This archetype was really not written up very well.
In addition to what has already been mentioned, not the description of the Prehensile Hair Hex:
"Effect: The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb with a Strength score equal to her Intelligence score. Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can use it as a secondary natural attack that deals 1d3 points of damage (1d2 for a Small witch). Her hair can manipulate objects (but not weapons) as dexterously as a human hand."
Then look at the actual white-haired witch write-up:
"At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet. The hair deals 1d4 points of damage (1d3 for a Small witch) plus the witch’s Intelligence modifier. In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair as a free action* without provoking an attack of opportunity, using her Intelligence modifier in place of her Strength modifier when making the combat maneuver check. When a white-haired witch grapples a foe in this way, she does not gain the grappled condition.
At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, a white-haired witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of 30 feet at 20th level.
The hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature.
In addition, a white-haired witch further improves her ability to control her hair as she progresses in level, gaining the following abilities:
Constrict (Ex): At 2nd level, when the white-haired witch’s hair successfully grapples an opponent, it can begin constricting her victim as a swift action*, dealing damage equal to that of its attack.
Trip (Ex): At 4th level, a white-haired witch who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to trip the creature as a swift action*.
Pull (Ex): At 6th level, a white-haired witch who successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a combat maneuver check to pull the creature 5 feet closer to her as a swift action*.
Strangle (Ex): At 8th level, when the white-haired witch’s hair is grappling with an opponent, that creature is considered strangled, and cannot speak or cast spells with verbal components.
This ability replaces hex."
I think most people assume this archetype is a Medusa from the Inhumans kind of thing. But nowhere is it written that you can actually do the same sort of cool third-hand things the hex allows you to.
Really think most DM's would assume this was an oversight, but they seem pretty RAW with these Pathfinder Society things.
@Malik - you have a plan, it's not a bad plan, and you can change it later fairly easily to add one feat if required. Also note that a lesser rod of intensified, rime or toppling spell costs 3 000 gp which will be affordable at some point.
Mechanically how does that work, for a Magus I mean?
Unless you have an uncommon build using a spiked gauntlet or unarmed strike, you have a weapon in one hand, while your off hand does ... somatic thingies.
If you have a rod in that hand I guess you can "somantify." Then you have the problem of what to do with rod afterwards. You can drop it, but isn't it a move action to tuck it in your belt or something? Guess you could have a Glove of Storing or something, I know I'd look into something like that if I were a Magus and wanted to use rods.
I really like the Wood mystery for making combatants, whether melee or archer (lotta feats though).
Looking up what "Warsighted" is, I can see how it would be handy in a lot of cases. But you lose 4 of your 6 revelations. I guess you can use your general feats on taking revelations, and use the Warsighted features to actually do combat stuff.
Have to really think about this one though. I mean if it is kinda iffy about whether taking this archetype is worth it (to me at least), how can it be the strongest divine caster?
Think Arcane Eye is a minute.
What has always puzzled me though is whether spells that have an extended casting time take the same amount of time if cast from an item or a scroll.
I would love my own "Eye of Agamotto." You know something that so many times per day can be used like the Arcane Eye spell. Only I don't want to take 1 minute to use it.
Davor Firetusk wrote:
That's my guess too, if you are talking fluff and not crunch.
No biggie, but a lot of the 3e Forgotten Realms stuff was recycled from the smorgasbord of 2e Faerun products (though some of that was 1e, but most 2e).
All these Golarion sourcebooks, and it still doesn't seem as big as the Realms was.
Personally I think an Inquisitor would be more fun to play and be more interesting.
But a Cleric would help your party a lot more I think.
And that last guy... people need to play what they want to play and have fun.
But if this were a party someone were making for a computer RPG, that last guy would be an arcane caster. Of course wizard would be best, though I prefer sorcerers and spontaneous casting.
Surprised no one mentioned the Holy Word/Blasphemy/Dictum/Word of Chaos spells.
Those things have some bad language (or did) in the description.
There was a whole 3.x build called "The Word" (along with his running mate "The Wish") built around those. You know The Word speaks, and his 105 CL for that spell ensure Cthulhu is utterly destroyed (since apparently you can't be immune to this spell except by being higher level than the effect).
Someone mentioned Spiritual Weapon as well. Think there is another one with "Chain" in it. Chain of Perdition?
Neither here nor there, but game designers don't seem to start out with something like a globe and fill it in.
Back in the days when Forgotten Realms was new and fresh, there was a wonky realization that based on game materials...
That the United States would fit inside the Western Heartlands. And that is just one small section of Faerun, itself just one continent on Toril.
Of course my Golarion setting feature that irks me is Irrisen, a land covered in eternal winter that somehow supports a reasonably large population by... imports I guess. Though considering who their neighbors are I don't really see how that one works.
Velcro Zipper wrote:
I think you should look into Roll 20 or something. Seems to me you have a ton of people who have played in this campaign, and were discontinued from it by ... life happening.
Just seems like you could easily find 6 former players who wouldn't mind getting back into the saddle, and people game online all the time these days.
Heck if you can't find former players, you could find them on this site pretty easily.
But I'm still hoping to see Walker and his assless chaps pop up again. Always got a mental image of Chuck Norriss dressed like one of the Village People wielding a whip and wearing a cowboy hat or indian headdress.
Ok I haven't played Pathfinder in a couple of years, and I never was really a Rules-Fu guy anyway.
But I am trying to make a woodsy, stealthy mounted mage.
Was looking at the Bloodrager archetype, and something puzzles me.
Here is the class feature I have a question about:
"Blood Bond (Su)
At 9th level, the bloodrider and his feral mount gain a closer bond that allows the bloodrider to augment his mount based on his bloodline. While the bloodrider is bloodraging and on his feral mount, he grants the mount all the immunities and resistances he gains from bloodline powers. Furthermore, whenever the bloodrager is affected by a spell or spell-like ability with the range of personal while on the feral mount, the feral mount also gains the benefit of that spell."
Now take the Fey bloodline powers:
"Confusing Critical (Su)
At 1st level, fey power courses through your attacks. Each time you confirm a critical hit, the target must succeed at a Will saving throw or be confused for 1 round. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your bloodrager level + your Constitution modifier. This is a mind-affecting compulsion effect.
At 4th level, you are able to leap over overgrowth and similar impediments with ease while charging. When you charge, you ignore difficult terrain (but not other creatures). You can move through it at normal speed, and it does not impede your charge.
At 8th level, you become a blur of motion when you move. As long as you move at least 10 feet, you gain the effects of blur for 1 round.
At 12th level, while bloodraging you’re treated as if you are under the effects of haste.
At 16th level, creatures of the animal or plant types don’t attack you unless compelled to do so by magic or you attack them first. Three times per day, you can transport yourself from one tree to another tree, as tree stride with half the transport range. Moving from one tree to another in this manner is a move action. You gain these abilities even while not bloodraging."
This archetype's Blood Bond feature doesn't state the mount gets the same bloodline powers. As I read this, the Fey feature of ignoring difficult terrain just would never apply.
Additionally there are a couple of Fey features that are spell like (Blur and Haste), but the range block for both of those have actual distances, not a range of "personal."
So, not only would my mount not get any str or other boosts from rage, not get any of the unique things like ignoring difficult terrain, but also wouldn't get the benefit of the spell like things such as Blur and Haste.
That seems totally useless to me. The mount will be more durable I guess, but definitely not worth taking this archetype.
I guess you could go Primalist archetype, but I'm not certain how Greater Ferocious Mount works with bloodline powers.
Seems like a cool idea, but the whole thing doesn't seem like works very well. Or at all honestly. What the heck were they thinking with the Bloodrider? If the mount shares all your bloodrage features it's one thing. But as written it seems totally useless.
I looked at the d20PFSRD and totally missed the Hunter. Have to check that out.
Really want spells to be a focus though, and never been keen on druids.
That Wood Elementalist/Scout Rogue sounds interesting though. But definitely not a combat monster.
Plus thinking about things some more, I can't see this particular campaign going high enough to worry about high level spells. But the Sorcerer essentially getting spells a class level later than the wizard (plus I most likely will multi-class slowing it down even more) makes wizard look even better.
Okay, I really haven't played any D&D/Pathfinder for close to two years, but I may be playing a game in a week or so.
I quit buying books even before that, so I am limiting myself to what is in the d20PFSRD thing.
Anyway I want to play something like a Sorcerer/Ranger(or a Cavalier Archetype/Barbarian?).
You know like one or two levels to accumulate some outdoorsy skills and abilities. And I actually want to use a mount (so Sylvan Sorcerer archetype?).
Okay, I know this concept is in no way optimal for anything, but I had this idea for a mounted wilderness scout/messenger guy, who relied a lot on spells.
One of my big things would be to be really stealthy (you know the guy you pick to go 50 miles into Mordor to see what's going on kind of thing). But I really can't see any good way to do that with an Animal Companion. I really want to be mounted, but I think I want to sneak more. Dunno maybe go for Phantom Steed?
As for combat kinds of things, I had some notion of doing things like casting Web between trees (will be forest/mountain terrain for outdoors stuff), and maybe casting an illusion of a honking big spider. Okay that is more like a trick/ambush thing, but you get the idea.
Anyway I realized I had a lot of questions about how things worked. If I want to share spells like Spider Climb, Jump, Expeditious Retreat, Fly, Tree Stride I still have to train or somehow convince my mount to go along with this?
And if anyone has any ideas about tactics and gear I'd appreciate it. Think we will start at 3rd level, maybe go to 10 or 12.
Was thinking Human, Half-Orc, or Half-Elf for race. Might be open to Halfling or Dwarf, but not my first pick.
Really want to avoid single classing, so definitely want something with a few levels in an outdoors class with weapon proficiencies.
Was actually thinking maybe Survivalist Rogue or something? I could use wands and spells to cast ray spells, but I won't have enough rogue levels for it to really matter. Plus I was really thinking to be the guy who cast a Pit Spell or Wall of Stone at the right time.
Kind of attached to the mount/Sylvan Sorcerer thing, but was also thinking that a Shadow Sorcerer archetype or even one of the Oracles might work better (if I did Oracle probably wouldn't multiclass).
Wow, I didn't expect to write this much stuff, but if anyone has any ideas I'd love some feedback. This really is more of a roleplay kind of thing than optimized, but was hoping to find some things that might make it interesting.
Thinking about it a little my best guess for a character built mainly to just survive would be a Paladin, Barbarian (that cookie cutter Invulnerable Rager/Beast Totem/Superstitious thing), or an Internal Alchemist with a Tumor Familiar.
I actually have the urge to roll up some kind of vaguely Germanic Alchemist now. One that loudly says all the time "I don't have a Tooommmmaaah!"
Or maybe a Geokineticist. Those things are supposed to be really sturdy.
Just for the heck of it, from your first post (dated June 1st, 2009):
"Our cast of characters:
Lord Antagonis the Generic - The ultimate, all-purpose, BBEG complete with Dick Dastardly-style moustache. He started this whole mess.
Ranoth - A human cleric of Pharasma. From a family with a long tradition of hunting the undead, Ranoth was imprisoned in the dungeon for attempting to cure the village of Falcon's Hollow of a plague. Though Ranoth failed to save the village, Antagonis viewed his actions as indicative of the sort of person who might someday challenge his rule and tossed him into the dungeon.
Marcus - A displaced elven fighter raised by a human merchant, Marcus lost his foster father to the plague that struck Falcon's Hollow. His association with Ranoth's quest to cure the plague earned him the ire of Antagonis.
Mina - A human monk and former servant of Antagonis. When Mina's monastery had expended it's usefulness to the dictator, he ordered his warriors to burn the school to the ground and kill all of the remaining monks. Mina escaped the carnage, but was eventually captured and sentenced to the dungeon.
Poker - A gnome rogue and murderer with a penchant for collecting trophies from his victims. Poker was arrested and sent to the dungeon for his crimes.
Lockwalt - An elven evoker whose miscasting of a Stinking Cloud scroll ruined Antagonis' view of the sunset. That was all the reason the petty lord needed to raze the wizard's academy to the ground and have Lockwalt thrown into the dungeon while the academy headmaster lost his head.
Foxy Loxy - Ranoth's pet firefoot fennec, and the party mascot. Foxy snuck into the dungeon after Antagonis' soldiers left the group to their fate."
All long dead. Sad.
Have you noticed any classes... more death resistant than others, like Paladins or Clerics maybe?
Really think the dungeon rules handicap a good bit of the normal defensive magic stuff.
Have you thought about seeing if any of your former players might be interested in playing again over the internet?
Don't really keep up with it anymore, but there are some good free software packages for doing this kind of thing now, and stuff like skype.
Might not be your cup of tea, but you could keep it rolling to the end.
I was taking another look at this, and was struck by something.
Were you influenced by the relatively recent ... I guess you could call them "campaign posters" by someone they had on the WOTC site?
It was a couple of years ago now, but they used a similar simple stylistic (more Darwin Cook than Greg Land) art style, with character images and lots of text. You know the ones that did Against the Giants, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, that sort of thing?
Let me get this straight.
Barry risked the lives of an INFINITE number of alternate universes to save the life of one guy. I guess you could stretch it and say the lives of everyone on his team.
But to save this one guy (Joe in this case, who knew the consequences and chose this path), he risked the lives of:
1) Everyone on Earth 2. That world's Iris, his alternate, his alternate's mom (and his dad?), all Jesse and Wells' friends...
2) His new BFF Supergirl. The people he met when he went there (Winslow, Jimmy, Cat, etc).
3) An INFINITE number of people on an INFINITE number of earths. An INFINITE amount of biomass in the form of trees and animals, etc.
And in typical comic book myopia, we aren't even considering the predicament of all the uncountable (as opposed to INFINITE) number of worlds that each of the INFINITE earths is located in, (so to speak).
That about right? All to save Joe?
Barry is rock stupid. Because with stakes like that...
Joe, Iris, Cisco, Caitlin, himself even - they are all expendable to avoid a disaster that isn't even conceivable. The concept is simple enough, but the scale of it isn't conceivable.
Frankly if I thought there were any chance of Barry getting out of that cell and giving Zoom what he wants, well I'd have administered poison gas into it and killed Barry myself, even if he were my son or something.
I'd also have congratulated him after beating Zoom, then put a bullet in his head "Sorry, but you are never, ever again, going to be in a position to do this again. You are a threat to the lives of so many others they can't be counted,... well whatever the speed force wants, I hope it goes away. Because it, like you, is an idiot."
Because I have an inkling of what INFINITE means, and I can imagine possible consequences of that, as opposed to genius Barry, genius Wells, genius Cisco...
Then, after this whole thing is resolved, Barry turns around and SAVES the mother he let die previously. Wham, out of the blue.
Not bothering to think of any of the ramifications of that. Of course the writers on this show are lazy as heck.
Now let's consider what happened on this show earlier in the season.
Once upon a time, Zoom was safely "stuck" on Earth Two (this is before he developed the ability to travel between worlds all by himself, originally he couldn't). He was dying. They all knew Zoom was dying, and had a doctor (medical professional, whatever)to confirm that fact.
All they have to do is wait, and poof no more Zoom. Instead they have to go and get him.
Then later, Wally gets snatched, and Barry gives a mass murderer his powers, saving his life, and freeing him to kill as many people as he wants, with no obvious way remaining to stop him from doing any of it.
I'd feel safer if the speed force took Barry's power away, and randomly picked someone out of the phone book to give them too.
Even another serial killer would be less likely to commit genocide on cosmic, even metaphysical scale, than emo Barry.
He's not worthy to be the Flash. I know that's the way he is written, but real heroes don't angst their way into insane decisions that have utterly ridiculous dire consequences to save the lives of any one person, no matter how dear to them.
Those are the actions of an idiot, not a hero.
Someone who used these abilities to steal stuff or rule the world would be a darn sight less dangerous than Barry Allen (at least this version of him).
I doubt it affects the popularity of the show at all, but I am very disappointed with whoever is writing this.
The problem with that is that the world is awash in surpluses of skilled labor.
What actually happens is that H1B visas are issued, for example, and the existing labor force finds itself replaced by cheaper labor, and finds its potential earnings curtailed versus what they would be in a market where this wasn't possible. All so that Microsoft and Facebook have a better bottom line for their Satanic Code Mills.
There is literally nothing (not even the common example of doctors), that requires an advanced degree or professional training that isn't in surplus in the developed world (kind of curious term, but I got nothing better).
And actually there is an argument that countries such as the US "braindrain" countries that train people to be doctors, then see them emigrate to the US (or UK) for higher earnings.
That said, there are other aspects of your argument that you aren't considering.
One is that we have a surplus of people like physicists and engineers. And have had for a long time. Every year people are doing their last postdoc at Fermilab and realizing "That faculty job somewhere? That... that isn't going to happen, is it."
Another is that the native born population finds opportunities for advancement curtailed because of the fact that the limited number of niches are already filled. In this case, they never bother to go through the credentialing process that the physicist I mentioned above went through. An example of this is employing Idris Elba on The Wire. Fat chance anyone from Baltimore gets a gig like that in England.
Now you can pull examples of atypical geniuses, and this is commonly referenced in arguments like this: Einstein, Von Neumann, Kurt Godel, etc. But they are uncommon, and even in periods where it was much more difficult to immigrate to this country, they were allowed in.
(As an aside check out Canada's official policies for legal immigration. You just are not emigrating there unless you are an actuarial benefit to that country. Or you do it illegally, claim you are a refugee, or just plain put a wad of cash down in an investment in Canada. And yes they have actual Canadian dollar amounts you can look up.)
But the whole developed is suffering from underemployment, and it is an increasing challenge to deal with it. Automation, laissez faire trade policies, and the like have contributed to it.
Well except for Asian nations. They never bought into all this free trade stuff, and are happily pursuing nationalistic trade policies.
Well the wealthy ones are.
Hmmm got curious and looked up the premise of these works you mentioned.
The Honorable Woman - Spy stuff
Hustle - Con men stuff (my god they got that many seasons out of it?)
The Fall - Serial Killer/Police stuff
Mr Selfridge - After looking this up, I realize I watched this for a few minutes once. A department store magnate? Just before WWI? The British TV market really is different.
Not sure what to say. Things that deal with topics like this don't pique my interest at all. Sorry I didn't know they even existed.
What's your source for this? I caught one a few years ago with Robert Downey playing... Sherlock Holmes. I'm guessing that was an English production, looked like it was shot in London (of course) if memory serves. Though it could have been a US concern on location.
I've heard of Hustle. Drawing a blank on the others.
As for why I care, I think the question is rather why the rest of you don't. It just seems ludicrous to me to freely give fame and a large paycheck to a British actor when you could just as easily give it to an American one.
And as I've said, or at least intimated, there's nothing these actors are doing that Americans can't. Particularly for the roles we are talking about in this thread.
Let's consider... Tom Cruise for a moment. Does anyone really think you couldn't flip through a rolodex of actors and pick one that could play in Mission Impossible? Or any of a number of other movies he's been in?
The script and the production are the thing. And the same with any of the Superhero/comic book movies (which I understand have been the most profitable sector of movie making for a few years now).
So I'm saying, all things being equal, or considering the fact that who you cast doesn't really matter (as long as they have the right look and can "act"), give the money, give the career advancement to an American.
It's nationalism. It's mercantilism of a sort. And I am totally comfortable and approving of these sentiments.
So where did this data come from? Does that Guinneas magazine carry movie stats, like it does for music?
Wow. I was trying to do a google to find out who the early 70's artist was on Doctor Strange. Didn't find it, but found this quote on wikipedia from Roy Thomas:
"Thomas recalled in 2000 that he returned to work a day late from a weekend comic book convention to find that Marvel production manager Sol Brodsky had assigned Doctor Strange to writer Archie Goodwin, newly ensconced at Marvel and writing Iron Man. Thomas convinced Brodsky to allow him to continue writing the title. "I got very possessive about Doctor Strange," Thomas recalled. "It wasn't a huge seller, but [by the time it was canceled] we were selling the low 40 percent range of more than 400,000 print run, so it was actually selling a couple hundred thousand copies [but] at the time you needed to sell even more.""
Times have changed.
Sorry if that bores anyone. I find these kinds of numbers very interesting. By the standards of the 1970's the kinds of sales figures that are considered runaway successes now would have led to immediate cancellation.
Not sure how viable the big two are without the movie ventures that have arisen in the past decade or so. There are independent publishers that are doing ok without movies being made from their stuff, but they are very different operations from DC and Marvel.
The keyword is Ditko. It's been close to 50 years since he worked on this title, but he is still considered the great artist on this character.
There have been some other artists who have done really neat things with the character over the years... and some who haven't done as good a job.
I don't remember his name, but in the early 70's there was an artist on the title that did the psychedelic illustrations pretty well himself. Only thing is his Strange was muscular (like all the other Marvel characters for the most part). I've always preferred the more slight Doctor Strange.
"One of the reasons that film companies have seen blockbuster flops happen more frequently in the last few years is because they took the exact approach you suggest with directors."
Right, and managing the whole thing is exactly the same thing as being an actor. That is not a very good example.
"Being able to make a 2 minute YouTube video is absolutely nothing like major film production."
I'd say it is a LOT like a movie if all you are interested in is the end product. The difference is the length it runs, and what technology makes possible. Although technology is going to have to go a long way before some of what I can imagine happening does.
There is another difference. What I am thinking of doesn't have the long logistics train that even a minor picture has. What I am thinking of are renderings that are animated as actors. One person, or a small group, and a whole lot of computer power.
If you are comfortable, as I am, with cartoon renderings, instead of photorealistic ones we are just about there.
I have no problem imagining that it will be possible to do the same with photorealistic ... agents? whatever you want to call them. Not sure of how long it will take before it reaches the mass market stage (note that some organizations can do this already). A decade? Two (probably not)? Not sure, Moore's law is reaching the end at least as regards miniaturizing things. But more computing power is coming. And one day a geeky dude sitting in his apartment will be able to generate a movie.
It might take him two years. Three years. But it will be doable. And no actors, no payroll, no key grips, no hardware like cameras...
And by definition special effects won't be an issue at that point.
Heck I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't done a soap opera or something with a Sims hack.
"Frankly, though, your point boils down to nationalistic chest pounding, combined with an unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities."
And lastly, I think you misunderstand the phrase "chest pounding." I haven't pounded my chest at all. I'd invite you to go back and read my posts, but I imagine you won't.
So if someone makes an issue of how it seems to be a raw deal for American actors to lose roles to UK ones, while there never seems to be any corresponding employment of American actors by UK concerns...
That's chest pounding.
No it isn't.
And as regards the "unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities"...
Well I have a very regard for my own opinion. BECAUSE IF I DIDN'T I WOULD HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
And as regards abilities? Nah. More accurate to say I have contempt for most of what I see on television and in movies. Sometimes something comes along that is good.
But most of it is crap. Junk. Garbage. Not very good. Do I need to get a thesaurus?
Yep. Welding industry and convenience stores are exactly like movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And all actors are interchangeable. And it's super easy. And no one is capable of giving bad performances. You've nailed it. I would send my resume' to all the major studios if I were you. I'm sure there will be a bidding war over who will fire their studio head to hire you.
If you are going to use sarcasm, you need to do it effectively.
My point was that there are lots of people who have the ability to play these roles and could do well at them.
So why do they seem to hire people who cost a lot of money? Mainly because they have already been in other movies, and people recognize them. It's part of the attraction of a movie... the "brand" of the actor you are employing.
And while you can't just pick someone randomly off the street and stick them in front of a camera, you don't have to. THEY COME TO YOU, and they have already filtered themselves.
And yeah, you can pick one of these hard working people from a casting call ... and build a new brand. Not to mention that Hollywood types have done it many times over the years with their relatives.
Interestingly enough while reading various articles during the course of responding to individuals such as yourself in this thread, I came across a figure. And that figure was that the US film industry only averaged about 9 billion in profit per year.
That's a big figure to a private individual. But for something that has inspired so much effort to rise to the top of that field for such an extended period of time, well that's just not a lot of money.
So yeah, maybe Hollywood could use new blood. Actually it's kind of surprising it doesn't have more competition, even from within the US, let alone the emerging entertainment centers across the globe.
And in the not so long run, I think technology is going to reduce the cost of production, and enable private individuals and groups to do things you needed teams of experts to accomplish before.
And as a personal opinion, and I think it is a good one: Hollywood scripts suck from a storytelling viewpoint. Not to mention an overall lack of cleverness.
Undoubtedly most of us have spent time looking at Youtube videos made by ... well lots of people. Some of them are very clever. Very clever. And yes, I can imagine a day when clever people, alone or as part of a group, are going to be able to complete works that can compete with Hollywood.
Heck the amateurs are taking it to the porn industry (and I bet the profit margins on that beat Hollywood up until the past decade or so).
But as long as you are mocking, yes I think the premise, plot, and dialogue of most movies and tv isn't very good. And yes, I think I could do better than most of it. And I think lots of other people could do that as well, or probably better than I could.
Though I'm not sure I would want that life, and frankly the thought of it doesn't seem very interesting.
Well, the obvious thing to do is to avoid seeing movies with British actors.
Well that pretty much rules out most modern movies doesn't it? They are all over the place now, from Brokeback Mountain to our Hood.
And seek out British movies with American ones, if you actually care to encourage that.
That's interesting. Can you name one? Wait, I think I saw a few in some of the James Bond films.
You can of course continue to talk about it here, in the hopes others will join you, but I doubt you'll have much success.
Doesn't matter. I'm making a point.
I included him for the sake of completeness. The first MCU Hulk appearance is a loose sequel to Ang Lee's film, so I felt excluding him was a greater sin. If I had done the same to the Netflix and TV shows, then I would not have counted the Daredevil film, as they're not considered to take place in the same universe at all.
My understanding is Daredevil is set in the same continuity as the Marvel films. They reference the events of Avengers, and Hell's Kitchen is being rebuilt from the destruction the invasion caused.
I think that makes a point, only not the one you think you are making.
Also Gwyneth Paltrow bats for Team UK (actually she is playing cricket). She ought to go through the immigration process and make it official. We are too schlubby or something for her refined tastes.
But ignoring any quibbles about whether the Ang Lee Hulk movie should count, that's 8/28 or 28.5% of leading roles going to non-US actors.
Actually I'd play with the numbers some, Canada may have it's own nationalistic tendencies but they have employed our actors on occasion. So they don't bug me.
But taking your numbers at face value, you don't see anything absurd about that 28.5% number for roles that are as American as it gets? (Except for the folks like Red Skull, Arnim Zola, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver.)
As for the rest of it... Other people have noticed the same effect, so I'm not creating the agenda.
But I'd be proud to have created it. And proud to own it.
And here's the final thing I'll mention. You said that you could peruse a list of people who graduated from five years of Yale's drama program, then only look at people who have kept at the dream. Well...what do you think the people who have managed to clinch one of these roles have been doing? Every one of those actors - American, British, Canadian, whatever - has put in their time. They'd gone to casting calls when they were nobodies. They'd gone to acting schools to learn the craft. They'd been in movies and shows and plays that nobody remembers. And yes, they got lucky. One of those performances was really, really good, and it got them noticed, which gave them an opportunity that wasn't available before. That's how it goes.
Have you ever interviewed someone for a job? What I'm going to mention is common to all of them, though more common for "professional" jobs.
It's pretty rare to have a job that only a few people can fill. What happens is you get a bunch of resumes with people who could all pretty much do the job.
So what do you do? If you are like most people, you hire the one you like the best. Or the one that has an "in" of some sort. Or the one with the least objectionable personal habits, whatever.
Skilled tradespeople are a little different. It's more common to find things like only a couple of the guys you are looking at can do something like weld pressure vessels, or something else that takes a real knack. Though a lot of this type of thing can be done by just about anyone with training and experience.
I've got a friend who owned and operated a couple of convenience stores for a while. Pretty much the only thing he looked for was showing up on time, not using drugs, and not stealing. The actual job could be performed by anyone who would actually try at all (and some of the ones who met his other criteria didn't).
Now you might say that acting is like one of the skilled trades I mentioned. I tend to think it isn't. It's more like finding someone who can write SQL queries or read and understand the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (and who checked the educational boxes necessary for our regulatory system to say "Hey, that's ok.").
Once again, I'll say I think there are a lot of people who could pull it off.
Plus for Pete's Sake, this is a comic book movie. Hamming it up and chewing scenery (like my favorite Enterprise captain) is probably a better play than mixing a delicate bouquet of angst and pathos.
I mean do you need to go to Oxford to utter "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!" or any of Stan Lee's cosmic whining?
See my way, we keep the money in the family as it were. Our new star buys his coke, pays his taxes, and hires his lawyers here, and keeps the economy going. And one day my prospective guy has some screen cred, then he and Ol' Cumberbatch compete for a role (well assuming the person hiring for that hasn't embraced my nationalistic, mercantile agenda). Then maybe our boy has some more entries on that body of work.
And he is our boy. Cumberbatch isn't.
And don't be misled by the pronouns. My agenda works for women as well, though from reading on this matter, it affects them less than men.
And then one halcyon day we have something like Game of Thrones, where the producers don't feel compelled to hire people because they have accents minted in the UK.
I actually looked at doing something like this once.
Think I was going to Storm subdomain, and Ocean subdomain.
You get some attack spells as domain spells, but you get a lot of "control" type spell like abilities with a reasonably high dc.
Surge (Su): As a standard action, you can cause a mighty wave to appear that pushes or pulls a single creature. Make a combat maneuver check against the target, using your cleric level + your Wisdom modifier as your CMB. If successful, you may pull or push the creature as if using the bull rush or drag combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Cold Resistance (Ex): At 6th level, you gain resist cold 10. This resistance increases to 20 at 12th level. At 20th level, you gain immunity to cold.
Domain Spells: 1st—obscuring mist, 2nd—slipstream, 3rd—water walk, 4th—control water, 5th—ice storm, 6th—cone of cold, 7th—elemental body IV (water only), 8th—horrid wilting, 9th—tsunami."
Storm Burst (Sp): As a standard action, you can create a storm burst targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The storm burst deals 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point for every two cleric levels you possess. In addition, the target is buffeted by winds and rain, causing it to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Gale Aura (Su): At 6th level, as a standard action, you can create a 30-foot aura of gale-like winds that slows the progress of enemies. Creatures in the aura cannot take a 5-foot step. Enemies in the aura treat each square that brings them closer to you as difficult terrain. They can move normally in any other direction. You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. The rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Domain Spells: 1st—obscuring mist, 2nd—fog cloud, 3rd—call lightning, 4th—sleet storm, 5th—call lightning storm, 6th—sirocco, 7th—control weather, 8th—whirlwind, 9th—storm of vengeance."
Definitely looks solid as a build (you can't really do a lot of customizing till you get some levels and gear).
I get confused a lot of times with all the classes and archetypes, but if there is any way this NPC can use a shield and still cast, I think it might be wise of her to do so.
Two AC isn't a lot, but things are awful swingy at first level and her AC is only 14.
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of.
"The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean, and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions exist, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.
The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Mya may have been triggered by the first appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, the "Great Oxygenation Event."
"The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in the Earth's coverage of snow and ice. The increase in Earth's coverage of snow and ice would in turn increase the Earth's albedo, which would result in positive feedback for cooling. If enough snow and ice accumulates, runaway cooling would result."
"Global temperature fell so low that the equator was as cold as modern-day Antarctica. This low temperature was maintained by the high albedo of the ice sheets, which reflected most incoming solar energy into space. A lack of heat-retaining clouds, caused by water vapor freezing out of the atmosphere, amplified this effect."
"A tremendous glaciation would curtail photosynthetic life on Earth, thus letting the atmospheric oxygen be drastically depleted and perhaps even disappear, and thus allow non-oxidized iron-rich rocks to form.
Detractors argue that this kind of glaciation would have made life extinct entirely."
There's more in the link. I just picked parts to paste. But to make a long story short, if glaciers cover the entirety of the earth (with no free ocean at the equator), it's "Game over Man."
Well at least until volcanos pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere. With no way for rocks to weather, the CO2 will build up in the atmosphere with no way for the CO2 to be removed via the normal carbon cycle.
So it unfreezes one day, but Gaia has to start all over. Although the Casket might totally overweigh the Greenhouse effect...
Well from the link some speculate that some life (and it's usually the small stuff like plankton) would have been able to survive being frozen... for a long time, waiting only to be melted down and begin again.
The party made their choice: Thonnir's 17-year-old daughter Val.
She's going along as an NPC? A wizard I guess?
Might have been a better idea to make her a cleric or something. The party has two arcane casters even if partial casters.
Melee and healing seem like their weakness as a party.
I guess they could use strategy to get around things. But nah, no one ever does that. It's full speed into the hurt.
Nope. I have never heard of Curly Fu and/or Peanut. And if Sherlock is a big thing worldwide I missed it.
Is this the version where he has flashbacks to some kind of 19th century docket, even though it is apparently set in the modern period?
I vaguely remember this version having someone with black hair. That one Cumberbatch?
Not a game I've played often.
Will say George Clooney would be a dead ringer for Strange if he grew the right kind of moustache.
Other than that, it doesn't seem to be his kind of thing though.
Johnny Depp (the skinny version) has the right kind of look as well. Take the moustache he wore in Ed Wood, and call it a day (along with some white above the ears).
Actually though, I'm going to turn this question on you. The first thought that goes through your head is that it must be an actor... you've already seen in something else.
So why do you think that? You could say something about them having shown their skills and being a known quantity.
But how did they get to that point? Someone cast them.
See this is the point where our world views differ. I think I could peruse a list of people who graduated from oh, say Yale's Drama program. I'll say five years worth. Then I'll prune it to those who have stuck to chasing the dream, working stock theater, community theater, going to auditions...
And I'll find a number of people with the right look (cause that is important to the fanboys if no one else), who can pull off the role.
Of course my world view also explains why so many Hollywood types are related to other Hollywood types. And how Tori Spelling got picked for 90210. Not that her acting was any worse than anyone else's in that show. She just wasn't as classically attractive as the other ones on that show. If she was Spelling's daughter, no way she gets that role over any of the endless series of hot wannabees.
What's your point? The hand of god is going to reach down and give someone a big paycheck and put them in the spotlight.
Or I suppose what you are saying is that actors from the UK are much better than ones from the US.
A point I don't believe, and believe even less the more reading I do on this.
There are actually a number of articles (as the fellow above mentioned) about this, going back a few years now.
There is also a Key and Peele skit about this (which is hard to find actually, not on youtube apparently), called "British Thug Life," in which an actor who is actually from the streets finds the director much prefers another actor from the UK. For the type of role which was pretty much his life story.
Look you guys seem to think that being an actor is some kind of innate talent or the result of years of hard training that only a few gifted people can master.
It's not. Sure you have to work at it, but we have lots of people here who live in LA, do the side job thing, do community theater, work out to be buff, etc.
To take the case of Thor, I have no doubt that there are more than a few 6'4" or so buff bodies in LA that could handle that role.
And as Honest Trailers said about the guy who played Superman in the Man of Steel remake, "He has the acting range of a crumpet."
You see I just can't buy that a country of 300+ million people is incapable of producing actors who could fill the roles that have been given to these guys.
And as for why it matters? It matters to me. When I see a role that could easily go to an American, and would enable them to have the career they have dreamed of...
Well I have my fellow American's back, no questions asked, no quarter given, and no apologies uttered. Sucks to be you Cumberbatch.
Incidentally I did some googling on Nepal and movies. Looks a whole lot like a bunch of Bollywood stuff (like I was expecting). Really drawing a blank on what aspect of Cumberbatch's career made him a household name in Nepal.
Though to be fair, you can't blame these guys for taking what is freely given. Seems to me we need different people calling the shots when it comes to casting and film making.
So how did it happen? I mean he became adored in Nepal?
The link under the name Cumberbatch, had this association:
"The answer lies in Cumberbatch’s teenage years — specifically when the 19-year-old Brit spent time teaching English to Tibetan monks in the state of West Bengal in eastern India. “It was a very unfair exchange,” says the Sherlock star. “Basically, they taught me reams, fathoms, more than I could possibly begin [to teach them]. I became interested the meeting point between Western logic and Eastern mysticism.”"
That's not really the kind of thing that's going to make you a celebrity a few years later.
And looking at his filmography... well I dunno. Cant' say I have insight into the heart of Nepal, but it seems a stretch to me that movies about Charles Darwin's dark night of the soul, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28film%29, are going to lead to this:
"there were girls that were crying and hugging each other when they saw him go by. It was really remarkable.”
Maybe I don't get Nepal, but this seems like a wee bit of a stretch. So how did it happen? Is it because he has already had a number of roles in movies? Roles which someone else could had, and gotten notoriety for?
Or is there some unique quality of his Englishness, that just resonates in this part of the world?
As for some of the better known movies he has apparently been in, like Star Trek: Into Darkness, an American could just as easily have been cast. And used to advance his career, not to mention pocketing the cash.
Related to that, is something that you used to see on occasion.
Let's say a series has a number of one, two, even three issue stories. But in the background, a panel or two here, one there, something is cooking behind the scenes.
The Great Darkness Saga had little things running in the background leading up to it.
The Korvac saga had a buildup going on for a couple of years before they really started the storyline.
I agree with your point, the ability of writers to write a one issue story is kind of lacking now (along with the short story becoming a lost art form).
But one of the unique things about comics is that they also on occasion develop things that can take years to come about.
Another example of that would be the Hobgoblin storyline in Spiderman, though the writer totally screwed that one up when he took over (think Peter David?). He made a plot recovery, but I remember reading an anecdote by him saying that he killed Ned Leeds before he got a chance to read through all the backstory that had been developing, then it was "Oh Crap, it had to be him."
And one of the hallmarks of the first DC crisis story was how it was integrated in continuity in the DC books leading up to it.
Something they have tried to imitate with the later ones to mixed success.
Mad Hatter as a mass murderer? Ugh.
Thing is that can work. Gail Simone is a quirky writer, as in she can produce first rate work on some kinds of books, and fall flat on her face in other kinds.
I mean imagine Gail Simone writing Green Lantern for example. And she may be a big Wonder Woman fan, but she just isn't the writer for that character. (Though I think her writing something like the Demon would be interesting.)
But the point is she wrote a totally lunatic version of Mad Hatter in Secret Six, and it worked. Actually he was a little more... twisted than than something so mundane as a serial killer.
As for the rest of what you wrote... I've read a lot of Grant Morrison's stuff. He does well on some things. For example he excels at telling sentimental stories (Flex Mentallo, We 3, etc). Occasionally he can even pull off the crazy crap he indulges in (Animal Man, Doom Patrol), though it doesn't even make sense then. The ride is worth going along with it all.
But he usually falls flat on his face, see The Invisibles (dreck), and his ... unfortunate spin at a DC crisis.
But in the end he is Lucifer staring up into the heavens gazing upon God (that would be Alan Moore), and saying "I could so kick his ass."
Oh, I was assuming the Hulk could equal the performance of the vintage WWI artillery piece I referenced in that excerpt.
Using that the Hulk is going to leave the ground at a much higher velocity than that the other poster posited, which is simply based on assuming the Hulk can leap 3 miles.
I'm assuming he can jump as far as an artillery shell can be launched.
Actually I think it would be impossible for him to do that though, if you use anything like real world physics.
I used some figures I thought I remembered from Handbook of the Marvel Universe one (and the opening blurb at the top of comic books that used to be there up till the 80s).
"Seven feet tall, 1000 pounds of jade jawed fury," or something with Stan Lee hyperbole.
The problem with the hulk is that he doesn't have an "extended" time to maintain force.
Assume the Hulk is two meters tall (close to 7 feet). Say his legs are half that and about a meter in length. No matter the force he can exert he can only do it as long as his feet are in touch with the ground (and still extending).
As soon as he has exerted enough force to lift the center of mass of his 1000 pounds more than 1 meter off the ground, he is no longer in contact with the ground and cannot apply more force.
It sounds wonky, but just playing around a little bit I didn't think I could solve it with algebra (though maybe related rates). You get a very simple differential equation (or you could just call it a calculus problem at that point).
What I'm saying is I don't think it is possible for anything to leap like the Hulk does (yeah I know he is pretty much impossible for a number of reasons), because of ... well action and reaction for one thing. He is accelerating his body upwards from the beginning; when he has enough impulse to rise further from the ground than his legs are long, he can't generate more.
You can speculate that his legs flex really quickly (super speed quickly), but the laws of action and reaction still apply the same as always (this is actually the part where you run into calculus).
But when you consider that the Hulk can gain and lose about 850 pounds every time he transforms, and somehow turns his pants into incredibly elastic purple ones every time he transforms, well...