Welcome to the Council of Gladius! This thread is open for everyone and its main purpose is to discuss current issues, and the future of this board. The normal procedure is that the Game Master announces a topic which will then be discussed. To find a quick solution, you should stay focused on that topic and not open a new one. Your opinion is valued here so add your 2 cents and participate in the discussions.
If you have a rules question or need a clarification, better ask in the [thread=780187]Tavern[/thread] thread to start off with, or the [thread=787624]Courtroom[/thread] if the question turns out to need an Elder decision.
Link to [thread=456309]The Council of Gladius (I)[/thread], [thread=613697]The Council of Gladius (II)[/thread], and [thread=691518]The Council of Gladius (III)[/thread].
- Expanding the list of Improved Familiars [post=12048328][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Revision of the allies section of the rules to exclude temporary allies [post=12202000][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs [post=12905714][RESOLUTION][/POST]
- Fixing incorrect EL entries on low-EL monster tables [post=12051976][EL 3][/post] [post=12150188][EL 4][/post]
- Creating monster tables for ELs 11-16 [post=12302230][EL 11][/post] [post=12992852][EL 12][/post] [post=12494576][EL 13][/post] [post=12448564][EL 14][/post] [post=12304381][EL 15][/post] [post=12296002][EL 16][/post]
- Clarification on definitions and consequences of "defeat" [post=12440190][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Restricting custom staffs [post=12150188][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Resolving timing of the assassinate package [post=12150188][RESOLUTION][/post]
- How allies are treated in the 3FC [post=12150188][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Powerratings for Hunter fights [post=12201773][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Revising the rules on questing ELs [post=12299123][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Revising rules for wands [post=12357670][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Rob Store and non-expendables [post=12356223][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Another look at Diplomacy allies [post=12455165][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Another look at Handle Animal [post=12701765][RESOLUTION][/post] [post=12739334][REVISION][/post] (tentative regarding ECL 4 list)
- Ally customization rules [post=12785243][RESOLUTION][/post]
- An alternative to Diplomacy for allies (e.g. mercenaries, perhaps at ECL 4?)
- Listen checks for attacking and spellcasting, and the "matrix" method [post=12910154][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Figuring out what to do with LOY [post=12459742][RESOLUTION 1][/post] [post=12468324][RESOLUTION 2][/post]
- The edges of maps [post=12910154][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Random fight features [post=12981671][LIGHTING 1][/post] [post=12996318][LIGHTING 2][/post]
- How Intimidate works on allies without a CR [post=14094079][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Cohort starting equipment
- Material from the D&D website, including Mind's Eye [REJECTED]
- Credit rebalancing
- Training Hall credit purpose: item refunds
- Credits to skip miniquests [post=13340741][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Time it takes for crafting, for ghost shopping, and for animal training
- Monster spell/power lists
- Monster tactics guidelines
- Defintion of "humanoid-shaped" equipment [post=13739973][RESOLUTION][/post]
- Making male and female characters have the same weight limitations
- Lessening the impact of the city "ceiling" [post=14847186][RESOLUTION][/post]
Please continue the ongoing discussions here--and if I missed a topic, bump it here and I'll add it to the list.
EDIT: Here it is.
Another topic under discussion is removing the 2x CR 2 monster entries from the EL 3 monster table (and others). I'll see if I can find the post where I proposed my replacements.
Ah cool. I was working on the monster lists, trying to clean them up and such.
View Post
OK, So I propose we add the following which all cost 5 credits to gain access to:
CL9 - Archon, Lantern
CL9 - Vargouille
CL7 - Darkmantle
CL7 - All Mephits
CL5 - Brain Mole
CL5 - Celestial or Fiendish Template on one of the creatures listed below.
CL3 - Dire Rat
CL3 - Badger
CL3 - Dog
CL3 - Eagle
CL3 - Monkey
CL3 - Snake, Small Viper
CL3 - Giant Fire Beetle
CL3 - Small Monstrous Centipede
CL3 - Small Monstrous Scorpion
CL3 - Small Monstrous Spider
Can we gets some votes yea or nay?
Sauro and telin voted yea..
Waiting on the other elders for votes yea or nay..
(this got lost in the move)
To recap, we also had the suggestions of removing the vermin from that list (due to being mindless) and adding a Dretch at ECL 7 or 9. Oh, and the types of Mephit other than Ice at CL 7, of course.
Zevox
What I'd really like to hear Sauro (or Caterane) answer is this question:
Why is buying a staff with 10 uses of Extended Blacklight
allowed, when buying a wand with 10 uses of Extended Blacklight
is not allowed?
(Bonus points if the answer involves defending the purity
of the Rules of Gladius. In my opinion, that's like putting a chastity
belt on Paris Hilton.) :P
For the same reason that buying a staff with 25 uses of Extended Blacklight is allowed (and will still be allowed at ECL 5 or 7), when buying a wand with 25 uses of Extended Blacklight is not allowed.
Its merely a matter of scale. And how you determine where you draw the line. Sauro has suggested 5 charges per use, because we have precedent in the SRD. And I can understand that, and I also know why Telin is willing to go along with it if pressed. Since its a clear and defendable position with an example from the SRD. For the same reason that people would prefer 2, since there's clearly a statement about it in the SRD. Otherwise, where do you draw the line on that scale of 1 to 50? Any other number is a personal judgement call without benefit of falling back on rules in any way.
We know that 1 charge wands or staffs are a problem. As are 2 charge wands. How about 5? 6? 7? Since there's no good indication in the SRD on where to make the cutoff for wands, we choose the "1" option (i.e. needs 50 charges). Its the most conservative option. For staves we have precedence and statements and can easily say "2" or "5".
Are we letting the staff option be stronger. Yes, we are. But such is the nature of the rules. Is it unbalanced? Dunno. Certainly feels that way when I see an ECL 8 with AMF. But that's a seperate issue with regards to max CL. Extended Blacklight in and of itself, in the hands of an ECL 8 character? Doesn't bother me as much. Simply because I know the character could have done it anyways himself.
But yeah, I tend to side with Telin on the max CL issue. I don't want to see Staves of Power Word Kill CL 17 in the hands of a Fighter 10/Cleric 1...
My non-elder two cents.
No other character currently active has purchased a staff of anything. Thus, although I'm not against regulating staffs in general, I am against regulating staffs in such a manner where the only existing staff is no longer legal.
So how to go forward from here? I suggest the 5 charges/use as the maximum allowed for a staff. Furthermore, we can make staffs more expensive by saying that you need to at least two spell effects and the highest level spell must be within 3 levels of the next highest level spell (thereby staffs will be less gp efficient than wands). Also we can limit the CL of the staffs to the caster level of the character, but allow a player to acquire items of higher CL by spending 5 credits for each CL the item exceeds your own CL. Finally no single item can cost more than xx credits (perhaps 40 or 50), thus placing a ceiling on the most powerful thing you can get with credits.
You mistake my intentions. I felt there were issues with Staves the moment I saw Cat's staff approved. This had nothing to do with Cat, but rather with the staff itself. An ECL8 character should not have access to a staff at CL11.
If the character wants something above his ECL - he still has plenty of viable options:
1. Wands for spells up to SL 4. (and with a nominal credit expenditure)
2. Scrolls for higher SLs - as long as they fit under the expendable cap. (also with a nominal credit expenditure)
As to putting a cap on the maximum credits for a single item - I don't see this ever coming up. Cat is the only one (well - okay Huan and a few others at the moment) who can actively spend that many credits on an item. That doesn't mean that allowing a select few to get it anyway makes it balanced.
OK, Fine. I wasn't here at the very beginning of CoCo. The board was running for over a year before I joined. So credit cost on high level expendables was added in at a later point. But if you want to be pedantic, go ahead.
.
You have a distinct inability to see the greater picture of things. If such things as high CL expendibles were allowed in the past, and then it was ruled they were overpowered, they are hardly "not much of a problem", as you stated.
In CoCo we have a market place where you can buy whatever you want. We also have an aversion to allowing anyone to exercise judgment that restricts what you can and cannot do. So we have rules instead. Wherever possible we try to stick to the RAW. Yes the RAW describes pricing on wands of less than 50 charges. But it doesn't say you can craft them with less than 50 charges, nor does it say you can buy them with less than 50 charges. It's entirely within the scope of GM authority to decide if you can get a 3 charge wand of invisibility. Our GM (the rules) says no dice, you cannot buy "used" items with less than maximum number of charges.
It's unrelated that staffs can be made to use multiple charges on a single activation of one or another power. Staffs are still purchased at 50 charges. If that 50 charges is 10 uses, so be it. That's a distinctive feature of staffs that's described in the rules and we are shown several examples. The rules clearly allow that.
No. Here are the facts:
- There is no rule that explicitly allows one to create a staff with an ability that costs five charges.
- There is no rule that explicitly lists the value for a staff that uses five charges per use (other than the Staff of Life).
- There is a rule that explicitly lists the value for any charged item that has less than 50 charges left.
With all of your lip service towards the principle of not making up rules, it's bizarre that you have no problems with made-up rules for #1 and #2, but you refuse to use the existing rule for #3. I don't expect you to change your opinion, but please don't try to claim that "the rules says so" when it's clearly a CoCo house rule.
Just to clarify -- I don't have any problem with house rules in general, but they should be clearly indicated as such.
Denying anyone the option to buy items of less than 50 charges isn't core, nor did I say it was. Rather I said that acquisition of items with decreased charges is controlled by the GM. In our setting, we've decided for balance reasons to not allow purchasing wands or dorjes or staffs with less than 50 charges. This is a decision not with respect to pricing of items, but rather with respect access to items. You can sell your used wand of MM at 1/2 of market price. You can calculate the value of the item using the core rules that govern pricing of these things. We do use your rule #3 whenever someone sells such an item. However there is noting in the core rules or otherwise that requires us to make used items available for purchase by characters.
The fact that 50 charges on a staff can be 10 uses of the staff is a function of the core rules allowing staffs to use a maximum of at least 5 charges on a single use. That's all core rules and has nothing to do with our restriction to limit purchased items to 50 charges.
Perhaps what's happening here is a confusion between core rules that govern pricing of magic items and our house rules that regulate access to magic items. There is no core rules that govern access to magic items. That is controlled entirely by the nature of the setting you play in and the way the GM wishes to structure that setting. We are not ignoring core rules, or even creating house rules that contradict core rules in any sense. Rather we have our own house rules, instead of GM judgment, that govern the access to custom magic items (issues not covered by core rules).
OK, So SauroGrenom proposed we add the following which all cost 5 credits to gain access to:
CL9 - Dretch
CL9 - Archon, Lantern
CL9 - Vargouille
CL7 - Darkmantle
CL7 - All Mephits
CL5 - Brain Mole
CL5 - Celestial or Fiendish Template on one of the creatures listed below.
CL3 - Dire Rat
CL3 - Badger
CL3 - Dog
CL3 - Eagle
CL3 - Monkey
CL3 - Snake, Small Viper
Can we gets some votes yea or nay?
This is the latest list, with the mindless vermin removed and the Dretch added
So the Elders can vote on something...
This is the latest list, with the mindless vermin removed and the Dretch added
So the Elders can vote on something...
MWB gave me approval of the previous list by PM. He expressed reservations about the vargoile, but said that it was OK to try out and we'd amend the list at a later time if needed.
Personally I don't want to see the Dretch on that list. It's too much like a cohort. We already have the mephits, and I think they are too much (cannot do anything about it though). The vermin are not overpowered, and I think they offer some variety w/o hurting anything.
MWB gave me approval of the previous list by PM. He expressed reservations about the vargoile, but said that it was OK to try out and we'd amend the list at a later time if needed.
So thats 3 votes yea.. so His Earth mephit is legal and corrupter can escape from the prison..
All is good back to your arguing about Silly staffs and stuph...
Personally I don't want to see the Dretch on that list. It's too much like a cohort.
If anyone takes a dretch as an improved familiar and it proves to be overpowered, I will gladly eat my hat.
MWB gave me approval of the previous list by PM. He expressed reservations about the vargoile, but said that it was OK to try out and we'd amend the list at a later time if needed.
Personally I don't want to see the Dretch on that list. It's too much like a cohort. We already have the mephits, and I think they are too much (cannot do anything about it though). The vermin are not overpowered, and I think they offer some variety w/o hurting anything.
Acually would the vermin be mutants and have a 1 int.. As they are familiars? (and to get fiendish and celestrial templates they need 1 int i believe)
If anyone takes a dretch as a cohort and it proves to be overpowered, I will gladly eat my hat.
Funny you should say that since Dretch isn't on the leadership Cohort list.. but is on the Diplomacy Allys list So guess technically you won't have to eat your hat ever...
Acually would the vermin be mutants and have a 1 int.. As they are familiars? (and to get fiendish and celestrial templates they need 1 int i believe)
All familiars have an intelligence score as given by the familiar abilities table. I would suggest that a vermin familiar would change its type to "magical beast" (just like an animal familiar changes type), though.
Now to give Reginald's cohort a monkey familiar -- people might not like a hawk pointing a dorje, but surely a monkey can!
All familiars have an intelligence score as given by the familiar abilities table. I would suggest that a vermin familiar would change its type to "magical beast" (just like an animal familiar changes type), though.
Now to give Reginald's cohort a monkey familiar -- people might not like a hawk pointing a dorje, but surely a monkey can!
Bah Monkeys throw Poo they don't point sticks or know what way to point a Dorge!!! but they know how to throw Poo
Perhaps what's happening here is a confusion between core rules that govern pricing of magic items and our house rules that regulate access to magic items. There is no core rules that govern access to magic items. That is controlled entirely by the nature of the setting you play in and the way the GM wishes to structure that setting. We are not ignoring core rules, or even creating house rules that contradict core rules in any sense. Rather we have our own house rules, instead of GM judgment, that govern the access to custom magic items (issues not covered by core rules).
Well, I think the confusion is understandable. Since the reasons behind both (our house rule restricting availability of wands to those with a full 50 charges) and an argument for restricting the charges per use on a staff are virtually (but not exactly) identical. Unless the fully charged house rule was just arbitrarily implimented without an actual balance consideration behind it, and perhaps should be revisted in that case.
The only possible differences in argument can come from those I listed earlier (the higher level crafting feat, the 8th level minimum caster level, the masterwork quarterstaff, and the 15 credits versus 5).
Since there must be some reason why we restrict access to a full 50 charges, I'd like to hear Sauro's reason(s) why he believes the fully charged house rule on magic item availability should be there (or if he doesn't agree with it, why?).
Well, I think the confusion is understandable. Since the reasons behind both (our house rule restricting availability of wands to those with a full 50 charges) and an argument for restricting the charges per use on a staff are virtually (but not exactly) identical. Unless the fully charged house rule was just arbitrarily implimented without an actual balance consideration behind it, and perhaps should be revisted in that case.
Since there must be some reason why we restrict access to a full 50 charges, I'd like to hear Sauro's reason(s) why he believes the fully charged house rule on magic item availability should be there (or if he doesn't agree with it, why?).
The rule to limit purchasing wands and staffs to only buying those with 50 charges is in place not arbitrarily. It's there for balance reasons. As stated before, wands are superior to scrolls in almost every way. They cost less/use. They can be drawn as a weapon (on the move). They can be used w/o provoking an AoO. They do not require a CL check or minimal ability score to use them. They can be used w/o somatic and verbal components (in a grapple). Scrolls have none of those properties. The only way that scrolls are superior in combat is that they can hold higher level spells. So if wands with low numbers of charges were available, scrolls would be obsolete and the expendables cap would be totally meaningless. This is the balance reason to limit access to wands and require purchased wands to have 50 charges.
I know you and others have been harping on the fact that the same balance concern can be applied to staffs if we allow access to staffs w/o any limit on the number of charges/use. And as I've said several times now, I don't have any problem with placing a limit on the number of charges/use for a staff. In fact I think it's a good idea. But if such a limit were in place, it should follow the guidelines of the example items an the SRD and at least allow a character to recreate those items (or something nearly identical). So any limit on the number of charges/use should be no lower than 5. Any number lower than that invalidates more and more SRD example staffs. That would be effectively banning the Staff of Life or anything similar. In fact if the suggested limit of 2charges/use were applied, then about 3/4 of all SRD staffs would be illegal. I disagree with that, and I don't think we should make house rules that limit access to staffs to such a degree that even one staff in the SRD, or trivially modified versions of those same staffs, are not available.
Options:
1. Keep the rules the way they are now in relation to staves.
2. Add a restriction to staves to limit the number of charges per use to 5.
3. Add a restriction to staves to limit the SL of the spells within staves to the (ECL+1)/2 (rounded down) of the character without a backdoor in the blackmarket. The CL of the staff can be higher than the ECL of the character, but that would cost credits.
I modified my original proposal for item 3, because the CL of the staves are not the issue (in my opinion), but rather access to spells at a higher SL than a full caster would have access to at that time.
(Note that 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive. Also note that any elder may add an option in here if he feels that I missed something (certainly possible - there's been plenty of discussion on the subject)
I vote for 2 and 3.
o_O
Zevox
Gotta agree with McJarvis MWB - don't see why this is a problem myself. But of course, I've never much cared about power ratings, so thats probably affecting my opinion here.
Zevox
I never really figured out the power ratings... all i know is i have one failure, 1 on the edge of failure, 1 who lives in prison, and one who hides in the shadows...
1) Effects leadership score with renown level.
2) Guilds use it during operations to determine how much damage is done.
There are still several active topic on the second page of this thread; if anyone wants to run with one of those, please do.
This would limit the amount of allies brought into the arena but would unfairly represent that series of spells in D&D.
The passage in question is:
Rules of Gladius, Allies I
Spells, Powers, and Abilities:
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc) or Abilities (Rebuke undead, etc) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. These allies will always require a share of your XP and gold, and on top of that the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA. Special: a spellcaster may create a Homunkulus.
Spells, Powers, and Abilities:
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc) or Abilities (Rebuke undead, etc) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. These allies will always require a share of your XP and gold, and on top of that the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA. Special: a spellcaster may create a Homunkulus.
Spells, Powers, and Abilities:
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA.
One thing I'd want to clarify is allies created or summoned through items. The way it's phrased here, a Bronze Griffon that was activated in the previous fight and is still going would count as an ally--I'm not sure whether I have a problem with that. But allies created through other means (e.g. Golem Manual) should definitely count.
Edit: It's not just allies that are semipermanent--Planar Ally defnitely counts.
Show
6th-Level Monster Encounters
1 3 Ankhegs [CR 3]
2 1 Annis Hag [CR 6]
3 2 Aranea [CR 4]
4 1 Average Salamander [CR 6]
5 1 Average Xorn [CR 6]
6 1 Babau [CR 6]
7 2 Barghests [CR 4]
8 1 Belker [CR 6]
9 1 Bralani [CR 6]
10 1 Celestial Basilisk [CR 6]
11 1 Celestial Polar Bear [CR 6]
12 2 Centipede Swarms [CR 4]
13 1 Chain Devil [CR 6]
14 3 Deinonychos [CR 3]
15 1 Digester [CR 6]
16 2 Dire Boars [CR 4]
17 1 Dire Lion and 1 Lion [CR 5] [CR 3]
18 3 Dryads [CR 3]
19 3 Ettercaps [CR 3]
20 1 Ettin [CR 6]
21 1 Fiendish Gibbering Mouther [CR 6]
22 1 Fiendish Phrenic Owlbear [CR 6]
23 1 Fiendish Troll [CR 6]
24 3 Formian Warriors [CR 3]
25 1 Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede [CR 6]
26 1 Giant Constrictor Snake and 2 Large Vipers [CR 5] [CR 2]
27 2 Giant Crocodiles [CR 4]
28 2 Giant Stag Beetles [CR 4]
29 3 Giant Wasps [CR 3]
30 1 Girallon [CR 6]
31 2 Gray Oozes [CR 4]
32 1 Gray Render Zombie [CR 6]
33 2 Griffons [CR 4]
34 1 Half-Celestial Griffon [CR 6]
35 1 Half-Fiend Minotaur [CR 6]
36 3 Hell Hounds [CR 3]
37 3 Howlers [CR 3]
38 1 Huge Animated Object and 1 Large Animated Object [CR 5] [CR 3]
39 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2]
40 3 Huge Vipers [CR 3]
41 3 Juvenile Arrowhawks [CR 3]
42 1 Lamia [CR 6]
43 3 Large Monstorus Scorpions [CR 3]
44 3 Magmins [CR 3]
45 1 Manticore and 1 Yeth Hound [CR 5] [CR 3]
46 3 Medium Elementals 1d4 for type [CR 3]
47 1 Megaraptor [CR 6]
48 3 Mephits (1d10 for type) [CR 3]
49 2 Minotaur Zombies [CR 4]
50 2 Minotaurs [CR 4]
51 1 Nightmare and 1 Flamebrother Salamander [CR 5] [CR 3]
52 2 Otyughs [CR 4]
53 2 Owlbears [CR 4]
54 1 Phase Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2]
55 2 Rhinoceroses [CR 4]
56 3 Rust Monsters [CR 3]
57 1 Sea Hag Vampire [CR 6]
58 1 Seven-Headed Hydra [CR 6]
59 1 Shambling Mound [CR 6]
60 1 Tendriculous [CR 6]
61 2 Tigers [CR 4]
62 3 Troll Skeletons [CR 3]
63 2 Very Young Dragons (1d4 for Black, Blue, Brass, Green) [CR 4]
64 1 Wyvern [CR 6]
65 1 Xill [CR 6]
66 1 1st-level Centaur Ranger and 1 Deinonychus Dinosaurs [CR 4] [CR 3]
67 1 1st-level Wereboar Fighter and 1 Boar [CR 5] [CR 2]
68 1 2nd-level Werewolf Fighter and 2 Wolves [CR 5] [CR 1]
69 1 2nd-level Bugbear Rogue and 1 Mephit (1d10 for type) [CR 4] [CR 3]
70 1 2nd-level Ogre Barbarian and 1 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR 5] [CR 2]
71 1 3rd-level Azer Fighter and 1 Heavy Warhorse [CR 5] [CR 2]
72 1 Adult Arrowhawk and 1 Cockatrice [CR 5] [CR 3]
73 1 Advanced Megaraptor Skeleton [CR 6]
74 1 Celestial Stag Beetle and 1 Giant Bombardier Beetle [CR 5] [CR 2]
75 1 Chimera Skeleton and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3]
[b]76 1 Ettin Skeleton and 1 Owlbear Skeleton [CR 5] [CR 2]/B]77 1 Fiendish Dire Ape and 1 Dire Ape [CR 4] [CR 3]
78 1 Five-Headed Cryohydra [CR 6]
79 1 Harpy and 1 Giant Praying Mantis [CR 4] [CR 3]
80 1 Hound Archon and 1 Griffon [CR 4]
81 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Ettercap [CR 5] [CR 3]
82 1 Janni and 1 Medium Air Elemental [CR 4] [CR 3]
83 1 Large Elemental and 2 Small Elementals (1d4 for type) [CR 5] [CR 1]
84 1 Mummy and 2 Ghouls [CR 5] [CR 1]
85 1 Sea Hag and 1 Wyrmling Black Dragon [CR 4] [CR 3]
86 1 Shadow Mastiff and 1 Imp [CR 5] [CR 2]
87 1 Troll and 1 Ogre [CR 5] [CR 3]
88 1 Vampire Spawn and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3]
89 1 Wraith and 1 Wight [CR 5] [CR 3]
90 1 Wyvern Zombie and 1 Troll Skeleton [CR 4] [CR 3]
91 1 Young Dragon (1d2 for Blue, Brass) [CR 6]
92 1 1st-level Fiendish Werewolf Fighter [CR 6]
93 1 1st-level Unbodied Psion [CR 6]
94 1 2nd-level Gargoyle Fighter [CR 6]
95 1 2nd-level Hound Archon Paladin [CR 6]
96 1 2nd-level Minotaur Barbarian [CR 6]
97 1 3rd-level Derro Rogue [CR 6]
98 1 3rd-level Ogre Barbarian [CR 6]
99 1 4th-level Astral Construct [CR 6]
100 1 5th-level Astral Construct [CR 6]
1 3 Ankhegs [CR 3]
2 1 Annis Hag [CR 6]
3 2 Aranea [CR 4]
4 1 Average Salamander [CR 6]
5 1 Average Xorn [CR 6]
6 1 Babau [CR 6]
7 2 Barghests [CR 4]
8 1 Belker [CR 6]
9 1 Bralani [CR 6]
10 1 Celestial Basilisk [CR 6]
11 1 Celestial Polar Bear [CR 6]
12 2 Centipede Swarms [CR 4]
13 1 Chain Devil [CR 6]
14 3 Deinonychos [CR 3]
15 1 Digester [CR 6]
16 2 Dire Boars [CR 4]
17 1 Dire Lion and 1 Lion [CR 5] [CR 3]
18 3 Dryads [CR 3]
19 3 Ettercaps [CR 3]
20 1 Ettin [CR 6]
21 1 Fiendish Gibbering Mouther [CR 6]
22 1 Fiendish Phrenic Owlbear [CR 6]
23 1 Fiendish Troll [CR 6]
24 3 Formian Warriors [CR 3]
25 1 Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede [CR 6]
26 1 Giant Constrictor Snake and 2 Large Vipers [CR 5] [CR 2]
27 2 Giant Crocodiles [CR 4]
28 2 Giant Stag Beetles [CR 4]
29 3 Giant Wasps [CR 3]
30 1 Girallon [CR 6]
31 2 Gray Oozes [CR 4]
32 1 Gray Render Zombie [CR 6]
33 2 Griffons [CR 4]
34 1 Half-Celestial Griffon [CR 6]
35 1 Half-Fiend Minotaur [CR 6]
36 3 Hell Hounds [CR 3]
37 3 Howlers [CR 3]
38 1 Huge Animated Object and 1 Large Animated Object [CR 5] [CR 3]
39 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2]
40 3 Huge Vipers [CR 3]
41 3 Juvenile Arrowhawks [CR 3]
42 1 Lamia [CR 6]
43 3 Large Monstorus Scorpions [CR 3]
44 3 Magmins [CR 3]
45 1 Manticore and 1 Yeth Hound [CR 5] [CR 3]
46 3 Medium Elementals 1d4 for type [CR 3]
47 1 Megaraptor [CR 6]
48 3 Mephits (1d10 for type) [CR 3]
49 2 Minotaur Zombies [CR 4]
50 2 Minotaurs [CR 4]
51 1 Nightmare and 1 Flamebrother Salamander [CR 5] [CR 3]
52 2 Otyughs [CR 4]
53 2 Owlbears [CR 4]
54 1 Phase Spider and 1 Large Monstrous Spider [CR 5] [CR 2]
55 2 Rhinoceroses [CR 4]
56 3 Rust Monsters [CR 3]
57 1 Sea Hag Vampire [CR 6]
58 1 Seven-Headed Hydra [CR 6]
59 1 Shambling Mound [CR 6]
60 1 Tendriculous [CR 6]
61 2 Tigers [CR 4]
62 3 Troll Skeletons [CR 3]
63 2 Very Young Dragons (1d4 for Black, Blue, Brass, Green) [CR 4]
64 1 Wyvern [CR 6]
65 1 Xill [CR 6]
66 1 1st-level Centaur Ranger and 1 Deinonychus Dinosaurs [CR 4] [CR 3]
67 1 1st-level Wereboar Fighter and 1 Boar [CR 5] [CR 2]
68 1 2nd-level Werewolf Fighter and 2 Wolves [CR 5] [CR 1]
69 1 2nd-level Bugbear Rogue and 1 Mephit (1d10 for type) [CR 4] [CR 3]
70 1 2nd-level Ogre Barbarian and 1 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR 5] [CR 2]
71 1 3rd-level Azer Fighter and 1 Heavy Warhorse [CR 5] [CR 2]
72 1 Adult Arrowhawk and 1 Cockatrice [CR 5] [CR 3]
73 1 Advanced Megaraptor Skeleton [CR 6]
74 1 Celestial Stag Beetle and 1 Giant Bombardier Beetle [CR 5] [CR 2]
75 1 Chimera Skeleton and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3]
[b]76 1 Ettin Skeleton and 1 Owlbear Skeleton [CR 5] [CR 2]/B]77 1 Fiendish Dire Ape and 1 Dire Ape [CR 4] [CR 3]
78 1 Five-Headed Cryohydra [CR 6]
79 1 Harpy and 1 Giant Praying Mantis [CR 4] [CR 3]
80 1 Hound Archon and 1 Griffon [CR 4]
81 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Ettercap [CR 5] [CR 3]
82 1 Janni and 1 Medium Air Elemental [CR 4] [CR 3]
83 1 Large Elemental and 2 Small Elementals (1d4 for type) [CR 5] [CR 1]
84 1 Mummy and 2 Ghouls [CR 5] [CR 1]
85 1 Sea Hag and 1 Wyrmling Black Dragon [CR 4] [CR 3]
86 1 Shadow Mastiff and 1 Imp [CR 5] [CR 2]
87 1 Troll and 1 Ogre [CR 5] [CR 3]
88 1 Vampire Spawn and 1 Ogre Zombie [CR 4] [CR 3]
89 1 Wraith and 1 Wight [CR 5] [CR 3]
90 1 Wyvern Zombie and 1 Troll Skeleton [CR 4] [CR 3]
91 1 Young Dragon (1d2 for Blue, Brass) [CR 6]
92 1 1st-level Fiendish Werewolf Fighter [CR 6]
93 1 1st-level Unbodied Psion [CR 6]
94 1 2nd-level Gargoyle Fighter [CR 6]
95 1 2nd-level Hound Archon Paladin [CR 6]
96 1 2nd-level Minotaur Barbarian [CR 6]
97 1 3rd-level Derro Rogue [CR 6]
98 1 3rd-level Ogre Barbarian [CR 6]
99 1 4th-level Astral Construct [CR 6]
100 1 5th-level Astral Construct [CR 6]
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Permanent Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies.
I know.. odd but slightly clearer on it.
Right... I'm pretty sure that the Animate Objects was in reference to Permanency. What if we altered it as follows:
One thing I'd want to clarify is allies created or summoned through items. The way it's phrased here, a Bronze Griffon that was activated in the previous fight and is still going would count as an ally--I'm not sure whether I have a problem with that.
By the way, the list above mentions that Dominate can be used to bring in an ally. How would that work? McJarvis suggested it as a possibility for a vampire gladiator, but I don't know how one can prebuff an effect that allows a saving throw.
1) There is no penalty for failure
2) You can effectively do it an unlimited # of times per day.
The vampire meets these requirements. Very few other people do.
The EL6 monster table had also some entries that resulted in a CR7 encounter. I've fixed it and marked the changed entries.
I'd personally suggest changing the CR 5 + CR 2 and CR 4 + CR 3 to all be CR 5 + CR 3 for consistencies' sake. YMMV.
Can you add the word 'Permanent' before Animate Object. So, that that is clearer?
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Permanent Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies.
I know.. odd but slightly clearer on it.
Is that necessary? It mentions prebuffs specifically now, and if you prebuff Animate Objects, it won't last until the fight.
By the way, the list above mentions that Dominate can be used to bring in an ally. How would that work? McJarvis suggested it as a possibility for a vampire gladiator, but I don't know how one can prebuff an effect that allows a saving throw.
...I'm not sure. It has a duration of 1 day/level... I would guess that you would have to go on a miniquest for it, and it would last for 1 cycle per 7 days (which would be a maximum of 5 cycles if Extended and cast at minimum 18th level).
@Hogarth: As stated in the tavarn thread, prebuffing an effect that requires a saving throw is only possible if:
1) There is no penalty for failure
2) You can effectively do it an unlimited # of times per day.
The vampire meets these requirements. Very few other people do.
As I said before, I believe there is a penalty for failure. Presumably, you're telling your dominated buddy to "sit still" while you dominate him again. If he knows that you're trying to do it (wouldn't take a genius IMO), then he would get a saving throw to resist the command as being against his nature. Note: I realise you disagree about what "against [one's] nature" means.
...I'm not sure. It has a duration of 1 day/level... I would guess that you would have to go on a miniquest for it, and it would last for 1 cycle per 7 days (which would be a maximum of 5 cycles if Extended and cast at minimum 18th level).
So would you need a new miniquest every time you want a dominated buddy? And would the buddy be required to actually his save in the miniquest or would a successful miniquest mean that he automatically fails his save?
I'd personally suggest changing the CR 5 + CR 2 and CR 4 + CR 3 to all be CR 5 + CR 3 for consistencies' sake. YMMV.
I realize that there is some variation, but they are all CR6 encounters according the encounter calculator. I don't really see any problem in them, because your ability to beat the monster fight depends entirely on the roll. Some encounter with lower CR creatures can be significantly more difficult to beat than one with higher CR creatures if you aren't properly prepared for anything.
Note: I realise you disagree about what "against [one's] nature" means.
The problem with your definition of "against one's nature" is that being dominated in the first place is against the nature of any free-thinking creature. Does this mean they automatically get to re-roll a save with a +2 to their will save? Of course not!
So would you need a new miniquest every time you want a dominated buddy? And would the buddy be required to actually his save in the miniquest or would a successful miniquest mean that he automatically fails his save?
I'd imagine you would need a miniquest, yes. And I'd imagine that you'd have to dominate him in combat, much the same way a Cleric would have to kill his to-be skeleton without destroying the body completely.
...Unless the "reward" is defeating a guardian, and then taking your time to dominate the poor soul who was kept captive by the guardian.
The problem with your definition of "against one's nature" is that being dominated in the first place is against the nature of any free-thinking creature. Does this mean they automatically get to re-roll a save with a +2 to their will save? Of course not!
Creatures already get an "automatic" save when you try to dominate them to reflect the fact that they're trying to resist the domination; I don't see why they would get two saves. Note that a creature only gets a new save when there's a specific order that goes against its nature. Continuing to carry out a previous order doesn't give a new save. Neither does just being dominated without having any specific orders.
Creatures already get an "automatic" save when you try to dominate them to reflect the fact that they're trying to resist the domination; I don't see why they would get two saves. Note that a creature only gets a new save when there's a specific order that goes against its nature. Continuing to carry out a previous order doesn't give a new save. Neither does just being dominated without having any specific orders.
....then why is there an issue? You don't need to give them a direct order to re-dominate them. Hell, you could even have a big brunch every morning and do it then while talking to them.
....then why is there an issue? You don't need to give them a direct order to re-dominate them. Hell, you could even have a big brunch every morning and do it then while talking to them.
Sigh. According to the Rules of the Game article, they don't get a save if it's something that your co-worker (or some other person with a Friendly [but not Helpful] attitude) might do for you.
At lunch today, I told my co-worker to sit still while I put mind-control drugs in his food. Imagine my surprise when he refused! ;)
If you're claiming that the dominated buddy doesn't realise he's being dominated at all, I guess that's possible. But I suspect that would only apply with really dumb creatures.
I realize that there is some variation, but they are all CR6 encounters according the encounter calculator. I don't really see any problem in them, because your ability to beat the monster fight depends entirely on the roll. Some encounter with lower CR creatures can be significantly more difficult to beat than one with higher CR creatures if you aren't properly prepared for anything.
Yeah... I'm in the process of changing these before I put up the revised table. The encounter calculator rounds a bit; we shouldn't do that. Each encounter should be precisely the correct EL, by the formula. I'm almost done. You still get a credit, though.
Sigh. According to the Rules of the Game article, they don't get a save if it's something that your co-worker (or some other person with a Friendly [but not Helpful] attitude) might do for you.
At lunch today, I told my co-worker to sit still while I put mind-control drugs in his food. Imagine my surprise when he refused! ;)
If you're claiming that the dominated buddy doesn't realise he's being dominated at all, I guess that's possible. But I suspect that would only apply with really dumb creatures.
I see your point oh-so-clearly now. How could I forget that every time I've ever tried to mind-control someone I told them I was doing it while I was doing? Obviously I wouldn't just do it without them knowing by messing with their TV, putting stuff in their food, or staring at them in the eyes every now and again.
I see your point oh-so-clearly now. How could I forget that every time I've ever tried to mind-control someone I told them I was doing it while I was doing?
Sometimes people put 2 and 2 together.
"Hey, how come every time I hang out with Joe and look in his eyes, I suddenly get the urge to become his personal servant? It must be his aftershave." ;)
Sometimes people put 2 and 2 together.
"Hey, how come every time I hang out with Joe and look in his eyes, I suddenly get the urge to become his personal servant? It must be his aftershave." ;)
Maybe it's love?
Well, example: Lars wants to be a Pyrokineticist. He will qualify for it if he can manage to burn down a building before he reaches his 6th level. Due to the way the rules are written. He is only allowed to quest once per level. So, if Lars attempts to burn down a building but fails at both 4th and 5th. He will not be allowed to take Pyrokineticist. Since, it only requires burning down a building which could have been done in the 1st - 3rd level without any real problems.
Lars would like as many chances to burn down the city as he can get!
Thats the same way with Shadow and joining assassin... he would like as many chances as he can get to kill people for no reason other than to see them die!!
So your reasoning for allowing it is so you can get around one of the relative restrictions of the 3FC?
Erm...no...I wanted to create a character that did a full quest every level. Not just MQ to level up. (though I guess you're responding to Hogarth?)
However, the thing to be avoided is the experienced players taking advantage of a loophole in the questing rules that the inexperienced players might not know about. "I didn't know I could go on an EL 1, out-of-cycle miniquest just to level up! I levelled up in fight 1 of my cycle and now I'm getting pummelled because I couldn't buy more expendables!"
What if we limited miniquests at ECL 3 to in-cycle?
Does it really matter that much... if by the time a 3fc is over a player (well i did anyways) read the different quests and then read the quest rules.. and if they get Pummelled they learn.. (your allowed 1 Miniquest per level so it's not like it will go unnoticed)
I don't think we should allow any out of cycle miniquesting/questing.
We should. For example, Lemminkäinen couldn't have joined PSI before going on the campaign if there wasn't for out of cycle miniquests.
Erm...no...I wanted to create a character that did a full quest every level. Not just MQ to level up. (though I guess you're responding to Hogarth?)
I was responding to Hogarth.
It occurs to me though - aren't you allowed to do a regular quest at ECL3? The reason I ask now is I just realized that Bulgar did one at ECL3 and had no problems.
As long as the quest goal is not to gain an ally that is illegal at that level, it shouldn't be a problem.
@MWB - I would agree with the proposal to restrict miniquests to in-cycle at ECL3 (and at other ECLs for that matter...)
I'm not a big fan of HD advancement, but I guess there's nothing technically wrong with it.
And 2 templated black puddings? Show some mercy, man.
You still have some of the CR's calculated wrong. For instance, the Ice Mephit Wilder: First, monsters with PC classes automatically use the Elite array. Second, the CR is short: CR 3 + 2 unassociated class levels + 5 levels beyond its HD = CR 9. The Vampire Half-Giant is off, too: CR 1 + 9 levels + Vampire = CR 12. There might be others; this is just a quick scan.
I'm not a big fan of HD advancement, but I guess there's nothing technically wrong with it.
And 2 templated black puddings? Show some mercy, man.
Ah, right, I always forget the wonky 'associated/unassociated" rules for monsters with class levels. So, 2 more levels for the Mephit. I'll do a scan for other things that need that taken care of.
How does the Half-Giant have a CR 1 base? I don't see anything in its entry indicating it counts as +1 CR beyond its class levels, and I know that LA+1 isn't counted in CR...
HD advancement - nor am I, to be honest. I'm mostly following recommendations I got with the last list, and using advanced monsters was one of them. I tried to stick to ones that didn't need to add a lot for the most part - I think there were two that went from 6 HD to 12, but that was the worst of it.
I put in two Black Puddings? Ah, so I did. Heh, the first half of the list is from the original, the second is what I made up today, which explains that. Hm, what to replace the second with... an Unbodied Psion 6 sounds good.
Zevox
80: 2 Sahuagin 7th-level Rangers [CR 9]
84: 1 Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 [CR 11]
92: 1 Ghost Pixie Rogue 5 [CR 11]
Zevox
How does the Half-Giant have a CR 1 base? I don't see anything in its entry indicating it counts as +1 CR beyond its class levels, and I know that LA+1 isn't counted in CR...
Because a half-giant Warrior is CR 1. If a Warrior of that race is CR 1/2, then its CR is equal to its class levels. But if it's 1, then you subtract 1 (or give it NPC levels instead). See drow, svirfneblin, duergar, etc. for examples.
Because a half-giant Warrior is CR 1. If a Warrior of that race is CR 1/2, then its CR is equal to its class levels. But if it's 1, then you subtract 1 (or give it NPC levels instead). See drow, svirfneblin, duergar, etc. for examples.
All those other races actually say they have CR +1 for class levels, though. Half-Giants don't. Still, if you're certain, I'll subtract a Cleric level from it.
Zevox
Okay then, I'm not sure, do I have these monsters correct CR-wise? I think they're the only ones that might yet be wrong (pending the clarification on the Half-Giant Vampire of course).
80: 2 Sahuagin 7th-level Rangers [CR 9]
84: 1 Kobold Bard 5/Dragon Disciple 6 [CR 11]
92: 1 Ghost Pixie Rogue 5 [CR 11]
Zevox
The kobold and the pixie, definitely (aside from the egregeous "rouge"). FOr the sahuagin, it depends on whether Ranger is associated, but seeing how that's it's favored class, I'd say it is and it's correct.
The kobold and the pixie, definitely (aside from the egregeous "rouge"). FOr the sahuagin, it depends on whether Ranger is associated, but seeing how that's it's favored class, I'd say it is and it's correct.
Caught the Rogue thing even before you hit the quote button ;) (see the quote in your post). Anyway then, I think the list should be ready, if theres nothing else wrong.
Zevox
Caught the Rogue thing even before you hit the quote button ;) (see the quote in your post). Anyway then, I think the list should be ready, if theres nothing else wrong.
Zevox
Then, done! +2°.
EL 15
01: 1 Marut Inevitable (CR 15)
02: 1 Vampire, half-elf monk9/Shadowdancer4 (MM default) (CR 15)
03: 1 Mummy Lord (CR 15)
04: 1 Neothelid (Psionic) (CR 15)
05: 1 Elite Trumpet Archon (CR 15)
06: 1 Elite Astral Deva (angel) (CR 15)
07: 1 Elite Nalfeshnee (demon) (CR 15)
08: 1 Elite Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 15)
09: 2 Beholders (CR 13)
10: Demon troupe: 1 Glabrezu, 1 Succubus, and 3 Vrocks (CR 13, 7, and 9)
11: 4 Barbed Devils (CR 11)
12: 1 Dragon: Old White; Mature Adult Brass; Adult Bronze, Red, or Silver (1d5) (CR 15)
13: 2 Dragons: Adult Green (CR 13)
14: 3 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze (CR 12)
15: Dragon Family: 1 Mature Adult and 3 Young Adult Black, or 1 Adult and 3 Juvenile Copper (CR 14 and 9)
16: 2 Ghaele Eladrin (CR 13)
17: 4 Elder Elementals, 1 of each type (CR 11)
18: 1 Celestial Charger (unicorn) and 1 Golden Protector (lammasu) (CR 13)
19: 1 Werewolf Lord and 1 Displacer Beast Pack Lord (CR 14 and 12)
20: 3 Night Hags and 3 Cauchemar Nightmares (CR 9 and 11)
21: 2 Death Slaadi (CR 13)
22: 3 Celestial Guardian Nagas (CR 12)
23: 1 Celestial Cloud Giant and 1 Fiendish Cloud Giant (CR 13)
24: 2 Fiendish Harpy Archers
25: 4 Half-Celestial Treants (CR 11)
26: 3 Half-Fiend Frost Giants (CR 12)
27: 1 Half-Dragon Celestial Charger (unicorn) (CR 15)
28: 3 Half-Dragon Fire Giants (CR 12)
29: Roll on EL 13 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type)
30: 1 Phrenic 11-headed pyro- or cryohydra (CR 15)
31: 4 Phrenic Avorals (guardinal) (CR 11)
32: 1 Phrenic Rakshasa and 1 Phrenic Cauchemar Nightmare (CR 12 and 14)
33: 4 Phrenic Hellwasp Swarms (CR 11)
34: 1 Ghost Storm Giant (CR 15)
35: 4 Ghost Dire Sharks (CR 11)
36: 1 11th-level Forest Gnome Lich Bard and 1 Iron Golem (CR 13)
37: 3 Hill Giant Were-Dire Bears (CR 12)
38: 1 13th-level Halfling Were-Hawk Psychic Warrior (CR 15)
38: 2 9th-level Minotaur Vampire Fighters (CR 13)
40: 1 Celestial Phrenic Androsphinx and 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Gynosphinx (CR 14 and 12)
41: 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Delver (CR 15)
42: 1 Half-Fiend Phrenic Dragon Turtle (CR 15)
43: 2 Half-Dragon Celestial Rocs (CR 13)
44: 3 Half-Fiend Half-Dragon Dark Nagas (CR 12)
45: 1 11th-level Derro Savant and 2 9th-level Derro Savants (CR 13 and 11)
46: 2 12th-level Hound Archon Monks (CR 13)
47: 1 7th-level Erinyes (devil) Paladin of Tyrrany (CR 15)
48: 1 6th-level Drider Cleric and 1 6th-level Drider Wizard (CR 13)
49: 2 12th-level Ettin Rogues (CR 12)
50: 1 14th-level Janni Druid (CR 15)
51: 1 6th-level Elder Stone Giant Sorcerer and 2 4th-level Stone Giant Barbarians (CR 12)
52: 1 12th-level Githyanki Fighter and 1 Young Adult Red Dragon (CR 13)
53: Githzerai Rrakkma: 1 11th-level Githzerai Sorcerer and 5 8th-level Githzerai Monks (CR 12 and 9)
54: 1 14th-level Harpy Wilder (CR 15)
55: 1 12th-level Invisible Stalker Psion (shaper) (CR 15)
56: 1 9th-level Lamia Psychic Warrior (CR 15)
57: 4 8th-level Magmin Barbarians (CR 11)
58: 3 8th-level Mind Flayer Rogues (CR 12)
59: 1 12th-level Nixie Bard and 2 12th-level Human Warriors (CR 13 and 11)
60: 1 9th-level Half-Celestial Centaur Ranger (CR 15)
61: 1 10th-level Half-Fiend Choker Soulknife (CR 15)
62: 5 7th-level Ghost Dryad Wilders (CR 10)
63: 3 3rd-level Fiendish Medusa Psychic Warriors (CR 12)
64: 1 14th-level Lizardfolk Barbarian (CR 15)
65: 4 11th-level Dromite Bards (CR 11)
66: 1 12th-level Kuo-Toa Cleric and 1 12th-level Kuo-Toa Monk (CR 13)
67: 2 12th-level Drow Druids (CR 13)
68: 1 15th-level Xeph Fighter (CR 15)
69: 1 15th-level Wild Elf Monk (CR 15)
70: 2 12th-level Half-Giant Paladins (CR 13)
71: 3 11th-level Half-orc Rangers (CR 12)
72: 1 15th-level Tallfellow Halfling Wizard (CR 15)
73: 3 12th-level Gnoll Soulknives (CR 12)
74: 2 15th-level Goblin Adepts (CR 13)
75: 3 14th-level Kobold Experts (CR 12)
76: 1 Troglodtye 5th-level Fighter/9th-level Blackguard (CR 15)
77: 1 Blue 14th-level Enchanter/1st-level Archmage
78: 1 Half-Elf 14th-level Cleric/1st-level Hierophant
79: 1 Elan 5th-level Psion (seer)/10th-level Metamind (CR 15)
80: 1 Pixie (sprite) 5th-level Psion (egoist)/6th-level Psion Uncarnate (CR 15)
81: 2 Maenad 5th-level Bard/8th-level War Minds (CR 13)
82: 1 Human 5th-level Psychic Warrior/8th-level Elocator and 1 Human 5th-level Rogue/8th-level Assassin (CR 13)
83: 1 Elite Half-Dragon Elder Black Pudding (CR 15)
84: 1 Elite Fiendish Purple Worm (CR 15)
85: 1 Elite Celestial Frost Worm (CR 15)
86: 2 Elite Half-Dragon Legendary Tigers (CR 13)
87: 2 Thought Slayers (psionic) (CR 13)
88: 3 Psion-Killers (CR 12)
89: 2 Advanced (27 HD) Bulette (CR 13)
90: 1 Advanced (26 HD) Retriever (demon) (CR 15)
91: 3 Advanced (25 HD) Bodaks (CR 12)
92: 1 Advanced (25 HD) Kolyarut (inevitable) (CR 15)
93: 2 Advanced (24 HD) Behir (CR 13)
94: 1 Advanced (24 HD) Chaos Beast (CR 15)
95: 3 Advanced (23 HD) Elder Arrowhawks (CR 12)
96: 3 Advanced (21 HD) Yrthak (CR 12)
97: 2 Advanced (21 HD) Noble Salamanders (CR 13)
98: 1 Advanced (19 HD) Cerebrelith (psionic) (CR 15)
99: 1 Advanced (18 HD) Ice Devil (CR 15)
100:1 Advanced (18 HD) Leonal (guardinal) (CR 15)
02: 1 Vampire, half-elf monk9/Shadowdancer4 (MM default) (CR 15)
03: 1 Mummy Lord (CR 15)
04: 1 Neothelid (Psionic) (CR 15)
05: 1 Elite Trumpet Archon (CR 15)
06: 1 Elite Astral Deva (angel) (CR 15)
07: 1 Elite Nalfeshnee (demon) (CR 15)
08: 1 Elite Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 15)
09: 2 Beholders (CR 13)
10: Demon troupe: 1 Glabrezu, 1 Succubus, and 3 Vrocks (CR 13, 7, and 9)
11: 4 Barbed Devils (CR 11)
12: 1 Dragon: Old White; Mature Adult Brass; Adult Bronze, Red, or Silver (1d5) (CR 15)
13: 2 Dragons: Adult Green (CR 13)
14: 3 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze (CR 12)
15: Dragon Family: 1 Mature Adult and 3 Young Adult Black, or 1 Adult and 3 Juvenile Copper (CR 14 and 9)
16: 2 Ghaele Eladrin (CR 13)
17: 4 Elder Elementals, 1 of each type (CR 11)
18: 1 Celestial Charger (unicorn) and 1 Golden Protector (lammasu) (CR 13)
19: 1 Werewolf Lord and 1 Displacer Beast Pack Lord (CR 14 and 12)
20: 3 Night Hags and 3 Cauchemar Nightmares (CR 9 and 11)
21: 2 Death Slaadi (CR 13)
22: 3 Celestial Guardian Nagas (CR 12)
23: 1 Celestial Cloud Giant and 1 Fiendish Cloud Giant (CR 13)
24: 2 Fiendish Harpy Archers
25: 4 Half-Celestial Treants (CR 11)
26: 3 Half-Fiend Frost Giants (CR 12)
27: 1 Half-Dragon Celestial Charger (unicorn) (CR 15)
28: 3 Half-Dragon Fire Giants (CR 12)
29: Roll on EL 13 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type)
30: 1 Phrenic 11-headed pyro- or cryohydra (CR 15)
31: 4 Phrenic Avorals (guardinal) (CR 11)
32: 1 Phrenic Rakshasa and 1 Phrenic Cauchemar Nightmare (CR 12 and 14)
33: 4 Phrenic Hellwasp Swarms (CR 11)
34: 1 Ghost Storm Giant (CR 15)
35: 4 Ghost Dire Sharks (CR 11)
36: 1 11th-level Forest Gnome Lich Bard and 1 Iron Golem (CR 13)
37: 3 Hill Giant Were-Dire Bears (CR 12)
38: 1 13th-level Halfling Were-Hawk Psychic Warrior (CR 15)
38: 2 9th-level Minotaur Vampire Fighters (CR 13)
40: 1 Celestial Phrenic Androsphinx and 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Gynosphinx (CR 14 and 12)
41: 1 Half-Celestial Phrenic Delver (CR 15)
42: 1 Half-Fiend Phrenic Dragon Turtle (CR 15)
43: 2 Half-Dragon Celestial Rocs (CR 13)
44: 3 Half-Fiend Half-Dragon Dark Nagas (CR 12)
45: 1 11th-level Derro Savant and 2 9th-level Derro Savants (CR 13 and 11)
46: 2 12th-level Hound Archon Monks (CR 13)
47: 1 7th-level Erinyes (devil) Paladin of Tyrrany (CR 15)
48: 1 6th-level Drider Cleric and 1 6th-level Drider Wizard (CR 13)
49: 2 12th-level Ettin Rogues (CR 12)
50: 1 14th-level Janni Druid (CR 15)
51: 1 6th-level Elder Stone Giant Sorcerer and 2 4th-level Stone Giant Barbarians (CR 12)
52: 1 12th-level Githyanki Fighter and 1 Young Adult Red Dragon (CR 13)
53: Githzerai Rrakkma: 1 11th-level Githzerai Sorcerer and 5 8th-level Githzerai Monks (CR 12 and 9)
54: 1 14th-level Harpy Wilder (CR 15)
55: 1 12th-level Invisible Stalker Psion (shaper) (CR 15)
56: 1 9th-level Lamia Psychic Warrior (CR 15)
57: 4 8th-level Magmin Barbarians (CR 11)
58: 3 8th-level Mind Flayer Rogues (CR 12)
59: 1 12th-level Nixie Bard and 2 12th-level Human Warriors (CR 13 and 11)
60: 1 9th-level Half-Celestial Centaur Ranger (CR 15)
61: 1 10th-level Half-Fiend Choker Soulknife (CR 15)
62: 5 7th-level Ghost Dryad Wilders (CR 10)
63: 3 3rd-level Fiendish Medusa Psychic Warriors (CR 12)
64: 1 14th-level Lizardfolk Barbarian (CR 15)
65: 4 11th-level Dromite Bards (CR 11)
66: 1 12th-level Kuo-Toa Cleric and 1 12th-level Kuo-Toa Monk (CR 13)
67: 2 12th-level Drow Druids (CR 13)
68: 1 15th-level Xeph Fighter (CR 15)
69: 1 15th-level Wild Elf Monk (CR 15)
70: 2 12th-level Half-Giant Paladins (CR 13)
71: 3 11th-level Half-orc Rangers (CR 12)
72: 1 15th-level Tallfellow Halfling Wizard (CR 15)
73: 3 12th-level Gnoll Soulknives (CR 12)
74: 2 15th-level Goblin Adepts (CR 13)
75: 3 14th-level Kobold Experts (CR 12)
76: 1 Troglodtye 5th-level Fighter/9th-level Blackguard (CR 15)
77: 1 Blue 14th-level Enchanter/1st-level Archmage
78: 1 Half-Elf 14th-level Cleric/1st-level Hierophant
79: 1 Elan 5th-level Psion (seer)/10th-level Metamind (CR 15)
80: 1 Pixie (sprite) 5th-level Psion (egoist)/6th-level Psion Uncarnate (CR 15)
81: 2 Maenad 5th-level Bard/8th-level War Minds (CR 13)
82: 1 Human 5th-level Psychic Warrior/8th-level Elocator and 1 Human 5th-level Rogue/8th-level Assassin (CR 13)
83: 1 Elite Half-Dragon Elder Black Pudding (CR 15)
84: 1 Elite Fiendish Purple Worm (CR 15)
85: 1 Elite Celestial Frost Worm (CR 15)
86: 2 Elite Half-Dragon Legendary Tigers (CR 13)
87: 2 Thought Slayers (psionic) (CR 13)
88: 3 Psion-Killers (CR 12)
89: 2 Advanced (27 HD) Bulette (CR 13)
90: 1 Advanced (26 HD) Retriever (demon) (CR 15)
91: 3 Advanced (25 HD) Bodaks (CR 12)
92: 1 Advanced (25 HD) Kolyarut (inevitable) (CR 15)
93: 2 Advanced (24 HD) Behir (CR 13)
94: 1 Advanced (24 HD) Chaos Beast (CR 15)
95: 3 Advanced (23 HD) Elder Arrowhawks (CR 12)
96: 3 Advanced (21 HD) Yrthak (CR 12)
97: 2 Advanced (21 HD) Noble Salamanders (CR 13)
98: 1 Advanced (19 HD) Cerebrelith (psionic) (CR 15)
99: 1 Advanced (18 HD) Ice Devil (CR 15)
100:1 Advanced (18 HD) Leonal (guardinal) (CR 15)
Might I suggest at least taking out that Elemental? Those things are scary enough as is, but advanced to HDs of that level... ow. Off the top of my head, you could replace it with things like 2 Thought Slayers (EL 13), 3 Psion Killers (EL 12), or even a 19 HD Cerebrelith (CR 15) and it'd be much more sane.
Zevox
Good heavens man! Those are some terrifying epic HD monsters you've got there! A 40 HD Elemental... sweet Jesus, even at level 15 I don't see anyone beating that unless it rolls a natural 1 vs a save-or-die. I know I put a few evil ones into that EL 11 list (the Ettin Were-Legendary Bear, Titan Skeletons, and templated Black Pudding mainly), but some of those are just insane. The only things that normally get HD that high before epic CRs are Dragons and the Tarrasque. And some of those are in groups of 3 or 4...
Might I suggest at least taking out that Elemental? Those things are scary enough as is, but advanced to HDs of that level... ow. Off the top of my head, you could replace it with things like 2 Thought Slayers (EL 13), 3 Psion Killers (EL 12), or even a 19 HD Cerebrelith (CR 15) and it'd be much more sane.
Zevox
I'll take a look at it later, but you're probably right. One of the self-imposed restrictions is that I try very, very hard to use the "organization" entries correctly.
Edit: All right, the worst offenders have been changed. I simply forgot to go through the psionic material for multiples. Although it still has over 900 HP worth of Chuul....
Edit 2: Those Chuul are gone; I'll probably make a few more changes vis-a-vis templated psionic creatures.
Edit 3: Okay, take a look now.
100:2 Mummy Lords and 2 Devourers (CR 13 and 11)
Mummy Lords are CR 15 creatures the are listed wrong in the back of the MM as CR 13 but their entry list them as CR 15 as does the SRD.
Here is my take at the EL 14 table. Please review and criticise
EL 14
01: 1 Trumpet Archon (CR14)
02: 1 Astral Deva (Angel) (CR14)
03: 1 Nalfeshnee (Demon) (CR14)
04: 1 Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 14)
05: 1 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR14)
06: 1 Werewolf Lord (Lycanthrope) (CR14)
07: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Gold Dragon; Adult Blue or Copper; Mature Adult Black (CR 14)
08: 2 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12)
09: 2 Elder Black Pudding (CR 12)
10: 2 Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 12)
11: 2 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze Dragon; Adult Brass Dragon; Mature Adult White Dragon (CR 12)
12: 2 Frost Worms (CR 12)
13: 2 11-Headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra (CR 12)
14: 2 Kolyarut (Inevitable) (CR 12)
15: 2 Leonel (Guardinal) (CR 12)
16: 2 Collosal Monstrous Scorpion (CR 12)
17: 2 Purple Worms (CR 12)
18: 2 Psion Killers (CR 12)
19: 2 Roper (CR 12)
20: 3 Barbed Devils (CR 11)
21: 3 Cauchemare (Nightmare) (CR 11)
22: 3 Devourer (CR 11)
23: 3 Dragons: Juvenile Gold Dragon; Young Adult Green, Blue or Copper Dragon; Adult Black Dragon (CR 11)
24: 3 Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) (CR 11)
25: 3 Cloud Giants (CR 11)
26: 3 Stone Golem (CR 11)
27: 3 Half-celestial 9th level Human Paladin (CR 11)
28: 3 Golden Protector (Celestail Half-Dragon Lammasu) (CR 11)
29: 3 Harpy Archer (CR 11)
30: 3 Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (Lycanthrope) (CR 11)
31: 3 Hezrou (Demon) (CR 11)
32: 3 10-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 11)
33: 3 12-Headed Hydra (CR 11)
34: 3 Collosal Monstrous Spider (CR 11)
35: 3 Retriever (Demon) (CR 11)
36: 3 Troll Hunter (CR 11)
37: 4 Colossal Animated Object (CR 10)
38: 4 Bebilith (Demon) (CR 10)
39: 4 Couatl (CR 10)
40: 4 Formian, Myrmach (CR 10)
41: 4 Fire Giant (CR 10)
42: 4 Clay Golem (CR 10)
43: 4 11-Headed Hydra (CR 10)
44: 4 9-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 10)
45: 4 Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (CR 10)
46: 4 Guardian Nage (CR 10)
47: 4 Rakshasa (CR 10)
48: 4 Noble Salamander (CR 10)
49: 4 Gray Slaad (CR 10)
50: 3 Half-Dragon Frost Giants (1d10 for type) (CR 11)
51: 1 Half-Dragon Leonal (Guardian) (1d10 for type) (CR 14)
52: 1 Half-Dragon Displacer Beast Pack Lord (1d10 for type) (CR 14)
53: 1 Half-Fiend Cloud Giant (CR 14)
54: 1 Half-Fiend Harpy Archer (CR 14)
55: 1 Half-Fiend Cauchemar (Nightmare) (CR 14)
56: 1 Half-Fiend Troll Hunter (CR 14)
57: 1 Phrenic Barbed Devil (Devil) (CR 14)
58: 1 Phrenic Devourer (CR 14)
59: 1 7th-level Chimera Barbarian (CR 14)
60: 2 4th-level Stone Giants Fighter (CR 12)
61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14)
62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14)
63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12)
64: 3 8th-level Yuan-ti Pureblood Rangers (CR 11)
65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12)
66: 1 6th-level Dark Naga Sorcerer (CR 14)
67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14)
68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14)
69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5)
70: 2 8th-level Areana Sorcerer (CR 12)
71: 2 11th-level Githyanki Wilder (CR 12)
72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard (CR 14)
73: 1 14th-level Dwarf Fighter (CR 14)
74: 1 14th-level Elf Wizard (CR 14)
75: 1 14th-level Half-orc Barbarian (CR 14)
76: 1 14th-level Halfling Rogue (CR 14)
77: 1 13th-level Drow Cleric (CR 14)
78: 1 13th level Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (CR 14)
79: 1 12th-level Human Lich Wizard (CR 14)
80: 1 Ice Devil (Gelugon) + 2 Bone Devil (Osyluth) (CR 13) (CR 9)
81: 1 Storm Giant + 2 Rocs {CR 13) (CR 9)
82: 1 Glabrezu (Demon) +2 Vrocks (Demon) (CR 13) (CR 9)
83: 1 8th-level Celestial Charger (Unicorn) Cleric (CR 14)
84: 1 Advanced (22HD) Iron Golem (CR 14)
85: 1 Advanced (14HD) Ghaele (Eladrin) (CR 14)
86: 1 5th-level Avoral (Guardian) Paladin (CR 14)
87: 2 5th-level Dragonne Paladin (CR 12)
88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10)
89: 2 6th-level Xill Rogue (CR 12)
90: 1 9th-level Unbodied Psion (CR 14)
91: 3 7th-level Gargoyle Fighter (CR 11)
92: 1 9th-level Weretiger (Lycanthrope) Ranger (CR 14)
93: 1 12th-level Human Ghost (CR 14)
94: 3 Advanced (22HD) Triceratops (CR 11)
95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10)
96: 4 Advanced (22HD) Dire Tiger (CR 10)
97: 3 Advanced (16HD) Destrachan (CR 12)
98: 1 6th-level Athach Barbarian (CR 14)
99: 3 Fiendish Yrthak (CR 11)
100: 2 Fiendish Razor Boars (CR 12)
02: 1 Astral Deva (Angel) (CR14)
03: 1 Nalfeshnee (Demon) (CR14)
04: 1 Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 14)
05: 1 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR14)
06: 1 Werewolf Lord (Lycanthrope) (CR14)
07: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Gold Dragon; Adult Blue or Copper; Mature Adult Black (CR 14)
08: 2 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12)
09: 2 Elder Black Pudding (CR 12)
10: 2 Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 12)
11: 2 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze Dragon; Adult Brass Dragon; Mature Adult White Dragon (CR 12)
12: 2 Frost Worms (CR 12)
13: 2 11-Headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra (CR 12)
14: 2 Kolyarut (Inevitable) (CR 12)
15: 2 Leonel (Guardinal) (CR 12)
16: 2 Collosal Monstrous Scorpion (CR 12)
17: 2 Purple Worms (CR 12)
18: 2 Psion Killers (CR 12)
19: 2 Roper (CR 12)
20: 3 Barbed Devils (CR 11)
21: 3 Cauchemare (Nightmare) (CR 11)
22: 3 Devourer (CR 11)
23: 3 Dragons: Juvenile Gold Dragon; Young Adult Green, Blue or Copper Dragon; Adult Black Dragon (CR 11)
24: 3 Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) (CR 11)
25: 3 Cloud Giants (CR 11)
26: 3 Stone Golem (CR 11)
27: 3 Half-celestial 9th level Human Paladin (CR 11)
28: 3 Golden Protector (Celestail Half-Dragon Lammasu) (CR 11)
29: 3 Harpy Archer (CR 11)
30: 3 Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (Lycanthrope) (CR 11)
31: 3 Hezrou (Demon) (CR 11)
32: 3 10-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 11)
33: 3 12-Headed Hydra (CR 11)
34: 3 Collosal Monstrous Spider (CR 11)
35: 3 Retriever (Demon) (CR 11)
36: 3 Troll Hunter (CR 11)
37: 4 Colossal Animated Object (CR 10)
38: 4 Bebilith (Demon) (CR 10)
39: 4 Couatl (CR 10)
40: 4 Formian, Myrmach (CR 10)
41: 4 Fire Giant (CR 10)
42: 4 Clay Golem (CR 10)
43: 4 11-Headed Hydra (CR 10)
44: 4 9-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 10)
45: 4 Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (CR 10)
46: 4 Guardian Nage (CR 10)
47: 4 Rakshasa (CR 10)
48: 4 Noble Salamander (CR 10)
49: 4 Gray Slaad (CR 10)
50: 3 Half-Dragon Frost Giants (1d10 for type) (CR 11)
51: 1 Half-Dragon Leonal (Guardian) (1d10 for type) (CR 14)
52: 1 Half-Dragon Displacer Beast Pack Lord (1d10 for type) (CR 14)
53: 1 Half-Fiend Cloud Giant (CR 14)
54: 1 Half-Fiend Harpy Archer (CR 14)
55: 1 Half-Fiend Cauchemar (Nightmare) (CR 14)
56: 1 Half-Fiend Troll Hunter (CR 14)
57: 1 Phrenic Barbed Devil (Devil) (CR 14)
58: 1 Phrenic Devourer (CR 14)
59: 1 7th-level Chimera Barbarian (CR 14)
60: 2 4th-level Stone Giants Fighter (CR 12)
61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14)
62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14)
63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12)
64: 3 8th-level Yuan-ti Pureblood Rangers (CR 11)
65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12)
66: 1 6th-level Dark Naga Sorcerer (CR 14)
67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14)
68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14)
69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5)
70: 2 8th-level Areana Sorcerer (CR 12)
71: 2 11th-level Githyanki Wilder (CR 12)
72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard (CR 14)
73: 1 14th-level Dwarf Fighter (CR 14)
74: 1 14th-level Elf Wizard (CR 14)
75: 1 14th-level Half-orc Barbarian (CR 14)
76: 1 14th-level Halfling Rogue (CR 14)
77: 1 13th-level Drow Cleric (CR 14)
78: 1 13th level Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (CR 14)
79: 1 12th-level Human Lich Wizard (CR 14)
80: 1 Ice Devil (Gelugon) + 2 Bone Devil (Osyluth) (CR 13) (CR 9)
81: 1 Storm Giant + 2 Rocs {CR 13) (CR 9)
82: 1 Glabrezu (Demon) +2 Vrocks (Demon) (CR 13) (CR 9)
83: 1 8th-level Celestial Charger (Unicorn) Cleric (CR 14)
84: 1 Advanced (22HD) Iron Golem (CR 14)
85: 1 Advanced (14HD) Ghaele (Eladrin) (CR 14)
86: 1 5th-level Avoral (Guardian) Paladin (CR 14)
87: 2 5th-level Dragonne Paladin (CR 12)
88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10)
89: 2 6th-level Xill Rogue (CR 12)
90: 1 9th-level Unbodied Psion (CR 14)
91: 3 7th-level Gargoyle Fighter (CR 11)
92: 1 9th-level Weretiger (Lycanthrope) Ranger (CR 14)
93: 1 12th-level Human Ghost (CR 14)
94: 3 Advanced (22HD) Triceratops (CR 11)
95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10)
96: 4 Advanced (22HD) Dire Tiger (CR 10)
97: 3 Advanced (16HD) Destrachan (CR 12)
98: 1 6th-level Athach Barbarian (CR 14)
99: 3 Fiendish Yrthak (CR 11)
100: 2 Fiendish Razor Boars (CR 12)
btw- anyone thought that with higher ECLS we are going to need some bigger maps probably, i mean wher edo you put 4 collosal animated objects- you can barely fit that in the plains....
I'll take a look at it later, but you're probably right. One of the self-imposed restrictions is that I try very, very hard to use the "organization" entries correctly.
Edit: All right, the worst offenders have been changed. I simply forgot to go through the psionic material for multiples. Although it still has over 900 HP worth of Chuul....
Edit 2: Those Chuul are gone; I'll probably make a few more changes vis-a-vis templated psionic creatures.
Edit 3: Okay, take a look now.
Better. I was kinda scared when I noticed the two elite legendary tigers (not sure if they were there before or not, but I just noticed them), but I suppose they're not that bad given they can't fly. Thats a lot of hp they'll have though - probably close on 800 between them after the con boost from being elite.
Otherwise, outside of what Sjiggie said about the Mummy Lord, looks good to me.
Zevox
Better. I was kinda scared when I noticed the two elite legendary tigers (not sure if they were there before or not, but I just noticed them), but I suppose they're not that bad given they can't fly. Thats a lot of hp they'll have though - probably close on 800 between them after the con boost from being elite.
Zevox
Are you refering to the two Half-Dragon elite legendary tigers? In which case they do fly... At 100' (Average).
Are you refering to the two Half-Dragon elite legendary tigers? In which case they do fly... At 100' (Average).
Oh. Missed that part. Yeah... and Half-Dragon is yet another +2 con too... not to mention the +8 str... ow.
Zevox
Oh. Missed that part. Yeah... and Half-Dragon is yet another +2 con too... not to mention the +8 str... ow.
Zevox
And what are those will saves again?
And what are those will saves again?
+12, before any wisdom boost from the elite array.
Zevox
+12, before any wisdom boost from the elite array.
Zevox
In other words, no problem for any finger-wiggler worth his salt to be able to assault that Will save with a few save-or-dies at that level.
Melee characters, on the other hand, may just want to sit down and cry.
I wouldn't have done the EL 14 table that way--many creatures listed as "solitary" that are in groups, some of them large--but there's nothing technically wrong with it at a glance. I'll do the math on the class levels a bit later.
EL 1401: 1 Trumpet Archon (CR14)
02: 1 Astral Deva (Angel) (CR14)
03: 1 Nalfeshnee (Demon) (CR14)
04: 1 Nightwing (nightshade) (CR 14)
05: 1 Truly Horrid Umber Hulk (CR14)
06: 1 Werewolf Lord (Lycanthrope) (CR14)
07: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Gold Dragon; Adult Blue or Copper; Mature Adult Black (CR 14)
08: 2 Abyssal Greater Basilisks (CR 12)
09: 2 Elder Black Pudding (CR 12)
10: 2 Displacer Beast Pack Lords (CR 12)
11: 2 Dragons: Young Adult Bronze Dragon; Adult Brass Dragon; Mature Adult White Dragon (CR 12)
12: 2 Frost Worms (CR 12)
13: 2 11-Headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra (CR 12)
14: 2 Kolyarut (Inevitable) (CR 12)
15: 2 Leonel (Guardinal) (CR 12)
16: 2 Collosal Monstrous Scorpion (CR 12)
17: 2 Purple Worms (CR 12)
18: 2 Psion Killers (CR 12)
19: 2 Roper (CR 12)
20: 3 Barbed Devils (CR 11)
21: 3 Cauchemare (Nightmare) (CR 11)
22: 3 Devourer (CR 11)
23: 3 Dragons: Juvenile Gold Dragon; Young Adult Green, Blue or Copper Dragon; Adult Black Dragon (CR 11)
24: 3 Elder Elemental (1d4 for type) (CR 11)
25: 3 Cloud Giants (CR 11)
26: 3 Stone Golem (CR 11)
27: 3 Half-celestial 9th level Human Paladin (CR 11)
28: 3 Golden Protector (Celestail Half-Dragon Lammasu) (CR 11)
29: 3 Harpy Archer (CR 11)
30: 3 Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (Lycanthrope) (CR 11)
31: 3 Hezrou (Demon) (CR 11)
32: 3 10-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 11)
33: 3 12-Headed Hydra (CR 11)
34: 3 Collosal Monstrous Spider (CR 11)
35: 3 Retriever (Demon) (CR 11)
36: 3 Troll Hunter (CR 11)
37: 4 Colossal Animated Object (CR 10)
38: 4 Bebilith (Demon) (CR 10)
39: 4 Couatl (CR 10)
40: 4 Formian, Myrmach (CR 10)
41: 4 Fire Giant (CR 10)
42: 4 Clay Golem (CR 10)
43: 4 11-Headed Hydra (CR 10)
44: 4 9-Headed Cryo/Pyro Hydra (CR 10)
45: 4 Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion (CR 10)
46: 4 Guardian Nage (CR 10)
47: 4 Rakshasa (CR 10)
48: 4 Noble Salamander (CR 10)
49: 4 Gray Slaad (CR 10)
50: 3 Half-Dragon Frost Giants (1d10 for type) (CR 11)
51: 1 Half-Dragon Leonal (Guardian) (1d10 for type) (CR 14)
52: 1 Half-Dragon Displacer Beast Pack Lord (1d10 for type) (CR 14)
53: 1 Half-Fiend Cloud Giant (CR 14)
54: 1 Half-Fiend Harpy Archer (CR 14)
55: 1 Half-Fiend Cauchemar (Nightmare) (CR 14)
56: 1 Half-Fiend Troll Hunter (CR 14)
57: 1 Phrenic Barbed Devil (Devil) (CR 14)
58: 1 Phrenic Devourer (CR 14)
59: 1 7th-level Chimera Barbarian (CR 14)
60: 2 4th-level Stone Giants Fighter (CR 12)
61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14)
62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14)
63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12)
64: 3 8th-level Yuan-ti Pureblood Rangers (CR 11)
65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12)
66: 1 6th-level Dark Naga Sorcerer (CR 14)
67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14)
68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14)
69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5)
70: 2 8th-level Areana Sorcerer (CR 12)
71: 2 11th-level Githyanki Wilder (CR 12)
72: 1 14th-level Gnome Bard (CR 14)
73: 1 14th-level Dwarf Fighter (CR 14)
74: 1 14th-level Elf Wizard (CR 14)
75: 1 14th-level Half-orc Barbarian (CR 14)
76: 1 14th-level Halfling Rogue (CR 14)
77: 1 13th-level Drow Cleric (CR 14)
78: 1 13th level Half-Giant Psychic Warrior (CR 14)
79: 1 12th-level Human Lich Wizard (CR 14)
80: 1 Ice Devil (Gelugon) + 2 Bone Devil (Osyluth) (CR 13) (CR 9)
81: 1 Storm Giant + 2 Rocs {CR 13) (CR 9)
82: 1 Glabrezu (Demon) +2 Vrocks (Demon) (CR 13) (CR 9)
83: 1 8th-level Celestial Charger (Unicorn) Cleric (CR 14)
84: 1 Advanced (22HD) Iron Golem (CR 14)
85: 1 Advanced (14HD) Ghaele (Eladrin) (CR 14)
86: 1 5th-level Avoral (Guardian) Paladin (CR 14)
87: 2 5th-level Dragonne Paladin (CR 12)
88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10)
89: 2 6th-level Xill Rogue (CR 12)
90: 1 9th-level Unbodied Psion (CR 14)
91: 3 7th-level Gargoyle Fighter (CR 11)
92: 1 9th-level Weretiger (Lycanthrope) Ranger (CR 14)
93: 1 12th-level Human Ghost (CR 14)
94: 3 Advanced (22HD) Triceratops (CR 11)
95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10)
96: 4 Advanced (22HD) Dire Tiger (CR 10)
97: 3 Advanced (16HD) Destrachan (CR 12)
98: 1 6th-level Athach Barbarian (CR 14)
99: 3 Fiendish Yrthak (CR 11)
100: 2 Fiendish Razor Boars (CR 12)
Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs
I suggested No Expendables and using the NPC chart for starting income (or allowing the Player to outfit them the week they get then by buying within cycle (Again No expendables))
but thats just me..
Some of those are just odd. 4 Hydra? A Half-Fiend Fiend? Again, not techically wrong, but....
There are mistakes with the class levels, as I suspected.
61: 1 6th-level Ogre Mage Sorcerer (CR 14)
- Unassociated. Needs to be 8th level.
62: 1 12th-level Half-Dragon Cleric (CR 14)
- You need a race on that one.
63: 2 6th-level Ettin Rangers (CR 12)
- Bizarre as it may seem, ranger is unassociated with creatures that have no stealth or other rangerlike abilities. These would have to be level 11.
65: 1 Vampire 10th-level cleric + 1 Vampire 10th-level Psychic Warrior (CR 12) (CR 12)
- Again, no race.
67: 1 6th-level Mind Flayer Psion (CR 14)
- Again, unassociated, since it has no innate manifester level. It gets to be level 10.
68: 1 4th-level Half-Celestial Lammasu Paladin (CR 14)
- 7 racial HD and 4 class HD makes 11, so the template adds +3 CR. That's CR 15. Unfortunately, if you drop a class level, it falls to CR 13.
69: 3 10th-level Goblin Rogue and 3 Winter Wolfs (CR 10) (CR 5)
- This comes out oddly; the math makes it come out as a CR 13.5, not 14. Don't trust the online calculator for this; it rounds.
88: 4 6th-level Janni (Genie) Ranger (CR 10)
- Same as the ettin. They have to be level 9.
95: 1 13th-level Elf Wizard + 2 Shield Guardian (CR 13) (CR 10)
- First of all, Shield Guardians are CR 8. Second, this comes out to CR 13.5 again.
I will go over the points you adressed later this week. Some CR are calculated as 13.9 or 13.8 I didn't use the wizards encouter calculator because I knew that it rounds the number.
ECL 12 list
01: Half-dragon Athach [CR 12]
02: Advanced (12hd) Hezrou (Demon) [CR 12]
03: Advanced (12hd) Retriever (Demon) [CR 12]
04: vampire Centaur Ranger Level 7 With Dire wolf Animal Companion [CR 12]
05: Drider Half-dragon Sorcerer 3(9) [CR 12]
06: Advanced (25hd) Elder Earth Elemental [CR 12]
07: Advanced (25hd) Elder Fire Elemental [CR 12]
08: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12]
09: Hill Giant Dire Wereboar Fighter 1 [CR 12]
10: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12]
11: Eleven-Headed Hydra-Pyro [CR 12]
12: Vampire Human wizard Level 10 [CR 12]
13: Advanced (10hd) Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 12]
14: Advanced (19hd) Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12]
15: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 2 [CR 12]
16: Advanced (13 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 12]
17: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear Fighter 1 [CR 12]
18: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 9 [CR 12]
19: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 7 [CR 12]
20: Hill Giant Ranger 1/Horizon Walker 5 [CR 12]
21: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Inevitable Zelekhut [CR 12]
22: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Vrock (Demon) [CR 12]
23: Advanced (13 HD) Night Hag [CR 12]
24: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 4 [CR 12]
25: 1 Wood Elf Druid 10 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 10 and 7]
26: 1 Drow Cleric 8 and 2 Driders [CR 9 and 7]
27: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 10 [CR 12]
28: 1 Half-Fiend Wood Elf Cleric 10 [CR 12]
29: 1 Vampire Half-Giant Cleric 9 [CR 12]
30: 1 Air Mephit Psion 9 [CR 12]
31: 1 Magma Mephit Sorcerer 9 [CR 12]
32: 1 Earth Mephit soulknife 9 [CR 12]
33: 1 Ice Mephit Wizard 9 [CR 12]
34: 1 Werewolf Wood Elf Druid 10 [CR 12]
35: 1 Unbodied Psion 7 [CR 12]
36: 1 Half-Celestial Guardian Naga [CR 12]
37: Advanced (10 HD) Half-Fiend Spirit Naga [CR 12]
38: 1 Frost Worm [CR 12]
39: 1 Fiendish Fire Giant [CR 12]
40: 1 Half-Dragon Stone Giant Elder 1 Half-Dragon Paragon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12]
41: 3 Gray Render Zombie [CR 12]
42: 1 Ooze Mephit wizard 9 [CR 12]
43: 1 Steam Mephit druid 9 [CR 12]
44: 1 Salt Mephit Bard 9 [CR 12]
45: 1 Human Fallen Paladin 6 blackguard 6 [CR 12]
46: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 6 Sorcerer 2 Arcane Archer 4 [CR 12]
47: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 3 Cleric 3 Mystic Theurge 6 [CR 12]
48: 1 Elan Psion 3 Wizard 3 Cerebremancer 6 [CR 12]
49: 1 Half-giant Psiwarrior 5 war mind 6 [CR 12]
50: 1 Githzerai Monk 11 [CR 12]
51: 1 Githzerai Monk 5 psionic Fist 6 [CR 12]
01: Half-dragon Athach [CR 12]
02: Advanced (12hd) Hezrou (Demon) [CR 12]
03: Advanced (12hd) Retriever (Demon) [CR 12]
04: vampire Centaur Ranger Level 7 With Dire wolf Animal Companion [CR 12]
05: Drider Half-dragon Sorcerer 3(9) [CR 12]
06: Advanced (25hd) Elder Earth Elemental [CR 12]
07: Advanced (25hd) Elder Fire Elemental [CR 12]
08: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12]
09: Hill Giant Dire Wereboar Fighter 1 [CR 12]
10: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12]
11: Eleven-Headed Hydra-Pyro [CR 12]
12: Vampire Human wizard Level 10 [CR 12]
13: Advanced (10hd) Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 12]
14: Advanced (19hd) Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12]
15: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 2 [CR 12]
16: Advanced (13 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 12]
17: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear Fighter 1 [CR 12]
18: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 9 [CR 12]
19: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 7 [CR 12]
20: Hill Giant Ranger 1/Horizon Walker 5 [CR 12]
21: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Inevitable Zelekhut [CR 12]
22: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Vrock (Demon) [CR 12]
23: Advanced (13 HD) Night Hag [CR 12]
24: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 4 [CR 12]
25: 1 Wood Elf Druid 10 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 10 and 7]
26: 1 Drow Cleric 8 and 2 Driders [CR 9 and 7]
27: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 10 [CR 12]
28: 1 Half-Fiend Wood Elf Cleric 10 [CR 12]
29: 1 Vampire Half-Giant Cleric 9 [CR 12]
30: 1 Air Mephit Psion 9 [CR 12]
31: 1 Magma Mephit Sorcerer 9 [CR 12]
32: 1 Earth Mephit soulknife 9 [CR 12]
33: 1 Ice Mephit Wizard 9 [CR 12]
34: 1 Werewolf Wood Elf Druid 10 [CR 12]
35: 1 Unbodied Psion 7 [CR 12]
36: 1 Half-Celestial Guardian Naga [CR 12]
37: Advanced (10 HD) Half-Fiend Spirit Naga [CR 12]
38: 1 Frost Worm [CR 12]
39: 1 Fiendish Fire Giant [CR 12]
40: 1 Half-Dragon Stone Giant Elder 1 Half-Dragon Paragon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12]
41: 3 Gray Render Zombie [CR 12]
42: 1 Ooze Mephit wizard 9 [CR 12]
43: 1 Steam Mephit druid 9 [CR 12]
44: 1 Salt Mephit Bard 9 [CR 12]
45: 1 Human Fallen Paladin 6 blackguard 6 [CR 12]
46: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 6 Sorcerer 2 Arcane Archer 4 [CR 12]
47: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 3 Cleric 3 Mystic Theurge 6 [CR 12]
48: 1 Elan Psion 3 Wizard 3 Cerebremancer 6 [CR 12]
49: 1 Half-giant Psiwarrior 5 war mind 6 [CR 12]
50: 1 Githzerai Monk 11 [CR 12]
51: 1 Githzerai Monk 5 psionic Fist 6 [CR 12]
Don't know if anyone is working on ECL 12 Monsters list.. but here is one i have been working on (only 1-51 done so far) can you tell me if i am doing it right?ECL 12 list
01: Half-dragon Athach [CR 12]
02: Advanced (12hd) Hezrou (Demon) [CR 12]
03: Advanced (12hd) Retriever (Demon) [CR 12]
04: vampire Centaur Ranger Level 7 With Dire wolf Animal Companion [CR 12]
05: Drider Half-dragon Sorcerer 3(9) [CR 12]
06: Advanced (25hd) Elder Earth Elemental [CR 12]
07: Advanced (25hd) Elder Fire Elemental [CR 12]
08: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12]
09: Hill Giant Dire Wereboar Fighter 1 [CR 12]
10: Advanced (25hd) Elder Water Elemental [CR 12]
11: Eleven-Headed Hydra-Pyro [CR 12]
12: Vampire Human wizard Level 10 [CR 12]
13: Advanced (10hd) Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 12]
14: Advanced (19hd) Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12]
15: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 2 [CR 12]
16: Advanced (13 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 12]
17: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear Fighter 1 [CR 12]
18: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 9 [CR 12]
19: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 7 [CR 12]
20: Hill Giant Ranger 1/Horizon Walker 5 [CR 12]
21: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Inevitable Zelekhut [CR 12]
22: Elite Advanced (13 HD) Vrock (Demon) [CR 12]
23: Advanced (13 HD) Night Hag [CR 12]
24: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 4 [CR 12]
25: 1 Wood Elf Druid 10 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 10 and 7]
26: 1 Drow Cleric 8 and 2 Driders [CR 9 and 7]
27: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 10 [CR 12]
28: 1 Half-Fiend Wood Elf Cleric 10 [CR 12]
29: 1 Vampire Half-Giant Cleric 9 [CR 12]
30: 1 Air Mephit Psion 9 [CR 12]
31: 1 Magma Mephit Sorcerer 9 [CR 12]
32: 1 Earth Mephit soulknife 9 [CR 12]
33: 1 Ice Mephit Wizard 9 [CR 12]
34: 1 Werewolf Wood Elf Druid 10 [CR 12]
35: 1 Unbodied Psion 7 [CR 12]
36: 1 Half-Celestial Guardian Naga [CR 12]
37: Advanced (10 HD) Half-Fiend Spirit Naga [CR 12]
38: 1 Frost Worm [CR 12]
39: 1 Fiendish Fire Giant [CR 12]
40: 1 Half-Dragon Stone Giant Elder 1 Half-Dragon Paragon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 12]
41: 3 Gray Render Zombie [CR 12]
42: 1 Ooze Mephit wizard 9 [CR 12]
43: 1 Steam Mephit druid 9 [CR 12]
44: 1 Salt Mephit Bard 9 [CR 12]
45: 1 Human Fallen Paladin 6 blackguard 6 [CR 12]
46: 1 Wood Elf Ranger 6 Sorcerer 2 Arcane Archer 4 [CR 12]
47: 1 Grey Elf Wizard 3 Cleric 3 Mystic Theurge 6 [CR 12]
48: 1 Elan Psion 3 Wizard 3 Cerebremancer 6 [CR 12]
49: 1 Half-giant Psiwarrior 5 war mind 6 [CR 12]
50: 1 Githzerai Monk 11 [CR 12]
51: 1 Githzerai Monk 5 psionic Fist 6 [CR 12]
I really think the "Rob Store" package should include items beyond expendables. Items I'm specifically thinking of are things like a quiver of arrows, a dose of poison, an elixir of hiding, an arrow of sleeping, and at higher levels: arrow of slaying, a wand, etc.
I'm pretty sure Rob Store got the language it did for balance reasons on the side of "Burglary", but it really doesn't need it. The store isn't in danger of not being able to fight back if you take all of it's arrows ;)
RE: Rob Store package & expendables.
I really think the "Rob Store" package should include items beyond expendables. Items I'm specifically thinking of are things like a quiver of arrows, a dose of poison, an elixir of hiding, an arrow of sleeping, and at higher levels: arrow of slaying, a wand, etc.
I'm pretty sure Rob Store got the language it did for balance reasons on the side of "Burglary", but it really doesn't need it. The store isn't in danger of not being able to fight back if you take all of it's arrows ;)
That seems reasonable--I can't see any abuse offhand.
I think it's time to tackle the issue of wands and other expendables. The way I see it, here's the situation as it stands:
Wands: Restricted to DMG list only for both what spells can be used and their caster level; other options with credits.
Potions: Same as wands.
Scrolls: Although there is a DMG list, scrolls are allowed of any spell and at any level, even including metamagic.
Psionic items: There is no list; all powers are allowed and at any ML, and with metapsionics.
There are a couple of ways to make this a little more consistent.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion.
- Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2).
- As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.
It's also worth mentioning at this time that the "Living Characters" add-on might provide an alternative way of obtaining limit-breaking items. That's still in the brainstorming stage, though.
There are a couple of ways to make this a little more consistent.If the limitations are made more stringent, we might cut the cost (for instance, allow a character to buy a certain expendable an unlimited number of times for a flat fee).
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion.
- Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2).
- As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.
I'm sure I'll surprise no one by saying I'm all for #1. I see no reason whatsoever for the table-based restriction on wands/potions/oils, especially when we don't use the table on scrolls, and have no tables to use on psionic items.
I don't like the idea of #3, limiting everything to minimum CL/ML - unless we want to make expendables much weaker, which with the cap in place I don't think we do, theres neither need for nor benefit to that.
I will add, however, that I would be fine with #2, with the provision spelled out in #5 (in other words, open for anything except metamagic/psionic, which cost credits, but those that can craft them don't need to pay for metamagic/psionic items). I do like how that eliminates the free energy substitution and enlarge power items, but it would be silly to prevent those that can make them themselves from doing so without credits.
Zevox
I know it's a minor issue, but if I could get elders(NiQil :P ) to vote on the Rob Store issue that led into the expendables discussion, that'd be super.
*shrugs* MWB already said he thought it was fine. I agree with him - it doesn't seem too terribly abusable to me. I'm well aware of how slowly the multiplier for those packages grows (Featylec can only burgle about twice the amount of items now that he could back at level 4, and he has always maxed out his search skill) - I doubt anyone could even get a CL/SL 1 Wand until level 10 or higher at bare minimum.
Zevox
this should be a simple one.. but it seems to have gotten passed over yet again...(3rd time i believe)
Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs
I suggested No Expendables and using the NPC chart for starting income (or allowing the Player to outfit them the week they get then by buying within cycle (Again No expendables))
but thats just me..
I appologize, but I missed the original context. Which NPCs are you refering to? Hired warriors, allies, random 'monster' opponenets?
RE: Rob Store package & expendables.
I really think the "Rob Store" package should include items beyond expendables. Items I'm specifically thinking of are things like a quiver of arrows, a dose of poison, an elixir of hiding, an arrow of sleeping, and at higher levels: arrow of slaying, a wand, etc.
I'm pretty sure Rob Store got the language it did for balance reasons on the side of "Burglary", but it really doesn't need it. The store isn't in danger of not being able to fight back if you take all of it's arrows ;)
Sounds fine to me. You would have to have a mighty high modifier to get the dangerous stuff, and that won't be possible until you have to deal with characters who can avoid such things. Of course, if you figure out how to break it (slayer or dislocator arrows may be an issue), we will have to review it.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, with any meta(magic|psionics). As psionic items are now.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, at any CL/ML, but meta(magic|psionics) requires credits. This eliminates those "free" energy substituted scrolls and enlarged dorjes.
- All legal spells and powers can be used for any of these items, but at minimum CL/ML only. This is the lowest common denominator, but has the effect of eliminating the popular CL/ML 2 scrolls, stones, and dorjes, and the ML 3 stones of Expansion.
- Any combination of the above, consistent only within a category. For instance, tattoos and potions might be minimum CL/ML (option 3), but stones and scrolls might not (option 1 or 2).
- As any of the above, but a character capable of creating items themselves may do so without credits, if they meet the requirements.
I like 1. I could see a combo of 3 and 5 working well.
I wonder about the higher leagues opening up - not having to pay 15 credits for my customs staffs will be potentially abuseable.
*shrugs* MWB already said he thought it was fine. I agree with him - it doesn't seem too terribly abusable to me.
Sounds fine to me. You would have to have a mighty high modifier to get the dangerous stuff, and that won't be possible until you have to deal with characters who can avoid such things
That seems reasonable--I can't see any abuse offhand.
2 Elders and a GM have voted. Does that make it legit?
Do all frozen characters reset their 3FC when the lvl 10 and up league opens so everyone starts on even footing?
2 Elders and a GM have voted. Does that make it legit?
I would also agree that it is not terribly abusable - so that gives you three elders.
#1 Vandelar would probably be hit by the nerf
#2 I'm strongly against further nerfing the wizards...again.
but then again I'm totally biased.
Also the Mines eye Psionic powers to go with this..
But hey it was just an Idea...
Custom spells?
*Ding* We have a winner! Once the Wand/Guild issues are settled, mayhaps we can get Vath to repost his ideas on that? I remember last time he made those I quite liked them.
Zevox
Well I suggested to ToK and Cat about Custom spells... 5 credits per spell level for any Spell in the Spell Compendium (or any of the WoTc Books.. approved with a full write up for the spell in the blackmarket) Certain spells like summon Undead 1-9 wouldn't be allowed of course..
Also the Mines eye Psionic powers to go with this..
But hey it was just an Idea...
Stuff from noncore publications is right out. Not only is reprinting them illegal, there are balance issues, and besides, it's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do here. It also penalizes those who don't own the books (since they can't peruse them for things they'd like to buy).
The online material (e.g. Mind's Eye), however, is going to happen. It's a slightly lower-priority than some of these other concerns, but it's on the docket.
Regarding guilds: A restart clearly seems like an unpopular suggestion right now. Then it comes down to whether anyone else is willing to step up as a guildmaster, whether it's for LOY or for any theoretical replacement. LOY will go on at least as long as Hirumajoe is willing to hold the spot; if he's through with it before someone else volunteers, LOY and its districts will fall victim to some horrible disaster.
Well - I'm glad to see the other guildmasters are willing to keep going then. I will continue with what I can in CEF and doing my best.
As to anyone who feels they are merely along for the ride - you can always come to the CEF - because I have no plans laid out yet and am so clueless that I ask for advice each and every week - sometimes twice or more...
In all seriousness though - if anyone has any character designs that they want to try out and roleplay in the CEF - let me know. Its getting a little lonely after this week when our membership drops from 10 to 6 all of a sudden...
Druids, bards, and rangers are pretty much nerfed on wands by the book chart. I know when I bought Sybil's last wand (Mirror Image) it was because what I really wanted is unavailable on that chart.
Most of the good Bard ones(Mirror Image, Silence) are actually on the wizard list+they can use UMD to access any other list they want anyway.. I agree on Druid/Ranger, though.
Most of the good Bard ones(Mirror Image, Silence) are actually on the wizard list+they can use UMD to access any other list they want anyway.. I agree on Druid/Ranger, though.
UMD is unreliable at best...and I want Tiny Hut!
UMD is unreliable at best...and I want Tiny Hut!
At best you've got a +3(cha)+8(ranks)+3(skill boost feat)+2(other feat)+3(tool)=+19, autosuccess on wands at level 5. 2 feats & 900 gp.
:-)
{looks sideways at McJ}
OH. A UMD skill item. I gotcha.
At best you've got a +3(cha)+8(ranks)+3(skill boost feat)+2(other feat)+3(tool)=+19, autosuccess on wands at level 5. 2 feats & 900 gp.
:-)
And two feats invested into being a low DC second rate caster at the expense of being a top notch rogue or bard...all of which is beside the point that the really fun and interesting wands are not on the chart...come on, rapid shot archer with Tiny Hut...read the spell, it rocks.
I believe that we have a decision with respect to wands.
Also we have a decision with respect to LOY at least until Hirumajoe decides he doesn't want to run the post any more.
So I think we should move on to the next thing on the plate...
Guidelines for equipping and customizing NPCs
Clarification on definitions and consequences of "defeat"
Reworking the Diplomacy or Handle Animal rules
Which one is next? Guess which one I want to tackle?
Well aside from your own diabolical plans I think we should at least resolve the defeat question - since that is a constant issue in multi-player fights and would be best resolved sooner rather than later.
On the issue of defeat, there needs to be concensus on the following:
1. At what point is a character out of a fight? 0hp or less, -10 or less?
This issue is primarily a question in multiplayer fights, but also has prevalence when the character has an ally. In that way this ties to the second question:
2. How does his/her allies react to him being out of the fight? What if the ally has healing?
So - discuss.
For the defeat definition, how about this:
A character is considered defeated if they fall unconscious (-1hp), unless they have allies or the Diehard feat. If the character has allies, Diehard feat, or another method of returning to positive hp they are considered defeated when dead (-10hp). When a character dies, their allies may no longer participate in the battle, although spell effects will continue (summon monster for example).
I would add the bold portion above (just in case - eg. contingencies or something). No need to list them all, really.
Otherwise, I'm in agreement with that being the rule for all types of fights (I very much dislike having different rules for each type).
The * is to say that once you're dead, since you can no longer win, the allies just surrender.
Allies:
My vote for option 1.
It's neat, clean and simple. The gladiators are not fighting real fights, they are pursuing ritual gladiatorial combat. The goal/purpose of this ritual combat is to defeat your opponent, not kill your opponent AND all his allies.
When two knights face each other, the combat is over when one goes unconscious. Not when the unconscious knight's mount is massacred as well (even though that mount may have a good chance to kill the other knight).
Sybil would like to say that you are smoking something...and you really shouldn't buy things to smoke from disreputable looking gnomes on street corners.
My bard fights to make ends meet, not to go out and bow to her opponent and fight fair.
My votes on allies are #4 & #3 respectively.
We have two rabidly anti-ally elders that are capable of making fine points regarding the allies rules. If there is going to be balance imposed, I suggest that it be done through changes to the ally rules, not some artificial constructions of what constitutes defeat.
All of those saying how unfair it is that the horse might beat them, just put an extra stab/arrow/magic missile into your opponent and be done with it...they are helpless. If it was a close enough match that you couldn't do that before a hoof to the head got you, then you didn't have a solid enough victory.
All of those saying how unfair it is that the horse might beat them, just put an extra stab/arrow/magic missile into your opponent and be done with it...they are helpless. If it was a close enough match that you couldn't do that before a hoof to the head got you, then you didn't have a solid enough victory.
Good point. Still I don't think it would feel fair to me in a limited amount of situations. But then again, those situations are rare, so I can live fine with the other rules as well.
In a multiplayer match with ranking based on first-down, last-down, I still think we need the old rule.
As I said before, the problem with the power of allies in general is a different from this thing.
#4.#3 respectively, The only Ally's that really need addressing is Diplomacy allies, they are way broken.
Not True in my opinion. Advanced allies are all broken. All the allies based on CR instead of ECL are broken.
The only reason that diplomacy allies are used almost exclusively is because they are the most broken. If and when that hole is plugged, there will be other "best" choices. That will probably be the advanced purchased allies next. Then if/when that's fixed, the advanced HA allies... And so on.
With respect to the issue of defining defeat, I like my definition above. It corresponds to Vath's #4 and #3, although I prefer my wording.
Zevox
Given it looks like we have a popular choice on the defeated definition issue, might I ask for a slight add-on to that? Namely, the definition I gave for allies that qualify for extending the fight while you're in negative hps - allies that are both able and willing to continue fighting. This would plug the hole of a wizard with a toad familiar in an FFA getting a higher rank just because no one though he was worth an extra attack, or similar situations.
Zevox
That's an excellent point. I agree.
This does leave it to the pitlord to decide which allies qualify as being able to make a meaningful contribution to the battle. I can live with that.
That's an excellent point. I agree.
This does leave it to the pitlord to decide which allies qualify as being able to make a meaningful contribution to the battle. I can live with that.
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page here, let's take a look at an actual example. Here's a hunter fight with Kervan, Torel and Reginald Molehusband: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10807801&postcount=312
The result: Kervan was knocked unconscious by a grappling horse, then Reginald's psicrystal knocked Torel into negative hit points, and finally Torel's animal companion killed Reginald. So, since it was a Hunter fight, the results were
- Reginald - first place
- Torel - second place
- Kervan - third place
Under the new rules, the results would have been
- Torel - first place
- Reginald - second place
- Kervan - third place
Now here's the sticking point for me: let's say Kervan had a pet rat. (Replace "rat" with the useless ally of your choice, if you like.) Then under the new rules, the results would have been
- Kervan - first place
- Torel - second place
- Reginald - third place
Surprise! Kervan goes from last place to first, thanks to Willard the rat. I'm sorry to say, but this just seems dumb to me. In a multi-person fight, you can't always spare the time to deliver a coup de grace on an unconscious enemy, let alone hunt down any donkeys or rats or skeletons he might have waiting in the wings. Like I said before, an ally with a healing potion or something would be a different matter.
Remind me to not make an allip gladiator -- it can't even kill anyone, it can only drain their Wisdom to zero. The best he can manage is a stalemate, or hope the opponent starves to death!
1) once your unconscious, you and your allies are out.
2) once your unconscious, your allies can try to heal you up, but not keep fighting.
3) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC wins (weather your PC is dead or not).
4) once your unconscious, your allies can take whatever action they like, and if they defeat the opponent, then your PC only win if your PC hasn't gone to -10 hp yet.
Bonus question:
if you die and there are potentially deadly spell effects occurring (summon monster, acid fog, etc.)...
1) the spells end when a character is 'defeated'.
2) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are unconscious.
3) the spells continue, but don't effect the outcome if they kill the opponent after you are dead.
Well with this many taking on #4 and #3 - I think I can get behind that as well. As to Zevox's comment about defining the "allies that can contribute" - I'd rather not leave this to pitlord interpretation. That said, in most cases, I suspect the cases where an ally couldn't effectively contribute would be easily resolved with a CDG (in which case, the ally is taken away on the character's death). If it can effectively contribute - such that the danger makes it tough/impossible to CDG - then it stands to reason that it can contribute.
I'd prefer to just force the player to either a) risk the person not bleeding out in time or b) take the action to CDG.
Not every neutralized foe can be killed in one blow. Let's say that Lady Indivara is facing Sir Valkin and Aerryl in a free-for-all. She traps Sir Valkin with her Iron Bands of Bilarro and he can't escape -- his Str check and Escape Artist are too low and he didn't hear the command word. In that case, is Indivara going to sit there and whittle away at Sir Valkin's hit points (he's immobile but not helpless, so no coup de grace) while Aerryl turns her into a pincushion? That would be a...unique...strategy. Realistically, either Indivara or Aerryl will die and Sir Valkin will end up comfortably in second place even though he was neutralized first.
Ditto for Flesh to Stone. It's at least as permanent as death; each can be fixed by a fifth level spell!
Pretty sure that ruling went the other way as far as CDG on the bands...but no, she burrows into the ground with him and either kills him there or leaves him to suffocate while she hunts Aerryl. Killing blow is accounted for, andyah if Indi decides to let him suffocate and goes after Aeryl, then she risks taking third instead of second. If she kills him, she takes absolute second and possibly first. I have no problem with that, but the only magic item of is type in the game is a bad example.
It just means that you write tactics to account for killing, not wounding to unconsciousness.
I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but it would cause a fairly substantial change in tactics for hunter fights.
If we were to go with the defeated=dead option, what about Usurpator's concerns: in a Hunter fight, rendering your non-target unconscious and then killing your target, or healing up your non-target so that you can take them as your own target later?
I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but it would cause a fairly substantial change in tactics for hunter fights.
As long as we allow healing of unconscious characters, thats a potential occurance. It could happen under the rules we've been working with since I got here. It seems to me that one isn't going away.
I'm more bothered by hogarth's note about Flesh to Stone and the like. If only there were an easy way to simply count those as "dead" and be done with it...
Zevox
As long as we allow healing of unconscious characters, thats a potential occurance. It could happen under the rules we've been working with since I got here. It seems to me that one isn't going away.
I'm more bothered by hogarth's note about Flesh to Stone and the like. If only there were an easy way to simply count those as "dead" and be done with it...
Zevox
Yeah, that one bugs me, too. We may just have to add a special clause for spells that cause permanent incapacitation without technically killing*. Fortunately, there aren't many effects like that. The only things that make it truly problematic are that 1) Stone to Flesh has a standard-action casting time, unlike Raise Dead (and even Break Enchantment) which aren't feasible to cast during combat, and 2) Even Baleful Polymorph, Decerebrate, and the like still leave the subject in a condition where you can kill them.
*Or perhaps just effects that transmute the target into an object.
I do not think allies are devalued in any way, they will still be a powerful factor.
But as I said before, death = defeat is fine with me for one on one fights, it just runs into a few problems with Hunter and FFA fights. We can just keep have seperate defeat criteria for each, no?
And yes, dead is not good as a criteria, it should be replaced by a extensive list of 'defeated' conditions. On the other hand, we still have the 10-round max. delay criterium. If a Gladiator (for whatever reason) is unable to take offensive action after such a time, he is considered disqualified. So, defeat = death or inability to take offensive action after 10 rounds of non-action have passed (regardless if allies are still in the fight and might cure the gladiator).
The only things that make it truly problematic are that 1) Stone to Flesh has a standard-action casting time, unlike Raise Dead (and even Break Enchantment) which aren't feasible to cast during combat, and 2) Even Baleful Polymorph, Decerebrate, and the like still leave the subject in a condition where you can kill them.
Note that Psionic Revivify has a standard action manifesting time and is not terribly expensive -- it's quite feasible to use in combat.
Note that Psionic Revivify has a standard action manifesting time and is not terribly expensive -- it's quite feasible to use in combat.
'Death' simply is not a good criterium for being considered defeated. There are loads of exceptions, like undead which are already.... dead. So you can't kill them, just destroy them.
Casting times are also poor measures of safety. I have used Limited Wish in real games to get around some of the more restrictive casting times. Awaken in 1 round instead of 24 hours casting time, no prob.
I think if we do not use the 'unable to return to the fight on his own' criterium, we should use the 'has been unable or unwilling to take offense action for 10 consecutive rounds' as criterium.
Which means that allies would have 10 rounds to get their master back into the fight, if they can. If they fail their master is disqualified regardless of his actual status (dead, petrified, reduced to 0 Str, banished, destroyed, insane, bound & chained, whatever.....)
I think if we do not use the 'unable to return to the fight on his own' criterium, we should use the 'has been unable or unwilling to take offense action for 10 consecutive rounds' as criterium.
Which means that allies would have 10 rounds to get their master back into the fight, if they can. If they fail their master is disqualified regardless of his actual status (dead, petrified, reduced to 0 Str, banished, destroyed, insane, bound & chained, whatever.....)
I came up with an almost identical criterion, although I would have phrased it as "if a gladiator hasn't performed any action other than a free action for 10 rounds, he's disqualified". I ended up rejecting it because it's quite possible to be dazed or stunned (say) for 10 rounds but still recover.
I came up with an almost identical criterion, although I would have phrased it as "if a gladiator hasn't performed any action other than a free action for 10 rounds, he's disqualified". I ended up rejecting it because it's quite possible to be dazed or stunned (say) for 10 rounds but still recover.
While true I still think that a gladiator should be disqualified if he were stunned, dazed, petrified or whatever for 10 or more rounds. If you don't try to engage in combat for 10 rounds (willingly, unwillingly for whatever reason) the fight should be ended.
If not, you could have gladiators self-stun (so to speak) themselves, recover in 30 minutes or so (or have their ally heal them after said time), and then engage in the fight just to have their opponent's buff expire or mess up their tactics. Obviously such ploys are against the spirit of the rules, therefore my unable/unwilling clause. If a gladiator caused another gladiator to be totally disabled for 10 rounds or more, I think the opponent should be granted victory.
Case in point. Wizard A casts Stone to Flesh on flying wizard B, wizard B fails save. Fly spell causes stoned wizard to keep hovering in the air. Wizard A pelts the hovering stone barrier with attacks, but has not the spells or weaponry to destroy the floating statue nor take flight himself. What happens? Draw? Not according to me, after 10 rounds I think the petrified wizard should be disqualified. Other example: gladiator A paralyzes invisible gladiator B, and then goes on to engage gladiator C but loses and is killed. Now gladiator C needs to kill A, unfortunately he has no means of detecting invisibility and no way to know the location of gladiator A. Should the Pitlord have him spent dozens of rounds trying nearly impossible Spot checks all around the map in hopes of finding gladiator A before the invisibility/paralysis wears off? Not to me, I think A should be disqualified if he does not manage to recover (through own means or through allies) within those 10 rounds.
Additionally, it might be possible for a gladiator to make only free actions and still actively trying to engage in combat. One of my drawing-board builds uses free actions to move around, for example. 10 consecutive rounds of such isn't likely, but still possible.
If the fact that they are immobilized is not up to their abilities - they should not be disqualified.
If you're using flesh to stone & don't have a plan for how to destroy a statue, then I'd say you deserve what you get.
Hmm you can CDG a someone turned to stone...
Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).
Flesh to Stone dosen't make a person immune to criticals... So whats the problem... may take a few hits.. may have people spend gold to have a weapon made of Adamantine.. may just say WTF i can't hurt this guy... i screwed up.. (besides how many level 12 casters do you know)
Then it's a draw, same as any similar situation with two gladiators unable to hurt each other. If you use Temporal Stasis on your victim and are unable to release him/her/it, then you have effectively forced a draw when you follow the 'death/destroyed' rule.
Well that just sounds a bit silly to me. Do you guys mean that medusae don't beat their opponents? Or gorgons?
Do we really have to pick the route where we must chop our enemies to thumb-sized pieces, then sink them into acid and then put the container to priso to 1000 years, just to make sure that the opponent stays that way?
I really feel that forcing the opponent into a state where he can't do anything should be enough. Just look at the number of fights where the winner has been decided by other means than plain death. Have they all been judged mistakenly?
I understand where you are going. You want to find a wording that leaves no room for different intreperations. I think that all the pitlords are able to judge when the fight is over for the other participant - as long as we have guidelines on how to deal with allies.
Anyway, I'm fine with the ruling that is made.
Once you are subject to flesh to stone, you are no longer a creature. You become an object. Objects are obviously immune to critical hits.
OK let's try and make some headway on this issue.
The basic question is: How do we define defeated?
I think we can use the following definition:
"A character is defeated when it reaches an incapacitated state that the character, or allies, is incapable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle."
"A character is defeated when it reaches an incapacitated state that the character, or allies, is incapable of reversing. When defeated, any surviving allies of the defeated character will leave the battle."
That sounds good to me.
I'm willing to trust our pitlords on this.
Sauro, you're off on the Owl: it's a legal leadership cohort by ECL 8. Being CR 3, it would have been a legal purchasable ally at ECL 7. Not a big difference, especially considering the Leadership one would have elite stats (and would be considered CR 4). Of course, a feat is a much greater price to pay than 5,000 gp for a purchased adult, but then the feat lets you improve it for "free" (including class levels, which makes a tremendous difference).
The griffon is a much better example: it would make a legal cohort at ECL 12, but can be used at ECL 8 by our rules. Even counting the +1 CR for eliteness, that's a 3-level difference. And I'll certainly agree that a griffon is a potent ally through ECL 10. Note also that an adult costs 8500 gp. (And it's worth mentioning the Bronze Griffon, which costs only 1500 gp more, can probably be used in all three fights anyway, and can even be re-used if killed, plus it only penalizes your rewards if you bring it in to a fight prebuffed. And it can even be crafted for a mere 5000 gp at as early as ECL 11!).
So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR).
Looking at Sauro's other concerns, regarding Handle Animal: True, a druid needs to be level 16 to get a tyrannosaurus (with Link and Share Spells, both potent, potent bonuses). But they can get an ape or black bear (CR 2) at level 4, and a brown bear or rhinoceros (CR 4) at level 7. The problem is that animal CR slows down in scale; even the legendary tiger caps out at CR 10 mainly because it's not too bright and can't fly. For druids, that's a smaller problem, but CR stops being an adequate measure of power for an animal that's guided and equipped by an intelligent PC.
Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table.
Clearly we don't allow anyone to buy any thing or ally they want at any level. The game expects the GM to decide what's available at any given level, and CoCo uses our allies coefficient to limit what allies you can have at any given level. If gold alone were the restriction, there would be self raised giant eagles and spider eaters at ECL3. According to the core rules as you say, these allies should be available for our ECL3 gladiators. However this argument is just preposterous. We should not just use gp value as the sole limiting factor in what characters can have. We can and should exercise some sense of judgment and apply a rule more restricting than just what you can afford with your pile of gold.
I think that an ECL limit in line with what the leadership feat allows is a fantastic rule of thumb to help set a reasonable limit on access to allies.
I agree with you here whe should not let make new rules when we have a guidline we can follow in the core rules. When a class ability let you get that ally earlier, for instance with a paladin special mount it shouldn't mean it is open game for every class with diploamcy/handle animal allies.
Sauro, you're off on the Owl: it's a legal leadership cohort by ECL 8. Being CR 3, it would have been a legal purchasable ally at ECL 7. Not a big difference, especially considering the Leadership one would have elite stats (and would be considered CR 4). Of course, a feat is a much greater price to pay than 5,000 gp for a purchased adult, but then the feat lets you improve it for "free" (including class levels, which makes a tremendous difference).
The griffon is a much better example: it would make a legal cohort at ECL 12, but can be used at ECL 8 by our rules. Even counting the +1 CR for eliteness, that's a 3-level difference. And I'll certainly agree that a griffon is a potent ally through ECL 10. Note also that an adult costs 8500 gp. (And it's worth mentioning the Bronze Griffon, which costs only 1500 gp more, can probably be used in all three fights anyway, and can even be re-used if killed, plus it only penalizes your rewards if you bring it in to a fight prebuffed. And it can even be crafted for a mere 5000 gp at as early as ECL 11!).
So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR).
I don't like that allies can be advancent with only a gold and credit cost. It totally breaks the balance of the game and as others have said it is still a game where gladiators face off against each other not against the gladiator who sits back and have his allies fight his battle. If someone uses leadership for such an ally he is paying with a feat for it while the purchased variant only has to invest gold this not fair I think.
Looking at Sauro's other concerns, regarding Handle Animal: True, a druid needs to be level 16 to get a tyrannosaurus (with Link and Share Spells, both potent, potent bonuses). But they can get an ape or black bear (CR 2) at level 4, and a brown bear or rhinoceros (CR 4) at level 7. The problem is that animal CR slows down in scale; even the legendary tiger caps out at CR 10 mainly because it's not too bright and can't fly. For druids, that's a smaller problem, but CR stops being an adequate measure of power for an animal that's guided and equipped by an intelligent PC.
Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table.
Can't we compare wich animals are available to a druid to come up with a rule for handle animal allies and make a ruling based on that. I don't have my books with me now but I think that would come the closest to what is balanced and what not.
-Sjiggie
Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table.
One idea that was proposed in the past is having characters with non-class allies fight in a division corresponding to the total EL of the character + allies. For instance, an ECL 3 character with a CR 1 light warhorse is an EL 4 encounter, so the "team" could fight in the level 4 division; similarly, an ECL 6 character with an ECL 4 cohort would fight in the level 7 division. We already allow teams to fight at a division above them, so allowing it for a character + allies isn't a big stretch.
One idea that was proposed in the past is having characters with non-class allies fight in a division corresponding to the total EL of the character + allies. For instance, an ECL 3 character with a CR 1 light warhorse is an EL 4 encounter, so the "team" could fight in the level 4 division; similarly, an ECL 6 character with an ECL 4 cohort would fight in the level 7 division. We already allow teams to fight at a division above them, so allowing it for a character + allies isn't a big stretch.
...yes it is. Do we really need to go through this argument again? I thought we'd closed the book on this one last time. That just isn't a feasible solution, for plenty of reasons I'm sure you recall.
So for purchased allies, again, my only concern is advancement and customization. I think +1 effective CR per HD would solve the former nicely; customization should perhaps be nixed entirely, and I'm not sure what to do about eliteness (probably nix that too, or add +2 CR).
The advancement thing I'd be fine with.
Elite Array... eh, I don't think its that big a deal as-is personally (plus our current rules for handling it are the core ones), but if you really want to change it I'd be fine with +2 CR.
Customization I don't think should be removed outright - theres a few ways to abuse it (IUS/Deflect Arrows/Improved Grapple on large allies chiefly), but far more that I'd see as acceptable (Flying mounts getting Flyby Attack/Hover/Wingoever/etc, for instance). Perhaps create a list of acceptable feats that can be customized with? I'd be happy to make such a list if that were acceptable.
Since Handling Animals is part of core rules, there should be a mechanic for it. But I'm thinking that we need to replace the CR-based limitation with one based on either HD or some quasi-arbitrary table.
Hm, perhaps. Like I said, I don't think they're a problem as-is though. Seriously, the best uses we've seen of it are Dire Bats and Hippogriffs. Once the advancing rules are changed, I don't think anything in our present HA rules are a problem except for the Legendary animals.
Zevox
...yes it is. Do we really need to go through this argument again? I thought we'd closed the book on this one last time. That just isn't a feasible solution, for plenty of reasons I'm sure you recall.
The only compelling reason I remember was Caterane saying "We're not going to do this."
If we can have teams of PCs, we can have teams of PCs and NPCs.
The only compelling reason I remember was Caterane saying "We're not going to do this."
If we can have teams of PCs, we can have teams of PCs and NPCs.
The fact that characters are allowed to choose whether to bring allies in and we don't want to take that away?
The fact that you'd have characters getting paired in different leagues perhaps weekly depending on whether they brought allies or not?
The fact that any method of resolving the above results in far more trouble for Pitlords than its worth?
Come on now, you can't tell me you don't remember things like that. Those are just the most prominent reasons, too.
Zevox
The fact that characters are allowed to choose whether to bring allies in and we don't want to take that away?
The fact that you'd have characters getting paired in different leagues perhaps weekly depending on whether they brought allies or not?
The fact that any method of resolving the above results in far more trouble for Pitlords than its worth?
Come on now, you can't tell me you don't remember things like that. Those are just the most prominent reasons, too.
I remember them -- I just didn't find them compelling at all. Why is it so difficult to have the player list the league in which he wishes to compete in the title line of his post? It's a trivial thing to do.
I remember them -- I just didn't find them compelling at all. Why is it so difficult to have the player list the league in which he wishes to compete in the title line of his post? It's a trivial thing to do.
The real issue seemed to be with people who like mounted characters but don't want to pay for the distinct advantage they have over those who wish to fight without allies.
See reason #3 of the above post. Having to check what league each and every character is in when making the pairings each week makes things much tougher on Pitlords.
Zevox
Still thinking about the allies stuff...
In a TT game you won't have opponents deliberately attacking your ally just to spite you.
If I'm up against a zookeeper who is marginally tough, but his Dire Ape is kickin' my butt, you can BET that I'm going to focus on the Dire Ape until it goes down. I won't do it "to spite you", but I'll do it so I don't have to worry about it kicking my butt anymore. If you heal it, I'll kill it until you can't. If you've got Raise Dead, more power to you.
In a TT game foes who do attack your ally will almost always stop just when they're no longer able to fight.
In the CoCo, rounds matter. If the zookeeper is incapable of life-threatening offense because he's so focused on allies that allies become his only strength, then that's his problem. HE gave me enough time to safely take his ally to -10 instead of turning my attention onto him because he's still a credible threat.
In a TT game you're in a party that most likely has a healer, making death much less likely for anybody, allies included, and resurrection is a possibility at upper levels.
Hey, who says that our gladiators don't have access to Raise Dead and other assorted "bring back the dead" spells? I didn't. That's what NPC spellcasting is for. Let the ZOOKEEPER keep 5k in his back pocket for those dead allies.
Because you're in a party in a TT game, your foes have many more important targets to focus on than that horse you're riding.
So that makes it more dangerous to have your character rely so heavily on his mount. So a mounted character has to {gasp} branch out and not be so focused on mounted combat! All the super-charge-paladins will be so heartbroken.
The CoCo is not a TT game.
Zevox
Too true, too true. But it's supposed to somewhat emulate it. Having recycleable allies does not.
To my suddenly enlightened mind, part of the reason purchased allies are so powerful is because they're so expensive to buy, keep, and replace.
Greater power for more risk. It's all so clear!
Now, I'm just a voice here. But to me, this makes sense.
I'm not saying that exactly what I'm proposing is the perfect way (though reading over it, I've managed to imply just that). I expect that you guys (the elders) should mix and match and fix stuff so that it all balances out. But I think that it at least bears thinking about, and that I think that it's a step in the right direction.
TM
Besides, we've in the past avoided allowing your opponent to financially damage you, which such a rules change would do.
Zevox
Seen it happen ... Ask MWB & Macbrea about that one.
With the 3FC it is sometimes worth killing the ally (especially in smaller sized leagues) so that you don't have to fight the ally next time.
If I'm up against a zookeeper who is marginally tough, but his Dire Ape is kickin' my butt, you can BET that I'm going to focus on the Dire Ape until it goes down. I won't do it "to spite you", but I'll do it so I don't have to worry about it kicking my butt anymore. If you heal it, I'll kill it until you can't. If you've got Raise Dead, more power to you.
I was referring to the types of things that some folks would pull just to spite anyone who uses allies (thinking of a certain Elder whose name has a rarely-used letter of the English language in the center of it here) - there are folks out there who, if such a rule were implemented, will decide its better to take all the time in the world to kill your ally/allies than it is to try to win the fight. Not because its a good idea to do so, but just to make sure you lose the ally and every penny you spent on it.
In the CoCo, rounds matter. If the zookeeper is incapable of life-threatening offense because he's so focused on allies that allies become his only strength, then that's his problem. HE gave me enough time to safely take his ally to -10 instead of turning my attention onto him because he's still a credible threat.
See above - not everyone is going to stop attacking the ally when its out of the running for the match, whether it would be smart to do so or not.
Hey, who says that our gladiators don't have access to Raise Dead and other assorted "bring back the dead" spells? I didn't. That's what NPC spellcasting is for. Let the ZOOKEEPER keep 5k in his back pocket for those dead allies.
The resurrection thing was rather a secondary point (but to add, generally the entire party will pitch in when such a thing does become necessary in a TT game, something that also can't happen here). The main point - and this is a big one I think - is that not everyone around here has such easy access to healing as most TT parties do. Some (see: Fighters, Barbarians, Wizards, Psions, Psychic Warriors, etc) have none at all unless they cart around healing potions, which aren't exactly cost-effective, and thus aren't popular.
So that makes it more dangerous to have your character rely so heavily on his mount. So a mounted character has to {gasp} branch out and not be so focused on mounted combat! All the super-charge-paladins will be so heartbroken.
Its already more dangerous, given you can lose your mount and not have one for subsequent fights. And not all mounted combat characters are like that - from my own, Ceilia and Mithos are by no means built around charging, and Istima doesn't even have it as an option, yet they'd all be hurting bad from the loss of their mounts. Istima would be out 6k gp. Ceilia would have to mniquest for hers again (and later on would be out cash when she gets a Griffon), and after his MQ this week Mithos would also have to MQ for his again. To say nothing of the RP implications for the two that actually care about their mounts (or for that matter the RP situation with why the Nimbus suddenly isn't working on those any more).
Too true, too true. But it's supposed to somewhat emulate it. Having recycleable allies does not.
True. Having recycleable allies is one of the balance issues required for the CoCo environment but not the TT one.
Seen it happen ... Ask MWB & Macbrea about that one.
The Brooch of Shielding Aerryl lost? That thing was made to be used up. Tragic that it got used up in one fight, but still only did what it was supposed to do. Not the same as allies.
Good point. The "make him spend those wand charges" strategy.
Expendables the character can choose when to use and when not to use. Expendables are made to be expended. Allies are not made to be expended. Big difference.
Zevox
I was referring to the types of things that some folks would pull just to spite anyone who uses allies (thinking of a certain Elder whose name has a rarely-used letter of the English language in the center of it here) - there are folks out there who, if such a rule were implemented, will decide its better to take all the time in the world to kill your ally/allies than it is to try to win the fight. Not because its a good idea to do so, but just to make sure you lose the ally and every penny you spent on it.
So institute a "no spite" rule. If an ally is knocked out, it can no longer be targeted. If it bleeds to death, that's tough. If you can't heal it, surrender and keep your ally. Combat cleric then 'ports on in and one Cure Minor Wounds later you're golden. You lose the fight, but get to keep your ally.
Barring the odd crit, you'll always have the choice on whether or not to "expend" your purchased ally.
Its already more dangerous, given you can lose your mount and not have one for subsequent fights. And not all mounted combat characters are like that - from my own, Ceilia and Mithos are by no means built around charging, and Istima doesn't even have it as an option, yet they'd all be hurting bad from the loss of their mounts. Istima would be out 6k gp. Ceilia would have to mniquest for hers again (and later on would be out cash when she gets a Griffon), and after his MQ this week Mithos would also have to MQ for his again. To say nothing of the RP implications for the two that actually care about their mounts (or for that matter the RP situation with why the Nimbus suddenly isn't working on those any more).
So buy Ceilia a magic carpet or boots of flying. Istima has to learn powers or have on hand items that boost her AC by 4 and gain her all that extra movement.
WHERE would you find and HOW MUCH would you pay for a permanent item that 1) added a 120' fly speed, 2) added a +4 mod to your AC that stacks with everything, 3) added another set of actions in each round, and 4) can contribute to offense.
It'd be about as much as a bronze griffon and have a limited number of uses a day, I'll tell you that much.
TM
I contend that purchased allies are made to be expended. They're a cost for a benefit.
We disagree on the first.
On the second - aye, they're a gold cost for a benefit. Not a gold cost you're expected to continually pay over and over again, like with scrolls. My point throughout here is that in a TT game, there are many factors that make your allies likely to have long life spans, if they die at all. Here, most (if not all) of those factors are gone, including the most important ones, and so a balancing factor is needed. Enter the Nimbus - solves all the problems in a hurry. Removing it creates more problems than it solves in my eyes, so I will remain solidly against this.
So buy Ceilia a magic carpet or boots of flying. Istima has to learn powers or have on hand items that boost her AC by 4 and gain her all that extra movement.
Istima is a he, and is built around mounted manifesting. I picked his discipline based solely on the fact that it had ride as a class skill even. And to toss a totally RP issue into the mix for him, he participates in the arena because he knows no one gets killed there - if suddenly his beloved mount can be killed there, he'd probably stop competing.
Yeah, I'll stop myself before I get to ranting about this, but suffice to say that in our environment I do not see penalizing those who choose mounted combat as part of their strategy for doing so as a good choice at all.
Zevox
We disagree on the first.
On the second - aye, they're a gold cost for a benefit. Not a gold cost you're expected to continually pay over and over again, like with scrolls. My point throughout here is that in a TT game, there are many factors that make your allies likely to have long life spans, if they die at all. Here, most (if not all) of those factors are gone, including the most important ones, and so a balancing factor is needed. Enter the Nimbus - solves all the problems in a hurry. Removing it creates more problems than it solves in my eyes, so I will remain solidly against this.
Re: the Nimbus - I don't want to do away with it! It's too good of an RP lynchpin that everything hangs on.
Re: factors that kill allies - Just because things are a certain way now doesn't mean they have to stay that way. If we introduce factors into the CoCo environment that protect allies from death but leave a tangible risk that must be taken into account by a purchaser that they might die and have to be replaced, then that'll be a possible step towards solving our problem!
Instituting ally-specific rules such as:
1) if an ally is disabled or unconscious, it can no longer be targeted by any effect that could cause its death.
2) Miniquests are no longer needed to acquire purchasable allies (including corpses).
3) A gladiator can surrender to avoid an ally's death. {Arena Moderator} "Attention Ceilia! Your ally will expire permanently in six seconds! Do you wish to surrender?"
House rules like these make keeping an ally alive something that can be controlled by a player more than 95% of the time (and I'm referring to crits that immediately kill allies).
Istima is a he, and is built around mounted manifesting. I picked his discipline based solely on the fact that it had ride as a class skill even. And to toss a totally RP issue into the mix for him, he participates in the arena because he knows no one gets killed there - if suddenly his beloved mount can be killed there, he'd probably stop competing.
Theres no such thing as a magic carpet here (and it would be totally out-of-character for Ceilia to start using one). And Ceilia wants Boots of Speed and is designed around mounted combat anyway.
I always think Istima is a "she". Sorry about that.
So Istima's built around mounted combat. Two generations of dungeon-delving paladin players say "So what?! We've been forced to leave our mounts outside for twenty years!" If Istima cares more about his mount than his livelyhood, then he should buy a bronze griffon or pay 15 credits for a "bronze pegasus" with a faster move speed.
Re: Magic Carpets - what do you mean, "there's no such things as magic carpets here"? Of course there are! They're in my DMG, anyhow. A wizard with overland flight and CWI can make one for 10,000 gp.
I'm saying that the option is there for us if we make an effort to fit it in.
TM
suffice to say that in our environment I do not see penalizing those who choose mounted combat as part of their strategy for doing so as a good choice at all.
Zevox
Oh, and I can't see this as "penalizing" mounted combat-oriented characters.
All I can see it as is forcing such characters to cope with the "real" problem of keeping and losing mounts.
I'm not suggesting that purchased allies need to fit under the HA restriction. My suggestion is that purchased allies are limited by the normal CR restrictions. Only allies gained using the HA skill (at no gp cost) will be limited to the HA restriction. Go ahead and buy your mounts as long as you are the correct ECL.
All I am saying is that Mac saw that it was worth it to trade wand charges for the win. I know I have written tactics where I have gone after the ally knowing that I might have to face the same character again sometime in the next couple of fights and might not have to fight him and his ally.
With the 3FC it is sometimes worth killing the ally (especially in smaller sized leagues) so that you don't have to fight the ally next time.
Here is the deal on that. A wand of Magic missiles [CL 9] = 6,750gp, which is what Mektos was carrying at the time. The average damage on that wand is 17.5 damage per charge. The cost of each charge is 135gp.
A brooch of shielding has 101 hps protection for 1500gp.
This means the average number of shots to kill a brooch of shielding is 6 or 810gp. It cost me a total of 9 charges to win that fight. So.. 1,215gp to win a 7th level fight.
The reason I state make my opponent expend the charges even when I know i am going to loose a match. I want them to expend the charges. If we allow a player to get to 10th without using up wands then they will have a huge amount of power at the fingertips. Simple surrenders do cost other gladiators in the end.
There is the matter of "bang for your buck".
Class allies are generally infinitely renewable.
Purchased allies are a one-shot kind of thing, renewable only with the expenditure of more gold.
The Nimbus makes purchased allies infinitely renewable.
In a TT game, a high level purchased ally that gets fried by a dragon represents a 3000-6000 gp loss. A class ally that gets fried by a dragon represents a 24 hr ritual to replace said ally (i.e. - nothing). Even the loss of 100 xp is a relatively small price to pay.
What if we made purchased allies "non-refundable" and made the Nimbus not restore them if they die? Now THERE's a limiting factor!
TM
iam sorry to say you are totally wrong here- class allies ARENT tottaly renewable as you say- they are just totally renewable becuase of the nimbus.
normaly (in TT) when a wizard loses his familiar he loses 200 XP/level (or 100/level if he makes DC 15 fort) - that's not so little.
also (in TT) a slain or dismissed familiar cant be replaced for a year and a day.
a paladin who loses the speciel mount - cant resummon it for 30 days and get combat penalties for the duration.
a shadowdancer who loses his shadow companion loses 200 xp/level (100/level if fort DC 15 is made) and cant resummon another 1 for 30 days.
so you see -exept for the druid - there are some massive penalties for losing the class allies so you cant really nerf regular allies without doing the same for the class allies which in effect will eliminate alllies alltoghter from the CoCo.
Also- in response to what you said that allies arent very likely to die unless there is a lucky crit etc and peeps can just surrender in order to avoid losing that 6,000 GP ally that idea create a whole host of problems:
first, it's definently possible that in higher ECLs (just when you get that 6K gold ally) a normal attack will do a lot more then 11 damage in 1 hit (assuming said ally wa left with 1 HP) - EVEN when not aimed at the ally (aoe spells anyone?) so you can kill ally without the fighter even having a chance to surrender. (in the relativly short time i am pitlording - 33 fights so far- i had seen it happen more then once).
second, by forcing fighters to surrender to avoid losing ally you can create a whole new way to win a fight - Cant hit that massive AC?, his saves are 2 high? NO PROBLEM - just attack the ally and eventually the fighter will surrender to avoid losing that 6k investment.
third- sometimes you need to sacrifice an ally to gain time, distance, whatever - for example putting even a weak ally in the way of an enemy in a small map so he has to kill the ally to get to you so you gain some rounds to do whatever - it's a legitemate tactic in this 1v1 situation that wont be possible in your system.
Anyway - I'm still catching up on the discussion. So I'll be back with more later.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Denthians really were just too darn powerful; they still will be if allowed to remain. I always felt TAO was at a disadvantage because they were pretty much forced to expand in that direction. On the other, the RP element is too good to pass up.
Bear this in mind, though: Those districts aren't getting blasted away in a nuclear explosion. They're still there; there's just some reason the guilds can't, or won't, expand that way, just like they won't expand southward into the Laki Wetlands. One darn good reason might be that the Denthians moved out of the forest and conquered Briggehoseler and Sothlarch, expanding their influence into High Traversam and the Luna Marsh. (I just noticed; the world map has it as "Luna Marsh," but the guild stuff has it as "Luna March.") They're too tough to take down with mere guild action now; dislodging them might be a goal for a global event or a campaign.
I really like this idea.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Denthians really were just too darn powerful; they still will be if allowed to remain. I always felt TAO was at a disadvantage because they were pretty much forced to expand in that direction. On the other, the RP element is too good to pass up.
Bear this in mind, though: Those districts aren't getting blasted away in a nuclear explosion. They're still there; there's just some reason the guilds can't, or won't, expand that way, just like they won't expand southward into the Laki Wetlands. One darn good reason might be that the Denthians moved out of the forest and conquered Briggehoseler and Sothlarch, expanding their influence into High Traversam and the Luna Marsh. (I just noticed; the world map has it as "Luna Marsh," but the guild stuff has it as "Luna March.") They're too tough to take down with mere guild action now; dislodging them might be a goal for a global event or a campaign.
Come on! A joint guild mission between TAO and WAR with three or four ECL 10s could take 'em.
I'd take odds against the Denthians if Ceilia at ECL 10, Hood at ECL 10, and two ECL 10 wizards went out there with bad intentions.
TAO and WAR even have a good past history (I've been wanting to spend NEG on improving our relations, but things have been so quiet for so long I didn't wanna throw even that much of a pebble into the Gladosian pond).
EL 13 isn't too tough, IMO. It's a little tough, and darned near impossible by yourself. With help, it could be done.
WAR/TAO/EHTC joint effort? {hmmm}
TM
But more importantly, that district has to go. So the only way to keep the Denthians would be to relocate them, and that would be very uncool to whoever we dumped them on.
(And BTW, TLT and TAO have been planning to take them down jointly as well; it would likely be a 3-way effort between those three guilds at least. Speaking of which... it looks like it's time for TLT to have a word with WAR. Have to think about that for when Zwei is done.)
First of all, the op rules allow no more than 3 characters.
You could form a up to 4 person team. [if you're really dedicated and want to forge 4 people together]
Now, I notice that LOY is actually NG right now, not LG as they claim they are. However, TLT is also NG right now, so making them NG would give us too much of an advantage (especially compared to the Swampers we're removing). So The Loyalists will be LG, EL 9 (representing the bulk of their strength), located in Merisia.
As for their "secondary branch," I'm going to leave the RP factor up to Zevox, parially because Mithos is a built-in reason why the organization might split apart, and partially because his members are half the guild. Their alignment will be LN (again, to make it challenging but not impossible for TAO to move in with them), their EL will be 8, and they'll be located in Kailo.
These groups, and the removal of the three northern districts, will go into effect as of next week, as if they came into existence this week.
Zevox, Hirumajoe, and McJarvis, I invite you to RP the demise of LOY in their thread.
As for their "secondary branch," I'm going to leave the RP factor up to Zevox
Please, don't. You'll recall I was one of those who did express an opinion about making them a PMG, and that was that I'd prefer we didn't. I'd rather they just disband quietly, like the EYE did, and Mithos and Kathren give up on them as failed and move on.
Zevox
Please, don't. You'll recall I was one of those who did express an opinion about making them a PMG, and that was that I'd prefer we didn't. I'd rather they just disband quietly, like the EYE did, and Mithos and Kathren give up on them as failed and move on.
Zevox
Oookay. I'll come up with something, I guess.
I misspoke that no one had strong opinions, but opinions were mixed. Rather, I think that while it would keep complexity down to remove them entirely, it would be both more interesting and more balanced to leave them as PMGs. Besides, we're losing two PMGs, so adding two doesn't really change anything.
I agree that something should fill the vacuum rather than giving away essentially free space with no fight.
I agree that something should fill the vacuum rather than giving away essentially free space with no fight.
But what about the other guilds which have expanded into 3 districts "without a fight".
As far as I can tell, the guildmasters don't want to be engaging in hostilities all that much at this point in time. Hence my desire to disband LOY before this week, since I would have started hostile actions this week. (Admittedly with a rather limited roster, but still, you do what you can).
Actually, what is the point of having ECL 16 PMGs when no group can possibly field an equal ECL force to even contact them, let alone remove them, while others don't have to deal with them at all?
In any case, for as long as I'm around, you're free to use Valen as the basis of a PMG or two. Heck, if you want to use him as the "monster" for them for operations to contact or eliminate any remaining PMG, thats fine too. I'd say just set it to two ECL 9 PMGs, which seems like a reasonable comprimise from full fledged guild to absolutely free. Those are faily easily dealt with in the course of a few weeks, either by contact and negotiation, or by simply removal by high ECL 9-10 characters. It requires the investment of a few weeks, but really thats not all that different from LOY sticking around for a few more weeks then going puff later.
In any case, I need to figure out some RP to let Zevox's characters just cut clean from the group. Death of Lady Mortinella might handle that well (since his LOY characters seem to nobility inspired - and well the remaining Valen is anything but...)
On a mostly unrelated note:
I did like McJarvis' suggestion of a Mercanary "Guild". Not a game playing guild, but a location through which non-guilded characters could sell their services to guilds. Such that you don't need the strongest character roster in order to compete. It'd cost some gold, just like outsources point production and processing costs, related to the ECL of the character. The guild could "pay" the amount of gold earned by the gladiator (I.e. ECL 3 wins pays 900 gp, ECL 3 loses, guild pays 300 gp). Hiring would be a free action. Probably couldn't use them for reactions due to the timing, but being able to use them for operations would still be useful. It also in principle lets you hire "specialists" with skill sets your current characters don't have.
This would make the fact that didn't have enough interest in the guilds themselves. I'm willing to bet more people would interested in one shot work than an actual guild comittment. And if no one does have an interest in it, well, it doesn't really matter all that much. And I could imagine RPing the demise of LOY into such an organization. At which point you could argue PMGs don't result, but rather all the remaining net worth gets delcared neutral and doesn't affect anything (being the RP reason why the districts are now "empty").
On a mostly unrelated note:
I did like McJarvis' suggestion of a Mercanary "Guild". Not a game playing guild, but a location through which non-guilded characters could sell their services to guilds. Such that you don't need the strongest character roster in order to compete. It'd cost some gold, just like outsources point production and processing costs, related to the ECL of the character. The guild could "pay" the amount of gold earned by the gladiator (I.e. ECL 3 wins pays 900 gp, ECL 3 loses, guild pays 300 gp). Hiring would be a free action. Probably couldn't use them for reactions due to the timing, but being able to use them for operations would still be useful. It also in principle lets you hire "specialists" with skill sets your current characters don't have.
This would make the fact that didn't have enough interest in the guilds themselves. I'm willing to bet more people would interested in one shot work than an actual guild comittment. And if no one does have an interest in it, well, it doesn't really matter all that much. And I could imagine RPing the demise of LOY into such an organization. At which point you could argue PMGs don't result, but rather all the remaining net worth gets delcared neutral and doesn't affect anything (being the RP reason why the districts are now "empty").
This Merc guild could be called on par with a theives guild(or chaotic themed guild). No official structure[Or even buildings?], but still a force in Gladius that can be used. It's what the voting originally wanted, it's less paperwork[no weekly actions], and it's not a purely-RP based guild.
On the matter of handle animals, I'm not sure really where the votes fall:
Keeping them unchanged: TelinArtho, Zevox, (MWB)
Modifying them: Sauro, NiQil
I haven't seen a certain position from Vath on the matter and I have seen Zevox and MWB put out suggestions to change them - after stating that they felt they weren't a problem.
The exact details on how to change them are certainly muddied at this point though...
Havn't had much time to do the math on how HA would work out. I'm leaning toward leaving them as is for now. I could see small changes being helpful, but as the rules stand, I'm okay with them.
So officially, I'll call that abstain. Unfortunately that puts us at a tie.
So far there are two suggestions on how to change HA allies.
I'm suggesting total animal HD = HA/2
Zevox has suggested max animal HD = HA/2. Or total animal HD = HA x 2/3
I agree with MWB that custom handle items are a problem. Using total HA score creates issues like that.... hrrmmm.
Late for work... gotta run.
Now, the one question would be, how does this factor in with XP penalties? What about with multiple allies? Do we just keep using CR? If not, the only CR-using allies that are left will be undead, I think (and some weak Planar Allies).
We still need the Max CA mechanic. We cannot get rid of that. If we got rid of that, then we would see a proliferation of multi ally characters who have HA, purchased allies, leadership allies, class feature allies and the whole works each one being under the maximum allowed for that type of ally at that ECL.
Also: while we're at this... should we take the swarms off the list? It's always annoyed me that it's feasible (and in fact not that difficult) to train a swarm of 5,000 bats. I tried to prove this by abusing it with Aerryl, but she hasn't done such a good job with that (she keeps getting paired with area-spell users).
I considered taking them off as well. That's why I moved them higher up the list. Instead of removing them entirely, they go to a spot where the warrior types are more likely to have an energy weapon that can damage them. If you want to take them off, it wouldn't hurt my feelings but I think they are OK at higher ECL when characters are more likely to be able to handle them.
Any of the golems vs Roc at ECL20. Especially when you consider that anything that is larger than large can face some huge penalties on some maps, compounded by a flying house rules - frankly the Roc isn't a great ally in the CoCo except on the plains map and situationally on the arena and city map.
In fact - it might not even be worth including creatures on the ally list that are larger than huge. The cost for them would be high and their benefit so highly situational - that making exceptions for them would be a headache. Even huge creatures are debatable.
I don't understand where the issue really is NiQil.
This method would allow someone with the ability to scribe scrolls, etc to craft expendables during the 3FC. Since the expendables are not usable during the current 3FC we would not be allowing them access to more expendables than they are currently - this would just allow people with scribe scroll to scribe during the 3FC.
In between 3FCs, if they find they are over their allowed amount - they just sell back the excess before the start of the next 3FC.
Like I said - I don't understand your misgivings about this - because all it really does is allows crafters to actually use the free activity to craft during the 3FC - which currently is not really usable.
Now, first, let me clarify. We seem to be talking about two different things. What I am talking about is that the idea seems to be to make the expendable cap count for only the amount you can bring with you in a 3FC, rather than the total you can own at any given time. I am against this, because it allows the possibility of hoarding expendables, regardless of when they are used.
What I am gather from your post is that you are wanting to allow expendables to be listed under a seperate section on the sheet that are not useable in a 3FC, but are still allowed to be listed on the sheet as owned. However, you also state that at the end of the 3FC, if they are over the cap, they would have to sell back the excess that they are over the cap. If that is what we are talking about, then I could support that, and it could even be extended to all items that are crafted as a free activity. However, if we are talking about what I think we are talking about (the first paragraph), then I will oppose that.
The problem I have with this issue is that the whole reason the expendables cap was created is that it is supposed to limit any character's dependability on expendables. With our environment that allows unlimited access to them, the focus needs to be on who has the better character, not who has the better expendables. Apparantly no one else remembers how many thousands of gp of expendables some of our old players used to carry before the cap came around (Cat and KU immediately come to mind). To refresh your memory, go through the old posts in the Training Hall...I believe the posts for those PCs to refund all of their expendables are still there. It was stupid how many expendables they had. Allowing a PC to build up their expendables on their sheet (regardless of whether they can bring them to a fight or not) is exactly what the expendable cap was designed to prevent. I know, because it was my idea.
Oh i understand what your saying, don't get me wrong.. but i think i know whats they are talking about also..
Your allowed to craft items during your 3fc if under 1000 gp value, instead of guarding and money making.. (1 day of crafting) but the items are not usable till after the 3fc, now if they craft say 300 gp of first level spell scrolls, even when their cap is full, right now puts them in violation, with this the cap is not violated since the items aren't accessable, after the 3fc they can refresh their expendables, and any axcess is sold, no harm no foul,
if on their first fight of the 3fc they have anything in their home that would put them over the cap (forgot to sell) then then they are a prison violation and unable to use expendables for the 3fc..
The problem I have with this issue is that the whole reason the expendables cap was created is that it is supposed to limit any character's dependability on expendables.
The expendables cap was created to limit a character's dependability on them *during a fight*. It is not supposed to limit them in any other way. Currently it does.
Allowing a PC to build up their expendables on their sheet (regardless of whether they can bring them to a fight or not) is exactly what the expendable cap was designed to prevent. I know, because it was my idea.
NiQil, you drawing a illogical conclusion. What you are saying is like "encumbrance limits where designed to limit the amount of equipment a character can carry. Allowing a character to build up equipment at home is exactly what the encumbrance limit is designed to prevent."
As far as I know, that is not correct reasoning.
Fact of the matter is, the 3FC combined with crafting rules and expendables limit makes it very hard to craft stuff during the 3FC (which is/was clearly intended by the rules to be possible).
Also, it might cause such a thing as a 'potential violation', which is quite a weird, which might or might not occur based on circumstances the violator has no complete control over.
I think these are unintended side-effect of the new rules, and I just like to fix the side-effects without touching the purpose behind the rule, which I fully support. I don't think anyone here is arguing for allowing more expendables, at least, I haven't seen them.
The major argument (as far as I can see) against introducing a separate section for 'unusable expendables' is that it creates yet another section on an already busy sheet. Any other effects are not unique to it, they are also valid for the way we play it now.
Alternately, you can just make a rule people aren't allowed to craft expendables during a 3FC, which also solves the problems.
Characters must note any expendables they want to keep over their cap in a special section on their sheet titled 'expendables not available'. During a 3FC they can add expendables to this section by crafting, but cannot use or take anything from it. Between 3FC's characters can shift expendables from this sections to other sections on their sheet (like At Home, or in carried Equipment). Of course, they still have to abide by the expendables cap, so they cannot move stuff out of this section that would bring them over their cap. Expendables that cannot be moved out (because they violate the cap) just stay in this section until the time the character can and wants to move them out of the section.
Proposed Rule (rephrased):
Characters must note any expendables they want to keep over their cap in a special section on their sheet titled 'expendables not available'. During a 3FC they can add expendables to this section by crafting, but cannot use or take anything from it. Between 3FC's characters can shift expendables from this sections to other sections on their sheet (like At Home, or in carried Equipment). Of course, they still have to abide by the expendables cap, so they cannot move stuff out of this section that would bring them over their cap. Expendables that cannot be moved out (because they violate the cap) just stay in this section until the time the character can and wants to move them out of the section.
Let me give two examples. Both at ECL 3. One is what I think most of those that have voiced an opinion are agreeing to. The other is what you seem to be proposing and what I oppose.
Example 1: What most seem to agree on
The PC's sheet has three sections. Equipment Carried, At Home and Unavailable.
In fight 1 of this PC's 3FC, he uses x gp in expendables from the Equipment Carried section.
In fight 2 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+1 expendables from the Equipment Carried section.
In fight 3 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x+1 expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y+1 gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+2 expendables from the Equipment Carried section.
Now, in order for this PC to start a new 3FC, the total cap value of all three sections cannot exceed 450 gp. So he shifts y expendables and y+1 expendables to either Equipment Carried or At Home, leaving the Unavailable section empty. If he is now over the cap, he sells whatever is putting him over.
The PC's sheet has three sections. Equipment Carried, At Home and Unavailable.
In fight 1 of this PC's 3FC, he uses x gp in expendables from the Equipment Carried section.
In fight 2 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+1 expendables from the Equipment Carried section.
In fight 3 of this PC's 3FC, he shifts x+1 expendables from At Home to Equipment Carried, crafts y+1 gp in expendables (placing them in the Unavailable section) and uses x+2 expendables from the Equipment Carried section.
Now, in order for this PC to start a new 3FC, the total cap value of all three sections cannot exceed 450 gp. So he shifts y expendables and y+1 expendables to either Equipment Carried or At Home, leaving the Unavailable section empty. If he is now over the cap, he sells whatever is putting him over.
The biggest difference is that what you seem to be proposing is making the Unavailable section not count against the cap at any time, and thereby providing a place where a PC can hoard expendables. I oppose hoarding, as this is the reason the cap was created to begin with. I have no problem with allowing players to exceed the cap if they are crafting things that they can't use yet anyway, as long as they are under the cap at the beginning of their next 3FC.
Thanks NiQil, it's clear why you oppose it now. I'm just really amazed that you would read the intention of the cap rule that way.
Personally I don't think it was ever intended as a measure against hoarding just as I think the encumbrance rule isn't intended to function against hoarding.
Similarly, I think that hoarding things that you can't use in fight and doesn't affect a fights in any way doesn't serve any purpose. The power of expendable users was not determined by the fact that they had a hoard of expendables, it was determined by the fact that they had a hoard of expendables *available to them in the fight*.
I still can't figure out how you think hoarding things that aren't available in fights are upsetting any power balance in any way. Sorry if I seem dense or something, I just don't know how it's gonna have a significant impact expect for forcing crafting gladiators to sit out a week to craft expendables they want for next fight.
Look at it this way: every non-crafting gladiators have an infinitely large 'not available' section. They can just buy *anything* they need prior to the next 3FC by paying gold. It's like they have a virtual warehouse of stuff (the Gladius shops) available to them. You are against this as well? Do you think that being able to choose from a large hoard of stuff just by paying gold just prior to a 3FC is somehow unbalancing.
Crafting gladiators can't craft directly prior the 3FC like with those that buy expendables (at least, not with sitting out a week), so they must craft in advance. Not knowing what they are going to use up in the next fight already puts them at a disadvantage, since they might scribe a scroll of invisibility, while they end up not using the scroll they intended to replace. If they also have to face an expendables cap, while what they craft really doesn't interfere in any way with the current 3FC, I don't think that is intended.
NiQil, I sincerely hope you can see that I'm truly confused about why you are objecting so on the basis of 'the intention of the rule', I just am unable to see what your issue is.
1) Making it fall over from subdual isn't that easy to begin with
2) Expecting every gladiator to know this....?
Heal of 0 ranks will tell you a creature is unconscious for free. Putting 100 more sword blows into it without the arena saying the match is over will inform the character that something else needs to be done. Choking it til it sufficates will set off the arena to tell them they are done.
I would assume gladiators know when they are allowed to leave the arena. There is something that tells them the fight is over. They have been doing this for sometime. And knocking over a troll with subdual is about as hard as knocking over the tattoo wielding warrior. So, yeah.
The gladiator is assumed to be playing to the rules of the arena. Not to rules of normal combat. This is represented by the delay penalty and the fact you loose the match if you find yourself out of the arena for 10 rounds.
as an alternative from monsters why not just pick mercenaries or retired gladiators from the coco roster.
a)blow all it's spells/pps power per day on 1 fight.
B)buy full load of expendbles for 1 fight and use it (and yes i know they are supposed to be bought as for 3 weeks but that doesnt happen - look at lord lorian's fight this week- troll used 1000 GP worth of expendbles).
C)have significan numeriacal adventage on gladiators - in some maps haveing a lot of weak monsters is an adcantage (prevent evasion tactics etc)
D)monsters are over optimized (the one with gear) above and beyond the reasonble and more like a gladiator will.
e)the pitlord more often then not - will react to situations that come up in the fight despite not having written them in tactics
f)a fighter rarely know what he is facing exacly. the monster ALWAYS KNOW. (and yes i know you arent supposed to look at the char but that usually isnt the case)
there are many more reasons - these just what i wrote in a flash-
my suggestions on improvments-
1)make all monster fights in seperate thread fights since they are essentially gladiator VS pitlord and the pitlord iam afraid ISNT nutral.
2)make it easier to identify monsters or give full knowladge prior to fight.
3)make monsters subject to the 1/3 rule (to compensate give NPC's which are classed 32/36 point buy).
4)make monster to be able to buy only 1/3 of teh normal expendble cap or Buy per ECL but can use only 1/3 of it (to make sure monsters dont blow all their expendbles on 1 fight
f)a fighter rarely know what he is facing exacly. the monster ALWAYS KNOW. (and yes i know you arent supposed to look at the char but that usually isnt the case)
From what I heard you are supposed to look at the char and then write tactics, so it's even worse.
Just suppose we would do PC fights like this:
1. Your opponent with full knowledge of your stats and equipment.
2. Your opponent not hampered by the 1/3rd rule.
3. Your opponent not concerned with conserving expendables.
4. Your opponent fighting in a league equal to his CR
5. You with no knowledge about your opponent.
6. You hampered by the 1/3rd rule.
7. You concerned with conserving expendables.
8. You fighting in a league equal to your ECL.
And then the fight is run by the Pitlord who also created and wrote tactics for your opponent.
If PCs were to fight like this, it would be obvious that the first one would win most encounters barring luck or some extraordinary other circumstance. If monster fights have 50/50 odds, that would seem to indicate that monsters aren't trying as hard to win their fights as PCs do. Probably Pitlords are lenient in choosing equipment, and lenient in writing tactics.
Personally I don't like it that Pitlord leniency has such a big impact on monster fight results.
1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below.
2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows:
- 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth.
- The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided.
3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead.
Thoughts?
I like MWB's suggestion. Especially the 10% expendables cap & set list of expendables. Might want to set a CL range in there. [& the types of chars that can craft them] Might want to add some tattoos on there for certain types of critters. [ I think a lion could use a tattoo if trained]
Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following:
Thoughts?
It is a start, (EDIT: and an excellent start at that) but I prefer my earlier suggestions as well as suggestions by others (like the MQ option).
If we are continuing the 'experiment' to make monster fights fair and/or more interesting, I suggest that until we find the right balance we institute a temporary 'No Monster Fight' option for those that don't desire to participate in such experiments.
I think a lion could use a tattoo if trained
True, but if it was trained, you would have a master ... if it isn't trained ... then is it really going to let someone inscribe a tattoo with sharp pointy objects?
). Lorians fight this week was merely a matter of not having proper limitations in place regarding equipment.]True, but if it was trained, you would have a master ... if it isn't trained ... then is it really going to let someone inscribe a tattoo with sharp pointy objects?
I'm not sure that's how psionic tattoo's are delivered. [by needle, that is]
1) Do we use the standard feats listed in the MM, or is that editable? I ran the standard in Lorian's fight because I wanted to give him a chance.
2) Point buy-> we just use stats straight out of the book, right?
Standard list of equipment:
I think it would be fair to instruct the pitlord to equip the monster to deal with a number of different issues. MWB once told me in chat that you need a plan for invisibility, flight[ranged], melee, and high saves-> and once you've got those covered you're ready for most fights. [This is VERY paraphrased-> he might have had a different list even]
"Guidelines" of what to prepare the monster for, regardless of the gladiator at hand, would be a good rule of thumb to tell if a monster was too tweaked vs a specific opponent.
edit-> RE: Standard potion list: Enlarge person is not an issue since most monsters are not valid targets. Tat's of expansion are, and potions of alterself are definately in that category. Most of the "standard potion list" in the SRD should be OK, though, and I'd suggest we point to that with a "banned list" rather than making an extensive list of things that are allowed.
Also, we need a firm ruling on whether monsters can use credits.
edit#2-> Man, sorry for all the posts. Boring day at work.
Experimentation isn't a bad idea. I'd be willing to run some mock-monster fights[or just some real ones in the arena, as I've opted to do pitlord-wise] to see how fully fleshed out monsters do. [All statistics we can gather are ultimately flawed, since many fights are just given away due to the pitlords not wanting to deal with gladiators.]
I would argue the exact opposite -- basing results on how one pitlord handles monsters is ultimately flawed, since that pitlord will not be handling 100% of monster fights in practice. Unless you're volunteering for the new position of Monsterlord (tm), that is.
I would argue the exact opposite -- basing results on how one pitlord handles monsters is ultimately flawed, since that pitlord will not be handling 100% of monster fights in practice. Unless you're volunteering for the new position of Monsterlord (tm), that is.
Given that there are only 1->3 monster fights a week, that's not a terrible suggestion. Perhaps two people with a similar mindset could volunteer for the jobs & keep an eye on each other[to prevent arbitrary decisions]
Questions regarding monster fights-> [I've asked these before, but always forget the answer...]
1) Do we use the standard feats listed in the MM, or is that editable? I ran the standard in Lorian's fight because I wanted to give him a chance.
2) Point buy-> we just use stats straight out of the book, right?
Unless the monster has class levels or is elite, you use the stats as they are printed. And if it has feats listed (always true except for dragons and monsters with extra HD), you use those.
Standard list of equipment:
I think it would be fair to instruct the pitlord to equip the monster to deal with a number of different issues. MWB once told me in chat that you need a plan for invisibility, flight[ranged], melee, and high saves-> and once you've got those covered you're ready for most fights. [This is VERY paraphrased-> he might have had a different list even]
"Guidelines" of what to prepare the monster for, regardless of the gladiator at hand, would be a good rule of thumb to tell if a monster was too tweaked vs a specific opponent.
That's exactly what I was going for, which is why I went in the direction of creating a list of things to choose from rather than a list of prohibitions. First of all, it simplifies the pitlord's job by not having to look through the SRD/DMG for items. Second, it forces the pitlord to prepare for multiple situations--if Prot. Evil potions are standard equipment, the pitlord doesn't even have to consider its value as an anti-summon measure. Everything on the draft I proposed is either a standard buff to augment the creature's existing abilities, or a countermeasure against a frequently-occurring threat.
As for taking monster fights off the docket entirely, even temporarily: I just don't see how. Many can be avoided by using interleague fights and FFAs, but that's not an option at ECL 3. Unless we always have one (and exactly one, unless it's randomly determined) ECL 3 PC that can be taken off the pairings in the event of an odd number of gladiators, there's going to be a monster fight.
In any event, they still need to be balanced for the sake of quests, especially guild operations.
Re: credits: I knew there was something I forgot to mention... editing it in.
We've talked about but not decided on anything to do with:
Diplomacy allies,
Handle animal allies,
purchased allies
advanced allies
allies with a CR and no ECL
Monster fights (removing them or not)
Monster equipment (standard lists)
And I think there were a couple other things brought up in the midst as well. So what's on the table for discussion right now?
Handle Animal allies: no change at present--when I left, there was nothing remotely resembling a consensus on the "list." Same goes for the other allies.
Monster fights: Still possible, but I'll try to do pairings in such a way as to avoid them as much as possible, for the time being, since it seems more people dislike than like them.
Monster equipment: not much headway; I proposed a draft a few posts ago, which there's been little comment on yet.
Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following:
*Snip*
Thoughts?
I like the proposed suggestions. It certainly limits the permutations you have to consider as a pitlord. And you can make some basic assumptions no matter the monster as a player (i.e. it either will fly naturally or will have a potion of fly at the higher ECLs). At the moment, I don't see a down side to any of these.
Diplomacy allies: nonexistent, at the moment. I'm encouraging mercenary submissions.
In this case, you need to edit the rules thread ASAP. I just set my characters to ready for the arena after checking the rules thread, and now you're telling me that some of them are in violation of the rules that are not yet edited.
In this case, you need to edit the rules thread ASAP. I just set my characters to ready for the arena after checking the rules thread, and now you're telling me that some of them are in violation of the rules that are not yet edited.
Yeah, I didn't have time before I left for vacation. Some of the references to Diplomacy allies are gone, but there are just so many! I just finished with the roster (finally), so I'll take another look.
This allies thing is still open for discussion. The following is my best so far considering all the various comments from the elders on the issue. So what I've been able to work out is a mechanism where the Minimal ECL Requirement replaces the CR+4 mechanic and the ECL+2 mechanic. The allies gained by things like planar ally and animate undead are so monstrously numerous that a list is not practical right now. I looked into it, and there would be at least a thousand possible things to put on that list. I haven't gotten that far.
I'm totally open to specific suggestions or comments. The general theme here is that our CoCo house rule allies and purchased allies should come back down to earth and be just a step behind allies gained by class features and feats. To summarize: diplomacy will be worked into mercenaries some how (not yet worked out), HA allies will come into line with being a bit behind the druid cohort at any level, purchased allies will be balanced as best we can considering the general CoCo environment and the druid cohorts, and advanced HD or customized feats on HA or purchased allies won't be available (although leadership and class allies could do that).
Allies I
[b]Ally Categories and Acquiring Allies[/b] [INDENT]Many characters make use of the assistance of allies, be it a mount that bears a paladin into combat, or the sorcerer's cleric cohort who heals him during the fight. They are divided into several categories (see below) which determines how the allies is being handled in the Core Coliseum. For a full list of all available allies see [post=6466732]FAQ: Allies II[/post].
[b]Class Feature Allies:[/b]
Druids/Rangers receive an animal companion, Paladins receive a special mount, Wizards/Sorcerers receive a familiar, and some Prestige Classes allow for class allies. These class feature allies do not require a share of the character's xp or gold, nor do they count against the ally power limit (see below for details on maximum allies allowed). The exceptions are Planar Cohorts (for Thaumaturgs) and Thralls (for Thrallherds). Both these ally types count against your capacity of how many allies you can bring in; they do, however, not require a share of xp or gold, just like all class allies.
Unless otherwise noted the character must go on a Quest to acquire a class ally. Class feature allies use the 25 pt buy to determine ability scores if they have a LA listed (planar cohort, thrall), else, if the ally has no LA (paladin mount, wizard familiar, etc) it uses the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever bonus it gets from being a class ally. [INDENT]Allies of my Ally: It might of course happen that you have an ally who has class allies on his own, like in case of a druid cohort who has an animal companion, or a thaumaturg's planar cohort might be a thrallherd whose thralls are sorcerers with familiars, and so on. To prevent the creation of a long string of allies, leadership-like class allies (thaumaturg's cohort and thralls) of your class ally do always count against your maxCA (see below). That means, you may use your cohort's class ally but it counts against your limit and might prevent to make use of your own cohort. If the class ally of your ally is a non-ECL creature, it can enter for free and does not count against your limit.[/INDENT]
[b]Purchased Allies:[/b]
If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirements, you may buy any of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table. You do not have to go on a Quest to acquire these animals. You simply pay the price and they are yours if your ECL is sufficient. Bought animals are trained if listed as such while Exotic allies always come untrained. They count for calculating what additional allies you may bring in and you suffer xp and gp penalties for using them. The animals that can be bought are the following: guard dog, riding dog, donkey, heavy horse, light horse, heavy warhorse, light warhorse, pony, and war pony. Bought animals always use the abilities presented in their Monster Manual entry. You can also buy other types of allies although these are much more expensive. These Exotic Allies include the Giant Eagle, Griffon, Hippogriff, Giant Owl, Pegasus, Pseudodragon, Spidereater, Flesh Golem, Clay Golem, Stone Golem (incl. Greater Stone Golem), Iron Golem, Psion-Killer and the Shield Guardian. See [post=6466732]FAQ: Allies II[/post] for more information on these exotic allies.
[b]Handle Animal Allies:[/b]
If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirement, you may tame and train an animal with the Handle Animal Skill. This requires two steps. First, you must find the animal in question. You will need to take part in a [post=6466804]Miniquest[/post] for this purpose (or a regular 3-week Quest if you want) and your Handle Animal skill and ECL must be sufficient for this animal (see [post=6466732]FAQ: Allies II[/post] for a complete list). Once aquired, it can be used although those animals are always untrained. The second step is training the animal. This requires a certain amount of time (see the FAQ: Skills Handle Animal description for details on training and time), and a Handle Animal check, which you must take 10 on. Once both steps are completed, you have your animal ally. Note that all Handle Animal allies require a share of your xp and gold if they participate in a fight (see below for details). Handled Animals always use the abilities presented in their entry.
[b]Leadership Allies (Cohorts):[/b]
The Leadership feat is one of the most common ways to get a cohort. You need to go on a quest to find your Leadership cohort. Note that there are two important differences between Leadership cohorts in the Core Coliseum and the rules written down in the PHB. Firstly, Leadership cohorts do not keep track of XP, and do not use the method of advancement outlined in the PHB. Instead, they are always at the maximum level allowed by your Leadership score (see DMG,p106). For example, if your Leadership score is 17, your cohort would be level 12. You may have your cohort be lower in level than what would be allowed by your Leadership score, if you like; however, you cannot "regress" your cohort in levels. If, for example, your cohort was level 10 at one point, then he may never drop below level 10 from then on. If your Leadership score drops for some reason, and is no longer sufficient for your cohort, then your cohort will not help you in any way until you get your Leadership score back up again. Secondly, Leadership cohorts, like most other cohorts, require a share of your XP and gold (see below). All leadership allies use the 25 pt-buy method to determine ability scores.
[INDENT]Leadership Modifiers: Special circumstances may modify your Leadership score (DMG,p106/107). If you have a familiar, a special mount, or an animal companion (all from a class feature), your leadership score drops by 2. If you recruit a cohort of different alignment, your leadership score drops by 1. If you caused the death of your cohort (outside the Nimbus only), your leadership score permanently drops by 1 per deceased cohort. Other modifiers, like Reputation or Leader behaviour do not apply yet. However, sooner or later we will introduce Special Events and Reputation of Characters which may influence your leadership score further. [/INDENT]
[b]Spells, Powers, and Abilities:[/b]
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. You must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement of CR+4 for these allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA.
[b]Ally Categories and Acquiring Allies[/b] [INDENT]Many characters make use of the assistance of allies, be it a mount that bears a paladin into combat, or the sorcerer's cleric cohort who heals him during the fight. They are divided into several categories (see below) which determines how the allies is being handled in the Core Coliseum. For a full list of all available allies see [post=6466732]FAQ: Allies II[/post].
[b]Class Feature Allies:[/b]
Druids/Rangers receive an animal companion, Paladins receive a special mount, Wizards/Sorcerers receive a familiar, and some Prestige Classes allow for class allies. These class feature allies do not require a share of the character's xp or gold, nor do they count against the ally power limit (see below for details on maximum allies allowed). The exceptions are Planar Cohorts (for Thaumaturgs) and Thralls (for Thrallherds). Both these ally types count against your capacity of how many allies you can bring in; they do, however, not require a share of xp or gold, just like all class allies.
Unless otherwise noted the character must go on a Quest to acquire a class ally. Class feature allies use the 25 pt buy to determine ability scores if they have a LA listed (planar cohort, thrall), else, if the ally has no LA (paladin mount, wizard familiar, etc) it uses the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever bonus it gets from being a class ally. [INDENT]Allies of my Ally: It might of course happen that you have an ally who has class allies on his own, like in case of a druid cohort who has an animal companion, or a thaumaturg's planar cohort might be a thrallherd whose thralls are sorcerers with familiars, and so on. To prevent the creation of a long string of allies, leadership-like class allies (thaumaturg's cohort and thralls) of your class ally do always count against your maxCA (see below). That means, you may use your cohort's class ally but it counts against your limit and might prevent to make use of your own cohort. If the class ally of your ally is a non-ECL creature, it can enter for free and does not count against your limit.[/INDENT]
[b]Purchased Allies:[/b]
If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirements, you may buy any of the nine basic animals listed in the "Goods and Services" table. You do not have to go on a Quest to acquire these animals. You simply pay the price and they are yours if your ECL is sufficient. Bought animals are trained if listed as such while Exotic allies always come untrained. They count for calculating what additional allies you may bring in and you suffer xp and gp penalties for using them. The animals that can be bought are the following: guard dog, riding dog, donkey, heavy horse, light horse, heavy warhorse, light warhorse, pony, and war pony. Bought animals always use the abilities presented in their Monster Manual entry. You can also buy other types of allies although these are much more expensive. These Exotic Allies include the Giant Eagle, Griffon, Hippogriff, Giant Owl, Pegasus, Pseudodragon, Spidereater, Flesh Golem, Clay Golem, Stone Golem (incl. Greater Stone Golem), Iron Golem, Psion-Killer and the Shield Guardian. See [post=6466732]FAQ: Allies II[/post] for more information on these exotic allies.
[b]Handle Animal Allies:[/b]
If you meet the Minimal ECL Requirement, you may tame and train an animal with the Handle Animal Skill. This requires two steps. First, you must find the animal in question. You will need to take part in a [post=6466804]Miniquest[/post] for this purpose (or a regular 3-week Quest if you want) and your Handle Animal skill and ECL must be sufficient for this animal (see [post=6466732]FAQ: Allies II[/post] for a complete list). Once aquired, it can be used although those animals are always untrained. The second step is training the animal. This requires a certain amount of time (see the FAQ: Skills Handle Animal description for details on training and time), and a Handle Animal check, which you must take 10 on. Once both steps are completed, you have your animal ally. Note that all Handle Animal allies require a share of your xp and gold if they participate in a fight (see below for details). Handled Animals always use the abilities presented in their entry.
[b]Leadership Allies (Cohorts):[/b]
The Leadership feat is one of the most common ways to get a cohort. You need to go on a quest to find your Leadership cohort. Note that there are two important differences between Leadership cohorts in the Core Coliseum and the rules written down in the PHB. Firstly, Leadership cohorts do not keep track of XP, and do not use the method of advancement outlined in the PHB. Instead, they are always at the maximum level allowed by your Leadership score (see DMG,p106). For example, if your Leadership score is 17, your cohort would be level 12. You may have your cohort be lower in level than what would be allowed by your Leadership score, if you like; however, you cannot "regress" your cohort in levels. If, for example, your cohort was level 10 at one point, then he may never drop below level 10 from then on. If your Leadership score drops for some reason, and is no longer sufficient for your cohort, then your cohort will not help you in any way until you get your Leadership score back up again. Secondly, Leadership cohorts, like most other cohorts, require a share of your XP and gold (see below). All leadership allies use the 25 pt-buy method to determine ability scores.
[INDENT]Leadership Modifiers: Special circumstances may modify your Leadership score (DMG,p106/107). If you have a familiar, a special mount, or an animal companion (all from a class feature), your leadership score drops by 2. If you recruit a cohort of different alignment, your leadership score drops by 1. If you caused the death of your cohort (outside the Nimbus only), your leadership score permanently drops by 1 per deceased cohort. Other modifiers, like Reputation or Leader behaviour do not apply yet. However, sooner or later we will introduce Special Events and Reputation of Characters which may influence your leadership score further. [/INDENT]
[b]Spells, Powers, and Abilities:[/b]
Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. You must meet the Minimal ECL Requirement of CR+4 for these allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA.
Planar Ally Spells
Planar Ally Spells: A caster can call a specific planar ally to aid him in his fights, provided he can communicate verbally or telepathically. The spell and ally must be prebuffed normally and counts against the maxCA. Thanks to the Nimbus, the task is always 'non-hazardous' which positively affects the payment. A min/lvl task begins with the next fight while an hour/lvl (or longer) task begins with the casting of the spell and has to survive the time roll.
Improved Ally: Thaumaturgs can use their Improved Ally class ability to decrease the payment further (by half; stacks with non-hazardous) by bringing the Planar Ally attitude to 'helpful' (see PHB,p72) and you always take 10 on this check. If the ally shares your alignment, it is friendly (Dc20); it is indifferent if its alignment is one step away from your own (Dc30), and it is unfriendly in case of two steps (Dc40). Note that is must always share at least one aspect of your alignment. Special: If you pass the 'helpful' Dc by X or more, the planar ally fights for free. X is the number of HD of the called ally.
Ally Alignments: Planar Allies with an 'Always' alignment listed always have that alignment. If only one part is listed as 'Always' (eg. always good) then the other component is free to pick by the player. If the planar ally has a 'Usually' alignment listed, it can be anything within one step (eg. usually CE can also be NE or CN). An alignment entry of 'Often' can be up to two steps away (eg CE can be anything but LG, LN, or NG). Alignments listed as 'Any' are up for the player to decide.
Improved Ally: Thaumaturgs can use their Improved Ally class ability to decrease the payment further (by half; stacks with non-hazardous) by bringing the Planar Ally attitude to 'helpful' (see PHB,p72) and you always take 10 on this check. If the ally shares your alignment, it is friendly (Dc20); it is indifferent if its alignment is one step away from your own (Dc30), and it is unfriendly in case of two steps (Dc40). Note that is must always share at least one aspect of your alignment. Special: If you pass the 'helpful' Dc by X or more, the planar ally fights for free. X is the number of HD of the called ally.
Ally Alignments: Planar Allies with an 'Always' alignment listed always have that alignment. If only one part is listed as 'Always' (eg. always good) then the other component is free to pick by the player. If the planar ally has a 'Usually' alignment listed, it can be anything within one step (eg. usually CE can also be NE or CN). An alignment entry of 'Often' can be up to two steps away (eg CE can be anything but LG, LN, or NG). Alignments listed as 'Any' are up for the player to decide.
Yeah, I didn't have time before I left for vacation. Some of the references to Diplomacy allies are gone, but there are just so many! I just finished with the roster (finally), so I'll take another look.
If I can suggest just one more thing: could you change the wording on prebuffed vs. non-prebuffed allies to clarify the status of Figurines of Wondrous Power? I just want it to be crystal clear that if they are prebuffed they reduce your awards, but if activated in the arena they do not.
All I really have to say about this is that yet another one of my characters will get retired because he will no longer have the same concept behind him (he can't).
That means a level 10 character could have an ECL8 leadership cohort or a CR6 ally. A level 10 character could never have a CR 8 ally unless the ally was using the ECL method (leadership) and also had an ECL8.
Is it legal to use telekinesis to move a character in a telekinetic grapple outside of the arena and hold them there for 10 rounds?
It would also be somewhat amusing to grapple someone and force both of you out of the arena, thus creating a draw situation.
Posting this over here for discussion when we get a chance:
Arena boundry issue:
It probably should be stated on maps that don't have obvious walls that there either are or arent walls at the edge of the arena.
The reason for this is the following:
Is it legal to use telekinesis to move a character in a telekinetic grapple outside of the arena and hold them there for 10 rounds?
Or you could even use a telekinetic thrust to throw a player out. Also, what happens when a player uses Charm Person, Fear or Suggestion to get another player to leave the arena?
Or you could even use a telekinetic thrust to throw a player out. Also, what happens when a player uses Charm Person, Fear or Suggestion to get another player to leave the arena?
Hmmm... With the charms, it would probably fall under the rules of ordering surrender. In other words, it would be equivalent to killing yourself. Most charms are not powerful enough to compel someone to kill themselves.
Planar effects could be added too since the ECL10+ leagues are open.
Okay, it's time to do something about all the whining regarding monster equipment. I propose the following:
1) All monsters have equipment equal to an NPC of their CR. Period. No "triple," no "double," no "none," and for God's sake no "standard, but double items" or crap like that. Yes, this includes nonintelligent creatures; see below.
2) Pitlords equip their monsters as follows:
- 10% should be spent on expendables. These should be potions (or scrolls, if the monster can use them), chosen from a standard list of common effects. I propose the following as a first draft: CLW, Mage Armor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Good/Evil, Shield of Faith +2, Bear's Endurance, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Blur, Delay Poison, Resist Energy, Fly, Haste, and Protection from Energy for potions; for scrolls, add Expeditious Retreat, See Invisibility, Shield, and direct-damage spells. I know there are other useful, even standard options, but I wanted to avoid those that are at least as annoying as useful (like Enlarge Person, which makes the pitlord make a bunch of calculations, or Invisibility, for obvious reasons). A creature incapable of using expendables at all simply loses this portion of its wealth.
- The remaining 10-15% is at the pitlord's discretion: wands, mobility enhancers, or any other "niche" items that work particularly well with the monster's inherent abilities. Items that produce effects not directly related to the creature's abilities (like a bag of tricks or a necklace of fireballs) should be avoided.
3) Monsters cannot have any items which are unavailable to PCs without credits. For items which are restricted by ECL, use the monster's CR instead.
Thoughts?
Are we going forward with this proposal? McJarvis and Usurpator both chimed in saying it was a start, Hirumajoe also felt it was a good start.
Abyssal Stalker and MacBrea both commented that they liked monster fights (without any comment on whether they felt the proposed solution was needed).
Salrantol commented on the specifics but didn't add any suggestions that I saw.
I felt the solution was solid and used it in the recent miniquest for Ephraim's entry into CEF. I don't know that it was indicative of anything - but I did provide the equipment for the "old" way and this proposed solution as a counterpoint.
Sauro asked about what to do with creatures with spell lists, and this was proposed by MWB afterwards:
What do do about creatures like the Naga or Rakshasa? These creatures simply list their spell casting ability as being equivalent to a sorcerer of x level. Then a list of known spells is provided. Often many of those listed spells are largely useless in the CoCo environment, so does the pitlord have the option to drop silent image for another more useful spell?
How about other similar "customizations"? Especially when you start using advanced versions of monsters or dragons, the pitlord has lots of room to build a monster with feats and skills that work well on the given map or against the given character.
Those lists of spells are always described as "typical." We have two choices: either use all these lists as written (since these were the lists with which the creature's CR was determined through playtesting), or create standardized lists of CoCo-friendly spells. The former would be much easier; the latter would be more generalizable (to, say, dragons, and even NPC spellcasters).
(From looking through this - I got my answer - no we are not yet using it. However, since it is a topic we need to resolve - preferably quickly - I provided the above to further that cause)
Listen check - the matrix is something that I think works fine. It even says that you rule out ones that are "impossible" - so in the case presented by MWB - the ones in the opposite direction would be ruled out accordingly. In most cases, people need the pinpoint to bother attacking and in the others - they just need the general direction. The distinction about "beating a check by 20" to pinpoint is an aftereffect of the invisibility spell and I think it works just fine.
I don't see anything about ruling out impossible locations in our rules--and how the the character to know what's impossible and what isn't, unless it's in a solid object? Most importantly, our rules don't let someone know if they got a pinpoint, so you have to roll the matrix every time. It's a pain.
As to the listen DC of attacks - I've always felt that a MS check at -20 was good enough there (that's what I use in my home games anyway), but I'm willing to discuss it. A flat DC0 doesn't make any sense to me really.
I'd go along with that.
For intimidate - something to clarify it would certainly help. One proposal I saw was to advance the creature of that type by the HD it was given. So a familiar is normally a magical beast with a CR of x (where x is the CR of the base animal/monster). As the PC advances, the CR increases according to the number of HD the creature gains as the PC advances. I think that is reasonable - but it might have flaws I didn't consider.
It makes sense, but it does end up with very low CRs for high-level familiars.
For edge of maps - I thought the only one where you could forcibly go out of bounds was the city map. I don't care one way or the other about whether it is kept - save or dies are common at all levels - making Telekinesis, Reverse gravity or any number of others as save or dies is not a big deal to me.
Some things, like Telekinetic Maneuver, are a little harder to resist than other save-or-dies. And if we extend this rule to the edges of the plains, forest, and city, then a simple bull rush could do it.
As to the listen DC of attacks - I've always felt that a MS check at -20 was good enough there (that's what I use in my home games anyway), but I'm willing to discuss it. A flat DC0 doesn't make any sense to me really.
I really don't like the idea of stretching the move silently skill to be a "do anything silently" skill.
As far as I'm concerned "move" means to move from one square on the map to another square. This applies in all cases where something happens if a character "moves". It applies to the Wall of Thorns causing damage, and it applies to balance checks and moving, and it applies in all other cases where something happens when you "move".
The Move Silently skill only applies to moving silently. That's it. Any other kind of action that makes noise wouldn't be effected by this skill. There would be a cast silently skill, or an attack silently skill, or a communicate silently skill, or a fart silently skill if the game were to make it possible to do any of these things silently. Since those skills don't exist, those kinds of actions always make noise.
If you want to invent a house rule for a new skill called cast silently, or silent archery, or whatever, then I suppose we could discuss that. But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently".
If you want to invent a house rule for a new skill called cast silently, or silent archery, or whatever, then I suppose we could discuss that. But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently".
I have to say, the latter seems more in keeping with the rules than the former. It seems silly to say "well, despite the fact that you can walk through a cavern of bats without being heard, your dagger makes exactly the same sound as Fighty McClanksalot and his greatsword over here."
Oh, actually:
In the case of people trying to be quiet, the DCs given on the table could be replaced by Move Silently checks, in which case the indicated DC would be their average check result.
I think part of the problem isn't actually that it's a flat DC, but that it's such a low DC. I mean, DC 0 is for people talking in a normal voice. The swish of a sword (or whatever) seems like it would be a lot quieter than that.
Regardless, I think Listen vs Move Silently would be best, maybe with some penalty on the MS check. Then again, I'm not an elder.
But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently".
Yeah, you want to interpret it as "everything other than movement is as loud as a gunshot"
Action
None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.
Generally I agree with Telin's suggestions. With the following exception.
I really don't like the idea of stretching the move silently skill to be a "do anything silently" skill.
As far as I'm concerned "move" means to move from one square on the map to another square. This applies in all cases where something happens if a character "moves". It applies to the Wall of Thorns causing damage, and it applies to balance checks and moving, and it applies in all other cases where something happens when you "move".
The Move Silently skill only applies to moving silently. That's it. Any other kind of action that makes noise wouldn't be effected by this skill. There would be a cast silently skill, or an attack silently skill, or a communicate silently skill, or a fart silently skill if the game were to make it possible to do any of these things silently. Since those skills don't exist, those kinds of actions always make noise.
If you want to invent a house rule for a new skill called cast silently, or silent archery, or whatever, then I suppose we could discuss that. But I don't wand to see "Move Silently" interpreted as a "Do Anything Silently".
See...I think just the opposite. I think that Move Silently is the skill that should be used whenever you want to try and do anything silently.
Let me point out something from the SRD to support this point:
Action: None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.
Emphasis mine. Right there in the RAW...move silently is included in your movement or other activity. So if you are reading the Move Silently skill in the literal sense and taking it to mean that it only works when you actually move, then what would they be referring to when talking about 'other activities'?
I have to say, the latter seems more in keeping with the rules than the former. It seems silly to say "well, despite the fact that you can walk through a cavern of bats without being heard, your dagger makes exactly the same sound as Fighty McClanksalot and his greatsword over here."
Bah. It doesn't matter who casts Shout. It makes the same sound. Otherwise it wold be possible to silently ring a bell, or silently explode an A-bomb. Rubbish.
Oh, actually:
I think part of the problem isn't actually that it's a flat DC, but that it's such a low DC. I mean, DC 0 is for people talking in a normal voice. The swish of a sword (or whatever) seems like it would be a lot quieter than that.
Regardless, I think Listen vs Move Silently would be best, maybe with some penalty on the MS check. Then again, I'm not an elder.
Those things in the table given by the Listen skill already are in direct contradiction with the statement below the table that you quote. An owl doesn't have a MS skill high enough to average a 30 on a move. The table is an ad-hoc production that's intended to give the GM a frame of reference to create listen DC's on the fly. It's not a good use for us in CoCo, because we rely on hard rules instead of GM judgment to decide things.
NiQil,
The "other activities" is intended to be a blanket statement that covers forms of movement that can be confused with movement in the classical sense of walking around. Things like climbing, flying, gliding, swimming, riding in a wagon or other modes of movement that could be argued are different from walking around.
If we extend the Move Silently skill to become a Do Anything Silently, then let's take that to the logical extreme and see if it makes sense. Say that a character is particularly skilled in the new Do Anything Silently skill. Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Or ring a bell silently, or use a sonic attack silently, or set off a hand grenade... silently, or sing some bardic music silently, or bluff an opponent silently, or silently utter a command word, or silently cast a spell, or silently tell a Yo Momma joke. You get the picture. It's ridiculous that a skill can allow you to do anything silently.
Bah. It doesn't matter who casts Shout. It makes the same sound. Otherwise it wold be possible to silently ring a bell, or silently explode an A-bomb. Rubbish.
Those things in the table given by the Listen skill already are in direct contradiction with the statement below the table that you quote. An owl doesn't have a MS skill high enough to average a 30 on a move. The table is an ad-hoc production that's intended to give the GM a frame of reference to create listen DC's on the fly. It's not a good use for us in CoCo, because we rely on hard rules instead of GM judgment to decide things.
NiQil,
The "other activities" is intended to be a blanket statement that covers forms of movement that can be confused with movement in the classical sense of walking around. Things like climbing, flying, gliding, swimming, riding in a wagon or other modes of movement that could be argued are different from walking around.
If we extend the Move Silently skill to become a Do Anything Silently, then let's take that to the logical extreme and see if it makes sense. Say that a character is particularly skilled in the new Do Anything Silently skill. Then they can yell instructions to their allies silently. Or ring a bell silently, or use a sonic attack silently, or set off a hand grenade... silently, or sing some bardic music silently, or bluff an opponent silently, or silently utter a command word, or silently cast a spell, or silently tell a Yo Momma joke. You get the picture. It's ridiculous that a skill can allow you to do anything silently.
Since you obviously have no interest in a serious discussion on the issue, I will simply leave my opinion as it stands. Apparantly you have intimate knowledge of what the creators intended that the rest of us do not have. So feel free to do as you will. I've said all I have to say.
Environmental stuff
Have an illumination and weather roll the same way there is a time roll. Put it right next to the time roll. All players have to deal with the same weather
Con - less variaty
Pro - faster, easier, and everyone can help each other in the fight of the week since we will all be using the same variable (and for RP reasons, it makes some sense, for weather at least)
Planar events and other randomness should have their own maps. It's not that hard, and I think waiting a while to implement them is a good idea.
Random events like traps and crowds are definitely neat. I like them, but I'm warry; need to think on that one.
Listen
I have no problem with the rules as they are now. I have no problem with the "DC0" stuff. So for now, I'm leaning toward status quo.
For move silent; I'm agreeing with NiQil - I do think it's the 'do most things quietly' skill. At least that's the way I've always seen it. There are some things it just doesn't work on. But I think by move they mean move between spaces, move your arm, move your backpack, move a jingle bell into your pocket from a store shelf, etc.
Edge of maps
I'm kind of iffy on this. I imagine that if this is implemented it will work out maybe once or twice before everyones tactics include "stay more than 30 ft from the edge of the map." Then it'll just be another wierd rule to catch people off guard with.
Intimidate
I'm not sure; I think setting a familiars intimidate value as their hd would be a bit low, and treating them as an extension of the caster (i.e. as though they had ECL of their master) is a bit high. I think going with the racial HD to see if it works well is a good idea for now.
I'm just not compelled to change things to just make them more complicated and more flexible and less elegant and less simple and all for what reason? It seams that people want to make the "nay nay plink* hide" builds more complicated to pitlord and possibly more successful. I certainly feel the value of improvement offered here is no where near the cost of labor to pitlords and the increased complication of the rules.
Rereading what I wrote, I don't think I was clear in explaining what the game effects would be. Most of what I was saying in the previous post was meant as emphasis as to why a single fixed listen check should be applied. I wasn't advocating a different set of rules for thrown and bows and so forth compared to each other or melee weapons.
The game effects would be as follows with the DC 0 to hit on impact, MS -20 to hear the origin of an attack:
1)For any attack action (not spell casting necessarily unless it includes something like throwing a weapon), Move Silently - 20 (per charge and Hide attack ideas of "practically impossible" - so a single opposed roll that really matters)
2) For non-reach melee, you could detect both the attack and defender with a DC 0 check.
3) For non-reach melee, you could pinpoint both the attacker and defender with a DC 0 + 20 check. (Note that an attacked character already knows the location of his attacker in non-reach melee - so no rolls really necessary except in a multiple character situation - i.e. "hearing combat" by a third party).
4) For reach melee, you pinpoint the defender's square with a DC 0 + 20 check. (Note an attacked character already knows the direction of his attacker if he's being attacked with reach - so again no rolls necessary except by a third party).
5) For ranged (such as spells with physical effects such as rays and normally bow shot arrows), you detect that you've hit something with a DC 0 check.
6) For ranged you pinpoint where you've hit with a DC 0 + 20 check.
7)For any attack, you can tell the general type of thing that has been hit and rough idea by what with a DC 0 + 10 check (per the whisper rules of being able to hear enough to make out what is said - similarly hearing enough to make out what hit what)
In most cases, all you really care about is the first one. It just a MS and Hide opposed roll, just like every other round, just with -20 modifiers (convient to keep them the same actually). So its not really more work.
All the other points are very specific to certain situations, but it at least it covers them if someone does need to know, such as in team fights and so forth. It also answers the question of "Can I tell what I've hit by sound?" For most hider fights, you're only rolling that one opposed MS -20 check (plus presumably that one opposed hide check) each round. However, those other points will occassionally come up. (Can I hear if I've hit the tower shield or someone in full platemail inside that Blacklight area? - Well, can you beat a DC 0 + 10 plus range modifiers check?)
Is it more house rules? Definitely. But they're house rules for which we only have a vague, single table reference. I've essentially defined "in combat" as something hitting something.
It also has the bonus of letting a clever player do the following: Throw a pebble and make a sound "over there", where the pebble hit. Which I think is kinda cool and a classic rogue move.
So in conclusion:
It keeps MS and Hide modifiers the same (-20 to attack, -1 per 10', -5 to full move, etc) so no additional number crunching there. Its the same number of rolls you'd have on a just a "move turn". It moves a silent feat spell listen DC 0 check from the caster to where it hit. (I admit, a fireball should make a "boom" - but it should make it where it actually explodes). It covers some more unusual cases. Its an advantage to dedicated hiders, and those who aren't dedicated are going to use Silence anyways so there no real shift in power except to underplayed classes.
Thats about as clear as I can make it. I'll leave it up to people's judgement now.
Note for those concerned about MS -20 versus just MS rolls:
For most untrained individuals, such as Wizards with invisibility, MS - 20 is worse than the DC 0 check. However, for actual rogues types, this gets better when they pass a net + 10 MS hide modifier, which isn't too hard to do by ECL 3 or 4 if they actually put some skill points into it.
Creating a list to expand on the list in the listen check wouldn't be too hard. It would look something like:
Creating a list to expand on the list in the listen check wouldn't be too hard. It would look something like:
Um, a lot of those are clearly Move Silently checks; even Sauro would agree with that. People walking in armor, for example.
Regardless, I'm not sure a big table is the best answer. I think a simple, easy to remember rule is a better idea.
Ugh... One more house ruled table to add to the rules. Furthermore it's a table that must be referenced frequently. Lastly some of the things on the list are complicated. What happens if you use attack with a club? Wooden weapons aren't on that list. Lists like this are not practical. They cannot possibly cover all things.
Bolded for emphasis.
I'd really rather not do anything that would lead to a situation of this sort:
Pitlord: [u]Fight posted[/u]
Gladiator A: Looks good!
Gladiator B: Ut oh! I clearly deserve 5 listen checks for the following situations, please bother to read the Big-Listen-Table-O-Matic next time!
;)
Those DCs for people in armor are taken straight off the Listen table as examples.
So how come you have "examples" on the same table as "rules"?
In any case, I think that's part of my problem. DC 0 check seems like an "example", namely, an example of the typical fighter who isn't worried about being heard. I mean, there's a lot of yelling and screaming in a typical battle. To be fair, I'm not sure what the DC for a bowshot should be, but I'm quite sure that DC 0 is several hundred decibels too loud.
A wooden club vs metal would in truth be -8, assuming metal on metal is -10 with unfavorable cirumstance to listen check of wood against metal. Wood against hide would be -10 (+2 wood weapon) (+2 hide armor) = -6. Using the Unfavorable effects in the skill rules. Yes, I am apply real rules to values that are on a chart in the book. I am also fudging to make up base actions based off commonly done actions. And yes, it is yet another rule that would have to be remembered.
The favorable/unfavorable section of the skill section of the rule book is the most forgotten section of the rules in my opinion. It exists for a reason.
The favorable/unfavorable section of the skill section of the rule book is the most forgotten section of the rules in my opinion. It exists for a reason.
That may be-> but we have ignored these sections for spot checks[thus inanimate objects are always auto-spotted if they have anything less than total cover] & I believe something similar will likely be needed for listen checks. [To avoid long tables.]
I'd be happy with something like:
-making a melee or ranged weapon attack requires a Move Silently roll to be done quietly
-a successful hit can be heard with a DC 0 listen check
-a silent spell or power cannot be heard
I'm not a fan of the "Big-Ass Table o' Made-Up Numbers" -- I'd rather have a simple house rule that's sometimes a bit clunky than a lengthy set of house rules that try to cover every situation.
I'd be happy with something like:
-making a melee or ranged weapon attack requires a Move Silently roll to be done quietly
-a successful hit can be heard with a DC 0 listen check
-a silent spell or power cannot be heard
I would agree with that, with the addition of "any magical effect that requires speaking (spell with vocal component, command word, bard song) can be heard with a DC 0 Listen check".
I would agree with that, with the addition of "any magical effect that requires speaking (spell with vocal component, command word, bard song) can be heard with a DC 0 Listen check".
No need - thats an undisputed core rule anyway (DC 0 listen check to hear someone speaking is right in there with the basic listen rules).
Zevox
Bolded for emphasis.
I'd really rather not do anything that would lead to a situation of this sort:
Pitlord: [u]Fight posted[/u]
Gladiator A: Looks good!
Gladiator B: Ut oh! I clearly deserve 5 listen checks for the following situations, please bother to read the Big-Listen-Table-O-Matic next time!
;)
And this is different from how it is now?? In what way??
To quote a hunting article:
Bow string silencers will help reduce the sound the bow string makes when an arrow is released. Even with today's fast bows shooting at over 300 feet per second, string silencers will reduce the number of times a deer will "jump string."
Keep in mind that sound travels at about 1120 fps. The time difference between the speed of sound and the string noise on arrow release is all the time a deer needs to move out of the way.
Silencing your hunting bow for the upcoming season is not time-consuming, and it is smart. A quiet hunting bow consists of a solid noise dampening system.
This indicates that it makes quite a bit of noise. Assuming that the average range you shoot a deer at is 30 yards or 90 feet.
-9 to hearing in DnD terms.
Assuming a deer is a 2HD creature with wisdom 14 and +4 racial bonus to hearing checks. That means with Max ranks it has Listen check +11. The silencer (+2 tool bonus) seems to be able to make up the difference to bring the chances of the deer being able to move out of the way to dead even. So, you might be correct in that it is MS vs Listen.
The deer isn't able to apply it's dex bonus until it hears the shot. This is making a listen check vs a sound. This would seem to indicate that the sound of the bow is either a factor of the archers skill or it makes the same sound no matter what.
You could be right that the Hunters skill in MS determines wether the deer can actually hear the bowshot. But I have a feeling that the bow makes the sound at the time of the attack. And that sound has a set number. No matter what the archer wishes that bow to sound like, unless he can magically silence the bow or apply tool modifiers to the bow. It makes a sound. His ability to MS helps get him into position, it doesn't help him once he activates an item on the sound an item makes.
Which was why I said that a bow should have a volume (DC) set to it and any time you fire that bow it should have a set number.
The rogue sneaks along til he gets to within 20ft of his opponent. This is clearly a MS check. He then activates the horn of blasting at his opponent. This item clearly has it's own sound. The MS check no longer applies and the DC of the sound created by the horn of blasting is used vs the targets Listen check to determine were the horns sound came from. It is pretty obvious in this case no matter what the rogue wanted to do the horn made the sound.
Take more historical examples of Indian raiding parties being deadly because the bow was so silent as compared to other forms of combat, and you have a better look at how attacking silently might work. All this is immaterial, though, because real-world examples can't be a part of our interpretation of the rules[as weird as that may sound]
~McJ~
Which was why I said that a bow should have a volume (DC) set to it and any time you fire that bow it should have a set number.
Again -- I'd rather have a simple "one-size-fits-all" rule than a table of empirically determined decibel levels and corresponding Listen DCs.
To me, D&D is meant to be an entertaining game, not a perfect simulation of real life. Game rules don't have to be 100% realistic. For instance, I've heard there's a game where a castle can chase down and kill an armed horseman, and then on the next round a single bishop can destroy that self-same castle! Ridiculous -- I doubt it'll ever catch on. ;)
Simple. Use the chart in the book and Call a bowshot an attack.
(Actually the chart says "in combat" not "an attack".) I don't have a problem with that. I just don't like adding a new house rule for every little situation (like "winged creatures can't fly in narrow spaces" or "a 3rd level character can't have a heavy horse").
A Bowtech guardian composite longbow has a listed sting volume of 86 db coming off the string at the time of shooting. To give you an idea:
Office interior or ordinary conversation = 60 db
Passing car at 10 ft. or garbage disposal at 3 ft = 80db
Passing bus or truck at 10 ft. or food blender at 3 ft. = 90db
That might tell you how loud your silent bow really is.
That might tell you how loud your silent bow really is.
Yeah, because we're so using modern bows. <_< >_>
edit-> Oh, right-> and sound definately has a linear decay rate with no minimum in real life too! [if you were trained well enough to listen you too could hear that bowshot over in tokyo]
The DC of a bow is increased by +1 per 10ft from the target.
A Bowtech guardian composite longbow has a listed sting volume of 86 db coming off the string at the time of shooting. To give you an idea:
Office interior or ordinary conversation = 60 db
Passing car at 10 ft. or garbage disposal at 3 ft = 80db
Passing bus or truck at 10 ft. or food blender at 3 ft. = 90db
That might tell you how loud your silent bow really is.
To be fair, all those examples are sustained sounds. A bowstring, if I know what a "bow" is, makes a rather sharp sound.
And your pretty much right Mcj. the decay is linear in DnD. But, I was just pointing out that the sound of the bow is louder then a word spoken (DC 0, 60 db) vs a bow (DC ??, 86db).
So far TM, MWB, NiQil and Zevox have chimed in on the change everything about attack listen DC's side of this issue. Only Vath and I have voted for no change. Since our rules are constantly in a state of flux, and appear to change at the whim of the majority, and the elegance and simplicity of the rule we are currently using appears to sway no-one, and this discussion of various options seams to be making rather slow progress... I'm going to skip past criticizing the already proposed idea. I simply am going to say that they are far more clunky and complicated than what we currently use, and if we are going to change the rules we should change them for the better.
So I identify the following necessary characteristics for a replacement rule:
1) It should be simple, and preferably makes the battles easier for pitlords than what we already use.
2) It should answer the questions about what it means to be "in battle" and what the listen DC for an attack is.
My solution is going to be a bit complicated on the rules side. But it will be simple to implement in the battles. It starts with answers to the two central questions. Bare with me for a bit while I describe all the parts. There will be three parts.
First, we decide that there is no listen DC for attacks. They simply cannot be heard. There is none listed in the SRD, and we simply say attacks cannot be detected with a listen check.
Second we decide that being in combat is simply that... being in combat. There is a listen DC of 0 to locate anyone who's "in combat" and there is no skill that can be applied to modify that listen DC (although distance modifiers still apply). Every round that a character is "in combat" there is a chance to be heard, regardless of their actions or skills.
Third we create a new skill package that allows some characters to dodge the "in combat" status for a while (perhaps replacing Ambush). This will be a skills package that is both attack and defend (and therefore useful in all combats). Our new skill package we can call "Snipe" for lack of a better word. During this time when the character is not "in combat", only movement and spell casting will result in a listen check.
Snipe will allow a character to remain "out of combat" for a number of rounds. At the beginning of the battle, an opposed check is used to determine a number of rounds where the character is not considered to be "in combat". We can debate the details of what skills to use on the opposed check, and how to transform that result into a reasonable number of rounds. Right now, I'd rather not get bogged down in that.
The effect of these three decisions is that there will be a limited time at the beginning of a combat where a rogue character can act or otherwise attack without fear of revealing their position with an extra listen check. This allows characters to be roguish or otherwise evasive relatively easily for a while, but not for an indefinite period of time. This should be sufficient for the roguish character to gain the upper hand in whatever way they need. Also it makes the job of the pitlord easier. Instead of rolling opposed listen checks (with a table of various modifiers as have been suggested by others), the pitlord only rolls once at the beginning of the battle. That roll serves to replace several other rounds worth of rolling. Hopefully the rogue has finished the job by that time, if not his job suddenly becomes much harder as the pitlord uses the simple DC 0 Listen check for every following round regardless of the rogue's actions. This gives the rogue freedom but also a time limit after which the rogue is pressured, thus avoiding combats that go on for hundreds of rounds worth of skill checks.
This is the best I can come up with, and I consider it a reasonable compromise that considers implementation, fairness and simplicity together in a way that doesn't hand the world to sneaky characters, but also doesn't prevent them from functioning.
First, we decide that there is no listen DC for attacks. They simply cannot be heard. There is none listed in the SRD, and we simply say attacks cannot be detected with a listen check.
That might be a bit severe.
Second we decide that being in combat is simply that... being in combat. There is a listen DC of 0 to locate anyone who's "in combat" and there is no skill that can be applied to modify that listen DC (although distance modifiers still apply). Every round that a character is "in combat" there is a chance to be heard, regardless of their actions or skills.
That would be the current rule. It seems to be unpopular to the majority.
Third we create a new skill package that allows some characters to dodge the "in combat" status for a while (perhaps replacing Ambush). This will be a skills package that is both attack and defend (and therefore useful in all combats). Our new skill package we can call "Snipe" for lack of a better word. During this time when the character is not "in combat", only movement and spell casting will result in a listen check.
You call that simple and elegant? That's the most complex proposal so far. It transforms the Hide/MS sneak into a totally different animal. Moreover, it forces them to rely on speed, which is usually antithetical to stealth.
I'm going to call the discussion portion of this topic closed and call for a vote. Clearly, folks don't see eye-to-eye, and it's not going to happen. I'm vetoing the "table method" (for the reasons many have stated), and the skill package method. Here are your choices:
1) DC 0 to hear an attack, as now.
2) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, DC 0 to hear the point of impact of a successful attack.
3) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, nothing for the impact.
4) Attacks are impossible to hear.
We'll deal with definitions of "attack" afterwards, if need be, but these are the only feasible solutions on the table, IMO.
((Regarding the bow thing: a flat DC for a bowstring is tempting, but I also know that there is some variability there based on your technique. Furthermore, a high-MS character may have modified their bow to be quieter. The deer example is also slightly strange because the deer is, up to a certain point, more likely to hear the shot and have time to dodge when you're further away.))
That might be a bit severe. I don't think anyone is arguing for total silence.
*raises hand* I was. (Although Sauro's proposal is a far cry from what I would prefer in every other area.)
My vote is to get rid of it. Personally, I don't think that there should be a listen check allowed to hear an attack
1) DC 0 to hear an attack, as now.
2) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, DC 0 to hear the point of impact of a successful attack.
3) MS (with a flat penalty between 0 and -20, to be determined later) to hear an attack, nothing for the impact.
If thats our only options, I vote #3. Having a DC 0 check to hear the point of impact may make sense, but its just an additional pointless complication in practice, since you either already know where an attack hit (you or an ally) or don't care (it missed).
Zevox
Reasoning
(sblocked since discussion is closed)
Making attacks not making any sound may not make logical sense-> but logic dictates that if I throw a pebble into some brush it would be very hard to find, yet under our current rules it is automatically found just by glancing. Sometimes very simple is better. [And sneak builds certainly won't "dominate" the format if there is no listen DC for attacks]
(sblocked since discussion is closed)
Making attacks not making any sound may not make logical sense-> but logic dictates that if I throw a pebble into some brush it would be very hard to find, yet under our current rules it is automatically found just by glancing. Sometimes very simple is better. [And sneak builds certainly won't "dominate" the format if there is no listen DC for attacks]
I guess, my result would be 2 in that case.
Goes back to preping his ECL 12 mission
If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun.
I've said this a few times already -- if anyone really wanted to be unhearable, all they need is a scroll/potion/wand of Silence. The availability of those things hasn't resulted in any unbeatable snipers so far that I've seen. I don't think any of the proposed new rules will result in one, either.
On the other hand, I really don't think the current rule is that much of a hindrance to playing a sniper, McJarvis's melodramatic pronouncements notwithstanding. I think the lack of them is due more to the fact that sniping is hard to pull off on some maps (like the Plains or a small map like the Cavern) and it results in a fairly dull fight when it succeeds. YMMV.
It should be publicly noted that it's easier to boost the MS skill than to boost the listen skill. And thus even with the -20 modifier to the MS skill, it won't be difficult to snipe with impunity. There are several reasons that the attacker receives a larger benefit here than the defender.
First the distance modifier benefits the attacker.
Also skill items benefit the attacker greater than the defender. The price of a +MS item and a + listen item are the same, but the sniping character uses it in every battle, while the defender only uses it against snipe characters. So the cost produces benefit for a listener only a fraction of the time and a greater opportunity cost. Thus a net benefit to the sniper who uses the item every battle.
Also MS is a dex skill, and that's a stat related to ranged attacks. Clearly any hide build will use maxed Dex and ranged attacks and gets synergy on their ranged attacks and move silently skills. However Listen is a Wis skill, and Wisdom is a dump stat for many types of builds. Only druids and monks consistently have high wisdom as well as the listen skill.
Also Listen is not a class skill for many character classes. In fact most character classes will have spot and listen checks that fall farther and farther behind the sniper as levels increase where the sniper advances by +1 every level and the listener advances by +1/2 if they have spare skill points.
If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense. If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun.
Edit: I said all this over IM with MWB, but didn't include it in my last post because I didn't think it would be necessary to note. But when NiQil said that he though a -20 modifier to MS check would be enough to ensure that sniping battles resolved more quickly, then I felt it was necessary to describe how this was not likely to actually be the case, especially as levels increase.
I don't necessarily think that it will speed up or slow down sneaks and sniping at all...just that it has the potential to in some cases. I just meant that there is a benefit to each side. MS is easier to boost for most sneaks, but at the same time it gives those fighting the sneaks another option to try and find them. Listen is a class skill for more classes than Spot is, afterall....even if it is only one class more. And quite frankly most of the classes that have listen as a class skill need the help anyway, in my opinion.
Those with Listen: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Psion (Seer), Soulknife, Wilder
Those with Spot: Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Psion (Seer), Soulknife, Wilder
If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity.
I really can't help but think you have this opinion due to an inability to optimize stealth characters. Let's look at factors that add up to "uberhiders" being able to snipe with impunity, even at a -20 check to hide (and a way in which they can already snipe with impunity, should they desire):
Optimization Info
Size modifiers: Small creatures get a +4 to hide. They do NOT get a bonus to MS
Racial Mods: Forest gnomes, of course, give a +4 to hide
Chameleon: A very cheap power that gives a +10
Skill feats/Psicrystals: +3 per feat, +2 for the combo feats. Total +8
Magical + skill items: +varies via level
And finally ranks & dex.
MS shares ranks, dex, & the feats-> but you'd be pretty hard pressed to dedicate feats to both skills[or at least, looking at a level 6->9 build before you get to spend feats on things that really help combat]. MS doesn't get size mods(!), you can't get racial mods for both in any large quantity, & there is no chameleon for MS [other than the silence spell-> but this spell negates the DC 0 attack check anyway. I'll give you the magical item, even though buying it in both hide & MS is impractical.
Size modifiers: Small creatures get a +4 to hide. They do NOT get a bonus to MS
Racial Mods: Forest gnomes, of course, give a +4 to hide
Chameleon: A very cheap power that gives a +10
Skill feats/Psicrystals: +3 per feat, +2 for the combo feats. Total +8
Magical + skill items: +varies via level
And finally ranks & dex.
MS shares ranks, dex, & the feats-> but you'd be pretty hard pressed to dedicate feats to both skills[or at least, looking at a level 6->9 build before you get to spend feats on things that really help combat]. MS doesn't get size mods(!), you can't get racial mods for both in any large quantity, & there is no chameleon for MS [other than the silence spell-> but this spell negates the DC 0 attack check anyway. I'll give you the magical item, even though buying it in both hide & MS is impractical.
+19 Hide (+39 with items)
+15 Move Silently
Tattoo of Chameleon +10
Elixer of Hiding +10
Cast darkness for concealment 20ft radius
Cast ghost sounds of sound of 12 people shooting crossbows
Can stand in darkness and sniping. You must roll 35 plus his die roll to hear him. And 19 plus his die roll to spot him. You have far better chance of spotting him then ever figuring were he is.
If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense.
As everyone else has already said: Silence.
If we allow this MS rule, then well optimized characters will be able to snipe with impunity. Everyone will be required to have high movement in combination with either touchsight, scent or blindsense.
Right, because we have so many snipers in the arena, and every other thing we've implemented that would supposedly help them has resulted in such and influx of them
. This wasn't the case before we starting using this house rule for hearing attacks, it won't be the case after we stop using it.You're exaggerating Sauro. Greatly.
If you don't have one of those three, then you basically auto loose vs a well build stealth character at mid levels and above. I consider that situation to be totally un-fun.
And this is any different from a low will save character who auto-loses to a mage that targets that (see Va'ria vs Sdentch, for instance) how? Or what about a melee monster who auto-loses to a flying archer or spell-slinger (see Izumi vs Torel, for instance)? Or a sneak who auto-loses to a Psion with touchsight (see Featylec vs Loddick, for instance)? Theres some matches where the winner is clear as day, simply because of the interaction between the two character types. Thats not a problem, thats just how the game works.
Zevox
I'll vote for 3. That gives a majority (telin, zevox, vath, niqil).
There's no good solutions to this one. We should really stop fighting so hard. We're only irritating each other, and to no good end.
Let's get some resolution on open topics.
1) Listen checks for attacking: the consensus is that this applies to attacking with a manufactured or natural weapon only. No rays, no touch spells, and definitely not anything else. As for the DC, there has been unenthusiastic support for MS-20. Any objections to this as the final ruling?
1b) The other part of this was the "matrix method." I dislike it, Zevox and Telin like it (although Telin liked it because he didn't play it quite the way it was written). Other opinions?
2) Environmental effects: Seems like Cat's grandiose ideas do not meet with approval. So we're going with lighting conditions and mild weather effects only. And it looks like the easiest way is to have them apply to all fights the same. Here's my revised proposal for the tables:
1b - Yes I like the matrix method - and I'm not sure that I'm "doing it wrong..." but I guess I might be. What part was wrong?
2 - For the most part I am fine with the darkness effects. One thing - it might be good to include a tid-bit about superior low-light vision. Since Low-light vision negates the penalties of the Dim light - is there anything more for a superior low-light vision (dragons for instance)? I need to read more about the weather to be sure on that.
3 - I have no problem moving the lion down.
4 - Is this going to change the current rules on the city map? If so - this should be made in an announcement and the text on the map itself needs to be changed. If not - then you need to mention it on the map that it is an exception. In either case - no problem from me.
5 - I think the monster gear guidelines are good and should, hopefully, reduce some of the complaints about the monster fight "variability." I am already using that method for my future quests and comparing them to what I might have done under the previous rules.
[EDIT] About the listen matrix - I said that you could "ignore" the values that were out of the realm of reason. It does appear that I was wrong that it was included in the text, but I think by adding it - it helps things considerably. It means that the closer you are to someone, the "easier" it is to narrow down their location - both by the sound clues and also visual and other sensory clues (scent for instance).
I think it is rather difficult to fall and not end up prone.
Grease
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target or Area: One object or a 10-ft. square
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No
A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. This save is repeated on your turn each round that the creature remains within the area. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check. Failure means it can’t move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Balance skill for details).
The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item. A saving throw must be made in each round that the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item. A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and on grapple checks made to resist or escape a grapple or to escape a pin.
Material Component: A bit of pork rind or butter.
Greased creature that fell, prone or not prone?
Of course, asked in relation to falling of your mount when it's dead. When your mount dies you fall off. You can reduce damage from the fall, but obviously not prevent the fall itself. How do you end up after falling.
More general, a PC falls down a building in the city map. Does he end up prone or not?
My vote would be for that.
1) Lighting applies equally to all maps. It's magic.
2) "Bright light" never applies indoors (i.e. Cavern, Sewer, Temple). Everything else is fair game. (Alternatively, the Temple map may still be affected; it could be a temple of Pelor, for instance.)
3) Indoor maps (or at least the cavern and sewer) never get any brighter than some other, sub-normal brightness.
4) Other?
I'll take 1. Much as bright light in a sewer or cave doesn't make a lot of sense, its the simplest way to do it, and there are some possible explanations at least (light leaking in through cave entrance, manholes or drains in roof of sewer, etc).
This might also be a good time to hammer down some more formal definitions of "shadow" for Shadowdancer abilities and HiPS.
Thoughts:
In bright light, either there are none, or only characters cast shadows.
In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere.
In dim/dark/pitch light, shadows are everywhere.
Any light-producing spell/item removes shadows within its clear illumination radius.
Simple enough?
Zevox
For option 2, if you are going to list that bright light never occurs indoors...then by the same logic pitch black should never occur out of doors, due to moon and starlight.
Clearly you have never been way out in the countryside, where there is no light pollution, on a heavily overcast night with a new moon. You literally can't see your hand in front of your face.
In bright light, either there are none, or only characters cast shadows.
I would extend that to statues, pillars, buildings, trees, etc. Even at high noon (which doesn't really exist except at the equator), those objects still cast some shadows because they're not perfectly smooth.
In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere.
I would extend that "shadows everywhere" to the Arena, as well, due to its PC-ly morphic properties.
The rest seems fine to my eye.
Clearly you have never been way out in the countryside, where there is no light pollution, on a heavily overcast night with a new moon. You literally can't see your hand in front of your face.I would extend that to statues, pillars, buildings, trees, etc. Even at high noon (which doesn't really exist except at the equator), those objects still cast some shadows because they're not perfectly smooth.In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere.
I would extend that "shadows everywhere" to the Arena, as well, due to its PC-ly morphic properties.
The rest seems fine to my eye.
Heh....oh ye of little faith. I grew up on a farm in the western Nebraska panhandle. Even under the conditions you describe, light is still there. I am legally blind, and *I could see in those conditions.
I would extend that "shadows everywhere" to the Arena, as well, due to its PC-ly morphic properties.
The rest seems fine to my eye.
I would say that in magically induced bright light, the light has no source, or rather, the arena itself is the source. Therefore, there are no shadows because light is coming from EVERYWHERE.
TM
33: 3 Mohrgs and 3 Gray Render Zombies [CR 8 and 6]
35: 2 Ogre Mages and 3 4th-level Ogre Barbarians (MM default) [CR 8 and 7]
45: 5 Celestial Wyverns [CR 7]
48: 5 Fiendish Gauths [CR 7]
97: 1 Duergar Ranger 4/Slayer 7 [CR 12]
I have some minor covets about these monster combinations.
The first 4 I have an issue with the number of monsters on the table. 5-6 monsters uses up all the pins on the mapper without accounting for the PC, or any allies the PC might bring. I think this is just a little too much chaos on a map to subject a Pitlord to.
The Duergar ... no manifesting base class? ... I mean ... just add 1 level of psion or PW in there ... please ...
Other than that ... looks like a good list even if there are things on there I would never want to encounter.
The duergar was an experiment of sorts--it's perfectly possibly to qualify for Slayer without a manifesting class, and it's full BAB with several special abilities, so I'm not sure it would be that horrible.
Edit: I also prefer to avoid multiclassing as much as possible when it comes to NPCs. More work on the pitlord.
I'll take 1. Much as bright light in a sewer or cave doesn't make a lot of sense, its the simplest way to do it, and there are some possible explanations at least (light leaking in through cave entrance, manholes or drains in roof of sewer, etc).
Thoughts:
In bright light, either there are none, or only characters cast shadows.
In normal light, shadows are assumed to be present out to 5' from any character/object/structure/etc (more or less how its being run now). In the forest, due to the dense canopy, they are everywhere.
In dim/dark/pitch light, shadows are everywhere.
Any light-producing spell/item removes shadows within its clear illumination radius.
Simple enough?
Zevox
This sounds good to me!
We have several encounters with 5 monsters in the existing tables, and even a couple of 6's.
The duergar was an experiment of sorts--it's perfectly possibly to qualify for Slayer without a manifesting class, and it's full BAB with several special abilities, so I'm not sure it would be that horrible.
it's also not a lot diffrent then 4 level 11 rangers - althrough i dont really WANT to face 4 durager with BaB of +9-10 and level 9 or so manifestating with no 1/3 rule... (1 - egoist - methamorphasis cheese, 1 kintesicest energy missile cheese, 1 all telekenesis powers, 1 psioninc gish/archer - and iam not thinking very hard here),
it's also not a lot diffrent then 4 level 11 rangers - althrough i dont really WANT to face 4 durager with BaB of +9-10 and level 9 or so manifestating with no 1/3 rule... (1 - egoist - methamorphasis cheese, 1 kintesicest energy missile cheese, 1 all telekenesis powers, 1 psioninc gish/archer - and iam not thinking very hard here),
Eh? It's one creature, not four.
Eh? It's one creature, not four.
oops - my bad- well put that in ECL 15 or what not.
So I see no reason why not allowing them with the same credit cost as the other unearthed variants.
I´d like to adress the topic of Prestigous Classes from Unearthed Arcana. They are just as open source as the racial paragon classes and their powerlevel is IMHO not higher than those or the class variants.
So I see no reason why not allowing them with the same credit cost as the other unearthed variants.
The reason is this:
If you use any of the variant classes presented here, the standard version of the class should be unavailable. For instance, you shouldn't include both the standard paladin character class and the paladin prestige class in the same game.
Not just restricting them from both being on the same character, but restricting them from even being in the same game. I should also point out that this is the same language used for generic classes: "If you use these generic classes, you shouldn't also use the standard character classes (or variants of those classes)." This makes the prestigious classes more of an optional rule than additional classes.
--Note: both me and him are programmers
If this is way too early: no worries. I only picked today because I had an entire afternoon available to finally get this post formating stuff down, and figured I'd do it since I promised MWB I would
edit->
edit#2-> It's all up there now.
It is listed under the special attacks head of the Kuo-Tao in the mm page 163 under the discription it says that it is an exotic weapon but it doesn't have a cost listed. Comes an Kuo-Tao character equipped with the pincer staff or s it unavailble in the CoCo?
Here is the MM entry of the pincer staff.
Pincer staff
Many Kuo-Tao fighters and all whips of 7th level of higher carry this Large exotic weapon. A pincer staff deals 1d10 points of bludgeoning damage, threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20, and deals double damage on a critical hit. It has 10-foot reach and cannot be used against an adjacent opponent. A wielder that hits an opponent of at least Small but no larger than Large can attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity. If the wielder wins the grapple check, the staff establishes a hold and grabs the opponent, dealing 1d10 points of damage each round the hold is maintained.
Mind's Eye content should be added to the docket. I've taken the liberty of editing out many things that would be nonsensical in CoCo. [Ie-> anything refering to Complete Psionics, other non-core material, etc] If there is anything I am posting that looks wrong or like it shouldn't be included-> speak up when the time is right. [ie-> whenever the current topic becomes Mind's Eye]
If this is way too early: no worries. I only picked today because I had an entire afternoon available to finally get this post formating stuff down, and figured I'd do it since I promised MWB I would
edit->Ran out of time...prestige classes taking much longer than the powers/feats/variant classes did. I will finish during this week, for sure though. [I'm about 90% done]
edit#2-> It's all up there now.
I was going to tackle this once variable conditions were out of the way, but what the heck.
Mind's Eye was not intended to be the only material included under this initiative; any usable content posted on WotC's web site, including previews, were to be up for grabs (after approval). I'll add it to the docket.
I was going to tackle this once variable conditions were out of the way, but what the heck.
Mind's Eye was not intended to be the only material included under this initiative; any usable content posted on WotC's web site, including previews, were to be up for grabs (after approval). I'll add it to the docket.
I'll start scouring the site for things to add & write them up.
I was going to tackle this once variable conditions were out of the way, but what the heck.
Mind's Eye was not intended to be the only material included under this initiative; any usable content posted on WotC's web site, including previews, were to be up for grabs (after approval). I'll add it to the docket.
I smell a can of worms on this topic ... not your supermarket size ... but your bulk size.
I smell a can of worms on this topic ... not your supermarket size ... but your bulk size.
It is indeed. Which is why I wanted to get most of our main issues out of the way first. That and the Community of Gladius add-on were the two initiatives Cat was working on when he left, so I feel obligated to give them an effort.
It is indeed. Which is why I wanted to get most of our main issues out of the way first. That and the Community of Gladius add-on were the two initiatives Cat was working on when he left, so I feel obligated to give them an effort.
So much work will be required just to scour the site & get these things in post-form that I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to get done with current issues. I'm just now realizing how many alternate races & templates are available. (And Mind's Eye was relatively easy to convert compared to the pdf's I'm looking through now)
Any objections to instituting 350 as the lowest a PR can go?
Zevox
Since Zodiac is in imminent danger of reaching this point, I'd like to institute that minimum PR rule we'd considered before.
Blast! Caught at my game...
A minimum base PR of 350 approximately indicates that a character is as strong as an average character 3 ECLs below them, and I think that's about as low as we need to go. Any lower than that, and a Great Renown character would be dropped all the way down to about average with one loss (a 1500 losing to a 350 would end up at 1072).
Any objections to instituting 350 as the lowest a PR can go?
I'm all for it.
I have already said my piece regarding the WOTC material, but if we move into the 'rewards/credits/time' discussion I'll add my two cp.
I feel the discussion shifting away from WOTC material to credits and 'rewards vs time'.
Regarding the web site material, my vote would be "don't include it" because WotC can remove articles from their web site at any time and we're not allowed to reproduce the relevant rules without permission.
I do not feel that McJ should be making any decisions on prescreening the classes before putting them up for the elders to vote on.
That is more or less the way it'll have to be. There's too much raw content on the Wizards site for me not to make snap judgements on what will get filtered through here...unless you want elders bogged down with "votes"[as you called them] on material from now until 2010. I'm pretty sure that folks around here trust my judgement on what is "obviously broken" or "obviously incompatible with CoCo" in this regard.
I'd even go so far as agree with Sauro somewhat that the guildmasters should pay for the benefit - but the problem there is that I took this role because no one else stepped up. If we take away the credit benefit AND apply a cost to it - that might just drop off the remaining guildmasters. At the time I took the position, the credit benefit helped justify the time I spent on it (because at the time I did not see the benefit to continuing the guild game). Now that I have spent the time to learn the system - I don't necessarily need the credits earned to justify my time.
But granularity on credits may help some things work out. I don't have any delusions that it would increase pitlording by just adjusting it, but it might be worth exploring.
As to our recent shortage of pitlording - I'm not too concerned about it yet. If we continue to have pitlording shortages by the time the school year starts (for those in school/college anyway) - then I'd be willing to admit there might be issues. Right now - I'm chalking up the lack of active pitlords to the niceness of the weather in my area... (and associating it with the rest of the world... yes - I am delusional - just not about some things...).
As to templer10's comments about sneak fights - I guess I'll just have to disagree with you. I don't dislike sneak fights. I do dislike fights where people refuse to engage. This applies to some sneak fights - but it mostly applies to the free-for-all fights where one or more participants hangs back for 9+ rounds. Or worse - the fights where they specifically engage only once every 10 rounds to "get around" the delay penalty but still be able to run out their opponent's buffs... I did complain about the toughness to run fights on the forest map before they were changed - but that was a whole different beast - and it didn't matter what the classes of the characters involved were at the time...
But that's me and frankly - I don't feel we can adjust the credit rewards for the perceived difficulty to run fight A or to run fight B.
I dont see where youre going with this. There is no Core material that we could add. All we can do is add noncore material...
well there is a very UNUSED ability of wizards to research personnel spells.. personnelly i would like to see this used.. maybe 2 credit per level of spell (+ the 1 week per level and the 1000 gp per level of spell researched) Gold and time is lost even if the spell is deamed by the elders/GM to be gamebreaking or abusive.. Example would be
Corrupter's Touch of the Dead
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous/1 hour; see text
Saving Throw: Yes
Spell Resistance: Yes
You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6) and The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage per two caster levels (maximum 10 str) unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw.
This spell would cost 6 credits to research if accepted as to not be to over powering for a level 3 spell, would also take 3 weeks of full activities and 3000 gp (that is gone no matter what) and require either being a member of a guild or a 10,000 gp library and/or a miniquest
All this is in optional rules in Core books page 35 DMG (cost and time isn't in there but seemed reasonable.. think that may of been a 3.0 or 2nd edition thing)
We've considered adding spell research to the rules in the past. Ultimately, it was decided to be too difficult to adjudicate.
more difficult that digging through all the minds eye for more psionic things... shrug..
Both take balancing to be effective... one is core (optional) one isn't (as stated before psionics isn't even in the core rules)
I will shut up now...
if you were to set up a Gladius Library thread,
Set rules 2-5 credits per spell level of spell researched, 1000 gold and 1 week of full activity per spell level researched ...
Using the guidelines of new spells on page 35 of the DMG,
All casters could do this... even psionic could get new powers from it the same way (could also be used to research the minds eye stuph)... and all elders would have a say in rather a spell gets passed.. with the Elder in charge having the final say... (like sauro does for the black market)
No Spells can be traded (like equipment)
And if a Spell/ power is later ruled to overpowering, or game breaking then the spell is Erased from the Spell weave by the god of magic (the GM) with nothing refunded...
personnel i can't see how this is more challenging than digging through all the Minds eye things in for Psionics and approving each knew feat/power and prestige class.. and regular classes... and it's in the DMG...
Just something to think about before allowing in more none core material.. i am sure it will get dumped into file 13 and forgotten...
That being said, perhaps a blow-by-blow might be facilitative.
Wow...was trying to avoid this kind of a massive discussion, but let's dive in
[Anything not addressed is just hands-down agreed with][b]Prestige Classes[/b]
[*]Crystal Master: I don't think so.
I don't think this is as bad as people seem to think-> but given that there are no good psion prestige classes to compare it to, I'm game for removing it.
[*]Sangehirn: Loses only 1 ML, requires one useless feat and one very unpopular skill, and can select new powers only from a very limited list which includes few powers I'd want.
If you take psion/wilder levels again after starting in this class, can you pick from outside the list? That power-list isn't necessarily the end all of their powers.
[*]Psychic Assassin: Marginally better than the core assassin,
I'm pretty sure it sux compared to the core assassin. Required ML 5 more or less labels it as a psi-rogue build only, unless you want to do Rogue 1/Egoist 5/Psi-Assassin X or something crazy like that. I played around with it for a while-> I still like the core assassin better. [half manifesting progression isn't good enough of a draw in my book]
[*]Psychic Weapon Master: Massive feat requirements seem to be the balancing feature here; none of them are horrible feats, but none are great, either. Also can't use a special material weapon with any class benefits. The XP sacrifices would be a little wonky in our system, and could be abusable with moneymaking skills.
I think the weapon could be made out of deep crystal-> but yeah, no cold iron/silver/adamantine hurts. I don't think we'd charge the xp cost-> if it's good for magic crafters then it's good for this guy.
However, my largest concern is with the crit enhancers, clearly based on the 3.0 Weapon Master (which never made it to 3.5, for good reason). How would you like a scythe with a 17-20 threat range, or a falchion with a 13-20 threat range, and the ability to increase crit damage by 1 multiplier (so 5x for the scyther, 3x for the falchion) once per day per two class levels? Add full BAB, half ML progression, bonus feats (including an extra +1 to Weapon Focus), and what effectively amounts to a free weapon (since it costs only XP), and we have a broken class.
I'm not so sure. I think the prereqs are the killer:
Able to manifest 3rd level powers sets min level at 5.
Able to manifest 3rd level powers + have a +5 BAB boni sets min level at 7 [PsiWarrior-7]
6 feat requirement takes up most of your feats. Standard cheese tactics on deep-strike builds should be something like run/FoF, which further sinks feat investments. Add in that you can't really multiclass for large #'s of feats[fighter/ranger/barb/whatever] because of that 3rd level power restriction, and you have a tough class to get into.
You won't be seeing the crit multipliers become an issue until much later in levels[when you'll be seeing level 5/6 spells]. I don't think it's an issue.
[b]Alternative class features:[/b]
[list]Soulbound Weapon (Psychic Warrior): Spend a feat to soup up the power of Call Weaponry. I can't tell from the description whether you gain Weapon Focus as a bonus or if you're obligated to take it. If the latter, this seems like a reasonable use of a feat. If the former, it's too much--gain a feat and more in exchange for a feat?
As it's written, you get weapon focus & another psionic feat at first level. It's too tempting to take a 1 level dip in: I'd say cut it.
[*]Hidden Talent (Soulknife): Er, no. Pure power over Wild Talent.
Cut from my original list because it was "obviously better"
[*]Psychic Knowledge (Seer): I have no problem with this. It might be a smidge overpowered by the book (since in our environment, Bardic Knowledge is like Knowledge (everything)), but I don't think it would be unbalanced.
Seer's don't have metamorph, so I don't see how it could be abused.
As for restructuring credits; I'm all for it, but I think it can't be fixed by tweaks - it would need some sort of overhaul. I'll think on it.
New content: I'm 75% against it. I was against the UA material as well. I came to the Core coliseum to play core stuff. I'm not against the minds eye stuff, or against UA; I just think that every few months we slide further from the COre. On bad days in the past, I used to call this place the CatCo, since it was less about core then about 'The Vision'TM. I would still be shakey on it even if the balance was perfect. That said, I'll review the material this weekend and give some feedback.
Perhaps I should take a step back and explain why I was interested in adding that stuff.
1) Cat was working on it. He also wasn't the only one thinking about it. Although, his intention was to use it as a reward for pitlording massive amounts of fights (he wanted to debut it when Telin hit 100, but obviously he missed that deadline).
Cat had dozen's of things he was working on. That doesn't carry much weight with me. This place is his baby, and that deserves something, but I'm not sure....
2) The reason why we're the Core Coliseum is because of information limitations. That's why the whole SRD is included, not just the PHB/MM/DMG. By that logic, web enhancements are not impossible.
Your logic's shakey here. It's pretty clearly laid out in the rules thread (over [post=6463590]here[/post], at the very bottom) what Cat originally thought of non-core material. Although Cat changed his tune later, It's good to remember his admontion: there were two arena's before this and they both failed within a year. I think that the reason we're the Core coliseum is so that we have a boundry, so things don't get out of hand, and the idea of an 'Open-Source Coliseum' is a later development.
3) The more options we have, the better. Although there is a vast number of combinations of classes, races, and feats possible, folks do get bored. There's a certain evolution of players here: a beginning player typically takes a single-class favorite of theirs, then a "standard" optimized character (tripper, straight caster, etc.), then tries one or two exotic things, and if they're still around after that we're lucky. Greater versatility helps us maintain a larger member base.
I agree and disagree. It's a balancing act between the amount of options; too few is boring, too many is irritating/overwhelming or boring.
Enought philosophizing; off to earn my elder title...
another point i want to raise - it's a fairly long standing tradition here (As i understand) that CR=ECL as far as monster fights are concerned, But the problem is that many MANY cases it really isnt and it creates a situation which the monster is so much more powerfull then the Gladitor that there is little point if any to actually running the Fight.
the problem is there with just normal monsters but you cant really do much about it - the problem is multiplied many times over when you start dealing with templeted monsters which usually get exponensioly stronger with very little increase in CR.
a few examples -
1)a half dragon Ogre - ECL 9 in the ECL 5 league.
2)Fiendish pherenic owlbear - ECL 9 at ECL 6 league
3)half celestial gryphon - ECL 13 at ECL 6 league
4)see hag vampire - ECL 11 at ecl 6 league.
5)5th level vampire fighter - ECL 13 at ecl 7 league
6)half fiend troll - ECL 14 at ecl 7 league
7)Fiensidh young red dragon ECL 20! at ECL 9 league (like dragons arent overpowered as is)
8)the many man half dragon/half fiend/half celestial things at ECL 9+
i know those lists have been here around for a while and adding template is a way to get variety on monsters But why give a gladiator an unbeatable opponent? it's not in any way shape or form "fun".
i know we cant do away with mechanisem of CR=ECL completly But if we are doing for allies that if a monster has a Level adjusment listed we use that to calculate when you can use it an ally - why cant we use the same rule for monsters?
another point i want to raise - it's a fairly long standing tradition here (As i understand) that CR=ECL as far as monster fights are concerned, But the problem is that many MANY cases it really isnt and it creates a situation which the monster is so much more powerfull then the Gladitor that there is little point if any to actually running the Fight.
Remember, monsters do not get near as much equipment as characters, nor do they get the 36 point buy. We're aiming for a 50/50 success rate while table top is aiming for around 100% success (assuming the characters work together well.) I personally think setting up CoCo characters against equal CR monsters is about the right level of difficultly. However, the fact of the matter is a single character doesn't have the options that an adventuring party has.
the problem is there with just normal monsters but you cant really do much about it - the problem is multiplied many times over when you start dealing with templeted monsters which usually get exponensioly stronger with very little increase in CR.
Actually, the challenge rating system is an exponential like system. A level 20 character is far stronger than 20 ECL 1 characters. Remember, +2 Cr is supposedly twice as tough. Thus you can have two ECL 6 Ogres or one ECL 9 Ogre. Versus a single ECL 5 character.
But those ogres really aren't ECL 6 or 9 because they don't have the equivalent wealth.The really big difference is that CRs are designed for parties of 4. And its not the factor of 4 thats the problem, its the breadth of abilities that is.
The breadth of abilities available tends to much smaller for a CoCo character compared to a full adventuring party, and thus, having the right abilities to deal with a certain monster can be a problem. Especially with arena focused builds (as opposed to monster focused builds). Unfortunately, there's not much you can do for that.
a few examples -
1)a half dragon Ogre - ECL 9 in the ECL 5 league.
2)Fiendish pherenic owlbear - ECL 9 at ECL 6 league
3)half celestial gryphon - ECL 13 at ECL 6 league
4)see hag vampire - ECL 11 at ecl 6 league.
5)5th level vampire fighter - ECL 13 at ecl 7 league
6)half fiend troll - ECL 14 at ecl 7 league
7)Fiensidh young red dragon ECL 20! at ECL 9 league (like dragons arent overpowered as is)
8)the many man half dragon/half fiend/half celestial things at ECL 9+
Certain monsters, even without templates are simply going to be unbeatable for certain character types. For example, take a Greater Earth Elemental at ECL 9 in the sewers against *any* melee type.
Btw, Fiendish young red dragon is ECL 21, not 20.
Look on the bright side, it could have been two ECL 19 young red dragons. I'm pretty sure that would have been worse. On the other hand, at ECL 20, a fiendish young red dragon is going to be a push over. Even for a fighter.i know we cant do away with mechanisem of CR=ECL completly But if we are doing for allies that if a monster has a Level adjusment listed we use that to calculate when you can use it an ally - why cant we use the same rule for monsters?
If you do that, you'll find monsters losing badly. Take that Half Dragon Ogre. You want a 4 HD Giant type monster going up against a level 9 Fighter? The Ogre has less than 40 hit points while the fighter has something like 72 or more depending on constitution. He'll have a better AC, better to hit and probably flying boots. Lets not even talk about a level 9 Wizard...
Anyways, the template isn't the big problem. Just imagine replacing the template with a second copy of the monster. The issue is being able to deal with unique strengths and weaknesses of any particular monster with any particular build. With only a single character, its going to be virtually impossible (except possibly in the case of a properly prepared Wizard) to deal with all possible monster types. Since they're designed to show case different members of the party. Or even teamwork between party members.
Remember, monsters do not get near as much equipment as characters, nor do they get the 36 point buy. We're aiming for a 50/50 success rate while table top is aiming for around 100% success (assuming the characters work together well.) I personally think setting up CoCo characters against equal CR monsters is about the right level of difficultly. However, the fact of the matter is a single character doesn't have the options that an adventuring party has.
the problem is that certein monsters on that list ARENT 50/50 - they are 99.9% chance to win against anyone - take that fiendish young red dragon - it's almost impossible to beat by any ECL 9 char- especially on maps with no buff up times - why do we want to subject peeps to monsters they have no chance to win against?
p.s. - dragons under our current rules get from a lot more (at earlier ECL's) to about equal in Wealth to the league they are in.
the problem is that certein monsters on that list ARENT 50/50 - they are 99.9% chance to win against anyone - take that fiendish young red dragon - it's almost impossible to beat by any ECL 9 char- especially on maps with no buff up times - why do we want to subject peeps to monsters they have no chance to win against?
A Kinestist 5/Psion Uncarnate 4 going Incorporeal for 10 rounds and tossing Cold Energy Missiles for 8d6-2 x2 damage probably wouldn't have too much trouble.
A simple readied Entangling Ectoplasm (3pp) would have had the dragon falling to the ground from the air also.
Wall of Stone, Ice Wall or Resilient sphere can give a Wizard prep time. Then once buffed, using Web and cold spells should be able to give a Wizard a chance. Caster level 9 with the two SR penetrating feats would make breaching the SR not a problem. Or use conjuration spells.
Heck a straight up fighter with 100+ hit points, good AC, and a Cleric/Wizard cohort to buff him might also be able to do it. He buffs while getting to work (and preventing the dragon from reaching the fragile ally).
I certainly don't think its a 99% win rate. Its tough, but not impossible.
Edit: In regards to the triple wealth of dragons, that is an acknowledged problem, which is getting fixed, but changes do take time especially on an all volunteer board. And in any case, thats not an issue with ECL vs CR or templates.
another point i want to raise - it's a fairly long standing tradition here (As i understand) that CR=ECL as far as monster fights are concerned, But the problem is that many MANY cases it really isnt and it creates a situation which the monster is so much more powerfull then the Gladitor that there is little point if any to actually running the Fight.
We have discussed this so many times. If I recall correctly, we've even discussed it with you a time or two in the past.
The basic point is that CR->EL. That means that the CR of a monster tells us the Encounter Level of that monster (assuming an even battle with no allies, terrain or surprise advantages).
Encounter level is not the same as Equivalent Character Level (ECL).
What you are suggesting above is not true. It's not true here, it's not true in Core Rules, and it's not a basis for our policy that set's the difficulty of battles with monsters.
quick question can a guild opt out of the guild game?
It's a mess if they do. Because of the way territories are set up, that leaves a gap. For instance, TAO's departure would leave CEF, TLT, and probably WAR with the advantageous position of having uncontested territory to move into. With LOY, we managed to wipe some districts off the map to compensate, but doing that again would get a little silly.
I know the guild system is a drudge in some ways. I'm trying to work on the Community system before revamping the Guilds (because I want the two systems to interact well), but I certainly have ideas for Guildhall v.4.0.
I wasn't involved in the original decision on this. I could see rebalancing it to be one week of shopping per win.
...and it may be worth considering for crafters, as well. Potentially spending 10 weeks crafting after a cycle of all wins is just silly. It works in TT because downtime is "off-screen," but here it's a bit excessive.
I am sorry, but this limit is still very low(and this idea actually lowers the limit for ECL10 and lower).
Personally I think one full activity to shop without gp-limit is the way to go, but its hard to be impartial here.
And I would have no problems using that same rule for crafting.
Under our current crafting rules, he is about to spend the next 19 weeks....yes....19 weeks....crafting with what he gained coming out of Sauro's campaign.
Earlier, I proposed to allow the value of crafted items to use the out of pocket total, rather than the market total (like we do for expendables able to be placed on your sheet), to determine how much could be crafted as a full activity. His current market value of items is 132,500 gp. This rule change would allow him to cut that crafting time from 19 weeks to 10 weeks.
I also proposed to make the amount you could craft in any one given free or full activity a scaleable amount. For free activities, it would be equal to a winner's gold share at your ECL, and for full activities, it would be your ECL x 1000. Using this rule change, we could cut his crafting time for the 132,500 worth of items down from 19 weeks to 12 weeks.
Now, if we put the two rules together, we could take that 19 weeks of crafting 132,500 worth of stuff down to:
(132,500 / 2 for the crafting value) = 66,250
(his ECL which will be 12 at the time of crafting x 1000) = 12,000 per full activity
66,250 / 12,000 per wk = 5.52 rounded to 6 weeks.
That's an improvement of 13 weeks of crafting time just by making those two little tweeks.
Re: Crafting:
@Sauro + others (Crafting needs a penalty gang): I understand your position with crafting needing some form of downside, and I do think that there needs to be some setback. I personally would love to see the XP rule kicked back in with a minor covet that crafted items can't be sold to prevent abuse. I would probably still craft as much as I do now with all of my characters and I'll their gear would still be as they are. I don't think that imposing a cap to crafted items (like we have for expendables) would be the thing to do. Crafting feats require a feat expenditure which is a significant expenditure to begin with.
@Pro-shorten crafting time: Can't do it. I really line up w/ Sauro more than the others, although I think there could be some compromise in the middle, yet I know my dream option will probably not be an option.
Options that I think would aid both camps:
- Install something like Niqil has suggested with the scaling GP cost. I think a scaling option will be the only thing that will work 'well' in this setting.
- Put the XP cost back into crafting. Now I know this opens up a huge can of worms but hear me out. This rule MUST be instated with the above statement of 'You can't sell items you spend XP on' or some other function to prevent abuse. (Abuse: Craft something for 500gp + 40xp, then sell item for 500gp means you effectively lose 40xp. This then would allow people to level up slower and accumulate more wealth for their level so that by ECL 10 someone could have the wealth of an ECL 12+ (This is a rough guess on a sleepy head). Now I could be missing something here where there is still a loophole for abuse in here somewhere). This would have to remove the existing XP rule that takes gp away as well. This limits the amount a person can craft as you can't 'de-level'
If the crafting rules remain as is, I have a request that crafting of over a certain amount not be counted as an activation. I think 5 weeks could be a good marker, but I don't think it is fair to not only deny a Player the opportunity to have fun in the arena, but then to charge that Player for having a character that has no arena function, does not use Pitlord resources, and just requires the Player to update a post.
@Sauro: minor nit-pick: At ECL 16 no one can craft tombs due to 2 points: 1)no one has wish or miracle 2) no one has 25000XP to drop to cast those spells under our current rules system. (or ever will for that matter, until ECL 25)
Side Notes: I'm on my last bit of energy as I am writing this, so I apologize if I don't make sense. And I forget what the other thing I was going to say was ...
Well I probably need to weigh in here a little since I seem to be causing a ruckus...
Re: Crafting:
@Sauro + others (Crafting needs a penalty gang): I understand your position with crafting needing some form of downside, and I do think that there needs to be some setback. I personally would love to see the XP rule kicked back in with a minor covet that crafted items can't be sold to prevent abuse. I would probably still craft as much as I do now with all of my characters and I'll their gear would still be as they are. I don't think that imposing a cap to crafted items (like we have for expendables) would be the thing to do. Crafting feats require a feat expenditure which is a significant expenditure to begin with.
Side Notes: I'm on my last bit of energy as I am writing this, so I apologize if I don't make sense. And I forget what the other thing I was going to say was ...
I always thought the problem with the xp cost was the fact that for any given level, a crafter would have a higher gp to xp ratio (above and beyond the fact that they're crafting, but the fact that they get to redo fights in say, the 46,000 to 48,000 xp range (ECL 10) after crafting 2,000 xp worth (50,000 gp worth - not impossible at ECL 10), so they get an additional ~4,000 gp for re-earning the xp (but not losing the corresponding gp).
Penalties cannot involve xp for the simple fact that in this environment, you're always fighting the same level. Thus xp is meaningless as a balancer. Only if you began a somewhat more complex system of recording xp earned versus current xp, and then matching based on xp earned would a cost be associated with paying xp.
If you want to increase the cost of crafting, I think the 5gp per xp rule would probably be the easiest to impliment, resulting in a net craft cost of 70% rather than 50%, and would be consistent with current rulings. Rather than repealing the 5 gp per xp rule (which is what it sounds like you were suggesting - please correct me if that impression is wrong), which would make it beneficial, for example, to cast wish in this environment.
I thought the xp cost right now was xp * ECL multiplier for gp rewards. I have seen Telin do this w/ Kraegin with his Planar Ally stuff.
Woops, I may have been getting the fixed 5gp per xp for casting services and the xp cost of self cast spells confused.
I thought the xp cost right now was xp * ECL multiplier for gp rewards. I have seen Telin do this w/ Kraegin with his Planar Ally stuff.
Notwithstanding what Telin may done in the past, that is not what the rules currently say.
Experience Loss: Any loss in experience points as a result of casting a spell also results in the loss of 5 gold pieces per 1 xp.
So it seems to imply that you do actually lose the xp, but you lose a chunk of gold as well. Can someone find a place where this rule has been amended?
However, this is the current item in the [post=6463693]Rules of Gladius[/post]:
Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies.
There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes).
We have banned/changed impalanced Core material before so this isnt without precedent.
So why not change rules when there is a broad consensus that touchsight is too strong?
And btw: Even after an Errata for the XPH came out, RAW still says that each pp spend in augmenting energy missile increases the DC by one and not every second like all other energy powers. Every sane DM will use his nerf stick on this and we should too(as far as I know, all users of energy missile in the CoCo DONT use the current RAW because it is clearly overpowered.)
After that it is all a matter of degrees which rules should be changed and which not.
Something I've been considering for a while is collecting all the 'unofficial' errata from the Psionics book, that is things that were changed in the print version and never changed in the SRD. It's been noted on numerous occasions that some good nerfs/balances were placed in there. My idea is to collect them all and put them in one post, or one section on the rules thread.
Do other elders have an opinion on this?
but to make things easy, just quote wikipedia. ;)
Usually, a fictional humanoid species has the same basic body outline as a human, being bipedal with hands which include fingers and opposable thumbs, but differs in details such as number of digits, coloring, ear form, presence of hair, average height and weight, size of nose, form of skin, "extras" such as horns, plates, claws, tails or multiple appendages, limb structure (such as having digitigrade legs) and taxonomic lineage (being descended from reptiles, fish, rodents, marsupials, or a phylum not evolved on Earth, perhaps, instead of primates). Reptilian humanoids are a common concept.
as for the monster rule: i'd prefer to either leave non predatory animals out of the arena, or have them act like being "handle-animaled" - they could do anything that is within a trick, but nothing more specific.
doing things like "move to avoid full attack, even if he can then charge", seem way out of line for an animal.
Since the tactics are supposed to be written with the opponent in mind - it is not out of the question to include those things for even very limited intelligence/low wisdom creatures.
While I'm not opposed to having clear tactics, I believe that having low intelligence/wisdom scores is a weakness that should be reflected in their behavior.
High intelligence monsters are described time and time again as more dangerous, more powerful and more successful in the long-term than their low-intelligence but physically powerful counterparts.
However, if the low-intelligence counterparts act in combat with the exact same problem-solving ability and tactical planning capability of their more intelligent versions... then that wouldn't really be true, would it?
Simple creatures should act simply.
Complex creatures should act complex or simply as it benefits them most.
Your 'two points' of things to be covered cover everything which isn't appropriate for a creature with low intelligence, much less those with none! (Like skeletons)
That's my two cents.
Animals quite often size up their meals before approaching. For those that aren't actively hunting - they often size up their predator in order to best gauge how to handle it.
The reason why I suggest the things I do is so I don't have to make a judgement call during a fight.
For instance, my opponent is an experienced tripper and my monster is a large-sized quadruped with an Int of 3. Should I just write "Stomp opponent" in and move on? Okay - now the large-sized quadruped is tripped and based - should the beast get up? Or should it fight from prone?
One of the biggest range of arguments I see in the arena (between two or among multiple players) is that a pitlord has to make a call in the fight because some situation that could be anticipated is not handled in the tactics.
If I write a one line tactic for the less-intelligent monster, then I guarantee I don't have anything handled in the tactics. Yes, I am the pitlord in this case, so the call I make is the one that will be in the fight - but its still something that has to be done mid-fight - and in this case, AFTER the opposing persons' tactics have been read.
Note that my suggestions call for how to handle situations, not how to auto-win. I don't suggest having animals grapple opponents that are much smaller (unless of course the animal is a natural grappler - like a bear). I don't suggest trips (unless it is something like a wolf), etc. My suggestions are there to cover the basics of "what to do if...?"
Here's a quick look through of the cost of mercs if you hired a merc at the highest ECL by level and assuming you lost the fight:
(And here's another reason I'm looking forward to 4e.)
Speaking of 4e... I know we don't have very much of the rules yet, but everything I glean, I try to figure out how we're going to deal with. It actually looks like it will be much more friendly to our format than 3.5 is (though we'll still run the 3.5 game for as long as there's interest), but monsters may be hard to figure out--a level 5 monster poses no real threat to a level 5 PC.
I kind of like the idea of 1/day, 1/ Encounter type abilitys... Maybe a thorn in the Butt for Pitlords.. but should make things interesting..
As for the Monsters... Will have to see how they work them.. I have a feeling there will be base monsters, and alot more templates.. (warrior template, Cultist template ect...)
Kineticists are often able to go through all theirs, as well, depending on who their victim is.
The point is that NPCs are given the CRs they are based on the assumption that they will use everything they have. That may work out to an advantage for some NPCs more than others, but that's the way it goes. (And here's another reason I'm looking forward to 4e.)
Speaking of 4e... I know we don't have very much of the rules yet, but everything I glean, I try to figure out how we're going to deal with. It actually looks like it will be much more friendly to our format than 3.5 is (though we'll still run the 3.5 game for as long as there's interest), but monsters may be hard to figure out--a level 5 monster poses no real threat to a level 5 PC.
RE: Kineticists: As long as we're "fixing" things like Dispel Magic, why not "fix" energy missile, given that it was fixed in a splat book already? [thus confirming it was not meant to be the way it is.]
RE: 4th Ed: We'll likely want to run some "beta" rounds to test the new rules & their interaction with our system. I think the 30 level spread is going to interfere with us a bit, given our limited player base.
On the other hand, we may not have such a limited player base if old players come back to check out 4E in the arena format.
Re: Energy Missile: Since the Dispel Psionics measure was passed, I certainly think the correction on EM should be applied (+1 DC per 2 PP, not per 1). Any objections?
Re: Energy Missile: Since the Dispel Psionics measure was passed, I certainly think the correction on EM should be applied (+1 DC per 2 PP, not per 1). Any objections?
As long as you leave Astral Construct alone, it's fine with me!
Any chance that now that we have a precedence for rulechanges, that we can also take a look at touchsight again? When I last proposed it the main objection everyone had was that nerfing one thing will open the floodgate to other changes. That is no longer the case.
Also, are there any plans to replace the two open elder spots anytime? Beeing 2 Elders down is not that ideal for a longer amount of time...
Also, are there any plans to replace the two open elder spots anytime? Beeing 2 Elders down is not that ideal for a longer amount of time...
I nominate lonewolf!
I agree.
Any chance that now that we have a precedence for rulechanges, that we can also take a look at touchsight again? When I last proposed it the main objection everyone had was that nerfing one thing will open the floodgate to other changes. That is no longer the case.
Also, are there any plans to replace the two open elder spots anytime? Beeing 2 Elders down is not that ideal for a longer amount of time...
I put the request in some time ago... for some reason, NiQil and Zevox received their demotions to Core Coliseum Oldtimer, but Erithmu and Macbrea didn't get their promotions to Elder. Nonetheless, it's them, so they have full voting rights on Elder issues.
I put the request in some time ago... for some reason, NiQil and Zevox received their demotions to Core Coliseum Oldtimer, but Erithmu and Macbrea didn't get their promotions to Elder. Nonetheless, it's them, so they have full voting rights on Elder issues.
would be nice to have such things covered in a news post, or similar thing - as most of us would still not know this if not for this post.
I nominate lonewolf!
Im feeling flattered...
would be nice to have such things covered in a news post, or similar thing - as most of us would still not know this if not for this post.
It usually is announced when the new titles are in... they usually don't take that long to get (I think I got mine in 2 days...)
Also...
Failing to clear a resolved prison post within 48 hours of notification: -2 credits
I have a problem with this one. A perfect example: I had Yorick in a fight in which it was found my skill points were spent wrong. It was posted on Wedesday that I had a violation. The fight was failed to run for 2 weeks. As a result I could not edit the character sheet til 14 days later. I don't feel it is right for me to suddenly loose 24 credits because I was not allowed to edit the sheet. This then makes it were if you get an error you should just edit the sheet and send a pm to the pitlord that you surrender. Or you loose the credits.
I'm not sure why you think that people would stick to the rules & not consider these unusual circumstances. We're not writing a religion that needs to be infallible, after all
And besides- the penalty isn't cumulative as written.It means that if person A posts an error about persons B character, then person B corrects said error and informs person A about it, and then person A fails to remove the prison post within 48 hours he loses credits.
Im not sure if that is really necessary, but I think that is what Telin meant here.
As to the "Failure to clear a resolved prison post" - that is not a good idea. I check in most days, but I don't always get a chance to do much - maybe read one or two posts. There are certainly weeks where I check in on Wednesday and Thursday and then disappear until Tuesday.
I would be fine with a penalty for not resolving a prison post that results in a character being held out of pairings (as in - a penalty wouldn't kick in unless the prison post wasn't marked as closed after notification and after the prison post has existed for several weeks.
That said - the situation is very rare - I don't know that the extra work of tracking who should get penalties is worth the effort on my end really.
@McJ: It's because you're speee-cial. (Coloring audited and corrected.)
Wow. I really thought it was an inside joke- it initially bothered me months ago.
Wow. I really thought it was an inside joke- it initially bothered me months ago.
Nah... undoubtedly it just wasn't noticed when you went back up over the 10% mark, and then you left and it wasn't looked at again.
New question: I know that overall, monster fights have about a 50/50 win rate. But has anyone examined whether characters with more successful records actually win more of those monster fights? They should, but there have been many cases where Great Renown or even long-undefeated characters get monster fights that are ridiculously stacked against them. I haven't noticed whether crappy characters are more likely to win monster fights than PC fights. If that's so, then the policy we have now that monsters are considered to have a PR of 1000 isn't really appropriate--PCs should just gain or lose 100 PR regardless. (The reasoning being that high-PR characters deserve to lose a lot if they're beaten by a low-PR character, and vice versa, but that's not really true with monsters.)
New question: I know that overall, monster fights have about a 50/50 win rate. But has anyone examined whether characters with more successful records actually win more of those monster fights? They should, but there have been many cases where Great Renown or even long-undefeated characters get monster fights that are ridiculously stacked against them. I haven't noticed whether crappy characters are more likely to win monster fights than PC fights. If that's so, then the policy we have now that monsters are considered to have a PR of 1000 isn't really appropriate--PCs should just gain or lose 100 PR regardless. (The reasoning being that high-PR characters deserve to lose a lot if they're beaten by a low-PR character, and vice versa, but that's not really true with monsters.)
A quick glance for ECL 6-13 shows the following trends for the Great Renown characters:
Name Wins/Losses (to monsters)
Chameleon 3/2
Lord Lorian 6/2
Longshot 5/1
Elrick 5/1
Celia 0/0
Hood 5/1
Reginald 2/0
Maya Redwine 3/0
Strongjaw 0/0
Treetall Oakleg 2/0
Darian Thorne 1/0
Unholy Ninja 0/0
From this incomplete and most likely error ridden survey, I would conclude successful characters are in fact successful in monster fights.
Just for comparison, Valen Sky has 1 win and 4 losses (and the one win was from way back at lower ECLs). He has a PR rating of 1228.
Failure Tagged Characters vs monsters
Name Wins/Losses
Featylec Elendi 1/1
Lord Frost 0/0
Izumi 3/2
Snaga 0/0
Rubicanti 1/2
Vantis Dar'ath 0/0
Maeglin Eluch 0/0
Unfortunately, the statistics aren't as good in this case, so its hard to say if there is a trend or not. Only 10 fights here versus 40 in the great renown case.
Edit: Added ECL 6 since it was easy and there were no other Great renowns... Might as well be complete.
Edit 2: Adding all the failures
Edit 3: Correcting Lord Lorian's numbers, as pointed out by Templer10 below
if i get a monster fight, it is likely that i don't know the monster at all. a player can write tactics for his pc more easily. thus i think monster fights to be highly dependent on pitlord monster-experience. this is something you cannot count in.
-> fixed monster ratings would give more PR points if i understand that correctly. this should not be the case. i think default starting PR is right, just as a new character, since the pitlord might or might not know about how to play the monster right.
No matter what fight you pitlord you have to do the actual pitlording. With monsters this can vary from easy to hard just as easily as regular fights can. On top of this you have to post monster info early, design a monster while forcing yourself not to metagame[under strict specifications that the monster be a generalist who can take on mages/ranged archers/melee monsters], buy equipment for the monster, write general tactics, and then analyze the "opponent" and design specific tactics.
So we have.
- Run fight
Versus
- Run fight
- Post knowledge checks
- design monster
- equip monster
- write general/specific tactics
- try your best not to metagame the entire time
I'd say monster fights are alot more work- and they only service 1 person at a time. Most people will just slap a monster together & call it kosher, but I don't think that level of influence should reside with the pitlord. [It was especially tempting vs GR characters since I knew this would really hurt the chars career]
-> fixed monster ratings would give more PR points if i understand that correctly. this should not be the case. i think default starting PR is right, just as a new character, since the pitlord might or might not know about how to play the monster right.
I think we should put a cap of 100 PR change due to monster fights. What MWB is worried about is that he's facing the ugly truth this week[I think Lorian got close when I defeated his char with the troll/ogre team]: You have to be above 1666 PR to be immune to losing GR when facing a monster, and unfortunately win/losing a monster fight is like flipping a coin. You don't get a whole lot of say in it if you don't have knowledge skills.
Although it was Gak that induced me to bring it up this time, it's templer10 who's suffered the most--he's lost over 200 PR to near-impossible monster fights in the past.
Yeah- I understand. I haven't liked the rule for a long time. As stated- a 100 PR cap change on monster fights will work fine.
Examples:
Monster wins vs....
5,000 PR: 4,900 PR [instead of 4,500 via current rules]
500 PR: 450 PR [instead of 400 via 100PR monster fights]
etc, etc
Monster loses vs...
5,000 PR: 5,020 PR [Instead of 5,100 via 100 PR monster fights]
500 PR: 600 PR [Instead of 700 via current rules]
So a monster can't seriously bring you up or seriously bring you down. Since it's so hard for high rating people to go up in PR & it is easy for them to go down, the system should reflect that a little.
Yeah- I understand. I haven't liked the rule for a long time. As stated- a 100 PR cap change on monster fights will work fine.
Examples:
Monster wins vs....
5,000 PR: 4,900 PR [instead of 4,500 via current rules]
500 PR: 450 PR [instead of 400 via 100PR monster fights]
etc, etc
Monster loses vs...
5,000 PR: 5,020 PR [Instead of 5,100 via 100 PR monster fights]
500 PR: 600 PR [Instead of 700 via current rules]
So a monster can't seriously bring you up or seriously bring you down. Since it's so hard for high rating people to go up in PR & it is easy for them to go down, the system should reflect that a little.
I was thinking about the other side of things, too--many monster fights are absurdly easy (although I admit, often due to pitlord negligence). A low-PR character shouldn't get a huge jump from winning such a fight.
Although it was Gak that induced me to bring it up this time, it's templer10 who's suffered the most--he's lost over 200 PR to near-impossible monster fights in the past.
Not to mention out of ALL of my losses on my GR chars, most ARE to monsters, p.s. - lorian lost 2 or 3 times to monsters, not 1.
i was especially ticked off about losing a perfect record to 3 annis hag vampries in the sewers, talk about an autoloss...
On the PR thing - i think a 100 PR win/loss for monster fight should be about right- it's not any easer for a GR char to Win those kinds of fights (other then the GR char is generaly better) so he shouldnt get less reward.
p.s. - Mcjarvis - And it's nothing personall - since i had happen a LOT of monster figths, and i tend to read them even when i dont participate - i think the way you do them isn't always the most fair since you tend to super optimize monsters - a LOT more then most other pitlords, and they cant ALL be wrong...
p.s. - Mcjarvis - And it's nothing personall - since i had happen a LOT of monster figths, and i tend to read them even when i dont participate - i think the way you do them isn't always the most fair since you tend to super optimize monsters - a LOT more then most other pitlords, and they cant ALL be wrong...
Guess you have never had a Telin monster fight...
Guess you have never had a Telin monster fight...
I did - Expet hating telins dice (and everyone do really) iam okay with his style.
p.s. personally, if i run monster fights below my usuall level of competence in writing tactics Or optimization since i account for that the monster is harder then the avrage PC, and since the few times i DID write My usual level of tactics or in one case made a classed monster i pretty much won automaticly, and NOT beceuse the monster was particulary hard).
p.s.s - if it seems iam pushing towards some standarized level of tactics writing like sauro offered a while back it's becuase i am (althrough i think sauro wrote them 2 smart).
Izumi 3/2
Izumi is very weird in her record. She has fought alot of the great renowns that are out there at this point. And she fairs horridly in non-regular fights. I have to figure out a good path to make her viable at some point.
Monster 3 win, 2 loss
Team Fight with monster as ally 0 win, 1 loss
Team Fights 1 win, 3 loss
Free for all/Hunter 0 wins, 3 loss
Regular Fights 7 wins, 13 loss
i think the way you do them isn't always the most fair since you tend to super optimize monsters - a LOT more then most other pitlords, and they cant ALL be wrong...
I'lll admit that I spend alot more time developing monsters than other pitlords- but I don't think that because the majority of pitlords don't want to spend the time it means I shouldn't.
The problem with monster fights, IMO, is that the pitlord is the designer of the opponent AND the arbitrator of the fight. This leads to conflicts of issues, especially when pitlords want short fights- make the monster too easy, and you don't need to do as much work. Nobody complains[the monster has no advocate], and it's the perfect non-crime.
I'll also note that standardized monster tactics "rules" based on intelligence are a terrible idea. You'd be better off stripping out all of the monsters with less than 10 int. I see no indication that CR is based on intelligence of tactics. [nor any indication that tactics should be dictated by int score. There's no such thing as Craft: (Master Tactics), and like I've said before- we certainly don't make PC's craft tactics based on intelligence. ] Instead of limiting monster's tactical ability, I'd prefer to see us say that all CR's are shifted down one level or something similar. [or remove those pesky knowledge rolls. Most of my challenges would be easy to overcome if the gladiator knew what he was facing]
still, monster fights are a problem, as each monster tends to be optimized towards one goal. if the goal is in line with the character, the character is bound to lose, as ECL is no match to CR. (which is even acknowledged in the coco-rules.) else, he's likely to win.
i'd make some default characters for each ECL, which are used according to the monster fight. Let monsters be gone for the arena. it really doesnt make sense, why a celestial lion should ever enter the arena in the first place.
i think knowledges are a nice addition to monster fights. it makes use of some of those never-else used skills.
still, monster fights are a problem, as each monster tends to be optimized towards one goal. if the goal is in line with the character, the character is bound to lose, as ECL is no match to CR. (which is even acknowledged in the coco-rules.) else, he's likely to win.
i'd make some default characters for each ECL, which are used according to the monster fight. Let monsters be gone for the arena. it really doesnt make sense, why a celestial lion should ever enter the arena in the first place.
Ill support that - althrough it will never pass - we can also make said Monsters 36 point buy so it's "fair", Hell ill volunteer to make some of them and i can pretty much gurentee they will be anything BUT pushovers.
another option is like was said before and by quite a few many people - do away with those knowladge rolls, after all - when it is all said and done, unless you already have those skills as class skills AND you have a hell of a lot of INT, you wont have very many ranks in those skills.
ECL 9
- 1 Level 7 Half-Orc cleric and 3 Level 4 Orc Fighters
- 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro-
Monster 1 can probably be defeated by every single character in ECL 9. As it is basically, a 1 on 1 fight with some peons.
Monster 2 is probably impossible to almost every single character in the ECL 9 league.
For a party of 4 characters of 25pt buy the first encounter would use about 10% of their resources. The second encounter would probably use about 25% but wouldn't be an impossible fight.
Monsters CR was never meant to be a fight vs a single opponent. It was meant to tax 25% of the resources of a four man group of the same level. As a result, some fights are going to be pushovers, while others are going to be impossible.
ECL 9
- 1 Level 7 Half-Orc cleric and 3 Level 4 Orc Fighters
- 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro-
Monster 1 can probably be defeated by every single character in ECL 9. As it is basically, a 1 on 1 fight with some peons.
Monster 2 is probably impossible to almost every single character in the ECL 9 league.
For a party of 4 characters of 25pt buy the first encounter would use about 10% of their resources. The second encounter would probably use about 25% but wouldn't be an impossible fight.
It's worse than that. The Hyrdra is an auto-win for every ECL 9 character on account of it's lack of flight, 20 ft speed, and no ranged weapons.
It's not an autowin. I don't think a single one of them can generate the 18 damage a round nessessary to every kill it. Therefore, their flight is meaningless.
it's ego-whip bait & it's susceptible to save-or-die effects. I think that bridges over a fair number of gladiators. Especially with a +4 will save. [bleh]
Of course, if you let me put a cloak of resistance on it and have it crunch down some pots of pro:evil....
Do monster fights take place on any map now? I remember them taking place mostly on the Cavern map to avoid stuff like flying PC's.
Hydra's aren't that hard. Most of the maps, you can force the hydra to squeeze to get at you, making it very hard to hit the high AC players.
And of the current ECL 9 characters there are a few that might be able to stand toe to toe with it after looking.
Damage Per round.
Kitty Melee ~1.5, Ranged ~17.6
Izumi Melee ~48, Ranged ~24
Relanex Melee 0, Ranged ~35
Hood Melee ~5, Ranged ~20
Aquin Melee ~53.5, Ranged ~4.5
Arden Melee ~37, Ranged ~15
Ceilia Melee ~19, Ranged ~15
None have ego whip.
On summons swarm any animal that is damage by a bat swarm dies. Nothing it can do about it. They aren't smart enough to stop the bleeding.
dr>5 - enough.
you need not be smart, only tough. but that said - any unintelligent being should lose to a flyer.
Monster fights can be on any map.
And of the current ECL 9 characters there are a few that might be able to stand toe to toe with it after looking.
Damage Per round.
Kitty Melee ~1.5, Ranged ~17.6
Izumi Melee ~48, Ranged ~24
Relanex Melee 0, Ranged ~35
Hood Melee ~5, Ranged ~20
Aquin Melee ~53.5, Ranged ~4.5
Arden Melee ~37, Ranged ~15
Ceilia Melee ~19, Ranged ~15
None have ego whip.
And if Aquin is forced into a ranged encounter and you think he'll be relying on his crossbow - you are dead wrong...
That said - Aquin vs a hydra would be interesting.
I believe we need to close leagues 10+ again.
Looking at last weeks pairings, of the 11 leagues with characters in it we had 3 leagues with no fights, 2 more leagues with only one fight and 4 more with only 2 fights. Only the ECL3 & 4 leagues had 4 fights each.
The week before had 8 leagues with a single fight(including 3 monster fights) and 2 more with only 2 fights. The weeks before that werent much better.
There were times when we had more than double that amount of fights spread over only 7 leagues and it was a much healthier enviroment. Back then we said that we didnt have enough players to support more open leagues, and we were right. Now we have even fewer players and I firmly believe that we would need many more players to support the currently open leagues, not even counting the ECL14 & 15 leagues that are theoretically open but with no characters.
At the moment in the leagues 5+ you have a very good chance of guessing who you are gonna fight before pairings and thats very bad. I myself am guilty of metagaming because of this(not activating characters if I dont think I have a chance) and I am sure that others do so as well.
I see only 2 possible solutions:
- many new players that start populating the lower levels
- closing of the higher levels to force the oldtimers to come up with new character concepts and bring new characters into the lower levels.
The first one is not something that can be done fast or influenced by us much and its a longterm goal that IMHO isnt very likely to succeed until 4E comes along.
I know that we all like our high level toys, but if we continue like this I see bad long term consequences for CoCo.
I have a suggestion thats not gonna be popular, but I think it is necessary nonetheless:
I believe we need to close leagues 10+ again..
I never really understood why the leagues were closed in the first place other than to create a whole bunch of level 10 characters for a tournament (which turned out to be kind of a non-event, IMO). If a level 13 character wants to have a monster fight, or fight the same opponent again and again, what's the harm in that? As you said yourself, there are hardly any fights in those leagues so it's not like they're a drain on resources.
EDIT: In fact, I figure all leagues should be open for business. Frozen fights are stupid -- use all of the expensive one-shot items you want (Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Symbol spells), you'll just get them back at the end of the cycle!
I never really understood why the leagues were closed in the first place other than to create a whole bunch of level 10 characters for a tournament (which turned out to be kind of a non-event, IMO).
The leagues werent frozen for the Iron man Tournament. The reason to have frozen leagues was to have enough characters to populate all of the currently active leagues.
If a level 13 character wants to have a monster fight, or fight the same opponent again and again, what's the harm in that? As you said yourself, there are hardly any fights in those leagues so it's not like they're a drain on resources.
The problem is that at the moment you dont have a choice. You either fight the same guys over and over again or you dont fight at all. Fewer open leagues mean more characters in those open leagues and more diversity in the fights.
Fewer rematches, fewer monster fights, more chances for multiplayer fights, ....
As you said yourself, there are hardly any fights in those leagues so it's not like they're a drain on resources.
The problem is not the drain on pitlords. The problem is the drain on lower level characters. Back when ECL10 and higher leagues were closed, if a character reached ECL10 the player would usually start up a new character at a lower ECL. Now players contiue to play their characters further up which leads to fewer low level characters and nearly empty leagues.
EDIT: In fact, I figure all leagues should be open for business. Frozen fights are stupid -- use all of the expensive one-shot items you want (Dust of Sneezing and Choking, Symbol spells), you'll just get them back at the end of the cycle!
Which is why there are no "normal" frozen fights anyway. Frozen characters can only do frozen quests, and do guild & community missions, but since both of those subgames dont work right now there would be no frozen fights at all.
As I said: I really like the upper leagues, but unfortunately we just dont have the number of players required to populate all those leagues at the moment.
The leagues werent frozen for the Iron man Tournament. The reason to have frozen leagues was to have enough characters to populate all of the currently active leagues.
The problem is not the drain on pitlords. The problem is the drain on lower level characters. Back when ECL10 and higher leagues were closed, if a character reached ECL10 the player would usually start up a new character at a lower ECL. Now players contiue to play their characters further up which leads to fewer low level characters and nearly empty leagues.
As I said: I really like the upper leagues, but unfortunately we just dont have the number of players required to populate all those leagues at the moment.
I'm still not following your logic. It sounds like you're saying:
- The number of characters active in the higher leagues is tiny. (Agreed; there were only 5 characters active in the 11+ leagues during the last pairings.)
- If we had the higher leagues closed, there would be more lower level characters. (Maybe, but didn't we just agree that the drain on lower level characters is tiny? Would increasing the number of lower-level characters by 5 make a big difference somehow?)
Taking that logic to the extreme, then you could argue that we should freeze all leagues except for level 3. That'd really encourage making new characters! ;)
As an aside, I thought Caterane's logic for freezing the leagues was specifically to accumulate a group of characters with comparable high level (10) so that there would be a sizeable pool of gladiators to fill the higher leagues. It didn't seem to work, though.
The reason the 10+ leagues were frozen in the first place is that when the first two characters made it up there- one would always win and the other always lose. [I think it was a psiwarrior and a ghost]. Cat made the (wise) decision that such events are stupid and froze the ecl10+ leagues until more players got up there.
I don't see how that's any better than the player of the psiwarrior voluntarily putting his character on hiatus until more ECL 10 opponents come along while still allowing the ghost character to fight a smorgasbord of EL 10 monsters (if he so desires).
The fact that monster fights are themselves a drain on pitlords is a whole other topic, and not one that I think is necessary to discuss at this stage (although it might be if we have a few SoE's).
Personally, I see no real problem of having the upper leagues open, however I do see the sense in trying to encourage more lower level characters. Perhaps I could suggest the following idea:
Activating any ECL 10+ character costs 2 character activations. This cost is reduced to 1 character activation if the player also has an ECL 3-5 character active.
I don't see how that's any better than the player of the psiwarrior voluntarily putting his character on hiatus until more ECL 10 opponents come along while still allowing the ghost character to fight a smorgasbord of EL 10 monsters (if he so desires).
There were no monster fights at the time.
I'm still not following your logic. It sounds like you're saying:
- The number of characters active in the higher leagues is tiny. (Agreed; there were only 5 characters active in the 11+ leagues during the last pairings.)
- If we had the higher leagues closed, there would be more lower level characters. (Maybe, but didn't we just agree that the drain on lower level characters is tiny? Would increasing the number of lower-level characters by 5 make a big difference somehow?)
Taking that logic to the extreme, then you could argue that we should freeze all leagues except for level 3. That'd really encourage making new characters! ;)
Actually, with the current number of active gladiators, I believe we can support about 4 or 5 leagues without constant rematches and a really healthy randomness in the pairings. But closing the leagues 8+ is not something I consider realistic to get through here, so I tried to do a step in the right direction.
As an aside, I thought Caterane's logic for freezing the leagues was specifically to accumulate a group of characters with comparable high level (10) so that there would be a sizeable pool of gladiators to fill the higher leagues. It didn't seem to work, though.
It didnt work because of the steady decline in players/characters total.
We have to be realistic here: the higher leagues, the guild game, the community game, quests, campaigns, and many other things were designed with a much higher player population in mind. We dont have that population right now and we should take the consequences. Putting the guild game on hold was an important first step in that direction.
what i dont like about lower leagues is the lack of maps and other fight options. they were removed for a reason, but i don't like the reasoning behind it.
actually, i like ecl4+ better than ecl3. the arena gets boring. maybe we should do something else - a 3 fight cap for new players, where they only get standard fights in the arena. older players have no problems with playing characters at ecl3 for interleague, ffa or other maps.
Abyssal Stalker - Upper level character (10+)
Erithmu - Plays highest Character (10+)
Hirumajoe - Plays Highest (10+)
Malither76 - Plays highest character (10+)
SauroGrenom - Plays highest character (10+)
SoulLord - Plays highest character (10+)
TelinArtho - Generally player upper level character
templer10 - Highest level character + 1 middle
waywreth - Plays highest level character
TheMagister - Plays highest character
Macbrea - Generally plays 1 upper level character and 1 middle character. Hates 3-5th!
MindWandererB - Plays all over the board
lonewolf - Plays mid to high charcters (6+)
Zevox - All over the place working on different stuff
Vathelokai - Plays character til end
Ackermanus - New (3rd and 4th)
Callix - New (3rd to 5th)
CrazyArtificer - New (3rd)
Durzulgor - New (3rd)
Eamane - New (4th)
Korone - New (4th - 5th)
Nurlithion - New (3rd)
Taureus_Drakken - New player
The Dread Dormammu - New
Turanson - New
bestelf - New
john_0454120 - New
whitebaron - Low level character (3-4)
hogarth - Low level character (3-5)
Rauul - Starts new character when character that reach 7th
NiQil - Retires characters that reach 7th
McJarvis - Retires character that reach 6th.
Luni - Restarting old Timer
Stormwind - Returning old timer (restarting)
Dr Funk - Infrequent player
Eluria - Infrequent player
Salrantol - infrequent player
Sjiggie - Infrequent player
bgt - Infrequent player
As you can see by this. In the middle brackets it won't be very filled with fights until the people in the 3rd to 5th level upto that point. I can activate my characters in that range but on average I get to fight the same 2 to 3 people. Spreading out the levels hasn't really changed much.
i simply don't have any higher than gwerdan (ECL5 since 2 weeks), and he's active every week. basically all of my active characters are active, if i can afford it. ;)
As a result the middle leagues end up thin. It isn't anyones particular fault at all. My guess is of the people playing at the 3-5 range right now. 1/3 will quit or become infrequent players, 1/3 will reach middle leagues working toward high, 1/3 will restart characters.
This is pretty much the way it goes.
I recognize that we need to have lower level characters around - which is why I try to have a few at each stage in order to help out populations wherever they are needed.
I don't know that I agree with freezing the upper ECLs, but it is worth looking into. Maybe increasing the cost of activation would help (by indirectly increasing the pitlords or by directly reducing the number of characters the higher ECL player has active), but in reality that would likely only affect one player (templer10) - and he already does a number of fights per week. It might affect me as I get Kraegin, Sir Valkin and Aquin into the higher ECLs, but the reality is that I only pay attention to my credit count when it gets below 10... (which is to say - never...)
You get Unknown monster vs an ECL 9 fight on the plains. You roll 4 winter wolves. Do you reroll the monster vs:
1) Monsieur Hood
2) Aquin
3) Relanex Thines
4) Izumi
5) All of the Above
6) None of the Above
If the Answer isn't 5 or 6 then you are clearly biasing the decision based of information on the character sheet. That is an auto-win for three of those characters outright. But probably a loss for the fourth.
And if the answer is 6. Then why is the monster even on the list.
And if the answer is 6. Then why is the monster even on the list.
Whenever I ask questions like that the answer is usually "Well, it wouldn't be a reroll in the sewers/temple."
But yeah- I would auto reroll that fight. Monsters need to have a way to deal with flight by that level. (frankly- I'm surprised that Izumi doesn't have flight)
I think it'd be fairly easy to set up standard guidelines for re-rolling. The problem is that each individual map would have different requirements.
Whenever I ask questions like that the answer is usually "Well, it wouldn't be a reroll in the sewers/temple."
But yeah- I would auto reroll that fight. Monsters need to have a way to deal with flight by that level. (frankly- I'm surprised that Izumi doesn't have flight)
I think it'd be fairly easy to set up standard guidelines for re-rolling. The problem is that each individual map would have different requirements.
Here's an off the wall suggestion. What if we had monster lists for each individual map. It'd be a ton more work up front, but you wouldn't have to worry about re-rolling because a Huge creature in the sewers, because they wouldn't be on the list.
Just to throw it out there.
Here's an off the wall suggestion. What if we had monster lists for each individual map. It'd be a ton more work up front, but you wouldn't have to worry about re-rolling because a Huge creature in the sewers, because they wouldn't be on the list.
Just to throw it out there.
I think it would probably be easier to come up with fixed rules about when rerolls should take place, i.e. no creatures without ranged attacks or flight on the plains (after a certain ECL? Flight is possible even at ECL 3), Huge monsters in the sewers, etc. I don't think there's anything that's totally non-viable on all maps, but if there is, it should be replaced.
I think it would probably be easier to come up with fixed rules about when rerolls should take place, i.e. no creatures without ranged attacks or flight on the plains (after a certain ECL? Flight is possible even at ECL 3), Huge monsters in the sewers, etc. I don't think there's anything that's totally non-viable on all maps, but if there is, it should be replaced.
Although coming up with fixed rules about when rerolls should take place would improve the situation, I believe it would be difficult to come up with a set of rules that will always be used consistently, even by different pitlords. However, if the reroll rules aren't removed, then this is probably the next best solution.
I would still like to hear the reasoning behind rerolling monster fights. If it is supposed to happen very rarely (when the monster has no chance to win), then why are the rules needed at all?
and i support lonewolfs suggestion - giving monsters even more equipment and take their original CR against a single player (CR was always based upon a balanced group, who can take on much more than a single player!) is just wanting monster fights to be more tough than arena fights. if this is the original reasoning "monster should be more of a challenge than pcs", i'll put an auto-resign against monsters in my title lines. after all, i'm here to do pvp fights - i can pvm any time i want in my tt group.
RE: PC's vs CR of their level
The reason we do this is that CR is supposed to represent something that will take about 20% of the resources of a party of that level. CoCo is not about "easy fights that take up 20% of your resources"- it is about tough fights that you have to think through.
Here are my big ones that I reroll for. If any particular monster in an encounter applies to one of these items- then I reroll it.
- Short Ranged or no ranged attack combined with a lack of maneuverability. [either no flight speed or a low speed overall(20 and lower) ]
- Too big for the map[sewers usually]
- ECL5+ no ranged attacks & no flight speed on any map where the monster's natural reach can't reach all squares in the map.
- ECL7+ no ability to detect invisible foes. [listen check must be maxed out if it wants to apply for this]
Season to taste.
You assume that EVERY ECL5 character has access to flight?
And EVERY ECL7 character has access to greater invisibility(normal invisibility isnt that dangerous)?
He wanted to keep that reroll in there when the tables were rebuilt in order to prevent monster fights from being pushovers in the same respect. I happen to agree that some rerolls should happen (specifically - huge (or larger) creatures in the sewer, gargantuan (or larger) creatures in the temple and non-ranged capable/non-flying opponents on the plains map). I do want to reserve the right to reroll if the creature is not in the SRD (since I don't have the core books for 3.5).
Even that wouldn't work since the pairingsmaker doesn't require an odd number of characters in a bracket before it assigns a monster fight (e.g. you could have a 3 person FFA and a monster fight, I think).
The program works that way, but I don't. If I see something like that, I'll change it to 2 normal fights. There's still a possibility, though; for instance, I might change the above to a 3-way FFA and an interleague with a lower league.
still, monster fights in coco are only fillers. monsters are not there for diversity, they are there for players without pairing to still get a fight. if they originally were there for diversity, they'd be held more often.
I fall on the fence with respect to monster fights.
I like them, I can understand why others don't. I think they are fun to write tactics against, if you know what you're fighting.
Here's my idea for a compromise:
Why don't we make a few fully detailed "monsters" for each ECL and post 10 them in the characters thread, or a "monsters" thread.
I know that it will decrease the diversity of the monsters at each level from 100 different ones down to about 10, but we can still have a few fully described monsters. This allows players to guess what they may be against, and to know the monster foe nearly as well as they would know the PC foe. As far as I understand it, this kind of a system will help deal with the concerns that monsters are designed by the pitlords to defeat the players. Also it allows us to adjust the monsters over time to improve them, develop finely tuned strategies and equipment.
I like this idia - one of the main beefs i have with monster fights is never knowing what odd expandble or wierd item or change in "normal" powers/spells a pitlord will hit me with (and that's when i even know what iam facing).
still, monster fights in coco are only fillers. monsters are not there for diversity, they are there for players without pairing to still get a fight. if they originally were there for diversity, they'd be held more often.
Why? We usually have about one FFA and one inter-league per week, and about 2 monster fights. So they're more common than the other alternative fight forms.
Why? We usually have about one FFA and one inter-league per week, and about 2 monster fights. So they're more common than the other alternative fight forms.
yes, but the monster fights are only there to avoid players sitting out - you yourself stated that you avoid pvm if there is a legit pvp option.
=> that there are, in fact, monster fights, is not due to the rules wanting monster fights - it's due to the low player population.
with a full active roster, the maximum of monster fights per week would be 1, as ecl 3 is the only bracket where you can do no FFA/interleague. monster fights are just more common than these, because we are on a low activity phase.
if monster fights are there for another reason, it's well hidden. it also says in the rules, that if you don't get a match, you'll have to fight a monster. if this is not the role of a filler, what else is?
Race and Class - XP Loss House Rules
Show
Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies.
There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes).
Code:
ECL XP : GP
1 1 : 1.0000
2 1 : 1.0000
3 1 : 1.0000
4 1 : 1.0000
5 1 : 1.0667
6 1 : 1.1111
7 1 : 1.2381
8 1 : 1.4167
9 1 : 1.6667
10 1 : 1.9333
11 1 : 2.2727
12 1 : 2.7222
13 1 : 3.3333
14 1 : 4.0476
15 1 : 4.8888
16 1 : 5.8333
17 1 : 7.0589
18 1 : 8.7037
19 1 :10.7018
20 1 :13.3333
Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies.
There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes).
Code:
ECL XP : GP
1 1 : 1.0000
2 1 : 1.0000
3 1 : 1.0000
4 1 : 1.0000
5 1 : 1.0667
6 1 : 1.1111
7 1 : 1.2381
8 1 : 1.4167
9 1 : 1.6667
10 1 : 1.9333
11 1 : 2.2727
12 1 : 2.7222
13 1 : 3.3333
14 1 : 4.0476
15 1 : 4.8888
16 1 : 5.8333
17 1 : 7.0589
18 1 : 8.7037
19 1 :10.7018
20 1 :13.3333
Question I see this which is something left from old times
Race and Class - XP Loss House RulesShow
Under normal D&D rules, if a player character crafts a magic item or buries his familiar, he loses Experience Points. In the Core Coliseum, we have mostly removed voluntary and involuntary XP losses to simplify things. If your character crafts a magic item, you only need to pay the price in gold; forget about the XP cost. Likewise, you lose no XP if your familiar dies.
There is one exception to this rule: spells and powers. If a spell or power has an XP cost associated with casting it, you do pay this XP cost. In addition, you also lose a certain amount of gold, depending on your ECL and how much XP you spent. Find your ECL on the table below and multiply the XP cost by the given ratio; that is how much gold you lose. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP (100*1.93). This exception includes creating items that use such spells (e.g. a ring of three wishes).
Code:
ECL XP : GP
1 1 : 1.0000
2 1 : 1.0000
3 1 : 1.0000
4 1 : 1.0000
5 1 : 1.0667
6 1 : 1.1111
7 1 : 1.2381
8 1 : 1.4167
9 1 : 1.6667
10 1 : 1.9333
11 1 : 2.2727
12 1 : 2.7222
13 1 : 3.3333
14 1 : 4.0476
15 1 : 4.8888
16 1 : 5.8333
17 1 : 7.0589
18 1 : 8.7037
19 1 :10.7018
20 1 :13.3333
There was abuse where people would craft items, lose xp, and then sell those items effectively gaining gp. Done enough you have someone who has twice the wealth as those in the same ECL and there is no balance.
I understand that but this part is about casting spells oddly enough the penalty was removed from crafting while it remains for casting.
so the caster is twice penalized for casting spells with an xp cost while the crafter is alleviated from any.
Under old crafting rules (where we still charged xp) a wizard could craft items and then sell them at the same cost which effectively reduced their xp total (Iced's Marcus the Black I know did this). What this did is made them fight more fights at lower levels and have a better money ratio to XP than others at their level. Now at ECL 5 this isn't noticeable.
We removed the xp for crafting to fix this after looking at a number of different options for resolving the situation. The rule that is quoted above was added after this ruling to deal with spells that cost XP (notably the Lesser planar ally stuff, or Permanency).
Which brings us to Limited Wish. Without this rule in place you could do the following (not saying you would, but this being the CoCo ... someone would):
'I spend 4 weeks casting limited wish to reduce my xp to a number that is less than 300xp above ECL 13.' (ie I can't cast L. Wish because I don't have enough xp)
Now you then fight a 3FC which, under most circumstances, does not give you enough xp to get to ECL 14. You then repeat the above L. Wish process and you get to keep all the gold you just mad and basically are a 'just into ECL 13' with ECL 14 wealth.
Part of the 'removing xp cost from crafting' stuff was also done in combination with the new skill usages to gain money.
It is not that you are being penalized twice, it is that you are being kept in check with other characters within the context of your ECL bracket.
I hope that explains a little better why the rule is there, it is mostly to avoid abuse.
Ok ... lets see if I can do this justice when I'm in the middle of finals week ...
Under old crafting rules (where we still charged xp) a wizard could craft items and then sell them at the same cost which effectively reduced their xp total (Iced's Marcus the Black I know did this). What this did is made them fight more fights at lower levels and have a better money ratio to XP than others at their level. Now at ECL 5 this isn't noticeable.
We removed the xp for crafting to fix this after looking at a number of different options for resolving the situation. The rule that is quoted above was added after this ruling to deal with spells that cost XP (notably the Lesser planar ally stuff, or Permanency).
Which brings us to Limited Wish. Without this rule in place you could do the following (not saying you would, but this being the CoCo ... someone would):
'I spend 4 weeks casting limited wish to reduce my xp to a number that is less than 300xp above ECL 13.' (ie I can't cast L. Wish because I don't have enough xp)
Now you then fight a 3FC which, under most circumstances, does not give you enough xp to get to ECL 14. You then repeat the above L. Wish process and you get to keep all the gold you just mad and basically are a 'just into ECL 13' with ECL 14 wealth.
Part of the 'removing xp cost from crafting' stuff was also done in combination with the new skill usages to gain money.
It is not that you are being penalized twice, it is that you are being kept in check with other characters within the context of your ECL bracket.
I hope that explains a little better why the rule is there, it is mostly to avoid abuse.
I see so if to prevent abuse you eliminated the xp cost of crafting couldn't the same be done with limited wish and similar spells?
some alternatives
1.- dont charge extra gp for xp costing spells (like we do with crafting already)
2.- do the dungeon master guide suggested conversion 1xp = 1gp
3.- limit the amount of xp that can be lost each level due to crafting, casting etc.
(ex to level up from lvl X to lvl X+1 you need 10,000 xp the most you can lose before being restricted from using xp losing abilities is 10% of that 1,000 xp)
4.-Limit the extra gold cost associated with casting a spell with an xp to minimum caster level.
I favor #1 but I'm open for discussing it
Maybe since the high lvl leagues were not open at the time this was not adjusted as the crafting rules were
Could anyone say why we have the 5*[gp multiplier]*xp extra gp cost for spells but not crafting magical items? It would certainly remove the "Zero loss" effect of crafting[which I would argue is artificial, since normally you would lose the XP]
It's been proposed before. I think it's a great idea; a 30% discount is still worth a feat, IMO.
But then again, if we really wanted to reform how useful feats are, we'd start with Leadership, wouldn't we?
The Level 14 Wizard 13/Archmage 1 uses spell like ability Limited Wish to put up a symbol of fear.
Cost: 10,000 xp, 40,476gp
I fall on the fence with respect to monster fights.
I like them, I can understand why others don't. I think they are fun to write tactics against, if you know what you're fighting.
Here's my idea for a compromise:
Why don't we make a few fully detailed "monsters" for each ECL and post 10 them in the characters thread, or a "monsters" thread.
I know that it will decrease the diversity of the monsters at each level from 100 different ones down to about 10, but we can still have a few fully described monsters. This allows players to guess what they may be against, and to know the monster foe nearly as well as they would know the PC foe. As far as I understand it, this kind of a system will help deal with the concerns that monsters are designed by the pitlords to defeat the players. Also it allows us to adjust the monsters over time to improve them, develop finely tuned strategies and equipment.
I still don't see why we should "go back" to a small monster list.
The original monster lists had ~10-20 monsters on them. For the most part, the monster fights of that era were jokes - they were often auto-wins for the players involved. We then revised the list to 100 creatures and tweaked some of the other rules (for instance actually giving them equipment) - and now the solution is to cut the list back down...
Anyway - I've done a complete list of the monster fights in the Battles III thread. Here's some relevant numbers:
In that thread, there are 165 monster fights.
Of those, 68 are wins by the monster and 97 are wins by the player.
Of the wins by the monster, I found 7 are surrenders. Of these, one seems to be a surrender due to lack of tactics (rather than a specific surrender by the player). One of the seven is also a surrender due to player frustration (me - I had a bad week and my emotions got the better of me).
Of the wins by players, I only saw 1 where the fight "should" have been rerolled (a non-flyer monster without ranged options vs a flyer).
Of the 2 fights where I know there were rerolls, I can only say that neither one probably should have been rerolled.
There's some information to work with.
funny that both those statistics are so similar for me(7-1 vs 9-1).
(All Battles II thread)
Aerryl vs 8-headed Hydra (Erithmu) (PC win)
Aerryl vs Efreeti (Erithmu) (Monster win 1 reroll - autowin, 3 Xorns: no way to reach Aerryl on mount)
Aerryl vs Mind Flayer (Erithmu) (PC win 1 reroll - Phrenic Ettin in Arena: no real ranged attack/Phrenic weak vs strong will save)
Famine vs (1d3+1) 2 Trogs + (1d3) 2 Monitor lizards (PC Win)
Dameon vs Ettercap + 1d3 Spiders (PC loss)
I went through my roller and basically found all my monster fights. One thing I noticed is that I have run LOTS of Guild Miniquests which are basically monster fights however those most Players can figure out what they are before the fight is over. However those would be a pain to go hunt up ... then again they should be in the questlog.
I'm also reluctant to go older than Battles III without specifically excluding the ones with outdated rules (of which, there are still some in Battles III - I just don't know which ones). Any of the 1d3 X fights where the 1d3 was high or low would skew things unnecessarily.
"monsters are just fillers for non-paired characters?"
@mwb: i don't have a problem with monster fights being close calls, or monster fights happening at all. BUT: i'll pitlord my 3rd monster fight probably today, 99% chance of loss.
according to telin it's all due to the players being not well enough prepared.
to be well prepared, you need to know your enemy. this obviously can obly happen if you have the knowledges needed (heavy skill investment). resist energy or similar is no good unless you have been hit at least once. same for bless, magic weapon etc - unless you are good enough at metagaming and deducting the charts, of course.
so basically, first suck up 20-60 damage before you get to counter it, and the opponent might not even want to use his breath weapon a second time. (1d4 rounds?)
what i'd propose first in regards to monster fights: get rid of everything with class levels, and the multi-monster fights. easier life for pitlords, harder fights for players, without even touching some uber-monsters. the pretty much autowin monsters can be singled out afterwards, as can be the pretty much autoloss monsters. i'd say this should only be done per map and cr.
removing all monster teams with 3+ participants brings us down to 60:50,
removing all monster teams with 2+ participants brings us down to 41:38.
@telin: i want fights to be close. you have not yet proven in any way that the held fights were close, just their results were about equally likely to favor the monster or the player. many players tend to fight nevertheless, even if they don't stand a chance. (see WW this week - we knew what came, and had no chance) or like callix this week against mwbs pixie. with no means of seeing invisible things, he relies on minor spot and listen checks- on the plains i believe.
anyone want to chime in on
"monsters are just fillers for non-paired characters?"
@mwb: i don't have a problem with monster fights being close calls, or monster fights happening at all. BUT: i'll pitlord my 3rd monster fight probably today, 99% chance of loss.
according to telin it's all due to the players being not well enough prepared.
to be well prepared, you need to know your enemy. this obviously can obly happen if you have the knowledges needed (heavy skill investment). resist energy or similar is no good unless you have been hit at least once. same for bless, magic weapon etc - unless you are good enough at metagaming and deducting the charts, of course.
so basically, first suck up 20-60 damage before you get to counter it, and the opponent might not even want to use his breath weapon a second time. (1d4 rounds?)
what i'd propose first in regards to monster fights: get rid of everything with class levels, and the multi-monster fights. easier life for pitlords, harder fights for players, without even touching some uber-monsters. the pretty much autowin monsters can be singled out afterwards, as can be the pretty much autoloss monsters. i'd say this should only be done per map and cr.
removing all monster teams with 3+ participants brings us down to 60:50,
removing all monster teams with 2+ participants brings us down to 41:38.
@telin: i want fights to be close. you have not yet proven in any way that the held fights were close, just their results were about equally likely to favor the monster or the player. many players tend to fight nevertheless, even if they don't stand a chance. (see WW this week - we knew what came, and had no chance) or like callix this week against mwbs pixie. with no means of seeing invisible things, he relies on minor spot and listen checks- on the plains i believe.
If someone can define what makes a "close" fight - I would happily categorize all of the existing fights. The problem is, "close" is subjective.
Take for instance I fight I once ran where the player was up against a pair of dragons. I looked at the player and said to myself, oh that's too bad - he's probably going to lose this one. I didn't think it was going to be close, I thought it was going to be a slaughter.
When I received the player's tactics, I still felt that way, but I could see he had a line that might work out. In the actual fight, I saw just how effective it was and the player managed to defeat the encounter without so much as a scratch.
I can tell you that I looked over a number of the fights that have been held while I was making this list. I said at that time that I didn't feel there were a lot of auto-wins/auto-losses and even fewer that would have been had the character been prepared. I did not define "close" fights - because I have no way to quantify it.
As to the rest of your comments, I wouldn't be opposed to having all groups of monsters be reduced to 3 critters or less. 4 is acceptable, but frankly even then it becomes much easier on the players (with some exception of course).
I also wouldn't necessarily have a problem with removing some creatures with class levels, but I would necessarily say to remove them all.
Main problem is that we completely lack roleplaying here, at least outside of quests and campaigns.
a) is a valid point, but instead than reading it as a reward, just see it as an incentive to better roleplaying.
As for point b), in a normal game you have a DM deciding what does good roleplaying means. We could have a couple of similar figures here, awarding credits at their discretion but following a few public criterias (roleplaying adeguate to mental scores, to backgroud, alignment etc).
You could even use something different from credits, but I think roleplaying needs to be brought back to Gladius.
Well, speaking for myself, I roleplay my characters as often as I have the time to do so. In other words - I haven't had the time lately.
As to having a few threads specifically for roleplaying - that is the precise purpose of all of the various guild threads (and do feel welcome to post in any/all of them as often as you want).
Rewarding credits for good roleplaying could only come from Scribelords (Vath) - and currently only in the form of writing a decent story/interaction for a fight. Stories for fights doesn't happen much anymore - but it certainly is a worthwhile option.
as already stated, most environmental effects in coco can be somehow avoided or lessened, only the city is immediate death.
I don't mind environmental hazards either. I happen to like the acid pool in the Sewers map, or the potential for drowning in the forest map. The problem I have is when an environmental hazard turns into a save-or-die type effect. Which is really only usable by classes which are typically considered stronger anyways.
I can certainly empathize with your last sentence. I have lots of ideas for new gladiators, but I keep thinking "what can I do against a psion with Shared Pain + Vigor, or Ego Whip, or Touchsight, or...?". It's just the nature of the game, though; if it weren't psions, I'd be complaining about clerics or wizards instead. And I'm 99% sure I'd be in favour of removing the auto-death aspect of the City map if an enemy had used it on me (instead of me using it on an enemy). ;)
But I'd rather not see the City map become just like the Arena map but with differently shaped obstacles. (I know, I know -- there are still opportunities to climb on rooftops, etc. But still...)
But I'd rather not see the City map become just like the Arena map but with differently shaped obstacles. (I know, I know -- there are still opportunities to climb on rooftops, etc. But still...)
I understand its just the way the game is, spell slingers are more powerful than non-spell slingers.
But does that mean we should have house rules which turn a level 3 spell into a will-save or die (with very little in the way of mitigating factors, like the multiple saves on hold person or the +4 save modifier on Psionic Crush (which is mind affecting)? Or how about Summon Nature's Ally spells which becomes multiple rounds of save-or-die (Reflex) with Air Elementals? The question becomes, are we handing additional power out to spells such that they're no longer balanced correctly, even against other spells? On the city map, what 3rd level spell comes close to the effectiveness of Telekinetic thrust (cast by a 5th level caster to boot!).
Regarding Arena/City similarity: The 50' auto-loss is different from the ceiling in the arena for a grand total of two effects:
1)Telekinesis/Telekinetic thrust type effects.
2) Flying bull rushes where the target is already in the air (otherwise you can't get the angle on them).
Thats it. I just don't feel that those two cases are the major component of what differentiates the City from the Arena.
The fact that the obstacles are large continuous things, rather than odd block formations with spaces in between side is fairly distinct. The lighting on the streets is fairly different. Roof top battles are fairly different (and make a ranged striker with balance much stronger than a melee without). Its also generally much more than a single move action to have the change to get LOS on your opponent (which is possible in the arena), so buffing is more supported on the City map.
I understand its just the way the game is, spell slingers are more powerful than non-spell slingers.
But does that mean we should have house rules which turn a level 3 spell into a will-save or die (with very little in the way of mitigating factors, like the multiple saves on hold person or the +4 save modifier on Psionic Crush (which is mind affecting)?
That's why I suggested removing the "die" part from "save or die". Probably 20d6 is too much; is there any level of damage that you would find acceptable as a penalty for violating the height limit? Then a warrior might find it worthwhile using a potion of levitation or winged boots to force a grapple above the 50' limit if he thought he could outlast the damage.
I'm probably biased -- I'd like to see new maps added with unusual effects (maps with high winds, very small maps, maps with subjective gravity, who knows?).
That's why I suggested removing the "die" part from "save or die". Probably 20d6 is too much; is there any level of damage that you would find acceptable as a penalty for violating the height limit? Then awarriorShare Pain/Vigor Psion might find it worthwhile using a potion of levitation or winged boots toforce a grappleevade his opponent while raining down terror above the 50' limit if he thought he could outlast the damage.
You had a typo- I fixed it for you.
How about a compromise: If you move/are forced to move above the 50' mark, you're stopped there and are struck with an ECLd6 bolt of lightning? Both interesting and not abusable by sponges.
I could buy that. An "electric fence" type wall of force. You may want consider changing the damage type to "force" instead of electric. Just a thought.
I would like to see an option of some other type so that it isn't just ... Death ... I kinda like the wall idea, but I think there needs to be something to enforce low flying. I would say a directed TK (no weight limit, no save) downward into the ground, possibly at an angle to get a target out of some type of spell effect holding them up. It still deals damage, gets them to the ground, and isn't overly broken. Still doesn't fix incorporeal stuff, but I'm just throwing out some ideas here.
)Perhaps it would be appropriate to combine this with an electric environmental effect (lightning). Note that I am suggesting an 'environmental' effect rather than a 'magic' effect simply because it is then consistent with other environmental effects (e.g. the lava in the temple, the acid in the sewers, etc)
Thus I would suggest the following:
- An impassible wall of force at 50ft over the entire city.
- Lightning storms from 40ft-50ft over the city that do ECL x d6 electric damage to any character within that area.
Thus the lightning storms could be a natural side effect of the wall of force (or something of the sort).
Thus I would suggest the following:
Thus the lightning storms could be a natural side effect of the wall of force (or something of the sort).
Actually I wouldn't do Electrical Damage... I would have it do 6d6 Primal Damage (pure Divine Damage that is unprotectable against,) from 50ft to 70ft, 71ft to 90ft 12d6, and from 91ft to 100 ft 20d6.. At 100ft they hit a field of reverse Gravity (no Save) that forces them to take 3 rds and go back through the Curse (50ft in 3 rds and another 38d6 damage) this could be a Curse Damage to counter the effects of the Nimbus put on the City by Denth
if Forced into this Area, the Person would have 1 rd to leave.. or be hit with the effects..
Reasoning.
- Removing them would mean a little less work for pitlords
- They only serve to handicap characters that are already not optimized.
- For new players who are not accustomed to solid CoCo Builds/tactics, they can be big red warning signs that this place isn't for them. That just isn't true.
I have similar concerns for GR tags and the importance they place on PR/perfect records, but I understand a good number of people actually enjoy those- so no need to remove them. I don't think failure tags enrich the game for _anyone_
They're there purely because of the Leadership feat, and Cat wanted to enable every mechanic that seemed enablable. Removing them wouldn't really save me any work (I still have to calculate PR).
Although this does raise a question: does PR actually provide any useful information? McJ, since you're a math guy and I have no time, can you run a correlation coefficient between PR and win/loss ratio? If the R2 on that is high enough, it might be worth taking out PR altogether....
Although this does raise a question: does PR actually provide any useful information? McJ, since you're a math guy and I have no time, can you run a correlation coefficient between PR and win/loss ratio? If the R2 on that is high enough, it might be worth taking out PR altogether....
I can do that sometime next week[I have lots of deadlines early in the week]- but I think the problem is the assumption that a win record is a good indicator of lots of power. The PR's _should_ reflect how much you have won or loss- but they don't truely reflect the difficulty of the opponents. Even beating easy opponents you are gaurunteed a certain increase in PR- but coming close to beating a solid opponent nets you a slap in the PR-face. This is partly why I've been tracking whether PR is a good predictor of success- if betting on the higher PR gives you about the same returns as flipping a coin, then what good is PR as a tool of determining character strength? Add in factors such as some gladiators just giving up on fights on account of pitlord error & it being late in the week, and the PR system is hurt even more.
As far as the mechanics go- I can see why Cat wanted them around- but I don't really like it. [more because of the big red failure tag than the negative to leadership]
All that said- I think the Great Renown status is something that people do enjoy, so we shouldn't cut it just because it isn't accurate.
but that said, i like ratings-system. it would be very much better if we used some other, better system, like elo. i don't like the home-brewn PR used here, for two reasons:
a) people tend to fall to quickly even if they lose against someone known to be stronger. on the contrary, beating someone that is not even close to your strength still nets you about 50 - which is way to much considering that you'd only get 100 for beating an equal.
b) also, one win can easily push your PR from failure to normal, or from GR to normal. this should not be allowed to happen. someone with a 16-0 record losing to some newbie or wimp, will easily be pushed back to normality.
i'll take two of hogarth's as my example.
treetall(1790) vs. balthazar(669)
treetall wins: 37 +/- for both.
Seeing that it should be obvious for tretall to win, is easy. seeing why the loser still loses THAT much, isn't.
balthazar wins: 268 +/- for both.
This is way to much of a boost for balthazar. it equals beating 2.6 players of his level.
also, treetall would fall back a lot more, since there's absolutely no mechanism to prevent you from falling an indefinite long way.
another example: elrick(1982) vs. baelin(560)
elrick wins: +/- 28
baelin wins: +/- 354
so: one win, and a complete failure is back on track to the same PR like someone who won 50% of his fights.
one mistake, and great renown is just plain ordinary.
@mcj: if you want to get rid of the failure tag, the reverse conclusion is to get rid of GR. maybe another system should be devised - like leadership modifiers according to your rating - which would be the same, but not as disheartening as the word "FAILURE"
@mwb: no need to calculate over all of this.
i can provide easy examples for this.
samuel 13-8 GR, 1715
istima 13-6, 1319
valkin 15-9, 1167
hood 15-6 GR, 1602
even without doing the math, one can easily see that PR has nothing to do with win/loss records.
As for the Failure tag:
Im somehow under the impression that those players who play a character that loses so often that he finally gets the failure tag arent usually the players that care if their characters have a failure tag or not.
If you are that competetive you are more likely to retire the character before he even hits the failure status.
That beeing said, if we could find a nicer name instead of "Failure" it wouldnt hurt either. Maybe "Underdog" or something.
I agree with WB that the PR system could need a different take, but I also think that this is one of those things we should put on our TO DO- List for CoCo 4e. For these couple of months changing the systems is not worth it..
On the other hand, having 2 months to test any new system would allow to face the 4e with a working system.
I don't think "Failure" is that big of a problem really.. If you really have problems with it just work harder with your character or simply retire it.
I suppose the opposite of "Great Renown" would be "Unknown"
Except that the tag is supposed to reflect a character being known for being unsuccessful in the arena. That's why they'd have less of an appeal as a leader. See also the Fame bonus given in the proposed Community rules for the Failure tag.
@mwb: no need to calculate over all of this.
i can provide easy examples for this.
samuel 13-8 GR, 1715
istima 13-6, 1319
valkin 15-9, 1167
hood 15-6 GR, 1602
even without doing the math, one can easily see that PR has nothing to do with win/loss records.
Perhaps... but when you do do the math, you see that they're actually quite closely related. I went ahead and did it, and found that while win/loss ratio is only somewhat related to PR, win-loss difference is quite closely related, explaining 84.2% of the variance (in currently active characters). For retired characters, not quite as high (78.4%), but still up there. So it seems like PR doesn't really buy us much as far as telling us how successful a character has been.
For 4e, since I'm pretty confident Leadership won't exist anymore, I see no need for an index like this. Wins and losses seem fine to me. It would also solve the nastiness that comes with mixing monster fights in with regular fights on the same index (we can even just stop counting monster fights in win/loss records--or measure them in a different way). If a Fame index is needed, it can be part of the Community sub-game and not a "core" mechanic.
Except that the tag is supposed to reflect a character being known for being unsuccessful in the arena. That's why they'd have less of an appeal as a leader. See also the Fame bonus given in the proposed Community rules for the Failure tag.
Hey- would you want to follow a politician that neither you or anyone else had heard of before? ;)
For 4e, since I'm pretty confident Leadership won't exist anymore,
Don't know what you have read or seen... but Every Edition since Chainmail has had some way to get Followers, 1-2 editions was around 10th level, 3rd and 3.5 were with Feats.. Granted it used to be around character retirement when you got them..
Hey- would you want to follow a politician that neither you or anyone else had heard of before? ;)
Do you know who your Congressman and Senator's are?
Do you know who your Congressman and Senator's are?
I live in DC. Our license plates say "Taxation without Representation" for a reason.
I live in DC. Our license plates say "Taxation without Representation" for a reason.
Well you do get a to Vote for a President.. and a Mayor who is on Cocaine.. so All is well
Well you do get a to Vote for a President.. and a Mayor who is on Cocaine.. so All is well
The local government for DC is controlled by Congress- so we don't really get to determine our own fate except by their own fiat. The only vote DC'rs _really_ get is for prez - and yeah, I know who the current president is. :-)
Don't know what you have read or seen... but Every Edition since Chainmail has had some way to get Followers, 1-2 editions was around 10th level, 3rd and 3.5 were with Feats.. Granted it used to be around character retirement when you got them..
The new edition seems heavily in favor of simplification, and one of the most maligned items against that has been a greater than 1:1 Player:Character ratio. Animal companions, familiars (as creatures), summons, etc. are all candidates for the chopping block, and I see no reason for cohorts to be different.
Likewise, great reknown has no effect on me - but if it is bothering someone somewhere - there's no harm in removing it.
In general - I figure people that care about their records would record it - regardless of whether there is an official list or not. People that don't care - never bother to look at it in the first place.
As far as the fairness of the credit system- I think most people are satisfied with the "simpler is better" approach. I have pulled quite a few tough fights in my time- and I think that over the long haul most people pull the same number of hard fights.
As far as the fairness of the credit system- I think most people are satisfied with the "simpler is better" approach. I have pulled quite a few tough fights in my time- and I think that over the long haul most people pull the same number of hard fights.
it might be that simpler is better, but there are limits to what one person wants to do or can do.
therefor, at least the following changes should be introduced:
a) every participating ally counts as 1 character as well, especially those from leadership. my starting setup of the FFA would contain 7 different beings.
Therador/Raskos/Scathers/Yaurl/Asran/Senorda/Arynat All of them can use items, move and think independently.
b) let pitlords say how many credits they want to earn, instead of how many fights they want to do. If you do not have enough time for such a biggie like my fight, should you always say "ok, no fights this week"? this would damage pitlording-economy even further. in the time it took me to collect all setup data and read the tactics of the participants, i would have already run a medium-sized ecl3-5. for half the credits. i might be up all night for this one - for 1 more credit?
That said - nothing happens overnight.
As to missing elders - we lost MacBrea and Vath (though Vath will likely still be a lurker for a while) and gained Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer. I believe they are just waiting for their forum title changes.
Don't be surprised when threads get remade over the course of the next few weeks as a result of all of the changes as posts get moved from "Pitlords" ownership to the elder-in-charge of that area.
As I have said before - the monster fight lists are being reworked with a very specific formula on what is allowed/not allowed and with a very specific composition of class levels and templated creatures.
The problem I have is with the asymmetry of player vs. monster fights: if a monster is on the EL N monster list, then it should be "fair" for me to have such a monster as a gladiator in the ECL N bracket (assuming I follow monster fight rules). So, for instance, if a level 13 xeph psion is on the EL 13 monster list, then it should be fair if I play a level 13 psion who can use all of his power points each battle (in exchange for using NPC money and the Elite ability array). Or it should be fair if I play a half-fiend frost giant (again in exchange for using NPC money and the Monster Manual stats).
Looking forward to playing a phasm in the ECL 7 bracket,
hogarth
Perhaps it would be better to sacrifice the versatility of things like class levels and templates in the interests of better balance and ease of use.
I think this is a really strong point. Last week I got a brass dragon to vie against the dark one. With the restrictions on expendables and my only choosing 3 feats, it was still a tough fight- but I as a pitlord did not contribute to that challenge. (as opposed to, say, that famous "Troll with potions of acid and fire resist" encounter) The most I contributed was choosing bulls strength and mirror image- but I don't consider those "tough choices" when the thing has caster levels.
If we want a much shorter list with just one or two templated creatures - it would go much faster, but I think it would end up tilting monster fights into the comically easy category once again.
What discussions should be contained therein?
- possible changes to the coco environment from the things that are already known from 4e.
- possible changes to be done with a system change, like rules-overhaul on not so optimal parts, or rethinking some of the packages. (we know already that there will be only such general skills as perception or acrobatics)
- a list of direly needed things for 4e, like maps with more terrain-features
- maybe initial guidelines for 4e for pitlords (since everybody is new to the environment)
- introduction for players changing from 3.5 to 4e (may be "borrowed" or linked from other sources though, as long as its helpful)
When will this all be done?
-Whenever players see fit to chime in, they'd be welcome.
-Proposals that seem to be "finalizable" would be put before the elders in the council.
-Rules changes should be collected and reworked for the time the real release of 4e hits the shelves
-Leaked Information should be incorporated as soon as it's found, some things can really be done already without the final rules.
Who is in charge of this?
i'd rather say noone. open discussion and information acquisition would be the main goal. still, there'd need to be one or two scribes who track stuff. I've got quite extensive online times, and know of at least 2-3 others, non-elders, who would fit that description.
Do characters automatically get added to the Retired/'Graveyard of Gladius" list after a certain period of inactivity? I noticed that some of my characters are in there; I prefer to think of them as "hibernating" rather than "dead".
Yes. Sometimes Prisonlords catches them, sometimes I do; I put a mess of them into retirement a couple of weeks ago to trim down the number of characters I have to sort through for pairings. Deleting their title lines would annoy me less and thus make this less likely, if you really want to keep them on the active roster.
Yes. Sometimes Prisonlords catches them, sometimes I do; I put a mess of them into retirement a couple of weeks ago to trim down the number of characters I have to sort through for pairings. Deleting their title lines would annoy me less and thus make this less likely, if you really want to keep them on the active roster.
I certainly don't want to put them on the active roster. I don't care if they're in the "Graveyard" as long as I'm free to "resurrect" them later (if I so choose).
I certainly don't want to put them on the active roster. I don't care if they're in the "Graveyard" as long as I'm free to "resurrect" them later (if I so choose).
You can always 'resurrect' a character from the gladius graveyard simply by sending a PM to pitlords ...
I've started with the Council IV, and I planned moving to the Courtroom shortly after that.
I was looking at the courtroom and now i am thinking: how exactly do we want to index them ? The summary at the start is relatively easy to do, but the thread itself is quite a mix of questions, answers and discussion. What would be nice would be a final post in the courtroom for each line of discussion that links to the relevant posts and summarizes the decision ...
I was looking at the courtroom and now i am thinking: how exactly do we want to index them ? The summary at the start is relatively easy to do, but the thread itself is quite a mix of questions, answers and discussion. What would be nice would be a final post in the courtroom for each line of discussion that links to the relevant posts and summarizes the decision ...
Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to do
In mentioning offhand that I intended to awaken a warhorse eventually in other threads here, I seem to have started concern of it being broken.
Currently Awaken is not banned in CoCo- which makes it a perfectly legitimate buff for applicable targets. The catch is that for most categories of allies it actually renders them non allies. Examples of this include handle animal, animal companions, familiars, etc.
However in CoCo we have gold-aquired allies, which remain valid targets. I pointed out that this is perfectly legal right now by our rules- and telin expressed a desire to talk about it before I just go and shell out credits for the awaken.
So the issue is- do we ban awaken completely or allow it on gold-aquired allies? There is obvious abuse issues since awaken does not increase the CR of a creature[it is a spell-buff, and does not increase the CR of a creature any more than a wish granting an insight bonus to an ability stat would increase the CR of a creature]. It would be possible to, say, load up on regular dogs, cast awaken on every single of one of them, and have shlouds of hitdice of allies in the arena at relatively low levels. Hogarth suggested the idea of a sorcerer polymorphing into an animal, having awaken cast on him, and getting perminant stat buffs as a result.
My personal desire was to awaken a light warhorse so I wouldn't need to teach it tricks for it to know how to work spells like fly/spider climb/etc that I cast on it(or custom items like command-activated winged horseshoes). Thorell[my gish-character] has no way to aquire allies except by purchasing them or animate dead(eventually around ECL9-ish).
Purchasing a light warhorse and then casting awaken on it was one of his plans to remain mounted while having flight until he could afford something better.
Maybe doing something to advance the fight should not reset the delay counter to 0, but only take 2 off the delay counter. That means, if you spend 10 rounds delaying, you would need 5 rounds advancing the fight to get another 10 full rounds of delaying, or 1 round advancing the fight, 2 delaying, 1 advancing, ...
That would maybe make the "I hide and show up once every 10 rounds until his XYZ runs out" tactics a bit less boring, while still allowing people to hide for a longer time for buffing or other things ...
Just a random idea about delay penalty:
Maybe doing something to advance the fight should not reset the delay counter to 0, but only take 2 off the delay counter. That means, if you spend 10 rounds delaying, you would need 5 rounds advancing the fight to get another 10 full rounds of delaying, or 1 round advancing the fight, 2 delaying, 1 advancing, ...
That would maybe make the "I hide and show up once every 10 rounds until his XYZ runs out" tactics a bit less boring, while still allowing people to hide for a longer time for buffing or other things ...
that sounds like a great idia - but then i hate delaying as a general rule.
p.s - that rule doenst really apply to buffing - even i (who really likes to buff) dont buff for longer then 9 rounds...
basically, everything you do that is not plain "wait" should be qualified as "advancing"
Just a random idea about delay penalty:
Maybe doing something to advance the fight should not reset the delay counter to 0, but only take 2 off the delay counter. That means, if you spend 10 rounds delaying, you would need 5 rounds advancing the fight to get another 10 full rounds of delaying, or 1 round advancing the fight, 2 delaying, 1 advancing, ...
That would maybe make the "I hide and show up once every 10 rounds until his XYZ runs out" tactics a bit less boring, while still allowing people to hide for a longer time for buffing or other things ...
I agree that a 10 round timer is probably too long.
But I think you'd still get arguments over who is "advancing the fight" and who isn't. Is a slow melee fighter "advancing the fight" by taking cover until his opponent runs out of arrows? What else can he do? What about a flying character who wants to make dive attacks? If he takes more than 2 rounds to turn around for the next charge, does that count as "advancing the fight"? Etc.
I agree that a 10 round timer is probably too long.
But I think you'd still get arguments over who is "advancing the fight" and who isn't. Is a slow melee fighter "advancing the fight" by taking cover until his opponent runs out of arrows? What else can he do? What about a flying character who wants to make dive attacks? If he takes more than 2 rounds to turn around for the next charge, does that count as "advancing the fight"? Etc.
setting up repeated charges due to high maneuverability is part of combat-tactics, not really delaying.
with the fighter vs. archer, it won't go without a discussion, that's for sure.
who is delaying more? the magic-empowered archer who runs away repeatedly, or the full-plate fighter who caves in once he realizes he can't catch up?
this part pretty much can never be decided. both want to fight, but both on different terms. about such, players and pitlords often argue (last seen: telins monster fight with one of sauros characters)
- basically, i'm hoping 4e is bringing us much more in terms of team fights. (easier handling makes for easier fights, thus parties might be more viable than they are now)
with an additional character in the fray, the run and gun theme would suddenly be much worse. currently, it is a tactic you see pretty much in every second character at ecl3.
I believe that right now the delay penalty is fine, since it's a rough guideline for pitlords. This is implicit in that the "penalty" is un-defined.
I believe that right now the delay penalty is fine, since it's a rough guideline for pitlords. This is implicit in that the "penalty" is un-defined.
if it is fine as it is and only pitlords will decide, then why is there another penalty for leaving the map? this makes no sense to me. whether i go ethereal, or burrow myself or be invisible against an opponent without means to break it - this is just the same thing.
so why is there a HARD 10 round limit for one thing (e.g. etherealness / rope trick), and a SOFT 10 round limit for just the same thing (e.g. burrowing), which happens to be only different in terms of mechanics?
I must admit, I do not fully understand why we penalize incorporeal characters in this way at all.
It's one of those Gygaxian "it makes more sense this way" rules that Cat came up with.
It's one of those Gygaxian "it makes more sense this way" rules that Cat came up with.
Then I move we remove these rules
I'm sure I'll regret this later when I actually have Ghost opponents...I never thought that this rule is necessary, but at the time an Elder vote decided to put that restriction on ghost shopping(not everything was done by Cat alone ;) ).
The rule was discussed and changed a while back into allowing Ghosts to by as much as they want with a single Full Activity. But it seems that the rule wasnt updated correctly.
Well, if it could please be updated in the Rules of Gladius thread, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
If you go look at the ghost monster entry, ghosts get the equipment they died with, and there's no clear way to give them extra equipment. So any "mechanic" to get new equipment on a ghost is basically a CoCo house rule. We are free to build it however we want to accomplish the necessary balance.
Incorporeality is the ace of spades at certain levels. The extra cost for buying equipment on ghosts was put into place partly as a response to the balance concerns of playable ghosts. Against many characters @ ECL6-10, just being a ghost means you win. The ghost's ability damage coupled with the immunities means that clerics are the only characters well equipped to beat ghosts most of the time. Spell casters can deal damage to some extent with spells, and warrior types are up a crick till they get ghost touch backup weapons. Basically the point is that the inherent potency of how incorporality mixes with our infinite marketplace give bonus synergy to a ghost, and we should remember the effect of being a ghost on balance generally.
If you go look at the ghost monster entry, ghosts get the equipment they died with, and there's no clear way to give them extra equipment. So any "mechanic" to get new equipment on a ghost is basically a CoCo house rule. We are free to build it however we want to accomplish the necessary balance.
That's all fine and good- but how does "They wait out longer in between fights" translate to "balanced"?
If I get slaughtered by a ghost now it won't be much of a consolation to me to think "oh, but he had to wait two or three weeks in-between cycles" I think I'd rather come up with a realistic balancing mechanic[such as barring ghosts from lower ECLs] than just make the player's journy more lengthy.
That's all fine and good- but how does "They wait out longer in between fights" translate to "balanced"?
If I get slaughtered by a ghost now it won't be much of a consolation to me to think "oh, but he had to wait two or three weeks in-between cycles" I think I'd rather come up with a realistic balancing mechanic[such as barring ghosts from lower ECLs] than just make the player's journy more lengthy.
I was just about to say nearly the exactly same thing.
I'm not trying to advocate for one thing or another, just remind people of the thought process that was going on which lead to the current rule.
That's all fine and good- but how does "They wait out longer in between fights" translate to "balanced"?
If I get slaughtered by a ghost now it won't be much of a consolation to me to think "oh, but he had to wait two or three weeks in-between cycles" I think I'd rather come up with a realistic balancing mechanic[such as barring ghosts from lower ECLs] than just make the player's journy more lengthy.
By that argument, we shouldn't require any Full Activities for crafting, gathering information, etc. The activities aren't really balancing anything, they're just making the player's journey more lengthy.
By that argument, we shouldn't require any Full Activities for crafting, gathering information, etc. The activities aren't really balancing anything, they're just making the player's journey more lengthy.
That depends on what you think the point of my argument was. I'm all for removing crafting from CoCo.
I'm all for removing crafting from CoCo.
That's not such a bad idea...
That's not such a bad idea...
or at least find some other way to balance it out. Forcing the player to spend extra time so that the character gets better is not a good idea IMHO.
or at least find some other way to balance it out. Forcing the player to spend extra time so that the character gets better is not a good idea IMHO.
thats the basic of all full activities, and some of the free activities have to be seen in the same light.
i have to admit - it's ok for me to increase character power if a player is willing to sit the character out for a while...
but i can see two reasons as well why i don't like them full activities:
-unbalancing:
someone with a high int or high base skill points, can more easily save money than others, as he can spare those few skill points for crafting. CWI is not that bad a feat, too. for most casters, CWI already means doubling their money.
-activity:
it seems to me, sitting out characters has reason in some of the inactivity, especially with higher level characters sitting out for long times. not everyone is keen on having more than 2 active characters, even if it means 1 slot of active character is gone for 5 or 10 weeks...
seeing that crafting increases character power as some blackmarket options do, i'd go for a similar approach there - let 7000gp not be a week sit out, but a credit deducted. (so: speed craft for everyone, but crafting has to be approved in BM)
also, there's no way crafting can be removed from the current coco - to many characters rely on it.
-unbalancing:
someone with a high int or high base skill points, can more easily save money than others, as he can spare those few skill points for crafting. CWI is not that bad a feat, too. for most casters, CWI already means doubling their money.
Agreed. That's the whole point of Uranedal. Craft. Craft. And craft again. Even if I'm less powerful than my usual tt caster (which heavily use metamagic) I've got twice the money. And that means I'm more powerful, in the end.
---
Ghosts, on the other hand, are easy to remove from lower ECLs- so lets talk about that. Someone mentioned ecl's 6-9 I believe, so let's say no ghosts under ECL9 & remove the full-activity to get incorporeal equipment.
Ghosts, on the other hand, are easy to remove from lower ECLs- so lets talk about that. Someone mentioned ecl's 6-9 I believe, so let's say no ghosts under ECL9 & remove the full-activity to get incorporeal equipment.
I gotta say, if were talking about removing some races from the lower ECLs, Ghosts shouldnt be top of the list. Pixies should be.
Any magical weapon has a 50% chance of hitting a ghost and ghosts have terrible low hp without tricks. Pixies on the other hand can fly around with greater invisibility high SR and DR beeing much more difficult to deal with.
sidenote: Note that there is no incorporeal, but only ethereal equipment. There is an important difference.
While I've wanted crafting removed for a long time, I realize that it was included too long ago to be removed. There are a host of reasons why it is too powerful, but I think those that are in love with crafting have and will always ignore these.
---
Ghosts, on the other hand, are easy to remove from lower ECLs- so lets talk about that. Someone mentioned ecl's 6-9 I believe, so let's say no ghosts under ECL9 & remove the full-activity to get incorporeal equipment.
Actually, it seems that you're making an assumption here that the problem with ghosts is the incorporeal equipment issue. Actually this is not the case at all. Currently there is no such thing as incorporeal equipment (since ghosts are the only 'incorporeal' creatures who can use any equipment). The question is actually about ethereal equipment.
Personally I don't think that removing ghosts at ECL6-9 is a reasonable solution as it doesn't really solve anything.
I would instead recommend that we remove the gold cap on full activities (not just ethereal equipment), for the following reasons:
- No limit on Full activities means that players are more likely to activate characters for fighting more often, which means that we would have more activity in the CoCo.
- Having characters 'sit out' for weeks and weeks and weeks while they are crafting/shopping as Full activities does absolutely nothing to benefit the CoCo
while i do not like that concept, i can live with it. what i would not like is crafting to become too easily accessible (read: without spending time or credits) since it would give "something for nothing" (anyone know that cheatcode? :D). power improvements done via crafting would cost basically about nothing, not to the player and not to the character. like that, noone would ever want to play something that is not a crafting caster...
for the same reasons, i am fine with free activity ethereal shopping. but if it were ecl-based, all the better. this would of course, also have to affect the normal crafting - so if ethereal shopping gets better over the levels, crafting should too. (as a side note: gather info as well!)
Rather than having them sit out and be inactive to get more powerful, they have to be active and competing to become more powerful. Just a thought from a lurker.
The amount of items crafted as a free activity would have to be ECL-dependend but this is an idea I like!
A caster could create 1 PoP (1st) each fight, 1 PoP (2nd) every 4 fights, 1 PoP (3rd) every 9 fights ... 1 PoP (9th) every 81 fights.
Mind you - I have little issue with removing crafting entirely (but it does have consequences to wizards (especially) since they are assumed to have scribe scroll to begin with in most cases) - but I don't see it happening any time soon and it would certainly mean grandfathering the current generation or dealing with a huge number of major changes.
another thing i noticed: has the coco any official stance on rounding for rewards?
if the experience comes up 666.67 i have seen pitlords round, others take the lower amount. this calculator currently uses rounding, therefor using the exact values for calculation, leaves some differences to the original tables, most notably the losing rewards @ ecl 6+7
*bumped from tavern*? anyone can say something about that?
it looks like the rewards in the standard reward section were always rounded down. if this is the case, then any other fractions should be removed from coco too. if not, it's likely better to round up for rewards, or use the exact values.
it feels pretty incorrect to give someone with xxx.96 gp rewards or income almost 1 GP less per fight. i have seen both ends of rounding with my characters already - there should be something official on this, no?
I couldn't find nothing on Courtroom, Council or Rules threads, so I'm bringing the discussion here for future reference.
Only reference I found in the RoTG is this:
RoTG on mounts
Withdraw: You can withdraw while mounted. Use your mount's speed rating. The first square you and your mount leave is not considered threatened and neither you nor your mount provoke attacks of opportunity when you leave that square.
Withdraw: You can withdraw while mounted. Use your mount's speed rating. The first square you and your mount leave is not considered threatened and neither you nor your mount provoke attacks of opportunity when you leave that square.
That aside- in the past we have said a horse and rider must both withdraw in order to withdraw. [otherwise a horse could constantly be said to be in a "state of withdraw"] ;)
This kind of belongs in the courtroom, since it's a rules issue.
That aside- in the past we have said a horse and rider must both withdraw in order to withdraw. [otherwise a horse could constantly be said to be in a "state of withdraw"] ;)
Hmm.. ok.
Can we add this into the courtroom for future reference then?
Getting hit with a high level spell or power sucks. There's no way to get around it.
Agreed ... but what I think people are getting at is that this isn't a high level power. I suspect that if this were a higher level power, then people would have much less problems with it (due to the fact that it wouldn't be spammable in the same way that it is now).
Perhaps, if this were a 3rd or 4th level power (and pp costs for the power and for augmenting it were higher), then this wouldn't be a problem. However, due to the fact that it is cheap to use, cheap to augment, and the fact that it is only a 2nd level power, I think that it is too easy to abuse (shown by the fact that almost every character that can use it, does use it).
Summary of psions/wilders
As the above listing shows, only 3 of the characters that are of the appropriate class and class level, (psion 3 or wilder 4), do not have the ego whip power. This indicates fairly well that it is a 'must have' power.
- ECL 3
+ [post=15280739]Ruddy[/post]
- [post=14749519]Ivellios[/post] - ECL 4
+ [post=14699485]Varuxor[/post]
+ [post=14975655]The Hunter[/post] - ECL 5
+ [post=13524294]Petyr Darry[/post]
+ [post=13219366]Rennae Longhollow[/post]
+ [post=14093221]Marius[/post] - ECL 6
+ [post=12457102]Altair[/post] - ECL 7
... - ECL 8
+ [post=9794756]Reginald Molehusband[/post]
+ [post=15495848]Max Ribbleton[/post]
+ [post=6369491]Felice tu`Ria[/post]
+ [post=13597028]Verren FireStarter[/post] - ECL 9
... - ECL 10
+ [post=13741780]Flutterthought[/post]
- [post=11356130]Arden Tarmik[/post] - ECL 11
+ [post=13592850]Darian Thorne[/post] - ECL 12
+ [post=9466808]Lady Ephraim[/post] - ECL 13
+ [post=7659455]Raskos[/post] - ECL 14
- [post=9998566]Valen Sky[/post]
+ [post=12394278]Longshot[/post]
+ [post=8699865]Istima Telarc[/post] - ECL 15
+ [post=7875477]Samuel Highground[/post]
+ [post=11606516]Lord Lorian[/post]
As the above listing shows, only 3 of the characters that are of the appropriate class and class level, (psion 3 or wilder 4), do not have the ego whip power. This indicates fairly well that it is a 'must have' power.
Agreed ... but what I think people are getting at is that this isn't a high level power.
To me, "highly augmented low level power" = "high level power".
nevertheless, it should show something that egowhip is on pretty much every psion powerlist.
@hogarth: still, the power level is much higher than for any other high level damaging power.
if it is just save or die, that's ok. but ego whip is not save or die, its get lots of damage or get some damage.
disintegrate, for example, is the first power that outdamages average HP progression.
if saved, it's way worse than even scorching ray.
ego whip, on the other side, can be incremented by 1d4 (=2.5 avg) every 4 levels, while even if you increase charisma, this is just +1 every 4 levels. only on a successful save, it is on par with damaging powers where the save did not work.
To me, "highly augmented low level power" = "high level power".
Seconded. Only real differences are that it doesn't need a high key ability level (not a major issue) and that (I think) it interacts with other spells as a low level spell (which is a downside).
The real issue with Ego Whip is that at high levels it is effectively a save-or-die with an expensive-to-cure effect if saved. Which is why a cap or cap+slowdown (to ensure it doesn't outpace damaging effects), together with the minor restoration spell I suggested earlier, would knock it down to effectively just a different type of damaging spell with save for half. And "will negates" would make it no better than save-or-dies.
I would say that it is too powerful if it meets any of the following properties:
-at 100 pp, it is "die, no save" against even most level 100 characters (so a cap is needed at least in the epics, at least by failing the save)
-it can kill someone who makes every save substantially faster than Cold Blast (or similar) can (so a cap or slowdown is needed before the epics, at least in case of making the save)
-It does damage that is substantially harder to repair than damaging spells of the same power, and which cannot be survived over any substantial period of time even with saves. (so either a further reduction in case of making a save is needed, or else the Minor Restoration spell I suggested).
The best approach seems to be capping the damage on a save, either to a certain number, or to leaving 1 CHA left.
1. Leave Ego Whip alone (it is nasty, but no more of an issue than a save-or-die.
2. House-rule it to Will Negates
3. House-rule it to Augment costs 5 or 6pps
4. House-rule that it cannot reduce Cha below 1
5. House-rule it to a penalty rather than damage (which would mean it doesn't stack and would not be able to reduce it below 1)
6. Ban it entirely.
hogarth and I seem to be the only ones who feel it is fine where it is, but this would be a good time to speak up if you haven't already (if you already have - I've got your position on the matter recorded). I've added option 5 in there as another reasonable option - though then I feel it becomes a very weak ray of enfeeblement (which is very potent against Sorcerers, Bards and Wilders)
As we were saying in chat (things that have been already reported here previously anyway), the issue with Ego Whip is that at higher levels (11-13+), even if you save, you'll die within 2-3 augmented Ego Whips... granted.
There is no reliable defense against it and it's been demonstrated in previous posts.
I can't think about powers or spells that autokill even if you make the save or the spell missed somewhat. Usually there are ways around them (like hp healing, energy resistances, high AC and saves/evasion), but the simple fact that Charisma doesn't (for most PCs) increase with levels while Hit Points do means that any scaling effect that damages Charisma (even on a save!) becomes quickly unbalanced. And Ego whip is the only one that deals Ability Damage reliably and cheaply.
I thought that he was going to vote "will negates", but he doesn't like houserules either.
For now - just reroll until you get an acceptable entry - may modify the list further if I can't come up with a better solution though.
If Cohorts are too strong, lets fix (or even ban) Leadership. But a general nerf on all allies is not necessary.
Well, I disagree. I've fought in enough mounted PC vs. non-mounted PC battles to see a qualitative difference, for instance.
stuff i always had problems with @coco:
1) why leadership was ever allowed
2) why there are some strange rules for handle animal
3) why do we allow monster races that are far away from core? if it has no ECL or LA in the srd (well, as in the srd+psionics+divine), it should NOT be allowed. (sorry varjo)
Leadership ally costing you 25% of your GP rewards each fight though - I think that would help balance them out quite nicely...
As to the suggestion above, I am reluctant to allow it because then the cohort becomes a much more powerful entity - yes it means that the character will be competing in a higher league - but in effect it is exchanging what some feel is problem now to what I can see as an issue later.