Axebeak

MMCJawa's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 6,938 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,938 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Furdinand wrote:

If they can't handle updating a lot of existing material, it tells me two things:

1) Paizo didn't learn lessons from the first time the classes were introduced.
2) 2E, as a system, isn't as streamlined/simplified as they think. It will just seem that way because so much will be erased.

Paizo can update material as quickly or slowly as they like, my preference is still my preference.

Well there are other factors as well to consider:

1) They probably want to do more than just the bare minimum needed to make those classes work. And they are probably going to want to playtest many/most of these classes. That takes time, and introducing a million classes at once will diminish how much time any given class is playtested

2) Some people full stop won't buy a book that is just updates of existing content. To get those consumers, you really need to mix in new material as well

3) There are a finite number of options in any game system, even PF 2E. If you want the game to have legs, mass dumping updated content is going to rapidly fill up that design space. Slow and Steady = a system they can produce for longer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:


So I wouldn't expect a retread of "Ultimate Magic", "Ultimate Combat", "the Advanced Race Guide", "the Advanced Class Guide", etc. So while a lot of stuff from those books will be revisited, it's conceivable that the same book might contain, say, the Witch, Magus, Occultist, Oracle,and Kitsune; the fact those things were split between four or five books in PF1 won't keep them from being in a single book with a different unifying theme in PF2. A goal will likely be for each new hardcover to contain a significant amount of stuff we never saw in PF2 mixed in with the new versions of old stuff. So if a book had 8 classes in it, 3 might be wholly new and 5 might be reprints.

This is what I expect and hope for. I think it's likely one of the first hardcovers will be very much a player splat, but I think it will be a mix of classes/stuff from past books, and probably a large amount of new or effectively new material. And the overall format might very well get shaken up, which is sort of what has happened with some recent books like Ultimate Wilderness, which had both new player races AND a new class, plus setting info.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So...

Did you see Hereditary yet, and if so what did you think

"making tongue clicking sound"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I have a serious question here, which I'm going to bold for emphasis:

Has anyone here ever actually had a player complain because they couldn't be bad at X if they were good at Y outside of the social skills?

Because I've been playing RPGs for more than 15 years in almost every context possible with what must be hundreds of different people by now
if you include one shots (I ran LARPs for a while in there, and gamed at cons), and dozens of different systems (some of which had more consolidated skill systems than PF2, some more diversified than D&D 3.0 ever dreamed of being) and I have literally never seen this happen. IME this is a pure theorycraft problem rather than something actual players complain about or have issues with.

Have I seen players complain about not being able to be bad at X? Not so much.

Have I seen players complain because everyone felt too homogenous and no one could stand out very much from anyone else? ABSOLUTELY.

Signature skills and skill feats will help a lot with this I think.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Bumblebee teaser trailer

As a fan of the old G1 cartoon (for all its faults and shortcomings), I absolutely loathed the Michael Bay films. But this new film (which seems to be a franchise reboot), for which I had absolutely no hope, looks like it has a surprising amount of potential to actually be a good movie. And it's directed by Travis Knight, of the excellent Kubo and the Two Strings.

This does look way better. And I think the writer is a woman, so hopefully we won't get any of the super creepy bayisms that showed up in the other transformers (I am looking at you, dude that keeps a printed out card with statutory rape laws jotted down on it).

I also like that the transform sequences seem toned down? Not like a million moving parts.

If this is good I am more than happy to pretend the other movies don't exist :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
I recall an AP that was on a boat and I played with a character that didn't have swim and it came up quite a bit as they played up that fact and it came up WAY more often than thier non-existent social skills.
Was he really excellent at Climb and did that come up as well? If not, you've just described a character with untrained Athletics in PF2. At least at low levels.

If it's the campaign I think it is climb was incredibly necessary in the early levels. I can't speak for the character's skill of course, but climb would probably have come up a lot in the first act.

ETA: As far as the idea of being bad at a thing, given what we now know about Signature skills, I think it would be interesting to have an option of taking a Drawback (penalty to a skill, flaw to a stat, possibly other flavorful options) at char gen to get an extra signature skill.

I think they want to avoid this because suddenly options like these become, not flavorable character options, but required for specific optimized builds. Being able to go to Master and Legendary on an extra skill is a pretty powerful option at high levels potentially.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My gut response was that I wasn't in favor of the consolidation of some of these skills, in particular athletics, mostly for monster reasons. A giant deep sea anglerfish SHOULDN'T be able to run after the players on land or climb a tree.

BUT...it seems like an easy solution to this would just to be incorporate rules like this into the subtype. If creatures with the aquatic subtype simply are incapable of locomotion outside the water, than this never has to come up.

The player side of things is trickier. As some have argued, if people don't really invest much into climb or swim anyway, than consolidation really doesn't matter.

It also to me doesn't seem super unrealistic that say, someone untrained might be able to do these things, even if they are from the desert. Water does exist in and around deserts, and it to me doesn't seem implausible that even a member of a nomadic desert tribe hasn't ever had an opportunity to wade into a sea/oasis/river. Especially since many important trade cities and outposts in such environments are situated around permanent water sources. And climbing, hell most of us have had to do some climbing in our life, even if it's not mountaineering.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

For me, I hope for new things, rather than purely “updated” books.

If they go with books full of DM options, I hope there’s a good 50% of new stuff alongside the kingdom building rules and other such subsystems.

If they produce a player book, I want loads of stuff I’ve not seen before. Not solely vigilantes, oracles, gunslingers, etcetera.

I’m kind of over new monsters with multisyllabic names. One of the most tiring things about facing a new edition is the inevitable string of new bestiaries. I can’t see any way around that though.

PS- I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but I REALLY hope they find a new naming convention. (No more “Ultimates”, a term for monster books other than “Bestiary” etcetera). It’s really frustrating as a collector when a game with multiple editions reuses book titles. It leads to confusion and potentially shonky behaviour from people offloading old edition products on new customers.

This is my wish as well. I want the new books to acquire new naming schemes (although I am find with the "adventures" line if it's covering brand new topics). I also want a mix of updated and new material. If you are going to, for instance, do an APG type book as your first splat, include 5 former classes, but also include some new classes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would imagine, for those with the collector bug that just like to see AP/books neatly arranged on a bookshelf, POD or equivalent is probably not going to scratch that itch.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

And they adapted them to Pathfinder from 3.5 D&D.

Now we have a whole new Pathfinder coming out. Thus my being curious if they might translate RotRL or another iconic campaign to Pathfinder 2.

Personally I'm not sure what the problem is in doing any old AP to level 20. They went to level 17 after all, which would allow Wizards and Clerics access to level 9 spells. It shouldn't be too difficult adjusting them with the new system to reach level 20... and some folk enjoy campaigns that reach the highest levels.

Though if I were to be honest, the APs I'd want for 2nd edition are not likely to be done - Reign of Winter or Hell's Rebels. But seeing I'm currently starting a new group through RotRL (and they're at level 1), I'd not mind seeing that one redone. ;) And it is a classic.

Would another reprint of those sell though? Sure, you could update it to 2E, but both books also had other elements reworked in relation to plot, etc. Presumably they have worked out of their system all the improvements they could imagine for those APs.

Kingmaker is notoriously hard to get ahold completely in print, and hasn't had any sort of update. So going with it makes the most sense.

Also, my personal opinion is that while I would order Kingmaker, I wouldn't put down money for the other two, which I already own.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

THey have reprinted RotRL and CotCT already. I would be utterly shocked if those ever get reprinted for 2E

Kingmaker now? that seems a possibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Even though I am skeptical it will happen today, a Bard blog is currently on the top of my wishlist. Or something that covers whatever this Occult thing actually is and who/what its relevant too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Senkon wrote:
They showed subclasses for druid. Not sure if those are the kind that you're talking about.

The druid stuff I interpreted as being closer to diety or school choice for the cleric and wizard, rather than archetypes


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's almost an infinite number of options available for the campaign setting line, if you consider that besides Nation's books, you could also have books covering specific subregions and major cities, plus all sort of other random content (different monster, organization books, religions, themes, etc)

That's just the inner sea. That doesn't even include different planes, foreign lands, or even planets.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder: Bloodlines


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alchemaic wrote:

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that there's going to be a second AP storyline based around Tar? There's been overlap with countries and locations and even some NPCs before, sure, but this feels to me like if someone took the "continuing the adventure" section from an AP and rescaled it for 1-20.

That's just my thoughts, but since there's sections of map that have at best only been tangentially touched before (Land of the Linnorm Kings, Realm of the Mammoth Lords, Nidal, Galt, most of Garund, Casmaron) I feel like there's more to work with besides bringing back something older.

Well the last Tar AP was less about Tar, and more Gothic Horror in general. So that itch IMO hasn't been scratched yet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
While I am okay with the game design so far shown, I do think option paralysis could be a bigger issue for some players. There are lots of different pools of feats to grab things from. Sure, that allows more customization, but as the game develops it's going to make locking down and selecting options more and more difficult, even compared to PF1

At character creation you actually only need to make...I think 3 choices that aren't things you had to pick already in PF1.

You pick one Ancestry Feat, then one Background, then one Class Feat. That's pretty much it.

In exchange, you have a much less complex Ability Generation system and don't have to pick a general Feat. So your Abilities are simpler and you make three choices from short lists rather than one from a list 100s of choices long.

I think that's significantly easier, personally.

Like I said before, I don't see this as a major problem personally, but I see this as being an issue for some people. Although I would also add that martials look to be more complex...weapon choice seems to matter as they are more different from each other in this edition, so that will be something else to consider in more detail perhaps.

As for short lists? maybe for the core rulebook and the next couple of releases. But you know all of these pool of feats are going to be a lot bigger a few years out, unless Paizo is drastically changing there option publication scheme.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To me, my biggest issue with Wizards is that they can do almost everything without much constraint. I am hoping the wizard class feats are about specialization. If you want to be a blaster, by default you will need to invest in appropriate class feats. If you take the right feats, you will be good at blasting, but maybe not that hot in other spell niches.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Planpanther wrote:
Crayon wrote:


If anything, character creation looks substantially more complicated.

Really? Its as easy as ABC.

While I am okay with the game design so far shown, I do think option paralysis could be a bigger issue for some players. There are lots of different pools of feats to grab things from. Sure, that allows more customization, but as the game develops it's going to make locking down and selecting options more and more difficult, even compared to PF1


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bear in mind that things like Magic Circle and Planar Binding sort of have to fall under either Mental or Material (probably Mental) as well as Spiritual or a Wizard couldn't do them (which they pretty clearly should be able to).

Given that, Spiritual seems less about dealing with external spirits and more about dealing with and empowering your own soul and/or channeling divinity.

I think Magic Circle and Planar Binding are going to be rituals presumably not restricted to class, and therefore their essence classification isn't necessarily relevant to class spell lists.

Yeah I think Planar Binding was specifically referred to as a ritual now. I am guessing quite a few spells are no longer spells now.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

with book of creatures no longer posting regular entries, my weird obscure folklore monster news has declined greatly...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To me at least, if we are only ever going to have 4 spell lists ever for the game (and I am not entirely certain that is going to be the case...they have stated four for the core book, not forever), I could see Witches fitting in well with either occult or primal (but perhaps fitting occult the best), sorcerers fitting in with occult, but maybe with options to pick and choose spell lists based on bloodline (someone with a celestial or fiend bloodline picks divine, someone with a fey bloodline picks primal, someone with aberration picks occult, etc). Bards to me still best fit with arcane, and still don't make sense to me as full casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Witches to me have nothing thematically in common with witches, so I would be surprised and disappointed if they shared a spell list.

Assuming you mean witches have nothing in common with bards, then I agree.

Arrrghhh...I need to stop crit failing my edit checks :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Witches to me have nothing thematically in common with witches, so I would be surprised and disappointed if they shared a spell list.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

well yeah, if that intimidate feat was a cantrip at level one it would be problematic. As a high level use of skill that a character has to feat into, and which will probably mostly be useful on lower level threats? I don't see a problem.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I imagine, even if we don't get it in the core rulebook, there is still room for a half caster that uses slots and not spell points.

At least I would hope so...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

On the plus side, archetypes as just buckets of feats might be useful for niche games. A general pirate archetype that gives some nautical/pirate themed abilities would probably be more efficient than having to create relevant archetypes for each class. Same with archetypes that grant gun rules and so on.

On the other hand, I think if archetypes lack built in abilities, its going to limit them severly compared to the current system, as far as exploring new rules interactions.

In a pirate themed campaign, everyone is going to want a pirate archetype.

If everyone is just taking the same archetype, that will be pretty boring.

Unless I am confused (which is an all too common phenomena on this website), the archetypes swap out class feats, so presumably you would still have the underlying class, so a wizard with a pirate archetype is going to be very different than a fighter with the same archetype.

Of course, I have no idea how flexible all of these will be. Either the archetypes are going to have to have a LOT of class feats to pick from, or the assumption is that folks will be only taking a level or two to pick up some option they want for there build. It's kind of hard for me to imagine a small set of class feats having optimal choices for all of the classes, outside of very specific niche circumstances.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd love to know which Paizo developer was responsible for naming the Druid power source spell list. As for Druids not being divine casters, check the PF1e CRB, page 49 first sentence under the Spells class feature. Druids no longer being divine casters IS a change with the new edition.

A rather meaningless change, since the only real think linking them to clerics was them stating they were divine casters. As far as I am concerned they really only made official what the class has long been treated as, a nature based casting class.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, with a distinct Primal list, if Druids are the prepared casters, I wonder if they end will end up making Shamans someday the spontaneous casting version of this class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Druids were considered divine casters pre-4th Ed/PF2e. But of all the issues, rebranding Druids from divine to something else isn't a big deal (although WHY on earth we're stealing the 4th ed term I do not understand). It's when taken in with everything else it becomes an issue.

But as I said. Everyone who has played the game says it feels like PF1e so I'm clinging to that and praying it holds true for my group.

On this forum at least I have always seen Druid treated as their own distinctive caster, and at least rules wise this seems to hold true. Druids after all don't use the divine spell-list, don't need to worship a god, have their own set of quasi classes (Shifter, Hunter, Ranger) and follow there own unique theme. Naming there spell list Primal just seems to codify those distinctions by name.

Why they went with Primal? probably because it sounds cooler than Nature and was the best synonym of listed options?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would be nice if they included both styles of archetype in the Playtest. If they just go with the feat buckets, there are going to be folks who will probably be annoyed. Promises that "we might implement these in future books" seem to not really work well in dissuading annoyed fans (cough Paladins of other alignments cough)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.

My immediate thought was that they didn't want the psychic spell list to be confused with the psychic class, whenever those some day reappear. But then again Occult versus Occultist is hardly much better :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dead Phoenix wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!
Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.

This.

What I want from a shifter class is a focus on shape shifting without spells and other druid doodads

A druid that is just a bit focused on shapeshifting is still a druid, and not scratching that particular niche.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
I wasn't at the Adventure Path Q&A, but I was at the Future of Paizo one, and they briefly talked about The Tyrant's Grasp. I won't say much, as they didn't say much either, but they specified that they like having a 'looming threat on the horizon', and with the Worldwound closed, they settled on the Whispering Tyrant. They also said that if we had any relatives in Lastwall, we might want to send postcards recommending they take a vacation.

That's actually a bit reassuring to me. I was kind of worried they were going to kill him off before the next edition of Pathfinder comes out, codifying that into the backstory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On the plus side, archetypes as just buckets of feats might be useful for niche games. A general pirate archetype that gives some nautical/pirate themed abilities would probably be more efficient than having to create relevant archetypes for each class. Same with archetypes that grant gun rules and so on.

On the other hand, I think if archetypes lack built in abilities, its going to limit them severly compared to the current system, as far as exploring new rules interactions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:


I still hold out hope that we will get something recognizable as Pathfinder. Everyone who plays it claims it is. But these previews sure sound like we're getting D&D 4th Edition: Returns. Right down to classes being split into Arcane, Divine, Primal and Martial power sources.

I don't really understand this complaint, as spellcaster wise this already existed. Wizards and Clerics and their associated classes have been referred to as Arcane and Divine Casters since before Pathfinder 1E, and Primal just seems a rebranding of Nature, which again is something that predates PF 1E. There is no evidence of Martial Power/Casters at all.

This to me seems pretty much the same as the existing system


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They however will be very different from what we know as archetypes in PF, since they seem to be basically "buckets" of feats.

Whether that is a good thing or not is too early to tell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For what it's worth, I am of the third opinion, the "neutral/depends/needs to see it in action" Too many icons could make reading the book actually a chore, however there are some things that maybe make more sense and will speed up reading if they are icons.

As someone who does peer review on scientific papers, we have to deal with this all the time with acronyms/abbreviations/so forth. Sometimes creating a short hand acronym is a major space saver, and leads to easier reading. However I have also critiqued papers that went so overboard with with short name terminology that the paper became difficult to read, and I needed to print out a cheat sheet just to follow along. Icons are going to be the same way: in moderation they will be helpful, but it doesn't take many icons to turn something into a mess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah that was great!

Although it sort of left me confused on what exactly this means for the movies...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My favorite part of the ending was watching a 10 year old explain it to her parents...

Kind of a nice reminder that these movies are also for kids, not just us nerdy 30 somethings :P


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I can tell you that FOR ME it's mostly 6) and maybe, MAYBE a little bit of 2).

I bought my ticket today for a 11:30am show and I'm still wavering between going or canceling my ticket and staying home and painting more Necrons for my 40K army. The only reason I'm leaning towards still going is that it's beautiful out and I might walk down to the east village afterward just to get a little bit of exercise.

I'm not excited about this movie at all. I mean if I'm surprised by it that will be AWESOME. But when I went to buy my ticket this morning there were plenty of seats to choose from whereas when I bought tickets for Deadpool 2 in the same theater last weekend it was almost sold out THE DAY BEFORE.

Honestly Shin, it's not a bad movie. I saw it yesterday afternoon, and don't regret the purchase. There's some good SW easter eggs scattered throughout, the acting is all pretty good, L3-37 is pretty awesome and actually made me laugh a few times, and Donald Glover's Lando is perfection.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:

I won't watch it for the same reason I haven't watched any Star Wars movie since Phantom Menace.

Jar-Jar Binks.

We must never forget.

Although I would love to see what Donald Glover does with Lando.

I kind of don't understand that mentality? George Lucas (for good or ill) is not involved in the new Star Wars movies.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Donald Glover and his droid are by far the two best things about this movie. I would definitely pay money to see more Lando.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Werthead wrote:
Hama wrote:
Because most people choose to boycott the film hoping it will flop so that Disney removes that Kennedy woman from the chair she's occupying currently and put someoene competent in her place, preferably one without a SJW agenda to push on the audiences.

Fortunately these people are an extremely regressive lunatic fringe whose opinions can be discounted, filed away somewhere and then fired into the sun.

There are numerous problems with THE LAST JEDI relating to plot, structure and logic, but the things some people screamed incoherently about ("WHY ARE ASIANS IN STAR WARS?" seemed to be a particularly inexplicable one) definitely weren't among them.

If people aren't seeing Solo, it's almost certainly not due to some sort of Anti-SJW movement. It's almost entirely due to:

1) Disappointment with prior movies
2) Loss of novelty of Star Wars
3) Poor release schedule (A week after Deadpool 2 and coming on the heels of Infinity War
4) People hearing a million stories of the troubled development history of this movie
5) People not wanting to see Han recast
6) People not really feeling all that interested in seeing Han's backstory.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So if we are going to talk about ranking the various new wave of films, I think I actually appreciated The Last Jedi the most, followed by Rogue One, Solo, and The Force Awakens.

I saw Solo last night and it was a...fine film. That is about it. An enjoyable way to spend a few hours.

I think my concerns going forward are similar to Werthead's. The more Star Wars movies made, the less magical they become. They just become regular movies, and don't get that awe effect helping them cover up their deficits or putting them in people's favorites.

The biggest issue for me though, that that the folks behind Star Wars seem absolutely terrified of doing anything new, constantly bringing things back to the original trilogy. All that does is make the galaxy smaller and the films seem more cookie cutter. Every one of the New movies have done this, and I am not just talking about the anthology movies depicting some backstory event.

Give us a movie series set in the Old Republic or at other time periods. Introduce new threats. Create characters that can go off and do their own completely different things. Sacrifice sacred cows. Just because I love the original trilogy doesn't mean I want to see 50 million variations on it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, I am sure that if there is a Deadpool 3, they will probably find the most ridiculous way of dealing with TJ Miller not being around...

And for an X-force movie, you don't even need to include him


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am pretty sure the actor for Harrison Wells wasn't on Scrubs, unless it was the later seasons which I never watched...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hi James,

Since Joining letterboxd I have been starting to go through various horror franchises, and I am currently working through the Texas Chainsaw series of films.

I love the original, and was curious on your view of that movie. Seems like PF Ogres owe at least a bit of inspiration from these films.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azih wrote:
Oh boy, Firearms are going to be Paladin levels of fun aren't they?

yeah. one good reason to push the gun rules to the next release...

1 to 50 of 6,938 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>