OOTS #1222 - The Discussion Thread

[danielxcutter]

My favorite thought experiment was always the Ranger Lich. I think Paladins could technically do it too.

Well, with Practiced Spellcaster I guess you could pull that off, and there's always the Good Lich variant from the Book of Bad Latin for Paladins. There's probably better templates, though.

I remember in the lore section of the Foebane enchantment from the Magic Item Compendium that it was invented by a ranger, and yes it notes how unusual it is for a Ranger to be good enough at spellcasting to be able to craft items.

[bunsen_h]

I haven't been following the discussion threads too closely, but I'd say this is definite confirmation that there's some kind of extraplanar weirdness going on with the tunnels.

Wasnt that already explicity said in #1040, panel #3 ?

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1040.html

"If this ravine hadn't been built up out of multidimensional stone, you could just ghostform your way through the -"

"Extraplanar" doesn't appear to be the same category of thing as "multidimensional". But I don't think we've got a clear sense of what the properties of multidimensional stone are, apart from not permitting beings to ghostform through it.

[danielxcutter]

Ghostform as well as spells such as Ethereal Jaunt let the caster pass through solid objects, as physically they are on the Ethereal Plane. Most physical objects can't affect the Ethereal without magic, but ghost touch equipment, force effects, and positive and negative energy(to name a few) can. It's likely that the rock is like that, so there's a bigass mountain on the Material Plane as well as a bigass mountain on the corresponding Ethereal Plane location as well that can't be ghosted through.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the aspects I dont like about D&D, and have never liked: you're practically forced to have a Rogue in the group.

Not getting the rogue hate. They added that class to fit the game; for a detailed discussion ... D&D is about hunting for treasure, and the rogue is the consumate treasure hunter.

[danielxcutter]

Not getting the rogue hate. They added that class to fit the game; for a detailed discussion ... D&D is about hunting for treasure, and the rogue is the consumate treasure hunter.

One, D&D isn't just about treasure; the OotS certainly doesn't have that in mind now. Two, there is literally no substitution for Rogue in Core if you need Trapfinding whatsoever; virtually anything else that one class can do, another class can substitute for in a pinch(though how effectively may vary). There is "can contribute to the party" and there is "someone has to play this class or the party's all going to die horribly, period".

That being said, not all games need a Rogue - I just got accepted to a RHoD game, and trapfinding really isn't that big of a factor in that module, so none of us have Trapfinding.

[Lemarc]

Not getting the rogue hate. They added that class to fit the game; for a detailed discussion ... D&D is about hunting for treasure, and the rogue is the consumate treasure hunter.

My experience with third edition is very small, but there's a line in the Player's Handbook that seems unnecessarily limiting: "Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20." In earlier versions of the game where a thief's find/remove traps ability is a special skill that nobody else can do, it's expected that if you don't have a thief or she fails her roll you can still find traps the old fashioned way, by tapping with your 10' pole or inspecting the floor for dried blood marks or throwing a live rat into the room to see what happens. In 5E the rogue may or may not have a higher Perception/Investigation than the rest of the party, but probably not by all that much. Only in 3.5 is there a whole class of traps which only a rogue can find. Granted, there's nothing to say you can't find a trap without making a Search roll, but the rules aren't written in a way that encourages that. There's no advice in the DMG section on traps to allow the players to do anything other than make a Search roll.

[danielxcutter]

My experience with third edition is very small, but there's a line in the Player's Handbook that seems unnecessarily limiting: "Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20." In earlier versions of the game where a thief's find/remove traps ability is a special skill that nobody else can do, it's expected that if you don't have a thief or she fails her roll you can still find traps the old fashioned way, by tapping with your 10' pole or inspecting the floor for dried blood marks or throwing a live rat into the room to see what happens. In 5E the rogue may or may not have a higher Perception/Investigation than the rest of the party, but probably not by all that much. Only in 3.5 is there a whole class of traps which only a rogue can find. Granted, there's nothing to say you can't find a trap without making a Search roll, but the rules aren't written in a way that encourages that. There's no advice in the DMG section on traps to allow the players to do anything other than make a Search roll.

I think that's the problem, yeah, and why there being other base classes with Trapfinding in sourcebooks is a good thing. As I said earlier, aside from Trapfinding there really isn't anything else that a particular class can do without another class being able to fill instead. If your party doesn't have a Wizard, they can have a Sorcerer or a Bard in a pinch. If there isn't a Cleric to heal, there's Paladin, Druid, and yet again in a pinch Bard will do. Barbarians and Paladins can stand on the frontlines as well as any Fighter and I'm pretty sure Rangers or Monks are better than nothing. And so on.

[Doug Lampert]

Well, with Practiced Spellcaster I guess you could pull that off, and there's always the Good Lich variant from the Book of Bad Latin for Paladins. There's probably better templates, though.

I remember in the lore section of the Foebane enchantment from the Magic Item Compendium that it was invented by a ranger, and yes it notes how unusual it is for a Ranger to be good enough at spellcasting to be able to craft items.

You don't need practiced spell-caster if you are level 22, and we know that Epic characters exist in OotS land. (Heck, we know there was an epic mostly ranger character even.)

[Rogar Demonblud]

I think that's the problem, yeah, and why there being other base classes with Trapfinding in sourcebooks is a good thing. As I said earlier, aside from Trapfinding there really isn't anything else that a particular class can do without another class being able to fill instead. If your party doesn't have a Wizard, they can have a Sorcerer or a Bard in a pinch. If there isn't a Cleric to heal, there's Paladin, Druid, and yet again in a pinch Bard will do. Barbarians and Paladins can stand on the frontlines as well as any Fighter and I'm pretty sure Rangers or Monks are better than nothing. And so on.

Players will argue about monks being better than nothing.

[Rockphed]

You don't need practiced spell-caster if you are level 22, and we know that Epic characters exist in OotS land. (Heck, we know there was an epic mostly ranger character even.)

For all we know Soon wasn't a positive energy ghost but a positive energy Lich who had made the Sapphire Gate his phylactery in an eldrich ritual. Each member of the guard in turn swore to defend the gate body and soul in a ritual that was tied to the Sapphire and thus tied them to existence. So if Serini stole anything from Soon for her defense of the gate it was that ritual, the knowledge of which drove her mad, mad I say! So nobody can get to the gate without disintegrating the whole ravine and she has an army of soldiers soul bound to defend the gate from all comers. Muwahahahahahahahahah!

[Doug Lampert]

For all we know Soon wasn't a positive energy ghost but a positive energy Lich who had made the Sapphire Gate his phylactery in an eldrich ritual. Each member of the guard in turn swore to defend the gate body and soul in a ritual that was tied to the Sapphire and thus tied them to existence. So if Serini stole anything from Soon for her defense of the gate it was that ritual, the knowledge of which drove her mad, mad I say! So nobody can get to the gate without disintegrating the whole ravine and she has an army of soldiers soul bound to defend the gate from all comers. Muwahahahahahahahahah!

My favorite unlikely class Lich joke is the one where someone in the D&D section asked what a Lich Bard would be like, and the reply came back "Mick Jagger".

[Rogar Demonblud]

Not Keith Richardson? Heck, he even kind of looks like one these days.

[pearl jam]

The idea that Keith Richards will never die is one that has been out there for a while now. lol

[fuschiawarrior]

I prefer to not imagine Keith Richards commiting unspeakably evil acts to become a lich or anyone for that matter.

[danielxcutter]

My favorite unlikely class Lich joke is the one where someone in the D&D section asked what a Lich Bard would be like, and the reply came back "Mick Jagger".

There is literally a Lich Bard in the Book of Bad Latin so...

[bunsen_h]

Ghostform as well as spells such as Ethereal Jaunt let the caster pass through solid objects, as physically they are on the Ethereal Plane. Most physical objects can't affect the Ethereal without magic, but ghost touch equipment, force effects, and positive and negative energy(to name a few) can. It's likely that the rock is like that, so there's a bigass mountain on the Material Plane as well as a bigass mountain on the corresponding Ethereal Plane location as well that can't be ghosted through.

When you say "It's likely that", what are you basing that on? -- do you mean "one way it could work would be" or do you have a stronger basis?

[danielxcutter]

When you say "It's likely that", what are you basing that on? -- do you mean "one way it could work would be" or do you have a stronger basis?

As in ‘there really isn’t another way that would work and I can think of, but I haven’t exactly asked the Giant on how he rules this stuff’.

[Underground]

Why, its good news to me that in DnD5 there are more options for handling traps than just Rogue. Though FINDING traps isnt the only problem; disarming is, too. And opening locks in general. Even in ADnD Rangers could already search for traps; they couldnt disarm them though, which sort of made the whole thing pointless.

Thats why in ADnD one wanted a Thief(n)/Mage, like Imoen in Baldurs Gate, or in DnD3 a Rogue(n)/Fighter with high INT, which was my main in Neverwinter Nights 2 (Also one of the few cases in which I played human when other options are available, though that was also motivated by the fact that all other races looked butt ugly in NWN2). The only other option was to always have that Tiefling in the group.

Getting forcefed a Thief/Rogue when you dont enjoy the stealth game in the first place (and in all these games its really just slower than any other option) is no fun. At least in DnD3 you got Sneak Attacks, so having a Fighter with Rogue levels was not completely pointless.

By the way, this is a thing Vampire: Bloodlines solved very well. You could solve quests QUICKER with Stealth, and one quest even required stealth to work at all. So in Bloodlines, it didnt felt like wasting time if you used stealth.

[danielxcutter]

Why, its good news to me that in DnD5 there are more options for handling traps than just Rogue. Though FINDING traps isnt the only problem; disarming is, too. And opening locks in general. Even in ADnD Rangers could already search for traps; they couldnt disarm them though, which sort of made the whole thing pointless.

Thats why in ADnD one wanted a Thief(n)/Mage, like Imoen in Baldurs Gate, or in DnD3 a Rogue(n)/Fighter with high INT, which was my main in Neverwinter Nights 2 (Also one of the few cases in which I played human when other options are available, though that was also motivated by the fact that all other races looked butt ugly in NWN2). The only other option was to always have that Tiefling in the group.

Getting forcefed a Thief/Rogue when you dont enjoy the stealth game in the first place (and in all these games its really just slower than any other option) is no fun. At least in DnD3 you got Sneak Attacks, so having a Fighter with Rogue levels was not completely pointless.

By the way, this is a thing Vampire: Bloodlines solved very well. You could solve quests QUICKER with Stealth, and one quest even required stealth to work at all. So in Bloodlines, it didnt felt like wasting time if you used stealth.

The problem with stealth in general is that either you send the stealthy members to scout first and take more time doing so, since bringing along the Cleric and Fighter is tantamount to saying "I'm not even going to put in the effort", or have the entire party be stealthy(which is unrealistic at best).

[bunsen_h]

As in ‘there really isn’t another way that would work and I can think of, but I haven’t exactly asked the Giant on how he rules this stuff’.

It could be just what it says on the bottle: existing in more dimensions than just the usual three, still within the Prime Material Plane.

The descriptions of Ghostform 3.5 that I'm seeing on line -- I'm unsure of their copyright status so I won't link -- include "You can enter or pass through solid objects while in ghostform, but you must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than your own." It would be reasonable to extrapolate that that might be blocked by higher-dimensional "solid" stone, where even a three-dimensional open space might not count as "exterior" to objects.

[danielxcutter]

It could be just what it says on the bottle: existing in more dimensions than just the usual three, still within the Prime Material Plane.

The descriptions of Ghostform 3.5 that I'm seeing on line -- I'm unsure of their copyright status so I won't link -- include "You can enter or pass through solid objects while in ghostform, but you must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than your own." It would be reasonable to extrapolate that that might be blocked by higher-dimensional "solid" stone, where even a three-dimensional open space might not count as "exterior" to objects.

Being bent into a tesseract doesn’t actually help at all with blocking ghostform. It’s probably just essentially stone that has a permanent ghost touch-like property.

[Grey Watcher]

It could be just what it says on the bottle: existing in more dimensions than just the usual three, still within the Prime Material Plane.

The descriptions of Ghostform 3.5 that I'm seeing on line -- I'm unsure of their copyright status so I won't link -- include "You can enter or pass through solid objects while in ghostform, but you must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than your own." It would be reasonable to extrapolate that that might be blocked by higher-dimensional "solid" stone, where even a three-dimensional open space might not count as "exterior" to objects.

Being bent into a tesseract doesn’t actually help at all with blocking ghostform. It’s probably just essentially stone that has a permanent ghost touch-like property.

Yeah, the "multi-dimensional" part probably just refers to the stone being equally solid in both the physical world and in the ethereal plane.

[Goblin_Priest]

One of the aspects I dont like about D&D, and have never liked: you're practically forced to have a Rogue in the group.

Sure, you can freely choose if your group Tank is Fighter, Paladin, Ranger or Barbarian, each with their pros and cons.

Group mage ? Okay, D&D doesnt have too many choices, but it can be Wizard/Mage or Sorcerer. Heck, maybe even Warlock ...

Group healer, well that can be Cleric or Druid, and maybe Favored Soul, or Shaman.

But you have to have a Rogue/Thief. No choice there. Bard cannot compensate for a missing Rogue/Thief, either. Bard is one of these "additional" toy classes, like Monk and Warlock, which really is neither here nor there and doesnt really clearly fill a group task as such.

Which challenge do you feel a rogue is required for?

Because rogues are UP, and we often don't have any.

[BarakDeathBlade]

Yeah, the "multi-dimensional" part probably just refers to the stone being equally solid in both the physical world and in the ethereal plane.

Well, that's clearly PART of it, but...

"So many twistings and turnings!"
"Death beckoned in every hall."
"And so visually complex, too! I'm glad no one had to draw a picture of any of that."
It probably would have taken 30 pages. (1040)

I expect the dungeons overlap. Whatever the multidimensional stone does, it makes X unable to fly through it in Ghostform, and it allows overlap.

Where bypassing the trap leads, is still an open question. All doors could lead to the same entrance, it could be a dungeon with 100 entrances. I'll wait and see.

[KorvinStarmast]

One, D&D isn't just about treasure;

Originally, yeah, it kind of was. That's why those guys went down under Blackmoore Castle ...

In earlier versions of the game where a thief's find/remove traps ability is a special skill that nobody else can do,

Not quite true. Before Greyhawk was published, it was dwarfs who had the better find trap / detect trap ability, and Clerics had the spell. But as it was played once the percentile table were added, yeah, it swung real hard to 'send in the rogue' except when it didn't.
Our first campaign, 1975, had zero people playing a thief. (now called a rogue). We did have a dwarf. And we later got a monk. But as you say, we also looked for traps by describing to the DM what we were doing and how we were looking. Exploration was a far larger pillar of the game then

I think this is why some of the grognards who got all critical about the WoTC version of the game were so quick to use the "too much like a video game" criticism (and I guess that got even worse with 4e). Exploration (where the DM explains what you see and you draw on graph paper, and so on) figured big in the game.

Now? Not as much, it seems.

[bunsen_h]

Being bent into a tesseract doesn’t actually help at all with blocking ghostform. It’s probably just essentially stone that has a permanent ghost touch-like property.

If the three-dimensional volume of the room coexists with a large volume of solid stone in a higher dimension, ghostform might not be able to pass through it. If you're familiar with the Heinlein story, imagine that one room of the house was actually filled with solid rock before it "collapsed" into one cube. It would still be possible to access all of the seven normal rooms by walking in the usual way. What I'm suggesting is that because the entire "collapsed" volume is filled with solid rock in its higher-dimensional space, one might not be able to ghostform through it.

Make it an indoor pool if you prefer that to rock.

[npc revolution]

I've had another, crazier idea. The line takes you back in time to when the dungeon was first built. Somehow access to the Gate is time-bound, it can't be accessed at all in the present day. Serini exists in the past only, too.

This is mainly to explain the brighter colour of the ground, but it also gives Belkar a fresh avenue of escape from his prophesy. If he spends the rest of his life in the past, then his last breath ever may have taken place on page 1220.

I still think my other theory is more likely, but this was novel.

Spoiler: Other Theory

Show

I think I know where the Order currently are.

Spoiler: Diagram

Show

I think they're in the long hidden bit of the corridor between the door and the dungeon.

We know the doors are weirdly packed together, I think the tunnels actually go a long distance and spread out before opening into dungeon levels. The line's function is to teleport people past this. The bit the Order are in is a different colour because no dust usually gets to this part of the corridor.

I think there's a two-way teleportation effect, and Roy's sword appeared at the other end of this hidden space. There may be access tunnels or side doors along this corridor, allowing Serini to move easily between any door and the Gate.

If Haley needs access to the line's blue sides (Per diagram) to meddle with it, it gives them a real problem. They'll be trapped in this looping space unless there's an exit somewhere along it. And Blackwing will be trapped outside.

[Lemarc]

Originally, yeah, it kind of was. That's why those guys went down under Blackmoore Castle ...
Not quite true. Before Greyhawk was published, it was dwarfs who had the better find trap / detect trap ability, and Clerics had the spell. But as it was played once the percentile table were added, yeah, it swung real hard to 'send in the rogue' except when it didn't.

Even with the percentile tables, a low- or mid-level's thief's chances of finding a trap are so abysmal that you absolutely can't rely on them. A 50% chance of detecting a trap (7th level) is not reassuring when the trap might drop a ten ton block on your head. So you have to use the other methods anyway, and treat the find traps roll as just a bonus. Actually IMO that goes for most of the thief abilities; when playing AD&D thieves I've spent most of my time figuring out ways to avoid having to make percentile rolls.

Our first campaign, 1975, had zero people playing a thief. (now called a rogue). We did have a dwarf. And we later got a monk. But as you say, we also looked for traps by describing to the DM what we were doing and how we were looking. Exploration was a far larger pillar of the game then

I think this is why some of the grognards who got all critical about the WoTC version of the game were so quick to use the "too much like a video game" criticism (and I guess that got even worse with 4e). Exploration (where the DM explains what you see and you draw on graph paper, and so on) figured big in the game.

Now? Not as much, it seems.

It's certainly not so much the default playstyle. I grew up playing with some inherited 1st edition rulebooks so this is my jam as well. I've managed to run an exploration-based campaign in 5th edition but it requires a fair amount of house ruling and often I felt like I was fighting the rulebooks; we ended up dropping the Investigation skill entirely.

[danielxcutter]

Even with the percentile tables, a low- or mid-level's thief's chances of finding a trap are so abysmal that you absolutely can't rely on them. A 50% chance of detecting a trap (7th level) is not reassuring when the trap might drop a ten ton block on your head. So you have to use the other methods anyway, and treat the find traps roll as just a bonus. Actually IMO that goes for most of the thief abilities; when playing AD&D thieves I've spent most of my time figuring out ways to avoid having to make percentile rolls.

Was that just because it was their first shot at such a class, because they tried to actively handicap it like they did for a lot of monstrous races for 3.x with LA so it wouldn't push out the other classes, or just because from what I hear the rules (and typical DM mindsets) were just that anal back then?

It's certainly not so much the default playstyle. I grew up playing with some inherited 1st edition rulebooks so this is my jam as well. I've managed to run an exploration-based campaign in 5th edition but it requires a fair amount of house ruling and often I felt like I was fighting the rulebooks; we ended up dropping the Investigation skill entirely.

Funny, it's not really that hard to do an "exploration-based" campaign in 3.x I think? I think this is because 5e hosed down a lot of the things players can do, and also the DCs mean that unless you're a Rogue or Bard you shouldn't rely on making skill checks or something like that?

[Lemarc]

Was that just because it was their first shot at such a class, because they tried to actively handicap it like they did for a lot of monstrous races for 3.x with LA so it wouldn't push out the other classes, or just because from what I hear the rules (and typical DM mindsets) were just that anal back then?

I don't know, but my understanding is that it's because they're special class abilities on top of what everyone can already do. For example a thief who fails a move silently roll still gets the standard surprise roll. Anyone can hide behind a rock but a thief who hides in shadows successfully is invisible even in line of sight. So they're bonus extras and failing the roll is usually not a serious problem. Also thieves being rather weak at low levels forces you to be sneaky. I don't know if that's intentional but it's fitting.

Funny, it's not really that hard to do an "exploration-based" campaign in 3.x I think? I think this is because 5e hosed down a lot of the things players can do, and also the DCs mean that unless you're a Rogue or Bard you shouldn't rely on making skill checks or something like that?

It's various little things that add up, really. Healing to max HP every night, timing everything in six-second rounds instead of longer exploration turns, certain abilities or spells that "break" aspects of exploration (infinite-use telekinesis cantrips for a start), high XP rewards for combat encounters, less fragile characters, I've all found tend to push the game more towards fast-paced action than careful exploration. There was no one thing we couldn't easily fix, but niggle after niggle would pop up to make it clear that we weren't quite using the system as intended.