Oliin

Because visual aids help eliminate confusion, it's all very simple.

As a side note, I had a roommate a while back who thought the Abbott and Costello skit was stupid and not clever in the slightest. To this day I'm confused by that stance.

My local Community College is having a free showing of the film tomorrow night in their theater (which is honestly rather nice). I'm really thinking about going.

No. That he needed to let go of his wife. The entire thing seemed well set-up to force him to come to terms with his wife's death.

Of course, I also always liked that idea about the film being a commentary on film-making too.

I always kind of wanted to think that the ending scenes were the only ones that ever actually took place in the 'real world' myself and that everything in the film was people performing an Inception on him.

Not terribly. My initial impression was kind of the same as what you're saying, but after playing around with it for a while though it really isn't terribly samey aside from a couple of the classes. Unfortunately they're in that first player's handbook. Not the best foot forward there, though even there the Warlock would be a decent example of a non-samey class.

I'm pretty sure that no matter how much I expound on how the classes and even the different ways you can build the classes makes them play differently, you're not going to agree. Just like no matter how much anyone I've known tried to tell me how 'great' the 3/3.5e characters were I've just never seen it.

That said ... I still really wish they'd kept 2e around.

Oh I know. It's just not what I would have thought would follow after that first film.

You missed my point entirely. They do the same damage but a significant portion of the rest of the power is different. What you're basically trying to say is that a ranger with a longbow and a fighter with a longsword are mechanically identical because they do the same amount of damage.

It's roughly the same damage but a lot of different other things.

They're not quite as mechanically varied as they could be in 3/3.5e but they're also certainly not identical classes.

Yea, really. Creating a character in 3/3.5e for me always seemed more an exercise in optimization than really creating a character, and I'm not really much of one for min-maxing either. The things those people can do with that system are just terrifying.

I suppose I just favor a certain bit of genericness to a character. It makes it easier for me to build a character in my head when I don't have to justify so much of their skill-set and likes through their skills.

I also really dislike 'class skills' for somewhat the same reason. They bother me a bit less in 4e since their skills are so broad. Still bug me though.

They really aren't all that identical. There's some amount of similarity, but they do seem to play out differently enough. A bard, a cleric, and an ardent all play fairly differently in spite of their all being 'leaders'. Similarly a rouge, a monk and a warlock all seem to work rather differently as well. Sure they all seem to do roughly the same amount of damage with skills of the same level, but they all have rather different class specific abilities, range focuses and attack different defenses.

It's not quite the bevy of special abilities of previous incarnations of D&D but they're by no means identical.

I spent rather a while thinking about why I never found 3/3.5e as fun as any of the previous versions. I finally came to the conclusion that they actually gave far too much room to tweak characters for my taste. It may not have been too terribly bad if it had just been the skills, but added to the ability to take levels of different classes and the like I always ended up feeling like I was playing a spreadsheet instead of a character.

That said, I agree that 4e dialed back too much on the customization. I do like it a bit more than 3/3.5 though.

Zardoz was ... interesting.

Also, you did see The Avengers right? That's not exactly Connery's best work there.

I was just saying in the context I quoted it would most likely be intended as wife aggro and as a pun, but knowing WAG is a sexist term it's probably safest to just not use it in general.

I'm also still confused about people calling it a racist term instead of sexist though. I mean, it doesn't make it any less offensive to people or anything.

Well I suppose in his case it could simply be w(ife)aggro, but yea probably safer to stay away.

Also you mean sexist yes? Not racist. Or is there more to it than just being female?

It's probably because Comcast on demand is (I'm assuming) part of a cable service you pay money for. They very well may not be getting enough advertising revenue from the online streaming options to make it 'worth' it. Maybe anyway.

But yea, the first three episodes went up the day after and the rest of the season's not going up for 30 days after airing (even on the channel's official website). There's one other show that I saw doing something like that but I forget what its name was.

In any case it's annoying, but the show hadn't hooked me enough to be really worried about it. I might get around to seeing the new episodes when they hit hulu next month.

It's actually been available on iTunes for a couple weeks now ($10, $11 if you want it in HD). My sister rented it and seems to have thought it was amazing. Personally I'm waiting until it hits theaters since it'd actually be cheaper for me to see it as a matinee than it would be to rent from apple.

If you can't wait until Friday though, it looks like it's still up on iTunes

Edit: Also, red comic sans? My eyes hate you

Both the friend who I was duoing with tonight and myself got costumes and tips. Though they were exemplared down instead of sidekicked up, and everything was fine on the pair we teamed with who were the same level.

So I guess if you're going to ToT, and sidekicking UP is the problem, just have the lowest level person on the team be the one everyone's leveled to.

I was clicking on doors for about two and a half hours earlier tonight and I got one tip. So you may very well be just as unlucky as I am.

And yes, I was in a costume the entire time.