Titan Mauler: Jotungrip and Massive Weappns.

[boriss283]

Titan Mauler have Jotingrip, which allow hit use Two-Handed weapon in pne hand with -2 penalty, but it must be of appropriately size, so, for example: Medium Greatsword for Human.

Also Titan Mauler have Massive Weapon ability, that allows use Two-Handed weapon for greature, that is larger with additional 4 penalty for size. So human with this ability can use Ogres Greatsword (Because this is Two-Handed weapon for large creature).

How I understand human cant use Ogres Great Sword in one hand, because it isnt appropriately size and Massive Weapons ability only allow use Ogres Greatsword which still isnt appropriately for human?

P.S. Sorry for my English. Isnt my first language, hope you will understand my question.

[Claxon]

I think I understand your question.

You are basically asking if you can combine Jotungrip and Massive Weapons, correct?

I believe the answer is no, because the ability from Massive Weapons does not make it "appropriately sized". Therefore, you cannot wield two large sized two-handed weapons.

[boriss283]

Thank you.

[Kazaan]

Another way to think about it, is that a Large Greatsword is already one step too big to wield and, since a TM gets Jotungrip at lvl 2 and Massive Weapons at lvl 3, the effect of Jotungrip is subsumed into MW to "step down" the category from "unwieldable" to "two-handed" when wielding an oversized weapon. Honestly, I think Jotungrip should have just reduced the "hands" category of any weapon properly sized or bigger by 1 step. That would let you wield your own-size weapons 1 step lower (1-h as light, 2-h as 1-h), Large weapons still as whatever normal category they are, Huge weapons as one category bigger than normal (light as 1-h, 1-h as 2-h), and Gargantuan light weapons as 2-h. That would have been far more impressive. But, as it stands, a Medium Titan Mauler can wield Large 2-h as 2-h for an additional -4 peanlty, Large 1-h as 2-h, Large light as 1-h, or Huge light as 2-h.

[Air0r]

Kazaan wrote:

Another way to think about it, is that a Large Greatsword is already one step too big to wield and, since a TM gets Jotungrip at lvl 2 and Massive Weapons at lvl 3, the effect of Jotungrip is subsumed into MW to "step down" the category from "unwieldable" to "two-handed" when wielding an oversized weapon. Honestly, I think Jotungrip should have just reduced the "hands" category of any weapon properly sized or bigger by 1 step. That would let you wield your own-size weapons 1 step lower (1-h as light, 2-h as 1-h), Large weapons still as whatever normal category they are, Huge weapons as one category bigger than normal (light as 1-h, 1-h as 2-h), and Gargantuan light weapons as 2-h. That would have been far more impressive. But, as it stands, a Medium Titan Mauler can wield Large 2-h as 2-h for an additional -4 peanlty, Large 1-h as 2-h, Large light as 1-h, or Huge light as 2-h.

The issue with that is the interaction with the vital strike feat chain. because you could have much larger numbers of dice as a baseline.

[CampinCarl9127]

Oh good, the Titan Mauler archetype again.

*Ahem*

This archetype sucks massive donkey dong, to put it nicely. So awesome in theory, so poorly executed in practice. The rules are confusing and have been forced to be errata'd, and both pre and post-errata the class is completely terrible. If you want to wield huge weapons, I recommend playing a fighter instead. Their archetype is infinitely better and less confusing.

[Kazaan]

Air0r wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Another way to think about it, is that a Large Greatsword is already one step too big to wield and, since a TM gets Jotungrip at lvl 2 and Massive Weapons at lvl 3, the effect of Jotungrip is subsumed into MW to "step down" the category from "unwieldable" to "two-handed" when wielding an oversized weapon. Honestly, I think Jotungrip should have just reduced the "hands" category of any weapon properly sized or bigger by 1 step. That would let you wield your own-size weapons 1 step lower (1-h as light, 2-h as 1-h), Large weapons still as whatever normal category they are, Huge weapons as one category bigger than normal (light as 1-h, 1-h as 2-h), and Gargantuan light weapons as 2-h. That would have been far more impressive. But, as it stands, a Medium Titan Mauler can wield Large 2-h as 2-h for an additional -4 peanlty, Large 1-h as 2-h, Large light as 1-h, or Huge light as 2-h.

The issue with that is the interaction with the vital strike feat chain. because you could have much larger numbers of dice as a baseline.

So what? That would bring it more in line with other Barb archetypes because, as it stands, TM is sub-par. And still no worse than a Cave Druid wildshaped into a Carnivorous Crystal Ooze using vital strike with a 7d8 slam.

[Murdock Mudeater]

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Oh good, the Titan Mauler archetype again.

*Ahem*

This archetype sucks massive donkey dong, to put it nicely. So awesome in theory, so poorly executed in practice. The rules are confusing and have been forced to be errata'd, and both pre and post-errata the class is completely terrible. If you want to wield huge weapons, I recommend playing a fighter instead. Their archetype is infinitely better and less confusing.

On a side note, a character planned as a Titan-Fighter archetype (fighter) greatly benefits from taking their first level as a Titan-Mauler (barbarian).

The barbarian archetype only gains Big Game Hunter (ex), plus a higher base HD, more skill points, and rage. Big Game Hunter works very well with the Titan-Fighter archetype and the Rage ability really makes the Titan-Fighter more functional in those situations where you really need to hit the opponent despite your -4 penalty for the Titan Fighter's attack rolls.

Just the one level, all others in Titan Fighter.

Mind you, this all assumes your concept really needs to be about those big weapons. There are better builds if you don't care on the character concept.

[Lorewalker]

I did some thinking about this, and in the unique case where you end up with a tiefling with this variant ability...

"16 You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty."

Massive weapons from Titan Mauler and Thunder and Fang would allow you to use a large two-handed earthbreaker in one hand, with no penalty. Not even the +4 from Massive weapons, as it is added to the penalty for using a large weapon, which the variant tiefling ability negates.

[Kazaan]

Lorewalker wrote:

I did some thinking about this, and in the unique case where you end up with a tiefling with this variant ability...

"16 You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty."

Massive weapons from Titan Mauler and Thunder and Fang would allow you to use a large two-handed earthbreaker in one hand, with no penalty. Not even the +4 from Massive weapons, as it is added to the penalty for using a large weapon, which the variant tiefling ability negates.

You can do that anyway because "without penalty" doesn't single out the penalty to attack rolls due to wielding oversized weapons. For reference, the Redcap monster has an ability that is worded the same, save for replacing Large with Medium since it is a small Fey. It lets a small creature wield medium weapons "without peanlty" and its stat block lists it as wielding a medium Scythe. Scythes are 2-h weapons when appropriately sized so, for a small creature, a medium scythe would ordinarily be unwieldable. However, due to the Redcap's ability, it can wield the normally unwieldable medium scythe. Since its ability doesn't explicitly state it can wield larger weapons, the only logical option is that it is an implicit allowance rolled into the phrase "without penalty". Therefore, "without penalty" includes both the penalty to attack rolls as well as the "penalty" of size step-up or step-down. Thus, a Tiefling who can wield weapons designed for Large creatures "without penalty" no longer treats the weapons as one size bigger due to the step-up but, rather, wields the weapons still as their normal hand requirements would indicate if used by an appropriately sized wielder.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Kazaan wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

I did some thinking about this, and in the unique case where you end up with a tiefling with this variant ability...

"16 You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty."

Massive weapons from Titan Mauler and Thunder and Fang would allow you to use a large two-handed earthbreaker in one hand, with no penalty. Not even the +4 from Massive weapons, as it is added to the penalty for using a large weapon, which the variant tiefling ability negates.

You can do that anyway because "without penalty" doesn't single out the penalty to attack rolls due to wielding oversized weapons. For reference, the Redcap monster has an ability that is worded the same, save for replacing Large with Medium since it is a small Fey. It lets a small creature wield medium weapons "without peanlty" and its stat block lists it as wielding a medium Scythe. Scythes are 2-h weapons when appropriately sized so, for a small creature, a medium scythe would ordinarily be unwieldable. However, due to the Redcap's ability, it can wield the normally unwieldable medium scythe. Since its ability doesn't explicitly state it can wield larger weapons, the only logical option is that it is an implicit allowance rolled into the phrase "without penalty". Therefore, "without penalty" includes both the penalty to attack rolls as well as the "penalty" of size step-up or step-down. Thus, a Tiefling who can wield weapons designed for Large creatures "without penalty" no longer treats the weapons as one size bigger due to the step-up but, rather, wields the weapons still as their normal hand requirements would indicate if used by an appropriately sized wielder.

Though, just about any GM would shut this down if they understood what you were trying to do.

[Lorewalker]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

I did some thinking about this, and in the unique case where you end up with a tiefling with this variant ability...

"16 You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty."

Massive weapons from Titan Mauler and Thunder and Fang would allow you to use a large two-handed earthbreaker in one hand, with no penalty. Not even the +4 from Massive weapons, as it is added to the penalty for using a large weapon, which the variant tiefling ability negates.

You can do that anyway because "without penalty" doesn't single out the penalty to attack rolls due to wielding oversized weapons. For reference, the Redcap monster has an ability that is worded the same, save for replacing Large with Medium since it is a small Fey. It lets a small creature wield medium weapons "without peanlty" and its stat block lists it as wielding a medium Scythe. Scythes are 2-h weapons when appropriately sized so, for a small creature, a medium scythe would ordinarily be unwieldable. However, due to the Redcap's ability, it can wield the normally unwieldable medium scythe. Since its ability doesn't explicitly state it can wield larger weapons, the only logical option is that it is an implicit allowance rolled into the phrase "without penalty". Therefore, "without penalty" includes both the penalty to attack rolls as well as the "penalty" of size step-up or step-down. Thus, a Tiefling who can wield weapons designed for Large creatures "without penalty" no longer treats the weapons as one size bigger due to the step-up but, rather, wields the weapons still as their normal hand requirements would indicate if used by an appropriately sized wielder.

Though, just about any GM would shut this down if they understood what you were trying to do.

Agreed. It is reasonable to assume that the 'without penalty' clause only refers to the numeric penalty. As that is what that language typically relates to.

[Ridiculon]

Cross posting this before anyone goes any further on Thunder and Fang

John Compton (Pathfinder Society Lead Developer) wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Any help on pointing out where the updated version is?

You'll find it in the Pathfinder Player Companion section under the "Varisia: Birthplace of Legends" entry.

Campaign Clarifications wrote:

Page 10—Change the Benefit text of the Thunder and Fang feat to the following. "You may wield an earth breaker and a klar at the same time. When you do so, you may treat the earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker as if it were a one-handed weapon with a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two weapon-fighting penalty."

The key change is in the second sentence, which now begins with "When you do so," denoting the feat's effects only apply when wielding the earth breaker and kalr simultaneously.

[Gulthor]

Ridiculon wrote:

Cross posting this before anyone goes any further on Thunder and Fang

John Compton (Pathfinder Society Lead Developer) wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Any help on pointing out where the updated version is?

You'll find it in the Pathfinder Player Companion section under the "Varisia: Birthplace of Legends" entry.

Campaign Clarifications wrote:

Page 10—Change the Benefit text of the Thunder and Fang feat to the following. "You may wield an earth breaker and a klar at the same time. When you do so, you may treat the earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker as if it were a one-handed weapon with a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two weapon-fighting penalty."

The key change is in the second sentence, which now begins with "When you do so," denoting the feat's effects only apply when wielding the earth breaker and kalr simultaneously.

That is certainly excellent clarification for PFS for the interaction with this specific feat.

As many others have already clearly stated, however, the handedness of a weapon is separate from the more general size and handedness classification of a weapon.

thaX had a really excellent post awhile back where he broke everything down, but as many others have pointed out, his resulting conclusions from all that information differs from many others' interpretations (including mine.)

It's extremely clear to me, for instance, that for *non-PFS* play, which does not have this additional ruling on Thunder & Fang that the feat allows you to use an Earth Breaker as a one-handed weapon - period - along with all the other ramifications that implies.

If I ever have a player that wants to play a TWF Earthbreaker build (with an Earthbreaker in each hand), despite the massive feat taxes and resulting penalties on all attack rolls, they can go to town. Same goes for the Dorn Dergar/Dorn Dergar Master or any of the many other similar variations.

If they want to utilize those feats to enable them to wield an oversize Earthbreaker as a two-handed weapon, they can likewise go for it. To me, the rules pretty clearly allow it, and it's far, far, far from the most broken thing a player might want to experiment with, and it fulfills a very specific kind of character fantasy.

[Chess Pwn]

My view is that PFS rewrote the feat, good for them cause now it's clear what it does, but that doesn't change or give insight on what the current wording is for the feat and how it works.
It'd be like if Divine Protection didn't have an errata and PFS said to change the feat to the wording of the errata. They've completely changed the feat and it does something different. There's no way you'd say that the Divine Protection feat really did what it does now, they've clearly changed what it does. So too is this change. They've completely reworded the feat to change what it was doing.

[thaX]

Ridiculon, thank you for posting the crosspost.

Even when you allow the double wielding of the weapons, Keep in mind that the character is no longer wielding the weapon in one hand when trying to wield the oversized weapon. It still is unwieldable for that character because of the size variance. (Two hand wielding of a Two Handed Weapon)

Chess Pwn, it is, however, an indication on how the feat should be used. This should not be discounted. The new PFS wording is supporting the fluff text that is routinely ignored and supports my position I have had since the beginning.

[Chess Pwn]

Yes, if you change the feat to say what you're wanting it to say then the feat will say what you want it to say and run differently than originally. RAI has never (or at least shouldn't have been) a part of this discussion.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a series of posts. Folks, using the "Breaks other guidelines" flag is a decent way to let us know about a post that doesn't quite fit with other descriptions. But, we are not mind-readers, and it's more helpful to email [e-mail] about an issue rather than name calling and encouraging "dog-piling" behavior.

[thaX]

RAW and RAI are linked. Those that say the one doesn't effect the other set up an impossible game to play and the reason the Brand's fourth iteration was homogenized so badly.

[Ridiculon]

thaX, this is the rules forum. RAW is king. its actually in the name

[thaX]

And intent is a part of how the written rule is put to the page.

It is easier to look at the intent when it is written down in the description of the rules that come below (feat, for this discussion). It is also something that needs to be use a little more when looking at the interactions between Racial Heritage and the feats that can be taken with it. (Fox Shape being one that was discussed recently)

Clearly, the intent of this written rule was for the wielding of a single weapon (or a set of them for Thunder and Fang), never intending to have them double wielded or to be able to wield an oversized version of it. The argument/discussion has been about where in the rules it shows that it can NOT be done. A King needs a Queen to rule with.

[James Risner]

Ridiculon wrote:

thaX, this is the rules forum. RAW is king. its actually in the name

The cool thing is the GM is king of what RAW means in game.

[thaX]

As a GM, being consistent should also be a virtue. The biggest concern for me with this subject isn't the overall problem with double wielding the things, but the oversized Two Handed weapon being wielded (by a feat/ability other than the Titan Mauler or Titan Fighter).

I was doing a happy jig when the Titan Fighter came out, actually, as it was and is a go to for those that want this sort of thing, and easier to do than the tax feat that Thunder and Fang has.

[Ridiculon]

James Risner wrote:

Ridiculon wrote:

thaX, this is the rules forum. RAW is king. its actually in the name

The cool thing is the GM is king of what RAW means in game.

which is the point of this forum, to debate different interpretations of the RAW. but thaX has repeatedly claimed that RAI trumps RAW, which is exactly the opposite of how this particular forum is supposed to work (afaik)

[Claxon]

Ridiculon wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Ridiculon wrote:

thaX, this is the rules forum. RAW is king. its actually in the name

The cool thing is the GM is king of what RAW means in game.

which is the point of this forum, to debate different interpretations of the RAW. but thaX has repeatedly claimed that RAI trumps RAW, which is exactly the opposite of how this particular forum is supposed to work (afaik)

That is not particularly true.

The spirit of the rules is often more important than what is written.

Remember, the rules don't say you can't take actions when dead.

They also tell you the penalties to see the sun are so enormous that you shouldn't be able to see it.

So often, the spirit of the rules is vastly more important than what is actually written.

Where we get bogged down is adjudicating less obvious differences between the spirit of a rule and what is written.

[Ridiculon]

Claxon wrote:

That is not particularly true.

The spirit of the rules is often more important than what is written.

Remember, the rules don't say you can't take actions when dead.

They also tell you the penalties to see the sun are so enormous that you shouldn't be able to see it.

So often, the spirit of the rules is vastly more important than what is actually written.

Where we get bogged down is adjudicating less obvious differences between the spirit of a rule and what is written.

by the rules death is an advanced state of unconsciousness from which you can't recover without help since you dont usually get to death without being unconscious first (and dying does not rid you of the unconscious condition)

distance modifiers only apply to attempts to see fine details, and unless its actively trying to hide from you the existence of the sun is not a fine detail

reductio ad absurdum arguments get reductio ad absurdum answers, but they are still RAW instead of RAI which is my point. Unless the Intention is written its not part of the RAW

[thaX]

So when it is written in the description, it doesn't count?

I know that intent can be something of a red herring, a bit of salt over the shoulder, a little nuance of a particular.

The RAW reading can also be the same way.

"Oh, I can do this because of RAW!"
"What, you can... wait, how?"

... and off to the races we go.

[CampinCarl9127]

Wow, this discussion is productive, and completely relevant to the question at hand.

How about we all grow up and step away from the keyboard.

[thaX]

*backing away, sideways, glaring look*

"Ok... alright... I . I ... think I am better now...."

*twitch... twitch*

[thaX]

boriss283 wrote:

Titan Mauler have Jotingrip, which allow hit use Two-Handed weapon in pne hand with -2 penalty, but it must be of appropriately size, so, for example: Medium Greatsword for Human.

Also Titan Mauler have Massive Weapon ability, that allows use Two-Handed weapon for greature, that is larger with additional 4 penalty for size. So human with this ability can use Ogres Greatsword (Because this is Two-Handed weapon for large creature).

How I understand human cant use Ogres Great Sword in one hand, because it isnt appropriately size and Massive Weapons ability only allow use Ogres Greatsword which still isnt appropriately for human?

P.S. Sorry for my English. Isnt my first language, hope you will understand my question.

To answer here...

The Jotingrip allows for a Two Handed weapon to be wield in One Hand.

Massive Weapon allows for a Larger (Large for a Medium creature,for example) Two Handed Weapon to be wielded in Two Hands.

(I assume an Ogres Great Sword is a large Great Sword, not a named item?)

This is the OP

[James Risner]

Ridiculon wrote:

RAI trumps RAW, which is exactly the opposite of how this particular forum is supposed to work (afaik)

RAW does not trump RAI, which is precisely how the rules are supposed to work by comments from Developers and others.

[Dallium]

James Risner wrote:

Ridiculon wrote:

RAI trumps RAW, which is exactly the opposite of how this particular forum is supposed to work (afaik)

RAW does not trump RAI, which is precisely how the rules are supposed to work by comments from Developers and others.

Yeah no, RAW trumps RAI, everytime. Until it's time to actually sit down and play the game. Then all bets are off.

[CampinCarl9127]

Dallium wrote:

Yeah no, RAW trumps RAI, everytime. Until it's time to actually sit down and play the game. Then all bets are off.

Which begs the question, why does it matter when RAW is trump if it's never trump when you play? :P

[Lorewalker]

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Dallium wrote:

Yeah no, RAW trumps RAI, everytime. Until it's time to actually sit down and play the game. Then all bets are off.

Which begs the question, why does it matter when RAW is trump if it's never trump when you play? :P

I know that was sarcasm, but I'm going to answer this seriously. Since it is an important point...

------

If you don't do it that way you end up with a broken system on paper, since no one bothers to fix the problem at the source. They just play their version of not-broken.

I'd rather read the rules for what they are, see what those rules mean and then call out where they make no sense/seem broken/run counter to stated intent... so the rule itself can be fixed.

I mean, at the table I'm going to play the way that makes sense. But, it is beneficial to discuss the rules as they are.

Imagine a world where you don't have to spend hours and days reading through thread after thread, and advice column after column just to learn how the game is 'supposed' to work. You could just read it from the book.
FAQs will never be not important though. Since clarity is not always easily achieved in the space allowed. But that has one source... if done right.

[CampinCarl9127]

You sir, are an impassioned, unrealistic idealist. I hope you can keep that optimism.

[Lorewalker]

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

You sir, are an impassioned, unrealistic idealist. I hope you can keep that optimism.

Eh. I figure you can never reach perfect. But, with as many people who are passionate about a game, and a company who does financially well because of those people... it should be possible to keep trying.

[James Risner]

Lorewalker wrote:

so the rule itself can be fixed.

Points:

Not all things you think should be fixed will be fixed.

Not all things you think say something different actually do say that.

Not everyone agrees on what the RAW is.

So, in short, any concept of RAW being "one true thing" is fundamentally flawed, useless, and to be avoided by GMs, Players, Developers, and the like.

[Lorewalker]

James Risner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

so the rule itself can be fixed.

Points:

Not all things you think should be fixed will be fixed.

Not all things you think say something different actually do say that.

Not everyone agrees on what the RAW is.

So, in short, any concept of RAW being "one true thing" is fundamentally flawed, useless, and to be avoided by GMs, Players, Developers, and the like.

Points:

It doesn't matter who agrees with who, what I think should be fixed or what I think the rules say. Guess that's why there are developers for, eh? Hoo, maybe I could be talking about that? Whatcha think?
Maybe, just maybe, your ideas don't matter either.

Guess I only needed one point.

Seriously, how do you get along in a social game like this with that attitude?

[Lorewalker]

James Risner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

so the rule itself can be fixed.

Points:

Not all things you think should be fixed will be fixed.

Not all things you think say something different actually do say that.

Not everyone agrees on what the RAW is.

So, in short, any concept of RAW being "one true thing" is fundamentally flawed, useless, and to be avoided by GMs, Players, Developers, and the like.

Oh, and uh, what does Power Attack do again? What is the movement speed of a human with no movement bonuses? What racial ability score bonuses do elves get?

[James Risner]

Lorewalker wrote:

Seriously, how do you get along in a social game like this with that attitude?

140+ played and 150+ GMed and I've seen one or two people argue the rules at a table. So I get along well.

The "one RAW to rule them all" is an online anomaly and one that shouldn't exist for the health of the game.

[thaX]

James Risner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Seriously, how do you get along in a social game like this with that attitude?

140+ played and 150+ GMed and I've seen one or two people argue the rules at a table. So I get along well.

The "one RAW to rule them all" is an online anomaly and one that shouldn't exist for the health of the game.

Amen!

[CampinCarl9127]

James Risner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Seriously, how do you get along in a social game like this with that attitude?

140+ played and 150+ GMed and I've seen one or two people argue the rules at a table. So I get along well.

The "one RAW to rule them all" is an online anomaly and one that shouldn't exist for the health of the game.

Agreed.

I miss the days of "Let the GM decide what happens" that has been replaced with "Tell your GM he's wrong because of page 243 of splatbook #82".

[Lorewalker]

James Risner wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Seriously, how do you get along in a social game like this with that attitude?

140+ played and 150+ GMed and I've seen one or two people argue the rules at a table. So I get along well.

The "one RAW to rule them all" is an online anomaly and one that shouldn't exist for the health of the game.

Except clear rules is ALSO good for the health of the game. Even if the the that is clear is 'heres is the idea, GM give the details'.

Or are you going to tell me a spell like Swarm of Fangs is perfectly fine in its current condition and is playable?
No, there will always be things that could be more clear, even if that clarity is intent, and things that have the wrong intended numbers.

You're the one saying 'one RAW to rule them all' and making it a fight, I'm only saying that it's good to point out what we think, as players and GMs, is broken in the rules and see if there is a better way.

I don't know how your world view could consider discussion a bad thing... when you spend so much time posting on the forums here doing just that.