| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, you sound a tad more bitter than anyone here.
Ok so you're saying you agree it's physically impossible to have an average encounter length of 7+ (or that, at least, this is a sensible argument)? All I can say is that if you think this, you're wrong, objectively. (One of the few ways to be objectively wrong is to argue something is impossible, because all it takes is one counterexample).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, you sound a tad more bitter than anyone here.
Ok so you're saying you agree it's physically impossible to have an average encounter length of 7+ (or that, at least, this is a sensible argument)? All I can say is that if you think this, you're wrong, objectively. (One of the few ways to be objectively wrong is to argue something is impossible, because all it takes is one counterexample).
Oh look a straw man
Let's play find where Chromantic says he agrees with Anzyr shall we?
Well, you seem to at least think that it's a sensible argument. Maybe you don't agree with him, but you seem to be confused by the people that don't agree with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you seem to at least think that it's a sensible argument. Maybe you don't agree with him, but you seem to be confused by the people that don't agree with him.
I don't know how I could be more clear, I am annoyed by people constantly strawmanning him because they disagree with him. Such behaviour completely destroys rational discussion and doesn't actually resolve anything.
I haven't weighed in with my opinion on what is in my opinion an untterly pointless argument and derail of the thread at all.
I disagree that such strawmanning occured, and if it did occur it happened because he was not clear in his early argument (which I disagree was as clear as you say he was) and that confused things. I also disagree that there was a ton of bitterness, besides a few people being exasperated at their arguments being more or less cast aside as irrelevant or being considered houserules.
This IS derailing, but I really do hate when people make discussions seem more negative than they actually were. I defended you and Anzyr earlier, now I have to defend the people you guys were arguing against.
I disagree that such strawmanning occured, and if it did occur it happened because he was not clear in his early argument (which I disagree was as clear as you say he was) and that confused things. I also disagree that there was a ton of bitterness, besides a few people being exasperated at their arguments being more or less cast aside as irrelevant or being considered houserules.
This IS derailing, but I really do hate when people make discussions seem more negative than they actually were. I defended you and Anzyr earlier, now I have to defend the people you guys were arguing against.
Good to know you disagree with me, I mean they literally said he said things he didn't and then argued them so you're wrong but that's fine. ;)
if you thinks it's derailing to have this conversation don't have it, perception of bitterness is not something you can rationally argue so if your problem is with people making the thread out to be worse than it is arguing over it is pointless, except for to further embitten the thread.
I don't remember asking you to defend me or you defending mefor that matter, please don't act as a knight in shining armour to then throw it back in someone face.
EDIT: actually no-one has attacked my character and nor have I attacked anyone's character so you can't have defended me or anyone from me. You just agreed with people or disagreed with them and voiced your reasoning. I don't know where this defence stuff comes from.
It wasn't my intention to "act as a knight in shining armor", I was just bringing it up because I was arguing along very similar lines earlier in the topic, for very similar reasons. It was just an aside simply meant to provide evidence that this is something I do care about... Having read your edit, I do want to say that you really do seem to be assuming I was saying more than I was. I was just referencing where I argued that people, which included you at the time, weren't making BadWrongFun commentary. It wasn't a *strong* defense of anything beyond that, it just came from the same motivation as this argument, so I mentioned it.
Anyway... I think you're ultimately right, arguing over this was pointless. I had hoped it wouldn't be but this is definitely not turning out to be as productive of a conversation as I hoped (especially once that page flipped, leaving this almost the only thing on the page >_<). At least part of that is my fault, so I'm willing to drop it if you are.
Sure fine by me.
|
If the multiple groups of enemies are multiple encounters than you understand you average per encounter yes? If Encounter 2 joins with Encounter 1 and takes 9 rounds, that's an average of 4.5 rounds for encounter 1 and 2. Please tell me you understand that.
This is where the disagreement is coming from. If we are disagreeing about the definition of an encounter, of course we're disagreeing about average length! Many posters would call one encounter what Anzyr is calling several different encounters.
I would argue that if you don't leave initiative, it's all one encounter. Thus, you can make an encounter take 50 rounds if you want, just keep having more enemies show up. (I'm not saying that this encounter would be at all fun, but it's possible).
Anzyr would instead take that encounter and call it many different encounters. I think he would divide it each time more enemies show up, but I'm not sure. What he calls encounters 1 and 2 above I would still consider to be just one encounter. Thus, the denominator when taking the average is 1, not 2, giving an average length of 9.
Yeah we know.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the problem with magic users' power levels compared with everyone else comes from the evolution of D&D into 3rd ed and then to 3.5 and PF.
For some reason (I believe I know why but it's too long to delve into it right now) Wizards and other high level casters (remember Clerics and Druids were not casting up to 9th level in previous editions) lost their connection to party role and became essentially a class capable of anything due to the spell system while most other classes kept their defined roles. So today you have people asking why should they play "one trick ponies" like fighters when they can play wizards. On the other hand nerfing wizards too much wouldn't be fair and would alienate a lot of people.
How to solve this?
For PF you don't and need a new edition of the game. This doesn't need to be an hard nerf. What needs to be tweaked is the spells system. As rule of thumb the more powerful and game changing the spells the more difficult to pull them off requiring party assistance in doing so.
The idea is you cannot shape reality by just snapping your fingers and burning up a diamond or some such valuable item. Some spells need to remain unchanged, some may even be buffed, others need nerfs especially with casting time and duration. Also spells making skills redundant should have extremely limited space in the game.
Basically magic needs to stay powerful but it doesn't need to be easy or cheap. Keep in mind very few fantasy tropes support the "god wizard" archetype some players rumble on about in PF.
In Lord of the Rings Gandalf is basically a Solar (and he actually dies when he defeats the Balrog anyway, then the gods reincarnate him as Gandalf the white).
In Wheel of Time sorcerers are extremely powerful but their magic risks to burn them to cinders and the male ones are fated to go mad.
In Song of Ice and Fire magic can accomplish great things (like shattering a continent or reviving the dead) but it's also very elusive and always comes with a cost.
In the world of Warhammer magic is a reflection of the emotions of living beings and is causing the end of the world. Users need to be built to use it innately (like elves and even them risk corruption) or have extraordinary willpower. Some races use safer methods to harness magic but the effects they can accomplish are limited (Dwarves have invented runes).
In the World of Darkness magic is all powerful and shapes reality but at the same time reality strikes back and packs a lot more punch than any single skilled magic user. So, no matter if you are a master capable of causing nuclear fusion and melt a megalopolis, you do that and reality squashes you down like a bug (due to backlash and paradox).
Magic in Ars Magica is really powerful but has clear limitations (no travel above the lunar sphere for example, no meddling with souls, etc) and there's something even more powerful around (the divine).
There's a thousand ways to limit magic and make it interesting. D&D used to have some (not the best ones imo but they existed). Since 3rd edition those limits were removed and the base caster classes weere made stronger and self reliant, skipping their mandated party roles being able to do anything. That's where Paizo should look if they were to do Pathfinder 2.0 and wanted to reduce or solve the martial - caster disparity (or the casters > anyone else's disparity more correctly).
So, back on target...
It's been said before, but I think Spheres of Power has an excellent design philosophy when it comes to balancing magic. It reduces the overall power and versatility of magic, while at the same time giving casters some quality of life boosts. It's hard to complain about the power loss when casting is also easier than it's ever been (that, uh, isn't a challenge, i'm sure people can manage it).
What I really like about SoP magic is that most of the individual spells scale, in spell DC at least. So you end up with less sheer variety, and the power level is capped to mostly sane levels, but the spells you can cast will always be relevant. No more constant upgrading of spells. It also makes multiclassing easier.
I think that's a good ideal to shoot for, the tricky part is figuring out how to apply that to Vancian casting without a whole magic rework the way Spheres did it.
PS: Kyrt have you ever posted your houserules? You mention them often, and I'm curious about the details.
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.I think the basic idea 4e had regarding magic was a good one. To wit, you have combat magic that is useful, but not especially world-shaping, and is limited by the same sorts of rules that everybody else's combat powers were, and then you have out-of-combat ritual magic for things like "teleportation" and "contacting other planes" that worked on fundamentally different rules. Honestly, the main alteration I would do to this is to make *everybody* capable of out-of-combat ritual magic. That right there resolves a significant portion of the C/M disparity.
My big issue with 4e, and the reason I didn't play it so much, was that combat took *so very* long to get through and the game basically does not take well to streamlining. But people like and dislike things for lots of disparate (and often contradictory) reasons.
My buddy really wanted to DM it, and bought the top sub, so he could design encounters in a flash and we could do our PCs on line and print them in glorious color. Combats ran smoothly and the game was fun.
Again, great DM, good table- it doesnt matter which edition.
Dude i spent a LOT of time on those wotc boards, and yeah, it was very much what they said they wanted, up until they got it4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
Uh no? The only point it (arguably at best) fulfilled was that it brought martials and casters into balance regarding narrative power. Largely because 4E got rid of most forms of narrative power.
I don't know who they made 4E for, but it certainly was not the old WotC board crowd.
Heck it's what many of the posters here want; Total caster martial balance, almost no Vancian Magic, and so forth. "Be careful what you wish for.... you may get it." But it did teach Paizo and WotC that a small group of very vocal posters is not really the market that br4ings in sales. ;_)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if the GM were to actively limit what spells prepared spellcasters can learn and keep the number relatively low, then you honestly wouldn't have a problem with prepared casters. If the Wizard has to choose from "what spells he or she has found in loot piles" instead of "every spell printed, more or less" that's a lot more manageable since the GM gets to determine what's in the loot piles.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like limiting casters because I think it's more fun to boost martials. Simple as that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck it's what many of the posters here want; Total caster martial balance, almost no Vancian Magic, and so forth. "Be careful what you wish for.... you may get it." But it did teach Paizo and WotC that a small group of very vocal posters is not really the market that br4ings in sales. ;_)Dude i spent a LOT of time on those wotc boards, and yeah, it was very much what they said they wanted, up until they got it4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
Uh no? The only point it (arguably at best) fulfilled was that it brought martials and casters into balance regarding narrative power. Largely because 4E got rid of most forms of narrative power.
I don't know who they made 4E for, but it certainly was not the old WotC board crowd.
My opinion of the whole situation - I think 4E is a great RPG, just not one I wanted to play. Three big things - one of which I never see discussed, but I think it plays into it - and why the perfect storm of events that gave us pathfinder likely won't be replicated.
1 - Marketing. 3.5 was nowhere finished as a game - people still wanted new material. However sales of core books were slowing, and new books were turning to even smaller niches of customers. They had to adapt or die - and so they went to 4E. They couldn't just market 4E (I think) like 3E had been marketed. 2E had a lot of players, but people were ready for a new edition. 3E was it. 4E didn't have that huge desire so they went with mocking what came before - alienated the playerbase.
2- rules we talk about - caster/martial similarity and design goals - per encounter balance, so everyone could do something on the battlefield, and a huge focus on combat. One they got that math fixed it was a very elegant and tight game - balanced to an extent, and everyone that wanted balanced combat (in the guise of not wanting QWLF) got it. I felt the design was fairly "indie" in it's approach. otehr boards I frequent loves 4E - quite common was "The first D&D I actually liked playing" but of course where does that leave players who did like playing other D&D.
3- and this is the one I don't see mentioned much, but it had a huge impact. Descending into 3-fold path terminology here, so excuse that (it works for what I am saying). In ways 3E was simulationist - rule were there specifically to enforce the world design. They did that good or less good depending on rule and person, but that seems to be what was intended. Previous versions of D&D had that - mostly in the idea that the world had different things and you could easily blunder into something way outside your level. The GM made or ran the world, and the PCs explored it. 4E is much more "gamist" - the fact that you can have the same creature but it is a boss at one point, a normal monster at another and a minion at another - because the power of the PCs go up, the design of the enemy changes, but the creature those three stat blocks describe is the same creature - That is just one example. As someone who prefers "simulationist" that was something I really hated. "If it is the same monster it should have the same write up dang it!" as it were. This changed the feel and approach of the game (to better make it very balanced in combat) - but I am sure a lot of people with that change were the ones that said "this doesn't feel like D&D" and not even know why, it was just "off" to them.
This isn't a bash against 4E by any means, but I think any one of those problems not being there might have made a very different result.
Just one persons opinion.
end of thread drift for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the multiple groups of enemies are multiple encounters than you understand you average per encounter yes? If Encounter 2 joins with Encounter 1 and takes 9 rounds, that's an average of 4.5 rounds for encounter 1 and 2. Please tell me you understand that.
This is where the disagreement is coming from. If we are disagreeing about the definition of an encounter, of course we're disagreeing about average length! Many posters would call one encounter what Anzyr is calling several different encounters.
I would argue that if you don't leave initiative, it's all one encounter. Thus, you can make an encounter take 50 rounds if you want, just keep having more enemies show up. (I'm not saying that this encounter would be at all fun, but it's possible).
Anzyr would instead take that encounter and call it many different encounters. I think he would divide it each time more enemies show up, but I'm not sure. What he calls encounters 1 and 2 above I would still consider to be just one encounter. Thus, the denominator when taking the average is 1, not 2, giving an average length of 9.
How do you guys calculate the CR of these waves encounters? Because if you take into account all creatures along all the waves it will probably throw a very big number as CR, on the other hand if you calculate the CR for each wave separably doesn't that mean they were actually various encounters in succession?
I'm really starting to think that maybe martials were never meant to be at the same level than caster by design. D&D 3.0 was designed under the Ivory Tower principle, which rewards system mastery, so experienced players learn to avoid trap options, perhaps the same way that there are trap options such as feats, spells, and items, there are also classes that can be consider a trap option.
I'm really starting to think that maybe martials were never meant to be at the same level than caster by design. D&D 3.0 was designed under the Ivory Tower principle, which rewards system mastery, so experienced players learn to avoid trap options, perhaps the same way that there are trap options such as feats, spells, and items, there are also classes that can be consider a trap option.
They werent.
Back in OD&D days and AD&D days, the fighter was supposed to be the powerhouse until the wizard got fairly high level, like 9-11.
It is still that way, at least in the games I play in.
The Ivory Tower game design thing is taken totally out of context. It has nothing whatsoever with the way D&D was designed. There were no "trap" anything in design. Yes, there were "deep' options and "flashy" options, but both were good options, depending on your play style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like limiting casters because I think it's more fun to boost martials. Simple as that.
Exactly, at the very least you won't piss off people who likes casters now, and has the possibility of making people who likes martials happy, seems like a win win situation.
How do you guys calculate the CR of these waves encounters? Because if you take into account all creatures along all the waves it will probably throw a very big number as CR, on the other hand if you calculate the CR for each wave separably doesn't that mean they were actually various encounters in succession?
If the multiple groups of enemies are multiple encounters than you understand you average per encounter yes? If Encounter 2 joins with Encounter 1 and takes 9 rounds, that's an average of 4.5 rounds for encounter 1 and 2. Please tell me you understand that.
This is where the disagreement is coming from. If we are disagreeing about the definition of an encounter, of course we're disagreeing about average length! Many posters would call one encounter what Anzyr is calling several different encounters.
I would argue that if you don't leave initiative, it's all one encounter. Thus, you can make an encounter take 50 rounds if you want, just keep having more enemies show up. (I'm not saying that this encounter would be at all fun, but it's possible).
Anzyr would instead take that encounter and call it many different encounters. I think he would divide it each time more enemies show up, but I'm not sure. What he calls encounters 1 and 2 above I would still consider to be just one encounter. Thus, the denominator when taking the average is 1, not 2, giving an average length of 9.
Exactly. If they create an adventure and Encounter 3 goes to reinforce Encounter 2 when they hear fighting and arrive in 1d4 rounds, then even if the PCs fight all of those and it takes 10 rounds over all, they have beaten Encounter 2 and 3 in 10 rounds, which is an average of 5 rounds per encounter.
I'm really starting to think that maybe martials were never meant to be at the same level than caster by design. D&D 3.0 was designed under the Ivory Tower principle, which rewards system mastery, so experienced players learn to avoid trap options, perhaps the same way that there are trap options such as feats, spells, and items, there are also classes that can be consider a trap option.They werent.
Back in OD&D days and AD&D days, the fighter was supposed to be the powerhouse until the wizard got fairly high level, like 9-11.
It is still that way, at least in the games I play in.
The Ivory Tower game design thing is taken totally out of context. It has nothing whatsoever with the way D&D was designed. There were no "trap" anything in design. Yes, there were "deep' options and "flashy" options, but both were good options, depending on your play style.
And that's all well and good, but full casters are not significantly worse than maritals at low level and full casters that come with an animal companion are arguably the strongest low level classes. Unfortunately, high levels have gotten even *worse* for martials on account of the fact that Magic is significantly easier to use in 3.0 onwards and far more reliable.
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.I think the basic idea 4e had regarding magic was a good one. To wit, you have combat magic that is useful, but not especially world-shaping, and is limited by the same sorts of rules that everybody else's combat powers were, and then you have out-of-combat ritual magic for things like "teleportation" and "contacting other planes" that worked on fundamentally different rules. Honestly, the main alteration I would do to this is to make *everybody* capable of out-of-combat ritual magic. That right there resolves a significant portion of the C/M disparity.
My big issue with 4e, and the reason I didn't play it so much, was that combat took *so very* long to get through and the game basically does not take well to streamlining. But people like and dislike things for lots of disparate (and often contradictory) reasons.
Actually, if I remember correctly, anyone could cast rituals if they took the ritual caster feat. Wizards, Clerics, and a bunch of other "mystical" classes got it as a bonus feat.
So you could be a fighter who cast world-changing magic, if you wanted to.
I'm really starting to think that maybe martials were never meant to be at the same level than caster by design. D&D 3.0 was designed under the Ivory Tower principle, which rewards system mastery, so experienced players learn to avoid trap options, perhaps the same way that there are trap options such as feats, spells, and items, there are also classes that can be consider a trap option.They werent.
Back in OD&D days and AD&D days, the fighter was supposed to be the powerhouse until the wizard got fairly high level, like 9-11.
It is still that way, at least in the games I play in.
I started playing with 3.0, and in my post I say specifically 3.0 when mentioning the Ivory Tower principle.
The Ivory Tower game design thing is taken totally out of context. It has nothing whatsoever with the way D&D was designed. There were no "trap" anything in design. Yes, there were "deep' options and "flashy" options, but both were good options, depending on your play style.
By those lines should I assume that you don't believe in the Caster/Martial disparity? Correct me if I misunderstand you.
Many poster are in the opinion that there are indeed no-good options.
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.I think the basic idea 4e had regarding magic was a good one. To wit, you have combat magic that is useful, but not especially world-shaping, and is limited by the same sorts of rules that everybody else's combat powers were, and then you have out-of-combat ritual magic for things like "teleportation" and "contacting other planes" that worked on fundamentally different rules. Honestly, the main alteration I would do to this is to make *everybody* capable of out-of-combat ritual magic. That right there resolves a significant portion of the C/M disparity.
My big issue with 4e, and the reason I didn't play it so much, was that combat took *so very* long to get through and the game basically does not take well to streamlining. But people like and dislike things for lots of disparate (and often contradictory) reasons.
Actually, if I remember correctly, anyone could cast rituals if they took the ritual caster feat. Wizards, Clerics, and a bunch of other "mystical" classes got it as a bonus feat.
So you could be a fighter who cast world-changing magic, if you wanted to.
That is correct. And now Pathfinder has Occult Rituals which I think are a great addition to the game, probably the biggest contribution from Occult Adventures IMO.
I disagree that such strawmanning occured, and if it did occur it happened because he was not clear in his early argument (which I disagree was as clear as you say he was) and that confused things. I also disagree that there was a ton of bitterness, besides a few people being exasperated at their arguments being more or less cast aside as irrelevant or being considered houserules.
This IS derailing, but I really do hate when people make discussions seem more negative than they actually were. I defended you and Anzyr earlier, now I have to defend the people you guys were arguing against.
Go back to page 5 and reread my initial post. Despite not calling them caveats, said caveats were listed. And I have had to repeatedly point out that people were treating my position as having taken stances and used phrases that I have never used. In short, they built a separate argument that I wasn't making and attacked that argument instead of mine. That's literally what Strawmanning is.
Now on the topic of finding posts, I'll tell you what posts I can't find. A post of you "defending" me or Chromantic Durgon <3. Unless your first post on page 8, essentially attacking the strawman labeled as my position somehow counts as "defending" me.
Dr. D basically believes it doesn't kick in until 8th level spells at the earliest.
Meanwhile some of us see it rearing its ugly head as early as 2nd level spells.
To some extent it's a factor not only of the spells power which increases significantly each spell level, but also of the quantity of spells casters can use. When all they have are level 1 spells, there is a very real risk of "running out". And trying to buff in advance only makes that risk greater. By the time 2nd level spells roll around, most casters now have some good news toys and some spells to fall back on. They can budget some of their low level spells to buffs more easily.
This issue becomes exacerbated with each new spell level reached. Casters with 5th level spells literally have more spells per day than rounds of combat. By 7th tier spells they can blow multiple spells a round and be in no danger of hitting E. Not to mention their long duration buffs are getting stronger and more numerous since what else are they going to use those slots for?
Now on the topic of finding posts, I'll tell you what posts I can't find. A post of you "defending" me or Chromantic Durgon <3. Unless your first post on page 8, essentially attacking the strawman labeled as my position somehow counts as "defending" me.
Since this keeps coming up: I was referring to an admittedly brief series of posts on page 2 and 3 where I argued that you weren't saying the OP was having badwrongfun and that overall the topic was fairly civil.
"That was disagreement more than an attack. He clearly isn't for limiting spellcasters, but at no point did he say doing so was WRONG, just that it ends up turning the game into something that isn't PF. I don't know if I agree with it, but it's hardly the worst opinion on this subject one could have. "
"He" in this case was you.
And I'm avoiding the rest of your post because I'd rather not have another back and forth derailment >_>
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck it's what many of the posters here want; Total caster martial balance, almost no Vancian Magic, and so forth. "Be careful what you wish for.... you may get it." But it did teach Paizo and WotC that a small group of very vocal posters is not really the market that br4ings in sales. ;_)
So you're saying 4e was a genie wish where they listened to some of the desires and then ignored the intent behind those desires?
Hulk can do things like jump a mile, walk through a wall, knock down a building by stamping his feet, build something by crushing cars into whatever shape he desires, or deafen people by clapping. This is more agency than the average martial PC gets. Plus he gets to do the 'Hulk smash puny god' thing. I vaguely classify that kind of thing as 'Mythic'.So essentially, you are saying he's Mythic because he's not a caster, but has more agency than the average martial PC. You're aware this is circular logic, right?
"We want martial PCs to be able to do things like the Hulk"
"They can't because the Hulk is Mythic"
"Why is the Hulk Mythic?"
"Because he can do things martial PCs can't."
Citing the Hulk as a standard is problematic, because like many mega heroes, such as Superman, the upper limits of his abilities are heavily dependent on the current set of writers, as well as the incarnation. Joe Fixit, the mob legbreaker, for example, is nowhere near as powerful as the Green Raging Child Hulk, and Banner Hulk has limits because he does not rage.
Phone ate my post so this is the abridged version: whilst I think limiting casters would give better game balance the game is fun to play already and that combined with my natural laziness prevents me from putting the work into changing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self quoting a post that got no action earlier since the conversation has circled back in this direction.
[starting at level 13ish and escalating towards level 20.
Immense physicality, able to withstand damn near anything [including the vacuum of space, though there is a limit to how long they can hold their breath...], immense battlefield mobility and foot travel speed, able to punch-out extinction-level [possibly earth shattering] meteors and planet-busting beams.
Complemented by very high resistance to mind/body-altering magic.
Mmm, I'm not interested in God Martials anymore than I am interested in God Wizards. My own take on this is to ramp down the casters and bring the martials up slightly, but to remove/alter some of the more over the top antics. No surviving falling from orbit, swimming in lava and that sort of thing. Yes, I know I'm in the minority. On the plus side, we have cookies!