Paladin that takes a Vow of Vengeance is a Lay on Hands fiend. And nothing is better than her with smite up (Duh). And a barb has... a lot of antics. But at that point it's a matter of what you want out of he character (And a debate of AC vs DR vs LoH and Rage vs Smite vs [Advanced] Weapon Training). With he Advent of the Weapon and Armor Master's Handbook, there is a lot of things a fighter can pull off the other two can't, so I think it's fair to say he stacks up with them evenly.Well, the main things for survivability are HP, AC, resistance to statuses, and saving throws in my mind.
Fighters have good HP and AC, no status resistance, and mediocre saves (Armed Bravery basically brings you to the same level as having a good will save in the first place.) Their DR will either be even with or worse than the Barbarian's depending on build.
The Barbarian has worse AC (although with certain builds it is the only one of the three that can dodge touch attacks), better HP, much better saves against many things, few if any status resistance, and depending on archetype might have a TON of DR to mitigate their worse AC.
Paladins have good HP, good AC, are immune to or can swiftly cure most of the worst conditions in the game, have amazing saving throws, and can self-heal to have a massively higher pool of effective HP as their LoH starts stacking up. All they're really lacking in is DR until very late levels, at which point they have quite good constantly active DR to work with as well. Personally I don't see anything a fighter can do allowing them to beat out how hard it is to take a paladin down, especially once Lay On Hands and Mercy start really getting buff.
I'd argue the Fighter has much, much better AC than either of the other classes. He can easily use a shield (Or get a shield bonus) and not give up any offense (Even a Tower Shield, though that takes more work) has access to a scaling AC bonus, and more feats for both offense and defense. I'm talking up to about 10+ points of AC, potentially touch AC at that if you want. I'm not sure what that equates to in effective health, but that counts for a loooot (I'm assuming LoH ks for taking damage, right? As in getting beat up). More AC also make DR matter that much more, because whatever damage does get thru is reduced. Not to mention the availability of Armor Mastery feats. He's also the most likey to have a decent reflex (A twf will have a significantly better reflex) since Armor Training gets him more out of Dex. More feats also mean more opportunities for things like the Deathless line or Dwarven Helmet feats.
His saves do such though (Can be patched to be surprisingly good at mid levels). That's usually why I only make my Fighters Dwarves or Half Orcs with cool tatts.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue the Fighter has much, much better AC than either of the other classes. He can easily use a shield (Or get a shield bonus) and not give up any offense (Even a Tower Shield, though that takes more work) has access to a scaling AC bonus, and more feats for both offense...Paladin that takes a Vow of Vengeance is a Lay on Hands fiend. And nothing is better than her with smite up (Duh). And a barb has... a lot of antics. But at that point it's a matter of what you want out of he character (And a debate of AC vs DR vs LoH and Rage vs Smite vs [Advanced] Weapon Training). With he Advent of the Weapon and Armor Master's Handbook, there is a lot of things a fighter can pull off the other two can't, so I think it's fair to say he stacks up with them evenly.Well, the main things for survivability are HP, AC, resistance to statuses, and saving throws in my mind.
Fighters have good HP and AC, no status resistance, and mediocre saves (Armed Bravery basically brings you to the same level as having a good will save in the first place.) Their DR will either be even with or worse than the Barbarian's depending on build.
The Barbarian has worse AC (although with certain builds it is the only one of the three that can dodge touch attacks), better HP, much better saves against many things, few if any status resistance, and depending on archetype might have a TON of DR to mitigate their worse AC.
Paladins have good HP, good AC, are immune to or can swiftly cure most of the worst conditions in the game, have amazing saving throws, and can self-heal to have a massively higher pool of effective HP as their LoH starts stacking up. All they're really lacking in is DR until very late levels, at which point they have quite good constantly active DR to work with as well. Personally I don't see anything a fighter can do allowing them to beat out how hard it is to take a paladin down, especially once Lay On Hands and Mercy start really getting buff.
I will not argue, but I will straight up say that casters will have the highest ACs, if they put in a little effort.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters have miss chances that constantly climb up, which is better than a high AC from what I've seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters have miss chances that constantly climb up, which is better than a high AC from what I've seen.
That to!
And Suddenly the Keep watch spell laughs at having to sleep (Decent wand / scroll investment if it's a big issue that keeps coming up). Or Rope Trick, or mage's mansion, or alarm.
Adventuring days don't last 24 hours past level 5. They last 15 minutes at most unless the GM knows how to put pressure on the party, which is something most GMs lack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adventuring days don't last 24 hours past level 5. They last 15 minutes at most unless the GM knows how to put pressure on the party, which is something most GMs lack.
Basically this. I will note that even before 5th level the idea of a scenario that goes a long period of time without rest breaks is odd. And even with pressure, realistically there aren't many scenarios where the total time required is measured in hours, let alone more than that. Which at mid levels is more than enough time for 10 min/level buffs to be basically "all day" buffs. And while running out of spells is a real concern at levels 1-4, I find that from 5 onward it diminishes until it disappears completely by 13th level if not sooner.
What is being argued right now? I think this conversation has gone off topic as I don't think the tier list has been mentioned in the last two pages except indirectly. Are we talking about the fighter again?
And why are we talking about the fighter's combat ability? The fighter is not low tier because of his combat ability. If someone disagrees with the fighter's tier placement then please show how the fighter solves out-of-combat problems with class features, or options that are unavailable to other classes.
Seriously, please. I have a dwarf lore warden I'm testing out in PFS right now and It's hard getting him a secondary niche. I gave up on diplomacy and I'm going for knowledge monkey now.
Adventuring days don't last 24 hours past level 5. They last 15 minutes at most unless the GM knows how to put pressure on the party, which is something most GMs lack.
Another important thing is that a party with a partial caster as a tank can generally afford longer adventuring days than without one. Nonmagical Tanks drain more resources healing up than something like a paladin, alchemist, or inquisitor who will be responsible for some self-healing instead of waiting for a cleric's spell slots to top them off. 15 Minute Adventuring Days make me sad because I never get to use all the fun spells. On a wizard. Past level 3.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a 7th level Wizard, that would be your 10 other spells (not counting bonuses from high intelligence, which is probably another 4-6 spells), plus your class abilities and magical items. On average, a good adventuring day will have about four combats, and ending within four rounds is fairly normal... so at that point, a Wizard could realistically be casting pretty much every round and not run out, and that's only going to get more true as their level keeps going up.
Besides which, many spells are good both in and out of combat. XD You can prepare for both.
Well that is the problem. If you are casting spells outside of combat, then the number of daily combat rounds isn't a good reflection of how many spells you use. Because you just used a bunch outside of combat.
What about at level 15 where you spend all day in a created minionYeah, when you get that high wizards are a lot more powerful. However, level 15 is pretty high. Way more games take place at lower levels than at higher levels.
A level 1 wizard isn't in the same tier as a level 15 wizard. Level 15 wizards can blow stuff up all over the place, while a level 1 wizard gets one hit killed by half the monsters they run into. That is also a reason I don't think the tier thing is a very good reflection.
The tier system is intended to show how many options a class has overall. A level one fighter can use some skills (but is only good at a few), attack something's AC and reduce its HP. It can also target something's CMD to apply a debuff of some form, and can increase its AC.
A level one wizard can do all of the above, but also can use cantrips to target touch AC, saving throws, and gain information otherwise unavailable. They can also use 1st level spells for all of the above, usually better than the above, and can use them to augment defenses, or bypass other assorted challenges.
The tier system doesn't measure characters, with gear, and personalities, and creative players operating them. It does not measure how fun a certain class is to play. It does not say a wizard is better/more fun/stronger/etc. than a fighter. It says a wizard (the class and only the class) has more options/versatility than a fighter (the class and only the class). Which class is better/more fun is a matter of personal taste which can't be quantified. Which class is stronger is a separate issue, tangentially related to the tier system.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are like hundreds of combat feats, which fighters get a ton of. There is a ton of things a fighter can do.
There are not "a ton of things a Fighter can do" with combat feats, they provide a ton of ways for a Fighter to do one thing: Apply weapon to badman.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adventuring days don't last 24 hours past level 5. They last 15 minutes at most unless the GM knows how to put pressure on the party, which is something most GMs lack.I am not sure how people can say this, when pretty much any kind of campaign usually has some sort of deadline or things people need to get done, or takes place in a dangerous location where monsters can attack the party if they rest.
That is kind of like saying after 5th level you no longer fight organized enemies, or go into dungeons. What exactly are the pcs doing in those games then?.
We approach where the enemy is hiding and blindside the s*$$ out of them, take out the commanders, and leave the weak lackeys for later because they're no threat. Then we us divination and other spells to figure out what to do next, weaknesses on other enemies, figure out if any threats are coming our way, figure out what deadlines we're on, etc. etc. etc. We are fighting organized enemies, they just can't organize against us properly because we keep gaining levels and new spells that throws off any counter they could have for us. We haven't had a proper dungeon crawl since level 7 and we've never run out of spells since level 2. We've come close but we always have had something left in the tank by the end. A competent party makes deadlines their b~*~+ and doesn't have to worry about finding a safe resting spot later. They also dig right to the boss of a dungeon while saving the rooms with other stuff for later.
Side note also built a fort at level 10 because we had stone shape and divination told us to sit our asses down for a few days. Recently we've taken up plane shifting to save a fallen celestial and wind walk has proven a worthy backup plan when teleport isn't an option. I'd feel bad for the melee characters in this party if they weren't also NPCs controlled by the GM. I've also witnessed the arcane f+!$ers trivialize a dragon encounter with feeblemind and possession, and then use spells in order to enable transport of them all to sell them. And then there was the time we turned a skull that was supposed to be joke loot into a paladin npc ally, I'm rambling at this point. What I mean to say is that casters can do so much more s@!~ than noncasters and the spell amount doesn't do jack s**@ to balance it out.
Casters... AC. Cool.
All righty. Don't see how using spells to tank is a good idea whatsoever, when other part members can do that, but yeah, casters are good. Though I'd be interested in seeing how good this AC can get honestly.
Best ac from what i remember in mid levels is a barbarian. 2nd is fighter, 3rd paladin.
I assume this is without the Fighter even trying that hard, right?
People often mention resources as if HP recovery was problematic, but you just need one caster (say cleric) and wand of cure light wounds. I'm currently running games for three different groups, one of which is made of summoner, oracle, brawler, fighter, sorcerer and unrogue (which are now at level 7). Multiple times they have been adventuring for many hours, especially at lower levels where they had to travel alot on horses and now they usually fly to their destination (note that I'm running sandbox games and travelling and exploration is big part of them), but the last dungeon they've visited was a forgotten, underground city, which in fact was a mega-dungeon with multiple floors. It took them days to explore it fully, most of them stayed there the whole time and only one person was going back to town to recover resources once in a while (at one point even gathered a group of explorers to help them out a bit). I mention this, because they've got wounded there quite few times and it didn't stop them at all. Why do you need every person in your party to be a caster, while you really just need one or two? One wizard can make you all invisible, teleport and do all sorts of tricks and you probably will be just as effective (or little less) than a team full of casters, so where is the issue? I could understand it if Pathfinder was a game where players play it alone, but it is not like this, you work as a group, so every gap can be filled without problems.
Now, 'bout fighters:
It seems like everyone forgot that a fighter is not only a frontline warrior, but it can be a deadly archer as well. Get him a fast moving mount and pick proper feats. In open field archer shooting from a horseback is one of the most effective fighting styles, because most enemies won't be able to catch him (unless your GM is a dick and keeps countering you all the time). I remember this was an issue some time ago, when people on Paizo forums complained that mounted archery is so OP.
Now, 'bout fighters:
It seems like everyone forgot that a fighter is not only a frontline warrior, but it can be a deadly archer as well. Get him a fast moving mount and pick proper feats. In open field archer shooting from a horseback is one of the most effective fighting styles, because most enemies won't be able to catch him (unless your GM is a dick and keeps countering you all the time). I remember this was an issue some time ago, when people on Paizo forums complained that mounted archery is so OP.
You don't even need a mount for the Fighter to be a mobile archer. Spring-Heeled Style+Mobile Fighter/Dawnflower Dervish with Archery is a dirty, dirty combination lol. Though mobile fighter works better with Melee and disparate attacks (As in combining natural attacks with manufactured weaponry). Not to mention she'll have a great AC (Also against AoOs).
You don't even need a mount for the Fighter to be a mobile archer. Spring-Heeled Style+Mobile Fighter/Dawnflower Dervish with Archery is a dirty, dirty combination lol. Though mobile fighter works better with Melee and disparate attacks (As in combining natural attacks with manufactured weaponry). Not to mention she'll have a great AC (Also against AoOs).Now, 'bout fighters:
It seems like everyone forgot that a fighter is not only a frontline warrior, but it can be a deadly archer as well. Get him a fast moving mount and pick proper feats. In open field archer shooting from a horseback is one of the most effective fighting styles, because most enemies won't be able to catch him (unless your GM is a dick and keeps countering you all the time). I remember this was an issue some time ago, when people on Paizo forums complained that mounted archery is so OP.
Well, that's even better, but the real question is why do we all argue here? Most adventuring parties are made of different classes, so all the gaps can be filled and you just need one f&%@ing wizard if you want to move to another plane or say... have your arctic adventure. Really, there is no need to have druid, summoner, wizard, witch and arcanist in one party if someone wants to play martial class. In fact, balanced party will make gameplay more enjoyable, because it won't be bogged down every time a fight starts, because of players picking the right spells or constant buffing. The other group I DMing is made of samurai, ninja, wizard and shaman - they are capable of fighting 5 CR higher encounters and finish them within 3 rounds, mainly because they work as a group.
So... People want to force devs to make fighters fly, teleport, shift planes, speak with dead and conjure food or are they just pointing the obvious, that magic gives more options (especially outside of combat)?
I assume this is without the Fighter even trying that hard, right?
No it was going yolo ac.
What if you fight a cleric and he casts fickle winds
Yolo AC? Like... not caring? Well there's your problem.
Is this with the mobile fighter I just brought up? Well since Mobile Fighter's bonuses and Spring Heeled style's bonus aren't tied to a specific weapon, just whip out a random weapon you picked up because it was good, and go to town. Depending on the level, power attack is feasible as well to make their melee that much better (For even more fun go for an elven curved blade with weapon finesse). The build varies on how much flexibility you want. If you just want to stick with one weapon. Dervish of Dawn is the way to go. Or Weapon Master (Which with Spring Heeled Style just might have the best base accuracy on the move in the game save for a Smiting Paladin or a Ranger with favored enemy and terrain)
Also, I don't think Fickle Winds (Or similar disruptive spells) automatically disqualifies an archer fighter from being powerful. Or archery in general.
I'm arguing for the Fighter V other martials.
Also, as I stated before, the Fighter having better AC is 1 parts being able to use a shield (Bonus) without sacrificing offenses much more effectively, which I figure is important considering how much people hate sacrificing offense for defense, which is understandable (To be fair, any class can get the shield usage, but ironically it'll cost the Fighter less feats, or just go AWT for a small shield bonus), and 1 parts Armor Specialization giving up to 5 ac in heavy armor (3 in light and 4 in medium). A better balance is stuck post Armor Master's Handbook. And Tower Shields are are actually usable, and dare I say useful, if you build or it (While still two-handing your favorite polearm).
There are like hundreds of combat feats, which fighters get a ton of. There is a ton of things a fighter can do.
Right, there are hundreds of combat feats. Most of which augment physical defenses (AC) and the ability to target AC, CMD, use a small handful of skills, deal HP damage, and apply status condtions. A few let you target saving throws as well, and IIRC some new weapon and armor mastery feats give actual utility. The latter of which makes fighter a minicaster in a sense, which kinda shows the point.
There are like hundreds of combat feats, which fighters get a ton of. There is a ton of things a fighter can do.Right, there are hundreds of combat feats. Most of which augment physical defenses (AC) and the ability to target AC, CMD, use a small handful of skills, deal HP damage, and apply status condtions. A few let you target saving throws as well, and IIRC some new weapon and armor mastery feats give actual utility. The latter of which makes fighter a minicaster in a sense, which kinda shows the point.Pretty much every combat feat that's not a maneuver is about doing more damage, something the fighter is already good at without bonus feats.
Item mastery feats aren't combat feats and didn't exist until a couple months ago, while the tier system has existed for years.
Skill feats are not combat feats and Skill Focus is generally speaking the only one you really want.
Most of the status condition feats are dependent on scoring critical hits, which as I've pointed out in earlier threads makes a fighter focused on them a purely luck-based build because you can't decide to get a critical hit. I also have some issues with the scaling of the defenses the fighter has to attack, because CMD reaches such ridiculous proportions later in the game that even tripping masters often go up against untrippable enemies and max-level fighters with their status-inflicting criticals often have DCs so low that the monsters they're facing rarely ever fail the fort save involved. Hell, a fighter's blinding critical at max level literally can't work on a Balor at all unless the balor critfails the save.
Combat feats are still advancing one option: use weapon to defeat enemy. General feats might give you more, but the fighter can't take any feat he wants with his bonus feats. He takes the ones that make him better at what he was already doing.
I was refering to Advanced Weapon Training (feat, for item mastery), Dazing Assault, and intimidate-related feats. This is a relatively good point, though a fighter can (but might not) afford more general feats if they only use fighter feats on combat and no others. It isn't done too often.
Also, as I stated before, the Fighter having better AC is 1 parts being able to use a shield (Bonus) without sacrificing offenses much more effectively,Ya but when you actually build it out the barbarian is better.
not just better at ac but better at everything, the top ac barbarian gets way better saves and pounce
I'm genuinely interested in seeing the Fighter and Barbarian you made for AC. Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm saying a Fighter has access to great ac with very little cost to offense. Not sure what Barbarian you have to match a Mobile Bulwark Fighter in AC and Touch AC (Not even mentioning something like Armor Master getting a ridiculous touch AC and good DR), but I'd definitely like to see them made.
Also, a Barbarian gets pounce at 10, a whole 1 level ahead of a Mobile Fighter or Dervish of Dawn making full round attacks combined with movement. This is also not even bringing up Archery or a thrown weapons (Switch hitting) Fighter, let alone either of them combined with the aforementioned archetypes.
I feel there's this idea of false equivalency by just saying, "They're feats. Anyone can do it." While that's true, it's also a bit asinine. There's a reason you don't see that many Archer barbarians or Startoss style (Any style, really) Paladins. They're a poor class for it. And even if they did pull it off, at that point, the Fighter would have finished the combat style long ago and is branching out into different things or further specializing into whatever he set out to do. There a pretty large difference between 9 and 20. That's 11 feats lol.
And while I don't agree on the Fighter being behind is attack and damage (Are we talking straight two handed fighting? Two weapon Fighting? Sword and board with or without twf? Thrown weapons? Archery? Switch hitting? Combat maneuver dude?) feel free to discuss other martials.
Side note: Shield Focus does go with Mobile Bulwark and touch. You can also use it on an Armor Master for up to +10 touch from your Tower Shield. And again, to dispel this false equivalency, no other class can use the style nearly as effectively as a Fighter while maintaining good offense. At all. Most characters can't even use a Tower Shield.
I feel there's this idea of false equivalency by just saying, "They're feats. Anyone can do it." While that's true, it's also a bit asinine. There's a reason you don't see that many Archer barbarians or Startoss style (Any style, really) Paladins. They're a poor class for it. And even if they did pull it off, at that point, the Fighter would have finished the combat style long ago and is branching out into different things or further specializing into whatever he set out to do. There a pretty large difference between 9 and 20. That's 11 feats lol.
And while I don't agree on the Fighter being behind is attack and damage (Are we talking straight two handed fighting? Two weapon Fighting? Sword and board with or without twf? Thrown weapons? Archery? Switch hitting? Combat maneuver dude?) feel free to discuss other martials.
Side note: Shield Focus does go with Mobile Bulwark and touch. You can also use it on an Armor Master for up to +10 touch from your Tower Shield. And again, to dispel this false equivalency, no other class can use the style nearly as effectively as a Fighter while maintaining good offense. At all. Most characters can't even use a Tower Shield.
So that's the thing, most feat trees are actually fairly shallow. They tend to be designed around anyone being able to use them (there are a few exceptions). Mobile Stronghold, for a class that couldn't even use shields to start, is only 6 feats. The Fighter can finish feat chains sooner and (usually) fit in two, but every other class can basically fit in a feat chain if they want.
That some specific classes don't usually take some specific feats that aren't good for their class is completely irrelevant. If you're going to make claims about "the best" something, then you can't dismiss other classes using the same feats because "they wouldn't normally take them". If you're going to measure two things against each other, you have to measure them fairly.
As for your side note, how can you possibly say that an...
Yep. It's only six feats to take. Only about half the feats for most classes. Done at the early level of 11. Not that big a deal. And if you want to get rid of the armor check penalty? Impossible for any class but the Fighter. Why do that? Shield Brace for two handed power attack. You also can still have space for Weapon Focus and Specialization as well, along with Weapon Training and Gloves of Dueling keeping up the damage. Hell, you could forego shield brace on lieu of something different. Once again, it's not a matter of just doing something, it's also a matter of effectiveness and efficiency. When will another class actually start to reap the style's benefits? What else could they have done instead? Despite having the style, they're still inferior with it to a Fighter. This isn't even mentioning other combat styles that are even harder to pull of as well as a Fighter can. Which leads to my next point.
My point is that things like Archery and thrown weapons builds are feat intensive, and even more so when trying to specialize to a point of it being worth it and I a number of circumstances, superior to ragelancepounce or Mr. Smite with Greatsword. I wasn't dismissing it, I'm saying that a Fighter is a better option Ii you want to use Archery rather than a Barbarian and a chakram switch hitter is far and away easier with a Fighter than a Paladin .
Those two statements about the Armor Master touch and offense were separate. Sorry for the confusion. My statements still stands tho. Just as well, it's still a good archetype if you wanna be hard to kill. With the aforementioned shield brace build, the offense is still good, just not the absolute best ever.
But all that aside, I still fail to see how in any circumstance whatsoever, you could just replace a Fighter with either a Paladin or Barbarian and be objectively better off, no matter what kind of Fighter was going to be made.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who cares if the fighter can take longer chains of styles?
Martial combat boils down to applying your numbers to the other dude's HP as fast and hard as you can, and surviving the other dude's attempts to do the same. Most martially orientated feats (including the majority of style feats) only shift the odds of success a little. It is totally irrelevant if a fighter can make for an amazing tower shield warrior or an excellent dagger thrower if the only meaningful difference between them and archery or Two Handed Weapon combat is a mildly different take on "apply numbers to face, don't take numbers back". Applying numbers in a kinda different way is not adding narrative power unless the amount of numbers involved are radically different, and since Archery and THW are both really effective this is almost certainly not going to be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shameless plug for my Fighter Unchained thread...
Without blowing my own trumpet, I genuinely think a couple of small tweaks solve a fair few issues...
Also it still is on topic i think. Some people are making claims about fighter power levels, and i am trying to show why they are incorrect.
That's what the discussion came down to, really. I think it's actually fairly simple to make it so a Fighter can have narrative influence. It's not hard, and they're based in class features. Not as much as magic, but enough to be relevant. I guess the whole discussion was why take a Fighter rather than other things. I say it's easy to make a Fighter that works with and around the party, covering a certain martial, or general party, deficiencies they have. Just as well they can make armor, be an excellent military strategist (Profession: Soldier), kill things well (Very well with warrior spirit), be a partial face, and be a boon to a party that can't be mimicked by other martials. I think I've pretty much covered why by this point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also it still is on topic i think. Some people are making claims about fighter power levels, and i am trying to show why they are incorrect.That's what the discussion came down to, really. I think it's actually fairly simple to make it so a Fighter can have narrative influence. It's not hard, and they're based in class features. Not as much as magic, but enough to be relevant. I guess the whole discussion was why take a Fighter rather than other things. I say it's easy to make a Fighter that works with and around the party, covering a certain martial, or general party, deficiencies they have. Just as well they can make armor, be an excellent military strategist (Profession: Soldier), kill things well (Very well with warrior spirit), be a partial face, and be a boon to a party that can't be mimicked by other martials. I think I've pretty much covered why by this point.
Nothing you just mentioned is unique to the fighter though. Any martial can kill things well, most have more skill points to play around with for things like profession or diplomacy, or in the case of the Paladin have an actual use for a high charisma beyond diplomacy (and get as a class skill to boot). Everything the Fighter brings to the table can be mimicked by another class. A great deal of it can be mimicked by a class feature. Or a spell.