princeimrahil's page

The skill thing is overstated. Be a human, put your favored class bonus into skills, and have an int of 13 (which opens up that combat expertise line, anyway). Boom! You've got five skill points/level.

And an inferior character. What would a fighter need combat expertise for? Combat maneuvers? A monk can do that better. AC? Heck a rogue with a one level fighter dip could beat you out for AC and still have tons of skills and abilities. Further proving that the fighter is a dip class.

Combat maneuvers, yes - which he can specialize in at low levels, and then then start trading out once they start becoming impractical, since he has the ability to trade out feats every four levels. He specializes in, say, tripping for early to mid levels, and then around level 8 starts trading those trip feats out for crit feats. Gosh, it's almost like the devs had PLANNED for this kind of build...

Plus the fighter doesn't even have acrobatics as a class skill and the main benefit of armor training is using acrobatics in heavier armor...

Skill focus: acrobatics. Boom. 1 feat (of which fighters get TONS), and you're actually BETTER off than someone who has it as a trained skill, since they won't get an EXTRA +3 at 10 ranks.

And I would say the main benefit of armor training is being able to wear adamantine armor instead of mithral armor, so as to pick up some DR without sacrificing mobility.

The skill thing is overstated. Be a human, put your favored class bonus into skills, and have an int of 13 (which opens up that combat expertise line, anyway). Boom! You've got five skill points/level. That's plenty. Now, you won't be the BEST at any of them, but you'll be passable, especially if you take advantage of your tremendous number of feats and pick up some of the skill-boosters (which scale up at 10th level, so they keep paying off; a fighter with skill focus in a non-class skill could eventually become just as good as a character who has it as a class skill without any further investment, assuming we're not talking about prime stats here).

Fighters are capable of being REALLY good at fighting; we shouldn't expect them to be REALLY good at other things (though we can expect them to be decent at some of them).

As with all things in this game, the real question should be:

"Does doing this make the story more interesting/exciting?"

If the GM plans well for it, then I think it can easily do that, and even if he doesn't, a clever player can still make it fun. I remember a paladin player fumbling and dropping his sword whilst fighting skeletons in a crypt. Rather than ducking to grab his blade (and soaking up some AoOs while he was at it), he elected to pick up the heavy stone slab that rested atop a nearby sarcophagus and started wailing on the skeletons with that. It was pretty awesome, and he could have done exactly the same thing if he had been disarmed/sundered.

I'm also not sure that this is really that huge of a problem. At low levels, it's pretty easy to "wing it" with a backup weapon since your gear isn't all tricked out. At higher levels, it's inconvenient, but not a game-changer, since it's pretty easy to stow a spare +1 mithral sword or whatever). Your attack bonus/damage is going to take a hit, but it's not going to put you out of the fight - so it ends up being just like a strong debuff.

If it happened all the time though, then yeah, I suppose it would get kind f annoying.

How about that scene in Dark World where Heimdall is all like, 'Hey, do you hear an invisible ship floating by?' and runs out and climbs stuff and leaps on the invisible space ship and *stabs it to death?*

Hot dayum. I want that dude as the first line of defense for my magical city!

My buddy and I actually had a big laugh about that scene, because immediately after he notices the invisible ship, the giant UN-invisible ship shows up, and I was like, "Way to miss the obvious one, big guy." (Yes, I know, it goes invisible later, but I don't think they established that the "mother ship" had stealth capabilities by that point in the film).

We were like, "Man, Heimdall just is really never successful at any of his jobs," so for the rest of the movie, every time Heimdall was on screen, we'd mutter, "You had ONE job! ONE JOB!"

My problem, as I have tried to repeat over and over and over, is that when DC posted its contest solicitation, they described the situation out of context. Which leads to concerns and wondering and outrage and all kinds of confusion about what they did, why they did it, and whether it was in a responsible or irresponsible manner. Especially when you look at issues like timing (the week before suicide prevention week).

I think the SP Week charge is pretty weak. Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but I had no idea there even was a Suicide Prevention Week in the first place - and had I known it existed, I almost certainly would not have known when it was, any more than I know the date for International Women's Day or Earth Day. The causes may well be extremely valid, but they are not really on the radar for a great many people, so it seems rather unfair to expect everyone to be aware of them.

I think it is in fact important to have triggery material in pop culture, but that it is depicted respectfully, showing its full consequences, and provides a context which inspires good dialogue about the situation.

There's no real rubric for determining these things, though, is there? I mean, lots of people are having a good dialogue about suicide and its portrayal right now, inspired by a request for artwork (note, it's not actually even artwork itself) that most consider in bad taste.

I might also snark a bit and suggest that the easily trigger-able are probably best advised to avoid reading comic books featuring extreme violence and the criminally insane - one might, after all, cock a skeptical eyebrow at a nun ranting about how offended she was by the attire of the ladies when she walked into a local strip club.

The only way I do think suicide is might be different goes along the lines of/adds to what Snorter said -- there is an effect commonly known as copycat suicide -- when someone with deep mental health issues sees someone they know or admire or follow commit suicide, they are more likely to decide to commit suicide themselves. For example, suicide rates notably went up after the deaths of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Kurt Cobain. So there is a great responsibility that if you are going to depict a suicide, you do have to take extra care to depict it in a way that does not inspire copycats.

I disagree. No artist (with the possible exception of those receiving public money) should concern themselves with how people *might* react to any given work. This is just a little too close to suggesting that Danish cartoonists were irresponsible when they drew images of Mohammed, and were at least partly to blame for the ensuing violence. The problem with "copycat suicides" is not that famous people killed themselves, or that suicide was shown in popular culture - the problem is that those individuals are *already deeply damaged psychologically* and have not received the help they need. Comic artists are not responsible for their well-being - their family and friends are.

Harley is a disturbed young woman with an obsession with a man with whom she has a deeply unhealthy relationship with.

This description of her character is precisely why I was so surprised at all of the outrage over this. HQ is someone caught in a cycle of self-harm, while simultaneously projecting a carefree, "ditzy" attitude about her life of crime. The essence of her character is a stark, uncomfortable contrast between "peppiness" and abuse. The ad for the artwork seemed appropriate *for this character* for those reasons. For other characters, on the other hand (Poison Ivy, Catwoman, whoever) it would certainly have been mystifyingly off-target. But this is tailor-made for HQ and her unique role in the comics (though I should add the caveat that I haven't been following the most recent versions of the character, so I may be mistaken about her in her most current iterations).

I personally think this is largely inspired by people being generally unhappy for DC's editorial decisions of late, and jumping on this as another opportunity to crucify them. Consider: one of the main charges is the "lack of explanation of context" for this contest. Why should they have to provide any context beyond the fact that they were looking for talented artists? Why should they have to explain their intended aesthetic effect for art that *hasn't even been drawn yet*? TS Eliot famously refused to answer a student who requested that he explain one of his poems - on the grounds that there would be no point in even writing the poem in the first place if he had to sit down and spell everything out for everyone. It is the work of the reader(or viewer, etc.) to grapple with the meaning of art... preferably once it has been actually finished.

And again, let us note how bizarre the situation is: people are upset over comic art that has not actually been drawn, and for which no explicit purpose (other than wanting to recruit an artist) was provided. This whole contest has served as a blank screen (or strip?) on which people who have beef with DC can project (or draw) all of their anger and assumptions about DC's editorial intentions. And the assumption, of course, is that DC would choose art/artist with the intent to sexualize/make light of suicide. Of course, they were never given an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. They have been judged guilty before they could even make a decision for good or bad.

We are witnessing a fascinating phenomenon, ladies and gentlemen. We have reached a point wherein the pop culture psyche is so sensitive to perceived slights that art can be condemned even before it has been started, before an artist has even been appointed to undertake it. Now THAT'S something to talk about.

I sense that BNW is working out some issues with his own GM by means of this movie...

I haven't seen it in a while, so I don't remember much very well. I DO remember that the GM's regular players were condescending jerks toward the new player's build and character. The GM may have been a bad GM, but the other players (especially the one playing the monk PC) were being rude and unwelcoming to someone trying to get into the hobby (and implicitly accused her of "badwrongfun" when they started talking about her build).

[quote}Bikinimail aside, The munchkin is right about the role of the fighter. A 9th level fighter with 45 hit points should be in for a world of hurt. Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D, and at 9th level a charisma bonus is going to be pretty irrelevant compared to your ranks. The fighter she made SHOULD be spending more time horizontal than the bard but...

True story about hit points and levels of characters - I was playing 3.0 back in the day with a "hardcore" DM who insisted we roll both our ability scores, and our hitpoints. My fighter/rogue lasted all the way to level 5 with 12 hit points. Trust me, it can be done. And Joanna's character is only about 20 hp behind the curve - it's really not that bad.

I'm really tickled by your claim that "Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D." That may be true in YOUR games, but not in all games... unless you're implying there's a right way and a wrong way to play the game?

Benchmark it around the cost of a regeneration spell and call it a day. It's a cool idea.

princeimrahil wrote:

And finally (and this needs to be pointed out): THE MAIN CHARACTERS ALL HAVE ATTRACTIVE GIRLFRIENDS/WIVES WHO LOVE THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE. That, by itself, shows that the show is not concerned with portraying the "geek as loser" stereotype.

Sooo... just because they have a hot girlfriend that's 'character development'?

A few quotes from an episode in Series 6 - Episode 13:

• Penny: I know. The four of them work at a major university. They’re all super smart. How can they still be into something made for 12-year-olds? *Laugh Track*
  
• Stuart: Oh, hey. Could you please stop staring? They’re just girls. It’s nothing you haven’t seen in movies or in drawings. *Laugh Track*
  
• Policeman: I think I have all I need here. You guys need me to call someone? I’m guessing your moms? *Laugh Track*

As I said - most of the 'jokes' are about laughing at the man-children.

That quote comes from an episode where the three female characters take the time to read and discuss comic books, enjoy them to varying degrees, and end up getting into the same silly comic-book arguments that even the nerds do (e.g. "Can Hulk lift Thor's hammer?")... showing how easy it is to get wrapped up in that kind of speculation (and that it's not limited to nerds).

The boys' misadventures in cosplay are not played primarily for comedy - the people who are rude to them come off quite poorly, and the viewers are meant to sympathize with the dispirited characters.

If you pay attention to the context of the entire episode, the picture becomes clearer. Taking individual, isolated jokes and using that to form a judgement of the show is going to overlook how all of the components fit together to create a more complex narrative.

4 episodes out of what, 5 seasons? Pretty small sample size you've got there.

The typical argument is that Penny is meant to be the audience stand-in character who allows us to watch these geeks and laugh at their expense, but if you actually pay attention to the program, Penny comes off quite poorly too. She's a college dropout, a failed actress (working as a waitress), a bit of a tart who makes terrible relationship choices (often getting involved with dumb, insensitive men who treat her poorly), a borderline alcoholic, and generally unable to manage her own life (she often has money troubles and demonstrates difficulty controlling her impulses).

The "nerds," by contrast, are (despite their character flaws) responsible, accomplished men - Raj is honored by Time magazine for his research, Sheldon and Leonard are both respected academics, and Wolowitz has participated in a number of important engineering projects (and even got sent into space). Socially awkward they might be (at times), but they are all have their lives together, and enjoy positions of relative prominence and influence.

And on the social front, each of the characters has grown considerably. Wolowitz began as a shallow womanizer, but through his relationship with Bernadette (who later became his wife), he was able to understand what a pig he had been. Leonard begins to develop more confidence with women, and Sheldon not only begins to explore the possibility of a romantic relationship, but with the help of his more socially-adept girlfriend, has been making an effort to treat others with consideration and something approximating empathy. Raj is still a mess, but I personally think he outlived his usefulness once Wolowitz stopped needing a sidekick; the writers probably just don't know what to do with him.

The show takes great pains to show real character development, and presents us with nicely rounded individuals. While they may have begun as relatively flat stereotypes, they've become much more, and that is to the show's credit. Particularly the inclusion of the female characters has made the show a much more interesting program, and belies the claim that the show just wants to show the male nerds as pathetic losers - Leonard has dated three EXTREMELY attractive women, and Wolowitz is married to another. Even Sheldon has a girlfriend. These characters are far from the general "pathetic geek" stereotype, but you actually have to watch the show and pay attention to the details in order to notice that.

Having a sense of humor helps, too, but that's another discussion entirely...

The problem with threads like these is no one ever bothers to link to specific clips and actually identify concrete moments that they find offensive. These arguments are all based on vague, general impressions (from both sides) and there's almost no effort put into making a specific, detail-driven case for either perspective.

So, in the interests of having a *productive* conversation, I'll lead the way with this clip.

So we've got a couple of things going on: early on, there's a joke about Comic-Con goers implying that they lack social skills. A cheap shot, probably, but then again we do have some evidence to suggest that there is at least a noticeable minority of the Comic-Con crowd lacking in certain social niceties. Still, let's call this a point against the program.

Then we move on to Sheldon's "Friendship Algorithm" - an attempt to provide a flowchart guide to how to resolve social problems (e.g. making friends). For the less thoughtful, this might seem like a potshot at nerds: "Ha ha! Those geeks don't know how to make friends." Closer examination shows that it's actually a clever commentary on social conventions. We all follow a large number of rules of social interaction - some of which are pretty weird - and attempts to codify them are hardly new; neither are missives on how to employ social networking to improve your life. This episode cleverly calls attention to these mores (which we are, ironically, less aware of today because we think we've "progressed" past them) by parsing it in terms that modern audiences can easily access.

Here's another clip that hits a little closer to home for these boards, perhaps: the boys arranging a D&D night. Again, at first glance this seems like a joke at the expense of geeks: "Those idiots would rather roll dice than have sex." But this particular trope is actually pretty old, and not restricted to geeks by any stretch of the imagination. The trope of "man ignoring woman for other pursuit" is pretty popular across a number of variations: sports, video games, etc. So what might seem like a shot at nerds is really better characterized as the employment of a popular "battle of the sexes" trope (which the show engages in fairly regularly now that they've added several female characters).

I think that, when we take the time to closely examine the humor of TBBT, it's making fun of the main characters not primarily because they're geeks, but because sitcom convention dictates that the protagonists get mocked - they're a safe source of humor. The cleverness of the humor is debatable, but I certainly don't think it is ridiculing geeks in general.

Ahem.

"At that sound the bent shape of the king sprang suddenly erect. Tall and proud he seemed again; and rising in his stirrups he cried in a loud foice, more clear than any there had ever heard a mortal man achieve before,

Arise,arise, Riders of Theoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

With that he seized a great horn from Guthlaf his banner-bearer and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains.

Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Eomer roder there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first eored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Theoden could not be outpaced. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Orome the Great in the bttle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green abou the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and the sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.

LazarX wrote:

I'm sick and tired of Jedi contaminating everything.

You know who else said that?

I'm game, I'll add my two cents to this thing.

The issue here is that many assume that being able to lie (cheat, steal, poison, etc.) is an an advantage. The assumption (and it's an assumption that is the foundation of evil characters and deities) is that following the rules is a disadvantage. Thing is... that's not true.

Remember when Luke asked Yoda about the Dark Side?

"Tell me Master... is the Dark Side stronger?"

"No, not stronger. Quicker, easier... more seductive."

Being evil/dishonorable isn't an advantage, it's a shortcut. More specifically, it's a shortcut that costs you in the long run.

Don't believe me? Consider this: there are a number of nations out there in the world who possess biological and chemical weapons - Syria, for example. Right now, Bashar al-Assad could brutally wipe out the rebel forces causing him so much trouble... but he hasn't. Why not? Because doing so would condemn him to complete and utter diplomatic and economic isolation. In short, when you cross certain lines, no one will be your friend anymore... more than that, no one will TRUST you anymore.

Any Game of Thrones fans out there?

A Paladin's greatest power is not his ability to smite evil. It's not his ability to sense the presence of dark forces, or his immunity to diseases. His greatest power is the CODE ITSELF. Paladins, above all characters, should be able to command the loyalty and resources of everyone they encounter... because if a Paladin says that your town is in danger, you know with absolute certainty that he believes that to be true. If a Paladin says that he will do everything in his power to protect your king, you know that he will die before letting the crown come to harm. If a Paladin says that the local Baron is evil and is trying to seize the throne for himself, you know that he's isn't making idle accusations.

Most people don't realize what a big deal that is. Paladins are the ultimate arbiters of conflict. Got a property dispute with your neighbor? Call in a Paladin - you can trust him to render a fair verdict. Need someone to represent a defendant in a trial even though everyone in town hates him? Call in a Paladin - you can rely on him to do his best to give him a good defense. Need someone to fairly divide an unexpected windfall amongst various parties? Call in a Paladin... etc. People don't HAVE to question Paladins, because they can implicitly trust that they... unlike any other adventurer... will always do the Right Thing, with capital letters.

Evil can't compete with that. If an evil warlord and a Paladin both approach a local lord in the hopes of winning him over to their side, all other things being equal, he's going to stick with the Paladin. Why? Because even if the Paladin's offer of reward is small (or nonexistent) he can trust that the Paladin isn't going to betray/sacrifice/neglect him for his own gain. Skullsmasher the Ferocious, on the other hand, has a reputation for doing whatever pleases him, regardless of who gets hurt.

So let's return to this question of a Paladin being held captive and tortured for information. What are the ways this can play out?

1) Paladin says nothing = Demons are hindered and Paladin upholds the code. (2 wins for the Paladin)
2) Paladin tells the truth = Demons are aided and Paladin upholds the code. (1 win for the Paladin, 1 win for the Demons)
3) Paladin lies = Demons are hindered but the Paladin violates his code. (1 win for the Paladin, 1 win for the Demons)

What we might realize here is that a) The Paladin saying nothing is ALWAYS the best choice, since it gives the bad guys NOTHING that they want (neither the corruption of the Paladin nor the info they seek) and b) Lying is, generally speaking, no better than telling the truth (since the forces of evil still "win" by corrupting the Paladin).

"But what about his companions?" you might ask. Well, Paladins don't have to be condescending jerks - in fact, I'd assume that REAL Paladins trust their team-mates as being competent professionals - every bit the equal of Paladins. I think that Paladins would trust that their party could successfully escape from demons without the extra little boost from his lies (especially since it's not likely to delay the bad guys that long anyway - how long does it take to teleport to and from locations?) And in fact, the Paladin probably assumes that his friends are going to come spring him anyway (after all, he would do the same for THEM). If he believes that they can successfully storm the prison where he's being held, he should also believe that they can escape on their own. He has every reason to trust in their ability to take care of themselves.

"But what about innocent lives that might be threatened?" Good question. Let's do the math for a scenario where the bad guys say, "Talk, or we start killing people!"

a) Paladin says nothing and people die.
b) Paladin talks, and the bad guys let people go.
c) Paladin talks, and the bad guys kill people anyway.
d) Paladin says nothing and the bad guys let people go (there is precedent for this).

What are the results?
a) Good guys 1 (Paladin doesn't break) Bad Guys 0 (their goal isn't killing people, their goal is getting information. The Paladin thwarted them). A clear win for the Paladin, even if some people got hurt.
b) Good guys 1 (people kept safe) Bad Guys 1-2 (they got their info, and possibly compromised a powerful adversary). A tie at best, and not a particularly likely outcome, since the bad guys are not trustworthy in the first place. The Paladin has no reason to believe that they will keep their word (just as the US govt doesn't negotiate with terrorist, Paladins probably shouldn't negotiate with beings who are evil incarnate).
c) Total loss for the good guys, and a fairly likely scenario, since the bad guys would probably love for an opportunity to rub it in the Paladin's face.
d) Flawless victory for the good guys, though this is admittedly an exceedingly unlikely scenario.

Once again, when you look at all of the possible outcomes, violating his code is not actually a better choice for the Paladin, because even in the "ideal" outcome where he capitulates, the bad guys still get what they wanted, which might actually be far more consequential than the lives of some random hostages (i.e. an artifact that will allow them to wipe out hundreds of villages instead of a handful of villagers).

One other thing that's worth mentioning: we need to stop treating the fall of the Paladin as some kind of world-shattering consequence. Paladins are going to fall every now and then... otherwise, there wouldn't be an atonement spell. And in fact, when we compare Atonement to Raise Dead, we find... well look at that! They are both the same caster level, but an atonement spell can cost anywhere from 1/2 as much as Raise Dead to a whopping 0 gp (depending on how your Gm rules the whole "committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion," thing). So Gms who throw the occasional moral quandary at Paladins are no worse (indeed, probably EASIER than) Gms who threaten their PCs with death... the consequences are generally equivalent or lesser.

The easiest way to play Paladin-style lawful good:

Ask yourself what Superman would do.

By the way, something I want to underscore...

Nobody is claiming that you are sexist for playing a game like Zelda.

Nobody is claiming that it's wrong to enjoy Super Mario Bros.

Nobody is claiming that we should totally change these games.

Nobody is claiming that these games are wrong, bad, invalid, or heck, even that they are largely sexist.

What people like Anita Sarkeesian are doing is simply pointing out that these games have problematic aspects, and maybe we should consider that when we make games in the future.

You say that, but I think a lot of people can reasonably infer a reason to be ... let's say, "touchy" here. If the argument runs

a) Games x, y, and z have some sexist elements to them.
and
b) Having sexist elements in game is BAD because it affects people in x,y,z ways

It's hard not to infer that

c) People who like games with sexist elements must be bad/sexist (to some degree).

I mean, one might ask: if there's nothing wrong with games being sexist - if, as you say, people can still enjoy Mario and Zelda and all that - then why is there a need for change?

These conversations tend to proceed poorly (IMHO) because people are not very specific about what action they want taken - I don't think it's deliberate, people often have an idea that they want things to change, but they don't know how, exactly. This vagueness leads to others inferring a great deal more than what's originally intended. If you just want more games with female protagonists, ok, great! Let's just be very clear and explicit about that.

But... if the problem is that you want "an action-adventure game where the young heroic girl saves the prince. That's all," then... well, get to programming, yes? What's stopping you from making those games? Start a kickstarter - I'm sure it will get the funding.

I think part of the backlash is the impression that some folks are asking others to change (or asking the forms of entertainment that they have enjoyed to change). And those folks don't see why they they (or their hobbies) should have to change... unless there's something wrong with them/their hobbies. Thus, we get defensiveness.

To my way of thinking, the best response to: "Man, I don't feel like there are enough good female characters in games" is to go MAKE the games you want to see - the marketplace isn't going to change all by itself. And hey, you might just win some fans while you're at it.

Ok... first scene shows a girl run off with the fancy older hero after turning her nose up at the lecherous younger man. Was it necessary to give a panty shot of the girl as she mounts the horse? No. It would still fit the story without the sexist panty shot.

A point that I might quibble about here - I don't see "sexualization" as necessarily being sexist (see below).

Next they steal arms from a boy and girl who are too busy having sex to notice... a bit of bad comedy perhaps? Not directly sexist but still not saying very nice things about the girl or her boyfriend.

One might note (as someone earlier did, I think) that the woman is, by implication, an adventurer (since she presumably owns either the sword or the staff).

I'm not entirely sure what "not very nice things" are being said about the two adventurers in the bushes. Is it somehow rude to show someone enjoying sex? Or is it an insult to suggest that the act of lovemaking leaves them distracted? I fail to see what's remotely sexist (or in any way insulting) about this particular scene.

Next we see a trio of armed women flirting with the two boys, an amorous water monster, and the town where the lecherous one is getting drunk with three random girls...

The armed women are amazons, as the severed breast indicates. That particular detail impressed me as anything but sexist, as one-breasted women are not generally considered suitable sex objects. The female water monster who lures men into danger is a common fantasy trope (selkies, mermaids, sirens, etc.) And the lecherous one... well, as you note, he is lecherous, i.e. a defining character trait of his is that he gets distracted by women and views them as sexual objects. That's a character issue, not an author issue.

And, it's worth noting, his womanizing is clearly shown to be a flaw.

He shows off the map and this gets a slutty dressed thief after him. He loses his half without even noticing and then she goes after the serious one with her friends and gets killed.

His loss of the map is a way of showing his recklessness and lack of commitment to the quest - i.e. the very thing that causes the conflict between him and his partner. The thief's allure is the method by which she extracts the map without his knowledge.

It's worth noting that the female thief

1) Is apparently the leader of the gang that attacks the swordsman
2) Is not the magic user; she is actually the most capable combatant of the three (thereby averting the "sexy sorceress" trope)
3) Is treated as a serious threat and killed, instead of being tidily defeated or wooed by the swordsman.

The next girl is being rescued by the two. We then see them making out with three more girls. And they kill another girl monster...

Rescuing princesses is, again, a standard fantasy trope. And we don't actually see the two making out with three more girls - we see the swordsman kissing one girl, but the mage appears to just be hanging with his two companions. I took this as an indicator that the more "serious" partner was beginning to loosen up a little.

At the ending two girls are eager to go running off with the pair.

They are, essentially, rock stars in that little town. Fawning female attention fits the level of prestige and celebrity that they have attained.

Now ask yourself since the reward was obviously the fact that they grew into successful heroes, was it really necessary to have every women in the story be a sex object? EVERY woman except the one that was only a giant head was a sex object. Whether it was the village girls, the adventuring girls, the rescuees, the city girls, OR the thief. Even one of the two female monsters was painted as a sex lure.

I can see the stupid decision of the girl in the opening scene as part of the initial motivation these two share... BUT all through the story? NOT just where it would be appropriate but all through the story? Yes I still feel it is sexist.

Now, one can make a fair claim of sexism about a work with a persistent pattern of making women sex objects, and that appears to be what you're going for here (though obviously I disagree with you on the particulars). I think what you're overlooking is both tone and context.

I think you're absolutely right that the women are sexualized, but I don't think it's the ignorant objectification that you might see in, say, a Michael Bay film. This is a film that draws heavily upon existing fantasy tropes, and adventurers are typically conceived as being in pursuit of glory and women (or "Ale and Whores" if you prefer). In the fantasy world, adventurers are effectively rock stars, and when the young men dream of becoming either, the dreams include wealth, fame, mad skillz, and yes, the company of attractive women.

Rather than engage unabashedly in those tropes, though, I think the light-hearted tone of this piece suggests that everything is pretty tongue-in-cheek. The women are not drawn in ways that make them actually sexy - the seductive thief looks more ridiculous than anything else. Moreover, the women seem to actively pursue sex on their own terms, rather than being passive recipients (the female adventurer in the bushes seems to be an equal and willing participant; the amazons flirt, but are decked out as formidable warriors; the two women at the end actually approach the heroes, rather than being approached by them). And considering how fantasy art has depicted women in the past, I think we can reasonably infer that the authors are poking at least a little bit of fun at the old-fashioned tropes even as they employ them.

Now, taking everything as a whole, I'm not sure what could be changed without meaningfully impacting the story. The seductive thief and flirting barbarians are necessary both to demonstrate a crucial part of the mage's character and to introduce a moment of conflict between the two partners. Other things could perhaps be removed (e.g. the sea monster could be turned into something else), but removing certain scenes with women wouldn't solve the problem you identify as your main beef: that all of the women are sexual objects (it would merely decrease the number of sexual objects in the film). You would have to either add additional female characters (probably disruptive, given the tight, focused nature of the film) or alter the way the female characters that are present are depicted. However, the female characters, as currently depicted, are necessarily seen as "rewards," because they serve as a large part of the motivation for the characters (and particularly for the mage). They want to emulate the hero at the beginning because he looks cool and can get girls; at the end, they know that they've "made it" because they look good and can get girls.

Rather than calling it "sexist" I would say that it gleefully embraces a lot of the standard fantasy tropes involving women, but not in an ignorant way. I was impressed, for example, that the brief shot of the barbarian tribeswomen featured an archer with one breast cut off, as the amazons were said to do.

The general use of women in this film seems closer to being distractions from the quest. The goofy mage is easily drawn away by female company, the warrior is nearly undone by some kind of mer-creature, etc. Given that a main theme of the film seems to be the development of a super-strong bro-relationship, it's easy to see why women are presented the way they are.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I am saying that I think this was a deliberate choice on the part of the creators, and a choice that was not made merely because they think women fit those roles. I think they made that choice because it fit the kind of story they were trying to make.

I just have to say: this is the best thread EVER.

Carry on.

tl;dr => you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

1) Each time a PC dies, that player has to buy pizza/beer for everyone for the next session.

2) Each time a PC dies, that player has to run around the house naked 3 times.

3) Each time a PC dies, they have to come on the boards and start a monk thread and then reply to each and every post.

There. Now death is something to be scared of again.

Azog the Defiler? I've been calling him "Orc on a Spork."

Ok, so the monk-lovers finally got some of their terrorist demands - I mean, humbly requested changes made.

So... has anyone crunched the numbers on a monk builds like this? Seems like monks now come out way ahead of two-weapon fighters, but I'm too dumb/lazy to do the math for myself.

This thread is RACIST.

...someone had to say it.

Nope.

Why exactly DOESN'T the merc company want to just sack the city and be done with it? Seems to me like that would

1) Be a lot easier and more straightforward, since the city couldn't defend itself in the first place.
2) Be good way to let other potential employers know that they expect to get paid.
3) Be a good way to collect some "interest" on the wages that they have not received (in the form of extra plunder).

Considering all of this, I think your scenario might be a little too contrived. Why not just have the mercs mention their grievance to the PCs, and let them come up with their own solution?

I've always though that a good rule of thumb for Paladin behavior is to ask: "What would Superman do?" Superman never lies, he acts with honor, and does everything he can to make the world a better place. He's not quick to fight, but he recognizes that it's a possibility. He's not an idiot, but he does come off as corny sometimes because he's just so overwhelmingly good.

I think the thing is, in a homebrew setting, players are almost co-DMs. In a homebrew, you can see all the stuff that your GM has lovingly crafted, and you can imbue it with life and depth by investing in it as a character. You get to add to their creation and give it more detail, more meaning... more life, really.

That's why I tend to prefer homebrew stuff to APs. Don't get me wrong, APs are cool and epic and all, but my favorite moments in DnD are seeing PCs really invest in the setting that I created.

I amused myself with the observation that the four main Jade Regent NPCs (Ameiko, Shalelu, Sandru and Koya) included two hot babes, one hot-ish dude, and an old lady, and the old lady was the one that *didn't* get to serve as a potential romantic interest. What if my character was an older gent, like Ezren, or just a young man in need of some 'educatin' from an older woman?

Or maybe your character was just a big fan of Ben Franklin.

The Emperors plans make no sense in anything you just described. If he can see all this future stuff, why doesn't he just grab Princess Leia before she steals the Death Star Plans? If he can orchestrate an entire galactic republic to dance to his whims, I'm pretty sure he can lock up a rebel with the galaxy's most conspicuous hairdo.

Remember, Palpatine is in control of the entire imperial fleet. Who is going to oppose him? The Jedi who are dead now that he's thoroughly purged them?

We don't even know why the emperor dissolved the senate. It's something to do with taking control, but he's already a supreme emperor, so why does he need to do this? And why is this Corellian Corvette in danger when it can just jump into hyperspace and escape like the Falcon does half an hour later in the movie? And why does something called the Empire even have a Senate in the first place?

Also, if Tattoine is such a remote planet that hardly anyone goes to, why is there an imperial garrison on it? And why don't those gunners on Vader's ship just blow up the escape pod? They know that there's no life forms, so it's not like they're risking harming anyone anyway.

Vader sends a few stormtroopers to try and locate these supposedly vital plans. One would expect him to use all their resources to find the plans. Except the only resources they devote are a few squads of idiots and two star destroyers. Either those are the only ships in the galaxy, or all other Star Destroyers are useless.

And the fleet doesn't need to track the plans down, Vader KNOWS where they are. All they needed to do was turn on the galactic equivalent of afterburners and show up. Then they would have kept the Falcon from escaping and, subsequently, the Death Star from blowing up. I'm pretty sure the Empire guy with the weird breathing mask and James Earl Jones voice knows how to use google alerts, I mean they could tell exactly where the escape pod landed.

Seriously, you have to keep contorting into pretzels and rely on explanations that aren't present in the movie. I just keep pointing out things that happen and how they contradict each other violently while ignoring similar contortions of logic that exist in the original trilogy

Our paladin uses Detect Evil all the time in useful ways.

Example: we were in the Brastlewark dungeon, after the gnome king had been enchanted by the Chelaxian ambassador, who had been arresting innocent people for nefarious reasons. So, we talk our way into the dungeon, but we don't want to just free the entire dungeon because some of the people are actually real criminals. So, the paladin uses Detect Evil on the prisoners. When it pings, does she slaughter them in their cells? No! We just leave them where they are. The non-detecting-as-evil ones, we freed.

Whether or not someone's alignment is good or evil (or neutral) has nothing to do with whether or not they have been justly imprisoned. A lawful evil butcher who uses dishonest scales can be imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit just as easily as a chaotic good rabble-rouser can be rightly locked up for disturbing the peace.

Another example: in PFS, we visited a monastery. The gardener was a gnome, who convinced one of our party to do something that ended up hurting. Paladin detects evil, and he is indeed evil. Does she slaughter him where he stands? No! I use Charm Person, figure out who he is and what he's done, and then we report him to the abbot.

Are you saying that, in the absence of detect evil, your party would never have considered the possibility that someone who tricked them into hurting themselves was up to no good? That if the paladin had been a fighter, you guys would have just completely ignored the gnome, even after getting injured? Heck, the fact that you used DE already shows your suspicion - otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to scan him.

I think Eladmri pretty much hits the nail on the head. The Paladin's raison d'etre is to be the ultimate champion against unspeakable evil - his abilities should be keyed to evil with a capital E.

I think a rewrite of the Paladin Detect/Smite Evil class features would be a good way to help avoid a lot of roleplaying trouble (and reign in Paladin power level a bit, too).

I mean, think about how confusing detect evil gets right now: You have to sort through all of these possibilities of "just how evil IS he? He could be an evil outsider in disguise, or maybe he's a priest of an evil diety, or..." etc. It would be a lot easier (and more dramatically appealing) if Paladins could sense the presence of unnatural/otherworldly evil - when he shakes the hand of a count who is really a vampire, he can tell from the chills in his spine that this man is really a vampire. When he walks into a temple that has been secretly corrupted by Devils, he can smell their foulness in the air. That seems like a much better way to have detect evil operate than making the Paladin walk around and spend a bunch of actions "scanning" everybody.

Besides, guys, the hero of the entire trilogy is neither Obi Wan, nor Vader, nor Luke.

The real hero is Artoo.

Terquem wrote:

Star Trek (some would say) revised the story line with new actors, lets see if there are new actors who can fill those shoes. Joseph Gordon-levitt = Han Solo FTW

I'll counter with Sam Rockwell as Han.

Guys, guys... let me spell it out for you.

1) Disney gets Marvel.
2) Disney makes Avengers.
3) Joss Whedon directs Avengers.
4) Avengers is a success.
5) Disney gets Star Wars.
6) ...well, you see where I'm going with this.

So the obvious choice for Han Solo is Nathan Fillion.

He didn't draft it. Just made some allusions to its existence in a few interviews over the years. I doubt he has more than 3 pages of stuff written down.

Pretty much my take on this, too.

Overall I'm quite happy about Star Wars finally leaving the talentless fingers of Lucas.

This is mean-spirited and overlooks the entire original series, as well as countless well-executed comics, video games, and other licensed material (which, granted, Lucas wasn't involved in directly, but was wise enough to let others take a stab at).

It's also worth noting, for all the George-haters out there, that Lucas has had his hands tied regarding collaboration because he's not a member of the union. It's exceedingly difficult for him to get other people to take over directorial efforts because most everybody belongs to the DGA. It's not so much that Lucas can't stand the idea of someone else directing; it's that it's hard to find someone else of sufficient caliber who can actually do so.

I'll level with everyone:

When I saw Phantom Menace, I was really excited walking into the theater. Then I encountered... midichlorians. And the long, drawn out stuff on Tatooine. There were a lot of moments that I had watching it for the first time where I was like, "When is this going to get back to the GOOD stuff?"

But you know what? It was still a chance for me to experience an entirely new Star Wars movie for the first time in the theater. And that experience was magical.

If you had asked me a week ago, "Will there ever be an EP 7?" I would have laughed, said that was ridiculous, and explained why that would be a bad idea.

And yet, here we are, and for some reason, I feel the same way I felt when I first saw the Ep I trailer.

God bless you Disney. And yes, God bless you George.

Invisible Fog wrote:

I hate the rules that a few of you got wrong and then posted in a thread about hating.

Please go re-read rules before you rant about hating them.

Such as?

"Restrictions on who can use what--if I can read a scroll, the spell should cast from it. If I can point a wand and I know the command word, it should work. It should not matter whether or not I am a spellcaster or not."

This is covered by UMD. Strictly speaking, any non-caster class CAN use scrolls and wands.

"The lack of the 3.5 reach template. Taking away diagonal reach makes polearms pretty terrible against smart opponents."

As far as I know, this hasn't been changed.

"the 5 million deterrents for multiclassing, if a character is actually going to dip, don't penalize them for dipping. favored class is just yet another deterrent."

There is no penalty for multiclassing. The favored class bonus provides a small incentive to remain in a single (or two, if you're a half-elf) class, but you are no longer penalized in xp (as you were back in 3.0/3.5). Moreover, if you're just "dipping" one or two levels, losing the 1-2 hp or skill points can hardly be called a penalty.

"5. the lack of multiclass assitance"
Removing the xp penalties from the "old days" seems to belie this. Also, half-elves were given an ability that essentially makes them perfect for multiclassing. Also, unless I'm mistaken, a number of abilities/feats that were traditionally expected to belong to a particular class have been reworked as being available as feats to other classes (albeit without quite the same "punch" as if they were part of the original class's skillset).

"I am not a fan of the rule allowing one to use 2 hands to attack with a one handed or light weapon for the extra strop bonus to damage."

You cannot use a light weapon with both hands in order to gain extra strength damage. You may do this with one-handed weapons, however.

"I think that some of the feat chains are utterly needless. Two-weapon fighting and vital strike in particular. Two weapon fighting should just be a -2 hit when using it. Vital Strike should just be a single feat."

Vital Strike IS a single feat (w/o feat pre-reqs), and TWF DOES apply a -2 penalty to use it. I assume the poster here meant something different (based on his lead-in sentence), but I admit that his subsequent sentences confuse me - does he mean that Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike should all be rolled into a single feat? That seems... a bit unbalanced.

"If I want to become a better underwater basket weaver, I must also become harder to kill (more hitpoints), become better at fighting (base attack bonus), become more stubborn (will save), healthier (fort), and developer faster reflexes (reflex save). And also becoming better in about half a dozen other areas of expertise (skill points besides the ones I use for underwater basketweaving), and possibly learning a random trick (feat) or becoming stronger/faster/smarter/etc (ability increase). If all I want is to become a better underwater basketweaver, thats what should happen. I shouldn't have to improve in every other area of my character as well."

One can select any number of feats to boost saves, skills, attack bonuses, or hit points. Granted, feats are only granted upon attaining certain levels, but this overstates the case a little bit (though the broader point is a fair expression of desiring a system that's based more on buying attributes than "leveling up").

"I don't like that you can't sneak attack with thrown weapons (a change I only just realized thanks to a discussion here)"

I would definitely need to see a link to the thread mentioned here, because I see no reason why thrown weapons can't be used for SA according to the RAW.

Anyway, I think I've got a solution -- someone mentioned the Ranger getting the Endurance feat. Considering what I'm hearing from the actual military folk here (as well as the player), it would seem reasonable to allow a character with Endurance to carry his weapon all day long if he wanted to (seems in line with sleeping in armor, and Endurance is sort of a weak feat to begin with). That should keep the player happy and keep everyone in the world from riding around with their hands full of weapons and shields.

So after all of this, you're going to let him keep doing what he was doing as long as he gets the feat that he gets for free at 3rd level? Wow.

Hmm... didn't you say that this character had an animal companion? Rangers get those at, what... 4th level?

Staffs are bigger than wands and there for should hold more magic potential than wands.

This is one of the silliest things I have ever read.

'Cuz obviously, magic is somehow based on physical limitations - which is why a tall wizard can cast more spells than a short wizard.

You're failing to distinguish between what you say and how you say it. That's the crux of the matter.

MA, there's a difference between providing honest feedback and being a jerk about it; it is possible to identify flaws/weaknesses without setting a disrespectful tone or beating a dead horse. You might also consider that, if you get on people's nerves, they are actually LESS likely to respond to you in a favorable manner; as the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey."

And with regard to winning/losing: Winning a pee-wee soccer game actually DOESN'T matter in "real life." Learning respect and good sportsmanship DO matter, however. Getting a "fixed Monk" DOESN'T matter in "real life" (because, like pee wee soccer, it's just a game people engage in for recreation). Maintaining forums that have high standards of respect and courtesy DOES matter, though.

You've made what, SIX different versions of the monk class? Just go ahead and make a houserule and use your homebrew stuff; you don't need the imprimatur of an official book. Heck, the devs even TOLD you as much.

You come across as a rude, obsessive player (which is a shame, because you clearly know the material extremely well and are capable of contributing a lot to the hobby). You need to take a step back and realize that you're going to have to get over how awesome you think your first D&D character was.

In short: you're screwing up. You're screwing up bad. You're creating a hostile and antagonistic environment that poisons the relationship between the designers and the players. You make them defensive and irritated; you make them less likely to respond to our queries about rules clarifications; you literally make them not want to participate in conversations that you're part of.

And I can't say I'm surprised - not when you make childish, taunting posts that do nothing to extend reasoned discussion and certainly not when you act as though the designers' first priority Monday morning should be attending to your personal soapbox threads.

I remember when I first start lurking the boards, I was really impressed with the quality of the members - everyone seemed polite, knowledgeable, and friendly. It was a breath of fresh air from some of the other forums I had been frequenting. But lately, that atmosphere seems to have been changing, and I hate to say it, but I think you've been a part of that, and it really bugs me.

Normally I wouldn't address another poster like this, but since you claim to want people to be blunt with you, and that you can "take the heat," I'm confident that you'll take this critique seriously, and give some thought to it.

PS - I like monks too.

Wait, you want to steal his pants?

Your extreme defensiveness when others respond to your initial query with an answer of "Yes, you were a bad guest," has convinced me that you're not actually looking for an honest appraisal of the situation. What you're actually looking for is some internet strangers to salve your pride/justify your behavior for you.

"Squeamish about my dice, are you? Do you take me for some kind of cheat?"

Zaketta snorts in excitement and rage, her cheeks flushed from drink.

"I'm not the sort to cheat honest men in a sporting wager - nor am I likely to cheat the lot of you, either. But have it your way, bring in the other set. Bring in as many as you want, in fact - the more the better. We'll each take a set and play a game that you can't fix with a phony batch: Liar's dice.

Standard rules, gentlemen (and I use the term very loosely): ones are wild, you have to either bid up or challenge on your turn. You lose a die (and your ante) whenever you're successfully challenged (or if you fail your own challenge). Is that fair enough, or are you lot too scared to match wits with a woman?"

Zaketta takes a long swig of grog and then slams her dice cup on the table, the tiny cubes rattling noisily before settling. Taking a quick peek beneath her cup, Zaketta grins fiercely.

"I bid four twos," she declares, then turns to Moon in anticipation of his bid.

: The rules on wikipedia are pretty clear, I think, and I've specified what seems like the simplest variant. Everyone will need to record the results of their five dice somewhere, though, so they don't forget over the course of the game (which in theory could take several RL days). It's also probably best to indicate in your post who is "next" in turn order, to save on confusion.

Proudest death? My fighter/rogue (swashbuckler-type) in a heavily-houseruled 3.0 game back in the day. We had to roll for hit points every level (including 1st), and he had a Con modifier of -1... and kept rolling 1s and 2s for hp. He made it all the way to level 5 with a grand total of 12 hit points (he made liberal use of the total defense action). He finally perished valiantly attempting to keep an evil cleric at bay while the rest of the party was playing Keystone Cops with a bunch of ghouls - the evil cleric got a crit with a scythe and then used some kind of wacky domain power to STEAL HIS SOUL.

The upside was the tiny flyspeck village that was ultimately saved in that adventure was renamed in his honor - and for many years after that, every new character I rolled up came from that village, seeking to follow in the inspiring footsteps of "that dashing swordsman who gave his life."

Most frustrating death was a warblade who got killed in a... very challenging beach encounter in Savage Tide. Anyone who's played ST knows what I'm talking about. My warblade was doing his level best against a pretty potent foe, and just kept dishing out punishment, and finally got a critical hit! But since we had just gotten the nifty critical hit deck, I decided to draw instead of just taking the double damage... and got a result that was "normal damage, and target focuses on you." The baddie finished me off the next round, after which the party rogue hopped up and dealt 1 point of damage... killing it.

I've never touched the critical hit deck since.

Ok, so I'm wondering if either/both of these feats would function against a net. On the one hand, a net is a thrown/ranged weapon, so it seems like it would be deflect-able / snatch-able, but the following points makes me uncertain:

1) In the text for Deflect Arrows, it says "you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." A net, however, does not do damage - does that disqualify it for the purposes of this feat? "Deflect" isn't a term that's officially defined by the rules, so this seems like an important ambiguity.

2) Would a net count as "unusually massive?" It's certainly not as big as a boulder or a ballista bolt (examples from the feat description), but it is definitely larger and bulkier than an arrow or even a javelin.

Relevant feat text:

Deflect Arrows
Benefit: You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected.

Snatch Arrows
Benefit: When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it. Thrown weapons can immediately be thrown back as an attack against the original attacker (even though it isn't your turn) or kept for later use.