Lostcause78's page

Organized Play Member. 70 posts (73 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Two occasions, same GM (and we had a bit of a strained relationship before and after this):

1. She ruled that I would need to do a Bluff roll rather than a Survival to try and cover my tracks out in the wild.

2. She also ruled that a Fireball wouldn't harm an opponent suffering from Silence (it was cast by someone far outside of the radius of Silence of course) since the spell Fireball had a verbal component.

Bonus moment:

A semi boss had a few of the party under the effects of Fascinate (as per the bard skill). While in the same room, combat started, the room was set on fire and damage was dealt back and forth - but nothing was deemed severe enough to break the distraction.

"Fascinate (Su): At 1st level, a bard can use his performance to cause one or more creatures to become fascinated with him. Each creature to be fascinated must be within 90 feet, able to see and hear the bard, and capable of paying attention to him. The bard must also be able to see the creatures affected. The Distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working. For every three levels a bard has attained beyond 1st, he can target one additional creature with this ability."


Ravingdork wrote:


No, I'm afraid there's no easy way to search the online files at this time. Here is a list of all the characters with druid levels currently in the gallery:

We also have several other nature-themed characters who do not possess druid levels. They are defenders of nature, are masters of either the elements or of beasts, or possess some connection to the First World. You can find them below:

...

Amazing, thank you kind Sir! :)


I'm sure this has been asked in the thread a few times so apologies in advance, but damn this is a long thread!

If I wanted to look up all your druid builds, is there any way to search your character portfolio?

If there is, I am blind and didn't see it, sorry.


Lady-J wrote:

7 for oracle, 3 from fcb, 5 from vmc nets 8d6, the channerlers aspergillum will net another 1d6, channeling enchantment adds 1d6 for 10d6 with a phylactery for a total of 12d6 and channel surge for +50% for 18d6 and i know i got another +1die from somewhere but cant remember were atm

our dm also tries to actively encourage the phyonics classes from dreamscaredpress hes got a bunch of npcs that use pyonics but path of war is banned and no one uses content from that not even the dm

I'm looking at making a channel focused character myself, I'm curious where you got the +3 from fcb from - I can't find a race that gives that?

I like the VMC Cavalier part though, that one was new to me.


Oathbound Paladin with his divine bond on a mount or (if you don't want an eventual celestial mount) keep the divine bond fixed on your weapon and treat it like a Golarian version of excalibur.

Really, Paladin covers most of the non-cavalier fantasy knight trope you might be looking for in Pathfinder.


Don't give up on roll20, plenty of DMs like to show new players the ropes. Truth is, as a GM it can be nice to have a new player since veterans (not all, holster your pitchforks) can have some very specific and special ideas in mind of what they want to play.

A newcomer most often chooses a good ol' standard race and standard class and there will be a LOT less rules discussing during sessions.

Have you tried making a post in their LFG forum? Explain you being new and wanting to get into it. Usually you'll get replies and my tip to you is: Don't be afraid to turn down the first few offers if they don't feel right for you.


Nice one, cheers.


Pale Flame - you say it's not online yet. Is there a description of it somewhere?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If I were a conspiracy man, I'd start to think Rhedyn was the player in question.

Anyway to the OP and other player in the thread: Glad it got resolved. I'm sure you'll have a better time moving forward, if everything is as you've stated.


Have to agree that the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's a good way to add some fluff RP for the players.

I should have added that it's an online game, through roll20. I like your idea with the notecards, I bet there is a way to make a table like that in there.

I haven't had any luck finding random generators online so far, my googlefu is letting me down!

Thanks again.


Hey all, I'm about to start RotRL with my group and am rolling up a Druid.

I've never really read into that class until now, but I quite like their relationship with nature (certain Archetypes notwithstanding). It'll be a caster druid, possible a Storm Druid in which case his ties to the weather is even more written into his persona.

I brought the matter up with my GM, but she's a little hesitant with the whole weather table system - I can't blame her it's an extra bunch of factors to keep track of, from looking at the Weather Table page and we're all still relatively green when it comes to Pathfinder.

My question is to anyone who've played with weather conditions in their campaigns before: How much of a hassle is it, and would you suggest we just skip that part entirely?
Alternatively, is there a way or resource to simplify it?

Cheers in advance.

edit: Just to be sure, please no RotRL spoilers. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cat Sith can be a mouthful for a group of low level characters in more ways than one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Lostcause78 wrote:

I need to ask, was there any reason for the character not to go? Did he have a beef with the NPC being buried? Is it early in the campaign? Does he have a point in deciding that his character wouldn't want to attend?

There are certainly players who have a trend of just being the odd person out, but sometimes it's also a player who have a reason to feel his character has been overlooked or overruled in the past.

In short, talk to your player. It's rare players do contrary things that aren't based on past experiences, often perceived slights.

Not OP, but I have played the pallbearer encounter in question. It is pretty much the first event in a particular AP, and the campaign traits are all about how you know the deceased and how you certainly don't have a beef with the dead NPC. Attending the funeral is literally why the party meet and the all important hook to kick off the adventure.

So in this case, the player is being an ass, or the character is being an ass. It's like playing Skulls and Shackles and refusing to board a boat.

Oh of course, I must have brainfarted not to notice it was Carrion Crown OP spoke of.

You are right, I can't think of any reason that a character would bypass that event, it's THE reason the group comes together.


I need to ask, was there any reason for the character not to go? Did he have a beef with the NPC being buried? Is it early in the campaign? Does he have a point in deciding that his character wouldn't want to attend?

There are certainly players who have a trend of just being the odd person out, but sometimes it's also a player who have a reason to feel his character has been overlooked or overruled in the past.

In short, talk to your player. It's rare players do contrary things that aren't based on past experiences, often perceived slights.


KainPen wrote:
Lostcause78 wrote:

That is a lot of attacks!

Pardon me for jumping in with a related 3rd party question-

What does Multiattack do for the original list of attacks:

Main Hand: +18/+13/+8/+3
Off Hand: +18/+13/+8
Natural Attacks: +18/+18/+18/+18

- as in which of them would be considered secondary attacks?

Been pondering making a natural attacks character but am finding it a little complex to figure out all the do's and do not's.

all the naturals are secondary and the numbers off if you are using two weapon fighting in combination with as I stated above and many others. the original total numbers are wrong, but the number of attacks are correct.

see j b 200 post for the correct numbers and what damage looks like. for this exact setup. This includes Multi attack, in these numbers. which is why they are +16 and not +18. it is just not labeled, like it was for TWF

if you are wondering what ones or secondary if you are only doing natural attacks see the monster book in the back, it list them. Bite, Claws Gore are all primary I think. while tails wings ect. are secondary unless it is the only form of attack.

Thanks for clarifying, and I assume the Bite, Gore and Claws become secondary because he's also using unarmed strike?

I'm amazed that you guys can keep all these rules in order, gives me a headache at times!


That is a lot of attacks!

Pardon me for jumping in with a related 3rd party question-

What does Multiattack do for the original list of attacks:

Main Hand: +18/+13/+8/+3
Off Hand: +18/+13/+8
Natural Attacks: +18/+18/+18/+18

- as in which of them would be considered secondary attacks?

Been pondering making a natural attacks character but am finding it a little complex to figure out all the do's and do not's.


Space McMan wrote:

I just finished a homebrew campaign as a level 6 Sacred Huntsmaster Inquisitor and I quite enjoyed it. In combat you ride a mount and take full attacks while still moving at your mount's speed, because animal companion. Through the inquisitor's great self-buffs and teamwork feats, you can do some serious damage and still stay mobile. Plus, since you're a high-dex inquisitor, you can be useful outside of combat via scouting, not to mention a variety of utility spells.

The real fun of this class for me was in the crafting and the preparation. In combat you're just trying to safely full attack with bane as much as possible, but to do so optimally you need to have carefully chosen your spells each level, built your animal companion well, and be ready to calculate half a dozen combat modifier variable quickly and confidently. Additionally, you're always looking to get the drop on your opponents, as time to pre-buff is invaluable and thus promotes tactical play.

When we ended at level 6, using a meager +1 longbow, given three rounds to pre-buff, my attack varied from +11 to +16 (that's after factoring in a -4 penalty for Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot to both numbers) and my arrows hit for 1d8 + 2d6 + 10 each. Get someone to play a bard (which I was fortunate enough to have) and it just gets better. And all this is by no means min/maxing, it was just basic research of standard feats and spells.

How'd you get to the 1d8+2d6+10 damage? I suck at number crunching but am always curious to see how folk get there.

Cheers.


Which feat is that?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
RaizielDragon wrote:

Thanks for all of the input everyone. It looks like blaster casters are becoming more and more possible as more options are released; I remember just a few years ago, if I asked about a blaster, I would have been told to be a "God Wizard" or to not bother with being a spellcaster at all.

I'm still leaning toward a Kineticist, but I'm starting to be swayed for a couple of reasons:

1) A spellcaster would have more options for blasting, from a lowly Jolt as a backup, all the way up to the highest level spell, using metamagic to push limits of damage. Kineticist tries to replicate this with infusions, but not all infusions are always available for the blasts I'm interested in.

2) Damage for a spell is better (1d6/level) than a Kineticist (1d6+1d6/2 levels past 1) until Kineticist gets a composite blast (2d6+2d6/2 levels past 1, or 1d6+1d6/level essentially). And then, the Kineticist has to worry about Burn (or gathering power for a round, which is detrimental to damage output).

If you're playing Core only, blasters suck because they don't have the tools needed to deal with their flaws to make them good. The later books have content that deal with their flaws, and when you use those to your advantage, blaster casters become extremely powerful, and still be (almost) as versatile as any God Wizard.

There's also the matter of Quickened spells. As far as I know, Kinetic Blasts can only be done 1/round, whereas spells can be cast as much as 2/round (or 3/round if you use some item gimmicks, like Spellstoring Weapons, but that's for Magi and the like).

Not to mention Kineticists have only limited utility, depending on which element they focus on, whereas other Full Spellcasters have all of the utility you could possibly need, and some utility that cannot be replicated anywhere. Of course, Divine spell lists suck for blasting, and even then certain Arcane spell lists (i.e. Witch) still suck eggs.

If I may ask, what are some of the new additions to blasters in the later books, that make them viable? Planning on making a blaster for my next game.


Yep, is an Archetype. Girlfriend wants to play one and wondered if you had one lying about. I'll give Naya a look and see if I can create one from her.

Cheers!


Hey RD, do you happen to have a furious Storm-druid hiding in here somewhere?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

In terms of non-deities, there are always the Drow, as you mention. As well as most Gnolls (who are maybe a bit more overt).

Both are matriarchal and unpleasant cultures.

Matriarchal does not mean misandrist.

I'm not sure this is true. This would also imply patriarchy isn't inherently misogynist, wouldn't it? And yet, I'd argue that rule by either gender (which is what the terms mean) inherently implies one gender is fit to govern the other, which logically means one gender is superior to the other.

Matriarchy ultimately means systematic misandry, even if it is benevolent misandry.

Misandry/Misogyny is the hatred of the other gender.

Patriarchy/Matriarchy doesn't automatically include the hatred of the 'weaker' gender in the eye of said society.


You argue that he never brought this up for 6 months. Why would he though, if he thought he had it right?

This reads more like you were looking for that last misstep to boot him. Not saying I don't understand you wanting to, it seems it is a more fun experience for you without him there. But I am not really buying the reasoning being "He was a dirty rotten cheater!".


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I play an Unchained Rogue 3. Loving it so far. It will be an absolute blast at level 4 (TWP, Quickdraw, Weapon Focus: Dagger... if lands 2 sneaks per round, 1st one to reduce opponent's AC by 4, and 2nd one to reduce the opponent's attacks by 4... :) )

You can only deal 1 type of debilitating injury at a time at that level, in your example above: If your second attack lands and you choose to reduce the to-hit bonus of your target, the penalty to his AC would immediately end.

Later you may take an advanced talent to deal out 2 at a time.

Of course you may be aware of that and merely wanted the second attack to have a higher chance to land.


gen13x wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
aboyd wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Also, 5 times a day, he can use his Reflex Save instead of his Fortitude Save at no penalty (Twist Away + Ring of Ferocious Action is a very good combination).

0_o

Wow, yeah. That's the cleverness I was thinking of, although it doesn't appear to be something exclusive to the new rogue. Love it anyway, though.

It's exclusive to people with Evasion. And probably only worth it on low-Fort Save Classes. So it's primarily useful to Rogues, Archaeoogist Bards, and maybe high level Swashbucklers (assuming you let them count for prerequisites).

Also, and for the record, I didn't come up with that, I just found it on this Forum. It's pretty amazing, though.

And the Unchained Rogue is what makes the build I just listed have an AC equivalent of 37, and a +20/+20/+15/+15 attack routine once he gets going (the later gives him a DPR a bit north of 100 when he's Sneak Attacking on all four attacks, and goes up over 130 with Haste).

Twist Away + Ring of Ferocious combo doesn't actually work.

Twist Away says in the description "nor can you ignore the staggered condition from Twist Away or remove it early"

And the wording for Ring of Ferocious is, "he may spend a charge to activate the ring and ignore the staggered condition until his next turn."

So, Twist says you cant ignore the staggered condition, and the Ring says that you spend a charge to ignore the staggered condition.

Good idea though. The wording is just too spot on. I'd imagine if it said something like "and delays the staggered condition until his next turn" an argument could be made, since its not removing or ignoring, it would just be postponing the condition.

Yeah it got hit with an errata. It worked before that.


I'm just about to roll up an unchained barb, why do you recommend going 'chained' barb?


No worries, I suspected that was what you meant and it'll greatly change the advice you will be getting for a build.

I'll be looking over your shoulder in this thread to gather inspiration myself. :)


Welcome!

I'm kind of new myself and no good with rogues, so I'll leave that to the experts. :)

I do want to ask a clarifying question however. When you say you wish to fight 2 handed, do you mean 2 weapons (1 in each hand), or 1 weapon you wield 2 handed?


Had a small argument between our GM and our Druid last session, regarding the Wall of Ashes (Su) from the Ash subdomain.

The text reads:

"Wall of Ashes (Su): At 8th level, you can create a wall of swirling ashes anywhere within 100 feet. This wall is up to 20 feet high and up to 10 feet long per cleric level you possess. The wall of ash blocks line of sight, and any creature passing through it must make a Fortitude save or be blinded for 1d4 rounds. The wall of ash reveals invisible creatures that are inside it or adjacent to it, although they become invisible again if they move away from the wall. You can use this ability for a number of minutes per day equal to your cleric level, but these minutes do not need to be consecutive."

Question I have is; can you shape this wall in say a square or similar form, or does it have to be in a line without any bends?

The GM said the wall had to be created in a straight line from A to B.

The druid player instead wanted to created a square shaped box around the party. Now of course GM has the final say so it went as she wanted, but I'm curious as to who was right of the 2.


Ravingdork wrote:

NEW CHARACTER!

Introducing the 10th-level human rogue, Jobe the Lesser, conman extraordinaire!

Regarding the forged documents. Can you take 20 for making those? Is that because it's starting equipment?


I would love to see some Unchained Rogue builds if you end up choosing to do some of those.


So what exactly is rage cycling and is that still a thing in the Unchained barb?


tonyz wrote:

If you happen to have a mount, then heal mount is pretty amazing.

Magic circle against evil/chaos, as someone pointed out, can be precast, meaning it doesn't affect action economy at all.

Blade of bright victory is pretty handy against incorporeal undead or anything with DR/weapon-type. Somewhat situational, but a lot of divine spells are.

Blessing of the mole is one way of getting darkvision if you don't already have it. Very handy in some situations.

Nondetection is very good for infiltration scenarios.

And I like prayer a lot better than some casters. Buff your friends, debuff your foes, bonuses get crazy if you have the Fate's Favored trait. Sure, charge-and-smite is often better, but not all combats start with a clear charge lane to the nastiest monster.

Regarding Heal mount, it says it works as a Heal spell on the paladins mount.

In the description of Heal it says the following: "It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level."
Would that be the Paladins caster level or class level?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To play devils advocate here; he has every right to rp his character disliking the personality of her paladin.

You say you spoke with him and he has stopped complaining ooc?
Fine then. She seems ok with him being critical of her in character.

Careful not to let your own bias make a mountain out of a molehill. :)


Lou Diamond wrote:

One youn cannot weild a lance 2-handed while mounted it is physicaly impossible.

You are getting the bonus damage from the momentum of the charging 2000pound horse that you are mounted on.the person who wrote that rule most likely inferred that someone reading the rule would take that into consideration. The knight is not using his own muscle to power the lance, the butt off the lance is in a cup that is attached to his horses saddle.

That is why there are crave outs in the rules for mounted lances. Have any of the poster ever seen a joust lances are never used two handed while mounted you have a shield in your off hand. You don't fight with a lance dismounted they are made of wood and would not last more than one blow with any melee weapon.

Reality vs fantasy aside, saying you can't wield a lance 2 handed is not true.

You might be making the understandable mistake of only taking jousting lances in account. In actual combat there are many examples of 2 handed use.

And I guess OP that would be my 2 cents, if the player wants to wield a shield along with the lance, it's 1x strength bonus. If he/she wields it in both hands, it's 1.5x strength


Is there an eta on the errata?


Ah I see.

Welp I was right in one thing, it was a stupid question. ;)


Rynjin wrote:

I've played a Slayer (TWFing Sword and Board) up to 7th (at 8th he became a Horizon Walker).

Sneak Attack is a nice extra. That's all it is, really. The class does just fine without it. Studied Target gives the same bonus as Weapon Training (and starts earlier), and nobody complains about how Fighters fare in damage dealing.

At no level did I ever feel using Studied Target was a wasted action. I didn't take the actual Feat Two-Weapon Fighting until later on because at low levels it's more a harm than a help, so you don't sacrifice too much to use it. An extra +1/+2 is worth the cost of a move action.

It also makes the Slayer a great switch-hitter at low levels since a free +1/+2 to bow attacks makes you nearly as good as a dedicated archer before iteratives and manyshot come into play.

Might be a stupid question but why does he get a +1/+2 for studied target? Isn't it +1/+1?


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
To be frank, I'm well past fed up with this whole thing. I tried to talk with the player last night to seek some sort of common ground, possibly find some other palatable solution than "The Shortly Expected Inquisition!!" No dice. It's a mechanics-based arms race with two of the smartest guys I know building characters that feed off one another and want little or nothing more than to work against me and my character. Not a recipe for disaster or disappointment at all.

That doesn't sound very smart though.

You still having fun? Otherwise perhaps try taking it up with the whole grp and perhaps veto PvP. Sounds a little like the group isn't up for the free rein.

Can't help with build, not super savvy when it comes to optimizing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much authority do you have as secret service detail?

Can you order a last minute change of the guard? Might mess with the plans and plotting of the attackers.


Right, he must have been foresight sub-school because he used prescience a lot.

Thanks for the replies, I didn't know about the Forewarned and Initiative bits, that certainly seems very good.


As the title suggests, I've seen many consider Divination to be the best specialized school to take.

I'm rather new to RP and have only ever played with 1 Divination wizard in the party up until now. However that was more than enough, a lot of the time he and the GM got into long arguments because they disagreed on what the wizard could and could not do with certain spells/abilities.

Apart from that he felt like a wizard would be performance wise. So did the player just play the wizard wrong or am I not getting something fundamental?


I'll follow this thread with interest.
I'm relatively new and the group I play with tend to be more about the hack&slash than roleplay, which at times can make me a little less motivated to come up with great backgrounds for my character.
The many creative minds of this board seems the best way to stay inspired.


gamer-printer wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
At least from my perspective many of the rogue abilities are too civilized for viking theme..

>implying that some other culture of that period would be considered "civilized"

>implying vikings did not have cities

I really wasn't meaning civilized as in cities, rather as in technology. The Arabs were pretty advanced having access to Greek mathematics and science in the same time period. China had gunpowder. Northern Europe, especially 2 or 3 centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire was sparse in comparitive technology. The longboat and clinker-built hull design was the viking technological achievement, plus possible navigational aid advances.

I guess I think of the more earlier Viking Period when I imagine it for my games, rather than the height of the same period.

2-3 centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire? You know that's about 300 years before the age of Vikings right?


Quick and precise reply, excellent.

Thank you.


So I'm about to make my first caster, a wizard.

I just want to make sure I got this right:

When applying a meta magical effect through a rod, the spell in question doesn't get bumped up to a higher level slot as it otherwise would if you'd cast it using the equivalent feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:

Look, I just said that we would all prefer to keep it constructive if possible. I am looking for a solution that accomplishes that.

I don't need advice on how to kick a player. Thats easy. We just say, "F*$% it. You are out." and that is the end of it. Same for the party getting fed up and killing his character. It wouldn't be hard, we don't need advice there.

If you can't give constructive helpful advice then I would request that you not post in a thread asking for advice in the advice forum.

Why are you throwing a tantrum? Seems you've been getting tons of constructive advice so far, both in this matter and the previous ones you've posted regarding the same player and DM. It either doesn't work or you won't do it - yet you keep posting how much these things baffles and frustrates you in game.

It IS constructive to kick a player that never changes, or to leave a game that is so dysfunctional you feel the need to post what so far is a small novella worth of complaints and descriptions of how bad things are.

May not be what you like to hear, that doesn't change that it's constructive and/or helpful advice in this case.


Oly wrote:
Malag wrote:

I really don't understand what's the point of creating exact same thread about your GM again. You got like 200+ responses in your former thread and most of them are of same mindset as now.

Yes, his idea of challenge is terrible and yes, it's unfair to nerf your character to oblivion, but dude... Just speak up to him and make your stand already or be forever silent about it.

A lot of people asked him to let the community know how it went. So he did.

I do see your point, in that if he were to keep coming back every week to vent more it would get old. Maybe it already has to you, but judging from the response I don't think it has to most people here.

I also it's fine for him to comment further in this thread if he wants, but I do see where you're headed with your post, in that if he comes back next week just to vent further, that would be too much.

After this thread fades in the next couple of days, the only reason for a new update would be to tell us a final result: "I worked it out and here's how" or "I ended up quitting" or "I started my own campaign and my friends followed" or "I found a new group on meetup.com" or something. If next week, it's still "This damn GM is still ruining things," then as bad as the GM is, it would be time to tell the poster, "He sucks, but you clearly prefer playing in his campaign to the alternatives, so that's that."

But the time for telling him that isn't here, and even next week if he wants to tell us how it was resolved (if it is, including by his quitting) that should still be welcome.

Couldn't he just update the old thread instead of creating a new topic though? Or is there a time limit on bumping (actual question, I don't know).


Scratching my head a little here. Is OP asking how to deal with it? Or is it more a rant thread against unfair GMs that missed the teamplay aspect.
Don't get me wrong, am not trying to excuse the GM or his methods and I'm all for ranting a bit about bad GMs (am currently having doubts about continuing my own game because of a bad mix of Gm + girlfriend player bias).

But what is the advice asked here? Whether you should leave? How to speak to your GM?
I'll give my advice, apologies in advance if it wasn't the point of the thread.

It sounds like the rest of the group is enjoying themselves because the (lack of) tactics used by the dragons. Have you tried making them understand how you're being undermined and get them so speak up about it? If they aren't willing to champion your concerns I'd say either change class, accept that you won't be a blaster or leave the game. It's clear at this stage that you alone won't change the GMs approach.


Lune wrote:
To my mind that is better than pretending like your friends aren't bigots towards your own child. I would rather them admit their bigotry upfront so that I could make an informed decision about whether I would want to be their friend in the first place. Personally, I do not keep friends who are bigots. At least not on serious issues and definitely not an issue that has to do with my own family. I do not think that is unreasonable.

The irony of that aside, this be a big reason why I would hesitate in accepting a child to join his/her parent's game. I would certainly not be ok having that unspoken "ultimatum" looming over my gaming table, it would put quite a damper on my fun.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>