Considering Priapus, I'm surprised there isn't a goddess of boobies.
Well, some ancient goddesses were portrayed with dozens of breasts (Artemis was one).
The king of all mammoths (and various other 'animal kings,' like the old Cat Lord from the 1st edition MM2).
The Cat Lord also appeared in the 3E Epic Level Handbook.
Loving this thread BTW
Kirth Gersen wrote:
To me, loosely speaking it's just the plural of "comic" - individual issues are comics, several bound together in book form are a graphic novel. I've also heard it used to differentiate comic-book stories like Watchmen which have a fixed length and hence a beginning, middle and end like a typical novel from those like Spider-man which continue indefinitely and have more in common structurally with a soap opera.
But the real reason I used "GN" instead of "comic" is that I'm a slow typist and it's shorter ;)
Azhagal, I agree with both you and Eric. To me, the movie shows what I (and many others) suspected all along; that the GN is unfilmable, at least as a single movie. The only way I see it really being done justice is if someone gives Terry Gilliam the money to make it into a big-budget TV series like he wanted to. For example, the scenes with Rorschach and Dr Long need a whole episode to themselves, like they get in the GN.
However, that said, I've seen it twice now and I still think it does an astonishingly good job of translating it considered that it's not just a single movie, it's a single Hollywood movie. From what I've read, Zack Snyder fought tooth and nail to keep as much in as he did.
Apparently, there's going to be a director's cut with 30 minutes of extra footage, and a super-extended-director's-cut with that and the Black Freighter stuff (the actual story, plus the scenes which take you back and forth between that and the main story) as well, which should come out at about three and a half hours. That's the one I'm waiting for.
PS I didn't think the Comedian was that much different to the GN. In fact, I thought after Rorschach he was probably the best of the lot.
I recently saw the follow-up Zeitgeist: Addendum, and I thought it was a lot more impressive than the first one. Got a bit flaky for a bit towards the end when talking about symbiosis (I actually agreed with what they were saying, but thought they could have said it a lot better) but seemed generally well-researched and well thought-out. Love that dude Jacques Fresco!
So, anyone else seen it?
Cap'n Jose Monkamuck wrote:
The only place I've seen anything like that is in the Epic Level Handbook, which has a section on "exceptional followers" in the Epic Leadership section, detailing follower level adjustments for adept/aristocrat, PC class and prestige class followers. But of course the ELH is using 3.0 rules on Leadership.
If this is in the 3.5 DMG, I can't find it, and I've just re-checked. What page is it on, please?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Although I can see some people might not agree, this seems like the most sensible interpretation to me.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yeah, there's plenty of absurd stuff in there, but I think there's a fair few useful ones as well.
On "6th level characters with 6th level cohorts", are you referring to the "Russian doll" bit at the end? If so, they're actually talking about 6th-level characters with 6th-level followers, which while certainly against the spirit of the rules is not against the letter of them AFAIK.
Also, are you saying that followers with PC classes are illegal or just absurd? If illegal, where does it say so?
I'm kinda curious because I thought both of these things were illegal myself, but when I checked the DMG I couldn't find anything specifically banning them. I know in 3.0 followers could only be Commoners, Experts or Warriors, but all it seems to say in 3.5 is that "they're generally low level NPCs".
EDIT: just noticed the two posts above. Apparently PC-classed followers are legal in 3.5. Unless you can tell me different...?
Most of the movie? It had two minutes of screentime, tops, and half of that was in long or mid-shot.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
I read somewhere that Alan Moore hates film adaptations of his works and he boycotted the film? It this true?
Yup. The early films based on his work were all terrible (have you seen League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for God's sake?) and after two or three of those he had a major tantrum and declared that (1) he wanted his name taken off all future adaptations (2) he was refusing all money from said adaptations, giving all the royalties to the artists instead.
Which in my opinion is a shame, because the last two (V for Vendetta and Watchmen) have seemed to me a lot truer to the source material than any of the previous ones.
I've just finished running a solo campaign which was great fun, but it's a lot different from group D&D. Better in some ways I would say, but definitely worse in others.
My personal ideal group size is 3 or 4 players, because I find with any more it gets slow & people's attention starts to wander. Also, with a large group it's hard to give each character a chance to shine. Having said that, I've mostly DM'd for inexperienced players, and to be fair, I'm not exactly a grandmaster DM myself. I could see that with more experience a larger group could work.
I did DM for groups of 6-8 a few times, but it never worked very well. I'd say 5-6 is my preferred upper limit at the moment.
How about "sub-famous", as in "famous within a subculture"? There are lots of people who, if you know anything about the subject in question, you're guaranteed to have heard of, but most people who aren't into it haven't.
People like Gary Gygax actually go further than this and are "sub-legendary" - within their subculture, they are revered almost as a god, but outside it, still not many people have heard of them.
pres man wrote:
pres man wrote:
What created Dr Manhattan was the removal of the "intrinsic field" which held his body together; the Intrinsic Field Subtractor isn't the source of his power, it's just what destroyed his body. His power source is never actually specified, but whatever it is, he and Adrian isolated it, and Adrian used it to destroy the cities. So there weren't more Dr Manhattans created because the energy which killed the people in the cities wasn't the same thing which killed Jon Osterman.
Saw it last night. Surprisingly good (I'm a longtime fan of the comic), but I still say the comic is unfilmable. I still think Terry Gilliam's idea to do it as a 12-part TV series is the only way to really do it justice. However, I have to say that ZS's version is a LOT closer to doing that than I expected any Hollywood adaptation would ever be.
The movie is extremely faithful - I even thought the ending was a logical alternative to the original - but it's much more linear than the comic, with a lot of the backstory and minor characters missed out or simplified. I think this was inevitable given the length of the GN. More importantly for me however, he left the morality of the ending ambiguous, for the viewer to decide for themselves. I can forgive the change of details since the feeling and the point were preserved.
As for the quality of the movie as a movie, I think Taliesin hit the nail on the head:
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
Frame perfect. Awesome work by Snyder. He still has a long way to go as a director. This is his third film. If he can start to get his movies to cohere, rather than be montages of awesome moments, he will be a director of note.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Joey Virtue wrote:
I dont use Adepts in my game
Joey Virtue wrote:
I see, that kind of makes sense; in ancient Rome an outsider had to complete 20 years military service to achieve Citizenship. So if you're going to call them anything, I guess it should be that :)
Six episodes is the average length for a British TV series (or it always was, anyway; I haven't watched much TV recently). As Zombieneighbours said, budget is probably part of the reason, but I think it's also because British TV series are usually written by just one or two people, whereas US series are often written by committees and/or by different people each episode. So an individual writer probably writes about the same number of episodes per year on average.
I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to this, but I think it's generally true.
Well there is the limit that a weapon/ armour/ shield's effective bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) can't exceed +10 (DMG p.217/221, PF Beta p.340/344). Abilities which don't have their price expressed as an enhancement bonus equivalent can be added without limit, AFAIK.
Wow dude, you're not joking about having spent a while on this. I'm going to use some of these myself I think.
I notice you haven't done the Adept. Couldn't you think of any suitable names, or did you deliberately leave it out?
I think that the vast majority of these are very good. I still stand by my comments on the other thread about 5th-level Apprentices and 20th-level Commoners though.
I originally started with "Apprentice, Journeyman, Master, Grand Master" but then I realised1) Most of the population never gets past level 2 or 3
2) Level 11+ is considered "legendary"; i.e. very, very few people ever get that high
3) If you look at level 1 abilities, it's clear you're meant to already be qualified to a basic level even then. For instance, a 1st-level Fighter is already proficient with all simple & martial weapons, all armour, and all shields, as well as having mastered one specialised combat ability (feat)
4) Most of the other classes' names at levels 1-5 suggest someone basically skilled or qualified but undistinguished, rather than someone unskilled or unqualified (for these reasons, I agree with Stebehil that calling a Wizard an Apprentice all the way to level 5 doesn't make sense)
Likewise, I started with "Student, Graduate, Professor, Loremaster" for the Scholar-type, then realised that would mean that hardly anyone would ever actually graduate.
However, I do think "Adept" would be a good name for levels 1-5 of the craftsman-Expert.
Some thoughts on NPC classes:
Commoner & Warrior: It doesn't really make sense to me to go right up to level 20 for these two. If they're that good, surely they'd have managed to get levels in a better class before then? I'd probably just call it
Aristocrat: I don't think you can give general titles for Aristocrats, as they'll all have their own titles depending on what type of hierarchy they're part of. Aristocrat can include Barons & Kings (hereditary nobility), Knights & Emperors (non-hereditary nobility), Mayors & Senators (elected officials) and Governors & Chancellors (appointed officals), so I don't see how one set of titles could encompass them all, unless it was something ridiculously general like Minor Leader/ Major Leader/ Great Leader/ Supreme Leader.
Expert: This could work, but I think you'd need two lists, one for scholar-types and one for craftsmen-types. Eg;
1-5: Graduate/ Craftsman
Adept: Not noted for having hierarchies. The best I could do was:
1-5: Medicine Man/ Woman
Although I did find the rather lovely words Isangoma, Mundunugu and Wangateur wihch apparently all mean "Shaman", so possibly you could use those.
For Barbarian, how about:
I tried to do something similar a while back, and I found that for classes like Fighter, Wizard and Cleric which often have established hierarchies it's easy, you have dozens of titles to choose from. But with those like Barbarian and Rogue who don't, you have to get creative :)
Some names I like which you might find useful:
Knight: Knight Champion or Knight Protector seems more evocative than Master Knight to me.
Marshal: given that (1) Marshal is an explicitly military class (2) it's common for those chosen to command to be given officer rank straight after basic training (3) Marshal is specifically a leadership class, I'd go with something like
OK, that's all for now. Hope this helps!
Max Money wrote:
While I think your mistrust of Wikipedia is somewhat excessive (I think if you look at the evidence, eg independent tests, you'll find it's not much less accurate than "expert-written" encyclopedias) even if it's justified, Vorpal is still clearly Lewis Carroll's invention. I just checked Chambers English Dictionary (print edition) and Webster's New Millenium Dictionary (via Dictionary.com) and they both attribute it to him. It's possible the makers of the film Clash of the Titans borrowed the word.
Anyway, as Mortagon says, the origin doesn't really matter in a D&D context. I'd be happy with any of the following;
1) Allow a save
However, I would point out that if Paizo is planning to do an epic book, option 3 becomes less attractive. Dual wielding a pair of Vorpal swords and getting 10 or more attacks per round can make those natural 20's come rather regularly. And when that same character gets a Dancing Vorpal sword as well...
For me, the great thing about epic is options; you can create characters who can do anything, have them go anywhere and face any kind of challenge. Others have mentioned various ways you can take it, like founding kingdoms/religions/guilds etc, plane-hopping adventures, or the path to divine ascension. I'd like to see advice for running all of these and more. In fact, I'd want a substantial section of the book to be ideas and advice on how to actually run an epic game and make it work. Both conceptually and mechanically, epic is bigger and more complex than core, so lots of "tips from the experts" would be invaluable.
What I want from epic mechanics in a word: consistency. I want epic levels to feel like a natural continuation of core levels, not like a completely different system. This means that I want actual class features rather than just bonus feats, and an epic magic system which bears some resemblance to the normal one (I never did understand the abandoning of spell levels for Spellcraft DCs).
The other area where I want consistency is with the deific rules (if Paizo plans to redo those too; here's hoping...). Doing the ELH and D&DGs as seperate systems made no sense to me. Why would you need rules for deities anyway except for epic-level characters to interact with? Also, the seperate rules made the deity stats in D&DGs a joke - eg Boccob, supreme god of magic, can't cast epic spells...
The problem as I see it is that WotC tried to do an unlimited-levels system, and so since obviously they couldn't create infinite epic spells or class features they had to use a toolkit approach to character and spell building. I'd rather have limited levels and interesting new stuff that's reasonably balanced, personally. I particularly like the idea of a "soft cap" on levels suggested on another thread where you give specific class features up to a certain level, and then guidelines for advancement thereafter.
As to what the level cap should be, I think that would depend on whether Paizo were doing deity stats or not. If not, probably 40 or 50 should be high enough, as AFAIK very few people play past this level. If so, it'd probably need to go up to about level 70-80 to accomodate the greater gods.
I've just read version 1.10.
Good: The explanatory text is definitely clearer now.
Bad(?): The additional class costs don't seem to correspond to the total class costs in the table, or to the example in the prestige classes section.
I'm not sure about the level spread, but 18/19/20 seems about right to me.
Thanks Roman, good work as usual! I'm slightly confused as to how it work, however...do you add up the general level points you've got up to that level, then compare it to your class-specific level points requirement to see if you go up a level?
If so, it seems to me that the Rogue would only be level 18 when the Fighter was level 20 (36 more level points required for level 20, -5 from level 1 is 31 more points, and level 20 requires 30 level points, so they'd be 1 short. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?).
As to what classes should go in which categories, I'd probably swap Barbarian and Bard, but leave the others as they are. This thread from the old WotC site seems to generally agree with your power ratings, as least as far as 3.5 is concerned.
Uh, I'm not saying it was a good idea, but...you do know that alcohol is at least 100 times more likely to kill you than the vast majority of commonly-used illegal drugs, don't you?
NB I am not advocating illegal drug use. I am simply pointing out that some legal drugs are far more dangerous than most illegal ones.
I don't think anyone thinks it will be "decided by simple majority".
However, I do think that if a clear majority prefer one rule over the other, that will influence the game designers' choices. Not determine, but influence.
If you don't think that, why bother posting here at all?
I agree that it doesn't make sense for generalist Wizards to outshine specialists in their chosen schools. However, I would question the +2DC bonus on a more fundamental level; is it a good idea to give 20th-level Wizards a boost to their save DCs at all? PF has nerfed the save-or-die spells, but there are still a few high-level save-or-suck spells out there (Dominate Person and Insanity come to mind). A Wizard can already get his save DCs for 9th-level spells up to 31 by level 20 without inherent bonuses, or 34 with inherent bonuses. The +2 brings that up to 33 or 36. Anyone who doesn't have the relevant good save (or a very high ability score) doesn't have much chance.
So I don't think it should be given to anybody unless PF intends to
1) Nerf the save-or-suck spells, or at least the higher-level ones
2) Provide additional ways for characters to boost their saves (such as adding/ improving feats).
If the bonus is to be given, I think it should be reduced to +1 save DCs, +2 caster level vs SR, and that the specialists should get the same for their chosen schools.
Oh my god, I'd forgotten all about Bubba Ho-Tep. Kessukoofah is right, it's amazing, if you haven't seen it, do so immediately!
Pi is excellent too.
I'm a big RAW fan (as you might guess from the complete lack of certainty in my previous post...) and it was actually from him I first got the idea that hostile control of the money supply is a standard conspiracy motif. Have you read any of his other stuff?
What actually prompted me to write my original comments was several of my friends seeing Zeitgeist and seeming to accept it fairly uncritically. When I saw it, it seemed pretty convincing at first, but when they got to the "one world government" conclusion, it made me think of Illuminatus, and that made me wonder "how much of this stuff is true?". As I said in my first post, I did a little internet digging, and sure enough there were several websites (such as this one) which claimed, with apparent academic credibility and many references, that the history and current practices of the Federal Reserve are very different to those presented in Zeitgeist.
So since you Paizo guys seem like a pretty clued-up bunch, I thought I'd ask what you thought. And it appears I've struck gold! You actually checked out all the historical references? What did you find? I'm particularly intrigued about the North American Union already existing (and to what degree it actually merges the USA with Mexico and Canada), and whether the Federal Reserve makes interest off the dollar or whether it's virtually all rebated as professor Flaherty says.
I too was somewhat put off by the tone, which seemed to me more like a propaganda film than a documentary.
Paul Watson wrote:
(laughs) The only person I've ever heard say "cheap at half the price" was my grandad, I always thought he made it up (he was full of silly stuff like that, I still miss it). After years of hearing him say it, I saw an old TV advert (1920s - 1940s era IIRC) which advertised something as "cheap at twice the price", so I guess people reversed it to take the p!$$.
EDIT: A quick Googling has turned up that some people do use it to mean "expensive", which I think is what my grandad meant by it (if he meant anything and wasn't just being daft for the fun of it). Do the people who you know use it to mean "cheap"?
I too think this is a good idea.
To me it makes perfect sense to me that Liches and Demons, the very exemplars of evil, should be affected more by Smiting than, say, a common bandit.
Fendin Foxfast wrote:
Respectfully, YOU have chosen these to be the exemplars of evil. I have not. Is an imp or a skeleton really more evil than an ancient red dragon or a human who wants to destroy the entire world? Please don't pre-set what kind of evil I can be good at fighting.
As for demons (& other evil outsiders), I'd have to disagee. I didn't choose them as the exemplars of evil, it's the standard assumption of the D&D game (and of pretty much every fantasy story I've ever read or watched which features them). So to me it makes sense that smiting does more damage against them. Of course, if you're playing in a setting where there are no evil outsiders, or where a different creature type represents ultimate evil, you could always houserule a change to the type.
However, I can see undead are a lot more arguable, given that there are lots of other extremely evil creatures in the D&D game. Having read a lot of people commenting on this thread, I can also see from a gameplay point of view it's a bit of a bummer if your DM doesn't send many undead or outsiders against you.
So as a compromise, I'd suggest Smiting doing extra damage against evil outsiders and one other (evil) creature type, chosen by the player at first level.
How about giving the Paladin Smite 2/day at first level? A lot of the complaints about Smite Evil seem to centre around it not having enough uses at lower levels, and this wouldn't make a big difference at high levels (increasing from 7/day to 8/day at level 19-20).
Making caster level = class level -3; I like this idea a lot. It seems about the right power level, and it makes sense both with Turning level being class level -3 and with spellcasting starting at level 4.
Just seen this, interested but not entirely convinced. Part 1 (about the origins of Christianity) I've read a fair bit about, and I think its conclusions are probably correct, although I think they make it appear more definite than it really is in places.
My feeling is that part 2 is probably at least partly correct (as the evidence that the Bush administration has lied repeatedly about the events of and following 9/11 is pretty overwhelming) but some of the specifics are a bit shaky.
Part 3 however I know a lot less about, and after an hour or two of internet research have predictably found lots of apparently intelligent and well-read people arguing both for and against it. I have to say, I'm a bit dubious. The "hostile interests control the money supply" and "one world government" things are classic conspiracy-theory motifs, with only the identity of the Secret Masters changing between versions. Which is not necessarily to say they aren't true, of course.
Anyone else seen it/ got any opinions?
In general, I think this is a definite improvement. As for specifics:
NYC Russ wrote:
Rather than the 1d6 per two levels, how about just increasing then bonus damage from 1hp per level to 2hp per level? This should keep the game moving along faster.
I prefer this version, it's simpler and 1d6/ 2 levels seems a bit OTT to me. Also, as The Wraith points out, the extra damage dice wouldn't be multiplied on a critical hit, where a flat bonus would. I'd prefer a lower base damage which is multiplied on a crit than higher damage which isn't.
Fendin Foxfast wrote:
3. If smite is going to stay, PLEASE don't make it only truly effective against fiends and undead. It's tantamount to dictating what the paladin has to do with his career. Don't continue to trap paladins in the ghetto of demons and vampires. There are so many, many other iniquities in the world! I would much rather see something like a +1/+1 every four levels vs. evil.
I disagree with this. To me it makes perfect sense to me that Liches and Demons, the very exemplars of evil, should be affected more by Smiting than, say, a common bandit. However...
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
And as far as another posters concerns about limiting the enhanced smite to undead and evil outsiders, it would be simplicity itself to create a "Dragon Slayer" feat, for example, that uses the enhanced version of the smite against dragons to create specialized paladins. Which is actually pretty cool.
I do like this idea.
Smite: Good change mechanically, but I would get rid of the offensive bonus, since smite ought to be offensive thematically.
I assume Roman means "get rid of the defensive bonus" here. If so, I agree. To me Smite Evil should be an offensive power.
Other than that, I think the Paladin's caster level still needs addressing. Rather than a blanket increase, it could just be increased to class level against dispelling, as suggested by Selgard on this thread. At least that way their buffs wouldn't be a complete waste of time at higher levels.
Overall, I like the changes, especially to Smite Evil and Detect Evil.