Why didn't vaarsuvius know xykon would come back?

[factotum]

And of course, every character in the strip never, ever tells a lie or exaggerates their own abilities in any way whatsoever...

[ReaderAt2046]

There's a difference between saying that "my knowledge of the denizens of the underworld is unmatched" when you have some but not many ranks in that knowledge, and saying that when you have no ranks.

[factotum]

There's a difference between saying that "my knowledge of the denizens of the underworld is unmatched" when you have some but not many ranks in that knowledge, and saying that when you have no ranks.

So? It's still entirely possible for him to not know about liches if he only has a few ranks in the relevant knowledge skill, so no ranks or few ranks makes no difference at all to the subject of this thread.

[Winter]

Knowledge about Liches seems not seem common in the OotS-world. So it's at least a DC of 20, probably even 25 or even 30 (the latter seems unlikely, as Redcloak did make it much earlier). So let's assume 25.

Assuming an Int mod of +4 at that moment and assuming a d20 always gives at least a 1, Vaarsuvius could have had up to 19 ranks in that skill and still blow it in 5% of the cases.
So what is so unlikely to assume Vaarsuvius does have "formidable" skill (even if that is true), which is a +5 to +15 on that level and the check simply fails.

*Xykon explodes*
*DM rolls knowledge(arcana) and knowledge(undead) checks for the party*
DM: "Ok, you just killed Xykon for good! There's still lost of treasure in the tower*

[ti'esar]

*Xykon explodes*
*DM rolls knowledge(arcana) and knowledge(undead) checks for the party*
DM: "Ok, you just killed Xykon for good! There's still lost of treasure in the tower*

Maybe it's a difference in DM styles, but outright telling them that they killed him for good seems a bit much to me. I just wouldn't say anything about it.

(Yes, this is incredibly nitpicky, but the main question's already been answered, so...)

[Winter]

Maybe it's a difference in DM styles, but outright telling them that they killed him for good seems a bit much to me. I just wouldn't say anything about it.

(Yes, this is incredibly nitpicky, but the main question's already been answered, so...)

Look, the exact style does not matter. What matters here is how it could play out without any issue. We're not talking about DM style, dramaturgy, group-style or whatever.

The point is the characters simply did not make the knowledge checks and we can forget about this silly discussion.

[Vinyadan]

Just remember, here, Vaarsuvius insists that "my knowledge of the denizens of the underworld is unmatched".

I don't think a lich to be a denizen of the underworld. I mean, he walks the land of the living.

[Kish]

I don't think a lich to be a denizen of the underworld. I mean, he walks the land of the living.

Underworld.

[Vinyadan]

Underworld.

Sorry, but I don't get what you mean.

Is it a joke about being on top of the world?

Is Xykon actually somewhere in the land of the dead and merely communicating through the phylactery, while he waits for a new body?

[factotum]

I assumed it was a rather weak joke along the lines of "Xykon once walked through a cave, so he counts as a creature of the underworld".

[Blisstake]

V can't tell the difference between a ghoul and a ghast, and has necromancy as a forbidden school, so it doesn't really surprise me that knowledge of the undead isn't his forte.

[Bulldog Psion]

The Order tends to be just a teeny bit incompetent at times.