. PS: Please do not talk about another topic until we have come to a conclusion. Thanks. Bump, and another question: what about member hierarchies inside guilds? Any ideas on how to make that game-affecting?
Tellish_of_Ket 09-06-05, 12:38 PM	Certain members of a certain level within the guild, could have +x to their diplomacy checks within a certain member-sect of society? ex. Jar-Jar the clown. Juggler extroardinair, works in the shipping department of EHTC. He needs new clown suits, and decides to go on a quest to figure out why his shipment is late and to deal with the red tape. Jar-Jar, being a high ranking member would get a certain bonus on his diplomacy checks when dealing with suppliers and such to try and cut through the red tape. I dunnno, little ideas like that. -ToK
NiQil 09-06-05, 12:42 PM	Bump, and another question: what about member hierarchies inside guilds? Any ideas on how to make that game-affecting? I would tend to lean towards having it *not be game-affecting, since it would be primarily used as a role-playing tool within the individual guilds. The only way I could see making it game affecting would be to link the in-guild rankings to the guild vs guild team battles in some way...but beyond that I don't really see it being feasible.
Snommelp 09-11-05, 07:16 PM	Caterane, I know that you are anxious to get the guilds restarted, but I believe that this matter is of more concern and more pressing, so I would appreciate if we could get something done regarding the alleged "Free-for-all" fights. It would appear that nobody likes the way All vs. All fights are currently handled. Therefore, I move that the rules for All vs. All fights be changed. MOVEMENT: It is moved that the rules for All vs. All fights, said rules being In an All vs All fight, everyone has a target which is determined by the order characters are listed in the Pairings Post: A -> B -> C -> D -> A. You may attack any gladiator but you will only get rewards for killed targets. Once you have defeated your target, you will immediately and automatically get your target's target. You will receive winner rewards for every target of yours that has been defeated. If you have defeated no one you will still gain loser rewards as if you had fought a 1v1 match vs your target. be changed to In an All vs. All fight, a character is granted rewards for each opponent that said character defeats. If a character does not defeat any opponents, that character receives a loser's reward as if he had lost in a 1v1 match.
Luni 09-12-05, 12:20 AM	I second that Snommelp!
Emrys Donovan 09-12-05, 12:27 AM	I third it.
nightbanegod 09-12-05, 12:28 AM	i third that... it would make FFAs much easier, and if theres going to be problems with people teaming up.. (which knowing how fair and noble members of this comunity are) ... then we deal with that problem when it arises ... but i doubt it will
NiQil 09-12-05, 12:41 AM	I also agree that the change Snommelp suggests should be implemented. However I do see one problem with it. In a 4 person FFA, it is possible that the person who doesn't defeat the most opponents will not win...for instance in the A>B>C>D setup...if A defeats B and C, and then D defeats A, D is classified as the winner, but A is getting more experience out of it than D is. And that doesn't seem very fair either. The last man standing should be the one receiving the highest reward, regardless of how many people they defeat. Figuring out how to solve this issue should be done first. One suggestion (albeit not a very thought out one) I could make is to, instead of basing the rewards on opponents defeated, is to have a set reward for 1st, second, third and fourth place, and base it purely on who is defeated when, not by whom. So, in a 4 man ECL 3 FFA, say the winner gets 2700 XP/gp, 2nd gets 1800 xp/gp, 3rd gets 900 xp/gp and 4th gets 300 xp/gp. And in a 3 person, it would get scaled back to 1800, 900, and 300. Certainly these numbers could be tweeked, but you get the idea. Keep the 5 round forfeit rule in effect, so no one can just go invisible and camp out....but this way, since when you are defeated can easily be seen by what round and on what initiative you go down, there should never be an issue with any ties, and it gives the fighters the freedom to go after who they want from the start.
Emrys Donovan 09-12-05, 12:44 AM	nvm
Sindorin 09-12-05, 12:47 AM	There should be rewards for each opponent defeated, as well as a reward for being the last alive BASED on how you did in the fight/how many you killed. It wouldn't be as high if you didn't kill anyone except the last guy, and it would be a nice chunky bonus if you held your own, killed lots of people, and made it out alive.
Snommelp 09-12-05, 01:00 AM	I also agree that the change Snommelp suggests should be implemented. However I do see one problem with it. In a 4 person FFA, it is possible that the person who doesn't defeat the most opponents will not win...for instance in the A>B>C>D setup...if A defeats B and C, and then D defeats A, D is classified as the winner, but A is getting more experience out of it than D is. And that doesn't seem very fair either. The last man standing should be the one receiving the highest reward, regardless of how many people they defeat. Figuring out how to solve this issue should be done first. True... but if A defeats B and C, and D defeats A, D still only defeated one opponent, and probably a weakened one at that. So maybe there could be a bonus for being the last man standing, but added on top of the XP gained for opponents killed? EDIT: So, basically what Sin said.
Luni 09-12-05, 01:19 AM	There should be rewards for each opponent defeated, as well as a reward for being the last alive BASED on how you did in the fight/how many you killed. It wouldn't be as high if you didn't kill anyone except the last guy, and it would be a nice chunky bonus if you held your own, killed lots of people, and made it out alive. To expand upon Sindorin's suggestion, give the winner an additional 1/3 winnings for each gladiator he killed. For example, an [ECL 3] 4 man FFA where 1 character single handidly defeats all 3 of his opponents would be rewarded: [3*900] + [3*300] for 3600 xp. Aside: I believe the reason the targets were added, was to prevent A from casting Hold Person on B, which C then CdGs.
Snommelp 09-12-05, 01:42 AM	I think a flat bonus for winning is fine. A gladiator who kills three opponents is already getting an exorbitant amount of XP before the winner's bonus, and a gladiator who only kills one but still wins is still getting only a smaller amount of XP than that. EDIT: Response to aside: Fair argument. However, any time someone uses opportunistic tactics, it shows up in the past fights on the character sheet, and future opponents can respond accordingly, perhaps double-teaming the would-be vulture.
Vathelokai 09-12-05, 03:01 AM	I say stop doing FFA. I havn't been in one, so I don't have much room to talk, but it seems like they are more trouble then they are worth. The team fights do fine. The monster fights do fine. Every week there is a 4 day arguement about the free for all. It was a cool idea, but it dosn't seem to work in practice.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 03:07 AM	I have given the FFA's some thought last week, and my post maybe a bit long, so bear with me. I think any FFA reward should do two things: A. Encourage gladiators to 'get out there and fight' B. Discourage gladiators from 'stealing a kill' Thus I have come up with a system which I hope achieves both goals. It does so by handing out the XP/GP rewards in shares instead of a set amount per kill and introduces something called an 'assist'. Shares 1. All gladiators get 1 share for participating 2. Each gladiator gets 1 share per 'assist' 3. Each gladiator gets 1 share per 'assisted kill' 4. Each gladiator gets 2 shares per 'sole kill' Assist: a significant contribution in helping to kill another gladiator. The significance of the contribution will be determined by the Pitlord. Casting a hold person or sleep while a second gladiator performs the CDG certainly counts as an assist, damaging a 60 hp barbarian with a sling stone for 4 points obviously does not. Assisted Kill: killing a gladiator with the assistance (see assist) of one or more other gladiators. Sole Kill: killing a gladiator without the assistance (see assist) of other gladiators. Kill: making it impossible for an opponent to continue fighting on his own for the next hour or longer. (This definition prevents the curing back and then killing again metagaming tactic). Note that help from allies count as 'on his own' for these purposes. Height of the reward In a 4 person FFA there will be three kills made, and three gladiators will be killed. Suppose all gladiators are third lvl, normally the three kills would garner 900 XP each, while the three loses would amount to 300 XP each, for a grand total of 3600 XP. This grand total is then divided by the total shares. So if one gladiator killed no one, and the other three each killed another alone (sole kills), there would be 10 shares to go around. The loser would get 360 XP/GP, the three others would get 1080 XP/GP each. This is slightly higher than a regular fight, but I think this is warranted, and I think somebody else also mentioned that FFA's consume more resources than regular fights. Coincidentally, the share system also works for a 1 vs 1 battle, awarding the same amount of XP/GP as the current system. Note that I did not include a last man standing award, since I think this conflicts with goal A. I don't think a gladiator that melds into stone, sits out the match and then returns to pick off the wounded last opponent should get extra rewards for doing so.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 03:16 AM	I say stop doing FFA. I havn't been in one, so I don't have much room to talk, but it seems like they are more trouble then they are worth. The team fights do fine. The monster fights do fine. Every week there is a 4 day arguement about the free for all. It was a cool idea, but it dosn't seem to work in practice. Actually I like FFA's, because of the different tactics involved in such battles, and because of the excitement of defeating 2+ opponents and hauling a massive reward. Additionally, I think it rewards different kind of character builds and therefore promotes more diversity among the builds.
xanadu 09-12-05, 01:08 PM	Snommelp, Look at the old threads regarding FFAs. This problem with what you are suggesting is how does one define defeat a gladiator? You can put it in the hands of a Pitlord making a subjectivie determination - it must be conisistant and involve no judgement calls otherwise there will be real problems real fast. It is impossible to decide, let alone have everyone agree, what is an "assist". (You get arguments like "I swing my sword ineffectively and miss, yes I still get an assist because I kept the gladiator busy from harming someone else"). You can't make arcane formulas for who damaged opponents the most because how do you value something like a doom spell.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 01:28 PM	@Xanadu Since I think you are trying to address me and not Snommelp: There's no problem with the 10-round or 5-round delay rule currently, or is there? It also says 'significant interaction', clearly another Pitlord call. But I do agree with you that it is a possible point of contention. But it would hardly be the only point that will be argued, interpretation of tactics by Pitlords will always remain a hot issue, for example. I for one would rather have gladiators fight normally and have sometimes questionable Pitlord calls then weird metagaming tactics like curing unconscious opponents or waiting invisibly until one gladiator is into the single digits and then magic missile him. And I would rather try out something new and fail than not try something at all. The current system apparently isn't fun to the vocal majority. I think my proposal deals with most old problems, but it does introduce a potentially new problem. We'll see.
Luni 09-12-05, 01:32 PM	I think the best definition of down, is brought below negative hp. Unless they have the Diehard feat, just spirit away their bodies. This prevents the whole curing problem.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 01:55 PM	I think the best definition of down, is brought below negative hp. Unless they have the Diehard feat, just spirit away their bodies. This prevents the whole curing problem. I rather like my: "making it impossible for an opponent to continue fighting on his own for the next hour or longer" (Note that help from allies count as 'on his own' for these purposes). If a gladiator is down, but his ally is still alive and fighting (and possible able to cast a cure spell on the gladiator), he has not yet lost, and should be able to return to the fight. If someone is turned to stone, turned into a shadow, teleported out of the arena or whatever, he can still lose, even if not brought into the negatives.
xanadu 09-12-05, 03:36 PM	Usurpator - It was made very clear that it would be a disaster to introduce subjective Pitlord judgements regarding rewards; things must be consistant. The only manner in which something like an all out FFA is possible is to give a gladiator equal XPs for something which they did that in any way damaged/disrupted/impeded a fallen target. That's they way XPs are done in real D & D with a party. Yes the one sling stone which did 4 HPs gets the same amount as the barbarian who did 70...what if Demigorgon had 71 HPs left and his turn in the initiative is up?
Snommelp 09-12-05, 03:57 PM	@ xanadu: the definition problems are why I suggested that, if "grand" winners get a bonus, it be a flat bonus. Perhaps 1/3 of a winner's share in addition to all of the winner's shares gained. As far as defining "defeated," I rather like the "unable to effect combat for at least an hour." If you're brought to -10, you fall into this category. If you're just knocked into negatives, you're in this category unless some foolish foe revives you. If you have an ally and you fall into negatives, you don't fall into this category. Metagaming a bit, if you are knocked to -10 and have an active ally you will be placed into this category. If you are turned to stone, teleported miles away, &c, you fall into this category. The main point, xanadu, is that from my POV the All vs. All matches are broken. They need to be fixed. The rest of the details are secondary to the fact that something needs to be done.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 04:02 PM	That's they way XPs are done in real D & D with a party. Yes the one sling stone which did 4 HPs gets the same amount as the barbarian who did 70...what if Demigorgon had 71 HPs left and his turn in the initiative is up? We always had fights when the one with the sling stone did Demogorgon with 4 hp. of damage when the fighter had done the other 250 damage, and the slinger ended up with all the XP. I was glad when 3rd edition finally officially suggested that everyone got an equal share no matter what their contribution. The point of the current FFA's (and al fights) is that the participants do get unequal shares, and part of my proposal is how to regulate that fairly, so I don't really understand the point you are trying to make with your example.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:14 PM	The point is that there is no way to say what "contributed" to "defeating" a gladiator or not. What if I make my spot check to see someone invisible, attack that square but miss, but it lets another know where the invisible gladiator is in order that they can kill them? What if I provide a flanking bonus that allows you to hit? What if I turn someone to stone, but they are stone-to-fleshed by an ally who could have otherwise defeated you, but is instead is killed because of their wasted round? I personally don't think there is a good way at all to figure xp awards for FFA fights.
Snommelp 09-12-05, 04:17 PM	The point is that there is no way to say what "contributed" to "defeating" a gladiator or not. What if I make my spot check to see someone invisible, attack that square but miss, but it lets another know where the invisible gladiator is in order that they can kill them? What if I provide a flanking bonus that allows you to hit? What if I turn someone to stone, but they are stone-to-fleshed by an ally who could have otherwise defeated you, but is instead is killed because of their wasted round? I personally don't think there is a good way at all to figure xp awards for FFA fights. Let's just start with rewards for defeating an opponent, using Usurpator's criterion. Spotted invisible but missed the attack: no reward Provide a flanking bonus: no reward Turn foe to stone, foe then turned back to flesh by another foe: no reward yet, first foe is back in action to be removed as others see fit
NiQil 09-12-05, 04:21 PM	That's part of the reason I suggested as I did...which is to set the rewards for FFA's to always be the same depending upon when you die, as opposed to who you kill. It prevents the argument of who did what to whom and who should get credit for what. It goes strictly by how long you live. With the 5 rd rule still in place, there is also no chance of someone just camping out and waiting. If the power player in the battle kills two other characters, and then the other guy hits a lucky crit to kill him and win, so be it. We live by the dice, we die by the dice. But the rewards should not be subjective, nor should they change from battle to battle. They should be clear cut. A set amount for each "place", if you will. Ally bonuses and penalties would still be taken into account after the fact as well.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:23 PM	Let's just start with rewards for defeating an opponent, using Usurpator's criterion. Spotted invisible but missed the attack: no reward Provide a flanking bonus: no reward Turn foe to stone, foe then turned back to flesh by another foe: no reward yet, first foe is back in action to be removed as others see fit Edit: perhaps I was unclear. If we are concerned only with "defeating" gladiators - we are left with the problem that if I do all the work and someone else gets the last hit, I get nothing. If we are concerned with "assists" which is what I was talking about, then there is no way to determine fairly what qualifies as an "assist". Also, in Usurpators system it is completely possible for me to be the last gladiator alive, but receive only a loser's reward, and I don't like that at all (whether it means I was hiding or not).
Altaris13 09-12-05, 04:31 PM	Just a thought on FFA: Why not make it a true free for all? No targets, no bonus to win, everything goes. Put a three round limit on "Delays" rather than 5 or 10. You only get winner's share if you did more than half of a gladiator's hitpoints AND that gladiator was slain (put below -10.) If you did less than half-hits but slew a gladiator, you get 1/2 a winner's share. The person who did the most damage to the slain gladiator ALSO gets 1/2 winner's share. Each dead person gets 1 loser's share for EACH other gladiator that affected him/her, including 'aid another' actions and such. There is no special bonus for being the last man standing. The objective is to KILL! MAIM! DESTROY! SLAY! EVISCERATE! ERRADICATE! ANNIHILATE! (You get my point.) Kill, be killed, do NOT award those who sit back and watches others go at it. If people want to team up? Let them, it is a fair tactic. If people want to hide and snipe? Hey, it happens in 1v1, so go ahead. Yadda yadda yadda. There are enough tactics for one person to take on many that it shouldn't matter. Reward those who are properly prepared, rather than putting artificial limitations on something that should be challenging and fun.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 04:34 PM	@michael_noah and Xanadu I think you are both making valid points, and it is the major weakness of my proposal. I am not convinced yet that it is a critical weakness, though. How about a test? Say we take the four most recent FFA's and find 5 volunteer Pitlords (who are a priori not biased against my proposal) and let them rate and assign shares independently of each other to the participants in those FFA's according to my proposal and send the reports to me. Preceding that I will make up a very brief summary of the definition of 'an assist' as a guideline. If there are major discrepancies between the judgements, then it is probably better not to implement that part of my proposal. If there are minor or no discrepancies, it would suggest the problems with the subjective judgements and unclear definition is not as great as may be excepted.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:35 PM	You only get winner's share if you did more than half of a gladiator's hitpoints AND that gladiator was slain (put below -10.) Hit points, whether for determining the amount of killing you did, or even if someone is dead, are less than half the story! This might make sense if everyone in FFA's was a barbarian. Otherwise it completely cheats casters, de-buffers, finders, etc.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:37 PM	@michael_noah and Xanadu I think you are both making valid points, and it is the major weakness of my proposal. I am not convinced yet that it is a critical weakness, though. How about a test? If we somehow managed to come to a consensus on what constituted an assist, it seems like it would be a good idea. I'm convinced, however, that we will never be able to do so. We might be able to get a majority to agree... but that's about it. It also wouldn't be that great a test, as you proposed it, because we could easily have 4 FFAs with no controvercial rulings. That isn't going to help the poor guy that gets cheated when his doom spell wins it for someone else.
xanadu 09-12-05, 04:38 PM	...
xanadu 09-12-05, 04:38 PM	Snommelp, I am merely stating what Caterane and others have brought up months ago when the FFAs were introduced. I don't necessarily agree with the way they are implemented. I am merely providing you with the outstanding issues because I do not recall you being here when they were originally discussed. Living Glaidus is not going to allow arbitray and subjective Pitlording to determine rewards/XP - it is not fair and must be consistent. Therefore, an ironlike criteria must be established where no loophoels. exploits, circumventing, or judgement calls are required/allowed/possible regarding rewards must be proposed in addition to a format change. For my own opinion, I feel the original concern of a improptu "team-up" or makeshift "alliance" has proven to be unwaranted. Yes the possibility existed, but I think our experiences in the current FFAs have shown no such inkling of that ever occuring. Thus, I do not see that as an issue for all out FFAs. The reward system should be if you do something - anything - that hinders/hurts/damages/disables/impedes any gladiator, you get an equal share of XP. This would encourage a real FFA rather than random pairings because everybody would want to get in some sort of attack on a participant before they dropped to get XP. It also removes the need for Pitlord subjectivity. A cleric casting bane gets and XP share for all that are effected. The rogue hiding 200 feet away and firing a sling at a -12 modifier who constantly misses does not. The winner gets a bonus.
Snommelp 09-12-05, 04:40 PM	Edit: perhaps I was unclear. If we are concerned only with "defeating" gladiators - we are left with the problem that if I do all the work and someone else gets the last hit, I get nothing. If we are concerned with "assists" which is what I was talking about, then there is no way to determine fairly what qualifies as an "assist". Also, in Usurpators system it is completely possible for me to be the last gladiator alive, but receive only a loser's reward, and I don't like that at all (whether it means I was hiding or not). If you do all the work and someone else gets the final hit (the "vulture" scenario), then all future opponents of the "vulture" will know to be on the look-out for that tactics from that individual. If it's an accidental vulturing, then really both of you must have been working on the same target, so to the victor go the spoils; the man who gets the technical kill gets the rewards for the kill. And yes, it is possible to be the last man standing and get only a loser's reward, but the only way that will happen is the simultaneous demise of two opponents. Unless a wizard pulls a ground-zero fireball, the last man standing has to get at least one kill, which means at least one winner's share.
Altaris13 09-12-05, 04:42 PM	Hit points, whether for determining the amount of killing you did, or even if someone is dead, are less than half the story! This might make sense if everyone in FFA's was a barbarian. Otherwise it completely cheats casters, de-buffers, finders, etc. Casters are the most likely to do more than half-hit points and slay their opponent. Sleep/Hold & CDG? Still works, just make sure you're closer to the enemy than another enemy. Fireball? Take out a few opponents at once. Energyburst? Same thing. De-buffers? That tactic isn't going to work in a FFA anyway, so I fail to see your point. If you want to make it easy for you to kill someone by taking away their buffs, then you better be able to do so before someone else steals the kill. Finders? I fail to see how finders work in a FFA anyway, even the AvsBvsC as things are now.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 04:42 PM	Hit points, whether for determining the amount of killing you did, or even if someone is dead, are less than half the story! This might make sense if everyone in FFA's was a barbarian. Otherwise it completely cheats casters, de-buffers, finders, etc. The problem with all hard criterions is that its impossible to cover every eventuality and be fair to all tactics. Additionally, once the hard criterions are known, people are going (or at least will be tempted) to metagame to them. That's part of the beauty of a subjective judgement and my proposal: because you don't know what judgement you are going to get, you are going to be less tempted to base you tactic upon said judgements and corresponding rewards, and more of what is most effective in terms of the game. A Pitlord has the luxury to view an 'assist' in the context of the entire battle, and this means that the same action might be significant contribution in one situation and not in another.
Snommelp 09-12-05, 04:43 PM	The reward system should be if you do something - anything - that hinders/hurts/damages/disables/impedes any gladiator, you get an equal share of XP. This would encourage a real FFA rather than random pairings because everybody would want to get in some sort of attack on a participant before they dropped to get XP. It also removes the need for Pitlord subjectivity. A cleric casting bane gets and XP share for all that are effected. The rogue hiding 200 feet away and firing a sling at a -12 modifier who constantly misses does not. The winner gets a bonus. This is also a good system. If you guys like it, why not put it to a vote? I personally don't care whether there's an "assist" reward or just rewards for killing, all I care about is fixing something that's broken.
NiQil 09-12-05, 04:43 PM	Just a thought on FFA: Why not make it a true free for all? No targets, no bonus to win, everything goes. Put a three round limit on "Delays" rather than 5 or 10. You only get winner's share if you did more than half of a gladiator's hitpoints AND that gladiator was slain (put below -10.) If you did less than half-hits but slew a gladiator, you get 1/2 a winner's share. The person who did the most damage to the slain gladiator ALSO gets 1/2 winner's share. Each dead person gets 1 loser's share for EACH other gladiator that affected him/her, including 'aid another' actions and such. There is no special bonus for being the last man standing. The objective is to KILL! MAIM! DESTROY! SLAY! EVISCERATE! ERRADICATE! ANNIHILATE! (You get my point.) Kill, be killed, do NOT award those who sit back and watches others go at it. If people want to team up? Let them, it is a fair tactic. If people want to hide and snipe? Hey, it happens in 1v1, so go ahead. Yadda yadda yadda. There are enough tactics for one person to take on many that it shouldn't matter. Reward those who are properly prepared, rather than putting artificial limitations on something that should be challenging and fun. This would not work at all. For starters, with a 3 rd rule, people who spend more than 3 rounds buffing could be disqualified. Which, at higher levels could very easily happen. Secondly, the whole half hit-point thing gets back to the contributing to the death of someone....that is what most are trying to avoid. This also does not keep the rewards consistant from fight to fight, which is something that should be done, in my opinion. I believe that the rewards should be scaled, because otherwise we will never get rid of the rather distinct possibility that the person who is winning the fight is not the one getting the highest reward. In a FFA, the goal is to be the last man standing (or at least it should be). I am also of the firm belief that the rewards from one FFA to the next should be the same, regardless of the results. The only exception to this would be ally penalties/bonuses.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:45 PM	If you do all the work and someone else gets the final hit (the "vulture" scenario), then all future opponents of the "vulture" will know to be on the look-out for that tactics from that individual. If it's an accidental vulturing, then really both of you must have been working on the same target, so to the victor go the spoils; the man who gets the technical kill gets the rewards for the kill. And yes, it is possible to be the last man standing and get only a loser's reward, but the only way that will happen is the simultaneous demise of two opponents. Unless a wizard pulls a ground-zero fireball, the last man standing has to get at least one kill, which means at least one winner's share. There are a myriad of ways that the last man standing could be without a winners share - bleeding, summons, allies of dead people, a ground zero fireball, etc. I am all for a little randomness - the game is based on dice - but I would be very upset if my only recompense for getting no XP even though I severely injured, greatly contributed to the death of, a gladiator was that in the future, others might gang up on the "vulture". There is a reason they fixed the stupid way XP worked in past editions. @Xanadu: The problem with this system is that the best thing to do is to quickly run around the arena, shoot one arrow (one spell, something) at each gladiator, and be guaranteed 2 winners shares.
Altaris13 09-12-05, 04:47 PM	Free for all's should be trying to kill all your opponents, with the end result of living. The express goal of a FFA is (and should not) be "the last man standing." EDIT: I'm with MN on the 'equal share' if you do anything. IE: it's too easy to take advantage of.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 04:49 PM	If we somehow managed to come to a consensus on what constituted an assist, it seems like it would be a good idea. I'm convinced, however, that we will never be able to do so. We might be able to get a majority to agree... but that's about it. My point is that there does not need to be an extensive iron-clad definition of an assist for it to work. I put my trust in the Pitlords, as I do when I hand over my character and tactics for the fight. Few tactics I have seen are iron-clad, and we make do with them as well. It also wouldn't be that great a test, as you proposed it, because we could easily have 4 FFAs with no controvercial rulings. That isn't going to help the poor guy that gets cheated when his doom spell wins it for someone else. If only a small percentage of each FFA might yield the possibility of a non-consensus, the problem is already much smaller than you intially made it out to be. In such a case we only have to find a solution for that small percentage, say a council of three who votes on the shares in case of such an occurence?
Altaris13 09-12-05, 04:51 PM	This would not work at all. For starters, with a 3 rd rule, people who spend more than 3 rounds buffing could be disqualified. Which, at higher levels could very easily happen. So don't buff? Spend you pp/spell slots on DEATH! :D Secondly, the whole half hit-point thing gets back to the contributing to the death of someone....that is what most are trying to avoid. This also does not keep the rewards consistant from fight to fight, which is something that should be done, in my opinion. I believe that the rewards should be scaled, because otherwise we will never get rid of the rather distinct possibility that the person who is winning the fight is not the one getting the highest reward. In a FFA, the goal is to be the last man standing (or at least it should be). First: why are we trying to avoid this awarding someone who contributes to the death? Contributions SHOULD be rewarded, so even if you get 'vultured' you still get something, and the vulture doesn't get as much as they would have. Second: rewards would be constant. These are hard & fast rules.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:53 PM	My point is that there does not need to be an extensive iron-clad definition of an assist for it to work. I put my trust in the Pitlords, as I do when I hand over my character and tactics for the fight. Few tactics I have seen are iron-clad, and we make do with them as well. See this weeks fights of the week thread for an example of how well tactics work. I think the pitlords do a great job, but there is no reason to introduce more ways for disagreements to happen. If only a small percentage of each FFA might yield the possibility of a non-consensus, the problem is already much smaller than you intially made it out to be. In such a case we only have to find a solution for that small percentage, say a council of three who votes on the shares in case of such an occurence? I'm not saying that it's a small percentage. Even if half of FFAs had problems (which would be terrible! Even 10% would be unacceptable), we'd still have a 1/16 chance of not seeing one in a 4 fight test. My point is that if this ever happens to me, and they decide that my flanking was not an assist, I'll be upset. I can't be expected to write tactics when I don't even know what is going to get me a reward.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 04:54 PM	The problem with this system is that the best thing to do is to quickly run around the arena, shoot one arrow (one spell, something) at each gladiator, and be guaranteed 2 winners shares. I think no Pitlord would give this gladiator 'an assist' just for that. If the spell he cast or arrow he shot actually did something significant, yeah, but not for the action in itself. Once again, there will be no rules stating: 'If you cast spell X and Y on your opponent you have made a significant contribution and thus will be rewarded with an assist' It is all about the context. This might be scary to some, as they have no way to predict which way the rewards are going to go, which is as it should be. Give it your best shot, and just hope that your character makes a significant contribution, just like a one-on-one fight.
michael_noah 09-12-05, 04:58 PM	I think no Pitlord would give this gladiator 'an assist' just for that. If the spell he cast or arrow he shot actually did something significant, yeah, but not for the action in itself. Once again, there will be no rules stating: 'If you cast spell X and Y on your opponent you have made a significant contribution and thus will be rewarded with an assist' It is all about the context. This might be scary to some, as they have no way to predict which way the rewards are going to go, which is as it should be. Give it your best shot, and just hope that your character makes a significant contribution, just like a one-on-one fight. The point is that this is nothing like a one-on-one fight. In a regular fight, I know exactly what I need to do. Kill a guy. In this system, I might need to damage a bunch of people, I might need to entangle everyone, I might need to run around healing people. I just don't know. If your point is that I shouldn't care, that I should just try to kill everyone, well then, ok. However, that's what we should be rewarding then, not some arbitrary actions decided on a case by case basis. And I disagree completely that noone would give an assist for flanking. If you hit your target only because I'm standing there, risking my "life", I want a reward! Edit: my example of shooting one arrow at each gladiator was actually in response to the KILL! MAME! DESTROY! option.
SoulLord 09-12-05, 04:58 PM	I think no Pitlord would give this gladiator 'an assist' just for that. If the spell he cast or arrow he shot actually did something significant, yeah, but not for the action in itself. Once again, there will be no rules stating: 'If you cast spell X and Y on your opponent you have made a significant contribution and thus will be rewarded with an assist' It is all about the context. This might be scary to some, as they have no way to predict which way the rewards are going to go, which is as it should be. Give it your best shot, and just hope that your character makes a significant contribution, just like a one-on-one fight. I shudder to think about the discussions of the fights not only do pitlords have to dal with gladiator tactics but now they would have to delucidate what a significate contribution is. In some cases everyone could have a winners share due to his contribution in the fight...
Usurpator 09-12-05, 04:59 PM	My point is that if this ever happens to me, and they decide that my flanking was not an assist, I'll be upset. I can't be expected to write tactics when I don't even know what is going to get me a reward. You are not supposed to, you are supposed to write tactics that will defeat your opponents. Point of the proposal is to reduce metagaming like 'vulturing'. The way I read your comments is: "but I want to metagame, so I want to know exactly what actions are going to get what rewards for me, so I can base my tactics one them." This implies that you feel vulturing is a perfectly legitimate and even expected of gladiators, and under the current rules I agree, you would be stupid to do otherwise. I am opposed to that kind of FFA's. I think it's stupid that Grik single-handely slew Kregor in my last FFA, the Nexa single-handedly slew Grik, and Nexa got two winners shares while the others two got losers shares.... (even though I am grateful for all the XP).
michael_noah 09-12-05, 05:04 PM	The way I read your comments is: "but I want to metagame, so I want to know exactly what actions are going to get what rewards for me, so I can base my tactics one them." But I have a variety of ways to defeat my oponents - I can debuff, I can attack them, I can cast save-or-lose spells, etc., but if one is rewarded even in the case that I don't completely succeed, and the others are not, I want to choose that one. That's metagaming, yes. If anyone here doesn't want to do it anyway, I think there's something funny going on. This option, no matter what a concensus might be, has a great possibility to reward only certain styles of gladiators. The worst part is that whatever decision we make will be completely arbitrary - completely non-core.
Usurpator 09-12-05, 05:06 PM	@those opposed/fearing to the idea of assists As I stated before, I think you have valid points. The possibility of arguments erupting is real. I am only saying it might not be as bad as you fear. Let's just do a test as I proposed and go on from there. I think my point of view is clear and I will shut up about this issue for now. Pitlords who like to participate in a test can PM or e-mail me (usurpator at unther.com)
Emrys Donovan 09-12-05, 05:19 PM	Pitlords who like to participate in a test can PM or e-mail me (usurpator at unther.com)What about gladiators who'd like to volunteer to participate?
NiQil 09-12-05, 05:38 PM	@Cat/Pitlords From the preceding debate, I think it is clear that, while lots of people think the FFA fights are broken and need fixing, no one can agree on how to fix them. Therefore, I would recommend that they be taken offline until such time as they can be reexamined and modified.
Caterane 09-12-05, 06:25 PM	I've read the whole (non-guild :P ) discussion but I still don't understand what exactly the huge problem is. I know that the FFA system is not perfect, but it's working, and it's definately not broken. What I am missing in this discussion is what we have achieved for FFAs. Some Examples: There won't be a team up because you only get XP for your target. Still, you can attack anyone, weakening your hunter, or even killing him if he's too annoying so it's a real FFA. Avoiders don't get XP unless they kill their target so active participation is encouraged, especially with a hunter in your neck. Since you fight more than one gladiator (more ressources) you also get more XP and gold. We were confronted with a multitude of problems when we first began to flesh out the idea. Most of them have been solved. The purpose of FFA fights is to test builds in yet another situation, and this is something the CoCo cannot have enough of.
NiQil 09-12-05, 06:38 PM	I've read the whole (non-guild :P ) discussion but I still don't understand what exactly the huge problem is. I know that the FFA system is not perfect, but it's working, and it's definately not broken. What I am missing in this discussion is what we have achieved for FFAs. Some Examples: There won't be a team up because you only get XP for your target. Still, you can attack anyone, weakening your hunter, or even killing him if he's too annoying so it's a real FFA. Avoiders don't get XP unless they kill their target so active participation is encouraged, especially with a hunter in your neck. Since you fight more than one gladiator (more ressources) you also get more XP and gold. We were confronted with a multitude of problems when we first began to flesh out the idea. Most of them have been solved. The purpose of FFA fights is to test builds in yet another situation, and this is something the CoCo cannot have enough of. The point of these discussions is that many feel that the FFAs are NOT working. Many people do not like the fact that you only get rewards for killing your target, and that you can get rewards for targets you don't kill just because you killed the person that killed your target. The Grik situation was a very good example of why so many people are up in arms about FFAs. Grik killed an opponent single-handedly, but because it was not his target, when the other player in the match killed Grik, the other opponent got the rewards for both killing Grik and the kill Grik made. How exactly does that seem like it is fair? It should be apparant from the preceding discussion that most everyone has a problem with the A>B>C>D target method to the fight. Everyone would rather get XP for anyone they kill. There have been discussions that maybe the reward system should change, and if so, how it should be changed, but the underlying argument among all of these posts is that the A>B>C>D targeting system is not liked. We have not seen any evidence of collusion, which was the reasoning behind this targeting system in the first place. I personally don't think it will ever be an issue. Even if we put aside the changing of the rewards system, since that is still highly at debate, I think just about everyone that has expressed an issue with FFAs will agree that the FFA's should be allowed to go to a true FFA "go after whomever you want and get credit for whomever you kill" system, rather than the target system that is currently in place. THAT is what is meant when it is said that the FFAs are broken. In short, we want to "keep what we kill." As an aside, no one is disputing that FFA's offer a different way to test builds. But in the end, isn't it about what the majority of the community wants to get out of these types of fights? We are all here to have fun. Clearly, many are not having fun with the FFAs as they stand, or we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.
Sindorin 09-12-05, 06:46 PM	I disagree, Cat. It is broken when a gladiator defeats an enemy in self defense and is not rewarded. Period.
Caterane 09-12-05, 07:09 PM	No. It depends on how you define the fight type in the rules. If you kill your team mate in a team fight, you get no XP either. Unfair, period? No, because it's in the rules that you don't get XP for killed team mates. And in an All vs All fight (that's the official title; not FFA) the rules are that you get only XP for your target. If the name FFA or All vs All is misleading we can change that name to Assassin Game or something similar, and suddenly, the problem you mentioned is no problem anymore, because ....I just said it: these are the rules and you know them in advance. That said, let me now point you to the problems that will arise by dropping the target system, although that has been discussed to death already. Main problem: how to distribute rewards? For the last strike? => Vulture tactic and unfair. For a hit or an effect? => Shoot one arrow at each target and vanish to get full rewards. Pitlord decision? => yet more bickering about fights. Fact is that even the mere presence of a gladiator affects the whole fight. Bottom line: it's not possible. We need a system that is easy and crystal clear. You have a target and that's the one you have to defeat. That are the rules for this type of fight. PS: As for Guts, I don't know why he killed someone who wasn't his target. He can disable, deal non-lethal damage and come back for the final kill later when Grick is his target, or sunder his weapons. In any case, he knew the rules.
NiQil 09-12-05, 07:18 PM	No. It depends on how you define the fight type in the rules. If you kill your team mate in a team fight, you get no XP either. Unfair, period? No, because it's in the rules. In an All vs All fight (that's the official title; not FFA) you get only XP for your target. That are the rules. If the name FFA or All vs All is misleading we can change that name to Assassin Game or something similar, and suddenly, the problem you mentioned is no problem anymore, because ....I just said it: these are the rules and you know them in advance. That said, let me now point you to the problems that will arise by dropping the target system, although that has been discussed to death already. Main problem: how to distribute rewards? For the last strike? => Vulture tactic and unfair. For a hit or an effect? => Shoot one arrow at each target and vanish to get full rewards. Pitlord decision? => yet more bickering about fights. Fact is that even the mere presence of a gladiator affects the whole fight. Bottom line: it's not possible. We need a system that is easy and crystal clear. You have a target and that's the one you have to defeat. That are the rules. PS: As for Guts, I don't know why he killed someone who wasn't his target. He can disable, deal non-lethal damage and come back for the final kill later when Grick is his target, or sunder his weapons. In any case, he knew the rules. If that is your stance, then I would suggest that you institute a seperate sign up list for characters that want to participate in All vs All matches, instead of setting them up randomly. As you can see from this discussion, many are not happy with the current setup of those matches, and many have already expressed a desire to not participate in them any longer under the current format. I'll say this again. Ultimately, this should be about what we as a community want. If the majority of the community like the way these are run, then by all means, continue them as they are. I personally don't have an opinion on them one way or the other. I'd like to see some things changed, but I can live with them the way they are. Others care a great deal more. Therefore, they should be given the option to not participate in these types of matches. This should all be about what the majority wants. Heck, maybe a vote of some kind is in order here.
Caterane 09-12-05, 07:28 PM	That would make my job on wednesday much more difficult as I have to check and write down everyone who doesn't want to participate. In addition to that, the same exclusion could then be requested for team fights or monster fights and be assured that some will complain (like "I am stuck with a commoner as team mate"). See it as an aspect of the CoCo. Some don't like the credit system, others complain about handle animal, others don't like the 1/3 rule, and so on. I just cannot make everyone perfectly happy. But I can promise you one thing: that I will always think about proposals, and will always have a good explanation for my decisions.
xanadu 09-12-05, 07:34 PM	It seems to me there is a choice to be made here. Under the current system, the stress is on no teaming up. Teaming-up is pointless because rewards are tied directly to targets. Pitfall: Because rewards are tied to targets, sometimes rewards dont reflect what happened in the fight (i.e. Grik). What we can do is float an alternative, making the stress on fairer rewards . What I propose is the following: Our current system runs like this A-->B-->C-->D-->A Everyone gets a single target [direction of arrows]. You only get rewards for dropping your target. You are free to attack a non-target, but get no XP for doing so. In theory allows for defense, but sacrifices reflective rewards for the sake of preventing impromptu alliances. Rather than go all the way to anarchic FFA, we take what we have 1 step further with the following mechanic: A<-->B<-->C<-->D<-->A Everyone still gets a target [arrows going right]. You are free to attack a non-target, but gets no XP unless you are counterattacking your hunter [i.e arrows going to the left]. Allows for self-defense and accurate rewards, but raises the potential for makeshift alliance between A & C vs. B & D. Some thoughts. 1) Nothing is perfect. Something must be compromised. As there are complaints with rewards and unrealistic counterattacking options being compromised, why dont we at least try the proposed system which allows for counterattacks and realistic rewards? Yes, the sanctity of no alliances might be compromised, but let us at least give it ago before we throw away a scheme on the account of something which might happened that in reality, has not. 2) If you write in your tactics, team up with C because... then you are a tool and a loser and you should be ashamed to look at yourself in the mirror. Pitlords please disregard. 3) With the target system in place, there is still the incentive to get out there and fight. Last man will not work because it rewards camping. The target system works, the rewards need to match what happens in the arena. 4) You get winners rewards for each target defeated and for counterattacking your hunter which does something, really anything, to impede, hinder, or harm him in anyway. Yes, this means if you throw a dagger and do 2 HPs a damage, you get XP - that's D & D. It is necessary to have ironclad rules which obviate Pitlord arbitrainess (note just make sure you hit with the dagger, if you miss you haven't done anything to contribute to that gladiator's defeat).
Luni 09-12-05, 07:44 PM	Compromise: A>B>C>A If a gladiator quickly drops his hunter, he gets full xp for it. Only under 2 conditions: A: His Hunters, Hunter hasn't left the starting box AND B: He hasn't cast an Harmful effect on his hunter. Harmful Effect include debuffs, throwing a rock at your opponent... eg. B locates A right off the bat, and drops him before C finishes buffing. This is easily encountered by leaving your starting box right away, but then, you are more easily visible. Edit: To be honest, this is probably too complicated... Aside: I think 4 Man "All vs All" fights are working fine. @Caterane: Go through some of the 3 way All vs All fights. You'll see people saying, "If the other two guys are fighting, wait them out"
Snommelp 09-12-05, 08:03 PM	No. It depends on how you define the fight type in the rules. If you kill your team mate in a team fight, you get no XP either. Unfair, period? No, because it's in the rules that you don't get XP for killed team mates. And in an All vs All fight (that's the official title; not FFA) the rules are that you get only XP for your target. If the name FFA or All vs All is misleading we can change that name to Assassin Game or something similar, and suddenly, the problem you mentioned is no problem anymore, because ....I just said it: these are the rules and you know them in advance. That said, let me now point you to the problems that will arise by dropping the target system, although that has been discussed to death already. Main problem: how to distribute rewards? For the last strike? => Vulture tactic and unfair. For a hit or an effect? => Shoot one arrow at each target and vanish to get full rewards. Pitlord decision? => yet more bickering about fights. Fact is that even the mere presence of a gladiator affects the whole fight. Bottom line: it's not possible. We need a system that is easy and crystal clear. You have a target and that's the one you have to defeat. That are the rules for this type of fight. PS: As for Guts, I don't know why he killed someone who wasn't his target. He can disable, deal non-lethal damage and come back for the final kill later when Grick is his target, or sunder his weapons. In any case, he knew the rules. I see a big difference here, Cat. Apparently, most people do. This is nothing like killing your mate in a team battle. This killing someone who wants to kill you, and then someone else getting the reward. As I've already mentioned, vulture tactics won't be a problem in the long run. Anyone who uses these tactics once will be black-listed; everyone will know it and most will decide to kill that character first. As for the Grik fight, LG is supposed to mimic a campaign, right? Let's take it from a campaign viewpoint. It's got to be Ysgard to explain the resurrecting, but other than that, it's still all Core. Three people, none allies, meet in Ysgard and for some reason or another fight. Grik kills Kregor, so Kregor gets no reward (translates to loser's share). Grik, however, gets no reward for the kill, for no other reason than the metagamed "he wasn't Grik's target." Nexa, who did nothing, gets the reward. How can you not see the problem with that? Yes, I knew the rules (after my pitlord told me). However, in keeping with the campaign mimicry, I chose to play Grik's mental scores appropriately. He defended himself, defeated a challenge, and got no reward because it wasn't the right challenge according to the DM's railroading rules. If this were a real campaign, I'd rail and complain even more than I am now. If you think it's too difficult to change All vs. All, either give us the option of not participating, or get rid of it. Otherwise, the protesting shall continue. EDIT: Changing the name to Assassin Game won't change the fact that, under the current rules, this format caters to specific builds. Every character here is built for arena combat, focusing on singles combat. Team battles cater to everyone because, at the very least, character A can distract character C while B follows his usual solo tactics to kill of D. In your Assassin Game, straight-forward builds have to go against their nature of "kill all who oppose me" and start adding contingencies like "run from B unless I see C dead, but attack B if he catches me, only not enough to kill him because then C will get my reward, and if C attacks B then I need to try to save B so that I can kill him later, but do it in a way that keeps B from attacking me." It's overly complicated for anyone who isn't a sneaky build. It's fitting that you should call it Assassin Game, because it only really caters to sneaky, assassin-like classes. I say again, keep it if you must, but if you won't change it, don't make it one of the options for a randomly generated fight. Second Edit: Don't you hate it when you have new ideas, but nobody else has posted? You feel awkward posting a second time, but on the other hand, you're afraid that if you merely edit, people who saw your post and ignored it won't get notification of the new info. Anyway, on to what I had planned to say. I just went back over the discussion, and it looks like there are a total of nine of us discussing this. Of those nine, Cat, you are the only one who does not think things need to be changed. The other eight of us don't like the way All vs. All fights work. Perhaps if there were others on your side, like in the debate over the 1/3 rule, I could see your point of "it's part of CoCo, deal with it." But when there is an overwhelming majority arguing against something, don't you think that maybe there really is something wrong? Maybe All vs. All fights should be taken off line. Definitely, they should be at least temporarily suspended until this debate is settled.
michael_noah 09-13-05, 09:00 AM	Re AllvAll: This is one of the things being added to the CoCo that make me think it's not the best place, because it's deviating from the straight Core mission. I commented on this before with the rules for skill use providing money and discounts, etc. Cat's response to me was very fair; essentially, "you don't have to use it if you don't want to, and it's not that huge an advantage if for those that do". This is completely different, because my characters can be forced into an AllvAll fight. It's a new environment in which to test my character - but as Snommelp has pointed out - it is an environment that I will never, ever see in a real campaign, and I have no interest whatsoever in testing my character in it. In fact, I'd be upset that my character was being forced into this manufactured environment with rewards based on some game, rather than what his main goal is - survival. Edit: Ok, so I can think of one time that it might show up in a real campaign. If I am being chased by, say, a law enforcement agent that believes I am to be killed, and I am a good character who doesn't want to just kill him back, but would rather go find and kill the real killer first... it might make sense. But not really, because after I kill the real killer, I'm just going to turn around and kill the law man anyway. Do you see what I mean?
Altaris13 09-13-05, 09:35 AM	I play Halo on-line. I LOVE to play Halo. I've spent months at a time playing Halo three to fours a night, four to six nights a week. Every second Sunday is Halo night for the group. Anywhere from four to ten of us get together, link systems and play FFA matches. 2 to 4 of that ten people often meet up on-line and play as a team. The FFA matches are fun, but none of us are really good at them. The nights that we team up are the most fun of all. Fighting against the world sucks. I know, I've been in RL situations that I had to defend myself against multiple attackers. Sometimes I had allies. In a few campaigns I've been in, player vs player combat/contention has occured. My group has no qualms about it. We have been together long enough that we as players & friends can handle it. There has been at least one recent occurance where I found myself fighting my own cohort, one of my own constructs, and two party members. One other party was in the mix, but not in directly confrontational manner, while the final party member sat on the side trying to figure out what was going on. There were three other NPCs involved, one of which was also attacking my PC. FFA's happen in campaigns sometimes. FFA's happen in life sometimes. FFA's happen in first person shooters a lot. I happen to like FFA's a lot. I have yet to be involved in one, but I do like the concept of them. I also happen to think that the Grik situation should be fixed. I, too, would be upset if someone else took the rewards for my hard work. People in general don't let that happen in real life, we shouldn't let it happen in a game where we actually have hard numbers to look at. I've looked back over the posts of the last couple days, and I think Xanadu's suggestion would be the best. Double-teaming is a concern, but I really doubt it will end up being a problem. After all, how well are people really going to work together when they know they'll end up fighting at some point. Besides, teaming up is a fair tactic. It happens in all sorts of mediums (novels, movies, Video/PC/TT games) constantly. After all, isn't that the usual reason for parties to gather?
Sindorin 09-13-05, 09:48 AM	I keep hearing "FFA FFA FFA" used over and over. The manner in which we are forced to fight is NOT an FFA. In an FFA if you kill A you get the same amount of points as you would if you killed player B. In our "FFAs" we are told that if we kill player "b" when player A is "still alive" we can't get any rewards for killing player b. I don't see why any of you think these All vs All things are the same thing - I'm pretty sure they are "All vs All" for a reason, why don't we MAKE THEM all vs all. End of story. It is definitely not an FFA, in an FFA I could kill whomever I wanted, camp wherever I wanted, etc. etc. and so forth.
Altaris13 09-13-05, 09:51 AM	I keep hearing "FFA FFA FFA" used over and over. The manner in which we are forced to fight is NOT an FFA. In an FFA if you kill A you get the same amount of points as you would if you killed player B. In our "FFAs" we are told that if we kill player "b" when player A is "still alive" we can't get any rewards for killing player b. I don't see why any of you think these All vs All things are the same thing - I'm pretty sure they are "All vs All" for a reason, why don't we MAKE THEM all vs all. End of story. It is definitely not an FFA, in an FFA I could kill whomever I wanted, camp wherever I wanted, etc. etc. and so forth. That is sort of my point Sindorin. All vs All is OK, but not with targets/rewards as is. I prefer a true FFA.
sloisel 09-13-05, 09:55 AM	That said, let me now point you to the problems that will arise by dropping the target system, although that has been discussed to death already. Main problem: how to distribute rewards? I don't know what you guys are talking about, but I think this kind of problem has probably been tackled before by gamblers and has a solution. Here's some ideas, off the top of my head. Assume all ECL3 to simplify the explanation. 1) Share each kill amongst all surviving gladiators. If A dies first, then B dies, leaving C as the winner, then A gets 0 kills, B gets 0.5 kills and C gets 1.5 kills. 2) When you combine this with the default XP for losing, if you have four or more participants you can get weird results, like getting less XP for killing one guy than for killing none at all. The solution is that instead of each fighter being worth 900XP, you automatically get the 300XP, plus 600XP per kill. So in the example, A gets 300XP, B gets 600XP and C gets 1200XP. 3) Another idea is to pool all the XP values together and give the loser 1 share of XP, the next guy has 2 shares, and so on. In this example, the pool would be 1800XP (because two people died) and there are 6 shares, each worth 300XP. A gets 300XP, B gets 600XP and C gets 900XP. If it were a foursome and C had died, the pool would be 2700XP, there would be 10 shares, each worth 270XP, and A would get 270XP, B gets 540, C gets 810 and D gets 1080. 4) You can also add the XP value of the survivor to the pool, then for the threesome A gets 450, B gets 900 and C gets 1350. Maybe a bit too much. As we all know, it's not reasonable to dole out XP by "amount of work done" because there's no objective way of measuring that, that's why the ideas I had are "survival" type ideas. This will also eliminate the 5000XP flukes for ECL3 fights. Sébastien Loisel
Caterane 09-13-05, 02:36 PM	Snommelp said it exactly right. "Every character here is built for arena combat, focusing on singles combat. In your Assassin Game, straight-forward builds have to go against their nature". That's the very purpose of this type of fights; to test builds in more situations. And that's why I am not going to drop All vs All fights. And we should call it Assassin Game from now on. That's more fitting and you know what you have to do in such a fight. Alright, what we can do is to discuss it anew. You know the problems. Give me solutions to them and I'll see what I can do. The system we have now isn't perfect but it's not bad either. The randomness - that it can hit anyone - makes sure that you don't build a character that is only good at one thing. The target system is not a real FFA but it is a stable system at least with clear rules that allow no interpretations. Another thing: changing the rules every once in a while just creates confusion. IF we're going to change the rules for FFA fights, then only if they're definately better; not to experiment and change them back when we see it won't work. Xanadu's Suggestion: A<->B<->C<->D<->A Let's put the danger of teaming up aside for a moment. If I would be in such a fight, I would hide as much as I can because if my hunter can't find me, he has a second target to pick, and if he defeats that one, he has yet another target to kill before beginning to find me. I can finish a weakened gladiator in the end. And I will get my XP because my targets will be killed by others. Just shoot an arrow at each opponent from the other side so that you have participated. Sloisels Suggestion: Free For All and XP shares based on who stands longer Hide/Avoid and get shares. Shoot once in a while so that you have participated. Both suggestions encourage avoid tactics and make the pitlords job more difficult. Who's going to wade into combat big time, suffering heavy damage only to find himself weakened against a fresh gladiator who buffed in the back all the while. And now we bring back our teaming up threat which we had put aside for a moment and we have yet another problem to solve.
Gonbow 09-13-05, 02:51 PM	"Xanadu's" fix, (post caterane response): Uhm. Change it so you only get exp for your targets if you kill them. That way, if you wait and finish off one person, you get exp for killing one person, not X people. New Problem: Hide and pick people off in other fights as soon as they get low. Solution: Cant think of one off hand, but it's better than Caterane's problem. Sloisel's Suggestion (post caterane response): You've got a point here, but if say, more than one person is hiding, they'll get flushed out eventually. Beating someone down and then going up against someone fresh is ALWAYS a problem, even if the fresh person wasn't trying to set it up like this. See: Yasha's big fight. Every time I closed with someone, they had just taken a beating from someone else, and my character finished them off in one blow, then moved on to her next target. And thusly, I killed /every single person/ in that battle without trying to set it up that way. So in essence, this is a 'problem' no matter WHAT people are trying to do. It's just slightly accented when someone purposefully tries to set it up. The only real problem with vulture tactics, imho is a case of a caster and two melee people. If the two melee people are going at it and the caster waits a bit, then fireballs and kills them both, getting credit for both kills, then that is a bit unfair. If the two melee people ignore each-other and gank the mage first, that's a bit unfair. Tough *******. Gank the mage first is ALWAYS a priority in TT, why should it be so shock-worthy here? Okay, that was a bit of a rant, I'm not sure what I was saying ^_^
NiQil 09-13-05, 03:04 PM	Snommelp said it exactly right. "Every character here is built for arena combat, focusing on singles combat. In your Assassin Game, straight-forward builds have to go against their nature". That's the very purpose of this type of fights; to test builds in more situations. And that's why I am not going to drop All vs All fights. And we should call it Assassin Game from now on. That's more fitting and you know what you have to do in such a fight. Alright, what we can do is to discuss it anew. You know the problems. Give me solutions to them and I'll see what I can do. The system we have now isn't perfect but it's not bad either. The randomness - that it can hit anyone - makes sure that you don't build a character that is only good at one thing. The target system is not a real FFA but it is a stable system at least with clear rules that allow no interpretations. Another thing: changing the rules every once in a while just creates confusion. IF we're going to change the rules for FFA fights, then only if they're definately better; not to experiment and change them back when we see it won't work. Xanadu's Suggestion: A<->B<->C<->D<->A Let's put the danger of teaming up aside for a moment. If I would be in such a fight, I would hide as much as I can because if my hunter can't find me, he has a second target to pick, and if he defeats that one, he has yet another target to kill before beginning to find me. I can finish a weakened gladiator in the end. And I will get my XP because my targets will be killed by others. Just shoot an arrow at each opponent from the other side so that you have participated. Sloisels Suggestion: Free For All and XP shares based on who stands longer Hide/Avoid and get shares. Shoot once in a while so that you have participated. Both suggestions encourage avoid tactics and make the pitlords job more difficult. Who's going to wade into combat big time, suffering heavy damage only to find himself weakened against a fresh gladiator who buffed in the back all the while. And now we bring back our teaming up threat which we had put aside for a moment and we have yet another problem to solve. I really don't think the hiding thing is an issue. With the 5 round rule, there is little chance that you can do so successfully. I think that basing gp/xp on shares is a bad idea, for the reason you stated. We should keep it on kills only. Some think this may result in vulturing, but I really don't see this, since you can't really specify in your tactics to "go after someone if they have less than 5 HP" or something. Primarily because, outside of casters with the appropriate spells, no character is going to know how close another character is to death. And the Pitlords should police this accordingly. Any such tactic submitted should just be considered an invalid tactic, much like invalid prebuffs are now. So, with that said, basing the rewards on kills still brings up the problem of the winner not receiving the highest share of xp/gp. First, I think we need to clarify the purpose of winning an All vs All match is. Is it to outlast all of your opponents, or is it to kill the most opponents? If we base it on the pretense that the purpose is to kill the most opponents, then the person getting the most xp/gp may very well be someone other than the last person standing. If we base it on the pretense that the purpose is to outlast to the end, then we definitely need to reward that person with the most xp/gp. I think that the purpose should be to outlast all of your opponents. Now, before the protesters say this will encourage hiding, think about that for a second. With that 5 round rule in effect, do you really think someone can realistically hide for the whole fight? I don't. Maybe it's just me. If we operate on the purpose being to outlast all of your opponents, then the rewards should be scaled based upon how long you last, but also also take into account who, if anyone, you kill. Something like this (assume ECL 3): a. Winner gets credit for each kill, or two winners shares, whichever is greater. b. 2nd place gets credit for each kill, or one winners share and one losers share, whichever is greater. c. 3rd place gets one winners share. d. 4th place gets one losers share. In this scenerio, 4th place would always get 300 xp/gp. 3rd place would get 900 xp/gp. This is given regardless of whether they kill anyone or not, since they lasted longer than 4th place. 2nd place would get either 1200 xp at the minimum, or have the ability to go as high as 1800 gp, if they killed both 3rd and 4th place. 1st place would get a minimum of 1800 gp, or a maximum of 2700 gp/xp for killing everyone else. There is the possibility here that both 1st and 2nd place could each receive 1800 gp/xp. In that scenerio, I think that is acceptable, since 2nd place did more killing, but 1st place lasted longer. I think that is fair. 1st place would still be declared the winner for lasting the longest. But this way 2nd place is not penalized for doing that extra work. In setting up the rewards this way, this gives the gladiators to go after whomever they wish. Yes, this may have multiple fighters going after the weakest opponent. That's life. Only the strong survive. In a 3 person All vs All, we would just scale them back to 1. 3rd place always gets losers share 2. 2nd place gets either credit for their kills or a double losers share, whichever is more. 3. 1st place gets credit for their kills, or 2 winners shares. Not really as many variables in a 3 person. Here again, it is possible that both 1st and 2nd get the same gp/xp, and if they each killed someone, that seems fair to me, even though 1st place is declared the winner. Thoughts/critisism/ridicule?
Sindorin 09-13-05, 03:06 PM	I say we vote whether or not we should drop the all vs. all fights. Open up a poll, and vote, gosh darn it. Stating obvious reasons as to why they should not appear furthermore is obviously not getting through or being considered.
Mind Rogue 09-13-05, 03:25 PM	I think for now that the All vs All's should be suspended since the whole thing is a giant can of worms that no one can straighten out to the appeasement of everyone else. To add in different situations then normal, replace what would have been all vs all fights with additional team fights.
xanadu 09-13-05, 03:28 PM	NiQil - Yes, I think any rewards system based on "survival" means avoid/hide. End of story. Tattoo of skate, run 5 rounds, shoot bow. Rinse, repeat. I will do that every single time. Some sort of incentive must exist to fight which is why i think targets are needed or Xp rewards directly tied into particpation are mandatory. Caterane - You must hit to participate. If you actually fire enough arrows to ensure you hit the other two gladiators (one of which will get you nothing because they aren't your hunter), that means you are participating more than hiding. While you may "win," the most XP you can possibly get is [1/2 winner's share (the gladiator you defeated in the end) + 1/2 winner's share (assuming you were active enough to actually hit you hunter)] which is not that great of a payday...and this is assuming a best case scenario and you win. I'd rather not have a gladiator employ those tactics, but hey the system cant be perfect. It's better than the Grik scenario. Also since you are being so passive, you'll never get very much rewards so you better beat that last glaiator for the 1/2 share and you better not hide too much to ensure you hit for the other 1/2. Whoever emerges out of the other 3 who are duking it out may lose, but they will still earn more XP than you. To me, that's a better scenario than Grik.
xanadu 09-13-05, 03:35 PM	If the two melee people ignore each-other and gank the mage first, that's a bit unfair. Tough *******. Gank the mage first is ALWAYS a priority in TT, why should it be so shock-worthy here? What exactly is "ganking" and what it "TT"? :D
Caterane 09-13-05, 03:55 PM	I have an idea on how to deal with the avoider problem: an arena that has no obstacles, and is smaller than the standard one. Or what about using the dungeon map for FFA fights? Or Vathelokai's alternative dungeon map. It's almost impossible to hide or aviod combat there. That might be the solution we're looking for, and we can make them truly FFA. The threat of teaming up is still there but we should use Xanadu's suggestion that you get the "Shame!" tag behind your name on the roster :D As a reward, we can now base it on the order of deaths. First one to die is the one who gets the fewest XP, and last man standing the most. Easy to calculate. What do you think?
NiQil 09-13-05, 03:57 PM	NiQil - Yes, I think any rewards system based on "survival" means avoid/hide. End of story. Tattoo of skate, run 5 rounds, shoot bow. Rinse, repeat. I will do that every single time. Some sort of incentive must exist to fight which is why i think targets are needed or Xp rewards directly tied into particpation are mandatory. Caterane - You must hit to participate. If you actually fire enough arrows to ensure you hit the other two gladiators (one of which will get you nothing because they aren't your hunter), that means you are participating more than hiding. While you may "win," the most XP you can possibly get is [1/2 winner's share (the gladiator you defeated in the end) + 1/2 winner's share (assuming you were active enough to actually hit you hunter)] which is not that great of a payday...and this is assuming a best case scenario and you win. I'd rather not have a gladiator employ those tactics, but hey the system cant be perfect. It's better than the Grik scenario. Also since you are being so passive, you'll never get very much rewards so you better beat that last glaiator for the 1/2 share and you better not hide too much to ensure you hit for the other 1/2. Whoever emerges out of the other 3 who are duking it out may lose, but they will still earn more XP than you. To me, that's a better scenario than Grik. If you really think that the avoid/hide thing would be such a big issue under the system I propose, then we can always use the idea that Altaris13 had, which is to shorten the 5 rd rule to a 3 rd rule. Makes it a lot harder to hide if you have to do something every 3 rounds. And, while you may be avoiding and hiding, there is no guarantee that you don't have the other 3 fighters all chasing you. Granted, you may luck out and no one immediately comes after you, but how can you really know for sure? If someone shows a pattern of running in hiding in their fights, who do you think everyone else is going to want to kill first? Lets flip it up a bit. Lets go the other way and use the "kill the most opponents" criteria as the goal to winning. The first inherent problem with this solution is that you could quite often have the last person standing not be the same as the person who killed the most. Now, lets take a look at the various proposals that call for getting credit for hitting someone (i.e. sharing the experience for a kill). The inherent flaw with this idea is that everyone is going to immediately come out and try to hit all three other opponents so they all get shares from those kills, and then nobody wins (figuratively speaking). I suppose one compromise would be to assign rewards purely based upon kills, but with the caveat that the last person standing always receive at least as much of a reward as the last person he killed if his kill reward would be less (not including penalites/rewards for allies, of course). This works out to the same system: 4th place always gets a losers share 3rd place gets credit for kills 2nd place gets credit for kills 1st place gets credit for kills, but always at least equal to 2nd place rewards. Under this scenerio, we would have 300 to 4th, either 900 or 300 to 3rd, either 300, 900 or 1800 for 2nd, and either 1800 or 2700 for 1st (since 1st cannot get less than 2nd). For a 3 person match: 3rd gets 300, 2nd gets either 300 or 900, and 1st gets either 900 or 1800. Same principle. This would solve the problem you mentioned, xanadu, in that you would have to kill to get rewards beyond a losers share. But it would still ensure that you can go after whomever you want, and it would give everyone credit for your kills, while still giving 1st place the victors mantle and the assurance of at least as much xp as 2nd. Thoughts, comments or ridicule?
michael_noah 09-13-05, 03:57 PM	In that situation, anyone that likes to hide, likes to buff, or, depending on the map, likes to use ranged weapons, is cheated...
NiQil 09-13-05, 03:59 PM	In that situation, anyone that likes to hide, likes to buff, or, depending on the map, likes to use ranged weapons, is cheated... Under mine, or Cat's? (I am guessing Cat's)
Caterane 09-13-05, 04:02 PM	@Michael: The same is then true for monster fights. Besides, it's not impossible; just difficult. After all, we want to see a fight, not sneakers or delayers.
michael_noah 09-13-05, 04:11 PM	I understand that the point of the All vs. All is to make a big messy fight for the crowd. However, what you're saying is that if my character is one that likes to sneak, or likes to buff (delay), that once every 4 or 5 or however many weeks - he just gets an automatic loss because he's not built to handle a big mess.
Caterane 09-13-05, 04:17 PM	And what would you do in a dungeon in a real campaign? Don't tell me you'll never end up in such a situation, or in melee in generel. Look Michael, we've been discussing this FFA thing for weeks and if there would be a better solution we would have found it by now. This is imo the most elegant solution that allows us to have true FFA fights with no targets and fair rewards.
NiQil 09-13-05, 04:19 PM	And what would you do in a dungeon in a real campaign? Don't tell me you'll never end up in such a situation, or in melee in generel. Look Michael, we've been discussing this FFA thing for weeks and if there would be a better solution we would have found it by now. This is imo the most elegant solution that allows us to have true FFA fights with no targets and fair rewards. LOL so I guess no one is looking at my 2nd proposal then...
michael_noah 09-13-05, 04:32 PM	LOL so I guess no one is looking at my 2nd proposal then... If I'm right about what your second proposal was, that is exactly the problem we're having. We've been looking at the FFA for weeks, and the most elegant solution still suffers from some of the same problems at its worst, and at its best tells a significant portion of the population (I think) that their character deserves to be thrown in a box with a half-giant to be pummelled to death. I think there might be a problem with FFA's in the arena.
NiQil 09-13-05, 04:35 PM	If I'm right about what your second proposal was, that is exactly the problem we're having. We've been looking at the FFA for weeks, and the most elegant solution still suffers from some of the same problems at its worst, and at its best tells a significant portion of the population (I think) that their character deserves to be thrown in a box with a half-giant to be pummelled to death. I think there might be a problem with FFA's in the arena. I really have no idea what you meant by most of this....my 2nd proposal was posted just after Cat's proposal regarding switching the matches to the dungeon. It solves the problem of avoidance, it lets you kill whomever you want and get credit for it, but it also assures that the 1st place person is not getting lesser rewards than anyone else.
michael_noah 09-13-05, 04:38 PM	I really have no idea what you meant by most of this....my 2nd proposal was posted just after Cat's proposal regarding switching the matches to the dungeon. It solves the problem of avoidance, it lets you kill whomever you want and get credit for it, but it also assures that the 1st place person is not getting lesser rewards than anyone else. Shucks. I thought your proposal was to put the FFAs on hold. Perhaps that was your first. You system looks like it solves a lot of the problems - but not that of "vultures", since it is based on kills.
xanadu 09-13-05, 04:41 PM	If you really think that the avoid/hide thing would be such a big issue under the system I propose, then we can always use the idea that Altaris13 had, which is to shorten the 5 rd rule to a 3 rd rule. Makes it a lot harder to hide if you have to do something every 3 rounds. Skate for 3 rounds, shoot bow, skate 3 rounds shoot bow. And, while you may be avoiding and hiding, there is no guarantee that you don't have the other 3 fighters all chasing you. Sure there is, if they are all close enough to chase me, they better be swinging sowrds at each other, it is a FFA afterall. Granted, you may luck out and no one immediately comes after you, but how can you really know for sure? If someone shows a pattern of running in hiding in their fights, who do you think everyone else is going to want to kill first? Easy, go ahead and chase me. I run like the wind. Now the other 2 guys attack the guy who wants to chase me. They all want to chase me? Jail for collusion and metagaming and not attacking eligible opponents. Lets flip it up a bit. Lets go the other way and use the "kill the most opponents" criteria as the goal to winning. The first inherent problem with this solution is that you could quite often have the last person standing not be the same as the person who killed the most. I dont see this is a problem. If you are last one standing because you used a potion of gaseous form you deserve least XP. There is a correlation between last one standing and "winning," not a causation. If one is last one standing, they don't deserve auotmatic winners share of XP. Now, lets take a look at the various proposals that call for getting credit for hitting someone (i.e. sharing the experience for a kill). The inherent flaw with this idea is that everyone is going to immediately come out and try to hit all three other opponents so they all get shares from those kills, and then nobody wins (figuratively speaking). I dont see this as a problem. In fact, everyone trying to hit everyone is precisely the enviornment we are trying to create, no?
Caterane 09-13-05, 04:43 PM	@Michael: 1) Monster fights do exactly the same. 2) You are not alone in that dungeon 3) It's not a pit If you take Vath's alternative dungeon map, remove the small statues, then there's no place to hide but enough to fight from a distance. http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/Vathelokai/CoCo%20Maps/cavern2.jpg
NiQil 09-13-05, 04:45 PM	Shucks. I thought your proposal was to put the FFAs on hold. Perhaps that was your first. You system looks like it solves a lot of the problems - but not that of "vultures", since it is based on kills. There is a problem with the vulture theory. The only people who will know how many HP anyone has is someone with the appropriate spell. Other than that, there is no way any other character can know how close to death another character is. But putting that aside for the moment, there is no way that I know of to eliminate both the vulture issue AND the avoidance issue. One or the other will come up in every format we come up with. Even in Cat's idea of changing to the dungeon arena, both are still an issue (although with almost no cover, the avoidance issue is less so). We are always going to have to deal with one or the other. Vulturing is much easier to counteract, since it is not something you can specify in tactics unless you have the appropriate spell to do so. Saying "let A and B beat on each other and then when one of them looks beat up go in and try and kill him" in your tactics in no way guarantees anything for the vulture. And it also leaves much to the interpretation of the pitlord as to when a tactic like this should be enacted. In short, we can't have our cake and eat it to. Either we deal with the vultures or the avoidance. The avoidance can be solved. Vultures can be solved. But I know of no way to solve both at the same time. I think vulturing is the lesser evil. After it happens once, do you really think other players will let it happen again?
michael_noah 09-13-05, 04:53 PM	Vultures might be taken care of. I'm not even that concerned about people writing it in their tactics. I'm concerned about almost disabling a person, then having someone come by to kill them - not with any intent to "vulture", maybe they happen to just be running by - and then getting no credit for what I did. We might also eliminate the avoidance problem, like Cat is doing. However, completely removing the ability to hide isn't the answer.
NiQil 09-13-05, 04:53 PM	@Michael: 1) Monster fights do exactly the same. 2) You are not alone in that dungeon 3) It's not a pit If you take Vath's alternative dungeon map, remove the small statues, then there's no place to hide but enough to fight from a distance. http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/Vathelokai/CoCo%20Maps/cavern2.jpg @Cat I personally think your idea is fairly close to optimum. An alternative would be to just take the standard arena map and remove all obstacles. Accomplishes the same thing, but gives a lot more room to maneuver in. This helps counteract the problem that archers, slash & dashers and spellcasters would have with the dungeon, which is lack of distance between targets. I personally like the idea of giving the rewards based on reverse order of death......however it seems that most want the rewards to be based on kills. But your idea, set in the arena map with none of the pillars (leave the rocks might still be feasible), could work rather well, I think.
Altaris13 09-13-05, 04:54 PM	I have an idea on how to deal with the avoider problem: an arena that has no obstacles, and is smaller than the standard one. Or what about using the dungeon map for FFA fights? Or Vathelokai's alternative dungeon map. It's almost impossible to hide or aviod combat there. That might be the solution we're looking for, and we can make them truly FFA. The threat of teaming up is still there but we should use Xanadu's suggestion that you get the "Shame!" tag behind your name on the roster :D As a reward, we can now base it on the order of deaths. First one to die is the one who gets the fewest XP, and last man standing the most. Easy to calculate. What do you think? Sounds cool to me. I would totally love to see a fat four person FFA in the dungeon. Mudfight anyone? :D They have to be all chicks, Cha 16 or better and nekkid! :P
xanadu 09-13-05, 04:54 PM	I have an idea on how to deal with the avoider problem: an arena that has no obstacles, and is smaller than the standard one. Or what about using the dungeon map for FFA fights? Or Vathelokai's alternative dungeon map. It's almost impossible to hide or aviod combat there. That might be the solution we're looking for, and we can make them truly FFA. The threat of teaming up is still there but we should use Xanadu's suggestion that you get the "Shame!" tag behind your name on the roster :D As a reward, we can now base it on the order of deaths. First one to die is the one who gets the fewest XP, and last man standing the most. Easy to calculate. What do you think? I like the alternative dungeon map. The only issue I might have are the number of statues in each corner which can act as a Leomund's Tiny Hut :). Maybe after 3 rounds your starting square turns into an lava pit or something to force you to get into the arena (yeah, bull rushes into the lava :P ). I agree the XP for oder of deaths is easiest to calculate but rewards skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, shoot bow, skate, skate, skate, skate, shoot bow tactics. LOL here's an idea. Each round you do something that consititutes participation, you get XP. There done. This way who lasts longest gets most xp but if they employ the cheezedick tactics up there they get nothing. Yes do this. I'll develope a more systematic and easy formula. Buffing, moving, and hiding don't count as participation. Attacks, spells, etc., do.
Altaris13 09-13-05, 04:56 PM	Is that /really/ a lava pit in the center? BULL RUSH!
NiQil 09-13-05, 04:58 PM	I like the alternative dungeon map. The only issue I might have are the number of statues in each corner which can act as a Leomund's Tiny Hut :). Maybe after 3 rounds your starting square turns into an lava pit or something to force you to get into the arena (yeah, bull rushes into the lava :P ). I agree the XP for oder of deaths is easiest to calculate but rewards skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, shoot bow, skate, skate, skate, skate, shoot bow tactics. LOL here's an idea. Each round you do something that consititutes participation, you get XP. There done. This way who lasts longest gets most xp but if they employ the cheezedick tactics up there they get nothing. Yes do this. I'll develope a more systematic and easy formula. Buffing, moving, and hiding don't count as participation. Attacks, spells, etc., do. The problem with skate skate skate shoot is that you are assuming you will not have anyone shooting back at you. With next to no cover, you can move around all you want, and people can still hit you. Avoidance solved. And if everyone chases you first, it would NOT be collusion unless you can prove it by the tactics that are posted. I, personally, would target an avoidance abuser first, just for trying to abuse the system. And I would say so in my tactics, in just that manner.
Mind Rogue 09-13-05, 05:01 PM	I have an idea on how to deal with the avoider problem: an arena that has no obstacles, and is smaller than the standard one. Or what about using the dungeon map for FFA fights? Or Vathelokai's alternative dungeon map. It's almost impossible to hide or aviod combat there. That might be the solution we're looking for, and we can make them truly FFA. The threat of teaming up is still there but we should use Xanadu's suggestion that you get the "Shame!" tag behind your name on the roster :D As a reward, we can now base it on the order of deaths. First one to die is the one who gets the fewest XP, and last man standing the most. Easy to calculate. What do you think? One word: One shot kills. If there are no obstacles and the place is smaller, it becomes a lot easier to kill somebody before they even have a chance to act. A mounted warrior with Spirited Charge and a decent strength would just decimate whoever was unlucky enough to be on the recieving end of the charge (3d8 +9 is not unreasonable, dealing on average 22 damage which can disable over half of the 3rd level gladiators in one fell swoop). Likewise, an archer with rapid shot could easily pelt someone for 2d8 +6, which will leave someone really pretty badly. Just as bad for some people, a wizard with a scroll could stick you for a 3d4+3 magic missile right off the bat for an average of 10 damage, which will destroy some spellcasters out there. If he pulls off fireball instead, 5d6 damage averages out to being 17. Probably a little more likely, a kineticist with Energy Missile could pull it off right off the bat for about 10 damage to you and any allies you brought along. This is also only using attack forms with a range of at least 120 ft: if you start everyone off at close range, a lucky wilder could hit you for 5d10 from a mind thrust. The dungeon map isn't really that much better for it. The entire map is only 150 ft across, so any of the tactics listed above would theoretically work there, although they would generally have to wait until the second turn. However, a monk, barbarian, or character with speed of thought could run all the way over to the entry way over to the other starting areas and essentially block them in (because they would have to provoke an attack of opportunity to get out to the central area. In a 4 person true FFA, you could easily fight against that person, who is likely expecting to recieve a round or two to buff and is therefore ill-prepared (spotted before they even get 1 buff in and attacked in melee before two) while the other two players will duke it out in the center after they have buffed a little. Also, a wizard or archer who has boots of springing and striding or other speed enhancement can shoot the person on the far side of them at 120 ft on the first round, and for someone who can amass an even higher speed, such as by riding a mount, it is possible to fire into any starting point on the first turn. In fact, a psion who is riding a light warhorse and manifests skate on the mount on the first turn can base one of the players in either adjacent box on the first turn, no mater which square in their box they start in.
Snommelp 09-13-05, 05:24 PM	Cat: I like your new solution. I think it's the closest to fixed that this situation can get. A smaller map and no targets means that vultures have no place to hide, and people will get the rewards they deserve for fighting to the best of their ability. I also like the "Shame" tag, but even if we don't do that, there's still a phantom "Shame" tag in the list of previous fights. To get around one shot kills (those always get brought into these things), how about we keep those guardian statues and raise the pit? No one shot kills, and any would-be vultures are in easy reach. Mind Rogue brought up that fast characters could theoretically catch one character unprepared and force them to either do nothing or get hit with an AoO. My response: five foot step, or withdraw. Neither provoke AoOs, both get you away from the monk/barbarian/whatever. With the five foot step, you can even get your buffs, too. EDIT: If you'd like to test how well this idea would work, I'd be willing to sacrifice a week of Grik's time to make him a guinea pig. I'd offer Sam, too, expect he's questing starting this week.
Usurpator 09-13-05, 05:25 PM	I'm all for FFA's based on kills. I'm against FFA's based on last man standing. The last man standing idea is a good one for non D&D gladiatorial combat, when gladiators cannot turn invisible, fly, meld into stone, skate or whatever. There is no reason we cannot have our cake and eat it too though, since we can have both types. Then the avoiders will be happy at times, and the vultures happy at other times. I propose two types of FFA's: 1. Last Man Standing 2. Meatgrinder There have been a lot of good ideas thrown around, we can use this to fill in the blanks of both types of FFA. I just don't think we can merge the two types of battles into one and keep everybody reasonable satisfied with the format. Oh yeah, forced targeting has no place in either type, IMO.
NiQil 09-13-05, 05:28 PM	Cat: I like your new solution. I think it's the closest to fixed that this situation can get. A smaller map and no targets means that vultures have no place to hide, and people will get the rewards they deserve for fighting to the best of their ability. I also like the "Shame" tag, but even if we don't do that, there's still a phantom "Shame" tag in the list of previous fights. To get around one shot kills (those always get brought into these things), how about we keep those guardian statues and raise the pit? No one shot kills, and any would-be vultures are in easy reach. Mind Rogue brought up that fast characters could theoretically catch one character unprepared and force them to either do nothing or get hit with an AoO. My response: five foot step, or withdraw. Neither provoke AoOs, both get you away from the monk/barbarian/whatever. With the five foot step, you can even get your buffs, too. That is why I had recommended just using the arena map and removing all of the pillars but keeping the rocks. It gives some few places for cover, but not very many, and it does not handicap archers, buffers, or people who like to maneuver as their primary tactic. We could even remove the rocks, if people don't like them, which would just eliminate cover altogether. The larger size of the arena prevents people from covering the distance as quickly. Edit: I am also ok with the dungeon map, though I am more in favor of the modified arena map. Either would be preferable to what we have now, though. And, like Snommelp, I would be willing to offer up Methos for a test, if you are so inclined.
Sindorin 09-13-05, 05:42 PM	Can we consider lowering the 1/3 rule to 1/2 in a multiplayer fight (i.e. a fight with more than two gladiatorial participants)? I'm sorry about the tangent from the current discussion, I'm just curious as to what people respond with.
NiQil 09-13-05, 05:44 PM	Can we consider lowering the 1/3 rule to 1/2 in a multiplayer fight (i.e. a fight with more than two gladiatorial participants)? I'm sorry about the tangent from the current discussion, I'm just curious as to what people respond with. As much as I would love to have more spells and whatnot for casters and manifesters, I think it has been proven that the 1/3 rule is working, since casters are not totally dominating this arena, which is the intent behind the rule. I see no reason to change it.
Luni 09-13-05, 05:46 PM	One word: One shot kills. If there are no obstacles and the place is smaller, it becomes a lot easier to kill somebody before they even have a chance to act. A mounted warrior with Spirited Charge and a decent strength would just decimate whoever was unlucky enough to be on the recieving end of the charge (3d8 +9 is not unreasonable, dealing on average 22 damage which can disable over half of the 3rd level gladiators in one fell swoop). Likewise, an archer with rapid shot could easily pelt someone for 2d8 +6, which will leave someone really pretty badly. Just as bad for some people, a wizard with a scroll could stick you for a 3d4+3 magic missile right off the bat for an average of 10 damage, which will destroy some spellcasters out there. If he pulls off fireball instead, 5d6 damage averages out to being 17. Probably a little more likely, a kineticist with Energy Missile could pull it off right off the bat for about 10 damage to you and any allies you brought along. This is also only using attack forms with a range of at least 120 ft: if you start everyone off at close range, a lucky wilder could hit you for 5d10 from a mind thrust. The dungeon map isn't really that much better for it. The entire map is only 150 ft across, so any of the tactics listed above would theoretically work there, although they would generally have to wait until the second turn. However, a monk, barbarian, or character with speed of thought could run all the way over to the entry way over to the other starting areas and essentially block them in (because they would have to provoke an attack of opportunity to get out to the central area. In a 4 person true FFA, you could easily fight against that person, who is likely expecting to recieve a round or two to buff and is therefore ill-prepared (spotted before they even get 1 buff in and attacked in melee before two) while the other two players will duke it out in the center after they have buffed a little. Also, a wizard or archer who has boots of springing and striding or other speed enhancement can shoot the person on the far side of them at 120 ft on the first round, and for someone who can amass an even higher speed, such as by riding a mount, it is possible to fire into any starting point on the first turn. In fact, a psion who is riding a light warhorse and manifests skate on the mount on the first turn can base one of the players in either adjacent box on the first turn, no mater which square in their box they start in. We are getting one shot kills in the standard arena. If we make the pit, say 5-10' deep, no one is going to be charging from one level to another.
Mind Rogue 09-13-05, 05:51 PM	I think that this revised map might still be a little close since someone with a light warhorse can still base you on the first turn, provided that you start in one of the adjacent boxes. It's also possible for an archer-type to shoot someone in the opposite box on the first turn. I also don't like how the map essentially forces you to either run around the perimeter, run around the edge and then run down the stairs, or else just jump off the edge and take falling damage to get down. Raised platforms might be interesting, which would give the option of bull rushing someone into the pit, but keeping track of who is in the under the platform and who is under it might annoy some pitlords, plus obstacles would have to be placed onto it so that you can't see across it. However, I like the idea of raised and lowered sections of the map. Oh, it's also possible to throw a fireball from inside your starting block so that it can hit somebody in another box, no matter where they are standing. With a single move action, it is possible to throw it into the opposite box. As for withdrawing or 5 ft steping away from someone who bases you on the first turn, that is not always an option. They could easily carry a glaive and spiked armor or gauntlets, making this impossible. Additionally, if you 5-ft step and buff, you are wasting turns where your foe is pounding down on you, but if you don't you are highly vulnerable to his attacks. Remember, if he based you on the first turn, withdrawing is not likely to do anything because he can outrun you.
Snommelp 09-13-05, 06:13 PM	I think that this revised map might still be a little close since someone with a light warhorse can still base you on the first turn, provided that you start in one of the adjacent boxes. It's also possible for an archer-type to shoot someone in the opposite box on the first turn. I also don't like how the map essentially forces you to either run around the perimeter, run around the edge and then run down the stairs, or else just jump off the edge and take falling damage to get down. Raised platforms might be interesting, which would give the option of bull rushing someone into the pit, but keeping track of who is in the under the platform and who is under it might annoy some pitlords, plus obstacles would have to be placed onto it so that you can't see across it. However, I like the idea of raised and lowered sections of the map. Oh, it's also possible to throw a fireball from inside your starting block so that it can hit somebody in another box, no matter where they are standing. With a single move action, it is possible to throw it into the opposite box. As for withdrawing or 5 ft steping away from someone who bases you on the first turn, that is not always an option. They could easily carry a glaive and spiked armor or gauntlets, making this impossible. Additionally, if you 5-ft step and buff, you are wasting turns where your foe is pounding down on you, but if you don't you are highly vulnerable to his attacks. Remember, if he based you on the first turn, withdrawing is not likely to do anything because he can outrun you. All of the situations you mention are possible - if we remove the statues. The only reason we would remove the statues is to prevent what has become known as vulture tactics. I personally don't think vulture tactics will be an issue anyway; let's leave the statues and see what happens. If we make the edge only 5 feet or so, jumping down won't result in fall damage, so that's not an issue.
NiQil 09-13-05, 06:22 PM	:banghead: Alright...maybe it's just me. So let me ask... For those that advocate Cat's idea of an arena with many fewer obstacles, which would you prefer? The alternate arena map Vath made that Cat used for his example with the statues removed? Or the standard arena map with the pillars (and maybe the rocks) removed? I personally would prefer the altered standard map, as opposed to Vath's map, since the standard map is so much bigger.
Caterane 09-13-05, 06:29 PM	Several things speak for the dungeon map: - Movement is already dominating the standard arena. In a real campaign however, you won't have so much space very often. Putting FFA fights into a dungeon together with Monster fights evens that out, somewhat. - A FFA fight, especially with 4 players, is very difficult to run. The bigger the arena, the more difficult it is to run the fight. We should make it as easy as possible for our Pitlords. - Obstacles or not, the standard arena is just too big. You can use a mount or spells to keep away. Melee is very difficult to get in in there, and not possible at all without a mount that is faster than the opponent's speed. Avoiders can still avoid there. - The standard map favors casters and archers, the FFA map favors melee builds, even on high levels.
Snommelp 09-13-05, 06:30 PM	Sorry if I made you hurt your head, NiQil. I'm with you; I like the idea of the Standard map sans pillars, but still with rocks. Enough cover to thwart chargers if you're careful, not enough for hide and wait tactics. EDIT: Cat makes good points too, though. Um... I guess I'm still up in the air.
Gonbow 09-13-05, 06:30 PM	How about the dungeon map with all the obstacles removed; and the middle section/4x2 sections in each of the radial deictions raised? So no LOS on the first turn, but on the second turn, LOS from anywhere in the center to anywhere on the map? That's a good comprimise between an open battlefield and no insta-kills. Someone else suggested this and I second this.
xanadu 09-13-05, 06:33 PM	:banghead: Alright...maybe it's just me. So let me ask... For those that advocate Cat's idea of an arena with many fewer obstacles, which would you prefer? The alternate arena map Vath made that Cat used for his example with the statues removed? Or the standard arena map with the pillars (and maybe the rocks) removed? I personally would prefer the altered standard map, as opposed to Vath's map, since the standard map is so much bigger. No, Vath's map. This is a pitfight. The smaller the better as less vulching and less avoiding.
NiQil 09-13-05, 06:35 PM	Several things speak for the dungeon map: - Movement is already dominating the standard arena. In a real campaign however, you won't have so much space very often. Putting FFA fights into a dungeon together with Monster fights evens that out, somewhat. - A FFA fight, especially with 4 players, is very difficult to run. The bigger the arena, the more difficult it is to run the fight. We should make it as easy as possible for our Pitlords. - Obstacles or not, the standard arena is just too big. You can use a mount or spells to keep away. Melee is very difficult to get in in there, and not possible at all without a mount that is faster than the opponent's speed. Avoiders can still avoid there. - The standard map favors casters and archers, the FFA map favors melee builds, even on high levels. I'll give you all of these points...can't dispute them. I was just trying to eliminate the 1 round kills. Gonbow has a very good idea. Invert the alternate arena map. Make the 4 starting squares low ground around a raised area in the middle. However, instead of having the starting boxes in the 4 corners, I would set them up in a compass configuration like the standard arena map, so that LOS is not able to be obtained on round 1 by anyone. Movement, either around the based of the raised middle, or up and across it, would be required to gain LOS. I think this would make for a very interesting arena if set up in this way.
Mind Rogue 09-13-05, 08:14 PM	All of the situations you mention are possible - if we remove the statues. The only reason we would remove the statues is to prevent what has become known as vulture tactics. I personally don't think vulture tactics will be an issue anyway; let's leave the statues and see what happens. If we make the edge only 5 feet or so, jumping down won't result in fall damage, so that's not an issue. Not quite. Even with the statues, these situations are possible: A wizard could stand in the square closest to the center of Vath's map and chuck a fireball into one of the adjacent starting points. Because of the blast radius, it will hit somebody standing in the default spot and cover the front half. If you instead stand in the back square, you can cover the rear half instead. If you start in the corner closest to the ramps you can actually take a single move action to gain line of sight to an opponent in the default square of the opposite box, and if your speed is at least 40, you can get it to the opposite adjacent box as well. Furthermore, if your speed is at least 60, you can base the opponent in the near adjacent box on the first turn, no matter which square they decide to start in. Thus, if you have a bow, a horse, and a glaive, you can either attack one of two of your opponents or base the third all on the first turn.
Snommelp 09-13-05, 10:06 PM	My bad. I modified the map in my head without realizing it. On the map in my head, the outer rim walkways are only 5 feet wide, so a horse would have to squeeze. In my head, the starting boxes were also almost completely shielded by the statues; I think I made the starting boxes smaller in my mind. Just ignore me.
Caterane 09-14-05, 06:33 AM	Ok, after two excursions please let us get back to GUILDS! I have an idea that I want to develop together with all of you. Let's call it Living Guilds because it puts a lot of life into Gladius. What I will now propose is incomplete and just a first idea. -------- LIVING GUILDS Guild Income: Every Guild has an income which is based on its members. For example, we could say that 10% of a characters income (win/loss) goes to the Guild. Later, Guilds may have more sources of income (see below). Every Guild starts with a certain amount of starting gold. With the Guild money, Guilds could also buy certain facilities outside their Base of Operations (see below). A marketplace, a church that earns tithings, and many more could all bring additional income based on in which district of Gladius they are (see below). Base of Operations: Guilds can use their money to buy all kinds of things. For example, they can and have to build up a base of operations which can have any form that fits the Guild theme. We will provide a list with room types (I found that in the Stronghold Builders Guide) that can be bought with the Guild money. Such rooms have a purpose each. For example, you need 'Barracks' to host your members. Let's say, one Barrack Room Block (costs eg. 5000 gp) can hold up to 5 low-level members. For higher level characters, you'd need different rooms. An alchemical room could grant a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus to Craft Alchemy, or a Trophy Room can hold defeated monsters which gives a certain bonus, depending on which monsters are in there brought from Quests. There can be all kinds of room types. For special flair, we can grant every guild one Special Room only available to them which grants a special bonus, but is also more expensive; perhaps to get the Powertoken. Example: if the Celestial Forces are the top guild, they can apply the celestial template to their allies as powertoken. In order to do that, they'd need to build the 'Planar Gate to Celestia' first (for money). That system works a bit like those Command & Conquer or Warcraft Computer Games where you can buy buildings that do things, only that you buy rooms here instead. Since the rooms have an effect on the character, the 10% tax is not wasted. The Guild can for example count as "Base of Operations" for leadership purposes. Higher Level PCs are of course more valuable to a Guild in that case but you'd also need a Fancy Room (10000 gp for 1 PC?) for such a character. That way, the Guild can build and expand its base of operations as they wish. We would use a mapmaker to create the map, and every time you buy a new room or walls, it will be added to that map. That can be expanded as much as we wish. We could for example say that you have a certain amount of base space of ground, and once this is full you have to build up (2nd story) or down (basement), or buy new ground (if available, depending on the district; see below). Guild Facilities: Similarily to expanding their base, guilds can also buy buildings or facilities in Gladius. For example, if your guild buys a marketplace, it will gain extra income. For some guilds certain facilities may work better while others might not be available at all. We can build a whole economic system around that. Warehouses might give a bonus to marketplaces, or have a different effect, a chapel might earn tithes, and so on. Facilities should be upgradable so that the chapel might become a church, or a cathedral even. We have to come up with a list of facilities and their effects. Districts: Every Guild operates in one of the districts of Gladius (which we have to develop first). Every district has certain stats that have a direct impact on the facilities a guild owns there. A thieves guild would be well advised not to focus on the rich district with heavy police but more on the poorer areas of Gladius with the appropriate stats (eg security level low). Other Guilds in that district have an impact on the district stats. So if the Celestial Forces have their base of operations in a district, its stats change accordingly. Guilds could also be limited to their district. If they want to expand into another district, they'd have to fight the dominant guild(s) there. Guild District Traits: Every Guild gets some traits that affect the district stats. Simple example: The EHTC as a trading company would improve the 'Economy' stat of that district by 1 but decrease 'Faith' accordingly, while the GSIS could increase 'Security'. That means marketplaces would benefit from EHTC prescence while temples suffer drawbacks. We have to come up with a number of key stats and traits so that it encompasses all guild types and all kinds of facilities one can buy. Guild Defenses: In order to protect your guild from attacks, or make it more difficult to attack, or give you advantages when defending your guild, a guild can buy certain things that help in the defense. This works similarily to buying rooms. Here, you can add a wall around your compound (cost depends on height, length, and material) and/or watchtowers which forces others to climb over it and hide better from the Watchtowers. To prevent teleportation you could buy a dimensional lock field or a permanent invisibility purge to spoil invisible sneakers. All these safeguards will have an impact on your defensive capabilities. And it costs Guild Money of course. PCs may spend their own money to improve the guild defenses if they wish to do so, or can cast these spells on their own. All defenses should be in line with the guild type. A druid's guild should not live behind tons of adamantine although they might have other benefits not available to others, like having their base up in the savety of trees. NPC Guild Members: Similarily to defensive buildings, a guild might have guardians that range from a guard dog to some soldiers to a mighty beast. Traps might be another way to make your guild more secure. And of course the guild members themselves. But a guild consists of more than just the few members. It needs cooks, maidens, soldiers, workers, and whatever fits the type of the guild. These laborers must be hired and payed. The kind and amount of laborers depends on the guild, its size, and the buildings it owns. That way, a guild is not a deserted place but a bustling organization that may encompass hundreds of people, with the PCs being the top guys of course. Inter-Guild Operations: Instead of making it just team arena battles, I think we should make them more interesting, with many more options. The most basic ones can be team fights on the street (with a new map) but it can be as complicated as an attack on the base of operations with all its safeguards. Inter-Guild Wars cost money. That way, you don't just challenge around like if there's no tomorow, especially not without reason. Example: every character that will be sent on a mission costs 100/ECL to activate. Reasons for wars could be all kind of things now with these new ideas. Perhaps you want to sabotage a room or facility of another guild to weaken it? Remove a protective spell from a base so that you can scry or use invisibility in your next mission? Perhaps you want to capture a member of another guild and throw him in your prison (which you have to buy first)? Or even destroy their marketplace? Or get a foot in their district? The options can be endless. Inter-Guild Wars: Unlike Operations which feature the characters, guilds can do open warfare which will be based on their army. Basically a mass battle will take place, and the amount and power of (NPC-) soldiers determines the outcome. We have to develop a good system that deals with this kind of battle. There's a lot of potential in there. Guild Upkeep: All that needs to be balanced towards the guild power. It shouldn't be that a highlevel PC enters a new guild and instantly donates thousands of gold, or that a guild just buys a hundred watchtowers or miniquests every week until it has a zoo of guardians. For that reason, we need to introduce "Guild Upkeeps". Every room you add to your guild costs a weekly amount of guild gold, as does every guardian or trap depending on its CR, and all laborers. That means, you cannot just expand like you want but must keep the size of your guild in line with the number of its members. That way, guilds with many members have bigger bases of operation. Base Requirements: Guilds start at the lowest level possible with probably only a handful of lowlevel members available. If now a lvl 19 PC enters that guild, the gap will be too big for the guild. To fix that, a Guild begins with (example) a barrack that holds 5 characters of low level (ECL 3-6; the yellow leagues). To get higher PCs, it needs to buy fancier rooms which cost more gold - more than they currently have. That way, new guilds start slowly and begin to rise appropriately instead of just being bumped to high level by the prescence of a single powerful PC. Similarily to that, we can make certain room blocks mandatory if a guild wants to ascend above a certain powerlevel. For example, the Celestial Forces would need to improve their chapel (eg 5000 gp) to a church (eg 15000 gp) if they want to rise to powerlevel (eg) 7 (mid-level), and they'd need a Cleric of mid-level. All that assures a steady progression of Guilds and adds a lot of fun in slowly developing the guild from a small gathering of thugs to an all-powerful intercontinental organization. There can be much more - perhaps a Sea-Addon which includes ships that you need to buy and equip, or an Intercity-Addon which lets you trade with other cities on the map; the farther away the more profitable. But I want to hear your comments on that first, especially more ideas on how to do inter-guild wars/battles. IMO this will bring Gladius to life in a way we haven't dreamt before. The workload is distributed among all guildmembers of the CoCo, the Guildlords Elder (Tellish of Ket), and me of course. @Vath: Yes, as a base for ideas. The prices and effects of rooms and facilities need to be adapted to the CoCo though. We cannot take it over one to one.
Vathelokai 09-14-05, 07:03 AM	Wow. Are you wanting to use the stronghold builders guide as a baseline for these rules? *edit* Answered before I could ask the question :rolleyes:
Pittbull 09-14-05, 08:21 AM	Do we have any on-line resource for the calculation of the building of bases? Districts: Will we have a map of Gladius? All in all, I like your ideas!
Vathelokai 09-14-05, 08:25 AM	Guild income Love it. Though I think donations to the guild would be cool too. Base of operations Some of the guilds already have a location. TAO has been described in a couple stories. GSIS has a map posted. TLT would be super cheap and could spend all their money on defense. I think there should be a generous base to start from. It would make no sense for the arcane campus to be one small building; even less for GSIS to start out unequiped by the city. I'll call it the 'core area.' The core area should be free, give no benifits or hinderences and take up no more then 10 acres. It can be mapped at the guildmasters discression. The other option I can think of is to evict TAO from its halls. Or have the bulk of the campus destroyed. If we really need to start everything from scratch, I can write up a scenerio, but wizards like a place with history. The core area can be added upon by purchasing add-ons as you describe. Without a core area, the initial investment to start a guild would be beyond the means of the 5 characters starting it. I think the Guildlord should have a master list of what add-ons exist. It could get unwieldly to allow the guilds to create new ones whenever they have saved up a bunch of money. Districts LLMadCow created a description of the districts back in the day. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=3463300&postcount=3) Shall we use it? Can we work out a rough description of the size of the city? As for giving the districts stats, I think we should hold off on that. It would have little effect on the game as it stands. If later there is a need for it, then lets work on it then. Inter-guild operation I think this is what everyone wants :D I don't really see a need to put a price tag on it. I think limiting it to once a week would work out fine. Inter-guild wars This is another one I think we should wait on. I think the mass battle would take things a bit far out of the relm of D&D. overall I think it's great, but we should start slow.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 09:01 AM	Wow Cat. Just, wow. Very well thought out. I see a lot of work involved, but I think it will be very cool.
Caterane 09-14-05, 09:23 AM	@Vath: Sorry but just as all guilds had to start anew, all guilds will have to follow the same rules. Just because Tellish borrowed a grand map from the WotC homepage doesn't mean he gets the Base of a Lvl 20 guild for free. What we will do is to give every guild a certain amount of starting wealth with which it can buy its basic first rooms depending on the style. Although Guilds will use different bases, the TLT won't be a hut in the trees nor will the Celestial Forces start in a huge castle. I don't care about the roleplaying explanation but if you definately need one and put that higher than solving the complexity of the technical issues, then just assume that half the city (incl all guilds) had been destroyed in the Year of Hell. Finally, the districts will have to be created anew but we can base them on LLMadCow's existing ones. For guidelines: Gladius is a metropolis with ~100.000 inhabitants. @Pittbull: Map of Gladius: yes. Ressource: no, but we have to use the CoCo as a base anyway.
Luni 09-14-05, 11:22 AM	Wow, Caterane that is a lot of work! I don't get to run a hut in the trees? :D I like the concept so far, just want to think about it some more.
SoulLord 09-14-05, 11:45 AM	I have some concerns regarding the donations. there is the possibility that lots of characters could be created just for the purpose of donating their money and then 'retiring' sure the guild entrance requirements could offset this, but still is a concern. Taxes: if members get charged 10% of their income they should get a benefit that represents that 10% lost
Luni 09-14-05, 11:51 AM	I have some concerns regarding the donations. there is the possibility that lots of characters could be created just for the purpose of donating their money and then 'retiring' sure the guild entrance requirements could offset this, but still is a concern. Taxes: if members get charged 10% of their income they should get a benefit that represents that 10% lost We'll sent you out armed with a crowbar, Soullord. I don't think any people would want to go to all the trouble of creating a character, spending the credits on having 3 characters active, just to give their guild what? 30-90 gp/week at level 3? As for rewards, someone who wants to buy a Hippogriff and joins TLT, and has their HA skill bumped up enough to train it, gets to save 1000 gp! The GSIS Gather Info bonus applies directly to savings. The TAO get to make extra money from profession skills.
NiQil 09-14-05, 11:52 AM	I have some concerns regarding the donations. there is the possibility that lots of characters could be created just for the purpose of donating their money and then 'retiring' sure the guild entrance requirements could offset this, but still is a concern. Taxes: if members get charged 10% of their income they should get a benefit that represents that 10% lost That shares some of my concern as well. Also, at low levels, that 10% is a hefty chunk of income. You figure from the starting 3000 every ECL 3 gets...that's 300 gp. That's pretty huge to an entry-level character here. For winning a fight, that is 90 gp at ECL 3. Again...that seems way too much to charge to roleplay a character. And that puts those characters at a fairly large disadvantage vs characters not in guilds. A tax of that type is definitely enough all by itself to cause me to not want to join any of the guilds with my characters.
Luni 09-14-05, 11:54 AM	That shares some of my concern as well. Also, at low levels, that 10% is a hefty chunk of income. You figure from the starting 3000 every ECL 3 gets...that's 300 gp. That's pretty huge to an entry-level character here. For winning a fight, that is 90 gp at ECL 3. Again...that seems way to much to charge to roleplay a character. And that puts those characters at a fairly large disadvantage vs characters not in guilds. A tax of that type is definitely enough all by itself to cause me to not want to join any of the guilds with my characters. It will not affect the starting money a character gets, as a character must MQ or quest to join the guild.
NiQil 09-14-05, 11:58 AM	It will not affect the starting money a character gets, as a character must MQ or quest to join the guild. Even so...the MQ or Q reward gets taxed....every battle you have gets taxed...I just think that is way overboard since the guilds were supposed to be a "free" place to roleplay your characters. That idea seems to now be getting pushed down the drain with this tax idea. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it really is a feasible idea. But I think the tax thing is a bad idea. What we are basically saying is that instead of paying credits to be in a guild, just pay gold from your character. It still amounts to the same thing. You are still paying to roleplay, which is totally opposite of what the guilds are supposed to be about.
Pitlords 09-14-05, 12:16 PM	NiQil, you pay 90 gp of your 900, or 30 if you lose. That's like using a lvl 1 scroll and is absolutely affordable. And it's not that this is a roleplaying tax. You get a lot back; much more than you pay in. The EHTC token for example can save you tens of thousands later; others do the same as Luni has pointed out. You said it exactly right: Guilds must be balanced against non-guild members and I think Tax vs Token is a very good trade-off. You are free not to agree and keep away from Guilds as you have been until now. According to your theory you'd even be at an advantage then. I agree however that donations are a bad idea. Let's forget about it and reduce guild-incomes to taxes and facility earnings only.
NiQil 09-14-05, 12:26 PM	NiQil, you pay 90 gp of your 900, or 30 if you lose. That's like using a lvl 1 scroll and is absolutely affordable. And it's not that this is a roleplaying tax. You get a lot back; much more than you pay in. The EHTC token for example can save you tens of thousands later; others do the same as Luni has pointed out. You said it exactly right: Guilds must be balanced against non-guild members and I think Tax vs Token is a very good trade-off. You are free not to agree and keep away from Guilds as you have been until now. According to your theory you'd even be at an advantage then. I agree however that donations are a bad idea. Let's forget about it and reduce guild-incomes to taxes and facility earnings only. The point is that I *want to be able to access the guilds. But just because I am joining a guild to be able to roleplay a character does not mean that the character I am using will ever take advantage of what the PowerToken does....heck the character may not even be able to do so. For instance, what if I enter a dwarven druid into TLT to roleplay with a negative charisma modifier? This character will most likely never use the token to get bonuses to handle animal checks, since those are charisma based. But because I want to roleplay an interesting character, I would be getting taxed and getting nothing in return. That is the point I am trying to make. Just because you are in a guild does not mean you are going to be able to use all of its "advantages". Or maybe none of them at all. So now that means that a character that just wants to be roleplayed is getting charged for it. What I would propose is a compromise...in that the tax only apply to characters that are using the power token. That would alleviate most of the problems I am talking about. As it stands now...you are correct...I would steer clear of guilds because I would be paying something for nothing in return.
xanadu 09-14-05, 12:30 PM	I like then idea, I think some further thought needs to go into how much gold it costs to build "rooms" and what benefits derive from them. I'm guessing 5000 gp to build a barracks was just a number thrown out to simply be there, but that's about 100 taxes from the ECL 3 level. A guild might have 5,6,7 members?
Caterane 09-14-05, 12:43 PM	@NiQil: The TLT would be the best thing that could happen to your dwarven cleric. He'd have at least 5 ranks in HA, -2 Charisma if he's really that low, +2 tool, +2 ride synergy, plus the token bonus makes your otherwise useless skill useful again. Look, I don't want to use the next 20 posts to convince you but would rather like to focus on finding ways to handle interguild operations. All I can tell you is that the Benefit Token, the Power Token, and perhaps something else you get from a guild (propose something if you like) evens that low tax more than out. And you'd be missing out a lot of fun! @Xanadu: Yes, that was only a number from the top of my head. We have to see how many members will be in a guild and calculate the tax income per week, plus the income from facilities, then base the prices and upkeeps on that number. You are free to propose something.
NiQil 09-14-05, 01:05 PM	@NiQil: The TLT would be the best thing that could happen to your dwarven cleric. He'd have at least 5 ranks in HA, -2 Charisma if he's really that low, +2 tool, +2 ride synergy, plus the token bonus makes your otherwise useless skill useful again. Look, I don't want to use the next 20 posts to convince you but would rather like to focus on finding ways to handle interguild operations. All I can tell you is that the Benefit Token, the Power Token, and perhaps something else you get from a guild (propose something if you like) evens that low tax more than out. And you'd be missing out a lot of fun! @Xanadu: Yes, that was only a number from the top of my head. We have to see how many members will be in a guild and calculate the tax income per week, plus the income from facilities, then base the prices and upkeeps on that number. You are free to propose something. Alright..since you don't seem to be accepting any ideas that don't include a tax, let me propose another compromise. What about a 10% tax for those that are using the guild's tokens, and a 5% tax for those that are not? The reason I am being so bull-headed about this is that, after having looked over what is there for the guilds so far, most character concepts that I have would never use any of these various tokens. So I don't see why I (or others) who are not going to ever use the tokens should be subject to a tax that is supposed to balance a benefit we are not using. I would love to be able to take characters into various guilds and roleplay them. But if I am not ever going to use the tokens, why should I be subject to the same penalty for them? It just doesn't seem reasonable or fair. If the tax is being used to balance the tokens, what is going to be used to balance not using the tokens?
Huan 09-14-05, 01:17 PM	I give full support to this project, and must say that this first proposal is a step in the right direction. The first thing everyone has to keep in mind that in order for a project like this to work, COOPERATION must prevail. No one is forcing anyone to join a guild, after all, and this thing is still on the drawing board, not written in stone. I admit this reminds me of a RTS game I had to program for a school project(something of a starcraft-clone). Off the top of my head I remember clan (substitute that word with 'guild') bases had variety of facilities, each of which you had to pay to maintain, and all of which gave some sort of bonus (adjusting guild stats accordingly). Here are a few (translated to Gladius-terminology): Keep in mind Guilds did not know what other guilds had for their bases. Prison (held captured members of other guilds until term over/death/payed fine/broke out/was rescued) Mining repository (outsource workers to gain metals and possible income) Smithy (forging weapons/armor) Training (for raising animals) Workshop (crafting tools for various skills) Training rooms (intra-guild fights for training) Stable (hold mounts/captured exotic monsters to give to guild/share monsters) Central Intelligence Room (spies collect to report on other guilds and what they have) Arcane Defense (pool the security-minded magical wards on guild here) Magical Research and Development (craft/improve magic items) Museum (retired members honored here) Bookies (Set up gambling and odds on fights) Enough of that flashback stuff: For those who feel similarly to NiQil, who only want to be a guild in name and RP, but not in practice, please understand that this is actually getting you more for your buck, and even though it takes time you should not feel you are losing something. Its understandable you might not be able to use 100% of the guild, but its usless to complain as I doubt you use 100% of your workplace in RL, either (but it still pays the bills). But, RL aside, this is not a loss of RP, gp, or time for your character, as what you get depends on what you put in. BUT there IS always something for you (you cannot deny that!)...else why bother joining a guild in the first place if you do not want to be a part of it, or do not feel it will improve you? @NiQil I'm sorry, but segregating full-paying and non/lesser-paying members of a guild would never work. You would create far more problems and complications between the two sects than you would alleviate. I will make more helpful comments later.
Caterane 09-14-05, 01:25 PM	The tax is one of my best ideas here and I am very glad that I've found such an elegant solution. Here's why: You remember when I asked several times how to include the number of guild members in our calculations? We only had the powerrating which doesn't say anything about # of members. A 5 member guild could be much better than a 50 member guild. With Taxes, we have perfectly solved that. The more members, the more tax payers, the more rooms, the more and higher PCs can enter, the more facilities, etc etc. Perfect! We only had the entry requirements so far but that's not nearly enough to justify huge benefits from tokens. There must be something else. Tokens WILL be used by everyone because you have to fulfill at entering the guild the requirements to make use of tokens. Example: everyone who's in the EHTC has all trade skills at 5 ranks so the token is of use to him in any case and increases his discounts significantly. Everyone in the GSIS has gather information. There's no reason not to use the token to get credit-free Blackmarket items. Taxes are a very good way to balance that out. Guilds need income and it must be based on something. If we just give them a certain amount of free money from nowhere it takes away a lot of flavor and realism. This income must be easy to calculate (not different taxes like you proposed) and must be auto-applicable (no extra work in seeing who used what when like you proposed). Simplicity is the key concept in such a complex system. Tax income will be deducted automatically if the character has a guild tag, and the Guildmaster adds that to his guild treasure. Another side-effect of that is that the members feel that they have a say in what the guild buys next as it is their money; ingame of course. There are more reasons but these are the main ones. Alright NiQil, you've said your point and I say taxes are definately not among the things that are open to discussion. What is open is what to get out of Guilds in return. My point 2 proves that the token will always be useful but if you really feel that's a bad trade-off - so bad that you never want to join ANY guild even though you'd save tens of thousands during your career - then propose something that a character gets out in addition to token benefits but it should be something more interesting than a 5% tax payback :rolleyes:
NiQil 09-14-05, 01:32 PM	I give full support to this project, and must say that this first proposal is a step in the right direction. The first thing everyone has to keep in mind that in order for a project like this to work, COOPERATION must prevail. No one is forcing anyone to join a guild, after all, and this thing is still on the drawing board, not written in stone. I admit this reminds me of a RTS game I had to program for a school project(something of a starcraft-clone). Off the top of my head I remember clan (substitute that word with 'guild') bases had variety of facilities, each of which you had to pay to maintain, and all of which gave some sort of bonus (adjusting guild stats accordingly). Here are a few (translated to Gladius-terminology): Keep in mind Guilds did not know what other guilds had for their bases. Prison (held captured members of other guilds until term over/death/payed fine/broke out/was rescued) Mining repository (outsource workers to gain metals and possible income) Smithy (forging weapons/armor) Training (for raising animals) Workshop (crafting tools for various skills) Training rooms (intra-guild fights for training) Stable (hold mounts/captured exotic monsters to give to guild/share monsters) Central Intelligence Room (spies collect to report on other guilds and what they have) Arcane Defense (pool the security-minded magical wards on guild here) Magical Research and Development (craft/improve magic items) Museum (retired members honored here) Bookies (Set up gambling and odds on fights) Enough of that flashback stuff: For those who feel similarly to NiQil, who only want to be a guild in name and RP, but not in practice, please understand that this is actually getting you more for your buck, and even though it takes time you should not feel you are losing something. Its understandable you might not be able to use 100% of the guild, but its usless to complain as I doubt you use 100% of your workplace in RL, either (but it still pays the bills). But, RL aside, this is not a loss of RP, gp, or time for your character, as what you get depends on what you put in. BUT there IS always something for you (you cannot deny that!)...else why bother joining a guild in the first place if you do not want to be a part of it, or do not feel it will improve you? @NiQil I'm sorry, but segregating full-paying and non/lesser-paying members of a guild would never work. You would create far more problems and complications between the two sects than you would alleviate. I will make more helpful comments later. I realize it would never work. The point I am trying to get across is that there doesn't seem to be any give and take here. Once all of these ideas were put out there, they were set in stone. Regardless of what I have said so far...every compromise I have thrown out here, regardless of how silly or how serious, it has been shot down with a "no, this is the way it is going to be." Was it said in as many words? No. But there was nothing there to indicate that this was negotiable in any way. Instead, my ideas were greeted with ridicule (or are you just giving me those 20 posts to use up anytime on any topic?). So excuse me if I feel a little put off here. I fail to see how there is any receptiveness to other points of view, regardless of how serious or silly or totally moronic they may be. I'm going to stop now before I get any more heated than I already am.
Caterane 09-14-05, 01:45 PM	NiQil, that's not fair now. Look at how much I wrote just to explain it to you. I could've just written "No thanks" or not replied at all but I took the time to get my reasons over to you as understandable as possible. Please don't feel bad now beacuse I'm glad you participate in here but the tax thing is a good idea. You can propose an additional trade-off for the tax if you like. And I agreed on the donation thing you pointed out.
xanadu 09-14-05, 02:47 PM	NiQil, I can understand you being frustrated because you spend your time offering ideas and its no fun to stick your neck out and seemingly have to be for naught. Nevertheless, I would disagree with your statement that your ideas aren;t being considered or there is no give and take. With regards to the FFA, the proposition that rewards should be tied to whoever lasts longest needed to be raised and articulated. Because you did so, people who dont agree with it or who weren;t sure were compelled to think about it. Someone had to do this. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I didn't consider what you said. Same thing with the tax. I'm sure you weren't alone in what you were thinking, so it had to be raised. Some characters may not derive maximum benefits for being in a guild. But really, how are we supposed to keep track of the membership to benefit ratio? How many arguments are there going to be that my guy should only pay 5% as opposed to 10%? When in doubt keep it simple. Unions members pay a flat rate, some derive more benefits than others, that's just a fact. This does *not* mean however that those who aren't deriving as much benefits aren't getting their money's worth. On the contrary, the only way they'll ever realize what they were getting is when the union is gone. OK, so your dwarf wont benefit from a charisma power token. Let's say the guild builds a room that gives a crafting token, does your dwarf now pay 10%? Avoid these problems before they start. Pay your dues, become a member, and then vote for a crafting token. That's the way it has to work. Not pay less because the guild isn't bequething maximum benefits and then pay normal only when it does. I can't think of a real life example where something like that is instituted. Does this make sense to you?
Gonbow 09-14-05, 02:59 PM	Guilds: Let's back up a bit. Wasn't a stated objective to make sure guilds don't overshadow non-guilded arena players by balancing any benefits and drawbacks? The more complex a system we have governing guilds, the more likely a net inbalance will occur, one way or another. And this is looking to be god DAMN complex. It looks cool, yeah, but I think it's way too much, too soon. We haven't even seen if the token system will be balanced or not, much less /other/ random bonuses and craziness.
Kaigan 09-14-05, 03:12 PM	There is a lot of information present here. I was wondering if there is a summary of it all, and if not, could someone summarize it for those of us with not enough time to read it all. Thanks. Kaigan
SoulLord 09-14-05, 04:16 PM	An idea... I had always pictured the guilds filled with several npc's the EHTC filled with merchants the Arcane Order filled with scribes and the like. perhaps each guild can have an unlimited number of background npc's and 1 relevant npc per pc member?
Luni 09-14-05, 04:27 PM	An idea... I had always pictured the guilds filled with several npc's the EHTC filled with merchants the Arcane Order filled with scribes and the like. perhaps each guild can have an unlimited number of background npc's and 1 relevant npc per pc member? That gives me an idea: Since we are allowing defenders, why don't we go a step further and allow guildmembers to bring in NPC's into fights as allies. It'll allow level 3 gladiators EHTC members to bring in a level 1 Fighter for example, to help them flank. Note: They would have to mark it down before pairings.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 04:49 PM	I think Gonbow has a major point. Guilds roxxorz hardcore for 1337 00b3r n00bs. Guilds won't do much for a lot of characters that already exist. We have already seen a flurry of new PCs made to match certain guilds, and some of those had to change to meet the even newer requirements. For those of us who won't be making new characters, I want to speak up. Guilds should not be so 00b3r 1337 that non-member are at a disadvantage. This is not RL, and I don't want to see any issues arrise akin to Unions vs Non-Unions.
King Uther 09-14-05, 04:50 PM	I have to be honest. I think the guild system will add a lot to RP, but will ultimately have us lose the new player boom. The more we add, the less we take away from the D&D Core roots we are founded on. While I enjoy having a guild, and love the interest that has been shown in it, I think this: Guilds should be RP based. I like the idea of guild rankings and guild wars, but I don't want the tokens. I think it will ultimately unbalance the fighting, making guilds mandatory, especially at higher levels.
SoulLord 09-14-05, 05:10 PM	Perhaps we can have non-members in the guilds they wouldn't get any of the benefits or hindrances of the guild but they could still participate in the roleplaying in the guild.
Sindorin 09-14-05, 05:27 PM	I agree wholeheartedly with King Uther. The way guilds used to be, wholly RP based, was still sufficient as a backdrop for what this place should focus on. The way things are going, apparently the Core Coliseum will need a name change, one to something that is almost a copyright infringment of a game some of us know and love... it is already used here in discussion. I personally have always appreciated the originality of "The Core Coliseum", and have even thought about making t shirts or polos... if we change face too drastically, I fear it will lose fun, as much fun as these new prospective implementations sound...
xanadu 09-14-05, 05:38 PM	I'm not sure the guilds are going to make or break characters. They might provide some *minor* benefits for a *small* cost but quite frankly no character is going to notice any difference if he is in one or not. The idea is to enhance the rollplay with some token customization. I really doubt they'll amount to anything significant powerwise as the entrance fee is less than characters make with professrion. I have heard lots of people, including Caterane, caution making guilds have too much of an impact. Has this changed? I don't recall seeing anything saying so.
King Uther 09-14-05, 05:40 PM	I guarantee that if we had Lvl 20 wizards, one in my guild and one not, we would see a huge difference. If played correctly, I can get up to a 20% discount on EVERYTHING I buy.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 05:47 PM	I think what we're saying is that the tokens & advantages of guilds *as suggested* are too powerful. They are too attractive, the drawbacks do not out weigh them sufficiently. As such, non-guildmembers will be at a disadvantage, thusly all (most) Players will make new PCs or adjust current PCs to join a guild.
xanadu 09-14-05, 05:50 PM	I guarantee that if we had Lvl 20 wizards, one in my guild and one not, we would see a huge difference. If played correctly, I can get up to a 20% discount on EVERYTHING I buy. How so? Really, I dont understand.
Emrys Donovan 09-14-05, 06:30 PM	I have to be honest. I think the guild system will add a lot to RP, but will ultimately have us lose the new player boom. The more we add, the less we take away from the D&D Core roots we are founded on. While I enjoy having a guild, and love the interest that has been shown in it, I think this: Guilds should be RP based. I like the idea of guild rankings and guild wars, but I don't want the tokens. I think it will ultimately unbalance the fighting, making guilds mandatory, especially at higher levels. I agree. After reading all the previous posts starting with Cat's overview (or whatever you want to call it (his purple post :P)), I kinda started thinking I wouldn't want to join a guild because it would be too complicated. I propose this: There can be guilds, but they give no benefits, and require no dues; in essence they are purely for roleplay. Their headquarters can be as big or small as the guildmaster wants, and they have a few minor requirements, like the alignment restrictions and skill ranks. This way not every character could join one guild, but could find one more suited to their character. The guilds could set up opportunities for quests and campaigns, such as the few assassinations by EHTC members, and there could be inter-guild wars.
NiQil 09-14-05, 07:33 PM	I agree. After reading all the previous posts starting with Cat's overview (or whatever you want to call it (his purple post :P)), I kinda started thinking I wouldn't want to join a guild because it would be too complicated. I propose this: There can be guilds, but they give no benefits, and require no dues; in essence they are purely for roleplay. Their headquarters can be as big or small as the guildmaster wants, and they have a few minor requirements, like the alignment restrictions and skill ranks. This way not every character could join one guild, but could find one more suited to their character. The guilds could set up opportunities for quests and campaigns, such as the few assassinations by EHTC members, and there could be inter-guild wars. I think this was the original intent of the guilds...somewhere along the way this got lost. I echo King Uther's sentiments.
Caterane 09-14-05, 07:56 PM	Argument 1: Tokens are too powerful Answer: A lvl 20 wizard who crafts a ring of elemental command has just saved 100.000 gold. Not to forget all the other hundreds of thousands that he saved by crafting magic items during his long career. A 20% discount is still much less than a 50% discount from crafting magic items. And you have spent a lot of skill points in there; cross class in case of the wizard. The Discount Rules as well as the Discount token of the EHTC helps rogues and bards a bit, and these rare classes are now more attractive by gaining a 20, perhaps 30% discount on ONE item a week. Argument 2: Guilds should be RP only Answer: We have many RP only guilds. Just browse 10 pages back and you'll find them. I think the best one had 2 pages of posts. The tokens are minor, the requirements make sure only appropriate builds enter certain guilds, and the tax balances that out. The building/facility add-on makes the whole thing much more interesting and Living. That, more than anything else, boosts roleplaying. Argument 3: The LivingGuilds System overhauls the CoCo completely Answer: Yes. Instead of roleplaying being restricted to those few on Quests and Campaigns, and even then only possible within the boundaries of the Q/C, everyone can now play his character anytime ingame in the Guilds, member or not. Argument 4: Non-members should be allowed in guilds. Answer: Not necessary. Everyone can post everywhere in guilds thus he is basically a non-member in any guild. Argument 5: If we implement Guilds we will lose all the fun. Answer: I've heard that argument during every add-on we made from the dawn of this board on. It's non-sense of course. But for those who want to ignore any add-on we made during the last months and play with a skeleton CoCo that wouldn't have survived this year anyway, I have good news: you don't have to use anything and can still compete perfectly well. Argument 6: We will lose our new player boom Answer: THIS have been the Pairings in the Classic CoCo. 7 fights spread over 20 levels. Today I rolled for 33 fights spread over 9 levels, not counting the more than 40 players on quests and campaigns. It seems to me that our additions are the reason for the player boom.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 08:22 PM	Cat, you have yet to address the concern of people making all new characters just so they can fit into the rather limited selection of four guilds. Afterall, no one will want to be left behind since the advantages are so attractive. Re: Tokens are too Powerful So what if I have spend a few points on some skills? So what if I have to give up 10% of my winnings to the guild? If I get such a drastic discount to make it attractive, then I am going to make a character who will optimize the usage of that token. And kick butt in the arena along the way for doing so, taking advantage of something a straight fighter could not.
Emrys Donovan 09-14-05, 08:55 PM	Maybe a poll all of us can vote in is in order? Say, for a week, so that just about everyone may vote?
Huan 09-14-05, 09:43 PM	Ah, I remember that pairing ... and the times when pitlords had to squabble over who go to PL what (since there were so few fights...) ... and now we don't have enough Pitlords to go around sometimes! The evidence speaks for itself as the adds ons to Living Gladius (quests, campaigns, World, and the upcoming resurrection of guilds) will undoubtably bring more and more ppl here.
xanadu 09-14-05, 10:37 PM	Cat, you have yet to address the concern of people making all new characters just so they can fit into the rather limited selection of four guilds. Afterall, no one will want to be left behind since the advantages are so attractive. Well, speaking for myself I will make characters I want to play, I wont make a monk build to join a monk guild because I dislike monks. I may throw in a few skills to meet requirements if a particular guild intirgues me, but that is not the same as being forced into a limited selection. Characters do *not* have to join guilds. If the benefits of the guilds are too powerful as you may fear (and that is a legitimate fear), then we will scale back guild benefits, that simple. Can we not discount something before it is actually proven to be broke. Yes, let's be vigilent and ensure the guild benfits are not too powerful, if anything be conservative, but let's not say "no way wont work" without actually trying people.
Gonbow 09-14-05, 10:44 PM	Well, speaking for myself I will make characters I want to play, I wont make a monk build to join a monk guild because I dislike monks. I may throw in a few skills to meet requirements if a particular guild intirgues me, but that is not the same as being forced into a limited selection. Characters do *not* have to join guilds. If the benefits of the guilds are too powerful as you may fear (and that is a legitimate fear), then we will scale back guild benefits, that simple. Can we not discount something before it is actually proven to be broke. Yes, let's be vigilent and ensure the guild benfits are not too powerful, if anything be conservative, but let's not say "no way wont work" without actually trying people. For me, it's not so much about not trying anything, it's about adding a level of complexity to something that is ALREADY complex and completely untested. We simply don't know if benefits tokens and power tokens will be balanced to the requirement of odd skill investments and very narrow builds (Narrow builds are never good balancing mechanisms. Only level 3+ Kineticists can get Energy Missile so it must be balanced! [Extreme example, but it illustrates my point]) So now we are talking about adding the potential for an even larger mish-mash of abilities with simple /gold/ requirements, not even any character building choices on the part of the guild members and a cry of 'wait for it to settle' is justified I think. Once we have characters donating money to their guilds, the 'undo' button is going to be VERY hard to press, because it will mean altering every single member of every single guild.
xanadu 09-14-05, 10:53 PM	So what you and others are saying is: Dont even bother because what might happen is bad. Now matter how nicely the anti-guild faction puts it, that is exactly what is being said. At least to me anyways. Not exactly the enterprising spirit, is it?
NiQil 09-14-05, 11:27 PM	So what you and others are saying is: Dont even bother because what might happen is bad. Now matter how nicely the anti-guild faction puts it, that is exactly what is being said. At least to me anyways. Not exactly the enterprising spirit, is it? While some have said this, I think the point most are trying to get across is that if we move too far too fast with guilds and implement too much, and then things go wrong, it will be extremely difficult to put things right. A slow, gradual implementation seems to be much preferred.
Gonbow 09-14-05, 11:27 PM	So what you and others are saying is: Dont even bother because what might happen is bad. Now matter how nicely the anti-guild faction puts it, that is exactly what is being said. At least to me anyways. Not exactly the enterprising spirit, is it? ???? NO! What I'm saying is: Wait. Wait for the changes you've ALREADY made but have NOT tested to go through, see how they are, then, with that information in mind, add further levels of complexity. How the hell do you go from 'wait until what we are doing now is done' to 'don't ever do anything again!' ?
xanadu 09-15-05, 12:24 AM	???? NO! What I'm saying is: Wait. Wait for the changes you've ALREADY made What changes have been implemented as far as guilds? Draconis is a member of ETHC, what benefit does she get that I have ignored for the past 2 months? but have NOT tested to go through, see how they are, then, with that information in mind, add further levels of complexity. What are these new changes that need to be tested? I'd like to offer my feedback How the hell do you go from 'wait until what we are doing now is done' to 'don't ever do anything again!' ? From what I understand, nothing new has been incorperated regarding guilds. Nothing. If things have been change, please tell me so I can update my gladiators and offer my feedback. So from where I am sitting, the debate sits like this: "Let's introduce guilds" "I don't think its a good idea because of X, Y, Z." I am wrong to interpret the latter statement as "Don't do it because it might be bad."? If I am wrong, perhaps it would be better to make your posts mention the fact that you are interested in trying the concepts of guilds but have some reservations which need to be addressed rather than non-guild members will be at a disadvatage, it will restict character creation concepts, it will drive away potential new members, benefits are too powerful, etc because I am not correctly interpreting what it is the con-guild faction is really saying. To this unsophisticated reader that sounds like "I think guilds are a bad idea."
Caterane 09-15-05, 06:38 AM	Ok, I think I have overloaded you with too much information at once, and many reservations come from misinformations. NiQil says the Tokens are too weak, Altaris says they're too strong. Some think it will turn newbies away, others think it will attract them. That leads us nowhere. I know these pro and con discussions from every previous addition. Psionics? Hell, the CoCo will vanish!! The 1/3 rule? Wizards won't have a chance anymore. Same here and surely in any future discussion. I will now explain the system and its effects as good as I can so that you understand my reasons. I will ask you for one thing only: that you trust me. I have implemented dozens upon dozens of things since the start of LivingGladius in January, and every single one has proven to be a great addition to the Board. I don't make new rules without thought. Please read the following section; perhaps it helps to disperse some doubts. ------------------------------- - We have discussed the Token topic for weeks in which you all participated. This debate is over and Guild Tokens are written fact. - Tokens are always useful. If you manage to get into the guild, you can also make use of the Token. You won't be able to join the GSIS unless you can make use of the Gather information token to get free Blackmarket items. Same for the other guilds. Tokens will save/earn you a lot of money. - So we need to balance Guilds to those not in Guilds. The entry requirements are no counter-weight to Tokens because it comes naturally for those PCs who fit in the guild. Example: TAO requirements: Spellcraft and two knowledges at 5 ranks, 2nd lvl arcane spells. Every wizard will almost automatically get that. TLT requirements: 5 ranks in survival, handle animal, and knowledge nature, and wild empathy. Druids and Rangers will have no trouble getting in. As you can see, requirements are only there so that barbarians don't join the TAO, or bookworm cellardwellers join the TLT. And: requirement skills are useful (see above). That said, entry requirements don't balance anything. - So we still need a counter-weight for the Tokens. And this comes in form of a tax. The tax is low enough so that it doesn't hurt the build. It's like spending a little bit more resources. You get all that money back by use of your Token, be it in form of a better discount, of free Blackmarket items, of free animal training or better animal allies, or in case of the TAO by earning money with your knowledge skills. You see, it is now balanced to non-guild members. - And this is how the Guilds that have been opened currently work. It is what we have discussed for weeks (that there has to be a counter weight to tokens was clear, wasn't it?). It is fact. It is implemented. So let's clear our brains at this point and don't talk about what I just summarized. ------------------------------- Now (after the written rules above) I proposed an add-on called LivingGuilds and this is what we should talk about because the things above are set in adamantine. With the things above, there is no real definition of where a guild is, how big it is, how the base looks like, how many NPC members run around, which sectors of Gladius it controls, etc etc. It would all be freestyle RP; nothing concrete. Now I said let's make Guilds a bit more interesting by putting all those undefined freestyle things I just mentioned into a concretely defined frame. That's all I proposed and this is what many of you turn down with unproven arguments; some completely pulled by the hair. Here's a quick summary of my proposal. Forget the things written above! THIS is what I proposed: - Instead of just creating a map for the Base of Operations, Guilds have to build them up on their own with their taxes, room by room, month for month, and grow from a small gathering to a huge organization. Isn't that much more fun that just posting a finished map and that's it? Doesn't that development - the building up of a guild - encourage a lot of participation? - Instead of just saying "The EHTC controls half of Gladius or takes it over completely" by writing some stories (everyone could write a story like that), why not giving the EHTC the opportunity to truly conquer Gladius? Why not give the other Guilds the opportunity to oppose the EHTC? Isn't that much more interesting that just writing some stories that dictate the events in Gladius? Stories can say everything; my system let's them actually play it out. - Instead of just saying "Many NPC members work for our guild", why not concretizing that? Why not making rules where Guilds have to employ, pay, and handle their NPC members and have a real list of all NPCs in their Guild thread? Isn't it way cooler than just saying I have 100 soldiers to actually have 100 soldiers, and have them bought, payed and listed in your guild? By name even! Doesn't that bring those NPCs much more to life if others can actually kill them to damage your guild. Instead of just writing in a story no one ever reads again that you just lost 20 workers to a fire, wouldn't it be cooler to actually have those 20 lost to a fire and mark them off from your guild, and being sad that the funny long-standing cook was among them? - Instead of not knowing or defining what a guild controls, why not giving them a chance to really buy other economy buildings and facilities and list them in their thread? Isn't that much more interesting to debate in your guild wether to buy a marketplace in the district of Lower Merx, upgrade the Chapel in Duken Marina to a Church, or use the gold for an operation to get the GSIS out of the rich district, instead of just writing a story that does that automatically with a few finger moves and will be forgotten the next week anyway? I could play that on and on but I hope I have now convinced you that the only thing I am trying to do is to bring more life into the guilds, and Gladius as a whole. Roleplaying will - and I promise you that - increase tenfold! You won't just have a character sitting on the roster, no idea where he lives in Gladius but actually have a living character in a living world! I've also heard that this would be too complex. It isn't. I've written a lot but the system is actually very simple. The workload is distributed among all members of the guilds instead of on one person (like maintaining the board for me is). Here's an example on how it might look like (Excerpt from a guild thread...): - 1 post with the map of the base of operations. Once in a while the guild buys a new room, and the map will be updated to reflect that. That doesn't happen daily, nor weekly. Almost no work. Describing the rooms is a one-time work. At the bottom you sum up the "Weekly Room Upkeep" - 1 post with a list of all NPCs, their profession, and their wages. If you want, you can give them names and a background. At the bottom you sum the wages up and call it "Weekly NPC upkeep". That's a one-time work. Once in a while you add or substract an NPC and adjust the Total Upkeep accordingly. Almost no workload. - 1 post for the finances. Make a header called "Treasury", one called "Income this week", and one called "Upkeep". Add that together and substract it from the treasury. That's the Guildmasters work, and it has to be done no more than once a week. And so on. As you can see, this can be made very simple and almost automatically. And for that, you get out A LOT of fun in return. That's IMO one of the best additions - perhaps THE best one - we had so far. In any case, I am enthusiastic about it. -------------- One last word. I've written last attempt to convince you in the headline. Since I posted my proposal, the only thing I read was complaining and counter-complaining, instead of following the real purpose of posting it here: a productive discussion to perfectionize that system together. Since my proposal we've 2 pages more in the Council but are not one step closer. If that doesn't work, then I will just discuss the whole thing with the Guildlord Elder (Tellish) and inform you of the outcome of that discussion. It's ok to post doubts but the way this discussion goes is absolutely ineffective and completely unproductive. I know you have all many many good ideas, and this is what I want to hear from you. Let's work on that together guys! :) Cat
Altaris13 09-15-05, 07:31 AM	You know Caterane, I happen really enjoy the concept of your LivingGuilds. The flavor you propose is awesome and I think will add a lot to the CoCo. My concern, which you have only made more concrete, is that those who are in a guild will pay a 'small fee' each week to gain VERY NICE discounts and/or FREE ITEMS. After all, paying a 10% tax to get a 20% discount is doubling my money. Why wouldn't I want to take advantage of that? The tokens, as proposed, are basically +1 per ECL (not even class level, but full character level) to a particular skill. You say that the EHTC can (potentially) obtain /free/ items from the Blackmarket. Guess what I'm going to do with those free items? Turn around and sell them, and make a bundle of money doing it, even at half-value. I am not saying the ideas as presented are bad. I happen think your intentions are quite awesome and that your ideas are unique and beneficial to the CoCo. What I am saying, and what I hope to see, is that you orchestrate the development of the guilds in a piece-meal fashion. Start with the four guilds we have, using the Tokens & Tax method for now. Ease into these grand ideas you've got and everyone will take to it much better. We'll be able to fix things as needed, instead of feeling like we as a community are drowning in this project.
King Uther 09-15-05, 12:21 PM	As you know, I only had limited concern. Seeing it played out, and knowing I will put a lot into my guild to make it fun for everyone, I think the new guild system should be implemented, as long as we limit the number of guilds so they are not the dominating force of Gladius. Guys, this is going to be a blast if we do it right. Join the EHTC, and see what a crime organization can do with soem time and effort.
NiQil 09-15-05, 01:05 PM	...as far as I can tell anyway...and that is the issue with current characters and the guilds. As it stands, I am guessing that there are several characters that were in a guild that now no longer can be because they don't meet the requirements. And as someone else stated, we are also seeing a rush of new characters being made just to join a new guild. So how do we adjust this so that current characters can get into a guild? Do we just allow free reassignment of skills and feats to meet guild requirements, even if those skills and feats have seen extensive use already? Are current characters just SOL? I think this needs to be looked at before we go much further, as it would be unfair to disqualify existing characters from getting into guilds (especially if they were in one before) just because they now do not meet the requirements. But I also do not think it is fair to allow reassignment of feats and skills that have been regularly used just to meet guild requirements. So how should this be resolved?
Snommelp 09-15-05, 01:11 PM	NiQil: the four guilds we have now won't be the only guilds. After the test run, other guilds will be allowed to appear (after they are approved). If a player wants an old character to join a guild, that player can wait for the appropriate guild to come along, or take the initiative and work towards making an appropirate guild himself. After the four guild test run.
Caterane 09-15-05, 01:16 PM	@NiQil: Yes, you may change skills to get into a Guild. You couldn't know that when you created the character. But you need to write a PM to either the Guildlords or Pitlords Account. @Uther: Yes, the Guilds are currently limited to four guilds until we know more. We will see more guilds later, one by one, and always only as much as the characters on the roster can support. @Altaris: The discount is useless for spellcasters because they can craft for 50% discount. If they craft they cannot use a Free Activity to get a discount of 20% in addition so they will all stick to crafting. The discount helps rogues and bards mostly, those classes who could use a boost. And 20% or 30% discount is still much less than 50% 'discount' when crafting; not to forget the tremendous investment in skills if you get that high a discount. ...if there are no concerns anymore, we can finally begin to work on the Guilds. I'll make an appropriate post with the questions that need to be answered soon.
NiQil 09-15-05, 01:16 PM	NiQil: the four guilds we have now won't be the only guilds. After the test run, other guilds will be allowed to appear (after they are approved). If a player wants an old character to join a guild, that player can wait for the appropriate guild to come along, or take the initiative and work towards making an appropirate guild himself. After the four guild test run. I understand that. But, as an example...there are several ranger and druids in existance now that currently do not have any ranks in survival or knowledge: nature, because there was no arena benefit to having those skills outside of quests and campaigns. So now, if they want to get into The Living Tree, they need those. Should we now allow those characters to put ranks in those skills to get into the guild, when those skills have most likely been in use elsewhere? Or are those characters just SOL for that guild? Edit: Cat responded before I could so nevermind.
Caterane 09-15-05, 03:35 PM	Ok, I think we are now ready to begin with the work, and I need all of you, especially our mathematicians like Sloisel and Xanadu. Let's begin with the Base of Operations. The following questions need to be answered: - What kind of rooms are there to buy? - What does each one do? - How much does each one cost? - How much upkeep does one need? Examples: There can be all kinds of rooms. I'd like to have eg a basic room module that harbors 5 low level (ECL 3-6) guild members and costs let's say 2000 gp. If the guild wants to have a 6th member, it would need to build another such module. If the guild wants to have a mid-level PC (ECL 7-12) then it would need a better module, for example "Fancy Sleep Chamber" for 2 mid-level PCs and a price of 4000 gp. That is important because it controls the ascend of the guild. A new guild shouldn't be able to expand by 100% every week just because a pre-epic PC entered. This guild would not be able to sustain this PC because it would have to build a <Super Luxury Grand Chamber> for 20,000 first. Every room should have a function so that it is fun to add them. It must be balanced with what Guilds earn. They get 10% tax from each fight of their Guild Members. Here are the average tax incomes (rounded up/down) per member per week: ECL TAX 3 60 4 80 5 100 6 130 7 160 8 220 9 300 10 380 We need to put that in line with the price for rooms and the upkeep.
Altaris13 09-15-05, 03:50 PM	Hey Cat, how did you come up with those figures? Even One ECL 3 Gladiator will bring in 90gp per week, assuming a win, or 30gp assuming a loss. Did you assume one member of the listed ECL, and then average a win & a loss? Such that over two weeks, assuming 1 win & 1 loss, an ECL 3 PC will bring in tax of 120gp? If a PC cannot be supported by the guild due to space, can said PC still gain benefit of the Token? I would say 'no,' but I think it should be an official answer there. I think that each guild should begin with 1 'standard barracks' and 1 'fancy room.' Every guild is going to have some 'higher ups' to start, else why would they have any power? I also think that each guild should be required to purchase any 'extra' rooms as weeks go on, and no more than one 'expansion' is allowed per week. EDIT: I do not own Stonghold Builder's Guide, so if I offer anything that seems off the wall, now you know why. :)
Tellish_of_Ket 09-15-05, 09:46 PM	No Altaris, i think he just means those are average numbers, not the actual numbers that they would be. Since this is my first post on the subject, i just wanna say that i'm actually enthused about this idea and i'll tell you why. When i first dreamed about Living Gladius, i wanted it to be as realistic as possible to a full-fledge campaign that is filled with vibrant life from all types of players and characters from around the multiverse. With the introduction of Living Guilds, adding them on to Living Gladius, we can now get closer to filling up the campaign world to be full of energy and vibrant life. Life-styles of all types, that people are free to chose. You have the fierce gladiator, ruler of the arena. Born, built and bred for combat. Cares little for the social-political aspects of life and has a disdain for adventuring and influencing events around the world. In his home, the arena, he is king. You have the well-rounded adventurer. Prepared for all challenges, be they environmental, intellectual, or combative. He works well with groups and his skills compliment that to fill gaps and holes in his party members skills. He may or may not have any socio-political aspirations, or he may chose to dedicate his life to influencing the world around him, not just Gladius. He is the eternal questor, campaigner. And there are those with political ambitions. Those who wish to exert maximum influence within the city proper of Gladius. They focus upon skills that will assist them and their guildmates to exert maximum influence as possible. Money and climbing the corporate ladder are their primary motives. The guildmate lives in a fast-paced world. One day they are on top of the world, the next week, they are struggling to survive. Every week is a new challenge for them. They live on this adrenaline alone. Status means everything to them. And that is what we can have. We can build a full vibrant world together. We aren't "adding house-rules". We are creating a city, and the world surrounding it. This is exactly what Living Gladius is all about. Life (in the fantasy sense at least). Let's just all stop giving Cat a hard time and start putting some concrete ideas down on paper and build this thing from the ground up. This thread exists for all of us to help out. This is where we get to take out the bad (which we've already done with a couple of points) and fill it with the good (which we now need to do). Any and all ideas are welcomed. Lets help everyone that participates in LivGlad and LivGuild to give them something to be proud about. -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 09-15-05, 10:07 PM	Types of Rooms: Barracks: The purpose of a barracks is to house troops and adventurers. The more troops/people in guild, the larger barracks you need. The higher level troops/pc's you have in the guild, the more LAVISH upgrades you need. Small Barracks Medium Barracks Large Barracks Modest upgrades Fine upgrades Exquisite upgrades Training Rooms: Training rooms are the basis of all guilds. You need them to level properly and to learn new skills, or improve existing ones. The more guildmembers you have, the more class-rooms you'll need. The higher level that the characters are that you need to train, the more complex the lessons will require. Also, you will need more educated trainers. Plus, the more students you have, the more trainers you will require. small classroom 3 small classrooms 5 small classrooms large classrooms 2 large classrooms grand halls/lecture chambers 2 grand halls/lecture chambers Intelligent and Skilled trainers/teachers Expert and Artisan trainers/teachers Masters and Savant trainers/teachers Combat/Obstacle course Alchemical Lab etc.... Security/Watch Guards: The function of a security and watch patrol is to defend the guild from exterior intrusions. The number of watchmen you hire affects to total population of your guild and this may require that you build more barracks, and training rooms. Also the more troops you have, the more officers you need. 10 militiamen (warriors) 10 infantrymen (fighters) 5 heavy infantry (medium armor/shield, fighter 2nd level) 10 archers (warriors) 10 marksmen (fighters) 5 expert marksmen (studded leather, buckler, ranger 3rd level) 2 battle mages (ftr1/wiz1) 1 Captain of the Watch (Ftr 4) 1 Elite Scout (Rang 4) 1 lieutenant (Ftr 6) 1 Elite battle mage (ftr4/wiz3) Specialty Shops: Specialty shops range from everything from architects, to seige engines. Each building/room give the guild additional functionality Dwarven Masons: +5 hardness and +10 hit points to outer wall. Gnomish Siege Engines: Allows guild to lay seige to enemy targets. Elven Metalurgical Sciences: equips heavy infantrymen with masterwork weapons Human Architect: Provides foresight when adding new rooms due to proper vision in building placement - reduces cost of new rooms by x% Advanced Halfling Scout Training Program: Guild uses halfling rangers mounted upon battle dogs, to provide advanced scouting reports. Ok...those are just some ideas. I didn't put prices or upkeeps beside them, cuz i have no clue what it would be...but these are exampels. -ToK
Luni 09-15-05, 10:29 PM	I think ToK is onto something. Meeting Rooms: The following rooms are required for the guild to take certain actions. Meeting Room: Req. to challenge other guilds Large Room: Conference Chamber: Grand Conference Chamber: Req. to bring your armies out for a night of war. Stables: Maybe provide a small hp bonus? Small: Horses +1 hp/hd Medium: Hippogriffs/Pegasus +2/hd Large: ? +3hd Exotic: Tyrannosaur Mounts! +4/hd These are just ideas. Feel free to say I'm out of my mind.
LLMadCow 09-16-05, 02:16 AM	Well, I have been sitting on this thought for some time now, but with much of what is going on, in regard to money and the Guilds and such, I feel that it may be high time for me to open my mouth again. So, without further ado, I give to you.... My New Idea Well, we know that every character earns gold that they can spend on their character. Well, what about housing? What about the aspects of life that do not impact the results of fights? Well, what if every gladiator earned gold that went into a special portion of the character. A win would earn more money than a loss, but here are the basics of my idea: When a character has a fight, he stands to win not only GP for upkeep of his arsenal, but also GP for other misc stuff. This allows the ability to enhance the Role-Play intensive aspects of the character. They could buy or rent homes. They could own a farm. They could possibly even iuse their fundings to support their guild. So, that is why I brought it up. I have more thoughts, but that is all I am tossing out right now. LLMC/LLPL Size 7 used for the personl enjoyment of Luni. I hope you appreciate this due to the flack that I am going to get from Cat!
Caterane 09-16-05, 06:39 AM	Note: The Roster is divided into four sections, recognizable by color. ECL 3-6 is low-level, 7-12 is mid-level, 13-16 is high-level, and 17-20 is pre-epic-level. We can use this divide for guilds. To make our live easier, here are the abbrevations, always posted in parenthesis: (low), (mid), (high), (epic). Let's synchronize some basic expressions so that we're always on the same page: Staff - NPC members (soldiers, cook, maidens, etc) PCs - Player character members Members - PCs + NPCs that belong to that guild Module - Rooms Fees - Tax income Picking up Tok's and Luni's idea, I want to expand it a bit more. To prevent a small beginner guild saving up all their money to buy one pre-epic room, we have to give prerequisites to rooms. The basic rooms (low) come without requirements but from (mid) on, rooms should have prerequisites. One central room module should serve to determine the level of the Guild. I called it Grand Hall but if you have a better idea, tell me. Rooms like Living Quarters, kitchens, or bathrooms should be necessary to harbor the inhabitants but other rooms should provide a bonus. So a Basic Library could give a +2 bonus to the one knowledge it is about, while an advanced Library could either give a +4 bonus, or hold two knowledge topics. Here's a list of rooms the Stron... uh I came up with http://www.1a-network.de/images/cgi-bin/gbs/smilies/moron.gif All rooms can come in different levels: basic, fancy, luxury. In brackets, I've written the staff necessary to run that component which might increase with the level of the room. I've also written an idea about the effect a room could have. If there's a [REQ] tag (requirement) behind it, it means that room might serve as a requirement on the way to expand your guild. - Alchemical Laboratory [+x to craft alchemy/poison] (alchemist) - Armory [???] - Auditorium [+x to perform] (entertainer) - Barracks [holds x military staff] (maid) - Bath [for x members] - Chapel [???] (acolyte) - Common Area [REQ] - Conference Chamber [ally with other Guilds] - Dining Hall [for x members] - Garden [???] - Grand Hall [REQ] [determines level of the Guild] - Kitchen [for x members] (cook) - Library [+x to knowlegde] (librarian) - Living Quarters [holds x PC of x level] (maid) - Prison Cell [holds 1 PC from another guild] (guard) - Servant Quarters [holds x civilian staff] - Smithy [+x to craft weapons/armor] (smith) - Stables [holds x mounts] (groom) - Office [REQ] - Torture Chamber [+x to gather information; evil only] (torturer) - Training Area, any one theme [REQ] (trainer) - Trophy Hall [???] [needs to be filled from quests] - Vault [holds Guild treasure] - War Room [challenge other Guilds] - Workshop [+x to one craft/profession] (apprentice) The following list shows all defensive components of a guild. I haven't thought about a purpose yet as we have to come up with new Rules for Inter-Guild Wars with Base Assaults first. - Barbican - Catacombs - Courtyard - Gate - Gatehouse - Guardpost - Kernel - Labyrinth - Moat - Walls - Watchtowers Please share your thoughts. We need a good Roomprice <-> Upkeep <-> Incomes relatation!
Vathelokai 09-16-05, 11:27 AM	Since the grand hall, 5(low) living quarters, a training area, a common room, and a vault are required, I sugest that they be the 'core' of the base that any starting guild gets free. Since Gladius time mimics real time; I think that a good guild could add a room a month in RL, so the price of the average room should reflect that. A guild doing great in the fights could add 2 rooms a month. I think the upkeep for the core area should be what ever the minimum that the guild could possibly win in a week. So that way, the guild only grows if the members are winning. I'm short on time...I'll put more into this later.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-16-05, 03:54 PM	Core Rooms and Required Rooms. Living Quarters - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Anivl & Forge - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Kitchen/Dining Hall - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week These are the absolute most basic needs for a guild to run. It's not a lot, but it is the absolute basic and it's free. -ToK
Gonbow 09-16-05, 04:30 PM	Assuming 5 people is the minimum for a guild and all 5 are active, donating 30 gp each (all losing), a starting guild can afford 150 gp of upkeep a week no matter what. If we increase the cost to anything over the minimum, a guild where everyone is losing will actually be forced to sell off modules/let staff go to float the debt temporarially, emphasizing the fluid nature of guild's fortunes. ToK Basic Set: With only 3 required modules taking up 30 gp a week, a guild need only have one active member losing to break even. That's way too easy I say! The minimum upkeep for a guild should be around 150-200 gp a month, so that a weak guild CAN die. Guilds do fade; it might not be the coolest thing if your in the guild, but that is what personal donations are for! This is assuming that the upkeep cost includes the cost of staff; raising it to 50 gp each would mean a minimum of 5 guild members losing to 'break even', while even a single win means net profit (and thus, eventually growth) for the guild. Vathelokai Basic Set: Grand Hall [? gp] Living Quarters [? gp] Trained Area [? gp] Common Room [? gp] Vault [? gp] This set has five requirements, so the upkeep cost on each should be lower, a mere 30 gp each would be 150 gp a month, five losing guild-members to support five basic rooms; that has some nice synergy and could work with any proposed 'home' system that arrises from LL's idea.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-16-05, 04:45 PM	Core Rooms and Required Rooms: Living Quarters - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Anivl & Forge - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Kitchen/Dining Hall - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Basic Staff Required for Upkeep: Blacksmith - 5 gp Cook - 5 gp Pageboy - 5 gp 3 Room Guild Land Taxes: 15 gp Total Operation Cost: 60 gp/week Guild Income This Week: 150 gp [Assuming everyone is still losing, three weeks in a row] Profit This Week: 90 Guild Treasury: 720 gp [Assuming three weeks of previous functioning] -ToK
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 08:42 AM	Core Rooms and Required Rooms. Living Quarters - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Anivl & Forge - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week Kitchen/Dining Hall - Low (5) - Upkeep: 10 gp/week These are the absolute most basic needs for a guild to run. It's not a lot, but it is the absolute basic and it's free. -ToK I'd disagree on the nessicity of an anvil and forge. A guild dosn't nessicarily have to produce something to be a guild. Also, Cat threw out some required elements. I agree with Gonbow's sentiment that a loosing guild should not still make a profit, but I disagree with the 'let the guild die' philosophy. A guild that is not growing is just as bad as a guild that is dying. It would become defunt just as quickly.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-17-05, 08:47 AM	I'd disagree on the nessicity of an anvil and forge. A guild dosn't nessicarily have to produce something to be a guild. Also, Cat threw out some required elements. I agree with Gonbow's sentiment that a loosing guild should not still make a profit, but I disagree with the 'let the guild die' philosophy. A guild that is not growing is just as bad as a guild that is dying. It would become defunt just as quickly. Cat just mentioned a boat load of add-ons and such. But i disagree with your disagreement. The anvil and forge isn't there necessarily to BUILD stuff. It's there to MAINTAIN their equipment and keep things in order. As well, if the guild gets a stable, they will NEED it for horseshoes, nails and such. I believe an anvil and forge to be absolutely necessary for a guild. Otherwise, they would have to contract out their services to blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, armorsmiths all the time and that wouldn't be very functional. And as for the losing guild not making any profit, i don't believe 90gp per week for the losing guild to be much of a profit. At that rate, it would take them 2 months to buy an add-on. That is crippling enough to their development, why make it worse? -ToK
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 10:04 AM	Since I'm tired of people making arguements about the money and balance in the guilds, I have prepared this. Have fun with it. ECL 10% guild fee Win Loss Crafting(max) 3 30/90 900 300 66 (10+4int+6skill+2tool) 4 40/120 1,200 400 96 (10+5int+7skill+2tool) 5 53/160 1,600 533 125 6 66/200 2,000 666 156 7 86/260 2,600 866 189 8 113/340 3,400 1,133 232(10+6int+11skill+2tool) 9 150/450 4,500 1,500 270 10 193/580 5,800 1,933 310 11 250/750 7,500 2,500 352 12 326/980 9,800 3,266 408(10+7int+15skill+2tool) 13 433/1,300 13,000 4,333 455 14 566/1,700 17,000 5,666 504 15 733/2,200 22.000 7,333 555 16 933/2,800 28,000 9,333 624(10+8int+19skill+2tool) 17 1,200/3,600 36,000 12,000 680 18 1,566/4,700 47,000 15,666 738 19 2,033/6,100 61,000 20,333 798 20 2,666/8,000 80,000 26,666 880(10+9int+6skill+2tool) Notes: Okay, so the crafting money isn't exact, but it's close. Benefit tokens If G.S.I.S. is in posession of the "Benefit Token" all members will get a +1/ECL bonus to their ranks in Gather Information checks. This allows guild members to purchase magic items without paying credits. If EHTC is in posession of the their token all members recieve +1/ECL to a Trade Skill (bluff, sense motive, or appraise). This equates to a +(ecl)% discount to any one item. If TAO is in possession of their token all members recieve +1/ECL to a knowledge skill of their choice. Since TAO can use knowledge skills to gain money as though crafting, this is a bonus to gp each week. If TLT is in possession of their token all members recieve +1/ECL to their handle animal skill. This allows guildmembers to catch and train animals that would normaly be beyond their ability. The TLT token is hard to put a numerical value on but the other guilds... Weekly bonus ECL EHTC TAO GSIS discount bonus max purchase 3 +3% +9gp 170 4 +4% +16 240 5 +5% +25 286 6 +6% +36 308 7 +7% +49 390 8 +8% +64 448 9 +9% +81 510 10 +10% +100 576 11 +11% +121 627 12 +12% +144 735 13 +13% +169 792 14 +14% +196 851 15 +15% +225 936 16 +16% +256 960 17 +17% +289 1,025 18 +18% +324 1,134 19 +19% +361 1,232 20 +20% +400 1,260 Notes: The EHTC discount is on top of the bonus already gained from haggling. The discount is on any one item per week, so the gp value could be from 1 to 1,000,000 gp, depending on circumstances. The TAO bonus is just a weekly craft bonus. See the above chart to get an idea of how it balances. The GSIS bonus saves in credits. The listed value is the max purchase price of an item that can be picked up from the black market without paying credits. Since these numbers are based on skill modifiers for the most part, they are not exact. Individual characters will vary. Thoughts I notice that crafting can pay all of a loosers guild dues until around 10th lv. If a gladiator is winning, then they loose out on personal funds. Of course they gain by having a guild, and all the money they loose out on helps build infrastructure.
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 10:07 AM	Cat just mentioned a boat load of add-ons and such. But i disagree with your disagreement. The anvil and forge isn't there necessarily to BUILD stuff. It's there to MAINTAIN their equipment and keep things in order. As well, if the guild gets a stable, they will NEED it for horseshoes, nails and such. I believe an anvil and forge to be absolutely necessary for a guild. Otherwise, they would have to contract out their services to blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, armorsmiths all the time and that wouldn't be very functional. And as for the losing guild not making any profit, i don't believe 90gp per week for the losing guild to be much of a profit. At that rate, it would take them 2 months to buy an add-on. That is crippling enough to their development, why make it worse? -ToK AH. I didn't think about maintenence. As for the 2nd paragraph, the odds of all 5 (or more) gladiators loosiing is so low that I wouldn't worry about it. Also the 150 figure is for ECL 3 gladiators. even with a loosing streak of 0 for 9 between 5 people, they would still go up a level and be turning a profit. Even then, if they had 6 members they would turn a profit, after they bought a new room, of course.
Altaris13 09-17-05, 10:20 AM	Is it just me, or does it seem like the TAO gets a rather mediocre token? I mean, +400gp when I can easily get +20% off a 10,000gp item? I think additional discounts to the acquisition of new spells would be cool. That is something that I use in my games. One wizard's guild grants access to its massive library, and only charges a fee of 75gp per spell level to scribe a spell into your spellbook. Plus the guild will purchase unused scrolls at full value. What about also allowing scroll-makers to spend their own xp/gp and then sell their scrolls to the TAO for full market value?
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 10:29 AM	I know the 'sell scrolls at market value' thing will get shot down. The hidden benefit for TAO is that they can use their knowledge skills to "craft", thus saving themselves skill pts. But I do see your point. If anything, it looks like the EHTC is the too powerfull one. I would love to see spell aquisition discounts. I've always thought the scribing costs were a bit steep.
NiQil 09-17-05, 10:48 AM	AH. I didn't think about maintenence. As for the 2nd paragraph, the odds of all 5 (or more) gladiators loosiing is so low that I wouldn't worry about it. Also the 150 figure is for ECL 3 gladiators. even with a loosing streak of 0 for 9 between 5 people, they would still go up a level and be turning a profit. Even then, if they had 6 members they would turn a profit, after they bought a new room, of course. One thing I would like to point out here...especially with regard to the TAO, is that the odds are not as great as you think, since arcane casters are generally acknowledged to be weaker at lower levels. It could very easily happen that 5 arcane casters all lose in the same week. From a pure statistical standpoint, you are correct...the odds are staggering. But when you take into account the game element, then not so much.
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 11:00 AM	Yes, but all of TAOs members are ECL 5 except one.. There is still one more opening, if anyone would like to quest into it next week.
NiQil 09-17-05, 11:05 AM	Yes, but all of TAOs members are ECL 5 except one.. There is still one more opening, if anyone would like to quest into it next week. But you get the point I'm trying to make, yes? It is not as impossible for it to happen as statistics would have us believe, because of the inherent game element. Therefore, we should be basing this whole guild business on the worst possible outcome, which is 5 losses in one week. That way, if the guild performs better than that, it benefits the guild. But if the worst comes to pass and the guild gets squashed as a whole one week, it is not going to kill the guild.
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 11:12 AM	I do see your point, and I don't buy into statistics (at least not the pop culture version; i'm not anti-math or anything). What I'm saying is, a starting guild, with all ecl3 characters would grow slowly, or not at all, for the first 2 months in a worst case scenario. That's not that bad. Another point that hasn't really been brought up...What about the best case scenerio. Our starting guild, with all wins, would make 450 gp per week for the first 3 weeks before leveling en masse. Week one, new bedrooms, week two security, week three keg party. 300gp profit a week is a nice chunk of change. If the upkeep costs were lower, it could add an extra 50-100 gp a week!
Caterane 09-17-05, 11:43 AM	Net Incomes: Guilds can of course end up with a net loss; for example, if they hire too much personal or build too many rooms for their power. That makes sure that you always have as much personal and rooms as you are strong. Guild deaths however should not occur (unless the members decide so, of course). If a Guild goes in the negative, so be it. Let it have debts. It can fire personal, or scrap rooms until it has a net gain again. That system is pretty much self-sufficient without any big enforced regulations. Rooms per month: Guilds should be able to add one room of their level per month on average success. "Of their level" means that a newbie guild should be able to add one basic living quarter module a month, while a strong guild should be able to build one luxury living module a month; basic quarters would be no problem for that guild anymore. Starting Base: Every guild starts with only the most basic rooms that are essential to survive. Anything else has to be bought from then on, depending on what the guild needs. As a start, I'd say: Basic Grand Hall (max Guild Members: 20) Basic Living Quarters (holds 5 low level PCs) Basic Kitchen (serves for 20 Members) Basic Servants Quarter (holds 5 Staff) Basic Bathroom (serves for 20 Members) Explanation: The Grand Hall is always the heart of the guild. It determines the level of the guild (basic means Level 1 Guild) which is necessary to derive the absolute power of the guild (opposed to the relative power based on win/losses in Guild Wars) and to have a fixed point which helps us to determine what rooms can be bought when. To emphasize its top importance, it should have a very important function; perhaps it might be the room that provides the Token? Also, this Room determines the maximum Member capacity of a Guild. Basic Living Quarters hold the 5 low level PCs that are mandatory to run a guild. These 5 PCs are on their own for some weeks before new people can join which is a good thing because they can get familiar with their guild. The Kitchen and Bathroom can support 20 Members (PCs and Staff). The Kitchen needs a Cook and the Living Quarters a maid which sets the minimum members of a guild to 7. So it's space for 13 additional Members before it needs expansion. The 2 staff members sleep in the Servant Quarters. Since they can hold 5 staffs, there's space for 3 more. This seems simple enough and gives guilds enough freedom in what they want to buy next. I think that's a good starting package for Guilds. ---------------------------------- Room Prices: The first 5 PCs will earn an average of ~400 gp a week for the guild. They should be on their own for some weeks so let's say a Basic Living Quarter costs 2000 gold. We should base the other rooms on that. Here are some ideas: - Basic Living Quarters (5 low PCs) - 2000 - Basic Servant Quarters (5 staff) - 2000 - Basic Kitchen (serves 20 members) - 4000 - Basic Bathroom (serves 20 members) - 2000 - Fancy Living Quarters (2 mid PCs) - 4000 I think these will be the most important ones. Any idea about the prices for the other rooms? We also need to add some functions to certain rooms. No room should be useless. ---------------------------------- Staff Members: We need to clarify what you need Staff for, and what Staff needs. Example: Cook: Needs Kitchen, Servant Quarters, Bathroom. Basic Kitchen: Needs 1 Cook. We have to assign that to every available staff member, and to PCs of all 4 tiers. Ideas? Tokens: I agree that some Tokens are better than others and that has to do with the kind of builds that enter that Guild. Wizards will always be around and already get the most advantages by crafting. Bards and Rogues on the other hand could use a boost so the Token is a bit better. But I have an optional proposal: Instead of giving Guilds a bonus that carries over into arena fights vs non-members, we could instead give each guild a bonus that only applies when dealing with other Guilds. That would mean that non-guild members would be completely unaffected by the guild system and could basically just ignore it, while we can come up with a better, tiered, and more detailed system of guild benefits. Thoughts?
King Uther 09-17-05, 11:54 AM	Sure. The EHTC can either buy rooms cheaper or make a higher percentage of money from its members[15%?]
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 12:07 PM	It's a bit difficult to think of new guild tokens when the guilds have no finished rules yet...hmmmm... Certain rooms cheaper More or less guild tax Cheeper upkeep for staff Cheeper upkeep for rooms More funds created by shops/schools Certain rooms give higher skill/activity bonuses Another thing...You can use craft wonderous to make architecture (like permenant circles of protection on the floor). Obviously TAO would end up with that sort of thing, but because of the 'no donations' rule we would have to pay out the nose for it. There could be a discount for TAO based on that.
LLMadCow 09-17-05, 12:49 PM	Tokens: I agree that some Tokens are better than others and that has to do with the kind of builds that enter that Guild. Wizards will always be around and already get the most advantages by crafting. Bards and Rogues on the other hand could use a boost so the Token is a bit better. But I have an optional proposal: Instead of giving Guilds a bonus that carries over into arena fights vs non-members, we could instead give each guild a bonus that only applies when dealing with other Guilds. That would mean that non-guild members would be completely unaffected by the guild system and could basically just ignore it, while we can come up with a better, tiered, and more detailed system of guild benefits. Thoughts? Great proposal! Really, this limits the bonus to combat related aspects. No gold. No items. Just what will impact the battle at hand. If we go this route, we may want to focus some on guild-centric battles.
NiQil 09-17-05, 01:00 PM	Great proposal! Really, this limits the bonus to combat related aspects. No gold. No items. Just what will impact the battle at hand. If we go this route, we may want to focus some on guild-centric battles. I agree....this is the best idea regarding the tokens so far. This takes away the need to balance guild characters vs non-guild characters, because in the arena the tokens wouldn't be of any benefit. If the tokens are useful only for guild purposes.....say discounts on building rooms or bonuses to sabotaging other guilds construction....stuff like that...that would also tie into the guild war bit. Maybe if one guild is in possession of another guild's token, in the team fights between guilds, the possessor of the other guild's token can use that to name a special condition to the fight...such as no flying...or no invisibility...something like that.
Vathelokai 09-18-05, 06:59 AM	Estimated weekly income from guild fees Assumes a 5 member guild ECL min max avg 3 150 450 300 4 200 600 400 5 265 795 530 6 330 990 660 7 430 1,290 860 8 565 1,695 1,130 9 750 2,250 1,500 10 965 2,895 1,930 11 1,250 3,750 2,500 12 1,630 4,890 3,260 13 2,165 6,495 4,330 14 2,830 8,490 5,660 15 3,665 10,995 7,330 16 4,665 13,995 9,330 17 6,000 18,000 12,000 18 7,830 23,490 15,660 19 10,165 30,495 20,330 20 13,330 39,990 26,660 Note: Of course, these numbers can be improved by gaining more members, or building shops/schools/ect. Starting Base: Every guild starts with only the most basic rooms that are essential to survive. Anything else has to be bought from then on, depending on what the guild needs. As a start, I'd say: Basic Grand Hall (max Guild Members: 20) Basic Living Quarters (holds 5 low level PCs) Basic Kitchen (serves for 20 Members) Basic Servants Quarter (holds 5 Staff) Basic Bathroom (serves for 20 Members) Sounds like some appartments I have lived in. So lets say the upkeep on these is 20gp/week/room (100gp) including the staff that goes with them (a cook and maid). A ECL3 guild would make 50-350gp a week without changing anything. If we assume a guild can make a room in a month on average, then a new low living quarters would cost 800gp. Mid would be around 3,000, high would be about 17,000, and epic would be about 48,000. Does this seem like a reasonable baseline to everyone? In the worse case scenario, a guild would take 4 months to gather the kind of money to build a new room. That seems a bit off to me. But then, I think 5 gladiators loosing 16 straight fights is a bit off too. We could instead base the cost on the worst case model, assuming 2 months to get a new room. The costs become half of the stated, and avg guilds could build new rooms every 2 weeks. Great guilds every week. Random ideas You can replace a member of your staff with a PC who is not fighting. This would follow all the rules of crafting an item more then 1000 gp. If the character has a prof/craft skill that is appropriate, they can funtion as a 'servant'.
Caterane 09-18-05, 07:01 AM	Here's a first draft of what the wages for staff could be. As with all prices, these are just guesses and will very likely be adapted during the test runs of guilds. For now, we have to come up with some concrete numbers to get that guild thing off the ground. The more you help me, the faster we can start. Room Upkeep: For simplicities sake, we should say room upkeeps are static numbers. For example, 10 gp for every basic room. More for fancy. Weekly Wages of Staff: Cook (3 gp) [Com1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Maid1 (3 gp) [Com1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Guard2 (6 gp) [War1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Groom (5 gp) [Com1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Smith (12 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Librarian (12 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Clerk (12 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Alchemist (12 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Entertainer (12 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Torturer (9 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Inquisitor (9 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Low PC (--): needs Basic Living Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Mid PC (--): needs Fancy Living Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom Mount (--): needs Stables Rooms and Staff: Basic Grand Hall (5 PCs, 1 Guard) (max Guild Members: 50) (free) Basic Living Quarters (1 maid) (holds 5 low PCs) (2000) Basic Kitchen (1 cook) (serves for 20 Members) (4000) Basic Servants Quarter (1 maid) (holds 5 Staff) (2000) Basic Bathroom (-) (serves for 20 Members) (2000) Stables3 (1 groom) (holds 4 large mounts) (2000) Basic Smithy4 (1 smith) (+2 to related craft skill) (2000) Basic Library (1 librarian) (+2 to related knowledge) (2000) Basic Workshop (1 clerk) (+2 to related profession) (2000) Alchemy Lab (1 alchemist) (+2 to either craft alchemy or poison) (2000) Auditorium (1 entertainer) (+2 to all performs) (2000) Torture Chamber (1 torturer) (+2 to gather information) (2000) Interrogation Chamber5 (1 inquisitor) (+2 to gather information) (2000) Fancy Living Quarters (1 maid) (holds 2 mid PCs) (4000) Remarks: 1: Maids keep the rooms clean, and clean the guild as a whole. They also serve guild members, and assist the cooks. Therefore, one maid per Quarter sounds reasonable. 2: Guards do not engage in any action outside the guild, like soldiers do. They do merely defend and guard the guild. That's why they're listed under non-combat personal. 3: Stables hold 4 large mounts, or 8 medium, or 2 huge, or one gargantuan. Collosal mounts need two stables. - Non-Guild Player Characters are assumed to live on the Arena Compound where they have a room, stables, and services. Once they enter a guild, they lose all this so the guild needs to provide it for them. For example, no stables, no mounts. We can make a rule that increases the upkeep of a guild by 10 for every mount without stable so that mounts can still be used. 4: A Basic Smithy has to be specified to one craft skill, and it must hold the appropriate smith. A Fancy smithy is an upgraded basic smithy and relates to two craft skills. Same for similar rooms, like the library. - The terms basic, fancy, luxury are only there so that we can discuss it better. We will later give the better rooms different names. 5: It would be cooler if the Torture Chamber and the Interrogation Chamber do different things. Any idea? Ok, these are the most basic rooms for a guild. The following rooms need a purpose too. Please help me in finding one for them, along with cost and staff if appropriate, like I did above. Rooms can also have prerequisites, so for example, in order to build a Dining Hall, you'd have to build a fancy kitchen first. - Auditorum - Chapel - Common Area - Dining Hall - Garden - Office - Storage - Training Area - Trophy Hall If you have ideas for other rooms, please tell me. The following rooms are combat related and need a fleshed out Inter-Guild War system first so we have to deal with them later. These rooms are: Armory, Barracks, Conference Chamber, Prison Cell, Vault, War Room. Tokens: I think it is a very good idea to keep Tokens "in-guild" so that it doesn't affect non-guild members at all. With this we can replace the Tokens with something better. I am thinking about Special Rooms that are only available to that one guild, and if build, grants the guild a guild-specific benefit (token if you like) that only works within the Guild system. We can have more than one such Special Room for each guild, with different prices and effects. This overhauls the whole Token and Inter-guild battle system so we need to start from scratch here. However, to do so we have to finish the guild rules first, then look what effects token rooms might have so let's ignore guild specific rooms for now. @Vath: I thought about replacing staff with PCs too but decided against it. It complicates things (who is going to check that?) and I am not sure if a mid-level PC would be willing to serve as a cook or maid. After all, PCs are the masters of the Guild. Better keep it simple and have rooms require staff. Calculations: With a room costing 10 upkeep, and the mandatory starting staff, a guild would have an upkeep of 65 gp a week for their starting base. A stable increases that to 80 gp. Assuming a Guild earns an average of 400 a week with a mix of 5 low level PCs, it leaves about 300-350 gp to grow. Even if the Guild does bad, this amount increases within the next weeks because one or the other PC will level up. If a Guild wins more than it loses, it will earn more than 600 gp a week. Every Guild should be able to build a second Living Quarter within 1-2 months which is absolutely ok.
Vathelokai 09-19-05, 12:32 AM	I like the idea of the fancy versions of the rooms either giving a +2 to two skills, or a +4 to one skill. I think some variation should go into the room prices. For example, an alchemist lab for a player costs 500gp. So 2000gp for one that everyone could use seems resonable. But, for crafts/professions the MW tool costs 55. It would be cheaper in the long run for every character to buy their own instead of paying 2000 for a great one. If it's going to cost that much, it should give an extra benifit. Some ideas... - Armory [characters can donate weapons/armor to the guild] - Auditorum [+2 to perform (when making money as free activity)] - Chapel [base is sanctified by some permenant spell effect] - Common Area [+2 morale to staff] - Dining Hall - Garden [staff upkeep costs reduced by 10% (for food)] - Office [reduced credit cost for guild sponsered quests] - Training Area [+? for 24 as the bard inspire competence ability] - Trophy Hall Admitedly, some of these ideas are better then others...
Caterane 09-19-05, 07:00 AM	@Vath: The rooms should give +2 only, with fancy and luxury granting the same bonus to other crafts/professions/knowledges. A +4/+6 bonus would just encourage to focus on one and only one topic which spoils diversity. Which mage is going to put skillpoints in other knowledges if the TAO has a +6 knowledge arcana library. Auditorium with +2 to perform is a good idea. And you're right: a smithy would not be very attractive, that's why we have to make it more attractive. Three ideas: - The bonus is a Guild Bonus that stacks with all others. - The Smithy and similar rooms are prerequisites for other rooms. Armory perhaps which is a prereq. for Barracks? Something like that. - Such rooms give an extra benefit, or can be upgraded to grant one. EDIT: Actually, at that point we can begin to create a structure of rooms and prerequisite rooms. Basic rooms should never have prerequisites. But if the guild wants to expand into one direction, it needs certain rooms first. For example, you need an armor smithy to get an armory, or a blacksmith smithy to get the stable upgrade. I thought about some combat boni for rooms too but dismissed it. Military building maybe, but not the non-combat rooms. But I have a good idea for the Office: it is necessary for Facilities. For example, you buy a marketplace or a windmill, you need an Office. Perhaps one office per 3 facilities. Same thing could be done for the chapel. Those who do not wish to engage in religion-related things by building churches in Gladius, do not need a chapel in their guild. I'll move the armory to military buildings.
Gonbow 09-19-05, 02:15 PM	@Vath: The rooms should give +2 only, with fancy and luxury granting the same bonus to other crafts/professions/knowledges. A +4/+6 bonus would just encourage to focus on one and only one topic which spoils diversity. Which mage is going to put skillpoints in other knowledges if the TAO has a +6 knowledge arcana library. Auditorium with +2 to perform is a good idea. And you're right: a smithy would not be very attractive, that's why we have to make it more attractive. Three ideas: - The bonus is a Guild Bonus that stacks with all others. - The Smithy and similar rooms are prerequisites for other rooms. Armory perhaps which is a prereq. for Barracks? Something like that. - Such rooms give an extra benefit, or can be upgraded to grant one. EDIT: Actually, at that point we can begin to create a structure of rooms and prerequisite rooms. Basic rooms should never have prerequisites. But if the guild wants to expand into one direction, it needs certain rooms first. For example, you need an armor smithy to get an armory, or a blacksmith smithy to get the stable upgrade. I thought about some combat boni for rooms too but dismissed it. Military building maybe, but not the non-combat rooms. But I have a good idea for the Office: it is necessary for Facilities. For example, you buy a marketplace or a windmill, you need an Office. Perhaps one office per 3 facilities. Same thing could be done for the chapel. Those who do not wish to engage in religion-related things by building churches in Gladius, do not need a chapel in their guild. I'll move the armory to military buildings. Gonbow rings the balance alarm! What happened to keeping guild benefits between guilds, neh? A few alternative thoughts: Increases speed of construction. (Two rooms per period, if your really fabulously rich) Increases speed of production. (Higher crafting limits per week for guild members using the facilities) Decreases cost of construction. (Rooms related to this room cost less to create, I.E: If you have a Armory, creating/upgrading your Training Rooms costs less. If you have a Meeting Hall, creating/upgrading your War Room costs less, etc.)
Caterane 09-19-05, 03:27 PM	I've already dismissed that idea, Gonbow so don't worry. However, some benefits will carry over. After all, they're paying 10% of their income every week. The Smithy will be used to upgrade the troops. You can for example buy the "Masterwork Upgrade" in the smithy and from then on, all soldiers are equipped with Masterwork Weapons. There can be all kinds of upgrades, like "Longsword Upgrade", "Adamantine Upgrade", etc. The "Magic Weapon Upgrade" (all swords +1) should probably be built in the Magic Lab.
NiQil 09-19-05, 03:28 PM	Gonbow rings the balance alarm! This should be in your sig! LOL
Vathelokai 09-19-05, 04:45 PM	@Cat: I can see the problem with focusing, but the +6 library would only be to one know skill and would cost tens of thoushands. Having played a number of build the base type strategy games, I know that saving up to get that instead of buying a diversity of rooms is a bad idea. And if all fancy rooms have the prereq of a fancy common room first, then low guilds really couldn't focus in that way.
Caterane 09-19-05, 05:02 PM	Here's my new idea for rooms: Upgrades! Many or all rooms should allow for upgrades. These upgrades - once bought - affect the whole guild. So for example, you could buy a "Longsword" upgrade to replaces the Shortsword of all soldiers with a longsword. Some upgrades need better versions of the room, so in order to buy the 'adamantine upgrade' you need to have a "Grand Smithy". Now do you have any ideas for upgrades, and in which rooms they could be bought? Any idea helps. @Vath: Actually, I think that might even be a good idea for an upgrade for the library.
NiQil 09-19-05, 06:15 PM	- Auditorum > a morale bonus of some kind...not sure what - Chapel - Common Area - Dining Hall - Garden > maybe a discount to the cost of feeding the NPC's of the guild - Office > +2 to forgery and/or decipher script checks - Storage - Training Area > maybe a bonus to Balance, Jump, Climb, Tumble or Swim of some kind....maybe the ability to reduce penalties from armor checks (not to all of them...just listing the possible applicable skills I could think of) - Trophy Hall One glaring omission from this list (unless it was in another post and I missed it) is a Treasury of some kind. Or maybe just a vault...or a combination of the two. Which could maybe provide a small gift (such as bonus gp or something) to a character upon attaining a new level (would have to be scaleable to individual levels) A library could allow those with no ranks in Knowledges to use them untrained... Just some random thoughts.
xanadu 09-19-05, 10:07 PM	Ok, I understand we have moved beyond the requirements thing, yet I feel it is necessary to state one very important fact. Guilds were not something one gained addmission to for meeting requirements. In order to join a guild, one had to be apprecenticed. In short, it was not what you knew but who you knew. This should be the main consideration for joining, not meeting some abstract standards. This has several advantages: *It is more role-played based *It eliminates any complaints/concerns regarding pre-requisites *I think it is more fun and open for participation *It is more "living," (we can take this as far as we want, i.e. the junior member has a sponsor, etc). Regarding the nuts and bolts to the guilds, the Basic Servants Quarters needs to hold more servants than the proposed amount. There will be more servants than guild members and their accomodations aren't nearly as lavash as actual guild members. I dont see a "barracks" room listed anywhere. To have anything more than token watchmen, (i.e. guards), you need a barracks. Suggested staff add-on: Lawyer/Barrister [15 gp] (gives bonus discounts on guild purchases/upkeep/taxes, etc). Also gives forgery/appraise bonus. Suggested room functions: Torture chamber also gives +2 bonus on intimidate checks Interrogation chamber also gives +2 bonus on diplomacy shecks Armory -> Necessary for equiping security force with "weapons of choice". Also perhaps allows guild members to quest with mundane weapons/armor without paying for them (i.e. they borrow). Chapel -> +2 bonus on knowledge religion checks and heal checks. Necessary for maintaining morale once guild is certain size. Office -> Discounts on upkeep / maintenance costs (reflects organization/efficiency) Storage -> Discounts on building costs (reflects less transit costsless waste) Training area -> +2 bonus on combat skill of choice. Soldiers who have training area receive bonuses against another guild's soldiers who lack such training facilities. Garden -> Discount on upkeep and stable costs
Caterane 09-20-05, 08:18 AM	Ok, from what I read, many of you are not happy with the strict requirements and the tax. Here's my compromise: we easen up the requirements to join (well, not down to one rank, right Usurpator ;) ) and we will drop the tax from a real tax to an 'imaginary' one. That means, a Guild still earns 10% of a PCs income a week but that isn't deducted from the PCs income. In return, I want your participation, and a bit more enthusiasm about LivingGuilds. Deal?
Caterane 09-20-05, 08:54 AM	I think in order to come up with more good room ideas, we need to see the whole picture. That's why I want to move on and present you the next step: Districts. Districts of Gladius: Gladius is divided into districts. LLMadCow has written up some <here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=3463300)> but we will have to add some new ones (especially around Gladius) and modify existing ones (Jindl Park, Mo Square, I don't like the idea of having a whole district named after a user). District Traits: Every district has six District Traits: - Economy - Faith - Crime - Leisure - Education - Nature and a numerical number assigned to each one; probably ranging from 0 to 6. Guild Buildings: Now we make a list with all kinds of buildings a guild can buy. Each building will be put into one of the six trait categories above. For example, the marketplace will fall into Economy, and the library into Education. Each building has an Efficiency Rating. Buildings generate income for the guild, and the amount of income depends on the building's efficiency and the district trait. Example: Let's say, Upper Merx has an Economy Rating of 4. A marketplace has an Efficiency of 50 gp. Then this marketplace in Upper Merx generates (4*50) = 200 gp a week. The same marketplace in Vilis (Economy Rating 1) generates only 50 gp. Upgrading Buildings: The efficiency of a building can be increased by upgrading it. So a marketplace can become a markethall which increases its Efficiency rating to 100. The upgraded markethall would generate 400 gp in Upper Merx. You can only upgrade a building if the district has the capacity to support it. A Marketplace needs at least 1 Economy Rating in a district. A Market Hall might need a 3 (so it could not be built in the district of Vilis). Buildings Prerequisites: In order to upgrade buildings, a guild needs certain rooms in their base first. So if the Celestial Forces want to upgrade their shrine -> temple -> cathedral, then they'd have to have or even upgrade their chapel in their home base. That kills two birds with one storm: it solves our room problem, and it prevents high-powered buildings by saving only for one upgrade. A steady expansion is guaranteed. District Building Limits: Every district can only support a certain number of buildings. That is necessary for two reasons: 1) without it, upgrades would be useless (just build a second marketplace) and 2) Guilds vie for the precious district slots for buildings. A district can also only hold two different Guilds. If a third one wants to get a foot into it, it has to 'fight' its way in. Guild Traits: Every Guild has its own traits that modify the District traits. I have spent a lot of time to balance them out against each other, and this is the final version: TLT +2 Nature +1 Faith +0 Crime +0 Education -1 Leisure -2 Economy EHTC +2 Crime +1 Economy +0 Leisure +0 Faith -1 Education -2 Nature TAO +2 Education +1 Nature +0 Economy +0 Crime -1 Faith -2 Leisure GSIS +2 Economy +1 Leisure +0 Nature +0 Education -1 Faith -2 Crime So if the GSIS controls Upper Merx, the Economy Rating increases to 6 (so our marketplace generates 6*50 = 300 gp) but Faith buildings and Crime buildings suffers. The EHTC probably wouldn't like that... As I said, the traits are balanced out so that no two guilds can ally without having to do some compromises. Three New Guilds: The system works much better if all guilds start together so here are three new themes that need to be filled: Psionic, Warrior, and Faith. The latter will be taken by the Celestial Forces, which will be opened by me. So we need a psionics guild and a warriors guild. Any takers? The District Traits for the three new guilds: WAR +2 Leisure +1 Nature +0 Crime +0 Faith -1 Economy -2 Education CEF +2 Faith +1 Education +0 Economy +0 Leisure -1 Nature -2 Crime PSI +2 Education +1 Crime +0 Economy +0 Leisure -1 Nature -2 Faith
Snommelp 09-20-05, 11:05 AM	I've never done the whole guild thing before, and it's looking more and more daunting as we go, but I suppose I can take a stab at one of those new guilds. I'm not good with psionics, though, so I guess it's the warrior's guild for me. How would prerequisites work for that? Here's what I've got: BAB +2 or better Proficient with martial weapons or able to deal lethal damage unarmed Must Quest to join
Caterane 09-20-05, 12:02 PM	Entry requirements are irrelevant at that point. We will design them later.
Emrys Donovan 09-20-05, 12:29 PM	Well, I've got one Psion already, an another one in the making, and a few of my other characters use psionics, so I guess I could tackle the Psonic guild, if you would like.
SoulLord 09-20-05, 12:41 PM	Im afraid we are putting too much complication at start. how about. Each guild starts in a different district and the districts dont provide any drawbacks or benefits let's say we start each guild with 5 members if there is not enough people consider to fill positions with 'virtual' pc' until the quota is filled this oughta give each guild a similar starting income to spend.
NiQil 09-20-05, 12:49 PM	A thought regarding your districts, Cat... First, even though I know you said that you would like to have 8 guilds, but want to save one of them for if you forgot any section of builds, but for your district thing to work, I agree that they should all start at the same time. So you might need map out an 8th guild now. Also, since we have 8 guilds, would it it not make things a little easier if there were 8 guild traits, as opposed to 6...effectively a trait for each guild? A couple that come to mind that could be added in would be Creation (like technology or inventions...you get the idea), and Politics (or maybe just Government).
Caterane 09-20-05, 12:55 PM	Here are some Structures proposals along with their upgrades. Please help me in finding new structures that fall into the seven trait categories. Economy (1) Marketstall -> Marketplace -> Markethall -> Trading Center (2) Blacksmith -> Foundry -> Assembly Plant (3) Creel -> Docks -> Harbor (4) Lodging House -> Inn -> Hotel Faith (1) Shrine -> Temple -> Church -> Cathedral (2) First-Aid-Tent -> Health Clinic -> Hospital (3) Cemetery -> Graveyard -> City of the Dead (Crypts/Catacombs/Mausoleum) (4) Laybrother -> Itinerant Preacher -> Prophet (4) Place of Worship -> Cloister -> Monastry Crime (1) Thug Hideout -> Sewer Network -> Terror Cell -> Mafia (2) Low Dive -> Street Gang Base -> Thieves Guild (3) Drug Cartel -> Blackmarket -> Slavemarket (4) Leisure (1) Public Square -> Theatre -> Amphitheatre -> Coliseum (2) Statue -> Museum -> Exhibition Hall (3) Tavern -> Red Light District -> Festhall (4) Gardens -> Park -> Zoo Education (1) School -> Higher School -> College -> Graduate University (2) Bookstore -> Library -> Grand Library (3) Workshop -> Laboratory -> Research Facility (4) Nature (1) Tunnel -> Coalmine -> Quarry -> Gold Mine (2) Poultry/Dairy -> Windmill -> Big Farm (3) Timberyard -> Lumbermill -> Parchment Factory (4) Kennels/Horse Trading -> Breeding Farm -> Wildlife Reserve Politics (1) Lay Judge House -> Courthouse -> High Court -> Gladius Supreme Court (2) Speaker's Corner -> Parish Hall -> Town Hall (3) Jail House -> Dungeon -> Central Prison (4)
Cerebus13 09-20-05, 12:56 PM	A thought regarding your districts, Cat... First, even though I know you said that you would like to have 8 guilds, but want to save one of them for if you forgot any section of builds, but for your district thing to work, I agree that they should all start at the same time. So you might need map out an 8th guild now. Also, since we have 8 guilds, would it it not make things a little easier if there were 8 guild traits, as opposed to 6...effectively a trait for each guild? A couple that come to mind that could be added in would be Creation (like technology or inventions...you get the idea), and Politics (or maybe just Government).The Guilds currently conflicting with Districts are the TAO and the Psionics guild...with both having Education first. So to fix this another District could be added that suits either guild more closely. Creation sort of fits the bill for TAO (since mages craft a lot of stuff), but there may be something better out there. Leaving the 8th district blank or undecided could facilitate the future 8th guild that was wanted.
Caterane 09-20-05, 01:03 PM	Let's assume that there won't be an 8th guild (unless there's a really good theme!). But the politics idea might be a good one. Suggest some buildings and trait mods, and we'll see about that. It would probably replace the Psionic Guild's top trait.
NiQil 09-20-05, 01:27 PM	@all: Do you have a better name than buildings/facilities? Here are some Building proposals along with their upgrades. Please help me in finding new buildings that fall into the six trait categories. Every building should have 3 versions, with a 4th one optional as a special guild-specific upgrade. Also, if you have a better expression for one or the other building, tell me. Medieval buildings in English are not my speciality. Economy Marketstall -> Marketplace -> Markethall (-> Trading Center) Merchant Cart > Merchant Stall > Merchant Square > (Merchant Plaza) Faith Shrine -> Temple -> Church (-> Cathedral) Crime Thug Hideout -> ??? -> Terror Cell (-> Organized Crime Network) Shaby Tavern -> ??? -> Thieves Guild Leisure Museum -> Gladiosian Hall of Fame Statue > Museum > ??? > (Gladius Hall Of Fame) ??? -> Theatre -> Coliseum Public Square > Theatre > Ampitheatre (sp?) > (Coliseum) Education Bookstore -> Library -> Grand Library School -> Higher School -> University ??? -> Laboratory -> Research Facility Workshop > Laboratory > Research Facility > ??? Nature Gardens -> Park Gardens > Park > Sanctuary > (Reserve) Some ideas posted above in red....
NiQil 09-20-05, 01:39 PM	Let's assume that there won't be an 8th guild (unless there's a really good theme!). But the politics idea might be a good one. Suggest some buildings and trait mods, and we'll see about that. It would probably replace the Psionic Guild's top trait. I had a couple of building ideas....will have to think about the trait mods... Public Speaking Place (kind of a Soapbox) > General Assembly > Town Hall > (District Capital) I also had another idea for a District....Law. There is one for crime..there should be one for Law. Again...some building ideas. Work Release area > Stocks > Gladius Prison > (Executioner) Local Magistrate office > Courtroom > District Magistrate office > (Gladius Supreme Council)
xanadu 09-20-05, 01:48 PM	Faith First-Aid-Tent -> Health Clinic -> Hospital Crime Thug Hideout -> Underground Network -> Terror Cell (-> Mafioso) Shaby Tavern -> ??? -> Thieves Guild Leisure Statue -> Museum -> Palace (e.g. Versailles) (-> Gladius Hall of Fame) Public Square -> Theatre -> Amphitheatre (-> Coliseum) Tavern -> Red Light District :) -> Festhall Gardens -> Park -> Zoo Education Bookstore -> Library -> Grand Library School -> Higher School -> University Workshop -> Laboratory -> Research Facility Nature Windmill Poultry -> Farm -> Big Farm Timberyard -> Lumbermill Mine and optional: Politics Courthouse Parish Hall[/QUOTE]
NiQil 09-20-05, 03:01 PM	Faith First-Aid-Tent -> Health Clinic -> Hospital Crime Thug Hideout -> Underground Network -> Terror Cell (-> Mafioso) Shaby Tavern -> ??? -> Thieves Guild Leisure Statue -> Museum -> Palace (e.g. Versailles) (-> Gladius Hall of Fame) Public Square -> Theatre -> Amphitheatre (-> Coliseum) Tavern -> Red Light District :) -> Festhall Gardens -> Park -> Zoo Education Bookstore -> Library -> Grand Library School -> Higher School -> University Workshop -> Laboratory -> Research Facility Nature Windmill Poultry -> Farm -> Big Farm Timberyard -> Lumbermill Mine and optional: Politics Courthouse Parish Hall I wondered how long it would take for someone to suggest something along these lines LOL
Luni 09-20-05, 04:31 PM	@all: Do you have a better name than buildings/facilities? Here are some Building proposals along with their upgrades. Please help me in finding new buildings that fall into the six trait categories. Every building should have 3 versions, with a 4th one optional as a special guild-specific upgrade. Also, if you have a better expression for one or the other building, tell me. Medieval buildings in English are not my speciality. Economy (1) Marketstall -> Marketplace -> Markethall -> Trading Center (2) Foundry -> Blacksmith -> Assembly Plant (3) Creel -> Docks -> Harbor (4) Faith (1) Shrine -> Temple -> Church -> Cathedral (2) First-Aid-Tent -> Health Clinic -> Hospital (3) Cemetery -> Graveyard -> City of the Dead (Crypts/Catacombs) (4) Laybrother -> Itinerant Preacher -> Prophet - Cloister -> Monastry Crime (1) Thug Hideout -> Sewer Network -> Terror Cell -> Mafia (2) Low Dive -> Street Gang Base -> Thieves Guild (3) Drug Cartel -> Blackmarket -> Slavemarket (4) Leisure (1) Public Square -> Theatre -> Amphitheatre -> Coliseum (2) Statue -> Museum -> Exhibition Hall (3) Tavern -> Red Light District -> Festhall (4) Gardens -> Park -> Zoo Education (1) Bookstore -> Library -> Grand Library (2) School -> Higher School -> University -> Grand College (3) Workshop -> Laboratory -> Research Facility (4) Nature (1) Tunnel -> Coalmine -> Quarry -> Gold Mine (2) Poultry -> Windmill -> Big Farm (3) Logging Camp -> Timberyard -> Lumbermill (4) Kennels -> Breeding Farm -> ???? and optional: Politics (1) Lay Judge House -> Courthouse -> High Court -> Gladius Supreme Court (2) Speaker's Corner -> Parish Hall -> Town Hall (3) Jail House -> Dungeon -> Central Prison -> Island Prison (4) Suggestions in Red
NiQil 09-20-05, 05:04 PM	@all: Do you have a better name than buildings/facilities? Here are some Building proposals along with their upgrades. Please help me in finding new buildings that fall into the six trait categories. Every building should have 3 versions, with a 4th one optional as a special guild-specific upgrade. Also, if you have a better expression for one or the other building, tell me. Medieval buildings in English are not my speciality. Economy (1) Marketstall -> Marketplace -> Markethall -> Trading Center (2) Blacksmith -> Foundry -> Assembly Plant (3) Creel -> Docks -> Harbor (4) Lodging House -> Inn -> Hotel Faith (1) Shrine -> Temple -> Church -> Cathedral (2) First-Aid-Tent -> Midwife -> Health Clinic -> Hospital (3) Cemetery -> Graveyard -> City of the Dead (Crypts/Catacombs) -> Masoleum (sp?) (4) Laybrother -> Itinerant Preacher -> Prophet (4) Place of Worship -> Cloister -> Monastry Crime (1) Thug Hideout -> Sewer Network -> Terror Cell -> Mafia (2) Low Dive -> Street Gang Base -> Thieves Guild (3) Bootlegging -> Drug Cartel -> Blackmarket -> Slavemarket (4) Leisure (1) Public Square -> Theatre -> Amphitheatre -> Coliseum (2) Statue -> Museum -> Exhibition Hall -> (3) Tavern -> Red Light District -> Festhall (4) Gardens -> Park -> Zoo -> Wildlife Reserve/Sanctuary Education (1) Bookstore -> Library -> Grand Library (2) School -> Higher School -> University -> Graduate University (3) Workshop -> Laboratory -> Research Facility (4) Nature (1) Tunnel -> Coalmine -> Quarry -> Gold Mine (2) Poultry/Dairy -> Windmill Small Farm-> Big Farm -> Butcher/Dairy/Poultry Shop. (3) Timberyard -> Windmill -> Lumbermill -> Parchment Factory (4) Kennels -> Horse Trading -> Breeding Farm Kennels ->Breeding Farm -> Horse Trading -> Animal Trainers and optional: Politics (1) Lay Judge House -> Courthouse -> High Court -> Gladius Supreme Court (2) Speaker's Corner -> Parish Hall -> Town Hall (3) Jail House -> Dungeon -> Central Prison -> Hangman (4) Some more ideas....in red
Vathelokai 09-20-05, 05:04 PM	Im afraid we are putting too much complication at start. how about. Each guild starts in a different district and the districts dont provide any drawbacks or benefits Seconded. And on another note, Pirotess has applied for the 5th slot in TAO
Caterane 09-20-05, 05:13 PM	We won't see any Buildings or District Take-overs in the first two or three months when the guilds are occupied building up their Home Base. But we need to finish the system to see the whole picture. Just by creating the district traits and buildings, I've suddenly gotten a bunch of ideas for new rooms, something where we've been stuck.
SauroGrenom 09-20-05, 06:46 PM	I kind of like the idea that Guilds can have an effect upon their District (building civic improvements), and that guild wars would at some time be able to evict one guild from a particularly profitable district. I think it would be interesting if some of the buildings that guilds can buy are actually located in the district and change the underlying district traits. Others are improvements to the guild and improve the services the guild offers or the defenses of the guild. This adds a bit of strategy where a guild must decide if it will improve its defenses or improve its district. Heavy increases in defenses and the guild will be lording over a weak district, while neglecting defenses results in becomming the target of a guild war and being evicted from a well developed district. This gives rise to several potential strategies that the guilds can use to develop themselves. It also makes a potential use for the 8th district, an evicted guild must settle in the empty district. Inter-guild wars would allow victors to loot the district and guild hall of the loosers, or take over the district. If you take over the district you must move your guild, and you incur some cost(10-20%) to move each "room" or service from your old guild to your new location. All public works could not be moved to the new district but must remain behind. I propose that all districts are able to build level 1 buildings as a base. Each guild will modify the base by +1 or +0 or -1 for each trait. Each building would also change the district traits in some way as well. So hear is an example: District A is inhabited by the TOA so the TOA has an effect upon the district. While TOA is around, they exert their political power to supress religion (-1trait) and the district has an effective +0 level of Faith. That district is unable to build Faith structures. However the TOA has the effect of +1 on Education, so the district has a +2 Education value. This allows the district to build the normal level 1 education building or skip over the level one building and build the level 2 education structure right away. Each construction above the 1st level will have a required base trait level inorder to exist in the district and it will apply a bonus to the trait levels of the districts. When a guild takes over a district their modifiers are applied on top of the buildings and the base of the district. For example: District A has a level 1 Education, level 1 Faith, and level 1 Economy structures and no guilds in the district. Without the help of a guild they will be unable to build any additional structures because level 1 structures provide no bonuse to the District traits and all level 2 structures require a +2 in their trait to build one. Now TOA moves into the district, and they modify the district traits. Since the TOA has a +1 Nature and +1 Education, the district has a total +2 Nature and +2 Education when they are in town. So the District could build a level 2 Nature structure, or a level 2 Education. The negative and neutral effects of the guild have no effect upon a district that is so poorly developed, but I'll get to that in a minute. If the district builds a level 2 education structure it increased the district's education trait base to +2 now modified by the TOA to be a total of +3 and the district is eligable to build a level 3 education structure. When the level 3 education building is finished, then it provides an additional +1 to the districts education value for a new total of +4. These increases can allow more and more advanced and expensive education buildings that we can continue to invent as needed. If a district is well develped and has high level structures, the effect of a guild may cause the destruction of some of those traits, or simply preservation of those that it cannot actively support. District A is well developed, and the previous guild is defeated by the TOA. At the time that the TOA comes to the district, they have a level3 faith structure, level3 ecomony structure, and level1 education structure. The TOA effect increases the education level of the district to +2 enough to allow a level 2 education structure. The economy trait of the district is +3 (+1 base +1 level2 structure +1 level3 structure) this is enought to allow the level 3 economy structure to exist, but it is not high enough to allow the district to build a level4 economy structure. With the TOA in town the faith trait is +2 (+1base +1 level2 structure +1 level3 structure -1faith mod from TOA). This is not high enough to support the level3 faith structure and it is abandoned when the TOA come into town. After some resonable period of time (1-3month?) the district faith trait will decrease again because the level3 structure is gone. Then the faith level will drop to +1 and be unable to support the level2 faith building and it will be abandoned as well. This system allows a few different types of guild interaction. Obvious rivalries will exist where the TOA keeps destroying churches built by the CEF. Also an ally system could allow a guild to send their development team to another guilds district and help another build more advanced structures in the traits that they advance. So TAO would ally with GSIS inorder to get help building economy buildings in exchange for help with education buildings. Each guild could have the unique ability to advance a particular type of public building. OK, so i just got that out, without too much reflection, I'll think about it some more and either abandon the idea or incorporate your comments.
Caterane 09-20-05, 07:18 PM	Here are the new Guild District Traits, including Politics. TLT +3 Nature +2 Faith +1 Leisure +0 Education -1 Politics -2 Crime -3 Economy EHTC +3 Crime +2 Economy +1 Nature +0 Faith -1 Education -2 Leisure -3 Politics TAO +3 Education +2 Leisure +1 Nature +0 Crime -1 Politics -2 Economy -3 Faith GSIS +3 Economy +2 Leisure +1 Politics +0 Education -1 Nature -2 Faith -3 Crime CEF +3 Faith +2 Politics +1 Economy +0 Education -1 Nature -2 Leisure -3 Crime WAR +3 Leisure +2 Nature +1 Crime +0 Economy -1 Politics -2 Faith -3 Education PSI +3 Politics +2 Crime +1 Education +0 Faith -1 Economy -2 Leisure -3 Nature
SoulLord 09-20-05, 07:21 PM	Rooms I was thinking of the defenses a place should have when guild wars happen It occurs to me that if guild A is challenguing Guild B That the "battlefield" should be in Guild B if not the whole guild then at least the challengue should take place in a special Room of guild B. Now all that money and rooms invested in guild defense could actually show. For example The Battle Room of the Arcane Order could have all spells cast in the premises to be considered silent when/if the battle room is upgraded. Just some ideas.......
NiQil 09-20-05, 07:23 PM	While I don't necessarily agree with all of the rankings you have....I think they are close enough to be workable.
SauroGrenom 09-21-05, 01:55 AM	What kind of bonuses are all of these building going to provide to the guild members? If you want to keep the guild system seperate from the Arena, you need to be carefull. If you improve crafting or money making abilities, you are indirectly providing a bonus to the guild members in the Arena because they will have more money and better equipment. It wouldn't be unbalanced to allow special combat or equipment related bonuses to function in quests or against other guild members in interguild conflict, but if these traits creap into the Arena, then new members will get the sense that the Arena is not a fair place to be. Here are some Building proposals along with their upgrades. Please help me in finding new buildings that fall into the six trait categories. Every building should have 3 versions, with a 4th one optional as a special guild-specific upgrade. Also, if you have a better expression for one or the other building, tell me. Medieval buildings in English are not my speciality. Economy (1) Marketplace -> Bazaar -> Market square -> Plaza (sales) (2) Forge -> Foundry -> Mill -> Factory (crafts) (3) Landing -> Pier -> Marina-> Harbor (transporting goods) (4) Stockpile -> Depository -> Warehouse -> Emporium (storage of raw and refined goods) Faith (1) Chantry -> Tabernacle -> Basilica -> Cathedral (religious services) (2) Nunnery -> Order -> Convent-> Priory (medical services) (3) Ossuary -> Charnel/Boneyard -> Sepulcher -> Necropolis/Catacombs (for the dead) (4) Hermitage -> Cloister -> Abbey-> Monestary (monks brew beer :pint: ) Crime (1) Street Toughs -> Strong Arm Squad -> Coterie -> Mafia ("protection") (2) Bistro -> Speakeasy -> Saloon -> Cabaret (gambling and betting) (3) Fence -> Smuggler -> Cartel -> Syndicate (illegal items) (4) Pickpocket -> Burglar -> Counterfeiter -> Assassin (illegal services) Leisure (1) Stage -> Theatre -> Stadium -> Coliseum (sport and theatrical) (2) Menagerie -> Exhibition -> Gallery -> Musuem (fine arts) (3) Ale House -> Tavern -> Festhall -> Bordello (partying) (4) Gardens -> Park -> Watercourse Park -> Hunting Grounds -> (out door recreation) Education (1) Repository-> Library -> Archives -> Athenaeum (books and the storage of books) (2) Creche -> Seminary -> Academy -> University (education and teaching) (3) Alchemical Workshop -> Arcane Laboratory -> Observatory -> ArchMagi Tower (research and discovery) (4) (???) Nature (1) Tunnel -> Coalmine -> Quarry -> Gold Mine (Mining) (2) Livestock Yard -> Breeding Pens -> Beast Kennels ->Training Gounds(Animal Husbandry) (3) Lumberjack Crews -> Logging Camp -> Tree Nursery -> Lumbermill (Forestry) (4) Ranger Station -> Forest Stewardship -> Private Lands -> Protected Reserve (Nature preservation) and optional: Politics (1) Magistrate -> House of Lords -> High Court -> Gladius Supreme Court (justice) (2) Stump-> Dias -> Podium -> Pulpit (politics brought to the people) (3) Hold -> Stockade -> Dungeon -> Island Prison (crime control/military) (4) Amphitheater -> Auditorium -> Lyceum -> Rotunda (High Government Politics) Hear are a few ideas I kicked out this morning. What these buildings actually do is another question entirely. Alteast there are a few more names on the list.
Emrys Donovan 09-21-05, 07:38 AM	Cat, for the EHTC rankings, I think you should switch the rankings below +3, like putting politics as +2 and economy +1, or the other way around, whatever. I just think that would be more appropriate since the EHTC, from what I've read, is deeply involved in politics.
Vathelokai 09-21-05, 07:43 AM	Cat, for the EHTC rankings, I think you should switch the rankings below +3, like putting politics as +2 and economy +1, or the other way around, whatever. I just think that would be more appropriate since the EHTC, from what I've read, is deeply involved in politics. I think the idea is that they are very bad for politics, because they manipulate the system and force the politicians to represent them instead of their district.
Caterane 09-21-05, 10:00 AM	@Sauro: Wow! There are a lot of very good ideas in there! Thanks! I'll add them later. PS: The buildings will only generate Guild Income which is not available to characters. They will not give any benefits to PCs. @NiQil/Emrys: You proposed putting up Politics for the EHTC to +1 or +2. Then they would have almost no drawback when allying with the PSI guild and even the Celestial Forces would be cool to have as a neighbor. If you think you can come up with a better distribution of traits so that a) It represents the Guild appropriately. b) No two Guilds can ally without drawbacks. c) All traits are more or less equally distributed. You'll see that this is a very complicated thing but maybe I missed something. @All: We need to come up with some rules for building structures in districts. When can you build one? When is the district yours? Example problem: the Celestial Forces would never build anything other than Faith structures if there isn't a rule for that. Other problem: why not upgrade the existing Faith building instead of building a different trait structure? Other problem: Why not going to another district and building a Faith structure there if only one is allowed per district?
SauroGrenom 09-21-05, 12:32 PM	@Sauro: Wow! There are a lot of very good ideas in there! Thanks! I'll add them later. PS: The buildings will only generate Guild Income which is not available to characters. They will not give any benefits to PCs. Thanks! @All: We need to come up with some rules for building structures in districts. When can you build one? When is the district yours? Example problem: the Celestial Forces would never build anything other than Faith structures if there isn't a rule for that. Other problem: why not upgrade the existing Faith building instead of building a different trait structure? Other problem: Why not going to another district and building a Faith structure there if only one is allowed per district? The simple solution is to make higher level buildings more expensive and relative to their cost less efficient. So a Chantry costs Xgp and makes Ygp per month in returns. Then a Tabernacle costs 5Xgp to build but only makes 1.5Ygp per month. At some point it will be a more efficinet use of money to build other structures instead of an advanced Faith building. When the Basilica costs 30Xgp to build but only makes 3Ygp in returns, then a Market place starts to look like a relatively good return on the cost to build it. OK, so here is an idea about limitations on developing a District: Each guild can only recieve money from those structures in its district. Each district has a limited number of slots say ten. Each slot can be used for a single building advancement string such as Chantry -> Tabernacle -> Basilica -> Cathedral. One slot must be reserved for each trait. So that means that each District has a reserved slot for a leasure building , education building, ... and 3 slots that are open to be developed with any trait the guild chooses. CEF could build a total of all four Faith buildings if they choose and advance each of them to the highest level, but if so they would only be allowed one building of each of the other traits. They may never develope a Crime building because the efficiency is so low (and they are unable but I'll get to that later), but the slot is still reserved incase the EHTC takes over the district in a guild war. In this case the EHTC will have a slot open to build their first Crime building, and they will have to demolish the Faith structures inorder to build more Crime structures. The next limitation could be to require that a guild's trait level limit the highest advancement of a building that their region can support. So CEF has a +3 faith, and their region (all regions have +1 in all traits as a base) has a base of +1 faith and net +4 faith trait, and they are able to build level 4 faith structures. Since their politics trait is +2 they can build level 3 political structures in the district and simularly they can only build level 2 economy and level 1 education structures. Since their nature score is -1 their district has a net +0 nature trait and no advancements in nature buildings can be built, but if advanced buildings are in place when they come to the district, then they remain. Because the CEF realy cracks down on Crime and Leasure with net traits of -2 and -1 respectively, these buildings are actively destroyed by the guilds influince on the district. Each turn (1week - 1month), the two most advanced Crime and one most advanced Leasure structure are destroyed (looted). Alliances would allow guilds to solicit aid to build structures that they cannot support. We can allow only those guilds with +2 or +3 on a given trait to sell their services to another guild. If such a sale is made then the seller cannot also use that high trait in the same round to build in their own district, and a modifier of equal and opposit potency in another trait comes with. Since the CEF has a net +0 nature, they would form an alliance with WAR or TLT inorder to get help building a Tunnel. When the alliance ends, they would be unable to build a Coal Mine, but the Tunnel would not be destroyed. If they ally with TLT, then for this Turn they would also recieve a additional -3 Economy modifier, resulting in a net -1 Economy for one Turn. This -1 Economy would result in the destruction of the lighest level economy building. If CEF instead ally's with WAR, they recieve a +2 nature modifier that allows them to advance their nature buildings. In an alliance with WAR, CEF will also recieve a -2 faith modifier resulting in a net +2 faith, and this allows the continued existance of the CEF's faith structures with no destruction. Obviously building alliances must be carefully chosen relative to the buildings you have in your district and what you want to build and destroy. If chosen in precisely the right way and timing, a Guild could potentially have level 3 buildings in 4 of the 7 traits, and level 4 buildings in their own trait as a maximum development. That system allows for some degree of complexity with building restrictions and Alliances. We need to be carefull. If the system is too complex, then it is unplayable. If the system is too simple, then a "best" strategy will exist and the system will be no fun to play in. So another thing about Guild Tokens/Special Abilities, Guild Wars, Guild Rooms and District Buildings: It would make sense that each guild has some special ability that is available if they have the Token or Silmarilon or whatever trophy of some kind. Trophy contests could be held once a week or once per turn. This special ability should be related to the guild's nature in some way and balanced against the other special abilities. The special abilities should not play a role in Token Contests but mabey in Guild Wars or Quests. Example: all members of the TLT gain a bonus spell at the highest level they can cast, or all members of WAR gain 1/day spell like ability to cast one buff spell as if a cleric of their level. Simularly Guild Rooms and Level4 District Buildings could provide special bonuses or abilities that play a role in Guild Wars and Quests. Level 4 Buildings won't exist for a while, but I'm a firm believer that their should be a carrot that draws players of any game to reach the highest level of advancement such as the Cathedral allows members of CEF to lay hands 1/day as a paladin of their ECL. Without these kinds of special incentives, metagaming results in the easy calculation of the most efficient use of guild money in any given turn to improve economic base or guild defenses. :twocents:
Caterane 09-22-05, 11:41 AM	Thanks to all of you the list of buildings is now complete (except for one Education string). Economy (Unique: The Gladius Trading Center) (1) Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Sales] (2) Forge => Foundry => Mill [Production] (3) Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Storage] (4) Landing => Docks => Harbor [Transport] Faith (Unique: Holy Spirit Cathedral) (1) Shrine => Temple => Church [Religious] (2) Nunnery => Convent => Order [Medical] (3) Charnel House => Graveyard => Nekropolis [Ritual] (4) Hermitage => Cloister => Monastry [Conversion] Crime (Unique: The Crime Syndicate) (1) Drug Dealers => Smuggler Ring => Cartell [Illegal] (2) Street Thugs => District Gang => Mafia [Control] (3) Hideouts => Sewer Network => Terror Cell [Sabotage] (4) Low Dive => Saloon => Casino [Gambling] Leisure (Unique: The Old Coliseum of Gladius) (1) Public Square => Stage => Theater [Entertainment] (2) Gallery => Exhibition Hall => Museum [Fine Arts] (3) Tavern => Festhall => Red Light District [Partying] (4) Gardens => Park => Zoo [Recreation] Education (Unique: The University of Gladius) (1) Creche => School => Academy [Pedagogic] (2) Bookstore => Library => Archives [Knowledge] (3) Alchemical Workshop => Laboratory => Observatory [Research] (4) Nature (Unique: Goldmine) (1) Tunnel => Coalmine => Quarry [Mining] (2) Timberyard => Logging Camp => Lumbermill [Forestry] (3) Breeding Pens => Beast Kennels => Training Grounds [Animals] (4) Ranger Station => Tree Nursury => Protected Reserve [Preservation] Politics (Unique: The Council of Gladius) (1) Magistrate => Courthouse => Supreme Court [Justice] (2) Jailhouse => Dungeon => Prison [Penal System] (3) Speaker's Corner => Parish Hall => Town Hall [Civilian] (4) Amphitheater => Senate => House of Lords [Government] And here are the first guidelines, gathered from all posts above: Staff/Upkeep: Structures need staff and upkeep. The bigger, the more expensive the costs to maintain it. The number of staff and upkeep costs will be determined later when we have a better idea of Guild wealths. Structure Income: Structures generate guild income (not for PCs): Efficiency * District Trait. A level 1 structure (Magistrate, Tavern) has an efficiency of 50, a lvl 2 structure 100, a lvl 3 structure 250, and the special structure 500. District Trait Points: In order to build a structure, the district needs to have sufficient trait points to support it. I thought about 1 for lvl 1 structures (shrine), 3 for lvl 2 structures (temple), 5 for lvl 3 structures (church), and 7 for the special building (cathedral). Guild Support Rooms: Similarily, a Guild needs to have certain rooms to upgrade structures. A lvl 1 structure is always buildable, but from lvl 2 on you need a room in your base that governs these buildings. This assures that your guild doesn't just build the structure that would be best for the district but the one on which it focused. Here are the rooms: - Faith: Chapel - Politics: Banquett Hall - Nature: Garden - Education: Laboratory - Leisure: Auditorium - Crime: Torture Chamber - Economy: Workshop District Slots: A district has a number of slots which determines how many structures it can support. One slot can support one string of structures; the upgrades of structures is already regulated by the district traits. For now, let's assume that the number of district slots is three. One Category/District: A district can only hold one string of structures from each category. So, if you build a merchant cart, you cannot also build a forge or landing in that district, nor can any other guild in that district. Appropriate District: Certain structures are not available in certain districts. In order to build a landing, you need access to water (river or sea), and a wildlife reserve in Central Gladius is also hard to imagine. Note that the map will also have 'districts' of the surrounding area of the city for our nature lovers. Structures per week: A guild can build or upgrade one structure a week. We will have to define something like "Guild Actions". Same restriction will btw apply to recruiting staff and soldiers later. Raze Structures: A guild can always raze one of their own structures a week (perhaps the upkeep is too expensive now that the guild with the -3 economy moved in). You can also raze opponent structures by decreasing the trait points below zero. So if the District Trait drops to -1, all lvl 1 buildings will be razed. Lvl 2 structures are unaffected unless the trait drops to -2. In order to raze a unique structure, two guilds would have to work together. Optional: Destroy/Conquer Structures: Perhaps there can also be other possibilities to destroy enemy structures. Perhaps you can send troops in, or activate some PCs who go on a sabotage mission, or perhaps that structure is automatically destroyed if the enemy guild is thrown out of the district and the conquerer wishes to do so. Unique Structures: are unique and can only exist once in the city. I agree that they should provide an additional guild benefit. Ok, here are some issues about structures that need to be addressed: - Can you build the same string again in another district? If yes, then there's basically no reason to focus on anything other than your speciality field(s) of +1, +2, and +3 traits. - If you can't do that, then you have 28 strings to choose from. Eight of them are from your +2 and +3 traits so that would fill 8 districts before you have to refer to your +1 trait structures (which isn't bad either). - A more interesting approach would be to say that every structure can only exist once in the city. That would open up a lot of tactical options. For example, the GSIS controls a Merchant's Cart in Upper Merx. Now the EHTC can either build a Bazaar right away, or try to destroy the Carts, or focus on something else. It's however a bit hard to imagine why you shouldn't be able to build another forge on the other side of town. Thoughts?
Cerebus13 09-22-05, 11:56 AM	- Can you build the same string again in another district? If yes, then there's basically no reason to focus on anything other than your speciality field(s) of +1, +2, and +3 traits. - If you can't do that, then you have 28 strings to choose from. Eight of them are from your +2 and +3 traits so that would fill 8 districts before you have to refer to your +1 trait structures (which isn't bad either). - A more interesting approach would be to say that every structure can only exist once in the city. That would open up a lot of tactical options. For example, the GSIS controls a Merchant's Cart in Upper Merx. Now the EHTC can either build a Bazaar right away, or try to destroy the Carts, or focus on something else. It's however a bit hard to imagine why you shouldn't be able to build another forge on the other side of town.A more dynamic fix for this would be to set different limits of the number buildings for each of them. The buildings further down the line would exist in smaller quantities (for example, how many Marketsquares would you expect to find in one district?) and the buildings earlier in a line could have more but still a finite amount of them.
Caterane 09-22-05, 12:42 PM	Base of Operations Room Upkeep: 10 gp for every basic room. More for better rooms. Weekly Wages of Staff: - Cook (5 gp) [Com1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Maid (5 gp) [Com1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Groom (5 gp) [Com1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Guard (10 gp) [War1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Smith (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Alchemist (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Torturer (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Gardener (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Servant (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Akolyte (10 gp) [Adp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Entertainer (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Librarian (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Clerk (10 gp) [Exp1]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Botanic (25 gp) [Exp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Priest (25 gp) [Adp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Inquisitor (25 gp) [Exp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Butler (25 gp) [Exp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Virtuoso (25 gp) [Exp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Scribe (25 gp) [Exp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Sage (25 gp) [Exp3]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Artificer (50 gp) [Adp5]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Mastersmith (50 gp) [Exp5]: needs Servant Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Low PC (--): needs Basic Living Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Mid PC (--): needs Fancy Living Quarter, Kitchen, Bathroom - Mount (--): needs Stables Rooms and Staff: - Main Hall (5 PCs, 1 Guard) (max Guild Members: 50) (free) - Basic Living Quarters (1 maid) (holds 5 low PCs) (2000) - Kitchen (1 cook) (serves for 20 Members) (4000) - Servants Quarters (1 maid) (holds 10 Staff) (2000) - Bathroom (-) (serves for 20 Members) (2000) - Stables (1 groom) (holds 8 large mounts) (2000) - Fancy Living Quarters (1 maid) (holds 2 mid PCs) (4000) - Office (1 clerk) (controls 1 district) (4000) - Forge (1 smith) (mundane developments) (5000) - Laboratory (1 alchemist) (magical developments) (5000) - Winter Garden (1 gardener) (allows lvl 2 Nature structures) (4000) - Interrogation Chamber (1 torturer) (allows lvl 2 Crime structures) (4000) - Dining Hall (1 servant) (allows lvl 2 Politic structures) (4000) - Altar Room (1 akolyte) (allows lvl 2 Faith structures) (4000) - Common Area (1 entertainer) (allows lvl 2 Leisure structures) (4000) - Work Area (1 clerk) (allows lvl 2 Economy structures) (4000) - Guild Library (1 librarian) (allows lvl 2 Education structures) (4000) Room Upgrades: Winter Garden => Botanical Garden (1 botanic, 2 gardeners) (allows lvl 3 Nature structures) (10000) Interrogation Chamber => Torture Chamber (1 inquisitor, 2 torturers) (allows lvl 3 Crime structures) (10000) Dining Hall => Banquet Hall (1 butler, 2 servants) (allows lvl 3 Politics structures) (10000) Altar Room => Chapel (1 priest, 2 akolytes) (allows lvl 3 Faith structures) (10000) Common Area => Auditorium (1 virtuoso, 2 entertainers) (allows lvl 3 Leisure structures) (10000) Work Area => Workshop (1 scribe, 2 clerks) (allows lvl 3 Economy structures) (10000) Guild Library => Guild Archive (1 sage, 2 librarians) (allows lvl 3 Education structures) (10000) Basic Living Quarter => Fancy Living Quarter (1 maid) (+2000) Forge => Blacksmith (1 mastersmith, 2 smiths) => Assembly Hall (3 mastersmiths, 10 smiths) Laboratory => Magic Workshop (1 artificer, 2 alchemists) => Research Facility (3 artificers, 10 alchemists) Main Hall => Grand Hall (10 Guards) Developments: You can develop technology in certain rooms. Here's a list with examples. Prices are just examples. Longsword Development: equips all soldiers with longswords (2000 gp). Requires: Forge Small Shield Development: equips all soldiers with small steel or wooden shields (2000 gp). Requires: Forge Large Shield Development: equips all soldiers with large steel or wooden shields (2000 gp). Requires: Blacksmith Chainshirt Development: equips all soldiers with chainshirts (5000 gp). Requires: Blacksmith Magic Missile Development: improves magic missile wand of Mage Regiment to CL 3 (10000). Requires: Laboratory Adamantine Development: equips all soldiers with adamantine weapons (50000 gp). Requires: Assembly Hall Magic Weapon Development: equips all soldiers with +1 magic weapons (25000 gp). Requires: Magic Workshop Structures Economy (Unique: The Greater Gladius Trading Center) (1) Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Sales] (2) Forge => Foundry => Mill [Production] [Nature] (3) Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Storage] [Politics] (4) Landing => Docks => Harbor [Transport] [Crime] Faith (Unique: Holy Spirit Cathedral) (1) Shrine => Temple => Church [Religious] (2) Nunnery => Convent => Order [Medical] [Education] (3) Charnel House => Graveyard => Nekropolis [Ritual] [Economy] (4) Hermitage => Cloister => Monastry [Conversion] [Nature] Crime (Unique: The Crime Syndicate) (1) Drug Dealers => Smuggler Ring => Cartell [Illegal] (2) Street Thugs => District Gang => Mafia [Control] [Economy] (3) Hideouts => Terror Cell => Sewer Network [Sabotage] [Faith] (4) Low Dive => Saloon => Casino [Gambling] [Leisure] Leisure (Unique: The Old Coliseum of Gladius) (1) Public Square => Stage => Theater [Entertainment] (2) Gallery => Exhibition Hall => Museum [Fine Arts] [Education] (3) Tavern => Festhall => Red Light District [Partying] [Crime] (4) Gardens => Park => Zoo [Recreation] [Nature] Education (Unique: The Oracle) (1) Bookstore => Library => Archives [Knowledge] (2) School => Academy => University [Pedagogic] [Faith] (3) Theoreticum => Ministry of Education => Council of Mages [Conference] [Politics] (4) Alchemical Workshop => Laboratory => Observatory [Research] [Economy] Nature (Unique: The Tree of Life) (1) Ranger Station => Tree Nursury => Protected Reserve [Preservation] (2) Tunnel => Coalmine => Quarry [Mining] [Economy] (3) Timberyard => Logging Camp => Lumbermill [Forestry] [Leisure] (4) Breeding Pens => Beast Kennels => Training Grounds [Animals] [Faith] Politics (Unique: The Palace of Gladius) (1) Mayor House => Amphitheater => House of Lords [Government] (2) Magistrate => Courthouse => Supreme Court [Justice] [Economy] (3) Speaker's Corner => Parish Hall => Town Hall [Civilian] [Education] (4) Jailhouse => Dungeon => Prison [Penal System] [Crime] And here are the first guidelines, gathered from all posts above: Staff/Upkeep: Structures need staff and upkeep. The bigger, the more expensive the costs to maintain it. The number of staff and upkeep costs will be determined later when we have a better idea of Guild wealths. Structure Income: Structures generate guild income (not for PCs): Efficiency * District Trait. A level 1 structure (Magistrate, Tavern) has an efficiency of 50, a lvl 2 structure 100, a lvl 3 structure 250, and the special structure 500. District Trait Points: In order to build a structure, the district needs to have sufficient trait points to support it. The Trait must be 1 for lvl I structures (shrine), 3 for lvl II structures (temple), 5 for lvl III structures (church), and 7 for the special building (cathedral). Guild Support Rooms: Similarily, a Guild needs to have certain rooms to upgrade structures. A lvl 1 structure is always buildable, but from lvl 2 on you need a room in your base that governs these buildings. This assures that your guild doesn't just build the structure that would be best for the district but the one on which it focused. Here are the rooms: - Faith: Chapel - Politics: Banquett Hall - Nature: Garden - Education: Laboratory - Leisure: Auditorium - Crime: Torture Chamber - Economy: Workshop District Structure Limits: A district can only hold one string of structures from each trait. So, if you build a merchant cart, you cannot also build a forge or landing in that district nor can any other guild do that. You can, however, build a Bookstore or Mayor's House because it is from a different trait. Appropriate District: Certain structures are not available in certain districts. In order to build a landing, you need access to water (river or sea), and a wildlife reserve in Central Gladius is also hard to imagine. Structures per week: A guild can build or upgrade one structure a week. We will have to define something like "Guild Actions". Same restriction will btw apply to recruiting staff and soldiers later. It also takes one week per level of the structure to be build. Raze Structures: A guild can always raze one of their own structures a week (perhaps the upkeep is too expensive now that the guild with the -2 economy moved in). You can also raze opponent structures by decreasing its level to zero. Unique Structures: are unique and can only exist once in the city. I agree that they should provide an additional guild benefit. The Chapter House This structure controls a district and is the first one that must be built. Without a chapter house, a guild cannot benefit from a district in any way. The Chapter house will also be the line of defense should an opponent guild take actions, either Assaults or Covert. For that reason, a chapter house can have various upgrades that help to defend the district. Upgrades: Barracks: Each Barrack upgrade holds an additional regiment of soldiers. Signal Fires: With this upgrade, troops from adjactent districts can aid in the defense of a Chapter House. Keep: With this upgrade the Chapter House's defence value increases tremendously (reinforced doors, arrow slits, towers, etc). Bucket Brigade: This upgrade prevents Arson in that district. Nightwatch Patrol: This upgrade prevents Burglary in that district. Finance Here are the average weekly TAX incomes from one PC (rounded): ECL TAX 3 60 4 80 5 100 6 130 7 160 8 220 9 300 10 380 11 500 12 650 13 850 14 1100 15 1400 16 1900 17 2400 18 3100 19 4000 Districts Arkhein (nobility housing): Faith 3, Politics 2, Lesiure 1 Gawane (Industry): Economy 4, Leisure 1, Crime 1 Gorthyum (Political Center): Politics 4, Education 1, Faith 1 Arcadivus (magical comunity): Education 3, Politics 2, Faith 1 Kailo (good side of town, business): Leisure 4, Education 2 Valhamya (temple district): Faith 4, Education 1, Politics 1 Lower Merx (market places): Economy 3, Crime 2, Education 1 Gauterix (Slums): Crime 4, Faith 2 Central Gladius (The Core Coliseum): Leisure 3, Nature 2, Economy 1 Vilis (Bad side of town, business): Crime 3, Economy 2, Leisure 1 Kelartus (commoner housing): Education 4, Politics 2 Duken Marina (dock ward): Leisure 4 Merisia (City Administrations): Politics 3, Economy 2, Leisure 1 Upper Merx (market places): Economy 2, Politics 2, Faith 2 Gladius Park (park/forest): Nature 3, Leisure 2, Education 1 Yurynwood (Forest): Nature 3, Faith 2, Leisure 1 High Traversam (Hills): Nature 3, Faith 2, Economy 1 Plains of Naestitya (Swamp): Nature 3, Crime 2, Faith 1 http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Karten/Gladius-City5.jpg Guild Traits If a Guild is present in a district, it modifies the District Traits accordingly. Here are the various Guild Traits. Note that a -2 does not necessarily mean the Guild opposes this; it can just aswell mean that the guild is just not good at it. Guild Alliances and Wars should not depend on the traits but on the roleplaying between the guilds. CEF TLT EHTC +3 Faith +3 Nature +3 Crime +2 Politics +2 Faith +2 Economy +1 Education +1 Education +1 Faith +0 Economy +0 Leisure +0 Nature -1 Leisure -1 Crime -1 Education -2 Nature -2 Politics -2 Leisure -3 Crime -3 Economy -3 Politics WAR TAO PSI +3 Leisure +3 Education +3 Economy +2 Nature +2 Politics +2 Crime +1 Crime +1 Nature +1 Education +0 Economy +0 Crime +0 Politics -1 Politics -1 Faith -1 Leisure -2 Faith -2 Economy -2 Faith -3 Education -3 Leisure -3 Nature TWE +3 Politics +2 Leisure +1 Nature +0 Economy -1 Education -2 Faith -3 Crime
SauroGrenom 09-22-05, 02:19 PM	So let me get this streight, Any guild can build in any district, and control buildigs in multiple districts at a time? So when does the guilds modifiers apply to that district? When they build their first building, or perhaps they must build a special "chapter house"? How is the influince of that guild to be combated by another guild? If another guild builds something in your district and decreases your districts net modifiers, then what do you do, how do you kick them out (sack the chapter house)? Could a guild have some influince in all the districts, what is the limitation on how many districts a guild can control, apply its trait modifiers to, or build in? Is there a limit on how many guilds can be in a district? Where are the guild bases located? In their first district a guild controls? If the guild takes over another district, can they move their base? What happens to the old base? Are they required to build another base in the new district, or can they controll the new district from their old base? A much simpler system allows the guilds to only get money from the buildings build in the district where their base is located. If they want to move, then they have to move their base as well and incur some cost. One Category/District: A district can only hold one string of structures from each category. So, if you build a merchant cart, you cannot also build a forge or landing in that district, nor can any other guild in that district. Being prohibited from building a market next to the docks seams unreasonable to me. I see no reason, other than the rule, that any guild could not support a Landing and the Foundry that smelts the ore brought in on the docks and locate them next eachother in the same district then move that refined metal to the neighboring Bazaar for sale. It just seams most efficient to have a district dominated by economic structures that provide services that support eachother. Have you ever heard of a place where the Red Light District is located in the same part of town as the Convent, and the Courthouse? Rather districts usually have services that are related to eachother, the gambling house is near to the Red light District. I would also not allow any district to build the next higher structure untill the previous one is in existance. It would seem very unfair if your guild was scooped by another guild. Perhaps you can set a limit so that you cannot build a Bazaar untill their are 3 Merchant Carts in the city per Bazaar. Then the strategy element you mentioned still exists. So if GSIS controls a Merchant's Cart in Upper Merx and EHTC controlls a Merchant Cart in another district, then EHTC can try to scoop GSIS by building a Bazaar first. Then the city could not support another Bazzar untill 3 more Merchant Carts are in place. This sytem would have the effect of having a potentially large number of low level buildings required inorder to build a upper level building (good or bad?). Guilds would have to spread out into many districts to build all the prerequisists, and they would have to conflict with one another inorder to secure enough prerequisite buildings. I know that this One Category/District idea is to try and force the guilds to diversify the buildings in a district, but I think there are better ways of doing it. For example, reserve a slot for buildings in each trait, and have a limited number of free slots that a guild can choose to be whatever they like. A guild will naturally build what it does best at first, but a limit on growing room will force them to diversify. Appropriate District: Certain structures are not available in certain districts. In order to build a landing, you need access to water (river or sea), and a wildlife reserve in Central Gladius is also hard to imagine. Note that the map will also have 'districts' of the surrounding area of the city for our nature lovers. Appropreat district limitations make sense on a logical level, but may have the effect of decreasing conflict between the guilds, ie the TLT will never have a guild war with the guild controlling Central Gladius. Each Guild may just find their optimized district, and gravitate to that district. If the ideal district for each guild is different, then you end up having the guilds be happy where they are, and no conflicts are needed to move to a better part of town because each guild is already in the best part of town for that guild. As a side note I think the "Red Light District" should have another name ecause we are already using the word "district" for a particular meaning, and I can see newbs getting confused.
Caterane 09-22-05, 02:52 PM	@Sauro: Let me express my gratitude first for your awesome participation! You really help me a lot. Thanks! Any guild can build in any district, and control buildigs in multiple districts at a time? - Not automatically. The Base of Operations let's them control their starting district. To expand into other districts, they need to build offices first. Offices are Base of Operation rooms that control districts. You also can only move into a neighbouring district of one that you control. So when does the guilds modifiers apply to that district? When they build their first building, or perhaps they must build a special "chapter house"? - Yes, something like that. Actually, Chapter House sounds great. How is the influince of that guild to be combated by another guild? If another guild builds something in your district and decreases your districts net modifiers, then what do you do, how do you kick them out (sack the chapter house)? - A district can hold only 2 Guilds, and both Guild Trait Modifiers stack and modify the District Traits. I made sure that no two guilds can co-exist without having to make some compromises (CEF and GSIS good on politics but the CEF spoils all the GSIS' fun). How you can kick them out has yet to be discussed but it should have to do with the number of troops in a district, not on PC assaults (else the Harvester Guild just sends two Epic PCs into the Chapter House). However, PCs should be able to contribute. Could a guild have some influince in all the districts, what is the limitation on how many districts a guild can control, apply its trait modifiers to, or build in? Is there a limit on how many guilds can be in a district? - Already answered above. Two Guilds per district, and you need offices to control districts. Where are the guild bases located? In their first district a guild controls? If the guild takes over another district, can they move their base? What happens to the old base? - Every Guild has a home district from which it starts and operates. It will always contain their Base of Operations which cannot be moved. Are they required to build another base in the new district, or can they controll the new district from their old base? - A Chapter House should be the first structure in a new district after which it can begin to fill the slots. Being prohibited from building a market next to the docks seams unreasonable to me. I see no reason, other than the rule, that any guild could not support a Landing and the Foundry that smelts the ore brought in on the docks and locate them next eachother in the same district then move that refined metal to the neighboring Bazaar for sale. It just seams most efficient to have a district dominated by economic structures that provide services that support eachother. - Agreed. I am just trying to find some good rules to solve problems. Have you ever heard of a place where the Red Light District is located in the same part of town as the Convent, and the Courthouse? - A district that supports crime structures wouldn't be very suitable for a Convent or a Court anyway. The district traits and the Structure requirements would take care of that. Rather districts usually have services that are related to eachother, the gambling house is near to the Red light District. I would also not allow any district to build the next higher structure untill the previous one is in existance. It would seem very unfair if your guild was scooped by another guild. - Yes. I know it's not perfect. I'm just brainstorming. Perhaps you can set a limit so that you cannot build a Bazaar untill their are 3 Merchant Carts in the city per Bazaar. Then the strategy element you mentioned still exists. So if GSIS controls a Merchant's Cart in Upper Merx and EHTC controlls a Merchant Cart in another district, then EHTC can try to scoop GSIS by building a Bazaar first. Then the city could not support another Bazzar untill 3 more Merchant Carts are in place. This sytem would have the effect of having a potentially large number of low level buildings required inorder to build a upper level building (good or bad?). Guilds would have to spread out into many districts to build all the prerequisists, and they would have to conflict with one another inorder to secure enough prerequisite buildings. - I like the idea. That might work but let's do some more thinking on that. I know that this One Category/District idea is to try and force the guilds to diversify the buildings in a district, but I think there are better ways of doing it. For example, reserve a slot for buildings in each trait, and have a limited number of free slots that a guild can choose to be whatever they like. A guild will naturally build what it does best at first, but a limit on growing room will force them to diversify. - You already said that. It's also a good idea. An easier way of saying that is that you can always build a LVL 1 structure in a district. The slots are for upgrades. So each district has 5 (?) slots. Appropreat district limitations make sense on a logical level, but may have the effect of decreasing conflict between the guilds, ie the TLT will never have a guild war with the guild controlling Central Gladius. Each Guild may just find their optimized district, and gravitate to that district. If the ideal district for each guild is different, then you end up having the guilds be happy where they are, and no conflicts are needed to move to a better part of town because each guild is already in the best part of town for that guild. - I plan on having 14 districts; 10 of which are in the city, and 4 in the surrounding rural lands. That's basically two districts for every guild before it has to confront another guild. The limitations are just for logical reasons else someone builds a Reserve in Central Gladius. As a side note I think the "Red Light District" should have another name ecause we are already using the word "district" for a particular meaning, and I can see newbs getting confused. - You are the master of names. Any idea?
SauroGrenom 09-22-05, 06:09 PM	As a side note I think the "Red Light District" should have another name ecause we are already using the word "district" for a particular meaning, and I can see newbs getting confused. - You are the master of names. Any idea? I like the Bordello! :angelhide: That name carries the same seedy conotation, but has a bit more old time feel. I also like the Sacred Grove instead of Gold Mine. It captures the nature aspect a little better than ripping wealth from the bosom of the earth. If you can give me a basic idea related to Education (like Knowlege or Research), I can come up with a few good names for a 4th string in that category. - Every Guild has a home district from which it starts and operates. It will always contain their Base of Operations which cannot be moved. What happens if a guild is evicted from their home district? Are they destroyed? If not, how much of their home base opperations can be salvaged as the enemy burns the place down? - Can you build the same string again in another district? If yes, then there's basically no reason to focus on anything other than your speciality field(s) of +1, +2, and +3 traits. I would put some limit on it, how about this idea. Saying that you cannot build a second tier or higher structure in a district that is adjacent to another district containing the same second tier structure. So CEF will no be able to build a temple in district A if there is already one in adjacent district B but a shrine would be fine. Also CEF could build a Convent in District A if there was a Temple in adjacent district B. This idea is logical to some degree. Because the Bazaar in the neighboring district doesn't put your local Merchant Cart out of buisiness, but the two adjacent districts are unable to support two competing Bazaars right next door to eachother. This would prevent CEF from putting all its second and third tier structures in one district. If they turtled like this, then all the adjacent districts could only have 1st tier structures. This may have some effect upon the defensability of those districts. Another Idea is that perhaps when a building is upgraded to the third tier, then adjacent districts can now build a 2nd tier structure. Brainstorm comming. This proposes the idea that the more buildings a guild has in a district, then the more difficult it will be to stamp out their influince. Perhaps each building comes with some sort of fortification on the local Chapter House. Or mabey the returns on the districts buildings structure are kept in a vault at the local chapter house, and fortifications are the prudent thing to buy to protect that money from would be attackers and sneaky thieves. The chapter house idea could become very well developed into a mini sattelite home base, so that a Chapter House Chapel must be built before the guild can build a Temple in that district. A basic Chapter House would be required to recieve money from the local buildings. Hmm but what happens when two different guilds have chapter houses in the same district? I still think that the best way of achieving the goal of getting guilds to offer more diverse buildings is to have quickly increasing cost for the more advanced buildings and have slots reserved for buildings of each trait. The net effect will be that after CEF builds the low level faith buildings in their district, then they run out of available slots. If they want to build more low level buildings, they need to expand into an adjacent district or start offering more diverse services such as an economy by building into the reserved slots for other traits. Expansion carries the risk of comming into conflict with other guilds, but the more diverse services are less efficient. Or they can build the far more expensive second tier buildings, but the return on the investment is not a good. Several strategic options are available for the guild members to discuss. Structures per week: A guild can build or upgrade one structure a week. We will have to define something like "Guild Actions". Same restriction will btw apply to recruiting staff and soldiers later. I just brainstormed this idea. Perhaps constructing buildings is slower that most other guild activities. Simular to how going up in levels takes a few weeks of fighting in the Arena, while buying new equipment can happen in just one week. Building a structure takes 2-4 weeks per level of the structure. So a guild can build low level structures quickly, but building the cathedral will take a few months. This will help to encourage the guilds to build low level structures and expand into other services and districts when they have maxed out the number of buildings in their specialties. This will also allow guilds to attempt to combat the growth of their rivals by sabotaging constructions.
Caterane 09-22-05, 07:09 PM	I also like the Sacred Grove instead of Gold Mine. It captures the nature aspect a little better than ripping wealth from the bosom of the earth. [Agreed. Changed it to Tree of Life] If you can give me a basic idea related to Education (like Knowlege or Research), I can come up with a few good names for a 4th string in that category. [Already added a 4th string: Conference] What happens if a guild is evicted from their home district? Are they destroyed? If not, how much of their home base opperations can be salvaged as the enemy burns the place down? [That should not be possible, else the guild would be out of the game. But a Base Raid should be doable] I would put some limit on it, how about this idea. Saying that you cannot build a second tier or higher structure in a district that is adjacent to another district containing the same second tier structure... [I am not 100% happy with that. I could build a temple in district A, a convent, graveyard, and cloister in the neighbour districts, then start again with a temple in a district not neighboring the first one. You would never need a different trait. What do we want to achieve. - Guilds should be forced to focus on more than their good trait(s). - Guilds should build a diversity of strings, and perhaps... - strings should have a distingiveness within a trait.] his proposes the idea that the more buildings a guild has in a district, then the more difficult it will be to stamp out their influince. [Guilds will have to build military structures that can be upgraded aswell, and man it with troops. That needs to be discussed too later. I really want to have some good rules that take the influence of the guild into account. If we make it too simple, a concentrated attack would let you have that district.] Perhaps constructing buildings is slower that most other guild activities. [Nice idea, and realistic but difficult to do. As a rule of thumb, you need 1 week per tier I structure, 3 for tier II, 5 for tier III, and 7 for tier IV structures. It would allow additional rooms that increase building speed, and it allows for sabotage missions by PCs to slow the construction down or knock it back a week or two. But how to track that? ] ....
SoulLord 09-22-05, 07:15 PM	Perhaps constructing buildings is slower that most other guild activities. [Nice idea, and realistic but difficult to do. As a rule of thumb, you need 1 week per tier I structure, 3 for tier II, 5 for tier III, and 7 for tier IV structures. It would allow additional rooms that increase building speed, and it allows for sabotage missions by PCs to slow the construction down or knock it back a week or two. But how to track that? ] perhaps all Building being constructed must have how many weeks they have had under construction somewhere in the guild thread with links for situations where it set them back or increased due to extraordinary circumstances.
SauroGrenom 09-23-05, 02:14 AM	Caterane, I would put some limit on it, how about this idea. Saying that you cannot build a second tier or higher structure in a district that is adjacent to another district containing the same second tier structure... I am not 100% happy with that. I could build a temple in district A, a convent, graveyard, and cloister in the neighbour districts, then start again with a temple in a district not neighboring the first one. You would never need a different trait. I would be supprised if a guild could expand that far without running into some of its rivals. But perhaps we can require that a 2nd tier structure exist in a neighboring district before you can build a 1st tier structure of the same trait, and have the same neighboring string exclusion to boot. That might get complicated...Hmmm. What do we want to achieve. - Guilds should be forced to focus on more than their good trait(s). OK, how bout this. All districts have 1 reserved slot for each trait and that's it, except the home district where there is 1 extra free slot. Now inorder to gain resources from another district, you need to build a chapter house there, and it must be upgraded (like the home base) to allow a 2nd tier structure to be built in that district. Any guild will soon use up all their local slots and have to expand out into other districts and spread themselves thin and be open to attack, or they will have to build structures for other traits. In theory a guild could just keep expanding, but they end up with a bunch of poorly defended Chapter Houses and will likely loose the invested resources. We can add the adjacent exclusion as well if you like, but it may not be necessary. - Guilds should build a diversity of strings, and perhaps... The adjacent district exclusion addresses this to some extent. Perhaps the level 4 structure requires that the guild controls atleast 1 level3 structure from each string in its trait. Anylong planning guild will naturaly try to build from different strings to hopefully qualify for the top structure. - strings should have a distingiveness within a trait. There are many ways to add a distinctive flavor to the strings, but if that flavor is a game mechanic, then it will complicate the rules (not necessarily a bad thing). A couple ideas include, making the different tier 3 buildings modify the local district traits. Or making each string modify the district traits (monestary adds +1 education for example), with increasing effect for more advanced buildings. Or perhaps each string adds some kind of bonus to the local Chapter House/Guild Hall. For example a Theater pays for the upkeep of the Virtuoso and Entertainers at the local Guild Hall. Or an Order provides a healer (L4or so Cleric) to the local Chapter House or Guild Hall. Or a Nekropolis gives a turn bonus to the clerics at the Guild Hall.
Caterane 09-23-05, 07:28 AM	I've made a first draft of the map. It will be filled with all kinds of things so that it looks better but it will serve its purpose for now. What I need are some names for the empty districts, and the three surrounding lands. A short description would be great, too. I also don't like the name "Gladius Park". http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Karten/Gladius-City1.jpg @Guildmasters: If you don't like your starting district, tell me.
Caterane 09-23-05, 09:06 AM	Let's see if we can find a good solution from our ideas, Sauro. With string diversity I didn't mean boni like +2 to XXX. Here's my idea: - To build a structure, the district must have the appropriate trait value. Tier 1, 2, 3 needs a trait value of 1, 2, 3 respectively, and 4 for the unique building. - The (1) string (which is also the unique building string) has always only that requirement. The other strings however, need additional trait values. Let's take Leisure as an example: - The Entertainment String (Public Square => Stage => Theater) just needs 1, 2, or 3 in the Leisure trait. The other strings however need at least 1 (?) point in another trait in addition to Leisure: Fine Arts - Education 1, Partying - Crime 1, and Recreation - Nature 1. So the WAR guild would have an easy time building the Entertainment string, and also the Party and Recreation string, but it would be almost impossible for them to build the Fine Arts string which doesn't fit the WAR guild anyway. WAR +2 Leisure +1 Crime +1 Nature +0 Politics -1 Economy -1 Faith -2 Education That limits the unchecked expansion pretty good. We also need a second limit else you can just build the (1) string of your good trait. - No similar strings in two adjectent districts. That and the District Modifiers themselves take care of everything. That's very simple and elegant. Please tell me if I've missed something. PS: Any better name idea for "Think Tank"?
SauroGrenom 09-23-05, 11:01 AM	I like your idea. I'll give it bit more thought to see if we missed anything. I'm working on the names some more, I'll post tomarrow about it.
Snommelp 09-23-05, 11:49 AM	Alright, let's see if I've got this right. If the WAR guild wants to renovate the Old Gladius Coliseum, it's going to have to team up with GSIS and TLT in order to do so. TLT might like the match-up, since WAR has +1 Nature and GSIS at least isn't negative Nature, but GSIS would need to be convinced because both WAR and TLT have -1 Politics, their prime area. ...sounds like a lot of work. I might be able to manage this, but don't be surprised if the Warrior's Guild doesn't always do things that would be smart. I might not have the time to think through all of my actions.
NiQil 09-23-05, 11:57 AM	Alright, let's see if I've got this right. If the WAR guild wants to renovate the Old Gladius Coliseum, it's going to have to team up with GSIS and TLT in order to do so. TLT might like the match-up, since WAR has +1 Nature and GSIS at least isn't negative Nature, but GSIS would need to be convinced because both WAR and TLT have -1 Politics, their prime area. ...sounds like a lot of work. I might be able to manage this, but don't be surprised if the Warrior's Guild doesn't always do things that would be smart. I might not have the time to think through all of my actions. That's what the guildmembers are for. No one ever said the guildmaster had to be the brightest light in the sky....heck in the case of your guild, most likely it would be the best warrior instead. A good leader always knows when to delegate LOL. BTW...come up with a name for your guild yet? Or are you going with "Warrior Guild" to represent the fact that no one could think up anything better? LOL
TelinArtho 09-23-05, 12:02 PM	Warrior Guild names (suggestions/ideas): The Great Hall Thor's Hall Hall of Valhalla Etc. Norse themes would be an easy thing to borrow from. Otherwise, pick something from the realm of Mars
Snommelp 09-23-05, 12:07 PM	Hm... Fist and Blade? Sword and Fist? Hall of Champions? Hall of the Gods? @ Cat: I'll let you know if I think of any district names.
NiQil 09-23-05, 12:20 PM	The first one that came to my mind was borrowed from Sun Tzu...call it "The Art of War"
Gonbow 09-23-05, 12:22 PM	Hmm. Names for the warrior's guild.. Gladius Guild (A gladius is a weapon and a city, perfect! :P) Fists of Steel (If the warrior guild is going to include monks..) [Insert Hero/Guildmaster's Name] Academy [Insert Hero/Guildmaster's Name] School of Combat
NiQil 09-23-05, 12:26 PM	If I was going to pick names for the warrior's guild and the psi guild, it would be The Art of War for the warrior guild, and (to pirate a title) The Mind's Eye for the psi guild.
Snommelp 09-23-05, 12:33 PM	Art of War? I like it! The WAR is now the AoW.
SauroGrenom 09-23-05, 02:28 PM	Which guild could a monk go into? I eventually intend for my monk to take the Psionic Fist, but that wont happen for months with his incredible loosing abilities. Perhaps the PSI guild then.
Snommelp 09-23-05, 02:31 PM	It depends on the entry requirements, but I'd say you'd have your pick between the psionic guild and the AoW. @ Cat: I don't want to meddle in the affairs of the EHTC, but perhaps the district in which they are currently located could be the warehouse district? It would make sense for warehouses to be near the docks, and a warehouse district makes sense to me for a criminal organization.
Caterane 09-23-05, 03:25 PM	Updated Map http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Karten/Gladius-City5.jpg
SauroGrenom 09-23-05, 04:21 PM	Map looks nice. As a strategy point, I think that PSI and TAO have a position advantage. These two are the only two guilds with a neighboring district that is not a neighbor to any other guild. Thus giving them unfair advantage because a region for expansion exists that no other guild has the ability to contest early in the game. I suggest moving them both one step to the left. Doing this will also help ease the pressure on the TLT. Lastly it seams that the EHTC realy gets the shaft, because they are in Vilas the only district only bordering on two other districts. Their expansion could unfairly blocked by ack of options. An easy fix that also addresses the issue with PSI is to extend LowerMerx to the left so that it touches Vilas. I think that the district above the Marina could be called High Merx, because it's on the water and located next to the rich part of town and the Marina, it would be an ideal place for the wealthy to keep their yachts and shop for expensive imported goods.
Caterane 09-23-05, 04:37 PM	@Sauro: Don't worry about that. Every district can hold 2 guilds so there's enough place to expand. You don't have to declare war on a guild in the same district. In the beginning, there's no way to attack another guild with troops because you don't have any, nor the buildings required to support them. By the time you can afford them, the guilds have already expanded into all directions. And being in the corner can also be an advantage. Your base is very difficult to attack. Next thing we should talk about is the Combat System. - How do you conquer districts? - How do you defend them? - Are there any other options you can do to damage a guild? - How could PCs fit in there?
SoulLord 09-23-05, 05:31 PM	Next thing we should talk about is the Combat System. - How do you conquer districts? - How do you defend them? - Are there any other options you can do to damage a guild? - How could PCs fit in there? Conquer Each building gives you influence points over the district if you surpass the influence of all others *maybe guilds ally to drive someone away* by X you can reduce the influence of that building by 1 per week as you battle in the political arena. To Arms! The army of X guild Razes one of the buildings this is higly illegal even in gladius so before it happens you must bribe the guard to look the other way *perhaps pay credits?*
Usurpator 09-23-05, 05:59 PM	Combat between guilds should not be open, except for rare instances. Nobody wants to live in a city where every week armies run around in the streets killing each other or demolishing structures, even if there is such a thing as a Nimbus. A primary way for conquering districts should not be done through force of arms, but by gaining Influence/Popularity there. Ideas for gaining influence (influence points): Covert Raid: the rumors of a succesfull raid against another guild will increase support Secret Alliance: guilds can strike subtle alliances with other guilds, the pooling of resources and information should gain influence relative to their rivals. Arena Challenge: nothing better than your gladiator showing that he's better than his rivals in the arena to gain popularity Campaign or Quests: Completing some campaign or quests may change the influence balance. If the EHTC steals a famous relic, their influence will rise, if the GSIS prevents the theft, they will be in ascendance. Money: influence can be bought as well, to a certain extent of course. Competition: what guild can ship needed goods to their destination the fastest. I will think a more about the influence thing, but the original idea was to give guilds a structure that encouraged RP'ing and actions by characters, but do so within a clear rules framework. I still have to read everything over to see how it all fits together balance wise and how the rules framework now fits the original goal. Are power curves restricted in some way (to prevent an already strong guild from growing even stronger), is guild administration do-able, are there appropriate checks and balances etc.
Snommelp 09-23-05, 06:00 PM	@Sauro: Don't worry about that. Every district can hold 2 guilds so there's enough place to expand. You don't have to declare war on a guild in the same district. In the beginning, there's no way to attack another guild with troops because you don't have any, nor the buildings required to support them. By the time you can afford them, the guilds have already expanded into all directions. And being in the corner can also be an advantage. Your base is very difficult to attack. Next thing we should talk about is the Combat System. - How do you conquer districts? - How do you defend them? - Are there any other options you can do to damage a guild? - How could PCs fit in there? This is getting more and more complicated... you may need to find a new guildmaster for the Warrior's Guild, Cat. I feel like I just got thrown overboard during a storm.
SauroGrenom 09-23-05, 06:52 PM	Next thing we should talk about is the Combat System. - How do you conquer districts? The simplest thing is that you build a Chapter House there. That will take 2 weeks (gives other guilds a chance to interfere). Once the Chapter House is up, then your guild modifiers are applied to the district traits, you can build in that district, and you can collect money from buildings in the district. If you are building in a district and another guild doesn't want you to build there, then you will have to defend the contruction sight for the time it takes to get the building up. After the Chapter House is built you will have to defend the building, but that will likely be easier. In the special case where the district already has two Chapter Houses from other Guilds, then you have to destroy one inorder to make room for yours, then you will have to get yours built as well. You can destroy a Chapter House through guild wars as usual for destroying buildings. Rules for the guild wars will have to be worked out in another couple posts. This gives us a few basic ideas about how guild control of a district is determined. - How do you defend them? There are two things to be defended, first the Chapter House and second the various buildings. We will allow Chapter Houses to be upgraded like the home base, but have a more limited number of upgrades that can be built at a Chapter House. The Chapter house could have, Arrow slits, Reinforced doors, a Nightwatchman, Gold Vault, Barracks and a Training room or some such. The Chapter House could also hire a group of Patrolmen who travel the streets and protect the guilds buildings out in the district. The Chapter House could mabey support a fire department or bucket brigade that will make it more difficult to destroy their public buildings. - Are there any other options you can do to damage a guild? Ahh so many ways to wreack havoc. I suggest we split these actions in to bold direct actions, sneaky direct actions, and diplomacy/political actions. Bold actions will include Raids, Assaults, Razing a building or simular actions. Sneaky direct actions include Arson, Burglary, Corrupting an official (siphons the income away from a building for a turn), Sabotage (delays construction) and so forth. Political actions are things like inciting a Riot, Acusing the guild of crimes, Spying, starting rumors (temporary decreases efficiency of buildings for a chosen trait). - How could PCs fit in there? Some of these more potent actions may be miniquests that players can be involved in at no credit cost. Perhaps, players can choose to compete in a guild contest instead of the Arena. A guild contest would provide a bonus to the winning guild in some minor way. This is basically the Token or Trophy idea. Any of these would require more DM's for run these activities. Perhaps PC's can be involved in defense or assault activities, but with limitations grounded in the reasoning that high level PC's are involved in running the guilds buisiness instead of the grunt work. For example up to EL5 you can be involved in a raid on a building, up to EL7 you can be involved in the raizing of a building, and up to EL 12 you can be involved in an assault on a chapter house. Players could be commanders, and they would have to direct the troops or some such.
Usurpator 09-24-05, 04:55 AM	Putting the characters back into the Guilds initiative #1 Supervisors & Deputies Each special room a Guild HQ has requires a character as supervisor. If no character is available as supervisor, guildmembers cannot gain benefit from the room. Each district requires a character as deputy of affairs for each district trait. Buildings in districts do not generate income if no deputy is appointed for the corresponding trait. A character can only hold one supervisor or deputy position at a time. Basic rooms and buildings require at least ECL 3 characters as supervisor/deputy, for each step above basic, ad +2 to the ECL required, up to ECL 9 for the fourth tier (currently the highest). Characters on Quests or Campaigns cannot hold deputy or supervisor positions. Holding a supervisor or deputy position counts as a free activity and can be switched freely each week. If a character loses a battle in the Arena against a member of a guild that his own guild is at war with, the losing character is unavailable for supervisor or deputy positions next week. The winner generates double benefits from his supervisor or deputy position, but only if he continues in the same position that he had last week (no switching of positions after you win a fight).
Caterane 09-24-05, 08:44 AM	@Snommelp and all who still have doubts: Please give me a chance to finish it. It is not fair to judge the system without having seen the whole picture. My prime directive is and has always been to keep things as simple as possible and I promise you this guild system will be simple to run and simple to understand. I just want to ask you to wait until we're done. Snommelp, no guild will be run by the Guildmaster alone. Every member will help you, and perhaps even take over the account for a while if you have no time. Don't give up before you have started!
Caterane 09-24-05, 09:43 AM	The Map is finished. I thought about adding houses and streets but that just makes the map less functional. I've also added a new district (East Gladius) and moved TAO and PSI westward because of the reasons Sauro pointed out. Now we have to do the last part of the LivingGuild system: Combat. There are three different ways to influence a district (thanks, Sauro!): Assault, Covert, and Political. (1) Assaults are either done by PCs or Troops. It is a direct attack on the Chapter House, and will always meet the stationed resistance there. Assaults that are led by PCs will also meet PCs (with equal total ECL) from that guild as opposition. Troops will only face troops stationed there. (2) Covert operations are done by PCs who sneak into the Chapter House, or do something else. (3) Political operations make use of skills and abilities of PCs in a guild. So someone could use Forgery to do something harmful to the other guild. We'd have to make a list with things you can do and what you need to do that. Question is how we want to handle the taking over of a district. - With all three ways (Assault, Covert, Political)? - Only Assaults, with either PCs or Troops? - With Troops only? Let's focus on troops first. I've made a masscombat system: A regiment has 20 soldiers (Warrior 1, non-elite stats, shortsword, leatherarmor, 2xtoughness). We multiply that by 20 and get the regiment stats of: Attack+3, Damage 20d6+20, 300 Hitpoints. For every 15 damage a regiment takes, one soldier dies, so the regiment does less damage. A regiment at 0 hitpoints is destroyed. There are now two ways we could do this. Either we come up with an abstract system of when a regiment wins, or we let them actually fight it out. - Now when do you have conquered the district. Is it enough to succesfully attack the Chapter House, or do the other structures in that district play a role? - How do you determine how many troops are stationed in a district? Do you need barracks in that district, or in your home base? - What happens if you lose a Chapter House? What happens to the buildings you've built there? One idea is to let the buildings stand. If the guild that conquered the district wants to raze them, they can use one of their actions to decrease the level of the structure by 1 per week. Level 0 means destroyed. That gives the old guild time to reconquer its district and save the buildings. Some basics we already have: In order to control a district, you need a Chapter House first. After that, your modifiers apply to the district, and you can begin to build structures there. The Chapter House can be upgraded to a Keep, and some additional add-ons, but there's no need to make a map like with the Home Base. You can buy upgrades like a bucket brigade which makes the "Covert Action: Lay Fire" impossible, or less effective. Or a Night Partol could have another effect on a covert action from an enemy guild. @Usurpator: Nice idea but that would be an add-on that makes it more complicated. I just want to have a good and easy system to handle combat.
Luni 09-24-05, 12:01 PM	The Map is finished. I thought about adding houses and streets but that just makes the map less functional. I've also added a new district (East Gladius) and moved TAO and PSI westward because of the reasons Sauro pointed out. Now we have to do the last part of the LivingGuild system: Combat. There are three different ways to influence a district (thanks, Sauro!): Assault, Covert, and Political. (1) Assaults are either done by PCs or Troops. It is a direct attack on the Chapter House, and will always meet the stationed resistance there. Assaults that are led by PCs will also meet PCs (with equal total ECL) from that guild as opposition. Troops will only face troops stationed there. (2) Covert operations are done by PCs who sneak into the Chapter House, or do something else. (3) Political operations make use of skills and abilities of PCs in a guild. So someone could use Forgery to do something harmful to the other guild. We'd have to make a list with things you can do and what you need to do that. Question is how we want to handle the taking over of a district. - With all three ways (Assault, Covert, Political)? - Only Assaults, with either PCs or Troops? - With Troops only? Let's focus on troops first. I've made a masscombat system: A regiment has 20 soldiers (Warrior 1, non-elite stats, shortsword, leatherarmor, 2xtoughness). We multiply that by 20 and get the regiment stats of: Attack+3, Damage 20d6+20, 300 Hitpoints. For every 15 damage a regiment takes, one soldier dies, so the regiment does less damage. A regiment at 0 hitpoints is destroyed. There are now two ways we could do this. Either we come up with an abstract system of when a regiment wins, or we let them actually fight it out. Simplify things. Just make each soldier deal 5 damage on a hit. So they make 1 Attack +3 Roll, for [#of Soldiers] * 5 Damage. - Now when do you have conquered the district. Is it enough to succesfully attack the Chapter House, or do the other structures in that district play a role? - How do you determine how many troops are stationed in a district? Do you need barracks in that district, or in your home base? You should have a limit on the amount of soldiers in the Chapter House. Any additional troops, will have to be from a barracks built in that district. We should also cap how many troops a guild can have. - What happens if you lose a Chapter House? What happens to the buildings you've built there? One idea is to let the buildings stand. If the guild that conquered the district wants to raze them, they can use one of their actions to decrease the level of the structure by 1 per week. Level 0 means destroyed. That gives the old guild time to reconquer its district and save the buildings. This is fine Some basics we already have: In order to control a district, you need a Chapter House first. After that, your modifiers apply to the district, and you can begin to build structures there. The Chapter House can be upgraded to a Keep, and some additional add-ons, but there's no need to make a map like with the Home Base. You can buy upgrades like a bucket brigade which makes the "Covert Action: Lay Fire" impossible, or less effective. Or a Night Partol could have another effect on a covert action from an enemy guild. I believe that mass combat should take a page from the miniatures. The less dice rolling, the better. See my comments above, in red.
SauroGrenom 09-24-05, 11:59 PM	Question is how we want to handle the taking over of a district. - With all three ways (Assault, Covert, Political)? My suggestion is that methods will exist for all three ways to be used to against a guild, but only an Assault will deliver the final blow necessary for forcefull removal. Although Bankruptcy can result in the closure of a Chapter House if the central Guild is unwilling to continue supporting a money draining venture. - Only Assaults, with either PCs or Troops? This can be used to deliver the final blow, and a PC will be required to run an assault where a PC is defending the Chapter House. - With Troops only? This option will only work if no PC's are involved on either side. Let's focus on troops first. I've made a masscombat system: Luni's idea is a good one about limiting the number of dice rolls. I have never played D&D miniatures, but that may be a good place to start. I think moral should play a role in this mass combat system because we are not talking about fearless adventurers and Arena Combatants that will fight to the death but hired blades. Perhaps we can break down the statistics of a troop into 5 major categories: Number of Troops (20, 30, changes durring the battle as troops go down or flee) Moral (a changing statistic durring the battle) Equipment (set statistic that cannot be changed without special forms of attack but may provide special bonuses if purchased, mounts, adamantium equipment and soforth) Training (Train crack troops to sunder, trip, charge, set polearms agains a charge and so forth) Support Specialists (clerics, bards, wizards, anything you can think of) - Now when you have conquered the district, is it enough to succesfully attack the Chapter House, or do the other structures in that district play a role? I would suggest that the other structures can certianly play a role in a tactical sense. For example if an assault is run like a mini quest, then attacking Guild A could send a few men to set fire in the Marketplace down the street or attack the construction site for the Bookstore. This could draw defenders away from the Chapter House of Guild B and weaken the defenses at the Chapter House. Another option is that level 2 and/or level 3 structures will provide special services to the Chapter House that may play a role in the defense. For example if the District has a Stage, then a level 3 bard may be living at the Chapter House and his bardic abilities could be used to inspire courage in the defenders. Perhaps an Academy would provide a level3 wizard to the Chapter House. If Guild A sacks the Chapter House of Guild B, they have two options. Burn it to the ground, or take it over. If it is burned to the gound, then Guild B must build their own Chapter House before they control the district. If the Chapter House is captured, then Guild B must spend 40% of the cost required to build it (new regalia and reparing the strucutre) and they can take control of the Chapter House at the end of the Turn. If Build A wants to use any of the enhancements to the recently captured Chapter House, then they need to spend the 40% cost to bring those back up to working condition again. These same costs apply if the Chapter House is recaptured by Guild B in the next turn. - How do you determine how many troops are stationed in a district? Do you need barracks in that district, or in your home base? I suggest that a local garisson is required. The permanently stationed troops must be able to sleep somewhere, and a Barracks would be needed. The size of that Barracks would limit not set the number of troops located at the Chapter House. Home Base would require a nearly seperate set of troops. We may consider a reinforcement option, where troops from an adjacent district can come to the aid of a Chapter House under assault if the combat lasts longer than X number of rounds and a comunication system is setup (signal fires or Missive spells). If we allow this we should also allow it to be used as a trap that draws troops away from the real intended target. - What happens if you lose a Chapter House? What happens to the buildings you've built there? As mentioned previously, the lost Chapter House is either taken or razed. Unless specific tactics are employed to damage other buildings in the Assault, they remain. Without the preservation of those buildings, then conflict would only happen when no other option existed. If those buildings remain, then Guild A could attack a district of Guild B because it is poorly defended but well developed. A strategy element is introduced where the more well developed areas also require better defense. I would prohibit the ability of attacking Guild A to get income from the old buildings, until Guild A pays a fraction of the cost to build the structure say 40% to grease some palms and replace the necessary leaders so that the new guild recieves the loyalty of the building. That is not to say that the other buildings cannot be the targets of covert or overt Assault. Guild A may sack Guild B's Bookstore or Marketsquare and run off with some 20-60% of the value (depending on success of the raid) of the structure that must be repaid inorder to make the building generate income again. Guild A may plant a crooked Accountant at the Marketsquare of Guild B and siphon off the same money without an overt attack. Perhaps we can start listing off the various Assault, Covert and Political actions. (This is the area that realy needs the most input from potential players. We need to know what kind of Actions your guilds may want to do to your rivals.) Assault: Attack Chapter House Raze District Building Raid District Building Attack Gold Caravan (transports gold to the Central Guild Hall from the Chapter Houses) Attack Construction Site Covert Arson Burglary Sabotage Create Diversion Plant Corrupt Official Political Forge Incriminating Documents (Forge Documents) Make False Accusations (Bluff) Frame a Guild Member for a Crime (Slight of Hand) Release Embarrasing Rumors (Gather Information) Encite a Riot (Diplomacy or Sense Motive, combined with Disguise) Host a Contest (Ride, Perform, Handle Animal, Tumble, Jump or Climb) Over in the Tavern Ravashack proposed the idea that guild members can recieve a number of credits that they can spend. I kind of like this idea, but I would like to propose a slight alternative. Let's say that all guilds earn 2 credits per week (not the guild members), and all of the above Actions except the "Attack actions" must be performed by PC's and will require a miniquest that costs 1 credit. A guild can save up credits to some max say 10credits. Without credit cost Guilds can build one thing per district or per turn, collect money every turn, hire troops and personel every turn, and make 1 troop "Attack" per Chapter House or Guild Hall so long as none of these activities has a PC involved. To perform any of the above actions requires PC involvement and the expenditure of 1 credit, and any PC can be involved in only one action per week. This allows guilds to plan things long term to happen all at the same time by saving up credits and running several miniquests (Actions) that are all related in a concerted manner in the same turn. But the number of active characters places a limitaion on the maximum number of Actions a guild can manage in one turn. We could potentially allow guilds to release credits to their members for services well rendered that the characters could use for their own purposes. This may serve as an incentive to draw players into guilds, and provide a benefit to guild members that is not unbalancing to the Arena because we already do this kind of thing for those who contribute to CoCo in other ways. Releasing credits to members may not be such a good idea in another sense, because we need the contributions of those who support CoCo to be highly rewarded and giving out credits for guild participation is kind of weak in comparison to Pitlording or Auditing.
Iced 09-25-05, 12:30 AM	Instead of providing people credits for the guild miniquests you could simply allow them to have an extra active character for the week so that the guild quest carries no penalty for them.
SauroGrenom 09-25-05, 12:44 AM	Instead of providing people credits for the guild miniquests you could simply allow them to have an extra active character for the week so that the guild quest carries no penalty for them. How does that work? Wouldn't you still have to pay the miniquest credit cost? Also what if you don't realy want to have to make another character to participate in the guilds activities. Perhaps we can have special guild credits called something else like "Gilders" that can only be spent by guilds to allow members to performa an "Action" miniquest. That way the guild "action points" can be seperate from "credits" per se.
Luni 09-25-05, 02:09 AM	Luni's Mass Battle System [Unit] Subtype: This subtype is only used in mass battles. It represents a unit of soldiers. Each Soldier in the unit has the same amount of hp. For every x damage the unit takes, it loses soldiers up to the total. Ex. 5 hp human Soldiers take 30 damage. 6 members die. The unit is not subject to squeezing. Area Spells work normally, even if the group surpasses the HD limit. eg: Sleep will work on the entire squad of 10. The only single target spells they are vulnerable to are ones that deal damage. Also, the unit inflicts half damage [round down to nearest 5] upon individual characters. [To prevent PCs from dying from 1 lucky charge] The rules are simple. Each PC is converted quickly by the following system. Hp is rounded to nearest 5. Dmg = Average [Round to nearest 5]. All Saving Throws are 1d20+level. A unit has to make a morale check [1d20+nearest Commanders or PCs level] vs DC 20 or retreat upon taking half damage. PC's never have to make morale checks. A commander or PC must spend a Full Round action to convince retreating units to come back. 1d20+PC's level+PC's Cha mod vs DC 20. Note: B is more expensive then A. Sample Level 1 Units For example, if you want to upgrade your dwarven fighters to full-plate, you need a lvl 2 forge, or whatever we are calling it. Some units should have a +trait requirement. eg. Treants/wolves should require + Nature. Assassins should be +crime Cost: A 10 Human Soldiers [Lvl 1 Warriors] Huge Humanoid [Unit]; 10*5=50 hp; Speed 30; AC 16; 1d20+3 melee [#ofSoldier*5 Dmg]; Feats: Weapon Focus [Longsword], Dodge Equipment: Longsword, Studded Leather; Heavy Shield Cost: A. 10 Elven Archers [Lvl 1 Warriors] Huge Humanoid [Unit]; 10*5=50 hp; Speed 30; AC 14; 1d20+2 melee [#ofSoldiers*5 Dmg] OR 1d20+4 Ranged [#ofSoldiers*5 Dmg; Max Range = 200]; Feats: Weapon Focus [Longbow] Equipment: Longbow, Longsword, Studded Leather Cost: A 10 Dwarven Warriors [Lvl 1 Warriors] Huge Humanoid [Unit]; 10*10=100 hp; Speed 20; AC 17; 1d20+2 melee [#ofSoldier*5 Dmg]; Feats: Toughness Equipment: Battle-Axe, Chainmail, Heavy Shield SQ: Bonus to giants, goblins, orcs Cost: A 10 Halfling Slingers [Lvl 1 Warriors] Large Humanoid [Unit]; 10*5=50 hp; Speed 20; AC 15; 1d20+2 melee [#ofSoldier*5 Dmg] or 1d20+5 Ranged [#ofSoldiers*5 Dmg, Max Range =30]; Feats: Weapon Focus [Sling] Equipment: Sling, Studded Leather, Dagger SQ: +1 to saves Cost: B 10 Half-Orc Barbarians [Lvl 1 Barbarians] Huge Humanoid [Unit]; 10*10=100 hp; Speed 40; AC 11; 1d20+6 melee [#ofSoldier*10 Dmg]; Feats: Weapon Focus [Great-Axe] Equipment: Studded Leather, Great-Axe SQ: Fearless Cost: B: Also requires +1 crime. 1 Ogre [Ogre] [Level 4] Large Giant; 30 hp; Speed 30; AC 16; 1d20+8 melee [15 damage] Feats: Toughness, Weapon Focus (greatclub) Equipment: Hide Armor, Greatclub SQ: Reach 10' Cost: B: Also requires +1 Nature 5 Wolves [Level 2] Large Animal [Unit]; 5*15=65 hp; Speed 50; AC 14; 1d20+3 melee [5 damage] Feats: Track, Weapon Focus (Bite) SQ: Hard to control. They need a druid/ranger nearby or they always retreat upon taking half damage. They also always charget the closest unit without a druid/ranger nearby. Thoughts?
Caterane 09-25-05, 08:17 PM	Another option is that level 2 and/or level 3 structures will provide special services to the Chapter House that may play a role in the defense. For example if the District has a Stage, then a level 3 bard may be living at the Chapter House and his bardic abilities could be used to inspire courage in the defenders. Perhaps an Academy would provide a level3 wizard to the Chapter House. This is a great idea and the best way to have buildings play a role in the defense of a district. So either buildings send single NPCs (lvl and # depend on level of building), or you get an irregular unit as some student wizards help to defend the academy, or the entertainers want to defend their theater. If Guild A sacks the Chapter House of Guild B, they have two options. Burn it to the ground, or take it over. If it is burned to the gound, then Guild B must build their own Chapter House before they control the district. If the Chapter House is captured, then Guild B must spend 40% of the cost required to build it (new regalia and reparing the strucutre) and they can take control of the Chapter House at the end of the Turn. If Build A wants to use any of the enhancements to the recently captured Chapter House, then they need to spend the 40% cost to bring those back up to working condition again. These same costs apply if the Chapter House is recaptured by Guild B in the next turn. Agreed, although we should keep it at 50%. That's easier. I suggest that a local garisson is required. The permanently stationed troops must be able to sleep somewhere, and a Barracks would be needed. The size of that Barracks would limit not set the number of troops located at the Chapter House. Ok, let's say the Chapter House can hold one regiment of troops (20 soldiers). For any additional regiment you need to build one "Barracks Upgrade" in the Chapter House. Home Base would require a nearly seperate set of troops. We may consider a reinforcement option, where troops from an adjacent district can come to the aid of a Chapter House under assault if the combat lasts longer than X number of rounds and a comunication system is setup (signal fires or Missive spells). If we allow this we should also allow it to be used as a trap that draws troops away from the real intended target. It must be possible to get reinforcements in from adjectent districts because else, any newly constructed Chapter House could be easily destroyed by an existing guild that has - let's say - 10 regiments in that district. You just wouldn't be able to defend it, no matter your ressources. To keep it simple, we should just say that you can get in any troops from adjectent districts as reinforcement at no delay (if the 'Signal Fire' upgrade has been built :) ). A Chapter House should not require a base map like the home base. A list with the upgrades should be enough. Of course, no one prevents a guild from making one. As mentioned previously, the lost Chapter House is either taken or razed. Unless specific tactics are employed to damage other buildings in the Assault, they remain. Without the preservation of those buildings, then conflict would only happen when no other option existed. If those buildings remain, then Guild A could attack a district of Guild B because it is poorly defended but well developed. A strategy element is introduced where the more well developed areas also require better defense. [Agreed. Buildings should remain and should still belong to the guild that built it but they generate no income for them anymore unless they re-erect their Chapter House.] I would prohibit the ability of attacking Guild A to get income from the old buildings, until Guild A pays a fraction of the cost to build the structure say 40% to grease some palms and replace the necessary leaders so that the new guild recieves the loyalty of the building. [Ok. So there are two options: either you raze it which means you decrease the level of the structure by 1 per week until it is at 0 and destroyed, or you take it over by paying 50% of the base price. Both things require one Guild Action. That way, districts with a lot of buildings from one guild are not easily taken over.] That is not to say that the other buildings cannot be the targets of covert or overt Assault. Guild A may sack Guild B's Bookstore or Marketsquare and run off with some 20-60% of the value (depending on success of the raid) of the structure that must be repaid inorder to make the building generate income again. Guild A may plant a crooked Accountant at the Marketsquare of Guild B and siphon off the same money without an overt attack. [Sounds good but these should be covert or political actions, not assaults.] I think these rules are pretty solid now and easy to understand and handle. Let's define the various actions: Assault Assault Operations always involve combat. Either troops or PCs have to fight to achieve their goals. Attack Chapter House: You attack with one or more regiments. The concrete rules have yet to be fleshed out. As part of that action, you can raze or take over the Chapter House at 50% cost, if your assault was successful. No PCs are directly involved in that battle. Attack Construction Site: This is a PC assault where a number of PCs meet an equal total of ECL of PCs from an enemy guild. If the attack is successful, the construction site is destroyed and the building keeps its original level. Raze District Building: In a district that you control (ie have a Chapterhouse there) that has enemy buildings and no enemy chapter house, you can automatically decrease the level of a structure by 1 per week. This counts as your action for that week. Convert District Building: If you control a district with enemy buildings and no enemy chapter house is present, you can convert an enemy district building to your guild by paying 50% of the market price of that building. Raid District Building: This is a PC assault where a number of PCs attack and raid a building in an adjactent or the same district. The building is defended by an equal total of ECL of PCs, plus one per level of the building, from the enemy guild. If the raid is successful, the attackers gain the income from that building for that week. Raid Gold Caravan: A gold caravan transports gold to the Home Base from the Chapter Houses. This is a PC assault where a number of PCs meet an equal total of ECL of PCs, plus one ECL per level of all buildings in that district, from the enemy guild. If the raid is successful, you get the weekly income from all buildings in that district. Raid Home Base: This is a PC assault where a number of PCs attack and raid the Home Base of a Guild. The Home Base will be defended by all Guild PCs, and any home troops or staff the defender wants to activate. If successful, the complete treasury is raided by the assaulting guild. This needs to be done in real time and uses the base map as floorplan. If a Vault is present, one of the attacking PCs must have the appropriate Open Lock skill and meet the DC of the vault lock. Covert Covert Operations are always PC centered and never involve a fight. Infact, avoiding detection at all is the key to success here. Arson: Decreases the level of a building by 1. A 'Bucket Brigade' upgrade prevents this action. Burglary: You gain the weekly income of that building. A 'Nightwatch Patrol' upgrade prevents this action. Sabotage: Destroys one upgrade of a district. Create Diversion: The target guild loses its actions for the next week as it is occupied with the diversion. Plant Corrupt Official: [We already have a way to steal money with burglary. This action should do something else] We need to come up with a good way to do covert operations. If we make it a miniquest, we need a clear definition on how to do that. The EL of the Miniquest has to depend on the power of the district and on some upgrades. Also, Miniquest is probably not the best term for that because we would need to drop the EL-2 cap that normal miniquests have. Political Political Operations neither involve a battle nor an active participation from a PC. Instead, the skills of one or more PCs are required to perform the action. Forge Incriminating Documents By using the Forgery skill of a member, a guild can forge incriminating documents. The member must succeed at an opposed forgery check against the member with the best forgery skill of the target guild who also gains a bonus of +1 per level of structures in that district. If the check succeeds, the target guild may not build or upgrade any structure in that district until... Make False Accusations (Bluff) ??? Frame a Guild Member for a Crime A PC can use his Sleight of Hand skill to make a member of an enemy guild look guilty. The target PC uses his spot check to oppose the attempt. If the sleight of hand is successful, that PC will go to jail for at least one week and will not be available for any activity for the guild. The guild can pay X*ECL gp to get him out of jail again else he continues to spend time there. Even in jail, the PC can continue to take place in roleplaying within the guild (he talks through the bars). Release Embarrasing Rumors By using the Gather Information skill, a PC can spread false rumors about a guild. For one week, that guild will not be able to recruit any staff or troops. Encite a Riot By using Disguise and Diplomacy, a PC can incite a riot within the guild that will cause one or more regiments to leave the guild, depending on the skill. Host a Contest (Ride, Perform, Handle Animal, Tumble, Jump or Climb) ??? We need to come up with a reasonable DC for those actions, and on what that DC depends. Guild Credits: Real Credits is definately the wrong way of doing it. They are reserved for those who keep this board running. But we need to define how much a guild can do in a week. @Luni: I'll comment on your system tomorow.
Caterane 09-27-05, 06:32 PM	Let's finish the troops/combat system and the Living Guilds can start. There are four types of regiments: Regular, Conscript, Irregular, and Special. Here are the Statistics of a Standard Regiment that every guild can hire: Regular Regiment [20xHuman Warrior 1; non-elite] Shortsword+3; Damage xd6+x [x=number of soldiers in unit]; Hitpoints: 300 hp; AC 13 [studded leather armor]; Feats: 2xtoughness These standard troops can be modified by buying upgrades in your home base, and those upgrades, once build, apply to all future troops too. That gives Guilds the option to focus on their military power, on economical power by buying structures, on defense, etc. Conscript Troops are (voluntarily or not) those who make use of the structures in a district, like the students that go to the TAO University, or the Street Thugs of the WAR guild. The type of the conscript depends on the structure trait, and the power level/number of the volunteers is determined by the level of the structure. So the students would be lvl 1 wizards if a school is present, or lvl 5 if it is a university. Question: how would they fit in? Irregular Regiments are different from the Regulars in that they are composed of a different race. Normally, such troops have an advantage or are more specialized in one sector but they're also more expensive and require additional prerequisite buildings (eg wolves Breeding Pens, Worgs Beast Kennels, Dire Wolves Training Grounds). Special Units are guild specific and can only be built by that guild. So the CEF might be able to gate in a regiment of celestial warriors (celestial template) or a cleric healer regiment. Alternatively, we can give every District such a special unit that is only available if you control that district (and have a <enter suitable structure> there). Question: - How do we want to handle the Troops Combat system? Real-time in a seperate thread? Or run by a Pitlord? Or no real combat at all but an abstract calculation that determines the winner? @Luni: thanks for your idea. We will use some of your ideas but I also have some concerns: 1) Your regiments do so much damage that they kill a whole regiment in one hit. 2) Either we keep it completely tactical without any rolls or combat scenario, or we let units fight normally as if they were a gladiator. That one damage roll doesn't make the cow fat but adds a bit of randomness to the battles. 3) I like the special troops example and we'll take over that idea (a bit modified units) but the regular troops should be standardized.
SoulLord 09-27-05, 06:39 PM	To encourage Role playing over number crunching I say we go with option 3 let the guildmasters sort it out. If they can't agree on a winner then the pitlord decides who wins.
SauroGrenom 09-27-05, 11:58 PM	Plant Corrupt Official: [This could allow a guild to have a more long lasting effect than a Burglary. This would likely be a more difficult quest to accomplish, but if successful then you can steal a fraction of the income from a building for several weeks in a row untill the Corrupt Official is uncovered. Also the Corrupt Official covers his tracks well, and unlike a Burglary, the perpitrators of this covert action are unknown. Seamingly the money simply dissapears from the coffers of the building, without any evidence as to where it went. ] We need to come up with a good way to do covert operations. If we make it a miniquest, we need a clear definition on how to do that. The EL of the Miniquest has to depend on the power of the district and on some upgrades. Also, Miniquest is probably not the best term for that because we would need to drop the EL-2 cap that normal miniquests have. OK, call it a guild action, that is effectively a miniquest run by an impartial pitlord. Guilds will gain two action points per turn, these can be stored up to a maximum of say 6 or so. Then any action will use one action point, and the maximum number of action points that can be spent in one turn is equal to the number of active members of the guild. Political Political Operations neither involve a battle nor an active participation from a PC. Instead, the skills of one or more PCs are required to perform the action. Forge Incriminating Documents (Forgery) These documents require one or two guild action points worth of time and effort to discredit the documents. A guild is unable to perform any political actions so long as the spectre of these documents hang over the guild. Perhaps the guild is also unable to obtain the necessary permits to build anything while these documents are still circulating. Make False Accusations (Bluff) This ability can be used to damage a guild's trait modifiers (ie reputation). For example you can have a person come forward and claim that a highranking official in the TLT favors golf clubs made from Treants, their image as a patron of Nature takes a hit untill the TLT uses a guild action or two to clean up the image of the guild. A timely application of this ability could have potent strategic effect on your rivals development planns and income. Host a Contest (Ride, Perform, Handle Animal, Tumble, Jump or Climb) The guild hosts a contest in one of their districts. The visiting guests, attention and commerce all contribute to an event that temporarily increases one trait for the district and/or makes some money for the guild. We need to come up with a reasonable DC for those actions, and on what that DC depends. Those actions should have a DC that is not easy to accomplish, so we need to consider the ECL of the characters who may be performing the actions. Then we can make the DC 10-15 above their modifiers. Some of the actions could have sliding scales like the Jump skill where higher checks result in a longer jump, instead higher checks result in increasing benifits. Guild Credits: Real Credits is definately the wrong way of doing it. They are reserved for those who keep this board running. But we need to define how much a guild can do in a week. I suggest guild action points. Each guild gets two action points per turn, and they must spend the action points to perform any of the above actions, and have 1 PC who can plan/oversee that action. They can save up a maximum of 6-10 action points for later use. Each Guild will also be allowed to build a number of constructions per turn, something limited by a homebase upgrade. Like a Municipal Law Office, with multiple clerks that each can run a single construction, and only one can work on a particular district per turn. I like the idea of special combat units that become available to purchase if particular buidings are up, or if the guild controlls a district with high enough traits or combination of traits. As for the way to handle the combat system, I think there should be an element of chance in the system, inorder to keep the game from becoming too much like chess.
SauroGrenom 09-29-05, 06:31 PM	I have an idea for a mass combat system that I have started to dream up last night. First off, I must admit that I have little experience with mass combat system. I've never played warhammer, or DND miniatures or any such thing. In fact this system is based upon an adapted version of a table top strategy game I played as a kid more than 10 years ago. If any of you have ever played a version of "Greyhawk Wars" that has a big map and a bunch of little tiles representing armies, then you may recognize the basic idea here. The resolution of hits, and special effects will rely upon our familiar d20 rules, so we won't be required to learn any new special rules. The major simplification will be that the tactical aspects of positioning, range, movement and so forth will be vastly simplified. Battle Units: This system works by abandoning the idea of the "regiment". Each side in the battle will have a number of units that are available for the defense and attacks. Any unit is a single participant in the battle. It could be a melee warrior, archer, ogre, cleric, pc, or anything. Each unit will have a few vital statistics: AC, HP, saves, BAB, grapple/trip/disarm checks, weapon damage, and any special abilities. Layout of Battle Grid: The base grid is 5 column's wide and has a heavy horizontal line across the middle called the Melee Line. There are rows above and below this central line as many as are needed. Each medium sized unit takes a place in one square of the grid. Large, Huge and so on units take up more squares as determined by their size. Two small size units can be packed into a single grid square as you would expect so that both have access to an edge that faces the Melee Line. Each Square on the grid represents a 5x5 square for the purpose of unit size. Placement: At the beginning of a battle defenders place their units above the Melee Line first. Attackers then line up their units on the bottom of the Melee Line. The Melee Line must be filled so long as there are enough units in both the Attackers and Defenders side of the battle. Units must fill the rows closer to the Melee Line before units can be placed in the next row, if that condition is met, there is no other limitation on the placement of troops into any column. Throughout the battle, units will be rearranged in each turn. The units that occupy squares across from each other are referred to as a Match. Resolving attacks: There are three major forms of attacks: Melee Attacks, Ranged Attacks, and Special Attacks. Melee Attacks are available to those units on the Melee Line, those attacks must be resolved against the unit that is in the first row across the Melee Line from them in the same column. Ranged attacks can be resolved against any unit in the same column but not on the Melee Line across from an ally unit. All Ranged and Melee attacks are resolved by rolling a d20 in the standard method that applies BAB and modifiers to the d20 role against the AC of the defender. Melee units with 10 foot reach are able to attack into the second row beyond the Melee Line. Longer reach increases this ability by one row per 5 feet of reach. If a unit is reduced to 1/3 of its hit points it must make a Moral check or flee. If a melee unit is on the Melee Line and the unit across from it has been killed before it can attack, then it may resolve its attack against the next unit in the column. If only one side of the battle lacks enough units to fill the Melee Line, then the side with extra units, lines up its units in the same columns as its opponent, but it is permitted to make Melee Attacks from additional rows back from the Melee Line. So, if attackers have only 4 units remaining, but the defenders have 6, the defenders may make melee attacks from the 2nd row. If there are only 3 attackers, then the third row of defenders may make melee attacks and so forth untill the lone attacker is subject to melee attacks from the 5th row back. Turn Structure: In the first turn of the combat, the ranged defenders resolve their attacks first. This first turn is the only turn where the ranged defenders may resolve attacks against melee attackers who are on the Melee Line across from defenders. Then ranged attackers resolve their attacks, and they also may attack opponents on the Melee Line who are opposite to units. Next the melee defenders may resolve their attacks. Lastly melee attackers resolve their attacks. This concludes the first round of combat, and defenders may now reposition any unit that is not on the Melee Line. Units on the Melee Line may be repositioned, but an “AoO” is granted, and its outcome is resolved immediately before repositioning is complete. If the unit being repositioned has opponents in the square across the Melee Line from it, then those opponents makes a free attack; if the occupants of that square died, then the repositioning can be made without granting an “AoO”. Large units can only make a single “AoO” per turn unless using a special ability. Next Attackers may reposition their troops as well. Finally the turn is over and the combat sequence resumes. First ranged defenders, then ranged attackers, then melee defenders and lastly melee attackers all resolve their attacks. Ranged attacks can no longer be made against those on the Melee Line across from your allies. If ranged attackers are on the Melee Line, then they usually grant an “AoO” from their opponents across the Melee Line. Special Effects: Many units will have special abilities that can play a role in the battle. Each of these must be individually addressed. I was thinking that Spell Casters and Area Effects represent the greatest problem. This is my first suggestion: Defending Spell Casters may pre-buff with 2 rounds of spells that have duration of at least one hour. Attacking Spell Casters may pre buff with two spells that have duration of at least one minute. As for Area Effects, units on the Melee Line can use cone area effects that target units on the Melee Line, and only the unit directly across the Melee Line is subject to the effect. As for other Area Effects such as lightning bolt and fire ball, these can be used to target units in your column not on the Melee Line, and a maximum number equal to your caster level. Buffs with a range of Touch can be cast in the middle of combat, but to target them on units at the Melee Line incurs one “AoO” from your opponents choice of units Matched with those who are targeted by your buff. To target an opponent with a spell that has a range of Touch, the spell caster must be on the Melee Line and he may only target his Match. Attackers may chose to “Charge”, “Trip” or what have you, so long as the units that are performing these actions have the ability to do so and this is usually a special ability. Moral Checks: If a unit is reduced to 1/3 its hp then it must make a Moral Check. The DC of the Moral Check is equal to 10+ECL, where the ECL is the highest ECL that is currently in that unit’s column. If it succeeds this check it will continue to fight until it is wounded again, and must make the same check with a +2DC. If it fails the Moral Check, then it will flee and the unit is removed from the battle gird. If either the Defenders or Attackers do not have enough remaining units to fill the Melee Line and have less units than the opponent, then every remaining unit must make a Moral Check or Flee. PC units in the battle never need to make a Moral Check. What do you all think of this system? It involves a lot of dice rolling, but should be easy for a pitlord to resolve a fight, because it cuts down on the numbre of participants in a battle. It also allows special units and PC's to participate in a clear manner. The complicated issues of movement, range, special actions and so forth are mostly gone. He will simply need to role the attack and damage dice, and if there are special effects like spells or some such, then there will be a few more rolls but I don’t think that there will be far too many. The kinds of unusual attacks that gladiators make (trip, grapple, charge, sunder, disarm and so forth) are not available to many of these regular units. Only special units that become available with buildings and upgrades will permit those abilities to be evoked in the battle. These battles would probably need to be run like a miniquest with the leaders of each battle posting back and forth the positions and ranged attack actions for each turn.
King Uther 10-01-05, 03:22 AM	This is off topic, but I have placed it upon my shoulders to bring the Ironman tournament to the surface for but a moment. This is more for an announcement rather than discussion. I'll bring it up again once guilds are in full-swing. Keep this in mind though so you have a character ready. Rules: 1. Single Elimination 2. EL 11 (Although EL 10 will be allowed based on circumstances) 3. Starts January 15th (Date may change, possible February 1st or 15th) 4. Character must have participated somewhat. (At least 3 arena fights or 1 quest) 5. 16, 24, or 32 Gladiators (If 24, the eight characters who have 'participated' the most get the bye week) 6. Ironman - This is where the speculation will be. This is how I think it should be. - True Ironman. No regeneration of spells or hit points. On the other hand, the next fight is to be assumed to be happening immediately, which means previous buffs might still be up. 7. Prize - Custom CoCo Avatar There are some other rules I am fleshing out. This is but a framework.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-01-05, 03:28 AM	This is off topic, but I have placed it upon my shoulders to bring the Ironman tournament to the surface for but a moment. This is more for an announcement rather than discussion. I'll bring it up again once guilds are in full-swing. Keep this in mind though so you have a character ready. Rules: 1. Single Elimination 2. EL 11 (Although EL 10 will be allowed based on circumstances) 3. Starts January 15th (Date may change, possible February 1st or 15th) 4. Character must have participated somewhat. (At least 3 arena fights or 1 quest) 5. 16, 24, or 32 Gladiators (If 24, the eight characters who have 'participated' the most get the bye week) 6. Ironman - This is where the speculation will be. This is how I think it should be. - True Ironman. No regeneration of spells or hit points. On the other hand, the next fight is to be assumed to be happening immediately, which means previous buffs might still be up. 7. Prize - Custom CoCo Avatar There are some other rules I am fleshing out. This is but a framework. I have a suggestion based on the "no regenration" theory. Since there is only 1 arena, the clock continues to count down. So just count how many rounds (or minutes) have elpased since the last time you fought, and voila. Otherwise, at ECL 11, pretty much any buff will be active for the entire tourney. Also, if those "in-between" rounds give you time to drink a few potions and stuff, you may be able to heal as well. -ToK
sloisel 10-03-05, 06:57 PM	This is off topic, but I have placed it upon my shoulders to bring the Ironman tournament to the surface for but a moment. Hey, I like that. Is that actually scheduled, or are you daydreaming? Sébastien Loisel
Book5 10-04-05, 12:58 AM	But a Guild's purpose is NOT to give out free money!!!!! No way. That would be totally unfair to those who are not in a guild! Guilds are THEMATIC organizations that helps those who relate to that theme. What about "guild money" to be spent only on "guild stuff" and "guild items" that can only be used in these "guild wars?" Keep the expenditures list on the guild thread. Guild members should put a link in their sheets that show their quild character equipment, but cant use guild stuff in non-guild battles. Split XP is too much of a hassle, but split gp is as simple as two different pages. Pump the guild derived money up as much as you want and it wont effect the open arena. It would make the guilds able to be a kinda contained "arms race" arrangement. Death or retirement leaves your stuff to be confiscated by the guild members, guild money could be changed between any guild members, and this could all happen without the non-guild fights being effected anymore than they already are by quests and champaigns. Guilds could collect membership fees instead of giving out money, if the rewards from the guild fights were inflated beyond the equivalent arena awards. ok, One liner - Triple gp awards from guild battles, but only 1/3 walks out the door.
SauroGrenom 10-09-05, 05:00 PM	The complete details of all things that can be purchased by guilds has not been finalized to my knowledge. It may be possable that guilds will be able to purchase buildings or enhancements that play a role in build battles. The disucssion of how guild actions are conducted will be kind of on hold untill Cat returns, so I suggest that we can come up with a few more ideas about what those buildings or enhancements will be. As a place to start, we have those things listed here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7320681&postcount=631) Another idea is to try and work out the "Character Sheet" for a guild. A template should exist that makes it easy to answer questions like, how will we audit the guilds actions and structures.
Caterane 10-10-05, 03:03 PM	I'm proud to present you a fully functional guild system. The FAQ: Guilds is complete (except for some minor things) and can be used. Please read it to learn the rules for the LivingGuilds system. You will also see that the rules are much simpler than many of you thought they'd be. If you have read "The Basics", "Operations", "Guild Wars", and "Guild Actions" you'll know how it works. You can now apply for a guild with your character. Guildmasters should make a list with applicants in their guild thread, and pick 5 from that list in 3 weeks from this wednesday on because that will be the day when the guild system starts. Note that there will be NO miniquest prerequisite to join for these first 5 characters! I will discuss the individual entry requirements with the guildmasters within the week but you can expect that they are more roleplay based than those we had so far. There are still some things that need to be done. I'll write up the Regiment stats within the next days. We need to create the Battle Maps. Neither of that will be needed anytime soon. The prices of everything may change while we play along. They are all nothing more than estimations without me having seen the system in action so I could only guess. More important are the rules for the Covert Operations. They are basically non-existant. There must be a concrete frame that governs those operations. I'd like to hear ideas from all of you, if possible. And of course, Feedback is appreciated. Cat
NiQil 10-10-05, 03:51 PM	Wow. Cat...I'm impressed. I have to admit...I've been very vocal about my concerns for how these guilds were going to work, and how characters would be affected. But now that I see how you have rolled it all together, I can say that my enthusiasm for the guilds is back. It is so much more clear now than when it was when it was being built. :tiphat: to you sir, on a job well done.
Snommelp 10-10-05, 04:00 PM	That is indeed very impressive. And I guess that means I have to make the Warrior Guild's guildmaster account now... It still looks a bit overwhelming to me, Cat, but I'll try my best to be a good guildmaster. I'll even be nice and only take one of the five opening spots for my own characters. Just have to decide which one gets it. But yeah, all in all, I'm feeling more secure about it than I was. Well done, Cat (and everyone else involved).
Vathelokai 10-10-05, 04:07 PM	Taxes: This is the basic income of a guild. Everytime a player character that belongs to that guild earns money in the arena (and only in the arena), the guild treasury gains 10% of his earnings. However, this money is not really lost to the PC! Obviously, the higher in level a member, the better the Tax income for a guild. The wording on this is kind of strange. Structure Upkeep: Structures have a fixed upkeep cost that must be payed every week. The Upkeeps are: For Level I structures 10 gp, Level II - 30 gp, Level III - 50 gp, and the Unique Structure costs 70 gp a week. Structures that are not sustained (ie the upkeep cannot be payed) decrease in Level by one per week until the upkeep is payed again. So does this mean that if you don't pay upkeep for 2 weeks and the structure downgrades to level 1...Then the 3rd week you pay and the structure immediately reverts back to level 3? Under assult operations, there are many references to 'the assult being successful.' When raiding a gold caravan what determines success? Do all of the enemies have to be incapacitated, or does one PC have to take an item/hijack a cart? Should we have a definite description of what success is, or should it be determined by the pitlord running the fight? Forge Incriminating Documents: By using the Forgery skill of a PC, a guild can forge incriminating documents. He chooses a Guild and a district that this guild controls. The PC must succeed at an opposed forgery check against the member with the best forgery skill of the target guild who also gains a bonus of +1 per level of structures in that district. If the check succeeds, the target guild may not build or upgrade any structure in that district for one week during which the City Administration has to falsify the documents. Does '+1 per level of structures' mean the total of +X for each individual structure where X is the level of each structure? If you owned three level three structures would you get a +9. Also, there is a typo in the last sentence. Make False Accusations: A PC can use his Bluff skill to make false accusations against a guild. He chooses a Guild and a district that this guild controls. The PC must succeed at an opposed bluff check against the member with the best sense motive skill of the target guild who also gains a bonus of +1 per level of structures in that district. If the check succeeds, the target guild loses all positive Trait Modifiers for one week in that district (they're effectively set to zero). What is a positive trait modifier? I thought the traits were the combination of the area and the guild. Did I miss a building that increases traits, or something? Frame a Guild Member for a Crime: A PC can use his Sleight of Hand skill to make a member of an enemy guild look guilty. The target PC uses his spot check to oppose the attempt. If the sleight of hand check is successful, that PC will go to jail for at least one week and will not be available for any activity for the guild. The guild can pay 100*ECL gold to get him out of jail at the end of that week, else he continues to spend time there. Even in jail, the PC can continue to take place in roleplaying within the guild (he talks through the bars or via letters).Does this keep the character out of the arena? I'll have something more constructive tomorrow.
Caterane 10-10-05, 04:53 PM	@Snommelp: Wait with opening the guild. We'll do it together. @Vath: Answers in order - Do you have a better wording? - No, the structure decreases permanently - A successful assault is a victorious team battle (in case of PCs) or a victorious Mass Battle (in case of regiments). - If you have a Mill (lvl III) and a School (lvl I) in that district, you gain a +4 bonus. - Districts have Traits. Guilds have Trait Modifiers. Positive trait modifiers have a '+' infront of the value. - No. The guilds do not affect the non-guild system in any way. For explanation purposes, see it as if the prisoners are led in the arena and back to prison after the fight.
Book5 10-11-05, 11:51 PM	Amazing system you have worked out Cat. :mymy: There is only one thing I see that could be considered "missing" -- Commerce. I want Tan to buy magic stuff from the TOA and NOT the East India guys. Chaotic Good. What if players could spend their money at a guild and let the guild keep that? Include Craftsmen, and a "shop" on the upkeep. What about exchanging goods between players through one of the guild threads instead of paying credits to have a unique magic item crafted? And insomuch as the structures chapter.. Im confused... unless.. your taking suggestions for structures? Is the intent for the structures chapter to eventually look like the "base of operations: available rooms" chapter?
Sunwolf 10-13-05, 11:00 PM	Question about the guild system: Does the home base count as a structure for some minimal home base income or are the taxes presumed to be minimal income that the guild gets starting out? What does a guild start with? 1 kitchen - 1 of 3 cooks capacity (PC/ (20 /3)=7 ) 1 bathroom (capacity 5+PC/20) 1 basic living quarters 1 of 1 maids capacity (PC /5) 1 fancy living quarters (for guildmaster) 1 of 1 maids capacity (1/2) 1 servants quarters 1 of 1 maids (capacity 5/5) 1 guild office for their home base sector ? 1 of 1 clerks 3 maids,1 cooks, 1 clerk Upkeep required: kitchen, bathroom, basic living quarters, fancy living quarters, guild office -- 60gp/week 4 staff wages -- 24gp/week for a total of 84gp/month Income= taxes? home base (counts as lvl 1 structure in guilds primary field) 50*6? = 300 Initial cost: 16000gp This startup has space for 7 PCs assuming the guildmaster is a PC. However, to grow this startup -- more servant quarters will be needed to support more rooms or staff. More cooks will be needed to feed everyone too additional PCs. The servants are not counted against the kitchen capacity in this example.
Book5 10-14-05, 12:18 AM	@Book5 - If you look at the first linked fight - you'll see that Sinnoch started as a 5th level character. He has also been on campaign - so his stats may not match exactly with the "norms" of the arena. I suggest if you want to do violations, pick characters who are both active and not currently on campaign or quests. Active can be determined by looking at the title of the post. If it says Ready and the upcoming Wednesday - feel free. If the date is more than a couple of weeks though - I'd probably not bother checking it. Just a thought. As I understand the streamline initiative is still active, and you havent audited my char, I thought I did it right the first time, I'll triple verify the next time I level, ;) but I feel like making an easy tenth of a point of myself. Besides, you usually make the same mistakes at the same points when you work your own character sheet over. In my experience. I will restate my question, and I'll pop it on over to the council. I get the feeling I'm talkin too much in the prison. Shouldnt all credit expenditures be listed on the sheet, all cash etc in the expenditures section - I like the hyperlinks to the fights btw. Easy enough to do with every batch loss, batch gain, and you can hyper link the blackmarket or a guild for purchases, and credit expenditures. Er, or am I missing some sort of point somewhere. :rolleyes: You could increase the audit credits too for people that provide cut an pastable comments so that by not recording it - you are like giving credits to anyone willing to collect all the information and put you expeditures list into a convienient hyperlinked, prioritized with headings (in a standard to be determined ), and color coded (to boot ) format.
Caterane 10-14-05, 03:13 AM	@Book5: All credit expenditures must be linked or are not available. The Council is only for certain topics. Current topic: guilds. @Sunwolf: So far, a guild starts with - Kitchen - Bathroom - Basic Living Quarter - Servant's Quarter - Staff: Cook, 2 maids The Home Base itself serves as a free office for the district it is located in. That way, a guild can never lose control of its home district. The Guildmaster does not count in any calculation.
Caterane 10-14-05, 04:34 AM	@all: Most of the Rules on guilds are done but there are still some holes that need to be fixed. If you could help me, we will surely finish it sooner, and better. Developments: The list of <developments> is incomplete. We still need developments for the Dining Hall/Banquett Hall, Guild Library/Guild Archives, and Work Area/Workshop. Any additional development helps too. Covert Operations: As you can see, a covert operation can cause tremendous harm to a guild, perhaps summing up in the thousands. We need to keep that fair else a guild will complain that their structures are too easy to damage. Another thing to consider is that it should be different from assault operations. Making it just another arena-like fight doesn't justify a seperate operation section in the rules. Perhaps this is where stealth builds can shine? Covert Operations are always PC centered and never involve a fight. Infact, avoiding detection at all is the key to success here. Covert Operations are done in a seperate thread and played real-time with a neutral Pitlord, similar to Quests/Miniquests, although without any extra credit cost or EL restriction. * Arson: A PC lays a fire in the target structure which permanently decreases the level of the structure by 1. A 'Bucket Brigade' upgrade in the Chapter House prevents this operation. * Burglary: A PC sneaks into the target structure and empties the till. Your guild gains the weekly income of that structure for one week. A 'Nightwatch Patrol' upgrade in the Chapter House prevents this operation. * Sabotage: A PC sneaks into the Chapter House and destroys one upgrade of that district. * Create Diversion: A PC creates a diversion. The target guild loses one Guild Action for the next week as it is occupied with the diversion. * Plant Corrupt Official: ??? The next thing is easier. We need to fill the regiments for a) the districts [Irregulars] and b) for the structures [Conscripts]. This is what we have to far <Guild Hall> Irregulars: I want every district to have a special regiment that is only available if you have a Chapter House there, and the 'District Regiment' upgrade on that Chapter House. That makes these troops more valuable and more exotic. The blank districts need to be filled. Any idea? DISTRICT REGIMENT Arkhein: Knight Nobles Gawane: Gorthyum: Arcadivius: Mage Regiment Kailo: Valhamya: Cleric Regiment Lower Merx: Psi Corps Gauterix: Cutthroats Central Gladius: Gladiators Vilis: Halfling Snipers Kelartus: Duken Marina: Random Merisia: Upper Merx: Gladius Park: Elven Archers Yurynwood: Wolf Pack High Traversam: Dwarven Fighters Plains of Naestitya: Orc Berserkers Conscripts: Conscripts are volunteers that fight in defense for the structure they're working at. They neither cost upkeep nor do they have to be recruited. They are automatically available if a structure has been built. Obviously, they should be weaker than the other types of troops. A Level I structure sends 1 regiment, a Level II structure sends 3 regs, Level III sends 5, and the Unique Structure sends 7 regiments of conscripts. I thought about making them Commoner 1 with simple weapons and no armor. Here are my ideas: Economy: Laborers Faith: Laybrothers Crime: Thugs Leisure: Mob Education: Students Nature: Huntsmen Politics: Loyalists
Sunwolf 10-14-05, 09:28 AM	Ideas for developments: Guild Library: Support Mage: +1 deflection to AC and +1 resistance to saves. Support mage cannot be attacked. Guild Archive: Master Support Mage: +2 deflection to AC and +2 resistance to saves. Master support mage cannot be attacked. Work Area: Repair Crew: Regiments and Irregulars upkeep cost reduced by 10%, Work Shop: Skilled Repair Crew: Regiments and Irregulars upkeep cost reduced by 20% Dining Hall: Fine parties: Conscripts unit size increased to 12 per unit. Banquet Hall: Great parties: Conscripts unit size increased to 14 per unit. Ideas for irregular units (not sure which area would fit best): swashbucklers -- human ranger 2 feats twf(bonus), weapon focus short sword, dodge studded leather, 2 short swords gravel crushers -- half giant barbarians 1 feats speed of thought move 50, rage ability, great axes, chain shirts chain gang -- human fighter2 feats exotic weapon prof spiked chain, weapon focus spiked chain, combat reflexes monk class -- human monk 2 feats improved grapple(b), deflect arrows(b), weapon focus unarmed attack, dodge evasion - good str, dex, con, iron guard -- human fighter 2 feats toughness X2, weapon focus glaive, power attack glaive, chainshirt, good str and con
Snommelp 10-14-05, 11:34 AM	A couple of ideas: DISTRICT REGIMENT Arkhein: Knight Nobles Gawane: Gorthyum: Arcadivius: Mage Regiment Kailo: Gnome Alchemists Valhamya: Cleric Regiment Lower Merx: Psi Corps Gauterix: Cutthroats Central Gladius: Gladiators Vilis: Halfling Snipers Kelartus: Duken Marina: Random Merisia: Upper Merx: Monks Gladius Park: Elven Archers Yurynwood: Wolf Pack High Traversam: Dwarven Fighters Plains of Naestitya: Orc Berserkers
SauroGrenom 10-14-05, 02:07 PM	Although I can no longer be truely impartial, I believe that it the Guildmasters for each guild should get the opportunity to build their Unique troops. Looking at those troops as posted it appears that the spell casters are sevearly underpowered (Specifically the WarMage and Artificial Mind have far too few spells/powers on the list). I think its a good idea to limit spellcasting to spontanious casters because of the inherent preparation problems. Also for Level 6 units they have far too few pieces of nice equipment. I suggest that each guild master be allowed to build their own unique troop as an NPC of the appropreat level in a PC class (With half the gp of a pc at that ECL). Also the inclusion of area effect spells raises the question of how these powerfull battle field effects will be applied against regiments. If a WarMage hits a regiment of regulars with a fireball, is the damage of that fireball applied to the regiment or to every member of the regiment in the area. Obviously one use of the fireball is much more effective than the other. I'm stewing up a few ideas about what some of the conscripts could be. Also I have a few ideas about the effects of some of the guild hall upgrades I'll post about them tomarrow when I have more time and the list is finished.
SauroGrenom 10-14-05, 06:03 PM	Cat, I was looking over the recently posted Regiments and I noticed a typo. First the human warriors appear to have too few hp. I think you forgot to add in the Con bonus for HP. I've had a few ideas about pricing for the regiments. I think it may be appropreat to price them with the following formula. price/week = 5 x (ECL of unit)2 x (number of units/regiment) By this formula low ECL troops are cheap, and as ECL increases the troops become rapidly more expensive. As for Unique units, I understand what is in the guildhall thread each guild can only have one. They cannot hire a second while the first is still in employment. Is this right? I also think it would vastly simplify things if prepared casters are avoided. Paladins and Rangers at 6th level only have one 1st level spell so that's not too hard to handle. So I think it would be best if we gave TLT the Ranger instead of TWE. TWE would now have the PsiWarrior or Monk. Lawfull and wisdom prime stats are in agreement with the mission of the TWE. Mabey we should put some kind of limit on the amount of expendible euipment these guys have, say only 1/10 gp of total value can be in scrolls and potions. Here is another idea: Make the Irregular units ECL 3-4 and have smaller Regiment sizes. So here are my ideas for Irregular (district specific) Units. First I started with the 18 total districts and noticed that there are 15 total core classes. So I thought it would be appropreat for each district to have an Irregular ECL3 with 6 members that is a class unique to that district. The extra three districts could have ECL4 units that are made with LA+1 classes and only have 4-5 members. These three districts could be placed in areas that are likely to be hotspots of conflict. I also looked at the district traits and tried to match the class with the traits of the district. High Traversham: Monk Many faithfull monks have built their abbes and cloisters far from the noise and temptations of the city. High in the hills of Traversham several orders of monks train and hone their skills while foring a living from the thin earth by force of will. Yurynwood: Druid Those with the highest reverence for nature make their homes in the great Yurynwood. Plains of Naestitya: Barbarian The wide plains of Naestitya are roamed by proud, fierce and sometimes unscrupulous tribes of warriors. Arkhein: Paladin Many of the holy warriors of the CEF live in this district and lend their sword arms to the cause of good and righteousness. Gorthym: Sorcerer/ Wilder ECL4 This highly political district is a hotly contested region between three powerful guilds, and is known as a place where those of strong personality often rapidly rise to power and fall just as quickly. Arcadivius: Wizard The students and teachers of the TOA often live within a few blocks of the TOA citadel. This concentration of like minds naturally attracts journeymen practitioners of the arcane arts. Valhamya: Cleric An intensely religious district, Valhamya is well known as the district of steeples. It is common to find clerics of various ideologies arguing in the streets. Zealous supporters of nearly any cause are easily found here. Gawane: Soulknife Situated between the Marina and the wealthy Arkhein district, Gawane has become well known as the place where the most expensive goods or services can be acquired, even if slightly illegal. A small organization of Soulknives located here have become the most highly sought after body guards in the city. Kailo: Barbarian / Fighter ECL4 A hotly contested district situated between three guilds, Kailo is well known for having the finest taverns, galleries and gardens. All of these entertainments attract men and women who feel the greatest need to relax. Duken Marina: Bard The Marina is a bustling district, well know as where the more bawdy entertainment is found, most goods can be acquired and more seedy services contracted. Central Galdius: Fighter Home of the great Arena, central gladius is the chosen district of many warriors clubs and training halls. Upper Merx: Sorcerer This merchant district is also well known as a gathering place for political and religious figures. A charismatic smile is often all that is needed to be successful here. Vilis: Rogue Located south of the Marina, Vilis is a convenient place for many businesses to operate. The concentration of wealth has also fostered an organized criminal element that operates out of this district. Kelartus: Wizard / Psion ECL4 A vibrant but somewhat lesser known educational infrastructure is centered in Kelartus. With its location on the seedier side of town and positioned between three powerfull guilds, Kelartus is often overlooked. Although no formal organization is here, there are a number of master and apprentice artisans who take advantage of the low rent here. The competition and collaboration between these masters fosters an intellectual environment. Gladius Park: Ranger The fantastic inner city park known as Gladius Park is patrolled by a troop of rangers charged with preserving its natural beauty for all the citizens to enjoy. Merisia: PsiWarrior The political power of the district attracts economical dealings as well. Regardless of whether your business is political or economic, wisdom, a focused mind and an unexpected ability will always serve you well. Lower Merx: Psion Home of the somewhat secretive PSI Consortium, Lower Merx is clamoring with young Psions eager to gain admission to that prestigious center of psionic instruction. Gauterix: Wilder A somewhat uncouth district that is unsafe to travel at night, those who choose to live in Gauterix are often dangerous and unpredictable.
Snommelp 10-14-05, 06:39 PM	Cat: the Guild FAQ mentions prerequisites to join guilds, but I thought we had pretty much gotten rid of them. Or had we just lessened them?
SauroGrenom 10-14-05, 07:45 PM	Cat: the Guild FAQ mentions prerequisites to join guilds, but I thought we had pretty much gotten rid of them. Or had we just lessened them? I think we have gotten rid of and weakened the requirements that are like prestige class requirements. Things like requiring knowlege nature 5 are nolonger to be requirements. Instead I think we should have requirements that are very inclusive. Sort of like anti-essentialism. For the PSI consortium I have suggested that the characters be Psionic in one of three ways. Characters who have either power points, psionic feats, or ranks in psicraft are all ellagible. Nearly any build can be streatched to allow inclusion in the guild. For WAR, I might suggest proficiency with martial weapons or levels in monk. All other martial classes come with martial weapon proficiency so fighter, ranger, paladin, psiwarrior and barbarian are all included. Members of other classes can take a level in a martial class or take a feat for wartial weapon proficienty.
Snommelp 10-14-05, 08:40 PM	For WAR, I might suggest proficiency with martial weapons or levels in monk. All other martial classes come with martial weapon proficiency so fighter, ranger, paladin, psiwarrior and barbarian are all included. Members of other classes can take a level in a martial class or take a feat for wartial weapon proficienty. Sounds good to me. Members of WAR must have Martial Weapon Proficiency OR Improved Unarmed Strike OR the War Domain. For the special units, I really want to see gnome alchemists. I don't know why; it just seems like a really fun idea to have a squad of gnomes armed to the teeth with alchemist's fire and tanglefoot bags and thunderstones.
Book5 10-14-05, 09:25 PM	There is a Black Market.. Can we have a Guild Market? I think I mentioned this before I got distracted with prison stuff. I would like to spend my money at a guild and have the guild get something out of that. I want the guild to control certain factors of the market - I guess thats what structures... It would be great to be able to actually purchase things from other characters and put money into one of the guilds. As it stands players are getting "taxed" (at no penalty to them but nontheless ), there are stuctures, but I dont understand how that is supposed to work, and you can steal from the other guilds. Cant we give money to a guild? Buy stuff from a guild? I still think it would be nice to be able to buy something from another player. Say someone has craft wonderous item and I want a ring of bulls strength +6 or something. I would still pay the credits and the costs - but I could do it through the guild and actually give money to another player (and the guild sales taxes of course). That is something that can be done in a normal game, but cannot be done here.
Caterane 10-15-05, 06:52 AM	Here are the requirements to join the guilds. Guildmasters should post them in their guild now so that the applicants can adept. As you can see, these requirements are much more easy to fulfill. The Celestial Forces Any Non-Evil Alignment One of the following Aura of Good 1st level divine spells, Knowledge (Religion or Planes) 5 ranks Celestial Heritage The Living Tree Any Neutral Alignment One of the following 1st level divine spells, Knowledge (Nature) 5 ranks Wild Empathy Survival 5 ranks East Habari Trading Company Any Non-Good Alignment One of the following Bluff 5 ranks Appraise 5 ranks Sense motive 5 ranks The Warfare Alliance Base Attack Bonus +2 One of the following All Martial Weapons All Monk Weapons The War Domain The Arcane Order 1st level arcane spells Any knowledge skill 5 ranks The Psi Consortium Any Non-Good Alignment Psionic Subtype The Watchful Eye Any Non-Evil Alignment One of the following Hide 5 ranks, Move silently 5 ranks Gather information 5 ranks, Knowledge (local) 5 ranks @Book5: Player-Player trade is impossible to track and would throw the board completely off-balance. Player-Guild Trade would be unnecessarily difficult to track and is not realistic because guilds are no magic item factories.
SauroGrenom 10-15-05, 10:46 AM	Cat, I think you've done a good job with the requirements, but I also think that the respective guildmasters should have the final say. These details are part of the personality of the guilds, and it would be appropreat for the guildmasters to start to have the greatest control over that aspect of their respective guilds. I like Snommelp's idea of allowing clerics with the war domain into the WAR guild, and if he wants to allow that then he should have the ability to do so. This is part of why it may be appropreat for the guildmaster to build their respective unique units. These activities will help the guildmaster feel more actively involved in the making of their guild, and they will feel more attached to the guild. We naturally need an impartial rules system for the guilds to interact with eachother, but inside the guildhalls the guildmaster should be the maker. SauroGrenom
Snommelp 10-15-05, 02:10 PM	I agree with SauroGrenom agreeing with me. I believe that clerics with the War domain would fit well with the crowd in the Warfare Alliance, and they don't really fit anywhere else. The "cleric" guild requires a celestial heritage, which a lot of those War clerics might not have. The Living Tree would require them to be nature based, which means probably not War domain. EHTC requires sneaky skills, which clerics in general don't normally have. The Watchful Eye is the same. The Arcane Order and Psi Consortium are class based and not for clerics. You know, come to think of it, clerics in general really have no place of their own in the guilds. The Warfare Alliance wants to bring in at least some of them. To repeat myself, I think the War domain fits with the theme, and besides, every warrior wants a healer nearby.
SauroGrenom 10-15-05, 03:01 PM	Conscripts: Conscripts are volunteers that fight in defense for the structure they're working at. They neither cost upkeep nor do they have to be recruited. They are automatically available if a structure has been built. Obviously, they should be weaker than the other types of troops. A Level I structure sends 1 regiment, a Level II structure sends 3 regs, Level III sends 5, and the Unique Structure sends 7 regiments of conscripts. I thought about making them Commoner 1 with simple weapons and no armor. Here are my ideas: Economy: Laborers Expert Faith: Laybrothers Adept Crime: Thugs Warrior or Expert Leisure: Mob Aristorcat Education: Students Expert or Adept Nature: Huntsmen Warrior Politics: Loyalists Aristorcat I thought we could make these commoners members of the appropreat NPC classes. I put my ideas in the list above.
SauroGrenom 10-15-05, 05:32 PM	Blacksmithy Effect: decreases regiments weekly cost by 10% Good Idea Sunwolf! Magic Laboratory: Effect: Regiments may now carry expendables worth 1/5 weekly cost. Developments: Acid Flasks, Alchemists Fire, Thunderstones, Tanglefoot bags. Assembly Hall: Effect: decreases regiments weekly cost by 20% Research Facility: Effect: Regiments may now carry expendables worth 1/3 weekly cost. Developments: Potions, units may carry a potion or oil into battle as part of the expendables. Dinning Hall: Developments: Seargents, Add extra unit of ECL+1 to your regiments. Results in slightly higher HP and damage output, but the regiment will attack at the bab of the units not the seargent. Guild Library: Developments: Mage support adds 1d4+1 damage per turn even if the unit misses. Work Area: Developments: Member Workstations, allows guild to make income off the members craft and profession skills. Banquett Hall: Developments: Leutenants, Add extra unit of ECL+2 to your regiments Workshop: Developments: Masterwork Artisans Tools, allows members making money for the guild using craft and profession to have a +2-+5 circumstance bonus. Guild Archives: Developments: Advanced Mage support, adds 2d4+2 damage per round.
SauroGrenom 10-15-05, 05:42 PM	Cat, I see that your didn't like my previous ideas about what the "Plant Corrupt Official" action does, so here is another one related to previous ideas. Plant Corrupt Official: A corrupt official steels money from the structure it is planted in and decreases the efficiency of that structure by 50%. The corrupt official is presists from turn to turn and discovering him and removing him costs a guild action. Or A corrupt official siphons 25% of the income from the structure it is planted in and that money becomes income for the guild that planted it. Removing a corrupt official requires a guild action. On a related issue, How much startig money does a guild have?
The Undershadow 10-17-05, 02:30 AM	Where's the Living Tree Guild? I can't find it anywhere in the CoCo Forum.
Vathelokai 10-17-05, 02:50 AM	Where's the Living Tree Guild? I can't find it anywhere in the CoCo Forum. At the very bottom left of the COCO page is a box that says 'display options', right next to the 'currently active users.' Set it so that you can see posts from the last 100 days. Then check on page 3. Or you could just click here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=501578)
Book5 10-17-05, 06:55 AM	Suggestion For the TAO requirments. The Arcane Order Any knowledge skill 5 ranks One of the following 1st level arcane spells or spell like abilities. Spellcraft 10 ranks. Knowledge Arcana 5 ranks, Use Magic Device 5 ranks[/list] @Caterane - I have to ask. Arent all expenditures supposed to be tracked on the character sheet anyway? How much more different is putting a purchase post on the guild thread, or on a shared "guild market" thread, than putting a purchase post on the "black market" thread. I guess what Im suggesting is something like this, Keeping it in the Guild Guild Trade: As a member of a guild you are able to purchase and sell items to other guild members. The buyer and the seller do not have to be in the same guild, but the transaction must take place inside a guildhall. That is to say the transaction must be recorded on a guild ledger, and as always the purchase must be recorded on your respective character sheets. Magic Items, exotic creatures, and other credit costing purchases do not require credits on the part of the buyer when they are obtained directly from another player. Notes on Guild Trade. The Sale price is determined by the seller. The seller must pay a 5% trade tax to the guild that recorded the sale. The buyer and the seller must both be active guild members (but dont need to be in same guild). Remember: You are responcible for recording all of your character's purchases, and their sources, on your character's sheet. Preferably including hyperlinks to the ledger that records the purchase. Guild Market: Purchasing Items though a Guild isnt necessarily cheaper than if you purchased an item from the general public, but when you "keep it in the guild" every copper goes into the guild coffers to be used towards the greater goals of the guild. You must make a post in a guildhall that declares what you wish to purchase, and you may not add it to your sheet until the sale is recorded on the guild ledger. What is available for sale from a guild is determined by the structures, staff, and technologies a guild maintains. There are three categories of purchase from a guild's market. General Store: Standard purchases available for sale at standard prices. Discount Store: Standard purchases available for sale at reduced prices. Private Reserve: Creditory purchases available from the guild's members. Note: You must be a guild's member to purchase from their discount store, and you must be in a (any) guild to trade with another player using the private reserve. Any character, in any guild, or no guild, can purchase from the guild's general store. --- The key motivator here is that anytime any one of these options gets utilzed the guild gets money. The associate motivator is that while, no not every guild is a magic item factory.. The TOA could easily be (Potions.. class. thats all Im sayin), the living tree could produce crazy special mounts and things, and the east habari trading company could theoretically qualify as a distributor of nearly anything. Ideas, and I think it would encourage RP while not really being all that much additional paperwork (seeing as the ledger is gonna have to be balanced regularly anyways) and its not any more core breaking than the black market. In support of the credit deal and player-to-player purchases and maintianing core reality I will make an example using "a magic item." In a real game being played the way it was designed to be played you can get "in with a magi group" and get discounts on items due to successful diplomacy to helpful the npcs. Discount prices are helpful. Further, if my character has found itself in an mages guild of some sort that usually comes part and parcel with some increased (and usually cheap) access to magic stuff, be it components or items. Now, if you get an item that isnt available core (with credits), and then later you decide to get another, better item (core or not) you will usually go sell the one you had. I didnt see anywhere in the rules thread where it talked about selling things, but I have sold all sorts of stuff in table games I have played. I think that with Guild Trade the seller's credit expenditure would waive the buyer from needing to do so. You know what else would be cool. If the guilds could be set up as sources of certain NPC services for no credit cost. This (along with all of the rest of all this) would push players to patron the guilds. "I could pay credits.. or I could do a little guild rp." and as I said every time any one of these guild functions is excersized the guild reaps a golden reward.
Snommelp 10-18-05, 01:24 AM	They're good ideas, Book, but we have to be careful not to unbalance things. Not all characters will want to join guilds, and not all will be able to join guilds. We want the fights to remain unbiased, so that any gain is countered by a penalty, a price for every weapon.
Caterane 10-18-05, 11:36 AM	@Book5: It's just completely impossible here. We could close the coco if we do that. Caster crafts for 3500 gold, sells it for 7,000. Without a fight, he would have earned 3500 gold. I would do that for ten weeks in a row and end up with 35,000 gold MORE than everyone else at my level. Please leave that issue be because it will not happen here. @all: I am busy until the 28th so I can't work on the guilds atm. Please continue to post ideas.
SauroGrenom 10-18-05, 12:05 PM	As the PSI Consortium Guildmaster, I'm realy looking forward to starting the first turn of guild actions this wednessday. I have three applicants for membership so far, and we should start earning money soon. It would be realy nice to have some startup cash so that the first couple turns worth of guild actions can be spent on something. Like our first building or some such. Please let us know if we get some startup cash. That will realy give us a boost to get these things going. Also, I'd like to know what you thought of my idea to allow guildmasters to make their own Unique units. Lastly, I think we should have some sort of template format for the first few posts in the guild threads. Something that will track the guilds activities for auditing and make a simple format for auditors to understand what is going on. In the future when covert actions are performed, they should be posted in secret in some way, so that the outcome is public after the fact. We could have the covert actions submitted as a PM to the GuildLords. Then the GuildLords resolves the Covert action and that outcome can then be posted in the guildthread. Perhaps a Guildactions thread needs to be put on the boards. These could then be used to track all guild actions and have summary posts that track the outcomes of each assault or covert action. I've reserved the first 15 posts over in the PSI Consortium for the purpose of tracking guild stats and making announcements. I have a skeleton of posts up there right now. These posts represent the ideas I've come up with so far to track guild activity. Please look at that, and we can brainstorm about what needs to be tracked and how to best do that.
Caterane 10-18-05, 02:47 PM	@Sauro: The guilds start on wednesday, November 2nd. I have no time to prepare the Celestial Forces in any way, and I also want to have the rules complete before we start. Finally, I want to watch every single move from all guilds which I cannot do atm. I will have all the time in the world from Oct 27 on. - No Starting Cash. - Own Unique Units is not that good because they need to be equal more or less. - Yay to auditing template! - How should Guildlords resolve it? Grrr to Covert Operations!! - Requirements: 5 ranks in Psicraft is too much. Psionic already encompasses all psionic characters, feats, races, and classes. @Snommelp: War Clerics added to the prereqs. Yes, you can propose things. Still, I want to remind you that I will reserve the right to have the final say. Guildmasters may change; Guilds not, so we shouldn't base the whole in-guild set-up on one (non-permanent?) guildmaster.
SauroGrenom 10-18-05, 02:54 PM	- Own Unique Units is not that good because they need to be equal more or less. Ahhh, but they will all have the same ECL and the same starting cash, so they should naturally be equal more or less. I suggest starting cash just like NPC's of there level. Also make a limitation on expendibles. Max 1/5th or 1/3rd of the total cash spent on expendibles. Aww, come one... PLEASE?? :tantrum:
Caterane 10-18-05, 03:39 PM	Hm, what we can do is that every guild proposes a Unique Trooper, and we adept him if necessary. The specifics need to be determined yet. A problem I see is that the Unique Troops are static, once picked. Now imagine the initial 3-5 Guild members did a bad job, they leave over the next 6 months and the new guild owners are annoyed because of their crappy unique guy. That's why I prefer to have them all build equally. Btw, you said the unique spellcasters are underpowered? One fireball can extinguish one or more regiments with one blast! Surely, the paladin cannot do that on his charge, nor the Weaponmaster with his whirlwind.
Snommelp 10-18-05, 05:10 PM	@Snommelp: War Clerics added to the prereqs. Yes, you can propose things. Still, I want to remind you that I will reserve the right to have the final say. Guildmasters may change; Guilds not, so we shouldn't base the whole in-guild set-up on one (non-permanent?) guildmaster. Oh, I agree. If the guildmaster had complete control over his guild, transitions would be horrible for the members. All I did was point out that most clerics had no place in any guild at the time that I posted.
Luni 10-18-05, 07:21 PM	The Living Tree One of the following Survival 5 ranks 1st level divine spells, Knowledge Nature 5 ranks Cat, can we add Wild Empathy to their as well. Know: Nature and Survival aren't exactly used in the arena. I wonder if Ariel's Half-Giant Skeletons can join the Psionics Guild. They are non-good and have the Psionic Subtype.
SauroGrenom 10-18-05, 10:47 PM	Btw, you said the unique spellcasters are underpowered? One fireball can extinguish one or more regiments with one blast! Surely, the paladin cannot do that on his charge, nor the Weaponmaster with his whirlwind. I didn't say this. Rather I said that I thought the equipment that the casters had was a bit underpowered. I haven't gone through and added up all the GP values of the magic items for each unique unit, but that should be equal across the guilds. Also it may be simpler to avoid prepaired spellcasters all together, because of the inherent issues with the whether or not this or that spell was memorized before the fight. And those running the prepaired casters would be required to make up lists of memorized spells and spells in the spellbooks. Avoiding prepaired casters prevents anyone from caiming that the mage/druid/cleric would have enough time to research there opponents weaknesses and adjust the memorized spell list.... bla...bla...bla. This is the only reason why. You also sort of answered the question of how area effects would be used in our mass combat system. It may be a good idea to put something about that in the guild FAQ thread.
One_Winged_Angel 10-19-05, 01:31 AM	Scrolls. Scrolls are anything but underpowered. They are what determine many fights. It's the same deal with powerstones. These things own. Also, most casters aren't about the equipment, they are about the spells. If it seems like the equipment is lame, well, that's likely the 1/3 rule rearing it's ugly, 1 eyes, 7 toothed head. Oh, btw, Cat...I once had a fighter take out 50 men in 1 round. Not with a core feat, but it felt so goooooooooooood. :)
Caterane 10-19-05, 10:13 AM	@Luni: added. @Sauro: The Unique casters are effectively not prepared casters. They have the pre-mem'd spells and that's it. See it as fixed abilities. And it doesn't matter if the equipment is better or not but how that Unique Trooper is compared to the other ones. Since fireball can empty a field pretty quickly, the melee guys got a bit more equipment. But honestly, I am still very unsure about Uniques at all. Perhaps they should rather be regiments? I have only a good idea for the CEF: Human Fighters with Celestial Template.
Guildlords 10-22-05, 08:11 AM	I've had a few ideas about pricing for the regiments. I think it may be appropreat to price them with the following formula. price/week = 5 x (ECL of unit)2 x (number of units/regiment) By this formula low ECL troops are cheap, and as ECL increases the troops become rapidly more expensive. Here is another idea: Make the Irregular units ECL 3-4 and have smaller Regiment sizes. So here are my ideas for Irregular (district specific) Units. First I started with the 18 total districts and noticed that there are 15 total core classes. So I thought it would be appropreat for each district to have an Irregular ECL3 with 6 members that is a class unique to that district. The extra three districts could have ECL4 units that are made with LA+1 classes and only have 4-5 members. These three districts could be placed in areas that are likely to be hotspots of conflict. I also looked at the district traits and tried to match the class with the traits of the district. High Traversham: Monk Many faithfull monks have built their abbes and cloisters far from the noise and temptations of the city. High in the hills of Traversham several orders of monks train and hone their skills while foring a living from the thin earth by force of will. Yurynwood: Druid Those with the highest reverence for nature make their homes in the great Yurynwood. Plains of Naestitya: Barbarian The wide plains of Naestitya are roamed by proud, fierce and sometimes unscrupulous tribes of warriors. Arkhein: Paladin Many of the holy warriors of the CEF live in this district and lend their sword arms to the cause of good and righteousness. Gorthym: Sorcerer/ Wilder ECL4 This highly political district is a hotly contested region between three powerful guilds, and is known as a place where those of strong personality often rapidly rise to power and fall just as quickly. Arcadivius: Wizard The students and teachers of the TOA often live within a few blocks of the TOA citadel. This concentration of like minds naturally attracts journeymen practitioners of the arcane arts. Valhamya: Cleric An intensely religious district, Valhamya is well known as the district of steeples. It is common to find clerics of various ideologies arguing in the streets. Zealous supporters of nearly any cause are easily found here. Gawane: Soulknife Situated between the Marina and the wealthy Arkhein district, Gawane has become well known as the place where the most expensive goods or services can be acquired, even if slightly illegal. A small organization of Soulknives located here have become the most highly sought after body guards in the city. Kailo: Barbarian / Fighter ECL4 A hotly contested district situated between three guilds, Kailo is well known for having the finest taverns, galleries and gardens. All of these entertainments attract men and women who feel the greatest need to relax. Duken Marina: Bard The Marina is a bustling district, well know as where the more bawdy entertainment is found, most goods can be acquired and more seedy services contracted. Central Galdius: Fighter Home of the great Arena, central gladius is the chosen district of many warriors clubs and training halls. Upper Merx: Sorcerer This merchant district is also well known as a gathering place for political and religious figures. A charismatic smile is often all that is needed to be successful here. Vilis: Rogue Located south of the Marina, Vilis is a convenient place for many businesses to operate. The concentration of wealth has also fostered an organized criminal element that operates out of this district. Kelartus: Wizard / Psion ECL4 A vibrant but somewhat lesser known educational infrastructure is centered in Kelartus. With its location on the seedier side of town and positioned between three powerfull guilds, Kelartus is often overlooked. Although no formal organization is here, there are a number of master and apprentice artisans who take advantage of the low rent here. The competition and collaboration between these masters fosters an intellectual environment. Gladius Park: Ranger The fantastic inner city park known as Gladius Park is patrolled by a troop of rangers charged with preserving its natural beauty for all the citizens to enjoy. Merisia: PsiWarrior The political power of the district attracts economical dealings as well. Regardless of whether your business is political or economic, wisdom, a focused mind and an unexpected ability will always serve you well. Lower Merx: Psion Home of the somewhat secretive PSI Consortium, Lower Merx is clamoring with young Psions eager to gain admission to that prestigious center of psionic instruction. Gauterix: Wilder A somewhat uncouth district that is unsafe to travel at night, those who choose to live in Gauterix are often dangerous and unpredictable. Thanks a lot, Sauro! Your formula is great and we will use it for regiments. I've also increased the ECL of Irregulars to 3. That way they're more powerful than regulars which is necessary because Regulars can become powerful too with some developments. The idea with the classes is nice but we cannot take over every class. A Bard regiment is not as good as a fighter regiment in combat, and we already have 'Bard Assistance' as development for the Auditorium. I'll create some more Irregulars but I won't take every class. Duken Marina, for example, being a port district, gets a random regiment because strangers from far away arrive in Gladius Harbor. If anyone wants to create an Irregular regiment for an empty district, he is welcomed to do so! Use the template I used, please, and make sure it's balanced. I've decided to fill in the missing developments. Snommelp's idea was very cool and I took it over. Others, I created on my own (eg Guild Archives development). Sergeants and other officers affect the Morale. Speaking of Morale: How should we handle it? The only thing missing is the effect for the Magic Laboratory and the Research Lab. Covert Operations: After talking to King Uther today, we came up with a good system to do Covert OPs. It is a Miniquest-like thing with an EL of equal that of the Covert PC, plus one per structure level in that district. That way, it becomes very tough to burn down the Cathedral. The Encounters themselves are rolled like Monster fights. Since these Operations should be where Rogues have an advantage, random traps will be laid out of equal EL of the rogue, plus one per level of structure. Map is created by the Pitlord. Cat
Caterane 10-23-05, 01:23 PM	@all: I'm giving out credits for a little help. I need descriptions for each structure. The description should be at least four lines long; perhaps a bit longer for the unique one. It should describe how the structure looks like and what kind of people work there. Include Efficiency, Price, Upkeep, and Staff at the end and what professions work there (no need for stats). You gain 1° for every whole category (Economy, Faith, etc) you describe the structures for. Altogether, it's 13 descriptions per category. Post your descriptions here in the Council.
Book5 10-25-05, 08:43 PM	old arena - need more info (1) Public Square => -- The public square is the hallmark of a prosperous neighborhood. A place to meet, a place to enjoy the weather, and a venue for streetperformers, hawkers, and thieves to make their daily wages. A public square is most often located in front of an important structure, or serving as a crossroads of sorts. Often decorated with statues and manicured gardens, public squares are vital components of a healthy district. Price: 1250 Efficiency: 50 x District Leisure. Upkeep: 10 gp Staff: 1 expert gardener, architect, or sculptor + 4 commoner groundskeepers. Stage => -- A small platform placed in an easy to observe location. Perhaps in the middle of an intersection, or accross from another stucture, a stage is a simple open air stucture that allows both planned and impromptu performances. There is no backstage, and they are often round. Stages attract a more low-brow breed of entertainers than theaters, and generally make more income off of tips than charge. Staff: 2 expert woodworkers (Maintenance) + entertainers. Theater [Entertainment] -- An outlandish structure that houses a stage as well as food and drink. The theme of each theater can be extravegantly different. One bawdy and the next classical. Sometimes the performances are primary, and sometimes they play second fiddle to the atmosphere. A theater is usually geared to accomodate the tastes of the area; With comedians and poets more common in the school district, while singers and dancers prevail by the docks. Staff: 2 Experts (Cook, Host) + 3 attendants. * + performers? (2) Gallery => -- Fine art in good lighting. A small and cozy place where you can get to know a little about the artist. A gallery often doubles as a studio where you can see the residents in production. Sometimes a single, sometimes as many as ten artists will come together to share a gallery of their work. Usually a novel and temporary name is dreamt up within their "company." Staff: 1 3rd level expert (Residant) + 5-10 expert artists + 5-10 untrained assistants Exhibition Hall => -- Eventually all art goes through an exhibition hall. Either initially as part of an established artists annual clearing house, or in a "catch all" collection of art of period or medium. Exhibition Halls are busy places that are mostly rented to whomever would like to use them for the day, week, or even month. Exhibition Halls, however, are for high quality (and high class) sales events, not a "general bazaar or marketplace mind you." Staff: 1 3rd level expert (Director) + 5 trained assistants (Managers) + 10 untrained assistants (cleaning and carrying) Museum [Fine Arts] [Education 1] -- Fine art in soft lighting. A cool and hallowed place where the statements of artists past are held still on the walls. Museums are majestic places and filled with knowledge, but no touching. These paintings are not for sale. If you want them, buy the museum.. actually, collections are usually loaned, traded or sent on tours to make museums the majority of their revenue. Staff: 1 3rd level expert (Curator) + 5 trained assistants (Purchasers) + 10 untrained assistants (cleaning and carrying) (3) Tavern => -- The salt of every town is its taverns, and the city of Gladius is no different. From the Red Lion Uptown to one of the dozens of nameless dives throughout the city the talk of Gladius is always on the arena. Taverns are places where tempers flare and deals are made. A place to drink, eat, talk, meet, sleep, be entertained, and even make some money sometimes.. if you are up for a little "gambling." Staff: 1 5th level Aristocrate (Owner) + 3 3rd level Experts (Cook, Host, Security) + 15 trained assistants (back of house, front of house, technical) + 10 untrained assistants (carry and clean) + 2 3rd level promoter/advertiser. (+ performers?) Festhall => -- The sign of the truely prosperous city. A festhall is an all you can eat smorgesboard of food and fellowship. Festhalls are usually not open all week long, but they are always open on holidays. Most festhalls are maintained by families that have become pillars in the community. The cost of a festhall, however, is not usually shouldered by a noble family. Church, buisness, and community maintain these halls in which rich and poor can both sit at the same table. Staff: 1 5th level Aristocrate (Head of House) + 2 2nd level Aristocrates (House Members) + 3 3rd level experts (Chief, Waiters) + 10 trained assitants + 15 untrained and/or temporary assitants. Red Light District [Partying] [Crime 1] -- Every city has its red lights and its green lights. Gladius is no different. A mecha for the exotic.. ever tangle with a temptress that was truely "out of this world?" in Gladius you can. Be careful though, what regulated is only a fraction of what goes on in any redlit dive. Backcorner allyways, and underbridge entrances are usually dangerous omens as to the legitimacy of any particular establishment. Staff: 1 5th level Expert ("Madam") + 4 3rd level experts ("Experienced") + 1 3rd level warrior ("Cheif") + 15 trained or untrained entertainers ("Newbies") + 5 untrained laborers ("Cleanup") + 5 1st level warriors ("Security"). (4) Gardens => -- Take a corner square and triple it and you have the beggining of a garden. Meticulously maintained, and full of natural artwork of every kind. Sculptures guide you through hedge mazes that lead you to murals and flower bed tapestries. Pavilons for weddings and other outdoor parties are common, but a few are high walled secret gardens. All gardens are home to birds and other small woodland animals, and some have games to be played in their open fields. Staff: 1 7th level aristocrate (Patron) + 5 5th level experts (Caretakers) +5 3rd level experts (Hosts) +5 3rd level aristocrates (Regular Members) + 30 trained assitants (kitchen, grounds, and service) +10 warriors (security) +10 untrained laborers. Park => -- Take a garden and triple it and you would have a quite fantastic park! Most parks are not nearly as exquisite as a garden but they are all large. In a garden you can walk for hours, in a park you can walk for days. Occasionally the unfortunate homesteads of poor and weary travelers, parks are open tracts of grass and trees, crossed and dotted with bushes, often crisscrossed with creaks, and almost always home to a pond of some size or another. Staff: 1 7th level aristocrate (Director) + 3 5th level aristocrates (Counsulers) +2 5th level experts (Caretakers) + 8 3rd level experts (Assistant Caretakers) +2 3rd level experts (Clerks) + 30 trained assistants (Lawn and Grounds keepers) + 20 untrained and/or temporary laborers Zoo [Recreation] [Nature 1] -- A zoo is a spiraling spectacle of creatures that you won't have names for until you get there. Lions and tigers and bears are just the beggining! Trolls? Umber Hulks! Wyverns!? Oh My!?! Creatures from everywhere and even "elsewhere" can be found in the zoos of Gladius. Please, Do NOT feed any animals, and the zoo staff is NOT responsible for any injuries suffered in the petting zoo. Note: Usually the site of a Circus when in one is in Gladius. Staff: 1 7th level expert (Boss) +5 5th level experts (Trainers and Managers) +5 3rd level experts (assistant trainers and tour guides) +5 3rd level warriors (security) +20 trained laborers (hazardous conditions per animal) + 20 trained temporary assistants (Construction) +10 trained assitants (Gate Clerks). I think I have the structure system figured, but .. is this right as far as staffing?
SauroGrenom 10-25-05, 11:36 PM	@all: I'm giving out credits for a little help. I need descriptions for each structure. The description should be at least four lines long; perhaps a bit longer for the unique one. It should describe how the structure looks like and what kind of people work there. Include Efficiency, Price, Upkeep, and Staff at the end and what professions work there (no need for stats). You gain 1° for every whole category (Economy, Faith, etc) you describe the structures for. Altogether, it's 13 descriptions per category. Post your descriptions here in the Council. Cat, If you want us to include structure details like Staff, then you need to give us some more information on what exacitally you are wanting here. I tried working on this, and I came up with somehting. Then Book5's post tells me that he has a different idea about what the staff are than I have originally thought. I'll post in a bit with the creative content for descriptions of economic structures. Also, I've had some ideas about a slightly different system for balancing these structures. It will follow later tonight.
SauroGrenom 10-25-05, 11:37 PM	Economy (Unique: The Greater Gladius Trading Center) The four great gates mark the boundaries of the sprawling trading center. To the east is the Merchants Gate. Standing four stories tall the arch is crafted of a strange metal gleaming golden in the sun but hard as iron. To the north stands the Lords Gate. The white marble arch is decorated with delicate spires rising taller and more elegant than all other gates. To the West is the Sailors Gate. Crafted of red granite the unadorned arch is shorter and has a more sturdy appearance than all the rest. To the South lies the Gladiators Gate. Built of dark onyx and marked throughout by silver runes and dark red crystal veins, the Gladiators gate crackles with energy when battles are fought in the Arena. Dominating the center of the Trading Center is the Mercantile, an unusual building set upon graceful pillars and arches that suspend the structure above a sheltered marketplace. Bustling with activity day and night, the Mercantile is patrolled by guards and the most celebrated experts and aristocratic vendors do business in its protected halls. (E:500) (P:12500) (U:70) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Merchant Carts: A small fleet of carts is owned by the guild. Solidly built of local woods, these carts are rented out to common merchants who hawk their wares on the streets. (E:50) (P:1250) (U:10) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Bazaar: The guild has funded modifications to a busy intersection so that it is now a more profitable place to sell goods. This crossroads has been widened and rising from the center is a bubbling fountain. Several permanent stalls have been constructed around the intersection and expert merchants rent the prime spaces from the guild. (E:100) (P:2500) (U:30) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Marketsquare: The guild has constructed an open-air marketplace. Occupying an entire city block, this collection of restaurants and shops teams with activity. Flower pots, fountains and open spaces help to make customers feel comfortable while loosening their purse strings. With its aristocratic manager and small guard service, the Marketplace charges a premium to the expert vendors who have shops here. (E:250) (P:6250) (U:50) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Forge: This single story wooden building sports a smokestack and hammer & anvil sign over the door. Built by the guild, the facility is run by a hired expert smith with several common apprentices who produce the goods requested by the guild. (E:50) (P:1250) (U:10) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Foundry: This facility receives and processes ore into refined metals. Large wagonloads of ore drawn by draft horses are brought here and tremendous coal furnaces bake the stone and melt metals combining them into alloys. Several small stone buildings isolated from the rest holds a blast furnace each and is manned by a team of expert workers. (E:100) (P:2500) (U:30) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Mill: With its location on the river, the mill uses the power of the water to both bring in the lumber and run the saws. The low and wide mill house is dwarfed by the yards that surround it. Felled trees are drug into the yard from the river and piled into tall piles waiting to be cut into planks. The highly profitable business is usually managed by an aristocratic manager who oversees the teams of common laborers and experts that keep the mill running day and night. (E:250) (P:6250) (U:50) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Depository: This low and long building has a brick wall on either end. Equipped with a couple exterior pits and a loft the Depository is a versatile storage area. Reasonably sturdy and cheap to build, you will find many such buildings across the city. A Depository is usually patrolled by a single watchman with multiple charges in any given night. (E:50) (P:1250) (U:10) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Warehouse: Larger than a Depository, a Warehouse will frequently have four stone walls and possibly a cellar. A variety of goods cann be stored in these locations and their long term perservation and safety is more secure. These structures are usually managed by an expert clerk who regularly inventories the stock and hires a full time watch to patrol the facility. (E:100) (P:2500) (U:30) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Emporium: This collection of large stone buildings has structures specialized for optimal storage of any number of types of goods. SOme building are equipped with a cool stone cellar in addition to several floors of storage space or grain silos. The aristocratic managers of an Emporium hire the services of guards and expert rat catchers to patrol the facility at all times to ensure that goods stored at an Emporium are kept in the best condition. (E:250) (P:6250) (U:50) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Landing: Although sturdy the single jetty only accommodates one small vessel at a time. The landing is a favored place for commoners with strong backs and little other skills to earn a daily wage loading and unloading the vessels that moor here. (E:50) (P:1250) (U:10) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Docks: The twin piers jutting out into the water accommodate multiple vessels with deeper keels. These larger ships carry heavy loads and the docks are equipped with rudimentary crane and pulley systems to aid in the loading of more bulky or heavy cargo. Though common laborers are still needed, the complicated pulley systems are manned by experts. (E:100) (P:2500) (U:30) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep: Harbor: The deep waters and five piers of the Harbor can accommodate large numbers of the largest ocean going galleons. The bustling activity of the large harbor requires intelligent management in addition to expert shipwrights who repair ships and the labor of countless commoners. As ill tempered sailors and dockworkers are apt to quarrel, a small armed force helps to ensure that the goods are safely handles and that fights do not escalate. (E:250) (P:6250) (U:50) Cost: Efficiency: Staff: Upkeep:
SauroGrenom 10-26-05, 01:22 AM	Although what is listed above has the Efficiency, Upkeep and Cost statistics from the post on structures, I am a big fan of equations that allow us to calculate these stats from the traits of the structure. I’d like to propose a couple equations to govern the efficiency, cost and upkeep of the various structures. Going through the process of writing descriptions has shown me that some of these structures would naturally require more laborers to run them as compared to others. I cannot imagine that an Emporium (storage space) would require the number of staff that you would find in a bustling Harbor. It would be most balanced if the upkeep and staff should be related in some way, so that your Depository has an low upkeep compared to the Landing, but the staff available to serve as conscripts is also very limited and the efficiency suffers some. This system would have a built in reward/costs system for those structures that have high upkeep as compared to those with low upkeep. And a guild can decide if they like to build those structures that fit their strategy best. This proposes an interesting structure and building strategy system that others may or may not like, but I will propose it anyway. Instead of requiring guilds to have positive regional modifiers in some traits in order to access some threads (nature is required for the smith thread for example), simply make the different threads have different costs/efficiency/upkeep. There will be the base thread with high initial cost, high efficiency and high upkeep. The second thread has high initial cost, moderate efficiency, and low upkeep. The third thread will have high upkeep, low initial cost and moderate efficiency. The fourth thread will have low initial cost, low efficiency and low upkeep. The net effect of this system is that each thread of structures for each trait will be most appropriate for different districts depending on the net trait modifiers in that district. In regions where the net trait modifier is low, the guilds will build the low upkeep structures. And in those districts where the trait modifiers are highest, the guilds can have more expensive but also more profitable buildings with higher upkeep. If a guild wants to get the income from a district flowing, but doesn’t have a ton of money to spend, then the low initial cost string may be the way to go. But if they have a high trait modifier in that district maximum efficiency may be the way to go even at high initial cost and upkeep. This system has an effect upon the way that the guildmaster grows his guild. As the system currently stands, the future of a guild must be planned as the development into different districts of Galdius where what district you are in determines what structures you can build. In other words the current system stresses location, location, location… As the guildmaster for PSI, if I want to build an economic structure (our strongest trait) in the smith-foundry-mill string, then I need to ally with another guild in a favorable location. It is impossible to get the net +1nature without the help of another guild and a location in a district with a nature trait. Even then the structure may fall into disrepair if the alliance fails. I would never waste the money on this string unless there was no other choice. My proposal gives the guildmaster a bit more freedom to develop a strategy using the various factors of how much money is on hand, how much upkeep each structure requires and what the efficiency of the structure is. The system of equations are as follows, and they are based upon the idea that in a district with a net+4 trait the guild will be able to recover the initial cost in 3 to 4 weeks. Also, the unique buildings will be in the high initial cost string. GP/Week= Efficiency * Net District Trait Modifier Efficiency = (Initial Cost)/16 + Upkeep/5 Upkeep = Total Staff Cost/week Staff are chosen from the following list of NPC classes: Adept ECL2 x 4 gp/week Aristocrat ECL2 x 3 gp/week Commoner ECL2 x 1 gp/week Expert ECL2 x 2 gp/week Warrior ECL2 x 3 gp/week Initial cost is pulled from this table: The equation for this was based on the middle cost string. With initial cost = 2000 x Level2. Then High cost string was increased 50% and Low cost string was decreased 50%. Low Middle High Level 1 1000 2000 3000 Level 2 4000 8000 12000 Level 3 9000 18000 27000 Level 4 48000 For upkeep categories, we simply choose high, middle and low categories of upkeep as being say respectively 10% of initial cost, 5% of initial cost and 2% of initial cost. Using these equations we can work through an example. Let’s say that we choose the Depository to be the low-cost low-upkeep option. We pull 1000 from the table as the initial cost, then we calculate the 2% upkeep as being 20 gp/week. This will pay for 5 ECL 1 warriors to guard the facility, one ECL1 Aristocrat to manage the place, and one ECL1 Expert to perform specialized labor. Then we calculate with a bit of rounding Initial Cost/16 + Upkeep/3 = 70 efficiency. With a net trait mod of 4 in this district, the net income will be 280-20 = 260gp/week. In about 4 weeks the structure pays for its start up cost. As a second example, we take the level 4 structure The Greater Gladius Trading Center. The initial cost is 48000, and the upkeep will be 10%(4800gp/week). So the efficiency will be 48000/16 + 4800/3 = 4600. In a district with net trait mod 6, the net income is 22800. This kind of income pays for the structure in a little over two turns, but if the TLT or TAO move into the district, then suddenly you net modifier becomes +3 and the structure only makes 9000/week. Still not too shabby, but a long way from the tidy profits of before and it will now take six turns to recover the investment. The whole system of equations can easily be adjusted to modify the influence of the various factors on initial cost and final efficiency. The way the equations are balanced now, increased upkeep is balanced on net trait modifiers of +3, and if the district trait is higher, then the higher upkeep actually makes more money for the guild. If the trait is lower, then the upkeep costs you more than its return. In retrospect, the number of staff that any given upkeep can buy seams a bit much, but I can easily change that by adjusting the weekly cost of the staff. In all I think this system has a well-defined reason behind the numbers. It is easy to balance with respect to how much money the structures make and it can easily allow the structures to have game mechanics that are in agreement with our intuitive ideas of what these structures should do.
Caterane 10-26-05, 09:16 AM	@Sauro: As always, wow! That would be really cool. So if the strings have different effects, we not only have another tactical option for guilds but can finally distinguish between the buildings. The distinguishing factors can be: - Cost to build - Upkeep - Number of Staff - Efficiency - Conscripts Instead of the secondary trait requirement, we can list individual districts. So the landing/docks/harbor string needs a district with water. I have an idea for another factor: combination with other traits. Instead of having only 1 trait that counts, some strings can make use of two traits. So the Gallery/Exhibition/Museum could benefit from both Leisure and Education. That would take care of our problem that only 1 string is most useful to a guild. The problem is that I have no time to balance that with everything but if you want to do it, I'll give you credits for it. However, it must be balanced. If a guild gains 22,000 gold a week from a Unique Structure, everything else would be dwarfed and useless compared to that. 22k is as much as 6 level 20 characters earn the guild on average! The income from low-level PCs would be useless. Similarily, certain rooms would become so cheap that you can build 20 of them per week. This must not happen. With my formula, a lvl 4 structure earns a guild (500xtrait). This is about 3500 gp at trait+7 to a max of 5000 gp at trait+10 (very difficult to gain!). It should be no more than that. Re Staff: I meant that it doesn't matter how the staff for structures is called. They do not cost upkeep. The only important thing is their ECL since a guild can hire 10 ECLs with a guild action. If you need 100 ECLs of Staff for the cathedral, a guild cannot just man it in one week. I just wanted to have names for these ECLs (priests, laybrothers, acolytes, etc for the Religion string, and so on). If you have a better idea on what to do with staff, please tell me. PS: Book5 and SauroGrenom +1°. Could you please elaborate the descriptions that have only 1 sentence a bit? Thanks.
SauroGrenom 10-26-05, 01:38 PM	@Sauro: As always, wow! That would be really cool. So if the strings have different effects, we not only have another tactical option for guilds but can finally distinguish between the buildings. The distinguishing factors can be: - Cost to build - Upkeep - Number of Staff - Efficiency - Conscripts I think that most of these factors can be interrelated. So that the number and ECL of Conscripts is related to the number and ECL of the Staff. the Number and ECL of the staff can be a factor in Upkeep and Efficiency. Give me a few more days, and I can setup some equations that we can balance easily by changing one or two constants in the equations. Instead of the secondary trait requirement, we can list individual districts. So the landing/docks/harbor string needs a district with water. Decent idea. Go for it. I have an idea for another factor: combination with other traits. Instead of having only 1 trait that counts, some strings can make use of two traits. So the Gallery/Exhibition/Museum could benefit from both Leisure and Education. That would take care of our problem that only 1 string is most useful to a guild. Another decent idea, but potentially dangerous if PSI can add together the Economy and Crime traits together, then the net modifier in Lower Merx is going to be +10. This will be crazy high. But if the combinations were always hard to get positive modifiers in both, such as Economy and Faith, then it would be more balanced. The problem is that I have no time to balance that with everything but if you want to do it, I'll give you credits for it. However, it must be balanced. If a guild gains 22,000 gold a week from a Unique Structure, everything else would be dwarfed and useless compared to that. 22k is as much as 6 level 20 characters earn the guild on average! The income from low-level PCs would be useless. Similarily, certain rooms would become so cheap that you can build 20 of them per week. This must not happen. With my formula, a lvl 4 structure earns a guild (500xtrait). This is about 3500 gp at trait+7 to a max of 5000 gp at trait+10 (very difficult to gain!). It should be no more than that. OK, my equations can be easily balanced. You need to tell me what factors you would consider to be balance. For example I know that you want a guild to be able to build something new each 3-4 weeks and that the income from gladiators would always be a signifigant factor in guild income. Let me know what you consider to be important paramiters for balance. Re Staff: I meant that it doesn't matter how the staff for structures is called. They do not cost upkeep. The only important thing is their ECL since a guild can hire 10 ECLs with a guild action. If you need 100 ECLs of Staff for the cathedral, a guild cannot just man it in one week. I just wanted to have names for these ECLs (priests, laybrothers, acolytes, etc for the Religion string, and so on). If you have a better idea on what to do with staff, please tell me. Got it, I'll make some edits to the above post in a couple days and include the ECL, number and flavored names of the staff at the structures.
Caterane 10-26-05, 04:00 PM	@Sauro: Nothing is set in stone yet. If you come up with a brandnew great idea, I will drop an old one if necessary. That means, you have all the leeway you want. Feel free to work on your own on the parameters or importance. Just make sure that everything is in appropriate relation towards each other. (Have to do pairings now)
SauroGrenom 10-28-05, 03:33 PM	I've been working on balancing the guilds and expanding the options available to the guildmasters. I'm currently considering an analogy where we can consider the guilds as a whole to be characters, and the structures as class levels. Also all the developments can be compared to items and the regiments to weapons/spells at the guilds disposal. Here are a few basic parameters that I've latched onto in my considerations of what will make the guild system balanced. If we go with this analogy, we can potentially find many different new developments. For example, the equivalent of a cloak of displacement. (Disguised Chapter House: The chapter house for this district is in a secret location, and second mostly empty building nearby is equiped with prominent symbols of the guild. There is a 50% chance that covert and assault actions targeted against the chapter house fail because the proper location is not found.) To facilitate this process, I'm going to assume a model guild that has 7 members of ECL4. These 4 members will increase in ECL every 5 weeks and the guild will be able to recover its investment in a structure in about that time (IE be ready to go up a level). The guild participants arena activity should provide a signifigant(~10-20%) fraction of guild income. Naturally as time goes on the guilds will build more structures and they will gain more income from this source. It may be difficult to guarantee that the gladiators growth in income will match the growth of the buildings income, but I'll try. One guildmember winning half the time should be able to make enough money (or more) for the guild to support a regular regiment of his ECL. To keep things simple, Conscripts and Structure Staff are basically the same. Staff and Conscripts are the commoners who work/live at a structure and are always members of NPC classes. Thus they mostly suck in battle (perhaps using improvised weapons), but there could be many of them. Hiring staff requires using Guild Action Points, so they should defend the guild. Perhaps since they are NPC classes not PC classes, they can be hired at 2-5 times the rate of PC classes. BTW: The Moral system could be worked out to have the effect of making it easy to shatter the moral of conscripts and harder to scare military trained units. If anyone else has ideas about what a "Balanced" guild will look like, then please post. I need to know things such as, how fast will the guild grow, and what should the guild be capable of doing, how significant should member earnings be compared to structures. I'd also like to know how fast you expect the guilds to grow outward into adjacent districts. How developed the guilds will be when you expect them to start using their guild actions against each other. Should it be possable for guilds to become immune to particular types of covert, political, or assault actions.
King Uther 10-28-05, 05:05 PM	Well, the income vs building cost could topple a guild if the guildmembers drop out. And consider the fact that certain guilds(such as mine), benefit from many members, and thus if I built living quarters for them I would have access to EL9 winnings every week(in theory).
Sindorin 10-28-05, 05:12 PM	One thing I have been wondering about with the guilds is certain builds and their impact on the guild system. Take my ECL 8 Wilder, Sokai Calanis, for instance. Though there is not currently a guild that I feel suits him, if he were to join a guild after finishing the Arbiter War, and then quest for the number of followers he will be allowed by then, theoretically he could single-handedly boost a guild in immeasurable ways because he is just that sexy. Heck, I've thought about having him start his own guild just for ***** and grins. Heck, by the time he is level 9 he will probably have around 12 or so people, 11 level 1's and a level 2 follower, which can be used to garrisson or fill positions in a guild. His only real problem would be financing this guild, but I imagine I could probably find ways to make it a money engine somehow... Thoughts?
SauroGrenom 10-28-05, 06:16 PM	One thing I have been wondering about with the guilds is certain builds and their impact on the guild system. Take my ECL 8 Wilder, Sokai Calanis, for instance. Though there is not currently a guild that I feel suits him, if he were to join a guild after finishing the Arbiter War, and then quest for the number of followers he will be allowed by then, theoretically he could single-handedly boost a guild in immeasurable ways because he is just that sexy. Heck, I've thought about having him start his own guild just for ***** and grins. Heck, by the time he is level 9 he will probably have around 12 or so people, 11 level 1's and a level 2 follower, which can be used to garrisson or fill positions in a guild. His only real problem would be financing this guild, but I imagine I could probably find ways to make it a money engine somehow... Thoughts? If there is a high demand for this kind of organization to be able to interact with the guild system, then something can probably be worked out. But the primary purpose of the guild is to have a persistant platform for interested players to role play interactions between eachother and other groups of characters. Also one of the major reasons to have the guilds exist in a form managed by the "GuildMaster" account is that the guild can persist longer than the contribution of a single player or character. As soon as Sindorin gets tired of playing Sokai, then the "guild" is gone. Also your idea appears to revolve around just your character and not have much room for other characters, so you would most likely be a guild populated entirely by a single character and his followers. That's not much fun for anyone else, and there isn't any reason for us to spend a bunch of time to work you into the rules of the guildsystem. Your comment does bring up the fact that there appears to be a number of characters who would join but do not fit into any of the existing guilds. This is kind of a problem. As guildmaster for the PSI Consortium, I looked through the character list and sent PM's out to every player with a character ECL4 or above that qualifies for the guild. So far none have replied. The guild's only got three members, and one is a character that I'm still working on. The future is looking a little bleak right now. A number of people who have expressed that they might join except for the non-good alignment requirement. This makes me think that the non good alignment restriction may have to be lifted for the guild to attract enough members. I know that requirement comes from the Crime trait of the guild, but Robinhood was a criminal and good as well.
Sunwolf 10-28-05, 06:46 PM	I think that the non-good requirement *is* restrictive for a organization that is supposed to be based on those with psionic powers. Where do all the good psi's go for a guild? If the non-good requirement is dropped -- the organization will still be distasteful to some psions due to its ties with crime but still should be acceptable for a number of good psions. The PSI Consortium could also perform works of charity along with its criminal activities which might attract good members...
Tellish_of_Ket 10-29-05, 03:39 PM	Bats and Toads Well. I've asked and consulted with a plethora of rules experts. And i mean qualified ones, not just people who think they are. All the way from Living Greyhawk Circle Members, to the Rules Lawyers and GM's that do the majority of the testing and gather to come to common definitions to avoid table variations. And it's in the spirit of the rules and such as well, not for character brokeness or pride, so i would trust their judgements over just about anyone elses. Well, even amongst the experts it was pretty much a split decision. :( Basically i was told to "expect table variations" as there was ample evidence to prove both points. So it basically comes down to what the current set of Elders believe should rule to make it "even across the board". Make a ruling, post it in the FAQ. -ToK
King Uther 10-29-05, 05:01 PM	I vote they can touch, as per the rules of touch spells suggests that any sort of touch could dislodge the charge.
Guildmaster (EYE) 10-29-05, 07:06 PM	I think that the non-good requirement *is* restrictive for a organization that is supposed to be based on those with psionic powers. Where do all the good psi's go for a guild? If the non-good requirement is dropped -- the organization will still be distasteful to some psions due to its ties with crime but still should be acceptable for a number of good psions. The PSI Consortium could also perform works of charity along with its criminal activities which might attract good members... Please consider offering your services and assistance to the Watchful EYE. We are currently staffing an anti-psi crime task force, so it would be an ideal match for any non-evil individual with psionic gifts...
Caterane 10-30-05, 03:04 AM	@Sauro: I've added the Conceal Chapter House upgrade to the list. Great idea. I agree to all of what you've said. I cannot concretize the balance I talked about because I am new to the guild system aswell. Here are some guidelines: - PCs tax should always play a role. If a structure or guild action can earn you a significantly greater amount, the tax becomes useless. Same for the other way around: no one would build structures then. - I prefer the guild growth to be rather slow than fast because we want to have a long fun time with this system, and the point when we have to restart the guilds should be far far away. - The income (from all sources) should at all levels and at any time or phase the guilds are in be in line with the costs and needs for a guild. In the beginning, it should be hard to build even the basic rooms (4-5 weeks) and while they become easier to obtain later, there need to be other things - like expensive developments or regiment upkeep - that prevent guilds from throwing money out of the window. If a guild can at a certain point in time basically afford all developments easily, something is wrong. Please note that all prices are just from the top of my head. They could be entirely bad. - By damaging other guilds, and the conquering and re-conquering disctricts, or destroying Chapter Houses and Structures, I hope that the system supports itself in that it a) lasts for a long time, and b) prevents a guild from easily obtaining all important developments, structures, and other things. However, it should not be unprofitable. If your 10k structure can be burned down easily, it's not worth it. - Similarily, I hope that by making alliances with several guilds, one strong guild can be opposed so that it's always a back-and-forth in the power struggle. No guild should become too powerful too soon, and only if it does exceptionally well. PS: The non-good requirement is ok. With the broad requirements of the guilds, good psionic guys can enter other guilds with a bit of adaption. It's probably a bit more difficult for them then for the intended classes but it's far from impossible. And no one said a PC must be able to enter at ECL 3. The requirements from my own guild (CEF) are much more narrow than those of PSI, and I have currently no applicants at all. One thing you have to consider: there are seven guilds only. Unless we drop their theme completely, there will be always class combinations that have more difficulties to join a guild. This is acceptable.
Pittbull 10-30-05, 06:01 AM	I say, they can act as the toucher, even if there are no attack-stats listed.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 11:16 AM	I'm gonna vote NO, simply because it lacks the ability to attack and make use of any ability to deliver touch-based spells. -ToK
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 11:47 AM	Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Please pay attention to what we see in RED, especially so if it has been BOLDED. The way I see it is this: Bats and Toads can attempt to deliver touch attacks for a mage. (Ignore the ground in regard to touching anything else, since it would be unreasonable for one to assume that a person is always going to fly to deliver touch spells!) The Bat or Toad familiar can head towards their target to deliver the spell, but they still have to be able to make an attack with whatever their BAB is at the time. So, a Toad familiar of an ECL 5 Wizard is going to deliver a melee touch attack at a +3 (BAB +2, Dex +1). Now, if the Toad gets attacked by an outside source, then the spell is going to discharge upon whoever makes the successful attack against it, assuming that the attack is a melee attack. If it is not a melee attack, then the spell may simply discharge upon the ranged object that just hit it. Personally, I would rule that if the Toad was the target of a ranged spell, that the Toad would still be holding the charge.. LLMC :twocents:
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 12:19 PM	Please pay attention to what we see in RED, especially so if it has been BOLDED. The way I see it is this: Bats and Toads can attempt to deliver touch attacks for a mage. (Ignore the ground in regard to touching anything else, since it would be unreasonable for one to assume that a person is always going to fly to deliver touch spells!) The Bat or Toad familiar can head towards their target to deliver the spell, but they still have to be able to make an attack with whatever their BAB is at the time. So, a Toad familiar of an ECL 5 Wizard is going to deliver a melee touch attack at a +3 (BAB +2, Dex +1). Now, if the Toad gets attacked by an outside source, then the spell is going to discharge upon whoever makes the successful attack against it, assuming that the attack is a melee attack. If it is not a melee attack, then the spell may simply discharge upon the ranged object that just hit it. Personally, I would rule that if the Toad was the target of a ranged spell, that the Toad would still be holding the charge.. LLMC :twocents: 1) you must succeed on an attack roll. 2) If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. [2a] Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. 1 - How do you propose it succeeds on an attack roll if it is incapable of doing so? 2 - If you are assuming (as most who are saying yes), that they whole body is ensorcerelled, then the simple act of sharing it will cause it to be discharged as it's touching you or the ground, etc.. But in the bat's case, if you wanna say it's flying over your head, then you still have to get past rule #1. 2a - where do you see a NORMAL UNARMED attack listed in either stats. Also, where do you see a natural weapon listed? They don't. -ToK
Snommelp 10-30-05, 01:08 PM	1) you must succeed on an attack roll. 2) If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. [2a] Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. 1 - How do you propose it succeeds on an attack roll if it is incapable of doing so? 2 - If you are assuming (as most who are saying yes), that they whole body is ensorcerelled, then the simple act of sharing it will cause it to be discharged as it's touching you or the ground, etc.. But in the bat's case, if you wanna say it's flying over your head, then you still have to get past rule #1. 2a - where do you see a NORMAL UNARMED attack listed in either stats. Also, where do you see a natural weapon listed? They don't. -ToK I'm not an elder, but one of my fights this week involves a bat, so I'd like to put in my 2 cp. 1) Of course they're capable; an attack roll is just BAB plus either dex or str bonus. You don't need a weapon to make an attack roll. Otherwise bar-room brawls wouldn't exist, as it would be impossible to throw a punch without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. 2) You focus on the second half but ignore the first. You yourself quoted it: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." So yes, if the bat is sitting on your shoulder when you designate it as toucher, you'll get zapped, plain and simple. It's right there in the rules. 2a)The part you so nicely put into red begins with "Alternatively," a word which needs to be noted. It indicates a secondary option, not a primary one. Now for a counter argument: kindly turn to the glossary of your PHB. Turn to "Touch Attack." It says: "An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor." It goes on to mention that they can be melee or ranged, and what AC bonuses do not apply against touch attacks. It does not say that you need a natural weapon to deliver the attack.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 01:37 PM	Well, all i see is the same, "Do this not that" posts. That's all fine and dandy, and i'm not arguing that point at atll. Bats and Toads have NO attack value listed and NO weapons (natural or otherwise) to delive a touch attack. You guys all quote contradictory statements. an attack roll is just BAB plus either dex or str bonus. Ok...i'm in completely in agreement with that statement, but you aren't relating it to the bat or toad. Find me their attack value listed in their stats, and i'll completely back down. "An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor." It goes on to mention that they can be melee or ranged, and what AC bonuses do not apply against touch attacks. It does not say that you need a natural weapon to deliver the attack. Ok, find me the bat's listed melee or ranged attack value? You can't have it both ways. -ToK
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 01:37 PM	1) you must succeed on an attack roll. 2) If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. [2a] Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. 1 - How do you propose it succeeds on an attack roll if it is incapable of doing so? 2 - If you are assuming (as most who are saying yes), that they whole body is ensorcerelled, then the simple act of sharing it will cause it to be discharged as it's touching you or the ground, etc.. But in the bat's case, if you wanna say it's flying over your head, then you still have to get past rule #1. 2a - where do you see a NORMAL UNARMED attack listed in either stats. Also, where do you see a natural weapon listed? They don't. -ToK Here is a nice, long, quote-packed reply for you that further supports my stance on this issue... BATThe statistics presented here describe small, insectivorous bats. And... TOADThese diminutive amphibians are innocuous and beneficial, since they eat insects. And... Main Entry: in·sec·tiv·o·rous Function: adjective :depending on insects as food And... Main Entry: in·noc·u·ous Function: adjective :producing no injury :not harmful Okay, the question I have for you is this: Why would anyone bother to include any kind of natural attack form for an animal that is only going to be attacking BUGS? The Monster Manual does not include diminutive BUGS, the primary target of Toads and Bats (Bats that are not part of a swarm), because no one else cares about the statistics of individual bugs! The fact that they are insectivorous says that they attack something. They are not scavangers and they do not eat plants, so, they have to have some means of hunting their prey. Toads may be harmless to humanoids, but those bugs had better watch out! Now take a look at this.... BAT SWARM Diminutive Animal (Swarm) Special Attacks: Distraction, wounding A bat swarm seeks to surround and attack any warm-blooded prey it encounters. The swarm deals 1d6 points of damage to any creature whose space it occupies at the end of its move. Wounding (Ex): Any living creature damaged by a bat swarm continues to bleed, losing 1 hit point per round thereafter. Multiple wounds do not result in cumulative bleeding loss. The bleeding can be stopped by a DC 10 Heal check or the application of a cure spell or some other healing magic. My real question for you is how does a bat swarm wound anything if it has no natural attack? If a single BAT cannot attack, what benefit does it get when there are 1,000 of them??? What causes a person to bleed when a swarm comes up on them? No one gets into the intricate details of it, but think of it as something like a swarm of bats automatically deal damage every round simply because they aid each other. It is impossible to defend against EVERY SINGLE bat in a swarm. That being said, it is rather easy to defend a single bat. A familiar has the added bonus of being a familiar and thus a better attack than a standard bat. To wrap up this rant.... Familiar Basics: Use the basic statistics for a creature of the familiar’s kind, but make the following changes: Attacks: Use the master’s base attack bonus, as calculated from all his classes. Use the familiar’s Dexterity or Strength modifier, whichever is greater, to get the familiar’s melee attack bonus with natural weapons. Damage equals that of a normal creature of the familiar’s kind. And... “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. I would take this to mean that it does not need to have a natural attack, since when the mage designates it to deliver the touch spell, it is now Armed and making an Unarmed attack. Normally a Toad or Bat would make an Unarmed Attack since they have no listed natural attack. Even a commoner, with no weapon available, can make an unarmed attack. The damage would be subdual. If you extrapolate some from the damage chart, what we end up with is this: Unarmed Damage Medium Creature: 1d3 Subdual Small Creature: 1d2 Subdual Tiny Creature: 1 Subdual Diminutive Creature: - Subdual Who would EVER list that Bats and Toads do - Subdual? That's just silly. They both have listed BAB's.... Base Attack/Grapple: +0/–17 Attack: — Lethal or Subdual, it doesn't matter! Full Attack: — Lethal or Subdual, it doesn't matter! Why list a BAB if they cannot attack? How do they eat insects without attacking? I've gone on long enough. If this is not enough to convince you, nothing is. LLMC
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 01:43 PM	Ok, find me the bat's listed melee or ranged attack value? -ToK You ask for it, I am more than happy to comply.... Here's for the BAT (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#bat) And... Here's for the TOAD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#toad) Better? Their Base Attack / Grapple should be about the 6th line down for each. :)
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 01:48 PM	You ask for it, I am more than happy to comply.... Here's for the BAT (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#bat) And... Here's for the TOAD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#toad) Better? Their Base Attack / Grapple should be about the 6th line down for each. :) Hit Dice: 1/4 d8 (1 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 5 ft (1 square), fly 40 ft. (good) Armor Class: 16 (+4 size, +2 Dex), touch 16, flat-footed 14 Base Attack/Grapple: +0/–17 Attack: — Full Attack: — Space/Reach: 1 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Blindsense 20 ft., low-light vision Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +2 Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 4 Skills: Hide +14, Listen +8*, Move Silently +6, Spot +8* Feats: Alertness Environment: Temperate deserts Organization: Colony (10–40) or crowd (10–50) Challenge Rating: 1/10 Advancement: —Level Adjustment: — Thank you for proving my point.
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 01:50 PM	So yes, if the bat is sitting on your shoulder when you designate it as toucher, you'll get zapped, plain and simple. It's right there in the rules. I have to let you know that I disagree with this completely. Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master could. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates. This says that they have to be touching, otherwise the master cannot designate his familiar as the "toucher." It would really suck to have your bat sitting on your shoulder, cast a spell designating him as the "toucher" just for it to instantly go off and zap you! What kind of rule is that??? LLMC
Snommelp 10-30-05, 01:50 PM	Well, all i see is the same, "Do this not that" posts. That's all fine and dandy, and i'm not arguing that point at atll. Bats and Toads have NO attack value listed and NO weapons (natural or otherwise) to delive a touch attack. You guys all quote contradictory statements. Ok...i'm in completely in agreement with that statement, but you aren't relating it to the bat or toad. Find me their attack value listed in their stats, and i'll completely back down. Ok, find me the bat's listed melee or ranged attack value? You can't have it both ways. -ToK I don't see how I'm contradicting myself, so you'll have to be a bit clearer. Melee attack value: BAB + str (dex if it has weapon finesse or similar) Ranged attack value: BAB + dex and a way to hit from a range (not attack, but hit) You'll note that humans also do not have listed attack values. Heck, humans aren't even in the MM! Does that mean that a human without class levels is incapable of touching something? Also, you seem to have ignored one point I made: you don't need a weapon to make a touch attack. Did you ignore it because you missed it, or because you couldn't come up with a response? It seems to me you are grasping at straws, ToK, taking tiny sections of ling quotes to try to prove your point. To sum up: you know what its attack value is, you're just being stubborn because you got screwed a while ago. That's all I can make of your arguments. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me, because it looks from where I'm sitting like you're holding on to an old ruling because it hurt your character and you want to see other characters hurt the same way. We throw mountains of quotes at you, and you take a single line from them to try to argue your point. What about the rest of the quotes? They slip to the side as you focus on the tiny details and ignore the greater arguments. But since you enjoy minute details so much, I believe LL's long post above may be to your liking.
Snommelp 10-30-05, 01:52 PM	This says that they have to be touching, otherwise the master cannot designate his familiar as the "toucher." It would really suck to have your bat sitting on your shoulder, cast a spell designating him as the "toucher" just for it to instantly go off and zap you! What kind of rule is that??? All right, I may have made a mistake there. However, if your familiar continues touching you after that, it should go off. I imagine it more like the wizard reaching out and touching the bat, giving the spell to it. If that bat just sits on your shoulder for five rounds with the spell there, it's going to go off.
SauroGrenom 10-30-05, 01:52 PM	I'm not an elder, so my opinion doesn't count for a vote. But I think the LLMadCow has the right SRD quote and almost the right emphasis to make his point. I'd like to draw your attention to the bolded setion below. Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. 1:If we look at the bolded section we see that to deliver a touch spell to friends and willing recipients that no attack role is necessary. So it should be clear that a bat or toad would be able to be the "toucher" for delivering a haste or simular spell to allies without needing an attack role. 2: The section in blue is a special case for delivering touch spells if you have a natural or unarmed attack. In this case you are permitted to deliver the spell on a sucessfull natural or unarmed attack, but note that this is a special case (underlined). There must naturally be a more general case where the spell is delivered by an attack that is not a natural attack or unarmed strike. We can explore the options represented by this case. Let's say that Mr. Rakshasa is attacking Lord Paladin. Mr. Rakasha has recently cast shocking grasp from a scroll and is in melee with Lord Paladin, so he wants to hit Lord Paladin with the shocking grasp. Mr. Rakshasa has some options, he can try to hit Lord Paladin with option one (melee touch attack), or with his option two (Claw attack). If the first option (touch attack) is chosen, then he only hits Lord Paladin's touch AC of 10 and the damage is only the spell. If the second option (claw attack) is chosen, then he must hit Lord Paladin's AC of (10+Fullplate+LargeShield= 20), and the damage is the spell and the claw attack added together. The above example is fairly clear, but if the Rakshasa were subject to a Baleful Polymorph cast by the party druid then things are different. Let's assume for arguments sake that Mr Rakshasa is now a Bat. It is obvious that his previous option two is unavailable. He no longer has a claw attack or natural attack at all. Now the question remains whether he can still use option one (touch attack). 3: So we fall to the more fundamental question of whether a creature without a natural attack or the ability to use a weapon is able to attack in any way. So we need to look at the SRD section on an attack role. ATTACK ROLL An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. In this section there is no limitation on what is required to make an attack role. Simply role the dice and add the attack bonus then compare the result to the targets AC to determine if a hit has taken place. Weapons, natural attacks, unarmed strikes are all nice to have but not necessary to hit your opponent. On the other hand they are necesary to cause damage, but not to attack. We see over in the section on damage that they are needed. DAMAGE When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures. Damage reduces a target’s current hit points. OK, so you may think that the Shocking Grasp spell modifies the weapon damage of an unarmed strike/natural attack and in a special case you are right. But in the general case it is not modifing the damage of an attack. Rather it is the attack and the only source of damage. To use the spell in this way does not require a natural attack or unarmed strike. Let me say this another way. You contend that since there is no attack listed in the creature entry for a bat, that the bat is unable to attack. Rather what the SRD tells us about attacks and damage reveals that the bat is able to make attacks with it's BAB modifier applied to the attack role (this is all that is required). On a hit no damage is done because the creature is unable to cause damage (there is no damage entry). If the bats gains a new way to damage its opponents on a sucessfull hit, then it is able to cause damage in accordance to the new source of damage.
Snommelp 10-30-05, 01:58 PM	You know, we're arguing this back and forth, but didn't ToK go and ask some "experts," who said that it was essentially the DM's call? I don't think I've ever seen that before, but in the CoCo the elders are essentially the DM, and looking at this debate it seems that ToK is the only one who is against bats and toads touching. Am I right? If I am, then ToK, you're going to have to suck it up, because bats and toads will be allowed to touch. The votes, as of now: For: LLMadCow Pittbull King Uther Against: Tellish_of_Ket How many elders do we have again?
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 02:06 PM	Hit Dice: 1/4 d8 (1 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 5 ft (1 square), fly 40 ft. (good) Armor Class: 16 (+4 size, +2 Dex), touch 16, flat-footed 14 Base Attack/Grapple: +0/–17 Attack: — Full Attack: — Space/Reach: 1 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Blindsense 20 ft., low-light vision Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +2 Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 4 Skills: Hide +14, Listen +8*, Move Silently +6, Spot +8* Feats: Alertness Environment: Temperate deserts Organization: Colony (10–40) or crowd (10–50) Challenge Rating: 1/10 Advancement: —Level Adjustment: — Thank you for proving my point. How can you ignore the base attack? All you are telling me, by highlighting its Attack and Full Attack is that it does not weild weapons and has no Natural Attack. Once the animal is designated as the "toucher" it is automatically Armed; the SRD says as much, and I quoted it earlier.
Usurpator 10-30-05, 03:15 PM	Quoting rules back and forth isn't going to cut it guys. The rules are simply unclear on this issue and we have to resolve it without relying on rules quotes. For example: SauroGrenom quote about Attack Roll is nice, but really doesn't say anything. From that quote it can also be inferred that dead creatures or inanimate objects can also make attacks. It's simply an issue of: 1. Does it make sense to you for a toad or bat to deliver touch spells. 2. Is is balanced for toad and bat familiars to deliver touch spells just as other familiars do.
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 03:31 PM	Quoting rules back and forth isn't going to cut it guys. The rules are simply unclear on this issue and we have to resolve it without relying on rules quotes. For example: SauroGrenom quote about Attack Roll is nice, but really doesn't say anything. From that quote it can also be inferred that dead creatures or inanimate objects can also make attacks. It's simply an issue of: 1. Does it make sense to you for a toad or bat to deliver touch spells. 2. Is is balanced for toad and bat familiars to deliver touch spells just as other familiars do. Deliver Touch Spells (Su): If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar, so long as it isn't a bat or a toad, can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master could. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates. It all makes perfect sense now. Toads and Bats are excluded from delivering touch spells for their master. They must have some other benefit to balance for their this shortcoming. Let's go see.... Bat.......Master gains a +3 bonus on Listen All checks Toad......Master gains +3 hit points +4 Con I somehow missed that part of the SRD. I know how much effort they went to balance everything, and it stands to reason that when they excluded Bats and Toads from delivering touch spells, that the Bats and Toads would get some other benefit.
SauroGrenom 10-30-05, 03:42 PM	For example: SauroGrenom quote about Attack Roll is nice, but really doesn't say anything. From that quote it can also be inferred that dead creatures or inanimate objects can also make attacks. Not realy, because we know that an attack takes a standard action, and dead creatures and inanimate objects to not get standard actions. Bats on the other hand do. My argument is that anything with a standard action can make an attack roll. Nothing else is necessary. I cannot think of a single exception to this criterion. Well besides those poor creatures like the bat and toad if TOK's opinion on the matter remains the CoCo law.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 04:12 PM	@LL, your point makes zero sense again. Everything has to have a Bab. Doesn't mean they can attack. Bats and Toads aren't the only ones. They just happen to be familiars. If you imbue it with spell ability, and give it ray spells, it can attack. Or if you alter self??? It needs a bab...just having one, doesn't mean you can attack. Bats and toads aren't alone in this category. @snommelp, i don't mind "sucking it up". It wouldn't be the first time the elders (majority) had poor judgment and rules contrary to the rules and i was the only one in the right. In time, i will be vindicated, i'm not worried. How do you think this got here in the first place? 7 elders in council and I was the only one FOR bats/toads deliver touch spells, and quoted all the same crap you guys are. In the end (because it adversly affected their builds imho), and through other poliking and friends supporting their friends, it was quickly thrown down that they could not. Examples were i stood on my own: Grappling with natural attacks, flurry, etc... ALL other elders shot me down on this...what's happening now??? You got it. Someone (unnamed elder) made a build to try to take advantage of it, and now the tables are turned. How convenient. Mounted Combat. Everyone thought i was nuts for suggesting your mount could double move and you could attack at the end, or even draw a scroll and cast it. What's it like now? Believe, being an elder doesn't grant anyone any greater rules knowledge just because of a position. I'm not saying your points aren't valid, it's just for some reason everyone is missing the fact that they can't even do said attacks to begin with. Specific, overrides general. The general rule that familiars can deliver touch spells is overidden by the fact that bats/toads are incapable without using alternate means such as alter self, polymorph etc... Anyhow, that's my opinion and interpretation. Usurpator brings up two very valid points. 1. Does it make sense to you for a toad or bat to deliver touch spells. 2. Is is balanced for toad and bat familiars to deliver touch spells just as other familiars do. 1 = yes (unfortunately, rules don't support it) 2 = yes -ToK
sloisel 10-30-05, 04:14 PM	The votes, as of now: Don't forget mine. I said a while back that bats and toads can deliver touch spells.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 04:26 PM	You know, we're arguing this back and forth, but didn't ToK go and ask some "experts," who said that it was essentially the DM's call? I don't think I've ever seen that before, but in the CoCo the elders are essentially the DM, and looking at this debate it seems that ToK is the only one who is against bats and toads touching. Am I right? If I am, then ToK, you're going to have to suck it up, because bats and toads will be allowed to touch. The votes, as of now: For: LLMadCow Pittbull King Uther Against: Tellish_of_Ket How many elders do we have again? There is still Cat and Huan left to vote...assuming one of the FOR doesn't change their mind on top of that. -ToK
Snommelp 10-30-05, 06:24 PM	Don't forget mine. I said a while back that bats and toads can deliver touch spells. Sorry, sloisel, but as far as I know you're not an elder, and these are only Elder votes. @ ToK: so either it will be a tie and the status quo will prevail (in other words, the prior ruling), or the Ayes will have it. I seem to recall you saying in the FotW thread that you would argue for bats being able to touch. What made you change your mind?
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 07:11 PM	Sorry, sloisel, but as far as I know you're not an elder, and these are only Elder votes. @ ToK: so either it will be a tie and the status quo will prevail (in other words, the prior ruling), or the Ayes will have it. I seem to recall you saying in the FotW thread that you would argue for bats being able to touch. What made you change your mind? Devil's Advocate? I'm just pointing out that imho, the rules would say i'm wrong. I would hope that everyone understands i'm not trying to be a jerk...though it might seem like it. I have said before, and will say again, i have no problems with bats/toads being able to use touch-based spells. So, no matter how the vote goes, i'm not gonna lose any sleep over this either way. I just want to make sure everyone is making an as informed decision as possible before they vote and know the facts. That's it, that's all. My apolagies if i'm sounding like a bit of a dumas. -ToK
Snommelp 10-30-05, 07:23 PM	I just want to make sure everyone is making an as informed decision as possible before they vote and know the facts. That's it, that's all. My apolagies if i'm sounding like a bit of a dumas. Meh. It only affects me as a pitlord, not as a player. I don't care which way the vote goes, really, although I really would like it to hurry up and get over with, because otherwise I might have to completely rerun a long fight (not likely, but still possible...)
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 08:45 PM	Meh. It only affects me as a pitlord, not as a player. I don't care which way the vote goes, really, although I really would like it to hurry up and get over with, because otherwise I might have to completely rerun a long fight (not likely, but still possible...) You won't have to rerun it no matter what. And waiting for Cat and Huan could take a couple of days. I wouldn't worry about it too much. -ToK
LLMadCow 10-30-05, 10:10 PM	@LL, your point makes zero sense again. Everything has to have a Bab. Doesn't mean they can attack. Bats and Toads aren't the only ones. Okay. I'll play by your rules. (Your Rules) Ok, find me the bat's listed melee or ranged attack value? any creature in the Monster Manual that has EITHER a strength score or a dexterity score that cannot attack something. If the creature is corporeal and has either a strength score or a dexterity score, then it can attack. I am willing to admit that a BAB does not mean it can attack. Heck, a BAB of 0 can still attack. If you imbue it with spell ability, and give it ray spells, it can attack. Or if you alter self??? It needs a bab...just having one, doesn't mean you can attack. Bats and toads aren't alone in this category. “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity) So, you can imbue it with a ray, and that counts, but a touch attack doesn't? Both are magical and quite possible.... 7 elders in council and I was the only one FOR bats/toads deliver touch spells I do not recall this at all, and if you are implying that I was in opposition, then I would appreciate it backed up by hyperlinks. @LL: Your sarcasm isn't winning you any points. I could be just as sarcastic about your "assassin" that acts about as smart as Forest Gump. -ToK Hey, I'm not the one running the, at times, confusing campaign, am I? I don't see why you are getting so bent out of shape over this. In the past, I have had the majority (of the council/elders) vote against me, and I put up the best arguement that I could and then it had to end. And, just so you know, when you say: I could be just as sarcastic about your "assassin" that acts about as smart as Forest Gump. ...you are already being just as sarcastic, so why don't you climb down off of your high horse and give it a rest. This started as a strongly opinionated debate, and then you decide to insult me? My characters? Yeah, I'll get defensive. Yeah, I'll respond. Whatever. Delivering a touch spell is a supernatural ability. The familiar uses an action to touch the spell recipient, usually the attack action, but no action is required to trigger the ability to deliver the spell. Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050913a) Enjoy.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 11:40 PM	Actually, I was just thinking, Cat doesn't get a vote. He just gets the final say on the voting we come up with. So that means even if Huan sides with the insane (hehe), it will still pass. Congrats. Bats/Toads CAN deliver touch spells. Now, we just wait to see if Cat accepts our decision. -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 10-30-05, 11:52 PM	LLMadCow: A shrieker has no means of attack. And... The [Formian] queen does not fight. These are the ONLY two instances where a creature has no means of attack the book says it outright and gives a reason why. Combine this with the fact that they are also the ONLY two creatures with no STR and no DEX. I find it really hard to believe that the Bat and Toad are an exception to the rule that applies to everything else. LLMadCow: When you have a listed strength of "-", your attack is based off of your Dex. So, when your Str and Dex are both "-", then you have no means of attacking. LLMadCow: Does this make sense? rlendt: 100% I believe a solution has been reached, and that is the absolute most sense in the discussion so far. -ToK
Prisonlords 10-31-05, 12:56 AM	I believe a solution has been reached, and that is the absolute most sense in the discussion so far. -ToK :bounce: :cheer: :bounce:
Book5 10-31-05, 01:00 AM	Glad that bat thing is settled... :nonono: of course it can touch.. I could extrapolate ... What about the guild examples? :D Me and Sauro seems to have come to about the same format. The numbers of staff seemed a little bit off to me. @ saurogenome - way to go and change things after I finally figured out how it was supposed to work!
Book5 10-31-05, 01:17 AM	I think that most of these factors can be interrelated. So that the number and ECL of Conscripts is related to the number and ECL of the Staff. the Number and ECL of the staff can be a factor in Upkeep and Efficiency. Give me a few more days, and I can setup some equations that we can balance easily by changing one or two constants in the equations. The guild income is affected by manuevers and raids right? So wouldnt an attack directed at a specifically profitable operation bring the attacking guild more profit? Thats why you steal shipments from the dock and stick up the bank - not the public square.. "thats kid stuff."
Caterane 11-03-05, 05:27 AM	First of all, please do NOT continue this discussion in the Council. Here's again how the Council works: I announce a topic that needs to be discussed. We all discuss this topic and as soon as a solution has been reached, I add it to the rules. This is not a thread where every question a player has goes, or where discussions lead to when the Tavern finds no answer. I work on that thread and want to keep it clean to the subject at hand which is "Guilds" for the time being. That said, I will post my comment on the bat/toad issue. It is clear that those creatures cannot attack. Yes, they have a BAB but they have no attack mode. An attack must be clearly specified in several ways, including the type of weapon used. For example Harvester Scythe+10. Neither the bat nor the toad have a weapon or an attack mode or how would you list it? Bat Body+5? Bat Droppings+2? Even charged with a touch spell, the attack mode is still missing. It cannot, technically even, deliver the spell because it has nothing with which it can deliver it. I have heard the argument that this mode is missing because the damage is too insignificant. Asides from this being a very bold assumption without any proof, it easily collapses by looking at examples with weak creatures like Ravens where the damage is listed as 1d2-5. If the designers had the intent of giving bats and toads the ability to attack they a) would have listed an attack mode b) would have listed a damage potential, 1d2-10 if you like. The BAB is there in case the wizard polymorphs the familiar. I hope that clears the issue. Btw, an Elder Poll is opened by me and it is a real Poll in a seperate thread. Unless I see sufficient proof that topples my arguments and creates a gray area, there won't be any need for such a poll. Please continue in the Tavern if you want to comment on that.
Sunwolf 11-03-05, 10:24 AM	I have a suggestion on housing requirements for the guilds. Proposal: If a guild does not have the proper housing for the ECL of a particular member, that guild would only get (1/3)^(status level difference) in taxes from that member. This represents the additional expenses that the member is spending for upkeep not in the guild -- ie storage, etc. On the other hand putting a member in a accomadations above their level does not gain any benefit for the guild other than a happy member. This proposal also removes a somewhat artificial restriction on who can join a guild due to quarters available. 1)Basic living quarter - holds ECL 3-6 2)Fancy Quarters -- hold ECL 7-11 3)Bedroom Suite -- holds ECL 12-16 4)Grand Bedroom Suite -- ECL 17-20+ Examples: ECL 7 member in a basic living quarters would only earn 1/3 of the taxes from that member ECL 12 member in a basic living quarters would only earn 1/9 of the taxes from that member ECL 12 member in a Fancy quarters would only earn 1/3 of the taxes from that member The Fraction can be adjusted if we think it useful. This way guilds can start with members higher than ECL 6 and still get some benefit from them but only get full benefit once they properly house their members. In addition, if a member requires stabling and the guild does not have the stable room etc the guild would also earn 10% less in taxes for those members -- to represent the costs that the members have to pay to upkeep their own mounts.
Caterane 11-03-05, 11:12 AM	Perhaps this is not a bad idea but to keep it simple, it should be 50% and only works one category lower. A lvl 20 PC would never sleep in a Basic Quarter with 4 fools. Alternatively, guilds might start with a Fancy Living Quarter on top of a Basic one but that would put guilds forward a few weeks. As for the stabling, we can also forget about the Stables Room (which won't even appear on the base map) and just deduct 10% per ally from the tax of a guild member. LOL to Sokai :D It's also confusing with the Chapter House Stables for mounted regiments which is something different.
Sunwolf 11-03-05, 11:27 PM	Faith (Unique: The Pantheon Cathedral) The Pantheon Cathedral is a huge and spacious edifice decorated with depictions of a wide range of dieties. A 30 foot wide staircase leads to a columned entrance way which opens in to a wide courtyard. The courtyard opens into three large vaulted chambers on right and left side large enough to hold 200 worshipers each. Directly across from the main entrance is the main chamber which can hold 1000 worshipers at once not counting the numberous alcoves for veneration that line the main chamber. Some say that if one looks hard enough one can find a mural or sculpture of displaying their own diety. Although, the Cathedral is run by priests and clerics of the currently dominant religion, followers of all denominations are welcome to come and worship in this space. The religious organization that runs the cathedral changes as the balance of power in the far realms shifts. The religion in charge can be plainly seen in the huge central mural that graces the main chamber. Adjoining buildings house the staff, office space, and storage chambers to support this massive place of worship. Additionally, 3 huge banquet halls and 2 large banquet halls are available for celebrations like weddings, funeral gatherings, or other functions. In a well kept set of rooms to the side of the main building, a squad of clerics is kept on stand by to handle nearly any type of medical emergengy for proper fee of course. (E: 500)(P: 12500)(U: 70) [Religious] 1) [b]Shrine This modest structure of three wooden but sturdy walls has a small stone altar and a few wooden benches. An offering bowl sits to the side of the altar. An adept or cleric tends this area of calm on the bustling street. Behind the altar is a small statue of the diety carved of rough grantite. (E: 50)(P: 1250)(U: 10) 2) Temple This large building contains many rooms. The large main room contains a raised altar area with medium size statue behind it. At least a dozen benches are neatly arranged facing the altar. Attached to the main room are numerous other rooms used for robing, storage and private meetings. A small dwelling is attached to the back of the temple to house the resident clerics. A pair of clerics take care of the building and grounds and perform services on a weekly basis and more often in an emergency. (E:100)(P: 2500)(U: 30) 3) Church This set of buildings is a large space with numerous sculptures and murals on a sizeaable plot of land. A congregation of more than a hundred can gather and worship together in comfort in the main building. Services are typically held at least weekly and often daily. A large altar on a raised dias overlooks at least 40 pews arranged in a symmtrical fashion. Large tapestries hang behind the altar on either side of a large marble statue of the worshiped diety. On the sides of the large main chamber are changing rooms for the clerics and storage rooms for the religious garb and equipment required for the cermonies. An adjoining building contains a small chapel, office area, and meeting hall. Near the main building is a large house where the resident clerics and acolytes live. (E:250)(P: 6250)(U: 50) [Medical][Education 1] 1) [b]Nunnery A large building designed almost in a barracks style containing a number of open areas for quiet worship. The caretakers are predominately female. These worshipers run a school for young children in the area to teach basic skills during the day. In addition, in the evenings, a warm meal is offered to the poor. (E: 50)(P: 1250)(U: 10) 2) Convent A trio of large buildings with a large yard adjoining. The worshipers grow vegtables and herbs in the yard. Quilts, blankets, and other useful items are made by the residents for the poor. Some items are sold to raise funds to provide shelter and food for the local homeless. Services are held daily in the local chapel. (E:100)(P: 2500)(U: 30) 3) Order(Abbey) A large comples of buildings with an extensive plot of land. As with the convent, residents grow herbs, and fruits, and vegetables. What amounts to a small farm is also contained on the grounds along with barns and grain storage. An extensive cellar is maintained for the cheese produced here. Some residents devote their time to copying ancient texts to preserve them. Residents teach basic skills, reading and writing, and basic math to local children. Services are held daily in the small temple on the grounds. (E:250)(P: 6250)(U: 50) [Ritual] [Economy 1] 1) [b]Charnel House This building is used to display the deceased before burial. Family and friends may gather to pay their respects to the dead before burial or cremation. Multiple viewing areas are available. Local sculptors are available for hire to sculpt statues or grave stones for the deceased. (E: 50)(P: 1250)(U: 10) 2) Graveyard A large fenced in plot of land with numerous graves and crypts. The caretakers keep the grounds tidy and dig holes for graves. Some mausoleums are also present scattered in different parts of the area. A gravel path winds through the plot to all available grave sites. Trees and some shrubs are placed to seperate different sections of the site from each other. (E:100)(P: 2500)(U: 30) 3) Nekropolis This is a huge set of graveyards encompassing burial areas, numerous crpyts, mausoleums, and an extensive underground tunnel system to numerous burial chambers. Often portions of this site are hallowed by the local clergy to ensure that the deceased buried in or on the grounds remain undisturbed by the undead. A set of houses on the side of the grounds house the staff, gravediggers, and professional mourners available for hire. Construction work is continually going on to develop more of the space to hold the dead. (E:250)(P: 6250)(U: 50) [Conversion] [Nature 1] 1) [b]Hermitage A small building housing a handful of worshipers who want to be relatively undisturbed. These hermits contemplate the nature of things. Occasionally, an aspiring scribe will get one of them to reveal their ponderings and be able to sell the transcription of thier insights. (E: 50)(P: 1250)(U: 10) 2) Cloister A cluster of buildings on a large piece of land. This structure houses scholars who spend their time in worship and reflection. One building is used as a large work area where calligraphy and artwork are produced. Some residents teach students on a vast array of possible subjects. (E:100)(P: 2500)(U: 30) 3) Monastry A large building with simple but sturdy fixtures and several smaller buildings on an extensive plot of land. The buildings are screened from view by a sturdy stone wall. The residents spend time in worship and reflection. In their spare time, the residents grow grapes and make wine and mead. A large collection of texts on a wide array of subjects is gathered here and copied for the future. Some of these structures house training grounds that are used to train the residents in their search for enlightenment through physical control and discipline. (E:250)(P: 6250)(U: 50)
Pitlords 11-04-05, 05:09 AM	Sunwolf +1° Thanks. Can you make the Level II structures seem a bit better? Like the temple that should be more than one room, or the shrine that should be made of stone, the necropolis should be a vast constructed graveyard with mausoleums, catacombs, and whatnot. Level III buildings should be more than a single building. And the Cathedral should be described how it looks like.
Caterane 11-05-05, 07:18 AM	Descriptions for Faith and Leisure structures have been added to the Guild Hall thanks to Book5 and Sunwolf. Sauro, if you could elaborate your Economy descriptions a bit, I can add them too. There are still 4 other traits that need to be described. 1° per whole trait description (all structures of one trait). @Sauro: How's your work on the new structure rules progressing?
SauroGrenom 11-05-05, 05:37 PM	This is the most recent proposition for a guild structure balancing system. The major "balancing" characteristics that are present in my system are as follows: Guild Member Taxes whould be a signifigant source of income 10-20% at all development levels. We will assume that a basic guild has 5 members at ECL4 who increase in level every 6 turns. Assuming a 50% win record, these gladiators will return taxes worth 400gp/week. After a few weeks they will return 533gp/week I've been thinking about what it is to have the guild earn taxes from a battle in the Arena. I started to think that it may be kind of like a guild is a ball club, in Gladius there are several competing ball clubs and one stadium. When a guild member fights in the arena the guilds fans flock to see their favorite team fight. In these cases the guild negotiates some kind of agreement where the best seats are sold at a premium and the extra money goes to the guild tax on the fight. Perhaps there should be some kind of development that allows the guild to earn a better tax on the gladiators fights. As a way to address the issue of many guilds having applicants who cannot join because the guild doesn't have the necessary living quarters(sort of an early game problem), we could say that there are two levels of membership in a guild. There are the affiliates and members. Affiliates are contracted so that a portion of their winnings go the the guild, but are not exclusive in there contracts. While members live and train at the guild and have exclusive contracts with the guild. The net effect is that those who are affiliated with the guild earn 5% tax for the guild, while those who are full members earn 10% tax. Perhaps it would be possable for a gladiator to be affiliated with more than one guild, so long as they are not affiliated with two opposing sides of a guild war. Also we could allow affiliates to be one alignment step away from the guilds requirements. For example the EHTC could be affliated with a CN rogue, but they wouldn't trust him enough to accept him as a full member. About the same number of weeks(6) should be required to level the members as for the guild to build another structure. (Assuming the guild does nothing except build structures.) GP/Week= Efficiency * Net District Trait Modifier Efficiency = (Initial Cost)/30 + Upkeep/5 - (Structure Level)2x10 Upkeep = Initial Cost x (15%or10%or5%) Total Staff cost= Upkeep/3 Staff are chosen from the following list of NPC classes: Adept ECL2 x 4 gp/week Aristocrat ECL2 x 3 gp/week Commoner ECL2 x 1 gp/week Expert ECL2 x 2 gp/week Warrior ECL2 x 3 gp/week The Staff of a strucutre are the conscripts, but since they are members of a NPC class they are much easier for the guild to hire than members of a PC class. So 20ECL can be hired as 1 guid action. you may think about using these equations to govern the wages of Staff for the guildhall rooms Initial cost is pulled from this table: The equation for this was based on the middle cost string. With initial cost = 2000 x Level2. Then High cost string was increased 50% and Low cost string was decreased 50%. Low Middle High Level 1 1000 2000 3000 Level 2 4000 8000 12000 Level 3 9000 18000 27000 Level 4 48000 For upkeep categories, we simply choose high, middle and low categories of upkeep as being say respectively 10% of initial cost, 5% of initial cost and 2% of initial cost. OK so we will work though two examples, first the Warehouuse is a low upkeep low initial cost level2 structure. We look at the chart and it costs 4000gp to build. Upkeep is 2% of 4000, so 80gp/week. We can choose staff that costs 80/3=27gp/week. The Efficiency of the structure is (4000)/30+(80)/5-10x(2)2=109. So in a district with net trait modifier 4, it will net 357gp/week. It will be staffed by 3 ECL1 Warrior guards, 1 ECL2 Aristocrat manager and 3 ECL1 Experts. OK, at the max income level we have the Gladius Market that is build in Lower Merx with a net trait modifier of +6. This structure costs 48000 gp to build, and is high upkeep so 4800gp/week in upkeep and 1600gp/week in staff can be hired. The efficiency is (48000)/30+(4800)/5-10x(4)2=2400. So in this district the guild will make 9600gp/week on this structure. You may think that this is too much, but I remind you that this income will allow the guildmembers to contribute 20% of the income if there are 5 members at ECL11. For the guild to get to this structure before the members make it to ECL11 would require that they only build in this string, and not spend money on other structures, regements, rooms, staff, or developments even then I'm not sure it would be possable. Saving up 48000gp to build the structure would be very hard, and the total number of staff needed to be hired would mean that the building will be under construction for a while and with no regiments to defend the place it will be an easy target. The staff will cost a total of 1600gp/week, so we can have: 1 ECL7 Adept, 2 ECL5 Adepts, 2 ECL5 Aristocrats, 2 ECL5 Warrior, 2 ECL5 Experts, 12 ECL3 Warriors, 10 ECL3 Experts. For a grand total of 113 ECL, and it will take about 6 guild actions to hire all the staff.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-05-05, 10:54 PM	Hmm... I just noticed something fun and challenging. There are only two guilds who have +Leisure; mine and TWE. I figured that with seven guilds and seven traits, each trait would hit each spot from +3 to -3. I don't particularly mind, but it will make difficulties when we start making alliances. Happy warring.
Book5 11-06-05, 03:10 AM	This is the most recent proposition for a guild structure balancing system. Not that Im a guild lord or anything, but... so this means that the number of NPCs is not fixed .... just so long as the price of the NPC (s) is equal to the requisit amount?
Caterane 11-06-05, 06:38 AM	Re Traits of the Guilds: I spent long hours balancing the current traits against each other while making sure that they fit the theme of the guild. If you have a better suggestion, please propose it here but be warned that it is a lot of puzzle work. Re Sauro's Proposal: Thanks Sauro. But I have some concerns with it. - The idea with Affiliates makes things too complicated and it is not balanced. 5% tax but therefore no room upkeep or staff, not to mention the initial price for the room plus the spent guild action, might even be cheaper than building rooms for full members. I prefer to have a clear boundary. - The idea that Conscripts are the Structure Staff doesn't work. Conscripts must be regiments - units of 10 - like Regulars and Irregulars too. If we make them individual NPCs on the battle field, it not only makes the fight way too complicated but they would be completely ineffective against a regiment, especially since they're not even trained for war. It was a nice idea but I think fixed conscript units for each trait, or string perhaps, is the better way to go. And besides, it's an additional extra work to list the proper classes and stats for staff. Better leave Staff at a roleplaying level. - The structures are still much too efficient. Let's take a level I structure of middle efficiency in a +6 district (like your home district). This would be an efficiency of 166, earning the guild 996 gold a week. In 2 weeks time, the structure has payed off. Build another 2 such structures and you earn more than 3000 gold a week. With that you could basically buy the adamantine development - which is supposed not to appear until later in the game - within 2 months after the guilds started. And I didn't even take the high efficiency formula. Similarily, the Level IV structure earning 9000 gold a week makes tax incomes from low-level members completely irrelevant, as mentioned before. I prefer those uniques to earn you no more than 5000 at the most in a +10 trait district, more likely though 3500 on average which is ok. I have thought about it too on my way to work :D The problem we had was that there was no reason to build anything else than the first string of each trait. To counter this, we came up with secondary trait requirements that must be fulfilled. Still, that isn't perfect because a) it only limits your options and b) the structures still lack diversity except in name. Here are my new solutions. Instead of limiting the guilds by enforcing secondary traits per string, we should rather broaden the options, creating alternative, equally attractive, options to guilds - and not only from your primary trait. Likewise, the structures should be distinguishable to have more diversity. To kill two birds with one storm, I thought about giving each structure its own unique stats (price/efficiency/upkeep/staff/conscripts) as proposed by Sauro, and in the same move, add a 6th factor, namely benefits from a second trait. So the Charnel House -> Graveyard -> Nekropolis String might not only benefit from Faith alone but also from Crime, the Prison String could benefit from Politics and Crime, and the Mill earns from Nature and Economy alike. The effect would be that guilds could now even build structures from traits they have little to do normally if the district supports them. So it would now - for example - be attractive for the Faith/Politics CEF to build Economy/Leisure structures in Gawane (where those traits dominate) even though the CEF has little to do with Leisure (-1) and Economy (+0). More options are open, and guilds can get out good money of every district. Since that would increase the net income greatly, we would have to decrease the efficiency a bit. Asides from that, we have to define each string per trait anew. We don't even need a formula. We can just say 1 string is average in every factor, another one is cheap in price and upkeep or staff but inefficient, the third one is expensive but lucrative with good conscripts, and the last one has another combination of factors. Once those four different kinds of strings have been found, we can apply them to all other traits in the same way; slight modifications increase diversity even further. Ok, let's get to work on that. Here again the factors: - Price - Efficiency - Upkeep - Number of Staff - Number of Conscripts - Secondary trait
Snommelp 11-06-05, 04:54 PM	Re Traits of the Guilds: I spent long hours balancing the current traits against each other while making sure that they fit the theme of the guild. If you have a better suggestion, please propose it here but be warned that it is a lot of puzzle work.Didn't mean to offend, I just noticed something and wondered if it was intentional.
Book5 11-07-05, 02:36 AM	Allow me to re-suggest a change for TAO. 5 ranks in any knowledge. And one of the following: The ability to cast Arcane Spells. An Arcane Spell-like ability at will. The Magic Domain +10 to Use Magic Device. This would allow non-caster "magical races" (say pixies.. ), magic domain clerics, and magic focused rouges.
Caterane 11-07-05, 03:26 AM	@Book: While you thought about broadening the requirements for the TAO, I thought about narrowing them. The TAO already has the simplest requirements. I see no reason to lift them further. Just look at the long list of possible candidates for the TAO and compare it with others. @Snommelp: I just meant, that if you have an idea on how to improve it, please tell us.
Iced 11-07-05, 04:09 PM	I think that if any guild needs its entry requirements lowered its the ehtc. Some characters simply don't have the skill points to throw around...
King Uther 11-07-05, 04:14 PM	Yeah, the majority of the EHTC are warriors/mages. There is only 1 active rogue.
SauroGrenom 11-07-05, 05:01 PM	So far over in the PSI consortium we only have 2 members. ALthough three others have expressed interest, we cannot house them right now (ECL too high). Infact I've been considering placing a second of my own characters in the guild just to pad the starting membership. I would realy hate to do this, because I don't want to be playing in a guild all to myself. But what's a guildmaster to do? LLMadCow did say that he would make a character for the guild, but it has yet to materialize.
Iced 11-08-05, 11:29 PM	Validi might join the psi's, but i want to see the guild benefits before i commit him to going full on. I'lll rp as if he's going in, but i may change depending.
Caterane 11-09-05, 05:22 AM	@King: Make a proposal then please but please note that you are not supposed to cover every class. Look at the CEF requirements. We hardly won't see any other PC than clerics and paladins. @Sauro: The PSI requirements are really simple. Really. You should do what every guildmaster did: write PMs to the users. There's no lack of psionic characters. @all: Any progress on the structures?
SauroGrenom 11-09-05, 11:38 AM	@Sauro: The PSI requirements are really simple. Really. You should do what every guildmaster did: write PMs to the users. There's no lack of psionic characters. Cat, I'm not asking you to change the requirements, and I did send out PM's to every player with a psionic character ECL4 or greater that was elegable for the guild(you got one). The response from the general populus was underwelming. You are right that there is no lack of Psionic characters, but about half of them are good alignment. I'll go through the list again tonight and send more PM's. Right now I'm sending PM's back and forth two a couple players who have never made psionic characters before and are consisdering building their first. @all: Any progress on the structures? Typed up some things on the home computer and they are nearly finished, but the wife needed to use the computer last night, so I'll post them tonight when I get back home.
SauroGrenom 11-09-05, 11:43 AM	Validi might join the psi's, but i want to see the guild benefits before i commit him to going full on. I'lll rp as if he's going in, but i may change depending. There are no guild benefits anymore. Guilds are simply a RP device to help develop characters and plots that are the substance that makes Galdius more than just an Arena. If you are waiting for a benefit to your character sheet you will be dissapointed. The benefits are that you have access to me and the other guild memebrs who may be able to give you advice and inspiration for a good build of a psionic character, and you will have a RP platofrm to play with your character and develop his personality by interracting with others. You also recieve the benefit of being a part of gladius history and a founding member of the guild that will wipe all others off the face of the planet. ;)
Pittbull 11-09-05, 11:46 AM	@Sauro: I got no PM. :weep: Willbrock is ECL10 and frozen and I was thinking about putting him into Virgo's trading company, because it was the first guild. But a psionic guild might fit even better. Since it takes quite a time until he's active, there's no need for a decission, but he's surely intrested.
SauroGrenom 11-09-05, 11:49 AM	@Sauro: I got no PM. :weep: Willbrock is ECL10 and frozen and I was thinking about putting him into Virgo's trading company, because it was the first guild. But a psionic guild might fit even better. Since it takes quite a time until he's active, there's no need for a decission, but he's surely intrested. Good point, I didn't look through the frozen characters. I was focusing on the active charcters because those high level characters will not be able to join the guild at first (no luxery suite for them) and they won't be fighting in the arena and provinding support for the fledgling guild. When I go over the list again tonight, I'll look through the frozen levels as well.
SauroGrenom 11-10-05, 12:46 AM	Cat, In its most recent form, here are the tables I've put together that describe the critical traits of the structures. The dominating theme is that construction costs increase exponentially and the efficiency and upkeep/conscripts increase linearly. The rapidly increasing cost will help to encourage guilds to branch out into other districts because the cost of upgrading the structures can become very high. Initial cost is pulled from this table: The equation for this was based on the middle cost string. With initial cost = 2000 x Level2. Then High cost string was increased 50% and Low cost string was decreased 50%. Price: String1 String2 String3 String4 Level 1 3000 2000 2000 1000 Level 2 12000 8000 8000 4000 Level 3 27000 18000 18000 9000 Unique 48000 Efficiency String1 String2 String3 String4 Level 1 100 80 50 25 Level 2 300 160 100 50 Level 3 500 240 150 75 Unique 700 Upkeep: String1 String2 String3 String4 Level 1 200 100 50 25 Level 2 400 200 100 50 Level 3 800 400 150 75 Unique 1600 Upkeep determines the total weekly cost of the constripts associated with the structure. Those writing the structure description will simply choose the regiments that can be paid for with the available money. Total Staff ECL: String1 String2 String3 String4 Level 1 20 10 5 2 Level 2 40 20 10 5 Level 3 60 30 15 10 Unique 80 Additional Trait: Structures in strings 2-4 have a secondary trait. For the purpose of income generated, these structures recieve a +1 bonus to the District Trait if the secondary trait is atleast +1. There are Chapter House upgrades that allow this bonus cap to increase. Something like: Improved Roads, an improved road system allows a greater flow of goods and people through your district and all your guild structures experience a boost in interaction between differnet types of commerce. All crossover trait modifiers are equal to the secondary trait to a maximum of +2.
Guildlords 11-10-05, 08:15 AM	Staff is not just merely a stat that affects the construction time. Even after completion, staff can be chased away by Intrigue Operations. Additionally, staff can be relocated to other structures. That makes it different from just being a time factor. The Conscript budget should go into the upkeep, for simplicities sake. Regiment Upkeep: I don't intent of allowing regiments other than the ones listed. You can either use the cheap regulars, or the more expensive irregulars which are 450 at the most. If you need many troops, use regulars. Unique Structures should give a benefit. We can make them independent from the strings and just say that you need two strings at lvl 3 to build it and it doesn't replace any structure. Then the effect could not produce income like structures do but could have a different effect. An idea would be that it raises the associated trait in every district by 1, and/or the guild that controls the Unique Structure gains a certain income from all <trait> incomes of all structures related to that trait. So if the PSI builds the Greater Gladius Trading Center, all Economy ratings increase by 1, and/or the PSI earns - let's say X*Individual Structure Efficiency - from all Economy structures in Gladius. X has to be determined yet. Alternatively, it can earn X*Unique Structure Efficiency where X is the number of Economy buildings in Gladius. Or we can even go with a % tax that is deducted from the incomes of all Economy structures and go to the PSI. If you have other ideas, please tell me. If Secondary Traits earn you only 1 additional district point then it is not that luctrative and doesn't produce the desired effect that guilds also build structures from traits they're not so good at. Additonally, the secondary trait rating is irrelevant. +1 is the same as +9. Instead of limiting the secondary trait, we could adept the equations accordingly. Let's do some calculations. The (1) string does not have such a sec.trait so the efficiency can be the highest here. So a Mayor House in Gorthyum earns the CEF 6*100-200-30 = 370 gold/week. If we build a Magistrate instead, it becomes 6*80+4*80-80-20 = 620. If the TAO moves in, the income nets to a 580 gp/week for a mayor, and for a magistrate 8*80+3*80-80-20 = 780 gp/week. This is also the highest it can get because Gorthyum is the Government District (+4 Pol) and both CEF and TAO have Politics+2. Even in this constellation, 800 a week is not game-breaking. Now, upgrading the Magistrate to a Supreme Court earns me (1920+720-400-90) = 2150 gp/week. I've meanwhile payed 28,000 gold to build it, and it can be attacked anytime. 2150 is as much as a good high level PC earns, and keep in mind that it's under optimal circumstances. And it's still not much more than the (6*500-800-120) = 2080 the CEF earns by building a Church. PS: The +15 trait mod with PSI and EHTC was an exception and I've corrected it. Such a thing should not be possible anymore now. If you still see something that could be too high, tell me <Districts> Of course, this is just from the first glance; I cannot foresee everything. If we want to be more careful, we can at first set the limit for sec.traits to 1 or 2, with the possibility of upgrading the Chapter House with "Infrastructure" that lifts this limit. Still, the secondary trait must be one below the primary trait. The secondary traits can also be to a disadvantage. We've looked at the PSI+EHTC combo but what about PSI+TLT or TAO+WAR. In this case, the sec.trait lowers the efficiency further. Cat
Pitlords 11-11-05, 11:39 AM	Uhmmmm, how can I best explain it... What was the reward system for All vs All and Hunters again? :( I know we agreed on something when we discussed it in the Council but no one posted the final definition. Now, many weeks later, I don't remember which one we wanted to use. The old rules were that you gain a winner share for every opponent you defeat. Since that is too much xp/gp for a fight and the fact that you don't damage the others alone plus you have only one hunter at a time, Hunter Fights should not be equal to a real 1 vs 3 match thus not reward 3 winner shares, if you are the last man standing. That surely wasn't our solution. It works even less for All vs All fights were everyone damages everyone. Did we use the "Shares" reward system Xanadu and others proposed? Hell, I could smite myself for not writing it down. :doh: :help:
TelinArtho 11-11-05, 11:51 AM	I'll go back and try to find the original discussion about it. There were a number proposed, but I don't remember which one was agreed upon.
TelinArtho 11-11-05, 12:03 PM	Looks to me that the bulk of the discussion is from page 14 (possibly earlier) through page 19 of this thread. As near as I can tell, no concensus was arrived at for the rewards. Here are some of the options presented: 1st xp for # of opponents killed or 2x winner's share (greater of the two) 2nd xp for # of opponents killed or 1x winner's, 1x loser's (greater of the two) 3rd xp for winning vs 1 opponent 4th loser's xp. I suggested this in the Tavern thread (and it is how I calculated for my already posted fight): 1st winner's share x number of opponents 2nd winner's share x number of opponents -1 3rd winner's share 4th loser's share (in a 3 player fight, 3rd would get the loser's share obviously). Here are the two others presented in the tavern: I would do it like this for three fighters: 1st Place: 2x Winners Awards 2nd Place: 1x Winners Award, 1x Losers Award 3rd Place: 2x Loser Awards Makes sense to me. Loosing is loosing, no matter how many opponents were there. Also you are distributing twice as much rewards per person as in duels. I would think of something like 3rd place: Loser Award 2nd place: Winner*0.5 + Loser 1st place: Winner*1.5 Or at 4 Players: 4th place: Loser 3rd place: Winner*0.333 +Loser 2nd place: Winner*0.833 +Loser 1st place: Winner*1.8333 So, when somebody drops out, he get's a losers award and everybody else (that is still standing) get's an equal share of a winners part. Of cause any system that gives rewards simply for how long you stay alive suppords cowardish tactics. Maybe one should find a mix of simply counting kills and simply counting dying times. Like: When somebody drops he get's a losers award and everybody that attacked him (in some way) get's an equal share of one winners award. "Attack", could be a phisical attack or a harmful spell. Damage done or overcoming of saving throw is not necessary.
NiQil 11-11-05, 12:05 PM	Uhmmmm, how can I best explain it... What was the reward system for All vs All and Hunters again? :( I know we agreed on something when we discussed it in the Council but no one posted the final definition. Now, many weeks later, I don't remember which one we wanted to use. The old rules were that you gain a winner share for every opponent you defeat. Since that is too much xp/gp for a fight and the fact that you don't damage the others alone plus you have only one hunter at a time, Hunter Fights should not be equal to a real 1 vs 3 match thus not reward 3 winner shares, if you are the last man standing. That surely wasn't our solution. It works even less for All vs All fights were everyone damages everyone. Did we use the "Shares" reward system Xanadu and others proposed? Hell, I could smite myself for not writing it down. :doh: :help: The new FFA fights are done the way Telin did them.....for a 4 person it is 3 winners shares for the winner, 2 for second place, 1 for third and a losers share for last....all done in the order of reaching -10 hp. 3 person gets 2 winners shares for the winner, 1 winners share for 2nd, and a losers for last. The old FFA, now called Hunter fights, got a little more complicated. The difference between this and the new FFA fights is that the new ones encourage survival, while the Hunter fights encourage killing as many people as possible. For a 4 person, it would be as followed (if memory serves): Winner gets 2 winners shares or a winners share for each kill, whichever is greater. 2nd place gets 1 winner share or credit for each kill, whichever is greater. 3rd place gets 1 loser shares or credit for each kill, whichever is greater 4th place gets 1 loser share. A 3 person would have: Winner gets 1 winner share or credit per kill, whichever is greater 2nd gets 1 loser share or credit per kill, whichever is greater 3rd gets 1 loser share. This limited it so that the best 2nd place could ever do is 2 winners shares, which would never exceed the winner, and so that the best 3rd could do would never exceed 2nd place and so on.
NiQil 11-11-05, 12:08 PM	Looks to me that the bulk of the discussion is from page 14 (possibly earlier) through page 19 of this thread. As near as I can tell, no concensus was arrived at for the rewards. Here are some of the options presented: 1st xp for # of opponents killed or 2x winner's share (greater of the two) 2nd xp for # of opponents killed or 1x winner's, 1x loser's (greater of the two) 3rd xp for winning vs 1 opponent 4th loser's xp. I suggested this in the Tavern thread (and it is how I calculated for my already posted fight): 1st winner's share x number of opponents 2nd winner's share x number of opponents -1 3rd winner's share 4th loser's share (in a 3 player fight, 3rd would get the loser's share obviously). Snommelp also posted an option, but it might be a little complex. I'll go copy it here for reference in a minute. Bear in mind that the rewards system for Hunter fights and All vs All fights is different. Your rewards for the All vs All are correct. But the reward system for Hunters was different....either what I listed or what you listed is correct...probably yours if you went back through the posts....I did mine from memory LOL.
Pitlords 11-11-05, 12:39 PM	2x or 3x winners share is too much. As I said, it's not a 1 vs 3 match where the 3x winner share would be justified. You are not the only one doing damage. Also forget about anything related to delay, teaming up, avoider tactics, etc because this has been taken care of. We're only discussing rewards now. I want to have a clear and simple system that is easy to calculate. I think for both fight types, the Shares system works best. If we can't remember which one we agreed upon, then we just design it again. Proposal for All vs All fights 1st gets Winner Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent 2nd gains Loser Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent -1. 3rd gains Loser Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent -2. 4th gains Loser Rewards only. If only 3 persons involved, delete the third line. Example for an ECL 3 All vs All fight (4 players) 1st gains 1800 xp/gp 2nd gains 900 xp/gp 3rd gains 600 xp/gp 4th gains 300 xp/gp Comment: This is based on the "Last Man Standing" proposal which is the easiest and most appropriate way to calculate rewards (I don't want to go through everything again). The rewards reflect that you spent more ressources without giving as much as a real 3 vs 1 match (which an All vs All fight clearly isn't) thus bumping characters a level by doing only one fight. Proposal for Hunter fights 1st gains Winner rewards, plus 1 loser rewards for every target defeated. 2nd-4th all gain Loser rewards, plus 1 loser rewards for every target defeated. Example for an ECL 3 Hunter Fight (4 players) 1st gains 900 xp/gp +300 per target defeated (max 1800 xp/gp) 2nd gains 300 xp/gp +300 per target defeated 3rd gains 300 xp/gp +300 per target defeated 4th gains 300 xp/gp +300 per target defeated Comment: As above, the rewards won't exceed 2x winner shares at best and you have to earn it if you really want max rewards. It encourages to go out and hunt. I think these are the best ways to assign rewards. Next issue: How to calculate the Powerratings for these fights?
NiQil 11-11-05, 12:42 PM	2x or 3x winners share is too much. As I said, it's not a 1 vs 3 match where the 3x winner share would be justified. You are not the only one doing damage. Also forget about anything related to delay, teaming up, avoider tactics, etc because this has been taken care of. We're only discussing rewards now. I want to have a clear and simple system that is easy to calculate. I think for both fight types, the Shares system works best. If we can't remember which one we agreed upon, then we just design it again. Proposal for All vs All fights 1st gets Winner Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent 2nd gains Loser Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent -1. 3rd gains Loser Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent -2. 4th gains Loser Rewards only. If only 3 persons involved, delete the third line. Example for an ECL 3 All vs All fight (4 players) 1st gains 1800 xp/gp 2nd gains 900 xp/gp 3rd gains 600 xp/gp 4th gains 300 xp/gp Comment: This is based on the "Last Man Standing" proposal which is the easiest and most appropriate way to calculate rewards (I don't want to go through everything again). The rewards reflect that you spent more ressources without giving as much as a real 3 vs 1 match (which an All vs All fight clearly isn't) thus bumping characters a level by doing only one fight. Proposal for Hunter fights 1st gains Winner rewards, plus 1 loser rewards for every target defeated. 2nd-4th all gain Loser rewards, plus 1 loser rewards for every target defeated. Example for an ECL 3 Hunter Fight (4 players) 1st gains 900 xp/gp +300 per target defeated (max 1800 xp/gp) 2nd gains 300 xp/gp +300 per target defeated 3rd gains 300 xp/gp +300 per target defeated 4th gains 300 xp/gp +300 per target defeated Comment: As above, the rewards won't exceed 2x winner shares at best and you have to earn it if you really want max rewards. It encourages to go out and hunt. I think these are the best ways to assign rewards. Next issue: How to calculate the Powerratings for these fights? Except that no one ever talked about reducing the total amount of rewards given for these fights until now. We had always looked at using the same rewards they always had, and just scaling them so that we didn't have someone in 2nd place getting more rewards than the winner. So your proposal *is completely new, and *should be discussed. Edit: After looking over your proposal, I have to say that I am very much against lowering the rewards as you have suggested. If you are in a 4 person match, and you manage to kill (Hunter) all your opponents, or be the last man standing (FFA), you should be eligible to get 3 winners shares, one for each opponent. That keeps them on par with normal arena duels as far as calculating the rewards shares, and IMO, is the only appealing aspect to these types of matches. If the rewards are going to be reduced, as you propose, I would just as soon take my characters out of those matches, and keep them in duels, where I get rewards consistant with the planning I am doing. If I am planning on how to be able to kill multiple opponents, I should be getting normal rewards for each of those opponents. Reducing the rewards seems to make the Last Man Standing matches (we should really rename the All-vs-All to Last Man Standing officially) and Hunter matches a lot less enticing to participate in.
SauroGrenom 11-11-05, 12:48 PM	Cat, The Conscript budget should go into the upkeep, for simplicities sake. Good idea, and I've edited the post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7715722&postcount=785) to change the upkeep so that the upkeeps are nice numbers for buying regiments with. Unique Structures should give a benefit. We can make them independent from the strings and just say that you need two strings at lvl 3 to build it and it doesn't replace any structure. This requirement could be very hard to do, and it would represent a suitable barrier to constructing the unique structure.Then the effect could not produce income like structures do but could have a different effect. An idea would be that it raises the associated trait in every district by 1, and/or the guild that controls the Unique Structure gains a certain income from all <trait> incomes of all structures related to that trait. So if the PSI builds the Greater Gladius Trading Center, all Economy ratings increase by 1, and/or the PSI earns - let's say X*Individual Structure Efficiency - from all Economy structures in Gladius. X has to be determined yet. Alternatively, it can earn X*Unique Structure Efficiency where X is the number of Economy buildings in Gladius. Or we can even go with a % tax that is deducted from the incomes of all Economy structures and go to the PSI. If you have other ideas, please tell me. I'll see what I can come up with. If Secondary Traits earn you only 1 additional district point then it is not that luctrative and doesn't produce the desired effect that guilds also build structures from traits they're not so good at. Additonally, the secondary trait rating is irrelevant. +1 is the same as +9. Instead of limiting the secondary trait, we could adept the equations accordingly. If you make this effect too lucrative, then you end up with funny things. Like the CEF won't build a Temple, because they have better synergy building a nunnery. There is now no difference between the money made with a nunnery compared to a school. And War won't build a public square because they will do better with a gardens and timberyard. Of course, this is just from the first glance; I cannot foresee everything. If we want to be more careful, we can at first set the limit for sec.traits to 1 or 2, with the possibility of upgrading the Chapter House with "Infrastructure" that lifts this limit. Still, the secondary trait must be one below the primary trait. As I said before, I like this idea. It makes a few additional developments for the chapterhouses and gives the guilds more options as to what they can do. Also I don't think the cap on crossover trait bonus should ever be lifted, just increased by developments so that those structures will become more lucrative. We expect the CEF to build a temple first and for the WAR to build a leasure structure. But if you want War to build a LowDive the effective trait modifier only needs to be a little higher so that it competes with the one for the leasure structure(not exceeds). Without any crossover trait modifiers, War would have a better income off a LowDive in Gauterix compared to a tavern, but in most districts crime and leasure are both high or low. The secondary traits can also be to a disadvantage. We've looked at the PSI+EHTC combo but what about PSI+TLT or TAO+WAR. In this case, the sec.trait lowers the efficiency further. the trait combinations sort of direct different guilds to be in conflict or to become allies. I don't expect that the TLT will become allies with PSI any time ever. Except in the diplomatic sense where we may help eachother, but we won't both be sharing control of a district. As long as I'm controlling PSI that is. ;) Cat
TelinArtho 11-11-05, 01:08 PM	Except that no one ever talked about reducing the total amount of rewards given for these fights until now. We had always looked at using the same rewards they always had, and just scaling them so that we didn't have someone in 2nd place getting more rewards than the winner. So your proposal *is completely new, and *should be discussed. Edit: After looking over your proposal, I have to say that I am very much against lowering the rewards as you have suggested. If you are in a 4 person match, and you manage to kill (Hunter) all your opponents, or be the last man standing (FFA), you should be eligible to get 3 winners shares, one for each opponent. That keeps them on par with normal arena duels as far as calculating the rewards shares, and IMO, is the only appealing aspect to these types of matches. If the rewards are going to be reduced, as you propose, I would just as soon take my characters out of those matches, and keep them in duels, where I get rewards consistant with the planning I am doing. If I am planning on how to be able to kill multiple opponents, I should be getting normal rewards for each of those opponents. Reducing the rewards seems to make the Last Man Standing matches (we should really rename the All-vs-All to Last Man Standing officially) and Hunter matches a lot less enticing to participate in. I don't think I agree with that NiQil - Cat is specifically saying that the 3 winner shares is too much in a 4 person Last man standing match because you are not going to use the same resources you would use in a full 3 vs 1 fight or even 3 1v1 fights. Essentially, you are getting more reward for winning and you lose less from using expendables. I think the proposed rewards for the fights is acceptable, at least for the short term so the fights that have already been assigned can distribute rewards consistently. If the group feels they need to be reevaluated after that - then so be it. I realize that you want to have a whole new discussion about this NiQil - but remember that there are several fights this week that will depend on these discussions to distribute rewards. A quick decision will be needed for now, and then it can be reevaluated later (before more fights are assigned).
Pitlords 11-11-05, 01:11 PM	@Sauro: Uniques: The requirements for the Unique Structures was just from the top of my head. One level 3 structure plus something else would be fine too. My main point was to make them independent from strings, with no incomes but special (lucrative) effects instead. I think that makes them truly "unique" as they're not just a better lvl 3 structure. Sec.Traits: Agreed, but if it is not lucrative enough we are back at the problem that guilds only build structures from their prime or secondary trait. I would like to see a little more diversity so that other guilds also build temples, festhalls, and universities, and not just those with the +2 or +3 mods. Perhaps your ideas with the Chapter House (CH) upgrades works fine. We can say we start at a +1 cap for sec.traits, and come up with some upgrades on the CH, like Improved Roads. Every upgrade increases the cap by 1. The price for these upgrades might scale aswell, so while getting the cap to +2 might be cheap, increasing it to 4 or 5 becomes more expensive. And Sauro, again, you help me so much. I really appreciate it. @NiQil: The rewards are perfectly alright as they are. I am VERY happy that we have found such a good solution so quickly. All my arguments are posted above.
NiQil 11-11-05, 01:12 PM	I don't think I agree with that NiQil - Cat is specifically saying that the 3 winner shares is too much in a 4 person Last man standing match because you are not going to use the same resources you would use in a full 3 vs 1 fight or even 3 1v1 fights. Essentially, you are getting more reward for winning and you lose less from using expendables. I think the proposed rewards for the fights is acceptable, at least for the short term so the fights that have already been assigned can distribute rewards consistently. If the group feels they need to be reevaluated after that - then so be it. I realize that you want to have a whole new discussion about this NiQil - but remember that there are several fights this week that will depend on these discussions to distribute rewards. A quick decision will be needed for now, and then it can be reevaluated later (before more fights are assigned). Actually, only 2 fights... And if a quick decision is needed, then why not use the reward system as it stands now (without changes) and then incorporate changes next week after it has been discussed, if it is that imperative for this week's matches?
TelinArtho 11-11-05, 01:18 PM	Actually, only 2 fights... And if a quick decision is needed, then why not use the reward system as it stands now (without changes) and then incorporate changes next week after it has been discussed, if it is that imperative for this week's matches? Well that's the thing - there is no system that stands now. All it says is that it is based off of Last Man Standing. I interpreted it to mean one thing - but that doesn't mean I was right in doing so. And you're right - it is only 2 fights... but that includes SEVEN gladiators who won't be able to update their sheets...
Iced 11-11-05, 01:20 PM	Validi has no problem with two winner's shares...;)
NiQil 11-11-05, 02:08 PM	@NiQil: The rewards are perfectly alright as they are. I am VERY happy that we have found such a good solution so quickly. All my arguments are posted above. Say wha? Whatever, I guess....my opinion has proven to count for very little here time and time again....dunno why I even bother.
SauroGrenom 11-11-05, 05:01 PM	Uniques: The requirements for the Unique Structures was just from the top of my head. One level 3 structure plus something else would be fine too. My main point was to make them independent from strings, with no incomes but special (lucrative) effects instead. I think that makes them truly "unique" as they're not just a better lvl 3 structure. I think this is a good idea (think I said that above), and I like the idea of it being difficult to build the Unique structures. So the Heavy requirements are realy a good thing. If you want the guild system to go for a long time, make the ultimate goals difficult to achieve. I'm not quite sure how to do the secondary traits. If you want a guild to build from structures of the +2 Trait they get that by branching out into different districts where the district traits are beneficial for that other trait. If none of the surrounding districts are good for that incentive, then you only have to give a +1 cross-trait bonus to make that string a better choice. Also remember that each string will have different efficiency, upkeep, conscripts, and initial cost. So all these will factor into how the guild will spend its money. If you want them to build from the +1string and district traits are not a factor, then you need to give a +2 cross-trait modifier to make that string a better option. You will also need to make sure that none of the strings that use the guilds primary(+3) trait will have cross-trait bonus from a secondary(+2) or mabey even tertiary(+1) trait. The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that this idea seams to me to become a balancing nightmare. The more elements in the system that you have, then the more potential for combinations that are not balanced for all the guilds. We already have 7 traits and 4 strings each trait, and each string in the trait is different from the other strings in that trait in 4 different ways. This Cross-Trait effect has a dizzying array of possabilities that each have the potential to be unbalancing. If you can come up with a good balanced system for that, then more power to you. I think I'll try and work on some of the other things where I may be able to make a meaningfull contribution. BTW: I've edited this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7715722&postcount=785) again. I think it should be an easy system for the structure builders to check from then design their structures.
Pitlords 11-11-05, 09:04 PM	@Sauro: Yes, that is a lot of work to find all abuses and I think the best way to do it is to do some basic checking now, but most of the tests come from experiencing the guild system in action. Along with the new idea for unique structures, we can even come up with more non-string non-income structures, like a bathhouse, that have certain effects. The Uniques are the cream of the pie then. @all: Do you have ideas for medievil structures that do not appear in the list of structures yet? @NiQil: :( I didn't mean it that way. I just need to make a decision at one point, and I need to stand to it. Please contribute on in the future.
Maraxus 11-12-05, 08:12 AM	(...) Proposal for All vs All fights 1st gets Winner Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent 2nd gains Loser Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent -1. 3rd gains Loser Rewards, plus 1 loser reward for every opponent -2. 4th gains Loser Rewards only. If only 3 persons involved, delete the third line. (...) Proposal for Hunter fights 1st gains Winner rewards, plus 1 loser rewards for every target defeated. 2nd-4th all gain Loser rewards, plus 1 loser rewards for every target defeated. (...) Okay, let me check this... Free for All: Okay at 3 characters, you give out 1Winners share and 5 losers shares, in duels it would be 1.5 winners and losers shares each. Looks good to me. Niquil: Average, it is still more profitable to go to the free for all. At 4 characters, you give out 1 Winners and 9 Losers shares, compared to 2 winners and 2 Losers in duels, this is still fine. ->I like it. Hunter: At 3 players: 1 winner, 5 loser. At 4 players: 1 winner, 7 loser. Still on the save side. It's close to that what you get in Duels but a little more. Given that you have to prepare for each opponent, what brings a little inefficience in the gold-section, I think that's good (and now, it's mathematically proven ;))
Guildlords 11-14-05, 12:39 PM	Problem: There's still little need to build any structure not related to your primary and secondary trait. With both these traits, you can still build from 6-8 strings which is enough to fill half of Gladius. And there's no difference between the strings of a trait. Solution 1: One String per city. Solution 2: One String per district. Solution 3: Structures have secondary trait requirements. Solution 4: Secondary traits of structures add to efficiency. Solution 5: Different String, different factors. We've then combined solution 2, 4, and 5. Still, it's not perfect. There's still no difference between a shrine and a bookstore, except for the name and the different trait. I think we're missing a lot of flavor here. So, here's my new proposal. It reforms the system we have somewhat. We have a lot of rooms meanwhile, and many of these rooms fulfill a function that improves the guild. What if we cut down on the number of rooms, and assign their function to the structures instead? So the Blacksmithy of the Guild (decreases Regiment upkeep by 10%) could be replaced by Forge => Foundry => Mill string of the Economy trait. If there are several values it applies to the Level I/II/III structure. The teal colored traits are the respective secondary traits; the cap begins at 0 (ie secondary traits are not added by default) but may be increased by building the (1) string. Economy (Unique: The Greater Gladius Trading Center) [Sales] Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Leisure] [Increases cap of all secondary Economy traits to 1/2/3] [Transport] Landing => Docks => Harbor [Politics] [Increases Efficiency of your Structures by 5/10/15%] [Production] Forge => Foundry => Mill [Nature] [Decreases Regiment Upkeep by 5/10/15%] [Storage] Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Crime] [Decreases Upkeep for Structures by 5/10/15%] Faith (Unique: The Pantheon Cathedral) [Religious] Shrine => Temple => Church [Politics] [Increases cap of all secondary Faith traits to 1/2/3] [Medical] Nunnery => Convent => Order [Education] [Increases Tax from PC income by 1/3/5%] [Ritual] Charnel House => Graveyard => Nekropolis [Crime] [Increases Morale of all Regiments by 1/2/3] [Conversion] Hermitage => Cloister => Monastry [Nature] [Living Quarters can hold PCs of +1/2/3 leagues higher] Crime (Unique: The Crime Syndicate) [Illegal] Drug Dealers => Smuggler Ring => Cartell [Economy] [Increases cap of all secondary Crime traits to 1/2/3] [Control] Street Thugs => District Gang => Mafia [Politics] [Earns the guild 10/25/50% of member Profession Free Activities] [Sabotage] Hideouts => Terror Cell => Underground Network [Faith] [On Assault Operations you execute, opponents EL is reduced by 1/2/3] [Gambling] Low Dive => Saloon => Casino [Leisure] [Earns the guild 10/25/50% of member Sleight of Hand Free Activities] Leisure (Unique: The Old Coliseum of Gladius) [Entertainment] Public Square => Stage => Theater [Economy] [Increases cap of all secondary Leisure traits to 1/2/3] [Fine Arts] Gallery => Exhibition Hall => Museum [Education] [Earns the guild 10/25/50% of member Craft Free Activities] [Partying] Tavern => Red Light Area => Festhall [Crime] [Earns the guild 10/25/50% of member Perform Free Activities] [Recreation] Gardens => Park => Zoo [Nature] [Decreases Staff Wages by 10/25/50%] Education (Unique: The Oracle) [Knowledge] Bookstore => Library => Archives [Nature] [Increases cap of all secondary Education traits to 1/2/3] [Research] Alchemical Workshop => Laboratory => Research Facility [Economy] [Decreases cost for Developments by 5/10/15%] [Conference] Theoreticum => Ministry of Education => Council of Mages [Politics] [You gain +1/+2/+3 to EL to resist Assault Operations] [Pedagogic] School => Academy => University [Faith] [Hire +5/10/15 ECL of Staff per Guild Action] Nature (Unique: The Tree of Life) [Preservation] Ranger Station => Tree Nursury => Protected Reserve [Faith] [Increases cap of all secondary Nature traits to 1/2/3] [Mining] Tunnel => Coalmine => Quarry [Economy] [Decreases Structure Price by 5/10/15%] [Forestry] Timberyard => Logging Camp => Lumbermill [Leisure] [Decreases Room Price by 5/10/15%] [Beasts] Breeding Pens => Beast Kennels => Training Grounds [Education] [You gain +1/+2/+3 to EL to resist Covert Operations] Politics (Unique: The Palace of Gladius) [Government] Mayor House => Amphitheater => House of Lords [Leisure] [Increases cap of all secondary Politics traits to 1/2/3] [Justice] Magistrate => Courthouse => Supreme Court [Faith] [On Intrigue Operations you execute, you gain a bonus of +1/2/3 on rolls] [Civilian] Speaker's Corner => Parish Hall => Town Hall [Education] [On Covert Operations you execute, opponents EL is reduced by 1/2/3] [Penal System] Jailhouse => Dungeon => Prison [Crime] [You gain +1/+2/+3 on rolls to resist Intrigue Operations] Effects of that new approach: It would solve our problem. Every string is now attractive and useful to every guild, and more importantly, they are different from each other. To make the structures more available to other guilds, we could lessen the Guild Trait Modifiers. Perhaps make it +2, +1, +1, +0, -1, -1, -2, and perhaps add an additional trait to each district. That increases diversity without allowing the CEF to build Drug Dealers. At the same time, the number of rooms will be decreased automatically, which puts the focus more on the structures and the map than on the base. We can increase the price for Structures because they now do not only earn money but also have a cool effect.
SauroGrenom 11-15-05, 06:05 PM	First off, Smashing Idea! Realy great actually. This has an effect of making the guilds spread out a bit and to heavily defend their structures in other districts aside for the home district. When I have a bit more time I'll look over each of the string individually to find any problems/abuses I may find. Great idea. So what's next?
SauroGrenom 11-16-05, 12:14 AM	Economy (Unique: The Greater Gladius Trading Center) The four great gates mark the boundaries of the sprawling trading center. To the east is the Merchants Gate. Standing four stories tall the arch is crafted of a strange metal gleaming golden in the sun but hard as iron. To the north stands the Lords Gate. The white marble arch is decorated with delicate spires rising taller and more elegant than all other gates. To the West is the Sailors Gate. Crafted of red granite the unadorned arch is shorter and has a more sturdy appearance than all the rest. To the South lies the Gladiators Gate. Built of dark onyx and marked throughout by silver runes and dark red crystal veins, the Gladiators gate crackles with energy when battles are fought in the Arena. Dominating the center of the Trading Center is the Mercantile, an unusual building set upon graceful pillars and arches that suspend the structure above a sheltered marketplace. Bustling with activity day and night, the Mercantile is patrolled by guards and the most celebrated experts and aristocratic vendors do business in its protected halls. Merchant Carts: A small fleet of carts is owned by the guild. Solidly built of local woods, these two wheeled carts are rented out to common merchants who hawk their wares on the streets. These street merchants are famiously territorial about where they park there carts. Well trafficed intersections and boulivards are condisered prime locations. Bazaar: This busy intersection has been improved so that it is now a more profitable place to sell goods. The crossroads has been widened and traffic diverts around a roundabout with a bubbling fountain rising from the center. Several permanent stalls have been constructed around the intersection and expert merchants rent the prime spaces from the guild. Marketsquare: The guild has constructed an open-air marketplace. Occupying an entire city block, this collection of restaurants and shops teams with activity. Flower pots, fountains and open spaces help to make customers feel comfortable while loosening their purse strings. With its aristocratic manager and small guard service, the Marketplace charges a premium to the expert vendors who have shops here. Forge: This single story wooden building sports a brick smokestack and hammer & anvil sign over the heavy iron banded door. The ringing sounds of hammer falls striking metal are testament to the industrious activities going on. Built by the guild, the facility is run by a hired expert smith with several apprentices who produce the goods requested by the guild. Foundry: This facility receives and processes ore into refined metals. Large wagonloads of ore drawn by draft horses are brought here and tremendous coal furnaces bake the stone and melt metals combining them into alloys. Several small stone buildings isolated from the rest holds a blast furnace each and is manned by a team of expert workers. A long stone building billows multi-colored smoke from three chimnies. Hissing and poping sounds issue from the building as men pour molten metals into molds and cool them for shipping. Mill: With its location on the river, the mill uses the power of the water to both bring in the lumber and run the saws. The low and wide mill house is dwarfed by the yards that surround it. Felled trees are drug into the yard from the river and piled into tall piles waiting to be cut into planks. The highly profitable business is usually managed by an aristocratic manager who oversees the teams of common laborers and experts that keep the mill running day and night. Depository: This low and long building has a brick wall on either end. Equipped with a couple exterior pits and a loft the Depository is a versatile storage area. Reasonably sturdy and cheap to build, you will find many such buildings across the city. A Depository is usually patrolled by a single watchman with multiple charges in any given night. Warehouse: Larger than a Depository, a Warehouse will frequently have four stone walls and possibly a cellar. A variety of goods can be stored in these locations and their long term perservation and safety is more secure. These structures are usually managed by an expert clerk who regularly inventories the stock and hires a full time watch to patrol the facility. Emporium: This collection of large stone buildings has structures specialized for optimal storage of any number of types of goods. Some building are equipped with a cool stone cellar in addition to several floors of storage space or grain silos. The aristocratic managers of an Emporium hire the services of guards and expert rat catchers to patrol the facility at all times to ensure that goods stored at an Emporium are kept in the best condition. Landing: Although sturdy the single jetty only accommodates one small vessel at a time. The landing is a favored place for commoners with strong backs and little other skills to earn a daily wage loading and unloading the vessels that moor here. Fishermen and their clients often use these facilities to bring their daily catch to market. These places are also a favored landing for those few who own small ships but do not wish to file the papers needed to land at the larger facilities. Docks: The twin piers jutting out into the water accommodate multiple vessels with deeper keels. These larger ships carry heavy loads and the docks are equipped with rudimentary crane and pulley systems to aid in the loading of more bulky or heavy cargo. Though common laborers are still needed, the complicated pulley systems are manned by experts. These facilities are large and expensive enough that they are often owned and managed by government representatives. Harbor: The deep waters and five piers of the Harbor can accommodate large numbers of the largest ocean going galleons. The bustling activity of the large harbor requires intelligent management in addition to expert shipwrights who repair ships and the labor of countless commoners. As ill tempered sailors and dockworkers are apt to quarrel, a small armed force helps to ensure that the goods are safely handles and that fights do not escalate. These facilities are often the only locations large enough to accomodate ship construction and warship repair. These important services are heavily regulated by a tangled beurocracy of government officials.
Guildlords 11-16-05, 11:35 AM	Next we should discuss the effects of Unique Structures. I have an idea on how we can use them. We make another category called "Unique Structures". The seven unique structures of the traits are just seven of many; there can be others like "Bathhouse", "Aqueduct", "Sewer System", "Latrines", "City Wells", etc; structures that help the city as a whole. These unique structures have certain prerequisites before they can be built. They should have effects that can be interesting for every guild. We need to find good effects for them - effects that make them truly unique, and not just another structure of an non-associated trait. One idea to clearly distinguish them from the other structures is to have them not earn money. While I can see how the Trading Center earns a lot of cash, that same is hard to imagine for the Oracle or the Tree of Life. Uniques also do not need to be the pinnacle of a guild carreer. It might be true for the seven Uniques we have now, but a "City Wells" Unique structure can be cheap and therefore have a lesser unique effect than the Old Coliseum. Ok, do you have ideas for - other Unique Structures - effects for these Structures then please tell us. @all Guildmasters: I had to change the District Traits and the Guild Traits due to the new effects for structures. Please update your guild accordingly. @all: There are still 4 traits that need descriptions for their structures. Worth 1° each trait. @Sauro: I'll give you 1° for the Economy descriptions and another 4° for your system. Thanks a lot!
Caterane 11-17-05, 08:57 AM	Here's an idea for a Unique Structure: Portal Network! Description: The Guild installs a network of Portals throughout the city so that the overall transport for everyone is improved, especially for the Guild that built it. Effect: You can build Chapter Houses even in Districts that are not adjactent to a District you control. Additionally, if you are attacked, you can instantly transport Regiments from anywhere in the City to the attacked District (works similar to Signal Fires). Requirements: ??? Cost to build: ??? Let's gather some ideas: - Bathhouse - Sewer System - City Wells - Latrines - Aqueduct
SauroGrenom 11-20-05, 10:01 PM	Here are a couple other unique structures: Inspired by items from the Wonderous Items list and Universal Items list. Elemental Summoning Chamber: The Guild builds a specialized chamber that is used to summon elementals of various kinds. Equiped with the necessary brazers, pools and stones any kind of elemental can be summoned. The summoned elementals serve the guilds wishes for a limited time, and are often used as shock troops to defend the chapter house. A chapterhouse equiped with a summoming chamber is protected by a unit of medium elementals that can only be used to defend the strucure and only last for the first 5 rounds of combat before the durration of the summoning expires. Crystal Anchors: The chapter house foyer is decorated by 4 multicolored Crystal Anchors. These insturments effectively prevent the use of psionic powers within the guildhall from 4 differnet disciplines chosen at creation. Warding Seals: The main arch of the front entrance to the chapter house is adorned with Arcane seals. They shine and sparkle in the light and pulse with unseen power. The chapter house entrance is warded by either two 6th level symbols or one 7th level symbol. The symbols function as normal symbols and effect attacking units in there area. Antimagic Golum: This chapter house is protected by a single huge ten armed Iron Golum that is enchanted with a permanent and persistent anti-magic field. It attacks as a unit, but also projects an antimagic field at a caster level of 18th. Mythal of the ___ Guildhall of Gladius: An invisible field surrounds the chapter house and grounds with a tactile magical or psionic field. A mystical power is available to those who are attuned to the field and the field is permanently active. At creation 9 spell levels of benificial powers/spells are chosen and those who spend 24 hours becoming attuned to the field will always recieve the effect of these powers while within the grounds of the chapter house. These effects are cast at 18th level and are renewed every 2 minutes if there effect is dispelled or consumed. Public Library: This majestic building is widely considered to be the greatest public repository of knowlege in the land. Tall white colums rise from the top of an imposing wide stair that surrounds the central structure. The public archives are stored here, and the guild's sponsorship of the structure results in an improvement in the guilds educational and political influince.(+1to guild traits political and educational) Armory: This Tall Keep is located near the center of the city and constructed of sturdy red granite. Balista and catipults are visible on the top of the keep and it is guarded by a constant vigil of gladius troops. The Guild's involvement in the protection of the city and its citizens reflects well upon the guild's reputation and allows the guild to call upon city officials when in need. The guild recieves an extra regular unit in any battle anywhere in the city and inreases the CR for covert actions against them by +1 and also recieves +1 political guild trait. The Order of the Stalwart Heart: The guild founds a small order of "registered" spell casters who are certified to not be under the influince of any outside force or have any alterior motives. The member will serve there contractors only and to the fullest extent the law allows. These arcane/psionic practitioners are popular for legal or political magical services where impartial services are necessary. The affiliates generate income for the guild. (Some thing reasonably substantial) Circus: This attraction is located in a different district of the city each week, and represents the pinacle of spectacle and entertainment. Sporting exotic animals and marvelious tricksters the Circus is a sight for all ages to appreciate. The Circus is a structure that moves from one district to another at random. It increases the Leasure trait of that District by +3 and generates income for the guild that built it as if it were a liesure structure of efficiency 200 with an upkeep of 100. It generates income that goes to the guild even if it is in a district that is not controlled by the guild.
TheMagister 11-21-05, 02:09 PM	I have a respectful suggestion for the handling of challenges in the future, and I'd like the elders' thoughts on the idea. It is pretty widely accepted that the current system for challenges dampers their popularity with the players and almost entirely removes them from the Role-Playing aspect of the CoCo. The current system requires both the issuer and the acceptor of the challenge to pony up a credit for the fight. I propose that we instill some sort of risk element in the issuance and acceptance of a challenge. This will make the act of offering/accepting a challenge something on note (might even make it into the Arena Weekly!) instead of "just another fight". These are my ideas. Feel free to accept/oppose in whole or in part: 1) The act of issuing a challenge requires the placement of a credit in escrow (a financial holding place: i.e. the issuer MUST have a credit on hand to even issue a challenge). If the challenge is not accepted, the player may have his credit returned to him. 2) The act of accepting a challenge requires the placement of a credit in escrow pending the outcome of the battle (i.e. the acceptor of a challenge MUST have a credit on hand in order to accept a challenge). 3) One player may not provide a credit for another. 4) The winner of the challenge (acceptor or issuer) receives his credit back after the fight is conclusively ended. The loser loses his credit. 5) "Boasts" may be made by posting in the Tavern. Boasts affect the rewards issued by the Pitlord at the end of the fight. The Boasting player must link to the "boast post" (yeah, corny) when he sends in his tactics. Boast: an amount of GP up to and not to exceed the maximum reward allowed the loser of a given matchup. For example: in an ECL 3 vs. ECL 3 matchup, the winner is allotted 900gp for a win and the loser is allotted 300gp for a loss. The maximum boast possible in a ECL 3 challenge is 300gp. Boast GPs are kept in escrow until the conclusion of a match. At the end of the match, the winner receives normal XP rewards and an amount of GP award equal to his normal reward PLUS the amount of the loser's boast. The loser receives normal XP rewards and an amount of GP equal to his normal reward LESS the amount of his boast. 6) A player does not have to boast, even if the other player does. Open for discussion. TM
Macbrea 11-21-05, 02:24 PM	I suggest an alteration of the challenge system entirely. 1) No person may be challenged by any other person more then once per three ECLs brackets. 2) Challenger must put up one credit. 3) Challenged must put up either one credit or 200 gps to accept challenge. 4) Winner of the fight takes all credits and gold placed in betting pool. That way, if a player wants to challenge someone within their league they can. It doesn't kill the pairing process as it would just be a normal fight. It also gives some people a chance to get credits through stranger methods.
Caterane 11-21-05, 03:23 PM	Credits are a reward for those who contribute so you shouldn't be able to gamble them. The Classic CoCo consisted almost completely of challenges because they were free back then. I had to roll 2-3 pairings every wednesday; the rest was already determined by the many challenges. One experience I made is that a) you always challenge someone whom you think you can beat easily (and have indeed an advantage), and b) that most challenges were accepted. Look for the best fitting opponent, prepare accordingly, challenge him - he won't reject for honor reasons - and get an easy match. Easy because you know the enemy, and you could prepare properly. Another reason for the current system is that every challenge takes away one pairing. If we follow that suggestion, we'll see far more challenges than now. The randomness of the pairings suffers. Challenges should stay an exception and it is okay the way it is now. If you want to increase the roleplaying of your character, use the many options we have so far, and which are not even the final incarnation of LivingGladius. As for bets, it is always a bad idea to make it possible to 'transfer' money to other characters, no matter how you call it. The most obvious exploit is to create an alt-account with 2-4 PCs who tithe money to the characters of your primary account. Bets could be exploited in a similar way. Even if not, it would be very difficult to supervise. We'd need a thread for bets, a rules system that clearly governs it, a cap for bets, then set a ratio for each character (based on Powerrating?). The whole thing needs to be linked to the sheets anyhow. And there will be more than one user participating in the bet. That's a full board job which I cannot do, and I don't want to occupy any of the Elders with that. They have enough to do with their domain. @Sauro: Great ideas! But the best thing is that I have two new ideas after I read yours! (1) Call it Random Events! They work like that: We make a list with Random Events. At the beginning of every week, I roll a random event for the guild system along with the pairings. This event has an impact on all guilds. Events could be "Iron Ore Shortage!", "Strike in <roll district>", or "Robbers plundered <enter structure>". Ideas? (2) The second idea is based on your Circus. We create seven (one for each trait) institutions. Circus for Leisure. I roll at the beginning of the week which institution is in which district. If I roll the Circus and Central Gladius, the Circus is there and provides a +3 bonus to Leisure in Central Gladius for one week, and perhaps a secondary effect even. Ideas for Trait Institutions? (feel free to correct my suggestions) Economy - Market Day (or Market Novelty) Faith - Prophet (or Religious Holiday) Crime - Leisure - Circus of Gladius Nature - Education - Politics - Foreign Delegation As for the Unique Structures, I like Planar Gateway (or Summoning Chamber) which adds a number of random Elementals to each defensive battle for 2dx rounds. The Armory of Gladius is also a great idea. This unique structure just adds one bonus regiment of official Gladius troops to each battle. I didn't understand the Mythal or the Order of Stalward Heart though. The Public Library is already a structure in the Education trait. Instead, we can just use the seven trait uniques to permanently boost a trait. So the Oracle boots Education in all self-controlled districts by 1. The Trading Center does the same with Economy. They should have a good secondary effect though else they're not worthwhile. Ideas? Greater Gladius Trading Center (+1 Eco) - ??? The Holy Pantheon Cathedral (+1 Faith) - ??? The Old Coliseum of Gladius (+1 Leisure) - ??? The Oracle of Gladius (+1 Education) - ??? The Palace of Gladius (+1 Politics) - ??? The Crime Syndicate (+1 Crime) - ??? The Tree of Life (+1 Nature) - ???
Stormwind 11-21-05, 05:18 PM	(2) The second idea is based on your Circus. We create seven (one for each trait) institutions. Circus for Leisure. I roll at the beginning of the week which institution is in which district. If I roll the Circus and Central Gladius, the Circus is there and provides a +3 bonus to Leisure in Central Gladius for one week, and perhaps a secondary effect even. Ideas for Trait Institutions? (feel free to correct my suggestions) Economy - Market Day (or Market Novelty) Faith - Prophet (or Religious Holiday) Crime - Leisure - Circus of Gladius Nature - Education - Politics - Foreign Delegation How about: Crime - Crime wave Nature - Replanting Education - Festival of the Arts (or Feast of Knowledge)
Book5 11-22-05, 09:25 AM	Economy - Market Day (or Market Novelty) Faith - Prophet (or Religious Holiday) Crime - Crime wave Leisure - Circus of Gladius Nature - Replanting Education - Festival of the Arts (or Feast of Knowledge) Politics - Foreign Delegation I think that "holidays" should be set not roaming. "pixies" or something fantastic? "Foreign Delegation" Economy - Lottery Winner : Parks, ... and other string one structures gain an effective efficiency increase? Faith - (Name) Revival Festival : lv3/4 Clerics of diety are present and may interfer with fights. Crime - "The Gang" : A group of merc bankrobbers/villians that will attack one of the structures in the district. Leisure - Circus of Gladius : Carnival Game Miniquests for local guild members. Nature - Secret Fairy Helpers : Reduce staff/upkeep for district. Education - Festival of the Arts. : Similar to Carnival. -see below- Politics - Council in Session. Reduce construction costs for the week. Carnival/Festival Miniquests - this is a weird idea. Have a carnival thread (and a festival thread I guess) that starts with a set of carnival games (ring toss, hammer hitter, etc) and the rules are you use the name of the specific game as the name for roll (characte's name for description), then you just past an rp "I hit the thing" and every week the people that made their rolls are given xp for whatever the challenge of the game was - use Trap rules or something. Oh and they have to deduct GP from their sheet regardless (and its only valid when the carival is in the guild's district) the festival is similar - but its for guild profit not player fleecing - "forensics contest slash art show" Post your "entry" and the winner that week makes money for their guild. Maybe the guild district that is "hosting" has to post that weeks "contest" and then the hosting guild makes money based off of character turnout an unpaid, but collected, "entry fee". I think an actual merc group of "robbers" that are afflicting the "upstanding citizens" of gladius is neat. Like a random guildwar encounter. Why stop with just one! ... which leads me to an idea for a unique structure - Den of Thieves: "The Gang" has the area "under protection" and will not attack any guild structures in the district. With the clerics (drawn from mercs of course) - I think it would be a neat random element to include - but it might lend itself to aiding one goup over another, BUT not so much if the dieties were of random alignment.
Book5 11-22-05, 09:38 AM	HA! Ok reading the guild rules again - make that festival thing ummm, "Guild may host a contest as a free guild action" Keep the circus deal with the carnival games though.
Book5 11-22-05, 09:44 AM	hmmm, I think Im gonna write up the crime structures. "the crime syndicate" could be "the gang" On a related note: If anyone that has been round for longer than me wants to write the description of "the old arena" - wouldnt hurt my feelings. I dont know what it was like. Is there any more info on the "crime syndicate?"
TheMagister 11-22-05, 10:42 AM	Credits are a reward for those who contribute so you shouldn't be able to gamble them. They're not being gambled (in the bet 1, win, get 2 sense). All this is doing is removing the burden of spending valuable credits on something as silly as a challenge. Another reason for the current system is that every challenge takes away one pairing. If we follow that suggestion, we'll see far more challenges than now. The randomness of the pairings suffers. Makes sense. As for bets, it is always a bad idea to make it possible to 'transfer' money to other characters, no matter how you call it. The most obvious exploit is to create an alt-account with 2-4 PCs who tithe money to the characters of your primary account. Bets could be exploited in a similar way. Even if not, it would be very difficult to supervise. We'd need a thread for bets, a rules system that clearly governs it, a cap for bets, then set a ratio for each character (based on Powerrating?). The whole thing needs to be linked to the sheets anyhow. And there will be more than one user participating in the bet. That's a full board job which I cannot do, and I don't want to occupy any of the Elders with that. They have enough to do with their domain. I can definately agree with this! Thanks for listening and responding! TM
Book5 11-22-05, 11:36 AM	The Crime Syndicate oh hey somebody wrote the old collesium thing.. Cat? Any input on the crime syndicate? could this have a connection with my "the gang" idea on the mercs thread? [Illegal] Drug Dealers A place to store product, meet clients, distributers, and generally hang out and pretend you're bigger than you are. Drug dealers have all the basic attributes of real criminals, but on a smaller scale. These operations rarely involve more than 10 active participants. Often the building in question is home to all the dealers, and a number of the clients as well. Smuggler Ring Ever wonder where your stuff goes when you get burglerized? A "nice" fellow with a nondescript warehouse stores and then sells your possesions 100% anonymously. Every fence has a different quirk. Some surround themselves with children, others are sword sharpening paranoid maniacs. Most employ a couple dozen low lifes to guard and haul mechandise around, as well as experts in refining (or forging) hot items. Cartell Organized crime has a certain ring to it. Discussion of actual operations is often done in "public" diners. A local philanthrapist (refered to as Don, Papa, Chief, or similar paternal appelation) grants requests to those that have proven sufficient "honor." Maintaining this kind of organization requires a large number of facilitators and thugs. A cartell safe house is often the base of the more blatantly illeagal operations that cartells undertake, but the Papa's house is the heart of a cartell. Important ceremonies such as initiations and alliances are usually made there or at a local church. [Control] Street Thugs These small groups will stake a claim on some section of property that they have no legitimate connection to and begin to extract a form of tax on the local inhabitats. Often everyone will know who they are, even where they can be found (usually an extreemly decrepit tavern), but no one is willing to do anything about them. Primarily teenagers, the successful thugs usually move "up" in the world. District Gang A malitia in everything but name. Complete with secret headquarters where plans are made over strategic maps of the district. These groups are well armed, usually driven by a ethic or philosophy, and they survive by harvesting the profits of the organizations below them. Haphazard protection rackets that amount to free services for the members, and the direct confiscation of other gangs' merchandise. Mafia A mafia is an organized and subtle interface between civil and criminal society. An unassuming buisness where illicit gold is turned into legitimate money with a purchase at an auction house or emporium. The official profits are abysmal. The sign over the door tends to change frequntly, but the building's owner is a rich philanthrapist. "Uncle Jimmy" is always willing to invest a few 100,000 gp into a doomed buisness endevour, but most othertimes one of his nephews is "renting" the building out for parties. [Sabotage] Hideouts A building intended not to be noticed, often an apartment on an extended lease. Hideouts are explicitly disguised as other unimportant structures. A dark house in a quiet neighborhood, a tunnel under a bridge guarded by the "homeless," or a speakeasy downstairs below a legitimate establishment. Hideouts are stocked with all the survival essentials, like weapons and cure potions. Terror Cell An information passing fraternity (often quite intellectual and/or holy) that also awaits word to perform a great duty in the service of the cause. When a cell strikes it is impossible to trace their direct connection to the other cells. Each member is chosen for their dedication to the cause and their willingness to support their brothers in furthering the cause. Underground Network Anything and everything is within the reach of this shadowy organization. Sometimes connected to a larger mafia or cartell, but alternativly a secret society could develop for a number of aims. Dedicated to finding or monitoring some thing/person/fact they are willing to barter their services for the money that they need. Underground networks always have a sanctuary that serves to shelter any member in need, and the numerous entrances to this place are carefully concealed. [Gambling] Low Dive One of countless taverns that serves food as an afterthought. The patrons of a dive are universally dirty. Low stakes card and dice games are won "fair and square" while loosers drop what little money they win into another bottle from the bar. Entertainment is rare, unless you count bar brawls and the occasional gang retaliation. Saloon A comfortable atmosphere to loose your money in. Passable fare in small portions available for exorbidant prices. Games are always fair, and the more advanced games such as billiards are organized into tournaments. With live entertainment saloons occasionally get rowdy, but most times the "gentlemen" will take their dispute outside. The barmaids are usually about as tough as the bouncers, but twice as cute. Casino A carnival of lights, bells, lovely ladies, and money changing hands with startling speed. Fortunes are won and lost over the span of a night in a casino. No matter the size of your purse there is a game for you. "Slick Richard started with coppers and now hes a high roller!" They say. Dragon dice is the game of choice in Gladius, but a good casino has games for every taste. The food and drink flows freely to the players, and high rollers are often invited to exclusive special events.
SauroGrenom 11-22-05, 06:15 PM	(1) Call it Random Events! They work like that: We make a list with Random Events. At the beginning of every week, I roll a random event for the guild system along with the pairings. This event has an impact on all guilds. Events could be "Iron Ore Shortage!", "Strike in <roll district>", or "Robbers plundered <enter structure>". Ideas? (2) The second idea is based on your Circus. We create seven (one for each trait) institutions. Circus for Leisure. I roll at the beginning of the week which institution is in which district. If I roll the Circus and Central Gladius, the Circus is there and provides a +3 bonus to Leisure in Central Gladius for one week, and perhaps a secondary effect even. Ideas for Trait Institutions? (feel free to correct my suggestions) Economy - Market Day (or Market Novelty) Faith - Prophet (or Religious Holiday) Crime - Leisure - Circus of Gladius Nature - Education - Politics - Foreign Delegation As for the Unique Structures, I like Planar Gateway (or Summoning Chamber) which adds a number of random Elementals to each defensive battle for 2dx rounds. The Armory of Gladius is also a great idea. This unique structure just adds one bonus regiment of official Gladius troops to each battle. I didn't understand the Mythal or the Order of Stalward Heart though. The Order is intended to be something that generates a fixed income for the guild. A lower level unique structure that generates money independant of efficiency and traits and is not located in any particular place. The Mythal is a defensive item that allows the guild to put a limited number of buffs on their defending units automatically in any battle. At construction 9 spell levels worth of buffs are chosen. If the buff is the type that can be consumed in battle (the Aid spell or Vigor power) then the effects renew after some limited period of time (20 or so rounds). Ideas? Greater Gladius Trading Center (+1 Eco) - The guild recieves an additional 10% tax on the income of all economic structures in Gladius. And if an extra action point is spent on the first turn of construction the cost of all structures and developments is decreased by 5%. The Holy Pantheon Cathedral (+1 Faith) - The guild tithes all good aligned guildmember incomes by 10%(not deducted from actual winnings). Also the guild can spend 3 action points to Evoke a special event called the Grand Blessing. Other guild wishing to participte in a Grand Blessing must pay 500gp to the Guild and they effectively hire either celestial or fiendish unique units that are now regiments for the recipient. These units have an upkeep that must be paid as ususal. The Old Coliseum of Gladius (+1 Leisure) - The Guild Recieves an additional 10% income on the winnings of all guildmembers and a 2% tax on the winnings of the members of other guilds. The Oracle of Gladius (+1 Education) - The Guild recieves an additional guild action point per turn and may expend it to automatically thwart any covert or political action performed by any other guild. The Palace of Gladius (+1 Politics) - The guild may spend one action point to temporarily modify the traits of one district that it chooses. One trait can be increased or decreased by 2 points and the effect lasts for one week. At the expenditure of extra action points the effects persist for additional weeks. If 10 action points are spent the guild is able to permanently alter a district trait by one point to a maximum of +1 and -1. The Crime Syndicate (+1 Crime) - The guild is able to perform covert actions that target structures that are ordinarily protected from such attacks. Also the ECL of covert actions is decreased by 2 if the guild controlls the district the action is located in and 1 if not. The Tree of Life (+1 Nature) - The guild is able to spend 10 action points to recruit a special unit (Treants). A unit of Treants at ECL8 and can only be used to defend or attack districts with a positive nature trait. The guild is also able to spend 10 action points to permanently improve the Nature trait of a district by one point to a maximum of +1. (1) Random events could be an interesting addition to the guild system. Also it wouldn't be too much work to keep track of them. I would like to suggest that in the Guild Hall thread you make a post similar to the battles post for each weak. That way you can post the guild action point expenditures and the random events of the week. (2) Some of the other traits don't realy make sense that there would be a traveling structure associated with them. A traveling Bazzar makes sense, and a sect of traveling zelots who carry a holy relic makes sense. I'm having touble comming up with traveling structures for education except silly things like a book fair. Same goes for Nature, Crime and Politics. For each one of these in play it makes your job more complicated, because you need to keep track of many random events and ensure that the guilds are properly adjusting their district traits each week to match the random effects that are in their districts.
Guildlords 11-22-05, 07:36 PM	I like the idea of one or two permanent benefits, and the option to use Guild Actions to activate effects. GAP = Guild Action Point. We should be careful to allow permanent changes of traits. For now I prefer to not make it possible. I also dropped some of your ideas because they did the same like some structures do; just better. Greater Gladius Trading Center +1 Economy in all controlled districts Cap for secondary traits is removed completely. 1 GAP: Decrease Construction Time of target structure by 1 week The Holy Pantheon Cathedral +1 Faith in all controlled districts ??? 1 GAP: create 1 Celestial/Fiendish regiment per GAP The Old Coliseum of Gladius +1 Leisure in all controlled districts ??? ??? The Oracle of Gladius +1 Education in all controlled districts +1 Guild Action 1 GAP: Prevent Covert or Intrigue Operation The Palace of Gladius +1 Politics in all controlled districts ??? 1 GAP: Alter District Trait by 1 for one week per GAP The Crime Syndicate +1 Crime in all controlled districts Ignore defensive upgrades on Chapter Houses 1 GAP: Decrease EL of Covert Operation by 1 per GAP The Tree of Life +1 Nature in all controlled districts Treants defend own Chapter Houses ??? I agree on that the special institutions should be merged with random events and there need not even be one for every trait. We should begin to gather some random events so that we can start it asap. Another idea for a unique structure: Central Bank of Gladius. Effect: able to make debts up to X gold but also pay 10% interests per week. Lend money to other guilds and gain 10% interests per week. @Book5: Thanks a lot. +1°
SauroGrenom 11-23-05, 01:57 AM	Here are a few ideas. I like the idea of one or two permanent benefits, and the option to use Guild Actions to activate effects. GAP = Guild Action Point. We should be careful to allow permanent changes of traits. For now I prefer to not make it possible. I also dropped some of your ideas because they did the same like some structures do; just better. Greater Gladius Trading Center +1 Economy in all controlled districts Cap for secondary traits is removed completely. 1 GAP: Decrease Construction Time of target structure by 1 week The Holy Pantheon Cathedral +1 Faith in all controlled districts In all guild actions the representatives of the guild are recipients of Bless, Aid, and Prayer spells cast at 18th level. These effects persist through the entire battle/mini-quest that is the guild action. 1 GAP: create 1 Celestial/Fiendish regiment per GAP The Old Coliseum of Gladius +1 Leisure in all controlled districts All units controlled by the guild have Elite stats. 1 GAP: Any one member of the guild can challange any member of another guild to a battle in the Arena. This challange is made at no credit cost to either member but costs one GAP from the opposing guilds actions. The two challangers must be within 1ECL of eachother and that character is unable to participate in any other guild activities. Also the challange cannot be rejected. The Oracle of Gladius +1 Education in all controlled districts +1 Guild Action 1 GAP: Prevent Covert or Intrigue Operation The Palace of Gladius +1 Politics in all controlled districts Each turn the guild can either ignore one random event in one of its districts or ask the GM to reroll a random event in any other district. 1 GAP: Alter District Trait by 1 for one week per GAP The Crime Syndicate +1 Crime in all controlled districts Ignore defensive upgrades on Chapter Houses 1 GAP: Decrease EL of Covert Operation by 1 per GAP The Tree of Life +1 Nature in all controlled districts Treants defend own Chapter Houses 1 GAP: When defending against a covert or Assault action in a district with a positive nature trait increase the ECL of one unit by one. Multiple GAP can be spent to increase the ECL of multiple units. I agree on that the special institutions should be merged with random events and there need not even be one for every trait. We should begin to gather some random events so that we can start it asap. Another idea for a unique structure: Central Bank of Gladius. Effect: able to make debts up to X gold but also pay 10% interests per week. Lend money to other guilds and gain 10% interests per week. @Book5: Thanks a lot. +1°
Guildlords 11-23-05, 05:00 AM	@Sauro: Great ideas! The one proposal for the Cathedral makes it too battle-oriented; you can already recruit special units there. Same goes for the TLT (I've changed the benefit slightly). I am not sure how a challenge would be beneficial to the guild; at least compared to the effects of other uniques. Rest is cool. Greater Gladius Trading Center +1 Economy in all controlled districts Cap for secondary traits is removed completely. 1 GAP: Decrease Construction Time of target structure by 1 week The Holy Pantheon Cathedral +1 Faith in all controlled districts ??? 1 GAP: create 1 Celestial/Fiendish regiment per GAP The Old Coliseum of Gladius +1 Leisure in all controlled districts All units controlled by the guild have Elite stats. ??? The Oracle of Gladius +1 Education in all controlled districts +1 Guild Action 1 GAP: Prevent Covert or Intrigue Operation The Palace of Gladius +1 Politics in all controlled districts 1 GAP: Ignore one random event in a districts or ask the GM to reroll random event. 1 GAP: Alter District Trait by 1 for one week per GAP The Crime Syndicate +1 Crime in all controlled districts 1 GAP: Ignore 1 defensive upgrade on a Chapter House per GAP 1 GAP: Decrease EL of Covert Operation by 1 per GAP The Tree of Life +1 Nature in all controlled districts ??? 1 GAP: Animate one treant per GAP. Treants can be used freely but are removed at the end of this turn. Here's a list of other Unique Structures and their effects. I changed the Mythal a bit because there are already enough ways to get buffs on the troops. My proposal seems more unique. Central Bank of Gladius: The Guild is able to make debts up to [100*total guild ECL] gold but also pay 10% interests per week. The Guild can lend money to other guilds and gain 10% interests per week. City Portal Network: The Guild can build Chapter Houses even in Districts that are not adjactent to a District it controls. Armory of Gladius: In any battle with regiments, 1d6 official Gladius regiments come to aid the Guild. Mythal of Gladius: In any defensive battle, all regiments of the Guild are immune to hostile magic and psionics. Other Ideas for Uniques? Here some brainstorming: - Bathhouse - Sewer System - City Wells - Latrines - Aqueduct - City Guard Headquarter Let's find some Random Events so that they can be implemented soon. There is no limit to the amount of Random Events. Prophet: +3 Faith in all Districts Holiday: -3 Economy in all Districts Market Day: +3 Economy in <random> District Circus: +3 Leisure in <random> District Foreign Delegation: +3 Politics in <random> District Riots: Structures in <random> District lose 1 level. Note: One stationed regiment can guard one structure. Strike: Structures of <random> trait do not produce income. Robbery: <random> District does not produce income. Benefactor: <random> Guild gains money [100*total guild ECL] Any additional ideas? @Book5: Nice idea with the festival miniquest but random events should be nothing more than an outside event that affect the guilds.
Book5 11-25-05, 08:56 PM	Scandal: -3 Politics in <random> District Planting Day: +3 Nature in all Districts. Harvest: +3 Nature in <random> District. (word?): -3 Nature in <random> District. - word = there is this one term, not plauge, not famine, wilt? no, blight? Maybe blight. You get the idea.
Ribking 11-25-05, 09:21 PM	- word = there is this one term, not plauge, not famine, wilt? no, blight? Maybe blight. You get the idea.Drought, maybe? :)
Guildlords 11-26-05, 10:06 AM	Updated. Prophet: +3 Faith in all Districts Market Day: +3 Economy in <random> District Holiday: -3 Economy in all Districts Circus: +3 Leisure in <random> District Foreign Delegation: +3 Politics in <random> District Scandal: -3 Politics in <random> District Drought: -3 Nature in all Districts Riots: Structures in <random> District lose 1 level. Note: Each stationed regiment can guard one structure. Strike: Structures of <random> trait do not produce income. Robbery: <random> District does not produce income. Benefactor: <random> Guild gains money [100*total guild ECL] Any additional ideas? PS: I'm not entirely happy that farming doesn't appear anywhere in the structures. Let's find a string for that. Nature should be the trait. Farmstead => Windmill => Silo Complex ? Is there anything REALLY big that can be used as the Level III Farming structure?
Book5 11-26-05, 10:32 AM	"Ranch" - Covers alot of ground and employ alot of people.
SauroGrenom 11-27-05, 01:09 PM	OK, Here are a few more ideas: Greater Gladius Trading Center +1 Economy in all controlled districts Cap for secondary traits is removed completely. 1 GAP: Decrease Construction Time of target structure by 1 week The Holy Pantheon Cathedral +1 Faith in all controlled districts 1 GAP: For one turn all guild regiments and members performing guild actions recieve a continious Prayer spell. OR 1 GAP: For one turn all guild divine spellcasters cast at +1CL(or all spells are metamagiced) OR 1 GAP: All Intrigue Actions are performed with a +5 divine bonus to the check. 1 GAP: create 1 Celestial/Fiendish regiment per GAP The Old Coliseum of Gladius +1 Leisure in all controlled districts All units controlled by the guild have Elite stats. 1 GAP: Guild The Oracle of Gladius +1 Education in all controlled districts +1 Guild Action 1 GAP: Prevent Covert or Intrigue Operation The Palace of Gladius +1 Politics in all controlled districts 1 GAP: Ignore one random event in a districts or ask the GM to reroll random event. 1 GAP: Alter District Trait by 1 for one week per GAP The Crime Syndicate +1 Crime in all controlled districts 1 GAP: Ignore 1 defensive upgrade on a Chapter House per GAP 1 GAP: Decrease EL of Covert Operation by 1 per GAP The Tree of Life +1 Nature in all controlled districts 1 GAP: For one turn, when defending against any assault or covert action, the opponents are assaulted in their travels and begin the action wounded 25% of their HP. 1 GAP: Animate one treant per GAP. Treants can be used freely but are removed at the end of this turn. Here's a list of other Unique Structures and their effects. I changed the Mythal a bit because there are already enough ways to get buffs on the troops. My proposal seems more unique. Central Bank of Gladius: The Guild is able to make debts up to [100*total guild ECL] gold but also pay 10% interests per week. The Guild can lend money to other guilds and gain 10% interests per week. City Portal Network: The Guild can build Chapter Houses even in Districts that are not adjactent to a District it controls. Armory of Gladius: In any battle with regiments, 1d6 official Gladius regiments come to aid the Guild. Mythal of Gladius: In any defensive battle, all regiments of the Guild are immune to hostile magic and psionics. Other Ideas for Uniques? Here some brainstorming: - Bathhouse - Sewer System - City Wells - Latrines - Aqueduct - City Guard Headquarter Let's find some Random Events so that they can be implemented soon. There is no limit to the amount of Random Events. Prophet: +3 Faith in all Districts Holiday: -3 Economy in all Districts Market Day: +3 Economy in <random> District Circus: +3 Leisure in <random> District Foreign Delegation: +3 Politics in <random> District Riots: Structures in <random> District lose 1 level. Note: One stationed regiment can guard one structure. Strike: Structures of <random> trait do not produce income. Robbery: <random> District does not produce income. Benefactor: <random> Guild gains money [100*total guild ECL] Any additional ideas? @Book5: Nice idea with the festival miniquest but random events should be nothing more than an outside event that affect the guilds.
Ayrynthyn 11-27-05, 03:35 PM	PS: I'm not entirely happy that farming doesn't appear anywhere in the structures. Let's find a string for that. Nature should be the trait. Farmstead => Windmill => Silo Complex ? Is there anything REALLY big that can be used as the Level III Farming structure? so this is where all the guild system discussion is going on. Now that EYE is mechanically back up to speed, i figure its time to toss my hat in over here. Re: Farm stuff how about... Farmstead => Plantation => Grange (Grange being an association of Farmers) *scrolls back a few pages to catch up on the discussion*
Caterane 11-28-05, 01:41 PM	I'll replace the first nature string [Preservation] with Grainfield => Farmstead => Plantation [Farming]. Ok, new approach to the Unique Structures. Let's call them Miscellaneous Structures, with some of them being unique, some not. Uniques are tagged with and can only exist once in the game. The other Miscellaneous Structures can be build once per district. Additionally, there's a [rural] and [urban] tag, meaning that it can only be build within the city, or outside. If no tag, no such restriction exists. The Miscellaneous Structures do not belong to a trait or string. Instead, they either have their own independent benefits, or a tied to a random event. Here some examples. Please help me to find some effects for them. [U]New Random Events: Famine [???] Plague [???] [Urban] Drought [???] [Rural] Highwaymen [???] [Rural] Burglary [???] [Urban] Miscellaneous Structures: Sewer System [protects district from Random Event: Plague] Aqueduct [protects district from Random Event: Drought] Granary [protects district from Random Event: Famine] Ranger Station [protects district from Random Event: Highwaymen] City Watch [protects district from Random Event: Burglary] Windmill [fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Famine] Bathhouse [fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Plague] District Well [fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Drought] Post Office [fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Holiday] The fixed incomes of these structures should vary. A District Well should be cheap but with low fixed income while a Post Office might be more expensive and lucrative. Any ideas on good price/income relations? @Sauro: The Tree of Life is still too militaristic. Same of the Cathedral. Nice idea though. What about that: Oracle let's you reroll a Random Event, Cathedral let's you ignore the neg.effects, and the Tree of Life can convert any nature-related Random event into another one (1 GAP) or prevent it altogether (2 GAP). What is your proposed effect for the Old Coliseum? PS: Prophet = Itinerant Preacher, now.
Guildlords 12-01-05, 08:42 PM	@SauroGrenom: I've encountered a problem with Structure Staff. If they do not cost upkeep, you can basically hire them in advance with your guild actions. If we say you can hire them only when the structure is complete, it is also unrealistic because then the structure would be inactive for another couple of weeks. So the Structure Staff has to be payed. Do you still have your calculation where the staff and the upkeep was seperated?
SauroGrenom 12-02-05, 12:07 AM	@SauroGrenom: I've encountered a problem with Structure Staff. If they do not cost upkeep, you can basically hire them in advance with your guild actions. If we say you can hire them only when the structure is complete, it is also unrealistic because then the structure would be inactive for another couple of weeks. So the Structure Staff has to be payed. Do you still have your calculation where the staff and the upkeep was seperated? I think I'm clear on what you want, and I can make you some charts in no time. First I need to have a clear understanding of how you want the system to work. I understand the problem, but not how two charts (for upkeep and staff) create the solution. A little explination would be appreciated and expediate the generation of the charts.
Caterane 12-02-05, 03:04 AM	Problem: The current PSI - with its few gp - could now hire 50 Staff in the next few weeks during which it can't use its GAPs anyway. Every guild could use unused surplus GAPs to hire staff. Over time, every guild can enmass unused staff at no penalty. A guild should be able to decide when to hire staff. Before the structure is complete but pay wages in advance, or during the construction time, or after the building is complete and risk structure inactivity for another few weeks. It also makes the 4th Education String worthwhile. The Staff wages should be a fraction of the current upkeep. It should probably be a fix number, like 1 Staff = 5 gold (?), and decrease the Structure Upkeep accordingly. Since you created the system, you might have a better idea. Another thing: Do you think that the 4th string is too cheap? Can it be that once the money is flowing, every guild can just buy the complete 4th string in passing? Since I'll be away till tuesday, here are some things that need to be done. Perhaps you can gather some ideas during that time. - Descriptions for Education, Nature, and Politics. <Guild Hall> - Special Structure Effects, Cost, and Income <Guild Hall> - Random Events <Guild Hall> - Unique Regiments <little idea so far> - The Morale system - The whole mass combat system
Book5 12-03-05, 05:06 PM	- Descriptions for Education, Nature, and Politics. <Guild Hall> - Special Structure Effects, Cost, and Income <Guild Hall> - Random Events <Guild Hall> - Unique Regiments <little idea so far> - The Morale system - The whole mass combat system If no one else does I will write up those descriptions - I woulda wrote all of them the other week but I figured other people prolly want credits too. Im not going near that calc. I understand the imperitive behind the random events, but "to what extent" are they supposed to impact the guilds? Should a guild's fortune be forever altered by the right action on the right week? Why are the uniques only singles - cant we come up with a "party" concept instead of singles? Morale system? tell me more.. oh boy... I though yall had that figured already.
SauroGrenom 12-05-05, 11:53 PM	OK, So I've got some time tonight and I've come up with the following: Problem: The current PSI - with its few gp (what! we're 3rd in total gold) - could now hire 50 Staff in the next few weeks during which it can't use its GAPs anyway. Every guild could use unused surplus GAPs to hire staff. Over time, every guild can enmass unused staff at no penalty. I gather you don't like this and would like to make that practice not a possibility or at least expensive to do. A guild should be able to decide when to hire staff. Before the structure is complete but pay wages in advance, or during the construction time, or after the building is complete and risk structure inactivity for another few weeks. It also makes the 4th Education String worthwhile. OK, so I think you are saying that the 4th education string would be worth while if the guilds were not able to hire staff outside of the typical construction time. That way the owners of the 4th education string are able to actually enjoy a benefit instead of having all guilds with a large pool of pre-hired staff on hand for the construction of any building. Example: Level 3 string 1 structure has 60 staff and the guild would need to spend 6 GAP to hire all the staff. If the guild owns an Academy, then it is able to hire all the staff with 3 GAP. I see now, you don't want the guild to spend a total of 3weeks building and an additional 3 weeks hiring staff before making money off the structure. OK, so I think you want us to create a system where staff are payed for indepandantly and that a guild must pay wages on pre-hired staff. That way a guild can hire staff in advance but needs to pay for it. OK, this problem has two easy solutions that I see right away: First we simply say that GAP spent building structures is also spend hiring staff and staff cannot be hired for structures not yet built or under construction. So in our example a guild can build a Church in 3 weeks construction time. While construction is taking place staff are also being hired. When the construction is completed the guild starts to pay full upkeep on the structure but cannot earn income untill the staff are all hired. Typically the hiring of staff continues for 3 more GAP. That is unless the guild also has an Academy. In this case the construction time is used to hire 60 staff and the structure is ready to start earning income after construction is complete. This system requires no change to the tables as they are. The effect is that the structures that increase hiring power are very valuable because they decrease or eliminate the dead weight time when a structure is costing upkeep but not earning income. In this system the staff are tied to the structure. So if the structure is captured, the new guild needs not hire all new staff and the old staff does not go sit on the steps of the old guildhouse waiting for a new assignment. Solution number 2 is to simply determine how much a staffer costs. 5gp/week sounds like a nice round number. Say that a guild can hire staffers without a place to put them and the guild can keep them on retainer by paying the wages of the staffers on retainer. Construction GAP are used for only that purpose only and additional GAP are needed to hire the staff. If a guildmaster has the foresight and extra cash to hire staffers in advance, then as soon as construction is complete the structure starts to make money. At this time the staffers move off the retainer list and there wages simply become a part of the structure upkeep. Again no need to change the tables. The Staff wages should be a fraction of the current upkeep. It should probably be a fix number, like 1 Staff = 5 gold (?), and decrease the Structure Upkeep accordingly. Since you created the system, you might have a better idea. Another thing: Do you think that the 4th string is too cheap? Can it be that once the money is flowing, every guild can just buy the complete 4th string in passing? No I don't think it's too cheap. I tried to make it a low cost low upkeep, low staff structure so that guilds can put something up rather quickly. Keep in mind that these structures also have the lowest efficiency, so the income is small. Since I'll be away till tuesday, here are some things that need to be done. Perhaps you can gather some ideas during that time. - Descriptions for Education, Nature, and Politics. <Guild Hall> Alright you have a commitment from me. I'll write education and political structures by sunday. Book5 can have the crime and nature ones. - Special Structure Effects, Cost, and Income <Guild Hall> - Random Events <Guild Hall> - Unique Regiments <little idea so far> What to do here all depends on what you want these "units" or "regiments" to be. The Unique Units from before occupy a slot in the guild membership rooms, but also fight for the guild. We should decide if we want them to be participants in guild battles only or also in other guild activities. How to make these single units a part of the guild battles is unclear. Perhaps you can have them add a particular bonus(HP, special ability, damage increase, movement boost, morale or some such) to the "Regiment" they are fighting with. If they are involved in other guild activities, perhaps their skills can be used. Perhaps they can serve as a "Cohort" on guild mini-quests or they can be treated as a mercenary that can only be hired by the guildmembers. - The Morale system The easiest idea I have is to invent a new kind of save for regiments. Make it a Morale Save and all regiments have the stat added to their stat-block. Decide on a few battle condictions where a regiment must succeed on a morale save. A few unique or irregular units could be able to cause a morale save in there targets. Units that fail a morale save drop one morale step. We can borrow morale levels from our beloved SRD. Shaken, Frightened, and Panicked. We can borrow the effects from the SRD exacitally. And perhaps we can invent one or two positive states that represent an above normal morale. Perhaps bold and heroic. These would have the opposite effects of the fearfull states. - The whole mass combat system I thought that it was going to be a post by turn thread with guildmasters running the battle and a pitlord. If that's too confusing, we could try and make something simpler.
Caterane 12-06-05, 11:12 AM	- I like the 5 gp/Staff the best. It's an elegant solution. - The Combat System is okay but not perfect. It will work for now though. If you have a better idea on how to do mass battles, tell me. - The Morale System can be a check that must be rolled anytime a regiment takes damage (Dc10+units lost) or some other event. If the morale check fails, the regiment becomes shaken, then frightenend and finally panicked. - We should put Unique units on hold for the time being until we have seen the combat system in action. - Note that the Crime Structures are already written up. I just have to add it. - Special Structures still need effects. Perhaps someone comes up with an idea for one of these structures as we go. They won't be needed anytime soon though. - Random Events need to be developed soon so that we can use them.
SauroGrenom 12-10-05, 06:36 PM	Bookstore The interior of this musty smelling store is dominated by towering bookshelves. Tablets, scrolls and books covering a wide variety of topics and time periods are represented on the shelves here. A withered old gnomish scribe runs the facility and is attended by a few relatively youthful apprentices. His gruff manner is disconcerting to some, but his merchandise is widely considered to be the best in the district. Library A smallish two story stone building houses the collection of books known as the local library. Sturdy oaken shelves piled high with books and scrolls are organized into section by topic and policed by gnarly curmudgeon of a woman. Her keen eye critically assesses each patron before admitting them into the vast collection she keeps and knows. Here books are not sold, but any citizen of the city with sufficient collateral may borrow books for a fortnight. Archives The archives are an impressive three story stone structure adorned with symbols and statues celebrating history, study and the collection of knowledge. Knowledge is accumulated here in many forms, not only written word. The spoils of numerous tombs, or ancient ruins are stored here and alternatively displayed to the public or studied by teams of scholars. Ancient arcane and indecipherable pictographs are popular with the public as well as the vast collection of taxidermy, notably displaying skinned trolls and a fearsome chimera suspended on wires from the ceiling. Great natural wonders such as the 3 foot red crystal known as the Singing Heartstone, which warbles an ever-changing melody caused by no magical power, are also collected, studied and displayed here. Alchemical Workshop This small low building is set partly into the earth with curved barred windows at the bottom of the exterior walls. All the necessary materials for typical alchemical preparations are kept here and put to good use. This workshop is the home and work of a halfling woman who is widely feared and respected for the quality of her preparations. Her alchemical and health needs are provided for by a small troop of grandchildren and extended family who facilitate her labors. Laboratory The long one story stone building is the only building on the block, because the locals all remember the last time that something went wrong in the Laboratory. There are still scorch marks on the outsides of the last window where the flames burst forth and poured like water over the adjacent buildings. The windows are all barred, and it is not uncommon to hear muffled explosions, flickering flames or even animal screeches issuing from the facility. Research Facility [Economy] The complex is dominated by a central tower with an observatory at its apex, and surrounding this tower is a collection of 4 lower stone buildings. A team of scholars, each with there own attendants, have constructed laboratories adjacent to each other. The various teams formulate plans and study various aspects of strange and poorly understood creatures and phenomena. Theoreticum This quaint place is located in the upper floor above a barber shop. The dark wood paneling and warm fireplace are nearly as comforting as the gravely friendly voice of the mostly retired proprietor of the bar. Here wizened scholars, and armchair politicians gather to smoke, drink and discuss the waning days of their lives and the current events of politics and the wider world. Ministry of Education A small wooden building bearing the great Seal of Gladius over the door houses the local chapter of the Ministry of Education. The politician/scholars who work here labor to appropriate the necessary funds for local educators and to ensure that those same educators pay the necessary fees and file the necessary forms to be accredited by the city government. Council of Mages A low and wide stone tower flying the flags of the district and the city of Galdius houses the local chapter of the Council of Mages. Eligible locals hold long meetings in a large conference hall where both the foolish and the well informed make longwinded speeches about the topics under discussion. The organization labors to leverage there collective power to set local policy and to influence city government. School This small one room red brick building houses a single wood burning stove and several grades taught by a single teacher. The building is positioned at the center of a strange geographical and meteorological anomaly. The youthful students who attend the school must carry there books uphill both ways and through year round waste deep snow in order to attend daily classes. Academy This more austere center of learning is where those of greater wealth or social status send their children to learn. The two story stone building is surrounded by wide green lawns, and a tall flagpole near the entry proudly flies national, city, district and school flags as long as students are in attendance. The staff here specialize in teaching a diverse collection of subjects including magical, divine, historical, natural, physical and mental studies. The local polo team are widely celebrated as the best in the district and nearly as famous of the champion rowing team. University At the University the most advanced experts of there various fields teach in depth and largely impractical subject matter to the young experts, adepts and aristocrats who attend their classes. The sprawling complex of building is arranged so that the "Sciences" are on the opposite side of the campus as the "Arts" in an effort to minimize the argument between instructors. The most celebrated faculty are widely known to speak with great authority and at great length about the significance of there own subject and the irrelevance of all others.
SauroGrenom 12-10-05, 07:56 PM	Double post. :(
SauroGrenom 12-10-05, 07:57 PM	Mayor House The mayor of the district resides in a public residence. The humble wooden structure is sufficient for the Mayor’s household and to accommodate parties of local aristocrats. Here the Mayor meets with supporters and critics to develop his strategy and influence that will direct the development of the district. Amphitheater The construction of the open-air public Amphitheater is a stone bowl and benches with a wooden dais and set of podiums. It is where most formal political debates are held. The audience of commoners allows those debating to instantly gauge the success and public support of their argument. Here most public elections are held, and the opinion of the masses on nearly any subject is gauged by show of hands. House of Lords When the local Aristocrats organized into a political body that collectively exercises their power, they also built a large two story stone structure to house there closed doors debates. Here the wealthy and connected discuss how to keep their power and increase it beyond that of their rivals. Deals are struck and policy made, and those here are only accountable to each other. Admission into the House of Lords can only be received by noble title or purchased by fabulous wealth. Magistrate The local Magistrate hears petty cases or disputes regarding the district law. The appointed Magistrate is often not above bribery or influence, so those who are well connected or wealthy frequently find themselves on the favorable side of the law. This is seldom due to interpretation of the law, but rather because the Magistrate’s busy schedule is sometimes unable to pass judgment on the most petty cases. Courthouse The imposing two story building houses several small audience halls where formal cases are reviewed and a multitude of smaller offices where legal motions and agreements are filed. Here experts present argument in a public forum and cases are decided by well respected Judges. Copies of all binding public contracts and land titles are kept on file here and available for public review. Supreme Court The august hall of the Supreme Court stands three stories tall. The majestic building stands atop a wide staircase and is adorned by statues and symbols of law and justice. Here the wisest legal scholars presided over the most ambiguous cases of district law and pronounce final judgment on these cases. Difficult moral decisions are often argued in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court and the decisions become widely discussed in the taverns and barbershops around the city. Speakers Corner One corner of a busy intersection has a raised dais and small podium. It is common for those who are passionate about any particular subject to choose this place as a platform for there announcements. Impromptu debates are commonly sparked in this way, and the resulting display is sometimes more entertaining than the competing street actors. Parish Hall Several affluent citizens of the district have banded together and formed a council that plans local development. They hold regular public meetings and have constructed a meeting hall to accommodate the public that wishes to participate in there discussions. The humble wooden building is distinguished by the fluttering district flag and the prominent advertisements for businesses owned by council members. Town Hall The activities of the local council have expanded beyond the ability of a simple audience hall to contain. Also the duties of the council members have increased beyond volunteer labor. With the formalized election of local political officials there is also a support staff and office located in the impressive three story Town Hall. The increase in political power has lead to a bevy of local ordinances and a large number of clerks are necessary to enforce those laws and explain them to the befuddled public. Jailhouse A long wooden building is divided into two rooms by a wall of bars with a gate. Here local beggars and drunks are deposited for the night and fined in the morning. The guards who keep watch here have a hammock, desk and rack of saps and poles typically used to subdue troublesome guests. Dungeon This low stone tower is commonly believed to have several underground levels. The facility is rather bleak looking from the outside, with its barred and shuttered windows and reinforced steep doors. The entrance and halls are perpetually guarded by armed and armored guards because the dungeons are used to imprison violent and dangerous criminals. Its cold damp hallways and slick spiral stairs have been the death of nearly as many prisoners as have ever been rehabilitated by its dark holes. Prison A large gray stone building looks much like a fortress. It is surrounded by a 10’ wall and the corners of the wall are topped by towers manned with snipers. Day and night low moans, high screams and maddened cackles are heard issuing from its bared windows. Here the permanently dangerous or specially powerful criminals are kept safely imprisoned for extended periods of time. A small regiment of soldiers patrol the halls and guard the walls of the facility at all times.
Book5 12-11-05, 10:03 PM	[Farming] Cropland A wide expanse of turf meant for the production of one type of food or another. Be it grain, fruit, tabacco, or any number of harvest crops. Most farmers practice crop rotations, and have for thousands of years. Switching one type of plant for another, allowing the soil to replinish the nutrients that were grown into the harvest. A half a dozen men with a couple of green wise thumbs are all it takes to turn an open field into the bounty of the earth. It takes hundreds and hundreds of acres of cropland to support the people of gladius, they speckel the hills around the city. Farmsteads Often run by families a farmstead cares for all the needs of life, save perhaps companionship. A compound that rears livestock, fields that grow crops, most likely a smithy and a sawmill too. Nothing industrial, but enough to be self sufficient. That said a farmstead is usually focused on a particular speciality. Perhaps beef cattle, perhaps riding griffons. Wine, and cheese are also common fineries available from a modest farmstead. The successful ranch or winery can employ quite a number of farmhands. Be it blacksmith, driver, or chef whatever the family cannot provide they can hire. Plantage A truely productive phenomena. A plantage is like a simple farm, multiplied one hundred fold. Dozens of workers harvest, plant, or process the plantage's produce daily. Most products made by a plantage are the same simple fruits and nuts, silk and cotton, or pigs and cows that would be grown and harvested on a smaller cropland. The difference being that a plantage is run with maximume efficiency to achieve maximume yeild. The most advanced technology in the world is put to use in the plantage. [Mining] Tunnel A claim, a secret cave that holds gold in its belly. Well, maybe silver. Diamonds, rubies, emeralds. Gems or precious minerals of any kind could be found down any dwarf hole. A couple fellows and your in buisness, somebody remember to bring a lantern. Dark and dank, and usually not well braced. What structure there is to this structure is usually a house-like hut near the cave entrance used for cleaning, examining, and storing the rewards of your hard labor. Mine Digging deep into the belly of the earth to draw out her treasure is a difficult and dirty task indeed. Teams of men build braces to hold the walls of the earth back while other teams of men move carts of ore up from the depths. Cave ins kill many of these men, but mithral must be mined. Adamantite, steel, coal, and iron must be found and brought to the city to be worked into weapons. Weapons and armor are not the only call for metal. Expensive carts have metal wheels, and even buildings now have reinforced walls. The miners of gladius bring these backbones of civilization to the city by the sweat of their brow. Quarry Where a mine is a cramped and spidery web of tunnels, a quarry is a wide open removal of the earth. Mostly used to harvest stone, quarries employ dozens of laborers to cut into large deposits of hard stone such as granit or marble. This stone is then transported back to the city to be transformed into the buildings that grace the streets. Some of the advanced quarries employ powerful wizards to use thier magic to expidiate the process of extracting stone from stone. [Forestry] Timberyard Usually a sawmill and a woodshack along the side of a river, a timberyard is where most wood ends up to be transformed into a something useful. Be it planks, logs, slats, or something more refined like a table. A timberyard is where a common gladosian would go for all their wood needs. If finished woodwork such as chairs and wardrobes are not made at the timberyard itself, they will most likely have an a established relationship with local carpenters. Logging Camp Wood comes from somewhere. The where is the forest, the who is the lumber jack. Dozens of burly laborers make their home together in the timberlands and bring down as many trees as their axes and saws will allow them to. The fallen trunks are then moved, usually by river, to places such as timberyards and lumbermills to be converted into useful goods. Logging camps are dangerous places. The men are fierce and their jobs are extreemly dangerous. Lumbermill A lumbermill is to a timberyard what a plantage is to a cropland. The same basic idea on a much grander scale. More wood, more workers, larger warehouses, and larger products. Carriges, boats, even buildings are manufactured out of wood though the services of a lumbermill. The mill itself is a humble warehouse for the storage of wood employing no more than a few dozen common hands, but the network of carpenters and craftsmen that make use of the mill are the true product of a lumbermill. [Beasts] Animal Kennels Livestock is the most productive forces in the economy. Horses pull carriges, dogs guard houses, birds carry messages, and who hasn't had a pet shocker lizard? A few handlers, often a family, are able to care for even up to a hundred animals at a time. Usually the animals are purebreed, though some, horse traders in particular, are known to buy an sell any animal that shows potential. The cost of caring for more than one kind of high quality animal prevents most kennels from breeding more than one kind of animal. Beast Stables Sometimes stables are meant for long term care of trained animals, and others are used as animal auction houses. Some serve both functions, and the largest stables see hundreds of animals move through them yearly. Noble families often keep stables for their horses and the varius other animals of the household. Several well trained hands under a watchful eye are needed to run a proper stables, and the food and care requirements of all of the different kinds of animals must be taken into consideration. Training Grounds A large structure that can easily house the several dozen workers, as well as the potentially hundreds of creatures. A training grounds produces the most highly trained animals imaginable. Horses that count are just the begging. Battle gryphons, psuedodragons, and spidereaters are not the product of your average ranch. Exotic beasts require far more time and effort to breed and train. While a grounds may focus on its herd of pegasi, the skilled handlers can train normal horses as well. Combat training for dogs, dancing lessons for bears, anything you need your creature to know.
Pitlords 12-12-05, 08:49 AM	Sauro+2°, Book+1°. Thanks a lot guys! Any additional ideas for Special Structures and Random Events?
SauroGrenom 12-12-05, 05:28 PM	Special Strucutres: Warrior's Training Hall: Provides regiments stationed here with a +2 strength or dex but costs an upkeep and will not generate any income. The Greater Gladius Record: Newspaper that uses its publicity to increases checks involving intriuge. Also generates a limited fixed income. Fishmonger's Warf: Trading center must be located in a district with water access, provides a +1economy but increases the severity and durration of a Plauge to double the normal effect. Beggar's Guild: The ever present and watchfull beggars fo the city organize into a loose guild of sorts. These dirty, starving but resourcefull people are able to help the guild with a +5 circumstance bonus on any one guild action (covert or intriuge) but at a cost of an increased crime trait and decreased economy and leasure traits in the district where the effect takes place. Rat Catcher: Protects the district from the Random event Plauge. Conscription Office: All Regiments in this district have 1 extra member(a little extra damage and HP), but if there is a Riot in this district, the Conscription Office is destroyed and the durration of and damage caused by the Riot is doubled. Random Events: Serious Weather Event: A district is unable to produce anything this week due to a serious weather event (blizzard, tropical storm, flooding). All structures forfit there earnings but still cost upkeep for one week. Catastrophic Weather Event: A district is devastated by a terrible weather event. A hurricane, or torrential rain or bitter cold winds blast the district. The district's structures are damaged (10% of original cost to repair them) and all surrounding districts are subject to serious weather. Untill structures are repaired, they continue to cost upkeep but are unable to generate income. Magical Disaster: If the district has an education structure, some kind of disaster takes place there. The structure requires repairs equal to 10% of total value and causes damage to surrounding areas equal to structure levelxdistrict traitx50gp. The structure requires upkeep untill it is repaired. Earthquake: A massive earthquake strikes the district. All structures in the district are unable to generate income for 1 week and are reduced by one level. All adjacent districts are unable to generate income for 1 week.
Guildlords 12-12-05, 05:55 PM	Thanks Sauro, good ideas. But what about the Random Events: Plague, Blight, Famine, Drought, Highwaymen, District Gang, and Holiday? We need effects for those. Random Events should be distinguishable. If every second one just stops income it becomes boring. The list of Random Events will be the same like for Character Structures and Land Grants. That means, it will be a long list and the individual event might not occur often enough to encourage building protections. I thought about having some effect last longer than a week, perhaps 1d4 weeks. That makes Special Structures that protect against Random Events more attractive. It is also more realistic because a Drought doesn't last a week only. Here's the link to the Special Structures and Random Events.
Guildlords 12-13-05, 01:42 PM	@Guildmasters: I've seen that some of you switch characters in and out, depending on their status but that is not allowed! It looks ridiculous that someone is a member in a guild, then the next week he's not, and the following weeks he's in again. It also makes auditing impossible. And finally, I'd like to base some Random Events on the current total guild member ECL but that's also difficult if it changes weekly. Bottom line: once someone is in the guild, he's in and cannot be thrown out lightly. You need permission from Guildlords. It will only be granted if there's a reason, like character is inactive for a long time, or character doesn't participate in the guild, and similar things but not: he sits out this week. Those who did this have to revert to the original guild-set up and adjust incomes accordingly. One thing I can see though is that this also prevents characters from going on Quests because they do not add to the guild income. Since this effect is not desirable and questing should rather be encouraged, from now on, Quests (incl Miniquests) do add to the incomes after the Quest is completed (not before). Calculate the final rewards in gold, and add the normal % as income to your guild. However, Campaigns do NOT add to the income. We should probably change Taxes along with it. Guild members do not pay Taxes to the Guild - ie spend some of their earnings to the guild - but go out and get money for the guild. This could be done by gathering tithes or donations from the citizens of Gladius, or the surrounding lands in case of a quest. Or it can be the money the roguish guild steals. Or it can be something else. A guild can determine what kind of income the Tax is; it's only for flavor though... the technical aspect behind it remains.
Guildlords 12-14-05, 09:55 AM	@all: I've heard some complaints that the seven guilds do not cover every character aspect. This is of course not possible as you cannot divide hundreds of ideas into only seven categories. Good psionic characters for example might have trouble finding a guild, or warriors that do not like the Warfare Alliance, etc However, the entry requirements are necessary else the diversity will be reduced. If every character can join everywhere, the special flavor or theme of the guild cannot be upholded. The EYE might end up with more wizards than the TAO. But here's a new idea: What about making rules for exceptions? With that I mean characters that do not fulfill the entry requirements nor are they ever going to fulfill them but still want to join a certain guild. I'd like to make a rule to make this possible. Here are the guidelines for that rule: - It must be more difficult to do than if a PC enters by fulfilling the entry requirements - It must stay an exception Any ideas?
Sunwolf 12-14-05, 11:29 AM	Ideas for entry to a guild without meeting all the requirments: 1) an additional mini-quest (or quest for 3 requirements) is required for each missed requirement in addition to the normal entry miniquest. 2) must beat a guild member that is more powerful than themselves (or one the the top 3 successful members of the guild) in the arena
NiQil 12-14-05, 11:36 AM	I was thinking sorta along the same lines as Sunwolf. I would require a miniquest to join, and then an additional miniquest for each aspect of the membership requirements that the character does not meet in order for them to become full members. So, as an example, if a character were to try and get into the Watchful Eye, and met the requirement for the non-evil alignment, but did not have 5 ranks in Hide, Move Silently or Gather info, then that character would need to miniquest to join, and then miniquest to meet the requirement of having 5 ranks in one of those three skills, for a total of 2 miniquests. These also could both be accomplished by doing one quest, with the quest award being to meet the guild requirements and gain membership (so that they do not get to pick a quest treasure goal...all treasure is random. The quest goal is the guild requirements).
Guildlords 12-14-05, 12:26 PM	Way too simple. I posted above that it must be an exception. If I can choose wether I spend 5 ranks into appraise or do a second miniquest, you can guess what's better... If everyone can join with 2 Miniquest we can just forget about entry requirements at all. It would also open the EHTC to paladins and the CEF to fiends. For starters, a character must still fulfill the top part of the requirements (the (1) requirement). Then, we can say that every guild has a certain number of slots which it can fill with characters that do not fulfill the requirements. Let's say a guild starts with one slot but can expand it either by building certain special structures, or by building a special room. These two requirements could be the base from which we start our discussion about cross entries.
NiQil 12-14-05, 12:32 PM	Way too simple. I posted above that it must be an exception. If I can choose wether I spend 5 ranks into appraise or do a second miniquest, you can guess what's better... If everyone can join with 2 Miniquest we can just forget about entry requirements at all. It would also open the EHTC to paladins and the CEF to fiends. For starters, a character must still fulfill the top part of the requirements (the (1) requirement). Then, we can say that every guild has a certain number of slots which it can fill with characters that do not fulfill the requirements. Let's say a guild starts with one slot but can expand it either by building certain special structures, or by building a special room. These two requirements could be the base from which we start our discussion about cross entries. In all honesty....I think it might be best to take a wait and see attitude with regard to excepting characters into guilds. The reason I say this is that the guilds just started, and haven't even made enough money yet to be able to purchase the structures necessary to support all of the characters wanting to join (in most cases). I would say that maybe this topic should be shelved for a month or two until the guilds gather some momentum, so that we can see if there are even enough characters interested in getting into a guild who would require an exception to think about making rules for something like that. Lets get the characters in who meet the requirements first, and then see where we stand.
Guildlords 12-14-05, 12:50 PM	I think this here is a good and simple solution: Training Area: This room is where new guild members train for whatever the guild membership requires which can of course vary with the guild. While a combat-oriented guild might equip this room with racks, padded dummies and archery targets, the training area of a wizard or rogue guild will look completely differently. A professional trainer - usually a veteran with some reputation - instructs the new recruits so that they can sooner or later join the cause of the guild. Additionally, the training area serves to produce highly specialized commanders of the regiments. Effect: allows cross-entry for 1 PC Staff: 1 trainer Size: 50x50 feet Price: 2000 gold Upkeep: 24 gold per week Developments: Sergeant, Luitenant, Captain, General Special: For each additional cross-entry PC, a guild has to hire another trainer and the upkeep doubles each time. Note: Cross-entry means a PC that only fulfills the first requirement.
Guildlords 12-16-05, 07:33 AM	@all: Browsing through the EYE I found something cool: Character Hooks. Every character provides one or more hooks that strengthen his background and also makes it easier for the guild to imagine him and base miniquests on it. I think it would benefit the roleplaying in general if we just make an additional roleplay entry requirement that says that your character has to provide the guild with at least one character hook. Thoughts? Secondly, I thought about a way to control and audit guilds. That would require to link the fights where the tax was earned to the guild thread. Additionally, we would have to have Guildmasters require to make posts about their weekly GAPs, purchases, and character entries/drop-outs in a seperate thread (probably the Guild Hall). Would there be any additional thing necessary to keep guilds controlable, or perhaps you know of a simpler way of doing this? Let me know.
SauroGrenom 12-16-05, 01:04 PM	Here are a couple ideas: Book Burning: -3 Education in all Districts Visiting Scholar: +3 Education in all Districts or Highwaymen: Also increases crime trait of adjacent districts by one. Strike: After the strike is resolved, the district's political trait increases by one for 1d3 weeks. Gangs: Also Gangs cause a -1 decrease in in the economy and education traits of all districts that border the aflicted district. Drought: Upkeep costs of all structures in the district are increased by 10% with an increase of 10% with each additonal week to a max of 50%. Blight: All level1 structures are unable to generate income for the durration of the blight. Famine: Wages of all regiments is doubled for the durration of the event. Plague: The net income earned by all structures in the aflicted district is decreased by 50%
SauroGrenom 12-16-05, 02:45 PM	Here are a few Unique Structures: Order of ____ (Psions, Thieves, Warriors, Wizards, Guards, Druids, Angles): Each Guild can found an appropreat Order and with that the guild members gain access to a collection of mercenaries that can only be hired by the guild. OR The Order generates a fixed income and also can grant a +5circumstance bonus to Intriuge actions. Fireside Salesman: The guild has a representative who can be activated with one GAP. When a structure owned by another guild is damaged or impared by a guild action or random event, the guild can negotiate a purchase. The guild must have a chapter house in the district, but if so they can buy the structure for half price. Shrine of the Harvester: The guild builds a shrine where homige and sacrifices are made to the Harvester. This structure destabalizes the Nexus in the region and there is a chance(50%) that any who are killed in the district(Assault Actions) are lost as if killed in the district. Warding Symbols: There are some magical symbol traps that protect the guildhall or chapter house from covert attack.
Guildmaster (EYE) 12-16-05, 05:31 PM	Couple questions... @SauroGrenom: I've encountered a problem with Structure Staff. If they do not cost upkeep, you can basically hire them in advance with your guild actions. If we say you can hire them only when the structure is complete, it is also unrealistic because then the structure would be inactive for another couple of weeks. So the Structure Staff has to be payed. Do you still have your calculation where the staff and the upkeep was seperated? ...did anything ever become of this. I've combed through the Guild rules and Guildhalls thread looking for something on it and couldnt find anything specific, although my head hasnt been screwed on right the last few weeks with some work crapola. @Guildmasters: I've seen that some of you switch characters in and out, depending on their status but that is not allowed! ... Bottom line: once someone is in the guild, he's in and cannot be thrown out lightly. You need permission from Guildlords. It will only be granted if there's a reason, like character is inactive for a long time, or character doesn't participate in the guild, and similar things but not: he sits out this week. ... I haven't been guilty of exactly this, but, my roster has seen significant changes over the last few weeks. Have you PM'd those Guild Masters you have deemed in violation or posted such in their embassies? I see the post in the embassy now, with out any specificity. (selfishly, I’m mostly concerned with myself here but eh ;)) see the spoiler for details... When it comes to the rosters, i've been trying to use an unbiased common sense, and truthfull my focus was quantity vs qualtity. With the delayed start we got with the EYE i felt that getting the names on there was the most pressing. As members have PMd me, i added them to the Roster. As members actually started participating in the thread i adjusted. In my case Rayos and Saffron (ECL 8 & 7) were on my roster. Saffron had participated in the thread, but had not participated in the Arena as a guild memeber. he... she actually... offered up her spot to a ECL 3 because of the financial impact. Rayos had neither participated in the thread, nor the arena as a guild memeber. In both cases i didnt have any qualm shifting them from the "memeber" roster to "member in the wings". Book5's Ba'al character was a complete mess and got hammered in the Prison thread. He's retireing that character and generating a new which opened another slot, although this time a bit grayer (Since Ba'al had been a heavy participant and had participated in the Arena as a member). Since i had an ECL 5 Member waiting (Methos), i schmoozed him in the now vacant spot. All of this occuring without Miniquests of any sort. My members in the wings are currently Rayos and Saffron. Both will mini quest for membership well prior to our aquisition of Fancy Living Space... if i need to undo any of this, please let me know. However, the entry requirements are necessary else the diversity will be reduced. If every character can join everywhere, the special flavor or theme of the guild cannot be upholded. The EYE might end up with more wizards than the TAO. But here's a new idea: What about making rules for exceptions? With that I mean characters that do not fulfill the entry requirements nor are they ever going to fulfill them but still want to join a certain guild. I'd like to make a rule to make this possible. Them durn wizards. Always hangin around, askin if they can carry our books and stuff. Askin "just how sneaky do i have to be, to be as cool as you". You'd expect more with the whole "phenominal cosmic power" thing goin on... ;) Seriously though. Why not open the flood gates. Remove all the restrictions once all the guilds get their 5 "core" memebers. With these core memebers in place, the diversity and "feel" you're going for has a soild base. Grow these guilds organically from there and see where it heads. Typically Birds of a feather, and all of that, but you may have guys out there with characters that dont fit any of the requriements that they'd really love to RP a bit with. The analagy i can make here is Doc Holiday and the Earps. Any way, if your looking to quantify exceptions, perhaps something like "3 week quest - with no less than 3 members of the guild in question" or some such... just thinkin out loud here. I'll Probably hate this idea when i get home tonight.
Guildlords 12-17-05, 01:17 PM	@Sauro: I've added some of your ideas. As for the Blight, Drought, Famine, and Plague, I don't want them to be just another numerical effect but something more special. There are already more than enough events that affect incomes. First of all, they should last more than one week so that structures that protect against them are worthwhile. Then they should affect all guilds similarily, not just adding +1 to a certain trait. Perhaps Famine kills regiments and staff? Something like that. - We also need more beneficial events. [EDIT: added Breakthrough, Financial Wizard, Elite Troops, Extra Room, and Streak of Luck] - Do you think the distinction between rural and urban is a good one? There are only 3 rural regions, 4 if you count Gladius Park. [EDIT: Gladius Park counts as rural; and the distinction is a good one because we can later say all Land Grants and Personal Structures from the Economy System are affected by rural events. That way, rural events are more for player characters and urban ones mostly affecting guilds.] - I'd like to make guards as guild staff more attractive. They should not be required for a room but should have a different effect; the more the better. So every guild can decide how many guards they want to hire and support in their base of operations. Any idea? [EDIT: Perhaps we could say that guards are added for free to the Encounter in case of an assault. That would also allow us to place guards into structures. In effect, if the Guild is subject to a Guild Operation, the guards help (Regiments cannot do that as it is now; only against troop attacks).] - Shrine of the Harvester LOL I don't understand the purpose though. You mean characters who die are really dead? That's too tough. - The Orders are also a good idea. Every guild can found one Order - a sub-organization within their guild - that has a cool effect. Here too: no fixed income or such things; we've enough of them already. Perhaps an Order can be designed by the guild according to some guidelines. - Similarily, a guild could produce a special unique unit with some effort. Examples would be Prophet (Faith), Tycoon (Economy), Sage (Education), Führer (Politics) LOL j/k :D I mean Prince... and so on. They could be used in some way. - I've also added movable +1 Trait givers. I have only 2 so far: Relic for Faith and Circus for Leisure. @all: I've increased the effects of the Storage and Producation Strings. We need to begin to make guild auditing possible before it's too late to implement. Here are my thoughts on how we could do it: - Individual links to each fight in the Accounting Section like that: Barthleby+287 (link doesn't work). - Guild Actions must be by the Guildmasters posted somewhere. Probably in the Guild Hall. If they buy a Structure or hire a regiment, they have to link that purchase too. This is also required for anything else, like throwing someone out or getting a new member, etc. - Random Events will be included in the Pairings Post. Guilds have to link that Post each week. Would require Guildmasters to make a few links each week but they have the whole week to do that and they gain a credit for their job after all. Comments on that? Oh and finally, I am considering to make a penalty for a guild if the violations are not fixed after one week. Please make sure you correct everything and write me a PM.
Book5 12-17-05, 04:00 PM	Them durn wizards. Always hangin around, askin if they can carry our books and stuff. Askin "just how sneaky do i have to be, to be as cool as you". You'd expect more with the whole "phenominal cosmic power" thing goin on... ;) Seriously though. ... What if the skill and ability reqs stayed but they were converted into dice rolls "tests" if you will.. that need to be made durring the guild initiation (ooh instead of "mini-quest to join guild" guild initiation? initialization? ... :shifty: enrollment? :nonono: But as I was saying, a character that wanted to join the EYE.. has to prove themselves capable via the measure (by any means). So the EYE enrollments require move silent, hide, and gather info/kslocal checks. The TAO ... well you have to cast an arcane spell, and say something clever regarding magic (ksarcana). I like the prohibitive alignment associations, though... what if the member's alignment changes? Are they immeadietly expelled? oh, and Ba'al "of the Grave" will become "the Reborn" later.. after all Lord & Taning is done. Just clarifying he aint gone by any means.. he may look somewhat different however... new clothes.. etc. "same personality - will include his first EYE fight in his history without rewards applied ;) @All - Dracazar deserves .. praise!!!! :bow: :bow: :bow: I want to send him a christmas present! :cheer: That php driven map tool!! its.. wow! I did an entire lvl 7 fight in ... ~!3 hours!~ .. some of you may say "oooh thats no biggie" others ... know me. [quote=guildlords] - We also need more beneficial events. Benefactor: Random guild recieves a one time economic boost (x?gp) Nice weather: All construction and building upkeep is reduced Quiet nights: reduce crime... increase.. ?? faith? Cheerful workers: reduce cost of staff upkeep Media Scandal: Guild members may challenge other guild members at no credit cost for next week. Publicity Stunt: Guild makes double income off of quests. Fight Night: Guilds make +2% profit off of random arena fights. :shifty: christmas: A guild master may give a single item of no more than 100gp to all members. The guild has to pay for this. - Do you think the distinction between rural and urban is a good one? There are only 3 rural regions, 4 if you count Gladius Park. Gladius Park is like a grey area, this is the "city of gladius" so more urban than rural is good. Rural areas dont tend to .. have alot of people or buildings .. hence the rural appelation. What if there is a structure that represents land well and far outside of the city? "must have post office to purchase" or something? - I'd like to make guards as guild staff more attractive. They should not be required for a room but should have a different effect; the more the better. So every guild can decide how many guards they want to hire and support in their base of operations. Any idea? Thieves. If people come into the guild and take things... then guards will become amazingly "attractive." Say there is an special "undefended" random event table. it has seven entries: Arson, Burglary, Embezlment, Infestation, Sabotage, Squatters, and Vandalism. Something bad will happen if you dont have guards... "vandalism" is the light one.. 30gp to clean each incident of vandalism. Basically make it "real life" if you dont pay for guards for your buildings.. even just one. You will pay for it in the long run. I think the guild house proper should be exempt though. - Shrine of the Harvester LOL I don't understand the purpose though. You mean characters who die are really dead? That's too tough. - The Orders are also a good idea. Every guild can found one Order - a sub-organization within their guild - that has a cool effect. Here too: no fixed income or such things; we've enough of them already. Perhaps an Order can be designed by the guild according to some guidelines. - Similarily, a guild could produce a special unique unit with some effort. Examples would be Prophet (Faith), Tycoon (Economy), Sage (Education), Führer (Politics) LOL j/k I mean Prince... and so on. They could be used in some way. [quote=Saruogenom] Order of ____ (Psions, Thieves, Warriors, Wizards, Guards, Druids, Angles, anything, elves, house tutenhornen): I like this Idea!! Makes perfect sense with what the guilds. I dont think they should be restricted to just one.. I think like most of these great ideas there should be structures. You need a- "chapter house: Provides a meeting place for a guild and its affiliate organizations" - to maintain more than one sub-group. Hmm, how about more than three? Not really an arena breaker rule, just a "this fighter was meant to work with a wizard - he is "subtaoptimized." Anyone can make a merc and anyone can quote a restricted merc and get a credit for submitting a minorly changed (how about the race?) version into their restricted guild. This however.. could change things. Sub-Guild mercs have a tag on them, of course, that links to their parent organization. That linkied page is on the parent organization is on the parent guild's thread. The parent guild can there pay to apply blanket benifits to those mercs. "All knights of the red lion have 2 cure mod potions in addition to their listed equipment due to bribing the arena officials.. or something :D" - so the subguild mercs are "better" for guild members than they are for non-guild members. Mega cool.. balanced? What about just reducing the cost to hire a merc for the matching guild members? OOH! If we do that there should be one "nonguild" subguild - that grants the same benifit to !!!! Hey, actually I was rambling cause I pulled up this reply right before the boards went down for the prune, but yeah, ideas :D
SauroGrenom 12-29-05, 01:03 AM	So where are we now? What still needs work, and what is finalized. An update from GuildLords would be appreciated.
Guildlords 01-06-06, 06:31 PM	Here's what we still need to develop. The Guilds are running and we should finish the system soon. Guards: They still have no purpose. The other staff is required to operate rooms. Guards however have no rooms assigned and I don't want them to be just another kind of staff. They should have a beneficial or preventative effect for the guild. Like the more guards, the more secure, or the more xxx, ... A guild should be able to decide wether and how many guards it wants to employ. Special Structures: Some of these structures need an income, staff, upkeep, etc. It must be in line with their effect. The Gladius Weekly needs a GAP benefit, and we need a special structure that grants +1 to Covert Operations (compare to Gladius Weekly and Armory of Gladius). Finally, like the circus and the relic, we need such movable structures for the other traits too. Regiments: This is the biggest construction site. Everything posted is just an idea and I am willing to change it completely if someone proposes a better solution to the NPC Warfare of the guilds. Battlefield Maps: All battlefields need to be drawn on maps. We should finish the massbattle system first though. Random Events: Drought, Plague, and Famine needs to be determined. Then the random event system can start. It should not be another +x to trait y. Something cool and interesting it should be. And it should last more than one week to make the protective structures worthwhile.
Book5 01-06-06, 11:35 PM	Highwaymen: All Structures in <random> rural District do not produce income for one or more weeks. The Highwaymen persist until driven away by guild members (??)1. A Ranger Station protects a District against this Random Event. District Gang: All Structures in <random> urban District do not produce income for one week. The District Gang persist until driven away by guild members (??)2. A City Watch protects a District against this Random Event. Until we have the warfare system setup and running - charge a GAP to get rid of them. After the warfare - treat it as a special assault opperation (special in that it doesnt involve another guild). We can even write up the Highwaymen and the District gangs as mercs too! Drought: [???] Famine: [???] Tag structures as to whether they require food or water - durring either event = You must pay xxx standard shipping fee per structure (maybe just for the guild? could that be affected by alliances? needs a hammering). Without the shipping fee those structures do not produce any income (and still require staff upkeep) for the durration of the event. The tavern? both. The foundry? Just water. Gardens? water. Zoo? Both. Pretty easy. Library? BookS dont need food ;) ... and water? :eek: Also if the stucture needs both .. and we're unlucky enough to be in both famine and drought then the Taverns and Zoos would have to ship water and food to the structures. Perhaps a sort of special structure? "An addition" to an already standing one? Store House: Allows (1? 2? all? ) structure(s) to store food and avoid shipping fees durring a famine. Water Well: Allows (1? 2? all? ) structure(s) to access water and avoid shipping fees durring a drought. Plague: THISA one :D (I popped my head over my cube wall like a gopher) "What does a plauge do? Ya know to a city?" his responce ... "depends on the plauge" SO Plauge: <random> pestilence of <random> severity reduces the effectiveness or compleatly prevents regiments from being deployed throughout the city. All guilds are effected equally. I think 3 levels (mild = effected regiment suffers -1 to rolls until cured) (medi = regiment is unavailable until cured) (majo - regiment is unavailable and will die unless the plauge is cured in 3/4 weeks) Cures = Require a guild action to end plauge. The action represents the guild members donating their spare time and resources to treat the infected. So it isnt an "operation" just an action. Plauge Ideas - A "normals" plauge - An animal plauge - Elf plauge (any/every race type actually) - An arcane plauge - A psionic plauge - An outsiders plauge (no "divine" plauge use this instead) - Magical "curse" plauge (quirky/specific.. ?) - A plant type plauge.. wait there are no plant regiments :nonono: - others? "inventive" ??? "cool" Guards... Book5 starts rambling what about a "readiness level" based both on the number of guards and the guild warfare history. Similar to powerlevel only .. it.. um.. has consequences.. of some sort. :blink: Arson, Burglary, Embezlment, Sabotage, Squatters, and Vandalism. Other than assualt that pretty much covers the majority of possible consequences of not having guards on buildings. Embezelment is, of course, your own employees screwing you over, but the rest could come from internal or external sources. My initial idea was to have each stucture that is unguarded roll on a table for one of those events.. but that seems like an excessive number of rolls. Perhaps use the <random> guild <random> structure is damaged? :thinks: Hmm, in another direction entierly... What if guards effected the crime level in an area? Simply having enough guards could shut down structures like the drug dealers. :thinks: but "guards" are also enforcers.. what if "guards" were replaced with two types? Security: Reduce the crime level by some algebraic function based off the number of guards. Enforcers: Increase the crime level by the same algebraic function.. only in reverse. Basically you have watchers (reduce crime) and thugs (increase crime). Hmm :thinks: actually "regiments" are usually a source of quite a bit of crime.. so maybe instead of.. :lightbulb: Actually - Guards should be on the regiments list! "the cheap list." Buy em in packs of 10 or 12 or whatever and then "allocate them" to the varius buildings. AND allow them to enter into the guild assualt and intruige operations based off the guildlord's allocation. Like mercs, that can also be fielded as regiments. But their use is limited by how they have been allocated. They cant be used as regiments and mercs at the same time. They cant merc more than once per week. So if the guards are part of the offense for one operation - they can't be part of the defense for another.. thats why you always need more guards! Just a clarification on my presumptions - General staff is "semi-invulnerable" in that there is no means of taking them out and even if their was you could replace them immeadietly next week by just paying their salary to a "new hire". Regiments are like "guild-expendables" if they die in the field.. they dead.. you have to pay for new ones. Their not on salary - they are on upkeep like buildings. Guards would be bought, upkeeped, and expended as regiments - but could serve multiple purposes.. how about acting as the staff for a stucture when you dont have the funds to upkeep the regular staff? Mercs? and field units? ok - I think that covers those two thoughts (does the plauge count as a third? ).
Book5 01-06-06, 11:45 PM	Another thing, I thought that only arena battles got the benifit of the nimbus recovery.. quest.. champaigns.. operations.. anything but an arena battle is potentially lethal. - Shrine of the Harvester LOL I don't understand the purpose though. You mean characters who die are really dead? That's too tough. :confused: How about this. Shrine of the Harvester: A holy shrine that wraps the structure in the nimbus allowing all willing creatures to be resurected automatically at dawn the next day. sorta "If he is not appeased... the harvester will come for you" kinda thing.
Guildlords 01-08-06, 09:02 AM	Wow, Book5! There are some really great ideas! I'll try to respond to everything. Highwaymen: All Structures in <random> rural District do not produce income for one or more weeks. The Highwaymen persist until driven away by guild members (??)1. A Ranger Station protects a District against this Random Event. District Gang: All Structures in <random> urban District do not produce income for one week. The District Gang persist until driven away by guild members (??)2. A City Watch protects a District against this Random Event. Until we have the warfare system setup and running - charge a GAP to get rid of them. After the warfare - treat it as a special assault opperation (special in that it doesnt involve another guild). We can even write up the Highwaymen and the District gangs as mercs too! The guilds cannot make use of their GAPs very often in this beginning phase so it is no problem for them to chase away the gang or waylayers. An Operation is what I thought about too but the problem is that we have to determine the level of the gang. If it is too low, it won't be a problem to chase them off. What if I roll the EL of that event along with it. For example, I roll 1d10+2 which is the strength of the highwaymen. EL 10 probably requires the combined effort of the guilds as they're now. Is there a way to base that EL roll on? Perhaps the levels of (all) structures in that district could be the modifier to the gang. 1d10+Structure levels? So in the late game when the guilds have high level PCs at their disposal, they also have many structures there which evens it out. Drought: [???] Famine: [???] Tag structures as to whether they require food or water - durring either event = You must pay xxx standard shipping fee per structure (maybe just for the guild? could that be affected by alliances? needs a hammering). Without the shipping fee those structures do not produce any income (and still require staff upkeep) for the durration of the event. The tavern? both. The foundry? Just water. Gardens? water. Zoo? Both. Pretty easy. Library? BookS dont need food ... and water? Also if the stucture needs both .. and we're unlucky enough to be in both famine and drought then the Taverns and Zoos would have to ship water and food to the structures. Perhaps a sort of special structure? "An addition" to an already standing one? Store House: Allows (1? 2? all? ) structure(s) to store food and avoid shipping fees durring a famine. Water Well: Allows (1? 2? all? ) structure(s) to access water and avoid shipping fees durring a drought. That's a good idea but it would require an additional tag and it must be equally divided. I don't like the upprice thing; it comes down to Famine/Drough=pay double upkeep and this is too boring. What if structures that are not protected fall inactive as the government forbids to sustain unnecessary structures with precious food/drink while the population suffers? That means Famine/Drought = Inactive. Not too hot either. Oh and we already have two Special Structures that protect against Famine and Drought. Sewer System: protects Guild from Random Event: Plague Aqueduct: protects Guild from Random Event: Drought Granary: protects Guild from Random Event: Famine Ranger Station: protects district from Random Event: Highwaymen City Watch: protects district from Random Event: District Gang Windmill: fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Famine Hospital: fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Plague Water Tower: fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Drought Plague: THISA one (I popped my head over my cube wall like a gopher) "What does a plauge do? Ya know to a city?" his responce ... "depends on the plauge" SO Plauge: <random> pestilence of <random> severity reduces the effectiveness or compleatly prevents regiments from being deployed throughout the city. All guilds are effected equally. I think 3 levels (mild = effected regiment suffers -1 to rolls until cured) (medi = regiment is unavailable until cured) (majo - regiment is unavailable and will die unless the plauge is cured in 3/4 weeks) Cures = Require a guild action to end plauge. The action represents the guild members donating their spare time and resources to treat the infected. So it isnt an "operation" just an action. Plauge Ideas - A "normals" plauge - An animal plauge - Elf plauge (any/every race type actually) - An arcane plauge - A psionic plauge - An outsiders plauge (no "divine" plauge use this instead) - Magical "curse" plauge (quirky/specific.. ?) - A plant type plauge.. wait there are no plant regiments - others? "inventive" ??? "cool" Different Plagues. This is a really cool idea! I would not restrict it to regiments but all living beings (Regiments and Staff). A plague kills people at a certain rate (mild, serious, critical; will be rolled along with the plague) and each district is affected that isn't protected by a Sewer System. Any idea for a death rate for mild/serious/critical? We can also create different plagues. Plagues are divided into the seven traits like Blight (Nature), Magical Curse (Education), and so on but the problem here is that it would most certainly only damage one guild and leaves the others unharmed. It also makes the event of plague less dangerous because IF it is rolled (1 in 30 chance) it only affects your guild 1 in 7 times. Guards... Book5 starts rambling what about a "readiness level" based both on the number of guards and the guild warfare history. Similar to powerlevel only .. it.. um.. has consequences.. of some sort. Arson, Burglary, Embezlment, Sabotage, Squatters, and Vandalism. Other than assualt that pretty much covers the majority of possible consequences of not having guards on buildings. Embezelment is, of course, your own employees screwing you over, but the rest could come from internal or external sources. My initial idea was to have each stucture that is unguarded roll on a table for one of those events.. but that seems like an excessive number of rolls. Perhaps use the <random> guild <random> structure is damaged? The "Readyness Level" is a supercool idea but let's call it "Protection Level" and it indicates how well guarded a guild is. Regiments do not protect structures or the base, and PCs have enough to do already so guarding a guild is up to guards. Based on that idea, we can now create some actions that other guilds can do (the ones you've mentioned) but they can only be prevented by guards. We could put your examples into the Covert and Intrigue Operation categories (arson and burglary are already there). We can also include them into Random Events because not only guilds can do vandalism or create embezzlement. The Bucket Brigade Chapter House upgrade would then not make a guild immune to arson but provide a bonus only. As for the mechanics, it should be variable. You should not be able to tell that if you have 9 guards you are immune to vandalism but you could get a modifier of +9 to a certain roll we make. That let's guilds decide how many guards they want to employ on their own. I don't like the idea of guards being cheap regiments. Regiments and Staff... that's a divide I want to keep. What we could do however is that for every 10 Guards you have you gain 1 Guard Regiment in a defensive battle (guards are weaker than soldiers). Shrine of the Harvester: A holy shrine that wraps the structure in the nimbus allowing all willing creatures to be resurected automatically at dawn the next day. sorta "If he is not appeased... the harvester will come for you" kinda thing. And what good does it bring that they are ressurected? Besides, the Harvester's aim is to destroy the Nimbus that prevents souls coming to his realm. Great Work Book5!!!!!
Erithmu 01-08-06, 11:53 AM	Seriously though. Why not open the flood gates. Remove all the restrictions once all the guilds get their 5 "core" memebers. With these core memebers in place, the diversity and "feel" you're going for has a soild base. Grow these guilds organically from there and see where it heads. Typically Birds of a feather, and all of that, but you may have guys out there with characters that dont fit any of the requriements that they'd really love to RP a bit with. The analagy i can make here is Doc Holiday and the Earps. Any way, if your looking to quantify exceptions, perhaps something like "3 week quest - with no less than 3 members of the guild in question" or some such... just thinkin out loud here. I'll Probably hate this idea when i get home tonight. I think the long quest would be a good entry requirement but you could also require specilized housing for them to make taxes. Something like a 'non-trained' house. The specifics of what it would be could change but something like additional arcane wards for fighters in the TAO or sound dampening walls in the EYE. It could also be something like an 'add-on' to exsisting living quarters something like a flat 1000gp or 2000gp rate. This would allow for the rooms to still have the same feel and atmosphere while protecting those members who are not 'trained' in the guild arts.
King Uther 01-13-06, 01:31 PM	This is a friendly discussion about what should be allowed prior to combat in the arena. It came up because of an issue with going prone prior to combat and whether or not that should be a pre-buff condition. It is my understanding that no actions are allowed to be taken prior to combat that you could not have done 16 hours before or isn't part of your natural physical nature. Things that are currently allowed prior to rolling initiative: Starting Mounted Starting hovering if a flyer Starting in any square Starting with anything you want in your hands CHanging equipment with what you have at home Things that are on the fence: Starting Prone Things not allowed: Quickened spells Swift action Powers My argument to start the debate is this: If you are allowed to start in any square, with any expendable you want, and change out equipment at home(much less start prone), then why can't you use quickened spells? It's all the same type of action. My solution, despite being annoying: You can start mounted because you were already mounted before entering the arena. You can start flying as a flyer because you're always flying Everything else qualifies as a pre-buff, or something similar and therefore not allowed without it first being listed on the sheet. Edit: Another solution: Leave everything as is, despite the logic, merely because it is easy and already the way things are. If this is what everyone wants, then I propose going prone be allowed.
Cerebus13 01-13-06, 01:43 PM	This is a friendly discussion about what should be allowed prior to combat in the arena. It came up because of an issue with going prone prior to combat and whether or not that should be a pre-buff condition. It is my understanding that no actions are allowed to be taken prior to combat that you could not have done 16 hours before or isn't part of your natural physical nature. Things that are currently allowed prior to rolling initiative: Starting Mounted Starting hovering if a flyer Starting in any square Starting with anything you want in your hands CHanging equipment with what you have at home Things that are on the fence: Starting ProneWhy exactly, is starting prone "on the fence"? It does not require anymore of an action than drawing a weapon, or starting mounted does. I guess I'm confused as to how you think that starting prone should be excluded from beginning allowable conditions, but all the other odds and ends are not.
SauroGrenom 01-13-06, 01:54 PM	It seams to me that going prone is simular to hiding in this regard. You don't take an action to hide, it happens as part of your other actions. Going prone strikes me as being simular. It's a free action to perform at any point in your other actions. If you haven't had any actions yet, then it seams that you wouldn't have the opportunity to go prone yet.
Turin 01-13-06, 01:55 PM	It is my understanding that no actions are allowed to be taken prior to combat that you could not have done 16 hours before or isn't part of your natural physical nature.... Another solution: Leave everything as is, despite the logic, merely because it is easy and already the way things are. If this is what everyone wants, then I propose going prone be allowed.Being mounted is something you can do for 16 hours? Or it's part of your natural physical nature? Carrying your sword is something that you can do for 16 hours or is part of your natural physical nature? Of course not. The problem here is that the Pre-buffs section of the rules is specifically written with magical/psionic effects in mind, and not the physical condition of the gladiator, which seems to have been left fairly wide open with some specific items mentioned in the rules (like being mounted or flying). I'm inclined to argue that things should be left as-is, but just clarified in the rules. I would suggest using language that excludes the things we want to exclude but allows for anything else -- it's much easier to say "this and this isn't allowed" rather than "this and this and this and.... this and this... is allowed." Edit: Go here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8223099&postcount=127) to catch the more-or-less beginning of this discussion on the FotW thread.
Cerebus13 01-13-06, 02:13 PM	It seams to me that going prone is simular to hiding in this regard. You don't take an action to hide, it happens as part of your other actions. Going prone strikes me as being simular. It's a free action to perform at any point in your other actions. If you haven't had any actions yet, then it seams that you wouldn't have the opportunity to go prone yet.Dropping prone is a Free Action, it is not tethered to any other actions. Hiding is technically a move action if you do not end up moving in a turn, but usually people sneak around and then hide. The actions required for these abilities is rather irrelevant to the argument however, it is simply that they DO require an action that is important. People can either vote to disallow all action costing abilities before a battle begins, which will force all players to start standing in some square with nothing in their hands and any allies next to them. Or things can remain the way they are with some clarification if needed. I'm of the opinion that we should leave things alone (why change for no good reason, we've NEVER had a problem with this before), but if people don't like it I can adapt. Seperating these lists of actions is where I have to argue against it though, because I don't see how it should be any harder to remain mounted for a 16 hour prebuff than it is to lay prone on the ground for 16 hours.
TroubleWolf 01-13-06, 03:04 PM	It seems to me, if you can choose which square to start in (ie, behind cover), and can choose to start with weapons in hand, or scrolls, or dorjes, or whatever, then you should be able to start prone.
lonewolf 01-13-06, 07:29 PM	wow I missed like 90% of the discussion, but I think the fact that there was not a single supporter of King Uthers opinion (that you shouldnt be allowed to start prone) and about 5 people arguing against it speaks for itself, so Im not repeating the good arguments those people posted in the other thread. Sorry Uther, but it looks as if you stand alone on this. Personally, I would also allow people start hidden in the arena or start with a readied Towershield(since that also doesnt have an ending duration), but those two actions are specifically against the rules at the moment.
Usurpator 01-13-06, 08:02 PM	First a review of the current rules applicable to how you enter the arena: Base rule 1: you can prebuff with anything that can last for 16 hours or more (plus some exceptions as mentioned like things with a duration of concentration) Base rule 2: all prebuffs must be written on your sheet. Base rule 3: you can start at any square in your starting box, but only at ground level. Exception 1: You cannot start off hiding. If there are any other 'official' rules I missed, please inform me. But this is everything I am aware of that pertains to your starting situation. Since you can technically be riding a horse for 16 hours, you can enter mounted, but really should prebuff that action. Since you can hold a scroll for 16 hours, you can enter with in your hand, but should write it on your sheet as a prebuff, etc. etc. You can enter prone, since you can be prone for 16 hours in advance. You cannot enter with equipment on the floor of the arena, since you cannot put it there 16 hours in advance. This is what the current rules say. Unfortunately, current practice is wholly different from the rules. It allows swapping out equipment, pulling of or putting on armor, free choice of allies and free choice of item in hands. So either we are missing some rules, or we should crack down on all the violations. I am going for the first option and try to fill in the blanks: - You can enter the arena with any piece of equipment in your inventory, and any ally (subjected to the normal restrictions). Any piece of equipment may be located at any place on your body or on any of your or allies. - You cannot interact with the arena prior to entering it in any way, meaning you cannot leave equipment on the floor (although you may hold it in your hands and drop it when you get your first turn). Thus you cannot set traps, affect the arena with spells, and cannot start climbing one of the pillars for example. To picture this just assume you will be teleported in at the start of the fight. - You cannot hide before your first turn. - You can or your allies can enter in any position you desire. You can be mounted on an ally, having your eyes closed, a bag pulled over your head, kneeling, flying, prone, standing on your head etc. - You cannot enter with anything that requires continous actions (free, move, standard etc.) to perform. This means you cannot enter with Total Defense, using a Tower Shield for cover, with a readied action etc.. - You cannot enter after having taking any action or activated any ability, power, item or spell that has a specified and finite duration and last less than 16 hours. All actions that don't have a finite and specified duration or last for 16 or more hours should be prebuffed. That seems to cover most cases I think. I rather like to see some more restrictive rules that allows less variance in swapping of equipment and allies and the like, and will make it easier to write tactics, since you know exactly how your opponent(s) will start.
Book5 01-13-06, 11:32 PM	@Guildlords - going further :D In the random events thing it mentions "ending the current events" I take that to mean: When it starts raining.. is doesnt stop untill you roll rain again or the "end all" event rolls. If I read that wrong then the rest of this is gonna sound wierder and really. Maruder level.. hmm I think the 1d10+ ... what about working the "Protection Level" into that? Your likely hood of being targeted by a gang is directly related to how well protected you are. Wow, Book5! There are some really great ideas! I'll try to respond to everything. :cloud9: That means Famine/Drought = Inactive. Not too hot either. Oh and we already have two Special Structures that protect against Famine and Drought. Sewer System: protects Guild from Random Event: Plague Aqueduct: protects Guild from Random Event: Drought Granary: protects Guild from Random Event: Famine Ranger Station: protects district from Random Event: Highwaymen City Watch: protects district from Random Event: District Gang Windmill: fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Famine Hospital: fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Plague Water Tower: fixed income; triple income on Random Event: Drought :mymy: nevermind those structures I mentioned. ehe. Hmm. I was actually thinking "fixed fee" or a single fee per structure. Lets toss out a number 100gp per structure. No matter how many structures there are. I think the most important thing with the famine and drought is that it should be drastic. These are events that can kill entire countries let alone a city. So to reiterate this one: Pay a flat fee (100g) per stucture or the structure goes inactive. If you have the structure.. hmm the flat fee (if we go that way) should be more than you would pay to run an aqueduct... ooh wait theres an idea! This could get a little complicated.. but what if - instead of this "flat fee" vanishing into the gladius tax coffers - it has to be paid to the other guilds.. AND if none of the guilds have built aqueducts or granerys.. no one gets to run their tavern. So a guild that took the time to invest into the storehouse not only gets to not suffer the penalties - but is able to profit from the other guilds that havent prepared for the famine/drought. Different Plagues. This is a really cool idea! Any idea for a death rate for mild/serious/critical? We can also create different plagues. Plagues are divided into the seven traits like Blight (Nature), Magical Curse (Education), and so on but the problem here is that it would most certainly only damage one guild and leaves the others unharmed. It also makes the event of plague less dangerous because IF it is rolled (1 in 30 chance) it only affects your guild 1 in 7 times. Mild = nonlethal - the unit/hireling is unavailable until the plauge ends. Serious = 4 weeks.. just a round number - gives you time to react. Critical = 1 week. You have to dedicate your actions to reacting to the plauge in that same week or you loose the units. Differnt Plauges! Yeah! One of the thoughts I had was to turn all the diseases in the DMG into plauges. Make obligatory "one for each playable/hireable race/type" .. hadnt thought of using the traits, but thats another set. @Readiness Level Rockin! I like the idea of making it a +Guards on the roll for certain structures. Whats this roll going to look like? Is it going to part of the event roll or part of a guild reaction? Perhaps.. hmm. This sorta brings this full circle.. take for example the highwaymen. Highwaymen are the random event. Their CR is determined randomly. If you have guards you can then your protection level vs the maruaduers .. "destruction level" (or something) and that happens without gap or character action (only if you have a protection level that is) other wise you have to spend a gap (an they just go away), or initiate a guild operation against them. "Options" makes it more complicated, but allows for multiple resulutions to a complex problem. Similarly the arson and embezlement could generate (hmm how about "threat levels") a CR similar to the highwaymen - and again your protection level can be rolled against them as an action. The guards being present would be a manifest hinderence to an actual player operation against a structure. Also - what about the guild being able to send guards with an operation based on their readiness level? So not only would defending structures have guards, but the guild can re-allocate guards off of the structure defense (lowering protection level) and on to the offensive (increasing the operations success chance). And what good does it bring that they are ressurected? Besides, the Harvester's aim is to destroy the Nimbus that prevents souls coming to his realm. Great Work Book5!!!!! Thank you, but I have to give my co-worker Arron for the thrust of the plauge idea. re: harvester.. ahh but does not the savage prey to the god of storms that it will not rain? the god of famine that food will grow? "oh great Thor! do not stike me down with thine mighty bolt!" even "oh dark Hades! do not take me or my children this night! Why would he give them absolution from death? Because he can... though. Is there a "source" of the Nimbus? Is there a diety that a shrine should be dedicated to? Mo? I guess my real question is: When do you die? I thought just the arena wqas special.. but will you die from an operation? You do die when you go on quests right?
Book5 01-13-06, 11:56 PM	real quick (yeah right) re: the prebuff thing. My opinion (that will not change) is that the "this not that" "that not this" rule is not "the best." I think it should/could/would go like this: Prebuffs must be designated as they are now, and any "starting" status such as held weapons must be declared in pre-buff.. BUT You get the ability to declare one thats one full rounds worth of actions as part of your tactics. Yes = this allows a prebuff. Yes = this gives mr. quicken three prebuffs. Yes this allows you to start flying, draw weapons, put stuff on the ground, hide, etc, but it solves the "this not that" problem, and Mr quicken gets three buffs on the first round anyway. It makes the scenario this: You are exactly as your sheet describes until the single moment before the door opens. This round could even be negated and extended based of the random arena concept. Say you ambush someone? You get two rounds in your tactics, they get none. SO you can have that "cought you with your sword in the sheath" phenomena. I like this just because it make more sense to me. Note to Uther: That nonesense quote from Jindle is rapidly becomeing my absolute most hated quote ever. I [b]believe[/i] the opposite. "Its all D&D to Me" - That means I think of things in D7D terms. Dracazar's dynamap is a tool in "craft." A "performance (dm)" tool at that. All inconsitancies are targets to be resolved not disregarded as "thats D&D." Every iteration has become more "sensical" in fact. Other than wasted space like the intimidate skill (and the social interaction checks in general) I think this version is getting real close to realistic.
SauroGrenom 01-14-06, 02:47 PM	Guards: I like Book5's idea about using guards as a protection level. Perhaps what we can do is say that the number of guards or some such serve as the saving throw or skill ranks of the guild hall for the purpose of opposed roles or saves. Specific developments or rooms or structures can add bonuses to the "saving throw" that protects against particular types of actions targeted on the guildhall. I'll use an example to illustrate the idea. So if the EHTC wants to perform a covert action to target the Marble Fortress of the CEF and sneak in to steal something of value from the CEF. Right now the only option is for the EHTC to perform a full on assault and slay all the CEF members. Not very likely. Instead the EHTC chooses one representative character to perform a burglary action. The ECL or skills of the chosen character represent the DC of the CEF's saving throw. If the CEF makes the saving throw, then they stop the covert action. If they fail, then "damage" is determined. If the CEF hires more guards, their save increases. If they build a vault, then they get a bonus on Burglary saves or "damage resistance” on the losses caused by a successful burglary. Arson damages can be decreased by a bucket brigade, and so on for a number of different types of guild actions. Structure: WoWZa!! It's been a while since I last looked at the structures carefully. The secondary effects of many structures are way overpowered relative to others. But that's not what you asked about, and I'll make a second post in a bit about that. For covert actions have the, Gladius Intelligence Office: Gain +1 ECL to resist all covert actions and gain +1ECL modifier on any covert actions your guild executes. (1GAP) Block any one covert action from taking place or team with an ally to have two characters perform one of your own covert actions. As for mass combat, I think the simpler the better. Anything that involves placing dozens or hundreds of individual units on a map is a bad idea. Things are going to get confusing really fast if more than 3 regiments are involved on each side. Each regiment will have 10 members and they can take a large number of formations. There must be atleast 50 different possible "formations" that satisfy the requirements for a viable formation. So I don't think what we have now is going to work in practice. We can try to make a system work by thinking about what it will be like using the system and try to eliminate problems. We can also go the other way and think about the minimum we need in the system and provide only that, preventing all other options. The system is then simple by inherent limitation of options instead of vast exclusions of troublesome options. Thinking about what a mass combat system needs, I find that we'll need a way for units to undergo ranged, melee and mounted combat. Area spells may also be an issue. Tactical movement might be nice, but will vastly complicate things. One approach to the problem is to simply cut down the number of players on the battlefield. This is reasonable because we are not talking about nations going to war. We are talking about "Guilds" battling it out in a fantasy city. There may be historical examples to the contrary, but I generally think of guilds as having rather small military forces. So lets cut it down to a much smaller number of players on our battlefield. We can condense an entire regiment into a single unit that is treated kind of like a single creature with regard to movement, saves, and actions. Then a battlefield with 60 participants rapidly collapses into one of 6. For stories and RP you can say each regiment has a hundred members, but for mechanics say it's only 1. In fact it may be best to consider each regiment to be some kind of a creature like a 10headed hydra. That way each regiment has multiple attacks resolved separately and attacks can be resolved against the “heads” but the whole thing makes saves or uses special abilities as a single creature. As the creature takes damage, we assume that the heads are always the targets and some of the heads will die, decreasing the number of attacks. Other kinds of regiments will have special attacks that can resolve as if a normal creature had used a special ability. Each regiment will have a stat block like a single creature and a list of special abilities like a normal monster listed in the MM. Developments purchased by the guild can add special abilities to the regiments and they become like special abilities edited into the stat block. If an Area spell is used, we simply make a short list of Area types: line, cone, burst... and say that bursts cause damage vs all heads, cones vs 1/2 of the heads, and lines vs 1/4 of the heads. Now our mass combat become much less massive. Instead of moving 60 units and keeping them into formation and resolving 60 attacks and 60 saves, we have only 6 movements no formations and still 60 attacks but only 6 saves.
SauroGrenom 01-14-06, 03:28 PM	Something has happend with the structures secodary effects that results in a massive unbalancing of the guild structure system. The CEF, TLT and TAO have massive advantage relative to all the others who have negative Faith modifiers for their guilds. This is caused entirely by the secondary effects of the faith structures in the Nunnery and Hermatige lines. These effects are way overpowered relative to all other secondary effects. Those who are denied access to Faith structures due to there negative Faith modifiers or large distance to a faith containing district are screwed. The Nunnery grants +5% earnings on gladiator tax. This is a huge benefit. This increases the guilds income at early stages by 50% with the construction of a single building and the structure earns additional income seperately. This can increase to +15% on the guild's tax totallying 25% tax. At the final stage this means that a guild with an Abbey will be earning 250% of what any other guild is earning on there gladiators assuming all other things equal. In a few weeks this turns into a snowballing advantage far beyond what any other guild can hope to catch. No other secondary effect comes close to half that benefit. Earning 50% of guildmember profession free activities is not very much of a benefit realy. Not all guild members use profession, and profession income is always less than 1/3 of the arena income. Also those guild members with profession do not always choose to use the free activity to earn income. Some may quest at times or craft and not have any option to use free activities. This benefit will probably earn a guild mabey a hundred gp of income per week on average. While 25% tax will earn a guild thousands of income per week depending on how may members there are. This effect stacks horribly with the effect of the Hermatige string. With a Monestary, any guild with Faith can house 5 epic guildmembers with the construction of one 2000gp basic living quarters. Combined with the 25% tax, this allows some guilds to earn money far beyond the possibilities of any guild without access to Faith structures. The structures system was build to make the guildmember taxes be the major income source for any guild at any time in its developement. Perhaps if the guildmembers were only 10% of the income of the guild, these effects would be negligable, but as it is this is way unbalanced. The Leasure and Crime Traits are totally screwed, with changes in staff wages (small expense), earings on profession, craft, slight of hand, and perform activities. Each of these will earn/save a well developed guild only a few hundred gp/week. This is 10-50 times less than the effects of a Hermatige and Abbey. How to balance this is kind of troublesome. Perhaps we can create secondary benefits for the other strings that are equally powerfull, or perhaps we need to nerf the Faith strings so that they are more inline with the benefits of other strings. Either way it is obvious that something needs to change.
Book5 01-14-06, 10:45 PM	@Sauro: Started to read your replys, but realized I haven't even really read the regiments thing. ;) Planning on \|||/ here soon. My gut instinct says that some sort of gang/swarm rule is going to become very important. @GuildLords Thinking of things. Just posted on the random addon thread - and it sorta spins into stuff back here actually Im typing both reply's at the same time :snicker: For Tundra and Desert: Change those to "Hotter" and "Colder" and lets put that onto a scale? Shall we? Hottest (10) 150° Hot (9) 110° Warm (8) 90° Nice (7) 70° Pleasant (6) 55° Cool (5) 40° Chilly (4) 30° Cold (3) 10° Freezing (2) -10° Frozen (1) -40° Why have nice, pleasant, and cool? So you have a little gray area to play around in before the weather gets real nasty. Its not "Nice today Nasty Tommarow" Combine this with some other weather malefactors and there could be a sort of weather matrix.. "you dont roll for a drought" A drought happens if its warm+ and it hasent rained in 4 weeks. Pop to this for the Famine thing L1 Famine - Caused by Crop Plauge or Livestock Plauge L2 Famine - Caused by Crop Plauge and Livestock Plauge L3 Famine - Caused by Crop Plauge and Livestock Plauge and extreem weather. Change the Granery to negate just the Crop Plauge Add something else to negate a Livestock Plauge Any guild worth its salt will never see the L3 Famine (unless someone happens to burn down that granery...) arg! I cant finish.. I should have internet back at my house soon and bring more information into this! (as well as my second pit fight of this week :gah: )
Caterane 01-15-06, 10:26 AM	Guards: Your ideas are great! To do that we have to expand Covert Operations a bit: you can now not only target structures but also the base. There will be a set of skills involved which are rolled vs a certain DC. The skills are of course the skills of the operating character. The DC depends on certain defenses of the guild, like rooms and guards. Option 1: Let's say the base DC is 10. You gain +1 for every guard. Certain upgrades can increase the DC further: Bucket Brigade = +2 vs Arson, Nighwatch Patrol +2 vs Burglary and Sabotage. If a Vault is present the operating character must have the appropriate Open Lock skill if he wants to steal money. And so on. Option 2: Alternatively we say upgrades decrease the effects of the covert operation, while guards are there to increase the DC: You use the same DC as above (10+Guards) without room upgrade boni. The upgrades then lessen the damage. So if for example Arson would burn down a room, the Bucket Brigade would reduce it to a lesser state (ideas?). Or Burglary would only raid half gold if there's a patrol. Option 3: Monster fight like it is now, and after the fight is won we use either option 1 or 2. That makes covert operations what they should be: a combination of combat and skills. With these options, guards can now be placed to guard structures or the base as the guild wishes. They cost 6 gp/week. There's little reason to involve guards in fights with PCs (they're level 1 warriors only) but they have eyes and ears, and a mouth to shout for help. To complete a covert operation successfully, you must not be detected by them i.e. this resembles the DC of the Covert Operation. Any ideas which skills we should use? Different skills for different operations? -------------------- Structures: Sauro, you misunderstood the hermitage. It says '1 league higher' not one full category higher! With a hermitage the CEF could set Dameon (ECL 7) back to 10%. He will fall back to 1% when he reaches lvl 8. Unless we upgrade it to a Cloister. Concretely: with a hermitage a Basic Living Quarter can support PCs of ECL 3-7 instead of 3-6. We can decrease the effect by saying it only affects one PC per hermitage. As for the [Medical] string, which % would you suggest? What do you think about the other secondary effects of structures as they are now? --------------------- Regiment Battles: The regiments we have are basically like a single creature. They make one attack, they make one save, and they all perform the same action. They have one pool of hp only. We can forget about formations and just assign them a certain space, like 20x20 ft.
SauroGrenom 01-17-06, 12:07 AM	Guards: I like option 2/3 the best. Perhaps we should have some kind of combat/mini-quest/encounter that is accomplished. After that is accomplished, the covert action takes place with the necessary checks. We can give options that are rather diverse actually. We can treat it like a spell or like a skill or like an opposed check. If we treat it like a skill any given Covert Action should have an opperator make a skill check vs a DC set by 10+#of guards. If this wins, then "damage" is rolled. If we treat it like a spell, then any Covert Action that goes past the "encounter" stage is targeted at the structure and the structure makes a save vs DC=(relevant skill of opperator). If the save is made, then think of it as a spell so perhaps 1/2 damage or 0 damage, if the save fails then full damage. If we treat it like an opposed check, then both the guards and the opperator make rolls and the winner resolves the attack in the necessary manner (either a blocked attempt or sucessfull attempt). In either case special rooms and developments will modify the "damage" like either damage resistance or relevant feats such as evasion. Perhaps we can create special developments that also modify the "saves" or skill DC. Our options are diverse with this adaption of the d20 rules to our covert actions. Perhaps we can have the "damage" be determined by the ECL of the associated miniquest. So if a petty EHTC thief (ECL3) tries to Burgle a CEF structure with only an ECL1 miniquest, then he he needs to defeat the miniquest and if sucessfull at that he will role the necessary checks (opposed rolls, saving throw or skill check models) to see if he succeeds in his Covert Action. If he does then he only gets away with 300gp and the guild takes 6d8 gold as its share. This 6d8 result is then deducted from the victim of the covert action. The average guild take will be 27gp. This is less than tax on a simular win in the Arena, but it is deducted from your opponents coffers and there is a chance it will be higher as well. That is a nice little bonus. Also your winnings can be increased by using a higher ECL encounter. The general formula can be 2d8/100gp reward for the miniquest. Special developments can function as follows: Night Patrol level1 decreases the damages caused by sucessfull Burglary, providing a 20gp damage reduction.
SauroGrenom 01-17-06, 11:03 AM	Structures: I totally missread the effect of the Hermatige line. Now that you explain it, it is far more reasonable though still one of the most potent secondary abilities. As far at the Nunnery line, I think we sould have the tax bonus go as follows +1%+3%+5%. That will make the gp earned by this secondary effect be more in line with what the profession earnings are. I'll give the other secondary effects a close look later tonight after I get home this evening.
Guildlords 01-17-06, 12:18 PM	I have also thought about a new approach on Covert Operations. Here's what I came up with. The base of any Covert Operation (opposed to Assault OPs) is stealth. That is because the Guildmaster of a guild is an epic being that is more than a match for any PC, and that can be telepathically contacted by every guard. So if an Operator is detected by a guard he will be caught by the Guildmaster. The core of a Covert Operation is both a Hide and a Move Silently check vs the DC=Guards (or 10+Guards; we have to check this later). If one of these two checks fails, the PC is caught and the Covert Operation fails. As I said, this is only the core and here come all the add-on's for Covert Operations: Prison: If the guild has a prison room in its base, it can jail a caught operator. The attacker guild can pay a ransom (gold*ECL of prisoner) to get him free again. Until then, he cannot earn money for the guild or do anything else for them. Guilds can negotiate about the ransom and it can be something other than gold. If no prison is present (or empty; might be already occupied) then the operator is imprisoned in the Gladius Prison and the ransom has to be payed to the Gladius authorities (ie is lost). Vault: Another room can be the Vault. If the Covert Operation was Burglary, the operator also has to pass an Open Lock DC vs the lock in addition to the hide/move checks. Traps: A guild can buy a 'Trap Upgrade'. Then, in addition to the checks, an operator must also pass a trap of his EL. If he has the 'Traps' ability, he can make a Search and Disable Device check vs the trap DC to avoid it. Else he automatically triggers it. Dungeon: A guild can build a 'Dungeon' which hosts a guardian. An operator must defeat this guardian. The guardian will be rolled like a monster fight and the EL is the ECL of the operator (modified by certain things). Alternatively (and more complicated), a guild has to aquire a guardian on its own, be it by Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Gold, or any other method of gaining an ally. Labyrinth: A guild can build a labyrinth. An operator must pass an Intelligence check Dc??? or cannot find the exit and has to abort the operation. The Dc could be based on the cost of the labyrinth (with a minimum and a maximum DC else a guild could spend all its saved money to become immune to Covert Operations). Guards: Every guard that is stationed in the Chapter House of the district (or home base) increases the DC of the hide/move check by one. They can be relocated to another Chapter House 10 at a time with one GAP. There might be other ideas for safeguards but these would also suffice. The reason is to let the guild choose how it protects itself. Hire more guards and increase the DCs or build a dungeon? If the operator passes all obstacles, he has successfully accomplished his mission and will do the 'damage' according to the nature of his operation. Instead of basing it on ECL, Sauro, I thought about basing it on the Powerrating. The lvl 5 Harvester for example has a better rating than some lvl 7 PCs. Here some examples: Arson: The goal was to lay fire and do damage to a room. If successful (ie. all obstacles passed) the room gets damaged in silver equal to the (absolute) powerrating of the operator. Feradeth (lvl 4) for example would do 108 gp damage to the room, while Uhme would do 2435 go damage. A covert operation can be executed by more than one PC to increase the damage but then all PCs have to pass all safeguards. A room falls inactive until repaired (1 GAP) by paying the gp price. If a room gains more damage than it is worth, it is destroyed. A bucket brigade lessens the damage. The formula is just from the top of my head but I like the idea to base it on powerrating. Burglary: we would use the same formula we will use for arson only that the damage result will be the stolen gold. If a vault sounds too powerful because no one has open lock, we can say a vault lessens the damage just like a bucket brigade lessens arson damage. A Covert Operation could look like that: Dungeon (defeat guardian) [skip if not available] Trap (survive trap) [skip if not available] Labyrinth (pass Int check) [skip if not available] Guards (pass Move/Hide check) Vault (pass Open lock check) [skip if not available] Success (do 'damage') or Failure (Prison) We won't see every safeguard until late in the game. For now, the first Covert Operations will most likely only encounter guard resistance. Covert Operations will be done vs either a Structure or the Home Base, and there are some differences between the two because we cannot expect a guild to buy safeguards for every structure thus we have to use the Chapter House. Structures: A guild targets a Structure with a Covert Operation: Arson but the Chapter House determines which things the operator has to pass (because structures cannot have upgrades). If the operator is successful, the damage is done to the structure. Example: the PSI targets the Courthouse of the EYE in Gauterix. The EYE Chapter House in Gauterix has 8 guards stationed and a trap. The PSI operator survives the trap and passes both hide/move checks. He will now damage the Courthouse according to his PR; if it is higher than a Courthouse's construction cost, it is decreased to a Magistrate. If the PR is also sufficient to damage a Magistrate, the Courthouse is destroyed completely. Had he done a Burglary Operation he could only steal as many gold pieces as the Courthouse generates a week. Would he have failed he would go to Gladius prison, or to the EYE prison if the EYE had one in their home base. Home Base: The covert operation is the same as for structures but the damage options are different. Arson for example targets rooms with the same effect; Burglary can empty the whole treasury (if PR is high enough). We should find addional differences. PS: With all the guards necessary the 'decreases wages' effect doesn't seem too bad now. I am also thinking about an activation cost for sending someone on an Operation. Perhaps 25*ECL in gold? Or an operation never brings taxes for the guild.
DTFarstar 01-17-06, 12:42 PM	If the Vault part is allowed, and I think it should be, then just allow guild characters(or all characters) a one time chance to change out some skill points for points in Open Lock only. Let them do it when the Vault is implemented and from then on out people could decide if they would like to put stuff in Open Lock(as it would have a use).
Guildlords 01-17-06, 12:52 PM	@DTF: Yes, of course; as described in the Character Changes thread. However, my concern is that no one will do it. Except for this roleplaying effect (remember: guilds do not benefit PCs in any way) there's still no use for open lock. It's one of the few skills I am still looking for a usage here in the coco.
DTFarstar 01-17-06, 12:57 PM	Hmm, I can think of a couple of uses, but they are actually overpowered. So, no go there. Hmmm.....
lonewolf 01-17-06, 01:13 PM	You should also think about magical ways to bypass those safeguards. Invisibility, Silence, Knock, Dimension Door, Passwall, etc are all good ways to bypass such safeguards. The question is if that should be allowed or not.
Book5 01-19-06, 11:16 PM	first thought - the imprisonment should only effect the players ability to generate revenue for the guild. If the player wants they should still be able to be paired (jail break!! :snicker: I really like that "detection check" and the powerrating as damage deal. The question of the spells though.. That makes me think of "base covert check" and "circumstantial modifiers" SO The Base check is the average of the Hide/Mosi of all operators.. and then certain items (shadow armor, dust of tracelessness, etc) that would assist with that check (or negate it in a normal game - "flight and pit traps" ) end up as the circumstantial modifiers for the operation check. This sounds like the covert operation will end up being just a couple of rolls in this method. Is that right? Roll for your overall detection, then for traps, then for maze, etc. A guardian results in a fight, but otherwise its just a couple of "compilation rolls?"
^Rayne^ 01-20-06, 04:36 AM	@ALL: This has been bothering me for a few weeks but I feel I do have to say something about this. Maybe it has been pointed out earlier but the CoCo rules actually unfairly ruin low level Sorcerer builds. The spell limit at this level means a 3rd level Sorcerer casts less spells than the same level Druid, Cleric, or Wizard. The other three classes get to cast a level higher than the Sorcerer and that means they have more spell points at 3rd level. This really stinks because the advantage of a Sorcerer is nullified but CoCo rules. The only advantage is they can cast more spells and the rules here severly limit their abilities here. A wizard of the same level can cast twice as many spells, they get more versatility of spell types, an extra feat (Scribe Scroll) which makes it easier for them to cheaply add extra spells to their repetoire, and their key ability is linked to their Skills as well which puts them at a considerable advantage. I'm not even going to dive into the other two classes. What bothers me is that the rules here are one of the major factors for this unbalanced issue. I appreciate what the rules are there for, but at level 3 they unfairly handicap the Sorcerer class and make it very difficult to get a good start (record wise). A lot of players might become frustrated early on because the rules hurt Sorcerer's so much that they can rarely win in the arena. I am here for fun, but it would be nice if at least for level three the Sorcerer class be given this one level to use half their spells per fight. This can change after 3rd level because the difference is quickly nullified in farther levels. Even with half their spells they would still be shy of the other three classes in the number of spells they could cast but at least it would make things a little more fair. I hope people take a look at this because what I am saying has merit. Thanks, Karl I originally posted this on the Fights of the Week thread (Fights of the Week: January 18th, 2006 - Comments and Concerns), but it seems like it really should go here. Let me say in advance that if this issue has been discussed already, I didn't wade through the 30 pages of this thread to find it. After looking at the first couple I decided I didn't want to be looking for the next two hours. I do want to stress that this is a real problem. I'm not sure how many of you have played a Sorcerer lately (with the 1/3 rule in affect) but level 3 is a serious pain. It is entirely clear that the Sorcerer gets badly nerfed for this level and the results can be seven painful weeks of back to back to back losses. Everyone keeps suggesting that I spend a ton of money on expendables but that just means that the PC is hurt later on because they spent a lot of money early on just to make a level advancement. At this point I believe that for Level 3 only a Sorcerer should be able to cast 2/3 of their spells. Take note that this will still only give them the same number of spells to cast in their first battles as the same level Druid, Cleric, or Wizard. Really it still makes them a bit behind the curve but at least it gives players a chance to win a little bit. That is all I want to say on this point. I hope it leads to real discussion on this matter. Thanks, Karl
Book5 01-20-06, 01:10 PM	That is all I want to say on this point. I hope it leads to real discussion on this matter. Thanks, Karl 1 - mage arena 2 - mage duel (caster vs caster = no limit - how do you feel about that 1 level of cleric now barb/fight/rouge/cleric 4/5/6/1 3 - :shifty: 4 credits for 2/3rds, 10 for 4/4ths why should that work..? well let me give that a wack.. CoCo is about the art of optimization? Optimized spellcasters are cool to see? Big hoary spellfury blowout vs massive multiple wildsurge manifestation fights are nifty? But wizard after sorcerer after druid after :shifty: bard (snickers) Hey! wailing on your eyebitten butt every week. Now that. is not. funny... and that is why the 1/3rd rule stays. Period. However, "The Great" Book5 :D:D:D:D :D has a few suggestions for an accessory system.
^Rayne^ 01-20-06, 03:01 PM	@Book 5: Your answer was almost incoherent and pointless. Did you even look at what I had to say with an open mind before you shot it down? The 1/3 rules is there for a good reason (one I agree with), but at 3rd level it is completely unfair for the Sorcerer class. Sorcerers because of the way they are designed for D&D don't get any 2nd level spells yet. Druids, Clerics, and Wizards do get 2nd level spells at this point. CoCo rules, which are supposed to pit class against class in the fairest possible manner, cause the Sorcerer class to be completely Nerfed in this scenario. In general a Sorcerer's strength is supposed to be that they can cast a lot of spells but they have a limited spell selection (and they can cast the spells they know spontaneously). In fact they have to give up a great deal to get this bonus of being able to cast a lot of Arcane spells. However in the Arena at level 3 (I'm not talking about level 4 and beyond, just level 3 here) the 1/3 rule completely takes away their main advantage. At 3rd level a Specialist Wizard with Intelligence 18 can cast 10 total spell slot levels. At 1/3 this amount they still can cast 3 spell slots worth of spells. A Sorcerer in this same case with Charisma 18 can cast 6 total spell slot levels. At 1/3 this amount they can only cast 2 spell slots worth of spells. In addition they probably don’t have as many skills to take advantage of as the Wizard. A 3rd level Cleric with Wisdom 18 can cast 10 total spell slot levels. At 1/3 this amount they can cast 3 spell slots worth of spells. A Sorcerer gets very limited spell selection and by 3rd level they don't have anything else to fall back on. Unlike a Druid or a Cleric they are not going to be able to break out the melee weapons and stand much of a chance on their own. They have fewer hit points than either of these classes and can't use healing spells either. Then to top it off they can't wear armor. The Druid can send out its animal companion, but I guarantee the Sorcerer’s familiar is not going to be a match to that. Against the Wizard in the same situation they are a feat shy of the wizard who can use Scribe Scroll to cheaply add a lot of extra spells for use in the arena. In addition the wizard doesn't have to compromise Stat points as readily to help boost multiple scores because their Intelligence aids their main class traits and boosts their skill selection. A sorcerer may have been balanced by their increased frequency and flexibility of spell selection before the CoCo rules were added in (although that is still up to debate in my mind), but after the 1/3 rule is implemented it is clear they get nerfed to the point where they don't even have a chance. 3rd level sorcerers are totally damaged at the onset and it is really difficult to advance past the 1st round of battles and actually win. A PC shouldn't be forced to burn through all of their early income just to purchase expendables that they will never get to use again just so they can win a fight or two. The CoCo rules are meant to provide good fair contests between various class builds. However these rules (specifically the 1/3 rule) ruin the D&D balance in the process for the Sorcerer class at this early level. Beyond level 3 this problem goes away, but early on it can be very difficult to make it past he first round and actually get a win. Before people stick out their tongue and call me a little sissy please give the matter some real thought. If you look at this objectively it is plain to see the Sorcerers are having their main strength stripped from them as the begin their first fight. Thanks again, Karl
Caterane 01-20-06, 03:26 PM	Rayne, as you have yourself pointed out, even without the 1/3 rule, a sorcerer has 6 spell levels opposed to 10 of a wizard or cleric. That's a difference of 4 SL. With the 1/3 rule the difference goes down to only 1 SL which favors the sorcerer. The 1/3 rule isn't the reason why sorcerers are generally worse than the wizard. It's the D&D rules. I see no reason why they should wait till lvl 4 to get 2nd level spells but WotC decided to do it that way and we have not the authority to change what's written in the PHB classes section. But we are trying to balance the classes by adding rules that bring out the strengths of weaker builds. For example, we have added a lot of additional cover for rogues and soon we will have several maps where they can hide much better; not to mention the ambush add-on. Or that rogues can now use their skills for Free Activities that give them a bonus. In case of the sorcerer, I can see that they are at a disadvantage (but again: not because of coco rules; because of D&D rules). One step has already been done recently by saying Sorcerers of 5th level get the [Special Power] tag next to their name. This currently only increases your leadership score but will have more effects once the reputation system is implemented. Other add-on's might be necessary on top of that. I'm open to hear suggestions on how to improve sorcerers but please keep in mind that it a) must follow D&D rules and b) must be true for all classes.
waywreth 01-20-06, 03:32 PM	I fully agree with Cat - you can see on the optimization boards you won't find alot of sorcerer builds. They're commonly thought to be weaker than wizards purely from an optimization perspective. Rogues tend to suffer in the CoCo due to the autospotting - with the new maps this could change quite a bit though. The only thing I can think of to do is the addition of the alternative versions for sorcerers (found in SRD) but that opens a door we can't close, so I can't see that happening.
^Rayne^ 01-20-06, 05:03 PM	I can fully understand that Sorcerers are bad due in large part to D&D rules, however I can't understand how you can't see that the CoCo rules hamper them even more! Rayne, as you have yourself pointed out, even without the 1/3 rule, a sorcerer has 6 spell levels opposed to 10 of a wizard or cleric. That's a difference of 4 SL. With the 1/3 rule the difference goes down to only 1 SL which favors the sorcerer. You just said it yourself! That one spell level is huge! It means a lot in the first round just to have access to one additional spell. The sad thing is your forgetting that a Sorcerer should be able to cast more spells total than these either two classes. They give up a lot to cast more spells, not less! They should be able to cast one more spell than either of these classes instead they cast one less because of CoCo rules. This take away any fairness that the class is due. They give up versatility of spell selection for more spells and spell-casting diversity. CoCo rules do in fact completely strip away this advantage. You just said so yourself, and yet you don't think this is a huge deal? I don't really understand how you can ignore this. I fully agree with Cat - you can see on the optimization boards you won't find alot of sorcerer builds. Did you ever stop to think that maybe people don't want to play them because CoCo rules make them so handicapped that they become worthless? Take Krayko for example. I have to decide whether I'm going to go full defense or full offense each match because I don't have enough spells to do both. I can either boost my PC's AC with Shield and Mage Armor or I can cast 2x Magic Missiles. The first option leaves me with no offensive power and eventually my PC gets messed up because he can't hurt them. The second option leaves me completely open to one or two hit kills because I have no protection and two castings of Magic Missiles is nothing to get all excited about. The rules seriously hamper Sorcerer builds more than they are already hurt by the D&D folks. 3rd level is a serious problem and you glossed right over it. I don't understand what the big deal is for making Sorcerers of 3rd level have access to 2/3 of their spells for that level only. It would make things more fair for them, which it isn't right now. EDIT: One addional thing to note. Even if they could cast 2 more 1st level spells it wouldn't be that big of a deal because they don't have access to 2nd level spells so they're limited a little bit by how powerful a spell the can cast still.
Stormwind 01-20-06, 05:17 PM	@^Rayne^: If an exception was made for the sorcerer it would set a precedent. This would be dangerous as it would open the door for exceptions to be made for other classes. As more exceptions would be made (and trust me they would), and the less the CoCo rules would resemble the RAW. Thus it is my opinion that making such an exception would be a very bad idea. Note that I have not, and will not, touch upon the discussion of whether or not the sorcerer is underpowered at level 3. However this can be avoided. Simply pay the credits to start a sorcerer at a higher level. Storm
^Rayne^ 01-20-06, 05:35 PM	Stormwind, sadly I disagree that this one exception would set a precedent that would ruin the boards. The current rules unfairly set this one Core class at a severe disadvantage. I shouldn't have to pay credits because the rules are bad (nor do I have any credits to spend on it). These rules take one of the Core classes and smash them to the ground. That is unfair and these rules are supposed to be designed to create fair situations to test builds. That is why Caterane is looking at creating situations that help Rogues out (which he knows I agree with). If the Core rules of the boards don't create a fair playing field then I say they are flawed. I think they address many problems that used to exist before the rule was enacted but for the record I do believe they undermine the Sorcerer's key abilities and that makes them flawed. An exception should be made to counter this problem. Every spell casting class I face in the Arena can cast more spells than my PC, and that is just messed up. Sorcerers already have enough restrictions but the CoCo rules just increase them to the point the class has no real strengths anymore. If I made a rule that all classes could only use Simple weapons would that be anymore fair to classes that used martial and exotic weapons? It would ruin a lot of other builds. Sure it might not affect Wizards and Sorcerer's but I'm sure a lot of other people would have something to say about this. All I'm hoping to achieve is to give Sorcerer's their powers back, because right now they have been completely taken away. I don't understand how there could be such hostility to this.
Snommelp 01-20-06, 05:54 PM	Before I begin, I would like to point out that I enjoy arguing. It comes from having three sisters. Therefore, please do not take any arguments I make as hostility. Every spell casting class I face in the Arena can cast more spells than my PC, and that is just messed up. Sorcerers already have enough restrictions but the CoCo rules just increase them to the point the class has no real strengths anymore. At 3rd level a Specialist Wizard with Intelligence 18 can cast 10 total spell slot levels. A Sorcerer in this same case with Charisma 18 can cast 6 total spell slot levels.As you yourself have said, the other spellcasters could already cast more spells. If anything, the 1/3 rule decreases the gap. I fully agree with Cat - you can see on the optimization boards you won't find alot of sorcerer builds.Did you ever stop to think that maybe people don't want to play them because CoCo rules make them so handicapped that they become worthless?Note that waywreth said "the optimization boards," not the CoCo. In the optimization boards, there is no 1/3 rule.
Ayrynthyn 01-20-06, 06:00 PM	But we are trying to balance the classes by adding rules that bring out the strengths of weaker builds. For example, we have added a lot of additional cover for rogues and soon we will have several maps where they can hide much better; not to mention the ambush add-on. Or that rogues can now use their skills for Free Activities that give them a bonus. It's not the maps that is the issue with the hiding. It's the auto spotting, 10 round rule, and the general lack of desire of most pitlords to DM a hide/snipe fight effectivly. There's not too much you can do about human nature, but the Core "House rules" can be looked at. In the 11 fights i participated in i was only able to hide effectively once. And that was in a 4 man battle royal where i was left to my own devices for a couple of rounds (and an effective +30 to my hide roll). Regardless, a Halfling with 20 dex, a cloak of elven kind, and 4 ranks of hide, should be more difficult to see/spot than an Orcish Rogue in full plate with a 6 dex, and 5 ranks in hide. when they are 5' away from cover. Also, i dont know what "Or that rogues can now use their skills for Free Activities that give them a bonus" means... A cursory glance of the rules thread didn't turn up any thing. Would it be possible to get a List of changes post near the front of the rules thread? I know when we have to update our user manuals we update the "Change tracking" page at the front. This provides our end users with a quick reference of what has changed since they last reviewed their manual. I think something like this would be super. Just update it everytime you modify the Rule of the Gladius thread with these added house rules. i didnt mean to hijack this topic though, so on Rayne's point. I get that the math sucks for sorcerers at third. And i do agree that appling the 1/3 rule universally (sorta) is not the fairest. Being that i like to express my points by taking them to the silliest extreme and seeing how it flys... i submit 1/3rd For Everyone!!! Warriors - get to use 1/3 of their BAB have to surrender after taking 1/3 HP in damage get to use 1/3 of their daily spell alotment animals/companions/cohorts can only act on rounds that are multiples of 3 (3, 6, 9, etc) Clerics - get to use 1/3 of their BAB have to surrender after taking 1/3 HP in damage get to use 1/3 of their daily spell alotment animals/companions/cohorts can only act on rounds that are multiples of 3 (3, 6, 9, etc) Rogues - get to use 1/3 of their BAB have to surrender after taking 1/3 HP in damage get to use 1/3 of their daily spell alotment animals/companions/cohorts can only act on rounds that are multiples of 3 (3, 6, 9, etc) Wizards - get to use 1/3 of their BAB have to surrender after taking 1/3 HP in damage get to use 1/3 of their daily spell alotment animals/companions/cohorts can only act on rounds that are multiples of 3 (3, 6, 9, etc) ...hmm, i still need to figure out how to work Feats/Skills/Saves into this but you can see the pattern. This can be applied universally, and extrapolated out the the other classes as well. I think it evens out the playing field a bit more which is, after all, the purpose of the exersice (i believe). But in this case, you could beat a warrior of equal ECL with your two magic missiles, almost as easy as he can drop you with an arrow shot.
Stormwind 01-20-06, 06:12 PM	@^Rayne^: Firstly I apologise if my tone came across as hostile. That was unintentional. I simply believe that there is a huge difference between making an exception (in the case of the sorcerer as per the discussion) and setting up a level playing field by affecting the environment (as Cat is considering/doing for rogues). If any changes to the rules were to be made (to change available spell levels) it is my opinion, and no more than that, that such a change should be across the board, not just one specific exception for the reasons I indicated above. You indicated that you did not belive that other exceptions would happen. I disagree. There are other classes that are also weak at level 3 (the soulknife for example). People would want them to be more balanced also and thus more exceptions would eventually occur. I do not disagree that the sorcerer is weak at lower levels ... however it is stronger than all the other casters at higher levels. If an exception were made for the sorcerer at level 3, then it would be equally fair to nerf the sorcerer at higher levels so that the other magic using classes were not disadvantaged at higher levels. As I said before, this is only my opinion. You may well disagree with me. Storm
Macbrea 01-20-06, 06:28 PM	Ok, I did some generall looking up to see if people bother ot play sorceror in CoCo. Here is what I found: First I should mention before showing all the sorcerors in the leagues that people that took pure of any class don't have very good records. The best records appear to be on odd builds that mix and match abilities. Given that bit of information this is all the sorcerors in CoCo. Also, you will note that multi person fights seems to be the biggest killer of sorceror records. Level 3 League Krayko Kobold Sorc 3 (0 Wins, 4 loss[3 multi]) Level 4 League Trixie Kobold Sorc 4 (1 Win[1 multi] , 4 losses[3 multi]) Vivi Ornitier Human Sorc 4 (1 quest) Feradeth Dryearraheal Aasimar Paladin 2/Sorc 1 (2 wins, 4 losses(3 multi)) Maeril Human Paladin 2/ Sorceror 2 (4 wins[1 multi], 2 losses) Level 5 League Mektos Kobold Druid 3/Sorc 2 (7 wins, 2 losses [2 multi]) Leif Goldeneye Aasimar Sorc 4 (7 wins [1 multi], 1 loss [1 multi], 1 quest) Sliver Firebug Pixie Sorc 1 (0 wins, 0 losses) Level 6 League None Level 7 League Zassl Kobold Sorc 6, Dragon Disc 1 (9 wins, 10 losses[5 multi], 2 quest) Telveran Trueblade Human Paladin 4/Sorc 1/ Dragon Disc 2 (7 win, 5 loss, 1 campaign) Level 8 League None Leval 9 League None Level 10 League None It should be noted that in real games people tend to avoid sorceror for the same reason they are here. The limited choice of what spells a sorceror gets. I posted a chart showing that after a certian point sorcerors end up with far more spells. But, most people just kind of glossed over that because the level 3 sorceror doesn't posses second level spells yet and therefore is out done by the specialty wizard. That does hold true. And in a real game that pretty much holds true also. At third level sorcerors are weak. All my statistics really show is that there are sorcerors in CoCo and not all of them are doing horrid. You suffered from three weeks of Multi-person fights. Something a sorceror obviously fails at miserably.
^Rayne^ 01-20-06, 06:50 PM	Many of the samples you pointed out were Sorcerers with lots of other classes. True I did suffer from many multi-battles (which stinks) especially when everyone's tactics say, attack the wimpy sorcerer first and I get lynched by three players, but it still doesn't fairly show how limited my PC is because of the 1/3 rule. You're making a generalization about specialist wizards and sorcerers in campaigns. My PC wouldn't have less spells available to them in a normal campaign than the specialist wizard, but here on the boards I do. Also I should point out that in the battle I am currently faced with (a 20 intelligence Wizard) has twice as many spells to cast as my PC. If my PC had a 20 Charisma I would still only be able to cast 2 spell levels because rounding works in their favor because 2nd level spells are worth more. It is much easier to min-max a wizard for maximum result and the rules we have on the CoCo board only increase this problem. I looked at this battle and my record is about to be 0/5. Sorcerer's with perfect optimization do have a shot later on, but at the beginning it takes like seven straight losses before a player can even look at the possibility of leveling. That is 7 weeks! I don't think anyone should have to wait 7 weeks to see some success because their class got nerfed by rules that are completely seperate from D&D core rules. I have said all I will on this matter. It is clear to me that people consider this 1/3 rule the bible now and won't change it. I don't think I changed anyone's mind even if people are aware that what I am saying is true. Sadly, I was hoping to make things fair here, but many of you don't seem to care about fairness if it means changing the golden rules used here.
Usurpator 01-20-06, 07:30 PM	I don't think I changed anyone's mind even if people are aware that what I am saying is true. Sadly, I was hoping to make things fair here, but many of you don't seem to care about fairness if it means changing the golden rules used here. Because you think it is true doesn't make it true. Sure, Sorcerers are weak in CoCo at 3rd lvl, but not because of the 1/3rd rule. The 1/3rd rule makes all spellcasters weaker, not Sorcerers more than others. Unfair is a subjective term and I don't think it applies here. You don't want to make Sorcerers builds fair, what you desire is to make Sorcerer builds more balanced compared to other classes. I don't think that is neccessary. I don't see many half-orc wizards as well, or much variation in cleric domains. You can just as well propose to change the rules that make half-orc wizards more viable or some cleric domains better picks as you can propose changes to make Sorcerers better. Fact of the matter is, some classes, builds, races, templates and spells are simply better in the CoCo than others, that is the whole point of optimization. Make extra rules that equalizing all classes and combinations in the CoCo arena just takes away the whole point of optimization. If you 'want to make things fair here' in that respect, I think you are at the wrong board. I am sympathetic to your position, in a short time I will level my Paladin/Sorcerer form 2/2 to 2/3. What does that get me? No BAB, no extra spells in the arena, measly hit points, few extra saves. Not much for a level gained. On the other hand, it makes the challenge of succeeding as a Sorcerer even greater! If you make a succesfull Sorcerer, you must be a great optimizer and or/tactician! Step up to the challenge! I must point out that you accusing me of not caring about fairness, and telling me that I cannot see something that you claim is true, is not helping your argument. EDIT: Oh, and: especially when everyone's tactics say, attack the wimpy sorcerer first and I get lynched by three players From Tactics of Kitaya's last FFA: vs. Krayko Ignore him in favor of the other opponent if possible. When neccesary to face him, close, grapple and squeeze. So your please think again about such claims....
Mal-2 01-20-06, 07:44 PM	I think sorcerers get treated somewhat unfairly by the 1/3rd rule. In PnP games, the sorcerer gets more spells per day, but they're lower level spells. Since we use "spell levels" in the 1/3rd calculation, wizards end much closer to a sorcerer's spells per fight. If we used spells per level per day instead, I think sorcerers would feel a little more like PnP: (Assuming 18 in casting stat) Level Sorcerer Wizard Spec. Wizard 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1/1 2/1 4 3/2 2/1 2/2 5 3/2 2/1/1 2/2/1 6 3/2/2 2/2/1 2/2/2 7 3/3/2 2/2/1/1 2/2/2/1 8 3/3/2/2 2/2/2/1 2/2/2/2 9 3/3/3/2 2/2/2/1/1 2/2/2/2/1 10 3/3/3/2/1 2/2/2/2/1 2/2/2/2/1 11 3/3/3/3/2 2/2/2/2/1/1 2/2/2/2/1/1 12 3/3/3/3/2/1 2/2/2/2/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/1 13 3/3/3/3/2/2 2/2/2/2/1/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/1/1 14 3/3/3/3/2/2/1 2/2/2/2/1/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/1 15 3/3/3/3/2/2/2 2/2/2/2/2/1/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 16 3/3/3/3/2/2/2/1 2/2/2/2/2/1/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1 17 3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2 2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 18 3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1 19 3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2/2 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 20 3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2/2 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2 Not really sure it's the direction we want to go, but it would show off the sorcerer's abilities better than our current method. Edit: If it's unclear, that chart is spells per level per day cut in 1/3rd, rounded up.
Mal-2 01-20-06, 07:52 PM	Oh, one more thought. Has there been any talk about relaxing the 1/3rd rule for free-for-all and hunter fights? Possibly 1/3rd allowed for prebuffs (as it is now), and 2/3rd for the fight? That might help account for the fact that you now have three enemies to fight instead of just one.
SauroGrenom 01-20-06, 07:54 PM	You're analysis clearly tells us that in calculations of spell level, that the Sorcerer is behind the Wizard at low levels both in the CoCo and in the normal DnD. You didn't mention that the Sorcerer at these same levels has an advantage in spell number. This advantage is negated by the spell level calculations and that's whats got you mad. At higher levels, the spell levels of a Sorcerer does out strip that of a equal level Wizard, but perhaps spell level isn't the best measure of spell casting power. If I understand you correctly, you want to preserve the number of spells instead of the number of spell levels. This is infact the advantage of the Sorcerer to begin with and it is taken at a cost of spell levels and diversity of possible spells to cast. Focus your consideration on an effort to preserve the relevant abilities of a Sorcerer. Spell number at each level is what you think should be considered if I understand correctly. How about suggesting a new kind of system that preserves what you think is the important chracteristics. Then make sure that the same system can be applied to all classes without unbalancing anything. In other words your suggestion needs to produce identical numbers of spells usable in the Arena for all the other spell casting classes. If you can accomplish that rather difficult task, then your position would gain some consideration from the community.
SauroGrenom 01-20-06, 08:42 PM	Mal-2, Your system is far more restricitve on all spellcasters than even the 1/3 spell levels rule. Under your system, if I had a 7th level wizard with 4 magic missiles memorized and I wanted to use them in a fight, I'd be up a crick w/o a paddle. I'd only get to use 2 of those spells. That I don't want to use any fireballs is irrelevant in your system and doesn't allow my wizard to cast any more magic missiles.
Mal-2 01-20-06, 09:50 PM	Your system is far more restricitve on all spellcasters than even the 1/3 spell levels rule. Under your system, if I had a 7th level wizard with 4 magic missiles memorized and I wanted to use them in a fight, I'd be up a crick w/o a paddle. I'd only get to use 2 of those spells. That I don't want to use any fireballs is irrelevant in your system and doesn't allow my wizard to cast any more magic missiles. Well, to be clear, I was just brainstorming. There are lots of objections to the scheme I laid out, and bookeeping for pitlords is a problem. To answer your particular concern, I think wizards under that system would be able to cast lower level spells that they have memorized and give up a higher level one. So, if you wanted to cast 3 Magic Missiles, then you use your two 1st level spells, and give up one of the second level spells available for that fight (So, if you started with 2/2/1/1 castable, you'd have 0/1/1/1 left). And I don't think it's far more restrictive. Under the system that I posted a 7th level wizard (with an 18 Int) would get 13 spell levels worth of spells per fight (2 first, 2 second, 1 third, and 1 fourth level). Under our current 1/3 of spell levels, he only gets 10 spell levels per fight. It does mean the wizard can't blow his 10 spell levels on two fourth level spells and a second level spell. He gets 6 different spells to cast, they just can't be all the highest level.
Book5 01-20-06, 11:00 PM	"incoherent and pointless" wow! I must have really been trying hard on that one! Oh wait I did miss your point *sorry* I still think the mage duel thing would be neat. btw. but wait.. (using mal-2's table for convienence) A sorcerer at 3rd level has 2 spell levels to work with.. while at 4th level he has 8! A wizy gets 3 (hardly more than 2) at 3rd and 4 at 4th! What what what? Sound like you have to put up with only one bunk level and then your rolling better than the wizard in the arena.. not even that much more predictable. The CoCo requisite of having spells prepared before pairings mitigates most of the effective versitility that the wizard could be seen to have over the sorcerer... per individual fight. Not to mention most wizards win with their expendables - no difference between a sorcerer and wizard when it comes to expendables. Burning through one level to get to the good stuff is not that bad. I don't expect my little halfling bard to blow up till he is 8th. I coulda spent credits but I'll wade through and pay the dues the old fashioned way. "The consequence of the build Im testing" same dice same difference as far as the Sorcerer is concerned. That class suffers at low levels. Fighters suffer at high levels. Thats the core. No rule should be made for one class. So any rule that adjusts the 1/3rd rule will have to apply to all casters. Wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, ... paladins, bards, rangers, psionics. All at once. The only fair option, and the one Cat has already called. umm :shifty: Mage duels would be neat! So I think the reason I must have missed your point is that your point is missing the point. Sorcerer has a failing.. its called weak at low levels and dominating at high. OR its just plain a bunk class. None of the sorcerers I have played on the table have ever measured up. Nor have I ever seen anyone play a sorcerer that measured up. "Sorcerers dont suck.. they blow" thats my opinion. Maybe I'll see a coco character change it someday, (Snommelp is certainly changing my opinion of the pure bard build) but if you don't like the one third rule the first step is to formulate a replacement that achieve the same goals only better. Take a look a Mal-2's table. I like it. Cut each level of spell in 1/3rd. THEN compile them ALL into spell levels (negating sauro's complaint). This will benifit the sorcerer.. perhaps unfairly? In this one case (since it would be a blanket rule that incidentally supports the sorcerer more than the other classes) it might be worth considering a rule "unfairly" benifiting the sorcerer since it would bring the underused class some limelight in the CoCo. ---> in offense of the well known and publically accepted fact that sorcerers are the weakest class in the core rules. *sigh* I was thinking your thrust was "down with the 1/3rd" which I can work with. "Up with the sorcerers.." bleh. might as well "long live the fighters" eh? Not necessary. The class just needs about 12 levels under the belt and its fine. Epic! ooh epic. I did make an awesome epic sorcerer this one time.. but in recollection I broke about 7 basic rules to do it. (he had autoquicken so...) nonetheless "one rough level" is no standing for a special exception... even if it is the starting level. Me Im more interested in seeing certain builds battling each other.. in their prime. Thats where my thrust came from. I have no problem with the 1/3 when dealing with a fighter vs a wizard (where the question is: did you make your save (or roll good damage)? = Drat/Yay = fight over), but I wanna see a real spell battle! mage duels!
Guildmaster (TLT) 02-19-06, 08:53 PM	Wow. It has been a month since anyone posted here. I have a new idea about guild multi-character quests. Now, I know that not many people go on quests with other people due to the rewards don't quite equal the same amount of wins in the arena. This is why I propose that questers who are in guilds get a bonus for each additional member. I want to keep this only for quests that benefit the guilds involved. This way, we might see more inter-guild relationships forming. Proposed Change: Inter-Guild Relationship: %xp & gp bonus Same Guild: +15% Guilds are in an Alliance: +10% Guilds are Friendly: +5% Indifferent, No Relation: +0% Guilds are Unfriendly: -5% Guilds are Hostile: -10% Example: Assume the TLT and CEF are in an alliance. The CEF are friendly with WAR, and the WAR and TLT are indifferent. 3 caracters go on a quest to stop a half-fiend Aboleth from conquering the sewers of Gladius. There is one member from WAR, one from CEF, and one from TLT. At the end of the quest, the TLT member gains an additional (+10%) bonus, while the member of the CEF gains an additional (+10%+5%) bonus. The WAR member gains (+5%) bonus. Thoughts? Luni
lonewolf 02-26-06, 07:28 AM	I hope this is the right place for posting this. Regarding the Guild system: With the new removal of the secondary caps of structures it seems to me that suddenly all string 1 structures have lost their secondary effect. Was this intentional?
Guildlords 02-26-06, 08:06 AM	heh I just wanted to post this but Lonewolf was quicker Yeah, the String 1 Structures lack a purpose now so we have to find something new for them. Any ideas?
lonewolf 02-26-06, 08:24 AM	The first idea I have is that the string 1 could act as tiebraker in competitions. => one guild has a bazaar and another has docks in the same district. Normally both structures would produce less income, but I would say that the guild with the string 1 structure should win this competition and thus gain normal income. This benefit is however not enough for a secondary effect and need something else to become worthwhile.
Luni 02-26-06, 12:05 PM	heh I just wanted to post this but Lonewolf was quicker Yeah, the String 1 Structures lack a purpose now so we have to find something new for them. Any ideas? I was thinking, String 1 structures increase the structure trait of all neighboring districts that the same guild controls by 1,2,3. Only neighboring districts, but not the district they are built in. This means TLT's grainfield in Yurnywood, raises the Nature in all of the bordering areas they control.
SauroGrenom 02-26-06, 02:46 PM	heh I just wanted to post this but Lonewolf was quicker Yeah, the String 1 Structures lack a purpose now so we have to find something new for them. Any ideas? One of the ideas we were kicking around when I chatted with cat yesterday was that the 1st string would increase the district's trait modifier for that trait by +1/+2/+3. This is very simular to Luni's suggestion, but far less powerfull. With proper positioning Luni's suggestion could end up increasing the trait value of a single district by more than +6. For example this would happen in Gladius Park if War, PSI and EYE all decided to build Farmsteads in there home districts. The potential for overlapping bonuses gets way out of hand rapidly and even if we don't allow these bonuses to stack it gets complicated to audit what the district trait was in any given district in any given week. Instead I think we should have just the district that the structure is in recieve the same bonus. This allows other structures to become more usefull rapidly throught the lifting of the secondary traits and the increased district traits. So for example if CEF builds an Ampitheater (+2 politics) in there home district, then in addition to the increased income from there Ampitheater a Landing may be more proifitable as well because it uses politics as a secondary trait. THis kind of bonus is limited and beneficial by its nature. I favor this option.
Caterane 02-27-06, 04:57 AM	I don't have a better idea, especially not seven (one for each structure) so increasing the Primary Trait in that district by 1 => 2 => 3 sounds not bad. The good thing about it is that it allows guilds to dip into traits where they have a penalty. If the PSI really wants to have some Nature buildings, a Plantage helps to make it profitable. I'll add it at once.
lonewolf 02-27-06, 05:17 AM	I don't have a better idea, especially not seven (one for each structure) so increasing the Primary Trait in that district by 1 => 2 => 3 sounds not bad. The good thing about it is that it allows guilds to dip into traits where they have a penalty. If the PSI really wants to have some Nature buildings, a Plantage helps to make it profitable. I'll add it at once. Actually it doesnt help with dipping, because if you build a plantage in one district, you cannot build another nature structure in the same district. This is why I actually like Lunis Idea better.
Guildlords 02-27-06, 07:49 AM	It does, in two ways even. 1) If you build a plantage (grants +3 Nature in that district), every structure with Nature as secondary trait (Blacksmithy, Hermitage, Gardens) would benefit from that. So the EHTC could now build Gardens, or the PSI could build a Hermitage because both would now gain +3 to their efficiency multiplier and become worthwhile. 2) With the new rules for slots, we've put away with the restriction that you can build only one structure of the same trait in the same district. You could have a Landing and Merchant Carts. Those would however each occupy one of your three Economy slots so you could never upgrade to level 3 unless you raze one. I'll restrict this in some way though because it's very powerful. I was thinking that structures of the same trait count double for # of structures in the district (# of structures per district: 4) so if you go Landing/Carts you cannot build any other structure. Alternatively, we could say that each string of yours that already exists somewhere in Gladius decreases the income by a number divided by the amount of same strings you own in Gladius. Example: you have a Landing in Lower Merx, a harbor in Duken Marina, and another Landing in Vilis, you'd only gain 1/3 income from each of these structures. I like the latter because it does not prevent you from building the same structure over and over again but let's you control your own competition. If there are 10 ships available each day, then that number won't increase just because you have five harbors. Opponent harbors don't count in that caluclation (they have their own customers).
Pitlords 02-27-06, 08:18 AM	Section: Structures District Limitations: Each District can hold a maximum of 4 Structures in any combination, regardless of the level of a structure. Every district has 3 "Slots" for each trait. A Slot can hold one level of structures (eg a Shrine uses up one Faith Slot, a Temple would fill two Faith Slots, and a Bazaar would use up two Economy Slots). Competition: If the same Structure (not String!) exists multiple times in Gladius, income of all those structures is divided by the amount of similar structures in the whole city. The upkeep stays the same. This stays in effect until the amount of similar structures changes. Competition is a legal and accepted method in Gladius. Example: Let's say there are three Bazaars in Gladius (one TAO, two PSI). Since there are 3 similar Bazaars, all produce only 1/3 income. If TAO would now upgrade one of its Bazaars to a Marketsquare, the Bazzars would now produce half income, and the Marketsquare full income (provided there isn't another Marketsquare). Rivalry: If the slot limit is exceeded, the lowest structure of that trait falls inactive. If all structures of that trait have the same level, all produce income as if they would be a structure of one level less but the upkeep and staff stays that of the normal level for such a structure. This stays in effect until the structure levels in that district are back to the maximum number of slots, or there is a lower level structure. This creates rivalry between two guilds who both want to use the nice district trait but don't want to fight or become otherwise agressively involved. Rivalry is a legal and accepted method in Gladius. Example: The WAR has a Bazaar (Lvl 2) in Upper Merx, the EYE has Merchant Carts (Lvl 1). So far, 3 economy slots (Lvl 2 + Lvl 1) are used up - the maximum allowed. The EYE now wants rivalry and upgrades its Merchant Carts to a Bazaar, too. Since both economy structures are of the same level, none can fall inactive but instead, both produce only income as if they would be Merchant Carts with the upkeep and staff of a Bazaar (plus lesser income because of 'Competition'; see above). After 4 weeks, TAO has enough of this costly endeavour and decreases its Bazaar to Merchant Carts, the competition ends (because it's back at 3 slots) and EYE is happy. Alternatively, TAO could have upgraded their Bazaar to a Marketsquare. In this case, there would now be a clear lower level structure (Bazaar is lower than Marketsquare) and the Bazaar would fall inactive (because the Marketsquare - as a lvl 3 structure - uses up all economy slots alone). - Districts can now hold structures from the same trait, even the same string, and yes, you can even build the same structure several times in the same district. This is now regulated by the "Competition" and "Rivalry" rules. Structures produce good income now but that will change quickly when all guilds begin to produce similar structures. Then the battle begins Muahahaha
lonewolf 02-27-06, 08:23 AM	It does, in two ways even. 1) If you build a plantage (grants +3 Nature in that district), every structure with Nature as secondary trait (Blacksmithy, Hermitage, Gardens) would benefit from that. So the EHTC could now build Gardens, or the PSI could build a Hermitage because both would now gain +3 to their efficiency multiplier and become worthwhile. 2) With the new rules for slots, we've put away with the restriction that you can build only one structure of the same trait in the same district. You could have a Landing and Merchant Carts. Those would however each occupy one of your three Economy slots so you could never upgrade to level 3 unless you raze one. but your example(plantage + other nature buildings) would never work. ;) I also like your second Idea also better.
Guildlords 02-28-06, 07:03 PM	Due to the current overhaul of the guild system, we have to make some minor adjustments. We try to affect as little as possible of what is already in existance. Here are the new Guild Traits. Changes in Red. Guildmasters, please change that in your guild! CEF TLT EHTC +2 Faith +2 Nature +2 Crime +1 Politics +1 Faith +1 Economy +1 Education +1 Leisure +1 Faith +0 Economy +0 Crime +0 Leisure -1 Nature -1 Education -1 Politics -1 Crime -1 Economy -1 Education -2 Leisure -2 Politics -2 Nature WAR TAO PSI +2 Leisure +2 Education +2 Economy +1 Economy +1 Politics +1 Crime +1 Crime +1 Nature +1 Education +0 Nature +0 Faith +0 Politics -1 Politics -1 Crime -1 Leisure -1 Faith -1 Leisure -1 Nature -2 Education -2 Economy -2 Faith EYE +2 Politics +1 Leisure +1 Nature +0 Education -1 Economy -1 Faith -2 Crime The District Traits will also have to be adjusted slightly. I'll post that soon.
Caterane 03-08-06, 12:45 PM	I think we should make a difference between staff and staff. As it is now, a guild could reassign Animal Trainers to Nuns to Drug Dealers to Scientists. This is ridiculous. Additionally, staff hiring in advance with unused GAPs spoils the purpose of them using GAPs to hire. So let's give every String a profession: Economy: 1) Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Merchants] 2) Landing => Docks => Harbor [Longshoremen] 3) Blacksmithy => Foundry => Mill [Blacksmiths] 4) Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Storekeepers] and so on... Suggestions?
SauroGrenom 03-08-06, 05:42 PM	I think we should make a difference between staff and staff. As it is now, a guild could reassign Animal Trainers to Nuns to Drug Dealers to Scientists. This is ridiculous. Additionally, staff hiring in advance with unused GAPs spoils the purpose of them using GAPs to hire. So let's give every String a profession: Economy: 1) Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Merchants] 2) Landing => Docks => Harbor [Longshoremen] 3) Blacksmithy => Foundry => Mill [Blacksmiths] 4) Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Storekeepers] and so on... Suggestions? Hmm... Professions. That would grant a measure of realism to the way staff is hired and used. Is the increased complexity and decreased flexibility worth it? What do we realy get for an extra clause in the guild rules and increased complexity of guild auditing?
Caterane 03-09-06, 12:20 PM	There's almost no additional complexity since it only applies if you raze a structure to build another one. Then you cannot reassign the old staff. Infact, I think it decreases complexity as you cannot shift staff around anymore. Imagine a plague has striken your scientists down. A guild would then move their drug dealers or barmaids to the Council of Mages? Completely unrealistic and impossible to track when a guild had which staff where. You see, it makes things easier because it now concretely says which structure needs which staff. The main function however is that it prevents guilds from hiring hordes of staff in advance and assign it later whereever needed. Without that new rule, a guild would always have 20 Staff in the backyard because everytime you have an unused GAP you fill up your staff reserve. Library would also become useless. So, any suggestions on which professions would be best suited for each string?
Mal-2 03-09-06, 01:18 PM	There's almost no additional complexity since it only applies if you raze a structure to build another one. Then you cannot reassign the old staff. Well, if the staff are always assigned to a particular structure, why have seperate staff purchases at all? Would it be simpler to just roll the cost and maintenence of the staff into the structures they support?
Book5 03-09-06, 04:59 PM	How about a very simple "conversion" process. GAPS and what not, Barmaid to Nun? Sure, happens all the time. Farmer to solder... all it takes is the need, and a little bit of training. How about merchant to laborer? Priest to drug dealer? Going "down" is easy. Actually "upgrading" the units would take more work.
Caterane 03-10-06, 10:06 AM	@Mal: The staff cost will be included in the structure upkeep once it is assigned. Staff uses up GAPs to make it harder to build structures and make GAPs more important. @Book: Too complicated. We would have to define which conversion is okay and which not. Instead, I would like to have a profession assigned to each string. I would do it myself but I have a feeling that finding medieval professions in english is better left to a native speaker.
Sunwolf 03-10-06, 01:16 PM	Okay I'll take a stab at this (staff names in italics): Economy [Transport] Landing => Docks => Harbor [Crime] Longshoreman [Sales] Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Politics] Merchants [Production] Blacksmithy => Foundry => Mill [Nature] Smiths [Storage] Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Crime] Storekeepers Faith [Religious] Shrine => Temple => Church [Politics] Acolytes [Medical] Nunnery => Convent => Abbey [Economy] Nuns [Ritual] Charnel House => Graveyard => Nekropolis [Economy] Gravediggers [Conversion] Hermitage => Cloister => Monastry [Leisure] Brothers Crime [Sabotage] Hideouts => Terror Cell => Underground Network [Faith] Fanatics [Gambling] Low Dive => Saloon => Casino [Leisure] Card Sharks [Control] Street Thugs => District Gang => Mafia [Education] Mobsters Drug Dealers => Smuggler Ring => Cartell [Nature] [i]Smugglers Leisure [Partying] Tavern => Red Light Area => Festhall [Economy] Entertainers [Entertainment] Public Square => Stage => Theater [Education] Actors [Recreation] Gardens => Park => Zoo [Nature] Grounds Keepers [Fine Arts] Gallery => Exhibition Hall => Museum [Education] Curators Education [Learning] School => Academy => University [Politics] Teachers [Research] Alchemical Workshop => Laboratory => Research Facility [Nature] Alchemists [Conference] Theoreticum => Ministry of Education => Council of Mages [Faith] Philosophers [Knowledge] Bookstore => Library => Archives [Economy] Archivists Nature [Farming] Grainfield => Farmsteads => Plantage [Faith] Farmers [Forestry] Timberyard => Logging Camp => Lumbermill [Politics] Lumberjacks [Mining] Tunnel => Coalmine => Quarry [Economy] Miners [Beasts] Animal Kennels => Ranch => Training Grounds [Crime] Beastarii Politics [Civilian] Speaker's Corner => Parish Hall => Town Hall [Leisure] Orators [Government] Mayor House => Amphitheater => House of Lords [Economy] Bureaucrats [Justice] Magistrate => Courthouse => Supreme Court [Crime] Judges [Penal System] Jailhouse => Dungeon => Prison Complex [Crime] Prison guards
NiQil 03-10-06, 03:54 PM	Here are my thoughts (staff names in red): Economy [Transport] Landing => Docks => Harbor [Crime] Mariners [Sales] Merchant Carts => Bazaar => Marketsquare [Politics] Merchants [Production] Blacksmithy => Foundry => Mill [Nature] Craftsmen [Storage] Depository => Warehouse => Emporium [Crime] Vendors Faith [Religious] Shrine => Temple => Church [Politics] Acolytes [Medical] Nunnery => Convent => Abbey [Economy] Priestesses [Ritual] Charnel House => Graveyard => Necropolis [Economy] Caretakers [Conversion] Hermitage => Cloister => Monastary [Leisure] Friars Crime [Sabotage] Hideouts => Terror Cell => Underground Network [Faith] Insurgents [Gambling] Low Dive => Saloon => Casino [Leisure] Gamblers [Control] Street Thugs => District Gang => Mafia [Education] Ruffians [Illegal] Drug Dealers => Smuggler Ring => Cartell [Nature] Smugglers Leisure [Partying] Tavern => Red Light Area => Festhall [Economy] Minstrals [Entertainment] Public Square => Stage => Theater [Education] Thespians [Recreation] Gardens => Park => Zoo [Nature] Groundskeepers [Fine Arts] Gallery => Exhibition Hall => Museum [Education] Curators Education [Learning] School => Academy => University [Politics] Professors [Research] Alchemical Workshop => Laboratory => Research Facility [Nature] Alchemists [Conference] Theoreticum => Ministry of Education => Council of Mages [Faith] Philosophers [Knowledge] Bookstore => Library => Archives [Economy] Archivists Nature [Farming] Grainfield => Farmsteads => Plantage [Faith] Farmers [Forestry] Timberyard => Logging Camp => Lumbermill [Politics] Lumberjacks [Mining] Tunnel => Coalmine => Quarry [Economy] Miners [Beasts] Animal Kennels => Ranch => Training Grounds [Crime] Breeders Politics [Civilian] Speaker's Corner => Parish Hall => Town Hall [Leisure] Orators [Government] Mayor House => Amphitheater => House of Lords [Economy] Politicians [Justice] Magistrate => Courthouse => Supreme Court [Crime] Arbiters [Penal System] Jailhouse => Dungeon => Prison Complex [Crime] Wardens Sunwolf and I have quite a few that are the same, it looks like...
Guildlords 03-10-06, 05:06 PM	Thanks NiQil and Sunwolf. I give you a credit for that. Added to the Guild Hall.
SoulLord 03-10-06, 05:23 PM	he he he I think you Meant SunWolf this time unless you are thinking about the gladius weekly :)
Caterane 03-10-06, 09:37 PM	I've seem that some of you are confused as to the frequent changes in the guild system lately. Note that since the removal of secondary trait caps, the old distribution of traits does not work anymore. It has to be recreated. Sauro and I are doing our best to finish that job asap but it is a difficult task with 28 structures, each having 2 traits, and seven guilds with 6 traits. The combinations are endless so expect some more shuffling around in the coming weeks. We try not to affect existing things or make major changes.
Guildlords 03-15-06, 07:56 AM	I am glad to present you a new improved and fully functional Guild Structure System. It is easier to understand than the last one, has still more options, creates more competition and is almost perfectly balanced. I want to give special thanks to SauroGrenom who helped me A LOT with the system. Without him, this would have taken weeks if finished at all. The reasons first. As some of you have noticed, there was a lot of shuffling around from the beginning of the old system and the longer we played the more problems arose. With the necessary removal of the caps for secondary traits, the whole structure system stopped to work. The Strings and Levels of the traits created a huge gap between a Shrine and a Church. Even within a level, the lowest structure produced ridiculous income. The urge to expand was limited to 2-3 districts when guilds run out of build options. And in the long run, there was not enough income in Gladius to do all the cool things. First of all, we did away with Strings and Structure Levels. All structures were reshuffled into 4 Price Classes within each trait. Since there are no strings anymore, the structures didn't had to be a bigger version of the previous one so we created many new structures and dropped old ones. With new structures came new secondary effects. The rules system has also been changed to the better and simplified. - Each guild can build each structure once in Gladius. - A district can hold a total of 4 structures. - A district has 3 structure-trait slots for each trait. If you build a [ECO/NAT] building, it occupies an economy slot, and a nature slot. - This creates competition if two guilds are in the same district, which we called Rivalry. It means that every structure that shares one or both trait components as a rival structure, produces only half income. With the decreased complexity it is now easier to apply add-ons for the guild system in the future. For example, we are creating a system called Prestige Points for guilds. This is to make guild behaviour more realistic. Economically, it might be great for the CEF to build a Slavemarket but it's not realistic. Now the CEF would lose Prestige Points if it builds a Slavemarket. The EHTC on the other hand gains Prestige from one. Here's a short sneak-peek: - Structures of your +2 Trait (eg Faith for CEF) generate weekly Prestige Points equal to 10% of the structures income. - Structures of your -2 Trait (eg Crime for EYE) destroy weekly Prestige Points equal to 10% of the structures income. - You can use Prestige Points in a number of ways, like speeding up the construction process of a structure, lessen the effect of a negative random event, build a Chapter House, build a Unique structure, max structures depend on Prestige, hire regiments, and many more things. Until we have a complete concrete list, the guilds should just hoard their prestige. On a side note: I've found out how to import BMP files into my mapmaker. That means if you have a picture for your base of operations or one of your structures that you want to see on the Gladius map, send it to me. It must be drawn (ie no photo) and colored, without background.
Guildlords 03-15-06, 10:06 AM	The Base of Operation does now not count as a Chapter House anymore. The new system is much more sophisticated. Every guild has started with one free Chapter House (incl staff) in their home district. This also costs upkeep (from now on, not retroactivel)! Guildmasters, please change your guild sheet accordingly. You also have to add a District Defense Value in the post with your districts. This value reflects how hard it is for enemy guilds to operate against that district. Technically, this number is added to certain rolls or creates conscript regiments. Your home base provides a +3 bonus. Chapter House upgrades and structures improve that value. The concrete rules will be up this weekend. As for structures, only the CEF and the TLT have one so far. Instead of recalculating the numbers for the previous weeks, we just say these guilds pay the correct price for their structure and use the new income and prestige from now on. It is to the disadvantage of these two guilds but it doesn't create a mess. Luni, please tell me which structure your old Grainfield should become. It cost 4000. If you want a 5000er you have to pay 1000. Post your decision in the Guild Hall please.
SauroGrenom 03-15-06, 10:29 AM	Since hiring staff happens with the same GAP used to construct a building and since the buildings take 2-4 weeks to construct with the current # of GAP and lask of secondary effects, there is now no reason to prehire staff. All the staff needed are hired at the same time as construction happens. However there are a few guilds who have been pre-hiring staff under the idea that it will save us time and money in the future. Now that is no longer the case. I propose a one time only change simular to what is being offered to TLT and CEF with regard to there structures. Allow those guilds who have been hiring staff for consecutive weeks to change those GAP uses to begin construction at the time that staff hiring took place. I know PSI's history best, so for example PSI hired 10 staff with the March 1st and another 10 with the March 8th GAP. I'd rather just begin construction of a level 5000 structure on the 1st and continue using GAP for this purpose to the 22nd and and the structure starts to make income on the 29th 4 weeks from the beginning of the "construction time". If these structure rules were in place back on the 1st, then that's what I'd have done.
lonewolf 03-15-06, 10:40 AM	And now to something completely differemt: I have a suggestion for a possible rule change and I ask anyone who reads this to stay open-mided until you have read everything. I think that we should allow parts of the unearthed arcana material released in the SRD for use in the CoCo. The Unearthed Arcana Material can be distributed into 3 parts: Things that we cannot ever allow in the CoCo either because they are clearly stronger than normal characters(Gestalt), are completely different from things are used here at the moment(Reputation, Background, ...) or are simply incompatibel to the normal rules(Spellpoints, Classbonus to AC, ...). Things that could be integrated into the CoCo with some work(Generic Classes, Spontaneous Divine Casters, ...) And things that need little to no change from us and greatly increase the flexebility(Class Variants, Class Feature Variants, Prestigious Classes, Racial Paragon Classes, Specialist Wizard Variants, Racial Variants). I think that there is no reason not to allow the third category, while we allow sources like the divine section in the SRD. I will not be suprised if this is voted down by everyone, but I think its really worth talking about.
Guildlords 03-15-06, 12:46 PM	Since hiring staff happens with the same GAP used to construct a building... You ere. This rule hasn't changed. As before, you have to hire the staff seperately with seperate GAPs. The reason behind this is a) to make Staff hiring, and Staff in general, more important b) to slow down the construction of big structures and to give lower ones their own attractiveness. I've seen in your guild that you already plan the big projects and ignore the lower structures. You can now probably see for yourself why there's a distinction between construction time and hiring staff. A Main Hall gives you a second GAP which can be used to hire staff at the same time you construct the structure. @Lonewolf: Geduld ;)
SauroGrenom 03-15-06, 01:58 PM	You ere. This rule hasn't changed. As before, you have to hire the staff seperately with seperate GAPs. *Sigh* Well that wasn't clear to me before; and since it is the case, should the CEF and TLT choose upgrade there structures then they would need additional staff for those structures to be active. Some of there prehired staff should probably be used for that purpose at the CEF. By my calculations the CEF need to spend an additional 2000gp and 10 staff to have a nunnery of the current form. While the TLT needs to spend 1000 gp and 10 staff to transform their gainfields into a reserve and they have no pre-hired staff. BTW now the random events that grant free structures needs to be clarified as to whether they are group A, B, C, or D.
MindWandererB 03-15-06, 02:41 PM	I have a suggestion for a possible rule change and I ask anyone who reads this to stay open-mided until you have read everything. I think that we should allow parts of the unearthed arcana material released in the SRD for use in the CoCo. The Unearthed Arcana Material can be distributed into 3 parts: Things that we cannot ever allow in the CoCo either because they are clearly stronger than normal characters(Gestalt), are completely different from things are used here at the moment(Reputation, Background, ...) or are simply incompatibel to the normal rules(Spellpoints, Classbonus to AC, ...). Things that could be integrated into the CoCo with some work(Generic Classes, Spontaneous Divine Casters, ...) And things that need little to no change from us and greatly increase the flexebility(Class Variants, Class Feature Variants, Prestigious Classes, Racial Paragon Classes, Specialist Wizard Variants, Racial Variants). I think that there is no reason not to allow the third category, while we allow sources like the divine section in the SRD. I will not be suprised if this is voted down by everyone, but I think its really worth talking about.I agree that it should be talked about, but I for one will speak against it. 1) It's not actually part of the SRD. It's Open License, and two of the three main web sites that have the SRD include it, but it's not part of the official SRD. 2) A whole lot of people aren't familiar with it, and there's a lot of it. Only a few people don't like to deal with psionics, but although this is simpler on a case-by-case basis, it is potentially more confusing. 3) Some of the variant classes interact poorly with core classes. For instance, a multiclass Barbarian/Whirling Frenzy Barbarian/Totem Barbarian is pretty crazy, and a "Simple variant" Rogue (fighter bonus feats instead of sneak attack) is an extremely tempting "dip," especially if multiclassed with core Fighter. 4) I don't think I even need to mention Gestalt. And any optional rules set (like "armor as DR") is right out. Only character development options should even be considered. On the other hand, some variants wouldn't be horrible to use. Racial variants, for instance, wouldn't be a big deal, since everyone has only one race. But some of the options are pretty unbalanced--Water Halfings, for instance, are flat-out superior to core halflings. However, if we start "cherry-picking" which parts of Unearthed Arcana we want to use, then we have to spell it out, item by item, rather than just saying "everything in the SRD." And that could take months, if not years, of debate. It's much easier to just ban it all. Finally, if we allow non-SRD material that just happens to be easily available online, we open up a whole can of worms. What about classes or races that are published on the WotC website? What about material from other free sources entirely? What about 3.0 materials--the SRD does contain some 3.0 material (Deities and Demigods) that we don't change at all. A bad precedent for sanity.
Zevox 03-15-06, 03:01 PM	On the other hand, some variants wouldn't be horrible to use. Racial variants, for instance, wouldn't be a big deal, since everyone has only one race. But some of the options are pretty unbalanced--Water Halfings, for instance, are flat-out superior to core halflings. Actually, as near as I can tell, many of the racial variants are pretty unbalanced. None of those that give stat adjustments mention those adjustments replacing the base race's. So suddenly we have LA+0 races that get things like: Water Orcs +8str(!), +4con, -4int, -4wis, and -4cha; Earth Dwarves +2str, +4con, -2dex, and -4cha; Air Goblins +6dex(!), -4str, and -4cha; I don't think I need to go on, but some of those are pretty bad. And I also agree with your other points. So add me to the list of folks that don't want to see any Unearthed Arcana allowed. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-15-06, 03:38 PM	Actually, as near as I can tell, many of the racial variants are pretty unbalanced. None of those that give stat adjustments mention those adjustments replacing the base race's.Actually, the section on racial variants says this at the beginning: Many of the variant races described in this section provide alternate ability score adjustments. In these cases, the adjustments given here supersede the standard race's adjustments.
Zevox 03-15-06, 03:47 PM	Actually, the section on racial variants says this at the beginning: Oh! I missed that somehow. So some of those aren't as bad as they could be. Oh well, I still agree with your points, and still agree that Unearthed Arcana shouldn't be permitted here. Zevox
Erithmu 03-15-06, 03:49 PM	RE: Unearthed Arcana: First off I have used some of these rules, the human paragon druid in my sig uses two variants from those rules. I like em, I would love to play in a gestalt campaign, etc etc. However, I do not think that this is the place for their testing, I know that Gladius has gone through multiple revisions and the world has blown up a couple of times. I do not think now is the time to try to add an entire new subsection of variants when half the arena is already built around the rules that exist. Were the Arena to go through a reset, I would say then discuss the possibilty of adding the rules then. Vote: Not now but after a reset.
SauroGrenom 03-15-06, 06:53 PM	With the changes to the base of opperations, a question comes to mind. The chapter house has 10 staff. Do we need to have a place to house those staff? Are they simular to our maids and cooks and stable boys and guards. Can we use them as guards? Simularly about the main hall. This structure requires 5 clerks. Do we need to make a servant's quarters (with a maid and a place for that maid to live) for those clerks? Do they use up bathroom slots and kitchen slots? As a side note, I'd like to point out how silly it is that at PSI we have a servant's quarters where 4 maids and a cook live, and one of those maids only cleans the servant's quarters. Keep in mind that the Servant's Quarters is a room 20'x20' and is the home of the maid who cleans the place and of 3 other maids and a cook. I just don't think a maid should be necessary to keep a servant's quarters clean, a bunch of maids live there for crying out loud. The staff requirement for a servants quarters should be lifted in my opinion. Also I don't think that a maid should be needed for every 5 members if one cook can sustain 20. Cooking three meals a day for 20 is way harder than cleaning 5 beds. I think we should expand what a maid can do to support 10 or 15 members. Instead of staff requirements on quarters, I think we should make limits on how many "guild members" (including all the staff) can be supported by each maid and cook. A maid for every 15 and cook for every 20, a bathroom for every 15 and a kitchen for every 20. Lift the staff requirements on quarters!! Viva-la-Revolution!! The net effect of this is that many guilds are currently running up against a hard to surmount limit on expansion. At PSI for example we have 12 members and 4 maids and 1 cook. We can take on 3 more members. That's it. If we want to hire 5 clerks for a main hall, we need two new servants quarters, and two new maids and a new cook and a new kitchen as well. If we want 4 new members in the guild we'll only need one new living quarters a new servant's quarters and two maids and one cook and a new kitchen. If we were building a main hall, we would have... The guild with 12 character members is supported by 2 cooks, 5 clerks, 6 maids, 2 bathrooms and 2 restaraunt sized 30x30 kitchens. Our staff already out number the members, and we haven't hired any guards or regiments yet and we don't know if we need to provide rooms/maids/cooks for the 10 staff required by the chapter house. Anyway I think it's worth while considering scaling back the requirements on support staff. A few less maids would go a long way to making things more reasonable.
Caterane 03-15-06, 08:19 PM	A Maid doesn't just mob the floor of her assigned room but cleans the whole base, fulfills the wishes of the members, buys supplies, and many other things. The assignment to a room is more a technical thing. Metagame explanation: as with staff, this reduces the growth rate of guilds. Sauro, I know you'd like to have the killer guild rather next week than the week thereafter but the system is supposed to last for many months if not years. Progression is already MUCH faster than it would be in reality. Or when have you last seen a Robber Baron Keep being constructed in 4 weeks or less? Enjoy this beginning phase :) The first home district Chapter House comes complete with Staff. It was basically available from the beginning on. Since the staff is already assigned, it does not cost additional upkeep. The Chapter House itself however costs 50 gold per week which must be payed from this week on. Let's focus on the Prestige Point system. What do we want to have them do? I think the government of expansion depending on Prestige is a necessary thing else I could build a string of Chapter Houses right into Valhamya in 2-3 weeks. Any idea on a formula? But it should not be limited to that. Prestige Points are now an integral part. We have to come up with things that can be done with them.
NiQil 03-15-06, 11:15 PM	Alright...maybe it's just me....but the whole guild system seems 3 times as complicated as it used to be. Complicated to the point that I am now reconsidering my involvement. Maybe I just need to have someone sit down and explain how things are supposed to work now...I dunno. For instance....what was the idea behind making the guilds now pay additonal upkeep for their base of operations? Is that really necessary? What is the purpose of paying 50 gp a week in upkeep, if we are already paying upkeep on the individual rooms within the base of operations? Doesn't that seem like we are paying twice for the same thing? I guess I just never saw a problem with the old system, and don't really see a need for all of these changes, since the old system never really got tested out in practice to see if it even needed changing. It just feels like changing things for changes sake, rather than because of an actual need to change things. Maybe it's just me. But I went from having a fairly good handle on the guild material to scratching my head in the span of about 2 minutes looking at the new stuff.
Caterane 03-16-06, 06:00 AM	NiQil, if you fall from a scyscraper, the moment you fall everything is okay. If you don't see a problem now does not mean that there won't be one in the future. I don't see why we should test on a system when we clearly know that it will not work at some point. I have no time to explain all the many things that led us to overhaul the system but it was necessary. We would have ended up with the need to reform it anyway and I'd like to do that rather now than later when everyone has structures. And the new system is 1000 times easier. I just haven't typed up the rules but will do so this weekend. What you read in the rules is the old one. The upkeep of 50 is for the Chapter House. A Chapter House is different from a Base of Operations in that it controls the district you're in.
NiQil 03-16-06, 07:47 AM	And now to something completely differemt: I have a suggestion for a possible rule change and I ask anyone who reads this to stay open-mided until you have read everything. I think that we should allow parts of the unearthed arcana material released in the SRD for use in the CoCo. The Unearthed Arcana Material can be distributed into 3 parts: Things that we cannot ever allow in the CoCo either because they are clearly stronger than normal characters(Gestalt), are completely different from things are used here at the moment(Reputation, Background, ...) or are simply incompatibel to the normal rules(Spellpoints, Classbonus to AC, ...). Things that could be integrated into the CoCo with some work(Generic Classes, Spontaneous Divine Casters, ...) And things that need little to no change from us and greatly increase the flexebility(Class Variants, Class Feature Variants, Prestigious Classes, Racial Paragon Classes, Specialist Wizard Variants, Racial Variants). I think that there is no reason not to allow the third category, while we allow sources like the divine section in the SRD. I will not be suprised if this is voted down by everyone, but I think its really worth talking about. I wanted to point out, lonewolf, that the site you are referring to here is NOT the SRD. It is a privately created site that copies the material from the SRD...however it also adds to it. The official WotC SRD does not include material from the Unearthed Arcana. Why? Because it is not Open Source content. It is intellectual property as well as copyrighted material. The owner of the site you are referring to could very easily be taken to court and forced to shut down (as well as probably pay some very hefty fines) by WotC for displaying the material from the Unearthed Arcana without permission from WotC. We would also require that same permission to display portions of the Unearthed Arcana on our site, or we could be subject to the same penalties under law. That's not a basket that I think any of us want to open. In short, while the website you are referring to may put the SRD material into a more aesthetically pleasing display than the original and official SRD, do not mistake them for the same thing. One is official and licensed, the other is not. One displays legally allowed open source material, while the other also includes copyrighted and illegal-to-display-without-permission material that could cause them a great deal of trouble if WotC pushes the issue. Until such time as WotC themselves includes the UA material in their own SRD, we would be brushing up against the law if we decide to do so.
Caterane 03-16-06, 07:51 AM	I was under the impression that it is open licence. It is in both the Hypertext SRD and Sovelior's. I don't think even one of them would display illegal content; here both do it. I'll probably ask a Wizo.
lonewolf 03-16-06, 08:00 AM	I was under the impression that it is open licence. It is in both the Hypertext SRD and Sovelior's. I don't think even one of them would display illegal content; here both do it. I'll probably ask a Wizo. Unearthed Arcana IS open content. I have access to the book and can assure you that it is. If its thus automatically part of the SRD or not is another question.
NiQil 03-16-06, 08:13 AM	I was under the impression that it is open licence. It is in both the Hypertext SRD and Sovelior's. I don't think even one of them would display illegal content; here both do it. I'll probably ask a Wizo. @ Caterane & lonewolf: this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35) link is the official WotC SRD. Anything else is not. This link does not include UA material because it is not Open Source. Feel free to take a look for yourself. Displaying UA material without express permission from WotC is prohibited.
Mal-2 03-16-06, 08:18 AM	@ Caterane & lonewolf: this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35) link is the official WotC SRD. Anything else is not. This link does not include UA material because it is not Open Source. Feel free to take a look for yourself. Displaying UA material without express permission from WotC is prohibited. Luckily, WotC gave you permission in the very front of UA. It's all licensed under the OGL. They just didn't add it to the SRD. I'm not sure why they didn't do that, but if you look at the book, it's all clearly OGL material.
Guildlords 03-18-06, 07:02 AM	Sauro and I were discussing a new additional feature for the guild system called Prestige Points. Prestige Points are a new factor that governs the system apart from gold. So far we have found some ways to earn prestige and some things you can spend prestige on. I give you our suggestions so that you can get an idea on what we have in mind. Gaining Prestige: You gain prestige from structures of your +2 trait (ie Faith structures for CEF, Crime for EHTC, etc). You gain 10% of the structures income in Prestige Points Likewise, you lose Prestige from structures of your -2 trait in the same way +2 structures generate prestige (see above). Helping the city by ending global negative random events earn the guild prestige too. For example, chasing the Bandits out of Gawane would earn prestige points. Spending Prestige: You need Prestige Points to build Chapter Houses. This is necessary because else a guild can build a 'string' of inactive Chapter Houses towards their desired districts at only 2500 gold a house. You need Prestige to activate Conscripts. Conscripts are units that come from the defense value of structures. If a structure has a defense value of 3, then three conscript regiments join a defensive battle in that district, provided a guild has the necessary prestige. Hire District-specific regiments. Called Irregulars atm but since they're more powerful, a different name might be in order. Normally, you need a Chapterhouse upgrade to hire them but we can instead make them require a) control over their district and b) pay Prestige Points per unit, and c) additional requirements based on guild traits (else the EHTC could hire paladins). Unique Regiments also require Prestige like the others above. The rules for unique regiments are not yet fleshed out though. Unique Structures cost prestige. These structures normally affect the city as a whole so it needs permission of the Council which is reflected in prestige. Buy a GAP with prestige points. You use your prestige to ask for voluntary work which gives you an extra GAP for that week. Customize something on your guild??? Gold alone is not a good way to regulate things. Prestige is a great additional factor that makes it easier for me to regulate and balance the system. I would for example increase the price of Chapter Houses were it not for a Prestige requirement. This system is still under construction and to finish it asap I am posting it here so that everyone helps Sauro and me. We need a complete list of things that earn prestige, and things that you can spend it on. Then we need formulas for those. Chasing EL 3 bandits away should gain less prestige than EL 15 ones. Ending a mild plague is less impressive than ending a lethal one. And so on. And we need prices for the things you need prestige. Any additional idea is also welcomed.
NiQil 03-19-06, 11:21 PM	I have a question regarding the recent change to servan't quarters. They no longer require maids, they now hold 10 NPC's instead of 5, and the cost went up to 2000 to build one. My question is, what do the guilds now do with the extra maid they have? Every guild now has a maid that it does not need, since the home base of each guild came with a servant quarters and the maid to go with it when we started the guilds. Can those maids be turned into another staff member (such as a cook or something similar) that has the same wages? Can they fire the extra maid altogether? Can they keep the maid listed but stop paying the wages until there is a room built that requires a maid so that a GAP is not needed to hire one at a later date? I think this little detail may have gotten missed with the change, and needs to be decided upon.
SauroGrenom 03-19-06, 11:55 PM	It's totally true that we all have alteast one extra maid now. However the maid only costs 6gp/week to keep around. Way cheap. Ithink you should be allowed to fire the maid, but I'll keep mine. The idea being that at some time in the future, I'll build an additional quarters and the maid will be there already.
NiQil 03-20-06, 12:13 AM	It's totally true that we all have alteast one extra maid now. However the maid only costs 6gp/week to keep around. Way cheap. Ithink you should be allowed to fire the maid, but I'll keep mine. The idea being that at some time in the future, I'll build an additional quarters and the maid will be there already. I really don't care what the decision is, as long as a decision is made, since this was apparantly overlooked when the change to servant's quarters was made. If it were up to me, I would allow the guilds to either keep the maid on staff as is, or to opt to change the maid to another staff member....in my specific case, I would want to change the maid to a cook, since we are getting ready to build a new kitchen over at WAR, or possibly to a groom, since we are also looking at building a stable at some point.
Caterane 03-20-06, 12:54 AM	Fire, keep, or convert her but do that this week.
Caterane 03-23-06, 07:49 AM	I was not really satisfied with the way Quests earn money for guilds since I allowed quests to be taxed. A quest earns in 3 weeks the same money as someone winning 4 arena fights in a month and we all know how hard that is. Since most quests are completed successfully, it is apparently much easier to earn money by questing than by doing arena fights. This alone is something we should consider both for the guild taxes but also for a new revision of quest rewards. This week, however, Varia (ECL 9) goes on a EL 14 Quest. If she fails, she lost nothing. But if she succeeds, she gains 68,000 gold of which 6800 gold go to the EHTC. This is more than any guild has earned with regular arena fights in the last 5 months!! Surely, there's something wrong with that. To take this a step further, I could now just have Harvester 1 and 2 join the CEF (both clerics) and do EL 20 quests which earns the CEF 32,000 gold per Quest. I am sure everyone sees the problem with that. The first step is to drop the Quest Reward bonus of +33%. That makes it equal to 3 arena wins. The reward bonus is a remnant from the time when you lost a level if you died on a quest. Since this is not the case anymore, we should do away with that. We can also simplify them by doing away with the 3/4 rule for items found on Quests. Instead, you just find gold or can cash in all items found for full price. This is how most do it anyway. But the problem with Quests and Taxes still stands. We need to come up with some rules to prevent this discrepancy from destroying the whole guild system. Please tell me what you think about that.
NiQil 03-23-06, 08:19 AM	I agree that the 33% bonus and the 3/4 rule should both be scrapped...have thought that for a long time. But since I never do quests, I figured I would not make an issue of it. But if there is no danger of level loss, then there should be no bonus. And the 3/4 rule just makes things harder on everyone...more complicated that things need to be. As to going beyond that, I would venture that since quests can be of any ECL, I would impose a rule that if you fail in a quest, you receive no rewards of any kind. So if you want to be an ECL 8 going on an EL 14 quest...sure...if you complete it the rewards are huge, as they should be. But if you fail...well...you get nothing...basically a big, karmic "I told you so." Most people are smart enough to only take EL quests that they are sure they can succeed at, so I don't see that this will come up all that often. But it may help make quests slightly less desireable in some people's eyes, simply because the rewards are not guaranteed any longer. Just a thought.
Caterane 03-23-06, 08:25 AM	NiQil, that doesn't solve the problem at all. You already don't get any rewards if you fail a quest. That rule is already in effect since the beginning of quests. You gain no rewards but you also do not lose anything. Not even Powerpoints. You can try the quest over and over again and once in a while someone will succeed. One such success earns more than all taxes combined in months. The second problem is when frozen Pcs quest. That is a problem even if they stick to their EL (see Harvester ECL 20 goes on a EL 20 quest).
SauroGrenom 03-23-06, 09:14 AM	So here is my idea: Quests are intended to be more like real Table Top games. They take a bit more time, they are a bit more risky and free form. There are funny effects though. For example If I quest for a set of adamantium full plate then it is part of my quest rewards. However if I quest to raise funds for buying adamantium full plate, then I get enough money +1/3 and can buy something extra. This is not right. Now let's just look at how normal TT games are done and then borrow those rules. In a TT game all quest encounters give treasure based on ECL. Much of this is not gold treasure, because there is no way to buy magical equipment in a campaign. most of the treasure is actually items. Items are sold at 1/2 value in the CoCo and in the DnD core rules. However there is the appraise skill that allowes characters to appraise there items at closer to actual value. Presumably if skilled in this way they can sell those items at closer to full value. So I propose 5 changes: Quests loose the 1/3% bonus to treasure. 80% of all treasure on quests is items. Characters can sell items at 50% value or at closer to actual market value with the apprase skill. We may specificially allow crafters to quest for materials for items to craft. Guilds only earn tax on cash or sold items. These are all in accordance with the rules laid down in DnD. The effects are as follows: Quests are no longer a way to gain buckets of cash for characters or guilds. You may still quest for an item, but it is part of your quest treasure. In mid to high levels it becomes very difficult to earn enough money in the arena to craft items. Many players use the quest as a way to earn the necessary cash for crafting an adamantium full plate armor or some simular expensive and unique items. This is still possible. Appraise is a more usefull skill in the way detailed in the SRD.
Caterane 03-23-06, 09:50 AM	This would be too much. If the fighter finds a spellbook, two wands and some scrolls, he has lost 50% money compared to a normal gladiator. If he can use everything, he can at best gain equal. That's why we came up with the 3/4 rule that says you gain more items but they might not all be useful. All in all, it should balance out. But we want to do away with the 3/4 rule because most questlords drop only gold anyway. I have a different solution which also solves another problem. The problem first: the discrepancy between a ECL 3 character and say ECL 14 is too much. The 30 gp the lvl 3 guy earns a guild is nothing compared to the 1700 gp of the ECL 14 guy. Low-level characters become meaningless the higher in level you are. Worse even, a lvl 14 guy earns twice as much as the best structure built in the best district. This unbalances the whole guild system. I propose a system of varying taxes for the different leagues. The ECL 3 league earns 17% and it drops by 1% every league thereafter. Here's a chart for winning rewards: ECL WIN TAX --------------- LOW 3 135 (15%) 4 168 (14%) 5 208 (13%) 6 240 (12%) --------------- MID 7 286 (11%) 8 340 (10%) 9 405 (9%) 10 464 (8%) 11 525 (7%) --------------- HIGH 12 588 (6%) 13 650 (5%) 14 680 (4%) 15 660 (3%) 16 560 (2%) --------------- EPIC 17 360 (1%) 18 0 (0%) 19 0 (0%) 20 0 (0%) --------------- The chart is perfect because the tax income rises each level but there is not a huge gap anymore. The epic levels earn less than the high levels but take into consideration that even an increase of 1% (eg. Nunnery) adds about +500 to the income. Level 20 Pcs are beyond mortal medlings. Buy a Nunnery and they earn 800 with 1%. Nothing to snuff at. With this rule in effect and some slight changes to the quest rules (like dropping the +33%) we have elegantly solved the problem, and fixed another one (that of the big gap between the taxes of different ECLs). Comments? I've tried some numbers... ECL WIN TAX --------------- LOW 3 153 (17%) 4 192 (16%) 5 240 (15%) 6 280 (14%) --------------- MID 7 338 (13%) 8 408 (12%) 9 495 (11%) 10 580 (10%) 11 675 (9%) --------------- HIGH 12 784 (8%) 13 910 (7%) 14 1020 (6%) 15 1100 (5%) 16 1120 (4%) --------------- EPIC 17 1080 (3%) 18 940 (2%) 19 610 (1%) 20 0 (0%) ---------------
Stormwind 03-23-06, 10:00 AM	To take this a step further, I could now just have Harvester 1 and 2 join the CEF (both clerics) and do EL 20 quests which earns the CEF 32,000 gold per Quest. I am sure everyone sees the problem with that. Actually this is a separate problem. There would be a similar problem if frozen characters could make money for their guilds from arena fights. I personally think that the solution for this problem is simple: Frozen characters should not generate money for their guilds. The first step is to drop the Quest Reward bonus of +33%. That makes it equal to 3 arena wins. The reward bonus is a remnant from the time when you lost a level if you died on a quest. Since this is not the case anymore, we should do away with that. We can also simplify them by doing away with the 3/4 rule for items found on Quests. Instead, you just find gold or can cash in all items found for full price. This is how most do it anyway. But the problem with Quests and Taxes still stands. We need to come up with some rules to prevent this discrepancy from destroying the whole guild system. Please tell me what you think about that. I don't think that either the quest reward bonus or the 3/4 rule are particulary important to most people who quest (at least they don't really matter at all to me). How about the following propositions: - Taxes only apply to Arena fights (or Great hall, etc). - Quests generate a tithe for the guild equal to 5% of the gold earned from that quest.
LLMadCow 03-23-06, 11:03 AM	This is what I would propose for a rewards chart: ECL . Increase . Reward 03 ....(BASE)..... 135 04 .... 121% ..... 163 05 .... 120% ..... 195 06 .... 119% ..... 232 07 .... 118% ..... 273 08 .... 117% ..... 319 09 .... 116% ..... 370 10 .... 115% ..... 425 11 .... 114% ..... 484 12 .... 113% ..... 546 13 .... 112% ..... 611 14 .... 111% ..... 678 15 .... 110% ..... 745 16 .... 109% ..... 812 17 .... 108% ..... 876 18 .... 107% ..... 937 19 .... 106% ..... 993 20 .... 105% ... 1,042 Increase refers to the percentage of the previous reward. So, at ECL 14, you earn 111% of the reward for ECL 13 (611gp) resulting in a reward of 678gp! This chart works so that there is always a greater amount of tax earned than the previous level, but that degree of increase gradually decreases to 5% at ECL 20. :twocents: LLMC
Macbrea 03-23-06, 11:20 AM	The problem with not giving out money for frozen leagues is you can fold up one of your guilds pretty quickly. EHTC doesn't have any structures that can earn it money at the moment. And with the rule that you cannot be moved out of a room once you have moved into it without having a better room to move into. You have the following: Full Members: Fancy Room 1 Baelin, "Called Shadow", the Right Hand of Death [EL10] <--- Frozen Va'ria Theladrais, Gladius Secretary of Agriculture [EL9] <--- If Completes quest ECL 13 and Frozen Virgo Arkazzan, Gladius Secretary of Trade and Commerce [EL9] <--- Inactive 4 months Nell Leonne, Chief of the Iron Guard [EL9] <--- Just returned from aborted quest Anixx the Warbringer [EL8] <--- fought last week inactive this week Basic Room 1 (Just built this week) Griff Mythral [EL6] <--- Inactive 1 month Marcus Tallfellow [ECL6] <---Inactive 2 month Thelgar Giantbane [ECL6] <--- Retired Zwei und'Vierzig [ECL4] <--- Inactive 1 month
SauroGrenom 03-23-06, 04:21 PM	Well EHTC needs to review it's membership lists for one. I wouldn't let a character hang around PSI who was inactive for 4 months, and I'd be quick to get rid of any retired characters on my roster. I'd send the player an email and ask them if they intend to come back. Also note that the Frozen league rule does not shell out money for inactive characters in a frozen league. Only "virtual" money for characters in frozen leagues who quest is actually taxed. You'll make a ton of money on your ECL 14 quest and everyone will probably agree that any changes will not effect quests that are currently ongoing. So you get to keep your winnings and that will be enough money to build a structure and kick start the guild. It looks like our topic has moved some. We were talking about quests, now we are talking about changing taxes on arena winnings and quest winnings. First: This would be too much. If the fighter finds a spellbook, two wands and some scrolls, he has lost 50% money compared to a normal gladiator. If he can use everything, he can at best gain equal. That's why we came up with the 3/4 rule that says you gain more items but they might not all be useful. All in all, it should balance out. But we want to do away with the 3/4 rule because most questlords drop only gold anyway. What questlord will send a fighter on a quest where he finds a spellbook, two wands and some scrolls as the only treasure. Realy. Honestly. I'd never do that. Would you? This isn't much of a critisicm when it's entirely unheard of to have happened. Besides what is this fighter questing for where his treasure is all spells? Why do characters go on quests: To raise lots of money fast for crafting an expensive item. To find a specific desired expensive item. To perform some RP goal. To gain a cohort or other ally. All my suggestion does is make us act more like a TT game and require questlords to put a bit more time into choosing the treasure they drop. Make it usefull to characters, else your players will get miffed. If players ask for specific things, let them have those treasures as a quest goal. I have no problem with allowing an ECL4 half giant to quest for a deepcrystal greatsword +1. The item is about 3000 gp and the quest rewards are only a bit above that. He'll get the item he wants and a little extra money to fill in the rest. If he quests for a cohort, the cohort's equipment is a large part of the reward. If he quests to craft an adamantium full plate, then he will gather adamantium and come out with the full plate as his reward. If he quests for an RP goal, then I'll have to be more creative and drop a few powerstones, magical arrows, a nice mount, whatever I think may be usefull to him. If we eliminate the 3/4 rule and the rewards bonus he recieves no advantage in the Arena nor does he get screwed unless I give him a bunch of crap. A quest is basicially the same as winning 3 arena fights with the extra money rewards of a 4th thrown in. We all agree to drop the extra money rewards and the 3/4 items rule. However I think it's silly that a character can quest for fun and come out with a pile of gold that they use to buy what they wanted back at home. Last week I was questlording for Validi on a quest to gain a cohort. I was struggling with how he was going to gain a bunch of gold treasure on this quest without it being cheezy. If I had my choice I'd have just made all the cohort's equipment be the quest treasure. But doing that would be giving Validi an additional 1/4 treasure boost. Do you see what I mean? Making all these funny rules is just dodging the issue of making us just be better questlords and act like you would in a normal table top game. As a side issue I think that the Apprase skill is totally nerfed around here. You cannot use it to get a discount on buying things unless you have ranks in bluff and sense motive as well. And only bards and rogues have all three as a class skill. You should be able to use Apprase to sell old items at closer to market value (Exempt self crafted items from this use). That's what the SRD entry indicates the skill is used for. The proposals by Cat and LL both try to scale taxes according to rewards. I think this is unecessary and bad. Let's look at our examples of "Abuse". For example if CEF has the Harvester 2 join and go on an ECL20 quest, what happens? CEF does not have high enough rooms for the harvester, so they earn 0% tax anyway. If they could build a bedroom suite, then they earn 1% tax. So let's assume for argument's sake that they build a bedroom suite after building a main hall. Then the harvester goes on a 3 week quest and earns 2400gp for the guild. Not a big deal in my opinion. And this is an extreme example of abuse. But to do this you need to build a few more rooms and convince Cat to spend 3 credits on sending a frozen character on a quest that benefits his character none at all. Now you're going to say that CEF can just build a Grand Suite and get the full 24000 gp as a reward (8000gp/week). That is true. The grand suite costs 10,000gp to build but it requires a grand hall and all lower quarters and suites. That's not going to happen for a while and by that time the CEF will probably rather have spent its money building 6 to 10 other structures that will earn 500-800gp each week for each structure with greater consistency than the harvesters. Look. If you use Cat's or LL's tax chart I'll start booting members from my guild as soon as they hit ECL 12 or so. That way I won't have to build all those upper level suites that hold only one character. I'll build structures that earn more money each week and with greater consistency than players.
SauroGrenom 03-23-06, 04:33 PM	I guess it all comes down to the question of do you want the guild to be investing in players or in structures? If you nerf the taxes on higher ECL characters, then guilds will care little about them and not support them. It's not worth it to spend 10,000gp to build a grand bedroom suite if I only earn 500gp/fight on that character. 20 fights and a half year later I just broke even. Not worth the effort in my opinion. I could buy two A structures and a C structure for that kind of cash. They'd earn me more money faster. The specific thing that the EHTC is doing is a neet trick. However it is only possible at a very specific time and they suffer in a specific way. Yes they earn lots of money in one big lump sum. But they also rocket a character into ECL13 where it is not going to contribute to the guild for a long while. If they had leveled that character up to ECL13 one battle at a time, the character would earn more money on the way. EHTC would earn more money on the way as well.
Caterane 03-23-06, 05:28 PM	@Sauro: - Quest Rewards: I have argued and thought like you just did when I created the 3/4 rule. I had the same arguments. "Closer to a real campaign", "More interesting", "Riskier" and some more arguments. The reality however showed me that there will always be Questlords who drop too much treasure, and those who drop too little. Without the 3/4 rule, Quests shift even more into this Questlord arbitrariness. If Raskos goes on a Quest and earns only 10,000 gold from crappy items sold instead of 20,000 then you have a right to complain. And above that, it makes Quests and Auditing more complicated. Note that you can still drop whatever treasure you want but the player can opt to cash it in for full price at the end of the quest. Technically he gains gold. - Taxes: We will of course change the Bedroom prices accordingly!! The 10,000 for the Grand Suite - more expansive than a hall - were not realistic anyway. The new chart closes the gap between higher levels and low levels, and it is absolutely necessary to do so. Once the highlevel PCs begin questing, the system breaks down. Varia brings home 6800 gp every 3 weeks, Ebelin of the CEF 7500 and the Harvester II 35,200 every 3 weeks!!!! I am sure the investment of a Grand Suite is well worth that. I surely don't have to tell you that the system doesn't work anymore when a single character brings home enough gold to buy everything available in the Guildhall after 2 Quests. The chart provides a balanced income from characters. If you throw out your lvl 12 PCs then you miss out more money then most of your structures will produce...
King Uther 03-23-06, 05:35 PM	It's the way it has to be. The guild system would crumble, as the EHTC would in the next few weeks, have 2-3x the wealth of every guild. If we bought only structures with that, we would earn a decent amount of money. But what if we only bought rooms and added new PCs whose only purpose is to quest and earn money? It would cycle to the poin that in 6 months the EHTC would have at the bare minimum 30x the money every other guild does.
Pitlords 03-23-06, 07:01 PM	@all: Please read these important announcements! (1) The +33% Quest Reward Bonus has been dropped! The reason for its existance - that player characters can die on Quests and lose a level - has been dumped long ago. There is little reason to award a bonus now that the risk of level-loss doesn't exist anymore. This goes into effect next wednesday. (2) The 3/4 rule for Quest items has also been dropped. Instead, you can now cash in any item you found on the quest for full price. When the Quest is over, you decide which items you want to keep and which you want to cash in. This will also go into effect next wednesday. (3) The Guild Tax System has been changed! The new chart below shows how many taxes a player character earns at a certain level. Every guild member has to change the tax on his sheet accordingly. Old tax income will not be altered. This rule goes into effect next wednesday. ECL TAX ----------- LOW 3 (15%) 4 (14%) 5 (13%) 6 (12%) ----------- MID 7 (11%) 8 (10%) 9 (9%) 10 (8%) 11 (7%) ----------- HIGH 12 (6%) 13 (5%) 14 (4%) 15 (3%) 16 (2%) ----------- EPIC 17 (1%) 18 (0%) 19 (0%) 20 (0%) ----------- The "Varia-Abuse" is still not solved. She earns only 1% less than before which still sums up to 4590 (instead of 6800). There is no penalty for failing a quest other than lost time, and for frozen characters not even that. A Quest EL Cap of ECL+2 comes to mind but I will think about that some more. PS: If you find any remnants of the old rules in the Rules of Gladius or somewhere else, please PM me.
NiQil 03-23-06, 08:49 PM	Based on the above post, am I correct in assuming that any quest started prior to next Wednesday still receives the 33% bonus and is still subject to the 3/4 rule? And will those quests be taxed for guilds at the old or new tax rates? For instance, Featylec Elendi is currently on a quest. He is ECL 4. He started last week. Does he receive the 33% and is he still subject to the 3/4 rule when his quest is completed next week? And does the Warfare Alliance recieve 10% (his current tax rate) or 14% (his new rate effective next week) from that quest?
Guildlords 03-23-06, 09:08 PM	I think the current quests can be granted the +33% bonus and the Tax will be the old one (they cannot edit their sheets anyway). As discussed with Uther, Varia cannot level past ECL 10 but will stop 1 xp before ECL 11 so the EHTC doesn't get that much money when she anyhow succeeds. Any new quest that starts next wednesday earns new Tax and no Completion bonus of +33%.
Guildmaster (EYE) 03-24-06, 09:52 AM	I'll ask since I think my guild is the only one in this situation: How do guilds handle taxes from campaigns, and from what level do they tax from? When the gladiator started the campaign or the tax level they have at the end? or something a little more complex? (gladiator in question is Reyos: although after his allies, his tax doesn't change until he levels)
NiQil 03-24-06, 07:42 PM	I'll ask since I think my guild is the only one in this situation: How do guilds handle taxes from campaigns, and from what level do they tax from? When the gladiator started the campaign or the tax level they have at the end? or something a little more complex? (gladiator in question is Reyos: although after his allies, his tax doesn't change until he levels) Might want to double check the guild rules...I don't think guilds get taxes from character on campaigns...just arena fights, quests and miniquests.
Pittbull 03-29-06, 04:23 AM	I am advocating for more than 6 months now to make allies and equipment a prebuff. 1. Equipment that is listed under At Home stays at home. 2. If you have several suits of armor, or duplicate equipment for limited slots, you must prebuff that. 3. If you want to bring allies, list them in advance. This has several advantages: A. It makes writing tactics easier because you know what to prepare for. B. It does not allow for 'surprise switches' of equipment and allies, which really has nothing to do with writing good tactics or making a good character build, but everything with abusing the fact that your opponent cannot alter his tactics to react to the unexpected situation. C. Allies are powerful, too powerful in CoCo for what you have to sacrifice to get/use them (just look at the new Balbanes, he is maximizing most possible ally abuses in the CoCo), the mandatory prebuff will curtail this power somewhat. MAKE BRINGING ALLIES A PREBUFF I like Usurpator's idea, any commnents?
Stormwind 03-29-06, 05:43 AM	Just to play devil's advocate, what is the point of having a prebuff section if you are going to allow people to make 'last minute changes' such as changing armor or weapons, or bringing in additional allies. Consider the fact that putting on or removing armour takes a significant amount of time, this is not something that should be able to be changed at whim. Thus I agree completely with Ursupator and Pittbull. Allies and changes in equipment should be listed as a prebuff.
lonewolf 03-29-06, 07:29 AM	I also agree. Allies and Armor should be prebuffs
NiQil 03-29-06, 07:39 AM	I've been advocating this same idea even longer than Usurpator....and as a founding member of the No-Swapping alliance, I also agree. There is absolutely no reason to have an At Home section of equipment if we are allowed to swap out equipment after pairings. Swapping out what equipment you wear is akin to buying more expendables after pairings in my book, and should both be treated the same way. If you want to be able to swap your equipment, then you need to list that you are carrying everything and take the encumbrance hit accordingly. If you want the ability to decide between that chainshirt or that full plate, then you have to carry both, and take the encumbrance penalties that go with it. Allies should also be a prebuff, for the simple fact that for someone like Balbanes who has 3,424,987 allies, there is simply no way to feasibly write tactics without knowing what you can expect him to bring along. We should be all about making tactic-writing as easy as possible. They are already tough to do for many people, and being tricky and changing your allies or swapping your equipment is nothing more than using subterfuge to gain an advantage where none should exist.
Caterane 03-29-06, 08:20 AM	The other side of the argument is that you could always tell your allies to stand back and let you fight this duel alone. If you prebuff with allies, you take the XP penalty in any case. Or when you prepare for battle, it sometimes occurs that you know the enemy and have time to decide which equipment you want to use. However, I think that the contra arguments weigh heavier on the scale. The rule is to simplify character updating but apparently it makes writing tactics more of a burden. I also considered to quest for different allies with the Harvester but deemed it too cheesy. The main reason for me is that allies can take a hit with the nerf stick so that the characters move back into the spotlight. I will think about it some more and post my decision along with the pairings tonight. Since we're already talking about some changes in prebuffs, what about limiting expendables aswell? Access to any item and being payed in gold only is an extremly powerful advantage that you don't have on the table. Here's some brainstorming: Belt Slots: Your belt has a number of 'expendable slots', the rest goes into your backpack. My own characters have dozens of scrolls which can all be drawn as a move action. If my DM would ask me to show where I have them on my body, I wouldn't have an answer. Treasure Rolls: Instead of money, the Pitlord rolls on a table to see which items the character gains. This reflects the fact that you find most items during your adventures and these are picked by the DM. In a TT game, you have the advantage that the treasure can be distributed among the party members so that there's a greater chance that you come out with something useful. We could simulate this by saying the Pitlord makes 4 such "Treasure Rolls" and you pick one of them. Of course, Gold plays a major part in any treasure so you can still buy things. The treasure rolls must be done online. Living Market: Instead of having every item available anytime in any quantity, we create a system that governs the market, ie the availability of magic items in a week. This system must obviously be easy to handle (I cannot do much more board work than the 4 accounts I'm running), accessible and comprehendable for everyone without asking, and it must be auditable. Perhaps someone has an idea on how to do that. This was just brainstorming; nothing more.
NiQil 03-29-06, 08:30 AM	Belt Slots: Your belt has a number of 'expendable slots', the rest goes into your backpack. My own characters have dozens of scrolls which can all be drawn as a move action. If my DM would ask me to show where I have them on my body, I wouldn't have an answer. The problem is that D&D does not take into account where on the body something might be placed in it's system. It has slots for active magical items, but that's it. If the creators didn't think this was an issue, I don't think we shoudl worry about it either. If your DM were to ask you where you were holding your 3 swords, 2 knives, your bow and your 3 arrow quivers....I would wonder why the DM didn't ask you how you are holding all of that stuff to begin with. It's the difference between a real-world mechanic and a D&D mechanic. D&D only cares about weight, and that is good enough for me. Treasure Rolls: Instead of money, the Pitlord rolls on a table to see which items the character gains. This reflects the fact that you find most items during your adventures and these are picked by the DM. In a TT game, you have the advantage that the treasure can be distributed among the party members so that there's a greater chance that you come out with something useful. We could simulate this by saying the Pitlord makes 4 such "Treasure Rolls" and you pick one of them. The treasure rolls must be done online. This would change the entire way things are done here in CoCo...and I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Living Market: Instead of having every item available anytime in any quantity, we create a system that governs the market, ie the availability of magic items in a week. This system must obviously be easy to handle (I cannot do much more board work than the 4 accounts I'm running), accessible and comprehendable for everyone without asking, and it must be auditable. Perhaps someone has an idea on how to do that. This isn't a bad idea, but the implementation of this idea would be a nightmare. We then would have to have someone whose sole responsibility would be to handle purchases and getting more "stock" in....it would become just like running a business of your own...do we *really want to go to that extreme? Again...if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Zevox 03-29-06, 08:35 AM	I for one take the side of the ally argument that Cat brought up. If you have to brebuff allies, what happens when you prebuff an ally that turns out to be useless against your foe? For instance, you have a Thoqqua as a Diplomacy ally, and you face off against a flying spellcaster opponent. Unless you're a caster yourself with Dispel Magic, that Thoqqua is suddenly completely useless. Or to take an example from one of my own characters, you have Wolves as handle animal allies, and you face off against someone whos AC is so high they need a natural 20 to hit them (AC 23+, 25+ if they flank). They're now next to useless. And in both examples you have to take a penalty to your rewards for it? Both xp and gp? No thank you. An alternative could perhaps be that, as with the burglary free action, you have to let your opponent know ahead of time if you are or aren't bringing in allies, and which ones if you are. Heck, use the burglarly deadline rule of having that info sent by Thrusday 9 PM GMT or you don't get to bring allies too. The idea being that you have to register them with arena officials beforehand, but do get a chance to find out who you're facing before doing so. Would that fix that problem without causing those others? Zevox
Pittbull 03-29-06, 09:43 AM	@Zevox: This is a good point. Perhaps we rule it this way: You write the allies, you want to bring with you, in the prebuff-section, but you do need to take them with you. So, if your thoqqua or your wolf are useless against this oponent, leave them at home. Your are only allowed to name allies for your prebuff as your ECL-2 (alltogether) and you are not permitted to switch them after deadline. I like the idea to concentrate more on the gladiator's power than on his allies'.
Erithmu 03-29-06, 11:23 AM	Prebuff: Well since I kinda caused this to surface I'll weigh in. I still think that the prebuffs listed should be what your prebuffs are. I think that is the definition of what they should be. I also agree that allies should be prebuffed but given the option to stay at home at last minute, I do think some notification should be sent but then we have the situation where tactics can't be written until notice is sent and we get back to having numerous late fights. I think that when someone states they are leaving their armor at home, it defines their tactics as well. If one of my chars were to face Harvey, and Harvey left his armor, I would know that Harvey would most likely be casting fly and going airborne. I ask the following question: Does: leaving your armor at home, changing allies, changing prebuffs,etc etc, in your tactics violate the spirit of the no editing rule? My personal feeling is yes, and I try to have my characters avoid using it. Brainstorming: Belt Slots: Your belt has a number of 'expendable slots', the rest goes into your backpack. My own characters have dozens of scrolls which can all be drawn as a move action. If my DM would ask me to show where I have them on my body, I wouldn't have an answer. I slightly disagree with Niqil here. I think a number of slots on a belt would be very useful. And while it is not an offical DnD mechanic I think it is a logical mechanic that most DM would look at a sheet and wonder the character was holding all those things. This would also allow the Handy Haversack to see some play with placing items in the front two pockets, as well as the Efficent quiver both are on the lower end of the cost spectrum, but might be come needed items. I know the CoCo sometimes blurs the line between realism and fantasy but on some level it might be better in the long run to pick one side or another. I will admit I will have to figure out where I am going to have my half dragon store three polearms. Treasure Rolls: Instead of money, the Pitlord rolls on a table to see which items the character gains. This reflects the fact that you find most items during your adventures and these are picked by the DM. In a TT game, you have the advantage that the treasure can be distributed among the party members so that there's a greater chance that you come out with something useful. We could simulate this by saying the Pitlord makes 4 such "Treasure Rolls" and you pick one of them. Of course, Gold plays a major part in any treasure so you can still buy things. The treasure rolls must be done online. I like the idea, I'll say the same thing I did when Lonewolf brought up the idea of using the Unearthed Arcana stuff. Wait for the CoCo to reset. It would cause a little more work in the pitlord department, and the treasure rolls could have the problem of being worth more than the normal rewards. I think this is the reason that you probably went to the idea of pure gold rewards, so that there was a sense of balance, and the equipment level was balanced across the board. Living Market: Instead of having every item available anytime in any quantity, we create a system that governs the market, ie the availability of magic items in a week. This system must obviously be easy to handle (I cannot do much more board work than the 4 accounts I'm running), accessible and comprehendable for everyone without asking, and it must be auditable. Perhaps someone has an idea on how to do that. You would need two someones deticated to doing this job, and it should be worth two credits a week. This would be interesting, difficult, and demanding to run and I am just running the basic needs through my head. I would argue that Gladius has become quite the hub of traffic with the Arena, and number of people. Heck we have a guild system. A fair arguement would be that there are enough people here that we can find what we need. Anything that is semi unique or exotic normally requires a visit to the blackmarket and a quest to gain the item (thinking of Diamok's hue as an example) Gladius has been around for quite some time as well, I think the merchants would know our taste and stock extras of stuff that is used commonly in the arena. my 2cp at 8am in the morning -Rith
MindWandererB 03-29-06, 11:49 AM	Allies: I think the best way would be to prebuff up to your maximum allotment of allies, but then you could tell any that you don't want to just stay out of it. That way you don't have eighty gazillion allies to choose from, but you also aren't penalized for taking a useless ally. "At home" items: Same logic--anything that you can just dump on the floor should be fine, but anything that takes time, like armor, should not be able to be changed on the fly. Characters like Harvey that can instantly prepare for a fight by donning or doffing full plate should not be able to do that with the logic of prebuffs intact. Expendables: I agree that it's absurd to have 40 scrolls, each one of which you can draw as a move action. Choose perhaps a dozen scrolls and potions to have ready to go; the rest go in a backpack and can be drawn as a full-round action. Weapons and weaponlike objects (wands, rods, staffs) are unrestricted. It would be easy enough to designate on the character sheet which items are quick-access and which aren't. @NiQil: "D&D" cares if the DM cares. I always make my players buy backbacks, belt pouches, scroll cases, etc., and if they can't tell me where they're wearing an item, it's a full-round action to get it out. Treasure rolls: Sorry, I just don't see any way. A character who gets unlucky rolls several weeks in a row will be totally screwed. Even if the total gp of the rewards is balanced out, you have a problem: if you roll a lot of items you can't use and would have to sell, you're in trouble compared to someone who gets a lot of items they can use. It's fun to play like this in noncompetitive D&D, but in the CoCo I just can't see any way of making it fair. And it's definitely a big enough change to warrant a reset. Living market: Sounds like a nightmare, not just for whoever runs it but for players. This would be a great way to discourage people from joining. Optional rules, like credits and guilds, can be complicated; basic play should not be.
SoulLord 03-29-06, 12:04 PM	Equipment & allies prebuff: How about this you write what equipment and allies(up to your allowed limit) you are bringing to the arena but at the last second you can decide to leave them at home. so if you prebuffed a useless ally you can leave it at home and suffer no penalty for doing so. belt slots, bandoliers etc.. I am in favor of this even though I think all it will do is make everyone buy an efficient quiver. Treasure rolls & market. Not so big a fan of this
Zevox 03-29-06, 01:20 PM	Well, seems most everyone's in favor of the prebuff-allies-but-leave-them-out-if-you-want rule. If thats the decision, I'd be AOK with it, though it does hurt the ally-user I was working on a bit. For item slots, I'm indifferent. Most of characters have just a few expendibles anyway, and all of them carry them in Belt Pouches already. Brining a backpack for any excess wouldn't bother me, but then again the current rules don't bother me either. For the Treasure rolls and "Living Market," I'm definitely against it. As NiQil says, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and I certainly don't see any problem with the way these are handled now. Zevox
SoulLord 03-29-06, 05:11 PM	2 questions. 1.- how many structures can a district hold? 2.- can structures be upgraded? could for example a bookstore eventually be transformed into a university? can't seem to find the answer in the guild hall
Pitlords 03-29-06, 05:39 PM	@Soullord: A district can hold a maximum of four structures, no matter to which guild they belong. In addition, a district has 2 Trait Slots for each trait. When you build a structure, the primary and secondary trait of that structure use up one slot each. You cannot upgrade structures in the new system.
Book5 03-29-06, 09:52 PM	First I would say that treasure rolls are subset with a living market system. Characters would be getting penalized irregularly (randomly even) as they find themselves with useless equipment that isnt worth its market value... to them. With a living market system that issue can be totally mitigated, but before I get back to that. "Item Stances" or "Where an Item can be." Warning: Book5 thinks he is a laugh riot. There are only three places that an item can actually be “at.” I know this sounds strange but follow with me: Stored, Sheathed, and Ready. Note1: "on the ground" is to be read as "stored on the ground" for our purposes. Note2: It is a move equivalent action to: Draw a weapon from sheath. Pick up an Item from the ground/table. Retrieve item from stored location. Note3: Thats move equivalent for all three actions in question. As you can see the question is actually... moot. There is 100% Zero difference between pulling an item from the belt, boot, backpack, or **** (hehe I did them there stars myself butts not censored by the system ;) its only a single MOVE action to transfer the item from "stored" to "ready" pretty much anywhere it is located within your reach. Belt sheaths, boot sheaths, bandoliers etc. All considered "stored" ..... so where does this "'sheathed' state come in?" - I did say there were three didn’t I? The only time it takes more than a move equivalent action to put an item in one of your ready hands.... is if its hidden. Taking a hidden item from its .. "sheath" (if I may) is a standard action. Not a full round action. A standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Standard action- no AoO. Move Equivalent = AoO; unless you have slight of hand. That, however, is another matter. As well as Quickdraw "the infamous feat" there are a number of nifty things that make retrieving items faster. You will have to pardon me as the specific "quickdraw" item that someone mentions is not in my srd. The quiver is however. Note4: That quiver is nothing more than a haversack with peculiar storage limit. No mention of action adjustment is made. Lets talk about interdimensional pockets shall we? Haversacks negate the AoOs but otherwise do nothing to the action type. Bags of holding can increase the time it takes to remove the items to a full round if they are stuffed, and gloves of storing actually make a retrieving an item from storage a free action; only one item per glove. What do these have in common – all usage actions for magical items are defined as per the item. Note5: Quickdraw “the feat” does not apply to Bags of Holding. By logical analysis: the act of getting an item out of the bag is not “retrieve a stored item, picking up an item, or even drawing a weapon” (hidden or otherwise). The action is “use item” not draw/retrieve item. You have the item on you. The item is the haversack. Using it makes the item in your hand go in and the item you want come out. Not what you thought it was a minute ago eh? Quickdrawing from the Base Attack Bonus. This is where the real big question comes in. Seems like everybody knows this nifty trick to “draw weapons” as a free action. Can’t get past third level without picking up that “minor finger feat” for free, can you? What does that apply to: ONLY WHEN YOU ARE MOVING!!! :gah: No really. You cant be standing still and just pop off with a draw weapon because you have a +1 BAB. You have to take a “regular move.” Not a 5-foot step, not a charge, not standing up or other “move” actions. You can’t even take an accelerated balance check and still pull your +1 BAB free action trick. Balancing is an “irregular” move by its very definition. Does crawling, swimming, or flying count for the +1 BAB? Yes, but… You have to have a speed rating for the movement mode in question to make a “regular” move. Of course, sheathing a weapon is a move action even with a BAB. Unless, that is, you have Slight of Hand. For a mere –20 penalty to the roll you can hide (and sheath) an item or weapon as a free action. More on that later, for now back to the issue at hand. What counts as “carried within easy reach?” More accurately: “How should it effect our arena fighters?” The answer is pretty straightforward: not much at all. The only reason gladiators should have to concern themselves with this issue is if they bring it on themselves. A sword comes with a scabbard as far as I can tell. Ammo comes in a pouch as far as I can tell. Belts and bandoliers are apparently part and parcel of your average outfit. No additional purchase necessary! Note6: You cant buy “extra slot belts” or anything like it anywhere in the srd. What Im saying is that there is no functional reason to apply a “belt slots” attribute to our analysis. Any item (weapon or otherwise) can be assumed to be stored (not hidden) in a standard and easily accessible location on the character; by default. Even if you have 20 swords. (Why? ‘cause you have a bane for every type! ) Each sword comes in a sheath, each sheath can be attached to outfit in a satisfactory manner, and each sword is considered easily accessible because there is no reason by RAW or by Reality to say otherwise. With the freedom of peculiarization we have here the items “technical construction” is not defined explicitly enough to declare slots. Maybe I have a sword sheath strapped to my backpack? Maybe I have eight dangling! 10 Hand axes in loops running down both legs.... Doesn’t matter. Unless the character wittingly declares that the item is hidden or stored out of reach the item will be available for movement based quickdrawing. Wands up your sleeve and scraps of scrolls poking out of every pocket. That’s fine. The reason that seems a little unreal is that we are forgetting the targetable nature of the “readily accessible items.” The reason you put your scrolls in a scroll case is so that they can’t get grabbed, picked, or pocketed. Note7: Items that are stored “normally” are also available for pick pocket/disarm/sunder/etc. Items that are hidden or stored “securly/out of reach” are not. The only reason to hide or stow an item out of reach.. is in that they then cannot be attacked by your opponent. Cannot be pick pocketed, or sundered. There you have it. There is absolutely no need for a “belt slots” rule. Simply remind people that if the item can be drawn as part of a move it can also be taken from you with a single action. If you are a spellcaster and you a scroll ready but no weapons... anyone could walk up and just grab stuff out of your pockets with only an opposed disarm. They can't do that if your scrolls are in a scroll case or if you have them hidden. Hidden and well secured items are not available for movement based quickdraw or disarm actions. There are the rules, and I don't see any room for a "belt slot" addendum. Besides.. what would that look like? Outfit based slots??? The horror of arguments that could generate prevent me from discussing such an option further. Hmm, managed to write all that and not mention a single disputed functions of slight of hand! Neat! In case you didn’t catch it the three places an item can be are: Stored/Accesible "in reach" or "loosly secured" Stored/Hidden "out of reach" or "well secured" Ready in hand/other qualifying manipulator BTW, I pulled (or tried to pull) a bait and switch with the “sheath” wording early on .. supposed to be funny. :D That’s it for today’s Brainstorming though! Drat – I’ll have to get back to the living market ideas some other time… I will agree that the guilds should be running smoothly first. Then an economy can be layered in easier I think.
MindWandererB 03-30-06, 03:17 AM	Well, I'll be jiggered! Could have sworn it took longer to take an item from the floor or from storage. The only difference is AoO's. Huh. @Cat: As a newbie guildmaster who just pored over the guild rules from top to bottom, I can guarantee you that the maximum of four structures per district is not written anywhere. Please amend this at your convenience. Also, the new prestige points system... there's a clause that allows you to move prestige points from one trait to another, at will. What's the point of having seperate points for seperate traits if they can be moved around so easily? For instance, there seems to be no reason at all why TLT shouldn't just dump all its Econ and Leisure points into Faith and Nature.
Caterane 03-30-06, 03:24 AM	@MindWanderer: It's under "The Basics" -> "Structures" -> "District Limitations" District Limitations: Each District can hold a maximum of 4 Structures in any combination. Every district has 2 "Slots" for each trait (altogether 14 per district). When a structure has been built, it uses up one slot for its primary and one for its secondary trait. For example, a Shrine uses up a Faith and Nature slot. A Temple needs a faith and politics slot. If both are built in a district, the faith slots are used up and no other structure with faith can be built. Prestige: you cannot move Prestige from one trait to another at all. You can pay prestige from your own prestige account and let it flow into the district traits. Example: The TLT should by now have 180 NAT-PP and 90 FAI-PP. Yurynwood looks currently like that: +3 NAT (9180) +2 FAI (4090) +1 EDU (1000) +1 LEI (1000) You can now use your 180 NAT-PP and dump it into Nature to raise the value to 9360. At 16000 prestige, Nature increases to +4. Or you throw the 90 FAI-PP in to have a value of 4180 in Faith. At 9000 it increases to +3.
lonewolf 03-30-06, 06:42 AM	The problem with the guild rules is that most important information is in the Guild hall thread, while some of them are in the normal rules thread. I think it would be better to have everything in the guild hall, with a link in the rules thread there.
Caterane 03-30-06, 06:47 AM	As far as I can see, only the Prestige Rules are missing in the Rules of Gladius and are instead in the Guild Hall. The rest is just too much to put into one post. Things like rooms/structure prices or regiment types do not belong in the rules.
SauroGrenom 03-30-06, 12:10 PM	The other side of the argument is that you could always tell your allies to stand back and let you fight this duel alone. If you prebuff with allies, you take the XP penalty in any case. Or when you prepare for battle, it sometimes occurs that you know the enemy and have time to decide which equipment you want to use. However, I think that the contra arguments weigh heavier on the scale... Since we're already talking about some changes in prebuffs, what about limiting expendables aswell? Access to any item and being payed in gold only is an extremly powerful advantage that you don't have on the table. Here's some brainstorming: OK, let's go back to the basics on the two issues here. We want to talk about some kind of limits on allies. Also we want to talk about some kinds of limits on equipment. The CoCo is a crucible for testing the effectiveness of builds. As such we have a kind of strange gaming environ. Our Arena and the Gladius setting is not much like the places that TT characters battle, and our pre-buffing rules and purchasing of equipment and knowing the sheet of the enemy and so forth are all things you don't get in a TT game. So we must accept that in some ways our setting is not going to have the balance that a campaign will have. None the less it is within reason to try and make Gladius as much like a TT game environ as is reasonably possible. So it is totally unreasonable in my opinion for a gladiator to have an army of followers and allies who follow him around and at any time a selection of them may participate in a battle. Have you ever allowed a character in your home campaign to have a cohort and 3 handle animal allies and 7 diplomacy allies who are all flanked by leadership followers? Sure mabey only two of them are in any given battle but WTF! I'd never let that happen as a DM. So I think we should place a limit on the number of allies a character can have. We already have a limit on the allies that can go into a battle, expand those rules a bit so that it limits the number (or total CR/ECL) of allies that can be on the sheet. If the ECL7 Harvester has a total of 57 CR worth of allies on his character sheet, he can win by just picking the correct 5 CR worth vs any given opponent. That's a bunch of melarky in my opinion. The allies are winning the battle, not the Harvester. Make the limit something like the character's ECL. That gives some flexibility, but not too much. So a ECL8 fighter can have a flying mount and a heavy warhorse. He can swap out the best mount for the battle, but he cannot also have a hundred rats and a dragon diplomacy ally. Make some groups of allies not count as part of this limit. Class allies, spicrystals and cohorts come to mind. They require feats of class features to aquire. You pay for them with the opportunity cost of offensive feats. This way you can have a cohort on your sheet and a few followers, but not 200 followers. Swapping equipment is another issue, but less important in my opinion. Swapping armor would be easy to forbid because it takes alot of time to get into and out of armor. Other changes are not so easy. A character can easily carry around a pack full of various weapons, and drop some just before the battle or as the battle begins. Thus getting rid of the unecessary stuff and weight. Limits on expendibles are a decent idea to discuss. We have artificially created an expendible flinging mahem in the Arena with the ability to buy all the needed scrolls, potions... whatever you like. In a TT game those are placed by the GM. To reproduce that in CoCo will be a cluster****. Placing limits on the number of of expendibles you can bring into the arena doesn't sound like a very elegant solution. People will just buy much more expensive and fewer more powerfull expendibles (higher CL scrolls, wands instead of potions..). And the higher ECL expendible are more of the problem than the low CL1 potions of SoF+2. Also placing limits on the avalibility of expendibles you buy is also not a very elegant solution. That would be a difficult thing to audit. Perhaps we can place a limit on the proportion of winnings spent on expendibles. Even that is a mess to audit. Any limit on expendibles purchasing is also a limit on crafting. That just feels wrong to me. If I take the feat to imprint stones, telling me that I cannot craft more than Xgp/week vastly devalues my feat. So what to do? We cannot use the TT solutions to this problem. But we may be able to create a new solution that is elegant and serves the desired purpose. One option is to just follow a stricter read of the SRD. Nothing in there allows you to "draw" scrolls, stones, potions, wands and so forth as a move action that does not provoke. Or even as part of a move action with a BAB of +1. Only weapons can be drawn. Scrolls provoke AoO's when being retrieved and cannot be done as part of a move action. Cat's belt slots idea is perhaps the best one we have. There are items in the SRD that give the special ability to find things needed easily. Gloves of storing, handy haversack, that magical quiver (forget the name) are all good examples of items that have a special magical property to make contained items readily available as a move action or less. We are currently ignoring the avalibility and storage of items. There is a tactical advantage to having a scroll with 6 spells on it. A character should have at most 10 items accessable as a move action that does not provoke or can be "drawn" unless they have a special item or ability. Think about it, where would you keep a greatsword, longbow, rapier, daggar, glaive, 4 wands, 10 potions and 15 scrolls so that every one can be ready to use in 3 seconds (half a combat round). I suggest that a standard humanoid character has the following slots: 2 Large pieces of equipment (2 handed weapons or other large weapons) 2 Medium pieces of equipment (things that can be manipulated with one hand but are more than 1 foot long medium weapons, rods, musical insturments, quiver of arrows, so forth) 6 small pieces of equipment (light weapons, scrolls, potions, stones, wands, generally items that are held and used exclusivly with one hand) 1 Pack that can contian many more items but you must search in the pack to retrieve those items. We can also create special mundane items to help those who need extra slots. For example you could make a scroll case contain 4 accessable scrolls but can be worn in a medium slot, thus increasing the number of accessable scrolls to 10. Make wand, dorje, powerstone and potion version of this item and all expendibles are covered. Those who still need to carry a hundred scrolls can use a handy haversack. No big deal. We are simply using the SRD rules that cover fishing things from a pack. We are allowing characters to actually gain access to a few things that a strict read of the SRD indicates would not be possible. There is nothing in the SRD that allows a character to "draw" anything other than a weapon. We have been allowing scrolls and potions to be drawn, but another interpretation is that this is simply not allowed because all those items are stored in a pack or belt pouch. Part of the solution realy is following the SRD carefully. If that is not good enough, then the slots idea may be necessary. Just my take on the issue.
Usurpator 03-30-06, 12:45 PM	Hey Sauro, good post, unfortunately, I wanted to bring up another subject: the guilds. And I may take a lot of flak for this one: The Guild Rules are fundamentally flawed In my opinion the guilds have failed to live up to their potential, and I think this is largely due to the guild rules. I have not seen the bitter inter-guild conflicts, shady back-room dealings, rivalries fought in the arena, the waxing and waning of guilds, betrayals, etc. All the ingredients you would expect from powerful guilds. My two major objections to the first draft of the guild rules were these: 1. Guilds should not be class-based with high entrance requirements. 2. Guilds should have extensive tie-ins with its members, and with major activity of the CoCo: fighting in the arena, and not be a separate strategy/bookkeeping game between guildmasters. In the last few months I have seen progressive relaxations of the requirements to address point 1. Point 2 is unfortunately has not been addressed as all. So I am going to propose some revolutionairy ideas. A. Down with the static guilds! We have a fixed number of guilds, with the creators desiring each guild to fill a niche that the creators have thought up. Some of these niches are very popular (WAR), others are not (TLT). Attempts have been made to artificially support the 'weaker' guilds. I say, let them die! On the other hand, if a group of characters wants to start a new guild, let them! Maybe Asran wants to start the Church of Asmodeus in honor of his father, and he smooth talks some other gladiators into assisting him: a perfectly fine RP basis for a new guild, and a guild which has members which are more comitted to its goals. B. Remove the Entry Requirements Completely! Maybe you should have 5 members to start a guild, but that's it. Anyone can join any guild. This opens up the possibility of infiltration, betrayals, guild splitting up and a whole host of other interesting RP opportunities. If Maeril thinks Enzoul of the Celestial Forces is not doing enough for the people of Gladius, and he manages to convince a sizeable part of the Celestial Forces members of this, he should be able to form a rival guild. The Gladius guilds are not guilds that sell stuff, they are guilds of like-thinking people. All psionicists or warriors do not think alike, they may have wildly different goals. Guilds should reflect this. C. Create Clear Character Tie-Ins Today guilds are largely a dreary bookkeeping exercise by the responsible guildmaster, adding and substracting income and expenses. Personally, most of my characters really don't care if the Stables earn 20 gp. more than the Church. My characters would love to become a Patron of said Stables and Church, and have its income tied to their success or failures. Maeril suffers a defeat in the arena? No income from the church he is patron of that week. Maeril defeats a member of a rival guild in glorious battle? Double income from the church, as it is overflowing with people wanting to see the hero up close. It also allows guildmembers to add (lofty) titles to their character like 'High Priest of the Church of xxxx', which further enhances the RP aspect. Currently the guild RP is wholly separate from the guild rules, one has almost no impact on the other. D. Create More Opportunities for Guild Interaction We are six months into the Guild Wars, how many wars have we seen? Zero. How many covert operations have we seen? Zero. How many assaults have we seen? Zero. Guilds are simply hoarding their money and building a few structures. Relations range from friendly to indifferent, and the relations don't really impact the battles in the arena. Guild actions should be a lot easier to do, and many guild battles should be fought in the arena. Two guilds both want to claim sovereignity over one part of the city? They should appoint a champion and fight it out in the arena. Gladiators from rival guilds face each other in the arena? Maybe they have the option of declaring a grudge match, with the winner taking double (guild) earnings, and the loser nothing. I have many more ideas in the same vein, but I like to get some feedback. I like the idea of guilds, but apart from some sporadic role-playing posts, I don't like to put much energy into the current system, because I think it is fundamentally flawed. I am not proposing that we should throw away all the current work, on the contrary! All the district traits, different regions, buildings and building upgrades etc. are prefectly useable in my vision of the guild rules as well. We just need to change the basic idea of what guilds are and how they are supposed to work in the CoCo.
SauroGrenom 03-30-06, 02:31 PM	As a member who has participated heavily in the process of building the guild rules, I think your comments hold a grain of truth in spirit. I must admit that as a guildmaster of PSI most of my duties are rather dry and Lonewolf helps a lot. Some of the new prestige things are realy interesting. I'm looking forward to spending prestige to do all sorts of things. I'll give Usurpator's post a carefull review tomarrow or saturday when I have some free time to make a lengthy post. Untill then I'll reserve most of my comments and advise everyone to take a minute to set the entire rules system for guilds aside in your head. Then day dream for a moment about what you think would be realy cool to do with guilds and what your characters would do in a guild. Write down a few ideas and share them with us. It's easiest to persuade people by suggesting a great new idea as opposed to telling people that the old or current ideas are bad. If the two ideas are in conflict, a good enough idea will win in the end and the old idea will be revised. Lastly we need to consider that with respect to the Arena XP/GP rewards, the guild system must be transparent. We don't want guild members to earn extra cash or have special options that effect character equipment or advancement. If my memory is correct, Usurpator was the first one to advocate this a long time ago. His is absolutely correct, but our characters do have dimensions of there existance that may be modified by RP interactions and still be fun. A few of these include the reputation system and our CoCo uses of skills and free activities.
MindWandererB 03-30-06, 04:52 PM	I am in agreement that the guilds should be focused on some kind of goal, rather than class abilities. I don't keep track of all the guilds, but I know that TLT has characters who would probably never work together. I think the guilds can be restructured so that they are goal-minded without having to rebuild them from the ground up. Here are my thoughts: ·PSI: Needs very little change. They are basically the Mob as things stand--their goal is to gain power through money and social influence. ·EHTC: Fairly unfocused at the moment. They should be devoted to increasing the powers of Evil in the world--evil gods, fiends, etc. They're a bit weird because they have mob-like roots, but they've strayed pretty far from them. ·CEF: Pretty good at the moment, and the diametric opposite of EHTC. ·WAR: Unfocused. They could work well as a mercenary guild, a meeting place and organization where those who want to hire muscle can find it. ·TAO: Also pretty unfocused. They could work in a similar manner as WAR, as a meeting place for mages-for-hire, with the side goal of performing magical research to increase their salability to the public. ·EYE: Almost totally unfocused. They seem to have no goals at all, except for a vague ideal about collecting information. They could range anywhere from being spies for hire to hoarders of knowledge in all forms. They might be both, collecting data for its own sake and selling it at a premium to select customers. ·TLT: Ostensibly, they mean to protect the wilderness, but that's never really an issue because nothing threatens it. I can discuss this one in my own guild thread to see what the existing members are interested in. I also think it would be nice to lower the requirements to perform guild activities. No one can do it yet because no one has the right rooms. The guild system as it exists is meant to go very long term, which may or may not be a bad thing.
Caterane 03-30-06, 05:05 PM	@Usurpator: I completely disagree with your assessment. Let me show you why I think it is that way. A. Down with the static guilds! We have a fixed number of guilds, with the creators desiring each guild to fill a niche that the creators have thought up. Some of these niches are very popular (WAR), others are not (TLT). Attempts have been made to artificially support the 'weaker' guilds. I say, let them die! On the other hand, if a group of characters wants to start a new guild, let them! Maybe Asran wants to start the Church of Asmodeus in honor of his father, and he smooth talks some other gladiators into assisting him: a perfectly fine RP basis for a new guild, and a guild which has members which are more comitted to its goals. This is unfortunately not possible without dropping every single Guild Rule and making the whole Guild System purely roleplay based. The thing is: we already had that. If you browse back many pages you will find the remnants of the old guilds - the ones without any rules but RP only. They never ran and they died a long painful death. It was for that reason that we tried to come up with a better incarnation of guilds which led to the current system. Again: RP-only guilds never worked and were a chaotic hodgepot of unrelated posts where no one had any idea what was exactly going on in the city. The new system we have now clearly tells us what happens in Gladius. This is in all ways superior than what we had before. However, by having a balanced system, we cannot come up with new guilds just like that. It took AGES of time to find the current balance, and the balance is almost perfect. B. Remove the Entry Requirements Completely! Maybe you should have 5 members to start a guild, but that's it. Anyone can join any guild. This opens up the possibility of infiltration, betrayals, guild splitting up and a whole host of other interesting RP opportunities. If Maeril thinks Enzoul of the Celestial Forces is not doing enough for the people of Gladius, and he manages to convince a sizeable part of the Celestial Forces members of this, he should be able to form a rival guild. The Gladius guilds are not guilds that sell stuff, they are guilds of like-thinking people. All psionicists or warriors do not think alike, they may have wildly different goals. Guilds should reflect this. As mentioned above, forming new guilds is not compatible with the system. The entry requirements have already been lowered twice. In addition, anyone with a Training Hall can have any character join. So Maeril can join the TLT or EYE or PSI if he wants. Perhaps we lower the requirements once again in the future. There should be however a minimum requirement which prevents evil characters from joining the CEF. C. Create Clear Character Tie-Ins Today guilds are largely a dreary bookkeeping exercise by the responsible guildmaster, adding and substracting income and expenses. Personally, most of my characters really don't care if the Stables earn 20 gp. more than the Church. My characters would love to become a Patron of said Stables and Church, and have its income tied to their success or failures. Maeril suffers a defeat in the arena? No income from the church he is patron of that week. Maeril defeats a member of a rival guild in glorious battle? Double income from the church, as it is overflowing with people wanting to see the hero up close. It also allows guildmembers to add (lofty) titles to their character like 'High Priest of the Church of xxxx', which further enhances the RP aspect. Currently the guild RP is wholly separate from the guild rules, one has almost no impact on the other. This bookkeeping is left to the Guildmasters who gain a credit for their work. As a character, no one forces you to spend any thought on that. You can focus solely on the roleplaying aspect. This economical background, however, lends the guilds the life that the old guilds lacked. You cannot just post that your guild just conquered this district or deployed that regiment or disbanded that district gang. You have to do it. And in our current system, you can do it. And you can likewise still come up with all your RP ideas. That's the beauty of it all. D. Create More Opportunities for Guild Interaction We are six months into the Guild Wars, how many wars have we seen? Zero. How many covert operations have we seen? Zero. How many assaults have we seen? Zero. Guilds are simply hoarding their money and building a few structures. Relations range from friendly to indifferent, and the relations don't really impact the battles in the arena. Guild actions should be a lot easier to do, and many guild battles should be fought in the arena. Two guilds both want to claim sovereignity over one part of the city? They should appoint a champion and fight it out in the arena. Gladiators from rival guilds face each other in the arena? Maybe they have the option of declaring a grudge match, with the winner taking double (guild) earnings, and the loser nothing. Yes, we're in month 5 of the guild system and that is still in the beginning phase where the guilds will build up. It is intended that way. It is intended to last for a very long time. How much fun would it be if it would be already half-way over by now, after only 5 months? I can see progress every week. This does not mean at all that we won't see any Operations; just that they'll occur at a later point than you wish to see. I enjoy every week. To summarize it, the Guild System that we have is an awesome construction that both unites and seperates roleplaying and economical life at the same time. You want to ignore the latter? Please do. It should not deter you from making as many RP posts as you wish.
Usurpator 03-30-06, 05:54 PM	@Usurpator: I completely disagree with your assessment. Let me show you why I think it is that way. Cat, once again we complete disagree. In the initial guild discussion you my put aside my comments out of hand, more or less stating: 'my way or the highway'. You also hammered on 'just wait until the rules are completed, give it some time'. I was prepared to do that and I have given it a lot of time, but most goals hinted at were simply never reached, and some potential problems I raised at that time have reared their ugly heads. Events until now have proven my point. You are slowly but continually transforming the guilds closer to my initial vision of them. Restrictions are getting ever more relaxed, more links between guild actions and actual gladiators are being worked upon. Its time to admit the foundation was not good and its time to really re-examine the system. This is unfortunately not possible without dropping every single Guild Rule and making the whole Guild System purely roleplay based. The thing is: we already had that. That is and never was my proposal. If you look back to the initial discussion that many months ago, you will see that I did propose rules ideas. They were just rejected because they were not compatible with your vision. If something in the CoCo is not compatible with your vision, my experience is that it will take an herculan effort to bring about, so after a few tries and being igored, I simple gave up. If you browse back many pages you will find the remnants of the old guilds - the ones without any rules but RP only. They never ran and they died a long painful death. It was for that reason that we tried to come up with a better incarnation of guilds which led to the current system. Again: RP-only guilds never worked and were a chaotic hodgepot of unrelated posts where no one had any idea what was exactly going on in the city. The new system we have now clearly tells us what happens in Gladius. This is in all ways superior than what we had before. However, by having a balanced system, we cannot come up with new guilds just like that. It took AGES of time to find the current balance, and the balance is almost perfect. I know the old guilds, I was there. I never proposed a guild system without rules. I contented that you were building the rules on a shaky foundation and that you were going way too fast into details like detailing buildings and upgrades, and costs, while you should have been looking more closely at the goals and the general logic of the system. But your vision seemed to be set in stone at that time. About the balance: despite what you might think, I believe that the system has hardly been tested. It was made for conquering territory, doing covert operations, building armies, waging inter-guild wars. This has all not come about. If anything, the few aspects that were tested have proven that the system needed a lot of tweaking. As mentioned above, forming new guilds is not compatible with the system. The entry requirements have already been lowered twice. I don't see you bringing forth any arguments for this bold statement. New guilds are not compatible why? Because the balance of the current system is so delicate it only works with a set number of guilds, which each need to have sufficient gladiators, and who do not interact with each other? A good guild rules system should be more rugged and flexible, and be able to adapt to people on the boards coming and going. I sympathize when MindwandererB says he has to go over so many rules just to get a grasp of what is going to happen. I don't even mention anymore that Nexa's earned taxes for the TLT cannot be correct. Three wins and only 169 gp. earned, I don't thinks so. Has anyone even checked another guildmaster's accounting? I don't thinks so, I'm just happy that we have guildmasters are prepared to tally all those amounts, with the constantly changing percentages, changing rules etc. In addition, anyone with a Training Hall can have any character join. So Maeril can join the TLT or EYE or PSI if he wants. Perhaps we lower the requirements once again in the future. There should be however a minimum requirement which prevents evil characters from joining the CEF. I think we should solve such issues with RP in a miniquest. Maybe entrance to the CEF will need to pass a detect evil test or something. I am imaging a kind of ethics test for the TLT, that a applicant is presented with several choices, but that only some are acceptable to join, that's the guild test I would prefer. Besides, I would *love* the idea of a traitor seeding dissent within the CEF. Or does it mean that if a current CEF character turns evil he will be automatically thrown out? You are throwing away excellent RP opportunities based on a rule that has been shown to have a negative effect on guilds operations. This bookkeeping is left to the Guildmasters who gain a credit for their work. As a character, no one forces you to spend any thought on that. You can focus solely on the roleplaying aspect. This economical background, however, lends the guilds the life that the old guilds lacked. You cannot just post that your guild just conquered this district or deployed that regiment or disbanded that district gang. You have to do it. And in our current system, you can do it. And you can likewise still come up with all your RP ideas. That's the beauty of it all. I can make a beautiful system that can reduce current bookkeeping chores by 50% or more. I can make a system that would not need the attraction of a credit to get people to volunteer to be guildmaster. Currently the system is a hybrid, the guilds are split between RP guilds and the so-called bookkeeping game that Guild Wars currently is. Neither affecting the other much. It can be so much more! You seem to be set on a choice between 'your rules' or 'no rules'. That is definitely not what I am proposing. During the initial discussion I continually backed you when you said the guilds needed a framework. I agree they do, most certainly! I just think the framework you thought up is flawed. I had patience to wait out what turned out. I loved the stories and members of the EHTC when I intially came here, now its just a shadow if its former self. I think the new rules are a major factor in that. Yes, we're in month 5 of the guild system and that is still in the beginning phase where the guilds will build up. It is intended that way. It is intended to last for a very long time. How much fun would it be if it would be already half-way over by now, after only 5 months? I can see progress every week. This does not mean at all that we won't see any Operations; just that they'll occur at a later point than you wish to see. I enjoy every week. You keep saying that. Have patience, just wait. Well, I think a 6 month wait was long enough for me to give an evaluation of the current system. I am not at all in a hurry. Apparently in your vision the guilds apparently have some definite end, in my vision they have none unless the players desire it. They have goals, interaction, rivalries, but it is not a game played to its inevitable conclusion. It is a vehicle to enhance CoCo, not a game in itself. To summarize it, the Guild System that we have is an awesome construction that both unites and seperates roleplaying and economical life at the same time. You want to ignore the latter? Please do. It should not deter you from making as many RP posts as you wish. Please look at the number of posts under the separate guilds threads. I'm not convinced by the facts. In any case, I can say that the current system is detrimental to my RP. It forces my characters into an artificial division, gets my characters no visible recognition, nor have the guild rules affected my character in any way apart from the RP (but we had that already as you pointed out). In my summarization the Guild Wars has currently failed as a strategy game, and has been only marginally succesfull as an RP aid. For all the effort that has been put into it (and is still been put into it), results are pretty poor, in comparison to the success of say Quests. P.S. Cat, I'm not out to get you, I think you have done terrific work, but sometimes I feel I need very strong language to get you to listen to a dissenting opinion. That is the reason my statements above sound so strong. If I feel you keep refusing to see the slightest thruth in my statements, or entertain my ideas, I feel forced to keep coming with ever stronger examples and arguments. While I certainly can do that, it runs the risk of this turning into an arguing match, and that way everyone loses IMO. I sincerely hope what I am saying is making sense to you and is getting through on some level. Really, I have created dozens of games, I am not ignorant in these matters, nor am I giving some emotional outburst without seeing the big picture. I believe we can work on this flawed gem to truly make it shine.
MindWandererB 03-30-06, 06:48 PM	@Usurpator: You can just point out where there's a mistake. I'll audit Nexa's earnings ASAP. A quick glance shows that they do appear to be wrong. Make sure she's updated so I can follow the links on her sheet, that'll save me some time.
Caterane 03-30-06, 07:20 PM	Since it's 2 AM and I have to sleep I will make this answer shorter than your post deserves. And it's not a herculan effort to convince me when you show me what you mean. So far, you have only shot the system down. Note that Sauro and I have just finished the overhaul (which was necessary but you cannot hold that against us; no one can foresee everything in a non-playtested game). From my perspective, it looks like that: - You can RP as much as you wish without any restrictions. - You can actively participate in the economical background and intertwine it with roleplaying, like questing to defend your temple. - The system is balanced in that it has 84 structures, 4 of each trait combination. Each trait appears the same time with the same value in Gladius. - It takes me 20 min a week to update the CEF. You say I keep telling you to wait and see. Here's something more concrete: (I can only speak for the CEF) After the Temple will be finished in 2 weeks, we build a Main Hall which gives us 2 GAPs a week. That means in about 4-6 weeks we can begin Operations. I expect the PSI to jump up on that within the same time (they'll have to, hehe). So far, we have built a Nunnery and used the rest to build up our base. Just because we haven't already built a Grandhall, conquered 10 districts and have a standing army of 100 regiments after 5 months doesn't mean that the system has failed as a strategy game. Again: It is intended to be that slow. You complain about the restricted roleplaying. I'd like to know what Maeril cannot do RP-wise because of the system. I'd like to see how the system prevents roleplaying. I have to admit that for some of the guilds a focus is missing but that's not the fault of the system but the members/guildmasters. The CEF knows very well where to go. And for those who haven't found a purpose... what better way than to develop one through roleplaying? If at all, the entry requirements might be still too steep but that's an easy fix. But you need to show me that they are the reason for the lack of roleplaying first before I lower them further. You said a lot against the system now and I have responded to every point. Show me your system and why it will fix all "flaws that we have now".
Book5 03-30-06, 09:14 PM	.... Think about it, where would you keep a greatsword, longbow, rapier, daggar, glaive, 4 wands, 10 potions and 15 scrolls so that every one can be ready to use in 3 seconds (half a combat round). .... We can also create special mundane items to help those who need extra slots. For example you could make a scroll case contain 4 accessable scrolls but can be worn in a medium slot, thus increasing the number of accessable scrolls to 10. Make wand, dorje, powerstone and potion version of this item and all expendibles are covered. Those who still need to carry a hundred scrolls can use a handy haversack. No big deal. We are simply using the SRD rules that cover fishing things from a pack. We are allowing characters to actually gain access to a few things that a strict read of the SRD indicates would not be possible. There is nothing in the SRD that allows a character to "draw" anything other than a weapon. We have been allowing scrolls and potions to be drawn, but another interpretation is that this is simply not allowed because all those items are stored in a pack or belt pouch. .... Ok I gotta break in here. Thats right they are not weapons. The move/draw/BAB ability only applies to "weapons" see below for more. My question.. We have been letting this fly? No one let Tan get away with it. So First suggestion is actually enforce that rule. Interestingly that means that the action requirment for drawing a stored item vs drawing a ready item are nil. In fact the only differentiation between a stored and ready item draw is in this specific instance (and disarm). The only time it matters whether the item is in a ready slot is if the item is a weapon... I am of the firm belief that swords come with sheaths.. just like outfits come with undies. Having a sheath being the requisite for being drawn like a weapon with a move.... actually Im making that up - but between stored, stowed, drawn, sheathed, hidden, ready, accessible, and what not whoever!!! .... this matter is a linguistic catastrophe... its enough to drive me batty.... glad you brough it up! :D I got a real SRD answer for the Potions and Scrolls deal though. 'Kay - none of this applies to weapons. That +1BAB thing only applies to weapons I am 94% certain. Without the move/draw action there is 100% zilch difference between moving an item from "belt slots" or from "backpack" in either AoO or Action value. I have a better limit for you though. The problem that I see with the expendables is that they are not taking up encoumbrance correctly. On my TT those "ephemeral items" are a bit more "weighty" - Scrolls are 1/2lb for their cases - wands 16 = 1 lb.. thats rough but they are just sticks. Potions are "an ounce of liquid" but the only item I see to hold them is a vial.. and thats 10 = 1lb. Cognizance crystals 1 pound. Dorjes 1/4th pound. Power Stones.. "unlisted" but they are smaller than dorjes so probably down to the "ounce" category like wands. You ask where all these items can be kept reasonably: greatsword: Sheath attached to left hip. longbow: Slung over shoulder rapier: sheath attached to left hip daggar: Right boot glaive: Some sort of metal ring on your back 4 wands: All tucked in brim of hat 10 potions and 15 scrolls: Pockets of outfit. Note: I put two swords on one hip... our hypothetical here is right handed ;) The question is not "can it be done" the question is how creative do you need to be to get it done? I can come up with some pretty ludicrous ways of getting a large number of objects "readily available" and all I need is one entertainers outfit... its a simple description issue. I do have some qualms about allowing people to "sheath" any weapon that qualifys as large... where do you put one glaive? let alone 2? but... the SRD looks to encoumbrance to determine how much you can carry. The only functional reason to carry a backpack is to keep your equipment in a item that can be dropped. Dropped in order to regain your unencoumbered movement rate. Perhaps thrown to transfer multiple items to an ally in one action. Mayhap an equipment cover for "hidden" weapons, but your sleeve does just fine for that too. Hmmmm, considering... if there was a "slots" rule enforced it need to be an extrapolation of the core rules. The core rules control equipment via encoumbrance and containers. Sans backpacks, bags, and bureaus there are two places a character can "keep" their stuff. In hand or in outfit. Outfits are presumed to have belts and pockets, and all the other accoutrements. What we could do is define the "carrying capacity" of each outfit and item. This is clean and universal. We are not saying "Players" get belt slots. We are saying Scholar's outfits can hold Xlbs of equipment - nothing larger than XxYxZ in a pocket. Weapons and ammo are not calculated into this analysis because they come with a scabbard/sheath - that expands the outfits capacity. Potions do not come with sheathes.. scrolls come in cases but those cases have to be put into your pockets, or your bag, or your backpack. No need to limit the number of bags that can be tied to your belt - what matters is whether or not your strong enough to carry them... and how much they can hold? Searched Mah SRD and I dont find capacity descriptions... or "descriptions at all" for sack, backpack, barrel, ummm... basket? WTF? Table entries only. Can we get some derivatives? Hehe, Outfits, backpacks, sacks, and other carrying devices could be given limits that will cascade into limits on the expendables you can carry. Volume and weight would both need to be defined (for more than a handful of items) to get this to work. Do we want to do that? Newbies will harp on it, vetrans will disagree, and its one more thing to audit, but there is a hole that could be filled. If there was published material supporting the capacities of the items (arms and equipment?? where did that .. oh yeah its in kansas) that would be more defensable, but its still at the least another post on the rules thread. Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action. NOTE5: See how part one of three applies to weapons or weapon-like objects? See how the part two of three applies only to weapons? Of course part three of three is only applicable for ammunition. Ammunition that comes in a convient carring pouch already. Huh? Guilds? Problem? I really haven't yet really really actually seriously looked at it. Vath thinks it works fine, except for moving characters in and out of guilds. I am _way_ way pro "quest/challenge" for entry over static requisites. Makes a "guild" sound like a "prestige class" and its not. In fact its so not its the opposite. "Transparency" is very important. right? "Roleplaying" is the underlying idea. The "game" is there to give you something to rpoffof. I want to be able to be in two guilds. er I want um to trade stuff between guildmembers.. (and then have to comply with "shortages" and "markups" and "ripoffs" etc) basically I think that far from benifits there should be censures. Imagine the audit that goes something like this: "Tan listed buying a psicrown on guildweek 123 - he needs to pay credits for that or remove it because all psionic items were restricted as of 120-134." hassle yes, but combo with this: Make the guild members use the guild to buy equipment. Basically - since you are playing the guilds you make your purchases at the guild store.. or at A guild store. To start with (without any structures) you have to pay +10% markup to buy everything, and there is suddenly an actual limit to what is and is not available to guild members. The 10% goes to the guild - this would let us actually put money into guilds directly, and certain structures could make the guild's profit margin increase. Services? Lists of non-srd items that are available through the blackmarket... wait.. hold on to your hats!!! The brainstorm has become Brain Tornado!~ Thats it! I want... credit reductions! Yeah, thats transparent! TAO pays no credits for XY&Z magic items, WAR no credits for challenges, TLT ... no quests needed for animal allies! Yeah. Stuff thats already shell rules - slant them to grant them benifits to the player of the character. Not the characters themselves. The classic DM gag even..... "You can have it... if you roleplay it well." Well, good RP = Joining the guilds. Suddenly your credit costs are different. Services, goods, non-srd items, unusual equipment.. everything that goes on in the blackmarket - goes through the guilds instead. The blackmarket doesnt close... but instead of guild members going there directly their blackmarket purchases are batch processed by the guildmaster in one regular post. Non-citizens.. :shifty: are uneffected - applying basic core credit costs. Guild credit costs would be variable as per the random events and guild structures - all "citizens" would have to record their purchases into the guild thread. Guildlords have this to motivate them to track everything - every purchase recorded through the guild profits the guild coffers. What if we went ahead and made every purchase a guildmember makes record into the guild thread... it would make your character sheet smaller. Your expenditures would be a hyperlink! That idea alone.... yeah I.E. Tan the terrible found himself somewhat lacking in in pebbles one day. You wouldnt think one could go lacking in pebbles seeing as there are so many of them lying around on the ground, but these were Stynian pebbles. Perfect skiprocks, and there you have it. He was out of "good pebbles" and no rough chunk rubble from some collapsed educational institution was going to do. Jimmy! Go get me more rocks! Don't forget to feed the dogs while your at it! A miniature lions roar of mishmashed goblin and stynian came bellowing out of the hallway. Shortly thereafter followed the terrible twosome. Jimmy was busy jotting notes on a notebad Tan had handed to him. Cali rubbed her temples at her favorite failure's abrasive demeanor as she saw Jimmy's confused face. Cali could see that the notebad was indeed not a notepad, but one of Tan's presto pranks... certain to vanish as soon as Jimmy stowed it in his breast pocket. Tan's ruckus moves to the bottom floor to watch the nights entertainment. He ponders picking a few pockets, but his gooder judgment drives him to give money away to the darling gnomish waitress. [Net Loss 1gp] Good Tips at TAO [Net Loss 10gp] Attendant (trained hireling) 4 weeks +tip [Net Loss 14gp] Dog food 4 weeks [Net Loss 1gp] 100x bullets [50 lbs] Then as the guildmaster makes his weekly upkeeps he cuts and pastes the varius expenditures into the accounting. This way - if you audit the guild ledger... you are also auditing the spending of every guildmember as well! Talk about a time saver!
NiQil 03-30-06, 09:40 PM	Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action. NOTE5: See how part one of three applies to weapons or weapon-like objects? See how the part two of three applies only to weapons? Of course part three of three is only applicable for ammunition. Ammunition that comes in a convient carring pouch already. Note that your conclusions here are incorrect. Weapon-like objects are included in part two of your synopsis as well. Here's why: Draw or Sheathe a Weapon Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action. Both your first and second points fall under the section of drawing a weapon, and fall under the "draw a weapon" action. Does drawing a wand from a wand sheath provoke attacks of opportunity or can I draw it as if it were a weapon? If I have Quick Draw can I draw a wand as a free action? As described on page 142 of the Player’s Handbook, the “draw a weapon” action also applies to weaponlike objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. (The Sage would suggest that magic rods and staffs also fall into this category.) Thus, drawing a wand doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, and a character with Quick Draw could draw one as a free action. Wands and rods (but not staffs) also fall into the category of “light or one-handed weapons” for the purpose of drawing them in conjunction with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (see page 142 of the Player’s Handbook). As per this entry in the FAQ, when weapons are referred to in the "draw a weapon" action, it also covers weapon-like objects. So wands, staffs and rods can be drawn as part of a regular move if you have a BAB of +1 or higher.
Usurpator 03-31-06, 03:52 AM	Since it's 2 AM and I have to sleep I will make this answer shorter than your post deserves. And it's not a herculan effort to convince me when you show me what you mean. It feel it is a herculan effort, since you often bypass the core of what I am trying to say. From my perspective either you don't understand what I am trying to say, or you refuse to see what I am trying to say. So far, you have only shot the system down. Note that Sauro and I have just finished the overhaul (which was necessary but you cannot hold that against us; no one can foresee everything in a non-playtested game). I did not such thing, what you are saying simply isn't true. Please read carefully, you see that I am proposing clear alternatives even in my short post (and proposed many more in the initial discussion about guilds). Just to reiterate: 'A. No class-bases restrictions, B. Free founding of guilds, C. etc. D. etc.'. This does not constitute 'only shooting the system down', and I have no idea why you accuse me of this. Yes, I did point out two (in my opinion) fundamental flaws. And as I explained, I do emphasize the problems of the current system because my experience is that you tend to discard less strongly put arguments out of hand. But I offer alternatives (as I did in the past). From my perspective, it looks like that: - You can RP as much as you wish without any restrictions. - You can actively participate in the economical background and intertwine it with roleplaying, like questing to defend your temple. What is your point? We could do this before you instituted the rules, this is not something the system has added. On the other hand, the rules do make it impossible to start another guild, or impossible to do a Quest that destroys a structure owned by one of the guilds, because it does not fit into the system. We were able to do this before. This means the guild rules introduces more restrictions, not more options. Right? - The system is balanced in that it has 84 structures, 4 of each trait combination. Each trait appears the same time with the same value in Gladius. As I explained, the system has been constantly tweaked, it has been proved not to be balanced. A large portion of the system hasn't even been playtested yet. Besides, you could make a balanced system with 48 structures, 12 traits, whatever, the number of traits and structures is not essential to the rules anymore than the number of classes are essential to the D&D rules, they are 'surface characteristics'. - It takes me 20 min a week to update the CEF. Timely, accurate and meticulous bookkeeping is one of your many great strengths. Suffice me to say that not everyone needs that short a time, makes that few mistakes and has such a good graps on what's happening. More importantly, not everyone seems to enjoy it as much as you seem to do. Besides that, a good guildmaster's job would also include checking *all* the other guild actions and bookkeeping that week, you are playing a strategy game together / against each other after all? You say I keep telling you to wait and see. Here's something more concrete: (I can only speak for the CEF) After the Temple will be finished in 2 weeks, we build a Main Hall which gives us 2 GAPs a week. That means in about 4-6 weeks we can begin Operations. I expect the PSI to jump up on that within the same time. So far, we have built a Nunnery and used the rest to build up our base. Just because we haven't already built a Grandhall, conquered 10 districts and have a standing army of 100 regiments after 5 months doesn't mean that the system has failed as a strategy game. Again: It is intended to be that slow. It was intended to take a leisure pace, which is fine with me. The fact that the CEF can do some things now is largely due to tweaks in the existing system, because as you well know, many guilds were running out of taxable members before they could do anything. Besides, you never once told anyone when you started the guild system: 'well, if your character joins a guild, for the first 6-8 months nothing much will happen, since the system is intended to take it slow'. I am not complaining about the pace, I am saying the the Nunnery means exactly zilch to Maeril RP wise. It has no impact upon his RP expect from what I make of it. But in the past I could invent a Nunnery, or something else in RP, today I cannot suddenly come out and say Maeril has started a shrine in name of the guild in some region of Gladius, because it is not conforming to the guild rules. You complain about the restricted roleplaying. I'd like to know what Maeril cannot do RP-wise because of the system. I'd like to see how the system prevents roleplaying. Maeril cannot start a covert operation against the EHTC if he wanted to, since such things are regulated now, and it takes 6-8 months before he can do so, and he can only do so if the guildmaster approves. That's a clear RP restriction to me. I have to admit that for some of the guilds a focus is missing but that's not the fault of the system but the members/guildmasters. The CEF knows very well where to go. And for those who haven't found a purpose... what better way than to develop one through roleplaying? If at all, the entry requirements might be still too steep but that's an easy fix. But you need to show me that they are the reason for the lack of roleplaying first before I lower them further. You are reversing the argument. Guilds should enhance role-playing, not be neutral in regards to RP. I have already shown that they result in restrictions, now you show my that these restrictions and all the effort you put into it has resulted in much more RP. Blaming the members and guildmasters is like a DM blaming the players that they don't go in search of adventure enough when playing DnD. It is the DM's task to provide his players with enticing options, to seduce them to go on adventure, not just throw them in the wilderness and wait for the players to start doing something themselves. My contention is that the guild rules could have given the players more easy avenues for RP possibilities, instead of compiling lists of specific buildings. You said a lot against the system now and I have responded to every point. Show me your system and why it will fix all "flaws that we have now". You have said similar things in previous discussion before, but this is usually simply not true. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You often do *not* respond to every point, let alone refute every point with well-founded arguments. You have still not properly responded to many of my points, you simply step past them and continue your own train of thought. 1. When you claim the choices is between the current rules or no rules at all, I neatly explain that is not the case. I am not hearing you back on this. 2. When you say that the system has been thoroughly tested and streamlined, I counter by saying that the system has hardly been tested because many of its core components (covert operations, wars, etc.) have not come into play, and the things that did come into play have been heavily modified recently, I don't hear back from you on this. 3. etc. etc. Simply put, I am not going to expend in a lot of effort making new rules and proposals if you are going to reject it out of hand because of incompatibility with your vision of the CoCo. You have the position and the power to do so, and I am not investing a lot of time in it if you are not at least willing to entertain the idea of a change. All the signals you are sending me now are still telling me that you think: 'my way or the highway'. An alternative would be to setup a rules system that runs neatly next to your rules. But a dual guilds system would be very confusing to members and might split loyalties. Stability of the CoCo is more important than my vision of a good guild rules system. I can work around/with the current system, the system is not terrible, I just think it could be so much more!
Stormwind 03-31-06, 05:02 AM	What is your point? We could do this before you instituted the rules, this is not something the system has added. On the other hand, the rules do make it impossible to start another guild, or impossible to do a Quest that destroys a structure owned by one of the guilds, because it does not fit into the system. We were able to do this before. This means the guild rules introduces more restrictions, not more options. Right? It was intended to take a leisure pace, which is fine with me. The fact that the CEF can do some things now is largely due to tweaks in the existing system, because as you well know, many guilds were running out of taxable members before they could do anything. Besides, you never once told anyone when you started the guild system: 'well, if your character joins a guild, for the first 6-8 months nothing much will happen, since the system is intended to take it slow'. I am not complaining about the pace, I am saying the the Nunnery means exactly zilch to Maeril RP wise. It has no impact upon his RP expect from what I make of it. But in the past I could invent a Nunnery, or something else in RP, today I cannot suddenly come out and say Maeril has started a shrine in name of the guild in some region of Gladius, because it is not conforming to the guild rules. Maeril cannot start a covert operation against the EHTC if he wanted to, since such things are regulated now, and it takes 6-8 months before he can do so, and he can only do so if the guildmaster approves. That's a clear RP restriction to me. I disagree. In all of the above points you state what you see as restrictions on RP. I do not consider any of these 'restrictions' to be valid and here is why: You can do any of the above freely and without restriction, however they obviously can have no financial effect on the guild in question. For example, say the PSI guild (for some unknown reason), builds a nunnery. If you want maeril to go on a covert operation and destroy a nunnery of the Psi guild ... that's fine. You can roleplay that you succeed (or fail) at destroying such a structure. However this would be a pure RP structure. It obviously could not be the structure that the PSI guild has actually spent money on, however it could be an equivalent RP structure. Note that this RP structure would only exist for the purpose of roleplay and would have no other effect. Likewise, if you want to start up a RP guild, then go on a quest and RP it. Who knows, if you get enough people involved over a long enough time then maybe Cat would consider making it a real guild as well. Furthermore if you want your character to have built a shrine, or go on a covert operation .... why not - just roleplay it. I see no problem with this, just remember that you can't actually affect the guild system without playing within that system. But that doesn't restrict what you can do outside that system. Now there are two ways to view this, in one view the cup is half full (or the guilds allow for more roleplay), and in the other view the cup is half empty (or the guilds restrict roleplay). Obviously I am of the opinion that the cup is half full. I am not saying that the guild system is perfect .... we have not played with it enough to be able to make a determination on that, however I do not see that it restricts anything.
Caterane 03-31-06, 06:38 AM	What is your point? We could do this before you instituted the rules, this is not something the system has added. On the other hand, the rules do make it impossible to start another guild, or impossible to do a Quest that destroys a structure owned by one of the guilds, because it does not fit into the system. We were able to do this before. This means the guild rules introduces more restrictions, not more options. Right? Yes it is impossible to start another guild. Where do you want to place it in the 14 free districts? What are its traits? How can you make sure it stays balanced? It's like adding a new core class to the D&D system. Imagine everyone cuold do that and invent a "Hero" or "Doombringer" class. As I explained, the system has been constantly tweaked, it has been proved not to be balanced. A large portion of the system hasn't even been playtested yet. Besides, you could make a balanced system with 48 structures, 12 traits, whatever, the number of traits and structures is not essential to the rules anymore than the number of classes are essential to the D&D rules, they are 'surface characteristics'. It has not proved to be balanced because we haven't playtested it. We didn't have the opportunity. During the last weeks, Sauro and I have done a lot of work and now at least the traits-districts-guilds relation is balanced. We have to see how the Operations and Massbattles work. Perhaps they need some tweaking aswell; perhaps not. You cannot hold that against me that I didn't come up with the perfect system right away. Timely, accurate and meticulous bookkeeping is one of your many great strengths. Suffice me to say that not everyone needs that short a time, makes that few mistakes and has such a good graps on what's happening. More importantly, not everyone seems to enjoy it as much as you seem to do. Besides that, a good guildmaster's job would also include checking *all* the other guild actions and bookkeeping that week, you are playing a strategy game together / against each other after all? I think you're underestimating the others. The CEF is one of the biggest guilds and one of only two that has structures. The effort for the other guilds should be even minor. Even if they need an hour then that's definately within the value of a credit. Pitlording takes as long or longer. It was intended to take a leisure pace, which is fine with me. The fact that the CEF can do some things now is largely due to tweaks in the existing system, because as you well know, many guilds were running out of taxable members before they could do anything. Besides, you never once told anyone when you started the guild system: 'well, if your character joins a guild, for the first 6-8 months nothing much will happen, since the system is intended to take it slow'. I am not complaining about the pace, I am saying the the Nunnery means exactly zilch to Maeril RP wise. It has no impact upon his RP expect from what I make of it. But in the past I could invent a Nunnery, or something else in RP, today I cannot suddenly come out and say Maeril has started a shrine in name of the guild in some region of Gladius, because it is not conforming to the guild rules. Sorry Usurpator but here we're definately not on the same page. You can quest to build a shrine, a nunnery, or whatever you wish. Just because you cannot start a "CEF Nunnery that earns CEF tax" doesn't mean that your hands are bound. It has nothing to do with the system. With this kind of argument I could complain about everything. Maeril cannot start a covert operation against the EHTC if he wanted to, since such things are regulated now, and it takes 6-8 months before he can do so, and he can only do so if the guildmaster approves. That's a clear RP restriction to me. A purely RP-based Covert Operation is something that stays between you and your questlord, has no impact whatsoever, and will be forgotten a week thereafter. Worse even, you could quest to blow up all EHTC structures, kill all their staff, capture their guildmaster, and paint their base pink with an EL 1 miniquest. The Covert Operations let you actually DO it. IMO this is way superior. Besides, you can of course quest against the EHTC. Invent an institution that the EHTC supports (Clerics of Hextor or Bandits of Luna March are written in their guild as allies; or invent your own EHTC allies/buildings) and miniquest with EL 1 or whatever to destroy, disband, convince, or paint their bases pink. NOTHING prevents you from doing so. As said above, with this kind of argument you can complain about anything. "Hey, the World of Gladius is round but I want to quest to make it eggshaped! Away with the World Thread!". You are reversing the argument. Guilds should enhance role-playing, not be neutral in regards to RP. I have already shown that they result in restrictions, now you show my that these restrictions and all the effort you put into it has resulted in much more RP. Blaming the members and guildmasters is like a DM blaming the players that they don't go in search of adventure enough when playing DnD. It is the DM's task to provide his players with enticing options, to seduce them to go on adventure, not just throw them in the wilderness and wait for the players to start doing something themselves. My contention is that the guild rules could have given the players more easy avenues for RP possibilities, instead of compiling lists of specific buildings. Again, come up with your own ideas. Anyone can. I promise you that there will be no RP-enhancement without the frame I have set. I even suspect it to diminish because now the system creates incentives on its own, for example with Random Events, or just the fact that any action done with a GAP really happens. You have said similar things in previous discussion before, but this is usually simply not true. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You often do *not* respond to every point, let alone refute every point with well-founded arguments. You have still not properly responded to many of my points, you simply step past them and continue your own train of thought. 1. When you claim the choices is between the current rules or no rules at all, I neatly explain that is not the case. I am not hearing you back on this. 2. When you say that the system has been thoroughly tested and streamlined, I counter by saying that the system has hardly been tested because many of its core components (covert operations, wars, etc.) have not come into play, and the things that did come into play have been heavily modified recently, I don't hear back from you on this. 3. etc. etc. 1. You surely understand that I don't drop the system into the trashcan, turning all the time invested meaningless, without seeing any concrete brilliant alternative with clear improvements, just because one user is not satisfied with it. I am already investing a lot of time to respond to your long posts and that's because I am not ignorant of other's opinion. I just don't have to agree. 2. The system has not been playtested which is the reason why we had to change a rule here and there. This cannot be hold against me because there was no possiblity to playtest it. But what we have now since the last week is at least a balanced trait/guild/district relation which was possible to do due to the playtesting in the last 5 months. Simply put, I am not going to expend in a lot of effort making new rules and proposals if you are going to reject it out of hand because of incompatibility with your vision of the CoCo. You have the position and the power to do so, and I am not investing a lot of time in it if you are not at least willing to entertain the idea of a change. All the signals you are sending me now are still telling me that you think: 'my way or the highway'. I am responding to every point. I even quoted it. I can just repeat myself: I am not dropping the whole system because you don't agree with it, Usurpator (with all due respect I have for you!). It seems we just have a different view of things but that's okay since it's subjective. And "My way or Highway" was because at one point, discussions break down and I am more or less the only one who continues to invest time into it. See Random Arenas atm. So there's only my way left. @ALL: THE COUNCIL HAS REACHED ITS LIMIT AND IS NOW CLOSED. PLEASE CONTINUE HERE IN THE COUNCIL (II).