Class and Level Geekery XII - Even Nerds Call Us Nerds

[SavageWombat]

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).

No, that's the opposite of clearing it up. he's climbing, ergo he has one hand on the wall, ergo he doesn't.

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.

There's a difference between discussing rules technicalities and rules-lawyering. I started to explain better, but it might get overly hostile-sounding.

[illyahr]

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).

Actually, to catch two arrows he'd need two hands free, which he doesn't.

Also, Deflect Arrows, and Snatch Arrows as a result, requires you to not be flat-footed. Climbing treats you as Flat-Footed so it would be impossible for Tarquin to use Snatch Arrows, by RAW, in this instance.

[sr123]

Why can't the words "possibly" and "probably" be used in the descriptions, with appropriate comic links?

As in, Tarquin: "Gloves of Arrow Snatching or the Snatch Arrows feat; possibly Infinite Deflection."

Not everything in the front page has to be written with absolute certainty. In fact, much of the stats (particularly those based on the later comics, in which Rich has explicitly gone off-rules) should not.

[SavageWombat]

Also, Deflect Arrows, and Snatch Arrows as a result, requires you to not be flat-footed. Climbing treats you as Flat-Footed so it would be impossible for Tarquin to use Snatch Arrows, by RAW, in this instance.

Good point. Clearly Tarquin has levels in Thief-Acrobat. That lets you climb without being flat-footed, right?

[ChristianSt]

Actually, to catch two arrows he'd need two hands free, which he doesn't.

Also, Deflect Arrows, and Snatch Arrows as a result, requires you to not be flat-footed. Climbing treats you as Flat-Footed so it would be impossible for Tarquin to use Snatch Arrows, by RAW, in this instance.

Hm, I can't see it anywhere (under Climb and under Flat-Footed), that Climbing causes someone to be Flat-Fooded. The only thing that is related that you loose "Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)" on both.

Why can't the words "possibly" and "probably" be used in the descriptions, with appropriate comic links?

As in, Tarquin: "Gloves of Arrow Snatching or the Snatch Arrows feat; possibly Infinite Deflection."

Not everything in the front page has to be written with absolute certainty. In fact, much of the stats (particularly those based on the later comics, in which Rich has explicitly gone off-rules) should not.

First of all you probably could put a "possibly" and "probably" to nearly anything here, since I think the stuff we actually can say for certain here are pretty few. But feel free to imagine that this thread title is "Possibly Class and Probably Level Geekery" if it feels better for you . [Also that leaves the problem that Snatch Arrows alone doesn't allow Tarquin to do what he did.]

(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).

I assumed you talk about these, but as I said it is pretty much impossible to say whom they would have hit if Tarquin didn't catch them. I think it is likelier that they would have hit Tarquin.

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'.

I think you are mixing "consistent" as in "(of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions." [e.g. "a consistent explanation"] op with "unlikely". [At least that is what Google tells consistent should mean (which is luckily that what I have thought it should mean).]

Even in the example you provided, there is no logical contradictions with the hypothesis "the man in dirty overcoat is a banker". Certainly it is likely wrong and you could do a measurement of some sort (e.g. asking him) to add new information to falsify that hypothesis, but without further information it isn't inconsistent.

It would be inconsistent if I would say "he never leaves his cubicle in the bank from 2pm to 4pm" while he sits there at 3pm.

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.

And how would that work? What exactly means "interpreting the comic in the light of RAW"? It just sounds like endless argumentation which homebrew fits better.

[Yes, I know there are some nearly endless argumentations ongoing right now - but I think we would have far more with such a fuzzy guideline]

[Kalmegil]

Hm, I can't see it anywhere (under Climb and under Flat-Footed), that Climbing causes someone to be Flat-Fooded. The only thing that is related that you loose "Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)" on both.

Elsewhere the Armor Class Modifiers table makes it clear that the loss of dexterity bonus to AC while climbing is due to being flat-footed: "Flat-footed (such as surprised, balancing, climbing)."

OK, so now we can show that catching two arrows while holding reins with at least one hand* and catching two arrows while climbing or clinging to a wall require some house-ruling if done under infinite deflection.

*Tarquin could be holding the reins with only his left hand, and clinging is allowed with one hand. But he catches two arrows, and once he catches one arrow, he has no empty hand and he can't drop the first arrow (and we know he in fact did not drop the arrow).

To sum up where we are now on this particular angle, we have two instances of non-RAW infinite deflection. Therefore there's no reason to prefer infinite deflection plus free-drop houserule over some other houserule.

[ChristianSt]

Elsewhere the Armor Class Modifiers table makes it clear that the loss of dexterity bonus to AC while climbing is due to being flat-footed: "Flat-footed (such as surprised, balancing, climbing)."

OK, so now we can show that catching two arrows while holding reins with at least one hand* and catching two arrows while climbing or clinging to a wall require some house-ruling if done under infinite deflection.

*Tarquin could be holding the reins with only his left hand, and clinging is allowed with one hand. But he catches two arrows, and once he catches one arrow, he has no empty hand and he can't drop the first arrow (and we know he in fact did not drop the arrow).

To sum up where we are now on this particular angle, we have two instances of non-RAW infinite deflection. Therefore there's no reason to prefer infinite deflection plus free-drop houserule over some other houserule.

Mh the free hand/climbing/clinging is a though one to deal with. Right now I would say it doesn't work RAW.

To 925: It could be that he dropped the rains while being off-panel (i.e. the Panel where Haley shoots - I'm not sure if it is possible to say that it was impossible to him for having an action in between).


Since the free hand/climbing/clinging sounds like it needs a rather complicated workaround (unless someone wants to start arguing that clinging != climbing, and so Tarquin isn't Flat-Footed. In that case a "Instantaneous dropping" is enough), I would say "Taruin's Arrow Snatching feat" is the best explanation [With something like "Once per hand you may at any time snatch an arrow targeting you/that would hit you while letting any object free you hold with that hand."]

[Crusher]

Elsewhere the Armor Class Modifiers table makes it clear that the loss of dexterity bonus to AC while climbing is due to being flat-footed: "Flat-footed (such as surprised, balancing, climbing)."

OK, so now we can show that catching two arrows while holding reins with at least one hand* and catching two arrows while climbing or clinging to a wall require some house-ruling if done under infinite deflection.

*Tarquin could be holding the reins with only his left hand, and clinging is allowed with one hand. But he catches two arrows, and once he catches one arrow, he has no empty hand and he can't drop the first arrow (and we know he in fact did not drop the arrow).

To sum up where we are now on this particular angle, we have two instances of non-RAW infinite deflection. Therefore there's no reason to prefer infinite deflection plus free-drop houserule over some other houserule.

Argument aside, this is the third time in the last few pages you've made an assertion, announced it to be fact, and declared the discussion to be over. Whatever the intent, its coming across as pushy and un-collegial, particularly since the whole rein discussion is certainly not established as fact.

The climbing/flatfooted point, however, may be another story. I'm curious to see how it plays out.

[Coat]

I think you are mixing "consistent" as in "(of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions." [e.g. "a consistent explanation"] op with "unlikely". [At least that is what Google tells consistent should mean (which is luckily that what I have thought it should mean).]

I am using consistent to mean "an argument or set of ideas that does not contain significant contradictions". Rather than logical.

A banker sitting in muddy clothes begging for coins is inconsistent because it ignores significant facts about bankers. The idea of a banker includes a concept of a person with a certain sense of their importance and status in society, with a certain amount of drive and ambition.

We do not (or, at least I don't - but I think this is fairly common narrative currency) expect a person of status, drive and ambition to give up and beg for coins just because they lose their wallet and their coat gets muddy. We expect someone of that background to take a more active role in solving the problem, to demand of the world a solution.

As an interpretation it is sufficient to explain the facts but it is not consistent with them because it ignores things that we believe we know about bankers that do not fit the observed facts.

Infinite deflections explains the facts, but it is not consistent with them because it allows ignores things we know about infinite deflection (that you can intercept more than two arrows) and that we believe we know about Tarquin (he is a capable combatant, not an actual clown)

And how would that work? What exactly means "interpreting the comic in the light of RAW"? It just sounds like endless argumentation which homebrew fits better.

[Yes, I know there are some nearly endless argumentations ongoing right now - but I think we would have far more with such a fuzzy guideline]

We will have nearly endless arguments whatever the rules, because that is the nature of rules and people.

Science is probably the best example of a clearly defined rules rigidly followed (i.e. the methodology of science), and it still descends into bickering and argumentation.

The question is *do the rules, when followed according to the intent, generate useful and interesting discussion*. I point you to the thread title, and ask whether this thread is really as useful as it could be.

TL;DR: there is a desire to have rules that are sufficiently prescriptive that there is no room for discussion and all statements are either true or false. This is precisely the desire you're applying to the story with the banker. In my opinion, it is a mistake, because there are simply never enough facts to work with. The only statement you end up able make is that there is a man asleep in a muddy raincoat - all else is interpretation; in my opinion, it is better to accept a certain amount of uncertainty, and try to have a constructive discussion about what's likely.

[Kalmegil]

Argument aside, this is the third time in the last few pages you've made an assertion, announced it to be fact, and declared the discussion to be over. Its coming across as pushy and un-collegial.

I have NOT declared the discussion to be over. I have summed up the full breadth of this aspect of the discussion each time I've addressed it, mainly because it's happening intertwined with a different discussion on the same topic, after responding to new information that has been presented by posters. I have also stated my belief that I've addressed all the outstanding (as in raised within the discussion) objections to the position I'm advocating.

One of those was in response to your specific question (my post with the blown up screenshot). If you have anything specific to object to in my conclusions in that post, I'll address them further.

And, yes, I have stated things as facts: specific thing about what the rules say as written, with links to support those facts. If you take a quick gander through the thread, there's a lot of that going on.

Further, several of my posts have ended in questions or in express acknowledgement that the issue is not yet resolved ("Well, the free-action drop thing still needs to be resolved", for example

This is the very opposite of me declaring the discussion over: it's me having the discussion.

[ChristianSt]

I am using consistent to mean "an argument or set of ideas that does not contain significant contradictions". Rather than logical.

A banker sitting in muddy clothes begging for coins is inconsistent because it ignores significant facts about bankers. The idea of a banker includes a concept of a person with a certain sense of their importance and status in society, with a certain amount of drive and ambition.

We do not (or, at least I don't - but I think this is fairly common narrative currency) expect a person of status, drive and ambition to give up and beg for coins just because they lose their wallet and their coat gets muddy. We expect someone of that background to take a more active role in solving the problem, to demand of the world a solution.

As an interpretation it is sufficient to explain the facts but it is not consistent with them because it ignores things that we believe we know about bankers that do not fit the observed facts.

Infinite deflections explains the facts, but it is not consistent with them because it allows ignores things we know about infinite deflection (that you can intercept more than two arrows) and that we believe we know about Tarquin (he is a capable combatant, not an actual clown)

Unlikely is not a contradiction. I even have the perfect example that basically is exactly the same as your scenario:

Take an professional award-winning violinist vs. a street musician. Surely from your argumentation you presented from the banker/beggar scenario a street musician being an professional award-winning violinist would be contradiction.


Yet that actually happened! So does things that actually happen contradict itself nowadays?

[Toper]

I agree entirely with SavageWombat and Coat. The Giant's intention for Tarquin's power seems perfectly clear from 925, where Tarquin catches exactly two of the five arrows that Haley aimed at Miron. If the thread engages in the kind of active denial of the obvious that's necessary to posit that Haley aimed two arrows at Tarquin instead, well, it probably belongs in Silly Message Board Games instead of OOTS Discussion.

Part of me is glad that there's such a resistance to the silliness here, but another part of me would rather just abandon it to the people who think that nerds call them nerds.

TL;DR: there is a desire to have rules that are sufficiently prescriptive that there is no room for discussion and all statements are either true or false. This is precisely the desire you're applying to the story with the banker. In my opinion, it is a mistake, because there are simply never enough facts to work with. The only statement you end up able make is that there is a man asleep in a muddy raincoat - all else is interpretation; in my opinion, it is better to accept a certain amount of uncertainty, and try to have a constructive discussion about what's likely.

Yes, this exactly.

[Crusher]

This is the very opposite of me declaring the discussion over: it's me having the discussion.

- "So now can we remove it (and the stats that rely on it, such as his level)?"

- "Therefore there's no reason to prefer infinite deflection plus free-drop houserule over some other houserule."

Statements like these are attempts to call an end to the discussion, not further it.

[Loreweaver15]

Part of me is glad that there's such a resistance to the silliness here, but another part of me would rather just abandon it to the people who think that nerds call them nerds.

Bit more of a direct reference, actually :P

[Kalmegil]

- "So now can we remove it (and the stats that rely on it, such as his level)?"

- "Therefore there's no reason to prefer infinite deflection plus free-drop houserule over some other houserule."

Statements like these are attempts to call an end to the discussion, not further it.

No, the first one is an attempt to solicit an opinion from others about the post I made. The second is a statement of my conclusion based on the evidence.

Both of these have been done by dozens of other people in this thread and its predecessors. And properly so.

Do you want to address the content of my post, or just your perception of the tone? Because I'm not particularly interested in discussing the latter, and if you're not going to do the former, it'll save me some time to know that up front.

[warrl]

The closest example that comes to my mind is the debate over Xykon exact level needed to cast Maximized Energy Drain. Since there was a clear dispute on the point, the forum used the lower bound even though it assumed an unseen magic item or feat not in SRD (iirc). In this case, Tarquin's level is being set at the higher bound solely on the interpretation of one feat that some of us dispute.

You're correct that the level is being set on the basis of one feat. However, levels are a scale - someone can be described as having 14+ levels meaning they are at least level 14 and may be higher. Feats are on/off - a character either does or doesn't have the feat, no in-between.

As much as I hate to see the evidence for Tarquin's level lost (because I do think the "common-sense" interpretation is that he is level 21) I'm inclined to agree with SavageWombat. Tarquin's arrow-snatching ability has enough conflicts with Infinite Deflection that the latter can't really be called a best-fit.

IF the Infinite Deflection explanation can be made to fit without house-ruling anything, then it fits. If there is no other non-houseruled explanation that fits, then Infinite Deflection is best-fit by virtue of being only-fit.

Is catching two arrows rather than deflecting them, when deflecting would be the better choice, consistent with Infinite Deflection plus Snatch Arrows? Yes, it is. (I'm ignoring the free-hand issue for the moment.) Choosing a sub-optimal tactic does not violate RAW.

And it's quite in-character for Tarquin to be catching arrows rather than deflecting them. It's more showy and badass, and usually not significantly supoptimal. So by now it isn't really a choice, it's a reflex action.

Now as for the free-hand issue... that looks like a real problem unless there's another feat to drop things out-of-turn. I would think it's an incredibly common house-rule to allow such things, but still, in this thread we would rather list something as unexplained than accept house-rules.
If it can't be dealt with, then we can't explain his actions by RAW.

[SavageWombat]

This is the point where I would normally be posting, except it's just reiterating my earlier points. DC al Coda or whatever.

[Savannah]

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).

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that the thread rules also state:

Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions.

(emphasis mine)

Now, there have been several RAW arguments for why Infinite Deflection would not work (free hand, flat-footed). Those need to be hashed out, and may result in Infinite Deflection being removed on its own merits. If loopholes are found, however, I would suggest that this protracted argument shows that Infinite Deflection is not the community's conclusion given the amount of opposition it has been facing lately, and perhaps deserves the same treatment as other highly debated issues, such as Xykon's casting of Maximized Energy Drain and immunity to fire damage.

[Crusher]

No, the first one is an attempt to solicit an opinion from others about the post I made. The second is a statement of my conclusion based on the evidence.

Both of these have been done by dozens of other people in this thread and its predecessors. And properly so.

Do you want to address the content of my post, or just your perception of the tone? Because I'm not particularly interested in discussing the latter, and if you're not going to do the former, it'll save me some time to know that up front.

Just the latter. Since ChristianSt has already addressed the former me replowing that ground would accomplish little.

Edit - Plus, I think, mercifully, both sides have just about exhausted their arguments, and the only points worth discussing now are the free action and flat-footed points which really hinge more on rule interpretation than the comic.

I agree with Warrl's later points. Its not an entirely straightforward question, but if a way out from the hands-free and flat-footed questions cannot be found, then Infinite Deflection cannot be the answer by RAW.

[Kalmegil]

Since the free hand/climbing/clinging sounds like it needs a rather complicated workaround (unless someone wants to start arguing that clinging != climbing, and so Tarquin isn't Flat-Footed. In that case a "Instantaneous dropping" is enough), I would say "Taruin's Arrow Snatching feat" is the best explanation [With something like "Once per hand you may at any time snatch an arrow targeting you/that would hit you while letting any object free you hold with that hand."]

I actually don't think that clinging is climbing, after looking at it again, so I would say he's not flat-footed. But according to RAW only one hand is free when you cling, so the second catch is still problematic (though, as you say, instantaneous dropping would be enough).

[Crusher]

I actually don't think that clinging is climbing, after looking at it again, so I would say he's not flat-footed. But according to RAW only one hand is free when you cling, so the second catch is still problematic (though, as you say, instantaneous dropping would be enough).

The only problem here is that in the comic he catches both arrows with different hands simultaneously. So even if an instant drop is adequate from a rules standpoint, it would mean take rules over what we see in the strip.

[Kalmegil]

The only problem here is that in the comic he catches both arrows with different hands simultaneously. So even if an instant drop is adequate from a rules standpoint, it would mean take rules over what we see in the strip.

True. He clearly does not drop one arrow then catch the other in his one free hand, so instant drop doesn't suffice for that scene.* For that scene to work, there has to be an exception to the "you can perform actions that require one hand while clinging" rule. I think this does take flat-footedness out of the equation, though.

*I got caught up in trying to find a way to mechanically let him catch two arrows while clinging, without matching it to the visuals.

[Crusher]

True. He clearly does not drop one arrow then catch the other in his one free hand, so instant drop doesn't suffice for that scene.* For that scene to work, there has to be an exception to the "you can perform actions that require one hand while clinging" rule. I think this does take flat-footedness out of the equation, though.

*I got caught up in trying to find a way to mechanically let him catch two arrows while clinging, without matching it to the visuals.

Hmm, has anyone looked through past fights looking for examples of people dropping things when it wasn't their round, effectively house-ruling in "instantaneous dropping"?

Edit - Oh, wait. Did you mean the "instantaneous drop" in reference to clinging onto the side of the airship? If that's what you meant (and not dropping the first arrow), then that would actually work fine with what we saw in the strip. My mistake.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hmm, has anyone looked through past fights looking for examples of people dropping things when it wasn't their round, effectively house-ruling in "instantaneous dropping"?

Didn't Elan drop his Bloodingham papers when grappled by Sabine?

BTW, I find the argument that Infinite deflection is not usable while dangling because dangling is a flat-footed state identical to climbing by far the most persuasive indication that Tarquin is operating outside RAW. I would place the onus of demonstrating that dangling is not a flat-footed, "loose your dex bonus" state on those arguing in favour of Infinite Deflection.

Grey Wolf

[Kalmegil]

Oh, wait. Did you mean the "instantaneous drop" in reference to clinging onto the side of the airship? If that's what you meant (and not dropping the first arrow), then that would actually work fine with what we saw in the strip. My mistake.

Nope, I meant dropping the first arrow, and you're right, it simply didn't work with what we saw in the strip. So the free-hand requirement still prevents him catching the second arrow, and an house-rule modifying the clinging/one-hand rule would let him do so, but a house-rule allowing free-action off-turn dropping wouldn't cut it for the scene as pictured.

BTW, I find the argument that Infinite deflection is not usable while dangling because dangling is a flat-footed state identical to climbing by far the most persuasive indication that Tarquin is operating outside RAW. I would place the onus of demonstrating that dangling is not a flat-footed, "loose your dex bonus" state on those arguing in favour of Infinite Deflection.

I couldn't find anything definitive in the SRD, so I moved onto the free-hand requirement. But it certainly seems that the "you can’t move to avoid a blow" condition is just as much in play when you're clinging as when you're climbing. I just didn't want to venture too far into the murky "how much interpreting to RAW can we do here" waters when an alternative reason for rejection was present.

Didn't Elan drop his Bloodingham papers when grappled by Sabine?

I interpreted that as a drop caused by the grapple (if I'm remembering the same scene you are), not a choice. Which would also be a house-rule, I think.

[dps]

Unlikely is not a contradiction. I even have the perfect example that basically is exactly the same as your scenario:

Take a professional violinist vs. a street musician. Surely from your argumentation you presented from the banker/beggar scenario a street musician being a professional violinist would be contradiction.


Yet that actually happened! So does things that actually happen contradict itself nowadays?

How on earth would it be a contradiction? How is a street musician not a professional musician? He takes money for his playing, therefore he's a professional. Granted, he may not be a violinist, but rather play some other instrument, but he's clearly a professional.

[SavageWombat]

How on earth would it be a contradiction? How is a street musician not a professional musician? He takes money for his playing, therefore he's a professional. Granted, he may not be a violinist, but rather play some other instrument, but he's clearly a professional.

While your interpretation is valid, I think many people would assume that a professional musician has a job playing for contract, not for tips. If he's a street musician he's just busking. If the hot dog stand hears him playing and hires him to play for the diners, then he's professional.

[ChristianSt]

How on earth would it be a contradiction? How is a street musician not a professional musician? He takes money for his playing, therefore he's a professional. Granted, he may not be a violinist, but rather play some other instrument, but he's clearly a professional.

Yeah ok. On a certain level a street musician is professional. Probably a better word would have been famous or fillinig concert halls or award winning or whatever.

So I used a wrong word, but that doesn't change anything to the comparisons here.

[Loreweaver15]

I still favor the resting-his-elbows interpretation of Tarquin's body language, but I agree that the flat-footed question IS a relevant objection. I'm going to withdraw from the discussion for the moment, as that's really all I can say on THAT subject.

[glissle]

The text for climbing doesn't say flat-footed, and the text for flat-footed doesn't include climbing. The only place flat-footed and climbing are put together is a table entry whose purpose is to describe the loss of dexterity to AC. I'd say that is a case where the text should be taken over the table.

Also, climbing says your hands have to be free, suggesting that - as we see in the comic - Snatch Arrows messes up climbing (hence the fall), but that climbing doesn't prevent using your hands (if you don't mind falling as a result). Tarquin does apparently drop the arrows off-turn in order to catch himself, so there's still some kind of house rule in effect, but it's probably not specific to snatched arrows.


Why does everything need to be boiled down to just a conclusion? Tarquin's level is important enough to be worth having a footnote explaining how little evidence there is.