Class and Level Geekery XVIII - Everyone's an Expert

[Gurgeh]

I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that Oona is a Ranger. At best, we can say that it is not the case that it is impossible for her to be a ranger. Oona has done some things that Rangers can do, but she hasn't done anything that only rangers can do (as far as I recall, anyway).

Mm, it's fair to set an unimpeachable standard of proof, but it does mean that it's damn near impossible to prove anyone whose class isn't explicitly given in the text, because to the best of my knowledge there is literally nothing that is genuinely excluse to the ranger. I prefer opting for the "quacks like a duck" approach.

[Schroeswald]

As the person who did the original writing of that stat block I would like to defend the classes chosen for Oona. Oona explicitly calls herself a beast master, her main occupation is controlling beasts, and she has been shown controlling two beasts that are some of the few given as belonging to a beast heart adept, a class which is started out in a book co written by the Giant. Is there iron clad certainty? No, but its close enough. Meanwhile while Oona does feel pretty rangery she hasn't shown off anything that weird for another class (and especially hadn't at the time when all she had done was wave two weapons around), it seems pretty likely to me but not "The giant is telling us he's using this class without saying it because he doesn't care to say it and it'd only be for the D&D nerds anyway" level.

[Quartz]

Also, beholders have 11 HD and no LA, so either they're ineligible to be cohorts at all or you can recruit one as a cohort with regular Leadership.

I'm not sure that's correct: I seem to recall an issue of Dragon covered that. Anyone out there who can find it? It wasn't #313. I've gone through the tables of contents of a fair few issues and haven't spotted it.

[danielxcutter]

Dragon Magazine is basically homebrew, so...

[hamishspence]

WOTC owned Dragon Magazine for a while. Some content is written by the same authors that write the books. The Demonomicon of Iggwilv content, for example, is written by the same person that wrote Fiendish Codex 1.

[InvisibleBison]

Oona explicitly calls herself a beast master, her main occupation is controlling beasts, and she has been shown controlling two beasts that are some of the few given as belonging to a beast heart adept, a class which is started out in a book co written by the Giant.

I agree Oona is most likely a Beast Heart Adept, but we can't definitively prove it one way or another. I was under the impression it was this thread's policy to only commit to things that can be proven, and to not speculate about what the most probable explanation for things is. Am I mistaken?

[Quartz]

Dragon Magazine is basically homebrew, so...

Dragon Magazine was owned by TSR. It's all canon.

[Riftwolf]

Is there some mechanic that would explain Serini being a better shot with a crossbow than a blow gun? If she's proficient with both, it should be equal to-hit chances unless the crossbow is more enhanced than the blowgun, unless I'm missing something

[danielxcutter]

Is there some mechanic that would explain Serini being a better shot with a crossbow than a blow gun? If she's proficient with both, it should be equal to-hit chances unless the crossbow is more enhanced than the blowgun, unless I'm missing something

Weapon Focus, maybe. Actually, there's an excellent feat called Hand Crossbow Focus which combines the benefits with that and Rapid Reload(hand crossbow), unsurprisingly for hand crossbows and which rogues happen to be proficient with.

[vegetalss4]

Is there some mechanic that would explain Serini being a better shot with a crossbow than a blow gun? If she's proficient with both, it should be equal to-hit chances unless the crossbow is more enhanced than the blowgun, unless I'm missing something

Weapon Focus, maybe. Actually, there's an excellent feat called Hand Crossbow Focus which combines the benefits with that and Rapid Reload(hand crossbow), unsurprisingly for hand crossbows and which rogues happen to be proficient with.

In addition to weapon focus she could not be proficient with blowguns (through this seems unlikely), or it could just be because she's high up and the 20ft range increment of the blowgun means that she get penalties to hit she wouldn't with a crossbow.

[danielxcutter]

In addition to weapon focus she could not be proficient with blowguns (through this seems unlikely), or it could just be because she's high up and the 20ft range increment of the blowgun means that she get penalties to hit she wouldn't with a crossbow.

Aren't blowguns simple weapons?

[Emanick]

Aren't blowguns simple weapons?

Assuming D&D Wiki is accurate, blowguns are martial weapons.

[danielxcutter]

Assuming D&D Wiki is accurate, blowguns are martial weapons.

Aside from the SRD stuff, it's literally all homebrew. Including that page, which has a Homebrew tag.

[Emanick]

Aside from the SRD stuff, it's literally all homebrew. Including that page, which has a Homebrew tag.

You’re right; I should have been more careful in checking that page.

In any case, according to the 3.5e DMG, you’re absolutely right that blowguns are simple weapons. My bad.

[Peelee]

Dragon Magazine was owned by TSR. It's all canon.

Star Wars Visions is made by Disney yet it ain't canon. Needs to be more than "company made product" to be canon.

Anyway, IIRC the author explicitly stated years ago that he is actively trying to avoid locking in any specific classes or abilities so he has more creative freedom for characters to do what he wants them to, which is commensurate in the increasing difficulty of us being able to confirm stats in this thread. At this point, I'd like to suggest a new resolution - how would everyone feel about changing the way we do this and add in a new modifier - "likely" - which would let us actually put down what most think is the case without needing hard confirmation. For example, instead of having Xykon as 21+, he could be "21+, likely much higher", or Oona could be "likely Beastmaster, likely TWF". It'd be a little clunky to write but we would be able to get more information without committing to absolute certainty, which is becoming significantly more difficult to do.

[danielxcutter]

Oh thank goodness yes.

[Emanick]

Star Wars Visions is made by Disney yet it ain't canon. Needs to be more than "company made product" to be canon.

Anyway, IIRC the author explicitly stated years ago that he is actively trying to avoid locking in any specific classes or abilities so he has more creative freedom for characters to do what he wants them to, which is commensurate in the increasing difficulty of us being able to confirm stats in this thread. At this point, I'd like to suggest a rlnee resolution - how would everyone feel about changing the way we do this and add in a new modifier - "likely" - which would let us actually put down what most think is the case withiut needing hard confirmation. For example, instead of having Xykon as 21+, he could be "21+, likely much higher", or Oona could be "likely Beastmaster, likely TWF". It'd be a little clunky to write but we would be able to get more information without committing to absolute certainty, which is becoming significantly more difficult to do.

This is an incredibly compelling idea and we should definitely do this.

[InvisibleBison]

Anyway, IIRC the author explicitly stated years ago that he is actively trying to avoid locking in any specific classes or abilities so he has more creative freedom for characters to do what he wants them to, which is commensurate in the increasing difficulty of us being able to confirm stats in this thread. At this point, I'd like to suggest a new resolution - how would everyone feel about changing the way we do this and add in a new modifier - "likely" - which would let us actually put down what most think is the case without needing hard confirmation. For example, instead of having Xykon as 21+, he could be "21+, likely much higher", or Oona could be "likely Beastmaster, likely TWF". It'd be a little clunky to write but we would be able to get more information without committing to absolute certainty, which is becoming significantly more difficult to do.

I think this is a great idea.

[Jasdoif]

...or Oona could be "likely Beastmaster, likely TWF"....

And "possibly Beast Heart Adept"?

[Peelee]

And "possibly Beast Heart Adept"?

That's what I mean by "Beastmaster", yeah. I'm not wording good today.

[dancrilis]

I'd like to suggest a new resolution - how would everyone feel about changing the way we do this and add in a new modifier - "likely" - which would let us actually put down what most think is the case without needing hard confirmation. For example, instead of having Xykon as 21+, he could be "21+, likely much higher", or Oona could be "likely Beastmaster, likely TWF". It'd be a little clunky to write but we would be able to get more information without committing to absolute certainty, which is becoming significantly more difficult to do.

I think it would likely result in everything (lots of things at least) being branded with the 'likely' tag.

Edit: and some things not getting it which probably should and other things being excluded even after the introduction of the tag.

[Emanick]

I think it would likely result in everything (lots of things at least) being branded with the 'likely' tag.

Edit: and some things not getting it which probably should and other things being excluded even after the introduction of the tag.

I don't think it's worth worrying too much about this. We can definitely debate which stuff deserves the 'likely' tag and which stuff doesn't, but at least we'll be able to list more information if we agree to use 'likely' tags for stuff that we can all agree is likely but can't be proven by the traditional (and now thoroughly impractical) standards of this thread.

[dancrilis]

I don't think it's worth worrying too much about this. We can definitely debate which stuff deserves the 'likely' tag and which stuff doesn't, but at least we'll be able to list more information if we agree to use 'likely' tags for stuff that we can all agree is likely but can't be proven by the traditional (and now thoroughly impractical) standards of this thread.

Well lets give it a go.

I say it is likely that Roy is level 16+ given that he makes 4 attacks here (panel 2 and 3) without us having any reason to believe he has any extra attack items, feats or spells affecting him.
This is helpfully the same criteria that we used to justify Haley moving from level 14 to level 15.
So can we agree that it is likely that Roy is level 16+?
I have previously tried to use this arguement based on the Haley standard to say he was (with no success).

Seperately here (panel 2 and 3) Belkar makes 7 attacks which would indicate that he is level 16+ (with greater two weapon fighting) - so can we agree that is likely?
Again I have previously tried to use this arguement based on the Haley standard to say he was (with no success).

Because if we can't agree that those are likely - that it just seems to me that we would spend time trying to convince Kurald Galain to include or exclude likely tags on existing items (Oona being a ranger for instance) or ask them to include items but only if they have the 'likely' tag (Roy/Belkar's levels) - which ultimately seems to boil down to the same issue we have with including things now just with even more room for what counts as likely and what doesn't.

[Brackenlord]

You’re right; I should have been more careful in checking that page.

In any case, according to the 3.5e DMG, you’re absolutely right that blowguns are simple weapons. My bad.

If the weapon table from DMG isn't in effect, there's also Bbowguns as exotic weapons in Masters of the Wild, wich admittedly is a 3.0 splatbook but Serini's adventuring time is old school enough it could be the case.

[Jasdoif]

This is helpfully the same criteria that we used to justify Haley moving from level 14 to level 15.

No, actually. You've listed two cases of "assume the two contiguous panels are representing the same round"; which is fundamentally different from the Haley "assume the two contiguous rounds are represented by the same panel" case. (This is the type of disagreement you're referring to, I believe)

[TooSoon]

I don't think it's worth worrying too much about this. We can definitely debate which stuff deserves the 'likely' tag and which stuff doesn't, but at least we'll be able to list more information if we agree to use 'likely' tags for stuff that we can all agree is likely but can't be proven by the traditional (and now thoroughly impractical) standards of this thread.

I have long argued this. The standards of this thread are not at all consistent, rather the admins of the thread and the posters they feel like listening to action whatever stats they personally feel are ok to action. The attacks per round has provided a large amount of stats on the stat blocks, yet it is just as unprovable as many other things which we for some reason refuse to admit. For instance, there could have been another way they got the extra attacks, or maybe it was meant to illustrate more than 1 round, or maybe Rich messed up, or maybe it was homebrew/rich ignoring the rules. But for some reason all that stuff stands, and other stuff that is no less disprovable does not. For instance, perhaps the caster time for V's spells was affected by an item we don't know about them having that boosts caster level (beyond just the Ion Stone). The same Occam's razor approach should be applied consistently, but in the case of other stuff like Xykon being level 27, or Tarquin being Epic due to the arrow catch, etc, it is not because... the people in charge don't like it.

V forming the telepathic link should have been sufficient proof that he had reached level 17. Instead results based reasoning has led to it being ignored. Well, maybe Rich screwed up or is hand waving the distance requirement with Blackwing. I'd rather take the explanation that only requires us handwaving that, not also handwaving the number of people the caster can effect per RAW. Then you're breaking 2 rules, not 1.

This thread has got to start adopting a consistent standard of proof, or including stuff that is "likely" so that it can achieve it's purpose of providing more info to readers. If the stat block read "likely level 17+", or "likely level 27+" with a link to the evidence would it really cause any issues? To my mind all it would do it provide more info to the readers of the thread. We make the assumption stuff is more likely than other stuff all the time when we add stats, and just don't say it, because of our arbitrary decision that the other explanations are sufficiently unlikely that we will ignore them. As Rich has moved more and more towards handwaving the rules and not providing explanations of things, the thread needs to adapt with that artistic choice. A voting mechanism or something to decide things would also be welcome, as the current system sees only a handful of people have any input. If need be, create a list of judges who are rules experts, but right now it seems like 2 people (or less) decide everything.

[b_jonas]

Anyway, IIRC the author explicitly stated years ago that he is actively trying to avoid locking in any specific classes or abilities so he has more creative freedom for characters to do what he wants them to, which is commensurate in the increasing difficulty of us being able to confirm stats in this thread. At this point, I'd like to suggest a new resolution - how would everyone feel about changing the way we do this and add in a new modifier - "likely" - which would let us actually put down what most think is the case without needing hard confirmation.

I disagree. This is the geekery thread, our focus is to overanalyze the comic and give explanations that work with the rules, even when the Giant isn't thinking of those explanations at all. If you want to collect reasonable stats or stats that are likely to work with some homebrew, rather than almost certain stats that work by the book, you should do that elsewhere, like in a different thread or on Wikia.

[Peelee]

I think it would likely result in everything (lots of things at least) being branded with the 'likely' tag.

The way I imagine it, there would be rigorous debate (not exactly a lofty goal for this forum) and more or less a consensus before tagging it, but I'm open to any suggestions that would be better.

Edit: and some things not getting it which probably should and other things being excluded even after the introduction of the tag.

Definitely, but this may be a case of perfect being the enemy of good. Assuming, of course, that my idea is good.

I disagree. This is the geekery thread, our focus is to overanalyze the comic and give explanations that work with the rules, even when the Giant isn't thinking of those explanations at all. If you want to collect reasonable stats or stats that are likely to work with some homebrew, rather than almost certain stats that work by the book, you should do that elsewhere, like in a different thread or on Wikia.

I am not proposing we open it up to Homebrew at all. In fact, I am specifically trying to help give explanations that would work with the rules by this. Currently, too many things have effectively "no known explanation" due to the lack of concrete proof, and that is only going to get worse. That is the only thing my suggestion targets. No homebrew or rules fudging required (nor sought out, nor suggested, nor welcome).

[TooSoon]

I disagree. This is the geekery thread, our focus is to overanalyze the comic and give explanations that work with the rules, even when the Giant isn't thinking of those explanations at all. If you want to collect reasonable stats or stats that are likely to work with some homebrew, rather than almost certain stats that work by the book, you should do that elsewhere, like in a different thread or on Wikia.

Agreed. At the very least I think we should include a "likely" qualifier before the following things. It would serve the purpose of providing readers with more info on the characters, which is good, as well as making the standards applied more consistent:
- V "likely level 17+"
- Tarquin "likely level 21+"
- Xykon "likely level 27+"
With appropriate hyperlinks to the various evidence and forum posts.

The one that most annoys me of these 3 is V. We know V needs to be level 17+ to cast the telepathic link on the whole party, so that should have been prima facie evidence. We also know Blackwing would get included automatically by RAW, but because the requirement blackwing stay within a certain distance has been ignored/forgotten by Rich the whole thing has been tossed. The most reasonable explanation is to say "ok, Rich forgot one part of the rule". That way we only disregard 1 rule. Instead people have disregarded both rules. That's ridiculous, and the justifications used aren't good either (i.e. various other instances of rules being handwaved for minor side characters whose stat sheets we don't have, or who could have had a rules based work around). We know V has probably levelled to 17 by now based on how long they've been level 16, this should have been a no brainer to add.

[b_jonas]

The one that most annoys me of these 3 is V. We know V needs to be level 17+ to cast the telepathic link on the whole party, so that should have been prima facie evidence.

I still don't think that's much of a proof. Telepathic link is a level 5 spell that takes a standard action, and Vaarsuvius cast it outside of combat, so she could just have cast it three times. If she did, the repeated castings wouldn't be shown in panel. She knows how many party members there are, and she planned for a stealth mission here, so she knew to prepare three copies of the spell. Did she cast too many other high level spells today to exclude that? I don't believe so, at least yet.