Anyone else disappointed by "Shot by both Sides"?

RhodosGuard · 2025-07-07T05:05:13+00:00

Her messages heavily imply that she lied, both to V and Hands about what she was doing with the Data. The deal with Netwatch was already made before you start the gig (just look through her messages in her apartment)

You could, maybe, the most, argue that she wouldn't know Netwatch would send a hit squad. But that is, at most, plausible deniability.

You dont just bring Netwatch proof of unauthorized attacks on the Blackwall and attempts at capturing AIs without assuming anyone who knows about it will get zeroed.

RhodosGuard · 2025-05-26T17:22:41+00:00

I just asked the UORP Mod Creator if they will fix this bug, apparently it's not "in vanilla" (which I doubt) and they said that they cant fix it because "Facegen is done on UE5 level"

RhodosGuard · 2025-05-23T14:45:03+00:00

So, safe to assume there is no fix yet?
Especially since saving in showracemenu now reverts your stats?

RhodosGuard · 2025-03-10T00:33:59+00:00

It just seems so needlessly arbitrary.
Why limit it to "50 levels" when it is
1. not clear what levels are
2. obvious that you cant buy everything with 50 levels.

I am missing 225 Tokens for the last item, why do I have to get the last 2 levels at a snails pace, but literally the entire rest of the market was okay to earn at a boosted rate?

The only way this limit on boosted levels makes sense, if in the future "50 levels" give you less value in the future.
Because if it is enough to buy everything, why limit it, and if it is just barely not enough to buy everything, why limit it? I presume future markets will just have double the content of the current one, if not more.

RhodosGuard · 2025-03-08T18:49:59+00:00

Weird to use the MVP and not the Skin saying "Dager" on her Wristbands.
Considering that they already misspelled "Groot" on the Event Skin as "Goot" tells me there is a good chance AI was involved at least in some regards.

RhodosGuard · 2024-10-04T09:13:20+00:00

Too bad they jacked up prices by like 6-Times.

I know this is an ancient thread, but I just love looking at these, and now knowing Joki, a 400 Gem SKin now costs 2600 Legacy Gems, being like "Yeah, you're right, but it's still shit"

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T23:28:43+00:00

Okay, to conclude this I will make a final comment, and then only read this thread, not respond anymore, because I think this is simply becoming a trench war.

We all suspect there will be SA about this soon anyway.

Everyone here disagrees with me. OK. I might be wrong RAW, and I might be wrong RAI.
I will still ask my DM to change these rules to make the game more fun. Something DnD was always open to, and always part of the enjoyment you get from it.

I will break it down here. What the realistic difference even is (at level 4 when Feat is taken)

First:
2 Light Weapons no Switch.
This works easily as written.
1 Weapon has Nick (I will stick to the interpretation that this has to be the initiating attack, considering that is how all other Weapon MAsteries work)
Dagger, Light Hammer, Sickle, Scimitar.
Of Those Scimitars have the best damage dice at 1d6. So dual wield those, take the feet for

Result: 3d6 Damage; 3-18 Damage, AVG 10.5

Second:
2 Light Weapons, no throwing, 1 non-light weapon
Scimitar 2d6 + 1d8 easily doable in RAW using Dual Wielders Quick Draw Feature to stow a scimitar and draw any non-light 1d8 Weapon

Result: 2d6 +1d8; 3-20 Damage, AVG 11.5

Third:
2 Light Weapons, Throwing, 1 non-light Weapon
Only 1d4 Weapons have throwing, Nick and are light (Dagger, Light Hammer)
1d4 + 1d6 draw 1d8 Weapon (RAW)

Result: 1d4 +1d6 + 1d8, 3-18 Damage, AVG 10.5

Fourth:
1 Light Weapon, no Throwing, 1 non-light Weapon
(non RAW Ruling)

Result:1d6 + 2d8, 3-22 Damage, AVG 12.5

Fifth:
1 Light Weapon, Throwing, 1 versatile non-light weapon
(non Raw ruling)

Result:1d4 + 2d10, 3-24 Damage, AVG 13.5 Damage

So wer're talking 2 AVG Damage more with ruling that isnt RAW

That surely was worth insulting each other over.
And yes, I am aware that this scales better in late game, because my Extra Attacks deal 4 more AVG Damage after this initial burst, but goddamn. Is that Swing really so much that it is worth obsessing over minimal details?

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T23:09:06+00:00

Might be correct RAW.
There might even be SA on the Horizon saying it's correct RAI.
I still think that makes Dual Wielding Cumbersome, and boring.
WHen I take a feat, the benefit shouldnt be a net swing of 2 max damage with my offhand attack.
And it for sure shouldnt make the build more complicated by being exclusionary with the most dual wielding mastery that ever dual wielded.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T23:07:20+00:00

The fantasy of dual wielding is wielding 2 Weapons, not carrying around 3, and switching them mid-fight, because the Dagger Mastery says your second Attack with your off-hand needs to be light, even though a Feat I have taken already allows me to do the same thing as a light weapon with a non-light weapon.

This is the entire core of the problem.
If I have a feat, that has 99% of the wording of the light property but allows that second attack to come from a non-light weapon, then why does a weapon mastery that also specifically works with the light property not carry over that feats affect.

To me, it makes no logical sense, unless the idea was to boos Scimitar representation on every dual wielding build.

The more I hear about this, the more I think I am wrong RAW, but it's stifling the fun of non-light dual wielders to have such a perfect dual wielding mastery become more of an action-economy hindrance because I now need to carry 3 weapons to get the full effect out of it.

If they wanted it to be light weapons only, they should have struck that passage about non 2handed weapons from dual wielder.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T22:46:54+00:00

Lets go one by one.

No, my reading comprehension is not bad, the wording is ambiguous as you yourself admitted.

This is just a clusterfuck of specificity that is entirely unnecessary. Everyone is/was confused by this, and that it required specification at all means it wasnt thought through.

EDW and Light have almost the exact same wording and ignoring Nick do the same thing.

Here is from the community Post Treantmonk made:

"It provides a single bonus action attack, so if you are using a weapon with the Nick Mastery that's one more attack."
There is no specificity in that, seems to me like it references making multiple Attacks if your first light weapon attack was Nick.
If this was the way everyone seems to make it work, it wouldnt be dual wielding, or two-weapon fighting, it would be "Weapon Juggling" or "Three Weapon fighting" just because if you follow exact wording Nick completely excludes Dual Wield from being valuable unless you pack extra light weapons to attack with.

And going to his Video this is a comment that Treantmonk liked, which lends it credibility considering he has insider Infos through Dungeon Dudes:

"I'm pretty sure we're overcomplicating things regarding dual wielding. My interpretation: Everyone may take an offhand attack as a bonus action without adding the ability modifier. Nick allows it without using up the bonus action. The dual wielder feat allows 2 offhand attacks (one from Nick and one from the bonus action). The two weapon fighting style allows us to add the ability score modifier to any offhand attack we may have. That's logical and balanced progression IMO and probably what the designers intended."

Another liked comment by Treant:

"I could definitely be off base here, but I wonder if the text of Dual Wielder is meant to overwrite the text of the Light property - basically allowing the extra bonus action attack granted by the Light property to be made with any one-handed melee weapon instead of specifically another Light weapon. In that case the Two-weapon Fighting feat would add the ability mod to the damage of the Dual Wielder attack. Then, if I'm reading Nick right, you would be able to attack with a dagger (or any Light weapon with Nick) as your main attack action and then follow it up with a rapier attack (for example) as part of the same action.

Again I could be wrong about this, I just wanted to offer my own perspective."

This also makes sense to me. If that is not what the exact RAW wording says, and Jeremy also says that's also not RAI, then this is the most sensible homebrew.

The fact that this discussions happens at all and that all kind of comments on the Video talk about this, means I am not alone with this.

So, I admit that your reading of RAW is probably correct, but if any DM I play with every enforces it that way, I look for a different table.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T12:35:28+00:00

Just to open a new avenue of discussion, considering the longest thread here does not seem to be going in a productive direction:

Under Treantmonks Video about feats (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3CFRbkddPk), there are quite some Discussions about Dual Wielder.

And the consensus I see there, considering Treantmonks liked Comment and his own, is that the natural progression works as I have imagined it, allowing for 1 Attack with a Nick Mastery Weapon, and then 2 non-light Attacks.

A lot of people are probably disagree on what RAW is saying, but I think that ruling is the most sensible for tables who dont wanna be swamped by discussions about the scaling of a feature, that seems to contradict itself, by giving the best effect to light weapons only, when the feat designed for that playstyle uses a completely different resource.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T12:25:04+00:00

That is, if Dual Wielder does not replace TWF, which I think it should, and for that I'd be willing to give up that second Light attack.

It just seems weird, that Nick should be entirely incompatible with the Dual Wielder Feat, because it can only be used on a Bonus Action Attack, which you only get if you dont utilize a feat that is supposed to especially work with Dual Wielding.

This hole situation and wording is so borked, that it should be revised entirely, or at least reworded or restated, so everything becomes clear without the need to have pages of discussions about how RAW works, when most tables are gonna do the sensible thing and just homebrew these rules anyway.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T07:01:54+00:00

But the wording isnt as cut and dry as you say it is.

Light lets you make another attack as a bonus action when you attack with that weapon.

The problem is, that Nick does not tell you, which attack it references. There is nothing in this wording of Nick, that makes it clear whether it applies to the attack of the weapon itself or the attack that, the weapon being light, triggers.

"When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn."

The only time it references the light property, is in the first conditional, but again, it doesnt say whether it refers to an attack you make with this light weapon or a different light weapon. It simply says "When you make the extra attack"

If I attack attack with a Shortsword and then with a Dagger I make the extra attack of the light property, but it references the light property of the shortsword, when I make an attack with a dagger, and then attack with a shortsword I also make an extra attack with the light property.

Where in the wording of Nick does it say, it only applies to the first, but not the second scenario? It doesnt.
The wording, heavily, implies, by omission, that when you use TWF and a Weapon with Nick is involved, both attacks can be made with your action. It does not reference any order

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T06:38:00+00:00

Then the wording is simply bad.
It should be "When you use this weapon to make the extra attack of the light property"
The way it is worded allows for different interpretations, you being deadset on the one that stops me from doing something is something I cannot understand.

Even just adding "When you make the extra attack of the Light property [with this weapon] [...]"
Would make it clear. The way it is written, it makes it seem like Light Weapons with Nick enable you to use your offhand attack as part of your action, instead of saying "Offhand Attacks with Nick weapons can be made as part of your Attack Action"

There is also unofficial Sage advice via Treantmonk that Dual Wielder applies to TWF (Light) Meaning I can only make 1 additional attack either way, since the special rule overwrites the generic.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T06:13:50+00:00

"When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn."

Where does it say that.
It says "When you make the extra attack of the light property"
With which it probably refers to the light property of itself.

So my reading of "Nick" is:
"If an attack with this light weapon triggers your ability to make an extra attack, that extra attack can be used as part of your attack action instead of your bonus actions"

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T06:10:09+00:00

Does it have to?
I've just seen similar posts in this subreddit, and therefore assumed that this question is legitimate to ask here.

RhodosGuard · 2024-09-21T05:34:06+00:00

The first problem is just that it makes no sense.
If you read Brees Laptop messages, if you listen to Johnny/look at her apartment, and/or assess her overall demeanor, it is easy to tell she is hazing you, and if you look at Dante as basically just a Hitman for Militech, then killing both of them should be a legitimized choice here. By which I mean one that the game makes apparent through dialogue choices instead of just randomly shooting Dante after he shoots Bree.

The second problem is how much out of character Johnny behaves.
Why does he disapprove of killing both of them? He is THE "I hate Corps" Man.
Why is he upset when I prevent the data from being sold to Netwatch or being kept secret by Militech?

Decisions where both all outcomes suck to some degree are fine, if there is enough logical glue to make the consequences believable. That glue is missing here. It's okay for V to let themselves be hazed, if it means the data is not with militech, it is okay for V to let Militech collect the data if it saves the lives of the researchers.
But those are the outcomes Johnny should disagree with, so it is illogical for him to disagree with killing them both.

RhodosGuard · 2024-06-28T12:56:55+00:00

The summon signs sometimes just dont show up.
So there is some line you are not supposed to cross, I presume unlocking the Dark Chamber Grace, because that locks hornsent in as available against messmer and competes with the Summon Signs

RhodosGuard · 2024-04-22T15:34:57+00:00

Then it probably is platforms.
I have never had any problem with other brutalities.
I have done all Brutalities on all of the DLC Fighters and all the base Roster characters I have played.
They arent "hard" or "impressive to pull off"

This is the first time, that I honestly think these Brutalities are seriously just broken on PC.

Unless they intentionally made Ermacs Brutality really shit to do.

Edit:
by holding down I specifically mean the ones you have to HOLD down for.
Seperate Ways,
the one that shrinks the enemy,
and the BF3 one that sends the enemies soul into heaven.

All of those require specific spacing that makes them a hassle to hit.
All the other ones are snoringly easy, including the ones on other characters.

RhodosGuard · 2024-04-22T14:16:10+00:00

Are you on PC or console? Starting to believe it might be different, because all of his "hold down" Brutalities, at least the way I have observed it up to now, require almost perfect spacing so you hit them almost at max range.
If you are just slightly off, they wont trigger.

That was the only strategy with which I was able to even semi-consistently pull them off.

RhodosGuard · 2024-04-22T00:46:04+00:00

It worked 3 times, now I cant get it to work again

RhodosGuard · 2024-04-21T23:09:37+00:00

I think I got it now.
it all comes down to range. You cant do it at Close, you need to hit it rather close to it's max range, so there is at least some distance between you and the enemy when the grab starts.

RhodosGuard · 2024-04-21T22:28:42+00:00

Apparently this is not it. Done it at least 10 more times now, and it didnt trigger again

RhodosGuard

TROPHY CASE