| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1mcjarvisApr 02, 2008 8:36:42 | Please don't edit the sheet after the deadline or you will lose the match. Rules of Gladius All that you need to know is written in the [THREAD=448520]Rules of Gladius[/THREAD]. It could be useful also to give a look to the Court Decisions [POST=14575819]Part 1[/POST] and [POST=14575828]Part 2[/POST]. Please do not make fake accounts or insult the Elders. New idea: let's not insult anyone, ok? ![]() Pairings GM MindWandererB will pair the active [POST=15204503]Characters of Gladius[/POST] after the deadline. Link to pairings. Make sure that your character is not in [thread=965489]prison[/thread]. Pitlording You should use the CoCo Dice Roller for the fight. If you need it, there is a nice [THREAD=551175]template[/THREAD] ready to use that will help. You could find the Battle Map Tag Generator for dynamic [POST=7974958]Maps[/POST] very useful. You must post a link to your fight in this thread when it is complete. If you need a quick and dirty tool to calculate distances between two points (in 2-D or 3-D), this tool should suffice. Another useful link is the [POST=6469706]Quick Access tables for XP and Gold[/POST]. If a fight needs to be rerun, the Pitlord has to inform the Pitlords account. He cannot react to requests from Players because the other player and the pitlord might disagree. He has no time to read the fight and the discussion. Please keep that in mind. PMs from players with rerun requests won't have an impact. Comments & Concerns Post any comments or concerns for this weeks fights in this thread. Be kind and courteous to your fellow posters, and don't feed the pitlords. Please remember that they do hard work and consume a lot of time to let you play. Above all, have FUN! If you have questions or comments on any of the changes, please make your posts be heard in the Council of Gladius! |
| #2mcjarvisApr 02, 2008 13:13:46 | I predict Thorell will be facing Verran this week, because I always get the one fight I don't want to fight. Direct damage is ever my nemisis =\ |
| #3templer10Apr 02, 2008 13:38:09 | i predict longshot and bestirah will meet again- hopefull this time i will manage to actually send the tactics i actually wrote against her... |
| #4mcjarvisApr 02, 2008 13:41:00 | i predict longshot and bestirah will meet again- hopefull this time i will manage to actually send the tactics i actually wrote against her... you could try to confuse the pitlord alot by sending tactics for bestirah to fight longshot with ;) |
| #5whitebaronApr 02, 2008 14:34:51 | I predict Thorell will be facing Verran this week, because I always get the one fight I don't want to fight. Direct damage is ever my nemisis =\ don't worry, it's just 16pp and 9 sls. could be worse. and on a side note: maybe it will NOT be the plains. ;) |
| #6turansonApr 02, 2008 14:47:26 | Hey MWB I just saw that Nordens wasn't set as active due to me only updating the in sheet date any chance he could still make it and be active thise week ? |
| #7MindWandererBApr 02, 2008 14:52:56 | Hey MWB Sure. Pairings done. Note that there are new playtest fights this week. Pitlording for those will be on a volunteer basis. If anyone else wants to get in on the Grand Melee action, it can take up to 2 more participants. For the ECL 11, levels will have to be monkeyed around with a bit--McJ is on the honor system to advance his PCs to 11; for the ECL 12's, we'll use old character sheets posted in previous fights. Credits: Callix F1 CrazyArtificer F1 Q-1 dulsi F1 Q-1 Durzulgor F1 Huan Q4 lonewolf F1 A-1 McJarvis F3 SauroGrenom F1 Q-1 Stormwind Q2 TelinArtho F2 A-6 Q-2 templer10 F1 Turanson F1 whitebaron F3 A-1 Erithmu Q-1 MindWandererB A2 A-3 Vathelokai Q2 |
| #8turansonApr 02, 2008 14:54:35 | Thanks MWB |
| #9mcjarvisApr 02, 2008 14:55:57 | @MWB: Is the "grand melee" level 1 or 2? I posted 2 versions of little TIM. The ECL11- am I using TIM & Thorell as posted currently[ECL5 & 6], or do I need to post some ECL11 versions of them? |
| #10lonewolfApr 02, 2008 14:59:15 | @Capture the Flag: I would REALLY prefer to do this in a seperate thread. writing useful tactics for this looks pretty much impossible to me. |
| #11MindWandererBApr 02, 2008 15:02:07 | @MWB: 1 and 11, respectively. See above. |
| #12TelinArthoApr 02, 2008 15:03:09 | @Turanson - Mineau is fighting 2 Barghests. Good luck. |
| #42TelinArthoApr 03, 2008 16:59:26 | Hmmm - in that case, I may have made an error: Can the barghests take AoOs on the round that they dimension door'ed in? Calling to the other barghest was just a free action - so that's not so much an issue - but the AoOs could be more significant (though not likely to change the result - it will be enough for him to have more effect...). |
| #82MindWandererBApr 07, 2008 18:34:31 | [post=15547523]S'lertak vs. Sunstroke[/post] I was going to say that there's no point in arguing with rolls like those, but there is something funny-looking. In the round 12-13 summary, Sunstroke has 22 HP. He then gets hit for 11. Suddenly he's down to 2. Should be 11, near as I can tell. Then he takes 6 and uses Vigor, bringing him to 16, then takes 8 and has 8 left. This is quite easily result-changing, if I'm reading it right. |
| #83whitebaronApr 07, 2008 18:39:16 | I was going to say that there's no point in arguing with rolls like those, but there is something funny-looking. In the round 12-13 summary, Sunstroke has 22 HP. He then gets hit for 11. Suddenly he's down to 2. Should be 11, near as I can tell. Then he takes 6 and uses Vigor, bringing him to 16, then takes 8 and has 8 left, and renews Vigor again. This is quite easily result-changing, if I'm reading it right. hmm i looked at the roller now - seems i missed the hit in round 14 for 9 when copy/pasting... |
| #84MindWandererBApr 07, 2008 19:02:32 | hmm i looked at the roller now - seems i missed the hit in round 14 for 9 when copy/pasting... Ah, now I see. Okay, now I can't argue with dice like those. Only one attack roll out of 11 where I got the 15 I needed. |
| #85mcjarvisApr 07, 2008 19:39:57 | gradak vs snaga is up |
| #86TelinArthoApr 07, 2008 20:42:04 | Well - since there's no call for an edit - no need to edit this in - but Sunstroke could not take 5ft steps while entangled because his movement is hindered in round 8-11 (tanglefoot bag). Here - he'd either need to switch weapons (to something without reach) or move back and attack (drawing an AoO each time). The fight is fine by me other than that though - so no need to edit unless MWB calls for it. |
| #122MindWandererBApr 08, 2008 14:12:33 | [post=15551147]Vargo vs Kervan is up.[/post] @Sauro: That's why I have the dotted line on her sheet so that pitlords can cut at the dotted line which reduces Varjo's sheet to 25802 chars. I try quite hard to keep the essentials of my character sheets to about 25000 characters as the upper limit. Since Stormwind isn't complaining, there's no need for an edit, but there are some distinct oddities in that fight.
As for sheet length, Kervan's too is due mostly to the end part of the sheet which can be trimmed out. Cutting everything from the results on down reduces his sheet to 13K. @Stormwind: You may have missed Turn Undead, but what you really missed was Kervan's potential high AC vs. incorporeal touch attacks. That combined with Freedom of Movement made your tactics problematic. @Salrantol: Eww. Sorry, man, losing just because so many strange things came up isn't fun. I can't feel good about that one, even though I understand lonewolf's decisions. |
| #123mcjarvisApr 08, 2008 14:14:57 | I thought I mentioned my gloves in my tactics "Use Gloves of arrow snaring to catch and throw back arrows or thrown weapons." I do so love being complimented . Honestly, I don't quite remember where it's stated that being denied your dex bonus equates to flat-footedness(or even if it does?), but I _do_ know that monks with deflect arrows can't deflect when they are being sniped at. I'm pretty sure that seals the deal on this issue.edit- /me thinks to himself. It could have nothing to do with being flatfooted and have more to do with the "being aware of the attack" terminology, but that still prevents gloves of arrow snaring from stoping snipes. |
| #124MindWandererBApr 08, 2008 14:22:41 | I do so love being complimented Exactly--it's in the FAQ after having been in Ask Wizards. |
| #125salrantolApr 08, 2008 15:58:26 | Both of these decisions were made to give Enoch the chance to win. I dismounted Enoch to have him avoid any more concentration checks for the summons on the grappling mount(which would have been quite difficult). The decision was not easy but if I had him stay mounted and he would have failed those concentration checks while summoning, his chances to win this would have gone away completely. In retrospect, I completely understand the dire weasel. That was the right decision. However, if Enoch had remained mounted (or even had IC come back for him once an animal showed up), the chances of his surviving long enough for the undead to drag Flutterthought to the ground go up 1000%. Leaving a generally unbuffed buff-junkie like Enoch to go toe-to-toe against foes with a distinct advantage in melee, especially since they won't "stay dead", doesn't make any sense to me. Nothing I can do to make you change your mind, and if you still think you did the right thing, you're wrong, but post the rewards, and I'll drop the issue. |
| #126lonewolfApr 08, 2008 16:16:47 | I dont know if that will make you feel any better, but I thought about Enoch remounting. But as long as it was just the warhorse, I didnt really see a dangerous threat to Enoch and just had IC keep on the offense. I even thought about having Enoch go on Full Defense instead of attacking the horse because it was the best animal that could be out there from his point of view. The moment the bear was out there I absolutely would have Enoch remount IC(or maybe even improvise to do some kind of protection vs Evil), but unfortunately for him he was grappled instantly which made that impossible. I also thought really long wether I should have Enoch do Protection vs Evil the round after he killed the horse but then decided against it. Really sorry man. I hated to see the (IMHO) better tactics get chewed by unlucky dice. Rewards are up. |
| #127salrantolApr 08, 2008 17:41:31 | Rewards are up. Does a spell lost to Concentration that was going to be Extended via a metamagic rod really count as a use of the rod?? After all, the rod reads "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that are extended as though using the Extend Spell feat." not "The wielder can attempt to cast up to three spells per day that are extended as though using the Extend Spell feat." |
| #128lonewolfApr 08, 2008 17:47:14 | I think so. Just for a moment consider it to be a rod of quicken spell instead. If you use the rod to quicken the spell and you lose concentration, of course the charge should be lost, right? I dont believe that a rod of extend spell should work differently. |
| #129saurogrenomApr 08, 2008 21:28:48 | Since Stormwind isn't complaining, there's no need for an edit, but there are some distinct oddities in that fight. Oh... I had no idea that there was a wall of force at the edges of the map to prevent incorporeal creatures from moving off the edges... Does this wall include a limit on the height above and below the map? Because a giant force cage would be necessary to block a fleeing incorporeal creature. Stormwind asked to sunder things in hand, and then had a request in the contingencies section to continue sundering wands on your person if none are in hand. I read that Heal spell description probably 5 times, and still kept seeing 1d10/level. Sorry for the oversight. I realize now that I also made another oversight. I have Vargo using dive touch attacks, but you can only dive with a slashing or piercing weapon. Since an incorporeal touch attack is neither, he cannot dive with it. He could charge, but then that wouldn't be in conjunction with flyby attack. Since the mistakes on sunder damage pointed out by Stormwind are not going to change any actions in the battle, or the outcome of those, and MWB isn't asking for me to edit in the heal mistake, I think I'll call this one finished for now. |
| #130mcjarvisApr 08, 2008 23:16:13 | Interleague is done. |
| #131whitebaronApr 09, 2008 2:42:24 | Does a spell lost to Concentration that was going to be Extended via a metamagic rod really count as a use of the rod?? sure. or else why should a spell lost to concentration begone from your memory for the day? a failed manifested power draw on powerpoints? material components be lost? it's all the same thing - you expend anything you need to cast the spell when you start to do it/while you do it... |
| #132StormwindApr 09, 2008 2:57:04 | @Stormwind: You may have missed Turn Undead, but what you really missed was Kervan's potential high AC vs. incorporeal touch attacks. That combined with Freedom of Movement made your tactics problematic. Actually I didn't miss the high AC: Then Varjo will finish him off with incorporal touch attacks, only using her Blade of the night to remove any magical protections if necessary. I figured it was a no brainer that Kervan would use Freedom of movement, hence Käsi's focus on maintaining darkness. The basic plan however was simply for Varjo to sunder everything that could hurt her (much easier than trying to hit Kervan's buffed AC) and then finish Kervan off at her leisure. If Käsi would have still been around or if I had had a contingency for being turned, then keeping Kervan in the dark and destroying all his wands/weapons would have worked since Kervan couldn't do anything about the control light (except dispel it) and Käsi could have re-manifested it 15 more times. Thus when you pulled the turning out of your tactical bag of tricks you cleverly broke apart my tactics. Like I said before ... well done ;) |
| #133muckiApr 09, 2008 3:16:29 | @dulsi: Thanks for the run. for future reference: I think you missed some damage on the grapples. When Lucifer establishes a grapple, he can do damage immediately, no extra check involved. About the LOS issue: CoCo rules state, that when LOS is established both characters immediatley auto-spot each other. So I do not see how this would make me flat-footed. |
| #134callixApr 09, 2008 5:18:34 | @dulsi: Thanks for the run. On the LOS issue: If we have cover relative to each other, then Shaela gets a spot check to notice Lucifer and make an attack while Lucy is unaware. He does have cover. Since it's Lucifer's turn, he can't find Shaela without a move action to search or clear LOS. That's the technical argument. Practically, Shaela's going to shoot the next thing that comes around that corner. How are you going to see it coming before it's there? |
| #135sjiggieApr 09, 2008 5:43:13 | @McJarvis, Thanks for both runs (Gradak's & Valanthe's) but can you get the rewards up. One comment on Valanthe's Fight you forgot to use his chains of Defensive Posture & Personal Superiority but no need to edit those in Sjiggie |
| #136lonewolfApr 09, 2008 5:45:52 | Due to some very unexpected Work that will leave me no time today i wont be able to run darian vs Gak, sorry about that, Tactcis followed if anyone wants to pick it up: |
| #137salrantolApr 09, 2008 6:01:05 | Thus when you pulled the turning out of your tactical bag of tricks you cleverly broke apart my tactics. Like I said before ... well done ;) There's only one reason Varjo hadn't faced this tactic before: You turn the closest turnable undead first Enoch had beautiful tactics to rebuke Varjo & co. and slaughter their nigh-defenseless selves, right up until I realized that Infernal Charger would be the first one rebuked, and with only 2 rebuke uses, that wouldn't work out so well. |
| #138StormwindApr 09, 2008 6:25:46 | I think I considered if Enoch would use turning during his earlier fight against Varjo, but then I realized what a low turning check he would have, so I figured it was unlikely ... Yeah ... most tactics develop specific to the character and what the character has faced (or is very likely to face). Since Varjo has never fought anyone with the sun domain (greater turning 1/day), she hasn't been concerned about being turned prior to this fight. However MWB has shown her that she should be concerned, not because a normal turning can directly hurt her, but because they can work as crowd control which can have a huge impact on her tactics ... |
| #139mcjarvisApr 09, 2008 7:45:48 | @McJarvis, Thanks for both runs (Gradak's & Valanthe's) but can you get the rewards up. So that's what a CoPS is. I'm here thinking "Circle of Protection? This isn't mtg!" You might want to spell that out on your char sheet for dummies like me ![]() edit- all rewards posted. Sorry for the lateness. Life's been really rough lately... |
| #140TelinArthoApr 09, 2008 8:36:30 | @McJ - I wish you had pointed out that crucial error in my tactics rather than just running with it - but not much I can do about it now. I know for a fact that a number of interleagues have been run as the lower levels treated as a party - but I will have to look up that decision (since it doesn't seem to be in the rules that I can find). Regardless - I don't see myself winning so no need to edit it further. |