|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I got two bottles for Christmas: 10 year old Bushmills Single Malt and 12 year old Glenlivet. The Bushmills is rather nice, tasting quite a bit of fruit. I haven't come to terms with the Glenlivet yet. It's not bad, surely, but I cannot distuingish any particular flavours yet. But I'm a relative newcomer to Scotch, so I guess my nose still needs a bit of training.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The funny thing is that half of the dwarf actors are New Zealanders.
Archivist is one of those classes I don't mind to see gone. Full-list access casters like clerics are already very, very problematic when running games above level 7 or so (not even wizards' memorizations consumes nearly as much time as their searches through their ever-expanding spell list for just the thing that might win DnD today). Archivist had the same problem squared. In PF it is even worse because of extra divine casters.
Minor correction: Archivists use a spell book. They don't have "full-list access".
Making a Pathfinder video game as a first person "shooter" with spellcasting / melee / archery / etc.
Quark Blast wrote:
That still is not a clear answer. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Are you against published settings in general and particularly don't like Eberron? Or do you like some settings and not others, one of which is Eberron?
I've got the impression that it is the former, in which case I must ask what you are doing here in the first place (except being deliberately belligerent for the heck of it). In the latter case, I'd really like to know which published settings you actually like (for comparison's sake).
I'm going to leave the rest of the discussion fall by the wayside. It's going in circles and - quite frankly - you don't make much sense to me.
Quark Blast wrote:
I did. And no, you haven't named a single setting that does it right in your opinion (barring aliases; I didn't check those).
I'm rather curious, though. Maybe you can come up with an answer. If not, I've no choice but to go with my assumption.
First of all: Since you avoid answering my question, am I correct in the assumption that no published campaign setting does what you'd like them to do?
You seriously underestimate the levels of Eberron "government officials". King Boranel might be only CR 10, but he doesn't have to be the most powerful NPC around. In fact, Keith Baker described Thorn, one of the common Dark Lantern field agents as having levels in the Assassin PrC, so she can't be of low level. The NPCs in "Five Nations" - among them another Dark Lantern and members of various other organizations - are almost all around CR 10.
So, while the mooks on the border might be low-level NPCs, there are special operatives on hand who have teleportation magic available and who can to a crisis in a literal flash. Furthermore, being low level doesn't mean the NPCs have to be stupid. They can withdraw. That particular border is sparsely settled anyway.
Also, the only nation on Khorvaire Aerenal is allied with is Valenar, and that only tenuously. The Aerenal elves are isolationists. Taking over one of the Galifar successor states won't garner Vol anything she wants.
As for GM-fiat: That is not different in any setting. Describe it how you will: fate, prophecy, bad luck, whatever. The GM decides what happens in the world. No matter what I changed in Golarion, I still chase my players through Council of Thieves (which I modified heavily, as well) set in Westcrown, Cheliax, Avistan.
Buying setting material means I don't have to come up with my own world and reading it inspires me, to boot. Saying that modifying something makes one not to play in a published setting anymore is hyperbole. The effect of player interaction, fan fiction, online discussions, etc. is additive, not exclusionary.
I really don't know what you want. Your expectations of what an RPG campaign setting should do seem way to high and more akin of a CRPG persistant world than a P&P RPG.
Quark Blast wrote:
Sorry, but that is not helpful. All you say that Eberron does it wrong, again, instead of saying which setting did it right.
Take Breland, for example. In your scenario, they would put together a force strong enough to bring the landshark down. For other scenarios, there are the Dark Lanterns, for example. The kingdoms are not helpless. If something turned up that they couldn't handle, you just run with it and have the PCs sort it out.
Vol could maybe use that plan (I highly doubt it, though), but why would she? Her goal is not to conquer a random kingdom, but to take revenge against Aerenal, which is much more difficult. Apart from that, her goals are nebulous. As are those of the Lords of Dust and especially those of the Daelkyr, because they are so alien. The only exception is the Dreaming Dark, who are trying to make the current Quori age last forever, but that doesn't have appeared on the slate of the Khorvaire nations yet.
The Big Bads do not wait around. They are planning and moving pieces into position. Don't forget, they have massive amounts of time to do that. But the moment they start speeding things up, it gets noticed and the checks and balances start being active, the PCs among them.
What your PCs do does matter, if you - as a GM - make their actions relevant. And if you think real life is boring, it is because you are not in the middle of things. The PCs in Eberron are supposed to be.
As for house ruling: Do you play Golarion, the Realms or any setting as is? Really? I couldn't do that. I have adapted Golarion to my needs and would continue to do so, depending on the region my game is set in, because some things just grate on me. That is the point of a kitchen sink setting: you take what you need and change the rest.
If an archetype replaces a class feature that has a series of improvements, but it does not list one individual improvement, that class feature replaces the entire class feature and all of its improvements. For example, if a class feature says that it replaces trap sense without mentioning a specific bonus, it replaces all of trap sense.
Ironskin Monk wrote:
At level 6, the Ironskin Monk already has Slow Fall (20 ft) and Fast Movement (10 ft.). Does he never get them or does he stop the progression at that level?
Date of Lies wrote:
Fabius: I can understand that, but not for the next room in the dungeon (where we stopped in between sessions).
Fair enough. I'm still encountering the problem in Council of Thieves, which is very wordy and at several points gives the PCs quite a few options where they can go next. But if the GM knows what comes next, I cannot think of an excuse for that (except maybe time constraints).
Re point 2: I know that problem as a GM. Many times, information is scattered through the book and you have to look up details because you didn't expect the players to ask certain questions. The only way to avoid this is to memorize the whole book. The amount of information in those books can get quite staggering, too (although I don't know how it is in Legacy of Fire).
Nah, Berman and Braga killed Star Trek with Voyager. It got resurrected in season 4 of Enterprise for a time, until they put the last nail in the coffin with its last episode (which was just a big f*** you to the fans).
Quark Blast wrote:
I seriously don't know what you expect. Stat blocks usually don't show up in Campaign Setting material. There are some in the ECS in addition to a few in the other books (mostly when it comes to PrCs). However, there are a lot of "non-standard magic items" to be found; the ECS has a whole section devoted to it, for example. And traps you mainly find in adventure modules, anyway. There are not a lot of those for Eberron, sadly.
Setting books are there to deliver background information. Now, you don't like Eberron as a setting and that's fine. But it seems to me that your expectations are impossibly high here. Maybe you could give me an example of a setting that does it right in your opinion?
Baker confessed to the first two facts quite early after the initial publishing of the ECS. I'm not sure if they were fixed in the 4e material.
As for the threats, they all have counters: the Chamber, Adar and the Kalashtar, the Church of the Silver Flame, the Undying Court and so on. Don't forget that the most powerful beings of two Big Bad factions are locked into Khyber, one of them pretty thoroughly. Also, they don't wait around (I don't know what gave you that impression).
I think the Malazan setting depends on what do you want to play: normal people or ascendants. For normal people, Savage Worlds might work better. For ascendants, WoD: Scion could be suitable (even if you'd need to adapt a lot of the material).
captain yesterday wrote:
if you want people only to say nice things you need to start a thread for it, maybe title it "Eberron, how do I love thee, let me count the ways" but jumping on everyone here that doesnt like it as much as you isn't constructive at all
Quark Blast's post was pretty vitriolic, throwing words around like "atrocity". My postings here are tame in comparison.
And no, I have nothing against criticism that is founded somehow. However, you and Quark Blast admitted that you basically have not done much reading on the subject and have also stated things that are objectively wrong (probably as a result of ignorance). That is not constructive.
captain yesterday wrote:
There are plenty of adventure hooks strewn throughout the material.
Eberron is my second favourite setting after Planescape, so why would I not answer false claims about (and outright hate towards) it?
Quark Blast wrote:
If I understand you correctly: You want a setting that does all the work for you while exactly matching your expectations.
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
Indeed. The baseline alignment for every Eberron being is neutral, moreso than in other settings.
captain yesterday wrote:
Eberron sucked (i assume it has faded into nothingness) it was too small, bland (which is odd considering the genre it was going for) and just a bit racist (almost no human ethnicity, dark elves being evil from "the dark continent", Dwarves being miserly bankers)
I think we've been over this before. The only true thing in what you say is the claim that the world's too small (Keith Baker himself said he miscalculated sizes, I believe). However, it is big enough for most campaigns.
Grand Magus wrote:
When one of them makes a mistake or his plane is inferior in that situation.
@jjwolven: You didn't mention how the psionic characters outshone the others (although this would not be the thread or subforum for that discussion).
Anyway, since I've finally read through the playtest document, I might as well post my impressions here.
Kineticist and Medium seem like fine classes for which I can come up with character concepts quite easily. I'm a fan of Radiance House's work for 3.5e, though, so I don't know if I will use Paizo's updated Binder.
The Mesmerist looks like an updated Beguiler, a class that - like the Warmage - should have been a Sorcerer PrC back in 3.5. I like the fluff and quite a few of the mechanics. I just don't see why it needs to be a base class.
The Occultist seems fine, even if I probably won't play one, as it doesn't interest me much. However, the weapon and armor proficiencies are weird and do not fit the class's fluff. If this was intended to be a psychic melee combatant, I'd understand, but the class seemingly wants to be something else.
The Psychic is not for me. I'm neither a fan of the fluff nor of the amplification mechanics. I'd rather play a Psion.
The Spiritualist looks good. It is basically a haunted Oracle to the extreme, although I find the fluff a bit too narrow. Maybe there will be archetypes for tethering elementals or other outsiders in the book.
So, 2 or 3 interesting classes out of 6 is not enough for me to consider buying the book.
I believe that tactic is called the "Thach Weave" or a variant thereof. It was developed by one John Thach during WWII, because the US Navy Wildcats were inferior to the Japanese Zeros. As the Japanese pilots rarely used group tactics, it proved a pretty effective defensive tactic.
Just four quick things: 1. Pun-Pun wasn't created using the Psion class. He can use the Psion class.
2. The problem was not that class, but that he can somehow force a Sarrukh to grant him one of its abilities. Sarrukh are high-level creatures from a FR splatbook, which makes him a corner case.
3. The whole thing is an experiment in extra odorous cheese and and not meant to be played.
4. You have no idea about 3.5 psionics if you use Pun-Pun as an example for its alleged brokeness.
If you want a discussion about this, PM me or use one of the psionics threads on the board, please.
Grand Magus wrote:
I have no idea if they recorded that information. Also, confirming kills was really unreliable, because it frequently happened that a shot-up plane made it back to base or that a plane that still looked flight-capable after losing an engagement went down out of sight. The latter happened a lot in the Battle of Britain. British planes were outfitted with .303-caliber light machine guns. These things usually didn't stop German (or Italian) planes from fighting immediately, but damaged them enough that quite a few of them ended up in the drink much later.
As for lining up shots: you always wanted to approach a fighter from its six. You were way out of its firing arc and rearward visibility wasn't great in many WW II planes (the BF109 was especially bad in that respect, even if the thing blocking your view as an armor plate). But even rookies knew that. As a result, part of German air combat doctrine was "never fly more than 30 seconds in a straight and level line in a combat area". The allies had similar guidelines. More often than not, you'd catch an enemy fighter plane at an angle where a deflection shot was necessary to bring it down (the whole thing changed when engaging bombers; never approach a bomber from its six if you can avoid it).
That's not necessarily saying you'd engage in a turn fight. You needed to know your airplane's capabilities versus the attacker's plane and then decide how you wanted to continue. Most WW II planes were built with speed as their main defense in mind (with the exception of most British and Japanese aircraft). The FW-190 series for example could probably be outturned by any other single-engine plane during the war (though it had a very good roll rate, I believe, which helped a bit). It was very fast, however, and had a great dive speed, which meant pilots could dive away from engagements (provided they were out of the enemy's line of fire), then climb back up to a greater altitude and boom their opponents.
It was much more useful in WWII and the early part of Korea when the Mk1 Eyeball was a pilot's sole sensor system.
That's where I was coming from.
Re the different pursuit types: In the prop era, there was an additional reason for using them: visibility. Depending on the target's distance and position realative to you, your plane's engine would block line of sight when in lead pursuit. But it was necessary to line up deflection shots, especially if you caught the enemy inside his turn (which you ideally wanted to do, because he showed you the "broadside" of his plane, including the cockpit). So you had to lead you target while hoping that the enemy pilot didn't change direction or - much more aggreviating - altitude when out of sight.
Yeah, but that's not really an Immelmann turn. It's a half loop.
Originally, the Immelmann was a shallower version of a Wingover, with the expert version being the Hammerhead: After an attack on an enemy with less energy you'd pull up until your plane almost stalled, then used rudder to reverse direction, ideally going in for another attack. The enemy cannot follow you; if he does, he will stall sooner than you and therefore be unable to evade your attack.
The trailer makes Horizon look bad. I will probably watch at least the first 10 minutes, though. I'm also not a canon hound, so if Axanar works and Paramount doesn't block it, I'm fine with it, FASA or no FASA.
As for good fan movies, I recommend Star Trek: Phase II. They have done tremendous work with the scripts for the scrapped second TV series.
Grand Magus wrote:
Never heard of Yo-Yo attacks. There are aerial combat maneuvers called high and low yo-yo, respectively.
The Soviet MiG-15bis was designed for intercepting B-29 bombers, which meant high service ceiling, good climb rate (and good acceleration), good high altitude performance and superior armament. To add insult to injury, the bloody thing turned really well, too.
OTOH, the MiG-15's low altitude performance wasn't great, compared to the F-86 Sabre. The firing rate of the Soviet large caliber cannons was also not really suited to combat enemy fighters and gun convergence between the 23mm and the 37mm was off, I believe.
That's a long period to cover and I'm no expert, just an interested amateur, so take what I write with a grain of salt.
Basically, duels were much more prevalent during WW I, because of the ideal of gentlemanly combat and also because bombing tactics were just emerging. The fighter planes were really suited to these tactics, because those bi- or tri-plane fighters could turn on a dime.
After the Great War, the powers believed the future would lie in inassailable bomber formations and neglected developing fighter technology and tactics further. The Spanish Civil War kind of reinforced that impression, with the Legion Condor's bombing campaign being so successful. But the German Luftwaffe already was investing in new fighters and accompanying tactics. The Messerschmidt BF 109 was one of the first so-called energy fighters, I believe.
Energy fighting means that the pilot would try to gain altitude as rapidly as possible (meaning the planes had to have a good climb speed), because altitude equaled energy you could convert into speed used for diving down on an enemy plane, taking a shot and then using the speed gained in the dive to quickly gain altitude again, before the enemy had time to react. This was referred to by US pilots (I guess) as "Boom & Zoom", as opposed to "Turn & Burn". As this was more an ambush tactic, there barely was dueling anymore. Fighter wings would swoop down on the enemy and zoom away, then turn back and do the same again until they ran out of ammo or fuel.
The US AAF and Navy perfected this tactic and ordered their fighters to be uniquely suited for it. Late US planes would not have a great climb speed, but in the pacific theatre, the distances were so long that that didn't matter. The machines were very heavy, which meant they could outdive anything the Japanese Armed Forces (mostly using turnfighters, like the RAF) could throw at them.
Strategic bombing would be used much more heavily in WW II, so fighter escorts were standard. Again, the best plane for that role was the P-51. Its range was so great that it could range in front of bomber formation to sweep the sky clear of German interceptors, which by then were much more heavily armed than their US counterparts, but lacked the flight characteristics to keep up with them.
Don't trust Dogfights (the show) too much. It has the reputation of being historically inaccurate.
A Split-S is a simple change in direction. You do an aileron roll while in level flight so you fly inverted. Then you pull on the elevators until you have reversed direction. It's called Split-S because from the side, the plane's flight path looks like the bottom half of the letter S.
It was a pretty effective way of dodging incoming fire, but there are much more complex maneuvers.