Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.

[sengmeng]

I don't usually post in this part of the forum, so forgive me if this has been discussed to death already. When Roy first uses the Spellsplinter maneuver, Wrecan says "There's not a fighter alive that knows that move anymore!" and that might seem to imply that it means the maneuver is an old legend, but if Roy learned it from his grandfather Horace, that means it was around a couple generations back. The move is also obviously useful and in no way obsolete, so rather than the Spellsplinter maneuver being forgotten or falling by the wayside, it seems more logical to me that everyone who knew it was purposely exterminated by magic users.

[Kish]

Maybe. Maybe it requires a BAB of +15 and so when Horace died without any of a tiny number of really high-level adventurers learning it from him, it all but died out. Maybe it can only be learned by a single-classed fighter (or, for more consistency with existing mechanics, has Greater Weapon Specialization as a prerequisite*) and so most people who might have learned it one day went, "Fighter level eleven is dumb level. Thog not take."

*This does run into the warblade problem, but still, if you need 12 fighter levels or 14 warblade levels to learn it, that's a tiny group of potential students in a world where very few characters ever make it to level 10.

[137beth]

I just interpreted that line as meaning that it was really hard to learn and so Horace was the last person to successfully learn it.

[The Aboleth]

Maybe. Maybe it requires a BAB of +15 and so when Horace died without any of a tiny number of really high-level adventurers learning it from him, it all but died out. Maybe it can only be learned by a single-classed fighter (or, for more consistency with existing mechanics, has Greater Weapon Specialization as a prerequisite*) and so most people who might have learned it one day went, "Fighter level eleven is dumb level. Thog not take."

*This does run into the warblade problem, but still, if you need 12 fighter levels or 14 warblade levels to learn it, that's a tiny group of potential students in a world where very few characters ever make it to level 10.

I think this explanation is pretty likely. Horace does tell Roy he'll need to spend a feat to learn the move when he's resurrected, after all:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0600.html

Maybe nobody else after Horace's time was willing or able to learn the required feat.

[sengmeng]

Certainly those are all good points, but they also don't preclude mine. As the meme says "why not both?" If there were never more than, say, five people who knew it, extermination would be much more doable.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Certainly those are all good points, but they also don't preclude mine. As the meme says "why not both?" If there were never more than, say, five people who knew it, extermination would be much more doable.

No, but it does have something your hypothesis doesn't: parsimony. It does not require the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy of wizards targeting warriors which we have never heard of, have no evidence of, and would hardly fit in the characterization of wizards we have seen so far in OotS.

Now, you want to headcanon that such conspiracy exists? Go right ahead, but if that's the standard you apply, your hypothesis also doesn't preclude that the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal finds any person with the feat delicious, and he's eaten them all.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

No, but it does have something your hypothesis doesn't: parsimony. It does not require the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy of wizards targeting warriors which we have never heard of, have no evidence of, and would hardly fit in the characterization of wizards we have seen so far in OotS.

Parsimony? Like, cheapness? Am I just not getting the meaning in that context?

[Kish]

The Law of Parsimony is also known as Occam's Razor: when presented with multiple competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is more likely to be accurate.

In this case, Rich certainly could have one or more spellcasters suddenly appear and attack Roy because they track and are offended by the existence of one of his feats, but there's no real reason to expect him to do so.

[Peelee]

The Law of Parsimony is also known as Occam's Razor: when presented with multiple competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is more likely to be accurate.

In this case, Rich certainly could have one or more spellcasters suddenly appear and attack Roy because they track and are offended by the existence of one of his feats, but there's no real reason to expect him to do so.

That makes way more sense now. Thanks!

[sengmeng]

No, but it does have something your hypothesis doesn't: parsimony. It does not require the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy of wizards targeting warriors which we have never heard of, have no evidence of, and would hardly fit in the characterization of wizards we have seen so far in OotS.

Now, you want to headcanon that such conspiracy exists? Go right ahead, but if that's the standard you apply, your hypothesis also doesn't preclude that the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal finds any person with the feat delicious, and he's eaten them all.

Grey Wolf

Thanks, I'll call it headcanon. With your permission, of course. Not really sure why people pull out Occam's razor in these discussions; it's about a work of fiction, which means probability and logic take a back seat to entertainment value in general, and this work in particular has specifically pointed out when it has done that in the past. The real most logical answer here is that if Rich doesn't go out of his way to clarify, it can be whatever you want it to be. If ambiguity has more entertainment value because someone like me has fun with their theory, but there isn't room in the narrative to explore it any further, then that's probably how it will stay.

[zimmerwald1915]

and would hardly fit in the characterization of wizards we have seen so far in OotS.

Doesn't it, though?

[Fyraltari]

Certainly those are all good points, but they also don't preclude mine. As the meme says "why not both?" If there were never more than, say, five people who knew it, extermination would be much more doable.

If there were never than no more than five people who knew it, I'd not expect the trick to be passed down many generations as the people who would be interested would have chosen a mortality-prone career.
It wouldn't be unlikely that Horace got killed by the Blue Draggon of Reddragonsville and his colleagues by a vampire, a tarrasque, a rockfall, choking on a fish bone respectively and the last one being a terrible teacher if you want to picture it like that.

[hroþila]

Doesn't it, though?

If you want to generalize on the basis of the worst traits we've seen associated with wizards, they would be more likely to dismiss such warriors as beneath them and not a threat, no matter how many tricks they had up their sleeves, than to come together and cooperate to launch a secret world-wide operation against such warriors.

[Reboot]

There is, of course, another possibility - someone(s) out there DOES know it, but the guys who were exclaiming "No-one knows that any more!" don't know of them.

[Peelee]

Not really sure why people pull out Occam's razor in these discussions; it's about a work of fiction, which means probability and logic take a back seat to entertainment value in general, and this work in particular has specifically pointed out when it has done that in the past. The real most logical answer here is that if Rich doesn't go out of his way to clarify, it can be whatever you want it to be.

Kish put it very well; don't think about it in terms of probability, but in terms of making the fewest assumptions. There's nothing wrong with you thinking that, or me thinking that the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal finds any person with the feat delicious, and he's eaten them all. But if you want to open that up to discussion, you're going to encounter some opposition.

[Emanick]

If there were never than no more than five people who knew it, I'd not expect the trick to be passed down many generations as the people who would be interested would have chosen a mortality-prone career.
It wouldn't be unlikely that Horace got killed by the Blue Draggon of Reddragonsville and his colleagues by a vampire, a tarrasque, a rockfall, choking on a fish bone respectively and the last one being a terrible teacher if you want to picture it like that.

I don’t disagree that Mage Slayer (or whatever the kids are calling it these days) might not necessarily be passed down if only five people in a generation knew it, but it’s worth pointing out that fighters high enough level to fight adult red dragons are disproportionately likely to have powerful friends who can resurrect them. So their mortality rate could easily be, er, 300% without that necessarily meaning their end.

[King of Nowhere]

the feat probably requires one to be a high level fighter (rare), to have a good INT score (rare among the first group), and to have some spellcraft (even rarer among the first group). Then it requires that you either research the manuever on your own (how often do you see a fighter research something?) or you find a teacher that can pass it to you, and since people who know the feat are extremely rare, most potential candidates never even have heard of it.

It's easy for us to speculate a build with our 50 splatbooks, our online resources, our forum discussions. Yes, we can say "I will give INT 15 to my fighter so he can pick this feat. Yes, I will take ranks in spellcraft to get this feat. And I will embark in a quest to find somebody who knows this feat, because I have ooc knowledge that I will find it".
Real people living in the world know that they will likely only get 2-3 levels. Some are stuck with one all their lives. they don't have all that ooc knowledge to get some useless feat or skill because it's a prerequisite for something they'll take 10 levels later, and even if they do, their chances of making it to tht high level are virtually none.

[zimmerwald1915]

If you want to generalize on the basis of the worst traits we've seen associated with wizards, they would be more likely to dismiss such warriors as beneath them and not a threat, no matter how many tricks they had up their sleeves, than to come together and cooperate to launch a secret world-wide operation against such warriors.

"The worst traits we've seen associated with wizards" would seem to be murdering innocents to make a defeated enemy suffer, no? I put nothing past these people.

Not that you'd need a worldwide conspiracy, just a single sufficiently-motivated wizard.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If you want to generalize on the basis of the worst traits we've seen associated with wizards, they would be more likely to dismiss such warriors as beneath them and not a threat, no matter how many tricks they had up their sleeves, than to come together and cooperate to launch a secret world-wide operation against such warriors.

That works as well, but what I had in mind was that the wizards we’ve seen so far don’t seem the kind to be able to establish a collaboration group for any significant amount of time, to be honest. Any attempt at a conspiracy would break down as they start infighting over everything from approach to the color of the decorations in the secret gathering room.

Not really sure why people pull out Occam's razor in these discussions; it's about a work of fiction, which means probability and logic take a back seat

I brought it up because you did. You said it was “logical” that there’d be a wizard conspiracy to target fighters with a feat and, this being a discussion forum, I disagreed on how logical that was versus other alternatives. And it so happens that when examining the logic of a hypothesis, Occam's razor is a standard approach, especially when lacking on evidence. If you wanted us to simply use coolness as a measuring stick then I refer you back to the Ravenous beast. But if it is logic that you care about, as you seemed to imply in your original post, then plausibility and parsimony are relevant characteristics.

Grey Wolf

[sengmeng]

I brought it up because you did. You said it was “logical” that there’d be a wizard conspiracy to target fighters with a feat and, this being a discussion forum, I disagreed on how logical that was versus other alternatives. And it so happens that when examining the logic of a hypothesis, Occam's razor is a standard approach, especially when lacking on evidence. If you wanted us to simply use coolness as a measuring stick then I refer you back to the Ravenous beast. But if it is logic that you care about, as you seemed to imply in your original post, then plausibility and parsimony are relevant characteristics.

Grey Wolf

That ravenous beast comment was supposes to be cool?

Anyway, maybe I misspoke; "plausible" would seem a better choice than "logical." But it is logical in the sense that it predicts people acting in their own self interest and adequately explains the situation. Occam's razor and simplicity itself are often misapplied in these situations; saying that those theories that meet the criteria are "best" is not the purpose. Comparing theories in this way is never used to determine the truth, but rather to identify which theory can be disproved most easily. So with no ability to test any theory on this subject, it sounds less like "I think I'm right" and more like "I just don't want to discuss this."

[Fyraltari]

That ravenous beast comment was supposes to be cool?

H2G2 shout-outs are always cool. Except "42" it's overdone and has become stale.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That ravenous beast comment was supposes to be cool?

Anyway, maybe I misspoke; "plausible" would seem a better choice than "logical." But it is logical in the sense that it predicts people acting in their own self interest and adequately explains the situation. Occam's razor and simplicity itself are often misapplied in these situations; saying that those theories that meet the criteria are "best" is not the purpose. Comparing theories in this way is never used to determine the truth, but rather to identify which theory can be disproved most easily. So with no ability to test any theory on this subject, it sounds less like "I think I'm right" and more like "I just don't want to discuss this."

Your conspiracy theory is also not as plausible as Kish’s counter proposal. In large part because Kish’s is far more parsimonious of course but also because it fits the narrative much better.

Also, I completely disagree about your assertions about Occam’s razor.

GW

[Kish]

That ravenous beast comment was supposes to be cool?

Anyway, maybe I misspoke; "plausible" would seem a better choice than "logical." But it is logical in the sense that it predicts people acting in their own self interest and adequately explains the situation. Occam's razor and simplicity itself are often misapplied in these situations; saying that those theories that meet the criteria are "best" is not the purpose. Comparing theories in this way is never used to determine the truth, but rather to identify which theory can be disproved most easily. So with no ability to test any theory on this subject, it sounds less like "I think I'm right" and more like "I just don't want to discuss this."

I don't really know what there is to discuss. Your proposal is not impossible, which puts it in probably the top 5% of speculative theories proposed on this board. I don't think there's anything really pointing to it. I think " " is enough to "adequately explain the situation"; the feat Roy learned from his grandfather can be a rare feat without it implying a conspiracy. (Did someone who wanted Charisma to be unrelated to physical combat burn every other copy of the third-party sourcebook Julio got Dashing Swordsman from?) The field is also cluttered enough that I'll be mildly surprised if Rich wants to have Spellsplinter-suppressing spellcasters attack Roy in this book or the next, but as the roaches pointed out at one point ("I count at least nine"), the field would never have gotten cluttered to begin with without Rich choosing to clutter it.

So there we are. Not impossible, but I doubt it. I don't believe there is any such implication in 1003; I believe your hypothesis is roughly on the level of saying circa strip #200, "I bet Lord Tyrinar is one of a number of pawns Elan's father uses to conquer a continent without most people realizing he's doing so!" and saying that was implied by the letter Haley got. From other things you've said I also think that if the comic closes without ever referencing anyone trying to suppress knowledge of the Spellsplinter maneuver, we will disagree on whether that makes your claimed implication "refuted" or "not explicitly upheld but still probable."

That is as positive as discussing the claim is likely to get for me, so I hope it's what you were looking for.

[Peelee]

H2G2 shout-outs are always cool. Except "42" it's overdone and has become stale.

Even moreso when it's use to answer a question, since not knowing what the question is was the big impetus for the Earth existing to begin with. And even then, it's eventually revealed that humans corrupted it and the question ended up being "what is six times nine?" It's like the people who over use 42 haven't even read the books, or something!

[Emanick]

And even then, it's eventually revealed that humans corrupted it and the question ended up being "what is six times nine?"

That was the actual question? I thought that was a one-off joke. If it had any meaning, I assumed it was that the "software" of humanity was just testing one possible candidate for what the "question" could be - since, among other things, we know the actual question has something to do with frogs, and 6 x 9 is obviously not 42.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That was the actual question? I thought that was a one-off joke. If it had any meaning, I assumed it was that the "software" of humanity was just testing one possible candidate for what the "question" could be - since, among other things, we know the actual question has something to do with frogs, and 6 x 9 is obviously not 42.

Yes, that was the actual question, and the reason why it is nonsensical is that the apes that would have evolved to figure out the correct question never got the chance to do so, because a different civilization dumped all their undesirables (phone operators, hairdressers and the like) on Earth, and they supplanted the locals.

Usual disclaimer about explaining the joke applies. Also, please be aware this is according to the radio series. It’s possible - even likely- that the books have a different canon, but I’m radio exclusive.

Also, 6 x 9 is 42 in base 13, but that was an unintentional coincidence.

GW

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yes, humans contaminated the experiment. In the Adams-verse, we aren't native to Earth. We're descended from a batch of middle managers and hairdressers and telephone sterilizers who got exiled from their own planet and ended up here. Hence Fenchurch's Great Realization being essentially an error message.

[Manga Shoggoth]

That was the actual question? I thought that was a one-off joke. If it had any meaning, I assumed it was that the "software" of humanity was just testing one possible candidate for what the "question" could be - since, among other things, we know the actual question has something to do with frogs, and 6 x 9 is obviously not 42.

Spoiler: Spoilered as getting off-topic

Show

Yes, that was the question. Well, nearly.

The Humans corrupted the process when they replaced the indigenous species of the planet. What we get from the indigenous species is the answer - 42 - on a scrabble board. This prompts Ford and Arthur to try and get the question from Arthur mind as he is a last generation member of the human race just before the moment of readout. They know that the question is going to be wrong, but hope it will be close to the actual question.

The bit about frogs isn't anything to do with the Ultimate Question - the person concerned was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it just so happens that it has a lot to do with frogs.

EDIT/Ninja'd:

Yes, humans contaminated the experiment. In the Adams-verse, we aren't native to Earth. We're descended from a batch of middle managers and hairdressers and telephone sterilizers who got exiled from their own planet and ended up here. Hence Fenchurch's Great Realization being essentially an error message.

Actually, I think Fenchurch is supposed to be the final readout. At least, that's what the introduction to the book implies.

[King of Nowhere]

there is also the fact that even with spellsplinter manuever, the biggest threat to a spellcaster is another, prepared spellcaster. so it would make little sense to start a conspiracy to rid the world of what is always a lesser threat

[Gnoman]

"The worst traits we've seen associated with wizards" would seem to be murdering innocents to make a defeated enemy suffer, no? I put nothing past these people.

Not that you'd need a worldwide conspiracy, just a single sufficiently-motivated wizard.

It is not a question of morality, but of arrogance. Most of the wizards we have seen in OOTS would consider a fighter with this feat to still be a fighter and not a wizard, and everything that is not a wizard is too pitifully weak to bother noticing.