Class and Level Geekery X: deals +1d6 thread damage

[Douglas]

Several clear examples given of this though. For instance, Gate is instant for calling help, but at least 2 magical affects linger afterwards:
- the help you call remains magically controlled/unable to rebel until later, and
- the spell will magically plane shift them back to their home after they're done, even if they can't get there under their own power.
If those aren't achieved via magic, I'm not sure how they're being achieved.

Likewise, take a spell like Imprisonment. The imprisonment is instant, yet the subject remains held in a sphere that is immune to almost all spells, even ones like Wish can do no more than locate the sphere. If this isn't being achieved by Magic, I'm not sure how people think it is being achieved.

I... got nothin'. Every explanation I can think of for how those two work without lingering magic is extremely silly. So, bad writing by WotC. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

[Codyage]

I... got nothin'. Every explanation I can think of for how those two work without lingering magic is extremely silly. So, bad writing by WotC. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

I think the real confusion doesn't come from gate, but just Planar Ally spells. Gate is straightforward. Effect 1, a gated plane shift spell. Or effect 2, a mass planar ally. The thing is Planar Ally is instantaneous.

1. Immediate or Contractual service, and a compulsion effect.

2.The ability to return home for a single time.

Would it be easier to call the compulsion effect, and the one time return trip super natural abilities? They can't be dispelled, but are still considered magic.

[rgrekejin]

I think the real confusion doesn't come from gate, but just Planar Ally spells. Gate is straightforward. Effect 1, a gated plane shift spell. Or effect 2, a mass planar ally. The thing is Planar Ally is instantaneous.

1. Immediate or Contractual service, and a compulsion effect.

2.The ability to return home for a single time.

Would it be easier to call the compulsion effect, and the one time return trip super natural abilities? They can't be dispelled, but are still considered magic.

In order for it to be something like a magical effect but not actually a magical effect, and also not dispellable, they would have to be something like extraordinary abilities. The Dispel seed can dispel supernatural abilities too.

[Codyage]

In order for it to be something like a magical effect but not actually a magical effect, and also not dispellable, they would have to be something like extraordinary abilities. The Dispel seed can dispel supernatural abilities too.

Even though the table specifically says, they are immune to it?

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic.

[hamishspence]

Seeds are more powerful than the spells they are based on:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/dispel.htm

The dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic. The dispel seed can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells, and it affects spell-like effects just as it affects spells.

[Codyage]

Seeds are more powerful than the spells they are based on:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/dispel.htm

The dispel seed can defeat all spells, even those not normally subject to dispel magic. The dispel seed can dispel (but not counter) the ongoing effects of supernatural abilities as well as spells, and it affects spell-like effects just as it affects spells.

Thank you so much. While looking this up I found Seed:Banish.

So normally, dispel won't remove an extra planar like banishment or dismissal does.

There is a SPECIFIC seed for banishment. So if Dispel can't remove creatures, but Banish can. Is it reasonable to use the same logic that EPIC!Dispel can't remove creatures but EPIC!Banish can? IF Epic!Dispel can do it, whats the point of Epic!Banish?

[SaintRidley]

Thank you so much. While looking this up I found Seed:Banish.

So normally, dispel won't remove an extra planar like banishment or dismissal does.

There is a SPECIFIC seed for banishment. So if Dispel can't remove creatures, but Banish can. Is it reasonable to use the same logic that EPIC!Dispel can't remove creatures but EPIC!Banish can? IF Epic!Dispel can do it, whats the point of Epic!Banish?

Well, Dispel can send them away if they're summoned, because summons are ongoing spell effects and normally subject to dispelling. You need an epic spell with the Banish seed if they're called, which means the extraplanar creature is actually present and not basically magically recreated on this plane.

For non-D&D players, the difference between calling and summoning can be very hard to explain, which is probably part of why (in addition to the Giant's most recent post explaining that he's been avoiding referring to rules constructs) the issue has not been raised or explained in the comic.

[Codyage]

Well, Dispel can send them away if they're summoned, because summons are ongoing spell effects and normally subject to dispelling. You need an epic spell with the Banish seed if they're called, which means the extraplanar creature is actually present and not basically magically recreated on this plane.

For non-D&D players, the difference between calling and summoning can be very hard to explain, which is probably part of why (in addition to the Giant's most recent post explaining that he's been avoiding referring to rules constructs) the issue has not been raised or explained in the comic.

Right, forgot to clarify that. I just used extra planar, but you are correct. Dispel = summon, banish/dismissal = called.

So it makes since that Epic!Dispel can't remove regular called creatures.

[Flame of Anor]

{SCRUBBED}

[ti'esar]

{SCRUBBED}

Seconded and then some. I don't remember how this conversation was supposed to be relevant in the first place, but it lost any trace of being so a while back.

[Flame of Anor]

Seconded and then some. I don't remember how this conversation was supposed to be relevant in the first place, but it lost any trace of being so a while back.

It started with yet another rehashing of the what-level-is-Xykon debate.

[Living Oxymoron]

It started with yet another rehashing of the what-level-is-Xykon debate.

That is also pointless.

[Kurald Galain]

Thank you, Flame.

If I may suggest another topic for now: it strikes me that Belkar is listed with 0 ranks in handle animal, listen, search, and sense motive; but none of these are linked to a comic. Can someone tell me why he has no ranks in these skills?

[Vargtass]

Certainly.

At least for Handle animal, I know it is proven in a bonus strip in Paladin Blues that Belkar does not have ranks in Handle animal, when he tries to have his wiener dog do tricks. He is not even aware of the skill.

Incidently, this is also part of the proof that Mr Scruffy is his animal companion, because Handle animal can be used trained only, and the cat obeys him.

Vargtass

[Copperdragon]

it strikes me that Belkar is listed with 0 ranks in handle animal, listen, search, and sense motive; but none of these are linked to a comic. Can someone tell me why he has no ranks in these skills?

Because the comic does not make it "probable" that he has any ranks in it and given that I'd say it's the better approach to assume he does not have them unless the comic gives proof othervise.

If you are very strict, you need to remove a statement you cannot proof (and Listen 0 is such a statement).

[137beth]

The 0 in spot might be referring to #119, which strongly implies (but does not outright say) that he has no ranks in spot. Not sure about listen, though.

[Copperdragon]

The 0 in spot might be referring to #119, which strongly implies (but does not outright say) that he has no ranks in spot. Not sure about listen, though.

I see the problem that Belkar made like 8 levels since then. So even if he did not have any spot back then, he could have gotten a few ranks by now. Evidence for the old strips can only be valid for things characters do have, I would not say they are reliable for showing stuff characters do not have.

[137beth]

I see the problem that Belkar made like 8 levels since then. So even if he did not have any spot back then, he could have gotten a few ranks by now. Evidence for the old strips can only be valid for things characters do have, I would not say they are reliable for showing stuff characters do not have.

And it was not really proof to begin with. Yea, unless someone can find something better, I say we remove the "0 ranks in spot/listen/handle animal."

[Chronos]

Quoth copperdragon:

Evidence for the old strips can only be valid for things characters do have, I would not say they are reliable for showing stuff characters do not have.

This is problematic, though: How old is "old"? Obviously whenever a character levels up, their information can change, but we don't always know every time they level up. Which makes it very difficult to put an upper bound on anything.

Perhaps for situations like that we could say something like "0 ranks as of 117"? That still gives us some information, at least.

[Conte_Vincero]

Can I just say that as a long time lurker here. I have only posted once due to my lack of DnD knoledge but have immensely enjoyed the debate. However I have a couple of things which I think I should say

{SCRUBBED}

2. I'm not sure that The Giant's post changes anything. It has been known for a long time that homebrew is rife. The goal of this thread has been (as far as I understand) is to try and reconcile The Giant's homebrewed rules with some genuine DnD ones. In the same way that MitD's thead often takes mythalogical creatures and attempts to work out how they would appear in DnD, so we (or rather you) should take the Giant's (non-DnD) characters and attempt to give them DnD stats.

3. The basis for this thread for a long time has been proof, as opposed to ballance of probability. Mage Paradox has been proposing that Occam's razor should be applied so that lists can be gained through ballance of probability. I disagree wholeheartedly. Such a method only serves to increse flame wars as in this case probability is subjective. If there are opposing arguments, then the stat should be given as lowest estimate+ and a reason given. It is the simplest method, as any attempt to give various estimates priority only leads to more argument. If we however do decide to bring Occam's Razor into play, I move to also bring Russel's teapot, Edith's socks and Sarah Palin's Spandex Lederhosen into play as well.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Since the Giant is actively rejecting D&D...

That seems like an exaggeration. He (grudgingly) follows D&D rules. Just not very carefully, for a while, evidently.

I'm not sure that The Giant's post changes anything.

Agreed.

[Copperdragon]

This is problematic, though: How old is "old"?

That is why I said "I see this problem", not "I see this problem and suggest this solution".

Point is: even if it could get concluded from a comic in the #100s that character X does not have class-skill Y, I am very doubtful that conclusion still is solid 800 strips and 8 levels later.

[Reddish Mage]

That seems like an exaggeration. He (grudgingly) follows D&D rules. Just not very carefully, for a while, evidently.



Agreed.

I'm not sure Rich is really being fast and loose with the rules, but I think he wants us to discuss things from the starting assumption that he MAY be playing fast and loose with the rules and not to challenge the story as being "wrong" on the grounds it doesn't strictly meet D&D standards.

Rich did say he likes this thread because it starts from the story as being a given and then tries to see what D&D rules fit (if any).

I don't know how we can talk about there being "proof" of something though. We can only say we have "strong story-based evidence" for some stat being such at such a point in time. Strong evidence doesn't mean it is strictly probabilistic, it could mean that either 1. the strip explicitly states a stat is as such OR 2. our understanding of the standard rules is that X could not have happened unless a stat was at Y. We could also still apply a principle of conservatism to keep things like "0 ranks in ______" or ranks fewer than _______ once it was established.

[Kurald Galain]

Perhaps for situations like that we could say something like "0 ranks as of 117"? That still gives us some information, at least.

We actually already do that, since every statement in the top posts is linked to a comic. We have traditionally taken the direction that once somethign is proven in-comic, it remains listed as such until contradicted by a later comic (and a simple mouse-hover shows you which comic the statement is from).

[137beth]

I'm starting to get the sense that the people on this thread are splitting into 2 groups. Group 1 wants to continue using proof/in-comic verification as the standards for the thread. Group 2 wants to use estimates of what is more likely to increase the precision of character's stats.

Now, we could try debating which of these standards is "correct", as we have been for several pages, but this ultimately will not succeed. The reason is that the two groups have fundamentally different goals for what they think the thread should be. Group 1 wants to see how much of the characters stats can be proven and deduced, using just the information presented in the comic, without error. Group 2 wants to see how precise of an estimate for the characters can be given, making only small and moderate assumptions. These are fundamentally conflicting goals. The two factions cannot settle their disagreement, because they disagree on what kind of a thread they want to have. There is not just a disagreement on the methods used, but on the end goal.

Given that the two factions want to have completely different threads, there is really no reason to try and fail to settle our differences in this one. I'm not going to try and estimate how many people are in each faction, but if group 2 has more than just mage paradox, I strongly encourage someone in group 2 to start another thread, with a different standard focused on estimation of stats, rather than exact bounds. This is not a case of "no 2 threads can have the same purpose", because right now, group two wants a thread with a fundamentally different purpose than group one.

Since this thread has always run off of facts and exact bounds, rather than estimates and probabilistic conjectures, it makes more sense for group 1 to keep this thread and group 2 to start their own (rather than group two taking over this thread and group one starting a new one.) Ultimately, though, no matter what happens to this thread, the two factions will never be able to agree on how to best accomplish the thread's goals, because they disagree on what the goals of the thread are. And that is the point at which we should split into two threads.

[The Giant]

Locked for review.

[The Giant]

OK, let's try to deal with some of the issues in this thread:

1.) This is not the thread for debates about what the D&D rules are. If there is of question of rules interpretation that goes beyond 2-3 posts, take it to the D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 forum. Derailing this thread is spam, and will be infracted.

2.) If this thread does get derailed into a D&D rules debate, the thing to do is report one of the posts—not take it upon yourself to chastise the people involved. That's Vigilante Modding, and is also against the Rules of Posting. Likewise, flaming them is also not a solution and will get you warned or infracted.

3.) As Mark Hall pointed out when this thread was reinstated after the last time it needed to be locked, the thread curator (or curators, in this case) are empowered to use democratic methods to resolve disputes, including disputes like what to include or even what the criteria for inclusion should be. In other words, if the thread is getting bogged down by one point, call for a vote. Once that vote is completed, the issue should be considered settled one way or the other and further discussion should be curtailed. This method can be used to keep certain issues from dragging the whole thread down. If someone continues to argue after the issue has been democratically resolved, that poster can be reported.

4.) If anyone wants to start a thread where they devise their own hypothetical stats for OOTS characters without regard to whether it is strictly borne out by the evidence in the comic, they may do so—in the Homebrew forum. Title it something like, "My take on the OOTS characters" or something. Leave this thread for what it has always been—an examination of what is present in the comic.

Now, there are a few more issues I want to address regarding my earlier posts in this thread, but I'll put that in a separate post since I'm sure it will be linked to later.

[The Giant]

Since the last comic went up, I've made a few statements in response to the topic of the comic's relation to the D&D rules. Since this thread is locked and I have everyone's attention, I wanted to clear a few things up.

1.) Absolutely nothing has changed about the way I write the strip, at least not for the last few years. The post that precipitated my comment that I no longer make explicit statements about what feats or items or whatever was with regards to events in comic #600—which was published in 2008. If you have enjoyed the comic and the level of D&D content for the last five years, then you will continue to enjoy it in the future, because nothing is changing.

2.) I've seen comments (here and in other threads) that this "change" to the comic (which is not really a change) to "move away" from D&D rules will result in utter chaos, and that without the D&D rules to reign me in, I'm just as likely to solve a problem by having, say, Roy fireball the enemy, or Belkar summon a demon. This is ridiculous. Regardless of my adherence to the D&D rules, I am still obligated to adhere to the internal consistency of the story I have already written. Roy does not cast spells; this is already established within the work. It does not matter whether or not the reason he does not cast spells is because the D&D rules say his class shouldn't—it's still been clearly established that he does not. Therefore, he will not be casting any spells in the future unless I also establish, within the comic, that he has gained the ability to do so...which you could then extrapolate to mean that he has multi-classed to a spellcasting class. In other words, any move away from D&D rules will be to make a better story, and having the characters suddenly display heretofore unseen powers would make it a worse story—so I won't be doing it.

3.) Any comments made recently about the comic's adherence to D&D rules should be read in the context of my work being attacked for lack of such adherence. I have said, time and time again, that I bend the rules when I feel like it. Apparently, that hasn't been enough to stop some people from telling me that I'm wrong, that I'm ruining the strip, that I've gone too far, and other such rude and unproductive criticisms. It is personally difficult to read constant criticism over something that I have openly stated I do not consider to be a priority. Thus, I tried to make several increasingly blunt statements in an effort to cut such complaints off at the source. These were, generally speaking, hyperbole. Exaggerations in the heat of the moment for the purpose of stopping childish hairsplitting. If they upset anyone else reading them or tarnished their enjoyment of the comic, I apologize. That was never my intention; they were directed solely at the people to whom I was responding. I understand that 95% or more of my audience does not engage in this sort of posting, and that almost all of the posters who enjoy the D&D aspects of the story do so constructively, without being obsessively critical.

4.) To be perfectly clear: I do not actually wish I could go back and remove D&D from the earlier OOTS strips, nor do I wish for D&D to have no place going forward. What I really want is to write the comic with moderate broad-strokes adherence to the concepts embodied in D&D, and for everyone to get off my back when I get some of the fiddly details wrong, or invent a new thing that doesn't currently exist in the game. But that doesn't seem like it's something that can happen for whatever reason. A lot of people feel the need to proclaim my grievous errors over and over so they can pat themselves on the back publicly. That's very frustrating for me, and demoralizing—and people know this, because I've said it before, and yet they still do it. I don't know how to stop it from happening, because it seems like nothing short of an unambiguous rejection of D&D by me will have any effect. But it is hurting the strip. High stress leads directly to me not being able to work, which leads to delays. If nothing else, it is extremely difficult to write jokes when I'm angry.

5.) As far as this thread goes, or any other attempt to align the events of the comic with D&D, my suggestion is to treat the comic as if it is based on "OOTS RPG," a hypothetical game that is exactly like D&D in every way—except for those ways that the comic shows that it isn't. Everything is D&D until proven otherwise. Because that's sort of how I write it; I use the D&D rules when they fit into the story (and I remember them), and break them when they don't. Thus, you can still extrapolate D&D stats of the characters unless I show something that simply defies the game as written—like Roy casting a fireball. And you can still make predictions about what might happen in the future as if it were all going to unfold according to the D&D rules, as long as you understand that hey, maybe I might fudge that one. And then don't complain if I do.

I love D&D. I love writing about D&D. I still have things that I want to say about D&D, or using D&D as a lens. They are things about alignment and philosophy, storytelling and its place in our lives, the treatment of those different from ourselves, and the meaning of family. I would like to be able to say those things without them getting bogged down in the details of whether or not a character can move more than five feet before executing such-and-such an action. If we can all agree that maybe the details of the rules aren't utterly crucial to the execution of the broader story, then there's no reason that the comic can't continue to explore D&D-related themes and issues. If we can't agree on that, then I'll probably continue to make off-the-cuff poorly conceived statements designed to throttle complaints, and then we're all miserable.

So, now that I've gotten that all off my chest, hopefully this topic can be left to die on its own.

[Flame of Anor]

So, now that I've gotten that all off my chest, hopefully this topic can be left to die on its own.

We're talking the "angst about whether the comic will follow D&D rules" topic, not the "Class and Level Geekery" topic, right?

[The Giant]

We're talking the "angst about whether the comic will follow D&D rules" topic, not the "Class and Level Geekery" topic, right?

Yes. The "Class and Level Geekery" topic should continue, albeit with less disruptive posting. Which I have a feeling it will, since not everyone will be rejoining the discussion.