Sir Roy and the Green Energy

[dtilque]

As the smith says in OotS0297 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html) Roy's starmetal sword will "sometimes glow with a deadly green energy that is particularly harmful to the undead." There seem to be three theories about it:

1) when Roy is most emotional
2) when Roy makes a critical hit
3) when it's most dramatic

I more or less disproved the first two in the OotS0861 thread. I'll repeat my arguments for those who missed that.

In OotS0441, Roy is taunted by Xykon and gets all worked up, then beheads the zombie dragon. No green flash. Hence, it's not emotion.

In OotS0442, Roy swings at Xykon 5 times in a row, green flash every time. Now it's not impossible that he made a crit 5 times in a row, but it's straining credibility.

So I figured I'd collect all the relevant data and see if there are any patterns. By that, I mean all instances of Roy swinging his sword since it was reforged.

Excluded are instances when he used a different sword (i.e. the big fight with Thog in the gladiator area and once in the afterlife), instances when he missed or was blocked (a couple times fighting not-Thog), and any time with Celia (I know some of you immediately thought of that -- get your minds out of the gutter, people, mine's already occupying it).

The name after the link in the list is who he swung at. The first number is how many times green energy was produced, the second number is how many times he hit in that strip.

OotS0349 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0349.html) Sabine 1/4
OotS0359 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html) Kitty (the hawk) 0/1
OotS0408 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html) Miko 1/3
OotS0409 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) Miko 0/1
OotS0429 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html) zombie dragon 1/1
OotS0430 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html) zombie dragon 1/1
OotS0434 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html) Xykon 2/2
OotS0441 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) Xykon 0/1 zombie dragon 0/1
OotS0442 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) Xykon 5/5
OotS0684 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) beetle slaver 0/1
OotS0686 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0686.html) giant bug/netting 0/1
OotS0851 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html) not-Thog 0/1
OotS0861 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html) mummies 1/1

Note: I make no guarantees of this being complete. Additions welcome.

It immediately became obvious to me that who he was swinging at was the most significant factor. When the target was undead, the green showed up 10 out of 11 times, while when the target was living, it only showed up 2 out of 13. Clearly, there's a strong preference for undead targets, but there's a certain amount of randomness that makes it occasionally "misfire".

It looks to me that the "most dramatic moment" idea is also out. Is it really that dramatic to have it occur five times in a row against Xykon? And not have it occur against not-Thog? Well, it's a matter of opinion, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Edit: corrected the list. Now score is

undead target: 10/12
living target: 2/12

[Winter]

It works with the Power of the Plot (triggered when he is angry and/or fights any undead and/or when it's cool).

This theory is supported by
a) no other theory clearly being supported by in-comic evidence
b) the FAQ on this website
c) various comments by the author on how closely ("not much") he sticks to (the) rules.

[torugo]

Maybe its a matter of rounds.

When he first green hits in a round, all the other hits in the same round (full attack, cleaves, etc) are also green.

So that 5/5 against xykon happened because he made the first hit green and the others followed.

Same with the mummies. You cant consider the attack on the mummies 1/1 and the xykon 5/5. Either the mummies are 6/6 or xykon is 1/1. I rather think the case where multiple hits in the same round are all activated.

YOu could argue that the one on Myko was followed by non-green but you noticed Myko had a chance to counter between green and non-green. Pehaps that shows the change of rounds.

[Tass]

Roy was angry at Xykon, not at the dragon. That could explain the lack of green energy there.

Of course that makes the mummies hard to explain. Maybe he is subconsciously learning to control it better?

[Palthera]

Or it's actually random. If there is (for example) a 20% chance of it glowing every time Roy makes an attack, then each time he swings, Someone rolls a D100 to see if it glows. Like rolling 5 6s in a row on a D6, it's unlikely, but I've seen someone do it.

[EmperorSarda]

With the mummies at least, since it is all going off on Roy's boobies (Great Cleave), since each attack depends on the previous cleave working it makes sense for it to show up on all the mummies since it is essentially one extended attack. (All attacks using the the same BAB bonus)

[Sorator]

I'm guessing it's random-except-when-needed-by-plot, but once it activates it sticks around for the entire round, as torugo said. Probably greater chances of activating against undead.

[Quinton250]

Blah, I wrote out a long post but it got deleted since I was logged out while writing it. I'll try to summarize what I said.

Someone mentioned in the 861 thread that Starmetal is strong against Outsiders. In OOTS, it is mentioned to be strong against undead and we are not told if this is in addition to or instead of being strong against Outsiders. I will assume the latter and split my analysis into the same two categories the OP did.

Living Opponents

As the OP stated, Roy's effect occurs twice out of thirteen times against living opponents. In both occurances, Roy is shouting (shown with caps) at the opponent while swinging, in the eleven other occurances he is silent or speaking normally.

Undead Opponents

As the OP stated, the energy effect occurs ten out of eleven times against undead. In those ten occurances, three of them had an intense showing of green energy with a long tail or green "flames" while seven of them simply had a small green aura around the blade. In the latter case, Roy is either silent or speaking normally and in the former case he is shouting in two occurances and battling the mummies in the third.

The Conclusion

When Roy is fighting an undead enemy or is shouting/angry when fighting, he produces the green energy aura. When both of these occur simultaneously, he produces an intense streak of green energy.

The Exceptions

The first exception is the lack of green energy against the Zombie Dragon, despite Roy being both angry (though not shouting in caps) and fighting an undead opponent. When Roy first swings at the Dragon, it is right after the Dragon has killed Sangwaan and the second time occurs in the comic that the Dragon tries to knock Roy off using evasive maneuvers. Two comic strips worth of fighting later, Roy knocks off the Dragon's head without an energy effect. The reason this happened is because the Dragon is no longer actively taking part in the battle or trying to harm Roy, the Dragon is now the battleground and not the opponent. He appears in 25 panels between the evasive maneuvers and losing its head and remains in a generic mid flight pose throughout this entire span. We know that Roy is an advocate of using the battleground to turn the tide of a battle (in this case it was unsuccessful) and I believe this is the case here as well. This was a tactical action against Xykon and not an attempt to battle, damage or defeat the Zombie Dragon.

The second exception is against the mummies. Why did the intense energy streak show up when Roy wasn't angry or shouting at his undead opponent? In this case, I think it is simply the artisitic rendering of a green energy strike combined with a arcing great cleave attack.

[Tass]

Agreed on all counts (though a little less on one of them).

Emotions towards the attackee definitely seems to play a role. I am not quite as sure about undead. Xykon makes up the majority of the undead Roy has fought, and we know Roy has strong emotions when dealing with him. More data will settle this.

[GameZone]

OotS0434 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html) Xykon 2/2

Roy only hits Xykon once in comic 434. You might have mistaken Xykon's Finger of Death as one of Roy's attacks.

[Zombimode]

To the OP: is your thread title a reference to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?

[Cizak]

Roy only hits Xykon once in comic 434. You might have mistaken Xykon's Finger of Death as one of Roy's attacks.

If you look closely, you can see the green energy in the first panel. So Roy and Xykon both attack each ohter in that panel.

[Bulldog Psion]

To the OP: is your thread title a reference to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?

I'm just guessing here, but I think that's a big yes. :smallwink:

[Capt Spanner]

It seems to be two factors: it is far more likely to activate the green swoosh against undead, but Roy's emotions factor into it as well.

Let's check out the exceptions to the rule:

- Against Miko, Roy unleashed a lot of pent up frustration at the Paladin. The high levels of emotion caused a green surge.

- Against Sabine he was also releasing some pent up fury at going on an annoying sidequest (where he ran into the really annoying Miko) as well as getting back at Sabine for endangering his little sister.

- Against the dragon, Roy had just been taking out his annoyance on Xykon. Once he calmed down, he decided to attack the dragon. As he was in control of his emotions (picking the most emotionally attractive target over the most strategic one) the sword didn't swoosh.

The exceptions all happen when Roy is upset or angry (or very calm, at the other end), but in general it happens against the undead.

[Siosilvar]

-snip-


-snip-

To reiterate both these posts in much shorter form:

Attacking undead +1 level energy
Extreme emotion (anger primarily) +1 level energy
Minimal emotion (calm, calculating) -1 level energy

[Morquard]

It's quite possible theres only a 10% chance the bonus damage fires against living targets, but nearly 100% chance that it goes off vs undead.

That it didn't go off at the dragon-beheading was maybe that it would have distracted from the actual stuff happening, so artistic freedom.

[ti'esar]

I'm not sure where the arguments that the green energy is more likely to appear when Roy fights undead are coming from, given that he was told the sword would be "especially harmful to the undead".

I always assumed that the green energy simply represented extra damage, with extra damage on top of that when used against the undead. What triggers it is probably just Rule of Plot.

[Roland Itiative]

Someone mentioned in the 861 thread that Starmetal is strong against Outsiders. In OOTS, it is mentioned to be strong against undead and we are not told if this is in addition to or instead of being strong against Outsiders. I will assume the latter and split my analysis into the same two categories the OP did.
Yeah, I was the one to mention it (or at least one of the people to mention it). But after reading this topic, I noticed something interesting. Sabine herself confirms she takes more damage from the starmetal sword (she complains about Roy's attacks "actually hurting", then guesses he did indeed infuse the blade with starmetal based on that). At the very least, the starmetal was capable of overcoming her DR, like silver-or-cold iron do, but the extra damage from the "official" version of the metal is also a possible explanation. But what is really interesting is how the comment about the damage happens before Roy is shown hitting her with green light.

So it either happened off-panel (doesn't seem likely, since we can see a very clear progression between strips, from here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) to here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0349.html)), or the extra damage to Outsiders happens regardless of the green light, as a separate effect.

[WindStruck]

Looking at all these examples so far, I think I have come to a conclusion:

1) The attack has to hit.
2) It must be an arcing/slashing motion.
3) Roy uses power attack.
4) The most important rule. If there IS some sort of rule that governs the behavior of the sword, Rich probably only uses it as a loose guideline.

OotS0349 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0349.html) Sabine 1/4
1st swing is a miss. 2nd one looks like it is a power attack, and it hits. 3rd and 4th attacks are also misses.

OotS0359 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html) Kitty (the hawk) 0/1
Considering the hawk's AC (I'm guessing it's at least 23, assuming the hawk is lv 9-11 and ALL buffs on it were dispelled), and Roy's level, Roy probably does not even have 100% hit rate on it, so doing a power attack would be unwise. And besides, it would probably have been cruel to kill the hawk outright anyway... I think the explanation for how he cleaved through it without power attack is he rolled a crit.

OotS0408 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html) Miko 1/4
1st attack: catching Miko by surprise, as well as being angry, there's probably no reason NOT to power attack. 2nd attack: The attack barely seems to have connected, plus Roy doesn't even look like he's trying hard. 3rd attack: It's a stab. 4th attack: blocked

OotS0409 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) Miko 0/1
The attack is definitely different, as it doesn't seem to cause any damage marks and sends Miko back flying... I think it behaves more like Awesome Blow than power attack, despite the requirements Roy does not meet, and the unlikelyhood that he even got the feat. However, we all know how Rich likes to bend the rules.

OotS0429 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html) zombie dragon 1/1
OotS0430 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html) zombie dragon 1/1
OotS0434 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html) Xykon 2/2
OotS0442 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html) Xykon 5/5
All power attacks, to deal extra damage. Roy knows liches have DR to slashing and piercing weapons... maybe not so much with the starmetal sword, but maybe Roy doesn't know that, and why not if Xykon has low AC?

OotS0441 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) zombie dragon 0/1
You'd think it satisfies all the requirements, but I'm not so sure Roy really used a power attack. Say YOU were standing on a 2x4 a hundred feet in the air and were trying to knock the tip of it off with an axe. Would YOU be putting your full weight into the swing?

OotS0684 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) beetle slaver 0/1
Doesn't really look like he's using a power attack, but he's definitely utilized multiple attacks per round.

OotS0686 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0686.html) giant bug/netting 0/1
Roy is simply cutting the net, and not particularly trying to kill/maim the beetle that is being ridden on. Honestly I'd think his sword might even get stuck if he tried.

OotS0851 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html) not-Thog 0/2
Roy missed the first attack, and the second hit landed was a stab.

OotS0861 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html) mummies 1/1
This was most likely a power attack to make sure that his new Great Cleave would slice through them all like a hot knife through butter.


So, there's my theory. :smalltongue:

[dtilque]

To the OP: is your thread title a reference to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?

Certainly is. The Giant isn't the only one who can riff titles of well known books.



It's quite possible theres only a 10% chance the bonus damage fires against living targets, but nearly 100% chance that it goes off vs undead.


Make it 10% vs living; 90% vs undead and it'll fit the data pretty well.

[dtilque]

OotS0349 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0349.html) Sabine 1/4
1st swing is a miss. 2nd one looks like it is a power attack, and it hits. 3rd and 4th attacks are also misses.

No, those are hits, even though it doesn't show the sword in contact with the target. You can tell by the little bits of damage. First look at the third to the last panel in OotS0343 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) which is the previous time we see Sabine. Note no damage on her face. Then check the first panel of the strip with the attack. She now has a small bit of damage on the side of her face. That's the result of his attack. Similar damage to her right side for the second attack and to her left wing for the third. To see the damage from the 4th attack, you have to look at OotS0355 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0355.html) where there's damage on her other wing.




OotS0851 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html) not-Thog 0/2
Roy missed the first attack, and the second hit landed was a stab.


As I said in the OP, I wasn't counting the time he missed not-Thog. Which is why the OP has 0/1 here.

I did miss one swing by Roy. In the first panel of OotS0441 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) (the strip where he beheads the zombie dragon) he swings at Xykon. No green energy.

Unless telegraphed (as with the "whifff!" in the not-Thog miss) I assume that all swings by Roy actually hit. Some may do very little damage, as this one I just found seems to have done.

Anyway, this additional swing doesn't change the stats much. They're still compatible with 10% vs living; 90% vs undead.

ETA: The stats are now 10/12 vs undead; 2/13 vs living. While they still are compatible as I said above, they are more compatible with 20% vs living; 80% vs undead. We need more data to say for sure.

[Sorator]

No, those are hits, even though it doesn't show the sword in contact with the target. You can tell by the little bits of damage. First look at the third to the last panel in OotS0343 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) which is the previous time we see Sabine. Note no damage on her face. Then check the first panel of the strip with the attack. She now has a small bit of damage on the side of her face. That's the result of his attack. Similar damage to her right side for the second attack and to her left wing for the third. To see the damage from the 4th attack, you have to look at OotS0355 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0355.html) where there's damage on her other wing.

I agree that the second, and third were probably hits, but I suspect that some additional time passed between those two linked comics to cause the damage we see in the latter one, or it was actually caused by the third hit and was then obscured by speech bubbles until the next comic. For the fourth attack, the lines of movement aren't consistent with causing damage to the back of that wing - if she weren't flying, she'd be pivoting on her left foot, meaning the front of that wing would be facing Roy at all times.

For the first hit... eh. I just don't see it.

Might be reading too much into a simply-drawn art style, of course.

[WindStruck]

No, those are hits, even though it doesn't show the sword in contact with the target. You can tell by the little bits of damage. First look at the third to the last panel in OotS0343 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html) which is the previous time we see Sabine. Note no damage on her face. Then check the first panel of the strip with the attack. She now has a small bit of damage on the side of her face. That's the result of his attack. Similar damage to her right side for the second attack and to her left wing for the third. To see the damage from the 4th attack, you have to look at OotS0355 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0355.html) where there's damage on her other wing.

Completely disagree. As Sorator said, it seems there was some time between strips from when Roy gets his sword to when we find him and Sabine fighting again, and this is exactly what I was thinking. The damage on her face AND on the wing is already there, and it doesn't even look like the sword is hitting in that general area. He ain't going to be making 2 little nicks in different spots like that. Also, while we're bringing up the wing damage, that means the 3rd hit did not cause it, since it was already there. And yet again, as for the "4th hit", this damage is still magically appearing once we return, which makes me think it happened off-panel too. Typically, when people get hurt in this comic, they don't look comfortable. I still believe those are misses.



As I said in the OP, I wasn't counting the time he missed not-Thog. Which is why the OP has 0/1 here.

I did miss one swing by Roy. In the first panel of OotS0441 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) (the strip where he beheads the zombie dragon) he swings at Xykon. No green energy.

Unless telegraphed (as with the "whifff!" in the not-Thog miss) I assume that all swings by Roy actually hit. Some may do very little damage, as this one I just found seems to have done.

However, there were more misses/blocks when it came to fighting Miko, yet you kept those in for total number of swings...

Hmm, and on that swing against Xykon in 441, I noticed there was no visible damage on him at all... this makes me think that either Roy missed that time, or he simply wasn't using power attack to overcome his damage reduction.

And personally, I don't think we need to see a "wiff!" otherwise it's absolutely impossible that an attack could have missed. But let's assume for argument's sake that the attack did do very little damage. Why is that then? Maybe because Roy wasn't using power attack? :smallwink:

[dtilque]

However, there were more misses/blocks when it came to fighting Miko, yet you kept those in for total number of swings...
Just one blocked swing on 408; the other three there were definite hits. And that was a mistake on my part. Thank you for the correction.


Maybe because Roy wasn't using power attack? :smallwink:

Maybe you're right. It could be power attack causes the green energy. We'll have to see the next few times he swings.

[Roderick_BR]

Maybe it uses a "surge" mechanic. I think it's in the DMG2 and in the MiC. It's sorta on-demand extra damage, usually limited a number of times per day. For example, Fire Surge lets you add +3d6 points of fire damage in a swing, aside from the normal 1d6, and the extra 1d10 for critical hits, and can normally be used up to 3 times a day.

And Roy may have used a whirlwing attack-like move to hit all mummies in a single sweep.

[Marrethiel]

No one seems to be thinking from the perspective of a DM giving a player a cool weapon. Roy goes on an extensive quest to fix an heirloom weapon and is told that it is stronger against his story line foe.
Having a genuine artifact fits the bill perfectly because they don't have to follow the rules to the letter.

"Of Slaying Foes", works spot on :)

[Emperordaniel]

No one seems to be thinking from the perspective of a DM giving a player a cool weapon. Roy goes on an extensive quest to fix an heirloom weapon and is told that it is stronger against his story line foe.
Having a genuine artifact fits the bill perfectly because they don't have to follow the rules to the letter.

"Of Slaying Foes", works spot on :)

The sword has been explicitly described to be a +5 weapon, so if it's an Artifact, it's a pretty weak one; I was always under the impression that Artifact weapons were even more powerful than Epic ones, and Epic weapons are always at least +6.

The SRD describes Minor Artifacts (the weakest kind) as "[N]ot necessarily unique items. Even so, they are magic items that no longer can be created, at least by common mortal means." I'm pretty sure the Greenhilt Sword was originally made by a common mortal; the current starmetal edition definitely was, at any rate. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Some artifacts aren't +6: even major ones. The Shield of Prator, for example- only +5 (called Shield of The Sun here):

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#majorArtifacts

[Dark Matter]

RE: Zom Dragon's non-green attack...
It could just be an art error.

[Emperordaniel]

Some artifacts aren't +6: even major ones. The Shield of Prator, for example- only +5 (called Shield of The Sun here):

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#majorArtifacts

Okay, that shows the "must be Epic" impression I had about Artifacts is incorrect (although the Shield has so many other special abilities that it's arguably better than many +6 or +7 Epic shields). :smalltongue: There's still the part about how Artifacts can't be made by mortals, though.

[hamishspence]

In Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (the splatbook), the sceptre that mortal (but un-aging) cleric Fzoul Chembryl wields, a minor artifact, is stated to be forged by him and another mortal.

Mortals can occasionally make artifacts- but it requires "plot power" so to speak- it's not something that can be relied on.

[Dark Matter]

In Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (the splatbook), the sceptre that mortal (but un-aging) cleric Fzoul Chembryl wields, a minor artifact, is stated to be forged by him and another mortal.

Mortals can occasionally make artifacts- but it requires "plot power" so to speak- it's not something that can be relied on.A normal smith couldn't do it...

...but the best royal smith in a country run by Paladins with the aid of a unique metal?

Maybe.

Presumably there'd need to be divine permission or help or something, but we're talking about a weapon designed to be used against the bearer of the red cloak's lich ally.

[SoC175]

Why is it so hard to just accept that it's an randomly triggered effect that doesn't care what type of foe the sword is currently used against?

[TheEmerged]

Why is it so hard to just accept that it's an randomly triggered effect that doesn't care what type of foe the sword is currently used against?

Human nature. We're going to continually try to find patterns, even when there aren't any. This is how supersititions start, and that's as close to the board rules as I care to get.

[WindStruck]

I guess the same could be asked why it's so hard to accept that there really is a pattern! Sounds just about as ridiculous, considering there doesn't seem to be any hard proof either way, but I think that the whole slashing/hitting/power attack deal might work...

[Quartz]

Could there be two separate powers that cause the green glow? That's been a plot point of more than one adventure (detect elves and detect lies IIRC in one case). Undead don't take critical hits, so Bane vs Undead fits very nicely - green glow against Xykon / dragon and against the mummies, but what other power or powers could it have to account for the activations against Miko and Sabine?

[Sorator]

Could there be two separate powers that cause the green glow? That's been a plot point of more than one adventure (detect elves and detect lies IIRC in one case). Undead don't take critical hits, so Bane vs Undead fits very nicely - green glow against Xykon / dragon and against the mummies, but what other power or powers could it have to account for the activations against Miko and Sabine?

Doubtful, given that it was explained by the blacksmith as the same power, just doing more damage to the undead.

[snikrept]

Seems like a vidya-game-esque mechanic to me

"Did you see that? I procced Green Energy Strike five times in a row and pwned him! ROFL!"

[SoC175]

I guess the same could be asked why it's so hard to accept that there really is a pattern! Sounds just about as ridiculous, considering there doesn't seem to be any hard proof either way...Except for the blacksmith who created the weapon and thus has to know how it works said that it just occasionally glows with green energy. If there was a certain trigger he would have told Roy, as he was aware of the game mechanics behind the item he himself just created and the material he used.

"It will glow with green energy particularly harmful to undead when you're very angry"
"It will glow with green energy particularly harmful to undead when you're using power attack"
"It will glow with green energy particularly harmful to undead when you're scoring a critical hit"

He would have know and could have told Roy all that, but he just said it would occasionally produce this effect.

[Bulldog Psion]

Seems like a vidya-game-esque mechanic to me

"Did you see that? I procced Green Energy Strike five times in a row and pwned him! ROFL!"

Yep, random procs seems to be the best explanation. To me at least. :smallsmile:

[WindStruck]

Except for the blacksmith who created the weapon and thus has to know how it works said that it just occasionally glows with green energy. If there was a certain trigger he would have told Roy, as he was aware of the game mechanics behind the item he himself just created and the material he used.

"It will glow with green energy particularly harmful to undead when you're very angry"
"It will glow with green energy particularly harmful to undead when you're using power attack"
"It will glow with green energy particularly harmful to undead when you're scoring a critical hit"

He would have know and could have told Roy all that, but he just said it would occasionally produce this effect.

Sure you can be the best blacksmith around and reforge a sword with kryptonite infused in the metal... that doesn't mean you know exactly how it behaves in the nuances of a high-level battle.

Considering how rare the blacksmith says starmetal is, I think she just opted to be vague about the chances of the energy going off, because really, there's just about no way she would know.

Also, you might want to add this comic to the archive of examples when the glow has or hasn't appeared? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0308.html

I don't think Roy is using power attack in those panels either. :smalltongue:

[ManuelSacha]

It immediately became obvious to me that who he was swinging at was the most significant factor. When the target was undead, the green showed up 10 out of 11 times, while when the target was living, it only showed up 2 out of 13. Clearly, there's a strong preference for undead targets, but there's a certain amount of randomness that makes it occasionally "misfire".

Well, it is an effect that works best against undead, so it makes sense that it would "choose" to manifest when the opponent is undead.

Why is there a random "misfiring"? The enchanter/blacksmith was drunk. :smallwink:


It looks to me that the "most dramatic moment" idea is also out. Is it really that dramatic to have it occur five times in a row against Xykon? And not have it occur against not-Thog? Well, it's a matter of opinion, but it doesn't look like it to me.

I agree... the anger-fueled beheading of the zombie dragon would count as more dramatic than five "impotent" swings against Xykon.

[Capt Spanner]

A couple of things: "Not-Thog" is also not undead, so the chances go down.

There is no personal animosity between "Not-Thog" and Roy. The only two times the green energy has manifested against non-undead is when Roy has had great levels of personal animosity against them.

Similarly, Roy has no animosity against Xykon's undead dragon. He calmly and rationally figured that would be the best way to attack Xykon since he wasn't doing enough damage to Xykon directly. This was a calm and rational decision because his emotions were telling to smack Xykon again.

If we say that high emotions are also more dramatic than, yes, beheading an undead dragon is less dramatic then five "impotent" swing at Xykon.

[Kish]

I agree with Capt Spanner.

People are arguing that the lack of green energy when Roy turns and chops the head off the zombie dragon shows that it doesn't trigger from anger--why? Because he glared (at Xykon, not the dragon) first?

[SoC175]

Sure you can be the best blacksmith around and reforge a sword with kryptonite infused in the metal... that doesn't mean you know exactly how it behaves in the nuances of a high-level battle. Actually in D&D if you create a magic item you know exactly how it works.

[RunicLGB]

Actually in D&D if you create a magic item you know exactly how it works.

The Forging (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html)

But is the sword really magical in the traditional sense of the word? The black smith who reforged the thing didn't really seem to be high in levels, especially not the spellcasting levels that would be needed to have craft magical arms and armor and make such a weapon.

Also note how he words it when talking about the reforging. He doesn't come right out and say its game statistics, Roy has to feed those words to him.

Further the Blacksmith thinks that the green glow is bad, and is about to tell Roy how to stop it.

In all likely hood the sword wasn't actually made to be a magic weapon, more just infused with a special material that just so happens to possess magical properties.

[WindStruck]

Actually in D&D if you create a magic item you know exactly how it works.

Hold on there a second. I can totally see where you are coming from if you are, say, a wizard or sorcerer actually creating a magic item... and to be more specific, an item that would be entirely mundane except for the fact that it has permanent magic enhancements placed on it.

On the other hand, simply smelting two different types of metals together and then flattening them out into a sword again? Sorry, but the intrinsic knowledge you get from creating such a "magic item" just isn't there....

Cause technically, blacksmiths can only forge masterwork items at best, right? Then it is up to a magician to actually enchant the weapon...

[Emperordaniel]

He doesn't come right out and say its game statistics, Roy has to feed those words to him.

The blacksmith was a she. :smallwink:

[dtilque]

I just updated the list to reflect the two corrections identified in the course of this thread.


Also, you might want to add this comic to the archive of examples when the glow has or hasn't appeared? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0308.html

I'm not adding that one. Roy is not attacking anyone, much less hitting them.

Some people above have pointed out that we likely don't see every swing he makes. That's probably true, so the stats based on the ones we do see are quite possibly not reflective of the actual green-flash/total-swing ratio. So this whole thread may be an exercise in futility.

[WindStruck]

I just updated the list to reflect the two corrections identified in the course of this thread.



I'm not adding that one. Roy is not attacking anyone, much less hitting them.

Some people above have pointed out that we likely don't see every swing he makes. That's probably true, so the stats based on the ones we do see are quite possibly not reflective of the actual green-flash/total-swing ratio. So this whole thread may be an exercise in futility.

That doesn't exactly matter so much. Consider it like "random sampling", where if you just get enough samples, you get a good picture of what the actual probability is anyway, despite not having every possible sample there could have ever been.

[RunicLGB]

The blacksmith was a she. :smallwink:

And thus I utterly failed stick figure anatomy. :smalltongue:



Don't give up on figuring out the flash though, as much as the giant is writing a story hes also following fairly consistent rules to do so, and figuring out those rules is one of the comics appeals to me at least.

As for the link that just came through, I think it should be included as an example that the flash doesn't happen unless he is hitting something. That might seem obvious but with most dnd glowing weapon properties you can turn them on or off at your whim(note that he says hes trying to get it to happen), they don't just pop up randomly when striking someone. That alone says something about the nature of the flash.

[Deepbluediver]

Although the smith says that the sword works specifically well against undead, has there been any discussion if perhaps the effect is alignment-based instead? It might be hard to measure, since Roy rarely fights against good aligned characters, but perhaps the sword's effect shows up most often when in the presence of great evil (i.e. undead and certain outsiders).

[WindStruck]

And thus I utterly failed stick figure anatomy. :smalltongue:



Don't give up on figuring out the flash though, as much as the giant is writing a story hes also following fairly consistent rules to do so, and figuring out those rules is one of the comics appeals to me at least.

As for the link that just came through, I think it should be included as an example that the flash doesn't happen unless he is hitting something. That might seem obvious but with most dnd glowing weapon properties you can turn them on or off at your whim(note that he says hes trying to get it to happen), they don't just pop up randomly when striking someone. That alone says something about the nature of the flash.

Oh right, and for that matter, apparently Roy was swinging the sword around blabbing about it for half an hour. That's probably like 500 sample we have where if he merely is swinging it without hitting anything, even trying to get it to glow, it didn't do it.

[SoC175]

He doesn't come right out and say its game statistics, Roy has to feed those words to him. He comes right out and accurately describes the game mechanics (aka his +4 sword got 25% better), he's just wrapping the words since he doesn't know that breaking the 4th wall by talking game mechanics is OK for the OotS

[Kish]

1) As has already been pointed out, she.
2) There is no indication the sword was a +4 sword--or a magical sword at all--before. It's "a 25% increase in attack accuracy, with a corresponding enhancement to damage" because each pip on a d20 is 5%.

[SoC175]

2) There is no indication the sword was a +4 sword--or a magical sword at all--before. Except Roy's level and wealth by level

It's "a 25% increase in attack accuracy, with a corresponding enhancement to damage" because each pip on a d20 is 5%.And if it was anything other than +4 before it wouldn't be +25%. Would be +50% or + 33% but +25% is telling "I am upgraded your sword from +4 to +5" while trying to avoid breaking the 4th wall by using rule terms

[TheWerdna]

My guess, is that is has a % chance of activating each round Roy attacks, which a higher chance vs undead.

Perhaps 10-20% chance against non-undead, with a 50% chance vs undead

[Douglas]

Except Roy's level and wealth by level
And if it was anything other than +4 before it wouldn't be +25%. Would be +50% or + 33% but +25% is telling "I am upgraded your sword from +4 to +5" while trying to avoid breaking the 4th wall by using rule terms
The blacksmith isn't talking about the improvement relative to what Roy had before, she's talking about how much the sword increases his accuracy. Weapon accuracy is rolled on a 20-sided die. Each side is 5%. +5 moves the attack result up by 5, and 5 * 5% is 25%.

[ghoul-n]

Errr, the blacksmith knew how to suppress the proc, I guess she might as well know the exact mechanic behind it.

[dtilque]

That doesn't exactly matter so much. Consider it like "random sampling", where if you just get enough samples, you get a good picture of what the actual probability is anyway, despite not having every possible sample there could have ever been.

Yes, but there's almost certainly some sampling bias. Most probably in favor of swings where the energy shows up.

[Nephrahim]

The blacksmith isn't talking about the improvement relative to what Roy had before, she's talking about how much the sword increases his accuracy. Weapon accuracy is rolled on a 20-sided die. Each side is 5%. +5 moves the attack result up by 5, and 5 * 5% is 25%.

I don't see a lot of support for this. He asks how potent the "Weapon" will be, and the blacksmith answers that it would be 25% more accurate, not that he would be.

IT was most likely from a +4 to +5. I don't think Rich would write a sentence in such a way to make the answer seem so obvious but actually be something obscure.

Also I cannot IMAGINE That the sword was not AT LEAST Masterwork.

[Douglas]

IT was most likely from a +4 to +5. I don't think Rich would write a sentence in such a way to make the answer seem so obvious but actually be something obscure.
Honestly, the 25% referring to a portion of the previous bonus never even occurred to me. The very first time I read it, 25% as an expression of the portion of the d20 die range instantly leaped to mind as the obvious meaning.

It's an obvious attempt to state "+5 enhancement bonus" without using the game term, its effect relative to the die it's modifying seems a reasonable thing to attempt to describe, the numbers match perfectly, and it's a description of the sword's power that is independent of any properties it may have had before. By my interpretation, you could say "X% increase in accuracy" and anyone you're talking to would be able to figure out what bonus that meant without needing to know what the sword used to be. By yours, the smith had to know the sword's old bonus (which there is no evidence she even had the ability to figure out) just to be able to state what the new bonus is.

Yes, I'm sure it was at least masterwork, but we have no solid information on any magic it might have had before.

[Kish]

Except Roy's level and wealth by level

Which was 1, at most, when Roy took his ancestral sword off to Fighter College. Or are you implying that the sword somehow leveled with Roy?


And if it was anything other than +4 before it wouldn't be +25%. Would be +50% or + 33% but +25% is telling "I am upgraded your sword from +4 to +5" while trying to avoid breaking the 4th wall by using rule terms
You do not appear to have bothered to read the passage this is a reply to.

1/20=5%. 1/20 does not become 11% or 10% depending on which sword you're wielding as you roll a 20-sided die.


I don't see a lot of support for this. He asks how potent the "Weapon" will be, and the blacksmith answers that it would be 25% more accurate, not that he would be.
Right, so instead of hitting or not based on a roll of 1d20, it now hits or not based on a roll of 1d20+5. A 25% improvement.

If the question was how much more accurate Roy would be, the blacksmith would need to know his Base Attack Bonus to answer.


IT was most likely from a +4 to +5. I don't think Rich would write a sentence in such a way to make the answer seem so obvious but actually be something obscure.
...That would be a much better argument, were "it's going from +4 to +5" not the obscure interpretation of the words, while "it is nonmagical now and will be +5" is the obvious one.

Besides, Xykon could never have Shattered a +4 greatsword; Shatter does a maximum of 10d6 sonic damage with a Fortitude save for half, and a +4 greatsword has 18 hardness and 50 hit points.

[Bulldog Psion]

A weapon must be masterwork in order to be made into a magical weapon, IIRC. Incidentally, since both Roy and the smith refer to it as a +5 sword in that strip, I don't see where there's any room for doubt that it is, in fact, a +5 sword. :smallconfused:

[Deepbluediver]

I'm not going to claim that this isn't an argument worth having, since the value is entirely relative to the participants, but I'm a little surprised there is this much time and energy being devoted to figuring out exactly what stats a magical weapon has as compared to the rules of D&D. And that people feel so strongly about it. :smallconfused:

I find that I generally enjoy the comic more when I don't sit there with a pen and graph paper and try to work out the exact combat order. But maybe that's just me.

[Winter]

Given what we saw of the sword, I find it safe to assume it works "+5 Starmetal Greatsword", where the properties of "starmetal" are unknown beyond "It does extra damage vs. undead in green flashes".

So we have at least a +1 enhancement that works similar to "bane", and probably is more (as it flashes green vs. other opponents as well when Roy becomes angry enough).

So it's probably a +5 Greatsword of Undead Bane + "something we do not know but that flashes with anger".

I doubt any debate beyond that matters if you consider how closely (or not closely) Rich follows rules.

How "+25% hit chance. Just say +5 sword" can be considered as something else but a "+5 sword" is beyond me and I refuse to even think about that.

[Sorator]

Given what we saw of the sword, I find it safe to assume it works "+5 Starmetal Greatsword", where the properties of "starmetal" are unknown beyond "It does extra damage vs. undead in green flashes".

So we have at least a +1 enhancement that works similar to "bane", and probably is more (as it flashes green vs. other opponents as well when Roy becomes angry enough).

So it's probably a +5 Greatsword of Undead Bane + "something we do not know but that flashes with anger".

I would hesitate to even call it undead bane, just because starmetal is a material, like adamantine or mithril, and so it can have rather hefty effects on a weapon/armor without adding to the net enhancement bonus.

[Coat]

Only two observations.

Firstly, every frame where the green energy is in evidence, it's felt absolutely appropriate to me. That's a sample of one, and not very helpful - but no-one is complaining about how inconsistent the unpredictability is, suggesting that most people feel the same. So there probably is a pattern here that we're picking up on.

Secondly, in the examples above, I would say that when the sword flares, Roy is not just angry, he actively hates the thing he's swinging at. And the fiercer his hatred, the greater the flare.

There's a few issues: for example, the zombie dragon, and the mummies. I don't read Roy as hating either of them particularly. With the dragon, I read the comics where the sword flares as attacks aimed at X that miss and hit the dragon, rather than aimed at the dragon itself. And Roy really hates X.

When he cuts the head off the dragon, there's no flare: this time, Roy is definitely attacking the ZD, not X, but he does so very dispassionately.

Against the Mummies I find harder to rationalise: I'm not sure Roy's feelings about the Undead in general go much beyond a marked dislike. However, they're not just a bunch of wandering monsters, they're the advance arm of the Linear Guild - and Roy's frustration and hatred of the Guild has been building for ages. Now he has them where he wants them, his plan is in place, and this is his chance to smash the hated Guild properly. Hence flare.

Finally though, there is the two times the sword *doesn't* flare, when he fights what he thinks is Thog, whom he hates, in 851 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html). The first attack misses (but so did the flare attacks on the zombie dragon, by my reasoning) but the second certainly connects, with no flare - maybe Roy can't put his hatred into an attack into someone's back?.

[Emperordaniel]

The first attack misses (but so did the flare attacks on the zombie dragon, by my reasoning)

The flare attack on the zombie dragon didn't miss - if you look closely, you'll see a bit of undead flesh chopped off and falling to the ground below, and a "scar" (which matches the bit chopped off) on the part of the dragon where the sword connected. :smallwink:

[Coat]

The flare attack on the zombie dragon didn't miss - if you look closely, you'll see a bit of undead flesh chopped off and falling to the ground below, and a "scar" (which matches the bit chopped off) on the part of the dragon where the sword connected. :smallwink:

It didn't miss the dragon. It did, however, miss Xykon, whom I am suggesting it was actually aimed at.

[Trisk]

Certainly is. The Giant isn't the only one who can riff titles of well known books.

Seems like, and the Green Light would have been a better choice, but I digress.


At-Will ability, probably effects all undead and the light is merely cinematic done during particularily flashy moments, in universe you could say during crits or high emotions or just when focused.

[SoC175]

1/20=5%. 1/20 does not become 11% or 10% depending on which sword you're wielding as you roll a 20-sided die. A +1 sword going to +2 receives an 100% growth in enhancement bonus
A +2 sword going to +3 receives an 50% growth in enhancement bonus
A +3 sword going to +4 receives an 33% growth in enhancement bonus
A +4 sword going to +5 receives an 25% growth in enhancement bonus

Right, so instead of hitting or not based on a roll of 1d20, it now hits or not based on a roll of 1d20+5. A 25% improvement. No, it's never a +5% improvement, that's not possible. If you hit on 1-20 you can not improve.

If you hit on 2-20 a +1 causing you to then hit on 1-20 is 5.2% increade (may be rounded down to 5% for sake of simplicity, but it's never really exactly +5%).

If you hit only on a 20 then hitting on 19-20 is a 100% increase.


If the question was how much more accurate Roy would be, the blacksmith would need to know his Base Attack Bonus to answer. That wouldn't describe the sword but rather the sword + wielder.

...That would be a much better argument, were "it's going from +4 to +5" not the obscure interpretation of the words, while "it is nonmagical now and will be +5" is the obvious one. It wasn't a non magical sword bevore.

Besides, Xykon could never have Shattered a +4 greatsword; Shatter does a maximum of 10d6 sonic damage with a Fortitude save for half, and a +4 greatsword has 18 hardness and 50 hit points.And Roy could never have knocked his head off.

[hamishspence]

I think the "changed from normal weapon to +5 weapon= 25% To Hit increase" interpretation is as follows:

"Probability of hitting was 5%- is now 30%"

or- vs a much lower AC,

"Probability of hitting was 70%- is now 95%"

Or everything in between- ignoring cases where you're a long way into "only hit on a 20" or "only miss on a 1" territory.

In all other cases- the change in probability of hitting is 25%.

[SoC175]

I think the "changed from normal weapon to +5 weapon= 25% To Hit increase" interpretation is as follows:

"Probability of hitting was 5%- is now 30%"

or- vs a much lower AC,

"Probability of hitting was 70%- is now 95%"

Or everything in between- ignoring cases where you're a long way into "only hit on a 20" or "only miss on a 1" territory.

In all other cases- the change in probability of hitting is 25%.The chance of hitting goes up by 25 percentage points which is totally different from going up by 25%.

If it goes up by 25 percentage points from 70% to 95% the chance goes up by ~35%. From 5% to 30% is up by 500%

In all other cases- the change in probability of hitting is 25%.No, to get a chance to hit to increase by 25% would require going from hitting on 17+ to hitting on 16+.

[hamishspence]

in the context of the strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html

"going up by 25 percentage points" is a reasonable surmise as to what they mean by "increase 25%"

[SoC175]

in the context of the strip: In context of that particular strip going from +4 to +5 is the only reasonable surmise.

Assuming it wen't from Roy (and Roy's grandfather) carrying a non-magical blade up to that very moment to +5 is a huge stretch

[hamishspence]

In the thread for strip 297:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=243231&postcount=180

it's made clear that it's percentage points.

Probably because players The Giant's played with used it that way:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=237586&postcount=35

[SoC175]

In the thread for strip 297:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=243231&postcount=180

it's made clear that it's percentage points.

Probably because players The Giant's played with used it that way:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=237586&postcount=35Well, that settles the argument what the Giant meant (he's still wrong though).

However that leads to the question how high-level Roy's grandpa could have been if he was running around with a non-magical sword (and supposedly fought dragons with it. Maybe that's how he died)

[Kish]

Well, that settles the argument what the Giant meant (he's still wrong though).
Chutzpah. "I was wrong about what this character in this fictional medium meant, said the author? No, the author was wrong!"

[SoC175]

Chutzpah. "I was wrong about what this character in this fictional medium meant, said the author? I didn't contest that. If you read the very post you quote you see that I am openly admit being wrong about what the author meant.

No, the author was wrong!"He still is. His math is wrong and doesn't say what he wanted to say. His colloquial use of percentages and percentage points is incorrect and doesn't actually say what he wanted it to say.

I am a beancounter at work and to nitpick is actually my job. People stumbling about percentages vs. percentage points is something I need to correct often.

[Douglas]

He still is. His math is wrong and doesn't say what he wanted to say. His colloquial use of percentages and percentage points is incorrect and doesn't actually say what he wanted it to say.
It is incorrect by a strict nitpicking exactly-what-the-dictionary-says meaning. By meaning as commonly used by typical people speaking the language, it is one of multiple completely correct usages, and the intended meaning was sufficiently clear that you are in the distinct minority. As he is not writing a technical report or accounting paperwork, that kind of correctness is quite sufficient.

[dtilque]

Seems like, and the Green Light would have been a better choice, but I digress.

:facepalm:

Of course it would! Why didn't I think of that?!



At-Will ability, probably effects all undead and the light is merely cinematic done during particularily flashy moments, in universe you could say during crits or high emotions or just when focused.

Unlikely to be an at-will ability. It didn't happen when he was trying to make it happen when getting used to the reforged sword. But then was surprised the first time it did happen.

[Sorator]

I'm guessing he meant "at-will" as in "when The Giant wants", as opposed to "when Roy wants", since he goes on to say that in-universe it could be explained as a crit ability. But that was unnecessarily vague, and if he did mean "when Roy wants", I agree that there's plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise.

[SoC175]

and the intended meaning was sufficiently clear that you are in the distinct minority.I have to disagree here. If you look at the old thread about that comic it causes such a discussion that the giant himself felt he need to step in. A whole lot of people argued about what the Giant actually wanted to say, not just a distinct minority.

Also the "corresponding enhancement in damage" part confuses further in this case, because people link it to the quantified increase mentioned before (aka +25% damage) instead of only the flat number without any percentage reference to it.

That again implies going from +4 to +5, as in this case the enhancement of both accuracy and damage increases by +25%.

Since a greatsword rolls 2d6 for damage there is no link between an increase in enhancement and 5% steps on the dice. Only when referring to the enhancement bonus itself..

[dtilque]

I'm guessing he meant "at-will" as in "when The Giant wants", as opposed to "when Roy wants", since he goes on to say that in-universe it could be explained as a crit ability. But that was unnecessarily vague, and if he did mean "when Roy wants", I agree that there's plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Ah I see. But in that regard, everything in the comic is at-will. That doesn't lead to an interesting discussion. We're trying to figure out if the Giant had a pattern in mind for when the green energy shows up. Perhaps he doesn't, but we'll assume he does until he says otherwise.

[Douglas]

Since a greatsword rolls 2d6 for damage there is no link between an increase in enhancement and 5% steps on the dice. Only when referring to the enhancement bonus itself..
Which is why the smith said "with a corresponding enhancement to damage" instead of just adding "and damage" to directly reference the 25%. The choice of the word "corresponding" clearly indicates a value that is related to the previously stated one but not the same.

[Bulldog Psion]

Since a greatsword rolls 2d6 for damage there is no link between an increase in enhancement and 5% steps on the dice. Only when referring to the enhancement bonus itself..

Actually, there is a link between the two. I wish there was a facepalm smiley here, I honestly do.

The smith says "A 25% increase in attack accuracy, with a corresponding enhancement to damage". Which you can "translate" into D&D speak as saying, "A +5 increase in to hit rolls, with a corresponding enhancement to damage".

In other words, +5 to hit, +5 to damage. A +5 sword.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 2d6 damage. It has to do with it getting remade as a +5 sword from a masterwork sword.

It has nothing to do with going from +4 to +5. That is not said, nor implied in that comic. It's plain as a pikestaff in the comic. Overthinking it and doing semantic juggling doesn't change the fact that everything indicates the 25% is referring to 5% x 5.

If you still don't believe it didn't get a +5 enhancement, and just a +1, look at the ritza fritzin frame before. "An alloy of the starmetal with your sword's original steel would make a potent weapon, however". I don't think that going from +4 to +5 would merit that description because a +4 sword would already be a potent weapon, and getting an extra +1 wouldn't merit that kind of statement. "I can improve your weapon slightly" would be more like it.

On top of that, the smith describes the sword as being "ordinary terrestrial steel" at the top of the page.

For reference:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html

*wanders out, shaking his head and muttering* Edit: I know someone's going to pounce on that "Ordinary terrestrial steel" line.

[SoC175]

Actually, there is a link between the two. Which requires you to take a turn and first translate the percentage into an absolute number instead of just being able to take the straight line and directly apply the stated percentage to both.

Which you can "translate" into D&D speak as saying, "A +5 increase in to hit rolls, with a corresponding enhancement to damage". If you're taking a laymans approach to percent and percentage points.

In other words, +5 to hit, +5 to damage. A +5 sword. Which is more long-winded than simply saying 25% to describe going from +4 to +5. It's exact the same increase for damage and accuracy bonus without requiring any further reference points.

Overthinking it and doing semantic juggling That's what you need to get to it refering to the +5 in general and not to the +5 as a percentage increase to what it was before. It was simply not the best way to express what the giant wanted it to express.

Really before this thread the possibility that anything other than "from +4 to +5" as something that someone could read from it, lest the very thing the Giant actually intended to say, didn't even enter my mind.

It was so simple and clear "Ah, 25% increase? Nice, Roy's sword was upgraded from +4 to +5" what was came immediately into my mind. Any other possibility wasn't even hinted at from how that sentence read to me.

From the other thread and the Giant finally explaining his train of thoughts it seems I wasn't the only one reading it that way.

[hamishspence]

If you're taking a laymans approach to percent and percentage points.

Which the people The Giant played with did.

[SoC175]

Which the people The Giant played with did.And now that I know this it's more clear, but just reading that comic without any further hint that was a meaning that didn't even enter my mind.

[Douglas]

And now that I know this it's more clear, but just reading that comic without any further hint that was a meaning that didn't even enter my mind.
Likewise, your interpretation never even entered my mind until I read this thread. The Giant's interpretation did, and in fact immediately popped to mind on the spot.

On another note, you're reading a work of entertainment written by someone who is anything but a lawyer, accountant, or mathematician, and you did not assume he was using a layman's approach?:smallconfused: The author of said work is, quite clearly, a layman himself with regard to the subject in question, and has never made any pretension otherwise. Of course he used a layman's approach. Why would you ever assume otherwise?


Which requires you to take a turn and first translate the percentage into an absolute number instead of just being able to take the straight line and directly apply the stated percentage to both.
If directly applying the stated percentage to both were the intended meaning, the wording would have been "I estimate a 25% increase in attack accuracy and damage." Not "I estimate a 25% increase in attack accuracy, with a corresponding enhancement to damage." The former is simpler, more direct, and a more obvious way to state that meaning, while the latter uses a word that strongly implies a related but different (than the stated percentage, not the OOC bonus) number.

[Bulldog Psion]

If directly applying the stated percentage to both were the intended meaning, the wording would have been "I estimate a 25% increase in attack accuracy and damage." Not "I estimate a 25% increase in attack accuracy, with a corresponding enhancement to damage." The former is simpler, more direct, and a more obvious way to state that meaning, while the latter uses a word that strongly implies a related but different (than the stated percentage, not the OOC bonus) number.

Thank you for sparing me the necessity of explaining that. :smallsmile:

[WindStruck]

Really before this thread the possibility that anything other than "from +4 to +5" as something that someone could read from it, lest the very thing the Giant actually intended to say, didn't even enter my mind.

It was so simple and clear "Ah, 25% increase? Nice, Roy's sword was upgraded from +4 to +5" what was came immediately into my mind. Any other possibility wasn't even hinted at from how that sentence read to me.

For a professional bean counter or whatever the heck you claim you are, your analysis doesn't seem that great considering every weapon roll intrinsically has a 1d20 attached to it. Here you are talking about the "absolute value", yet you completely leave out this aspect, which is unsurprisingly where everyone else gets their idea.

Everyone else gets their idea of the percentage based on the maximum roll of the 20-sided die: 20. 25% of 20 is 5 more attack, thus +5 bonus.

And technically, since a 1 is automatically a miss and these random die rolls are random, the average accuracy of a normal weapon could be considered 11. Then we get a bonus of +5 to hit, bringing that up to 16. If the sword was originally +4, it would have had an average accuracy of 15 beforehand, and that increase to 16 is only 6.6%.

Or maybe you want to then finagle it further and say the sword was originally +2.... but since we already have all the quotes necessary to prove what Rich meant, can we just drop it now? Frankly I do not care for all this "argument for argument's sake". Especially when the arguments are faulty.