Recent Posts
Why not, for the sake of peace call this fight a draw ( which would be in favor of the summoner. real outline would be likely that he gets out 1-2 more critters and is then killed.
Mistakes have happened. Backtracking has happened (on both sides) and Wheter the results are still valid is very well arguable.
Let's simply start a new encounter (I would prefer a closer range).
And add the following rule: No action may be finished before at least one player of every side has given his OK. redoing and redeciding is ok if your initial action is not possible ( line of sight eg.) but only before the next character has started his turn. (if it is not posible but both sides Ok'd it, it happens.)Start a new fight with the aid of the wiki and all is fine.
Well the intended endresult of every encounter is that the enemy is killed in D&D ;>
At the table, no one makes the perfect decision every time, I do value your chess-like approach to these encoutners Azmahel, but the reason I wanted more players was that I wanted to remove the 'optimal moves' from the previous playtest.
So a player makes a move, he gives his position and HP and then the turn is done. If you cannot make the intended move you will be notified of this by me and then you can reconsider your actions.
primary reason to continue: we are in a tactically interesting situation now and beyond the first few blows. i.e. whoever wins initiative.
Oh, it's hoare logic in english. Oops.
It's a method for verifying the (partial) correctness of algorithms written in pseudo code.
(Partial because it doesn't take into account the termination of loops)
I simply don't know your level of knowledge.
--
As for the Playtest: Then we shouldn't have switched around the control of characters. That way errors are bound to happen. Too many floating values to keep in mind. Heck, it's even hard to follow the positions of characters ( and with that line of sight etc.) with PbP so we should have some leeway with errors.
(as you had with eg. Haste and DR , and ... )
Also our playtest is a combat only playtest, and in that case it should be a test of efficiency, not of player awareness.
If you know about model based testing you should know that the set of entry parameters should be as tight as possible, because every error or ambiguity in this set causes errors in the test that falsify the whole test result.
At the table, no one makes the perfect decision every time, I do value your chess-like approach to these encoutners Azmahel, but the reason I wanted more players was that I wanted to remove the 'optimal moves' from the previous playtest.
There is however a difference between multiple players not quite working perfectly together and every other action being botched badly or lost entirely because of misunderstandings over positioning and buffs caused by shuffling players in and out and the format we're playing in.
That's not really revealing anything about the relative balance of the classes, all that's showing is that the Summoner performs fairly well when his foes are blind schizophrenics.
While Brodiggan is clearly exaggerating I too think that considering how many holes are in our entry parameter so far (most of them environment specific) that the exit parameters won't hold any inforamtions that are generalizable by any means.
We're not talking about making suboptimal decissions. Sending the pally and Kitty so far to the front might have been sub-optimal, casting Entangle surely was sub-opitmal. We're talking about mistakes that were induced by our set of parameters ( online game, a very large map, switching players for characters, etc) .
Also our playtest is a combat only playtest, and in that case it should be a test of efficiency, not of player awareness.
If you know about model based testing you should know that the set of entry parameters should be as tight as possible, because every error or ambiguity in this set causes errors in the test that falsify the whole test result.
You must be a software engineer, because I treat this from a more 'soft' side: like user acceptance testing and then the scope is wider and not narrow like a system test ;>
That is why I am confident that continueing as is, would provide interesting results.
Anyway, I need to buy some groceries for dinner.
Everyone who wants to restart the encounter and/or is interested in playing in the playtest may voice his opinion after this post.
I'll return shortly
I'm pro starting a new encounter, both for usability of results and ending arguments.
We're testing the hard side of things right now. I could live with testing the soft side ( playability[= user acceptance] ) too, but only after my exam.
And there is a huge difference between interesting and useful results. Testing what will happen if you pour Mountain dew down your cd-tray (Or writing bad code and guess if it makes your CPU spew black smoke) might be interesting, but is (except for testing the robustness of the system) not helpful in most cases.
I too think that user acceptance test are best left to the home table. to answer questions like:
1. How much table time does the summoner need?
2. Does the summoner contribute to the group or is he stealing the show?
3. how much perperation does the summoner need?
4. How error prone is the summoner ( and how much does he sufer from making errors? )
5. What if a player is not preperated to play a summoner.
...
"He's in the Barn. in the Baaaaarn!"
*walks (nearly dances) down the road*
"You know kitty, this is the best day of all time. there is absolutely no way that anything can go wrong today. We'll both grow old and live happily ever after. Oh, look, a barn. let's see whats inside" "
...
*Splorch*
...
Initiative:
Starting position ( as before)
Got it, i'll use that version of archer in case of any changes.Ok, Archer has all his various combat modifiers/conditions listed below the character sheet now, should be good to go.
I did reformat him and noticed 1 thing, shouldn't his attacks be 1 higher:
7(bab)+4(dex)+2(weapon)+1(size) is 14, not 13
Gale is editing the page, but i don't know if hes changing the HPPaladin hp should be 64 by the wayis adam still here to drive the paly?Gale, you drive the paladin until adam shows up.
I was not, I was actually just looking at how you had the combat section formatted so I could copy it to Singer.
Adam, shouldn't you be sleeping now? West coast USA and all?I sleep from 2300 to 0300.
Terrible sleeping habits but i haven't killed myself yet so I think I'm good.
Bah, I need to get ready for work though.
Someone take over me for now, may be able to log a few hours in at work.
I give up my control with these words of wisdom:
I hit for TRIPLE DAMAGE when charging, and I can heal!
Mounted Combat can avoid hits on my cat, and my cat can opt to take hits for me!
A rider used wisely a brilliant thing.
paladin: charged to kill
Round 1 (current map)
Singer (24), Felicitas and Kitty (21), Naylisk and Yasha (9), Archer (5), Thrasher (3)
No effects currently running.
I'll try and post one of these every round (mostly for the map), Azmahel, would you mind adding the map to the wiki.
Questions, are we aware of the Summoner? Is the Summoner aware of us?
Alright, I don't want to delay things too much, so I guess I'll kick things off assuming we are aware of the Summoner, even if we can't see him right now.
Standard: Cast Good Hope (+2 Morale bonuses to attacks, damage, saves, skill checks, and ability checks).
Move: Bardic Song, Inspire Courage (+2 Competence bonuses to attacks, damage, and saves vs. Fear/Charm effects)
Free: Take a 5 ft. step to D19, clearing the way for Felicitas and Kitty to move as they wish.