|
Niton posted:By the timescale of his (un)life, Malack's birth was probably way before 3.5.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Common lizardfolk in 3.5 are humanoids with feet and a tail for balance. Malack clearly has no feet. Hes flying around wearing a robe you just cant see his feet currently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Common lizardfolk in 3.5 are humanoids with feet and a tail for balance. Malack clearly has no feet. Ate one too many diabetics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
The progression and layout of Panels 4-7 is extremely loving awkward and a very classic comics don't. He tried to alleviate it a little bit with the speech bubbles, but...
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:Ate one too many diabetics. Wouldn't that be two too many?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
How long do Hold Person and Vampiric Gaze/Domination last?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:How long do Hold Person and Vampiric Gaze/Domination last? A couple minutes on Hold, many many days on the Dominate. Belkar is Malack's plaything for a very long time unless something happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:How long do Hold Person and Vampiric Gaze/Domination last? According to D&D rules Hold Person is very finicky and can break at any second. It never reasonably lasts more than three rounds (18s) or so. But in OOtS it seems much more stable and might just stick for its maximum duration of 2 minutes. Domination lasts for two weeks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
peak debt posted:Domination lasts for two weeks! Edit: Wouldn't two weeks cover all the time Belkar has left, prophecy-wise? Trapezium Dave fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Mar 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:How does something like that work in a pen and paper game? It doesn't! Welcome to D&D 3.5! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:How does something like that work in a pen and paper game? "Sorry, your character is dominated by a vampire. You can come back to the table when it wears off, which at our play rate should be a couple of months."? Eh, it depends on how the DM set it up. In a group battle situation you pretty much know when your buddy's been dominated when he starts hacking away at you. Then you either try to break the spell through magic or re-double your attacks on the vamp. If you're separated, the way to do it is for your DM to take you aside and say "Hey, you're on the bad guy's side for now, let's work out what that means in this situation." Alternatively you call it a mission kill and let them bring in a new character. You pretty much never just banish a player from the table as you suggest, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:How does something like that work in a pen and paper game? "Sorry, your character is dominated by a vampire. You can come back to the table when it wears off, which at our play rate should be a couple of months."? You usually let the vampire attempt to use the dominated player against his party, so they have a chance to free him. If they get a dispel magic or protection from evil on the dominated character he's free again. If you don't have access to that kind of magic, being forced to do something against your nature/morale also lets you break the spell But yeah, dominates are extremely nasty in D&D and have certainly been the cause of a lot of party kills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
peak debt posted:You usually let the vampire attempt to use the dominated player against his party, so they have a chance to free him. If they get a dispel magic or protection from evil on the dominated character he's free again. If you don't have access to that kind of magic, being forced to do something against your nature/morale also lets you break the spell However we know that Belkar's will save is godawful and that it's not against his nature to murder his party given that he was ok with doing that with a simple charm person. Also there is a debate right now about Malack trying to figure out if he is Yuan-ti. (If he is he is stupidly powerful.) MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Mar 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Hmm, this really changes the flavor (hurf) of the Oracle's prophecy, doesn't it? Durkon will return to his homeland "posthumously." That doesn't necessarily mean "completely dead."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:However we know that Belkar's will save is godawful and that it's not against his nature to murder his party given that he was ok with doing that with a simple charm person. Was that before he learned how to play the metagame? He might still resist if commanded to attack Mr. Scruffy, though I thought he'd resist attacking Durkon since he was saved by him--that clearly wasn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Mirage posted:Hmm, this really changes the flavor (hurf) of the Oracle's prophecy, doesn't it? Durkon will return to his homeland "posthumously." That doesn't necessarily mean "completely dead." And of course we'd have all been expecting that if Belkar's upcoming death prophecy hadn't acted as a huge red herring on this front.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:And of course we'd have all been expecting that if Belkar's upcoming death prophecy hadn't acted as a huge red herring on this front. Hey, I saw it coming.  ImpAtom posted:Vampire Durkon would also allow him to return to his homeland posthumously and still cause some kind of disaster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Hey, I saw it coming. Oh I know, it came up a few times from a few people, but it was pretty much washed away in the tide of expectation for Belkar. We were too busy speculating on him and his conveniently-leadingly-phrased-prophecy that most thoughts about Durkon getting turned undead got buried or pushed out of mind. Which I'm sure was the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 08:08
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:However we know that Belkar's will save is godawful and that it's not against his nature to murder his party given that he was ok with doing that with a simple charm person.) Unless Malack makes the mistake of ordering Belkar to give the party's loot to him instead of keeping it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Unless Malack makes the mistake of ordering Belkar to give the party's loot to him instead of keeping it. Maybe, but I think Belkar's more in it for the killing. Loot's a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Maybe, but I think Belkar's more in it for the killing. Loot's a bonus. It's a reference to the last time Belkar was mind-controlled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 09:26
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:It's a reference to the last time Belkar was mind-controlled. That was a charm though not a dominate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
e X posted:Given that we just saw this exact scenario play out with Belkar and Durkon, I doubt we see another last-second rescue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:"Curses, foiled AGAIN!" - Malack Mustardly He's more of a ketchup person. Yes, I get the reference, stop staring at me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
peak debt posted:That was a charm though not a dominate. Yes, and the original post was a joke, not a serious statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
So now half the party is evil. That will make things... interesting Also, I'm hedging that Malak gives Durkon a greater degree of free will than would be expected since he is a friend (or "family), not a slave and Durkon kills Malak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Also, I'm hedging that Malak gives Durkon a greater degree of free will than would be expected since he is a friend (or "family), not a slave and Durkon kills Malak. I think it's more likely that Xykon kills Malack during the gate confrontation, freeing Durkon to accompany the Order and giving Tarquin a reason to get all his gang together to seek out the last gate for revenge and profit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
I bet the next strip is a cut to V. Haven't heard from him for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So now half the party is evil. Wait, not yet as of #876.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:I bet the next strip is a cut to V. Haven't heard from him for a while. V out of nowhere would be anticlimactic. I'd like to see Durkon win by himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Mocha Frost posted:V out of nowhere would be anticlimactic. I'd like to see Durkon win by himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So now half the party is evil. That will make things... interesting I assume by this that you're assuming that V's gone evil. I disagree. As with Roy trying to be Lawful Good, intent counts. V's genuine remorse for her actions and attempts to redeem herself1 indicate that she's trying to be at least neutral. If she'd really gone evil, she wouldn't care. Also, no fangs, no vamp. Until we see for sure that Durkon's been vamped, I'm not assuming it. I got suckered on Belkar, and I'm not going with it until we have proof. A bite is not yet proof. 1 = Since always writing him/her or himself/herself is annoying and cumbersome, I've taken my best guess as to V's gender. Personally, if anyone is likely to know, it'd be Haley as she's V's best friend on the party and is sneaky enough to have figured it out on her own even if V didn't tell her. And since Haley is fine with sharing a room with V, I'm assuming V's female.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah, V isn't evil. Although, while her* remorse seems to be honest, I don't think she learned the lesson. We're going to see her encounter a power/morality choice at least one more time, and it's quite possible that she'll pick power yet again. *Good to know I'm not the only person with that line of reasoning. What I am certain of is that V is going to intervene soon. If she doesn't save Durkon and Belkar, she will at the very least witness their transformation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
The more I go back and forth between pages of this encounter the more I have reason to believe Malack was lying about his species. He's definitely not a lizardfolk at all and he's doing everything in his power to hide his absence of legs. The exceptionally long tail he's grappling Durkon with is the biggest clue, but you never see any sign of feet or legs at all. Even when he hangs upside down, his amulet droops to the side under the effect of gravity, but his clothing acts as if it's pulled toward the ceiling. Now why would that be unless he did something to his clothes to always conceal the bottom of his body?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
If so, then which species with a reason to conceal themselves would fit what we've seen so far?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
I think the Giant has specifically said V is true neutral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:1 = Since always writing him/her or himself/herself is annoying and cumbersome, I've taken my best guess as to V's gender. Personally, if anyone is likely to know, it'd be Haley as she's V's best friend on the party and is sneaky enough to have figured it out on her own even if V didn't tell her. And since Haley is fine with sharing a room with V, I'm assuming V's female. I always assumed that since he was originally intended to be male (just female looking as an obvious elf joke) that he'd still be so if Rich were ever to actually reveal his gender. Even without it I'd prefer "he" as, just like when talking about a nonspecific person, he can be taken to mean any random person while she would mean a female specifically. And of course switching back and forth is ridiculous because if you call someone a "he" somewhere and a "she" somewhere else the your will interpret that as being two different persons and you'll have to go back and correct yourself, which is a pain in the butt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I always thought female, because otherwise, it'd mean Haley was literally the only girl in the group. Even the goddamn cat is male.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Hasn't the demon trio who she has "leased" her soul to, called her a "her" all the time ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
I always figured she was a woman after we met Inkyrius who is pretty clearly a man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:09
|
|