Disintegrate could not have done that!

[ag30476]

Disintegrate could not have knocked Hinjo back into the ship.


Somebody had to start this thread...

[Aquillion]

Point to the part of the spell description that says it can't. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though. Technically a fireball can't knock people back, either. At this point it's all house rules and artistic license... but it seems fair to say that someone who is struck by an attack in mid-jump is knocked out of the air.

So why wouldn't Disintegrate qualify as that attack? It says it produces a "thin green ray"; this ray, presumably, has enough force to do 40d6 damage, and completely obliterate anything that can't survive it. That's more than enough force to knock someone back if it hits them in the air... and since the spell description doesn't explain how it damages and disintegrates things, it's just as likely an interpretation as anything else.

[ag30476]

Point to the part of the spell description that says it can't. :smalltongue:


Point to where it can. If you're going to argue that just because it's not in the spell description then it's OK, then why can't disintegrate trip you as well as bull rush you?

[SPoD]

Disintegrate could not have knocked Hinjo back into the ship.

So what? Who cares? In what way does it matter? Is your life significantly impacted by the bending of rules for artistic license? And what comic have you been reading, anyway, that you think the fact that Rich fudges rules to create a cool image is something new and/or noteworthy?


Somebody had to start this thread...

No, they really didn't.

[ag30476]

So what? Who cares? In what way does it matter? Is your life significantly impacted by the bending of rules for artistic license?

In what way is my life impacted by posting this?



And what comic have you been reading, anyway, that you think the fact that Rich fudges rules to create a cool image is something new and/or noteworthy?

If valid, that kind of argument would invalidate 95% of the threads in this forum.



No, they really didn't.
Trust me. Somebody would have.

[SPoD]

If valid, that kind of argument would invalidate 95% of the threads in this forum.

And the forum would be a better place for it.


Trust me. Somebody would have.

Yes, I know someone would have, I just dispute that anyone should have. Knowing that something unpleasant is inevitable doesn't mean we need to embrace it.

[ag30476]

And the forum would be a better place for it.

Indeed



Yes, I know someone would have, I just dispute that anyone should have. Knowing that something unpleasant is inevitable doesn't mean we need to embrace it.
Well hopefully now that was already started, it will die a quick death.

[Regneva]

I say yeah, the spell description does not say anything about it
And I say yeah, Rich has every right to house rule many ideas

And I think it is FUN to use the forums to discuss this. Why not?

[Tá leabhar agam]

I would argue that blow of damage might have disabled him (HP=0), consdering his "silent" landing in the ship. However given that "any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust," even if the saving throw is made, it renders my theory obsolete.

[LordVader]

Like the first responder pointed out. Something that's doing 40d6 damage probably has enough force to knock you backwards.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Hinjo wasn't knocked back.

Hinjo said "I jump off the ship"

and the DM said "no you don't, Redcloak has higher initiative and disintegrates you."

so despite Hinjo jumping off the ship, the DM undid that action.

Or maybe Hinjo made a tumble check in mid air to tumble onto the ship.

[LordVader]

Actually, that's quite possible, given the quasi-D&D nature of the OOTS world.
((By quasi-D&D, I mean that despite the fact it's a real world, they have to make Listen and Spot checks, etc.))

[Hiest, monkey]

heh, this thread has become a quote central.

[ag30476]

Like the first responder pointed out. Something that's doing 40d6 damage probably has enough force to knock you backwards.

And has enough force to knocks you prone and knock that katana out of your hand. A ranged touch attack that does up to 40d6, 5d6 on a fort save, and bull rushes, trips and disarms the opponent? Disintegrate rocks!

[ag30476]

Hinjo wasn't knocked back.

Hinjo said "I jump off the ship"

and the DM said "no you don't, Redcloak has higher initiative and disintegrates you."

so despite Hinjo jumping off the ship, the DM undid that action.


Heh that's how I read it.

[TreesOfDeath]

Not that I play often enough to know, but isn't disintergrate supposed to destroy the body outright?

[waffletaco]

That only happens if the spell actually kills the target I think.
.

[PaladinFreak]

I agree that, had this been straight D&D, Hinjo would have just fallen in the water. However, this not being pure D&D, I have no problem with Rich taking creative license to make a cool effect.

[tainsouvra]

Point to the part of the spell description that says it can't.Point to where it can. If you're going to argue that just because it's not in the spell description then it's OK, then why can't disintegrate trip you as well as bull rush you? Actually, as the person forwarding the claim that "Disintegrate could not have done that!", the burden of proof is on you--otherwise, you're making a claim without evidence. You didn't say "the spell description doesn't say it does that", you said "it can't do that"...so feel free to prove that it can't.

Lest we forget, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so the lack of a direct statement about knockback in the spell description doesn't preclude flavor or make the resulting DM ruling actually violate any rule...unless you have a rule you've forgotten to mention thusfar?

[chibibar]

I am going with House rules. I personally think that any spells that shoots out something has force.

When the fireball explode, people fly.
When a beam hits you, you can get knocked back.

It is magic after all anything can happen.
I think of disintegrate as a beam from a weapon like in star wars :) it hits you and pushes you back a little (if you live)

[....]

The name of that comic shouldn't have been "Change of Address Needed"

It should have been "Disenta-owned"

[ag30476]

Actually, as the person forwarding the claim that "Disintegrate could not have done that!", the burden of proof is on you--

er...I just thit that. See he says if it's not in the spell description then it doesn't mean it can't be done by the spell. Then I said, if it is true that if it's not in the spell description then it means it can't be done then we could suppose all kinds of effects for all kinds of spell. For example, it does not say in the spell description that disintegrate does not cause pain but I say it causes so much pain that you can't have to drop your whatever you have in your hands unless you make a concentration check DC 15. My point that, once you argue that if a real game effect is not in the spell description, it can still be caused by the spell then you can just throw the rules out the window.

Therefore, the better explanation is not that disintegrate can do that, but as was mentioned before, that this is a case of Rich showing how a character action can be interrupted (or fudged) in D&D as in

player: I jump of the bridge
DM: No you don't, you don't have enough move

player: I jump of the bridge
DM: No you don't. Redcloak has higher initiative. He disintegrates before you jump.

player: I jump of the bridge
DM: Redcloak has higher initiative. He disintegrates as you jump. Er...and it balsts you back on the boat.
player: Darn it...and thanks



otherwise, you're making a claim without evidence. You didn't say "the spell description doesn't say it does that", you said "it can't do that"...so feel free to prove that it can't.

Look it's a D&D spell. That the SRD does not say it does that means that, as per rules, the spell does not do that. Do you want me to go out and test disintegrate for it's knockback ability ala Mythbusters? The SRD is my proof. The counterclaim used invalid logic and offered no proof whatsoever.



Lest we forget, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so the lack of a direct statement about knockback in the spell description doesn't preclude flavor or make the resulting DM ruling actually violate any rule...unless you have a rule you've forgotten to mention thusfar?
First, the rule is the SRD. The other rule you may apply here is rule 0. But since Rich has already shown the effects of disintegrate before this is less rule 0 then a special case, a "fudge" if you will, or an interrupted action.

Second, getting knocked back is not "flavor", it is a "real" effect. Flavor would be having disintegrate leave you with wisps of smoke coming off you or making you light up like a neon skeleton momentarily like is shown in the comic.

Third, you still have not said why the knockback should be allowed by the spell.

You know I think Rich does these on purpose just to read the reactions.

[Desilva]

In the spirit of the spell, which basically, as far as I'm aware, does all its damage simply by causing bodily destruction at the molecular level, I'd rule that the spell has no actual force behind it, and Hinjo's barely-living body would have fallen in the water.

However, my points are three:

1) Who cares?

2) It's not my game world, and nor is it yours.

3) Rich has never restricted himself to what the DnD book says. This is Order of the Stick. It loves dancing on the line of copyright violation, and pokes merry fun at the game for all its eccentricities, but it has never even come close to being so limited as to follow someone else's rules.

[ag30476]

I am going with House rules. I personally think that any spells that shoots out something has force.

When the fireball explode, people fly.
When a beam hits you, you can get knocked back.

It is magic after all anything can happen.
I think of disintegrate as a beam from a weapon like in star wars :) it hits you and pushes you back a little (if you live)

When the fireball explode, people MIGHT fly?
When a beam hits you, you CAN get knocked back?

That's not house rules that's DM fiat and it should be used sparingly. Here's a case where we have artistic license not DM fiat but it's about the same.

The nitpick here is that I am saying it's perfectly fine for Rich to have disintegrate knockback, trip and disarm Hinjo and it might be fine to have a DM rule that in a similar circumstance. However, it is an instance of not following the rule. WHICH IS FINE. And yet here are people arguing that I'm wrong and that Rich IS FOLLOWING THE RULES. LOL.

If it's is magic after all anything can happen then why have rules at all?

You know this idea of starting a thread on a silly idea to make it look silly so that it would not turn into a silly argument was just...stupid. My bad.

[ag30476]

However, my points are three:

1) Who cares?

You do or else why did you object to what you suppose is my objection to the comic? If you had read my original posts then you would have seen that I had no objection to the action in the comic.


However, my points are three:
2) It's not my game world, and nor is it yours.

Geez, then why post anything here except "I like it" or "I don't like it".



3) Rich has never restricted himself to what the DnD book says. This is Order of the Stick. It loves dancing on the line of copyright violation, and pokes merry fun at the game for all its eccentricities, but it has never even come close to being so limited as to follow someone else's rules.
That's why I love all those jokes about GURPS and Hero in Oots.

[Humnick]

The way I would have done it, is that if Redcloak rolled a nat 20 on his hit, then another action would have followed through with the attack. A critical hit may cause you to fall. In the case that you fail a save to hold onto your weapon (as you are falling from a height), you lose your weapon. Shojo isn't disintegrated, but he took a crit hit, falls from a height of 10' or so, and fails a save to hold onto his weapon.

[Chronos]

A few folks are saying that Hinjo would have fallen into the water... How the heck would that happen? If Disintegrate has enough force to make him fall into the water, why couldn't it also have enough force to knock him back onto the ship? If it carried no force at all, then he'd land on the shore, same as if he completed his jump successfully (though he'd probably land with a lot less grace).

[Evil DM Mark3]

Disintigrate did not knock him back onto the boat.

Oh I know it looked like it did but at the table it didn't. At the table what happened is that Redcloak readied disintegrate is a paladin tried to charge. Readied actions take effect just before the action that triggers them so he was KOed before he lept. The description the DM gave was as per the comic.

See, over analyzing the joke parried by over analysing the joke. Am I good or what?

[tainsouvra]

he says if it's not in the spell description then it doesn't mean it can't be done by the spell. Then I said, if it is true that if it's not in the spell description then it means it can't be done then we could suppose all kinds of effects for all kinds of spell. This is not a logical conclusion from that statement, though. A given spell in a given situation having a specific logical effect is nothing whatsoever like saying any spell can have any effect in any situation. That's an absurd argument to make, ag30476, and it is not in any way a reasonable extrapolation of my statement.
Look it's a D&D spell. That the SRD does not say it does that means that, as per rules, the spell does not do that. Do you want me to go out and test disintegrate for it's knockback ability ala Mythbusters. The SRD is my proof. The counterclaim used invalid logic an no proof whatsoever. So, your claim is that, in D&D, the SRD not saying something happens means it doesn't happen, regardless of the logic involved. Feel free to enjoy taking actions while dead, never sleeping, etc--SRD doesn't say these things must happen, so by your logic it does not happen.

...or, just perhaps, the rules aren't intended to cover every minor detail and a common-sense approach to these things was intended to trump the explicit statements? That's where my vote lies, thanks.
First, the rule is the SRD. The other rule you may apply here is rule 0. But since Rich has already shown the effects of disintegrate before this is less rule 0 then a special case, a "fudge" if you will, or an interrupted action. I wasn't aware that he had shown a failed Disintegrate save on a surviving leaping creature before. Can you link that to me? It might help.
Second, getting knocked back is not "flavor", it is a "real" effect. Flavor would be having disintegrate leave you with wisps of smoke coming off you or making you light up like a neon skeleton momentarily. You're misinterpreting my statement, I'm not saying it's a spell effect, I'm saying it's a reasonable situational effect on a soon-to-be-unconscious target who just bombed his saving throw.
Third, you still have not said why the knockback should be allowed by the spell. Burden of proof is still on you, my friend. I don't need to prove anything except that my argument is possible--that's how objections work. You made a claim and still haven't actually given a rule to back it--you've just attempted, and frankly failed, at poking holes in the counter-argument. That's not proof, that's merely continuing an argument.

Prove your point: give a concrete reason why Disintegrate could not have done that--not why you personally feel that it shouldn't, but why it 100% could not happen.
...or revise your claim to be something you can actually prove, if that's too much to ask.

[Kurald Galain]

He's got a 4th-edition version that was house ruled in. So there.

Seriously? I'd totally allow this in my campaign. Rule of Drama trumps, what, little fine print in the manual somewhere? 10 times out of 9.

[RAGE KING!]

one assumption; disintegrate creates a heat wave.

THerfore, the beam had a wall of expanding air going out from it, and when the beam hit hinjo, he was thrown away by the air, and was kept up long enough by the updraft to make it to the boat.

[Quikngruvn]

Disintigrate did not knock him back onto the boat.

Oh I know it looked like it did but at the table it didn't. At the table what happened is that Redcloak readied disintegrate is a paladin tried to charge. Readied actions take effect just before the action that triggers them so he was KOed before he lept. The description the DM gave was as per the comic.

See, over analyzing the joke parried by over analysing the joke. Am I good or what?

I hate to burst your bubble, but Redcloak was walking away from shore when Hinjo challenged him. He could not have a readied action to cast because he had his back to the junk at the time. He cast the spell after Hinjo moved.

[chibibar]

When the fireball explode, people MIGHT fly?
When a beam hits you, you CAN get knocked back?

That's not house rules that's DM fiat and it should be used sparingly. Here's a case where we have artistic license not DM fiat but it's about the same.

The nitpick here is that I am saying it's perfectly fine for Rich to have disintegrate knockback, trip and disarm Hinjo and it might be fine to have a DM rule that in a similar circumstance. However, it is an instance of not following the rule. WHICH IS FINE. And yet here are people arguing that I'm wrong and that Rich IS FOLLOWING THE RULES. LOL.

If it's is magic after all anything can happen then why have rules at all?

You know this idea of starting a thread on a silly idea to make it look silly so that it would not turn into a silly argument was just...stupid. My bad.

The rules are there so people without imagination can follow it and go with the flow.

But the spirit of D&D a GM can allow many things and use the rules as guideline. Since there isn't a rule specifically said that you CAN'T do certain things. It just mean it is open to GM to decide what can and cannot happen.

Why have rules at all? Well, without rules, the GM would have to write all the rules down BEFORE the game or discuss with players and then might actually play..... someday.

Having pre-made rules helps, it is like playing a sport. If everyone follows the same rule, you can do different things and people will recognize it. It is like football, there are restriction on what you can do with ball. A spell is a same thing. There are basic "laws" that must be follow. A spell must have one of the following (or more) component, semantics, vocal. at least that is how the original rule. Advance rules allow us to remove some of these components or even all of it (at a cost)

Before these rules was created, many GM had their own idea on how some spells can be cast with just pure thoughts etc etc....

[ag30476]

This is not a logical conclusion from that statement, though. A given spell in a given situation having a specific logical effect is nothing whatsoever like saying any spell can have any effect in any situation. That's an absurd argument to make, ag30476, and it is not in any way a reasonable extrapolation of my statement. So, your claim is that, in D&D, the SRD not saying something happens means it doesn't happen, regardless of the logic involved. Feel free to enjoy taking actions while dead, never sleeping, etc--SRD doesn't say these things must happen, so by your logic it does not happen.

"Feel free to enjoy taking actions while dead, sleeping, etc." did you really just say that?



...or, just perhaps, the rules aren't intended to cover every minor detail and a common-sense approach to these things was intended to trump the explicit statements? That's where my vote lies, thanks. I wasn't aware that he had shown a failed Disintegrate save on a surviving leaping creature before.

He hadn't shown how disintegrate would work on a creature holding a tinfoil hat either.



Can you link that to me? It might help. You're misinterpreting my statement,

Whose fault is that?



I'm not saying it's a spell effect,

So you agree with the heading of this thread "Disintegrate can't do that"



I'm saying it's a reasonable situational effect on a soon-to-be-unconscious target who just bombed his saving throw.

See the thing that gets me - and why I'm still arguing with you - is why you have to read as it this is the only way to interpret the comic. Why can't it just be that Recloak interrupted Hinjo's action? Or why can't it be a fudge? And I have already said multiple times that it can be even taken as artistic license by Rich. Yet you insist that I am wrong. That somehow it is within the rules. It's like you want Oots to jive 100% with the rules but the rules to be as bendable as a pretzel. Weird.



Burden of proof is still on you, my friend. I don't need to prove anything except that my argument is possible--that's how objections work.

Let me get this straight. I'm saying the spell CAN'T do that BY THE RULES. And you're saying it MAY do that because we can IMAGINE THAT IT CAN.



You made a claim and still haven't actually given a rule to back it

Here is the SRD on disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm)



--you've just attempted, and frankly failed, at poking holes in the counter-argument. That's not proof, that's merely continuing an argument.

Prove your point: give a concrete reason why Disintegrate could not have done that--not why you personally feel that it shouldn't, but why it 100% could not happen.
...or revise your claim to be something you can actually prove, if that's too much to ask.

And you're a little too agitated, I think. So after this, have the last word.

[ag30476]

He's got a 4th-edition version that was house ruled in. So there.

Seriously? I'd totally allow this in my campaign. Rule of Drama trumps, what, little fine print in the manual somewhere? 10 times out of 9.

OK here's a general question: Why can't it be artistic license? That is, why can't it be an exception? Why must it be said that the comic actions are in accordance to the rules?

[ag30476]

The rules are there so people without imagination can follow it and go with the flow.

But the spirit of D&D a GM can allow many things and use the rules as guideline. Since there isn't a rule specifically said that you CAN'T do certain things. It just mean it is open to GM to decide what can and cannot happen.

Why have rules at all? Well, without rules, the GM would have to write all the rules down BEFORE the game or discuss with players and then might actually play..... someday.

Having pre-made rules helps, it is like playing a sport. If everyone follows the same rule, you can do different things and people will recognize it. It is like football, there are restriction on what you can do with ball. A spell is a same thing. There are basic "laws" that must be follow. A spell must have one of the following (or more) component, semantics, vocal. at least that is how the original rule. Advance rules allow us to remove some of these components or even all of it (at a cost)

Before these rules was created, many GM had their own idea on how some spells can be cast with just pure thoughts etc etc....

OK here's a general question: Why can't it be artistic license? That is, why can't it be an exception? Why must it be said that the comic actions are in accordance to the rules?

[Crazy_Imp]

to Poster of this thread.
Okay, so if it is artistic license, or if it is a rule... why did you have to start this argument about it? Your own argument goes all over the place, and people have been trying to respond rationally each time you post, though each time your point changes.

In my opinion it honestly doesn't matter, and this will spoil my enjoyment of the comic, since now when I take a glance again (as I oft do when waiting for an update) all I can remember is this snippy little argument about something that affects the progression of the story in one of the smallest ways possible.

[chibibar]

OK here's a general question: Why can't it be artistic license? That is, why can't it be an exception? Why must it be said that the comic actions are in accordance to the rules?

I thought I did say you can have artistic license. (in many words) there are NO rules against it. It is not written in the manuals that a spell CAN'T knock you back.... so artistic license is allow (aka.. GM discretion)

[Setra]

"Feel free to enjoy taking actions while dead, sleeping, etc." did you really just say that?He's saying the SRD doesn't cover everything, which you seem to think everyone must live by word for word.


So you agree with the heading of this thread "Disintegrate can't do that"You really don't get much do you? He's saying it's entirely possible it could, and there is also a possibilty it might not.


Let me get this straight. I'm saying the spell CAN'T do that BY THE RULES. And you're saying it MAY do that because we can IMAGINE THAT IT CAN. Point out where it CANNOT do it BY THE RULES.

To prove it 100% cannot be done, it would have to say it cannot be done, no?

For one to say it is possible, without adding in a 100% means you don't have to prove anything.

[chibibar]

I gotta have SRD handy next time, but I do believe in the first few pages that the GM CAN alter and change the rules of the game to see fit. (That might be GM manual instead)

SO.... what THAT rule. It is possible because the GM said so. Rich is the GM/Author of the OoTS world. Rich says it can knock you back, in OoTS world, It will knock you back :)

Now if we play in someone's gaming world (host by a different GM) they could change the rules because the rules allow them to ;)

[BardicLasher]

After Thor pulled his little thing with the Control Weather, he had to give the other gods each a coupon for one free cheat. The Dark One used his to steal all the free cheats from the Twelve Gods, then used one to send Hinjo flying with a Disintegrate. He also used one to get a bowl of ice cream.

[mikeejimbo]

A few folks are saying that Hinjo would have fallen into the water... How the heck would that happen? If Disintegrate has enough force to make him fall into the water, why couldn't it also have enough force to knock him back onto the ship? If it carried no force at all, then he'd land on the shore, same as if he completed his jump successfully (though he'd probably land with a lot less grace).

Or at the very least, momentum would have carried him forward.

I think that he didn't fall BACK on the ship, instead, the ship moved forward to catch him.

Well, he might have been technically over the shore, rather than water. So how about this: The entire world shifted under him, so he could land on the boat.

Also, I imagine he was knocked out because he made his fort save, but now he has more non-lethal damage than remaining hit points.

[chibibar]

Or at the very least, momentum would have carried him forward.

I think that he didn't fall BACK on the ship, instead, the ship moved forward to catch him.

Well, he might have been technically over the shore, rather than water. So how about this: The entire world shifted under him, so he could land on the boat.

Also, I imagine he was knocked out because he made his fort save, but now he has more non-lethal damage than remaining hit points.

I use to remember an old rule that if you taken about 75% damage from a single attack, you need a fort save or die from shock.

[tainsouvra]

"Feel free to enjoy taking actions while dead, sleeping, etc." did you really just say that? The rules as written allow it, ag30476, despite all common sense to the contrary. That's my evidence that common sense should trump the rules when applicable--for the rules as written to always trump common sense, it must be legal to continue taking actions while dead, and never sleeping has no penalties. Simply saying "the rules don't say that happens" is not a valid argument unless you are willing to accept that outcome--you can't selectively apply your criterion.

So, make your choice. Either the RAW always trump common sense, in which case your reading of Disintegrate is correct but the dead can continue to fight and nobody ever needs to sleep, or common sense can sometimes trump the RAW, in which case your reading of Disintegrate alone proves nothing and, once again, the burden of proof is on you.


He's saying the SRD doesn't cover everything, which you seem to think everyone must live by word for word.
[...]
He's saying it's entirely possible it could, and there is also a possibilty it might not. Correct on both counts, and thank you for the clarification.


I use to remember an old rule that if you taken about 75% damage from a single attack, you need a fort save or die from shock. I believe the current incarnation is any attack that causes more than 50 damage with one application, but yes, that is an option.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Redcloak was walking away from shore when Hinjo challenged him. He could not have a readied action to cast because he had his back to the junk at the time. He cast the spell after Hinjo moved.

There is no facing in DnD.

If he cast the spell after Hinjo moved then Hinjo would have landed FIRST. There is no way the gap is greater than Hinjos movement for the round.

[Kurald Galain]

OK here's a general question: Why can't it be artistic license? That is, why can't it be an exception? Why must it be said that the comic actions are in accordance to the rules?

Er, yes, that's precisely what I was saying? Law of Drama trumps the rules?

[ag30476]

to Poster of this thread.
Okay, so if it is artistic license, or if it is a rule... why did you have to start this argument about it? Your own argument goes all over the place, and people have been trying to respond rationally each time you post, though each time your point changes.
Scrubbing Bubbles!

I started the thread because someone was bound to.

I even stated that it did not matter to me.

Yet people vehemently argued that IT IS ACCORDING TO THE RULES while at the same time arguing THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE RULES.

So which is it? I don't care either. For me, as I've said before if you had read thoroughly and not responded to just the last post of the header, it's either an interrupted action or artistic license. So if you have an argument that so "if it is artistic license, or if it is a rule... why did you have to start this argument", it wasn't me.



In my opinion it honestly doesn't matter, and this will spoil my enjoyment of the comic, since now when I take a glance again (as I oft do when waiting for an update) all I can remember is this snippy little argument about something that affects the progression of the story in one of the smallest ways possible.
Snippy comments in the forums ruining the comic for you? Say it ain't so.

Honestly this thread was started basically as a sarcastic comment on all the "snippy" comments on this forum. And this thread doesn't even begin to approach the snippiness of some other threads, eg "That's not a fiendish octupus"

[ag30476]

I thought I did say you can have artistic license. (in many words) there are NO rules against it. It is not written in the manuals that a spell CAN'T knock you back.... so artistic license is allow (aka.. GM discretion)

My question to you was why do people object so much to the conjunction of "it is artistic license" AND "it is not within the rules as written"? I mean, if you followed the rules to the letter then you wouldn't need artistic license or DM license.

To look at it another way, the letter of the rules don't allow a knockback because it is not mentioned. But you could allow under DM's discretion (ie not in the rules) or artistic license (ie not in the rules).

Really it's not important. If you think I'm wrong then you can have the last word.

[ag30476]

Er, yes, that's precisely what I was saying? Law of Drama trumps the rules?

And that's what I was saying sarcastically. Yet people vehemently argued that no it was within the rules.

[Behold_the_Void]

Rich takes creative licenses with battles all the time. Characters drop/pick up their weapons all the time, for example, without provoking any kind of attack of opportunity and keep fighting as usual. It's how he does fight scenes. This is absolutely nothing new for him, and I fail to see how it can even be considered a problem, much less as big a deal as you are making it out to be.

[bluish_wolf]

I use to remember an old rule that if you taken about 75% damage from a single attack, you need a fort save or die from shock.

Now it's 50 points of damage or more from a single attack. It's the "massive damage" optional rule.

[tainsouvra]

I mean, if you followed the rules to the letter then you wouldn't need artistic license or DM license. Yes, you would need it unless your characters never sleep and fight while dead. DM license isn't just to change the rules, it's to cover what the rules omit. The rules are not all-inclusive, in fact they omit very basic and important things.

[iabervon]

Disintegrate doesn't seem to cause any physical force in OotS: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html, at least not enough to move a dragon's head perceptably. Must be artistic license putting Hinjo back on the boat.

[Jasdoif]

Now it's 50 points of damage or more from a single attack. It's the "massive damage" optional rule.Well, it's a standard rule, not an optional one, but otherwise right.

And...it tends to be pretty dang silly since if you can actually survive taking 50 points of damage in a hit, you can likely pass the DC 15 save with little difficulty.

[tainsouvra]

Disintegrate doesn't seem to cause any physical force in OotS: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html, at least not enough to move a dragon's head perceptably. Must be artistic license putting Hinjo back on the boat. A body-blow to a standing dragon (one big enough to swallow a human whole, no less) is significantly less likely to cause it to move than a hit to a leaping human. The blow that injured the dragon was to its body, not its head, and the blow that felled the dragon completely turned it to dust. I'm not sure how the head not being knocked back proves anything, especially with the size of the dragon we're talking about...it's a completely different situation.

[Indon]

You know, by strict D&D rules, simply zapping someone with a spell in midair is, while not quite impossible, very unlikely.

Either:

-The target jumps, but the caster has a readied action and hits them before they jump, or...

-The target jumps, completes the jump unless they are jumping farther than their movement, and _then_ gets zapped.

So unless our paladin friend could jump more than 40 feet (assuming standard medium humanoid in heavy armor), then him simply being hit in midair was not D&D already.

[chibibar]

My question to you was why do people object so much to the conjunction of "it is artistic license" AND "it is not within the rules as written"? I mean, if you followed the rules to the letter then you wouldn't need artistic license or DM license.

To look at it another way, the letter of the rules don't allow a knockback because it is not mentioned. But you could allow under DM's discretion (ie not in the rules) or artistic license (ie not in the rules).

Really it's not important. If you think I'm wrong then you can have the last word.

Because as I have stated before, there are players who don't have imagination and are "rule lawyers" if it is not stated, then they (in general terms) won't do it.

BUT I am saying there is a rule in the GM manual that ALLOWS GM to modify and make up rules (aka house rule rule) to see fit in situation.... Since the Disintegrate rule states certain things but didn't NOT say what the actual spell does (in terms of force or just drop) so the GM can insert the rule PER GM manual rule and the disintegrate is actually a force that can push you back :)

that is what I am trying to say, but it seems the rule lawyers are not taking ALL rules into account (or house rules)

In given case, the house rule, aka artistic license.

[Chronos]

Yet people vehemently argued that IT IS ACCORDING TO THE RULES while at the same time arguing THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE RULES.Both, actually. There's a rule in D&D which explicitly states that it doesn't matter if something is not according to the rules. The DM has ultimate say (subject only to the veto of the other players throwing books and pizza at him, or refusing to play), so if the DM says that a spell knocks its target back, then it's according to the rules, since the rules recognize the DM's authority to say that.

[ag30476]

Scrubbing bubbles!



You really don't get much do you? He's saying it's entirely possible it could, and there is also a possibilty it might not.

I would not be the one making claims about other peoples reading comprehension. If he's saying "it's entirely possible it could, and there is also a possibilty it might not" then he's not saying much is he? I'm saying, to repeat for the umpteenth time, that Hinjo getting knocked back by disintegrate is not within the rules. And "within the rules" can be taken to mean "within the WRITTEN rules". I am also saying that it does not matter because what is depicted is
1) either Redcloak interrupting Hinjo's stated action
-OR-
2) artistic license.



Point out where it CANNOT do it BY THE RULES.

It's clear that you and many people cannot understand why this is not a counterargument. But if it makes sense to you then fine.



To prove it 100% cannot be done, it would have to say it cannot be done, no?

Look I just went out and had my minions catapult several paladins into the air at the approximate height and speed of Hinjo's jump while I disintegrated them. Had to use several 'cause even the tough looking ones kept failing their saves and I wanted the test to be thorough. The result: 12 paladins turned to dust which scattered as it continued to travel forward; 1 survived but not knocked back. Are you happy now? The sacrifice to The Dark One is completely ruined.

[ag30476]

Both, actually. There's a rule in D&D which explicitly states that it doesn't matter if something is not according to the rules. The DM has ultimate say (subject only to the veto of the other players throwing books and pizza at him, or refusing to play), so if the DM says that a spell knocks its target back, then it's according to the rules, since the rules recognize the DM's authority to say that.

Were just arguing semantics here...

[Krytha]

First, the OP has broken about a zillion forum rules with his posts. Second, the OP needs to find the edit button more often. Third, I think Chronos was on to something.

[tainsouvra]

If he's saying "it's entirely possible it could, and there is also a possibilty it might not" then he's not saying much is he? You mean other than that, if true, that would mean that the statement "Disintegrate could not have done that!" would be false? Yeah, it's not saying much--only that your claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[ag30476]

First, the OP has broken about a zillion forum rules with his posts. Second, the OP needs to find the edit button more often. Third, I think Chronos was on to something.

1) I apologize for starting this thread.

2) If I offended anyone, I apologize.

3) If you think that what the comic depicted was within the rules, then you are right and I concede the point to you.

4) If on the other hand, you believe that what the comic depicted was not within the rules, then you may be right too. I concede to you as well.

[dungeon_munky]

My personal opinion is that this is just flavourful description of "he zaps you before you get the chance to jump." Things that don't have any affect on gameplay are often fun to add in to make the fights more interesting.

[Punoqllads]

It's possible to explain away the fact that Hinjo appears incapacitated even though the rules-as-written say that disintegrate turns targets into dust if they are taken to 0 or fewer hit points. If Hinjo took some amount of nonlethal damage, and if Redcloak's disintegrate dealt enough damage such that his nonlethal damage was greater than the number of hit points he had left, he would be knocked unconscious rather than become a lump of gray powder.

Cites:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#nonlethalDamage
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm

[Vuzzmop]

One question. So what? It's a comic based on d&d rules, not a game of d&d itself. Get over it.

[Callista]

Here's how it could've done it:

Redcloak's Disintegrate was a readied action with the trigger, "If Hinjo attacks me".

Since readied actions take place just before the trigger, Redcloak's Disintegrate hit Hinjo just after he began his jump--knocking him back into the boat.

[Axl_Rose]

It says it produces a "thin green ray"; this ray, presumably, has enough force to do 40d6 damage, and completely obliterate anything that can't survive it. That's more than enough force to knock someone back if it hits them in the air... and since the spell description doesn't explain how it damages and disintegrates things, it's just as likely an interpretation as anything else.

I agree with you in the sense that Disintegrate *could* do that for all we know.


However, your reasoning loses credibility when you try to justify the idea that the ray is capable of 'pushing' something back because it happens to do high damage damage.

The point is we don't know whether or not the ray has concussive force; therefore it may very well be able to do that. Case closed.

[chibibar]

I agree with you in the sense that Disintegrate *could* do that for all we know.


However, your reasoning loses credibility when you try to justify the idea that the ray is capable of 'pushing' something back because it happens to do high damage damage.

The point is we don't know whether or not the ray has concussive force; therefore it may very well be able to do that. Case closed.

I think we are mixing realities here. In many sci-fi film base (comparing fantasy to fantasy) the laser = disintegration (more or less) and since Laser fire CAN push people back (seen many time) then disintegration beam (similar stuff) could do it too (hence people think it is possible)

[busterswd]

"I don't care about this topic. So I'll continue to argue with people who post in it as a completely partial fashion."


If you don't care, let the thread die. If you do, come up with a better argument besides "I don't care but I'm right" because you're bordering on trolling. People are coming up with valid arguments which you ignore on the grounds of disagreeing with them.


By the way, most spells don't mention having a visual effect, unlike Fireball, which does. Therefore every spell without such a description must be invisible since it's not explicity stated? Common sense applies.

[Oberon]

Hinjo leaps from the boat. At the height of his leaping arc, he is hit with a magical beam of force. Since it is "force" damage, not an elemental damage, it is being exerted as pure force in the oppostie direction, a force being energy used to push, pull, or otherwise manipulate its surroundings.

Let's imagine that disintigrate reduces people to dust because their bodies simply cannot handle the pressure and are blown to bits. Hence, at the top of Hinjo's jump he could have felt something very akin to the feeling of jumping into a wall, only much more painful as it was a wall of force localized on his body, moving in the other direction. It is not unfeasable to say that Hinjo simply "bounced" off of this "wall" effect, as he already had forward momentum.

To quote Newton:
"Every action has an equal and alternate reaction."

You couldn't say that disintigrate can initiate a bull rush or trip, because those are specific DnD rules, but you could say being hit by the opposing force knocked him back onto the ship, as that is a minor, one-time adjustment of the spell, using DM's discretion rather than rules, for the sake of the plot and for Hinjo's survival. DMs do this all the time, in fact the DM guide says you may want to "cheat" to avoid dissapointing the PC's by killing them all. (Now is Hinjo a PC? we don't know...)

[Forealms]

One question. So what? It's a comic based on d&d rules, not a game of d&d itself. Get over it.

Shush! I enjoy seeing both sides of the issue, it's entertaining. I mean, if this thread hadn't started, this could never have come up:


After Thor pulled his little thing with the Control Weather, he had to give the other gods each a coupon for one free cheat. The Dark One used his to steal all the free cheats from the Twelve Gods, then used one to send Hinjo flying with a Disintegrate. He also used one to get a bowl of ice cream.

By the way, I think BardicLasher has earned himself a cookie for this excellent theory.

But does that mean that the dead gods can use their cheat to raise themselves?

No, because they're dead, of course. :smallfrown:

And why didn't Thor use his to destroy the Snarl completely and indefinitely?

Because he had a deep urge to say "BOO-YAH!" :smallamused:

Also, why WOULDN'T the Dark One use the cheat instead to do an act of the greatest of all evil?

Because there was ice cream to be had. :smallwink:

I think I have single-handedly solved this mystery. Okay, with some help from BardicLasher. :smallbiggrin:

[Tor the Fallen]

There's a metamagic feat that lets you push creatures back with your spells.

[Kurald Galain]

You mean explosive spell? Won't work, it only goes on spells with an area of effect and a ref save.


Laser fire CAN push people back
Technically a beam of light is physically incapable of pushing people back :)

[the_tick_rules]

yeah, technically by the rules taking a full meteor swarm results in not a flinch, it's dramatics.

[tainsouvra]

Technically a beam of light is physically incapable of pushing people back :) Technically, that's 100% false, especially given the premise of the Disintegrate idea given earlier :smalltongue:

First result of a google search for "'beam of light' force" (http://www.livescience.com/technology/070327_laser_jet.html)

Some key quotes:
Light is actually pushing onto us slightly. This effect is called radiation pressure
In previous work, people figured out that you can move individual particles with lasers ...the underlying idea is that photons impart kinetic energy when they collide with other particles, if memory serves. If we can say that Disintegrate provides enough energy to instantly dust any normal human, that's actually a fair amount of push if it doesn't dust him, since that energy has to go somewhere.

[aliron]

Disintegrate doesn't seem to cause any physical force in OotS: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0186.html, at least not enough to move a dragon's head perceptably. Must be artistic license putting Hinjo back on the boat.

Hmmm, in that comic it looks like the dragon is knocked back though, or maybe it flinches in pain. One of its forelegs is raised to the air, and in some previous strips it was standing on all fours.

[chibibar]

When we talk about "effects" of something that is WAY beyond our technology (there is an old quote about "A technology that is so advance, it is indistinguishable from magic")

So most of us (who are GM/DM) would use our person experience we learn from movies and books we read. I personally see many fantasy base movie that beam type spells usually push someone back.

So if I was the GM, D ray would also push someone back.

Now again, for those who are "rule lawyers" as a GM, I can override any rules in the game per my discretion :)

[Chronos]

Quoth Oberon:
Hinjo leaps from the boat. At the height of his leaping arc, he is hit with a magical beam of force. Since it is "force" damage, not an elemental damage, it is being exerted as pure force in the oppostie direction, a force being energy used to push, pull, or otherwise manipulate its surroundings.While I hate to argue with a fellow who's busily engaged in the extermination of catgirls, I feel obliged to point out that Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) isn't a force effect. And even if it were, "force" doesn't mean the same thing in D&D as it does in physics jargon, though that shouldn't stand in the way of a good argument.

[Megatron]

Now it's 50 points of damage or more from a single attack. It's the "massive damage" optional rule.

That's kind of silly if you ask me... especially in a high-level campaign where some characters have upwards of 250 HP. I mean, a fifth of your HP shouldn't be able to cause instant system shock death. I've always house-ruled back in the old 75% rule.

[chibibar]

That's kind of silly if you ask me... especially in a high-level campaign where some characters have upwards of 250 HP. I mean, a fifth of your HP shouldn't be able to cause instant system shock death. I've always house-ruled back in the old 75% rule.

yea I use 75% too.

[Slibs]

Point to where it can. If you're going to argue that just because it's not in the spell description then it's OK, then why can't disintegrate trip you as well as bull rush you?


Hinjo's own vaporizing flesh would act as a ject to force him back.

[zoobie]

Why does everyone assume that the spell knocked him backward. No "x"s in his eyes so he's not dead, who can say he didn't do some paladin thing to fall back safely? or any of the random spell castors on the boat? There's always Deus ex machina, after all.

[chibibar]

Why does everyone assume that the spell knocked him backward. No "x"s in his eyes so he's not dead, who can say he didn't do some paladin thing to fall back safely? or any of the random spell castors on the boat? There's always Deus ex machina, after all.

because Hinjo jump off the ship in an arc (to make it shore) and the blast knocked him BACK into the ship.

Thus the debate on how the disintegration spell works.

Theories

1. The spell doesn't push back which mean the momentum will just cause Hinjo to continue forward and land face flat (being knocked out)

2. The spell stop his current motion then it would cause him to fall into the water

3. The spell knocks him back and thus lands on the deck of the ship (aka falling backward)

[EvilElitest]

So what? Who cares? In what way does it matter? Is your life significantly impacted by the bending of rules for artistic license? And what comic have you been reading, anyway, that you think the fact that Rich fudges rules to create a cool image is something new and/or noteworthy?


He is being sarcastic, ironiclly in a manner somewhat close to Rich.


No, they really didn't.
Why? It was a joke. I found it funny. What people really didn't need to do is respond expecting him to be serous
from,
EE

[Hagentai]

Disintegrate could not have knocked Hinjo back into the ship.


Somebody had to start this thread...

Doesn't get anymore turbo nerd than this. Alright using a house rule... the writer (The dm) used a fate point so Hinjo wouldn't be killed out right by the massive damage of the spell vs fort save death and ruled he would simply be knocked back on the boat.

Further more if you really want to be anul... Hinjo should have made the save vs a Disintergrate in the first place. He's a PAL! for crying out loud. It's a FORT SAVE! What plot Pal doesn't have fort Mina maxed.

[EvilElitest]

And the forum would be a better place for it.

With 95% of its threads missing? Yeah, well if you like things dull



Yes, I know someone would have, I just dispute that anyone should have. Knowing that something unpleasant is inevitable doesn't mean we need to embrace it.
Its called humor, but making the thread as a parody it is shown as a satire in stread of sombody who makes the thread for the sole purpose of insulting Rich. I found it very funny because it was satire, i wouldn't if he wasn't joking. But making such comments your killing humor, lighten up
from,
EE

[theinsulabot]

posting in a worthless thread

[chibibar]

posting in a worthless thread

why do you keep saying that?

I personally don't think it is a worthless thread. I see it as people can expand their mind about the game mechanics of D&D. The problem is that too many new players are soooo much into rule lawyering that many forget the most important rules of D&D..... You can make up your own rules!!

This is a perfect example of such a case.

[Alyais]

In my experience, the D&D books don't keep physics in mind. At least the universal laws of cause->effect and momentum.

[dungeon_munky]

Further more if you really want to be anul... Hinjo should have made the save vs a Disintergrate in the first place. He's a PAL! for crying out loud. It's a FORT SAVE! What plot Pal doesn't have fort Mina maxed.

He probably did make his save, notice how he is not made of dust. Disintegrate still does 5d6 damage on a successful save, and in the new comic, its pointed out that it was hitting the deck that knocked him out. We don't know what his HP was like before.

[fangthane]

Ok, some thoughts.

1. Disintegrate doesn't carry a force component. At all. While flavour description in spells is inconsistent, game-affecting flavour (and any physical effect beyond the disintegration itself IS game-affecting, at least potentially) is consistently described. Disintegrate is a non-impulse-bearing ray which transmutes things into dust. A book (which I'd assume you'll concede weighs less than Hinjo) struck with the ray crumbles to dust - it's not blasted 5+ feet away from the caster in a dusty spray.

2. Bet on Redcloak having declared "That paladin in the water's no threat here on the docks, so the first obvious aggressive action from the ship wins a disintegrate" as his readied action. Hinjo had to be allowed to do his "I jump off the ship while calling out the goblin cleric" action for that to trigger, but once it did (as others have mentioned) the readied action goes off before the jump. A little bit of "Oh, well I wasn't quite off the boat yet, right? RIGHT?!" and we get the events we saw.

3. It's possible that almost any spell could do almost anything, but as players and DMs we have to realise that the game's intended balance is as written. Common sense has to apply, and we need to recognise that while yes, we could assign Disintegrate, and Fireball, and Ice Storm, all kinds of nifty effects - knockback, burning effects or frostbite - but the fact the spells are already balanced for the effects they do explicitly receive means they really don't need to receive additional game-affecting properties. And in a case like this, there's no need for additional properties of the Disintegrate spell, because readied actions (a rules joke in this comic? Who'd have thought it?) provide all the explanation necessary. Occam's Razor does the rest; if there's no need to stipulate a house rule, it probably wasn't necessary to conceive of the events in the strip, either.

[ag30476]

With 95% of its threads missing? Yeah, well if you like things dull


Its called humor, but making the thread as a parody it is shown as a satire in stread of sombody who makes the thread for the sole purpose of insulting Rich. I found it very funny because it was satire, i wouldn't if he wasn't joking. But making such comments your killing humor, lighten up
from,
EE

Thanks! At least somebody got it. The problem I found is that responding in a foolish manner in a moderated forum is ... well ... foolish. Apologies to my momma.