The whole full attack and standard action attack thing could use a revamp.Agreed. Though I suspect changing that would have had so many ripple effects that backwards compatibility would have suffered. But that's just a guess.
probably. Pathfinder was supposed to be "lets keep this going". It has become "we are a formidable part of this market" shortly after due to its corrections.
I do want it to change but at the same time I dont. afraid the new system would just have more problems, and I already like this one.
its the "practice makes perfect" "nobody is perfect" syndrome. Why practice?
I guess thats a little negative though. basically I think small changes are best for now atleast.
Whatever happened to E003 or whatever his name was, I liked alot of his post.
I find it ridiculous instead of acknowledging your response was a personal attack on the company ("this is a flawed product" comment does just that) you devolve this into an arguement about company responsibility.You can't personally "attack" a company, you can only attack a person. Hence the term "personal". A company is a seperate entity that employs a given number of people, and is run by a given number of people. It's a collection of documents and licenses sitting in drawers and computers somewhere. You can't insult a company because it's not a person (except maybe for Apple. Jury's still out on that one).
Now, if I came on here and said "James Jacobs is a terrible designer and a stupid-head!" (sorry to use you as an example, JJ ^_^), then I would be guilty of a personal insult, and people would be perfectly justified in calling me on it.
Saying "this is a flawed product" however, means that the company produced something I consider unfortunate given the potential and/or expectations of said product. A game book is produced by the whole company...writers, editors, creative designers, artists, playtesters, consultants and so on and so on. If a customer thinks the product is flawed, it could be anyone's or everyone's fault. I could be noone's fault at all. Maybe something got lost in transition, or maybe the advertising was misleading, or a thousand other things.
Simply having issue with a company's product is never personal.
sure.
I find it ridiculous instead of acknowledging your response was a personal attack on the company ("this is a flawed product" comment does just that) you devolve this into an arguement about company responsibility.You can't personally "attack" a company, you can only attack a person. Hence the term "personal". A company is a seperate entity that employs a given number of people, and is run by a given number of people. It's a collection of documents and licenses sitting in drawers and computers somewhere. You can't insult a company because it's not a person (except maybe for Apple. Jury's still out on that one).
Now, if I came on here and said "James Jacobs is a terrible designer and a stupid-head!" (sorry to use you as an example, JJ ^_^), then I would be guilty of a personal insult, and people would be perfectly justified in calling me on it.
Saying "this is a flawed product" however, means that the company produced something I consider unfortunate given the potential and/or expectations of said product. A game book is produced by the whole company...writers, editors, creative designers, artists, playtesters, consultants and so on and so on. If a customer thinks the product is flawed, it could be anyone's or everyone's fault. I could be noone's fault at all. Maybe something got lost in transition, or maybe the advertising was misleading, or a thousand other things.
Simply having issue with a company's product is never personal.
The horse...it's dead, Jim.
sure.I find it ridiculous instead of acknowledging your response was a personal attack on the company ("this is a flawed product" comment does just that) you devolve this into an arguement about company responsibility.You can't personally "attack" a company, you can only attack a person. Hence the term "personal". A company is a seperate entity that employs a given number of people, and is run by a given number of people. It's a collection of documents and licenses sitting in drawers and computers somewhere. You can't insult a company because it's not a person (except maybe for Apple. Jury's still out on that one).
Now, if I came on here and said "James Jacobs is a terrible designer and a stupid-head!" (sorry to use you as an example, JJ ^_^), then I would be guilty of a personal insult, and people would be perfectly justified in calling me on it.
Saying "this is a flawed product" however, means that the company produced something I consider unfortunate given the potential and/or expectations of said product. A game book is produced by the whole company...writers, editors, creative designers, artists, playtesters, consultants and so on and so on. If a customer thinks the product is flawed, it could be anyone's or everyone's fault. I could be noone's fault at all. Maybe something got lost in transition, or maybe the advertising was misleading, or a thousand other things.
Simply having issue with a company's product is never personal.
DEAD!
:)
The horse...it's dead, Jim.I find it ridiculous instead of acknowledging your response was a personal attack on the company ("this is a flawed product" comment does just that) you devolve this into an arguement about company responsibility.You can't personally "attack" a company, you can only attack a person. Hence the term "personal". A company is a seperate entity that employs a given number of people, and is run by a given number of people. It's a collection of documents and licenses sitting in drawers and computers somewhere. You can't insult a company because it's not a person (except maybe for Apple. Jury's still out on that one).
Now, if I came on here and said "James Jacobs is a terrible designer and a stupid-head!" (sorry to use you as an example, JJ ^_^), then I would be guilty of a personal insult, and people would be perfectly justified in calling me on it.
Saying "this is a flawed product" however, means that the company produced something I consider unfortunate given the potential and/or expectations of said product. A game book is produced by the whole company...writers, editors, creative designers, artists, playtesters, consultants and so on and so on. If a customer thinks the product is flawed, it could be anyone's or everyone's fault. I could be noone's fault at all. Maybe something got lost in transition, or maybe the advertising was misleading, or a thousand other things.
Simply having issue with a company's product is never personal.
thats why you dont cross the mob... youll wake up with a ponys head in your bed!!! scares galore!!!
The horse...it's dead, Jim.
*casts Animate Dead on the horse*
"No, wait, I meant Raise Dead, Raise Dead, aiiieeee!"
The horse...it's dead, Jim.*casts Animate Dead on the horse*
"No, wait, I meant Raise Dead, Raise Dead, aiiieeee!"
Animate dead was the only way! it didnt have a head anymore. zombie horse arises. soon it will devour all the message boards and eventually the PDF's.
maybe after several days it will finally reach the FAQs and savagely mangle them as well.
only time will tell.
arm yourselves.
The whole full attack and standard action attack thing could use a revamp.Agreed. Though I suspect changing that would have had so many ripple effects that backwards compatibility would have suffered. But that's just a guess.It does REALLY screw with backwards compatibility. I've experimented with this (and am putting together a campaign with house-rules that allow such mobile combat) and it's dicey, but it seems like it will be a lot of fun to play.
It's not something I would ever expect Paizo to do though, maybe as an alternate option in the future Combat book.
Perhaps allowing you a movement every round and saying that a standard action alows you to perform all your attacks could break it, but it might just add versatility to your attacks and moving.
Really if you think about it all it does is allow you to move and attack. What is so broken about moving??? you still provoke AOO's for illegal moves and such, its like having a double standard, the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.
Has paizo taken a stance on this?
I just wanted to say, everyone, that it's not that I hate Pathfinder. Far from it. If I didn't see the underlying value in the game, I wouldn't have spent over a hundred bucks on hardcover copies. :)
I'm only so hard on Pathfinder because I can see it's potential. If I can see greatness in someone, I'll never let them rest on anything mediocre or even above-average. I will push that person until their greatness comes out...or until they stop listening. Same goes for a RPG.
If I didn't care, I would be as silent here as I am on the 4E forums (which I've posted on...maybe once since the game came out?).
Besides, I'd rather try to get what I want out of a high-quality product, then settle for a low-quality one that already provides what I'm looking for. ^_^
Paizo has actually been making endeavors to end it to a degree, between the barbarian Pounce rage power and the Mobile Fighter Archtype.The whole full attack and standard action attack thing could use a revamp.Agreed. Though I suspect changing that would have had so many ripple effects that backwards compatibility would have suffered. But that's just a guess.It does REALLY screw with backwards compatibility. I've experimented with this (and am putting together a campaign with house-rules that allow such mobile combat) and it's dicey, but it seems like it will be a lot of fun to play.
It's not something I would ever expect Paizo to do though, maybe as an alternate option in the future Combat book.
Perhaps allowing you a movement every round and saying that a standard action allows you to perform all your attacks could break it, but it might just add versatility to your attacks and moving.
Really if you think about it all it does is allow you to move and attack. What is so broken about moving??? you still provoke AOO's for illegal moves and such, its like having a double standard, the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.
Has paizo taken a stance on this?
did they just say "well the monk can deal" lol
I just wanted to say, everyone, that it's not that I hate Pathfinder. Far from it. If I didn't see the underlying value in the game, I wouldn't have spent over a hundred bucks on hardcover copies. :)
I'm only so hard on Pathfinder because I can see it's potential. If I can see greatness in someone, I'll never let them rest on anything mediocre or even above-average. I will push that person until their greatness comes out...or until they stop listening. Same goes for a RPG.
If I didn't care, I would be as silent here as I am on the 4E forums (which I've posted on...maybe once since the game came out?).
Besides, I'd rather try to get what I want out of a high-quality product, then settle for a low-quality one that already provides what I'm looking for. ^_^
it makes me smile to hear you say that and I know many designers that have been reading will enjoy that as well.
Pathfinder is evolving. dont give up just yet, all in good time.
Really if you think about it all it does is allow you to move and attack. What is so broken about moving??? you still provoke AOO's for illegal moves and such, its like having a double standard, the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.
Has paizo taken a stance on this?
I have noticed a heavy tendancy towards "static combat" in 3.5 and Pathfinder, though as Kyrt points out, they do seem to be tryign to rectify that. I would love to see more dynamic battles. :)
the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.
And it's really annoying for GMs who work hard to make interesting battle maps, with a lot of special features (cover, higher ground, difficult terrain, etc.) that the PCs will never use, because they just stand still to the position where they began the fight. :(
Dynamic battles are very good. As are additional uses for attacks of opportunity (as would giving PC's more attacks of opportunity for free as they gain more attacks in a full attack action)
This is also why I am a big BIG fan of the feats of immediate action.
makes things super interesting
"Ok so the dragon charges and.."
"I use my immediate action to intercept the charge!"
Super genious games best work in my opinion, never regret paying 1.44 for it ever. seriously.
Paizo kinda is tip toeing near there with a few abilities like the skirmishers talents that allow immediate action stuff and the dwarven defender prestige also has a few.
counters are just amazing, and immediates are just that.
the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.And it's really annoying for GMs who work hard to make interesting battle maps, with a lot of special features (cover, higher ground, difficult terrain, etc.) that the PCs will never use, because they just stand still to the position where they began the fight. :*(
That is where I disagree, not in the battle maps I totally feel that, but usually my maps make it almost a pointless move to stand still.
That sucks though cuz i feel like I am punishing my players with no full attacks because they can NEVER full attack due to me moving, terrain intereference or challenging obstacles. I want the terrain to be interesting and cause them to think on their toes, not cause the melees to miss out on most of their attacks while the spellcasters shine :S
the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.And it's really annoying for GMs who work hard to make interesting battle maps, with a lot of special features (cover, higher ground, difficult terrain, etc.) that the PCs will never use, because they just stand still to the position where they began the fight. :(You could try encouraging your players to have a goal in mind with the battle, rather than just 'kill everything'
Maybe your players need to capture a fortification, or defend one, or get into an archery battle and can't get to the enemies before they would be turned into pincushions (make sure there are ranged weapons available for the characters without a ranged weapon so they don't feel useless)
There are several ideas to force pc's to play a tactical battle within the storyline. It's just unfortunate that the mechanics don't support it as much.
still doesnt solve the problem of penalizing them of their attacks for moving around though :S
the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.And it's really annoying for GMs who work hard to make interesting battle maps, with a lot of special features (cover, higher ground, difficult terrain, etc.) that the PCs will never use, because they just stand still to the position where they began the fight. :*(That is where I disagree, not in the battle maps I totally feel that, but usually my maps make it almost a pointless move to stand still.
That sucks though cuz i feel like I am punishing my players with no full attacks because they can NEVER full attack due to me moving, terrain intereference or challenging obstacles. I want the terrain to be interesting and cause them to think on their toes, not cause the melees to miss out on most of their attacks while the spellcasters shine :S
Here's a solution for you then Toker. When characters earn additional attacks, give them 'partial actions' which are basically worth half-way between a standard action and a move action.
These 'partial actions' can be used for a move action of any kind they desire, or they can be used for an attack action at a penalty (I use -3, but -5 is also feasible)
ninja'd!
ouch burn.
I kinda like it. I sorta have something like that in place already, action points (you get one per encounter and they grant a plethora of things either an extra standard, 1d6 to a roll of some kind, or a reroll on a save or skill)
perhaps rewarding characters for taking action and moving with action points would make sense.
no no, far to out there. haha.
Stuff.
That's what I'm trying to do and it's working to some extend with my actual group. However, this is very hard when the PCs are mostly ranged characters (my previous group). A team composed of an archer, a sorcerer and a cleric won't move around a lot, no matter how hard you try. Of course, spells like cloudkill can force them to move, but you can't throw a caster at them in every fight either.
hmmm so it is agreed that the moving and attacking should be looked into.(lets not beat this horse to death too :), it causes arguements. it seems to be generally acknowledged this needs changes and these suggestions so far are viable. now if designers were to ask for more suggestions thats another story... but lets move on)
Whats another aspect of the game that needs light shedding?
Does anyone have qualms with the skill system? and if so what about it would you like to see change and what are the problems with these? are these problems subject to DM or are they in game mechanical problems that need to be remedied? (we dont have to go here just trying to throw different stuff)
In my personal experience, skills just don't get good enough over time compared with spells. A character invests a skill point per level through twenty levels into climb, and the best they can do is climb at one-half their speed or some such? Not good enough.
In my mind high level skill ranks should dramatically expand a character's abilities, rather than just an extra +1 to something so mundane and simple.
(I realize I'm most likely in a minority on this subject lol)
I dont think you are in the wrong ball park.
Something 3.5 did that I thought they were in the right ballpark range but just not there yet was skill tricks.
Wall climbs, par quor, cool stuff that wasnt broken and had other uses. The system was just a little wonky and I guess it either didnt land or people didnt think it was useful enough.
Any chance that could be revamped?
By paizo? In PF 1.0? Not a clue, but I would guess not likely. It's too big a change to the core of the game, making skillful people awesome.In my personal experience, skills just don't get good enough over time compared with spells. A character invests a skill point per level through twenty levels into climb, and the best they can do is climb at one-half their speed or some such? Not good enough.
In my mind high level skill ranks should dramatically expand a character's abilities, rather than just an extra +1 to something so mundane and simple.
(I realize I'm most likely in a minority on this subject lol)
I dont think you are in the wrong ball park.
Something 3.5 did that I thought they were in the right ballpark range but just not there yet was skill tricks.
Wall climbs, par quor, cool stuff that wasnt broken and had other uses. The system was just a little wonky and I guess it either didnt land or people didnt think it was useful enough.
Any chance that could be revamped?
Well even if it was just the simple "Once you have 5 ranks in said ability to can perform these advanced options, Once you have 10 ranks you can perform The super options, 15 you can perform the super advanced options, and 20 you can emulate all other skills with said skill because you are a God and no one cares about you anymore."
Wall climbs, par quor, cool stuff that wasnt broken and had other uses. The system was just a little wonky and I guess it either didnt land or people didnt think it was useful enough.
Any chance that could be revamped?
Oddly enough, 4E is trying that right now with their "skill powers" and the ability to improv skill uses. It's actually one of the few things they've done right.
Oddly enough, 4E is trying that right now with their "skill powers" and the ability to improv skill uses. It's actually one of the few things they've done right.Wall climbs, par quor, cool stuff that wasnt broken and had other uses. The system was just a little wonky and I guess it either didnt land or people didnt think it was useful enough.
Any chance that could be revamped?
I was listening until 4E...
Just kidding L dub, sorry I am not familiar with the system I have only played 4E like once or twice. Needless to say, not my pot of coffee.
What exactly do they have going on? I might be able to follow if my memory will serve me well
*didnt mean to bash 4E lovers, just couldnt resist.
I was listening until 4E...
Just kidding L dub, sorry I am not familiar with the system I have only played 4E like once or twice. Needless to say, not my pot of coffee.
What exactly do they have going on? I might be able to follow if my memory will serve me well
*didnt mean to bash 4E lovers, just couldnt resist.
Oh believe me, I'm not a lover of "D&DINO", as I call it (Dungeons and Dragon in Name Only). :D
The only thing 4E that interests me is Essentials, and ironically it's only because Essentials is trying to be 3.5. *laughs* Talk about full circle.
Anyways, the skill powers are basically these things you can take instead of class powers (class abilities) that let you use a skill for something extraordinary...like wall-running, parkour, trick shots, magic stunts, marathon running, precognition and all sorts of other stuff.
To put it in 3.5/Pathfinder terms, it's something that associates a new extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability with a specific trained skill.
I was listening until 4E...
Just kidding L dub, sorry I am not familiar with the system I have only played 4E like once or twice. Needless to say, not my pot of coffee.
What exactly do they have going on? I might be able to follow if my memory will serve me well
*didnt mean to bash 4E lovers, just couldnt resist.
Oh believe me, I'm not a lover of "D&DINO", as I call it (Dungeons and Dragon in Name Only). :D
The only thing 4E that interests me is Essentials, and ironically it's only because Essentials is trying to be 3.5. *laughs* Talk about full circle.
Anyways, the skill powers are basically these things you can take instead of class powers (class abilities) that let you use a skill for something extraordinary...like wall-running, parkour, trick shots, magic stunts, marathon running, precognition and all sorts of other stuff.
To put it in 3.5/Pathfinder terms, it's something that associates a new extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability with a specific trained skill.
hmmmm
Does this essentials you speak of heat nicely? It sounds like I want to take a bath in it...
but seriously this needs to happen for the Pathfinder skill system. Might even be nice to add a similiar thing to BAB... maybe... dont quote me.
In my personal experience, skills just don't get good enough over time compared with spells. A character invests a skill point per level through twenty levels into climb, and the best they can do is climb at one-half their speed or some such? Not good enough.
In my mind high level skill ranks should dramatically expand a character's abilities, rather than just an extra +1 to something so mundane and simple.
(I realize I'm most likely in a minority on this subject lol)
I could see this sort of thing take off, if there was a defined distinction of what the game intends to do at given levels. As it stands, if you look at class power levels objectively, some classes reach near deific levels (those classes able to cast wish, miracle, etc.) others fall a little short of that mark, and still others are awe-inspiring at what they do, but still grounded in the physics of the mundane.
The tiers idea with respect to character level helps to define what the game intends to do at given levels:
1-5) normal
6-10) heroic
11-15) legendary
16-20) epic
If the game came right out and said, in this level range, the game assumes a, b, and c... and your PCs should be able to do x, y, and z, I think it would be easier for designers to come up with level appropriate powers, skill uses, monsters, spells, magic items and so on. And it would create a bench-mark for players and especially GMs to gauge level appropriate adventures. Now this is done to a certain extent already with CR, wealth by level, and in other areas, but it's obviously lacking in other areas such as level appropriate skill challenges and options, feats, and so on. If there were literature in the published rules themselves, as to what is expected at a given level, groups would be able to calibrate their game to their play-style more seamlessly, I'd imagine.
So for instance, if you wanted to keep a campaign in the low-magic end of things, the rules could be set up (and explained) that the GM should stick to the normal and heroic ranges and end the campaign around 9th-11th level. Likewise, if the climb skill could allow you to eventually run up walls, then that ability could be assigned to perhaps the legendary or epic tier.
I don't know if this rambling makes much sense, but there it is to decipher for anyone with at least 10 ranks in linguistics.
ADDENDUM: Having said all that, I think the trick would be that after establishing such a framework to re-organize the rules and build more going forward, that:
1) it still felt like D&D/Pathfinder
2) it wasn't so hard-wired as to be inflexible
3) the game transitions nicely between levels
I could see this sort of thing take off, if there was a defined distinction of what the game intends to do at given levels. As it stands, if you look at class power levels objectively, some classes reach near deific levels (those classes able to cast wish, miracle, etc.) others fall a little short of that mark, and still others are awe-inspiring at what they do, but still grounded in the physics of the mundane.The tiers idea with respect to character level helps to define what the game intends to do at given levels:
1-5) normal
6-10) heroic
11-15) legendary
16-20) epicIf the game came right out and said, in this level range, the game assumes a, b, and c... and your PCs should be able to do x, y, and z, I think it would be easier for designers to come up with level appropriate powers, skill uses, monsters, spells, magic items and so on. And it would create a bench-mark for players and especially GMs to gauge level appropriate adventures. Now this is done to a certain extent already with CR, wealth by level, and in other areas, but it's obviously lacking in other areas such as level appropriate skill challenges and options, feats, and so on. If there were literature in the published rules themselves, as to what is expected at a given level, groups would be able to calibrate their game to their play-style more seamlessly, I'd imagine.
So for instance, if you wanted to keep a campaign in the low-magic end of things, the rules could be set up (and explained) that the GM should stick to the...
I rolled a natural 20 on my check to decipher I think, let me know DM.
What your saying is the DC for checks for skills isnt really defined for what level those checks are established or what those checks entail at those levels.
For instance Can I jump from the top of the crows nest of a ship and grab a rope on the way down to swing safely? ofcourse its possible, but at what level is that most likely?
if you throw in tricks for skills that allow defineable abilities you can take for each skill then youve got a whole world of awesome and suddenly the skill monkeys become very very useful.
Toker. You should read that link I put in my small post up-page. It will give you lots of ideas for this kind of change.
Reading now.
I rolled a natural 20 on my check to decipher I think, let me know DM.
What your saying is the DC for checks for skills isnt really defined for what level those checks are established or what those checks entail at those levels.
For instance Can I jump from the top of the crows nest of a ship and grab a rope on the way down to swing safely? ofcourse its possible, but at what level is that most likely?
if you throw in tricks for skills that allow defineable...
Well for instance, the Jump skill is actually one that breaks the rules of reality as written in some respects. But the Heal skill? At some point, it becomes pointless to add more ranks to that one. Survival is another one, though I think you could get some reality breaking potential out of it when tracking creatures.
But the key to what I'm trying to convey (taking skills for instance) that there should be things that you could do with EVERY SKILL that would justify having x number of ranks in that skill. Taking your example, of jumping from the crows nest, that (to me at least) sounds like a heroic use of the skill. You shouldn't necessarily be able to do it at really low level (perhaps with a lot of luck), you should be able to do it routinely at levels 6-10 if you've trained for it, but if that's all you can do with the skill at level 11+, then additional options should be provided by the game to make more appropriate use of that skill and reward having 11+ ranks in it.
Does this essentials you speak of heat nicely? It sounds like I want to take a bath in it...
Essentials is what happened when 4E killed 3.5, skinned it, and then wore it's skin to stalk unsuspecting 3E gamers. :D
It uses the same core system as 4E (same skills, same power system, same basic level stuff), but puts a new "skin" on all the classes that makes them look very 3.5-ish. The scary thing is, they kinda play a lot like them too!
The Essentials Rogue gets all kinds of special talents and skirmish abilities, trap stuff, etc. The classes even have individual level tables with level-based class abilities.
4E's like "Look, I'm Pathfinder! See? We have the same outfit and everything." :D
|
My biggest disappointment is how ineffective poisons and diseases are, their DCs should be higher, I wished there was a variant class or prestige class that would add 1/2 class levels or add ranks in a skill to the DC of the poison/disease effect used to be getting something nearer DC40 for the effects, but pathfinder is very new, I’m sure eventually something for everyone will come…
Anthony:
Okay I am following and you also need to check that thread Ryder posted.
Ryder:
Yeah man gotta say I read the first chapter and I am fairly impressed, atleast so far. The only thing I have a bone to pick with is the no secret rolls by the DM. I dont hate it and it wouldnt be a problem with my group but metagame potential just screams abuse IMO.
L dub:
Sounds like a hot cross-dresser... you dont find out until its too late....
yeah I am prepared for everyone to question my sexual preferences after that last comment.
I am normal. for the most part anyways haha
My biggest disappointment is how ineffective poisons and diseases are, their DCs should be higher, I wished there was a variant class or prestige class that would add 1/2 class levels or add ranks in a skill to the DC of the poison/disease effect used to be getting something nearer DC40 for the effects, but pathfinder is very new, I’m sure eventually something for everyone will come…
The problem with this is the fact that poisons are mundane.
Anything mundane in the world is basically weaker than the magic part of it.
Thus the only way to have an effective disease or poison is through magical means.
This is not even the case in real life so I dont know why it is in the fantasy world.
Bio-warfare is a perfect example of craft-poison on steroids to create a dc 40 disease.
Im sure some CIA agent somewhere has made a poison that can kill a small elephant with a drop on the tip of a dart.
or even a native american :)
L dub:
Sounds like a hot cross-dresser... you dont find out until its too late....
Omg, that comment wins. :D
Also, apparently I have a new nickname. *grins*