Class and Level Geekery VIII (spoilers ahoy!)

[Chronos]

I think that we should assume that the PHB, DMG, MM1, and (where relevant) ELH are in play. I agree that Roy's statement in 532 (which I had actually looked up, too) should be taken as evidence that Stickworld uses the standard epic rules.

On other sources, I think the policy should be to assume that it's core unless it's explicitly not. For instance, with the Xykon decoys, we see onscreen the books that Redcloak uses, and we know that there's no core spell that matches the orbs Tsukiko cast at Haley (though it's not quite clear what book those were from, since they're slightly different from the Spell Compendium versions). This should not imply that all material from Libris Mortis or whatever is on the table; non-core material (other than ninjas, but you can blame that on Monkey) seems to be the exception, not the rule.

The same seems to be true of psionics. While psionics have shown up a few times, and those times they do show up they're clearly not using the core rules, they are, again, the exception rather than the rule, and so I don't think we should consider all material from the XPH to be in general play.

On the core-vs.-SRD question, the SRD consists of the core rules, the epic rules, the psionic rules, the divine rules, and variant rules. The first two, as stated, I think we have reason to consider always in play. The psionic rules, I've just stated we should consider relevant only on a sporadic basis. The divine rules, I doubt we'll ever have occasion to need (if we do, we can revisit the question then), and the variant rules, being variant, we should probably default to no on. So most of the sections of the SRD, I think, are not on the table on a regular basis.


Oh, on the question of which spell to assume when a lower-level or a higher-level is possible, I would prefer to favor the lower-level spell, unless we have other evidence that that caster has the higher-level one, in which case the most parsimonious assumption is that it's the higher-level one being used.

[ti'esar]

(other than ninjas, but you can blame that on Monkey)

For the record, has there ever been any evidence to suggest that the ninjas we've seen are one of the various ninja classes that's been out there, and not just rogues/assassins flavored as ninjas? It's not like Miko was mechanically a samurai.

[Math_Mage]

I think that we should assume that the PHB, DMG, MM1, and (where relevant) ELH are in play. I agree that Roy's statement in 532 (which I had actually looked up, too) should be taken as evidence that Stickworld uses the standard epic rules.

I don't take that statement as very strong evidence, because it's Rich lampshading the fact that nobody understands the epic rules; that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he will use the ELH epic rules, and certainly creates some initially absurd-sounding problems if we accept that conclusion (what level would Haerta have to be in order to make the undoubtedly immense DC for Familicide? How is it that such a caster, and the one who developed Epic Teleport, were bundled with a caster who didn't retain his epic spell slots against one Energy Drain?).

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.

It doesn't make a difference in most situations, and in situations where it does, it's still prudent to use the lower-level version. For example, if using the higher-level version would cause a character to be regarded as higher level due to having cast X number of X-level spells in a day, it still doesn't make sense to use that as evidence.

[EmperorSarda]

(what level would Haerta have to be in order to make the undoubtedly immense DC for Familicide? How is it that such a caster, and the one who developed Epic Teleport, were bundled with a caster who didn't retain his epic spell slots against one Energy Drain?).

Which why I am thankful that we are not trying to stat such things here since there is no discernible way to measure them, nor does Haerta's level matter. Nor do they matter in getting stats on V or anyone else. They are superfluous.

[martianmister]

For the record, has there ever been any evidence to suggest that the ninjas we've seen are one of the various ninja classes that's been out there, and not just rogues/assassins flavored as ninjas? It's not like Miko was mechanically a samurai.

That's a really good point. But we can't be sure...

[Douglas]

How is it that such a caster, and the one who developed Epic Teleport, were bundled with a caster who didn't retain his epic spell slots against one Energy Drain?.

If the epic slots were considered Jephton's highest, he would have to be about level 60 for an average roll on Energy Drain to not take them all. Him losing his epic slots there is in no way an indication of him being merely low epic.

The really important fact about the Epic Level Handbook is that it is the only source WotC has ever published that deals with rules for epic levels in any significant depth. We essentially have a choice of either using the ELH or throwing up our hands and saying Rich homebrewed his own epic rules that we can only guess at so all epic stats are complete mysteries. The latter option seems absurd, pointless, and contrary to this thread's purpose.

Regarding Familicide, Cloister, Epic Teleport, and any other custom epic spells, the entire system for creating those is extremely complex, math intensive, and ad hoc. Creating custom epic spells by the rules in a way that we could analyze would take an amount of time and effort Rich is extremely unlikely to bother with. Custom epic spells in OotS are, consequently, pretty much Acts of Plot that we just have to take as given without analysis. This does not mean we should discard the rest of the book.

[eras10]

I kind of liked the *disputed* tag. I don't think that recent events demonstrates that it is too flawed to be useful. I do think that recent events demonstrate that people in an online forum can get very worked up about anything and that complex or vague rules can be a problem, but it is very hard to have rules in this domain that are not complex and vague.

In short, the problem is not the disputed tag. The problem is individuals who have not yet come to accept neccesary vagueness in process rules, as well as the final say of the 'collectors' in deciding what is or is not posted. Folks, it's just a thread about a webcomic. Everyone needs to mimic RMS Oceanic in their pleasant, restrained attitude to debate. I don't mean this as a request - everyone should be obligated to do this to participate. If you think your posts are a smidge more hostile than that, you should vow to change, or post somewhere else.

There are things about characters right now, regarding their powers, level, etc that we just can't decide definitively or shouldn't decide definitively. There are messy parts with good evidence on both sides.

I really think that we should summarize these parts of characters either with something like a disputed tag, or with alternate versions, or with a for/against blurb, or something. But if we don't, I'll live with it.

[Dark Matter]

...

Exactly.

And some or all of those epic rules were released to d20srd.org, and this includes some available epic spells which we can do number crunching on.

[Psyren]

I don't take that statement as very strong evidence, because it's Rich lampshading the fact that nobody understands the epic rules; that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he will use the ELH epic rules, and certainly creates some initially absurd-sounding problems if we accept that conclusion (what level would Haerta have to be in order to make the undoubtedly immense DC for Familicide? How is it that such a caster, and the one who developed Epic Teleport, were bundled with a caster who didn't retain his epic spell slots against one Energy Drain?).

Once again, you don't know that the DC for Familicide is immense. "Focus: the reanimated head of a family matriarch" could for all you know be a -200 DC. It's an ad hoc factor, so you can't make any mathematical assumptions about the spell or about Haerta's level based on it. And the same goes for Cloister.

[Dark Matter]

I kind of liked the *disputed* tag...

It works well for two arguments of near-equal strength. The entire flight/strength thing comes to mind. Both solutions/schools are seriously non-core and pretty ugly... which means we're going to have problems no matter what we do.

Where the disputed tag doesn't work well is for arguments that aren't well thought out/developed but the author simply doesn't want to accept the conclusions of the existing argument.

"Disputed" should mean more than "Someone doesn't accept this". "Disputed" should mean "there are two fleshed out arguments and both have some validity".

[Eldray]

Why is Belkar described as being "character level = 16" based on strip 748?

The only relevant thing there seems Belkar claiming that in 1e he would be an level 8 halfling with "attack rank g"; since g is the 7th letter, this should indicate level 14 or 15 (depending on whether "attack rank a" is +0 or +1), not level 16.

EDIT: removed wrong part about Durkon

[Douglas]

Why is Belkar described as being "character level = 16" based on strip 748?

I think it's because in panel 8 he makes 7 attacks. The obvious explanation for that is 3 off-hand attacks from Greater Two Weapon Fighting and 4 main hand attacks from +16 BAB, and the latter requires at least level 16.

Edit: I'll leave this here in case anyone else is confused about it.

Also, what's the logic regarding Durkon's 13-15?
Enervation removes 1d4 levels, so he could lose 7th level spells even at level 16.

He gets to choose which spells he loses. At 16th level, he'd lose at most 3 8th level spells and 1 7th level, leaving 3 7th level spells remaining. That's plenty to keep both Mass Death Ward and Holy Word, so if he were that high level he would not be bemoaning the loss of Holy Word. Instead, he'd still have Holy Word available because he would have chosen to keep it.

At level 15, a maximum roll on Enervation could trim him down to a single 7th level spell remaining, which would force him to choose either Holy Word or Mass Death Ward without the option of keeping both, and he obviously chose Mass Death Ward in hopes of preventing further level drain.

[SpacemanSpif]

It works well for two arguments of near-equal strength. The entire flight/strength thing comes to mind. Both solutions/schools are seriously non-core and pretty ugly... which means we're going to have problems no matter what we do.

Where the disputed tag doesn't work well is for arguments that aren't well thought out/developed but the author simply doesn't want to accept the conclusions of the existing argument.

"Disputed" should mean more than "Someone doesn't accept this". "Disputed" should mean "there are two fleshed out arguments and both have some validity".

Forgive me if this has been previously discussed, but why not have the "Disputed" tag mean "most evidence points to this, but some points away, and we've had no official clarification"?

This way, it's not a popularity contest, nor is it based on who "wins" an argument. It's simply a note to say that there is some concrete in comic evidence that would, at best, require some explanation that has, as yet, not been explicitly shown.

The thread already catalogs evidence that characters do or do not have certain powers, abilities, or items. Why not catalog conflicting evidence as well?

[Psyren]

"Disputed" should mean more than "Someone doesn't accept this". "Disputed" should mean "there are two fleshed out arguments and both have some validity".

I support this.

Forgive me if this has been previously discussed, but why not have the "Disputed" tag mean "most evidence points to this, but some points away, and we've had no official clarification"?

I don't support this, and here's why - you can make that exact argument about everything that hasn't been officially clarified. The disputed tag is only meaningful if it covers close cases.

[SpacemanSpif]

I don't support this, and here's why - you can make that exact argument about everything that hasn't been officially clarified. The disputed tag is only meaningful if it covers close cases.

I had thought I had gotten around this issue by requiring evidence, rather than a simple argument. The spells and items are almost all explicitly shown, and the stats are generally very conservative; I find it hard to believe that many of the particulars listed in this thread have evidence in the comic to the contrary.

But, for those that do have such evidence, why wouldn't we link to it?

Again, I have not read through all of the relevant discussions, so correct me if I'm missing something here.

[Kurald Galain]

Forgive me if this has been previously discussed, but why not have the "Disputed" tag mean "most evidence points to this, but some points away, and we've had no official clarification"?

Because people disagree what "most" evidence means, and because it leads to lots of arguing that "my assumption is better than your assumption!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-uh!" And yes, putting up the most popular theory with a dispute tag is precisely what makes it a popularity contest, and what gives people an incentive to try to "win" this contest.

It's far better to agree that we don't know for sure, than to have yet another flame war. Too many people have already been driven off by those.

Do note that we're talking about only a handful disputed cases in a thread listing almost a thousand rules items. The disputes are neither the biggest nor the most important part of this thread.

[SpacemanSpif]

Because people disagree what "most" evidence means, and because it leads to lots of arguing that "my assumption is better than your assumption!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-uh!" And yes, putting up the most popular theory with a dispute tag is precisely what makes it a popularity contest, and what gives people an incentive to try to "win" this contest.

It's far better to agree that we don't know for sure, than to have yet another flame war. Too many people have already been driven off by those.

Do note that we're talking about only a handful disputed cases in a thread listing almost a thousand rules items. The disputes are neither the biggest nor the most important part of this thread.

Alright, yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable set of rules. Hopefully it works out.

[Wolfe]

The problem is individuals who have not yet come to accept [...] the final say of the 'collectors' in deciding what is or is not posted.

They do not have a final say. That is explicitly addressed in the thread rules: (emphasis mine)

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.

Part of what causes flame wars is the false notion that they need to be persuaded or convinced to list something, rather than just document the conclusions reached. Kurald has failed to even acknowledge this is a rule, even when repeatedly asked. For example, I believe there is a clear consensus that the epic rules as listed by the SRD are in place and valid, yet they have failed to document that.

Also lack of rules for dispute resolution cause disputes to escalate rather than be settled by an agreed process. I fear this will continue to be the case until such a process is agreed and implemented, and then conclusions reached by it are posted, whether the curator agrees or disagrees with the conclusion.

"Disputed" should mean more than "Someone doesn't accept this". "Disputed" should mean "there are two fleshed out arguments and both have some validity".

I agree with this, but also a "good faith" point should be part of it. If you dispute that Elan is a bard, just because you can make an argument he's a doppelganger, it's not an argument made in good faith, therefore not worthy of a serious assessment or inclusion. But yes, this may be problematic in some cases.

[Math_Mage]

Part of what causes flame wars is the false notion that they need to be persuaded or convinced to list something, rather than just document the conclusions reached. Kurald has failed to even acknowledge this is a rule, even when repeatedly asked. For example, I believe there is a clear consensus that the epic rules as listed by the SRD are in place and valid, yet they have failed to document that.

Also lack of rules for dispute resolution cause disputes to escalate rather than be settled by an agreed process. I fear this will continue to be the case until such a process is agreed and implemented, and then conclusions reached by it are posted, whether the curator agrees or disagrees with the conclusion.

I don't see how you can on the one hand chastise RMS/Kurald for going beyond their 'sole responsibility' to list the thread community's conclusions, and on the other hand chastise them for not taking responsibility for developing dispute resolution guidelines.

I guess that's just another way of saying "I see no problem with you putting together your own dispute resolution guidelines and submitting them for the thread community's consideration and possible editing."

[Flame of Anor]

"I see no problem with you putting together your own dispute resolution guidelines and submitting them for the thread community's consideration and possible editing."

This, as long as the thread community's opinions are really taken into account. We need to strike the happy medium between decision and indecision.

[Wolfe]

I guess that's just another way of saying "I see no problem with you putting together your own dispute resolution guidelines and submitting them for the thread community's consideration and possible editing."

Correct. Any dispute resolution process needs to be agreed by consensus, not directed from above, otherwise it will just become one more thing to bicker about. But on the same vein, I would encourage them to come up with a proposal, which we can then agree/modify/whatever, or indeed encourage any other people to propose their own.

Mine? Would be simple: list anything that is reasonably plausible, add "disputed" to anything people dispute (in good faith, with a semblance of a case), even if it means every third fact says disputed (it's not like we'll run out of red superscript text). In cases where two or more explanations are plausible, list both. When consensus is reached, post it immediately; if people then dispute that a consensus exists, mark it "disputed" and resume discussion about it. The purpose of these guidelines would be to a) minimise flames; b) maximise information listed; c) work towards a "jigsaw" model where each fact that fits with others tend organically to bubble to the top as consensus; d) acknowledge the fact that certainties are almost always impossible, and therefore strive for freedom and variety of opinion instead of scientific rigour.

But that's just one proposal. Others are invited.

[Illven]

If we are using SSDT for character stats, does that mean we can list Vaarsuvius's Con score as 9 or less

SSDT spoiler

Spoiler

Show

In the little red riding hoodlum. Vaarsuvius plays one of the characters and mentions "...I should really get around raising my Constitution to double digits one of these days"

[Flame of Anor]

If we are using SSDT for character stats, does that mean we can list Vaarsuvius's Con score as 9 or less

SSDT spoiler

Spoiler

Show

In the little red riding hoodlum. Vaarsuvius plays one of the characters and mentions "...I should really get around raising my Constitution to double digits one of these days"

That probably implies exactly 9, because if it were 8 s/he would have to do it over the course of five levels--16th and 20th--and if it were less than 8 it would be even less plausible, as it would take 9 or more levels to do. That's not "one of these days". The only way it could be one of these days is if it only took one stat increase to get to 10.

[Illven]

That probably implies exactly 9, because if it were 8 s/he would have to do it over the course of five levels--16th and 20th--and if it were less than 8 it would be even less plausible, as it would take 9 or more levels to do. That's not "one of these days". The only way it could be one of these days is if it only took one stat increase to get to 10.

Well he/she could always be talking about crafting an amulet of health "one of these days."

[Flame of Anor]

Well he/she could always be talking about crafting an amulet of health "one of these days."

Two problems with that.

1. "Raising" a stat usually refers to what happens every fourth level. If it were an amulet of health, it would usually be called "boosting" the stat. I know that's not conclusive, but...
2. Occam's Razor tells us to choose the simplest explanation. We have--as far as I know--no evidence whatsoever that Vaarsuvius has craft wondrous item. It would also not really fit with V's character--s/he focuses on metamagic and damage-dealing capability.

[Gift Jeraff]

Durkon should have Control Winds added to his spells or part of the "Thor" domain.

[ericgrau]

It's either the "thor" domain or air domain.

[Kish]

That probably implies exactly 9, because if it were 8 s/he would have to do it over the course of five levels--16th and 20th--and if it were less than 8 it would be even less plausible, as it would take 9 or more levels to do. That's not "one of these days". The only way it could be one of these days is if it only took one stat increase to get to 10.

It doesn't need to be that literal. I doubt very much that that line would be accurately paraphrased as "I seriously intend to spend my next level-up point on Constitution" rather than, "I am making a sarcastic quip about my lack of Constitution."

[Flame of Anor]

It doesn't need to be that literal. I doubt very much that that line would be accurately paraphrased as "I seriously intend to spend my next level-up point on Constitution" rather than, "I am making a sarcastic quip about my lack of Constitution."

We don't need to infer V's intent to actually do it, but I think V is habitually exact enough that this means it's really possible, despite his/her not intending.

[Chronos]

I'm extremely loathe to consider anything from Snips as canon, especially the Stick Tales, which are fictional even from the Order's perspective. The character of the Grandparent Wizard has a single-digit Con, and that character is portrayed by Vaarsuvius, but I think it's a stretch too far to say that therefore Vaarsuvius has a single-digit Con.

Heck, we even have evidence that the meta-characters in those tales have completely fluid stats: Elan's character in "Elan and the Beanstalk" spontaneously goes from being a master swordsman to having no sword skill at all, just because the audience disapproved.