|
EDIT: the point is, people keep saying 4E's not D&D, when it's closer to 1st and 2nd than 3.x is, yet they fanboi over 3.x.
Understood. For the purposes of the OP, Dungeons and Dragons is its current ruleset; Pathfinder is derived from the SRD; and D&D 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition are OOP and currently unsupported by their original publishers.
Anyway, back to the OP....
Again, NewtoPF, try out Pathfinder with your group. The folks here on the boards, many of whom are familiar with both systems, will be more than happy to answer your specific questions at that time.
Yes, multi-classing was a major element of the move away in DnD, but between feats, skills and spells, all characters could fill other roles. Rogues could be the frontline fighter, wizards and fighters could be the ‘sneaky guy’, and clerics could be the main caster.
Yet 4E still has the defining capabilities of Feats, skills and power selection. Just at 1st level alone in 4, core PHB, I can build (approx) 64 diferent fighters due to power selection, before feats, skills, or race even apply.
And although those options you present are variations, they still revolve around the four core components: AC/HP, heals, skills and damage.
Rogue fighter type, check role filled
Fighter skill guy, check role filled
etc.
Edit: I'm just want people to realize that 4E is a lot closer to 3.x than some are willing to admit. Read my bio (well my initial bio, not this one), I love all D&D, because the way we play the game hasn't changed, just what evolution of rules are used. At it's heart, 4E is just as much D&D as every incarnation before it.
I don't think you can post pictures in posts here so your best bet would be to link to itDarnit, how do I post a picture on here? Lost my whole post trying to do it.
EDIT: the point is, people keep saying 4E's not D&D, when it's closer to 1st and 2nd than 3.x is, yet they fanboi over 3.x.
How do I link it if it's a jpeg or bmp on my desktop? Or an attachment in my e-mail? (can't find where I found it the first time)
I'll acknowledge it has some good points...the minion rules are amazingWait a minute. Minion rules? In Pathfinder?
Which is why I think the OP isn't an actual 4E player. That and he called Dragonborn, half dragon, yet said it was one of his favorite races.
|
|
Which is why I think the OP isn't an actual 4E player. That and he called Dragonborn, half dragon, yet said it was one of his favorite races.I'll acknowledge it has some good points...the minion rules are amazingWait a minute. Minion rules? In Pathfinder?
Missed the half dragon remark but yeah; no dnd player calls dragonborn by such a name.
I'm flagging the OP. Maybe get thread locked?
Darnit, how do I post a picture on here? Lost my whole post trying to do it.
EDIT: the point is, people keep saying 4E's not D&D, when it's closer to 1st and 2nd than 3.x is, yet they fanboi over 3.x.
Your falling into trap of analogous structures means common ancestory.
Saying that 1st ed DnD and 4e both rely on class roles more strongly than 3e, so they are more closely related, is no more sound than saying as Wasps and Birds both fly, they must be more closely related to each other than fish are to either of them.
Yes both emphasis roles, but so do MMOs, does that make them closer relatives to 1st ed than 3.5 and pathfinder too? Clearly not.
What we need to do is look for homology. There are clear evolutionary trends from the birth of DnD through into pathfinder such as Gygaxian Naturalism, a stronger focus on simulations and narratives elements, vancian spell casting, broader alignment(I think?)
All elements which 4e rejects, and instead it takes on elements which come out of the MMO family of games : ‘all classes have powers’, ‘powers have cool downs’, strong class roles, focus on combat to near exclusion of other element, and even monster naming conventions are straight out of the blizzard play book ;)
Ofcause, this is all just my opinion, but I think the argument certainly can be made that 4e is not the inheritor of the DnD name by blood, but rather by adoption. I would argue that Pathfinder is the next step in the natural evolution of the game that bares the name DnD.
Ofcause, DnD is a trade mark, and it is whatever the company who owns DnD chooses to attatch it too.
How do I link it if it's a jpeg or bmp on my desktop? Or an attachment in my e-mail? (can't find where I found it the first time)I don't think you can post pictures in posts here so your best bet would be to link to itDarnit, how do I post a picture on here? Lost my whole post trying to do it.
EDIT: the point is, people keep saying 4E's not D&D, when it's closer to 1st and 2nd than 3.x is, yet they fanboi over 3.x.
Stick it in a picture host like photobucket and use a link to that
Zombieneighbours, the poster referred to "half dragons" as his/her favorite race in 4e but also said liked the "minion" rules in Pathfinder. Think this may be a troll issue.
Ofcause, DnD is a trade mark, and it is whatever the company who owns DnD chooses to attatch it too.
*Shrugs* I could kinda care less about his fairly blaitant flame baiting. No one has risen to it, no edition war has burst into flame and we get to subvert the trolling attempt, and have a decent debate about relative strengths weaknesses and origins of 4e and pathfinder without people screaming the name of their choose game and throwing molitof cocktails around. I think this is a win for the boards, why shut it down?
Why I as a preferring 4E player think the OP's post is an inauthentic post
since I play World of Warcraft it was so easy to learn and get into...it's like a pen and paper version of my favorite game of all time.
Makes a point of comparing it to WoW, a common complaint, as a player of WoW when I can't play real RPG's it's not like WoW
finally finished a campaign we had been working on for the last six months,
A dig on it's supposed simplicity
it looks so...complicated and bland.
Again an attempt to make 4E players look like they are incapable of handling a heavier ruleset
Also, it looks like every build would be exactly the same in Pathfinder whereas in DnD 4e there are nearly unlimited options for character builds
A turn-around of the common opinion of 4E, lack of variety
and the game doesn't stop at level 20 like Pathfinder does.
The belief that the more levels appeal to the power hungry gamers, when in reality the top ten levels are epic tier (same as levels above 20 in 3.x). They are built in since people have cried out in the past for epic almost immediately after release.
I mean, how do you define a character without these powers?
Most 4E haters say that only the powers define your PC. In reality, if you use your imagination, you don't need rules to define your PC.
Also, with DnD 4e we have minis to represent everything, but there are no concrete rules in Pathfinder that I could find for using the minis in the game, so on that front it feels like Pathfinder is only half complete, what is gaming without having to use the minis--I can't imagine doing combat without the map and minis.
The misconception that it is just an advanced DD minis game. The inclusion of minis rules are:
1. What the original concept was built on, um... hello chainmail anyone.2. reintroduced as game mechanics in AD&D 2e Combat and tactics.
Also, I love the skill challenge mechanic, it makes using skills feel like you are acomplishing something, but with Pathfinder I really can't find the point of ever using.
Implies that skills only ever come up in the event of a skill challenge, when most session I've played in, skills get used everywhere a lot, and we rarely include skill challenges (flawed base system, never saw a group that didn't have a house-rule to change it.)
Can't quote further since the quote will only let me grab so much.
IIRC, he mentioned that the two favorite races were Tiefling and "half dragon"
First a favored race wouldn't have been mislabeled, they are Dragonborn. Secondly, they just so happen to be the races that there was a lot of fuss about making core races. He also pointed out that PF stuck with the "Traditional" races as well. A common complaint about what 4E did with things like gnome for tiefling trade that made a big stink.
That's just how I see it. Someone is trying to stir up the hornet's nest in order to dig up some 4E bashing.
Your falling into trap of analogous structures means common ancestory.
Yes both emphasis roles, but so do MMOs, does that make them closer relatives to 1st ed than 3.5 and pathfinder too? Clearly not.
Where do you think all electronic RPG's originated? Look back through to the earlier days of video game RPG's, they all have a tendency to cling to the 4 major roles. Just because WoW is the most popular current one, doesn't mean that 4E has roots there. Heck by your rationale, you could say that it is based off FF1 and still be correct, because as an RPG it's core elements originate from D&D
There are clear evolutionary trends from the birth of DnD through into pathfinder such as Gygaxian Naturalism, a stronger focus on simulations and narratives elements, vancian spell casting, broader alignment(I think?)
I've read the whole GN thread and posted a few words myself. Naturalismn the end IIRC was mostly agreed as a balance of all GSN elements. 4E realized that the only one that really needed to be given a rule set was Gamism (as the game portion), both Simulationism and Narrative are provided by the DM and players who shouldn't need to be given RULES (in the sense of mechanical operators) for how to give a game a sense of S and N aspects. As for Vancian spellcasting, as far back as I can remember, people have been complaining about and looking for an alternate method than the fire and forget. The alignment, true (I use all nine still), but again it's their way of stepping back a little and letting the player's dictate personality. How many alignment clarification threads are there around here? 4E has no rules that rely on alignment other than being close to that of your deity.
All elements which 4e rejects, and instead it takes on elements which come out of the MMO family of games : ‘all classes have powers’ (you mean like the powers that 3.x classes get? Wpn spec, lay on hands, turn undead, rage, like those powers?)
‘powers have cool downs’ (you mean like the spells/day limits of casters?),
strong class roles (like healer, HP/AC, damage and skills that the game originated with?),
focus on combat to near exclusion of other element (because if you want to role-play in WoW you go to a RP server and RP why build code for it? Same with D&D if you want to RP, then RP you don't need rules telling you how),
and even monster naming conventions are straight out of the blizzard play book (not sure what your talking about in this one, they still use most of te core monsters that have been around forever. If you mean different types at different power levels, the that's just a wise decision based on 3.x breaking the mold of non-advancing monsters
Parens mine
Ofcause, this is all just my opinion, but I think the argument certainly can be made that 4e is not the inheritor of the DnD name by blood, but rather by adoption. I would argue that Pathfinder is the next step in the natural evolution of the game that bares the name DnD.
No 4E evolved because it grew above the stage it was in. PF is to 3.5 what 3.5 was to 3.x, same body of work, more cosmetic than evolutionary. Again not trying insult, it just appears to me a sideways shift other than an upward one.
Ofcause, DnD is a trade mark, and it is whatever the company who owns DnD chooses to attatch it too.
I agree the best thing I saw happen to the world of gaming as I know it, was the OGL. It managed to get other games that were floundering to use the d20 system, which just moreso highlighted the D&D body of work. As a business model I disagree with how Hasbro/WOTC conducts their affairs, but that does not change the game. Hate the company all you want, just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. To all those that complain that then all their old material is obsolete, not a single bit of that fluuf in any of those books needs to be discarded. Heck I held onto my Dark Sun stuff from 2nd, now I have the ability to use all those resources to add so much more detail to my DS game. Since the fluff already exists, why would WOTC need to remake it?
Yes, ZN, I also appreciate a spirited yet not heated debate, and I find this conversation invigorating
Someone is trying to stir up the hornet's nest in order to dig up some 4E bashing.
And they did not succeed - despite the circling vultures. Having never had the motivation to play 4E I would be interested in a proper breakdown of character creation and game play in comparison with PRPG the WOD System, and my favourites Role Master, Shadowrun and GURPS thrown in for alternate views.
Someone is trying to stir up the hornet's nest in order to dig up some 4E bashing.And they did not succeed - despite the circling vultures. Having never had the motivation to play 4E I would be interested in a proper breakdown of character creation and game play in comparison with PRPG the WOD System, and my favourites Role Master, Shadowrun and GURPS thrown in for alternate views.
I have played all those except rolemaster (and GURPs only once when REALLY drunk passed out at the table, yet still becoming lucid enough to take my turns when they came up) I have opinions one the ones I have played, and things that I find both strengths and weaknesses for my preferences.
Dunno if I can post this here, I thought it was funny, and goes with what I've been saying about not needing rules for Simulationism or Narrative
if it's a copyright issue or something I dunno, let me know I don't want to break any rules.
GURPs only once when REALLY drunk passed out at the table, yet still becoming lucid enough to take my turns when they came up.
I thought that was how we were supposed to play all RPGs... maybe I am doing something wrong... :-)
Ahh Rolemaster how I miss thee - None of my current group will play it with me - takes to long and too complicated they all say.
|
I play both systems, and I gotta say I have a blast playing both systems. Actually I shoud say I DM both, because I don't get a chance to play 4th Edition as a player.
I DM a weekly 4th edition game, and I'm running through the scales of war AP they produced. However, I'm interspersing parts of rise of teh runelords and Crimson Throne into as those are far better stories to work with. Now that I have a fair amount of experience under my belt with teh game itself, I'm finding it very easy to create and run encounters and I'm modiying RotRL and CT easily. My players initially found the mechanics of 4th edition difficult to get the hang of, but we've got it down pat now.
Combat in 4th is far more fluid, with more movement of all those involved. However, every battle can feel epic. We found that in our weekly games of about 3hours in length, it is best to limit to 2 battles at the most otherwise we all feel a little wrecked after combat. Pathfinder is less so and we can comfortably get through a number of encounters in pathfinder in a session (at lower levels)
As a DM, the ease of ability in DMing 4th edition comes from the fact I don't need to know every feat or spell or item to run the monsters. Having said that though, I miss the "fluff" that comes with Pathfinders critters. 4th Edition is great system to play, but I'm very glad I have years of gaming history behind me in order to fill the world with the details I need, because the core books for 4th edition are almost depressing in their lack of that type of detail.
Character creation for 4th edtion allows easily as much diversity as Pathfinder has, but that's only true now because of the expanion books available. While it is true that the rulebooks present "builds", you certainly don't need to follow them and in fact picking and choosing powers is easy (just like feats can allow you to build your character in pathfinder).
The biggest difference is the magic system obviously. To me that is no issue at all, and the guys I play with don't mind it now either. However, of the players in my Pathfinder group, it's interesting to note that none of the ones who prefer casters in pathfinder decided to stick with my 4th edition game. They miss the extreme flexibility of the magic system.
As to the class issue being discussed here, you can get by without certain class tropes in 4th edition just as easily as you can in pathfinder. You just need to modify a rule or two to allow easier healing if it's missing from the party, just as you would for pathfinder. Apart from that, there are so many options available that you can build easily as diverse a party for both systems (again, thanks in main to the number of expansion to 4th edition).
I went and subscribed for a few months to DD! so I could get the character builder wich let me access every update they had. After three months ($30) I stopped subscribing but still have access to the complete character builder and far more than $30 worth of character building information. With that one tool, Wizards managed to make character creation absolutely easy for the game. (It takes me less than 5 minutes to put together a 1st level charcter now, assumin I know something about the class).
All in all, I think both systems are fantastic and fun. You need more work to flesh out the world for 4th edition, but you need to know far more info at the tip of your fingers for Pathfinder.
Hope that helped you 8th Dwarf
Cheers
Dunno if I can post this here, I thought it was funny, and goes with what I've been saying about not needing rules for Simulationism or Narrative
if it's a copyright issue or something I dunno, let me know I don't want to break any rules.
The thing is, and this isn't strictly about 4e/3e, that exactly what rules are needed differs from person to person. I know a lot of people here in Sweden who thinks rules for combat are unnecessary and detracts from the fun - for those, 4e is too rules-heavy. I also know some people who prefer the swedish PnP RPG EON which has "simple" character sheets of 4 a4 papers (the advanced has 8 IIRC), which tries to realistically cover combat, so that you have specific rules for the difference between what happens if you get hit in the kidney with a piercing weapon vs. a slashing weapon (and no, I'm not hyperboling; it's there). EDIT: It also has specific rules for fixing the damage surgically and the recovery time should the surgery be successful. And if it isn't, or you don't do anything about it, a simple "heal" check or a basic spell won't save you. Apart from being somewhat realistic, it's also a very, very deadly game where you would die in three turns if you played it the way you play D&D. Not really in my taste, since it's too complicated, but I can see the charm in it.
The picture you linked might be a little funny, but it's also condecendning and seems to imply a "we are playing the game in the best way, other kinds of RPG'ing are inferior. The rules we use are necessary, anything else doesn't need rules as it's just fluff". In your game it might be just fluff, but in other games, surviving in a cold climate while still minimizing the amount of equipment you need to carry, in order to reach safety as soon as possible, might be a very real and exciting challenge, and in those games, rules for the difference between a funny hat and an ushanka might be if not necessary, at least meaningful. In those games on the other hand, critical hit tables might be the most unnecessary thing ever, and hit points might be far less important than fortitude saves.
Dunno if I can post this here, I thought it was funny, and goes with what I've been saying about not needing rules for Simulationism or Narrative
if it's a copyright issue or something I dunno, let me know I don't want to break any rules.
Sorry, I will get back to you on the other stuff, but I am toiling at some other stuff right now, and am taking one quick break to put a point to this.
Clearly, you don't need rule for that awesome hat, at least your very unlikely too.
But that isn't always the case with what might otherwise seem like narrativist or simulationist elements of the game.
For instance, in a multi-generational game about landed nobility and their family, rules for conception, pregnancy and the characteristics of your characters children can be vital.
|
Dunno if I can post this here, I thought it was funny, and goes with what I've been saying about not needing rules for Simulationism or Narrative
if it's a copyright issue or something I dunno, let me know I don't want to break any rules.
That is quite funny, actually.
Noted the first author's name 'Worth Les', but can't make out the second.
good stuff
I think what made me baulk at taking up 4E was the outlay on new books, I couldn't justify buying books that would obsolete something that I was still having fun with.
4E looks like a fun game and I would happily play if get the chance. As I love to play any system just to see what it is like, heck I even like Rifts.
I like 4th edition as a design. It gives a very solid range of options for character creation without devolving into forcing every GM to know every feat to play.
Prep time is about 1/2 of what 3e/PF takes for an adventure, and you're much likelier to be able to pull a fluid and interesting combat scene out of it.
As an example of game marketing...oy gevault.
For the 'non-bleeding' side of roleplaying, I find that neither PF or 4e does what I want it to, and that's fine. There are other systems that do.
Successful Troll is saddened by the lack of success in this thread.
|
Darnit, how do I post a picture on here? Lost my whole post trying to do it.
EDIT: the point is, people keep saying 4E's not D&D, when it's closer to 1st and 2nd than 3.x is, yet they fanboi over 3.x.
As a fan of 2nd ed...no, no it isn't. 3rd ed is nothing like 2nd ed other then really the magic system. 4th ed took even that away...which to pure 2nd ed fans like me makes it no longer D&D. I BARELY consider 3rd ed to be D&D and only because it has the magic system still in place. It's not anything against the how fun or good the system is...it's just NOT D&D anymore.
And yes the reason I don't play more 2nd ed is because nobody want to play it anymore other then at cons (I sign up for every 2nd ed game I can at cons). So I take my barely D&D over none at all.
|
Good lord, I can't believe so many people are taking this thread seriously. It's an amazingly transparent anti-4E post, as should be clear by so many of it's accusations against PFRPG being much more valid criticisms of 4E.What's the law about parody being indistinguishable from the real thing?
Poe's Law
Good lord, I can't believe so many people are taking this thread seriously. It's an amazingly transparent anti-4E post, as should be clear by so many of it's accusations against PFRPG being much more valid criticisms of 4E.
I figure if we can get past 100 posts with nobody claiming that 4e despoiled their memories of a happy childhood/dumbed down their favorite game/Is Teh SuXX0r, and can have a reasonable discussion about both games, we've taken a baited hook, carefully removed the tasty treat from it, and put a note on it saying "Send Moahr Chzbrgr!" to the baffled person on the other end. :)
There we go.
Careful! Make sure you set that hook 'fore you reel 'er in!
...
If you want an emulation of mmorps for when the internet is down, you got 4E. It's more about very very restricted rules and everything that isn't covered by the rules is forbidden. Just like with PC-games.
...
Not true. The problem is that the rules are not present for anything else. Instead there is a well hidden thing on the p. 42 of the DMG letting you make custom maneuvers and stunts.
I won't defend or propagate 4E any further. These two games are different and both have their own merits. Please don't make any flase statements like tis and like in many points the OP.
Good lord, I can't believe so many people are taking this thread seriously. It's an amazingly transparent anti-4E post, as should be clear by so many of it's accusations against PFRPG being much more valid criticisms of 4E.I figure if we can get past 100 posts with nobody claiming that 4e despoiled their memories of a happy childhood/dumbed down their favorite game/Is Teh SuXX0r, and can have a reasonable discussion about both games, we've taken a baited hook, carefully removed the tasty treat from it, and put a note on it saying "Send Moahr Chzbrgr!" to the baffled person on the other end. :)
+1
Not true. The problem is that the rules are not present for anything else. Instead there is a well hidden thing on the p. 42 of the DMG letting you make custom maneuvers and stunts.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
I've played some 4E, but not nearly as much 3.X/Pathfinder. While I prefer Pathfinder to 4E, I have talked to a couple of DMs that I respect who used to run excellent 3.5 games, and have switched to 4E (neither of them live in my area).
They're not interested in running Pathfinder for their groups. The reason both of them gave for preferring 4E had nothing to do with flavor or rules. They both have told me that with 4E, they can create encounters with remarkable ease. I've never DM'd 4E, but I can see where that might be attractive to some people without a lot of time on their hands.
Fortunately for me, the guy who's game I've been playing in for the past three years or so is retired, has a lot of time to prepare for gaming, and loves taking that time to prepare first 3.5 games, and now Pathfinder.
I would say that if you are concerned with how complicated Pathfinder can be, but still want lots of build options for characters, I would leave the old 3.5 splat books out of the mix. If you just use the Pathfinder Core Rules and the Advanced Player's Guide, you've got a huge number of options to play with, and everything is contained in two rulebooks.
Best of luck.
Not true. The problem is that the rules are not present for anything else. Instead there is a well hidden thing on the p. 42 of the DMG letting you make custom maneuvers and stunts.Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Handed that to my GM last game - He is a improviser and makes stuff up on the fly he liked p42 for PRPG as it gave him an idea at what to set the difficulty numbers at.
I've played some 4E, but not nearly as much 3.X/Pathfinder. While I prefer Pathfinder to 4E, I have talked to a couple of DMs that I respect who used to run excellent 3.5 games, and have switched to 4E (neither of them live in my area).
They're not interested in running Pathfinder for their groups. The reason both of them gave for preferring 4E had nothing to do with flavor or rules. They both have told me that with 4E, they can create encounters with remarkable ease. I've never DM'd 4E, but I can see where that might be attractive to some people without a lot of time on their hands.
Fortunately for me, the guy who's game I've been playing in for the past three years or so is retired, has a lot of time to prepare for gaming, and loves taking that time to prepare first 3.5 games, and now Pathfinder.
I would say that if you are concerned with how complicated Pathfinder can be, but still want lots of build options for characters, I would leave the old 3.5 splat books out of the mix. If you just use the Pathfinder Core Rules and the Advanced Player's Guide, you've got a huge number of options to play with, and everything is contained in two rulebooks.
Best of luck.
+1,000,000
Not true. The problem is that the rules are not present for anything else. Instead there is a well hidden thing on the p. 42 of the DMG letting you make custom maneuvers and stunts.Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Good thing to have certainly. I was just pointing on the fact that 4E can do things that are not a powah, not saying that the PF can't do the sam thing ;)
|
|
Hello everyone,
My weekly gaming group plays DnD 4th edition, and have ever since we got together. It's the first table top role-playing game I have ever played, but since I play World of Warcraft it was so easy to learn and get into...it's like a pen and paper version of my favorite game of all time.
Anyway, a member of my group brought his Pathfinder book over tonight and after the session, where we finally finished a campaign we had been working on for the last six months, and asked if we could play Pathfinder next. I scanned through the book and was not really interested, it looks so...complicated and bland.
In fourth edition every class has its own set of unique powers, but the only classes with really cool powers in Pathfinder was the magical classes. Also, it looks like every build would be exactly the same in Pathfinder whereas in DnD 4e there are nearly unlimited options for character builds and the game doesn't stop at level 20 like Pathfinder does. For example, the rogue in DnD has so many options available to it and literally pages of powers to choose from, but with the Pathfinder rogue the options are much more limited, plus to be really powerful you have to pick up a prestige class, it's like...the base classes are not good enough on their own, you have to get this class to be really good. I mean, how do you define a character without these powers? With the exception of spellcasters, none of the other classes are really anything--they are just kinda there and adrift with no real purpose.
Also, with DnD 4e we have minis to represent everything, but there are no concrete rules in Pathfinder that I could find for using the minis in the game, so on that front it feels like Pathfinder is only half complete, what is gaming without having to use the minis--I can't imagine doing combat without the map and minis. Also, I love the skill challenge mechanic, it makes using skills feel like you are acomplishing something, but with Pathfinder I really can't find the point of ever using...
OMFG OP I F&%$ING LOVE YOU!!!! YOU ARE BEST TROLL EVAAAAAARRRRR!!!!!
|
But before that, give the new game (again, whatever game it might be) a try for a few sessions. Sometimes... OFTENtimes, the fun of hanging out with friends outweighs everything else. But if you find the situation is starting to cause lots of arguments, it's time to do the mature thing and back away.
This is one of the pethora of reasons I play Pathfinder. The Creative Director from Paizo himself answered the question along with a great group of forumites who took the topic seriously and respectfully.