Swordsage Tarquin
Maneuvers
Ballista Throw
This is the best evidence that Tarquin is a Swordsage.
Ballista Throw is described like this:
You grab your opponent and spin like a top, swinging him around before throwing him at your opponents like a bolt from a ballista.
The scene looks like this: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0851.html
Notably, the maneuver doesn’t require the thrown victim to be aimed at a target.
Short of labeling it outright, it’s hard to imagine what a clearer depiction of Ballista Throw would look like. And labeling it outright isn’t something Rich can do in this format without implying it’s going to be a plot point.
Because of the way classes work in D&D, seeing Tarquin use one Maneuver makes me want to look at whether any of his other actions might be as well.
Counter Charge
With a quick sidestep, you send a charging opponent sprawling.
Panels 1 through 3 of the same strip follow this sequence closely. In Panel 1, Roy charges with clear motion lines behind him. He attacks and Tarquin sidesteps the attack. In Panel 2, Tarquin hooks Roy’s leg with his foot, consistent with using leverage and misdirection, which is referenced in the description for Counter Charge. In Panel 3, Roy is redirected and lands sprawling a moderate distance away. The visual match aligns well with how Counter Charge functions, both thematically and mechanically.
Disrupting Blow
With a combination of brute force, keen timing, and exacting aim, you force your opponent into an awkward position that ruins his next action.
Disrupting Blow is the same effect as Stunning Fist, but it works with any melee weapon. This matters because the previous explanation for this scene relied on Stunning Fist combined with a ki strike weapon that could deliver it. That workaround isn’t needed here.
Objection
Some readers point to this post as contradicting Tarquin being a Swordsage:
Tubercular Ox: So, does this nix “Tarquin is a Swordsage”? Cuz that Ballista Throw and the constricting stance were nova hot.
OMG, it nixes the Blue Carbuncle, too. Unless that’s an ordinary Carbuncle.
Rich: I honestly enjoy having had no awareness of either of these two theories.
EDIT: Wrecan is technically a Crusader so there’s still some flexibility in each category anyway.
This response has sometimes been read as a rejection, but Rich’s comment doesn’t actually disqualify the Swordsage theory, it simply states he wasn’t aware of it.
His edit appears to respond directly to the question, “Does this nix ‘Tarquin is a Swordsage’?”
The answer it gives is, essentially, “No.”
This is enough for the Geekery thread, for which the premise is that Rich is following the rules as much as possible, even if that wasn’t his original goal as a storyteller.
While the thread should be guided by the premise, the following supporting material may still be worth presenting.
The Blue Carbuncle Parallel
Rich also said he wasn’t aware of the “Blue Carbuncle” theory, yet his Class Monster design includes a blue carbuncle on it:
(Out of respect for forum rules regarding the linking of art from Rich, I ask you to click on the original post, go to the Monster Class image, then right click > Open image in new tab)
The same creature appears as a “Carbunkle” in A Monster for Every Season, Spring 2, with the gem correctly colored red, suggesting that the blue gem in the Monster Class design was an intentional choice.
If Rich can draw a blue carbuncle and still not think of it as validating a “Blue Carbuncle” theory, then he can draw a swordsage and still not think of it as validating a Swordsage theory.
There are several reasons Rich might have held back. It could be that Tarquin being a Swordsage is a future reveal. Or that Tarquin is multiclass, like the son he raised, and Rich didn’t want to endorse a purely Swordsage interpretation or explicitly support a multiclass one.
This follows naturally from a broader pattern of avoidance:
Author Commentary
Rich has explained before that he avoids commenting on reader speculation out of concern for spoiling the story, whether by confirming or denying details:
Fernando: Has anyone out there that you’ve seen guessed right?
Rich: Obviously I cannot answer the first question. If I say yes, then everyone will go scouring through the internet to get a fixed list of what he could or could not be, and if I say no, then they will throw out all the existing guesswork and start over. Either way, I’ll be spoiling something. And besides which, I don’t really read what people are speculating in the first place and I’m not about to start, so I have no actual way of knowing.
He’s also shared that being quoted out of context has caused him distress in the past, making him reluctant to engage at all:
I don’t read the GITP forums at all anymore, either in or out of the OOTS context. I’m happy to provide a place for people to have discussions with each other but it is not helpful for me or my goals (or my mental health) to read any of what’s written there. There was a time when I involved myself more in conversations, OOTS-based and otherwise, but that would inevitably lead to me saying something that I didn’t really think through entirely, which would then be plucked out of context and preserved forever as the Word of the Author. After years and years of doing this, I finally learned the lesson that maybe I should just give the whole thing a pass.
In light of that, it’s likely Rich didn’t intend to contradict the Swordsage theory at all. He may have been unsure how to respond given that I claimed the Blue Carbuncle idea was nixed even though he just revealed a Blue Carbuncle, or perhaps the constricting stance idea I suggested was wrong and that’s what made him hesitate. The constricting stance idea I mention in that post has proven so unpopular that I’ve removed it from my website until I can figure out how to improve it.