Sapient's page

Gisher wrote:

The Spell Storing Rune doesn't include the word 'range' anywhere in its text, either.

"Usage etched onto a melee weapon"

If you find a spell with a range shorter than touch, the question may be raised.

This doesn't follow. The weapon is not the "target" of the spell. The caster casts the spell into the weapon. The weapon later strikes a creature, an action is spent, and the spell is unleashed with the target of the strike being the target of the spell. There is no text that uses the word "range". The only "target" of the spell is the creature the spell is being released on.

If the ammunition of Eldritch Shot is not the origin point of its released spell, why is a Spell Storing weapon the origin point of its release spell?

Your spell flies with the ammunition. Then it hits a creature out of the spell range.
The rule "Spells with a range can affect targets, create areas, or make things appear only within that range." kicks in and the spell doesn't affect the target.

If there's nothing clearly indicating that the rule about range is overridden then the rule is still there. Flying with the ammunition doesn't change the spell range.

I disagree. While I understand what you are saying, reading through a half dozen discussions of Eldritch Shot and various touch spells, I didn't find anyone else interpreting "flies with the ammunition" the way you are. At most, RAW is ambiguous.

I did find a thread where you analyzed a Fighter with Eldritch Shot using Gouging Claw, where you found it to be suboptimal. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43gdq&page=2?Arcane-Cascade-for-Starlit-Sp an#66

Which raises a question. If "flies with the ammunition" does not affect general range rules, how does Eldritch Shot work with touch-ranged spells? Touch spells require that you, not ammunition, touch the target. Are you casting the spell, imbuing it into the bow, sending it with the ammunition, then reaching out to touch the target? And your ranged attack roll determines if your ranged attack succeeds AND if your spell attack succeeds? What happens if you are using a crossbow, where both your hands are occupied?

You consider that the override is implied, implied doesn't mean RAW, but RAI. Per RAW, there's no override as there's nothing stating that the range has to be ignored.

Also, casting touch range spells at whatever range is the too good to be true rule, not the other way around. And there's no too bad to be true rule anyway.

It isn't implied. It is stated. "Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell." When a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule takes precedence. It does not have to declare it is overriding the general rule.

Under "Other Archetypes", Talisman Dabbler:

"I’m pretty sure even Grand Talisman Esoterica and Talismanic Sage stack, allowing 4 affixed talismans at once, since they are their own abilities."

I believe this is incorrect. Both abilities allow you to treat one item, allowing it to have two talismans. Using both on the same item item would be redundant. Having both abilities would allow you to apply two talismans to two different items, however.

Nonat1s' deep dive Class Guide is up.
Video link

] You get the implement at 6 according to the preview. The weapon provides a good AoO equivalent for anyone who wants it. My other choice would probably be mirror for the auto flank. Some parties might benefit from tome in the early game for an extra pair of skills but that falls off and would need to be retrained later.

The Tome skills are chosen daily, and eventually become Legendary. The Tome grants a circumstance bonus to attacks after a successful, free Recall Knowledge check. Using one or both of those skills for appropriate Lore skills could make the Recall Knowledge checks easier.

I think the value of the Tome depends a lot on your GM's style, how they handle Recall Knowledge checks, and how important skill checks are outside of combat. Being able to boost skills to fit your circumstances could be great. Need to know about smuggling? You're an expert! How do you sail that stolen ship? No problem.

With the Sanguine Mist and Cloudkill ideas, now I want to make a Bones Oracle with a Sylph Versatile Heritage with the Smokesoul and Cloud Gazer feats. I love the idea of a death-connected Oracle standing/walking around in constant fogs. I'm not sure how to expand on the idea though. Maybe some wands/scrolls to get a Obscuring Mist.

No. It is good to have one more. Generally 2 is pretty ideal. Then you can open up with 4 to 6 actions to Scare to Death on equal or lower level mobs, which can be problematic when coupled with a boss. Over 2 though not super productive unless you're in some campaign with a lot of minions.

This would mean that half a typical party had pumped up Charisma and invested their skill points into Intimidation. So not only are they doubling up on abilities that will not always benefit from being doubled, they will not have invested in other things, which makes the party weaker.

Certainly one can imagine times when 2 characters could be using STD at the same time. But maybe one of them would have have liked to have more hit points, better saves, and Athletics though all those other battles.

STD has been fine in our game. I think between 15th and 18th level, it has killed 3 or 4 creatures that were not really that big of a threat anyway. Balfeful Polymorph has done more. The Rogue that has STD now can just walk through walls, and I kind of love the idea of an enemy anticipating the arrival of a party of demigod-like adventurers, suddenly a voice emerging from the wall behind them proclaiming their doom.

I think the major issue with pay to play GMing is that we don't really have a well established and accepted system for handling it. Organized play campaigns could provide that system, but they are currently set up strictly for amateur GMs. PFS GMs do get some perks (early access to some modules, extra XP credit for GMing rather than playing a scenario, and the like), but that is about it.

The reason some sort of organization would be needed is that it involves getting GMs and players who are strangers to each other together and providing a standard contract as to how much the GM would be paid, where and when the games would be played (and compensation for the host, if he is not also the GM), what happens if someone cancels the game or fails to show up, and so forth -- and many players would be reluctant to sign such a contract if they have no idea what a campaign with this paid GM would be like. It is a lot easier to work such things out informally if everyone already is acquainted with at least one other person in the gaming group and no money is changing hands.

All very good points. I think the situation would be easier for short term agreements. I can very much see a use-case for paid GM's who help new players for 1-4 sessions. I might very well pay to play in various RPG systems under that paradigm.

That all sounds very much like "get to the back of the bus, where you belong" to me.

Let's not compare social media sites regulating advertisements to segregation. Thanks.

There may be a "best choice" for an action with a given character in a given situation, if you are judging "best" as that which results in the least usage of resources (such as HP, spell slots, and consumables).

But, "best choice" and "good enough choice" are not significantly different in outcome. Obviously, there is essentially no difference in losing 10 more HP over the course of an adventuring day. But I'd argue there is little difference between ending an adventuring day with 100% HP and 1% HP. HP is easy to regenerate, and the game (especially APs) allows you to trade in-game time for in-game healing with little or no in-game consequences. Spell slots refill with time. Consumables should be provided by the GM so that they are sufficient for the flow of the adventure.

So even if you could measure what is "the best" action to take, it would not be important to take that action. "Good enough" is good enough.

Further, it is generally impossible for the player (or character) to know what "the best" action might be. How many spell slots will be used before rest? How much damage is incoming? Will another player turn a diplomatic encounter into a bloodbath? You don't know what resources to preserve and which can be spent freely.

So just be effective enough and play to have fun. There is lots of room for choice.

I generally dislike awarding Hero Points for impressive play. It is so subjective, and my experience is that GM's tend to be wildly inconsistent (myself included). I also don't like how it excludes shyer players.

I tend to be louder, taking my full share plus of table time. That is reward enough in itself. I don't think I should get an extra reward for doing more in the game.

I prefer an even distribution of HPs, with extra being awarded for table support (brining treats, managing the loot list, hosting the game, etc).

That's a bad faith argument if I ever saw one. Comparing a single weapon to the myriad of ever expanding dedications you can take.

I agree talk about it beforehand. But I also agree if you don't want to use it you don't have to. Those slots can sit right there until you decide to use them. No reason to give them something else.

It is an entirely appropriate comparison. The GM is granting a bonus that player may not feel fits their character vision. Granted, a whole bunch of free feats is much more valuable than a singe weapon, and as such a player who does not partake would be at a larger disadvantage.

Here is the reason to give players something else if they don't want the Free Archetype. It makes the game more fun, keeps the characters more balanced, and costs literally nothing. I play with friends, and when I GM, my goal is for everyone at the table to enjoy themselves. I'm not going to presume that a player should want to use archetypes just like I'm not going to presume that a player should want to use swords. If I'm going to give one character a boost towards their vision, I want to give the others an equivalent boost, even if it is not identical. Someone might want a staff instead of a sword. Someone might prefer the Ancestry Paragon variant to the Free Archetype variant. They are similar enough in value and power, and cost me nothing.

Oh absolutely. Turning around to the GM who is kindly offering everyone a free archetype, throwing back in their face and demanding special treatment is definitely a recipe for hurt feelings.

Now that would be a GM to avoid at all costs.

It is perfectly reasonable for players to want to fulfil their vision for their players AND have similar advantages that were granted to others. If a GM declared everyone was getting a +1 sword at character creation, it would be completely appropriate for a player designing a wizard to ask for something else. No competent GM would consider the sword as a gift in the first place, much less one that could be thrown back in their face. No competent GM would consider it "special treatment" to give boosts based on character design rather than GM whim.

This is the sort of thing that a GM and players should discuss before the game starts, because they all should be working together to make a game that is fun for everyone.

I'm giving my players the choice of Free Archetype, Ancestry Paragon, or some in game narrative advantage. I don't want a player to feel like they are missing out, but some may not want the additional complexity of the FA.

While I usually agree that averages are a very, very good meter for almost everything they usually do not take into consideration other circumstances because averages by their very nature tend to not take into account the specific effects of burst or range.

Sure, I agree with your entire post. I was trying, maybe poorly, to get at that with my Shove example. This rough models should compare abilities with similar application. But given similar applicability across typical encounters, as a common damage spell and Scare to Death have, looking at average damage levels tells you a lot about balance, where as the specific results of a specific encounter for one single group does not.

I do not believe that is comparable. A situation next to a cliff is rare...

Agreed that it is rare. The point I was trying to make is that the results of a specific singular encounter can't be treated as representative. My Heroism encounter was notable for having a series of rolls that made heroism basically perfect for the encounter. But that is not representative of the actual utility of the spell. Your Calikang had the right rolls against the right opponents as well. Lots of abilities are incredible when rolls and circumstances are right. But that is not predicative of future utility.

Anyway, I don't think you and I are actually all that far apart. I do think Scare to Death is strong, and is comparable to other strong options. Add Legendary Linguist to the mix, and you can get around the language barrier penalty (for creatures with language).

It is certainly among the more appealing of the Legendary Skill Feats.

Your use of averages tends to skew what happens in real play. Averages are what occur over a long time, not in finite short-term combats with lots of d20s getting rolled with shifting modifiers.

Honestly, looking at averages is FAR more useful than considering one specific run of one specific encounter at one specific table.

In my table's last session, our cleric cast Heroism on our Rogue. By happenstance, this turned each of 5 hits into crits, nearly doubling the amount of damage the character did. This additional damage was also more than was done by any other character in the party. So a 2-action spell resulted in more damage than all the actions of a Druid across 2 fights. Should Heroism be nerfed because it was so effective with the specific rolls in this specific example? Or was this case just an extreme case?

Averages help us understand the actual strength and balance of various options.

Just for completeness, Air Walk should also be considered. It is the same level as Fly, and does not require hover at all.

I never noticed that Explorer's Clothing is not listed as armor for purposes of talismans. I wonder if that was an intentional design decision. It is hard for me to imagine that you can etch runes into clothes, but can't attach a small item.

Some of the armor talismans are literally pins. The Sneaky Key "can be pinned to armor or a sleeve."

I suspect RAI is that Explorer's Clothing can accept talismans.

Really, this seems much easier handled with, yes that spell Whirling Scarves in gods in magic sounds like something you would have taught you, so yes you can have that in your spells known for free.

Isn't that exactly what the "Uncommon" tag is for?

Uncommon: Something of uncommon rarity requires special training or comes from a particular culture or part of the world. Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone.

Check with your GM. Maybe you can have it as just one of your standard options. Maybe you can buy it. Maybe you haven't made the right choices to have or buy it. Maybe the whole party can get access to it because of that thing they did. That's "Uncommon".

Calling a spell "common", but then saying you need to access it in a different way, though maybe for free if you ask your GM is clunky, and again doesn't fit well with lore.

Definitely seems like a PFS type of rule, given their "You must have the book physically/electronically to use that" philosophy. It is too bad they aren't somehow working more closely with the rules side so that the printed books are mostly aligned with PFS as they come off the press, but that could simply be impractical (certainly sounds tough).

Even with PFS, there isn't typically an extra in-game cost to access materials from a non-core book. Fighters don't have to pay 16 gold to then be able to buy a 3rd level splat-book shield at the regular price.

I personally don't care about the extra costs, or the lack of immediate access for new spells for Clerics. I just hate the inelegance of the mechanics and the lore. Rarity tags have little value if you still have to look up other factors to determine how accessible something is. And how does the lore explain this? Deities grant their clerics the ability to cast certain spells. But some smaller number of spells are only available to those clerics who both please their gods AND have exchanged money with the proprietor of Midtown Spell Shack.

I like the thought of my characters existing in some capacity forever in some sort of higher existence, but if they need to give up their memories for that, it would be sad but I'm okay with that. But it's the PF cosmology as I've read it that has all souls eventually being annihilated that I have issue with.

But I've let this thread get out of control, I haven't been able to post as much as I've wanted to. Since things are getting heated, I wouldn't mind if a mod closed the thread, it's also been going into some dark places. Figures I come back after a few years and start a mess.

Reiterating what others have said, none of the issues in this thread are your fault.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I may not share those same long term desires for my characters, nor perhaps see the framing of the fiction as so absolute, but I really enjoy seeing how important people's creations are to them. It shows a deep dive into the story building, which I always like at my tables (whether I'm a player or a GM).

When I consider the future of my characters, I see the long term lore of the established universe to be too uncertain to draw any real conclusions. After all, Pharasma did not foresee the death of Aroden, and prophesy is not what it used to be. My characters have a long time to enjoy the afterlife (if their personal afterlife is enjoyable to them), and perhaps have thousands and thousands of stories to experience. Maybe they will welcome oblivion after so much time. Maybe they will find a way out. Ending my time with them is sort of like sending a kid out into the world. It isn't my story anymore, and my decision to live with that uncertainty means a certain freedom for them. Even if they don't exist.

That's also how I feel about characters in my writings. Once I stop writing, they are not really mine anymore. (This is not a claim that I am a "writer" in any but the loosest terms).

It's good that you're disengaging because you're 1.) just begging the question (also known as using circular logic) and 2.) dismiss me by saying you can't convince me when you yourself might be just as susceptible to that sort of self deception. So if you're saying it's impossible to convince me otherwise, then it's fair to say that it's impossible to convince you otherwise. So, in effect, you're saying people don't believe things because of reason but are just determined to believe a certain thing which would make it impossible to falsify your claim or anyone elses.

You're also catagorically, objectively wrong about the nature of philosophy. If you're going to take a staunch empericist stance you're going to cut your legs out from under you because you can't establish the truth of empericism with empericism. Furthermore, if you only care about things that are testable I guess you don't care about mathmatics, formal logic, or history.

Can I suggest that one should not complain about logical fallacies in a post so dependent on straw men?

Beyond that, you really do not need to approach these discussions with such hostility. Why care if anyone bites on your rough outline for a pretend moral structure for a pretend universe? You are not trying to describe a logically robust system for behavior in the real world. Like the official Pathfinder system, yours just needs to be described enough for your players to have a framework for guiding their character's decisions. Like Pathfinder's it can be as silly as it needs to be.

I don't want my character to continue just like he was, and I resent the notion I just want to use death as a way to get more power.

To be clear, James said "some players" would see death as a free upgrade. He didn't say that about specifically, or even about most players. I think it is a fair thing to be concerned about.

The stone golem reduced it to dying 2 in one round of attacks... But that was effectively stunning the golem for a round in terms of it hurting PCs. Then the troll regens and gets back up.

Summoned creatures are banished if their HP is reduced to 0.

This was an interesting thread for a while.

... There was no need to spell this out.

So what's the reason you can't speak in any of the battle forms?

I don't know why some of you defend poorly written rules myself, but I'll take care of them in my games.

The parenthetical is simply indicating that the ability of a given form to perform a given manipulate action should be adjudicated by the GM, as there are simply too many possibilities for a rules book to cover them all. It would be impossible to consider every possible action for every form.

However, it would be quite easy for the rules to specify whether a given form could cast spells, which is why GM input is not needed. (Of course, a GM can always change or interpret any rule at any time.)

No one is "defending poorly written rules". We are explaining the meaning and intent of a certain rule.

So these are the actions that caused the designers to write "You can use manipulate actions" into Dragon Form, Righteous Might, and Elemental form according to Raving Dork. The only one I see of any likely use is Interact or Grab an Edge if you're not a flier. I'm not even sure you can use combat feats in battle form since the attacks are specific. I doubt this list is what caused them to put "You can use manipulate actions" on those forms.:

[list redacted for space]

First, you don't need to talk about Raving Dork in the 3rd person, as if he is not here and participating.

It seems to me there are numerous actions in that list that are obviously applicable. Would a polymorphed character never want to open a door or pick up an object (interact)? Is there no value in pointing out the location of an invisible enemy?

But more importantly, I don't think we need to try to imagine everything anyone might want to do. The rule for GM adjudication is there so that when a player thinks of a manipulate action, the GM can consider the actual shape of the polymorphed appendages and decide whether they are appropriate to the task. A bear paw might not be able to turn a door knob, but might be well suited for a lever-style door handle.

I was going to say "if your players are really that predictable, maybe they are just boring players."

Because I've had quite a few players over the years that didn't surprise me, and every time it was because they were going to do the same short list of things for the same short list of reasons no matter what scenario I put in front of them. They built a box for the way it was "best" for them to play and really struggled to even see the possibilities outside of that box.

And then I have players for whom when I say the phrase "why am I not surprised?" it is because they have, once again, managed to do something I didn't consider when planning the scenario and thinking of all the "crazy" stuff that player has done in the past, and they've just defied the pattern again.

I'm know there are GM's who think players won't surprise them simply because their players have learned those GM's can't and won't deal with surprises.

I've certainly been in campaigns where the GM has responded to player actions with "the module doesn't allow that" or "you are supposed to do X now" or "am I not making it clear there is an easier way to do this?". I don't think those GM's realize they have taken away player agency.

This is amazing news. Make July 2021 come faster!

Because their effects are still terrible. :P
"I wouldn't use this even if it was free!"
But it is free.
"Yes, it is, and I wouldn't use it. And I wouldn't pay for it either."

It is a whole combination of things. The effects can be pretty niche. You can have a maximum of 3 (or 4 with enough Dabbler feats). They are extremely expensive. They are the sort of thing you are likely to forget you even have, since it is hard to work them into your standard strategies.

What if you made them into once/day items, like wands? The price would be similar to wands for similar effects, would use fewer actions to use, but carry more restrictions for what could trigger them.

While it doesn't help the Dabbler much, one of the people at my table has suggested we reduce the price of talismans to 1/10th the current value.

I would love to utilize the Talisman Dabbler, but I find it extremely difficult to justify, at least for the specific builds I've been playing with. Grabbing a spell casting archetype has simply been too much better to consider the Dabbler.

I acknowledge talismans have some advantages over spells. They are often free actions, giving a real benefit without eating into a character's action economy. They are also not dependent on attributes, skills, or class features.

On the other hand, talismans are pricey. Consider the Vanishing Coin, which gives the 2nd level invisibility spell, lasing until your next turn. It can be used as a free action, but must be used under specific circumstances. It costs 160 gp. A scroll of 2nd level invisibility lasts for 10 minutes, has the usual scroll casting requirements, but only costs 12 gp. Or, for the 160 gp the Vanishing Coin costs, you could buy a wand of invisibility, which could be used once per day (again, using 2 actions, needing the right class feature or Trick Magic Item).

Talismans are also limited. You can have just one on each of your armor, shield, and weapon. And they take time to affix to your items. If you don't carry a shield, you basically have 2 niche expensive items that hopefully will save you an action or two at an opportune time.

The Talisman Dabbler might be able to make talismans more attractive, but does it? You get two talismans free each day, and can affix them with less downtime. You are also able to craft instead of buying, which is handy for when you are out and about. With the 4th and 14th level feats, you can basically have 4 free affixed talisman/day. It isn't terrible.

But compare that to the Sorcerer archetype? At level 14 you could have 2 cantrips, and 5 spells and spell slots, levels 1-5.

Further, the Talisman Dabbler's free talismans are limited to 1/2 your character level. So at level 20, you could create the aforementioned Vanishing Coin, which grants a 2nd level spell. The sorcerer archetype can do this at level 6.

I do understand the Vanishing Coin gives a free action, and the Dabbler has no attribute prerequisites. But I think it is a rare build that would find it more useful than one of the spellcasting options.

Soooooo, what could make it worthwhile? I agree that making the talismans themselves less niche would help. But that requires a lot of changes. Maybe the Dabbler can be adjusted. More free talismans (usable only by the dabbler)? Maybe changing the maximum level of free talismans from 1/2 character level to level-2 (minimum of 1)? Lowering the feat levels?

But to what end? You could just as easily said an hour late, or 30 minutes, or not show up at all. Hell, in most cases i would consider them late if the GM shows up 10 minutes prior to the start. I just don’t see how pointing out the obvious is helpful to anyone.

My experience tells me it is as likely that a physical fight will break out at a game as having a GM consistently show up 10 minutes or more late to the game. Neither would be tolerated. Unless you are saying a GM is bad if they EVER show up to a game 10 minutes late. That is significantly different and would get much, much less support.

I kinda feel like this thread was meant to be a take on the “Don’t be a Redneck” routine, but no one is getting the joke.

I've never seen a physical fight break out at a game, but I've had a GM who was consistently more than 10 minutes late. And I've had a GM who generally needed at least a half an hour past start-time to read the material, download images, etc. I've had a GM who doesn't bother to learn the rules, as they can just look them up during the session.

There are people who simply don't recognize when they are wasting other people's time. Or maybe they simply process ideas about time and social contracts differently than I do.

i'm not saying being a cleric isn't practical i'm saying the power belongs to the god you are looking at it to much from a mechanic perspective and ignoring the lore aspect

If the argument is that we should prefer to be wizards, because wizards have power that isn't subject to the will of another sentient being, should we not be arguing that we would prefer to be a deity? Would't we want more power?

I don't think this is a useful way to look at lore though. Lore tells us that there are clerics on Golarion. Further, the existence of clerics seems reasonable. In the real world, people become professional representatives of deities that are far less demonstrably real, and for whom the professions provides far fewer and less potent real world benefits.

So given that clerics exist in a sensible way in that universe, the idea that some people would prefer magic to be sources from the unknown instead of from a deity is not really relevant. To me, there are two interesting questions.

1) How would someone end up being a cleric on Golarion?
2) Is this a compelling personality to explore?

I am not interested in projecting myself in any great measure onto that person. It is hard enough to imagine what I would be like if I had been born to a different family here and now. It is much harder to imagine what I would be like if I had been born in a different culture or time. I've no idea what I would be like had I been born in a different universe with different rules of reality.

But I AM interested in getting inside the head of a fictional character. If that character is looking for as much magical power as they can get, without any ties to any gods, then sure, s/he might seek out arcane texts.

But what about a person who doesn't see their job as solely a path to power? What if they are primarily guided by a certain set of principles, and find that some god or another shares those views? What if they are seriously concerned with healing the sick and wounded? What if they have deep family and personal ties to a certain religious community?

The more I get into a character's backstory and personality, the less they are like me. Because people are a product nature and nurture, and my characters don't have my genes or background. As a player, it is simply more fun for me to tell the story of a fictional character than to project myself into a fictional world.

Not in the circles I've ran in then. Yes different from yourself. But that seems to fall apart when it comes to religion.

I find that odd. To a non religious person, pretending to follow a god is generally not much different than pretending to steal from dragons or pretending to hate demons. It is easier for me to imagine religious folks who don't want to pretend to worship a god they don't really believe in in real life.

Sapient wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

If you don't like religion at all on some level cleric isn't for your, neither is champion.

I can play either but I don't play preachy characters.

I enjoy playing religious characters while not personally liking religion.

Few are like that. In truth

I STRONGLY disagree. The late majority of people one played with enjoy playing characters substantially different than themselves.

I'll just say that when I create and play characters, I'm not creating and playing me in another universe. I'm creating what I hope are motivated and justified fictional people, as if I were writing a book. So my real world reaction to religions, my particular views on morality, spirituality, or faith are not going to define the characters I want to explore.

Further, I don't think I COULD translate my views on religion or faith or spirituality to a world like Golarion, where Gods are demonstrably real and can cause obvious effects when interacted with. The very concept of "faith" in reality would be something completely different in that universe.

My last character was a Champion of Shelyn. He was religious because he felt he needed structure and some absolute guide to tell him how to behave. He spent most of his downtime encouraging people to explore their art. He was also very innocent and felt some pride when chopping up evil monsters. This person is not much like me.

My current character is a rogue who values freedom above all else, who sees religious devotion as a form of slavery, and who believes the concept of personal property to be loose and subject to change. He is also not much like me.