Class and Level Geekery XII - Even Nerds Call Us Nerds

[Psyren]

The way I interpret that scene is that Roy simply broke the grapple in place of one of his attacks and (still not-quite swallowed) one-shot it with the second one once he was able. He then moved to an adjacent square, per the grapple rules, and combat ended.

[Flame of Anor]

The way I interpret that scene is that Roy simply broke the grapple in place of one of his attacks and (still not-quite swallowed) one-shot it with the second one once he was able. He then moved to an adjacent square, per the grapple rules, and combat ended.

You can do that? If so, I like this theory.

[Psyren]

Sure - all his squirming in there was his attempt to break the grapple. This relies on two rules:

If You’re Grappling
When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.

...

Escape from Grapple
You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents don’t have to try to hold you if they don’t want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).

The first rule allows Roy to make multiple "actions in a grapple" in place of his regular attack routine. I'm assuming here that he has at least two attacks (Level 6+, nonhasted.) Thus he has two chances to do this.

Roy "full-attacks" while in the grapple, per the first rule, and uses the second rule to replace that first attack with an escape attempt. Roy is pretty strong, so even against a giant frog-thing he had a nonzero chance of breaking the grapple. (Actually, a nat 20 breaks it, so he at least had a 5% chance.) He breaks free, but he is still performing the "full-attack action" thus he does not move yet - i.e. he is still in the thing's square (in its mouth.)

Now that he is free, obviously he no longer needs to replace his second attack with an escape attempt. Furthermore, he can use his 2-hander again, because he is not actually "grappled." End-result: "SCHLURT!!"

Having finished his full-attack, he finishes the action by moving into an adjacent space, popping out of the thing's mouth. Combat ends, Durkon is scolded as a free action.

[Flame of Anor]

Hurrah, a fully RAW answer!

[Douglas]

I don't know, I think in context the "action" after which you move into an adjacent square is the escape from grapple, not the full attack that contains said escape.

The feat Weapon Supremacy from PHB2 could, I think, be interpreted to allow attacking with any size weapon (provided it's the one you're specialized in) in a grapple, but it's ambiguous and that would require Roy to have been level 18 before the main story even started.

[Timy]

I don't know, I think in context the "action" after which you move into an adjacent square is the escape from grapple, not the full attack that contains said escape.

This.

you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks

"one of these actions" is "Escape from grapple"

And it is at the end of the action "Escape from grapple" that you move into a space adjacent to your opponent.

Therefore you can't attack before having moved.

[Psyren]

I don't know, I think in context the "action" after which you move into an adjacent square is the escape from grapple, not the full attack that contains said escape.

It's ambiguous, that's all that matters Call it a dysfunction if you wish.

But I like it because, as in the comic, it allows you to wrestle around and bring a weapon to bear that you would normally not get to use while in a grapple - just like you would be able to in real life if you were as strong as Roy.

[Flame of Anor]

If we interpret it your way, Douglas, it means that the character is performing up to four standard actions inside one full-attack action. That is so bizarre and unprecedented that I would very much hesitate to accept it. Not that an argument can't be made for it, but I think that--as Psyren said--it's ambiguous enough that we should let it go.

[Douglas]

If we interpret it your way, Douglas, it means that the character is performing up to four standard actions inside one full-attack action. That is so bizarre and unprecedented that I would very much hesitate to accept it. Not that an argument can't be made for it, but I think that--as Psyren said--it's ambiguous enough that we should let it go.

The rules already quoted here use the word "action" to describe it in the very same sentence that they explicitly state it is not a standard (or move) action. Specifically:

Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action).

[ti'esar]

Is there really a need to pin down a precise RAW explanation anyway? I thought the point was to just confirm that the scene doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted as proving that the Greenhilt Sword has some size-changing property.

[Timy]

Is there really a need to pin down a precise RAW explanation anyway?

I guess you could say it is the purpose of this thread so yeah...

Quote Originally Posted by Flame of Anor View Post
If we interpret it your way, Douglas, it means that the character is performing up to four standard actions inside one full-attack action. That is so bizarre and unprecedented that I would very much hesitate to accept it. Not that an argument can't be made for it, but I think that--as Psyren said--it's ambiguous enough that we should let it go.
The rules already quoted here use the word "action" to describe it in the very same sentence that they explicitly state it is not a standard (or move) action. Specifically:
Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action).

Again : yes, that !

The term "action" in this specific rule is explained and it is NOT a standard action, a full round action nor anything defined elsewhere in the rulebooks.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I guess you could say it is the purpose of this thread so yeah...

Actually, I think that as long as their is an alternative to Roy having a size changing weapon, we don't need to specifically know which one, just that one exists.

[Timy]

Actually, I think that as long as their is an alternative to Roy having a size changing weapon, we don't need to specifically know which one, just that one exists.

I disagree.

I don't see the point of stopping to look for an explanation if none which perfectly fit has been found.

I mean : a size changing sword ? It is I guess really far fetched (and does it exists in RAW ?). And the "action explanation" doesn't fit at all IMHO...

So why not continuing o search for something else which could be a good fit ?

[cybishop]

I guess you could say it is the purpose of this thread so yeah...

I'd say that is a problem with this thread rather than a problem with the frog-swallowing scene.

The Class and Level Geekery thread seems very tongue-in-cheek. The introductory comment in this iteration of it says, "we're taking the rules side of the comic more seriously than its author does; if you like, you can assume a little footnote on every factoid of this thread that says "* or The Giant used a houserule"." 90 percent of the time that's harmless fun and maybe even helpful despite the Giant's intentions. For example, it could be helpful if it gives people a better idea of what's easy, what's difficult, and what's impossible under the rules. But the other 10 percent of the time it just gets in the way of understanding. Suppose some situation comes up where it would make sense for Vaarsuvius to cast Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion, and no other spell would do. (How that situation would arise is an exercise best left for the reader. Please don't do it here.) This is on V.'s spell list. Suppose then that V. doesn't do so. What is the most likely explanation for that - they forgot they had the spell? They didn't prepare such a useful spell that day? V. thinks it's not actually a good spell for the situation, despite all evidence in the strip? Or is the most likely explanation that it's not an actual spell, just a one-off gag?

Likewise, it's entirely possible that there is no RAW explanation for this scene.

I disagree.

I don't see the point of stopping to look for an explanation if none which perfectly fit has been found.

If the best explanations are "Roy's sword has size-changing properties, even though it has never been shown in the other 962 strips and would be either homebrewed or a non-core item anyway," "Roy has a homebrewed or non-core feat," and "Roy found a combination of actions related to ambiguity in the grappling rules that let him do four actions in one round(1)," it's entirely possible that no perfect fit is going to be found.

If you still want to keep looking for an explanation, here's one: the scene is Durkon's flashback to something that happened years before. Memories are often unreliable(2). He's a passive observer and could only partially see the action, because it took place inside the frog's mouth. Not only that, but the scene cut away several times to show Durkon talking without showing Roy or the frog at all.

Long story short - the scene is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from. Maybe Roy tried to escape and got recaptured during the cutaway scenes or something, so the combat would look completely different. (No, he wouldn't give Durkon any useful orders while out of the frog's mouth, because the frog's tongue was still stuck to his face.) How's that?

(1) I don't know much about actual D&D rules, so I have no idea how plausible this is, but I know that grappling rules are infamous and based on this thread it seems fairly unlikely.

(2) For the record, I believe that Durkon can't directly mislead the vampire spirit possessing him, but that doesn't mean the visions he projects are a flawless depiction of in-universe history. But that's beside the point - there are a lot of possible sources of ambiguity.

[Timy]

OK, I didn't want to hurt anyone, I was just wondering IF there was a good explanation.

I personnally don't have one but I thought it was useless to ask for the others to stop looking for.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I disagree.

I don't see the point of stopping to look for an explanation if none which perfectly fit has been found.

I mean : a size changing sword ? It is I guess really far fetched (and does it exists in RAW ?). And the "action explanation" doesn't fit at all IMHO...

So why not continuing o search for something else which could be a good fit ?

Because it may be that nothing else fits this scene, aside from the ambiguous ruling. Not every thing has a RAW explanation, and so we may have to go with either less strict rulings or rulings that involve ambiguous wordings.

[Jasdoif]

My current interpretation of the frog scenario is that Roy escaped from the grapple, moving into the adjacent space as a result, and then used his remaining iterative attack to use his greatsword on the frog, killing it....Afterwards, the DM (which I guess could be a personification of D&D and dramatic physics, in OOTS-world) refluffed the "moving into adjacent space" part to happen after the final greatsword attack for increased awesome factor in the presentation.

[Kurald Galain]

Is there really a need to pin down a precise RAW explanation anyway?

Yes, because otherwise the nerds would stop calling us nerds

[Psyren]

Again : yes, that !

The term "action" in this specific rule is explained and it is NOT a standard action, a full round action nor anything defined elsewhere in the rulebooks.

Actually, it only says "(rather than being a standard action or a move action)." It does not reference full-round actions as being replaced, such as a full-attack, but full-round actions are actions too.

Thus a full-round action could indeed be the action that you end with the move to an adjacent square - as Roy did. (Again, not saying this was intended - just that it's a dysfunction the way the rule is worded, that can be applied to this specific situation.)

[Atomburster]

Do we have any stats for Julio Scoundrel? Can't seem to find any on the thread.

[orrion]

Do we have any stats for Julio Scoundrel? Can't seem to find any on the thread.

There hasn't really been anything about him. We know he's got 10 levels in Dashing Swordsman and has a flying carpet and is probably over 50 years of age and his alignment is Chaotic Neutral (Giant post), but virtually nothing else. Don't know his level. Don't know what he has levels in other than Dashing Swordsman. Don't know his stats, except that his Charisma is higher than his Strength. Don't know his weapons (he gave his Chaos Sabre to Elan) or magic items or feats or skills.

I would also say he hasn't been around long enough to bother.

[Techwarrior]

He does have average Strength and Dexterity. We know that. Panel 7: "I have only average Strength and Dexterity scores."

It's still not enough to go off of, but if we did write it down his Strength and Dexterity would both be 10-11.

[Chronos]

I like Psyren's explanation for the swallow scene. It's certainly not the case that Roy's sword has a size-changing property, because this scene takes place before the start of the comic, and the Greenhilt Sword is therefore still nonmagical.

And we might not even be able to peg Julio's Str and Dex as 10-11. When he says that his scores are only average, he might mean overall human average (10-11), or he might mean average for a human of his age (7-8, assuming he's in the Old category).

[Kornaki]

I like Psyren's explanation for the swallow scene. It's certainly not the case that Roy's sword has a size-changing property, because this scene takes place before the start of the comic, and the Greenhilt Sword is therefore still nonmagical.

And we might not even be able to peg Julio's Str and Dex as 10-11. When he says that his scores are only average, he might mean overall human average (10-11), or he might mean average for a human of his age (7-8, assuming he's in the Old category).

Or he might mean 'my strength and dexterity scores are average for a sword-fighter', which probably pegs them at somewhere between 12 and 15. Way too ambiguous a statement.

[Zweisteine]

I think you need a better reference for Durkon's low charisma, if there are any. As it stands currently, he could very well have 14 or 15 Charisma.

We saw Durkon turn undead three times in a row early on. Clerics can turn undead 3 + Charisma modifier times per day, which would make it appear that he had at least 10 Charisma at that point, or Extra Turning, which we have no other evidence for him having.

While he does say he has a "low charisma modifier," it doesn't necessarily mean the modifier is negative. It seems likely, but I get the feeling that there is probably better evidence elsewhere in the comic.

[hamishspence]

In Dungeon Crawling Fools (A Tale of Two Clerics: commentary), The Giant says that Durkon "probably has a terribly low Charisma score".

[orrion]

I think you need a better reference for Durkon's low charisma, if there are any. As it stands currently, he could very well have 14 or 15 Charisma.

We saw Durkon turn undead three times in a row early on. Clerics can turn undead 3 + Charisma modifier times per day, which would make it appear that he had at least 10 Charisma at that point, or Extra Turning, which we have no other evidence for him having.

While he does say he has a "low charisma modifier," it doesn't necessarily mean the modifier is negative. It seems likely, but I get the feeling that there is probably better evidence elsewhere in the comic.

The only later comic that I'm aware of which mentions Durkon's Charisma is the TGIF restaurant scene in Azure City, and that just refers to the members not present as having more. The low modifier scene during the Miko intro is more specific in terms of both narrowing down a number and being a reference to only Durkon, and I'd hazard a guess that those are the reasons why that comic is being used instead.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The only later comic that I'm aware of which mentions Durkon's Charisma is the TGIF restaurant scene in Azure City, and that just refers to the members not present as having more. The low modifier scene during the Miko intro is more specific in terms of both narrowing down a number and being a reference to only Durkon, and I'd hazard a guess that those are the reasons why that comic is being used instead.

Also, from #559.
: Elan, lad, yer the one wit Charisma!

[Kornaki]

All of these scenes could be explained by Durkon having a +1 charisma modifier, and hoping/recognizing that Elan with his +4 charisma modifier is better at talking to people.

[137beth]

There hasn't really been anything about him. We know he's got 10 levels in Dashing Swordsman and has a flying carpet and is probably over 50 years of age and his alignment is Chaotic Neutral (Giant post), but virtually nothing else. Don't know his level. Don't know what he has levels in other than Dashing Swordsman. Don't know his stats, except that his Charisma is higher than his Strength. Don't know his weapons (he gave his Chaos Sabre to Elan) or magic items or feats or skills.

I would also say he hasn't been around long enough to bother.

He does have average Strength and Dexterity. We know that. Panel 7: "I have only average Strength and Dexterity scores."

It's still not enough to go off of, but if we did write it down his Strength and Dexterity would both be 10-11.

I also don't think he meets any of the criteria for inclusion. He isn't part of any of the major parties, nor is he a 'frequent' character (only 15 appearances).
Actually, I think the FAQ needs to be edited. It currently says

Q: Which characters are included in this thread?

(2) Any frequently occurring character, as noted in the Character Appearances thread.

The number of character appearances thread no longer has a 'frequently occurring character' section. The current ranks in that thread are Protagonist, Major Character, Secondary Character, Supporting Character, Recurring Character, Minor Character, Cameo, and Extra. Currently, almost all of the 'Secondary' characters (26-60 appearances in the main strip, not counting multi-page appearances and bonus strips) are statted in this thread. The secondary characters that are not statted in this thread are those for which very little is known.
Most of the 'Supporting' characters (13-25 appearances) do not have statblocks in this thread, and those that do are part of one of the groups for which we stat every member.
Thus, I suggest that the second part of that FAQ be changed to
"(2) Any secondary character, as noted in the Character Appearances thread, provided there is something to say about them. Note that this includes Samantha: it was easier to be a common character back when the comic was shorter. We don't unlist characters just because they've died."