So, what is the pont of the battle with Calder?

[KorvinStarmast]

Seconded. 3.5 explained the fluff on why sneak attack works, and thus why it would not work on undead, constructs, and others.

That the fluff is {censored} doesn't make that any better. I am now even more pleased that I took my 3.5 books to the used book store .. the original thief ability (back stab) was simpler to implement.

[Peelee]

That the fluff is {censored} doesn't make that any better.

Nor does it make your opinion fact. That explanation made sense. 5e's, for example does not - a rogue "strikes subtly and exploit a foe's distraction." This would made sense to grant distraction or to give a bonus to hit. There's no reason i can fathom this would do extra damage. A 3.5 rogue his a particularly vulnerable spot. This does make sense to deal extra damage. Hell, this also exists elsewhere in the form of called shots (3rd ed, removed from 3.5), except the rogue feature wss superior because it had no drawbacks. But in current D&D, it's "you deal extra damage because you have advantage". That's the start and the end of the reasoning. Which, hey, if you don't care about reasoning, is great! 5e streamlined a lot like that. If you di care about the reasoning, then even if you dislike 3.5's given reason, at least it had a reason. And just for myself, it made sense and also made sense as to not have it apply to all monsters across the board ever.

From what i can find on Backstab, it looks like it's pretty much restricted to not being in combat at the time? The enemy needs to not be expecting an attack, is my understanding. So sure simpler to implement because it cab only be used in surprise rounds or as a way to initiate combat?

[gbaji]

*sigh* Undead are not immune to illusions. Undead are immune to Mind-affecting abilities, which includes some illusions, but they don't have a categorical immunity to illusion.

Sadly, this point seems to require being remade every single time Girard's gate defenses and Xykon come in range of each other, conversation wise.

And that's before even pointing out that "illusions" is merely a school within the much broader "magic user" class anyway. There is absolutely nothing preventing an "illusionist" in 3.5e from having a wide array of non illusion spells at their disposal.

And... also forgetting that there's no requirement for us to assume that every single one of Girard's descendents all choose to be arcane spellcasters in the first place (much less focus on illusions as their chosen school). There may certainly also have been fighters, and rogues, and even clerics among the family.

Nor does it make your opinion fact. That explanation made sense. 5e's, for example does not - a rogue "strikes subtly and exploit a foe's distraction." This would made sense to grant distraction or to give a bonus to hit. There's no reason i can fathom this would do extra damage. A 3.5 rogue his a particularly vulnerable spot. This does make sense to deal extra damage. Hell, this also exists elsewhere in the form of called shots (3rd ed, removed from 3.5), except the rogue feature wss superior because it had no drawbacks. But in current D&D, it's "you deal extra damage because you have advantage". That's the start and the end of the reasoning. Which, hey, if you don't care about reasoning, is great! 5e streamlined a lot like that. If you di care about the reasoning, then even if you dislike 3.5's given reason, at least it had a reason. And just for myself, it made sense and also made sense as to not have it apply to all monsters across the board ever.

Yup. We can agree or disagree on the 3.5e reasoning, but it at least made some sense and was consistent. You got the bonus damage because you were able to strike a vulnerable spot on the target. It also ties thematically to the older concept that gaining HPs as you leveled was not purely about becoming physically tougher, but better able to avoid damage as you became more capable. This is also why coup de grace exists in the game. Someone who is helpless is going to take fatal or nearly fatal damage when hit by someone able to take their time and focus on make that killing blow. Sneak attack bonus damage was about tying into that concept.

So yeah, having that not work on beings that don't have things like arteries or tendons that can be cut, makes a heck of a lot of sense. And yup. That also includes the concept that some creatures really do just have more HPs because they really are just that much tougher (like constructs). It's not perfect, but it does at least mostly work. And unfortunately, until or unless D&D editions actually move away entirely from scaling HPs with levels, and fully embrace things like damage reduction/resistance as the "this is how you avoid damage as you get more powerful" game mechanic, I suspect there will always be these sorts of problems and conflicts with the game rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's no reason i can fathom this would do extra damage.

It allows them to make a better aimed strike at the target. (Kind of like good pass protection often leaves a QB better able to throw an accurate pass).

From what i can find on Backstab, it looks like it's pretty much restricted to not being in combat at the time? The enemy needs to not be expecting an attack, is my understanding.

Nope.
But we are wandering off topic.

[Peelee]

It allows them to make a better aimed strike at the target. (Kind of like good pass protection often leaves a QB better able to throw an accurate pass).

So that mechanic already exists in 5e, and is called Advantage. Or just situational pluses ro attack. Regardless, what you described is a bonus to attack, and still doesn't explain why it does more damage.

[Kardwill]

So that mechanic already exists in 5e, and is called Advantage. Or just situational pluses ro attack. Regardless, what you described is a bonus to attack, and still doesn't explain why it does more damage.

Getting a better hit means doing more damage, because you struck some place that was more important to that creature's function. Thematically, that explains critical hits : It does not means that you just hit like a truck, but that you were lucky/good enough to hit them where it hurts, or cut/crush through something important.

Were golems/undead immune to crits in D&D3? It's been a long time since I've played that edition.

[Tzardok]

Yes, they were. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the description of Sneak Attack specifies that anything not affected by crits is also unaffected by Sneak Attack.

[WindStruck]

If anything, it's an unnecessary fight they could have avoided. Now they have taken damage and will expend resources.

Freeing/killing Calder can also have several consequences:

• Team Evil, if they come this way, will no longer have to deal with Calder themselves.
• Team Evil will know the OOTS has been here, and a battle took place recently.
• If they are present and can determine this much, then it is highly likely that their tracker can continue following them to bypass the rest of the Gate's security.

TLDR: only bad things happen for the OOTS (aside from exp and leveling up) and only good things will come about for Team Evil

[Kardwill]

Yes, they were. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the description of Sneak Attack specifies that anything not affected by crits is also unaffected by Sneak Attack.

Oh. Well, at least, it's consistent. (But I might have overlooked a few crits from my players when I was DMing a 3e campaign 10 years ago. ^^)

I have no problem justifying sneak attacks and crits on golems/undead in 5e, though. You shoot the head of the zombie, you break a knee or the spine of a skeleton, you open the Frankenstein Monster's needlework or rip its big neck bolt, you hit a crack in the living stone monster, you aim for the magical gemstone or you scratch the magical runes of the golem... "If I could choose where to stike this animated hunk of unliving matter, what would I aim to quickly finish the fight?"

That's supported by the fact that many weapons use dex as a damage modifier in 5e : Some strikes are destructive not because of how hard you swing your sword, but because of what you're aiming at.

[brian 333]

If anything, it's an unnecessary fight they could have avoided. Now they have taken damage and will expend resources.

Freeing/killing Calder can also have several consequences:

• Team Evil, if they come this way, will no longer have to deal with Calder themselves.
• Team Evil will know the OOTS has been here, and a battle took place recently.
• If they are present and can determine this much, then it is highly likely that their tracker can continue following them to bypass the rest of the Gate's security.

TLDR: only bad things happen for the OOTS (aside from exp and leveling up) and only good things will come about for Team Evil

Disintegrate Calder and leave his prison setup as a trap. TE would be unable to resist, especially if there is an illusionary puppy in it as bait.

Because Xykon couldn't resist kicking it, you see.

It's a Evil thing.

[Grendelkin]

*snip*
Team Evil will know the OOTS has been here, and a battle took place recently.
*snip*

And Xykon will reanimate Calder as his next zombie dragon mount, giving Roy flashbacks to when he died when they face off again.

[Peelee]

Getting a better hit means doing more damage, because you struck some place that was more important to that creature's function. Thematically, that explains critical hits : It does not means that you just hit like a truck, but that you were lucky/good enough to hit them where it hurts, or cut/crush through something important.

Were golems/undead immune to crits in D&D3? It's been a long time since I've played that edition.

As you say, that explains critical hits. So we're taking the same idea and splitting it into two different mechanics, with two different effects, which can stack? Imean, I can at least see how that can be argued, but I strenuously disagree with it as well. Not the least of which because if I hit on a 12 and hit on a 16, i still do the same damage despite getting a better hit. And if I hit with Advantage, I still hit with the same damage despite getting a better hit.

Also, IIRC no creature type was immune to crits in 3.5. I always saw crits as particularly hard/brutal hits, myself.

[Tzardok]

Also, IIRC no creature type was immune to crits in 3.5. I always saw crits as particularly hard/brutal hits, myself.

Excuse me, what? Constructs, elementals, oozes, plants and undead all have a rider that they aren't subject to crits (as do Incorporeal creatures). For example:

Construct Type

Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain.

Elemental Type

Not subject to critical hits or flanking.

[Peelee]

Excuse me, what? Constructs, elementals, oozes, plants and undead all have a rider that they aren't subject to crits (as do Incorporeal creatures). For example:

IIRC was clearly not C. Thanks!

[snowblizz]

The point of this fight is clearly T-REX to the FACE!

Nuff said.

[Fish]

I am just wondering what its purpose in the bigger narrative is if any.

My guesses:

• Serini might be killed. This would force the Order to find their own way through the dungeon using their wits.
• It might given an opportunity for the Order to show how they've changed as a group from murder hobos who killed every goblin on sight to thoughtful heroes who don't automatically discriminate against monster races. This is, after all, part of the Giant's thesis for the story. It is less about Calder switching sides than about how Calder is convinced to do so. They are, after all, fighting for something larger than even the dragon understands. Someone (or multiple someones) convince Calder to assist them, just this once. I could justify almost any of the Order, or all of them at once, making this pitch to Calder. Haley, because she has overcome trust issues; Elan, because he is good at heart and wants his happy ending; Durkon, because of his newfound respect for the monsters' POV; V, because they erred by destroying so many black dragons; Roy, for being a good leader who has learned a lot; or Serini, who obviously has changed her viewpoint since the time of Calder's capture.
• It might show off a heretofore unknown ability of Roy's sword.
• It gives us a chance to contrast the Scribble with the Order, and how they handle the same encounter. We don't often get to see the two groups compared directly. This also might demonstrate Belkar's change of alignment, if he argues not to kill the subdued dragon.

It could also be a lot of the things on your list, too.

[DaOldeWolf]

The point of this fight is clearly T-REX to the FACE!

Nuff said.

You might be on the right track here!

My guesses:

• Serini might be killed. This would force the Order to find their own way through the dungeon using their wits.
• It might given an opportunity for the Order to show how they've changed as a group from murder hobos who killed every goblin on sight to thoughtful heroes who don't automatically discriminate against monster races. This is, after all, part of the Giant's thesis for the story. It is less about Calder switching sides than about how Calder is convinced to do so. They are, after all, fighting for something larger than even the dragon understands. Someone (or multiple someones) convince Calder to assist them, just this once. I could justify almost any of the Order, or all of them at once, making this pitch to Calder. Haley, because she has overcome trust issues; Elan, because he is good at heart and wants his happy ending; Durkon, because of his newfound respect for the monsters' POV; V, because they erred by destroying so many black dragons; Roy, for being a good leader who has learned a lot; or Serini, who obviously has changed her viewpoint since the time of Calder's capture.
• It might show off a heretofore unknown ability of Roy's sword.
• It gives us a chance to contrast the Scribble with the Order, and how they handle the same encounter. We don't often get to see the two groups compared directly. This also might demonstrate Belkar's change of alignment, if he argues not to kill the subdued dragon.

It could also be a lot of the things on your list, too.

That could be really interesting to see. A contrast of parties could be an interesting way to use this fight. All of those suggestons could be the deveopment, we have been waiting to se. And it could help to avoid cramming to many things for the final battle.

[gbaji]

[*]It might show off a heretofore unknown ability of Roy's sword.

This. There's been a lot of talk about Calder holding on to Roy's sword, mostly involving whether and how he might use it as a weapon (or just deny it to Roy).

IIRC, there was some discussion back when the Order was fighting Serini and Sunny as to which magic/effects/abilities would work in the AMF, and which would not. For example, we know that Durkon's hammer's magical effects don't seem to work in the AMF. Roy's weapon, on the other hand, is still an unknown. I'm not super conversant as to how different levels of magic effects and different types of antimagic may work in D&D, but usually there are levels of such things, and different interactions based on those levels (usually, but may not be the case, so... who knows?).

It would be an interesting thing to have Roy's returning ability (or others) still work in the AMF, for example. And learning that may provide some significant benefit to them in the still to come battle with TE. Or... not. But we weren't able to learn this in the first fight, since Roy was poisoned and out of it the entire time. So it's still an unknown and therefore will (presumably) be answered here. And... er... knowing is half the battle?

[KorvinStarmast]

This. There's been a lot of talk about Calder holding on to Roy's sword, mostly involving whether and how he might use it as a weapon (or just deny it to Roy).

Given Roy's fighting skills, denial is helpful to Calder.

I'm not super conversant as to how different levels of magic effects and different types of antimagic may work in D&D

In some editions, artifacts are not influenced by AMF, but that should not exempt the sword from AMF since it is a weapon of legacy (per the book Roy received after the godsmoot).
My best recollection of that discussion is that a weapon of legacy does not approach an artifact in power.
I thus think that Roy's sword is muted until out of AMF.

[gbaji]

In some editions, artifacts are not influenced by AMF, but that should not exempt the sword from AMF since it is a weapon of legacy (per the book Roy received after the godsmoot).
My best recollection of that discussion is that a weapon of legacy does not approach an artifact in power.
I thus think that Roy's sword is muted until out of AMF.

My knowledge of D&D does not include anything specific about Weapons of Legacy, so I can't comment in terms of where they fall in some sort of heirarchy of magic. Wasn't sure if they operated at the same level or lower than artifacts do (and also not sure where AMF falls in that scale either).

In my game, I wrote some fairly extensive rules for various magic effects, including artifacts. One of the bits I included was a distinction between different types of effects (alteration vs evocation, not related to the D&D schools of magic). The idea that evocation effects basically duplicate spells and have some kind of point value associated with them (base system is RuneQuest, so that's a whole thing). Alteration effects are absolute in nature (so like "immune to fire damage"). This affects how they interact with other spell effects, especially with regard to penetrating magical defenses (point based effects can and do compare themselves to the point value of magic defensess, and can be blocked despite being "artifact effects", while those without cannot and can only be resisted by some other opposed effect). Additionally, I came up with the concept of "internal vs external" effects. Internal meaning "effects that affect the item and/or weilder", with external obviously being "affects other people". This also has an effect on magic interaction, specifically in terms of dispelling effects. The idea being that stuff that only affects the wielder or the item should be far more resistant (if not immune) to being dispelled or anti-magicked, than effects that the item puts on others (also has the practical effect that folks hit with offensive effects that linger can actually get rid of them, which is kinda important from a survivability and balance pov).


Relevant here, because, if I were running this via my system, the extra damage might be consdiered an external effect (it affects the target of the weapon) and thus would not work in an AMF, but the returning would be considered internal (only affects the item and weilder), and thus would work.

But yeah. D&D has its own rules. Vague though they may be to me.

[Kish]

Never mind D&D rules*, I'm pretty sure the sword's inability to return to Roy from inside the antimagic ray is indicated by the sword...not returning.

*Also, Rich said that he heard there was such a thing as Weapons of Legacy, decided that Roy's sword was going to be one, and came up with his own system for it, entirely ignoring everything about the D&D system for Weapons of Legacy beyond the name.

[gbaji]

Never mind D&D rules*, I'm pretty sure the sword's inability to return to Roy from inside the antimagic ray is indicated by the sword...not returning.

What are you going to believe? Wild internet speculation, or your own lying eyes!? /harumph!

Though, would be funny if the sword could return, but Roy just didn't think to try since it was in an AMF.

[KorvinStarmast]

*Also, Rich said that he heard there was such a thing as Weapons of Legacy, decided that Roy's sword was going to be one, and came up with his own system for it, entirely ignoring everything about the D&D system for Weapons of Legacy beyond the name.

I had forgotten that, but you jogged my memory. Thanks.

Though, would be funny if the sword could return, but Roy just didn't think to try since it was in an AMF.

Funny it would be.

[drazen]

A pont is a South African river ferry, usually guided by a cable. It's also French for bridge. So there is either no pont, or the pont is the walkway. 😁

[DaOldeWolf]

A pont is a South African river ferry, usually guided by a cable. It's also French for bridge. So there is either no pont, or the pont is the walkway. 😁

My computer sometimes eats the letters but good to know what a pont.

Like they say: The more you know.

[MReav]

Soon was about to do the one thing nobody has managed - killing Xykon and Redcloak for good (pun intended). Remember that this is the only time in the strip that we've seen Xykon actually scared from an opponent and wanting to run away.

Lirian was quite successful. She had captured Redcloak and Xykon. She could have executed them and saved everyone a lot of trouble. And while I can respect her not executing her prisoners, I can't say the same about her decision not to have any form of supervision on her prisoners.

[Timy]

It's also French for bridge.

Every time I saw this title, I had to restrain myself to say something along this line (being french).

This time, I could'nt restrain me anymore and here I am finding it is already here.

[KorvinStarmast]

Every time I saw this title, I had to restrain myself to say something along this line (being french).

This time, I could'nt restrain me anymore and here I am finding it is already here.

When I was very young, we learned a song from my father. I repeated what I heard, but wasn't sure what it meant.
Sur le Pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse, l'on y danse
Sur le Pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse tous en rond.

I just learned the sounds.
I didn't know what they meant until some years later when we took rudimentary French classes in 4th grade.
Dancing around a bridge ...

[Kardwill]

When I was very young, we learned a song from my father. I repeated what I heard, but wasn't sure what it meant.
Sur le Pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse, l'on y danse
Sur le Pont d'Avignon
L'on y danse tous en rond.

I just learned the sounds.
I didn't know what they meant until some years later when we took rudimentary French classes in 4th grade.
Dancing around a bridge ...

Dancing round on a bridge. In this context, "sur" means "on top of". :)

Weird and kinda cute that this children song somehow became international ^^

[drazen]

Every time I saw this title, I had to restrain myself to say something along this line (being french).

This time, I could'nt restrain me anymore and here I am finding it is already here.

Oops, sorry. Would it make you feel better or worse to know I have a significant chunk of French ancestry? (Probably #1 because I can trace 3 of my 4 grandparents' lines back to Quebec, with English #2, Portuguese #3, and Irish #4).

Probably won't help that my bilingual bonus is Spanish, not French. Pont looked really familiar but I still had to Google it. I should have known, too -- I walked across the Pont de Louis about 4 months ago!