Class and Level Geekery VIII (spoilers ahoy!)

[Once&FutureKing]

{{scrubbed}}

[Wolfe]

Aside from that, I don't think it's possible to pin down an objective definition for "dispute", "consensus", or related terms, nor do I see a benefit in trying.

There is absolutely a benefit: FLAME RETARDANT. If we place clear parameters, it's easier to agree when they apply, rather than bicker endlessly about whether it's about who, or why, or how, or how many. It becomes merely a matter of "does it meet these parameters or not". That is absolutely important and useful, yes, and I ask people who would agree with this point to say so. The alternative is for the next random argument to bicker about the same things again, and again, until the thread is locked for good.

Second: "Consensus", in particular, is important for you, Kurald, to acknowledge: the purpose of this thread is to document consensus. It is not yours (or anyone's) to decide what is listed or not, and it's not our obligation to convince you. For the explicit example of "SRD counts as core", a consensus has been reached (anyone who doesn't agree, please speak up). I can list at least a half a dozen quotes of the most active members to support it. So is it a consensus or not? If so, then list it! If not, then say why not, without temporising. At the risk of being pedantic, the thread rules clearly say you are not a gatekeeper sitting in judgement, merely a scribe writing down what the consensus is. THE CONSENSUS IS THIS: SRD counts as core. Write it down (or present a valid counterargument).

Thank you for your work in maintaining the thread and all, but please don't fall into the trap of thinking you "own" it or anything... It's to document what people think (or dispute, or agree, or whatever). Your only job is to write it down. Do you agree with this?

--------------------
Edited to add, in reply to O&FK:

Dude, you never know when to shut up, do you? Still...

if you're just up front with people about the reasons, you'd have less fights here.

"Fewer" 8-P ... but yes, I'll agree with that.

[Kurald Galain]

There is absolutely a benefit: FLAME RETARDANT.

I agree that this is a good idea in theory. In practice, however, adding rules to an argument won't clear up the argument: it will cause people to start arguing over the rules in addition to the original argument.

Besides, the forum rules already clearly say "no flaming". Dealing with flaming is the moderator's authority, not mine.

Second: "Consensus", in particular, is important for you, Kurald, to acknowledge: the purpose of this thread is to document consensus.

You are missing the point here. There is no consensus in this dispute (that should be obvious from the last five pages of the thread). If people disagree with theory X for reason Q, then pointing out that "the people who support theory X think reason Q is invalid" is merely restating the obvious, and not accomplishing anything. Simply put, a dispute doesn't go away by saying the people who disagree with you are wrong.

Also, I do find your post is getting close to a personal attack, and I don't think there's any need for that.

[St Fan]

While it would fit Xykon nicely, I am in favor of not adding anything non-core until The Giant spells it out. Given that he has said that Thog has the Dungeon Crasher variant, has pointed out in comic that Tsukiko's orb spells are no canon along with other little things, I would rather not add that in. Again, it fits nicely, but given no direct evidence I'd rather it not be put up.

Yes, I wasn't expecting it to be mentioned in the profiles, especially since it's non-core. I was pointing it out merely to counter the common, default "the author just fuggled with the rules" argument. Though it's quite that clear that the Giant is never above it, there is plenty often legit ways to obtain whatever trick we see being used by the characters without going this route.

For the Xykon incident, the two means I suggested aren't even the only ones Xykon could have access to. (There's also Arcane Preparation, just to cite another).

PS: I fixed the link in my first post.

[zimmerwald1915]

For the Xykon incident, the two means I suggested aren't even the only ones Xykon could have access to. (There's also Arcane Preparation, just to cite another).

Of the three, Arcane Preparation least jives with Xykon's character, and is from a source least close to core (in the scheme of SRD > other PHBs/DMGs/MMs > completes/environmental/tomes of/compendia > setting-specific > 3.0).

[Wolfe]

There is absolutely a benefit: FLAME RETARDANT. If we place clear parameters, it's easier to agree when they apply, rather than bicker endlessly about whether it's about who, or why, or how, or how many. It becomes merely a matter of "does it meet these parameters or not".

I agree that this is a good idea in theory. In practice, however, adding rules to an argument won't clear up the argument: it will cause people to start arguing over the rules in addition to the original argument.

On the contrary: giving boundaries will help contain the extent of the flames. It would no longer be about "who says" or "which book" or "how many" or some other extraneous factor, as long as we agree on the rules. It is the lack of rules that invites flames, because it makes it seem that the goal is to persuade you. It isn't. The goal only is to reach a consensus (to be listed) or to document a dispute (to be so marked).

Please help us achieve independently valid rules, so we can keep flames to a minimum.

Besides, the forum rules already clearly say "no flaming". Dealing with flaming is the moderator's authority, not mine.

How well did that work the last time? Why? Because there was no mechanism to adjudicate disputes. What I'm asking for is precisely that: a mechanism (a set of objective rules) to find out whether something is listed or not, disputed or not, agreed or not, and so on. It's the lack of these that invites flames and locks threads.

You are missing the point here. There is no consensus in this dispute (that should be obvious from the last five pages of the thread). If people disagree with theory X for reason Q[...]

You missed my very explicit mention of the thread consensus: "SRD counts as core". This is not an abstract theory X for reason Q. This is an explicit conclusion reached by discussion and agreement. I must ask you to either list it or explicitly state reasons for why this explicit conclusion shouldn't be listed. Your failure to provide these sounds to me like you think we must convince you, or that you feel yourself in a gatekeeper position that you do not in reality hold. Please explicitly clarify: Do you or do you not agree that the thread consensus is that SRD counts as core? If you do agree, please list it on the relevant posts. If you don't, please say why you think this explicit consensus is not eligible to be listed.

I do find your post is getting close to a personal attack, and I don't think there's any need for that.

Certainly not my intention, but if you intend to position yourself as gatekeeper or holding a judgement of what is or is not listed, I will challenge it, in accordance to the rules. Your failure to address my explicit points is not a personal attack, but a questioning of whether you are conforming to the thread rules as explicit: you are not a judge, you are a scribe. Do you or do you not acknowledge this? This is not a personal attack, this is trying to ascertain whether you abide by the published rules.

[FlawedParadigm]

{{scrubbed}}

[Kurald Galain]

You missed my very explicit mention of the thread consensus: "SRD counts as core". This is not an abstract theory X for reason Q. This is an explicit conclusion reached by discussion and agreement.

You're asking the wrong question.

The question isn't "what is core". The question is "what books are allowed in this thread". Interestingly, no consensus has ever been demonstrated for that.

And no, a handful of people saying the same thing does not constitute "consensus". If it were that easy then we wouldn't be having these disputes. Some background material.

[Wolfe]

The question isn't "what is core". The question is "what books are allowed in this thread". Interestingly, no consensus has ever been demonstrated for that.

Yes, it has. This book: SRD. It has been agreed as acceptable, most used as reference, and accepted as valid for all epic feats and such. There's nothing in it that's disallowed. It's not the only book, probably, but the consensus is: SRD is core. Is it not? Or is your position that core is "mu"?

And no, a handful of people saying the same thing does not constitute "consensus". If it were that easy then we wouldn't be having these disputes. Some background material.

I'm familiar with Wikipedia's consensus guidelines. It first lists that a non-disputed statement (such as "SRD is core", which no one I know of disputes) is immediately consensus until disputed. Once disputed, there's a process and rules to guide the editors (here, "posters") on how to work towards agreement. And ultimately, there exists a way to reach consensus. Do we have such a thing?

So, once again. Is there or is there not a consensus in this thread about whether SRD is core? As per your link, what are the compromises, edits or arguments on the table? What are the dispute resolution rules, Is there any one who disagrees with the notion at all? (I asked earlier, and others have, I know of no one who states SRD is not core, do you?) If it is thus far undisputed, is it not already consensus?

Kurald: ANSWER THE DARNED QUESTION: Is the consensus of this thread that SRD is core or not? More importantly: Regarding this thread, do you see your role as that of a judge or a scribe?

[EmperorSarda]

I'm going to miss this thread. I've always found it a handy guide to the relative power levels and interesting quirks of the characters, but it seems it can't exist without people breaking out nukes over extremely minor issues.

I agree. We seem to be quibbling about the rules of how to throw something up and getting personally involved or whatnot than anything else. Sad times.

[Shale]

Well, we now have an answer to the Overland Flight question.

And I don't know about you guys, but I'm not touching the kobold's inventory with a ten-foot pole.

[Gilphon]

And now, thanks to 835, we have solid evidence for V having Overland Flight.

Ninja'd.

[EmperorSarda]

Most likely Rich is ignoring the rules, but Overland Flight can only be cast on the caster. Which barring rule ignoring means that V has a variant of Overland Flight that can be cast on others as well.

[John Cribati]

According to the Giant, the SRD represents common Knowledge of the general population as to what classes and feats they may choose, so in that case it is core.

[Chronos]

For the explicit example of "SRD counts as core", a consensus has been reached (anyone who doesn't agree, please speak up).

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that the epic rules should be considered to be on the same standing as core, since it's clear those are playing an extensive part in the story. On the other hand, though, psionics (for example) are very rare in the strip, and when they show up, it's only ever as part of a one-off joke. So we shouldn't consider psionics to be on that same standing. And most of the Unearthed Arcana material is clearly labeled as optional rules, despite being in the SRD, and at present we shouldn't even be considering, say, gestalt, or 3d6 check rolling, or the like, at all.

[Once&FutureKing]

{{scrubbed}}

[EmperorSarda]

Introducing rules would only lead to more dispute, rather than less, if the "owners" of this thread refused to apply them consistently (i.e. the exact thing they are doing at the moment basically). It's not like it's a wild accusation, because when presented with several exact analogies (like V's stun being homebrewed), we're told in response only "that is a silly argument",

Cause it is silly.

while apparently something of the exact same logical fortitude (Xykon's level being below 27) is perfectly reasonable, on what grounds I don't know (they won't tell me).

From how I understand it, having Xykon be under level 27 requires the use of several magical items that are not mentioned or hinted at ever in the comic, in the case of the maximize argument. Or twisting the spoken language to say that 100% resistance could effectively mean immunity.

It will be sad if the thread shuts, but the "owners" have themselves to blame, for applying inconsistent/non-existent standards, refusing to have rules (on the fear it would render their ad hoc decisions inconsistent), and providing misleading and generalised responses. It was days ago I heard "we're looking into how to deal with this problem", and then the matter was ignored.

Dude, a lot is your attitude. Yes it can be frustrating that your logical arguments are not taken as seriously as others, but if you want to be taken more seriously then chill a little.

RMS Titanic and Kurald were elected, meaning that a vast majority of those who care about this thread preferred them over others. They however have lives and running this thread and coming up with quick solutions to disputes should not be in their job description. They have other things to do. So chill and don't take the thread or the decision making process so seriously.

Edit, By the way RMS, for Xykon's spells could we link the spells of Cloudkill and Resilient Sphere to #670 as well, or would that be overly redundant to cite SoD and link to that comic?

[Flame of Anor]

I agree that this is a good idea in theory. In practice, however, adding rules to an argument won't clear up the argument: it will cause people to start arguing over the rules in addition to the original argument.

That was the problem last time. But have we really learned nothing? The reason it was the problem last time is that the moderators were not receptive to input on the rules. If we find a rule system that the majority is okay with, it will be a great help to the thread.

[baerdith]

One thing I noticed about Elan. He is 13th level as Bard due to his spells, but that means he has access to Song of Freedom which would have allowed him to break the stone-shaped Haley, right?

[SaintRidley]

One thing I noticed about Elan. He is 13th level as Bard due to his spells, but that means he has access to Song of Freedom which would have allowed him to break the stone-shaped Haley, right?

Is there any word on whether Dashing Swordsman advances spellcasting?

[Math_Mage]

Is there any word on whether Dashing Swordsman advances spellcasting?

No word, and it probably doesn't, but the evidence that he's a Bard 13 is independent of his Dashing Swordsman level/s.

[Sr.medusa]

One thing I noticed about Elan. He is 13th level as Bard due to his spells, but that means he has access to Song of Freedom which would have allowed him to break the stone-shaped Haley, right?

Maybe he doesn't have maximum ranks in perform.

[Kish]

What Elan can theoretically do and what Elan realizes he can do are two different things.

[Douglas]

One thing I noticed about Elan. He is 13th level as Bard due to his spells, but that means he has access to Song of Freedom which would have allowed him to break the stone-shaped Haley, right?

In theory, yes it would have. In practice, it's obscure enough that I wouldn't be surprised at all if Rich forgot it existed, and it would also be perfectly in character for Elan to forget it too.

[Dark Matter]

From how I understand it, having Xykon be under level 27 requires the use of several magical items that are not mentioned or hinted at ever in the comic, in the case of the maximize argument.

Making him level 21+ requires three different sets of invisible+unmentioned+non-core exceptions, some of which haven't been defined and/or have been disproven and/or require Xykon to have access to a level 27+ spellcaster.

Sooner or later I'll sum up both sides again so we can see what should be put into the Faq.

...it can be frustrating that your logical arguments are not taken as seriously as others, but if you want to be taken more seriously then chill a little.

Exactly. It's a process, letting people read and digest your arguments can take days. Everyone needs to be allowed to make their arguments so they can see where they lead. Letting the process work allows people to be convinced. It also lets the strong arguments get stronger while the weaker arguments either fail or grow into better arguments.

[Dark Matter]

One thing I noticed about Elan. He is 13th level as Bard due to his spells, but that means he has access to Song of Freedom which would have allowed him to break the stone-shaped Haley, right?

"Using this ability requires 1 minute of uninterrupted concentration and music"

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed for review.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I am reopening the thread. If something did not get scrubbed, that does not necessarily indicate that it's perfectly hunky-dory, but that I didn't get to it.

Please remember to keep a civil tone. If you disagree, do so without flaming. If you feel that someone is trolling, report them. If you feel they are disruptive, report them and ignore them. If you feel there is a problem with the thread curators, request a mod intervention, either by reporting the thread or by PMing me directly (preferably with a link to one or more relevant posts).

[Math_Mage]

Per this comic, Tarquin should probably have an axe in his inventory, and Malack should have a staff.

[Dark Matter]

By the way RMS, for Xykon's spells could we link the spells of Cloudkill and Resilient Sphere to #670 as well, or would that be overly redundant to cite SoD and link to that comic?

Shown on screen casting trumps that list, but our shown evidence isn't linkable. We should definitely referencing the SoD since that's our strongest evidence... but I can see a case for linking to that list.

Speaking of which: Xykon's "Otiluke's Resilient Sphere" should just be "Resilient Sphere". That's what it's called in the d20srd. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm