OotS 448

[IceFractal]

In any event, it doesn't redeem #448.

Heck yes, it does! If the prior battle seemed anticlimatic to you, that's because it wasn't the climax. The real showdown starts now! And I'm betting the Paladins have quite a bit better odds now (as long as they don't try to heal themselves). Their utter defeat before makes their comeback pack a lot more punch.

 

[Celebrim]

Heck yes, it does! If the prior battle seemed anticlimatic to you, that's because it wasn't the climax.

Have you ever heard of 'rising action'? Having a big let down before the climax doesn't make the climax that more climatic. Elan could tell you that the proper narrative structure for this sort of thing would be to have a big tense believable showdown, and then after you think for sure its over, then it just gets bigger. You are supposed to follow up each climax with an even bigger climax, not follow up something anti-climatic with something climatic.

And the reasoning behind that is simple. Despite the coolness of what Rich is doing, you can easily see that Rich has still lost alot of his audiences interest and excitement. People like me are no longer looking forward to the next panel because the last panel was a let down. He's blown the readers trust, and now he has to reacquire it. For some readers that will be easier than others, for some it was enough just to see that it really didn't end there, but for others (say me) it will probably take me several strips to get reemersed in the excitement of it. And I doubt that I'm alone in that.

Their utter defeat before makes their comeback pack a lot more punch.

And it would have packed alot more punch if well, Rich had spent more time building up that 'hope' that Xykon so loves dashing. Saying that the last strip makes the next strip better is like saying an appetizer to be 'meh' or a wine being sour makes a good entree seem that much better. No, it degrades the whole presentation of the meal.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Having a big let down before the climax doesn't make the climax that more climatic.

Er, actually this is a common technique. See: The Ring, Die Hard (the climax is the guy from Family Matters shooting the big dude, technically), The Return of the King (the climax is all that stuff in Hobbit Town)...Alien after the ship explodes. Aliens after the colony explodes...and so on.

I think it's called a "False Climax" (though that sounds dirty). Then having an anti-climax preceding a climax is also common; see the cat jumping out of the shadows in Alien shortly before the actual Alien kills the guy with the hat. (That would be the climax of that particular scene)

 

[JustinA]

Well, any attempt to claim that I said word "offensive" was a synonym of "moving" is a blatant misstatement of what I said. I did not interpret "offensive" to mean "moving".

Any attempt to claim that you're Kahuna Burger (the person I as actually responding to) is a blatantly weird thing to do.

1) The rules are very poorly worded. The very fact that we are arguing over the intent of the rules and the meaning of the word offensive is sufficient proof of that.

Actually, that's a fallacy. If someone argues that 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't mean that 2 + 2 = 4 is a poorly stated mathematical equation.

2) I believe that the intent of the designers of the spell was that it be used to make traps. This is the reasoning behind the poorly worded clause supposedly elimenating offensive uses of the spell. A trap is defensive. It is protective. The reason the 'no offensive' uses clause is such a poor idea is it creates questions like, "How does a spell know if it is being used in an offensive way? Is the spell sentient, and it just peversely refuses to use itself if in its opinion your use is offensive." It leaves the question of whether a usage of the spell is offensive or not up to the DM. Worse yet, whether something is offensive or not is circumstantial. If a player casts a symbol in his spellbook, at the time of the casting the symbol is defensive in nature. But if in combat, the player then opens his spell book and shows the symbol to his enemy, the spell is now offensive in nature.

Or, instead of making a wild guess on the designer's intention with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, you could use the examples they provide to correctly intuit their intention, rule accordingly, and call it a day.

But I suppose creating a problem out of whole-cloth gives you the opportunity to make a big fuss out of trying to fix the problem.

 

[Celebrim]

Any attempt to claim that you're Kahuna Burger (the person I as actually responding to) is a blatantly weird thing to do.

I suppose that I can have nothing to do with a statement that contains "intoducing a house rule", when I'm the one that suggested the idea?

Actually, that's a fallacy. If someone argues that 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't mean that 2 + 2 = 4 is a poorly stated mathematical equation.

That's a false analogy. When we are speaking of the clarity of something, the fact that a large number of reasonable people can't agree over its meaning is sufficient to prove that it's unclear. Now, if you wish to say that anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable, then by all means make that argument.

Or, instead of making a wild guess on the designer's intention...

Are you claiming that "Symbols are used as traps" is a wild guess at the designer's intention?

...with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

You mean other than the historical usage of the spell, the fact that the entire write up is couched in the language of traps ('triggers', 'passwords', 'magic traps', 'disable device', etc.), the 10 minute casting time, and the various fair warning and usage qualifiers like 'plain sight and in a prominent location' and 'you can’t use a symbol of death offensively' that are clearly intended to limit the spell in some fashion. Yeah, other than that and the fact that the write up says, "Magical traps such as symbol of death...", I don't have any evidence whatsoever to back up my assertion that the designer intended the spell to create a trap.

you could use the examples they provide to correctly intuit their intention, rule accordingly, and call it a day.

Well, that is the trick isn't it? I'm mean what you here call 'intuit their intention' you earlier called 'making wild guesses'. Which is it? Should we be guessing thier intentions and ruling based on them or not? For example, you seem perfectly content to claim that trapping your spell books is within the intent of the designers, and I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it certainly isn't an example in the text.

They only provide one example of a wrong use, and they don't explain why its a wrong use except that it is 'offensive'. We don't really have any guidelines for knowing what is or isn't offensive, and most notably the example that you can't use a symbol as a touch attack is just that - an example. It's clearly not from the context intended to be an all inclusive list of the wrong offensive uses of the spell, otherwise the clause "You can’t use a symbol of death offensively" would have no purpose. We are given no examples of what might constitute an offensive use in the far more problimatic cases of a symbol triggered by viewing it (ranged attack rather than melee).

But I suppose creating a problem out of whole-cloth...

I see. Put a rule in front of 15 or 20 different DM's and get 15 or 20 completely different interpretations of the rule and that constitutes creating a problem out of whole-cloth. There have been scores of different interpretations of whether or not the 'bouncy ball' was a legitimate usage of the spell and no one has a consistant ruling that could be applied in all circumstances in logically consistant way. It doesn't take a weaver to see a problem here.

 

[Drowbane]

I'm surprised, and it is an excellent one, but I'm not sure that its going to go in the direction people think it is.

In any event, it doesn't redeem #448.

448 rocked on toast.

 

[RedFox]

448 rocked on toast.

It's quite probably my favorite strip in the history of the comic thus far. And that's a long comic. (nearly 450 strips!)

 

[Drowbane]

It's quite probably my favorite strip in the history of the comic thus far. And that's a long comic. (nearly 450 strips!)

I'm with ya brother

 

[Slife]

Introducing a house rule that symbol spells can't be moved around is an interesting house rule, but since it eliminates the ability to use the symbol spells to guard spellbooks or luggage, it clearly isn't the intention of the designers. And any attempt to interpret "offensive" as "moving" is not only a bad intepretation of the rules, it's a bad use of the English language.

How about they can't be activated while moving (but the spell will still fire when still)?

There. No exploit, still usable on portable things.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Setting the symbol to trigger and effect only the people you hit with it. This is explicitly listed in the RAW.

As I've mentioned before: Introducing a house rule that symbol spells can't be moved around is an interesting house rule, but since it eliminates the ability to use the symbol spells to guard spellbooks or luggage, it clearly isn't the intention of the designers. And any attempt to interpret "offensive" as "moving" is not only a bad intepretation of the rules, it's a bad use of the English language.

Since I never said that offensive means moving or moving means offensive, that doesn't bother me.

I stated that having a symbol inside a chest's lid would be fine in an earlier post. The chest could be moved willy nilly, and it wouldn't change the defensive nature of the spell. Saying "throwing an active symbol to be a burst effect weapon is an offensive use of the spell" is not a house rule to make symbols immobile. It's simply ruling that that particular movement would be an offensive use of the spell.

And the "effect people you hit it with" example is just that - called out as an example. Since you brought up use of the english language, I do not generally take the use of the words "for example" to mean "and here is a comprehensive list of what the former sentance describes."

Offensive does not mean moving. But moving something dangerous to someone to force an interaction that will harm them, is offensive.