Class and Level Geekery VIII (spoilers ahoy!)

[Gray Mage]

Talking about Xykon's spells, shouldn't Energy Drain be linked to this strip? Instead it cites only SOD.

[Dark Matter]

Also, can't we get Xykon's strength at 14+ even disregarding all the flight evidence? Thus far he's beaten to death that wizard (in SoD), strangled V, and ripped loose a section of wall and hit V with it. He hits the radar as seriously strong.

Edit: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html

[EmperorSarda]

Also, can't we get Xykon's strength at 14+ even disregarding all the flight evidence? Thus far he's beaten to death that wizard (in SoD), strangled V, and ripped loose a section of wall and hit V with it. He hits the radar as seriously strong.

Edit: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0653.html

We don't know how strong or heavy the walls are of his unholy fortress though. And aside from guessing, I don't believe there is a way to try and pin it any higher.

[Vargtass]

We don't know how strong or heavy the walls are of his unholy fortress though. And aside from guessing, I don't believe there is a way to try and pin it any higher.

Actually, I think someone has calculated Xykon's strength based on that event in a previous thread, but I can't search for it now.

[RMS Oceanic]

In light of recent events, Kurald and I have decided that the disputed tag invites more argument than debate, so pending the following discussion, I have removed all facts, levels and abilities previously flagged as disputed from my section, and Kurald has done the same.

The pending discussion is about what assumptions we make when we discuss and catalogue the character's stats and abilities. I think part of the reason we run into so many arguments is that we've never spelled out what assumptions we make, so I'd like to get the thread's feedback and consensus on how we should make these decisions, and then this will be spelled out in the FAQ. The initial questions we would be looking at are:

- What source material do we assume is fair game in calculating certain effects: the Core Books, the SRD or more?
- When do we assume a character did something because of their class ability, level, ability score, feat or magic item?
- When would two of these things come into conflict?
- When a magical effect can be explained by two different spells, like Silent Image or Major Image, should we just list the lower level explaination or all relevant options?
- When, if ever, should we assume Rich fudged the rules?

Feel free to raise other questions about how we should catalogue things as well. Until we define this publically, Kurald and I will be keeping to what can be strictly proven.

[Kurald Galain]

So the interesting question is, what source books are accepted in this thread? To get the debate started, let me throw up some suggestions. This does not automatically mean that RMS or I prefer, endorse, or otherwise support these suggestions.

• PHB1 and DMG1 are obviously in use; I don't think anyone is disputing that.
• Epic Level Handbook, as suggested by several people. Now I'm not saying I disagree, but it would be nice to have some evidence (preferably more than the Xykon fight we've just spent a week arguing about). Perhaps some people could elaborate whether Familicide and Cloister use the epic rules? What about Soon Kim and Dorukan? Or perhaps the Snarl Ritual and the Snarl itself? All of that is epic; does it follow the Epic Level Handbook?
• Dungeonscape. This official sourcebook is written by Rich, so obviously he's familiar with its content. We know that the acidborn shark is from Dungeonscape, as is everybody's favorite half-orc champion .
• Spell Compendium. Rich has explicitly said that spellcasters can use spells from other sources if they research them personally. Most spells we see that aren't from the SRD come from the Spell Compendium.
• Other books... well, if you have a suggestion, let's hear it.

Worth mentioning is that The Giant's comment on the matter never mentions core at all. He writes, emphasis mine, "I usually assume that all spells in the SRD are "common knowledge" and everything else is "obscure/non-existent" unless someone has researched it."

[Kish]

Until we define this publically, Kurald and I will be keeping to what can be strictly proven.

See, I was going to try to come up with individual answers to all your questions earlier in this post. Then I read your last sentence and went, "Wait. That's exactly what you should do, permanently. Um, my answer to all the questions is 'whatever leads to claiming the least information.'"

[Vargtass]

SRD should be considered core, based on a reasonable interpretation of Rich's statement.
Other sources should be considered only if no SRD explanation is found, and the non-core explanation fits the evidence perfectly. This includes Dungeonscape and Spells compendium.
On epic handbook, I have too little experience to make a solid analysis on how to interpret the evidence. I have a feeling that application of epic feats are more straightforward than analyses on epic spells. I think epic spells should be noted and listed, but analyses on exactly how the spells work and what that means (e.g. in terms of quantified spellcraft and associated level) seem simply too open to different opinions and interpretations. I would suggest that epic spells are generally referred to as Rich not necessarily following the epic handbook guidelines strictly, if not explicit evidence is given, such as author commentary or exposition on panel.
On the matter of items and scrolls: explanations should avoid assuming the use of items or scrolls unless shown or otherwise indicated by the author or in the comic. The only exception would be along the lines of my first point, i.e. only if no explanation excluding a scroll or item can be presented.
Parsimony of power: within core, the lowest possible power level (e.g. character level, class level, spell level, skill ranks) should be used. Outside core or use of unseen items or scrolls should only be used if no non-core, no-item explanation is available, as per the above.
On disputed tags: I would propose that when conflicting or alternate explanations emerge, the first posts should reflect this if the explanations are all within core and with equivalent evidence. If different explanations (possibly with alternate results) emerge with less evidence (e.g. unseen items) or non-core elements, the alternate explanation can be linked under the tag "alternate interpretation", for completeness and tracking purposes.

The above is obviosly my opinion, but I think it would work and be useful to the contributors and curators alike.

[WowWeird]

I definitely agree to the SRD as our definition of "core".
Of note- While I don't have the ELH, there are far more epic rules in the SRD than in the DMG, so I think that the ELH is already covered under the SRD umbrella.
Abbreviation spam!

[Kurald Galain]

Just a little note: "core" is a term officially defined by WOTC, and used as such by millions of roleplayers worldwide. The front page of the SRD explicitly spells out which parts of it are core and which are not; the books that are core explicitly say so in big letters on the cover. I'm having trouble seeing why we should try redefining that word; it's like trying to redefine "dexterity".

Instead of saying "this thread uses core, and by core instead of the regular definition we mean books X, Y, and Z" it would be less confusing and more honest to simply say "this thread uses books X, Y, and Z".

The term "core" isn't relevant anyway, considering this thread never had a rule that it is core-only, and neither has The Giant ever mentioned that his comic is core-only (indeed, it's pretty obvious that it's not). I get that the term sounds cool, but using established terms is rather important for a thread like this - so if you mean SRD, just type SRD.

[Vargtass]

So, in my proposal above, I would change core to SRD, because this is what I mean. I can't edit it now, unfortunately, due to interface issues.

[Psyren]

Epic Level Handbook, as suggested by several people. Now I'm not saying I disagree, but it would be nice to have some evidence (preferably more than the Xykon fight we've just spent a week arguing about). Perhaps some people could elaborate whether Familicide and Cloister use the epic rules? What about Soon Kim and Dorukan? Or perhaps the Snarl Ritual and the Snarl itself? All of that is epic; does it follow the Epic Level Handbook?

The most anyone could say is that it doesn't not follow it, if you catch my meaning. Epic Spellcasting is little more than codified homebrewing, and every epic spell used in the series could be created using the epic rules, because "ad hoc" factors merely mean "make something up."

All of the Giant's big epic spells have included ad hoc mitigating factors. The spell to create the Gates required epic arcane and a divine casters (there is no mitigation DC for, say, contributing an epic slot to casting another epic spell.) Lirian's virus was limited to her forest and even had an incubation period. Cloister requires Dorukan's headband of unknown stats; and Familicide required the reanimated head of a black dragon matriarch. If you're holding out for page references on the effect these things have on epic spell DCs, you're going to be waiting for a long time.

The only one that may have been by the book is Superb Dispelling, which as written would likely put Xykon in the 30s at a minimum. So that one was most likely fudged as well.

Other books... well, if you have a suggestion, let's hear it.

Complete Arcane: Warlocks have featured in the story multiple times, and the derision they receive lets us know them to be the actual class, rather than simply another flowery term for "arcanist."
XPH: There's been several psionic jokes, including the use of a Blue. None have had plot impact, however.
Magic of Incarnum: By the way, I still don't get that joke.

[Douglas]

Worth mentioning is that The Giant's comment on the matter never mentions core at all. He writes, emphasis mine, "I usually assume that all spells in the SRD are "common knowledge" and everything else is "obscure/non-existent" unless someone has researched it."

I don't think he really meant to include material from Deities and Demigods, psionics, and Unearthed Arcana in that.

My opinion on guidelines for rules analysis:

- What source material do we assume is fair game in calculating certain effects: the Core Books, the SRD or more?

When something is referred to explicitly by name, is in some other way an exact fit where no other exact fit exists, or if the book in question is specifically referenced (e.g. the pile of books Redcloak was shown with for making the Xykon impersonators), then that trumps any standard source book assumptions.

In general, however, the standard assumption should be that only the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, and Epic Level Handbook are in use. Other sources should be used only when no reasonable explanation in those four books is possible, and each use of a non-standard source should be assumed to be a one-off, not precedent for using additional material from the same book.

Specifically regarding epic spells, the example spells should be assumed to be in use exactly as written, and the general elements of the custom epic spell system should also be assumed (ritual spells, backlash damage, spellcraft checks, and so on), but the math and exact factors involved are likely to be ad hoc-ed by The Giant.

- When do we assume a character did something because of their class ability, level, ability score, feat or magic item?
- When would two of these things come into conflict?

The following effects from magic items can be assumed to be common, standard, and not necessarily worth an explicit reference in-comic:
Enhancement bonuses to ability scores
Enhancement bonuses of weapons, armor, and shields
Deflection and natural armor bonuses to AC
Resistance bonuses to saves

Any quantity of these bonuses that is reasonable for a character's level can be assumed to come from magic items if doing so makes explaining some evidence easier. Scrolls and potions can also be assumed provided that the character using them is known to possess and use such items in general. Scrolls and potions should be used after class abilities, ability scores, level, and non-epic feats from preferred sources, but before epic feats and any material from non-preferred sources.

All other magic items should be assumed to not exist until shown or mentioned in-comic or by The Giant, unless no reasonable explanation is otherwise possible.

When evidence can be explained by any of level, ability score, or feat, and it is not clear which is the correct explanation, priority should go as follows:
1) First, attempt to explain it with an ability score in a reasonable range. "Reasonable" is defined as no more than 15 base, plus levelup increases, racial modifiers, enhancement bonus up to +2 per 5 levels (rounded up, max +6 unless epic), plus any additional modifiers the character is known to have. If a character is especially noted for the ability score in question, the assumed base can be increased up to 18.
2) If no reasonable ability score can explain the evidence, then determine the level required to bring the ability score into the reasonable range and use that.
3) If a feat reduces the required level by at least 3, then use the feat and reduce the level.

- When a magical effect can be explained by two different spells, like Silent Image or Major Image, should we just list the lower level explaination or all relevant options?

Go with the lower level one, but this is a much less important guideline.

- When, if ever, should we assume Rich fudged the rules?

Conduct a poll of posters participating in the thread, and only count those who express a definite opinion on a particular potential rules violation.

We should assume Rich did fudge the rules when:
A) two thirds believe that rules fudging is the correct explanation

We should assume Rich might have fudged the rules when:
A) one third believe that rules fudging is the correct explanation, or
B) one half believe that rules fudging is a reasonable, though not necessarily correct, explanation

It might be worthwhile to maintain a running total (with list to ensure no double-counting) of votes in a spoiler block to improve consistency and persistence of such judgments.

Explicit statements from Rich trump any such vote, of course.

[LudiDrizzt]

This thread's getting waaaaaaaay too conservative.

[Flame of Anor]

This thread's getting waaaaaaaay too conservative.

If by "conservative" you mean "not including the less-well-supported theories", then it is getting conservative, but in a way which will suppress flaming and keep a lot of people happy.

[Valixes]

Has the possibility of Tarquin being a Warblade been discussed in this thread yet?
Oh who am I kidding, of course it has been discussed here, but since the first post hasn't explicitly decided that he is I'll talk about it anyways.
I think one of the strongest hints to Tarquin's class is his apparent preference to switch between weapons often. In the flashback panel he was using sword 'nd board, he was shown to be deft with a tossed knife, and he also went on to contemplate what weapon he wanted to "prepare" for his inevitable fight with Roy. The ability to have a mastery with all weapons (Providing a small practice period) is one of the hallmarks of warblades, and Tarquin seems to fit that bill.
Moreover though, Tarquin has been shown to have an extensive knowledge of sourcebooks - shown when he PUNished Elan in a duel - meaning that when he would be choosing class levels, he would make the most prudent decision available across a broader spectrum than most characters in Order of the Stick would have access to. For a melee, heavy armored, high-to-mid INT score'd character like Tarquin - Warblade would be the "optimized" choice; playing off all his strengths.
Unless of course there's a copy-right issue.

[Da'Shain]

[*]Epic Level Handbook, as suggested by several people. Now I'm not saying I disagree, but it would be nice to have some evidence (preferably more than the Xykon fight we've just spent a week arguing about). Perhaps some people could elaborate whether Familicide and Cloister use the epic rules? What about Soon Kim and Dorukan? Or perhaps the Snarl Ritual and the Snarl itself? All of that is epic; does it follow the Epic Level Handbook?

This comic suggests that Roy, at least, believes the normal Epic ruleset to be in place, as he references a specific requirement for an epic feat (lvl 21 to get Epic Spellcasting), and implies that he knows more of the epic rules at least somewhat.

It's not conclusive, and some of the epic spells tossed around, if they followed the epic spellcasting rules, would have Spellcraft DCs in the hundreds (ex: Familicide; it's technically possible that the spell is so specific that it requires the undead head of an ancient black dragon to perform and that's why its DC is low enough to cast ... wow, just thought of something*, but ridiculously unlikely), but I think it's evidence that the Epic rules are not being flat out ignored.


*V's failed concentration check strongly implies that it is V's own skill ranks that are being used, not those of the souls spliced to him. Does this mean that the DC for Familicide must actually be low enough for a 15th level wizard to cast successfully? Again, not conclusive, but just something I thought worthy of mentioning.

[LudiDrizzt]

If by "conservative" you mean "not including the less-well-supported theories", then it is getting conservative, but in a way which will suppress flaming and keep a lot of people happy.

It's look for 100% proof of what's on, by word of God, non-existent character sheets.

Without a little speculation on our behalf, this topic literally serves zero purpose.

[Psyren]

*V's failed concentration check strongly implies that it is V's own skill ranks that are being used, not those of the souls spliced to him. Does this mean that the DC for Familicide must actually be low enough for a 15th level wizard to cast successfully? Again, not conclusive, but just something I thought worthy of mentioning.

That's not the only possible explanation for that scene. He could be using a higher concentration mod, but be suffering a massive penalty to his concentration checks, owing to his need to concentrate to maintain the splice.

But even if he is stuck with his own Concentration mod, does not mean he is using his skill ranks for everything. At a minimum, Spellcraft would have to come from the splices themselves.


EDIT: More evidence for the epic rules - Xykon responds to V's Quickened Chain Lightning by claiming that he has 10th-level spell slots, not that he has a metamagic rod of some kind. V goes on to use Empowered Sunburst in the same strip, another 10th-level spell.

Oh, and let me add a couple of possible sourcebooks:
BoVD, MM2 and Fiend Folio - for Redcloak's shell game
Libris Mortis - Xykon mentions that V should be a "brain-in-a-jar"; also, the "one phylactery only rule" (once that gets explicitly proven, anyway.)

[WowWeird]

Just a little note: "core" is a term officially defined by WOTC, and used as such by millions of roleplayers worldwide. The front page of the SRD explicitly spells out which parts of it are core and which are not; the books that are core explicitly say so in big letters on the cover. I'm having trouble seeing why we should try redefining that word; it's like trying to redefine "dexterity".

Fair enough. For those who don't have the books/have never seen this definition (I'm apparently in the latter category), would you please post this definition?

[zimmerwald1915]

Fair enough. For those who don't have the books/have never seen this definition (I'm apparently in the latter category), would you please post this definition?

Nominally, the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual are "Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebooks". I don't quite remember if that designation extends to the PHB2, the DMG2, and the various other MMs.

[Psyren]

Nominally, the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual are "Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebooks". I don't quite remember if that designation extends to the PHB2, the DMG2, and the various other MMs.

Both DMG2 and PHB2 are labelled "Supplement" on the front cover.

[Douglas]

Oh, and let me add a couple of possible sourcebooks:
BoVD, MM2 and Fiend Folio - for Redcloak's shell game
Libris Mortis - Xykon mentions that V should be a "brain-in-a-jar"; also, the "one phylactery only rule" (once that gets explicitly proven, anyway.)

Each of those is a one-off occurrence of "this specific thing from this book got used", not a general "this book is in common use and everything in it will be used without comment from now on".

Anything can be used if it is explicitly referenced. That has never been in question. The "which books are available" thing is about which books we should assume are being used when no explicit reference is present.

[Psyren]

Each of those is a one-off occurrence of "this specific thing from this book got used", not a general "this book is in common use and everything in it will be used without comment from now on".

I never attempted to state otherwise. I was listing books that the Giant took something from. If nothing else, it shows which books he's read before writing {strip.}

Anything can be used if it is explicitly referenced. That has never been in question. The "which books are available" thing is about which books we should assume are being used when no explicit reference is present.

I provided a potential list of those above the post you quoted; the other three are for completeness.

[ti'esar]

As far as listing all books that have had material appear in any way, there's been plenty more non-core monsters then the Fake Xykons at the siege. Not sure where all of them came from, though.

[SinsI]

We should assume Rich did fudge the rules when:
A) two thirds believe that rules fudging is the correct explanation

We should assume Rich might have fudged the rules when:
A) one third believe that rules fudging is the correct explanation, or
B) one half believe that rules fudging is a reasonable, though not necessarily correct, explanation

It might be worthwhile to maintain a running total (with list to ensure no double-counting) of votes in a spoiler block to improve consistency and persistence of such judgments.

Explicit statements from Rich trump any such vote, of course.

The huge problem with such a system is that Rich explicitly stated that he doesn't base his characters on "common decisions" that a player would make. And too many voters would vote exactly based on their own game preferences.
As an example, I'd really wonder why would anyone choose to spend 3 best feats on Improved Spell Capacity if they can get almost the same effect with a cheap metamagic rod (probably reslotted into robe, belt or cape form) - but the Giant might have a completely different opinion...

As for anything Epic+ - I think we should only accept explicitly stated things (i.e. "he used a 10th level slot") and not try to deduce anything, as at such a level character's options are far too great to more-or-less reliably pinpoint anything at all.

[SaintRidley]

*V's failed concentration check strongly implies that it is V's own skill ranks that are being used, not those of the souls spliced to him. Does this mean that the DC for Familicide must actually be low enough for a 15th level wizard to cast successfully? Again, not conclusive, but just something I thought worthy of mentioning.

I would guess the epic caster's skill ranks come in play for their spells. V's concentration checks to maintain the splice have to come from V, though. It's not like Ganonron is doing the concentrating, after all.

[EmperorSarda]

- What source material do we assume is fair game in calculating certain effects: the Core Books, the SRD or more?

I think this has been sufficiently answered by Kurald and others.

- When do we assume a character did something because of their class ability, level, ability score, feat or magic item?

Given that such items are usually said or implied, such as the item that grants fire immunity, I think for items that it has to be said that they are using said item. For the rest, I think it more consensus. Cause with Thog, while it is extremely likely that Thog took Extend Rage at least once; there is no way to know for sure.
I think that since the OoTS world are not optimizers for the most part, then we should assume the minimal level it would take to be able to do so.

- When would two of these things come into conflict?

Unfortunately it may be often. There are bound to conflicts on what we think or how things can be measured. How we resolve said conflicts is what matters I think, cause there will always be disagreement.

- When a magical effect can be explained by two different spells, like Silent Image or Major Image, should we just list the lower level explaination or all relevant options?

After exploring all options, I'd say go with the lower level explanation.

- When, if ever, should we assume Rich fudged the rules?

When he does things like casting Overland Flight on others apart from the caster, Tsukiko's wight spell and other things that don't make sense according to the rules. As plot and rule of funny figure stronger to Rich than D&D rules, we should keep that in mind.

Feel free to raise other questions about how we should catalogue things as well. Until we define this publically, Kurald and I will be keeping to what can be strictly proven.

I am sorry it has come to strictness, and that people's attitudes has made this experience harder for the both of you.

[Dark Matter]

- What source material do we assume is fair game in calculating certain effects: the Core Books, the SRD or more?

http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

I suspect (I am not a non-lawyer) there are legal reasons why Rich sticks with that. But regardless of the "why" of it, he seems to stick with that and emphasize when he's not.

- When do we assume a character did something because of their class ability, level, ability score, feat or magic item?
- When would two of these things come into conflict?

Magic stuff seems pretty rare in OOTS. As a general rule we should assume the non-existence of magic items unless it's remarked upon. After that we're going to struggle.

- When a magical effect can be explained by two different spells, like Silent Image or Major Image, should we just list the lower level explaination or all relevant options?

We should use the lesser level explanation.

- When, if ever, should we assume Rich fudged the rules?

When the rules are unclear, unfunny, or obviously ignored.

[Emanick]

Question: If we know what kind of spells a spell caster is capable of casting (like with V, or Xykon for most intents and purposes), why should we assume the lower-level version of a spell is the one being used? If V casts an illusion of a wall, (s)he might well be using Major Image rather than Silent Image, because of the slightly higher DC. Then again, (s)he might well be using Silent Image, because that requires a lower-level spell slot and gets the job done.

tl;dr: If we know how roughly powerful a character is, I don't think we should automatically assume the lower-level version of a spell is the one we're seeing.