There's been some speculation at Grogu being nonverbal at the age of 51, and what this could mean for his and Yoda's species.

However, I think there's a key assumption that is often made here: people cite Yoda dying at 900 and assume that's average for his species (which I think is perfectly reasonable), then go from that to assuming that his species lives 10 times as long as humans, making Grogu the equivalent of a 5-6 year old child.

I think this is incorrect, for one fundamental reason; I think the average lifespan of a human in the GFFA is 60 years old, not 90.

If that's the case, Yoda's species lives 15 times longer than humans, and Grogu is the equivalent of 3-4 years old. Him being nonverbal is hardly remarkable, then.

A lot of things in Star Wars make a lot more sense under that assumption.

Evidence:

In A New Hope, Obi-Wan is referred to as old consistently. He calls himself old ("I'm getting too old for this sort of thing"), Han Solo calls him old ("I hope the old man got that tractor beam out of commission"), and Darth Vader calls him old ("Your powers are weak, old man"). Tarkin assumes that he must have died by then ("Surely he must be dead by now"). He is a grand old age of 55. That's considered old in the GFFA.

Any human significantly older than 60 has his or her age/survival commented upon:

• Darth Tyranus was 83 in Revenge of the Sith, and Darth Sidious considers his death to have been "necessary" so that he could have a new apprentice who was "far younger". Dooku may have been an unsuitable apprentice because he literally could not be expected to live long enough to train a new apprentice, even if he killed Sidious immediately. If that's true, Sidious may have been trying to push him to step up and take action when he ordered him to kill Asajj Ventress; when Dooku meekly accepted the order, Sidious realised he needed a younger apprentice.
• Lor San Tekka is in his 70s when Kylo Ren says, with great surprise, "Look how old you've become".
• Mari San Tekka lived 121 years, but did so due to a mechanical stasis device, and when removed from it, she died shortly afterwards.
• Sidious lived into his mid 80s, and "lived" for a few decades after that, but he was explicitly using profane technology and forbidden techniques to do so, and it left him as a decrepit corpse wired up to an Ommin harness. His age was absolutely not natural.

It also casts a few things with characters in their mid 60s in a new light. Palpatine was never concerned that Tarkin would seize control of the Death Star and use it against him, because he fully expected Tarkin to die of old age in the next few years. Most of the senate was complacent about Palpatine's power grab because he named no heir, and was already past the average age of death for a human. The strategy of "gather power and riches now, keep your head down, and wait for Palps to die" makes a lot more sense if you assume humans in the GFFA tned to die in their 50s and 60s, not their 80s and 90s.

It's also worth considering that 60 has been the average human lifespan for most of history, with 70 being considered a very good age to reach, with most people not getting there.

Even accounting for infant mortality, 60 has been the average for adults.

Luke's Ultimatum

This also casts Luke's ultimatum to Grogu in The Book Of Boba Fett in a new light. If Din Djarin is already pushing 50, which seems likely, and Jedi Training can take upwards of ten years (Remember that both Anakin and Obi-Wan ended their padawanships early, they normally would have spent more than a decade apprenticed) then there is a very real possibility that even if Din does not meet a violent end, he would die before Grogu ever saw him again.

Luke was being completely literal; a short time for Grogu WAS a lifetime for Din. Grogu either gets to live with Din for the rest of Din's life, or he gets to train as a Jedi now, he cannot do both.

Introduction:

Much of what powerscaling tries to do is conduct combat as though it were a scientific experiment, controlling for as many variables as possible (sometimes called "white-room" logic). The general issue is that white rooms are not very interesting. I'll use some examples, mostly from Star Wars, there shouldn't be any spoilers of anything very recent, the most recent will be from Maul: Shadow Lord.

There are two big examples of this, IMO.

The first is location, and the second is mindset.

Location:

Battleboarders seem to go out of their way to pick extremely boring locations that deliberately don't impact the fight very much. But this not only makes for a less interesting encounter, it outright shifts the outcome.

Take the battle between Obi-Wan Kenobi, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Darth Maul at the end of The Phantom Menace; the environment plays a HUGE role in that, because it's precisely what allows Darth Maul to avoid being overwhelmed by two opponents!

He starts out in a wide open space, and finds himself being outflanked, so he deliberately moves it to an area with narrow walkways where he can force a chokepoint. The film explicitly shows him opening the doors that lead to the catwalks in the Plasma Refinery. He then takes advantage of the verticality of this location, and his own immense agility, to isolate the Jedi, and not be outflanked. When even THAT doesn't work, he moves even further back, and uses the shifting doors to get Qui-Gon alone. Then and ONLY then is he able to focus on the offence and kill one of his enemies.

This fact just outright gets ignored by people who complain about the scaling of the Inquisitors in Maul: Shadow Lord, where they argue that Maul being able to fight both Kenobi and Qui-Gon at once means he should have no trouble with the Inquisitors, and then eitehr Chain-Scaling them and therefore Ahsoka up, or trying to scale Maul down... completely disregarding the fact that Maul was NEVER able to easily fight two people at once, and actually had to carefully exploit a position that HE SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to avoid facing two people at once; in terrain not of his choosing, he doesn't have that advantage.

The later duel between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader on Mustafar is another one where people outright ignore the context of Obi-Wan's victory. "I have the high ground" has been meme'd to death, but it is an explicit part of what allowed him to win. It also means that you can't transpose the same two combatants to another location and get the same outcome.

However, what matters about these locations isn't just that they are tactically relevant; it's that they are visually interesting. An environment that plays no thematic or tactical role in the fight is a BORING environment, and it's one that creators are going to avoid if they can.

Yet, because Battleboarders set themselves up to want such things, they tend to be disappointed by most actual fights in media, because most fights in media will involve things that Battleboarders prefer to leave out, precisely due to them being hard to account for. Even some of the least interesting environments are denounced.

Take, for instance, the Airport fight in the MCU's Civil War. To clarify: I AM NOT A MAJOR DEFENDER OF THAT SCENE, I'm honestly of the opinion that it is one of the least visually interesting, least well-lit encounters in the entire franchise; it's largely a visually boring spectacle in an uninspiring location... but the location DOES still play a role, and it's a role that battleboarders keep citing as evidence of a scaling issue: Cap defeating Spiderman.

What they ignore is that Cap does not overpower Spider-Man with raw strength; rather, he takes advantage of his surroundings and Peter's relative unfamiliarity fighting anywhere outside of New York City. The fight makes it abundantly clear that Spiderman is substantially stronger than even the strongest Super-Soldiers (casually bending back Bucky's metal arm, something that Cap explicitly cannot do), but also that he's an inexperienced combatant, with Cap ultimately pinning him under a heavy object.

This is ignored by people who cry that Cap is "Wall level", and Peter is "Small Building Level"; ergo something something bad scaling.

Anything that can't be evaluated in a whiteroom scenario is treated as a scaling issue; which means that most media will be considered to have poor scaling, because most writers (for good reason) dislike whiteroom scenarios.

Mindset:

This is one of the things that annoys me most, because Battleboarders tend to use the (misleading, poorly-named, somehow even worse than "street level" not meaning "able to destroy a street" despite what every other level means) term "Bloodlusted".

A "Bloodlusted" character fights with perfect tactical clarity, emotionless focus, and has no goals beyond killing his or her adversary and surviving the fight.

Almost no media will have very many Bloodlusted characters, because that's fundamentally a boring motivation.

People tend to fight because they want something, not because they are obsessed with fighting, but perfectly emotionless whilst doing so.

Having one or two characters be "bloodlusted" in a specific scenario is one thing (a good example would be Omni-Man facing the Guardians of the Globe in Invincible, though notably THEY were not Bloodlusted, shifting from initial disbelief to blinding anger across the fight), but media in which all or most characters are bloodlusted would just be narratively dull.

Take The Force Awakens.

Throughout the Entire film, we are shown tensions between General Hux, Supreme Leader Snoke, and Kylo Ren, partly due to how they treat the Map to Skywalker. Hux simply wants to destroy it, and is happy so long as the Resistance doesn't get it. Kylo Ren is obsessed with finding it so he can personally kill his uncle. Snoke is more pragmatic, willing to destroy it if necessary, but preferring to find Skywalker if possible. When Rey sees the completed map, Kylo Ren abducts her, hoping to interrogate her for the information, something he realises will require bringing her alive to Snoke. This hints at deeper disagreements between the leadership of the First Order.

That clash of goals, methods, and personalities is a major running subplot throughout the next two films, and ultimately results in Snoke's Death, Hux's betrayal, and the indirect downfall of the enemy. It is thematically and narratively load-bearing; it tells us a great deal about who these people are, what they want, and why authoritarian power-hungry individuals tend to destroy themselves.

So, of course, what do Battleboarders do? They complain that it should all be thrown away to give them a better whiteroom fight.

It was DAMN-NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to discuss ANYTHING related to Star Wars online in late 2015 to about 2021 without hearing people complain that Kylo Ren should have killed Rey in their duel on Starkiller Base.

Rey.

The one person who had the information he wanted most.

The one person who, according to EVERYTHING WE KNEW ABOUT HIS MOTIVATION UP TO THAT POINT, he would not be willing to kill, because if he did he would lose the map.

Battleboarders (in addition to overlooking the fact he'd been shot in the hip and was visibly exsanguinating, but that's a rant for another day) would have preferred he be "bloodlusted" so as to make the fight between him and Rey easier to scale off of; because his desire to take her alive made it harder to gauge his skill.

I swear, if stories were written by Battleboarders, they'd be unimaginably boring. No motivations, no goals, just a set of abilities in a roughly character-shaped form smashing against another set of abilities in a roughly character-shaped form.

Introduction

I just finished watching season 4 of "Mayor of Kingstown" and whilst I thought the drama, cinematography, costumes, sets, props, action, acting, and lighting were all good and enjoyable, I had some issues with elements of the plot.

Specifically, I think it fell a bit short of the high-intrigue plots of the previous seasons.

Major spoilers for seasons 1-4.

The Players

• The Police
• Russian Mafia
• Crips
• Bloods
• Aryan Brotherhood
• Columbian Syndicate
• The Prosecutors

The basic premise of the show is that the municipality of "Kingstown" houses is a major prison in northern Michigan, with hundreds of inmates. Given that the various crime syndicates so often have their members incarcerated, they all take an interest in the town, and have local leaders outside of prison to facilitate support of their members in the prison, with each gang in prison being led by a "Shot Caller".

The precence of different gangs (mostly the Aryan Brotherhood, the Crips, the Bloods, and the Columbian Syndicate) makes Kingstown volatile, which is only heightened by the presence of a fifth crime gang, the Russian Mafia, which has relatively few members in prison, but which does control a kay smuggling pipeline to and from Canada which passes through Kingstown. Many of the prison guards are in league with one or more criminal syndicates, severely limiting the Warden's ability to actually run the prison at all, and effectively preventing the prison guards from acting as their own "player" with the ability to act in their own interests (this is one of the most fascinating parts of the story, the guards are arguably the most helpless and put-upon groups in town precisely because they cannot actually operate as a unified faction).

Our protagonist is Mike McLusky, the so-called "Mayor" of Kingstown. His title is honorary; we never see Kingstown's actual elected Mayor. Mike is a former member of the Aryan Brotherhood who was once incarcerated and who now tries to keep the peace via his family connections (his brothers and father were policemen) and his relations to the crime syndicates.

The local police are, to some degree, corrupt; the difficulty of operating around so many criminals forces them to cut corners and bend rules, which often puts them at odds with the prosecutors, who operate at a state level and have far fewer direct connections to the criminal underworld, giving them a more black-and-white view of justice.

Mike simply tries to prevent all-out-war between the syndicates, and keep the people in prison as safe as he can. Though he is a criminal, he does not act out of personal greed, making only a comparatively modest salary as the nominal head of a prison outreach programme that tries to help the families and loved ones of prisoners.

The Problem (and why it exists)

Essentially, Season 1 built up to a massive riot in the prison. Seasons 2 and 3 focused on the aftermath of this, and Mike's difficult journey to restore peace between the syndicates and deal with his personal issues with his family, including his mother, his two brothers, Milo (the leader of the Russians) and Iris (a young woman working for the Russians he develops an affinity for).

The show carefully avoids having the lines between friends and enemies be too clear.

Some of the police are Mike's friends, but one of them (his Brother, Kyle) has serious reservations about Mike's willingness to work with criminals, and one of them (Robert) is a bloodthirsty lunatic who kills people more-or-less for fun. Milo's leadership of the Russians is not absolute, and there is a rival who could develop a more positive relationship with Mike. The lead prosecutor hates Mike, but his subordinate, Evelyn, is more sympathetic to him. Every player is potentially an ally or an adversary, and Mike has to balance the factions.

However... at the end of Season 3, by some masterful manoeuvring, Mike has more-or-less eliminated the Bloods and the Russians. Milo is dead, Iris is dead, a tentative deal has been reached between the Crips and the Columbians (who still haven't been developed much), the head prosecutor is dead, leaving only the Deputy DA Evelyn who Mike had a good relationship with, the Crips are now solidly on Mike's side (Bunny is no longer a frienemy, he is just an outright friend to Mike). The series ends with Milo dead, and the Bloods getting caught in a massive firefight. There is just two remaining plot hooks for season 4: Robert (the psycho cop) is about to shoot a civilian, but Mike's brother Kyle shoots Robert first, and Merle Callahan, the leader of the AB becomes a sworn enemy of Mike, who tried and failed to have him assassinated in a gambit to restore peace. Masterful, dramatic television. Really great stuff.

This leaves Season 4 with an issue, however; there just aren't enough moving parts left to maintain the intrigue.

Let's take stock of the players now.

• The Police: pure allies (Robert is benched, Kyle is off the force, we really only have two characters left on the police to follow, both of whom are friends to Mike)
• Russian Mafia: gone (their last few surviving members are mopped up at the start of the season)
• Crips: pure allies
• Bloods: gone (not even mentioned in Season 4)
• Aryan Brotherhood: pure antagonists (still active, and led by a major enemy to Mike)
• Colombian Syndicate: still highly underdeveloped
• The Prosecutors: mostly allies (Evelyn is the only one left)

So... the intrigue can't be sustained. There's no uneasy double-dealing; everyone left on the board is Mike's friend or his clear foe, and there aren't enough factions left for there to be much going on between them, not to the level of previous seasons.

So, the show has to rapidly develop the Columbians, and introduce at least one new player, otherwise the premise is gone; it's just Mike and his friends vs his enemies. The story isn't over, but it's too simple now; it needs to re-complicate things.

False Mystery

To resolve this situation, they bring in a new player, and rapidly develop the Columbian Syndicate.

It does this by presenting two "mysteries" that have incredibly obvious answers, and then going "surprise! the answer you thought was the answer... was the answer! We played coy for no reason, lol!"

The new player is "Frank Moses", an enigmatic figure from Detroit who has taken over the Russian's smuggling pipeline, and seeks to make a fortune by allying with the Crips.

Or, at least, the writers WANTED him to be enigmatic. He's presented as being a potential partner to Bunny, but in a shocking twist, it is revealed that he's actually planning to betray Bunny (who at this point is a friend to Mike).

Except... he was introduced brutally executing a bunch of captured Russians (the last stragglers from Milo's syndicate) for basically no reason, in a needlessly dramatic and cruel way.

He was obviously evil, and because Byunny is firmly Mike's friend, he was always going to be one of the antagonists. The show just pretended he wouldn't, and all the scenes with him and his lieutenant were needlessly ambiguous so as not to give the game away too early. Honestly, I'd have preferred if the show revealed his intent to betray Bunny early, and just went with Dramatic Irony; it would have been more engaging.

Whilst Mike's clever manoeuvring to defeat him and land him in police custody was pretty interesting, it doesn't change the fact that he was solidly an antagonist, and the intrigue only came from the show playing coy about an incredibly obvious pantomime-tier "he's behind you, oh no he isn't, oh yes he is" twist halfway through.

The Columbian Syndicate is also developed, however, because the season would otherwise have only the Aryan Brotherhood and Frank Moses as antagonists (and is ineffectually pretending that Frank isn't an antagonist for half of the season) they have to be purely antagonistic, and this limits the intrigue.

A mysterious Spanish-speaking assassin shows up, and is very reticent about revealing his true motives. Also, a new Warden is appointed at the prison, with it being clear that she has some shady connections and access to illegal weaponry, with her second in command having mysterious meetings with the Colombian shot caller in the prison.

We learn partway through the season that, shockingly... the warden and the taciturn assassin are working for the Colombians. Which was obvious from the beginning, and only hidden so as to create the false impression of intrigue, when it was actually very straightforward!

What Did Work

As I said earlier, I think a lot did work. The interpersonal drama and the smaller stories about how the police, prison guards, and criminals dealt with loyalty within their respective factions were interesting, and the production quality was as good as ever. It was the inter-faction conflict that let things down.

Conclusion

The show has been renewed for a fifth and final season. I think, if that season is going to work, it will need do not just build upon what has come before, but recognise that the inter-factional competition needs to be more convoluted. It's not enough to lie (badly) about a faction's relationship to Mike throughout the season; the factions' relationships to one another and Mike must shift and change over time... which is hard if there are very few of them left!

Something that's occasionally cited in discussion of Stormtrooper efficacy is an assertion by a defecting imperial statistician in Battlefront II's campaign that Stormtroopers hit their target 80% of the time.

That's considered an incredibly high rate of accuracy under battlefield conditions, but I think it has to be evaluated in light of the fact that a lot of the things being shot at won't be mobile human-sized targets that go down in one or two shots.

Heavy vehicles, targets protected by shield generators, and huge creatures like Rancors will also account for some fraction of the targets that Stormtroopers shoot at.

Or, to put it another way, "on-target" doesn't mean "deadly" or even "effective".

This applies to other groups than just Stormtroopers. For instance, in the infamous Hallway rampage above Scarif, the Rebels seemed to be more than 80% accurate (Vader presumably would not bother to block or parry Blaster bolts that were not at risk of hitting him)... it just didn't amount to enough to kill him.

Every clone trooper shot against a Droideka's shield was "on-target".

Every Stormtrooper's bolt that hit the Millennium Falcon as it fled Tattoine was "on-target".

Every rebel blaster bolt that ineffectively pinged off of AT-AT plating was "on-target".

Whilst playing Jedi: Survivor, you can sometimes see Imperial Patrols encounter a Rancor in the wilds of Kohbo. They land a great number of "on-target" shots, but it isn't always enough for them to actually down the Rancor before it kills them.

TL;DR, I fully believe that 80% of the time a Stormtrooper pulls a trigger, the bolt encounters its intended target, but I do not think that 80% of trigger pulls result in a dead or incapacitated enemy.

This will have spoilers for The Devil's Hour series 1 and 2 (the latter of which is about two years old now), so if you haven't seen it you should skip this post because it's a show that I think benefits from being watched at least once without spoilers, but Series/Season 2 manages to do something interesting that I wanted to discuss:

It manages to be compelling despite not really having a villain.

There are, to be clear, various characters who fill antagonistic roles at various times. They, or versions of them, are also protagonists; but they are all in their own way, well-intentioned. Some are misled, some of them sincerely disagree with other protagonists on how best to solve issues, some of them have different priorities.

The few ill-intentioned named characters are minor criminals, quickly dispatched.

The main villain, the one who is pursued (from episodes 2-5, he isn't really more than alluded to in episode 1)... is a nonentity. He's just "The man in the yellow hoodie".

We never see his face. We never learn his name; we get one (admittedly effective and chilling) scene establishing that his motive seems to just be hurting others for fun, but he doesn't say anything, and IIRC wasn't even credited with an actor.

Which is fine: the story isn't about him, to the extent he affects the story, it's about how other people react to the evils he creates.

I think this is something a lot of shows, particularly police procedurals and the like, could do with learning from; if the story doesn't actually need to focus on the villain, and you don't have a particularly compelling or interesting idea for a villain, just... don't focus on the villain.

Shows like Law and Order have produced some effective and compelling villains, but a lot of them have been pretty forgettable; and I think The Devil's Hour shows a potentially more interesting way of handling it; some villains are great, memorable characters (Darth Vader, Judge Holden, etc). Some stories heavily depend upon their villains (The Dark Knight, Die Hard with a Vengeance, etc). But many stories don't need a villain to do anything except give characters something to react to and play off of one another.

I think some stories waste time on villains when treating them like ciphers might be more interesting, and give those stories more time to explore what they are actually interested in. For a lot of shows, (I don't mean to keep harping on Law and Order, but it is an example) the villain takes up time because it's just "part of the formula" even if the villain isn't interesting as a character, and the story has nothing to really say with that character.

The discussions between Gideon, Lucy, Ravi, Isaac, and the various other well-intentioned heroic characters were vastly more interesting (to me) than would have been spending more time seeing how the man in the yellow hoodie acquired or planted his bomb, or what he ultimately wanted.

Introduction:

I'm sorry to add another link in this particular Great Chain Of Discourse, but I think the debate over "no-kill rules" misses a broader argument.

That is, in many cases (not all cases), rules about whether heroes should or shouldn't use deadly force are actually about whether or not heroes should usurp executive authority from the societies they exist within.

Cases where this does not apply:

There are two major subcategories of the "to kill or not to kill" debate that I think don't fall under this umbrellium, and I'll exclude them immediately to save time:

Cases where not killing is advocated for on the basis of rehabilitation or reform: An example of this is Daredevil, who refuses to use deadly force because he (as a devout Catholic) believes strongly in the capacity of individuals to change and become better, even if they do so from within a prison cell. Killing a person deliberately would, in some sense, mean admitting that there is no realistic possibility of that person becoming better, which Matt Murdock refuses to countenance. This is essentially orthogonal to the arguments here, Batman (mostly) doesn't believe the Joker can be better, but he still refuses to kill the clown.

Cases where there is no society to usurp executive power from: A good example of this is the recent Fallout show on Amazon Primium. Lucy MacLean, Maximus, and The Ghoul argue over how best to handle various dangers and obstacles with Lucy supporting the "Golden Rule", the Ghoul arguing for pure Pragmatism, and Maximus generally falling somewhere between the two extremes. In this case, there are no formal structures of law in place, so the topic is purely a matter of individual moral conduct.

However, in most other cases, the question of using lethal force exists within a larger framework.

Judge, Jury, and Executioner; don't just focus on the last one!

I think some of the works that handle this well are Justice League, Injustice: Gods Among Us, and Superman Vs The Elite. Fundamentally, they all demonstrate the same principle: once a hero has chosen to take a life, he or she has taken that choice away from everyone else.

If Superman kills Lex Luthor, or the Joker, or Manchester Black kills the Atomic Skull, the courts get no say. An impartial jury cannot decide that the evidence is not sufficient to convict. A Judge cannot elect to show leniency in sentencing. A sovereign cannot grant a pardon or commutation. The single gravest and most serious legal sanction, the ultimate expression of authority in any civil context, the actual literal death penalty was just imposed because one self-appointed autocrat decided that it should be.

There's no reasonable way of interpreting this that isn't dictatorial. Injustice Superman, Alternate-Universe Justice League, and the Elite didn't "jump off the slippery slope" as TV Tropes would put it, by imposing curfews, or dispersing crowds, or forcibly settling political disputes. All of those exercises of power are LESS SERIOUS than killing a person.

If Batman can decide that Joker (who juries, judges, majors, and governors have repeatedly chosen NOT TO EXECUTE) deserves to die... what else can he decide? If he thinks the speed limit in Gotham is too high, can he forcibly incapacitate any car that drives over his preferred mph? If not, why not? We generally consider speed limits a relatively minor aspect of civil authority next to capital punishment. What about taxes? If Superman has the right to twist Lex Luthor's head off like the pull-tab on a can of Coca-Cola, why can't he decide that the tax rates for small businesses should be higher? Whose going to stop him? Who is going to tell him no?

The moment you start analysing it from the lens of civic theory and not personal ethics, it immediately becomes clear that the idea of a hero who kills people is HORRIFYING. You can't vote them out of office. You can't petition for their removal. You are a subject in a dictatorship, and you became one the moment the first thug in an alleyway got his throat cut by a Baterang.

Conclusion:

The phrase "we live in a society" has become something of a cliche, but it does still mean something. It means that we've agreed upon certain decisions not being made on an individual level. A vigilante doesn't necessarily break that rule (though he or she might break other rules). Batman dragging a criminal over to the Gotham PD, along with a mountain of evidence, puts the decision in society's hands. Batman killing that criminal puts it in Batman's hands, and this is true even if you think the criminal deserved to die.

Dictators don't stop being dictators just because you agree with them. And when, one day, you disagree with them, what happens to you? You've already agreed they have a license to kill anyone they think deserves it.

(Spoilers for Jack Ryan, Ghost War)

Not to belabour the point, the film has characters TELL the audience that the antagonists are bad people, but the audience ever actually SEE them do anything that isn't >!strictly in self-defence of their organisation.!<

The antagonists are a >!black-ops group called "Starling" that was started up during the war on terror, and supposedly shut down when they accidentally killed someone during an interrogation, but one of their operatives (a man named "Crown", who is the primary antagonist of the film) continued their activities!< in secret.

The issue is, none of these activities are ever shown onscreen.

They start the film by >!shooting two armed ex-CIA/MI6 agents who were attempting to shut them down!<. Later, they >!kill the handler of those two agents, who was also armed at the time (with a knife that he threatened to stab the protagonist with, no less!), and go on to SAVE!< JACK RYAN, the film's protagonist, >!from danger!!<

During a particularly tense sequence in >!London, we are led to believe that they were plotting to destroy the Tower Bridge, and Jack Ryan with the help of SO15 (basically the most senior counterterrorist police group in Britain) find weapons and explosives stashed nearby... but it turns out that this was merely a diversion, and they were actually luring people away so they could kill the director of the CIA because she wanted to shut them down.!<

So, to be clear, >!they are never seen hurting civilians, and they actively minimise casualties to neutralise the leader of an organisation that is in the process of trying to stop them.!<

>!The film was more than halfway over at that point, and its primary antagonists had done nothing but act in self-defence.!<

>!Later, Jack Ryan and co use an elaborate (and poorly-expalined, but that's another problem) ruse to go to Dubai, with the explicit intent of destroying Starling... and Starling shoots at them, and only them, when they enter Starling's building with weapons drawn. In the chaos, Crown is shot dead and the organisation is disbanded.!<

This is not an excessively long film, which had to trim unnecessary scenes to get by. It had MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to actually show the antagonists doing something evil, which would justify their being targeted... but the audience (and the protagonist!) only ever has the word >!of other very morally dubious people (themselves former members of Starling who left when it was officially disbanded, including the man who actually accidentally killed the interrogation victim)!< that they are to blame. This leads to them feeling (due to no fault of the performers) like substandard villains, because we have no direct evidence of their villainy.

(major spoilers for a show that's been out for a few years)

A fairly common trope in mysteries is the reveal that a person wanted by the investigator >!has secretly had an accomplice all along, such as when Amanda is revealed to be Jigsaw's apprentice in Saw 2.!<

The show Grace (a detective series set in Brighton, named for its lead character, Roy Grace, which sort of blurs the line between an episodic police procedural and a series of tv movies, as ithere are usually 1-4 episodes per season and each episode is roughly an hour and a half long) pulled a fairly clever inversion of this, in the episode/tv-movie "You Are Dead".

In it, we are led to believe that there are three perpetrators, collaborating on a series of murders. We see shots from the villain's perspective, where they sit around a table and discuss their plans. It's implied that they are taking it in turns to wear a mask and that at any given time we see the masked killer, it could be any one of the three. One of them alludes to something he did to the other two to assert his authority years ago, but never clarifies what it was >!until the end!<.

The first thing that's odd about this is that the murders are clearly serial murders, with highly personal motivations, and Grace is a pretty grounded series that bases itself off of well-documented criminal psychology, serial killers rarely work in pairs, and three serial killers working in tandem is more-or-less unheard of, especially over multiple decades (the show is set in the 2020s, but the first victoms of the killers was back in the 1990s, when the killers were teenagers).

The second thing that's odd is that we receive evidence that the criminals are undermining one another, and they allude in their conversations to egotistically taunting the police with hints... but we mostly see this through written notes, and the one time a video is sent, the killer wears a balaclava, but on a rewatch I noticed that they didn't cheat, the actor wearing the Balaclava >!is the only one of the killers who is actually alive!<.

Only one of the killers is ever seen unmasked outside of their secret lair, though camera angles carefully conceal the killers face in some scenes where it's implied he is unmasked, such as when he rents a caravan.

The third thing that's strange is that none of the crimes actually required more than one participant, just a lot of careful planning (such as noting the location of traffic cameras), this is despite the fact that we are clearly shown a lot of evidence that the killers are dangerously mentally unstable.

Eventually, the detectives match one of the killer's handwriting to a note that was left with a body... but if you've been paying close attention, you'll realise the twist about 10 minutes early: >!the person who claimed to have written the note in the killer's meeting was not the one who they matched the handwriting to!<.

Eventually, Roy Grace confronts one of the villains, following him to the lair, and we see the scene from two perspectives. The villain clearly has the upper hand from his perspective, Roy is alone and unarmed, the killer has his two accomplices. However, when we see the scene from Roy's perspective,>! the other two villains... are the dessicated corpses of the killer's teenage friends, who he had murdered and was hallucinating about. There was only ever one killer, but his hatred of rejection meant that, when he was a teenager and his friends panicked and rejected him over his murderous impulses, he killed them as well. He'd been sending those notes in a state of delerium, imagining his friends were still alive. Roy is able to gain the upper hand in a one-on-one fight, and the killer is buried by rubble as his lair collapses.!<

I thought this was a pretty clever inversion, we usually don't expect a show to trick us into OVER-estimating the resources of the villain, we usually wait for a twist that the criminal actualyl has more resources and power than were initially implied.

MAJOR SPOILERS HERE

Something I like about Din Djarin is that the writers consistently show he's not just a badass protagonist, but also a pretty good person. He goes out of his way to avoid harming innocents, he generally tries to solve problems with negotiation, turning to violence only if he knows that's not an option (with a few exceptions relating to his trauma around Droids).

>!Not only does the film stay true to that, but it retroacrively enforces it by telling us something new about the version of the Mandalorian Creed his sect adheres to: it is permissable for another living being to see your face, *provided that they are an enemy and you kill them afterwards*. After he breaks his deal with the Hutt Twins from BoBF by refusing to deliver their nephew, Rotta, to his death; the Twins shame him, taking off his helmet.!<

>!He points out that this does not violate the creed so long as they die, (and, indeed, they do die; ironically being devoured by the very beast to whom they ruthlessly consigned others) which means that during his experiences in "The Believer" (season 2, episode 7, chapter 15 overall), he could have spared himself apostasy by killing Miggs Mayfeld, but elected not to, knowing that the gunslinger had earned his freedom.!<

I like this, and in an era where we seem to get a lot of amoral or even deliberately cruel protagonists, it's nice to have a hero with a very strong moral core.

People are ragging on it (not undeservedly) for taking its time with some major plot threads, and overall not really pacing itself like a show with 8 episodes per season; as well as its constant puerile humour.

That said, I don't think it's fair to only focus on what it hasn't done a good job of; because there are a few things I think it's done quite well.

The religious elements are quite compelling, seeing perspectives from Homelander's psychotic desire to become a god (likely stemming from his troubled upbringing), to Oh Father's sincere preference for a "visible" God, to Firecracker's partly successful (and ultimately self-destructive attempts) to convince herself to change her religious beliefs, to President Calhoun's ultimate inability to abandon his lifelong belief in Christianity and accept Homelander's ascension, to Soldier Boys spiteful atheistic rejection of his son's new status (despite him having had a hand in that status).

There's some genuinely thought-provoking content there about how people approach religion, how religion intersects with politics and mental illness, and what it actually means to be a "god".

There's also a pretty significant throughline of the difference between being a "hero", which the show rejects, and being a good person, which it wholeheartedly endorses. I think it's an oversimplification to call the show cynical and apathetic, because a cynical or apathetic show wouldn't have Hughie Campbell as a main character, it wouldn't focus on Frenchie and Kimiko's relationship, and it wouldn't have Marvin Milk reject callousness.

(by contrast, his analogue in the source material had that nickname as a joke about how he got his superpowers, which he notably doesn't have in the show, it's a pretty different interpretation of the same character)

Ultimately, a show that's as irreverent, cynical, and careless as the detractors make it out to be wouldn't have had the line "Look at you, I bet you've never danced a day in your life."

TL;DR, can we acknowledge the show has fallen short of what it promised, whilst still acknowledging that it's done some genuinely compelling things that a lot of other media could learn from, and which deserve to be appreciated in their own right?

Introduction:

There's been some discourse lately around Inventors and how good they are at dealing damage, with a lot of people arguing that it's better to just play a Barbarian. However, I think a lot of this discourse focuses too much on the "overdrive" ability vs the "rage" ability and ignores other class features.

So I'm going to compare (mathematically) how an inventor ranks up against a barbarian if both are dedicated to maximising strike damage.

A sidenote about Overdrive:

Overdrive is a feature that I think gets misunderstood, because it's so tied to the "tight" maths of pf2e: Overdrive will get a lot better as you lvl up.

Assuming you invest in intelligence at every available lvl and seek out permanent item bonuses to craft as soon as you can, your odds of overdriving will get better. (you could also use mutagens, either the cognative or theatrical mutagen, in conjunction with a Collar of the Shifting Spider to boost your item bonus beyond normal for a specific fight)

lvl 3: crafter's eyepiece

lvl 9: tradecraft Tattoo

lvl 17: Greater Tradecraft Tattoo or Artificer's Spectacles

Assuming that if you don't go for the artificer's spectacles you also get another apex item to boost strength, this is how your crafting modifier will grow, vs the standard dc for your lvl needed to activate overdrive.

lvl	Crafting mod	Standard DC	Roll for Overdrive
1	+7	15	8
2	+8	16	8
3	+12	18	6
4	+13	19	6
5	+14	20	6
6	+15	22	7
7	+18	23	5
8	+19	24	5
9	+21	26	5
10	+23	27	4
11	+24	28	4
12	+25	30	5
13	+26	31	5
14	+27	32	5
15	+30	34	4
16	+31	35	4
17	+34	36	2
18	+35	38	3
19	+36	39	3
20	+38	40	2

The Comparison Parameters:

There are two main points for comparison: regular strikers and critical hit strikers, as you can try to maximise either.

I'll be comparing both, with a greatsword for maximising normal strike damage, and a greatpick for maximising critical hit strikers.

Given that the goal is to maximise damage, I'll be comparing the highest-damage Barbarian instinct (giant) against the highest-damage inventor innovation (weapon).

The relevant factors here are:

• Strength: The Barbarian starts with +4 strength, goes to +5 at lvl 10, +6 at lvl 17, and +7 at lvl 20. The Inventor starts at +3, goes to +4 at lvl 5, and +5 at lvl 15.
• Rage: The Barbarian starts with +6 damage, which goes up to + 10 at lvl 7, and +18 at lvl 15.
• Weapon specialisation (the same for both classes) +2 at lvl 7, +3 at 13, and +6 at lvl 15
• Offensive Boost: Starting at lvl 9, the Inventor gets a +3.5 (1d6) damage per strike.
• Striking Runes: As normal, d12s.
• Vicious Swing/Megaton Strike: At lvl 4, the Barbarian will get Vicious Swing from either the mauler or fighter archetypes, and the Inventor will get Megaton Strike, meaning 1 extra die at lvl 4, 2 at 10, and 3 at 18 (inventors can get an extra die at all lvls with unstable) and as we are evanuating critical hits for the greatpick, the extra die will always be d12s.
• Overdrive: The Inventor gets +1 on a fail at all lvls, and on a success/crit at lvl 1 gets +2/+4, at lvl 3 +3/+5, at lvl 7 +4/+6, at lvl 10 +4/+7, at lvl 15 +5/+8, at lvl 17 +6/+9, and at lvl 20 +6/+10
• Property runes: These will vary between regular and critical strike builds. Regular strike builds get an extra damaging rune (+3.5, or 1d6) at lvls 8, 10, and 16, critical strike builds swap the lvl 10 property rune out for a grievous rune to maximise critical hit damage.
• Modifications: The Inventor takes the "Inconspicuous Appearance" modification at lvl 7, gaining the backstabber trait (+1 damage, then +2 at lvl 16), and at lvl 15 the regular strike build takes rune capacity for an extra damaging rune (3.5/1d6 damage) and the critical strike build takes deadly strike for +9 (2d8), and then 13.5 (3d8) at lvl 19

As to why I am using Vicious Swing/Megaton Strike, I think it's worth noting that any fair analysis of how high-damage builds tend to work is going to have to consider the impact of feats, and it will illustrate how big the difference in class features is next to that if we factor it in. Ultimately, it will be the same amount for all compared builds, so the relative differences will not change, but it should put in perspective how much those differences matter.

Inventor Damage

To prevent this from getting absurd, I'll only evaluate best, middle, and worst case regular scenarios, and I'll ignore the extra damage the inventor can get from adding the unstable trait to megaton strike. Best case is hit against an off-guard opponent with critical overrdirve, worst is failed overdrive against not offguard opponent, middle case is hit against offguard opponent with regular overdrive success. From lvl 4 onwards, will assume megaton strike.

Regular Strike:

lvl	Best Case	Mid Case	Worst Case
1	1d12+3+4 (13.5)	1d12+3+2 (11.5)	1d12+3+1 (10.5)
2	1d12+3+4 (13.5)	1d12+3+2 (11.5)	1d12+3+1 (10.5)
3	1d12+3+4+1 (14.5)	1d12+3+2+1 (12.5)	1d12+3+1 (10.5)
4	3d12+3+4+1 (27.5)	3d12+3+2+1 (25.5)	3d12+3+1 (23.5)
5	3d12+4+4+1 (28.5)	3d12+4+2+1 (26.5)	3d12+4+1 (24.5)
6	3d12+4+4+1 (28.5)	3d12+4+2+1 (26.5)	3d12+4+1 (24.5)
7	3d12+4+2+4+2+1 (32.5)	3d12+4+2+2+2+1 (30.5)	3d12+4+2+1 (26.5)
8	3d12+1d6+4+2+4+2+1 (36)	3d12+1d6+4+2+2+2+1 (34)	3d12+1d6+4+2+1 (30)
9	3d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+4+2+1 (39.5)	3d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1 (37.5)	3d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+1 (33.5)
10	4d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+5+2+1 (50.5)	4d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1 (47.5)	4d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+1 (43.5)
11	4d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+5+2+1 (50.5)	4d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1 (47.5)	4d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+1 (43.5)
12	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+5+2+1 (57)	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1 (54)	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+2+1 (50)
13	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+3+5+2+1 (58)	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+3+2+2+1 (55)	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+3+1 (51)
14	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+3+5+2+1 (58)	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+3+2+2+1 (55)	5d12+2d6+1d6+4+3+1 (51)
15	5d12+3d6+1d6+5+6+5+3+1 (66.5)	5d12+3d6+1d6+5+6+2+3+1 (63.5)	5d12+3d6+1d6+5+6+1 (58.5)
16	5d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+5+3+2 (71)	5d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+2+3+2 (68)	5d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+1 (62)
17	5d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+6+3+2 (72)	5d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2 (69)	5d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+1 (62)
18	6d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+6+3+2 (78.5)	6d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2 (75.5)	6d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+1 (68.5)
19	7d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+6+3+2 (85)	7d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2 (82)	6d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+1 (75)
20	7d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+7+3+2 (86)	7d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2 (82)	6d12+4d6+1d6+5+6+1 (75)

Critical Strike:

lvl	Best Case	Mid Case	Worst Case
1	2x(1d12+3+4)+1d12 (33.5)	2x(1d12+3+2)+1d12 (29.5)	2x(1d12+3+1)+1d12 (27.5)
2	2x(1d12+3+4)+1d12 (33.5)	2x(1d12+3+2)+1d12 (29.5)	2x(1d12+3+1)+1d12 (27.5)
3	2x(1d12+3+4+1)+1d12 (35.5)	2x(1d12+3+2+1)+1d12 (31.5)	2x(1d12+3+1)+1d12 (27.5)
4	2x(3d12+3+4+1)+1d12 (61.5)	2x(3d12+3+2+1)+1d12 (57.5)	2x(3d12+3+1)+1d12 (53.5)
5	2x(3d12+4+4+1)+1d12+4 (67.5)	2x(3d12+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (63.5)	2x(3d12+4+1)+1d12+4 (59.5)
6	2x(3d12+4+4+1)+1d12+4 (67.5)	2x(3d12+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (63.5)	2x(3d12+4+1)+1d12+4 (59.5)
7	2x(3d12+4+2+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (75.5)	2x(3d12+4+2+2+2+1)+1d12+4 (71.5)	2x(3d12+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (63.5)
8	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (82.5)	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2+2+2+1)+1d12+4 (78.5)	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (70.5)
9	2x(3d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (89.5)	2x(3d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1)+1d12+4 (85.5)	2x(3d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+1)+1d12+4 (77.5)
10	2x(4d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+5+2+1)+1d12+8 (108.5)	2x(4d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1)+1d12+8 (102.5)	2x(4d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+1)+1d12+8 (94.5)
11	2x(4d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+5+2+1)+1d12+8 (108.5)	2x(4d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1)+1d12+8 (102.5)	2x(4d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+1)+1d12+8 (94.5)
12	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+5+2+1)+1d12+12 (125.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+2+2+1)+1d12+12 (119.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+2+1)+1d12+12 (111.5)
13	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+3+5+2+1)+1d12+12 (127.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+3+2+2+1)+1d12+12 (121.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+3+1)+1d12+12 (113.5)
14	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+3+5+2+1)+1d12+12 (127.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+3+2+2+1)+1d12+12 (121.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+3+1)+1d12+12 (113.5)
15	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+5+6+5+3+1)+1d12+2d8+12 (146.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+5+6+2+3+1)+1d12+2d8+12 (140.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+1d6+4+6+1)+1d12+2d8+12 (130.5)
16	2x(5d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+5+3+2)+1d12+3d8+12 (160)	2x(5d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+2+3+2)+1d12+3d8+12 (154)	2x(5d12+2d6+1d6+4+6+1)+1d12+3d8+12 (142)
17	2x(5d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+6+2+2)+1d12+3d8+12 (162)	2x(5d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2)+1d12+3d8+12 (156)	2x(5d12+2d6+1d6+4+6+1)+1d12+3d8+12 (142)
18	2x(6d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+6+2+2)+1d12+3d8+12 (175)	2x(6d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2)+1d12+3d8+12 (169)	2x(6d12+2d6+1d6+4+6+1)+1d12+3d8+12 (155)
19	2x(6d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+6+2+2)+1d12+3d8+16 (192)	2x(7d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2)+1d12+3d8+16 (186)	2x(7d12+2d6+1d6+4+6+1)+1d12+3d8+16 (172)
20	2x(6d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+7+2+2)+1d12+3d8+16 (194)	2x(7d12+2d6+1d6+5+6+3+3+2)+1d12+3d8+16 (186)	2x(7d12+2d6+1d6+4+6+1)+1d12+3d8+16 (172)

Barbarian Damage

For simplicity, I won't consider mighty rage. No backstabber trait, so we don't have to care about off-guard for damage. Just whether rage is active or not (generally it only won't be in the case of fatigue).

Regular Strike:

lvl	Rage	No Rage (fatigue)
1	1d12+4+6 (16.5)	1d12+4 (10.5)
2	1d12+4+6 (16.5)	1d12+4 (10.5)
3	1d12+4+6 (16.5)	1d12+4 (10.5)
4	3d12+4+6 (29.5)	3d12+4 (23.5)
5	3d12+4+6 (29.5)	3d12+4 (23.5)
6	3d12+4+6 (29.5)	3d12+4 (23.5)
7	3d12+4+10+2 (35.5)	3d12+4+2 (25.5)
8	3d12+1d6+4+10+2 (39)	3d12+1d6+4+2 (29)
9	3d12+1d6+4+10+2 (39)	3d12+1d6+4+2 (29)
10	4d12+2d6+5+10+2 (50)	4d12+2d6+5+2 (40)
11	4d12+2d6+5+10+2 (50)	4d12+2d6+5+2 (40)
12	5d12+2d6+5+10+2 (56.5)	5d12+2d6+5+2 (46.5)
13	5d12+2d6+5+10+3 (57.5)	5d12+2d6+5+3 (47.5)
14	5d12+2d6+5+10+3 (57.5)	5d12+2d6+5+3 (47.5)
15	5d12+2d6+5+18+6 (68.5)	5d12+2d6+5+6 (50.5)
16	5d12+3d6+5+18+6 (72)	5d12+3d6+5+6 (54)
17	5d12+3d6+6+18+6 (73)	5d12+3d6+6+6 (55)
18	6d12+3d6+6+18+6 (79.5)	6d12+3d6+6+6 (61.5)
19	7d12+3d6+6+18+6 (86)	7d12+3d6+6+6 (68)
20	7d12+3d6+7+18+6 (87)	7d12+3d6+7+6 (69)

Critical Strike: (note that, due to the mauler dedication, the Barbarian does not need rage to gain critspec)

lvl	Rage	No Rage (fatigue)
1	2x(1d12+4+6)+1d12 (39.5)	2x(1d12+4)+1d12 (27.5)
2	2x(1d12+4+6)+1d12 (39.5	2x(1d12+4)+1d12 (27.5)
3	2x(1d12+4+6)+1d12 (39.5)	2x(1d12+4)+1d12 (27.5)
4	2x(3d12+4+6)+1d12 (65.5)	2x(3d12+4)+1d12 (53.5)
5	2x(3d12+4+6)+1d12+4 (69.5)	2x(3d12+4)+1d12+4 (57.5)
6	2x(3d12+4+6)+1d12+4 (69.5)	2x(3d12+4)+1d12+4 (57.5)
7	2x(3d12+4+2+10)+1d12+4 (81.5)	2x(3d12+4+2)+1d12+4 (57.5)
8	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2+10)+1d12+4 (88.5)	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2)+1d12+4 (64.5)
9	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2+10)+1d12+4 (88.5)	2x(3d12+1d6+4+2)+1d12+4 (64.5)
10	2x(4d12+1d6+5+2+10)+1d12+8 (106.5)	2x(4d12+1d6+5+2)+1d12+8 (86.5)
11	2x(4d12+1d6+5+2+10)+1d12+8 (106.5)	2x(4d12+1d6+5+2)+1d12+8 (86.5)
12	2x(5d12+1d6+5+2+10)+1d12+12 (123.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+5+2)+1d12+12 (103.5)
13	2x(5d12+1d6+5+3+10)+1d12+12 (125.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+5+3)+1d12+12 (105.5)
14	2x(5d12+1d6+5+3+10)+1d12+12 (125.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+5+3)+1d12+12 (105.5)
15	2x(5d12+1d6+5+6+18)+1d12+12 (148.5)	2x(5d12+1d6+5+6)+1d12+12 (112.5)
16	2x(5d12+2d6+5+6+18)+1d12+12 (155.5)	2x(5d12+2d6+5+6)+1d12+12 (119.5)
17	2x(5d12+2d6+6+6+18)+1d12+12 (157.5)	2x(5d12+2d6+6+6)+1d12+12 (121.5)
18	2x(6d12+2d6+6+6+18)+1d12+12 (170.5)	2x(6d12+2d6+6+6)+1d12+12 (134.5)
19	2x(7d12+2d6+6+6+18)+1d12+16 (187.5)	2x(7d12+2d6+6+6)+1d12+16 (151.5)
20	2x(7d12+2d6+7+6+18)+1d12+16 (189.5)	2x(7d12+2d6+7+6)+1d12+16 (153.5)

Analysis/Conclusion

The first big takeaway here is that overdrive is actually not that major a contributor to the inventor's damage. It's certainly helpful, but it's not passively activating any class features the way rage is for the Barbarian, and a lot of the damage comes from offensive boost and the weapon innovation, which still functions normally without overdrive.

Speaking anecdotally, there have been encounters where I've played an inventor and simply not chosen to overdrive at all, because the benefit was not worth spending an action, and I still had access to most of my class features without it.

The second major takeaway is that inventor damage mostly only suffers at lower lvls... and honestly, that could just be fixed by pushing the offensive boost class feature to lvl 7, or pushing the barbarian's rage increase to lvl 9. The Inventor's boosts to damage are more spread out, the Barbarian "frontloads" a lot more, but the only lvls were this really feels bad, IMO, are lvls 1, 2, 7, and 8. Shifting the Expert Overdrive class feature to lvl 2 would honestly go some way to fixing that, as well as ensuring that a mastermind rogue can't be a better crafter than an inventor at lvl 3. The issue with the inventor's earlier class features is not that they are weak, it's that they come online a lvl or two later than they should, the class is really good past lvl 8, but it "stutters" a bit at the start.

Even then, it's really not by much in the grand scheme of things, as damage-focused builds in pf2e are going to focus on the one big strike, so differences in the flat bonus from class features are not getting multiplied the way they were in pf1e.

Inventor modifications at higher lvls can be absolute game-changers, as I hope this monograph demonstrates.

A pretty common refrain when talking about animated shows such as Invincible, Arcane, Maul: Shadow Lord, or Sorcery Battle (Jujutso Kaisen in the tongue of its creators) is the idea that animation quality is primarily due to budget.

If a show doesn't produce the expected animation quality, it is assumed to be a consequence of insufficient budget, or skewed priorities on the behalf of the finance managers.

This is based around an idea that is only partially true, the "time is money" fallacy. This is the idea, common in finance and industry, that any process which is completed at a certain rate can be done more slowly for less money, or more quickly for more money; to put it another way, it is the belief that time and money are fungible.

The issue is, that's only true within certain parameters. For example, a pregnant woman can produce a baby in 9 months. 9 pregnant women cannot produce a baby in 1 month. Some processes cannot be slowed down or sped up.

To compare the three shows mentioned earlier:

Invincible started releasing in 2021, and most recently released in 2026. In that time, it released 32 episodes and 1 standalone Special with an average runtime of 45-55 minutes.

Arcane started releasing in 2021, and finished releasing in 2024. In that time, it released 18 episodes with an average runtime of 40-45 minutes.

Maul, Shadow Lord released in 2026 only. In that time, it released 10 episodes, with an average runtime of 22-29 minutes.

Sorcery Battle started releasing in 2020, and most recently released in 2026. In that time it released 59 episodes, with an average runtime of 22-29 minutes.

Show	Years releasing	episodes / specials	runtime total (approx)	Average hours animated per year	normalised production speed
Invincible	5	33	27.5 hours	5.5	1
Arcane	3	18	12 hours	4	0.72
Sorcery Battle	6	59	22.62 hours	3.8	0.75
Maul: Shadow Lord	1	10	3.8 hours	3.8	0.75

Based on this, irrespective of money spent, it would be insane to expect all of these shows to have the same overall animation quality.

Certain sacrifices are going to be made to ensure yearly or biannual release. There's simply no amount of money that can compensate for this.

It takes 9 months to make a baby, and hiring more surrogates won't speed that up!

Some cuts will be made if you want a yearly or close-to-yearly release schedule, and given the desire of most shows to always remain as a part of the current pop-cultural discussion, those cuts WILL be made.