OotS 448

[BASHMAN]

So is that thing that looks like Xycon's twin with a horse and scimitar a Death Knight?

 

[Drowbane]

Darth Maul would so pwn Xykon.

Strangely this reminds me of the Darth Maul vs Vader comic that came out... 5yrs(?) ago.

Something about Sith Acolytes unleashing a cloned Maul on an unexpecting Vader down on some planet.

Vader owned him.

Well, barely.

Ok, so it wasn't quite ownage...

 

[Drowbane]

And I speak for everbody when I say...

So is that thing that looks like Xycon's twin with a horse and scimitar a Death Knight?

We believe so, yes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can see why some people doubt that Xykons use of Symbol of Insanity wasn't offensive, but I remember at least one published adventure in which a similar approach was used:
A Symbol of Death was hidden behind a curtain, and the enemies dropped it down once the players approached.

The idea (house rule) of limiting Symbols only on immobile objects has its merit, but keep in mind that this means you can't use symbols on treasure chests or books (read: Ancient Tomes of Forbidden Magic and Spellbooks of Evil Archwizards), so I wouldn't use this idea.


Is the last surviving (non-paralysed) member of the Sapphire Guard committing seppeku in the last panel?
Urk.

Okay, I can see why some people see the strip as more disturbing then funny.
But I an a fan of black humour, and the 7th and 8th panel are exactly that...


And I agree, one of the biggest rule/story issues is: where did Xykon get a bouncing ball? It doesn't have a price tag attached to it, so he didn't buy it in a shop (unlike his TeeVo or his Spyglass ). Probably has its own history attached to it.

The idea that the warriors are readying their actions to disrupt his spell casting makes a lot of sense. That might also be the reason why they don't attack in the panels 5-6 - they are readying to strike when Xykon casts a spell, but he doesn't.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Rich rolled a Natural 1 on his Craft: Webcomic check I think.

Looked more like a 20 to me!

 

[JustinA]

And the fact that the rules specifically state that Symbol spells can't be used offensively, like Xykon clearly did here...?

I notice this has spawned a sub-thread where people argue about what definition of the word "offensive" should be used.

Let's take a moment and quote the pertinent rule: "You can’t use a symbol of death offensively; for instance, a touch-triggered symbol of death remains untriggered if an item bearing the symbol of death is used to touch a creature. Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe."

The intention of this rule is clear: You can't have a symbol trigger by whacking it against somebody. This is spelled out with two specific examples.

But that's not what Xykon did: He didn't throw the super bouncy ball and have it trigger the symbol by hitting the paladins. He simply used the super bouncy ball to put the symbol in a place where the paladins would see it.

And looking at the rune is specifically listed as an acceptable triggering mechanism.

The suggested houserule that you can't move a symbol around is probably a good one if you want to eliminate this type of tactic (although it does end up eliminating the use of a symbol to protect your spellbook or luggage). But under RAW, Rich got the rules right.

Attempting to enforce a broader interpretation of the term "offensively" than the one specifically supported by the text? That's getting the rule wrong.

 

[morbiczer]

I agree with those that this strip was not among Rich's best. But that doesn't bother me much, I'm sure it will get better.

 

[hong]

Strangely this reminds me of the Darth Maul vs Vader comic that came out... 5yrs(?) ago.

Something about Sith Acolytes unleashing a cloned Maul on an unexpecting Vader down on some planet.

Vader owned him.

Well, barely.

Ok, so it wasn't quite ownage...

The USS Enterprise woud so pwn Vader.

 

[Falkus]

But that's not what Xykon did: He didn't throw the super bouncy ball and have it trigger the symbol by hitting the paladins. He simply used the super bouncy ball to put the symbol in a place where the paladins would see it.

He moved the symbol into an area where it would be activated by his enemies: that is an act of offense, and is what separates from the standard and intended use of the symbols (as a traps that people come to)

Attempting to enforce a broader interpretation of the term "offensively" than the one specifically supported by the text? That's getting the rule wrong.

What definition? The rules don't define offensively, they only give a few examples.

 

[Pbartender]

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!

I think that sums it up pretty well for me... Xykon was going to win regardless of the stats of the Paladins or how prepared they were. But the DM in me says that the last stand of the Saphhire Guard should have been just a bit more interesting... just a bit cooler on the Paladins' side of things for the sake of exposition. By and large the strip gave me the impression that the Guard as a whole were a bunch of boobies, which is rather counter to everything we've been told previously.

It'd be kind of like having all the Jedi Masters standing around like chumps while Stormtroopers ignominiously gunned them down... Oh, wait...

Or maybe more like having all the Jedi Masters standing around like chumps while Vader or Palpatine ignominiously cut them down... Oh, wait...

The bouncy ball thing didn't bother me -- I thought it was a prety slick little trick -- but it would've been better, I think, if it had been saved until Xykon was in a little worse situation. Or if, as Klaus suggested, fewer of the paladins were affected and Xykon had to put forth just a little more effort taking out the remainder.