Brass Dragon

Mbertorch's page

483 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It's not much weirder than someone being Coup de Graced while at max HP with a sleep ability, even though the damage could be much less than the target's maximum HP. Arbitrary mechanics would dictate Bob being CDG'd for 30 HP out of his 110 can be an instakill by a bad save. Just like arbitrary mechanics would dictate Bob dies at taking 10 damage 3 times.

It's really a matter of if you like vanilla or strawberry ice cream...

My two favorite ice creams... Uh oh


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kinda hate that Sorcerers are the worst at multiclassing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shady Stranger wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...
Balancing :/

Oww... My immersion hurts. Haha


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about giving an extra trait like forceful or sweep or something to Greatsword?

EDIT: And maybe something like parry to the longsword?


It's weird if the Bastard Sword can only do one damage type, but the heftier Greatsword can do two. But, then if the Bastard Sword can do both, why bother with the Greatsword? The Greatsword needs a trait like forceful, maybe, then, to be worth it.


Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
give cha back to halflings, goblins should be dex and con

Alternatively, DON'T give Cha back to Halflings, and do whatever with Goblins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheMonkeyFish wrote:

@DanceYrself - Ya know, I'm going to put myself out on a limb here for saying this, but I'm like 90% sure the only reason they added Alchemist was because of the Goblin Bombarder everyone wants to play. Considering their alchemist skills and trap making, and the fact that they are SMART enough to learn they need to ask for help to survive, Intelligence makes much more sense than Charisma. Something like:

"Naturally curious by nature, Goblins are quick to learn - especially when it comes to making things blow up."

@ Paizo - If you are listening, what do you think of the whole idea of Goblins being +Dex/+Int and switching back Halflings to +Dex/+Cha like the old ones we used to know and love?

@ Grimcleaver - Waylangs and Vine Leshy would like to have a word with you.

Ask for what you want for goblins, but some of us have argued very passionately, and I think, rather well, for halflings to get the wisdom bonus instead of the Charisma bonus. So leave that one alone, please and thank you.


Hmm. Some good points, which I'll have to consider. Part of the issue is that I haven't DM'd much for higher levels, so everything is usually still a challenge for my players. Also, as much as I love LOTR, those characters are not really as powerful as higher level Pathfinder/D&D characters, especially not casters of these games.

And this may seem like nitpicking, but while 3 levels is a bit short of a range, 6 seems like too much to me.

My main experiences with CR in 5E can be summed up with this story:
I often run hard or deadly encounters for my players, because Medium ones are too much of a cakewalk. So, in one Deadly encounter (of several), the main monster was able to kill a character. The Wizard. By getting a critical hit. And the party was split up almost a hundred feet away from each other. That's what it took to kill a PC. Now, I wasn't trying to kill my player's character, you understand. But it took a split party, the lowest health character, and a critical hit from a monster in a DEADLY encounter to result in a death. Which is the flip side of Bounded Accuracy, and the part I really dislike. The scary stuff needs to be so far ahead to actually be scary for the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
I don't know. I kind of detest bounded accuracy in 5E. It's one of the (admittedly) few things I dislike about it. The changes in proficiency are too negligible for my taste. That said, I could support a 1/2 level added to everything, instead of the full level. Less than that, and... I'm not too interested.

May I ask why? Is it the bigger numbers? Because compared to your party mates there is absolutely zero difference, you're just comparing bigger numbers. Same thing against equal level monsters. The only time there is a difference is against lower or higher level monsters, and it really narrows the difference in effective challenges.

For me, being put on a treadmill is an absolute nonstarter. I abhor it. It got to the point I simply refused to play 3.P, but when 5e came around it got me back in and got me spending money. Looking at a system that is on a treadmill means I'll spend $0.

For me, bigger numbers are meaningless when the world moves on the treadmill with you. I want the numbers to mean something. I want to know a +10 to hit is good, not that it could be good or bad depending on where on the treadmill we are. I want my Str10 Wizard who is untrained in athletics to always be bad at running a race, I don't want him once he hits mid levels to be about to outrun every young and fit guy in an entire town just because of bigger numbers.

No, it's not the bigger numbers. Rather, it is exactly because of those lower and higher challenge level monsters, and the narrowed effective challenge that you mention, that I prefer. When I am (or my players are) level 10, I want to steamroll through a bunch of orcs, and have them simply fail to stand a chance. And, I want an Ancient Dragon to scare the pants off me and make me run the other way. I DM 5E, and challenging my players is more difficult (for me) than it was in Pathfinder 1st, and will be, I expect, in Pathfinder 2nd.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. I kind of detest bounded accuracy in 5E. It's one of the (admittedly) few things I dislike about it. The changes in proficiency are too negligible for my taste. That said, I could support a 1/2 level added to everything, instead of the full level. Less than that, and... I'm not too interested.


I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that Pathfinder 2 can expand upon skills, regardless of class, far more easily and readily than 5E. Which is huge for me. One of my biggest gripes with 5E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as errata, or if it's already been discussed somewhere else, but why is the hand crossbow 1 hand, and not 1+ hand like the bows and the sling? so your other hand can be completely occupied, and you can just reload it... How?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was floored by how well it went. So, nice job, folks!


Ronin_Knight wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.
Yes and I'm sure it will do great with a 5E group, for people who wanted something that even vaguely resembled Pathfinder as we know it you have to admit there isn't much similar to the 1e incarnation

Having played 5E a lot lately, and Pathfinder longer ago, I see a lot of PF1 in PF2. BUT, since you're approaching it from a different angle, I can see why it may look different to you. Which is okay. I hope it is able to thwart your current feelings, though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Ronin_Knight wrote:
Funny because everything I've read so far makes it seem far worse than I feared, before I thought it would have hints of 4e or 5E, maybe a bit of both. Instead we got the mutant hybrid of those two with not a shred of PF1E or 3.x left in sight.
Agreed, its WORSE than it looked, and it looked pretty bad to start with.

Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
This of course is a very big tangent as a result of people wanting to pretend that the Pirate Archetype is a prestige class. It isn't. We have Gray Maidens as an example of a Prestige Class. Pirate is an actual archetype and under the new multiclassing rules you get to choose whether or not you want to multiclass or take an archetype. Which is in fact less choice. Pretending otherwise does not help the discussion at hand.

But it in itself is a new choice, since this kind of Archetype (the kind anyone could take) didn't exist previously.

And, maybe the archetypes that alter specific classes alter class features, and not class Feats, and will therefore not be incompatible with the other things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
rainzax wrote:


To be fair, I cringe too every time I see the word "feat" - but then I remember that it basically boils down to a "character choice", which is a good thing. Also, I can't think of a better name. Abilities? Powers? Features?

Someone in a thread proposed we could, at the very least, demarcate class feats, general feats, skill feats, and ancestry feats a little better by calling each one a different thing.

-Class talents
-General feats (or just Feats)
-Skill unlocks
-Ancestry traits

The change would be pretty cosmetic, as they'd all amount to the same thing and all follow similar rules, but it might help with organization and help us all not be overwhelmed by feats.

That seems like redundant demarcation to me. You are already have the adjective.
I tend to agree, but there are many who would disagree. Just like I go cross-eyed when adding eight or nine different integers but plenty of people can do it instantly in their heads. Or our earlier disagreements on whether the little action symbols are as helpful as advertised (now that I have a full example of them, I can flat guarantee I will read a three action activity as two, at least at first, but I believe you that you won't make that mistake). Sometimes a little extra differentiation is all someone needs to make the concept easier to grasp, and different people will have that threshold at different places.
Agreed here. People tend to remember nouns and forget adjectives. "Ohh you can spend a feat on that" is something that could get very confusing depending on what bin that feat falls into. Naming these differently might help that, even if they do all have the same formatting. After all, we don't call them "casting feats", we call them "spells" for a reason.

And I disagree, VEY STRONGLY. I am incredibly glad that they're all Feats, and differentiated by the preceding adjective. For how my mind works, MUCH easier to sort out. But I understand that isn't the case for everyone. I just wanted to make sure that people know that some of us like it this new way.


MerlinCross wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I'm sorry, I liked having unquie spell lists. One reason I'm ticked about Alchemist is that we're losing that. Witch too ail just share with Druid or Bard now.

But this is more about spell lists not multiclassing so ill drop it. Well after one more bit. They said they wouldn't give Rangers in the playtest spell casting. Want to see how how the core mechanics do and maybe add them in later. An option to do so.

If the option is to just Splice into Druid, I feel ... Not cheated but mislead.

Oh, I agree. I think they're getting a bit too cute reducing all of those spell lists to just four. I'll give it a chance, because I see why they did it and can recognize the balance advantages, but I'll definetely miss the use of custom spell lists as a developer tool to make a class unique.

I hadn't even thought that they might have meant "We'll totes give you a spellcasting ranger later" as "druid archetype." That makes a horrible amount of sense and I'm vaguely annoyed if that's what they meant.

I mean, at least throw in some powers.

Really? I don't think it makes sense at all, considering what the blog actually says:

"...it would be easy to create a spellcasting build of the ranger later using Spell Points (like the paladin)..."

Late and on mobile so hard to double check at time of writing. So if they worded it differently than how I put it, I will admit I am in the wrong here. I just recall the point of no Spellcasting for Ranger during playtest and we might/should see a way to cast spells later.

Though interested in seeing what classes/archetypes get casting if we can simply take a Dedication for it.

Early and on mobile... Haha!

But yeah, no worries. Just didn't want you to be unhappy about something I actually knew wasn't the case and could do something about correcting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah Its kind of weird how jumbled all the fantasy races seem to be. Also is it just me or are santa's elfs more likely to be gnomes?

Or possibly even dwarfs really... IF they had beards.

They're clearly kobolds in fat suits.

I mean, Kobolds make traps... Santa's elves make toys... They're both small...

Yeah. This checks out


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I'm sorry, I liked having unquie spell lists. One reason I'm ticked about Alchemist is that we're losing that. Witch too ail just share with Druid or Bard now.

But this is more about spell lists not multiclassing so ill drop it. Well after one more bit. They said they wouldn't give Rangers in the playtest spell casting. Want to see how how the core mechanics do and maybe add them in later. An option to do so.

If the option is to just Splice into Druid, I feel ... Not cheated but mislead.

Oh, I agree. I think they're getting a bit too cute reducing all of those spell lists to just four. I'll give it a chance, because I see why they did it and can recognize the balance advantages, but I'll definetely miss the use of custom spell lists as a developer tool to make a class unique.

I hadn't even thought that they might have meant "We'll totes give you a spellcasting ranger later" as "druid archetype." That makes a horrible amount of sense and I'm vaguely annoyed if that's what they meant.

I mean, at least throw in some powers.

Really? I don't think it makes sense at all, considering what the blog actually says:

"...it would be easy to create a spellcasting build of the ranger later using Spell Points (like the paladin)..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

And this any unique spell list is dead if everyone is expected to share Bard, Druid, Cleric and Wizard as their multiclass.

I'm pretty sure unique spelllists were mostly dead anyways heading into PF2. One of the issues they ran into as time went on was that, everytime they added a new spell, they had to think about how it fit into everyone's spell lists. Making everyone run off the same four spell lists intead of the, what, ten different lists we had in PF1, will make updating and adding to those lists a lot easier. Especially with the four essences guiding those decisions behind the scenes.

I'm sure there will be some variations. We see Bards get unique cantrips, and the powers aren't on any spell list and can be assigned to a class as appropriate, but those will be the exceptions.

I'm sorry, I liked having unquie spell lists. One reason I'm ticked about Alchemist is that we're losing that. Witch too ail just share with Druid or Bard now.

But this is more about spell lists not multiclassing so ill drop it. Well after one more bit. They said they wouldn't give Rangers in the playtest spell casting. Want to see how how the core mechanics do and maybe add them in later. An option to do so.

If the option is to just Splice into Druid, I feel ... Not cheated but mislead.

Considering they mentioned Spell Points, like a Paladin specifically, and not "regular casting," I doubt that's what they meant as the possibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

As small races go I think something like:

wis halfling
Chr kobolds
int gnomes/goblins

INT Goblins is not a Golarion thing.

It's PF1 thing, a WoW thing, but not something we've seen represented.

Yeah, comparing Golarion Goblins with Azeroth Goblins really shows that Golarion Goblins are not an Int race. Goblins in WoW are renowned geniuses that can build anything as long as you accept that it will explode. While Paizo's goblins are not astoundingly stupid they certainly aren't notably intelligent either.

Personally I think goblins aren't very charismatic either and their stat distribution should have been +Dex and Con/-Wis, though Paizo likely thought it would be OP for an ancestry to be capable of getting stat boosts in all three physical stats. If goblins have to have a strong mental stat, then the next step is to ask "what mental-based class should goblins be naturally good at?" and I think the easy answer there is Bard.

I agree with all of this, for sure. I actually think Kobolds would be a decent choice (down the road) fot a small +2 Int race. Good trap crafters and tactically inclined. Seems reasonable, no? Then, probably +2 Dex, and either -2 Strength, or maybe even -2 Charisma because they're arrogant/unlikeable. Well, except to me and some others. We like Kobolds. :)

Oh, and this of course goes off the presumption that Kobolds don't need to be hideously underpowered anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But everyone is okay with the Gnome Druid? What mechanical synergy does she have that a goblin Alchemist lacks?


12 people marked this as a favorite.
kaineblade83 wrote:

I really like this idea in theory, and want to see more from it. My big concern is Fighter, though.

Presumably the dedication feats are class feats, which fighters get every level, yes? So what's stopping a fighter from doing everything and still having some class feats for their own base class?

They get their weapon proficiency increase baseline so they wouldn't need to feat out for that, meanwhile they also have 8th level spellcasting in 2 other classes, if they'd like, and some rogue skills. I know there's a dedication limit for the feats, but still, 20 levels of class feats doesn't make that feel totally like a stopgap.

I'm absolutely on board with this and I want to see where it goes, as I said, I'm just voicing concerns I have. I know we haven't seen the full system yet and there may be reasons NOT to be that monster I mentioned building above, but it's worrisome to imagine it'd be easily achievable for fighter; does that make sense?

We're worried the Fighter is going to outdo the other classes in something? Well, congratulations, Paizo. You made the Fighter not the worst. That is (zero sarcasm, btw) rather commendable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Well I think this kills doing BOTH at the same time.

True. I don't see being able to build a classic Half-Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief or Fighter/Mage/Cleric with this, at least not easily or being able to function as this across the level spectrum.

But I am willing to try the system as a whole and see how it works out.

Really interested to see how I could build some sort of Arcane Archer with this, especially with the new casting and action economy mechanics.

I... I... I hadn't even thought of Arcane Archer yet. Oh. Boy. I have my second character concept now. Thank you very much. :)


Losing gracefully...
Eh. Nothing. I haven't played yet. I'll let ya know after I do.

Paladins though... I love this "Chaodin" dialogue, because it has such awesome ideas, but my (current) solution has a probably simpler (though not necessarily better) execution. Most here are familiar with the Vindictive Bastard archetype of PF1, right? And some may be aware 5e's Oathbreaker Paladin from the DMG? Essentially, wedding parts of these two ideas together. Like, in the CRB, an option for a Paladin who breaks her Oath to become, say, an Avenger (name unimportant as long as it's not Paladin). An Avenger would be an ex-Paladin more concerned with protecting her companions that the specifics of any Oaths. And an Avenger would get abilities like a PF1 Vindictive Bastard, but could still be good. Or neutral. Or even evil. Could even still be devoted to a deity. Just not above all else. And, this wouldn't even preclude things like a Chaodin down the road; rather, it would just allow for an option for people who want to play a devoted, principled, warrior, with some supernatural abilities - unlike Fighters - without having to be Lawful Good, in the CRB.

EDIT: And leave the people who want the name of Paladin to be LG only (relatively) happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all)

Coming to help you

It seems like you meant to say weakest and weaker.

Or you may have meant

Even the most wicked blow would be even more wicked

Wicked good job theah


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't exactly like how this is handled, now that others have pointed out some flaws. But, you can consider me in the camp that considers it better to have Half-Elves and Half-Orcs NOT as separate ancestries. It was always weird to me. But obviously, many people don't feel the same way. So... Yeah. Not sure how to fix all that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do some people get mean so quickly? :(

Anyway, it's the playtest. So now, we've got to use Half-Elves and Half-Orcs, and if they suck, we've got to let Paizo know! It's not set in stone yet, folks!


TiwazBlackhand wrote:
Massive Spoiler!

Way too big. It's like I don't even need to play anymore...

NOT. :P


Cool. I like this.


Gabby the Ferocious wrote:
Cleric is Divine. Druid is Primal. But also, Bard, the Occult caster, can probably fish pretty well too. I don’t see what’s stopping Wizard and Sorcerer from gishing. Proficiencies? Eh. Just get those too. You probably don’t even have to archetype out for those.

(Emphasis mine)

This. This made me laugh so much.

Thank you. :D


Moro wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Moro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).

For example, the GM is running a skulls & shackles campaign, and he "strongly recommends" picking up the pirate archetype . I want to play a gish pirate - sounds like a cool concept, right? In pf 1 this was easy; pick a fighter archetype with pirate flavour at 1st and wizard at 2nd.
In pf2, it appears we have to wait until 2nd before getting an
archetype, then we have to take 2 more class feats (4th, 6th) before we can pick up the next archetype at 8th. This means if I pirate at 2nd, I can't gish until 8th, or if I gish at 2nd, I can't pirate until 8th. When I do, I think I will only be getting 2nd level spells, hardly a gish character!
There are a lot of classes which can gish just fine out the box though.
I'm curious, which would those be?
Druid and Cleric are the classic ones, so I would guess those. The removal of BAB might open up a few more depending on proficiencies...

Ah, I wasn't considering divine gish, I was wracking my brain trying to think of what arcane gish was meant.

So none, like the early days of 3.75.

This is next to useless, but I'm pretty sure one of the devs at one point said there is a Feat that a Sorcerer or Wizard who wanted to get in the thick of it would be interested in taking.

This is next to useless, because it is literally all I remember about it.


I wrote this somewhere else, but what if Dex-to-Damage came from a feat, but only gave half-mod? Until a later level or second feat, that is. Or something like that, anyway.


Secret Wizard wrote:

DEX-to-damage should be a general feat.

Also, it should have major downsides so not every Monk goes DEX-to-damage.

What a can of worms I'm sure this will be, but... What about "Half Dex" to damage with a Feat? At least at first. Maybe full Dex could be unlocked automatically at a later level, or with a second feat?


I'm happy about this. I hoped that Multiclassing would become more like VMC. So, cool.


So, is it possible to be Druid without Wildshape? Or do they all get it, and the Wild Order just gets it sooner?


Alric Rahl wrote:
Charlaquin wrote:
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

man, by the time you guys get to revealing the Human (the only non-revealed aspect that I wanna see), I'll already have the playtest book and won't need the preview.

I’m pretty sure they would have previewed the human by now if they were planning to preview it at all. All the other ancestries came out in quick succession, apart from humans, half-elves, and half-orcs. Clearly they’re doing something different with the Human (and part-Human) Ancestry that they don’t want to spoil.

Hmmmm, I disagree they still have 2 Monday’s and a Friday. We know for sure next Monday is the Druid since that’s the only class left to preview, and they haven’t done multiclassing yet so that’s probably next Friday.

I agree that they are probably doing something extremely fundamentally different for the human and half races so they might preview it on Monday August 1 as a HUGE “hey guys here is what’s really gonna get you hyped for the playtest release tomorrow.”

You know as like a save the best for last thing.

Umm. Monday, August 1st? Not exactly...


I feel like I'm the only one who doesn't want this many casters. Seems like overkill to me. But I'm not going to be a downer and, like, complain if they do it.


All I hope is that making a Sling on par with these weapons is not locked behind the Halfling Ancestry. If Halflings can be better at it sooner, then fine. But if a Fighter or Ranger of a different ancestry can never be as skilled with a sling as a Halfling, say, Cleric, well, (to me) that's a problem.


Expanded Ancestries, for sure. Especially the ones that are a bit more unique to Golarion (by which I mean not as commonly found in 5E).

And the other one is Paladin-related, so I'll just keep my mouth shut. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. I don't love reloading for slings. Especially if crossbows are exempt. Just kind of weird.

EDIT: Especially because "the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition"...
(From the Halfling and Gnome blog)

Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Well that was awesome.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally like Power Points. Then your Powers use Power Points. Would there be something wrong with this that I'm missing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
ENHenry wrote:

Anyone else besides me blowing a gasket while trying to figure out what classes to play for the playtest? :) I know that Doomsday Dawn will have at least two chances for players to make PCs to play, but I can't narrow it down from twelve choices!!!

Mark, why couldn't you ladies and gents have intentionally made at least one or two classes suck, to make my life easier??? ;-)

If you are playing all of Doomsday Dawn and you never repeat classes except when it's the same character, you will get to play 5/12 classes. Still doesn't help you though, I think. Sorry, which do you recommend we make suck?

Well, obviously the... actually, what about the... No, I meant the... Or maybe the...

Dang. Never mind... Ha!


Woo bahdz!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

:')

Tears of joy, my friends. Tears. Of. Joy!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to figure out how to break space-time so August 2nd will be here in the next 4 minutes...

BECAUSE I CAN'T WAIT!!!


First World Bard wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

A halfling or gnome could quite easily be higher.

A little birdie told me that Halflings will end up with an ancestry advantage to Wisdom instead of Charisma in the finalized playtest...

Oh really? Because I've been a (passionate) proponent of this very thing, but I've not seen it indicated by any official source (developer). I want you to be right. But why do you think it?

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>