Luei's page

Yeah the book is a good idea and all, but I would really like it if they had more stuff generalized, and more abilities in the special abilities section, like regeneration, fast healing, and especially stuff like tails and extra arms or legs or whatever. That would be really nice. Does anyone know how you could approximate any of that or similar abilities in this system?

The main problem I face is that the book is realllly vague on how to adjudicate ability score costs. Does anybody know how these are done? If we're doing something wrong, it's with the ability scores.

And I broke down the core races, and surprisingly gnomes are the most powerful, and almost deserve a level adjustment in this system, and halflings are the weakest, having only about half the points player created races are allowed.

Let me see if I can get the writer of the book to comment on this.

TANK YOU. So much. I really want this thing to be cool and be able to use it. The main thing is how to do the cost for the ability score modifiers. With that, the book is usable, if a bit lacking in special abilities.

I really hope someone responds to this this time. Seriously, this book looks awesome, but nobody in my group wants to use it because it seems incomplete. I'm sorry to say, but I'm a bit disappointed in it, mainly because of my previous concerns (above post).

I statted out all of the core races a while back, and it turned out that by this system, halflings had about half the average power level of a race, and gnomes had very close to a +1 adjustment. Is that right?? I mean, sure halflings kinda suck, but gnomes are way above everybody else by a long shot.

And I did all of those not knowing whether or not to add in the point costs for the ability scores, or just go with an average value, or what, and doing all of that did not help one bit in telling me how adjudicate costs for ability scores, or most of the racial abilities, because very few of them are actually listed.

I'd really appreciate if someone got back to me on this, even just a sentence or two. I like the idea of player created races, and I really, really wanna do it, but nobody in my group will accept races made based on assumptions in an unfinished system.

Just like the title. Do you keep your shield bonus when you're flat-footed? It would seem to me that you wouldn't, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb tribal. :)

So, I bought this book the other day, and its pretty cool, but there are some things that.... well, I'm confused about.

First, in the beginning of the book it says it will have a breakdown of the core races, but I don't see that anywhere. I'd like to have it so I can see the powers of the abilities and stuff they have.

Also, how are we to do the stat bonuses section? The part with the point values says its "assuming you've decided not to use the basic +2 to two
stats, -2 to another," so does it mean that you don't use those point values for doing the +2, +2, -2? And how many points does it cost for +2 to any ability score??

And lastly, they don't have a lot of special abilities in the miscellaneous features section. Specifically, they don't have stuff like fast healing, regeneration, and races with more than 2 arms or legs.

Am I missing something? Can someone please help me here?

/\/\ What he said.

Hi again. Yeah, that paragraph about non-stacking bonuses was wrong and inapplicable. I realized that after seeker told me it was.
And btw, 'Then fall Caesar!'
But now moving on.

I can see the validity in your arguments about the effects of the item. But, by the rules, after a LOT (over 100 posts) of debate on the topic, they both should and shouldn't stack. True, there is no rule precedent for them stacking. In fact, that 'effects' thing might prove so rules-wise. However, in all common sense and real (relative pertaining to magic) logic, they should stack. There have been dozens of examples why they should stack, and a few specific rules why they shouldn't.

So, yeah I'll concede that in a game run strictly RAW, shields wouldn't get the stacking bonuses. But in any other campaign, with a flexible DM, most of the time, it would be allowed.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Jacob or one of the PF big-wigs hasn't chimed in on a topic that is well over 100 posts and still going. Maybe they enjoy seeing the ants fight over bread crumbs. ;)

Different types there Skippy. One is a str bonus the other is a enhancement bonus. Also armor grants an armor bonus, while shields grant a shield bonus Again(this is stated) not the same thing.They stack. However bashing is an size increase effect. The spike is a size increase effect. They both are the same type so would not stack

Right. Okay, never mind.

But, the spike does not increase the size of the shield. I can see the bashing making the shield fake-large, because its based on some crazy magic, so it actually does pseudo-increase in size. However, the spikes don't actually make the shield larger. When added on to a medium sized shield, it doesn't make it a large sized shield, it just gives a bonus amount of damage AS IF it were larger. True, both are applied in the same way, but technically one is a physical bonus, while the other is a purely magical bonus. It's kind of like a strength and and enhancement bonus, no?

I saw it. I disagree, effects or bonus do not stack. It does not matter if they come from the same source or not.

Both items do the same thing. Make it count as one size or more larger. They do them in different ways. No matter how you look at this I can not see how you could count it as stacking. They do different types of damage, bashing can not be added to the spike, to improve the spikes damage it must be enhanced outside of the shield and effects do not stack

Sorry reads to be as Hard core loophole hunting as "Well the book didn't say and didn't give me 7 examples to cover any build and didn't make it clear enough" yada , yada , yada

Robert has been kind enough to show a few different ways the rules make this unlikely and a pure muchkin loophole

As always you can do what you like in your game

Okay, logic and reasoning don't work for you. You need a hard answer and a specific rule. I understand, but until one of the big boys puts a post up, just try to be open minded.

Using your argument, "effects or bonus do not stack. It does not matter if they come from the same source or not", then a fighter with a +3 one-handed melee weapon and 14 strength would only get a +3 bonus on attack and damage rolls with it. By your logic, they do the same thing, but in a different way, and shouldn't stack. Likewise, armor bonus and shield bonus shouldn't stack, for the same reason. Hell, none of the magic bonuses on those should stack, either.

Do you see my point that your logic is flawed?

And as for your spike argument, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE ITEMS. The spikes are simply an addition to the offensive parts of a shield. They are referred to as a collective, spiked shield, one item, not a shield with spikes. You still attack the same EXACT way regardless of whether your shield is spiked or not.
A shield without spikes can be enchanted both ways as well, as any item can. The spikes just change the damage. They change the way in which the shield hits. A shield, even without spike, can be enchanted with defending, but it would only apply to the offensive bonuses you have on it. You paid for it, you should be able to use it.

But the spike gives the effect one one size larger to the shield although the spike now does the damage not the shield(see damage type)

The bashing gives the shield the effect of 2 sizes larger not the spike. So the shield now does more damage then the spike, which dose not count as larger as bashing can not be added to the spike

Still not seeing how they can stack here

see my post right above that one. I tried to explain the rationale behind the bonuses stacking, since there seems to be no definitive rule for them doing or not doing so.

Petrus222 wrote:

Robert you're making this more complex than you need to.

Go to the wpns table, look up the damage for a spiked shield, add bashing

Which is the issue as you can't do that.Bashing adds to the shield not the spike.

Robert has the right of it I think.

Actually, the shield naturally has an offensive part, even without spikes. You can still bash with a shield without spike, you can still offensively enchant a shield without spikes. The spikes just fit within that fold of offensiveness. The reason to write it like that (+2 flaming shield spike) is for clarification that that bonus is indeed for the offensive part of the shield.

What is being argued is two different instances where an item is being "Considered" larger that it actually, but whose size is not actually altered, and asking them to stack and work together. That is a different type of stacking than what you closed your comment with, and should NOT stack because they are two different aspects asking the damage to be increased in the exact same fashion.

The larger of the two should override the lesser of the two; since both are "Acting" as larger, but no actual change in size.

You couldn't Enlarge yourself actually twice and cause them to stack, you shouldn't be able to damage as if you were larger twice and expect them to stack.

Think of it like this. Shield spikes don't increase the size of the shield in any way, that is assured. Instead, they do an extra amount of damage which is added onto a shield bash. This bonus is based on how big the shield is, and how hard it hits, and this is replicated through the change in dice.

The bashing enhancement makes the shield bash differently, either replicating the damage a larger creature would do with it, or adding more force behind the blow. Either way, it's purely magical, and changes the base attacking power of the shield.

Either way, the shield spikes are applied on top of the magical ability, since if it was replicating a larger shield, the spikes would be affected as if they were larger as well, and if the shield hit harder the spikes would penetrate further and do more damage.

Main thing to take away: bashing does change the force behind the blow and the way the shield works. Spikes do bonus damage that changes with said force proportionally (and is replicated through another change in die size).

It's in the Fighter class description. Every 4 levels he can swap a bonus feat for a different bonus feat.

Edit Ninja'd

I.... did not know that. That is actually really frickin' awesome. Kinda lets a fighter try out a feat before committing to it. That's pretty nice.

And a little house rule lecture by yours truly:

I do let people change their character, but I'm definitely not a sucker.

Small stuff like switching a feat is no problem, provided you never got to use the feat properly. Someone, say, paladin getting cleave at 1st level, cleaving the heck out of enemies until he deems it useless, and trying to return it for something else will just not happen.

My rule for vital strike is that you can use it whenever you do a single attack against a single target in a round (and it's not a feat chain, it's automatic). It works with charge, with spring attack, with jumping over a chasm and hitting someone on the other side... It doesn't work with cleave (two targets) or whirlwind attack (even more targets).

Yeah, I sometimes let my players change, but they don't ask to much. I have one player, though, that keeps killing his characters off so he can do yet another crazy character who soon dies. Iunno, maybe I am a bit biased from him.

I do like your house rule for vital strike, though I still argue that it and cleave become much less useful to higher level characters, especially ones that aren't fighters. Fighters pretty much own in whatever they do, and you can't argue.

Though I will admit I was a bit too jaded about cleave and vital strike at first. However, it doesn't make much of a difference to me, since not many of my characters would benefit from either.

Myself, I have every intention of using it. A lot.

• It's great for monks who use dice more than bonuses to inflict damage and want to make the most of their mobility and still do reasonable damage without their flurry-of-blows.
  
• It's great for using with feint and sneak attack to add some damage to an Improved Feint & Sneak attack combo.
  
• These feats get useful anywhere where you don't have a full action to attack in, in short.
  

And as I said above, a feat that enables you to charge and use a standard-action feat combined would be welcomed, but otherwise you can still move and deliver a respectable hit. With Cleave and great Cleave you can likewise move and make multiple attacks. It makes combat more mobile, which is a good thing in my book.

Well, I can see your arguments, but I don't like putting all my eggs in one basket (more damage, one attack). While potentially powerful, I think there are more potent feats than vital strike and cleave, especially for the characters I play. And maybe because I never play monks, or anyone that would greatly benefit from having it. So maybe I am a little prejudiced, but I don't like paying the types of characters that would get a real kick out of it. My... more challenged friends usually fill those roles.

EDIT: Not saying that you are like them! Please take no offense at that last line!

Hold person/monster hasn't (fortunately) come up against the PCs while effected by active FoM spells so far, but that is something I didn't even think about. Thanks for that heads-up Michael!

Just for the record, I hate hold person. I think it should be tied to a pole and burned alive.

But at higher level the fighter can change out his cleave when it becomes useless

What do you mean he can change out cleave? I don't think (to my knowledge) there is a system for anybody, even fighters, to swap feats, unless he has a sucker for a DM....

I wouldn't think they'd need that much modification to play in PRPG. I'd probably do the following:

+2 Dex (complements use of Fly skill)
Fly is always a class skill
+2 Perception replaces +2 Spot
Favored Class: Any One

Yeah, those changes sound about right, I mean, they are just about the only playable, balanced (emphasis) race that can naturally fly.

And I have not heard the teasers about a new winged race, but I look forward to it, and hope it is awesome.

No? Nothing on Raptorans for a Pathfinder game? I mean, I know they're unpopular, so PF wouldn't (and shouldn't) have wasted their time with them so soon in the game, but nobody has a proposition for a change/update for them?

Yeah, I was just pointed at the FAQ, and I know I was wrong. Just the way it was worded was extremely weird to me. And so I assumed what it meant, and that's not what they meant. And they way they meant it, vital strike and cleave IMO really suck now. There's only really 2 ways to use them, and those are as a sneak attack, and at the end of a move action.

Well, hey! I'm never gonna use vital strike now! Pretty much ever! I mean, you can't use it in a charge, or even with Spring Attack (perhaps)! What is the point!? I can see only a 1-hit kill obsessed assassin taking this, but a better option would be more attacks, since you can add sneak attack damage multiple times.

And since Vital Strike works the same way as Cleave (ambiguity now cleared up, thanks for the link, Dilvish), that means that most situations with cleave would also be pretty much ruled out. I mean, the only time you would use the feat is to run up and attack a couple of guys, and you can't even charge to do it. Overall, I think there are much better feats than these as they stand now.

And now I know why Vital Strike is almost universally disliked.

Here's why I think vital strike would count on almost any attack at you full bab (if there is an official ruling on this, like from Jason, please let me know):
the feat description reads: "When you use the attack action," (that means any attack, including a full attack, not just a standard) "you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. (I take that to mean that once per round, you can make an attack at your full bab that does this extra damage.)

At the end of a charge, you get to take a standard action, whether that be an attack, a combat maneuver, or in this case a cleave attack.

And as far as vital strike, I'm convinced from the wording that you get it on the first attack you make in any round that uses your full attack bonus. I'll explain myself if someone wants.

So, contrary to what the title might lead you to believe, I have not made raptorans into PF rules. Rather, I am looking for someone more experienced in race balancing to do so. Mainly the reason I like them is because they are one of the very few races that can naturally fly, and I think they're generally awesome. But I think they're really kind of underpowered compared to the pathfinder races. Not that much, though. I mean, for the house rules they would be for now, I think that just sone stat boosts would likely do it. And it's between being a raptoran or a hobgoblin here, and I'd rather be a raptoran.

Well wait, it seems I read a bit wrong in the rules. Cleave says "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe in reach." Vital strike says "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage." This would mean that, of course vital strike is used on the first cleave attack, but none of the subsequent, and even the first attack in a full attack action gets vital strike, which means this feat just got a lot more awesome.

However, it kind of makes this question thread moot, since I don't think there is an attack that works like cleave, meaning that cleave and great cleave are now utterly useless, especially at higher levels, since you get no other attacks than the cleave ones, even at your higher bab.

Edit: well, I guess you get all the cleave attacks as only a standard action, so I guess it would actually be useful in a lot of situations.

Wasn't there a feat somewhere that allowed threatening from 30 feet? Or is that the same feat you were mentioning above? I didn't think it was in Quintessential Elf- at least the version I saw.

yeah, it was. It's called ranged threat. I forget the prereqs, but it was only 20 feet. Pretty awesome, but again, it's in quintessential elf.

Casting doesn't provoke. Making a ranged attack does. Always.

Hey, I don't like it either, so I house ruled it. But it's still a house rule. Officially, any ranged attack, no matter what the source, even a quickened spell, provokes.

ooh. I kinda see the reasoning behind it now. It comes from ranged at melée. But thy still seems ridiculous that they'd do that, since almost all AoO against spellcatsing are at melée range anyways, so that part of the quickened spell feats description is pretty much useless it would seem. I find thy silly. I will house rule it too.

So yeah, like in the title, do effects that require you take a single attack as a standard action, like cleave and vital strike, stack? Maybe just for the first attack with those two combined? Also, while we're here, just to clarify, you can't make a full attack action and have one of these effects on one of your attacks, right?

Any rogue can sneak attack with damage dealing spells that require an attack roll.

Yeah, it's nowhere in the rules, but in a 3.5 FAQ thing, the writer clarified that attacks like ranged touch attacks and melee touch attacks can still get sneak attack. It's pretty awesome. He just has to have a spell that requires an attack roll and deals some sort of damage (even stat damage) to sneak attack with it.

That's what I thought. Since the creatures aren't introduced until the PCs are 11th level, the Will Saves aren't that hard in some cases..

And thank god for that, I say! That dog would tear them apart otherwise!

oh yeah.. then in that case I meant 5 instead of 7.

The way I think they meant the spell to work was to negate the effects of anything physical or magical done to the character to restrain, slow, or cripple him. Read this way he would get immunity to the effects of all paralysis, spells like slow and web, grappling, restraints, chains or ropes, water (as specified in the rules).
However, read this way, he would still "move normally" over terrain and ground, so while he wouldn't suffer from "hampered movement" (p.170 CRB) like terrain effects, obstacles, and poor visibility, he would still be blocked by impassable objects.
As for squeezing, he would still be technically squeezed, but would take no penalties on attack or movement.
As for being tied up, that would hinder him, so he would likely (in my interpretation) automatically pass an escape artist check to get out. The smart thing for the baddies to do would be to take away his ring, or dispel the magic effect.
As for climbing (slope or wall), he would move normally up it, so yes he would take penalties, and yes he would have to climb.
As for water, I think you are right on how he would move, but I think he would have to actually swim, since that's how he would normally move, though some would say he can walk up or down or anything like that in the water.
As for grease, I'm not so sure. He definitely gets no speed penalty, but either he would never slip and fall, or he would at least get some sort of bonus on his check.

aaaawwwwWWWWW... Why you guys have to cite rules that make sense?? :)

Wellll, I guess I can't do that anymore, and it's not like my DM isn't gonna read this thread, so I guess I'll just be a hobgobby or something. Thanks for the feedback.

But just imagine if it did work like that, it would be so awesome, only having to wait until level 4, instead of level 6.

Oh, ambiguity, where would we be without you? :)

But yeah, An effective +4 bonus from a feat is pretty darned good. Any more and it would be kind of OP, don't you think? Either way, now I know, too. Thanks for linking that post.

Oh, hi! I didn't see you there.

Okay, after reviewing the rules in the core rulebook on feats and the "shields" area on p.462, I have concluded thusly:

Shield focus would factor into the bonus granted by Shield Mastery.
Enhancement bonuses do not, and here's why:
In the Magic Items chapter (where I previously mentioned and around there), it specifically types the bonus granted by enchanting the shield as "shield enhancement bonus", not "shield bonus".
It further says that "Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash." Also, "A shield could be built that also acted as a magical weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."
From this I gather that, indeed, a shield needs to be doubly enchanted to give both AC and attack and damage bonuses, and that the writers intended this to stay constant, even in the wake of Shield Mastery.

Oh, and by the by, bashing also gives a +1 bonus to attack and damage of the shield.

But I propose to you that light, medium, and heavy armors are separated from shields within the list. They are there because they have the same effects, but whenever referred to in rules or such, they are always called out individually. It's either "all armor", which is armors and shields, "armorS", which means light, med, or heavy, and then each separately.

In addition, the rules for armor training say "while wearing armor". Granted you technically wear a shield, but they refer to that (in armor mastery, for example) as "using a shield".

So mneh!! :)

Oh, hey. Shield master adds to your damage roll too. Hadn't noticed.

As for the shield focus bonus, I don't believe they would give you a bonus on attack and damage from having shield mastery, simply for the reason that it doesn't come from the "shield bonus" of your shield, it comes from having the feat. A matter of contention, though.

As for the enhancement bonus being added, i don't think so. the give a shield an offensive enhancement, you have to pay for it and apply it from the magical WEAPON aspect of it. It's a given you have to do so when using shield spikes, and they don't modify the shield in any substantial way lending to this argument, so it should be the same for a regualr shield.

I'll assume you mean armor training, as it does what you describe.
In the description, is says armor, and only armor. It makes no mention of shields, as armor mastery does. The rules for a given skill have to specify between armor and shields, since they are handled radically different.

So no, you don't get any ACP off of shields, and the max you can remove from your character is however much is on the armor alone. The shield ACP is not affected in any way. Sorry.

Smiles and kittens. That is all.

Well, the ability doesn't have a duration, so either it happens once or every round, no in between. Since it's a constant source (the monster's gaze) I'd lean toward every round. And since there is no duration, it means there is no persistent effect (except the damage of course), and thus the characters affected get a save every round. (unlike a poison which allows a save and does more damage over time if the character fails, and thus has a duration)

Pretty much, like how natural darkness is just pretty dark, and that magical darkness has to be specified, like when the spell darkness is cast. I doubt there's a magical or special paralysis, but if there was it would have to be specified when applied.

Okay, spot on except that it states in the Greater Bull Rush feat description that all allies, but not you, get an attack of opportunity against him. So no, you can't just keep pushing him for a mile in one round.

page 287 Core rulebook

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

So yeah, since he's continually under the effect of the spell. Boo-yah.

Your shield bonus and damage calculations look sound, from a glance, but I don't think you did the attack roll one right.
Specifically, I don't think Shield Master adds your entire AC bonus from shield to your attack roll. Rather, the feat specifies that you add your "shield bonus" to the attack roll. I think it means the "+2 heavy steel shield" part of your AC calculation is also added to the attack roll. I also don't think you add the enhancement modifier on attack rolls, since you have to reenchant the shield with an offensive bonus to get a magical bonus on attack. So your attack bonus, then, I believe, would be +20/+15/+10.

As a side note, try adding spikes to your shield. They add another size worth of damage to the shield, making it 2d6 (though a few people here on the forums don't believe bashing and shield spikes stack, though they obviously should, won't get into it any more now).

Scipion del Ferro wrote:

Doesn't it evoke an AoO from being a ranged attack or is that only with ranged weapons?

Yes, it provokes, even when quickened. Which is silly. But true.

No, no, no. According to the Quicken Spell metamagic feat you dont provoke AoO from Quickened spells. I'll assume that quickened spell-like abilities work the exact same way.

According to the rules, TECHNICALLY, no the acid splash wouldn't be a sneak attack, since it's not a melee attack and therefore wouldn't count as a flanking attack. However, I as a DM would allow it, since the flanked character is obviously still threatened by the big bad orc wielding a falchion, and might have already taken a hit from him. I'd even give the attack the flanking bonus. True, for a ranged attack, he would likely back off a little (still withing his own 5-foot square, I'm just speaking hypotheticals), but he doesn't have to. Either way, the attack doesn't provoke an AoO. I'd rule that melee-range ranged attcks still flank, since you are still an obvious threat.

In answer to Q1:
Yeah, the tower shield gives total cover from NPC1 and 5, but I'd say not against NPC2, 3, or 4. However, I'd say since he's a reactive opponent (as opposed to an actual wall) he can see the attacks incoming and shift his position, maybe giving up an attack of opportunity to get total cover from a declared attack? For example, NPC2 attacks him while he is facing NPC1, he can, before NPC2's attack roll, expend a use of an attack of opportunity to change direction to NPC2, thus giving him total cover against the attack. Though at that point he would have less than total against NPC1, 3, and 4. Nowhere in the rules does it say this, mind you, that's just what I would do. DM's call. and it would give someone a lot more reason to have high Dex and take Combat Reflexes.

In answer to Q2:
(Again, no official ruling on this) Well, the way I see it, an expanding ball (or wall, what have you) of fire curls around things it goes past, as long as there is lots more fire to push it there. But when there's something at the end of a fireball's reach, it can effectively block it. So I'd say that if PC were right next to the source for the breath attack, or was in about the middle, he'd still get hit by the breath (i'm assuming here that breath works lie fire, no matter the type, cuz lets be honest, how often do you see a spray of lightning in a cone?). However, if he was near the outside, maybe a couple spaces in but definitely the end spaces, he'd be totally protected. Though I might make his shield take the damage from the attack and see if it breaks, and then if it does then he takes the rest of the damage. I think it's really a DM call.

Its basically a requirement for the foot bow.

Lying on your back with your feet holding the bow.

Yeah, firing from prone like this has actually been done in real life, as a tactical attack with a bunch of guys. Haven't you seen movies?? :)

But yeah, if one of my players wanted to fire their bow from supine with their feet, id let them TRY, but I doubt they'd make it, since I would give them huge penalties. But hey, imagine a crit like that. That would make the character the undisputed most awesome thing since Chuck Norris.

So, I was thinking of a character for a drow campaign, and I came upon this little thought: since a drow gets natural spell-like abilities, couldn't you qualify for Arcane Trickster with only three rogue levels and a level in a spellcasting class??

Regular drow get Darkness, which is a level 2 arcane spell, and nobles get levitate, so they qualify for that part. They'd need 3 levels of rogue for the sneak attack, and one level of spellcasting class for casting mage hand.

But wait, one of the rogue talents grants you a 0-level spell to use. So a Drow rogue could qualify for Arcane trickster at level 3 with NO spellcasting class, except for the skill reqs. Right!?

I really want to see how people respond before I say more!

Yeah I know you can do about whatever you want in dnd, I was just thinking how effective it might be. And I think it would be pretty darned. Except for the mediocre stats needed for the build, you'd have a lot of freedom to choose more feats and abilities, since all you'd really need to focus on is your sneak attack and other stuff, since the axe would make up for a lot of the other shortcomings.

Humm the Demon mistress of cookies has not found you yet it seems. Anyhow welcome

I would very much like to meet this demon mistress you speak of.

So Precise Shot will also need to be a consideration.

Yeah, I already have that one in my feat list. But thanks for the reminder about soft cover from others.