OOTS #656 - The Discussion Thread

[Swordster]

But unlike an elf a cleric of Redcloak's level is only a single spell away from getting 18 Str plus full fighter BAB. If he had carried a weapon Redcloak could have casually beaten up O-Chul in melee combat.

A cleric of Redcloak's level also has some very powerful touch spells. It would be more efficient to simply prepare more touch spells and use those, especially since anyone who wants to melee is probably much easier to hit with touch spells than with attacks. He needs his holy symbol to buff himself, and if he's going to be casting spells anyway he should just be casting touch spells. Sans holy symbol, he's both magic-useless and melee-useless. It's just an inherent weakness of the cleric class. Ideally, if he was optimized, he'd carry a weapon, but a) He'd be nearly useless with it anyway, and b) He's not an optimized character, he's a person with personality quirks and preferred tactics and flaws in his build.

[Deliverance]

Methinks the imps use of the feminine objective pronoun when describing the elf has given away V's long-opined gender.

Youthinks wrongly. Just about every character in OOTS comes up with his own opinion of V's gender and uses the appropriate pronoun that fits the character's opinion without this being at all useful for determining V's gender.

[Omegonthesane]

Youthinks wrongly. Just about every character in OOTS comes up with his own opinion of V's gender and uses the appropriate pronoun that fits the character's opinion without this being at all useful for determining V's gender.

Methinks the poster you were quoting was, in fact, kidding.

[B. Dandelion]

I find Redcloak's lack of a weapon to be terrifically appropriate for his character. I think he sees his role first and foremost as a spiritual mentor, not a combatant, and he doesn't kill with his hands even in his most directly offensive actions. It's magic that does the dirty work, and since it's magic provided by the Dark One, he can claim it's his god who's really doing it. Yet one more thing that is not his fault.

I wish people would quit bringing in this assumption that characters who don't do it one particular way are doing it WRONG, the characters are optimized for their personalities and their roles in the story which really can't just be quantified as class plus race plus alignment. The rules are supposed to further the story not the other way around.

[Deliverance]

Methinks the poster you were quoting was, in fact, kidding.

Methinks the possibility definitely exists that your analysis of what the poster intended (kidding) might very well be right but that there seems to be no supporting evidence of this being the case save the "or maybe not" comment. :)

[rman]

In our games, True Seeing was always the first permanent spell a high level arcane caster took.

With our GM if you did this you started to "see things" you should not, especially when sleeping. Think Cuthulu sanity checks and resulting reductions in wisdom. There is a reason why some things should not be permanent.

[Swordster]

With our GM if you did this you started to "see things" you should not, especially when sleeping. Think Cuthulu sanity checks and resulting reductions in wisdom. There is a reason why some things should not be permanent.

Ooh, I like that. Clever, evil DM.

[SoC175]

He needs his holy symbol to buff himself, and if he's going to be casting spells anyway he should just be casting touch spells. Sans holy symbol, he's both magic-useless and melee-useless. It's just an inherent weakness of the cleric class. Ideally, if he was optimized, he'd carry a weapon, but a) He'd be nearly useless with it anyway, and b) He's not an optimized character, he's a person with personality quirks and preferred tactics and flaws in his build.

It requires no optimization at all. Just carry the spare weapon and reserve a single emergency slot for diviner power.

If he had cast DP instead of disintigration he would have gotten the app. same Str and a better BAB. Add that to the fact that he wouldn't be using an improvised weapon (-4 penalty) and was wearing his full set of magic gadgets (armor, rings, amuletts) that wouldn't be a duell against O-Chul but akin to beating up a punching bag.

It's magic that does the dirty work, and since it's magic provided by the Dark One, he can claim it's his god who's really doing it. Yet one more thing that is not his fault.

He doesn't need any excuse to rationalize his killings, he has no qualms about slaying non-goblins to better the fate of goblinkind. He only needs to justify to himself when he has to sacrifice fellow goblins for the greater cause.

With our GM if you did this you started to "see things" you should not, especially when sleeping. Think Cuthulu sanity checks and resulting reductions in wisdom. There is a reason why some things should not be permanent.

I think your DM is overly harsh. It's expected to have such things at high-level. There are even items granting permanent true seeing + other bonuses and they're not particulary expensive for their level range.

Eventually just about every second creature you'll encounter will have permanent true seeing right from the MM.

[Omegonthesane]

It requires no optimization at all. Just carry the spare weapon and reserve a single emergency slot for diviner power.

If he had cast DP instead of disintigration he would have gotten the app. same Str and a better BAB. Add that to the fact that he wouldn't be using an improvised weapon (-4 penalty) and was wearing his full set of magic gadgets (armor, rings, amuletts) that wouldn't be a duell against O-Chul but akin to beating up a punching bag.

This argument fails to explain why a scheming support caster and spiritual leader, who preferentially relies on buffing his armies and allies rather than getting in the thick of things himself, would be prepared for close combat at all.

And seriously, if you don't think losing both your free hands to a shield and mace is a cost, you are failing to understand that OOTS is a story with characters, not a video game with builds.

[SoC175]

This argument fails to explain why a scheming support caster and spiritual leader, who preferentially relies on buffing his armies and allies rather than getting in the thick of things himself, would be prepared for close combat at all.

Because he is a cunning planer and would recognize this danger and that it can be avoided with almost no effort at all.

And seriously, if you don't think losing both your free hands to a shield and mace is a cost, you are failing to understand that OOTS is a story with characters, not a video game with builds.

Actually he shouldn't be carrying a spare-shield. While this would make him even better in melee that would enter the territory of optimization and take too long (cast the buff, equip your shield and equip your weapon).

All he needs is to just have a spare weapon hanging at his belt and if someone breaks through to force him into melee he can just draw the weapon, cast a single spell and be ready to hold his ground as long as needed. He even still has a second hand free for casting.

Cast spell, draw weapon is one round to get ready. Cast spell, ready your shield, draw weapon are at least 2 rounds and might be even more rounds depending on how the unused shield is stored (a weapon is usually just sheated at the belt, a shield secured on the back more complicately)

[B. Dandelion]

He doesn't need any excuse to rationalize his killings, he has no qualms about slaying non-goblins to better the fate of goblinkind. He only needs to justify to himself when he has to sacrifice fellow goblins for the greater cause.

Killing things WITH HIS HANDS. He is a cleric. There is no literal blood on his hands. Do I have to explain this, really? No, he has never demonstrated a need to rationalize killing someone by stabbing them or hitting them with a weapon because he NEVER DOES IT THAT WAY. Although...

Spoiler

Show

Actually, he DID kill someone with his hands. Once. The FIRST person he killed. To save his little brother. Wow, you think there might be something symbolic to this? MAYBE?

[SoC175]

Killing things WITH HIS HANDS. He is a cleric. There is no literal blood on his hands.

But not because he ever tried to actively avoid haing to do it.

Spoiler

Show

Wow, you think there might be something symbolic to this? MAYBE?

Actually no, not at all. There is nothing in Redcloaks history that would indicate that it's a part of his character to have even the slightest qualm against killing with a melee weapon. He just so far hadn't any particular reason to do so.

PS: He was trying to slay trough touch spells during the battle of Azure City against the high priest of the twelve

[Omegonthesane]

Because he is a cunning planer and would recognize this danger and that it can be avoided with almost no effort at all.

Actually he shouldn't be carrying a spare-shield. While this would make him even better in melee that would enter the territory of optimization and take too long (cast the buff, equip your shield and equip your weapon).

All he needs is to just have a spare weapon hanging at his belt and if someone breaks through to force him into melee he can just draw the weapon, cast a single spell and be ready to hold his ground as long as needed. He even still has a second hand free for casting.

Cast spell, draw weapon is one round to get ready. Cast spell, ready your shield, draw weapon are at least 2 rounds and might be even more rounds depending on how the unused shield is stored (a weapon is usually just sheated at the belt, a shield secured on the back more complicately)

While thinking of a way to refute this mostly good argument, I realised another good reason for Redcloak's lack of a melee weapon. He already has a strategy superior to "stand and fight" for when melee bastards come and attack him: stand and cast touch-range spells. If he wasn't already injured from V's Chain Lightning and/or he wasn't knocked prone by O-Chul's first round, he'd have started laying down the Harms like he did against Miko, given they don't need his holy symbol. However, they do need a somatic component, which may not be possible while prone - maybe that's why he pinged away with a spell requiring only a word, rather than stick around to finish a paladin of the hated Sapphire Guard.

Actually no, not at all. There is nothing in Redcloaks history that would indicate that it's a part of his character to have even the slightest qualm against killing with a melee weapon. He just so far hadn't any particular reason to do so.

He has some serious qualms about admitting he's a bastard, or admitting he is ultimately responsible for crimes he commits. This is expounded on in SoD, apparently; I haven't bought the book.

[SoC175]

He has some serious qualms about admitting he's a bastard, or admitting he is ultimately responsible for crimes he commits. This is expounded on in SoD, apparently; I haven't bought the book.

But only against fellow goblinoids. He has no such qualms concerning humans. He was shocked that he sacrificed so many fellow goblins while trying to better their fate. He rationalized this away but convincing himself that it's sadly neccesssary for the greater good of all goblins. He was shocked that he became a racist by misstrating hobgoblins, he reassured himself by freely admiting that he's a speciesist hating all non-goblinkind and started to treat the different races of goblinkind equally well (451). Being a self-admited speciesist he doesn't need any excuses to misstreat and slay any non-goblinkind.

IMHO the point remains that a cunning strategist like Redcloak should ponder the likelyhood of a danger to occur, how dire the consequences of said danger would be and how much ressources it would require to prepare for that danger.

To me "just wear a weapon and prepare DP" is such a low effort that he should take it. However relying entirely on touch spells for such situations is also a good point.

[B. Dandelion]

But not because he ever tried to actively avoid haing to do it.

Excuse me, but how would you possibly know that? Xykon's never ordered him to pick up a weapon and fight, he's never been put into any kind of situation that would require him to pick up a weapon and attack with it or else let something terrible happen -- no one has ever called him on it, not within the strip itself.

Actually no, not at all. There is nothing in Redcloaks history that would indicate that it's a part of his character to have even the slightest qualm against killing with a melee weapon. He just so far hadn't any particular reason to do so.

The fact that it hasn't COME UP doesn't mean that it's not THERE. There's nothing in his backstory you can point to that argues against it. Look, I'm totally willing to admit I'm wrong if it comes up later on in the online strips -- actually I hadn't even thought of this angle prior to this discussion -- but there's nothing that proves he has "no qualms about killing with a melee weapon" either, you're just assuming that.

PS: He was trying to slay trough touch spells during the battle of Azure City against the high priest of the twelve

Again -- it's his god's magic. He does not STRIKE physically.

[Porthos]

Wait a mo...

Are we seriously still arguing/complaining about the fact that the characters in this strip aren't optimized? Are we seriously still pointing out the fact that some/most of these characters are badly "designed" from a stict book reading of the rules?

Really?

Can I ask people who are bringing up these questions a simple question in return?

Why?

I mean, hasn't it been demonstrated from just about the very first strip of the comic that this comic doesn't concern itself with "appropriate" builds? Heck, hasn't it been established that it doesn't give a flying fig about what characters are "supposed" to do in regards to their builds and or actions? Or in what items they are "supposed" to carry?

I would think that after 656 strips and a few hundred of pages of extra materials in various books it would have sunk in that while the characters sometimes can and do make choices that most DnD characters would make, they don't always. Yes, Rich tries to make the characters actions somewhat "level-appropriate" (as per his commentary in WaXP), but he isn't a slave to the One True Way to play DnD.

Thus he doesn't have Batman Wizards running around (although it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him satarize them later on in the strip). And he had the Cleric Duel be exceedingly anti-clmatic. Yes, he does poke fun at the CoD idea, with the introduction of Leeky Windstaff, but that's the exception not the rule.

Even the überpowerful (and at least so far, successful) Xykon can be thought of as badly designed, if one takes time to look at the character.

Simply put, outside of the purposes of satire (or making an interesting point/story), Rich. Doesn't. Care. about "correct" builds/actions. And he has made this abundantly clear in his writing (both in story and out).

So, again, why are people banging their heads on the wall over this? Why not make peace with the fact that Rich's characters aren't going to do the "correct" thing most of the time?

Sure, I can understand it niggling. But when all is said and done, isn't the story more important than whether or not the characters follow DnD Logic?
.
.
.
.
.
Wait. Don't answer that last question.

[SoC175]

The fact that it hasn't COME UP doesn't mean that it's not THERE.

But it not being there is the normal case. The claim that it's there is the special thing that needs to be proven.

I am merely countering the conclusion that Redcloak has any special bias toward this topic. Not having any qualms is just the standard, having specific qualms about this is the special.

Arguing that there is something special, so is the point that needs prove. I am merely countering this claim by arguing that Redcloak is just goblin-normal as far as this is concerned.

That's like claiming that Redcloak's true reason for joining the clergy of the Dark One was that he deeply hates pizza with tuna and the dogma of the Dark One forbids pizza with tuna. Since neither has ever COME UP there's nothing to prove that it's not THERE

Again -- it's his god's magic. He does not STRIKE physically.

Which carries absolutely no proof that he's doing it this way because he can use that as an excuse to get over inner qualms against slaying through physical strike.

[B. Dandelion]

But it not being there is the normal case. The claim that it's there is the special thing that needs to be proven.

Um, NO, it's YOUR position that needs to be proven because I am trying to back up what is explicitly a SPECULATIVE character interpretation. I don't need definitive proof. You not only cannot definitively prove me wrong, you can't even furnish REASONABLE proof that he does not believe as I have speculated, except to say that you THINK he shouldn't be that way.

I am merely countering the conclusion that Redcloak has any special bias toward this topic. Not having any qualms is just the standard, having specific qualms about this is the special.

Incorrect -- NORMAL people DON'T kill. It's adventurers who are the exception.

[BlueWizard]

[SoC175]

Incorrect -- NORMAL people DON'T kill. It's adventurers who are the exception.

Normal goblins do. And Redcloak has proven to be quite willing to do so. Nothing suggests that he's only so willing because he's using self-deception to shift the deed on the Dark One to overcome inner qualms.

[motub]

Why do the demons in panel 10 swap places with each other?

As has been noted, Panel 10 was drawn backwards. Hopefully Rich will correct it (probably just by reversing the colors of the speech bubbles).

I don't think it's possible to "fix", because this is an English-language comic, and in the English language, we read from left to right.

Yellow fiend, who has the remote, and offers to adjust the set to show invisible actors, is sitting on the right. Unfortunately, though, he speaks first (to confirm that he has made the adjustment), and so even though the speech bubble should rightfully be over his head, it cannot be placed there, in order to preserve the correct order of the read conversation.

It's basically the lesser of two evils to have "messed up" the order of the speech bubbles, rather than having to have moved the characters for some made-up reason, or (worse yet) having put the speech bubbles in the "right" place, but making the panel unintelligible (since the statements would have been out of order) or (very worst) putting the statements in the correct order and attributing them to the character whose head they were above, without regard to whether the specific statements were appropriate to the character making them.

-------------------------------------------
I surprised myself by feeling regret at Jirix's death, or the throwaway nature of his death, more likely, but he did do good in terms of taking precisely the right action (yelling as loud as he could for attention), even though it didn't help him as such (nor was it intended to help him, so that's OK too).

On the subject of throwaway "deaths", I've gotta believe that 1) O-Chul isn't dead just yet, and 2) he still has something somewhat useful to do before he does die. After the last two strips where we were all so hyped up on him, it just doesn't seem right to a) kick his butt 2) take away any success (getting the phylactery) he did have and then on top of it all, kill him off off-frickin'-panel. That would be a useless death, and not even a "featured death", and that would be totally unjust.

Poor V. Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any worse, they get worse. There just are no words. I have no idea what could possibly happen w.r.t. hir situation now.

And last, several people have asked, but I don't think anyone answered:

Tolkien reference?
Princess Bride reference?

What did I miss?

[B. Dandelion]

Normal goblins do.

Says who? Where was that ever said, anywhere? "Usually evil" has never been said to mean "usually combat-oriented," and if ALL goblins normally kill people why doesn't the army have any women?

And Redcloak has proven to be quite willing to do so. Nothing suggests that he's only so willing because he's using self-deception to shift the deed on the Dark One to overcome inner qualms.

It addresses why he wouldn't carry a weapon, despite the fact that he's one of the more strategy-oriented characters and there appears to be no practical purpose for him not to, by building on a well-established character trait (self-deception) that we know about already.

[Milandros]

Wait a mo...

Are we seriously still arguing/complaining about the fact that the characters in this strip aren't optimized? Are we seriously still pointing out the fact that some/most of these characters are badly "designed" from a stict book reading of the rules?

Really?

Can I ask people who are bringing up these questions a simple question in return?

Why?

I mean, hasn't it been demonstrated from just about the very first strip of the comic that this comic doesn't concern itself with "appropriate" builds? Heck, hasn't it been established that it doesn't give a flying fig about what characters are "supposed" to do in regards to their builds and or actions? Or in what items they are "supposed" to carry?

I would think that after 656 strips and a few hundred of pages of extra materials in various books it would have sunk in that while the characters sometimes can and do make choices that most DnD characters would make, they don't always. Yes, Rich tries to make the characters actions somewhat "level-appropriate" (as per his commentary in WaXP), but he isn't a slave to the One True Way to play DnD.

Thus he doesn't have Batman Wizards running around (although it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him satarize them later on in the strip). And he had the Cleric Duel be exceedingly anti-clmatic. Yes, he does poke fun at the CoD idea, with the introduction of Leeky Windstaff, but that's the exception not the rule.

Even the überpowerful (and at least so far, successful) Xykon can be thought of as badly designed, if one takes time to look at the character.

Simply put, outside of the purposes of satire (or making an interesting point/story), Rich. Doesn't. Care. about "correct" builds/actions. And he has made this abundantly clear in his writing (both in story and out).

So, again, why are people banging their heads on the wall over this? Why not make peace with the fact that Rich's characters aren't going to do the "correct" thing most of the time?

Sure, I can understand it niggling. But when all is said and done, isn't the story more important than whether or not the characters follow DnD Logic?
.
.
.
.
.
Wait. Don't answer that last question.

Huzzah, some common sense.

The "V should have cast this set of perfectly optimised spells having guessed that Xykon had wards and was immune to fire and had all the spells that he does" comments were getting tiring.

And Redcloak may have done *exactly* what most D&D players would do in those circumstances - down to low hit points, could die on the next blow, reduced spell list - most players aren't going to be casting Harm or Destruction or even Dominate in the hope that the incredibly tough paladin they're facing will fail a save for the first time in history. They're going to get the heck out of there and come back a couple of rounds later. If Redcloak charges in in a round or two having recalled to his room, grabbed a spare holy symbol and cast Heal, then heads back, why would that be the wrong choice?

[Swordster]

Um, NO, it's YOUR position that needs to be proven because I am trying to back up what is explicitly a SPECULATIVE character interpretation. I don't need definitive proof. You not only cannot definitively prove me wrong, you can't even furnish REASONABLE proof that he does not believe as I have speculated, except to say that you THINK he shouldn't be that way.

But you also don't have any proof that it is that way, other than that you think it could be. Redcloak doesn't use weapons because he's never used weapons.

Spoiler

Show

He went from being an acolyte of the Dark One in an isolated goblin village to the High Priest of the Dark One. He's never picked up a weapon for combat in his life (that we've seen). Since the Crimson Mantle essentially keeps him locked, age-wise, in the body of the young acolyte who's been taught to seek faith- and magic-based solutions to his problems, physical combat simply doesn't occur to him. When he needs to fight, he has his magic. A habit-turned-preferred-tactic and and way of thinking that he is basically locked into are more probable explanations than some kind of taboo.

Wait a mo...

Are we seriously still arguing/complaining about the fact that the characters in this strip aren't optimized? Are we seriously still pointing out the fact that some/most of these characters are badly "designed" from a stict book reading of the rules?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm arguing about what the explanation for a certain aspect of Redcloak's character is. I've claimed earlier that "an optimized cleric would have a weapon" is a flawed argument. I'm looking for an in-character explanation of why he doesn't carry a weapon, something that, optimization aside, is usually a good idea in a violent world.

[B. Dandelion]

I'm not actually trying to argue that's the only way to look at it, I just thought it was appropriate, perhaps for that reason. I said specifically that I knew I could be wrong, the only reason it continued was because SoC has been trying to flat-out contradict me and say Redcloak not only doesn't feel this way, he feels some other way by default. Which is bogus -- it's every bit as speculative as my theory. He can't prove he's right any more than he can prove I'm wrong. It's just ESPECIALLY aggravating since I'm the one saying Redcloak's lack of a weapon is appropriate to his character and people shouldn't criticize him on the basis of "he's not optimized as a cleric."

[DrivinAllNight]

I know V is invisible and all, but still, V is about less than 10 short feet away from Xykon, well that's my judgment anyways from the strips. Main question is, how easy can it be for someone like Xykon to sense that V is so close, after all, I've read in the forum here that Lich's have uncannily high sense and whatnot for finding hidden things like V?

Spoiler

Show

Maybe V stays still, and Xykon flies over to the hole in the wall, and just as V is getting to open the door, Redcloak comes through, and Xykon thinking that V is there sends out a meteor swarm that get Redcloak instead of V, and now with an open door, V could escape, who knows, maybe even with the Phylactery while Xykon and Redcloak are arguing over the meteor swarm? Thats my thoughts anyways, provided V makes it past the Lich's Senses.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I'm looking for an in-character explanation of why he doesn't carry a weapon, something that, optimization aside, is usually a good idea in a violent world.

Cause he can destroy objects of hurt people with a touch or even kill them ouright...even if they are highly magic resistant. Not to mention that he can summon monsters or elementals to deal with his foes or disintegrate or kill them at a distance or simply order his subordinates to fight for him. Why would he carry a weapon?

Consider this, both times Redcloak has had to fend off a fighter in melee it was against a paladin that caught him unprepared. In both cases, fighting with a weapon would have been a suboptimal choice. In both cases, he did not have time to buff himself with spells, or rather buff enough to get an edge in the meelee.

Now in both cases, his optimal choice would have been using some spell to get away from the attacker or control the battle field so as to keep the attacker at bay and then to elminate the attacker with help and from a distance. But he did not do that. Against Miko, he attacked out of anger. Against O-Chul, he simply reacted. These are in-character reactions

So I see Redcloak as perfectly believable high-level character. One who has opted to rely on his access divine power and command of subordinates to destroy foes rather than on physical strength, even magically augment physical strength.

Characters of lower level are generally easier and less risky for him to defeat with magic and, in-game, most characters he encounters will be lower level. Characters of the same or higher level, like the current OotS members, will be difficult for him to defeat even with buffing and an effective magical weapon. And he has enough high level spells to handle more than one high level encounter each day. That is, in-game, he has enough magical power to deal reasonably well with most any threat.

Sure, a cleric can be optimized for melee and that is a very effective character. But, in-character, Redcloak is making a perfectly rational choice in choosing not to carry a weapon.

[wzeller]

Could V pick up the phylactry while invisible and stay invisible?

Yes. And then Xykon would see his phylactery floating around and have a pretty good idea where V went to.

w

[Tova]

Yes. And then Xykon would see his phylactery floating around and have a pretty good idea where V went to.

Can't V tuck it into a fold of his robe and thus hide it?

Disclaimer: I'm not a D&D player.

[Often Normal]

In the SRD it says you can put an object inside your bag/robes/etc and it will become invisible.

My question was more towards the idea of the actual picking up / pocketing. Thinking about it and looking at the SRD it seems to be a valid move.