MitD XVIII: It's utterly unreasonable to expect us to have been paying any attention

[Ruck]

…with a nonmagical steel bar he pillaged from a broken cage…

The post really works better taken as a whole rather than by isolating fragments of it.

[Jasdoif]

I would assume SRD trumps LM and not all phylactery are the same with stats.

With the caveat that

I should write "Ce n'est pas un jeu des cachots et des dragons" under every comic from now on.

....

---

In case of conflicting assertions, the primary source rule means the content from the SRD (as it originates from Monster Manual (I), the primary source for monsters) would indeed take precedence. There is, however, no conflict here: The SRD does not assert anything about the physical statistics of a phylactery other than the standard box, and Libris Mortis asserts the same statistics as the SRD/MM1 for that standard box.

And at the same time...the rules for multiple characters cooperating to create a magic item, each providing different prerequisites, appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide; and as the DMG is the primary source for magic items it would take precedence over interpretations for creating the phylactery in MM1 implying that the creator must be able to cast spells. The DMG does specify that in the case of a cooperative effort a single person must be designated the creator for the purpose of the creator's level, so it would not be a conflict that a lich's phylactery only functions for its creator and that Xykon would need to have a caster level of 11 to be that creator, even if Redcloak provided everything else....And if we're really getting into gross details, Lirian's description would be consistent with explicitly preventing the use of spells, with doesn't require removing caster level.


And hopefully you can see why some of the technically-oriented debates appear to chase their own tail; they're full of tails

[Tubercular Ox]

In case of conflicting assertions, the primary source rule means the content from the SRD (as it originates from Monster Manual (I), the primary source for monsters) would indeed take precedence.

I have it in my head that there is a rule saying that when something is reprinted in a later source, the later source takes precedence, since it's effectively republishing errata. Is that true?

[Jasdoif]

I have it in my head that there is a rule saying that when something is reprinted in a later source, the later source takes precedence, since it's effectively republishing errata. Is that true?

This is a sore point, as the primary sources rule is included in each of the core rulebooks' errata and specifically says the primary sources are correct unless official errata is in play:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

...while at the same time there are cases where a supplement tries to assert itself over a primary source without errata (possibly the most esoteric example being the Jack of All Trades feat's description conflicting with the PHB, asserting half a rank in a skill is sufficient to make a trained-only check whereas a skill being trained only means you have to have at least 1 rank to make the check). Then there's the official FAQ, which is not official errata but still has a conflict here and there; things like Magic Item Compendium eliding the primary source rule by heavily implying you should accept their adjustments over the original printing; and that material created for 3.0 is explicitly allowable in 3.5 but a lot of 3.0 material was altered in recreation for 3.5 ...which strictly speaking means the two versions of the same class/spell/etc. are valid but that gets confusing in a hurry.

In short, there's a bunch of stuff that relies more heavily on DM approval than others.

[Edea]

Not that it relates much to the MitD identity quest, but I'm now curious if MitD breaking Redcloak's holy symbol is actually going to happen in the strip.

[Errorname]

Not that it relates much to the MitD identity quest, but I'm now curious if MitD breaking Redcloak's holy symbol is actually going to happen in the strip.

Eh, I doubt it.

There's a big monster that unmakes reality on the mantlepiece, and my best guess for Xykon's fate is getting unmade by the primal force he sought to tame.

[b_jonas]

In the most recent strip, #1288 5th, we learn that the Paragon template exists in the Stickyverse. So the MitD is a template stack after all, yay!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In the most recent strip, #1288 5th, we learn that the Paragon template exists in the Stickyverse. So the MitD is a template stack after all, yay!

The available evidence for MitD being a paragon member of its race is... negative at this point, I'd say.

GW

[Metastachydium]

The available evidence for MitD being a paragon member of its race is... negative at this point, I'd say.

GW

Yup. He's explicitly a juvenile specimen with room for growth (physically and in power). Paragon's… Paragon.

[Crusher]

The available evidence for MitD being a paragon member of its race is... negative at this point, I'd say.

GW

True, because of the whole "it can be guessed and isn't made up" aspect, plus from a fluff standpoint it'd sort of be weird for MitD to turn out to be the Platonic ideal of some species. Like, exactly which species does MitD feel like the best possible version of, even for arguments sake? Clearly he's a Paragon Couchpotatosaurus.

But, we do now know that templates are indeed a thing in the Stickverse. My Pseudonatural Barghast Servitor of the Dark One guess from like 2009 or something returns to life!

[b_jonas]

But, we do now know that templates are indeed a thing in the Stickverse.

We'd know that templates were a thing for a while: we've seen many half-dragons and zombies, plus at least heard of half-elementals, celestial creatures, ghosts, and probably more that I forgot. It's just paragon that's new.

[Crusher]

We'd know that templates were a thing for a while: we've seen many half-dragons and zombies, plus at least heard of half-elementals, celestial creatures, ghosts, and probably more that I forgot. It's just paragon that's new.

We've seen half-zombies?!?

[Peelee]

We've seen half-zombies?!?

Sure. We also saw the other half.

[Elanfanforlife]

I think when they say half-dragons and zombies, they mean that we've seen half-dragons and zombie versions of creatures, not half-dragons and half-zombies.

[b_jonas]

We've seen half-zombies?!?

No, just zombies. Zombie humans, more zombie humans, zombie giants, a zombie dragon, zombie flying humanoids, and what I think is mostly zombie hobgoblins in #433 last panel. The Start of Darkness has even more examples, with a zombie dog (p. 5), more zombie humans (p. 6, 8, 105).

The zombie thing seems somewhat arbitrary by the way. The D&D monster entries explicitly calls zombie and skeleton and ghost templates; while the pages for the higher difficulty undead (ghoul, ghast, mummy, mohrg, shadow, wraith, spectre, devourer) aren't called templates, even though they're created from existing corpses of monsters the same way as zombies are. I think the distinction is that zombies and skeletons have variable number of hit dice, inherited from its base creature, while the higher difficulty undead have fixed numbers of hit dice independent of their base creature.

As for half, you may be thinking of celestial, fiendish, half-celestial, and half-fiendish creatures: these are all templates.

Update: the Wikia page says that the winged humanoids in #193 are half-celestials, though I'm not convinced that that's correct. If it is, that would mean there are zombie half-celestials in the comic, a fun template stack.

[Metastachydium]

Update: the Wikia page says that the winged humanoids in #193 are half-celestials, though I'm not convinced that that's correct. If it is, that would mean there are zombie half-celestials in the comic, a fun template stack.

My current pet theory's that she was a Protectar (winged Angel Lite, easy to one-shot). At any rate, the comic gives no indication either way.

[Crusher]

Sure. We also saw the other half.

Hee. I've made variations on the "half orc, other half, also orc" joke twice already in September in real life!

I think when they say half-dragons and zombies, they mean that we've seen half-dragons and zombie versions of creatures, not half-dragons and half-zombies.

But did we know those creatures had templates as opposed to just being, well, various kinds of monsters? Was the zombie-dragon a dragon with a zombie template or just a zombie-dragon monster?

[hamishspence]

Update: the Wikia page says that the winged humanoids in #193 are half-celestials, though I'm not convinced that that's correct.

It comes from The Giant's comment on the subject:

That's not an angel. It's a half-celestial human. And she's like a 5th level fighter. True angels would have green skin, like Thor's planetar servant.

Feel better?

[halfeye]

No, just zombies. ... zombie giants ...

Nope, zombie ogres:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html

[Omomuro]

Based on the latest comic, I would like to submit that these are unlikely to be MitD since it wouldn't be a surprise for the viewer:

• The Big Guy with three eyes
• A Rust Monster (which I think has been depicted before)
• One, or a hive-minded swarm of, Fumblebee(s)
• A Disenchanter
• One of two Knee-Stealers
• A Blue Poet (Which Isn't Even Blue)

[Tubercular Ox]

Based on the latest comic, I would like to submit that these are unlikely to be MitD since it wouldn't be a surprise for the viewer:

• The Big Guy with three eyes
• A Rust Monster (which I think has been depicted before)
• One, or a hive-minded swarm of, Fumblebee(s)
• A Disenchanter
• One of two Knee-Stealers
• A Blue Poet (Which Isn't Even Blue)

I agree, but there are so many monsters that can't be the Monster in the Dark that I can't think of a practical way to track them all, especially given the forum format, and I think about stuff like that pretty hard. Maybe a page on the wiki?

Or is there something in your post I'm not seeing? I admit it's very late for me.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Based on the latest comic, I would like to submit that these are unlikely to be MitD since it wouldn't be a surprise for the viewer:

• The Big Guy with three eyes
• A Rust Monster (which I think has been depicted before)
• One, or a hive-minded swarm of, Fumblebee(s)
• A Disenchanter
• One of two Knee-Stealers
• A Blue Poet (Which Isn't Even Blue)

There is no requirement for MitD to be a surprise for the reader.

GW

[Elanfanforlife]

Aside from the Disenchanter, none of them have ever been proposed anyway, so it doesn't matter unless someone suggests one of them, and then it can be added as a neutral point in their entries.

[Sir_Norbert]

I propose that the MitD is a Magenta Poet with Cyan Polka-Dots.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I propose that the MitD is a Magenta Poet with Cyan Polka-Dots.

That's just a Blue Poet with the "Magenta Creature with Cyan Polka-Dots" template, nothing original.

[Edreyn]

Maybe Blue Poet is MitD father?

[Peelee]

Maybe Blue Poet is MitD father?

Huh, so that would mean that Redcloak's sister became a Blue Poet.

[Tubercular Ox]

Having slept on it, I think the important bit is that this is the second person to think Monster in the Dark after reading this strip:

I can't help but think the "banal name for an eldritch abomination" might be a MitD clue.

I wonder if so many mystery monsters just puts people in the mood for mysterious monsters.

[Edreyn]

Huh, so that would mean that Redcloak's sister became a Blue Poet.

How did she get more ears?
Ah, I know, Sunny just can't count.

[Crusher]

[*]One of two Knee-Stealers

But what if MitD is the *other* Knee-Stealer?