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

sunbeam's page

1,567 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Let me get this straight.

Barry risked the lives of an INFINITE number of alternate universes to save the life of one guy. I guess you could stretch it and say the lives of everyone on his team.

But to save this one guy (Joe in this case, who knew the consequences and chose this path), he risked the lives of:

1) Everyone on Earth 2. That world's Iris, his alternate, his alternate's mom (and his dad?), all Jesse and Wells' friends...

2) His new BFF Supergirl. The people he met when he went there (Winslow, Jimmy, Cat, etc).

3) An INFINITE number of people on an INFINITE number of earths. An INFINITE amount of biomass in the form of trees and animals, etc.

And in typical comic book myopia, we aren't even considering the predicament of all the uncountable (as opposed to INFINITE) number of worlds that each of the INFINITE earths is located in, (so to speak).

That about right? All to save Joe?

Barry is rock stupid. Because with stakes like that...

Joe, Iris, Cisco, Caitlin, himself even - they are all expendable to avoid a disaster that isn't even conceivable. The concept is simple enough, but the scale of it isn't conceivable.

Frankly if I thought there were any chance of Barry getting out of that cell and giving Zoom what he wants, well I'd have administered poison gas into it and killed Barry myself, even if he were my son or something.

I'd also have congratulated him after beating Zoom, then put a bullet in his head "Sorry, but you are never, ever again, going to be in a position to do this again. You are a threat to the lives of so many others they can't be counted,... well whatever the speed force wants, I hope it goes away. Because it, like you, is an idiot."

Because I have an inkling of what INFINITE means, and I can imagine possible consequences of that, as opposed to genius Barry, genius Wells, genius Cisco...

Then, after this whole thing is resolved, Barry turns around and SAVES the mother he let die previously. Wham, out of the blue.

Not bothering to think of any of the ramifications of that. Of course the writers on this show are lazy as heck.

Now let's consider what happened on this show earlier in the season.

Once upon a time, Zoom was safely "stuck" on Earth Two (this is before he developed the ability to travel between worlds all by himself, originally he couldn't). He was dying. They all knew Zoom was dying, and had a doctor (medical professional, whatever)to confirm that fact.

All they have to do is wait, and poof no more Zoom. Instead they have to go and get him.

Then later, Wally gets snatched, and Barry gives a mass murderer his powers, saving his life, and freeing him to kill as many people as he wants, with no obvious way remaining to stop him from doing any of it.

I'd feel safer if the speed force took Barry's power away, and randomly picked someone out of the phone book to give them too.

Even another serial killer would be less likely to commit genocide on cosmic, even metaphysical scale, than emo Barry.

He's not worthy to be the Flash. I know that's the way he is written, but real heroes don't angst their way into insane decisions that have utterly ridiculous dire consequences to save the lives of any one person, no matter how dear to them.

Those are the actions of an idiot, not a hero.

Someone who used these abilities to steal stuff or rule the world would be a darn sight less dangerous than Barry Allen (at least this version of him).

I doubt it affects the popularity of the show at all, but I am very disappointed with whoever is writing this.

That's nice.

Got a link to anything a little more tabular?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berinor wrote:

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm generally not disturbed by importing skilled labor. It's a net gain to the US productivity if we reap the benefits of their education and don't have to pay for it.

The problem with that is that the world is awash in surpluses of skilled labor.

What actually happens is that H1B visas are issued, for example, and the existing labor force finds itself replaced by cheaper labor, and finds its potential earnings curtailed versus what they would be in a market where this wasn't possible. All so that Microsoft and Facebook have a better bottom line for their Satanic Code Mills.

There is literally nothing (not even the common example of doctors), that requires an advanced degree or professional training that isn't in surplus in the developed world (kind of curious term, but I got nothing better).

And actually there is an argument that countries such as the US "braindrain" countries that train people to be doctors, then see them emigrate to the US (or UK) for higher earnings.

That said, there are other aspects of your argument that you aren't considering.

One is that we have a surplus of people like physicists and engineers. And have had for a long time. Every year people are doing their last postdoc at Fermilab and realizing "That faculty job somewhere? That... that isn't going to happen, is it."

Another is that the native born population finds opportunities for advancement curtailed because of the fact that the limited number of niches are already filled. In this case, they never bother to go through the credentialing process that the physicist I mentioned above went through. An example of this is employing Idris Elba on The Wire. Fat chance anyone from Baltimore gets a gig like that in England.

Now you can pull examples of atypical geniuses, and this is commonly referenced in arguments like this: Einstein, Von Neumann, Kurt Godel, etc. But they are uncommon, and even in periods where it was much more difficult to immigrate to this country, they were allowed in.

(As an aside check out Canada's official policies for legal immigration. You just are not emigrating there unless you are an actuarial benefit to that country. Or you do it illegally, claim you are a refugee, or just plain put a wad of cash down in an investment in Canada. And yes they have actual Canadian dollar amounts you can look up.)

But the whole developed is suffering from underemployment, and it is an increasing challenge to deal with it. Automation, laissez faire trade policies, and the like have contributed to it.

Well except for Asian nations. They never bought into all this free trade stuff, and are happily pursuing nationalistic trade policies.

Well the wealthy ones are.

Hmmm got curious and looked up the premise of these works you mentioned.

The Honorable Woman - Spy stuff

Hustle - Con men stuff (my god they got that many seasons out of it?)

The Fall - Serial Killer/Police stuff

Mr Selfridge - After looking this up, I realize I watched this for a few minutes once. A department store magnate? Just before WWI? The British TV market really is different.

Not sure what to say. Things that deal with topics like this don't pique my interest at all. Sorry I didn't know they even existed.

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Robert Downey Jr. (an American last time I checked) was the lead in a VERY British movie with a VERY British Character. In fact TWO movies...

Maggie Gyllenhall starred last year in the critically acclaimed british mini-series THE HONORABLE WOMAN.

Robert Vaughn was in HUSTLE.

Jeremy Piven is the lead MR. SELFRIDGE.

GIllian Anderson is the lead in THE FALL.

There are American actors in british productions but being as the US Entertainment industry dwarfs the UK one considerably I'm not surprised that there are more of them working here than us working there.

What's your source for this? I caught one a few years ago with Robert Downey playing... Sherlock Holmes. I'm guessing that was an English production, looked like it was shot in London (of course) if memory serves. Though it could have been a US concern on location.

I've heard of Hustle. Drawing a blank on the others.

As for why I care, I think the question is rather why the rest of you don't. It just seems ludicrous to me to freely give fame and a large paycheck to a British actor when you could just as easily give it to an American one.

And as I've said, or at least intimated, there's nothing these actors are doing that Americans can't. Particularly for the roles we are talking about in this thread.

Let's consider... Tom Cruise for a moment. Does anyone really think you couldn't flip through a rolodex of actors and pick one that could play in Mission Impossible? Or any of a number of other movies he's been in?

The script and the production are the thing. And the same with any of the Superhero/comic book movies (which I understand have been the most profitable sector of movie making for a few years now).

So I'm saying, all things being equal, or considering the fact that who you cast doesn't really matter (as long as they have the right look and can "act"), give the money, give the career advancement to an American.

It's nationalism. It's mercantilism of a sort. And I am totally comfortable and approving of these sentiments.

So where did this data come from? Does that Guinneas magazine carry movie stats, like it does for music?

Wow. I was trying to do a google to find out who the early 70's artist was on Doctor Strange. Didn't find it, but found this quote on wikipedia from Roy Thomas:

"Thomas recalled in 2000 that he returned to work a day late from a weekend comic book convention to find that Marvel production manager Sol Brodsky had assigned Doctor Strange to writer Archie Goodwin, newly ensconced at Marvel and writing Iron Man. Thomas convinced Brodsky to allow him to continue writing the title. "I got very possessive about Doctor Strange," Thomas recalled. "It wasn't a huge seller, but [by the time it was canceled] we were selling the low 40 percent range of more than 400,000 print run, so it was actually selling a couple hundred thousand copies [but] at the time you needed to sell even more."[13]"

Times have changed.

Sorry if that bores anyone. I find these kinds of numbers very interesting. By the standards of the 1970's the kinds of sales figures that are considered runaway successes now would have led to immediate cancellation.

Not sure how viable the big two are without the movie ventures that have arisen in the past decade or so. There are independent publishers that are doing ok without movies being made from their stuff, but they are very different operations from DC and Marvel. 40&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigpuzw5Yj KAhWG2yYKHVx1DRMQsAQIGw

The keyword is Ditko. It's been close to 50 years since he worked on this title, but he is still considered the great artist on this character.

There have been some other artists who have done really neat things with the character over the years... and some who haven't done as good a job.

I don't remember his name, but in the early 70's there was an artist on the title that did the psychedelic illustrations pretty well himself. Only thing is his Strange was muscular (like all the other Marvel characters for the most part). I've always preferred the more slight Doctor Strange.

"Heck I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't done a soap opera or something with a Sims hack."

Hah! Had to look on youtube for that one. We are already there.

None of them I checked out were very good though. But someone is sure to hit a home run doing this at some point.

MeanDM wrote:

The porn industry is dying. The only reason it has moderately continued to be successful is because the company that owns Pornhub owns a significant number of the major production studios. It, in essence, pirates itself and survives on ad revinue. Actors have seen their pay plummet.

One of the reasons that film companies have seen blockbuster flops happen more frequently in the last few years is because they took the exact approach you suggest with directors. For decades, directors were expected to prove themselves on smaller projects prior to being given the reigns of a large, costly project. When that paradigm shifted you ended up with large productions that were over budget and lower quality. There was an article about this in Variety just the other day.

Being able to make a 2 minute YouTube video is absolutely nothing like major film production. You insist on making absolutely horrible analogies. That's why the mockery. Frankly, though, your point boils down to nationalistic chest pounding, combined with an unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities.

"One of the reasons that film companies have seen blockbuster flops happen more frequently in the last few years is because they took the exact approach you suggest with directors."

Right, and managing the whole thing is exactly the same thing as being an actor. That is not a very good example.

"Being able to make a 2 minute YouTube video is absolutely nothing like major film production."

I'd say it is a LOT like a movie if all you are interested in is the end product. The difference is the length it runs, and what technology makes possible. Although technology is going to have to go a long way before some of what I can imagine happening does.

There is another difference. What I am thinking of doesn't have the long logistics train that even a minor picture has. What I am thinking of are renderings that are animated as actors. One person, or a small group, and a whole lot of computer power.

If you are comfortable, as I am, with cartoon renderings, instead of photorealistic ones we are just about there.

I have no problem imagining that it will be possible to do the same with photorealistic ... agents? whatever you want to call them. Not sure of how long it will take before it reaches the mass market stage (note that some organizations can do this already). A decade? Two (probably not)? Not sure, Moore's law is reaching the end at least as regards miniaturizing things. But more computing power is coming. And one day a geeky dude sitting in his apartment will be able to generate a movie.

It might take him two years. Three years. But it will be doable. And no actors, no payroll, no key grips, no hardware like cameras...

And by definition special effects won't be an issue at that point.

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't done a soap opera or something with a Sims hack.

"Frankly, though, your point boils down to nationalistic chest pounding, combined with an unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities."

And lastly, I think you misunderstand the phrase "chest pounding." I haven't pounded my chest at all. I'd invite you to go back and read my posts, but I imagine you won't.

So if someone makes an issue of how it seems to be a raw deal for American actors to lose roles to UK ones, while there never seems to be any corresponding employment of American actors by UK concerns...

That's chest pounding.

No it isn't.

And as regards the "unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities"...

Well I have a very regard for my own opinion. BECAUSE IF I DIDN'T I WOULD HAVE ANOTHER ONE.

And as regards abilities? Nah. More accurate to say I have contempt for most of what I see on television and in movies. Sometimes something comes along that is good.

But most of it is crap. Junk. Garbage. Not very good. Do I need to get a thesaurus?

MeanDM wrote:
Yep. Welding industry and convenience stores are exactly like movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And all actors are interchangeable. And it's super easy. And no one is capable of giving bad performances. You've nailed it. I would send my resume' to all the major studios if I were you. I'm sure there will be a bidding war over who will fire their studio head to hire you.

If you are going to use sarcasm, you need to do it effectively.

My point was that there are lots of people who have the ability to play these roles and could do well at them.

So why do they seem to hire people who cost a lot of money? Mainly because they have already been in other movies, and people recognize them. It's part of the attraction of a movie... the "brand" of the actor you are employing.

And while you can't just pick someone randomly off the street and stick them in front of a camera, you don't have to. THEY COME TO YOU, and they have already filtered themselves.

And yeah, you can pick one of these hard working people from a casting call ... and build a new brand. Not to mention that Hollywood types have done it many times over the years with their relatives.

Interestingly enough while reading various articles during the course of responding to individuals such as yourself in this thread, I came across a figure. And that figure was that the US film industry only averaged about 9 billion in profit per year.

That's a big figure to a private individual. But for something that has inspired so much effort to rise to the top of that field for such an extended period of time, well that's just not a lot of money.

So yeah, maybe Hollywood could use new blood. Actually it's kind of surprising it doesn't have more competition, even from within the US, let alone the emerging entertainment centers across the globe.

And in the not so long run, I think technology is going to reduce the cost of production, and enable private individuals and groups to do things you needed teams of experts to accomplish before.

And as a personal opinion, and I think it is a good one: Hollywood scripts suck from a storytelling viewpoint. Not to mention an overall lack of cleverness.

Undoubtedly most of us have spent time looking at Youtube videos made by ... well lots of people. Some of them are very clever. Very clever. And yes, I can imagine a day when clever people, alone or as part of a group, are going to be able to complete works that can compete with Hollywood.

Heck the amateurs are taking it to the porn industry (and I bet the profit margins on that beat Hollywood up until the past decade or so).

But as long as you are mocking, yes I think the premise, plot, and dialogue of most movies and tv isn't very good. And yes, I think I could do better than most of it. And I think lots of other people could do that as well, or probably better than I could.

Though I'm not sure I would want that life, and frankly the thought of it doesn't seem very interesting.

thejeff wrote:
Well, the obvious thing to do is to avoid seeing movies with British actors.

Well that pretty much rules out most modern movies doesn't it? They are all over the place now, from Brokeback Mountain to our Hood.

thejeff wrote:
And seek out British movies with American ones, if you actually care to encourage that.

That's interesting. Can you name one? Wait, I think I saw a few in some of the James Bond films.

thejeff wrote:
You can of course continue to talk about it here, in the hopes others will join you, but I doubt you'll have much success.

Doesn't matter. I'm making a point.

Misroi wrote:
I included him for the sake of completeness. The first MCU Hulk appearance is a loose sequel to Ang Lee's film, so I felt excluding him was a greater sin. If I had done the same to the Netflix and TV shows, then I would not have counted the Daredevil film, as they're not considered to take place in the same universe at all.

My understanding is Daredevil is set in the same continuity as the Marvel films. They reference the events of Avengers, and Hell's Kitchen is being rebuilt from the destruction the invasion caused.

Misroi wrote:

28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

I think that makes a point, only not the one you think you are making.

Also Gwyneth Paltrow bats for Team UK (actually she is playing cricket). She ought to go through the immigration process and make it official. We are too schlubby or something for her refined tastes.

But ignoring any quibbles about whether the Ang Lee Hulk movie should count, that's 8/28 or 28.5% of leading roles going to non-US actors.

Actually I'd play with the numbers some, Canada may have it's own nationalistic tendencies but they have employed our actors on occasion. So they don't bug me.

But taking your numbers at face value, you don't see anything absurd about that 28.5% number for roles that are as American as it gets? (Except for the folks like Red Skull, Arnim Zola, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver.)

As for the rest of it... Other people have noticed the same effect, so I'm not creating the agenda.

But I'd be proud to have created it. And proud to own it.

Misroi wrote:
And here's the final thing I'll mention. You said that you could peruse a list of people who graduated from five years of Yale's drama program, then only look at people who have kept at the dream. Well...what do you think the people who have managed to clinch one of these roles have been doing? Every one of those actors - American, British, Canadian, whatever - has put in their time. They'd gone to casting calls when they were nobodies. They'd gone to acting schools to learn the craft. They'd been in movies and shows and plays that nobody remembers. And yes, they got lucky. One of those performances was really, really good, and it got them noticed, which gave them an opportunity that wasn't available before. That's how it goes.

Have you ever interviewed someone for a job? What I'm going to mention is common to all of them, though more common for "professional" jobs.

It's pretty rare to have a job that only a few people can fill. What happens is you get a bunch of resumes with people who could all pretty much do the job.

So what do you do? If you are like most people, you hire the one you like the best. Or the one that has an "in" of some sort. Or the one with the least objectionable personal habits, whatever.

Skilled tradespeople are a little different. It's more common to find things like only a couple of the guys you are looking at can do something like weld pressure vessels, or something else that takes a real knack. Though a lot of this type of thing can be done by just about anyone with training and experience.

I've got a friend who owned and operated a couple of convenience stores for a while. Pretty much the only thing he looked for was showing up on time, not using drugs, and not stealing. The actual job could be performed by anyone who would actually try at all (and some of the ones who met his other criteria didn't).

Now you might say that acting is like one of the skilled trades I mentioned. I tend to think it isn't. It's more like finding someone who can write SQL queries or read and understand the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (and who checked the educational boxes necessary for our regulatory system to say "Hey, that's ok.").

Misroi wrote:

OK, one final, final thing. How about this actor to play Doctor Strange? I'll spoilerize the portion of his C.V. that I'm posting, as it's rather long.

Play Credits:

Wow, impressive history, isn't it? Shakespeare, Ibsen, Gilbert and Sullivan, and more. Sounds like your ideal candidate, based on your criteria, doesn't it?

The Actor?:

Once again, I'll say I think there are a lot of people who could pull it off.

Plus for Pete's Sake, this is a comic book movie. Hamming it up and chewing scenery (like my favorite Enterprise captain) is probably a better play than mixing a delicate bouquet of angst and pathos.

I mean do you need to go to Oxford to utter "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!" or any of Stan Lee's cosmic whining?

See my way, we keep the money in the family as it were. Our new star buys his coke, pays his taxes, and hires his lawyers here, and keeps the economy going. And one day my prospective guy has some screen cred, then he and Ol' Cumberbatch compete for a role (well assuming the person hiring for that hasn't embraced my nationalistic, mercantile agenda). Then maybe our boy has some more entries on that body of work.

And he is our boy. Cumberbatch isn't.

And don't be misled by the pronouns. My agenda works for women as well, though from reading on this matter, it affects them less than men.

And then one halcyon day we have something like Game of Thrones, where the producers don't feel compelled to hire people because they have accents minted in the UK.

I actually looked at doing something like this once.

Think I was going to Storm subdomain, and Ocean subdomain.

You get some attack spells as domain spells, but you get a lot of "control" type spell like abilities with a reasonably high dc.

"Ocean Subdomain

Surge (Su): As a standard action, you can cause a mighty wave to appear that pushes or pulls a single creature. Make a combat maneuver check against the target, using your cleric level + your Wisdom modifier as your CMB. If successful, you may pull or push the creature as if using the bull rush or drag combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Cold Resistance (Ex): At 6th level, you gain resist cold 10. This resistance increases to 20 at 12th level. At 20th level, you gain immunity to cold.

Domain Spells: 1st—obscuring mist, 2nd—slipstream, 3rd—water walk, 4th—control water, 5th—ice storm, 6th—cone of cold, 7th—elemental body IV (water only), 8th—horrid wilting, 9th—tsunami."

"Storm Subdomain

Storm Burst (Sp): As a standard action, you can create a storm burst targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The storm burst deals 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point for every two cleric levels you possess. In addition, the target is buffeted by winds and rain, causing it to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Gale Aura (Su): At 6th level, as a standard action, you can create a 30-foot aura of gale-like winds that slows the progress of enemies. Creatures in the aura cannot take a 5-foot step. Enemies in the aura treat each square that brings them closer to you as difficult terrain. They can move normally in any other direction. You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. The rounds do not need to be consecutive.

Domain Spells: 1st—obscuring mist, 2nd—fog cloud, 3rd—call lightning, 4th—sleet storm, 5th—call lightning storm, 6th—sirocco, 7th—control weather, 8th—whirlwind, 9th—storm of vengeance."

Oh wait, your archetype loses shield proficiency. Never mind.

Definitely looks solid as a build (you can't really do a lot of customizing till you get some levels and gear).

I get confused a lot of times with all the classes and archetypes, but if there is any way this NPC can use a shield and still cast, I think it might be wise of her to do so.

Two AC isn't a lot, but things are awful swingy at first level and her AC is only 14.

Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of.

"The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions exist, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.

The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Mya may have been triggered by the first appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, the "Great Oxygenation Event."

"The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in the Earth's coverage of snow and ice. The increase in Earth's coverage of snow and ice would in turn increase the Earth's albedo, which would result in positive feedback for cooling. If enough snow and ice accumulates, runaway cooling would result."

"Global temperature fell so low that the equator was as cold as modern-day Antarctica.[53] This low temperature was maintained by the high albedo of the ice sheets, which reflected most incoming solar energy into space. A lack of heat-retaining clouds, caused by water vapor freezing out of the atmosphere, amplified this effect."

"A tremendous glaciation would curtail photosynthetic life on Earth, thus letting the atmospheric oxygen be drastically depleted and perhaps even disappear, and thus allow non-oxidized iron-rich rocks to form.

Detractors argue that this kind of glaciation would have made life extinct entirely."

There's more in the link. I just picked parts to paste. But to make a long story short, if glaciers cover the entirety of the earth (with no free ocean at the equator), it's "Game over Man."

Well at least until volcanos pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere. With no way for rocks to weather, the CO2 will build up in the atmosphere with no way for the CO2 to be removed via the normal carbon cycle.

So it unfreezes one day, but Gaia has to start all over. Although the Casket might totally overweigh the Greenhouse effect...

Well from the link some speculate that some life (and it's usually the small stuff like plankton) would have been able to survive being frozen... for a long time, waiting only to be melted down and begin again.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this thread was going to be a little more abstract. You know like what kind of Dwarven artwork would be Evil.

And I was thinking anything that involved nudity.

Mathmuse wrote:
The party made their choice: Thonnir's 17-year-old daughter Val.

She's going along as an NPC? A wizard I guess?

Might have been a better idea to make her a cleric or something. The party has two arcane casters even if partial casters.

Melee and healing seem like their weakness as a party.

I guess they could use strategy to get around things. But nah, no one ever does that. It's full speed into the hurt.

Hythlodeus wrote:

really? you have no idea how big a phenomenon Sherlock is worldwide? You don't know about the Chinese obsession for Curly Fu and Peanut*? Cumberbatch - rightfully, I might add - is one of the biggest stars worldwide at the moment, even though Hollywood only slowly notices that.

*google it, but be warned

Nope. I have never heard of Curly Fu and/or Peanut. And if Sherlock is a big thing worldwide I missed it.

Is this the version where he has flashbacks to some kind of 19th century docket, even though it is apparently set in the modern period?

I vaguely remember this version having someone with black hair. That one Cumberbatch?

Misroi wrote:

I really don't understand what the main issue here is with Cumberbatch playing Stephen Strange, sunbeam, other than "He's a limey!" I'm actually hard pressed to come up with an actor better suited to play Earth's Sorcerer Supreme than Cumberbatch. I won't argue that Benedict wasn't on a short list, but I'm sure there were other names. We just won't hear about them because they got the person they wanted.

But, I'll let you make an alternative casting here. Which American actor would you prefer seeing in the title role instead?

Not a game I've played often.

Will say George Clooney would be a dead ringer for Strange if he grew the right kind of moustache.

Other than that, it doesn't seem to be his kind of thing though.

Johnny Depp (the skinny version) has the right kind of look as well. Take the moustache he wore in Ed Wood, and call it a day (along with some white above the ears).

Actually though, I'm going to turn this question on you. The first thought that goes through your head is that it must be an actor... you've already seen in something else.

So why do you think that? You could say something about them having shown their skills and being a known quantity.

But how did they get to that point? Someone cast them.

See this is the point where our world views differ. I think I could peruse a list of people who graduated from oh, say Yale's Drama program. I'll say five years worth. Then I'll prune it to those who have stuck to chasing the dream, working stock theater, community theater, going to auditions...

And I'll find a number of people with the right look (cause that is important to the fanboys if no one else), who can pull off the role.

Of course my world view also explains why so many Hollywood types are related to other Hollywood types. And how Tori Spelling got picked for 90210. Not that her acting was any worse than anyone else's in that show. She just wasn't as classically attractive as the other ones on that show. If she was Spelling's daughter, no way she gets that role over any of the endless series of hot wannabees.

Kryzbyn wrote:


You don't think they had to go to a screen test? You don't think there was an interview process?


What's your point? The hand of god is going to reach down and give someone a big paycheck and put them in the spotlight.

Or I suppose what you are saying is that actors from the UK are much better than ones from the US.

A point I don't believe, and believe even less the more reading I do on this.

There are actually a number of articles (as the fellow above mentioned) about this, going back a few years now.

There is also a Key and Peele skit about this (which is hard to find actually, not on youtube apparently), called "British Thug Life," in which an actor who is actually from the streets finds the director much prefers another actor from the UK. For the type of role which was pretty much his life story.

Why not?

Look you guys seem to think that being an actor is some kind of innate talent or the result of years of hard training that only a few gifted people can master.

It's not. Sure you have to work at it, but we have lots of people here who live in LA, do the side job thing, do community theater, work out to be buff, etc.

To take the case of Thor, I have no doubt that there are more than a few 6'4" or so buff bodies in LA that could handle that role.

And as Honest Trailers said about the guy who played Superman in the Man of Steel remake, "He has the acting range of a crumpet."

You see I just can't buy that a country of 300+ million people is incapable of producing actors who could fill the roles that have been given to these guys.

And as for why it matters? It matters to me. When I see a role that could easily go to an American, and would enable them to have the career they have dreamed of...

Well I have my fellow American's back, no questions asked, no quarter given, and no apologies uttered. Sucks to be you Cumberbatch.

Incidentally I did some googling on Nepal and movies. Looks a whole lot like a bunch of Bollywood stuff (like I was expecting). Really drawing a blank on what aspect of Cumberbatch's career made him a household name in Nepal.

Though to be fair, you can't blame these guys for taking what is freely given. Seems to me we need different people calling the shots when it comes to casting and film making.

So how did it happen? I mean he became adored in Nepal?

The link under the name Cumberbatch, had this association:

"The answer lies in Cumberbatch’s teenage years — specifically when the 19-year-old Brit spent time teaching English to Tibetan monks in the state of West Bengal in eastern India. “It was a very unfair exchange,” says the Sherlock star. “Basically, they taught me reams, fathoms, more than I could possibly begin [to teach them]. I became interested the meeting point between Western logic and Eastern mysticism.”"

That's not really the kind of thing that's going to make you a celebrity a few years later.

And looking at his filmography... well I dunno. Cant' say I have insight into the heart of Nepal, but it seems a stretch to me that movies about Charles Darwin's dark night of the soul, or, are going to lead to this:

"there were girls that were crying and hugging each other when they saw him go by. It was really remarkable.”

Maybe I don't get Nepal, but this seems like a wee bit of a stretch. So how did it happen? Is it because he has already had a number of roles in movies? Roles which someone else could had, and gotten notoriety for?

Or is there some unique quality of his Englishness, that just resonates in this part of the world?

As for some of the better known movies he has apparently been in, like Star Trek: Into Darkness, an American could just as easily have been cast. And used to advance his career, not to mention pocketing the cash.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Related to that, is something that you used to see on occasion.

Let's say a series has a number of one, two, even three issue stories. But in the background, a panel or two here, one there, something is cooking behind the scenes.

The Great Darkness Saga had little things running in the background leading up to it.

The Korvac saga had a buildup going on for a couple of years before they really started the storyline.

I agree with your point, the ability of writers to write a one issue story is kind of lacking now (along with the short story becoming a lost art form).

But one of the unique things about comics is that they also on occasion develop things that can take years to come about.

Another example of that would be the Hobgoblin storyline in Spiderman, though the writer totally screwed that one up when he took over (think Peter David?). He made a plot recovery, but I remember reading an anecdote by him saying that he killed Ned Leeds before he got a chance to read through all the backstory that had been developing, then it was "Oh Crap, it had to be him."

And one of the hallmarks of the first DC crisis story was how it was integrated in continuity in the DC books leading up to it.

Something they have tried to imitate with the later ones to mixed success.

Rosgakori wrote:
Mad Hatter as a mass murderer? Ugh.

Thing is that can work. Gail Simone is a quirky writer, as in she can produce first rate work on some kinds of books, and fall flat on her face in other kinds.

I mean imagine Gail Simone writing Green Lantern for example. And she may be a big Wonder Woman fan, but she just isn't the writer for that character. (Though I think her writing something like the Demon would be interesting.)

But the point is she wrote a totally lunatic version of Mad Hatter in Secret Six, and it worked. Actually he was a little more... twisted than than something so mundane as a serial killer.

As for the rest of what you wrote... I've read a lot of Grant Morrison's stuff. He does well on some things. For example he excels at telling sentimental stories (Flex Mentallo, We 3, etc). Occasionally he can even pull off the crazy crap he indulges in (Animal Man, Doom Patrol), though it doesn't even make sense then. The ride is worth going along with it all.

But he usually falls flat on his face, see The Invisibles (dreck), and his ... unfortunate spin at a DC crisis.

But in the end he is Lucifer staring up into the heavens gazing upon God (that would be Alan Moore), and saying "I could so kick his ass."

Oh, I was assuming the Hulk could equal the performance of the vintage WWI artillery piece I referenced in that excerpt.

Using that the Hulk is going to leave the ground at a much higher velocity than that the other poster posited, which is simply based on assuming the Hulk can leap 3 miles.

I'm assuming he can jump as far as an artillery shell can be launched.

Actually I think it would be impossible for him to do that though, if you use anything like real world physics.

I used some figures I thought I remembered from Handbook of the Marvel Universe one (and the opening blurb at the top of comic books that used to be there up till the 80s).

"Seven feet tall, 1000 pounds of jade jawed fury," or something with Stan Lee hyperbole.

The problem with the hulk is that he doesn't have an "extended" time to maintain force.

Assume the Hulk is two meters tall (close to 7 feet). Say his legs are half that and about a meter in length. No matter the force he can exert he can only do it as long as his feet are in touch with the ground (and still extending).

As soon as he has exerted enough force to lift the center of mass of his 1000 pounds more than 1 meter off the ground, he is no longer in contact with the ground and cannot apply more force.

It sounds wonky, but just playing around a little bit I didn't think I could solve it with algebra (though maybe related rates). You get a very simple differential equation (or you could just call it a calculus problem at that point).

What I'm saying is I don't think it is possible for anything to leap like the Hulk does (yeah I know he is pretty much impossible for a number of reasons), because of ... well action and reaction for one thing. He is accelerating his body upwards from the beginning; when he has enough impulse to rise further from the ground than his legs are long, he can't generate more.

You can speculate that his legs flex really quickly (super speed quickly), but the laws of action and reaction still apply the same as always (this is actually the part where you run into calculus).

But when you consider that the Hulk can gain and lose about 850 pounds every time he transforms, and somehow turns his pants into incredibly elastic purple ones every time he transforms, well...

Decimus Drake wrote:
These films will be targeting a more global audience then the comics ever did and so benefit in progressing away from 'America is the centre of the world'.

So... casting a brit in a movie helps sell tickets in the Latin markets, Eastern Europe, or Asia? Can't believe that one. Maybe in India.

As for the rest of that "America is the centre of the world," well I don't think that is relevant at all. To paraphrase a commercial that aired on US television a few years ago "That's not how this works; that's not like anything works."

People don't buy tickets because cultural sensitivity or something is being shown in a movie and exemplified by casting. They buy them because the flick has action, and speaks in the international language of booms and boobs.

For the smaller sectors of the movie going public in any nation that isn't swayed by the above, the ones you would think might well be amenable to the pitch you are envisioning...

Well again, it doesn't work that way. Actually a kind of insolent cultural arrogance seems to be a better sell.

After all Americans can't seem to get enough of Victorian era England. The rest of it... well anything that happened after WWII doesn't seem to be particularly interesting to them. (or to the rest of the world honestly)

The part where you guys got all sensitive? Not that marketable. It's all Churchill, lace, colonialism, and handlebar moustaches. Fifty years from now odds are whatever form of movie or video serial set in the UK will involve... Churchill, lace, colonialism, and handlebar moustaches. Not the David Cameron or Tony Blair era.

Decimus Drake wrote:
Another is that British actors tend to be cheaper then American actors and apparently there is a perception that Brit actors are better behaved and less concerned with being 'on top' and so work better as part of an ensemble. (source: BBC article "Why are British actors playing Americans?").

This kind of baffles me. I'm going to see if I can google some articles on this. Really can't understand why a British actor would be cheaper than an American one. An American would really turn down a role in a big budget film, because it only pays "UK" wages?

As for the rest of that... no unreasonable people or prima donnas from the UK? Got it.

Artillery does a bit better than that (though the Hulk is not as aerodynamic as an artillery shell).

Some artillery has a range of 40 to 50 kilometers (though I'm betting this is due to the rounds they are using). 1000 m/s is a common exit velocity for the shells with modern artillery, so about a kilometer per second.

Modern artillery uses different kinds of shells, including rocket shells so it's not a similar comparison.

From some casual googling though, this may have been the all time record holder for "conventional" shells.

"The Paris Gun - properly called the Kaiser Wilhelm Geschutz - was so-named for its sole purpose of shelling Paris from extreme distances starting from March 1918. A behemoth, the Paris Gun - regarded by many as the ancestor to the German V3 - was capable of firing shells into the stratosphere from locations as far as 131km from Paris.
Sponsored Links

Designed and operated by the German Navy and manufactured by the German munitions firm of Krupp, some seven 210mm guns were made using bored-out 380mm naval guns, each fitted with special 40 metre long inserted barrels. However with only two railway gun mountings actually available just three of the guns were ever in use at any one time, fired from the Forest of Coucy.

Such was the rapid wear and tear of firing its 120kg shells, each requiring a 180kg powder charge, towards Paris - the aim was often wild - that the gun's lining required reboring after approximately 20 shots. Indeed, after every firing the succeeding shell needed to be of slightly greater width.

An undoubted sensation when first deployed (at 7.18 on the morning of 21 March 1918) the appearance of heavy shells in Paris caused initial and widespread alarm among its inhabitants which nevertheless quickly subsided. Once fired a shell took 170 seconds to reach Paris, rising as high as 40 km above the earth."

So say 132 km/3 mins = 44 km/min or 2640 km/hour. So 2640/1.6 = 1650 miles per hour.

Mach is 761 miles/hour at STP. So let's just say the Hulk can duplicate the performance of this WWI artillery piece and travel just over Mach 2.

Interestingly he would also jump into the stratosphere. Not to mention create a sonic boom whenever he leaped in this manner.

Strangely enough this sounds eerily similar to pre-Crisis Wonder Woman as well, when she would jump up there and catch a ride on the jet stream (when she wasn't tooling in the invisible jet).

feytharn wrote:

Chris Evans, Paul Rudd, Chris Pratt, Robert Downey jr, Mark Ruffalo, Edward Norton, Samuel l. Jackson, great god...I can see...all British...

Uh huh. And do they get roles in UK film productions or television shows?

Why do they always cast Brits in these roles?

There isn't an American actor who can play this character?

Pretty sure I can predict the kind of response this sentiment will evoke here, but it is something I've thought for a while.

Why is it Thor, Wolverine, Loki, Superman, the Joker, Batman (for god's sake), House (come to think of it) are played by UK or Australian actors?

Does this revolving door go both ways? I can turn on the TV and see English actors in American television shows. I can hear UK accents in many commercials (try going an hour or so watching TV and noticing when this happens, it occurs more often than you think).

I'm definitely not an expert on British TV or whatever the current condition of their film industry. But I'm pretty sure that American actors do not appear on British TV shows regularly, or get cast in movies made by their filmmakers.

So why is it that I appear to be the only one ever bugged by this sort of thing?

Once upon a time you'd see the occasional actor like Chaplin, Flynn, Price, Dietrich (well she was German), appear in US films.

But we produced lots of stars like Bogart, John Wayne, and a slew of others.

Now it seems like we make movies so we can cast British actors in the lead role.

In the end it is all about the money. And this flow of money seems to go in one direction only.

I have every confidence that an American actor could have played Loki, Thor, this role as Doctor Strange, any of the ones I've mentioned.

Instead American actors get frozen out of lead roles, and the career enhancement and lucrative aspects of the whole thing.

And for what? Moviemaking is different than it was; overseas gross may be more important than domestic for... the films that actually make money (Pacific Rim and Fast and the Furious I'm looking at you). But the UK is a very minor market in that. The money is made in countries where the actor's dialogue is being dubbed anyway.

Be a hard google, but I'd be surprised if the money American TV and movies make from the UK market is even a burp in a whirlwind. (Since my impression is the BBC doesn't air our shows at all, any UK commenter can correct me if he wishes). There sure doesn't seem to be a UK entity like PBS, that goes full bore on the Anglophilia, just with a fixation on American culture

So why do we continually have to cast people with this particular accent?

And trust me; we have more people who could plausibly play Thor or Superman from a physique standpoint than the UK could imagine. And that is with our obesity problem.

This just doesn't seem like it is a fair arrangement to me. And I shed tears for the American whose light and career never dawned because this Cumberbatch guy was cast in a role that could have gone to that obscure forever American actor who is still waiting tables.

Aberzombie wrote:
I miss the New Gods and really wish Byrne or Simonson would do a new series.

I guess it is way late, but I just noticed this thread again.

Kind of surprised because when I read this, I realize I miss John Byrne.

DC in particular is a storytelling mess these days, and Byrne could tell a story.

Have to say though, his art does not grab you decades later like Kirby's and some others do.

DC is messed up right now though. I know Byrne spent a good while at Marvel, but his DC work is what I think of first, and they could sure use... somebody.

Wolfsnap wrote:

The Goat Lord wrote:
How about the nearest pregnant woman immediately goes into labor and gives birth to his fresh new body. He grows into his adult form in minutes, with all his memories, and runs naked into the wilderness. This approach would leave a trail of clues to follow as witnesses report the creepy event.
See, I would never have thought of that in a million years. You can always count on roleplayers to come up with something truly weird.

In Paizo's take on this genre, it would probably be a magic tumor that appears on someone suddenly, then grows rapidly.

At that point the reincarnated tumor runs off naked into the woods.

Well just make something up as you say.

I don't want to put any dig at you in this, but people have been doing stuff like this for a long time, going back to the 1e days (and I guess the OD&D days), and in 2e and 3x.

Kind of think people are less likely to even think of doing something like this now with this rules heavy edition of the game.

But just make something up. Not everything has to be in a splatbook.

And don't feel the slightest compunction about changing something on the fly either. You don't have to generate the perfectly balanced NPC with the perfect backstory like Athena emerging from the head of Zeus or something. If you start out with the guy being from ancient Atlantis and decide it would be cooler to have him from Lemuria, go with it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

The Curse of Innocent Tears

The bearer of this curse no longer ages naturally. Although they can still be affected by aging effects (gaining penalties as normal, but not bonuses), they cannot die from age. Any time the bearer of this curse would be reduced to zero HP or affected by any effect that would otherwise kill them, the damage or effect they have suffered is inflicted upon a child (the children of the bearer are chosen first, then children related to the bearer, then finally at random), and the bearer is mentally forced to experience the terror, anguish, and suffering the child experiences during this process. The process takes one round, and is considered a Death effect for the child, and the child cannot be returned to life by any means short of divine intervention so long as the bearer of this curse still lives. The child's stolen life energy restores the bearer to full health. The shock of this experience does 1d3 Constitution damage to the bearer and leaves them Shaken for 1 hour. Should the curse be lifted, the bearer may choose to relinquish their life in order to restore one child victim of their choice to life.

Got to congratulate you. That is a first rate plot hook.

Although I think it would probably make a better book than adventure module.

Maybe he writes the name of every child down that has died because of him on his skin? And talks to them in his restless sleep?

If it's looking like you guys are leaving Aquaman's fave part of this dungeon, how big was that area physically?

It seems like it would have to be something like 10 miles by 10 miles or something. Just from what I've gathered from context, some of the dungeon sectors were kind of small.

But if this one is as small as the others, couldn't the kraken swim around the whole thing in a few minutes? Meaning there is really no where not around him.

Best installment in a while.

I'm kind of confused though. Does this party still have access to the Four Waters community? Or is that way blocked now?

Casual Viking wrote:
sunbeam wrote:

And I'd also like to see examples of what you can do with handle animal.

Can a fighter train a pack of pit bulls to fight with him? Can he get a Hippogryff egg (okay, I'm also confused if they lay eggs or live birth, but whatever), train the baby to an adult, and teach it to be a mount?

Can he capture some kind of flying creature and "break" it like a bronco?

What are the rules with things that aren't exactly animals?

Or can you train a pack of ferrets to "weasel" into a room and pick up all the shinies and haul them out?

I guess this interests me because none of this stuff is ever covered in any kind of build or character concept I have ever seen on these boards.

Other than "breaking a wild animal", which seems curiously absent, literally every question here is answered right there in the skill description.

Don't just say that. I could say that everything about "fly" is covered in the skill description.

Okay I just gave you a pack of ferrets. Explain to me what tricks you teach them, what the dc's are, and how long it takes to get them to squeeze into a room and take all the "shiny" stuff.

Common knowledge eh? Show me a thread where someone does anything like this. Or even uses a pack of dogs which should easily be within someone of low level's ability to do.

Tell me what I have to go through to get a flock of crows to attack one person (like a magic user) to the exclusion of anyone else, and peck at their eyes and do other distracting things.

Maybe it's boring, I dunno. But this is a .very underused skill.

I'd like to see a thorough, in depth discussion of mounts, and some other things relating to them.

For example I'd like to see ALL the ways a non-druid can get a flying mount.

I'd like to see what the rules are with things like leadership/Monstrous Cohort (too many feats, is that Pathfinder?).

I'd like to see what exactly you can accomplish with the ride skill. There are a few traits and feats that affect the riding skill directly (as opposed to stuff like spirited charge) and give you effects based on your ride skill.

And I'd also like to see examples of what you can do with handle animal.

Can a fighter train a pack of pit bulls to fight with him? Can he get a Hippogryff egg (okay, I'm also confused if they lay eggs or live birth, but whatever), train the baby to an adult, and teach it to be a mount?

Can he capture some kind of flying creature and "break" it like a bronco?

What are the rules with things that aren't exactly animals?

Or can you train a pack of ferrets to "weasel" into a room and pick up all the shinies and haul them out?

I guess this interests me because none of this stuff is ever covered in any kind of build or character concept I have ever seen on these boards.

Can't believe you guys.

Ghost Sound for the whoopee cushion effect.

Knocks 'em dead at an elite dinner table.

I've also used Ray of Frost to make ice and cool mugs and whatnot.

Depending on how much your dm will work with you you can actually do some very interesting things with Ray of Frost.

For example cool the bolts holding the hinges to a door to make them easier to remove. Or since ice has a greater volume than liquid water for a given weight, you can freeze a small amount and potentially create interesting effects.

I think you ought to ask yourself what the results would be if the problem player played a wizard or a druid.

Or any of the caster classes. (There are threads and tricks galore for all of them).

Actually the druid can do a fair job of what the summoner is doing now, if built that way. And the animal companion matches up very well with the eidolon. At least if you power game that feature.

I guess a final solution would be to force him to play one of the "bad" classes. No way he is going to dominate the game playing a fighter or rogue.

But what you are concerned about now? The same thing, or the same effect rather, can be had if he is allowed to play on of the Tier One, or even Tier Two classes.

Basically to fix this, you have to deny him magic. Force him to be a muggle.

Because if you peruse the threads on this board alone, there are all sorts of other things that can be done with other classes and builds.

Not the original question, but I wonder if there is some wonkery with a War Priest and the repeating crossbow... or shuriken or something to be honest.

Whenever I see the occasional thread on all this, I have to think of the Dazing Spell feat.

Someone mentioned it earlier, but you have to take it into account.

If this feat is allowed in a game you are playing, take that Treantmonk guide and throw it out the window.

Because blast spells are controlling spells. Sure you have to build around it, but you can have a general purpose damage spell that can affect more targets than many of the "control" spells, since so little is immune to dazing, as opposed to mind affecting things.

Additionally it is perfectly feasible to build your character around one spell. Take Fireball. I'm sure there are better choices that people can pick out, but you can take feats to enable you to exclude allies, pump the dc to levels that virtually no opponent can make, have a number of metamagics apply to the spell free of charge, etc.

You can even take Intensify Spell, etc. Plenty of threads about the whole thing.

To me unless your game explicitly bans Dazing Spell (and maybe it should), the Treantmonk guide is totally incorrect with the distinction it makes. There's no need to pick one or the other.

Heck you can pick damage spells that explicitly attack whatever weak save the opponent has (although reflex is usually a good bet to be the low one anyway).

Depeninding upon how you interpret Dazing Spell (and there has been a lot of debate about it), it's monstrously powerful.

For example the Dazing Wall of Fire. The Persistant, Dazing Acid Arrow. The Dazing Black Tentacles. The Dazing Mordenkain... err Mage's Sword. Even on a real stretch the Dazing Summon Monster. Or the Dazing Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation.

So if anyone is going to debate this topic, you'd better say Dazing Spell is on or off the table from the get go.

Heck since you can pick the save you want the opponent to make, I think Blaster Mages are better Control Mages than other ones. Though since a lot of Conjuration spells can be used to fill Blasting needs, you don't need to pick now.

Which is another thing to throw on the fire, aside from Dazing Spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
strated by her inability to learn magic despite the fact that she clearly does have the Intelligence needed to do so. So while there is no mechanic for the "Gift" as you amply stated, doesn't mean that like gods, you can't have it as a purely story element.

I like that stories like that. NPC Codex was a book right? What was the Rogue's name?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a question that interests me.

Let's say the setting has an infinite number of "Primes" (you know like in some D&D versions).

A wizard uses a spell to somehow travel to our world and look around.

Would he necessarily like what he sees?

A world where nerds aren't feared and little short of gods as in his own?

A world where frankly the health care isn't as good as a trip to the local temple with a bag of gold?

Just saying that maybe a lot of people would be very interested in seeing a world such as ours never arise.

Heck what's the point of living if you have to use an airplane to fly, or can't read minds, or charm or dominate whoever you choose?

And the wonderful things you can do can be done by ANYONE if they use one of those silly machines instead of putting in decades of study.

No thanks, the world is just the way it should be, and Progress need not apply.

Actually if Progress knocks on the door, it's going to get a fireball in the face.

Ashiel wrote:
sunbeam wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Can I propose a ninja for the melee team? Or are we sticking to fighters? "You can't hit what you can't see" and evasion should work ok. (Only if 20th though)
Bards make excellent ninjas. Having in house access to concealment on demand at low levels and greater invisibility at mid levels is pretty sweet. Especially when you're such a martial powerhouse.

To be fair though, golems were a pretty standard anti-caster thing in previous editions (1e, 2e).

But 3rd edition started with the whole thing of conjuration ignoring spell resistance. Then defining things like the Golem's abilities as "perfect spell resistance" or something. It could have have been as nebulous as it always was, you know "total immunity to magic" or something. But it was like someone on the design team had their finger on the scales for casters. Probably because they weren't powerful enough in 2e I guess.

Along with all the other things that made casting easier and more powerful in 3.x (and there were a truckload, all addressed in other threads here and there).

Then Pathfinder adds even more conjuration spells that can affect a fight.

I know what it says on the label, but I think Pathfinder is worse than 3.x as far as this martial/caster disparity goes.

As insane as some of the stuff in PF is, it's still not like 3.5 yet. There were worse things. Even things that make blood money seem pretty tame.

For example, in 3.5, a wizard can just pick up the Tainted Scholar or Tainted Sorcerer (whether you want to use the Heroes of Horror or the SRD version), cast contingency->create undead(target=self) with the trigger "I die" to apply a template to themselves to make them undead and retain their class features. They are now A-OK with amassing Taint. Their taint is used as their key casting stat. Taint rises with literally every spell they cast (imagine if you will, each time your caster cast a spell their key...

I'll take your word for it. But with the groups I played with it seems like most of the later books never existed to be honest. All the Incarnum, whatever other alternate magic book they had, even that thing that had the Crusaders and martial "powers" type thing wasn't used (or even bought by anyone).

Think we pretty much only used the core books and the FR books for.. three/four years. Of course lots of cheese was made using the FR books (The "Cheater of Mystra" and the Incanta- uhh whatever it was).

I think everyone just got tired of splat books past a certain point. I know Serpent Kingdoms was the last one I purchased (think anyway, I'd have to dig that box out of the closet to be sure).

On the other hand though, we used the heck out of Unapproachable East and Silver Marches. Can't remember any crunch used from the East Book, but someone did make a Peerless Archer, which was surprisingly useful looking back.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Can I propose a ninja for the melee team? Or are we sticking to fighters? "You can't hit what you can't see" and evasion should work ok. (Only if 20th though)
Bards make excellent ninjas. Having in house access to concealment on demand at low levels and greater invisibility at mid levels is pretty sweet. Especially when you're such a martial powerhouse.

To be fair though, golems were a pretty standard anti-caster thing in previous editions (1e, 2e).

But 3rd edition started with the whole thing of conjuration ignoring spell resistance. Then defining things like the Golem's abilities as "perfect spell resistance" or something. It could have have been as nebulous as it always was, you know "total immunity to magic" or something. But it was like someone on the design team had their finger on the scales for casters. Probably because they weren't powerful enough in 2e I guess.

Along with all the other things that made casting easier and more powerful in 3.x (and there were a truckload, all addressed in other threads here and there).

Then Pathfinder adds even more conjuration spells that can affect a fight.

I know what it says on the label, but I think Pathfinder is worse than 3.x as far as this martial/caster disparity goes.

I don't know what kind of budget they have for special effects, but whoever does it is incredible. The part where Barry runs and springs off the helicopter blade is great.

But that brings me to something else. They suck up all the bombs in the presents and send them... somewhere (hope no one was on the other end).

Because magnets? That is without a doubt the stupidest thing I've ever seen. I know this is comic book science but come on. And not one got hung up on anything?

That was just dumb.

I think they missed a one liner though. Cisco could have said: "Magnets. How do they work?" instead of the one he actually said about magnets.

Aelryinth wrote:

Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.


It was either here or on the old WOTC boards, but I read one of the typical threads that came up once about medieval weapons (you know the ones, where everyone has a black belt and practices with slings or longbows or whatever 4 hours a day).

But I went through a lot of the links and did some reading.

Not sure if something like an English Longbow would be included, but the sling is just as lethal and accurate at the same range as most bows.

The caveat is what you said. The proficiency thing from hardest to master to easiest is something like sling -> bow -> firearm.

There were some slingers from some islands off the coast of Spain (Balearic Slingers?) that trained from childhood with the sling, and the Romans found them utterly lethal and dangerous to face in combat.

I guess I could google and find some of that on the web somewhere. And I won't swear I don't have one of my facts wrong.

But the Romans had a very, very healthy respect for the slingers I mentioned. (And as most here will be aware they were using "bullets," not random stones from the ground.)

1 to 50 of 1,567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.