Jump to content

Scott Baker

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    1,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scott Baker

  1. Exactly this. I felt the same about Jar Jar Abrams helming anything with the words "Star Trek" in the title.
  2. Interesting read (obviously I can't verify this personally): http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/this-open-letter-annihilates-warner-bros-execs.html
  3. (Sorry, no link) There's a petition at change.org to shut down rotten tomatoes because of all the bad reviews of the movie.
  4. I think this is an admin setting--which appears to be all-or-nothing for all posts containing an attachment or from shared media.
  5. Interesting read that covers where the new shows are: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/27/deathwatch-renewed-canceled Given those numbers, Supergirl still isn't, "near the bottom." At least not yet.
  6. Or, as from sources (since I don't speak Latin myself) -- natale domini. Natale is Christmas (likely derived from natal since both involve birthday).
  7. Depending on your interpretation, that might fit, although not literally. Natasha <- Natalia <- Natalie -- which apparently comes from the Latin for "Christmas Day". Nathaniel <- Nathanael -- Hebrew for "God has given".
  8. I'm not particularly new either (and I lurked for a long time before I signed up here). How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)? My name is my name. What was the first tabletop RPG you played? Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set (1977) What was the first tabletop RPG you GMed? Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set (1977) What are you currently playing/GMing? I play and GM Champions.
  9. Yes, Raccoon was the man. Panda and Raccoon were married.
  10. Don't walk into the light Steve! Some of us want you to finish the book. Besides, I've watched enough Wile E. Coyote to know it's really a speeding train. Seriously, it's good to hear that you're able to get back to this.
  11. Which is a nice house rule (see 6E1 319). This is also a great demonstration of why all of the characters posted on the forums (or elsewhere) by various folks can't just be taken at face value. We always need to evaluate them for our particular game. There are far too many unstated assumptions (house rules, grandfathered rules from previous editions, campaign limits, etc.) to just take a character and use it without surprise. That doesn't make the characters wrong, just built for a specific use case. Caveat Emptor. You get what you pay for. Insert appropriate saying here.
  12. Technically true. Yes. There is no "free" base for Mental Defense (5E and below). If you bought Mental Defense, you got to add your EGO/5 (5ER 200). Starting in 6E, there are no free points based on your EGO if you buy Mental Defense.
  13. Absolutely. It also follows that those who've played the longest are smarter than those who took longer to realize the greatness of the system.
  14. <mumbles something about being far more related to personality types, mindset, and misinformation than IQ score>
  15. At cons I've been to I have always found that the game system didn't matter. It was the GM. Good GMs made for good games, whether I liked the system or not. Bad GMs, well, you get the idea.
  16. Which likely limits its viability to address the issues. While it may be complete, the (IMO) very poor delivery seems to hamper the ability to expand that setting, even if it's the greatest thing ever created. (For anyone not aware, this was a Kickstarter and is now almost 2 1/2 years late on delivery.)
  17. I'm looking forward to the update. It will be interesting to see if this KS has more participation from the other systems than LTL.
  18. The rules are mechanics. Sorry if that de-railed the thread. I'll go elsewhere.
  19. Re: It shouldn't matter Why not? You're quoting the rule as it is different from 5E/6E. It makes a very clear statement about both conditions applying and how that requires recovering from being stunned, Re: 4E p160 That doesn't refute or support anything that you or I have written regarding the Stunned and/or Knocked Out portion, so I'm not sure if that's really the quote you were looking for. Re: "technically" and 6E2 p106 I wasn't commenting about 5E or 6E, so I don't find that to be persuasive regarding the 3E/4E RAW. I do agree that in 5E and 6E they are separate; I also agree that the newer rules have stated a difference in handling Stunned and/or Knocked Out--which is the start of this whole thing.
  20. To pick a nit, the text for 3E and 4E both say, "both Stunned and Knocked Out by the same attack." It is very possible that the attack that knocks a character out is not the attack that stunned them. So, as written, it does not say that the character loses their recovery that phase unless both criteria are met in a single attack. I don't remember how my gaming groups used to actually play that.
  21. Big Trouble In Little China. Netflix popped up with it available for streaming, it's just that kind of an evening, and I'm too lazy to go find my DVD of it. Classic. This is the Porkchop Express, signing off.
  22. Interesting. The cut-off (as of right now) appears to be January 11, 2015. Other posts from earlier still have images, but they show as attachments as well.
  23. When you are posting, click on the More Reply Options button in the lower right to get the full set (including attaching files).
×
×
  • Create New...