OotS 448

[kinem]

I kinda like that, actually: requiring the symbol's inscription on an immobile surface, and ruling that any movement of the surface renders the symbol inert, would make it much more reasonable. Great idea!

Except that planets rotate and move ... and besides that, there are always earthquakes ...

Really, the whole D&D distinction between immobile and mobile needs to be replaced. It makes no sense from a physics point of view.

 

[wingsandsword]

I kinda like that, actually: requiring the symbol's inscription on an immobile surface, and ruling that any movement of the surface renders the symbol inert, would make it much more reasonable. Great idea!

Daniel

Agreed, that would return Symbol spells to what they are supposed to be: Magical traps and protective enchantments on a place, not mobile weapons.

House Rule for Symbol spells: Adopted

Finally, the strip isn't disturbing in the slightest. It's funny - hilarious even. How can people find it disturbing when they routinely roleplay characters burninating/slicing/dicing/etc. creatures all the time. None of the characters that actually died (except for the wizard) ever had any lines.

Okay, I'm one of the people who found this disturbing and not-at-all funny. A sadistic undead abomination out to conquer the world, facing dozens of honorable and holy warriors making a valiant last stand to try to save the world, but being magically compelled to kill each other while said undead monstrosity looks at them and laughs? Yeah, lots of laughs there.

OotS is normally very funny, but Rich rolled a Natural 1 on his Craft: Webcomic check I think.

 

[Corsair]

Okay, I'm one of the people who found this disturbing and not-at-all funny.

<snip>

OotS is normally very funny, but Rich rolled a Natural 1 on his Craft: Webcomic check I think.

Point #1 does not automatically lead to point #2. Why can't it be intentionally disturbing and unfunny? Why must it be slapstick only?

 

[Pielorinho]

Except that planets rotate and move ... and besides that, there are always earthquakes ...

Really, the whole D&D distinction between immobile and mobile needs to be replaced. It makes no sense from a physics point of view.

What is this "physics" you speak of? What relation does it have to a game of D&D, in which electricity travels parallel to the ground?

Of course theories of relativity make the word "immobile" meaningless. I don't play in games in which relativity is meaningful.

Daniel

 

[Celebrim]

Except that planets rotate and move ...

Only be necessity if we are speaking of the real world. There is no reason why the sun can't revolve around an earth that is in an absolutely fixed point in space. And for that matter, that's precisely the case in my homebrew.

If I had to write a definition of 'movement' that did the trick, I probably could. As a first stab, I would require that if the surface moved, that the moving surface extend entirely beyond the 60' radius of the spell. The justification is simply that the spells 'senses' only extend to 60' and if you move a larger area the symbol cannot 'know' it is being moved. That would still kick out any abusive uses of the spell, while allowing the planet that the symbol was on to move (or for that matter potentially for the symbol to be inscribed on the interior wall of a moving castle).

 

[hong]

Darth Maul would so pwn Xykon.

 

[Grog]

I, me, personally, see the intent of Symbol spells to be put somewhere, on something, and some poor schmuck comes by and says "ooooh, what's This?" and BOOM! (You lifted the drapes, passed under the doorway... See where i'm going?) You voluntarily interact with it or something like that.

Exactly. Using a symbol to protect an object or an area isn't an offensive use of the spell, just like setting a mechanical trap on a chest isn't an offensive action. So it would be a perfectly allowable use for the spell.

 

[IceFractal]

First off, a minor note - the more I think about it, the more I think that people are readying actions to hit spellcasters, because it'd be pretty bizarre if neither Xykon or V could cast defensively. And now, your feature presentation:



Ok, I'll say it once more, since nobody apparently noticed the first time:
There's no reason to assume that there was only one symbol on the ball.

Even if the Paladins have a 50% chance to save (and it's probably more like 20%), then having four symbols would drop that to ~7%. And note that Symbol of Insanity can be made permanent, so he could even have done this beforehand so as to not waste slots.


Secondly, the ball is just a flavor thing, really. He could just as easily have carried in a steel sheet with the symbols on it and flipped it around to face the Paladins. When someone wants to describe something in a cooler/funnier/more interesting way - which is mechanically the same - then I (and all the DMs I know) would allow it in a game, much less in a comic.


Third, there's a lot of stuff that happens "between panels". Here's a probable reason why the front line of Paladins stopped attacking him:

Panel 6: Paladins finish their turn of beating up Xykon. Xykon points behind them (free action).
Panel 7-8: Paladins look around and realize it's going to be a bad day. (still the same round).
Panel 8.5: Xykon casts Horrid Wilting and kills all the Paladins next to him except the blue-beared one. (standard action, he's still got a move action ). Then the blue bearded one decides that it's more valuable to stop the slaughter/protect the throne than attack Xykon by himself.
Panel 9: We see the blue-bearded one doing exactly that.


Fourth, the Paralyzing Touch. Yes, this is quite risky, probably. There's a few options:
1) Xykon was careless but got lucky (certainly possible).
2) Xykon already cast Wall of Force in front of the gate, as backup.
3) Xykon has for some reason, researched a high-level paralyzation spell which happens to be called Paralyzing Touch. Unlikely, but hey, he did research Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage.


Fifth, I think this served an important story purpose. It sacrifices somewhat the eliteness of the Sapphire Order, but that's in order to show that there's a reason Xykon is the BBEG - that he does more than pretend to fall asleep during planning sessions. Redcloak has been doing most of the work recently - it's time for Xykon to go back into action, less he become a farce.



Finally, a note on "realism": I've played a high-level spellcaster. As a 17th level human, forget 20th+ level Lich, he could have pretty much ended this battle in one round.
Step 1: Time Stop.
Step 2: The Paladins inexplicably find themselves underwater, taking acid and boiling damage, being grappled by tentacles, in the dark, and trapped in there by walls of force (good luck dispelling those without being able to breath or concentrate).
Step 3: Profit!

And it doesn't mean that the Sapphire Order was puny either - it just means that a big enough level disparity is like using slingshots against a tank.

 

[Grog]

Grog, I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining what an inoffensive use of the spell would look like--especially an inoffensive use of the spell that comes right up to, but does not cross, the line.

I think the point the other poster was making was that there's no way to use Symbol of Insanity that doesn't match up to at least one of the definitions of "offensive", therefore since the spell is clearly meant to be used the writer must have intended a narrower meaning of the word "offensive" than the whole of the dictionary definition.

Inscribing a symbol on the inside of a chest you want to protect doesn't match up to any definition of "offensive" that I'm aware of. The spell isn't being used aggressively or as part of an attack, so that usage would be fine.

 

[Grog]

Of course he did! there weren't any PCs in the throne room. If two ses of NPCs face off, the one who wins is the one the DM wanted to win.

True. I just think that, if Xykon was going to win by DM fiat, there were much funnier ways it could have happened.

Oh well. To each their own!