Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Fabius Maximus's page

1,137 posts (1,138 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
We CANNOT afford to keep marginalizing one group to help another.


We cannot afford to tell a privileged group in society that they are being marginalised just because they are slowly losing said privilege.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the Zils would have need to fight someone, they'd have elemental binding, magewrights with wands and their mastery of deception as well as illusion magic. It's what served them well against the Dhakaani.

Gnomes are subtle. Guns are crude and loud. The Trust especially would not use them, because its agents rely on being unobstrusive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Fairy tales are f$%$in' full of dismembered monsters.

They are, but mostly in small doses, in a poetic justice sort of way. They are also stories to be read. You wouldn't show stuff like that to a child.

I never said the movie is like a kids' story. I said the book was, and the first movie captured that better than the rest.

You did. My apologies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Also, if you buy a ring, don't buy a diamond. They are basically worthless. Required viewing (Contains colourful language).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Never make eye contact.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Council of Thieves: Bratty tiefling youth with granddaddy issues murders and/or dooms his immediate family while throwing a whole city into chaos.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

People have very short memories regarding disasters.... the ultimate proof being US gun policy vs seemingly constant shootings at schools

Nuclear will win out

What is going to do nuclear power in is not the disasters, but that it is forbiddingly expensive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?

I'm not sure what you're saying.

The whole thing is a balancing act. Everbody gets offended sometimes. Articulating this should not be met with distrust first hand (which would take the argument in bad faith), especially if the offended party explains why they feel that way - which is a good idea, but not always possible, depending in which the state the person is. The "key" is not to look for the fault in others, but rather to consider what you did before you start accusing someone else of wrongdoing, openly or not.

There may be times when someone uses being offended to "win" the discussion (which is a silly concept altogether, but not entirely avoidable, I guess), not or only vaguely explaining why they were offended. In that case, I would still try to give them the benefit of the doubt and rephrase my argument once. If the other side still insists on dying on that particular hill, withdrawing is the best option, because there is nothing to be gained anymore. They may think they have won, but you didn't concede anything, and "winning" is meaningless in this case, anyway.

OTOH, I'm bad at following my own advice and as a result, I rarely get into arguments on these boards - or anywhere - anymore.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
You may be careful about how you frame your opinion, but that is still coloured by how you are generally used to argue a point.

I totally get that which is why I'm not adversed to explain myself once again if I get the feeling that I transferred my opinion the wrong way. I'm also not generally averse to apologize if I unintentionally hurt someone's feelings about something.

So I'm not generally against James' suggestions how to handle forum stuff.Still, living in a country where only recently feminists claimed that if a woman claims to have been sexually harassed, this claim alone is sufficient as proof (in a case where the court eventually rightfully decided said claim to be untrue) and where, on the other hand, the society tends to think that gender equality has already been reached when it has clearly not and people get offended just by women (or men) pointing that fact out, I'm not too fond of the thought that only the receiver of an alleged offense may decide if it really is an offense.

That would most surely eventually lead to a severe impediment of free speech, because as soon as I don't like what you say, I can play the offense card, and you can do nothing about it.

I don't agree with you on the sexual harrassment issue, but that is not the subject of this thread.

If you think someone is playing the "offended card", you might try to rephrase your previous statement. If the same happens again, you disengage because the discussion is over. However, if someone is really offended by what you said, you don't get to decide whether that is justified or not. People have different thresholds of what they find acceptable.

The matter here, I believe, is whether one takes an argument in good faith or not. Thinking another person is playing the above mentioned card could be just taking the person's argument in bad faith.

I also think everybody should remember the wise words of Raylan Givens (apologies for the swearing): "If you run into an a!+&+&+ in the morning, you ran into an a$@*~%*. If you run into a!%$$#@s all day, you're the a$*#!&~."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Advice re Twinings: only drink their product if you live in the UK or maybe Ireland. The company's export teas are dreck. (If you are in Ireland, there are much better teas available, notably by Lyons and Bewley's.)

I also would stay away from anything called "Irish Breakfast" in the beginning. That stuff usually is pretty strong.

I would recommend starting with a Darjeeling. It's the mildest sort of black tea. If you don't like the grassy taste, move on to Ceylon. And don't go for the cheap stuff.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think I do this to a large extent. I'm going to claim that it is okay to prejudge erroneously in this way - in my case, I'm happy to concede that there's a high risk of error due to ignorance. I'm not aware of the differences between various kinds of 'asian animation styles' (I didn't even really know there were multiple styles until stumbling over threads like this. I've always just assumed that "Japanese animation is too over-the-top for my tastes").
Anime is just the medium, in which there's a lot of different genres. I recommend Moribito (I always recommend Moribito) for a well made 'anime warrior' series. Or Slayers, which is over the top comedy action. Or Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk classic.
If fantasy is the goal but you want more grit less magic, the original Berserk series comes highly recommended. Now with a mixed reviews cgi followup.

If somebody wants to try the original Berzerk, I suggest to start with the second episode. The first one has next to nothing to do with the rest of the series and you might expect something very different after watching it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Air0r wrote:

What makes it sci-fi? Besides it's name.

Outside of naming convention everything psionics DOES is what magic does, but using a point system and focus mechanic instead of a slot system.

Names are not a trivial consideration. But consider where the term was first used... Fringe science, Pulp sci-fi magazines, and comic books. Mention psionics to any number of people and those who don't give you blank stares will probably give you back either X-Men, Scanners, or the Power of Matthew Star, assuming they don't go all New Age and crystal pyramid on you.

And then of course there's the official Wiki Dictionary definition:

Psionics is the study of paranormal phenomena in relation to the application of electronics. The term comes from psi ('psyche') and the -onics from electronics (machine). It is closely related to the field of radionics. There is no scientific evidence that psionic abilities exist.

Psychic powers however pretty much date back to Victorian literature and gypsy lore.

That may all be true. However, nothing in D&D or Dreamscarred's Pathfinder psionics deals with electronics (although you could say that since brains run on electricity, they are biological machines).

There also is a significant overlap between D&D/Dreamscarred psionics and Paizo's psychic spellcasting in overall methods as well as in powers.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it goes back to some BS race theory from the 19th century.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Why are people so upset about ScarJo? She is a HUGE action star. Her name alone will fill seats in the theater. I would much rather they keep ScarJo and have a big success with this franchise than use a less known asian actress and risk the movie having a bad launch dooming the franchise.

People are upset because they took a thoroughly Japanese story set in Japan told through Japanese characters and mainly cast non-Japanese actors without even bothering to change the characters' names. They could have adapted the Laughing Man story by setting it in an alternate universe. There even is precedent within Ghost in the Shell lore, as the series and movies only share characters and themes.

There is also the question that if the filmakers can't even be arsed to remain faithful to the original in casting, how can they faithfully adapt the rest of the material in its complexity to a live-action version?

Nothing against Johansson; she's good, as are a lot of the other actors. But this white-washing nonsense has to stop. I'm getting tired of always seeing the same type of face on the screen. Rinko Kikuchi would have been a better choice for the role of Major Kusanagi, for example.

As for financial success: I couldn't care less. The franchise is not doomed; Arise just came out last year. It wasn't as good as Stand Alone Complex, but good enough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Iomedae has always been pronounced in my head something like this:


Which doesn't sound that uncomfortable to me. I've always liked the way that one flowed, personally.

For me, it was always Eye-OHM-eh-day. :D

Same here, although I treat the 'I' as a 'J'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Hama wrote:

Audience score is 85%, also audience is comprised of about 120.000 people.

Critics are idiots.

No, they are not. They just have different standards than the average member of the audience, whose opinion generally boils down to "I had fun" or "I did not have fun". That does not tell anything to anyone.

Critics are usually exposed to a wider variety of movies (music, art, what have you) than the average audience member, even if their individual knowledge of the matter differs in composition.

So if a majority of critics say that a movie is not that good and qualifies why, I'm bound to trust their verdict rather than the one of the general public.

Depends what you're looking for. The general public may be a better choice when it comes to "Will I enjoy seeing the movie", which is generally what I'm interested in. The critics may be right on some grander artistic level, but there are plenty of works that I acknowledge as artistic masterpieces, but don't actually like. And plenty of more formulaic things that I greatly enjoy.

I repeatedly found that the general public's sense of enjoyment and mine differ wildly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
wait where does it say that this is a new forum version rather than something that broke that Paizo is trying to fix?

Exactly. What new forum?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Anyway, "Bavaria," for whatever reason, is the English transliteration for Bayern, Deutschland.

Because the region is called after what the Romans called the tribe the found there: the Baiuvarii.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Posen, the capital of the German province Wartheland, temporarily under Polish control and under the name 'Poznań'.

Dear Germans, please invade and annex us, kthxbai.

Thanks, but we're not interested anymore. It's never been really ours, anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fargo is probably the best series on TV right now. Everything about it is top-notch and season 2 is probably even better than season 1.

Rectify is superb, but really depressing. Thankfully the seasons are relatively short.

In the same vein is The Leftovers, a Damon Lindelof show about how 2% of Earth's population just vanishes into thin air. It deals with the effects on the eponymous people that were left. Christopher Ecclestone, Liv Tyler and Justin Theroux are part of the cast (the latter is suprisingly not bad).

The Americans is about two Soviet sleeper agents in the 80s. Excellent writing and great performances all around.

I agree with Imbicatus that James Spader is the best thing about The Blacklist. The rest of the show is a big pile of hot garbage, however.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's headed by Alex Kurtzman, one of the guys responsible for writing the Transformer and the new Star Trek movies as well as Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Cowboys & Aliens.

It will be a trainwreck.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3D makes me nauseous (I easily get car sick, as well). Also, those bloody glasses don't fit well over mine, so 3D can go take a hike.

Referring to my earlier post in this thread, I checked the only theatre showing the original version here. 3D only, of course.

Gods damnit!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alleran wrote:

1) I throw out most of the cosmology and replace it with Planescape. Pharasma is a borderline overgoddess (she's been pushing at it on a multiversal time scale, but she's not quite there), and the "Golarion sphere" is a bunch of different spheres all pushed up close to one another, with decaying sphere walls (the decay has a reason, but none of the campaigns have quite figured it out yet), all in a cluster.

I have had a similar idea. Basically, Golarion's multiverse exists long before the D&D multiverse. At some time in the future, something happens and The Boneyard - already connected to the various planes via portals - becomes the Lady of Pain's prison (the Lady of Pain being Pharasma, obviously).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since elves are aliens, I removed their magical flavour and replaced it with Dreamscarred Press's psionics. Elves generally mistrust arcane magic; for them, it is tied to the aboleth and other powerful creatures, who all seem to have their hidden agendas. Elves suspect that arcanists traded in - willingly or unknowingly - something for their power and that they are the puppets of powerful beings.
Mordant Tower elves are especially hostile towards arcane casters (because they have more contact with aboleth than others), while jungle elves tend to use every ressource they can get their hands on, even arcane magic. Divine magic comes from the gods or through faith, so its origin is clear and the trade-off for power is transparent.

Dwarves are heavy users of arcane magic, since survival in the depths would have been impossible without it. They mostly use elemental and rune magic. They are a very solemn people whose members rarely show emotions. They use facial tattoos to show allegiance to their family or clan and even to their friends, if they trust them enough.

I've replaced the Ulfen people with goliaths from Races of Stone to get rid of the viking equivalent. Goliaths originally were a slave race; hybrids of human and giant stock bred by Thassilon that got their freedom after the meteor shattered that civilisation. Their culture is built upon competition and using everything to gain an advantage over others, including murder. No one cares if you are successful. The Linnorm Kings still exist, because killing a creature like that is such an enormous feat of strength and wits, it is the only thing other goliaths respect in a ruler without trying to remove him instantly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cmastah wrote:
@Fabius, that sounds intriguing, could you give us a name please? I've been eager to find some lovecraftian movies.

Die Farbe aka The Colour Out Of Space

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

The guy who wrote Wrath of the Titans is writing I don't have much faith in this being good. So with the history behind this...I am keeping my expectations low.

He also wrote a few episodes for The Walking Dead and the surprisingly good Mob City.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Watched about 6 episodes of Killjoys, and enjoying it.

Watched the pilot of Dark Matter and found it mind numbingly f@#@ing dull, so I saw no reason to continue.

I'd suggest you pick it up again, if possible. Dark Matter surprised me with how complex the charaters turned out to be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
I'm concerned that the writer doesn't appear to have a strong background with D&D or RPGs. Any word on anyone from WOTC who's involved in story approval? does WOTC even have any creative approval this time around?

That is actually a good thing. The writer only needs to know the setting and tell a good story using it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will take a look at the series, but I'm rather pessimistic. I remember reading the first Shannara trilogy, then letting them collect dust in some forgotten corner of my room, until I threw them away years later. (For comparison's sake, I still have my old David Eddings paperbacks, in case the fancy strikes me to read them again, and those are pretty bad.)

Simon Legrande wrote:
New Zealand again? That's just silly, although I suppose it's probably cheaper than filming in the US.

It is, because New Zealand has a lot of different landscapes relatively close together.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Do you have any intention of getting the Inner Sea Races hardcover? If so then don't bother getting the Gnomes of Golarion, the ISR will have reprinted and updated info on Gnomes and a lot of other races.

Not experiencing GoG's colour scheme would be a shame, though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another reason could be that a lot of the operas are written and performed in Azlanti

1 person marked this as a favorite.
theblackteagamer wrote:

So let me just ask this straight up...

Did anyone else first get into drinking tea by ordering "Tea, Earl Grey, hot"? Or was that just me?

It wasn't just you, though I didn't use that phrase.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Pan wrote:
I usually go unsweetened, but occasionally I use lemon and/or honey. Honey is way better than sugar or artificial sweeteners.

Stevia's actually natural, even though it's zero calorie.

I do enjoy honey or agave, too, though it can distract from the flavor of the tea withtoo much.

I tried stevia and got the same result as with artificial sweeteners: both negate the tea's aroma too much and leave a dry feeling in my mouth. I put honey in my tea, depending on the sort, which adds to the flavour, in my opinion (oddly enough, I can enjoy coffee without any sweetener).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tea bags are weird. You can find good tea in bags, especially when you're on the British Isles, but it's pretty rare in continental Europe. The tea in most of them leaves a dry feeling in my throat.

I prefer loose tea and it has to be strong. Assam and Ceylon mostly, although my store offers a strong Kenian sort and a delicious Java OP Superior. My everyday tea is "Ostfriesentee" (East Frisian Tea), which is a very strong blend of a minimum of 10 different sorts.

I also like flavoured sorts of the non-fruit variety (except for orange flavour); my favourite being Earl Grey.

As for brands, Lipton and Tetley's are obviously crap and I feel that Twinnings is only acceptable when you can get the non-export stuff. Bünting produces quite a few decent to very good teas, as do Lyons and Bewleys.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic JMD031 wrote:


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
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?

But I did answer. Go back and read my 20+ posts earlier on this thread and you will see.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
...Maybe you could give me an example of a setting that does it right in your opinion?...

Any setting that is just its own. Eberron is a combination of "fixes" (to things that aren't broke!) plus (seemingly) "fun things" from KB's childhood, all plopped into one big un-stirred cauldron of stew sitting over dead coals from a fire long burned to ashes.

Sorry, but that is not helpful. All you say that Eberron does it wrong, again, instead of saying which setting did it right.


Oh, but they do wait around. There are entire frontiers of the major kingdoms guarded by average low-level troops led by mid-level leaders (like 6th level) who have no peers and only a few even lower level aids to help out. One Bulette could take down half the kingdom before the PC's even hear about it. Because, let's face it, without the PCs the kingdom is doomed.

Vol herself could summon a dozen Shadows and, with their Create Spawn ability, take out the ruling class in any one kingdom in a long weekend. Except maybe Thrane. Speaking of Thrane...


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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5. A box full of more or less cylindrical objects of various sizes that are tapered on one end and partially dissolved by battery acid.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Apparently, I am in danger of growing up and being domesticated.

I've heard love does that...

(We exchanged.)

So you are on your way to become household goblin? That's something new...

We could start calling him Doddy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
liz: if Valeros quits drinking, the cumulative hangover could kill him

He's going to need some Klatchian coffee, then.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:

Also, I believe it was in Korea with the Sabres they hunted in groups of two, and employed the Scissors technique for mutual offense/defense. If a MiG got on either one of their sixes, when they rolled back over and "closed the scissors", the other Sabre would have a firing solution on the MiG.

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.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
nighttree wrote:
As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)
As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)

D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.

The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.

I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.

Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.

Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo that I blamed Limeylongears for something that Cosmo clearly was responsible for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame the Limey for not knowing that the leopard doesn't change its shorts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:

I find pilots are not often very representative of their series. Usually when I really like a pilot, the series end-up disappointing me. When I thought the pilot was only OK, I often end-up liking the series. Sometimes it has less to do with the episode itself, but in the order or ways that things are introduced for the first time.

That was the case with Firefly. The Train Job was a good episode but a poor pilot IMO. The pilot for The Clone Wars was rather blah IIRC, and the series really picked-up by season two for me.

I don't know how it was for this one, but pilots are often manipulated by three or four different parties. "gotta have humour" "gotta have action" "gotta introduce the characters, but do it quickly". The pilot was also previewed by a test auditory, from which they got feedback and will adjust subsequent episodes (but we still got to see the same pilot)

That was the cover and back description of a book; it was meant to attract our attention but you can't judge its content solely on it.

'The Train Job' wasn't Firefly's pilot. It's the second episode. I agree that it would be a bad pilot. The real, feature length pilot is called 'Serenity' (like the movie) and sets up the characters nicely.

The problem with Rebels is that the second episode was as bad as the first one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Cr500cricket wrote:
Captain Malcolm Reynolds nuff said.
Blank stare followed by cricket noises...

Jaysus, go watch Firefly already! Cue FreeholdDM showing up in a puff of sulfurous smoke and tell you the opposite.

Reynolds is not neutral. The man has serious issues with authority, so I'd peg him has chaotic neutral.

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.