Do you like PE Paladin class concept?

[kenup]

We all know that the Philistines were extremly religious, along with the Israelites. A simple "champion" doesn't meet the requirements for a religious (Yet brutal) fighter belonging to the Philistine army. Simply put, the English translation is completely wrong.

This is just your opinion. Goliath is called a champion, not a paladin.

 

And champion fits just fine, it's not the only case where someone is referred to as such.

 

You're joking right?

"paladín" translates into champion. It's not a reference to occupation, so no I'm not joking.

Edited November 23, 2012 by kenup

[Merlkir]

"We all know that the Philistines were extremly religious, along with the Israelites. A simple "champion" doesn't meet the requirements for a religious (Yet brutal) fighter belonging to the Philistine army. Simply put, the English translation is completely wrong."

 

You do realize the term originated in Latin, right? Palatinus is not a latin translation of some hebrew word for a holy warrior.

 

Just for you, I found the relevant part in Latin:

 

cumque adhuc ille loqueretur eis apparuit vir ille spurius ascendens Goliath nomine Philistheus de Geth ex castris Philisthinorum et loquente eo haec eadem verba audivit David [24] omnes autem Israhelitae **** vidissent virum fugerunt a facie eius timentes eum valde [25] et dixit unus quispiam de Israhel num vidisti virum hunc qui ascendit ad exprobrandum enim Israheli ascendit virum ergo qui percusserit eum ditabit rex divitiis magnis et filiam suam dabit ei et domum patris eius faciet absque tributo in Israhel

 

As you can see, the word "spurius" is used, not palatinus, not paladin. Quite clearly they're (again) talking about a champion to represent the Philistines, not a holy warrior.

 

btw, I found this version of the Bible in Castilian:

 

Mientras conversaban, Goliat, el gran guerrero filisteo de Gat, salió de entre las filas para repetir su desafío, y David lo oyó.

 

from here : http://www.biblegate...:23&version=CST

 

So, where did you get this wonderful Bible translation, according to you from the 5th century or similarly early?

 

http://en.wikipedia....ns_into_Spanish

 

 

edit2: I'll answer myself.

 

http://www.biblegate...version=RVR1960

 

a 1960 edition of a translation made in 1569 (!)

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Reina-Valera

 

Hilariously, the 1569 version doesn't use the word "paladin" either.

 

estando él hablando con ellos, he aquí aquel varón que se ponía en medio de los dos campos, que se llamaba Goliath, el Filisteo de Gath, salió de los escuadrones de los Filisteos, y habló las mismas palabras; las cuales oyó David.

 

Any questions?

Edited November 23, 2012 by Merlkir

[Felithvian]

Hilariously, the 1569 version doesn't use the word "paladin" either.

 

estando él hablando con ellos, he aquí aquel varón que se ponía en medio de los dos campos, que se llamaba Goliath, el Filisteo de Gath, salió de los escuadrones de los Filisteos, y habló las mismas palabras; las cuales oyó David.

 

Any questions?

 

Nor the word "champion". By the way, it's been some time since I read Latin, I'm not very familiar with "Spurius". I always thought about it as a common roman name.

 

The actual meaning of Spurius is unproven. The name was used by the Etruscans in the form Spurie, and it was used by several Roman families that had Etruscan roots, so it has been postulated that it was either borrowed from the Etruscan language, or was a cognate of an Etruscan word meaning something akin to city dweller.^[4][5]

Popular etymology, however, connected the name with the phrase, sine pater filius, that is, son without a father, and the explanation that it was given to children born out of wedlock. This was the opinion of Festus, which is accepted by Chase, perhaps surprisingly considering the unlikelihood of anyone deliberately choosing such a name, or passing it down within a family for many generations. This explanation is almost certainly wrong, and is an example of false etymology. However, it probably contributed to the decline in the use of the praenomen, and gave rise to the modern adjective spurious.^[6][7]

While it cannot be proven that any Latin praenomina were borrowed from Etruscan, and Spurius was used by a number of gentes of indisputably Latin origin, the explanation that it was connected with a word meaning city or citizen appears reasonably likely.

 

This latin translation doesn't mention anything about a Holy Warrior, however the "son without a father" (Son without God) may refer to an idolizer. A man who follows Baal, Astarte or Dagon, implying a religious background.

 

Anyways, I'm through with this Merlkir & Kenup, we all know Obsidian are heading for different direction.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Felithvian

[Merlkir]

This latin translation doesn't mention anything about a Holy Warrior, however the "son without a father" (Son without God) may refer to an idolizer. A man who follows Baal, Astarte or Dagon, implying a religious background.

 

While I don't think it is, that may very well be the case. However, your whole argument about the use of the word "paladin" simply falls apart. The text you're quoting says the etymology of an out-of-wedlock son is false. It makes sense if it meant a chosen man of the public, one representing the others. Which is, you guessed it, the definition of a champion.

 

Even if "spurius" (very coincidentally) meant "idolater", the word "paladín" in the Spanish translation is only used in a rather recent translation. Not even in the 16th century one, it's a 20th century one. And even IF it was used in the 16th century one, it wouldn't be too curious. By that time the knightly romance was well known and popular, as was the use of that word for a knightly champion.

 

It's not that difficult to find a hebrew version with a literal translation, like here:

 

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa17.pdf

 

and·he

מְ דַ בֵּ ר

mdbr

mspeaking

עִ מָּ ם

om·m

with·them

וְ הִ נֵּה

u·ene

and·behold !

אִ ישׁ

aish

man-of

הַ בֵּ נַיִ ם

e·bnim

the·betweens

ע!לֶ ה

oule

coming-up

גָּלְ יָת

glith

Goliath

 

I'm not sure what "man of the betweens" means exactly, but the translator gives it as "champion". A man from their midst? Yeah, still sounds like a champion.

 

Yeah, you're certainly through with this.

[Felithvian]

I'm not sure what "man of the betweens" means exactly, but the translator gives it as "champion". A man from their midst? Yeah, still sounds like a champion.

 

Yeah, you're certainly through with this.

 

Good guess, but I don't really think it means that. A "man of the betweens" is simply implying that, A MAN IN THE BETWEENS. Surely doens't mean anything related to a champion. More like a CHOSEN one. A Man blessed by the False Gods. An important figure among a extremely religious society.

 

We have to think about it as a religious battle between the Devil and God, between Christ and the World. It's a religious fight between two men who were directly chosen by their Gods. David was never chosen by the people, nor was Goliath, they were chosen by their God/Gods, therefore they should be called Paladins.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Felithvian

[kenup]

We have to think about it as a religious battle between the Devil and God, between Christ and the World. It's a religious fight between two men who were directly chosen by their Gods. David was never chosen by the people, nor was Goliath, they were chosen by their God/God's, therefore they should be called Paladins.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, but the keyword is in the bolded part. "Should" is not the same as "is"/"are". It's just your opinion that holy warriors(or warriors chosen by their god(s) if you will) should be called Paladins, and that David should referred to as that. But no text names him like that.

Edited November 23, 2012 by kenup

[Merlkir]

We have to think about it as a religious battle between the Devil and God, between Christ and the World. It's a religious fight between two men who were directly chosen by their Gods. David was never chosen by the people, nor was Goliath, they were chosen by their God/Gods, therefore they should be called Paladins.

Edited by Felithvian, Today, 07:39 PM.

 

So much for being through, ey?

 

1.) it's not a religious battle. You say it is, but it's simply a duel of two champions.

 

The purpose of the original story was to show David's identity as the true king of Israel.^[1] Post-Classical Jewish traditions stressed Goliath's status as the representative of paganism, in contrast to David, the champion of the God of Israel. Christian tradition gave him a distinctively Christian perspective, seeing in David's battle with Goliath the victory of God's King over the enemies of God's helpless people as a prefiguring of Jesus' victory over sin on the Cross and the Church's ongoing struggle against Satan.^[2]

 

That's an interpretation with an agenda.

 

2.) A chosen one it may mean, but not by god. Baal is not mentioned anywhere near this part, it's clear that Goliath was chosen by his men for being a huge badass. David chose himself, because everyone else was scared. And David heard there was a reward in it. Again, nothing to do with God.

 

3.) Even if we accepted the silly notion that "spurius" or our wonderful "man of the betweens" both mean "a holy warrior", AGAIN, it has absolutely nothing to do with paladins. As demonstrated by my previous findings about the use of the word in various translations.

 

The use of "paladín" in the Spanish translation is accidental, the translator simply wanted to express David's chivalrous courage and clearly mark him as the champion warrior. (which is what the previous translations used)

 

So, no, you're still wrong, however much you might want to argue with leading experts on hebrew and Latin.

[Felithvian]

1. Uhmm, hello? We're talking about the Old World, not the decadent society we live in today. Religion WAS the only purpose of a fight. No such thing as atheists champions . Every one based their strength purely on their faith.

 

Champion of the God of Israel? Hmm... I don't know, it sounds so terribly wrong. Did David win some sort of trophy or anything? Champion is Campeón in Castilian, and I've never read such thing before in the Holy Scriptures.

 

2. Men never based their trust on raw strength. Goliath was chosen because Baal, Astarte and Dagon willed it. Goliath was tall because his Gods willed it. David threw the stone and defeated Golitah, because he was following God's will. David never choose himself as you stated Merlkir, he was chosen by God to defeat his enemy. Do Saints speak in tongues because they studied at the university? No. They speak in tongues because they are blessed by the Holy Spirit.

 

3. Paladin is more accurate than Champion. You said it yourself, someone who excels from the multitude is a champion. A winner. This is not the case.

And you should know as well, that most translations done in Spain, simply grabbed the Latin form to translate it to their respective dialect. Words like Paladin are nearly impossible to change.

 

For all we know, Paladin might even come from the Old form of Hebrew. For me at least, Paladin means "Per a dir", to say. To say WHAT you may ask? Well, to say what's right and what's wrong, perhaps?

Edited November 23, 2012 by Felithvian

[kenup]

-snip-

Ok, now you just fail. There are many cases where scriptures refer to champions. You just mistake the word champion as a sports only title I guess? Champions don't need to excel in a sports festival only. Goliath was a champion because he was killing anyone going up against him.

 

And "God of Israel" or "God of The Hebrews" are actual quotes in the Bible. Simply because you don't like it, doesn't mean anything,

 

Most importantly, people did fought about a lot of things other than religion, especially resources and land. Which are much more important than fighting over religion. You know back then in that non-decadent society of yours food, and land to grow that food, wasn't so easy to come by. Religion may have been an excuse but not the main/only reason.

Edited November 23, 2012 by kenup

[Merlkir]

1. Riiight. It wasn't about cattle and woman slaves at all. It was the Olden days! When everyone was properly religious.

2. So this whole issue is really about whether or not our lives are predetermined by God, right? I think the saints spoke in tongues, because they were as crazy as pipe-smoking badgers. But hey, if you're into the whole Holy Spirit shebang..

3. A champion does NOT mean "the winner"! That is a rather modern shift in meaning. A champion IS "the chosen combatant". "Champion - early 13c., from O.Fr. champion "combatant, champion in single combat" (12c.), from L.L. campionem (nom. campio) "gladiator, fighter, combatant in the field," from L. campus "field (of combat);""

 

So David and Goliath were both their respective sides' champions.

 

As I explained, the Latin form was not "paladin". There was therefore no reason for the Spanish translator to use the word Paladín. The word "palatinus" exists in Latin and means something entirely different. The translator lived in an age when the chivalric songs were already written, the term "palatinus" for knightly chosen warriors was established. So even if he (in the 16th century) used it to describe David, it wouldn't have been because of the use of Latin "Spurius", or "the man of the betweens" from Hebrew. It would've been used, because he'd think David was behaving very bravely and in the knightly way of the Palatines.

 

And what's important - the translator in the 16th century didn't use that word at all! It's a modern translation that uses the word. And linguists agree that both Spurius and "man of the betweens" mean "champion".

 

There simply isn't any connection between David, a concept of a holy warrior and the word "paladin".

 

And no, paladin doesn't come from Hebrew. Its etymology is rather clear and the shift of meaning from a hill in Rome to palace guards to early medieval knights and local officers is well documented and understood.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Merlkir

[Tsuga C]

Its etymology is rather clear and the shift of meaning from a hill in Rome to palace guards to early medieval knights and local officers is well documented and understood.

 

Well, there you go again with your elitist, discriminatory logic and factual statements. You clearly have no place on the forums, you hater!

[Merlkir]

I clearly lack the Holy Spirit's touch.

[jezz555]

2. Men never based their trust on raw strength. Goliath was chosen because Baal, Astarte and Dagon willed it. Goliath was tall because his Gods willed it. David threw the stone and defeated Golitah, because he was following God's will. David never choose himself as you stated Merlkir, he was chosen by God to defeat his enemy.

 

You'll forgive me as I'm not an expert in such matters, but isn't the point of the story that the little guy triumphs in the end because much like the Italian Stallion he's got a lot of heart? It kind of makes the whole feat seem unimpressive if it was really just a bunch of gods having a heavenly cage-match rather than the underdog with a lot of heart beating the tougher opponent. Furthermore isn't god not supposed to intervene with freewill and force people to throw rocks? And finally he's proven that he can and will cause natural disasters and turn people into salt, if he had wanted to kill Goliath so badly, why would he have needed David. I'm not really getting your analysis here.

Edited November 23, 2012 by jezz555

[stiven]

Paladins in DnD is sucks! Because paladin needed a many stats, play paladin is usually required dumping INT as unnecessary stat. And this is retarded, because paladin suppose to led a group and commanding people.

 

sorry for my bad english.

[Agelastos]

Paladins in DnD is sucks! Because paladin needed a many stats, play paladin is usually required dumping INT as unnecessary stat. And this is retarded, because paladin suppose to led a group and commanding people.

 

sorry for my bad english.

 

You don't have to min-max, you know. It should be enough that a character is interesting and fun to roleplay.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Agelastos

[stiven]

Paladins in DnD is sucks! Because paladin needed a many stats, play paladin is usually required dumping INT as unnecessary stat. And this is retarded, because paladin suppose to led a group and commanding people.

 

sorry for my bad english.

 

You don't have to min-max, you know. That's Munchkin behavior. It should be enough that a character is interesting and fun to roleplay.

If you speaking about IRL games with people, - maybe. But, no offense, who cares about PnP geeks and their so-called "roleplay". in C(omputer)RPG? If you wanna "roleplay" why you play games, why just not going to DnD-club to "roleplay" with you friends? Character optimization is essential part of PC gaming and CRPG. Also I said nothing about "min-max". I just said that Paladin in DnD is Leader of a group, it is strange that "Leader" is not required INT.

[FlintlockJazz]

Paladins in DnD is sucks! Because paladin needed a many stats, play paladin is usually required dumping INT as unnecessary stat. And this is retarded, because paladin suppose to led a group and commanding people.

 

sorry for my bad english.

 

You don't have to min-max, you know. It should be enough that a character is interesting and fun to roleplay.

 

I think he's refering to the 2nd edition DnD paladin, wherein you had minimum stats you had to meet before you could actually choose the class. Since in tabletop you rolled all your stats and didn't get them boosted up to the minimums if you didn't have enough you more than likely ended up having to put any bad roll you got into Intelligence since otherwise you wouldn't meet the reqs, hence why most tabletop 2nd ed. Paladins I ever saw in tabletop had very low int.

 

EDIT: Apparently not, just seen his response to you and it looks like he is talking about cRPGs as opposed to tabletop like I thought, nevermind.

Edited November 23, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Umberlin]

Let's face it, guys, the whole concept of DnD paladins is pretty stupid. With abundance of chaotic and evil gods around, it makes no sense what-so-ever to make a class of faithful warriors, devoted solely to the worship of good. And the whole anti-paladin blackguard concept is outright disgusting. There is no good explanation how they even come to think that the whole lawful-good only paladin thing would be a good idea.

 

Now, all of a sudden, your paladins have to be DnD-style to qualify as paladins. No, they don't. A paladin is just a high-born knight and palatinus is nothing, but a high military rank in Byzantium. You don't have to worship gods or lay on hands every now and then to be one.

 

So yes, I like how paladins are supposed to look like in PE very much.

 

In a way I agree with some of what you're saying, I always wondered why they (in D&D didn't just make a Paladin-like class, in terms od Divine dedication, to replace concepts like Paladin and Blackguard, but with an 'insert the God you're dedicated to' option that defined your Alignment restrictions. Much like a Cleric Domain system, only for alignment.

 

That said, I'm actually quite looking forward to Obsidian's take on Paladins, and the other classes in general. Paladins have been done many different ways, some inside the themes noted in this thread, others quite outside of that. A different take, even if it's not to everyone's taste, is hardly a bad thing. If people want the same thing they saw in other games, that's fine, those games and concepts exist, I just don't see the problem with letting Obsidian do their own thing.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Umberlin

[Agelastos]

If you speaking about IRL games with people, - maybe. But, no offense, who cares about PnP geeks and their so-called "roleplay". in C(omputer)RPG? If you wanna "roleplay" why you play games, why just not going to DnD-club to "roleplay" with you friends? Character optimization is essential part of PC gaming and CRPG. Also I said nothing about "min-max". I just said that Paladin in DnD is Leader of a group, it is strange that "Leader" is not required INT.

 

I disagree about character optimization being an essential part of cRPG gaming. Maybe in MMOs and other multi-player cRPGs which feature PvP, but not in story-driven games like P.E. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Why I don't play D&D? Firstly, because I don't really like D&D. I think it's one of the worst PnP RPGs around. I do like certain D&D cRPGs, though, but that's only because they're well-written.

Secondly, because I barely know anyone who plays PnP RPGs anymore. In fact, I don't think I know anyone who does.

 

I didn't know that you were talking about 2nd ed. (or cRPGs based on 2nd ed., I guess). I didn't even know that there were stat requirements for normal player classes in 2nd ed.

My only experience of 2nd ed. is the Infinity Engine games, and I haven't played those (with the exception of PS:T, in which you don't get to pick a class at character creation) in 10 years. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Agelastos

[Alexjh]

Paladins in DnD is sucks! Because paladin needed a many stats, play paladin is usually required dumping INT as unnecessary stat. And this is retarded, because paladin suppose to led a group and commanding people.

 

sorry for my bad english.

 

You don't have to min-max, you know. That's Munchkin behavior. It should be enough that a character is interesting and fun to roleplay.

If you speaking about IRL games with people, - maybe. But, no offense, who cares about PnP geeks and their so-called "roleplay". in C(omputer)RPG? If you wanna "roleplay" why you play games, why just not going to DnD-club to "roleplay" with you friends? Character optimization is essential part of PC gaming and CRPG. Also I said nothing about "min-max". I just said that Paladin in DnD is Leader of a group, it is strange that "Leader" is not required INT.

 

You have noticed that this genre is called "roleplaying games" right? Just checking.

 

As for character optimisation, part of the point in a semi-open ruleset like D&D is that there isn't a singular optimal build. Sure most classes have one or two attributes they fundamentally need, but a build where a Paladin has 18 strength at the cost of 8 intelligence isn't fundementally better than one with 16 strength and 10 intelligence, indeed, part of the entire point of the D&D system is that every stat has some benefit for every character and actively below normal stats ARE to the detriment of a character.

 

As for the idea of Paladin's requiring Intelligence, they make do on wisdom instead. I quote the definition of Wisdom from the 3rd Edition Players handbook: "Wisdom describes a characters willpower, common sense, perception and intuition. While intelligence represents ones ability to analyse information, Wisdom is more related to being in tune with and aware of ones surroundings". Which sounds fine for a battle leader as opposed to intelligence which is more about "how well your character learns and reasons". Generally speaking in terms of group leadership, the leader doesn't need to be spectacularly intelligent, just in tune enough to make a call and have the charisma to make people follow through, they have (high INT) advisors for the actual number crunching.

 

As for Paladins being group leaders, they were never supposed to be leaders specifically in D&D, they just tend to gravitate that way because they are a high charisma class, and unlike sorcerers and bards tend to have more of an agenda to push through. Even the P:E one where they mention being a leader specifically as it's more based off the Warlord class, this is generally more of an inspirational thing - the kind of thing where at the start of a battle the charge is lead by your paladin showing no fear to inspire everyone else etc than the paladin literally shouting tactics around the battlefield.

[Felithvian]

You'll forgive me as I'm not an expert in such matters, but isn't the point of the story that the little guy triumphs in the end because much like the Italian Stallion he's got a lot of heart? It kind of makes the whole feat seem unimpressive if it was really just a bunch of gods having a heavenly cage-match rather than the underdog with a lot of heart beating the tougher opponent. Furthermore isn't god not supposed to intervene with freewill and force people to throw rocks? And finally he's proven that he can and will cause natural disasters and turn people into salt, if he had wanted to kill Goliath so badly, why would he have needed David. I'm not really getting your analysis here.

 

No such thing as personal will. One either follows Satan's "free will" (Given by the Father/Son until the final days), or God's will. Why does one ask such questions, well, Adan ate the apple, and that nearly lost our relation with God. Because by God's will, we we're tempted to eat from Science, and from Satan's will, we are punished to seek infinite questions on every single matter related to God/Christ.

 

There's no such thing as a middle point where one decides his destiny. The possible choices of good and evil are nothing more than a mere ilusion created by the Tree of Science (Old Snake). What exactly is the difference? Most, if not all people (Including myself) are slaves to the World, the Demon & the Flesh, while very few others, are enemies. Yes, a Saint/Prophet is an enemy of the World, because he's not acting by himself anymore, the Man from before has died so that God can be within him. Nevertheless, he will always be martyred, for we, askers of questions cannot accept the full radical truth.

 

David would've lost if God didn't intervene, because by the laws of the World, the Demon & The Flesh, the strong survive, while the weak die. By the laws of this world, an army of 2.000 men can take on a group of 23, but once God gets into the equation and destroys Math, one will clearly see a different point of view in terms of victory.

 

Evil is born from the Heart of men. You can't visualize an "Italian Stallion" doing "good", because that's simply a lie. He's either God/Christ or Satan. The common saying "I'm a Good Guy" is a dreadful statement.

[jezz555]

You'll forgive me as I'm not an expert in such matters, but isn't the point of the story that the little guy triumphs in the end because much like the Italian Stallion he's got a lot of heart? It kind of makes the whole feat seem unimpressive if it was really just a bunch of gods having a heavenly cage-match rather than the underdog with a lot of heart beating the tougher opponent. Furthermore isn't god not supposed to intervene with freewill and force people to throw rocks? And finally he's proven that he can and will cause natural disasters and turn people into salt, if he had wanted to kill Goliath so badly, why would he have needed David. I'm not really getting your analysis here.

 

No such thing as personal will. One either follows Satan's "free will" (Given by the Father/Son until the final days), or God's will. Why does one ask such questions, well, Adan ate the apple, and that nearly lost our relation with God. Because by God's will, we we're tempted to eat from Science, and from Satan's will, we are punished to seek infinite questions on every single matter related to God/Christ.

 

There's no such thing as a middle point where one decides his destiny. The possible choices of good and evil are nothing more than a mere ilusion created by the Tree of Science (Old Snake). What exactly is the difference? Most, if not all people (Including myself) are slaves to the World, the Demon & the Flesh, while very few others, are enemies. Yes, a Saint/Prophet is an enemy of the World, because he's not acting by himself anymore, the Man from before has died so that God can be within him. Nevertheless, he will always be martyred, for we, askers of questions cannot accept the full radical truth.

 

David would've lost if God didn't intervene, because by the laws of the World, the Demon & The Flesh, the strong survive, while the weak die. By the laws of this world, an army of 2.000 men can take on a group of 23, but once God gets into the equation and destroys Math, one will clearly see a different point of view in terms of victory.

 

Evil is born from the Heart of men. You can't visualize an "Italian Stallion" doing "good", because that's simply a lie. He's either God/Christ or Satan. The common saying "I'm a Good Guy" is a dreadful statement.

 

Wow, sorry I asked.

[Daulmakan]

From something that Adam said, I glanced that paladins aren't the typical paladins, while clerics are the typical paladins, only they use firearms.

 

No, I'm not liking the class' concept so far. But it's a very early stage still, so things might change.

[Mandragore]

Would it be to much to ask that we keep the IRL religious herp derp out of this? Creepy and irrelevant.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Mandragore

[Somna]

From something that Adam said, I glanced that paladins aren't the typical paladins, while clerics are the typical paladins, only they use firearms.

 

No, I'm not liking the class' concept so far. But it's a very early stage still, so things might change.

 

Pretty much. The Paladins in P:E sound more like a different form of group buffers, and the whole inspiring deal sounds potentially like AE stamina recovery is a possibility with them too.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Somna