Search Posts
Ahhh villains. Some favorites include: Lord Papal (Dreadstar)
(sense a pattern in those three? ;) Ra's Al Ghul
outside of comics: Darth Vader (from the original trilogy, I am meh on he prequels)
I'm willing to bet it was less of a translation error and more of a "written by someone a couple generations after the event." Well the other problem is that Jewish culture at the time (and to certain extent now still) is matrilineal. SOns of the same father with different mothers are not truly "family" or brothers since they cannot trace their descent through the same line. The tradition continues to this day in Orthodix Judaism, a child born of a Jewish woman, whether the father is gentile or Jew, is considered a Jew by birth. A child born of a Jewish father is not considered a Jew unless the mother is Jewish as well. Circa the first century, this matrilineal tradition applied ot bonds of kinship. It is unlikely a Jew writing the account would have called them borther unless they shared the same mother (not brother) and any Jew reading the account that read James brother of Joseph, would have read that as them having shared the same mother. Depending which gospel it appears in, the original language may have been Aramaic later tanslated into Greek, and then later still into Latin (with the Vulgate by St Jerome c. 3rd century, and later still into vernacular languages like English. The 3 synoptic gospels were compiled/redacted between 70 and 90 AD, with John coming later, and other rejected gospels apprearing a little earlier and continuing to appear until just before the Council of Nicea. So yes, there was some passing through oral tradition for a generation or two before the written versions were first redacted formt he oral tradition. However, studies of oral traditions in non-literate cultures (i.e. cultures that have not become dependent on written records)have revealed that they remain amazing consistent for long periods of time and only break down when literacy is introduced. Variations in style and minor details occur but the characters, and plot elements of stories passed laong those remain for the most part fairly consistent. See Albert Lord's Singer of Tales for an example of one such study of the oral folklore passed along for generations among the Slavic cultures of eastern Europe and then used to make some analysis of the Homeric cycle of stories. If James was called the brother of Jesus in the original tales coming from the Jewish followers of the 1st century, he most likely was a child of Mary as well. If the sobriquet was added by later redactors, then we would have to look at their cultural and liguistic origin to determine what the likely intent was. Explaining the sobriquet away as being the child of Joseph's previous marriage doesn't fit the cultural or linguistic patterns or norms of either the Jewish or Hellenistic groups where these stories and texts originated. This means it is most likely a later commentary (post Vulgate when Latin/Medieval cutural norms prevailed) added to explain something which did not fit the accepted view of the story as it had developed by that time and not an error or oral transmission, since that oral transmission would have occured within the same cultural norms of matrilineal and liguistic traditions of Jewish/Hellenistic culture in the Near East and cosmopolitan Alexandria of the first and second centuries.
IIRC, the brother was from his father's first marriage. Except in the original Greek (koine) there are separate words for brother of the same mother and brother by marriage. In the early Grek texts, the term used for brother is the brother of the same mother, so unless the author was near illiterate or writing in Greek as a second language, the diction shoots that rationalization out of the water. Greek of the time was very exacting (with its seven words for love for example) and translations into less exact langiages (like English that only has one word for love that encompasses all 7 meanings of the seven different Greek words) tend to blur distinctions that were clear in the original texts.
I think you may be confusing Marv Wolfman with Kurt Busiek. Kurt (of Astro City, Marvels, Coonan, and Superman fame) is the one who relaunched the Avengers with George Perez and wrote the Avengers/JLA cross-over. Marv Wolfman is a legendary writer in his own right though, with long runs on Tomb of Dracula with Gene Colan (where they c0creaded Blade the Vampire Hunter), relaunching New Tween Titans with George Perez and also crafting the original Crisis on Infinite Earths with Perez. Wolfman had some shirt runs on the Avengers inthe 70's when he was with Marvel, even serving briefly as Marvel's Editor in Chief, but has been with DC mostly since the 80's.
I think yo umight be confusing Wolfman for Kurt Busiek. It was Kurt (of Marvels,Astro City, and Conan fame, most recently on Superman) who worked with Perez on the Avengers relaunch and on the Avengers/JLA cross-over. Wolfman is a legendary creator in his own right, responsible for great runs on Tomb of Dracula (where he co-created Blade the Vampire Hunter) with Gene Colan, on the New Teen Titans revamp with George Perez, on the original Crisis on Infinite Earths again with Perez, and was even Editor in Chief od Marvel COmics for a short time in the 70's between Stan Lee stepping down and Jim Shooter taking over (Roy Thomas, Marv and Len Wein all had brief tenures as EIC in that time).
Kevin Feige, president of Marvel Studios announced in an interview at an event promoting the new Hulk movie that The Cap film is a period piece set entirely in WWII, and for that matter the Thor film is set mostly in Asgard.
Possible "evidence" that could emerge that could be used to blackmail the Church could be documentary rather than scientific. Remember at the time of the Sauniere discovery at Renne-le Chateau documents were considered more reliable evidence than artifacts. As such, some possibilites could include: -correspondence or notes from Jerome about changes he was asked ot make when "translating" the Old and New Testament from the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate. -correspondence from bishops attending the Council of Nicea where the canon of the New Testament was set that may have indicated that gospels excluded were more historically accurate (like the Gospel of Mary Magdeline or other Gnostic gospels) than the 3 synoptic gospels and the gosepl of John that were included. -surviving letters/epsitles of Paul or Peter that were excluded from the canon of the New Testament because their content discredited church teaching about Jesus or others -actual surviving writing of Yeshua (Jesus Hebrew name) -surviving texts of earlier translations of the Old Testament that date from before the Babylonian captivity of the Jews that contain alternate accounts and versions of the OT books -copies of documents that many Church fathers wrote to condemn as heresies that only survive in the quoted form in the letters or treatises condemning them. Many copies were destroyed by the Church at the time of the condemnation. -a supposed skeletal remains of Jesus as proof he was not bodily resurrected (though hard to be incontrovertable it could prove to be problematic, especially in the time of Saurniere which predated radio-carbon dating -documents proving the Shroud of Turin and/or other relics of the Church to be frauds -Roman and/or Jewish documents of the trial of Jesus that offer a different account of the crucifiction and death of Jesus than contained in the gospel accounts -Roman/Jewish documents showing either other children of Mary (destroying the concept of the eternal virgin) or spouse/offspring of Christ as part of local census etc. Now just as an aside, the destruction of the Library at Alexandria destroyed a huge amount of ancient documentation that has since been lost to us. For example actual copies of the Septuagint and earlier Hebrew versions of the OT/Torah than we currently have were thought to be held in the library based on mentions in surviving correspondence of scholars at the time. We don't know what else was lost so speculation can run rampant. Some of what was lost may be included in the cache of scroll recovered in the late 40's (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammanadi documents) but those discoveries are still "under study" amd only bits and pieces have been released to the general public. The Council of Nicea was a watershed event in shaping Christianity as we know it. It was here that the New Testament was codified. There were hundreds of gospels at the time, many of which dated to an earlier composition than the 4 selected for the NT. We know what was selected for inclusion, we don't know all of that which was excluded, nor do we know the why behind most of the choices made at the council beyond the party line given by the bishops at the time. How accurate that party line is has been a subject of scholarly debate (and fodder for speculative historians and conspiracy theorists as well as hoaxters) for years and years and years. Some feel if the hows and wherefores of the decisions made by the bishops attending that coucil were known, it would undermine the Church's credibility, so if Sauniere, the Templars, or others had discovered something of that nature it might have been what got the Church's attention, compliance, and/or payoffs.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on Quitely, which is cool, different ttastes for different folks and all. One thing to keep in mind about going back and reading Morrison's Animal Man and Doom Patrol after the fact-and this is true of all ground breaking runs read after their influence has been felt. What made these runs spectacular was that they broke new ground. They were doing things that had never been down before and that was part of their brilliance and their appeal. Reading them after the fact is like looking at only the "after" picture of a "before and after" situation and wondering what the big deal is. What Morrison did in Animal Man and Doom Patrol has been integrated into the comic landscape, imitated by others and influenced others who came after. If you weren't there when the ground was broken, it is sometimes difficult to look at the work in its proper perspective (kind of like trying to understand how groundbreaking Gygax and Arnerson's stuff on D&D was when you came in with 3E and never experienced the OD&D/1E stuff as a new thing). The work still has some inherent appeal, but part of what made it so great was the innovation it brought to the tabel, innovation that is lost when it becomes the norm in the "after" picture. Animal Man and Doom Patrol are very good stories on their own, but do not always stand out compared to stuff coming out now or in the years since they were released, but when looked at in the context of what was out there when they were released they are even more amazing.
My favorites span a long perod of time, I started reading comics at around age 4 or so in '73 and have been reading since. (I will limit it to top 5 for each but I have so many more favorites) Writers:(in no particular order)
-Steve Englehart (Avengers, Captain America, Detective Comics, Silver Surfer, etc. etc.) -Ed Brubaker (his Gotham Central, Captain America, Daredevil, and Iron Fist stuff is simply amazing) -Will Eisner (Spirit 'nuff said, but so much more too) -Alan Moore (Saga of the Swamp Thing, Miracle Man, Killing Joke, League of Extraordinary Gentleman, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, the ABC stuff) just off the list Neil Gaiman, Roy Thomas, Dennis O'Neil, Archie Goodwin, John Ostrander, James Robinson, Roger Stern Artists:
-George Perez (Avengers, New Teen Titans, Wonder Woman, History of the DC Universe, Crisis on Infinite Earths, so much more) -Barry Windsor Smith (Conan, Avengers, X-Men, Weapon X, so much more) -Jim Aparo (Phantom Stranger, Batman, Brave & Bold, Aquaman) just a classic professional DC artist. -Charles Vess (HBallads & Sagas, Sandman, others) just of the list: Steve Epting, P. Craig Russell, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Paul Smith, Jim Starlin, Mike Wieringo, Moebius, Gene Colan
Callous Jack & Greyshades, I cannot disagree with you more. While not everything Mr. Morrison does is outstanding (last half of his X-men run, current Batman, I'm looking at you), nobody in the field is writing comics the way he does. And I can't think of a better sequential story teller than Frank Quitley. Have either of you looked at All Star Superman? Issue nine of the frequently late series is, in my modest opinion, the greatest single issue story of my generation. I cannot think of any other comic that encapsulates my love for the medium, or why I love the medium, and Morrison could not have done it without Quitely's deft hand. See I gave up on All Star Superman after the third issue because I felt Quitely's storytelling was weak and Morrison was slipping into the self-indulgent style hat is absent from his better (i.e. the brilliant stuff like Invisibles, Animal Man, and Doom Patrol)but characteristic of his weaker stuff (X-Men, Batman, etc.). When Morrison broke in with Animal Man, I was a huge fan and devoured everything of his I could (with Invisibles still standing as one of my all time favorite comic series of all time), that is until his X-Men run, which just left me cold. It felt hollow and writ by numbers compared to his other stuff. I was really disappointed. I thought Grant on X-Men was a surefire recipe for brilliance based on his Doom Patrol stuff, but alas for me it was not to be. I felt he really lost his mojo for a bit after that, and didn't see signs of recovery until his Seven Soldiers stuff, which I thought approached the brilliance of his earlier stuff, though his other DC stuff left me cold like his X-Men run did. I really think Grant is a victim of his own success. His ideas are often brilliant, but his execution feels lacking sometimes. I think he sometimes gets bored with some of his own ideas before they are fully fleshed out and sort of mails it in so he can move on to the next idea that fires him up. I like Quitely's stuff as individual pieces of art, but not as sequential art. I think Frank really needs to read and internalize some of Eisner's stuff, especially his two books on sequential art and graphic story telling. I don't dislike his stuff, but I do think he is overrated as it stands.
Quitely is a talented artist, especially as a draftsman, but not a very good story teller, a premium skill when it comes to drawing comics in which the pictures have to tell stories. His images are very good, but when strung together to try to tell a story, I don't think he does a very good job, and for me that is the most important aspect of quality in a comic. A pretty picture that fails to carry the reader through the story is NOT good comic art. This, to me is Quitely's problem, and was the problem of others like McFarlane before him. Compare Quiely to two other popular artists working right now-John Cassaday and George Perez. You can look at the art of either of the later tow without captions or dialogue and still get the gist of the story being told. Quitely's art doesn't do that, and I sometimes have trouble following the story he is trying to tell even when the dialaogue and captions are present, as his panel layout doesn't flow.
For me: Overrated writer: Garth Ennis-every thing he writes is same stories, with same characters (just different names) with the same tired themes ad infinitum. Overrated artist: Todd McFarlane, his stuff was solid, but never earth shattering or groundbreaking the way people made it out to be. Runner up would be Rob Liefeld whose stuff is not even solid. Overrated Character: Lobo- a one note chracter who is more joke than anything but somehow he became a ll the rage for a while. In response to Callous Jack's choices... Grant Morrison-his early Animal Man and Doom Patrol, and his creator owned stuff like the Invisibles is just phenomonal. His more recent mainstream super hero stuff from his X-Men run through the current DC stuff is solid but not spectacular stuff, so yeah I can see him being over rated in some views, but I don't see him as hte worst thing to happen to comics ever. Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, Chuck Austen and Judd Winnick have far more claim to that title than Grant. Frank Quitely-definitely overrated currently, but other artists are moreso imho. Wolverine-can't say I agree, though overexposed I would give oyu. Yes, there have been some terrible Wolvoerine stories, but there have been some great ones too. Logan is a solid character who can be featurd in some great stories, but too often quality goes out the window for quality and we get schlock stories instead.
If you want to start fresh, try reading the Ultimates line. Marvel started the line in 2000 as a way to make it more new reader friendly with an updated take on classic Marvel characters. There is 1 Ultimate X-Men title, 1 Ultimate Spider-Man title, 1 Ultimate Fantastic Four title, plus a book called the Ultimates that is a new take on the Avengers. There were other limited series and a Ultimate Team Up book that ran for a year and a half as well. The Ultimate books are solid, good stories, good art, but if you want the classic takes on the characters you used to read, they may not be your cup of tea. The X-Men fracture started around the time of Secret Wars. [caveat I am doing all of the following off the cuff from memory, so forgive any srrors or omissions]You already had the classic Uncanny X-Men title which was spinning off mini series featuring the solo characters every other month or so. Claremont then launched the New Mutants title featuring the next generation of Mutants. Then you had the return of Jean Grey and the launch of X-Factor featuring the original 5 X-Men (Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, Angel, and Iceman), and Wolverine got his own solo series. Then began the era of Mutant Crossovers beginning with the Mutant Massacre, which broke up much of the original Uncanny team and led to the launch of Excalibur with Kurt (Nightcrawler) and Kitty Pryde, with other British characters. [Catching breahth], then New Mutants ended and relaunched as X-Force, a supposedly edgier team of mutants. Mutant crossovers continued running through all of the X-related titles with things like Fall of the Mutants, THe X-Cutioner's songs etc. Then came the big split, launching a second (adjectiveless) X-Men title to go with Uncanny X-Men. The trail of limited series continued, and a new bi-weekly Marvel series called Marvel Comics Presents, an anthology title, features Wolverine stories and other solo stories of X-characters among the stories presented. A Classic X-Men title launched, reprinting the older X-Men stories from Giant Sized X-Men #1 and X-Men #94 forwards, adding new back up stories by Chris Claremont that filled in gaps or explored supporting characters or added vignettes into older stores. THe X-titles were becoming the cornerstone of the Marvel Universe, and then the animated series on Fox hit, bringing even more attention to the books. Cable (from X-Force) got his own title, more crossovers occured, a series based on the animated series was launched and more and more X-titles were launched, story lines were left hanging, plot points dangled for years and the whole thing became a terrible mess. Marvel went through bankruptcy restructuring and the title output finally began to shrink. When Joe Quesada took over as Editor in Chief, one of his early goals was to get the house of X-titles in order so as to capitalize on the launch of the X-Men movies. A host of titles were cancelled or reworked. There were 3 X-Men titles to survive, plus the Wolverine solo series. The three were Uncanny X-Men, Nex X-Men, and Extreme X-Men. Extreme was written by long time X-Men writer Chris Claremeont. Uncanny X-Men at that point just was not that good, and New X-Men was given to comic superstar Grant Morrison and was wildly experimental but channeled the look of the characters from the movies. It became the flagship title of the new streamlined X-line. There were still limited series and side projects, but each title was to have its own niche. This lasted for a couple of years, but the expansion started up again as creative teams changed again. Extreme was cancelled and replaced with a title called Astonishing X-Men written by Joss Whedon (he of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly fame). Uncanny and X-Men chugged along. X-Factor was brought back with a twist(as was Excalibur, but it didn't last long). The House of M mini series was a big status quo changer inthe X-titles as well. The number of X-titles had exploded again. If I were trying to catch up and get sense of the major movers and shakers of the current X-Men stories, I would start with the Grant Morrison run of New X-Men (roughly #114-150 or so, I don't remember the exact issues). There will be some loose ends from prior stuff (such as what happened to Cyclops to mess him up in the head so much) but just go with it to get started. I would then read the Astonishing X-Men run by Whedon. Then the House of M mini series. Then the Deadly Genesis mini series written by Ed Brubaker. After that sample issues of X-Men and Uncanny X-Men, starting with Mike Carey's run on X=Men and Ed BRubaker's on Uncanny. There are a number of stories coming out of the House of M stuff, and they are spawning a few current storylines, but I had to give up on keeping up with the X-stuff about a year ago, when I just decided to stop buying new issues and wait for trades of stuff I like. I am waiting for some of them to be collected into trades and will catch up that way eventually, so I cannot help you much with the last year's worth of stories. You may also want to see if the online offerings haave the Marvel Encyclopedia of the X-Men. It did a pretty good job of summing up the important stuff anf giving capsules of who some of the new players are and the new status quo's of older characters (who died, came back, changed costumes, changed super-hero identities, etc. etc.). There are also some websites that could give you synopsis as well.
Let's see in no particular order... Citizen Kane
Iron Man might, just might, bump someone out if it holds up to repeated viewing once it hits DVD and cable. It just may be my favorite super hero flick ever, and could wind up in the top 5. Others that have been in the top 5 at one point but been bumped over time: Maltese Falcon, Star Wars (A New Hope), Empire Strikes Back, Batman (the Tim Burton original), Excalibur, Adventures of Robin Hood (Errol Flynn), Back to the Future, Glory, Dances with Wolves, Breakfast Club, Lord of the Rings (Bashki animated), and Braveheart. I am also a sucker for any Ray Harryhausen film and will watch the Dino DiLaurentis produced Flash Gordon and Bashki/Frazetta's Fire and Ice any time I catch them on(though I finally got both on DVD last year).
I loved this movie. It may be my favorite superhero movie of all time, and if not definitely in the top 3. My only disappointment was that Jarvis was a computer and not the well mannered English butler I have grown to adore from the Iron Man and Avengers comics since my youth, but the computerized AI assisstant fit with this take on Tony and Shell-head. I really liked the set up for the Mandarin in future sequels with the Ten Rings organization and the warlord we saw with one of the rings. I am very excited that Marvel confirmed plans for Iorn Man 2 to be released on April 30 2010 at their quarterly stockholder meeting (as well as Thor later that summer and Cap and Avengers fils the following summer) and that Downey and the supporting cast are signed ot do a total of three movies. As for the Ant-Man movie, it is by the people responsible for Shaun of the Dead and looks like it will be a satire a' la Shaun's take on the zombie genre rather than a straight action flick, so it should be entertaining even if it is not a great super hero movie like Iron Man. $104 million domestic and over $200 million worldwide box office the opening weekend is definitely a good first step for Marvel producing their own movies, and I hope the high quality of this movie is the harbinger of more good stuff to come from Marvel productions. We will see how Punisher War Zone looks this December, but next years only Marvel movie will not be a Marvel Studios production (I think it is Sony that is producing X-Men Origins: Wolverine released next year, but I am not sure, it could be Fox or another studio). Marvel also has an interesting slate of animated projects coming out over the next 2-3 years, also announced at the Quarterly Meeting, including some Iron Man, Hulk, and X-Men stuff (th erecently released trailer for the Wolverine and the X-Men cartoon coming to Nicktoons in ealry 2009 looks amazing), so all in all there is a lot of upcoming Marvel movies and tlevision to get excited about. With Incredible Hulk, Indy, the second Narnia movie and other stuff I can't remember offhand, it is going to be a great summer of movies for comic/fantasy/sci-fi genre fans. PS as for Stane's betrayal/madness, I think sequels may show he was a pawn in the Mandarin's manipulations against Stark, setting up a showdown beween Shellhead and his arch nemesis from the comics in one of the sequels. I am also pretty certain that the sequel will draw heavily on the Demon in the Bottle storyline dealing with Tony's alcoholism, as there were some nice set ups for it in the first movie, and Downey can bring a whole new level of credibility and emotion to that particular storyline given his own experiences. He has said in interviews that that particular aspect of Tony's personality is one of the things that drew him to the role to begin with.
Marvel announced as part of their first quarter report that there will be a Thor movie released in June of 2010, on the heels of an Iron Man sequel released on April 30th that year. The following summer (2011) will be The First Avenger: Captain America in May and The Avengers in June/July. Word is that the Iron Man sequel may set up the Thor movie a bit. No word yet on the casting of Thor (or Cap), but the Iron Man, Thor, and Cap films all lead in to and will have the same actors as the Avengers movie. There's an article up about it (including the press release of the quarterly report and movie announcements from Marvel) at the Newsarama site.
The original version by Jack Kirby is very different than the Demon as presented today. The Kirby version is very cool, and well worth checking out, as I am a big fan of Kirby's stuff. That said, the Demon character really came into its own with Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing. Here the whole concept of being a rhymer demon as a rank in Hell's hierarchy was introduced and many of the concepts that have become familar ground for the character were brought to light for the first time. Check out the Saga of the Swamp Thing trades by Alan Moore, not just for the Demon elements, but for some of the finest comics stories of all time. DC's whole mystical realm was revamped in this run, characters like John Constantine were introduced, and old faves like Etrigan and the Phantom Stranger were reinvigorated and revised into much more interesting takes on the character. The Matt Wagner 4 issue Demon limited series mentioned a few posts up is also well worth checking out. The Garth Ennis written series (i.e. the later issues of the aforementioned Alan Grant series) is not a particular favorite of mine, but then I am not a big fan of Ennis. I find that he rewrites the same half dozen character personalities and types over and over in whatever series he is writing and that these characters are interchangable form series to series. Some people really like his Preacher and Punisher, and some of his plots are interesting, I just feel I am reading the same characters with the same dialogue no matter what Ennis is writing, so I cannot recommend his Demon run. I haven't read the most recent Blood of the Demon series that John Byrne and others were the creative team on, so I cannot comment on that one. One of the more interesting recent takes on the Demon that I have read was in one of the recent DC novels called Trail of Time. It is essentially a superman tale, but the Demon and Phantom Stranger play prominent roles in it, and the trio of villains are classic DC mystical foes. It was written by Jeff Mariotte and is well worth checking out.
Hunter's Cry was renamed Intimidating Glare, but the change was missed in the prerequisite text for Terrifying Howl.
As posted in 2 other threads on the topic, Hunter's Cry was renamed Intimidating Glare, but the switch was missed in the prerequisite text for Terrifying Howl.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/racesClasses/huntersCry This thread discusses the hunter's cry that is "missing" Apparently it was renamed to Intimidating Glare, but the change was missed in the text of Terrifying Howl's prereq's.
I like the bonded weapon option, but I do think it should be available a little bit more than as presented. However, I think that disarming a paladin should remain a viable tactic for opponents, so something like can be used 1/day for per x levels or can be used x minutes per day divisible in 1 minute chunks is fine, but have a limit that the ability cannot be used more than 1/10 minutes or some such (or some other inteval) so that it in effect cannot be used more than once in a particular encounter. However, giving the paladin the ability to make a will save or some kind of spellcraft check to maintain the bond if separated from the weapon might give the paladin a heroic chance in a tight situation. However, I do like the option of using channel enrgy (turn) uses or smite uses to power extra uses of the bonded weapon as a viable alternative as well. As for smite eveil, I too like the extra d6 for damage. Players love rolling damage dice and this would play into that. In terms of associations, I usually role that into the code of conduct in games I DM, and tweak the code depending on what deity is served by the paladin. Just like clerics of different deities have differences between them, I think paladins of different deities should have those subtle differences as well. I don't think the mixed associations possibility needs to be codified in the rules, but perhaps a side bar added about altering the code of conduct based on doiety served with some suggestions for codes based on the good Golarion deities to serve as an example.
I agree that this does not fit well with a barbarian flavor, and that some kind of rage ability ignoring DR would be a good replacement. Overall I like the rage abilities, but this elemental one just stuck out in the the "which one of these is not like the others" kind of way. The low-light vision and darkvision rage powers aslo seemed a bit of an odd fit, but not as much as the elemental rage. If it is preserved though, the point cost should be reevaluated though, as 12 points does seem a bit too much for this ability. Too much buck for the bang you get.
Glad I found this, I was just reading the rage abilities (which I like a lot) and trying to figure out where Hunter's Cry went to.
Some of the decisions about releasing 3.5 version on pdf of products released for 4E may have ot wait until when (or if) the GSL is finalized, releaed and 3rd party publishers see the actual terms of the license. If it does not allow for release of products in both 4E and 3.5 versions, publishers will have to make a choice. At the time Necro made the decision to hold these products for 4E release there were a few factors indluencing the decision a) Kenzer, their then printing/distribution partner for most of these may not have wanted to move forward with more 3.5 products with 4E on the horizon since sales were already slow for 3.5 3rd party products and looked to be slower with the 4E presence looming. b)distribitors indicated they did not want to carry new 3.5 products with 4E on the horizon as they had lots of unsold 3.5 backstock already and did not want more. Warehousing costs for potential slow or non-sellers cut profitability for distributors. Without distributors buying from the producers, the books won't get to market even if they are made. c)retailers (either influencing or being influenced by distributors because they too had a large backstock of unsold 3.5 prosucts on their shelves tying up their operating capital leaving little liquid capital to purchase new products) were not ordering large quantities of new (or backstock) 3.5 items. So, they had to choose where they will invest that capital, and the choice is always going to be with the products that have the fastest sell through, and that was going to be the new "hot" product, in this case 4E, so even if distributors do carry a 3.5 product, their sell through to retailers will be very slow leaving distributors and producers with unsold units they now have to pay storage/warehousing on as well. d) Print runs on most 3rd party products were already very low (1K-2500 units at most usually), and even if only half the existing market switched to 4E that would mean print runs would get even smaller. The smaller the print run, the higher the per unit cost becomes lowering profitability. If 80% of the market switched to 4E that leaves print runs at 200-500 units, which are really not viable numbers to go through the distribution chain (if that chain will even purchase them in the first place). e)There are options outside the normal distribution models. POD could work for some, as it is geared for smaller print runs, but then pretty much eliminates chances of reaching end customers through distribution channels and retailers and means you have to find other ways to reach the customer, which can be an added expense. Lack of presence on retailer chelves can limit market growth and makes it harder to draw nw customers without marketing and advertising. These are now added costs to the production of the product, and since most of it willbe web based marketing still will not capture those potential customers who are not active on the web. POD also usually increase end cost to the customer as per unit costs are higher, even without added marketing costs figured in. Higher price points may also lower units sold, so the viability question remains. PDF sales are also an option, but there is still a significant number of end customers who choose not to buy PDFs even if it is the only format available. It is print or nothing for them. You must also find an avenue for the PDF's to reach the customer, and many customers expect (some even demand) that PDF costs be significantly cheaper than print prices would be, which means that revenue stream for these products will be smaller and still shared with sdistribution partners. With those factors in play, it is not surprising that some producers decided to go the 4E route. Now, WotC dragging their feet on a GSL and Paizo throwing their hat in the ring to do the PathfinderRPG are new factors, and could change things. However, Paizo does have the edge of having their own online store for distribution, so that leaves a path to the end customer open to this producers even if distributors and retailers do not get on board with it. Paizo also has market penetration and brand recogniztion with those distributors and retailers already because of their volume of products already int he marketplace, giving them another edge because it is more likley that distributors and retailers will get on board with their new venture. These are both positives for them. Only time will tell if this is enough for it to be a viable sustainable route for Paizo, and it may take even longer to see if it creates enough of a market to stake out a viable sustainable place for other 3.5 print producers to delliver products to end customers. It is a grand experiment, and one I am glad Paizo has undertaken, but each publisher has ot weigh all the facotrs and make decisions that allow them to remain viable. Paizo has a few clear advantages over other 3rd party producers that may allow it to be viable for Paizo but not for others. Really only the owners of each company can have a clear picture of what will work for them and the resources they have. Will I be upset if some of my favorites don't produce products for my tastes any longer? Sure, but I know it is not a personal affront or a plan to deprive me of products. It is just small companies making tough decisions to try to survive in a niche market that is getting fractured, and thus even smaller as the niches within niches begin to develop even smaller niches. There is a lot more to the process than if you make it I will buy it. |
