Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 9 of 50 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181934 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 1479
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    @ GreyWolf & Kish

    Re-read 9 pages of topics to see the arguements for the Tarrasque.
    9 pages? Have you noticed the 'II' in the title?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    Actually, go read the main reasons why it isn't (teleporation? really? how certain are you the MitD did it? Did you even read the latest strip?).
    Very certain. Because if it had been anything else (gods; V's mentor; Demons), Rich would've shown it by now. The latest strip does not suggest otherwise, only that MitD is finally aware of his abilities. But the first time the ability was activated when he was in a very particular situation, which has yet to happen again. If anything, it adds to the idea that the ability is innate, and tied to his emotion. Thus, supernatural, Spell-like or maybe psionic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    Also, support my position? Are you the voting police?
    No, we are not. Because this is not a democracy. There is no "vote". This is a thread that attempts to patch together the clues to arrive at what MitD might be. An statement with no support is empty noise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    I am only stating an opinion and not really obliged to explain everything.
    True, as far as it goes. But an unsupported opinion is pointless and useless. Tarrasque doesn't get more likely because 53 people like it rather than 52. And you can, I suppose, feel you are not "obliged to explain everything", but then I have to wonder why post at all, and are entitled to point it out, and request evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    Besides, it isn't really hard to figure out in which ways the Tarrasque fits, I mean, it's one of the ideas stated on the very first post.
    Yes, I know. I posted that. Note also that Tarrasque would need to grow, so a baby would not remain a baby for 50 years. That it is not really all that powerful. That it has none of the powers expressed by MitD, except possibly Threatening appearance. Etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArcanistSupreme View Post
    The "Escape" ability could also be an ability that is only usable 1/day(or week/month, depending on the time gap), which would explain why MitD isn't able to duplicate the effects in the latest comic.
    Yes, we have considered that before. Unfortunately, there aren't that many such abilities. Yes, a "1/year" wish would explain why he would expect his wishes to come true. But since we still have trouble finding creatures that have basic "wish", nevermind conditionals, it remains a possibility, rather than determinant.

    Remember, right now we want to widen the net. The candidates we already have don't fit all that well, no need on adding problems to the list

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    J.Gellert's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Very certain.
    I don't think you should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    True, as far as it goes. But an unsupported opinion is pointless and useless. Tarrasque doesn't get more likely because 53 people like it rather than 52. And you can, I suppose, feel you are not "obliged to explain everything", but then I have to wonder why post at all, and are entitled to point it out, and request evidence.
    I wanted to say what I think it is. Should I have made a new thread? No, pointless. Resurrect one of the other 1000 threads on this? No necromancing. Not say it at all? Maybe, but hey, freedom of speech. I wanted to state an opinion. An opinion that didn't sound like it would hurt anyone, though looking back...

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Yes, I know. I posted that. Note also that Tarrasque would need to grow, so a baby would not remain a baby for 50 years. That it is not really all that powerful. That it has none of the powers expressed by MitD, except possibly Threatening appearance. Etc.
    Do you know how fast a baby Tarrasque grows/ages?

  3. - Top - End - #243
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    I wanted to say what I think it is. Should I have made a new thread? No, pointless. Resurrect one of the other 1000 threads on this? No necromancing. Not say it at all? Maybe, but hey, freedom of speech. I wanted to state an opinion. An opinion that didn't sound like it would hurt anyone, though looking back...
    "I think it's a tarrasque" is a less controversial opinion than, "A tarrasque fits what we know about the creature in the darkness closer than any other creature." (By virtue of the latter being an assertion, not merely a statement of opinion, and an assertion of something which is flatly wrong.)
    Last edited by Kish; 2010-01-17 at 06:00 PM.
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Forbiddenwar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    I wanted to say what I think it is. Should I have made a new thread? No, pointless. Resurrect one of the other 1000 threads on this? No necromancing. Not say it at all? Maybe, but hey, freedom of speech. I wanted to state an opinion. An opinion that didn't sound like it would hurt anyone, though looking back...
    Okay, you've stated an opinion, a very uninformed opinion. And we are trying to inform you to better shape your opinion. On that note, a 20th level barbarian or a grue or a vorlon or a snorlax fits better. Tarrasque doesn't even have the requisite strength at medium size.
    Can we please move on?


    The current strip shows that MitD is not a wizard. Hooray, we can take that off the list.

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    I don't think you should be.
    And you are back to unsupported assertions. The first time I could accept you didn't understand the thread's purpose. Now you have no excuse: you really are so egocentric you consider that your bald statement has validity. Notice I gave you reasons for my assertion. You gave nothing but your "Word from God". I consider Bald Assertion a fallacy, particularly when engaging in it after having been requested to provide evidence, and thus, due to my one fallacy limit, I will stop responding to your posts now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    Do you know how fast a baby Tarrasque grows/ages?
    Yes: It doesn't, because traditionally there is no such thing as baby Tarrasque, since Tarrasque doesn't reproduce. IF you assume it does exist (and that's a big assumption), then assuming Dragon-like growth is a good assumption. And that would still require some growth over the 30 years of MitD.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by Forbiddenwar View Post
    The current strip shows that MitD is not a wizard. Hooray, we can take that off the list.
    Unless is a double-bluff (combined with "too stupid to be a wizard", as I mentioned above).

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2010-01-17 at 06:58 PM.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if I bring up something old, but... it seems to me that there's absolutely no way the MitD is anything but an "official" D&D monster (regardless of the edition). That's basically the whole point of the comic...

    Did Rich ever say anything about it? Unless there were hints that it might not be a D&D monster, I'd tend to scratch off every non-D&D possibility, copyrighted or not. It'd be so unnatural for the comic, I can't imagine Rich choosing an "external" monster.

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Forbiddenwar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Unless is a double-bluff (combined with "too stupid to be a wizard", as I mentioned above).

    Grey Wolf
    Being able to cast a spell as a wizard requires studying the spell, scribing the spell in a book, utilizing the necessary components and preparing it before hand from that spellbook. All are traits that I don't subscribe to MITD. However, he may be an Intelligence based arcane spell caster. I think it is more probable him being a charisma based caster or using a spell-like ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
    Did Rich ever say anything about it?
    No. Rich only stated he did not make up the creature himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
    It'd be so unnatural for the comic, I can't imagine Rich choosing an "external" monster.
    I can, but then I have an active (some say insane) imagination.
    I do think it is either a creature of D&D or ancient mythology origin (and therefore free of copyright or trademark). The difficulty of the later is no one can seem find any creature of ancient mythology having anything remotely like the "Escape" effect. So, yeah, D&D creature seems probable.
    Last edited by Forbiddenwar; 2010-01-17 at 10:12 PM. Reason: spelling

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    I wanted to say what I think it is. Should I have made a new thread? No, pointless. Resurrect one of the other 1000 threads on this? No necromancing. Not say it at all? Maybe, but hey, freedom of speech. I wanted to state an opinion. An opinion that didn't sound like it would hurt anyone, though looking back...
    Personally I love seeing freedom of speech thrown around on forums. The American First Amendment protects you from the government, nothing more. If a forum moderator tells you to shut up, bans you, deletes your post, or any other such thing, your First Amendment rights were not violated. The forum rules you have to accept before you can make an account set very clear restrictions on your "free speech".

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Yes: It doesn't, because traditionally there is no such thing as baby Tarrasque, since Tarrasque doesn't reproduce.
    Doesn't that kill the idea of the MitD being a Tarrasque stone dead anyway, considering he's mentioned having a father?

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Selene's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by factotum View Post
    Doesn't that kill the idea of the MitD being a Tarrasque stone dead anyway, considering he's mentioned having a father?
    It does unless you really, really, really want it to be the tarrasque. Then you just stack templates all over it and declare that it really does reproduce. At that point it's nothing like the actual tarrasque, but you get to call it that.
    Done here. Thanks, friends.

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    J.Gellert's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    And you are back to unsupported assertions. The first time I could accept you didn't understand the thread's purpose. Now you have no excuse: you really are so egocentric you consider that your bald statement has validity. Notice I gave you reasons for my assertion. You gave nothing but your "Word from God".
    You shouldn't be so sure because there's no evidence pointing to the MitD casting wish or teleport or what have you. It said "escape".

    I will indulge you, even though you did not say "please".

    1. "Escape" isn't a spell or SLA, in D&D at least, and people in OOTS call their spells by name.
    2. There was no visual effect, in OOTS you usually see those.
    3. It cannot be reproduced (see latest strip).
    4. Xykon didn't think the MitD did it, and he must have Epic-level Spellcraft.
    5. There are so many people interested in V and the gates, people that can actually cast spells. For all we know V's old master did it.
    6. In fact, those people can really work spells, and would send V to his friends. The MitD would be just as likely to send V in the ocean. Or in the sky.
    7. The Giant has said it's a recognizable monster, so that shoots down crazy obscure-D&D-supplement-creatures. So no, it's definitely, Word of God 100% not a Dread Linnorm or a Dream Larva. I play D&D since 2nd edition and I don't know these monsters.
    8. The latest strip is a rather obvious joke on the forum theories (the ones you seem to propagate) about the MitD being responsible for saving V.

    I can probably think of more, but I don't really care what you reply any more. In fact, you are probably going to shoot these down one by one, but hey.

    On your first post you seem neutral about all the theories, but now you seem rather bent on disproving the Tarrasque idea. I guess it's personal to you. So I don't mind any more.

    Either way, I'll be happy if you prove me wrong and instead of merely trying to destruct my points one by one, you view them constructively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morthis View Post
    Personally I love seeing freedom of speech thrown around on forums. The American First Amendment protects you from the government, nothing more. If a forum moderator tells you to shut up, bans you, deletes your post, or any other such thing, your First Amendment rights were not violated. The forum rules you have to accept before you can make an account set very clear restrictions on your "free speech".
    Oh, oh, I see what you did there. You are a smart one. Except he's not a forum moderator, and there's no clause against stating "I think it's a Tarrasque, no explanation given", unless I have misread the forum rules. Or have you?

    Also, I think V is male. No, I don't think I need to explain.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Forbiddenwar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    7. The Giant has said it's a recognizable monster, so that shoots down crazy obscure-D&D-supplement-creatures. So no, it's definitely, Word of God 100% not a Dread Linnorm or a Dream Larva. I play D&D since 2nd edition and I don't know these monsters.
    NO! HE! DID! NOT! SAY! THAT! There. Can you hear me now?

    His exact words are clearly written in the first post.
    Last edited by Forbiddenwar; 2010-01-18 at 05:09 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #253
    Orc in the Playground
     
    lothos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Hi Firkraag,
    Can I first say, I really like your avatar.

    You have an interesting point of view, but there are a couple of things I personally don't agree with in your posts. I've been away from the forums for a couple of weeks, so if you will forgive me, I'll just comment on the last one.

    I hope you will not read my posting as a personal attack. I am a person who dislikes personal conflict. I really don't mean anything below to be a criticism of you, rather some constructive criticism of the idea that MitD is a untemplated Tarrasque.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    1. "Escape" isn't a spell or SLA, in D&D at least, and people in OOTS call their spells by name.
    This is true. I (like I assume some other people not superbly familiar with 3rd edition D&D) rushed off to look up "Escape" as a spell as soon as strip 661 came out. However we have seem that Rich does allow some variation in OOTS in spells.

    This isn't just limited to copyrighted spells like when V cast "Disjunction" in strip 636, rather than "Mordenkain's Disjunction". There are some other instances of "funny" spells, for example "Evan's forced tentacles of spiked intrusion" from strip 20. This is of course a parody of "Evard's black tentacles". The point is that I can believe Rich might allow a spell in his world that isn't part of the SRD.

    2. There was no visual effect, in OOTS you usually see those.
    Usually yes... but we were really zoomed in on his eyes when it actually happened. I could easily believe the visual effect was deliberately omitted by Rich (a case of drama/suspense trumps rules) or else we were so zoomed in we couldn't see it.

    3. It cannot be reproduced (see latest strip).
    I'm not sure this is evidence of it NOT being MitD. It could be evidence for that, or as others have asserted, it may simply be Rich telling us that he can't do it at will. Perhaps it's a latent ability at this stage and will develop later.

    4. Xykon didn't think the MitD did it, and he must have Epic-level Spellcraft.
    Xykon isn't the smartest guy in the world. It wouldn't fit the story well if Xykon did figure out that MitD "betrayed" him by "stealing his kills". It's believable that Xykon didn't figure it out and would fit what appear (at this stage to me) to be the needs of the narrative. So I don't think this is strong evidence for any real conclusion.

    5. There are so many people interested in V and the gates, people that can actually cast spells. For all we know V's old master did it.
    While I'm definitely less knowledgeable than some others in this forum about the mechanics of 3rd edition, I would suggest that if it was a spell or spell like ability that let V and O'Chul escape, it probably had a range. Most spells seem to have a range, the only one I know of with no range is Wish. Do we really think that someone far away would be scrying on events (through the Cloister effect, so only epic scrying would presumably work) and would then use some thing like wish (with a 5000 XP cost) and/or Epic magic ? I mean it's possible....

    The thing is, Rich is giving us a REALLY big hint it's MitD who did cause them to "escape", even before strip 699. OK, that's only an opinion. It's possible it was someone else. I just don't see any evidence for it being anyone OTHER than MitD and I see a fair amount of circumstantial evince to suggest it was MitD who did it.


    6. In fact, those people can really work spells, and would send V to his friends. The MitD would be just as likely to send V in the ocean. Or in the sky.
    I think Rich let MitD send them to their friends because he decided that the "Escape" ability works in a way that helps move the story forward.

    7. The Giant has said it's a recognizable monster, so that shoots down crazy obscure-D&D-supplement-creatures. So no, it's definitely, Word of God 100% not a Dread Linnorm or a Dream Larva. I play D&D since 2nd edition and I don't know these monsters.
    I assume your point is that these are not mainstream monsters. I agree that both of those mosnters are definitely NOT mainstream. I'd never heard of a Dread Linnorm until I embarked on a search through the 3/3.5 edition MM books (1-5) looking at all monsters with CR>15. I'd never heard of a Dream Larva until I read Nerdanels' post. I can see an argument in favour of saying it's an "iconic" monster. I've suggested this might be a little evidence in favour of prismatic dragon. But I don't think it HAS to be an iconic monster.

    The thing is, as Forbiddenwar said, Rich didn't say it's mainstream. So it's really a matter of opinion; do you feel he needs to be iconic so anyone can guess, or do you think he might be obscure so it's hard enough to guess that we all get a surprise when the big reveal eventually happens ?

    8. The latest strip is a rather obvious joke on the forum theories (the ones you seem to propagate) about the MitD being responsible for saving V.
    Yes, my first thought was "Ahah, Rich is taking some time to poke fun at this thread, as well as giving us another hint". I know this thread does come up with some weird ideas. I like that about this thread. In my mind, this is an investigation, a debate and a discussion in which any idea can be aired. Now of course, some ideas are very silly and don't fit. So if you want to post to this thread you shouldn't be too unhappy if someone demolishes your theory. If anything, welcome the fact that we can eliminate one more candidate.

    I think this thread is at it's best when theories are presented with evidence rather than opinions. Of course anyone is entitled to post anything they like within the forum rules here. But speaking for myself (and I suspect a couple of other regulars in this thread), I tend to give more significance to posters and posts which provide evidence and cite references to support what they say. Opinions are fine, citing sources with references is better......in my opinion :-)

    I can probably think of more, but I don't really care what you reply any more. In fact, you are probably going to shoot these down one by one, but hey.
    I think the thing is that some of the regulars on this thread have seen a lot of theories going around several times. Grey Wolf has spent a HUGE amount of time and effort creating the first post in this thread. I would never ask someone to read all 59 pages on this. But I do think it's reasonable to expect someone to carefully read the first posting of this (the second) thread. Grey Wolf did a great job in collating together a lot of the consensus of the last thread.

    I must say, I'm pretty convinced personally MitD isn't a "vanilla" Tarrasque. Yes, it's iconic but....

    The thing is both the untemplated Tarrasque and some templated Tarrasque ideas have been done to death (if not undeath) in the last thread. Grey Wolf had to summarise all that in a concise way in a single post.

    I would submit that the majority of the regular posters in this thread would say it's not an untemplated Tarrasque. This isn't a democracy and I'm certainly not trying to say I speak for everyone. But there has been a LOT of discussion on the idea of a Tarrasque in the last 59 pages and it just dosn't fit, in the opinion of a lot of people who have spent a lot of time looking at it.

    If you want to propose Tarrasque, that is your right. The thing is I think a lot of people here will want to see very strong evidence to support such a position, or they might come across as somewhat dismissive. I'm sorry if this seems clique or insular. I'm sure that's not the way it's meant to be. It's certainly not what I want.

    Either way, I'll be happy if you prove me wrong and instead of merely trying to destruct my points one by one, you view them constructively.
    I don't think there is a single argument that in one sentence proves it's not an untemplated Tarrasque. I can't prove it's not a Tarrasque. You have obviously put some effort in to supporting the Tarrasque idea, which deserves respect. The thing is, in terms of de-constructing the pro-Tarrasque argument, I do agree with Grey Wolf and others. I just don't think the pro-Tarrasque arguments I've seen to date hold weight.

    If you can find a new one, one that hasn't been presented before, I think that might be given serious consideration. It's a lot to ask to suggest you (or anyone else) read the 59 pages of relevance. But again, I'd point to Grey Wolf's summary at the start of this one.

    Also, I think V is male. No, I don't think I need to explain.
    You know, I always assumed V was male up until I saw the debate about his/her gender :-)


    Quote Originally Posted by ArcanistSupreme View Post
    The "Escape" ability could also be an ability that is only usable 1/day(or week/month, depending on the time gap), which would explain why MitD isn't able to duplicate the effects in the latest comic.
    You know what this makes me think of... 1st edition artifacts. Back in 1st Edition AD&D in the DM's guide there were all kinds of abilities ascribes to artifacts that were usable 1/day, 1/week.... 1/year and stuff like that. Hmmmm.... Maybe MitD has some item or artifact that adds to his abilities ? Something which grants abilities like Escape ?

    OK, that would be a lot harder to guess than "just a creature", but I don't think it's a lot harder to guess than a heavily templated creature. It might make sense if there was an artifact that was heavily associated with one specific creature. For examples consider the wand of Orcus (1st edition artifact) which was the property of said Demon Prince. Also the hand and eye of Vecna, which I understand have been in every edition of AD&D.

    I'm not for one moment suggesting that MitD is Orcus or Vecna. Just using them as examples of a unique and powerful item associated with a monster. OK, in these cases, they are unique monsters, which are are certain MitD is not.

    I'll have a think about this. It doesn't feel right yet, but I don't want to discount it without more thought.

    Any thoughts from anyone else ? What I'm suggesting is that some or all of the observed abilities we have seen from MitD might come from an item. In order to fulfil Rich's words of "it is possible to guess", it would need to be an item closely associated with the particular type of creature that we think MitD is..... Maybe something like a Lich's phylactery ?
    Last edited by lothos; 2010-01-18 at 07:40 AM. Reason: Fixed link and removed 1 irrelevant paragraph, then added new section
    Official Kosh of the Vorlon in the dark fan club
    -- Lothos now Half Orc in playground, other half also Orc --

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    Oh, oh, I see what you did there. You are a smart one. Except he's not a forum moderator, and there's no clause against stating "I think it's a Tarrasque, no explanation given", unless I have misread the forum rules. Or have you?

    Also, I think V is male. No, I don't think I need to explain.
    im going to skip the shooting down part (someone beat me to it anyway, and while i could add to his arguements, you dont seem to willing to hear them anyway) and just skip to the point of the matter:

    this is a forum, yes, you already knew that, good.
    on a forum, people discuss stuff.
    now i know the general standard of the internet in general isnt too high, but discussion usually consists of more then a "this is it" the idea of a forum is thatyou have a opinion, and that you make some effort in explaining it to the rest of the people here, so we can talk about its pro's and con's. and im guessing that what annoyed some of us, is the fact that you didnt do that, and your assuming that you dont have to. while we cant put a knife on your throath and force you to react, you should ask yourself what your doing here posting stuff if your not willing to explain yourself, since that is the reason this forum is here.

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    J.Gellert's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    @Lothos: Touche on most of the points. I see some are based on "what does good storytelling dictate?" which is a valid arguement in this comic and others like it.

    I want to add on point 5: The demons&devils were scrying, so it's not unlikely that someone else might be, as well. And that I will insist more on the importance of point 7, in the context of a story that's not all geared towards D&D fans.

    For me, the simplest solution is this: "It didn't cast Wish, so Tarrasque fits with only little bit of homebrewing". For you, the Wish part is important, and you can't shave it away with Occam's Razor.

    If you want to throw away the Tarrasque theory and keep one piece of thought from my post, keep this: Don't bet all your money that the MitD was responsible for V's survival.

    Until later!

    PS. I don't mind counter-arguements when they are presented politely (see Forbiddenwear's on how not to do it), and thank you Lothos for restoring my faith in this forum.

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    It seems capable (although some of this might be a result of chance/others secretly interceding/whatever) to cause semi-arbitrary things to happen by wanting them really hard (and seeming surprised when O'Chul says that isn't enough). This suggests (as others have said) some kind of wish or wish-like ability, that apparently it doesn't really understand itself.

    High Int (it learns Go quickly), low Wis (it appears "dumb"/immature, which could be more a matter of it being difficult to get info through his thick skull than his ability to manipulate what is already there, doesn't seem to really understand it's own apparent powers), probable high Cha (hence the hideous yet beautiful bit), and maybe very high Str (but see below).

    I'm thinking a templated efreet, preferably with a template that significantly changes it's appearance (so it could be mistaken), or something else with a smiilar "can grant wishes but not my own" ability. Think back to the assorted times MitD does anythng really unusual and "powerful" (or could reasonably be construed to do so). In general, they seem like things that could be construed in one way or another to be something someone else desires that (upon him wanting the same thing) simply happens.

    The rain: O'Chul was tired, when MitD agreed he should get a nap it started raining, something that MitD specifically knew would help O'Chul sleep.
    The escape: MitD didn't *want* O'Chul to leave until that point, but as soon as he wanted O'Chul to escape, *poof* (a number of creatures from any point on any plane to any other point on any plane).
    Miko's "game": He'd seen enough of Miko to know she was driven and hates losing (besides who asks to play a game that they expect to lose, remember he's too low Wis to see through the bluff) so he *wants* her to win because clearly she wants to win, and accordingly he hit her in a wish-induced "harder than she possibly could hit back" to ensure she wins.

    If not a templated efreet, then is there anything else that has a similar "can wish semi-frequently but not grant one's own wishes"?

  17. - Top - End - #257
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Firkraag View Post
    2. There was no visual effect, in OOTS you usually see those.
    Its eyes glow.

  18. - Top - End - #258
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    I think the Xykon spellcraft argument is good evidence for "Escape" being psionic in nature or a supernatural ability rather than a spell or a spell-like ability. This in turn strongly points to the Phrenic template or a psionic monster that can be played as non-psionic if the setting doesn't psionics. The MitD would have been aware if he had levels in Psion or somesuch and Redcloak would have been aware that the setting used psionics if the MitD was something that's always a psionic monster.

    Xykon has high enough spellcraft to develop epic spells, so he should have auto-succeeded in recognizing even a 9th level spell, which is mere DC 24.

  19. - Top - End - #259
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdanel View Post
    I think the Xykon spellcraft argument is good evidence for "Escape" being psionic in nature or a supernatural ability rather than a spell or a spell-like ability. This in turn strongly points to the Phrenic template or a psionic monster that can be played as non-psionic if the setting doesn't psionics. The MitD would have been aware if he had levels in Psion or somesuch and Redcloak would have been aware that the setting used psionics if the MitD was something that's always a psionic monster.
    While I am leaning towards psionic right now, my problem is that I don't really know much about psionics. What psionic power would he have used to get them to escape, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdanel View Post
    Xykon has high enough spellcraft to develop epic spells, so he should have auto-succeeded in recognizing even a 9th level spell, which is mere DC 24.
    How does spell recognition work, though? Xykon may be aware of what spell was used, but not know who had cast it - after all, he wasn't really looking at MitD at the time. I can see how a spellcaster could recognise the "signature" of a specific magic user, but that would require to having felt it before.

    I suppose my argument in brief is: Xykon was too angry and too focused on killing V and O'Chul to pay attention to anything else.

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2010-01-18 at 01:08 PM.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  20. - Top - End - #260
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ArcanistSupreme's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    To further explore the spellcraft point, what is the DC for identifying an epic spell or spell like ability?

  21. - Top - End - #261
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by ArcanistSupreme View Post
    To further explore the spellcraft point, what is the DC for identifying an epic spell or spell like ability?
    15+spell level if i remember correctly

    however, spellcraft requires the user to actually see the casting of the spell, not only is the MitD in a permanent darkness, xykon his back was turned to him, so he could have never known it was the MitD who did it

  22. - Top - End - #262
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    While I am leaning towards psionic right now, my problem is that I don't really know much about psionics. What psionic power would he have used to get them to escape, exactly?



    How does spell recognition work, though? Xykon may be aware of what spell was used, but not know who had cast it - after all, he wasn't really looking at MitD at the time. I can see how a spellcaster could recognise the "signature" of a specific magic user, but that would require to having felt it before.

    I suppose my argument in brief is: Xykon was too angry and too focused on killing V and O'Chul to pay attention to anything else.

    Grey Wolf
    Reality Revision

    Clairsentience

    Level: Psion/wilder 9

    Saving Throw: See text

    Power Resistance: See text

    Power Points: 17, XP

    As bend reality, but with more farreaching effects. A reality revision can produce any one of the following effects.

    • Duplicate any psion power of 8th level or lower, provided the power is not prohibited to you.

    • Duplicate any other power (but not a spell) of 6th level or lower, such as a psychic warrior power.

    • Duplicate any psion power of 7th level or lower even if it’s a power prohibited to you.

    • Undo the harmful effects of many other powers, such as microcosm, geas/quest, or insanity.

    • Create a nonpsionic item of up to 25,000 gp in value.

    • Create a psionic item, or add to the powers of an existing psionic item (see XP cost below).

    • Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five reality revisions manifested in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score. Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be negated or dispelled. An inherent bonus cannot exceed +5 for a single ability score. Inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack; only the best one applies.

    • Remove injuries and afflictions. A single reality revision can aid one creature per manifester level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction.

    Reality revision can not restore the experience point loss from manifesting a power or casting a spell, or the level or Constitution loss from being returned to life by those effects that reduce level or Constitution.

    • Revive the dead. Reality revision can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. This power can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two manifestations of reality revision, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. Reality revision cannot prevent a character who is brought back to life from losing a level.

    • Transport travelers. This power can lift one creature per manifester level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and power resistance (if any) applies.

    • Undo misfortune. Reality revision can undo a single recent event. Manifesting the power forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and power resistance (if any) applies.

    You can try to use reality revision to produce more powerful effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. The manifestation may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.

    Duplicated powers allow saves and power resistance as normal (but save DCs are calculated as though the power is 9th level).

    XP Cost: The minimum XP cost for manifesting reality revision is 5,000

    XP. When a manifestation duplicates a power that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a manifestation creates or improves a psionic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.
    Basically, psionic wish.

    Teleport, Psionic

    Psychoportation (Teleportation)

    Level: Nomad 5

    Display: Visual

    Manifesting Time: 1 standard action

    Range: Personal and touch

    Target or Targets: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures

    Duration: Instantaneous

    Saving Throw: None or Will negates (object)

    Power Resistance: No or Yes (object)

    Power Points: 9

    As the teleport spell, except as noted here.



    Teleport, Psionic Greater

    Psychoportation (Teleportation)

    Level: Psion/wilder 8

    Power Points: 15

    As the greater teleport spell, except as noted here.
    ...and psionic teleports.

    The big downside being that now we require him to be a high-level psion instead of a high-level spellcaster.
    Last edited by Schadrach; 2010-01-18 at 01:31 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #263
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Mi
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    If it is a spell, a Spellcraft check of DC: 15+Spell Level can be made to determine what spell is being cast. (You must see or hear the verbal or somatic componets)

    Ninja'd

  24. - Top - End - #264
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Quote Originally Posted by Schadrach View Post
    Basically, psionic wish.



    ...and psionic teleports.

    The big downside being that now we require him to be a high-level psion instead of a high-level spellcaster.
    Or creatures with access to those specific psionic powers by design. Anyone know of any? I only know one psionic creature, the squid thingy, and I don't think they could do any of those things (but it can plane shift, which we've been accepting out of desperation). Not that I think Illithids are a candidate (trademarked, if nothing else).

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  25. - Top - End - #265
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Mi
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Cerebrilith has Psionic Teleport at CR 14

    Githyanki with 8 levels have Plane Shift

    Githzerai at 11 levels as well

    Psionic Couatls have Planeshift

    Psionic Mind Flayer has Planeshift

    Phrenic Creature with 15-16 HD has Teleport

    All abilites are psionic in nature.
    These are the creatures from Psionic Handbook, Expanded Psionic handbook and Complete Psionic.

  26. - Top - End - #266
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Mi
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Just a side note, If the MitD's Escape ability IS a spell, Xykon would be able to spellcraft it. Unless, there are no Verbal componets, only Somatic.

    He would be unable to spellcraft it after only hearing the creature announce it's spell. You may say that ESCAPE! is the verbal componet, but if we look back to when Durkon is casting resurrection on Roy, we can see him chanting.
    Yes he is chanting the spell name, but you can look at it as the Verbal componet.

    Not necessarily true or anything, but allows a small loophole for spell ability.

  27. - Top - End - #267
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ArcanistSupreme's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    But what is the level of an epic spell? It isn't the same as a tenth level spell, because there is another feat that grants these spell slots. Also, epic spells vary vastly in level of power.

  28. - Top - End - #268
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Epic spells are counted as level 10, even though they technically aren't and are distinct from actual level 10 spells. Thus the spellcraft check to recognize an epic spell is DC 25, no matter how hard the spell is to make or cast.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Epic Spell Levels
    Epic spells have no fixed level. However, for purposes of Concentration checks, spell resistance, and other possible situations where spell level is important, epic spells are all treated as if they were 10th-level spells.
    From http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spellsIntro.htm

  29. - Top - End - #269
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Forbiddenwar's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Just want to point out that in 699, MitD was able to cause a hobgoblin and two roaches to "Escape", all in a matter of minutes.

  30. - Top - End - #270
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

    Annoying Presence?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, characters that have a similar hairstyle just have a similar hairstyle. How many hairstyles do you think there are that can be drawn in stick figure style, anyway?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •