I'm still somewhat bitter that Arnold Tsang got chased out by the residents for getting his anime-inspired art into their pristine, pseudo-European medieval fantasy. G*$@&%n puritans... or was that purists? Can't tell the difference.FYI, it has nothing to do with the period/ethnic trappings of the fantasy setting in question. There`s plenty of pseudo-European medieval fantasy anime.
There are asian-inspired fantasy settings that are illustrated in a more gritty, as opposed to stream-lined, video-game illustration styles as propagated by alot of what passes as `anime/manga`.Anyhow, I find it absurd the number of peopling denying the image resembles `anime` whatever that is, when Jason and Erik Mona themselves are saying there is no more `anime-esque` illustrations in the book, ie. confirming they find the illustration `anime-esque`. I would say that Lodoss Wars is a very appropriate comparision to the illustration, and that is certainly a `D&D-esque setting anime`.
I personally don't see it, and I am an anime fan. Amiri has more so-called anime influences than that elf illustration. My only problem with the pic is the Bow is a little over the top. As far as the rest of the pic it reminds me of just about any other pic done of an elf.
The body type has more of an american comic book feel to it, the eyes are way off to be anime the body is more muscular than is seen in "most" anime.
Overall I think the illustration is well done.
Instead of anime, the art is "too WoW" for my liking. Just to stoke the fires a bit :P
Instead of anime, the art is "too WoW" for my liking. Just to stoke the fires a bit :P
** spoiler omitted **
that bow is definitely WoW inspired.
Say what you want about it but the armor is horrible from the perspective of actually doing it's job. I learned to ignore 3E art with all those point / edge traps and other issues on the armor when it first came out.AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Couters are a normal part of late armor and are there for the same reason we corrugate and slope armor today -- extra protection. The angles offer a thicker piece of metal where the impact happens, and are stronger than a straight piece of metal. The extra 'fins' help deflect and catch incoming strikes. The same idea was used on breast plates by putting a crease going down the middle of the breastplate and sloping it downward towards the belly (which is why so many people in portraits from the time look like they have a significant amount of belly.
A couter is the elbow guard iirc. He doesn't have any. He does have over sized pauldrons which would interfere with arm movement, a badly articulated breast plate, a small codpeice (metal), poleyns, and greaves. You have to love the part of the breastplate that seems expressly designed to channel blows into the neck / head. Popular in Japanese anime versions of western armor. The fins on the poleyns angled up like that are more likely to channel a blow into the knee as oppossed to away. You don't put lots of little point / edge traps on real armor. Skipping some of that hideous and impractical Gothic tournament armor, you won't see it. Most people want to live through combat.
*edit* And he does seem to have a buckler strapped to his right arm.
There are 2 things I really do not understand about this communities view on Cavaliers that I would really like to be explained (I am not bashing anyone I am just confused). I am going off of the assumption that Pathfinder's use of Cavalier does not refer to the supporters of King Charles I or the breed of dog and that it does in fact refer to a mounted knight of sorts. So my question is why are people begging for a mount-less cavalier and a hound master?
A hound master (at least the way I am interpreting it)is a person who commands a small amount of trained dogs. The beast master ranger is already capable of doing this (and flavor wise fits so much better),but I still don't see the though process in this situation. in other words how does a mounted knight = a man who controls a bunch of dogs. Another way this could be interpreted is a master of riding dogs, and if that's the case why not play a small creature?
Second is the mount-less cavalier. Do I even really need to explain why I don't understand this? A cavalier is a mounted combatant so if you want a mount-less cavalier just play a fighter, Its like asking to play a paladin that does not worship a god. I understand that a lot of people want the cavalier for its tactician abilities but do not wish to be hampered by the mounted aspect. So why not ask for an archetype for the fighter that adds the tactician ability? That seems to make far more sense.
So if someone could clarify this for me thank you in advance! (and sorry if I mentioned anything already discussed)
|
The bow and the arrow in the image are bothering me. It just doesn't look right for some fundamental reason.It's how they're held. Notice that the bowstring's outside the arm holding the weapon? Impossible to aim correctly unless the right (character's right) hand is repositioned.
Hah, reminds me of the one shadowrun supplement cover in which the bow is held in a similar way and worse, if I remember the picturethe archer had the arrow nocked and halfway drawn. So yeah, I think that was worse that this one, he's just posing.
|
I love when folks ponder realism of armor design in a game where 15-foot tall demons brandishing 10-foot long swords teleport around the planes of existence.
It's like discussing realism of physics in Star Wars. Did you enjoy Star Wars? Yes? Was it realistic? Bloody as hell not? But it was still damn fun anyway, and when Luke zoomed around the Death Star you didn't give a damn about how it's possible that his X-wing makes sounds in space?
I love when folks ponder realism of armor design in a game where 15-foot tall demons brandishing 10-foot long swords teleport around the planes of existence.It's like discussing realism of physics in Star Wars. Did you enjoy Star Wars? Yes? Was it realistic? Bloody as hell not? But it was still damn fun anyway, and when Luke zoomed around the Death Star you didn't give a damn about how it's possible that his X-wing makes sounds in space?
You have to take many things on faith in a frpg. Suspension of disbelief and all that. That doesn't mean you have to do that with everything. Things with real life analogues are in that category. We don't have dragons in anything except art. They can look like whatever you want (as long as they fit the general mythological stereotypes). I expect a sword to look like a sword. Armor to look like (functional) armor. Having said that I don't have a real problem with frpg artwork. It is about evoking a feeling and looking cool. But you wouldn't catch me going into battle in that armor. Not that that's likely :D
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like discussing realism of physics in Star Wars. Did you enjoy Star Wars? Yes? Was it realistic? Bloody as hell not? But it was still damn fun anyway, and when Luke zoomed around the Death Star you didn't give a damn about how it's possible that his X-wing makes sounds in space?
Pssh. Everyone knows the pilots were just making the 'nneeeeeeerooooooommm' noises themselves.
Pssh. Everyone knows the pilots were just making the 'nneeeeeeerooooooommm' noises themselves.
It's like discussing realism of physics in Star Wars. Did you enjoy Star Wars? Yes? Was it realistic? Bloody as hell not? But it was still damn fun anyway, and when Luke zoomed around the Death Star you didn't give a damn about how it's possible that his X-wing makes sounds in space?
Exactly TOZ. And the Imperial pilots were much better at it imo.
Second is the mount-less cavalier. Do I even really need to explain why I don't understand this? A cavalier is a mounted combatant so if you want a mount-less cavalier just play a fighter, Its like asking to play a paladin that does not worship a god. I understand that a lot of people want the cavalier for its tactician abilities but do not wish to be hampered by the mounted aspect. So why not ask for an archetype for the fighter that adds the tactician ability? That seems to make far more sense.
So if someone could clarify this for me thank you in advance! (and sorry if I mentioned anything already discussed)
They want the mount-less Cavalier (and Hound-Master as well) because of dungeons and other enclosed areas. Those places basically tell the player of this one class that they must leave a huge class feature behind and not use it on the adventure. Players don't like that as a rule.
After all, what Fighter would enjoy being told that in this location his armor and weapon training gets negated, or what wizard would like to be told that his arcane bond and all school features don't work here?
I disagree that these areas tell them they have to leave it behind. You can always squeeze into a smaller space, or even play a small cavalier. Regardless, I see your point I am just baffled by the concept of an unmounted cavalier, how can something be what it is not, and still retain what it is? Thanks Jason.
Eh, barbarins can be civilized. Go figure.
I view the names as just terms to describe a set of class abilities.
Personally, I love the strategist side of the Cavalier. I feel that the mount aspect forces you into a combat style that frankly, I am not interested in. The hound master is amazing at this, so that's why I think that people including myself really wanted official support for it.
There are 2 things I really do not understand about this communities view on Cavaliers that I would really like to be explained (I am not bashing anyone I am just confused). I am going off of the assumption that Pathfinder's use of Cavalier does not refer to the supporters of King Charles I or the breed of dog and that it does in fact refer to a mounted knight of sorts. So my question is why are people begging for a mount-less cavalier and a hound master?
A hound master (at least the way I am interpreting it)is a person who commands a small amount of trained dogs. The beast master ranger is already capable of doing this (and flavor wise fits so much better),but I still don't see the though process in this situation. in other words how does a mounted knight = a man who controls a bunch of dogs. Another way this could be interpreted is a master of riding dogs, and if that's the case why not play a small creature?
Second is the mount-less cavalier. Do I even really need to explain why I don't understand this? A cavalier is a mounted combatant so if you want a mount-less cavalier just play a fighter, Its like asking to play a paladin that does not worship a god. I understand that a lot of people want the cavalier for its tactician abilities but do not wish to be hampered by the mounted aspect. So why not ask for an archetype for the fighter that adds the tactician ability? That seems to make far more sense.
So if someone could clarify this for me thank you in advance! (and sorry if I mentioned anything already discussed)
Because the cavalier has a lot of appealing abilities to it that have nothing to do with the mount. Tactician, challenge, orders and order abilities, various skills and more skills than a figther, as well as having the fluff of a medieval knight. If you take away the mount, there's still plenty left to go with.
The cavalier is much more of a knight than a horseman, no matter what its official name says. Don't judge a book by its title. I mean, just look at the magus.
Horrible, unevocative, uncreative anime BS.
Glorious evocative imaginative old school art.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure an elven archer illustrated in 1980 would still look like a really effeminate guy, except he'd be wearing a headband, green tunic and no pants.
...Seriously, what was with the no pants thing?
Edit: OH RIGHT THE BLOG, uh, kill the wizard stuff, literally I don't want to see a single thing for wizards at all in this entire book, it's not like fighters got anything in UM.
Skipping some of that hideous and impractical Gothic tournament armor, you won't see it. M
If you say so.
kill the wizard stuff, literally I don't want to see a single thing for wizards at all in this entire book, it's not like fighters got anything in UM.You know it's too late for them to do that, right?
Don't care, this thread asks my opinion and so I give it
Don't care, this thread asks my opinion and so I give itkill the wizard stuff, literally I don't want to see a single thing for wizards at all in this entire book, it's not like fighters got anything in UM.You know it's too late for them to do that, right?
Agreed, i feel the same way but it is too late, but i started saying this when i found out that there was non-caster classes left out of Ultimate Magic
So whats everybody most excited about?
- gunslingers and firearm rules in a non-Golarion setting book
- siege weaponry and associated archetypes
- all the rogue and wizard goodies
- variant HP/combat/etc. systems
- eastern themed classes/archetypes
- falconer, urban barbarian, and dervish dancer archetypes
There are 2 things I really do not understand about this communities view on Cavaliers that I would really like to be explained (I am not bashing anyone I am just confused). I am going off of the assumption that Pathfinder's use of Cavalier does not refer to the supporters of King Charles I or the breed of dog and that it does in fact refer to a mounted knight of sorts. So my question is why are people begging for a mount-less cavalier and a hound master?
A hound master (at least the way I am interpreting it)is a person who commands a small amount of trained dogs. The beast master ranger is already capable of doing this (and flavor wise fits so much better),but I still don't see the though process in this situation. in other words how does a mounted knight = a man who controls a bunch of dogs. Another way this could be interpreted is a master of riding dogs, and if that's the case why not play a small creature?
Second is the mount-less cavalier. Do I even really need to explain why I don't understand this? A cavalier is a mounted combatant so if you want a mount-less cavalier just play a fighter, Its like asking to play a paladin that does not worship a god. I understand that a lot of people want the cavalier for its tactician abilities but do not wish to be hampered by the mounted aspect. So why not ask for an archetype for the fighter that adds the tactician ability? That seems to make far more sense.
So if someone could clarify this for me thank you in advance! (and sorry if I mentioned anything already discussed)
Because the cavalier has a lot of appealing abilities to it that have nothing to do with the mount. Tactician, challenge, orders and order abilities, various skills and more skills than a figther, as well as having the fluff of a medieval knight. If you take away the mount, there's still plenty left to go with.
The cavalier is much more of a knight than a horseman, no matter what its official name says. Don't judge a book by its title. I mean, just...
And what did knights do in their leisure time. Went out hunting with the hounds. Such hunts were big things with knights and royalty.
A knights well bred dogs would have been a prestigious thing along with his horses.A houndmaster makes a fine cavalier. He rides a regular horse and uses his trusty hounds to bring down prey...
|
OH RIGHT THE BLOG, uh, kill the wizard stuff, literally I don't want to see a single thing for wizards at all in this entire book, it's not like fighters got anything in UM.
Hey, they got some Combat feats... sure they're more meant for magi, but they're still combat feats... ;)
I for one can't wait for the book, it looks awesome!
|
|
I hope the Flowing Monk is even half related to the Superstar contest entrant that had ´mind control/reading´ and social skills.Huh. When I saw it I Immediately thought "DEX-focused monk geared towards mobile combat and/or turning their opponents momentum against them". Need to look up that Superstar entry...Yeah... Here is that Superstar Monk Archetype if you didn`t find it.
...I think such a DEX-focused style would go great WITH that Archetype (as is, it`s able to counter OPPONENT`S DEX, which is VERY similar), but I think that is the thing that belongs more in a one of these new martial arts styles AVAILABLE TO ALL CHARACTERS (and Archetypes) than just one Monk Archetype.Actually, those martial arts styles available to everybody would be GREAT for the next Preview, hint, hint... ;-)
Very nice ideas in that archetype. Yeah, if that can be combined with a DEX-based martial art, however those are going to work, that would go a long way towards making a certain range of monk themes work better in the game. Here's hoping!
|
|
I'm still somewhat bitter that Arnold Tsang got chased out by the residents for getting his anime-inspired art into their pristine, pseudo-European medieval fantasy. G+#*&&n puritans... or was that purists? Can't tell the difference.
i miss Arnold Tsang. I hope he comes back to the currently wide and inclusive range of Pathfinder art styles someday.
Say what you want about it but the armor is horrible from the perspective of actually doing it's job. I learned to ignore 3E art with all those point / edge traps and other issues on the armor when it first came out.AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Couters are a normal part of late armor and are there for the same reason we corrugate and slope armor today -- extra protection. The angles offer a thicker piece of metal where the impact happens, and are stronger than a straight piece of metal. The extra 'fins' help deflect and catch incoming strikes. The same idea was used on breast plates by putting a crease going down the middle of the breastplate and sloping it downward towards the belly (which is why so many people in portraits from the time look like they have a significant amount of belly.
Yep, armor are all about angles to deflect blows instead of stopping them.
i miss Arnold Tsang. I hope he comes back to the currently wide and inclusive range of Pathfinder art styles someday.
Personally, I agree. I prefer Arnold Tsang's illustration of a bugbear to the design they're running with these days. Arnold's freak-job looks like he stepped out of my nightmares about Muppets eating people. Now that's what says "boogeyman that will eat your family and suckle the adrenaline soaked blood out of your dismembered toes" to me.
so when will the next preview come?
Ok, Ok, I just have to ask...what in the name of all the kami is a 'double walking stick katana'?
...and can my ninja use one? ;)
Ok, Ok, I just have to ask...what in the name of all the kami is a 'double walking stick katana'?
...and can my ninja use one? ;)
Probably a double end cane sword that's a Katana instead of just a normal sword.
You presumably know about Katanas right? About how awesome they are? A double Katana is so awesome you must hide it's awesomeness until you must use it -- otherwise it would blind all who see it with its awesomeness and threaten to break the world through sheer awesome.
Katanas? Bah. Everyone knows whip-swords are better! Soul Calibur proved that with science!
...speaking of...
flying blade....nine-section-whip
Oh please let one of these be able to pass for that type of weapon. :D
I can't decide if that would be awesome or not.
...yeah, probably just go with awesome :)
Katanas? Bah. Everyone knows whip-swords are better! Soul Calibur proved that with science!
...speaking of...
flying blade....nine-section-whip
Oh please let one of these be able to pass for that type of weapon. :D
I've been waiting a long time for such a weapon. The Urumi just didn't cut it. ^^
I'm still somewhat bitter that Arnold Tsang got chased out by the residents for getting his anime-inspired art into their pristine, pseudo-European medieval fantasy. G+#*&&n puritans... or was that purists? Can't tell the difference.i miss Arnold Tsang. I hope he comes back to the currently wide and inclusive range of Pathfinder art styles someday.
No, that's ok... he can stay away. I thought the art in Burnt Offerings really detracted from the quality.
Seems like a great book, can't wait for it.
Anyway what's a sohei and what's a tetori?
Seems like a great book, can't wait for it.
Anyway what's a sohei and what's a tetori?
Sohei is a warrior monk. In 3.5, they were in Oriental Adventures and were a limited spellcaster. They could go into a rage. I'm sure the PF version will at least be a a warrior monk, possibly with the rage.
I was looking up what a Tetori is, and I'm not 100% sure. There's something in an anime called Battle Goddess with the name of Tetori, and she seems nature themed.
Tetori also apparently means "hand hold". Used in Jijitsu.
Seems like a great book, can't wait for it.
Anyway what's a sohei and what's a tetori?
A Sohei is a Japanese warrior monk. Known for their use of the Naginata iirc. Tetori I'm not so sure about.
Ninja'd. Glad I'm not the only one to wonder about Tetori though.
Upon reflection, I think Tetori is going to be a grappling master. Less versatile than the Maneuver Master, but better at it.
It may not be perfect anatomy but to be fair at least it's not Rob Liefeld
awesome link, and those pictures make me think a lot of the art in Utimate Magic, there were feet that were ... not from this reality. too long, tiny ankles and whatnot.
On the other hand good art is probably very expensive and I trust Paizo to find the right balance.
I have to admit, I'm not a fan of that illustration. The anime inspired art that sometimes creeps in just leaves me cold.
I always felt it looked more like a work made of stained glass than anything anime. This is actually the first I've ever thought of those pieces as "anime." However, I absolutely fell in love with those pieces the first time I saw them. Might just be me.
I'm imagining more something like weapon proficiency with whips and pistols, bonuses to acrobatics, seduction and knowledge skills, several class abilities that function off of charisma, and improved unarmed strike. Possibly with a phobia feature similar to the oracle curse mechanic.
Archaeologist should be fun: bonuses to academic backbiting and advanced cataloguing skills... bonus to concentration checks when using a trowel.I think I'd halfway sell my soul for a class ability called "It belongs in a museum!"
I dont even care what it does :)
My favourite rogue Archaeologists....... Time Team
I've seen it referred to before as cell shading -- it keeps cropping back up in video games and some other genres for the unique graphic it offers (a notable example would be Breath of Fire:Dragon Quarter).
Everything I don't like is anime, everything I do like is glorious old school western artwork.
Come on guys, get with the program!