MitD X: If I told you, you wouldn't believe me

[Irish Musician]

How is Roger Rabbit, or any other toon, supposed to be horrific? Remember that MitD is the exception - "nothing in the tower is scarier than he should be" (paraphrased). Noone looks at a toon and thinks he will instill fear in the hearts of his enemies.

GW

I dunno...... Christopher Lloyd's character in that movie was pretty horrifying. Not to the point of making someone throw-up. But still pretty horrifying.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I dunno...... Christopher Lloyd's character in that movie was pretty horrifying. Not to the point of making someone throw-up. But still pretty horrifying.

Yes, but he was the exception, not the rule - effectively the opposite of MitD

GW

[Kastor]

I dunno. Just seems to me when explanations for everything relies on one explanation, esp one that isn't supposed to be overused like Rule of Funny, it falls apart and seem very unlikely.

Oh yeah, no, this is not a serious contribution. No matter if it fulfills any or all of the criteria in-comic, Roger Rabbit is copyrighted. Frankly, I'm amazed that hasnt been pointed out by someone else yet. It was all for the funnies.

How is Roger Rabbit, or any other toon, supposed to be horrific? Remember that MitD is the exception - "nothing in the tower is scarier than he should be" (paraphrased). Noone looks at a toon and thinks he will instill fear in the hearts of his enemies.

GW

That said, the best answer I have for this is clashing art style.
I was considering pointing out that he's a giant, misshapen rabbit (compared to regular rabbits), but this is also a world with walking skeletons and hydras and all sorts of similar creatures, so thats not really that strange or horrifying.

[ReaderAt2046]

And since this forum is full of D&D experts, I guess that the perfect D&D monster would have been found by now (this is the tenth iteration of the offcial guessing thread, and I'm certain there were more attempts besides this coordinated one).

You're forgetting something: As Greywolf_c has pointed out on numerous occasions, there's no buzzer that will go off when we guess the correct explanation. It's entirely possible that we've already found the MITD, and we just don't know it because Rich hasn't yet gotten around to the reveal.

[Kish]

There has never been a rule against proposing non-D&D ideas, and multiple non-D&D ideas are listed in the thread-starting posts. The recurring suggestion "since you haven't found it yet, you should start looking at non-D&D monsters" is based on a false premise.

[Mightymosy]

You're forgetting something: As Greywolf_c has pointed out on numerous occasions, there's no buzzer that will go off when we guess the correct explanation. It's entirely possible that we've already found the MITD, and we just don't know it because Rich hasn't yet gotten around to the reveal.

Yes it is entirely possible that we have found it. It is also entirely possible that the revelation will go off without a buzzer.
What we are doing here is exchanging opinions.
Like the opinion that MitD likely is not a templated something, for example. That also is entirely possible, yet most people here find it unlikely.
Me, I think with Rich Burlew being the author he is, and the mystery of MitD being the one big puzzle in the comic series that it is, I expect a mental "buzzer" to go off once MitD is revealed either by the comic strip or by someone clever enough to find out what it is before.
The "mental buzzer" meaning that, with a correct solution, you realise that with that solution finally everything makes sense, and you get an overwhelming feeling that now it is correct.
Have you solved any puzzles? I get that feeling most of the time when solving puzzles, at least if they are good puzzles. Bottom line: since I consider Burlew a good author, I think the MitD solution will also be a good puzzle solution.
Could be entirely different, of course. Hell, it could turn out that Rich Burlew was lying with the intent to fool us, and MitD is something he completely made up by himself! I think we all agree here that it won't be like that, but that is our opinion, we don't have proof either way.

[b_jonas]

Have you solved any puzzles? I get that feeling most of the time when solving puzzles, at least if they are good puzzles. Bottom line: since I consider Burlew a good author, I think the MitD solution will also be a good puzzle solution.

But the puzzle isn't complete yet. Rich will not reveal the MitD any time soon, but much later, only in the last book (see second quote in section 1a of first post). Until then, the MitD will appear again and do things that are much more significant clues than what we have now.

[Kish]

That also is entirely possible, yet most people here find it unlikely.

It's not a matter of people finding it unlikely. It's a matter of it making the thread pointless. As Grey Wolf has an example to illustrate, once you allow multiple templates, suddenly the creature in the darkness could be literally anything. Base creature immune to mind-affecting? There's a template for that. Base creature weaker than Mr. Scruffy? There's a template for that. Base creature completely ordinary-looking, no one would ever describe it as either horrible or beautiful? Guess what the answer to that is.

[Mightymosy]

But the puzzle isn't complete yet. Rich will not reveal the MitD any time soon, but much later, only in the last book (see second quote in section 1a of first post). Until then, the MitD will appear again and do things that are much more significant clues than what we have now.

True, but the D&D "solutions" thus far already don't fit, that's why I find it a good idea to look at other media.
Yes, once a perfect solution is found, we still won't know if it is correct, but at least then it would appear to be correct at that time, which currently no suggestion does sufficiently for me.

[Mightymosy]

It's not a matter of people finding it unlikely. It's a matter of it making the thread pointless. As Grey Wolf has an example to illustrate, once you allow multiple templates, suddenly the creature in the darkness could be literally anything. Base creature immune to mind-affecting? There's a template for that. Base creature weaker than Mr. Scruffy? There's a template for that. Base creature completely ordinary-looking, no one would ever describe it as either horrible or beautiful? Guess what the answer to that is.

Yep, but looking at other media, as you said, is not making the thread pointless, so why not suggest it?

[Kish]

If you have a proposal, make it.

Edit in response to your double post: Because "suggesting it" is utterly pointless. It's the equivalent of saying "I think we should look specifically for a creature whose name begins with C, not because I have a specific creature in mind but because I don't like all these not-C-beginning creatures that have been proposed." If you have a proposal, you should make it; if you don't, saying "I think other people should focus their proposals in the area of Not-D&D" isn't helpful in any way.

[Mightymosy]

If you have a proposal, make it.

Edit in response to your double post: Because "suggesting it" is utterly pointless. It's the equivalent of saying "I think we should look specifically for a creature whose name begins with C, not because I have a specific creature in mind but because I don't like all these not-C-beginning creatures that have been proposed." If you have a proposal, you should make it; if you don't, saying "I think other people should focus their proposals in the area of Not-D&D" isn't helpful in any way.

If you say so. If voicing opinions is pointless, well, then I guess there is a whole lot to be deleted in this thread, though. I was responding to other peoples' opinions with my own, as you do. So, in contrast to mine, how is your post exactly "helpful in any way"?

[Kish]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you didn't want an answer to your question. You certainly have every right to continue posting "we should focus on non-D&D monsters" if you choose to.

[Ruck]

I love when people use "just posting opinions" when they want to criticize other people but when they don't want their own opinions criticized.

[Crusher]

I love when people use "just posting opinions" when they want to criticize other people but when they don't want their own opinions criticized.

Here's the thing: I LIKE when people randomly chime in with suggestions. Sure, 90% of the time it's something that doesnt make sense or was considered and rejected long ago. But every once in a while its a neat idea or perhaps a neat twist on an old idea, or even it doesn't make sense on its own but it sparks a clever idea by someone (which is where the Athasian Nightmare Beast came from). So, I like random suggestions, and even if I dont type anything Im inwardly grateful to the person for posting it.

On the other hand, what I dont like is someone telling me to do something. It could be telling me NOT to do something because they've decided its not a good idea. Or it could be them deciding that I SHOULD be looking into X, usually accompanied by annoyance that I'm not appreciating their idea enough to drop what I'm doing to pursue it.

I LOVE ideas. But I'll be the judge of how I spend my time.

Edit - To be clear, Im sort of agreeing with Ruck.

Edit2 - In response to Mightmosy, we dont bar non D&D candidates and in fact have a few posted on the suggested list (and even on the FBS list!). Since we dont bar them you must be saying we should go out of our way to direct people AWAY from looking for D&D related candidates. This is a direction we don't know is correct (and some, myself included, strongly suspect is incorrect). I don't see how that's adding value, especially in light of what I wrote above.

[Ruck]

Here's the thing: I LIKE when people randomly chime in with suggestions. Sure, 90% of the time it's something that doesnt make sense or was considered and rejected long ago. But every once in a while its a neat idea or perhaps a neat twist on an old idea, or even it doesn't make sense on its own but it sparks a clever idea by someone (which is where the Athasian Nightmare Beast came from). So, I like random suggestions, and even if I dont type anything Im inwardly grateful to the person for posting it.

On the other hand, what I dont like is someone telling me to do something. It could be telling me NOT to do something because they've decided its not a good idea. Or it could be them deciding that I SHOULD be looking into X, usually accompanied by annoyance that I'm not appreciating their idea enough to drop what I'm doing to pursue it.

I LOVE ideas. But I'll be the judge of how I spend my time.

Edit - To be clear, Im sort of agreeing with Ruck.

Edit2 - In response to Mightmosy, we dont bar non D&D candidates and in fact have a few posted on the suggested list (and even on the FBS list!). Since we dont bar them you must be saying we should go out of our way to direct people AWAY from looking for D&D related candidates. This is a direction we don't know is correct (and some, myself included, strongly suspect is incorrect). I don't see how that's adding value, especially in light of what I wrote above.

I too like suggestions. I do not like when people tell us we are doing it wrong without offering any suggestions. I do not like when people tell us we are wrong based from false assumptions (like "Oh, it'll just click when we find the right candidate, and since that hasn't happened, we must not have yet"). I do not like when people offer suggestions without being willing to defend them, or when people offer criticisms that they themselves aren't willing to abide by.

[SirKazum]

I too like suggestions. I do not like when people tell us we are doing it wrong without offering any suggestions. I do not like when people tell us we are wrong based from false assumptions (like "Oh, it'll just click when we find the right candidate, and since that hasn't happened, we must not have yet"). I do not like when people offer suggestions without being willing to defend them, or when people offer criticisms that they themselves aren't willing to abide by.

That attitude often sounds to me like "I want things in this thread done in a specific way, but I don't want to do that legwork, you guys gotta do it for me". As a practical example, I *do* personally think that pop-culture monsters (Godzilla Jr. comes to mind) sound at this point like a more promising avenue of investigation than D&D creatures, but I don't harp on folks here about that because I'm aware that saying so without concrete suggestions is completely meaningless and gets us nowhere, and I really should do some digging of my own before I go into this tangent (haven't had the spare time for that lately though). And, besides, it's not like having folks discuss D&D creatures or whatever else here detracts from the thread in any way, even if in the end that's not what the MitD is - it's not like we have a limited number of creatures that can be suggested, or a limited amount of discussion space, or anything like that.

[Kastor]

True, but the D&D "solutions" thus far already don't fit, that's why I find it a good idea to look at other media.

Its been mentioned on this thread before, but there are LOTS of d&d creatures out there that either haven't been properly examined, or not examined at all!
One on hand, if its a non-d&d creature, with very few exceptions, Rich is going to be going against our expectations and his word* because this is, you know, a d&d comic. On the other hand, we could have already looked at the right creature, just not in the right context or something published in a lesser-known book.
The first instance would be (in most cases) a narrative disaster, because Rich already knows what it is and wants a satisfying reveal that's plot-relevant, not for everyone to go "Eh? What is that?"
The latter requires only a single sourcebook that I haven't read!

*I thought I recalled a time where the giant mentioned that MitD isnt something he made up and also made mention that its a published creature, but i cant find the comment.

[halfeye]

One on hand, if its a non-d&d creature, with very few exceptions, Rich is going to be going against our expectations and his word* because this is, you know, a d&d comic.

It's a comic loosely based on D&D, most readers probably aren't D&D players. To expect most readers to recognise a D&D exclusive creature would be a mistake.

The first instance would be (in most cases) a narrative disaster, because Rich already knows what it is and wants a satisfying reveal that's plot-relevant, not for everyone to go "Eh? What is that?"

If I'm right that most readers aren't D&D fans, that rules out all D&D exclusive monsters (dragons are not exclusive for instance, and plenty of others aren't either).

The latter requires only a single sourcebook that I haven't read!

For me that's all of them, and I expect to be in the majority in that.

*I thought I recalled a time where the giant mentioned that MitD isnt something he made up and also made mention that its a published creature, but i cant find the comment.

There are plenty of non-D&D monsters that have been published, all the ancient myths that reached us did it through being written down somewhere, and some of the the ones that weren't written down previously made it into Grimm's fairytales.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's a comic loosely based on D&D, most readers probably aren't D&D players. To expect most readers to recognise a D&D exclusive creature would be a mistake.

Which is why no-one is arguing that. Claiming that MitD's species must be recognisable is irrelevant. Kastor's argument is solid: that in a D&D comic, there is reason to expect MitD to be a D&D monster. Your "counter" that most readers wouldn't recognise it is, charitably, a non-sequitur.

GW

[rweird]

When what the MitD was was decided, OotS had been a pretty specifically D&D webcomic making jokes about various D&D rules.

This is not to say it isn't something from common mythology, although teleportation is pretty rare (and a lot of mythological creatures have D&D representations).

[MrHatAndCloak]

You have to ask yourself. Is it more or less likely that the Giant, when he was writing OOTS, decided to pick a monster from DND. It does not have to be exclusive, but it WOULD (likely) have to be something famous for being in DND. That's why the Tarrasque is guessed so often. It's an iconic DND monster. So many of this forum's popular guesses are DND exclusive, because they are guesses that make sense in the context of a DND webcomic.

Me, I think with Rich Burlew being the author he is, and the mystery of MitD being the one big puzzle in the comic series that it is, I expect a mental "buzzer" to go off once MitD is revealed either by the comic strip or by someone clever enough to find out what it is before.
The "mental buzzer" meaning that, with a correct solution, you realise that with that solution finally everything makes sense, and you get an overwhelming feeling that now it is correct.
Have you solved any puzzles? I get that feeling most of the time when solving puzzles, at least if they are good puzzles. Bottom line: since I consider Burlew a good author, I think the MitD solution will also be a good puzzle solution.

If we make the assumption that Rich is a good author, than he would create a puzzle which his audience would be in the right mindset to guess. Regardless of whether or not they are DND fans, everyone who reads OOTS knows that it is an DND-derived product. Everyone, when guessing, is going to start there. He wouldn't point us at a beach, say there was treasure there, and give us a shovel if the treasure was in a tree. The reason nothing has ticked off a mental buzzer is that we have VERY little information, but at the same time very specific and conundrum-creating information. This is a difficult puzzle, but that does not mean the answer is that we are looking in the wrong place. Once again;

The latter requires only a single sourcebook that I haven't read!

[Nerdanel]

Introducing...

The Potted Plant Challenge

People on this thread have been saying that, given enough templates, anything, including a potted plant, can be turned into a creature matching the MitD, meaning that a template-stacked creature cannot be figured out like Rich has said could be done and therefore cannot be the MitD. I challenge these people to demonstrate the infinite power of D&D templates.

Your task is to turn, by adding templates, a humble low-CR creature into something that matches the MitD as well or better as the current untemplated top guesses. All templates must come from a D&D source. You may stack as many templates you wish as long as you obey the stacking rules.

Your base creature shall be:
a) a shrieker
b) a polar bear (if the shrieker is too hard)

Step 2:

To truly demonstrate how templates make the MitD impossible to guess, make another shrieker/polar bear MitD without repeating any templates from the previous step.

The purpose of this exercise is to explore the limits of possible base creatures and to find out which templates are obligatory if the base creature doesn't have some required quality. I think there are much fewer options with templates than one might think.

Note:
This potted plant build linked to at the start of the thread violates stacking rules and uses a template from Pathfinder even though Pathfinder didn't exist when Rich came up with the MitD.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Note:
This potted plant build linked to at the start of the thread violates stacking rules and uses a template from Pathfinder even though Pathfinder didn't exist when Rich came up with the MitD.

Are you claiming that there isn't anywhere other than pathfinder a template that increases the size category of a creature?

Also, please do tell what stacking rule I violated, and I'll do my best to work around it. I literally built the potted plant in an afternoon with access to a single, limited, list of templates. Your blanket dismissal without substantiation is more than a little cavalier.

ETA: since the shrieker is medium, it does not need the giant templates (which I added to make the creature valid for, IIRC, Chimeric or Tauric), so:
Paragon Phrenic Pseudonatural Tauric Werewolf Lord Hybrid Form/Chimeric Shadow Shrieker + of Legend, which I don't think I need but just for the heck of it

EDIT 2: Also, for the record (although I doubt Nerdanel will listen to this anymore than the other ten billion times I said it), the real problem for templates is not just that they make the base creature irrelevant (which they do), it is that they are a crutch. Every creature has access to templates, and so giving a template that explains, say, the earthquake scene to one is giving it to all that need it - thus rendering the earthquake scene, or whichever, irrelevant.

Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, I classify creatures based on the base abilities of the creature, based on the obvious statement that a creature fits best the fewest number of templates it requires to fit, and thus 0 templates is better than 1. If you have a problem with this, and want to guess that it is a dungeonbred dungeonbred dungeonbred dungeonbred dungeonbred Phrenic Tarrasque, nothing stops you from saying as much and I believe Crusher will record it as such. But I'm not about to record every creature and every variant of that creature with templates added because I am already short on space in the OP. You want to build your own template stack? Nothing stops you. But unless I'm forced to via vote, I won't add them to the first post.

Grey Wolf

[rweird]

Okay, this has a questionable rules mechanic (boosting non-abilities via template can remove a non-ability). Beast of Xvim (gives it feed), feed up to 16 HD, dark creature (+10 ft movement speed so it can actually move), Pseudonatural (ELH, gives DR and +22 strength and +10 dex to get rid of non-abilities, makes int 3), Phrenic Creature (psionic teleport 3/day), then throw on half-dragon to bring strength up to 30. You can throw on paragon afterwards if you want it to be stronger (but it isn't necessary), although it'd make it Int 20 rather than 5.

While the getting rid of non-abilities is questionable (in that respect, an actual potted plant that gets awakened could work better), other than that it works. Phrenic explains the escape. DR 15/epic and strength 30 explains the tower scene, being pseudonatural explains circus scene. As it is no longer a plant, it isn't immune to mind-effecting. It doesn't need to eat or sleep (outsider), but it is capable of doing so. It would fit within the box (nothing changes size), and isn't capable of animating the dead. "One of these" is the only thing questionable.

For a polar bear, beast of xvim (+8 HD), dungeonbred (optional, if we want it to always be medium, that works, if it still will grow, then unnecessary), pseudo natural, phrenic. Again, paragon is optional to boost Int if desired.

Replace polar bear with literally any other animal and the same template stack would work (unless size is some sort of issue).

For Grey_Wolf_c's proposal, lycanthrope needs to be added to a humanoid or giant, and I can't see where in your template stack the shrieker's type would become that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

For Grey_Wolf_c's proposal, lycanthrope needs to be added to a humanoid or giant, and I can't see where in your template stack the shrieker's type would become that.

IIRC (AFB), the Tauric template says you can use any humanoid for one of the halves, so I'm not adding the lycanthrope template, I'm adding the "Werewolf Lord, Hybrid Form" as a high-HD creature required by the tauric template. I don't see why that particular entry in the d20 srd is less valid than any other humanoid, but if that is an issue, by all means mentally switch to a different one that has high HD [ETA: or make it a beast of xvin and drop tauric - tauric is just there to boost the HD high enough to grab teleport from Phrenic]. I'm open to suggestions.

GW

[Nerdanel]

Are you claiming that there isn't anywhere other than pathfinder a template that increases the size category of a creature?

No, the Titanic template makes a creature Gargantuan, which could be potentially useful.

Also, please do tell what stacking rule I violated, and I'll do my best to work around it. I literally built the potted plant in an afternoon with access to a single, limited, list of templates. Your blanket dismissal without substantiation is more than a little cavalier.

ETA: since the shrieker is medium, it does not need the giant template, so:
Paragon Phrenic Pseudonatural Tauric Werewolf Lord Hybrid Form/Chimeric Shadow Shrieker

Grey Wolf

Tauric requires the lower half to be an Animal or Vermin with at least four legs, not a Magical Beast with two (or possibly zero) legs.

The upper half of Tauric only accepts a Small or Medium humanoid. Is the idea that the Werewolf Lord was added in human form and then the upper half, and only the upper half, of the tauric composite shifted permanently to the hybrid form? A rules lawyer might be able to argue that, but it goes a little too far for me. (In any case a Werewolf Lord is only a werewolf who has leveled up and somehow gained some more wolf HD on top of that. I kind of doubt the MitD has 10 levels in Fighter like the sample Werewolf Lord, which means that the statblock cannot be used.)

Chimeric can't be added on a Magical Beast either.

The bonsai build has Awakened, an Acquired template, at the bottom of the stack. You can't put Inherited templates like Phrenic on top of Acquired ones.

[Darth Paul]

When what the MitD was was decided, OotS had been a pretty specifically D&D webcomic making jokes about various D&D rules.

I agree that this makes it about 90% likely that he's a D&D monster of some kind, plus there's the fact that Redcloak, Xykon, and O-chul- 3 characters all living in a D&D-rules universe- independently recognize him for what he is. It stretches my credibility that all three have read the identical sourcebook containing MitD's species, if he is NOT something from D&D. Adding this into the equation makes my certainty around 99%.

I believe I mentioned before that all I expect is someone shouting at "the Reveal", "Holy crap! It was an 'X' all along!!" or "How did a 'Z' fit under that umbrella?!" to hang a lampshade on the whole issue of Monster-san's identity, and then it will all be clear in hindsight.

[rweird]

IIRC (AFB), the Tauric template says you can use any humanoid for one of the halves, so I'm not adding the lycanthrope template, I'm adding the "Werewolf Lord, Hybrid Form" as a high-HD creature required by the tauric template. I don't see why that particular entry in the d20 srd is less valid than any other humanoid, but if that is an issue, by all means mentally switch to a different one that has high HD [ETA: or make it a beast of xvin and drop tauric - tauric is just there to boost the HD high enough to grab teleport from Phrenic]. I'm open to suggestions.

GW

Yeah, I think that'd work. I'm not all that familiar with either the chimeric or tauric template, and didn't realize it was "nesting" templates.

The issue I see with this is that a shrieker is a plant originally, and nothing (to my knowledge) changes type appropriately to apply the other templates.

Nerdanel: "Beast" is essentially 3.0-speak for "magical beast" and tauric can be added onto "beasts" (unless some errata changed that).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The issue I see with this is that a shrieker is a plant originally, and nothing (to my knowledge) changes type appropriately to apply the other templates.

Doesn't Shadow change the type? I think that's why shadow is so close to the start.

What is the highest-HD medium/Large humanoid any of you can think of?

GW