PDA

View Full Version : Class and Level Geekery X: deals +1d6 thread damage



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kurald Galain
2013-05-06, 04:02 AM
Welcome to the latest incarnation of the Class and Level Geekery thread! Here, we are discussing what the possible stats are for each of the six OOTS members. Below is an estimate of the characters' stats; this was first kept by Runolfr, Wrecan, and Chrismith. I will update this post as the discussion continues and as subsequent strips reveal more information about OOTS; RMS Oceanic will update the post with all the other characters.

Please note that we all know that Rich isn't necessarily being careful about the rules. Funny always trumps rules. Thus, there will always be some dispute as to some of the stats as some jokes are used as evidence as abilities and other strips are used as evidence of funny.

Please read the thread rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229756) by Mark Hall.


3E source books used for the comic:

Player's Handbook 1 and Dungeon Master's Guide 1
Book of Vile Darkness (certain monsters; Boost Spell Resistance feat)
Complete Adventurer (ninjas)
Complete Arcane (warlocks; Tsukiko's and Zz'dtri's spells)
Complete Warrior (hexblade)
Dungeonscape (Thog; the acid-breathing shark; note that The Giant co-wrote this book)
Expanded Psionics Handbook (blue; mindblade)
Fiend Folio (certain monsters)
Magic of Incarnum (mentioned by Redcloak's lackey)
Monster Manual (mentioned by Celia and Vaarsuvius)
Monster Manual 2 (certain monsters)
Oriental Adventures (other samurai class, and mentioned by Xykon)
Spell Compendium (numerous spells that aren't from the PHB1)
uncertain: Epic Level Handbook (a feat and spell from this book are mentioned, but most epic characters or spells in the comic don't follow the rules from this book)


In which comic do the characters demonstrate having leveled?
{table]Level|:roy:|:belkar:|http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DurkonVampire_zps6711c6b8.png|:elan:|:haley:|:vaar suvius:
9|12|12|12|12|12|12
10|124|125|124|124|124|124
11|251|???|201|???|???|186
12|???, 665|249|???|???|477|???
13|485, 862|???|556|393|511|397
14|886|???|859|647|???|627
15| - |860| - |904|615|716[/table]


:roy: Roy Greenhilt
Lawful Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), Human male Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html) 14+ (to take a feat after resurrection)
Str 24+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html) (Unmodified strength 20+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0004.html)) *)
Int 14-17 (“very good"*, but V's Int is "higher"*)
Wis 14+ (“very good"*)
Cha 12+ (“decent*), modifier less than Elan's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html).
Age: 29 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0500.html).
Feats (13): Cleave, Great Cleave, Power Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0102.html), Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html), Improved Grapple (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html), Improved Sunder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0803.html), Weapon Focus (greatsword), Weapon Specialization (greatsword) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html), Endurance (sleeps in armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html) without getting fatigued).
Skills (60+): Intimidate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html), Ride 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0141.html),
Knowledge (Arcana) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0326.html), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html), Knowledge (Geography) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html), Profession (Goatherd) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0141.html), Spellcraft (OOPC), Bluff 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html), Sense Motive 0 (OOPC).
Items: Magical armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html), Bag of Tricks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html), club (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0151.html), +5 Greatsword (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html), formal suit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0310.html), oil of shillelagh (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html), potion of delay poison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0443.html), boots (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html), bedroll (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html), list of Xykon's spells, feats and magic items (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Belt of Giant Strength (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html), book, sextant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html).
*

:belkar: Belkar Bitterleaf aka Ali S. Fakenamington (KS:US), aka the Belkster, aka Death's Li'l Helper (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html)
Chaotic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html) Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html), Halfling (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0021.html) male Ranger 11+ / Barbarian (forum), total level 15 (deafened by Holy Word (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html)).
Str 14-17 (jump exceeds movement, forum, and carrying capacity in SSDT).
Int <10 (OOPC).
Wis <10 (ability score penalty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html)).
Cha <10 (without any charisma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0312.html)).
Age: 28+ (ranger for three years, over a year ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html)).
Feats (11): Endurance, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Track, Two-Weapon Fighting (all ranger bonus feats); Craft Disturbing Mental Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0249.html), Great Cleave (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0325.html), Improved Sunder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0325.html), Power Attack (prerequisite for Improved Sunder), Two-Weapon Pounce (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0613.html); no feats related to special attacks (SSDT).
Skills (89): Balance 5+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0279.html), Climb (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html), Craft: Trapmaking (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0270.html), Handle Animal 0 (NCPB), Hide (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0468.html), Jump (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0019.html), Move Silently 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0270.html), Profession: gourmet chef 4 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0475.html), Sense Motive 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html), Speak language: halfling (racial), Spot 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html), Survival 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0213.html), Use Magic Device (SSDT).
Abilities: Halfling racial abilities, ranger and barbarian class abilities, animal companion: Mr. Scruffy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0682.html), scent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html).
Items: Unholy symbol (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html), red chalk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0038.html), cloak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html), Ring of Jumping +20 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html), stilts, Sapphire guard disguise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0294.html), quill (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html), string (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0379.html), chef hat, Mama Bitterleaf's secret ingredient (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0476.html),
bedroll (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0573.html), 3 small magical daggers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html), mimic (SSDT), wand of dispel clothing (SSDT), book: Dune (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html), bucket and spade (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html), bag of holding full of money (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html). Either has dex 15+ or wears light or no armor (to use two-weapon pounce).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/MrScruffy.png Mr. Scruffy
True Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15667889#post15667889) (forum), Cat male, animal companion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0682.html).
Str 6 (animal companion).
Dex 18 (animal companion).
Con 10 (racial).
Int 2 (racial).
Wis 12 (racial).
Cha 7 (racial).
Age: 7 (WXP).
Feats: Stealthy, Weapon Finesse (racial bonus feats).
Skills: Balance +10, Climb +6, Hide +16, Jump +10, Listen +3, Move Silently +8, Spot +3 (all racial skills).
Abilities: Low-light vision, scent (both racial abilities); natural armor +4, link, share spells, evasion, devotion (all animal companion abilities); 3 tricks, including attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html) and come (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0522.html).
Items: String (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DurkonVampire_zps6711c6b8.png Durkon Thundershield
Lawful Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html), Dwarf (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0076.html) vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0878.html) male non-theistic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15060436#post15060436) (forum) Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html) 14 (based on spells cast in a day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html)).
Str 20-25 (can carry Vaarsuvius (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0507.html), can't carry Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0038.html); +6 as vampire).
Dex <14 (dex penalty, SSDT; +4 as vampire).
Con n/a (undead).
Int ~12 (no evidence; +2 as vampire).
Wis 19-25 (required for 7th-level spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0859.html), and to lose his best 7th-level spell to Enervation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0810.html); +2 as vampire).
Cha <14 (low modifier (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html); +4 as vampire).
Age: 55+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0732.html).
Feats (5): Extend Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0839.html), Extra Turning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html); Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes (all vampire bonus feats).
Skills (31+): Knowledge: Religion (not maxed) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html), Listen 0 (OOPC), Ride 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0141.html), Speak language: dwarf (racial) and giant (SSDT), Spot 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0318.html).
Abilities: Dwarf racial abilities, vampire abilities.
Items: Candles (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html), bedroll (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html), full plate armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0025.html), deck of cards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html), holy symbol (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html), Amulet of Natural Armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html), heirloom shield and warhammer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0237.html), parcheesi board (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0380.html), spyglass (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html), religious vestments (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html), scroll of Sending (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0634.html), belt pouch (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html), Kingdom of Blood papers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0732.html), flask of liquor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html), 10,000+ gp of diamond dust (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0845.html), Staff of Obscure Spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html), healing potions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html).
Spells: Standard cleric list, plus domain spells as listed above, plus Bless Beer (WXP), Call Lightning (DCF), Cat's Grace (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0027.html), Control Winds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0837.html), Cure Itchy Wounds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html), Heat Blisters of Eternal Pain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html), Heathen Smiting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html), Mass Death Ward with backdoor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0876.html), Mass Resist Energy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0848.html), Thor's Lightning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0473.html), and Tumor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html). Might of Thor is assumed to be the standard cleric spell Righteous Might.
Before becoming a vampire, Durkon was Lawful Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), had Con ~12 (racial), the ability Turn Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html), and the Good domain (required to cast Holy Smite (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html)).

:elan: Elan
Chaotic Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html), Human male Bard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html) 13 (required to get these spells at level-up (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html)) / Dashing Swordsman (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html), total level 15 (same as Nale).
Str <20 (can't carry Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0038.html), and the same as Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=821955&postcount=47), forum).
Dex 13-17 (required for Dodge, and to get a four on Move Silently (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html)).
Con same as Nale.
Int <10 (too low to cast cantrips (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html), but higher than Thog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html).
Wis <10 (not even a smidgen (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0080.html)).
Cha 22+ (required for 5th level spells at level 13 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), +2 from belt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html)).
Age: 22+ (WXP).
Feats (6): Dodge, Mobility (both prerequisites for Spring Attack), Spring Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0761.html), Still Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0156.html).
Skills (85+): Diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html), Hide (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0468.html), Listen (higher than Sir Francois, OOPC), Move Silently <3 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html), Perform: sing 12+ (required for Inspire Greatness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0593.html)), Perform: string instruments 15+ (required for Song of Freedom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0890.html)), Perform: kazoo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0198.html), Ride 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0141.html), Spot 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0318.html), Tumble (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0026.html).
Abilities: Bard class abilities, charismatic strike (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html), dramatic instincts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html), glass damage immunity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html).
Items: Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html) rapier (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0028.html), Banjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html), ceremonial meat costume (OOPC), Boots of Elvenkind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html), kazoo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0198.html), jam, lantern, pingpong bat, roller skate, squirrel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0206.html), yoyo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0278.html), dashing outfit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0388.html), "silver" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html) +3 keen rapier (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html), lute (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html), Belt of Charisma +2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html), treasure chest (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0691.html), drawing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html), The Stick the Order was named after (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html), evil sword (SSDT), castanets and sombrero (SSDT), no armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html). Elan still has his old equipment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8484548&postcount=12) (forum).
Spells: Animate Rope (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0156.html), Disguise Self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html), Greater Dispel Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), Lesser Confusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html), Major Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0455.html), Mass Cure Light Wounds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), Mending (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0400.html), Neutralize Poison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), Prestidigitation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html), Silent Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0019.html), Summon Plot Exposition (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html), not Cure Critical Wounds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html), Identify (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html), or Break Enchantment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html).

:haley: Haley Starshine aka Mistress Nightingale, aka The Red Blur (OOPC), aka Dark Mistress Shadowgale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html)
Chaotic Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html), Human female Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0008.html) 15+ (required for Improved Precise Shot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0615.html)).
Str 13-19 (high enough to drag the cart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0522.html), but can't carry Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0038.html)).
Dex 20-21 (modifier of +5, forum).
Con 9+ (higher than Vaarsuvius (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html)).
Int 12+ (received bonus languages (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0247.html)).
Cha 12-19 (with any charisma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0312.html); and with maxed out Bluff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0412.html), for Hide to be her best skill (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0311.html), her cha mod has to be less than her dex mod).
Age: About 25 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12254291&postcount=24) (forum; was 24 here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html), and that was (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0198.html) over a (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0260.html) year ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html)).
Feats (9+): Dodge (SSDT), Improved Precise Shot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0615.html), Manyshot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html), Martial Weapon Proficiency (longbow) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0454.html), Point Blank Shot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html), Precise Shot (prerequisite for IPS), Ranged Pin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html), Ranged Sunder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html), Rapid Shot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html).
Skills (180+): Appraise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html), Bluff 18+ (maxed out) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0412.html), Disable Device (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html), Forgery (OOPC), Hide 18+ (best skill) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0311.html), Knowledge: Arcana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0578.html), Knowledge: Religion low (forum) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15175785&postcount=48), Open Lock 15, Ride 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0141.html), Search (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0036.html) not maxed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0840.html), Sense Motive 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html), Spellcraft (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html), Spot 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0318.html), Tumble (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0108.html), Use Magic Device 7+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0834.html), Use Rope 8 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html).
Abilities: Rogue class abilities; two special rogue abilities, both spent on a feat.
Items: 8 Bags of Holding (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html), rope (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html), a lot of clothes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0570.html), bedroll (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0573.html), +5 longbow of Icy Burst (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0615.html), Crystal's +4 blade (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0648.html), magic leather armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html), dyed Boots (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html) of Speed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11095086&postcount=2) (forum), at least 200,000 gp in cash (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html), trowel, metal detector (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0692.html), 4+ quivers of green arrows (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0799.html) including silver and cold iron (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html), three potions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0799.html) (since Belkar took one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html)), thief's tools (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html), wands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html), bag of copper pieces (SSDT).

:vaarsuvius: Vaarsuvius
True Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11664984#post11664984) (forum), Elf (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0030.html) ambiguously gendered (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0107.html) Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0009.html): Evoker (DCF) 15 (required to cast Power Word Stun (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0716.html), and same as Z'zdtri (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html)).
Str 5-9 (can carry Yukyuk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html), and strength penalty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0245.html)).
Dex <12 (no real attack bonus on rays, forum).
Con 8-12 (required to have enough HP to survive the fight against Xykon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html); also, lacks a decent con, forum; and lower than Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html)).
Int 23 (required to cast four 6th-level spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) with a base int of 18 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0031.html) increased to 19 at level 12).
Wis 10-11 (moderate, forum).
Cha 6-9 (can return as a ghost (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0163.html), and without any charisma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0312.html)).
Age: 131+ (WXP).
Feats (11+): Alertness (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html), Empower Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0588.html), Extend Spell (SSDT), Maximize Spell (SSDT), Quicken Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0588.html), Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat), not Silent Spell (forum), not Still Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0161.html).
Skills (108+): Appraise +3 (from familiar), Concentrate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0041.html), Craft: Alchemy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0098.html), Decipher Script (SSDT), Knowledge: Arcana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0188.html), Knowledge: Religion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0016.html) not high (forum) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15175785), Ride 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0141.html), Spot 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0318.html), Search 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0030.html), Speak Language: elf (racial), raven (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0271.html), not draconic (SSDT), Spellcraft (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0181.html), , Use Magic Device 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html).
Abilities: Elf racial abilities, familiar: Blackwing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html), share spells with familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0691.html), scry on familiar, barred schools: Conjuration (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0340.html) and Necromancy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11686399&postcount=36) (forum; also by elimination).
Items: Headband of Intellect +4 (required to cast four 6th-level spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html) with a base int of 18 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0031.html) at level 11), Ring of Wizardry III or IV (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0182.html), two small gemstones (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0123.html), many scrolls and spellbooks (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html), Finding Plot Holes for Dummies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html), twelve more books (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html), jar of diamond dust (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0679.html), two potions (SSDT), apricot-scented face gel (SSDT), chalice (SSDT).
Spells: Arcane Eye (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html), Banishment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0585.html), Bull's Strength (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0104.html), Bugsby's Cat-Retrieving Hand (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0781.html), Bugsby's Clenched Fist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0896.html), Bugsby's Expressive Single Digit, Bugsby's Flicking Finger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html), Bugsby's Grasping Hand (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0397.html), Chain Lightning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html), Charm Monster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html), Cone of Cold (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0041.html), Crushing Despair (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html), Detect Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0116.html), Dimensional Anchor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html), Disintegrate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html), Dispel Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html), Distant Inferno (OOPC), Dominate Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html), Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html), Expeditious Retreat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0005.html), Explosive Runes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0092.html), Feather Fall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0240.html), Fireball (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html), Fire Trap (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0323.html), Flamefinger (OOPC), Forcecage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html), Fly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0507.html), Greater Dispel Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0839.html), Greater Invisibility (SSDT), Gust of Wind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0595.html), Haste (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html), Heroism (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html), Hold Monster (SSDT), Hold Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), Hold Portal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0178.html), Identify (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0009.html), Invisibility (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0157.html), discount Invisibility Sphere (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0088.html), Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html), Magic Missile (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html), Mass Bear's Endurance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0427.html). Mass Bull's Strength (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0427.html), Mass Enlarge Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0427.html), Overland Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0835.html), Owl's Wisdom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html), Passwall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0857.html), Polymorph (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0697.html), Power Word Blind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html), Power Word Stun (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0716.html), Prestidigitation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0323.html), Prismatic Spray (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html), Protection from Arrows (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0240.html), Resilient Sphere (SSDT), Scorching Ray (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html), See Invisibility (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html), Sending (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0630.html), Silent Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html), Sleep (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html), Stinking Cloud (DCF), Stoneskin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html), Stone to Flesh (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html), Suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0178.html), Summon Plot Hole (SWMU), True Seeing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0691.html), Vaarsuvius' Enhanced Scrying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0504.html), Vaarsuvius' Greater Animal Messenger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0563.html), Vampiric Touch (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html), Veil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), Wall of Fire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0919.html), at least one sonic spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Blackwing.png Blackwing (Common name (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0674.html))
Raven (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html) male, familiar.
Str 1 (racial).
Dex 15 (racial).
Con 10 (racial).
Int 13 (familiar).
Wis 14 (racial).
Cha 6 (racial).
Feats: Alertness, Weapon Finesse (racial bonus feats).
Skills: Listen +5, Spot +7 (racial skills), can use Vaarsuvius's skill ranks (familiar).
Abilities: Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html), low-light vision (both racial abilities); natural armor +8, improved evasion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0797.html), empathic link, deliver touch spells, speak with birds, spell resistance 18 (all familiar abilities).
Items: Bauble (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0679.html), sombrero, fake beard and mustache (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0679.html), wand (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html).

Kurald Galain
2013-05-06, 04:04 AM
Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Which characters are included in this thread?
(1) All members of the Order, Team Evil, and the Linear Guild.
(2) Any frequently occuring character, as noted in the Character Appearances thread. Note that this includes Samantha: it was easier to be a common character back when the comic was shorter. We don't unlist characters just because they've died.
(3) Family members of the main characters, as long as we have something to write about them.
This means that Daigo and Kazumi would be next in line, but we don't have a lot of material on either character.

Q: Which material is covered by this thread?
All comics on the web and in print (including SSDT, Gygax magazine, and the Kickstarter bonus stories), as well as anything written about the comic by The Giant. However, not included are any one-panel joke comics, such as used for incentives, t-shirts, or the fundraiser.
Note that even though the characters have stated they aren't sure whether this is the same continuity, certain items and abilities have been shown to carry over. We're listing all of it here for the sake of convenience, but any material from (e.g.) SSDT is clearly marked as such so that people can distinguish it from the main online comics.

Q: Is a character's statement about another character considered evidence?
Yes. We assume that when a character says something about another character's (or his own) ability scores, build, feats, and so forth, they are speaking the truth, except where this contradicts with other evidence or is clearly not possible within the rules.

Q: If a character makes a special attack like grappling, and his victim does not make an attack of opportunity, can that be evidence of a feat like Improved Grapple?
Yes, assuming the victim is armed, and otherwise capable of making AOOs. It is clear that the rules for attacks of opportunity are used in the comic, and there is no reason to assume that grappling/tripping/sundering is an exception.

Q: What does "Core" mean?
The three "Core" books in 3E D&D are the Player's Handbook 1 (PHB), Dungeon Master's Guide 1 (DMG), and Monster Manual 1 (MM). This is an official term defined by WOTC, who put the word "Core" in big letters on the cover of these three books. No other books are Core, and there is no such thing as "partially Core", "almost Core", or "semi-Core" - every book is either Core or non-Core. Note that both the OOTS comic and this thread contain numerous non-Core elements.

Q: A character undertook this heinous/awesome/dutiful/impulsive/meh action. Does that mean they are now evil/good/lawful/chaotic/neutral?
No. As seen in a thousand forum threads, people have different ideas about alignment, and what defines and changes them. The alignments posted here are taken from the character's own mouth, someone else in a position to know their alignment, or their use of a spell/feat/whatever which has an alignment restriction. Kindly refrain from speculating from how a character's action changes their alignment, since it's not really something you can reason out with facts and numbers.

Q: A character undertook this brilliant/moronic/insightful/ignorant/inspiring/repulsive action. Does that mean they now have a high/low intelligence/wisdom/charisma score?
No. Similar to the previous question, people have different ideas about what the mental ability scores represent and how much they influence a character's personality. The ability scores posted here are taken from the character's own mouth, someone else in a position to know their scores, or their use of a spell/feat/whatever which requires a minimum ability score. Kindly refrain from speculating from how a character's personality changes their ability scores, since it's not really something you can reason out with facts and numbers either.

Q: How does Xykon cast Maximized Energy Drain in comic 652?
We don't know for sure. The most popular theories involve the feat Improved Spell Capacity, the feat Sudden Maximize, or a Rod of Metamagic. Each theory has its pros and cons.

Q: What magic item makes Xykon immune to fire damage in comic 653?
We don't know for sure; there are multiple items within RAW that make their user immune to fire, available from level 14. Note that Xykon doesn't specify whether it's an amulet, ring, belt, or other kind of item.

Q: If somebody doesn't say the name of a spell while casting it, does that mean he has the Silent Spell feat?
Not necessarily. We know that Vaarsuvius doesn't have that feat, and yet V still occasionally casts spells while talking about something else.

RMS Oceanic
2013-05-06, 04:05 AM
Team Evil

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/PimpedXykon.png Xykon, pseudonym (SOD)
Chaotic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13027771&postcount=5) (forum) Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html), Human male lich (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html), Sorcerer 21+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html)
Con n/a (undead).
Int ~15 (no evidence, age and lichdom).
Wis ~15 (no evidence, age and lichdom).
Cha 28+ (casts seven 9th-level spells in one combat, SOD).
Age: 111+ (WXP).
Feats (13+): Maximize Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html), Still Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html), Epic Spellcasting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html), at least one craft feat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html).
Skills (46+): Bluff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html), Concentration (required to cast while grappled (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html)), Spellcraft 24+, Knowledge: Arcana 24+ (required for Epic Spellcasting), Reverse Psychology 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html), Speak Language: Draconic (NCPB); +8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot checks.
Abilities: Fear aura, paralyzing touch (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html), turn resistance, damage reduction (SOD), immunity to cold, electricity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html), polymorph, and mind-affecting attacks (all lich abilities).
Items: Soul gem (SOD), Serini's diary (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0195.html), Widescreen crystal ball (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0376.html), Teevo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html), crown (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html) that radiates evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html), Dorukan's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0196.html) headband (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0484.html), unspecified item that gives fire immunity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html), Ring of Protection that gives deflection bonus (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html).
Spells: Animate Dead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html), Animate Dead Animal (SOD), Cloister (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html), Cloudkill (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Contingency (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Energy Drain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html), Epic Mage Armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Finger of Death (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0430.html), Ghostform (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0370.html), Greater Invisibility (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0429.html), Greater Teleport (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Invisibility (SOD), Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html), Magic Missile (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html), Mass Hold Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Meteor Swarm (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Overland Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html), Ray of Frost (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html), Shatter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html), Soul Bind (SOD), Stoneskin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Superb Dispelling (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html), Symbol of Insanity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html), Symbol of Pain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0110.html), Teleport (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0192.html), Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0376.html), unspecified summoning spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html), unspecified fire spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html), unspecified spell that enables travel to the Astral Plane (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0833.html).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Redcloak.png Redcloak, pseudonym (SOD)
Lawful (required for Law domain) Evil (SOD), Goblin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html) male, Cleric (SOD) 17 (can cast 9th spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0826.html)).
Str ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Dex ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Wis 20+ (based on saving throw difficulty class (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)).
Cha 12+ (required to use Rebuke Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html) four times (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0461.html) per day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0462.html)).
Age: 55+ (WXP), does not age physically (SOD).
Feats (5+): Craft Wondrous Item (Xykon's phylactery in SOD), Extend Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html).
Skills (36+): Diplomacy (SOD), Knowledge: Chemistry (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html), Speak Language (Goblin) Does not speak Draconic (NCPB).
Abilities: Goblin racial abilities, Rebuke Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0113.html), Command Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html), Destruction domain (required to cast Disintegrate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html)) and Law domain (required to cast Hold Monster, SOD).
Items: The Crimson Mantle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0369.html), backup unholy symbol (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html), Book of Vile Darkness, Fiend Folio, Monster Manual II (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html), eye patch (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html), spyglass (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html), Xykon's Phylactery (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html), Arcane half of the Snarl Ritual (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html), Ring of protection from level drain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html)
Spells: standard cleric list, plus domain spells as listed above, plus Unseal, Greater Obscure Object, Superior Resistance, Hardening (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html)

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Tsukiko.png Tsukiko (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html))
Neutral Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57), Human female, Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html): Necromancer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11637535) (forum) 3+ / Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html) 3+ (required for Mystic Theurge) / Mystic Theurge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) 6+, and two more levels of either Wizard or Mystic Theurge (required to cast 6th-level wizard spells).
Int 16+ (required to cast Create Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html) as a wizard).
Wis 15+ (required to cast Flame Strike (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html) as a cleric).
Feats (6+): Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat), Quicken Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0519.html).
Skills (42+): Knowledge: Arcana 6+, Knowledge: Religion 6+ (required for Mystic Theurge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html)).
Abilities: Rebuke Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html), two unknown domains, barred school (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11637535) (forum): Abjuration (by elimination).
Items: Spellbook (wizard feature), unholy symbol (required to cast Flame Strike (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html)), Xykon plushie (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html), Xykon portrait, various books and scrolls, quill (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html).
Spells: standard cleric list, plus wizard spells Cold Orb (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0522.html), Create Undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html), Dominate Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html), Electric Orb (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html), Fire Orb (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0519.html), Fireball (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html), Fly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html), Invisibility (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html), Lesser Acid Orb (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0519.html), Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html), Mind Fog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html), Shout (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html), Teleport (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0513.html), Tsukiko's Amazing Wight-Making Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html) (forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11664910)).

:mitd: Monster In The Darkness
Please see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293047) for details.



The Linear Guild

:nale: Nale (Deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html))
Lawful Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html), Human male, Fighter / Rogue 2+ (required for Evasion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)) / Sorcerer 8+ (required to cast Dimension Door (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html)); total level 15 (Hit by Holy Word (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html)).
Str <19 (same as Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=821955), forum).
Dex 13-17 (same as Elan).
Con ?? (same as Elan).
Int 13+ (For Combat Expertise).
Cha 15+ (required to cast Sending (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html)).
Age: 22+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html) (same as Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)).
Skills: Bluff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html).
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15723194&postcount=1016).
Abilities: Rogue class abilities.
Items: Longsword (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html), Linear Guild Business Cards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0804.html), wand of Enervation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0806.html), Elixirs of Negative Energy protection (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html).
Spells: Charm Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html), Dimension Door (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html), Expeditious Retreat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0067.html), Invisibility (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0819.html), Prestidigitation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html), Suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html).

:sabine: Sabine
Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0394.html), Succubus (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html) female, Racial hit dice 6 / Level adjustment 6 / Rogue (NCPB) 3+ (at least as high as her personal rival (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0581.html) Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0616.html)).
Dex ~13 (no evidence, racial).
Con ~13 (no evidence, racial).
Int 9+ (higher than Thog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0458.html), lower than Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11883778&postcount=198), forum).
Wis ~14 (no evidence, racial).
Cha ~26 (no evidence, racial).
Age: 2000+ (NCPB).
Abilities: Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0377.html), change shape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html), energy drain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html), charm monster, detect good, detect thoughts, ethereal jaunt, suggestion, greater teleport: self plus 50 pounds of objects (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0804.html), summon demon, damage reduction 10 / cold iron or good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html), darkvision, electricity and poison immunity, acid cold and fire resistance, spell resistance 18, telepathy, tongues; plane shift 1/day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0380.html) (all racial abilities), rogue class abilities, doesn't grow tired (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html).
Items: Cellphone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0903.html)

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/drizzle.png Zz'dtri (Deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html))
Neutral Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57) Drow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html) male, Wizard: Transmuter (DCF) 15 (deafened by Holy Word (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html)).
Dex ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Con ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Int 17+ (required to cast Plane Shift (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0802.html)).
Cha ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Feats (9+): Lightning Reflexes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0799.html), Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat), Silent Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html) (forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=822237)), Boost Spell Resistance, unspecified feat that increases Spell Resistance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html), Empower Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0847.html).
Skills: Speak Language: Drow Sign Language (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html)
Abilities: Spell Resistance 28+ (racial, at least +4 from feats and an item (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html)); drow racial abilities; barred schools: Enchantment, Necromancy (by elimination).
Items: Spellbook (wizard feature), unspecified item that boosts Spell Resistance (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html).
Spells: Baleful Polymorph (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0792.html), Break Enchantment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html), Dimension Door (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html), Disguise Self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html), Flesh to Stone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0053.html), Fly (3.0 version) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html), Greater Dispel Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html), Gust of Wind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html), Locate Object (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0894.html), Magic Circle Against Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html), Phantasmal Killer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html), Planar Binding (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0883.html), Plane Shift (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0802.html), Protection from Energy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0799.html), Scrying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html), Shield (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html), Teleport (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html), Vitriolic Sphere (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0847.html), Wall of Ice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html), unspecified lightning spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0065.html).

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8754/qarrnn2.png Qarr
Lawful (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0634.html) Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0668.html), Imp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html) male, Sorcerer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0625.html) 8-10 (required to cast Charm Monster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0559.html), and to get only two Scorching Rays (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0797.html)).
Dex ~17 (no evidence, racial).
Int 12+ (familiar, based on Zz'dtri's level).
Wis ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Cha 14+ (required to cast Charm Monster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0559.html)).
Feats (5+): Dodge, Weapon Finesse (racial bonus feats).
Abilities: Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0792.html), poison, detect good, detect magic, invisibility: self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html), suggestion 1/day, commune 1/week, alternate form, damage reduction 5/good or silver (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html), darkvision, fast healing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html), poison immunity, fire resistance; greater teleport: self plus 50 pounds of objects (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0630.html), plane shift (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0637.html), summon devil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) (all racial abilities);
Spells: Charm Monster (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0559.html), Lesser Telepathic Bond or Telepathic Bond (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0503.html), Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0797.html), Scorching Ray (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0792.html), Extraplanar Phone Connection (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0903.html).


Former members
:thog: Thog
Non-lawful (required for rage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html)) Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html), Half-Orc male, Fighter 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0064.html) / Barbarian 9+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0396.html) (required to have 3 attacks a round).
Str 14+ (his highest ability score (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)).
Int <8 (racial, dump stat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html)).
Wis <10 (abysmal will save (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0066.html)).
Cha ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Age: 17+ (WXP).
Feats (3+): Power Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0788.html).
Skills (6+): Jump (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html).
Abilities: Dungeoncrasher alternative class feature (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html) (forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11982830)), half-orc racial abilities, barbarian class abilities.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7486/hilgya.png Hilgya Firehelm
Non-lawful (worships the god of chaos (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html)) Evil (DCF), Dwarf female, Cleric of Loki (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html) 7+ (required to cast Restoration (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html)).
Wis 14+ (required to cast Restoration (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html)).
Skills: Speak Language (Dwarven)
Abilities: Dwarf racial abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0076.html), Fire domain (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html), one unknown domain.
Items: Horned helmet, armor, shield (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0043.html), holy symbol (required to use rebuke ability (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0052.html)).

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Leeky.png Leeky Windstaff
Neutral Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html), Gnome male, Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html) 13+ (required to cast Fire Storm (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html)).
Str ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Con ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Wis 17+ (required to cast Fire Storm (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html)).
Feats (5+): Leadership (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html).
Abilities: Gnome racial abilities, druid class abilities, animal companion (hawk "Kitty" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0346.html), deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html)).

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1308/pompeypb9.jpg Pompey
Neutral Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57), Half-Elf male, Wizard: Conjurer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0254.html) 5+ (required to cast Still Silent Animate Rope (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0342.html)).
Int 14+ (required to cast four 2nd-level (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0350.html) spells per day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html)).
Age: 44+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html).
Feats (3+): Scribe scroll (wizard bonus feat), Silent Spell, Still Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0342.html).
Skills (35+): Knowledge: Arcana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html).
Abilities: Half-elf racial abilities, barred schools: evocation and enchantment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0254.html).
Items: Spellbook (wizard feature).
Spells: Animate Rope (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0342.html), Summon Monster I (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html), Summon Monster II, at least 5 touch-range buff spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0350.html) -- lowest-level possibilities are Mage Armor, Protection from Good, Protection from Law, Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9580/yikyikpy8.jpg Yikyik (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0063.html))
Chaotic Evil (same as Belkar, DCF), Kobold male, Ranger (DCF).
Str ~6 (no evidence, racial).
Dex 12+ (gets additional attack from Combat Reflexes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0048.html)).
Con ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Feats: Combat Reflexes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0048.html), Track (ranger bonus feat).
Skills:[/s] Speak Language (Draconic)
Abilities: Ranger class abilities.
Items: Dagger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0048.html).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Yokyok.png Yokyok (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html))
Kobold male.
Str ~6 (no evidence, racial).
Dex ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Con ~8 (no evidence, racial).
[i]Skills:[/s] Speak Language (Draconic)
Items: Rapier (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0348.html).

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9580/yikyikpy8.jpg Yukyuk (Deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0848.html))
Kobold male, Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0792.html) 4+ (required for an animal companion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html)) / Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html).
Str ~6 (no evidence, racial).
Dex ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Con ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Abilities: Ranger and rogue class abilities, animal companion (riding dog "Sir Scraggly" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0790.html)).
[i]Feats (4+): Endurance, Track (ranger bonus feats).
[i]Skills:[/s] Speak Language (Draconic)
Items: Two Crossbows of Quick Loading (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html).


The Sapphire Guard

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a311/estelindis/hinjo.gif Hinjo
Lawful Good, Human male, Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) 11-12 (three attacks per round (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html), but was lower level than Roy during the battle at Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html), and hasn't leveled up since (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html)).
Cha 12+ (required for Lay On Hands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)).
Age: 26+ (WXP).
Abilities: Paladin class abilities, Summon Conscience (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html), paladin mount: dire wolf "Argent" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0432.html).
Items: Cold-iron katana, silvered katana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0588.html); magic boots, cloak and armor (WXP).

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/lien.png Lien
Lawful Good, Human female, Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0479.html) 12+ (higher level than Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html)).
Str 13+ (required for Cleave).
Int 10+ (good, not dumb (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html)).
Cha 12+ (required for Lay On Hands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html)).
Age: 29+ (three years older than Hinjo, DSTP).
Feats (6+): Cleave (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0473.html), Power Attack (prerequisite for Cleave), Weapon Focus: Longspear (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html).
Abilities: Paladin class abilities, paladin mount: large shark "Razor" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0479.html).
Items: Longspear (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0591.html); magic boots, cloak and armor (WXP); ring of waterbreathing (DSTP).

:miko: Miko Miyazaki (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html))
Lawful Good, Human female, Monk 2+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) / Fallen Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) 10+ (three main-hand attacks per round (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), and higher level than Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)).
Str 13+ (required for Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Katana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html); the DMG states that a katana is a masterwork bastard sword; wielding it in one hand requires a feat, wielding it in two hands does not).
Dex 17+ (required for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html)).
Wis 11+ (required to cast Cure Light Wounds in the Miko fight (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=291639)).
Cha 12+ (required for Lay On Hands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0219.html)).
Age: 28+ (WXP).
Feats (6+): Cleave (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0461.html), Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Katana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (two off-hand attacks per round (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html)), Improved Unarmed Strike (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0461.html), Power Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0374.html), Quick Draw (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html), Stunning Fist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html), Track (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0213.html), Two-Weapon Fighting (prerequisite for ITWF).
Skills (30+): Knowledge: the Planes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0373.html), Spellcraft 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0221.html), Survival +1 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0213.html).
Abilities: Monk class abilities, unavailable paladin mount: horse "Windstriker" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html).
Items: Magic boots, cloak and armor (WXP); katana, wakizashi (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html).

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/O-Chul.png O-Chul
Lawful Good, Human male, Fighter / Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) 3+ (has Aura of Courage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)), total level 12+ (higher than Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html)).
Str 11+ (can carry Vaarsuvius (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html)).
Con ~25 (WXP).
Cha <10 (dump stat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html)).
Age: 29+ (fighter for twelve years (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html), and minimum age for a fighter is 16).
Skills (45+): Bluff 0 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html), Spellcraft (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html), Swim (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html).
Abilities: Paladin class abilities.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/trytoguess/Shojo.png Shojo (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html))
Chaotic Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html), Human male, Aristocrat 14 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html).
Str / Dex / Con ~4 (no evidence, age).
Int / Wis / Cha ~13 (no evidence, age).
Age: 72+ (WXP).
Feats (6): Improved Paranoia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0405.html).
Skills (68+): Bluff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html), Perform (puppetry) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0379.html).

Team Tarquin

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png Tarquin
Lawful Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html), Human male, level 16+ (unaffected by Holy Word (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html)).
Age: 51+ (adventuring for 35 years (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html)).
Str 16+ (can carry Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html)).
Con ~9 (no evidence, age).
Dex 13+ (required for Sidestep Charge or Robilar's Gambit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html)).
Int, Wis, Cha ~11 (no evidence, age).
Feats: Quick draw (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0761.html), [Dodge and Sidestep Charge or Combat Reflexes and Robilar's Gambit] (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html), Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0925.html)
Skills: Speak Language: Drow Sign Language (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0862.html), Ride (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html), Spellcraft (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0860.html), Spot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0858.html)
Items: Dagger (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html), helmet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html), two Rings of Regeneration (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html), Ring of True Seeing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0819.html), Glamoured Armor (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0849.html), mask that says "Nope" on it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0852.html), whip, Keoghtum Ointment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0863.html).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png Malack (Deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0906.html)), pseudonym (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html)
Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15715754&postcount=56), Lizardfolk (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) male vampire (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0870.html), Cleric of Nergal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) 12 (required for Craft Staff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0878.html), but no higher spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15715754&postcount=56)).
Age: 200+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html).
Str ~18 (no evidence, racial).
Con n/a (undead).
Dex ~14 (no evidence, racial).
Int ~10 (no evidence, racial).
Wis 20+ (from spells per day (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15716359&postcount=751)).
Cha ~14 (no evidence, racial).
Skills: Speak Language (Draconic)
Feats (5+): Craft Staff (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0878.html), Quicken Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0811.html); Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes (all vampire bonus feats).
Abilities: Vampire abilities, Cleric Domains (Death and Destruction (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15715919&postcount=61)).
Items: Holy Symbol.
Spells: Standard cleric list, plus Death and Destruction domain spells, Protection from Daylight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0871.html).

Laurin.jpg Laurin Shattersmith
Human Female, Psion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0911.html) 17+ (To manifest Wormhole (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0912.html))
STR, DEX, CON ~9 (No evidence, age)
INT 19+ (To manifest Wormhole)
WIS, CHA ~11 (No evidence, age)
Items: Headband, Red Ioun Stone, Green Ioun Stone, Orange Ioun Stone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html)
Powers Known: Disintegrate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html), Mind Probe (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html), Unspecified Attack Power (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0925.html), Wormhole (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0910.html)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Kilkil.png Kilkil
Lawful Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57) Winged Kobold male, level 5-10 (paralyzed by Holy Word (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html)).
Str ~6 (no evidence, racial).
Dex ~12 (no evidence, racial).
Con ~8 (no evidence, racial).
Items: Glasses (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0718.html).
Skills: Speak Language (Draconic)
Abilities: Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0847.html).

The Order of the Scribble

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/SoonKim.png Soon Kim (Deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html))
Lawful Good, Human Sacred Watcher (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html) Male, Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html) 21+ (Low Epic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15415463&postcount=331)).
Str 13+ (For EWP (Katana))
Con n/a (Deathless)
Cha ~14 (No Evidence, Sacred Watcher)
Abilities: Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html), Paladin Abilities, Sacred Watcher Abilities, Deathless Abilities
Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Katana) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html)
Skills:
Items: Enchanted Armor, Katana (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0449.html).
Spells: Standard Paladin Spells.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Lirian.png Lirian (deceased, SoD)
Neutral Good, Female elf Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html) 21+ (Low Epic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15415463&postcount=331)).
Dex ~12 (no evidence, elf).
Con ~8 (no evidence, elf).
Wis 19+ (required to cast Shapechange, SoD)
Skills: Speak Language (Elven, Druidic)
Feats:
Items:
Spells: Standard Druid, plus Divine Half of the Rift Sealing Ritual, Divine Half of the Gate Building Ritual (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html), Guardian Virus and Guardian Virus Innoculation

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd40/rtg0922/OotSSmilies/Dorukan.png Dorukan (Deceased, SoD)
Neutral Good (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15667889&postcount=57), Human Wizard 21+ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html).
Str/Dex/Con ~4 (No evidence, age)
Int 19+ (required to cast Gate)
Age: 71+
Skills: Spellcraft 24+, Knowledge (Arcana) 24+ (For Epic Spellcasting)
Feats: Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat), Epic Spellcasting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html)
Spells: Arcane Half of the Rift Sealing Ritual, Arcane Half of the Gate Building Ritual (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html), Cloister, Unspecified Conjuration (Calling) spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html), "Pure Heart" Ward (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html), Sending, Teleport, Prismatic Spray, Meteor Swarm, Gate, Scrying, Unspecified Fire Spell

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u93/Reed_Copperstrand/Girard_new.png Girard Draketooth (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0846.html))
Black Dragon-blooded (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html) Human male, Ranger 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0694.html)/ ([URL="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15415463&postcount=331"]Low Epic (]Sorceror 19+[/url)).
Cha 19+ (required to cast Microcosm)
Feats: Track, Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html), not Epic Spellcasting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15415463&postcount=331).
Spells: Microcosm (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html), Recorded Message/Booby Trap (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html), Invisibility Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html), Other Illusions

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/serini-1.png Serini Toormuck
Halfling female, Rogue 21+ (Low Epic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15415463&postcount=331)).
Str ~5 (no evidence, halfling, age)
Dex ~9 (no evidence, halfling, age)
Con ~7 (no evidence, age)
Int/Wis/Cha ~12 (No evidence, age)
Abilities: Halfling abilities, Rogue abilities
Skills:
Feats:
Items: Shortbow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html)

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1264/kraagorhc8.gif Kraagor (Erradicated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html))
Non-lawful, Dwarf Male, Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html)
Dex ~8 (no evidence, dwarf)
Con ~12 (no evidence, dwarf)
Int 8+ (Doesn't use Thog-speak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html))
Abilities: Dwarf abilities, Barbarian abilities
Skills: Speak Language (Dwarven)
Feats:
Items: Axe (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0276.html)


Family and other characters

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/celiasmiley.png Celia
Lawful Good (DSTP), Sylph (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0053.html) female, 6+ HD (required to cast Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0070.html)).
Cha 16+ (required to cast four 3rd-level spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0578.html) in a day).
Age: 22+ (WXP).
Abilities: Flight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0053.html), cast sorcerer spells as a caster of a level equal to her HD (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html), shoot lightning out of her fingers (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0529.html) (all racial abilities).
Skills (36+): Spellcraft (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0532.html).
Items: Black eyeliner pencil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0537.html), cell phone (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0053.html), 'feeblemind causing' blue dress (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0310.html).
Spells: Alter Self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0538.html), Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0070.html), either Fog Cloud or Obscuring Mist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0604.html), no necromancy spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0538.html).

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Eugene.png Eugene Greenhilt (deceased, OOPC)
Lawful Good (SOD), Human male ghost (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0015.html), Wizard: Illusionist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0291.html) 11+ (required to cast Permanent Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html)).
Str/Dex ~4 (no evidence, age).
Con n/a (undead).
Int 16+ (required to cast Permanent Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html)).
Wis ~13 (no evidence, age).
Cha 6+ (required to become a ghost (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0015.html)).
Age: 81+ (WXP).
Feats (8+): Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat).
Items: Spellbook (wizard feature).
Spells: Detect Scrying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0292.html), Fly (SOD), Invisibility Sphere (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0088.html), Minor Image (OOPC), Permanent Image (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html), Summon Boot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0525.html), Teleport (SOD), unspecified chair conjuration (OOPC), unspecified fire spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0664.html).

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h87/osiris32/julia.png Julia Greenhilt
True Neutral (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0343.html), Human female, Wizard 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html).
Int 15+ (required to cast Sending (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html) from a scroll).
Age: 17+ (five years younger than Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html)).
Feats (4): Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat).
Spells: Feather Fall (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html), Magic Missile (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0354.html).

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9168/samrg8.png Samantha (deceased (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html))
Evil (NCPB), Human female, Sorcerer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html) 12 (required to cast exactly three 6th level spells in a day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html)).
Cha 16-21 (required to cast Chain Lightning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html), but has no bonus spells (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html) at level 6). Also, her charisma is higher than Haley's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0161.html).
Age: 18 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0159.html).
Feats (5): Maximize Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html), not Silent Spell, not Still Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html).
Spells: Chain Lightning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html), Fireball (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html), Fly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html), Hold Person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html), Lightning Bolt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html), Magic Missile (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html), Protection From Arrows (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0168.html).

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 04:12 AM
Ok, just so it doesn't get lost in the previous thread I'll make a handy summary of outstanding issues I have raised for discussion still:

1) Should the standard of proof be changed to a probablistic one, in light of the Giants recent remarks?

2) Shouldn't we list V as 15+ (not 15) as I (and quite a few others I cited) would like to?

3) Can we start adding people like Dorukan, provided others are happy to write them up? They seem to have a stronger claim than random Kobold's on the Linear Guild, and can be better statted.

4) In light of the probablistic standard, we should adjust Xykon to 27+

Codyage
2013-05-06, 04:27 AM
Ok, just so it doesn't get lost in the previous thread I'll make a handy summary of outstanding issues I have raised for discussion still:

1) Should the standard of proof be changed to a probablistic one, in light of the Giants recent remarks?

2) Shouldn't we list V as 15+ (not 15) as I (and quite a few others I cited) would like to?

3) Can we start adding people like Dorukan, provided others are happy to write them up? They seem to have a stronger claim than random Kobold's on the Linear Guild, and can be better statted.

4) In light of the probablistic standard, we should adjust Xykon to 27+


1) I say yes, but I would be for seeing the different ways things could be done, and then having a vote of some sort. Or maybe have a spoiler text version of several scenarios, that way everyone wins until we can some how nail down more proof on the matter.

2) I would rather have it left as 15. It doesn't matter to me that much, but besides the equivalent of someone saying on panel their current level, their spells per day is a pretty good alternative. If RC hadn't told his level, he still would have casted two implosions, but the fact he stated his level is why he is 17.

Should everyone just have a + by their name and put an end to it?

3) I would like to have other characters up here, if enough sufficient data can be given it would be nice.

4) Go back to 1. I would like to see the several different ways Xykon can be at his level, having his minimum listed, and then the several scenarios either spoilered explaining how he would be at X level, or a vote taken to determine which is the most popular. That way either everyone can decide for themselves what level Xykon is through different scenarios, or the majority of the thread can decide his level.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-06, 04:36 AM
1) I say yes, but I would be for seeing the different ways things could be done, and then having a vote of some sort.
This thread runs on evidence, not popularity. For instance, if a large amount of people come in and state that Belkar is good-aligned now (and yes, we have such users on the forum), then that still doesn't change the fact that we have evidence that he's evil. So no, we have never run this thread by voting on things, and we're not going to start now.

sam79
2013-05-06, 04:41 AM
Love the new thread sub-title.

That is all. Carry on.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 04:42 AM
I don't propose a vote, but at the same time the standard clearly needs to be revised given the recent remarks by the Giant that he will actively undermine the thread by making things impossible to determine (and that everything is now homebrew). I can't see how else the thread can survive.

SinsI
2013-05-06, 04:53 AM
4) In light of the probablistic standard, we should adjust Xykon to 27+

I'm strongly against this, mainly because of #442 - Xykon might be overestimating Roy's level, but he is experienced enough put a rough estimate on it based on i.e. whether or not he has made his saves. 22-23 is possible, maybe even 24 or 25 - but nothing as ridiculous as 27+. His own words carry far more evidence than speculation based purely on extremely badly designed epic feats (why would there be any need for multiple epic feats for something that just duplicates the effect of a common magic tool?)

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 04:55 AM
I'm strongly against this, mainly because of #442 - Xykon might be overestimating Roy's level, but he is experienced enough put a rough estimate on it based on i.e. whether or not he has made his saves. 22-23 is possible, maybe even 24 or 25 - but nothing as ridiculous as 27+.

I'm not fixed on 27, but I think we can all agree he must be above 21 at this point.

Math_Mage
2013-05-06, 05:18 AM
I think it's extremely dangerous to make remarks like "I think we can all agree that...", especially regarding Xykon's level.


I don't propose a vote, but at the same time the standard clearly needs to be revised given the recent remarks by the Giant that he will actively undermine the thread by making things impossible to determine (and that everything is now homebrew). I can't see how else the thread can survive.

Can someone link? Haven't been keeping up with this. never mind found it

If anything, it becomes all the more important to establish what we know.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-06, 05:21 AM
As for changing the standards of the thread, there is really no new news concerning rules consistency. I mean, we knew way way back when Belkar sundered Elan's rapier that it was Rule of Funny, it isn't like the idea that the comic doesn't follow rules is something we just learned.


I believe this amply demonstrates my point. It's simply better for the thread's health to not try and make judgments on what's more "plausible" that are just going to devolve into an exchange of "no you're wrong", especially since the only authority that could resolve them has explicitly said he won't be doing so.


Mathematicians have known since the 1930s that there exist statements (including the consistency of all sufficiently strong consistent axiom systems) which are true but can neither be proven nor disproven. This doesn't mean we have lowered our standards for what constitutes a proof. It just means that we only claim to have proven what we can actually prove. For example, we know Roy has gained a level since dying. That is not probabilistic. We do not know what level Xykon is--that is your own personal speculation.

Well said.

So anyway, near the end of the last thread there was discussion to cover more characters. According to the Number Of Appearances thread, the most frequently occuring characters that aren't covered in CALG yet are Daigo, Kazumi, and the demon roaches. Is there something useful we can say about them, stat-wise?

Math_Mage
2013-05-06, 05:24 AM
Well said.

So anyway, near the end of the last thread there was discussion to cover more characters. According to the Number Of Appearances thread, the most frequently occuring characters that aren't covered in CALG yet are Daigo, Kazumi, and the demon roaches. Is there something useful we can say about them, stat-wise?

Daigo and Kazumi are sixth level. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0508.html)

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 05:37 AM
I notice you quote 2 people who agree with you, and ignore all the ones who agreed with me, that the Giant's statement represented something significant, which required a serious re-evaluation of the thread. Our views are also worth responding to I think. In addition one of the two people you quote also said we should relax the rules to allow more "could be this", or "potentially X" comments added.

The Giant just said that every single class, feat, etc, which is introduced is now homebrew. Forget about Tarquin having a class... he is now Class Tarquin (as someone else pointed out), intentionally to never be revealed, and any evidence that does seem to reveal his class is wrong. How can one look at that statement, and come to the conclusion nothing has changed? The fundamental premise of the thread has changed. Several people suggested closing the thread, while I suggested relaxing the burden of proof, which multiple people supported (including one you quoted, albeit to a different degree). I mean, to paraphrase one poster, we are almost at the point now where we're statting "what this character's stats would look like, if this comic was done according to the rules", which it apparently no longer is. "There are no rules. None." Direct quote.

Bird
2013-05-06, 06:06 AM
For what it's worth, there are at least a few things we can say about Gannji...

We know race (lizardfolk), class (rogue), alignment (true neutral by Word of Giant), and we can ballpark his level pretty well because Kilkil indicated how much wealth an NPC of his level would have.

There are a few instances of possible feat use -- maybe improved disarm and improved trip, though what we see in the comic may not be enough to justify those. (At least, the bit where he tossed Haley's bow with that weapon of his seemed like it would require some kind of feat, even if homebrew.)

As far as skills go, we've seen him use UMD (enough to teleport) and Use Rope (which Haley effortlessly overcame). We also see him Bluff, and a couple of strips may be evidence of Diplomacy.

For equipment, as of his last appearance, he appears to have nothing except his gladiator armor. And, we know the normal lizardfolk stuff (speaks draconic, racial modifiers, etc).

Codyage
2013-05-06, 06:38 AM
This thread runs on evidence, not popularity. For instance, if a large amount of people come in and state that Belkar is good-aligned now (and yes, we have such users on the forum), then that still doesn't change the fact that we have evidence that he's evil. So no, we have never run this thread by voting on things, and we're not going to start now.

All right, I agree with you there, I do see the flaw in voting.

Crusher
2013-05-06, 07:22 AM
I notice you quote 2 people who agree with you, and ignore all the ones who agreed with me, that the Giant's statement represented something significant, which required a serious re-evaluation of the thread. Our views are also worth responding to I think. In addition one of the two people you quote also said we should relax the rules to allow more "could be this", or "potentially X" comments added.

The Giant just said that every single class, feat, etc, which is introduced is now homebrew. Forget about Tarquin having a class... he is now Class Tarquin (as someone else pointed out), intentionally to never be revealed, and any evidence that does seem to reveal his class is wrong. How can one look at that statement, and come to the conclusion nothing has changed? The fundamental premise of the thread has changed. Multiple people suggested closing the thread, while I suggested relaxing the burden of proof, which multiple people supported (including one you quoted, albeit to a different degree). I mean, to paraphrase one poster, we are almost at the point now where we're statting "what this character's stats would look like, if this comic was done according to the rules", which it apparently no longer is. "There are no rules. None." Direct quote.

Why does this public change in attitude by Rich mean the thread *must* change RIGHT NOW?

Presumably the thought didn't occur to him the very instant he put up the post. I suspect, based on past strips, that he's been drifting in that direction for quite some time. The immediate impact on the strip, compared with how things were, say, yesterday, is roughly zero and we're still just speculating on what the future will hold. Lets see what the future brings.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-06, 07:33 AM
Ok, just so it doesn't get lost in the previous thread I'll make a handy summary of outstanding issues I have raised for discussion still:

1) Should the standard of proof be changed to a probablistic one, in light of the Giants recent remarks?

Let me start by appologizeing, I feel that what the giant said is my fault. My first day out of lurking and I only did so becuse I wanted to come here to one of these threads becuse I thought his rendtion of mage slayer was soo awsome. I think my post may have led to this statement. I cryed when I got home from work last night thinking about the damage I may have helped cause to my fav thread to read.

I agree the only way this can keep going is to step back and say it doesn't need to be as much proof. In the US we have 2 burden of proofs, civil and Criminal. Criminal is beyond a reasnable doubt, and I belive what we have gone with so far. I suggest we switch to closer to the civil court burden... by a perpondurunce of the eviedance.


2) Shouldn't we list V as 15+ (not 15) as I (and quite a few others I cited) would like to? I would say anyone we don't have an upper limit on should get that...


3) Can we start adding people like Dorukan, provided others are happy to write them up? They seem to have a stronger claim than random Kobold's on the Linear Guild, and can be better statted.

useing the spoiler blocks I think we should put anyone we have enough to determain a reasnable range of levels...


4) In light of the probablistic standard, we should adjust Xykon to 27+ I don't know if he is 27, but I would like to hear any argument that he is onl 21, becuse I do belive he has to have atleast a few epic feats (multi high level spells, epic spell, and even an item creation)

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-06, 07:35 AM
Daigo and Kazumi are sixth level. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0508.html)

but are they fighters or warriors?

Crusher
2013-05-06, 07:46 AM
The funny thing is that, and this is based on nothing more than gut having followed Rich's work for years, is that I don't think he's precisely telling the truth with his post. Yes, he gets frustrated at having to be consistent to a minute level and he doesn't like reading people's complaints.

Rich is a story-teller, but he got his start as a storyteller as a DM, which is a very detailed and backstory demanding kind of storyteller (sort of the opposite of the Steven King "lets throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach) and Rich can't *not* be a DM. He's spent a big chunk of his life being one in various ways and its how he cut his teeth.

I think Rich *absolutely* knows what class Tarquin is because that information is part of the structure uses to create the story. However, Rich will probably never tell us because people arguing over class specific details is a hindrance to the storytelling and an annoyance to him personally. With his post, Rich is just making clear a trend that's been going on for a bit, which is that he's not going to tell us what that truth is. But that doesn't mean there isn't a truth out there to be found, in fact I feel strongly that there is.

As time goes on, it might be necessary to shift to a more lenient standard of truth, whether that's MageParadox's probabilistic whatever or something else. And its possible Rich will be *so* obscure in his ability presentation that we won't be able to figure anything out ever again and the thread will eventually fold after being forced to subsist on scraps for a long enough time.

But that's all in the future. Lets see what it brings before deciding if change is even necessary, let alone what sort of change.

Shale
2013-05-06, 07:49 AM
but are they fighters or warriors?

They probably are!

(I seriously doubt we'll ever know for sure, even if the Giant weren't obfuscating)

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 07:55 AM
I think Rich *absolutely* knows what class Tarquin is because that information is part of the structure uses to create the story. However, Rich will probably never tell us because people arguing over class specific details is a hindrance to the storytelling and an annoyance to him personally. With his post, Rich is just making clear a trend that's been going on for a bit, which is that he's not going to tell us what that truth is. But that doesn't mean there isn't a truth out there to be found, in fact I feel strongly that there is.

I really think we should take Rich at his word, which is the following (emphasis added):

Ooo! I have a reason! Because I have a vested interest in never, ever mentioning any rule artifact by its official name ever again.*

See, that other thread where I just posted that I wish I could decouple the comic from D&D? One of the main ways I'm mitigating the effects of the people who complain about rules accuracy is by deliberately obfuscating all rules, so it's impossible to tell exactly what is or isn't being done. No one can complain that I messed up the interpretation of a certain feat if they don't know what feat it is. The only exceptions are spells, because I unfortunately established that casters shout the name of the spell when they cast it, and I can't change that now. But for a while now, ALL feats have been homebrewed feats, all items have been homebrewed items, all new characters have unspecified classes, etc. Even when I have a specific actual game rule in mind when I use them.

Of course, that means I am working in direct active opposition to the purpose of this thread and there will never be an official definitive answer for anything that occurs ever again. Whoops.

Rich just made it clear that everything from now on (except spells) is made up, does not comply with D&D rules (which he wishes he could de-couple from the characters completely), and that he will actively work to prevent this thread gaining any accurate answers (and that we shouldn't trust his presentation as confirming anything we think it did, because everything is made up homebrew that he will never tell us). I don't know how much more definitive it can be than this.

What exactly do you think you'll be statting when you try and write say Tarquin's character sheet? It won't be "the truth", that's for sure, because everything about him is apparently a mysterious homebrew which Giant will never, ever reveal or clarify. It's literally impossible to discuss what his class and feats and items and such are. All we can do is try and interpret what they probably would be, if Rich was still using D&D rules.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 07:56 AM
To those that suggest that we're never going to be able to glean any hard and fast useful information from the comic ever again, I would like to point out that this move by the Giant isn't one that occurred yesterday, it's one that occurred some time ago, and we're just now being informed of it. The change occurred at least as far back as the introduction of Tarquin, in order to not have anyone explicitly say what class he is. So this has been going on for some time. In light of that, please note that just in the last 30 strips, we've been able to define a basement level for Tarquin, an exact ECL for Belkar, an exact class level for Durkon and Zz'dtri, a level range for Kilkil, and add a template and a partial alignment for Malack.

I'd also like to go on the record in the new thread as being opposed to expanding the thread to include characters like Dorukan, Kazumi, and Daigo for whom we only have one or two snippets of meaningful information. I understand that some of the other entries in the thread aren't terribly well fleshed out either, but this seems to me more like an argument for clearing out the poorly defined characters already on the thread than adding a bunch more whose stat blocks basically consist of unknowns.

theinsulabot
2013-05-06, 08:08 AM
just making more of a random thought, but Roy's level is probably higher then listed. The illusion in the most recent strip seems to have a certain logical consistency to it (Belkar dying to meteor swarm, V having to be introduced to neutralize red cloak) and xykon says Roy is higher level then he was in the azure city arc, which IIRC was 14 ish. Roy would know if he was lower or the same level as then, so its most likely accurate. Not saying immediately throw him to 15+, just making a note.

Crusher
2013-05-06, 08:14 AM
I really think we should take Rich at his word, which is the following (emphasis added):


Rich just made it clear that everything from now on (except spells) is made up, does not comply with D&D rules (which he wishes he could de-couple from the characters completely), and that he will actively work to prevent this thread gaining any accurate answers (and that we shouldn't trust his presentation as confirming anything we think it did, because everything is made up homebrew that he will never tell us). I don't know how much more definitive it can be than this.

What exactly do you think you'll be statting when you try and write say Tarquin's character sheet? It won't be "the truth", that's for sure, because everything about him is apparently a mysterious homebrew which Giant will never, ever reveal or clarify. It's literally impossible to discuss what his class and feats and items and such are. All we can do is try and interpret what they probably would be, if Rich was still using D&D rules.

So he has said, and so you say. But I don't think things will suddenly get a lot worse than they've been the last few dozen strips and I think rgrekejin's response to this is excellent.

Besides, I fear I've contributed to us veering off-track here and I don't have anything left to say on the topic anyway, so I'm done.

Fish
2013-05-06, 10:19 AM
I empathize with Rich. The constant bickering over rules and "what should have happened" is why I stopped playing D&D in the first place. I believe Rich wants to tell a story, to free the narrative from his head, without stopping every 3 strips to defend himself. "No!" the detractors say, "that's not the story you're imagining!" Yes, yes it is.

As far as assigning probabilities to certain configurations, I doubt it's possible. There's no math on which to decide such a probability. Everyone would want his favorite pet theory to have the greatest chance of being right. "No, MY idea is 40% probability and YOURS are 25% and 35%."

Your best bet is to treat this as a non-D&D story. You have definite proof that it won't necessarily line up 100% to any rule you know.

SavageWombat
2013-05-06, 10:26 AM
Well, if we're going to change the restrictions:

I'd like to vote that we disallow Belkar's "Owl's Wisdom / Cure Scroll" scene for determining Belkar's Wisdom. I personally always thought that Rich meant to use Cure Moderate Wounds anyway.

The evidence for his poor Wisdom is much stronger using other sources, and the attempts to make it work with the rules in this scene strain that.

Living Oxymoron
2013-05-06, 10:34 AM
While I agree with Mage Paradox about Xykon being at least level 26 (I can't understand why you insist to say he is 27. But if I'm wrong, please explain), I recently changed my idea about it and can't agree, for the sake of the stability of this thread, with Xykon being listed as 26/27+.

But what I find completely ridiculous is some people arguing that "27 is too much for him". Folks, we're talking about a frickin' scary (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html) guy who knows at least 3 epic spells, so I don't think is any weaker than this estimation. Even so, we don't have solid evidence about his exact level in the way we discovered, as rgrekejin pointed out, the levels of Tarquin and the rest of the Linear Guild, therefore I repeat, I don't agree with Xykon being listed at 26/27+, unless someone come with a good argument.

I also have to be coherent, so this time I go with Mage Paradox and agree with him about Vaarsuvius being listed as 15+. This is the only evidence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html) we have about he/she being at equal level with Z and I don't think it is very reliable, given the problems we will probably have with this thing of equal level, like in the case of Sabine and Haley, for example.

RMS Oceanic
2013-05-06, 10:55 AM
Just for LO's understanding, the original reason to peg Xykon as level 27 was 652's use of Maximized Energy Drain. There were a number of ways discussed to explain this, as that would be a twelfth level spell slot:

- Improved Spell Capacity x3 (Requires 3 epic feats in addition to Epic Spell Casting, hence level 27)
- Improved Megamagic x2 Plus ISC (Pushes the level even higher because this can only be taken at 27 and higher, and wouldn't account for the Still Meteor Swarm of 653)
- Greater Metamagic Rod of Maximize (can be used pre-epic, but most rods are pretty visible)
- Sudden Maximize from Complete Arcane (1/day free Maximize, can be used pre-epic)

My own personal opinion for how he could do it is the first explanation, but that is not universally agreed, especially depending on what sources one uses to explain abilities, be it the three corebooks, d20 SRD or beyond. However my opinion is not based on the sentiment of "there's no way he could have levelled up that fast" or "if he's that level nobody can defeat him". My philosophy with this isn't concerned with how someone levels up or what implications this has, just that they have done so. But this is just one voice among many, so while I think it's safe to say we're pretty sure he's stronger than level 21, we can't yet explain for certain why.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 11:04 AM
While I agree with Mage Paradox about Xykon being at least level 26 (I can't understand why you insist to say he is 27. But if I'm wrong, please explain), I recently changed my idea about it and can't agree, for the sake of the stability of this thread, with Xykon being listed as 26/27+.

But what I find completely ridiculous is some people arguing that "27 is too much for him". Folks, we're talking about a frickin' scary (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0567.html) guy who knows at least 3 epic spells, so I don't think is any weaker than this estimation. Even so, we don't have solid evidence about his exact level in the way we discovered, as rgrekejin pointed out, the levels of Tarquin and the rest of the Linear Guild, therefore I repeat, I don't agree with Xykon being listed at 26/27+, unless someone come with a good argument.

While I agree that Xykon is probably higher than level 21 (my personal suspicion is that he's in the 23-24 range) we don't have any evidence that conclusively shows that he's higher than level 21. The best argument for it is that he can cast Maximized Energy Drain, but that effect could easily have been done with a single non-epic feat (Sudden Maximize) from one of the most commonly-used non-core books in the comic (Complete Arcane) that Xykon has already been shown to have the prerequisites for. So while we all agree that he's probably higher level than 21, none of us can agree on how much higher, so the basement stays where it is.


I also have to be coherent, so this time I go with Mage Paradox and agree with him about Vaarsuvius being listed as 15+. This is the only evidence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0795.html) we have about he/she being at equal level with Z and I don't think it is very reliable, given the problems we will probably have with this thing of equal level, like in the case of Sabine and Haley, for example.

Yeah, I'm actually all for listing V as 15+ as well. It couldn't possibly hurt.

Snails
2013-05-06, 11:35 AM
Rich is a story-teller, but he got his start as a storyteller as a DM, which is a very detailed and backstory demanding kind of storyteller (sort of the opposite of the Steven King "lets throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach) and Rich can't *not* be a DM. He's spent a big chunk of his life being one in various ways and its how he cut his teeth.

I think you are reading in the entrails exactly what you want to see.

What I see is that the Giant has a very strong grasp of story structure, and he is constantly making tradeoffs with that as his guiding light. Most DMs slide by with "raise the stakes" and nothing more.

Where many people seem to get agitated about rules (or perhaps fudging of rolls) I see clear character arc reasons for the choice. (See any of the DEM threads for examples of reader confusion about story arcs.)

I notice the Giant does fudge a lot of details. Yet I think it is a good guess that his grasp of the rules is greater than my own. The better this story gets, the more the Giant seems to be happy to fudge things -- I agree with that choice.

137beth
2013-05-06, 12:19 PM
This thread runs on evidence, not popularity. For instance, if a large amount of people come in and state that Belkar is good-aligned now (and yes, we have such users on the forum), then that still doesn't change the fact that we have evidence that he's evil. So no, we have never run this thread by voting on things, and we're not going to start now.

Agreed.

Mage Paradox, you seem to be having a really, really hard time understanding that just because there are many things we will never know does not mean that we need to start guessing. There are still things we can determine for certain, and we can continue listing those. If we can't prove something one way or another, that means we don't know it, and we move on to something else which we can prove. What is so hard about this for you to understand?



2) Shouldn't we list V as 15+ (not 15) as I (and quite a few others I cited) would like to?
Yes, I think we should. You seem to understand that we can list bounds/incomplete info if we are not completely sure of something, so why can't you seem to grasp the same comment about anything else?


3) Can we start adding people like Dorukan, provided others are happy to write them up? They seem to have a stronger claim than random Kobold's on the Linear Guild, and can be better statted.
No, because, as explained several times already, the kobolds are only there because they were in the linear guild. Dorukan has a whopping 4 appearances. If we count bonus content, he still only has 17, making him an "infrequent character" (and that designation usually comes for people who have 11-20 appearances in the main comic, so that is being generous). The first kobold has 17 appearances in the main comic, so I don't know why you keep saying it is less significant than Dorukan. And that isn't why it is in the thread anyways, it is there because all linear guild members are listed.


4) In light of the probablistic standard, we should adjust Xykon to 27+
There are no new standards. Xykon is "probably" level 27+, but we aren't certain, and we only list things of which we are certain. Notice how Tarquin has no listed class.

Shale
2013-05-06, 12:34 PM
If we're going to change anything in response to Rich's statement, I'd lean toward being more willing to list "unspecified spell/feat/item" entries, maybe with a list of possibilities.

(Also, given that the Xykon debate is coming up again, do we have any proof that he does know Maximize Spell? The linked comic (Maximized Magic Missile against Soon) could just as easily be the product of Sudden Maximize or the rod of metamagic or whatever, and SM doesn't require Maximize Spell.)

RMS Oceanic
2013-05-06, 12:37 PM
If we're going to change anything in response to Rich's statement, I'd lean toward being more willing to list "unspecified spell/feat/item" entries, maybe with a list of possibilities.

(Also, given that the Xykon debate is coming up again, do we have any proof that he does know Maximize Spell? The linked comic (Maximized Magic Missile against Soon) could just as easily be the product of Sudden Maximize or the rod of metamagic or whatever, and SM doesn't require Maximize Spell.)

Xykon proceeded to Maximize a Lightning Bolt during the battle with Darth V.

Living Oxymoron
2013-05-06, 12:54 PM
Just for LO's understanding, the original reason to peg Xykon as level 27 was 652's use of Maximized Energy Drain. There were a number of ways discussed to explain this, as that would be a twelfth level spell slot:

- Improved Spell Capacity x3 (Requires 3 epic feats in addition to Epic Spell Casting, hence level 27)
- Improved Megamagic x2 Plus ISC (Pushes the level even higher because this can only be taken at 27 and higher, and wouldn't account for the Still Meteor Swarm of 653)
- Greater Metamagic Rod of Maximize (can be used pre-epic, but most rods are pretty visible)
- Sudden Maximize from Complete Arcane (1/day free Maximize, can be used pre-epic)

Thanks, RMS Oceanic. I didn't know about the hypothesis (neither I did come to think about it) of him having Improved Metagic and ISC, but I have a remark to make: if he has a minimum of 4 epic feats, his level should be at least 26 and not 27. He would gain 2 feats from 21 and 24 character levels, and 2 bonus feats from 23 and 26 sorcerer levels.

27+ would be a reality only if he had to have 5 epic feats.


While I agree that Xykon is probably higher than level 21 (my personal suspicion is that he's in the 23-24 range) we don't have any evidence that conclusively shows that he's higher than level 21. The best argument for it is that he can cast Maximized Energy Drain, but that effect could easily have been done with a single non-epic feat (Sudden Maximize) from one of the most commonly-used non-core books in the comic (Complete Arcane) that Xykon has already been shown to have the prerequisites for. So while we all agree that he's probably higher level than 21, none of us can agree on how much higher, so the basement stays where it is.

Yeah, I'm trying to separate my opinion from the (lack of) evidence itself. Therefore I agree he shouldn't be listed as higher than 21+.

RMS Oceanic
2013-05-06, 01:01 PM
You're right about level 26. I had forgotten there was also a theory he had Epic Skill Focus (Spellcraft) to be able to cast Superb Dispelling, requiring a fifth Epic Feat.

But as I said it's not confirmed. It would be neat if the real Xykon dropped an Intensified Spell or two when he turns up, that would be pretty concrete. :smalltongue:

SinsI
2013-05-06, 01:03 PM
I
Rich just made it clear that everything from now on (except spells) is made up, does not comply with D&D rules (which he wishes he could de-couple from the characters completely), and that he will actively work to prevent this thread gaining any accurate answers (and that we shouldn't trust his presentation as confirming anything we think it did, because everything is made up homebrew that he will never tell us). I don't know how much more definitive it can be than this.

What exactly do you think you'll be statting when you try and write say Tarquin's character sheet? It won't be "the truth", that's for sure, because everything about him is apparently a mysterious homebrew which Giant will never, ever reveal or clarify. It's literally impossible to discuss what his class and feats and items and such are. All we can do is try and interpret what they probably would be, if Rich was still using D&D rules.

What he said can be interpreted in many ways. People are going to stop doing D&D metagamey things like Calling Out Your Attack, and we are not going to directly get non-generic character stat information unless it has some story value (i.e. since Roy is able to use Mage Slayer, it means he leveled up and had a chance to get a new feat; similarly to the use of newly acquired Neutralize Poison for Elan...) - but the underlying system is still D&D, the feats, classes and skills are also there.

We might need to start assuming some rolls/skills from the results of character actions, though. (again, the aforementioned Mage Slayer is a prime example).

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 01:09 PM
2) I would rather have it left as 15. It doesn't matter to me that much, but besides the equivalent of someone saying on panel their current level, their spells per day is a pretty good alternative. If RC hadn't told his level, he still would have casted two implosions, but the fact he stated his level is why he is 17.

Just a note on Redcloak, he only cast Implosion once. It then works for up to four rounds (provided he concentrates on the spell for that long), allowing him to implode one creature per round he concentrates. Just pointing that out there.

YukiArtolia
2013-05-06, 01:24 PM
Well, if we're going to change the restrictions:

I'd like to vote that we disallow Belkar's "Owl's Wisdom / Cure Scroll" scene for determining Belkar's Wisdom. I personally always thought that Rich meant to use Cure Moderate Wounds anyway.

The evidence for his poor Wisdom is much stronger using other sources, and the attempts to make it work with the rules in this scene strain that.

Out of curiosity, would you mind linking said sources?

Also, even if it's not Cure Serious Wounds specifically, being able to use any scroll at all still pins it down at 6-9.

EDIT: My bad, 7-9. Two Cure Minor Wounds couldn't possibly get Elan from -9 to positive HP.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 01:28 PM
Also, on the topic of Dorukan possibly having Silent Spell - I would like to note that it is well-established that a character, especially when they're already talking, doesn't always have to shout out the name of their spell. This includes Xykon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html), who, if he was using Silent Spell here, is fighting in a very strange manner, and V (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0335.html), who we definitively know does not have Silent Spell (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211493#post211493). So... yeah. There's no reason to assume that Dorukan has Silent Spell just because he didn't stop to shout out "Meteor Swarm!" while he was busy talking about something else.
Edit: Additional examples here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0078.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0291.html) possibly here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0369.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0370.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0397.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) possibly here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) here, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0507.html) ...and, you know what, I'm gonna call that good.

rodneyAnonymous
2013-05-06, 02:06 PM
If RC hadn't told his level, he still would have casted two implosions, but the fact he stated his level is why he is 17.

He only cast Implosion once. It kills up to four targets. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Implosion)

Edit: Whoops, SaintRidley already said that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15183740&postcount=38).

Codyage
2013-05-06, 02:46 PM
He only cast Implosion once. It kills up to four targets. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Implosion)

Edit: Whoops, SaintRidley already said that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15183740&postcount=38).


Just a note on Redcloak, he only cast Implosion once. It then works for up to four rounds (provided he concentrates on the spell for that long), allowing him to implode one creature per round he concentrates. Just pointing that out there.

All right, I just assumed he cast it twice because, Destruction Domain and all allows him to. I misread the last part where "You can target a particular creature only once with each casting of the spell." and assumed he casted it twice, only being able to target one person with each casting.

Nymrod
2013-05-06, 03:05 PM
Another way we could have known if Xykon was 27+ was if he'd ever cast more than 2 epic spells in one day; has that ever happened?
Moreover, could we ever use wealth by level guidelines? Cause you know, researching epic spells costs a lot! Superb Dispelling alone is a whopping 3,771,000gp and a taxing 143,640 XP


Also as a note, has Superb Dispelling perhaps been errata'd? Cause I checked the ELH and the description does not at all match the dispel seed which would have made the spell far stronger than simply greater dispel with a bigger cap (per the seed it should automatically be 1d20+40 regardless of your CL and should be able to dispel any effect, even artifacts or deific magic while being castable in an antimagic zone if the zone failed to suppress it).

Also as someone who has been avidly following the thread for quite long, might I suggest that if people want to relax the rules that have been followed so far, they take it upon themselves to make their own thread about it?

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 03:24 PM
Another way we could have known if Xykon was 27+ was if he'd ever cast more than 2 epic spells in one day; has that ever happened?
Moreover, could we ever use wealth by level guidelines? Cause you know, researching epic spells costs a lot! Superb Dispelling alone is a whopping 3,771,000gp and a taxing 143,640 XP


Also as a note, has Superb Dispelling perhaps been errata'd? Cause I checked the ELH and the description does not at all match the dispel seed which would have made the spell far stronger than simply greater dispel with a bigger cap (per the seed it should automatically be 1d20+40 regardless of your CL and should be able to dispel any effect, even artifacts or deific magic while being castable in an antimagic zone if the zone failed to suppress it).

Also as someone who has been avidly following the thread for quite long, might I suggest that if people want to relax the rules that have been followed so far, they take it upon themselves to make their own thread about it?



A dispel check is 1d20 + 10 against a DC of 11 + the target spell’s caster level. For each additional +1 on the dispel check, increase the Spellcraft DC by +1. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/dispel.htm)

Basically, the base Dispel Seed is 1d20 + 10. Superb Dispelling gets 30 of its DC from adding 30 to that, for 1d20 + 40 as stated in the entry for Superb Dispelling.

And yes, Superb Dispelling still defeats spells and effects that are otherwise not-dispellable. The fact that it's not spelled out in the spell text doesn't matter, since the spell's top-level information lists Seed: Dispel, which tells you that information. The situation is much like Dominate Monster, which says it has no restrictions based on creature type, yet Undead continue to be immune because the top-level information has [Mind-Affecting] as a descriptor.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 03:31 PM
Another way we could have known if Xykon was 27+ was if he'd ever cast more than 2 epic spells in one day; has that ever happened?
Moreover, could we ever use wealth by level guidelines? Cause you know, researching epic spells costs a lot! Superb Dispelling alone is a whopping 3,771,000gp and a taxing 143,640 XP


Also as a note, has Superb Dispelling perhaps been errata'd? Cause I checked the ELH and the description does not at all match the dispel seed which would have made the spell far stronger than simply greater dispel with a bigger cap (per the seed it should automatically be 1d20+40 regardless of your CL and should be able to dispel any effect, even artifacts or deific magic while being castable in an antimagic zone if the zone failed to suppress it).

Xykon has never been shown to have cast two epic spells in the same day.

Superb Dispelling does have some errata - it now only costs 531,000 gp, 11 days, and 21,240 xp to develop.

And Superb Dispelling really does defeat effects that Dispel Magic normally couldn't. I was going to explain why, but I can see that SaintRidley has just posted to save me the trouble.

137beth
2013-05-06, 03:32 PM
Moreover, could we ever use wealth by level guidelines? Cause you know, researching epic spells costs a lot! Superb Dispelling alone is a whopping 3,771,000gp and a taxing 143,640 XP
WBL increases exponentially, while the xp available to create epic spells increases only linearly, so xp is a much greater limiting factor than gold. Also, the main way of increasing your spellcraft bonus is with magic items, which depend on (exponential) WBL. Frequently, when crafting epic spells, it is beneficial to offset the xp cost by throwing on mitigating factors, and then using magic items to offset those (e.g. getting a constitution-boosting magic item, then adding backlash damage to the spell.)
However, WBL is only a guideline, and it is almost never followed for NPCs, which includes Xykon, so we probably can't use it.

Also as a note, has Superb Dispelling perhaps been errata'd? Cause I checked the ELH and the description does not at all match the dispel seed which would have made the spell far stronger than simply greater dispel with a bigger cap (per the seed it should automatically be 1d20+40 regardless of your CL and should be able to dispel any effect, even artifacts or deific magic while being castable in an antimagic zone if the zone failed to suppress it).
Yea, the dispel seed and the superb dispelling as written in the ELH contradict each other. Since this is a direct contradiction in RAW, the DM (or author) decides. However, it should probably be noted that all epic spells, even those explicitly printed in the ELH, must be custom-created by the caster, so if someone created "superb dispelling" as described, they would almost certainly make it do everything the seed says it should do. And really, that is the kind of spell for which you would want to re-make it at a higher level every 10 or so levels, so we really can't take at face value that it is the same superb dispelling in the ELH.
EDIT: ninja'd


Also as someone who has been avidly following the thread for quite long, might I suggest that if people want to relax the rules that have been followed so far, they take it upon themselves to make their own thread about it?
That's actually a really good idea! I like it:smallsmile:

EDIT 2: To cast epic spells, you need 24 ranks in spellcraft, guaranteeing 2 epic spells per day.

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 03:46 PM
As for Xykon casting more than two Epic spells in a day, the more than is operative. If Xykon ever casts three in the same day, his lower bound for levels is 27, which I think is what Nymrod is trying to get at.

baerdith
2013-05-06, 03:51 PM
Just where does V land if during the Z fight (s)he cast 4 7th level spells? 1 is Evocation spec, but that still leaves 3

Quickened Hast 3+4=7
Quickened Hold Person 3+4=7
Prismatic Spray 7
Force Cage 7


This means that V has a min of 24 Int and min of 15th level.....

Not to mention the 5 5th level spells + the other spells used before, unless that was before rememorization. As well as the unnamed spell that Roy saw...

Empowered Fireball 3+2=5
Dominate Person 5
Caleful Polymorph for Counterspell 5
Bugsby's Hand 5
Overland Flight 5


I'm also of the opinon that Roy would know his own level so 14+

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 04:00 PM
V could have just used Greater Dispel Magic instead of Baleful Polymorph for the counterspell. Hard to say, though.

baerdith
2013-05-06, 04:19 PM
Xykon proceeded to Maximize a Lightning Bolt during the battle with Darth V.

So if he maximized a lightning bolt, with the feat why would he have used a seperate feat for the energy drain? He's not really all that smart enough to deal with the tactical rules as that...

Shale
2013-05-06, 04:23 PM
If he's not high enough level to have a 12th-level spell slot.

ti'esar
2013-05-06, 04:33 PM
I'm also of the opinon that Roy would know his own level so 14+

As am I. I'm mostly against using anything from the illusion, but this is one area where I think we can rely on it.

137beth
2013-05-06, 06:07 PM
Just where does V land if during the Z fight (s)he cast 4 7th level spells? 1 is Evocation spec, but that still leaves 3

Quickened Hast 3+4=7
Quickened Hold Person 3+4=7
Prismatic Spray 7
Force Cage 7


This means that V has a min of 24 Int and min of 15th level.....

Not to mention the 5 5th level spells + the other spells used before, unless that was before rememorization. As well as the unnamed spell that Roy saw...

Empowered Fireball 3+2=5
Dominate Person 5
Caleful Polymorph for Counterspell 5
Bugsby's Hand 5
Overland Flight 5


I'm also of the opinon that Roy would know his own level so 14+


For 4 7th level spells, at least one of which was evocation, V would need either 24 INT and level 15+, or level 16+. We know he/she has at least INT 23, so neither of these two possibilities is a stretch. We could easily list both options.
Also, yea, I don't see anything wrong with making Roy level 14+--, he knows his own level AND knows whether or not he got a new feat.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 06:18 PM
we can't yet explain for certain why
The problem is we will never get anything certain again. Probability should be enough, especially in Xykon's case (where the counter theories are so obscure/unlikely).


The first kobold has 17 appearances in the main comic, so I don't know why you keep saying it is less significant than Dorukan.
I have explained this 3 times, and for a guy who opens every response to my posts with "you just aren't able to understand" (this is at least the 10th time I think) it's a little tiring repeating this to you yet again. Dorukan has 17 appearances including bonus content, and is a character who is central to the overarching plot. While the very first Kobold gets 17 appearances, other Kobold's in the Linear Guild (which you ignore) get far fewer appearances. Like 5 for one of them (including bonux content). We are also able to stat out much more about (central-to-plot) character like Dorukan, and far less about (throw-away-character) Kobold.

I also don't agree with Superb Dispelling being able to do everything and anything, nor do many other posters here. Even if people argue it's an error, it still only says it can dispel things it normally couldn't, not that it necessarily will. There are some things it definitely shouldn't be able to dispel as a matter of fact, which would be absurd. Where are the lines written for what new things it can and can't dispel? Without them it's far too vague to overrule the actual description of the spell.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 06:36 PM
The problem is we will never get anything certain again. Probability should be enough, especially in Xykon's case (where the counter theories are so obscure/unlikely).

I would hardly call "Xykon has a single feat from a sourcebook which is commonly referenced by the comic, and for which he has been show to have all of the prerequisites" either obscure or unlikely, especially when the other option involves handing him a bunch of extra levels and three additional feats. You know, Occam's Razor and all that.


We are also able to stat out much more about (central-to-plot) character like Dorukan, and far less about (throw-away-character) Kobold.

No, we really aren't. We know that he knows a handful of wizard spells, that he's really old, and that he can cast an Epic spell. That is the sum total of all of the relevant information we have about Dorkuan. We have virtually nothing on him, stat-wise. Yes, we have about that much on the kobolds, too, but they get in under the "members of the Linear Guild" exception, because it would seem weird to have a section on the Linear Guild and then not include all of its members. Seriously, is there anything else we could add about him?


I also don't agree with Superb Dispelling being able to do everything and anything, nor do many other posters here. Even if people argue it's an error, it still only says it can dispel things it normally couldn't, not that it necessarily will. There are some things it definitely shouldn't be able to dispel as a matter of fact, which would be absurd. Where are the lines written for what new things it can and can't dispel? Without them it's far too vague to overrule the actual description of the spell.

This is, at best, a DM judgement call. It's an Epic Level Dispelling spell. What, as a matter of fact, shouldn't it be able to dispel? And why are we arguing about this, anyway, since it's been pretty obvious from the get-go that OOTS pretty much ignores the Epic rules anyway?

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 06:41 PM
I would hardly call "Xykon has a single feat from a sourcebook which is commonly referenced by the comic, and for which he has been show to have all of the prerequisites" either obscure or unlikely, especially when the other option involves handing him a bunch of extra levels and three additional feats. You know, Occam's Razor and all that.

How did he get Still Meteor Swarm.


No, we really aren't. We know that he knows a handful of wizard spells, that he's really old, and that he can cast an Epic spell. That is the sum total of all of the relevant information we have about Dorkuan. We have virtually nothing on him, stat-wise. Yes, we have about that much on the kobolds, too, but they get in under the "members of the Linear Guild" exception, because it would seem weird to have a section on the Linear Guild and then not include all of its members. Seriously, is there anything else we could add about him?
We can stat him out far better than random LG members, is what I said. And at least as well as say Eugene. We could add a bunch of spells, a level range, his age, his intelligence, various feats, items, etc. There'd be a decent amount of info we could put in.


This is, at best, a DM judgement call. It's an Epic Level Dispelling spell. What, as a matter of fact, shouldn't it be able to dispel? And why are we arguing about this, anyway, since it's been pretty obvious from the get-go that OOTS pretty much ignores the Epic rules anyway?
Well, let's take a few simple examples. The rules normally don't let Dispel get rid of spells with an "intantaneous" duration. Should we read the text to infer that since it can dispel all things it normally couldn't, it can dispel instantaneous spells (so long as there is still an effect in place of course). I would think that'd be absurd. With no firm limits we should go off the spell description only. Likewise, there is a non-instant epic spell that can turn you into a god. Does this get dispelled?

DoctorWhooves
2013-05-06, 07:07 PM
Lowest level =/= simplest explanation.

Some of you people wield Occam's Razor like a sledgehammer.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 07:09 PM
How did he get Still Meteor Swarm.

Sudden Still? Arcane Thesis? Practical Metamagic, depending on where his Sorcerer powers come from? Metamagic focus (evocation)? Being a level 23 Sorcerer rather than a level 27 one?


We can stat him out far better than random LG members, is what I said. And at least as well as say Eugene. We could add a bunch of spells, a level range, his age, his intelligence, various feats, items, etc. There'd be a decent amount of info we could put in.

Dorukan - Human Wizard 21+, not more than 40 (based on number of energy drains Xykon used) of unknown alignment
Str / Dex / Con ~4 (age, no evidence)
Int 19+ (casts 9th level spells)
Wis / Cha ~13 (age, no evidence)
Age 83+ (17 minimum starting age for wizard, quest took place 66 years ago)
Feats: Epic Spellcasting, Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat)
Skills: Knowledge(arcana) 24+, Spellcraft 24+ (to develop Cloister)
Items: Headband that acts as the focus for Cloister, Staff that somehow blocks electricity spells
Spells: Cloister, Sending, Scrying, Gate, Prismatic Spray, Meteor Swarm, unidentified flight spell, unidentified fire spell, unidentified flight spell, unidentified summoning spell, Arcane half of Gate-making ritual

Almost all of the solid info we have is directly derived from two pieces of information - that he can cast an Epic spell, and that he's over 83. That's it. That's all the info we really have. Almost everything else, save for an anemic list of spells that everyone would expect a wizard of his level to have anyway, is basically unknown (notice the bolding). And please stop arguing that we could stat him out as well as the legacy characters who were grandfathered in from when the thread was much younger, and there were fewer characters to keep track of.


Well, let's take a few simple examples. The rules normally don't let Dispel get rid of spells with an "intantaneous" duration. Should we read the text to infer that since it can dispel all things it normally couldn't, it can dispel instantaneous spells (so long as there is still an effect in place of course). I would think that'd be absurd. With no firm limits we should go off the spell description only. Likewise, there is a non-instant epic spell that can turn you into a god. Does this get dispelled?

You can Dispel a spell with a duration of "instantaneous" if you readied an action to do so (which is called "counterspelling"). I see no reason why Superb Dispelling shouldn't be able to do the same.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 07:16 PM
Sudden Still? Arcane Thesis? Practical Metamagic, depending on where his Sorcerer powers come from? Metamagic focus (evocation)? Being a level 23 Sorcerer rather than a level 27 one?

So we don't need just one obscure and unlikely bit of non-core, we need multiple instances of it. Doesn't sound like the simplest explanation anymore (which would be having higher spell slots). Higher spell slots explains 2 things in one go (Still Meteor Swarm and Maximized Energy Drain). By definition, it is the simplest explanation, especially since it is core and it's how you'd typically expect the effect to be achieved. Other explanations require multiple (non-core) things to be true. My explanation requires a single core thing to be true.


Dorukan - Human Wizard 21+, not more than 40 (based on number of energy drains Xykon used) of unknown alignment
Str / Dex / Con ~4 (age, no evidence)
Int 19+ (casts 9th level spells)
Wis / Cha ~13 (age, no evidence)
Age 83+ (17 minimum starting age for wizard, quest took place 66 years ago)
Feats: Epic Spellcasting, Scribe Scroll (wizard bonus feat)
Skills: Knowledge(arcana) 24+, Spellcraft 24+ (to develop Cloister)
Items: Headband that acts as the focus for Cloister, Staff that somehow blocks electricity spells
Spells: Cloister, Sending, Scrying, Gate, Prismatic Spray, Meteor Swarm, unidentified flight spell, unidentified fire spell, unidentified flight spell, unidentified summoning spell, Arcane half of Gate-making ritual

Almost all of the solid info we have is directly derived from two pieces of information - that he can cast an Epic spell, and that he's over 83. That's it. That's all the info we really have. Almost everything else, save for an anemic list of spells that everyone would expect a wizard of his level to have anyway, is basically unknown (notice the bolding). And please stop arguing that we could stat him out as well as the legacy characters who were grandfathered in from when the thread was much younger, and there were fewer characters to keep track of.
I'd plus 3 to Int for being venerable as well. His level can be further nailed down too, due to needing Epic Crafting feats, etc, to make the Gates. And more could be added with effort. I never said he'd be one of the most exhaustive character sheets, but we certainly would have more on him than random linear guild kobolds who keep getting included (and who were not grandfathered in).


You can Dispel a spell with a duration of "instantaneous" if you readied an action to do so (which is called "counterspelling"). I see no reason why Superb Dispelling shouldn't be able to do the same.

I'm talking about an instant spell whose effect continues after it is cast, like say Gate. Can that too now be dispelled under the overly broad reading of Superb dispelling?

Grey_Wolf_c
2013-05-06, 07:29 PM
This thread runs on evidence, not popularity. For instance, if a large amount of people come in and state that Belkar is good-aligned now (and yes, we have such users on the forum), then that still doesn't change the fact that we have evidence that he's evil. So no, we have never run this thread by voting on things, and we're not going to start now.

Kurald, technically this thread has to run on consensus now. Mod said so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12577293&postcount=2). Now, as long as the consensus is on "list only what is based on evidence beyond dispute" then yes, you can continue to run the thread on that basis (and under those circumstances, Xykon would be listed as 21+, for example). However, if consensus now moves to "reasonable argument based on evidence", then the thread needs to move with it. It is up to you to decide how to measure consensus, of course, but voting is indeed a method for doing so.

Now, I personally think that a probabilistic theory is completely unworkable as described. Taking the four explanations RMS gave for Xykon's level, there is no "probability" for any of them. We have word of Giant that Xykon doesn't fall under any of them, since Rich no longer follows the rules. But it would be nice if all four were listed in the first post, because that is indeed the kind of information I want from this thread. So Xykon could be listed as 21-27+, and those four reasonings added to explain the range. Since nothing really limits his top level other than the increasingly improbability of gaining levels when you are already amongst the most powerful beings, the plus sign would stay.

Grey Wolf

ReaderAt2046
2013-05-06, 07:32 PM
So we don't need just one obscure and unlikely bit of non-core, we need multiple instances of it.

Those were "ORs", not "ANDs". rgrekejin was saying that any of those could explain the Still Meteor Swarm, not that you needed all of them.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 07:34 PM
So we don't need just one obscure and unlikely bit of non-core, we need multiple instances of it. Doesn't sound like the simplest explanation anymore (which would be having higher spell slots).

I'd like to point out that your explanation requires no less than three non-core feats as well, from a book which was never updated to 3.5 edition, and that the comic has a supremely questionable history of following anyway.


I'd plus 3 to Int for being venerable as well. His level can be further nailed down too, due to needing Epic Crafting feats, etc, to make the Gates. And more could be added with effort. I never said he'd be one of the most exhaustive character sheets, but we certainly would have more on him than random linear guild kobolds who keep getting included (and who were not grandfathered in).

What Epic crafting feat does he need to make the gates? Do you even need to be Epic to craft a gate (and don't quote me Redcloak saying that he and Xykon would both need to be Epic level to do it, not when he, in literally his very next sentence, admits that he has no idea how the gates were made). Do we know that he was Epic prior to becoming venerable? You keep saying "more could be added with effort". But it can't. That's it. That's all there is. There just aren't any more appearances by Dorukan to draw data from. What is written there is what we're stuck with, not without making a series of assumptions for which we have no evidence.


I'm talking about an instant spell whose effect continues after it is cast, like say Gate. Can that too now be dispelled under the overly broad reading of Superb dispelling?

Gate isn't an instantaneous spell with a continuing effect (in fact, "an instantaneous spell with a continuing duration seems to me like a logical impossibility, but whatever). It is a spell with either an instantaneous or a continuing effect, your choice, but not both. If you concentrate to keep the gate open, then it can be dispelled as can any spell with a continuing duration. If you choose to use it as a summoning spell, the duration is instantaneous, and can only be dispelled via counterspelling. This is true for both Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic, not just Superb Dispelling.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 07:47 PM
I'd like to point out that your explanation requires no less than three non-core feats as well, from a book which was never updated to 3.5 edition, and that the comic has a supremely questionable history of following anyway.
It's still 1 explanation to explain 2 things, not 2, and is ergo the simpler explanation. It's also the standard (and original) way to obtain spells above 9th level (it is less "non-core" than later books at any rate. Epic Magic is all non-core in that sense).


What Epic crafting feat does he need to make the gates? Do you even need to be Epic to craft a gate (and don't quote me Redcloak saying that he and Xykon would both need to be Epic level to do it, not when he, in literally his very next sentence, admits that he has no idea how the gates were made).
He doesn't know exactly how they were made, but he knows you need to be Epic to do it. That's what we should take from his comments there.


Do we know that he was Epic prior to becoming venerable?
He was Epic to create the Gates (see above), which was years ago when he was younger (shown in flashbacks). He also had the green focus for Cloister on his head when he was younger as well.


You keep saying "more could be added with effort". But it can't. That's it. That's all there is. There just aren't any more appearances by Dorukan to draw data from. What is written there is what we're stuck with, not without making a series of assumptions for which we have no evidence.

That's already more than random Kobolds, and as much as Eugene. Why don't we list him and see what else can be contributed before saying it's impossible.


Gate isn't an instantaneous spell with a continuing effect. It is a spell with either an instantaneous or a continuing effect, your choice, but not both. If you concentrate to keep the gate open, then it can be dispelled as can any spell with a continuing duration. If you choose to use it as a summoning spell, the duration is instantaneous, and can only be dispelled via counterspelling. This is true for both Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic, not just Superb Dispelling.

I get that. What I'm saying is this: the creature you've summoned is still there after an instant Gate. That creature is being held here by a magical effect. We know this because it can't disobey you until after, and once the spell ends it will be returned to it's plane of origin (even if it cannot get there under its own power). There is still magic in effect, it's just different to the magic of the Gated portal itself, magic that can be removed with a dismissal for instance. If we're going to take a super broad reading of the Dispel Seed to let it overrule all things it normally couldn't (such as AMF's, or Prismatic Spheres, and Forcecages) then why doesn't that also extend to the lingering magical effects of an instant Gate spell already in operation? It seems to me the reasoning for it (that Dispel says it can't affect instant spells) is the same argument for Dispel not being able to affect forcecages. I thought the logic of the Dispel Seed was it made all the previous limitations moot, in which case why can't it undo these lingering magical effects?

Likewise, Meteor Swarm is instant. Why should we believe Superb Dispelling cannot dispel it? Surely the fact a normal dispel can't should be irrelevant, since the broad reading claims the dispel seed can dispel even things it normally couldn't.

Living Oxymoron
2013-05-06, 07:47 PM
You're right about level 26. I had forgotten there was also a theory he had Epic Skill Focus (Spellcraft) to be able to cast Superb Dispelling, requiring a fifth Epic Feat.

But as I said it's not confirmed. It would be neat if the real Xykon dropped an Intensified Spell or two when he turns up, that would be pretty concrete. :smalltongue:

Wow... an Intensified spell. That would be great. :smallbiggrin:

The Epic Skill Focus theory makes sense too. So he would be 27.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 07:51 PM
Kurald, technically this thread has to run on consensus now. Mod said so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12577293&postcount=2). Now, as long as the consensus is on "list only what is based on evidence beyond dispute" then yes, you can continue to run the thread on that basis (and under those circumstances, Xykon would be listed as 21+, for example). However, if consensus now moves to "reasonable argument based on evidence", then the thread needs to move with it. It is up to you to decide how to measure consensus, of course, but voting is indeed a method for doing so.

Now, I personally think that a probabilistic theory is completely unworkable as described. Taking the four explanations RMS gave for Xykon's level, there is no "probability" for any of them. We have word of Giant that Xykon doesn't fall under any of them, since Rich no longer follows the rules. But it would be nice if all four were listed in the first post, because that is indeed the kind of information I want from this thread. So Xykon could be listed as 21-27+, and those four reasonings added to explain the range. Since nothing really limits his top level other than the increasingly improbability of gaining levels when you are already amongst the most powerful beings, the plus sign would stay.

Grey Wolf

I echo much of this. It really would be nice if the serious discussion many of us have been having (in this thread and the previous one) could be joined by the 2 people who are representing the community in managing this thread. I mean, they're managing this thread because the community consensus is happy with them as managers, not because the consensus of the community is meaningless to them.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 08:05 PM
It's still 1 explanation to explain 2 things, not 2, and is ergo the simpler explanation. It's also the standard (and original) way to obtain spells above 9th level (it is less "non-core" than later books at any rate. Epic Magic is all non-core in that sense).

There aren't degrees of non-core. Something is either core or it isn't.

Also, it isn't a one part explanation. He can be level 23 to get Still Meteor Swarm. Then he could have continued along that path to level 27. Or he could be at level 23, and have Sudden Maximize (which makes his overall level slightly more realistic).

Finally, Xykon has 13+ feats, most of which he obtained before Epic level. We know the identity of four of them. What else did he spend the others on? Toughness six times? We know that Complete Arcane is in play in this campaign. Is it really so weird to suggest that he might have taken some feats from it, especially with not a whole lot else worthwhile to spend them on?


He doesn't know exactly how they were made, but he knows you need to be Epic to do it. That's what we should take from his comments there.

...yeah, that's not what I'm getting from it. I'm getting a flustered Redcloak, upset that the Plan may have just fallen to ruins, spitballing ideas. He straight-up says that it would take years of research to figure out how to make a gate. I don't think we can say that what we're looking at in that panel is really Redcloak's clear-headed, professional opinion, or that he would necessarily be right even if it were.


I get that. What I'm saying is this: the creature you've summoned is still there after an instant Gate. That creature is being held here by a magical effect. We know this because it can't disobey you until after, and once the spell ends it will be returned to it's plane of origin (even if it cannot get there under its own power). There is still magic in effect, it's just different to the magic of the Gate, magic that can be removed with a dismissal for instance. If we're going to take a super broad reading of the Dispel Seed to let it overrule all things it normally couldn't (such as AMF's, or Prismatic Spheres, and Forcecages) then why doesn't that also extend to the lingering magical effects of an instant Gate spell already in operation? It seems to me the reasoning for it (that Dispel says it can't affect instant spells) is the same argument for Dispel not being able to affect forcecages. I thought the logic of the Dispel Seed was it made all the previous limitations moot, in which case why can't it undo these lingering magical effects?

Yes, Superb Dispelling could stand in for Dismissal, absolutely. It can dispel the effects of Bestow Curse too, like Break Enchantment can. I don't know why this is even remotely controversial. It's an EPIC LEVEL DISPEL for crying out loud.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 08:12 PM
Yes, Superb Dispelling could stand in for Dismissal, absolutely. It can dispel the effects of Bestow Curse too, like Break Enchantment can. I don't know why this is even remotely controversial.

So Superb Dispelling can now banish wandering elementals and planar summons wandering about. The scope is getting broader. Can it do the same for all instant duration spells such as Meteor Swarm too? How about Imprisonment? How about Clone? How about Epic Spells like Eternal Freedom? How about Contingent Ressurection? How about Epic Spells that turn you into a god? At what point does this get silly. I really don't think most people would support the claim it can cancel the effects of an instant spell by the way, but I'll let people chime in as they will.

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 08:20 PM
It seems to me that Mage is missing the key part of instantaneous duration spells here. They are there and gone in a flash. Unless you're counterspelling them, there's no dispelling, because there's nothing there to dispel. You can't dispel an Angel to send it back home if it walked through a Gate, because the Gate is the spell effect, not the angel.

A Forcecage or Anti-Magic Field, though? Ongoing spell effects. Dispellable with the Dispel seed. Open and shut, no ambiguity whatsoever.

But keep on arguing about an "overly broad" reading of the Dispel seed that only exists in your head, Mage. Perhaps the problem you're having is not a problem with the Dispel seed but a pebkac problem and you don't understand as much about how magic works in 3.5 D&D as you think you do.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 08:21 PM
It seems to me that Mage is missing the key part of instantaneous duration spells here. They are there and gone in a flash. Unless you're counterspelling them, there's no dispelling, because there's nothing there to dispel. You can't dispel an Angel to send it back home if it walked through a Gate, because the Gate is the spell effect, not the angel.

A Forcecage or Anti-Magic Field, though? Ongoing spell effects. Dispellable with the Dispel seed. Open and shut, no ambiguity whatsoever.

But keep on arguing about an "overly broad" reading of the Dispel seed that only exists in your head, Mage. Perhaps the problem you're having is not a problem with the Dispel seed but a pebkac problem and you don't understand as much about how magic works in 3.5 D&D as you think you do.

Please re-read my post. I have covered this, I understand exactly how Gate works. But clearly some magic is still in effect for Gate to function (or else the summons would rebel, and not be transported back after).

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 08:27 PM
So Superb Dispelling can now banish wandering elementals and planar summons wandering about.

Yes. What part of
The dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic. is ambiguous?


Can it do the same for all instant duration spells such as Meteor Swarm too?

Sure, it can be used to counterspell Meteor Swarm, just like Greater Dispel Magic could. It could dispel it normally, if you could cast it as a immediate action (which, of course, you can't). Otherwise, the instantaneous effect has already ended before you have a chance to go, and you can't dispel it because it is no longer occurring, which is why instantaneous spells cannot normally be dispelled. Not because there is anything privileged about the type of magic contained in an instantaneous spell, but because dispelling, powerful as it is, doesn't allow you to go when it isn't your turn.


How about Imprisonment?

Yes. The Dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic.


How about Epic Spells like Eternal Freedom?

Since each Epic spell is custom-made, how they interact is up to the discretion of the DM.


How about Contingent Ressurection?

Yes. Contingency can be dispelled just like any other spell. What of it?


How about Epic Spells that turn you into a god?

Again, how Epic spells interact is a DM's discretion call.


At what point does this get silly. I really don't think most people would support the claim it can cancel the effects of an instant spell by the way, but I'll let people chime in as they will.

The reason that instantaneous effects can't be dispelled is because they're over before you get a chance to go. No other reason. There's nothing otherwise special about them. This is why counterspelling is a thing. If you don't get a chance to go before the instantaneous effect ends, then you can't dispel it, because it is not your turn. If you wanted to create an Epic dispelling spell that could be cast as an immediate action, then you could dispel a spell with an instantaneous duration without preparing an action to counterspell.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 08:40 PM
Yes. What part of is ambiguous?
I'm just clarifying your open ended interpretation, that Superb Dispelling can now banish planar summons and the like. I must admit I have never heard anyone posit this theory once, so it's a surprise to me.


Sure, it can be used to counterspell Meteor Swarm, just like Greater Dispel Magic could. It could dispel it normally, if you could cast it as a immediate action (which, of course, you can't). Otherwise, the instantaneous effect has already ended before you have a chance to go, and you can't dispel it because it is no longer occurring, which is why instantaneous spells cannot normally be dispelled. Not because there is anything privileged about the type of magic contained in an instantaneous spell, but because dispelling, powerful as it is, doesn't allow you to go when it isn't your turn.
No, not counterspelled. Dispelled. After all, although the spell is instant in effect, the meteorites it creates are not "instant", they still have to travel a set distance (possibly many hundreds of feet). Are these magical meteors not subject to being dispelled as well? Since the Dispel Seed can dispel anything


Yes. The Dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic.
So a 9th level spell which not even Wish can overcome (and which only one specific spell, created explicitly to overcome it), is rendered meaningless by Superb Dispelling. Superb Dispelling now not only banishes extra planar summons, it now calls forth people who were lying dormant in the bowels of the Earth (perhaps for years). Again, I have never heard anyone posit this ability for Superb Dispelling before.


Since each Epic spell is custom-made, how they interact is up to the discretion of the DM.
Epic spells are not all custom made, any more than other spells listed and statted in a handbook are "custom made". You can make custom Epic Spells, but there is such a thing as listed Epic Spells. They exist, and are not all "custom made". The rules also explictly say Epic spells are not special, and are subject to the same game mechanics:

A lucky nonepic spellcaster casting greater dispel magic might be able to dispel an epic spell. The game mechanics do not change, and epic spells do not occupy any privileged position allowing them to resist being dispelled other than their presumably high caster level. Likewise, epic spells using the dispel seed can dispel nonepic spells. Such epic spells use the same game mechanic: The check to dispel is 1d20 + a specified number (usually dispeller’s level), and the DC is 11 + the spellcaster’s level.
So, using these same game mechanics, do you believe Eternal Freedom is negated by Superb Dispelling? It would certainly be odd if it was. Ditto the spells that turn you into a God.

dps
2013-05-06, 08:48 PM
just making more of a random thought, but Roy's level is probably higher then listed. The illusion in the most recent strip seems to have a certain logical consistency to it (Belkar dying to meteor swarm, V having to be introduced to neutralize red cloak) and xykon says Roy is higher level then he was in the azure city arc, which IIRC was 14 ish. Roy would know if he was lower or the same level as then, so its most likely accurate. Not saying immediately throw him to 15+, just making a note.

I disagree--Roy knows that Xykon told him to go level up and then try to fight him again, so it makes sense that Roy would think that Xykon would think that Roy had leveled up, and might say something about it, even if Roy hasn't leveled up.

Douglas
2013-05-06, 08:54 PM
So, using these same game mechanics, do you believe Eternal Freedom is negated by Superb Dispelling? It would certainly be odd if it was. Ditto the spells that turn you into a God.
Eternal Freedom is permanent, not instantaneous, and does not have any special anti-dispelling clause. A regular non-epic dispel can get rid of it with a high enough check.

The Dispel seed uses the standard "as if its duration had expired" clause for how its dispelling works. It therefore has no effect on any spell whose duration has already expired, which automatically includes all instantaneous spells. Imprisonment, Planar Binding, Gate's calling mode, and so forth are all unaffected by Superb Dispelling. Forcecage, Antimagic Field, Eternal Freedom, and all other non-instantaneous spells (epic or not) are subject to it as normal. You could conceivably design an epic spell with the Ward seed to grant the spell specific immunity to Superb Dispelling, but short of such measures epic spells have no more defense against dispelling than non-epic spells do.

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 09:06 PM
I'm just clarifying your open ended interpretation, that Superb Dispelling can now banish planar summons and the like. I must admit I have never heard anyone posit this theory once, so it's a surprise to me.

Well of course it can dispel summons. So can regular dispels. Summons are ongoing magical effects. A calling, however, is not and is not dispellable.




No, not counterspelled. Dispelled. After all, although the spell is instant in effect, the meteorites it creates are not "instant", they still have to travel a set distance (possibly many hundreds of feet). Are these magical meteors not subject to being dispelled as well? Since the Dispel Seed can dispel anything


Meteor Swarm:

Duration: Instantaneous

They aren't persisting as magical effects. You cast, they damage, they disappear. You need to counterspell it, because there's nothing to dispel.



So a 9th level spell which not even Wish can overcome (and which only one specific spell, created explicitly to overcome it), is rendered meaningless by Superb Dispelling.

That is, by and large, the point of Epic magic: to generally outclass non-Epic magic. Non-epic magic still works on it, but generally the Epic magic will be bigger, better, and all around less restricted.



Superb Dispelling now not only banishes extra planar summons, it now calls forth people who were lying dormant in the bowels of the Earth (perhaps for years). Again, I have never heard anyone posit this ability for Superb Dispelling before.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here. What spell are you trying to say Superb Dispelling cancels with this calling forth the dead stuff? You've never heard of it because you're making it up. If it's Contingent Ressurection, you dispel it before the person dies so that they won't resurrect. If you do it after they've been resurrected, nothing happens because the resurrection is instantaneous.





Epic spells are not all custom made, any more than other spells listed and statted in a handbook are "custom made". You can make custom Epic Spells, but there is such a thing as listed Epic Spells. They exist, and are not all "custom made". The rules also explictly say Epic spells are not special, and are subject to the same game mechanics:

They really are still custom. You might not like a certain mitigating factor and want to substitute a better one. The spells presented are examples and starting points, not the One True Way for these spells. Read your rules on Developing Epic Spells again.



So, using these same game mechanics, do you believe Eternal Freedom is negated by Superb Dispelling? It would certainly be odd if it was. Ditto the spells that turn you into a God.

Reading Eternal Freedom, yeah, it is, provided the person casting Superb Dispelling succeeds on the Dispel check. Duration says permanent, text doesn't make any mention of Dispel being one of the spells it protects you from, and hey, the Ward seed even helps us out:


The ward could be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell. Epic spells using the dispel seed may bring down a ward if the enemy spellcaster succeeds at a caster level check. The ward may also be brought down with a targeted epic spell using the destroy seed if the enemy spellcaster succeeds at a caster level check.

So, yeah, Eternal Freedom can be dispelled. In fact, with a lucky enough roll you can do it with Greater Dispel Magic.

Got the text on that God spell? I can tell you pretty quickly whether it can be beaten by a dispel.

Really, your problem seems to be a severe misunderstanding of how instantaneous duration works.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 09:16 PM
I'm going to focus down on a couple of issues.

Ridley, do you think Superb dispelling banishes beings called in by Gate?

Do you think it also summons forth beings emtombed in the earth (perhaps many turns ago) by imprisonment?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Apotheosis_Chrysalis_(3.5e_Epic_Spell) Here's one.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 09:19 PM
I'm just clarifying your open ended interpretation, that Superb Dispelling can now banish planar summons and the like. I must admit I have never heard anyone posit this theory once, so it's a surprise to me.

The mere fact that Dismissal exists shows that the effects of a planar summoning can be magically negated. Why is it so strange to suggest that an EPIC LEVEL DISPELLING could do so? Especially when the dispel seed is specifically capable of defeating all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic?


No, not counterspelled. Dispelled. After all, although the spell is instant in effect, the meteorites it creates are not "instant", they still have to travel a set distance (possibly many hundreds of feet). Are these magical meteors not subject to being dispelled as well? Since the Dispel Seed can dispel anything

...okay, you're not following me. Let's take this from the top. In D&D, at the beginning of an encounter, you roll for initiative, and whoever rolls highest goes first. Action proceeds in a series of rounds. In a round, each person gets a chance to act in the order that they rolled initiative. This is called a "turn". Except in very special circumstances, you can only do things during your own turn, and not during your opponent's. An instantaneous spell occurs so quickly as to be over and done with during the turn of the person who cast it. Thus, when their turn ends, you can't dispel it, because there is nothing there to dispel. The Dispel seed defeats ongoing spell effects. It doesn't let you time travel. If you used the Dispel seed to create a spell that could be cast as an immediate action (one of those rare exceptions that lets you act on an opponent's turn), then you could dispel a spell with a duration of instantaneous. Such an action would be virtually indistinguishable from counterspelling, except you wouldn't need to prepare an action to do so. That spell wouldn't be Superb Dispelling, though.


So a 9th level spell which not even Wish can overcome (and which only one specific spell, created explicitly to overcome it), is rendered meaningless by Superb Dispelling. Superb Dispelling now not only banishes extra planar summons, it now calls forth people who were lying dormant in the bowels of the Earth (perhaps for years). Again, I have never heard anyone posit this ability for Superb Dispelling before.

Yup. Spells above 9th level sure can do impressive things, can't they?

Edit: Actually, upon further reading, the action that places you underground is an instantaneous effect, and after that, is not magical. The "temporal stasis" component could of course be dispelled, but the small sphere underground isn't really magical, it's just a hole in the ground, and you're in it. So that part can't be dispelled, except as a counterspell, which is more of a "prevents it from happening in the first place" sort of deal.


Epic spells are not all custom made, any more than other spells listed and statted in a handbook are "custom made". You can make custom Epic Spells, but there is such a thing as listed Epic Spells. They exist, and are not all "custom made". The rules also explictly say Epic spells are not special, and are subject to the same game mechanics:

Each spell is individually researched, and each spell must be approved by the DM for inclusion. I suppose this isn't really different from normal circumstances, since a DM can allow or disallow whatever the heck they want, but it is pretty unusual for DMs to have to review spells, whereas, with Epic spells, they are required to do so.


So, using these same game mechanics, do you believe Eternal Freedom is negated by Superb Dispelling? It would certainly be odd if it was. Ditto the spells that turn you into a God.

That would be at the DM's discretion, so there is reasonable room to differ here. My ruling would be that, if you're casting Eternal Freedom or a spell that turns you into a God and are doing so at a caster level low enough for Superb Dispelling to effect, then you deserve to have it dispelled.

Shale
2013-05-06, 09:23 PM
Forcecage has a duration after which the cage vanishes. The only reason it can't be dispelled is because it's specifically noted as being immune to Dispel Magic as a special property of the spell. Imprisonment and Gate are instantaneous effects, which are categorically immune to dispelling. Trying to dispel them would be like casting Dispel Magic on the guards Haley persuaded with that Glibness potion.

Living Oxymoron
2013-05-06, 09:33 PM
I disagree--Roy knows that Xykon told him to go level up and then try to fight him again, so it makes sense that Roy would think that Xykon would think that Roy had leveled up, and might say something about it, even if Roy hasn't leveled up.

Yeah, we have to keep in mind that that is a fantasy of Roy and there happens everything Roy wished, though with a certain degree of crude realism. So we saw Xykon remembering him, a higher level Roy, a Xykon that remembers the advice that himself gave to Roy (wow), V's arrival at the crucial moment, Roy's strategy working perfectly and, finally, Roy defeating Xykon.

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 09:37 PM
I'm going to focus down on a couple of issues.

Ridley, do you think Superb dispelling banishes beings called in by Gate?


Calling, so no. You could use Dismissal, though, or a custom Epic spell designed to send called creatures back home (though Dismissal would be more practical, most of the time). If the Gate was still open, it could close the Gate, though.





Do you think it also summons forth beings emtombed in the earth (perhaps many turns ago) by imprisonment?


Instantaneous duration suggests nothing to dispel. The temporal stasis aspect of it might be dispellable, but you would need to find the creature (you'll only be able to track to the spot where Imprisonment was cast, though, which is where you need to cast Freedom). If you could tunnel down to the creature, then sure, I'd allow it, but that's Rule 0 and not going strictly by what Superb Dispelling allows.



http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Apotheosis_Chrysalis_(3.5e_Epic_Spell) Here's one.

Setting aside the fact that it's a dandwiki creation (and all the various problems there - you might notice the fact that its cost is a million silver, no experience, and no seed, just a bunch of say so), you can dispel the Chrysalis (it's got a permanent duration, not instantaneous). If the would-be god is inside and not raised a rank, then the Chrysalis won't function and make them a god. If they're outside and already a god, it won't do anything about that, but it will dispel the Chrysalis. The text is ambiguous about what happens if you're inside and already raised a rank, but that's because it's incredibly poorly written and should only ever be used as an example of why dandwiki isn't worth the bandwith it comes on.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 09:45 PM
Calling, so no. If the Gate was still open, it could close the Gate, though.
Ok. But as I said earlier, while the Gate is gone, there are clearly still lingering magical effects on the called creatures. If there were not, the called creatures could attack you, and wouldn't be transported back after the spell (even if they lack the ability to transport themselves under their own power). If magic isn't involved there, then what is? I agree that it would be absurd for Superb Dispelling to affect that gated creatures, but that in itself shows there are limits to the broad interpretation, which in turn should put an end to the open ended interpetation that is being used.


Instantaneous duration suggests nothing to dispel. The temporal stasis aspect of it might be dispellable, but you would need to find the creature (you'll only be able to track to the spot where Imprisonment was cast, though, which is where you need to cast Freedom). If you could tunnel down to the creature, then sure, I'd allow it, but that's Rule 0 and not going strictly by what Superb Dispelling allows.
You would allow it, rgrekejin wouldn't. He claims that's because the stasis isn't magical, but that doesn't make sense. If that sphere isn't magical, then what the heck is holding you in place and negating any other spells you attempt to use on it? See the problem with an open ended interpretation? It doesn't work.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 09:51 PM
You would allow it, rgrekejin wouldn't. He claims that's because the stasis isn't magical, but that doesn't make sense. If that statis isn't magical, then what the heck is holding you in place and negating any other spells you attempt to use on it? See the problem with an open ended interpretation? It doesn't work.

No no, that's not what I'm saying. You are instantly transported underground to a small sphere which is magically created. That is an instantaneous effect, and when it is over, you are in a non-magical hole in the ground. It can't be dispelled because, as previously noted, it occurs too quickly. The magic is in creating the hole and teleporting you to it, but after that, it's just another hole in the ground. The stasis is magical, which is why I say that component can be dispelled. In fact, it's basically just the Temporal Stasis spell, which is totally dispellable. In fact, it says so in the spell description. Same with the anti-divination component. Ongoing effect, so, dispellable. SaintRidley and I appear to agree on this, as near as I can tell.

Codyage
2013-05-06, 09:55 PM
Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
Just quoting the Dispel Magic text from SRD. You can use Dispel Magic to Counter spell, however, not against spells with "instantaneous" duration.



Targeted Dispel
...If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.

Dispel Magic DOES work on creatures that are summoned by a spell.

As for Extraplanar creatures, Dismissal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dismissal.htm)has got you covered.

Then later at Area Dispel we have.


If an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning) is in the area, you can make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured that object or creature (returning it whence it came) in addition to attempting to dispel spells targeting the creature or object.

So if you dispel Gate, all the summoned creatures disappear.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 10:00 PM
So if you dispel Gate, all the summoned creatures disappear
Except the gate is gone. The creatures remain, and some lingering magical effects apparently.

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 10:01 PM
Regarding Gate, you could dispel the compulsion part of their presence, but you could do that all the same with regular dispels too - the calling itself is instantaneous. Also, generally the called creatures are likely to continue working with the Gate caster anyway, what with the likelihood that the caster will call creatures of a similar alignment.




So if you dispel Gate, all the summoned creatures disappear.

Well, they would if any of them were summoned. They're called, though, so that doesn't happen.

Regarding Imprisonment:

Thing is, I basically wouldn't allow Imprisonment to be dispelled, for reasons I noted in that post - you won't ever get to the creature. You won't, seriously. Unless you create an epic spell to find an Imprisoned creature instead of the spot it was imprisoned at, you won't ever find it and you won't ever get to it.

If you could, then sure you might be able to dispel the stasis part in theory (the spell points to Temporal Stasis for an example of how the stasis works, and this says that stasis can be dispelled, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the stasis from Imprisonment). But you can't find the creature, so that's moot. You'll only ever get where the spell was cast, and there's nothing magic going on there anymore, so you can't just cast Superb Dispelling there. The ambiguity between my position and rgrekijin's is not a difference in approach to Superb Dispelling but a theoretical difference in approach to the issue of the stasis that Imprisonment puts a creature into.

Your solution to this "open-ended interpretation" of course, is to make such a narrow interpretation that it fails to actually do what the rules say Superb Dispelling does - which is dispel spells and effects, even those things that normally aren't dispellable (and no, dispelling instantaneous spells is not included there, because instantaneous spells can only ever be counterspelled, because they produce no lasting magic).

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 10:07 PM
After further consideration, I'm starting to come around to SaintRidley's interpretation of how Superb Dispelling would deal with Called creatures. You could dispel the compulsion to obey, and you could probably dispel the ability for them to return to their plane of origin. However, since they are now physically here, they can't be dispelled as a summons could, and would have to be Dimissed or Banished.

Douglas
2013-05-06, 10:09 PM
Allow me to reiterate this point:

The Dispel seed uses the standard "as if its duration had expired" clause for how its dispelling works. It therefore has no effect on any spell whose duration has already expired, which automatically includes all instantaneous spells.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 10:11 PM
Regarding Gate, you could dispel the compulsion part of their presence, but you could do that all the same with regular dispels too - the calling itself is instantaneous. Also, generally the called creatures are likely to continue working with the Gate caster anyway, what with the likelihood that the caster will call creatures of a similar alignment.

Well, they would if any of them were summoned. They're called, though, so that doesn't happen.
What about the part that teleports them back afterwards, even if they lack the ability to plane shift under their own power. I don't agree that Superb Dispelling should do this btw. In order to let your theory work, Superb Dispelling can now apparently:
- banish called creatures (or that is rgrekejin's claim)
- negate your contract with them
- possibly prevent them from leaving?
- Negate instant spells, including ones like Imprisonment that are said to only be stopped by a Freedom spell (a spell which serves no other purpose). It's getting a bit far fetched to be honest. It even negates god spells apparently.


Regarding Imprisonment:

Thing is, I basically wouldn't allow Imprisonment to be dispelled, for reasons I noted in that post - you won't ever get to the creature. You won't, seriously. Unless you create an epic spell to find an Imprisoned creature instead of the spot it was imprisoned at, you won't ever find it and you won't ever get to it.

If you could, then sure you might be able to dispel the stasis part in theory (the spell points to Temporal Stasis for an example of how the stasis works, and this says that stasis can be dispelled, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the stasis from Imprisonment). But you can't find the creature, so that's moot. You'll only ever get where the spell was cast, and there's nothing magic going on there anymore, so you can't just cast Superb Dispelling there. The ambiguity between my position and rgrekijin's is not a difference in approach to Superb Dispelling but a theoretical difference in approach to the issue of the stasis that Imprisonment puts a creature into.

Your solution to this "open-ended interpretation" of course, is to make such a narrow interpretation that it fails to actually do what the rules say Superb Dispelling does - which is dispel spells and effects, even those things that normally aren't dispellable (and no, dispelling instantaneous spells is not included there, because instantaneous spells can only ever be counterspelled, because they produce no lasting magic).

But why couldn't you just dig to the sphere? By this logic, all you really need to undo imprisonment is a dicern location spell and a standard dispel magic (since that undoes temporal stasis). As long as a spell lets you dig (or transport yourself) down there, why shouldn't it work that way? Personally I think it's crazy that Superb Dispelling should have any effect on the sphere, which blocks all spells save 2 from even finding it, and says can only be negated by a freedom spell.

Douglas
2013-05-06, 10:16 PM
It even negates god spells apparently.
That spell has a Permanent duration and no specific protection against dispelling. Therefore it can be dispelled. The fact that it turns you into a god is irrelevant, the duration and lack of dispel protection are the only factors that matter for this.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 10:19 PM
That spell has a Permanent duration and no specific protection against dispelling. Therefore it can be dispelled. The fact that it turns you into a god is irrelevant, the duration and lack of dispel protection are the only factors that matter for this.

Under my reading of the spell, that basically means a Superb Dispelling can turn a god back into a mortal, which seems crazy. I can't imagine a DM would allow it.

Anyway, I think the spell of Superb Dispelling should be applied as written in the text of the spell (not given a liberal interpretation of what it can do just because the seed "can", but not "always will", do undefined things that a dispel normally could not), and alot of people agree with me as it happens.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 10:20 PM
Negate instant spells, including ones like Imprisonment that are said to only be stopped by a Freedom spell (a spell which serves no other purpose). It's getting a bit far fetched to be honest. It even negates god spells apparently.

Well, the stasis and anti-divination components of Imprisonment aren't instantaneous. They're an ongoing effect. There's no reason why they shouldn't be dispellable.

And your God-spell is a poorly constructed homebrew mess, so I feel no real reason to address discrepancies with it. The problem is with your God spell, not Superb Dispelling.


But why couldn't you just dig to the sphere? By this logic, all you really need to undo imprisonment is a dicern location spell and a standard dispel magic (since that undoes temporal stasis). As long as a spell lets you dig (or transport yourself) down there, why shouldn't it work that way? Personally I think it's crazy that Superb Dispelling should have any effect on the sphere, which blocks all spells save 2 from even finding it, and says can only be negated by a freedom spell.

...I fail to see why Discern Location, followed by miles and miles of tunneling, followed by (probably a Greater) Dispel Magic shouldn't get you out of Imprisonment. Seriously. That's an awful lot of time and effort to go through to overcome a single spell. That's an 8th, a 6th, and some way to burrow miles beneath the surface of the earth (which is pretty darn hard, mind you) needed to undo a 9th. That seems appropriate to me.

SaintRidley
2013-05-06, 10:24 PM
What about the part that teleports them back afterwards, even if they lack the ability to plane shift under their own power. I don't agree that Superb Dispelling should do this btw. In order to let your theory work, Superb Dispelling can now apparently:
- banish called creatures (or that is rgrekejin's claim)
- negate your contract with them
- possibly prevent them from leaving?
- Negate instant spells, including ones like Imprisonment that are said to only be stopped by a Freedom spell (a spell which serves no other purpose). It's getting a bit far fetched to be honest.

You really need to invest in some LASIK, because you seem to be understanding me to be saying the exact opposite of what I have been saying. Please address the actual points I make rather than made up points that are the exact opposite of what I'm saying.


It even negates god spells apparently.



A spell so ambiguous and vague in every respect that it's not even actually usable as written because, let me count the ways:

One million sp development cost
No XP cost to develop
No Epic seeds involved anywhere



You know, that last bit, you got me. Superb Dispelling can't dispel Apotheosis Chrysalis. But not for the reason you think. It can't because Apotheosis Chrysalis isn't a spell - it has no magic and it can't ever actually do anything.

Besides, I already told you it will dispel the Chrysalis, but not any already acquired godhood granted from it. Do I need to point you back to things I already said so you can miss them once again?



But why couldn't you just dig to the sphere? By this logic, all you really need to undo imprisonment is a dicern location spell and a standard dispel magic (since that undoes temporal stasis). As long as a spell lets you dig (or transport yourself) down there, why shouldn't it work that way? Personally I think it's crazy that Superb Dispelling should have any effect on the sphere, which blocks all spells save 2 from even finding it, and says can only be negated by a freedom spell.

Again, actually reading what I type might help you. You're not going to find the person in stasis to use Superb Dispelling, so the question of dispelling is completely moot. You're going to go to the spot where Imprisonment was cast and cast Freedom, because that's all you can do. If you do find yourself underground next to the stasis'd person, yes, I'll allow you to dispel, with Dispel Magic, Greater Dispel Magic, Disjunction, or Superb Dispelling, because the stasis explicitly refers to the spell Temporal Stasis, which says the stasis itself can be dispelled.

I'm sorry, but I'd have to give you a D in Epic Magic 101. Reading the course materials would help you if you choose to take the course again. Now I'm going to get back to my paper on multi-seed spells (just kidding, my paper's on Titus Andronicus).

Douglas
2013-05-06, 10:25 PM
Under my reading of the spell, that basically means a Superb Dispelling can turn a god back into a mortal, which seems crazy. I can't imagine a DM would allow it.
Someone who gained divinity by means of that spell is not "a god". Such a character is "a mortal with a godly buff spell". Superb Dispelling would have no such effect on any actual god.


Anyway, I think the spell of Superb Dispelling should be applied as written in the text of the spell (not given a liberal interpretation of what it can do just because the seed "can", but not "always will", do things dispel normally could not), and alot of people agree with me as it happens.
The Dispel seed grants, for free, the ability to end any spell that is not instantaneous. Any spell based on it should have that ability unless specifically removed by ad hoc mitigating factors.

Imprisonment and Gate's calling effect are RAW instantaneous, regardless of any lasting effect they might have, and are therefore not affected by dispelling of any kind.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 10:28 PM
The sphere in which one is imprisoned is more than a mere temporal statis, it also does things like block divinations, so I don't know why it's being treated like a temporal statis spell (when it clearly is more than just a temporal statis spell). The spell describes a freedom spell as being the only way to free the subject. I see no reason a dispel magic should be able to free someone from the sphere, given that description.


The Dispel seed grants, for free, the ability to end any spell that is not instantaneous. Any spell based on it should have that ability unless specifically removed by ad hoc mitigating factors.

It says it "can" have that ability to dispel things it normally wouldn't, not that it always will, or when it will have this (undefined) effect. That, combined with the description of the spell, tells me we should apply the spell as written and no more.

Douglas
2013-05-06, 10:32 PM
It says it "can" have that ability to dispel things it normally wouldn't, not that it always will, or when it will have this (undefined) effect. That, combined with the description of the spell, tells me we should apply the spell as written and no more.
It does not say it "can have that ability", it says it "can do these things". That means that it does have the ability. Further, no price is attached to that ability so it is part of the seed's base effect.

rgrekejin
2013-05-06, 10:38 PM
The sphere in which one is imprisoned is more than a mere temporal statis, it also does things like block divinations, so I don't know why it's being treated like a temporal statis spell (when it clearly is more than just a temporal statis spell). The spell describes a freedom spell as being the only way to free the subject. I see no reason a dispel magic should be able to free someone from the sphere, given that description.

There's a few distinct effects going on. There's a stasis effect, which is similar to Temporal Stasis, and because of this, I would rule it dispellable, but if you want to disagree, I guess that's fine. This is still a very minor point. There's an anti-divination effect on you, which, as an ongoing effect, I see no reason not to allow you to dispel. You might disagree, I guess, but I'm not sure why you would. This, as an ongoing effect, is clearly not covered by the "instantaneous" duration, which refers only to the creation of the hole in the ground and the the teleportation of you there. That, as an instantaneous effect, is not dispellable. Why, after having spent an 8th level spell to find it, and God knows what to tunnel down to the sphere, I see no reason why it shouldn't be dispellable. So, to be clear, I think that, for any "instantaneous" spell with an ongoing effect, the ongoing effect should be dispellable given the wording of the Dispel seed, and the reasons given for why instantaneous spells aren't dispellable in the first place.

But still, at this point, we're all very much spiting hairs, and Superb Dispelling can do much more than you were originally willing to allow.

137beth
2013-05-06, 10:57 PM
1. How is the nature of superb dispelling relevant at all?
2. I found this exchange highly amusing:

But keep on arguing about an "overly broad" reading of the Dispel seed that only exists in your head, Mage. Perhaps the problem you're having is not a problem with the Dispel seed but a pebkac problem and you don't understand as much about how magic works in 3.5 D&D as you think you do.


I understand exactly how Gate works
So MP is told that he maybe doesn't have a perfect understanding of the magic system, and responds by saying that he already covered it and understands everything perfectly

3. Why the freaking heck would you guys be arguing over a homebrew from dand wiki?!?

4.Occam's razor is completely irrelevant to this thread. Occam's razor is not meant to prove anything, it is merely a tool to guide hunches. It proves absolutely nothing, and therefore carries no weight whatsoever in this thread.

5. I'm going to suggest that Mage Paradox starts his own version of the thread, with all the alterations to stat-blocks that make sense in his head, which uses whatever possible house-rules and absurd interpretations of existing rules support his own pre-existing desire for character stats, and whatever standards for a character getting an entry he thinks are reasonable. The reason is that I am actually very interested to see how your fiat-based approach compares to this thread's proof-based one. I also really, really, want to see what stats you can come up with for Dorukan, just because I think it would be nice to know more about these epic level characters which IMO we should see more of:smallsmile:

ti'esar
2013-05-06, 11:00 PM
Honestly, I'm starting to think Mage Paradox is just trying to cause trouble.


Now, I personally think that a probabilistic theory is completely unworkable as described. Taking the four explanations RMS gave for Xykon's level, there is no "probability" for any of them. We have word of Giant that Xykon doesn't fall under any of them, since Rich no longer follows the rules. But it would be nice if all four were listed in the first post, because that is indeed the kind of information I want from this thread. So Xykon could be listed as 21-27+, and those four reasonings added to explain the range. Since nothing really limits his top level other than the increasingly improbability of gaining levels when you are already amongst the most powerful beings, the plus sign would stay.

This is what I've been arguing for all along, and I think this last page has proven why.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-06, 11:08 PM
I'm going to suggest that Mage Paradox starts his own version of the thread,
I don't know enough about the non-magic classes, but I'm sure some other posters here would be capable of taking on that task. I'd rather just one thread though, which responded to the concerns given. And maybe that doesn't need to be probablistic, maybe it can be a combination of things (like listing multiple scenarios, or reasons for a certain range), which I've been pushing for for before. But it certainly needs some kind of shake up, in light of the Giants remarks.

137beth
2013-05-06, 11:14 PM
I don't know enough about the non-magic classes, but I'm sure some other posters here would be capable of taking on that task. I'd rather just one thread though, which responded to the concerns given. And maybe that doesn't need to be probablistic, maybe it can be a combination of things (like listing multiple scenarios, or reasons for a certain range), which I've been pushing for for before. But it certainly needs some kind of shake up, in light of the Giants remarks.

I don't see anything wrong with listing possibilities. I just have a problem with using non-proof-based fiat like Occam's Razor to eliminate possibilities. Conjectures are fine, but we should make clear the distinction between conjectures and known facts.

And really, the Giant's most recent remarks contain no new information. It just clarifies stuff we already knew.

Grey_Wolf_c
2013-05-06, 11:21 PM
4.Occam's razor is completely irrelevant to this thread. Occam's razor is not meant to prove anything, it is merely a tool to guide hunches. It proves absolutely nothing, and therefore carries no weight whatsoever in this thread.

Pet peeve: no, Okham's razor is not "a tool to guide hunches". It is a time-tested rule of thumb that says, given more than one explanation for a phenomena, the one that requires fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. It applies to this thread because you all make assumptions, whether it be "Xykon can't gain 10 levels off-screen" or "Xykon has such feat". Assumptions are a key part of speculation.

Which is not to say Okham's razor is the end of disagreement. Given an equal number of assumptions, which set is "less" than the others can be contentious, if not outright impossible to determine (like, say, assuming that Xykon can or can't gain levels easily). In the real world, disagreements of such kind are met by going out and getting more evidence, but in threads like this and the MitD thread, we can only work with what is given to us, so Okham is, if anything, more important.

But it doesn't guide anything. It allows rational choosing between unequal options, on the basis of one form of measurement: number of assumptions. There are other ways of choosing between options, some as rational, some more subjective. People usually use a combination of several (none of the others, that I know, have catchy names, though).


5. I'm going to suggest that Mage Paradox starts his own version of the thread

He/she can't. It's against the rules to start to threads for the same purpose. Which is why I encourage the thread curators to take active steps to determine real thread consensus, since it is quickly becoming a shouting match.

Grey Wolf

Douglas
2013-05-06, 11:41 PM
So, to be clear, I think that, for any "instantaneous" spell with an ongoing effect, the ongoing effect should be dispellable given the wording of the Dispel seed, and the reasons given for why instantaneous spells aren't dispellable in the first place.
The wording of the Dispel seed says it works by ending the spell's duration early. An instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect is already past the end of its duration.

The only RAW consequence of the "defeats spells not subject to Dispel Magic" clause is that it trumps the anti-dispel protection of things like Forcecage and Prismatic Sphere.

Crusher
2013-05-06, 11:54 PM
The wording of the Dispel seed says it works by ending the spell's duration early. An instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect is already past the end of its duration.

The only RAW consequence of the "defeats spells not subject to Dispel Magic" clause is that it trumps the anti-dispel protection of things like Forcecage and Prismatic Sphere.

Well, wait. What if the on-going effect has a duration?

Douglas
2013-05-07, 12:17 AM
Well, wait. What if the on-going effect has a duration?
Doesn't matter, the spell as a whole is, per RAW, already over. The dispel seed can end the durations of spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. There's nothing in there about ending the lingering consequences of a spell.

There is no more lingering magic to get rid of - or detect - in the stasised bubble of an Imprisonment spell than there is in the damage of a Fireball spell. You can house rule otherwise, but it would be a house rule.

137beth
2013-05-07, 12:28 AM
He/she can't. It's against the rules to start to threads for the same purpose. Which is why I encourage the thread curators to take active steps to determine real thread consensus, since it is quickly becoming a shouting match.
No. We have one thread whose purpose is to determine what about the character's stats we can prove, and another to estimate what stats are "most likely." Those are very different purposes.

rgrekejin
2013-05-07, 12:50 AM
The wording of the Dispel seed says it works by ending the spell's duration early. An instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect is already past the end of its duration.

My point is that an "instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect" really ought not be a thing that exists. It's a logical contradiction, like a square circle. Either the duration is instantaneous, and not subject to dispelling, or it has an ongoing effect which should be, RAI if not RAW, subject to dispelling. My rulings tend to reflect this - the part of the spell which is an instantaneous occurrence can not be dispelled, but the part that involves magic that lingers afterward can be.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-07, 01:29 AM
My point is that an "instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect" really ought not be a thing that exists.

It does though. :smallbiggrin:

Douglas
2013-05-07, 01:36 AM
the part of the spell which is an instantaneous occurrence can not be dispelled, but the part that involves magic that lingers afterward can be.
Ah, but if the spell is instantaneous then there is by definition no part that involves magic lingering afterward. Any perceived indications to the contrary are a matter of fluff interpretation. Or bad writing by WotC, that happens too.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-07, 01:52 AM
Ah, but if the spell is instantaneous then there is by definition no part that involves magic lingering afterward. Any perceived indications to the contrary are a matter of fluff interpretation. Or bad writing by WotC, that happens too.

Several clear examples given of this though. For instance, Gate is instant for calling help, but at least 2 magical affects linger afterwards:
- the help you call remains magically controlled/unable to rebel until later, and
- the spell will magically plane shift them back to their home after they're done, even if they can't get there under their own power.
If those aren't achieved via magic, I'm not sure how they're being achieved.

Likewise, take a spell like Imprisonment. The imprisonment is instant, yet the subject remains held in a sphere that is immune to almost all spells, even ones like Wish can do no more than locate the sphere. If this isn't being achieved by Magic, I'm not sure how people think it is being achieved.

The reason is pretty obvious. Instant spells are better, because they can't be dispelled. So when the writers want to overpower a spell, they make it instant (or in the case of Momento Mori, they quicken it), thus preventing it from being dispelled by definition. It's "not logical" in some senses, but that's because the rule is designed to power up spells, not to be "logical".

Kurald Galain
2013-05-07, 01:55 AM
I don't see anything wrong with listing possibilities. I just have a problem with using non-proof-based fiat like Occam's Razor to eliminate possibilities. Conjectures are fine, but we should make clear the distinction between conjectures and known facts.

This has actually been in the FAQ for awhile.


Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How does Xykon cast Maximized Energy Drain in comic 652?
We don't know for sure. The most popular theories involve the feat Improved Spell Capacity, the feat Sudden Maximize, or a Rod of Metamagic. Each theory has its pros and cons.

Steven
2013-05-07, 05:52 AM
Several clear examples given of this though. For instance, Gate is instant for calling help, but at least 2 magical affects linger afterwards:
- the help you call remains magically controlled/unable to rebel until later, and
- the spell will magically plane shift them back to their home after they're done, even if they can't get there under their own power.
If those aren't achieved via magic, I'm not sure how they're being achieved.

The first is achieved by selecting a reality to summon the creature from where it's goals happen to 100% match your own.

The second is because the creature is only mostly on this plane and due to the stronger pull of its home plane it is drawn back after a given time.

How do I know this? Well it's fluff I just made up to cover gaps in the rules.

The only difference between me saying that and you saying that there MUST be some lingering magical effect that therefore should be covered by superb dispelling is that in my head I chose the former and in yours you chose the latter.
Neither has any impact at all on the effect of superb dispelling on non instant duration spells which is covered in the dispell seed quite clearly.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-07, 06:07 AM
The first is achieved by selecting a reality to summon the creature from where it's goals happen to 100% match your own.

The second is because the creature is only mostly on this plane and due to the stronger pull of its home plane it is drawn back after a given time.

How do I know this? Well it's fluff I just made up to cover gaps in the rules.

The only difference between me saying that and you saying that there MUST be some lingering magical effect that therefore should be covered by superb dispelling is that in my head I chose the former and in yours you chose the latter.
Neither has any impact at all on the effect of superb dispelling on non instant duration spells which is covered in the dispell seed quite clearly.

Not really. Mine is consistent with the spell description, while yours is made up (as you admit) and contradicts it. The creature can turn on you for instance, if you don't pay it. And other gated creatures are not magically whisked back to their homelands after being summoned. The reality is that the spell contradicts "logic" because the writers did not care if it was illogical, they made it instantaneous to beef up the spells power.

Crusher
2013-05-07, 06:30 AM
Several clear examples given of this though. For instance, Gate is instant for calling help, but at least 2 magical affects linger afterwards:
- the help you call remains magically controlled/unable to rebel until later, and
- the spell will magically plane shift them back to their home after they're done, even if they can't get there under their own power.
If those aren't achieved via magic, I'm not sure how they're being achieved.

Likewise, take a spell like Imprisonment. The imprisonment is instant, yet the subject remains held in a sphere that is immune to almost all spells, even ones like Wish can do no more than locate the sphere. If this isn't being achieved by Magic, I'm not sure how people think it is being achieved.

The reason is pretty obvious. Instant spells are better, because they can't be dispelled. So when the writers want to overpower a spell, they make it instant (or in the case of Momento Mori, they quicken it), thus preventing it from being dispelled by definition. It's "not logical" in some senses, but that's because the rule is designed to power up spells, not to be "logical".

Hmm, I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong (though I imagine someone else might), but I'd need to see more evidence to your conclusion before agreeing to it. The description for Imprisonment goes on for a bit about how difficult its effects are to undo. Fireball has no such description, ergo, the simplest explanation is that the resistance to dispelling comes from Imprisonment itself not from it being an instant. If being an instant was considered to be the source of its undispellability, it wouldn't even be mentioned, just like Fireball (which, by the way, is also an instant spell with an on-going non-magical effect with no duration: its damage done. Perhaps the compulsion to obey instilled by Gate is considered to be similar to Fireball's damage done).

SaintRidley
2013-05-07, 06:36 AM
Perhaps the compulsion to obey instilled by Gate is considered to be similar to Fireball's damage done).

Or it's an abstraction meant to allow the player to have power over the way their spellcasting affects the game.

But for the purposes of this thread, that explanation isn't terribly helpful, which is why I haven't mentioned it yet.

rgrekejin
2013-05-07, 06:37 AM
If those aren't achieved via magic, I'm not sure how they're being achieved.

Well, it clearly isn't magic, or else it would be dispellable. Either it is magic, and having the spell duration written as "instantaneous" is incorrect, on the grounds that something which is instantaneous cannot, by definition, have a lingering magical effect, or it isn't magic, and the act of casting the spell makes some instantaneous alteration to the very nature of reality as it effects the target of the spell, making the perceived magical effect really something akin to an extraordinary ability, and therefore not dispellable for the same reasons a creation spell is not - there is no real "magic" here to dispel.

Personally, I think the former makes more sense, and that WOTC just didn't want to have to explain a spell duration of "instantaneous, continuing partial" when it was perfectly obvious that was what was happening. If we're insisting on a RAW interpretation, though, then we have to conclude that, although it may appear otherwise, the compulsion of the Gated creature to obey you, or the effect that keeps you in stasis in Imprisonment, is not really magic at all. I agree - this is a silly interpretation. But if we treat the ongoing effect as magical in nature, then the duration of "instantaneous" can no longer provide it protection against dispelling. So, strictly by read as written, the lingering effect of the spell *must* be nonmagical, and therefore not dispellable on the grounds that it ain't magic. By read as common sense dictates, the linger effect probably should be magical. And since it is not an instantaneous effect, it should therefore be dispellable.

Mage Paradox
2013-05-07, 07:21 AM
You're assuming everything is intended to be logical. There is a far simpler explanation- it's not. The writers wanted to make certain spells "instant" to beef up their power, because then they couldn't be dispelled (haha, take that players who try to dispel stuff!). This is why I go by the actual spell description, rather than trying to infer logic being intended in a board game (which was written by different people at different times with different intentions).

All of which leads back to the main point. The Dispel Seed can't dispel spells dubbed to have an "instantaneous" duration (even when there is a lingering magical after affect), so they can't dispel "all things", there are some things they clearly can't dispel. This is one more reason not to read in the broadest possible interpretation to an undefined and poorly prescribed property in the Dispel Seed (and which by its nature contradicts other things, since both can't be right). Rather we should read the spell as written, since I don't have any confidence the person who designed it intended it to do all these extra things people are now positing it can do (dismissing/not-dismissing creatures to other planes, breaking spells of control, undoing Imprisonment spells, turning Gods into mortals, etc).

SaintRidley
2013-05-07, 07:53 AM
All of which leads back to the main point. The Dispel Seed can't dispel spells dubbed to have an "instantaneous" duration (even when there is a lingering magical after affect), so they can't dispel "all things", there are some things they clearly can't dispel. This is one more reason not to read in the broadest possible interpretation to an undefined and poorly prescribed property in the Dispel Seed (and which by its nature contradicts other things, since both can't be right). Rather we should read the spell as written, since I don't have any confidence the person who designed it intended it to do all these extra things people are now positing it can do (dismissing/not-dismissing creatures to other planes, breaking spells of control, undoing Imprisonment spells, turning Gods into mortals, etc).

The only person suggesting that if Superb Dispelling can dispel Forcecage it must dispel everything is you. The only person who thinks that instantaneous duration spells should be dispellable if Superb Dispelling can dispel Forcecage is you. The only person who thinks the only part of the spell that matters is that written under all the top-level information (ignoring the Dispel seed, which tells you as much about what Superb Dispelling does as the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor does with Dominate Monster) is you. We are reading the spell as written. Nothing about how the spell is written is ambiguous. The ambiguities lie in the failure of the writers of the other spells to be consistent with how ambiguously magical effects of instantaneous spells work (given that if the duration is instantaneous, by definition there is nothing magical left after the casting - any and all discussion of lingering magic from an instantaneous spell has merely been an attempt to show that if you're right about these lingering effects, Superb Dispelling still works the way it says it does). But there is no lingering magic, and you need to learn how instantaneous spells work, why they can't be dispelled, and actually think about that.

Also, the stuff I bolded. Stop making things up about the arguments people make against you, and double stop even thinking about Apotheosis Chrysalis, when I explained why that spell isn't even a spell. It doesn't help your argument to keep strawmanning the other side into saying the exact opposite of what they are saying. It only makes you look ignorant of how spell mechanics actually work. But it does a brilliant job of that.

End of discussion, because I'm not even going to see any more posts from you.

rgrekejin
2013-05-07, 08:16 AM
You're assuming everything is intended to be logical. There is a far simpler explanation- it's not. The writers wanted to make certain spells "instant" to beef up their power, because then they couldn't be dispelled (haha, take that players who try to dispel stuff!). This is why I go by the actual spell description, rather than trying to infer logic being intended in a board game (which was written by different people at different times with different intentions).

This reading of an instantaneous effect as some sort of "power up" is... well, just really bizarre. It's something that tells you how long a spell takes to occur, nothing more and nothing less.


All of which leads back to the main point. The Dispel Seed can't dispel spells dubbed to have an "instantaneous" duration (even when there is a lingering magical after affect).

But instantaneous spells never have lingering magical effects. They can have lingering effects, but those effects are, by definition, not magical.

Nymrod
2013-05-07, 10:11 AM
Also when it comes to the imprisonment spell; I know of many non-cannon sources that show people defeating imprisonment spells by actually digging to the sphere and getting the person one (e.g. Gromph Baenre in the 5th book of the War of the Spider Queen).
Is there any cannon about this? Some FAQ mention or any official adventure?

Crusher
2013-05-07, 10:16 AM
You're assuming everything is intended to be logical. There is a far simpler explanation- it's not. The writers wanted to make certain spells "instant" to beef up their power, because then they couldn't be dispelled (haha, take that players who try to dispel stuff!). This is why I go by the actual spell description, rather than trying to infer logic being intended in a board game (which was written by different people at different times with different intentions).

All of which leads back to the main point. The Dispel Seed can't dispel spells dubbed to have an "instantaneous" duration (even when there is a lingering magical after affect), so they can't dispel "all things", there are some things they clearly can't dispel. This is one more reason not to read in the broadest possible interpretation to an undefined and poorly prescribed property in the Dispel Seed (and which by its nature contradicts other things, since both can't be right). Rather we should read the spell as written, since I don't have any confidence the person who designed it intended it to do all these extra things people are now positing it can do (dismissing/not-dismissing creatures to other planes, breaking spells of control, undoing Imprisonment spells, turning Gods into mortals, etc).

You're starting to chain arguments into each other which isn't really good for clarity or discussion resolution.

The original point you had issue with was that there should be things Superb Dispelling can't dispel. The answer appears to have come out as: Superb Dispelling can't dispel anything who's magical effect has ended. Otherwise it *can potentially* dispel anything, but since every Epic spell is developed individually the details will be up to how the spell is crafted that particular time and the DM's interpretation.

Do you disagree?

theinsulabot
2013-05-07, 10:17 AM
I disagree--Roy knows that Xykon told him to go level up and then try to fight him again, so it makes sense that Roy would think that Xykon would think that Roy had leveled up, and might say something about it, even if Roy hasn't leveled up.

Thats not right, xykon says that roy has leveled up after he has been attacked in response to taking more damage. your theory might be more reasonable if xykon and roy were standing off and chatting or bantering, but xykon is responding to roy's apparent ability level.

If roy was the same level as he was in azure city (and the thread actually has his min level as lower) then that would be implausible to Roy. Its likely the introduction of such an easily disprovable lie could shake the illusion. I don't think it would have been included were it not true.

Douglas
2013-05-07, 10:54 AM
Several clear examples given of this though. For instance, Gate is instant for calling help, but at least 2 magical affects linger afterwards:
- the help you call remains magically controlled/unable to rebel until later, and
- the spell will magically plane shift them back to their home after they're done, even if they can't get there under their own power.
If those aren't achieved via magic, I'm not sure how they're being achieved.

Likewise, take a spell like Imprisonment. The imprisonment is instant, yet the subject remains held in a sphere that is immune to almost all spells, even ones like Wish can do no more than locate the sphere. If this isn't being achieved by Magic, I'm not sure how people think it is being achieved.
I... got nothin'. Every explanation I can think of for how those two work without lingering magic is extremely silly. So, bad writing by WotC. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Codyage
2013-05-07, 01:14 PM
I... got nothin'. Every explanation I can think of for how those two work without lingering magic is extremely silly. So, bad writing by WotC. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

I think the real confusion doesn't come from gate, but just Planar Ally spells. Gate is straightforward. Effect 1, a gated plane shift spell. Or effect 2, a mass planar ally. The thing is Planar Ally is instantaneous.

1. Immediate or Contractual service, and a compulsion effect.

2.The ability to return home for a single time.

Would it be easier to call the compulsion effect, and the one time return trip super natural abilities? They can't be dispelled, but are still considered magic.

rgrekejin
2013-05-07, 01:49 PM
I think the real confusion doesn't come from gate, but just Planar Ally spells. Gate is straightforward. Effect 1, a gated plane shift spell. Or effect 2, a mass planar ally. The thing is Planar Ally is instantaneous.

1. Immediate or Contractual service, and a compulsion effect.

2.The ability to return home for a single time.

Would it be easier to call the compulsion effect, and the one time return trip super natural abilities? They can't be dispelled, but are still considered magic.

In order for it to be something like a magical effect but not actually a magical effect, and also not dispellable, they would have to be something like extraordinary abilities. The Dispel seed can dispel supernatural abilities too.

Codyage
2013-05-07, 02:00 PM
In order for it to be something like a magical effect but not actually a magical effect, and also not dispellable, they would have to be something like extraordinary abilities. The Dispel seed can dispel supernatural abilities too.

Even though the table specifically says, they are immune to it?



Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic.

hamishspence
2013-05-07, 02:09 PM
Seeds are more powerful than the spells they are based on:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/dispel.htm

The dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic. The dispel seed can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells, and it affects spell-like effects just as it affects spells.

Codyage
2013-05-07, 02:25 PM
Seeds are more powerful than the spells they are based on:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/dispel.htm

The dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic. The dispel seed can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells, and it affects spell-like effects just as it affects spells.

Thank you so much. While looking this up I found Seed:Banish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/banish.htm).

So normally, dispel won't remove an extra planar like banishment or dismissal does.

There is a SPECIFIC seed for banishment. So if Dispel can't remove creatures, but Banish can. Is it reasonable to use the same logic that EPIC!Dispel can't remove creatures but EPIC!Banish can? IF Epic!Dispel can do it, whats the point of Epic!Banish?

SaintRidley
2013-05-07, 02:42 PM
Thank you so much. While looking this up I found Seed:Banish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/banish.htm).

So normally, dispel won't remove an extra planar like banishment or dismissal does.

There is a SPECIFIC seed for banishment. So if Dispel can't remove creatures, but Banish can. Is it reasonable to use the same logic that EPIC!Dispel can't remove creatures but EPIC!Banish can? IF Epic!Dispel can do it, whats the point of Epic!Banish?

Well, Dispel can send them away if they're summoned, because summons are ongoing spell effects and normally subject to dispelling. You need an epic spell with the Banish seed if they're called, which means the extraplanar creature is actually present and not basically magically recreated on this plane.

For non-D&D players, the difference between calling and summoning can be very hard to explain, which is probably part of why (in addition to the Giant's most recent post explaining that he's been avoiding referring to rules constructs) the issue has not been raised or explained in the comic.

Codyage
2013-05-07, 03:03 PM
Well, Dispel can send them away if they're summoned, because summons are ongoing spell effects and normally subject to dispelling. You need an epic spell with the Banish seed if they're called, which means the extraplanar creature is actually present and not basically magically recreated on this plane.

For non-D&D players, the difference between calling and summoning can be very hard to explain, which is probably part of why (in addition to the Giant's most recent post explaining that he's been avoiding referring to rules constructs) the issue has not been raised or explained in the comic.

Right, forgot to clarify that. I just used extra planar, but you are correct. Dispel = summon, banish/dismissal = called.

So it makes since that Epic!Dispel can't remove regular called creatures.

Flame of Anor
2013-05-08, 12:16 AM
{SCRUBBED}

ti'esar
2013-05-08, 12:41 AM
{SCRUBBED}

Seconded and then some. I don't remember how this conversation was supposed to be relevant in the first place, but it lost any trace of being so a while back.

Flame of Anor
2013-05-08, 12:55 AM
Seconded and then some. I don't remember how this conversation was supposed to be relevant in the first place, but it lost any trace of being so a while back.

It started with yet another rehashing of the what-level-is-Xykon debate.

Living Oxymoron
2013-05-08, 01:13 AM
It started with yet another rehashing of the what-level-is-Xykon debate.

That is also pointless.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-08, 06:13 AM
Thank you, Flame.

If I may suggest another topic for now: it strikes me that Belkar is listed with 0 ranks in handle animal, listen, search, and sense motive; but none of these are linked to a comic. Can someone tell me why he has no ranks in these skills?

Vargtass
2013-05-08, 06:35 AM
Certainly.

At least for Handle animal, I know it is proven in a bonus strip in Paladin Blues that Belkar does not have ranks in Handle animal, when he tries to have his wiener dog do tricks. He is not even aware of the skill.

Incidently, this is also part of the proof that Mr Scruffy is his animal companion, because Handle animal can be used trained only, and the cat obeys him.

Vargtass

Copperdragon
2013-05-08, 06:49 AM
it strikes me that Belkar is listed with 0 ranks in handle animal, listen, search, and sense motive; but none of these are linked to a comic. Can someone tell me why he has no ranks in these skills?

Because the comic does not make it "probable" that he has any ranks in it and given that I'd say it's the better approach to assume he does not have them unless the comic gives proof othervise.

If you are very strict, you need to remove a statement you cannot proof (and Listen 0 is such a statement).

137beth
2013-05-08, 06:51 AM
The 0 in spot might be referring to #119, which strongly implies (but does not outright say) that he has no ranks in spot. Not sure about listen, though.

Copperdragon
2013-05-08, 06:58 AM
The 0 in spot might be referring to #119, which strongly implies (but does not outright say) that he has no ranks in spot. Not sure about listen, though.

I see the problem that Belkar made like 8 levels since then. So even if he did not have any spot back then, he could have gotten a few ranks by now. Evidence for the old strips can only be valid for things characters do have, I would not say they are reliable for showing stuff characters do not have.

137beth
2013-05-08, 07:00 AM
I see the problem that Belkar made like 8 levels since then. So even if he did not have any spot back then, he could have gotten a few ranks by now. Evidence for the old strips can only be valid for things characters do have, I would not say they are reliable for showing stuff characters do not have.

And it was not really proof to begin with. Yea, unless someone can find something better, I say we remove the "0 ranks in spot/listen/handle animal."

Chronos
2013-05-08, 11:05 AM
Quoth copperdragon:

Evidence for the old strips can only be valid for things characters do have, I would not say they are reliable for showing stuff characters do not have.
This is problematic, though: How old is "old"? Obviously whenever a character levels up, their information can change, but we don't always know every time they level up. Which makes it very difficult to put an upper bound on anything.

Perhaps for situations like that we could say something like "0 ranks as of 117"? That still gives us some information, at least.

Conte_Vincero
2013-05-08, 11:41 AM
Can I just say that as a long time lurker here. I have only posted once due to my lack of DnD knoledge but have immensely enjoyed the debate. However I have a couple of things which I think I should say

{SCRUBBED}

2. I'm not sure that The Giant's post changes anything. It has been known for a long time that homebrew is rife. The goal of this thread has been (as far as I understand) is to try and reconcile The Giant's homebrewed rules with some genuine DnD ones. In the same way that MitD's thead often takes mythalogical creatures and attempts to work out how they would appear in DnD, so we (or rather you) should take the Giant's (non-DnD) characters and attempt to give them DnD stats.

3. The basis for this thread for a long time has been proof, as opposed to ballance of probability. Mage Paradox has been proposing that Occam's razor should be applied so that lists can be gained through ballance of probability. I disagree wholeheartedly. Such a method only serves to increse flame wars as in this case probability is subjective. If there are opposing arguments, then the stat should be given as lowest estimate+ and a reason given. It is the simplest method, as any attempt to give various estimates priority only leads to more argument. If we however do decide to bring Occam's Razor into play, I move to also bring Russel's teapot, Edith's socks and Sarah Palin's Spandex Lederhosen into play as well.

rodneyAnonymous
2013-05-08, 11:51 AM
Since the Giant is actively rejecting D&D...
That seems like an exaggeration. He (grudgingly) follows D&D rules. Just not very carefully, for a while, evidently.


I'm not sure that The Giant's post changes anything.

Agreed.

Copperdragon
2013-05-08, 01:17 PM
This is problematic, though: How old is "old"?

That is why I said "I see this problem", not "I see this problem and suggest this solution". :smalltongue:

Point is: even if it could get concluded from a comic in the #100s that character X does not have class-skill Y, I am very doubtful that conclusion still is solid 800 strips and 8 levels later.

Reddish Mage
2013-05-08, 01:18 PM
That seems like an exaggeration. He (grudgingly) follows D&D rules. Just not very carefully, for a while, evidently.



Agreed.

I'm not sure Rich is really being fast and loose with the rules, but I think he wants us to discuss things from the starting assumption that he MAY be playing fast and loose with the rules and not to challenge the story as being "wrong" on the grounds it doesn't strictly meet D&D standards.

Rich did say he likes this thread because it starts from the story as being a given and then tries to see what D&D rules fit (if any).

I don't know how we can talk about there being "proof" of something though. We can only say we have "strong story-based evidence" for some stat being such at such a point in time. Strong evidence doesn't mean it is strictly probabilistic, it could mean that either 1. the strip explicitly states a stat is as such OR 2. our understanding of the standard rules is that X could not have happened unless a stat was at Y. We could also still apply a principle of conservatism to keep things like "0 ranks in ______" or ranks fewer than _______ once it was established.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-08, 01:32 PM
Perhaps for situations like that we could say something like "0 ranks as of 117"? That still gives us some information, at least.
We actually already do that, since every statement in the top posts is linked to a comic. We have traditionally taken the direction that once somethign is proven in-comic, it remains listed as such until contradicted by a later comic (and a simple mouse-hover shows you which comic the statement is from).

137beth
2013-05-08, 04:19 PM
I'm starting to get the sense that the people on this thread are splitting into 2 groups. Group 1 wants to continue using proof/in-comic verification as the standards for the thread. Group 2 wants to use estimates of what is more likely to increase the precision of character's stats.

Now, we could try debating which of these standards is "correct", as we have been for several pages, but this ultimately will not succeed. The reason is that the two groups have fundamentally different goals for what they think the thread should be. Group 1 wants to see how much of the characters stats can be proven and deduced, using just the information presented in the comic, without error. Group 2 wants to see how precise of an estimate for the characters can be given, making only small and moderate assumptions. These are fundamentally conflicting goals. The two factions cannot settle their disagreement, because they disagree on what kind of a thread they want to have. There is not just a disagreement on the methods used, but on the end goal.

Given that the two factions want to have completely different threads, there is really no reason to try and fail to settle our differences in this one. I'm not going to try and estimate how many people are in each faction, but if group 2 has more than just mage paradox, I strongly encourage someone in group 2 to start another thread, with a different standard focused on estimation of stats, rather than exact bounds. This is not a case of "no 2 threads can have the same purpose", because right now, group two wants a thread with a fundamentally different purpose than group one.

Since this thread has always run off of facts and exact bounds, rather than estimates and probabilistic conjectures, it makes more sense for group 1 to keep this thread and group 2 to start their own (rather than group two taking over this thread and group one starting a new one.) Ultimately, though, no matter what happens to this thread, the two factions will never be able to agree on how to best accomplish the thread's goals, because they disagree on what the goals of the thread are. And that is the point at which we should split into two threads.

The Giant
2013-05-08, 04:39 PM
Locked for review.

The Giant
2013-05-09, 01:52 AM
OK, let's try to deal with some of the issues in this thread:

1.) This is not the thread for debates about what the D&D rules are. If there is of question of rules interpretation that goes beyond 2-3 posts, take it to the D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59). Derailing this thread is spam, and will be infracted.

2.) If this thread does get derailed into a D&D rules debate, the thing to do is report one of the posts—not take it upon yourself to chastise the people involved. That's Vigilante Modding, and is also against the Rules of Posting. Likewise, flaming them is also not a solution and will get you warned or infracted.

3.) As Mark Hall pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12577293&postcount=2) when this thread was reinstated after the last time it needed to be locked, the thread curator (or curators, in this case) are empowered to use democratic methods to resolve disputes, including disputes like what to include or even what the criteria for inclusion should be. In other words, if the thread is getting bogged down by one point, call for a vote. Once that vote is completed, the issue should be considered settled one way or the other and further discussion should be curtailed. This method can be used to keep certain issues from dragging the whole thread down. If someone continues to argue after the issue has been democratically resolved, that poster can be reported.

4.) If anyone wants to start a thread where they devise their own hypothetical stats for OOTS characters without regard to whether it is strictly borne out by the evidence in the comic, they may do so—in the Homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15) forum. Title it something like, "My take on the OOTS characters" or something. Leave this thread for what it has always been—an examination of what is present in the comic.

Now, there are a few more issues I want to address regarding my earlier posts in this thread, but I'll put that in a separate post since I'm sure it will be linked to later.

The Giant
2013-05-09, 03:43 AM
Since the last comic went up, I've made a few statements in response to the topic of the comic's relation to the D&D rules. Since this thread is locked and I have everyone's attention, I wanted to clear a few things up.

1.) Absolutely nothing has changed about the way I write the strip, at least not for the last few years. The post that precipitated my comment that I no longer make explicit statements about what feats or items or whatever was with regards to events in comic #600—which was published in 2008. If you have enjoyed the comic and the level of D&D content for the last five years, then you will continue to enjoy it in the future, because nothing is changing.

2.) I've seen comments (here and in other threads) that this "change" to the comic (which is not really a change) to "move away" from D&D rules will result in utter chaos, and that without the D&D rules to reign me in, I'm just as likely to solve a problem by having, say, Roy fireball the enemy, or Belkar summon a demon. This is ridiculous. Regardless of my adherence to the D&D rules, I am still obligated to adhere to the internal consistency of the story I have already written. Roy does not cast spells; this is already established within the work. It does not matter whether or not the reason he does not cast spells is because the D&D rules say his class shouldn't—it's still been clearly established that he does not. Therefore, he will not be casting any spells in the future unless I also establish, within the comic, that he has gained the ability to do so...which you could then extrapolate to mean that he has multi-classed to a spellcasting class. In other words, any move away from D&D rules will be to make a better story, and having the characters suddenly display heretofore unseen powers would make it a worse story—so I won't be doing it.

3.) Any comments made recently about the comic's adherence to D&D rules should be read in the context of my work being attacked for lack of such adherence. I have said, time and time again, that I bend the rules when I feel like it. Apparently, that hasn't been enough to stop some people from telling me that I'm wrong, that I'm ruining the strip, that I've gone too far, and other such rude and unproductive criticisms. It is personally difficult to read constant criticism over something that I have openly stated I do not consider to be a priority. Thus, I tried to make several increasingly blunt statements in an effort to cut such complaints off at the source. These were, generally speaking, hyperbole. Exaggerations in the heat of the moment for the purpose of stopping childish hairsplitting. If they upset anyone else reading them or tarnished their enjoyment of the comic, I apologize. That was never my intention; they were directed solely at the people to whom I was responding. I understand that 95% or more of my audience does not engage in this sort of posting, and that almost all of the posters who enjoy the D&D aspects of the story do so constructively, without being obsessively critical.

4.) To be perfectly clear: I do not actually wish I could go back and remove D&D from the earlier OOTS strips, nor do I wish for D&D to have no place going forward. What I really want is to write the comic with moderate broad-strokes adherence to the concepts embodied in D&D, and for everyone to get off my back when I get some of the fiddly details wrong, or invent a new thing that doesn't currently exist in the game. But that doesn't seem like it's something that can happen for whatever reason. A lot of people feel the need to proclaim my grievous errors over and over so they can pat themselves on the back publicly. That's very frustrating for me, and demoralizing—and people know this, because I've said it before, and yet they still do it. I don't know how to stop it from happening, because it seems like nothing short of an unambiguous rejection of D&D by me will have any effect. But it is hurting the strip. High stress leads directly to me not being able to work, which leads to delays. If nothing else, it is extremely difficult to write jokes when I'm angry.

5.) As far as this thread goes, or any other attempt to align the events of the comic with D&D, my suggestion is to treat the comic as if it is based on "OOTS RPG," a hypothetical game that is exactly like D&D in every way—except for those ways that the comic shows that it isn't. Everything is D&D until proven otherwise. Because that's sort of how I write it; I use the D&D rules when they fit into the story (and I remember them), and break them when they don't. Thus, you can still extrapolate D&D stats of the characters unless I show something that simply defies the game as written—like Roy casting a fireball. And you can still make predictions about what might happen in the future as if it were all going to unfold according to the D&D rules, as long as you understand that hey, maybe I might fudge that one. And then don't complain if I do.

I love D&D. I love writing about D&D. I still have things that I want to say about D&D, or using D&D as a lens. They are things about alignment and philosophy, storytelling and its place in our lives, the treatment of those different from ourselves, and the meaning of family. I would like to be able to say those things without them getting bogged down in the details of whether or not a character can move more than five feet before executing such-and-such an action. If we can all agree that maybe the details of the rules aren't utterly crucial to the execution of the broader story, then there's no reason that the comic can't continue to explore D&D-related themes and issues. If we can't agree on that, then I'll probably continue to make off-the-cuff poorly conceived statements designed to throttle complaints, and then we're all miserable.

So, now that I've gotten that all off my chest, hopefully this topic can be left to die on its own.

Flame of Anor
2013-05-09, 04:27 AM
So, now that I've gotten that all off my chest, hopefully this topic can be left to die on its own.

We're talking the "angst about whether the comic will follow D&D rules" topic, not the "Class and Level Geekery" topic, right?

The Giant
2013-05-09, 04:29 AM
We're talking the "angst about whether the comic will follow D&D rules" topic, not the "Class and Level Geekery" topic, right?

Yes. The "Class and Level Geekery" topic should continue, albeit with less disruptive posting. Which I have a feeling it will, since not everyone will be rejoining the discussion.

Sunken Valley
2013-05-09, 05:42 AM
Anyone know what Xykon used to kill Mr Scruffy http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html

It's on O-chul's list, Xykon used it against the martyrs, to kill the pixie in SoD and his Huecuva used it to kill one of the Ninja's. It's on the arcane and divine list, non-verbal, and not fireball, scorching ray, flame strike and firestorm.

ANy obscure book?

ReaderAt2046
2013-05-09, 05:49 AM
Anyone know what Xykon used to kill Mr Scruffy http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html

It's on O-chul's list, Xykon used it against the martyrs, to kill the pixie in SoD and his Huecuva used it to kill one of the Ninja's. It's on the arcane and divine list, non-verbal, and not fireball, scorching ray, flame strike and firestorm.

ANy obscure book?

What about Burning Hands? It's the sort of spell a low-level sorcerer would carry, so Xykon could have picked it up early on (same as with Magic Missile) and the effect is a stream of flame shooting out of your hand, which is about right. Plus, Burning Hands is an AoE spell and you can see him torching a bunch of ghosts at once in the martyr battle.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-09, 07:02 AM
Thank you giant for clarafying.

Ok, so can we vote on inculding in ROys stats the following

Mage Slayer (Oots Slight Variant)

I belive that what happened is well within the use of the feat as used in a game if not as RAW, we can even do a double link, Mage Slayer linking to the comic and (Oots Slight Variant) can link to a post about how RAW X should have known he could not cast def.

We already know that Roy is smart and has atleast some Know of spell casting, his dad wanted him to be a wiz, so the 2 ranks in spell craft don't seem out of no where.

We already know Roy has more then a +2 Bab.

There is only 1 feat other then mage slayer that even comes close, and it is Bo9S manevers, and I do not belive that it is even a close second.


problems:

1) Mage slayer does not do more damage
2) Mage slayer is an Op attack not your action
3) It would be more likely it is a homebrew feat

answers:
1) he didn't say it did more damage, just that he killed the huy in one shot, witch seems to be just be flavor...

2) If rich drew Roy taking the 3-5 attacks AND opp attacks it would take up almost half a page per round, and he just can not waste the space. I belive* that he draws the most important part and those of us doing stats need to add the rest in our heads.

3) I belive* If we go down that line of thought then we can easily make everything have that cavett.


Now if someone else has a more likely way to stop the def casting that fits I would love to hear it, but I belive* that just saying "It could be homebrew" is a disservice.

*I say I belive so that no one can say I am assuming everyone agrees with me,

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-09, 07:08 AM
What about Burning Hands? It's the sort of spell a low-level sorcerer would carry, so Xykon could have picked it up early on (same as with Magic Missile) and the effect is a stream of flame shooting out of your hand, which is about right. Plus, Burning Hands is an AoE spell and you can see him torching a bunch of ghosts at once in the martyr battle.

My first thought was produce flame, but burning hands also fits.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-09, 07:40 AM
Ok, so can we vote on inculding in ROys stats the following
I do not think this is a good time for that. This refers to the most recent comic only, and it isn't clear yet how it's going to develop from the illusion the OOTS is apparently in.

Just to be clear: we know that the thread curators (meaning Oceanic and myself) can call a vote on certain matters; that's not new, Mark Hall's post established it a long time ago. That does not mean we will default to settling everything with voting, nor does it mean that anyone in this thread can just "call a vote" whenever they feel like it. If we can resolve issues with consensual discussion, that's also good.

rgrekejin
2013-05-09, 08:06 AM
Anyone know what Xykon used to kill Mr Scruffy http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html

It's on O-chul's list, Xykon used it against the martyrs, to kill the pixie in SoD and his Huecuva used it to kill one of the Ninja's. It's on the arcane and divine list, non-verbal, and not fireball, scorching ray, flame strike and firestorm.

ANy obscure book?

I don't think we can really rely on the spell being non-verbal. It's pretty well established that characters don't have to say the names of their spells if it would interrupt more important in-panel dialogue. I linked to a bunch of examples several pages ago. I also think that, because of this, we can't be sure that the spell Xykon is casting and the spell the Huecuva is casting are the same spell. Personally, I think it's likely that that spell being cast is "generic fire spell". Heck, it might even be a reserve feat, and not a spell at all.

Kazyan
2013-05-09, 08:22 AM
Burning Hands has too large of an area to be what Xykon uses. I think it's best modeled as the Fiery Burst reserve feat--it doesn't have verbal components, is single-target, and being able to casually shoot fire whenever necessary seems very Xykon. We can't tell for sure, but that's my take. Also, it's an illusion, so there's that.

KillianHawkeye
2013-05-09, 09:02 AM
Burning Hands has too large of an area to be what Xykon uses. I think it's best modeled as the Fiery Burst reserve feat--it doesn't have verbal components, is single-target, and being able to casually shoot fire whenever necessary seems very Xykon. We can't tell for sure, but that's my take.

Fiery Burst is not single target, it is a 5-foot radius burst (hence the name). It also does not need to come from the hands, since it can be used at range. The burning hands spell fits a lot better IMO.

CoffeeIncluded
2013-05-09, 10:36 AM
Thank you, Giant. Hopefully we can all move forward from this too. I'd like to tell you to just ignore the vocal minority that can't be pleased by anything, but I also know just how much even a few loud jerks can sting. So instead I'll just say that I, along with presumably most of the posters, love your work and the service you're doing for us. And if you've got to fudge the rules, well every DM does some houseruling. As long as it stays internally consistent I don't see the problem with that at all.

I'd talk more, but I'm a bit pressed for time and frankly shouldn't be on the site right now because of all my work.

137beth
2013-05-09, 10:48 AM
5.) As far as this thread goes, or any other attempt to align the events of the comic with D&D, my suggestion is to treat the comic as if it is based on "OOTS RPG," a hypothetical game that is exactly like D&D in every way—except for those ways that the comic shows that it isn't. Everything is D&D until proven otherwise. Because that's sort of how I write it; I use the D&D rules when they fit into the story (and I remember them), and break them when they don't. Thus, you can still extrapolate D&D stats of the characters unless I show something that simply defies the game as written—like Roy casting a fireball. And you can still make predictions about what might happen in the future as if it were all going to unfold according to the D&D rules, as long as you understand that hey, maybe I might fudge that one. And then don't complain if I do.

I love D&D. I love writing about D&D. I still have things that I want to say about D&D, or using D&D as a lens. They are things about alignment and philosophy, storytelling and its place in our lives, the treatment of those different from ourselves, and the meaning of family. I would like to be able to say those things without them getting bogged down in the details of whether or not a character can move more than five feet before executing such-and-such an action. If we can all agree that maybe the details of the rules aren't utterly crucial to the execution of the broader story, then there's no reason that the comic can't continue to explore D&D-related themes and issues. If we can't agree on that, then I'll probably continue to make off-the-cuff poorly conceived statements designed to throttle complaints, and then we're all miserable.

This is about the best thing I could hope for for the strip. Although I am familiar with the 3.X rules, I know a lot of people who are not, but DO play other table-top RPGs, possibly other editions of D&D. They still find enjoyment in the references to both bigger aspects of the system (e.g. alignment) and references to features common to many games. And these sorts of broad strokes are not enough to hurt the story, IMHO.



Anyone know what Xykon used to kill Mr Scruffy http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html

It's on O-chul's list, Xykon used it against the martyrs, to kill the pixie in SoD and his Huecuva used it to kill one of the Ninja's. It's on the arcane and divine list, non-verbal, and not fireball, scorching ray, flame strike and firestorm.

ANy obscure book?

? What gives you the idea that it is on both the arcane and divine spell list? Or that it is the same spell the huecuva used?

SaintRidley
2013-05-09, 10:58 AM
Thank you giant for clarafying.

Ok, so can we vote on inculding in ROys stats the following

Mage Slayer (Oots Slight Variant)

I belive that what happened is well within the use of the feat as used in a game if not as RAW, we can even do a double link, Mage Slayer linking to the comic and (Oots Slight Variant) can link to a post about how RAW X should have known he could not cast def.

We already know that Roy is smart and has atleast some Know of spell casting, his dad wanted him to be a wiz, so the 2 ranks in spell craft don't seem out of no where.

We already know Roy has more then a +2 Bab.

There is only 1 feat other then mage slayer that even comes close, and it is Bo9S manevers, and I do not belive that it is even a close second.


problems:

1) Mage slayer does not do more damage
2) Mage slayer is an Op attack not your action
3) It would be more likely it is a homebrew feat

answers:
1) he didn't say it did more damage, just that he killed the huy in one shot, witch seems to be just be flavor...

2) If rich drew Roy taking the 3-5 attacks AND opp attacks it would take up almost half a page per round, and he just can not waste the space. I belive* that he draws the most important part and those of us doing stats need to add the rest in our heads.

3) I belive* If we go down that line of thought then we can easily make everything have that cavett.

To #2 - it would seem, and I'm away from my books so I can't check if Mage Slayer does this in 3.5 or not, that Mage Slayer (OotS) allows an Attack of Opportunity even when the caster is casting defensively, which is exactly what we're shown in this illusion. In that event, Mage Slayer and Mage Slayer (OotS) don't differ on point two.

rgrekejin
2013-05-09, 11:27 AM
To #2 - it would seem, and I'm away from my books so I can't check if Mage Slayer does this in 3.5 or not, that Mage Slayer (OotS) allows an Attack of Opportunity even when the caster is casting defensively, which is exactly what we're shown in this illusion. In that event, Mage Slayer and Mage Slayer (OotS) don't differ on point two.

I think the point is that, if the spell-disrupting attack is an attack of opportunity and not Roy's standard action, then why isn't Roy attacking during his own turn in between Xykon's spells? This would suggest that what we're seeing isn't an attack of opportunity, but some kind of readied action.

SaintRidley
2013-05-09, 11:29 AM
I think the point is that, if the spell-disrupting attack is an attack of opportunity and not Roy's standard action, then why isn't Roy attacking during his own turn in between Xykon's spells?

Ah. Well, it would take up too much space. is the best I've got. And it's kind of implied by illusory Xykon going down so quickly that there were other hits between panels.

But I was mostly sticking to the question of the feat, so I wasn't really thinking about that aspect.

Finwe
2013-05-09, 11:49 AM
I think the point is that, if the spell-disrupting attack is an attack of opportunity and not Roy's standard action, then why isn't Roy attacking during his own turn in between Xykon's spells? This would suggest that what we're seeing isn't an attack of opportunity, but some kind of readied action.

I agree. It may require you to ready an action to disrupt, which would make sense, given that proper timing seems to be key.

On the other hand, it could also just be that showing another 3-4 attacks per round would be tedious and/or clutter up the panels.

Nymrod
2013-05-09, 12:13 PM
Considering it is an illusion with a character of fulfillment and that we have not seen Roy successfully use this technique outside it though, shouldn't we wait for an actual use outside the illusion?

By nitpicking, it should not be Mage Slayer since if it was, Xykon should know ahead of time that casting defensively would not work; though this could ofc be a detail the Giant chooses to ignore (or forgets, I had to check Complete Arcane to be sure myself). Indeed I think what Horace was trying to teach could be the Epic feat Spellcasting Harrier, whose errata'd version would be more in line with what we see in the comic (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Spellcasting_Harrier). It would fit better with the illusion as well since it would give Roy a feeling of accomplishment; he suddenly succeeded on something he was less than certain he could manage (and indeed he may could not).

A point in favor of Mage Slayer is that Roy may have the Spellcraft ranks; he has crossclass skills and it would fit with the way he describes fireball to V in SoD.

EmperorSarda
2013-05-09, 12:17 PM
I have a question about Roy's supposed Mage Slayer feat. While it is almost certain that he knows such a feat, I am not sure that may mean he knows how it works. He probably just knows how to use it and the illusion may be filling in the how's, or even some of the what's.

rgrekejin
2013-05-09, 01:37 PM
I have a question about Roy's supposed Mage Slayer feat. While it is almost certain that he knows such a feat, I am not sure that may mean he knows how it works. He probably just knows how to use it and the illusion may be filling in the how's, or even some of the what's.

...what? I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you mean that maybe, in real life, Xykon would know that he can't cast defensively, but in the illusion, he doesn't, because that's not a detail Roy would be aware of?

LuPuWei
2013-05-09, 01:57 PM
Let's keep in mind that this is probably Roy's fantasy illusion, ie, events and timings will show:

a) How Roy expects the move to work and

b) The move working in the most believably ideal way possible

ie, timings and effectiveness are probably grossly exaggerated in this particular script, making them meaningless in considerations of mechanics.

EDIT: Ninja'd, twice...

rodneyAnonymous
2013-05-09, 02:43 PM
By nitpicking, it should not be Mage Slayer since if it was, Xykon should know ahead of time that casting defensively would not work...

Xykon has demonstrated not paying careful attention to the rules (by e.g. using fire and lightning against the ghost martyrs), I am not sure he would know that.

Shale
2013-05-09, 02:50 PM
Bear in mind that when Horace first demonstrated the feat, the spellcaster he used it on didn't seem to know what was coming either. It's not as clear, but it's also more definitive than an idealized illusion.

RunicLGB
2013-05-09, 03:06 PM
If Illusion!Roy is using a readied action there would be no reason for Illusion!Xykon to exclaim that he was casting on the defensive, since you can ready an action to attack someone even if they cast defensively. Casting Defensively only prevents attacks of Opportunity, and since that was Illusion!Xykon's complaint, it implies that the feat is a function of attacks of opportunity. Mage Slayer (or homebrew variation thereof) is the best candidate in this regard.

Either that or Illusion!Xykon doesn't know about readied actions, which might be conceivable from the standpoint that Roy may think Xykon is a moron, regardless of how untrue that is. The Illusion then made that conception into its truth.

137beth
2013-05-09, 03:20 PM
I don't really understand why we keep calling it mage slayer. It is some feat which allows him to counter spells with his sword. IF it works as shown in the illusion (which it may well not), then it is not the same as mage slayer. We could call it "hombrewed variation of mage slayer", but really, shouldn't we just call it "homebrewed anti-spellcasting feat?" A "homebrewed variation of a feat which completely changes the mechanics of the original feat", is really just a new feat, possibly with the same name. Since we have no reason to think that it has the name "mage slayer", why are we calling it such?

SavageWombat
2013-05-09, 03:28 PM
I don't really understand why we keep calling it mage slayer. It is some feat which allows him to counter spells with his sword. IF it works as shown in the illusion (which it may well not), then it is not the same as mage slayer. We could call it "hombrewed variation of mage slayer", but really, shouldn't we just call it "homebrewed anti-spellcasting feat?" A "homebrewed variation of a feat which completely changes the mechanics of the original feat", is really just a new feat, possibly with the same name. Since we have no reason to think that it has the name "mage slayer", why are we calling it such?

Then mark it "Mage Slayer*" with a footnote of some sort. We're not bound to precise rules any more, so we don't need to nitpick. We could also go "Mage Slayer*/(Spellcasting Harrier)" if we want to be inclusive.

The point is that, rules aside, what Roy has is "feat that prevents opposing spellcasters from casting defensively" and that's what Mage Slayer is intended to be.

The only reason I'd consider leaving it off is if we don't have real proof that he's acquired the feat yet - which is arguable. But it's the feat his grandfather tried to teach him.

137beth
2013-05-09, 03:32 PM
Then mark it "Mage Slayer*" with a footnote of some sort. We're not bound to precise rules any more, so we don't need to nitpick. We could also go "Mage Slayer*/(Spellcasting Harrier)" if we want to be inclusive.

The point is that, rules aside, what Roy has is "feat that prevents opposing spellcasters from casting defensively" and that's what Mage Slayer is intended to be.

The only reason I'd consider leaving it off is if we don't have real proof that he's acquired the feat yet - which is arguable. But it's the feat his grandfather tried to teach him.
But it isn't mage slayer. It is a different spell which prevents casters from casting defensively. It is a "generic anti-caster homebrew feat."

Raineh Daze
2013-05-09, 03:54 PM
But it isn't mage slayer. It is a different spell which prevents casters from casting defensively. It is a "generic anti-caster homebrew feat."

Homebrewed Mage Slayer, then. Or 'Improved Mage Slayer'. Or even 'Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer'. At least give it a catchy name. :smalltongue:

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-09, 03:56 PM
But it isn't mage slayer. It is a different spell which prevents casters from casting defensively. It is a "generic anti-caster homebrew feat."

What makes you say it isn't Mage Slayer?

Mage slayer is ment to give you an att of op when a caster tries to cast def to try to disrupt the spell.

Roy attacks even when X casts def and as such disrupts the spell.

If Someone in the comic had a homebrew feat that let them take a negative to hit to raise there AC, we would call it Combat Expertise, becuse that is what combat expertise does...

as I said up thread:


I belive that what happened is well within the use of the feat as used in a game if not as RAW, we can even do a double link, Mage Slayer linking to the comic and (Oots Slight Variant) can link to a post about how RAW X should have known he could not cast def.

We already know that Roy is smart and has atleast some Know of spell casting, his dad wanted him to be a wiz, so the 2 ranks in spell craft don't seem out of no where.

We already know Roy has more then a +2 Bab.

There is only 1 feat other then mage slayer that even comes close, and it is Bo9S manevers, and I do not belive that it is even a close second.


problems:

1) Mage slayer does not do more damage
2) Mage slayer is an Op attack not your action
3) It would be more likely it is a homebrew feat

answers:
1) he didn't say it did more damage, just that he killed the huy in one shot, witch seems to be just be flavor...

2) If rich drew Roy taking the 3-5 attacks AND opp attacks it would take up almost half a page per round, and he just can not waste the space. I belive* that he draws the most important part and those of us doing stats need to add the rest in our heads.

3) I belive If we go down that line of thought then we can easily make everything have that cavett.



Homebrewed Mage Slayer, then. Or 'Improved Mage Slayer'. Or even 'Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer'. At least give it a catchy name. :smalltongue:

I would totaly be fine with 'Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer' or (just my 2 copper) 'Greenhilt's Mage Slayer'

I always felt that 4e missed the buss on making moves for martial characters based on Novel Characters...

Raineh Daze
2013-05-09, 03:58 PM
What makes you say it isn't Mage Slayer?

Mage slayer is ment to give you an att of op when a caster tries to cast def to try to disrupt the spell.

Roy attacks even when X casts def and as such disrupts the spell.

If Someone in the comic had a homebrew feat that let them take a negative to hit to raise there AC, we would call it Combat Expertise, becuse that is what combat expertise does...

as I said up thread:

The spellcaster in question knows if Casting Defensively won't work. Illusion!Xykon didn't. On the other hand, Roy may not know this downside (or it doesn't apply in the illusion), I guess.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-09, 04:01 PM
The spellcaster in question knows if Casting Defensively won't work. Illusion!Xykon didn't. On the other hand, Roy may not know this downside (or it doesn't apply in the illusion), I guess.

I understand that, but I feel that it is perfectly in passing easier for a writer to rule they do not know until they try... becuse to be honnest even in the game it flows better that way.

Morty
2013-05-09, 04:03 PM
The fact that it happened in an illusion is why we shouldn't add it yet. The illusion may well have made it appear more effective than it actually is.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-09, 04:10 PM
The fact that it happened in an illusion is why we shouldn't add it yet. The illusion may well have made it appear more effective than it actually is.

I am new to the thread, and the whole board, and I used to just look at the stats everyonece in a while, so forgive me a dumb quastion.

Is there a reason we can't add it now, and if it shows later to be diffrent, change it then?

I mean I always just assumed there where 'living stats' being adjusted every 4-10 strips...

SaintRidley
2013-05-09, 04:16 PM
I am new to the thread, and the whole board, and I used to just look at the stats everyonece in a while, so forgive me a dumb quastion.

Is there a reason we can't add it now, and if it shows later to be diffrent, change it then?

I mean I always just assumed there where 'living stats' being adjusted every 4-10 strips...

The only reason not to add it now is due to the illusion. Which, unfortunately, introduces a bit too much ambiguity. I think Roy would know his own capabilities (feats, stuff) well enough that if the illusion got one wrong he would save and break out of it, but we can't be sure until we see it outside the illusion.

ReaderAt2046
2013-05-09, 04:20 PM
On the issue of Fiery Burst vs Burning Hands, Two of the three times we see this "whatever fire spell" it's a big flamethrowery burst that hits several targets at once (Hinjo and both ninjas (1 evades) here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html and several ghost-martyrs here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html), which indicates an AOE spell such as Burning Hands. The third time, in the illusion battle, it's a much smaller and more controlled burst, which might indicate a different effect.

tl:dr Xykon may have multiple fire spells, one of which is the AoE Burning Hands. Thus, he may have it but it not by the one he used on Scruffy.

ReaderAt2046
2013-05-09, 04:21 PM
The only reason not to add it now is due to the illusion. Which, unfortunately, introduces a bit too much ambiguity. I think Roy would know his own capabilities (feats, stuff) well enough that if the illusion got one wrong he would save and break out of it, but we can't be sure until we see it outside the illusion.

For that matter, he might have gotten a new save and failed again.

EmperorSarda
2013-05-09, 04:29 PM
...what? I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you mean that maybe, in real life, Xykon would know that he can't cast defensively, but in the illusion, he doesn't, because that's not a detail Roy would be aware of?

Aside from knowing what Xykon may or may not be aware of, I was saying that aside from knowing how to make the feat work (as in when and how to slash), he may not know why it works. The whole "picture the flow of energy around him" may just be bull. Xykon exclaiming that he was casting defensively might have been Roy knowing the feat works like the Mage Slayer feat, or it could have very well been something the illusion provided, such as Redcloak sitting and doing nothing in the forcecage.

Or in other words, aside from Roy knowing that he has the feat, everything else could very well be filled in by the illusion.

Edit: Also Roy says he has an idea, or more of a memory in how to fight Xykon. If Roy had taken the feat, then wouldn't that idea be based on more than a memory?

Kurald Galain
2013-05-09, 04:35 PM
Homebrewed Mage Slayer, then. Or 'Improved Mage Slayer'. Or even 'Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer'. At least give it a catchy name. :smalltongue:
I like that. It drives home the point that this technique has been passed down the Greenhilt family for generations!!!

SaintRidley
2013-05-09, 04:46 PM
I like that. It drives home the point that this technique has been passed down the Greenhilt family for generations!!!

I think you need more sparkles if you're going to crib Alexander Louis Armstrong's catchphrase like that.

http://i.imgur.com/BFSM5.gif

SavageWombat
2013-05-09, 05:14 PM
On the issue of Fiery Burst vs Burning Hands, Two of the three times we see this "whatever fire spell" it's a big flamethrowery burst that hits several targets at once (Hinjo and both ninjas (1 evades) here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html and several ghost-martyrs here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html), which indicates an AOE spell such as Burning Hands. The third time, in the illusion battle, it's a much smaller and more controlled burst, which might indicate a different effect.

tl:dr Xykon may have multiple fire spells, one of which is the AoE Burning Hands. Thus, he may have it but it not by the one he used on Scruffy.

Well, it is an unusual perspective for the comic - maybe the spell is just excessively foreshortened.

Math_Mage
2013-05-09, 07:12 PM
Aside from knowing what Xykon may or may not be aware of, I was saying that aside from knowing how to make the feat work (as in when and how to slash), he may not know why it works. The whole "picture the flow of energy around him" may just be bull. Xykon exclaiming that he was casting defensively might have been Roy knowing the feat works like the Mage Slayer feat, or it could have very well been something the illusion provided, such as Redcloak sitting and doing nothing in the forcecage.

Or in other words, aside from Roy knowing that he has the feat, everything else could very well be filled in by the illusion.

Edit: Also Roy says he has an idea, or more of a memory in how to fight Xykon. If Roy had taken the feat, then wouldn't that idea be based on more than a memory?

Said memory is then supplemented by off-panel training on the Material Plane, which would presumably lead to a firmer foundation than a memory alone.

The illusion is feeding us Roy's impression of how his feat works. It is highly unlikely that he is directly mistaken about that, although he may be mistaken by ignorance about other aspects of the feat (e.g. the feat may function exactly like Mage Slayer, including the part where victims know they can't cast defensively, and Roy just doesn't know that).

Poppy Appletree
2013-05-09, 09:13 PM
Burning Hands has too large of an area to be what Xykon uses. I think it's best modeled as the Fiery Burst reserve feat--it doesn't have verbal components, is single-target, and being able to casually shoot fire whenever necessary seems very Xykon. We can't tell for sure, but that's my take. Also, it's an illusion, so there's that.

Reserve feat was my thought. I forget which book those appear in, is it Complete Mage?

Aldrakan
2013-05-09, 10:47 PM
(e.g. the feat may function exactly like Mage Slayer, including the part where victims know they can't cast defensively, and Roy just doesn't know that).

Sorry but this is confusing me and it's come up a couple times, how does the target of mage slayer know they can't counter it by casting defensively?

Is it that how the feat works is supposed to be obvious to anyone the feat's used on? And if so is Roy displaying the common disdain for sorcerers by believing Xykon's too dumb to know how his magic works and could be disrupted?

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-09, 11:11 PM
Sorry but this is confusing me and it's come up a couple times, how does the target of mage slayer know they can't counter it by casting defensively?

Is it that how the feat works is supposed to be obvious to anyone the feat's used on? And if so is Roy displaying the common disdain for sorcerers by believing Xykon's too dumb to know how his magic works and could be disrupted?

From the rules stand point it is a meta game concept so every wizard is not traped by it. I am unsure if there is an offical in game reason or explanation.

Codyage
2013-05-10, 12:23 AM
This is how I read the scene.

Roy swings at Xykon, Xykon casts Energy drain.

Roy swings again, Xykon casts meteor swarm.

Roy moves back and tells Haley what to do, Xykon kills Mr. Scruffy.

Roy readies action to charge to Xykon once he begins to cast, Xykon goes to cast Energy drain Defensively.

Roy now threatens Xykon, and strikes to finish the charge, Xykon makes the Con check to cast defensively. However Roy uses *Feat* to break the spell, since he was casting defensively.

RC points out that he can't cast defensively, and Xykon must now attempt to cast while provoking the AoO. He can't 5 foot step back, because RC is blocking the path behind him.

Xykon attempts to cast a spell, provokes AoO from Roy because if he casts Defensively it will just fizzle. Rinse and repeat until dead. I believe that Xykon just couldn't make that Concentration check. Because casting a spell while threatened provokes AoO.

I spoiled Roy's damage and how I came to the conclusion on it.

Now, let us assume Xykon has 24 ranks in Concentration. (21 + 3). I am unsure if that can be his max ranks at level 21. He also gets +9 for adding Cha and being undead, since undead lose CON. It is at 33 now. Let me also believe he makes a +20 on the roll. That is 53 to his Constitution check, with what we have so far.

Roy has 13(BaB) + 7(STR) + 5(Weapon) +1* (Weapon Focus) to his attack rolls. He gets a +26 to his attack.

Roy is wielding a great sword. 2d6 averages to 7 damage.

His strength is 24(+7), so lets add +10(1 1/2 of his STR) to the damage. 17 total.

Weapon specialization is +2 so 19 total.

The sword is +5, so 24 damage total.

24 + 10 DC is now 34. Add Xykon's 9th level spells and it is at 43.

That is Roy's average DC of 43 versus Xykon's maximum of 53. Xykon is beating Roy right now. This is also considering Roy won't Power Attack, and his sword doesn't effect undead with any special bonuses.

Roy's maximum however is 74, so he is still beating out Xykon for quite a bit.

If I made a mistake, please correct me. I don't know if 24 is Xykon's max Ranks he can have, or if I made a miscalculation on Roy's end. This is just me guessing.

Copperdragon
2013-05-10, 12:32 AM
Now, let us assume Xykon has 24 ranks in Constitution. (21 + 3). I am unsure if that can be his max ranks at level 21.

Xykon is very probably higher than just 21. And it's "Concentration". I'm also pretty sure he has some other benefits than CON to boost his check (given how he gloats over Vaarsuvius' Glitching his Con(centration) checks in the tower fight and given that "spells" are his most powerful mean to show Power; on the other hand, he's also fizzling away when Soon attacks him).

Anyway, Xykon's base for those check should be higher than 24. Which still does not really change the fact Roy should have a decent chance to disrupt his spellcasting with his "normal" attacks.

Codyage
2013-05-10, 12:39 AM
Xykon is very probably higher than just 21. And it's "Concentration". I'm also pretty sure he has some other benefits than CON to boost his check (given how he gloats over Vaarsuvius' Glitching his Con(centration) checks in the tower fight and given that "spells" are his most powerful mean to show Power; on the other hand, he's also fizzling away when Soon attacks him).

Anyway, Xykon's base for those check should be higher than 24. Which still does not really change the fact Roy should have a decent chance to disrupt his spellcasting with his "normal" attacks.

Thank you very much for that correction! (Was getting CON mixed up in my head.)

I know their are possibly feats and items he may have to raise the check, but have we seen any in the comic? I looked at his feats, and didn't see Combat Casting, but it wouldn't surprise me if Xykon's check is over 24. I was just making an assumption with what I was given with.

RunicLGB
2013-05-10, 12:40 AM
As an undead xykon doesn't get a con boost to concentration, but he could easily have some magical boosts.

Roy's Greatsword damage would be 2d6 (Avg 7) +~7 from Strength (24+ from the op) +5 (magicin the sword) + However much that green glow does for an average hit of around 19 + Green glow and potentially Power Attack. The Concentration DC when taking damage is 10+ damage, so 29 minimum average.

But rulesing the concentration check breaks down for two reasons:

1: Green glow + power attack means we can't actually estimate Roy's damage vs. Xykon

2: Since its the Illusion, it has no real bearing on Xykon's actual concentration.

Codyage
2013-05-10, 12:49 AM
As an undead xykon doesn't get a con boost to concentration, but he could easily have some magical boosts.

Roy's Greatsword damage would be 2d6 (Avg 7) +~7 from Strength (24+ from the op) +5 (magicin the sword) + However much that green glow does for an average hit of around 19 + Green glow and potentially Power Attack. The Concentration DC when taking damage is 10+ damage, so 29 minimum average.

But rulesing the concentration check breaks down for two reasons:

1: Green glow + power attack means we can't actually estimate Roy's damage vs. Xykon

2: Since its the Illusion, it has no real bearing on Xykon's actual concentration.

Since Roy is using a two handed weapon, he adds 1 + 1/2 his STR bonus to the attack. So 7 + 3 is 10.

I made each d6 for the Great sword 3 because that is half of what is possible per die. As for the Concentration check, the level spell he is casting also falls onto it. Since he is casting 9th level spells, it goes up to 40 or 41 depending on the average die roll.

That is with no power attack and no green glow.

Courier6
2013-05-10, 04:23 AM
Now, let us assume Xykon has 24 ranks in Concentration. (21 + 3). I am unsure if that can be his max ranks at level 21.

He has no CON so no bonus there. Let me also believe he makes a +20 on the roll. That is 44 to his Constitution check, with what we have so far.

Roy has 13(BaB) + 7(STR) + 5(Weapon) +1* (Weapon Focus) to his attack rolls. Let us take the 2 off of his weapon for Power attack. Leaving him at +24 to his attack, no roll.

Roy is wielding a great sword. 2d6 averages to 6 damage.

His strength is 24(+7), so lets add +10(1 1/2 of his STR) to the damage. 16 total.

Weapon specialization is +2 so 18 total.

The sword is +5, so 23 damage total.

Now Power attack for +2. It is two handed, so now it is +4 instead. 4 + 23 is 27.

27 damage + the 10 DC makes 37. Also add 9th level spells he is trying to cast for 46.

That is Roy's average DC of 46 versus Xykon's maximum of 44. Chances are good that Xykon will never be able to make that concentration check.

This is also considering Roy won't Power Attack over 2, and his sword doesn't effect undead with any special bonuses.

If I made a mistake, please correct me. I don't know if 24 is Xykon's max Ranks he can have, or if I made a miscalculation. This is just me guessing.

*Fixed the error I made with Weapon Focus.



You are forgetting that as an undead creature Xykon adds his massive Charisma modifier to his concentration check (SRD (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Undead_Type))

Codyage
2013-05-10, 04:54 AM
You are forgetting that as an undead creature Xykon adds his massive Charisma modifier to his concentration check (SRD (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Undead_Type))

I knew that was real! I was looking around for it but couldn't find it under lich. I always forget to check types, and didn't look at undead. Thank you for finding that.

With the +9 to the check now, that makes it 53. He is now 53 against 42 with Roy and no Power attack.

So far, Xykon's maximum possible with the current stats is 53. (If he has items or feats, I will add them as well.)

Roy's maximum not accounting if the green glow does anything. is 74-76, depending if he is level 14 and qualified for a new feat.

He still beats Xykon by at least another 20 points if they are going for maximum possible check, but without the power attack Xykon can beat him now. Still, not looking good for Xykon if that green energy DOES in fact do some damage.

Coat
2013-05-10, 04:59 AM
Just a comment that in my opinion, as well as progressing the story, the Giant is using 886 to show his hand.

He is telling us both what Roy's plan is for defeating Xykon, and how the anti-mage feat he has already let us know about will work - so that when it gets used in an actual conflict, it does not come across as contrived. And leaving us to speculate how it will actually go.

So, personally, I will be very surprised if (A) Roy does not really have the feat, or (B) it works differently to the way it is shown here. How the enemy responds, however, could be very different.

So I would argue that 886 is a good and fair basis for Class and Geekery speculation, but this is a subjective judgement.


My vote would be that it is a modified version of Mage Slayer that doesn't allow the feat user to make other attacks, but increases the concentration DC, both because that fits with what is shown, and because that makes it powerful enough to give a straight fighter a shot at taking down an Epic spellcaster (that being the campaign goal) while still leaving the PC with a whole load of problems to solve to use it effectively - like shutting down support, getting close enough, and stopping the target escaping. Exactly as shown here.

Could we do a calculation of what kind of boost to concentration DC Roy would need, assuming Xykon had picked a couple of the more obvious concentration-boosting feats?

I'm not suggesting we have enough evidence to write up any of this, just enough to make the speculation interesting.

Aldrakan
2013-05-10, 07:15 AM
From the rules stand point it is a meta game concept so every wizard is not traped by it. I am unsure if there is an offical in game reason or explanation.

Ah thank you.

SaintRidley
2013-05-10, 09:17 AM
*snip*

Minor nitpick - average of 2d6 is 7, not 6. So up Roy by one.

137beth
2013-05-10, 11:24 AM
I knew that was real! I was looking around for it but couldn't find it under lich. I always forget to check types, and didn't look at undead. Thank you for finding that.

With the +9 to the check now, that makes it 53. He is now 53 against 42 with Roy and no Power attack.

So far, Xykon's maximum possible with the current stats is 53. (If he has items or feats, I will add them as well.)

Roy's maximum not accounting if the green glow does anything. is 74-76, depending if he is level 14 and qualified for a new feat.

He still beats Xykon by at least another 20 points if they are going for maximum possible check, but without the power attack Xykon can beat him now. Still, not looking good for Xykon if that green energy DOES in fact do some damage.

I'd be pretty surprised if Xykon didn't have concentration-boosting (or at least CHA-boosting) items. WBL is the most important part of power at epic levels.

But yea, we'll probably never know whether he has such an item, since it doesn't have a visible effect. I think it is safe to say that Roy is capable of dealing enough damage to disrupt Xykon's spells, at least part of the time. But we can't really add this, so whatever:smallsmile:

Finwe
2013-05-10, 12:26 PM
I'd be pretty surprised if Xykon didn't have concentration-boosting (or at least CHA-boosting) items. WBL is the most important part of power at epic levels.

But yea, we'll probably never know whether he has such an item, since it doesn't have a visible effect. I think it is safe to say that Roy is capable of dealing enough damage to disrupt Xykon's spells, at least part of the time. But we can't really add this, so whatever:smallsmile:

Soon's smite evil is enough to make Xykon Fizzle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0462.html)

It's hard to place an upper bound on that concentration check, though. For all we know Soon was power attacking with a Holy Devastator.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-10, 12:35 PM
Just a comment that in my opinion, as well as progressing the story, the Giant is using 886 to show his hand.

He is telling us both what Roy's plan is for defeating Xykon, and how the anti-mage feat he has already let us know about will work - so that when it gets used in an actual conflict, it does not come across as contrived. And leaving us to speculate how it will actually go.

So, personally, I will be very surprised if (A) Roy does not really have the feat, or (B) it works differently to the way it is shown here. How the enemy responds, however, could be very different.

So I would argue that 886 is a good and fair basis for Class and Geekery speculation, but this is a subjective judgement.
I agree sort of.

I think the giant is setting up the LG fight Vs the order. I see V not getting back intime for it and it being 3 melee combatants (one with slight spellc asting and one really hurt already) and an archer going against 3 full caster and what ever you consider Nale. I think this whole dream is setting up that ROy is the hero of that fight coming, and by preping to beat X, he can totaly house Z and the vamp lizard.


My vote would be that it is a modified version of Mage Slayer that doesn't allow the feat user to make other attacks, but increases the concentration DC, both because that fits with what is shown, and because that makes it powerful enough to give a straight fighter a shot at taking down an Epic spellcaster (that being the campaign goal) while still leaving the PC with a whole load of problems to solve to use it effectively - like shutting down support, getting close enough, and stopping the target escaping. Exactly as shown here.

I still don't see any reason why straight mage slay (espicaly the bonus to spell save) does not meet what is needed.


Could we do a calculation of what kind of boost to concentration DC Roy would need, assuming Xykon had picked a couple of the more obvious concentration-boosting feats?

roy still has some feats we do not know. He may have gone greater weapon focus and spec, or the mastry series, or any number of other extra damages...

Chronos
2013-05-10, 01:07 PM
I think that the illusion-sequence is probably good enough evidence that Roy has the feat, though it might not be evidence for precisely what the feat does (in particular, it might not be as effective as Roy thinks it is).

And given that there's ambiguity as to whether it's actually Mage Slayer or not, I'd be fine with listing Roy as having "Anti-spellcaster feat", or something like that.

Codyage
2013-05-10, 01:11 PM
I agree sort of.

I think the giant is setting up the LG fight Vs the order. I see V not getting back intime for it and it being 3 melee combatants (one with slight spellc asting and one really hurt already) and an archer going against 3 full caster and what ever you consider Nale. I think this whole dream is setting up that ROy is the hero of that fight coming, and by preping to beat X, he can totaly house Z and the vamp lizard.


I still don't see any reason why straight mage slay (espicaly the bonus to spell save) does not meet what is needed.



roy still has some feats we do not know. He may have gone greater weapon focus and spec, or the mastry series, or any number of other extra damages...

That is why I am trying to figure out as well. Mage Slayer still fits the scene. It forces Xykon to cast and take AoO, because he can no longer cast defensively. As for the first one, I assumed Roy got into threatened range, as Xykon was casting, with a readied action. That way he didn't see it coming.

Roy, and Xykon do have quite the amount of feats, spells, and items. However, from what we know so far, this is the result I have gotten. Roy still comes out on top for maximum possible damage, since Power Attack can be anywhere from 2-26 extra, a huge chunk.

If we know they have anymore feats, items, and what not to change the DC and the check, please let me know. I am trying to be as accurate as possible.

Here is the updated calculations.

Now, let us assume Xykon has 24 ranks in Concentration. (21 + 3). I am unsure if that can be his max ranks at level 21 (Do skill ranks change at Epic Level?) He also gets +9 for adding Cha and being undead, since undead lose CON. It is at 33 now. Let me also believe he makes a +20 on the roll. That is 53 to his Constitution check, with what we have so far.

Roy has 13(BaB) + 7(STR) + 5(Weapon) +1 (Weapon Focus) to his attack rolls. He gets a +26 to his attack. He is hitting hard, so we can leave this.

Roy is wielding a great sword. 2d6 averages to 7 damage.

His strength is 24(+7), so lets add +10(1 1/2 of his STR) to the damage. 17 total.

Weapon specialization is +2 so 19 total.

The sword is +5, so 24 damage total.

24 + 10 DC is now 34. Add Xykon's 9th level spells and it is at 43.

That is Roy's average DC of 43 versus Xykon's maximum of 53. Xykon is beating Roy right now. This is also considering Roy won't Power Attack, and his sword doesn't effect undead with any special bonuses.

Roy's maximum however is 74, so he is still beating out Xykon for quite a bit.

If I made a mistake, please correct me. I don't know if 24 is Xykon's max Ranks he can have, or if I made a miscalculation on Roy's end. This is just me guessing.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-10, 03:57 PM
Here is the updated calculations.

Now, let us assume Xykon has 24 ranks in Concentration. (21 + 3). I am unsure if that can be his max ranks at level 21 (Do skill ranks change at Epic Level?) He also gets +9 for adding Cha and being undead, since undead lose CON. It is at 33 now. Let me also believe he makes a +20 on the roll. That is 53 to his Constitution check, with what we have so far.

Roy has 13(BaB) + 7(STR) + 5(Weapon) +1 (Weapon Focus) to his attack rolls. He gets a +26 to his attack. He is hitting hard, so we can leave this.

Roy is wielding a great sword. 2d6 averages to 7 damage.

His strength is 24(+7), so lets add +10(1 1/2 of his STR) to the damage. 17 total.

Weapon specialization is +2 so 19 total.

The sword is +5, so 24 damage total.

24 + 10 DC is now 34. Add Xykon's 9th level spells and it is at 43.

That is Roy's average DC of 43 versus Xykon's maximum of 53. Xykon is beating Roy right now. This is also considering Roy won't Power Attack, and his sword doesn't effect undead with any special bonuses.

Roy's maximum however is 74, so he is still beating out Xykon for quite a bit.

If I made a mistake, please correct me. I don't know if 24 is Xykon's max Ranks he can have, or if I made a miscalculation on Roy's end. This is just me guessing.



first, well done.

second, lets say X has between 24 (level 21) and 30 (level 27) ranks, and combat casting (+4) with a +9 cha. He can roll 1-20 so his range is 35-63 depending on level and roll,

Roy (if 14 level) hits for 2d6+17 or 4d6+19 (if the green glow really is bane)
so low end with no power attack is 19 high end is 43
lowend with 5pt power attack is 29 high end is 53
low end with full power attack is 47 high end is 71

assumeing that Roy can not afford any power attack (after all X is way out of level range) Roy throw between 19 and 43 damage and with a 9th level spell that is 38-62 DC with X having from a 35-63 for his roll. So worst case for both, X fails on a 1,2,or 3 (about 15% of the time) and best for both X needs a 19.

wow, even 33rd level X xould have spells fail against a mage slayer Roy... that is pretty cool.

137beth
2013-05-10, 04:10 PM
wow, even 33rd level X xould have spells fail against a mage slayer Roy... that is pretty cool.

By level 33, characters can expect to get 274000 gold per encounter. It costs only 90,000 gold to get a magic item giving +30 to concentration. That's without counting feats or Cha-boosting items. So it is extremely unlikely that Roy would have any way to disrupt a level 33 Xykon's spells. Of course, if Xykon's build/items really, really suck, it is possible (and we don't really know that Roy even could disrupt Xykon's spells, since he has no way of knowing Xykon's concentration...)

EDIT: wait, WBL is based on ECL, not hit-dice or class levels. So even if Xykon were only level 21, he would have the WBL of a level 25. By those levels, any caster who doesn't have items boosting their core skills is really terrible (not to mention items boosting cha, his most important stat...)

Rakoa
2013-05-10, 04:16 PM
By those levels, any caster who doesn't have items boosting their core skills is really terrible (not to mention items boosting cha, his most important stat...)

It can't exactly be assumed that because most casters have certain items at this point that Xykon does, can it?

137beth
2013-05-10, 04:19 PM
It can't exactly be assumed that because most casters have certain items at this point that Xykon does, can it?

Never said it did. It just also can't be assumed that Xykon doesn't have something.

Rakoa
2013-05-10, 04:24 PM
Never said it did. It just also can't be assumed that Xykon doesn't have something.

I never said you said it did. But it has never been mentioned that Xykon has anything to boost Concentration in the comic. It would also be pretty difficult to say for sure that Durkon doesn't have 20 intellect. Given that it hasn't come up in the comic, though, it's better and easier to assume that he doesn't. The same can be said for Xykon here.

Math_Mage
2013-05-10, 04:50 PM
I never said you said it did. But it has never been mentioned that Xykon has anything to boost Concentration in the comic. It would also be pretty difficult to say for sure that Durkon doesn't have 20 intellect. Given that it hasn't come up in the comic, though, it's better and easier to assume that he doesn't. The same can be said for Xykon here.

We have solid narrative evidence that Durkon is not hyperintelligent, even in the absence of explicit rules evidence or statements that his intelligence is <20. It would be extremely surprising for us to learn that Durkon has an Int of 20. Xykon, meanwhile, has been shown to be extremely charismatic, even though he isn't exactly trying to be. It would be extremely unsurprising for us to learn that Xykon has an item that boosts his Cha significantly. Two unproven claims are not equally unlikely.

Does this mean we assume Xykon has such an item by default? No. But we don't bother calculating Durkon's capabilities under the hypothetical scenario that Durkon has 20 Int, because common sense tells us that's an absurd scenario. We DO bother calculating Xykon's capabilities under the hypothetical scenario that Xykon has a Cha-boosting item, because common sense tells us that's an utterly ordinary scenario.

SinsI
2013-05-10, 04:54 PM
By level 33, characters can expect to get 274000 gold per encounter. It costs only 90,000 gold to get a magic item giving +30 to concentration. That's without counting feats or Cha-boosting items. So it is extremely unlikely that Roy would have any way to disrupt a level 33 Xykon's spells. Of course, if Xykon's build/items really, really suck, it is possible (and we don't really know that Roy even could disrupt Xykon's spells, since he has no way of knowing Xykon's concentration...)

EDIT: wait, WBL is based on ECL, not hit-dice or class levels. So even if Xykon were only level 21, he would have the WBL of a level 25. By those levels, any caster who doesn't have items boosting their core skills is really terrible (not to mention items boosting cha, his most important stat...)

You forgot Epic multiplier of 10 for items boost beyond +5, so it is 900,000 gold.

Oh, and if he wants to create such an item (and who else would make one for him?), he'd need to be level 32 for Forge Epic Ring or level 24 for Craft Epic Wondrous Item (26 ranks + feat). If he is only 21-23, he might not have the necessary means of creating it. 19000 XP for a Lich is also hard to come by...

We can assume he has +5, but not +30...

RunicLGB
2013-05-10, 05:19 PM
I hope you all aren't basing Xykon's estimated WBL according to the chart on page 209 of DMG, cuz that's for player characters, not NPCs who would receive significantly less. Is there a chart somewhere for Epic NPC WBL?

137beth
2013-05-10, 06:39 PM
You forgot Epic multiplier of 10 for items boost beyond +5, so it is 900,000 gold.

Oh, and if he wants to create such an item (and who else would make one for him?), he'd need to be level 32 for Forge Epic Ring or level 24 for Craft Epic Wondrous Item (26 ranks + feat). If he is only 21-23, he might not have the necessary means of creating it. 19000 XP for a Lich is also hard to come by...

We can assume he has +5, but not +30...

???
No. Non-epic items can give skill boosts up to +30. You are thinking of ability score boosts...or damage/armor boosts, which are capped for nonepic at +5. Skill boosts go to +30, and are common even in a high level nonepic game.

dsollen
2013-05-10, 06:47 PM
Lurker alert

First time posting on this thread, or anywhere for awhile. All I know about D&D has come from reading this comic and peaking at the forums; so I'm no master. However, The math for the XP done for roy struck me as odd, so I did some quick googling of D&D formulas makes me think that Haley should be at least level 16, at least if my limited understanding of D&D is correct?

My logic is a combination of the justification of Roy's level and Haleys current known level. She was level 15 (at least) here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0615.html

Roy is calculated as at least level 13 because of xp gained as calculated here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14840772&postcount=758

In the Roy xp gain calculations he gained a total of 11520 xp from when he was revived to essentially the current period of time. Of all the fights listed the only one Haley didn't participate in was the Roy vs Thog fight. So Haley gained 9120 xp at minimum during this period.

However, Haley was level 15, with feat, *during* the battle with the thieves guild. Since you can only go up after a rest in OOTS that means she was 15 before the theives guild battle started and all the XP she gained during it counts towards her next level, as well as all the other battles she had before Roy was raised.

We Know Crystal is same level as haley (assume 15): http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0581.html

And Bozzack is four levels higher then that (assume 19)
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0609.html

She defeated Bozzack with the help of Belkar (level 15). I believe this alone gives her 6750 XP (if my understanding of the rules are right?). Combined with the 9120 already calculated for For Roy and she should has already gained 15,870; just barely putting her at level 16.

In addition she also faught:
* a hand ful of other rouges, seemed to be at least a decent ECL
* Crystal once before she was chased away by Bozzack, Belkar finished her; not sure how XP is shared here.
* Crystal again, alone, when she ambushed her in the bath. (4500 xp?)
* Whatever fighting happened during recovery of Roy's body
* any XP she may get for beating all the traps in their current dungeon.

If my limited D&D understanding is correct she is more then 1/3 of the way to 17th level by now; or at least by the time she gets to rest and gain her level up.

Steven
2013-05-11, 01:13 AM
I wasn't aware that people had to rest to level up... Didn't Belkar gain a level in the middle of a fight once? He lost it again straight away so it could just be the rule of funny but yeah....

Flame of Anor
2013-05-11, 02:09 AM
I wasn't aware that people had to rest to level up... Didn't Belkar gain a level in the middle of a fight once? He lost it again straight away so it could just be the rule of funny but yeah....

I think that "ding" just meant that he had gained enough experience at that point. He didn't know yet what class he would take it as, so he clearly hadn't actually taken the level.

zimmerwald1915
2013-05-11, 04:00 AM
However, The math for the XP done for roy struck me as odd
As the guy who did that math, it's probably incumbent upon me to answer :smallbiggrin:

The difference between Roy and literally everyone else in the comic is that we can track his XP from a definite starting point. We know from the Giant's recent clarification that the strip operates on D&D 3.5 rules except when it visibly deviates from them on-panel (at which point that deviation becomes just as much a physical law of the universe as the rest of the D&D 3.5 ruleset). Roy's resurrection did not deviate in any observable way from the text of the Resurrection spell, so it is in line with that general guideline that the spell worked as printed: it brought Roy back to life with exactly half the XP needed to level from 12 to 13. That being a definite number, we can add up the XP he would get over his encounters since being raised (and he almost certainly has more XP than I gave him) to arrive at a minimum "present" XP total.

Haley's a different matter. We don't know how far into level 15 she was at Old Blind Pete's house, so we could only be sure she had leveled to 16 by either identifying a new rogue Special Ability or by counting the full 15,000 XP she would need to reach from 105,000 XP (the minimum needed to reach level 15) to 120,000 XP (the minimum needed to reach level 16). We don't know the CR of any of the rogues other than Bozzok or Crystal. Indeed, following the same rules we did for Roy, where I gave his opponents the minimum CR, we'd have to peg just about everybody except Bozzok, Crystal, Chuck, and Jenny, as CR 1/2. Bozzok would be CR 18, Crystal CR 14, Chuck CR 9, and Jenny CR 2.

The Bozzok/Crystal vs. Belkar/Celia/Haley encounter would be 1 CR 18 and 1 CR 14 opponents vs. 1 ECL 14, 1 ECL 8 (3 HD + 5 LA), and 1 ECL 15 characters. Haley would gain 5,500 XP from that encounter, while Belkar would gain 7,000 and Celia would gain 6,400. Why Celia gets fewer XP than Belkar I don't know...point is, that's far from the 15,000 required to peg Haley at level 16.

Furthermore, as one gets higher level in 3.5, one receives fewer XP for the same encounter, until it is incapable of granting one XP. To illustrate, while Roy (level 12) earned 1,200 encounter XP from the time he was resurrected to the time the party left the desert (strips 666-698), Haley earned 391 XP from the exact same encounters. To illustrate further, Roy gained 7,920 XP from the Linear Guild ambush, while Haley gained 3,300. Adding this 3,300 to the 5,500 from the Bozzok/Crystal fight still doesn't put Haley into level 16 for certain.

A more meticulous analysis of the encounters since Haley revealed she was level 15 might indeed push her over the mark to 16. But frankly it's a very large time investment and the method the thread has historically used - keeping a weather eye for new character abilities - is more fun than doing a bunch of math.

Codyage
2013-05-11, 04:47 AM
I noticed something about Mr.Scruffy that we don't have, and something different for Hinjo.

WXP Spoiler

Mr. Scruffy's age in the book is listed as 6, and Hinjo's age is listed as 23. I noticed Mr.Scruffy doesn't have one ,and Hinjo's is 26. Is there a reason for this?

zimmerwald1915
2013-05-11, 04:58 AM
But frankly it's a very large time investment and the method the thread has historically used - keeping a weather eye for new character abilities - is more fun than doing a bunch of math.
...I lied. Doing a bunch of math is fun. For instance, here's a table showing that Belkar's eleventh and twelfth levels must have been gained via roleplaying and story awards, since he gained nowhere near the 11,000 XP required to level from 10 to 11 through fights by strip 249. Even giving the ogres who captured the dirt farmer a bunch of class levels doesn't nearly make up the total required to prove he leveled at some point via XP derived from fights.

{table=head]Strip|Encounter Description|Individual CRs and ECLs of Combatants|XP Gained|Total XP Gained
133|Kuurkk the Anemic, Lokor the Chronically Insecure, and Hak-Tonog the Moderately Incontinent vs. Belkar|3 CR 1/2 creatures vs. 1 ECL 10 character|0|0
143|2 ogres vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius|2 CR 3 creatures vs. 6 ECL 10 characters|83|83
151|3 bandits vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius|3 CR 1 creatures vs. 6 ECL 10 characters|0|83
161|Samantha, Samantha's father, bandit executioner, 11 bandits vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius|1 CR 11 creature + 1 CR 1/2 creature + 12 CR 1/3 creatures vs. 6 ECL 10 characters|750|833
175|green hag wizard 9 vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius|1 CR 11 creature vs. 6 ECL 10 characters|750|1,583
180|chasm vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius|1 CR 2 trap vs. 6 ECL 10 characters|0|1,583
181|young adult black dragon vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, and Vaarsuvius|1 CR 9 creature vs. 5 ECL 10 characters + 1 ECL 11 character|333|1,916
215|15 ogres vs. Roy, Belkar, Durkon, Elan, Haley, Vaarsuvius, and Miko|15 CR 3 creature vs. 4 ECL 10 characters + 2 ECL 11 characters + 1 ECL 12 character|536|2,452
230|Phil Rodriguez vs. Belkar|1 CR 1/3 creature vs. 1 ECL 10 character|0|2,452[/table]

SinsI
2013-05-11, 05:03 AM
???
No. Non-epic items can give skill boosts up to +30. You are thinking of ability score boosts...or damage/armor boosts, which are capped for nonepic at +5. Skill boosts go to +30, and are common even in a high level nonepic game.
Source, please. +30 for non-epics is absolutely ridiculous - it makes Intelligence and skill points completely irrelevant: as long as the skill is trained, you won't fail it. There might be some potions and other consumable items that give such a boost, but they are a different kind of thing (and I doubt a Lich can use Potions).

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Skill_Boosting_Items_(3.5e_Other)

Ordinary items seems to have a maximum skill boost value of +10, so I'd consider that to be the the limit.

With that, we can assume that Xykon gets +10 from Competence bonus, and additional +3 from stat boosting items.

Nymrod
2013-05-11, 05:26 AM
Source, please. +30 for non-epics is absolutely ridiculous - it makes Intelligence and skill points completely irrelevant: as long as the skill is trained, you won't fail it. There might be some potions and other consumable items that give such a boost, but they are a different kind of thing (and I doubt a Lich can use Potions).

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Skill_Boosting_Items_(3.5e_Other)

Ordinary items seems to have a maximum skill boost value of +10, so I'd consider that to be the the limit.

With that, we can assume that Xykon gets +10 from Competence bonus, and additional +3 from stat boosting items.

ELH page 123

[snip] is an epic item:
Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +30.

Since an item is epic if it grants a bonus greater than +30, stands to reason that if it grants a bonus of +30 or below, it is non-epic.
Ofc, DMG 3.5 did not clarify this but neither did it set an upper bound for skill bonuses. +15 is the highest that appears in it. In DMG 3.0 the Ring of Jumping granted a +30 competence bonus to Jump checks but that got changed in 3.5 (indeed the entire cost of competence bonus to skill checks got changed).

While by RAW the upper bound would be +30 I think RAI 3.5 wanted this lowered to +15. However no errata or updated rules were provided to ELH's magic item chapter and thus it remains cannon into 3.5; also counting spells like glibness you'd get a similar result of +30 max (If I wanted to make a use-activated item granting glibness it'd cost 3*7*2000*1.5=63,000, less even than an item granting a +30 competence bonus to bluff that costs 30^2*100=90,000)

I'm with you man, +30 on skills is ridiculous but this thread goes by RAW.

SinsI
2013-05-11, 05:50 AM
ELH page 123

[snip] is an epic item:
Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +30.

Since an item is epic if it grants a bonus greater than +30, stands to reason that if it grants a bonus of +30 or below, it is non-epic.
Ofc, DMG 3.5 did not clarify this but neither did it set an upper bound for skill bonuses. +15 is the highest that appears in it. In DMG 3.0 the Ring of Jumping granted a +30 competence bonus to Jump checks but that got changed in 3.5 (indeed the entire cost of competence bonus to skill checks got changed).

While by RAW the upper bound would be +30 I think RAI 3.5 wanted this lowered to +15. However no errata or updated rules were provided to ELH's magic item chapter and thus it remains cannon into 3.5; also counting spells like glibness you'd get a similar result of +30 max (If I wanted to make a use-activated item granting glibness it'd cost 3*7*2000*1.5=63,000, less even than an item granting a +30 competence bonus to bluff that costs 30^2*100=90,000)

I'm with you man, +30 on skills is ridiculous but this thread goes by RAW.

Ah, found it. You are mistaken - it is one of the limits that instantly makes the item Epic, but not the criteria "anything without it is NOT epic". (so a potion that gives a +30 or more is an Epic potion). Note that if an item is Epic (due to i.e. having a cost of more than 200,000 gold), it doesn't mean it automatically gets the cost multiplier.
The one and only one criteria for x10 cost is "grants a bonus beyond those allowed in the DMG".

For items listed in the DMG, the maximum competence bonus is 10, so anything stronger than that must be more expensive.

And it says Enchancement bonus (potions or the like?), while skill boosting items grant Competence one...

Nymrod
2013-05-11, 05:56 AM
Ah, found it. You are mistaken - it is one of the limits that instantly makes the item Epic, but not the criteria "anything without it is NOT epic". (so a potion that gives a +30 or more is an Epic potion). Note that if an item is Epic (due to i.e. having a cost of more than 200,000 gold), it doesn't mean it automatically gets the cost multiplier.
The one and only one criteria for x10 cost is "grants a bonus beyond those allowed in the DMG".

For items listed in the DMG, the maximum competence bonus is 10, so anything after that is more expensive.

And it says about Enchancement bonus (potions or the like?), and skill boosting items grant Competence one...

The DMG does not specify maximum bonuses for all applicable item creation formulae. It has no set maximum for competence bonus on skill checks for certain and the greatest number that appears on items is +15 not +10 (granting Greater Shadow to an armor grants a +15 bonus and costs +37500 gp; doesn't even increase the armor total enhancement bonus). Lacking any explicitly defined upper bound in DMG and provided a clear lower bound in the ELH, I think my interpretation has more merit logically.

The Magic Item Compendium actually includes:
Boots of Jumping, which can grant a +20 competence bonus to Jump once per day

As for the issue with granting an enhancement instead of a competence bonus, that particular ambiguity is all over. We have competence, enhancement and insight bonus to skill checks all over 3.5 magic items. At worst you could go ahead and make a +15 competence, +15 enhancement, +15 insight bonus to Concentration and Spellcraft item and still stay within the rules as you see them.

SinsI
2013-05-11, 06:28 AM
The DMG does not specify maximum bonuses for all applicable item creation formulae. It has no set maximum for competence bonus on skill checks for certain and the greatest number that appears on items is +15 not +10 (granting Greater Shadow to an armor grants a +15 bonus). Lacking any explicitly defined upper bound in DMG and provided a clear lower bound in the ELH, I think my interpretation has more merit logically.
If it is not specifically listed, it should be equivalent to the maximum listed for the items described.
So for magic arms and armor it is +15, for wondrous items it is +10. Nowhere near +30.

Since Xykon is not wearing armor, his best possible non-epic item is still +10.

Otherwise, if reading it "RAW", it means a magic item can have ANY competence bonus at all for the usual basic price with no cost multiplier, not just +30 (because that is for "enchancement" bonus, not "competence", and is only a criteria for considering it "Epic", but not a criteria for giving it the cost multiplier).

Nymrod
2013-05-11, 06:40 AM
If it is not specifically listed, it should be equivalent to the maximum listed for the items described.
So for magic arms and armor it is +15, for wondrous items it is +10. Nowhere near +30.

Since Xykon is not wearing armor, his best possible non-epic item is still +10.

Otherwise, if reading it "RAW", it means a magic item can have ANY competence bonus at all for the usual basic price with no cost multiplier, not just +30 (because that is for "enchancement" bonus, not "competence").
By this logic an item that is +31 is epic, an item that is +10 is non-epic and an item that is +11 is?

And as an aside, shouldn't Xykon be listed as having at least one EPIC crafting feat? Since by 653 he has crafted an item that grants fire immunity and that is an epic effect (which incidentally raises his minimum level to 23)?

SinsI
2013-05-11, 07:06 AM
By this logic an item that is +31 is epic, an item that is +10 is non-epic and an item that is +11 is?
Epic and "x10 cost" don't always come together. If an item received the x10 cost treatment it usually costs more than 200,000 gold, so it is Epic, but you can have Epic items that have multiple smaller bonuses bound together -with no x10 multiplier - just because their total worth is greater that 200,000 gold.



And as an aside, shouldn't Xykon be listed as having at least one EPIC crafting feat? Since by 653 he has crafted an item that grants fire immunity and that is an epic effect (which incidentally raises his minimum level to 23)?
There are many ways to get such immunity or near-immunity with non-epic effects (i.e. even a simple ring of Greater Energy Resistance almost completely protects you from it).

Nymrod
2013-05-11, 07:27 AM
Epic and "x10 cost" don't always come together. If an item received the x10 cost treatment it usually costs more than 200,000 gold, so it is Epic, but you can have Epic items that have multiple smaller bonuses bound together -with no x10 multiplier - just because their total worth is greater that 200,000 gold.


There are many ways to get such immunity or near-immunity with non-epic effects (i.e. even a simple ring of Greater Energy Resistance almost completely protects you from it).

A ring of greater energy resistance gives you 30 resistance. Dude took a meteor swarm to the face while grappled. That would do way more than 30 fire damage (he'd take the full 8d6 bludgeoning +24d6 fire for which he'd have to save with no dexterity bonus; oh and he had just taken an empowered sunburst to the head, that's 25d6*1,5 by itself and 2d6+12 from the crushing hand). If he had no fire immunity he should most likely have died by his own spell. And that is all discounting the fact that he explicitly says immunity.

Also an item that costs over 200k is not automatically epic; look at the staff of power.

HardcoreD&Dgirl
2013-05-11, 08:09 AM
WHy are we arrgueing rules that have no in story need? If X has an item that boosts cocetration, we will find out next time he fights ROy, until then we have NO REASON to think he is.

I have played in many 3.5 epic games that no one ever had +30 items to any skill. Infact I can only name 1 cohort that ever needed any boost to a skill bad enough for us to craft such a thing, and that was when we all were useing epic casting, and a lower level cohort got a ring of +15 spell craft that also worked as a ring of wizardry 1,2,&3, and granted him a +1 untyped bonus to attack rolls for spells. (and boy did the DM charge us a ton for that)

On the other hand I can count on 1 hand and have fingers left the number of casters I have seen make it to 8th level with out atleast 1 pearl of power. When I play I routinly look for them as early as character creation. That doesn't mean I can assume V or Z or Red cloake has them... although if they were my PC or NPC they would...

My numbers where a non optimized Roy could disrupt a 33rd level X spell is correct, as of what we know.


Heck if I was designing Red Cloak myself, I would make that cloak count as a Belt of Magnifacence +6, and 5 wish spells to Wisdom just so my goblin cleric was top tier badass, but that doesn't mean I assume the giant did...

Nymrod
2013-05-11, 08:45 AM
WHy are we arrgueing rules that have no in story need? If X has an item that boosts cocetration, we will find out next time he fights ROy, until then we have NO REASON to think he is.

I have played in many 3.5 epic games that no one ever had +30 items to any skill. Infact I can only name 1 cohort that ever needed any boost to a skill bad enough for us to craft such a thing, and that was when we all were useing epic casting, and a lower level cohort got a ring of +15 spell craft that also worked as a ring of wizardry 1,2,&3, and granted him a +1 untyped bonus to attack rolls for spells. (and boy did the DM charge us a ton for that)

On the other hand I can count on 1 hand and have fingers left the number of casters I have seen make it to 8th level with out atleast 1 pearl of power. When I play I routinly look for them as early as character creation. That doesn't mean I can assume V or Z or Red cloake has them... although if they were my PC or NPC they would...

My numbers where a non optimized Roy could disrupt a 33rd level X spell is correct, as of what we know.


Heck if I was designing Red Cloak myself, I would make that cloak count as a Belt of Magnifacence +6, and 5 wish spells to Wisdom just so my goblin cleric was top tier badass, but that doesn't mean I assume the giant did...

Still, I'd reckon that my point about Xykon being able to craft epic items stands; fire immunity is an epic effect for magic items. That let's us set a better lower limit to his level.

Chronos
2013-05-11, 09:16 AM
Quoth zimmerwald1915:

Indeed, following the same rules we did for Roy, where I gave his opponents the minimum CR, we'd have to peg just about everybody except Bozzok, Crystal, Chuck, and Jenny, as CR 1/2. Bozzok would be CR 18, Crystal CR 14, Chuck CR 9, and Jenny CR 2.
Just to nitpick, most of the mooks are known to be rogues, and thus have at least one level in a PC class, and thus are CR 1. Jenny, meanwhile, has levels in at least three different PC classes (she's a bard/rogue/sorcerer), and thus must be at least level 3 and CR 3. The point remains, though, that that's still low enough that Haley would get negligible or no experience from them.

Nymrod, Xykon didn't take the bludgeoning damage from the Meteor Swarm, since it was aimed at the grasping hand, not at him. And each meteor does only 6d6 damage, which will only very rarely be more than the 30 resistance you can get from a nonepic item. Even if he rolled unusually high, it'd still probably only be a couple of points of damage leaking through, negligible for someone with well over a hundred HP.

SinsI
2013-05-11, 09:29 AM
A ring of greater energy resistance gives you 30 resistance. Dude took a meteor swarm to the face while grappled. That would do way more than 30 fire damage (he'd take the full 8d6 bludgeoning +24d6 fire for which he'd have to save with no dexterity bonus; oh and he had just taken an empowered sunburst to the head, that's 25d6*1,5 by itself and 2d6+12 from the crushing hand). If he had no fire immunity he should most likely have died by his own spell. And that is all discounting the fact that he explicitly says immunity.

Also an item that costs over 200k is not automatically epic; look at the staff of power.

Greater energy resistance reduces fire damage from each spere separately.
It is 4x (6d6 - 30), so on average it would deal him 0.06 damage. Even in the worst case it is only 24 damage.

137beth
2013-05-11, 09:46 AM
Still, I'd reckon that my point about Xykon being able to craft epic items stands; fire immunity is an epic effect for magic items. That let's us set a better lower limit to his level.

No, it isn't, as established through numerous pages of arguing in the previous thread, fire immunity can be gained on a nonepic magic item.


Ah, found it. You are mistaken - it is one of the limits that instantly makes the item Epic, but not the criteria "anything without it is NOT epic". (so a potion that gives a +30 or more is an Epic potion). Note that if an item is Epic (due to i.e. having a cost of more than 200,000 gold), it doesn't mean it automatically gets the cost multiplier.
The one and only one criteria for x10 cost is "grants a bonus beyond those allowed in the DMG".

For items listed in the DMG, the maximum competence bonus is 10, so anything stronger than that must be more expensive.

And it says Enchancement bonus (potions or the like?), while skill boosting items grant Competence one...
Anything without any of those criteria is nonepic. Having any single one of those criteria makes it epic, and any of those criteria EXCEPT the total cost gives a x10 to cost. An item that did nothing but give +30 to a skill would therefore be nonepic.


...I lied. Doing a bunch of math is fun. For instance, here's a table showing that Belkar's eleventh and twelfth levels must have been gained via roleplaying and story awards, since he gained nowhere near the 11,000 XP required to level from 10 to 11 through fights by strip 249. Even giving the ogres who captured the dirt farmer a bunch of class levels doesn't nearly make up the total required to prove he leveled at some point via XP derived from fights.
Why couldn't Belkar have gained levels from off-panel combat encounters?

rgrekejin
2013-05-11, 09:49 AM
I'd just like to point out that we've actually seen a Ring of Jumping +20 in this comic, and given the characters' ho-hum reactions to it, I'd say there's a pretty low chance it was an Epic item. Just sayin'.

Kazyan
2013-05-11, 10:10 AM
Just to nitpick, most of the mooks are known to be rogues, and thus have at least one level in a PC class, and thus are CR 1. Jenny, meanwhile, has levels in at least three different PC classes (she's a bard/rogue/sorcerer), and thus must be at least level 3 and CR 3. The point remains, though, that that's still low enough that Haley would get negligible or no experience from them.

Even more nitpickery: Jenny used Inspire Competence to help get through the barred door, so she's a Bard 3 at least. CR 5.

zimmerwald1915
2013-05-11, 03:24 PM
Even more nitpickery: Jenny used Inspire Competence to help get through the barred door, so she's a Bard 3 at least. CR 5.
Where does CR 5 come from? I thought humanoids with class levels had CR = class level - 1.

Kazyan
2013-05-11, 03:26 PM
Where does CR 5 come from? I thought humanoids with class levels had CR = class level - 1.

Really? I thought it was CR = class level. (My posts always have something wrong with them.)

RunicLGB
2013-05-11, 04:01 PM
Humans with NPC Class Levels have CR = to NPC Class levels -1, but jenny had Player Class levels so that's irrelevant.

Humans with Player Class levels have CR= to Player class levels, so Jenny with Bard3/Rogue1/Sorcerer1 would have 5 levels and be CR 5.

SavageWombat
2013-05-11, 10:20 PM
Humans with NPC Class Levels have CR = to NPC Class levels -1, but jenny had Player Class levels so that's irrelevant.

Humans with Player Class levels have CR= to Player class levels, so Jenny with Bard3/Rogue1/Sorcerer1 would have 5 levels and be CR 5.

This is the official rules statement. In practice, it works out more like CR-1, which is why Pathfinder revised it to that.

Emanick
2013-05-11, 10:39 PM
This is the official rules statement. In practice, it works out more like CR-1, which is why Pathfinder revised it to that.

Why is that? Surely there's no mechanical difference between, say, a PC Wizard 9 and an NPC Wizard 9?

rodneyAnonymous
2013-05-11, 10:44 PM
Why is that?

The question is not whether the character is a PC or NPC, it is whether their class is a PC class or not. (Also known as "class levels", because NPC classes like expert or noble are often not considered "real" classes.) Wizard is a PC class.

A PC with 9 levels in Wizard has the same Challenge Rating as an NPC with 9 levels in Wizard: mechanically, no difference.

137beth
2013-05-12, 12:08 AM
Why is that? Surely there's no mechanical difference between, say, a PC Wizard 9 and an NPC Wizard 9?

At low levels, it makes sense to have CR=level. At higher levels, the fact that NPCs get a lower WBL than PCs takes a serious toll. At epic levels, NPCs are not much better than they were at level 20, while the PC's power continues to improve exponentially faster from magic items. Ultimately, if you want to assign NPCs an accurate challenge rating based on their level, it cannot simply be level-X, for a constant X. However, RAW, which is what this thread uses, maintains that NPCs with class levels have CR=level.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-12, 02:21 PM
Okay, I've added to the FAQ that casting a spell without shouting its name does not necessarily imply the Silent Spell feat; and a note that Daigo and Kazumi would be next on our "succession list", although I don't think we have sufficient info on them to add an entry.

Added Horace's Mage Slayer to Roy, since most people here seem to agree that the illusion is from Roy's POV and he knows his own abilities; this is tentative and will be adjusted if a later comic shows differently. I don't think the strip can say anything conclusively about Xykon's abilities, though.

I've fixed Belkar's handle animal link and cut his search and listen skills. Speaking of skills, we don't appear to have any link for Vaarsuvius's Knowledge Arcana skill. Weird, no?

The Giant said about comic 480 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html),

Now, who, of the four characters here, do you think has enough ranks in Knowledge (Religion) to know that the spell is a higher level for clerics using it from the Destruction domain than it is for Vaarsuvius, their teammate, who uses it all the time? (Answer: None of them.)
So what does this tell us about their skill ranks?

Codyage
2013-05-12, 02:33 PM
So, I don't know if I was just ignored, or my comment was lost in the mass amount of posts.

But why is Hinjo's age 26? The source says WXP, but my copy of WXP has him listed differently by several years. There is no Age category for Mr.Scruffy, which is also in WXP. If Hinjo's age is wrong, that means Lien's is to. Is there a reason he is listed as 26?

Here are the ages.

Hinjo is listed as 23, in my copy of WXP. Mr. Scruffy is age 6.

Rakoa
2013-05-12, 02:47 PM
It would be my guess that some time has passed in-comic since then. But I don't know for sure.

Codyage
2013-05-12, 02:56 PM
It would be my guess that some time has passed in-comic since then. But I don't know for sure.

If this were true, one in comic year, would bump him +1. Assuming his birthday was also close to the same time that is +2. The Age would still be wrong, because he is listed as 26.

Kurald Galain
2013-05-12, 03:52 PM
Ok, added age to Mr. Scruffy. Our source for Hinjo's age is WXP as well, so this is most likely a typo. We have added one year to all ages listed in that book. I note Belkar's and Blackwing's age are also missing.

Codyage
2013-05-12, 04:33 PM
Ok, added age to Mr. Scruffy. Our source for Hinjo's age is WXP as well, so this is most likely a typo. We have added one year to all ages listed in that book. I note Belkar's and Blackwing's age are also missing.

In the book Blackwing isn't given an age, and Belkar's is listed as "??".

But, Halfling adulthood is 20 years. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) Add +3d6 for Ranger, and 1 year for the battle in comic. Minimum he can be is 24 if he rolled a 1 on each d6.

Edit: Also sent you a message.

zimmerwald1915
2013-05-12, 06:04 PM
I've fixed Belkar's handle animal link and cut his search and listen skills. Speaking of skills, we don't appear to have any link for Vaarsuvius's Knowledge Arcana skill. Weird, no?
Identifying a dragon's age category is a Knowledge (arcana) check (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0188.html). The...reading material would have provided a circumstance bonus, but Knowledge is a trained-only skill and V would have needed ranks to make the check.