OOTS #1235 - The Discussion Thread

[ebarde]

Man did Xykon show some uncharacteristif restraint in those early strips. In every other fight he was in afterwards, he usually didn't hesitate to pull out the big guns. In their first fight though he doesn't cast a single even close to high level spell.

[hamishspence]

That's probably what taught him the lesson "don't hesitate to bring out the big guns".

[danielxcutter]

Also remember, he wanted them alive so he could use them to unlock the Gate.

[hungrycrow]

He also shows restraint during his fight with Roy at Azure City. I guess he has a thing about playing the level-appropriate bad guy.

[Worldsong]

He also shows restraint during his fight with Roy at Azure City. I guess he has a thing about playing the level-appropriate bad guy.

I think he just likes playing around with the hero types while anyone else is cannon fodder.

[danielxcutter]

I think he just likes playing around with the hero types while anyone else is cannon fodder.

As long as it's not threatening his phylactery or his rep, it's all fun and games for him. He didn't bother using Superb Dispelling on Darth Vaarsuvius until V did the latter, after all.

[Vikenlugaid]

That's the fallacy of the excluded middle. You're acting like Rich just has to have decided whether the sword was magic or not before he wrote that scene, making the only two options for his answer "Shatter worked because the sword wasn't magic" or "[something with more words that you don't have to actually read because it has to mean the sword was magic]". But no...what he said was that he didn't really think about magic interactions either way when he wrote that scene; he wanted Xykon to have a spell that could break the sword, it was appropriate to Xykon's power level, so he did. That works whether the sword was magic and the spell was Greater Shatter, or the sword was not magic.

But he is saying that he just didn't care about the rules for the spell, but he isn't saying anything about the weapon. I mean, he is basically saying the reader has 2 options:
1- Shatter in Oots world can break magic weapons, at least if the caster is powerfull enough.
2- That is an improved shatter spell that can break magic weapons.

[Kish]

No, he said he didn't care about the rules that applied to the situation. You changing that to "he didn't care about the rules for the spell, so he must care about the rules for the weapon" are all you! He explicitly avoids ever saying the sword was, or was not, magic before the starmetal was added to it, and he makes a point about how little he cares about rules in general with mentioning he hasn't read Weapons of Legacy.

[Squire Doodad]

But he is saying that he just didn't care about the rules for the spell, but he isn't saying anything about the weapon. I mean, he is basically saying the reader has 2 options:
1- Shatter in Oots world can break magic weapons, at least if the caster is powerfull enough.
2- That is an improved shatter spell that can break magic weapons.

I mean, based on the Patreon link someone posted, if you need a by-the-book explanation it boils down to
1) Roy's sword was magical or non-magical
2) Xykon silently cast Superb Shatter or some other enhanced form, then just said "Shatter" for dramatic effect.
3) Roy's sword then broke, because Xykon dropped a big heavy-duty version of the spell to make sure the Disrupt effect couldn't be used.

[KorvinStarmast]

But he is saying that he just didn't care about the rules for the spell, but he isn't saying anything about the weapon. I mean, he is basically saying the reader has 2 options:
1- Shatter in Oots world can break magic weapons, at least if the caster is powerfull enough.
2- That is an improved shatter spell that can break magic weapons.

I am going to offer you a very D&D centric response to the point you are trying to put forth, which I believe is being made with a positive intention.

Your attempt at rules-lawyering the DM in this case won't succeed.

[bunsen_h]

I mean, based on the Patreon link someone posted, if you need a by-the-book explanation it boils down to
1) Roy's sword was magical or non-magical
2) Xykon silently cast Superb Shatter or some other enhanced form, then just said "Shatter" for dramatic effect.
3) Roy's sword then broke, because Xykon dropped a big heavy-duty version of the spell to make sure the Disrupt effect couldn't be used.

Xykon did not say "Shatter". He's shown saying "Magic Missile" several times in that page, but he doesn't say anything in that last panel. The word "shatter!" is all lower case, and coloured blue to indicate a sound effect like the "eeeeeeeeeSPLAT!" in panel 7.

Whether the sword was magical or not is indeterminate, based on the information we've got at present. That's what Rich's comments are telling me: the important thing is that the sword got broken, and he wasn't concerned at the time about how it happened. The readers are free to guess; he's not going to be pinned down on it. Could it be relevant in the future? Perhaps, if Xykon tries to do it again. In which case the sword's greater enhancement now -- which means nothing more definite than "a +5 Greatsword of Legacy with a bonus against undead is greater than anywhere from 0 to +4 plus whatever other specialized bonuses it may (or may not) have had" -- could protect it. Or not.

[georgie_leech]

Xykon did not say "Shatter". He's shown saying "Magic Missile" several times in that page, but he doesn't say anything in that last panel. The word "shatter!" is all lower case, and coloured blue to indicate a sound effect like the "eeeeeeeeeSPLAT!" in panel 7.

Whether the sword was magical or not is indeterminate, based on the information we've got at present. That's what Rich's comments are telling me: the important thing is that the sword got broken, and he wasn't concerned at the time about how it happened. The readers are free to guess; he's not going to be pinned down on it. Could it be relevant in the future? Perhaps, if Xykon tries to do it again. In which case the sword's greater enhancement now -- which means nothing more definite than "a +5 Greatsword of Legacy with a bonus against undead is greater than anywhere from 0 to +4 plus whatever other specialized bonuses it may (or may not) have had" -- could protect it. Or not.

Honestly, I'd love a callback to that scene with the sword not breaking, Xykon going "huh, that's new," before being wallop-ed in the face with sword and Roy wearing the Smug Grin he pulls out whenever he manages to really surprise an opponent.

[Squire Doodad]

Xykon did not say "Shatter". He's shown saying "Magic Missile" several times in that page, but he doesn't say anything in that last panel. The word "shatter!" is all lower case, and coloured blue to indicate a sound effect like the "eeeeeeeeeSPLAT!" in panel 7

I probably should've checked. Still, the point stands; Roy's sword could have easily been struck by whatever spell was appropriate to make it break. And then it did. Saying it shattered suggests it was non-magical isn't a hot topic anyways, though Roy saying the reforged (and definitely magic) sword was shatterproof might imply the old one wasn't - but it's not a big deal.

[Vikenlugaid]

No, he said he didn't care about the rules that applied to the situation. You changing that to "he didn't care about the rules for the spell, so he must care about the rules for the weapon" are all you! He explicitly avoids ever saying the sword was, or was not, magic before the starmetal was added to it, and he makes a point about how little he cares about rules in general with mentioning he hasn't read Weapons of Legacy.

I am not saying that "he cares about the rules of the weapon" I am saying that he only talks about the spell. If the weapon wasn't magic, why even mention the spell in that "answer"?
And I am talking only about the first part of the answer, which is the relevant on this topic, the legacy thing is another story.

I mean, Rich is not saying for 100% sure the greenhilt sword is magic... But like 90% or so, yes. If he gives options like "shatter doesn't work like the rules" or "that's a greater shatter", but on the otger hand he doesn't even mention the possibility of the weapon being non magic... He is "marking" only the spell mechanics as the solution of that situation, never the weapon.

Of course, he didn't actually say the words "the greenhilt sword was magic" just in case he need the opposite in the future. If now he said, in comic, it wasn't magic, is not inconsistence. But till then, the possibility of being magic is more plausible.
Maybe we will know it for sure in a future flashback comic about Horace XD

[KorvinStarmast]

Would you have been happier if Xykon had said "Sunder?" (The fragility of swords in this comic may be worth mentioning at some point, but maybe that discussion was had years ago.)

[Squire Doodad]

Would you have been happier if Xykon had said "Sunder?" (The fragility of swords in this comic may be worth mentioning at some point, but maybe that discussion was had years ago.)

Clearly the ores were affected in the Great Dirt Blight, back when the old weapons were forged.

[ratfox]

Just noticed a typo in 1235: In Vaarsuvius' reply, "equivilent" should be "equivalent"

[Dion]

Person A: Roy’s sword was magic.

Person B: No it wasn't.

Person A: Yes it was!

Giant: Eh, I don't know. Who cares?

Person A and B [together]: See? I'm right!

[bunsen_h]

It's conceivable that Xykon will use a Greater Shatter on the sword, and that will release a blast of green energy which cripples or destroys him.

Person A: Roy’s sword was magic.

Person B: No it wasn't.

Person A: Yes it was!

Giant: Eh, I don't know. Who cares?

Person A and B [together]: See? I'm right!

Yeah, pretty much.

[Ionathus]

Clearly the ores were affected in the Great Dirt Blight, back when the old weapons were forged.

Iron Crisis is acting up again, somebody stop by Cloakwood Mine and flood it on your way home please.

[Riftwolf]

If Roy's sword was magical, Xykon used Greater Shatter
If Roy's sword wasn't magical, Xykon used Shatter classic.
What we *should* be arguing about is why Xykon was afraid of Disrupt when he was low-epic.
Or we could, I dunno, drop the subject.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Well, TBH, she probably has some character development left for her.
After all, we still don't know what she was worried about and she'd rather not have Thor mention it in front of Durkon.

She's gay. Not as in homosexual, as in cheerful and always singing stupid work songs. That's looked down upon by dwarves with a v.

If Roy's sword was magical, Xykon used Greater Shatter
If Roy's sword wasn't magical, Xykon used Shatter classic.
What we *should* be arguing about is why Xykon was afraid of Disrupt when he was low-epic.
Or we could, I dunno, drop the subject.

Or the sword could have been non-magical and Xylon used greater shatter as overkill/not being sure the sword wasn't magic. Or the disruption spell had a paradoxical combination with the enchantment already on the sword, which caused the sword to expend it's life force (or whatever equivalent of casting from hit points is for an object) to cast a spell on Xylon's hand making him vulnerable to grappling.

Also Xylon didn't know specifically which enchantment was on the sword, he just had the secondhand information "enchanted... one hit will utterly destroy you!"

[danielxcutter]

If Roy's sword was magical, Xykon used Greater Shatter
If Roy's sword wasn't magical, Xykon used Shatter classic.
What we *should* be arguing about is why Xykon was afraid of Disrupt when he was low-epic.
Or we could, I dunno, drop the subject.

I believe it forces the undead struck by the weapon to make a Fort save or be destroyed. Per hit. And the DC scales with the caster’s Wisdom unlike normal magical weapons.

Granted, Xykon also gained like half a dozen levels on his character sheet through DM fiat once the comic actually started to get serious, but Disrupt Weapon is still a fairly decent buff.

[Jasdoif]

What we *should* be arguing about is why Xykon was afraid of Disrupt when he was low-epic.

Clearly, "Greater Disrupting Weapon" looked too awkward in the panel.

[danielxcutter]

Clearly, "Greater Disrupting Weapon" looked too awkward in the panel.

Oh huh. Didn’t know there was a HD limit.

[Metastachydium]

Clearly, "Greater Disrupting Weapon" looked too awkward in the panel.

Yes, but Disrupting Weapon is a 5th level spell, so Durkon shouldn't have been able to cast a Greater version in DCF.
(A tad bit more seriously, I don't presume nobody referred the fine folks in this thread to that handy flowchart in the last Q&A with the Giant yet?)

[Jasdoif]

(A tad bit more seriously, I don't presume nobody referred the fine folks in this thread to that handy flowchart in the last Q&A with the Giant yet?)

Oh, I'm sure any attempt to reference to the flowchart there in answer #13 would just be countered with the "at this point" in the question, likely followed by some questionable extrapolation about how comic #600 and not regretting referencing D&D rules supposedly means the first hundred or so strips are supposed to adhere to D&D rules exactly as much as anyone wants to think D&D rules should be adhered to, etc.

Also, "greater disrupting weapon if it makes you feel better" goes hand in hand with "greater shatter if it makes you feel better", merrily skipping down the Golden Road of Apathy (which is actually made of pyrite, but no one cares; hence the name).

[Metastachydium]

Oh, I'm sure any attempt to reference to the flowchart there in answer #13 would just be countered with the "at this point" in the question, likely followed by some questionable extrapolation about how comic #600 and not regretting referencing D&D rules supposedly means the first hundred or so strips are supposed to adhere to D&D rules exactly as much as anyone wants to think D&D rules should be adhered to, etc.

Also, "greater disrupting weapon if it makes you feel better" goes hand in hand with "greater shatter if it makes you feel better", merrily skipping down the Golden Road of Apathy (which is actually made of pyrite, but no one cares; hence the name).

How does one merrily skip down the Golden Road of Apathy?

[KorvinStarmast]

How does one merrily skip down the Golden Road of Apathy?

Embrace your inner Dorothy, that's how.

[Jasdoif]

How does one merrily skip down the Golden Road of Apathy?

Quite easily! The road is where leave the burden of obsessing over minutiae behind you; once you feel the weight lifted off your shoulders (and maybe your back), you can't help but want to skip merrily and leave your troubles behind. On the road, where you left them.