Ravnica would make a spectacular setting, although I think that they'd do well to remove references to the majority of the pre-existing characters or it could fall into the Forgotten Realms trap.
At most, I think I'd leave the "guild leaders" in place but only because they're largely inextricable from the setting.
I heard about that series, and I liked the card art that I saw. Man, Wizards really needs to just print out artbooks of for each series of M:TG... :O
I'd buy a Ravnica art book in a heartbeat, even if only to use in some sort of adapted homebrew ecumenopolis-styled setting. (Which I have been tempted to try my hand at for awhile now, as I love the concept)
well i figured that one went without saying. Actually, most of the stories i've been reading recently don't even deal with other species, so it kinda slipped my mind. woops.
Does the Implement Mastery feat stack with the +to-rolls-based-on-keywords feats such as Astral Fire/Dark Fury? I'm really not sure how this works.
You can only add 1 of each type of bonus. So if the implement mastery bonus is a feat bonus, it does not stack with other feat bonuses. Just make sure you're not stacking two bonuses of the same explicit type (feat, power, etc) and you're good to go.
I'm a huge fan of the Iron Kingdoms, the roleplaying game set in the Warmachines / Hordes world.
Yes! This is by far one of my favorite settings. I am currently running the Witchfire Trilogy in 4e. The group is about half way through Book 2. These adventures are easy on the conversions because they don't add any new classes, all I really have had to do is make a bunch of new enemies or rename some enemies from the MM to fit the setting, and put in some basic firearm rules (easy to find online).
Random tangent: Was I the only person who, for the poll currently in the topic, and knowing nothing about DnD settings, picked Planescape purely because of Planescape: Torment?
No problem! Either way, when questions of stacking come up usually they'll be worded as such...
"... gives a +X feat bonus..."
"... gives a +X power bonus..."
or for an untyped bonus just,
"... gives a +X bonus..."
etc.
No two bonuses of the same type stack, untyped bonuses stack with everything else.
I've actually been wondering -
if you get a bonus from a feat, but it does not say 'feat bonus' in the description, is it untyped? Similarly with powers. I have been playing so far under the assumption that if it comes from a power its a power bonus and if it comes from a feat its a feat bonus, even if it doesn't say it specifically in the description. Is there an official ruling on this?
No problem! Either way, when questions of stacking come up usually they'll be worded as such...
"... gives a +X feat bonus..."
"... gives a +X power bonus..."
or for an untyped bonus just,
"... gives a +X bonus..."
etc.
No two bonuses of the same type stack, untyped bonuses stack with everything else.
I've actually been wondering -
if you get a bonus from a feat, but it does not say 'feat bonus' in the description, is it untyped? Similarly with powers. I have been playing so far under the assumption that if it comes from a power its a power bonus and if it comes from a feat its a feat bonus, even if it doesn't say it specifically in the description. Is there an official ruling on this?
If it does not say explicitly, it is untyped. If you want to houserule it to say that all bonuses from those sources count as those types, it will make things a bit harder, but I doubt it will make too much of a difference in your game.
Rend on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Considering the formulaic prefix/suffix naming convenions of new creatures and the rather pedestrian planes system used in 4e, I think they'll have more success either holding another setting contest or just revising previous settings. The current design team made a very solid dungeon-crawler but goddamn I'd swear they've never read any fantasy that was older than 12 years or didn't have a videogame tie-in.
Wait, what? What is the problem with the new planes system, and in what way does it resemble a video game at all? I personally enjoy that it's a relatively straightforward setup and is comprised almost exclusively of interesting places to go rather than, say, the elemental paraplane of hot scalding mud, and I enjoy not wasting time having to hash out the difference between the Astral and Ethereal planes to my players over and over.
EDIT: this is all assuming you even need a default setting or cosmology at all. I got my start with 2E and the PHB and DMG didn't really bother explaining the world or the default assumptions very much, and somehow my friends and I muddled through with those books for 10 years.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
Considering the formulaic prefix/suffix naming convenions of new creatures and the rather pedestrian planes system used in 4e, I think they'll have more success either holding another setting contest or just revising previous settings. The current design team made a very solid dungeon-crawler but goddamn I'd swear they've never read any fantasy that was older than 12 years or didn't have a videogame tie-in.
Wait, what? What is the problem with the new planes system, and in what way does it resemble a video game at all? I personally enjoy that it's a relatively straightforward setup and is comprised almost exclusively of interesting places to go rather than, say, the elemental paraplane of hot scalding mud, and I enjoy not wasting time having to hash out the difference between the Astral and Ethereal planes to my players over and over.
EDIT: this is all assuming you even need a default setting or cosmology at all. I got my start with 2E and the PHB and DMG didn't really bother explaining the world or the default assumptions very much, and somehow my friends and I muddled through with those books for 10 years.
I'm with you on this one. I suppose the names aren't that great, but I appreciate it's simplicity. There is so much historical D&D to draw upon that it'd be easy to add more complexity, if you so wished.
Considering the formulaic prefix/suffix naming convenions of new creatures and the rather pedestrian planes system used in 4e, I think they'll have more success either holding another setting contest or just revising previous settings. The current design team made a very solid dungeon-crawler but goddamn I'd swear they've never read any fantasy that was older than 12 years or didn't have a videogame tie-in.
Wait, what? What is the problem with the new planes system, and in what way does it resemble a video game at all? I personally enjoy that it's a relatively straightforward setup and is comprised almost exclusively of interesting places to go rather than, say, the elemental paraplane of hot scalding mud, and I enjoy not wasting time having to hash out the difference between the Astral and Ethereal planes to my players over and over.
EDIT: this is all assuming you even need a default setting or cosmology at all. I got my start with 2E and the PHB and DMG didn't really bother explaining the world or the default assumptions very much, and somehow my friends and I muddled through with those books for 10 years.
I'm with you on this one. I suppose the names aren't that great, but I appreciate it's simplicity. There is so much historical D&D to draw upon that it'd be easy to add more complexity, if you so wished.
I tend to rename the planes... since they're folklorish enough there would probably be many names for them anyway.
Sea of Stars
Outer Darkness
However... I've found it hard to come up with a non-awful name for the Feywild. I've considered stealing "Undying Lands" from Tolkien. Though for one campaign I called it the "Eternal Seasons" that was divided into four kingdoms that were characterized by always being in a single season.
Horseshoe on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited March 2009
Why not just call the Feywild Faerie? That's pretty much what it is, anyway. It's Narnia and Hy Brasil.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
Considering the formulaic prefix/suffix naming convenions of new creatures and the rather pedestrian planes system used in 4e, I think they'll have more success either holding another setting contest or just revising previous settings. The current design team made a very solid dungeon-crawler but goddamn I'd swear they've never read any fantasy that was older than 12 years or didn't have a videogame tie-in.
Wait, what? What is the problem with the new planes system, and in what way does it resemble a video game at all? I personally enjoy that it's a relatively straightforward setup and is comprised almost exclusively of interesting places to go rather than, say, the elemental paraplane of hot scalding mud, and I enjoy not wasting time having to hash out the difference between the Astral and Ethereal planes to my players over and over.
EDIT: this is all assuming you even need a default setting or cosmology at all. I got my start with 2E and the PHB and DMG didn't really bother explaining the world or the default assumptions very much, and somehow my friends and I muddled through with those books for 10 years.
I'm with you on this one. I suppose the names aren't that great, but I appreciate it's simplicity. There is so much historical D&D to draw upon that it'd be easy to add more complexity, if you so wished.
I didn't say the new planes were like a video game (I would say the artwork is, but we were talking about WotC making new settings from scratch, so that's another issue entirely), I said they were pedestrian. I'm fine with them being simple, and the parallel connections of the realms of the Fey and Shadow to the mortal, mundane realm is very useful in its ability to be both separate and easy to access as needed, and does have some traditional elements in its nature.
But moving on to the implied history of the PoL setting and the interractions between the stuff in the astral sea, the elemental chaos, abberants and gods and dragons and stuff, on the other hand, just bores me. It's a background too plain and predictable to make me want to explore, so the distinctions become meaningless and I've mostly been throwing it out while brainstorming. The Outer Planes were at least interesting for thematic variety and complexity.
The Outer Planes were at least interesting for thematic variety and complexity.
How is it any different in practice? If you want to go to, say, Acheron, you can. The only difference is in 4E you might encounter it whilst sailing on the Astral Sea rather than floating around with a silver cord like someone's bad acid trip or near-death experience. Nothing about the character of the planes (barring the elemental demiplanes - woo, the plane of dust! let me get my camera!) was intrinsic to their being hooked up to some giant, utterly arbitrary wheel metaphor.
To be honest the physical side (Wheel etc) of the Cosmology made it all a lot less impressive than it otherwise would be.
Over the years the codification of the D&D cosmology has made it less and less cool to me. I don't even like that Orcus etc have stats now. Deities and Demigods, despite being an awesome read, was a bad step, I feel.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
For me, it's not what they've removed implicitly from the default cosmology or bestiary or such and such (I don't even read a whole lot about it), it's that the new stuff they have come up with is too derivative and contemporary in style for my tastes. I don't really like reading through it, it is like eating recycled paste; I take more enjoyment picturing what it used to be made out of or what food I could put in it once I finish and rinse out the jar.
I need something more original, or simply have more direct influence and verisimilitude when I sit down to plan an adventure, and 'shadowdark' and 'sorrowsworn' and 'fellbound' really makes me think about how little I'd be missing with just the compendium and my own flavor text. I like to buy books whose lead concept artist knows something about folklore, the middle ages, armor, or even beards to some firsthand degree, so some text-only physical copies would be nice.
Why not just call the Feywild Faerie? That's pretty much what it is, anyway. It's Narnia and Hy Brasil.
Which is a much better name than 'Feywild'. 'The Feywild' just feels clunky and unevocative to me.
And I'm all about the evocation.
Huh, odd, I actually really like "Feywild."
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
'Feywild' isn't so bad. Not very slick but it provides an accurate image. It looks better when not next to a bunch of similarly-constructed words.
I'll just be calling them all the outer realms unless I run something Paragon or Epic. Whether it's a creature that's fey or shadow or elemental or is a box with a face and legs, it's not from this realm so there's not a lot of point in explaining to the average adventurer how they mesh up. He'll just have to ask the locals what they call their place when he gets there and accept that they only name their country or region.
Arkan150 (10:32:59 PM): ((Scorching burst on the orc.))
Arkan150 (10:33:04 PM): ((Damned if I know.))
Marco Polaris (10:33:04 PM): Roll'it.
Arkan150 (10:33:09 PM): //rolldice-sides20-dice1
OnlineHost (10:33:09 PM): Arkan150 rolled 1 20-sided die: 19
Arkan150 (10:33:13 PM): Probably a hit.
Marco Polaris (10:33:17 PM): Maybe.
Arkan150 (10:33:22 PM): //rolldice-sides6-dice1
OnlineHost (10:33:23 PM): Arkan150 rolled 1 6-sided die: 1
Arkan150 (10:33:24 PM): ...
Arkan150 (10:33:40 PM): 6.
Marco Polaris (10:33:45 PM): Actually, I was about to say, the damage die for scorching burst is going to be house-ruled at d8 for now.
Arkan150 (10:33:52 PM): Is it?
Marco Polaris (10:33:59 PM): Since wizards are weak as controllers for the moment compared to the newer classes.
Arkan150 (10:34:06 PM): Oh, awesome.
Arkan150 (10:34:09 PM): Can I reroll that?
Marco Polaris (10:34:13 PM): Okay.
Arkan150 (10:34:18 PM): //rolldice-sides8-dice1
OnlineHost (10:34:18 PM): Arkan150 rolled 1 8-sided die: 1
Arkan150 (10:34:22 PM): FGSFDS
Marco Polaris (10:34:22 PM): *GUFFAW*
For me, it's not what they've removed implicitly from the default cosmology or bestiary or such and such (I don't even read a whole lot about it), it's that the new stuff they have come up with is too derivative and contemporary in style for my tastes. I don't really like reading through it, it is like eating recycled paste; I take more enjoyment picturing what it used to be made out of or what food I could put in it once I finish and rinse out the jar.
I need something more original, or simply have more direct influence and verisimilitude when I sit down to plan an adventure, and 'shadowdark' and 'sorrowsworn' and 'fellbound' really makes me think about how little I'd be missing with just the compendium and my own flavor text. I like to buy books whose lead concept artist knows something about folklore, the middle ages, armor, or even beards to some firsthand degree, so some text-only physical copies would be nice.
As a counterpoint to this, I am a really big fan of the new setting. The fact that they finally cut 30 year old, and sometimes even 50 year old tropes that weren't around because they were fun, but merely because they were traditional has been one of the most refreshing things of this edition, especially when it comes to FR. Things like getting rid of the multiple types of celestials, and yugoloths just so they could have all the various goods and evils covered. If I ever see a gem dragon it'll be too soon. I couldn't possibly be happier that they finally split everybody's favorite god race, Elves, into 2 somewhat reasonable races. Also, all the races age limits are finally reasonable!
I chalk it up to that while I grew up on Tolkien, Moorcock, Lovecraft and more contemporary authors like Jordan (until he jumped the shark around book 7 anyway), my true fantasy love these days are video games and anime. Also that I don't give a shit about the simulation aspect. I'm all about the mechanics and the rule of cool. Like if somebody wandered up to me and wanted to play that transformer Warforged druid that was mentioned earlier in this thread, I would be all for that. Because it is awesome.
Arkady on
LoL: failboattootoot
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I had an idea for a villain of some kind for my campaign. It's just based around a single line I want him to say to the party during the climax: "And now to betray you during your moment of triumph." I imagine this will be something of a chessmaster character, probably helping the group along with some task for his own sinister purposes.
Has anyone else designed a villain, or even an entire campaign, around a single line of dialogue?
I had an idea for a villain of some kind for my campaign. It's just based around a single line I want him to say to the party during the climax: "And now to betray you during your moment of triumph." I imagine this will be something of a chessmaster character, probably helping the group along with some task for his own sinister purposes.
Has anyone else designed a villain, or even an entire campaign, around a single line of dialogue?
event or choice, yes. single line? nope.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I had an idea for a villain of some kind for my campaign. It's just based around a single line I want him to say to the party during the climax: "And now to betray you during your moment of triumph." I imagine this will be something of a chessmaster character, probably helping the group along with some task for his own sinister purposes.
Has anyone else designed a villain, or even an entire campaign, around a single line of dialogue?
Not around a line of dialogue, but on the whole betrayal action i had an idea for a campaign that has the characters find themselves being hired by a guy to take out a "cult" only to find that when they kill them all that they were magically containing a small black hole that is now free to consume the planet.
Started a 4e game with some of my buddies. Went pretty well, just did part of the first Dungeon Delve. I like it. And hopefully I can play on the PbP game too. Woo 4e.
SniperGuy on
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
I had an idea for a villain of some kind for my campaign. It's just based around a single line I want him to say to the party during the climax: "And now to betray you during your moment of triumph." I imagine this will be something of a chessmaster character, probably helping the group along with some task for his own sinister purposes.
Has anyone else designed a villain, or even an entire campaign, around a single line of dialogue?
I designed an adventure around a single line of dialogue!
At the end of If You're So Smart, Why Aren't You Rich?, an episode of Batman: The Animated Series, the Riddler says to Batman over his big telescreen thing, "By the time you're out of the city...I'll be out of the country." and it zooms out to show that he's been on a plane the whole time.
My plan for the adventure was to have the PCs distracted with a sudden power loss on the Argonth (a huge flying fortress used by the country of Breland in Eberron), and to send them down into the depths to defeat some nasties that had taken up residence in the lower workings of the vessel. They'd get to the end, having found another one of the baubles they needed for the quest, and encounter their NPC inquisitive friend--who would take the bauble from them and then it'd disappear.
Group: WTF?
At this point, the inquisitive would reveal his big plan--perfect crime, kill tons of people, rule the world, etc. I calculated that someone would try to grab him--and then it'd be revealed that he'd been an illusion all along...and the real guy was on an airship high above them that was already starting to slowly turn away and head beyond the borders of Breland (where the Argonth couldn't go).
Though for one campaign I called it the "Eternal Seasons" that was divided into four kingdoms that were characterized by always being in a single season.
I don't think you need to keep searching; this is pretty awesome.
piL on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
I definitely agree about splitting up 'wild' elves and 'high' elves, but man there's a lot of potential in those Yugoloths, if they had been given some more distinctive names. It's a nice blur between an orderly hell of devils and chaotic demon wastes.
I grew up on a lot of anime and modern fantasy and other cultural slurpee mixes; nowadays I'm tired of seeing the same exact situations and matchups done over and over and want something with its own legs.
Utsanomiko on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
Posts
Might have to steal that idea.
"John Carter of Mars" and similar stories would be particularly easy to bring over.
Also I'd add:
Aliens = Monsters or Non-Human races :P
I'd buy a Ravnica art book in a heartbeat, even if only to use in some sort of adapted homebrew ecumenopolis-styled setting. (Which I have been tempted to try my hand at for awhile now, as I love the concept)
Also, ecumenopolis does sound fun.
Those add +damage
Guess I need to learn to read.
No problem! Either way, when questions of stacking come up usually they'll be worded as such...
"... gives a +X feat bonus..."
"... gives a +X power bonus..."
or for an untyped bonus just,
"... gives a +X bonus..."
etc.
No two bonuses of the same type stack, untyped bonuses stack with everything else.
You can only add 1 of each type of bonus. So if the implement mastery bonus is a feat bonus, it does not stack with other feat bonuses. Just make sure you're not stacking two bonuses of the same explicit type (feat, power, etc) and you're good to go.
Yes! This is by far one of my favorite settings. I am currently running the Witchfire Trilogy in 4e. The group is about half way through Book 2. These adventures are easy on the conversions because they don't add any new classes, all I really have had to do is make a bunch of new enemies or rename some enemies from the MM to fit the setting, and put in some basic firearm rules (easy to find online).
I've actually been wondering -
if you get a bonus from a feat, but it does not say 'feat bonus' in the description, is it untyped? Similarly with powers. I have been playing so far under the assumption that if it comes from a power its a power bonus and if it comes from a feat its a feat bonus, even if it doesn't say it specifically in the description. Is there an official ruling on this?
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
If it does not say explicitly, it is untyped. If you want to houserule it to say that all bonuses from those sources count as those types, it will make things a bit harder, but I doubt it will make too much of a difference in your game.
Wait, what? What is the problem with the new planes system, and in what way does it resemble a video game at all? I personally enjoy that it's a relatively straightforward setup and is comprised almost exclusively of interesting places to go rather than, say, the elemental paraplane of hot scalding mud, and I enjoy not wasting time having to hash out the difference between the Astral and Ethereal planes to my players over and over.
EDIT: this is all assuming you even need a default setting or cosmology at all. I got my start with 2E and the PHB and DMG didn't really bother explaining the world or the default assumptions very much, and somehow my friends and I muddled through with those books for 10 years.
I'm with you on this one. I suppose the names aren't that great, but I appreciate it's simplicity. There is so much historical D&D to draw upon that it'd be easy to add more complexity, if you so wished.
I tend to rename the planes... since they're folklorish enough there would probably be many names for them anyway.
Sea of Stars
Outer Darkness
However... I've found it hard to come up with a non-awful name for the Feywild. I've considered stealing "Undying Lands" from Tolkien. Though for one campaign I called it the "Eternal Seasons" that was divided into four kingdoms that were characterized by always being in a single season.
I didn't say the new planes were like a video game (I would say the artwork is, but we were talking about WotC making new settings from scratch, so that's another issue entirely), I said they were pedestrian. I'm fine with them being simple, and the parallel connections of the realms of the Fey and Shadow to the mortal, mundane realm is very useful in its ability to be both separate and easy to access as needed, and does have some traditional elements in its nature.
But moving on to the implied history of the PoL setting and the interractions between the stuff in the astral sea, the elemental chaos, abberants and gods and dragons and stuff, on the other hand, just bores me. It's a background too plain and predictable to make me want to explore, so the distinctions become meaningless and I've mostly been throwing it out while brainstorming. The Outer Planes were at least interesting for thematic variety and complexity.
You are becoming to this forum what Defender is to Social Entropy ++.
This is not something you want to be.
http://media.gleemax.com/podcasts/DnD_PAPVP2_ep7.mp3
Which is a much better name than 'Feywild'. 'The Feywild' just feels clunky and unevocative to me.
And I'm all about the evocation.
How is it any different in practice? If you want to go to, say, Acheron, you can. The only difference is in 4E you might encounter it whilst sailing on the Astral Sea rather than floating around with a silver cord like someone's bad acid trip or near-death experience. Nothing about the character of the planes (barring the elemental demiplanes - woo, the plane of dust! let me get my camera!) was intrinsic to their being hooked up to some giant, utterly arbitrary wheel metaphor.
Over the years the codification of the D&D cosmology has made it less and less cool to me. I don't even like that Orcus etc have stats now. Deities and Demigods, despite being an awesome read, was a bad step, I feel.
I need something more original, or simply have more direct influence and verisimilitude when I sit down to plan an adventure, and 'shadowdark' and 'sorrowsworn' and 'fellbound' really makes me think about how little I'd be missing with just the compendium and my own flavor text. I like to buy books whose lead concept artist knows something about folklore, the middle ages, armor, or even beards to some firsthand degree, so some text-only physical copies would be nice.
Huh, odd, I actually really like "Feywild."
I'll just be calling them all the outer realms unless I run something Paragon or Epic. Whether it's a creature that's fey or shadow or elemental or is a box with a face and legs, it's not from this realm so there's not a lot of point in explaining to the average adventurer how they mesh up. He'll just have to ask the locals what they call their place when he gets there and accept that they only name their country or region.
As a counterpoint to this, I am a really big fan of the new setting. The fact that they finally cut 30 year old, and sometimes even 50 year old tropes that weren't around because they were fun, but merely because they were traditional has been one of the most refreshing things of this edition, especially when it comes to FR. Things like getting rid of the multiple types of celestials, and yugoloths just so they could have all the various goods and evils covered. If I ever see a gem dragon it'll be too soon. I couldn't possibly be happier that they finally split everybody's favorite god race, Elves, into 2 somewhat reasonable races. Also, all the races age limits are finally reasonable!
I chalk it up to that while I grew up on Tolkien, Moorcock, Lovecraft and more contemporary authors like Jordan (until he jumped the shark around book 7 anyway), my true fantasy love these days are video games and anime. Also that I don't give a shit about the simulation aspect. I'm all about the mechanics and the rule of cool. Like if somebody wandered up to me and wanted to play that transformer Warforged druid that was mentioned earlier in this thread, I would be all for that. Because it is awesome.
LoL: failboattootoot
It sounds like your dice have the same disease as mine.
Has anyone else designed a villain, or even an entire campaign, around a single line of dialogue?
Not around a line of dialogue, but on the whole betrayal action i had an idea for a campaign that has the characters find themselves being hired by a guy to take out a "cult" only to find that when they kill them all that they were magically containing a small black hole that is now free to consume the planet.
I designed an adventure around a single line of dialogue!
My plan for the adventure was to have the PCs distracted with a sudden power loss on the Argonth (a huge flying fortress used by the country of Breland in Eberron), and to send them down into the depths to defeat some nasties that had taken up residence in the lower workings of the vessel. They'd get to the end, having found another one of the baubles they needed for the quest, and encounter their NPC inquisitive friend--who would take the bauble from them and then it'd disappear.
Group: WTF?
At this point, the inquisitive would reveal his big plan--perfect crime, kill tons of people, rule the world, etc. I calculated that someone would try to grab him--and then it'd be revealed that he'd been an illusion all along...and the real guy was on an airship high above them that was already starting to slowly turn away and head beyond the borders of Breland (where the Argonth couldn't go).
I don't think you need to keep searching; this is pretty awesome.
I grew up on a lot of anime and modern fantasy and other cultural slurpee mixes; nowadays I'm tired of seeing the same exact situations and matchups done over and over and want something with its own legs.