D&D Movie/TV D&D: Honor Among Thieves Open Discussion [Full Spoilers]


log in or register to remove this ad

Extra comment on the appearance of Elminster, I suspect it was done literally just to let Elminster stand out. From Odin to Merlin to Gandalf to Dumbledore, there’s just has wayyyyy too many Wizards whose look is “old white dude with a long beard,” that 1) it has become a bit of a cliche, and 2) we’re running out of old white British dudes who haven’t already done it.

Also,I just checked and he’s not credited as “Elminster,” but merely “Ethereal Plane Sorcerer,” so I wonder if he’s supposed to be a different ancestor of Simon’s. 🤔
Simon is said to be a descendant of Elminster, but the guy in the vision was his great-great-grandfather. Some people still talk to their great-great-grandfathers. It's not far enough back that I would refer to my great-great-grandfather as someone that I was descended from.
 

Ed's wife died last year, they were married for 45 years.
Suggesting that because he wrote about all sorts of open and varied relationships in the realms, that it reflects upon himself as a man,
for you to say he was "naughty" and fond of polyamory... that is a rather disingenuous and more than a little weird take.
And no "at least in his art" does not release you from what are trying to foist upon a real person in a real world. Grow up.
That would be similar to accusing George R.R. Martin of enjoying SA.
LOL chill your jets son.

I love ol' Ed, sorry to hear about his wife.

His work has an absolute ton of polyamory of all kinds (relative to the typical amount in our culture), and has for decades. He's also LGBTQ+ friendly and pretty much always has been, which is really cool. My point is merely his work is more progressive than our society is really down with (particularly as it's genuine polyamory, not multiple wives). It's not a critique. Nor am I suggesting he practices what he preaches, but that he writes positively about it might be enough to upset some Americans, because with respect, and despite "No sex please, we're British!", America is a stunningly prudish, certainly by far the most prudish English-speaking nation.

Also I dunno if "naughty" means something worse in Americanese (Americans please chime in), but in British English, it's incredibly mild - someone how draws a cartoon dick on their notebook at school is "naughty". It is not truly analogous to "bad", indeed, you'd use it to imply someone wasn't bad, but that up-tight people might be irked by them.
 



Love those behind the scenes, thanks @darjr !

Here's a stab at modeling the D&D movie attunement with a rules hack:

Attunement like Simon: Attuning to a magic item is an Action (not a short rest), but it is not automatically successful and there are consequences for failure. On the other hand, there is no arbitrary 3-item attunement limit. Here’s how it works: When you attempt to attune to an item, make a check according to the item type (e.g. a vicious longsword might require a Strength check while a helm of comprehending languages might require an Intelligence check).

The DC is 10 for common items, 12 uncommon, 14 rare, 16 very rare, 18 legendary, and 20 artifact. The GM adds a +1 bonus for each way you align with the item (e.g. having the Sage background might give +1 on the check to attune with a helm of comprehending languages), and a -1 penalty for each item you’re already attuned with. If you’ve recently attuned to an item or the item was recently attuned to someone else, you have disadvantage on the check. Whereas if another PC is able to Help you, you have advantage on the check.

If the check succeeds, you attune to the item. However, if it fails, you suffer some consequence like a level of exhaustion, but some magic items may present unique consequences for failure.

The DMG page 284-285 tables Magic Item Power by Rarity & Spell Damage give some idea for how to balance consequences for botched attunement.
 

That's true enough. That druid was a PC, though, and she had to be 20th level to change as often as she did, yet really didn't do much in the way of spellcasting. I really wouldn't attach too much of the rules to the movie. They did what they did without much regard for the rules. They used names of spells, monsters and abilities, but took a lot of liberties with them.

So did we. I told my group(we went to the movie together) the story when I got out of the restroom. I had to work hard not to laugh when the one kid was explaining how most gelatinous cubes starved to death.

Great movie. couldn't be replicated under the rules in any version but fantastic run romp.

I'll disagree on the Paladin. forgotten realms is supposed to have lots of high level characters, demi powers and other powerful creatures all over the place. The paladin hit that nail perfectly.

I think the Druid's backstory was fine. She didn't go with the group out of trust. iI was simply her last terrible option to save the emerald enclave. And remember she did know the sorcerer very well.

I did have to squelch my inner DM when the party that had a barbarian that took out an entire squad of waterdeep's finest and a sorcerer who can cast 7th level spells were running from two displacer beasts. But once I did that i was a great scene.
Its like reading a Drizzt novel. Dude fights a demigod to stand still but still has issues fighting some gnolls. Drizzt is a Ranger (no he isnt in 5E but whatever) and never ever casts spells. Ever in his novels. Never.
 



Saw it today.

God movie. fun stuff. Good plot for D&D. Funny D&Dism. Doesn't follow the rules but works for the better.

The Xenk VS Thayan assassin fight and both Holga vs Gaurds fights displays why wizards are way too tough in D&D as D&D warrior type would slaughter people who aren't trained warriors in melee.

Back to d4 HD for the squishies!
 

Remove ads

Top