• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Silidus

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

578 profile views
  1. It would be nice to see the power of 'Special Editions' used for good, instead of evil.
  2. Yup, if only it had somehow been better done in the movies... Ok Disney, heres the deal... 'lose' all copies of the PT movies and bring Filloni and the CW writers in to finish the last 2 seasons of Clone Wars leading up to, and finishing with the birth of the twins and Obiwan going into exile. And then we will never argue about star wars in a forum thread again.
  3. I had a post on this earlier, but the way we solved this in our group is to allow the 'gain the advantage' maneuver allow the ship holding the advantage determine their relative position to the target (including arc). We then allow all relative movement to be handled using competitive checks between pilots, so an attempt to move 'closer' to a ship can be immediately countered by beating the pilot with a competitive check (and maintaining the distance), similar to a chase scene but on a move attempt by move attempt basis.
  4. I will grant that there is the germ of a really good storyline just under the surface of the prequels. Its just badly executed, and really needed a very competent story writer who understood how to create a complex layered villain in Palpatine, the problems with Democracy, and the 'Dark Side' of a morally good character sliding into an 'Ends justifies the Means' mentality. (prequel rant incoming) I think if I were to pick a scene where it went off the rails, I would say it was the end of the chase scene in clone wars. At the end of the chase, we have the bounty hunter crashing into the street full of people, and Anakin and Obiwan landing behind her. Instead of running into the club, she should have simply torn down the street. Anakin, seeing her escaping Force Grips her and slams her into the end of the ally, and when I say Force Grips, i mean the full power and extent of the 'chosen ones' abilities, waves of force power causing damage all down the street, people panicking or being thrown back. Obiwan sees this and is horrified, yelling to Anakin "No Ani, you must stop, this is not the Jedi Way.", pushing Anakin down and breaking his hold on the Bounty Hunter, who then escapes. This scene is then later called back, when that same Bounty Hunter results in the death of Anakins mother (casualty, plot or revenge), resulting in Anakin blaming Obiwan and the Jedi Order for the death of his mother, blaming their perchance for INACTION for the suffering in the galaxy, and swearing to use his power whenever possible to make sure that nobody every has to suffer. This way we set up a clear dynamic between the Jedi Order and Sith, contrasting the difference between accepting the outcome of situations as 'the will of the force' vs bending the force to their will to achieve a desired outcome. Later development of the theme can show how Anakin becomes Vader, as more and more people begin to fight against the 'oppression' imposed by his idea of the greater good and security, and he becomes increasingly convinced that people (and aliens) can not be trusted with their own futures and must be brought to heel and shown the path to safety an security.
  5. I think that's fair to say with regard to the OT. It stands on its own, is a pretty straight forward opera about knights and magic, chosen ones and the forces of Evil, basically a D&D campaign done in space, and that's GREAT. It does what it set out to do, and you are absolutely correct in saying Lucas really wasn't shooting for anything more in depth than that. The issue is more about what happened after that. The prequels can't really claim the same, they were ABOUT depth. The entire premise was to tell the background story of the fall of the old republic, to flesh out the Jedi, the story of Anakins fall, and the characters who were responsible for it. But instead, we got the cartoon again. I get that its part of the starwars narrative from the OT, but given how much the prequels differed from the OT in terms of style, structure, tone and scope.... keeping the cartoonish superficiality of the characters was probably NOT the thing to hold on to.
  6. The tone I am looking for is to be somewhat sad. Similar to Greatwolf Sif from dark souls. The character is a persistent villian, involved heavily with the campaign as a whole and to one players backstory specifically. The mechanic I'm trying to support should start with a difficult fight... but should end with them just beating her down again and again, with Crits just add up until the final blow is struck.
  7. Planning a solo fight for my players, basically players vs a high level Nemesis Inquisitor, so I have been thinking a lot about the crit system and WT. So here is the question, what can I give this Nemesis to allow them to fight to the death, basically I want them to keep going until the players hit that Crit+ threshold of 51-75 and nail the "Death" or "Dying" limit. Is there anything in the game that can do this? Can an incapacitated character use stim packs? I almost want to say a player can always 'get back up' during an encounter, making the wound threshold more of a 'normal damage till crit' counter that gets reset whenever it gets hit (although I know one of the solider signature abilities lets you do this). So... help? Edit: I think I found what I am looking for. "Against all odds" Edit2: Once per session... maybe not.
  8. Is the Acklay over stat-ed?

    I don't think it would go for a few rounds. Atst would one shot it, acklay can't really do anything other than knock the atst down.
  9. And they say if you can't add something constructive, you shouldn't comment at all. Good on you for bucking the trend. Most of the argument that confirm Palpatine as a crazy sociopath, are tied up in the Aftermath books, and yeah, they are cannon, so not much point arguing it, but there was at some point decent potential to have this character (also known as the ruler of the galaxy) be something more than a one note cartoon villain, but that path has been lost to us forever. Instead we have a madman that just tricked everybody, for basically no reason other than his own quest for power, representing a dynasty that has lasted for 1000 years (since Banes rule of 2, which is also cannon) that he has no interest in continuing, putting extra effort to create a super weapon for the sole purpose of destroying his own legacy (instead of using those resources to gain more power, or i dunno, extend his own life). It just leaves us with a lot of conflicting actions that make no sense if his goal was his own power or security. Similar to KunFuFerrets comments regarding the 'importance' of Jakku. Its a weird tie in, and in my mind evidence of a bad book. For the most part, whenever you are writing a character and questioning their motivations, if the best answer you can give is 'because he is crazy' or 'because he is evil', its probably not a good character.
  10. Yeah.. I am always fighting a bit of a war with the mechanics between trying to narrate an ongoing conflict, vs the stop time turn order of combat. The book itself states that a 'shot' is not a single press of a trigger, but is instead choosing to continuously fire down a corridor for the next minute or so (ie killing multiple minions in a single round). This usually conflicts with stop time mechanics with multiple actions, like moving around a corner, sprinting a distance of 5 or so meters, punching someone in the face, and then running back around the corner.
  11. I kinda see that as the point of the whole system. Similar to the Sith training as a whole... reward brutality, reward bullying, and elevate those that overthrow or betray their superiors. Its like the training of Darth Maul, applied on a galactic scale. Again, it feels wrong that Palpatine could be a dogmatic Sith, except that he wasn't written that way, but many of his actions lean that way. Instead, despite that he is the only example the audience (movies) has of 'a Sith', he is not a very good Sith, and seems instead to be a sort of cartoon level villain. "I do this in the name of EVIL" "why?" "What do you mean why, do you not even see my black cloak and everything?"
  12. But thats the whole issue isn't it. We have this thousand year plan of subversion and corruption, instituted by (presumably) generations of Sith, each selecting the strongest possible successor to ensure the continuation of the Siths revenge, all very cold and calculated. And then we have Palpatine, apparently 'acting' cool and calculated, finally pulling it all off, and then revealing himself to be... what... a maniacal sociopath with absolutely no control or respect for the order to which he is the audiences only real example of? His lines (other than 'UNLIMITED POWER' which was cringy) are usually geared towards the power of the Sith, not him personally. "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy" But in the end it turns out he was not a Sith, and despite the outward claim (why? what does he gain by claiming to be Sith? If anything the claim of being Sith is a hindrance to his plans, not a benefit).
  13. Yes he definitely pushed the buttons.. but there is evidence that the senate was already failing long before that. Even in episode I there is talk of debates in the senate taking too long, and Jedi being sent to arbitrate conflicts that should have been fairly one sided moral issues.
  14. Well to me it's the entire character and what it represents. For the most part (based on previous EU stuff, and the Sith religion as described in KoTOR), I always pictured Palpatine as a Sith, seeking power and influence as part of a dogmatic way to ensure the strong survive and only a stronger will would be able to usurp him. Through various lines in EI-III we get the impression that he despised the chaos of the Republic, despised that the bureaucracy created indecision and weakness. If we take these statements (and Sith lore) as insights into his character, then what we get is someone who believes in the right for the strong to lead, that listening to the cries of the weak only serves to weaken the strong. We see someone who believes in the right of succession, that those in power should seek more power to prolong their rule, but have a responsibly to train the strongest successor possible. And by train I mean grind the subject into the dirt until they emerge stronger than your training, or break and are replaced. This type of ideology is present throughout the empire, from the way the military is structured, the emphasis on order, and through the general style of the empire (clean lines, black and grey interiors, etc), the emphasis on overwhelming military force without regard for the soldiers themselves. All of this is a foil for the Jedi themselves, and (at least to me) gives a strong sense of a motivated character with a higher goal to create a better, stronger, world order under the rule of the Sith dogma. But then in the new Cannon, we kinda see the opposite. We see him creating Vader with a force limiting suit to control his power (ie, I found the strongest apprentice I could, killed off 2 others to get him, then made him weaker for ... reasons), we see him choose Maul as an apprentice, specifically because he is weak in the force (ie completely abandoning the Sith doctrine), and then finally we see him establish the Jakku Contingency... basically just a big F U to the galaxy to say none of it had any reason other than the whims of a madman. But why? why establish an empire? why continue to run the empire and institute sweeping dogmatic reform within the space of 20 years if the only thing he actually cared about was the position itself? Why train Anakin if his goal was to limit his power? or Why train an apprentice at all (especially after the Jedi were destroyed) and specifically test him against opponents to ensure only the most worthy could succeed him, if there was no intention of ever allowing anyone to succeed him? It really doesn't make sense in my mind.
  15. God I hate that this is cannon. The Aftermath books were just terrible. Edit: Loved Bloodlines though.