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

Charles Evans 25's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,180 posts (9,994 including aliases). 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 70 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nooooooo! He was one of the few good (current) Australian test batsmen that the (non-female) England team had worked out how to (usually) get out cheaply!!!!
On a more sombre note though, my sympathy to all his friends, his family, and his team-mates.


Death in Heaven:
???

Edit:
Okay, it was a spectacle, but it looked to me like it had been written on the basis of providing a spectacle, and not necessarily to make much coherent sense.


Dark Waters:
Without going into spoilers, bwahahahahahahahahahahah!
I'm not absolutely convinced the villain-of-the-week was being truthful as to their identity at the end, although if said villain was then it puts an interesting light on some of the things they did earlier in the episode.


DM Barcas wrote:
And then they follow it up with what might be the single worst episode in years. There was almost nothing redeemable about that episode.

If you're referring to 'In the Forest of the Night' it was fun children's television, at its most fluffy and 'awwwwww'. You may very well have seen future stars there, as child-actors.

Now as to whether it's Doctor Who?...
(The immediately previous two episodes, 'Mummy on the Orient Express' and 'Flatline' both seem to have had the same writer, 'Jamie Mathieson'. 'In the Forest of the Night' was apparently written by 'Frank Cottrell Boyce'. Different writers, different styles of story.)


Erik Mona wrote:

My dream is to do a huge Absalom hardcover with tons and tons of interconnected NPCs. I absolutely love Uncaged and would really love to do something like it for Pathfinder.

I have a feeling that Katapesh might have more scope for the bizarre in characters/personalities - and feature considerably fewer potential continuity banana-skins than Absalom for the writers/editors of such a book to have to worry about slipping on.


Mummy on the Orient Express

Spoiler:
So much for Clara's big 'you suck, I'm out of here' scene at the end of 'Kill the Moon' the previous week. Despite her 'I-don't-think-I-can-put-up-with-ever-travelling-with-you-again' declaration we didn't even go one episode without her. Out of universe, I wonder if it means the scriptwriter had no idea what had gone on in the script for the previous episode? One of the hazards of having multiple writers, maybe... And another episode about soldiers. Fast becoming the biggest theme of the season, after the ubiquitous Clara.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
...For all that know, though...

Ahem. Sorry about that. That should have been '...For all that I know, though...' Eczema on hands giving me trouble at the moment. Anyway, carry on with the previews/teasers.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Trying to be vaguely on-topic regarding crossbows/bows, then if

Quote:
... the differences between bows and crossbows are cosmetic as far as the rules are concerned...

presumably crossbows and longbows are identically priced too. If they aren't, but they're otherwise functionally identical, practically everyone (NPCs and PCs) are going to end up using the cheaper one, bar the odd character with a weird fetish for the more expensive weapon.

Variants in the price of a basic weapon are irrelevant to PCs after about level 2 in PF, but the prices still serve as a way to push NPCs into various wealth categories.

Frex:
* A group of poor bandits might only be able to afford scale mail (50 gp, AC +5) instead of chainmail (150 gp, AC +6).
* As a show of wealth, a baron might splurge for breastplates for his guards (200 gp, AC +6) instead of chainmail, even though for most characters they are functionally the same (breastplate's +3 max Dex bonus only matters if your Dex is 16 or higher, otherwise chainmail is just as good at +2, and the –4 ACP only matters compared to chainmail's –5 if your guards are doing something fancy like climbing).
* A more frugal baron might just buy chainmail, saving 150 gp per guard, and decide to pay his guards more to ensure their loyalty.

Lotsa stuff you can do with little differences in gear costs.

But crossbows and bows are weapons - they're not there to look fancy, but to kill/subdue people. It seems to me that if a crossbow and a bow have the same ease of use, the same range, the same rate of fire, the same accuracy, and dish out the same damage to a target hit, then practically everyone ought to be using the cheaper option if there's any difference in price; if for no other reason then on the grounds that the cheaper weapon allows you to outfit more impressed (or hired) men/women with it (or to spend it on other stuff like the baronial castle or pretty looking armour which makes the wearer feel more secure).

It seems to me not to make economic sense for two weapons identical in effect to be in use at broadly similar levels in a game world unless the price of them is identical too. (Well not unless governments or other powerful organizations are involved... 'you will not buy those cheaper foreign Kojivini crossbows here in Smooglewood, but will pay twice the price for our own Smoogle bows' or maybe 'the Vorgonian bow is undoubtedly considerably cheaper than any crossbow on the market, and at least as effective; unfortunately the method of making them is a jealously guarded secret of the Church of the Heretic Egg Boilers, and they only make the weapons available to their members and affiliates'.)
Edit:
For all that know, though, bows and crossbows may be identically priced in this game though, in which case carry on... :)


Trying to be vaguely on-topic regarding crossbows/bows, then if

Quote:
... the differences between bows and crossbows are cosmetic as far as the rules are concerned...

presumably crossbows and longbows are identically priced too. If they aren't, but they're otherwise functionally identical, practically everyone (NPCs and PCs) are going to end up using the cheaper one, bar the odd character with a weird fetish for the more expensive weapon.


Irontruth wrote:
the David wrote:


Ofcourse, then there is this. Yes, shooting five or six arrows per round is breaking the laws of physics. At most, you could shoot 1.2 per round. (And that's without needing to aim. Add in the stress of battle and you would come out even lower.) Arguing that a longbow can shoot 5 arrows per round and a crossbow can't is ridiculous.
Guy shoots 10 arrows in 4 seconds and hits his target.

(Edited)

(off-topic)
Spoiler:
I found an archery thread on the Steve Jackson Games forums where some of the members discuss Lars Andersen and his technique: *Link*
General consensus there seems to be what Lars is doing is showy rather than combat-effective.


GM Xabulba wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

While New Who has certainly had more romantic sub plots than Classic Who I don't think any of them approached "Mills & Boons" level, assuming that essentially the same as Harlequin romances. Much closer to the romance plots common in most adventure fiction.

I didn't actually like the Rose/Doctor love affair, largely because it added a certain validity to much of the old fan slash speculation and really set the Doctor up in the role of "creepy old man using his flashy time/space ship to pick up chicks". Which he really never was in the Classic series.

River Song, despite some issues with the storyline, worked much better, since she was much closer to a match for him.

In Human Nature/The Family of Blood the Mills & Boon element of the story was actually the main-plot, as far as I recall...

But is was John Smith not the Doctor who was involved in the Mills & Boon element.

Nevertheless, that was two episodes which were about little other than romantic doings of the lead character, played by David Tennant. In the midst of a run of episode after episode where romantic sub-plot was the theme of the day beneath whatever the villain-of-the-week was. Or at least that's the enduring impression I have.

There was a time when meaningfully gazing into someone's eyes on Doctor Who usually involved hypnosis, quite often carried out by The Master.
At this point, I'd like to see a lot less soap-opera-in-time-and-space, and a lot more adventure-in-time-and-space; Less tragic my-heart-is-breaking-tinkly-music moments and more tense dun-dun-dunnnn or full orchestra wooo-wooo-woooooo moments.


GM Wulfson wrote:
No, not unique. They just operate under a different name. Here in the states they're referred to as Harlequin romance stories.

Ah right. Different company name, probably for tax and/or copyright reasons or something.


thejeff wrote:

While New Who has certainly had more romantic sub plots than Classic Who I don't think any of them approached "Mills & Boons" level, assuming that essentially the same as Harlequin romances. Much closer to the romance plots common in most adventure fiction.

I didn't actually like the Rose/Doctor love affair, largely because it added a certain validity to much of the old fan slash speculation and really set the Doctor up in the role of "creepy old man using his flashy time/space ship to pick up chicks". Which he really never was in the Classic series.

River Song, despite some issues with the storyline, worked much better, since she was much closer to a match for him.

In Human Nature/The Family of Blood the Mills & Boon element of the story was actually the main-plot, as far as I recall...


Legendarius wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

(edited, original series episode name corrected)

Regarding the latest Episode, 'Kill the Moon' (warning, overtones of rant in places):
** spoiler omitted **

Although oddly I didn't find River-Song very Mills & Boon at all; possibly because she seemed more of a 'woman of action' than anything else...

Who are Mills & Boon?

'Romantic fiction' produced on an industrial scale in terms of titles and authors. Probably count as 'light reading'. Strangely attractive hairdresser/orphaned heiress/hospital nurse meets wealthy Arab prince/builder with Adonis-like body/hunky doctor, and in face of some apparently insufferable problem (prejudices/awkward parent/political situation) they still end up as 'an item'.

I thought given the space that they occupy book-shelves here in the UK that they might be a universal phenomenon, but maybe they're unique to the UK.


(edited, original series episode name corrected)
Regarding the latest Episode, 'Kill the Moon' (warning, overtones of rant in places):

Spoiler:
Aaaand I hope that that's the last that we see of Clara. After several seasons of Amy and Rory, following on from large doses of Rose and - to a lesser extent - Martha, (with Donna as all too short a break) maybe now we can get back to storylines which aren't cluttered up by 'romantic' sub-plots. I'm not convinced that the latest developments on the moon in 2049 would fit in in the continuity of what the original series had going on in 2070 in the 'The Moonbase' story, and as Clara herself all-but-pointed out it's rather odd that something on such a scale could happen to the moon with people that they've subsequently met not mentioning it, but I'm prepared to put up with a certain amount of handwaving if the rest of the season - and ideally most of the next couple of seasons - stay firmly out of Mills & Boon territory. Unfortunately I suspect that Moffat and company are rather addicted to their Mills & Boon sub-plots, and it may turn out that they can't last even until Christmas before either bringing Clara back or photocopying in some near-identical replacement. That 'someone trying to put us together' regarding the newspaper advert in the first episode of this season rather suggests to me that Moffat probably has some grand-plan to bring Clara back and resume the Mills & Boon status-quo in rather short order... :(

Although oddly I didn't find River-Song very Mills & Boon at all; possibly because she seemed more of a 'woman of action' than anything else...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
A person's side in this debate seems, in some measure, contingent on whether that particular reader would prefer a brilliant continuation/conclusion after a lengthy delay, or a passable one in more timely fashion.
I think thats based on the false assumption that more time spent on it equals a better product. In fact if anything the reverse seems to be true. Getting the product faster has at least an equal chance of making it better.

This reminded of part of a conversation in academia in Gaudy Night by Dorothy L. Sayers...

Chapter 22 wrote:
...And that reminds me. Miss Lydgate's History of Prosody was marked PRESS with her own hand this morning. I fled with it and seized on a student to take it down to the printers. I'm almost positive I heard a faint voice crying from the window about a footnote on page 97 - but I pretended not to hear...

The conversation which is taking place is fictional, but I suspect that the situation arises in real life. Some writers keep on tinkering with something, making endless genuine improvements, even once something is more than sufficiently suitable for publication; it needs a firm hand from someone in their orbit to finally get said opus out the door...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
...Generally, from what I've heard from various authors, I'd expect that the basic roadmap is laid out, which often includes a fairly detailed conclusion. The exact path used to get there is usually more general and the details will often change as characters come to life and evolve...

Actually, according to the 'LITERATURE' section of the TV Tropes 'Writing by the seat of your pants' page, there are some quite well known authors who apparently *don't* (if the tropers have their facts right) always have where a story is going to go planned out...

;)


Also on the subject of other writers finishing a series, Tor/Orbit Books brought another writer in to finish 'The Wheel of Time' series off, after the original writer died.
Stella Gemmell finished the 'Troy' Trilogy, after David Gemmell died.

Edit:
And in cases of what TV Tropes refers to as 'author existence failure', it seems to me that the readers and the publishers have as good a reason as any not to deliver the latter parts of a series, and yet it's clear to me that 'conclusions' of both Wheel of Time and the Troy trilogy have been delivered in spite of such losses.


thejeff wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

It seems to me that if a book comes out with specifics on the cover such as 'part 1 of 3', that that's on the publisher for making such a promise, not the author.

If anyone 'owes' the fans to produce it's the publisher, not any specific author involved in the project.

Nonsense, in the vast majority of cases. Obviously there's a legal contract between the author and the publisher, but that's not the issue here.

The author is doing the writing, the plotting and the structure. If the story isn't complete in one volume, it's on the author to provide the continuation. The author sold it as a series.

What is the publisher going to do? Hire another author to finish the story? In most cases, they legally can't. Novels aren't normally work-for-hire. The author (or the estate, if the author dies) holds the copyright.

There are cases where the publisher prevents the story from being finished: lack of sales may allow them to cancel contracts in some cases, or the publishing house may fold and tie up publishing rights in legal limbo.

But if the author isn't finishing the story, that's not the publisher's fault.

(edited, expanded slightly)

I quote James Sutter from his opening post on his thread:
James Sutter wrote:
...While Paizo doesn't publish epic novel series, the parallels between something like that and Adventure Paths are numerous. :)...

James Sutter sees parallels between publishing adventure paths and novel series. And I'm pretty sure that there have been instances when, if a Paizo Adventure path writer didn't look like delivering an installment in a timely fashion, that Paizo went ahead and and found another writer to finish or do the job.

And in Paizo's novel line I'm certain that it's been said that for reasons of unfortunate events Elaine Cunningham was unable to complete Winter Witch, so Paizo enlisted Dave Gross to help finish the novel off.
To my mind publishers clearly can see that a product is delivered to readers - Paizo do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that if a book comes out with specifics on the cover such as 'part 1 of 3', that that's on the publisher for making such a promise, not the author.
If anyone 'owes' the fans to produce it's the publisher, not any specific author involved in the project.


(edited: qualification)
Further to my earlier post, I'll add that it's nice if an author of a novel series makes arrangements with a publisher for something to come out after the author's own demise, if necessary, to wrap a series up - for example Curtain by Agatha Christie, for one of her detective series.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Sutter wrote:

I wrote an essay over at SF Signal about what series authors like George R. R. Martin owe their fans (partially to rebut Neil Gaiman's famous "George Martin is not your b*#%+" post), and I thought some of y'all might have opinions on the issue. While Paizo doesn't publish epic novel series, the parallels between something like that and Adventure Paths are numerous. :)

What Authors Owe Fans

Isn't an adventure path a multi-part game though? I'd have thought that in some senses that produces a different method of interaction between the user(s) and the product than the interaction between the user and a novel.

That might also result in different expectations of a product (an potentially of the context in which said expectations may be set).
All of which might feed into whether James Sutter, Adventure Path writer, would have different 'obligations' (perceived or otherwise) to his customers than James Sutter, Novel writer.


(edited, reworded)
Doctor Who, episode 4, 'Listen':

Spoiler:
And yet more paradox-y time-travel. It's getting to point where things are so tangled that the whole thing's in danger of a meltdown in terms of making any kind of overall sense, short of the producers 'resetting' practically everything 'New', with Eccleston's Doctor waking up on satellite 5 and thinking 'Urgh, what a horrible dream... Now down to business: How do I beat these Daleks?'


GM Xabulba wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
GM Xabulba wrote:


Almost every thing in your post has spoilers, please be respectful for those of us who haven't seen it yet.

I thought that these days episodes were airing the same day (or even the same time) overseas as in the UK? (There was certainly a lot of tarantara in the UK media to that effect when The Day of the Doctor came out.)

And with the episode title being 'Robot of Sherwood', to say nothing of (at least here in the UK) the trailers, the BBC hasn't exactly been subtle on the 'This Will Have a Robin Hood Theme!!!!!' front... :D
True but some of us don't have the time to watch it on the day it comes out. The trailers did reveal a lot but the un-spoilered part of your post reveled ** spoiler omitted **.

With respect:

Spoiler:
Nowhere in my post did I say what happens to the sheriff in the end. I implied that I was expecting him to be shown seemingly shuffle off this mortal coil with a very specific end result, and indicated that that turned out not to be the case. Yes I did reveal that a character turned out *not* to be in an episode, but I do not consider that a major spoiler.

I apologise if that spoiled your viewing experience, however. :(


Hmmm. (Possibly inspired by the earlier women's match?) Eoin Morgan led the England men to a twenty-twenty victory over India to wrap up the England summer.
Nice to see Morgan back in the runs... :)


GM Xabulba wrote:


Almost every thing in your post has spoilers, please be respectful for those of us who haven't seen it yet.

I thought that these days episodes were airing the same day (or even the same time) overseas as in the UK? (There was certainly a lot of tarantara in the UK media to that effect when The Day of the Doctor came out.)

And with the episode title being 'Robot of Sherwood', to say nothing of (at least here in the UK) the trailers, the BBC hasn't exactly been subtle on the 'This Will Have a Robin Hood Theme!!!!!' front... :D


3-0 to the England women, and they take their series in a clean sweep!
(Mind you, South Africa got within 8 runs of the England total this time, before running out of overs.)
Lauren Winfield in the runs today for England (74 from 60 balls).


Third episode (Robin Hood episode). No 'Missy' section this time (I was more than expecting the Sheriff to get one, but it turned out that that was not to be the case). Went on about 'The Promised Land' instead. (Is 'Promised Land' supposed to be Gallifrey, maybe, since as of 'The Day of the Doctor' it turned out it might not have been 'permanently' blown-up/time-looped/whatever after all?)

Spoiler:
The shooting an arrow into the exterior of the spaceship to somehow magically put it into orbit bit where it could apparently blow up 'safely' made little sense to me, even by Doctor Who standards, unless it was supposed to be a magical arrow????

I thought the episode was halfway-decent, but (at least for me) it could have been done better if the Robin Hood portrayal had been slightly less played-for-laughs, and done with slightly more gravitas.


Annnnd, England women take their twenty-twenty series with one game still to play, with a win by 42 runs. Charlotte Edwards scored seventy-five not out (off a mere sixty-one balls at that) in the England innings.
And that is how an England side successfully plays one-day cricket (or whatever twenty-twenty counts as).


Hah! The England women continue their usual beat-down service. They beat South Africa by nine wickets in the first game of their twenty-twenty series yesterday!
:)


????? ! ?
Australia have lost a one-day match to Zimbabwe.
Okay, playing on Zimbabwe's home turf, and the Australian captain picked up an injury when he was going well, which must have impacvted the Australian final score, but still...
*Link*
Either that was one dodgy pitch or Zimbabwe seem to have found a good bowler or two from somewhere by the look of the scorecard.
Nyumbu: ten over one maiden, thirty runs for one wicket.
Williams: ten overs, two maidens, twenty-one runs for two wickets.
Mind you, some of the others weren't so economical; Chatara went for fifty-six runs off his eight overs, and didn't bowl any maidens or take any wickets....


Hama wrote:
I'm kinda getting bored with daleks. For supposedly indestructible masters of extermination, they get obliterated every five episodes or so. Sure they always survive, but still.

They didn't get obliterated this time.

It was on Russell T. Davies' watch (as producer), to my mind, where the dalek stories got really silly, with them coming up with ever more grandiose plans and supposedly being all wiped out (only to subsequently come back through yet another loophole) every other season.
To give credit to him, Moffat's overseen several episodes where the daleks didn't all get wiped out or where insanely high stakes were involved; in one (Victory of the Daleks) they even arguably got the better of the Doctor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Second episode was interesting. I would have liked it better if Moffat hadn't slapped in that 'Missy' segment. I have a nasty suspicion that we're going to end up seeing one of those per episode now, with someone who's 'killed' during interaction with the Doctor, until it's revealed that 'Missy' is either the Doctor's insane daughter and/or an evil alter-ego/future/alternate Clara.
(It seems apparent that it's someone with access to the Doctor's timeline.)


India (men) continuing to show all the style and panache that so mysteriously disappeared in the last matches of the test series.
Another thrashing by them of England.
Cook seems to have given some of his bowlers a few too many overs, but given what options the selectors gave him to use against this India side, his best hope once India won the toss and inserted England was for his side to make a big score - which it failed to do against the Indian attack.
Nice to see Cook get forty odd, but a shame it wasn't more. :(


Nope. Just a sprinkling of rain; nowhere near enough to save England from being bowled out for 161 in the thirty-ninth over, way short of their target.
:(


Men's one day series, England VS India, second match:
Well, that was a pathetic England performance with the ball. Woakes had a good start, but then India (especially Raina) virtually murdered the England bowling 'attack', Woakes included.
The fact that India can do *that* in a one day match leads me to suspect that at the very least they were sulking and/or couldn't be bothered to do any more than go through the motions in the last two tests, and probably made the England test side look better than they might be.
Half time thought based on the match so far: Well, at least England can't be whitewashed now in this series, the first match having been lost to rain. They're certainly going to lose this one unless the middle order produce something incredible or Hales does something astonishing.

Edit:
Hmm. Rain arrived in Cardiff - another 'no result' impending?


That said, Peter Capaldi seems like he might bring some gravitas to the role. And having sat on the sidelines and watched everyone else get all the action in Musketeers he actually got in on some horse-riding last night (unless it was a stuntman double, of course)...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I miss the Sylvester McCoy/Sophie Aldred era, when there was some depth and complexity to how the Doctor and his companion interacted...


In the women's one day series, Charlotte Edwards has scored a hundred today (and carried her bat right through the innings, finishing 108 not out), and England have gone 2-0 up against India. Very good Indian bowling today, but Edwards is highly experienced and made sure England had what turned out to be (just) enough runs for the England bowlers to sink India. Good bowling from Jenny Gunn, who broke a crucial Indian partnership at a time when India were looking like they might pull the chase off, and who took 4 wickets for 23 runs off her ten overs. Series in bag for England, one match to go.


Stebehil wrote:
Lilith wrote:
You understand the marzipan, proboscis, and tureen reference.

I guess I qualify, then. There was a certain feast featured in a very special adventure...

And I have the various Beta rules printed out and bought the Alpha rules as a printed book (or vice versa?).

Otherwise, if you remember the time when one of the last Dungeon Mags (or was it Dragon? Damn, my memory is failing me...) got lost with a british gaming company, who should have shipped them to European subscribers. They were re-shipped from the US later, at no additional cost.

Or the time when Lisa stepped in to replace a good number of mags to a guy who had them stolen out of his car - for free!

I remember the body-count that a CR half or one third or something ridiculous like that encounter kept on racking up in The Whispering Cairn because actually in 3.5 swarms are disproportionately dangerous to 1st level characters without area effect options like flasks of burning oil...

Edit:
Ahem. Just to clarify, not characters that I personally bounced by the dozen, but which others reported on the boards...


GeraintElberion wrote:

I think that could be the end of Robson.

Bell has a track record and made some decent scores; Robson has a poor average.

So if Robson goes, do they give Carberry or Compton another try when they go to the West Indies next spring? Or someone else?


I just noticed the next test series the Indian men have is against Australia. I wonder if we'll see any test matches over in less than two days, if India play like that in Mitchell Johnson's back yard.... :D


Bell only got 7 in the England innings. Robson only got 37; does that mean it might be the end of the road for Robson for now?


Oval Test, 3rd day, shortly before tea; India lose match by an innings and a silly number of runs and the series 1-3
Well that was ignominious. If India didn't throw that last match, they certainly showed every sign in their second innings of having given up on even trying to win it. :(
Edit:
They weren't even trying to draw it, which might have been feasible if they scored enough runs and the weather went their way...


Hmmm. Well that's that at Wormsley. Charlotte Edwards after the match said that her England team should have played better on the first day. Looking at the scorecard, I think there might have been a element of being on the wrong end of the toss and a somewhat dodgy pitch, but if it inspires them to work harder on their games...
*****
At the Oval, the Indian men seem to have been the ones on the wrong end of a toss and an initially slightly dodgy pitch yesterday, but still Dhoni showed the rest of his team it should be possible to fight through it (and rather showed up most of his top order, too).
And at the Oval then England were batting today, and India were dropping catches (Cook, twice!!!) - looks like the wheels are coming off India.
Not sure whether this means England are improving as much as the end result of this match may suggest. If half the opposition are thinking more about going home (or the one day series?) than trying to win the current match...
Still, all England can do is do their best to beat whatever's at the opposite end of the wicket in a professional fashion.


GeraintElberion wrote:

Cook made runs, Bell made a lot of runs, Anderson remembered how to bowl, Broad remembered how to bowl...

Interesting from the women's but I haven't actually seen any play.

It seems to be an very bowler-friendly pitch at Wormsley! Charlotte Edwards & co. are better than 92 all out.

Hopefully the pitch + atmospheric conditions will be helpful in the morning session, and England can get the last six Indian wickets before the Indians can knock the runs off.
I've caught some of the radio coverage of the women's match, before the Oval test started and that took over the air-waves.
Regarding the Oval test, the Indian batsmen, excluding Dhoni, seem to have suddenly and inexplicably lost any interest in winning. Maybe too much cricket's burnt them out?


Fourth Test, Day 3:
I'm frankly baffled how that happened. Woakes finally took a wicket in the series and England won by an innings and 54 runs, despite some at times inoffensive England bowling - AND England missing their most effective wicket taking bowler of the India first innings in the Indian second inngs, thanks to Broad getting a face full of cricket ball from Aaron's enthusiastic bowling.
Oh yes, and I've actually noticed the BBC actually allowing comment again in one of their cricket threads for the first time in a week or two... Possibly indicative of a turn-around in England fortunes???
I suppose since the second test, when India humiliated England, India have been lacking the use of one of their more effective bowlers, Ishant Sharma, due to his being injured. And Matthew Prior removed himself from the England lineup, due to ongoing injury problems, and Buttler was brought in to replace him. The second may be at least as significant as the first, if what I've heard said that a wicket keeper is often at the heart of what goes on when a side is in the field is true.
England still need to see consistent batting from Cook and Robson (I'll be interested to see if Robson gets shown the same patience by the selectors on the run-scoring front as Cook was), and improved bowling from some of their support bowlers. Nice to see Moeen apparently coming on in leaps and bounds though, in terms of working out how to play at test level. :)


Fourth test, Day 1:
No wicket for Woakes.
England back to dropping chances again (and one of those *would* have been a wicket for Woakes) and once they batted, a promising new Indian bowler, Aaron, regressed Cook back to his getting-out-just-into-double-figures days.
Would have been India's day, to my mind, but for the small detail that India won the toss, opted to bat, and (bar a fighting captain's innings from Dhoni, with some support from Rahane and Ashwin) were destroyed anyway (despite the dropped catches) by Broad, with some assistance from Anderson.
Honours to my mind maybe even at close of play, or just a shade in England's favour (though losing Ballance in the last over did *not* help England).

Eighth Dwarf:
On the subject of the Commonwealth games, very good performance from Australia at an 'away' games; presumably you'll be back topping the table at the next one. ;)
Edit:
I must admit I was surprised England has apparently discovered quite such a good gymnast as Fragapone looks to be developing to be. Assuming she remains uninjured, have to watch out for her in Rio in two years' time.


Best wishes for your spell as venture-captain of Ontario...
:)


In second edition AD&D Ravenloft:

Domains of Dread, Chapter 7, Powers Checks, Unholy Acts wrote:
...Alternatively, a character can also commit an unholy act by openly and maliciously violating the beliefs of those around him. A character who mocks an important idol may well offend more than the local townspeople...

You got a free-pass if it was an evil faith you were mocking/belittling, but you could end up in hot-water fairly quickly if you were being nasty about a locally important neutral or good faith.

I don't recall anything in 2nd edition (except maybe in the case of specific corners of Ravenloft or items) where atheists generally got any benefits or penalties for being 'deniers', but once they started shoving their views in other people's faces, and specifically started mocking or belittling their faiths/beliefs, then they did get in trouble.

I think third edition was somewhat fuzzier on the issue.

1 to 50 of 7,180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.