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

GregH's page

1,093 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,093 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Money allows for discretionary purchasing - having things we want rather than what we need.

It may be the root of all evil, but without it we'd all be pretty bored, I'd bet.


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Babylon 5 is a bit of an acquired taste. I started watching it at 2:4, which was a brilliant starting point. I have since seen seasons 1-4, and I agree that season 1 is not very impressive. The strength of the series is the story arc, the way things build on what happened before - but that started in season 2 or the very end of season 1. See seasons 2-4 and savour it.

I'd say it started in Season 1, but that you didn't start to see the payoff until Season 2. There was a lot of setup in the sub-plots in Season 1, though the main plots were much more episodic.

Agreed. Without season 1 the whole B4 story is pretty meaningless.

And while I'd agree that season 5 has got some filler in it, it still works as a capstone to the series.


Greylurker wrote:

although recent events have revealed that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch might not be mutants after all, so Quicksilver could be an Inhuman after all.

(at the very least Magneto isn't their father)

So is this Marvel's way of retconning their own history to get around their licenses with Sony and Fox?

What's next, the Fabulous Four, Arachnid-Man and the Ex-Men?


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Wha-?! I'll just click- {receives jolt of chemicals from Shadow Keeper implant}

{monotone:} There was no Ranger movie... just a rumor... {drools}

Well there are these

Legend of the Rangers

I've heard it isn't all that great, but I did have it included on my Christmas request.

And then there's this, but not the same thing,

Crusade

The Ranger movie was not that great. Can't even remember the plot off hand.

Crusade had lots of potential. But didn't survive the conflicts between jms and the network.


Freehold DM wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


I'm confused though... there was no Season Five though. I heard rumors of tentative planning for a fifth season (and of spin-offs involving the Rangers or somekind of Drak plague) but nothing ever came of those. Nope. Nada. Zilch.
a good friend of mine in high school was a b5 fanatic, he kept going on and on about this potential b5 ranger movie that was "being made".

A ranger movie was made and was supposed to lead into a new series, but nothing ever came of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Braised or fried?


Which is absolutely fine with me. But if we are willing to let the energy source be so hand-wavy, why are we getting so hung up about the minutia of the rest of it?


Imbicatus wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


Edit: And if there were energy->matter conversion, wouldn't we would expect the blade to remain around when the power is cut off...?
The blade is plasma, it reverts back to gas and disperses when the saber is powered off.

And lets not talk about the amount of energy required to turn room temperature gas into an ionized plasma or the temperatures that it would create...


Since apparently there is some sort of magnetic field that encloses the plasma (see Hama's link in the C3P0 thread) couldn't that field be extended to the cross piece so that the plasma can't cut through it?

In fact, now that I think of it, why hasn't someone come up with body armour that creates that field making it impervious to a light sabre?


thejeff wrote:

But nor is the lightsaber being made out of light. There's nothing in the movies that I remember about how a lightsaber actually works.

It's probably from the EU somewhere, but it certainly doesn't contradict anything in movie canon and provides a decent technobabble explanation.

Aside from the name. But yeah, a name is just a name. I was just looking for the source of the information. Having never read any of the books (which have supposedly been tossed in the bin) I'd never heard of any explanation of how a light sabre worked.

But the broader point, I think, is that Star Wars is a fantasy story. Nobody cares how Gandalf's staff works, its magic. I approach SW the same way. There's very little real science in it so why try? Sit back and enjoy the fun. Midichlorians were the worst thing that ever happend to SW. Leave the technobabble to Star Trek.


Hama wrote:
A lightsaber utilizes a tightly curved flow of energy, similar to bolts from a blaster rifle, that is held inside a magnetic field. It's not made out of light.

Don't remember this from any of the movies. Source?


So, let me get this straight. We're talking about a sword made out of light, right? One that erupts from a handle and magically stops about 1 - 1.5 m from the exit point of the handle? (Last I checked light doesn't stop until it hits something.) And this light can cut through anything? Easier than a piece of tempered steel?

And we're worried about the hilt?

Shouldn't suspension of disbelief have kicked in a few movies ago?

[edit: missed a word...]


Was Green Arrow (in the comics) not capable of handling superpowered criminals? Or was it always "gadget-on-gadget" as it were? (Never read much DC outside of Batman, Superman and a bit of Teen Titans.)


Which is?


Dal Selpher wrote:

As far as the show is concerned, Sara wasn't technically Black Canary, she was just "Canary" - her honorific title or whatever granted by the League of Assassins. Similarly, Malcom Merlyn's League of Assassins handle is "Magician".

Having her sister's death spur Laurel into becoming Black Canary is an interesting angle I didn't expect the show to take. I just wish I liked this show's version of her enough to be invested in it.

I just wish this show wasn't afraid of super powers. It seems that in the creators' minds Arrow is for the "normal" heroes and Flash is for the "super" heroes.

Black Canary without the super scream is disappointing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
If she wants them that badly she could always adopt.

You can't adopt grandchildren.

Grandparents-to-be who want grandchildren want to have all the fun of having kids with none of the responsibility.

Don't think this is bad, mind you, just the way it is. Looking forward to it myself when my kids are old enough.


Cthulhudrew wrote:
So it's not really a "Captain America" movie any longer, which is a shame. I'd rather Civil War be its own thing, and have another Captain America movie.

Even "Infinity War" is going to be an "Avengers" movie. I think the brass at Marvel think you need to tie a movie to a character or group of characters in the title. While the comic-reading world is more than happy to pick up a mini-series titled "Civil War" or "Marvels" or whatever, they probably aren't sure that all movie goers (of which us comic-book readers are only a subset) will go for it.


Qstor wrote:
There's 3.x conversions of the G series floating around on the internet.

I've seen them (may even have them somewhere). They are a conversion, but there's no balance. Still requires work. (Yeah, I know, I sound lazy, but I have little time for prep and conversions take work.)


East. South shore of Montreal.


That photo was taken on the scene yesterday by someone with a cell phone, I believe. They must have grabbed it off the net like the rest of us. I don't think there is a hard connection here. (I've looked for the page where it notes the source but can't remember where I saw it. If I find it I'll post the link.)


Mokshai wrote:
Yellow dingo, if you seen the ISIL twitter release, the shooter yeststerday was a member.

Source? I've been following this since it started (I live 2 1/2 hrs down the 417/40 from Ottawa) and have heard nothing that indicates he had any connection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that in Ant Man Hank Pym is an old man, then its possible that Stark will talk about building on Pym's older designs or some-such-thing even if Michael Douglas doesn't actually show up in the movie.


Caineach wrote:
GregH wrote:
Caineach wrote:
A much better article on it
Its behind a paywall...
It is? I wonder if my work just auto-logs in.

Now its not. That was weird...


Caineach wrote:
A much better article on it

Its behind a paywall...


captain yesterday wrote:
the pdfs for the rulebooks are only 9.99, i'm also cash poor and this price point helps a lot, of course nothing beats free:)

I know, but money is tight right now, and I can't even justify that kind of expenditure. Plus my group and I are heavily (read: monetarily) invested in 3.5 so it doesn't really make sense to jump to PF, even if its close to 3.5. In fact, I have so much 3.5 material, I have enough for at least 2 more campaigns after the one we are in now. (Just finished AoW, just started a mish-mash of adventures that will center on Return to the Ruins of Greyhawk, after that I have Savage Tide, and Rise of the Runelords - original 3.5 version). The only reason I'm looking at this is because of the fact it seems to be an homage to the Giants series.


Pendagast wrote:

you don't need to buy the core rule book

the only thing that's changed much from 3.5 is skills, there might be some unrecognizable feats these days, but shouldbt be much.

Some NPCs might have classes that aren't in 3.5 (like brawler or skald)

Druid works different, but I don't know whats going to be in the AP.

but by and large, yes you could run it with 3.5 rules set.
an NPC class you don't recognize can easily be replaced with a 3.5 class.
a hill giant in PF? just crack open ye old monster manual and use that hill giant from 3.5…no conversion necessary.

that way you can totally ignore things like CMB/CMD

Got it. May consider it, but I'll wait until the reviews are in.

Thanks.


I've always wanted to re-run Against the Giants, but don't have the time or patience to convert it. So I'm really interested in this. Problem is, I play 3.5 and don't have the disposable income to move to Pathfinder. I've read that Pathfinder and 3.5 are "close enough" that you can run an adventure from one "as is" with the other rules. Is that true? Are there any serious caveats to that? If I do get this AP, I'd want to run it with minimal to no conversion.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my friends talks about a childhood friend of his who named his monk Theo, who followed the god J'hip.

Theodore the J'hip monk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Because Windows 7 ate 9.


I'm so, so very sorry.

Don't be :-)

Why are they going to 10?
Because 10 is higher than 9, making it more advanced.

I think they should have called it Windows 11 and had Nigel Tufnel introduce it.

"This one goes to 11..."


MMCJawa wrote:
Well They also killed Brad Dourif's character off in one episode, even though previous ones had suggested he might be the big bad.

Yeah I still can't get over that... I would've loved to have seen him as the "real" clairvoyant...


Skeld wrote:
Kalshane wrote:

I don't get the "Blame Simmons" bandwagon I've seen here and elsewhere.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm saving any judgement until ** spoiler omitted **

Also...

Spoiler:
its likely the hallucinations started when she left. His fragile brain couldn't deal with the fact she was gone, so it decided that she wasn't.


Don't have PVR so can't rewind, but can someone else confirm

whats in the box?:
Was that the dead alien from the safe house in the box that Carter quickly closed in the opening scene?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I wish I could book seats ahead of time.

We have that here in Montreal: VIP seating. You can book specific seats. It's f*&%ing expensive ($20 for a seat) but its quiet, calm, adult (18+ they serve liquor) and no line ups for the popcorn/candy. They'll even bring it to you in your seat. Very nice. And they are paired in a way that prevents at least one person from taking your armrest on you.

Good to get out and see a movie with the wife and not have to worry about getting there early enough to get seats, or getting snacks or what have you. But you pay a premium.

Edit: Ninja'd by bugleyman


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
GregH wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The difference is that none of the mentioned cures for physical ailments change who you are.
If you have a mental illness, isn't changing "who you are" the whole point of the treatment?

You're trying to change one part. Unfortunately our limited knowledge in this area means you sometimes end up doing the equivalent of nuking the brain from orbit.

You're trying to put a new sail on the ship, but you wind up replacing the entire hull

Medicine isn't perfect. Sometimes whats possible is not what's desired. Sure, we would all like to only remove that part that is affected by illness and leave the rest untouched. But that doesn't usually work for treatments on other parts of the body, why should it be insisted upon when trying to fix something in the brain? In the end its up to the patient and the doctor to decide if the end result is better than what you started with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The difference is that none of the mentioned cures for physical ailments change who you are.

If you have a mental illness, isn't changing "who you are" the whole point of the treatment?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A brilliant kid, but an extreme outlier. Public and even most private schools were not set up to handle kids like this because they are so rare that its impossible to cater to them and to the "regular" kids. His parents seem to have found out how to satisfy his needs within the established system (let him self-teach, get him out of public school as soon as possible and into higher education).

Schools have a lot wrong with them, but having the infrastructure to handle kids like this for 12 years is not one of them.


Until we see a bunch of drunken frat boys from 2436, who got their hands on a time machine from one of their dad's lab, pledging on the white house lawn, I'm going to assume that we as a species will never be able to master time travel.

(Cause you know its got to happen eventually...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At the speed of 1s/s!


thejeff wrote:

I suspect that bit's not actually true. Soldiers occasionally take prisoners and I suspect they point guns at them even when not actually shooting. If someone tries to surrender, do soldiers immediately stop covering them, even if he still has weapons close to hand?

It's one of those catch phrases that sounds good and may even be generally true, but certainly isn't a hard and fast rule.

Fair enough, I've never been in the military so if anyone else knows better I'll concede the point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

What would really save police lives is if they simply sent out drones with automatic weapons and gunned down all the protesters. Not one policeman would be remotely injured. See now why safety of police officers before taking any other consideration can be a very bad idea?

Policemen and soldiers (and others) have chosen to take jobs that can be quite risky. Nobody is forced to be one. It is, quite literally, part of the job. Certainly, give them what protective gear they NEED. It's ridiculous they would need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles to deal with a peaceful protest - if so, they are severely incompetent at their job.

It's ridiculous they'd need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles even to deal with looting.

When you assume that the public is the enemy, then it automatically becomes a war, and therefore you need war machines.

One of the best parts of the John Oliver monologue is the bit where they show the photo of the police officers pointing their automatic rifles at someone with their hands up and then they cut to the interview where you have someone (can't remember name or occupation) indicating that in a war, soldiers only point their weapon when they are in the process of firing them.

They have the toys but they have no clue how to use them properly.

That can only lead to a happy ending...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is appropriate here:

John Oliver on police militarization


SeeDarkly_X wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Orthos wrote:

I pretty much grew up on stuff like This and This

Also This but that's DC of course. But it's awesome enough to need mentioning.

You're lucky. I grew up on stuff like this

Oh please... there was NOTHING wrong with that at the time.

Anyone growing up on that had nothing better to compare it to.

I would also know. ;)

(I admit though, many advancements in animation and storytelling have improved the entire form over time. Leaving really no excuse for things like Ultimate Spider Man or TTGo... ugh)

I agree with SeeDarkly_X. If you're a child of the 70s then this was the s&*%.

Of course it did raise interesting questions. Like what *was* spiderman swinging from when he was swinging over the tree tops in Queens?!? :)


KSF wrote:
No thanks. I wouldn't want to watch B5 without Andreas Katsulas. Or Richard Biggs for that matter.

Based on the things that jms has said about Katsulas, I doubt he would do it if he didn't think he could get someone to portray G'kar properly.

Or he doesn't use G'kar.


Pan wrote:
Are they really goping feature film exclusive with B5? I thought the movie would serve as a pilot for a new series?

WB has the TV rights to B5 and they don't want to do anything. JMS has the motion picture rights, so that's what he's going forward with. Since he thinks its been too long since the show was on, he doesn't think a follow-on to the series makes sense, so he's rebooting it. Whether that's a good or bad idea is open for interpretation.


thejeff wrote:
GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Of course, you could basically drop Season 5.
Or do it right...
Well, you're dropping so much anyway to fit into a much smaller timeframe of movies and Season 5 was already the stuff he thought could be cut from the main plot, when it wasn't sure there was going to be a Season 5.

Good point. If anything, it may be the one season easiest to fit into a 2 hour movie...


thejeff wrote:
Of course, you could basically drop Season 5.

Or do it right...


I'm a little leery. I don't see how any aspect of the B5 series can be effectively retold in a 2-hour movie. Unless (as someone suggested on ArsTechnica) he decides to go with 1 movie = 1 season. But that requires that fans line up to see 5 movies without getting anxious for something new.

But then, I don't write movie screenplays and jms does. So maybe he knows what he's doing...


Liz Courts wrote:
Each player gets "at least 12 cards," so you should have enough to go around for a standard four player group. However, this limits the variety of options at your disposal (as some mechanics allow for more draws), so each player with their own deck is ideal—but not required.

Thanks Liz. The number explains it. We only allow 4 cards per player (I allow them to swap out and replenish back up to 4 at each new level). But as I said the Dork20 deck can be a bit higher powered than this seems to be (but it would be nice to see some more examples... :)


Are there official rules for using it that explain the 1 deck/person idea? I play 3.5 and use the "Dork20" deck (its a similar idea - its pretty silly and sometimes a little overpowered but my group likes it) and we use only one deck for the whole group.

What about this deck makes it 1/person rather than 1/group? Are there not enough cards to go around?


Andrew R wrote:
GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:

He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.

But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?
Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for you

But what if they happened to get a job that was very short term (say a week or so) and they got paid cash? Don't they have the right to treat themselves for working hard? Even if it was for a very short time and they have to go back on welfare afterward?

Or must poor people always lead a life of misery until they can get solid employment, regardless of the circumstances?

Forcing someone to be miserable sure seems like an infringement of their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

1 to 50 of 1,093 << 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.