Somewhat crazy possibility about the glow, the sword, and the family

[Shining Wrath]

Roy's family is named for the ancestral sword with the green hilt. But until it was reforged with starmetal it seems to have been (as far as was shown) a greatsword.

First thought: why would you name your family after a mundane sword?

Also, we know that the aura of the late Snarled-upon Eastern Pantheon was green. And the Eastern Pantheon was based upon the Greek. Anyone who has ever read the Illiad, Bullfinch's Mythology, or similar tomes knows that the Greek gods had more children with mortals than one could shake an aegis at. You weren't anyone if you weren't some god's spawn. And as shown in the Illiad, the Greek gods were also fond of giving their children weapons.

So ...

Is it at all possible that the Greenhilt family is descended from a Greek god who had a child with a mortal before the Spawn stuck? And that the ancestral sword, so unusual that the whole family was named for it, was a gift from a god - and that explains all sorts of hidden powers which Roy does not understand being within it.

But then ...

Roy is the last descendent of the Eastern Pantheon. He carries within him the last tiny strands of their essence left in the universe. Does that means he gets to vote as the Eastern Pantheon?

[Kantaki]

Interesting idea, but how did this hypothetical scion of the Western Pantheon and first Greenhilt get from world 1.0 to world 2.0? If the divine parent considered a sword a ideal gift they were most likely some kind of fighter-type and those usually don't get much of this sneaky, underhanded supernatural stuff.
On the other hand child of a god, that already is mayor cheating.
Another problem is the when. I don't think there was much time between the creation of the world and the emergence of the Snarl. Not enough for the gods to play with their toys at least.

I like the theory, but I'm afraid it isn't very likely.

And the sword? I see two options, either it lost its power while it wasn't used for a generation or the first Greenhilt was... less impressive than Horace and Roy. A lowish level PC might still be pretty impressive to the locals and if the colour of their blades hilt was their most distinguishing feature the moniker would be pretty obvious. „The Greenhilt came to safe us from the orc bandits” sounds more impressive, memorable and notable than „Lily/Tommy from two villages over came to save us”.

[The gF]

Yeah, it just doesn't make any sense. All the mortals and Eastern Gods were dead before the world Roy's family originated on was created. Sorry, dude. :V

[Shining Wrath]

Interesting idea, but how did this hypothetical scion of the Western Pantheon and first Greenhilt get from world 1.0 to world 2.0? If the divine parent considered a sword a ideal gift they were most likely some kind of fighter-type and those usually don't get much of this sneaky, underhanded supernatural stuff.
On the other hand child of a god, that already is mayor cheating.
Another problem is the when. I don't think there was much time between the creation of the world and the emergence of the Snarl. Not enough for the gods to play with their toys at least.

I like the theory, but I'm afraid it isn't very likely.

I did consider the timeline problem, but we know the Snarl emerged because the gods were arguing over the creation of the world; how far did they get in creating things before the Snarl emerged?

I think if there was a surviving child of the Eastern pantheon that the gods would have taken care to transfer it to the new world, for sentimental reasons if nothing else.

The other problem is that every descendent of the original god-child has an equal claim to Roy's to speak for them - but then, Roy's here right now.

[Roland Itiative]

I think if there was a surviving child of the Eastern pantheon that the gods would have taken care to transfer it to the new world, for sentimental reasons if nothing else.
Why? Keep in mind that a god from one of the other pantheons would need to make the transfer, the Eastern Pantheon was too busy being dead by the time the second world was even conceptualised, and from what we've seen the different pantheons don't really like each other very much.

Plus, Roy suddenly being the descendent of a long dead god would kind of undermine his character. He's not messing with the Snarl business to serve a grandiose destiny, he's just a guy who was presented a problem, and wants to fix it.

Also, if the colour of the hilt and the magical aura is the only evidence we have, it's just as likely that Roy has a bit of dark elf in his family tree, and is actually Zz'dtri's long lost cousin. Hey, even their skin colours are close, and you can't prove Roy's hair colour isn't white hair, as he's bald, so there must be a connection, right?

[factotum]

Isn't this pretty much the same as the theory in this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454047-Order-of-the-Olympian-Avatars

Or am I misreading it?

[Shining Wrath]

Isn't this pretty much the same as the theory in this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454047-Order-of-the-Olympian-Avatars

Or am I misreading it?

Looks similar.

[Synesthesy]

What about this:

the Eastern God were made only to explain why in OotS there are 3 continents and not 4 (as north-south-west-east), and to stop people to make theories about the fourth pantheon - continent - etc?

In a medieval setting, we can think that a Roy's anchestor (maybe Horace, maybe not) was a surnameless epic warrior with a green hilt sword. He was famous and his son wasn't surnameless anymore. I don't think there is more, it would make Roy something less. Roy is a self made hero, not a predestinate.

[unbeliever536]

A +4 greatsword is also not exactly unspecial.

[factotum]

the Eastern God were made only to explain why in OotS there are 3 continents and not 4 (as north-south-west-east), and to stop people to make theories about the fourth pantheon - continent - etc?


Why would they need to explain that? :smallconfused: As far as anyone ever knew there were 3 groups of gods who created the world, and so there were 3 continents--it's not like there's a big empty space on the map with "MISSING CONTINENT HERE" written on it.

[Quild]

A +4 greatsword is also not exactly unspecial.

But we have no clue of how potent the weapon was before.
The explanation for the +25% is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5913-OOTS-297-The-Discussion-Thread&p=237586&viewfull=1#post237586).


And I do not understand the Giant's maths at all here.
If I attack a creature with some AC that is inferior to my BAB + STR bonus + skills bonus, I will hit whatever the weapon enhancement is. So a +5 weapon grants no "increase in attack accuracy".
Same goes if I fight a creature with 35 AC while I'm level 6 Fighter with 16 STR and no specialization for my weapon. My weapon can be a +5 weapon, I still only hit on a natural 20. So a +5 weapon is actually "0% increase in attack accuracy" for me, at this moment, against this specific monster.

Was the way the smith spoke specific to Giant or is it common to consider things like this? :smallconfused:

[unbeliever536]

But we have no clue of how potent the weapon was before.
The explanation for the +25% is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5913-OOTS-297-The-Discussion-Thread&p=237586&viewfull=1#post237586).


And I do not understand the Giant's maths at all here.
If I attack a creature with some AC that is inferior to my BAB + STR bonus + skills bonus, I will hit whatever the weapon enhancement is. So a +5 weapon grants no "increase in attack accuracy".
Same goes if I fight a creature with 35 AC while I'm level 6 Fighter with 16 STR and no specialization for my weapon. My weapon can be a +5 weapon, I still only hit on a natural 20. So a +5 weapon is actually "0% increase in attack accuracy" for me, at this moment, against this specific monster.

Was the way the smith spoke specific to Giant or is it common to consider things like this? :smallconfused:

Huh. I always read that as "an extra +1 is 25% of the previous bonus".

Anyway, what you say is true (except you forgot nat 1's :smalltongue:) but for any attack where you rely on the die roll (ie your chance to hit is 10-90%), a +5 bonus will improve your accuracy by 25%. It will also bring some attacks into that range that weren't before, and others will be pushed outside it, but in the main that's the bonus it provides.

[DavidBV]

Roy's family is named for the ancestral sword with the green hilt.

Well, technically they are named for the green hilt itself, not the weapon. The hilt may be the answer. But what was the question? :P

[Quild]

Huh. I always read that as "an extra +1 is 25% of the previous bonus".

Anyway, what you say is true (except you forgot nat 1's :smalltongue:) but for any attack where you rely on the die roll (ie your chance to hit is 10-90%), a +5 bonus will improve your accuracy by 25%. It will also bring some attacks into that range that weren't before, and others will be pushed outside it, but in the main that's the bonus it provides.

Didn't forgot the nat1, but maybe the formulation is wrong. I meant that in my two examples, my chances to hit or not are not defined by the weapon enhancement.
I'm not sure if my formulation allowed to read: "I will hit (or miss) whatever the weapon enhancement is.", or if it is correct at any rate, but that was the idea. Not important.

When you rely on the die roll (which is the case for the creature with too much AC for me to hit it except of a nat20), it's not necessarily a +25% accuracy bonus.

If I hit on 4+ with a non-masterwork weapon, I have 80% hit chance. With a +5 weapon, it goes to 95% hit chances :smallbiggrin:.
Also if I hit on 11+, I have 50% hit chance with the non-masterwork weapon. It goes to 75% with a +5 weapon which is 25% more additive chances (50%+25%=75%), but 50% more multiplicative chances (50%*(1 + 50%) = 75%).
It also halves the chances of missing (you had 50% miss chances, you now have 25% miss chances) but doesn't double the chances of hitting :smallbiggrin:.

The multiplicative approach and the reduction of miss chances are the factor I would take into account while theorycrafting rather than the additive approach and the chances of hitting. I know it's not "just me", but I'm not sure if it is most theorycrafters :smallannoyed:.

Anyway, additive or multiplicative, it really depends of the creature Roy is fighting and how much he puts in Power Attack.

[unbeliever536]

Of course, of course. The additive method is generally what is talked about in the theory, at least as far as I've seen on this board, probably just because it's easier to think about and/or more general (a +5 sword is the same to everyone additively, but steadily worse multiplicatively depending on how well a given character does without it).

[Rakoa]

While what you're saying is true, knowing what increase in accuracy a weapon provides to Bob the Warrior against a goblin in leather is...completely useless information to anyone except Bob. Referring to it as a general increase is much more useful.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Also, if the colour of the hilt and the magical aura is the only evidence we have, it's just as likely that Roy has a bit of dark elf in his family tree, and is actually Zz'dtri's long lost cousin. Hey, even their skin colours are close, and you can't prove Roy's hair colour isn't white hair, as he's bald, so there must be a connection, right?
I approve of this argument.


But we have no clue of how potent the weapon was before.
The explanation for the +25% is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5913-OOTS-297-The-Discussion-Thread&p=237586&viewfull=1#post237586).


And I do not understand the Giant's maths at all here.
If I attack a creature with some AC that is inferior to my BAB + STR bonus + skills bonus, I will hit whatever the weapon enhancement is. So a +5 weapon grants no "increase in attack accuracy".
Same goes if I fight a creature with 35 AC while I'm level 6 Fighter with 16 STR and no specialization for my weapon. My weapon can be a +5 weapon, I still only hit on a natural 20. So a +5 weapon is actually "0% increase in attack accuracy" for me, at this moment, against this specific monster.

Was the way the smith spoke specific to Giant or is it common to consider things like this? :smallconfused:
I've never been in any metagaming-heavy group like that (or a campaign which got to a high enough level to see +3 weapons), but it makes perfect sense if you read it as an additive percentage bonus. If you have a 10% chance to hit Alice with a mundane sword and a 55% chance of hitting Bob, when you upgrade to a +5 sword you have 35% and 80% when you upgrade to a +5 sword. It breaks down a little at the edges, sure, but it's the only way people who can't see the dice or character sheets could quantify enhancement bonuses.


Back to the original topic, there are two other possibilities that come to mind.
1. Roy wasn't the first Greenhilt to have the sword's blade reforged.
2. The Greenhilt name isn't that old—perhaps Roy is only a third- or fourth-generation Greenhilt. People without surnames aren't uncommon in the OotSverse—the most prominent are Elan and Vaarsuvis. Admittadly, elves like V probably have different traditions than humans like Roy, but human like Elan probably have similar traditions to humans like Roy (as much as the latter might deny it).

[Quild]

While what you're saying is true, knowing what increase in accuracy a weapon provides to Bob the Warrior against a goblin in leather is...completely useless information to anyone except Bob. Referring to it as a general increase is much more useful.

Because it's useless to anyone instead of being useless to anyone but to Bob against a goblin in leather armor?
I'm not sure of the improvement here.

In D&D 3.5, "hit chance" isn't something that really exists (that's not a stat or whatever). You fight with attack roll (d20+attack bonus) against AC. The "hit chance" completely depends of the difference between attack bonus and AC and is without any meaning without these two bits of information. And as a player, you usually don't know what the AC of the opponent is.

If Bob is a level 13 Fighter with Weapon Focus:Bob's weapon and 20 STR, his average d20 is 10,5 with an attack bonus of 19. That's an average attack roll of 29,5.
Funny enough, that +5 bonus is less important to Bob than it would be to the goblin in leather armor if he had the sword in his hand rather than in his face.

Roy has it right when he tells the smith that he can just say "+5 sword". It's actually a way better phrasing.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Roy has it right when he tells the smith that he can just say "+5 sword". It's actually a way better phrasing.
More helpful to players, sure. But helpfulness to players isn't the only way phrases can be evaluated. For instance, it makes no sense to anyone unfamiliar with d20 rules and—more importantly—doesn't set up a joke.

[Roland Itiative]

Why would they need to explain that? :smallconfused: As far as anyone ever knew there were 3 groups of gods who created the world, and so there were 3 continents--it's not like there's a big empty space on the map with "MISSING CONTINENT HERE" written on it.

Yeah, three pantheons creating three continents doesn't really create the implication of a fourth by itself. But calling the continents/pantheons "northern", "southern" and "western" does invite the question "what about the east?" and that, in turn, would serve as fodder for theories.

[factotum]

But calling the continents/pantheons "northern", "southern" and "western" does invite the question "what about the east?" and that, in turn, would serve as fodder for theories.

The continents were presumably named because of their positions, and because "northern continent" is quicker to say than "north-eastern continent", which is technically what that one actually is.

[Ellye]

What about this:In a medieval setting, we can think that a Roy's anchestor (maybe Horace, maybe not) was a surnameless epic warrior with a green hilt sword. He was famous and his son wasn't surnameless anymore. I don't think there is more, it would make Roy something less. Roy is a self made hero, not a predestinate.I agree, and I hope it stays this way.

I really dislike "chosen one" stories.

[Shining Wrath]

I agree, and I hope it stays this way.

I really dislike "chosen one" stories.

At this point, though, Roy would be the self-made hero who discovered at a critical moment that he was the heir to great powers.

[Rinazina]

Also, we know that the aura of the late Snarled-upon Eastern Pantheon was green

Oh no, Zz'dtri aura too!! :smallbiggrin:
is he finally back in revenge against durkula ? :smallbiggrin:

[Bulldog Psion]

But we have no clue of how potent the weapon was before.
The explanation for the +25% is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5913-OOTS-297-The-Discussion-Thread&p=237586&viewfull=1#post237586).


And I do not understand the Giant's maths at all here.
If I attack a creature with some AC that is inferior to my BAB + STR bonus + skills bonus, I will hit whatever the weapon enhancement is. So a +5 weapon grants no "increase in attack accuracy".
Same goes if I fight a creature with 35 AC while I'm level 6 Fighter with 16 STR and no specialization for my weapon. My weapon can be a +5 weapon, I still only hit on a natural 20. So a +5 weapon is actually "0% increase in attack accuracy" for me, at this moment, against this specific monster.

Was the way the smith spoke specific to Giant or is it common to consider things like this? :smallconfused:

As a D&D DM for many years prior to this comic's existence, I always thought of 1 point on a d20 as 5%, because it is. A "natural 20," for instance, is basically in a 1-in-20 chance of occurring, or, to put it another, 5%.

An 18-20 threat range is a 15% chance of a threatened critical hit.

So though technically, the AC of the target has a bearing on the ACTUAL chance of hitting, a +5 is still a 25% increase if you view each "pip" on a 20-sider as 5% of the whole die's possible range.

Something happens on an 11+? 50% chance of it happening. On a 16+? 25% chance of it happening. Etc.

So to me, as a long-time D&Der, the 25% bonus thing makes perfect sense. In terms of ROLLING, it means that if you needed a 13+ before (40% chance of hitting) you now need a 8+ (65% chance of hitting). As the smith said, a 25% increased chance. Makes sense to me -- literally! :smallbiggrin:

What stands out to me from that linked post, though, is that the dialog would then seem to indicate Roy's sword was already +4. After all, in Mr. Burlew's example, the bow goes from +3 to +4, not from mundane to +4.

This makes more sense from the viewpoint of the Greenhilt sword being an ancestral weapon (a high-level fighter like Horace simply wouldn't survive against opponents with DR without some kind of magical enhancement). But it makes less sense in terms of Xykon shattering the blade.

Ah well, early comics and all that. Pre-100 is only quasi-canon, I guess. :smallwink:

[Quild]

What stands out to me from that linked post, though, is that the dialog would then seem to indicate Roy's sword was already +4. After all, in Mr. Burlew's example, the bow goes from +3 to +4, not from mundane to +4.

The maths for why I find the +25% odd being already made, I won't be back on this. It's all a matter of how you want to present things, ok.

Regarding the quote however, note that Firion casted "Greater Magic Weapon" which gives a +1 enhancement bonus (with a maximum of 5) per four caster level. For a duration of 1hour/caster level.
Firion having a caster level between 16 and 19, there is a point to cast his spell on Girolous' weapon. But would Girolous have answered that his bow already grants +20%, there was no point.

Also the smith is not casting a spell but reforging the weapon, so I don't see how you figure that the sword was already +4.

[Bulldog Psion]

Also the smith is not casting a spell but reforging the weapon, so I don't see how you figure that the sword was already +4.

Because in the Giant's explanation:


Yeah, players I have played with usually try to metagame the plusses on swords by referring to their "precentage increase in accuracy" based on the idea that each +1 on a d20 roll was a 5% increase. So you'll get conversations like:

Bob: Girolous, tell me, how much better than a standard bow is your elven longbow?
Tim: Why, it is 15% better than a nonmagical one, Firion, why do you ask?
Bob: I wish to enchant it further with a spell that will increase its effectiveness to 20% greater accuracy.
Tim: Outstanding!
Bob (to the DM): I cast Greater Magic Weapon for +4 enhancement bonus on Girolous' bow.
DM: Grumble.

Bob says that the spell will increase the bow's effectiveness to 20% greater accuracy, NOT 5% greater accuracy.

That's close enough for me to say that the smith probably meant the same thing.

My reason for interpreting it that way is a bit "meta" also: Horace Greenhilt would never have survived a D&D world above the first few levels without a magic weapon. There's just too much stuff his sword would bounce off of.

I realize that it looks like "Mundane" to "+5" in one easy go, but that would make Horace even more useless than a regular single-class fighter; so much so that I don't see how he or his ancestors could have survived in their line of work. It would be like a mage incapable of casting spells.

[Roland Itiative]

Because in the Giant's explanation:



Bob says that the spell will increase the bow's effectiveness to 20% greater accuracy, NOT 5% greater accuracy.

That's close enough for me to say that the smith probably meant the same thing.

My reason for interpreting it that way is a bit "meta" also: Horace Greenhilt would never have survived a D&D world above the first few levels without a magic weapon. There's just too much stuff his sword would bounce off of.

I realize that it looks like "Mundane" to "+5" in one easy go, but that would make Horace even more useless than a regular single-class fighter; so much so that I don't see how he or his ancestors could have survived in their line of work. It would be like a mage incapable of casting spells.
The quote says the effectiveness increases to 20%, not by 20%. That's completely consistent with every +1 being +5%, it goes from +3 (15%) to +4 (20%), not to 35%. The parametre of comparison is always the non-magical variant when they say it's "X% greater".

[Quild]

Because in the Giant's explanation:

Let me say it differently.

Bob's character spells can enhances a weapon so it becomes a +4 weapon because of his actual caster level.
When Bob's character casts the spell either on a mundane, +1, +2, +3 or +4 weapon, the result is the same => The weapon becomes a +4 one (for the same duration of 1hour/caster level)
I'm not sure what happens if he was to cast it on a +5 weapon.

Tim's character weapon is a +3 one (+15%) and the spell makes it like if it was a +4 one (+20%).

We know that Roy's sword is now a +5 one, but we have no clue of what it was before, because it could have been enhanced from more than 1 enhancement point. Roy could be more enthusiastic about it though.

[Bulldog Psion]

The quote says the effectiveness increases to 20%, not by 20%. That's completely consistent with every +1 being +5%, it goes from +3 (15%) to +4 (20%), not to 35%. The parametre of comparison is always the non-magical variant when they say it's "X% greater".

Which is exactly what I stated in the last paragraph I wrote.

I said what the smith said, with "by," makes it look like it went from mundane to +5.

But logically, that would be pretty much impossible, unless Horace was a useless guy who couldn't hit most of the weirder stuff his party fought at higher levels and just got "carried" for the XP. :smallbiggrin: Logically, the Greenhilt sword had to be magic already; even though the smith's statement seems to indicate it wasn't.

So I think interpreting "by" as "to" is a smaller fix than saying "Horace Greenhilt somehow fought high-level monsters with DR successfully using a non-magical blade." I guess that's my point, basically.

Heck, I can't even see how Roy got as high level as he did if the blade is mundane prior to the reforging.

[dmc91356]

Or, maybe Horace was a 1e fighter where there was no DR and there weren't a ton of monsters that could only be hit by magical weapons. (I actually don't even remember if 1e had ANY monsters that required magical weapons to be harmed.)

[Kami2awa]

It seems unlikely, because AFAIK there has been no foreshadowing of this (other than the green glow), and its pretty late in the story to bring it in. BTW, have we ever seen the aura of the Eastern gods? Or is it just speculation that it would be green vs. the red, yellow and blue auras of the other pantheons?

[Bulldog Psion]

Or, maybe Horace was a 1e fighter where there was no DR and there weren't a ton of monsters that could only be hit by magical weapons. (I actually don't even remember if 1e had ANY monsters that required magical weapons to be harmed.)

1st edition was even worse, IIRC.

Yes, there was no DR -- which means you couldn't get some of the damage to sneak by via doing enough of it.

Some things just needed +X or better weapon to hit, period. Someone with a non-magical (or non-silver, etc.) weapon could flail at them all day, and they would just keep coming, like a juggernaut. A lot of those 1e monsters were real horror movie creatures in a way -- you could drop the Empire State Building on their faces, and unless someone had enchanted it to +3 or better first, they'd just dig out from under it and keep coming at you.

[Roland Itiative]

Which is exactly what I stated in the last paragraph I wrote.

I said what the smith said, with "by," makes it look like it went from mundane to +5.

But logically, that would be pretty much impossible, unless Horace was a useless guy who couldn't hit most of the weirder stuff his party fought at higher levels and just got "carried" for the XP. :smallbiggrin: Logically, the Greenhilt sword had to be magic already; even though the smith's statement seems to indicate it wasn't.

So I think interpreting "by" as "to" is a smaller fix than saying "Horace Greenhilt somehow fought high-level monsters with DR successfully using a non-magical blade." I guess that's my point, basically.

Heck, I can't even see how Roy got as high level as he did if the blade is mundane prior to the reforging.
The smith didn't really make any comparison between the original sword and the new one, he just said the starmetal would make it a +5 sword. In fact, he couldn't even know what the sword was before, he never had any contact with it before it was shattered.

The only reason we even know the starmetal was an upgrade, not a downgrade (deadly green glow aside) is because Roy treats it as such, but the sword might have been a +4 before (and the fact Xykon managed to break it could be either early story weirdness, or a difference in how the spell works in this world).

On the other hand, it wouldn't be so weird for Horace to have gone his whole life using a non-magical sword. Sure, it's something no regular D&D fighter would do, but OotS characters often go this route.

[DavidBV]

For me, the most likely possibility is a God helping Roy here, in a sneaky way. Maybe Loki. The green glow and starmetal are just a means to cover up such help.

[Quild]

Which is exactly what I stated in the last paragraph I wrote.

I said what the smith said, with "by," makes it look like it went from mundane to +5.

But logically, that would be pretty much impossible, unless Horace was a useless guy who couldn't hit most of the weirder stuff his party fought at higher levels and just got "carried" for the XP. :smallbiggrin: Logically, the Greenhilt sword had to be magic already; even though the smith's statement seems to indicate it wasn't.

So I think interpreting "by" as "to" is a smaller fix than saying "Horace Greenhilt somehow fought high-level monsters with DR successfully using a non-magical blade." I guess that's my point, basically.

Heck, I can't even see how Roy got as high level as he did if the blade is mundane prior to the reforging.

Where did you read that the Smith said "by"?


@Roland Initiative: Xykon did not said out loud what is spell was in #112. It could be "Xykon's amazing spell that suppresses magic abilities of an item and shatters it" or "Xykon's amazing Shatter spell that works on magic items".
Since "Disrupting Weapon" cast cast on the sword by Durkon, isn't it considered as a magical weapon at this point whatever it was in a first place?

[Bulldog Psion]

The smith didn't really make any comparison between the original sword and the new one, he just said the starmetal would make it a +5 sword. In fact, he couldn't even know what the sword was before, he never had any contact with it before it was shattered.

She. :smallsmile:


On the other hand, it wouldn't be so weird for Horace to have gone his whole life using a non-magical sword. Sure, it's something no regular D&D fighter would do, but OotS characters often go this route.

While it's true that OotS characters don't min/max, the comic still does follow D&D rules most of the time. While it's true that Mr. Burlew sometimes has stuff happen that directly contradicts these rules, they are still the default when it comes to the basics of the world.

For example, Roy won't turn undead; Belkar won't throw fireballs; Xykon is undead and therefore will be immune to mind-influencing effects and critical hits; etc. etc.

So while Horace could choose to carry a mundane sword, it would simply mean that above about 6th or 7th level, he'd be useless at adventuring a good part of the time. Not slightly inconvenienced or suboptimal -- actually useless. If he can't even hit the opponents his party is fighting, the only thing he can do every time an enemy shows up is hide.

And I'm not sure how he'd get any experience to keep leveling up and learn that Spellsplinter feat if he has to leg it for the tall timber every time an outsider or undead shows up, assuming he survives even doing that.


For me, the most likely possibility is a God helping Roy here, in a sneaky way. Maybe Loki. The green glow and starmetal are just a means to cover up such help.

As I noted in the main thread, this would be a total violation of Roy's character and would pretty much destroy his position as the Big Damn Hero of the comic. Turning the self-reliant non-religious guy into the unwitting puppet of a god in order for him to be useful at all? I find the concept both unlikely and distasteful.

[DavidBV]

She. :smallsmile:
As I noted in the main thread, this would be a total violation of Roy's character and would pretty much destroy his position as the Big Damn Hero of the comic. Turning the self-reliant non-religious guy into the unwitting puppet of a god in order for him to be useful at all? I find the concept both unlikely and distasteful.

I disagree. No god could have helped if he hadn't stepped up to challenge the HPoH in the first place, which very few heroes in the world would have dared to do. He is right now championing for the survival of the whole world, by his own choice and merit, it is only natural that he gets assistance in such a fight. He earned that support.

And would he be more heroic and self-reliant if, in the end, it is just that "oh, and btw, the greenhilt sword has a hidden power that casts Heal on you when you fight Vampires". See, the part where he is unwitting is already unavoidable. Roy was defeated and about to die, then suddenly goes hulk because of some obscure green power that he didn't choose to activate nor knows where came from. If it was bestowed upon him because of his heroic approach, at least he'd have been the cause of it.

Other than the narrative logic, however, we're witnessing an obviously rare event, which must have a logical explanation. That sword has been swinged hundreds of times already, and this never happened before. It's been used against a lich and other undead too, the green glow appeared, and this never happened either. Now, right when he fights in presence of an astounding divine powers (for the first time) we see the super-glow happening (for the first time). And incidentally, there's a lot of gods and high priests here that want him to win. Some of them chaotic.

It is a possibility only, but I fail to find one that sounds more likely. The only other "event" that narratively could provide an explanation is his mental state once he found out his opponent is not Durkon, but we lack an explanation on how that could have caused the power surge.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree until these mysteries are revealed. :smallwink: And as Elan would say -- Dun Dun DUNNNNN! :smallbiggrin:

[RighteousWarior]

We actually don't know if the eastern gods are dead or not. Remember, we got most of this info from Shojo, and he may or may not have known what he was talking about when he said the snarl killed Zeus and company. That could, i repeat, COULD have been what the 'gods' let be known to the mortals at the time.

Zeus and them may have wanted to do something the other gods didn't like. Worship the snarl for example.

It may be that the eastern gods aren't dead, but are in a sort of otherworldly prison for attempting to align with the snarl or something. We don't know. :smalleek:

[hroþila]

We actually don't know if the eastern gods are dead or not. Remember, we got most of this info from Shojo, and he may or may not have known what he was talking about when he said the snarl killed Zeus and company. That could, i repeat, COULD have been what the 'gods' let be known to the mortals at the time.
Redcloak, who got his info from the Dark One, who got it directly from some of the elder gods, said that the Snarl killed several gods, none of whom Xykon would have heard of.

Besides, if the other gods didn't want the mortals to know about the Eastern Pantheon, they could just have... not mentioned them at all, instead of saying they were dead if they're not.

[Quild]

Shojo got his information indirectly from Soon.
Soon was part of the team that manage to learnt that the gods were able to fix the Snarl's prison but would need to destroy the world for that.
Soon may have been present at the Godsmoot where the decision not to destroy the world was taken. At any rate, his information could come from this source.


Crayons of time are not necessarily entirely true. Yet if the existence of the Eastern Pantheon itself was a lie, that's quite far fetched.

[Jasdoif]

Besides, if the other gods didn't want the mortals to know about the Eastern Pantheon, they could just have... not mentioned them at all, instead of saying they were dead if they're not.Hmm. The story that says the Eastern Pantheon was destroyed by the Snarl is also the only story we have suggesting the Eastern Pantheon ever existed....What if they didn't exist, and the other gods allow mortals to "know" about the Eastern Pantheon because their supposed demise advances the narrative the gods want mortals to believe?