Class and Level Geekery XII - Even Nerds Call Us Nerds

[Flame of Anor]

You cannot climb unless you have at least one hand free. If we assume that he was climbing, then per the rules, we know that he had a free hand. Once he caught the arrows, he no longer had a free hand (since both hands were now holding arrows), and thus was no longer able to climb.

Wow, good point. Does this mean we have a RAW explanation again?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wow, good point. Does this mean we have a RAW explanation again?

To repeat myself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329816-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XII-Even-Nerds-Call-Us-Nerds&p=17388553&viewfull=1#post17388553): you can't use deflect arrows while flat footed. By RAW (although likely not by RAI, but RAW is the only thing that counts), climbing gives you flat footed.

GW

[Toper]

Wow, good point. Does this mean we have a RAW explanation again?
And to repeat Rodney and Kornaki right above you, Tarquin couldn't let go with his clinging hand off-turn. Repeating is fun!

[SavageWombat]

To repeat myself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329816-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XII-Even-Nerds-Call-Us-Nerds&p=17388553&viewfull=1#post17388553): you can't use deflect arrows while flat footed. By RAW (although likely not by RAI, but RAW is the only thing that counts), climbing gives you flat footed.

GW

So that mandates one level of Thief-Acrobat then. Unless someone has found an equivalent feat somewhere.

[Flame of Anor]

So that mandates one level of Thief-Acrobat then. Unless someone has found an equivalent feat somewhere.

So that gives us:


Tarquin has a level of Thief-Acrobat
He was climbing with both hands free
He was not flat-footed
Using Infinite Deflection and Snatch Arrows, he caught both arrows
He could not continue climbing, since he no longer had a free hand


Does this work by RAW?

[Kalmegil]

How does that explain why he fell?

(That's not to concede that he had both hands free while climbing.)

[rodneyAnonymous]

This is not possible... Once he caught the arrows, he no longer had a free hand...

Yes, but he can't let go of the railing to use both hands. He has to do that on his turn. To use Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, or Infinite Deflection, you must already have an empty hand when the attack is made.

Should he be able to? Totally. That's probably even what the author had in mind, ID or not. But it isn't RAW.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that the lack of consensus here (in a debate that started nearly four months ago) is a good enough reason to remove it from the first post.

[Kornaki]

If you believe that climbing requires free hands but does not occupy your hands then you should also believe that when you have a free hand and use snatch arrow you can choose to catch the arrow in your hand which is not free.

I still have not seen a definitive answer to whether you are flat footed while clinging. If not then we don't need thief acrobat to get past being flat footed.

[Codyage]

Okay, so have been trying to catch up on the entire debate, so forgive me if I am wrong in saying this.

Where does it say that you are Flat-Footed while climbing?

No where in Climb, does it say you are Flat-Footed.


Climb

You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can’t move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You also can’t use a shield while climbing.

I bolded the both hands free part to just point out a climbing persons hands are free. The second part illustrates that you lose DEX to AC, but are not Flat Footed. Flat Footed =/= Losing DEX to AC. (Flat Footed can make you lose DEX, but losing DEX does not make you flat footed some of the time.)

Now you may be about to say, Combat Modifiers table, says you are Flat Footed (Such as surprised, balancing, climbing.) Initiative under unaware combatants says you are Flat Footed.


Unaware Combatants

Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Balancing also has.


Being Attacked while Balancing

You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.

Climbing is the only one without Flat-Footed in it.

Page 15 Rules Compendium also has the Combat Modifiers Table for Armor Class Modifiers. Under Flat Footed, the Parenthesis after Flat-Footed, is gone completely. Which means the table now has Errata.

Can anyone else direct me to where it says you are Flat Footed while Climbing?

[rodneyAnonymous]

That is irrelevant, because Tarquin would need two hands free.

[Steven]

Doesn't climbing state that your hands must be free? It doesn't say that they are in use while climbing only that they must be free.
In which case the flat footed part is important because it's the only thing stopping it from working.

[Codyage]

That is irrelevant, because Tarquin would need two hands free.

The very first part I bolded was that you need BOTH hands free to climb. If we are going by a RAW argument here, then it works, because both hands are free.

Are we going by RAW or RAI here? RAW his hands are free because he is able to climb, and when he catches both arrows, his hands are no longer free, and he falls since he can't climb with filled hands.

[rodneyAnonymous]

You don't understand: he can't catch the arrows. He might as well say he is going to use his breath weapon. If this were a game with players following rules, the guy playing Tarquin would say "ok I catch the two arrows that Haley shot at me, one in each hand" and the GM says "sorry, you can't do that, you are holding onto the railing". (Note that if he has the feat Infinite Deflection, his best/only choice is to deflect or catch two arrows with one hand.)

The flat-footedness doesn't matter, because regardless, that would be trying to do something he can't do without rules being fudged, and we don't know if they were fudged this way or that way.

[Codyage]

You don't understand: he can't catch the arrows. He might as well say he is going to use his breath weapon. If this were a game with players following rules, the guy playing Tarquin would say "ok I catch the two arrows that Haley shot at me, one in each hand" and the GM says "sorry, you can't do that, you are holding onto the railing,the best you could do is catch or deflect both with one hand... do you do that instead?" It wasn't definitely the feat Infinite Deflection; it didn't have to be.

The flat-footedness doesn't matter, because regardless, that would be trying to do something he can't do without rules being fudged, and we don't know if they were fudged this way or that way.

I am failing to see WHY he can't catch the arrows. You proceeded to create a made up scenario to prove your example, yet you didn't bring up the rule in question that was being broken. From what I can gather, you are arguing Tarquin can't catch both arrows, but by RAW he can.


RAW
The only way for Tarquin to Snatch both arrows, is he must have both hands free (Which must be done while climbing.) Since he Snatches both, his hands became full, and he fell. Then on his turn, he drops the arrows as free actions, and makes a save/check/whatever to grab on to the edge.

You want an example where this may come up in a game? Here is one.

Real Life Game
(Since this is a real life game, where rules can be fudged whenever they wish, and it has no bearing on this conversation, since this is one of a many number of possibilities this can be interpreted...)

"Isn't it my turn in Initiative?"

"You spent to long talking to the NPC, and now it is Haley's turn."

"Great... so two Sneak Attack arrows with a possible lucky Crit could kill me, or knock me unconscious. Then the fall would kill me for sure...could I attempt to Deflect both with one hand so I can hold on?"

"In normal circumstances yes, but since it is Manyshot, and is being done as a single attack, but with two projectiles, you can only Deflect/Snatch one. The other will hit since they go at the same time."

"What if I let go of my other hand to go for the other one?"

"You would then fall since your hands are full/you aren't holding on."

"But I could still SNATCH the arrows right? Avoid the damage all together? Could I make a save or something to try and hold back on after I catch it? "

"Yeah it would stop the arrows, and I guess on your turn you could drop the arrows as a free action, and make a roll to try and grab on to the edge. Hope you got good DEX."

"Lets do this..."

By the rules Tarquin can Snatch the arrows while climbing. By a real life game scenario I just made up, Tarquin can Snatch the arrows while climbing.

I think I may be failing to see what rule is being fudged here. Can you please present it to me?

[rodneyAnonymous]

Like, you can't do two full attacks in one round. The spell call lightning doesn't work underwater. You can't use those feats unless you have an empty hand before someone shoots arrows at you. What else could that mean besides "your hands must be empty to start climbing"?! They are filled by climbing or clinging; Tarquin needs to "drop" the railing (with at least one of his hands, since he uses both of them) before he can use Deflect Arrows (etc), and according to strict RAW, he can only do that on his turn.

That is the rule being fudged: "voluntarily dropping items is a free action"... most GMs would probably accept the house rule that "letting go of something to free a hand is an immediate action". Or maybe the rule being fudged is how many times Gloves of Arrow Snaring can be used per round. Or how many arrows per round you can catch (without ID), if you have two empty hands. Or some combination. Or something else. It's hard to tell.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I am failing to see WHY he can't catch the arrows. You proceeded to create a made up scenario to prove your example, yet you didn't bring up the rule in question that was being broken. From what I can gather, you are arguing Tarquin can't catch both arrows, but by RAW he can.


RAW
The only way for Tarquin to Snatch both arrows, is he must have both hands free (Which must be done while climbing.) Since he Snatches both, his hands became full, and he fell. Then on his turn, he drops the arrows as free actions, and makes a save/check/whatever to grab on to the edge.

You want an example where this may come up in a game? Here is one.

Real Life Game
(Since this is a real life game, where rules can be fudged whenever they wish, and it has no bearing on this conversation, since this is one of a many number of possibilities this can be interpreted...)

"Isn't it my turn in Initiative?"

"You spent to long talking to the NPC, and now it is Haley's turn."

"Great... so two Sneak Attack arrows with a possible lucky Crit could kill me, or knock me unconscious. Then the fall would kill me for sure...could I attempt to Deflect both with one hand so I can hold on?"

"In normal circumstances yes, but since it is Manyshot, and is being done as a single attack, but with two projectiles, you can only Deflect/Snatch one. The other will hit since they go at the same time."

"What if I let go of my other hand to go for the other one?"

"You would then fall since your hands are full/you aren't holding on."

"But I could still SNATCH the arrows right? Avoid the damage all together? Could I make a save or something to try and hold back on after I catch it? "

"Yeah it would stop the arrows, and I guess on your turn you could drop the arrows as a free action, and make a roll to try and grab on to the edge. Hope you got good DEX."

"Lets do this..."

By the rules Tarquin can Snatch the arrows while climbing. By a real life game scenario I just made up, Tarquin can Snatch the arrows while climbing.

I think I may be failing to see what rule is being fudged here. Can you please present it to me?
The problem here is that letting go of something is not an immediate action, which can be taken even when it's not your turn. It's a free action, which can only be done on your turn. By letting you let go of the side, the DM is not following RAW.

[Loreweaver15]

So, then, we're back to "is Tarquin gripping the railing, or is he leaning against the railing". There were body language interpretations last time, too.

For the record, it always looked to me (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html) like Tarquin was clambering his way to a standing position with his feet hooked into the slats in the side of the airship, leaning against the railing with either his hands planted on the railing (which seems less like what we see) or bracing himself with his arms on the inner side of the railing. That's what I pointed out last time, and people seemed to think it worth debating.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I still have not seen a definitive answer to whether you are flat footed while clinging.


Okay, so have been trying to catch up on the entire debate, so forgive me if I am wrong in saying this.

Where does it say that you are Flat-Footed while climbing?

Links in my post from last page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329816-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XII-Even-Nerds-Call-Us-Nerds&p=17388553&viewfull=1#post17388553). Check the one claiming that climbing makes you flat-footed.

For the record, I also agree that you do not have free hands while climbing - that climbing fills your hands, just like you need a free hand to hold a weapon, but that doesn't mean that you still have a free hand while holding a weapon.

GW

[Chronos]

Quoth rodneyAnonymous:

Yes, but he can't let go of the railing to use both hands.
Nor does he need to. By the rules, gripping a railing does not count as rendering your hands non-free. He is gripping the railing, and his hands are still considered free despite that, and so he still meets the condition for using Snatch Arrows.

[Kornaki]

Links in my post from last page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329816-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XII-Even-Nerds-Call-Us-Nerds&p=17388553&viewfull=1#post17388553). Check the one claiming that climbing makes you flat-footed.

For the record, I also agree that you do not have free hands while climbing - that climbing fills your hands, just like you need a free hand to hold a weapon, but that doesn't mean that you still have a free hand while holding a weapon.

GW


Grey_Wolf, I didn't ask about climbing, I asked about clinging. From the climb page

You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand.

You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling with only one hand means that clinging is not climbing. So the rules text stating that you are flat footed (which has been pointed out above has been errata'd out of existence apparently) does not apply to clinging.

This is not a tricky attempt at wordplay in the rules either; any layman's definition of climbing involves moving up a surface, and if you are just holding on while swinging a sword or something then you aren't climbing both colloquially and, I believe, by RAW.

[Kalmegil]

We're now on the fourth iteration of the same sequence of argument. If that doesn't demonstrate lack of consensus, i don't know what would.

[Loreweaver15]

We're now on the fourth iteration of the same sequence of argument. If that doesn't demonstrate lack of consensus, i don't know what would.

Well, new information/opinions/interpretations keep popping up. (Also, it's, like, the same two people who keep objecting to it every time :P)

[Kalmegil]

It's not new information. The very peculiar idea that one needs hands free to climb but that climbing doesn't occupy those hands has been brought up before. Everything else was already addressed this time around.

[137beth]

I'm just happy that for once, people are discussing how a D&D character falls, and the character is not a paladin. Other classes can fall!

....carry on.

[Kornaki]

We're now on the fourth iteration of the same sequence of argument. If that doesn't demonstrate lack of consensus, i don't know what would.

I agree there is no consensus and that it should be removed from the OP for now.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(which has been pointed out above has been errata'd out of existence apparently)

[citation needed]

GW

[Codyage]

[citation needed]

GW

In my first post, Page 15 of the Rules Compendium has omitted the Parenthesis on the table, removing surprised, balancing, and climbing. Flat Footed doesn't have climbing after it anymore, and as I pointed out in the first post, Balancing, and Surprised have Flat-Footed somewhere in their descriptions, while Climbing only has the DEX penalty.

That is why I asked if anyone had ANOTHER source linking Climbing to Flat Footed. The table has Errata now, and with climbing saying you only have the DEX penalty, means right now you aren't Flat Footed in a climb.

Also, if your hands becoming full while you climb, then how do you catch a falling character? The text seems to imply that you can catch someone who is falling, while still climbing yourself. But if your hands are full, you couldn't catch anyone right?

Not to mention, if your hands are filled, you also could no longer climb.


Catching a Falling Character While Climbing

If someone climbing above you or adjacent to you falls, you can attempt to catch the falling character if he or she is within your reach. Doing so requires a successful melee touch attack against the falling character (though he or she can voluntarily forego any Dexterity bonus to AC if desired). If you hit, you must immediately attempt a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 10). Success indicates that you catch the falling character, but his or her total weight, including equipment, cannot exceed your heavy load limit or you automatically fall. If you fail your Climb check by 4 or less, you fail to stop the character’s fall but don’t lose your grip on the wall. If you fail by 5 or more, you fail to stop the character’s fall and begin falling as well.

[Toper]

Also, if your hands becoming full while you climb, then how do you catch a falling character? The text seems to imply that you can catch someone who is falling, while still climbing yourself. But if your hands are full, you couldn't catch anyone right?
My interpretation of

You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand.
<snip>
Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move action

is that you only need both hands during the move action itself, and if you end your move without reaching solid ground, you are "clinging": you continue taking climbing penalties but you do have one hand free (and thus can catch people).

There are probably other interpretations, but I think this one is sensible and answers your question.

[rodneyAnonymous]

So, then, we're back to "is Tarquin gripping the railing, or is he leaning against the railing". There were body language interpretations last time, too.

No. Absolutely not. No matter what, according to the rules (following them strictly), Tarquin can't use Infinite Deflection to catch an arrow in each hand, in that situation. It doesn't matter what he is doing on the side of the airship, no interpretation allows him to use the feat. If he is clinging with one hand or climbing with two, he does not have two hands free when Haley attacks. If he is balancing on his feet and both hands are free, he would not fall when he caught the arrows with his hands. He cannot make his hands free during Haley's turn, they have to be empty before she attacks.

There are no rules about leaning or body language, as far as I know. That is not an actual rebuttal.

No one has addressed this fatal flaw in the "explanation". It is not something that has been argued before, resolved, and now we're back around to it. It is unresolved.

Something relatively simple happened in the comic, and it's so close that it's recognizable as something very similar to what some warriors can do in D&D, but there is no RAW explanation for it. It is Zz'dtri's green lightning. I think the most likely explanation is that the "GM" (note scare quotes) decided Snatch Arrows should say "one arrow per hand" instead of "one arrow period", but I am not pushing for that explanation to be the one in the OP.

[Codyage]

No. Absolutely not. No matter what, according to the rules (following them strictly), Tarquin can't use Infinite Deflection to catch an arrow in each hand, in that situation. It doesn't matter what he is doing on the side of the airship, no interpretation allows him to use the feat. If he is clinging with one hand or climbing with two, he does not have two hands free when Haley attacks. If he is balancing on his feet and both hands are free, he would not fall when he caught the arrows with his hands. He cannot make his hands free during Haley's turn, they have to be empty before she attacks.

There are no rules about leaning or body language, as far as I know. That is not an actual rebuttal.

No one has addressed this fatal flaw in the "explanation". It is not something that has been argued before, resolved, and now we're back around to it. It is unresolved.

Something relatively simple happened in the comic, and it's so close that it's recognizable as something very similar to what some warriors can do in D&D, but there is no RAW explanation for it. It is Zz'dtri's green lightning. I think the most likely explanation is that the "GM" (note scare quotes) decided Snatch Arrows should say "one arrow per hand" instead of "one arrow period", but I am not pushing for that explanation to be the one in the OP.

Actually...if anyone can find a ruling on stopping a skill check whenever you want, then it could work. If Tarquin could choose to stop climbing the railing, that would mean he is no longer climbing, and could make the attempt.

All though...I see another way Tarquin can do this, and I admit it is kind of stretching it to a degree. If it is Tarquin's turn in combat, and he sees Haley is about to fire two arrows at him, he could ready his action so if Haley shoots him, he can stop climbing. This means he could then let go of the railing, since he is no longer climbing, catch the arrows, and then make the DC 30 check to grab back on while falling.

[Kalmegil]

No matter what, according to the rules (following them strictly), Tarquin can't use Infinite Deflection to catch an arrow in each hand, in that situation. It doesn't matter what he is doing on the side of the airship, no interpretation allows him to use the feat. If he is clinging with one hand or climbing with two, he does not have two hands free when Haley attacks. If he is balancing on his feet and both hands are free, he would not fall when he caught the arrows with his hands. He cannot make his hands free during Haley's turn, they have to be empty before she attacks.

Thank you for summing that up. In the interest of continuing to sum, I think this is the full set of answers that have been proposed to this dilemma, with my summary of the responses in italics:

1.) When you cling or climb, you do not occupy the hand or hands that must be free to do so. Response: This is RAI, not RAW.

2.) Tarquin is clinging, so one hand is free. Haley fired the arrows simultaneously, so the catches happen simultaneously. Therefore, Tarquin's free hand doesn't become unfree until the catches are resolved. Response: Tarquin caught one arrow in each hand, so he still stopped clinging on Haley's turn. So it's about something that (at best, maybe) could happen under RAW, but not what happened in the comic.

3.) There's no RAW saying you can't stop clinging on off-turn. Response: There's no RAW saying you can.

I've purposely not included arguments about which interpretations are better, because I don't think that's a valid exercise for determining what should be recorded in the stats.

I've not seen a RAW response to the "if Tarquin were balancing he wouldn't fall" argument.

Have I left out any proposed resolutions to the dilemma rodneyAnonymous described? I'm interested in cataloging the arguments that have been made. By my reckoning, each is still disputed by several people at least (and therefore not a consensus). If someone thinks that's not the case, I'd like the argument pointed out.

Note: I'm not asking if people accept the responses, although of course there's nothing wrong with arguing them. My major point is the arguments and responses each represent what appear to be conclusions fully vetted and accepted by their proponents.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I think those summaries are unnecessarily generous to the Infinite Deflection explanation, specifically "3.) There's no RAW saying you can't stop clinging on off-turn", because yes there is. Dropping an item (which is functionally the same as letting go of something that's keeping you from falling) is described by the core rulebooks as a free action. Free actions cannot be taken during other peoples' turns, with the explicit exception of talking. (There are lots of things you can easily do at any time, most of the time, but not during combat. If an attack is happening, combat is happening, even if it's a surprise round; there is no such thing as a "non-combat attack".)

Re: readied action... so Tarquin has Infinite Deflection and had the foresight to ready an action to let go of the airship with both hands so he can use both hands to catch arrows (even though he is probably not expecting to have arrows shot at him, because he just broke the arm of the only archer in range), but not to just catch them both with one hand, and accomplish both goals: neither arrow hits him, and he doesn't fall off the airship. Come on :) Using one hand to catch or deflect is way above "better than sub-optimal", it's practically the only thing he can do at all, if he has that feat. Since he didn't, he probably doesn't.

I am 95% certain he doesn't have the Infinite Deflection feat, and 100% certain that regardless it shouldn't be listed in the OP, because it's not a RAW explanation, so nothing fits unless the author tells us what happened. I don't understand the resistance to that, it's always been a poor fit.

[Toper]

I sort of like the readied-action one. It doesn't contradict any rules that I can think of, yet is so obviously divorced from in-comic reality so as to annihilate any remaining perception that the thread is actually attempting to explain the comic's events in D&D terms, rather than playing a weird little game.

[rodneyAnonymous]

It kind of requires that Tarquin intentionally falls, in fact goes out of his way to fall, because if he has that feat there is an easier and simpler way to do what he wants to do without having to choose between taking arrow damage or falling damage. It also requires illogical planning, because that means he was anticipating that arrows might be shot at him even though he thinks he disabled the only person who can shoot arrows at him, but that he didn't anticipate (or didn't care) that if he uses both hands (which he totally doesn't have to do, if he has ID), he will fall from the airship and fail at the goal he considers more important than two once-in-a-decade favors and that he was willing to murder his son's love interest for.

That is not "he wasn't thinking about it, and made a poor decision", it is "he thought about it, and made a decision that even a chimpanzee would think is one of the worst options imaginable". It would be kind of like a high level wizard with the metamagic feat Silent Spell shouting (for no apparent reason) the verbal component of a spell prepared that way, even though she knows something bad will happen if she makes any noise, but that would be a genius tactical move in comparison.

[Toper]

Yes, all that and it may be the only way to follow RAW. It's perfect! Even sillier than declaring in 925 that Haley decided to shoot exactly as many arrows at Tarquin as he could catch.

I think this might be just what we need to instigate a new philosophical debate about allowable evidence and the thread's purpose! The index thread has out-nerded this one for months and it's time to turn the tables. Hilarity senses... tingling!

[rodneyAnonymous]

So the only way to make Infinite Deflection work by RAW is to say the smokestick was aimed at or otherwise would have hit Tarquin, Haley was aiming 2/5ths of her attack at Tarquin even though according to the narrative all 5 of the arrows should have been aimed at Miron, and that Tarquin readied an action (that he has no reason to ready, no matter what he's standing on) which would obviously cause (from his perspective) one of the worst outcomes possible even though one of his choices (the only choice, unless he intends to fall) would cause (from his perspective) one of the best outcomes possible, and that's ok? That's better than saying it could have been several things, or saying nothing?

That's an invitation for "rocks fall, everyone dies" if I've ever heard one, but whatever, I guess. If you're not yet convinced that Infinite Deflection is a terrible fit, you never will be.

[Loreweaver15]

So the only way to make Infinite Deflection work by RAW is to say the smokestick was aimed at or otherwise would have hit Tarquin, Haley was aiming 2/5 of her attack at Tarquin even though according to the narrative all 5 of the arrows should have been aimed at Miron, and that Tarquin readied an action that would obviously cause (from his perspective) one of the worst outcomes possible even though one of his choices (the only choice, unless he intends to fall) is (from his perspective) one of the best possible outcomes, and that's ok? That's better than saying it could have been several things, or saying nothing?

Does D&D not go with "arrows hit things that are in the arrow's path"?

[rodneyAnonymous]

Does D&D not go with "arrows hit things that are in the arrow's path"?

Nope. In D&D arrows either hit what they're aimed at, or nothing. It is a common house rule that missed ranged attacks against targets with partial cover can hit the cover, but that's not Core.

[b_jonas]

he was anticipating that arrows might be shot at him even though he thinks he disabled the only person who can shoot arrows at him

Tarquin is familiar with obscure combat tactics. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html) He might know that Haley can fire an arrow with his foot. He might know that Roy can fire a bow. He might think that Haley has a backup crossbow he can fire with one hand. He might think Belkar has a crossbow, or that Belkar would throw daggers or pineapples at him and he can catch those. He might think that someone from the crew could fire an arrow at him. He might think Durkon had brought one of the dominated soldiers with him and that soldier can fire an arrow. Heck, he might even think that someone fires that big spear thing of the ship (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0933.html) at him again, for Tarquin is so awesome he can catch a spear too.

More realistically, he has told the GM that during combat he always readies an action to free his hand whenever he needs to catch arrows, and forgot to make an exception for clinging on the side of an airship.

[Loreweaver15]

Nope. In D&D arrows either hit what they're aimed at, or nothing. It is a common house rule that missed ranged attacks against targets with partial cover can hit the cover, but that's not Core.

That's.

I.

What.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Nope. In D&D arrows either hit what they're aimed at, or nothing. It is a common house rule that missed ranged attacks against targets with partial cover can hit the cover, but that's not Core.

Actually, IIRC when I mentioned that rule, I believe it was a core rule of 3.0 that, due to the amount of work involved in figuring out if it applied, was dropped in 3.5 in an effort to streamline combat. Or so they told me at the time.


More realistically, he has told the GM that during combat he always readies an action to free his hand whenever he needs to catch arrows, and forgot to make an exception for clinging on the side of an airship.

OotS does not have a DM, and thus Tarquin cannot tell him anything. Readying an action that will make him fall off the ship seems a remarkably stupid decision to make. But more importantly, it does not match Tarquin's look of anguish indecision as the arrows approached him. That was not the look of a man that was expecting and ready to stop arrows in midflight.

Grey Wolf

[Jaxzan Proditor]

That's.

I.

What.

That's RAW for you. :smalltongue:

[Loreweaver15]

The arrow misses its mark, and is reborn as ephemera, untouched by matter or physics. It sails through the ether, passing through every physical object it encounters. It gives three little old ladies heart attacks. Fly, arrow. Be free

[rodneyAnonymous]

More realistically, he has told the GM that during combat he always readies an action to free his hand whenever he needs to catch arrows, and forgot to make an exception for clinging on the side of an airship.

You can't do that. Readying an action costs you the standard action you get during your turn. On your turn, instead of taking a standard action, you ready an action. You then choose a target (if applicable), a triggering circumstance, and a specific action to ready. When/if the trigger action takes place, and it's legal for you to perform the action, you perform the action as an immediate reaction to the trigger action. Then you change your place in the initiative order so that you take your turn before the creature who triggered your readied action. If the trigger event doesn't happen this round, you wasted your standard action.

The "readied action" proviso has serious problems, not the least of which is that Tarquin would have to intentionally fall (and have made that decision before Haley's turn, before she touches the bow), which is doubtful given that (among other things) after he grabs the railing, he asks Elan to pull him up.

[Codyage]

Readied Actions are the only way to win!

(All though Tarquin DID catch the ship afterward, so he obviously has to have decent climb, since he made the DC 30 check. 20 for falling, 10 for the side of a ship. That means he has ranks in Climb, or an insane Strength score.)

All though, Tarquin could have WANTED to take the drop, predicting Elan would follow the order of story telling, and having him take his offer. But with Elan's flip, it threw Tarquin off, and he ended up failing the Climb Checks and falling. (I am not saying Elan caused Tarquin to fail the Climb Check. Just that Tarquin failed naturally.)

But I did say the readied action idea was stretching it...

[Kornaki]

Haley could have readied an action to fire the arrows in the middle of Tarquin's turn. Then during Tarquin's turn he can use his free action to let go of the railing when Haley fires the arrows.

She could have intentionally done this knowing that if she waited until Tarquin's turn he would let go instead of taking damage (which we in fact see her specifically make sure that he knows he is being shot at)

[Toper]

Haley could have readied an action to fire the arrows in the middle of Tarquin's turn. Then during Tarquin's turn he can use his free action to let go of the railing when Haley fires the arrows.
That is actually not possible. A person interrupted by a readied action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready)

continues his actions once you complete your readied action
which would not be until after Haley's attack was resolved, in this case.

[rodneyAnonymous]

That's.

I.

What.

Arrows that miss are kind of like mages' familiars: they only exist when someone is thinking about them. :)

I bet there are more D&D house rules about that subject than any other, it's the thing that comes up most often that there are no official rules about, I think.

[Kurald Galain]

I think those summaries are unnecessarily generous to the Infinite Deflection explanation, specifically "3.) There's no RAW saying you can't stop clinging on off-turn", because yes there is. Dropping an item (which is functionally the same as letting go of something that's keeping you from falling) is described by the core rulebooks as a free action.
Sorry, that doesn't work. Functionally speaking, dropping an item is very different from letting go off a wall. There's nothing in the rules that indicates the two are even related.

Yes, we all know the climbing rules say you require hands to climb. No, that doesn't mean a climbing character is magically glued to the wall and unable to let go. That simply means that if you use your hands for something else, you fall.

Aside from that, as people have pointed out, it's not a given that Tarquin is climbing in the first place; he could be clinging, balancing, or standing on a ledge instead.

[b_jonas]

(All though Tarquin DID catch the ship afterward, so he obviously has to have decent climb, since he made the DC 30 check. 20 for falling, 10 for the side of a ship. That means he has ranks in Climb, or an insane Strength score.)

Tarquin lives in a palace made of ledges (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0805.html) with sharp rocks under them due to construction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html). Such a palace would give advantage in fights to whoever has a good Climb skill. I think Tarquin has deliberately planned this combination.

[Kalmegil]

Now we're into the pure repetition part of the program.


Sorry, that doesn't work. Functionally speaking, dropping an item is very different from letting go off a wall. There's nothing in the rules that indicates the two are even related.

And there's no RAW that says he can do it off-turn. If they're not even related, there's no reason to think it's even a free action, let alone one of the only free actions allowed off-turn.


Yes, we all know the climbing rules say you require hands to climb. No, that doesn't mean a climbing character is magically glued to the wall and unable to let go. That simply means that if you use your hands for something else, you fall.

This has been covered before: No one has argued his hands are "magically glued to the wall," any more than the rules on dropping items mean that a player's hands are magically glued to her sword. People have argued that RAW doesn't allow you to release the wall off-turn. No one from the side making the "glue" argument has pointed to any RAW that allows releasing the wall off-turn in order to use a feat that requires a free hand.

The dispute is about whether the lack of a specific rule favors allowing it or not allowing it.

"Glued to the wall" doesn't provide any evidence one way or the other. No one is arguing that his hands are glued to the wall. It's a straw man.


Aside from that, as people have pointed out, it's not a given that Tarquin is climbing in the first place; he could be clinging, balancing, or standing on a ledge instead.

Clinging leaves only one hand free to catch. This whole dispute is about his catching the second arrow in his second hand.

No one has presented any RAW that even suggests that catching two arrows, which don't harm him, can cause him to fall while balancing or standing on the edge.

[Kurald Galain]

And there's no RAW that says he can do it off-turn.
Sure there is. "Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else."


Clinging leaves only one hand free to catch.
So that means that if you release the other hand, you stop clinging.


No one has presented any RAW that even suggests that catching two arrows, which don't harm him, can cause him to fall while balancing or standing on the edge.
That's not relevant. He could also have fallen e.g. because Banana is spinning the ship like crazy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html).

So bottom line is that no, we don't know that Tarquin was climbing, and so any argument that starts with "Tarquin was climbing and therefore..." is not logically sound.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sure there is. "Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else."
I disagree that letting go of the only thing keeping you attached to a flying ship is not one of those "so very minor" actions. Thus, lack of consensus.


So that means that if you release the other hand, you stop clinging.
Which is not doable during someone else's turn, anymore than you can drop prone during someone else's turn.


That's not relevant. He could also have fallen e.g. because Banana is spinning the ship like crazy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html).
Yeah, no. I'd go into details, but it is pointless. The end result is the same: there is no consensus.


So bottom line is that no, we don't know that Tarquin was climbing, and so any argument that starts with "Tarquin was climbing and therefore..." is not logically sound.
We also don't know that the action of letting go oh his hold is one of the "so minor, it's like talking" actions, so any argument that starts with "Tarquin was able to let go during someone else's turn and therefore..." is not logically sound.

Grey Wolf

[SavageWombat]

OK, let's stop nitpicking for a moment and get a forum ruling.

1) Does a "lack of consensus" necessitate removal of an entry? Yes or no?

2) If answer #1 is "yes", does the current debate constitute a "lack of consensus"? Yes or no?

[illyahr]

OK, let's stop nitpicking for a moment and get a forum ruling.

1) Does a "lack of consensus" necessitate removal of an entry? Yes or no?

2) If answer #1 is "yes", does the current debate constitute a "lack of consensus"? Yes or no?

Xykon's listed level is the minimum we could all agree on. We can't agree on anything about ID so it is less credible than what we have for Xykon's level. For this reason, I say drop ID until we can get a consensus.

[Kalmegil]

Sure there is. "Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else."

Could you highlight the part that says "releasing one's hold on a surface one is clinging to or climbing on is one of these actions"? Because I don't see it.

Unless it's been truncated in your quote, this rule should never be cited as RAW to support something being included or excluded from this thread. It requires interpretation to apply. There's no way to look at an action and know whether it falls under this rule without making a non-trivial judgment call.


So that means that if you release the other hand, you stop clinging.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't say whether you can actually release your other hand off-turn.


That's not relevant. He could also have fallen e.g. because Banana is spinning the ship like crazy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html).

So bottom line is that no, we don't know that Tarquin was climbing, and so any argument that starts with "Tarquin was climbing and therefore..." is not logically sound.

And he could have fallen because Tippy cast wish to make it so. The comic is pretty clear: he falls because he lets go.

Instead of rehashing things we've discussed five or six times, can we address the actual issue: there is no consensus. Infinite deflection, and all dependent stats such as minimum level, should therefore be removed.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

OK, let's stop nitpicking for a moment and get a forum ruling.

1) Does a "lack of consensus" necessitate removal of an entry? Yes or no?

2) If answer #1 is "yes", does the current debate constitute a "lack of consensus"? Yes or no?

Per the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12577293&postcount=2) handed down from on high:

Certain project threads are curated by member volunteers who take responsibility for maintaining the consensus of conclusions from discussion, often because they have made the opening post in the thread and thus are the only non-moderators that can edit it. These curators bear no special title, and have no official authority; they are not moderators, and cannot ban discussion of issues they consider settled. Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions. Specifically, the curator cannot prevent certain topics from being discussed, prevent any given poster from participating, or make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic.(emphasis mine)

And:

In some cases, curators may, with moderator approval, determine some sort of democratic method for inclusion or exclusion of given material, as long as that method is fair and does not give them any unusual influence over the results.

The current shouting match only indicates lack of clear consensus. Each curated thread has developed a way to turn lack of clear consensus into consensus, as per the second quote, except this one, which continues to depend on the curators making executive decisions over whether a matter has been settled and if it should be in the OP.

To be honest, I don't know if I am in the minority or the majority in wanting ID off the OP. But I do know that no-one else currently knows the answer to that either. Removing it from the OP is an easy solution, since in this thread if it is not in the OP, it just means we aren't 100% sure it is the only RAW explanation. Now, do I wish the OP instead kept track of multiple possibilities? Certainly - I'm on record as preferring that. But since I'm not maintaining it, I am willing to accept that the curators don't want to put in that kind of effort - but in that case, I want consistency: either figure out with some democratic method for inclusion if it should be included, or remove it like they do with anything that is not 100% certain.

Grey Wolf

[Toper]

OK, let's stop nitpicking for a moment and get a forum ruling.

1) Does a "lack of consensus" necessitate removal of an entry? Yes or no?

2) If answer #1 is "yes", does the current debate constitute a "lack of consensus"? Yes or no?
The relevant rules seem to be in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?229756-Class-and-Level-Geekery-The-Rebirth&p=12577293&viewfull=1#post12577293), bolding mine.


Certain project threads are curated by member volunteers who take responsibility for maintaining the consensus of conclusions from discussion, often because they have made the opening post in the thread and thus are the only non-moderators that can edit it. These curators bear no special title, and have no official authority; they are not moderators, and cannot ban discussion of issues they consider settled. Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions. Specifically, the curator cannot prevent certain topics from being discussed, prevent any given poster from participating, or make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic. Disruptive or chronically off-topic posters can still be reported to the forum moderation as normal, of course.

As this is an open forum, and multiple threads on a single topic (with competing curators and selection processes) are not allowed, choosing and agreeing to thread curators is a somewhat fraught process. We would prefer for there to be universal agreement, or, at least, broad consensus on appropriate curators, and that curators do their duty conscientiously and without bias. If a dispute arises about curation (either who is the curator or how the curator is doing their duty), it should be referred to the Moderators, who will contact the curator and the interested parties. In some cases, curators may, with moderator approval, determine some sort of democratic method for inclusion or exclusion of given material, as long as that method is fair and does not give them any unusual influence over the results.

edit: thread rules do not forbid ninjas. Dammit, Grey_Wolf.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

OK, let's stop nitpicking for a moment and get a forum ruling.

1) Does a "lack of consensus" necessitate removal of an entry? Yes or no?

2) If answer #1 is "yes", does the current debate constitute a "lack of consensus"? Yes or no?

Based on the rules that others have quoted above me, I would say "Yes" to #1. #2 is also a "Yes" since, as you can see, we are unable to come to an agreement, and have been unable to do so for several months.

[rodneyAnonymous]

The whole point of the ID feat is to be able to deflect (or catch, if you also have the Catch Arrows feat) multiple arrows with one hand. It's not actually illegal to use two hands if you want, but if he has ID then Tarquin falling because he used two hands instead of one is really stupid, not just "sub-optimal". In fact, we never see him use one hand on more than one arrow. He almost certainly doesn't have the feat even if strict rules don't prevent him from using it while clinging to (or climbing on, or balancing on) the airship, and I think they do.

I don't understand the (bitter, at this point) resistance to Infinite Deflection being removed. It's always been a bad fit, but "yeah it's bad but it's the only possible answer" kept it on life support until the airship scene.

Also this seems to be "what the curator thinks" instead of "what the community thinks", in which case this thread has a lot less value than I thought.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Also this seems to be "what the curator thinks" instead of "what the community thinks", in which case this thread has a lot less value than I thought.

More like "the curator doesn't have the time", it sounds, from his last post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329816-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XII-Even-Nerds-Call-Us-Nerds&p=17373583#post17373583).

GW

[rodneyAnonymous]

Oh, duh, I didn't realize the only person who can make that change hasn't posted in this thread recently. My bad.

That post says:


You'll notice I mention Snatch Arrows rather than Infinite Deflection, because one thing has struck me: The argument appears to apply more against Snatch Arrows rather than Infinite Deflection. Whatever he's using to do the snatching, ID is still the only means I'm aware of that allows him to intercept multiple arrows a round.

Yep. The evidence does not fit any of the relevant feats -- Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, or Infinite Deflection -- so a rule had to be fudged somewhere. It can't have been the exact RAW version of any of them. It doesn't make sense to choose a solution that fills some but not all of the holes. "This breaks fewer rules than that " is not a good argument in favor of this, if we are looking for something that breaks zero rules. Yes there are more objective reasons that SA doesn't work, but there are more subjective reasons ID doesn't work. Neither works.

[Kalmegil]

I just want to point out I waited until some time after the relevant post up top had been edited before raising the issue again. I recognize that other priorities have to come first, and don't want to appear to be hounding the curators.

If there's no time to update the post, an announcement that there's no consensus and that it will be changed in the next update would probably be helpful.

[Kornaki]

I say yes to both consensus questions, and want to push my Haley took a readied action theory. Here is step by step:

1.) Haley readies an action to shoot Tarquin with a manyshot after he speaks 28 words during his turn.
2.) Tarquin's turn begins and he starts speaking
3.) Haley yells at Tarquin and fires

If Haley's intent is to make Tarquin let go and use his snatch arrows abilities, she would undertake this tactic if Tarquin needs it to be during his turn for the scene to work, so Haley's readied action.

4.) From the readied action rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm

If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
Haley interrupts Tarquin speaking (which we see) to shoot her arrows. It is still Tarquin's turn and he can still take actions after the arrows are fired.

5.) Dropping things or yourself (to the floor) is generally a free action, so letting go of the ship while climbing is probably one as well.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

6.) Tarquin is not flat footed (climbing was removed as a flat footed condition in the Rules Compendium), so can take a free action to let go of the ship. He can then take a 'not an action' to catch both arrows.

7.) Tarquin is now holding two arrows and no handholds, so uses a free action to drop the arrows and catch himself per the climb rules.

[Flame of Anor]

You know, I think that might work.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Haley interrupts Tarquin speaking (which we see) to shoot her arrows. It is still Tarquin's turn and he can still take actions after the arrows are fired.

No. As per the rules you quoted, Tarquin cannot take actions until Haley's readied action is completed. Her action to use manyshot is not completed until she hits or misses, by which point it is too late to use a minor action to give himself extra hands to catch with, or whatever.

And to forestall the next semantic twist, no, I do not accept the idea that she can ready "release the arrows".

GW

[Jasdoif]

If I'm understanding everything right, this is the best scenario I could come up with that would fit Infinite Deflection:

Tarquin is clinging to the side of the Mechane, so he has one hand free.
Since Tarquin is talking to Elan, he doesn't have anything to do with his standard action; out of habit, he readies an action to free up his hand if he's subjected to a ranged attack when he has no hand free.
Haley attacks Tarquin with two arrows, via Manyshot.
The first arrow's attack resolves: Tarquin is deflects the arrow, and he chooses to snatch it; his hand is no longer free because it's holding an arrow.
The second arrow's attack triggers Tarquin's readied action, and he releases his grasp on the Mechane. He now has a hand free.
The second arrow's attack resolves: Tarquin is deflects the arrow (thanks to Infinite Deflection), and he again chooses to snatch it. Neither of his hands are free (again).
Since Tarquin released his grasp on the Mechane, he's no longer clinging, and falls.
Tarquin can't move outside his turn, so he doesn't actually fall until then. He drops the arrows as a free action at the start of his turn, and makes the Climb check to catch himself while falling.

It could be valid....But it'd require Haley to have Greater Manyshot, since without it both arrows would resolve on a single attack roll and Tarquin would deflect/catch them both with one hand. To say nothing of needing very poor decision making on Tarquin's part (he'd have to know there were two arrows coming, why wouldn't he deflect them? Even if he wanted to show off with an arrow, he could've deflected the first and snatched the second).

[Emanick]

If I'm understanding everything right, this is the best scenario I could come up with that would fit Infinite Deflection:

Tarquin is clinging to the side of the Mechane, so he has one hand free.
Since Tarquin is talking to Elan, he doesn't have anything to do with his standard action; out of habit, he readies an action to free up his hand if he's subjected to a ranged attack when he has no hand free.
Haley attacks Tarquin with two arrows, via Manyshot.
The first arrow's attack resolves: Tarquin is deflects the arrow, and he chooses to snatch it; his hand is no longer free because it's holding an arrow.
The second arrow's attack triggers Tarquin's readied action, and he releases his grasp on the Mechane. He now has a hand free.
The second arrow's attack resolves: Tarquin is deflects the arrow (thanks to Infinite Deflection), and he again chooses to snatch it. Neither of his hands are free (again).
Since Tarquin released his grasp on the Mechane, he's no longer clinging, and falls.
Tarquin can't move outside his turn, so he doesn't actually fall until then. He drops the arrows as a free action at the start of his turn, and makes the Climb check to catch himself while falling.

It could be valid....But it'd require Haley to have Greater Manyshot, since without it both arrows would resolve on a single attack roll and Tarquin would deflect/catch them both with one hand. To say nothing of needing very poor decision making on Tarquin's part (he'd have to know there were two arrows coming, why wouldn't he deflect them? Even if he wanted to show off with an arrow, he could've deflected the first and snatched the second).

I think giving Tarquin credit for ANY decision-making when the arrows were going towards him is pretty generous. He had, what, a tenth of a second to decide what to do before the arrows arrived? Even a genius can make a stupid decision when there's no time for anything but pure instinct.

[Loreweaver15]

I think giving Tarquin credit for ANY decision-making when the arrows were going towards him is pretty generous. He had, what, a tenth of a second to decide what to do before the arrows arrived? Even a genius can make a stupid decision when there's no time for anything but pure instinct.

We generally agreed last time that the relative validity of Tarquin's tactical decisions in a tenth of a second was moot because they weren't tactical decisions, they were reflexes.

[Toper]

Since Tarquin is talking to Elan, he doesn't have anything to do with his standard action; out of habit, he readies an action to free up his hand if he's subjected to a ranged attack when he has no hand free.
The first arrow's attack resolves: Tarquin is deflects the arrow, and he chooses to snatch it; his hand is no longer free because it's holding an arrow.
The second arrow's attack triggers Tarquin's readied action, and he releases his grasp on the Mechane. He now has a hand free.
That scenario doesn't work particularly well even on its own terms, because besides the problem you mention with choosing snatch over deflect, why wouldn't Tarquin drop the first arrow instead of releasing his grip?

Plus of course you have to believe that, while hanging on for dear life to the side of an airship, Tarquin's action would be dictated by habit. And that he has this particular habit which the comic never bothered to establish previously. And that he has 25 Dexterity.

It is a deeply silly exercise. I think if you want this badly to justify the scenes via RAW, you should quit worrying about character motivations and acknowledge that the scenario makes no sense within the comic and was developed with the sole purpose of finding a RAW explanation for the mechanical events.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It is a deeply silly exercise. I think if you want this badly to justify the scenes via RAW, you should quit worrying about character motivations and acknowledge that the scenario makes no sense within the comic and was developed with the sole purpose of finding a RAW explanation for the mechanical events.

Well then, it looks like that is the main consideration. So, is this scenario possible by RAW?

[Codyage]

Well then, it looks like that is the main consideration. So, is this scenario possible by RAW?

The only way for this by RAW to work as followed.

If you believe climbing leaves your hands open, as they need to be free so you can climb, it works. Of course, once the hands are filled, you cease climbing, which is how Tarquin would fall. But not everyone agrees on this, and argues climbing fills your hands. (I still believe that since you can catch a falling character, as long as you are adjacent, regardless of whose turn it is, this works by RAW. Assuming you catch the first, and someone else falls, you theoretically could catch them with your other hand, but would then no longer be climbing since your hands are full and you would proceed to fall, which is how I interpret the scene.)

Another RAW method is that Tarquin, or Haley Readied Actions, so either Tarquin could react accordingly, or Haley would be able to react in response to Tarquin, who would then be able to react. I myself said this was stretching it.

I think those are the only RAW situations that have been brought up that were circulating recently.

[rodneyAnonymous]

No, readying an action is not something you have "always on" or by default or by habit. It's something you specifically invoke, ahead of time. It has a cost. Why would Tarquin ready an action that will make him fall before Haley touches her bow? That is not instinct, that is giving it some thought.

Haley can't do it either, readied actions just don't work that way. It still comes down to whether you think it's a "real" action for Tarquin to let go of the railing. (I think: clearly it is.)

[b_jonas]

I wonder, should we start a new forum thread for this rules RAW arrow catching discussion? If so, what exactly should be the title? The title should make it clear that it's about how the arrow catching can happen according to D&D rules specifically.

Update: if we start a new thread, do forum moderators have the power to move existing posts there? And are they willing?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I wonder, should we start a new forum thread for this rules RAW arrow catching discussion? If so, what exactly should be the title? The title should make it clear that it's about how the arrow catching can happen according to D&D rules specifically.

Update: if we start a new thread, do forum moderators have the power to move existing posts there? And are they willing?

Someone could always make a thread in the 3.X forum and then link to here as to why the question is being asked. We'd probably get more input that way too.

[Loreweaver15]

Someone could always make a thread in the 3.X forum and then link to here as to why the question is being asked. We'd probably get more input that way too.

I'm a fan of this idea.

[Kornaki]

No. As per the rules you quoted, Tarquin cannot take actions until Haley's readied action is completed. Her action to use manyshot is not completed until she hits or misses, by which point it is too late to use a minor action to give himself extra hands to catch with, or whatever.

And to forestall the next semantic twist, no, I do not accept the idea that she can ready "release the arrows".

GW

You are right, I misunderstood the rules for free actions and what a turn is. After re-reading the actions page, I believe if Tarquin has any immediate action he can take upon being fired on, then he can take a free action to let go at the same time (and it does not matter whether Haley readied her shot or not) as he uses his immediate action.

[Kalmegil]

You are right, I misunderstood the rules for free actions and what a turn is. After re-reading the actions page, I believe if Tarquin has any immediate action he can take upon being fired on, then he can take a free action to let go at the same time (and it does not matter whether Haley readied her shot or not) as he uses his immediate action.

Can you please quote the part of the page you think allows this?

[Kornaki]

Can you please quote the part of the page you think allows this?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

Free Action
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.

While taking an immediate action normally, you can perform one or more free actions.

[Jasdoif]

No, readying an action is not something you have "always on" or by default or by habit. It's something you specifically invoke, ahead of time. It has a cost.A cost if you were going to do anything else with your standard action, sure. Tarquin's talking to Elan without trying to get back on the deck, though; I don't see what kind of standard action Tarquin would have in mind without using his move action to get on the deck. Readying an action that doesn't get triggered isn't any different than simply not using the standard action at all.


Why would Tarquin ready an action that will make him fall before Haley touches her bow?Heck, I don't really get why Tarquin would take any action that would make him fall. But it still happened. What makes this hypothetical explanation less plausible than others?

[Kalmegil]

While taking an immediate action normally, you can perform one or more free actions.

Yes, but in this case, you can't take the action unless you're hands are free. Deflect arrows says:


You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it.

Snatch arrows says this:


When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it.

So to be able to take the immediate action, you must be have a hand free. When you try to drop, you're hands aren't free, which means you're not taking the immediate action, which means you can't perform the drop as part of the action.


I don't see what kind of standard action Tarquin would have in mind without using his move action to get on the deck.

How about using it to try and get back up on the deck? You can use a standard as a move action.

[Toper]

Yes, but in this case, you can't take the action unless you're hands are free. Deflect arrows says...
You've missed his point. Deflect Arrows is not an action at all. Kornaki's suggestion is that Tarquin took some unrelated immediate action when Haley shot at him, then used the opportunity to also take a free action to let go of the ship. This would be perfectly legal. (Similarly, Tarquin could have readied some unrelated action to take on Haley's shots, and then decided to let go as a free action as well.)

Inventing these invisible readied or immediate actions is not especially consistent with the narrative, but it would be consistent with the rules.


Heck, I don't really get why Tarquin would take any action that would make him fall. But it still happened. What makes this hypothetical explanation less plausible than others?
In the comic he seems to have grabbed the arrows in a moment of panic with zero time to think. Proposing that he used a previous action to prepare to let go of the ship seems narratively implausible.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

While taking an immediate action normally, you can perform one or more free actions.

You cannot take free actions during an immediate action, because only the latter have the explicit exception that you can perform them out of turn. E.g. you cannot ready an attack action, and then during the immediate action during which you attack declare you are also using a free action to drop prone. At that point, it is not your turn, and thus you can only perform non-actions and the one immediate action you are allowed ("You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn").

GW

[Toper]

Grey_Wolf, the rule seems pretty clear to me that taking an immediate action permits free actions as well.

You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

There's no rule that says you can never take free actions off-turn; you just can't do it unless you're taking some other action, typically a readied or immediate one.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Grey_Wolf, the rule seems pretty clear to me that taking an immediate action permits free actions as well.


There's no rule that says you can never take free actions off-turn; you just can't do it unless you're taking some other action, typically a readied or immediate one.

No, but there is a rule that you can only ready one action, even if it is a free one, with the sole exception of also being able to take a five-foot step:


Readying an Action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready)

You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action.<snip> You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round.

Free actions cannot be taken off turn, only immediate ones can. Being able to take a free action at the same time as another one does not give it an exception to the rule that your actions can only be taken during your turn.

GW

[Kornaki]

No, but there is a rule that you can only ready one action, even if it is a free one, with the sole exception of being able to take a five-foot step:



Free actions cannot be taken off turn, only immediate ones can. Being able to take a free action at the same time as another one does not give it an exception to the rule that your actions can only be taken during your turn.

GW

You aren't readying the free action so that rule is irrelevant. Where is the rule rating free actions can only occur during your turn?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You aren't readying the free action so that rule is irrelevant. Where is the rule rating free actions can only occur during your turn?

Here:

When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)

Or, I could ask you: where is the rule saying that standard actions can only occur during your turn? Where is the rules saying that move actions can only occur during your turn?

It doesn't work like that. The rule is:

Immediate Action

An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn.
(emphasis mine)

That is the only action that is explicitly allowed to happen outside your turn. The rules lawyering argument "it doesn't say you can't, thus you can" is incorrect.

Grey Wolf

[Toper]

Grey_Wolf, the rules are pretty clear.

1) You can take an immediate or readied action off-turn.
2) You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

It's not a case of not-forbidden-therefore-allowed; it's actually allowed pretty explicitly.

[Jasdoif]

How about using it to try and get back up on the deck? You can use a standard as a move action.I'm trying to imagine why Tarquin would use his standard action as a move action, without using his move action as a move action. It's not coming to me.

Closest thing I can come up with is if Tarquin tried and failed to climb onto the deck twice, missing the Climb DC by 4 or less each time since he didn't fall then. Which could certainly have happened, but doesn't seem anywhere near likely enough to serve as a refutation. At best there are four spots on a d20 roll, twice; giving us an upper limit of a 4% chance of it happening. To say nothing of Tarquin succeeding on the higher DC to catch himself while falling later.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Grey_Wolf, the rules are pretty clear.

1) You can take an immediate or readied action off-turn.
2) You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

It's not a case of not-forbidden-therefore-allowed; it's actually allowed pretty explicitly.

You and I have a different meaning for explicitly.

I'm done with this conversation.

GW

[Kalmegil]

You've missed his point. Deflect Arrows is not an action at all. Kornaki's suggestion is that Tarquin took some unrelated immediate action when Haley shot at him, then used the opportunity to also take a free action to let go of the ship. This would be perfectly legal. (Similarly, Tarquin could have readied some unrelated action to take on Haley's shots, and then decided to let go as a free action as well.)

Inventing these invisible readied or immediate actions is not especially consistent with the narrative, but it would be consistent with the rules.

I still don't get that from the conversation, but I'm having a hard time following.

Anyway, I was clarifying that the free action rule did not get one around the dropping issue on its own. The whole readied action thing is so implausible that it doesn't change my view.

After all, panels that show multiple slashes by a melee attacker v. a defender, which we rely on for determining minimum BAB, could really be more than one round, with the defender simply choosing to delay his turn (or do nothing). I don't see any reason that mere possibility should change the way we use multiple attacks to determine minimum BAB, and I don't see a reason why the mere possibility that Tarquin could have decided to ready an action that would cause him to fall should change my view here.

[rodneyAnonymous]

If you think "readied actions" are a solution I suspect you've never played D&D, because no way. It's a special thing, relatively rare (even when it's preparing to counterspell, which is by far the most common readied action), and it has to be specified (in detail!) in advance, any and every time you want to use those rules.


Heck, I don't really get why Tarquin would take any action that would make him fall. But it still happened. What makes this hypothetical explanation less plausible than others?

Because I think "he made a snap decision and it turned out to be a poor one" is plausible, but "he thought about it for a bit, and decided he should prepare to fall from the airship instead of taking arrow damage, if anybody shoots arrows at him in the next few seconds" is not.

I don't think it's even that he made a snap decision: if he has Infinite Deflection, then he can catch both arrows with one hand, so using two hands instead was exceptionally stupid, not just "sub-optimal". (And the fact that he didn't do that, in fact never does that, is pretty strong evidence that he couldn't have done that.) Suggesting that it wasn't even a snap decision, but a planned move -- deliberate self-sabotage -- is preposterous.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't think it's even that he made a snap decision: if he has Infinite Deflection, then he can catch both arrows with one hand, so using two hands instead was exceptionally stupid, not just "sub-optimal". (And the fact that he didn't do that, in fact never does that, is pretty strong evidence that he couldn't have done that.) Suggesting that it wasn't even a snap decision, but a planned move -- deliberate self-sabotage -- is preposterous.

I agree with all of this. If Tarquin has ID, then the way he used was not merely sub-optimal, it was downright stupid, and absolutely unnecessary. Even when not under stress, he doesn't deflect/catch arrows like that. The problem is that we seem to be unable to agree on any RAW explanation (and even ID has problems).

[Kornaki]

If Tarquin initiates some sort of immediate action defensive maneuver that fails to be good enough to protect him from the arrows, he would (assuming he is allowed to) probably default to 'oh crap catch them'. From a character standpoint it seems reasonable. From a characterization standpoint, his snatch arrows ability is a representation of how he shows off and demands attention even when it's to his detriment, and is incapable of learning from those mistakes (catching arrows already backfired once, when Haley said hey Tarquin catch an adaptive person would have realized she was trying to **** him over with his ability for the second time). The only question in my mind is whether it is permissible by RAW.

Tarquin is a walking sub-optimal decision making machine (see the latter half of this entire arc), why would we expect him to make better decisions now? He's just spiked chain half ogre take 2.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Tarquin is a walking sub-optimal decision making machine (see the latter half of this entire arc), why would we expect him to make better decisions now? He's just spiked chain half ogre take 2.

In order to ready that action, Tarquin's player* would have to tell the GM "Next round, that is within the next six seconds, and even though nobody near me is holding a bow, I want to ready the following action: given the trigger circumstance 'someone fires two arrows at me', I want to let go of the airship with both hands so I can use my Infinite Deflection feat and catch an arrow in each hand, even though those feats say I only need one empty hand and don't say anything at all about two hands, and even though I will fall and certainly fail to achieve the goal that I consider more important than two once-in-a-decade favors (among other things)."

It is plausible that, if Tarquin needed to use both hands, he might accidentally fall off the airship. The half-ogre accidentally fell off that cliff. I don't believe he intentionally fell, and he'd have to in order to have readied an action.

* I know that actually there are no players or GM, this is just convenient shorthand.

[Kornaki]

In order to ready that action, Tarquin's player* would have to tell the GM "Next round, that is within the next six seconds, and even though nobody near me is holding a bow, I want to ready the following action: given the trigger circumstance 'someone fires two arrows at me', I want to let go of the airship with both hands so I can use my Infinite Deflection feat and catch an arrow in each hand, even though I don't have to, and even though I will fall and certainly fail to achieve the goal that I consider more important than two once-in-a-decade favors (among other things)."

No, the argument has nothing to do with readied actions. The argument is that when Haley fires at Tarquin, he can use an immediate action (because he is not flat footed from climbing thanks to errata, he can do this), and that the free action rules allow him to do free actions during an immediate action. So after his immediate action fails to defend him from the arrows he chooses to let go of the ship in order to use his infinite deflection out of panic. I agree the readied action stuff doesn't work.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Are you really telling me what my argument is? :)

[Steven]

Are you not still making the assumption that Tarquin was climbing or clinging at the time he caught the arrows rather than just standing and leaning on the rail?
If he was simply standing then he could catch the arrows and that gives us the argument for ID.

'Oh,' you might say, 'But he falls and if he's standing then there is no reason for that.' But I would suggest that is neither here not there. There may be no RAW reason for him to fall but that doesn't actually impact on him having ID.

NB. I don't think he does have ID, nor do I think he's Epic but I have no evidence to back up my opinions.

[Kornaki]

Are you really telling me what my argument is? :)


You quoted me and said "In order to ready that action...". I am not arguing for any kind of readied actions, and am telling you what my argument.

[Loreweaver15]

Are you really telling me what my argument is? :)

He was, ah, clarifying the viewpoint of those opposing you. O.o

[Toper]

You quoted me and said "In order to ready that action...". I am not arguing for any kind of readied actions, and am telling you what my argument.
Your argument is incomplete until someone finds a RAW immediate action for Tarquin to respond with, right? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Jasdoif]

'Oh,' you might say, 'But he falls and if he's standing then there is no reason for that.' But I would suggest that is neither here not there. There may be no RAW reason for him to fall but that doesn't actually impact on him having ID.What I'm having trouble with there, is what he'd be standing on...and why he couldn't stand on it again after he caught himself from falling.

[rodneyAnonymous]

You quoted me and said "In order to ready that action..."

And what I said is supposed to be a response to that, because I think the only way he can do what you're saying he did (that is, make one or both hands empty, regardless of clinging, climbing, etc.) is not something he can do during someone else's combat turn unless he readied that action last round. Either way, it comes down to whether you think letting go of the airship is a free action ("Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn."... like dropping an item), or if you think that's not an action at all ("Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else."... no examples given, emphasis added).

Let alone the "flat-footed" problems, or all the story reasons ID is silly. Tarquin is a character that is especially unlikely to follow D&D 3x rules exactly, which is what the pro-ID argument depends on, and several people have poked holes in that too. It was something like Snatch Arrows or Infinite Deflection, but there is no consensus that it was one of those things for sure.

[Steven]

To me it looks like he is climbing in panel 3 and then finds himself able to stand on the side of the ship.

Although looking at it again I think it's fairly clear he is hanging on to the railing so I'll withdraw my suggestion.

[Kornaki]

Your argument is incomplete until someone finds a RAW immediate action for Tarquin to respond with, right? Or am I misunderstanding?

There are a number of maneuvers in Tome of Battle that he could attempt, or magic item compendium equipment. For example ring of four winds would be very appropriate; he uses it to increase his AC, it's not good enough to block the attack, so he decides to grab the arrows.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Reconsidering what you have said, it isn't even RAW that the hand that catches the arrow is the one that is free. If I have a sword in my right hand and my left hand is free, the feat says I can catch the arrow and nothing more. Am I missing any actual rules text that prevents me catching it with my right hand?

Why do you so badly want this index to say Tarquin has the Infinite Deflection feat? I don't understand.

[Kornaki]

Why do you so badly want this index to say Tarquin has the Infinite Deflection feat? I don't understand.

Here is a challenge: describe exactly what Tarquin's homebrew ability could be that satisfies all the scenes well. It has to let him drop things as a nonaction yet not let him drop an arrow so he can still cling to the ship. I don't think there is anything sensible that is particularly satisfactory, and using an immediate action to let go as a free action seems RAW to me (and got a stamp of approval with no counter argument in the RAW FAQ thread) and fits from a characterization standpoint as well.

Stop going back and pulling up old arguments of mine, I am agreeing they are not correct or satisfactory.

[Toper]

Here is a challenge: describe exactly what Tarquin's homebrew ability could be that satisfies all the scenes well. It has to let him drop things as a nonaction yet not let him drop an arrow so he can still cling to the ship.
It seems clear enough that Tarquin's ability in the story (if we forget about D&D for a minute) is basically that he can catch one arrow in his vicinity with each free hand. We've seen him do this several times and could see it again.

Tarquin freeing a hand on Haley's turn is basically unsupportable within D&D rules, unless he takes an immediate or readied action, neither of which is evidenced in 936 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html). But it's also not a "homebrew ability" that we're likely to see Tarquin perform again -- you could think of it as a house rule, but it's really just the author not caring.

If the thread curators / community actually wanted an accurate description of Tarquin's abilities, they would list the first ability and ignore the second, because the first ability is what's intended by the author and thus has predictive power about what Tarquin can do in the future, while the second is just Tarquin letting go of a thing this one time and would be uninteresting outside the context of an attempt to make 936 fit slavishly within a 3.5E ruleset -- its only predictive power is telling us that Rich doesn't care much about dropping-things rules.

So I don't think your challenge has a good answer. We could arbitrarily give Tarquin such a homebrew ability, or for that matter give him some arbitrary immediate action, but there's no reason to think either one would stand the test of time -- one is as bad as the other. The only ability that probably will stand this test is the one in the first paragraph.

[Kornaki]

If you say "screw it I don't care about his ability to drop things", then what is the problem with ID? The purpose of the that is not to be prescriptive, it's to describe characters according to DND rules and that is what I am trying to do.

Tarquin having infinite deflecrion and using it in a stupid way is so in character for him that IMO it makes the story better to consider him having it and just totally blowing it on the ship than for him to have some weird homebrew ability that runs into the exact same RAW issues as infinite deflection. This isn't an argument for including it in the thread but an argument against trying to use " Tarquin is stupid if he had infinite deflection, therefore he doesn't" arguments.

[Toper]

If you say "screw it I don't care about his ability to drop things", then what is the problem with ID? The purpose of the that is not to be prescriptive, it's to describe characters according to DND rules and that is what I am trying to do.
The problem with ID is it requires Haley to have done something extremely strange in 925 (firing exactly two arrows at Tarquin while yelling at Miron), Tarquin to have done something extremely strange in 936 (letting go of the ship for no reason when he could have just swatted away both arrows with one hand), and moderately strange stats for Tarquin (25 Dex).

If you neglect the intentions of the author in favor of rejecting homebrew at all costs, these things will inevitably happen, though.

[rodneyAnonymous]

If you say "screw it I don't care about his ability to drop things", then what is the problem with ID?

The same reason you might be able to explain some events with the spell wish (and then base assumptions about level and ability scores on it, also) but I might have a problem with explaining them that way, especially if that isn't really a viable explanation.

(Also, to extend the metaphor, "'Snatch Arrows plus house rules' breaks the same official rules as 'Infinite Deflection without those house rules', so we should list it"-type arguments are equivalent to saying "circumstances prevent any spellcasting, but wish is still the only spell that could have produced the effect, so we should list it"... that is more obviously mistaken, I hope.)

And, I do care. I care that we don't know exactly what Tarquin's arrow-catching ability is in strict D&D 3.XE terms, and saying that implies that we do. "Unspecified ability to catch arrows (like the feats Snatch Arrows or Infinite Deflection, or Gloves of Arrow Snaring)" would be okay; that has precedent elsewhere in the index.

[Chronos]

Let me see if I can find some things we can all agree on here.

A: Tarquin cannot break the rules. Therefore, if he actually does something, the rules, whatever they are, are consistent with him doing that.

B: Tarquin was positioned on the edge of an airship, with his hands in contact with the railing.

C: When two arrows were shot at him in that position, he caught both of them, after which his hands were no longer in contact with the railing.

D: As a result of catching the arrows, he began to fall, and found himself in a much more precarious position.

E: Therefore, the rules operating in Stickworld, whatever they are, are such that it's possible for Tarquin to remove his hands from contact with the railing at the time the arrows were fired.

Is there any dispute with any of these points?

[Kalmegil]

Here is a challenge: describe exactly what Tarquin's homebrew ability could be that satisfies all the scenes well. It has to let him drop things as a nonaction yet not let him drop an arrow so he can still cling to the ship. I don't think there is anything sensible that is particularly satisfactory, and using an immediate action to let go as a free action seems RAW to me (and got a stamp of approval with no counter argument in the RAW FAQ thread) and fits from a characterization standpoint as well.

This is trivial:.

Improved Snatch Arrows
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit
You may use Snatch Arrows once per round for each hand you have. If the hand you use to catch an arrow is occupied (holding an item, being used to cling, etc.), your hand releases its hold.

Special
A fighter may select Snatch Arrows as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Tarquin having infinite deflecrion and using it in a stupid way is so in character for him that IMO it makes the story better to consider him having it and just totally blowing it on the ship than for him to have some weird homebrew ability that runs into the exact same RAW issues as infinite deflection. This isn't an argument for including it in the thread but an argument against trying to use " Tarquin is stupid if he had infinite deflection, therefore he doesn't" arguments.

Neither this nor the response I'm about to give really matters for purposes of deciding what should be in the OPs, but if we're trying to decide what Rich most likely did, here's roughly what I think happened:

Rich decided to have Tarquin be able to catch arrows, because it's cool (which would appeal to Tarquin) and fits his generally defensive build. He knows Snatch Arrows is an available ability; he didn't bother to look up the details because why does it matter?

He decided he could catch one in each hand. And that he could drop or let go of items as needed (this probably wasn't actually thought of until he thought of the railing scene, which might have been early on, as he sets it up throughout the arc). The drop thing is added because it just makes sense, for the same reason free off-turn drops are such a common house rule. It's not narratively overpowered, and it's within the norms of D&D.

There was probably little or no thought put into it from a rules perspective.

This fits the story and the humor that's been set up much better than some contrived immediate or readied action which most audience members wouldn't know is happening. Haley has already exploited Tarquin's tendency to catch arrows (see smokestick and Nale's calling out of Haley trying an arrow despite Tarquin's ability to catch them). She does it again, and he makes a very poor snap decision. This is the intended outcome from Haley's perspective. It shows Haley's cunning, that the Order has adjusted to Tarquin's tactics.

And also it's funny, in a way that doesn't require knowing D&D rules.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Is there any dispute with any of these points?

No. The question is not at all what happened in the strip, it's how to explain that by D&D 3.XE rules.

[Kornaki]

Kalmegil, that fails the Haley shooting at Miron scene.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Kalmegil, that fails the Haley shooting at Miron scene.

That scene has long been explained as "Haley was stupidly shooting two arrows at Tarquin, even though she knew she could not hit" by those insisting in RAW, and by "they brought back the 3.0 rule that cover is hit by ranged attacks" by those that don't mind a bit of homebrew.

But if neither of those are your style, all it needs is the following mod:

Benefit
You may use Snatch Arrows once per round for each hand you have on arrows aimed at you or at allies you are covering. If the hand you use to catch an arrow is occupied (holding an item, being used to cling, etc.), your hand releases its hold.

GW

[Loreweaver15]

That scene has long been explained as "Haley was stupidly shooting two arrows at Tarquin, even though she knew she could not hit" by those insisting in RAW, and by "they brought back the 3.0 rule that cover is hit by ranged attacks" by those that don't mind a bit of homebrew.

To be fair, if Haley was shooting exactly two arrows at Tarquin, there's a concrete tactical purpose to that: force the exceptionally-capable combat-black-hole to either take two arrows or catch them rather than leaving him able to do whatever he wants with his hands. Well, maybe that logic translates poorly from active battle to turn-based, I dunno; if I were her and I was loosing a pile of arrows all at once in an active battle system, I would absolutely be doing everything I could to lock Tarquin down in the process.

From what we've seen, the Vector Legion is built around a couple key points, one of which is that Tarquin is--as I mentioned--practically a black hole in melee, having tailored his build around being able to lock down large groups of enemies and getting them to focus on him while his allies pick them off. Miron and Laurin may be more offensively dangerous, but removing Tarquin from play would almost certainly be among the first things I did in a fight against the Vector Legion.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The problem with that is that Haley's words indicated that she was shooting all those arrows at Miron. And, as covered before, arrows in D&D either hit their target or do nothing.

[Kalmegil]

Grey wolf's mod handles it nicely. An alternative would be allowing snatch arrows to be used against arrows that travel through the occupied square or any adjacent square.

[ReaderAt2046]

Another explanation of the "Haley shoots at Miron" scene would be that Tarquin has some kind of ability to redirect attacks from his allies to him. It would fit his party tank roll really well. So either Tarquin failed to intercept some of the arrows or chose to only intercept the two he could catch and negate.

[SavageWombat]

Another explanation of the "Haley shoots at Miron" scene would be that Tarquin has some kind of ability to redirect attacks from his allies to him. It would fit his party tank roll really well. So either Tarquin failed to intercept some of the arrows or chose to only intercept the two he could catch and negate.

That's the irritating thing. From a dramatic point of view you should be able to block arrows aimed at someone else. It's just a rules-consequence of the structure of 3rd ed combat.

[ti'esar]

That's the irritating thing. From a dramatic point of view you should be able to block arrows aimed at someone else. It's just a rules-consequence of the structure of 3rd ed combat.

Well, that's the issue with this whole debate, really: Tarquin's arrow-snatching ability was clearly being written based on dramatic and logical principles, not anything in the rules. So it's probably going to be impossible to explain it by them, which is why this discussion keeps going in circles.

[Kornaki]

That just leaves the question of how Tarquin let go of the arrows to attempt to grab onto the ship again off-turn.

[Flame of Anor]

B: Tarquin was positioned on the edge of an airship, with his hands in contact with the railing.

That doesn't tell us what the D&D status of his hands was, though. It's true, but not meaningful. Personally, I think that he was using the Climb skill, meaning that his hands were free (by D&D terms). But clearly not everyone agrees.

[Crusher]

From what we've seen, the Vector Legion is built around a couple key points, one of which is that Tarquin is--as I mentioned--practically a black hole in melee, having tailored his build around being able to lock down large groups of enemies and getting them to focus on him while his allies pick them off. Miron and Laurin may be more offensively dangerous, but removing Tarquin from play would almost certainly be among the first things I did in a fight against the Vector Legion.

This is actually an important point from a group dynamics standpoint. The Vector Legion's absolute glaring weakness is its underpowered healing (for its level). Malack was a valuable team member for a lot of reasons, but he was severely lacking in horsepower to be the primary healer for a party facing near-epic to low-epic level challenges. Even with Laurin occasionally assisting, Tarquin's ability to lock down multiple enemies while being largely self-sufficient was probably a skill-set born of tactical necessity.

[Hecuba]

And, I do care. I care that we don't know exactly what Tarquin's arrow-catching ability is in strict D&D 3.XE terms, and saying that implies that we do. "Unspecified ability to catch arrows (like the feats Snatch Arrows or Infinite Deflection, or Gloves of Arrow Snaring)" would be okay; that has precedent elsewhere in the index.

I think the best option at this point is something like this.
At minimum, the least problematic RAW option still heavily involves a copper piece harlot.

My phrasing would be be:

Unknown ability to catch arrows (not fully consistent with any RAW methods)

My only reservation would be that, unlike the "Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer," we can't definitively place it in the feat category.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think the best option at this point is something like this.
At minimum, the least problematic RAW option still heavily involves a copper piece harlot.

My phrasing would be be:

Unknown ability to catch arrows (not fully consistent with any RAW methods)

My only reservation would be that, unlike the "Horace Greenhilt's Mage Slayer," we can't definitively place it in the feat category.

I think that works, for now. We could also do something like "Tarquin's Snatch Arrows". I still think that until this has been resolved, the ID entry should be removed, since we have an obvious lack of consensus.

[rodneyAnonymous]

...we can't definitively place it in the feat category.

That is why I also mentioned the gloves, but I don't feel strongly about it.

I do like "General Tarquin's Snatch Arrows" to go with "Horace Greenhilt's Mageslayer".

[SavageWombat]

That is why I also mentioned the gloves, but I don't feel strongly about it.

I do like "General Tarquin's Snatch Arrows" to go with "Horace Greenhilt's Mageslayer".

I dunno - I feel like "HG's M" works because we know it's a feat.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Not sure why that matters.

[JustWantedToSay]

That just leaves the question of how Tarquin let go of the arrows to attempt to grab onto the ship again off-turn.

You can throw a snared arrow as an immediate action, roll a 1 for spectacular failure.

[Quartz]

and moderately strange stats for Tarquin (25 Dex).

Can I pick up on this? 25 Dex is not so strange for a low-epic character. Tarquin might well have an item which gives him +8 Dex for a base Dex of 17, and if he's a high-level monk (e.g. Ftr 4 / Mk 17+ or Kt 8 / Mk 17+), the Timeless Body class feature means he might not have suffered any penalties for aging.


Timeless Body (Ex)
Upon attaining 17th level, a monk no longer takes penalties to her ability scores for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any such penalties that she has already taken, however, remain in place. Bonuses still accrue, and the monk still dies of old age when her time is up.

And before anyone says that Tarquin can't have levels in Monk because he wears heavy armour, instead of Monk think 'Disciplined Warrior' and note how many Monk abilities do not rely on being unarmoured.

[Quartz]

I forgot to add that he might also have a +5 Inherent Bonus.

[Dragolord]

In the latest strip, Belkar said that Roy was "as strong as a giant". The weakest basic giant seems to have 25 STR, while the strongest has 39. Should his score be updated?

[Toper]

In the latest strip, Belkar said that Roy was "as strong as a giant". The weakest basic giant seems to have 25 STR, while the strongest has 39. Should his score be updated?
Belkar may just be repeating the description from the family that gave Roy his belt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html), which Roy immediately interprets as "+4 or +6" rather than literal giant strength.

[Codyage]

Also the fact it is called a Belt of Giant Strength (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltofGiantStrength), may also help.

[Shadowscale]

Bloodfeast going to be getting stats soon?

[Loreweaver15]

Bloodfeast going to be getting stats soon?

If we see him do anything beyond 'be a lizard and therefore have basic tiny lizard stats', then yes :P

[Angelalex242]

I don't know if anyone brought this up yet, but shouldn't Tsukiko have Lichloved, out of the Book of Vile Darkness?

Not sure if she ever displayed the feat's benefits, but she definitely displays the feat's fluff.

[ti'esar]

I don't know if anyone brought this up yet, but shouldn't Tsukiko have Lichloved, out of the Book of Vile Darkness?

Not sure if she ever displayed the feat's benefits, but she definitely displays the feat's fluff.

The lich didn't love her, though...

(Not sure if this was meant to be a serious post or not.)

[Douglas]

I don't know if anyone brought this up yet, but shouldn't Tsukiko have Lichloved, out of the Book of Vile Darkness?

Not sure if she ever displayed the feat's benefits, but she definitely displays the feat's fluff.
Fluff is nowhere near sufficient for this thread's standard of evidence.

[Angelalex242]

Well, let's see.

Evil Brand is the pre-req for lich loved, so if she did have it, she has that feat too.

Now, Lich loved, despite the name, only states 'sex with undead, ANY undead.'

LICHLOVED [VILE]
By repeatedly committing perverted sex acts with the
undead, the character gains dread powers.
Prerequisite: Evil Brand.
Benefit:Mindless undead see the character as an undead
creature. Becoming more and more like an actual undead
creature, he gains a +1 circumstance bonus on saving throws
against mind-affecting effects, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning,
and disease
This assumes she did naughty things with the wights under her command in her depravity.

[Loreweaver15]

Well, let's see.

Evil Brand is the pre-req for lich loved, so if she did have it, she has that feat too.

Now, Lich loved, despite the name, only states 'sex with undead, ANY undead.'

LICHLOVED [VILE]
By repeatedly committing perverted sex acts with the
undead, the character gains dread powers.
Prerequisite: Evil Brand.
Benefit:Mindless undead see the character as an undead
creature. Becoming more and more like an actual undead
creature, he gains a +1 circumstance bonus on saving throws
against mind-affecting effects, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning,
and disease
This assumes she did naughty things with the wights under her command in her depravity.

We've only seen that she's a necrophiliac, not that she has any of these benefits.

[SavageWombat]

We've only seen that she's a necrophiliac, not that she has any of these benefits.

She must have forgotten to take Evil Brand first. And now the DM is grinning nastily at her.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well, let's see.

Evil Brand is the pre-req for lich loved, so if she did have it, she has that feat too.

Now, Lich loved, despite the name, only states 'sex with undead, ANY undead.'

LICHLOVED [VILE]
By repeatedly committing perverted sex acts with the
undead, the character gains dread powers.
Prerequisite: Evil Brand.
Benefit:Mindless undead see the character as an undead
creature. Becoming more and more like an actual undead
creature, he gains a +1 circumstance bonus on saving throws
against mind-affecting effects, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning,
and disease
This assumes she did naughty things with the wights under her command in her depravity.

She would have to actual show these benefits, not just the fluff for the feat, in order for her to be shown as having it.

[Angelalex242]

When would she have had an opportunity to show it? She never encountered an int - undead onscreen, and a +1 modifier to a bunch of saving throws...I'm not sure she got hit by any of the relevant spells in the first place.

[Codyage]

When would she have had an opportunity to show it? She never encountered an int - undead onscreen, and a +1 modifier to a bunch of saving throws...I'm not sure she got hit by any of the relevant spells in the first place.

Thematically, it fits, however just because one could have it, doesn't mean that they do. Any character can do what Tsukiko did with the dead in the way you are suggesting, without having said feat. Just because it is a good fit, doesn't mean they have it. Unless Tsukiko actually used said feat on panel, flavor text aside, it doesn't matter.

[Angelalex242]

Pity she didn't survive. With her track record, Durkon would suddenly have a new girlfriend.

But...I suppose if she did have it, she had no opportunity to demonstrate it, so it can't be proven.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

When would she have had an opportunity to show it? She never encountered an int - undead onscreen, and a +1 modifier to a bunch of saving throws...I'm not sure she got hit by any of the relevant spells in the first place.

If she hasn't shown any evidence of the benefits, then regardless of whether or not she may have been able to use those benefits, we can't say she had it. It works thematically, but that's not enough proof.

[SavageWombat]

Example: all indicators suggest Roy is strong-willed, but we don't list him as having Iron Will unless he actually mentions it.

[Shadowscale]

I'm surprised Julio isn't listed?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm surprised Julio isn't listed?

Well, the thing is that he's not a commonly appearing character (and the way he left at the end of BRITF suggests he won't be showing up for the current book, either), and we don't really know a lot about him. He's got the dashing swordman prestige class (but we don't know his base class), he probably has a ridiculous charisma modifier, and he doesn't actually own a flying carpet or a chaos sabre any more...

[Shadowscale]

Well, the thing is that he's not a commonly appearing character (and the way he left at the end of BRITF suggests he won't be showing up for the current book, either), and we don't really know a lot about him. He's got the dashing swordman prestige class (but we don't know his base class), he probably has a ridiculous charisma modifier, and he doesn't actually own a flying carpet or a chaos sabre any more...

I thought he was a swashbuckler 10/dashing swordsman 10 maybe a few more into epic? I only asked since we've seen him fight and train Elan. He's been around for at least a little while.

Only brought it up since character's with less appearances like Durkon's evil opposite and things we know less stats to like monster in the darkness. Miko is given stats as well.

[orrion]

I thought he was a swashbuckler 10/dashing swordsman 10 maybe a few more into epic? I only asked since we've seen him fight and train Elan. He's been around for at least a little while.

Only brought it up since character's with less appearances like Durkon's evil opposite and things we know less stats to like monster in the darkness. Miko is given stats as well.

Miko was a major character for the span of almost 2 books. Of course she has stats.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I thought he was a swashbuckler 10/dashing swordsman 10 maybe a few more into epic? I only asked since we've seen him fight and train Elan. He's been around for at least a little while.
Thing is, this is only a hypothesis that we can't prove. We don't like to put many uncertain things in here (although we sometimes do that for ability scores).


Only brought it up since character's with less appearances like Durkon's evil opposite and things we know less stats to like monster in the darkness. Miko is given stats as well.

The High Priest of Hel is given stats because they are nearly identical to Durkon's, with just the Vampire template stacked on. The MitD isn't really given stats, but a link to where to find more information about him. No such information exists for Julio. Miko has stats because she appeared in many strips and we can actually guess most of the details of those stats.

[Shadowscale]

Thing is, this is only a hypothesis that we can't prove. We don't like to put many uncertain things in here (although we sometimes do that for ability scores).



The High Priest of Hel is given stats because they are nearly identical to Durkon's, with just the Vampire template stacked on. The MitD isn't really given stats, but a link to where to find more information about him. No such information exists for Julio. Miko has stats because she appeared in many strips and we can actually guess most of the details of those stats.

Hilgya, not vampire durkon spirit.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Hilgya, not vampire durkon spirit.

Oops, I thought of the High Priest because he makes for a much better Evil opposite. Anyways, we know more about Hilgya than we do Julio.

I think the FAQ might be helpful here in answering your post.


Q: Which characters are included in this thread?
(1) All named members of the Order, Team Evil, the Linear Guild, the Order of the Scribble, and the Vector Legion.
(2) Any frequently occurring 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.

[Shadowscale]

Oops, I thought of the High Priest because he makes for a much better Evil opposite. Anyways, we know more about Hilgya than we do Julio.

I think the FAQ might be helpful here in answering your post.

Julio is Elan's substitute father made to be the polar opposite to his actual father. Does that count as family. Sorry I'm not trying to offend or anything. o.o

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Julio is Elan's substitute father made to be the polar opposite to his actual father. Does that count as family. Sorry I'm not trying to offend or anything. o.o

He might be counted as family, but right now we just don't have much to right about him except his racial abilities and that has the Dashing Swordsman class. You're not offending anyone, don't worry.

[Angelalex242]

Oh, one more thing. Roy is listed as having a +5 sword, but it's also mentioned that an 'energy may come that does extra damage to undead'.

Why hasn't anyone rewritten that as a +5 Undead Bane Greatsword?

[rodneyAnonymous]

Oh, one more thing. Roy is listed as having a +5 sword, but it's also mentioned that an 'energy may come that does extra damage to undead'.

Why hasn't anyone rewritten that as a +5 Undead Bane Greatsword?

Because we aren't positive that's the enchantment.

[Angelalex242]

What else what would it or could it be? There's not exactly anything else in the DMG that deals extra damage to undead. (If it were holy, it would do damage to any living creature who was evil too.)

[ryuplaneswalker]

What else what would it or could it be? There's not exactly anything else in the DMG that deals extra damage to undead. (If it were holy, it would do damage to any living creature who was evil too.)

The enchantment has activated in fights against non undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0349.html) as well as against humans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)

[Flame of Anor]

Well, we don't know that the energy was particularly harmful to Sabine or Miko. But I still agree that we don't have enough information to make a call.

[Angelalex242]

I thought it was reasonably safe to take the swordsmith at his word, but...perhaps not.

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

So, that's either undead bane, or the swordsmith's an idiot. Your call, I suppose.

[Vinyadan]

I thought it was reasonably safe to take the swordsmith at his word, but...perhaps not.

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

So, that's either undead bane, or the swordsmith's an idiot. Your call, I suppose.

She could mean that, when the light turns on, it adds to the sword's normal damage, no matter what you're fighting (deadly), and that this "light bonus" is even higher when fighting against undead (particularly armful to).

[Jaxzan Proditor]

She could mean that, when the light turns on, it adds to the sword's normal damage, no matter what you're fighting (deadly), and that this "light bonus" is even higher when fighting against undead (particularly armful to).

That's how I'm reading it too. It looks like it hurt Miko and Sabine more than his normal attacks (although we can't be certain) and the smith's words are vague enough that it can be taken to mean this.

[Chronos]

We do know a little about Julio. He's told us that his Str and Dex scores are only average (presumably a little below average now, due to age), and that he has ten levels of Dashing Swordsman. He's also at times been officially considered the "Sexiest Man Alive", which presumably means he started with a base 18 Cha and built up from there.

All that said, though, that's still pretty thin, especially since we don't know most of what Dashing Swordsman gives.

And I agree that Tsukiko has one of the prerequisites for Lichloved, but no evidence that she has the feat itself; and also agree that the green glow on Roy's sword appears to be homebrew (not only does it work against non-undead, I also don't think it's always worked on every undead he's fought, either).

[zimmerwald1915]

(not only does it work against non-undead, I also don't think it's always worked on every undead he's fought, either).
Roy hasn't actually fought many undead since his sword was reforged. He met the doctor in the Oracle's Test of the Heart, but that wasn't actually a fight. He fought, and activated the aura against, both Xykon and the zombie dragon on and above the walls of Azure City. There were other undead involved in the battle, but Roy never fought any of them. None of the evil adventuring party Roy fought in heaven were shown to be undead, and even if they were, Roy might not have associated Horace's sword with the aura. Since being resurrected, Roy only fought undead once: when he cleaved through Malack's mummies. The sword glowed green for that.

[Loreweaver15]

Also, the way the swordsmith stated things, the effect is: Occasionally, your sword will glow green when you smack something. This energy does extra damage to undead.

That doesn't mean it can only activate against undead, only that the effect is unreliable :P

[Angelalex242]

Are you sure you guys aren't overthinking this? Occam's Razor suggests undead bane pretty strongly.

The green energy activating against living creatures like goblins and Fallen Miko actually suggests the Holy Enchantment (and suggests Miko turned evil when she fell, alignment wise).

[ChristianSt]

Are you sure you guys aren't overthinking this? Occam's Razor suggests undead bane pretty strongly.

The green energy activating against living creatures like goblins and Fallen Miko actually suggests the Holy Enchantment (and suggests Miko turned evil when she fell, alignment wise).

But from what I read on the SRD it isn't Bane Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#bane), because that is a constant +2 enhancement against that type and adds 2d6 damage. not a "sometimes it will glow green energy that is particularly harmful".

So it is some random enchantment that is presumable good against undead, but we don't know what exactly

[Jaxzan Proditor]

But from what I read on the SRD it isn't Bane Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#bane), because that is a constant +2 enhancement against that type and adds 2d6 damage. not a "sometimes it will glow green energy that is particularly harmful".

So it is some random enchantment that is presumable good against undead, but we don't know what exactly

This also applies to the Holy special ability. Both Holy and Bane say that it is the weapon which either "excels at attacking" or "is imbued with Holy power" and say nothing about the energy.

[Kalmegil]

What else what would it or could it be? There's not exactly anything else in the DMG that deals extra damage to undead. (If it were holy, it would do damage to any living creature who was evil too.)

Partial matches aren't good enough for this thread. Yes, undead bane does extra damage to undead. But it doesn't match.


I thought it was reasonably safe to take the swordsmith at his word, but...perhaps not.

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

So, that's either undead bane, or the swordsmith's an idiot. Your call, I suppose.

Undead bane doesn't match the comic you cite in support. The swordsmith says, "sometimes glow with a deadly green energy that is particularly harmful to the undead."

Undead bane is not "sometimes," and the sword's energy is "deadly" as a general matter, and "particularly harmful" to the undead. I don't see any support for the idea that it doesn't hurt the non-undead it manifests against. But even if one interprets it that way, it the periodic aspect flat out doesn't work.

[Angelalex242]

Well, if you read it like this...

It will sometimes glow (that is, when fighting undead, not when fighting other things), with a deadly green energy that is particularly harmful to undead (sounds like Bane Undead to me...)

...maybe it's both Holy and Undead Bane. That'd explain why it glows vs. other opponents as well, but also implies undead take far more damage from it.

[warrl]

Are you sure you guys aren't overthinking this? Occam's Razor suggests undead bane pretty strongly.

Occam's Razor says to presume (subject to further evidence) the simplest explanation that fits the known facts. Not to pick a simple explanation that does NOT fit the known facts. Undead Bane doesn't fit the known facts, or even the smith's description.

Oh, and overthinking things is kind of the point of a webcomic discussion forum. :tongue:

[Kurald Galain]

Still, it is not an "ordinary" +5 greatsword. Perhaps we should call it a "Greatsword of Green Energy" or something like that?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Still, it is not an "ordinary" +5 greatsword. Perhaps we should call it a "Greatsword of Green Energy" or something like that?

What about Starmetal Greatsword?

[ChristianSt]

What about Starmetal Greatsword?

+1

Since from how I read it this property is because of the starmetal, calling it a Starmetal Greatsword (or +5 Starmetal Greatsword) would be a great choice.

[zimmerwald1915]

+1

Since from how I read it this property is because of the starmetal, calling it a Starmetal Greatsword (or +5 Starmetal Greatsword) would a great choice.
The parenthetical gets across the most information while not including anything we don't know or excluding anything we do.

[ChristianSt]

Well, if you read it like this...

It will sometimes glow (that is, when fighting undead, not when fighting other things), with a deadly green energy that is particularly harmful to undead (sounds like Bane Undead to me...)

...maybe it's both Holy and Undead Bane. That'd explain why it glows vs. other opponents as well, but also implies undead take far more damage from it.

No. Neither Holy nor Bane can explain any glowing to begin with (or at least not "randomly glowing"). Both apply just a static bonus against certain types of foes. So how does it explain that the sword glows sometimes?

And if you say "it glows while attacking that certain foe": It doesn't glow every time Roy hits that certain type of foe and it also glows while not hitting that foe (demonstrated on Miko. I don't think this thread should open any debate on Miko's alignment, but calling her Evil is a bit of a too large jump...)


So yes, maybe it is a Bane and/or Holy sword. But on top of it it needs something to explain the green glow (aka the Starmetal induced effect). But we see no evidence that it is a Bane and/or Holy sword other than that it could be Bane and/or Holy. I could equally claim that it might be Axiomatic or Merciful. Nothing in the comic contradicts any of these statements. But also nothing in the comic really supports any of these.

[SavageWombat]

I suspect it's either (a) Bane: Undead or (b) a Chekov's Gun waiting to fire. I tend towards (a). But no, not enough evidence for the list because of unusual wording. Starmetal greatsword is best.

[ReaderAt2046]

On the Starmetal Sword issue, 30% of magic weapons glow brightly when drawn, so that could be an explanation.

[Angelalex242]

I don't suppose anyone's tried asking Rich for character sheets for the PCs and their gear?

[Kalmegil]

It used to be a common question. There are no character sheets for the Order or anyone else in the comic.

[Shadowscale]

We do know a little about Julio. He's told us that his Str and Dex scores are only average (presumably a little below average now, due to age), and that he has ten levels of Dashing Swordsman. He's also at times been officially considered the "Sexiest Man Alive", which presumably means he started with a base 18 Cha and built up from there.

All that said, though, that's still pretty thin, especially since we don't know most of what Dashing Swordsman gives.

And I agree that Tsukiko has one of the prerequisites for Lichloved, but no evidence that she has the feat itself; and also agree that the green glow on Roy's sword appears to be homebrew (not only does it work against non-undead, I also don't think it's always worked on every undead he's fought, either).

Oh yeeah, the one on the order of the stick wiki is unoffical. We could assume he has some profession sailor ranks and is a swashbuckler though right? Or is being a pirate not enough evidence? o.o I still think something on him should be added he seemed to be a major key character despite his limited appearences if anything he's at least a high level pc.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

On the Starmetal Sword issue, 30% of magic weapons glow brightly when drawn, so that could be an explanation.

Roy's sword only glows sometimes though, not whenever it is drawn.


Do we have a consensus for +5 Starmetal Greatsword?

[b_jonas]

Do we have a consensus for +5 Starmetal Greatsword?

Ok, but make it "heritage +5 Starmetal Greatsword". We definitely know that it's a heritage from his grandfather Horace, and it has let the gost of his father Eugene manifest to Roy.

[Angelalex242]

Ancestral Relic +5 Greatsword?

That's in a lot of books, but I remember it from Book of Exalted Deeds, personally.

[zimmerwald1915]

Ok, but make it "heritage +5 Starmetal Greatsword". We definitely know that it's a heritage from his grandfather Horace, and it has let the gost of his father Eugene manifest to Roy.
Does "heritage" mean anything mechanically? If so, does the sword display the benefits associated with being a heritage item? If not, is there a point to listing it as such?

[rodneyAnonymous]

What else what would it or could it be? There's not exactly anything else in the DMG that deals extra damage to undead. (If it were holy, it would do damage to any living creature who was evil too.)

It doesn't have to be from the DMG.

[b_jonas]

Does "heritage" mean anything mechanically? If so, does the sword display the benefits associated with being a heritage item? If not, is there a point to listing it as such?

I'm not really sure.

Let me quote some of the description of Battle Scion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/legendaryWeapons.htm).



A battle scion has earned the right to fight with a particular legendary weapon, either because the weapon is an ancestral heirloom or because he upholds the principles for which the weapon was originally created. While characters of any class can eventually qualify for the battle scion class, those who wield weapons professionally—fighters, barbarians, rangers, and paladins—are ideal candidates.

No two battle scions are identical, by virtue of the weapons that grant them access to this prestige class. One scion might wield an heirloom weapon that provides him with the abilities needed to uphold the family’s honor. […] Yet another could be wielding an axe, hammer, or staff dedicated to his profession, or to his race, with abilities that draw on the strengths thereof.


This seems to imply that a weapon being an ancestral heirloom (heritage, ancestral) can have a mechanical meaning, for it can qualify Roy or Durkon to take the Battle Scion prestige class. This can be true even if they haven't taken that prestige class (yet). If Roy has not taken this prestige class, then there is no way the weapon can display the mechanical benefits. We don't need that to mention heritage in the character sheets though, because the comic shows (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0113.html) many times that the sword is definitely a family heirloom.

Yet fluff of Battle Scion seems to match Roy a bit. Roy is “wielding the heirloom to provide him with the abilities needed to uphold the family honor”, where the abilities might refer to the glow that's particularly effective against undead, and the family honor can refer to the blood oath or just continuing his family's rich heritage as warriors. Durkon is dedicated to his race, though I don't know whether he draws strength for that from his heirloom hammer and shield.

(Incidentally, the fluff of Faith Scion seems similar to how the Crimson Mantle helps Redcloak.)

Update: Roy probably does not have the Battle Scion prestige class because Horace calls him a single-class fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0498.html).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It feels almost pointless to request this, given that RMS Oceanic has yet to remove ID from Tarquin, but still:

MitD should point to the new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347800-MitD-VIII-Everything-we-know-about-MITD-(but-were-afraid-Tarrasque)).

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[ryuplaneswalker]

Well, we don't know that the energy was particularly harmful to Sabine or Miko. But I still agree that we don't have enough information to make a call.

Not to dredge this up but I did feel the need to answer to this since I brought up Sabine.

In the Link I posted she did react in a less than happy way to the sword's effect and was not hit directly by the attack, Miko is hard to tell since she was directly hit.

[Techwarrior]

I'm pretty sure she believed it overcame her DR, but I don't recall why or how the idea came up.

[Angelalex242]

Overcoming her DR just proves that Starmetal apparently functions as cold iron for purposes of damage reduction. We haven't seen him hit anything (like the imp) vulnerable only to silver yet.

Remember a succubus's DR is 10/Cold Iron OR Good

[Vinyadan]

Does "heritage" mean anything mechanically? If so, does the sword display the benefits associated with being a heritage item? If not, is there a point to listing it as such?

Can't we call it "ancestral" instead of "heritage"? That's how Roy calls it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html), and it's relevant as the reason why he could talk to his father as long as it was unbroken. Ancestral +5 starmetal greatsword?

[b_jonas]

Can't we call it "ancestral" instead of "heritage"? That's how Roy calls it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html), and it's relevant as the reason why he could talk to his father as long as it was unbroken. Ancestral +5 starmetal greatsword?

Yes, one of "heirloom" or "ancestral" is probably better than "heritage". I don't care about the exact word, you decide. Roy's mum calls the sword "ancestral" as well (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0113.html) (it was probably already a heirloom to Horace). Durkon calls his hammer and shield "heirloom" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0237.html). The rules of Battle Scion say "ancestral heirloom".

[Flame of Anor]

+1 for calling it "Ancestral +5 starmetal greatsword"

[Hecuba]

I think we should be careful here: "Ancestral" could imply connection to something like the Ancestral Relic feat, which doesn't seem to match what we're seeing.

If we do need to indicate it somehow, perhaps:

+5 starmetal greatsword - family heirloom facilitating Eugene Greenhilt's manifestation

[illyahr]

I am also of the agreement to change it to a +5 Starmetal Greatsword.


Starmetal is extraordinarily hard, and is equal to adamantine for all
purposes (see page 283 of the Dungeon Master's Guide), including
overcoming damage reduction or granting damage reduction when used in
armor construction. Starmetal also possesses an inherent magical
connection to the Material Plane, meaning that weapons made of the
alloy are especially effective against creatures from other planes.
Weapons made of starmetal deal an extra 1d6 points of damage to any
extraplanar creatures while they are on the Material Plane

For your consideration. Perhaps the green glow we see is it reacting to planar energies? Undead draw from the Negative Energy plane, Sabine is a Demon, and Miko (until recently) drew power from the Celestial Realms. Maybe it was reacting to that?

[Angelalex242]

Miko is a fighter without feats during the time of that battle. As such, reacting to planar energy from her seems a bit extreme.

[illyahr]

Miko is a fighter without feats during the time of that battle. As such, reacting to planar energy from her seems a bit extreme.

At what point did her class change to Fighter? Mechanically, I agree with you. However, an argument could be made that her abilities aren't removed, just nullified. She might still have the connection, just be unable to use it.

[zimmerwald1915]

At what point did her class change to Fighter? Mechanically, I agree with you. However, an argument could be made that her abilities aren't removed, just nullified. She might still have the connection, just be unable to use it.
Or she might be coated with residual energy from the Twelve Gods manifesting above her. But however you slice it, this smells like a stretch.

[illyahr]

Or she might be coated with residual energy from the Twelve Gods manifesting above her. But however you slice it, this smells like a stretch.

Definitely a stretch, but it's plausible. It's the simplest fix, but a better explanation might be found.

[Flame of Anor]

I think we shouldn't put it down as just a "+5 starmetal greatsword", because clearly it does not only have the abilities that a RAW +5 starmetal greatsword would have. In the D&D universe, either this sword or starmetal in general seems to have been houseruled. So we should have an extra disclaimer (like the word "ancestral") to hint that it does not behave like stock starmetal.

[Angelalex242]

...ya know, does the stunning kick Miko does in ep 200 count as whirlwind attack? It's obviously a stunning fist, but...

She seems to be striking Roy and Haley at the same time. And also, she jumps around the battlefield as if she had spring attack, which is a prereq of whirlwind attack.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html

[orrion]

I think we shouldn't put it down as just a "+5 starmetal greatsword", because clearly it does not only have the abilities that a RAW +5 starmetal greatsword would have. In the D&D universe, either this sword or starmetal in general seems to have been houseruled. So we should have an extra disclaimer (like the word "ancestral") to hint that it does not behave like stock starmetal.

2 questions -

1) Does the thread make other distinctions like that? A glace says no - for instance, there is no notation that the Dashing Swordsman class is something Rich made up (if I'm remembering correctly).

2) Who is going to care? People that know the RAW and read the comic are already going to know it doesn't act like a RAW starmetal sword. People that don't know the RAW and read the comic probably aren't going to care one way or the other.

[Douglas]

2 questions -

1) Does the thread make other distinctions like that? A glace says no - for instance, there is no notation that the Dashing Swordsman class is something Rich made up (if I'm remembering correctly).

2) Who is going to care? People that know the RAW and read the comic are already going to know it doesn't act like a RAW starmetal sword. People that don't know the RAW and read the comic probably aren't going to care one way or the other.
1) There is no Dashing Swordsman class at all in RAW, so noting that it's homebrew is redundant.
2) The properties of starmetal are not a particularly well known part of RAW for the general reader/player base.

Adding some indicator for known homebrew might be a good idea, though, including for Dashing Swordsman.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Could we put a footnote or something next to Starmetal and say something like "homebrew version" or "doesn't have normal properties"?

[137beth]

...ya know, does the stunning kick Miko does in ep 200 count as whirlwind attack? It's obviously a stunning fist, but...

She seems to be striking Roy and Haley at the same time. And also, she jumps around the battlefield as if she had spring attack, which is a prereq of whirlwind attack.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html

It's possible, but it isn't particularly clear. There isn't really enough evidence to put it in the OP.

[orrion]

1) There is no Dashing Swordsman class at all in RAW, so noting that it's homebrew is redundant.
2) The properties of starmetal are not a particularly well known part of RAW for the general reader/player base.

Adding some indicator for known homebrew might be a good idea, though, including for Dashing Swordsman.

If anything, labeling the Dashing Swordsman class would be MORE important because the assumption of people reading a D&D based comic is going to be that whatever is used exists somewhere. The only reason to label the starmetal would be to correct the erroneous assumption that this is how starmetal works normally. So, given that both labels correct erroneous assumptions, how could it be redundant?

That said, however, I don't see a reason why we ought to go labeling "homebrew" on everything.

Besides - and I think Rich has said this before - the bulk of the readership doesn't even play D&D.

[Hecuba]

If anything, labeling the Dashing Swordsman class would be MORE important because the assumption of people reading a D&D based comic is going to be that whatever is used exists somewhere. The only reason to label the starmetal would be to correct the erroneous assumption that this is how starmetal works normally. So, given that both labels correct erroneous assumptions, how could it be redundant?

That said, however, I don't see a reason why we ought to go labeling "homebrew" on everything.

Besides - and I think Rich has said this before - the bulk of the readership doesn't even play D&D.

My 2 bits:

If there were two things called "Starmetal" in RAW and they had different properties, I think we would probably make a distinction in this thread about which one was used (if sufficient information exists to identify which was used).

I see no reason to treat the home-brewed Starmetal differently: the homebrew is relatively well-defined and the scope of its effects are limited enough to avoid the extrapolation issues that other homebrew items might pose for this thread are avoided.

I see not reason to treat the situation differently than we would, for example, treat a distinction between OE Samurai and CW Samurai.
And since I think it would be useful to make that distinction, I also support making this one.

[Flame of Anor]

Besides - and I think Rich has said this before - the bulk of the readership doesn't even play D&D.

And how is that relevant to a thread that only D&D players will care about?

[Quartz]

The enchantment has activated in fights against non undead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0349.html) as well as against humans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)

Those could have been activations of a different enchantment with the same manifestation. E.g. in an old TSR adventure there was a sword which glowed red when someone told a lie or was near an elf.

[Quartz]

Besides - and I think Rich has said this before - the bulk of the readership doesn't even play D&D.

But I bet the bulk of the readership at least used to play.

[137beth]

And how is that relevant to a thread that only D&D players will care about?

At least two former vocal participants of the C&LG threads purported never to have played D&D and just read the srd: Mage_Paradox and MagusBloodsoak. Neither are here anymore.
Your point stands: anyone without familiarity with the D&D rules is unlikely to take any interest in this thread.

[orrion]

And how is that relevant to a thread that only D&D players will care about?

I don't play D&D. I'll thank you not to tell me what I care about.

Anyway, it's relevant because anyone who doesn't play won't care, and anyone who plays seriously will already know it doesn't function that way.

[Flame of Anor]

I don't play D&D. I'll thank you not to tell me what I care about.

Alright. But surely you are a rare exception.


Anyway, it's relevant because anyone who doesn't play won't care, and anyone who plays seriously will already know it doesn't function that way.

Unfortunately, you here ignore the very large proportion of the readership who do play, but not seriously enough to have memorized the properties of an obscure material from Complete Arcane.

[Kurald Galain]

Added the starmetal bit. I've called it heirloom for now, because that's the term used for Durkon's weapons as well.

[orrion]

Unfortunately, you here ignore the very large proportion of the readership who do play, but not seriously enough to have memorized the properties of an obscure material from Complete Arcane.

That's ok, because we're already ignoring a very large portion of the readership who do play, but not seriously enough to have memorized every class and prestige class that ever existed to the point where they know the Dashing Swordsman is made up.

[zimmerwald1915]

That's ok, because we're already ignoring a very large portion of the readership who do play, but not seriously enough to have memorized every class and prestige class that ever existed to the point where they know the Dashing Swordsman is made up.
One only needs to have read the comic to know that the Dashing Swordsman can't be found in a first-party rulebook. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html)

[Hecuba]

That's ok, because we're already ignoring a very large portion of the readership who do play, but not seriously enough to have memorized every class and prestige class that ever existed to the point where they know the Dashing Swordsman is made up.


One only needs to have read the comic to know that the Dashing Swordsman can't be found in a first-party rulebook. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html)

A point that seems to be made relatively clearly by the fact that the words "dashing swordsman" links to that strip.

Moreover, there is no 2nd version of Dashing Swordsman - RAW, 3rd party, or (excluding what the forums put together following the comic) even Homebrew - of which I am aware.

The goal of notating starmetal wouldn't seem to be to note its homebrew status: the goal is to distinguish between the two separate sets of rules for the things called "Starmetal." In RAW discussions, we would generally do so by noting the source of the one in use.

The fact that, in this case, the source happens to be OOTS Homebrew is incidental.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Isn't linking to strip #297 enough to show that it's not a normal starmetal sword?

[ChristianSt]

Isn't linking to strip #297 enough to show that it's not a normal starmetal sword?

That seems like a sound reasoning for not adding "homebrew". I personally wouldn't like it, because I have the feeling if we start adding a homebrew disclaimer to certain things, we should add them to all. And that would force us to add it to probably half the stuff listed in this thread.

[Chronos]

While we're on the subject of Roy's equipment... We had been considering his armor to be a breastplate, for various reasons. But now that we can see more detail in his arms and legs, we see that they're the same color as his armor, implying that they're part of the same garment. Wouldn't that imply that it's actually half-plate or (more likely) full plate?

[Flame of Anor]

While we're on the subject of Roy's equipment... We had been considering his armor to be a breastplate, for various reasons. But now that we can see more detail in his arms and legs, we see that they're the same color as his armor, implying that they're part of the same garment. Wouldn't that imply that it's actually half-plate or (more likely) full plate?

No, those reasons still apply. If he were wearing heavy armor, his speed would not be greater than Durkon's, and thus he would not carry Durkon when they run away. Besides, a breastplate "comes with helmet and greaves" anyway. He's clearly not wearing the helmet, so maybe he put on some arm guards instead (for pure fluff, of course, not changing the armor's stats).

[Ceaon]

No, those reasons still apply. If he were wearing heavy armor, his speed would not be greater than Durkon's, and thus he would not carry Durkon when they run away.

If he's wearing medium armor, his speed would also be reduced though, right? Or are we assuming it's mithral?

[Douglas]

If he's wearing medium armor, his speed would also be reduced though, right? Or are we assuming it's mithral?
The scene in question features the party running. Heavy armor reduces run speed multiplier, in addition to the base speed reduction, and medium does not.

[137beth]

That seems like a sound reasoning for not adding "homebrew". I personally wouldn't like it, because I have the feeling if we start adding a homebrew disclaimer to certain things, we should add them to all. And that would force us to add it to probably half the stuff listed in this thread.

Per word of author, everything is a homebrew variant that might have similar features to the 3.5 version, so adding [homebrew] tags would require adding it to everything, negating the entire purpose of the thread. I think the fact that the starmetal in Roy's sword is distinct from 3.5 starmetal is clear to most people who are sufficiently crazy about D&D to be reading this thread.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think the fact that the starmetal in Roy's sword is distinct from 3.5 starmetal is clear to most people who are sufficiently crazy about D&D to be reading this thread.

No, it is not. I am not that crazy about 3.5, and yet I read the thread. I am very interested to know that the starmetal is homebrewed rather than straight RAW, and I would find it very useful to have it marked as such. Even more useful to have a note about how it is different from RAW.

As to your broader assertion, it is simply false. Not everything is homebrewed - most, as far as I can tell, is strictly RAW. The distinction is important, and useful, and should be included, although given that Oceanic is AWOL, I will not hold my breath for actual changes.

Grey Wolf

[Shadowscale]

The scene in question features the party running. Heavy armor reduces run speed multiplier, in addition to the base speed reduction, and medium does not.

Doesn't Roy on a couple of occasions say he's wearing heavy armor?

[warrl]

Per word of author, everything is a homebrew variant that might have similar features to the 3.5 version, so adding [homebrew] tags would require adding it to everything, negating the entire purpose of the thread.

Nope, the purpose of the thread is to account for as much as possible without resorting to labeling things "homebrew". And we (collectively - my own contribution is approximately zero) have done a pretty good job of that.

The first question is, when some specific thing has no RAW explanation and Rich has explicitly identified that thing as non-RAW*, or it's explicitly created by some in-comic or otherwise non-D&D-canonical character, should it be tagged as homebrew in this thread? Obviously, if we're going to use the "homebrew" tag at all, it would make sense to tag these things; but do we want to use the tag at all?

But then, if we are to use the tag, how about if we have consensus agreement that no RAW explanation exists for something but there's also no identified-homebrew explanation? Tag as homebrew, or no?

[zimmerwald1915]

Nope, the purpose of the thread is to account for as much as possible without resorting to labeling things "homebrew". And we (collectively - my own contribution is approximately zero) have done a pretty good job of that.
I believe 137ben is referring to the comment that said [paraphrased] "OOTS runs on the 'OOTS-RPG' rules, which are exactly like the 3.5 rules in every respect except when they're not."

Technically speaking, yes, everything is homebrew. It's just that the technicality doesn't matter most of the time.

[Chronos]

Quoth Ceaon:

If he's wearing medium armor, his speed would also be reduced though, right? Or are we assuming it's mithral?
That's a good point. Have we ruled out the possibility of mithral full plate?


Quoth Shadowscale:

Doesn't Roy on a couple of occasions say he's wearing heavy armor?
I think the only instance of anyone explicitly calling it "heavy armor" is when Belkar was Crafting his Disturbing Mental Image, and said he wanted to "get that heavy armor off". Which could be interpreted as the common usage of the term rather than the technical usage.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think the only instance of anyone explicitly calling it "heavy armor" is when Belkar was Crafting his Disturbing Mental Image, and said he wanted to "get that heavy armor off". Which could be interpreted as the common usage of the term rather than the technical usage.

Didn't Roy mention heavy armour when refusing to go through the rift into the sea beyond?

GW

[b_jonas]

Doesn't Roy on a couple of occasions say he's wearing heavy armor?

Indeed, Roy says that at least once: in #902. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0902.html) I don't recall any other occasion when he says this, but #561 asserts that Durkon wears heavy armor. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html)

[hamishspence]

Strip 25 establishes that Durkon's armor wasn't just Heavy - it was full plate.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0025.html

And as far as I can tell, he's never changed it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Interestingly enough, this very same question is being talked about in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349987-Did-Roy-just-upgrade-to-heavier-armor-or-is-it-an-art-improvement).

[dtilque]

V's Int is at least 26. In 946 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html), s/he cast Dimensional Lock 3 times. That's an 8th level spell. A level 16 wizard requires a Bonus spell to cast that many 8th level spells in one day. An Int of 26+ is required to get that bonus.

If I'm not mistaken, the Int of 24 was based on having over 25 spells left during the caster fight with Laurin. So it's a minimum and does not preclude an Int of 26.

ETA: I just realized that V may have just gained level 17, in case s/he may have cast one of the Dimensional Locks with a ninth level slot. That is, if that's allowed for wizards. Strip 946 is the beginning of the day after the Longest Day, where there were lots of battles and XP gained. So it's a likely point for him/her to have gained a level. I believe Elan gained his 14th level of Bard at that point.

So either V's Int is 26 or s/he's level 17.

[zimmerwald1915]

V's Int is at least 26. In 946 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html), s/he cast Dimensional Lock 3 times. That's an 8th level spell. A level 16 wizard requires a Bonus spell to cast that many 8th level spells in one day. An Int of 26+ is required to get that bonus.

If I'm not mistaken, the Int of 24 was based on having over 25 spells left during the caster fight with Laurin. So it's a minimum and does not preclude an Int of 26.
We've been over this. Nothing about that scene suggests that she cast all three dimensional locks in one day. V could have cast one dimensional lock, rested for eight hours, and cast two more.

Furthermore, there is a question of mechanism. V was listed with exactly 23 Intelligence, including +4 from a headband of intellect, before leveling to 16. That level-up would have given her one additional point, but where would the other two have come from? A replacement or upgraded headband? A tome of clear thought +2? We've got no reason to believe the Mechane has such things in stock, or that any of the crew could craft them. So when and where would the Mechane have been able to stop so V could purchase such things? The only major settlements between the Windy Canyon and the east coast of the Western Continent are controlled by the Vector Legion and thus guaranteed to be inhospitable. They couldn't have stopped in the Elven Lands; at best V thought she could only get them a flyover.

[dtilque]

We've been over this.

Sorry. I looked through many back pages of this thread and didn't find such a discussion.


Nothing about that scene suggests that she cast all three dimensional locks in one day. V could have cast one dimensional lock, rested for eight hours, and cast two more.

At the time s/he says that, they've been on the Mechane maybe 8 hours or so. This is the morning after the battle with Laurin. Do you think V will have had Dimensional Lock prepped for a day in which they were anticipating fighting? Perhaps, but I don't think I would.


Furthermore, there is a question of mechanism. V was listed with exactly 23 Intelligence, including +4 from a headband of intellect, before leveling to 16. That level-up would have given her one additional point, but where would the other two have come from? A replacement or upgraded headband? A tome of clear thought +2? We've got no reason to believe the Mechane has such things in stock, or that any of the crew could craft them. So when and where would the Mechane have been able to stop so V could purchase such things? The only major settlements between the Windy Canyon and the east coast of the Western Continent are controlled by the Vector Legion and thus guaranteed to be inhospitable. They couldn't have stopped in the Elven Lands; at best V thought she could only get them a flyover.

OK, V's Int is 24 and V is now level 17. QED. (see my addition to my previous post.)

[Techwarrior]

Or, since they were trying to guard a place from intrusion, V had a casting of Dimensional Lock prepared, and cast the spell once. Then rested for 8 hours, regained spells, and cast 2 more Dimensional Lock spells.

[SavageWombat]

All the attempts at math and proving-through-experience-points is nice as a thought experiment, but considering the standards of the rest of the thread, I'm pretty sure we won't list V at 17th level until we see a 9th level spell cast.

[zimmerwald1915]

At the time s/he says that, they've been on the Mechane maybe 8 hours or so. This is the morning after the battle with Laurin. Do you think V will have had Dimensional Lock prepped for a day in which they were anticipating fighting? Perhaps, but I don't think I would.
They were going into a dungeon hoping to talk to a bunch of sorcerers and/or wizards who could probably teleport (the existence of the secret passages in the walls later confirmed this possibility). Dimensional anchor and dimensional lock (and we know V prepared the former because she used it against Laurin) could have helped the Order make them stick around long enough to listen to what they had to say. Furthermore, the Order was anticipating having to defend the Gate against Xykon, who according to Roy knew its exact coordinates and could teleport right to it. Warding the area around the Gate would at least force him to teleport slightly farther away. So dimensional lock seems quite apt for what the Order expected, actually.

As for XP, V wasn't present for the first two fights with the Linear Guild. The XP she would have gotten from the fights in which she did participate amounted to 125,667 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16752837&postcount=1353), nowhere near the 136,000 needed to level to 17. V may have started the day with more than 120,000 XP, but that is unknowable and should not be assumed for the sake of fitting a preconceived notion. Like everyone else, she probably got a heap of roleplaying and story XP, but that is unquantifiable. And even considering everything that went on that day, ~11,000 roleplaying and story XP seems a bit much.


All the attempts at math and proving-through-experience-points is nice as a thought experiment, but considering the standards of the rest of the thread, I'm pretty sure we won't list V at 17th level until we see a 9th level spell cast.
Where did dtilque "attempt math and proving-through-experience-points?" The only mention I see of XP is along the lines of 'she must have gained a lot,' which is about as far from proof through math as it's possible to get.

Though I agree we'll probably see a 9th-level spell from V before she is shown definitively gaining another 11,000 XP. Or more, since she's scribing an unknown number of scrolls of unknown spells, which costs XP.

[Ceaon]

The scene in question features the party running. Heavy armor reduces run speed multiplier, in addition to the base speed reduction, and medium does not.

Ah of course. Thank you.

So, seeing how Roy seems to mention a few times he wears heavy armor, yet he also runs just as fast as the lightly armored team members, why not mithral half or full plate instead of breastplate?
(In fact, if medium, why a breastplate at all? Why not scale mail or chainmail?)

[zimmerwald1915]

Okay, so seeing how Roy seems to mention a few times he wears heavy armor, yet he also runs just as fast as the lightly armored team members, why not mithral half or full plate instead of breastplate?
(In fact, if medium, why a breastplate at all? Why not scale mail or chainmail?)
Mail tends not to be two solid plates set on a hinge.

[Flame of Anor]

Mail tends not to be two solid plates set on a hinge.

The comic in question. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0809.html)

[Ceaon]

So it's a visual thing. I guess that should be evidence enough for the armor not being mail, yes. I see now that the armor is listed as "magical armor", not even heavy or medium or breastplate, so we could specifiy it further I guess.