Class and Level Geekery XII - Even Nerds Call Us Nerds

[Crusher]

Hmm, the whole "free action" point is an interesting one.

I don't have any books with me so I can't argue this very well, but there's a split between the two cases of multi-arrow snatching. When Tarquin's on the side of the airship, he's very clearly hanging onto the side with both hands.

However, can anyone actually see what Tarquin's hands are doing in the 3rd panel of 925? Because I cannot. In panel 1 he's clearly holding the reins, and in panel 6 he's snatching the arrows, but other than 3 his hands are off-screen the entire time so, barring someone being able to zoom in on 3, we don't actually know if he's holding the reins when Haley shoots her arrows or not.

It sounds like dropping the reins would be a problem (if he's holding them), but is letting go of the side of the airship considered in the same category? I don't know if they'd be considered the same sort of action or not.

[ChristianSt]

New Hypothetical:

We've just read strip 409. Roy has hit Miko with his greatsword so hard she flies across the room.

I come on the thread and post that since according to RAW, normal weapon attacks do not knock people back like that, clearly Roy has the Awesome Blow feat, as that allows you to attack at -5 and knock the target back 10' while inflicting damage.

You're "not into D&D rules" so your first inclination is to say "that seems reasonable".

I go on to say "and therefore, Roy has a 25+ Str and is a size Large creature."

Did your opinion of the feat suddenly change? Are you really going to look through the books for an official RAW alternative to how the feat was accomplished? Are you going to accept the feat proposal if you can't find one, because you have no other RAW option? Or are you going to argue that it's clearly not the case because of other factors?

In other words, we do not have to list a RAW explanation for something if that RAW explanation does not fit the evidence. And that the standard for how well the explanation fits the evidence is not a hard-and-fast rule.

That is a hypothesis that is not comparable to the current discussion. There is no problem with Tarquin having Infinite Deflection (other than basically "you don't like it").

In your example Roy doesn't fit fulfill one prerequisite (being Large, since Roy is a Human and therefore a Medium-sized creature [and I'm not even sure if PCs have access to Monster traits, but that is irrelevant since he doesn't fulfill being Large]). So RAW he cant have Awesome Blow, so Roy having Awesome Blow cannot be a RAW explanation for that scene.

I can't tell what that scene can tell us about Roy (since I'm not familiar with the D&D possibilities and don't want to dig what the SRD has for option that might work), but I can tell that it is not "Roy has Awesome Blow". Unless you can also argue why a Medium-sized creature has gotten access to a feat requiring a Large size.

Why do you think it is RAW impossible for Tarquin to have Infinite Deflection? And don't start "Rich wanted to show him snatch arrows, so it can't be Infinite Deflection." or "If Rich wanted to show him have Infinite Deflection he would used it against more than two arrows.". Both these arguments (and all others I have seen from you) have nothing to do with RAW. None of the prerequisites are problematic from a RAW standpoint (other than that you believe "Tarquin isn't epic because epic is way to special for Tarquin").


I can understand the points Savannah make, and as others said it might be indeed impossible to drop his grip instantaneously before snatching the arrows, which I can't really comment on due to my lack of D&D knowledge. I assumed that it is possible to do so.

With that argument I can understand to remove Infinite Deflection/Snatch Arrows/Deflects Arrows and come up with another alternative. And from the options "houserule instantaneously drop something" vs. "Tarquin's Arrow Snatching special feat" I cannot really say which option should be preferred. I would lean a bit more on the second, unless there are more things that can be explained with the other an we can sort of apply Occam's razor.


To make it clear: I'm not married with the "Tarquin has Infinite Deflection" idea. But from the information I have/had(?) it seems to be a RAW explanation. Discarding RAW for homebrew is just bad - and your argumentation was just "I don't like this RAW explanation, so therefore it is homebrew".

[SavageWombat]

That is a hypothesis that is not comparable to the current discussion. There is no problem with Tarquin having Infinite Deflection (other than basically "you don't like it").

It's comparable because it demonstrates that there exists a line for where a feat is not an acceptable explanation just because it is RAW. The issue is not RAW, but what standard of proof we use.

In your example Roy doesn't fit fulfill one prerequisite (being Large, since Roy is a Human and therefore a Medium-sized creature [and I'm not even sure if PCs have access to Monster traits, but that is irrelevant since he doesn't fulfill being Large]). So RAW he cant have Awesome Blow, so Roy having Awesome Blow cannot be a RAW explanation for that scene.

Nitpicking the analogy does not address the point.

I can't tell what that scene can tell us about Roy (since I'm not familiar with the D&D possibilities and don't want to dig what the SRD has for option that might work), but I can tell that it is not "Roy has Awesome Blow". Unless you can also argue why a Medium-sized creature has gotten access to a feat requiring a Large size.

There exists at least one race - the Goliath - and I vaguely remember a feat, that allows a Medium character to act as a Large character for combat purposes. But again, I'm not going to nitpick the analogy.

Why do you think it is RAW impossible for Tarquin to have Infinite Deflection? And don't start "Rich wanted to show him snatch arrows, so it can't be Infinite Deflection." or "If Rich wanted to show him have Infinite Deflection he would used it against more than two arrows.". Both these arguments (and all others I have seen from you) have nothing to do with RAW. None of the prerequisites are problematic from a RAW standpoint (other than that you believe "Tarquin isn't epic because epic is way to special for Tarquin").

One more time - I do not need to prove it is "RAW impossible". I want to convince people that the description of the feat Infinite Deflection does not match what is shown in the strip. So I can use those arguments, because you are the only one insisting on an RAW alternative.

With that argument I can understand to remove Infinite Deflection/Snatch Arrows/Deflects Arrows and come up with another alternative. And from the options "houserule instantaneously drop something" vs. "Tarquin's Arrow Snatching special feat" I cannot really say which option should be preferred. I would lean a bit more on the second, unless there are more things that can be explained with the other an we can sort of apply Occam's razor.

Since everyone else keeps arguing points they don't actually support - you don't need your hands to Ride (control mount with your knees) or to Climb (hold on with one hand as long as you're not moving) according to the RAW. Since we're ignoring what the strip actually depicts and all.

I find it wryly amusing how easily you and others admit that there are problems with the fit between feat and comic, but are loath to consider simply removing it.

To make it clear: I'm not married with the "Tarquin has Infinite Deflection" idea. But from the information I have/had(?) it seems to be a RAW explanation. Discarding RAW for homebrew is just bad - and your argumentation was just "I don't like this RAW explanation, so therefore it is homebrew".

No, my argument has always been "I don't think this feat fits what we've been shown, so therefore it should not be listed." Between the two extremes of "RAW" and "homebrew" there is simply "we don't know". "No entry" is a better fit for "we don't know" than a bad fit feat.

[ChristianSt]

I want to convince people that the description of the feat Infinite Deflection does not match what is shown in the strip.

Why doesn't it match with what is shown?
I have (I think two or three pages ago) clearly stated how Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows can be used exactly as Tarquin used it in the comic. (Minus perhaps this free hand thing - which is an argument you never have presented.)

[SavageWombat]

Why doesn't it match with what is shown?
I have (I think two or three pages ago) clearly stated how Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows can be used exactly as Tarquin used it in the comic. (Minus perhaps this free hand thing - which is an argument you never have presented.)

Because every reason I've already stated above, which you keep discounting because you are overly-focused on RAW. Rules Lawyering, as it is sometimes called.

I didn't think the free hand requirement was unknown by anyone. It's kind of at the heart of "why shooting Tarquin would cause him to fall". What Savannah pointed out was a timing issue about when his hands are considered "free" for use.

[ChristianSt]

Because every reason I've already stated above, which you keep discounting because you are overly-focused on RAW. Rules Lawyering, as it is sometimes called.

...

You posted this earlier:

The comic clearly depicts a highly specific ability - the ability to catch up to two arrows, one per free hand.

I responded with how it is possible to do that with Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows.

Yes you can also do other things on top of that with it, but why isn't a combination of feats that allow "A" or "B" (and maybe "C") a valid explanation of how a character did "A"?


[Also I did now about the free hand clause, but I assumed it is no problem to instantaneously drop something.]

[Shale]

You know what answer you're going to get. You've gotten it easily a dozen times just in this go-round. You don't agree with it. We get that. Why keep asking?

[SavageWombat]

You know what answer you're going to get. You've gotten it easily a dozen times just in this go-round. You don't agree with it. We get that. Why keep asking?

I'm going with Shale on this one. I've made my point, and some people even agree with it.

I originally posted because I felt the discussion should have been revisited after the Tarquin-on-the-rail scene, and it wasn't. Now it has been. Just because I feel strongly that I'm right doesn't mean it looks like I'm going to get my way.

And we've seen what happens when we call for a vote in the "Rich's Quotes" thread.

[Kalmegil]

Well, the free-action drop thing still needs to be resolved. So you might get your way.

[SavageWombat]

Well, the free-action drop thing still needs to be resolved. So you might get your way.

True. Points to be debated then:

1) The dinosaur. Tarquin does not technically need to be holding the reins to control the dinosaur, as long as he made a Ride check at the beginning of last round. He is not holding a weapon; there are no other rules for reins. So are his hands full or not?

2) Tarquin must keep one hand on the wall to avoid falling, as per Climb. Dropping an object, as Savannah pointed out, happens on your action. But he's not dropping an object, technically - he's freeing up a hand, an action not covered. He could be interpreted as having one hand free all along, because he wasn't attempting to take a move action - but that doesn't match what we are shown.

[ChristianSt]

Maybe the problem is that I just want to understand what the problem is you see here. Because I can't see any problems. [Since he did things he could do* with the feats he has in the OP while not doing anything that contradicts** having those feats.]

But since you don't want to provide any valid reasons from a perspective of the threads rules, I just gonna say "I agree to disagree with you", and walk away from this discussions, since it just doesn't make any sense to spend more posts on it. Though it probably would have been a better decision from me to do that 3 pages ago - but that is not your fault


* Baring the free hand thing (which I'm not sure how it gets resolved). Which is interestingly a point where your proposed feat is as invalid as the ones currently listed in the OP. So maybe you get what you want (removing Infinite Deflection), but certainly not because of the reasons you posted.


** Since making suboptimal/bad decisions is no reason in itself. Even though Roy can clearly choose to Cleave through mummies, nothing would have stopped him from attacking them one by one if he wants.

[Loreweaver15]

As far as dropping his grip on the airship:

I'm not sure that at that point he was gripping the airship.

We see in panel 3 that Tarquin has at least one of his feet hooked into the space between boards in the side of the ship, and he continually adjusts his position for the following panels until he reaches a vertical standing position (complete with exasperated body language towards Elan--), at which point he is leaning against the railing with, it always appeared to me, his hands loosely on the inward side of that railing. If that's the case, then what happens is: Haley fires and Tarquin zips his hands up reflexively, the momentum of which topples him backwards and he flails an arm out and gets a poor grip on the side of the ship again.

This is, I admit, a shaky argument, because it's based on the body language of a stick figure, but I would like to examine the actual physicality of the scene from you guys' perspective.

[SavageWombat]

As far as dropping his grip on the airship:

I'm not sure that at that point he was gripping the airship.

We see in panel 3 that Tarquin has at least one of his feet hooked into the space between boards in the side of the ship, and he continually adjusts his position for the following panels until he reaches a vertical standing position (complete with exasperated body language towards Elan--), at which point he is leaning against the railing with, it always appeared to me, his hands loosely on the inward side of that railing. If that's the case, then what happens is: Haley fires and Tarquin zips his hands up reflexively, the momentum of which topples him backwards and he flails an arm out and gets a poor grip on the side of the ship again.

This is, I admit, a shaky argument, because it's based on the body language of a stick figure, but I would like to examine the actual physicality of the scene from you guys' perspective.

Well, yes, but that's from looking at the artwork.

The actual RAW says: "You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. "

So since I'm told that rules trump mere observation, Tarquin must be holding on with one hand regardless.

Should I be posting this in blue?

[ChristianSt]

Mh I'm actually not sure, but I would interpret the body language that he surely has the railing more or less "in hand". At least I wouldn't exactly say he has free hands right there. So from a rules standpoint I would say he somehow needed to "drop the railing" before snatching arrows. And from what I read it is implied you can do Free Actions (other than to speak) only during your turn.

So since I'm told that rules trump mere observation, Tarquin must be holding on with one hand regardless.

Should I be posting this in blue?

I'm not sure if you want to say that others shouldn't take your second to last sentence (or your complete post?) serious, but I just wanted to say that I never implied that rules trump observation, neither can't I remember someone else implying that.

[Douglas]

** Since making suboptimal/bad decisions is no reason in itself. Even though Roy can clearly choose to Cleave through mummies, nothing would have stopped him from attacking them one by one if he wants.

This reminds me of an example from statistics class in high school: over and over again, we were told "correlation does not imply causation" - to infer causation, you need a controlled experiment. And yet, even professional statisticians and scientists readily accept now that cigarette smoking causes cancer in humans despite no such controlled experiment having ever been performed. This came about because of an extended discussion that concluded the preponderance of evidence met such a high standard that the experiment was not, in this particular case, necessary.

It is true that suboptimal or bad decision making is not normally evidence for this thread. This is not a normal suboptimal or bad decision, however.

Tarquin's decision is bad in an extremely obvious way to even the most casual reader, even one with no D&D knowledge whatsoever - it risks falling from the airship, simultaneously taking a large amount of falling damage and losing all remaining hope of favorably resolving the Elan situation.

Tarquin's decision, assuming he has the feat proposed, has a better alternative that is both extremely simple and extremely obvious to even the most casual reader of the feat's rules text - just deflect both arrows with one hand, it's the most basic use the feat has.

The consequences of Tarquin's decision relative to the supposed alternative are extremely spectacular - a huge amount of damage and the total loss of his entire goal.

I submit that the combination of the extreme nature of all three of these factors at once should be considered sufficient to admit homebrew as an alternative explanation without needing absolute proof or a quote from The Giant, especially when the proposed homebrew - that, however he does it, Tarquin can only snatch and only once per hand - simultaneously is so simple and fits the evidence so well.

[ryuplaneswalker]

Tarquin's decision is bad in an extremely obvious way to even the most casual reader, even one with no D&D knowledge whatsoever - it risks falling from the airship, simultaneously taking a large amount of falling damage and losing all remaining hope of favorably resolving the Elan situation.

Except you are only giving half the situation there.

It is not just the risk of arrow to the face vs falling, Tarquin has a chance to talk Elan into helping him, he is not going to do that with an arrow.

[Techwarrior]

Aye, it's a lower strength, and therefore is irrelevant if we consider flight loads. I was figuring it anyway so that even if we can't reach a consensus on flight load evidence (since some folks don't approve of it), we can still give her a minimum STR of 16. As Crusher suggested, it's a place to start.

I agree that there's no one-handed lift rule; I was merely thinking through my decision to apply to above-the-head lift rule to the scene with Sabine & Roy.

I don't think I agree with her having Improved Bull Rush. While she does enjoy that flying tackle maneuver, there's no evidence of of IBR except the failure of Roy/Elan to take an AoO. In Roy's case, she caught him flat-footed, and in Elan's, he was unarmed, explaining why each character could not make an AoO. (This is if you accept that an untaken AoO is evidence of a feat in the first instance, which I understand that some do not.)

Durkon is likewise unarmed in 810 when she grapples him; I don't think we have evidence of Improved Grapple either.

The point isn't about the rules concerning the difference in how much she can carry while flying versus how much she can carry without flying. I'm saying that to carry Nale and Thog with an Overland Speed she has to be able to carry their combined weight with her Heavy Load. That pegs her minimum Str to 19, ignoring the additional rules for how much you can carry and fly effectively.

In regards to both of the Improved X feats, that makes sense and I'm willing to drop those as suggestions, although I think I've seen her grapple someone while they were armed and not flat-footed, so I might bring that back up.

On to the topic of flying, carrying loads, and Sabine's strength:
1: I agree that Roy being described as "big" is enough to say that his weight is at least the average for a human male.
2: I agree that there is hard evidence for Sabine having at least 19 Str. She might have more, or might have something that increases the load she can fly with. I prefer the latter option, because succubi only have a +2 Str modifier (enough that an individual succubus could, by luck of the dice, have a 19 or 20, but anything more than that would still require special effort on her part to raise it).
3: IIRC, one option for increasing her load while flying is the feats Reinforced Wings and Heavyweight Wings, from Races of the Dragon, which I believe have come up before in this thread.
4: If we're using loads while flying to determine strength, then we also have to contend with Celia carrying Roy. Sylphs don't have a Str bonus (even if we adjust for them being inexplicably medium-sized), and her wings are described as "diaphanous", which does not sound consistent with them being "reinforced" or "heavyweight". With Roy, we might account for this by her casting a spell on him beforehand (a Levitate would do the trick), but then she later whisked away Haley without any preparation needed.

1) As I've said, Nale and Thog are still heavier, and she lifted them in such a way as to require her Strength to put doing that underneath the maximum for her Heavy Load.
2) I prefer the latter option as well, but I'm unsure how this being non-core and unstated versus the possibility of her using an Enhancement item of Strength and her level up increases to boost Strength.
3) That sounds right.
4) Alright, I'll take that on. Those feats don't actually require her to have heavier wings than normal, so the fluff is irrelevant. If she has Reinforced Wings (can fly with a medium load), she only needs a Strength of 15 to be able to pull of both of the listed accomplishments (Haley should be lighter than Roy, even including gear). The same feat on Sabine allows her to get away with a total Strength (including Enhancement items) of 22.

[Flame of Anor]

If you look carefully at 936, especially panels 1, 2, and 4, you can see that Tarquin is supporting his weight on his forearms or elbows, not his hands. Note the characteristic sharp bend of the elbow as seen best in panel 2. If you were resting your weight on something with your hands, you would not have bent arms. That would put your weight on the arm muscles--like holding yourself halfway through a push-up or chin-up indefinitely. Extremely fatiguing for no good reason.

Rather, if you were resting on your hands, you would have your arms straight, so as to rest the weight on the arm bones. Conveniently enough, the Giant gives us an example of this! Look at Elan's position in panels 1, 4, and 6 of the second page. He is clearly resting on his hands on the railing, unlike Tarquin.

[ChristianSt]

Spoiler: Post about why this would not only be bad/supoptimal, but something else

Show

It is true that suboptimal or bad decision making is not normally evidence for this thread. This is not a normal suboptimal or bad decision, however.

Tarquin's decision is bad in an extremely obvious way to even the most casual reader, even one with no D&D knowledge whatsoever - it risks falling from the airship, simultaneously taking a large amount of falling damage and losing all remaining hope of favorably resolving the Elan situation.

Tarquin's decision, assuming he has the feat proposed, has a better alternative that is both extremely simple and extremely obvious to even the most casual reader of the feat's rules text - just deflect both arrows with one hand, it's the most basic use the feat has.

The consequences of Tarquin's decision relative to the supposed alternative are extremely spectacular - a huge amount of damage and the total loss of his entire goal.

I submit that the combination of the extreme nature of all three of these factors at once should be considered sufficient to admit homebrew as an alternative explanation without needing absolute proof or a quote from The Giant, especially when the proposed homebrew - that, however he does it, Tarquin can only snatch and only once per hand - simultaneously is so simple and fits the evidence so well.

Maybe (but only maybe) you are correct with your analysis.

But it relies sole on interpreting that what happened in a certain way. There are other interpretations that could also be valid, yet don't make Tarquin's decision suicidal (or whatever you call it).

• First of all, by following your argumentation, I could even argue further that Tarquin's decision in itself doesn't make any sense at all, whether he has Infinite Deflection or not: It should have been no problem for him to take one (or even both) arrows to the face! (as other posters have said)
• It assumes that Tarquin realizes what the consequences of his actions are. This was more or less a decision of split seconds. I think it wouldn't be hard to find real life examples of decisions that seem much worse than this.
• We don't know what Tarquin wanted to achieve in this situation. Maybe he realized that he needed to abort the fight, and wanted to look more desperate. And that tactic he employed successful. I can't think right now of a scenario where Tarquin would look more desperate than the events shown. (It wasn't enough that Elan decided to save him, but Tarquin couldn't know that.)
• Maybe it was to highlight how skillful/tactical Haley applied her actions in this scenario? She successfully convinced Tarquin to catch the arrows. If he could do even better things, than this highlights how good Haley tempted him to do a bad thing.

We simple don't know which of this (or your) alternatives is likelier or how it was intended.
Claiming "it is obvious" is just a way to hide that it is your personal interpretation.
Dragging in the mysterious "casual reader" doesn't help either. [Heck what is this "casual reader"? Because from all images I have it is not someone who visits the forum and certainly not someone who ponders about D&D-rules.]

[Taelas]

To be honest, I think it was simply set up such that Tarquin reacted on instinct, and his normal instinct is to catch arrows shot at him.

[Coat]

Why doesn't it match with what is shown?
I have (I think two or three pages ago) clearly stated how Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows can be used exactly as Tarquin used it in the comic. (Minus perhaps this free hand thing - which is an argument you never have presented.)

Tarquin's behaviour is inconsistent with Snatch Arrows + Infinite Deflection, because

1. He is never shown deflecting an arrow
2. He is never shown intercepting more than two arrows
3. He intercepts arrows that narratively should not have been aimed at him

All of this can be explained by Snatch Arrows + Infinite Deflection but is not consistent with them.

If we knew that the Giant operates strictly by RAW and has RAW character sheets for each character that their actions are strictly in accordance with, then Snatch Arrows + Infinite Defection is the only possible interpretation.

However, we know that the Giant does not.

What is the purpose of this thread: to translate the comic into the world of RAW? Or to record the capabilities of the characters as shown?

Personally, I find the latter more interesting and useful than the former, but whatever.

[Emanick]

Yeah, I think we're all overthinking the "why did Tarquin make this suboptimal decision, even when he had about a fifth of a second to react" thing. No human being can think through things logically during the time it takes an arrow to fly 20 feet. Tarquin is reacting on pure instinct there, and so I think it's unreasonable to put too much thought into whether his actions were wise enough to be "in character." Literally anybody can make a poor choice when they have about 0.2 seconds to think about it.

[Myou]

....

I normally just lurk in this thread since the long, in-depth arguments that go on are not something I want to get drawn into, but I do want to voice my support, since this has gone on far too long now. I absolutely agree with douglas and his side, and want to add my 'vote', whatever that may be worth, towards amending Tarquin's stats - for the reasons that have already been explained in excellent detail.

[With a box]

maybe the ship is so long, Haley's arrows need a full round to reach Tarquin
It could be a hint of the size of the Machina

[Loreweaver15]

Tarquin's behaviour is inconsistent with Snatch Arrows + Infinite Deflection, because

1. He is never shown deflecting an arrow
2. He is never shown intercepting more than two arrows
3. He intercepts arrows that narratively should not have been aimed at him

All of this can be explained by Snatch Arrows + Infinite Deflection but is not consistent with them.

If we knew that the Giant operates strictly by RAW and has RAW character sheets for each character that their actions are strictly in accordance with, then Snatch Arrows + Infinite Defection is the only possible interpretation.

However, we know that the Giant does not.

What is the purpose of this thread: to translate the comic into the world of RAW? Or to record the capabilities of the characters as shown?

Personally, I find the latter more interesting and useful than the former, but whatever.

We can all do the latter on our own, though. Everybody who's read the comic knows that Tarquin has some skill that lets him snatch arrows out of the air consistently; the more difficult task is to, as you say, translate the comic into the world of RAW, finding the closest fit by the basic rules of the game without going into the muddled mechanics that the Giant tweaks in order to make the situation more dramatic and interesting. There is literally only one combination of abilities that would allow Tarquin to do his arrow trick at any level of optimization or good decision-making, and so by RAW he must have that ability.

Speaking of which!

Yeah, I think we're all overthinking the "why did Tarquin make this suboptimal decision, even when he had about a fifth of a second to react" thing. No human being can think through things logically during the time it takes an arrow to fly 20 feet. Tarquin is reacting on pure instinct there, and so I think it's unreasonable to put too much thought into whether his actions were wise enough to be "in character." Literally anybody can make a poor choice when they have about 0.2 seconds to think about it.

[ChristianSt]

Tarquin's behaviour is inconsistent with Snatch Arrows + Infinite Deflection, because

1. He is never shown deflecting an arrow
2. He is never shown intercepting more than two arrows
3. He intercepts arrows that narratively should not have been aimed at him

All of this can be explained by Snatch Arrows + Infinite Deflection but is not consistent with them.

If we knew that the Giant operates strictly by RAW and has RAW character sheets for each character that their actions are strictly in accordance with, then Snatch Arrows + Infinite Defection is the only possible interpretation.

However, we know that the Giant does not.

What is the purpose of this thread: to translate the comic into the world of RAW? Or to record the capabilities of the characters as shown?

Personally, I find the latter more interesting and useful than the former, but whatever.

I'm not sure what definition of "consistent" you are using. But if Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows can explain that was it seen, I would say it is consistent with what is being seen. (And to point 3: I think there is nothing that can say whether the arrow would have hit Tarquin or not. So that argument is pure speculation.).

The thread rules (the relevant section I copied a couple of pages ago) are working under the assumption that we use RAW whenever possible (unless where it is not possible or the Giant explicitly said he houseruled this).
So while you say the latter is more interesting and more useful for you, it is not the goal of this thread.


Edit: in fact is pretty hard to show inconstancy in "X having active ability Y". It can pretty much only happen if someone says "really (un)fortunate that X doesn't have the ability to do Y". Because even if X never does Y, we don't know if he didn't do Y because he can't do it, or if he preferred (for whatever reason) not to do Y.

But before you start saying: "So clearly Tarquin should have all feats listed in the SRD!". No, we don't have any scene that requires him to have these feats. But we have scenes (snatching multiple arrows) that requires him to have Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows RAW. [Unless you present another RAW solution how he did it.]

[Coat]

We can all do the latter on our own, though.

You might be able to. I can't.

I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of all DnD spells. I've never read the Epic source books. I've never played a ranger, and have only a hazy understanding of their class abilities.

Everybody who's read the comic knows that Tarquin has some skill that lets him snatch arrows out of the air consistently

I certainly remember that now. Whether I'll still remember it in 18 months time, when Tarquin re-appears half way through book seven is another question: I don't have a perfect recall of every item any character has ever picked up, and every power they've ever used.

As situations arise within the comic, I like to guess at what might happen next. What could Roy do in this situation? Is Varsuvius tapped out of spells, what does s/he have left in the bank? Just how powerful is Tarquin anyway?

Because OotS is based on DnD this kind of speculation is a lot more grounded than, for example, trying to work out whether Aragorn is Moar Awesome than Faramir.

Translating what the characters do into RAW terms is a very useful part of this speculation - but not if we lose too much information in the process.

So I find the information in this thread very useful for this kind of speculation, but for me, a record that Tarquin can consistently catch 2 arrows but has never deflected any is more useful than a theory that he can deflect infinite arrows, but doesn't want to.

Of course, this thread isn't obliged to provide what I want - all I can do is present the case for why it might be worth doing, which I have done.

So I'll shut up now.

Tarquin is reacting on pure instinct there, and so I think it's unreasonable to put too much thought into whether his actions were wise enough to be "in character." Literally anybody can make a poor choice when they have about 0.2 seconds to think about it.

This, I completely agree with.

[Kalmegil]

However, can anyone actually see what Tarquin's hands are doing in the 3rd panel of 925? Because I cannot. In panel 1 he's clearly holding the reins, and in panel 6 he's snatching the arrows, but other than 3 his hands are off-screen the entire time so, barring someone being able to zoom in on 3, we don't actually know if he's holding the reins when Haley shoots her arrows or not.

If you look really closely, you can see his hand at the edge of the panel, and it's on the edge of the reins, in the same position it was in when he was holding the reins two panels earlier:

Spoiler

Show

So we don't need to determine whether he has to "drop" the rail in order to verify that the empty hands requirement of infinite deflection is not part of whatever skill or item Tarquin is using. He's holding the reins; he can't drop them as a free action; he makes a catch. Ergo, there's some houseruling going on here: either out-of-turn free drops, or something other than infinite deflection.

(For the record, the rules the Giant seems (we don't have enough samples to be sure) to have imposed here--one catch with each hand, free drops allowed--seem better to me than the RAW rules. Not that that's relevant to this thread specifically. Just don't want to seem like I'm criticizing the Giant's choice here. The arrow-snatching showing Tarquin's competence, then biting him when he can't adapt is one of the touches that make this arc so wonderful.)

[Coat]

I'm not sure what definition of "consistent" you are using. But if Infinite Deflection + Snatch Arrows can explain that was it seen, I would say it is consistent with what is being seen. (And to point 3: I think there is nothing that can say whether the arrow would have hit Tarquin or not. So that argument is pure speculation.).

(regarding arrows at other targets, I am referring to 925, where Haley announces that she's shooting at Miron, and Tarquin catches two arrows. Though I think it's also debatable whether the smokestick arrow Haley shoots inside the pyramid was going to connect with him).

If I see a man in dirty overcoat sitting by the side of a road, with a board in front of him asking for spare change, that is consistent with the interpretation that he is a beggar. It fits the facts, and what we know about beggars.

He might be a banker who accidentally feel into a muddy puddle after a going out for a drink, lost his wallet in a puddle, and is asking for some change so he can call home while he has a little rest. What we see is explained by that interpretation, but not really consistent with it, because we know bankers are typically unlikely to feel like a little rest by the side of the road and much more likely to explain their situation to someone.

That's the distinction that I'm drawing between 'consistent' and 'explained by'.

The thread rules (the relevant section I copied a couple of pages ago) are working under the assumption that we use RAW whenever possible (unless where it is not possible or the Giant explicitly said he houseruled this).
So while you say the latter is more interesting and more useful for you, it is not the goal of this thread.

Yep. I'm questioning whether those are the best thread rules we could have, or whether it's possible to improve them.


I am suggesting that to change the rules such that we have a thread interpreting the comic in the light of RAW, rather than translating the comic into the world of RAW in the most minimalist way possible, would be more useful and interesting.

And having made that suggestion, I withdraw.

[Chronos]

Quoth Savage Wombat:

The actual RAW says: "You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. "

There we go, then, that clears that up: He's climbing, ergo he has both hands free, ergo he meets the requirement to use Snatch Arrows (and Infinite Deflection).

And Savage Wombat, a question: If you don't like rules lawyering (and that's no criticism; plenty of people don't), then why are you even in this thread? Rules lawyering is the entire purpose of this thread.