shaventalz's page

* Pathfinder Society GM. 918 posts (921 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Brew wrote:
I crossed out missions that players did not send characters on. Also, had one player use pregens and another did not use any aid characters so crossed out all aid mission boons for those players. Is this correct?

My understanding is that the main PCs used in this special get all the aid mission boons.

Page 36 wrote:
In the Aid Missions boon, cross off the boons for any missions that the House did not successfully complete

Since as a whole we completed all the aid missions, it doesn't matter how much an individual player helped.

*****

However, aid characters get only the boon for the mission they participated in.

Page 36 wrote:

Aid characters do not receive their own Chronicle sheets for participating in this scenario. However, they can receive a boon for the Aid Mission they participated in.

...
These copied Chronicle sheets grant the relevant boon and no other rewards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think my group was the first to beat their (Soldier) encounter, but posting has slowed down a bit heading towards the relic itself.

On a side note... how many hit dice did Shevar have? My table's got a necromancer, and there's been talk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Cwethan wrote:

I'd say immunity - My understanding is that negative energy doesn't heal undead unless an ability specifically says so, but I'll try to pull up a citation...

Linky

That'll work. Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shaventalz wrote:

Bit of a backlog to work through here.

***

Type: Provide Spellcasting
Generated By: Kasimir von Vang
Heroic? yes
Effect: From two hundred feet away, someone carrying a mace and wearing the unholy symbol of Asmodeus casts dispel magic on something that really needs dispelled.

Passing From: shaventalz
Passing To: GM Greenclaw

Could someone with an RPGG account please post this over there?

That's caster level 13, by the way.

1/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

As a reminder: this kind of thing is why some of us aren't playing PFS2, and why we stopped buying PF1's books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Not only who built the ships, but where'd the materials come from without a massive empire of planet's resources, and how'd they get all the components and materials to the hidden Sith world that no one knew about and only had 2 well hidden holochrons that had the location?

.

I'm now picturing an A team montage with the emperor force lifting components into place, welding them with force lightning, then a mook gets electrocuted and falls to his death, and everyone points and laughs.

Complete with Wilhelm scream, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


Given that the civilizations in Star Wars have been around for thousands of years and have had blisteringly fast hyperdrive the whole time and SOMEHOW there are still "Unknown Regions" that people haven't explored and charted, (2) isn't all that farfetched.

Space is big. Really. really big.

Plus, it doesn't take someone thinking of ramming the enemy.

All it takes is someone not thinking. Someone sloppy, paying more attention to their caf or the chancellor's latest Tweet than the navcomputer. Or someone trying to run a blockade. Or someone that lightspeed skips into a building (like the ones right next to the Falcon in EpIX.) Or misjudging the distance/durability of the thing you're planning to lightspeed through (like a docking bay door.) Or misjudging how much space junk is in your area of space (starting or ending point.) Over many thousands of years, someone is going to get into a lightspeed wreck if hyperspace worked like that.

One highly-publicized "mysterious shipping lane explosion" later, someone's going to ask "how did that happen, and who can we sue for not preventing it?" And a different group will be asking "can we duplicate that?"

Scarab Sages 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Name: Lichaam Pisell the Risen, the Apatite Sage
Alignment: Neutral Good
Race: Elf
Class: Scroll Scholar Wizard 6 / Cyphermage 6

Lichaam is driven by a need to know EVERYTHING. If you know WHAT happened,you can know WHY, and make it not happen again. Plus, who in their right mind wouldn't find the Unabridged History of Gourd Farming in Cheliax interesting? Surprisingly, the Society seems filled with people who don't quite share his love for the scholarly arts. As such, he's often the one sent in to tell the barbarian why they shouldn't break down that door just yet. He appears to be dressed in whatever clothing the merchant had that day - which isn't far from the truth. His Handy Haversack is stuffed to the brim with the written (and sometimes magical) word, forcing him to strap a large sack with his other gear to the outside.

Lichaam has been with the Scarab Sages since before they split from Osirion, and undertook nearly every mission concerning them. He was on the team that found the lost sanctum, the team that halted the destruction of the archives, and the team that found the Amethyst Sage. Following his actions underneath Resa, he leapt at the chance to join their august ranks. However, thanks to a hungry giant and his habit of trading favors for magic items, he found himself rather short on prestige. Thankfully, the Society saw fit to send him against some very dangerous threats last week, allowing him to expand his contributions to the Sages' body of knowledge.

So many seasons with no worthwhile spontaneous uses for prestige other than Raise Dead led to spending the extra on wands and scrolls. He had plenty for coming back from the dead, so no reason not to, right? Then this comes along with a high prestige cost only a few scenarios after Lichaam died (draining his prestige.) Quite frustrating, and I'm glad I got enough Seeker-level content in at GenCon to purchase it.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Managed to return the 15-16 ticket and get a 7-8 that appeared, so my original ticket should be back in the system for purchase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does say "GM Thread" right there in the title. I'd imagine the thread should follow the same rules on spoilers as anything in the GM Discussion forum - that is, there WILL be spoilers, and they WILL be unmarked.

For instance, the giant zombie Aroden in act 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've got my IC/OOC threads up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:

“You have too much time on your hands.”

I have exactly the same time on my hands as everyone else.

I doubt you have as much tyme on your hands as me. I spilled a whole thing of it while I was cooking.

A sage observation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isaac Zephyr wrote:

Oh, I thought of one the other day, though it may be more of an item or metamagic feat than a specific spell.

Spectral Hand lets you deliver a touch spell from range. I can't find something though that would say, let you fire a ray or line from a different point of origin other than a familiar (which even then I think is only touch spells you can deliver).

Why would you want to? Ignoring cover is a big one, changing line of effect. I also just think it would be cool for a wizard to spread their arms and their 3 Scorching Rays come from 3 different points in the room to hit 3 different targets who thought themselves safe.

Eldritch Conduit gets you partway there. No rays, but it lets you fire area-effect spells as if you were where someone else is standing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

How about people who can't quite figure out what all those funny lines in the parking lot mean?

Sure, let's just park on the striped area and stick out into the driving lane a little. Or straddle 2-4 spots, because my vehicle is special/unscratchable/too big.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if it's just my browsers (all of them), but quite a while ago all product links defaulted to discussion, rather than reviews. Not only that, but trying to go to the next page of reviews refreshes the page... which resets to the discussion tab. So for me, even consuming the reviews is more difficult than it should be, making the review system as a whole less useful.

Example: This link goes to the discussion tab. Going to "Product Reviews" and clicking "Next" sends me right back to the discussion tab.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Knight wrote:
It would come off as sort of unprofessional to change their methodology, and there is a good chance it would cause confusion at lodges that don't have much of a web-presence, perhaps even arguments as to whether or not the PDF was official.

More unprofessional than the current situation? More unprofessional than "end of the week", followed by another "end of the week" nearly three weeks later, followed by almost another week of nothing so far?

Dustin Knight wrote:
I've also met people who enjoy the AR backlog because they feel instant updates leads to people making characters using new material without first considering whether or not they would play the character in the long term. Though this is a minority opinion, in my experiences.

That's an... interesting view. I think I need to point out, though, that there is no long-term play anymore. Not for many of us.

Dustin Knight wrote:
...and there are plenty of pathfinder players who don't play PFS!

And they aren't affected one way or the other by this situation.

Markov Spiked Chain wrote:

Another round of kicking the can down the road.

John, I don't think you realize how big a deal this is for Paizo, the company certainly is not acting like you think it's important. I've already canceled my subscriptions because of this. At this point, I'm giving up on buying any Paizo product except scenarios I'm needed to run. In particular, Pathfinder 2 is a non-starter to me until I see some acknowledgement of the problem here and a commitment to addressing it.

All of this. Paizo's behavior within the last couple years has been such that I cannot trust them with PF2's organized play. Since PFS is the only way I play Pathfinder, I just won't be joining PF2. Even if it was a good system by itself, a system is only as good as the games you can play with it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So you're telling me that an axiomatic one of these would technically be a "monitor monitor lizard"?

1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of which person or group is most at fault, they still represent Paizo.

I haven't bought books when they came out for over a year now, because I was sick of these delay. Which means, for the most part, I never buy them. That's money Paizo doesn't get. Heck, I'd rather have gotten a boon at GenCon than the two splatbooks I won - at least I could use the boon.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Christian Dragos wrote:

One of the magic items retrievable in the queen's mound is an Aspect Mask (ant). I cannot find any entry for "ant" in the hunter's list of animal aspects in any of my books. Anyone know which book it's from? It sould probably be noted next to the Aspect Mask in high tier treasure. I will have to write "(ant)" after the item listing before i make copies. Otherwise players may just choose an aspect for their mask.

Thanks.

It could be from the special list granted by the Verminous Hunter archetype. If so... it's identical to the Bull focus.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
VRMH wrote:
It's becoming embarrassing, really.
'Becoming'? It has BEEN an embarrassment. And it will likely continue to be one no matter how much people howl, because while there is reason to fix it, there is no need to.

How's "prove they can handle broken/ambiguous/contradictory rules" for a need?

This kind of thing is one reason why I'm not planning on picking up PF2. If Paizo can't decide and communicate how they want these rules to work, why should I look at their new rules?

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tonya Woldridge posted here late 2016, giving up-to-date approval to J. J. Frost's post from back in 2010.

For Season 0 stuff:
1) If it doesn't exist anymore in Pathfinder, it's not available to the PCs. Cross it off.
2) If the item is different in Pathfinder, the chronicle offers the "correct" version.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I don't expect a caster to be able to OHKO a level appropriate enemy, except in specific circumstances with setup like exploiting an elemental weakness on a debuffed foe. But a level 17 ANYTHING should be able to OHKO any level 3 enemy, even with a suboptimal-but-reliable option like magic missile.
They couldn't in PF1. Not with a no frills, no metamagic, magic missile (which averaged about 17.5 damage on the highest level people possible...which is a smaller percentage of a PF1 Ogre's HP than 52.5 is of a PF2 Ogre's).

You're comparing a 1st-level PF1 slot to a 9th-level PF2 slot, though. The complaint is that <thing> cast by a 17th-level wizard using his most powerful slot can't kill a level 3 <thing>.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Two questions regarding actions:

1) Can you spend multiple rounds casting a high-cost spell? For instance, somatic+verbal+material Magic Missile AND Conceal Spell? A sort of "it takes twice as long, but I'm out of combat so who cares" type of situation.

2) Magic Missile's "Heightened" section says you get one additional missile for each action you spend. What happens with something like Conceal Spell? Would a 2-action-plus-Conceal spell heighten similarly to the 3-action version? Is it intended to, or is that wording that should be cleaned up somehow?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, not getting into whether this is a good or bad change. Just a question:

How would attacks that hit multiple weaknesses work?

Take a hypothetical "cyborg zombie". Instead of magic, the alchemist that animated it has extremely volatile liquid running through it. Weakness fire 5, weakness slashing 5. What happens when a hypothetical Flame Blade (dealing slashing & fire damage) hits it? Does it deal +5 or +10 damage?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KitsuneWarlock wrote:
Are people literally judging a book by its cover?

More like judging the cover by the book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fourshadow wrote:
I like the cover just fine. If you don't think any plane looks like that...or if only Golarion can look like that...well, imagination is a good thing.

A completely black cover would be just as valid, too - caves and darkness exist basically everywhere, after all. That doesn't mean it's a good choice when trying to depict the unearthly variety of the planes.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NightTrace wrote:
Kurald Galain wrote:
a handful of vanities that nobody ever takes require a 10 or 20 fame, or something?
As a player with a Knight-Captain Gray Corsair Tiller character I feel personally targeted right now. ;)

Or anyone who paid Taldor for the right to grow a beard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Game Master Q wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like all the people saying "that can't work" basically underlines what is perhaps Paizo's point in making goblins a core race- "that we should consider goblins to be as diverse a people as anybody else."

If the *only* thing people can think to portray with goblins is the "maniacal illiterate arsonist", then it's even more important for Paizo to point out the existence of goblins that aren't that.

I mean, in response to "there's no way this can work" - of course it can work; anything can work. It's just that the onus falls on us to make it work.

I disagree. The onus falls on the one selling the product and claiming it works.

Anything else is, to a greater or lesser extent, telling the customers to fix a broken system themselves.

I've always hated this sentiment. For two reasons:

1) Just because the game isn't how you want it, doesn't mean it's broken.

2) This is a game of imagination. Requiring you to actually use your imagination and brain in order customize the game to be how you want it to be doesn't make the game "broken," it just required you to actually use that brain of yours. This isn't a computer game where if one thing doesn't work then the game can actually be defined as broken. It's a game of imagination where you as the user are actually required to use your imagination - and complaining that you actually have to use it says more about you than it does about the game.

1) It's not a question of "do I want it?" It's a question of "does this fit into the setting well?" It breaks the setting being sold without some serious changes.

2) I can certainly imagine a Lawful Good goblin paladin. I can also imagine a shining example of goodness and light that raises undead for the benefit of all - but if the setting says "that's not how undead work", then my creative vision can and should be the one that is discarded. By rights, in this campaign setting, virtually any town that's had any contact with goblins would have a kill-on-sight policy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like all the people saying "that can't work" basically underlines what is perhaps Paizo's point in making goblins a core race- "that we should consider goblins to be as diverse a people as anybody else."

If the *only* thing people can think to portray with goblins is the "maniacal illiterate arsonist", then it's even more important for Paizo to point out the existence of goblins that aren't that.

I mean, in response to "there's no way this can work" - of course it can work; anything can work. It's just that the onus falls on us to make it work.

I disagree. The onus falls on the one selling the product and claiming it works.

Anything else is, to a greater or lesser extent, telling the customers to fix a broken system themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Can someone explain what they think they meant with the revisiting Ancestry comment? I'm a little confused by that one!

I haven't listened to the interview itself (and won't, because length), but the bullet points linked earlier almost make it look like a separate advancement track. Almost a second "racial class" type of thing in addition to the "real" class.

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
For example, a new book in the vein of say, Ultimate Whatever, can add a whole section of class feats, essentially expanding characters in such a customisable way that was impossible before! Mix and match your favourite class abilities to make a Character which fits YOUR concept!

They do this already, every time they put a half-dozen rogue talents or a new bloodline (with associated feats) in a new book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Knight_Hammer wrote:
Either Paizo is normalizing evil partues, or they are throwing out alignment. I do not believe they have ever included a non-evil goblin in their setting or adventures.
There is a non-Evil Goblin (who will f~~+ing drop you) in Pezzack who helps a nice lady run a noodle cart.
Which book is this in? It sounds just great.

It looks like it comes from Towns of the Inner Sea. He's CN, and enjoys throwing fish heads at people.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A basic fact about PCs is that they are generally iconoclasts anyway, since they have gone off to seek fame and fortune rather than staying home and being a good member of whatever group they belong to.

So like a Goblin who left his people because he's good aligned and curious isn't really any weirder than a Dwarf who left his people because he's chaotic and interested in progress not tradition.

All your book-fearing, horse-hating, incorrigible pyromaniac goblins are the ones who have no good reason to leave their homes. It's the goblins who don't fit in there that become adventurers.

...and gets slaughtered by an angry mob at the entrance of the next farming village, because "I ain't never met a gobbo what didn't try burnin' down mah stables!"

The NPCs aren't mind readers, after all, and if every other goblin they've met or heard of has been violently malicious...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people?

Who else would we have an edition war with?

Kolokotroni wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a new edition,

And also many reasons against a new edition.

Kolokotroni wrote:
and they are giving us a ton of lead time, as much as I didnt want to personally see a new edition, I think its fair to say it's time.

Why? Why would it be "time" now, rather than 5 years ago or 5 years from now?

Kolokotroni wrote:
They have done about as much as they could have with the 3.x ruleset. Its time to break the chains and start fresh.

Why do you say this? I mean, just off the top of my head I can think of several 3.X classes (and design spaces) Paizo hasn't messed with - and I didn't even play 3.5!

Kolokotroni wrote:
They have given us a literal decade of stories and fun,

So why stop now?

Kolokotroni wrote:
t boggles my mind that fans would loose faith now. Will pathfinder 2 be perfect? No obviously not, I don't think a perfect roleplaying game exists theres way too much that is subjective in there.

Honestly, I've been losing faith in Paizo's faith to handle the rules for a while now. Whether it's new splatbooks releasing feats that change how existing rules work, or Horror Adventures' bits with aligned spells, or the repeated nerfs into oblivion, or the messy/unreadable/unnecessary subsystems in Ultimate Intrigue... Some of the balance choices make me wonder if the developers and I are even playing the same game. And that's a known ruleset! This is one of several reasons I didn't pick up Starfinder.

Kolokotroni wrote:
But I bet it will be fun, and there will be cool adventures, and great art, and all sorts of fun support products. Which ultimately is what i want from paizo.

Which, as someone else stated, doesn't require a new edition. And even if it did... Paizo has had editing issues "recently." At least some of this is due to Starfinder splitting their resources, despite initial assurances that this would not happen. And now they need to split their resources THREE ways? PF1 (still being sold), Starfinder, and developing PF2 from the ground up? Unless something has changed, they don't seem to have the resources to do the job as well as they used to.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

Change is good.

"Progress is impossible without change,
and those who cannot change their minds
cannot change anything."
—George Bernard Shaw

Change can be good.

Simply being change does not make a thing good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Please Do

  • Standardize rules language to minimize ambiguity.
  • Clarify core rules that have never had their full impact clearly defined, e.g. attacking from stealth.

Please do not

  • Use anything like the proficiency system from D&D 5.0. I enjoy being able to allocate skill points based on what I want my character to be. This often includes assigning a small number of points to skills that need only basic proficiency or that I just want to be able to Aid Other with.
  • Mess with the alignment system: it has been a core game mechanic since 1st edition.

This.

I would really appreciate rules being clarified AS THEY'RE MADE, rather than ignoring them for 10 years. Or, like masterpieces, releasing more options that use those rules without apparent agreement on what the rules to be used are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

I can click on the "Store" item, but all I get is a sub-menu pop-up -- I don't get to the link posted by thejeff that way.

Wait, I think I might see. From the forums, there's a "Store" link that acts as thejeff described. On the home page, it opens up that dropdown with (apparently) no actual link to the store blog.

Paizo, why?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shalandar wrote:

I would say "No, you would not get it." You do not channel energy any longer, therefor that part cannot affect you.

Here is another thread about it, concerning inquistors, since they don't have channel either. Most say they would give it based on alignment, but I personally would not.

Now, that's RAW not RAI. Personally, considering you are getting a bonus from the oath, I wouldn't allow it even in my home game. You traded that ability away, not "didn't have it to begin with."

What happens if the PC also makes the DC21 UMD check to emulate the class features of a level 1 cleric?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


...if you're an oozemorph and are in a pail, is the pail considered armor?

Not unless you count a wagon to be armor, too. You'll get a cover bonus to AC, not armor, so it doesn't count. Until the next FAQ fixing that loophole.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
What if there's a hole in the bucket...?

Well, fix it, dear Wei Ji, dear Wei Ji, dear Wei Ji,

Well, fix it, dear Wei Ji, dear Wei Ji, fix it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I keep hearing about the writer for the oozemorph writing it badly on purpose but has this been confirmed and if so where was it confirmed?

I suspect that what people are referring to is this post by (apparently) the writer.

Apparently, the base form was designed to be a penalty that further levels in the archetype help mitigate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

All the authors who write the masterpieces know how they work. Which is kinda the issue, there's a LOT of authors making a LOT of Masterpieces, and we don't know which ones believes which ones work which way.

So consolidating every single one for clarification is... a bit of a task.

Those authors don't know how masterpieces work. They think they know how they should work, same as the rest of us.

The task of putting a list together and clarifying the actual rule is not being helped by printing more content based on a flawed foundation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fourshadow wrote:

And as of the printing of PC: Disciple's Doctrine, we have two new Masterpieces.

One is really cool but suffers from the same issue as Vindictive Soliloquy--a performance time of 5 rounds. This might be acceptable IF Inspire Courage could be maintained simultaneously. The name of it is Kaminari Drums and it casts a Flamestrike that is half electricity and half completely untyped and cannot be resisted.
The other one is even better (in part due to a 1 round performance time): Spirit of the Horse casts Greater Magic Fang on animal companions and mounts!

What makes this frustrating to me is that, despite apparently not actually knowing for sure how Masterpieces work... they're still publishing new ones.

Come on, Paizo. Make the rules before you publish stuff that uses those rules.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VixieMoondew wrote:
My Phalanx Soldier uses a bill, which I have yet to see anyone else use! My Picaroon uses a wakizashi, just in case I ever need to do slashing damage to get around DR. Other than that, she's the stereotypical 'roon: multiclassed with Mysterious Stranger and Juggler Bard.

My trip/disarm/AoO character also uses a Bill, so hi!

I've also got a character that uses a kunai. It's in the Light Blades group, so it qualifies for being sawback. It's also a descendent of a trowel, so he's got two reasons he can legitimately say without lying "it's a tool." Take that, Zone of Truth.

Beyond that, my only two characters with "unusual" weapons are someone who swings around rock weapons (kineticist) and someone who uses Skull-On-A-Stick (stupid cool-but-overpriced unique weapons on chronicles...) The others have reasons for what they use, but they're not rare weapons.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kwinten Koëter wrote:
I just read about various object hardnesses in D&D 5, and apparently paper has 1 HP and 1 hardness. A character with dumped Strength can fail in trying to tear up a sheet of paper.

The phrase "couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper bag" has to have come from somewhere, you know.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's please not get another thread locked because of the NerfWarden.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Respectfully,
Shorter delays between a product's release and its inclusion in Additional Resources.
I'm aware that there are several factors that cause this, but the delay of "probably a couple of months or whenever we get around to it" kills a great deal of excitement for new products.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I understand it, d20pfsrd is not allowed to use setting-specific terms because they're a for-profit site. "Dawnflower" (and Sarenrae) is a Golarion-specific term, which they can't use. They renamed it to something neutral to be able to use it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I think if Admiral Holdo had instead been played by Admiral Ackbar everyone would have just got on board and been “what a strategic genius”. But because Vice Admiral Amelyn Holdo is new to the audience, feminine and doesn’t acquiesce to the handsome flyboy nerds everywhere feel the need to pick apart her plan and sacrifice.

Hmm... not really, no. Not if Ackbar made the same terrible decisions with the same terrible plan. Ackbar might get half a point over Holdo if they wrote him to not be snide, condescending, and standoffish - you know, the kinds of things that drive impetuous flyboys to concoct their own schemes - but then you're getting into making different characters rather than just genderswapping.

Personally, I'm a little tired of people telling me "you just don't like <newCharacter> because she's strong and female!" I got a lecture when I said Rey was a Mary Sue after TFA, too. It's not all about whether it's a powerful female character. For me, the question is whether it's a good character. And Holdo isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Well, didn't you hear him? He cannot... BE... BETRAYED!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
The thing about First Order holograms is that they're all just a bunch of Snoke and Mirrors. :D :D :D

Wait, are you saying the First Order is led by a Huxter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bedevere wrote:
Just trying to figure out how these coconuts got glued all over the place here.

Glue halved coconuts to your horse's hooves. Really confuse the guy tracking you.

1 to 50 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>