-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
I like how Biscuit just stuffs a how bunch of them in his mouth and starts eating them.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
memnarch
I like how Biscuit just stuffs a how bunch of them in his mouth and starts eating them.
Hey, a shattering glass bottle deals 1d4 slashing damage (improvised dagger). Healing potions give you a minimum of 1d8. It's not a /bad/ idea.
Of course, that shouldn't actually WORK, but hey, since when was Thunt consistent with how he treated mechanics?
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
I'm pretty sure Biscuit broke the diehard rules (2 standard actions there), but I'm not complaining
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Herpestidae
I'm pretty sure Biscuit broke the diehard rules (2 standard actions there), but I'm not complaining
If Biscuit wasn't in negatives, then he doesn't actually suffer them. The problem is this:
1. Assuming Biscuit wasn't in negatives, he made two Standard actions (attacked self, then Grem) OR spent a full-round action for a full attack. That first part is Not Allowed, that second is.
2. However, no matter what part of 1. is true, that means he shouldn't have had a move action to drink a potion.
3. Drinking one (1) potion is an entire move action. The rules pretty explicitly forbid drinking more than one per move action. If you spend your whole turn drinking potions, you can down two and still use your Swift, but that's it.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
That... that really is all kinds of badass.
The quivering arrows of the Vipers sells it.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord_Gareth
If Biscuit wasn't in negatives, then he doesn't actually suffer them. The problem is this:
1. Assuming Biscuit wasn't in negatives, he made two Standard actions (attacked self, then Grem) OR spent a full-round action for a full attack. That first part is Not Allowed, that second is.
2. However, no matter what part of 1. is true, that means he shouldn't have had a move action to drink a potion.
3. Drinking one (1) potion is an entire move action. The rules pretty explicitly forbid drinking more than one per move action. If you spend your whole turn drinking potions, you can down two and still use your Swift, but that's it.
Biscuit was in the negatives, however. There's a big red "-3" floating over his head in the ninth panel, which is promptly shattered in the tenth panel when Biscuit drinks all the potions at once.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
I like the little art detail of Biscuit's "CRUNCH" shattering his -3.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
*looks at new page*
Good.:amused:
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord_Gareth
If Biscuit wasn't in negatives, then he doesn't actually suffer them. The problem is this:
1. Assuming Biscuit wasn't in negatives, he made two Standard actions (attacked self, then Grem) OR spent a full-round action for a full attack. That first part is Not Allowed, that second is.
2. However, no matter what part of 1. is true, that means he shouldn't have had a move action to drink a potion.
3. Drinking one (1) potion is an entire move action. The rules pretty explicitly forbid drinking more than one per move action. If you spend your whole turn drinking potions, you can down two and still use your Swift, but that's it.
No problems at all if we go with the arrow shots as being after biscuit's actions. We've got the attack to the leg starting while there's no arrows on the previous page, then the arrows show up when the leg is severed. Biscuit then grabs bag and throws sword. Arrows show up while he's digging for potions, which he then eats.
I think that works out anyway, I'm a bit sleepy right now.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RMS Oceanic
I like the little art detail of Biscuit's "CRUNCH" shattering his -3.
Totally. It's the detail that i like more in the entire page.
Anyway, even if Biscuit is a badass, it's still without a leg...
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Things look bad for the Grem/Fox ship, given that they're both at negs right now. Of course a romance in the goblin afterlife is always conceivable and might be sort of touching for Thunt and Danielle to expy themselves into, without having to stink up the actual comic with a bunch of "Episode 2" romantic awkwardness.
As to Biscuit's second-favorite snack, I believe there's a reference in Draconomicon or somewhere similar that says Dragons, and possibly similarly large and nasty creatures, routinely "drink" a potion by chowing down on the entire bottle. I can totally believe Biscuit is capable of this given his size and general badassery. And breaking the action economy by using a move action to stuff a sack into your mouth, thereby drinking large numbers of potions in the time normally required to uncork and guzzle one, seems like the sort of thing I'd probably sign off on if I were Biscuit's DM.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord_Gareth
If Biscuit wasn't in negatives, then he doesn't actually suffer them. The problem is this:
1. Assuming Biscuit wasn't in negatives, he made two Standard actions (attacked self, then Grem) OR spent a full-round action for a full attack. That first part is Not Allowed, that second is.
2. However, no matter what part of 1. is true, that means he shouldn't have had a move action to drink a potion.
3. Drinking one (1) potion is an entire move action. The rules pretty explicitly forbid drinking more than one per move action. If you spend your whole turn drinking potions, you can down two and still use your Swift, but that's it.
Look again. Biscuit wasn't in the negatives until LONG after he had cut his own leg off. He had already retrieved the bag and had reached in to grab a handful of potions before we even see a -3. And assuming Thuntverse orcs are anything like pathfinder half-orcs, they get one free standard action after getting to zero or lower hitpoints.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Nice attention to detail. In the last panel the "finger" can be seen. Don't forget to go back to the last page a few days after it goes up. The look really nice.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
And for his next move, he kills everyone by spitting broken glass at them, machine gun style. =D
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Succubus
And for his next move, he kills everyone by spitting broken glass at them, machine gun style. =D
You mean this (at 2:50)?
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Over lunch I had a thought. It seems Dies has finally got fed up with his genocidal green buddy and looks like he's about to hack it off. Biscuit has just hacked his leg off. Could our green buddy have a new home with him?
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Ok, at this point it seems like we have three options. Duv is missing a wing, biscut is missing a leg, and dies is about to be missing his arm. Only one orb of bloodlight, assuming it cant be used more than once. That being said, there IS still a huge tangle of possibilities and repercussions. Say for example, biscut gets the orb to regrow his leg, dies made his arm revert without cutting it off, and duv gets left still burnt and one winged. Now we have biscut with a limb that is the exact opposite of dies arm, so a nice counter is in place to keep sonny boy under control if the orc joins, and duvs goblins will be HATING dies and party considering the body count, duv not getting her wing back, and everything else that has happened.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Succubus
Over lunch I had a thought. It seems Dies has finally got fed up with his genocidal green buddy and looks like he's about to hack it off. Biscuit has just hacked his leg off. Could our green buddy have a new home with him?
That also occurred to me.
Y'know, while I like Grem, Biscuit will be far more useful in the final battle with Kore that I hope the comic is building towards.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord_Gareth
3. Drinking one (1) potion is an entire move action. The rules pretty explicitly forbid drinking more than one per move action. If you spend your whole turn drinking potions, you can down two and still use your Swift, but that's it.
Drinking a potion is a standard action.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord_Gareth
Hey, a shattering glass bottle deals 1d4 slashing damage (improvised dagger). Healing potions give you a minimum of 1d8. It's not a /bad/ idea.
Of course, that shouldn't actually WORK, but hey, since when was Thunt consistent with how he treated mechanics?
I don't have an issue with eating them being possible.
You can't drink more than one but the rules are silent on eating.
I'd allow it at my table.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starbuck_II
I don't have an issue with eating them being possible.
You can't drink more than one but the rules are silent on eating.
I'd allow it at my table.
But would you insist on rolling for total damage of all that shattered glass BEFORE allowing the healing effect? Or after? Because it seems to me that eating that many glass potion bottles at once has to hurt a lot. Would be really funny if you hit -10. At least your corpse looks unwounded though!
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Traab
But would you insist on rolling for total damage of all that shattered glass BEFORE allowing the healing effect? Or after? Because it seems to me that eating that many glass potion bottles at once has to hurt a lot. Would be really funny if you hit -10. At least your corpse looks unwounded though!
According to the comic damage and healing were simultanous.
I might have it the same.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Traab
But would you insist on rolling for total damage of all that shattered glass BEFORE allowing the healing effect? Or after? Because it seems to me that eating that many glass potion bottles at once has to hurt a lot. Would be really funny if you hit -10. At least your corpse looks unwounded though!
Roll them at the same time. so if there were 2 bottles, it would be 2d8-2d4.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
I have to point out, Grem isn't dead yet, and we have seen characters stabilize with a weapon stuck in their chest before.
Edit: Just saying, don't write off Grem till he hits -10.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
I hope they chop the remaining limbs from the stupid orc. I really can't stand him.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
teratorn
I hope they chop the remaining limbs from the stupid orc. I really can't stand him.
I still don't really see what he's done to deserve the hate, really. What, the fact that he doesn't really mourn things?
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
teratorn
I hope they chop the remaining limbs from the stupid orc. I really can't stand him.
He is the best thing that has happened to this comic in a long while.
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
teratorn
I hope they chop the remaining limbs from the stupid orc. I really can't stand him.
Die Grem! Die screaming whimpering for your mommie!
You know, just to keep things balanced ;)
-
Re: Goblins IX: For that, you shall DIE!
I don't think Grem is coming back from that, to be honest. He's nearly been bisected by that thing.
Maybe Grem's dying sounds will distract Duv. That would be handy.