Order of the Stick vs Fellowship of the Ring

[NecronLord]

which leaves us with "kills something very tough over the course of a week" vs "disintegrates something very tough in an instant"

An instant is '1 standard action with verbal, somatic, material components' now? Very quickly, yes. Instant, no.

Ignoring that quibble, that's a false comparison and you know it. 'Very Tough' is not a universal characteristic. Do you think a 13th level D&D mage could instantly disintigrate farscapes mile after mile long Budong?

I'll pander to this mechanics discussion a bit longer... a 13th level mage would be limited to a whopping 5d6 - equivalent to a few arrows from a shortbow - of damage to a Balor (popularly reputed to be based on the Balrog) a similar 'huge monstrous demon' unless it rolls particularly poorly on its fortitude save.

Here are the things you have to prove for your stance to be anything but retarded, vaguely graded in the order of difficulty I'd expect.

1. This V fellow is capable of casting, has in his spellbook and typically prepares each morning 'Disintegrate'
2. The game mechanics of D&D apply to things with no similar D&D stats, as opposed to a quantifiable amount of damage (which Disintegrate isn't, in that it's basically magical phasorisation) in the manner you propose.
3. That somehow, Balrogs aren't tough enough to 'pass thier fortitude save' and reduce its effectiveness to relatively nothing.
4. That even if Gandalf had the ability to cast that spell, he would be able to employ it against a being whose counterspells 'almost broke' him.

---

Moving onto a more general point. Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth in general isn't written like a game, with physics designed to be fun and playable. It's written to resemble epic poems, more than anything, and generally have some verisimiltude. Real life isn't a video game, where you're basically immune so long as you have enough first aid kits, and, as a war veteran, Tolkien knew that far better than me. Even the mightiest of his characters are vulnerable. Morgoth was wounded by an elf a fraction of his size, even as he slew him, and Gandalf is no match, on his own, for entire clans of wargs. Glorfindel can cow the Witch King, but he still doesn't take the presence of the Nazgûl as a trivial matter.

Just because you beat an opponent once, doesn't mean your 'power level' is going to somehow let you do it next time. Gandalf may be powerful, but he can still be killed if just one orc gets lucky and shoves its barbed, wicked sword in his gut. Let alone trying to simultaneously take on dozens of wargs.

In this respect, D&D (and apparently, by extension) D&D characters are far more powerful than both Middle Earth's, and any comparable others with even a dash of realism. Anyone who's talked D&D on Spacebattles before has doubtless encountered the mindset that D&D derived characters are pretty much like this.

About as realistic as Sonic the Hedgehog, but powerful, I suppose.

[Styphon]

wait, wait, wait... you just finished saying how we should look at what they've actually done rather than mechanics, and now you're pushing mechanics based arguments?

[Imperial Overlord]

See, that's the horrible thing about relying on D&D mechanics for discussion. If the other guy rolls a one on his initiative, he's going to just have to take it up the ass for six seconds or so. This silly example is of course, why I raised the issue of relying on mechanics.

I would instead, reccommend looking at what this character has actually done rather than saying "Well, they're thirteenth level, so they should obviously have access to teleportation magic..."

The problem is that Order of the Stick is a D&D spoof. A lot of the humour comes from applying D&D rules in situations where they produce silly or ridiculous results. So the OOTS universe behaves according to D&D rules, especially when it's unrealistic.

And 3.5 disintegrate (which is what OOTS runs off of) requires a hit roll, beat SR, and save. It's counterspellable and doesn't instant kill with a failed save, merely doing a buckets of damage to its target. If the damage is enough to kill the target it is totally disintegrated.

[Sidewinder]

I'm at 'The Order of the Stick' #271. From what I've read, the intelligence of 'The Order of the Stick' members is often lowered for humor. So...

1) Roy Greenhilt vs Aragorn on a completely flat plain, they start out 5 feet from each other.

A guy who stupidly sells a magic sword AFTER his heirloom sword is broken, but BEFORE going on a quest to repair the heirloom sword, versus a guy who's smart enough to pack a knife or two, just in case? Aragorn wins.

2) Vaarsuvius vs Gandalf on a completely flat plain, they start out 20 feet from each other.

A healthy man can close this distance in seconds. If Vaarsuvius fails to score a hit in this time, Gandalf will slice and dice his opponent into lunch meat. I say Gandalf wins.

3) Durkon vs Gimli on a completely flat plain, they start out 5 feet from each other.

As noted, a healthy man can close this distance in seconds. It seems to take Durkon some time to call upon Thor's power. That's plenty of time for Gimli to bury his ax in Durkon's head. However, Durkon is a skilled hand-to-hand combatant, so I give him a 50-50 chance.

4) Haley Starshine vs Legolas in a thick forest, they start out 1 mile from each other (but do have knowledge that the other is in there and that they must fight).

I don't see how Haley has any advantage over a guy who managed to kill a fucking mumak with one shot. I say Legolas wins.

5) Elan vs Boromir on a completely flat plain, they start out 5 feet from each other.

Elan's too stupid to realize he's in over his head. Boromir will turn the bard into a pin cushion.

6) Belkar vs all four hobbits on a completely flat plain, they start out 10 feet from each other.

This is one area where the Order of the Stick has an advantage over the Fellowship of the Ring. Belkar's ruthlessness and brutality will win him victory, and he'll be wearing one of the hobbits' skulls as a hat.

[NecronLord]

wait, wait, wait... you just finished saying how we should look at what they've actually done rather than mechanics, and now you're pushing mechanics based arguments?

As I said, I was pandering to it. I would far preffer a coherent analysis of what's actually in the comic.

You're suggesting Disintegrate is a be all and end all, when the actual rules for it aren't anywhere near that powerful. If you hit a Balor with it, for example, you've a very poor chance of doing more than pissing it off with 5d6 damage. Just because it can 'kill something very tough' doesn't mean it always can. D&D is meant to be balanced, remember. D&D wizards can rarely kill anything with a CR higher than their level.

[Ford Prefect]

A guy who stupidly sells a magic sword AFTER his heirloom sword is broken, but BEFORE going on a quest to repair the heirloom sword, versus a guy who's smart enough to pack a knife or two, just in case? Aragorn wins.

So Aragorn will win because he's smarter? I'd think Roy is more likely to win based upon the fact that he can cut people clean in half. I'm pretty sure he's done it to more than one person with a single swing as well. This isn't the sort of situation where Aragorn can come up with a clever plan and outwit Roy - they are five feet apart, and Roy's sword is almost as long as he is tall. IE. Greater than five feet.

[NecronLord]

You realise that unless he cut the opponent in half lengthways or through the ribcage or something, that's hardly an impossible feat, though it is an unlikely one. Longswords are traditionally held to be much better at getting clean cuts than axes, hence why the nobility preffered to be decapitated by well trained swordsmen. Bisecting one person isn't that unlikely, unless you do it every time or something.

So unless you've got, Y'know, a link to this 'here's 'great cleave' in all its awesome stupidity' *bisects three people* strip, it's hardly evidence of awesome strength so much as a lucky chop.

[consequences]

You realise that unless he cut the opponent in half lengthways or through the ribcage or something, that's hardly an impossible feat, though it is an unlikely one. Longswords are traditionally held to be much better at getting clean cuts than axes, hence why the nobility preffered to be decapitated by well trained swordsmen. Bisecting one person isn't that unlikely, unless you do it every time or something.

So unless you've got, Y'know, a link to this 'here's 'great cleave' in all its awesome stupidity' *bisects three people* strip, it's hardly evidence of awesome strength so much as a lucky chop.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0102.html

There you go. At least two zombie ribcage chops.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html

And a goblin as well.

Not to mention the skill to perform multiple decapitations in a matter of seconds in the first one.

[NecronLord]

Mmm. Rotting corpses are always the pinnacle of physical endurance. Why, your classic zombie isn't known to lose limbs at a firm tug, is it? Frankly, you can probably knock the heads off some zombies by hitting them with the flat of a sword, never mind chopping their heads off. Any evidence for how rotten those stickman zombies are meant to be?

The goblin-killing is far more impressive, and I'd hardly say there's sufficient realism in that to say whether it's ribcage, waist, or even pelvis that's getting cleaved.

[Ford Prefect]

Mmm. Rotting corpses are always the pinnacle of physical endurance. Why, your classic zombie isn't known to lose limbs at a firm tug, is it? Frankly, you can probably knock the heads off some zombies by hitting them with the flat of a sword, never mind chopping their heads off. Any evidence for how rotten those stickman zombies are meant to be?

Is there any reason for a zombie's bones to have inferior strength to another beings? Bones tend to last a lot longer than the rest of people, after all.

And even if they are weaker, how much weaker can you honestly expect them to be? They're not snapping just from the effort of walking, nor do their limbs come off when they're attacking someone.

And while we're at it, what feats of ability has Aragorn demonstrated? Has he ever cut anyone in half? I think he clove apart the head of the goblin captain that stabbed Frodo in Moria, but that's the only one that I can think of.

[NecronLord]

Is there any reason for a zombie's bones to have inferior strength to another beings? Bones tend to last a lot longer than the rest of people, after all.

And once the flesh and cartilidge is gone, bones have nothing holding them together. Which is why it's comparatively easy to pick bones off dead things - I'm sure you've probably done it to your food some time.

And even if they are weaker, how much weaker can you honestly expect them to be? They're not snapping just from the effort of walking, nor do their limbs come off when they're attacking someone.

They're animated by magic. Muscle has fuck all to do with movement at that stage. Observe the extremely skeletal looking lich (?) on the next pages. How do you think he moves?

And while we're at it, what feats of ability has Aragorn demonstrated? Has he ever cut anyone in half? I think he clove apart the head of the goblin captain that stabbed Frodo in Moria, but that's the only one that I can think of.

Actually the helmet. Presumably the head too, but that's not explicit. I honestly wouldn't know. I'm not really defending LotR here, so much as attacking the absurd claims being touted by the comic fans.

In actuality, D&D zombies are meant to be fairly tough. But they're still hardly healthy humans, nor are they particularly able combattants or quick to react *Observes the standard human zombie having a -1 ref save* Most importantly, their DR is 5/slashing, suggesting a definate vulnerability to sword type weapons, as opposed to piercing or bludgeoning weapons. So if you want to base things on game rules, then yes, Zombies are comparatively vulnerable to being chopped up by swords.

What fun it is to harp on and on about tangenitally related game rules! In any case I'm not nearly as impressed as I am by his chopping a Goblin in two.

[Ford Prefect]

And once the flesh and cartilidge is gone, bones have nothing holding them together. Which is why it's comparatively easy to pick bones off dead things - I'm sure you've probably done it to your food some time.

Except that in the next part of your post you say that this doesn't matter, because they're animated by magic. So why would this matter?

And this has no bearing upon the actual difficulty of cutting through the bones of a zombie.

They're animated by magic. Muscle has fuck all to do with movement at that stage. Observe the extremely skeletal looking lich (?) on the next pages. How do you think he moves?

Think about this for a moment. We are talking about the durability of a zombie's bones, and the difficulty of cutting through them. You seem to be arguing that an animated corpse must be weak, yet the magic that's animating them seems to be quite adept at holding them together during the exercise of flailing wildly at adventurers. They cannot both be moving and attacking and so weak that you can just casually pull them apart; the magic that raised them must have also reinforced them enough to make them capable of going into combat.

[NecronLord]

Except that in the next part of your post you say that this doesn't matter, because they're animated by magic. So why would this matter?

They're moved by magic. They still take physical damage from blows normally. And they're universally in various stages of rotting.

And this has no bearing upon the actual difficulty of cutting through the bones of a zombie.

You don't need to cleanly cut through the bones, you just need to smash them, either into pieces, or apart. The flesh holding them together has a massive bearing on the effectiveness of this in damaging the ribcage. If that flesh, and all that intercostal musle, especially, is still there, then cutting through a rib cage is going to be much harder than it will be if it's dessicated and rotted way - and we can clearly see that in the 'typical zombie' below there is no intercostal muscle.

Think about this for a moment. We are talking about the durability of a zombie's bones, and the difficulty of cutting through them. You seem to be arguing that an animated corpse must be weak, yet the magic that's animating them seems to be quite adept at holding them together during the exercise of flailing wildly at adventurers. They cannot both be moving and attacking and so weak that you can just casually pull them apart; the magic that raised them must have also reinforced them enough to make them capable of going into combat.

Zombies are typically shambling and easily damaged. They support their own weight by act of magic, but they're still essentially corpses.

Behold if you will, the D&D Monster Manual illustration of a [url=ttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG265.jpg]Zombie[/url]. He is moving, just about, despite looking like a plague god's own rickets experiment. Bits are evidently flaking off him, his flesh is drawn, rotten and in some areas, flaking off.

Yes, you can still count on the bones - if we're willing to ignore the fact that he's missing a hand - let's say he lost it in combat or previous life - you can maybe count on them holding together. But that's all you can count on. His flesh is a thin layer; in fact, his chest appears to be hollowed out.

There is considerably less mass - never mind that it's less viscous, what with being dessicated - to cut through. And that's a generous interpretation, given that the Monster Manual typically depicts whole and healthy memebrs of each species, I expect the idea is that his hand's simply rotted off and been left somewhere.

[NecronLord]

Now, let's compare with a typical goblin, This short fella is the example of a typical goblin. While he's rather ugly, he is also wearing armour, and fairly healthy looking (well, I'm not sure about his ankles). I would expect him to be far less likely to be chopped into two by a greatsword, because as well as bones, he has flesh and blood to provide resistance.

Not that he's likely to appreciate that much when it happens.

[Szass Tam]

1) Roy Greenhilt vs Aragorn

Aragorn has an ancestral weapon as well as many more years of battle experience (He's what, 80?), and is the last descendant of the Numenorians. I think he takes this one.

2) Vaarsuvius vs Gandalf

Gandalf. A balrog would be pretty similar to a Balor, which is ~ CR 20. V is by all estimates a level 13-14 wizard, and Gandalf has at least Divine Rank 0. Gandalf takes it but a poor save by him could give V the edge, although we don't really know the extent of Gandalf's power since he was intentionally concealing much of it.

3) Durkon vs Gimli

Durkon. Clerics are sick, sick, sickly powerful, especially of his level compared to a pure fighter.

4) Haley Starshine vs Legolas

Legolas. Even in D&D terms, Haley will only get 1 round of sneak attacks IF she manages to ambush him, and after that she's facing a more competent archer with a full base attack bonus and larger hit die. Ambushing him will be very difficult, and without sneak attack a rogue is a far, far inferior archer to a ranger/fighter. A crit by Haley, though, could swing it.

5) Elan vs Boromir

Elan. Sure, Boromir could wipe the floor with him in a straight fight, but Bardic magic is much stronger than people suspect, and being that Boromir was the only person in the Fellowship swayed by the ring, it would indicate to me that he would have a low will save for an adventurer, although a high one compared to a normal person. Hell, even the hobbits have better will saves, and they were what, first level experts/commoners (at least at the start)?

This all assumes, of course, that Elan is played semi-intelligently.

6) Belkar vs all four hobbits

I AM A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR (and cooking)!

7) Hinjo vs Faramir

Too close to call, and too little information to make much of a guess. If I had to, I'd give Hinjo a slight edge since he can heal himself with lay on hands for quite a bit without taking an attack of opportunity (supernatural ability).

Xykon vs Saruman

This is much closer than V vs. Gandalf. Xykon is at least a level 18 sorcerer, and being a lich makes him at least ~ level 21, so more powerful than a Balor at least by the CR system. If he's taken epic spellcasting, he wins pretty handily (and wipes out probably 90% of the rest of the material plain in a few minutes, so it's unlikely that he has done this). Otherwise, it's a toss up, but I'd still give him an edge.

[NecronLord]

Epic magic isn't that powerful. While it's got no limits, those spellcraft DCs can burn.

[Ted C]

Actually, slight self correction. Vars might have cast Annihilation twice, I can't remember for certain.

The actual spell at issue is Disintegrate.

In one of the first arcs, she cast it on a dragon while telling everyone how a wizard is rather important for party health. The dragon resisted the first time, so she simply cast it again, ashing him.

The dragon did not "resist" the first casting of the spell. One casting simply didn't inflict enough damage to kill the dragon, so a second casting was necessary to finish it off.

She then reminded everyone that she just turned a dragon to ash and could do it to anyone else...almost implying she could have done it a third time then and there.

Either way, very high level spell twice in one day.

Disintegrate is a Level 6 spell in D&D 3.5. V should be at least level 13 to cast it twice in one day (barring the use of some magic item that would grant an extra casting).

[Imperial Overlord]

V has to be level 12 to cast disintegrate twice per day. The number of people he's affecting with mass buffing spells during the defence of Azure City indicates he's level 13.

Please continue.

[Yogi]

Going back to the Fighters for the moment . . .

Glimil killed 42 orcs in the battle of helms deep. Legolas killed 41. Aragorn is just as good as they are or better, and has a legendary sword.

Belkar (whose build is rather sub-optimal) was able to kill himself a small hill of Hobgoblins all alone in the middle of the enemy. Haley killed an entire squad of hobgoblins with only two light hits at point blank range using arrows. Roy Greenhilt is around the same level as they are, and he has pretty good stats all around and has a +5 greatsword.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Going back to the Fighters for the moment . . .

Glimil killed 42 orcs in the battle of helms deep. Legolas killed 41. Aragorn is just as good as they are or better, and has a legendary sword.

Belkar (whose build is rather sub-optimal) was able to kill himself a small hill of Hobgoblins all alone in the middle of the enemy. Haley killed an entire squad of hobgoblins with only two light hits at point blank range using arrows. Roy Greenhilt is around the same level as they are, and he has pretty good stats all around and has a +5 greatsword.

That assumes that D&D Orcs and/or Goblins are the same as their LOTR equivalents, and ignores issues such as equipment (Uruk Hai - lots of good metal armour, Hobgoblins - crappy light armour) as well as the fact that in the battle scenario the Hobgoblins were focused on getting into the castle and overwhelming the defenders, not stopping to kill the heroes or even slowing down (Remember, cannon fodder is more than a resource, its also a job description).

This ignores the plot point of LOTR being realistic, as opposed to the D&D style. (I won't argue this due to SoD over-ruling it, I just wanted to point it out).

[NecronLord]

I'm not sure quite how the count runs in the book. As I recall, there is one, but I don't think it reffers to just the battle. I'd have to look it up, anyway...

[Lord of the Abyss]

5) Elan vs Boromir

Elan. Sure, Boromir could wipe the floor with him in a straight fight, but Bardic magic is much stronger than people suspect, and being that Boromir was the only person in the Fellowship swayed by the ring, it would indicate to me that he would have a low will save for an adventurer, although a high one compared to a normal person. Hell, even the hobbits have better will saves, and they were what, first level experts/commoners (at least at the start)?

LOTR Hobbits are especially resistant to the Ring's corruption. It seems to be a racial thing, not a "will save"; note that Gandalf himself doesn't dare take the thing. We had a group of Hobbits ( very high resistance ), a Dwarf ( also high resistance; no Dwarf was made into a Ringwraith by one of the Seven ), an Istari/Wizard ( undercover demigod ), a somewhat superhuman descendant of Numenorean Kings, and Boromir. He was the least resistant in a group of highly resistant people.

[The Guid]

1) Roy Greenhilt vs Aragorn

Greenhilt... easy. The man tussles with ogres for breakfast. The only time we see Aragorn against something big he has trouble.

2) Vaarsuvius vs Gandalf

Vaarsuvius - unless someone can prove that something outside the D&Dverse would actually have Spell Resistence.

3) Durkon vs Gimli

Durkon. But we all seem to be agreein' on tha'.

4) Haley Starshine vs Legolas

Hayley. Rogues in forests are sickly horrible in D&D unless Legolas can pull it to close combat, which I doubt.

5) Elan vs Boromir

Boromir. Dear lord, Boromir. Elan can't think up enough jokes fast enough.

6) Belkar vs all four hobbits

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is all I need to say.

7) Hinjo vs Faramir

I'd say Hinjo, D&D characters are horribly powerful in comparison to something like a realistic setting.

Cool Xykon vs Saruman

Xykon, as above.

[Imperial Overlord]

Smeagol was a hobbit or a close cousin to one and he killed for the One Ring the moment he was in its presence. Boromir had a moment of weakness after months of exposure. Boromir wasn't weak, he was merely worn down by continual exposure to one of the most corrupting influences in Middle Earth.

[white_rabbit]

I wonder how much damage Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion does ?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0020.html