MitD X: If I told you, you wouldn't believe me

[SirKazum]

While I don't believe the suppressing immunity to mind-effecting thing is a good line of argument to pursue as it widens the base with no real support, page 177 of the PHB says (under voluntarily failing a saving throw) "Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality." So, the MitD could probably suppress his immunity to mind-effecting if he had one.

The idea that the MitD realizes Xykon is casting a spell to enchant him to kill another "friend" of his in the future, and choses not to resist it doesn't seem to be fitting with the MitD's characterization.

While that starts getting into definitions of completely fictional things that ultimately are up to interpretation (which really means the whims of the author and/or DM), I think it can be fairly argued that immunity is a completely different entity from both saving throws and magic resistance, both things that can be suppressed by RAW. The rationale behind it will depend a lot on why that immunity exists, but a few examples show why "suppressing immunity" at least shouldn't automatically be possible.

1) Oozes (as well as many other creatures) are immune to critical hits because they don't really have differentiated organs. Hitting an ooze in one part of its body is as good as hitting it anywhere else. How could a theoretical intelligent ooze suppress that immunity? "Ooh, I'll let them hit me wherever they want, for the same effect they'd get hitting me anywhere else"?

2) Fire Elementals are immune to fire, because they're made of fire. Having a fire elemental choose to start taking damage from a fire spell makes as much sense as a human being choosing to start taking damage from a casual splash of room-temperature water, for example. "You know what, I'll let this water hurt me." No, the water simply doesn't hurt you at all, and neither does the fire hurt the fire elemental.

3) Undead are immune to poison, because they do not have a metabolism or bodily functions that could be affected by the poison. So, no matter where they put that poison, what they do with it, or how much they want it to harm them, it's simply not going to have any effect. It makes no sense to suppress their immunity to poison, voluntarily or not.

See what I'm getting at? Saving throws and spell resistance are things that, at least in principle, may or may not shield you from an effect. So it makes sense that you could voluntarily choose the least beneficial result for you, even if that result couldn't happen "naturally" due to die rolls (i.e. a saving throw bonus higher than the DC). Energy resistance or damage resistance, I guess I sorta can see you voluntarily foregoing that too, because you can be hurt by a strong enough attack - so I guess it makes sense to let you make yourself more vulnerable to these attacks. But immunity? Often, that's associated with a complete impossibility that any effect will take place. I guess you might make exceptions for immunities that come from special abilities not native to your species, such as a paladin's immunity to fear. But for creatures with a natural immunity to mind-affecting spells? I really wouldn't expect them to be able to voluntarily turn that immunity off.

[Kish]

Given that the creature in the darkness was provably unable to turn off his super-strength when hitting Miko, and his desire to be accommodating mysteriously did not shut down his damage reduction when Miko or Belkar slashed at him, the idea that he on any level went "huh, he just cast a mind control spell at me--I guess it would be rude to be immune to them right now" is, while not one of the goofier ideas proposed here, still pretty darn goofy.

[rweird]

SirKazum: It specifies "resistance to magic." As critical hits aren't magical, an ooze couldn't suppress its immunity to critical hits. Considering D&D has the searing spell feat, which literally is fire hot enough to hurt things immune to fire (including fire elementals), there is precedent for magical fire being able to overcome immunity. It doesn't make perfect sense, but there isn't really a reason a fire elemental would want to hurt by fire. Poison usually isn't magical, and wouldn't hurt undead, and if magic is used, well, there are other things that can do ability damage to undead. Again, in this case, why would an undead want to be poisoned?

Still, resistance to magic is unclear as to whether the immunity needs to be explicitly to magical things (such as an elf's immunity to sleep), or not, because if it needs to bee explicitly magical, then none of the examples work (nor would it getting around immunity to mind-effecting).

The rule exists so that things immune to mind-effecting can take advantage of bardic music or heroism, or establish a mindlink. So something immune to transmutation or polymorphing can take advantage of shapechange or owl's wisdom, and otherwise buff people.

In any case, the MitD doesn't know what he is, and if he doesn't know whether he's immune to mind-effecting, he couldn't choose to suppress it (but there also is the argument that forgetting abilities in OotS makes you not have them).

[Crusher]

SirKazum: It specifies "resistance to magic." As critical hits aren't magical, an ooze couldn't suppress its immunity to critical hits. Considering D&D has the searing spell feat, which literally is fire hot enough to hurt things immune to fire (including fire elementals), there is precedent for magical fire being able to overcome immunity. It doesn't make perfect sense, but there isn't really a reason a fire elemental would want to hurt by fire. Poison usually isn't magical, and wouldn't hurt undead, and if magic is used, well, there are other things that can do ability damage to undead. Again, in this case, why would an undead want to be poisoned?

Still, resistance to magic is unclear as to whether the immunity needs to be explicitly to magical things (such as an elf's immunity to sleep), or not, because if it needs to bee explicitly magical, then none of the examples work (nor would it getting around immunity to mind-effecting).

The rule exists so that things immune to mind-effecting can take advantage of bardic music or heroism, or establish a mindlink. So something immune to transmutation or polymorphing can take advantage of shapechange or owl's wisdom, and otherwise buff people.

In any case, the MitD doesn't know what he is, and if he doesn't know whether he's immune to mind-effecting, he couldn't choose to suppress it (but there also is the argument that forgetting abilities in OotS makes you not have them).

Right, but theres a difference between abilities and attributes. MitD can forget he can teleport people (somehow), but he probably wont forget he's got a 35 (or whatever) STR and be unable to lift a big rock, or that he has 300 hp and thus die from a paper cut.

[Shining Wrath]

So while the "house rule" aspect seems to be smaller than I thought, the issue of "Why would MitD allow himself to be ordered to eat someone" is a good question - but back in the early days of the strip, we see MitD thinking of himself as evil ("join us in a hearty evil laugh"), so maybe that's part of his pre-O-Chul self image. If you made me vote, I'd vote against that being what happened, just to be clear. But throwing ideas out to see if it triggers an epiphany in someone else is part of the game as I understand it.

[Hardcore]

i wonder what the difference is between using Pokemon ball, and using a pokemon monster. Rich clearly used the earlier to have Paladins summon their mounts. (pika-chu!)
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0432.html

[Throknor]

i wonder what the difference is between using Pokemon ball, and using a pokemon monster. Rich clearly used the earlier to have Paladins summon their mounts. (pika-chu!)
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0432.html

Without getting into a legal discussion, two points. The idea of summoning with a ball is more of a mechanic which cannot be copyrighted. It's limited use falls more under parody than the ongoing use of an actual character would be.

To use a (somewhat dated) reference, you can parody I Dream of Jeannie by having a character cast spells by blowing shrugging her shoulders and calling her 'Jenny', but having a character called Genie doing the neck bob would risk infringing.

And that's probably as far as we can go that direction without hitting the board's prohibition on legal advice, so if you want to discuss what I mean it would probably be better to message me directly or start a separate topic in a more appropriate place.

[Hardcore]

Thanks for the explanation!

[Hardcore]

Another question: Oona says about MitD "So small though, but will grow in time." Would that support the idea that MitD is more than one sizeclasses smaller than normal for its type?

[Darth Paul]

Oona's comment certainly supports that he's at least one size class smaller than the adult size for his monster type, and I for one would accept that 2 sizes or more are possible... if we're emphasizing "so small" in that line.

I've been wondering (I've tried to work it out, but got confused) how many of the suggested creatures have some sort of smell or stench ability, and how much that should be taken into consideration, given that it's one of the first things MitD mentions in his first chronological appearance (in SoD, with the Stereotypical Big Game Hunters)? Or will it turn out to be a red herring?
Hey, that's the answer- MitD is a magically mutated red herring.

[Rift_Wolf]

Just a quick thought; are there any rules for Deities losing all their Divine ranks?
My idea is that MitD could be a creature from Greco-roman mythology that isn't in a monster manual (I'll admit that this is a very, very small list). Since the patron Deities of the West got snarled, perhaps their Demigod children survived somehow?

[rweird]

Just a quick thought; are there any rules for Deities losing all their Divine ranks?
My idea is that MitD could be a creature from Greco-roman mythology that isn't in a monster manual (I'll admit that this is a very, very small list). Since the patron Deities of the West got snarled, perhaps their Demigod children survived somehow?

Nothing concrete. Deities and Demigods outlines a bunch of vague rules for how to treat divinity, although the gist of it essentially is "The DM decides how it works."

[Kish]

No explicit rules for gods becoming no-longer-gods. If he lost all his divine abilities, he wouldn't be able to do any of the things he's done, unless Rich makes up powers for an ex-god to have...which would make him effectively something Rich made up. If he has even Divine Rank 0, he's immune to mind-affecting effects and getting around that would require a spell that could Suggest a god (probably a slightly higher Spellcraft DC to craft than a spell that could Suggest a golem).

[Lombard]

If he has even Divine Rank 0, he's immune to mind-affecting effects and getting around that would require a spell that could Suggest a god (probably a slightly higher Spellcraft DC to craft than a spell that could Suggest a golem).

Immune to mind-affecting... but not to (greater) bestow curse! A number of entities that aren't outright deities or even former deities are divine rank 0. Half-deities, Valkyries and the like. I'm not to the point of proposing that for MiTD but one thing that would be narratively tasty about a divine rank 0 is the immunity to level drain.*

*Edit: And one element.

[Shining Wrath]

An abomination is also divine rank zero - immune to mind affecting, but gets unspecified spell - like abilities which might explain anything that needs explaining. "Bastard children" of deities, so to speak.

[Crusher]

An abomination is also divine rank zero - immune to mind affecting, but gets unspecified spell - like abilities which might explain anything that needs explaining. "Bastard children" of deities, so to speak.

Isn't the bastard child of a deity typically a demi-god?

I do get what you're saying, though.

[Kish]

In D&D, demigods are simply lowest-rank deities. The child of a god in OotS seems to be a full god (Odin-->Thor and Loki-->Hel).

[Crusher]

In D&D, demigods are simply lowest-rank deities. The child of a god in OotS seems to be a full god (Odin-->Thor and Loki-->Hel).

Isn't Hercules a demi-god, though?

Hmm, are Perseus or Theseus listed and if so, do they get a Divine Rank? They're about the least powerful children of a major god I can think of and I suspect they do not get divine ranks so its not automatic (unless I'm wrong).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Isn't Hercules a demi-god, though?

In Greek mythology, he is, for a while (eventually he achieves full god-hood). In D&D? No idea. In OotS: we have no evidence that the gods have half-human children.

GW

[Kish]

If Hercules (or the others you name) ever existed in the OotS universe, they got gobbled down by the Snarl along with the rest of the only world where the Greek pantheon existed.

If you mean in some official D&D book, I have no idea if some obscure third-party supplement claims "contrary to the way the term's used in the rest of D&D, this mortal is a demigod." Hercules is not in the Deities and Demigods book. He may have been in earlier editions' versions of it; again I don't know and it doesn't matter to OotS.

[Jay R]

In D&D, demigods are simply lowest-rank deities. The child of a god in OotS seems to be a full god (Odin-->Thor and Loki-->Hel).

Isn't Hercules a demi-god, though?

Hmm, are Perseus or Theseus listed and if so, do they get a Divine Rank? They're about the least powerful children of a major god I can think of and I suspect they do not get divine ranks so its not automatic (unless I'm wrong).

You're trying to come up with a consistent set of rules for the Graeco/Roman gods and the Norse gods. There's no such thing.

Mythologically, Thor is the child of two gods, and therefore a god. Loki is the son of a god and a jotun (giants on roughly the same level as gods). There are no demi-gods in the Norse tradition.

Hercules and Perseus are each the son of a god and a mortal. Theseus is the some of a god and two mortals (don't ask), and therefore they are demi-gods.

[Emanick]

If Hercules (or the others you name) ever existed in the OotS universe, they got gobbled down by the Snarl along with the rest of the only world where the Greek pantheon existed.

If you mean in some official D&D book, I have no idea if some obscure third-party supplement claims "contrary to the way the term's used in the rest of D&D, this mortal is a demigod." Hercules is not in the Deities and Demigods book. He may have been in earlier editions' versions of it; again I don't know and it doesn't matter to OotS.

I believe Hercules actually is in Deities and Demigods as a demigod. I checked Wikipedia just to make sure my memory was correct, and it confirms that he's listed as such.

[Kish]

...where? I don't see it.

Edited: Never mind, I did find him in my Deities and Demigods book itself. So I was wrong about him not being there. However...

"Hercules is the son of Zeus, born to a mortal mother, and he had to earn his way to godhood." (Bolding mine.)

His rank is Demigod (not Lesser or Intermediate or Greater God).

Thus, he was born a mortal (not a demigod, not in D&D) and earned his way to being a god of the lowest rank (that is, a demigod).

This is all on page 122 of Deities and Demigods, should someone want to confirm it.

[Lombard]

...where? I don't see it.

Edited: Never mind, I did find him in my Deities and Demigods book itself. So I was wrong about him not being there. However...

"Hercules is the son of Zeus, born to a mortal mother, and he had to earn his way to godhood." (Bolding mine.)

His rank is Demigod (not Lesser or Intermediate or Greater God).

Thus, he was born a mortal (not a demigod, not in D&D) and earned his way to being a god of the lowest rank (that is, a demigod).

This is all on page 122 of Deities and Demigods, should someone want to confirm it.

The book is inconsistent in the extreme. At any rate, however, 'demigod' is defined as divine rank 1-5. And it does say that a half-human/half-deity would be divine rank zero. Which is consistent with earning 'godhood'. At the same time it specifically states that Hercules is different. Another place it calls divine rank zero 'semi-divine'. Another place it calls divine rank zero 'immortal'. Someone did their best to glean commonalities between various pantheons, and they had a reasonable go at it, but I think in the end it was all a bit much to get a perfect system. It probably works best with a custom pantheon.

[Shining Wrath]

Regarding abominations:

All abominations are born directly (or indirectly) from a god and some lesser creature (or idea), but none are favored, wanted, or loved. Still, they all share a tiny spark of deific energy, which grants them the qualities described in below. (Note: deity rules are used, abominations are rank 0 deities.)

This says that deities can have children with ideas; so imagine the abomination produced by, e.g., Venus having a child with Jealousy.

[Crusher]

Regarding abominations:


This says that deities can have children with ideas; so imagine the abomination produced by, e.g., Venus having a child with Jealousy.

Hah. That has trouble written all over it.

...where? I don't see it.

Edited: Never mind, I did find him in my Deities and Demigods book itself. So I was wrong about him not being there. However...

"Hercules is the son of Zeus, born to a mortal mother, and he had to earn his way to godhood." (Bolding mine.)

His rank is Demigod (not Lesser or Intermediate or Greater God).

Thus, he was born a mortal (not a demigod, not in D&D) and earned his way to being a god of the lowest rank (that is, a demigod).

This is all on page 122 of Deities and Demigods, should someone want to confirm it.

Interesting. I'm kinda fishing around to understand how deities' off-spring are handled from a divine rank standpoint. How consistent it is, and whether there's a loophole through which a non-Divine Ranked Abomination might sneak through and thus become MitD. I know that the Stickverse isn't entirely consistent with 3.5e rules, but that's really only a concern for down-the-road in the ~10% chance a window for something useful is found.

[Shining Wrath]

Hah. That has trouble written all over it.



Interesting. I'm kinda fishing around to understand how deities' off-spring are handled from a divine rank standpoint. How consistent it is, and whether there's a loophole through which a non-Divine Ranked Abomination might sneak through and thus become MitD. I know that the Stickverse isn't entirely consistent with 3.5e rules, but that's really only a concern for down-the-road in the ~10% chance a window for something useful is found.

The single biggest flaw with the game we play in this thread is that we know MitD is atypical for whatever it is he is. Speaking Common; in a rain forest; small but will grow; has teleportation powers he doesn't even realize he has and can't reproduce later; can't "hit lightly" if he tries (twice); and very probably has a non-evil alignment but is from a usually evil race. Having established N "exceptions" to bog-standard whatever-the-heck-he-is, we've got to accept the possibility of N+1.

That's why I throw out off-the-wall ideas sometimes; when MitD emerges from the darkness it will probably reward someone who thought out-of-the-box.

[nleseul]

can't "hit lightly" if he tries (twice)

On this particular point, I'd note that Thog has the same property. So it's probably not an indication of anything unusual about MitD, with respect to the rest of his species or otherwise, other than that whatever he is has a very high damage modifier.

[Shining Wrath]

On this particular point, I'd note that Thog has the same property. So it's probably not an indication of anything unusual about MitD, with respect to the rest of his species or otherwise, other than that whatever he is has a very high damage modifier.

I believe that's "rule of funny", because otherwise the epic Thog - Roy battle would have been over pretty quickly. Also, he's explicitly stated as power attacking, which is the opposite of hitting lightly.

[Keltest]

I believe that's "rule of funny", because otherwise the epic Thog - Roy battle would have been over pretty quickly. Also, he's explicitly stated as power attacking, which is the opposite of hitting lightly.

well power attacking for that much would really only allow you to hit on a critical hit, no?