Simon

Actual description of psychokinesis in 5E: 
 
i.e. you're looking at a heavily modified form of BOECV which reflects the PK being targeted by the character's mind (independently of their physical Dexterity) but otherwise no different from TK.
 
It's a construction which relies on you using your brain, common sense, and dramatic sense...not unlike many things in the system.

This whole thread orbits around something I've been trying to figure out....and I still don't know that I have it clear mentally, so the following is likely not going to come out entirely right (consider this an advanced apology...and I'll attempt to clarify as needed).
 
Looking at some of the behaviors and depictions in old movies is VERY similar to looking at the behaviors and actions of certain individuals in recent press in regards to sexual abuse/predation.  Context plays a large part, but intent seems to be a major factor that is not discussed either because it's considered irrelevant or is too "sticky"/difficult to address.
 
By context, I'm referring primarily to the prevailing attitudes of the time.  Ben Franklin owned slaves.  So did most other wealthy Americans.  It was part of that period of time. Not something that we want to celebrate, but neither is it something that we want to condemn people of that time for (IMO).  To take a more current example, if 100 years from now some of the extreme arms of PETA have their way and owning an animal (say a dog or cat for a pet) is considered akin to slavery, I don't think that people today should be judged for that.  People today should be judged based on today's societal and moral standards -- owning a pet is fine, but you need to treat it properly (care for it, feed it, etc.). This applies equally well for sexual harassment -- the prevailing attitude of the time needs to be part of the equation.  That we have (hopefully) progressed in our current time from 50 or 100 years ago doesn't mean that we should judge people from prior times based on our current ideas -- their actions should be judged based on the times in which they were made.
 
Which is where we run into intent...and things get really sticky.  The intent behind an action (the production of a movie, physical contact with a member of the opposite sex, the publication of a book, etc.) should be considered strongly in any sort of "judgement" of that action.  A three year old boy who kisses a girl in his kindergarten class on the cheek should not be accused of sexual harassment (IMO) -- there is no intent there. A CEO (or anyone in a position of authority) who pulls a subordinate in for a peck on the cheek is a different story.
 
Blazing Saddles is a great example of one extreme, oddly enough.  Its main theme is based around racism.  White supremacy, racism, mysogeny, you name it -- all there.  But the intent was to laugh at them...to mock them and hopefully grow past them through laughter.  It's hard to take the movie as offensive or wrong (unless, of course, you sympathize with the white supremacy group).
 
Warner Bros./Bugs Bunny through WWII had some remarkably racist themes.  They were part of the propaganda push within the US.  Without the context of WWII, they are extremely offensive.  With proper context, they are (IMO) educational and enlightening as to what was going on in society at the time.  Certainly not something that would personally feel is appropriate for kids on a Saturday morning (do they still do that?), but not something to be locked away or burned.
 
Then there are movies that I've either intentionally avoided or simply not been subjected to due to my own preferences -- the ones that don't just portray hateful ideas/ideals, but promote them (without the excuse of historical context). The best examples I can think of here (again, I'm somewhat sheltered) are some of the earlier cartoons and their depictions of black people. They've generally been scrubbed from the airwaves at this point...and rightly so -- keep them for people researching history and society at those times, but they have little place for the general public.
 
 

Print to PDF is for characters only.

Have you read the documentation? Specifically the section on printing and exporting characters? When you go to select an export format, are you navigating to the directory that you've saved the files to? If the answers to (1) and (2) are both yes and you're not seeing anything, then you haven't saved the files with a .hde extension (that's the only thing that HD looks for).  Most likely your browser is trying to "help" by saving the files with a .xml extension -- you'll need to stop it from doing that or rename the file (changing the extension to the proper .hde)

Again, the ONLY filter HD uses is on the file extension. You likely have them saved as fileName.hde.xml

You'll find all of this covered in the documentation, btw

You'll find all of this covered in the documentation, btw

You don't.  At least, not directly from HD.  

You can use any of the available vehicle export formats to export the sheet. From there, printing a hard copy (or saving as PDF) is up to the application you're using to view it (e.g. your browser of choice).

An issue in a recent software update -- fixed in a patch that was applied this morning.

I'm loving the folks chiming in with statements of the movie not being even close to the book....that they haven't read.  Joust?  Yeah, that's a major thing in the book (slikmar's been through that part already).  Movie references?  Yup, those too.
 
I've read the book.  It was fun.  It was chock full of pop culture references (as noted)...kinda its thing.  The trailers thus far are looking to be following the book pretty closely.  I haven't seen anything in them that I don't recall from the book, at least....and without seeing the movie, it's impossible to say how much from the book hasn't made it into the movie.

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

I've suddenly started getting ads on FB for earthworm jerky. 
 
I have no idea what it is in my profile that would have made someone (or some algorithm) say "this guy wants earthworm jerky"....but I'm also horribly intrigued.

Use a Heroic template -- STR Minimum is not a valid Limitation on Superheroic characters.

For those having issues with HD appearing too small under high resolution screens (when running Windows), an update has been posted which enables command-line flags to set the default font size throughout the application.  To use, you need to launch HD from the command line (or create a batch script) with the following:
javaw -jar HD6.jar [font size] for example, the following would set the default font size throughout the application to 18pt:
javaw -jar HD6.jar 18 Windows does not appear to pass font scaling along to Java, hence the issue under high resolution screens.  Moreover, there are known issues within Java in attempting to change the font size once the UI has been rendered.  This is the reason that the command line flags are needed rather than a new application preferences setting.

Christopher will no longer be taking part in this conversation.
 
Carry on.

I'm loving the folks chiming in with statements of the movie not being even close to the book....that they haven't read.  Joust?  Yeah, that's a major thing in the book (slikmar's been through that part already).  Movie references?  Yup, those too.
 
I've read the book.  It was fun.  It was chock full of pop culture references (as noted)...kinda its thing.  The trailers thus far are looking to be following the book pretty closely.  I haven't seen anything in them that I don't recall from the book, at least....and without seeing the movie, it's impossible to say how much from the book hasn't made it into the movie.

The stacks being blown up in the trailer is the overt beginning of that.

Oh yeah...that was a major part of it.  It's been a while, but from what I recall, the latter...half?...quarter?...of the book was mixed between real-world and the Oasis.

This whole post has been bugging the crap out of me...and it comes down to the first statement combined with the general sentiment.
 
If you haven't seen the movie, the only thing you have to go on is the general knowledge of it, which is largely focused on the overwhelmingly black cast, direction, and theme.  So you're judging a movie as crap based on that general knowledge -- which is racist.
 
I'd rather strongly suggest you consider how your post is coming across.  If you don't mean for it to actually be racist, you may want to post and amendment to explain your intention.  If you do mean for it to actually be racist, you may want to find another site to frequent.

I agree with you on Civil War -- it was a different take, and one that didn't really jibe with me. Winter Soldier was darker, but not in the same way - I liked it a LOT more than Civil War.
 
IMO, Black Panther is different from Civil War or Winter Soldier.  It doesn't shy away from some pretty deep subject matter, but it handles it extremely well.  It's still decidedly a comic book movie and has a villain that is...understandable.  Given enough depth to make him interesting, believable, and even (to an extent) sympathetic.
 
There is still a two dimensional villain...but that's left to one of the Tolkien white guys to play