Belkar vs. Durkula (D&D combat)

[Breccia]

Obviously, in the comic (or any other story) a combat can go however the author wants. We also know that Belkar is a particularly cunning little bastard, able to use the environment to his advantage in a fight (as shown in his fight against Miko). I'm not asking about either of those.

My question is 100% pure rules based (and, therefore, not especially relevant to the story -- but I am curious). Based on what we know/think we know about both Belkar and Durkula in a 3E setting, including their game stats and magic items, is it reasonably possible for Belkar to reduce Durkula to 0hp (misting him) in a fair one-on-one match in an environment with minimal wood, fire, and holy items? By "fair" I mean "one of them does not murder the other in his sleep" basically, but both sides can use whatever abilities they have access to, with no outside interference from any bystanders.

My gut says "no" but I haven't played 3E in a while. Can a ranger/barbarian hybrid take out a vampire cleric of equal level (and therefore, the vampire having a higher ECL) in a cage match?

[oppyu]

From what little I've gleaned of D&D by reading the comic, Belkar can't hurt not-Durkon and he doesn't have the will saves to defend himself from any of Durkon's vampire or cleric abilities. It'd be Belkar v. Malack round two.

[Keltest]

From what little I've gleaned of D&D by reading the comic, Belkar can't hurt not-Durkon and he doesn't have the will saves to defend himself from any of Durkon's vampire or cleric abilities. It'd be Belkar v. Malack round two.

Don't forget, Belkar has his fancy psionic knife now.

That said, Durkon is a caster and Belkar is hilariously poorly optimized, beyond even "this is more fun than killing people with save-or-die spell" level. Unless Durkon literally just sat there and let Belkar stab him to death, Im pretty sure Durkon would win hands down.

[factotum]

Even before he was made a vampire, Durkon was one of the more powerful members of the Order--he's a cleric, which gives him powerful offensive and defensive spells, while also being at least as good at fighting as Belkar and better armoured to boot. Now he's a vampire, and gains massive damage reduction and a bunch of other abilities? The fight probably wouldn't even get to the third round!

[Reddish Mage]

We already know Durkula can one-shot Belkar with the vampire dominate ability. However, even if Belkar had acquired immunity, even if Durkula wasn't using his instant kill (or close to it) touch spells, even if he didn't use his fancy magic items or his active vampire abilities (any of which by themselves means automatic win). Durkula still has fast healing and potentially still has more hit points (hit dice increase to d12 though Durkula lost Durkon's enormous con bonuses), an increased armor class, and hits real hard with the vampire strength bonuses.

SO even if Durkula choose to face Belkar in a purely physical conflict Durkula would win. With Durkula's active vampiric and clerical abilities (either by themselves) it is not even a contest. Belkar will likely go down within two rounds.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

It is very unlikely, from a game standpoint alone, that Belkar could win. We have seen how well the High Priest of Hel can dominate him, and that is only one of the many advantages he has over Belkar. Belkar is pretty weak, aside from his collision dagger.

[137beth]

To stand a chance, Belkar would need to gain better resistance or immunity to mind-affecting effects, and immunity to ability drain/negative levels. Neither of which he had by the end of book five, and one of which he did not have even more recently.

[Nomrom]

Would the whole rest of the OOTS together even be able to take on Durkula? He was possibly the strongest individual member even before he got all of his vampire bonuses.

[Keltest]

Would the whole rest of the OOTS together even be able to take on Durkula? He was possibly the strongest individual member even before he got all of his vampire bonuses.

That depends. Are they strategizing at all? If Belkar stays out of the fight (or even more radically, stays back and hurls rocks or something) I think they have a fair chance.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Would the whole rest of the OOTS together even be able to take on Durkula? He was possibly the strongest individual member even before he got all of his vampire bonuses.

It depends on the situation. If the High Priest of Hel takes them by surprise and takes out some of the Order, then probably not. If they take him by surprise, they stand a much better chance. At an even standoff the High Priest of Hel might be able to dominate some of them, in which case the Order will probably go down.

[Zweisteine]

Well, the first step is obviously to refer to their statblocks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16944627&postcount=3), courtesy of the latest Class and Level Geekery (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329816-Class-and-Level-Geekery-XII-Even-Nerds-Call-Us-Nerds) thread.

Sticking just with Durkon's Dominate ability, I think Belkar's fate is sealed.

The DC should be about 19 (10+14HD/2+2 charisma). Belkar's will save isn't go to be anything over +4, because of his low wisdom and multiclassing (max base will save for a level-16 Rng 11+/Brb 1+ is +5).

So Durkon will win in one or two rounds, unless Belkar gets lucky and kills him first (which would require a critical hit).

But we already knew that.

Other tricks Durkon could pull include Antilife Shell, which would keep Belkar at range.

He could cast and hold Harm, and start making slam attacks. If he hits, Belkar would have to make a will save (DC 20-23) to take half of 140 damage, and he would gain 2 negative levels no matter what. He could do the same thing more slowly with inflict spells, while healing himself as necessary.

As most fights, this follows the general pattern of primary caster beats non caster.

[factotum]

So Durkon will win in one or two rounds, unless Belkar gets lucky and kills him first (which would require a critical hit).


Aren't undead immune to critical hits?

[colanderman]

Belkar's a chef. He of all PCs should be able to find a creative way to gain a couple rounds head-start vs. Durkula using some specially-prepared garlic.

[Gray Mage]

Aren't undead immune to critical hits?

Yes, they are.

As for if the rest of the order joins in, we do know someone that has a sword enchanted to do more damage on undead and knows a technique to stop spellcasters. :smallamused:

[dancrilis]

It depends on the strategy.

For example - Durkon is in the open and Belkar is hidden.

Turn 1: Belkar has acquired a wand of greater dispel magic and hits Durkon's staff with it, suppressing it (rolls a 3), Belkar is still hidden.
-Durkon has no idea his staff is useless.
Turn 2: Belkar hits Durkon with the wand of greater dispel magic removing his protection spell, Belkar is still hidden.
-Durkon is panicking and tries to use his staff.
Turn 3: Belkar hits the staff again for good measure, he is still hidden.
-Durkon is ash.

Rules wise there is nothing preventing Belkar from doing this (or a variant) and while he might need to get lucky to roll as needed there is nothing preventing it from working rules wise.

If Belkar attacks with his currently known items - and directly - he is likely dead.

[Reddish Mage]

Yes, they are.

As for if the rest of the order joins in, we do know someone that has a sword enchanted to do more damage on undead and knows a technique to stop spellcasters. :smallamused:

If you're wondering what Greenhilt vs. Durkula is going to be like, my guess is you are going to find out pretty soon!

[Gray Mage]

It depends on the strategy.

For example - Durkon is in the open and Belkar is hidden.

Turn 1: Belkar has acquired a wand of greater dispel magic and hits Durkon's staff with it, suppressing it (rolls a 3), Belkar is still hidden.
-Durkon has no idea his staff is useless.
Turn 2: Belkar hits Durkon with the wand of greater dispel magic removing his protection spell, Belkar is still hidden.
-Durkon is panicking and tries to use his staff.
Turn 3: Belkar hits the staff again for good measure, he is still hidden.
-Durkon is ash.

Rules wise there is nothing preventing Belkar from doing this (or a variant) and while he might need to get lucky to roll as needed there is nothing preventing it from working rules wise.

If Belkar attacks with his currently known items - and directly - he is likely dead.

We have no evidence that Belkar has any ranks in UMD, though. :smallconfused:


If you're wondering what Greenhilt vs. Durkula is going to be like, my guess is you are going to find out pretty soon!

That's my guess too. I'm really looking foward to it. :smallbiggrin:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

We have no evidence that Belkar has any ranks in UMD, though. :smallconfused:

Another problem is that Greater Dispel Magic is too high of a level to put into a wand.

[137beth]

It could be put into a staff or scroll, though. But UMD is not a class skill for either barbarian or ranger.

[dancrilis]

We have no evidence that Belkar has any ranks in UMD, though. :smallconfused:

Absence if evidence is not evidence of absence (although I will concede that in general usage it is better to assume an absence unless evidence is provided to the contrary). Rules wise he might have it for the purpose of this conversation. It is irrelevant anyway as I will mention below*.


Another problem is that Greater Dispel Magic is too high of a level to put into a wand.
Fair enough 'Dispel Magic' would work just as well. It is irrelevant anyway as I will mention below*.

*Yes what either of you said was correct but I did cover myself with the following quote.

Rules wise there is nothing preventing Belkar from doing this (or a variant)
Even if the core scenario I listed would not work - a variant could.
If the wand restrictions are the core problem for example we can give him a ring instead and accomplice the same.

The initial questions were:

Based on what we know/think we know about both Belkar and Durkula in a 3E setting, including their game stats and magic items, is it reasonably possible for Belkar to reduce Durkula to 0hp (misting him) in a fair one-on-one match in an environment with minimal wood, fire, and holy items? By "fair" I mean "one of them does not murder the other in his sleep" basically, but both sides can use whatever abilities they have access to, with no outside interference from any bystanders.

Can a ranger/barbarian hybrid take out a vampire cleric of equal level (and therefore, the vampire having a higher ECL) in a cage match?
The answer to this depends on 'fair' (for example some might say that a man to man close combat fight between them is not 'fair', others might say that anything sneaky is not 'fair', others might say that Dominate is not 'fair', etc etc), and on 'cage' (assuming the universe/multiverse/omniverse - as you like - is a closed system, it could be viewed as a cage).
So assuming that Belkar is allowed to prepare for the fight against a probably much more dangerous opponent (in the interest of fairness) than it is possible rules wise for Belkar to destroy the Durkon's body.

In fact even without preparation if the fight is fair than Belkar will have a fair chance, assuming you define a fair fight as one where both combatants have a fair change.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Absence if evidence is not evidence of absence (although I will concede that in general usage it is better to assume an absence unless evidence is provided to the contrary). Rules wise he might have it for the purpose of this conversation. It is irrelevant anyway as I will mention below*.


Fair enough 'Dispel Magic' would work just as well. It is irrelevant anyway as I will mention below*.

*Yes what either of you said was correct but I did cover myself with the following quote.

Even if the core scenario I listed would not work - a variant could.
If the wand restrictions are the core problem for example we can give him a ring instead and accomplice the same.

The initial questions were:


The answer to this depends on 'fair' (for example some might say that a man to man close combat fight between them is not 'fair', others might say that anything sneaky is not 'fair', others might say that Dominate is not 'fair', etc etc), and on 'cage' (assuming the universe/multiverse/omniverse - as you like - is a closed system, it could be viewed as a cage).
So assuming that Belkar is allowed to prepare for the fight against a probably much more dangerous opponent (in the interest of fairness) than it is possible rules wise for Belkar to destroy the Durkon's body.

In fact even without preparation if the fight is fair than Belkar will have a fair chance, assuming you define a fair fight as one where both combatants have a fair change.

I will grant you that if Belkar has ranks in UMD then it is there is a way he could defeat Durkon (although on the ship it probably wouldn't be too hard to find shadow in time). However, since I doubt he has any ranks or that he has access to many magic items, I do not find it to be a plausible outcome. (I also doubt this problem will be resolved by the use of magic items, but that's outside of the scope of this thread).

[factotum]

Yeah, I've no doubt that it's *possible* within the rules for Belkar to somehow cheese his way to victory in a fight with Durkula. I just find it vanishingly unlikely he would ever do so because (a) it probably requires him to possess skills and abilities he never bothered with or (b) requires him to be considerably more intelligent and prone to planning ahead than he has ever been seen to be. In any "realistic" fight, Durkula wins convincingly.

[dancrilis]

Agreed in principle - I do think Belkar has more low cunning than he is given credit for and might be able to manage something sneaky, and I would given situations for how these might play out ... but frankly after reading my above post I am too shocked at both my spelling and grammar to bother.

[Reddish Mage]

It could be put into a staff or scroll, though. But UMD is not a class skill for either barbarian or ranger.

The fact is that UMD is the most powerful skill even if it is cross-class but it's highly implausible to think Belkar put skill points towards this since we've seen no evidence and his character concept bends towards being laughably non-optimized, for those not in the know of D&D let's review the traits made fun of in the comic: Belkar is a halfling ranger with wisdom as a dump stat (meaning he can't use spells, his most powerful class feature), laughable spot checks and a single rank in survival.



Yeah, I've no doubt that it's *possible* within the rules for Belkar to somehow cheese his way to victory in a fight with Durkula. I just find it vanishingly unlikely he would ever do so because (a) it probably requires him to possess skills and abilities he never bothered with or (b) requires him to be considerably more intelligent and prone to planning ahead than he has ever been seen to be. In any "realistic" fight, Durkula wins convincingly.

I think its worse than you are allowing. Belkar can't win even with cheesing in anything resembling a real fight.

[factotum]

I think its worse than you are allowing. Belkar can't win even with cheesing in anything resembling a real fight.

He quite handily beat Crystal one-on-one--admittedly, she's an assassin not a fighter, so hardly well optimised for the sort of fight she was in at that point, but he beat her in a straight-up fight without a whiff of cheese to be seen. He was also able to hold off Crystal and Bozzok fighting together, and considering we know Bozzok had a few levels on him, that's no mean feat. Therefore Belkar is at least *somewhat* competent as a fighter.

[Murk]

I think the problem here indeed is that the character of Belkar doesn't really follow the straight D&D rules. He's horribly unoptimized and probably not a good fighter. However, in the comic he is still respected as a warrior and able to decapitate enemies without a problem.

It seems to me there is something hidden about Belkar that no one knows yet. How else is he able to adventure? (He was even able to do it solo!) He is probably already an epic level ranger just pretending to be lower level. Or a demigod? The brother of the MitD? SNARL JUNIOR?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think the problem here indeed is that the character of Belkar doesn't really follow the straight D&D rules. He's horribly unoptimized and probably not a good fighter. However, in the comic he is still respected as a warrior and able to decapitate enemies without a problem.

It seems to me there is something hidden about Belkar that no one knows yet. How else is he able to adventure? (He was even able to do it solo!) He is probably already an epic level ranger just pretending to be lower level. Or a demigod? The brother of the MitD? SNARL JUNIOR?

A lot of the people he beats up are either relatively peaceful or a lower-level than he is. It is interesting that he was able to hold off Bozzok, though.

[Keltest]

A lot of the people he beats up are either relatively peaceful or a lower-level than he is. It is interesting that he was able to hold off Bozzok, though.

Well, at the end of the day, in spite of his equipment choice, Bozzok is at least primarily a rogue, correct? While he is obviously more optimized towards melee than Haley is, he still isn't meant to be fighting a fair fight.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well, at the end of the day, in spite of his equipment choice, Bozzok is at least primarily a rogue, correct? While he is obviously more optimized towards melee than Haley is, he still isn't meant to be fighting a fair fight.

That's true. However, Bozzok is at a fairly high level (at least 19) so I'd expect to do a little better.

[Keltest]

That's true. However, Bozzok is at a fairly high level (at least 19) so I'd expect to do a little better.

Belkar may have had cleric dude cast some spells on him before going out to combat.

[theNater]

That's true. However, Bozzok is at a fairly high level (at least 19) so I'd expect to do a little better.
A level 19 rogue has a +14 BAB and averages 69 HP(before Con).

A level 15 ranger has a +15 BAB and averages 87 HP(before Con).

From just levels and classes, Belkar has the advantage.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

A level 19 rogue has a +14 BAB and averages 69 HP(before Con).

A level 15 ranger has a +15 BAB and averages 87 HP(before Con).

From just levels and classes, Belkar has the advantage.

Oh, that's right; I forgot that rogues don't have full BAB. Okay, then Belkar's being able to hold him off makes more sense.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'd make a note that Belkar also traded his off-hand weapon for a shield in that 2 on 1, which hints he isn't quite as dumb as he sometimes appears. That limits his DPS, but ups his AC. Of course, it also looks like he's fighting defensively, if not going Total Defense.

[Reddish Mage]

A level 19 rogue has a +14 BAB and averages 69 HP(before Con).

A level 15 ranger has a +15 BAB and averages 87 HP(before Con).

From just levels and classes, Belkar has the advantage.

I'm not sure why Bozzok would be at least 19 but he appears to have fighter levels. Also Crystal would be a assassin class.

However Belkar would have the advantage of his Barbarian rage bonuses.

[Keltest]

I'm not sure why Bozzok would be at least 19 but he appears to have fighter levels. Also Crystal would be a assassin class.

However Belkar would have the advantage of his Barbarian rage bonuses.

While I don't understand the rules completely, I believe he needs to have that many more rogue levels in order to get a sneak attack in on Haley, irrespective of anything else like flanking or surprise.

[Friv]

I think the problem here indeed is that the character of Belkar doesn't really follow the straight D&D rules. He's horribly unoptimized and probably not a good fighter. However, in the comic he is still respected as a warrior and able to decapitate enemies without a problem.

It seems to me there is something hidden about Belkar that no one knows yet. How else is he able to adventure? (He was even able to do it solo!) He is probably already an epic level ranger just pretending to be lower level. Or a demigod? The brother of the MitD? SNARL JUNIOR?

I suspect that the 'hidden' thing about Belkar is a set of really impressive physical stats, which allows him to be pretty solid in a fight regardless of a chunk of his class traits being missing. If he started the game with, say, Str 16, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 10, he'd be perfectly functional as a weapon-finesse two-weapon character. Ranger is not an optimized class choice for that, of course - pure Barbarian would have gone better - but the player glanced over the books and said, "Hey, two-weapon fighting seems fun, I'll go ranger."

[factotum]

I'm not sure why Bozzok would be at least 19

Keltest has the right of it--see strip #609, where Bozzok sneak attacks Haley.

[colanderman]

Turn 3: Belkar hits the staff again for good measure, he is still hidden.
-Durkon is ash.

I doubt Belkar would do this. He wants Durkon (who saved his life) back. If Dukula/Durkon is ash, he's impossible to resurrect (and it seems that Belkar knows that you need the body (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html)).

[Keltest]

I doubt Belkar would do this. He wants Durkon (who saved his life) back. If Dukula/Durkon is ash, he's impossible to resurrect (and it seems that Belkar knows that you need the body (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html)).

I could be mistaken, but don't ashes count as part of the body for the purpose of resurrection spells (hence the various blowing away of ashes whenever someone important is disintegrated)?

[colanderman]

I could be mistaken, but don't ashes count as part of the body for the purpose of resurrection spells (hence the various blowing away of ashes whenever someone important is disintegrated)?

Actually you're right about this. Resurrection claims even the dust left by Disintegrate is sufficient; I guess I don't see why ash wouldn't be.

While the ash blowing away might be too large a risk for Roy, I suppose Belkar is not one to pay much thought to such things.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Actually you're right about this. Resurrection claims even the dust left by Disintegrate is sufficient; I guess I don't see why ash wouldn't be.

While the ash blowing away might be too large a risk for Roy, I suppose Belkar is not one to pay much thought to such things.

In addition, Belkar seems to be willing to risk having to wait a long time to find a Cleric who can resurrect Durkon in the even that he actually kills him, so I doubt another risk like this worries him.

[Reddish Mage]

I suspect that the 'hidden' thing about Belkar is a set of really impressive physical stats, which allows him to be pretty solid in a fight regardless of a chunk of his class traits being missing. If he started the game with, say, Str 16, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 10, he'd be perfectly functional as a weapon-finesse two-weapon character. Ranger is not an optimized class choice for that, of course - pure Barbarian would have gone better - but the player glanced over the books and said, "Hey, two-weapon fighting seems fun, I'll go ranger."

The impressive physical stats are quite likely, from what we've seen, all of the members of OOTS have quite a few very high stats (and the low ones are apparently not all that low). Its an interesting question why, because the sort of stats up there you can't get with a point buy or realistically role.

[theNater]

I'm not sure why Bozzok would be at least 19 but he appears to have fighter levels.
I'm not aware of anything Bozzok does which would indicate fighter levels. Proficiency with bastard swords and with shields are one feat each; somewhat unusual choices for a rogue, but not impossible.


Also Crystal would be a assassin class.
Assassins gain BAB and HP exactly as rogues do, so this has no effect on this analysis.


However Belkar would have the advantage of his Barbarian rage bonuses.
Picking up the shield suggests Belkar wants a high AC, and so may not wish to incur the AC penalty. Also, Belkar does not appear enraged during the fighting and does not appear exhausted afterwards. I believe he was not raging during this fight.

I calculated based on ranger only for Belkar because that's worse than a worst-case scenario for him. Extra HP from barbarian levels only tip the scales further in his favor.

[Edhelras]

While I do agree with the answers given here - Belkar would be chanceless against Durkola - I think the question itself is wrongly put. If you remove wood and fire and flowing water and holy symbols - of course a vampire will be hard to kill. But why would you - could you - remove these things? After all, DnD is about adventuring in different environments, with complex rules to translate nature into game variables. Only in an arena setting would the limitations set by the OP be relevant, but arena fighting isn't really what DnD is about.

If you want to regard this contest strictly rule-based - why omit those critical parts of the rules that contribute to making vampires not-godlike-afterall? For instance the strong presentation of a holy symbol - or the fact that vampires cannot enter a house without being invited in - these are incredibly important weaknesses that goes a long way to compensate for the ridiculous strengths a vampire gets.
It's like saying: OK, what if zombies were relieved of the restriction of one action per round (and thus were allowed to both move and attack in a single round) - would they be more dangerous? Of course yes, but why would one remove that weakness from a zombie, unless one specifially wanted to create a stronger and more fearsome version of the zombie?

Secondly, I think the question leaves out a very important feature of DnD - true to the rules, in my mind: Each character isn't simply a lump of stats, it's also a... of course, it's a character with it's own personality and background and so and so - but also, it is actually a class and race combo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0610.html). Belkar isn't simply someone with STR and DEX so and so, BAB and average damage so and so. He's also a Ranger and a Barbarian, with both game-technical abilities tied to this, but also a game-associated flavor to his character. Meaning: His character would be particularly suited to acting in a wilderness environment, or in similar environments that favor the features of these classes. Moreover, he's a halfling, which implies other kinds of strengths and weaknesses.
In the same way, Durkula is a vampire, and an undead - rulewise, this imposes many restrictions on how he may think and act. Being lawful to start with, and dull, slow and unimaginative due to his undead state, Durkola might be expected to wait when swift action is needed, look at face value when facing disguise, to misinterpret acts of emotion and ties between living beings.
Given Belkar's background, I think that any contest that did not include some kind of trap or cunning deception utilizing some natural resources and set up by Belkar, would be kind of against the rules - because that is exactly how a character with Belkar's statistics would be expected to handle the threat of a vampire. And if Belkar did not utilize his bond to his animal companion, and his ability to bond with other animals (like the dinosaur (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0922.html)) - what then would be the usefulness of picking the Ranger class in the first place?

Still - I agree that Belkar probably would lose in one-to-one combat. But finally, then - the entire point of DnD is to adventure in a party with different party members, who all contribute in each their own way. In my view, DnD isn't supposed to be "balanced" so that any one class can compare evenly with any other class. The party as a whole is supposed to be balanced against the villains, that's all. And as everybody knows - every party needs a healer...

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Given Belkar's background, I think that any contest that did not include some kind of trap or cunning deception utilizing some natural resources and set up by Belkar, would be kind of against the rules - because that is exactly how a character with Belkar's statistics would be expected to handle the threat of a vampire. And if Belkar did not utilize his bond to his animal companion, and his ability to bond with other animals (like the dinosaur (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0922.html)) - what then would be the usefulness of picking the Ranger class in the first place?

The thing is, this runs counter to how Belkar has been dealing with the vampire this whole time, which is to openly antagonize him and even attack him. If the High Priest of How expects an attack from anyone, it is from Belkar. You also may notice that Belkar, despite having had these abilities for quite some time, did not start using several of his ranger class abilities until very recently. Many of us are as unsure as you are why he chose Ranger to begin with.

A problem with including vampire weaknesses is that many of them are useless without actually being able to kill or meaningfully engage the High Priest of Hel. Sure, being able to repel him is nice, but if you can't actually kill him, he will soon return and destroy you. The methods of killing him are mostly dependant on being able to engage him and win in melee combat.

[Edhelras]

Many of us are as unsure as you are why he chose Ranger to begin with.


Probably same as me: Aragorn.

Anyway, I'm not so sure I agree. Actually, Belkar has several times used cunning tactics to beat enemies. Something including gastronomy would be appropriate, and particularly as it would make use of his skills in Profession: Gourmet chef.

[factotum]

I thought it was generally agreed he picked Ranger for the free two-weapon fighting feats?

[Keltest]

I thought it was generally agreed he picked Ranger for the free two-weapon fighting feats?

Don't you remember Aragorn fighting with a pair of claymores? No? Neither do I!

[Edhelras]

I remember Aragorn walking casually into the fight with the uruk-hai at the battle of the Argonath.
Even though I had loved the Ranger type from the time I first read LOTR, long time ago, after watching Aragorn "live", with that incredible coolness, it was no other option for me.

I love playing other classes and character types. But the cool, self-sufficient, nature-hardy double-wielding ranger is still my favorite. And I do think Belkar's "player" may feel the same way! It's one of the easiest fantasy icons to adopt.

[theNater]

...dull, slow and unimaginative due to his undead state...
Vampires get bonuses to all stats except Con. I don't know why you think that would make them dull, slow, or unimaginative.


But finally, then - the entire point of DnD is to adventure in a party with different party members, who all contribute in each their own way. In my view, DnD isn't supposed to be "balanced" so that any one class can compare evenly with any other class.
As things stand, invoking the party is to Durkula's favor. For that to change, Roy needs to be convinced not only that Durkula isn't Durkon, but also that Durkula deserves destruction. Otherwise, Roy will actively oppose any attempt Belkar makes, which in turn will make it difficult to drum up support from the rest of the Order.

[Breccia]

If you remove wood and fire and flowing water and holy symbols - of course a vampire will be hard to kill. But why would you - could you - remove these things?

If you must know:

1) Belkar is a cunning bastard who can, and does, use the environment to his advantage. I'm sure he would have zero moral or ethical problems luring Durkula to the Open-Air Anti-Magic Pre-Sharpened Wooden Stake Bazaar at noon on a cloudless day to pick a fight. It doesn't even have to be that extreme: he's already hit Durkon with a tree. However, he might not have the luxury of choosing the time or place with a showdown with Durkula. Partly because, in the dwarven lands, such places will likely be rare, and partly because Durkula is in no way stupid. It matters to me if he's capable of winning the fight, without the home-field advantage.

2) Because the listed features are, at best, an annoyance to a master vampire in most circumstances. Stabbing a vampire through the heart with a wooden stake has got to be at least as hard as stabbing a human, and I doubt very much that Belkar would forfeit his high-level enhanced weapons in favor of a nonmagical stick that has zero chance of penetrating Durkula's magic armor. Nonmagical fire is typically 1d6 or 2d6 a round, so even if Durkula couldn't make himself immune to that with a single low-level spell and chose not to escape it, it's not a ton of damage -- and a fight in a burning building would threaten Belkar as well. Running water might stop Durkula from engaging Belkar in melee, but I'm not convinced Belkar's ranged attacks outweigh Durkula's ranged spells. And I have no idea what the damage to a non-first-edition vampire is from contact with a holy symbol, but I don't know how Belkar would manage to press one against Durkula without forfeiting his offhand weapon. Yes, I suppose it's possible for the fight to take place on a set of quickly-moving balance beams over 10d6 flame jets, but see Point 1) above.

3) Because I am not concerned with how the fight could end cinematically. At the end of Season 1, Buffy kicks the Master through a skylight, and he happens to land heart-first on a conveniently broken table. Why? Because that's a suitable finishing move for a season-long villain. Because that's how the story ends. Yes, the showdown between these two (figurative) titans could end with Belkar kicking Durkula into a pile of crates, which happen to shatter and pierce his chest. What are the odds of such a thing? Irrelevant. If the fight were to come down to Belkar and Durkula in a fight to the finish, one-on-one, it will take place in a time, place, and style of the author's choosing, in the way that serves the story best, like everything else has. And it will be epic. If that happens, I will be watching every panel with baited breath. That's not what I'm asking about here. I'm asking about an orc-and-pie match between the two, with no distractions.

[Peelee]

Ummm... why bring up fire at all? Vampires are affected normally by fire, so why bring it up specifically?

[littlebum2002]

That's not what I'm asking about here. I'm asking about an orc-and-pie match between the two, with no distractions.

I think in an "orc-and-pie match" between Durkula and the rest of the ORDER would be a toss-up. Durkula's ECL (16) is slightly lower than the party's (16.5), but when you consider that he is by far the most optimized member of the group, I think he would have a fair chance at winning.

Durkon vs. Belkar in a normal fight would be a joke. Belkar would fare no better than he did against Malack.

EDIT:

Actually, Durkula is 2 levels ahead of Malack, making the outlook for Belkar even worse than in that fight.

[Peelee]

Durkon vs. Belkar in a normal fight would be a joke. Belkar would fare no better than he did against Malack.

While I do believe that, Belkar does have an advantage he didn't have in the other fight; he knows this one is a vampire. With all the weaknesses that it entails.

....Of which fire is not one.

[Keltest]

While I do believe that, Belkar does have an advantage he didn't have in the other fight; he knows this one is a vampire. With all the weaknesses that it entails.

....Of which fire is not one.

Its a relative weakness. If youre 90% resistant to all forms of damage except fire, fire is still your weakness even though it isn't any more effective against you than normal.

[Peelee]

Its a relative weakness. If youre 90% resistant to all forms of damage except fire, fire is still your weakness even though it isn't any more effective against you than normal.

It damages them normally, though. Just like swords. Or daggers. Or really big rocks falling on them. And yet nobody has stipulated that really big rocks falling on the vampire should be banned, for instance, while fire had been constantly called out.

[Jasdoif]

Ummm... why bring up fire at all? Vampires are affected normally by fire, so why bring it up specifically?I'd guess it's because many other RPG systems have vampires (or undead in general) particularly vulnerable to fire.

[littlebum2002]

It damages them normally, though. Just like swords. Or daggers. Or really big rocks falling on them. And yet nobody has stipulated that really big rocks falling on the vampire should be banned, for instance, while fire had been constantly called out.

Sonic, too. They aren't resistant to Sonic. One of the main vampire weaknesses.

[Terrador]

The impressive physical stats are quite likely, from what we've seen, all of the members of OOTS have quite a few very high stats (and the low ones are apparently not all that low). Its an interesting question why, because the sort of stats up there you can't get with a point buy or realistically role.

Actually, this is somewhat hit-and-miss; Roy's scores are far beyond normal PB ranges (If memory serves, it's been proven he's got at least a +1 mod in every stat but CON (which should be obvious!) with stellar STR to boot). Haley's are quite solid too (with average-to-positive mentals, one great stat, and another good physical), and Belkar's are similar (three good-to-extraordinary physicals with low but not crushing mentals). Elan and Durkon could probably exist in point buy, with their one great stat and two good stats balanced by two clear candidates for penalties and one for an average stat (CHA/DEX/INT and INT/WIS/CON, respectively), and Vaarsuvius, if anything has an awful set of mods (STR, CON, and probably CHA penalties; DEX not much higher than average, if at all, and WIS average or so, with just the one high stat to make up for it). They really, really run the gamut.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Probably same as me: Aragorn.

Anyway, I'm not so sure I agree. Actually, Belkar has several times used cunning tactics to beat enemies. Something including gastronomy would be appropriate, and particularly as it would make use of his skills in Profession: Gourmet chef.
In the past he has definitely used trickery and cunning. So far, however, he has not been doing that.


I thought it was generally agreed he picked Ranger for the free two-weapon fighting feats?

Yeah, I was unclear. I meant that Belkar wasn't getting much from Ranger, and two-weapon fighting, free or not, isn't that great (especially with those daggers!)

[Edhelras]

I meant that Belkar wasn't getting much from Ranger, and two-weapon fighting, free or not, isn't that great (especially with those daggers!)

With dual-wielding - isn't it so that the damage done won't anyhow be of the brutal kind that two-handed wielding a greataxe applying a half-orcish STR score times 1.5? So, for dual-wielders, more emphasis has to be put into acquiring magical weapons with damage bonuses and special abilities - making the damage made by the base weapon itself less relevant? Which would be why for instance a collision weapon would bee particularly useful to dual-wielders, but even more so weapons with a relevant bane property for instance.

[factotum]

Yeah, I was unclear. I meant that Belkar wasn't getting much from Ranger, and two-weapon fighting, free or not, isn't that great (especially with those daggers!)

Well, yes, Belkar didn't make a great pick of class. That's kind of the whole point--he thought dual-wielding daggers would be cool so he chose a class that enabled him to do that as early as possible, without considering for a moment any other benefits or disadvantages it had.

[Emanick]

I think the problem here indeed is that the character of Belkar doesn't really follow the straight D&D rules. He's horribly unoptimized and probably not a good fighter. However, in the comic he is still respected as a warrior and able to decapitate enemies without a problem.

It seems to me there is something hidden about Belkar that no one knows yet. How else is he able to adventure? (He was even able to do it solo!) He is probably already an epic level ranger just pretending to be lower level. Or a demigod? The brother of the MitD? SNARL JUNIOR?

It's entirely possible that he just had ridiculously lucky ability score rolls. If he started off with 18 strength, 17 dexterity, 17 constitution etc. (before racial bonuses/penalties, obviously), that would explain a lot. Sure, that's a ridiculously improbable outcome for the average character, but given how many people are in the OOTSverse, and how few of them are "PCs" (whatever that means in-universe), it wouldn't be nearly as surprising.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

With dual-wielding - isn't it so that the damage done won't anyhow be of the brutal kind that two-handed wielding a greataxe applying a half-orcish STR score times 1.5? So, for dual-wielders, more emphasis has to be put into acquiring magical weapons with damage bonuses and special abilities - making the damage made by the base weapon itself less relevant? Which would be why for instance a collision weapon would bee particularly useful to dual-wielders, but even more so weapons with a relevant bane property for instance.
However, he seemed to be just using his normal daggers, and dagger damage (especially from a Small character) isn't very much.

Well, yes, Belkar didn't make a great pick of class. That's kind of the whole point--he thought dual-wielding daggers would be cool so he chose a class that enabled him to do that as early as possible, without considering for a moment any other benefits or disadvantages it had.
Yes, but I was just looking at it tactically.

[Edhelras]

It's entirely possible that he just had ridiculously lucky ability score rolls. .

As I noted before, being "ridiculously lucky" is a racial feature for Halflings... :smallsmile:

So it's entirely within the limits of the DnD rules.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Many of us are as unsure as you are why he chose Ranger to begin with.

I always figured it came down to three words: Favored Enemy (Halfling).

[angry_bear]

Well, yes, Belkar didn't make a great pick of class. That's kind of the whole point--he thought dual-wielding daggers would be cool so he chose a class that enabled him to do that as early as possible, without considering for a moment any other benefits or disadvantages it had.

See, it's actually because he's an updated character from 2nd edition when Rangers were better. They still weren't great, but they were a solid choice back in the day.

As far as Belkar vs Durkula goes, it'd take a lot of creativity on the players part, and a slightly lenient dm but it could be done. The odds are still heavily stacked in Durkulas favor though.

[Edhelras]

See, it's actually because he's an updated character from 2nd edition when Rangers were better. They still weren't great, but they were a solid choice back in the day.


Huh. And I thought Rangers were great even with the 3.5 version?? Great in the sense that they are cool and interesting to play, and well-suited for a lot of tasks that a complete party need, and one of the obvious choices for a solo adventure, or for a party with less than 4 members.
Actually, I think that Rangers and Bards are good reasons why standard party size might well have been 6 in stead of 4, because they bring to the party qualities that aren't completely covered by the 4 basic party functions.
For instance, the moment the party leaves a dungeon or city and ventures into the wilderness, the Ranger with his tracking and survival skills becomes indispensable. And I do like parties with both a STR-based and a DEX-based fighter type - the Ranger is ideal for the latter IMO.

[factotum]

Huh. And I thought Rangers were great even with the 3.5 version??

I suspect angry_bear is going by the so-called "tiers" of playable characters in D&D, where Bards are Tier 3 and non-variant Rangers are Tier 4; on that scale, V and Durkon are the only Tier 1s in the party, and Elan is actually the best of the rest (Rogues being Tier 4 and Fighters Tier 5). This tier system is largely pointless, in my view, because it seems to completely ignore that the whole point of D&D and its fellows is that they are ROLE-playing games--in other words, you're supposed to design and play a *character*, not a collection of stats that you try to tweak to get the best values possible.

[Edhelras]

I completely agree, and the whole "tier"-thinking makes me angry as a bear!

But as I mentioned above - even if you accept the tier thinking thing, I disagree with the way it's constructed (as I perceive it, that is). When the strength of a particular character, race or class is evaluated, I think one has to take into account that DnD is usually not one-on-one arena combat. Even as combatants, PCs fight their fights in environments, against a diversity of foes, and in company with others. If a Ranger isn't allowed to make use of his abilities to survive in nature and exploit natural resources - then his class isn't actually evaluated in full. It would be similar to simply compare BABs, and conclude that the high-BAB classes are strongest because they've got the highest BAB.

How would a Wizard or Cleric fare, at least at the lower levels, if lost in the wilderness without the ability to find the way, find food and shelter? Without a Ranger to make Survival checks, hunt food, find tracks, build a shelter? For Wizards in particular - it's fine that they can make Tiny Huts - but only if they did prioritize to learn that spell. Clerics are better suited for survival, sure, but even they have to be lvl 5 to create food and water. And the more they spend spells just to survive, the less potent they become as combatants against random encounters with wild animals etc.

So I personally think that the tier thinking is useless, even if one accepts the premise that characters are to be compared one-on-one. I actually think DnD is rather balanced. Bards, for instance, are awesome the minute the adventure turns to role-playing, NPC interaction, or just having a fun session at the table.

[factotum]

If a Ranger isn't allowed to make use of his abilities to survive in nature and exploit natural resources - then his class isn't actually evaluated in full. It would be similar to simply compare BABs, and conclude that the high-BAB classes are strongest because they've got the highest BAB.


We're discussing Belkar, though, and comparing BAB is an entirely fair way to evaluate his class considering he doesn't have enough Wisdom to cast any spells and didn't gain any ranks in Survival or an animal companion until relatively recently. :smallsmile:

[Keltest]

We're discussing Belkar, though, and comparing BAB is an entirely fair way to evaluate his class considering he doesn't have enough Wisdom to cast any spells and didn't gain any ranks in Survival or an animal companion until relatively recently. :smallsmile:

If anything, it might be excessively generous towards Belkar, since it basically ignores his horrible decisions with regards to his ranger abilities.

[Edhelras]

... until relatively recently. :smallsmile:

It's never too late (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0922.html)!!!

I mean, part of the narrative concerning Belkar, is that he's just recently started (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) playing the game at all.
I know that Rich doesn't want OOTS to just "as if" it was some guys playing a game of DnD. Yet I personally - and I guess many with me - feel that it adds an ounce of extra fun to envision that context behind the comic. For, at least, reading the OOTS is to some extent fun exactly because I can read this as how a really cool and exciting PnP would be like, with all my comrades making really interesting and fleshed-out PCs, and the DM taking us to many different and exciting locales.

And in that way of reading the comic (be it authorized or not), the way Belkar has been portrayed makes perfectly sense. After all, I think many of us have encountered players who behave like Belkar's "player": Disinterested in the game, frequently reckless or plain destructive, relishing whenever they can smash something, refusing to take part in the social part of role play except if they can pick on others, etc.
And such players often show little interest in their PCs, among this not utilizing or even knowing what abilities their PCs have.

My interpretation of Belkar's "player" is that, from starting with a vague idea that "Rangers are cool, with two swords and all..." and perhaps "I like to play a badass hobbit, heh....", he just recently discovered that his un-deliberate choice of character actually allowed for some things that even he might find interest in.
For instance: To acquire a pet with a "stupid" name (Mr. Scruffy - I mean, the name is an affront to those haughty role-playing Tolkien afficionados) - that was obviously something that made the game itself more interesting to him. Perhaps that player has a cat himself in RL, or always wanted it - and the love of a cat is more appealing to him than to save a fantasy world.

Now he has discovered that his character even allows him to tame dinosaurs - how can anything be cooler than that? I haven't seen the math on this, but intuitively, it seems to me that the DM was kinda lenient towards Belkar, by allowing that feat. But so what - as long as it makes for a good story (I mean - a good PnP story that the players make together), and particularly as long as it keeps a long-time member of the group increasing both his interest in the game and his general contribution to storytelling and immersion. A win-win, even though the rules might have needed some tweaking.

Huh, did I break some forum rules here? Anyway, I love the way Belkar's "player" has starting making real use of the abilities of his PC, and I'm not at all convinced that Durkola would win except in a setting that explicitly favored a vampire cleric.
What, given the potential link between Belkar being a gourmet chef (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0476.html), and Durkon's mother being something of the same (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0962.html) - perhaps the route to Belkar's defeating Durkola lies here? Something to do with food? If so, it would be entirely within the rules of DnD, IMO.

[Synar]

Well actually the tier system does care about out of combat utility. I would even dare to say that it is one the most important part of the tier system. So yes, rangers are not that bad, because they've got an utility niche, namely Survival and Tracking (by the way, you seem to believe Belkar could make use of it in the fight against Durkon, but with 1 point in Survival and negative Wisdom modifier...).
However, the problem arises when you see that Druids can fit the same niche, but have got more versatile utility and have more and often better options in combat, be it melee (wildshape+companion+summons) or ranged (spells+companion+summons).
It is even worse for the fighter, because he has got not out of combat utility to speak of, and isn't that powerful in combat.
And truly a low level wizard will have troubles going by himself in the wilderness - but at middle levels, he will just scry and fly or teleport to his objective, and can create an extradimensional palace filled with servants and food with a flick of the wrist when in need of shelter, and that is a tiny portion of the utility and power he wields. While your high level ranger? He is better at tracking.

So truly you can have fun with very different tier characters in your party, depending on your style of play, on the emphasis on various aspects of the game, on the existing niches, on the optimisation level, and well, on everything. But the Tier System is far, far from completely unuseful and badly thought out, and D&D 3.5 isn't even remotely balanced - and I think that playing a low tier character is fine, but you should be aware of it before, to not end up like Belkar.

[zinycor]

, to not end up like Belkar.

Why wouldn't i want to be an awesome sexy shoeless god of war?

[Gusion]

Would the whole rest of the OOTS together even be able to take on Durkula? He was possibly the strongest individual member even before he got all of his vampire bonuses.

Yes, depending on some things we don't know. Essentially it comes down to the rest of the team keeping him busy while V finishes him off.

One possibility: Roy picking up improved disarm at level 16 would be smart. With his greatsword he has a fair chance of disarming the staff from Durkula. After that... V shoots over a greater dispel magic.

Another possibility: V has Sunburst and Durkula's normal "daywalker" spell doesn't protect him from magical sunlight.

As for Belkar... uh... well, I guess he could go buy some holy water and try to lob it from within a magic circle against evil.

[littlebum2002]

I completely agree, and the whole "tier"-thinking makes me angry as a bear!

But as I mentioned above - even if you accept the tier thinking thing, I disagree with the way it's constructed (as I perceive it, that is). When the strength of a particular character, race or class is evaluated, I think one has to take into account that DnD is usually not one-on-one arena combat. Even as combatants, PCs fight their fights in environments, against a diversity of foes, and in company with others. If a Ranger isn't allowed to make use of his abilities to survive in nature and exploit natural resources - then his class isn't actually evaluated in full. It would be similar to simply compare BABs, and conclude that the high-BAB classes are strongest because they've got the highest BAB.

How would a Wizard or Cleric fare, at least at the lower levels, if lost in the wilderness without the ability to find the way, find food and shelter? Without a Ranger to make Survival checks, hunt food, find tracks, build a shelter? For Wizards in particular - it's fine that they can make Tiny Huts - but only if they did prioritize to learn that spell. Clerics are better suited for survival, sure, but even they have to be lvl 5 to create food and water. And the more they spend spells just to survive, the less potent they become as combatants against random encounters with wild animals etc.

So I personally think that the tier thinking is useless, even if one accepts the premise that characters are to be compared one-on-one. I actually think DnD is rather balanced. Bards, for instance, are awesome the minute the adventure turns to role-playing, NPC interaction, or just having a fun session at the table.


Maybe you're unfamiliar with the tier system, because that's EXACTLY what it does. It measures the versatility ofa class, not its strength. Anything a Ranger or Bard can do, a Cleric or Wizard can cast a spell or summon a creature to do it just aswell. And, On top of that, they're better in combat too, thus making them more versatile. Saying "a Ranger is better at tracking but nothing else" is a pretty poor argument for versatility, especially when you consider that's literally the exact opposite of what versatility means

A Ranger is great at tracking. A Wizard can summon a monster that is decent at tracking, and then is better than the Ranger at literally everything else. Which is more versatile again?

[Darth Paul]

The impressive physical stats are quite likely, from what we've seen, all of the members of OOTS have quite a few very high stats (and the low ones are apparently not all that low). Its an interesting question why, because the sort of stats up there you can't get with a point buy or realistically role.

"Realistically" about 6 out of 10 of my characters die before they hit 5th level. Sometimes, though, I get lucky in my dice rolling and come up with a better than average character at 1st level; that character then stands a better chance of a long career.

Maybe the PCs in OOTS lived this long because they were exceptional, including their stats. After all, D&D is heroic fantasy, about extraordinary heroes; it wouldn't be the same (to me) if the characters were "no stat above 12" average Jills and Joes.

[SoC175]

How would a Wizard or Cleric fare, at least at the lower levels, if lost in the wilderness without the ability to find the way, find food and shelter? Without a Ranger to make Survival checks, hunt food, find tracks, build a shelter?Well, creating water isa task for a level 1 cleric and from level 5+ so is creating food. Takes some time though before creating shelter

Creating shelter is easy for a wizard (level 2 spells, lasts long enough from level 6+) although the take longer to be able to create food (but when they do it, they do it with style)