Welcome to the Council of Sagaris! This thread is open for everyone and its main purpose is to discuss current issues, and the future of this board. The normal procedure is that the Game Master announces a topic which will then be discussed. To find a quick solution, you should stay focused on that topic and not open a new one. Your opinion is valued here so add your 2 cents and participate in the discussions.
If you have a rules question or need a clarification, better ask in the Tavern thread to start off with, or the [thread=1064628]Courtroom[/thread] if the question turns out to need an Elder decision.
@hogarth: feel free to point me to such exploits taken in the past.
I know I've done it with my characters when I've been almost-but-not-quite at a level. For instance, [post=9624404]Treetall Oakleg[/post] did an EL 1 quest when he needed 75 xp to reach level 5 and an EL 2 quest when he needed 500 xp to reach level 6 -- otherwise he would have "leveled up" in the middle of a cycle and been unable to buy equipment appropriate to his new level. (Actually, the EL 2 fight was surprisingly irritating...)
Maybe that's not an issue with the 4E arena rules; I haven't looked at them too carefully.
so my conclusion is: anyone that has the credits to go on an underlevel quest, does so because of having fun in the quest, and not because of avoiding difficult levels. if you are afraid of such abuse, you could still keep the max 1 quest/level rule.
honestly, our current 4e decision making !"%&s. either we put my proposal to the torch, vote on it, or just try it out - but just lamenting what we are NOT gonna do is really not very entertaining or constructive.
well, those were in-cycle miniquests, which did not cost you credits. there will be no in-cycle quests in 4e (hard to balance as monsters and players do not follow the same progression), and you'll have to spend 4° in order to go on a quest - same as just leveling up via blackmarket, but a lot slower.
Actually, I've done them both in and out of cycle (back when that was allowed).
But if the 4E CoCo allows you to skip from level 5 to 8 by spending credits (say), there's not much difference with skipping from level 5 to 8 by questing against weak monsters. Again, I haven't looked through the 4E rules too carefully.
I've updated the Council review post to reflect the changes/notes that I feel are in place. I'm not saying these can't be reviewed - but since I'm not getting a lot of dissent on it - I'm just moving forward.
Current items at the top of my list is a) determining if something needs to be done about dual striker teams and b) getting the quest rules set up.
As an aside - I'll give 1 credit for someone who provides a short 1-paragraph Overview of Tactics "Necessities" that I can add to the rules thread.
As to 4 and 5 - I would like to see some other responses before we go too much further with it.
As to your last comment - we'll just have to see how the testing goes. More on that when it comes.
Personally, i think LinkN's situation is both dice luck and cheesy, and thus frustrating.
intimidate is not cheesy - it's a valid tactic, and pretty hard to pull. lonewolf tried this against me in our seperate thread fight, and failed - had he gone for piercing strike instead, he might have won the fight.
i believe the real reason you want to get rid of intimidate, is because its a new "save" or die mechanic. if you want to ban it because of that, you'd need to ban stuns, sleep and some other pretty deadly powers as well.
Rules of Sagaris - Quests
[b]Quests - What are Quests?[/b] [INDENT]Quests are alternatives to the standard arena fight. Instead of fighting against another character in the arena dome, you can go on a quest. Quests are fights that take place outside the arena dome, and they follow their own rules. You do not face another player character but fight NPCs on the way to your quest goal which is determined by you.
A quest is run by a Questlord who invents the story (based on what you want to quest for), creates the maps where the fights will take place, and gives out treasure and XP. And of course he runs all NPCs. He is basically like a Dungeon Master.
Quests are also different in the way the are being run. A new Quest thread will be opened by the Questlord who copies your character sheet into the thread, and writes an introduction to the quest. From now on you and your questlord take turns posting in this thread; roleplaying is strongly encouraged but the Questlord must make sure that the timeframe is being kept (see below).
A Quest gives the player complete control over his character, and because of the free-style nature of Quests your options are almost limitless. However, you also have much less knowledge about your foes, and most of the time you don't know whom you will face at all.
Quest Limitations: Since Quests occupy possible Pitlords as well as to prevent characters playing 'outside the game' by not coming into contact with other characters, a limit on how many quests you can do is necessary. Every character can quest only once per level. After his quest, he has to wait until he levels up before he can quest again. Also, failed quests do not count against this limit--you can try again immediately.
Quest Goal and EL: Every quest must have an EL. The EL for quests is assumed to be the Level of the team +2. For example, for a team of level 1 characters, each encounter is appropriate for 2 characters of 3rd level. The questlord is responsible for ensuring each encounter is appropriate.[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Features[/b] [INDENT]Standard Quests: Standard Quests (often just called Quests) are the main quests. They take 4 real-time weeks to complete, and will have to win 4 fights. Those 4 fights will all take place on one in-game day (within 16 hours to be exact) and you cannot rest during the quest. However, unlike in the arena, you can use all your Spells or Powerpoints and freely choose how to distribute them among those three fights. You can use all x/day abilities up to the maximum allowed, and expend them when and whereever you want.
Quest Time: One fight will be held in one real-time week, so the complete Quest takes four weeks to complete, ingame and offgame. However, these fights are considered to take place on one day ingame, the rest is considered traveling time and time to gather information about the monster.
[INDENT]Example: The Swift Hammer team wants to hunt a Red Dragon (because it is fun), a quest which takes four weeks in Sagaris and on Earth. Here's the comparison:
Earth time: There will be 1 fight a week over 4 weeks. The first week, they fight a pair of Dragonborn cultists of Tiamat and some minions, the second week they fight a group of kobolds serving the dragon and one of his pets, the third week they fight the Red Dragon's golem and in the last week - they fight the red dragon. Altogether 4 weeks. But why couldn't they refresh dailies? Why couldn't they use action points every fight?
Sagaris time: The team needs a week to gather the necessary information about the location of a Red Dragon. They needs another week to travel to the "Quest Zone", a forboding forest. Just after entering this forest, they are attacked by the dragonborn clerics because they are intent on doing their superior harm. Three hours later they close in on the Dragon cave and are ambushed by a large group of kobolds who serve the dragon. Inside the cavern, they are accosted by the dragon's golems and then they encounter the dragon in the end. The last week is then spent traveling back to Sagaris. Altogether 4 weeks but he fought 4 times in one day so they could not take an extended rest.
You see, after the Quest is complete there will be no time discrepancy between the Swift Hammer team and those who fought in the arena. [/INDENT]
Quest Costs: A 4-week Quest costs the player 1° per week plus his team is considered active which might incur an additional credit cost depending on how many other "units" you have active in a given week.
A Questlord gets 2° a week for running the Quest. If the encounter is not finished by Wednesday 2AM GMT on the fourth week, he takes a 1° penalty the following week, and a cumulative one for every additional week the Quest takes. It is up to the Questlord to finish the Quest on time. If the player doesn't post often enough, a Questlord is encouraged to request tactics and run this one fight like a Pitlord would.[/INDENT]
Quests - Between Encounters [INDENT]It is assumed, unless the player of the team requests otherwise, that the team is allowed a short rest between each encounter. Healing between encounters is not free (as it is within the Battles of Sagaris), so it is important that the team takes this opportunity to recover before moving on if recovering is needed.
It is up to the questlord on whether additional short rests are allowed between encounters (for instance, it is not a guarantee you will be able to refresh your encounter powers if you used them during your short rest to improve your healing), but in most cases this should be acceptable.
The team also reaches a milestone between the second and third encounters of the quest and as such, gain a new action point at that time.[/indent]
[b]Quests - Multiteam Quests[/b] [INDENT]The above mentioned Quests are focused on one character who goes on a solo-adventure. He chooses his Questgoal and embarks on a mission. Multiplayer Quests are just that except that there will be more than one character playing this quest, and all will work together as a party - the roleplaying reasons are completely up to the players or the Questlord.
However, there are some things to consider when more than one character is involved. First of all, there is a maximum number of characters that can participate in the Quest. So far, we have settled to four characters. These character must be within one level of each other else the Quest becomes boring/frustrating to some members, depending on their relative ECL.
And of course, where a party is involved, there must be shares. XP will be shared according to the regular XP table in the DMG. Found treasure is a more complicated matter since the higher level gladiators should also get more rewards than the lower ones; a level-proportionate share. The total treasure will be divided by the character levels into 'shares' and every character gets one share per level.
[INDENT]Example: Eiletha (lvl 3), Hagrid (lvl 3), Pard (lvl 2), and Ragnarr (lvl 2) go on a quest which they successfully finish. Throughout the Quest, they have found 4000 gold, a potion of fly (750 gp), a potion of resist fire (300 gp), and a +1 greatsword (2300 gp), for a total of 7350. Eiletha, Hagrid, Pard, and Ragnarr have 10 levels together so one share is 735 gold (7350/10). Now Eiletha and Hagrid get three shares (because they are lvl 3) which is 2205 gp, and Pard and Ragnarr get two shares equalling 1470 gp.
Eiletha definately wants the +1 greatsword so she pays 95 gp and gets the sword which is her share. Hagrid is happy with the two potions (750+300=1050) and a bit of gold (1155 gp). The rest will be distributed among the Pard and Ragnarr so everyone got his reward according to his level.[/INDENT]
However, even though Eiletha was pretty happy with the greatsword, having an item price in gold is always better unless you definately find the exact item you wanted anyway. So Eiletha got the greatsword which has the correct worth according to her shares but with 2205 gp she would have had more leeway in buying equipment (including a +1 greatsword). And what if Eiletha - who is a cleric and cannot use a greatsword - doesn't want the weapon but had no chance but to take it? For that reason, item rewards can be cashed in for full price at the end of the Quest (not afterwards).
Don't worry if this sounds too complicated to you. Quests must be announced and approved by Scribelords and that is when the rewards will be checked and validated by us so the plain maths is left to the Questlord/GM.[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Aborted and Late Quests[/b] [INDENT]Since Quests and Campaigns take place outside the protective nimbus, they are much more dangerous, and fighting to the death is something not everyone wants to do. For that reason, you can always abandon a Quest or Campaign. You may keep all VP you have gained so far, but the Quest itself is considered a failure.
There are two ways to abandon a quest.
Between fights: This is only possible during Standard Quests and Campaigns where you have more than one fight before the Quest is completed. You just have to tell the Questlord that you want to abandon the Quest and you will travel home to Sagaris.
During fights: You can retreat while you are fighting an opponent. This comes in two steps: The first step is to move off the map which might be easy or difficult, depending on the environment you are fighting in. Until you have left the map, the fight will continue as normal. When your character has left the map, it is up to the Questlord to decide if you escape your persuer or not.
Late Quests: A Quest must be done in four weeks, ie all four encounters must be finished. If that is not the case, a Quest is late and will be extended at a credit cost for both Questlord and Players. The 5th week, a negative penality of 1° will be assigned, another 2° in the 6th week, and if it goes into week 7, everyone gets 3° deducted. After that the Quest will be removed from the roster and is considered abandoned. Please note that the status of the Quest solely depends on what is written in the Questlog, so if the Quest is done but the Questlog not updated, negative penalties apply still. [/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Finishing Early[/b] [INDENT]If you and your questlord finish the quest early, the team involved is still considered active for the full four weeks. This is to hopefully encourage roleplaying between and during encounters instead of just posting actions and reactions.
For the individual encounters of the quest, the timing is up to the questlord. If the first encounter finishes early, and the questlord has the time to get started on the next, it is acceptable to forge on ahead. Likewise if the questlord anticipates an encounter taking an abnormal amount of time, he can try to finish the first couple of encounters early in order to give the longer encounter more due time.[/indent]
[b]Quests - Death[/b] [INDENT]Unfortunately, encounters are unpredictable and can occasionally lead to one or more team members' deaths. When this happens, the quest is resolved as follows:
[b]Quests - Getting Started[/b] [INDENT]The easiest place to start is to simply post that you want a quest in the Tavern. Available questlords will either respond here directly or via PM to flesh out the details. In case of a Standard Quest you also need to have at least 4 credits.
If he agrees, you need to tell him what you want to quest for. You should also provide your Questlord with some hooks and a storyline or a background that he can build his quest on. Most quests are around your team's level +2. Each encounter of your team's level +2 is worth 1.5 VPs (if you and your questlord arrange a different difficulty to the encounters, they will have different VP rewards. See the [post=????]Questlord rules[/post] post for more information about VPs per encounter. Most quests will run about 5-6 VPs.[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Frozen Quests[/b] [INDENT]Frozen Quests work just like regular Quests with the difference that the questing characters do not gain VPs). The reason for these quests is that some cannot play their character because their character is frozen or too high in level. Frozen Quests are purely roleplaying and have absolutely no impact in any way on the CoCo. They won't even appear on the Roster. The Questlord gains 2° per week normally and is not penalized if the quest takes longer (it still has to be done on week 6).[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - What are Quests?[/b] [INDENT]Quests are alternatives to the standard arena fight. Instead of fighting against another character in the arena dome, you can go on a quest. Quests are fights that take place outside the arena dome, and they follow their own rules. You do not face another player character but fight NPCs on the way to your quest goal which is determined by you.
A quest is run by a Questlord who invents the story (based on what you want to quest for), creates the maps where the fights will take place, and gives out treasure and XP. And of course he runs all NPCs. He is basically like a Dungeon Master.
Quests are also different in the way the are being run. A new Quest thread will be opened by the Questlord who copies your character sheet into the thread, and writes an introduction to the quest. From now on you and your questlord take turns posting in this thread; roleplaying is strongly encouraged but the Questlord must make sure that the timeframe is being kept (see below).
A Quest gives the player complete control over his character, and because of the free-style nature of Quests your options are almost limitless. However, you also have much less knowledge about your foes, and most of the time you don't know whom you will face at all.
Quest Limitations: Since Quests occupy possible Pitlords as well as to prevent characters playing 'outside the game' by not coming into contact with other characters, a limit on how many quests you can do is necessary. Every character can quest only once per level. After his quest, he has to wait until he levels up before he can quest again. Also, failed quests do not count against this limit--you can try again immediately.
Quest Goal and EL: Every quest must have an EL. The EL for quests is assumed to be the Level of the team +2. For example, for a team of level 1 characters, each encounter is appropriate for 2 characters of 3rd level. The questlord is responsible for ensuring each encounter is appropriate.[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Features[/b] [INDENT]Standard Quests: Standard Quests (often just called Quests) are the main quests. They take 4 real-time weeks to complete, and will have to win 4 fights. Those 4 fights will all take place on one in-game day (within 16 hours to be exact) and you cannot rest during the quest. However, unlike in the arena, you can use all your Spells or Powerpoints and freely choose how to distribute them among those three fights. You can use all x/day abilities up to the maximum allowed, and expend them when and whereever you want.
Quest Time: One fight will be held in one real-time week, so the complete Quest takes four weeks to complete, ingame and offgame. However, these fights are considered to take place on one day ingame, the rest is considered traveling time and time to gather information about the monster.
[INDENT]Example: The Swift Hammer team wants to hunt a Red Dragon (because it is fun), a quest which takes four weeks in Sagaris and on Earth. Here's the comparison:
Earth time: There will be 1 fight a week over 4 weeks. The first week, they fight a pair of Dragonborn cultists of Tiamat and some minions, the second week they fight a group of kobolds serving the dragon and one of his pets, the third week they fight the Red Dragon's golem and in the last week - they fight the red dragon. Altogether 4 weeks. But why couldn't they refresh dailies? Why couldn't they use action points every fight?
Sagaris time: The team needs a week to gather the necessary information about the location of a Red Dragon. They needs another week to travel to the "Quest Zone", a forboding forest. Just after entering this forest, they are attacked by the dragonborn clerics because they are intent on doing their superior harm. Three hours later they close in on the Dragon cave and are ambushed by a large group of kobolds who serve the dragon. Inside the cavern, they are accosted by the dragon's golems and then they encounter the dragon in the end. The last week is then spent traveling back to Sagaris. Altogether 4 weeks but he fought 4 times in one day so they could not take an extended rest.
You see, after the Quest is complete there will be no time discrepancy between the Swift Hammer team and those who fought in the arena. [/INDENT]
Quest Costs: A 4-week Quest costs the player 1° per week plus his team is considered active which might incur an additional credit cost depending on how many other "units" you have active in a given week.
A Questlord gets 2° a week for running the Quest. If the encounter is not finished by Wednesday 2AM GMT on the fourth week, he takes a 1° penalty the following week, and a cumulative one for every additional week the Quest takes. It is up to the Questlord to finish the Quest on time. If the player doesn't post often enough, a Questlord is encouraged to request tactics and run this one fight like a Pitlord would.[/INDENT]
Quests - Between Encounters [INDENT]It is assumed, unless the player of the team requests otherwise, that the team is allowed a short rest between each encounter. Healing between encounters is not free (as it is within the Battles of Sagaris), so it is important that the team takes this opportunity to recover before moving on if recovering is needed.
It is up to the questlord on whether additional short rests are allowed between encounters (for instance, it is not a guarantee you will be able to refresh your encounter powers if you used them during your short rest to improve your healing), but in most cases this should be acceptable.
The team also reaches a milestone between the second and third encounters of the quest and as such, gain a new action point at that time.[/indent]
[b]Quests - Multiteam Quests[/b] [INDENT]The above mentioned Quests are focused on one character who goes on a solo-adventure. He chooses his Questgoal and embarks on a mission. Multiplayer Quests are just that except that there will be more than one character playing this quest, and all will work together as a party - the roleplaying reasons are completely up to the players or the Questlord.
However, there are some things to consider when more than one character is involved. First of all, there is a maximum number of characters that can participate in the Quest. So far, we have settled to four characters. These character must be within one level of each other else the Quest becomes boring/frustrating to some members, depending on their relative ECL.
And of course, where a party is involved, there must be shares. XP will be shared according to the regular XP table in the DMG. Found treasure is a more complicated matter since the higher level gladiators should also get more rewards than the lower ones; a level-proportionate share. The total treasure will be divided by the character levels into 'shares' and every character gets one share per level.
[INDENT]Example: Eiletha (lvl 3), Hagrid (lvl 3), Pard (lvl 2), and Ragnarr (lvl 2) go on a quest which they successfully finish. Throughout the Quest, they have found 4000 gold, a potion of fly (750 gp), a potion of resist fire (300 gp), and a +1 greatsword (2300 gp), for a total of 7350. Eiletha, Hagrid, Pard, and Ragnarr have 10 levels together so one share is 735 gold (7350/10). Now Eiletha and Hagrid get three shares (because they are lvl 3) which is 2205 gp, and Pard and Ragnarr get two shares equalling 1470 gp.
Eiletha definately wants the +1 greatsword so she pays 95 gp and gets the sword which is her share. Hagrid is happy with the two potions (750+300=1050) and a bit of gold (1155 gp). The rest will be distributed among the Pard and Ragnarr so everyone got his reward according to his level.[/INDENT]
However, even though Eiletha was pretty happy with the greatsword, having an item price in gold is always better unless you definately find the exact item you wanted anyway. So Eiletha got the greatsword which has the correct worth according to her shares but with 2205 gp she would have had more leeway in buying equipment (including a +1 greatsword). And what if Eiletha - who is a cleric and cannot use a greatsword - doesn't want the weapon but had no chance but to take it? For that reason, item rewards can be cashed in for full price at the end of the Quest (not afterwards).
Don't worry if this sounds too complicated to you. Quests must be announced and approved by Scribelords and that is when the rewards will be checked and validated by us so the plain maths is left to the Questlord/GM.[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Aborted and Late Quests[/b] [INDENT]Since Quests and Campaigns take place outside the protective nimbus, they are much more dangerous, and fighting to the death is something not everyone wants to do. For that reason, you can always abandon a Quest or Campaign. You may keep all VP you have gained so far, but the Quest itself is considered a failure.
There are two ways to abandon a quest.
Between fights: This is only possible during Standard Quests and Campaigns where you have more than one fight before the Quest is completed. You just have to tell the Questlord that you want to abandon the Quest and you will travel home to Sagaris.
During fights: You can retreat while you are fighting an opponent. This comes in two steps: The first step is to move off the map which might be easy or difficult, depending on the environment you are fighting in. Until you have left the map, the fight will continue as normal. When your character has left the map, it is up to the Questlord to decide if you escape your persuer or not.
Late Quests: A Quest must be done in four weeks, ie all four encounters must be finished. If that is not the case, a Quest is late and will be extended at a credit cost for both Questlord and Players. The 5th week, a negative penality of 1° will be assigned, another 2° in the 6th week, and if it goes into week 7, everyone gets 3° deducted. After that the Quest will be removed from the roster and is considered abandoned. Please note that the status of the Quest solely depends on what is written in the Questlog, so if the Quest is done but the Questlog not updated, negative penalties apply still. [/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Finishing Early[/b] [INDENT]If you and your questlord finish the quest early, the team involved is still considered active for the full four weeks. This is to hopefully encourage roleplaying between and during encounters instead of just posting actions and reactions.
For the individual encounters of the quest, the timing is up to the questlord. If the first encounter finishes early, and the questlord has the time to get started on the next, it is acceptable to forge on ahead. Likewise if the questlord anticipates an encounter taking an abnormal amount of time, he can try to finish the first couple of encounters early in order to give the longer encounter more due time.[/indent]
[b]Quests - Death[/b] [INDENT]Unfortunately, encounters are unpredictable and can occasionally lead to one or more team members' deaths. When this happens, the quest is resolved as follows:
- If one member of the team is still alive, he can continue on in the remaining encounter(s) and try to complete the quest successfully. If he is successful, the team is rewarded for finishing the quest as normal.
- If one member of the team is killed, the remaining member of the team can abandon the quest as covered above. The team gains rewards for the successfully completed encounters.
- If both members of the team are killed, the quest is finished immediately. The team is returned to Sagaris and resurrected and are returned to the arena at the next fight of their fight cycle. For instance, a team who completes the first encounter of a quest, but who dies on the second are returned to the area in fight 3.
- If both members of the team are killed, they gain no rewards for the quest.
[b]Quests - Getting Started[/b] [INDENT]The easiest place to start is to simply post that you want a quest in the Tavern. Available questlords will either respond here directly or via PM to flesh out the details. In case of a Standard Quest you also need to have at least 4 credits.
If he agrees, you need to tell him what you want to quest for. You should also provide your Questlord with some hooks and a storyline or a background that he can build his quest on. Most quests are around your team's level +2. Each encounter of your team's level +2 is worth 1.5 VPs (if you and your questlord arrange a different difficulty to the encounters, they will have different VP rewards. See the [post=????]Questlord rules[/post] post for more information about VPs per encounter. Most quests will run about 5-6 VPs.[/INDENT]
[b]Quests - Frozen Quests[/b] [INDENT]Frozen Quests work just like regular Quests with the difference that the questing characters do not gain VPs). The reason for these quests is that some cannot play their character because their character is frozen or too high in level. Frozen Quests are purely roleplaying and have absolutely no impact in any way on the CoCo. They won't even appear on the Roster. The Questlord gains 2° per week normally and is not penalized if the quest takes longer (it still has to be done on week 6).[/INDENT]
At the moment, unless it is in an update put out by WoTC, we use what is listed in the books.
Now, if and when the Minotaur gets an update in there or gets put into a future PHB that we eventually adopt - that would be when it changes. Dragon will never be one of our sources except for clarification examples.
I know, and am glad, that Dragon will not be one of our sources. I bring it up only given the restructuring of 4E D&D; online resources are emphasized, so online updates are typically the most current. Since 4E is still a 'young' instantiation of the game, many of the kinks are still being worked out. Witness the revised stealth rules in PHB2. I know that LFR (which is not essentially dissimilar from CoCo, save that it allows two more books) has eliminated 'oversized' from its list of acceptable traits and altered a handful of other rules. I only bring this up since I suspect that things will be a bit more fluid with 4E rules for a while before they ossify into an identifiable "core" set, which might make things temporarily problematic for us at the Core Coliseum.
That said, I'm perfectly happy with our current ruling. I just wanted to know what our current stand is and will be.
Now, to get to work on those Minotaur and Bugbear teams...
I would say that, if any limitation is set, it should be a flat "no 2 of the same class"; essentially not limit it to strikers. And obviously, any teams that become illegal because of this change should be allowed to scrap one teammate for a new (legal) character of the same level.
I decided not to complain about dual strikers because sooner or later, my clerics would reach 5th level and gain conscrated ground.
Need I say more?
The possibiltiy of ruling out two characters with the same class seems to be a more balanced ruling. It would also make more variety in the tournaments.
I would need to redo both characters if we adopted such a ruling since a few things are dependant on other things.
If we do that, I would like to promote the 4E PHB 2 being added to the options.
I have read it and feel that it is balanced enough to not upset any apple carts.
There are two parts that we have to take into account when adding new stuff.
1) Will everyone buy it? Part of what makes the 3.5 CoCo work is that everyone can play because of the SRD's that are available for free to play ... which leads to #2.
2) How much can we post on the boards without breaking legal rules in the copyright area. As it is ... PHB is pretty much swarmed all over. It is something that we have to consider ... I'm not sure how many of us have actually looked at the gaming license to see if we are or are not breaking rules.
I want to play with that stuff...
about the everybody buy it: since we pretty much spell out everything in 4e, it should not be hard to run even if we allow further sources. also, since there has to be some kind of "evaluation phase" on every new source, it is safe to assume that people will have access to one book per year or so.
Maybe we should have two character sheets.
One character sheet to be posted on the boards with the basics listed
and
another one with detailed descriptions that is sent to the current Pitlord for the battle
would that work??
@everybody
After thinking about it, I think that no duplicating classes is the wrong way to go.
However, no duplicating powers just about fixes everything.
This leaves the option of building something like a battle cleric and a devoted cleric who are quite different but of the same class. They just could not both take Consecrated Ground {which keeps a cleric from dying by continually going from dying to between 4 and 10 hp each and every turn}.
@Erithmu
Maybe we should have two character sheets.
One character sheet to be posted on the boards with the basics listed
and
another one with detailed descriptions that is sent to the current Pitlord for the battle
would that work??
Much too complicated.
But I agree with Whitebaron. Wizards isnt going to shoot us down as long as everything stays reasonable. Its not like were posting PHB2-pdfs for download here.
@everybody
After thinking about it, I think that no duplicating classes is the wrong way to go.
However, no duplicating powers just about fixes everything.
This leaves the option of building something like a battle cleric and a devoted cleric who are quite different but of the same class. They just could not both take Consecrated Ground {which keeps a cleric from dying by continually going from dying to between 4 and 10 hp each and every turn}.
this deserves some thought, but the more I think about the "problem" the more I think that we should wait at least a couple of more weeks before nerfing anything. We have seen some Lvl1 pvp for now, but we simply dont know if the dynamics change on higher levels.
Perhaps no duplicating classes would be better.
I am considering changing to a Cleric/Warlord combination.
After thinking about it, I think that no duplicating classes is the wrong way to go.
However, no duplicating powers just about fixes everything.
This leaves the option of building something like a battle cleric and a devoted cleric who are quite different but of the same class. They just could not both take Consecrated Ground {which keeps a cleric from dying by continually going from dying to between 4 and 10 hp each and every turn}.
It does fix one problem, but it starts several others. How would a human rogue and a halfing rogue work? Could a half-elf rogue get a cleric's Sacred Flame power if the other character is a cleric and has the power normally? And would that same half-elf be able to multiclass into cleric? And would the cleric be able to multiclass and get the rogue's sneak attack power? How would multiclassing even work if both characters are different classes but would be able to get the same power?
no duplicate (main) classes would be much better in that regard.
however, i'm in agreement with lonewolf on this one - had i believed it to be an actual problem yet, i'd have brought up the topic myself.
--
as for phb2 etc: well, we have to look at one key component here: pitlording. not everyone has this book handy yet, and many people won't even bother getting mm2 as they are players in their own campaigns, so we need to hold it back for a while - or at least restrict it so people can get into it slowly.
i'd propose the following for additional sources: (only just phb, maybe mm races as well, all other splat should stay banned)
first month - banned alltogether (either till the 15th or last day of month following the release)
2 months - 10° per character using new options (so 20° for a brand-new team)
2 months - 5° per character using new options (so 10° for a brand-new team)
free after that.
basically, this would mean every core book would have an introductory phase in coco, giving players about a half year time to learn the rules fully before everyone can use it.
the schedule for phb2 would be thus:
relased in march
15th/30th april: gets legal in coco for 10° per character
15th/30th june: gets legal in coco for 5° per character
15th/31th august: gets legal in coco without additional charge
Wizards isnt going to shoot us down as long as everything stays reasonable. Its not like were posting PHB2-pdfs for download here.
This is why I don't like people posting formulae in their powers sections. If anything you can do has something based on a modifier, you should just list the number, so that you're not giving away the whole formula of the power, like Wizards does with their pregenerated characters. They can still be reverse engineered, but your staying farther from the line of unacceptability.
This is why I don't like people posting formulae in their powers sections. If anything you can do has something based on a modifier, you should just list the number, so that you're not giving away the whole formula of the power, like Wizards does with their pregenerated characters. They can still be reverse engineered, but your staying farther from the line of unacceptability.
the problem here is that it makes it very hard to quick-check on the numbers, and if you don't have the book, it would be impossible to pitlord. that's why i dislike anyone NOT posting a breakdown, like we did in 3.5. even posting XP for 3.5 broke the OGL. so i don't see anything bad from doing some additions on the boards.
I am not really sure that banning same class teams will do anything to stop dual striker teams from being strong. After all, there are 3 strikers in the PHB. So if that is its main purpose, it might fail.
The warlord / cleric team is interesting and I have it saved on my computer.
I am going with dual clerics till such time as they are banned, just cause I love clerics. We can see where that leads. I did modify them to be balanced in nature, not trying to abuse anything in particular.
As for the PHB2 - I need to give it a little more time before allowing it to be incorporated in. I think whitebaron's plan is not a bad one (allowing it for credits to begin with), but I'm not sure that we need two tiers for it.
Any further comments on the Quest rules post I made? I'd like to have them finished off this week if possible.
Suggestion:
5 or 10 credits for race + race associated feats
5 or 10 credits for class + class associated feats
1 credit per general feat outside race or class feats
This would be per character. and the 1 credit per feat could add up very quickly ... and still there would be the time frame for credits to wear off.
as for wage, i was merely mentioning it because i see what you get for your credits as utterly unbalanced.
if for 20 hours of work, you get 1 character from a new source, that's an awful lot of work for 20 minutes fun.
-7 credits for a PHB2 race and all associated feats
-7 credits for a PHB2 class and all associated feats and special magic items, rituals, etc (for Shamans, Bards, and Sorcerors).
-2 credits for a PHB2 multiclassing feat
All other PHB2 material is banned until PHB2 becomes free. This would include things such as feats not related to a specific class/race (implement/weapon mastery, etc), or most magic items.
About magic items: Some of the new PHB2 classes (Bard, Shaman, and Sorceror, I believe) primarially use magic items only released in the PHB2 (a bard's instruments, or a shaman's totems). Since I believe it would be unfair to charge anyone using those classes extra credits to have a functional character, instead anyone using those classes will have access to the class's special magic items from the PHB2 as well. This would also apply to Bards and the special Bard rituals.
Also, for races in both the PHB2 and MM, once the PHB2 is useable for credits, any race in the MM will use the PHB2 rules. However, those characters are still unable to use any class feats and the like without spending credits.
For those of you thinking about creating and submitting maps:
Photoshop (and some other art programs) have a feature called:
Save for Web & Devices
If you use that feature, you can reduce the quality of an image (or the size of an image) as you save it as a JPEG image.
Carefully used, you can change pictures that are over 1 megabyte in size to something more like 100+ kilobytes with little loss of quality.
A 100 kilobyte picture can often be reduced into a 13 to 25 kilobyte picture.
This is one of the advantages of working with JPEG images and something that it took me awhile to learn.
A picture viewed on the web requires much less memory space than a picture that you are printing up on a printer.
One can pick up a JPEG image from the web and resize it and resubmit it.
It is even possible for one to pick up a bitmap image and resave it as a JPEG image for the web and resubmit it.
I am not at all familiar with the CoCo Battle Map, but it looks very interesting.
When I have time, I hope to experiment with it.
I have to agree w/ WB as well.
Suggestion:
5 credits for race + race associated feats
5 credits for class + class associated feats
1 credit per general feat outside race or class feats
This would be per character. and the 1 credit per feat could add up very quickly ... and still there would be the time frame for credits to wear off.
Is the above amenable to the others then?
Also - unless I see some detraction from the proposed Quest rules, I'll add them in when I get a chance.
There's some pink in the center, which isn't actually at ground level. It should be either silver or brown (not sure which you intended, but either is fine).
U looking at the corners around the center? they are pink and silver.. a 20ft difference
U looking at the corners around the center? they are pink and silver.. a 20ft difference
So you intended for the "+" shaped platform to have a gap in the middle, and the "special collections" rising up out of the gap? That's not what I expected, and I think people will find it counter-intuitive.
So you intended for the "+" shaped platform to have a gap in the middle, and the "special collections" rising up out of the gap? That's not what I expected, and I think people will find it counter-intuitive.
you might have to reload the page
you might have to reload the page
Ah, you are correct, sorry. Yep, that looks good.
Ah, you are correct, sorry. Yep, that looks good.
you had me scared there boss... i was blowing it up in paintshop and trying to see what you was seeing.. then i noticed the old one..
I took a stab at a map myself, which I'm calling the Tower Ruins. I wanted a map where the main feature was the Feature of the Week(TM), so it's pretty much devoid of anything else--no changes in altitude, no difficult terrain, no unique rules. After I get some feedback on this one, I'll see if I can work on a map that integrates multiple features.
Cavern Map
- This is a cavern of 150 feet and a height of 15 feet. Each number along the grid represents 5 feet. Each square has the same size; don't be misled by the graphic where the walls seem to reach into a square.
- Obstacles: the 4 large statues are 10ft tall, the medium statues are only 5ft high (these dimensions will suffice to meld into stone a creature of any size). They block Line of Sight just as a normal pillar would. Both statues can be climbed with an Athletics check (DC15+ 2/3 level of the fight), and you can sit on the shoulder of the statues if you have a humanoid shape and are one size smaller than the statue. In this case, your elevation is 10ft (for large statues) and 5ft (for medium statues), respectively and have cover. Large Statues have AC 4, Fortitude 12, Reflex 4 and 80hp; Medium statues have AC 5, Fortitude 10, Reflex 5 and 40hp.
- The Pond: The pond is a body of clear water, 1 foot deep. It counts as difficult terrain (half movement).
- When Features of the Week are enabled, there is a 50% chance that any individual square of the pond is the feature of the week instead of the regular difficult terrain.
- Terrain Type: The cavern counts as Indoor, Underground and Cavernous terrain. The ground is hard natural rock.
1. 1 credit per item
2. Flat 3 credit cost to allow that character to use any of the accepted implements
3. Only allow them for the new classes; new implements for existing classes can be grabbed when PHB2 is allowed credit-free.
Other options are available - I'm just throwing these out here.
because if telin hears that stats will even out at lvl 20, (strikers win early, defenders and leaders later) he might be disinclined to call it a bad thing.
also, while the amount of healing will be much, they still need to have many more healing surges than usual, or take powers that actively heal instead of doing more damage.
---
i'm all in favor of banning dual striker teams, or dual same class teams, if this means to get rid of all "single role"-teams, well, so be it. My characters and team are built thematically anyway.
---
hedge 2: good map. way better than the old one. @Telin: maybe we should do another thread with only map-discussion, as i feel the council is filled by lots of issues floating around? we can post a summary of the findings in the council afterwards, so it is archived.
also, while the amount of healing will be much, they still need to have many more healing surges than usual, or take powers that actively heal instead of doing more damage.
.... No you wouldn't.
2 LvL 7 Clerics would have access to 2 Cure Light wounds (HS value but none spent) 2 Cure Serious Wounds(2xHS value non spent) 2 Concentrated Grounds(If need be these could be stacked uponAFAIK) 2 bastion of healths per cycle. Only the BoH requires attack rolls and I can still multiclass for some enc damaging powers oh and their healing words both do +2d6+wis...That is also clearly overkill on free healing as well but if I am against melee opponents when they drop their CG's pretty much gg. If you count shamans they have but loads of free healing.
2 defenders? How about the obvious 2 Paladins with Certain Justice? That is EVERY ENCOUNTER PERMA Daze and Weakened. You would have to build a team just to counter this to stop their marks.... Which would take at least 20 weeks to get to see if it works?
Do I need more examples?
b) about certain justice: my rogue striker would just handwave it with ignoble escape. if dual paladin teams are a problem, people will definitely powerswap to that.
c) 2 consecrated grounds do not stack. it's the same source, thus only the higher value would count.
d) if we ban everything potentially problematic, we'd be sitting here without most character options. coco always was about proving what's good and what's bad. if you believe those combinations to be overpowered, proove it and it will be banned.
c) penalties form the same source do not stack but bonuses do.
d) fair enough I just hope there is some form of compensation (credits?) if my high level team ends up being banned
edit: Clarifying my C
If they are TYPED bonuses. They do not stack but since it is not a buff and is a zone it does not matter anyways. The 2 zones would overlap and both go off
a) paladins do not gain free healing as easily.
c) penalties form the same source do not stack but bonuses do.
d) fair enough I just hope there is some form of compensation (credits?) if my high level team ends up being banned
a) yes, but as you said: he could still perma-daze and weaken. paladin and cleric are as dangerous as 2 pallies or 2 clerics, and the same would be true for paladin and ranger, for that issue... so you'll really have to see it in action first.
c) this is not true. bonuses don't stack either. bonusses only stack if they are different source and different type (or unnamed). else you could stack lots of stupidly damaging things.
d)most likely, you'll be allowed to rebuild your team at the same level. there is no precedence for credits given because someone exploited the system, and as you will understand, this gives a completely wrong signal: exploit and you get rewarded. as this has never been the intention, the best you'll get for using cheesy stuff is that you can stay at that level of play without paying credits.
c) this is not true. bonuses don't stack either. bonusses only stack if they are different source and different type (or unnamed). else you could stack lots of stupidly damaging things.
Effect: The burst creates a zone of sanctified ground that
lasts until the end of your next turn... Enemies
that start their turns within the zone take 1d6 + your Charisma
modifier radiant damage. You and any allies who are
bloodied and start their turns within the zone regain hit
points equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier.
If you are in both zones you gain 2+CHa and wis cleric 1+Cha and wis cleric 2 if bloodied. Enemies who start in both zones take 2d6+cha of cleric 1 and 2. They are not typed bonuses(they are 2 different zones) and thus stack. They are from 2 different sources
also, same power != different source. it's the same power, thus the same source. same holds true for certain other effects with the AV weapons, like reckless: even if you have 2 reckless weapons, you end up with the penalty once.
If
zones overlap and impose penalties to the same roll
or score, creatures in the overlapping area are subject
to the worst penalty; the penalties are not cumulative.
Similarly, a target in the overlapping area takes
damage from whichever zone deals the most damage,
regardless of damage type.
Thus I concede I am wrong about damage, but the healing does stack.
similarly to the not-applying of 2 damages, should be the non-applying of 2 healings. if you believe this to be the real problem, a courtroom clarification can be done quite quickly...
and well: bonusses to not stack if from the same source. but that power does not even give out a bonus...
and well: bonusses to not stack if from the same source. but that power does not even give out a bonus...
Not true, Arcane Spellfury for instance can grant you a +2 to attack.
On page PHB 192:
"Bonuses of the same type don’t add together (or stack)."
"you get a +1 bonus to attack rolls with opportunity attacks.
Unlike feat bonuses, however, untyped bonuses stack
with themselves."
edit:when I meant credit compensation I only meant in order to build a team of higher level. Not even the same level as before but if you make a team around a tactic and then it is banned it would be nice to be able to start again from at least one VP tier lower.
Level 12 thru 15 Fouth Edition Game
Level 12 thru 14 Fourth Edition Game
Some high level reading if you want to research.
My level twenty cleric can heal, but that two bladed ranger sure does hit hard...
For your information, my clerics are not going to blow both Consecrated Grounds or both Beacons of Hope on the same game.
More importantly, dual leader classes have a HUGE weakness - lack of healing surges (even with the Durable Feat).
I guess this is the right place to discuss this:
I have a team of a cleric (Lilly) and a warlord (Ash).
They have three victory points.
I can leave the Cleric alone knowing that with later retraining, she should be ok.
The warlord doesn’t quite work with the cleric in certain ways, and I would like to restat him into a balanced cleric.
Rule for rebuilding (or replacing) one team member are?
Does it seem fair if a team is allowed to retrain one partner one time before the team must be scrapped and start over at first level with zero victory points?
Or could one partner be retrained multiple times, but if both partners are ever retrained any, the team is scrapped?
Any thoughts, suggestions, ideas?
Any way this could be abused and broken?
It will not matter much to me one way or the other as it is only 3 victory points, but I thought I would bring it up, since someday soon, someone else will be more concerned than I on this subject…
when i proposed paying credits for new content, i wanted it to be a viable/reasonable option - which, in my belief it is for the new classes - but a lot less so for the new races. why go goliath or half-orc if you have about as good races in the mm? just for one feat, or one feature you like, you'd pay 5°. that's kinda to much, even if you don't need to care about credits.
---edit---
@douglas: the 3.5 rules on this basically were: you can do minor changes at starting ECL for free, irrelevant changes always free, normal or large changes always costed credits. changing an entire class seems like a large change. large changes usually costed 5-10° per change or the amount required to remake the character at the appropriate ECL (with some minimum restrictions)
often you'd be better off if you'd just go and rebuild from scratch. why people in 3.5 still retrained would be special items, quest items, or just that they like their character that much.
Hedge Map
- Starting Boxes: Teams start in one of the four starting boxes in the corners of the map, rolled randomly.
- Terrain Type: The Hedge counts as Outdoor and Forested terrain. The ground is loose earth.
- The Hedges: The Hedges extend as far up as the eye can see and cannot be travelled over the top. They block LOS and cannot be entered. They are easy to climb though (Easy DC climb check), but are artificial and unable to be burned away or otherwise destroyed.
ah. ok. i understand now. i completely misunderstood cespinars question, and he did not bother to reply that i did so.
no, divine challenge does NOT end when you deal the damage. also it does not hamper you from dealing the damage AGAIN.
as it stands, the DC mark is already the weakest out there. there's no need to make the paladin even weaker than he is currently by trying to read something in the rules that's clearly not there.
Which I am totally cool with just making sure that is how it is ruled here.
That was a rumor, which was debunked when 4e actually came out. Now, lava does level-appropriate damage. I personally discourage damage of a particular type (fire in this case) because it provides an imbalanced bonus to character with resistance to that exact type.
Well said.
I was going to remove the maps for this reason.
But on second thought, I simply removed the description and replace it with:
"Details to be set by questlord."
That way you can use these two maps exactly as you wish.
There was an error preventing the two maps from appearing, but I fixed it.
I also ended the series with two maps and redrew the arena map.
Has there been any talk of cost to remake one member of a team?
Since this has come up a couple of times already, it seems a good idea to get it out of the way (especially since I expect it will happen more as we go):
1. A team can be restarted for no credit cost. The team is started back at the level they were started at, but keep the original fight record in a spoiler block labeled "Previous Incarnation" or something similar for reference. Send a PM to the GM (Me) to reset the wins/losses/VPs. For teams that started at a higher level, they can be restarted only once for no credit cost; the second time costs the full amount again - so plan well.
2. If the individual is being remade while still at the initial level the team was entered in at - the cost is 1 credit. The team keeps the current win/loss record and current VPs. Only one character change per team is allowed - so plan the change well.
3. If the individual has leveled since the team has started, the cost is 2 credits per league above 1st. The team keeps the current win/loss record and current VPs. Only one character change per team is allowed - so plan the change well.
4. In all cases above, if the individual being remade cost credits to be made aside from starting at a higher level, those costs are not repeated unless that is the aspect being changed. Likewise, new credit costs would need to be paid for.
Basically, I'm hoping this will encourage individuals to be corrected at the origin level, rather than waiting until later on to be "fixed." Also, this allows for a paragon team that starts at level 11 to be fixed for minimal additional cost, but as soon as the team starts to level up, the cost goes up a fair amount.
I can confirm that there are 3 new PC races in the back of the book.
I can confirm that the book has the words: “Roleplaying Game Core Rules” on the front cover.
I believe WotC does intend that this book be considered as part of the Core Rules.
Hence, it is definitely in their best interest if we treat it as such.
There has already been a case of someone posting these PC race stats upon the WotC’s boards.
Proposal:
We include the Monster Manuel 2 including the three Player Character Races found in the back of the book as having the same credit cost and time limits as the Player’s Handbook 2.
If anyone creates a character using a race in the Monster Manuel 2 (and MM3, MM4…), they build their character sheet with detailed stats that can be obvious what happens when the character gains levels; then they post a notice in the prison asking for someone to verify that their race stats are correct.
Someone checks out the character sheet and posts a reply in the prison that these racial stats are correct. (They would receive 1/3 credit for having the book and checking this out.)
This seems fair and done in a way that will not overburden anyone.
Thoughts, comments?
I can confirm that there are 3 new PC races in the back of the book.
I can confirm that the book has the words: “Roleplaying Game Core Rules” on the front cover.
I believe WotC does intend that this book be considered as part of the Core Rules.
Hence, it is definitely in their best interest if we treat it as such.
There has already been a case of someone posting these PC race stats upon the WotC’s boards.
If there were more than just 3 races in there, I would be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, with only three, the resource is really of use to the questlords (of which - I have no problem with them using it as a resource).
As for it being posted elsewhere, I basically have to just say no. The PbP boards are given a lot of leeway - but the fact of the matter is we operate best when we are under the radar. Risking something like the CoCo in order to accommodate 3 races seems a not worthwhile risk. No I don't think they'd shut us down for it (especially with the things I've seen going on in some of the other PbP boards lately), but why even get on the radar?
If there is a huge outcry for these 3 races, please let me know. I know I would love to see the bullywug - but at the same time - I can be satisfied just knowing that it is out there.
Actually everything you said is true.. but then again torchs are available as my human bard archer was told in 3.5.. when in pitch dark he had no dark vision and was killed by a dwarf who could see.. how is this any different.. we can give back torchs and sunrods just like we do arrows.. hence no expendables still and lighting effects can work..
Ah, I apologize, I thought you were trying to say that sunrods (and torches) shouldn't be allowed. I think I lost track of part of the conversation.
Still. As long as light sources are allowed (and we all have ample warning beforehand, to buy said light sources), I'm fine with low-light areas.
There is only a single race with darkvision, and lowlight vision is also much rarer than in 3.5. Also due to much smaller maps, a single sunrod will mostly light up the whole arena.
=> I just dont think its worth the hassle.
I would much rather focus on other interesting ideas out there, such as the "Map feature of the week". Terrain can be made more interesting, but I dont think that lightning conditions are the way to go in 4E.
Does the new target also have to be in melee range of the triggering character?
no
I think the flavor text shows why. But it is anyone adj to you, including being flanked.
That worked well in 3.5e, but in 4e, the arena map is an outlier--it's really big. It's kind of like having the plains be the default map in 3.5e. It's not that bad--rangers can't attack from their full 40 squares away--but it still represents a map where melee characters are at a disadvantage.
Since we're opening up new maps this week, I'd also like to consider moving the Hedge down to level 1. It uses no fancy rules that might confuse new players; in fact, this would be more likely to encourage new players, since they don't have to get through that 1-level hurdle where ranged strikers, especially archery rangers, are king.
I'd like to open up the idea of ending the restriction that level 1 fights take place only in the arena.
That worked well in 3.5e, but in 4e, the arena map is an outlier--it's really big. It's kind of like having the plains be the default map in 3.5e. It's not that bad--rangers can't attack from their full 40 squares away--but it still represents a map where melee characters are at a disadvantage.
Since we're opening up new maps this week, I'd also like to consider moving the Hedge down to level 1. It uses no fancy rules that might confuse new players; in fact, this would be more likely to encourage new players, since they don't have to get through that 1-level hurdle where ranged strikers, especially archery rangers, are king.
While I'm not completely convinced that ranged characters are overpowered in that arena (the arena does favor them somewhat, yes, but it's to be expected that some maps favor certain characters over others), I do agree with the idea of using both hedge and arena for 1st-level fights.
but i agree as well.
Anyway. One more thing I'd like to suggest for when we have an odd number of teams in a bracket: Monster fights.
Rules are simple. Whatever team would be sitting out is instead placed in a fight against a team of monsters, worth exp somewhere around level +0 or level +1 for a team of two. (Several monster teams can be made beforehand and just have one picked at random whenever it's needed.) Rewards for winning the fight are slightly lowered, as the fight itself will probably be easier than a normal coliseum battle: 1 VP for a win, and 0 for a loss.
If a team is put up against a monster fight, they will be given the option to ignore the fight and instead have no fights for the week; if that happens, it's no different from the current system where a team doesn't fight because there's an odd number of teams in the bracket. Also, if there's not enough pitlords to take on all the fights, the monster fights will be the first ones to not have a pitlord.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
PvP and PvE works very very differently in 4e. That's the reason for exclusion of monster fights from the 4e ruleset, and it is still is as valid as it was back then.
A level+0 fight is more or less auto-win. A level+1 fight is still very easy.
A level+2 fight is starting to get to the interesting range, but still more or less an auto-win if you only have to pull it off without bothering about your surges after the fight.
---
Reducing VP in order to balance things is not a good way to do this:
a) if you had an easy monster fight, you have more ressources left for ordinary arena fights, essentially punishing your opponents for you being the odd-team-out.
b) if you had a hard monster fight, you might be crippled afterwards (think of stuff that drains healing surges) for the rest of your arena cycle.
Monster fights can not really be made "fair" in a 4FC, not with the 4e-design philosophy of "monsters are different"
If a team is put up against a monster fight, they will be given the option to ignore the fight and instead have no fights for the week; if that happens, it's no different from the current system where a team doesn't fight because there's an odd number of teams in the bracket.
When I proposed this same system for 3.5 monster fights, I was met with howls of outrage.
When I proposed this same system for 3.5 monster fights, I was met with howls of outrage.
Not from everyone. I liked the plan, and I think templer10 did, too.
Not from everyone. I liked the plan, and I think templer10 did, too.
actually, most non-elders liked the plan.
however, telin was always in favor of monster fights in 3.5.
that not even he is trying to implement those in 4e, shows something - that it's a lot harder to balance than LinkN believes.
What we can deduct from the quests so far is the following: The real issue players have in fighting monsters/quests is the lack of surges for the last fight, not that they're gonna die. Both in "Rescuing Pogus" as well as "The Unholy Cult", the stuff that's most limiting is healing surges. Argor used all 11 of his surges through the quest, and he has not even a leader with him to heal additionally! Soreah used up most of her surges on weeks 1+2.
But: not even the lvl +3 fight that the "Flames of Heaven" are currently facing seems a lot of trouble at the moment.
*--only the nerf to the gnome arcanist's aura, which I discovered after the encounter began, made the encounter even doable. (which, of course, shows that the nerf was a good idea)
*--only the nerf to the gnome arcanist's aura, which I discovered after the encounter began, made the encounter even doable. (which, of course, shows that the nerf was a good idea)
Considering that both Stalkers have a fairly decent perception score, it would still be somewhat difficult for anyone to hide in that aura.
(On a sidenote, even with the errata, the gnome's allies can still "hide" in the aura. They just need total cover/concealment to hide in first, and then won't be auto-spotted just from LoS alone.)
As for the idea... to be honest, it's less of a "balanced" way to introduce monster fights and more of a "This guy has to sit out because we have an odd number of teams, let's let him fight something at least" kind of thing. If there was a way to reward 4E fights other than just giving VP, I would have said to go with that instead and don't count it as part of that team's 4fc.
Considering that both Stalkers have a fairly decent perception score, it would still be somewhat difficult for anyone to hide in that aura.
With its +11 vs. Aventhressa's 16 passive Perception, I think the skulk could have gotten a lot of combat advantage on her. Sethala may have survived (although if the gnome only moved 2, he still had a 55% chance of hiding from her), but it would have been much different. Once the gnome hit on his first attack, he was exposed and much less lethal.
(On a sidenote, even with the errata, the gnome's allies can still "hide" in the aura. They just need total cover/concealment to hide in first, and then won't be auto-spotted just from LoS alone.)
Yes, but having it as an effect of the aura meant they didn't need total cover to hide, which would be sick for the gnome skulk, and make for an obscenely difficult level 3 encounter for 2 level 3 characters.
As for quests - I am pleased to see they are running well.
Personally, 2 or 3 credits.
Expanding on this idea, I'd also like to suggest a credit-based "extra retraining" option (basically, whenever your character levels up, you get your normal 2 retrains for free, and can pay credits if you want to retrain more than just two things).
I don't know if the decision is already made on this, but I noticed MindWandererB was interested in 4v4 guild fights.
I don't know if the decision is already made on this, but I noticed MindWandererB was interested in 4v4 guild fights.
4v4 will never become any standard, because it is just way to much work for a single pitlord to handle. since this means it will be a special event in any case, we could even devise rules like "all roles need to be covered for 4on4"-guild events.
D&D is first and foremost, a role-playing game. Without role-playing, D&D slips back into just another wargame among many wargames. Characters become just a lot of statistics-a jumble of bland numbers. At that point, players have very little emotion invested into their characters which leads to disinterest and apathy.
It is the role-playing elements that keeps one’s interest alive, no matter what the format is.
Recent events have increased the disinterest and apathy in the Core Coliseum. As has been necessary, the composition of the teams has been left open for any type of characters to be allowed to play within a team. This was done to gain statistics and allow creativity. Enough statistics have been gathered to allow some points to be made, and theories to be supported.
Most can readily agree that during the heroic levels, Dual Striker teams will have a greater edge over any other team. This has led to the general assumption that Dual Striker teams will be eventually banned. As such, those not making Dual Striker teams pause in their enthusiasm due to this dominate force. Those who do possess Dual Striker teams also pause in their enthusiasm knowing full well that their team will sooner or later be no more. In both cases, this leads to lack of enthusiasm for the Core Coliseum.
Should we enforce a rule banning Dual Striker teams?
If it were up to me, NO!
Let us look at this list of the top teams, then let me explain:
LEVEL 7 TEAMS (Heroic)
- [POST=18351337]Spring Twins[/post] (Douglas Zuver) [5 won, 7 lost; 19 VPs]
- [POST=18131885]Eagle Eye Twins[/post] (lonewolf) [9 won, 1 lost; 19 VPs]
- [POST=18386078]Khybers Spawn[/post] (lonewolf) [7 won, 3 lost; 18 VPs]
- [POST=17879450]Sons of the Hunt[/post] (post_ironic) [6 won, 6 lost; 18 VPs]
- [POST=16360356]The Arcane Initiates[/post] (whitebaron) [6 won, 2 lost; 19 VPs] [Q:1]
What do we have here?
The Spring Twins are a dual leader team which lasted a very long 13 rounds against the Eagle Eye Twins. In fact, many of their battles lasted a long time due to their strong healing powers. Notice that this team is composed of two identical characters.
The dominate Dual Striker Team Eagle Eye Twins lost once, against a dual striker team. Notice that this team is composed of two identical characters.
Khybers Spawn is a dual striker team with many victories. One of their losses involves a battle with a fighter/ranger team. The other loss involves a three way battle with that same team and the dual leader Spring Twins.
Sons of the Hunt is a melee ranger/balanced cleric team. Its record is about 6 Wins/5 Losses. Three of these losses are to dual striker teams.
The Arcane Initiates are a Warlock/Fighter team. Their main losses are to the Eagle Eye Twins who are a dual striker team.
The obvious point is that Dual Striker teams are dominating the Core Coliseum.
The not so obvious point is that if only Dual Striker teams are banned, then some other group of Dual Role teams may very well pick up the baton and move into this dominate position. WotC has spent quite of bit of time, effort, and thought concerning the creation and definition of the four character roles: Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker. It would be respectful and wise to consider taking advantage of all this research.
But what is more important is that when one has a team made up of two identical or near identical characters, the characters themselves lose their individuality and become less of a role-playing creation and more of a bunch of war gaming statistics. As I explained earlier, this leads to lack of emotion investment in one’s characters.
This area of the WotC is doing quite well with role-playing interest. {However, it does suffer from slowness which is an area that the Core Coliseum excels at.} To play in that area, you required to have a description, personality, and background for each and every character. The length of these three can each be a very short paragraph which makes them easy to write, but nevertheless they are still a requirement.
It would be very easy and beneficial to make this a requirement for every character in the 4E part of the Core Coliseum. This will increase emotional investment in each player’s characters. After all, anyone who cannot bother to write three very short paragraphs about their character will not have the persistence to stay here week after week anyway.
In order to protect competitive creativity, one must at times, ban certain things to protect other things. Producing interesting teams will help promote part of the role-playing type atmosphere necessary for D&D to come to life and be exciting.
Which is why I make the motion that all Dual Role teams {Dual Controllers, Dual Defenders, Dual, Leaders, and Dual Strikers} be banned from the 4E part of the Core Coliseum; and that all 4E characters are required to have at least three very short paragraphs outlining Description, Personality, and Background.
Including places to role-play such as suggested here certainly would be helpful to further promote this concept of emotional investment in one’s Core Coliseum teams forward.
August is a difficult month as students and parents alike prepare for the start of school. This next month, September, happens to be a very important one for the Core Coliseum. The PHB 2 rules become available for use without credit. This effectively doubles the amount of variety and interesting options. We can prepare for this by laying the foundation for protecting and promoting creativity, or we can sit idly by and watch this important opportunity slip out of our hands.
a) who are you?
b) while d&d lives and strives with roleplaying, one of the core aspects in coco is competitiveness. if players are forced to roleplay (especially with every character), some will leave.
c) as for banning dual role teams, it has been proven by now, that having a dual role does not really influence balance as much as we initially thought. (there are lots of dual strikers that are not as successful as EET) Ff we have to ban anything it should be teams with the same class, and not so much the same role. this holds especially true if we get phb III content into the coco - which allows mixing via hybriding. also, if you ban dual roles, is playing a team composed of cleric/ranger and ranger then a violation as well? via multiclassing, you can get lots of the bad stuff without technically being of that role.
also, some of the assumptions are plain wrong:
Most can readily agree that during the heroic levels, Dual Striker teams will have a greater edge over any other team. This has led to the general assumption that Dual Striker teams will be eventually banned. As such, those not making Dual Striker teams pause in their enthusiasm due to this dominate force. Those who do possess Dual Striker teams also pause in their enthusiasm knowing full well that their team will sooner or later be no more. In both cases, this leads to lack of enthusiasm for the Core Coliseum.
it is summer. lonewolf was on vacation, i have heavy duty with my family, and it seems douglas has a new girlfriend or some other reallife business.
also, looking at the lvl 5 bracket, we also have 5 of the 8 characters being absent due to their owners being absent. this is entirely different to waned interest.
As wb mentions above, the current low participation we are facing is mostly because of bad timing on a number of vacations and the dates of GenCon. A month ago, when I left for vacation, we had 7 active players in the CoCo - last I checked (last week) - we had 13. However, of these 13, 3 were on vacation, 2 decided not to activate, etc. These things happen and for the most part are pretty common during the summer months.
The CoCo can function very well with only a handful of players - though it certainly thrives better when there are more. I am always happy to have new faces stop by and try it out.
Next, about the emotional investment - I will say that the players who are interested in fleshing out their characters often do. Case in point - I pretty much always include a few paragraphs for my characters - I always have and probably always will.
That said - I look at someone like lonewolf - who has very little associated with his characters. Do I see him as less of a player in the CoCo? Absolutely not. In fact, the tactical nature of the CoCo doesn't have anything to do with roleplaying. It can support it - but it never required it - and I think that's a big part of its appeal. The best thing is - if there are people who are interested in roleplaying, there's generally others who would take up the opportunity once presented with it. The quests that were run recently are a good example of that.
Now, onto the last point about the dual strikers and other dual role teams - at this point, I'm not ready to see them done away with. Yes, EET has an almost perfect record. However, if you look at all of lonewolf's teams you'll see similar numbers - 9-1, 7-3, 5-2, 6-5 - only one of his teams is close to a win-loss ratio of 1:1. This is less to do with him utilizing dual strikers and much more about having effective tactics for the situation. He's been doing tactical fights in the CoCo for years and has learned quite well.
I welcome you to come and give the CoCo a try. You may be surprised (much like I was when I first joined) at how much fun it can be.