Order of the Stick Trivia XXIV: What do I need a twenty for, anyway?

[Metastachydium]

Find me a depiction of a Gate made from beige crystal.

Does it have to be a real Gate (with a real Astral Deva)?

[Goosefarble]

Does it have to be a real Gate (with a real Astral Deva)?

That's the one I was thinking of!

[Lord Torath]

This roach wants to turn Belkar into a side dish for the hungry earth!

Is the roach saying it thinks the ground is hungry? No. Wanting to bury someone in the ground is not the same as saying you think the ground is hungry. So...

Who thinks the ground has an appetite?

Hint: The character saying the ground is hungry is definitely not a triplet. And yes, there are not, to my knowledge, any confirmed triplets in the comic, which doesn't officially narrow it down much. But I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

[enq]

Hint: The character saying the ground is hungry is definitely not a triplet. And yes, I am evil and edited the white text and this is no longer a true quote.

This then? But I don't quite feel any hunger here...

(OQ if correct)

[Lord Torath]

This then? But I don't quite feel any hunger here...

(OQ if correct)

Nope. In the right 'family', though.

[ZhonLord]

Nope. In the right 'family', though.

"The ground will HUNGRILY lap up the spilled blood of the righteous this day!"

Find me two instances of two entities saying/shouting the same 3-letter word as each other, in the same panel.

The word itself does not have to be the same between the two pages, just the act of saying/shouting a 3-letter word together. And the word in question is all that's being said in each of their dialogue bubbles.

[enq]

First page, last panel, should be one. I was sure I should be looking for the word yes though. In fact, I can't shake the thought that there is a strip where Elan and Haley shout that together.

[Coppercloud]

Here is the second occurrence (fourth panel). OQ is up for grabs.

[enq]

Find me three strips in which someone talks about the big picture, using those exact two words, but not case sensitive.

Spoiler: First hint

Show

There are three more (other than Redcloak), each of them spoken by a skilled warrior.
The first one commits evil on a large scale.
The second one had, as of their most recent reading, committed very few truly evil acts.
The third one... is about to cross that line.

[Metastachydium]

Find me three strips in which someone talks about the big picture, using those exact two words, but not case sensitive.

One would be where we learn that not everyone sees it, despite the size.

[enq]

So proud of the hint I thought of that I posted it early. Enjoy.

[Goosefarble]

Is the roach saying it thinks the ground is hungry? No. Wanting to bury someone in the ground is not the same as saying you think the ground is hungry. So...

I still maintain that the roach saying "Now who's the side dish, halfling?" implies that the ground is pretty hungry

[ZhonLord]

Find me three strips in which someone talks about the big picture, using those exact two words, but not case sensitive.

Spoiler: First hint

Show

There are three more (other than Redcloak), each of them spoken by a skilled warrior.
The first one commits evil on a large scale.
The second one had, as of their most recent reading, committed very few truly evil acts.
The third one... is about to cross that line.

One would be where we learn that not everyone sees it, despite the size.

Second is "I don't think you're looking at the whole picture." whoops, missed the "exact words" part. Finding a replacement.

Third is "I know you don't see the Big Picture here."

Show me two instances where a change in size didn't actually come with other changes.

[Metastachydium]

Finding a replacement.

There's no need.

Your question:

[s]how me two instances where a change in size didn't actually come with other changes

stands.

EDIT: Also, this should technically qualify as an answer, given that the Belkster expected some beneficial changes as well. (Not to mention that it looks like something you'd do.)

Also also, how about short legs for the other?

[ZhonLord]

this should technically qualify as an answer, given that the Belkster expected some beneficial changes as well. (Not to mention that it looks like something you'd do.)

Also also, how about short legs for the other?

You are correct on the short legs, but the dagger change reduces Belkar's damage output which I would argue is a big deal - especially with the halfling himself taking issue with it.

[Peelee]

the dagger change reduces Belkar's damage output

Does anything in the comic indicate this?

[ZhonLord]

Does anything in the comic indicate this?

3rd edition daggers are d4 damage. 2nd edition they were d6. The weapon shrinkage is a direct reference to the change in die size to go with it.

[Tzardok]

3rd edition daggers are d4 damage. 2nd edition they were d6. The weapon shrinkage is a direct reference to the change in die size to go with it.

Uhm, they were converted from 3.0 to 3.5 in that comic. The shrinkage is a reference to the fact that in 3.0 weapons for player characters all had their sizes indiependent of the character's size (so for example a longsword would be one-handed for medium characters, but two-handed for small ones, while a shortsword would be a light weapon for a medium character and a one-handed one for a small character), while in 3.5 each weapon comes in multiple sizes fitted for different-sized characters, so that a longsword for a medium and a longsword for a small character would both be one-handed.
As part of that, Belkar's daggers shrink from "dagger" (1d4 base damage) to "small dagger" (1d3 base damage).

[ZhonLord]

Uhm, they were converted from 3.0 to 3.5 in that comic. The shrinkage is a reference to the fact that in 3.0 weapons for player characters all had their sizes indiependent of the character's size (so for example a longsword would be one-handed for medium characters, but two-handed for small ones, while a shortsword would be a light weapon for a medium character and a one-handed one for a small character), while in 3.5 each weapon comes in multiple sizes fitted for different-sized characters, so that a longsword for a medium and a longsword for a small character would both be one-handed.
As part of that, Belkar's daggers shrink from "dagger" (1d4 base damage) to "small dagger" (1d3 base damage).

Fine, it can qualify. My intended second answer was "[Fenrir] made the green ones Medium for some reason, as if that changes anything."

Open question.

[Peelee]

3rd edition daggers are d4 damage. 2nd edition they were d6. The weapon shrinkage is a direct reference to the change in die size to go with it.

Uhm, they were converted from 3.0 to 3.5 in that comic. The shrinkage is a reference to the fact that in 3.0 weapons for player characters all had their sizes indiependent of the character's size (so for example a longsword would be one-handed for medium characters, but two-handed for small ones, while a shortsword would be a light weapon for a medium character and a one-handed one for a small character), while in 3.5 each weapon comes in multiple sizes fitted for different-sized characters, so that a longsword for a medium and a longsword for a small character would both be one-handed.
As part of that, Belkar's daggers shrink from "dagger" (1d4 base damage) to "small dagger" (1d3 base damage).

And all that aside, I asked if there was anything in the comic indicating such.

[Metastachydium]

You are correct on the short legs, but the dagger change reduces Belkar's damage output which I would argue is a big deal - especially with the halfling himself taking issue with it.

(If I may present my (now officially moot) reasoning, I was, so to say, exploiting a little loophole in the formulation of the question: you asked for size changes that didn't come with other changes; I figured that since it wasn't spelled out, I may as well take it that the changes (the one that happens and the one that doesn't) need not follow from each other as such, so if Belkar has reason to expect that the conversion gives him some boost independent of his weapon's size, but all he gets is weapon shrinkage, the former not happening is an expected change that did not occur and therefore qualifies. Yes, I'm Evil.)

And all that aside, I asked if there was anything in the comic indicating such.

Only indirectly.
1. All other changes depicted or mentioned track to actual 3.0 to 3.5 transitions and therefore it stands to reason that the weapon shrinkage is also representing the above described actual change; and
2. even in DCF, we are shown that there is a correlation between weapon size and damage potential, as is normal for D&D outside the Stickverse.

[ZhonLord]

And all that aside, I asked if there was anything in the comic indicating such.

No. I did not have any evidence to that effect inside the comic itself.

(If I may present my (now officially moot) reasoning, I was, so to say, exploiting a little loophole in the formulation of the question.... and therefore qualifies. Yes, I'm Evil.)

I thought you prided yourself on being able to find the right answer even when everyone else is stumped. Not on exploiting loopholes.

[Metastachydium]

I thought you prided yourself on being able to find the right answer even when everyone else is stumped. Not on exploiting loopholes.

I study at the feet of the master, good Lord Zhon! One needs to vary one's gimmicks once in a while.

[enq]

One needs to vary one's gimmicks once in a while.

Hot damn. If we weren't going for 25 next, I might nominate this for a thread title.

Also, is it OQ or are we still arguing whether it's the size or how you use it?

Seems it's OQ. Find me two strips in which Belkar says Haley does a particular thing and a third strip in which she does this particular thing.

Spoiler: First hint

Show

One wonders how it's possible for her to have that much spare time.

[Lord Torath]

3rd edition daggers are d4 damage. 2nd edition they were d6. The weapon shrinkage is a direct reference to the change in die size to go with it.

In 2E, Daggers did 1d4 vs Small and Man-sized targets and 1d3 vs Larger than man-sized. Shortswords did 1d6/1d8.

Back to enq's question:

Find me two strips in which Belkar says Haley does a particular thing and a third strip in which she does this particular thing.

[Metastachydium]

I have a feeling that it has to do with, khm, a really kinda creepy habit, but I only have one example of it, off the top of my petaled upper bits.

[Ron Miel]

I have a feeling that it has to do with, khm, a really kinda creepy habit, but I only have one example of it, off the top of my petaled upper bits.

Note - the question asks for two instances of Belkar saying she polishes it, and only one of her doing it.



Who wants to capture some breakfast cereal, allegedly?


24 hour hint - it's a paranoid delusion of a red-headed person.

[enq]

24 hour hint - it's a paranoid delusion of a red-headed person.

Well, this has to be Haley or Ian.

[Ron Miel]

Does it? Are you sure there aren't any other paranoid redheads in the story?

[Ruck]

Does it? Are you sure there aren't any other paranoid redheads in the story?

This question and line of conversation has me wondering if there's a redheaded Lucky Charms leprechaun, or Trix rabbit...