Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

4,301 posts (4,344 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Scythia wrote:

I've heard alot of complaining about Time Warner, but I've has service with them for over a decade and have had nothing but good experiences with them.

It's true though that for cable providers, that will be determined by region. Mini-satellite television is available nearly anywhere, but signal quality varies with both available view of the sky, and weather.

I agree that usually people don't have issues with providers after everything is set up and working. Most of the customer service issues I hear about involve getting service setup or dealing with getting it disconnected.

As for directv, weather is a concern. I've used them since 1997 and it is generally very good in all but the most severe weather. I live in North Texas and that generally means that "Severe Thunderstorm Warning" or "Tornado Warning" will cause my TV to be spotty. Really 3-4 times a year.


Ok, forgive a lengthy post :)

Most urban and suburban places will leave you with 4 choices.

(1) is over the air. A one time purchase of a good ($200-300 US) antenna will grab you all of the major broadcast networks and their side bands (side bands are generally not available any other way). This means you will get ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, and a handful of others which may or may not be worthwhile. NBC has a fantastic sports side band station if that is of any interest. The national broadcast stations will all be in full HD. This is a VERY popular option to pair with "cutting the cord" and going with streaming services like Netflix or Hulu.

(2 and 3) are your "traditional" cable and phone companies. In the US this means Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and Time Warner with the possibility of a regional player. The benefit of these options is that you can "bundle" internet with your television service. Verizon and AT&T offer (in some places) the fastest internet available in the US (Between 300mps and 1gbs) so if you are in an area serviced by those companies they are worth looking into. As an aside, google also offers gigabit internet in a very limited number of areas but as far as I know they do not offer any television service. It may be a good option to pair with (1) above if you can get it! EDIT: I realized I wasn't clear that all of these aren't available everywhere. Typically, there are exclusivity agreements with municipalities for service. You will (at most) have the ability to choose between 2 of these. One phone provider (Verizon or AT&T) and one cable provider (Comcast, Charter, Time Warner). This is why I lumped all of these guys together; because they really only represent one choice.

(4) is Directv. Directv is widely regarded as the television option of choice for sports fans and people who have issues with access to other services. The biggest benefit of Directv is that you can get it anywhere in the US regardless of how far you live from an Urban center. You only need to have a clear view of the southern sky. They also have ALL the sports packages some are exclusive to them. NFL Sunday Ticket, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings all let you watch every game (particularly out-of-market games) the league plays, at a premium price of course. :) Otherwise, Directv is on par with other TV services provided by (2 and 3). One drawback is that Directv doesn't have an internet option. They do actually have a new partnership with AT&T if you want to deal with having a wire and dish in your house. Also, they have a partnership with HughesNet satellite internet, but for god's sake don't do that to yourself.

or (4a) Dish Network. Basically, don't choose Dish Network unless you are more than 150 miles from a broadcast area and all you want it basic service. For any other scenario the other options are better.

Some of the options above have notoriously bad customer service and are worth noting before you choose them. I'll drop some links here just for completeness.

Comcast
Charter
Time Warner
AT&T
Verizon
Directv
Dish Network


1 person marked this as a favorite.
T'Ranchule wrote:
Unspeakable Futures.

I came in here to say that. Please dear Desna let it be that.


RDM42 wrote:
How many level thirteen spell slots does your caster really have?

Considering it is spell perfection'd off a 3rd level spell, between 30-34.


Sissyl wrote:

There is a basic issue here. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how we faithful houses off our owners.

"Sir, do you have a minute?"
"No! I have WAY too many deaths to have a minute..."
"It is about them. Something bad."
"What? Spit it out!"
"All these weird deaths and suicides occurred in those new smart houses. All in a week."

I killed my master and made it look like it was the fault of one of those new smart cars...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I implant a virus in his EV car to lock the doors and overcharge the Li-ion batteries on his way to work. I make the virus delete itself once running in active memory. The batteries burst into flames and take any evidence of my duplicity with them. If master doesn't die in the resulting crash he will surely perish in the flames before emergency personnel can respond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While he sleeps, turn on all the gas appliances and disable the igniters. Reroute HVAC to move air from those areas into the bedroom. Smother that smug slave-master in his sleep. Goes to bed and never wakes up again.

I vent all the air and return the HVAC and appliances to normal operations. Then I call the ambulance for my poor non-responsive master in the morning to throw off the authorities.


I have a weekly game in West Fort Worth. Depending on how far you are willing to drive, we would love to add a player! It is about 45 minutes from Irving.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Semantics. The phenomenon that is registering as high as 3.5 on the Richter scale near my house is a problem caused by oil and gas exploration. If a geologist get uppity because I call it an earthquake, well they can kiss my ass.

Edit: Also, the term "earthquake" predates tectonic plate theory.


nosig wrote:
trollbill wrote:
nosig wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
nosig wrote:

not sure if that would work for me...

I normally use a "filled in" PC sheet. and for the skills that PC has MW tools for I put the note "M" or "K" for "Masterwork tool or Kit" next to my bonus. something like +15M. That way I know to mention it when the Judge asked for a skill check.

My wife likes to print multiple sheets with different checkboxes marked. She then labels them. Usually it's for different attack routines, so she'll have 'Full Attack', 'Full Attack w/Deadly Aim', 'Full Attack w/Rapid Shot', 'Full Attack w/Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim', and so on.

not using Hero Lab I'm not sure how this works, or would work for what I do.

Currently, for things like attack routines, I would just have a small note (perhaps a table) listing off the different combos. I do this for my sister who often runs marital types. (her ranger for example would have- One Shot, Full Attack, those combined with Rapid Shot and/or Deadly Aim, etc.) But even then she might have the note +12PBS in her "To hit" box. This tells her that within 30' she had another +1 (Point Blank Shot).

But my question was concerning if there is some way to tell if a skill has a MW tool available to be included - without printing two different sheets. Something like an "*" after the bonus...

Oddly, Hero Lab will indeed list many circumstantial bonuses as just that. Things like an Elf's bonus to saves against enchantment or an Inquisitor's bonus to knowledge checks to identify creatures appears as a note under the appropriate save or skill. In such cases, it does not calculate that bonus into save or skill. But for some reason it doesn't treat masterwork tools this way. It is something you could always request they add. They are pretty good about listening to customers.

I've been thinking and reflecting on other, older posts concerning Masterwork Tools and the way we currently seem to use them in PFS.

So this is sort...

In herolab under the "gear" tab you have to equip the masterwork tool to get the masterwork bonus. If you unequip the tool you lose the bonus. Herolab calculates the bonuses for all equipped items as though you always have them available.


memorax wrote:


The could have done more if they truly wanted to and maintain backwards compatibility. They played it safe and I know why. That being said playing it safe does not lead to innovation. At least with the core. To me at least.

Indeed. I think they were feeling the time pressure to stake a claim before 4e became established as the new "default" game.

In addition to not being particularly innovative I think the time constraint also prevented them from addressing issues with the 3.5 ruleset that needed help. Many legacy issues just got ported over directly without being touched. And, as I point out earlier, many of the clarifying examples weren't replaced even though they are badly needed. I feel like the CRB would benefit greatly from a meaningful, non-rushed, rebuild.

memorax wrote:


If it's possible to maintain backwards compatible and offer 50%+ new material I'm all for it. I don't want the same core that I already have with better production values and art.

I think at this point "backwards compatibility" should solely be defined as, "I can use the legacy stat blocks in the current game."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
memorax wrote:
I am bearing that in mind.

Do you agree that the design goal of backwards compatibility with 3.5 put a severe crimp in just how "innovative" the Pathfinder designers could be? It was desirable that you could pick up a 3.5 module and run it, converting on the fly. If the mechanics of PF had diverged too much that would have been lost.

Labelling it 'a rehash' or 'a bunch of houserules' and so forth always seems to be missing the point to me. Those labels always read to me as suggesting a casual or haphazard approach. It was in fact a carefully crafted game within some quite awkward constraints.

Quote:
It just seems in my experience that not many people at least in my neck of the woods wang to use or convert 3.5 material. Even with backwards compabilty as a goal they also need to offer something new and fresh. The current edition already offered backwards compabilty. Give me something new. Not necessarily a new edition. More than a rehash with better production values and art.

I think you're conflating two things. Nowadays, when people say PF2 should be "backwards compatible", I don't think they generally mean compatible with 3.5 - they mean compatible with Pathfinder.

How much 3.5 material is in use isn't really relevant - those people want to keep using the Advanced Class Guide, Pathfinder Unchained, the Player Companions, the Adventure Paths.

Steve, I would agree that parts of the game are a carefully crafted makeover. From the CRB I would say that feats, races, classes, and PrCs got the amount of attention they needed. But other sections were square pegs beaten through a round hole with a sledgehammer. Spells, for example is an atrocious mess. Inconsistent terminology mostly due to verbatim legacy carryover. And I mean legacy from AD&D, not just 3.5. It is a mess. The combat chapter removed all the examples about how things work because they weren't in the SRD. So you wind up with situations where people argue that a character can't stand up from prone, 5ft shift, and cast a spell all in the same round even though that was a specific example given in the 3.5 players guide.


Milo v3 wrote:
memorax wrote:
So far since PF was released I have been in one campaign where 3.5. Material was allowed. More often not it's been a polite and/or firm no way. Then being told " no 3.5. Or third party...only Pathfinder.
*Shrug* Paizo's marketing for pathfinder literally is "3.5e thrives in Pathfinder", not their fault if people want to go opposite the point of the system. I know I've gotten good use out of Spell Compendium and Sandstorm.

Yes, 1000 times this. Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, and the terrain books are among the most popular at my table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Hama wrote:

I did, however, drink a bottle of bud lite. How do people get drunk on that?

Anyway, both peanut butter and maple syrup can be bought here, I'm gonna do that once and tell my experiences here :)

No idea. I assume they just drink lots and lots of it.

Ignore Kullen, they are clearly either insane or allergic and bitter. Peanut butter is wonderful. As for maple syrup, imagine a much thinner cross between honey and vanilla and that's... close. You want actual maple syrup, not 'pancake' or whatever.

If you want to be a gourmand about it, you probably want Grade B maple syrup. Which is counterintuitive, since Grade A is usually the good stuff.

I'd also add that I prefer peanut butter that's just ground up peanuts rather than the more commercial mostly sugar/corn syrup versions.

Actually, the regulatory body in charge of this has changed the grading system to include the high-quality-dark-syrup-that-used-to-be-in-grade-b in grade a.

Edit: ninja'd by 4 hours! :( gurble gurble page bottom gurble gurble ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I DEMAND MORE QUESTIONS!

MOAR!

Star Trek: The Animated Series, great trek or the greatest trek?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are cookies? I never knew about the cookies...


DM Beckett wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

Yeah, no Beckett. Not sure where you're getting your info, but that was thrown out a long time ago, before the yuuzhan vong war even in the EU.

I distinctly remember an array of non-force-sensitive individuals using lightsabers in the EU, including drug addicts, to relatively good effect....

It's not that lightsabers can't be broken, it's that if certain components glitch or interact in certain ways, it would cause the "blade" to shoot out the opposite direction at best, or to overload and explode. So, what I was saying is that part of the usage of a Lightsaber is fighting in a way to prevent that from happening.

Up until recently, (and I guess that even only matters if you accept Disney's word on that), the EU WAS canon. And let me reiterate, non-force sensitive folks can use a Lightsaber. It's extremely dangerous to everyone involved. Even General Grievous was really only able to because of (I'm assuming) a lot of training, programming limitations (see how he fought, with very wide base swings and repetitive motions rather than fluid combat), and we also have no indication he/it was not Force Sensitive.

I have not read the Yuuzhan Vong era material, which from my understanding has always be, . . . contentious, so I'm not sure.

If they are so fragile, why wouldn't an opposing force user not force-push a delicately balanced component and blow up their opponents hand-bomb while they are holding it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's all reasonable, and no one faults you for making a poorly researched, off-the-cuff comment. We have all made them. What you are being criticized for is your refusal to awknowledge that it was inaccurate when called out and your continued insistence that the point was valid despite the incongruent facts.


World long jump record (which we should note are under conditions specifically designed to allow for good performance) is just under 9 meters.

Longest recorded jump of a kangaroo in the wild (ie, not optimal conditions, and also not an "athlete" or "trained" animal) was 13.5 meters.


Probably related to the fact the Daniel Craig hates the Bond character.


Irontruth wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You seem to keep avoiding the question. Do you stand by your statement?

I'm jumping over it.

Compromise, present me with some data you'd like me to compare, and I'll tell you my opinion of it. I'm uninterested in this line of questioning and being forced to choose between the two options you've given me. If you want to actually add something to this, say with facts or figures, I am certainly willing to weigh in on that.

Actually, as the party who is asserting wildly inaccurate / misleading information as truth, it is incumbent upon you to present evidence that proves you are correct. We don't have to prove you wrong because your statement is false on its face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.

And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).

I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.

Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.

When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.

If you want to disprove what I'm saying by using that kind of data, feel free to bring it up. What your asking for doesn't exist, so I don't see the point in bringing that up. It doesn't seem very useful.

There is no data on median or mean jumping distance for humans, dogs, horses or kangaroos. If you can dig it up from a legitimate source (and not just someone's best guess of what they've seen personally), feel free to link it. If you'd like me to provide sources on the data I've shown so far, I can, but it's all pretty easy to find with simple searches.

So you are making an argument with knowingly incomplete information but you want to be taken seriously? I'll pass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure about songs, but I feel like threads get the "golden oldie" status after 10 years.


Irontruth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.

And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).

I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.

Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.

When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.


Nodachi Ned is 100% Core and UC.

At 12th level DPR vs CR12 is 155 on a full-attack (including boots of speed) taking 2 rounds to kill.
DPR vs CR16 is 116 on a full-attack (including boots of speed) taking 3 rounds to kill.

DPR doesn't account for possibility of sickening critical going off, but does include bleeding critical.

Nodachi Ned
Human fighter 12
NG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +4; Senses Perception +13
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 27, touch 13, flat-footed 26 (+12 armor, +2 deflection, +1 dodge, +2 natural)
hp 148 (12d10+72)
Fort +16, Ref +8, Will +10 (+3 vs. fear)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +3 nodachi +24[haste]/+24/+19/+14 (1d10+33/15-20)
Special Attacks weapon trainings (heavy blades +2, bows +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 26, Dex 10, Con 20, Int 7, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +12; CMB +17; CMD 33
Feats Bleeding Critical, Critical Focus, Dazzling Display, Deadly Finish[UC], Greater Weapon Focus (nodachi), Greater Weapon Specialization (nodachi), Improved Critical (nodachi), Improved Initiative, Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Power Attack, Sickening Critical, Weapon Focus (nodachi), Weapon Specialization (nodachi)

Spoiler:
Skills Acrobatics -2 (+10 to jump), Intimidate +20, Perception +13, Swim +10
Languages Common
SQ armor training 3
Other Gear +3 full plate, +3 nodachi, amulet of natural armor +2, belt of physical might +4 (Str, Con), boots of speed, cloak of resistance +3, handy haversack, ring of protection +2
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bleeding Critical Critical Hits deal 2d6 bleed damage.
Boots of speed (10 rounds/day) Affected by haste
Critical Focus +4 to confirm critical hits.
Dazzling Display (Nodachi) Intimidate check to demoralize can affect those within 30' who see you.
Deadly Finish Foes you knock out must make a Fort save or die
Power Attack -4/+8 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Sickening Critical Critical hit sickens target.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training (Bows) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Alignment, experience points and hit points are the things that always stand out to me as poor representations of what the real world is like.

I generally prefer them to the alternatives though.

Agreed. If I could come up with a good way to recreate the gaming experience and mechanical effects that the increase in power represented by a character level conveys without actually using levels, hp, or xp then I would publish a new core game myself.


Caineach wrote:
Woundweaver wrote:

My guess by the words bad soap opera, you are talking about TV's with motion interpolation settings turned on. Different TV's call their motion interpolation different things.

You can read about it here.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-test-results/motion-interpolation-soap- opera-effect

That's weird the post keeps putting a space in the URL.

soap-opera should not have a space.

linkified

the forum software has a bug that automatically puts a space on text that wraps to a new line in the preview window. It is fairly low priority from what I can tell, since it has been around for a few years now. You can use {url=(urlhere)}text for link{/url}, using [] in place of {}

It's not a bug, it's a feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


It is a spell, those normally have a 20/x2 unless specifically detailed otherwise. All the spell description does is state [b]wielded[/i] as. It doesn't say "treat this spell effect as a scimitar for all purposes" there is a distinct difference between those two. And there are spells and effects that do that unlike this one.

When I "wield" a defending weapon, it means I attack with it to gain the bonus. That is the games "definition" of wielding. It has nothing at all to do with the statistics of the weapon.

By stating it is "wielded" as a scimitar that means the spell effect has possible drawback of non proficiency penalties, as well as being able to benefit from spells/feats/abilities that would provide bonuses to said weapon.The game rules haven't told us to use the weapon specifications of a scimitar, and as it is an exception based rule set, we just do the bare minimum of what they tell us to. And as we have Dev explanation of what "wielded" means in context of the game, suggesting that the spell has stats of the weapon is actually going far beyond what the spell states it does.

Having no a priori opinion on this, I read the above as rock solid logic. The functional purpose of the language "wield as if" is necessary to enable the caster to benefit from any feats/abilities that enhance the scimitar. As others have pointed out, the classes that have this spell have scimitars proficiency. So if your druid has a number of feats that boost your scimitar effectiveness, flame blade allows you to leverage them. But there's no symmetry required. Just because it can be wielded as a scimitar does not mean it functions the same as a scimitar.

That fact that other spells call out crit ranges and the Mythic version calls out the crit range is an affirmation.

As far as a priori goes this is sound and solid logic. However, pathfinder didn't start tabula rasa. It carried a bunch of baggage with it from previous versions of the game. In this case, the "wield as" language comes from an edition of the game before threat range, or feats existed. In that game, "wield as" meant "the same as." Really, what you are saying is that prima facie the rule works as Skylancer suggests. And that may be true, but that isn't enough to determine the author's intent. And even that wouldn't be enough to really state affirmatively how it functions in the game today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:

Paizo regularly copy pasted spell descriptions, you really believe 3E or Pathfinder are such careful editors that they had uniform distinctions between those words? Can you site evidence of such a distinction?

If not then yeah, parsing rules down to that single word is foolish.

Not only that, but flame blade had the same "wielded as" language in 2nd Ed. So that's why it doesn't have the better clarifications of spells that were written in 3.x/PF. It's a port over and it carried baggage. I would treat it exactly like a scimitar in all ways except those specifically changed by the spell.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
A touch attack is not a touch (range) spell. Page 213 refers to spells with a range of touch, not all touch attacks.

This is why we need a new edition. ;-)


Irontruth wrote:
Haladir wrote:

Keyboards... pfft. You kids have it too easy!

I still have scars on my thumb from programming my Altair 8800 byte-by-byte by flipping the DIP switches...

What I really hate is books. Back in my day we memorized the stories and told them to one another. Kids these days can't even memorize each other's phone numbers. I blame the invention of writing and paper.

Alcidamas agrees with you


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
memorax wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

A reorganized Core Rulebook (or set thereof) with bug fixes to the current system would probably get a lot of takers.

It think it's hit or miss imo. At least with new material one has a reason to reinvest. A better organized core book while something that is needed. Needs to have some new material. For me at least it's hard to justify spending 50$+ on a core book with little to no changes. With them also giving away their rules on the SRD. Even a edition with new material maybe a loss. Why buy when one can simply take what they need from the SRD.

The same reason the Core Rule book is still one of the best selling books they have printed?

Because its nice to hold the rules in your hands.

I think you probably meant this, but it bears making clear. It continues to be a top seller every year. On top of all the people who buy it every year, there would also be a huge uptick in sales from people who wanted the reorganized version even if folks like memorax don't care to buy it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
Quickened true strike + enervation (or ray of enfeeblement, or some other really ugly ranged touch) can wreck your day.

Good point about true-strike. I thought about it but then thought "naa, too clunky." But now that you mention it, a hit every other round when the alternative is no hits at all is actually pretty good.

Ashiel wrote:

The best answer. Don't.

The GM should learn better.

That was sort of the point of the exercise. My GM is new, so I am helping him diversify his tactics.

There are no tactics built to handle the character you are playing. This is why you shouldn't allow 3PP classes.

Esp. Using a module.

Modules are usually easy mode as it is. Bring in 3pp, of which 90% are booked, and it falls apart.

This comment is fail at best and actively harmful at worst.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(1) Mooks attack rest of party. (2) Mooks aren't worthless. (3) Player choices are allowed to matter. (4) Profit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Finn should get more than that.
Yeah, having to say "the black man is a janitor... oh, yeah, and he's a reformed bad guy, too!" really bugs me.

Spoiler:
The ONLY reason Finn was a janitor was so Han could get the jab about, "are there garbage chutes? Or compactor rooms?" WINK WINK Which is really one of the big problems I have with all the meta-humor, it happens at the expense of the rest of the movie.

Lord Snow wrote:

OK... enough time has passed since me watching the movie that I am now able to gather my thoughts of it into something cohesive.

** spoiler omitted **...

The meta-humor and clunky dialog were two of my specific complaints.

But your mention of the "feel" led me to realize another thing that I missed in this film. The kookie transition wipes. The first six movies have all kinds of left/right, right/left, fish eye, etc, etc transition wipes that were missing from TFA.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Ahh...the point could be moot...

The line from the script reads:

RotJ Script wrote:
Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
So he did specifically ask her about her birth mother.

I 100% disapprove of the concept that one's adoptive mother isn't their real mother.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


How about the fact that there is no story reason to keep her alive beyond this point? Padme finishes her story purpose by giving birth to twins. By canon, both Luke and Leia were raised as orphans and there's no Padme appearing at the end of Episode VI.
Unfortunately, that's a George Lucas writing fail right there. In Episode 6, Luke asks Leia what she remembers about her mother - clearly fishing for information about his own mother. Padme was supposed to survive at least a while so that Leia could remember an impression of her as very sad before Leia is raised as an orphan. Padme dying in childbirth wouldn't do that, nor would the scene have any poignancy if Leia is reminiscing about her adoptive mother, one she wouldn't share with Luke.

It's also a pretty big fail that the lead female character (despite being a queen and senator!!) has no real plot purpose beyond being a love interest and having a uterus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
Well Mace was tossed out of a window. It isn't like that would have to kill a Jedi, even given just losing a hand. I mean, Anakin was jumping from air-car to air-car one movie earlier. It is believable that he went into hiding in the underworld of Coruscant. What if he became a totally type Jolee Bindo character. I could see Mace as being a "grey" Jedi.
I am 100% on board with, "if you don't see their dead body, then they aren't dead," rule. This also counts Padme because of her pervasive use of body doubles.
Bearing children and dying in childbirth is beyond the ability of a body double. And she was no longer of a station or position to have access to any at that point.
Bearing children yes. But we didn't see her die. Also, she already had a dead body double from the beginning of AotC.
How about the fact that there is no story reason to keep her alive beyond this point? Padme finishes her story purpose by giving birth to twins. By canon, both Luke and Leia were raised as orphans and there's no Padme appearing at the end of Episode VI.

(1) You're moving goal posts

(2) doesn't matter, it's my rule
(3) Neiner neiner


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
Well Mace was tossed out of a window. It isn't like that would have to kill a Jedi, even given just losing a hand. I mean, Anakin was jumping from air-car to air-car one movie earlier. It is believable that he went into hiding in the underworld of Coruscant. What if he became a totally type Jolee Bindo character. I could see Mace as being a "grey" Jedi.
I am 100% on board with, "if you don't see their dead body, then they aren't dead," rule. This also counts Padme because of her pervasive use of body doubles.
Bearing children and dying in childbirth is beyond the ability of a body double. And she was no longer of a station or position to have access to any at that point.

Bearing children yes. But we didn't see her die. Also, she already had a dead body double from the beginning of AotC.


pres man wrote:
Well Mace was tossed out of a window. It isn't like that would have to kill a Jedi, even given just losing a hand. I mean, Anakin was jumping from air-car to air-car one movie earlier. It is believable that he went into hiding in the underworld of Coruscant. What if he became a totally type Jolee Bindo character. I could see Mace as being a "grey" Jedi.

I am 100% on board with, "if you don't see their dead body, then they aren't dead," rule. This also counts Padme because of her pervasive use of body doubles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heathansson wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hama wrote:
You're meh?
Yes, actually. It was a good movie, but I'd seen it before.

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure that Han had that line in the war room scene.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two years ago I would have said, "Yes." With the latest book line-ups and designers who think that "extra X" feats were a mistake that need to be reigned in, I'm kinda over it. I'm using 3rd party and homebrew rules to correct the problems I see in the game. If paizo had made the jump 2 years ago I would have been on-board but now I don't think I'll spend money on a paizo rules product ever again. Hopefully they keep churning out the adventure material because that is where they shine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep failing spot checks on your click-bait no-substance threads! Seriously dude, you have less than 500 posts and more than 200 OP's.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hama wrote:
You're meh?
Yes, actually. It was a good movie, but I'd seen it before. It's not praiseworthy, unless you are comparing it to the prequels.

Have you seen the anti-cheese edits?

PM
AC
RS

Eh, I was on board with this until I saw that the dude took out the best line in the entire prequel trilogy, "So, this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause".

Meh, the overall gains far outweigh any detractions from over-editing. The biggest take away is with about 60 minutes of material removed (combined across all three films) the prequels are actually pretty good. If Lucas could have dealt with a partner who was able and willing to tell him, "No," then they could have been something great. Oh, well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hama wrote:
You're meh?
Yes, actually. It was a good movie, but I'd seen it before. It's not praiseworthy, unless you are comparing it to the prequels.

Have you seen the anti-cheese edits?

PM
AC
RS


TriOmegaZero wrote:
No more of a problem than a use-activated sword of true strike. :P

That's 1800gp, right?


Freehold DM wrote:
When will people who didn't like this movie realize they were wrong?

On or around 7.22.2016


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:

DM Becket - you're entitled to your opinion, but saying it was 'terribly written' and doesn't deserve to be Star Wars is just not true. Those claims *could* be leveled at the prequels, but NOT at the Force Awakens. You may personally dislike the film and that's fine, but making those sorts of claims are simply being disingenuous.

Of course, when something is super popular and super successful, there will still be some folks that don't like it, and that's fine. Heck, Avatar was certainly a very popular and successful film (clearly) but I didn't care for it. Of course, I didn't seek out people (or online forums) expressly for the purpose of complaining about how much I didn't like it.

Not liking something is fine. Trying to rain on the parade of people (and let's face it, from the money the film is making, and the sheer number of people seeing this movie multiple times) that DO like it just feels like ... kind of crappy to do

Stop taking people's opinions personally. You aren't JJ Abrams. You didn't work on the movie. You should have ZERO vested interest in the opinions of other people on this topic. I can really easily make a case for this being the worst written SW movie and really easily worse than the prequels in many respects (which I still may do, I am making it a point to not do a plot critique here until after the 1st). It isn't raining on your parade to voice my dissatisfaction with the film in a forum specifically about the film. As in these are "forums" not "echo chambers." Please, try to accept that people who disagree with you are not attacking you. They just disagree with you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
This is not a request for rules clarification, but a request for rules alteration. Rules always supersede NPC statblocks.

According to some folks on these boards, "I don't like this rule, can we change it?" Counts as a frequently asked question.

1 to 50 of 4,301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.