|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
I agree that most ciders are too sweet. I'm partial to Bulmers (Magners outside of Ireland; don't drink the English swill). I think it's more intensely flavoured than Strongbow while having a nice balance between sweetness and tartness.
We don't get any US ciders in old Europe, sadly. I heard some good stuff about them. As for pear cider: I liked Koppaberg's. Their apple cider tastes very artificial, though.
Crysis is a prime example. When made, it wasn't possible to run it on ultra on any gaming rig at the time.
Crysis is also known as the world's most expensive tech demo (at that time).
I don't understand the desire to always have to play games at maximum settings. If the game is good, graphics are only a nice accessory. If the game sucks, even the greatest graphics in the world will not save it.
Victor Zajic wrote:
Tell me that again when they start gnawing your legs off.
I half suspect that Nick gave Murphy one of the Coins (maybe Deirdre's) because of the dream Harry had and what his subconscious tells him later.
I also have been thinking for a long time now that Mac's the original Merlin.
Best line in the book: "You are a genuine Greek god. You're the Lord of the Underworld. And...you named your dog Spot?"
The driving habits of their owner sure are fiendish.
You could consider leaving out part 4. It reads like it's a very good adventure. It just doesn't fit well into the AP.
My group's just finished What Lies In Dust and I will not send them into the Spiral. Rather, I'll skip to Mother of Flies. I made Ilnerik the shadow leader of the Council by holding Eccardian hostage (and making him a vampire called Jair) and using his sister as a socialite to bring him the city's leaders so that he can dominate them. The PCs don't know about the whole conspiracy yet, anyway.
The downside is of course that you'll have to adjust the encounters to fit a lower level party.
Liz Courts wrote:
If it comes with blaring bagpipes, it's a Highlander Burial.
It's not about gender. It's about the ability to distinguish between the real world and a fantasy world's fantasy.
Again: Cheliax is a nation governed by devil worshippers. The play was written by one even before House Thrune took the crown, so you can assume he was a fundamentalist. And Hell is a misogynist place. (Hell, not necessarily Cheliax.)
It was your task to alleviate some of your player's problems with the play and switch some of the roles' genders, which you could have done on the spot without problem.
Ilsandra is an Erynies. A fallen angel that has been "impaled upon the loftiest tower spikes of Dis and left to be flensed by the vicious winds and fed upon by the city's revolting avian hosts for 150 years" (Princes of Darkness, p.28). She likes pain. She likes Larazod's ability to withstand pain. She's a devil first and a woman second (and remember, Erynies are elite warriors).
The whole affair is supposed to come of as distasteful, especially for good aligned characters. Yes, Thesing is a smarmy dick (he gets his comeuppance later in the AP). IIRC, The director has nothing against women, he's just choleric.
It seems that you and your player's blew the whole thing out of proportion.
Truer words have never been spoken.
As Mechlibur said, Asmodeus doesn't like women very much (he calls them the "second gender" according the Book of the Damned I). Cheliax is a bit better, since the country's motto is "Hell serves us" and they have a queen. The play's older than the country, though.
As for the play:
1. There is the concept of the "trouser role", where women played men's roles on stage. (I had two female characters in the play, one of them played Larazod. The player's a woman, too.)
2. You could have switched genders of a few of the play's characters, including Ilsandra's. There are humanoid looking male devils.
3. Ilsandra is an Erynies. A fallen angel. They are the worst. Do you know what is done to them in hell to change them into devils?
As for railroading: It's a published adventure. You have to expect a certain amount of it.
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
This "politically acceptable jargon" is called "being polite and respectful in discourse with your fellow citizens/board members".
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Well, instead of raging futilely against the machine, you could've gone ahead and rewrote your post trying to avoid phrasing that could be misconstrued.
He's to old for that s@%@?