Class and Level Geekery VIII (spoilers ahoy!)

[sgtpimenta]

I would say Soon's presence doesn't invalidate Eugene's statement at all. And Roy accepts that statement... so, yes, likely true.

I agree. Even if you were to accept that premise (Eugene was not telling the truth, since he does not seem to take Soon in consideration), you have to remember that neither is Roy. But he probably know about his colleagues' level (since he's their employer) and still accepts being called higher-level.

What does "competent" have to do with level, in any terms that make the statement that Roy is the most competent character in the Order true? (In purely mechanical terms--that is, skills--Roy is most definitely way behind Haley and quite possibly behind Vaarsuvius and Belkar as well. In nonmechanical terms, Roy's competency has nothing at all to do with his level; he hasn't particularly changed in that regard since he was first level.)

I agree when you say that Roy has always been competent. But, since he lives in a world loosely based in D&D rules, aside of learning and developing as a fictional character, he also levels up as a game character. Sure, leveling up is not as impacting for a fighter as it is for a spell caster, but it have its quirks. Each time he goes up a level, he gets even more resources to use. It’s not just about the extra skill points (I was just pointing out that even these can be useful, and cannot be described as irrelevant). There are other things. Four attacks make a great difference in damage output, and all those HP came in handy.

That's how competence(y?) have to do with levels. Competence is all about having tools and using them to bend the odds in your favor. All things considered, even if you have a good, competent 15- fighter, a 16+ Fighter would be even better. Character levels are important in which they describes the hero’s possibilities to overcome challenges – and with a fighter is not so different.

Although I don’t find it likely, I can accept that is possible for a fighter in his 14- to beat a shoeless, non-optimized 16 ranger. But in the long run, I find it hard to keep believing that Roy will be able to survive long enough, let alone to thwart Team Evil’s plans if he’s low level. We’re talking about a lich necromancer that has defeated two epic OotScr spell casters. I don’t think that a lower level Roy stand the same chance of success in saving the world than a 16+ would have – even if he’s 16+, that’s going to be tough. If not impossible, at lower levels, his role as a hero gets less plausible.

[Forikroder]

As Winter asked, if Xykon said, "I love you, Redcloak," would you consider that evidence that Xykon loves Redcloak? If Belkar said Miko would Fall if she killed him--oh oops, some people unaccountably do consider that evidence that Miko would Fall if she killed Belkar.

killing a prisoner in cold blood

purposely refusing an order from her liege lord

acting out of hatred

id say those are good reasons for her to fall, if he had killed Belkar while chasing him that would be different but she had belkar immobile caught and had the opportunity to stop if she had swung she would have fell, we have reasons we can draw from the comic to corroborate Belkars opinion, just like if Xykon saids he loves redcloak we can draw proof from the comic to show hes lieing

"A direct in-comic citation" is evidence that Eugene said Roy was the highest-level Good character on the field. Eugene is not Rich. And you have to either chop knowledge in such a way that Eugene knows the exact levels of the rest of the Order but doesn't know Soon is there, or chop honesty in such a way that Eugene's desire to taunt Roy means he can handwave away Soon but not handwave away any other member of the Order, to avoid the assertion "Roy was the highest level Good character on the field" running full-tilt into Soon and getting rejected with as much gusto as the assertion "2+2=17."

assuming it was even possible for him to find Soon, we have no idea how his ghost tricked worked at all maybe it was the magic of the 12 gods themselves keeping him there and preventing him from being found, divine magic can counter divine magic

or maybe he wasnt even in the throne room until he was needed, maybe he was floating in limbo

or maybe since Soon couldnt do a thing to influence the actual battle Eugene didnt count him

Pardon?

ya hell lie to futher his own cause, but that jab at roy was jsut a jab to make him feel bad, it wouldnt make roy feel bad if he lied, "yu know you were the highest level good character" "ya except for hinjo" at taht point it stops being an insult and is just Eugene being misinformed, theres no evidence at all that eugene lied at any point at all or any evidence to point that he wouldnt have access to the knowledge he claimed to have no or is there any reason to assume hes lieing

[Math_Mage]

How do we know that Thog's level is tied to Roy's? Roy pretty much says that's not the case, so I don't think we could use the personal rival rule.

Roy's assertion that he and Thog have nothing in common is pretty much refuted by Thog's broken-tusked rage, which elevates him well past the level of "cruel and stupid goon," and mirrors Roy's Lou Ferrigno rage waaaaay back at Dorukan's Gate.

Of course, if Thog is NOT a personal rival, and is just what Roy claims he is, then he's probably LOWER level (a "cruel and stupid goon" is usually lower level than a "personal rival" or "evil opposite" relative to the protagonist), so that doesn't help your argument at all.

The thing is: Roy is the most all-around competent character in the Order.

Well, look at his likely attribute scores. He has a better overall mental score than anyone else in the party--per the Giant, "very good" Int and Wis, and "decent" Cha, to the extent that the mind flayer preferred his brain to V's. He has excellent Str and likely (though unproven) a solid Con as well. Of the other Order members, only Haley is not known to be below-average in at least one mental stat; Elan and Belkar are below average in two mental stats; and V and Durkon have at best moderate scores in their second-worst mental stat (V has moderate Wis and Durkon has no head for numbers).

I find it hard to believe that one low level Fighter could be more competent than other high level classes.

The argument from ignorance is a fallacy. You find it hard to believe because you (self-admittedly) aren't familiar enough with the rule set, and therefore the appropriate interpretation of the rule set in the context of competency as displayed in OotS, to make that judgment. That's not compelling evidence of anything.

And we have seem lots of sittuations in which this rule seems to apply. The arena fights are more important to the actual thread 'cause they are post-resurrection.

He was able to rescue the party all by himself, and solo Miko. He handled both bounty hunters (who have, themselves, defeated half the party) in the bar fight, and was selected as a better warrior than the half-dragon. Let's not forget that he jumped to face Xykon all by himself - being a non-cliche, not-stupid fighter, I figure that he had reasons to believe that he could actually succeed. He was later proven wrong, obviously, but we know him to be competent fighter and a brilliant tactician: implying that Roy tried to deal with Xykon without even the slightest chance of success would be contradictory with which we know about him.

None of this requires Roy to be very high level. Another couple BAB, some HP, a handful of skill points, slightly better Fort save...these are not the factors that make the difference between a competent fighter and an incompetent one.

Now, as a matter of specific incidents...

Rescuing the party involved nothing more level-based than knocking out a few very low-level guards.

Beating post-Fall Miko, who was in a state of mental disarray on top of (and as a result of) recently becoming a Fighter Without Bonus Feats, doesn't do much to illustrate his comparative power--we might as well say that because Belkar soloed Miko pre-Fall, therefore Belkar is higher-level than Roy. Such a statement would of course disregard everything about the two fights except their outcomes--which makes its value as an argument approximately equivalent to the value of the arguments you have presented.

Roy didn't "handle" the bounty hunters, he started an out-and-out barroom brawl, after which point he and the bounty hunters weren't even directly fighting each other. Roy specializes in melee combat, whereas Haley and V specialize in staying OUT of melee combat, and Elan is only mediocre in a straight-up fight; moreover, V was all but one-shotted in the ambush, and Haley let herself get captured, so it wasn't exactly a good measure of the trio's combat capabilities. In any case, Gannji and Enor are less of a menace than Thog for Roy, so outclassing them doesn't show anything new.

As for Xykon, Roy simply did not understand what he was up against, and would not have stood a chance at any non-epic level with his gear.

That may be, but I was just pointing out how he could have access to XP. And don't forget about his completed quests and character growth mojo.

You mean, how he could have access to encounters, since there's still no demonstrated connection between encounters in the afterlife and XP.

But I'm not really all that comfortable trying to justify his XP. We don't know how the whole post-death thing actually works in OotS -it seems to me that it is quite different than 3.5 Rules As Written, but then again, maybe it isn't. But, as people keeps insisting on the "show me some XP source" argument, I keep speculating about it. But knowing, for sure? Impossible. And, as I said before, not really my point.

Yes, we know. You're perfectly comfortable ignoring consistency with the rest of the comic. That was established before this thread even started.

I'm with FujinAkari in this one. Also, it looks like Roy acknowledge being higher level by saying "With great power comes great blame".

Even accepting that, we can't reach the level you claim for Roy from what's in the comic.

However, Eugene is demonstrably an unreliable source of information. Roy's acknowledgment may merely mean that he understands he was higher level than any (living) NPC on the battlefield, since he already leads the Order regardless of the hypothetical existence of a level disparity. If any Order member was HIGHER than Roy, then he might snap back...but for a tie? I doubt it.

To sum up, as previously stated, Roy is level 13 or 14 at the time of the Azure City invasion. He simply can't get from there to hitting 16 in the Empire of Blood.

Although I don’t find it likely, I can accept that is possible for a fighter in his 14- to beat a shoeless, non-optimized 16 ranger. But in the long run, I find it hard to keep believing that Roy will be able to survive long enough, let alone to thwart Team Evil’s plans if he’s low level. We’re talking about a lich necromancer that has defeated two epic OotScr spell casters. I don’t think that a lower level Roy stand the same chance of success in saving the world than a 16+ would have – even if he’s 16+, that’s going to be tough. If not impossible, at lower levels, his role as a hero gets less plausible.

There's no guarantee that Roy will stay below 16.

However, more broadly, it's been established that mere power isn't going to defeat Xykon. That was one of the points of the Darth V arc. As a matter of narrative, ROY'S levels are totally meaningless to beating Xykon. It isn't going to come down to Roy getting that fourth attack off before Xykon unleashes his killer demon spell of whateverness.

You might as well say that Frodo was not a plausible hero because he wasn't NEARLY strong enough to stand up to Sauron.

[Quakes]

I don't see why Roy couldn't have gained some exp when he was dead. He and his grandfather killed some evil adventurers when they plane shifted over, and if Belkar can gain story exp for spinning a (possibly true) sob story about his childhood, Roy's actual character growth from playing with his brother and bonding with his grandfather (not to mention actual training), could result in some exp. He could have died, lost the level from that, but gained a level or more worth of exp as a ghost. Might not work strictly from a rules standpoint, but it would make for an interesting story, and maybe I'll have to try that in the game I'm running...hehe.

[Math_Mage]

I don't see why Roy couldn't have gained some exp when he was dead. He and his grandfather killed some evil adventurers when they plane shifted over, and if Belkar can gain story exp for spinning a (possibly true) sob story about his childhood, Roy's actual character growth from playing with his brother and bonding with his grandfather (not to mention actual training), could result in some exp. He could have died, lost the level from that, but gained a level or more worth of exp as a ghost. Might not work strictly from a rules standpoint, but it would make for an interesting story, and maybe I'll have to try that in the game I'm running...hehe.

Then he could have learned the feat from Horace. No? But he didn't learn it then, he explicitly couldn't learn it while dead, and his only mention of it after rezzing is as an untried idea rather than a learned feat (in contrast with a number of other instances where characters discuss their feats/spells/etc explicitly in rules terms upon leveling up).

I mean, sure we can homebrew some interesting way to run a campaign for dead characters that gives them XP when rezzed, but it's a long way from there to supposing the Giant did that.

[Chronos]

I support the XP counting as an argument for Roy being at least 13th level. However, I think that's only a lower bound, not a fixed number, because Roy could have had XP, even significant amounts of XP, from other sources. Even aside from experiences since he was raised, the Order should also have gotten some unknown amount of XP for the Battle of Azure City, and a player is supposed to gain XP just like the rest of the party even if that character died during the encounter. So it's possible that Roy leveled to 14 from the battle and then got bumped down to 13, instead of down to 12, from the resurrection.

[Forikroder]

Then he could have learned the feat from Horace. No? But he didn't learn it then, he explicitly couldn't learn it while dead, and his only mention of it after rezzing is as an untried idea rather than a learned feat (in contrast with a number of other instances where characters discuss their feats/spells/etc explicitly in rules terms upon leveling up).

I mean, sure we can homebrew some interesting way to run a campaign for dead characters that gives them XP when rezzed, but it's a long way from there to supposing the Giant did that.

thats not evidence enough there are more explanations

maybe he couldnt put the feat to learn it until he had been fully taught the technique and since he didnt master it until practically jsut before he got raised he couldnt learn it

maybe he only gained one level in the afterlife and had to put that feat in a pre-requisit

maybe since he forgot about the specifics of the afterlife while he could level he was unable to do anything specific like assign new feats

maybe he did learn the feat and since he forgoet the afterlife he forgot he learnt it and his idea for a new sword technique is the feat he learned but doesnt remember learning so he doesnt realise it

[Math_Mage]

thats not evidence enough there are more explanations

maybe he couldnt put the feat to learn it until he had been fully taught the technique and since he didnt master it until practically jsut before he got raised he couldnt learn it

maybe he only gained one level in the afterlife and had to put that feat in a pre-requisit

maybe since he forgot about the specifics of the afterlife while he could level he was unable to do anything specific like assign new feats

maybe he did learn the feat and since he forgoet the afterlife he forgot he learnt it and his idea for a new sword technique is the feat he learned but doesnt remember learning so he doesnt realise it

It's "when you're back in the land of the living," not "when you level." That rules out any explanation that involves Roy being able to gain a feat while dead. The only possible counterargument is that Horace thought Roy would return to the land of the living before he could gain the feat anyway, and that's ruled out because Roy makes clear that there's no guarantee he'll be rezzed anytime soon (he promises to return after a few months if he isn't).

So that rules out explanations 1, 2, and 4. That leaves the possibility that Roy could gain XP and level in the afterlife, but couldn't learn feats. Of course, we don't have any reason to believe that he gained BAB, skill points, saves, any hypothetical attribute score increases, HP, or anything else associated with leveling up.

So once again we're stuck with Russell's Teapot. I can show that Roy can't have learned feats while dead, which BY THE RULES shows that Roy can't level, which BY THE RULES shows that Roy can't gain XP--which is all consistent with WHAT THE RULES SAY about Resurrection (and True Resurrection, which doesn't give a level loss, but restores the dead person to his previous state, ignoring hypothetical afterlife XP). But I can't absolutely prove that the Giant didn't come up with SOME homebrew that allowed Roy to gain XP and level while dead without learning feats, so anyone who thinks Roy gained XP while dead is free to advance that position without any evidence. Because it's not like the burden of proof to show that the Giant formulated such a homebrew mechanic would rest with the people saying it exists, right? I'll admit, this is getting rather tiresome.

[Forikroder]

So that rules out explanations 1, 2, and 4. That leaves the possibility that Roy could gain XP and level in the afterlife, but couldn't learn feats. Of course, we don't have any reason to believe that he gained BAB, skill points, saves, any hypothetical attribute score increases, HP, or anything else associated with leveling up

.

we dont have any reason to believe he didnt

I can show that Roy can't have learned feats while dead

no you can show he PROBABLY cant have learned feats while dead you have as much proof that he didnt get any experience in the afterlife that we do that he did, if i remember right it saids in the rule book that when a character starts to fall behind other characters its a good idea to give them a solo adventure to catch them up with the rest of the group, since Roy couldnt be ressurected through no fault of the players and was becuase of the story it makes sense that the DM made a solo adventure in the form of Roys antics in the afterlife as a way to ensure that after he got ressed he wasnt 5 levels behind everyone else and get killed in the next encounter

you have no proof against it just like we have no proof for it theres an equal lack of proof the fact that your falling back on what the rule book saids proves it

[Math_Mage]

.

we dont have any reason to believe he didnt

In a reasonable world, Roy's inability to learn feats would be a pretty good indicator.

In your world...I dunno, maybe all bets are off.

no you can show he PROBABLY cant have learned feats while dead

Oh, and your interpretation of why Roy can't keep all the special moves he's learning unless he spends a feat on them back in the land of the living would be...?

.you have as much proof that he didnt get any experience in the afterlife that we do that he did, if i remember right it saids in the rule book that when a character starts to fall behind other characters its a good idea to give them a solo adventure to catch them up with the rest of the group, since Roy couldnt be ressurected through no fault of the players and was becuase of the story it makes sense that the DM made a solo adventure in the form of Roys antics in the afterlife as a way to ensure that after he got ressed he wasnt 5 levels behind everyone else and get killed in the next encounter

What DM?

.you have no proof against it just like we have no proof for it theres an equal lack of proof the fact that your falling back on what the rule book saids proves it

If all positions that weren't absolute proof were created equal, there would be no such thing as science.

I have RAW from Resurrection and True Resurrection and Raise Dead, and Horace's statement about needing to pay for a feat after returning to the land of the living.

You have...?

[Forikroder]

Oh, and your interpretation of why Roy can't keep all the special moves he's learning unless he spends a feat on them back in the land of the living would be...?

he didnt get enough feats to get the move so since hes going so squatting in the clouds staring at his party hes going to have to spend one after hes back alive and levels again

What DM?

if we follow the rules to the level of what you are then theres a DM who decides how the rules are enforced

[FujinAkari]

[QUOTE=Forikroder;13156439]he didnt get enough feats to get the move so since hes going so squatting in the clouds staring at his party hes going to have to spend one after hes back alive and levels again[quote]

There are no prereqs, at least assuming this is actually mage slayer.

if we follow the rules to the level of what you are then theres a DM who decides how the rules are enforced

This is explicitly denied by both RIch and the comic. If your argument depends on Rich being wrong about his own comic, you have a poor argument.

[Forikroder]

There are no prereqs, at least assuming this is actually mage slayer.

big assumption

This is explicitly denied by both RIch and the comic. If your argument depends on Rich being wrong about his own comic, you have a poor argument.

and where does rich say that it is impossible for a character to level up in the afterlife? because my argument actually depends on that

[Math_Mage]

he didnt get enough feats to get the move so since hes going so squatting in the clouds staring at his party hes going to have to spend one after hes back alive and levels again

As I mentioned before, there was no guarantee at all that Roy was going to get rezzed anytime soon, and he did promise to come back in a few months if he didn't. Also, as a matter of detail, Horace's wording would have been different if Roy had already taken prerequisite feats towards those special moves, since he would already be paying for them.

Let's review: You're supposing feats we're never shown, solely to create an artificial barrier between Roy's training and the feat, in order to support an unsubstantiated homebrew rule about afterlife XP whose only impact on the comic is to reproduce the exact same effects we would see by simply following the rules. Oh, and you're ignoring what Horace actually says in order to do that.

And I say again: Your evidence for any of this is...? Apparently you're satisfied with shifting the goalposts all the way back to "As long as Rich hasn't come out and TOLD me I'm wrong, I'll keep insisting I'm right, homebrewing my way around the rules and ignoring the text of the comic when it's necessary to salvage my position."

So when you go around telling people THEY'RE making "big assumptions", it's heavily ironic. Certainly the two obvious leading candidates for the feat tied to Horace's training, Mage Slayer and Martial Study, don't require any prereqs Roy doesn't already have (he even has Spellcraft ranks).

if we follow the rules to the level of what you are then theres a DM who decides how the rules are enforced

The treatment of rules in OotS is a complex thing. Sometimes gods control them, and can bend them at times (cleric spells). Sometimes the gods have an overseeing role, but aren't always in alignment with the rules (alignment system--see extensive discussion of this from the Giant, especially re: paladins falling in the course of carrying out their holy duties in Start of Darkness). Sometimes the rules are theoretically equivalent to those in the books, but suffer from exceptions (Tsukiko's spellcasting violates RAW due to the Giant's oversight).

But when it comes to levels and XP, there are NUMEROUS references to how the rules work, in some detail, and ZERO that in any way conflict with the ruleset. So why does it take special effort from a hypothetical DM to enforce those rules in this specific case? It doesn't.

The ONLY reason you bring up a DM, whether you realize it or not, is because it would be nice if one existed to introduce those special finicky exceptions to the ruleset you can't justify any other way. Unfortunately for your convenience, no such DM exists.

[Forikroder]

As I mentioned before, there was no guarantee at all that Roy was going to get rezzed anytime soon, and he did promise to come back in a few months if he didn't. Also, as a matter of detail, Horace's wording would have been different if Roy had already taken prerequisite feats towards those special moves, since he would already be paying for them.

oh your right, Horrace should have assumed that Roy would be back and not given him advice assuming that he wouldnt come back

and no the wording wouldnt ahve different Roy has to pay one feat to get the special move, it doesnt matter if he had already spent 0 or 100 feats on pre0requisits he still has to spend one feat on the move

Let's review: You're supposing feats we're never shown, solely to create an artificial barrier between Roy's training and the feat, in order to support an unsubstantiated homebrew rule about afterlife XP whose only impact on the comic is to reproduce the exact same effects we would see by simply following the rules. Oh, and you're ignoring what Horace actually says in order to do that.

and your assuming that since Roy wasnt balancing on a giant ball playing the trumpet while holding a huge sign saying "GUESS WHAT I GOT A NEW FEAT" he didnt get a new feat

Your evidence for any of this is...?

thats what i asked you and you kepy silent

[Math_Mage]

and your assuming that since Roy wasnt balancing on a giant ball playing the trumpet while holding a huge sign saying "GUESS WHAT I GOT A NEW FEAT" he didnt get a new feat

No, I reason that when a character completes his training in the afterlife and is told that he needs to spend a feat on it once he's alive again, that he can't spend his feats while dead. This is logic. Simple. Straightforward. CORRECT.

I'm seriously tired of this.

I. Do. Not. Have. To. Assume.

ANYTHING!

I do not need to go through all the evidence I've already mentioned. I do not need to provide absolute proof of my every statement.

Because the RULES, you know, those things that CONTROL THE WORLD THEY LIVE IN, default to MY position!

YOU do not get to walk in with ZERO EVIDENCE and make extraordinary claims and then tell me THERE ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIM.

YOU have to defend YOUR claim. Man up and do it, or you're down at the first hurdle.

And because I KNOW someone's going to pull out that Giant quote about looking for moment-to-moment rules consistency: I wasn't looking for it. But I GOT IT ANYWAY. Disagree? Find something in the comic that is definitely inconsistent with my position: that regardless of what Roy does in the afterlife, he is Resurrected a level below where he was when he died, per the spell description.

See, I can ask you to do that, because my assumptions are the BASE assumptions. If you want to force a special exception, you have to DISPROVE THOSE ASSUMPTIONS. I am not obligated to disprove yours, or to exert ANY special effort to uphold mine--even though that's what I've been doing all along.

YOUR TURN.

[sgtpimenta]

I actually agree with sgtpimenta that breaking Thog's axe and tusk involved a separate attack. The ambiguous "attack" is the first one, not the last one.

I don’t see anything ambiguous about that attack. The panel before that shows Thog attacking, while Roy is dodging. In the panel you mentioned (the first "attack"), a blue line draws an arc leaving the last shown position of the greatsword, implying movement. All elements of the image are coherent with the attack interpretation: Roy’s position is more aggressive than Thog’s – both physically and psychologically, since Roy’s is assuming an aggressive tone in his argumentation. If this panel shows a parry,as you argue, it is far more likely to be Thog’s (his greataxe is closer to his body, making his body language far more defensive than Roy’s), which still would mean that Roy's attacking.

Well, look at his likely attribute scores. He has a better overall mental score than anyone else in the party--per the Giant, "very good" Int and Wis, and "decent" Cha, to the extent that the mind flayer preferred his brain to V's. He has excellent Str and likely (though unproven) a solid Con as well. Of the other Order members, only Haley is not known to be below-average in at least one mental stat; Elan and Belkar are below average in two mental stats; and V and Durkon have at best moderate scores in their second-worst mental stat (V has moderate Wis and Durkon has no head for numbers).

Are you saying that levels are not relevant to determine the general competence level of characters, but abilities scores – even those which don’t have any direct application in a given character build – are? Do you mind to elaborate?

The argument from ignorance is a fallacy. You find it hard to believe because you (self-admittedly) aren't familiar enough with the rule set, and therefore the appropriate interpretation of the rule set in the context of competency as displayed in OotS, to make that judgment. That's not compelling evidence of anything.

Let's try to use the fancy words properly, shall we? The assertion "Roy is low level" needs as many proofs as "Roy is high level". If that was not the case, all this discussion would be over, before it even have begun, and the OP of C&LG thread would show Roy's exact level. Yet, since you have no solid evidence of your position, you try to disproof my position by demanding evidence that you can't show yourself. And you know what? Even if I can't prove my position, it still doesn't mean that yours are right. As you keep trying to reinforce your position using nothing but lack of evidence to the contrary, you are the one using the argument from ignorance.

You might as well say that Frodo was not a plausible hero because he wasn't NEARLY strong enough to stand up to Sauron.

Your analogy does not apply. Do you even want to compare Roy and Frodo? We are talking of two very different archetypes. Frodo is a humble, small man of modest origin, walking among kings, and elves and wizards. Frodo is no warrior. His own insignificance is his most useful tool - he needs to be inconspicuous to succeed.

Also, I never have heard of Frodo jumping onto the back of a Nazgul.

Then he could have learned the feat from Horace. No? But he didn't learn it then, he explicitly couldn't learn it while dead, and his only mention of it after rezzing is as an untried idea rather than a learned feat (in contrast with a number of other instances where characters discuss their feats/spells/etc explicitly in rules terms upon leveling up).

That's not true. Roy haven't spent a feat at that time, I'll give you that, but he managed to perfect the art required for the movement. The fact that he does not explicitly mention the feat does not mean anything.

But don't panic. I reckon we gonna find out about that feat soon enough. That's just too important not to be shown in the comic. So, it's a matter of time till we have more info.

I mean, sure we can homebrew some interesting way to run a campaign for dead characters that gives them XP when rezzed, but it's a long way from there to supposing the Giant did that.

Speculate about how exactly Roy did earned XP is not necessary to accept that he's 16+ - but, then again, not having a complete and detailed amount of earned XP doesn't proves your position. That's not required for knowing Belkar's level, nor Haley's, nor any one in the OotS. Why should be different with Roy?

[Forikroder]

I. Do. Not. Have. To. Assume.

you assume he didnt level in the afterlife with no evidence to back it up

yes normally PCs dont level while dead, but normally there not fighting evil PCs and roleplaying while dead, normally they use a different character till there rezzed or just wait a couple minutes theres nothing in the rules stopping Roy from leveling, no where in the rules does it say "it is 100% impossible to gain Experience while dead, even if your DM decides to use you being dead as a solo adventure to catch you up with the rest of the rules, if your DM tries to give you XP while ead immediately cover your ears"

[ti'esar]

Looks like Tarquin just picked up a few feats.

[RMS Oceanic]

Indeed. His snatching of Haley's Arrow is a pretty definitive use of Snatch Arrows, so by extension he has Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike and a Dexterity of 15. Anything else?

[KingFlameHawk]

OK I will admit that my knowledge of 3.5 is extremely limited but is it possible that from everything Roy had been doing from his defeat of Miko to his defeat at Xykon's hands could have net him some large roleplaying ex. Is it possible that he got enough as he was falling that it pushed him up a level that when he died he was the"highest level good character"?

[Lvl45DM!]

Improved trip seems likely
What would let him throw Durkon like that?

[MammonAzrael]

Improved trip seems likely
What would let him throw Durkon like that?

Improved Grapple is certainly likely, but beyond that...?

Given the number of feats (at least, they're likely feats and not items or something), it's likely that Tarquin has at least a few levels in Fighter.

[Sith_Happens]

Indeed. His snatching of Haley's Arrow is a pretty definitive use of Snatch Arrows, so by extension he has Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike and a Dexterity of 15. Anything else?

Well, this is a bit hazier, but he appears to have not provoked AoOs by tripping Roy or grappling Durkon. Which, of course, raises the possibility of Improved Trip and Improved Grapple, the former of which requires Combat Expertise, which requires at least 13 Int.

On the same note, he didn't seem to provoke when he disarmed Elan in 761. Which would mean either Improved Disarm, or his remark in the previous panel confused Elan enough to make him flat-footed.

[Frog Dragon]

Can we estimate Tarquin's strength from this?

Durkon weighs a minimum of 138lbs, and he's in full-plate, which means he weighs more than 188lbs (due to other equipment.) Tarquin would seem to be in either breastplate or full-plate. Tarquin is thus packing at least 42lbs in equipment. For Durkon to fit within his heavy load, he would have to have a strength of at least 19.

[Neoseanster]

Tarquin may have been using Gloves of Arrow Snaring, or some more expensive and more powerful homebrewed variant upon them.

Gloves of Arrow Snaring
Once snugly worn, these gloves seem to meld with the hands, becoming almost invisible. Twice per day, the wearer can act as if he had the Snatch Arrows feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites for it. Both gloves must be worn for the magic to be effective. At least one hand must be free to take advantage of the magic.

Faint abjuration; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, shield; Price 4,000 gp.

[Lvl45DM!]

Can we estimate Tarquin's strength from this?

Durkon weighs a minimum of 138lbs, and he's in full-plate, which means he weighs more than 188lbs (due to other equipment.) Tarquin would seem to be in either breastplate or full-plate. Tarquin is thus packing at least 42lbs in equipment. For Durkon to fit within his heavy load, he would have to have a strength of at least 19.

Yeah but dude he's not carrying durkon like a heavy load. He THREW him 10-15 feet!

[Frog Dragon]

Yeah, but I'm not sure how to calculate what that requires, so I'm going with the most conservative estimate.

[RMS Oceanic]

I think we had pegged Nale as having Improved Disarm for a long time in the strip after he kills the Cliffport Chief, but then there was a rethink about how Rich chooses to represent Attacks of Opportunity, and whether just because he provokes an attack doesn't mean the provokee takes it. Maybe it's something worth coming back to. It never hurts to look at our assumptions from time to time and see that they still make sense.

Does anyone know if there are any unobscure rules in 3.5 for throwing heavy loads, so we can attempt to peg Tarquin's strength down?

[ghoul-n]

Any evidence on Zz'dtri being a male, btw?