Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

Every D&D Ranger Discussion thread ever written:

A: The Ranger class is terrible and someone should fix it
B: I agree, so I wrote a new--
A: (interrupting) NO NOT LIKE THAT
B: You didn't even read what I--
A: (interrupting) AND NOT LIKE THAT EITHER
B: But you aren't letting--
A: (interrupting) JUST FORGET IT I'LL PLAY SOMETHING ELSE
Every rules discussion.
"But I enjoy playing my rang--"

"No, you don't!"
Exactly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


--

Thanks for the reminder that that movie was absolutely terrible, some of the worst, most obviously pandering writing I have had to endure.
 

re. the Diskworld pizza referenced a couple of pages back...

I hope the base is made of dwarfbread. Because (and I apologise if this joke was made in the previous 653 pages)

It's all about the base, 'bout the base; no treble.
 


Nanotech is also popular. As I recall the latest version of the MCU Hulk had some involvement of that (or it might have been the one one step back).
The Incredible Hulk (Edward Norton movie) uses the classical origin of gamma radiation (which may not refer to the same thing in the MCU as it does in the real world, as it seems to be a type of radiation with special traits instead of just any EM radiation with a wavelength of less than 10 picometers). This carries over to the Ruffalo Hulk (which is the same character as the Norton Hulk, just recast). The Abomination is later created by first giving Blonsky a dose of variant super-soldier serum (minus the Vita Rays which were also instrumental for Captain America), and later having him injected with Banner's gamma-tainted blood.

The 2003 movie (with Eric Bana) used a combination of nanotech and gamma radiation, plus mutant DNA from experiments Banner Sr. did on himself.
 

It's a defining trait of internet culture that you either love something exactly as much as the person you're talking to or you're the enemy. Love it a little more, you're a fanboy. Love it a little less, you're a hater.
1000002880.png
 

Every D&D Ranger Discussion thread ever written:

A: The Ranger class is terrible and someone should fix it
B: I agree, so I wrote a new--
A: (interrupting) NO NOT LIKE THAT
B: You didn't even read what I--
A: (interrupting) AND NOT LIKE THAT EITHER
B: But you aren't letting me--
A: (interrupting) JUST FORGET IT I'LL PLAY SOMETHING ELSE

Maybe I'm obstinate and I just dig rangers, but this is where a case where my love of the concept of the ranger overrides whatever mechanical disadvantage they have versus other classes - which is something I never really felt with 5e. I felt it more with 2e however.
 

Maybe I'm obstinate and I just dig rangers, but this is where a case where my love of the concept of the ranger overrides whatever mechanical disadvantage they have versus other classes - which is something I never really felt with 5e. I felt it more with 2e however.
Some people are just too centred on combat and don't consider that there are other styles of play. I got roasted when I created a character in 4e that was a skill monkey, almost impossible for an opponent to lock down, and made to make the life of a single opponent (DM) hell. It was a 4e Warlock/Bard multi. "You aren't doing enough damage!!!!"
 

That is sadly one of the ones i have yet to see

12 Angry Men is also a perennial favorite in community and high school theater. I've never seen the Henry Fonda movie, but I read the play in drama class in high school. Really great.
The more modern remake is also good, but the Fonda version is a genuine classic. Super enjoyable.
 

Remove ads

Top