Confusion and Attacking Nearest Creature

[Tahotai]

So, the confusion spell

Spoiler:

Confusion
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, bloodrager 4, sorcerer/wizard 4, witch 4; Domain madness 4, trickery 4; Subdomain entropy 5, lust 4, whimsy 4

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (three nutshells)

EFFECT
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets all creatures in a 15-ft.-radius burst
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION
This spell causes confusion in the targets, making them unable to determine their actions. Roll on the following table at the start of each subject's turn each round to see what it does in that round.

Table: Confusion Effects
d% Behavior
01-25 Acts normally
26-50 Does nothing but babble incoherently
51-75 Deals 1d8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand
76-100 Attacks nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self)

A confused character who can't carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused character. Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes. Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).

This spell has a very glaring ambiguity. It does not in anyway define what attack means. There's been a fair amount of discussion on the spell but near as I can tell no official FAQ answer, and people seem to be interpreting the spell in many different ways.

There seems to be four possible ways to interpret the spell.

1. You must go full out in attacking the creature. Casters use spells, melee characters full attack. Do your best to kill it even if it's an ally.

2. You must do your best to attack but don't have to use daily resources. Full attacks from the fighters, but casters don't have to use spells.

3. You don't go all out in attacking, just make a single attack roll with whatever weapon you have in hand.

4. Anything that counts as an attack qualifies so you can drop your weapons and make unarmed melee attacks against allies and it still counts.

Most of the opinions fall into the Option 2 or Option 3 camp, but the difference is fairly big. In our session today it meant the difference between character death and not when confusion hit the party and a fighter was standing next to the sorcerer. After a ten minute break while we googled trying to find an answer. Eventually we went with Option 3 because the DM felt he couldn't kill a character with that much ambiguity in how the spell should be handled.

Personally I think the Option 3 ruling is the correct one, but even in the party we were split about down the middle and it'd be really great to have some sort of official ruling on it.

[Cavall]

You do your best to kill that person. Option 1.

[Matthew Downie]

I've always played it that casters are too confused to cast spells - basically option 2.

[Callum]

In Pathfinder, where they added the "Deals 1d8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand" outcome, I would definitely go for option 3. It's less clear in earlier editions (though given that the "Attack nearest creature" outcome originated in a version of the game that didn't have full attacks, choosing 3 - or 3 plus spells - is a reasonable option).

The idea that casters don't have to use spells probably comes from the 3.5E version of the spell, where one of the outcomes was "Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons".

[My Self]

This is almost completely GM interpretation. Depending on the nature of the confusion, I'd treat it different ways. If it were a Wild Rager's rage, then regardless of situation, it's definitely #1. If this was inflicted by an enemy gunslinger while you were unaware, I'd say it's 1 or 2- depends on how you react to getting ambushed. If it's a fey caster or lust Cleric who is several levels higher than you, I'd say 3 or 4. If you're struck with Insanity, I'd say 2 through 4 are acceptable.

Or you could just have the GM play your character for a round.

[dragonhunterq]

1) all the way. You see the nearest person as an enemy and attack them as effectively as possible.

Anything else is a bit metagamey and trying to mitigate the effects of the spell.

If the nearest person happens to be an enemy I'd be mighty impressed if whoever it was didn't bring their most effective attack to bear (that'll happen, right?).

And if you can attack an enemy with your most effective attack, you can certainly attack an ally with the same attack.

Oh, and nothing in confusion prohibits spellcasting.

[Cavall]

dragonhunterq wrote:

1) all the way. You see the nearest person as an enemy and attack them as effectively as possible.

Anything else is a bit metagamey and trying to mitigate the effects of the spell.

If the nearest person happens to be an enemy I'd be mighty impressed if whoever it was didn't bring their most effective attack to bear (that'll happen, right?).

And if you can attack an enemy with your most effective attack, you can certainly attack an ally with the same attack.

Oh, and nothing in confusion prohibits spellcasting.

This. See the idea of being confused enough in one option to claw your own face off but rolling an attack your own party member option and having the common sense to drop your weapons and hug him to death is just meta game play.

It's one to me.

[SGriffit]

You mind is muttled, makes it hard to do anything 100% effectively. I go with #3, mainly because in 3.5 there was a higher level spell that actually included the text for using the most deadly means. Ive searched for the spell, but seem unable to find it at this time.

[Guru-Meditation]

1. Without a doubt. You want to atttack it, you do it to the best of your abilities.

Do your chars attack monsters they want to vanquish only with a standart attack, if they could full attack? Why would they?

The other options are too me with rising degrees of metagamey cheesing your way out of a strong CC-spell.

[Chess Pwn]

1, You'd use the most common way you attack others to this character. So this could mean using hold person or such if you're not a HP damaging character. You're effectively seeing the 1 person as an enemy and the one you need to kill that round.

[DinosaursOnIce]

I've always played it as option 1.

[andreww]

I run it as option 1. I don't necessarily require people to use limited resources like Smite but I expect Barbarians to maintain rage, casters to cast, etc. Basically attack the nearest enemy in the normal way you might attack an enemy.

[Tahotai]

I feel like Option 3 because Options 1 and 2 are just way too strong given the nature of the spell.

First it's an AoE spell, those have weaker effects then single target spells.

Because of the round per level duration and the clause that confused things attack anything that attacks them, without limiting the offensive capacity of the spell it's almost a guaranteed kill for anything that fails it's will save in the 15 foot radius.

It also makes the spell really, really random to make PCs or Monsters go all out. The jump between "Hurt yourself: Deal 1d8+STR" and "Hurt someone else: Deal 50+ damage" is a huge leap.

I think the best spell to compare it to is Mass Daze which is a same level spell. Both have roughly equivalent areas. Mass Daze is a guaranteed single round of actions lost if they fail their will saves. Confusion with Option 3 is a balanced alternative where you run the risk of them rolling low and still getting to act but in return get round per level duration and the opportunity for confused creatures to get stuck in an attack loop. Confusion with Option 1 has a lot more in common with a mass Save or Die spell unless your casters are already tapped out and martials can never get a full attack off.

[Cavall]

To be fair the spell IS really random, Tahotai

[DM_Blake]

My take is that you are confused. (I know, novel concept, who woulda thunk it?). In your confusion, you THINK that the nearest creature is an enemy and you also think that it's up to you to bring that enemy down.

That said, this does not mean you have to use your deadliest attack. Why? Every day I see combats where somebody says "Well, it looks like the fighters up front can handle the rest of the bad guys, I think I'll just save my main resources and fire my crossbow instead." Or some version of that.

So, if the nearest creature is a raging deadly barbarian standing right next to you, well, you might just use your deadliest attack exactly like you would if you were NOT confused and that was an enemy NPC raging deadly barbarian - no retreating allowed thanks to the confusion. But if that nearest creature is a rogue 20' away with a dagger and no chance to sneak attack you, and he's standing right thee between your paladin and barbarian allies and you know THEY can handle him, well, then you might just ping him with a crossbow and save your resources exactly like you would if you were NOT confused and that was an enemy NPC harmless rogue.

That's how I run it, though I would accept just always all-out attacking with the best killer shot you have because you're too confused to know that you don't have to be that lethal - I just don't assume this as the default behavior.

[Oncoming_Storm]

I see it as option 1, but without spell casting. If it wanted to include casting spells as an option it would have specifically said so.

[DM_Blake]

Spells are frequently defined as "attacks" (well, at least the ones that affect targets or areas in a hostile fashion). See the Invisibility spell for reference, as one example.

Given that Pathfinder considers spells to be "attacks" and given that this condition says "attack" the nearest creature, there is EVERY reason to believe that spellcasters and and will use spells to attack the nearest creature. The condition does not prohibit using spells at all, so there is no reason to NOT use a spell to attack the nearest creature.

It doesn't need to specifically say so, just like it doesn't need to specifically say that a human fighter will attack with the weapon in his hands rather than try to bite the nearest creature, etc.

If I'm a wizard with Disintegrate prepared and a dagger in my hand and I see a dangerous enemy near me (in fact, it's the nearest creature!), and for some reason I decide the best plan is to "attack" it (not my first choice as a wizard in that situation but I might, but the Confusion condition doesn't leave me any choice if I rolled above a 75), then I'm damned sure going to use my Disintegrate on that dangerous enemy instead of my dagger.

[Tahotai]

I think Option 1 is making the spell way too strong for its level.

Compare it to Mass Daze a spell of the exact same level doing a very similar thing.

Mass Daze is an AoE spell that if they fail their will saving throw they can't act for one round.

Now we compare to confusion. We up the duration to round per level but give them a 25% chance of acting normally and a 75% chance of doing nothing. Honestly that's pretty balanced. But hey let's tack on a 25% chance that instead of doing nothing they hurt themselves. Everything is still okay.

Then we add the 25% chance to attack the nearest creature. And then we add that if a confused creature is attacked it will attack what attacked it, meaning that there's a 25% chance per person you hit to get people stuck in a confusion attacking loop.

Now if you limit that to a single swing of your weapon or shot from your bow, this spell is still very deadly, it is still much, much better then Mass Daze. But if you go with Option 1 this spell becomes an AoE save or die spell at level 4.

[Diego Rossi]

DM_Blake wrote:

My take is that you are confused. (I know, novel concept, who woulda thunk it?). In your confusion, you THINK that the nearest creature is an enemy and you also think that it's up to you to bring that enemy down.

That said, this does not mean you have to use your deadliest attack. Why? Every day I see combats where somebody says "Well, it looks like the fighters up front can handle the rest of the bad guys, I think I'll just save my main resources and fire my crossbow instead." Or some version of that.

So, if the nearest creature is a raging deadly barbarian standing right next to you, well, you might just use your deadliest attack exactly like you would if you were NOT confused and that was an enemy NPC raging deadly barbarian - no retreating allowed thanks to the confusion. But if that nearest creature is a rogue 20' away with a dagger and no chance to sneak attack you, and he's standing right thee between your paladin and barbarian allies and you know THEY can handle him, well, then you might just ping him with a crossbow and save your resources exactly like you would if you were NOT confused and that was an enemy NPC harmless rogue.

That's how I run it, though I would accept just always all-out attacking with the best killer shot you have because you're too confused to know that you don't have to be that lethal - I just don't assume this as the default behavior.

What Barbarian and Paladin allies?

PRD wrote:

Confused: A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies. Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.

For me its 1). Not necessarily the highest level/more powerful spell you have, but surely the one that is efficient and appropriate.

[Diego Rossi]

Tahotai wrote:

Compare it to Mass Daze a spell of the exact same level doing a very similar thing.

Mass Daze is a very weak 4th level spell, especially as it keep the HD limit (no wording in it remove the limitation, probably an oversight), but check the target lines:

Daze, Mass - Targets one or more humanoid creatures, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart

Confusion - Targets all creatures in a 15-ft.-radius burst

With mass daze you choose your targets, with confusion you hit everyone.
So it isn't a good idea to use it when there are allies in the AoE or even neutrals.

[Tahotai]

I think Mass Daze actually does remove the HD limit as the low level version says "Target one humanoid creature of 4 HD or less" and the Mass version target line does not have the HD restriction.

But while I'm comparing it to Mass Daze because they are AoE action limitation spells, it's just as easy to compare it to other 4th level spells like Black Tentacles.

[Valantrix1]

Option 1.

[Cevah]

Quote:

Table: Confusion Effects

d% Behavior
01-25 Acts normally
26-50 Does nothing but babble incoherently
51-75 Deals 1d8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand
76-100 Attacks nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self)

A confused character who can't carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused character. Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes. Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).

Act Normally: I can full attack, cast a spell, whatever, no limit.

Note that I don't make AoOs, even if allowed, if the roll is <76%. The damage to self is also limited to a single attack and makes no mention of attacking yourself with a spell.

I lean to option 3. I think you are too confused to want to think, so you don't want to cast, and can't think of deliberately nerfing yourself. Also, if everyone is your enemy, sometimes you would rather they think you are not really a threat, and thus plink away with a wimpy single melee attack.

On another note, if you get the Act Normally roll, try to get an enemy to attack you via an AoO. This then focuses you on that enemy until it dies, hopefully the confusion will be dispelled (or lapse) before you seek another target. I think that once you are attacked, even if they don't attack again, you still focus on them. If you get attacked by two or more, you get to choose, but you should choose based on your evaluation of what your character would choose if they were all enemies.

/cevah

[DM_Blake]

Cevah wrote:

Also, if everyone is your enemy, sometimes you would rather they think you are not really a threat, and thus plink away with a wimpy single melee attack.

So you're saying that you're too confused to think about how to win the fight but you're not too confused to use reverse psychology on the enemy?

In any case, despite the name of the spell and the general fluff of it, the actual rules of it say nothing about being too confused to rain fire and brimstone down on those enemies of yours. Anything else and you're almost certainly metagaming to save your gamer friends' PCs.

[Byakko]

I've usually seen it run that the attacks must be with physical weapons, but you're right, spells aren't necessarily excluded.

FAQing.

[Weables]

as a GM, it's option one in my home game. I believe the phrase was "they are seen as your enemy, so you'd use an appropriate response to an actual enemy" then I go by the characters normal actions in combat, spells included. If your normal method is disabling via spell, or trip, I'm fine with that, if its a full face shredding attack, then that works too.

If you expect to drop your weapon and use an unarmed strike, I'd best have seen that move on enemies before

[Blakmane]

I'd probably ask the players if they would prefer option 1 or 2 and then rule appropriately for the rest of the campaign.

Not using spells can actually be a huge limiter and doesn't necessarily make the spell weaker - it's almost as common for the closest target to be an enemy and this prevents the confused target from casting anything at all 75% of the time. Allowing spells also prevents a wizard from rushing in and getting into an awful position if they are off to the side, so there is no clear-cut 'better for the PCs' ruling here.

I would defer to the player for spell selection, as long as it is an attack.

option 3-4 make no sense to me at all. It says 'attack' not 'make an attack action against'. Anyone claiming they can drop their weapon or obviously pull punches (e.g. cantrip instead of scorching ray) will be getting a very stern look.

[Duiker]

There are two types of Pathfinder players:

Those who try to figure out how to be as ineffective as possible when confused/dominated/controlled/etc.

And those who get a mad glee in their eye and try to TPK their friends with every fiber of their being.

I really really like the fact that my group is composed of the second. It's just more fun in my book.

[My Self]

Why not have the GM control the player when they're confused?

[Diego Rossi]

Tahotai wrote:

I think Mass Daze actually does remove the HD limit as the low level version says "Target one humanoid creature of 4 HD or less" and the Mass version target line does not have the HD restriction.

But while I'm comparing it to Mass Daze because they are AoE action limitation spells, it's just as easy to compare it to other 4th level spells like Black Tentacles.

prd wrote:

Daze, Mass

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 4, inquisitor 4, sorcerer/wizard 4, summoner 4, witch 4

Components V, S

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Targets one or more humanoid creatures, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions as daze, except as noted above.

- * - * -

Daze

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 0, sorcerer/wizard 0

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M (a pinch of wool or similar substance)

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one humanoid creature of 4 HD or less

Duration 1 round

Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

This spell clouds the mind of a humanoid creature with 4 or fewer Hit Dice so that it takes no actions. Humanoids of 5 or more HD are not affected. A dazed subject is not stunned, so attackers get no special advantage against it. After a creature has been dazed by this spell, it is immune to the effects of this spell for 1 minute.

RAW you can target humanoids with more than 4 HD, but it has no effect.

Probably an oversight as it is a 4th level spell, but binding if you play RAW.
The target line has been changed, but there is nothing superseding "humanoids of 5 or more HD are not affected."

[Diego Rossi]

My Self wrote:

Why not have the GM control the player when they're confused?

Because it is already annoying enough for the player. At least let's them roll their dices. Unless someone in the group will held grudges for the consequences.

I will suggest what spell/attacks they will use, based on the character general behavior when fighting enemies, but I will let them roll the dices and make some choice.

If the rogue that normally go for the flanking attack want to forego a full attack to move in a flanking position I will allow it. If he never do that I will not.

That way generally the character is managed less well than by owner, as I will not recall all of his tricks and equipment, but after all they are confused, so a slight decrease in efficiency is reasonable.
What isn't reasonable is "I make me ineffectual on purpose against an enemy".

[Cevah]

DM_Blake wrote:

Cevah wrote:

Also, if everyone is your enemy, sometimes you would rather they think you are not really a threat, and thus plink away with a wimpy single melee attack.

So you're saying that you're too confused to think about how to win the fight but you're not too confused to use reverse psychology on the enemy?

In any case, despite the name of the spell and the general fluff of it, the actual rules of it say nothing about being too confused to rain fire and brimstone down on those enemies of yours. Anything else and you're almost certainly metagaming to save your gamer friends' PCs.

I am confused about who is an enemy, not about how many "enemies" there are. Some characters are reluctant to make themselves a target if there are a lot of enemies.

It is only metagaming if you want something different for when your PC is hit than when the enemy is hit, or if you want it one way the very first time it happens in the campaign. Once it has been played a given way, the expectation is that it will be the same every time and therefore no metagaming.

/cevah

[DM_Blake]

Oh, come on now, you wade through 50 encounters and in EVERY one of those encounters, when you decide to attack (as a spellcaster) you do one of two things:

1. This fight is easy. I'll use a cantrip or a crossbow or this old wand of magic missiles I'm about to get rid of.
2. This fight is not easy. I'll blast the crap out of the dangerous monsters and hope I kill them right here, right now.

There is no in-between.

(yes, there are many options like buffing or battlefield control or summoning, etc., but those are not "attacks", so when you actually decide to attack, you do one of the above)

By your own admission, EVERYBODY looks like an enemy. Also, many of them are hostile NPCs that seem to be as competent as you are. You're outnumbered with no friends. And rather than run away, you've decided to attack this enemy that outnumbers you and looks remarkably dangerous.

And THAT is the time you decide to plink with a crossbow, just so they think you're easier to kill than you are? No freaking way. You have ZERO allies on this battlefield, EVERYBODY is out to get you, you're going to die next round no matter what. The crossbow option won't save you; it will guarantee your death.

All of which may be too much to figure out while you're confused, but the Fight or Flight reflex is never, ever, about halfway measures; you're going to save your butt to the best of your ability, and if that means attacking (which it surely does when you're confused and roll a 76 or higher), then you're literally going to give it your best shot.

[Guru-Meditation]

What DM_Blake said.

[Matthew Downie]

DM_Blake wrote:

You have ZERO allies on this battlefield, EVERYBODY is out to get you, you're going to die next round no matter what. The crossbow option won't save you; it will guarantee your death.

I don't think that's in the spell at all. It doesn't let you take AoOs against anyone except the one person you think is an enemy. If you thought everyone was an enemy, it should require you to take AoOs against everyone you can.

And if the spell made you think everyone was an enemy, "escape by any means" would be the most plausible option, and "use AoE effects to attack everyone if you can" would be the second most logical, but the spell doesn't encourage you to do either of those things.

The "Fight or Flight" instinct is the one that prevents people from doing anything complicated - in real life, even firing a gun is almost impossible.

[Berinor]

If it were merely overriding your friend/foe sense, you could do some buffing or the like. It's messing with your higher reasoning more than that. It's fine to say you unload in the most effective way you know how, but it's also reasonable to think you simply attack. Which, frankly, makes it easier to shut down that caster completely with confusion since attacking them will keep them focused on you harmlessly.

[ryric]

We go with 3 in our group - but that applies whichever side you end up attacking. Just last Sunday in our Skull&Shackles game my witch got confused and we ruled he got stabby with his dagger, and laughed as he was able to somehow do 1d8 to himself with it. When "attack nearest creature" came up the first time, I stabbed at the PC barbarian next to me. When it came up the second time I stabbed at an enemy cleric that had invisibly moved next to me (I had see invisibility up).

I think as long as you're consistent it's okay to use any of the methods in the OP for your home game. Just don't make it #1 when attacking foes and #4 when attacking allies.

[Snowlilly]

My Self wrote:

Why not have the GM control the player when they're confused?

I do, if players try to meta-game.

[Diego Rossi]

Matthew Downie wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

You have ZERO allies on this battlefield, EVERYBODY is out to get you, you're going to die next round no matter what. The crossbow option won't save you; it will guarantee your death.

I don't think that's in the spell at all. It doesn't let you take AoOs against anyone except the one person you think is an enemy. If you thought everyone was an enemy, it should require you to take AoOs against everyone you can.

And if the spell made you think everyone was an enemy, "escape by any means" would be the most plausible option, and "use AoE effects to attack everyone if you can" would be the second most logical, but the spell doesn't encourage you to do either of those things.

The "Fight or Flight" instinct is the one that prevents people from doing anything complicated - in real life, even firing a gun is almost impossible.

The spell apply the confused condition and that say: "A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies."

[Cevah]

DM_Blake wrote:

Oh, come on now, you wade through 50 encounters and in EVERY one of those encounters, when you decide to attack (as a spellcaster) you do one of two things:

1. This fight is easy. I'll use a cantrip or a crossbow or this old wand of magic missiles I'm about to get rid of.
2. This fight is not easy. I'll blast the crap out of the dangerous monsters and hope I kill them right here, right now.

There is no in-between.

There is an in-between. I cannot tell friend from enemy, but I know some of them are friends who are trying to attack the enemy. I therefore want my real enemies not focus on me because someone is a bigger threat. If I accidentally hit a friend, they likely will not attack back. If I accidentally hit an enemy, they likely will hit back. Once I am hit, I go into a dedicated attack on that one until they are dead or I am not confused. With a single plink, I don't generate the focus that a massive hit does. Enemies will go after big threats first.

This is not metagaming, because it also happens when you are severely outnumbered, but awaiting reinforcements. You don't want them to focus on you, while you buy time for allies to come.

DM_Blake wrote:

By your own admission, EVERYBODY looks like an enemy. Also, many of them are hostile NPCs that seem to be as competent as you are. You're outnumbered with no friends. And rather than run away, you've decided to attack this enemy that outnumbers you and looks remarkably dangerous.

And THAT is the time you decide to plink with a crossbow, just so they think you're easier to kill than you are? No freaking way. You have ZERO allies on this battlefield, EVERYBODY is out to get you, you're going to die next round no matter what. The crossbow option won't save you; it will guarantee your death.

Not true.

I do have allies on the field, but I cannot tell who they are.
Not everyone is out to get me.

DM_Blake wrote:

All of which may be too much to figure out while you're confused, but the Fight or Flight reflex is never, ever, about halfway measures; you're going to save your butt to the best of your ability, and if that means attacking (which it surely does when you're confused and roll a 76 or higher), then you're literally going to give it your best shot.

Being confused is not that debilitating for a mental state. I can cast spells, so I can obviously think. What I cannot do is tell friend from foe.

/cevah

[Claxon]

I see it as mostly #1, but for spell casters it does not necessarily mean you will use your highest level spell. But you very well may do so, if you character would consider it tactically wise. You should treat the nearest person as if they were an enemy and attack them with the normal level of strategy and decision as you regularly would.

Which could mean you hit them with scorching ray or hungry pit or any number of spells. But it might also mean you just use acid splash because he's the only enemy left.

There's really no exact way to run this, but the GM should step in if they feel you are holding back too much.