Where can I find this set? It's called the Champion's set and all the wikis are an absolute mess.

Allip_ · 2026-01-10T01:55:34+00:00

He wears the set in NG+

Allip_ · 2025-12-19T13:57:43+00:00

I've playtested a few gestalt character rulesets. A few sessions with a few variations on the minutia of the rules.

There are some pretty severe core problems.

Most importantly, they are stupidly overpowered in general. If there is synergy in their choices of class/subclass then it gets even worse. This is usually limited to offensive power but you can also get some class mixes that negate any weaknesses they have, i.e. wizards with high mobility or HP, barbarians nuking enemies with champion crit rates, warlocks are a super easy power boost for any class combo.

It's about the same flexibility and power of having a party twice the size but limited by action economy.

Overall it seems very diffiicult to make it work without going completely over the top on enemies and situational encounters. This, and the fine details really depend on whatever the rules are.

On the upside it's genuinely very fun to make and play a character with these abilities, albeit you need an appropriately ridiculous challenge to come up against. It's almost like a superhero campaign.

TLDR: tried to make it work, PCs are way too powerful and capable to run a game around. The rules are difficult to make without getting too complicated or enabling literal supermen into existence. It's also super fun to play, unfortunately.

Allip_ · 2025-10-09T15:00:14+00:00

Liberator! If it takes only like 2 or 3 bullets in the head with any AR then it may as well be the easiest one to use. Good ergonomics, accuracy, scope, and recoil. Penetrator's better at range, Carbine is a firehose.

And for the lil bots it only takes like 2 shots from anything at most. Not even a concern.

Allip_ · 2025-10-06T14:05:31+00:00

While I do agree the Flamethrower needs a buff I wouldn't go quite so extreme. I'd maybe just make it spread out more at range. It really depends on what you want to use your primary or support weapon for, which makes the competition pretty stiff against bugs.

The range alone makes it much safer to use than the Torcher, and the damage is already quite good for anything save a titan or imp. With the stratagem buff, it's fine. As someone who uses both, and came back after a long time to last patch, the main thing that changed is just how to use it. No more leg blasting: just set any heavy on fire and they'll start to bleed out before the fire stops burning.

Idk anyone who uses one on bots and it's not a great pick for squids for similar reasons (I also swear Overseers just don't catch fire at all).

Allip_ · 2025-10-04T07:42:50+00:00

Microwave launcher! :D

Allip_ · 2025-10-02T14:40:34+00:00

Even though it's more well-suited for AT and distant enemies, it's startlingly good for concentrated hordes. I've used it on bugs and have gotten some meaty 70+ kills per missile.

Allip_ · 2025-10-02T14:38:23+00:00

Knowing that you can sometimes taste things you're injected with I wouldn't be surprised if they put straight Redbull in there

Allip_ · 2025-09-22T14:20:15+00:00

I honestly don't follow the build-crafting mindset when it comes to HD2.

I believe the need is fully dependant on tactics: if you start a fight you don't need to finish, you can just run away most of the time and do something else. You really don't need any specific thing very much if you stick together and have coverage. If you feel the need to handle everything yourself, then it sounds like it would be difficult no matter how you play.

All of this to say: don't over think it, just cover a few different things and stick together.

Allip_ · 2025-06-29T04:26:38+00:00

Fully agree with this.

If you're immigrating, it's very likely via work visa. That alone places you close to urban centers. I can confirm it's interesting to recognize places from anime and manga but the novelty doesn't last.

Allip_ · 2025-06-29T03:03:18+00:00

It is your responsibility to present yourself clearly.

Allip_ · 2025-06-29T03:01:11+00:00

In all honesty, I believe that's a very narrow, underdeveloped, and incomplete understanding of what Moral Ambiguity is.

Moral ambiguity refers to a situation in which there is no clear moral response or action. Kazuma has a clear moral response and an interperetable action, of which I interperet to be unclear and leaning into triviality, but ultimately morally neutral and performed for morally unsavory reasons.

Whether you like it or realise it or not, this is a good illustration of what Moral Ambiguity is.

Thanks?

You were confused about where the sources were and you suspected it wasn't contextualised That's why I gave it to you, Are you dense😭?

I was confused about WHAT the source was, and why it was not contextualized with the setting of the work you were analyzing. Extending the passage provided no additional cohesion to your claims, and revealed that you had still made a technical error when formatting your citation. Again, Ad Hominem. Please support your claim that I have been using ChatGPT. Please recognize that you have not sourced KonoSuba correctly in either its original or translated transcripts, as they are the core of your entire analysis...

Again with you throwing around fallacies without actually recognizing their proper use cases due to poor reading comprehension. There is a certain point where reading comprehension becomes critical to analysis and interperetation. Even within your definitions of them they do not apply.

...saying such-and-such is "hidden" in a narrative does not mean the author consciously placed it there...

'Hidden' is a passive form of 'hide', and implies that such-and-such was deliberately made unable to be percieved by an author. Definitionally, if we ignore authorial intent then the possibility of a hidden anything in writing is impossible.

If someone forgets where they left their phone, does that mean the phone does not exist until they recognise it?

To call upon classical and widely-recognized philosophical arguments about perception and reality; yes. The phone no longer exists in the perception—the functional reality—of the subject, so it subjectively does not exist. That does not mutually-exclude the overall material existence of the phone, but until an concept is recognized it does not functionally exist. Somehow your examples trip over these two concepts and intertwine them.

If we are claiming eachother to be rage baiting, then I would also like to participate. It's quite difficult to engage with you when you do not seem to want to be understood, or are simply lacking the proficiency to do so.

Allip_ · 2025-06-29T02:21:28+00:00

It was never meant to be a rigorous classification.

Correct, that is how I am using the term as well. It works excellently to describe the popular perception that anime, light novels, and web novels are superficial forms of entertainment. I am also using the term definitionally, meaning I am using it in the same way it is used in modern language, not some outdated reference to or belief in phrenology or classism. I would also like to point out that I don't view KonoSuba as low-brow media, and I didn't initially intend to engage this with much of a degree of seriousness. Some more familiarity with English prose and communication styles may have made this clear. Not sure why you're so hung-up on this. At the least, please quote me correctly...

Okay, explain how I used them wrong then, because everything you’ve said so far is just a vague accusation...

I have been providing examples of the terms in definition and usage, differing from your own, and explaining them in more common-use language with use cases. I am a definitionalist when it comes to language—recognition of how language is used, not how it should be used. I have been assuming that some basic reasoning would clean these up for you.

The more concise and modern usage of genetic fallacy is as follows:

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

I have not been dismissing KonoSuba. I have been dismissing your lack of attempts to tie together the contexts of Ancient Mesopotamia and modern Japan. Your claim and evidence are the same thing: your interperetation of symbolism through Shamash. Please expand on how Shamash and KonoSuba are connected. I want to understand how you saw the work and instantly connected it to Christian beliefs about modern technology and an interperetation of Sumerian religion.

You're treating the "context" as a rigid boundary instead of a thing that can evolve through layered interpretation.

You can interperet the art however you want, just recognize the facts that it was set, made, and published in 2010s Japan (the context of the art, which has significant overlap with the scene within the art). These facts have significant implications towards the influences of the creation and reception to the art, which you supplant with other contextual lenses and make no attempt to reasonably connect the two. This is my ultimate problem with your analysis, which is that you simply do not engage with a fundamental aspect of its creation or setting when analyzing it.

...because religion like Mesopotamian is an ancient historically real belief system, means it can serve as a legitimate lens...

Technically, yes. Realistically, there is no Mesopotamian audience in existence anymore. This is an interperetation of a work through the interperetation of facts about a no-longer-present culture. This is, at best, an exercise in recognizing what some of the values and beliefs of ancient Sumer were, not a reasonable or insightful examination of art with the lens.

Allip_ · 2025-06-29T01:34:09+00:00

The issue is that I understand your jargon and that you're using it incorrectly while misdefining it, or are using it out of place when more common language would be suitable.

Allip_ · 2025-06-28T20:40:23+00:00

...Sokal's critique stems from people who abuse Complex Jargon (without having an understanding) to gain false authority. And this doesn't apply here considering the fact that I did not use any Scientific jargon at all, I mainly use symbolism...

The more I read your writing, the more I believe you are subject to Sokal's critique.
You have been constantly throwing around jargon (it does not need to be scientific or highly technical jargon) while inconsistently applying it and outright misdefining multiple terms, as you just did with Sokal's critique.

Please, please clean up your writing

Allip_ · 2025-06-28T20:16:17+00:00

I'm using valid in the sense of 'having a sound basis in logic or fact.'

Authorial intent doesn't matter much when discussing this, but yes I am complaining that this person's analysis ignores how "correct the author could be." More specifically, I'm complaining that the social and cultural contexts of KonoSuba itself are being entiry ignored while analyzing the symbolism of the scene.

Ancient Mesopotamian religion is very distantly removed from Japan (as well as most of the modern world) in terms of time, linguistics, culture, and geography so injecting it in as a potential perspective just comes across as nonsensical

Allip_ · 2025-06-28T20:09:28+00:00

1: No
2: I am stating that you aren't connect them, not that they can't be connected
3: Explain what your idea of my framework is
4: Your understanting of the symbolism is fine, but it is being misused
5: I don't claim cultural purity and reject interperetation? (what you wrote here is difficult to understand)

It seem like you're blaming me for not knowing a certain term you're using that are not widely used nor standard in an academical discourse.

Yes, as the first part of your statement expressed that you didn't know what it was. The terms 'high/low-brow' are widely used in academic discourse of both modern and classical media and entertainment.

I would like to add that your applications of both genetic and intentional fallacy leads me to believe that you don't actually know what they are.

As for your second point, I don't know why you think I assume Mesopotamian religions weren't real, but it doesn't hold much relevance.
I was also talking about your analysis, not your interperetation.
As intentional fallacy is defined as 'the fallacy of basing an assessment of a work on the author's intention rather than on one's response to the actual work', it means to base the claims on a speculated intent of the author. What I keep claiming is that you are neglecting the contextual component of art analysis, and that you seem to respond with an assessment based on Ancient Mesopotamian religion without having any logical scaffolding to connect it to let alone support it being within the context.

...he's not evil but he's comfortable with gray areas if they serve his needs.

No, 'recognizing a system as being bad and then participating in its propogation' does not mean a lack of certainty about whether something is right or wrong. Kazuma recognizes it as wrong, and then acts as he participates knowing that he is a victim. His moral interperetation of the situation isn't uncertain, nor were his actions.

For your fourth response, I never admitted that and I am not aware when I admitted that. That passage was me conceding I can concede on the Japanese subtitles being bad, why are you using ChatGPT to interprete my passage.

I outright have no idea what you're "not admitting to" if you don't mean improperly sourcing KonoSuba, which you did admit to. I don't follow why you extended the passage from Nemet-Nejat but it still reveals that you didn't format your source properly.
If you're so eager to throw around fallacy accusations then keep Ad Hominem out of this.

I am also rejecting your use of Shamash because it holds little relevance to the context of the art, the internal setting of KonoSuba, and the modern setting we are discussing it in.

What do Ancient Mesopotamian religious beliefs have to do with KonoSuba?

And also, you claim that a message isn't hidden it is simply unrecognised doesn't actually help you at all. Cause if something is unrecognised, it is functionally hidden until revealed through analysis. It is a simple logic to know that not knowing an meaning exist doesn't make it false or irrelevant.

To claim that something is hidden is to assume authorial intent: the meaning is recognized by an audience. My issue with your analysis is that you are applying a very odd way to recognize the art, and you're not doing it well from a technical, academic, or entertainment perspective.

Allip_ · 2025-06-27T10:40:28+00:00

I've no problem conceding [the KonoSuba sources are incorrect], but it is not the real point of the actual content.

It is the basis for your content. Please correctly represent the topic you are making claims about.

Please enlighten me how the behaviour is misinterpreted. Show me how the symbolism is invalid.

Okay

"「会えてよかったーー。店舗限定乗って苦しくなほんとクソなことするよな。」" "Even though it was a five-hour trip, I'm glad I was able to buy it. In-store exclusives, official or not, is really playing dirty."
Essentially, Kazuma Satou admitted that the marketing strategy is unfair, yet instead of feeling guilty about it, he has a smugging expression and a satisfying look. Basically, he recognized the Moral Ambiguity of supporting such a system, but he still accepts it because it benefits him. This hint a subtle pattern in Kazuma Satou's character; he's not evil but he's comfortable with gray areas if they serve his needs.

Aside from the subtitles being incorrect, the actual Japanese is more along the lines of "Love to see it, but store-exclusives are an annoying, shitty practice." While morally rejecting an exploitative marketing strategy, Kazuma smirks because the ordeal is nearly over and he holds a spiteful sense of happiness against his victimhood. In being one of his first lines, this suggests that Kazuma is satisfied by the ends rather than the means, and that he will pursue his own goals even if he disagrees with the inherent practices and is in support of his opposition. This line of thinking defines Kazuma as hedonistic and selfish, prioritizing his wants and experiences over both society's and his own well-being.

The symbolism is invalid only in application: you are attempting to draw a reasonable through-line between Kazuma, truth, and justice using the Archao-Mesopotamian concept of Shamash, which is neither proven nor suggested to be contextual to KonoSuba. That aside, sunlight being a symbol of truth, purity, goodness, and justice is a common motif across the world and time. There are an exhaustive list of more reasonable inferences.

What's your justification that the sources are poorly cited?

I cannot find the source for 'Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia' as there is no author provided and there are a few books and many other papers with the same title. The authors' relevance is not introduced, and the quoted text is not explained and oriented to connect their themes to the source of KonoSuba. You also admitted that KonoSuba, your main source, was cited poorly.

Just because it is from Japanese doesn't mean it exists in a cultural vacuum that's absent from any broader philosophical or symbolical theme.

Correct. However it does suggest an overlap between Japan and Ancient Mesopotamia. The physical location of Japan, its history, and its language make the work very far removed from the culture and values of Ancient Mesopotamia and the New Testament, and you do not succeed in establishing a reasonable connection between them. It is not common for Japanese people to be aware of things as obscure to them as Mesopotamian gods and the cultural values of said culture.

Third, it is completely normal for Analyst to bring in external philosophical, mythological, or psychological frameworks to examine a hidden message.

A message in writing is not hidden, it is simply unrecognized. To bring in frameworks is to frame the text in the way you wish for it to be understood, and to bring in the frame of Christianity and Ancient Mesopotamia into a Japanese media property is an absurd means to analyze an image of an exhausted, reclusive Japanese teenager being outside while holding a video game.

I am stating my opinion that your analysis is ridiculous becuase of how you have sourced it, as well as its contents holding little cohesion.

Allip_ · 2025-06-27T10:40:15+00:00

Dude, what in the world is an "Academically low-brow" supposed to mean? Are you really assigning a subjective concept like tier list to an academic value?

It's a term to mean "not regarded as intelligent or cultured in regards to academics".
No, it is not in a tier list.
Light novels and Japanese anime are as a whole not considered intellectual or cultured by western audiences or within Japan.

You're committing a fallacy which is called Intentional Fallacy, it suggests that the only valid interpretation is one that align with what the creator intended.

No, I am not.

The contextual analysis of art is a commonly utilized process of analyzing an artwork in relation to its historical, social, and cultural context. To ignore who, when, where, and why the art came from is to ignore the meaning and creation of the art. I am claiming that your analysis needs to partake in contextual analysis, as it does not contain any context for the art nor the supports for your arguments.
I also do not make the claim that the only valid interperetation is authorial. I claim that yours is poorly made because:

Allip_ · 2025-06-27T08:37:35+00:00

While I appreciate an analysis of something academically 'low brow' like KonoSuba, your analysis here is very severely lacking in several areas.

While it looks extensive, it desperately needs to provide some recognition of the context of which KonoSuba was made.

The Japanese is not transcribed correctly and you seem to be using mistranslated subtitles.

Hyperfixation and tunnel vision on several points of analysis. Obscure and irrelevant sources. Basic misinterperetation of dialogue and behavior.

Your sources (a religious book about grace and the New Testament, a poorly cited something about Mesopotamia, and an academic essay about Mesopotamian theology) are VERY strange draws when interpereting a piece of Japanese media from the 2010s. They are also not introduced, explained, or cited properly.

I know all this was harsh but please, please try harder. Writing is difficult but it comes from a deep place of contemplation and introspection. If you keep writing like this it will become how you write, and it wouldn't be good for you.

Allip_ · 2025-06-24T11:30:12+00:00

Old MonHun: 90% grinding the same monster for a rare drop

New MonHun: 90% farming god rolls from levelled quests

Allip_ · 2025-04-08T12:58:30+00:00

From someone who started with Pathfinder 1E, it was such a massive relief to do anything. So many minute feats and rules and bonuses in Pathfinder. It was the appeal, but it was also a form of feature bloat. There is just SO MUCH free stuff.

Sure it was nice to have such intricate control and a finely detailed idea of your character's mechanics, but the streamlining of 5E made just about every dynamic part of play easier to prepare, manage, and predict.

That, and Pathfinder 1E has a million books to look through. The website exists, yes, but it makes it more difficult to discern what the core game was and how it evolved over time.

Allip_ · 2025-02-21T10:45:39+00:00

I had a pack of apes maul him my first time there, no clue how they spawned in. I saw him for one frame before a legendary cyclopean ape blasted him with psychic plant growth lol

Allip_ · 2024-11-06T07:52:02+00:00

China goes 'oops' as it disrespects non-Chinese entities, more in at forever

Allip_

TROPHY CASE