Error on the first page

[Lizardfolk Lich]

If you look at the first panel, you see belkar with a small dagger, but later it shows his dagger shrinking! Why is this?:smallconfused:

[onasuma]

Because the universe is trying to end itself. Does it really matter?

[Threeshades]

just to emphasize shrinking effect (on the first panel of the shrinking panels the dagger is even too large for roy)

[Spiryt]

Geeez, error??? Is it a joke?

If not - when 3.5 edition had arrived, weapon size ruled changed.

If I recall well, in 3.0 small creatures could just use human sized short sword like long sword (despite of piercing, not slashing dam. of course).

In 3.5 smaller races must use smaller weapons, made for their size. So Belkar daggers shrinked.

[Abardam]

He's talking about the first panel. Compare it to the fifth panel.

[Miraqariftsky]

Yep, it's a weapon shrinkage 3.0 to 3.5 update joke.

[Lizardfolk Lich]

I guess I wasn't clear... I get the shrinking joke, but on the first panel before anything happens, you see Belkar's dagger shrunk. Later things start converting and finally it acknowledges the fact that his weapon shrunk. So why is his Dagger already shrunk BEFORE things start converting?

[PiperlyonWiz5]

ok, this is to set things srtaignt, the dagger is the same exact size untill the "weapon shrinkige" it looks bigger because when it shrinks it is zoomed in on

[Lizardfolk Lich]

Look at panel 1 Belkar: small dagger that fits nicely into his hand.
Panel 5,6, and 7 Belkar: The dagger grows HUGE and stays that way.
Panel 8,9,10, 11: The dagger finally SHRINKS BACK into the dagger from panel ONE!

Now do you understand?:smallconfused:

[mockingbyrd7]

I understand what you're saying and it's because: Rich drew the characters many times for practice before the comic actually started. Since Rich was used to drawing Belkar with small daggers (which was how he was drawn in every comic except #1), he accidentally drew him with a small dagger in panel 1. No, it wasn't intentional, no, it wasn't because it was a "close-up", no, the first panel wasn't a joke. Rich made a tiny error.

:smallsmile:

[TheGrimace]

that's way too much logic for me.

I'm gonna go with the one about the universe collapsing.

[mockingbyrd7]

that's way too much logic for me.

I'm gonna go with the one about the universe collapsing.

Why, because it would be completely illogical for the universe to collapse at this very-

-The famous last words of mockingbyrd7. RIP.

[Kreistor]

Okay, what follows is a technical description of what rules changed from 3.0 to 3.5 that made this joke possible. It's not humour, so ignore it if you don't care...

Under 3.0 rules, there was only one size of weapon. Everything was sized to medium characters. Small characters could use these weapons, but they were called weapons of the next larger size category. A medium longsword could be wielded as a small greatsword, for instance. The diameter of the grip just wasn't considered important.

Under 3.5 rules, weapons gained size descriptors. Thus a longsword under 3.0 rules was now a medium longsword, and it could not be wielded by a small character as a similar weapon. There was now a small greatsword, which could not be wielded as a medium longsword. (These weapons could be wielded, but at penalties due to the size difference.) The grip size was now considered important.

So, when initially created under 3.0 rules, Belkar's player wanted to wield the most efficient light weapons that he could for his mulinex machine. This was the 1D4 dagger, which for him was a small short sword. A medium character would have chosen short sword at 1D6 (which became a longsword for Belkar, which would have two-weapon penalties if he tried to wield a pair of these). The choice of a wielding two of the same weapons only makes sense if Belkar choose a dagger-related feat. Weapon Focus (Dagger) would apply to both hands. If Belkar had no feats of this type, he would wield a longsword without any penalty (raising damage to 1D6 in the on hand).

When upgraded, the most efficient light weapon for Belkar became the small short sword, at 1D4 damage. Small daggers did 1D3 damage. So, at upgrade, Belkar would have switched his Weapon Focus to the actual weapon he was using in 3.0. Again, if Belkar had no feats associated with daggers, he could wield a small longsword (1D6) and a small short sword (1D4) at no penalty instead of the pair of daggers he chooses.

But the DM was a jerk. he forced Belkar to retain the Weapon Focus(dagger) feat, forcing Belkar to use the smaller, and worse, weapons. We know that the DM was a jerk, because he also forced Vaarsuvius to retain Conjuration as a banned School, despite the change of Teleportation from Transmutation (which V could use in 3.0) to Conjuration (which V could not).

Consequently, Belkar became less efficient, not because the player was dumb, but because the DM was a jerk. Belkar should have come through the change unscathed with his dagger feats changed to short sword, just as V should have been allowed to reconsider banned schools, if Teleportation had been an important part of the character plan under the player's plans in 3.0.

And, just one more thing. Ironically, Belkar is better off wielding the Longsword-Shortsword combo, despite the loss of the Weapon Focus(Dagger) feat. The increase in the damage per hit (involves Str, so not a set number, but will be +15% typically) vs. the loss of 5% chance to hit actually raises Belkar's average damage per round.

[Icewalker]

No no Kreistor, his point isn't about the weapon change exactly.

In panel 1, the the dagger is smaller than it is in panel 5, 6, and 7, which are all before shrinkage begins. After the shrinkage, the dagger in the last panel is the same size as the dagger in panel 1. The point is, Rich made a small mistake in the first panel, where the dagger was drawn post-shrunk instead of pre-shrunk.

[FrostXian]

Okay, what follows is a technical description of what rules changed from 3.0 to 3.5 that made this joke possible. It's not humour, so ignore it if you don't care... <dont care>
Congratulations, you've managed to completely miss the topic's purpose and then go write a humongous wall of text for absolutely no reason.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Actually, there are THREE mistakes in the artwork:

1: Belkar's dagger is "normal sized" in the first panel, grows to huge size for the joke, then shrinks back down to normal.
2: Belkar's hand is in FRONT of his dagger in panels 5 & 6. Basically, he's holding it with the back of his hand. (Actually, on a closer look, Belkar's hand is in front of the dagger in panel 1 as well.)
3: Haley's left arm doesn't have a hand, it goes all the way down to the floor, where it merges into the floor/wall divider line.

Vast conspiracy? Or an artist working with a new, experimental medium? I leave it to you, the reader, to decide!

[Roderick_BR]

Since Belkar is a two handed weapon type of ranger, one can assume that the first weapon was, indeed a dagger, and the big one he showed later was his short sword (normal pairing weapons for small characters in 3.0).
Then, his weapons just shrinks into a small shortsword/dagger, instead of being replaced by a small longsword/shortsword pairing. What happens is that we see only the bigger weapon shrinking.
Or, as people said, in the first panel, Rich forgot to make it look longer.