Strip 674

2nd Aug 2018, 12:00 AM in Cave of No Return
first Latest
Average Rating: 5 (2 votes)

first Latest

Permalinks:

Comments:

(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)
Raxon 2nd Aug 2018, 1:18 AM edit delete reply
Raxon
Zombie dragon has the same damage reduction as a normal dragon, and retains the all important bite attack. Even if it lacks its typical breath weapon, it can still instakill a minimum of one character per turn, and you can't crit the undead.
Halosty45 2nd Aug 2018, 5:40 PM edit delete reply
Halosty45
Zombies should actually lose the dr/magic that comes with dragons (and would actually get overcome by a probably magic gun)
Zombies do get dr/slashing, however, and for someone who relies on hitting 4+ times that takes off a good chunk of damage.

*However* smite evil should bypass DR of both evil dragons and undead, so it's a moot point. Perhaps it has some other defensive feature similar to DR or that feature of smite evil was overlooked...


The visuals could also be indicating a failure of the attack rolls to overcome natural armor- not a worry for a standard zombie dragon but it could be a better version that keeps its own natural armor or some such.
9652769 2nd Aug 2018, 2:33 AM edit delete reply


Not in Pathfinder, it can be critted. (And have an horrible Breathe weApon that takes your level!)
Otaku 2nd Aug 2018, 10:39 AM edit delete reply
Otaku
"Serendipitous Story Time: Different Systems, Different Expecations"
The conversation gave me an idea... any incidents caused by "system shock"? Alternatively, just explain how a system (preferably one someone hasn't already accurately covered) handles a zombie dragon or similar "big nasty". You could even answer both. :D
Otaku 2nd Aug 2018, 10:54 AM edit delete reply
Otaku
"Example of Option 1:"
While playing using D&D 3e, our DM decided he wanted to make a campaign adapting Final Fantasy, at a time when I think Final Fantasy IX was the newest entry into the series (maybe not even out). This included tweaking aspects of D&D to reflect Final Fantasy, which meant that healing magics were not a good thing for the undead. I think most versions of D&D already do that, so why is it special? In some of the Final Fantasy games we were aping, you could use a spell or item that resurrected a dead character to one-shot an undead character!

The story for the campaign was an expanded retelling of the original Final Fantasy, which meant that one of the early (and late game) big bads was a lich. A friend and I realized that we could easily one-shot it with whatever spell (hey, I haven't used D&D 3e in over 15 years) could raise the dead... but recognizing it would infuriate the GM, we (or at least I) decided to use it on the vampire sub-boss that preceded the Lich instead... and give the GM the heads-up on the plan (though not too much of a heads-up).

It actually went well. We did get the easy kill on the vampire, but the GM warned us that bigger big bads would have protection against such things.
zophah 2nd Aug 2018, 12:06 PM edit delete reply


A DM I played with ruled that in 3.5e any resurrection spell with the line "You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed." can be used to 're-live' a lich, effectively removing the lich template.
Snowtwo 2nd Aug 2018, 3:55 PM edit delete reply


It's usually not a 1HKO so much as it's 9999 damage, which is more than enough to insta-kill most basic guys. Depending on the game (EX:FFX) it may be half health instead in certain situations.
Halosty45 2nd Aug 2018, 5:34 PM edit delete reply
Halosty45
The real problem with rez-bombing undead in d&d is that the spells take a long time to cast (1 minute or 10 minutes) which makes it impossible with combat. Even if a combat actually lasted 1 full minute (10 rounds) you wouldn't be free to cast a spell without interruption for that whole time, unless you were fighting something unintelligent that you could beat in another way.
Otaku 2nd Aug 2018, 8:08 PM edit delete reply
Otaku
Could be we'd made a mistake and the GM didn't catch it - 3e was brand new at this time - but the GM did help me with my character a lot and I think he gave into his inner munchkin. The short, information gap version is that I had a lot of feats and possibly some other spells that assisted in me in casting it in a relatively decent time frame. I never got to see the Lich, as my college classes were demanding more and more of my time, so what you're talking about may have been how he ensured it wouldn't work elsewhere, Halosty45.

That or what Snowtwo said; given how rapidly he had our party progressing, giving the Lich so much HP that a single resurrection spell (again, don't remember its exact name) wasn't enough and the costs associated with it... to give you an idea, by the time I did quit my character was Level 60. The supplement for covering that wasn't even out, so we were just allowed to multi-class. My character was a cleric/barbarian/paladin... yes, that is the opposite of a min-max build given how many things I gained and then lost (I was operating in that exact order), but it fit my character's personal story and the GM was giving out XP quite generously... including running my character for me during seasons I couldn't attend because of my classes.
Halosty45 3rd Aug 2018, 12:40 PM edit delete reply
Halosty45
It could easily have been an oversight- most people don't think about *any* spells taking longer than a round to cast. Usually such spells are done out of combat anyway so it doesn't matter unless you're really pressed for time. Alternatively, it could have just been a house ruling for fun :P
Otaku 4th Aug 2018, 12:29 AM edit delete reply
Otaku
Yeah, I was never any great shakes at the D&D 3e spell rules. I cut my teeth on GURPS, and while its default magic system has problems, I somehow understood it more readily than D&D, stupidly "defaulting" to GURPS rules without realizing it. >.>

Though I do maintain that - at least in the hands of a more competent player - the DM was giving us way too much power way too fast (which I loved at the time). For "reasons", even though the DM was not Christian or Jewish (I guess he was a deist?) "Jehovah" was a legit choice for my Cleric, and the DM's view on the matter meant that pretty much all spells from all Domains were options for me (though he could veto anything he thought made no sense - I didn't exactly request a lot of Evil Domain spells).
thecraftyknitter 3rd Aug 2018, 12:49 PM edit delete reply
thecraftyknitter
why not go for the necromancer? I mean don't get me wrong killing a dragon? Cool. But wouldn't the necromancer be controlling it? So if you kill the guy, you basically kill the control over the dragon, and then can possibly take out the dragon as you know. It 'dies' again, or gains some control for itself. Oh wow... undead dragon having free will. You know what. Nevermind on that.
Halosty45 3rd Aug 2018, 12:52 PM edit delete reply
Halosty45
This reminds me of one game I was in...

We were playing an evil party, and we'd sort of wrested control over a city. An army of paladins were coming for us, and our cleric started making lots of zombies.

The conversation went as thus:

"You can't control that many zombies."
"Oh, I'm not going to control them."

Also, we sent out orphans with explosive runes on them (since they couldn't read them the runes didn't trigger until they got to the paladins)
(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)