MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)

[Olinser]

Well, maybe it's just my reading (and Charmy's) but that's certainly what I took from this post and others:



If the Giant feels he's not bound by the rules, why should we assume the MiTD is a handbook D&D creature who operates within the rules? I can't see any reason to assume that anymore.

You're completely missing the point of the Giant's comment.

You're confusing 'not exclusively following D&D rules' with 'making stuff up whenever I feel like it as I go along'. Everything Rich does is done with purpose, according to the rules of the OOTSverse.

Him not being 'bound by the rules' means that he doesn't have to sit down and figure out that the MiTD has to have a minimum strength of exactly 34 to punch Miko and Windstriker through the wall.

It simply means that Rich has chosen a creature that has great physical strength as a characteristic (or some other magical/psionic ability that can smash somebody through a wall).

The same can be said of all other abilities and characteristics that the MiTD has shown.

Just because he isn't hidebound to exact rules doesn't mean the MiTD is suddenly going to be revealed to be an oversized Dryad.

He's already lampshaded that the MiTD is a creature that does not normally speak in Common. If it turns out to be a Zodar, that is Rich acknowledging that a Zodar is only supposed to speak 3 times in its entire life - but the MiTD is capable of speaking whenever he wants.

It's exactly why the Aboleth Mage is up as an option. It's strength is high, but not quite to the point where theorycrafters have established as the minimum strength for the tower scene. That doesn't mean that Rich sat down and theorycrafted out that number. It just means when he wrote the scene he acknowledged that the MiTD has great physical strength, and who cares what the exact number has to be?

[ti'esar]

Does anyone expect the Giant to, say, suddenly have Elan start throwing out meteor swarms?

If not, why do you think he's going to be any more determined to descend into chaos when it comes to the MitD?

[Holy_Knight]

I agree, but nestled in that anti-clue is a real clue: If MitD was a creature not statted out for 3.5, then he wouldn't be able to "update" to 4E in the first place, since there's nothing to update. At most, he could be "adapted" to 4E from whatever non-DnD source he came from.

Edit: As a counterpoint, though, it is possible that MitD is XYZ non-DnD creature, that Rich then converted to 3.5 rules. Then it would be possible for him to be updated to 4E from that 3.5 version, rather than adapted.

As another counterpoint, the MiTD doesn't even know what he is, so he wouldn't know himself whether he could be updated. It also makes sense for him to wonder if he's been "updated" without knowing what updating even entails, on the grounds of hearing that it's something that happens to some people. I don't think this ends up being much of a clue at all.

[CloakedDancer]

Does anyone expect the Giant to, say, suddenly have Elan start throwing out meteor swarms?

If not, why do you think he's going to be any more determined to descend into chaos when it comes to the MitD?

Since there was some discussion about this here, I just want to link the Giant's full explanation on the subject.

Hopefully that will put things to rest and we can continue to focus on guessing who the MitD is.

[quasit]

Maybe this sound nuts (and it's non D&D canon, I know) but did somebody thought before about MitD being a Grue ? Its an rpg (roguelike, but still) reference and looks like his whole existence is bound to dark places...

Spoiler

Show

Also... "redcloak have been eaten by a grue" I'd laught my *** out with that

Edit:
(other MiTD abilities might be adaptation to D&D rules by the author, after all, D&D monsters can be highly customizable, can't they? I just point the grue as the base concept of what MiTD is).

[Throknor]

Maybe this sound nuts (and it's non D&D canon, I know) but did somebody thought before about MitD being a Grue ? Its an rpg (roguelike, but still) reference and looks like his whole existence is bound to dark places...

Spoiler

Show

Also... "redcloak have been eaten by a grue" I'd laught my *** out with that

Edit:
(other MiTD abilities might be adaptation to D&D rules by the author, after all, D&D monsters can be highly customizable, can't they? I just point the grue as the base concept of what MiTD is).

Third Post, Section 3B.

[quasit]

Roight, I've overlooked that entry. Nevermind then, thanks.

[davidbofinger]

I'm curious to know if there's a consensus on the understanding of the MitD in the last panel of #661. The Giant says the MitD has found powers it didn't know it had. But having found them does the MitD understand what it did, or even if it did anything? When it asks the demon roaches why they are looking at it, is it trying to look innocent or is it genuinely bewildered?

[RunicLGB]

#699

The Monster is aware of the power, but can't seem to access it on a whim.

[ReaderAt2046]

Grey, thanks for updating the psionics entry!

[Avi235&258]

I agree, but nestled in that anti-clue is a real clue: If MitD was a creature not statted out for 3.5, then he wouldn't be able to "update" to 4E in the first place, since there's nothing to update. At most, he could be "adapted" to 4E from whatever non-DnD source he came from.

I happened to reread SSDT just yesterday and immediately caught this. I fully agree with it - the panel in my opinion strongly implies that the MitD is, originally, a 3.5 creature.

[SavageWombat]

I happened to reread SSDT just yesterday and immediately caught this. I fully agree with it - the panel in my opinion strongly implies that the MitD is, originally, a 3.5 creature.

That would assume that the MitD knows that he is a 3.5 creature - which he doesn't. He doesn't know if he's been updated because he doesn't know what's what. If he were a 1st edition monster he could still reasonably ask the question.

[ReaderAt2046]

As I see it, there are at least two possible scenarios:

1. The MITD is something that has an official D&D 3.5 statblock, which can be updated.

2. Rich made up a statblock for the MITD (in order to have a consistent set of data for clue purposes), and that could be updated into a 4e version.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As I see it, there are at least two possible scenarios:

1. The MITD is something that has an official D&D 3.5 statblock, which can be updated.

2. Rich made up a statblock for the MITD (in order to have a consistent set of data for clue purposes), and that could be updated into a 4e version.

I assume that for the purposes of point 2, MitD would be a creature that was never D&D-ed.

In any case, the following are also valid scenarios:

3. MitD is a 3.0 monster that was never updated to 3.5
4. MitD is a 2nd Ed monster that was never updated to 3 (this one has issues re: Dorukan's amulet)
5. MitD is a 1st Ed monster that was never updated.

In 3 through 5, MitD would have an official statblock that Rich could use (thus falling outside your point 2) without belonging to 3.5 (thus falling out of your point 1).

Grey Wolf

[Steven]

4 and 5 have the problem with the old strength system however so we'd need to assume that Rich converted it to a 3.5 creature or that it was stupidly powerful in the old system.

I have an old AD&D card for Takhisis and going by the stats on that she would be weaker in some ways than X.

Although now that I think about it maybe I should dig those cards out and have a browse through them... They might give me some ideas.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

4 and 5 have the problem with the old strength system however so we'd need to assume that Rich converted it to a 3.5 creature or that it was stupidly powerful in the old system.

No, we can't assume that Rich converted the creatures on his own, since evidence in the comic is that unconverted creatures retain their stats (and lack thereof: no Will saves).

Yes, it makes it unlikely we will find good candidates in old editions, but in the context of what is possible, it doesn't discard them either.

GW

[Steven]

Ahh, yes, I'd forgotten about that detail. Which is silly because it was in your previous post.


I'll see myself out

[Ward.]

All evidence so far points to mitd being "the" dms girlfriend.

There, mystery solved.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

All evidence so far points to mitd being "the" dms girlfriend.

There, mystery solved.

As far as joke ideas go, the "MitD is a fanboy" not only is funnier, it is so much better supported by evidence.

GW

[Steven]

Besides CLEARLY it's the DM's boyfriend.

[ReaderAt2046]

Besides CLEARLY it's the DM's boyfriend.

The DM is married, so it can't be boyfriend. I suppose a wife sort of counts as a girlfriend (same sort of way a level 2 character sort of counts as a level 1), so it could be that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The DM is married, so it can't be boyfriend. I suppose a wife sort of counts as a girlfriend (same sort of way a level 2 character sort of counts as a level 1), so it could be that.

I believe you missed the reference to the fact that MitD self-identifies as male.

Further up, the "point" of the suggestion is that the DM's boy/girlfriend tends to have more power than the rest of players because he/she's in a relationship with the DM. It is not directly referencing Rich, it is a generic "trope", so to speak, of table role playing games.

Grey "explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: no-one's that interested, and the frog dies" Wolf

[Steven]

You're assuming the DM is faithful or not in an open marriage.
Also he lives in New Zealand where it's legal to marry your boyfriend.

Annnnnd I'm done derailing the thread.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're assuming the DM is faithful or not in an open marriage.
Also he lives in New Zealand where it's legal to marry your boyfriend.

Annnnnd I'm done derailing the thread.

Wait, aren't you assuming that the DM is male?



GW

[Steven]

Actually I started off assuming the DM was female because I dislike the assumption that the DM must be male.

Then when someone assumed that if you're married you must be a male-female pairing I switched it up.

Steven "explaining your social commentary is like using mice in experiments: No one really likes to do it but sometimes it's necessary" Brown.

[ReaderAt2046]

Actually I started off assuming the DM was female because I dislike the assumption that the DM must be male.

Then when someone assumed that if you're married you must be a male-female pairing I switched it up.

Steven "explaining your social commentary is like using mice in experiments: No one really likes to do it but sometimes it's necessary" Brown.

I'm pretty sure Rich Burlew is male. And I already thought about the MITD being male, but it's not too incredibly odd for a female player to play a male character. Having a man refer to himself as "Mrs." is much odder.

[Olinser]

I believe you missed the reference to the fact that MitD self-identifies as male.

Further up, the "point" of the suggestion is that the DM's boy/girlfriend tends to have more power than the rest of players because he/she's in a relationship with the DM. It is not directly referencing Rich, it is a generic "trope", so to speak, of table role playing games.

Grey "explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: no-one's that interested, and the frog dies" Wolf

Ugh, I had to put up with a raid leader's girlfriend TWICE when I was playing WoW. It wouldn't have been so bad if they'd just forced them into the raid, but both of the girlfriends had big mouths in addition to being just TERRIBLE players, and insisted on trying to tell the other players that were tripling her damage (myself included) how to play. One of them made his girlfriend the hunter class leader, and it was so bad that the rest of us actually made our own private channel that didn't include her, and didn't tell anybody about it just so we could actually plan out what we were going to do without having to put up with her.

It was funny, because the guild they were in before ours, they finally had enough and tossed her out. The boyfriend (who actually was a really good player), said that if they wouldn't take her, then he wasn't coming anymore. They said, "Ok, bye."

The usual stereotype and stigma against the DM's girlfriend is that she's just somebody that he's letting play with them so she doesn't feel left out. Obviously, she'll be left out if he lets her die, so he has to save her from stupid decisions made from not understanding how to actually play the game well.

However, that doesn't really fit the MiTD, because while he does act childish, he's never in a situation that actually has presented credible danger to him yet. If he's never in danger due to stupid decisions, then the DM doesn't have to save him.

[Steven]

I'm pretty sure Rich Burlew is male.

Ah, but Rich isn't the DM. If there were a DM in OotS xe would be a character that the storyteller, Rich that is, made up.

Now didn't I say something about how I was going to cease derailing the thread like three posts ago?

[Throknor]

Ah, but Rich isn't the DM. If there were a DM in OotS xe would be a character that the storyteller, Rich that is, made up.

Now didn't I say something about how I was going to cease derailing the thread like three posts ago?

You keep it up and I'll have to rehash an old theory for a GW clarification again, and I don't think any of us want that!

[thereaper]

No matter how much I zoom in or out on the latest strip, it appears like the MitD is shaking hands with O'Chul.

It's hardly conclusive, but it's something to consider.