MitD XVII: [Y]ou were quite clear. I was just being pedantic

[hroþila]

Now the persistent counter-argument is "well, even if we're eyeballing it, surely he has to be much stronger than Roy, right? And the answer is no, not necessarily. If you look at any given character in a vacuum, it gives a different impression. If you look at a 18 STR fighter, you go, wow, that's a strong fighter. You look at a STR 30 monster you go, wow that's a strong monster. You look at a 10 STR housecat, you go wow, that's a strong cat. And yet even though the fighter is stronger than the cat numerically, both are able to knock a creature clear across the room while fighting. Why? It's because they're both "Strong" in their own little one-scene vacuum.

So to give another example let's take a look at the ancient black dragon that attacked V. Looking at the dragon as depicted in oots without looking at any stats, if I were to ask myself "Do I believe this creature could physically send V flying into the horizon just like the MitD did to miko?" My answer would be yes.

Conspicuously absent from this analysis is the tiiiiiiny widdle detail that Mr Scruffy was trying to hit as hard as possible, as would the ABD in your scenario, while the MitD was trying to hit as lightly as possible.

No one's trying to do the math here. Everyone agrees this is cartoon physics. The fact remains that the tropes at work are closely related but fundamentally different. You only use "character sends other character flying despite trying to hit as lightly as possible" if you're trying to imply an almost incomprehensible level of strength.

In practice, you're also ignoring the fact that STR 30 is simply being used as a cutoff point. Yes that's arbitrary in itself, this has been acknowledged, it could just as easily have been 29 or 31. That's how cutoff points work. It doesn't mean that a STR 29 creature would be written off while a STR 30 creature would be considered a perfect fit - the latter would still be seen as a better fit if it had STR 31, or 32, or 33. See for example the entry for the Hunting Horror ("Strength of 34 - on the lower side, but within acceptable bounds for the tower scene"). Ultimately, a STR 29 creature that was a perfect fit in all other regards would in all probability be included in the list, just with their STR listed as a con, so this is all kinda beside the point.

[b_jonas]

I am pretty sure you could post "I think the belt gives its wearer the generic strength of a giant rather than a numbered bonus" and it would not be scrubbed.

I was not suggesting that the belt gives generic strength of a giant, or that it sets your Str to a fixed number. (Thor's gauntlet could do that maybe, since he might be wearing them since they were using D&D first edition rules.) I thought that the belt givse a numeric bonus to your Str, but the bonus was much higher than +6. The merchant is speaking specifically to Roy, and he just saw Roy in a battle, and he's working with loading the camels using that belt all the time, so he might have some idea of what Str Roy has.

However, I was wrong about the whole premise. It turns out that, while some giants indeed have 35 Str, the most common kind, Hill giants, only have 25 Str, so a +6 belt works just fine with what the merchant said. (Yendor figured out this one before I realized it.) I have no idea how Mr. Scruffy kicked the wolf so hard, but I don't think the belt is special anymore.

Yendor: I agree that it's the umbrella that generates the darkness, not the MitD. Of that list, #194 or #654 prove that the MitD wants to get lit up, but I they don't prove that the MitD isn't generating darkness himself, which is what the question was here. The rest of your list is proof enough though. The Sunburst and Light spells dispell magical darkness, and I expect a Lantern Archon's light ray is magical and can do the same. They might not actually succeed if the MitD is too high level or has resistances, but at least the MitD, who doesn't know its own abilities, can reasonably hope that the Archon's lights or the Sunburst spell can light him up even if the darkness comes from himself.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

as would the ABD in your scenario

I'm not about to read 3power's post to try to figure out why the ABD suddenly made an appearance, but I'm going to go ahead and point out that an ACB has a strength of 33, i.e. on the "starting to be a reasonable figure for explaining the tower scene". It is also, of course, significantly larger than MitD. A black dragon the size of MitD has 17 strength (a juvenile; on the basis that the one V zapped into ashes is definitely bigger than MitD and yet was probably a Young Adult, based on his choice of literature).

ETA: all these "alternate scenarios", btw, continue to be clearly worse baselines than Roy batting Miko against a wall. The nice thing about that one is a) it is against the exact same target, you can't ask for better equivalent than that, and b) Roy is presumably NOT using maximum effort, because all he wants is to save Hinjo, not kill her, so he is probably not using his full power - as close as we are going to get to "hit as lightly as possible". And with all that, Miko bounced off the wall - she didn't go through. Thus why it is a much better baseline than "cat going full out with +6 strength item" or whatever ABD's scenario is supposed to illustrate.

GW

[Tubercular Ox]

Can someone confirm that the HH is permanently covered in darkness, as someone earlier claimed, and therefore fails the Circus scene and I should move it to 3e?

Grey Wolf

No Cure for the Paladin Blues, page 194a, Xykon says, "Did you see him yet?" and Redcloak says, "He's permanently shrouded in magical darkness. How exactly was I supposed to see him yet?"

I swear, complete coincidence that I ran into it. Was just rereading and saw it.

See, you're doing it again. Hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. And if this gets parsed into anything that would be on-topic for the thread, that's people lying about you.

Please stop inventing opinions and assigning them to me.

Still waiting for Peelee to rule whether I can start a thread where "parsing" generic claims into rules assertions and attributing them to people without their permission is banned instead of required.

And to be more serious about it: A book club in the dark, where we discuss the internal evidence for the future of the MitD. No rules. No candidates, because candidates live in rulebooks. Definitely discuss foreshadowing and possibilities for the climax and denouement. Definitely discuss non-reveal related predictions for the Monster in the Dark. Definitely open to other non-rules related discussion about the Monster in the Dark that might contain spoilers.

It's not my ideal thread, but it sounds like a nice getaway from this one.

[Keltest]

Still waiting for Peelee to rule whether I can start a thread where "parsing" generic claims into rules assertions and attributing them to people without their permission is banned instead of required.

And to be more serious about it: A book club in the dark, where we discuss the internal evidence for the future of the MitD. No rules. No candidates, because candidates live in rulebooks. Definitely discuss foreshadowing and possibilities for the climax and denouement. Definitely discuss non-reveal related predictions for the Monster in the Dark. Definitely open to other non-rules related discussion about the Monster in the Dark that might contain spoilers.

It's not my ideal thread, but it sounds like a nice getaway from this one.

Ignoring for the moment whether such a thread would be permitted, I'm not sure what youre expecting a thread without an attempt at data use and logic to accomplish. If people are rejecting your arguments here, its because 1: We have no clue what youre trying to say, and B: when we do figure it out, its usually contradicted by the data we already have.

[Fyraltari]

Still waiting for Peelee to rule whether I can start a thread where "parsing" generic claims into rules assertions and attributing them to people without their permission is banned instead of required.

How about you shoot him a PM or something?

Edit: that's generally the best way to get a mod to tell you whether something is allowed or not.
You could also contact any of the other moderators in charge of this subforum.

[Peelee]

Peelee, is this true? If I start a thread where we talk about the identity and/or future of the Monster in the Dark without referring to a single rule in any system, will it be locked as a duplicate of this one or not?

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: First, please be aware that asking moderators questions in threads is the least efficient option available. Better avenues would be to PM moderators with questions or, best of all, you can always ask in the Board and Site Issues area of the boards.

As to creating a new thread, no. We have the limit of one topic, one thread, and this is the MitD thread. It sounds like what you want is the same broad topic with pointed discussion, which you can do in this thread. You can talk about what you wish, so long as it's related to the thread topic. Others may or may not engage at their discretion, and the consensus is curated in the opening posts. If you disagree with how the thread curation is being handled, please be aware of the curation guidelines:

Certain project threads are curated by member volunteers who take responsibility for maintaining the consensus of conclusions from discussion, often because they have made the opening post in the thread and thus are the only non-moderators that can edit it. These curators bear no special title, and have no official authority; they are not moderators, and cannot ban discussion of issues they consider settled. Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions. Specifically, the curator cannot prevent certain topics from being discussed, prevent any given poster from participating, or make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic. Disruptive or chronically off-topic posters can still be reported to the forum moderation as normal, of course.

As this is an open forum, and multiple threads on a single topic (with competing curators and selection processes) are not allowed, choosing and agreeing to thread curators is a somewhat fraught process. We would prefer for there to be universal agreement, or, at least, broad consensus on appropriate curators, and that curators do their duty conscientiously and without bias. If a dispute arises about curation (either who is the curator or how the curator is doing their duty), it should be referred to the Moderators, who will contact the curator and the interested parties. In some cases, curators may, with moderator approval, determine some sort of democratic method for inclusion or exclusion of given material, as long as that method is fair and does not give them any unusual influence over the results.

In all cases, posters and curators must abide by the forum rules. Failure to do so will result in warnings or infractions, as appropriate. Continued dispute on the status of a thread may also result in it being closed for an indefinite period of time.

If you dislike how the thread is curated, the remedies are outlined above. If you do not think discussion is going in the direction you wish it to take, this thread is no different than any other thread in this regard - discussion goes in the direction the participants take it.

[Ruck]

Ignoring for the moment whether such a thread would be permitted, I'm not sure what youre expecting a thread without an attempt at data use and logic to accomplish. If people are rejecting your arguments here, its because 1: We have no clue what youre trying to say, and B: when we do figure it out, its usually contradicted by the data we already have.

And one reason we have no clue, Ox, is because you often dissemble, gish gallop, go on tangents, and talk around what you're saying without saying it. Just for a recent example:

so, again. How much of the story do you expect to be left when he's revealed?

I can tell you some of the challenges I think an author would face when trying to write the denouement without slowing down the story, but it's going to be no more satisfying for you than telling you there has to be a denouement because it involves psychoanalyzing Rich. Is he down for a data dump? Is he going to create a filler arc just for explaining the Monster in the Dark? Is he going to throw in parts of the denouement while the plot continues to advance? Will the Monster in the Dark be present for its own denouement? How much responsibility does Rich want the Monster in the Dark to have for saving the world and how much story does he need to create to peg that to the right number?

This is a really simple question that can be answered simply. "20-30 strips." "I'm not sure exactly, but it'll be near the very climax, so it depends on how long the denouement is." "About halfway through the book." Instead of answering the question in a straightforward manner, you ask five tangential questions in return.

If people seem frustrated with you, it's because you so often talk elliptically like this instead of just being straightforward. And then when they do their best to interpret your meaning, you say they're assigning you opinions you don't have. Well, that wouldn't be possible if you'd just be direct and straightforward with your answers instead of doing stuff like this.

[lio45]

LOL at needing an analysis to know it’s impossible to launch someone through a stone wall into the horizon with their bodily integrity intact.

It’s like needing to crunch some numbers about what could be the mass of Wile E. Coyote to explain the phenomenon observed (levitation for a few seconds, then “gravity is noticed”) and only then, concluding no single value satisfies the observation. Duh.

[Ruck]

LOL at needing an analysis to know it’s impossible to launch someone through a stone wall into the horizon with their bodily integrity intact.

It’s like needing to crunch some numbers about what could be the mass of Wile E. Coyote to explain the phenomenon observed (levitation for a few seconds, then “gravity is noticed”) and only then, concluding no single value satisfies the observation. Duh.

In the sense of the impact not liquefying Miko's internal organs or anything like that, I get what you're saying, but I feel like that's less deliberate Looney Tunes exaggeration and more baked into the fabric of D&D, how preposterously powerful higher-level characters are, how it doesn't exactly operate on physics (I mean, there's magic), and so forth.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

LOL at needing an analysis to know it’s impossible to launch someone through a stone wall into the horizon with their bodily integrity intact.

But in OotS it is not impossible. It is downright normal, in fact, for a high level character to be able to survive processes that would render a real human into fine paste. I was reading through the ABD attack just in case there was something relevant to this thread, and about the only thing is that while under the influence of the anti-magic field, ABD crushes V into a massive rock. Now, I initially discarded this as of use on the basis that that's not a punch, but instead represents the energy of ~15 tons of flying creature pushing down on V.

However, when it comes to understanding how physics operate in OotS (or rather, under what circumstances they have to go to a corner and cry), the reality is that V, a squishy wizard, gets pushed by 15 tons of flying creature into a rock, cracks it with their body, and lives to sign terrible deals with creatures from various hells. I will also note that looney toons physics are NOT in effect in that scene, since there is no humour to be found anywhere.

Conclusion: it's irrelevant that in the real world nothing can survive being punched through a wall, since in OotS, it is not that impossible, even when looney toons physics are not in effect. So we are back to "well, how hard did Miko get punched by MitD?" and like you and I already agreed, "very hard" and IMnpHO, "harder than Roy batted her" is also a given, since he merely managed to make her bounce off a wall. Which requires MitD to be stronger than Roy.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

Conclusion: it's irrelevant that in the real world nothing can survive being punched through a wall, since in OotS, it is not that impossible, even when looney toons physics are not in effect. So we are back to "well, how hard did Miko get punched by MitD?" and like you and I already agreed, "very hard" and IMnpHO, "harder than Roy batted her" is also a given, since he merely managed to make her bounce off a wall. Which requires MitD to be stronger than Roy.

Grey Wolf

Yeah, of course.

The baseball analogy worked well enough, IMO: in a magical baseball game, we have a Mystery Batter in a black box who declares he's going to bunt, then knocks the ball to the horizon. Then the author goes on record saying that character "tried to bunt, but failed" and "doesn't actually know nor master his actual powers" (paraphrasing, but I'm confident no one will disagree).

The only possible explanations are 1) extraordinarily high STR so that even a delicate (from that batter's perspective) contact with the ball is enough to give it the momentum to go way out of the park, 2) or some other telekinesis-style powers, inadvertently activated while attempting to bunt.

[3Power]

Conspicuously absent from this analysis is the tiiiiiiny widdle detail that Mr Scruffy was trying to hit as hard as possible, as would the ABD in your scenario, while the MitD was trying to hit as lightly as possible.

There are two possible interpretations of the MitD trying to hit as lightly as possible. Interpretation one is that what we witnessed was the bare minimum of the Mitd's strength, that he cannot hit or stomp any lighter. This interpretation is hard to swallow given that he is not cracking the ground with every step. Interpretation two is that he tried to hit lightly and failed, and thereby did not hit lightly at all. Trying to hit lighter suggests the MiTD would not have done any action to deliberately pre-buff himself, but that does not mean he successfully hit lighter. I mean this also aligns with D&D rules. Die rolls determine damage, MitD could have easily rolled max both times.

No one's trying to do the math here. Everyone agrees this is cartoon physics. The fact remains that the tropes at work are closely related but fundamentally different. You only use "character sends other character flying despite trying to hit as lightly as possible" if you're trying to imply an almost incomprehensible level of strength.

Mmhmm

In practice, you're also ignoring the fact that STR 30 is simply being used as a cutoff point. Yes that's arbitrary in itself, this has been acknowledged, it could just as easily have been 29 or 31. That's how cutoff points work. It doesn't mean that a STR 29 creature would be written off while a STR 30 creature would be considered a perfect fit - the latter would still be seen as a better fit if it had STR 31, or 32, or 33. See for example the entry for the Hunting Horror ("Strength of 34 - on the lower side, but within acceptable bounds for the tower scene"). Ultimately, a STR 29 creature that was a perfect fit in all other regards would in all probability be included in the list, just with their STR listed as a con, so this is all kinda beside the point.

And yet...

Also don't forget that certain regulars demand -8 be subtracted multiple times as compensation for the size decrease even though there's no evidence Rich used that method. So it's an arbitrary cutoff point exacerbated by a harsh penalty.

[woweedd]

There are two possible interpretations of the MitD trying to hit as lightly as possible. Interpretation one is that what we witnessed was the bare minimum of the Mitd's strength, that he cannot hit or stomp any lighter. This interpretation is hard to swallow given that he is not cracking the ground with every step. Interpretation two is that he tried to hit lightly and failed, and thereby did not hit lightly at all. Trying to hit lighter suggests the MiTD would not have done any action to deliberately pre-buff himself, but that does not mean he successfully hit lighter. I mean this also aligns with D&D rules. Die rolls determine damage, MitD could have easily rolled max both times.

Mmhmm

And yet...

Also don't forget that certain regulars demand -8 be subtracted multiple times as compensation for the size decrease even though there's no evidence Rich used that method. So it's an arbitrary cutoff point exacerbated by a harsh penalty.

You're conflating two different scenes. The stomp is not MITD hitting as lightly as possible. It's clearly a somewhat wimpy stomp, but it is a stomp.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're conflating two different scenes. The stomp is not MITD hitting as lightly as possible. It's clearly a somewhat wimpy stomp, but it is a stomp.

He is also conveniently ignoring that Rich has in fact shown that younger versions of adults have less strength (not to mention it just makes logical & common sense). Oh, and the vote that established the strength graduation as the consensus of the thread? He requested it. So these "certain regulars" demanding this or that? They include him. {scrubbed}

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

I just re-checked the FBS requirements and they’re clearly flawed: “having an acceptable explanation for the Tower Scene” is there (#2), which makes #6 not merely unnecessary, but actually harmful (as it would disqualify a candidate that has a decent alternative (superstrong telekinesis power, etc.) explanation for the Tower Scene for no reason).

That STR criterion should be replaced by “has a satisfying explanation for the Earthquake scene”, since it’s something that needs to be covered too.

(Having a STR score that’s totally out of this world satisfies both scenes perfectly, but we should be open to other explanations, as no candidate fits that well so far.)

[Keltest]

I just re-checked the FBS requirements and they’re clearly flawed: “having an acceptable explanation for the Tower Scene” is there (#2), which makes #6 not merely unnecessary, but actually harmful (as it would disqualify a candidate that has a decent alternative (superstrong telekinesis power, etc.) explanation for the Tower Scene for no reason).

That STR criterion should be replaced by “has a satisfying explanation for the Earthquake scene”, since it’s something that needs to be covered too.

(Having a STR score that’s totally out of this world satisfies both scenes perfectly, but we should be open to other explanations, as no candidate fits that well so far.)

I'd back this. I think such a combination of abilities is unlikely, but in the event somebody finds one I dont think we should exclude the creature because it isnt using str for its attacks, which would be the unfortunate outcome of the current FBS criteria.

I would suggest adding the Str as an addendum to one or both as an acceptable explanation.

[lio45]

I'd back this. I think such a combination of abilities is unlikely, but in the event somebody finds one I dont think we should exclude the creature because it isnt using str for its attacks, which would be the unfortunate outcome of the current FBS criteria.

I would suggest adding the Str as an addendum to one or both as an acceptable explanation.

IMO it goes without saying that Extreme STR is a great explanation for both scenes.

However, it’s still important to keep in mind they are separate scenes and that any candidate needs to satisfy both.

Consider for example Yoda at the peak of his Jedi powers in Star Wars. He’s likely got even less STR than Mr. Scruffy, but if he’s drunk and tries to hit lightly, he could still send his target flying into the horizon by accident.

He also could cause an earthquake if he wanted, by for example using his telekinesis powers to lift a huge boulder up in the air, then slam it violently into the ground.

But he couldn’t cause an earthquake by just stomping the ground…

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd back this. I think such a combination of abilities is unlikely, but in the event somebody finds one I dont think we should exclude the creature because it isnt using str for its attacks, which would be the unfortunate outcome of the current FBS criteria.

I would suggest adding the Str as an addendum to one or both as an acceptable explanation.

The exceptional circumstances/explanation exists for this reason. If a creature which somehow plausibly explains the tower scene with something other than strength, as well as the earthquake, then I'd have no problem waving the strength requirement. But as with so many other hypotheticals, we have yet to encounter it. It is hard to plausibly explain why MitD would power up before a hit lightly game, even more so because that requires far more self-knowledge than MitD possesses.

Or, in short: I'm opposed to setting a vote just to tweak the FBS rules over a hypothetical. Feel free, of course, to remind me of this if you feel that I'm overlooking such a candidate for FBS.

GW

[lio45]

That’s like saying that if we had an erroneous FBS requirement like “must be black” that slipped into the list for some reason and stayed there through inertia, it would be okay not to correct the mistake because the current front-runners happen to be the Hunting Horror, the Black Slaad, the Zodar and a Black Dragon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That’s like saying that if we had an erroneous FBS requirement like “must be black” that slipped into the list for some reason and stayed there through inertia, it would be okay not to correct the mistake because the current front-runners happen to be the Hunting Horror, the Black Slaad, the Zodar and a Black Dragon.

No it is not. It is like saying that the strength requirement was adopted via thread consensus and I literally cannot change it without a vote, and that I am unwilling to put in the effort for a mere hypothetical. Which is exactly what I said.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

No it is not. It is like saying that the strength requirement was adopted via thread consensus and I literally cannot change it without a vote, and that I am unwilling to put in the effort for a mere hypothetical. Which is exactly what I said.

Grey Wolf

And that’s exactly what I said too: that if for some reason the requirement “must be a certain color” has been adopted by misguided thread consensus back in 2013 — it doesn’t take many people — and had never been kicked off the list since (inertia is always strong in the voting process), it would still be an annoyance that it’s there even if the front-runners happen to be the correct color by pure chance.

I’m aware a formal vote is a time-consuming process, I’m not demanding one. It just sucks that the list can’t just be “fixed” more easily. The list should be the requirements demanded by the scenes in the comic where we get clues about MitD’s abilities and characteristics, period. When “thread consensus” is wrong, it sucks.

There are tons of users on this forum who are likely students on a tight budget; by baiting enough of them with pocket change ($100 each sent through PayPal if my pet theory gets added to the FBS list by thread consensus in a formal vote), I could have “Must be a Pokemon” on the FBS list by February.

It’s kinda weird that it works like that. (That even when thread consensus is blatantly wrong, because anyone sane agrees there are no reasons whatsoever to believe MitD is a Pokemon, it still prevails over everything else.)

[Tubercular Ox]

There are two possible interpretations of the MitD trying to hit as lightly as possible. Interpretation one is that what we witnessed was the bare minimum of the Mitd's strength, that he cannot hit or stomp any lighter. This interpretation is hard to swallow given that he is not cracking the ground with every step. Interpretation two is that he tried to hit lightly and failed, and thereby did not hit lightly at all. Trying to hit lighter suggests the MiTD would not have done any action to deliberately pre-buff himself, but that does not mean he successfully hit lighter. I mean this also aligns with D&D rules. Die rolls determine damage, MitD could have easily rolled max both times.

I know this is meta, but it bothers me to imagine Rich deciding to make finding the Monster in the Dark much harder by forcing us not only to consider what a monster can do as printed, but also consider what Rich would let a monster do. It's one thing to make us guess according to the rules as written, it's another to have some of the rules hidden behind the DM's screen that the players aren't allowed to know. It's like a game of Paranoia. I have no mutant powers, friend.

[Jasdoif]

And that’s exactly what I said too: that if for some reason the requirement “must be a certain color” has been adopted by misguided thread consensus back in 2013 — it doesn’t take many people — and had never been kicked off the list since (inertia is always strong in the voting process), it would still be an annoyance that it’s there even if the front-runners happen to be the correct color by pure chance.

I’m aware a formal vote is a time-consuming process, I’m not demanding one. It just sucks that the list can’t just be “fixed” more easily. The list should be the requirements demanded by the scenes in the comic where we get clues about MitD’s abilities and characteristics, period. When “thread consensus” is wrong, it sucks.

There are tons of users on this forum who are likely students on a tight budget; by baiting enough of them with pocket change ($100 each sent through PayPal if my pet theory gets added to the FBS list by thread consensus in a formal vote), I could have “Must be a Pokemon” on the FBS list by February.

It’s kinda weird that it works like that. (That even when thread consensus is blatantly wrong, because anyone sane agrees there are no reasons whatsoever to believe MitD is a Pokemon, it still prevails over everything else.)

It's not that weird, really; factionalism plagues direct democracy in general.

[3Power]

You're conflating two different scenes. The stomp is not MITD hitting as lightly as possible. It's clearly a somewhat wimpy stomp, but it is a stomp.

Walking is stomping the ground as lightly as possible. Touching is hitting something with your body as gently as possible. If the Mitd is so superpowerful that reducing his power to the absolute minimum sends people flying, then he should be leaving swaths of destruction behind him.

He is also conveniently ignoring that Rich has in fact shown that younger versions of adults have less strength (not to mention it just makes logical & common sense).

To the uninitiated, Grey wolf is trying to claim that because Boy Roy did not disintegrate the plush brontosaurus with a toy sword with a theoretical adult STR of 18, that means that Rich used the fairly obscure and un-used monster embiggening rules in reverse to shrink the MitD. I seem to recall that I ignored this initially because I believed the ridiculousness of the argument spoke for itself, but as it is now being repeated I can only assume that doing so only convinced him it was an effective argument.

So let's tear it to shreds.
A. NPCs are generally statless until it becomes necessary for them to have stats.
B. Rich has gone on record multiple times that he is uncomfortable with the idea of children having stats.
C. The rules for increasing monster size are so named. By RAW they cannot be used to shrink monsters unless given permission by the dungeonbred template.
D. Rich has gone on record that rules fidelity is not a priority for him. If the creature's size was the problem, shrinking it while leaving its stats identical is incredibly simple to do without changing any number., and as long as he provides hints that the creature's size is shrunk, it's not a problem mystery wise. In fact, implying Rich changed things not alluded to causes many more problems.
E. Even if he did care, he would be more likely to use the dungeonbred template he co-authored to reduce the creature's size without reducing it's threat, since keeping it a threat was a priority. Given that dungeonscape content has a tendency to appear around MitD (Acidborn sharks, Beastmaster Prestige class, Guardian Monster), this might even be an indirect clue.
F. There's no guarantee that MiTD is a child rather than just in a pre-transformed state.
G. Even if MiTD is a child, that does not mean that shrinking it without changing it's adult stats is something applied to and is internally consistent with every other child in the world.
H. The "Ineffective Weapons" rule from the SRD states that "Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects," and I would assume that the toy sword is one such weapon.

"Logical and common sense" indeed.

I know this is meta, but it bothers me to imagine Rich deciding to make finding the Monster in the Dark much harder by forcing us not only to consider what a monster can do as printed, but also consider what Rich would let a monster do. It's one thing to make us guess according to the rules as written, it's another to have some of the rules hidden behind the DM's screen that the players aren't allowed to know. It's like a game of Paranoia. I have no mutant powers, friend.

My go to comparison is Umineko/When the seagulls cry. I try not to bring it up constantly but this thread constantly reminds me of it. Even Grey Wolf's argument above can be summarized as "playing around in the witch's darkness."

[Throknor]

Walking is stomping the ground as lightly as possible. Touching is hitting something with your body as gently as possible. If the Mitd is so superpowerful that reducing his power to the absolute minimum sends people flying, then he should be leaving swaths of destruction behind him.

So people who can punch through cement blocks destroy every floor they walk on? I'm surprised more people haven't noticed this. Not sure where they live since it's rare to have floors stronger than that. God help their neighbors if they live on an upper floor.

[Ruck]

You're conflating two different scenes. The stomp is not MITD hitting as lightly as possible. It's clearly a somewhat wimpy stomp, but it is a stomp.

He is also conveniently ignoring that Rich has in fact shown that younger versions of adults have less strength (not to mention it just makes logical & common sense). Oh, and the vote that established the strength graduation as the consensus of the thread? He requested it. So these "certain regulars" demanding this or that? They include him. {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Grey Wolf

Quelle surprise.

I wouldn't even mind {scrubbed} as much as I do if 3Power hadn't also been so consistently rude and insulting toward everyone who wouldn't validate his pet theory ever since he showed up in this thread.

[woweedd]

Walking is stomping the ground as lightly as possible. Touching is hitting something with your body as gently as possible. If the Mitd is so superpowerful that reducing his power to the absolute minimum sends people flying, then he should be leaving swaths of destruction behind him.

Yes, the comic where actual wizards exist does not adhere to a fully-accurate model of physics, well done. What are you tryibg to argue, again?

[hroþila]

Walking is stomping the ground as lightly as possible. Touching is hitting something with your body as gently as possible. If the Mitd is so superpowerful that reducing his power to the absolute minimum sends people flying, then he should be leaving swaths of destruction behind him.

That's just not how the trope works. Goku can walk with no issues, use chopsticks proficiently without disintegrating them, hold a baby and make love to Chi-Chi. But ask him to hit as lightly as possible and he will struggle because comedy.

[b_jonas]

That's just not how the trope works. Goku can walk with no issues, use chopsticks proficiently without disintegrating them, hold a baby and make love to Chi-Chi. But ask him to hit as lightly as possible and he will struggle because comedy.

Yes, different D&D rules apply to those. You can't just voluntarily lower how hard you hit in an attack, you need some rule or feat or status to justify it. Usually you can wield an item that is very unsuitable as a weapon, but if you're a high level monster with lots of bonuses then you might hit too hard even with a towel.