OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread

[Liquor Box]

Point 1: Since when has the Order fought monsters in their league?

Point 2: Most people are assuming Calder is Old because, um, he looks old. He's got a vaguely gaunt face and a broken horn and a...beard? And bushy...eye...ridges... Anyways, Rich presumably designed him that way for a reason, presumably to communicate that this is an old dragon, and hence a dangerous one.

On the second, I suppose it's a matter of impressions. I don't think it looks gaunt, and I don't think a broken horn or something that looks like a beard and busy eyebrows are signals of age - young creatures can have those things too. But if that's what you see, perhaps that was the impression the author was trying to create. i assume not, because it's not what i see.

On the first point - we only know that for sure when the level of the opponent is mentioned (such as where Hayley fights Sabine). But I think it appears that they do much of the time - for example the Linear Guild (other than Pompey) seems to be of a similar level to the Order in most encounters. Beyond that, lots of encounters we simply don't know (eg the fight with the frost giants, or Roy fighting the Ogre who fell off the cliff), but even then I think we can deduce that they are roughly level appropriate from the fact that the fights seem challenging but winnable. Sure there, are encounters which are obviously not level appropriate - such as fighting Xykon, but those seem to be exception boss fights.

Plenty of supplements were written by people who didn't have the slightest understanding of the rules. For that matter, most of the people who worked on the core books didn't understand the rules either. I'm not making any claim about Burlew's knowledge; I've never met him. But this isn't a point for or against it.

The idea that "plenty of supplements were written by people who didn't have the slightest understanding of the rules" and "most of the people who worked on the core rulebooks didn't understand the rules" are at best counter-intuitive.

Are you able to provide a source, or explain why you think that.