As it known, in 3.5, you can move and attack, but never move and make a full attack. Even if you are a 20th lvl Fighter running towards a colossal Red Dragon.
The problem is: why should the fighter run and attack the dragon, if in the his turn the dragon will be able to make a full attack against him?
Does the new pathfinder adress this issue?
I feel the same way, I think this is one of the core issues for folks thinking caster are over powered
Here is one of the options that Jason has stated he's considering (or already has implemented non-publicly?):
(equivalent to Full Attack, not Full Round Casting Time, i.e. it still happens on your initiative count)
Those would bring Caster mobility more in line with combat classes, with both classes giving up something to take a Move Action, i.e. Standard Attack/Spellcasting is 4-5 levels lower in "power" than Full Round Action (2 spell levels gained ~4 levels, full BAB Iterative Attacks gained ~5 levels)
Whether or not that is the exact formula or solution he's arrived at, it seems that making the Action Economy more equal for both Combat & Spellcasting is one of Pathfinder's goals.
|
Here is one of the options that Jason has stated he's considering (or already has implemented non-publicly?):
1) Scaling the Standard Attack Action to allow one less attack than the Full Attack sequence.
2) Casting the top 2 spell levels would require a Full Round Action only allowing a 5' step.
(equivalent to Full Attack, not Full Round Casting Time, i.e. it still happens on your initiative count)
Both of these would make sense and meet with approval. Makes high level play more balanced for non-caster classes.
|
|
Here is one of the options that Jason has stated he's considering (or already has implemented non-publicly?):
1) Scaling the Standard Attack Action to allow one less attack than the Full Attack sequence.
2) Casting the top 2 spell levels would require a Full Round Action only allowing a 5' step.
(equivalent to Full Attack, not Full Round Casting Time, i.e. it still happens on your initiative count)
Both of these would make sense and meet with approval. Makes high level play more balanced for non-caster classes.
heh ya can delete em
back on topic. The one less may be good tomorrow i will be running a game with
7th level fighter
7th level cleric
7th level rogue
3 rd level mage/ 3rd level cleric /Mystic themage 1
5th level monk/ 2nd level spell fire channler
I will be using the beta and will try allowing melee classes full move and attack ...just to see how it goes
I'll let ya guys know how it goes
Right, and having a Move Action (which provokes if threatened) isn't as important to Casters anyways, since most spells have Range. This change actually makes Casters and Archers much more equivalent (both are not as UTTERLY dependent on movement as Melee-ists).
I originally thought that dropping the last (lowest) Iterative attack was not enough a 'penalty' (since it's less likely to hit), but with Pathfinder's Vital Strike/ IVS, giving up that attack IS a signifigant penalty, since to use Vital Strike you then must give up an attack that likely COULD have hit. All in all, it feels like it just puts everyone more on the same footing, which is a reasonable goal.
I believe the issue with Move + Full Attack was that it also applies to Monsters, which essentially would give every monster Pounce. In line with my comments about the lowest attack being given up, it seems reasonable that Multi-Attack (which doesn't lower the BAB for each additional attack) is NOT compatable with MOVE actions, and still requires a Full Attack (without Pounce).
I believe the issue with Move + Full Attack was that it also applies to Monsters, which essentially would give every monster Pounce. In line with my comments about the lowest attack being given up, it seems reasonable that Multi-Attack (which doesn't lower the BAB for each additional attack) is NOT compatable with MOVE actions, and still requires a Full Attack.
I have 2 lines of thought on this...
1 it wont be an issue as the pcs now can move to intercept and keep them off the easy killed caster...bringing the melees another use backor
2 let this only apply to classes that gain full BAB...or creatures that do so
That among the classes are Fighter,paladin and ranger
Creatures that would be Dragons,Monstrous humanoids, Magical beasts, and outsiders.
I can live with that as well
|
As it known, in 3.5, you can move and attack, but never move and make a full attack. Even if you are a 20th lvl Fighter running towards a colossal Red Dragon.
The problem is: why should the fighter run and attack the dragon, if in the his turn the dragon will be able to make a full attack against him?
Does the new pathfinder adress this issue?
This isn't addressed by the Beta, but Jason is aware of the issue and thinking about solutions.
No clues that I'm aware of what the final verdict is going to look like.
-Skeld
The changes Quandary mentioned are neat. How do they interact with the Haste spell? For this spell I'd like to see a more 3.0ish solution of letting it give an additional move action.
I´ve just read my first post. Sorry for the bad english, I´m going to try to write it better from now on.
Anyway, back to the subject: I don´t believe that taking a movement action from casters will make anything better. That´s not even the issue.
It won´t change the fact that when that common Fighter, who attack his enemies with a sword and shield (and not a double weapon causing 543.675 points of damage with only one attack), wouldn´t feel that much brave when meeting a dragon, as I said it before.
Taking as an example a typical warrior type, not "munchkinized" or min/maxed, that causes... I don´t know... 25 points of damage with only one attack: he runs towards the Dragon, hits it. Ok. Next the dragon makes a full attack, and causes 150 points of damage.
That remind me of something that happened once in a game I´ve played: we met a giant, but neither the party wanted to attack him close and neither him. We both knew that if we moved towards each other, the other would make a full attack. Or us, the party, or the giant.
So there we stayed, for a couple of rounds, the giant throwing rocks and we looking at him, with the rogue attacking with arrows.
That wouldn´t have happened if both could make a full attack after moving.
I don´t know, they could make somthing like this: you can make a full attack after you move, but ONLY if you charge.
I'll get more upto date info up later, but I ran some of an adventurer tonight using full attack as a standard action for full BAB classes
First impression was they kept up with the casters very easy and ran interference for the caster better, they also had a more commanding presence on the field.
I will keep using this in the arc to see how it works but so far it seems fine.
I'll get more upto date info up later, but I ran some of an adventurer tonight using full attack as a standard action for full BAB classes
First impression was they kept up with the casters very easy and ran interference for the caster better, they also had a more commanding presence on the field.
I will keep using this in the arc to see how it works but so far it seems fine.
Please, do so.
But, I don´t belive it´s necessary to allow only full BAB characters to have such ability.
Well I allowed only full bab to limit it to monsters that could use it as well. I did allow the monk as there mannover trainer allows then to count as having full BAB for CMB
I agree, the proposed changes Jason is pondering may solve a lot
maybe even scale it, so the higher the BAB the further you can advance
ie -1 attack per 5 ft after the first 5 ft
so if you have 3 attacks, can move 15 ft and have 1 attack, 10 ft for 2 attacks, or 5ft for 3 attacks
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I agree, the proposed changes Jason is pondering may solve a lot
maybe even scale it, so the higher the BAB the further you can advance
ie -1 attack per 5 ft after the first 5 ft
so if you have 3 attacks, can move 15 ft and have 1 attack, 10 ft for 2 attacks, or 5ft for 3 attacks
I was thinking something similar, but just calling it -1 attack for every 10 feet moved. You move 5 feet, you can full attack. 10 feet, lose 1 attack. 20 feet, lose 2 attacks. 30 feet, lose 3. etc.
I was thinking something similar, but just calling it -1 attack for every 10 feet moved. You move 5 feet, you can full attack. 10 feet, lose 1 attack. 20 feet, lose 2 attacks. 30 feet, lose 3. etc.I agree, the proposed changes Jason is pondering may solve a lot
maybe even scale it, so the higher the BAB the further you can advance
ie -1 attack per 5 ft after the first 5 ft
so if you have 3 attacks, can move 15 ft and have 1 attack, 10 ft for 2 attacks, or 5ft for 3 attacks
I was thinking of something along these lines as well. However it only works with players who have base 30 ft speed. It'd be too complicated to get into the mathematical percentages of those players with fly speed 60, monks with 70 ft speed, etc, etc.
actually it doesn't have to be complicated
just don't scale the rule per base speed, a static rate rule
so even if able to move 60 ft in a round, still lose -1 attack after 10 ft ;)
or full-move = 1 attack, half-move = half attacks rddn, quarter move = all attacks
I´d like to let something quite clear.
If, somehow, becomes possible to make a full attack after moving more than one step, it must be made it clear that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make special attacks, like 2x from charging with a horse, or 3x power attack bonus with that jumping feat from Complete Adventurer, etc...
And also impossible to stack with attacks like Smite Evil from Paladins, for example, ot at most, that only the first attack shall have the bonus from smite attack, but not the others.
And last but no least, I don´t like the idea of making attacks according with how many steps you´ve made as some here has suggested. Complicated things is not the best way to fix this issue, on my opinion.
you should have made that clear at the beginning LOL :)
what you want is a Fighter only feat
wait, no, can't do that, other classes can get fighter feats.
must be a Fighter class feature.
wait, no, can't do that, someone can just multi-class.
must be some other way.
wait no, can't do it all, someone could use a wish or miracle to get it.
I am thinking so far it works fine as part of full BAB. That limits it to melee classes and a few creature types
I will try to give a run down of our 2 fights later tonight
As it known, in 3.5, you can move and attack, but never move and make a full attack. Even if you are a 20th lvl Fighter running towards a colossal Red Dragon.
The problem is: why should the fighter run and attack the dragon, if in the his turn the dragon will be able to make a full attack against him?
Does the new pathfinder adress this issue?
I don't think PF addresses this issue, but you can always use some 3.5 supplemental books for your fixes. The Complete Champion has a feat that lets you move with a Swift action called Travel Devotion. The ability lasts for a minute and you can take the feat multiple times for more uses. In the same book you could always take an alternative class feature for the Barbarian that will trade away Fast Movement for the ability to do a Full-Attack on a charge. Your Fighter will have to dip one level in Barbarian but most people consider that a good trade-off.
I don't think PF addresses this issue, but you can always use some 3.5 supplemental books for your fixes. The Complete Champion has a feat that lets you move with a Swift action called Travel Devotion. The ability lasts for a minute and you can take the feat multiple times for more uses. In the same book you could always take an alternative class feature for the Barbarian that will trade away Fast Movement for the ability to do a Full-Attack on a charge. Your Fighter will have to dip one level in Barbarian but most people consider that a good trade-off.As it known, in 3.5, you can move and attack, but never move and make a full attack. Even if you are a 20th lvl Fighter running towards a colossal Red Dragon.
The problem is: why should the fighter run and attack the dragon, if in the his turn the dragon will be able to make a full attack against him?
Does the new pathfinder adress this issue?
Why don't address the problem in core rules instead of making players using this and that splatbook madness just to be any useful? Please stop those "but you could make that prestige class mandatory" - comments...
As I mentioned in another thread: make the last iterative attack a trade off for your move action. Maybe than Haste could give an extra move action, making it viable for casters again.
Why don't address the problem in core rules instead of making players using this and that splatbook madness just to be any useful? Please stop those "but you could make that prestige class mandatory" - comments...As I mentioned in another thread: make the last iterative attack a trade off for your move action. Maybe than Haste could give an extra move action, making it viable for casters again.
Haste giving an extra move action seems a tad...overpowered. It's not quite as bad as 3.0 Haste that grants you a standard action, but I feel giving your entire party an extra move action per turn for multiple turn screams 4th or 5th level spell at least.
And there is no "madness" to splatbooks. I have no problems using them. What we need is a Feat Compendium so that all players can easily reference the feats and features they need.
I'd also modify your idea a bit. If you move and attack, you have a choice. You can do one attack at normal BAB as normal, or you can lose your FIRST iterative attack and perform the rest of the full-attack.
|
|
I tried to pitch Jasons request in our group and got mostly negative replies.
Did your group actually try any of these options, or just talk about them? I've played something similar to @2 and it worked pretty well. The ideas Jason proposed weren't exactly what I had hoped for, but they play better than 3.5OGL RAW.
-Skeld
I tried to pitch Jasons request in our group and got mostly negative replies.Did your group actually try any of these options, or just talk about them? I've played something similar to @2 and it worked pretty well. The ideas Jason proposed weren't exactly what I had hoped for, but they play better than 3.5OGL RAW.
-Skeld
It's either this, or we need some very powerful STANDARD actions that can do as much as a full-attack, ala Strikes and Maneuvers from Tome of Battle. Or we can make Charging deal a lot more damage as an alternative so that if you can charge, you'd do on average at least half of a full-attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
It's either this, or we need some very powerful STANDARD actions that can do as much as a full-attack, ala Strikes and Maneuvers from Tome of Battle. Or we can make Charging deal a lot more damage as an alternative so that if you can charge, you'd do on average at least half of a full-attack.
Hm. An interesting thought. Having all charge attacks deal, say, double damage might not be a bad idea, though it would be pretty grossly overpowered at low levels.
It's either this, or we need some very powerful STANDARD actions that can do as much as a full-attack, ala Strikes and Maneuvers from Tome of Battle. Or we can make Charging deal a lot more damage as an alternative so that if you can charge, you'd do on average at least half of a full-attack.Hm. An interesting thought. Having all charge attacks deal, say, double damage might not be a bad idea, though it would be pretty grossly overpowered at low levels.
How about this? At BAB +6, a charge does 1.5 normal damage. At BAB +11, a charge does 2x normal damage. This is assuming no Pounce or any other ability that allows a full-attack on the charge.
I originally thought that dropping the last (lowest) Iterative attack was not enough a 'penalty' (since it's less likely to hit), but with Pathfinder's Vital Strike/ IVS, giving up that attack IS a signifigant penalty, since to use Vital Strike you then must give up an attack that likely COULD have hit. All in all, it feels like it just puts everyone more on the same footing, which is a reasonable goal.
I don't agree with creating/changing core game mechanics based on the existence of a feat.
Not every PC, NPC< and Monster will have this feat.
If they do, the feat is way overpowered and needs to be considered.
It's my contention that any feat that is a "Must Have" for everyone in the game should not be a feat anyway.
If such a feat exists (and Vital Strike does seem to be such a feat) then maybe that feat should be taken off the feat list and turned into a regular mechanic of the combat system, useable without requiring a feat.
But while it remains a feat, it should not be part of the discussion of core mechanics.
Saying "Giving up your worst attack to move and full attack with your remaining attacks is balanced because of a feat that not everyone will have" also means by default "Not taking this balancing feat means giving up your worst attack is not balanced because you can take some other feat and now you only lose one attack that probably would have missed anyway".
I believe the issue with Move + Full Attack was that it also applies to Monsters, which essentially would give every monster Pounce. In line with my comments about the lowest attack being given up, it seems reasonable that Multi-Attack (which doesn't lower the BAB for each additional attack) is NOT compatable with MOVE actions, and still requires a Full Attack (without Pounce).
What's wrong with giving every monster Pounce?
After all, we're considering giving every PC Pounce.
Creating a core mechanic for moving and full attacking, whatever that mechanic is going to be, and then restricting it so monsers cannot use it, will quite certainly create an imbalance in the PCs vs. Monsters system.
It will be much easier to fight a gargantuan hydra than to fight an 11th orc fighter.
This will destabilize the entire CR system.
If you're going to significantly change the PC Group's damage output model, you must also change the Monster's damage output model to compensate and maintain balanced combat.
Jason has himself stated such an approach to scaling Standard Attack is under consideration.
Jason himself never mentioned VS/IVS in regards to this, it was merely a logical observation on my part to a concept ("weak" Iterative Standard Attacks) that was proposed independently of VS. Vital Strike currently exists as a Feat, and I can't change that, even if I think it should be "free".
Jason has stated he doesn't like giving every Monster Pounce (because... Hydras with Pounce mess up the CR system, as well as invalidating Monsters currently WITH the Pounce ability) Every option mentioned by him (and myself) is based on using the SAME standard for PCs/Monsters, so your protestations on that account seem absurd. "Weak" Iterative Attacks applies to everyone, and keeps the distinction between Pounce & non-Pounce Monsters (Multi-Attack Creatures with many attacks (Hydras, etc) still need a Full Attack to use Multi-Attack: They would only get the same "weak" Iterative Standard Attack as a Human Fighter).
The basic options I can see for scaling Standard Attack are: "weak" Iteratives or bonus damage to Standard Attacks. Iteratives favor Sneak Attacks, while bonus damage is less Class-Feature biased. The bonus damage option is certainly a viable one as well.
Casting the top 2 spell levels would require a Full Round Action only allowing a 5' step.
(equivalent to Full Attack, not Full Round Casting Time, i.e. it still happens on your initiative count)
If you were to imply this change to casters you can kiss multi-class anything +caster goodbye. Though you're guaranteed to see an up-surge in Eldritch Knights and Duskblades, who will ignore this change completely... whoopie!
That doesn't even begin to cover Rangers and Paladins... Divine Favor? Expeditious Retreat? Full round actions? No, not so much. Better off just attacking.
.................
As for why you run in on a Colossal Red Dragon... if you don't he will 5 foot up and attack you with 6 attacks using 15-20 foot reach. You might as well get your hit in! Not to mention it's your job, that's why you have the AC and High HPs! ...AND unless he's asleep or some how incapacitated, you can tack on 6 more "attacks of opportunity" for the charge at a -2 AC.
Casting the top 2 spell levels would require a Full Round Action only allowing a 5' step.
(equivalent to Full Attack, not Full Round Casting Time, i.e. it still happens on your initiative count)If you were to imply this change to casters you can kiss multi-class anything +caster goodbye. Though you're guaranteed to see an up-surge in Eldritch Knights and Duskblades, who will ignore this change completely... whoopie!
That doesn't even begin to cover Rangers and Paladins... Divine Favor? Expeditious Retreat? Full round actions? No, not so much. Better off just attacking.
Yep. Which is why when *I* decided to try this house rule, I told my players that
1) This rule doesn't apply to half-casters like Duskblades, Paladins, Rangers, etc and
2) This rule doesn't apply to spell levels 1 thru 3. So a 5th level Wizard can still cast all of his spells normally. However, he'll need to wait until level 11 to be able to cast level 4 spells with the normal casting time.
Duskblades are full casters though. Full progression over 20 levels = full casters... otherwise you need to exempt bards too as they follow the same spell progression as Duskblades.
Personally I think the idea of making the highest level spells a spellcaster can cast is absurd... unless a fighters full attack can be interupted by damage or cause him to take an AoO.
True, but Duskblades and Bards aren't overpowered. Casters who get 9th level spells are. So my houserule is really a nerf to overpowered classes than anything else.
Could just try balancing the other way, by phasing out full-attacks, as I've put forth in the past... that'll solve the whole mess...
-Matt
Could just try balancing the other way, by phasing out full-attacks, as I've put forth in the past... that'll solve the whole mess...
-Matt
Well yes, phasing out full-attacks in my game translated into my players getting powerful standard actions via Tome of Battle.
The "highest 2 Spell Levels as Full-Round Action" (not 1 Round Casting Time Spells)
is how 2nd Edition worked, except 2nd Edition applied that to ALL Spells.
The 2 Spell Levels is supposed to mirror the # of Levels to gain an Iterative Attack for full BAB Classes. ...There could certainly be an exemption for "Half-Caster Classes".
(ideally, thier BAB should be able to "convert" to a virtual "highest Spell Level" for this purpose, since that was the point in the first place, that Iteratives and higher Spell Levels would be equivalent in the Action Economy.)
The current regime simply has practically no trade-offs whatsoever for Casting "Full Level Spells" (vs. lower level Spells) as Fighter-types face for Standard Action vs. Full Attack. 2nd Edition had Weapon/ Casting Speed, but since that isn't going to come back, having a Spell system function closer to the Full Attack/Standard Attack paradigm (+scaling Standard Attack by level) within the Action Economy seems to make the most sense (IMHO).
Incidentally, though "weak Iterative Standard Attacks" make me leery re: Sneak Attacks,
I *LIKE* that option the best, because besides building on the same conceptual base as Full Attack/Iterative Attacks, it allows for options like Maneuvers Attacks AND Melee Attacks, which a BAB-Scaling bonus to Damage doesn't allow for.
I highly recommend searching for Jason's post on this subject if you're interested in constructive feedback.
|
I must add that Rangers and Paladins have spells that help with the full attack and move. (Rhino Rush for Paladins, and Lions Charge for Rangers)
I can think of only one feat that has been made to assist with the ability to move an keep damage acceptable (powerful charge helps but is still not enough and doesnt fit many build concepts)
I think that many brains behind wizards were trying to subtly address this issue. thankfully, Jason can choose to address the issue with more finality.
the one time i have allowed full attack as a standard action it seemed fine...sorry I didn't post up a full report, been hectic.
|
Could just try balancing the other way, by phasing out full-attacks, as I've put forth in the past... that'll solve the whole mess...
-Matt
I'd prefer to allow movement inside a Full Attack action (at some cost, as we have discussed elsewhere) rather than multiple attacks in a standard attack, perhaps. Not entirely set on what I'd prefer, though.
anyone playtesting move and fullattack? it should be used in a paizo module, one that is above 5th level(its balanced by letting the monsters do it too)
I've tried this in a fairly high level game (level 9+), it really made combats more interesting overall, but they also became a lot shorter, due to the fighter rushing around chopping down all the casters and ranged combatants.
It certainly made monsters with multiple attacks more scary, basically giving every monster the pounce ability.
I tried a variant were you got to take a special 5 foot step between each successful attack, up to your base land speed in total, this seemed a lot more balanced.
I've also tried to play without multiple attacks, increasing the damage by half the attackers bab instead, and this worked out fairly well.
Here is one of the options that Jason has stated he's considering (or already has implemented non-publicly?):
Scaling the Standard Attack Action to allow one less attack than the Full Attack sequence.
Casting the top 2 spell levels would require a Full Round Action only allowing a 5' step.
(equivalent to Full Attack, not Full Round Casting Time, i.e. it still happens on your initiative count)
Quandary, I really, really like both of these ideas. It is a pity that I didn't see Jason's post on this sooner - it is a bit late now to playtest this given that the playtest is fast drawing to a close.
anyone playtesting move and fullattack? it should be used in a paizo module, one that is above 5th level(its balanced by letting the monsters do it too)
We have tried it we are running "Seeds of Sehan" part 1 from dungeon 145
. The rules we are using is only full BAB classes and monster get full attack and move. Now this also counts for a monk as he gets to count as a full bab for CMB without having one.So far we havent got to play much the party is 8th level and concerts of
Fighter 8
Cleric 8
Cleric/mage/thm 3/3/2[I think working off memory here]
Rogue 8
Monk/spellfire wielder 5/3
So far there have been 2 fights
1st: Child of sehan CR8....
This one was rough as most the group failed will saves and stood there in a dazed euphoric trance . The one good attack the fighter did get off was nice he ran 25 feet and attacked twice with his greatsword. But most of the fight was done by the thumicuge and the monk as they passed there saves with ease. Having the monk able to run about while giving a full attack kept the THM alive wile he acted as a screen doing hit and run attacks
2nd: Lifeleech Othyugh CR 8
This one was fun, while it did not gain a full attack if it moved it just didn't move. Again the fighter seemed the be the line holder running 30' and dilvering some nice hits as the cleric fallowed to deal a nice hit with her sword. The caster ended up as suppoert with spells more then direct attacker. The fight lasted 3 rounds with only the monk being hurt bad...due to rolling a "2" on reflex[heh 4 or less is only way he could have failed] and being grappled and chewed on for a bit. Selective channling by the THM saved him there .
All in all so far we like full move+full attack. It seems to make the melle classes a real threat as well as effective screeners and defenders to the more squishy members of the group
Will post more as we get to play more.
anyone playtesting move and fullattack? it should be used in a paizo module, one that is above 5th level(its balanced by letting the monsters do it too)We have tried it we are running "Seeds of Sehan" part 1 from dungeon 145
. The rules we are using is only full BAB classes and monster get full attack and move. Now this also counts for a monk as he gets to count as a full bab for CMB without having one.
I the rule that only full BAB monsters and classes get this ability is unworkable. It works for your group, because you have no real multiclassed martial characters, but what happens if a Fighter takes two levels of another class? The system falls apart unless you abandon the full BAB criterion. It is better to make it either a class ability given to martial classes or simply give the possibility to everyone. After all, it's still going to benefit the warriors more than the casters, which is what we want to achieve anyway.
I think Jason's idea of a double standard attack is even better than the full attack after move.
I the rule that only full BAB monsters and classes get this ability is unworkable. It works for your group, because you have no real multiclassed martial characters, but what happens if a Fighter takes two levels of another class? The system falls apart unless you abandon the full BAB criterion. It is better to make it either a class ability given to martial classes or simply give the possibility to everyone. After all, it's still going to benefit the warriors more than the casters, which is what we want to achieve anyway.
I think Jason's idea of a double standard attack is even better than the full attack after move.
I dont see how what your saying is any different then what i am doing?
Case in point is the monk..because of multiclassing his Fob is down not ugh mind you but it is lower.
How I handle this is simple...your Full attack class must be able without the BAB from other classes to multi attack
meaning fighter 6/ rogue 5 can.......rogue 8 fighter 1 can not
seems simple and I really do not see how it would brake down?