Desna's Avatar's page

129 posts (131 including aliases). 32 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is all incredibly cool - lore, equipment, archetypes, feats, and art.

Yes...*ahem*..."Hell" yes...to a book on Old Cheliax.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the issue is that the bestiary portrayal of hobgoblins is just really bad art.
that's an astonishingly rude thing to say to the person in charge of art direction. even by the low standards of this forum.
The bestiary hobgoblins made a terrible first impression of the new art direction. I feel it's more constructive to point out why rather than simply allow Jacobs to be confused as to why people don't like goblinoids who look like goblinoids. I don't claim to speak for everyone upset by the new look but I really do not feel my criticism was out of line.

Good point.

For me, the new hobgoblins looks less /capable/, less "lawful", and less virile in general. I, personally, prefer an artistic portrayal of a robust, vigorous, athletic creature seeming more aligned with an organized, disciplined, militaristic culture.

The new hobgoblin, IMO, looks more feral, raw, chaotic, and liable to "go off" at any point. I think they could make fine creatures in their own right, just not what I picture being a hobgoblin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The official new look for hobgoblins is that they look more like Medium size goblins. Now and then, stragglers will slip through the cracks as we adjust our style for them, which we'll get better at not doing as the edition goes on.
Is there anything we can say to change your mind? The medium-sized goblin look is terrible.

Personally, I agree. For me, the P2E artistic portrayal of hobgoblins is probably my least favorite, going all the way back to AD&D and the 1st edition monster manual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FYI: I received an update from Amazon that Lost Omens World Guide should arrive September 24th. I'm in the SF Bay Area.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Worldmaker wrote:
Am I alone in this feeling? I hope not.

You are certainly not alone, and some of us, after having evaluated 2E, are sticking with 1E. For me, I'm picking nuggets of goodness from 2E to include in my 1E play, without converting to 2E, which didn't quite get things right - despite a few improvements (yet many drawbacks) - from my perspective. Instead, if I find any scenarios or adventures I like in 2E, I'll be back-converting to 1E.


zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
I am tempted to wait until the Lost Omens World Guide is released before I make any significant changes.
That's probably for the best, as the World Guide should also include political boundaries whereas the CRB only contains topography.

I would concur with that. We got confirmation at the 4 p.m. Gen Con panel that the Lost Omens World Guide will contain more detailed maps of the areas outside the Inner Sea region than we got in the core rulebook.

I just wish we could get our hands on that Golarion globe that they showed once again.

Agree! As I mentioned in Twitch chat, I'd buy a physical Golarion globe if they produced and sold one or partnered with a company that did.

Do they actually have a proper globe?

I'd probably buy a Golarion beach ball if they sold one.

Not /yet/ but my fingers are crossed. They were showing off their digital globe and I suggested that they produce a real, physical globe and if so, I'd buy one. A number of others indicated they would as well. Seems like a fun, niche, product that hardcore fans would love to use and perhaps show off. All that said, it's 100% wishful thinking on my part at this point.


David knott 242 wrote:
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
I am tempted to wait until the Lost Omens World Guide is released before I make any significant changes.
That's probably for the best, as the World Guide should also include political boundaries whereas the CRB only contains topography.

I would concur with that. We got confirmation at the 4 p.m. Gen Con panel that the Lost Omens World Guide will contain more detailed maps of the areas outside the Inner Sea region than we got in the core rulebook.

I just wish we could get our hands on that Golarion globe that they showed once again.

Agree! As I mentioned in Twitch chat, I'd buy a physical Golarion globe if they produced and sold one or partnered with a company that did.


Received my Core Rulebook and Bestiary from Amazon yesterday, 8/1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great episode! James seems like a real no-nonsense kind of guy.
Too bad about the computer problems at the end. Hope you can get it addressed without too much grief.


The Noticula article was fantastic, and this particular volume of the AP is worth getting for the developers' showcase articles alone, IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Very useful. Well done, and thank you!


David knott 242 wrote:


But how will we read all of the writings of an immortal Liane Merciel?

I don't know about the rest of you, but from what I saw of her in the PaizoCon videos, she looks like she will easily outlive me even without unnatural life extension.

Not for us. Think of the children...the children!


Richard Lowe wrote:
It all sounds fantastic, but cool as the rest of the info is I can't wait to see more fiction from Liane Merciel, can she just write PF horror novels and sourcebooks forever? (Or at least for as long as she's interested anyways!)

Hear hear! We need to quest to procure her a sun orchid elixir, or perhaps lovingly leave behind a pamphlet on her desk detailing the secrets to achieving lichdom. Failing that, we can just insist she take and pass the Test of the Starstone.


Not seeing a complimentary PFS subscription on my account despite having Paizo Advantage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
no good scallywag wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
snip
Agreed 100%. None of my players give a hoot about weapon quality. There's only normal weapons and magic ones. Simple.

My players over the ages have been exactly the opposite.


Exciting preview! Looking forward to adventuring in the turbulent, mystery-infested High Seas. As usual, the art in mostly excellent. I especially like the artwork of the Kraken preparing for dinner, and the superb citadel of the Red Mantis. Have to say, not particularly a fan of the Tessa art myself, and to me, doesn't really fit with the style of the others.


Edge93 wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
I had the same thought. The idea of a +3 coffee cup intrigues me.
Me too. Maybe it'll make coffee not taste so rubbish...

Somebody's been drinking the wrong coffee.


Hi DoubleGold,

I would be very interested in those, so thank you for the offer.

I don't own a lot, but if there's something you're interested in as well, let me know and I'll see if I have it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Fascinating. Especially interested in the rescission by the Ruby Prince. That makes total sense given recent events.

The living monolith is really cool. As usual with these pieces, the artwork is excellent and matches the mood and tone of the region and writing.

Well done. Huzzah indeed!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Luis Loza wrote:

World Guides will vary in their setting and rules material as is appropriate and necessary for their respective subject matters. Lost Omens World Guide (WG1) will have a bit over 20 pages worth of rules content, with the rest being setting information. This is due to the fact that WG1 is mostly about presenting Golarion and the Lost Omens campaign setting for new and returning players and GMs. Adding more rules content would cut into some of this valuable world flavor and lore and considering the Core Rulebook would have just released, we figure it was okay to be "lighter" on the rules content, as you just received 640 pages of rules!

Lost Omens Character Guide (WG2) features over double that amount of rules content. As that book looks to expand on existing ancestries, provide new ancestries, and also provide rules content to support a number of organizations, it is only fitting that more space is dedicated to rules. Mind you, some of this content, like the NPCs and templates, is more aimed towards GMs, but it's no less important important for the book.

These values are not set in stone, mind you. If we have a "setting heavy" World Guide, it doesn't always mean 85% setting material and a "rules heavy" WG doesn't always mean 50% rules. WG3 sure doesn't adhere to the same amounts that WG1 and WG2 do. The new product line allows us to play around with how much space we dedicate to either setting or rules material. I don't feel that we are beholden to always present the same amounts of material, because not every book fits that mold. It's exciting to give the book the amount material we think is right and frankly, trying to stick with the same formula with every book would lead to lower quality books and get boring pretty quick. Hopefully, people like what we have coming down the pipeline. We would love to get feedback on what does or doesn't work on a particular book as that will help us strike a better balance on setting/rules content going forward.

Thanks, Luis. Now I...

*radiates Aura of Wholehearted Agreement*


Saedar wrote:
Liane Merciel wrote:
I'm gratified by the reception in this thread. :)
Setting guides are, hands down, my favorite gaming supplements. I'm glad you all were pulled in to build something awesome into something Super Awesome™.

Hear hear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice overview of the Broken Lands and excellent illustrations (which I vastly prefer to the anime style). The top few especially reflect the "feel" of this region, while the topmost illustrates that beauty can yet exist amidst the scarred terrain of these lands.

Look forward to further Lost Omens blogs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
No, you're objecting to rich people being stereotyped. So, defending them.

Wrong.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
And your defense of the upper class is irrelevant and impotent here.

Learn to read. I'm not defending the upper class, I'm attacking stereotyping.

There are plenty of both good and bad people in all "classes".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Let's be careful with the stereotyping.
Why? The rich aren't.

More stereotyping? For example, I know a number of individuals others would consider wealthy who have the ability to focus on higher-order activities in life, such as fighting against blatant stereotyping of historically disadvantaged minorities in the US.

Your comment may be amusing, but isn't accurate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's be careful with the stereotyping. I know it's easy to attack rich people, but judging by some of the prices for PF2 books, rich people may soon be the only ones able to afford physical copies of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is amazing! If the dayjob doesn't work out, Jason has a future as a novelist, methinks. I want to hear more about these characters!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
If I were a lich I might wear a shaped breastplate to avoid being misgendered, since that must get old real quick.

I'm thinking most liches have bigger fish to fry, but that would be a neat quirk for a lich - to be extremely self-conscious about its gender expression.


FedoraFerret wrote:
Women can become liches too, Staffan.

I'm not sure he's implying that they can't, and thus, you likely shouldn't infer such.

Would a female lich's breasts long since have decomposed, obviating the need for such a breastplate? Likely so, but perhaps not.

In-game, you could say that the female lich maintained an emotional attachment to her armor worn while living or that this particular breastplate is imbued with such potent magicks that the lich retains it even though the form it takes is not necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome! Can't wait for Age of Lost Omens World Guide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Point #2 is easily the single most exciting thing about second edition for me. I like second edition monster design more than I like the 3-action economy. I've said this before, but just reading the second edition bestiary literally changed how I think about monster design. Monsters that are easy to run but still do cool stuff is awesome. Not having to decide which of twenty pointless, bolted on spell like abilities to use is awesome. Being able to look at a monster stat block and immediately go "this is what the monster does, this is why it's unique" is awesome. Being able to throw together a Wizard adversary and just go "okay, these are the spells he'll actually cast, who cares about the rest; here's some hit point and stats and here's a couple things that sound like wizard class features" instead of spending hours building the character like a PC is awesome.

As someone who almost always GMs, that is a huge selling point of the new edition for me.

Hear hear.


what was your favorite part or moment of this year's PaizoCon?


Awesome to hear about the "moar lore". About 6 years behind, but better late than never, I suppose:

Open Letter to Paizo, 2013: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pneh?Open-Letter-to-Paizo-RE-Pathfinder


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good to get a preview of how Amiri perishes in 2nd Edition.


Malk_Content wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Another thing to add is that with the heritage update Ancestry choice isn't just about "Dwarf" or "Elf" but you also define as part of that option whether you are dwarf whose family hails from the desert, or from an important noble line. Ancestry combines both race and more specifically "who your parents/grand parents/great grand parents" were.
What would be far cooler, IMO, would be to have /both/ race and ancestry. You choose your race then choose an ancestry (ethnic and geographical background) within that race.
Thats exactly what your are doing though? Just without defining it as two separate fields.

Dividing it into two fields adds more granularity and increases the possible variables, thereby giving more player options. Superior outcome IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Another thing to add is that with the heritage update Ancestry choice isn't just about "Dwarf" or "Elf" but you also define as part of that option whether you are dwarf whose family hails from the desert, or from an important noble line. Ancestry combines both race and more specifically "who your parents/grand parents/great grand parents" were.

What would be far cooler, IMO, would be to have /both/ race and ancestry. You choose your race then choose an ancestry (ethnic and geographical background) within that race.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:

No, the message received was /not/ harmful to a huge swath of people. What % that is, who knows. And ultimately, it's not harmful to anyone. Certain individual's interpretations of a word or phrase, or personal sensitives or predilections may make them offended by the word, but nobody is "harmed".

As well, anything can be offensive or harmful to someone, somewhere, at some time. The term "race" is used everyday in innocuous ways, in real life. It's laughable to suggest that people who hear the term in real life can't handle reading or hearing it in fantasy fiction.

Perhaps, but the term is inaccurate in the context of the game. Even more so when where things like half-elves, tieflings, and the like get involved. Nothing resembling these creatures exist in the real world which is why no specific real world terms apply to them. Hence we're left with three options:

1. Misuse a real world term like 'species' or 'race'.
2. Make something up out of whole cloth 'metasapients'
3. Confer a specialized meaning to a vague RL term like 'ancestry'

Personally, I favour option 3.

"Ancestry" is a "real world term" as well, so by your logic, that is equally as inaccurate.

The term "race" has been used without issue in fantasy gaming for decades and is highly recognizable. The term "race" is also used FAR more inaccurately in RL every day (tune in to CNN, MSNBC, etc.) to witness the term misused to refer to human ethnicities.

Ancestry is indeed a cool-sounding term and would be far more accurately used to refer to ancestries within distinct races or species.

Changing "race" to "ancestry" in the PF2 playtest was a solution in search of a problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, Pathfinder had things which were "race" that were clearly not, in a biological sense. Changelings are a one-off coupling of a Hag and a human, there are all sorts of "literal things from space" that you could play in PF1 (e.g. triaxians and yaddithians), there are things native to other planes (e.g. gathlains) and things which were artificially created (ghorans and androids). None of these things are meaningfully a "race" of some broader category.

Asking "who are your people, where do you come from" is a better way to phrase the question because it applies to gathlains ("I grew from a seed of a magic tree in the first world") and ghorans ("I am the continuation of a thousands year old lifeform who occasionally needs a new body") as readily as it does Dwarves ("my mom was a smith at Five Kings Mountain and my dad a miner") and Half-Elves ("Mom was an Elf, Dad was a Varisian").

I do not want "race" back, since it presumes we can only have versions of a common thing, else it's going to be used incorrectly eventually. I will also point out that "should it be ancestry or race" has never been up for discussion during the entire playtest, as devs have repeatedly indicated they are not changing it back.

Which is fine and works for them but I'm still going to mentally and verbally probably address it as Race myself because I'm so used to it and it works for me.

I will say the discussions of it tend to open up cans of worms that were probably better left un-opened.

Captain Morgan wrote:
But it feels like most folks think heavy armor is worse than it was in PF1, and if anything it seems to me it is better (at least in core.) I think folks just need to shift their perspective to account for this.
I mean PF1 heavy armor was bad I think we can all agree on that. But looking it over in PF2, I still don't really see a reason to use Heavy armor most the time.

Agreed. Through playtest, I and my various groups (30+ players) referred to "ancestry" as "race". The most common reaction to PF changing the term during the playtest was eye-rolling and head-shaking.

We all would do well to remember the differences between fantasy and reality.


VoodistMonk wrote:
Merryweather Stokes is head of the Kitharodian Academy. It is THE place to study and learn all things Bard in the Inner Seas. It is also how you gain access to Master Performer and Grandmaster Performer feats.

Thanks, Voodist. I can obviously just create personas on my own, such as "Lizander, Lutemaster of Caliphas", but I was wondering if anyone had already done such a thing.

Good to know about the Kitharodian Academy and Merryweather Stokes though!


No, it isn't a trend, unless you are defining a trend as something spanning millenia. The fact that some people are doing it now doesn't make it a trend, given that authors and individuals have been doing it for thousands of years. It's something that started long, long ago, and simply has continued, because it plays on deep, visceral fears of mankind spanning back to prehistoric days. That's not a trend.

I can actually think of a number of authors who have portrayed dark as leaning towards good and light towards evil in recent memory, Steven Erikson among them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like an awesome module! Can't wait.

However, equating darkness with evil is not new, is not a trend, and derives from mankind's fear of the unknown and what it cannot see. When something is shrouded in darkness or shadows, you aren't sure what could be there, and the imagination begins to race, often leading to fear.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Completely disagree. In order for success to be meaningful in an RPG, the possibility of negative outcomes needs to be possible. Finding a viable solution to a negative outcome can lead to a fun role-playing opportunity. I've seen it time and again in my games. Character is left without anything to do? Have a spare character on hand to play, or take over an NPC/retainer. Or take your lumps, cheer on your mates, and help strategize.

Threats have to truly be threats to be meaningful, and to make overcoming them rewarding.


Mark Moreland wrote:

New thread rule: you're only allowed to (civilly) debate the meaning of the word "stripperific" and whether or not Seoni is an empowered woman if you have backed the Kickstarter (at any level).

Thanks for your support!

Mark, I'm looking over the pledge options. Question for you - what will be portrayed on the "rare exclusive Pathfinder t-shirt..."?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good rule Mark.

I'm not interested in debating the definition of a slang term that is defined differently depending on which random webpage you happen to be on. The very fact that "stripperific" contains the word "stripper" within it means that the object it refers to is related to a stripper in some form or fashion. So by the very nature of the word, stripperific accuses the object of looking like a stripper.

And no, just because some random webpage contains a definition of the term does not make it codified. I can create a webpage with a definition too. :)

By the way, multiple random webpage sources contain different definitions of the word. For instance, both Urban Dictionary and Definithing contain this definition, which is very similar to mine: "something that is equal to the feeling of watching a stripper."

I rest my case.

It's 2018 and women should be able to wear revealing clothing without being accused of looking like strippers or prostitutes. That's insulting to our collective intelligences. The fact that some here seem to want women to "cover up" smacks of prudishness and religious judgmentalism.

Seoni's outfit is nothing like that of any stripper I've ever seen, and yes, to many, it may be sexy, and is certainly revealing.

However, it is certainly not impractical as, again, a character with access to magic both high and mundane need not "cover up" or conform to the desires or stereotypes of others. As well, Seoni's outfit in the statuette is not indicative of the clothing she would wear in any circumstance, at any time. It's an extremely practical outfit, allowing Seoni comfort, breath-ability, and freedom of movement for effective somatic casting.

Seoni looks great, just the way she is, and doesn't need to change a thing.


Rysky wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Nice, but I would've preferred the new not-stripperific outfit
Not a stripperific outfit. It's the outfit of someone who is comfortable with herself and her body, seeing no need to conform to the prudish instincts of some in society, and who knows she can magically defend herself against any who would seek to take advantage.
And also the outfit of someone who is a fictional character that did not get to pick her own outfit. In setting she may be comfortable with it, but that doesn't make it not be a stripperific outfit.

A fictional character, really??? Who knew! Thanks for the help. :)

It's not a "stripperific outfit" because we have no evidence of strippers in Golarion wearing outfits like Seoni's.

Seriously?

Stripperiffic does not literally mean "clothes that strippers wear" (though they could, they have all sorts of outfits). It's impractical, sexy, revealing clothing, which is what her outfit is.

Yes, seriously.

"Stripperific" is a slang term, and does not have a codified meaning. It's subjective, and certainly reasonable to assume that it could mean "like a stripper would wear".

Revealing, sexy clothing is not necessarily impractical AT ALL for a female with the weight of high magic behind her. Quite the contrary. Seoni is not a martial character, in case you forgot.

Nothing about her outfit makes me think of a stripper. Sure, it's sexy and revealing, but plenty of people who have nothing to do with stripping wear sexy and revealing clothing. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Stripperific means sexy, revealing, and impractical and what it’s always been used for.Which is besides the point if you’re saying it’s subjective but then immediately trying to point out it’s not by saying our understanding of the word is wrong.

It’s impractical...

Again, there is no codified meaning for "stripperific" as it's a slang term and somewhat subjective.

The term was used in a derogative sense here, as if something is wrong with the way the character is portrayed and implying that female fantasy characters should "cover up".

I've never seen a stripper wear clothing like Seoni's and it doesn't make me think of stripping in the least. Saying something is "stripperific" is clearly a reference to strippers, meaning that the clothing is something a stripper would wear or reminds the user of stripping.

It's 2018 and women are free to wear what they will, feeling comfortable and secure in their bodies, without being accused of looking like strippers.

And no, Seoni's clothing is not impractical in the least. For someone with access to both mundane and powerful magic, dressing in revealing clothing is not impractical at all. So even using your definition, it's not "stripperific", it's simply revealing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Glenn Elliott wrote:
We went through several iterations to arrive at the final dress, and modified it to be a little more modest in the process. This is 1st edition Seoni, though, not 2nd edition, so we tried to strike a balance.

Thanks Glenn, it looks great. Hopefully, there is room at Paizo to depict individuals in Golarion who are both modest and immodest, of all genders.


Rysky wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Nice, but I would've preferred the new not-stripperific outfit
Not a stripperific outfit. It's the outfit of someone who is comfortable with herself and her body, seeing no need to conform to the prudish instincts of some in society, and who knows she can magically defend herself against any who would seek to take advantage.
And also the outfit of someone who is a fictional character that did not get to pick her own outfit. In setting she may be comfortable with it, but that doesn't make it not be a stripperific outfit.

A fictional character, really??? Who knew! Thanks for the help. :)

It's not a "stripperific outfit" because we have no evidence of strippers in Golarion wearing outfits like Seoni's.

Seriously?

Stripperiffic does not literally mean "clothes that strippers wear" (though they could, they have all sorts of outfits). It's impractical, sexy, revealing clothing, which is what her outfit is.

Yes, seriously.

"Stripperific" is a slang term, and does not have a codified meaning. It's subjective, and certainly reasonable to assume that it could mean "like a stripper would wear".

Revealing, sexy clothing is not necessarily impractical AT ALL for a female with the weight of high magic behind her. Quite the contrary. Seoni is not a martial character, in case you forgot.

Nothing about her outfit makes me think of a stripper. Sure, it's sexy and revealing, but plenty of people who have nothing to do with stripping wear sexy and revealing clothing. Nothing wrong with that at all.


Rysky wrote:
Desna's Avatar wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Nice, but I would've preferred the new not-stripperific outfit
Not a stripperific outfit. It's the outfit of someone who is comfortable with herself and her body, seeing no need to conform to the prudish instincts of some in society, and who knows she can magically defend herself against any who would seek to take advantage.
And also the outfit of someone who is a fictional character that did not get to pick her own outfit. In setting she may be comfortable with it, but that doesn't make it not be a stripperific outfit.

A fictional character, really??? Who knew! Thanks for the help. :)

It's not a "stripperific outfit" because we have no evidence of strippers in Golarion wearing outfits like Seoni's.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Nice, but I would've preferred the new not-stripperific outfit

Not a stripperific outfit. It's the outfit of someone who is comfortable with herself and her body, seeing no need to conform to the prudish instincts of some in society, and who knows she can magically defend herself against any who would seek to take advantage.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
I'm still REALLY hoping Resonance gets dropped completely. Too many pools, too much bookkeeping, and too many headaches for it to be worth my time. When I sit down at the table, I want to play a game, not do algebra.

Completely agree - resonance is a monkey on the system's back, dragging it down. It detracts from every PF2 playtest game I've participated in, and the system would be cleaner, simpler, more fun, and simply better without it in my opinion as a long time player/GM of PF1.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>