OOTS #1107 - The Discussion Thread

[Manty5]

I guess that's what I get for the last D&D game I played being Baldur's Gate.

I take back 80% of the bad things I said about you in the last hour.

Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!

[GloatingSwine]

Hell, statistically this is like a 100% unsafe world!

So what we're saying is that the safest place is the world is physically attached to a high level cleric then?

[Riftwolf]

For the 'bad mother' argument, for what its worth, I'm not calling Hilgya a bad mother for choosing to protect the child herself rather than in the custody of strangers she's distrustful of (Cleric of Loki versus Temple of Thor). I've not read the 'Lone Wolf and Cub' series (though I'd like to), but that's the situation that comes to mind. It's possible Hilgya has only just arrived on Dwarflands, so she doesn't trust *anyone*.

[Riftwolf]

I take back 80% of the bad things I said about you in the last hour.

Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!

Minsk will lead with sword and boot! Boo will covsr the details.

I'm perfectly happy derailing the thread for Minsk-love.

[Talion]

So what we're saying is that the safest place is the world is physically attached to a high level cleric then?

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Durkon got vamp'd, Malack was burned alive*, the High Priest of the 12 Gods was reduced to a char mark on the street, Redcloak has gotten maimed multiple times over the course of main series (IE the online comics)...

...That Priest of Loki in Greysky seemed to have gotten out okay though. Not sure if he qualifies as 'high level' though.

[Dr.Zero]

So what we're saying is that the safest place is the world is physically attached to a high level cleric then?

No idea.

Surely, in retrospect, it seems safer than, for example, being left in custody of a random peasant who lived in Azure City. Which was the safest option possible, before Xykon appeared.
Or safer than leaving him to a random peasant who lives too close to Tarquin/Laurin/Whatever. No, okay, even without them, there are insectoids slave trader rampaging trade routes and the most Good people seem to live in places like the Free City of Doom. Let's forget about the whole continent, to be sure.

Cliffport might be a slightly better choice, as long as if some crazy druid decides to animate trees and destroy their civilization, some heroes are around.

I'd dare to say that being physically attached to a high level cleric who can choose her battles might be not the unsafest option.
If there are much safer options, in a D&D world, where a very high level character as Xykon can put on their knees whole towns for fun, even all by himself, if he has researched something on the line of Rain of Fire, this is unknown to me.

[Keltest]

Minsk will lead with sword and boot! Boo will covsr the details.

I'm perfectly happy derailing the thread for Minsk-love.

Swords! not words!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

For the 'bad mother' argument, for what its worth, I'm not calling Hilgya a bad mother for choosing to protect the child herself rather than in the custody of strangers she's distrustful of (Cleric of Loki versus Temple of Thor).

For the Nth time, neither is anyone else. We are calling her a bad mother for choosing to go into battle with her child when she could instead NOT go into battle with her child. For putting revenge ahead of keeping her child safe.

GW

[Goblin_Priest]

I think, like a carried item, it would use her saves for anything except Will Saves.

That would be a ridiculous rules interpretation, and I'm sure anyone would be hard-pressed into finding any examples of a creature being considered a carried item in the rules.

I can't exclude the possibility altogether, but I highly doubt the rules would provide for any way for this conscious baby to be treated as a carried item. And even in the oddball case this did happen, it does nothing about AC and HP, and just exposes Kudzu to a whole line of sundering feats.

As others have said, the only means to effectively protect the baby is to not seek revenge upon Durkon at all.

[The MunchKING]

That would be a ridiculous rules interpretation, and I'm sure anyone would be hard-pressed into finding any examples of a creature being considered a carried item in the rules.

Why? It doesn't get a Reflex save because Hylga's doing the dodging. It doesn't get AC because Hylgia's blocking for it. Etc. Sounds exactly like the carried item rules.

[hroþila]

Why? It doesn't get a Reflex save because Hylga's doing the dodging. It doesn't get AC because Hylgia's blocking for it. Etc. Sounds exactly like the carried item rules.

I would venture a guess that your AC, since it doesn't merely represent blocking/parrying/dodging but also the protection afforded by your actual armour, shouldn't apply to something you carry on the outside. Many hits that wouldn't harm Hilgya at all would easily kill the baby instantly. Any interpretation of the rules that doesn't take this obvious detail into account is therefore very questionable, and if I were the DM I wouldn't allow it.

[schmunzel]

If the vampires had that, they probably would've used it by now... specifically to remove V's Forcecage. Hilgya would know that already, since she basically just rescued them.

The Vampires that were involved in that scene certainly did *not* have dispel magic.
I wonder how many dispel magic swinging dwarves might be lining up for Vampirization though ?

sch

[Aerysil]

Huh, well that's not consistent with how she left him long ago. Where did she get the idea that he's a pig? By just hearing that he went evil, so then she assumes he must have been a pig in life and concludes because of that he was so willing to embrace evil?

Well, that's not very devoted.

Edit: Re-reading the old comic, she wasn't happy to be sent away, but Durkon's interpretation voiced to her was pretty clear. And, yeah, chaotic.

[hamishspence]

Huh, well that's not consistent with how she left him long ago.

We know she tends to reinterpret character behaviour. Look at what she did with Ivan's actions. Doing so with Durkon, makes sense in light of what we already saw from her in the past.

She is reinterpreting the events of Dungeon Crawling Fools as

"Durkon uses me, then casts me aside once he's had his fun - being deeply unscrupulous."

[Dr.Zero]

I would venture a guess that your AC, since it doesn't merely represent blocking/parrying/dodging but also the protection afforded by your actual armour, shouldn't apply to something you carry on the outside. Many hits that wouldn't harm Hilgya at all would easily kill the baby instantly. Any interpretation of the rules that doesn't take this obvious detail into account is therefore very questionable, and if I were the DM I wouldn't allow it.

The rules about carried (and worn) items already cover that http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/spe...cks.htm#sunder

If anything, I'd house rule a bonus to the kid's AC if she fights stating that she tries to protect the kid (which should give, on the other hand, a penalty to her hit rolls, I suppose)

And, of course, adding all the magic bonuses from the various magic shield and deflection effects.

[hroþila]

The rules about carried (and worn) items already cover that http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/spe...cks.htm#sunder

If anything, I'd house rule a bonus to the kid's AC if she fights stating that she tries to protect the kid (which should give, on the other hand, a penalty to her hit rolls, I suppose)

And, of course, adding all the magic bonuses from the various magic shield and deflection effects.

No, those rules cover purposefully targeting the carried object, not it being accidentally hit by an attack that won't bypass the armour.

[Dr.Zero]

No, those rules cover purposefully targeting the carried object, not it being accidentally hit by an attack that won't bypass the armour.

Good point.
But shouldn't hit him by chance being even more difficult than trying to hit him on purpose (making the AC values in that rule a minimum which can only be increased by the "by chance" factor)?

Edit 2: by the way, hitting him by chance, while being more difficult, would remove the AOO, which keeps the balance of the whole thing.

[Riftwolf]

For the Nth time, neither is anyone else. We are calling her a bad mother for choosing to go into battle with her child when she could instead NOT go into battle with her child. For putting revenge ahead of keeping her child safe.

GW

OK yeh I can go along with that reasoning.

[8BitNinja]

The rules about carried (and worn) items already cover that http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/spe...cks.htm#sunder

If anything, I'd house rule a bonus to the kid's AC if she fights stating that she tries to protect the kid (which should give, on the other hand, a penalty to her hit rolls, I suppose)

And, of course, adding all the magic bonuses from the various magic shield and deflection effects.

I don't know why, but I find something darkly comedic about sundering a dwarvish baby.

[Bob_McSurly]

I don't know why, but I find something darkly comedic about sundering a dwarvish baby.

Just as long as this doesn't lead to you becoming an anti-paladin

[Kish]

This is 3.5; he'll be a blackguard.

[hamishspence]

This is 3.5; he'll be a blackguard.

Unless Dragon Magazine content is in play

[Endarire]

I heard "Turn unn deh" as meaning ancient scripture said with an Eric Cartman-like voice for, "Turn and die! Turn and die!"

[Goblin_Priest]

Why? It doesn't get a Reflex save because Hylga's doing the dodging. It doesn't get AC because Hylgia's blocking for it. Etc. Sounds exactly like the carried item rules.

It's ridiculous because a baby is not an object.

Does a rider user a mount's save and AC? No. Does someone become an object when tied up? No. Instead, they become "helpless".

Helpless

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.

That baby MIGHT get a cover bonus from his mother, and he definitely gets a size bonus, but he also gets a -5 dex bonus, zero armor and shield bonuses, and melee attackers get a +4 to hit him. And even if she somehow got a +50AC epic spell on the baby, an adjacent attacker can simply take a full-round action to auto-hit (and basically auto-kill).

[Seafarer]

If the vampires had that, they probably would've used it by now... specifically to remove V's Forcecage. Hilgya would know that already, since she basically just rescued them.

Except forcecage can't be dispelled. Besides, she's going to fight Durkon, who she probably knows is high enough level to cast dispel magic, so she's still gambling with Kudzu's life.

[Lethologica]

It's ridiculous because a baby is not an object.

Does a rider user a mount's save and AC? No. Does someone become an object when tied up? No. Instead, they become "helpless".

Mounts and riders move independently to a significant degree, and being tied up does not add someone who is defending and dodging for you. I won't say the carried item rules are the best analogy, but these analogies are significantly worse.

[SilverCacaobean]

an adjacent attacker can simply take a full-round action to auto-hit (and basically auto-kill).

What? Seriously? I'd never heard of that rule before... As if they needed to make AC weaker than it already is...

[davidbofinger]

I heard "Turn unn deh" as meaning ancient scripture said with an Eric Cartman-like voice for, "Turn and die! Turn and die!"

If the baby is going to grow into a psychopath like Belkar then you're probably right. But if he's a bard in development then he might be saying, "Dun, dun *dun*".

I also like the ambiguity, intended or not, in "I want to get this done before he [Kudzu/Durkon] gets hungry again."

[Dr.Zero]

It's ridiculous because a baby is not an object.

Does a rider user a mount's save and AC? No. Does someone become an object when tied up? No. Instead, they become "helpless".



That baby MIGHT get a cover bonus from his mother, and he definitely gets a size bonus, but he also gets a -5 dex bonus, zero armor and shield bonuses, and melee attackers get a +4 to hit him. And even if she somehow got a +50AC epic spell on the baby, an adjacent attacker can simply take a full-round action to auto-hit (and basically auto-kill).

I want only to point out the "completely at an opponent's mercy" of the "helpless" rule, before asking a simple question: according to your interpretation, the kid doesn't get the bonus in AC from his "wearer" because he is not an object[*]; on the other hand, according to the rules, a clockwork doll built in Tinkertown which had the same shape, dimension and aesthetic of the kid, and which could simulate baby's random movements mechanically because of its clockwork mechanism, would get that bonus without any doubt: it is an object and it is worn; doesn't this make you think then that the distinction you're making is a bit stretched and creates some incoherence?

[*] Even here, I don't want to start to debate the point, since I don't want to go all Dr Manhattan.

[pendell]

So.

Another great strip, and now we have confirmed that Hilgya receives turn undead because Loki hates the undead, and this is a scenario-specific change from RAW.

I don't really see how anything Hilgya is doing is defensible, really.

First, she and Durkon met, found common ground as clerics, and spent a night of passion together.

Shortly AFTER this one night, they realized their alignments were utterly incompatible. At least, Durkon realized this, but Hilgya doesn't seem to have accepted it. Once Durkon realized he was shtupping a married woman, as a lawful person he immediately broke it off. Regardless of her feelings for him, or his for her, it wasn't right for him to do this.

There's actually a whole discussion on this in Wagner's take on Norse Mythology in The Valkyrie

Spoiler

Show

Odin chooses Sigmund to act as his hero, but Sigmund sleeps with Sieglinde, who is not only his sister but the wife of another man, Hunding. Hunding evokes Freya as guardian of marriage , who in turn calls Odin to account. Odin is forced to kill Sigmund and break the magic sword he forged for him, because whatever great plans he has in store for him, the marriage bond is the marriage bond; a sacred oath not to be lightly cast aside.

If OOTS mythology is anything like that, there really wasn't much Durkon could do; sleeping with an unattached woman is one thing , adultery is something else entirely.

This did not constitute 'abandonment' of a pregnant mother , because at the time neither Durkon nor Hilgya nor anyone on the forums thought for a minute she was pregnant. Getting pregnant from one round of sex is not common in the OOTS universe; Roy and ... what's her name? Forget off hand ... have shtupped every time they met, and no pregnancy has resulted. Elan and Haley have been so busy pretty much everyone in the last book noticed, but there has been no harvest from their wild oats. Belkar hasn't been a blushing virgin either. The only member of the cast who hasn't been sexually active on panel is Vaarsuvius, presumably because V was married and already has kids.

There has been exactly one pregnancy, and that was completely unexpected by everyone. Durkon cannot be held responsible for what he didn't know. Especially if he and Hilgya used protection. I dunno if it was in a prequel book or in the strip proper, but Eugene eluded to protection spells for this sort of thing -- one of which failed, which is why Roy exists. So ... a one time event, between two clerics who presumably understand about precautions? Highly improbable.

Once this happened, I suspect Durkon would have stepped up to take responsibility as a father if he had known. Hilgya never told him. Not by sending, not by any other means.

Because Hilgya doesn't want Durkon to take responsibility as a father. Hilgya wants him dead.

From this we can see that Hilgya really was a good fit with the old linear guild; Nale was the sort to take disproportionate revenge over perceived slights, and Hilgya is doing the same. She is determined to kill Durkon because of his insult to her, not considering her own part in this, not considering whether Durkon would have done things differently, not looking for any other outcome to allow Durkon to do the right thing. No, she's offended and she's going to kill for it. That's exactly what Nale would have done.

As towards bringing Kudzu into battle with her ... what it tells us is that she has no one to trust but herself. There is no one and no place she can trust to leave Kudzu with. So in that regard her decision is probably sound. It still doesn't speak well for her life choices, though, that she's surrounded herself with untrustworthy, unscrupulous people who would use a child as a gambling chip.

Hilgya's not really showing sound judgement or good sense. Which is something, I think, the Giant is trying to point out; becoming a father did not make Tarquin a good man, becoming a mother hasn't made Hilgya wise ...


... wait a minute, isn't wisdom the cleric stat? How can someone with a presumed wisdom at least above 11 be so foolish?

Respectfully,

Brian P.