OotS 448

[Kahuna Burger]

-In an effort to assassinate someone, I inscribe the symbol on the door of his closet. Offensive or not?
-I inscribe the symbol on the front door of my house, and then invite my victim over for cookies. Offensive or not?
-I inscribe the symbol on the front door of my house, and then warn the victim not to come over, knowing that he'll take my villainous warning as an invitation to come over and kill me. Offensive or not?
-I inscribe the symbol on the front door of my house, and then warn the victim not to come over, knowing that he'll take my warning at face value. Offensive or not?

Every one of these seems (to me) to be unambiguously traps. You put the symbol somewhere, they come and interact with it, it goes off. The fact that you are setting the trap with them in mind, setting it somewhere where it's likely to get them, or encouraging them to set off the trap doesn't change that it's a trap.

In every case, one could replace the symbol with a poisoned needle that popped out of the doorknob when turned. A trap, not an attack action. The alternative, of bringing the symbol with you and throwing in the midst of your enemies is replaced with a poisoned needle in a blowgun - an attack, not a trap.

 

[frankthedm]

The Use of the symbol of insanity on the bounce ball was as rules-kosher as using control weather to smash those treants.

When playing fast and loose with the rules, one loses their right to complain if they wait until the rulings turn against their side.

 

[kinem]

The Use of the symbol of insanity on the bounce ball was as rules-kosher as using control weather to smash those treants.

When playing fast and loose with the rules, one loses their right to complain if they wait until the rulings turn against their side.

The difference is that is the control weather case, it was obvious that it broke the rules, so no one could have been confused by it and imported a bad rule into their own games. There was a panel showing Thor intimidating a celestial not to mention the rules violation.

With the symbol though, people are getting instantly and permanently confused, becoming liable to try that tactic in their games

I don't think people are taking sides here. We all want to see Xykon kick some ass to make up for his previous shortcomings. The problem is how he did it.

 

[Maggan]

Plus, the fact that I came up with a better script for this episode in, like, 2 minutes shows that it's not terribly hard to be done.

I think you are underestimating the craft of writing scripts for a comic the scope of OotS.

All I know is that if I wrote OotS, it would be called "Order of the Suck" and universally reviled and mocked by the D&D community.

And I say that as a bona fide published comic writer. It's not as easy as it might seem.

/M

 

[Klaus]

I think you are underestimating the craft of writing scripts for a comic the scope of OotS.

All I know is that if I wrote OotS, it would be called "Order of the Suck" and universally reviled and mocked by the D&D community.

And I say that as a bona fide published comic writer. It's not as easy as it might seem.

/M

Oh, I know it's hard. Rich is an amazing writer. If anything, it's the fact that Rich is this good that spoiled me into finding this latest strip wanting in the storytelling department (I could care less about the rules).

Anyway, we should have a new strip tomorrow and I can't wait for it!

 

[Grog]

The Use of the symbol of insanity on the bounce ball was as rules-kosher as using control weather to smash those treants.

Well, sure. And D&D doesn't have Teevo and Quest Buy, either.

Again, I don't have a problem with Rich playing fast and loose with D&D rules for OotS. And I don't think the Sapphire Guard should have beaten Xykon. I've simply been responding to the people in this thread who are claiming that Xykon's use of the Symbol of Insanity was allowable under the rules. It wasn't. And as I said, the extent to which that is a problem depends entirely upon what the individual reader wishes to see.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Even though I launched the thread in this direction from the get-go, I think some of these criticisms of Rich's efforts are a little over the top. Obviously many people like it.

I like the bouncy ball in the same way I like Thor misremembering the text of Control Weather.

This one just did not quite work for me. I would not call it bad. It just seemed like it could easily be much better (for me).

As for those of you who kind of like it because it was disturbing, if only the Paladins had demonstrated a little more competence & effectiveness as they courageously went down in flames, I am certain the bitter end would have really tugged at your heartstrings in a way that would have made this little strip look like a car accident compared to a 9.9 Richter magnitude earthquake.

This strip was funny in a "Ha ha, those Paladins are always such Lawful Stupid keystone cops" kind of way. That is hardly a terrible way to go with it, and it is in keeping with a fairly common "NPCs are stupid" theme Rich uses in OotS at times. I find that approach a little tired at this point, but I am sure others find it enjoyable enough.

IMHO this strip is a big missed opportunity to really hit the audience hard.

 

[Pielorinho]

This means that the bouncy ball trick wouldn't work- unless the paladins took a move equivalent to look more closely at it.

Generally I think it's a free action to make a spot check. How about if the hypothetical GM gave the hypothetical PCs the choice of whether to see what this bouncy ball was? If even one of them decided to make the spot check, it'd be activated.

I still think that the line folks are drawing between offensive uses and a trap is a muddy line, to mix my metaphors; but then, I approach the rules in a non-programmatic wy, so that may account for the difference.

Daniel

 

[Vanuslux]

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.

Again:

1.causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying

I'd say that I'd be pretty annoyed if I opened a chest and got hit with a symbol of insanity.

Clarification: I'm not saying that's an unreasonable use of symbol of insanity...I'm saying that throwing out dictionary definitions of "offensive" is pretty much useless as supporting evidence any position in this discussion.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Generally I think it's a free action to make a spot check. How about if the hypothetical GM gave the hypothetical PCs the choice of whether to see what this bouncy ball was? If even one of them decided to make the spot check, it'd be activated.

That is one possible interpretation.

But attempting the Spot check is not sufficient. I cannot "look" at a Hiding Rogue if I fail to make the appropriate Spot DC. I must actually succeed at some kind of Spot check or I do not "see" the little mark on the object in question in any way that matters under the RAW.

We do not have a good definition of what it is to "look" at a Rune under the RAW. Is it possible to "look" at a little mark on a bouncing ball as a Free Action? What is the DC? Does it have Concealment due to orientation?

And since the "Paladin Stereotype" card is already in play, thanks to Rich, I would say it is entirely possible, nay, likely, for an entire room full of Paladins to fail their Spot check if the DC is 22 or over, FWIW.