Yeah, having finally gotten to play some D&D Whatever This Most Recent Edition is Called, for switching to something simpler and streamlined, it feels like the way to go. Otherwise I'm still playing the Devil I Know just for sheer customization lunacy (PF1).

Though I'm curious about how the PF Remaster stands out from 2.0. Is there a good summary to read that anyone can recommend?

I'm very excited for this. That first season was so good and it looks like they're going to dig deeper with a lot of what's going on. I really want to know what Cooper Howard was doing in the past talking to Robert House.

And if Bethesda doesn't issue a remastered Fallout: New Vegas to go along with this, they are fools. (InB4 "But Bethesda didn't make F:NV, Obsidian did!": Bethesda Softworks published it. They are the ones who would make a decision about a remaster. Though since Microsoft owns both Bethesda and Obsidian, now, maybe they'd have the sense to push them in that direction.)

My only sadness is that Felicia Day said she was not in the show (I was watching her streaming when she said this), and I'd kill to see a Veronica cameo. But I expect they're trying to keep pushing the story forward and not bend it toward unnecessary fanservice... and it's not like there isn't fanservice galore in this anyway.

I was a big fan of her when I was a kid. In addition to WKRP, I remember she was in a very short lived show called "Partners in Crime" with Lynda Carter. It only lasted a season and I suspect it was probably not the height of good tv writing, but it was a dream team up to me.

May she rest in peace.

When I was a kid, we used to visit friends of the family another state away periodically. My parents' friends had a son about 10 years older than me who was very into geeky stuff and is basically the brother I never had. I'd think most teenage boys would be extremely protective of their nerdy collections, but when we went to visit he was happy to let me sit in his room and read from his giant pile of comics, which I gleefully did.

There I read, in particular, book after book of the Fantastic Four. It's weird because I never collected the book on my own (I did get Fraction's Future Foundation for awhile many years ago), because I loved it. Particularly the family dynamics and the distinctive personalities each character had, as well as just the sort of retrofuture feel. I lost hours in this world of the Fantastic Four.

Seeing the movie today brought me back to being a little kid, reading those comics all over again. Something in the casting, the worldbuild, the performances... in a way that I never felt with the other F4 movies (which were fine). These folks felt to me like Reed, Sue, Jonny, and Ben lifted straight from the page.

Obviously because these comics have been around a really long time, and we all have different takes on the comics, and my memory of what I read as a six/seven year old probably does not reflect some of y'all's memories, YMMV.

But to me the key strength of the film was just creating this particular world and the family dynamic super well. Special points for how they did Reed, who sometimes is fine but sometimes I can't stand. I liked this version of Reed but he still felt true to the character and he definitely played a "genius leader and strategist" role despite earlier general fandom pearl clutching.

I do think the pacing was off and at one point--NOT the fault of the film but because of some furniture moving/taking apart/rebuilding I was doing earlier in the day--I fell asleep so there was a part I missed. So I can't nitpick the plot too much because I probably missed certain details. But the second half is especially good and the characterization is good throughout.

Galactus was realized really well and the Silver Surfer was really cool. I don't know why but I was especially fascinated by her silver plated hair. Not that that has anything to do with the plot (I liked the character as well), just stuck in my head.

ETA: The powers are also visualized and used really well.

I thought there'd be more buildup for the next films, and there wasn't that much, and that's a good thing. The story just really focused on the family dealing with Galactus. There's just enough to see where things might go, with requisite shiny cameo.

Fun after credits thing that is non-plot relevant.

Agree with you on a lot of points, Aberzombie. Cast overall was great. Thing like the Fortress were well manifested. I didn't think of it this way, but yea, there were some cool silver age touches. I remember thinking on several points in the film I felt like I was reading the old JLA comics I used to read when I was a kid (which was technically past the silver age, but still much more old school).

I also agree there were too many people in the film.

Couple comments/mild disagreements:

I think we're talking about the same point...

** spoiler omitted **

I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.

Aberzombie, I think the only thing you and I disagree on is the relationship of the fans to the change in the backstory (I could debate the merits and flaws of the actual change). I don't think it's disrespectful to fans to change that bit of lore, especially with how it's handled in the film (more on that below). I think this kind of writing can engage fans and it treats them like people who are emotionally and intellectually intelligent enough to consider and accept different versions of the same story. As, indeed, I am a fan, and I did not feel "crapped on." (There are certainly changes to characters I've seen in other shows and films that I felt was disrespectful to fans; that usually involves stuff where the show/filmmakers seem embarrassed to be making superhero story, which is certainly not the case with James Gunn.)

I wasn't sure what to make of the twist and part of me didn't like the suggestion of a certain character's true motives, but I really, really, really liked how it made Superman reflect on the situation, and the resulting arc showed us why Superman is Superman. AND as others mentioned, the way the twist is presented, the audience can't trust that it is 100% true. What's more interesting is what Superman and other characters do with that information.

I certainly don't expect or even want you to agree with me, but I think this is a script decision that is better understood and appreciated seen in the context of the film, and I'd be really interested in your thoughts about it after you see it.

Although, I should note, I did hear one spoiler about Superman lore that has me rather angry at James Gunn. The kind of thing that seems like crapping on Superman fans.

As a lifelong DC fan (but not a diehard Superman lore fanatic), I didn't notice anything that felt like a massive deviation at least not from the spirit of the lore, if not the letter.

There was one twist--which I believe actually has been done before in at least some comic variations; a background character's motivations are potentially changed--I could see as *upsetting* some fans. But I can't fathom any part of the film as "crapping on" fans, i.e., making fools of them or being dismissive of the fandom.

And that twist I thought actually did a good job of helping serve Superman's arc and actually helped reinforce who he is and who he chooses to be.

Just saw this today. I went in expecting something... decent enough, but nothing that was likely to ignite me into excitement for the new DC Cinematic Universe.

I loved it. It's the best movie I've seen with Superman in it since the Donner films starring Christopher Reeve.

It is not perfection--but again, I wasn't expecting that, and my issues are more with some general balance of the narrative (there's a point where I feel like we lose track of Superman and the protagonists are actually two other characters... although it gets back on track) and some little characterization things (the balance of the relationship between Jimmy and his source of info was troubling on both sides, and while it's okay to have a troubling relationship, I feel like it required some better resolution or payoff than it got).

But overall, there was so much I enjoyed: the overall plot was interesting; it was multifaceted but not so overwrought/complex that it was hard to track what was happening.

The most important part to me they got right, and I'll use James Gunn's words: the movie emphasizes not just the "super" but the "man." There is a humanity to Clark/Kal that is really well done. He has his foibles--there were even moments where I was like, Dude, you can do better--but he is a believably decent person. He is the ultimate boy scout. And I also like how they set up the other superheroes to be a foil to him so you can see that he is the true *hero*, whereas the others are adventurers with superpowers.

I also liked that they really knew how to write a story that presents real challenges to someone who is as powerful as Superman. Sure, there's the Kryptonite moment and the "is this bad guy really stronger than Superman?" moment (which will make perfect sense, trust me)... but it's the stuff like: yes, Superman can defeat the giant monster easily, but you can see what is challenging him is he's trying to mitigate all the collateral damage at the same time as fighting it. Or yes, Superman can survive the instant death pit, but he's got to protect the baby at the same time.

The casting was 100% perfect. Superman was perfect. Lois was perfect (she is the first person to play Lois in a long time where I really believe she is Lois). Lex--oh my god, so good. Guy, Mr. Terrific, Hawkgirl, Ma, Pa, Jimmy Olson, Perry White, Cat Grant, even Eve f&#+ing Tessmacher... all beautifully well cast and played the roles just right.

Also will someone explain to me why I was crying so hard at the talk between Pa Kent and Clark? It shouldn't have been something I directly related to but I was sobbing.

They also set up the rest of the cinematic universe really well while at the same time and I'm really looking forward--for the first time in a long time--to seeing more of it.

Sadly I had to give up most of my streaming accounts (though I've been known to borrow family passwords but of course Netflix put a stop to that). So I probably just won't watch it. Hope I will see it at some point.

The thing that makes me want to see it most is Joanna Lumley as Grandma. Very different take on the character, but you can't beat Carol Kane's version so why not go in a different direction? And Patsy Stone as an Addams is just ghoulishly perfect (not that I would expect Lumley to play the same character but the comparison conjures the right image).

Also of course love Ortega as Wednesday, although I'm not wild on some of the plot beats I'm seeing... hard to put my finger on it, but there's something about the way they've given her powers that I struggle with.

Do I reroll my Strength check with +5? Because I already rolled once.

Oh sorry, I somehow got the order of events in my head wrong. See what SuperTumbler said in thread and ignore me.

I'm worried, have we lost Jason and Herakles?

I need to finally stop by my local Trader Joe's. It's been open over a year now, but that shopping center across town is a pain to get into and out of trafficwise.

I don't know what it is, but it seems like part of the Trader Joe's brand is to be located in the worst, most dangerous parking lots in a given region. Both Trader Joe's in my area are like this, including one that moved from one awful shopping plaza to another. But I've also seen this in other areas, from Pennsylvania to Minneapolis/St Paul. It's bizarre.

The following is to offer some perspective and perhaps a few takeaways for both fans and for Paizo, if any of the following is useful:

I freelanced with Paizo 2015-2020 as an editor. I don't know what's changed in the last few years, but I do know there was some staff turnover. So, for example, I'm not sure who to reach out to anymore if I wanted to seek freelance work again, or if their recruiting process has changed. I say this because the lack of transparency of how to seek independent contracts with Paizo may affect how many people they are able to hire. On the other hand, they may not be transparent about it because they don't want a ton of unqualified people bothering them with unsolicited hiring inquiries, which can easily happen in this sort of industry.

I can say that at the time I worked for them, I generally got decent notice and reasonable deadlines for the work I was hired to do. At the same time, I couldn't always take every contract because of the volume of content (the requests weren't unreasonable, just didn't fit with my own work schedule at the time). I didn't get the feeling the production schedule was unreasonable, but I was pretty far removed from the day to day production.

One potential "issue" is lot of time, books were split between multiple editors so different sections could be edited simultaneously. This saves time on the production schedule, but it puts a lot on the lead in-house editor(s) to QA check the work of all the freelancers, which may vary widely in quality. For example, in addition to differing proofreading skills, different editors may provide different levels of feedback. I'm the kind of pain in the ass editor who will point out logic errors and also suggest things like "if I were GMing this, I'd want X information, which you are not providing." I occasionally pointed out if some language used might offend some readers (which, I should note, they always responded to and changed, and it was usually an issue not well known or subject to interpretation). Other editors may strictly proofread or just focus on correct formatting and statblock structure. This can lead to one section of a book having a different degree of attention paid to it than another.

There's probably some additional challenges with new editions, errata, and remasterings. Game editing is challenging, because in addition to general proofreading, in house style, sustaining author voice, and ensuring consistency and coherence, you also have to pay attention to the rules of the game, very stringent statblock formatting, and gameplay coherence. In other words, you have to possess system mastery in addition to skill as an editor (which is a much harder job than one might think; yes I'm biased on that statement but I stand by it). With newer systems and revisions coming out (and I fully admit I've not been paying attention to the latest projects because my ancient gaming groups have stuck to PF1e), folks may just possess less system mastery than previously because stuff is newer.

I should note, my primary area of editing expertise is editing peer review medical and public health research. This means reading text with complex vocabulary I am not a subject matter expert on, making sure articles meet stringent requirements for research papers, and assessing and anticipating how a peer reviewer might respond to text. It requires a lot of expertise and practice. I find game editing more challenging in many ways than medical peer review editing. In some ways, it is actually more technical, and there are more facets of the text to pay attention to at once.

Key takeaway from this:
If system mastery is causing issues (and that is purely speculation on my part), perhaps Paizo might invest some time into training editors on some system mastery basics to be sure people are assessing the things they need to assess consistently.

And, here's a problem I don't think Paizo can fix very easily: why am I a health research editor and not a game editor? Even though I think health research editing is easier, relatively speaking, than game editing? Because the former pays way better. (Well, until grants and contracts to fund research all "disappeared" recently.) Paizo is a small company and its resources to pay editors and QA/QI personnel is only so much. And this is true for nearly any game company except maybe WOTC (and I'm not sure how much Hasbro values editorial staff). This simply it is what it is. Publishing is expensive. RPGs, while more popular than ever, are still relatively speaking a niche industry. The money for staffing is limited.

We (the U.S. and world overall) are in increasingly difficult times economically, so more editors may be seeking higher paying jobs elsewhere, even if they enjoy game editing (and to be clear, I had an absolute blast working on the projects I did here). This is entirely speculative, but the pool of available editors for this kind of work may be smaller than it used to be. You need to find folks who are willing to do the work more or less as a labor of love, because doing it for a living is not a realistic option for many.

I'm sad to hear a lot of errors have shown up late and that sucks. Everyone I ever worked with was proud of their work and intent on making it the best it could possibly be. I know if I'd worked on a product and heard of such problems, I'd be both mortified and frustrated, because I know I probably did fix a lot of other issues no one will have ever known about. If there are issues with production scheduling and hiring, I hope Paizo can address them as soon as possible.

DeathQuaker wrote:

For the northern beans and ham, dried beans or canned? Sounds tasty.

The great northern beans are pretty thin-skinned, so I don't even need to presoak them. I just dump a cup of dried beans into a pot with 4 cups of water, a cup of low-sodium chicken stock, 4 oz of diced ham, a large diced yellow onion, and some kosher salt and black pepper. Lid it up and bring it to a boil, then drop it to a rapid simmer for 45 minutes, then stir thoroughly, and drop to a regular simmer. Check back every 35-45 minutes or so, stirring with every check, and adding a 1/3 to 1/2 cup of water or so as needed to replace from evaporation. The beans are typically done in 3 hours.

Awesome. I've been wanting to eat more grains and legumes and doing stuff like cooking a big(ish, relative to what I can eat in a few days without going crazy) pot of beans and another of rice (or whatnot) and then recycling them into different meals through the week. (So could be rice and beans alone, but could also put them in soups or chili or whatever.) I usually eat canned beans so I am never quite sure what to do with dried or what kind of dried to get.

Speaking of I did make some canned black beans with onions, garlic, and adobo; rice seasoned with some sazon; and TJ's frozen chicken mole. Topped some of that with fresh chopped tomatoes. I underseasoned the rice but it balanced out with the salt in the frozen chicken.

I used up the leftover beans tonight in nachos I made for dinner. What, I am too an adult and I can eat what I want for dinner.

Andostre wrote:

DeathQuaker wrote:

Well I appreciate the offer, and expect to see you both at the Zinda Blake Fan Club. ;) (In seriousness, should I start a "share your favorite b and c listers here!" thread?)

Only if you want to hear a lot of rambling about Multiple Man.

Oh goodness, Madrox is one of my favorite mutants, and definitely one of my favorite 'lower tier' mutants, along with folks like Frenzy, Diamond Lil, Dust, Hellion, Wind-Dancer, Wiz Kid, Sunspot, etc. (Nightcrawler and Cyclops being two of my favorite 'popular' mutants.)

Can I add Outlaw to the list?

I like Multiple Man too.

Love old school Scarlet Witch, her circa Marvel Handbook power of 'bad luck bolts, only *I choose* the bad luck that's going to happen to you!' was *amazing!* "Hawkeye? Bowstring snapped. And now you've had a muscle cramp and can't use your arm anyway. Iron Man? Armor shorted out, oops. Thor? Lost your balance while swinging your hammer and clocked yourself in the back of the head. Hercules? Huh. Wardrobe malfunction? No, you'd like that. Have a stroke. You're a god, you'll be fine, just useless for a few hours."

I wonder how that would interact with Domino's mutation. Just cancel out?

It interests me how Marvel and DC focus on different archetypes. DC owns that speedster niche with a whole Flash family. Marvel totally rules the psychics roost, with more telepaths (mostly mutants) and telekinetics than I can list.

I feel like DC does better, oddly, with paragons and street level. Like, Superman and Wonder Woman and Green Lantern on one end... and then there's the whole Gotham family who is all, to quote Yelena Belova in Thunderbolts (see I kept on topic!), "punching and shooting." Well, mostly punching. But there's a huge range of personalities and drama in there, which keeps it interesting. (I am a low-power scale DC fan. I have nearly every Birds of Prey ever published until the New 52 destroyed everything. I really like the "heroes in under their heads" motif. Which is also why I really loved Thunderbolts. In retrospect, therefore, it's not shocking it did poorly; I tend to like stuff that doesn't sell well.)

While both of course have a gamut, I feel like Marvel's characters shine where there's either a focused ability (the various mutant powers) or where the backstory/modus operandi is more of the draw than the actual power set. Like Jessica Jones power-wise is just a bog-standard flying brick (and by her own admission flies poorly), but only Marvel would say, "let's make the flying brick a snarky private detective with a tragic past." So she usually is doing what the punching and shooting level characters do, and then just when you're absorbed into the noir of it all, she throws a car at you. Likewise, I really like the She-Hulk stories where there's a big focus on her actually being a lawyer. Who just happens to be able to juggle buses. There's something about that I find endlessly entertaining.

Otherwise the difference between Marvel and DC is as it was presented in the Marvel vs DC comics in the 90s: in the Marvel universe, the normies generally distrust supers (or their existence is more controversial; like the man on the street might like Spidey, but JJJ still wants his head, metaphorically speaking). In the DC universe, the normies more typically accept them, if not revere them (which I also think is one of the reasons why some of the Zack Snyder movies didn't quite work because it was setting up a world resenting the heroes.

I kind of like that, instead of each company having a bunch of clones of each others successful IPs. (Which leads back to topicality, not liking the Sentry much in the comics, 'cause his 'super-power' is pretty much, 'Marvel's Superman.' Meh.)

And then there's characters whose powers don't seem to have anything to do with each other, but *feel* similar, thematically. Firestorm at DC and Nova at Marvel felt very similar...

IDK. When it's an obvious "clone" it can be annoying sometimes. But it's also a way of exploring different sides of a similar story. Sentry isn't just Superman. It's what if Superman went horribly wrong? Or what if a heavily flawed person got Superman's powers, rather than the most boy scoutish of boy scouts? I actually find that really interesting to explore.

And then there's characters whose powers don't seem to have anything to do with each other, but *feel* similar, thematically. Firestorm at DC and Nova at Marvel felt very similar...

Oh yeah, both comics have tons of clones of each other. If it's not powers, it's stories (billionaire brilliant playboy gadgeteer). Between power cloning and echoes of stories, it's how they made the Amalgam project work. Even the characters who are/seem fairly well developed and unique still have patterns you can trace across comics. I mean, it's weird that both DC and Marvel have a wisecracking archer who's dated a kickass field agent named after a bird, right? (In case not obvious: Hawkeye/Mockingbird and Green Arrow/Black Canary)

And sure, Carol Danvers has been around since 1968 or so. After Wonder Woman got a massive resurgence of popularity in 1976 due to the Lynda Carter series, suddenly Marvel had an original idea: let's give superpowers to a character who had previously been a minor character representing a feminist voice. She got an alliterative feminist moniker: Ms. Marvel (We use it all the time now, but I believe "Ms." was a somewhat controversial title to give someone in 1977; it was treated then like they/them pronouns are now). Now, would I call Carol a complete Wonder Woman clone? Nah. But both paragon-level heroes wearing scanty red, gold, and blue out outfits with military alter egos (WW was Lt. Prince at the time in the comics). I think they brought out Ms. Marvel in 1977 pretty as a direct response to Wonder Woman.

I could go on but you get my drift. Both comics have many characters who echo each other. Hell, since we were talking about Taskmaster, isn't he and Prometheus basically the same character? Anyway. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but again is how you tell the stories about it.

Which leads to the question: are the Thunderbolts Marvel's Suicide Squad or are they the Secret Six?

Well I appreciate the offer, and expect to see you both at the Zinda Blake Fan Club. ;) (In seriousness, should I start a "share your favorite b and c listers here!" thread?)

He's a great character with A LOT of potential, and that's what I think upsets fans of the character, myself included.

*channels Olympia Dukakis in Moonstruck* Thank you! Thank you for answering my question!

I haven't played tabletop in person in years due to pandemic (I know it's been 5 years, but groups didn't get back together since) and adulting, and I haven't played Starfinder in ages... and I want these anyway.

Okay, I can walk back my parenthetical "important," because you're right: he's not important compared to many many other Marvel characters. I'll stand by long-standing, though. And I've enjoyed the character as a villain. His ability more often than not made for interesting fights. Plus, I really enjoyed him as a character in Gail Simone's Deadpool run.

Fair enough. I'd still love for someone to explain to me why so many people across the Internet are Taskmaster stans, though, apparently. Because lots of people are hung up on dislike for how the character was used in both BW and Thunderbolts, to the point online discourse about both movies seems to revolve around Taskmaster more than anything else, and I want to understand why this side character warrants so much discourse (when no one ever wants to talk about the side characters I like *pouts*).

One, it's an example of how most MCU villains aren't given a chance to be interesting because the studio treats them as disposable. And if you happen to enjoy the character from the comics, it's even more disappointing. Recurring villains are a staple of superhero stories, and that's often a key component to making them engaging.

Marvel's treatment of villains is generally disappointing, agreed.

Though I want to be fair to Thunderbolts, because as a whole bucks it that trend as everyone in the lineup is ostensibly a villain and/or wildcard at best working for a villain, and both actual villains of the story (Val and the Void) are not actually killed off and we should probably see them both again later.

Second, I think the MCU version of the character was tragic and had potential to tell or contribute to a good story. The way she was killed off to prove some point was also disappointing. If the MCU needed a disposable villain for that scene, I wished they would have used a character that they hadn't already invested some screentime in before I got to enjoy her.

That all is completely fair (and I'll repeat I think naming her Taskmaster was probably a mistake). I think it would actually have been cool if she had actually stayed a recurring villain. But then that also gets to actor availability again.

I particularly agree that it's stupid to kill off characters for optics' sake. I know many audience members get whiny if no one dies because "the stakes weren't high enough" but the stakes can be other things, like people's sanity or relationships or whether they get to eat tacos or something. Dying should happen when it serves a character's story, not as a cheap plot device.

THanks, TheJeff. I did say "appearances in the 80s and 90s." The list on the fandom site is a bit harder to make sense of, so I'm sorry if I posted a poorer reference.

*record scratches*

Hold up. Look, I agree Taskmaster was done dirty here. I've heard rumors they do actually still have plans for the character, due to multiverse shenanigans. Or it could just be the actor was done/had conflicts.

But Taskmaster is an important character??? Really?!

I've been reading comics since I was a kid. More DC than Marvel in my youth, sure, but I've been reading them a long time. I've also watched my fair share of spinoff cartoons and the like... Spidey and Amazing Friends, X Men, etc. I feel reasonably well versed in Marvel lore, and far more so than your average person on the street.

I had never even heard of Taskmaster until the character was announced for the Black Widow movie. And I even love B-listers. The Domino comics a few years back were great, for example. Never heard of Taskmaster though. When people were b+!%*ing about changes made to Taskmaster in that film,* I asked a friend of mine who had even been far more deeply involved in reading Marvel stuff since the 80s than I had been. "Am I missing someone critically important to the MCU? Why are they so pissed? Do I need to know who this guy is?" I asked. He replied, "Nah, he's not important. He's C-list at best, and mostly a joke. I have no idea why they're so mad, I think they're just complaining because of the gender swap." (Andostre, not suggesting you are complaining about that, just what my friend said about why huge swaths of fandom hated how Taskmaster was used in Black Widow. My only issue about Taskmaster in Black Widow is apart from the Dreykov's daughter twist, the Taskmaster identity was pointless and it might have been better to make a unique character to the movie. Or make her Iron Maiden and have Melina take her suit at the end of the movie.)

I've since looked up his appearances in the comics. Looks like he had a major role in one Avengers storyline in 2014. Mainly appeared in comics 2009-2014 after a couple small appearances in the 80s and 90s. When I think of an "important" character I'd think of the main Marvel folks who've been around since the 60s and 70s. Doom. Spidey. F4. Cap. Magneto. Even Iron Man wasn't as a big a deal until the movie, but Iron Man I'd still call "important" and he's been around a long, long time.

So please educate me: is this character who per the link I provided hasn't even BEEN in any comics in 11 years terribly important and I have just missed him/been miseducated? Or what's the deal?

I mean, I get sometimes just liking a minor character. So many comic characters I adore are far from the most popular ones. There's one character who showed up in a minor John Byrne miniseries in the 90s that was a spinoff of a spinoff of a spinoff who I adored and lament I'll never see again. I get sometimes just liking that one person. But people act like the MCU couldn't exist without Taskmaster. Apparently he's bigger than Spider-Man, and the worst thing the MCU has ever done is their changes to the characterization and use of the character. Please help me understand.

Any tone of frustration in this post is frustration with the Internet at large putting this guy(gal) I've barely heard of on a pedestal and with my own lack of comprehension of this situation--because people will NOT STOP talking about this one thing in this movie--and my wondering why that's more of a talking point than things that have happened to far more established characters in the MCU, and is not intended to be personal to Andostre or anyone else here.

* As an aside, I wonder if they actually killed off Taskmaster because so many vocal fans hated how the character was treated in Black Widow, so they thought it would be fine to make her a disposable casualty since nobody seemed to like her anyway. And now it's surprising so many people cared she died.

What I have always wanted most in a FF project was a Modern Family style sitcom where all of their big action pieces happen at the end or beginning of each episode. What makes them special isn't their powers, it is the fact that they are a family in a way that no other super team is.

That is an awesome concept for a series and I'm sorry we'll probably not see it.

I do like that they are definitely digging into the F4's family life, and we're seeing stuff like dinner at home. I like slice of life with my superheroes when it's appropriate.

At this level, the level scaling also becomes more apparent. Had little trouble with the six deathclaws, including mama, in Natick.

Then went to run an errand in Far Harbor and got one shotted by a legendary dusky yao guai during a critter raid on the Visitor's Center. In my defense I had fully leveled Enclave power armor on when dealing with the deathclaws and was just wearing my General's coat in Far Harbor. Which was probably not the best choice.

PS the update they did last year does make the game look really good. Seems a lot more clearer and colorful (within the appropriate wasteland color palette) than I remember it used to be.

So, just for funsies I decided to rev up ye old Fallout 4. Just tool around a bit, maybe finally complete all the quests on this one character, waste time building settlements. Ya know. Had a radiant quest to complete, wanted to just get that off my quest list before I did anything big. Kill the Rogue Robot. Fine. Far west. No big deal. At the level I was and with the equipment I had, no problem.

As I head in the direction, Brotherhood are flying overhead. Ghoul attacks out of nowhere. Is that what they're after? Then BOOM! Legendary Junk Sentrybot (but not my target, oddly). I jump up onto a roof (using jet pack power armor) to take shots at it from a distance, but suddenly it explodes due to fire from the vertibird. Somehow Curie's okay just fine even though she was in the middle of the blast radius.

Still Brotherhood are firing at something. Come around the corner: one Legendary Super Mutant Lord, coming up! While I'm killing that, I get notified that my Rogue Robot quest is complete: someone else killed it. Okay fine, but I'd like to find the body to loot. But it's dark. I'm struggling to see. (As it should be). I think we killed everything. Find a chair to sit in to wait. Nope, "you can't do that in combat." What is left to kill?

So, Matriarch Deathclaw, Legendary Albino Deathclaw, two ordinary Deathclaws (EDIT: four, the fight wasn't quite over after all), a few high level stingwings for good measure, AND a Behemoth later... ALL of them in the same area, fighting with each other.

And for once the vertibird didn't crash! I didn't get that hurt either because they all did enough damage to each other.

Nuts. I've seen the RNG spin up some wild conflagrations but man! There is a story behind why everyone was in the ruins of Natick all at once like that and I will never know it...

I playtested Exalted 1e many moons ago. They didn't listen to most of our feedback. It was still a great game but... yeah, houserules help a lot.

Now I will forever have an image in my mind of Freehold busting through a door wearing both a Wisconsin Cheese hat and a red inquisition hat.

I saw a quote from one of the producers that Sue Storm is the defacto leader of the team. The exact quote was...

“If you do go back through the comics, you realize that Sue Storm is arguably the leader of the Fantastic Four, because without Sue Storm, everything falls apart,” Curtis said.

As someone who's actually read plenty of FF comics, I disagree with him. Sue is more like the heart of the team. Reed is, and should be, the leader. However, I am not surprised they couldn't get even that correct.

I think it depends on how you define "leader." If it's person who makes the final decisions or who is spokesperson, it's Reed. If the "leader" is the one that without whom they fall apart, I agree with their take that it's Sue. I may not have read as many FF comics as you, but I've read a fair few and I agree with their take. I might not have worded it exactly like that, and I suspect they're trying to generate a bit of buzz to get people talking about it. No publicity like controversy.

As to what a leader is, I come from a subcultural background where servant leadership is our expected leadership model, and some of my communities don't even name a "leader" and we engage in group decision making. Even where I have worked, where people have leader-like titles and have to make some hard calls still see themselves as not the authority per se but only a final word after considerable consultation with others. Folks will hardcore rebel against someone who gives orders. Meanwhile, someone who comes from a more corporate or military culture would define leadership very differently (not that I am suggesting those are your background, per se, but I would not be shocked if you did not come from the same world of bleeding heart religious communities and nonprofits that I do :) ).

Moreover, I can tell you that where I come from, I'd much rather be working for Sue than Reed, personally.

All this is to say, I don't think the creators are being unfaithful to the comics more than they interpret things very differently from you and others. And at the same time, I think they're engaging in a bit of s!&# stirring (which they probably shouldn't do).

Freehold, you made me hungry for an egg sandwich so I just had one for lunch. (Over easy egg (yes, I like a mess), chicken sausage, TJ's Unexpected Cheddar, fresh tomato, mayo mixed with chili garlic paste on hamburger bun).

It was really good I have to say. Smells even better reheating.

For the northern beans and ham, dried beans or canned? Sounds tasty.

Re: cilantro: could have just been that bunch had a bit stronger flavor than most. Plus it tastes different eaten by itself versus in stuff. I had an internship many many moons ago at a place where we lived on site, and the chef put cilantro in everything. I noticed the soapyness only because of the quantity we were consuming. I don't always taste soapyness. Even though there's always talk of tasting it being genetic or not, I think it's more nuanced than that.

Speaking of cilantro and things...

Made sort of a lazy arroz con pollo, loosely based on this version from ATK/Cook's Country (which is sort of an ur-arroz con pollo rather than a specific version from a specific region). Bought a "grill pack" of chicken from Trader Joe's which was a reasonable price per pound (given it was organic) and used half of it, i.e., one breast and two drumsticks in the dish. Seared the chicken. Made a sofrito out of garlic, onion, cilantro, and cubanelle pepper. Sauted onion and half the sofrito and some tomato paste, then added medium grain rice to that mixture and got it all coated, and then stirred in some sazon (a spice blend of achiote, culantro, and MSG). Added chicken stock, rest of sofrito, and olives, and put chicken back into pan and simmered a half hour, then let sit 10 min to keep absorbing liquid. Was super flavorful and yummy.

Oddly, Chris Hemsworth is about the last person I care about in the MCU (no offense to him, I just really have never cared for Thor). But I doubt I am representative of the majority of fans.

Screen Rant says it's just about broken even.

It has had consistently good reviews, etc. Everyone I know who has seen it liked it. I think it is a sign of two things: there is a "superhero fatigue" setting/Marvel put out some mediocre stuff that caused a bunch of folks to jump ship. But moreover... we're in uncertain economic times and going to the movies is expensive. People with kids will prioritize Lilo & Stitch and people wanting to see a movie about people who sneak, punch, and shoot will prioritize Mission Impossible (I'm trying to save money and I really want to see MI but had wanted to see Thunderbolts more). The timing wasn't good for it.

It'll be interesting to see how F4 does. It has broader audience potential. Slated for summer, hopefully that'll help it.

Happy pride, Paizo! There's been struggles here and elsewhere--and we need to struggle to get to a better place sometime--over the years. But whether as a freelancer or a community member I've always felt safe to say I am here and queer, and I thank you very much for that.

DeathQuaker wrote:

It is probably too late to properly suggest anything, but applesauce to go with the pork?

I learned quickly to always keep applesauce on hand for Dad. Often, two sides with a meal is too much for him, so a ready jar of applesauce in the fridge is his go to "plus 1" for meals. I stock up on the affordable 24 oz jars from Aldi, and he will usually finish off the entire jar by himself before it starts to turn. There's no preservatives in Aldi's applesauce brand, unlike most of the big name brands, so once it's opened you need to use it steady before it ferments (even while kept in the fridge).

While we are discussing old men and applesauce, my dad keeps individual serving size applesauce cups to take his pills with. He finds it much easier to stir them into the applesauce and swallow than just take with liquid. He does use the preservativey kind though (he loves Mott's apple-mango). I keep Trader Joe's around for snacks. I wish an Aldi was closer to me. There is a new Lidl not too far away but I keep forgetting about it since it's not in my typical route of travel.

I got some nice veggies from the farmer's market yesterday... asparagus, squash, radishes. Think I'll stir fry at least some of them with some tofu.

It turned out okay but got a little too liquidy. Still tasty though. Probably will have leftovers tonight. Would it be weird to "jacket potato" it, i.e., serve it over a baked potato?

Tofu depends tremendously on preparation and seasonings. By itself, I find it inoffensive, but it is more or less paste-flavored protein. The "correct" way to prep tofu is slice it and put it between piles of plates and paper towels to press out the moisture. It will then saute pretty well and, cooked with a good sauce, will taste pretty good. I almost never remember to do this. I have found instead patting it as dry as possible and then slicing it into 1 inch by 1 inch sticks and tossing in soy sauce and seasonings and then baking at 400 for about a half an hour gives them a nice flavor and texture--they will crisp on the outside a bit but not be too rubbery on the in. (Limeylongears' seasoning combo above sounds great.)

BUT: as I learned the other day, do not do this in the toaster oven. Needs to be in full on oven or not enough liquid will evaporate and it will stay mushy.

The other amazing miracle way to eat tofu is buy silken tofu (the super soft, slippery kind) and then blend it together with melted chocolate (alternatively, mix together some cocoa powder, oil, and syrup or honey). It makes the most amazing chocolate pudding and you'd have no idea it's tofu.

(Dad still won't eat "bait", aka crabs or shrimp).

*Baltimorean begins looking for torch and pitchfork*

a just opened tin of Old Bay seasoning.

Fine, you both may live.

(A million winky faces and j/ks of course.)

I wish these children all the happiness in the world.

I just wish it wasn't for a needless reboot that will further enrich the coffers of a terrible woman.

Missed the edit window... sorry!

Strength and Fear: An Ustalavic Kingmaker Campaign, playing Valeska Talanova.

I was in that one toward the end. I think I missed its height but it was a great group of players with a good GM who just needed to stop running for RL reasons.

I've been in a lot of PBPs that started great but then petered out... or had to be stopped due to RL getting in the way. As often happens. So it's hard to think about which ones to point to... Some were truly great. Others were object lessons.

One of three PBPs, and the only Pathfinder one, that went to completion that I played in was Papa DRB's Moru Country. I think we were a little burned out by the end but it was still a fantastic campaign with some great players and characters.

Another that went to completion but was Mutants and Masterminds was Gm SuperTumbler's Eldritch: Netherwar. Which was an entirely different system but I accidentally created and played a paladin. Still a great game.

Honorable mention to GM Norv's Curse of the Crimson Throne which went strong until grad school ate the GM. Curse of the Crimson Throne itself seems to be a cursed AP... I've been in three that all lost their GMs, and I know of very few that ever finished. It's one I'd love to play to completion, especially with the character I made for it, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

Yeah, I don't think the suggestion per se was to recruit someone you know. But you can look at a person's posting history and they way they behave in the recruitment to get a sense of them. You can also just ask folks to confirm they can meet posting expectations, etc. Mind, some just post an application and then shut up (which I actually appreciate), but you can usually still get a sense of player and not just character from their posting.

It still puts a newb at a disadvantage especially if they have a low posting history, as it's hard to get a read on them, but that's a fairly low occurrence, especially for a PF1 recruitment, when it's mostly applicants who've been around awhile.

And character is still a factor as well. Did the person design a character appropriate for the AP/world/proposed setting? How are they going to mix with the rest of the party? Will they have something to do? It sucks if there are two great players who both submitted nearly identical characters but one is probably not gonna get in if you have a ton of applicants and need a well-rounded party. BUT... I agree that you should consider the player first. If the applicant seems like an asshat, it doesn't matter how great their PC's backstory is.

(Indeed, I can distinctly recall many years ago rejecting a player who had a character who would have suited the story perfectly well, but they badgered me with PMs about why they were the best person for the game and how I was a fool if I didn't choose them to join the party and how it wasn't fair that they didn't get chosen for games when they work so hard to make good characters and they are the best player on the boards and... yeah, pestering me with how awesome you are is not a good way to guarantee recruitment.)

Last night's dinner was just cheeseburgers and potato chips.

Earlier today, I started a 2-1/2 lb pork butt roast going in the slow cooker. I'm out of russet potatoes to cook around it or make into mashed, and I'm avoiding the markets until after Memorial Day. But I've got a can of candied sweet potatoes that I can heat up instead. Not sure what else to make with it though.

It is probably too late to properly suggest anything, but applesauce to go with the pork?

I got some nice veggies from the farmer's market yesterday... asparagus, squash, radishes. Think I'll stir fry at least some of them with some tofu.

Roll20 requires an account but it is free both to the GM and the player. If you are trying to do an entire AP, a GM will need to remake maps or get an account due to size of maps.

I didn't have an issue screenshotting/snipping maps and copy/pasting them into Google Draw. Size wasn't really a problem.

I did also make or remake certain maps but that was often due to my own predilections or reasons to alter the map. Not out of necessity. (And it's not like my raw files were smaller than the official AP maps).

There are other reasons to prefer one or the other, but I don't think this in particular is an issue.

Re mapping, I just use Google Draw. Everyone can access it for free without an account. I can paste maps I've made straight into it, and it's easy enough to make things like spell templates. I can even finagle making a quick basic map within it using the table function to create a grid of squares and filling in the squares with different colors to make a quick and dirty map.

I prefer Draw to Slides personally; I find it easier to zoom in and manipulate things.

I've not tried some of the other tools mentioned here and am curious to know more. I avoid anything that requires players to make an account.

I wouldn't call it a disaster, the magic system they use slaps.

It's basically The Outer Worlds Does Oblivion.

Yes. But combat is much improved compared to the Outer Worlds (or Oblivion, for that matter). They listened to the complaints about combat for the Outer Worlds and made it a lot more reactive and dynamic.

Plus the companions are so much more useful in combat. Mind part of that is because they turned off friendly fire, but still. But generally they don't get into my line of fire nearly so often.

I haven't used the magic system itself much but it looks cool. If I replay it I'll probably try a magic user (doing largely ranged/dex build. I would say stealth ranged build except I keep forgetting to use my very cool invisibility skill, which is not the fault of the game).

I loved the PoE games enough to strongly consider Avowed. I've had friends spread second-hand rumours that it's a disaster, but I don't necessarily believe them.

I can be sure it isn't for everyone, but I can't imagine what'd make someone call it a "disaster." I bought it a few months after release so perhaps there were some early issues that have been patched? But it looks good and plays well. I think folks who want it to be more of an Elder Scrolls clone might be more disappointed at some of its features, but those features I consider among the game's strengths.

If you liked PoE I think you'd like this a lot, even though the gameplay interface and mechanics are different.

I've taken a look at Tears at Bitter Manor and don't think I like it a ton. Plunder and Peril looks cool

Late to this, but wanted to comment as someone who ran Plunder and Peril as part of a Skull and Shackles campaign (it's designed to be an alternative to Skull and Shackles book 2, though of course it can also stand alone): it has three chapters and each one is written by a different developer. Each chapter itself can also be run as standalone or attached to another adventure (you just change the circumstances for how you got there), which can be a good thing. However, editing and/or post development was clearly rushed and there's some... flukes... with it (like in chapter 1, the narrative describes a major enemy as having an ability that is not listed in her stats, and the ability is relevant to the plot).

1) What published PF1E adventure is your favorite/one you want a chance to play via PbP?

I'm biased because I was in this competition and have a monster published in it, but I've always wanted to play Down the Blighted Path, written by the 2015 RPG Superstar winner Monica Marlowe.

I vote for NOT the trilogy that involves the cult of Razimir. I don't like that one. (Although it starts with Crypt of the Everflame, which is an oldy but goodie.)

For APs (with the caveats offered to running APs) I've always wanted to play War for the Crown, but I think that's really hard for GMs to run because of the NPC tracking. I'd like to try some of the later APs that have hardly been offered here, like Tyrant's Grasp. I've also been in three or four failed RotRL and four or five failed CotCT games, almost all dead due to GM flake or shutting the game down for one reason or another. I'd love to finish those stories, but I'm guessing they are hard on the GM (I don't think RotRL should be too hard on the GM. CotCT I think you have to track a lot of implications based on PC decisions but IIRC it's fairly well mapped out for the GM).

2) Would you recommend that adventure to someone who is new to GMing/PbP?

I've not run DtBP but IIRC it's relatively straightforward. The APs I'd check the forums here that are dedicated to those APs for GM advice.

First and foremost, you gotta pick one you know you will have fun with. If you're not having fun, no one else will be. This includes being ready to take a break if you need be.

General advice to add on to what folks have said:
1. Communicate and urge communication. Groups that provide feedback and say when they are and aren't going to be available clearly and are consistent are essential to PBP success. This includes giving feedback to the group--it's okay to ask for help from group if you're not sure what to do. "Hey guys, you went way off the rails and I am not sure how to respond to this, so I'm going to need some time to figure it out. Love the creativity, but I'll need a minute."

2. If you do choose to run an AP, I would plan to run book by book. So plan to just get through book 1 (or start at book 2 since a lot of folks have played starts of APs but never the continuations). If you feel like the game is slowing down or you couldn't keep up after the first book, bring it to a conclusion so there's some closure if you can't continue. See where everyone's energy level is, including yours, before moving onto the next book. It is okay to burn out and just bring things to a close if needed.

(I ran Skull and Shackles on the boards and made it to book 3--with probably an additional book's worth of sandbox content we threw in along the way--and then burned out. Another player in the game took on the GM duties and I became a player. That works too! Game did end before we finished the whole AP, but due to bad real life circumstances.) Also I can send lots of advice for running S&S if you want to run that one.

Got this a couple weeks ago: this is Obsidian's new fantasy adventure-RPG. I really like it.

The gist is you are the envoy to the local overly-lawful and colonialist Emperor, exploring a mysterious disease spreading in a colony set on a vibrant and dangerous wilderness. You're also a "godlike" (sort of like an aasimar, but directly imbued with your divine nature by a god) but don't know which god is actually your sponsor, and the source of your godlikeness is part of the mystery of the story (which I haven't, relatively speaking, gotten that far into).

It's similar in style of play to the Elder Scrolls, but of course it being Obsidian is a little more story and quest-focused than "wander around and kill s@&! oh and also here's some quests." (Not that there is anything wrong with the latter). It is set in the same world as Pillars of Eternity I and II; it isn't a direct sequel but picks up I think about a generation or so later (and the events of those games are referenced). The system for choosing your class and leveling up your character is different from POE--it is much simpler and skill-tree based--but has consistent flavor. I just finished the first act, more or less, and there's a good balance between exploration and story and decent pacing overall. Writing is solid, with good dialogue and voice acting. The companions are... fine. Not up to what I expect from Obsidian but they're decently written enough, and I expect there may also be a bit of a slow burn there.

I'm playing on SteamDeck (docked to the TV) and it is struggling with the graphics, even though I would say the graphics aren't as good as, say, Baldur's Gate III, which runs smoother. But it is a very pretty game and I would expect anyone playing on a better PC or XBox is going to enjoy the graphics of it more fully. Good soundtrack. There are of course, bugs--it's Obsidian--but the game is being well supported and a major update just dropped recently, with more to come in Summer and Fall.

Highly recommended if RPGs are your thing (although if you want to wait until more patches drop, I support that).

Hey all, I think my other games are using up enough of my time. With much regret, but I think I need to bow out of this one. Again feel free to use the character I rolled as an NPC. See y'all 'round the boards.

To be honest, I've was always leery of Kang as a major villain. Mostly because Time Travel issues can always be a headache to deal with, even for really good writers. And I think current day Marvel has enough of a lack of those to have made a time travel plot very nonsensical.

However, I also agree they should have just recast the role. I suppose it is possible the refusal to recast was some kind of contract thing. It's just as possible they were stuck in the hole they dug for themselves by idiotically refusing to recast T'Challa. In which case they richly deserve any headaches that have resulted.

Agreed on both counts. Time travel can lead to such nonsense. Doctor Who used to do it right, where it was just about a way to travel to another place and see other points in history. Once you get into stuff with changing the past all kinds of continuity issues emerge and it becomes a massive headache.

I'd rather cleaner jaunts into just alt universe stuff, which is where they are headed.

At the same time, if they had plans to use him, recasting makes so much sense, but I also agree there was probably an issue with the contract.

This said, I understand why they didn't recast T'Challa. Boseman put such a stamp on the role--he truly *was* Black Panther--and he died. I can understand leaving the role closed out of respect for Boseman. Moreover, the comics already had a precedent for others, including Shuri, taking the mantle (although I think it would have been better to give it to Nakia or the Dora Milaje leader I'm forgetting the name of at the moment). Anyway, them doing what they did with the plot of Black Panther 2 felt fine.

Jonathan Majors didn't die, he just turned out to be a horrible human being. No reason to reserve the role out of respect for him, and Kang canonically is blue and purple, easy enough to make him look different.

Jessica Jones confirmed for Daredevil Season 2

WOOOOO!

Someone's apparently starting rumors on X (I don't use that thing, so can't verify) that they did a reshoot and rewrite of the entire ending of this movie. I personally take it with many grains of salt, but I don't think it'd surprise me if it were true.

My guess is if there's a grain of truth to the rumors, they had originally had Kang show up at the end and since they're now writing him out of the MCU for the most part, they probably altered it.

(IIRC Kang is a relative of Reed Richards, hence why I think they may have originally planned for him to show up.)

I got distracted from my previous work and the edit window closed. So on we go.

65 would be Skills. Fine.

Okay, I've got 4 Power allocations left at this point. Let's use one to upgrade my Magic to Magic 2 and another to upgrade to Skills 2.

And let's roll for 2 Skills:
Skill 1: 1d10 ⇒ 7
Skill 2: 1d20 ⇒ 3

Pilot and Escapology. Interesting. But great for my magical shapeshifting security chief.

As for Magic, grade 2 I get 4 spells and so many magic points:

Magic Points: 1d10 + 15 ⇒ (10) + 15 = 25

Spell list:
Specialty Spell: 1d10 ⇒ 6
Spell 2: 1d10 ⇒ 1
Spell 3: 1d10 ⇒ 4
Spell 4: 1d10 ⇒ 9

Specialty Spell is Hypnosis. Awesome.

I also have Astral Projection, Enhancement, and Restraint. Very useful, versatile set of abilities.

There's two power slots left that I'll hold for Enhancement and wait until I better understand what those mean.

So I'mma say we have someone who perhaps originally worked for military intelligence who, during a mission, came upon a magic amulet which imbued her with the power of a long-dead witch. She can transform into the witch form, which looks different from her normal human spy form. She's used her abilities to climb her way up in the government, and is now in a position of power to control a great deal. It could be even that she is the leader--or at least employer--of a government sanctioned group of superheroes.

The only downside to the whole thing is again she has low Ego for actually using her magic, but perhaps this is reflective of the struggle between her and some sort of soul energy left in the witch's amulet?

If I find I am unable to play, feel free to use this as a villain. She could be sort of the heinous love child of Valentina Allegra de Fontaine and Agatha Harkness and wreak havoc.

Thanks for the compliments, BD. :) Let's at least see what the dice have for us:

Ego: 3d6 ⇒ (3, 2, 3) = 8
Strength: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 5) = 12
Dexterity: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 6) = 18
Vigor: 3d6 ⇒ (2, 4, 4) = 10

This is the only time in my whole life I've ever rolled three sixes on 3d6. So we're very dexterous, reasonably strong, averagely tough, and slightly weak-willed.

Your character will start with 2d6 (halved) +4 Power Rolls. You can use these power rolls in 1 of 4 ways:

- Roll for a Superpower (random, d100)
- Upgrade an already rolled Superpower
- Select (or Roll) an Advantageous Background (d10)
- Enhance a Superpower (a gimmick or improvement)

Power Roll: 2d6 ⇒ (5, 4) = 9

I'll start by rolling 1 power and 1 advantageous background.
Power: 1d100 ⇒ 60
Background: 1d10 ⇒ 6

So I'm a shapechanger and I'm in a Position of Power. F#+$ yes.

I think I'm gonna roll 1 more power and 1 more background (I could use some brilliance or richness to go with my Position of Power), and use the other 5 for enhancements or upgrades.

Power: 1d100 ⇒ 43
Background: 1d10 ⇒ 10

So the other power is Magic, which isn't great because my Ego is so low.

THe other background is Player's Choice! I'mma go with Government Contacts to go with my Position of Power. It's probably because I just saw Thunderbolts, and also I like spies, but I'm thinking is a head of a major intelligence agency.

Looking further down, I need to determine what kind of shapechanger: odd is freeform, even is specific.

Odds or Evens: 1d6 ⇒ 2

That's specific. So maybe she has two alter egos, a spellcaster and an ordinary mortal.

This is less exciting than freeform, I'll admit, because I'm already playing in SuperT's game a spellcasting person who has an alternate form.

Can I try for one more power? I know I said the rest for upgrades but I didn't realize you can't upgrade Shapeshifter and magic can be upgraded only 3 times. I still can also Enhance which involves getting something called DUPs but I don't really understand that yet (could I used those to boost my Ego so I am not a crappy magic user?)

One more power: 1d100 ⇒ 65