Minor Error in Start of Darkness

[lothos]

Hi,
Hey, I was just re-reading Start of Darkness and I noticed what I assume is a very minor mistake. Though this mistake isn't significant to the plot of the book, so I'll spoiler it just to be safe:

Have a look at the penultimate panel and the last panel of page 90, the "Test your Strength" machine. Have a look at the values of strength on the left and the modifiers on the right. They don't conform to the modifiers used for stats in 3.5 edition D&D. I assume that Rich just made a small mistake, rather than this being a variant set of rules used in the OOTS world.

STR modifier is correct up to 12 (in the penultimate panel mostly)
However in the final panel:
13 should be +1, not +2
14 is correct
15 should be +2, not +3
16 is correct
17 should be +3, not +4
18 is correct

It's just that the modifiers have been shifted one value lower than they ought to be for 13+.

I just want to be clear that I'm not complaining, nor did this diminish my enjoyment of the story in any way :-) I just wanted to flag it so I can get the kudos for noticing it..... if there is any.......... which I doubt :-) I just don't want this to come across in any way as a criticism of the work !

I don't think this has been mentioned before in the forums, I searched but couldn't find anything. Many apologies if it's already been mentioned.

Cheers.

[Alagaesian]

I'm not too familiar with the rules for any editions besides 4, but this might have something to do with the fact that the comic only switched to 3.5e in the first strip of the online comic. All the prequel books are in 3e. Would this explain the difference in modifiers?

[lothos]

I'm not too familiar with the rules for any editions besides 4, but this might have something to do with the fact that the comic only switched to 3.5e in the first strip of the online comic. All the prequel books are in 3e. Would this explain the difference in modifiers?

Good point, I hadn't thought about that, but I think the 3.0 edition modifiers are the same as 3.5.... I haven't actually ever read a 3.0 book. Let's just google for it....

Ahah, Wikipedia to the rescue as usual - this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_gameplay#3.0_and_3.5_editions ) explains how ability score modifiers are determined and confirms that it's the same for 3.0 as for 3.5.

Good point though, I hadn't considered that being a prequel it was under 3.0 rules.

[Morquard]

It could be a joke on how some attractions are rigged.

So someone with 18 str, the first +4 modifier would just show up as a 17 on that machine, making it alot more unlikely anyone wins the price.

[Zerg Cookie]

It could be 2e, too.
It's like 35 years back (I'd check, but I lent my copy to a friend)

[Gift Jeraff]

That scene is only 3 years back. And since sorcerers exist, all of SoD is probably 3.X.

[Ancalagon]

That scene is only 3 years back. And since sorcerers exist, all of SoD is probably 3.X.

The conversion of OotS to 3.5 happened in strip #1 - and that is a few month after the end of SoD. So the end of SoD is clearly 3.0, what the beginning is is unclear.
Haley's family had 1st and 2nd edition thieves, but Xykon was already a sorcerer 100 years ago.

So I'd say: Xykon always has been 3.0, all of SoD is 3.0, OotS itself is 3.5, any other references to 1st and 2nd ed chars are not necessarily making any sense when compared to other material. It is just as it is.

[King of Nowhere]

It has already bbeen pointed out before.
It's probably just a minor mistake

[Ancalagon]

I think it does not matter at all (and that it's not a mistake but simply something Rich did not care about at all). I'd consider OotS (all of it, including the Order of the Scribble) to be 3.0 up to #1 and everything else on older editions is simply something that makes no sense and also does not have to make sense.

It's jokes and "Ah, my grandpa was a 1st edition thief", even if he would be younger than Xykon is on SoD... it makes no sense at all and it does not have to.

[Gift Jeraff]

The conversion of OotS to 3.5 happened in strip #1 - and that is a few month after the end of SoD. So the end of SoD is clearly 3.0, what the beginning is is unclear.
Haley's family had 1st and 2nd edition thieves, but Xykon was already a sorcerer 100 years ago.

So I'd say: Xykon always has been 3.0, all of SoD is 3.0, OotS itself is 3.5, any other references to 1st and 2nd ed chars are not necessarily making any sense when compared to other material. It is just as it is.3.X is just a way of saying 3.0 and/or 3.5.

[Ancalagon]

3.X is just a way of saying 3.0 and/or 3.5.

Yes, but I want to be more specific what part is what edition.

[silversaraph]

As long as we're pointing out mistakes, no point in making a new thread for this...

In all of the online comics, the thieves guild leader is named Bozzok. In on the origin of the pcs, he is named Bozzak .

(that one is a little more concrete).

[137beth]

For the edition question: couldn't Xykon have been a sorcerer homebrewed for second edition?


As for the particular test your strength game, it's probably just rigged, like almost every other carnival game.

[Kish]

There is no indication of 2ed anywhere. Redcloak's brother was a rogue with sneak attacks, not a thief with backstabs.

[Narren]

For the edition question: couldn't Xykon have been a sorcerer homebrewed for second edition?

Could be, I guess, but it's more likely that the edition jokes are just....jokes, and they don't have any real effect on the plot.



As for the particular test your strength game, it's probably just rigged, like almost every other carnival game.

I don't have my books with me, but could it be a constraint based on the art? Or just a very minor oversight?

[rekuu]

Hi,
I just wanted to flag it so I can get the kudos for noticing it


You are correct. Kudos. =)