# OotS 448



## Ridley's Cohort (May 5, 2007)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 5, 2007)

Not entirely satisfied with this one.  It felt pretty hand-wavy to me.

At least, that is not how we would adjudicate an effect that emulates a permenant _Confusion_.


----------



## DungeonMaester (May 5, 2007)

What in the name of the 12 Gods have I done??
 Forgive me...
*shlurkt*

Ha ha..Funny stuff   

---Rusty


----------



## el-remmen (May 5, 2007)

That was friggin' awesome!


----------



## SPoD (May 5, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Not entirely satisfied with this one.  It felt pretty hand-wavy to me.
> 
> At least, that is not how we would adjudicate an effect that emulates a permenant _Confusion_.




I don't see how it's hand-wavvy. Symbol of Insanity can be set to be triggered by looking at it, and by alignment. Xykon scribes it in the morning to activate if any Lawful Good creature looks at it. Then he lobs it in the middle of a group. The first person who looks at it activates it, causing everyone within 60 feet to make an impossibly-difficult-for-their-level Will save. The majority fail. Right off the bat, 30% of the paladins attack the nearest creature, and the next round, all the confused paladins attacked by their neighbors automatically attack back AND another 30% of the remaining confused paladins attack the nearest creature. Eventually, every paladin has been attacked by another and is thus attacking back. Xykon mops up the rest with Magic Missiles and Lightning Bolts.

It seems to follow the rules exactly, unless there's a specific factor I've missed...I mean, it is an 8th level spell that costs 5000 gp and has a 10 minute casting time, vs. a bunch of paladins below 10th level. It pretty much SHOULD slaughter them, it was a mismatched fight.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2007)

Interesting. 

Except it wouldn't work that way.

Each round, only about 24 of the Paladins would have been tied up fighting each other (12 attacking nearest creature and the 12 they attack).  Around 8 or so should have been attacking Xykon (as either the nearest creature or else acting normally or else attacking caster).  And at least a couple of the paladins should have passed thier save simply by rolling natural 20's.  (Although I suppose you could say the three attacking did this.)  

Symbol of Insanity is a great opening volley, I admit, but it does seem a little hand wavey.


----------



## SPoD (May 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> Except it wouldn't work that way.
> 
> Each round, only about 24 of the Paladins would have been tied up fighting each other (12 attacking nearest creature and the 12 they attack).  Around 8 or so should have been attacking Xykon (as either the nearest creature or else acting normally or else attacking caster).  And at least a couple of the paladins should have passed thier save simply by rolling natural 20's.  (Although I suppose you could say the three attacking did this.)




We don't see all 39 paladins every panel.  We don't know if any attacked Xykon between panel 12 and panel 19, and remember that if a creature gets the "attack caster" result but can't get to the caster (such as if there are 38 other paladins in the way), they just move closer to the caster.

And I count 6 paladins who weren't affected (first 3 who attack, cleric in panels 9/10, guy in cloak in panel 13, guy in bandana in panel 14).


----------



## questing gm (May 5, 2007)

Even robed figure got stabbed, he/she seems to have made his/her save (or was completely immune entirely)

'Wait, stop! What are you doing-!'

Anyone making any guess on the identity ?

Although it did felt a little hand-waved climatic combat, but if the rules say that this can happen. It happens. I remember when my PCs ripped my BBEG apart with just a Darkness spell to mess him up.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 5, 2007)

Further, it's much less hand-wavy than combat with the Order (one-shot beheadings, etc.).  I usually regard the combat as somewhat symbolic (as if three rounds compressed into every one and the audience shown only the average result), but here even that isn't really necessary.

As a side note, I found the comic hilarious.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 5, 2007)

SPoD said:
			
		

> an impossibly-difficult-for-their-level Will save. The majority fail.



I think this is the point some of us find, well, silly. I have a sixth level cleric who could give everyone in the room a +6 to their saves with three or four spells, without getting into mass eagles splendors or wisdom boosting items. Resurgence is pal1. A simple hallow spell gives everyone prot evil and probably Aid to help them survive that first round of chaos. The cleric didnt have dispel magic prepared? Apparently this room full of paladins and a couple of clerics didn't know they would be fighting a spellcaster, in spite of, well, knowing they would be fighting a spellcaster. 

I find that too often authors try for dark or gritty and just hit cheap. Unfortunately that's what I took from this strip.


----------



## Nifft (May 5, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Not entirely satisfied with this one.  It felt pretty hand-wavy to me.




Yeah. That's a *meh* with a capital *eh*.

 -- N


----------



## pallandrome (May 5, 2007)

Well, dispel magic would probably not have had a shot. After all, the BBEG is damn near level 20, if not at it, and the Sapphire Guard appears to be made up of level 12-13 and down (with exceptions for Miko and other named Guards.) Assuming you did have someone in that pile-up what was willing to try a dispel against the vastly-higher level Xykon, it still probably would have failed. 

Besides, I think that any encounter between a 20th some-odd level BBEG and 20-30 some odd level 10ish npcs SHOULD be handwaved. It is NOT the NPCs job to save the day. That's what the heroes are for.


----------



## Korgoth (May 5, 2007)

I think this is the first strip in the whole series that just seemed really lame.


----------



## RedFox (May 5, 2007)

Awesome, awesome strip.


----------



## questing gm (May 5, 2007)

What Xykon did was ingenious, but he probably should learn from Elan about drama and climax. Afterall, Xykon's always hiring...


----------



## Humanaut (May 5, 2007)

*Question*

I liked the strip OK i guess, but can you really do that with a Symbol?  I thought that you could not use it offensively, on a sword at triggered for a hit is their example.  So tossing it at them isn't offensive?  It's not like they voluntarily interacted with it... it was a missle weapon...

What do others think?  

I do like the creative use, and an 8th level spell should smack down low level dudes... buuuuut...


----------



## molonel (May 5, 2007)

Anytime you get to watch the wholesale slaughter of a group of paladins is a good time.


----------



## Delta (May 5, 2007)

It made me sad, frankly. It was a surprising tactic. I don't have any problem with the rules adjudication. 

Note that _dispel magic_ is no help here: according to the _insanity_ spell, the effect is instantaneous, and you need "greater restoration, heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish" to help a targeted creature.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/insanity.htm


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 5, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Not entirely satisfied with this one.  It felt pretty hand-wavy to me.
> 
> At least, that is not how we would adjudicate an effect that emulates a permenant _Confusion_.



I'm with you there.

Also, note that if the cloaked figures were Miko and Nale, they're now done for.

I can't help but think that Xykon was almost dead when he tried to divert attention away from himself...


----------



## Falkus (May 5, 2007)

Definitely not going to be one of my favorites.


----------



## Imp (May 5, 2007)

No way... even fallen Miko is far too badscary (and, more to the point, an important side character) to bite it in such an offhand fashion.  Nale, maybe, but... I'd imagine the cloaked guys were clerics of some sort or another.


----------



## painandgreed (May 5, 2007)

Don't forget that Xykon was also shown casting spells. He didn't need for the insanity to kill everybody just slow their attacking of him so he can easily hit them with spells.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (May 5, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I think this is the first strip in the whole series that just seemed really lame.




Same here... I was quite excited about the probable outcomes of this battle, and must say I'm really disappointed with it. Of all things to happen, Xykon cleaning the battleground with a single unstoppable powerful spell seemed the most obvious, but also the least creative.

Cheers


----------



## Squire James (May 5, 2007)

My general impression is that things have been going too well for Xycon lately... he's had a pretty charmed un-life lately.  I'm almost thinking of him as a male undead Mary Sue...


----------



## frankthedm (May 5, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Resurgence is pal1.



Splat material Pal1. Run of the mill NPCs seem to stick to the core rules in rich's world.


----------



## frankthedm (May 5, 2007)

Squire James said:
			
		

> My general impression is that things have been going too well for Xycon lately... he's had a pretty charmed un-life lately.  I'm almost thinking of him as a male undead Mary Sue...



Durkon's god Thor is the actual "Mary Sue" author insert. The control weather issue clinched that.

Seems to me most of thos paladins were low level schlubs.


----------



## QuaziquestGM (May 5, 2007)

Ah...the guy in the grey clock was the guy with the bandanna.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 5, 2007)

Great use of a spell by Xykon, wonderful degree of villany shown by him too. I love the idea that rather than just hovering and smiting them with spells he deliberately wanted to give them false hope and then dash it. 

And what could do more for a CE heart than to force an order of paladins to slay one another?


----------



## Someone (May 5, 2007)

Squire James said:
			
		

> My general impression is that things have been going too well for Xycon lately... he's had a pretty charmed un-life lately.  I'm almost thinking of him as a male undead Mary Sue...




Me too. I feel this has gone a bit over the top of the reasonable (or fun) uber badasserism. If he can pretty much do everything for himself, why bother with a hobgoblin army? He could have flown through Azure city carrying that ball and make everyone kill each other. 

Today's strip would have been the same if substituted with a panel saying "and then Xykon wins".


----------



## Nyaricus (May 5, 2007)

QuaziquestGM said:
			
		

> Ah...the guy in the grey clock was the guy with the bandanna.



No, he wasn't. He's on one of the steps of the throne itself in the previous strip.

Anyone else wonder what would happen if some spellcaster dispelled the captain dude with his sword in mid-swing?


----------



## sedarfaery (May 5, 2007)

:\ Meh. That was passingly amusing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2007)

I enjoyed this strip. For a moment I actually believed Xykon might have gotten into trouble, and was just using a bluff to get some time. But that wasn't a bluff... 
I also like that nobody considered this option (at least not in the last OotS thread here).

I think you could use Symbol of Insanity this way. You can conver it to avoid its triggering, and there is no limit to the surface you can use. The bouncing ball was more or less just a small gadget which wouldn't have been necessary, but made the scene a lot more fun.  (He could have just used a lead sheet with the symbol and pulled it out of a bag of holding and walked/fly around the Paladins - which would have the added benefit that all the confused Paladins would also be unable to detect his alignment!  )


----------



## Sound of Azure (May 5, 2007)

That's.... less than ideal. 



			
				Rideley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Not entirely satisfied with this one. It felt pretty hand-wavy to me.
> 
> At least, that is not how we would adjudicate an effect that emulates a permenant Confusion.




Yeah, I agree.


----------



## frankthedm (May 5, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> Me too. I feel this has gone a bit over the top of the reasonable (or fun) uber badasserism. If he can pretty much do everything for himself, why bother with a hobgoblin army?



The Heroes working together had more than a chance. Spread out across castle walls, suffering a few hits from the natural 20's that will occur every round the Heroes were too busy to stop the BBEG. United, the OotS could have defended the throne room. 

edit

It all plays into one of the harsher realties of the D&D system. The foes the players can overcome at higher level will obliterate normal folks like they are nothing should the opportunity be presented.


----------



## DogBackward (May 5, 2007)

> Whatever Xykon's trick is, he wants the paladin to smash that gem. He threw away a 5 pack of magic missiles on someone already insane.



Actually, Xykon wants to _use_ the gate, not destroy it. The only reason he's even in teh city is because the two other gates he tries to use were destroyed. He wants the gate intact, hence paralyzing the pally before he could smash it. The suggestion to destroy the gem came from the floating cleric(?), it wasn't a bluff, and Xykon's "Good idea." response was, I think, sarcasm.

Also, the guy he _Magic Missiled_ was affected, but he was running away, so I guess he figured he'd whack him in case his pursuer didn't catch him. Or some such nonesense.


----------



## IceFractal (May 5, 2007)

Well I liked it. 

In the first few panels, I was thinking that Xykon's no-planning attitude may actually have done him in.  He was toast, or at least on the path to a fast retreat.  But then, it all came together, and mass slaughter has seldom been more entertaining.    

You sure you guys aren't Xykon haters?    


As for "hand-waving" - I find the conclusion, that a high-level spellcaster would decimate a bunch of much lower-level foes, pretty darn believable.  

As for the precise tactics - what would have been the point of him using SoP like Acid Fog/Black Tentacles/Wall of Force?  Panels 1-8: Green Fog.  Panel 9: Bunch of dead Paladins.  Not very amusing.

Also, there's a lot that happens "offscreen".  How do we know he just put _one_ symbol on the ball?  There may have been half a dozen on there, and the Paladins only have to fail one Will save each.  For that matter, it isn't necessary for all of them to fail it.  Xykon was shown mopping up with some other spells - all that was needed was to turn the tide.


----------



## silentspace (May 5, 2007)

hard to believe Xykon can't cast defensively


----------



## IceFractal (May 5, 2007)

Concentrating on things is certainly his weak point:   
OOTS 416


----------



## Lhorgrim (May 5, 2007)

That was an interesting tactic.

Count me with the folks that would have liked to see the Sapphire Guard be slightly more effective than a group of commoners armed with pillows, at least for a few panels.  

I have a question.  How would that fight have gone if the Order of the Stick had somehow been in the throne room?  Assuming a still living Roy and the whole Order there, would the battle have gone any differently "by the rules", or would most of the order failed their saving throws and ended with the same result as we saw?


----------



## Stalker0 (May 5, 2007)

Giltonio_Santos said:
			
		

> Of all things to happen, Xykon cleaning the battleground with a single unstoppable powerful spell seemed the most obvious, but also the least creative.




A high level caster killing a mess of low level shlubbs with 1 high level spell fits Dnd to a T. Heck, at least he put a little flair into it, he could have just cast horrid wilting and probably killed all of them in a single stroke. Or heck, just cast weird and kill them all that way.


----------



## Ant (May 5, 2007)

My puny man-brain is having trouble comprehending why anyone would think this strip wasn't _totally awesome_!

C'mon!  Insane paladins slaughtering each other with drooling glee!  It's poetry!

Thumbs up from me!


----------



## frankthedm (May 5, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Or heck, just cast weird and kill them all that way.



Paladin's  of 3rd level or higher would be immune to that.

Weird
Illusion (Phantasm) [*Fear*, Mind-Affecting]


----------



## Roman (May 5, 2007)

Great strip! 

Xykon's awesomery shown in full view! Xykon is without doubt my favourite OOTS villain.  

I also like the way how the comic is gradually preparing the way for Hinjo to join the OOTS party. With the Sapphire Guard killed off he will not have much to lead in the city, which will be particularly true if the city falls.


----------



## shilsen (May 5, 2007)

What the heck are people doing focusing on the Symbol of Insanity?

That's not important! What's important is that it's on a super bouncy ball!

He took out a room full of paladins and clerics with a SUPER ... BOUNCY ... BALL!

OMFG! I love Xykon with all of my body, including my pee-pee!


----------



## LoneWolf23 (May 5, 2007)

Well, while I have to respect Xykon's ingenuity and cunning*...

...Slaughtering an entire order of Paladins only makes me hope that when Roy finally *does* accomplish his sacred oath, he'll make it _hurt_ Xykon.  A Lot.


*And Xykon's just lucky they all apparantly got "Do Nothing but Babble Incoherently" or "Attack nearest Creature" as part of their confusion.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 5, 2007)

silentspace said:
			
		

> hard to believe Xykon can't cast defensively




Neither can V.



			
				Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> I have a question. How would that fight have gone if the Order of the Stick had somehow been in the throne room? Assuming a still living Roy and the whole Order there, would the battle have gone any differently "by the rules", or would most of the order failed their saving throws and ended with the same result as we saw?




If the whole OOTS were there, I think they would have stood a chance, but they weren't. Xykon could have killed the whole group with a Firestorm spell (okay, it's not actually a wizard spell, but an evil cleric could have done so).

I think he should have used Symbol of Persuasion as well, as that would have been really cool. It makes everyone in the area switch their alignment to match yours, aka pally-killer


----------



## hong (May 5, 2007)

LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> Well, while I have to respect Xykon's ingenuity and cunning*...
> 
> ...Slaughtering an entire order of Paladins only makes me hope that when Roy finally *does* accomplish his sacred oath, he'll make it _hurt_ Xykon.  A Lot.
> 
> ...



 "Attack nearest creature" is a killer result. A confused creature who gets attacked automatically attacks back on its turn. This basically means that after a few rounds, all the people who failed their save will be hacking into each other.


----------



## Presto2112 (May 5, 2007)

Gad dang!

If we assume that the only spells that Xykon has cast since this battle began are the ones that have either been seen cast, described, or shown he effects of, he's STILL got a friggin arsenal left!  I have counted:

1 Burning Hands
1 Lightning Bolt
2 Greater Invisibilities
1 Overland Flight
4 Fingers of Death
1 Symbol of Insanity
2 Meteor Swarms (1 fizzled)

Assuming he has at least a 20 Charisma, he'd still have at maximum:
0 Level - 6 spells
1st - 6
2nd - 7
3rd - 6
4th - 5
5th - 6
6th - 6
7th - 2
8th - 5
9th - 4

Azure City is SO screwed.


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 5, 2007)

Nice idea with that bouncing ball of insanity...have to consider it IMC   

Nevertheless, I hoped that the guard would put up a better resistance. One Antimagic Field in conjunction with a grappling monk would totally screw a lich, no matter his levels.

But we'll see...


----------



## DaveMage (May 5, 2007)

Actually, the paralyzing touch at the end is the one that seemed lame to me.

Scarface should make that save - he should have at least a +15 on his Fort save.  And even so, that's a heck of a gamble for Xykon to take.

Of course, it's entirely probable that destroying the gate is not as easy as it seems.


----------



## ThatGuyThere (May 5, 2007)

The Guard DID put up a struggle.

For the few rounds it took all the Sapphire Guard to succumb to insanity, Xykon wasted a 9th level spell on a disrupted Meteor Swarm, was smote (smited?  whatever...) twice, tripped, thumped in the chest (no big deal for his DR) and generally quite on the defensive.  Sure, maybe he was feelin' the guard out, lettin' his Symbol have it's time... ...but then, why bust loose with spells later?

Nope, Xykon met formidable resistance, in the form of over thirty fifth through seventh level multiclassed Paladin / Whathaveyous, willing to fight and die to stop him. It's just that as a Quabillionth (estimated) level Wizard Lich, they were, at best, a temporary setback.

Xykon said it himself - he's only here for amusement. He could have just rained fire and brimstone from the heavens and emptied the room, but wanted to give it that personal attention it craved.

(Why the Hobgoblin army?  Why *not* a Hobgoblin army? Xykon is *the* D&D bad guy - why *wouldn't* he want a Hobgoblin army? Besides, once he was fully recovered, one gets the impression redcloak had far more interest in the army than Xykon did.)


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

pallandrome said:
			
		

> Besides, I think that any encounter between a 20th some-odd level BBEG and 20-30 some odd level 10ish npcs SHOULD be handwaved. It is NOT the NPCs job to save the day. That's what the heroes are for.




No one is asking that. But if you write yourself into a scene that *has* to be handwaived, you might as well not have written the scene at all. Write a scene that doesn't *have* to be handwaived. If this scene is the purpose of the Sapphire Guard, they'd have to be extremely well-prepared, with stuff like Prayer (+1 luck to saves), Magic Circle Against Evil (+2 resistance bonus to saves), Eagle's Splendor (+2 bonus to saves through Divine Grace)... If Xykon has Cha 20, the save DC for the Symbol is 23. A 6th-level Paladin with Wis 12 and Cha 14 and the above effects will have a Will save of +10. More than 35% of the paladins present should have simply passed the save. That would be something about 15 Paladins (without factoring in those higher than 6th level). Of the 25 that fail their saves, 4 attack the caster anyway (as Act Normal and Attack the Caster), 6 attack the nearest creature (who in turn attack back, taking 12 Paladins out of the battle) and the rest babble about.

Rich did awesome strips for a while, but this one was very badly written.

Plus the Paladins would need a Spot check to be able to see the rune in that bouncing ball, and we all know Spot is a cross-class skill to Paladins.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 5, 2007)

Rich *has* done hand-waving before, usually for the purposes of comedy or speeding scenes. He doesn't follow the rules all that closely, especially when it comes to statistics (he generally obeys how spells work though, except for when a certain CG deity gets drunk).

You knew Xykon'd stop the pally anyway; he could have dropped a Forcecube scroll on him and that would have been that. For the purpose of plot, it doesn't really matter how the uber-lich stops the comparative weakling.

On a similar note, if more paladins had saved vs the insanity, we'd end up watching pages of Xykon slaughtering paladins with spells. That might be fun for a few scenes, but we'd have to skip rounds of him casting spells in the interests of not boring the audience to tears.


----------



## PoeticJustice (May 5, 2007)

I get the feeling that people didn't like this one because it was vaguely disturbing, whereas most OotS are light-hearted and fun.

If you feel cheated, you probably were, but then again, what else would you expect from a villain?

Personally, I love this strip. Initially I felt very strongly that they had a chance, but you can literally feel Scarface's horror when the chaos erupts. He turns from risking his life to protect the Gate to risking everything to destroy it . And then he fails. Masterful Villainy, Mr. Burlew! Bravo! You are a DM after my own heart.


----------



## Falkus (May 5, 2007)

I dislike this strip because it makes absolutely no sense given what we already know about the Sapphire Guard. They've had literally decades to prepare for this attack, and they never once considered that they might be fighting a high level spell caster?



> On a similar note, if more paladins had saved vs the insanity, we'd end up watching pages of Xykon slaughtering paladins with spells. That might be fun for a few scenes, but we'd have to skip rounds of him casting spells in the interests of not boring the audience to tears.




If he'd done it right, we wouldn't seen the scene period (particularly that ridiculous ball). He'd just cut away to something else, and have all the dead bodies discovered later, with Xykon gloating over them. That would be dramatic.

The symbol of insanity, however, turned it into something that was neither humorous nor dramatic.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> On a similar note, if more paladins had saved vs the insanity, we'd end up watching pages of Xykon slaughtering paladins with spells. That might be fun for a few scenes, but we'd have to skip rounds of him casting spells in the interests of not boring the audience to tears.




Xykon throws the ball.

Scarface goes "huh?"

Xykon explains about the Symbol of Insanity.

Scarface goes "We've prepared our entire lives for this moment! Don't you think we'd be prepared?", showing that most of the paladins made their saves, and those that didn't are being subdued through Hold Person, Calm Emotions and whatnot.

Xykon: ">sigh< Guess Paladins really ARE no fun at all..."

Panel of Xykon shapechanged into a Red Dragon (complete with wee crown on his head), burning and clawing and biting every paladin in the room).

Panel of Xykon back in lich form: "I take that back. Paladins ARE fun after all!"



Shows Xykon is silly, shows the Sapphire Guard are (were) competent, shows Xykon is still a badass spellcaster, shows that Xykon is a silly badass spellcaster.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (May 5, 2007)

It was a little horrifying. In a good way!. Go Roy! Destroy Xykon! We're all rootin' for you!


----------



## Professor Phobos (May 5, 2007)

Very good. One of the best strips so far, and that's saying a lot. I like that Xykon's re-established as a threat; Redcloak was stealing some thunder there for a while. Now they both have thunder.


----------



## Delta (May 5, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Anyone else wonder what would happen if some spellcaster dispelled the captain dude with his sword in mid-swing?




Again, _dispel_ will not help. According to the _paralyzing touch_ description, "Remove paralysis or any spell that can remove a curse can free the victim (see the bestow curse spell description). The effect cannot be dispelled."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Scarface goes "We've prepared our entire lives for this moment! Don't you think we'd be prepared?", showing that most of the paladins made their saves, and those that didn't are being subdued through Hold Person, Calm Emotions and whatnot.




They make their save against Xykon's symbol of insanity, but fail it against a much lower level caster's hold person?


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (May 5, 2007)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> Count me with the folks that would have liked to see the Sapphire Guard be slightly more effective than a group of commoners armed with pillows, at least for a few panels.




I like how everybody is completely ignoring panels 2-4.

I liked the comic fine.  When a 8-10 level disparity in power exists heroism doesn't count for much.


----------



## Drowbane (May 5, 2007)

Falkus said:
			
		

> I dislike this strip because it makes absolutely no sense given what we already know about the Sapphire Guard. They've had literally decades to prepare for this attack, and they never once considered that they might be fighting a high level spell caster?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thats a whole lot of opinion you're swinging around there as if it were fact.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> They make their save against Xykon's symbol of insanity, but fail it against a much lower level caster's hold person?



 "and whatnot".

And nothing in Confusion's description precludes an affected character from voluntarily failing his/her save, or from fighting defensively when attacking nearest creature.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 5, 2007)

Incidentally, the minimum DC on that Symbol of Insanity is (10+lvl 8 + minimum Int bonus 4) 22, and more likely to be 26; that's assuming Xykon has no way to boost the DC higher (feats, spells active, etc).  A 10th level Paladin with a 18 Cha has a (+3 base save, +2? Wis bonus, +4 Cha bonus) +9 Will save - they'd need to roll a 17 to save, and more likely higher (some wiggle room there for magic items that boost Paladin saves, etc).  And I'm not guessing that more than a few are 10th level.

Hallow could give the Paladins a +2 save versus the Symbol (Magic Circle vs Evil). Consecrate wouldn't really do anything (-2 to Xykon's saves!  Woohoo!  +6 to turn him!  Good Luck!).  As others have pointed out, Dispel Magic is of no use in this scenario.

To trigger the Symbol, the paladins just have to look at it - not even read it, which was my first question.  I'm sure that Xykon used a Mass Suggestion in there to get them to look.  All it takes is one to trigger it.  The ball bounces, so if it bounces far enough and then back, the Paladins might have to make multiple will saves, leaving them well and truly screwed.

The paladins had decades to prepare for attacks, but not decades to prepare for this particular attack.  If it were up to you, how would you protect the throne room from a high-level sorceror or wizard?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "and whatnot".
> 
> And nothing in Confusion's description precludes an affected character from voluntarily failing his/her save, or from fighting defensively when attacking nearest creature.




I certainly wouldn't allow that if I were the DM.


----------



## Drowbane (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "and whatnot".
> 
> And nothing in Confusion's description precludes an affected character from voluntarily failing his/her save, or from fighting defensively when attacking nearest creature.




With respect Klaus, would you allow your PCs (or NPCs) to opt to fail saves while they were Confused?

I sure as hell wouldn't.



			
				Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> <snip>If it were up to you, how would you protect the throne room from a high-level sorceror or wizard?




Hire the PCs...


----------



## Korgoth (May 5, 2007)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that people didn't like this one because it was vaguely disturbing, whereas most OotS are light-hearted and fun.




Not really my issue.  I didn't like the cheesy use of the spell... pure munchkinism that I'd never let anybody get away with.

Yeah, yeah, so Xykon takes out one-millionedy-fifty-billion guys with a cantrip and has a 50-foot member.  I get it.  Is it a Mary-Sueism or just laziness?  I don't really care about the explanation.  As a reader I feel vaguely insulted.


----------



## Drowbane (May 5, 2007)

I wonder if anybody would have blinked twice if V used this tactic against a similiar number of (oh, lets say...) drow (of similiar levels).

Assuming V had access to 8th level spells of course.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Incidentally, the minimum DC on that Symbol of Insanity is (10+lvl 8 + minimum Int bonus 4) 22, and more likely to be 26; that's assuming Xykon has no way to boost the DC higher (feats, spells active, etc).  A 10th level Paladin with a 18 Cha has a (+3 base save, +2? Wis bonus, +4 Cha bonus) +9 Will save - they'd need to roll a 17 to save, and more likely higher (some wiggle room there for magic items that boost Paladin saves, etc).  And I'm not guessing that more than a few are 10th level.
> 
> Hallow could give the Paladins a +2 save versus the Symbol (Magic Circle vs Evil). Consecrate wouldn't really do anything (-2 to Xykon's saves!  Woohoo!  +6 to turn him!  Good Luck!).  As others have pointed out, Dispel Magic is of no use in this scenario.
> 
> ...



 Factor in Prayer, Protection from Evil and a potion of Eagle's Splendor and you're boosting that Will save from +9 to +12. Against a DC 22, it's a 50/50 chance.

And Xykon is a Sorcerer, not a Wizard.


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2007)

Fascinating. You know, you can tell that Xykon is a sorcerer with a high charisma. He's not workmanlike in his destruction. Rather, he's all about style; _how_ he kills people is far more important than simply killing him. 

That's a great bad guy!


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> With respect Klaus, would you allow your PCs (or NPCs) to opt to fail saves while they were Confused?
> 
> I sure as hell wouldn't.
> 
> ...



 Okay, so Tanglefoot Bag or somesthing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2007)

All the preperation in the world wouldn't have helped the Sapphire Guard if they never had high enough spell casters to create the really good defences. And they clearly lacked it, as the best they can do in casting is Teleport (only one Wizard who can do it) or Resurrection. 



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> Not really my issue.  I didn't like the cheesy use of the spell... pure munchkinism that I'd never let anybody get away with.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, so Xykon takes out one-millionedy-fifty-billion guys with a cantrip and has a 50-foot member.  I get it.  Is it a Mary-Sueism or just laziness?  I don't really care about the explanation.  As a reader I feel vaguely insulted.



But really vaguely. I mean, a 8th level spell is only _very very_ vaguely a cantrip.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 5, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But really vaguely. I mean, a 8th level spell is only _very very_ vaguely a cantrip.




And technically, he no longer has a member...


----------



## Victim (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> No one is asking that. But if you write yourself into a scene that *has* to be handwaived, you might as well not have written the scene at all. Write a scene that doesn't *have* to be handwaived. If this scene is the purpose of the Sapphire Guard, they'd have to be extremely well-prepared, with stuff like Prayer (+1 luck to saves), Magic Circle Against Evil (+2 resistance bonus to saves), Eagle's Splendor (+2 bonus to saves through Divine Grace)... If Xykon has Cha 20, the save DC for the Symbol is 23. A 6th-level Paladin with Wis 12 and Cha 14 and the above effects will have a Will save of +10. More than 35% of the paladins present should have simply passed the save. That would be something about 15 Paladins (without factoring in those higher than 6th level). Of the 25 that fail their saves, 4 attack the caster anyway (as Act Normal and Attack the Caster), 6 attack the nearest creature (who in turn attack back, taking 12 Paladins out of the battle) and the rest babble about.
> 
> Rich did awesome strips for a while, but this one was very badly written.
> 
> Plus the Paladins would need a Spot check to be able to see the rune in that bouncing ball, and we all know Spot is a cross-class skill to Paladins.




Amazingly, spells have finite durations.  Xykon could have entered the throne room from basically before the first arrow was fired up to after battle ends (presumeably hours later). So when do you cast your short duration buffs like prayer to avoid wasting them?  Xykon turning Tsukiko helps confuse matters, since if they hear the sounds of battle progressing through the keep, they may make incorrect assumptions about the time of Xykon's arrival.

Moreover, DC 23 for the Symbol is very much a low ball estimate - it assumes a ~14 starting stat, most of his level up points, his lich bonus to CHA, and no spell focus feats (reasonable given what we know).  Without any unusual stuff (instead, merely very expensive stuff), Xykon could have 18 base CHA, +5 level, +5 book (haha, it's treasure the PCs can't get!), +2 race, and a +6 item, the DC is 31.  Even with a buffed +10 save, the pallies are still screwed.  Granted, the actuality is problably less extreme - Xykon lost a bunch of stuff in his first defeat so any Cloak of Charisma he possessed is probably toast.

Someone on RPGnet also mentioned that the movement of the ball may cause it to leave and re-enter the area of the paladins, thereby forcing a save each time the ball comes within 60 ft - possibly many times as it ricochets about the room.  I'm not sure that a bouncy ball would have that much bounce to it though - it seems like it'd get 1 pass through the room at most before running of steam.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Factor in Prayer, Protection from Evil and a potion of Eagle's Splendor and you're boosting that Will save from +9 to +12. Against a DC 22, it's a 50/50 chance.
> 
> And Xykon is a Sorcerer, not a Wizard.




True.  But keep in mind that Xykon can probably boost his DC's higher relatively via the same means than the paladins can.  And I also suspect that at most only 1 or 2 of the NPC's in that room are 10th level - this of course is total speculation, so its impossible to know one way or another.  I see the Order as being around 12th level, and Miko could take them down with circumstances in her favor - so I'd put her at 15th or so.  Hinjo is the second best Paladin, but I don't get teh sense that he's more than 12th or so himself, as Roy was more effective versus Miko when she turned.  The next best Paladin is probably around 10th, and I'd double the number for every 2 levels lower than that - so 1 10th level, 2 8th level, etc.

I'd guess more than half of the NPC's in that room are 6th level or 5th level.  I can't base that on anything, really, just how I would work things up if I were DM'ing.


----------



## Drowbane (May 5, 2007)

Ant said:
			
		

> My puny man-brain is having trouble comprehending why anyone would think this strip wasn't _totally awesome_!
> 
> C'mon!  Insane paladins slaughtering each other with drooling glee!  It's poetry!
> 
> Thumbs up from me!



QFT


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Factor in Prayer, Protection from Evil and a potion of Eagle's Splendor and you're boosting that Will save from +9 to +12. Against a DC 22, it's a 50/50 chance.



Neither of these spells has a long duration, so they would need to know in advance when Xykon (or anyone else) would enter the throne room. The battle at the castle walls could take minutes or hours before any hostile might be get through. 

22 is the minimum save possible, assuming that Xykon had no spells, feat or equipment to boost it further, and had never bothered to advance his charisma.

We don't really know the ability point generation used with the PCs & NPCs (but it must be quite generous, since Roy is strong, smart, charismatic and tough). Assuming even a ungenerous starting charisma of 15, +3 points from levels, +4 from a Cloak of Charisma, and +2 from a Tome of Influence and Leadership (all values that do not indicate a truly maxed NPC), he has a total charisma score of 24, meaning all saving throw DCs are at 25. Only a 35 % chance to make it. 
If he is really a epic level NPC (20 level Sorceror + Lich Template), he would probably have a Cloak of Charisma +6, 5 Ability Points and a Tome of Leadership +4, boosting the DC by another 3 points to 28 (meaning a 20 % chance of a successful saving throw)

And that's only for 10th level Paladins. From what I saw in the battle, "the troops" weren't even that high in level. They died to quick fighting each other (the first dead in the first round of insanity, if I saw it correctly). Most of the high level seemed to make their save, but that weren't exactly many of them.


----------



## PoeticJustice (May 5, 2007)

I'm confused by the fact that everybody seems to expect a better showing from the Sapphire Guard when 2things have already been established that would seem to prohibit this.

1) They're not terribly creative, as shown in the previous strips dealing with Three Xykons. Armed with his fiendish creativity, Xykon was at an advantage to formulate a plan that would effectively neutralize the defenses arrayed against him.

In other words... yes, they were prepared. They thought a spellcaster was going to come in spells blazing and prepped for that tactic. They disrupted spells, probably had some other stuff going on that we didn't know about. They could even have had anti-enchantment contingencies, but neither they nor anyone else but Xykon could have predicted they'd get hit by a Symbol of Insanity multiple times all at once. That's why they failed. 

2) They're NPCs. Their role is to get a rise out of the party, which is what's going to happen once they get to the throne room. I think this was a good way to establish Xykon as really evil and really clever, which is more valuable to the plot than some kind of pointless struggle.

You can argue whether or not the bouncy ball tactic is sound by the rules, but I think that's an idiotic vein of contention. The DM's word goes. If that means V can buy potions of Heroism at a stupidly discounted price and that Sylphs are medium instead of small, it may also mean that shenanigans like this happen from time to time.


----------



## kinem (May 5, 2007)

I'm a big OOTS fan, but I didn't like the symbol-on-ball tactic.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Plus the Paladins would need a Spot check to be able to see the rune in that bouncing ball, and we all know Spot is a cross-class skill to Paladins.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> To be effective, a symbol ... must always be placed in plain sight and in a prominent location.


----------



## Reynard (May 5, 2007)

Is it just me -- a relative newcomer to the strip, and thus threads regarding it -- or does nothing suck the fun out of the comic like over-analyzed mechanical explanations for stuff that happens in-panel?  i mean, i realize that the whole point is that it runs by the rules, but isn't it enough to say, "hey, he cast symbol of insanity on those paladins and they all failed their saves.  GUFAW!"?


----------



## kinem (May 5, 2007)

Reynard: It is _just_ you.  

Following the D&D rules makes OOTS more interesting (to D&D players) than just another comic strip.

Besides, since when is analysis and mechanics not fun?


----------



## DogBackward (May 5, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We don't really know the ability point generation used with the PCs & NPCs (but it must be quite generous, since Roy is strong, smart, charismatic and tough). Assuming even a ungenerous starting charisma of 15, +3 points from levels, +4 from a Cloak of Charisma, and +2 from a Tome of Influence and Leadership (all values that do not indicate a truly maxed NPC), he has a total charisma score of 24, meaning all saving throw DCs are at 25. Only a 35 % chance to make it.
> If he is really a epic level NPC (20 level Sorceror + Lich Template), he would probably have a Cloak of Charisma +6, 5 Ability Points and a Tome of Leadership +4, boosting the DC by another 3 points to 28 (meaning a 20 % chance of a successful saving throw)




+2 from the Lich template (_which all but one of you _(forget who)_ seem to keep forgetting_) makes for a 30 score, for +1 DC. True, it's not a huge deal, but it still helps.


----------



## blargney the second (May 5, 2007)

That was a great one... Xykon oozes style.

Which is better than him being a gelatinous barber and styling ooze.
-blarg


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> All the preperation in the world wouldn't have helped the Sapphire Guard if they never had high enough spell casters to create the really good defences. And they clearly lacked it, as the best they can do in casting is Teleport (only one Wizard who can do it) or Resurrection.
> 
> 
> But really vaguely. I mean, a 8th level spell is only _very very_ vaguely a cantrip.



 So you're saying that in its entire history the Sapphire Guard never had any high-level cleric or wizard, nor hired any one of those to permamently protect their sole reason of being?

As for knowing Xykon was coming, you don't honestly think they holed up in there and resorted to listening to know if the enemy was approaching? Even without facotring in magic, a simple sentry at the window would be able to see the entire battle and the skeleton flying at them.



> Is it just me -- a relative newcomer to the strip, and thus threads regarding it -- or does nothing suck the fun out of the comic like over-analyzed mechanical explanations for stuff that happens in-panel? i mean, i realize that the whole point is that it runs by the rules, but isn't it enough to say, "hey, he cast symbol of insanity on those paladins and they all failed their saves. GUFAW!"?




I'm not terribly concerned with the mechanics of the scene, as much as the fact that the scene didn't take into account the frame of reference set up by the strip itself, i.e, this battle was supposed to be the climax of the Sapphire Guard's existence. If you don't show the Guard to be prepared, the suspension of disbelief is strained.

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.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 5, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Is it just me -- a relative newcomer to the strip, and thus threads regarding it -- or does nothing suck the fun out of the comic like over-analyzed mechanical explanations for stuff that happens in-panel?  i mean, i realize that the whole point is that it runs by the rules, but isn't it enough to say, "hey, he cast symbol of insanity on those paladins and they all failed their saves.  GUFAW!"?



Is it just me or does nothing suck the fun out of a thread on a D&D board that's entire point is to discuss the comic like someone complaining about discussing the comic from a D&D perspective?    Seriously if you just want to see "best strip ever!" 10 times for every single strip the giant posts, he has a messageboard for that. I'll take the small enjoyment I can make for myself out of a bad showing by having fun with the mechanics of why it was a bad showing. (the dramatics of why it was a bad showing are not as fun and not as suited to this board).


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> 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.



Yeah, I liked your strip better. Xycon's stylish sillyness was not the answer, but pure power and reckless violence could have been. (oh yeah, and they never discussed a last ditch destruction of the saphire before that very moment? triple lame...)


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> That was a great one... Xykon oozes style.
> 
> Which is better than him being a gelatinous barber and styling ooze.
> -blarg



I approve of your message, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## JustinA (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> No one is asking that. But if you write yourself into a scene that *has* to be handwaived, you might as well not have written the scene at all. Write a scene that doesn't *have* to be handwaived. If this scene is the purpose of the Sapphire Guard, they'd have to be extremely well-prepared, with stuff like Prayer (+1 luck to saves), Magic Circle Against Evil (+2 resistance bonus to saves), Eagle's Splendor (+2 bonus to saves through Divine Grace)...




And nothing makes for riveting drama like several panels of exposition to establish exactly what magical preparations were made in this room... right?

The last panel in strip 447 tells us all this: The Sapphire Guard was prepared for Xykon. It was told to us visually in a single panel. We don't need the complete breakdown.



> If Xykon has Cha 20, the save DC for the Symbol is 23.




Sure, if Xykon is a frickin' wimp. My 10th level sorcerer has a Charisma of 20. I'm betting the high-level lich is a little bit better off.



> A 6th-level Paladin with Wis 12 and Cha 14 and the above effects will have a Will save of +10.




If the DC is set at a reasonable 28, your paladins only succeed on their saving throw 10% of the time. There are a total of 37 characters shown in the final panel of strip 447 (some of whom are spellcasters). That would indicate 4 characters would make their saves on average.

In strip 448 a total of 5 characters are shown as having made their saving throw. Conclusion? Rich got it right.



> Of the 25 that fail their saves, 4 attack the caster anyway (as Act Normal and Attack the Caster), 6 attack the nearest creature (who in turn attack back, taking 12 Paladins out of the battle) and the rest babble about.




Of the 32 we know failed their saves: 10% attack the caster (or move closer). 10% act normally. 30% babble. 20% flee. 30% attack the nearest creature.

(Brief segue: Now we get into an adjudication issue. Does the "attack the caster" in the case of a _symbol of insanity_ mean "attack the guy who cast the spell" or does it mean "attack the symbol"? In the case of this scenario Xykon is available, but that obviously wouldn't be the case in the typical scenario where a _symbol of insanity_ is encountered.)

So: 3 people attack the caster. 3 people act normally. 9 people babble. 6 people flee. 9 people attack the nearest creature.

We don't see the whole room, but we do see some people acting normally (some of whom may have made their saves, but some of whom may simply have that reaction this turn). We do see some people trying to attack Xykon. We don't see anyone babbling, per se, but we probably don't really need extra word balloons.

What we do know is that the violence will quickly propagate through the room: Anyone under the effects of the spell who is attacked will automatically return the attack on the following round (ignoring the normal roll to see what they do). So once you've attacked, you'll likely be attacked -- which will lock the two of you in a perpetual attack sequence. And anyone who wasn't already locked in an attack sequence has a 30% chance each round of initiating one themselves (and a smaller, but significant chance, of being targeted by one and being pulled into an attack sequence that way).

In a large crowd like that, I would expect the entire room to be killing each other within 2-3 rounds (12-18 seconds).

Conclusion: Rich got it right again.



> Rich did awesome strips for a while, but this one was very badly written.




If by "badly written" we mean "got the rules wrong" and if by "got the rules wrong" we mean "got the rules right"... yeah, that was badly written.


----------



## hong (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Factor in Prayer, Protection from Evil and a potion of Eagle's Splendor and you're boosting that Will save from +9 to +12. Against a DC 22, it's a 50/50 chance.




A 20th level lich without at _least_ a DC 30 save on an 8th level spell simply isn't trying.


----------



## Korgoth (May 5, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Is it just me -- a relative newcomer to the strip, and thus threads regarding it -- or does nothing suck the fun out of the comic like over-analyzed mechanical explanations for stuff that happens in-panel?  i mean, i realize that the whole point is that it runs by the rules, but isn't it enough to say, "hey, he cast symbol of insanity on those paladins and they all failed their saves.  GUFAW!"?




It's sort of inevitable since Rich has Xykon say "Symbol of Insanity" instead of "Xykon's Bouncy Ball of Insanity".

Anyway, I just thought it was lame and didn't crack a smile.  For something we've been building up to so magnificently, I found it to be a real let-down.  I see it as Rich fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> With respect Klaus, would you allow your PCs (or NPCs) to opt to fail saves while they were Confused?




If they had recieved the result 'acts normally', then sure.  Otherwise, no.

I also concur that this was a wasted oppurtunity to show .... _Xykon's_ competancy.

The sapphire guard turned out to have the 'COBRA' problem.  It's hard to make GI Joe look cool when thier enemies are so incompotent.

Presumably this is the world's premier order of Paladins, charged with nothing less than protecting the world against something even the Gods are afraid of.  

I fully expected Xykon to wipe the floor with the NPC's as easily as he wiped the floor with Roy - a quick calculation of the CR/EL would have told you that.  I figure Xykon's Charisma is around 30 and the save DC of the symbol was around 28.  But I also think that it went a little too easily even at that.  Xykon basically won on round one and there is no evidence anyone attacked him between the end of round 2 and the end of the fight around round 5 or 6.   IMO Xykon probably should have taken 6-10 attacks on round one and nearly as many on round 2 before the violence spread through the room.  He should be showing the cracks at this point, especially since the first few panels establish that the leaders are sufficiently compotent to overcome his AC and other defences.


----------



## carmachu (May 5, 2007)

That comic SO rocked. I love when teh bad guys win one...


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Xykon throws the ball.
> 
> Scarface goes "huh?"
> 
> ...





I agree.  This one could have been done better.


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> If by "badly written" we mean "got the rules wrong" and if by "got the rules wrong" we mean "got the rules right"... yeah, that was badly written.




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


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 5, 2007)

silentspace said:
			
		

> hard to believe Xykon can't cast defensively



 Regardless, could've been a held action.


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 5, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

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




Sure? Let's look at the srd:

*Symbol of Death*

_Necromancy [Death]
Level: Clr 8, Sor/Wiz 8 
Components: V, S, M 
Casting Time: 10 minutes 
Range: 0 ft.; see text 
Effect: One symbol 
Duration: See text 
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates 
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface. When triggered, a symbol of death slays one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150. The symbol of death affects the closest creatures first, skipping creatures with too many hit points to affect. Once triggered, the symbol becomes active and glows, lasting for 10 minutes per caster level or until it has affected 150 hit points’ worth of creatures, whichever comes first. Any creature that enters the area while the symbol of death is active is subject to its effect, whether or not that creature was in the area when it was triggered. A creature need save against the symbol only once as long as it remains within the area, though if it leaves the area and returns while the symbol is still active, it must save again.

Until it is triggered, the symbol of death is inactive (though visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet). To be effective, a symbol of death must always be placed in plain sight and in a prominent location. Covering or hiding the rune renders the symbol of death ineffective, unless a creature removes the covering, in which case the symbol of death works normally.

As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune. Regardless of the trigger method or methods chosen, a creature more than 60 feet from a symbol of death can’t trigger it (even if it meets one or more of the triggering conditions, such as reading the rune). Once the spell is cast, a symbol of death’s triggering conditions cannot be changed.

In this case, “reading” the rune means any attempt to study it, identify it, or fathom its meaning. Throwing a cover over a symbol of death to render it inoperative triggers it if the symbol reacts to touch. 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.

You can also set special triggering limitations of your own. These can be as simple or elaborate as you desire. Special conditions for triggering a symbol of death can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment, but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, and hit points don’t qualify.

When scribing a symbol of death, you can specify a password or phrase that prevents a creature using it from triggering the effect. Anyone using the password remains immune to that particular rune’s effects so long as the creature remains within 60 feet of the rune. If the creature leaves the radius and returns later, it must use the password again.

You also can attune any number of creatures to the symbol of death, but doing this can extend the casting time. Attuning one or two creatures takes negligible time, and attuning a small group (as many as ten creatures) extends the casting time to 1 hour. Attuning a large group (as many as twenty-five creatures) takes 24 hours. Attuning larger groups takes proportionately longer. Any creature attuned to a symbol of death cannot trigger it and is immune to its effects, even if within its radius when triggered. You are automatically considered attuned to your own symbols of death, and thus always ignore the effects and cannot inadvertently trigger them.

Read magic allows you to identify a symbol of death with a DC 19 Spellcraft check. Of course, if the symbol of death is set to be triggered by reading it, this will trigger the symbol.

A symbol of death can be removed by a successful dispel magic targeted solely on the rune. An erase spell has no effect on a symbol of death. Destruction of the surface where a symbol of death is inscribed destroys the symbol but also triggers it.

Symbol of death can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent symbol of death that is disabled or that has affected its maximum number of hit points becomes inactive for 10 minutes, then can be triggered again as normal.

Note: Magic traps such as symbol of death are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Search skill to find a symbol of death and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 33 for symbol of death.

Material Component: Mercury and phosphorus, plus powdered diamond and opal with a total value of at least 5,000 gp each._

and:

*Symbol of Insanity *

_Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 8, Sor/Wiz 8 
Saving Throw: Will negates

This spell functions like symbol of death, except that all creatures within the radius of the symbol of insanity instead become permanently insane (as the insanity spell).

Unlike symbol of death, symbol of insanity has no hit point limit; once triggered, a symbol of insanity simply remains active for 10 minutes per caster level.

Note: Magic traps such as symbol of insanity are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Search skill to find a symbol of insanity and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 33 for symbol of insanity.

Material Component: Mercury and phosphorus, plus powdered diamond and opal with a total value of at least 5,000 gp.
_

Works even in an offensive tactic very well. Plus: the caster is able to set the trigger as he desires, e.g. like 'activate when a creature of any good alignment is within range'.

I was a bit surprised about the 'short' fight of the guard, but not about the result. 
But the story will go on (hopefully soon), and I'm waiting for the next comic


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

Xylkon's Cha is 36.

Cha 18 + 5(level 20) +6(Enhancement) +5(Inherent) +2(Lich)







That means the Symbol of Insanity has a save DC of (10+8+13) 31.


.....and that's *if* Xykon uses no other spells, feats, magic items, or other mechanisms to boost that DC.



The paladins were dead meat.  We knew it.  They knew it.  Xykon knew it.  He took them out with one spell.  He "one-shot"ed *all of them*.  That's what you expect when facing a battle against "mooks".

Yep.  The Sapphire Guard were "mooks".

What's _cool_ is the method.  It had style.  Evil, nasty, vicious, bad-ass, memorable style.  Tell me you won't be talking about this for a while.

Excellent job, bud.


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Sure? Let's look at the srd:




Okay.



			
				The SRD said:
			
		

> You can’t use a symbol of death offensively;




Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The examples it gives are just that - examples. Not an exhaustive list. You can't use a Symbol spell offensively, as Xykon did here.


----------



## Someone (May 5, 2007)

Well, it says so in the spell: "You can't use a symbol of death offensively" and offers one example of doing so, triggering the 'touches the rune' condition by inscribing it on a weapon and then striking an enemy with it.


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> A 20th level lich without at _least_ a DC 30 save on an 8th level spell simply isn't trying.



Agreed.


----------



## Falkus (May 5, 2007)

If I had to guard that throne room, I'd have put an anti-magic field in it. Maybe several carefully placed to allow magic in the center, if the gate itself had to be kept in a magic allowed area. The nature of the gate means that those most likely to want to destroy/use it will be arcane or divine spell casters.


----------



## SPoD (May 5, 2007)

How is the word "offensively" defined in the RAW? 

Oh, wait, it isn't? Then I guess it's a DM judgment call as to what is "offensive" and what isn't.


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 5, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The examples it gives are just that - examples. Not an exhaustive list. You can't use a Symbol spell offensively, as Xykon did here.




Fair enough, must have overlooked that    . Nevertheless, as was mentioned, there seems to be some contradiction within the spell description.
At least it is debatable. As a DM I'd allow Xykon's tactic, a very costly level 8 spell should be able to do something


----------



## LoneWolf23 (May 5, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Is it just me -- a relative newcomer to the strip, and thus threads regarding it -- or does nothing suck the fun out of the comic like over-analyzed mechanical explanations for stuff that happens in-panel?  i mean, i realize that the whole point is that it runs by the rules, but isn't it enough to say, "hey, he cast symbol of insanity on those paladins and they all failed their saves.  GUFAW!"?




I agree.  If it had been a Player coming up with something like that against a bunch of NPC enemies, Xykon would be praised for his creative use of a PHB spell...


----------



## Talath (May 5, 2007)

I seem to be in the minority, but I loved the Symbol of Insanity tactic used by Xykon, and I'd let a PC use it in my game. It's clever, stylish, and extremely effective. Balderdash to what the SRD says; the DM is allowed to use DM fiat to allow or to do extremely cool things like bouncing balls with symbols of insanity. 

I think this was a good strip for several reasons already mentioned here. And while I do not discourage discussion of the mechanics of OotS, I believe it is a web comic first, and then a D&D simulation second, and thus stuff you guys are calling "lame" is perfectly fine with me.

That, and this strip was mildly disturbing, which is sort of unusual for the strip. Usually it is disturbing in a funny way. There was nothing funny about this strip, it just showed off how badass Xykon is, and that a room full of paladins is no match for an uber-level lich.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 5, 2007)

I rather like the Symbol of Insanity as an opening move.  I can accept the Confusion-lock effect for the joys of Paladin-on-Paladin slaughter (even if we usually do not use that interpretation for all the obvious reasons).

But it was still a let down for me.

This is the Big Battle that these Paladins have been preparing for for centuries.  I know these guys are just NPCs, but I was expecting to see them acquit themselves a bit better, even if the end result was never in doubt.

Looking at the rules nitty-gritty...

Yes, I would expect the DC to be of the spell to be circa 26.  Even a 1st level Paladin could have a Will save boosted up to the +7 to +9 range.  Higher level Paladins could go way up higher -- it is not exactly rare for a buffed Paladin to have the highest Will save in an adventuring party.

So I would expect the Symbol to have no noticeable effect on half the room in the first round.

Another thing: Paladins fighting Paladins?  Not too impressive.  A lot of the stacked up Paladin effects work well against Evil, but not so well against Good.

In the big picture, I am perfectly okay with bending the rules when it feels right dramatically, and I am perfectly okay with having a weird result by adhering to the rules.  This strip did not quite feel right by either yardstick IMHO.


----------



## RedFox (May 5, 2007)

Talath said:
			
		

> I seem to be in the minority, but I loved the Symbol of Insanity tactic used by Xykon, and I'd let a PC use it in my game. It's clever, stylish, and extremely effective. Balderdash to what the SRD says; the DM is allowed to use DM fiat to allow or to do extremely cool things like bouncing balls with symbols of insanity.
> 
> I think this was a good strip for several reasons already mentioned here. And while I do not discourage discussion of the mechanics of OotS, I believe it is a web comic first, and then a D&D simulation second, and thus stuff you guys are calling "lame" is perfectly fine with me.
> 
> That, and this strip was mildly disturbing, which is sort of unusual for the strip. Usually it is disturbing in a funny way. There was nothing funny about this strip, it just showed off how badass Xykon is, and that a room full of paladins is no match for an uber-level lich.




I agree wholeheartedly, save for the disturbing part.  This strip was hilarious.  The gleeful, crazy-eyed look the paladins had while hacking each other apart was priceless.

Plus, it's a super bouncy ball!


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

Talath said:
			
		

> I seem to be in the minority, but I loved the Symbol of Insanity tactic used by Xykon, and I'd let a PC use it in my game. It's clever, stylish, and extremely effective. Balderdash to what the SRD says; the DM is allowed to use DM fiat to allow or to do extremely cool things like bouncing balls with symbols of insanity.




So Xykon won because the DM decided he would win. Isn't that the very complaint that some people here are voicing?

(Not that he couldn't have won in other ways, with other spells, of course).

If Xykon is going to win because of DM fiat, I think a much better way to handle it would have been for him to walk right into the horde of paladins and say "Look, you guys are NPCs. I don't even have to roll dice to kill you." It would have been funnier, and it would have fit the spirit of OotS better.


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

SPoD said:
			
		

> How is the word "offensively" defined in the RAW?
> 
> Oh, wait, it isn't? Then I guess it's a DM judgment call as to what is "offensive" and what isn't.




There is no possible way that Xykon's use of the Symbol of Insanity in this strip could be seen as anything other than offensive.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 5, 2007)

Ah, it was a good one. Xykon was destined to win, by story, and by D&D rules. That way, it looked hilarious! Me likes it. Otherwise... well _Dispel Magic_ through the cracks of the windows, _time stop_, _delayed fireball_ ad nauseam, finishing with _wail of the banshee_ in the next round, with a previously cast _improved invisibility_ would had a similar effect, and certainly in the range of Xykon's power. But not half as funny.


----------



## interwyrm (May 5, 2007)

This strip was simply awesome. 

The spell was not used offensively. Offensively in the context of the spell means "forcing activation on another by using your own actions." I think that's pretty clear from the spell description.

In this case, he says 'follow the bouncing ball". Even if you know you're up against some evil d00d with tricks up his sleeve... he throws a brightly colored object that bounces around... you're probalby going to look at it, if nothing else to avoid it hitting you.

I think it's been established that Xykon knows when the enounter is happening. The paladins don't. The only buffs that would be in effect are long-term ones. Xykon, on the other hand could have prepared a little bit.

As has been pointed out before, confusion makes creatures attack their attackers. The doors to the room are probably barred to prevent entry, so after a few rounds, every confused creature should be attacking another confused creature. The one left at the end apparently rolled "act normally" after no one was left.

The only hand-wavy thing about this encounter was the paralyzing touch at the end. If Xykon doesn't want the gate destroyed, then that was pretty risky.


----------



## interwyrm (May 5, 2007)

Oh, hands down best part of the strip: Eyepatch-paladin's head flying off.


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> The spell was not used offensively. Offensively in the context of the spell means "forcing activation on another by using your own actions."




As Xykon did with his action of throwing the ball with the symbol inscribed on it into the middle of a large group of paladins.


----------



## interwyrm (May 5, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> As Xykon did with his action of throwing the ball with the symbol inscribed on it into the middle of a large group of paladins.




It's the same thing as pulling the cover off of a symbol on the wall. It would have been an offensive use if the ball was touch-triggered, and it went off because it bounced off of paladins.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 5, 2007)

I will throw in another vote that this is a "meh" strip at best.

Sometimes Rich's idea of entertaining and/or humorous is just too morbid for me. This strip is asking the reader to cheer for Xykon, based on some premise that watching good people killing each other is fun, and is doing it in a rather silly and intended-to-be-humorous manner.

Watching Xykon get the stuffing beaten out of him would be a lot funnier.

This isn't even a terribly good way to make the villian seem all that evil or dangerous, because, well, that aspect of Xykon is irredeemable. There have been enough jokes at Xykon's expense through the comic that I will _never_ take him seriously as a villain, and I will always think him being competent is out of character. He is a great villain when his plans are going awry, but when he is being successful he is just wierd and cliche _at the same time_.


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> It's the same thing as pulling the cover off of a symbol on the wall. It would have been an offensive use if the ball was touch-triggered, and it went off because it bounced off of paladins.




If a symbol is "smart" enough to know when your actions caused another creature to touch it, it's also "smart" enough to know when your actions caused another creature to look at it.


----------



## interwyrm (May 5, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> If a symbol is "smart" enough to know when your actions caused another creature to touch it, it's also "smart" enough to know when your actions caused another creature to look at it.




The fundamental difference is that for the touch-triggered symbol, it takes no action on the part of the paladins to activate it. With the look-triggered symbol, the paladins must actively look at it to trigger. The reason that they look is immaterial.

The only way I could possibly see a look-triggered symbol as being used offensively is if the target were sat down in front of it, and his eyelids were taped back.


----------



## Darklone (May 5, 2007)

I expect to see some minor annoyance coming up in the next strip that will foil Xykons plan in a very simple and funny way.


----------



## coyote6 (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Plus, the fact that I came up with a better script for this episode




I'd have to disagree with that.


----------



## blargney the second (May 5, 2007)

Falkus said:
			
		

> If I had to guard that throne room, I'd have put an anti-magic field in it. Maybe several carefully placed to allow magic in the center, if the gate itself had to be kept in a magic allowed area.




What gate?
-blarg


----------



## Elephant (May 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> 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.




Put yer money where yer mouth is.  Post the script and let the readers judge for themselves!


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 5, 2007)

Bah! My problem with the strip is that the front rank was doing fine against Xykon, then they just _stopped_ and never resumed their attacks on him. One horrified look behind them to realize what was going on, then resume trying to destroy him is what they should have done, but didn't. This pretty much defines Lawful Stupid to me.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Put yer money where yer mouth is.  Post the script and let the readers judge for themselves!



 You DID read my post with the description of this hypothewtical strip, right?

EDIT: I'll re-post it:



> Xykon throws the ball.
> 
> Scarface goes "huh?"
> 
> ...


----------



## DreadArchon (May 5, 2007)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Put yer money where yer mouth is.  Post the script and let the readers judge for themselves!



He did, several posts earlier.  (It was lame and laced with anti-this-strip rhetoric.  Go figure.)



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> 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.



Which implies that this comic was well-thought, creative, and the result of particular talent.

Feh.  I still think this strip was awesome, and I'm having trouble seeing why everyone else doesn't.  That people would be offended by an _epic_ spellcaster defeating a few dozen single-digit-level mooks just isn't getting through for me, no matter how well they were expecting it.  (It's not like that Chain Lightning was going to do anyone any good, either!)

The paralyzing touch was the only part that bothered me.  Even ignoring the risk there, "paralyzed" does not mean "in stasis."  The guard, if actually paralyzed, would have lost his muscular control and gone limp immediately.  (Which is why people appear dead when lich-touched.)


----------



## Immak Antunel (May 5, 2007)

_My _question:

In a pseudo-medieval high fantasy world, where does one obtain a "super bouncy ball"? Or does one just make it with Craft (alchemy)? Inquiring minds want to know!

BTW, I dug this strip.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2007)

DreadArchon said:
			
		

> He did, several posts earlier.  (It was lame and laced with anti-this-strip rhetoric.  Go figure.)




I criticized the strip in other posts, but re-read the script above and tell me where's the anti-this-strip rhetoric.

Can't find it? Go figure!

I said this before in this thread, and I'll say it again: I don't have a problem with Xykon mopping the floor with the Sapphire Guard. He's the main villain of the strip, and they aren't the main heroes. But have you ever heard the saying "a hero is only as good as his villains"? Well, it works both ways. If you show the Sapphire Guard to be competent, experienced and prepared, and Xykon STILL mops the floor with them, he looks all the more awesome.

Bottom line, I didn't like *this* strip (and please note, I love OotS and I think Rich is very very talented), I gave the reasons why and I offered my solutions to the *storytelling* problem. Feel free to agree or disagree.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I will throw in another vote that this is a "meh" strip at best.
> 
> Sometimes Rich's idea of entertaining and/or humorous is just too morbid for me. This strip is asking the reader to cheer for Xykon, based on some premise that watching good people killing each other is fun, and is doing it in a rather silly and intended-to-be-humorous manner.
> 
> ...




FTW.

I can only add to that, what I said before.  That if the intention of this script is to increase the stature of Xykon as a villain, then it fails by virtue of not giving the audience any reason to root for, care for, or be impressed by that which Xykon overcomes.

'Oh yeah, these are just mooks', does not make Xykon's victory impressive.  It makes it lame.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 5, 2007)

Sorry Klaus, but I don't think your 'script' for the encounter is any good. It doesn't have the drama or the humour as far as I'm concerned.

I think this episode works really well as humour, as drama and as D&D; some people don't, but I disagree with their interpretation of the rules and/or the situation setup.

One thing that Rich obviously wins on though - people CARE about the strip - enough to argue strenuously about what should/shouldn't happen in it. A pretty good thing to manage when it is basically stick figures!

Cheers


----------



## Grog (May 5, 2007)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> The fundamental difference is that for the touch-triggered symbol, it takes no action on the part of the paladins to activate it. With the look-triggered symbol, the paladins must actively look at it to trigger. The reason that they look is immaterial.
> 
> The only way I could possibly see a look-triggered symbol as being used offensively is if the target were sat down in front of it, and his eyelids were taped back.




Then you have a very strange definition of the word "offensively." By your definition, a medusa's gaze isn't an offensive weapon.


----------



## RedFox (May 5, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> FTW.
> 
> I can only add to that, what I said before.  That if the intention of this script is to increase the stature of Xykon as a villain, then it fails by virtue of not giving the audience any reason to root for, care for, or be impressed by that which Xykon overcomes.
> 
> 'Oh yeah, these are just mooks', does not make Xykon's victory impressive.  It makes it lame.




Thing is, his impressiveness here isn't by measure of his power, but by his flair for the dramatic.  He's just having some fun.  The strip isn't supposed to make you go, "Whoa, Xykon is one badass liche!"

He could've wiped out that group of paladins much easier.  Nobody's debating that fact.  The problem people seem to have with it is that the way he did it isn't "by the rules" enough, or is somehow "cheap."

Hey, clue:  It's a cheap joke.

Dunno what else to tell you, save move on.  Getting a bunch of paladins to gleefully slaughter each other with a super-bouncy ball is _funny_.

I've also read the argument that the sapphire guard is supposed to be impressive or something.  Another clue:  Rich doesn't make his NPCs impressive.  Didn't you learn by now that named NPCs get kacked as a matter of course in OotS?  Didn't that guy on the wall falling over dead a couple strips back give you any idea how effective these guys were?  They were lucky to have knocked Xykon over with their initial offensive.  That's impressive enough for NPCs in this world.


----------



## drothgery (May 6, 2007)

I think this is one of the worst strips since the Miko storyline was put on the back burner (which was a good idea, as that just wasn't working). Definitely missing teh funny.


----------



## SPoD (May 6, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Sometimes Rich's idea of entertaining and/or humorous is just too morbid for me. This strip is asking the reader to cheer for Xykon, based on some premise that watching good people killing each other is fun, and is doing it in a rather silly and intended-to-be-humorous manner.




I disagree, I don't think this strip was meant to be funny AT ALL. I think it was supposed to be disturbing and unsettling to us, which it was to many people. The thing is, to XYKON, this was funny, because Xykon is an evil sick bastard. If you came away from the strip feeling mildly disgusted, then I think it had its intended effect on you.

Rich has long since abandoned the idea that every strip needs to have a hilarious punchline, so don't assume that any given strip, if you don't find it funny, was INTENDED to be funny in the first place. This one wasn't; the girl at the end committing seppuku is the clue that we're supposed to feel bad for the paladins, not root for Xykon.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> There is no possible way that Xykon's use of the Symbol of Insanity in this strip could be seen as anything other than offensive.




"It's not possible for anyone to see it this way, despite the fact that several people see it that way on this very thread!"

I'll just leave it there, since its a waste of time to argue with anyone who pronounces their opinions as inviolable facts.


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

SPoD said:
			
		

> I'll just leave it there, since its a waste of time to argue with anyone who pronounces their opinions as inviolable facts.




It's not an opinion that Xykon used the symbol as an offensive spell. It's a fact, clearly and unambiguously shown in the strip.



			
				RedFox said:
			
		

> The problem people seem to have with it is that the way he did it isn't "by the rules" enough, or is somehow "cheap."




I don't have a problem with anything that happened in the strip (well, I do, but that has more to do with the strip not being funny IMO). I'm simply responding to the people saying that what happened in the strip was within D&D rules. It wasn't.

Whether or not that's a problem depends on whether or not one thinks the strip should conform strictly to D&D rules at all times. Me, I say it's a comic strip, and it can have whatever rules the creator thinks it should have.


----------



## Elephant (May 6, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You DID read my post with the description of this hypothewtical strip, right?




Oh.  Yeah, I saw that.  Though mildly amusing, it didn't make much of an impact on me, sorry.  You'll have to spend another two minutes to come up with a better "better" script for this strip if you want to convince me.


----------



## beeber (May 6, 2007)

didn't think it was funny, i thought it was shocking.

as drama?  excellent.  as a d&d thing?  would never permit it.  i would have ruled it as trying to use it offensively, among other things.  but then again, it would never have been an issue since xykon isn't a pc . . . .

next week's strips should prove interesting


----------



## Wereserpent (May 6, 2007)

Maybe something is wrong with me, cause I thought it was funny.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 6, 2007)

SPoD said:
			
		

> I disagree, I don't think this strip was meant to be funny AT ALL. I think it was supposed to be disturbing and unsettling to us, which it was to many people. The thing is, to XYKON, this was funny, because Xykon is an evil sick bastard. If you came away from the strip feeling mildly disgusted, then I think it had its intended effect on you.



I would agree with you... If Belkar didn't exist. However, Belkar does exist, and Rich has shown a tendancy to make morbid and disturbing things into jokes all the time. Further, this strip has enough elements that are humorous (the bouncing ball, Xykon's joking) that it seems like a joke set-up. Finally, there are a lot of people who are making declarations that this is funny, which disturbs me somewhat.

Regardless, even if it wasn't meant to be funny, it still fails to accomplish much else, for reasons that Celebrim described above.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It's not an opinion that Xykon used the symbol as an offensive spell. It's a fact, clearly and unambiguously shown in the strip.



See now, *I* disagree with That.  I don't think he used it offensively at all.  I think he used it as an area-effect no differently that if he'd cast it as a 10 foot tall symbol on the wall behind him and said "Look guys!"  
Placing the ball with the symbol in their midst is not an offensive action.  They could have not looked at it, they could have closed their eyes, whatever.  All he did with the ball was to put it in motion in their midst, an action that -- by itself -- did nothing.
Now "Follow the bouncing ball" *could* have been a _Suggestion_ or somesuch, which would have quite simply been the ultimate 2-step use of two non-offensive spells to create an offensive Effect.  But he didn't MAKE a single one of them fall prey to the Symbol spell by simply throwing the ball.

And so far, as the thread stands at 4 pages, only ONE person has mentioned the only part of this strip that (only in a vague "...Ahh but it's OotS, so who cares" kind of way) bothered me...  that D&D doesn't have super bouncy balls.


----------



## SPoD (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It's not an opinion that Xykon used the symbol as an offensive spell. It's a fact, clearly and unambiguously shown in the strip.




No, it's not. Unless you can provide me an unambiguous definition of what "offensive" means in the rules, then the only data we have to make that determination is the example given—and what Xykon did was not the same as that example. You could look at that example and detrmine that an attack roll is what makes it "offensive".

Would determining it to be offensive be a reasonable DM's interpretation? Of course. But what's "reasonable" doesn't matter here. It can't be conclusively proven that this specific action was offensive, because there is no comprehensive definition for the word "offensive" with regards to the rules.

Invisibility has the courtesy to specifically define what is an attack with regards to that spell; Symbol spells do not do the same for what is offensive. That's a flaw with the spell description. Thus, it is up to DM interpretation, and even if 1000 out of 1000 DMs surveyed wouldn't allow it, that doesn't mean that DM #1001 wouldn't.

In short, stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so.


----------



## RedFox (May 6, 2007)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Maybe something is wrong with me, cause I thought it was funny.




There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a morbid sense of humour.  I found it funny, too.  And I know we're not alone.


----------



## Thunderfoot (May 6, 2007)

I have never really thought Rich has blown a script...until now.  This one was a mistake.

It wasn't funny, the pally's were too weak and the end panel was just...meh.
Rich is getting tired, he needs a break for a few days, maybe the sickness has impaired his judgement, I am unsure, but this one fell flat.


----------



## Professor Phobos (May 6, 2007)

One of the best in the strip's history. Definitely continues the evolution from a comic "just about D&D jokes" to one with actual characters we care about.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 6, 2007)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> that D&D doesn't have super bouncy balls.




It's a magic bouncy ball. Xykon has researched some new spells.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

RedFox said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Dunno what else to tell you, save move on.  Getting a bunch of paladins to gleefully slaughter each other with a super-bouncy ball is _funny_.
> <snip>




Not only is that funny.  Its *Joker* funny.


----------



## questing gm (May 6, 2007)

Maybe this strip is straining some of our suspension of disbelief ?


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> One of the best in the strip's history. Definitely continues the evolution from a comic "just about D&D jokes" to one with actual characters we care about.




QFT


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

SPoD said:
			
		

> No, it's not. Unless you can provide me an unambiguous definition of what "offensive" means in the rules,




"Offensive" is a word with a specific meaning in the English language.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/offensive

The relevant definitions here are:

_1 a : making attack : AGGRESSIVE b : of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons> _

Xykon used the spell aggressively, as an attack. Therefore, he used it offensively, and thus, illegally.



			
				SPoD said:
			
		

> then the only data we have to make that determination is the example given—and what Xykon did was not the same as that example. You could look at that example and detrmine that an attack roll is what makes it "offensive".




No, the data we have to make the determination is the definition of the word "offensive." As I said, the examples given are just that - examples. Not an exhaustive list of what constitutes an offensive use of the spell.



			
				SPoD said:
			
		

> In short, stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so.




Nor does denying the obvious make it any less obvious.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> "Offensive" is a word with a specific meaning in the English language.
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/offensive
> 
> ...



Ohhhkay... let's see:
Dictionary.com says:
1.	causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.

=> Therefore using _symbol of insanity_ is not possible, if the spell is used in a "highly irritating, angering, or annoying" way, right?

Since, for the victim, the spell is always "highly irritating, angering, or annoying", it means that the spell always fails, because it is an "offensive act", right? 

English is everything, but well-defined and clear-cut. You need to interpret it, therefore I think DM fiat is completely okay.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (May 6, 2007)

Immak Antunel said:
			
		

> _My _question:
> 
> In a pseudo-medieval high fantasy world, where does one obtain a "super bouncy ball"?




Same place one gets a coffee maker, or giant crackers, or necktie wearing lawyers?

It's not like it's the first anachronism OOTS has shown, people...


----------



## Pielorinho (May 6, 2007)

*Moderator's Notes*:

Folks, if you're getting worked up over a D&D comic, it's time to step away from the keyboard.  Seriously.  I don't care which side of the issue you're on.  And I'm posting this because some folks have been reporting this thread for behavior.  Everyone breathe deep and sing a chorus of Kum Bah Yah.

[/moderator's notes]

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (May 6, 2007)

Posting as a member, not as a moderator:

I thought it was pretty disturbing, and pretty funny.  Rich has said explicitly that the comic moves at the speed of plot.  I think this declaration puts paid to all rules questions.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> So Xykon won because the DM decided he would win.



As near as I can tell, this strip lacks a DM, inasmuch as it lacks a player; it has only an author.  Criticizing the author for being a poor DM confuses me, although it's a complaint I've seen levied against the strip before.  There are no players to be screwed by a DM here, and there's no DM to screw a player, appearances notwithstanding.  The two forms are extremely different, to the extent that I don't think they can be considered the same medium, let alone the same genre.  Analogizing between them is like analogizing between theater and conversation, I think, and getting irritated at one's inability to tell Juliet that Romeo is only sleeping.

Daniel


----------



## interwyrm (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Then you have a very strange definition of the word "offensively." By your definition, a medusa's gaze isn't an offensive weapon.




Again, you fail to see the difference. The ball isn't looking at the paladins. The paladins are looking at the ball. The spell is ALWAYS offensive in the sense that it does some harm to the recipient.

Wolv0rine is dead on about the 10ft tall symbol and calling it to their attention. The bouncy ball serves two purposes: to attract attention, and to be funny.

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.


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Ohhhkay... let's see:
> Dictionary.com says:
> 1.	causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
> 
> => Therefore using _symbol of insanity_ is not possible, if the spell is used in a "highly irritating, angering, or annoying" way, right?




Um, did you miss all the other definitions there, like this one?

_5.	characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare._

My point stands.


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> Again, you fail to see the difference. The ball isn't looking at the paladins. The paladins are looking at the ball.




You could say the same thing about a medusa. You have to look at it for its gaze to harm you. Therefore, by your definition, a medusa's gaze isn't an offensive weapon.



			
				interwyrm said:
			
		

> The spell is ALWAYS offensive in the sense that it does some harm to the recipient.




That's not what offensive means. Check the definition I posted earlier.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> That's not what offensive means. Check the definition I posted earlier.



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.

Daniel


----------



## Vanuslux (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Um, did you miss all the other definitions there, like this one?
> 
> _5.	characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare._
> 
> My point stands.




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.


----------



## Celebrim (May 6, 2007)

I've already had my say on this thread, but a brief comment on 'Symbols' and the angry sub-thread developing here.

All the symbol spells are IMO fundamentally broken and in need of some rethinking.  

The 'no offensive use' clause is a poorly thought out and poorly justifiable attempt to keep them from being broken.  It relies basically on DM fiat to arbitrarily stamp out uses that would be problimatic, for example permenent symbols of death on ones sword or permenant symbols of insanity scribed on ones shield.  But really, its just hand waving the fact that the spell can be used in ways that it was not 'intended' to be used, and when that happens its arguably no longer balanced for a spell of its level. 

The whole 'no offensive uses' is an attempt to restrict the use of the spell to the implicit intention of the spell, that is that the symbol is scribed on an immobile surface and used as a trap (hense the casting time).  The spell needs to be rewritten that way because the intent of the definition 'immobile' is clear and easily understood (if you move it, it ends the spell), whereas the definition of 'offensive' is not only here completely arbitrary but also self-contrictory.  Symbol is an offensive spell for crying out loud; all uses of it are in some sense offensive.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 6, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The spell needs to be rewritten that way because the intent of the definition 'immobile' is clear and easily understood (if you move it, it ends the spell), whereas the definition of 'offensive' is not only here completely arbitrary but also self-contrictory.  Symbol is an offensive spell for crying out loud; all uses of it are in some sense offensive.



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


----------



## Piratecat (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> So Xykon won because the DM decided he would win.



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


----------



## Humanaut (May 6, 2007)

*Offensive*

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.  To toss it at them, kinda forces it into play.  I do think there is a lot of gray area there.  And DM's are free to do what they want.  My original post, #16 ish, was just curious how others would rule.  I'd say no.  Bouncing ball a clever use, even funny, but wouldn't fly in my game.  

Final thought:   wwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kinem (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 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 



			
				interwyrm said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

kinem said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

kinem said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Darth Maul would so pwn Xykon.


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

Humanaut said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 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.






			
				Vanuslux said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 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!


----------



## epochrpg (May 6, 2007)

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


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

*And I speak for everbody when I say...*



			
				epochrpg said:
			
		

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




We believe so, yes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

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




Looked more like a 20 to me!


----------



## JustinA (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



 The USS Enterprise woud so pwn Vader.


----------



## Falkus (May 6, 2007)

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The USS Enterprise woud so pwn Vader.



Strangely this reminds me of the X-men / Star Trek (generations) cross-over comic that came out... 5+yrs(?) ago.

Something about Wolverine trying to menace Data cause "he smelled funny"

Data owned him.

Well, barely.

No, it was straight up pwnage...


----------



## hong (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Strangely this reminds me of the X-men / Star Trek (generations) cross-over comic that came out... 5+yrs(?) ago.
> 
> Something about Wolverine trying to menace Data cause "he smelled funny"
> 
> ...



 Xykon would so pwn Data.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Xykon would so pwn Data.



Strangely this reminds me of the OoTS 448 webcomic that came out... 5+hrs(?) ago.

Something about Xykon vs a bunch of mook paladisn known as the Azure Guard.

Xykon totally owned them. 

Well, barely.

No, it was straight up pwnage...


----------



## hong (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Strangely this reminds me of the OoTS 448 webcomic that came out... 5+hrs(?) ago.
> 
> Something about Xykon vs a bunch of mook paladisn known as the Azure Guard.
> 
> ...



 Darth Maul would so pwn Xykon.


----------



## Klaus (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Strangely this reminds me of the OoTS 448 webcomic that came out... 5+hrs(?) ago.
> 
> Something about Xykon vs a bunch of mook paladisn known as the Azure Guard.
> 
> ...



*Sapphire* Guard, of Azure *City*.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Darth Maul would so pwn Xykon.




Rats, foiled!

Um, you win mate!


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> *Sapphire* Guard, of Azure *City*.




Right! The Azure Guard of Sapphire City.  Got it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 6, 2007)

Good work, hong and Drowbane. I'd have preferred it if you'd kept going for about 100 posts though.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Good work, hong and Drowbane. I'd have preferred it if you'd kept going for about 100 posts though.




Hong won fair and square.


----------



## hong (May 6, 2007)

Yes, yes I did. We now leave you to your regularly scheduled debate on whether the Sapphire Guard could so pwn Xykon.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae would so own that debate.


----------



## Pbartender (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Doug McCrae would so own that debate.




Strangely this reminds me of the Hong / Doug McCrae cross-over thread that came out... 5+mins(?) ago.

Something about Doug McRae trying to menace Hong cause "I'd have preferred it if you'd kept going for about 100 posts"

Hong owned him.

Well, barely.

No, it was straight up pwnage...


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Strangely this reminds me of the Hong / Doug McCrae cross-over thread that came out... 5+mins(?) ago.
> 
> Something about Doug McRae trying to menace Hong cause "I'd have preferred it if you'd kept going for about 100 posts"
> 
> ...




You sir... win the Intarwebs


----------



## Pielorinho (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> 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.



I totally agree.  I was asking, however, for a usage that you thought might go straight up to the line but not cross it.  Let me give some examples of things that I'm curious as to how you'd rule:

-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? 

As far as I can tell, the line between offensive and non-offensive use of the spell is pretty blurry.  As a DM, I'd rule very conservatively, using the spell's examples as the type of offensive action that doesn't work.  I like it when stuff works, though, so that may be my bias .

Daniel


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 6, 2007)

My only objection to the symbol on a bouncy ball is that (a) I wouldn't allow a symbol to be inscribed that small - I've always envisaged them as at least hand-sized (consider the range at which they can be 'read'), and (b) I can't imagine anyone reading the symbol while it is bouncing around.

Interestingly, in 3.0e and earlier versions, the symbol could be inscribed directly in the air in order to create an effect (although not including insanity or death and some others). I miss that use of it.

Of course, once a symbol has been triggered by someone reading it, it then affects everyone within 60ft (not just other people who look at it too). One activation, then it starts to zap everyone within range.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Daniel



I think that in this case the alternative to offensive is not "inoffensive" which implies a sort of harmlessness, but "defensive" which can be anything but harmless, yet does not bring the danger to its victims, they come to it. A trap which sprays acid on everyone in a square around it is defensive. an acidic grenade weapon is offensive.

While I'm not Grog, I would say a use that doesn't fall under the offensive clause would be one in which the victim is responsible for coming in contact with the symbol. So if a symbol is inside the lid of a chest and someone opens it, it was not used offensively. If the same chest is flipped open with the symbol "aiming" towards them, it is. 

Right up to but probably not crossing the line? I shall take a cue from Stargate and say that if a symbol is under a doorway and is activated by you passing under it, then you could bull rush someone under that doorway and have it qualify as forcing someone into the trap - an offensive act but a defensive use of the spell. The key, to me, is whether the victim comes to the symbol or the symbol come to the victim. Trap vs attack.


----------



## Teflon Billy (May 6, 2007)

kinem said:
			
		

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




LOL   

Yeah..._that_ is the thing in D&D that doesn't "make sense from a physics point of view"


----------



## Cheiromancer (May 6, 2007)

One gamey definition of "offensive" might be if it is triggered on your turn, or on your opponent's turn.  For example, if you put a touch-activated symbol on your sword and hit someone with it, the touch occurs on your turn.  Thus your opponent is not affected.  If you pull aside a curtain, revealing the symbol, it is again on your turn (isn't it?  If a medusa took off her veil, the save to avoid being petrified occurs on your turn, doesn't it?).  

However if the PCs pull back the curtain, it is on their turn, and so they could be affected.  Or if they decide to try to sunder the sword.

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


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I totally agree.  I was asking, however, for a usage that you thought might go straight up to the line but not cross it.  Let me give some examples of things that I'm curious as to how you'd rule:




I would say that all those scenarios you suggest would be acceptable uses of the symbol spell. They all involve using the spell to set a trap for someone, rather than as an attack.

As for what might go right up to the line, but not cross it - I'm honestly not sure about that. However, I _am_ sure that scribing the symbol onto a ball and throwing that ball into the middle of a group of enemies is, without doubt, an offensive use of the spell. The same way that scribing a symbol on your shield and waving it in an enemy's face would be.


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> The intention of this rule is clear: You can't have a _symbol_ trigger by whacking it against somebody.




The definition of "offensively" is not confined to just whacking someone.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> -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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



 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 (May 6, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Grog (May 6, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

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




Which is clearly and obviously not the meaning of "offensively" meant in the spell description for Symbol spells. When the writers of the D&D rules talk about offensive spells, they're not talking about irritating spells. They're talking about attack spells. The word "offensive" has several definitions, but only one is relevant for the purpose of this discussion.

One of the most basic tenets of the English language, that we're taught in grade school, is that words often have multiple meanings, but not all the meanings apply in every context in which the word is used.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 6, 2007)

I think the technical meaning of "offensive" here is that it is not possible to force your opponent to trigger the device.  He has to take some kind of action under some definition of Action under the RAW (be it Free or Standard or whatever).

If you pull away the curtain, I can choose not to look at the wall (although I might be hosed anyway if somebody else chooses to look).  If it is set as a trap in a box of treasure, again, I have to open the lid and I have to look at it (which is likely but not guaranteed).

Another RAW nitpick (as if such things were really important to OotS): The Symbol must be on a "in plain sight and a prominent location".  IMHO, a mark on a bouncing ball meets neither requirement, and therefore the spells fails outright.  "Plain sight" suggests there can not be any concealment such as we expect from a rotating ball.  IMO "prominent location" in context implies on an architectual fixture like over a door, at an easy eye-viewing level on a wall, in the middle the floor of a corridor, etc.

(For the record, I thought bending the rules here was a worthwhile choice on the part of Rich.  But I am pulling out all the ruleslawyerly points I can think of, for the heck of it.)


----------



## Slife (May 7, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> The paladins had decades to prepare for attacks, but not decades to prepare for this particular attack.  If it were up to you, how would you protect the throne room from a high-level sorceror or wizard?



Install lots and lots of low level magic traps.  (craft wondrous item is a feat your spellcasters should have anyway, and you don't need high level spells)  Add in some holy water reservoirs in the ceiling.  Hallow and consecrate the area.  Make a deal with powerful celestials.  Secretly put a decoy gate in the throne to disguise the real one, which is located in the middle of a block of lead in the floor.  If it doesn't interfere with the gate, first cast AMF, put a bag of holding over it, then fill in the lead.  Once the AMF is removed, the gem is located in the normal space part of the bag.  Since the bag opens to an extradimensional space (which should be filled with holy water, caltrops, traps, and animated objects.  Animated objects covered with explosive runes in common.  Nobody should be here, so there's no point in pulling any punches.), trying to pull the gem out will prove fruitless.  Put Glyphs of warding on each layer, set with the paladin's religion as the pass (this should be SOP everywhere).  Cover the fake gem with exploding runes written in very small print in infernal.  And abyssal.  And undercommon.  Written by seperate wizards.  On second thought, put those everywhere you can.  No cost except a couple of spells.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 7, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If you pull away the curtain, I can choose not to look at the wall (although I might be hosed anyway if somebody else chooses to look).  If it is set as a trap in a box of treasure, again, I have to open the lid and I have to look at it (which is likely but not guaranteed).



Sure--which is why Xykon told the paladins to follow the bouncing ball, and kept encouraging them to do so.  They had to look at it.



> Another RAW nitpick (as if such things were really important to OotS): The Symbol must be on a "in plain sight and a prominent location".  IMHO, a mark on a bouncing ball meets neither requirement, and therefore the spells fails outright.  "Plain sight" suggests there can not be any concealment such as we expect from a rotating ball.  IMO "prominent location" in context implies on an architectual fixture like over a door, at an easy eye-viewing level on a wall, in the middle the floor of a corridor, etc.
> 
> (For the record, I thought bending the rules here was a worthwhile choice on the part of Rich.  But I am pulling out all the ruleslawyerly points I can think of, for the heck of it.)



Fair enough on the "for the heck of it" thing.  I think these points, along with the ones about how a roomful of paladins might all fail their spot checks, are going out of their way to rule in a manner hostile to the storyline.  If you're doing that as devil's advocate stuff, that's cool.

Daniel


----------



## Anthraxus (May 7, 2007)

Pretty disappointing for a two-parter.  :\


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (May 7, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> My only objection to the symbol on a bouncy ball is that (a) I wouldn't allow a symbol to be inscribed that small - I've always envisaged them as at least hand-sized (consider the range at which they can be 'read'), and (b) I can't imagine anyone reading the symbol while it is bouncing around.




The spell can be set so that it is triggered merely by looking at it - reading isn't necessary (and is called out as another trigger option).  I'd say it would be pretty impossible not to look at the ball bouncing around like that - although nearly impossible to read.  But reading isn't necessary.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 7, 2007)

Technically speaking.. if Xykon held out the ball so that the mark is viewable before saying follow the bouncing ball and tossing it someone could have triggered before it was tossed. So its not really braking any rules since all he did was move the location of the rune so that it could effect an optimal amount of victems (by randomly tossing it forward as a swift/move action).


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 7, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If you pull away the curtain, I can choose not to look at the wall (although I might be hosed anyway if somebody else chooses to look).  If it is set as a trap in a box of treasure, again, I have to open the lid and I have to look at it (which is likely but not guaranteed).



in the former case you also have to come into the room where the symbol has been cast and the curtain set up in the first place. I just can't see how bringing the symbol into a place you are attacking and actively introducing it to a group of people (as opposed to setting it up somewhere and the people come and interact with it or not) doesn't qualify as an offensive rather than defensive use of the spell.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (May 7, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Technically speaking.. if Xykon held out the ball so that the mark is viewable before saying follow the bouncing ball and tossing it someone could have triggered before it was tossed. So its not really braking any rules since all he did was move the location of the rune so that it could effect an optimal amount of victems (by randomly tossing it forward as a swift/move action).



note, throwing an object is not a swift/move action. If it were, alchemists fire would be a really popular item. And as has been discussed, bringing the symbol out and using it as a weapon is also against the rules, not merely the issue of  being prominent and clearly visible. (If moving an activated rune to effect more victims isn't an offensive use of the spell, what would be?)


----------



## Mycanid (May 7, 2007)

Sigh ... trouble, trouble and more trouble.  :\


----------



## Pielorinho (May 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> note, throwing an object is not a swift/move action. If it were, alchemists fire would be a really popular item. And as has been discussed, bringing the symbol out and using it as a weapon is also against the rules, not merely the issue of  being prominent and clearly visible. (If moving an activated rune to effect more victims isn't an offensive use of the spell, what would be?)



Hitting someone with the symbol in order to activate it.  I choose to read the examples restrictively; others choose to read the restriction broadly.  Rich clearly chooses the former approach.

Daniel


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> note, throwing an object is not a swift/move action. If it were, alchemists fire would be a really popular item. And as has been discussed, bringing the symbol out and using it as a weapon is also against the rules, not merely the issue of  being prominent and clearly visible. (If moving an activated rune to effect more victims isn't an offensive use of the spell, what would be?)




It would be a move/free/swift action if you allow an abusive loop hole and say that he was "dropping/tossing" it into the next square without expending any effort (ie like flipping his wrist while loosely holding the ball).  This is different from taking out a bottle pulling your arm back and thowing it.  Since we do not see what occured before the first frame where  Xykons arm is outstretched and the ball is in the air its hard to tell how much of an effort was used to "drop/toss aside" or "throw" the ball (for all we know it could have "flown" out of his hands as a result of being an activated magic item).

The question of the ball's offensive use is actually a very slippery slope because if the ball was triggered prior to it being tossed/dropped/thrown then there was a chance that it only moved into the crowd and stayed there by chance (it could have easily bounced outside through the window).  Since the ball does not effect anyone who was not looking at it nor does it anyone who his struck by the ball, the only real thing that could really bar the spell from being used in the cheesy way it was if the fact that it was on a ball.

So if anything the rules were not broken (depending on if you allow the ball to be considerd a trap which allows it to be used in the manor that it was) BUT tif anything hey were sure in hell were abused.


----------



## Vanuslux (May 7, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> "Offensive" is a word with a specific meaning in the English language.
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/offensive
> 
> ...






			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Ohhhkay... let's see:
> Dictionary.com says:
> 1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
> 
> ...






			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Um, did you miss all the other definitions there, like this one?
> 
> 5. characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare.
> 
> My point stands.






			
				Vanuslux said:
			
		

> 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*.






			
				Grog said:
			
		

> 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.






			
				Vanuslux said:
			
		

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






			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Which is clearly and obviously not the meaning of "offensively" meant in the spell description for Symbol spells. When the writers of the D&D rules talk about offensive spells, they're not talking about irritating spells. They're talking about attack spells. The word "offensive" has several definitions, but only one is relevant for the purpose of this discussion.
> 
> One of the most basic tenets of the English language, that we're taught in grade school, is that words often have multiple meanings, but not all the meanings apply in every context in which the word is used.




Wow...that sounds an awful lot like a more condescending version of my original point.  The last part anyway.  The first part is just more asserting that you have more right to cherry-pick definitions than anyone else does.  Unless you can specifically point to a reference where a D&D book specifically says " When the writers of the D&D rules talk about offensive spells, they're not talking about irritating spells. They're talking about attack spells."


----------



## Henry (May 7, 2007)

I come down on the "This Episode was AWESOME!" side of the fence. The Symbol on the bouncy ball was really funny to me, and indicative of Xykon's loony yet effective schemes. It's plausible, even with a roomful of paladins with protective spells, it's definitely NEVER been done before (not even on the Simpsons), and it took me totally off-guard. I expected a "Xykon crushes them with spell power" moment, similar to what Klaus was saying, but instead got an off-the-wall treatment of Xykon kicking butt.

Gotta say I enjoyed it.

The Order of the Stick is in its "Empire Strikes Back" phase; they'll come out on top, eventually.


----------



## Professor Phobos (May 7, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The Order of the Stick is in its "Empire Strikes Back" phase; they'll come out on top, eventually.




Indeed. I thought from the start of the Azure City Besieged arc they were going to lose this fight. Not only is it desirable to have Hinjo lose his army and join the Order, but the AC rift is the smallest of them. Easy enough to demand Xykon keep going after gates. Plus the Linear Guild is in prison; someone has to spring 'em. And Miko has to continue her fall...

Plus, they evacuated the AC civilians. Why make a point of saying "The Civilians were evacuated" if it isn't going to offset the loss of the city?


----------



## questing gm (May 7, 2007)

The title of the strip was 'Just Crazy Enough to Work'....


----------



## Vanuslux (May 7, 2007)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Indeed. I thought from the start of the Azure City Besieged arc they were going to lose this fight. Not only is it desirable to have Hinjo lose his army and join the Order, but the AC rift is the smallest of them. Easy enough to demand Xykon keep going after gates. Plus the Linear Guild is in prison; someone has to spring 'em. And Miko has to continue her fall...
> 
> Plus, they evacuated the AC civilians. Why make a point of saying "The Civilians were evacuated" if it isn't going to offset the loss of the city?




Yeah, I'm fairly sure that Azure City is going to lose...the ritual that Xykon needs to perform to achieve his goals with the rift takes weeks, so that's plenty of time for the OotS to regroup after a sound defeat and return to foil his plans.


----------



## Matchstick (May 7, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> 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...




I agree.  

I wonder why this whole scene was even thought worthy of a strip.  Badassitude could have been much more easily and effectively indicated by having the battle take place off screen and the results discovered later, perhaps by one of our heroes.  

That said, I'm betting Rich is going to pull himself out of the fire in one of those moves that really makes you question whether or not he reads forums (though he claims he doesn't).  Right now, there's no one and nothing in that battle that can defeat Xykon.  No one.  Nothing.  All that's left is Rule 0, and I'm betting Rich throws in something along the lines of the Holy Water traps or "gate in a different location" things mentioned above.


----------



## Someone (May 7, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> The Order of the Stick is in its "Empire Strikes Back" phase; they'll come out on top, eventually.




I don't know how. Xykon has been portrayed as vastly superior to them, vastly in the sense of "Brazillian national soccer team, but with bionic enhancements and armed with missile launchers VS school team of retarded 8 year old children" vastly superior. Xykon can only lose now by a catastrophic act of incompetence or a blatant Deus Ex Machina; in any case,  I'm afraid Rich has written himself into a corner with this one.


----------



## Drowbane (May 7, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> I don't know how. Xykon has been portrayed as vastly superior to them, vastly in the sense of "Brazillian national soccer team, but with bionic enhancements and armed with missile launchers VS school team of retarded 8 year old children" vastly superior. Xykon can only lose now by a catastrophic act of incompetence or a blatant Deus Ex Machina; in any case,  I'm afraid Rich has written himself into a corner with this one.




Eh, not with ya on that one.

Xykon has roughly 7+ levels on the OotS, making him an extreme challenge... but still possible.  They've beaten the stuffing out of him before.

edit: Although to be fair to you... Xykon should've nuked the OotS out of existence the first time they fought


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> So if anything the rules were not broken (depending on if you allow the ball to be considerd a trap which allows it to be used in the manor that it was) BUT if anything hey were sure in hell were abused.




That's the problem I have with the current Symbol write up.  It's easily abused, and to avoid that abuse it includes some very broad, very vague, rules lawyerish restrictions.  Only these anti-loopholes are designed for a rules lawyerish DM to be able to squash any usage of the spell that the DM feels is inappropriate.  The problem of course is that while any decent DM ought to be able to exploit those loopholes, no decent DM wants to be rules lawyering his players.

In the Xykon case, since Xykon is an NPC, Rich as the DM can simply rule the restrictions that limit Symbol power are as narrow as he likes.  I don't really have a problem with Rich breaking the rules, because he's the DM and the usage Xykon employs is within the letter if not the spirit of the wording of the spell.  My problems with the scene are completely unrelated to the rules issues.


----------



## Professor Phobos (May 7, 2007)

Man, the Bhaalspawn didn't take down Sarevok just as Gorion got wasted, did he?

No!

Did they win against Irenicus in that first battle in the streets of Athkatla? Nope!

They had to go and do sidequests for a while before they had the mojo to challenge their recurring villains. Xykon might win _this battle_, but the war, the war is not lost until the Order of the Stick is TPKed.


----------



## Slife (May 7, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Wow...that sounds an awful lot like a more condescending version of my original point.  The last part anyway.  The first part is just more asserting that you have more right to cherry-pick definitions than anyone else does.  Unless you can specifically point to a reference where a D&D book specifically says " When the writers of the D&D rules talk about offensive spells, they're not talking about irritating spells. They're talking about attack spells."



But under EITHER interpretation (even your incredibly st^Hilly one), it doesn't work.


----------



## Klaus (May 7, 2007)

Just to distract people from the "offensive or not" use of a Symbol, there's an archer paladin who's attacking a flying paladin. Shouldn't she be attacking the nearest creature (even if that means attacking with a ranged weapon an opponent that threatens her, thereby provoking an AoO)?

Discuss.


----------



## Delta (May 7, 2007)

Again, I think the comic was highly successful as a work of horror. It's not a comedy beat -- and Rich routinely has such comics that are touching or dramatic and not comedy beats.

I'll admit that rules-wise the biggest gray spot was the use of _symbol_ in this manner that I'd certainly call offensive. But I've seen that in _lots_ of D&D games, and immediately recognized the style of adjudication that was taking place. I've heard of clerics carrying a voice-activated _symbol_ around on their shield. I've had a fellow player allowed to carry around _explosive runes_ papers and wave them at the bad guys, very much in this manner.

Even Rich set the precedent for liberalness with the early _explosive runes_ usage that was even more keenly not "upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information". There wasn't a big outcry over that, as I recall. I wouldn't allow these usages, but I know that other DMs do, and Rich clearly has the precedent set for this world.

_Explosive runes_ in OOTS: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0092.html
_Explosive runes_ in SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Just to distract people from the "offensive or not" use of a Symbol, there's an archer paladin who's attacking a flying paladin. Shouldn't she be attacking the nearest creature (even if that means attacking with a ranged weapon an opponent that threatens her, thereby provoking an AoO)?
> 
> Discuss.




Like I said, the whole battle felt hand-waved to me.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 7, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> I don't know how. Xykon has been portrayed as vastly superior to them, vastly in the sense of "Brazillian national soccer team, but with bionic enhancements and armed with missile launchers VS school team of retarded 8 year old children" vastly superior. Xykon can only lose now by a catastrophic act of incompetence or a blatant Deus Ex Machina; in any case,  I'm afraid Rich has written himself into a corner with this one.




That's not that big a deal, because, you know, the OotS, being PCs and all, can _gain levels_.


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

We all know the battle for Azure City is lost.

TOotS has to retreat (i.e. leave town) and regroup...not to mention _raise_ Roy.

The hobgoblins take the town in the next 3 strips.  Quote me.


----------



## Grog (May 7, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Wow...that sounds an awful lot like a more condescending version of my original point.  The last part anyway.  The first part is just more asserting that you have more right to cherry-pick definitions than anyone else does.  Unless you can specifically point to a reference where a D&D book specifically says " When the writers of the D&D rules talk about offensive spells, they're not talking about irritating spells. They're talking about attack spells."




You can't be serious. Can you?


----------



## Joker (May 7, 2007)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Man, the Bhaalspawn didn't take down Sarevok just as Gorion got wasted, did he?
> 
> No!
> 
> ...




So many good memories.


----------



## Matchstick (May 7, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's not that big a deal, because, you know, the OotS, being PCs and all, can _gain levels_.




I didn't get the impression that they had the time, I thought this was a "win this battle or the BBEG rules the world" battle.

I'm vaguing on this, but wasn't part of the prophecy that Xykon would go to Girard's Gate?  Why would he need to do that unless he lost this gate somehow?  How could he possibly lose this gate without some sort of GM intervention when there's no one within the entire city that could even come close to taking him out?

Maybe Miko will grapple him long enough for the OOTS to take him out.  NPC vs NPC.  
Maybe the SG will have put some traps in the throne room, or misled everyone about the location of the gate.  Again, that's something the PC's won't be involved in.
Maybe something will happen to the phylactery.  Could be PC's involved here, but it would be by accident.
Maybe Xykon will take over this gate but it will take him years to master its power so that the OOTS can level up.  Ugh.

I'm sure Rich has thought of something, I hope it's good.


----------



## Storm Raven (May 7, 2007)

Matchstick said:
			
		

> I didn't get the impression that they had the time, I thought this was a "win this battle or the BBEG rules the world" battle.
> 
> I'm vaguing on this, but wasn't part of the prophecy that Xykon would go to Girard's Gate?  Why would he need to do that unless he lost this gate somehow?  How could he possibly lose this gate without some sort of GM intervention when there's no one within the entire city that could even come close to taking him out?




I think it has been made pretty clear that Xykon needs to deal with more than one gate in order for his plans to work - Roy's question to the oracle assumed that Xykon would be trying to move on more than one gate. Besides we likely have hundreds of strips left in the OotS, so I think there will be lots of stuff going on, and most of it will take place _after_ Azure city falls.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 7, 2007)

I am anticipating the next strip will be where the OotS team scrambles to make a desperate attempt to stop Xykon that stops at a cliffhanger...then a Balor will arrive to try to seize the gate for himself in the following strip.


----------



## DreadArchon (May 7, 2007)

Matchstick said:
			
		

> I'm vaguing on this, but wasn't part of the prophecy that Xykon would go to Girard's Gate?



IIRC, the prophecy was only that he'd be closer to Girard's Gate than to the other one.  I don't remeber for sure, though, and the page isn't working for me right now.

But of course, the party could simply break the throne without hurting Xykon.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 7, 2007)

Roy specifically asked the question about two gates, one of which was Girard's; when the oracle tried to get him to make the question vaguer, so that he could explain that Xykon was moving on Azure City, Roy emphatically refused to change the question.  Hijinks ensued.  At least, that's how I remember it.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (May 7, 2007)

Oh, and Moderator's Notes

This whole discussion about condescension?  Stop it.  Discuss the strip, sure, but do so respecting the opinions of people whose interpretations disagree with yours.  If that's not working for you, consider starting a thread about the strip on a messageboard where respect isn't mandatory.

Daniel


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2007)

The next OOTS strip is up, people might be surprised at direction that the strip takes. I think it is an excellent one!


----------



## Celebrim (May 8, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The next OOTS strip is up, people might be surprised at direction that the strip takes. I think it is an excellent one!




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.


----------



## JustinA (May 8, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> (If moving an activated rune to effect more victims isn't an offensive use of the spell, what would be?)




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.


----------



## Celebrim (May 8, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> 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.




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".  

Restating what I did say:

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.  The rules are very vague.

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.

3) The word offensive that people are arguing over should be one with a very clear meaning.  The offensive clause literally means, "This spell cannot be employed as a weapon."  Offensive here contrasts with ideas like protective and defensive.  Unfortunately, the clear meaning of the word is in context shear nonsense, sense as I said before, this is a weaponized spell already.  All uses of it are somewhat offensive in nature.  It can never be a purely protective spell because it is proactive in nature, especially in the 'when viewed' mode.  

4) Taking that altogether, I suggested that if the intent of the spell is for it to be used as a trap, reworking the spell so that it only worked if the surface it was cast on was not moved not only better achieved the design intent of the spell, but made the spell significantly easier to understand (so that a player understood before using the spell how the DM would most likely rule) and easier to arbitrate (so that the DM would need to use less judgement to rule consistantly).  _I did not however claim that this is how the current wording of the spell works._

What the current wording of the spell means is anyone's guess.


----------



## IceFractal (May 8, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

RedFox said:
			
		

> 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 (May 9, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> 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 (May 9, 2007)

JustinA said:
			
		

> 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.


----------

