13-4-10-10-14-12-7

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:11 pm

Really don't know what do to with this.

First thought -- 13-4-10-15-20-12-10 LU or BA and then just keep hiking skills, starting with WL, then DF, then SP. But that seems rather mediocre. CN is just too low for anything but an offensive-type, so no parry-whatevers.

Also considered 13-4-10-16-17-13-11 SL or LU, bump WT and just keep going until dead or graduated.

Other thoughts? Confused

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:52 pm

13-4-10-16-20-12-9 LU/ST/BA/SL first thought

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Jul 15, 2014 Posts: 192

13-4-10-10-14-12-7 ==> 17-4-10-15-17-14-7 SL

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:15 pm

17-4-10-11-17-14-11 BA is what I'd do

Several styles.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:29 am

Similar to Jack, The Consortium would do this all day long ..............
14-4-10-16-20-13-7 BA, maybe SL/ST
A fine warrior worth the studding up
bumpety-doo-dah WL, WT, ST, SP

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Jun 20, 2015 Posts: 194

15-4-10-16-20-12-7 Lunger, Basher, Striker or Slasher

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:36 pm

Damn, I like all these options. Can I have one of each?? Very Happy

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:24 pm

Manta wrote:

15-4-10-16-20-12-7 Lunger, Basher, Striker or Slasher

This as a BA or Sal

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:20 am

gentleben wrote:

Manta wrote:

15-4-10-16-20-12-7 Lunger, Basher, Striker or Slasher

This as a BA or Sal

I like BAs, but SALASHERS are a fave! Razz

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:21 am

The Consortium wrote:

gentleben wrote:

Manta wrote:

15-4-10-16-20-12-7 Lunger, Basher, Striker or Slasher

This as a BA or Sal

I like BAs, but SALASHERS are a fave! Razz

My phone and it's stupid auto correct after you hit submit....

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:45 pm

Many good ideas; thank you everyone.

Curious to see (and I've mentioned it before) that few of you bothered to worry about the DF. I prefer 13+ but this didn't start out in that direction, so...

Still, I am surprised that so many like SL's with low DF. I wrote an essay once about slashers; I said my slashers MUST have 15's at least in WT, WL, and DF. Honestly, few opportunities for such a fighter come along. Lowering my standards slightly, I still believe in having at least TWO out of the three qualifications, hence the possible
13-4-10-16-17-13-11, but I honestly don't feel that comfortable with it. But a SL with less than an 11 DF? I've just run enough SL's that I can see a definite improvement with just a 13 vs 11 DF; I prefer it. But it doesn't seem to bother many of you, and you must have had successful SL's too with these type of numbers...

But in any case, thank you one and all. Smile

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:26 pm

KidArcane wrote:

Many good ideas; thank you everyone.

Curious to see (and I've mentioned it before) that few of you bothered to worry about the DF. I prefer 13+ but this didn't start out in that direction, so...

Still, I am surprised that so many like SL's with low DF. I wrote an essay once about slashers; I said my slashers MUST have 15's at least in WT, WL, and DF. Honestly, few opportunities for such a fighter come along. Lowering my standards slightly, I still believe in having at least TWO out of the three qualifications, hence the possible
13-4-10-16-17-13-11, but I honestly don't feel that comfortable with it. But a SL with less than an 11 DF? I've just run enough SL's that I can see a definite improvement with just a 13 vs 11 DF; I prefer it. But it doesn't seem to bother many of you, and you must have had successful SL's too with these type of numbers...

But in any case, thank you one and all. Smile

What? We were suppose to give you a successful design?

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:27 am

KidArcane wrote:

Many good ideas; thank you everyone.

Curious to see (and I've mentioned it before) that few of you bothered to worry about the DF. I prefer 13+ but this didn't start out in that direction, so...

Still, I am surprised that so many like SL's with low DF. I wrote an essay once about slashers; I said my slashers MUST have 15's at least in WT, WL, and DF. Honestly, few opportunities for such a fighter come along. Lowering my standards slightly, I still believe in having at least TWO out of the three qualifications, hence the possible
13-4-10-16-17-13-11, but I honestly don't feel that comfortable with it. But a SL with less than an 11 DF? I've just run enough SL's that I can see a definite improvement with just a 13 vs 11 DF; I prefer it. But it doesn't seem to bother many of you, and you must have had successful SL's too with these type of numbers...

But in any case, thank you one and all. Smile

We suspect that most simply "optimized" the design and felt there were better places to add the points than DF. (One has to add so many points to get to 11 DF and they were "better" used elsewhere.)

Is 7 DF optimal for SLs? Certainly not. Is 16 WT optimal for SLs? Certainly not. BUT designed properly, there are MANY successful slashers at 7DF or under 17WT. We, too, would prefer 11DF and maybe even 21, but will surely take 7 if all else is well.

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:33 am

A Consortium thought:
The following styles can have 7DF and be quite successful:
BA, LU, PS, SL, ST, TP
especially if WT and WL are quite high.