Arena Tournament, LA1 Exhibition: Ruth vs. Katta

[ArenaManager]

Arena Tournament, LA1 Exhibition: Ruth vs. Katta

Map:http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab330/ArenaManager/Arenas/11-scorers_glass_arena.png

XP Award: 300 XP
GP Award: 300 GP

Ruth (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=219995) - candycorn
Katta (http://pifro.com/pro/view.php?id=5206) - Sallera

All Combatants, please roll initiative and declare final purchases, if any

[Sallera]

Init: [roll0]

No purchases, unless I happen to come across a reactive purchase I can make with less than 2 gold. :smalltongue:

[candycorn]

Init: [roll0]

I can deal with no purchases. :)

When I finalized my spell list, Invisibility was ok to have. Is this still the case, or was it prohibited for this exhibition?

[Sallera]

Yep, I'm pretty sure we agreed Invisibility was fine, since this is an official exhibition, so we'll have people around to do LoS when we need it. Go ahead and start.

[hustlertwo]

Yeah, Invisibility is generally a no-no in informal exhibitions (no one wants refs dragged in for LoS checks when nothing's at stake), but these rounds will be exceptions to that. They will probably be held largely or completely in glass arenas for speed, but if you have a way to hide, feel free to do so.

[candycorn]

Start in N4. Begin Casting (Spellcraft DC 17 to ID):Invisibility
CL Check: vs DC 8

Refs Only:Move to R8

Done.

Stats:Location: R8 (possibly invisible)
AC: 15 (Touch 13, FF 12)
Effects Active: Possibly Invisible 1/10
Spells Remaining: 4/4/0

[Sallera]

Katta, Round 1

Start in N23, wielding shortbow.
Spellcraft: [roll0] (Have you vanished?)
Move to N17.
Standard: Ready action:Move if Katta hears spellcasting or hears speech she can't understand.

Stats:HP 9/9, AC24 (16, 19)
Done.

[hustlertwo]

Heh, I think the Spellcraft check is extremely pointless, since Katta sees you disappear from sight in N-4.

[candycorn]

Yes. Sorry, I have vanished.

Refs:Double move to R14

Done.

Stats:Location: R14
AC: 15 (Touch 13, FF 12)
Effects Active: Invisible 2/10
Spells Remaining: 4/4/0

[Sallera]

Katta, Round 2

Move to U16.
Standard: Ready action:Move if Katta hears spellcasting or hears speech she can't understand.

Stats:HP 9/9, AC24 (16, 19)
Melds shaped: Wormtail Belt
Done.

[candycorn]

Ruth, Round 3

Refs:Move: to W15.
Standard: Ready Action: Cast Charm person if Katta performs any action.

Done.
You are entitled to a listen check.

Stats:Location: R14, Readied Action, Invisible
AC: 15 (Touch 13, FF 12)
Effects Active: Invisible 3/10
Spells Remaining: 4/4/0

[Sallera]

Reactive Listen: [roll0]

Edit: I'll wait to see what I hear.

[candycorn]

Based on the rules in the Waiting Room, that's an improved success.

Therefore: You hear movement. It begins to the west by northwest, and travels eastward, before ending fairly nearby (within 30 feet), to the east by northeast.

I do believe that's an appropriate amount of information for a listen check that beats by 10, but by less than 20.

[Sallera]

Katta, Round 3

Move to S16.
Standard: Ready action:Move if Katta hears spellcasting or hears speech she can't understand.

Stats:HP 9/9, AC24 (16, 19)
Melds shaped: Wormtail Belt
Done.

[candycorn]

Your movement triggers my ready action. As you begin to move out of U16, you hear casting.

Listen Check DC 12, then Spellcraft DC 16 reveals:Charm Person

Will Save, DC 19, please.

Refs Only:

DC: 10 (base) +5 (charisma) +1 (Jaebrin racial for enchantment spells) + 2 (spell focus and greater spell focus enchantment) + 1 (Level 1 spell)

[Sallera]

Ah, of course. Don't know how I missed that way.

Will: [roll0]

Edit: You're now visible, yes? Where?

[candycorn]

Your sheet shows a -1 penalty to will saves, not a +4 bonus.

Where is the modifier coming from?

[Sallera]

Charm Person (as your only 1st level spell, that naturally must be what you're casting) grants a +5 bonus on the save if you're being 'threatened or attacked' by the caster, which in the Arena is always considered the case (hence why you can't take 10 on skills.)

[candycorn]

That, I think I shall dispute.

In this match (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9047088&postcount=30), TheFallenOne ruled that "when threatened" did not apply to invisible opponents.

In addition, at the time of the casting, you have not detected an attack from me once.

The text requires more than just being threatened. It requires being threatened or attacked by a specific person. Ruth. And if you cannot detect Ruth, you cannot be threatened by her.

Relevant text:
If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

I've not levied any threats, nor have I made any attacks.

[Sallera]

Ah, I looked up the post that stated it always applied, and it was not by Kyeudo as I'd thought, but rather another High Ref. Think I'll take this one to the Waiting Room; need sleep anyway, and it would be a good thing to set precedent on.

[candycorn]

Well, one way or the other, it'll be answered.

After the spell resolves (one way or another, because that bonus is the difference between pass and fail), I'll appear in W15.

[TheFallenOne]

In this match (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9047088&postcount=30), TheFallenOne ruled that "when threatened" did not apply to invisible opponents.

first, it was not about an invisible opponent, but about an opponent your AC wasn't aware at all because of Hide from Animals. Katta was aware of Ruth due to the Listen check

second, in the end we didn't go with my initial ruling

This is indeed a good question. That you're always threatened in the Arena when it comes to skill checks was one of the first things I learned here when I wanted to take 10 once. Just never considered if it just means "You're threatened" or "You're threatened by your opponent". I can't make a call on this now, not knowing who made that "Always threatened" ruling with what wording. Let's see what we get in the Waiting Room

[candycorn]

I would like to point out that Katta was aware of movement. It might be reasonable for her to assume that it is Ruth, but without actual identification of the source of the noise, it can't be a sure thing.

[TheFallenOne]

Let's see a Listen and Spellcraft check from Katta. If he identifies the spell he should feel threatened by the caster. I'll leave making a ruling on the more general question to someone else

[candycorn]

That ruling has some pretty severe implications for Charm person, but it's reasonable, I suppose.

[Sallera]

Alright then.
Listen: [roll0]
Spellcraft: [roll1]

[TheFallenOne]

well, back to the Waiting Room then. I posted the precedents on the matter I could find there

[hustlertwo]

Yeah, this is why Charm Person is rarely used in Arena (offhand, I can only remember one time it was successfully cast, don't recall the specific round number but it was fairly recent). You're regarded as being threatened as soon as the fight begins, which is why you can't take 10 on rolls, as Fallen said. A side effect of this is that CP's at a severe disadvantage. Although it's something of a tough spell to use in Arena anyhow, since the interpretation of what is and isn't a 'suicidal' action, or something a character would not normally do, is all rather vague.

To the best of my knowledge, it would not matter if the spell is identified. Presumably the invisibility also does not end the threatened state, but I'm less certain of that.

[TheFallenOne]

Yeah, this is why Charm Person is rarely used in Arena (offhand, I can only remember one time it was successfully cast, don't recall the specific round number but it was fairly recent). You're regarded as being threatened as soon as the fight begins, which is why you can't take 10 on rolls, as Fallen said. A side effect of this is that CP's at a severe disadvantage. Although it's something of a tough spell to use in Arena anyhow, since the interpretation of what is and isn't a 'suicidal' action, or something a character would not normally do, is all rather vague.

To the best of my knowledge, it would not matter if the spell is identified. Presumably the invisibility also does not end the threatened state, but I'm less certain of that.

can you track down where the "Always threatened" is coming from? Take a look at the Waiting Room, there are contradicting past statements of High Refs in regards to charm person

[hustlertwo]

Always threatened probably predates me, but here's what I believe is the most recent successful Charm Person, if anyone wants to glean what they can from it. The caster acknowledges the threatened save bonus, but in this case the issue didn't have to be pressed, since it still would not have led to success anyhow. The mechanics of being charmed are also explored a bit, but the DQ of the charmed person ultimately cuts the debate short. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128855)

Ultimately, I suppose it does come down to the ruling about "always threatened". If that is a true Arena precedent, as we've always assumed, then I'm not sure how the +5 bonus would not be applied. If it isn't, well, for one thing, CP becomes more viable. For another, people are going to be taking 10 all over the place.

[candycorn]

So there's a difference in how the most recent charm was handled, and how the first charm was handled.

The next question is: Was the most recent charm ruling due to the previous rulings being overturned?

If not, then: Do the previous rulings need to be overturned?

It would seem that we'd need to either find a previous overturn ruling from a master ref, or verify with one, as only master refs are allowed ruling changes, and either we need to see if a change was instituted, or if one needs to be. Both are pretty much only allowed to Kyeudo.

Also: I don't think that the take 10 threaten necessarily applies.

One is being threatened. Another is being threatened by the caster.

For example: Let's take Joe commoner. He's trying to balance on a chair to get a bottle of liquor from the top shelf, when a bar fight erupts. Even if nobody in the bar is attacking him, he is in a distracting and stressful situation, which prevents taking 10.

In a similar fashion, it could be ruled that the crowd is creating a similar situation, even when the opponent hasn't done anything threatening.

[candycorn]

Ruling By Kyeudo (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9075637&postcount=596).

Charm requires an overt threat to qualify for the +5 bonus.

[hustlertwo]

A further wrinkle: I see the older match mentions brandishing weapons as being something that creates that threatened bonus. Obviously not a problem for Ruth. But would casting a spell create a similar situation, since Katta is fighting a mage and thus has to assume any magic cast would be directly or indirectly dangerous to him?

As for the answer to that, don't look at me. This is treading on some seriously shaky ground for interpreting both precedent and RAW for both interpretations of the ruling, and may just be logic attempting to butt heads with game mechanics again, a fight it rarely wins.

[TheFallenOne]

now this applies


Anyway, charming is one of the few instances where Roleplaying is required by RAW. Have fun.

This is not domination, charmed characters still get to act and describe their own actions: at least within the leash of their new friendship.

The responses to and reasonability of requests will very slightly from combatant to combatant. If the charmee is ever asked to do something 'unreasonably' by his personality he may refuse or compromise so long as a good explanation is either given IC or via ref spoiler. If the charmer believes his request wasn't that unreasonable he may make charisma checks to force compliance, or if he believes it was a very reasonable request call a high ref to investigate.


You can't ask the charmed person to do anything that would obviously be harmful. Taking off its armor, jumping in some magma, chucking its weapon to the bottom of a river, etc, are all harmful acts, one would presume.

Saying "Walk to *grid position*, please", would work, as would "Stand there and do nothing", I think.

Determining what is a reasonable and unharmful request that doesn't got against the charmees personality will get ugly...

[candycorn]

Free (speech, common):

Let's slow down for a minute here. How about we all just put away our weapons and discuss our situation like reasonable people?

OOC(any can read):I believe that sheathing/dropping weapons is reasonable and not harmful to anyone, as it's inherently non-violent. Also, as I'm not holding any weapons, it seems more reasonable.

[Sallera]

Aye, that works. The rest of Katta's turn will be to move to V16 and sheath the bow.

Edit: hustlertwo - That's what the earlier Spellcraft check was for. Since Katta failed it, she had no way of knowing it was a spell.

[hustlertwo]

now this applies





Determining what is a reasonable and unharmful request that doesn't got against the charmees personality will get ugly...

Yeah, that's what I was saying earlier. As that passage points out, it necessitates roleplaying, which is a poor fit for the Arena where things work best when defined by strict mechanics. If nothing else, this will be very interesting.

Edit: Well, those identify a specific spell being cast. Presumably Katta was still aware a spell was cast, especially when Ruth disappeared. Again, however, this may just be logic talking, unprepared for the Hammer of RAW floating over its head.

[TheFallenOne]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you: roleplaying in the Arena.

*sits back, cast Summon Popcorn IV*

[candycorn]

Speech:

We really don't want to fight each other here, right? How about we do a contest where nobody gets hurt, and the winner concedes the match? Some sort of test of strength?

[Sallera]

"Well, I'm all for avoiding unnecessary pain. What did you have in mind? I mean, unless it's an archery contest, we're not really equipped for aught but fighting."

[TheFallenOne]

The responses to and reasonability of requests will very slightly from combatant to combatant. If the charmee is ever asked to do something 'unreasonably' by his personality he may refuse or compromise so long as a good explanation is either given IC or via ref spoiler.

As per this, would it perhaps be a good idea if Sallera gives a quick personality breakdown of Katta in a spoiler?

[candycorn]

As per this, would it perhaps be a good idea if Sallera gives a quick personality breakdown of Katta in a spoiler?

This probably wouldn't be a bad idea, to define what Katta wouldn't ordinarily do (i.e. what I must try an opposed Charisma check to get).

Speech:

As would I prefer a magical contest. I think that we'd both agree that fairness is important, at least between friends, though. So how about this? We get a pair of chests, fill them with firewood, and then we hold them off the ground until one of us tires. The first person who lets their chest hit the ground concedes. Tell ya what, I'll gladly cover the cost if you would be a dear and go get them.

OOC/Mechanic:I believe that leaving the arena (and forfeiting the match) is something Katta would not ordinarily do. I'll concede that, and that it requires an opposed Charisma check to accomplish.

Charisma check: [roll0]

[TheFallenOne]

your sheet lists a familiar, where is it supposed to be? :smallconfused: You made no mention of it yet

[Sallera]

Aye, I think it's safe to say that forfeiting is against the personality of most gladiators. :smalltongue:
Charisma: [roll0]

[Sallera]

"Hey, we're both here to compete. Maybe we don't want to get hurt, but just giving up is no fun. Haven't you anything better?"

[TheFallenOne]

Aye, I think it's safe to say that forfeiting is against the personality of most gladiators.

well, the only thing we really know about the characters is that they are gladiators trying to win, so anything that directly leads to losing the match, be it harmful or not, would be against their nature pretty much

[candycorn]

Familiar isn't listed, so familiar isn't here.

OOC:[spoiler]Darn you and your lucky rolls! Ok, so one condition of loss: Leaving the arena
is out. I've failed an opposed charisma check to convince you to do that, and retries aren't allowed.

Time to move to attempt two.
Second charisma check will be for convincing you to actually forfeit.
Still a loss, but a different condition, so it should allow another check.

Speech: Well, hm, if it comes to an archery contest, it comes to an archery contest, but I'd rather save that for if we can't reach an agreement here. I mean, I don't have a bow, and you're right, I don't suppose we can leave to get more stuff. That would mean I'd have to borrow your bow to compete, which is rather inconvenient.

Say, here's a thought. What if you give up in this match, and the next time cruel gods pit us against one another, I surrender?

Charisma check: [roll0]

[candycorn]

Broken spoiler, but it was just to keep the post tidy. Unless a ref or Sallera sees an impropriety, I do believe that's match.

[Sallera]

Well, I'm not really sure asking for a forfeit in two different ways counts as two different requests. But if it's ruled that it does, then yes, that's match. :smalltongue:

[candycorn]

I believe that asking you to go to get something is sufficiently different from outright surrender to be acceptable, regardless of the same ultimate consequences of the action.

But that's a ref call, I suppose.

[TheFallenOne]

uff, toughie

Well, you ask for two different actions, but the result is the same(and I'd say that a gladiator is aware what happens if he leaves the Arena). Both action and result matter(otherwise you could first try "Bash your wifes skull in with this mace" and if that doesn't work "Put that dagger in her chest"). So the question is: Are surrendering outright and leaving the Arena sufficiently different actions? :smallconfused: If I had to guess I'd say yes, but I'm not sure enough on it to make a ruling. Take that one to the Waiting Room again

[AlterForm]

This is great. Some little part of me wants to make a character built around Charm Person now, in order to force my opponent to roleplay out 600 rounds of being friends. :smalltongue:

[TheFallenOne]

This is great. Some little part of me wants to make a character built around Charm Person now, in order to force my opponent to roleplay out 600 rounds of being friends. :smalltongue:

... this is evil. After a couple dozen turns some would probably jump into the lava on their own volition

Hey, do this in a FFA and you can turn it into a sitcom. With very exotic races and jobs

[AlterForm]

... this is evil. After a couple dozen turns some would probably jump into the lava on their own volition

Hey, do this in a FFA and you can turn it into a sitcom. With very exotic races and jobs

I'll think I'll do it in the next official exhibition.

[TheFallenOne]

my counter will be to somehow make my character deaf, forcing you to pantomime whatever you want to tell me. Let's see whose patience would break first :smalltongue:

[candycorn]

I did it because I wanted to try something silly and unusual. I don't expect it to win every time, but after a win or so, I'll have more variety in my requests. Eventually, I want to turn this arena's antics into something you'd expect to see in a Saw movie.

[hustlertwo]

Despite both ending up the same way, they are ultimately two different requests. In wrestling terms, it's the difference between a countout and a submission. More to the point, forfeiting and DQ for leaving arena grounds are listed as separate reasons for a loss. Now, had this failed, I don't know what Candy's next tactic would have been; offhand, I can't think of another way to win a match without ordering the character to do something explicitly harmful, which the spell prohibits.

[candycorn]

Had this failed, I'd have accepted the archery challenge, tried to borrow the bow, and then "accidentally" drop it in the lava. After that "oops", it'd have been a bit less uneven, not much, granted, and I'd have taken my chances with combat.

[TheFallenOne]

the options get thin after that, true. For charm person I always had something like "Let's rest here, we'll need our strength for later. I'll take the first shift" and then coup de gracing them in their sleep in mind. Though sleeping inside an Arena would be rather strange and chances are the characters are wide awake with no need for rest

Anyway, if you too think the second attempt works it's time to call the match

[hustlertwo]

Might have caused another check, depending on how attached Katta was to his bow.

[candycorn]

In my speech, I'd have weighed it against the fact that Katta suggested the archery contest, and it was necessary to go along with her idea... Basically pit her attachment to her suggestion vs her attachment to her bow.

I figure I had 4 to 1 odds on winning a charisma check... If I'd have lost three in a row, there wasn't much else I could have done.

[TheFallenOne]

It was Katta who suggested the archery contest, aware that Ruth has no bow(I guess. We as players know the opponents sheets, should extend to characters knowing specifics of the enemy as well). I think borrowing his bow to 'friend' Ruth without charisma check would have been reasonable

[hustlertwo]

Unless Katta had specified in his personality dossier that his character's thoughts on his bow were of the Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket variety. You know, there are many like it, but this one is mine. That's how it goes with Charm Person; you live by the roleplaying, and you die by the roleplaying.

[TheFallenOne]

not Sallera until match call
what if you just write down in personality that the character is forced to fight in the Arena by his abusive family and if he loses his drunkard dad beats him up? That way any action that leads to match loss would be harmful to the character :smallbiggrin:

[candycorn]

@Not sallera until match call:I'd say the action has to directly put someone in harm's way. That would be a bit indirect, for my taste.

[Sallera]

Oh aye, the idea was to share the bow. It's not like Katta doesn't have backup weapons.

[candycorn]

Yeah, but they're less accurate. As I said, it wasn't much, but had I failed the second chance, it'd give me a little better chance of victory...

[hustlertwo]

Ruth talks her way to the win as Katta sits down to take a break.