Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 537668" data-attributes="member: 8461">Talien, thanks for the answer. I just saw it as being rather unfair to players who had taken the Housewares feat. Effectively, if they take that feat, they can never raise their Wisdom above 10, or they forever lose access to that feat, meaning they can never use it again. It just seemed off to me that a player would have to choose between not increasing his character how he wanted, or loosing access to a feat and not even being able to replace the lost feat slot. I know its more of a rules question than anything else, but nowhere else in all of d20 have I ever seen a feat with a cap on an ability as a prerequisite other than ED:ST!, and there is a reason for that, which I outlined above. ::shrugs:: Just my take on it.On a slightly related note, on page 7, second column, third full paragraph (under the "Background" section), it mentions that Ash uses the Craft (mechanical) skill to attach the chainsaw to his arm. Shouldn't the Housewares feat get a mention there for making this ridiculousness possible?Also, in that section, you may want to mention that the original Necronomicon was burned by Ash (though the copy penned by Abdul-Azeez was taken with Ash back to our time, and made into a best-seller, so another original is out there somewhere. Further, the missing pages from the first original, which contain the time/space rift spell, are, last we heard, still in the cabin (hey, it was untouched for eight years, why not?)).Not having played the video game, I've been looking back through the timeline and trying to work through some of the kinks in it.I really am a glutton for punishment.Anyway, here are the corrections/clarifications that need to be made to the timeline:730 AD: This should probably read "Ash, his "Death Coaster," and Jenny appear in Damascus. Ash meets Abdul-Azeez, who claims that he has just written the Necronomicon. Together, he and Ash defeat a deadite cult who had kidnapped Jenny and stolen the newly-written book. Returning home through another portal, Ash takes the book with him but loses it in the portal. Somehow, another Necronomicon remains, ending up in England in the 14th century."I'm still not sure if the 1300 AD and 1393 AD dates should be separate. In the beginning of "The Army of Darkness" Ash says that as near as he can figure, its the year 1300 AD. We know it probably was 1300 AD and not 1393 since the date is established in "Evil Dead II". The problem then is that in the original ending, he is only supposed to drink six drops (though he accidently drinks seven), the implication of which is that he's only trying to get to the year 1900 AD. That's probably one of the reasons they discarded that ending. Also note that in the 1393 AD entry, it says "He quests for the Necronomicon, but in doing so accidently an army of the dead and his evil twin upon reading." The last two words of the sentence, "upon reading" should be eliminated. Ash never read the book, he misspoke the words to nullify that effect.But about the anachronism, probably the best way to resolve it (besides eliminate the entire bit with the time drops) is to pretty much ignore it. However, it does require some tailoring of the timeline listed. 1300 AD should probably read "According to a mistaken notation later written into the Necronomicon, this is the year the book is lost to history after being recovered by the legendary hero." And at the end of the 1393 AD entry, adding in "The Necronomicon is lost to history after this point."The entry for 1985 AD refers to the Book of the Dead. For clarity's sake (lord knows this needs more clarity), it should be called the Necronomicon.The entry that begins 1985 AD, 1 day later: should have the third sentence altered, so it reads "He is joined by Anne Knowby, who has pages that were missing from the Necronomicon, Ed Getly, Bobby Joe, and Jake."The "Background" section reads that Ash awakens from his slumber, meets Jenny after killing deadites at S-Mart, and then 8 years pass before he goes back to the cabin. According to the timeline you wrote, Ash awakens from his slumber, meets Jenny after killing deadites as S-Mart, and then goes back to the cabin next year (1994). Which is it? Not having played the game, I don't know if it actually says 8 years have passed or not, but I'm going to assume he awoke in 1993 and went back to the cabin in 1994, as it says in the timeline.The "Background" section, after returning from 730 AD Damascus to his own time (presumably 1994), it says the book arrives "eight years earlier" which would be 1986, and found by "an unknown publisher" who publishes the thing and turns it into a best-seller. However, this is summarized in the timeline as having happened in 1993 (second entry that reads 1993 AD). Which is it? Presuming its 1994, the entry that says 1993 for that should be changed to 1994, and should probably be listed after the 1994 entry where Ash goes back to the cabin (again, just for clarity's sake). The text for the entry should not have "A possible future" since the movies seem to use the Unified Timestream theory. The rest of the text should read "Ash and Jenny return from 730 AD Damascus. The Necronomicon lands elsewhere, and is found by an unknown publisher, becoming a best-seller.The 1995 AD entry should be eliminated altogether. The Necronomicon was published by an unknown publisher, not Prof. Knowby. While this entry might be to show off the Parallel Universe theory, that just makes it more confusing. Is the events of this entry suggested anywhere? If not, then just delete it.The entry for 2103 AD should be changed to read 2093. If Ash slept for 7 centuries instead of 6 from 1393, he'd awaken in 2093, not 2103. The sentence "A possible future." should be eliminated for reasons already stated. The second sentence should have the last three words, "precipitated by deadites." removed, since we don't  know from the original ending that deadites did that, and it doesn't seem to fit their MO.Note that both the 1393 entry and the first 1985 entry mention the English castle as being Castle Kandar. Not having read any books or anything, this seems like an error. Several of the ancient rites in the book use the word "Kandar" as part of their ritual. It seems odd to presume that a book written three thousand years ago in Sumeria (or thirteen-and-a-half centuries ago in Damascus) were referencing a 14th century English castle! We also know they didn't name the castle as Kandar since it existed before the Necronomicon was discovered (and its doubtful they'd name their place after something found in the Necronomicon). The references to the name of the castle in those two entries should thusly be eliminated, instead just calling it "the castle" or "and old castle" etc.These are all the changes I can think of at the moment. There are probably more that need to be made, but these should make the timeline a lot more solid. Remember to tailor the "Background" section so it fits also.</blockquote>

Verification