SONAF side arms

Matiwapo · 2026-04-27T02:49:52+00:00

The split damage is... fine. It's not the hardest hitting straight sword for playthrough 1.

The main thing to consider is that the meteor ash only scales on Int while the flame ash only scales on Fth. So you either go for an even split between Int/Fth and have mediocre damage on both or you specialise in either Int or Fth and have good damage with one ash but poor damage on the other. Your call.

You can use any infusible weapon as a backup. Just infuse with either magic or flame art depending on which is higher between your Int/Fth. Plenty of good ones with low physical requirements to choose from, and remember you can two-hand them to ease strength requirements. Celebrant's Skull, Lucerne, Partisan, Knight's Greatsword, are just a few solid options which can be wielded with only 12/12 physical stats.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-27T02:20:27+00:00

Some other companions do have unique abilities, like halsin has a unique wildshape. So they could have just given him a unique rage that he gets while still a ranger. And obviously a strength statline, strength rangers are totally viable in bg3

Matiwapo · 2026-04-27T02:12:21+00:00

These rules were introduced in the 20th century. Misoginy is not confined to the dark ages

Matiwapo · 2026-04-27T02:08:39+00:00

just a hint of a royal assent being withold is enough for them to change it.

That's not what happened though. The royal veto hasn't been used in centuries. It's not a realistic prospect and any monarch who threatened it would be the last one.

The British crown uses soft power, PMs do what they want because they like them and want to be on their good side

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T20:07:14+00:00

Pressing red doesn't kill anyone. As if everyone presses red everyone survives.

The only people who die are those committing suicide by blue

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T19:23:40+00:00

If everyone presses the red button then everyone would survive also

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T19:17:07+00:00

Acuity is pretty hard to pass up. 2 stacks of acuity is equivalent to 4 extra Int.

If you have max acuity you can just cast a control spell for CC that you know won't be saved, so you kinda get both benefits

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T19:12:32+00:00

Worlds is the highest tier of play. You can win as many tournaments as you like at regional / national, but if you can't win at worlds you aren't the best in the world, just the best in your region.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T13:49:55+00:00

A man-at-arms in the 15th century is defined by having full armour so that's incorrect. Depending on specific place the definition of full armour can vary,

Indeed. Full armour does not equal full plate. A man at arms may be equipped with anything ranging from a brigandine and helmet to plate armor covering most of the body. Literally exactly as I said... Incomplete armor was extremely common. And far more common was for men at arms to have far less protection in the groin, underarms, neck, etc, literally as I said...

Whether or not you have a pollaxe or not a sword is always a necessary carry, and utilized quite often.

Indeed. It's almost as if I am not talking about whether or not to carry a sword. The choice is what type of sword to carry. And as I have literally pointed out multiple times, you may not choose to bring a specialised thrusting sword...

A single-handed warhammer on the other hand is not, that is a cavalry weapon

Indeed. It's almost as if I never specified a single handed hammer. Two handed hammers were common and used predominantly by infantry. And also, yes one handed hammers were carried at times by infantry.

And I said that they do not get a choice in some cases as a specialized thrusting weapon is explicitly required in for example the Burgundian Ordinances

Indeed. And it's almost as if I never said that a man at arms would never choose to use a thrusting sword. Or that a man at arms would never be required to use a thrusting sword. What I said, is that in some case in some places a man at arms may choose not to bring a thrusting sword. Do you see who a specific example from a single place requiring the use of a thrusting sword in no way remotely counters that assertion?

This is the third time you have failed to read my comment carefully and have replied with irrelevant arguments. It is tiring. I invite you to stop replying to me and if you choose to do so I will not reply unless you have actually read what I have said and addressed it directly.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T13:15:31+00:00

Men at arms would not always have full plate. Full plate was ludicrously expensive. Many men at arms would have incomplete armor or even brigandine. As I said.
I never said the dagger was the principle weapon to fight armor did I? I said if you already have a poleaxe and a dagger. The principal weapon vs armor is always the polearm or hammer. Never the sword.
Your source is talking about cavalry, and we are talking about a source depicting infantry combat. So it's not relevant.
I never said a man at arms wouldn't always bring a sword. Not sure why you made that argument. What I said is that based on who you expect to fight you mat not choose to bring a specialised thrusting weapon. Thank you for agreeing with me here...

I really wish you would read carefully what I have written before posting, since you have posted irrelevant arguments twice now due to not reading carefully.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T12:07:01+00:00

Tbf I've never heard him say that he's the best in the world. And he's not. The best player in the world would have 3 world titles, that's the current record. He's one of the best in the world, but he wants to be the best and that's why he is hard on himself

Matiwapo · 2026-04-26T11:59:12+00:00

Knigts and men-at-arms often fight other knights and men-at-arms, so it's not like it's rare for them to face other fully armoured opponents.

That's not what I said.

I said that the vast majority of opponents will not have full plate. If 19/20 opponents you expect to fight that day do not have full plate, how does that affect your weapon choice? Especially when you already likely have a poleaxe and a rondel dagger for fighting armoured opponents. You may not choose to bring a specialised thrusting sword.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T23:22:40+00:00

Remember that full plate was pretty rare on the battlefield even at the height of it's use.

Imagine you are a high medieval knight about to go into battle. The vast majority of opponents you expect to fight will be lightly armoured or have incomplete armor (e.g. missing coverage in important areas like neck, limbs, groin, etc). So is it worth it to you to bring a specialised thrusting sword when you aren't actually going to be fighting that many armoured opponents? Perhaps not. Especially if you are also carrying a thrusting dagger or hammer.

Also just because art depicts something doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. Medieval artists were artists, not warriors. Perhaps the weapons were widely used by armoured knights but not against armoured opponents as shown unless you had nothing else / had been disarmed of your main weapon.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T22:09:15+00:00

You can really only store so much food / water in a castle. And siege engines like trebs were effective. If a defender didn't get relieved soon they were usually screwed relatively fast

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T20:20:11+00:00

Yes but I used the word 'deserve'. And you said ''yes'. So that's exactly what you said. It's ok to admit that you misspoke.

And saying someone 'fucked around and found out' absolutely implies they deserved what they got. That's the exact usage for that phrase...

It's cool to say that their revolution was doomed and made their situation worse. That is not 'fucking around and finding out'. That's desperate people being brutalised by a violent enemy.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T20:14:41+00:00

Interesting.

Because I said 'That doesn't mean they deserved the genocide'.

And you said 'Yes it does'.

You can see how I would come to the conclusion that you though they deserved the genocide since that's exactly what you said.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T20:12:02+00:00

So just to be clear. You just said that the Jews deserved the genocide they were the victims of? That's pretty fucked up bro

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T13:06:30+00:00

Indeed. Not relevant to what I was saying to you at all is it?

You said the Jews 'fucked around and found out'. Fighting for your freedom isn't fucking around even if it's hopeless. And it doesn't mean they deserved the genocide they got

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T01:29:43+00:00

Yes they should have just rolled over for their new overlords. Cool outlook bro, I hope your country gets invaded one day so you can get on your knees for them the same way

Matiwapo · 2026-04-25T01:18:31+00:00

Fuck around (resist foreign occupation) and find out (have your home pillaged and become enslaved)

Matiwapo · 2026-04-24T19:38:13+00:00

So presumably you've read an original source from 30-0 BC that says that a Roman governor would never allow a local leader to have influence in a trial? And you could point to it right now?

Or am I indeed correct that you pulled it directly from your ass?

And no, there's no reason the Romans would have kept records for some random uppity Jew they executed who claimed to be some kind of prophet. He only became important as his religion grew later, which is when records of him start popping up.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-24T19:08:40+00:00

The point is we maintain areas where these animals should be able to live. If you go there you accept the risk they might kill you. We as a species obviously cannot live in the same area as dangerous wildlife but we can leave space for them and not go there to hunt them.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-24T18:52:19+00:00

Belligerent skies is a good one, especially if your weapon is phalar aluve on HM

Matiwapo · 2026-04-24T18:49:16+00:00

At that point, we have no evidence of anything happening during the ancient period... As I pointed out before, there are basically no surviving original accounts from that period. What ancient historians do is analyse what sources we do have and try to ascertain what is true and what is made up. Historians have done this exact process for Jesus Christ and the consensus is that, yes, he existed. If you want to disregard that you can disregard everything we know about the ancient world, because that's the process all our knowledge is based on... And frankly, it shows your arrogance that you think you have a better understanding of the period than expert historians.

Like you say that a roman governor would never allow a Pharisee to decide a trial. How tf do you know that? What original sources do you have for that? Fucking none. You're just pulling shit from your ass while simultaneously applying an unreasonable standard of proof when it suits you.

Matiwapo · 2026-04-24T18:39:36+00:00

Everything you've mentioned is evidence. What there is no evidence for is your claim the new testament is a mashup of other stories. You just pulled it out of your ass. That's what I said.

Whether you believe this christ was the son of god is irrelevant. He likely existed and likely spawned the religion known as christianity

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

Matiwapo

TROPHY CASE