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

MMCJawa's page

3,775 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.
I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.

Wow...I thought I was the only person who actually had that opinion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

hhhmm...I mean the whole idea behind magnetism is pretty tied into science?

1 person marked this as a favorite. that a nod to the B movie "Hell Comes to Frogtown"???

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarthPinkHippo wrote:
Speaking of 0-HD races, are there any that have been published that havent already made it into a bestiary?

Off the top of my head, we still need the Kuru, Triaxians, Skinwalkers, and Shabti in a hardcover bestiary, although not sure if Mummy's Mask made the AP cut off. and Triaxians might be hard to do as setting neutral.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:

Hmm...not really fond of a huge Alien theme. Robots I could use. Mythic monsters are fine as long as they don't overload this book. I thought we got that back in Bestiary 4?

Also not caring about the new "occult monsters" in this, as I have no interest in Occult Adventures. I thought that was the purpose of the Occult Bestiary?

As long as we get more Inevitables and Aeons I'll be happy. Unlike Paizo, I like to run the whole "Law vs Chaos" theme and I can also run some pretty interesting adventures involving Aeons. I just wish I had a big chunk more of Inevitables and Aeons to better run my games with.

I would guess, like mythic, most of the occult monsters can be run without needing Occult Adventures. Personally I am glad we are getting more mythic...I hate abandoned rulesets, and mythic monsters are one of the better things in the system

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Crystal Frasier wrote:

It varies from person to person, but:

1) Most trans people don't want their old name shared, especially without their permissions. To most people, especially women who've transitioned and live fulltime, it is a vulnerability, like sharing their medical information or allergies without their permission.

Is there a place I can find the statistics on this sort of thing?
It was a giant mistake for me to come back into this thread

Hi Crystal,

Let me just say that as a het cis male, I find your contributions in this thread and elsewhere really valuable. I learned a lot about trans people via this thread that I never knew before, and and it has made me aware of viewpoints or considerations I probably would have never thought about before. While I can totally relate to the idea of not spending free time on a thread that may bring up some unfun real life stuff you deal with daily, I do value your views and it has improved my outlook/conception of LGBTQ issues.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

hard for me to take the comment about the lack of LGBT villains, when one of the most iconic villains in Pathfinder is Queen Ileosa.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
My feeling is that it won't be in Cheliax at all, but in Andoran. That the vengeance is the destruction of the nation of freedom.

This would make the most sense. An Andoran-based AP otherwise is kind of hard to run, since so much of the country is stable/good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
jemstone wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

Loads of reruns combined with a couple of shows you can't get anywhere else, so you're still stuck with buying the channel if you want to see any of them (before they're out on DVD).
I don't see an issue with this.

*shrug* Weird. Pointless channel is pointless.

Mark Moreland wrote:
Yeah, this isn't so different from Netflix.
It's totally different.

Yeah. Netflix I can watch whatever I want to watch, whenever I want to watch it. with a network...I have to tailor my schedule around what I want to watch, and 90% of the time nothing will be on I have a remote interest in.

I'd rather get more Marvel Netflix shows that I can watch at my leisure, than a station I will ignore or forget about most of the time, assuming I even have cable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got to say...this show's whole premise just sounds amazingly stupid...

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

With that said, I doubt very much that PF ver2 will have any sort of Bonded Accuracy as it is in either of the successors of 3rd edition of the Brand.

Instead, I envision a revamp on how Magic Items work with the character, with +1 to hit/damage be changed to reflect a power bonus for magic abilities, with bonus to hit/damage being at least double the + for weapon costs. (+2 weapon to have +1 to hit/damage)

I would also not have any items replicate class features. (No Ring of Evasion) and have pricing structures that would take more useful items and give them a mark up. (Something that can be GM prerogative)

And yes, Vancian Casting would change/be eliminated.

I doubt Vancian casting would go away in any future edition. IIRC, quite a few of the Paizo peeps LIKE Vancian, and I don't see them removing elements of the game that they themselves enjoy.

Although I could see it tweaked perhaps, as happens in some of the Unchained magic rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am actually very happy with the TOR publishing Pathfinder books. I have avoided getting a single Pathfinder book because I mostly use my Kindle to try out new fiction. Also, I rarely see any Pathfinder books for sale in book stores, even those with gaming material. There is a pretty large segment of the population that the current book like just never reaches.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Myth Lord wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Myth Lord wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I think the biggest issue with getting new lycanthropes is that literally no lycanthrope stats are needed. Just use the template.
And mythology holds many animal-people that are not only much more interesting and special than the were-D&D's-fill-in-any-animal, but also are more original as they aren't taken from D&D.

Of course, I just don't care if we get any additional Were-animals. Shapeshifting animals from myth have value. But generic Were-Animal, not really.

I mean, there are some really cool animal shapeshifters, like hags which transform into bees or monsterous humanoids based on berserkers who can wear an animals skin to take it's form.

I see people wish for Werejaguars and wereraven.

Those people clearly don't care or don't want to know about Valravn, Raven Mockers, Nagual and other such awesome creatures.

Werefox? Kitsune?

When I was younger though, the werefox from D&D was my favorite monster, but only because they are very vain and like myself narcists.

As someone with some passing familiarity with Valravns and Raven Mockers, They really only have superficial resemblance to typical were creatures. So they don't really fill a Were-raven niche, especially since I imagine Were-ravens would take inspiration from Native American beliefs regarding the Raven as a trickster spirit, but would have the typical were-creature traits of being a person who can take animal or hybrid animal form.

In contrast, a Valravn is a raven-like monster, sometimes depicted as a winged wolf, who gains power from eating the dead, and can only take human form after consuming the heart of a child.

Similarly, Raven Mockers are monstrous creatures of the witch/undead persuasion, who are invisible demons or spellcasters who hunt the elderly and sick, slaying people without leaving a mark. They can prolong their own lives which each heart/soul taken.

Both monsters only have a connection to ravens, and neither occupy the niche of were-creature of popular culture.

Saying that people should just want the Valravn instead of a wereraven is like me ordering a Reuben in a restaurant and being told I should be happy with a hamburger. Yes...both involve meat between two pieces of bread, but they are not the same thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that the scene with BW and Banner was a bit clumsily edited, in that it does seem like she relates sterilization with monster, when the intent was "Red Room programming = monster"

My understanding was that BW had to have her role extensively altered and rewritten, due to the actresses RL pregnancy. So some of the problems might be blamed on that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Why not?

Like seriously. . . Monopoly hasn't changed for a long time fundamentally, and its still going strong.

Uno is still published and sells without having to be "upgraded" to Uno 2.0

Chess has remained unchanged for centuries. . .

RPGs are the only place where companies push out new editions like that.

Pathfinder is far more complex than any of those games, and even though I am in agreement with you that I don't think any sort of major revamp is needed, at some point the errata just piles up and requires a new "edition", whatever that means.

Plus I am sure the developers have looked at parts of the game and thought to themselves "Man this could be written better" or "Wow in hindsight we should have done X, not Y". Games like Monopoly or Chess don't have rules teams constantly tinkering with the game design, dissecting it and analyzing it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rule of cool

Warhammer 40K

Army of Darkness

Would be my guesses...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:
Memory may be betraying me but I think the Halfling names for themselves from Tolkein was Kuduk whilst the other races called them halflings or hobbits.

Close. They called themselves Kuduk. Other races called them halfling (in elvish) or Kud-Dukan or if they had business dealings with them, Kuduk. Hobbit is a product of the translation convention Tolkien used, being "modernized" from holbytla (old english translating Kud Dukan, which I think might be proto-Adunaic). They would have called themselves hobbits if proto-Adunaic were old English. Or maybe I'm mixing my mannish and the proto-Rohirrim shared linguistic roots with the people of Haleth rather than that of Beor and Hador that became Adunaic.

TL;DR If you think anything in Tolkuen's languages is relatively simple and comprehensible you're probably wrong. And I am way too much of a geek.

KingmanHighborn wrote:
Mighty Squash wrote:
The lazy naming all around is a bit bothersome, but I think I may be more bothered by catfolk existing at all (especially as a player race) than by their name in particular.

I could say the same thing about humans too, lazy name, and more infectious in a world then the bubonic plague.

That said Catfolk have just as much a right to exist in a world as elves and dwarves. And especially humans.

No, they really don't. They're a lazy anthropomorphism. Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, and the various oriental and Indian races have a mythological basis. If anthropomorphic cats and rats had a mythological basis Paizo would have used the mythological terms like they did for the Indian races that many people don't recognize.

Halflings and Orcs at least predate D&D and halflings can be justified by runaway sexual selection.

It's okay to have modern anthropomorphic races, but they're hardly in the "you can't have a wide market fantasy game without them" territory that humans and elves fall in, nor do they come with the respectability of Asian mythologies.

There are creatures from myth and medieval bestiaries that approximate catfolk. You have the Nekomata and several different but similar cat Yokai from Japan, The Kirata (I think) from India, which are tigerfolk, Korrigans (I think), which in Breton myth are sometimes given cat-like properties, the Ewah which is a mountain-lion woman, and the Donestre from Medieval bestiaries, which are lion-like humanoids. Probably some others I am either blanking on at the moment. So they probably have just as much mythological street cred as the Vishkanya, for instance, even if they don't use a specific name from the above mythologies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

The CEO doesn't care what gamers or the community think. But I doubt he wants another company doing what he couldn't or succeeding where he failed.

You sort of assume that the massive company which is Hasbro (or even the pretty successful WoTC division) actually value the tabletop industry to care enough that another company is doing "well". And even then I don't even know if Paizo, as successful as the company is, makes anywhere near enough to make Hasbro blink

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Hama wrote:

I'll watch season two. Mostly out of inertia.

I've noticed, when I watch Flash or AoS, I watch it. And when I watch Gotham, i usually also do some other stuff on my second monitor. Not a good sign.

Basically this. Gotham is my "Put it on, I'm cooking/cleaning/writing/reading/playing Peggle" show. usually just background noise for something else...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the original topic, one advantage PDF's have over hardcopies is searchability and ease of use.

Now, this isn't a problem for all books. The bestiaries for instance are incredibly easy to use, and I would argue even easier than the PDF. A lot of that is down to organization and formatting of stat arrays

In contrast, the core rulebook is a thick, dense, hard to read tome. I don't generally even use the book, I just go to the PRD, because I can find stuff a lot quicker. The same with some of the other rulebook line books.

So a major step forward would be redesign of the rule books to more easily facilitate rules use. I think you could vastly improve that book with greater use of bullet lists, use of different fonts, and more diagrams and visual charts.

So that is one step Paizo can go towards for increasing the utility of their books.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Callous Jack wrote:
I wasn't excited for this at all until that second trailer came out.

Same here. At this point Marvel pretty much has my money guaranteed opening weekend for any movie they produce.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


AoU spoilers:

I think the AI was basically a way for Thanos to "get back" the mind gem if Loki absconded with it or it was otherwise lost. However it got merged/corrupted with the AI Stark had created for the Ultron program

What is also interesting is that Vision may know about Thanos and such than he has let on. He says the human race is doomed in his convo with Ultron at the end, but is it doomed because humanity is foolish? or because Thanos is gunning for the infinity stones.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yay on getting more info, but Nay that we are cramming all of Golarion in one book...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is currently a lawsuit going on between Hasbro and Sweetpea entertainment over the rights, as Sweetpea may no longer legally have rights to the property, since made for syfy movies may not count as theatrical releases

At any rate, even if they don't own the specific rights to DnD, the rights situation is complicated, since Sweetpea never had the rights to the settings, specific characters etc. Just the generic DnD stuff.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Man I am so glad we got three episodes of the Ogre plotline, and they squeezed all of the gang war into one. Because heaven forbid Gotham make a finale that makes sense...

3 people marked this as a favorite.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Finally saw the movie tonight: I agree with overall views that say it's awesome and well-balanced regarding giving characters equal coverage, but that it also is over-stuffed and could have used a longer running time.

Spoilery thoughts:

Random comments that have been brought up in the thread that I am going to quickly chime in on:

Never noticed the issue with Cap taking a hit from Ultron in the movie, and it was never something I even thought about here. PS those weren't lasers but obviously some sort of generic energy blast/repulsive effect. Most of the "fatal" strikes by the ultron sentinels was via the blue energy blasts, which Cap never got hit with.

Whedon leaving the MCU/Whedon in general. I doubt there are any bad feelings from Whedon with the Keven Fiege and Marvel studios. They all seem to have a good working relationship. Whedon is just utterly burnt out from the work. Keep in mind he has been doing almost nothing but MCU stuff (Consulting, script-doctoring, script-writing, directing, etc) since the first Captain America movie. That is a TON of work for one person, especially on some a narrow subject.

PS...Whedon uses tropes...but there is nothing wrong with using tropes, since everyone since Homer has been doing so, and Whedon pulls them off well.

Other thoughts:
Supposedly the Blue-ray includes 45 minutes of extra footage cut from the movie. I am thinking that would have solved so many issues with the movie. In fact I really wished that Marvel studios just released a mostly uncut version. Plenty of awkward scenes left in, including some ambiguity on Ultron's exact origins, Strucker's offscreen death, Ultron's initial evolution, more explanation on Thor's vision, etc.

I kind of figured Quicksilver might not last the movie, since he wasn't confirmed for Civil War, and Marvel might consider him disposable since they might not want two (popular) versions of the character in different movie series. Which is a shame because the MCU Quicksilver felt a lot closer to the Marvel version.

Ultron was surprisingly hilarious (I love the "Oh for God's Sake" line), and I think they did a good job of making him sort of a Crazy robot version of Stark. Overall the humor element was pretty well done. great was it that a good chunk of the movie was you know, actually doing heroic things? Like saving people? like superheroes do? I am looking at you DCU.

Finally, Hawkeye was great. I love the reveal that he had a farm and a family, and they did a really good job of making him the "humanity" of the team.

One thing I was surprised of: I figured the events of this movie would lead into Civil War. And they didn't. If anything, Cap and Stark ended on even more chummier terms than for most of the movie.

Also kind of sad Hulk didn't get into space so he could hang out with the Guardians. Damn you fake rumors.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:

4) Parties. There's no one class that does everything. It's...

I agree...Farscape did an amazing job of this; although it was science fiction (really more like space fantasy), it really nailed the classic fantasy trope characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

The previous tries at a D+D movie arguably, had none of the factors that made Guardians a success. Those are things that you can't predict from budget alone.

Oh I agree with you. I have never had an interest in seeing DnD 2 and 3, but the first movie I did see, and it had Battlefield Earth levels of badness.

I actually think Hasbro can release a big budget DnD movie that will make money...I just don't think it will actually be very good. They would need to get some good script writers and directors involved, and obviously that didn't happen for any of the Transformers or Battleship Earth.

Unfortunately, any glance at TV or movies can easily prove that you can make tons of money on products that are not actually very high quality.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Adjule wrote:

To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give. They would need to find a director that will do D&D justice (like what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings), either license it out to a decent studio (or go the Marvel route and make an in-company studio), and fork over a big enough chunk of money to where it doesn't look like either a SyFy made for TV movie or something a beginner student would make.

I honestly don't think Hasbro would dare do that. Also, they need a good story. There are plenty good ones from past adventures as well as the novels. I would love to see the War of the Lance from Dragonlance done justice (not that horrendous animated travesty), but since D&D is all about the damn Forgotten Realms, I don't see that happening.

But I don't see Hasbro actually putting in the required resources to make a good D&D movie, despite them saying they want to expand the "brand" into movies and/or TV shows.

Battleship had a budget of $220 million. I don't see budget being a crucial problem here.
Keep in mind that Battleship the Game made as much or more money in one year, than the entire history of the RPG industry combined. The reason the movie drew people in is that many many more people played Battleship than roleplaying games and it had a strong nostalgia factor going for it.
I've got to think it's got less draw per person who played it though. It's not like there's anything to it that makes you think "story".

Yeah I cite Battleship because, the whole premise of adapting that particular game into a big budget movie about fighting aliens is utterly ridiculous. And it still made money, despite being an absolutely crappy movie.

DnD is a far easier sell IMHO

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Adjule wrote:
To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give.
You forget one other thing. It would require an audience that does not exist.

That's not true. There's not a big enough built in audience that will see a D&D movie just because it's a D&D movie, but that doesn't mean a good fantasy movie drawing on the D&D property won't find an audience.

Fantasy has been hot and it hasn't just been those who were already fans of the property it was based on.

Here's the question what is there about D+D that will bring a draw to a fantasy movie, as opposed to using a popular novel or big Named stars? I would submit to you that a movie with Dungeons and Dragons in it's title would do worse than a fantasy movie with a generic non-game based title, because of it's association with middle aged nerds.

Given that most of the folks here don't even PLAY D+D any more, what would draw even them?

It's not like this problem hasn't come up before. I imagine people made the same arguments about adapting comic properties back in the 90's.

Hell those arguments were heard on the forum just last year. Many posters (including I believe yourself, LazarX) were predicting that Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be a colossal bomb, since hardly anyway had ever heard of the property and so had no recognition. And then it proved to not only be a pretty well reviewed movie, but also a huge financial success.

Most of the big blockbuster entertainment being produced nowadays is largely a product of "nerd culture". To think that somehow DnD label is going to be repulse the general public in an age where films based around Kaiju, giant robots, and superheros make major buck, and where the broader culture itself is exposed to numerous fantasy tropes from video games and mind-boggling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:

To get a D&D movie that would actually work, be good, and make Hasbro their money back and then some, would require more than Hasbro is willing to give. They would need to find a director that will do D&D justice (like what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings), either license it out to a decent studio (or go the Marvel route and make an in-company studio), and fork over a big enough chunk of money to where it doesn't look like either a SyFy made for TV movie or something a beginner student would make.

I honestly don't think Hasbro would dare do that. Also, they need a good story. There are plenty good ones from past adventures as well as the novels. I would love to see the War of the Lance from Dragonlance done justice (not that horrendous animated travesty), but since D&D is all about the damn Forgotten Realms, I don't see that happening.

But I don't see Hasbro actually putting in the required resources to make a good D&D movie, despite them saying they want to expand the "brand" into movies and/or TV shows.

Battleship had a budget of $220 million. I don't see budget being a crucial problem here.

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

I think Hasbro would do well (and has the clout) if they partnered with a major movie network. Whether D&D is strong enough to warrant the investment of money is another matter (I'm skeptical they'd be able to raise sufficient funds to make a decent movie, to be frank).

I don't see this being an issue. Hasbro has their own studios, and they have collaborated with Dreamworks, Paramount, and Universal to produce movies around Transformers, GI Joe, Ouija, and Battleship.

I mean...Hasbro is making a JEM AND THE HOLOGRAMS movie that is due out next year, and they have movies such as Candyland, Monopoly, and Hungry Hungry Hippos in the "production que/development Hell" for theatrical release live action movies.

If studio execs are willing to greenlight development on HUNGRY HUNGRY think the financing a big budget fantasy D&D movie would give them pause.

That we will get a live action, Hasbro-backed DnD movie is, for me personally, just a question of when, not if, and really only dependent on the outcome of the lawsuit with Sweetpea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:

The title says it all.

Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and a lot of other movies have been there done that. I remember something about that Seventh Son movie that came out. Looked very much like a D&D type of movie but it looks like it got bad reviews.

Hasbro is so focused on a movie that I believe they aren't really worried about the D&D TTRPG game itself, but what exactly could a D&D movie bring that other movies have not? I mean we already have those other god awful movies that people haven't forgotten.

Do you think they could pull off a blockbuster?

I didn't realize their was a only a specific number of big screen fantasy movies that were allowed to be made.

To make a similar point, why do we need more comic book movies? Don't we have enough? Yet in 2016 we are, from my superficial glance, getting 6 new superhero movies from 3 studios (Deadpool, Gambit, Age of Apocalypse, Suicide Squad, Batman vs Superman, Dr Strange, and Civil War).

The LotRs, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones have all been super successful, which shows there is money to be made in the epic fantasy genre, as long as you take the material seriously and don't run afoul of any of the typical big budget movie problems.

Look at it this way: Hasbro has made billions (yes, billions) on Transformers, a property about robots that fight each and turn into trucks. Hell they turned Battleship and the Ouija Board into (bad) movies. Compared to those properties, producing a big budget DnD movie should be a cinch, since you have numerous settings, adventures, novels, and rule books to pull from.

Also, the relative merit of the older movies really isn't a factor that needs much consideration. The average movie watcher at this point has forgotten those movies exist, and there are far far more visible franchise properties that have been rebooted in even less time. Also, Hasbro can provide a far better budget and better talent than anything sweet pea can produce.

So yeah, Hasbro can make a ton of money on this property. Whether they can make a good movie is another story, and honestly I am not sure. I think a lot of it is going to come down to who they get to direct the project, and how interested/knowledgeable that person is regarding fantasy/DnD.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I admit the Bestiaries are what got me back into Pathfinder, and still are my favorite hardcover rulebooks, along with the Campaign setting hardbacks

But yeah, Bestiary 3 and 4 are my favorites, mostly because they are not simply redoing the same monsters we have seen time and time again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Gotham is the third show I have seen this season that in it's final episodes has decided to inexplicably make a not very popular (former or current) love interest of the lead turn..evil/evilish.

Man did a bunch of writers attend a workshop or something? This is sort of weirding me out.

** spoiler omitted **

Exactly! Although the last one on the list...I loved the hell that the character got powers, but hated that they decided those powers = evil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So did you see the news on this new critter yet?

Yi Qi, the bat-winged dinosaur

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gotham is the third show I have seen this season that in it's final episodes has decided to inexplicably make a not very popular (former or current) love interest of the lead turn..evil/evilish.

Man did a bunch of writers attend a workshop or something? This is sort of weirding me out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

Agents of SHIELD and Daredevil tie ins.

It's mentioned that Matt Murdock grew up at St.Agnes' Orphanage. Skye from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. also stated that she grew up at St.Agnes' orphanage.

The Boxer that Jack Murdock beats is Carl Creel. Creel would later become The Absorbing Man and regularly antagonize the like of Thor and The Avengers. The character did appear in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for season 2.

Unverified currently, but Madam Gao may be an Inhuman. At the very least she has Monk levels.

I think Madame Gao is probably the Crane Mother. Something someone mentioned elsewhere, but packages of heroin they were producing all had the symbol of the Heavenly cities that Iron Fist gets his powers from.

I don't think she has any connection with the inhumans, nor do I think they will figure into the Netflix series in any major way, at least not until after the Defenders.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
I'm not a trans* person so I'm not really qualified to talk about such matters, but something I feel is worth mentioning is that having someone that the public can empathise with may be good. One good thing about reality TV is that it develops audience attachment to a person. In that way, being emotionally attached to a trans* person would be good for the general public.

Sometime it can, sometimes it seeks to turn real life into a circus where the audience is expected to laugh at the people, not with the people. Honestly I get Lissa's concerns because slight differences in editing and focus could easily make the show go either way. I can think of at least one recent TV show which used Trans people (indirectly) as part of the latter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

As to the original contention posed by the OP, I do think that a new edition of PF is inevitable in the general arc of space and time.

The REAL question to ask, for me at least, is: When would it be acceptable to the PF gaming community to begin a new edition?

For me, the key factor is whether the new edition meets a need within the community. 3E came at a time when interest in D&D generally had faded, and its eccentricities (dwarves couldn't be paladins, wonky multiclassing, etc.) were ripe for revision.

4E came at a time when many people were still scooping up 3.5E books and 3rd Edition was still the dominant force within the TTRPG community. It proposed many answers to problems people had with 3E, but the answers had not gained traction within the community.

Pathfinder Unchained seems to represent the developers testing new ideas with the community. In the long run, it might be looked back upon as a playtest for certain parts of PF 2.0. It at least is a public playtest, which 4E did not have, and so it was met with much more ambivalence and controversy than it otherwise could have been.

When 3E came out, a lot of people observed that it had incorporated a lot of houserules that people had adopted at their own tables.

I think it's fine for PF 2.0 to come out if it (1) incorporates changes that people are ready for and (2) it comes at a time when people feel it's time for a fresh start.

I think the Paizo showrunners have basically said that not only is the Core Rulebook still selling really well, and in fact every year they sell more than the year before. So from a business sense it probably doesn't make much sense until overall sales in the RPG line and of the Core Rulebook start showing evidence of a decline.

I do think that Unchained in many ways is a stealth update to the core rules, since it does seem to tackle and seek to address several major complaints in the game. It makes me wonder if we might not see some sort of spiritual successor dealing with other commonly cited problems.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jared Leto as the Joker I know he doesn't have his trademark suit on in this picture, which might help things...

And there is a precedent with the internet freaking out about the joker and then being pleasantly surprised (see: Heath Ledger casting)


This seems more Marilyn Manson and Hot Topic than Joker...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Disney largely keeps their hands off the creative workings of Marvel and I imagine Lucasfilm now, as long as they can deliver movies that make a profit.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Netflix orders season 2 of Daredevil, to premiere in 2016

Looks like we don't have to wait until Defenders to see more of Matt Murdoch. Hopefully we get Electra and Bullseye next season.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

The page count could go up, but with the overall editing and combining/maneuvering of repeat rules, the overall pages may stay the same.

It might be easier to just come out with the PFver2, but then again...

CAN page count go up? the core rulebook is already a massive tome with binding issues. If anything, if they are going to update rules in this fashion, I would rather they just break it up into a players and a GM book.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

People writing reviews of books they haven't read, and whose reviews are either based on the product description, speculation, or commentary by other people.

Alternatively, people writing reviews/posting threads about how a game product completely sucks, because they were disappointed/didn't like some feature, which may have amounted to 4 pages in a 200 page book.

People writing long complaint posts and rants about a product, based on third hand information that was either incomplete or inaccurate.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

It basically goes against pathfinder's original founding principle- a desire for backwards comparability and a wish to continue using the large body of previous books.

That statement above is pretty much the whole point of the book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
I am reluctant to assume that the entire movie will be GRIMDARK!!!!! all the way through based on what little we've seen here. But even if this is a fair representation I'm still far more interested in this than almost anything Marvel or SW. Marvel is doing the lighter fare, DC is doing a bit darker stuff. Most of the characters can work in either type of story and it's just as well that WB isn't trying to copy MS too closely.
Hmm. I hardly agree that Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Avengers: Age of Ultron are "lighter fare." Thus far, frankly, Marvel certainly seems to 'get it' much better than DC, insofar as movies are concerned. Television is another matter: I consider The Flash by far the best of the bunch, followed closely by Agent Carter. Neither Arrow nor Agents of SHIELD do much for me at all.

And Daredevil has pretty much blown all of those TV shows away, hands down.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unbroken that came out this past winter was directed by her, and got pretty good critical review. IMDB also lists another movie in post-production and another announced.

EDIT: reading the article first, it says Marvel is PURSUING her, not that its a done deal. I kind of would be shocked if they can snag her honestly.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two very different ways to look at this here.

If you are taking a authentic to history/religion approach, than I completely agree with Alkenstarian. I don't think there is much dispute within the history community that Snorri modified and reinterpreted the legends, bringing in both Christian elements as well perhaps elements of the greco-roman beliefs. If you want to run a game that is super authentic to the original Norse cultures and beliefs, than you are better off trying to figure out what elements are probably exaggerated and what are authentic.

If you and your players however are more interested in the legends as they have been passed down since Snorri's time, the so to speak "Pop Culture" version of Norse myth, than your group should go ahead and use those elements. Because sometimes you don't want to play in the real setting, you want to play in the Pulp/Popular interpretation of said setting.

Both are completely valid game choices, if your group is all on board.

1 to 50 of 770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.