Dear fellow gamers,
I want to discuss a prevalent opinion on these boards that says "Offense is the best defense".
First of all, in my gaming experience, which is built up of playing Pathfinder and its predecessors for around six years every tuesday night with varying DMs and players, it does not hold true.
I see the logic behind the thesis and there were instances, when this assertion absolutely held true. Yet, in the majority of cases, it was almost the other way round: "Defense saves your life" (or if you want: "defense is the best offense")
The defense of a character consists of many things: AC, Touch AC, Saves, CMD and immunities (sth. else?). In the long run, a fighter maxed out for damage will not make his will save in relevant situations. He will probably be gone for the rest of the fight, if he doesn't happen to change sides (just one of thousand examples).
So, does your actual gaming experience back up the assertion that "offense is the best defense"?
Offensive often is the best defence When the CR = APL or lower. This is where the melee characters and Area spells really shine. You tend to have a bunch of little guys to mop up, or one bigger thing that the players simply hose with 4 or 5 or 6 actions compared to it's single action.
The challenge for GMs is to provide that variety where sometimes Offensive Is the Best Defence, and sometime it is the Worst Thing to Do, with all shades of grey in-between. I'm working on my encounters with the view to setting up at least one PC with the choice of Doing What He Does Best at the risk of being Squished into Putty, or Playing Safe whilst Not Contributing Much.
@EWHM: We didn't experience a pouncing barbarian yet. I already thought of exactly this possibilty, when the assertion" offense is the best defense" might be true.
But there are so many scenarios, where a pouncing charge will not be an option: your allies are in the way, you rolled lousy for your initative and the enemy caster just takes you out, there are mooks blocking your path, difficult terrain. Granted, there are some options for a barbarian to avoid some of these obstacles, but it needs a lot of feats/rage powers to be able to circumvent them all.
A strong offense may be more valuable than a strong defense in many cases, but after a while, the odds will catch up with you and you may find yourself wishing you had a stronger defense.
But with the incongruities of defense not scaling with some manner of equality with offense (BAB goes up per X levels, AC dosent; save DC's advance far faster than save bonuses; limitations of overlapping bonuses to those defenses; extra sensory perceptions mitigating things like concealment.) You will wish for it but it may simply not be possible or not affordable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A strong offense is the best defense -- that doesn't mean it's the only defense or that others don't need to be in place for when that defense fails.
This falls into the fallacy of exclusion. Just because something is the best doesn't mean it's the only or that it is infallible.
A certain gun might be the best gun -- that doesn't mean it's the best in every category, simply that when everything is considered it's the best you'll get out of all guns. The others might simply be too specialized in a niche where they will certainly excel, but be next to useless in all other cases.
|
A strong offense may be more valuable than a strong defense in many cases, but after a while, the odds will catch up with you and you may find yourself wishing you had a stronger defense.
There are encounters where a strong offense is the best defense. There are also encounters where a strong defense is better. There are even encounters that diplomacy is the best defense. in other words as far as the game is concerned there's no "best" in all situations.
@EWHM: We didn't experience a pouncing barbarian yet. I already thought of exactly this possibilty, when the assertion" offense is the best defense" might be true.
But there are so many scenarios, where a pouncing charge will not be an option: your allies are in the way, you rolled lousy for your initative and the enemy caster just takes you out, there are mooks blocking your path, difficult terrain. Granted, there are some options for a barbarian to avoid some of these obstacles, but it needs a lot of feats/rage powers to be able to circumvent them all.
Allies in way? Dragon style.
Mooks? Kill them.Difficult terrain: Dragon Style
When things get in the way: Barbarian kills them.
To gain Dragon Style you need Unarmed strike (monk 1 and 2 grants free bonus feat of Styles like Dragon Style if Master of Many Styles).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, if that statement becomes a reasoning to go all offense and scrap the defense, then the reasoning is flawed.
That said, offense is a pretty good defense in some situations. I wouldn't put it the best overall though.
Then again, I wouldn't put AC or HP at the top of the list either.
Control is probably the best defense overall. If you can prevent your enemies from getting their full attacks, then you've defended yourself better than the best armor.
|
It's a mix, but the offensive capacities are more important. Standing there looking well-armored doesn't work great in this game if you don't do damage worth anything. If there was a hulking armored hunk standing there and some offensive caster-types behind him, what do you do? You move past, take the AOO for little damage, and go kill the casters. Why should the GM do any less.
I do agree AC for front line and saves for everyone is vital for survival; but first you have to make sure you do your primary function well.
The best, I think, is a good offense, and a limited way to raise defense when it counts (a mage behing the lines is targeting you? - Use that magic item giving you a bonus on saves.) instead of the inverse.
Ending the fight quickly means your AC,CMD and Saves will be less targeted so you can get by with limited ressources to buff them.
You even the odds with the defensive guy who has better saves but will be more often the target because he can't dispatch the ennemy as quickly. A better save is not that usefull if you have to roll it twice or thrice as much.
Lets say you save against DC 15
If you roll once with a +0 save, you have 3/4 chances to fail.
If you roll thrice with a +5 save, you have 1/2 +1/2 +1/2 to fail - You will tend to fail more often each combat.
Better to get the bad guy out after only one save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this game, it doesn't matter.
Why? Because there's a GM who has the job of adjusting difficulty from session to session to challenge the players. If I'm faced with PCs with pathetic saves and AC, my monsters are less optimized than if I'm faced with PCs with astronomical saves and AC. The more you defend, the more I'm gunning for you. The more you offend, the more I work towards monster defense.
Point is that I'm always working for two to four round combats, no matter what your stats are.
Why offense is king:
1) There are too many ways to die
A D&D character is like a city with 5 gates.
-Hit point
-Will save
-Fort save
-Ability Damage
-Level drain
(a reflex save spell that takes you out out of the fight is kind of rare)
Anything that can breach ONE of those gates will kill you dead on a regular basis.
Unless you can cover all of them your characters "hold on till the end" defense strategy isn't going to work. Furthermore you need to cover them all AND ... this is very important... still be enough of a threat that people don't just walk around you or ignore you completely. If you are walking around with full defensive gear dual wielding tower shields and hitting the dragon for 1d3 +1 points of damage with your unarmed strike.. it will simply step over you and go after an actual threat.
So the trick is to cover ENOUGH gates. Hit points take care of themselves with a decent con. Will save is something fighters need to worry about: most builds i see on the board for fighters include iron will. (but oddly most people seem to overlook being a dwarf: which does the same thing and then some, or the elf bonus which almost does the same thing)
(a reflex save spell that takes you out out of the fight is kind of rare)
Create Pit (and its siblings) is a great spell for this.
In this game, it doesn't matter.
Why? Because there's a GM who has the job of adjusting difficulty from session to session to challenge the players. If I'm faced with PCs with pathetic saves and AC, my monsters are less optimized than if I'm faced with PCs with astronomical saves and AC. The more you defend, the more I'm gunning for you. The more you offend, the more I work towards monster defense.
Point is that I'm always working for two to four round combats, no matter what your stats are.
I agree that the GM role is to provide a good play experience, but as a player, I quickly get disinterested if every enemy I meet has be custom-made to counter my build and every encounter yield the same 2-3 round, same ressources depletion rate feeling.
Create Pit (and its siblings) is a great spell for this.
People can climb, people fly, other characters can toss down a rope: as opposed to being dead or turned into a marmoset.
Create Pit (and its siblings) is a great spell for this. [a reflex save spell that takes you out out of the fight]
People can climb, people fly, other characters can toss down a rope: as opposed to being dead or turned into a marmoset.
Climbing will take you out for a round or two, maybe longer if you have Str 7.
Fly - if they have Fly, would they be on the ground as a reasonable target for the spell?
Other characters toss down a rope? Awesome, now I have two of my players out of the fight for a round or two. That might well be half the combat, thought it will go longer now that the Rogue has thrown a rope down to the Wizard with no strength and the Fighter in Full Plate.
I really like the Create Pit spell, both as GM and player. I think it should be something that GMs use regularly as it can take PCs out of a fight for a round or two without killing them. Though they may climb out to find the rest of the party dead...
If we are talking functionally, then if a player had their character put all their eggs in the offensive basket I would eventually (and not too eventually either....) have an intelligent arch-enemy probe for their (many) weakness) and use them mercilessly.
Wading into your enemies dishing the pain is useful if they don't know anything about you, but you don't have to be an American General to realise that 'Shock and Awe' doesn't always work.
It is of course personal choice, but min-maxing offensive capability will hang you by your own petard one day unless the GM panders to your preferred encounter profile 100% of the time - which to my mind would be damn boring.
As a final point - PLAYING offensively (as a preference to sitting around and waiting for the big bad to come to you) is a choice you should not entirely restrict yourself to. To illustrate simply - why leave the walls of an enchanted fortress to kill the dragon when you know it's hunger will bring it to you.
It is all situational - read Sun Tzu - the Art of War and bear in mind that 'offence is the best defence' is good - but not all the time, or even the majority of the time.
In fact you should not restrict yourself to any particular mantra in any aspect of the well-run and varied game - 'improvise, adapt, overcome....'
I think first and foremost flexibility/options is the best offense AND defense in dnd. If you can attack or defend yourself in varied ways you have a bigger chance of hitting the achilles heel of your opponent and thus making him obsolete. I have personally found that in dnd you usually loose if your toys aren't applicable to the situation (due to high ac, dr, saves or immunities), by having more and varied toys you reduce the chance of this happening.
Big numbers are also very important, but some times things don't care for a specific kind of number. The manticore doesn't care for how much damage that 6th level barbarian can hit, the stone golem doesn't care about that pimped out magic jar dc and an ooze laughs at your twf rogues damage.
That said offense must be enough so that opponents can't easily ignore you. If you achieve that threshold though, focusing on defense would be best. One of the many reasons for this is the random and killy nature of dnd. A hardcore focus on offense will propably make you wade through several encounters very easily but you will die in the first string of unluck. A more defensive character (but who still is a threat in combat) might struggle in all these encounters but he has better chances of surviving these unlucky situtations.
Climbing will take you out for a round or two, maybe longer if you have Str 7.
If you have a str of 7 chances are pretty good you can do something while standing at the bottom of the pit.
Fly - if they have Fly, would they be on the ground as a reasonable target for the spell?
Because there are a lot of levels between "I can fly if i have to" and playing the superman theme. People memorize fly spells that they don't cast, keep potions of fly, have boots that work for x number of rounds per day, or grow their own wings.
Other characters toss down a rope? Awesome, now I have two of my players out of the fight for a round or two. That might well be half the combat, thought it will go longer now that the Rogue has thrown a rope down to the Wizard with no strength and the Fighter in Full Plate.
Loose two rounds of rogue for another round of wizard? Bonus.
I really like the Create Pit spell, both as GM and player. I think it should be something that GMs use regularly as it can take PCs out of a fight for a round or two without killing them. Though they may climb out to find the rest of the party dead...
Its new so it hasn't trickled into the Standard operating procedure and can be a little confusing sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the GM role is to provide a good play experience, but as a player, I quickly get disinterested if every enemy I meet has be custom-made to counter my build and every encounter yield the same 2-3 round, same ressources depletion rate feeling.
To be clear, the details and nature of each encounter is different. I don't cookie-cutter anything and there is variance in difficulty but I as a DM don't think I've done my job if seven guys at a table roll initiative then gank the bad guy. Yeah, you're bad-ass. But really, amongst other things short combats focus on high-initiative PCs and whoever is good at dishing out the "you're done now" action. Two to three rounds lets everyone play.
It really depends on the situation, but 95 % of the time its better to be able to hit the BBEG on a 17-20 than only on a 20.
Another reason to prefer a good offense is that in some situations you can exchange your offense for a boost to defense, this is not so easily done the other way round.
Fighting defensively, full defense, withdraw, and combat expertise are really good tools even if your character isn´t build to use them to full effect.
Holding the unhittable BBEG in a door by taking the full defense action ist´t heroic, epic or barbaric (for barbarians^^) but if the party uses this time to bring down the boss with magic missile so be it.
On the other hand a preemtive black tentacles or for that matter any debuff spell could provide the group with way more "defense" than any amount of stoneskins.
So either adapt your tactic to the situation or mix and match the approach in the group: 1 Tank, several damage dealers a healer if needed...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN FIND THAT DEFENSE AM GENERALLY WASTE OF TIME. AM ONLY ONE TYPE OF CHARACTER WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% CHANCE OF INSTANT DEATH VERSUS RAGELANCEPOUNCE. CHARACTER AM ARMORED FIGHTY WITH WAAAY TOO MUCH IN ARMOR. BARBARIAN NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT FIGHTY. AM NOT MANUVERABLE ENOUGH TO GET AT BARBARIAN.
ONLY DEFENSE AM MATTER AM SUPERSTICHIN AND GHOST FIGHTER POWERS. ALL ELSE AM BEST PUT INTO STAB THINGS BETTER.
In my opinion, the best offense in the world is "relatively" useless if you are lying face down on the ground bleeding to death.
That probably happened because you didn't have enough offense. :)
I'd rather have a good offense and a medium defense than a medium offense and a good defense. Ending a fight early is not only good for your PC, it's good for all of the PCs in the party, so everyone benefits from a good offense. Sharing your defense with the other members of the party is more difficult.
To be clear, the details and nature of each encounter is different. I don't cookie-cutter anything and there is variance in difficulty but I as a DM don't think I've done my job if seven guys at a table roll initiative then gank the bad guy. Yeah, you're bad-ass. But really, amongst other things short combats focus on high-initiative PCs and whoever is good at dishing out the "you're done now" action. Two to three rounds lets everyone play.
Then, I agree with you, but I still think that, if there is variance enough, you are statistically better off with offence than with defense.
But, hey, I've played defensive character often enough. I am not talking about the feel, but only about the crunch.
A great offense can win, a perfect defense never will.
Why? Because defense never scores. Only offense puts points on the board.
Battlefield control is nice -- so long as you have someone to actually put the enemy down -- otherwise all you are doing is delaying.
Offense is mandatory. Finishing an enemy means that enemy is no longer apply attacks to you -- if you aren't attacked you don't need defense.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as the 'perfect offense' -- so again while a good offense is an equally good defense, and is often the best defense it is not the perfect defense. Defense should always be layered, with the ability to end the attack first and foremost. After all if you can't actually stop the enemy eventually it will succeed in stopping you.
The difference is proactive versus reactive.
You are statistically better off with offence than with defense.
Probably, yeah. The fewer actions the bad guy(s) get, the better. Defense prolongs the encounter, granting the bad guy(s) more opportunities to get lucky.
From my experience offense is your best defense. I start out with damage out put then move to combat maneuvers to control the battle field. Now I wouldn't ignore defense. You need to boost saves and keep your AC relevant. Hit points aren't as big of deal though but the more the better.
Why? Because defense never scores. Only offense puts points on the board.
While I agree with you in large, this depends on the goal of the scenario. Sometimes, surviving is all you need - if you're waiting for reinforcements, protecting the guy trying to destroy the cursed McGuffin, or are trying to get away from the enemy. These times, good defense (including control and restoration) might be more important than the ability to stab stuff.
Funny, but no one has mentioned a very important axiom. The longer a fight lasts, the more likely things are to go wrong for the players. Also, the longer a fight lasts, the more resources the players will expend.
This is due to the fact that the longer the fight lasts, the more attacks the players will be subjected to. The more attacks a players has to take, the more likely something goes wrong.(crit, failed save, etc)
Imagine an offensive party that can kill the BBEG in one round. The BBEG throws one spell, the players have a 50/50 chance to make it, then the BBEG dies.
Now in comes the defensive party, they have a 80% chance to make the save, but it takes them 4 rounds to kill the BBEG. The BBEG will get off 4 spells before he dies, and the players only have a 40% chance to make all 4 saves.
If the bad guys have a 50% chance to hit me, but only survive one round, I will take less damage than if they have an 80% chance to hit me, but they survive 3 rounds.
Also remember than AC and saves won't protect you from everything. A lot of spells still do damage on a successful save. Your high AC super save tank can still take a lot of damage from a minion with a wand of fireball or magic missle.
In short, offense makes fights shorter. Shorter fights means that there is less of a chance of something going wrong.
PS-Offense means taking enemies out of the fight either via battle field control, Save or suck, or raw damage.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Anecdote:
I played a PFS scenario (using my level 5 fighter) in which the final combat was against two people you didn't know were bad guys... and one of them was a rogue. Combat starts when he announces his intent to kill you and sneak attacks with his scimitar for a total of probably 4d6 or 5d6 damage plus STRmod. Immediately thereafter, his druid buddy casts call lightning to finish you off. While you try to deal with (or get away from) the rogue.
Now, every full-BAB non-ranger I've met locally has been a greatsword cleave-monkey with an AC in the neighborhood of 16. When the GM rolled to hit in the surprise round, he got a 19. Would've taken every other local fighter/barbarian down to around 2/3 or 3/4 HP, with a good chance of taking additional hits from the rogue.
But he came up 4 points short of hitting my flat-footed AC. He tried to get away, but I kept on him and started beating him down, then once I finished I went after the druid. Since the rogue was never able to hit me, the druid had to use all of his bolts to drop me (leaving the rest of the party entirely unmolested), succeeding only once I was about 15' from him.
Meanwhile, those 16AC cleavers would've taken that initial 5d6+X, and despite finishing off the rogue a couple of rounds earlier, would've taken a couple of extra hits in the process. They'd likely drop at about the same point, only the druid would still have bolts left over to throw at the other party members (or at the fighter, if someone tapped him with a wand).
Anecdote:
I played a PFS scenario (using my level 5 fighter) in which the final combat was against two people you didn't know were bad guys... and one of them was a rogue. Combat starts when he announces his intent to kill you and sneak attacks with his scimitar for a total of probably 4d6 or 5d6 damage plus STRmod. Immediately thereafter, his druid buddy casts call lightning to finish you off. While you try to deal with (or get away from) the rogue.
Now, every full-BAB non-ranger I've met locally has been a greatsword cleave-monkey with an AC in the neighborhood of 16. When the GM rolled to hit in the surprise round, he got a 19. Would've taken every other local fighter/barbarian down to around 2/3 or 3/4 HP, with a good chance of taking additional hits from the rogue.
But he came up 4 points short of hitting my flat-footed AC. He tried to get away, but I kept on him and started beating him down, then once I finished I went after the druid. Since the rogue was never able to hit me, the druid had to use all of his bolts to drop me (leaving the rest of the party entirely unmolested), succeeding only once I was about 15' from him.
Meanwhile, those 16AC cleavers would've taken that initial 5d6+X, and despite finishing off the rogue a couple of rounds earlier, would've taken a couple of extra hits in the process. They'd likely drop at about the same point, only the druid would still have bolts left over to throw at the other party members (or at the fighter, if someone tapped him with a wand).
This is where I put that a non-specific rebuttal about how a good offensive character wouldn't have lost the surprise round, but not everyone can afford to multiclass into diviner.
In truth, ambush situations like that are few and far in between. It almost falls into the category of "If the DM wants to screw you over, you are going to get screwed".
Also, no one is saying it is a great idea to run around with an 0 AC hitting for a million damage a swing, but it is a bad idea to run around with a million AC hitting for 1 damage a swing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is where I put that a non-specific rebuttal about how a good offensive character wouldn't have lost the surprise round, but not everyone can afford to multiclass into diviner.
In truth, ambush situations like that are few and far in between. It almost falls into the category of "If the DM wants to screw you over, you are going to get screwed".
Ambush situations aren't really that uncommon in PFS, actually.
Also, no one is saying it is a great idea to run around with an 0 AC hitting for a million damage a swing, but it is a bad idea to run around with a million AC hitting for 1 damage a swing.
Way to exaggerate. Here's the actual comparison:
AC 16 versus AC 26. With a 10-point difference, that's fully half of attack rolls that will hit them but miss me.
1d8+8 damage (average 12.5) versus 2d6+16 damage with power attack (average 23). Of course the to-hit penalty of power attack takes the average damage down a bit on Captain Greatsword, but you get the idea.
1d8+8 damage (average 12.5) versus 2d6+16 damage with power attack (average 23). Of course the to-hit penalty of power attack takes the average damage down a bit on Captain Greatsword, but you get the idea.
Actually lets not be disingenuous Jiggy the to hit penalty is less of an issue due to furious focus, weapon training, etc. Chances are if hes swinging 6 ft of steel around he's going to be tweaked enough to hit while doing so. I understand your point but dont use shaky "proof" you, I think, have enough other ways to make the case.
I am not convinced I buy it yet, mind you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1d8+8 damage (average 12.5) versus 2d6+16 damage with power attack (average 23). Of course the to-hit penalty of power attack takes the average damage down a bit on Captain Greatsword, but you get the idea.
Actually lets not be disingenuous Jiggy the to hit penalty is less of an issue due to furious focus, weapon training, etc. Chances are if hes swinging 6 ft of steel around he's going to be tweaked enough to hit while doing so. I understand your point but dont use shaky "proof" you, I think, have enough other ways to make the case.
I am not convinced I buy it yet, mind you.
Er, I wasn't really even factoring in the penalty to hit, just mentioning it in passing lest anyone think I forgot to account for it. Note I didn't even calculate damage per round, just per hit.
This is where I put that a non-specific rebuttal about how a good offensive character wouldn't have lost the surprise round, but not everyone can afford to multiclass into diviner.
In truth, ambush situations like that are few and far in between. It almost falls into the category of "If the DM wants to screw you over, you are going to get screwed".
Ambush situations aren't really that uncommon in PFS, actually.
Ambushes yes, Ambushes that are specifically set up so that you automatically lose your chance to act in the surprise round, no.
Most of time in an ambush, you will get 3 chances to avoid getting hit like that. Perception/sense motive check, initiative check, attack roll.
Also, no one is saying it is a great idea to run around with an 0 AC hitting for a million damage a swing, but it is a bad idea to run around with a million AC hitting for 1 damage a swing.Way to exaggerate. Here's the actual comparison:
AC 16 versus AC 26. With a 10-point difference, that's fully half of attack rolls that will hit them but miss me.
1d8+8 damage (average 12.5) versus 2d6+16 damage with power attack (average 23). Of course the to-hit penalty of power attack takes the average damage down a bit on Captain Greatsword, but you get the idea.
The exageration was intentional. My point is that you don't have to completely dump your defense to have a good offense. There is a lot of middle ground in between all offense/no defense and all defense/no offense.
Also, any character with uncanny dodge(like a greatsword wielding barbarian) would have avoided the sneak attack damage even with a crappy AC.
Now, every full-BAB non-ranger I've met locally has been a greatsword cleave-monkey with an AC in the neighborhood of 16. When the GM rolled to hit in the surprise round, he got a 19. Would've taken every other local fighter/barbarian down to around 2/3 or 3/4 HP, with a good chance of taking additional hits from the rogue.
Well, not the barbarians or part-barbarian mutts. 2 levels of barbarian beats infinite levels of rogue for most any method of getting SA other than flanking.
(Edit: Ninja's by Charender re: Uncanny Dodge!)
Er, I wasn't really even factoring in the penalty to hit, just mentioning it in passing lest anyone think I forgot to account for it. Note I didn't even calculate damage per round, just per hit.
But by mentioning it you appear to be implying that it has a measurable impact on effectiveness and will impact the combat on a per round basis in essence trying to somehow say that while the difference in numbers to some may appear big its not as important because the 2 hander will hit less which all the theory crafting done on these boards indicates is not true. Better to just ignore/redact that part of it and focus on your much more useful AC comparison.
We have seen enough theory-craft, DPR olympics, threads to know that half of the good offence IS best defense (I am currently inclined towards the layered defense folks have mentioned with offense being a part and a useful and important part of that layering) position.
I think you may be on to something with your wait it out layered defense but offense is less useful and important part of that than folks make it out to be. But i need more examples anecdotes theory/ numbers to look at.
Also how do you address the eventual cannot afford or have no free non overlapping types of augmentation to defenses/
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, people are taking my words and interpreting them as being waaaaaaay more precise and definitive than the casual, general, anecdotal remarks they were intended to be.
I share a story (and identify it as being nothing more), and someone tries to counter it with hyperbole.
I point out the absurd hyperbole, and someone takes one phrase from it and interprets it as a stance on DPR olympics, worthy of a multi-paragraph response.
Geez, people. I just wanted to pop in and say "hey, this thing happened once and it was pretty cool".