Search results

I don't recall the movies being referenced in any TV episodes, but they are mentioned in the novelization of The Day of the Doctor, where they are treated as in-universe movies of the Doctor's exploits.

I think the real question is what number Richard E. Grant's Scream of the Shalka Doctor is.

They have? Where? Prior to 13's regeneration, official statements were careful to only refer to Gatwa as the "next" Doctor, and not as the 14th. It is news to me that anyone on the production team has referenced him as the 14th.

The team making Doctor Who seem to view 14 as different from 10. Arguing the technical correctness of the Doctor's numbering scheme has been a lost cause since we met the War Doctor or, arguably, since 10 regenerated back into 10 in Journey's End. The numbering is mostly to give viewers some...

Apparently not.

Nice try. You almost had me googling it to find out, which would have inevitably resulted in me getting tactical hoodie adverts from now until eternity.

His Mark III Travel Machine, I think you mean :D

Thanks. By the former, I assume you mean creating them as a PC using DDB's Character Builder. If I do that, the character has to belong to the same campaign as the real PCs in order to appear as a token. And that breaks the Encounter Builder a bit, because it assumes that you are creating...

I appreciate that my actual homebrew monsters can easily be tokened. But I'm also currently turning my NPCs into fake homebrew monsters, just so I can add them as counters on the map. Am I missing an easier trick to make quick NPC tokens (with art)?

Indeed. The majority of my homebrewed "monsters" are NPCs, so I can put representatives token of those NPCs on the map.

The "any map I've purchased" part is nice, but the "any monster I've purchased as a token" is even more useful.

Referring to it as insulting feels a bit hyperbolic to me too, but according to my Mac's dictionary, an insult can be anything from "disrespect" to "scornful abuse", so using it to describe disrespectful marketing isn't wrong.

I agree. I would probably also agree with a broader claim that none of the critiques of previous editions offered during the 4e marketing was particularly insulting or entirely unfounded. And yet... at the time, experiencing the 4e marketing strategy as a whole, I was definitely left with a...

I'm of the view that if 4E had either dramatically overhauled the mechanics or dramatically overhauled the lore, it would have been fine. Dramatically overhauling both at once makes some sense, but I think it was too much for many fans.

I am running a Spelljammer campaign which uses most of the weapons from Chapter 9 of the DMG. This has not created any problems at all. As presented in the DMG, the mechanics for firearms and explosives haven't felt particularly unbalanced to us. My players aren't traveling around with kegs of...

Yeah, I agree. That novel was almost certainly written first and then the two paragraphs on Jergal added to the boxed set because of the novel.

Prince of Lies was an August release, one month after the boxed set in July.

I also can't find any mention of Jergal prior to the 1993 FR boxed set. Curious!

There are stats for an arquebus on page 14 of Supplement I: Greyhawk, published in March 1975!

Except of course Spelljammer, in which firearms have always been a feature. For me, they are an entirely appropriate addition to that setting, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.