Summon MitD IX: Roll in Section 3a

[Grey_Wolf_c]

A titan (Str 25 in 2nd) is Strength 43 in 3.5 (I think Zeus and Hercules have even higher in 3.0, and never were officially updated). A storm giant, strength 24 in 2nd, is strength 39 in 3.5. Cloud giants (strength 23 in second) are strength 35 in 3.5. Strength 22 in second (a fire giant) is strength 31 in 3.5. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to look at a 2nd edition monster with a strength of 22 or higher, and assume it could do the tower scene (if it has an adequate defense).

No, that's not how we've seen it working. We know they retain the stats they had in 2nd ed. Which means that if the fire giants had not been updated, they would be sitting in Dorukan's pit, with no will save and a strength of 22, which is simply not enough to explain the tower scene. Their stats are what they are, they don't get a +9 STR because they weren't updated.

Grey Wolf

[rweird]

I don't think we have enough evidence to come to that conclusion. If it wasn't updated, it would still have 2nd edition strength, where having a score in the 20s was a lot better than in 3.5. What you seem to imply is that they ability modifiers would convert directly to 3.5, but not ability scores, a "partial update" if you will. Just because two things have the same name in two different systems, doesn't mean there is a direct equivalency between the two. We don't know how outdated monsters would function under the 3.5 ruleset besides automatically failing will saves. We don't know if it is 3.5 always trumps 2nd, or if some 2nd edition monster with Priest spellcasting casts sanctuary, 3.5 creatures couldn't hurt it because 3.5 creatures don't have a saving throw vs spell.

Because we don't know, and IMO, both are possible, we shouldn't disqualify 2nd edition monsters from ever being able to explain the tower scene due to ruleset difference, for the same reason we shouldn't disqualify Snorlax for not having a strength score at all. The strength 30 was kind of arbitrarily arrived at using guesses about the 3.5 ruleset. For things that don't follow the 3.5 ruleset (or other d20 systems that are practically the same), it shouldn't be used.

I haven't read the bonus strips about the attack of 4th edition characters, so I don't know if that sets a precedent for how editions of D&D interact.

[halfeye]

Does anyone know if ravens care for their young?

Young fledge at 35 to 42 days, and are fed by both parents. They stay with their parents for another six months after fledging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_raven

Please put me down for the Boojum as a guess.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't think we have enough evidence to come to that conclusion. If it wasn't updated, it would still have 2nd edition strength, where having a score in the 20s was a lot better than in 3.5. What you seem to imply is that they ability modifiers would convert directly to 3.5, but not ability scores, a "partial update" if you will.

No, I'm saying that nothing got converted at all. That their scores stayed exactly the same, whilst everyone else's got boosted, which, yes, did mean that in this brave new world they are suddenly relatively weaker to a lot of other creatures that they used to be stronger than, just like they suddenly have no chance to stop getting mind controlled. Sucks to be them? Yes, very. Such is life.

You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that every creature got a boost in strength because of the new rules, to retain their old proportional strength to all the other creatures that did get updated, which we most definitely do not have evidence for. My position is based on the fact that all we have heard is that these are creatures stuck where they were, and therefore the world have left them behind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_raven

So, 6 months living with parents out of a total lifespan of 20 years. Yeah, that pattern would fit MitD - no-one would expect his parents to show up.

Grey Wolf

[Shining Wrath]

This is really the key to your whole train of thought, but is also a key weakness. It simply is not universally true, nor even close to it. Lions, for example, don't care for all their young - males are frequently expelled from the pride as soon as they start looking like they might challenge their dad. I was told this as I saw in the Kruger park a couple of adolescent lions (not full grown - they hadn't even got their manes yet) that had banded together after they had been expelled from their prides (different ones, I think) and brought down a giraffe (really impressive, I was told, by the park rangers. I didn't understand why then, placid as they look, but it seems their kick is something to be feared) (the smell was quite pungent).

My point is that all it takes is for MitD to be of a species that does not raise their young - it is probably not as common as the opposite, but all it takes is enough such examples in RW, and that's the end of your generalisation. I'm not sure how common this kind of information is in the stat blocks, though, one way or the other.

Does anyone know if ravens care for their young? I consider them the most intelligent of all birds, and with a good chance to top 5 most intelligent being on the planet, but also that most birds get kicked out of the nest the moment they can fly and then they don't hang out with their parents at all, so they might be a good weathervane.

Grey Wolf

From Wikipedia regarding ravens:

Females lay between three and seven pale bluish-green, brown-blotched eggs.[40] Incubation is about 18 to 21 days, by the female only. However, the male may stand or crouch over the young, sheltering but not actually brooding them.[79] Young fledge at 35 to 42 days, and are fed by both parents. They stay with their parents for another six months after fledging.[80]

The point about lions et cetera is well made. However, the MitD is quite a bit smarter than a lion (or even a not-familiar Raven), and doesn't seem to be mature enough to compete with his father for breeding rights, since girls are still not allowed in his club. The more intelligent species tend to have longer periods of child-rearing, as there is more information to transmit.

The more likely conclusions are that the MitD does have parents, but they either no longer view him as their responsibility to rescue or protect, or are incapable of doing so. If he's some sort of "lion" (a sphinx? ), then he's been expelled from the pride-equivalent. If his parents are of great power but still can't help him that argues an Outsider origin.

I think it's more likely that his parents no longer view him as their problem. That's a clue as to the species.

[Peelee]

This is really the key to your whole train of thought, but is also a key weakness. It simply is not universally true, nor even close to it. Lions, for example, don't care for all their young - males are frequently expelled from the pride as soon as they start looking like they might challenge their dad. I was told this as I saw in the Kruger park a couple of adolescent lions (not full grown - they hadn't even got their manes yet) that had banded together after they had been expelled from their prides (different ones, I think) and brought down a giraffe (really impressive, I was told, by the park rangers. I didn't understand why then, placid as they look, but it seems their kick is something to be feared) (the smell was quite pungent).

My point is that all it takes is for MitD to be of a species that does not raise their young - it is probably not as common as the opposite, but all it takes is enough such examples in RW, and that's the end of your generalisation. I'm not sure how common this kind of information is in the stat blocks, though, one way or the other.

Does anyone know if ravens care for their young? I consider them the most intelligent of all birds, and with a good chance to top 5 most intelligent being on the planet, but also that most birds get kicked out of the nest the moment they can fly and then they don't hang out with their parents at all, so they might be a good weathervane.

Grey Wolf

Don't forget that there are also situations in which the parents cannot care for their young, regardless of their desire or inclination. Alan Parrish, for instance, was not cared for at all for most of his life, despite his parents' very intense desire to care for him.

Come to think of it... a seemingly ferral human found in a jungle, whose wild-eyed and crazy appearance looks fairly off-putting, child-like attitude despite being capable of more... If only Jumanji wasn't copyrighted!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The more intelligent species tend to have longer periods of child-rearing, as there is more information to transmit.

Again, this is simply not close to universally true. You are extrapolating that because humans have a long child-rearing period, that must be true for all intelligent species. It is not true in the real world, and there is no need for it to be true in a fantasy world. An example from the top of my head: trolls in Elenium/Tamuli are not raised at all, even though they are quite intelligent and have language, tools and even a basic philosophy of life. The trick is that they are born with all the knowledge they need (including their entire language!), and they are capable of self-substenance really quickly.

We simply cannot really solidly deduce anything from the fact that no-one was caring for MitD when he was found.

Grey Wolf

[littlebum2002]

The more intelligent species tend to have longer periods of child-rearing, as there is more information to transmit.

I think you're confusing "intelligence" with "education". Some animals (including humans) are born intelligent, they don't need to be taught it. Some animals do teach their young, but not necessarily the most intelligent animals.

[Dr. Gamera]

I don't own the book Dungeonscape -- is there a feat or a monster in there that would help explain The Tower Scene? That particular book is notable for having been co-written by one Rich Burlew.

[DaggerPen]

Re: the child rearing potential: as I have heard it, a large part of the reason for humans' extended childhood is due to the physical limitations of our frame - if we were to have a child with a fully developed mature brain right out of the womb, they just plain could not fit through the opening in the pelvis. This may not apply to other species' methods of reproduction. (I find it more likely that The Giant will err on the side of anthropomorphism, though, since that's fairly typical of what we've seen before.)

As for the 1e/2e argument - what all are the possibilities here? If it's a 1e/2e monster with great stats in 1e/2e that has a 3e statblock, then it strikes me as super weird to take the 2e version of that monster - particularly if we assume that the strength score from that will still serve just as well in this 3.5 world instead of just being a score of 25 in a world where that's no longer that great, but still don't take the 3e statblock for some reason.

A non-updated monster may have a stronger case here (we've seen a lot of instances and references to older monsters retaining the older stats, but for the sake of argument I'll call those all "rule of funny"), but have we ever actually found one?

I'll allow for some edition fudging (see the Hunting Horror), but there's a point at which we're counting angels dancing on the head of a pin here without an actual candidate to hash out. And it's certainly not like this is the first time this has come up, but none have yet been proposed and otherwise fit FBS criteria but discarded due to being 1e/2e that I can recall. One may be hiding out there, but it seems low probability at this point.

[rweird]

If nothing got converted at all, 2nd edition Strength 25 creatures would get +7 to hit and +14 to damage. Considering hitting wouldn't matter, the +14 damage from strength that 2nd edition strength 25 creatures have is greater than the +10 damage of strength 30 in 3.5. The systems aren't equivalent. Unless these 2nd edition monsters were partially converted (ability scores took on 3.5 modifiers), strength 25 in second edition rules is flat out stronger than strength 25 in 3.5.

While we used some sort of math and guesses to try to figure out what the minimum strength required to throw a horse through a wall would be, doing that would require a bunch of special abilities, and that was assuming the MitD accidentally uses power attack when trying to hit lightly. Strength 30 is kind of uses as an arbitrary limit on the lower end of "really strong." If we judge something from another system, we should look for the equivalent of "really strong" in the system the thing is from (assuming it lacks 3.5 stats).

Strength 25 in 2nd edition is weird, it'd be anything between a +7 and +35 strength modifier in 3.5, depending on how it is used (breaking down doors, through walls, and such are typically where it is higher, although for everything besides to hit and max load, it is over 30, max load being between 29 and 30).

A creature under 2nd with strength 25 could outdo a creature under 3.5 rules with strength 30 with pretty much any feat of strength (carrying heavy loads for an extended period of time, and landing hits are the two things 3.5 would do better).

So far, I haven't found anything that this would matter for. I am not arguing for any specific candidate. Only giving my opinion on how we should treat theoretical future 2nd edition candidates that might stand a chance.

[Shining Wrath]

I don't own the book Dungeonscape -- is there a feat or a monster in there that would help explain The Tower Scene? That particular book is notable for having been co-written by one Rich Burlew.

Look under 2d on page one, inside the Templated / Mixed Lineage creatures.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Look under 2d on page one, inside the Templated / Mixed Lineage creatures.

Dungeonbred does not explain the Tower scene.

GW

[Shining Wrath]

Dungeonbred does not explain the Tower scene.

GW

In fact, it tends to de-explain it; but it is the only information regarding Dungeonscape included in this thread.

[Crusher]

On that note, the place to look would be the Tome of Horrors (1+2) by Necromancer Games. I've got the first one, never did pick up the second, though the .pdf is still available. A veritable smorgasbord of 1st edition monsters converted to 3.0 and 3.5.

I don't see Rich in the credits anywhere - I've still got a feeling the 'fine line' is a crypto-clue.

Edit: Looking through it, I notice Nilbogs are in there, but so are Flumphs and the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. The only thing that would really fit would be Orcus or a couple of types of strong demons, but they all bring their own problems - although a half-demon would be an interesting narrative choice.

That's funny, I checked out volume 1 of that as well, but didn't have access to the rest (I thought there were 3 for some reason). Didn't see anything. Frog God Games (the company Necromancer Games turned into) puts out some pretty awesome stuff, in case anyone isn't aware of them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In fact, it tends to de-explain it; but it is the only information regarding Dungeonscape included in this thread.

Sure, but Dr. Gamera specifically asked for "a feat or a monster in there that would help explain The Tower Scene". Sending him to section 2d wasn't really what he wanted, and you didn't clarify, so I felt I had to.

GW

[Crusher]

If nothing got converted at all, 2nd edition Strength 25 creatures would get +7 to hit and +14 to damage. Considering hitting wouldn't matter, the +14 damage from strength that 2nd edition strength 25 creatures have is greater than the +10 damage of strength 30 in 3.5. The systems aren't equivalent. Unless these 2nd edition monsters were partially converted (ability scores took on 3.5 modifiers), strength 25 in second edition rules is flat out stronger than strength 25 in 3.5.

While we used some sort of math and guesses to try to figure out what the minimum strength required to throw a horse through a wall would be, doing that would require a bunch of special abilities, and that was assuming the MitD accidentally uses power attack when trying to hit lightly. Strength 30 is kind of uses as an arbitrary limit on the lower end of "really strong." If we judge something from another system, we should look for the equivalent of "really strong" in the system the thing is from (assuming it lacks 3.5 stats).

Strength 25 in 2nd edition is weird, it'd be anything between a +7 and +35 strength modifier in 3.5, depending on how it is used (breaking down doors, through walls, and such are typically where it is higher, although for everything besides to hit and max load, it is over 30, max load being between 29 and 30).

A creature under 2nd with strength 25 could outdo a creature under 3.5 rules with strength 30 with pretty much any feat of strength (carrying heavy loads for an extended period of time, and landing hits are the two things 3.5 would do better).

So far, I haven't found anything that this would matter for. I am not arguing for any specific candidate. Only giving my opinion on how we should treat theoretical future 2nd edition candidates that might stand a chance.

Hmm, you raise an interesting point on the different damage bonuses from the different versions. I mean, I'd love to see a serious 2e candidate as parsing the different rule sets would be (to me, anyway) good fun.

[littlebum2002]

I don't own the book Dungeonscape

You need to fix that. It's by far my favorite sourcebook. I don't think I've ever created a character since buying that book that didn't have at least one item or feat from it.

[Shining Wrath]

Sure, but Dr. Gamera specifically asked for "a feat or a monster in there that would help explain The Tower Scene". Sending him to section 2d wasn't really what he wanted, and you didn't clarify, so I felt I had to.

GW

The only Rulebook that explains #374 is whichever one has Rule of Funny in it. The published math has figured out what is required to break through a thinner-than-normal stone wall, but panels 9, 10, 11 show Miko flying hundreds of yards, and the horse she rode in on, too. I think the strength required to hurl a horse a quarter mile may be higher than that required to break a stone wall.

I think there's some significant time elapsed between 374 and 375, as Miko has gotten out from under her horse, popped the corks on at least 3 potions for Windstalker, probably used Lay On Hands on herself at least once (even for Miko having a horse dropped on you would hurt), so that gives MitD tens of seconds to pursue his "prey". Although I wonder if he could have pursued Miko if he had thought Xykon wanted him to - we almost never see MitD move, so judging his maximum speed is impossible.

[Kish]

He did, in fact, pursue Miko to give her her purse back, though he gave up when she rode away.

[Hiro Quester]

Perhaps this has been said before but the political analysis is followed by

"is a thing I totally overheard some guy say"

Either (a) he is lying, in an attempt to cover up that he let slip that he knows/understands more than he is letting on. It sort of reads that way to me. The Demon Roach also goads us into thinking that.

But perhaps this is misdirection (Demon Roaches would not necessarily speak the truth across the 4th wall!)

It could also be (b) he really did hear that said by some guy once, and this is not his own political analysis, but the result of rolling high on something like a bardic knowledge check, or a "collector of stories" skill trick.

So perhaps not higher intelligence, but the ability to make lore/bardic knowledge checks (that he himself might not be intelligent enough to completely understand).

[Mightymosy]

This line about the fine line doesn't leave my head - maybe it's a language barrier problem, but I just can't wrap my head around what Mr Burlew tried to say with this.
First he said he didn't just make MitD's species for the comic. Then he said that there is a fine line between him making it up and someone else. No mention of "for the comic" though. Does that imply someone else made it up for the comic? Any monster is made up by someone, so why mention it? Strictly to exclude animals that exist for real?

Imagine the following scenario: His daughter (don't know if he has one) painted a monster she imagined and gave her daddy. He proudly put the picture on his fridge and one day decided to use it for MitD. His daughter will someday guess that this is MitD. Did he ever specify that we, the audience will figure it out? Could be that only a very specific person or persons have access to the required knowledge.

Which of course would leave us all with nothing but to accept the futility of our efforts. And all you to nod.

(yes, this is trolling for the most part - but at least it's on topic )

[Mightymosy]

The only Rulebook that explains #374 is whichever one has Rule of Funny in it. The published math has figured out what is required to break through a thinner-than-normal stone wall, but panels 9, 10, 11 show Miko flying hundreds of yards, and the horse she rode in on, too. I think the strength required to hurl a horse a quarter mile may be higher than that required to break a stone wall.

I think there's some significant time elapsed between 374 and 375, as Miko has gotten out from under her horse, popped the corks on at least 3 potions for Windstalker, probably used Lay On Hands on herself at least once (even for Miko having a horse dropped on you would hurt), so that gives MitD tens of seconds to pursue his "prey". Although I wonder if he could have pursued Miko if he had thought Xykon wanted him to - we almost never see MitD move, so judging his maximum speed is impossible.

I do think it is significant that MitD doesn't catch up with either Miko or Haley and Belkar. It is slow. At least compared with the strength it has to hit stuff or stomp on the floor, its speed is not remarkable so far. Of course this could be another thing MitD just hasn't yet found out he is able to, but so far, it seems to me as if MitD can't even "run", so I will keep my eyes out especially for creatures that lack in speed, compared to strength.

Two more aspects:

1) I read SOD yesterday and noticed the circus MitD was presented in was called anachronistic. Is that circus itself anachronistic, or is it a hint towards MitD?

2) It says that it often gets told that it forgets saying please, thank you and sorry for the smell....
a) Who says that? The parents that are being discussed right now?
b) Is bad smell a sign of the species, or a sign of bad personal hygiene due to being a child?

[Shining Wrath]

This line about the fine line doesn't leave my head - maybe it's a language barrier problem, but I just can't wrap my head around what Mr Burlew tried to say with this.
First he said he didn't just make MitD's species for the comic. Then he said that there is a fine line between him making it up and someone else. No mention of "for the comic" though. Does that imply someone else made it up for the comic? Any monster is made up by someone, so why mention it? Strictly to exclude animals that exist for real?

Imagine the following scenario: His daughter (don't know if he has one) painted a monster she imagined and gave her daddy. He proudly put the picture on his fridge and one day decided to use it for MitD. His daughter will someday guess that this is MitD. Did he ever specify that we, the audience will figure it out? Could be that only a very specific person or persons have access to the required knowledge.

Which of course would leave us all with nothing but to accept the futility of our efforts. And all you to nod.

(yes, this is trolling for the most part - but at least it's on topic )

If nod, will get treat? Icy jaws of death may be near - who knows?

Anyway, I keep coming back to the idea that MitD is familiar to / not as upsetting to goblinoids. We see this in the circus scene, and we see it now from Oona. None of the leading candidates are creatures that would cause humans to vomit but goblins to cheer unless we assume that goblins simply have completely different standards of beauty. That doesn't seem to be the case.

[Kish]

This line about the fine line doesn't leave my head - maybe it's a language barrier problem, but I just can't wrap my head around what Mr Burlew tried to say with this.

It implies only that the creature in the darkness is a type of creature someone who is not Rich Burlew made up.

Several other people over the years have attempted to mill further information out of it. I am confident everyone who treats Rich Burlew like he speaks Conundrum rather than English will ultimately be disappointed by the results of so doing, but obviously I cannot prove it as long as the creature's nature remains unrevealed. In plain English, there is no hint there.

[littlebum2002]

This line about the fine line doesn't leave my head - maybe it's a language barrier problem, but I just can't wrap my head around what Mr Burlew tried to say with this.
First he said he didn't just make MitD's species for the comic. Then he said that there is a fine line between him making it up and someone else. No mention of "for the comic" though. Does that imply someone else made it up for the comic? Any monster is made up by someone, so why mention it? Strictly to exclude animals that exist for real?

The fine line comment makes perfect sense.

Question: Who invented the character Thor in OOTS?
Was it the ancient Norweigans who created the original Thor mythology?
Was it Stan Lee, who created the comic book character and many of our modern concepts of Thor?
Or was it Rich, who adapted both of their ideas of Thor and changed them to make his own?

It's a fine line. Neither of these three completely created this character, it was Rich building off the other 2, so you really can't say this character was created by any one person, can you?

[pendell]

Given that the MITD is in a box , I don't think he's had many opportunities to observe hobgoblin-goblin relations. Intelligence, like a computer, can't do anything without adequate data to work with.

So unless he is channeling some extraplanar intelligence's words, it is much more likely that he overheard the remark than he would have come up with it on his own.

But who? I don't think O-chul. O-chul's a paladin. I suspect he doesn't know much about goblin society beyond how to kill them.

More likely the only person who would come up with such an analysis is a goblin or a hobgoblin zirself.

Who? My money's on Jirix. He's had a close up view of goblin-hobgoblin relations in Gobbotopia, and he had access to the MITD. So it's not unreasonable that he should make such a remark which the MITD overheard.

Still, the fact that the MiTD can remember a chance conversation and roll it out verbatim speaks to a certain degree of intelligence, at least in memorization. If he actually understands what he said, that would point to above-average Int, at least 13, I would think.


...

Okay, here's some really wild speculation.

High intelligence.
Able to comprehend languages (like Tsukiko's half of the ritual)
Ability to grant wishes

...

Is it possible that the MiTD isn't a monster from the manual at all, but instead is part of a pantheon? Some being with divine rank?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is it possible that the MiTD isn't a monster from the manual at all, but instead is part of a pantheon? Some being with divine rank?

Anyone with divine rank of 0 or greater cannot be mind controlled.

GW

[rweird]

It also is dubious that RC would bring a god along to help with the Dark One's plan.

Also, it wouldn't be surprising if a god can animate the dead, assuming it could grant wishes. Would definitely be unsurprising it speaks, wouldn't be "one of these," and most gods look generally humanoid, not something completely unrecognizable (although a divine aura could explain the circus scene).

[Mightymosy]

The fine line comment makes perfect sense.

Question: Who invented the character Thor in OOTS?
Was it the ancient Norweigans who created the original Thor mythology?
Was it Stan Lee, who created the comic book character and many of our modern concepts of Thor?
Or was it Rich, who adapted both of their ideas of Thor and changed them to make his own?

It's a fine line. Neither of these three completely created this character, it was Rich building off the other 2, so you really can't say this character was created by any one person, can you?

Ah, that could be! Thanks!