| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your allies have to carry you around in a bucket.
I never said you didn't count as whatever race you wrote on your sheet (which is what type does) but that you aren't a whatever race you wrote down.
That's clearly not true though. Nothing in the description of the ability changes your race. Just your 'form'. Even the most extreme view on how this ability works wouldn't change that.
|
It doesn't HAVE any speed to already have. It clearly by the rules has an unknown speed.Yep, that's a house rule. You looked over the rule, noticed that it had no speed and decided to ignore the rule in place to give it back it's old speed. Total houserule.Because there's arguably no exception to the polymorph rules here. There's no bestiary listing for a "a protoplasmic blob that has the
same volume and weight" to check out its movement speed, so the only movement speed it has is the creature.Giving it the speed it already has is not a house rule nor ignoring rules. Mark pretty much confirmed as much in the UW thread.
You are overthinking this.
It doesn’t say your speed changes. You keep the speed of your race. The archetype mentions what all you lose and gain.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your allies have to carry you around in a bucket.
The Oozemorph might be my favorite archetype, not to play, but just as a metaphor. Since the rest of the party needs to literally (and figuratively) carry you for about the first 5 levels of your career.
I do kind of feel like the archetype is backwards though, since what I want is a human (or whatever) that gets progressively oozier as they gain in power (so they can stretch, change shape, etc.) not an ooze that gets progressively more human (so they can function) as they gain in power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving it the speed it already has is not a house rule nor ignoring rules. Mark pretty much confirmed as much in the UW thread.
You are overthinking this.
Mark was talking about an FAQ because oozemorph had issue. I don't recall him saying the oozemorph in it's current form functions. If he did, please link/quote him saying that. IMO you're underthinking it. :P
We haven't been arguing over anything "ambiguous and imprecise" though. This issue IS "straightforward".Of course you think your reading is the correct one. I'm sure the people you're arguing with think the same thing about whatever their opinion is. That's why this thread has degenerated in several pages of "Nuh uh" and "Yuh huh" repeated ad nauseum.
Doesn't really change the point that such arguments are basically the bread and butter of these forums.
It's quite simple swoosh. I presented rules quotes to back up my side. I've asked the other side to present any rules that back up there side. As I haven't seen any, why would I think anything other than I'm correct? I'm more than willing to be proved wrong but nothing close to that has happened.
I feel like this is specifically an issue because "making sense" is really important to cultivating a shared fantasy that is needed to keep a tabletop roleplaying game moving; since it precludes constantly stopping to resolve "wait, what?" and the like. That an elf with long-limbs that turns into an ooze moves seven times faster on land than a triton who was turned into an ooze, and a strix that was turned into an ooze can still fly, despite all of them being basically the same kind of transclucent medium-sized puddle is nonsensical and indeed a bit silly. This needs changing, and I hope will be addressed with errata.
The other issue that comes up is that it's not really a rule in the book that makes a merfolk ooze so slow, it's an implication lead by a lack of a specific rule in the book that leads us to default to other rules in other books (which were possibly written by different people.) So it's not really even clear to me what the intent actually is. Maybe they just don't want people to play Merfolk Oozemorphs?
100% agree.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, that's a house rule. You looked over the rule, noticed that it had no speed and decided to ignore the rule in place to give it back it's old speed. Total houserule.Because there's arguably no exception to the polymorph rules here. There's no bestiary listing for a "a protoplasmic blob that has the
same volume and weight" to check out its movement speed, so the only movement speed it has is the creature.Giving it the speed it already has is not a house rule nor ignoring rules. Mark pretty much confirmed as much in the UW thread.
You are overthinking this.
No they’re not.
You keep saying maintaining its type means it maintains its speed. That is wrong.
Speed comes from form, it’s form has no defined speed. Having human type is irrelevant. Mark saying how he thinks it should work is great, doesn’t change the fact that as written it doesn’t work.
They’re not overthinking anything. They’re simply pointing out according to the rules it has no speed. What you’re doing is ignoring the rules in favour of making the archetype work. Which is fine. Reasonable even. But suggesting anyone else is doing something wrong by “over thinking”, when actually they’re observing the rules, isn’t productive. It’s inflammatory.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn’t say your speed changes.
It says you gain a new base form. It states it acts as a polymorph effect. Polymorph states your speed changes to match your form. So, YES, it says your speed changes.
You keep the speed of your race.
Nowhere does it grant an exception to the general polymorph rules, so NO it doesn't.
The archetype mentions what all you lose and gain.
I agree: it loses it's old speed and gains an undefined speed...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's clearly not true though. Nothing in the description of the ability changes your race. Just your 'form'. Even the most extreme view on how this ability works wouldn't change that.
I never said you didn't count as whatever race you wrote on your sheet (which is what type does) but that you aren't a whatever race you wrote down.
And I never said it changes your race (which is your type). But you aren't a human anymore, you're an oozething. You still COUNT as human, but you're an oozething.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough, your form is what you are. If you're an elephant you're an elephant, yes you might not count as an elephant but as a human because you're a shape shifted human, but when you're an elephant you're an elephant.
Same with oozething, you're not a human, you're an oozething. And as an oozething in ooze-mode you're an oozething. If you use your shape changing powers to turn into a human you're then a human.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having trouble seeing how taking a sharpie and adding "The oozemorph retains the movement speed of its original form, as an exception to the polymorph rules" relates to face vase perception.Because there's arguably no exception to the polymorph rules here. There's no bestiary listing for a "a protoplasmic blob that has the
same volume and weight" to check out its movement speed, so the only movement speed it has is the creature.And you can write in the rulebook with a sharpie? I need to use one of those pigment liner technical pens....
I don't think you appreciate the consequences of what you're advocating. You're saying that any time a developer makes a mistake you are free to make significant alterations to the way general rules work. My no speed troll example is useful here: you could house rule it as having an appropriate speed, or wait for it to be errata'd, or assume it's correct and that for some reason creatures without speeds inheret a speed from the last character they saw and then swear until you're blue in the face that you're not making a house rule.
Another example:
A feat grants proficiency in the googladooperdorp. Googladooperdorps don't exist but the writer of the feat mentioned he likes nunchucks in a blog post so googladooperdorps must be nunchucks. That's RAI and not a house rule!
Errors should not be corrected by assuming they're intentional and then changing general rules to make it work. Errors should be corrected through errata or houseruled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it clearly says it is a polymorph effect
That's actually not what the text says. If your argument is going to hinge on strict RAW, don't cut words or paraphrase.
and the polymorph rules tell us that we take the base speed of our new form. Except our new form doesn't have a base speed listed.
You're not taking that far enough. It's not just that youre new form doesn't have a listed speed. Your new form has no listed anything because there's no entry for it anywhere. "Protoplasmic blob that has the same volume and weight" doesn't exist.
So the lack of a defined speed is a moot point, because you can't follow the general polymorph rules in the first place. They don't apply. There's nothing to reference. So you can't use them at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't HAVE any speed to already have. It clearly by the rules has an unknown speed.It doesn’t say your speed changes. You keep the speed of your race. The archetype mentions what all you lose and gain.
YES IT DOES!!!! It says it's a polymorph effect and that says your speed changes. Thus it says your speed changes.
What you're proposing is that a druid that wildshapes into a fish still has whatever land and fly speeds it had as it's race and doesn't gain any swim speed, since it "mentions what all you lose and gain" and nothing in the wildshape block says anything about movement changing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the lack of a defined speed is a moot point, because you can't follow the general polymorph rules in the first place. They don't apply. There's nothing to reference. So you can't use them at all.
Having nothing to reference doesn't mean the general rule doesn't apply but that the form was poorly written as to have undefined stats. it's lacking stats doesn't suddenly make you use different rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note when something produces this much confusion and debate
What do people think is gained by arguing the rule makes sense? Clearly at best it’s deeply ambiguous, why fight against a clarification?
I don’t understand.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it clearly says it is a polymorph effectThat's actually not what the text says. If your argument is going to hinge on strict RAW, don't cut words or paraphrase.
and the polymorph rules tell us that we take the base speed of our new form. Except our new form doesn't have a base speed listed.You're not taking that far enough. It's not just that youre new form doesn't have a listed speed. Your new form has no listed anything because there's no entry for it anywhere. "Protoplasmic blob that has the same volume and weight" doesn't exist.
So the lack of a defined speed is a moot point, because you can't follow the general polymorph rules in the first place. They don't apply. There's nothing to reference. So you can't use them at all.
Except by the rules of the game you do follow the polymorph rules. The fact that you admit that it makes the oozemorph unworkable is just proving my point.
And I'm sorry that I got the wording slightly wrong.
This is treated as a polymorph effect.
If it's treated as a polymorph effect and that statement isn't qualified any further then we use the polymorph rules. Sorry, but that's how the game works.
On a related note when something produces this much confusion and debate
What do people think is gained by arguing the rule makes sense? Clearly at best it’s deeply ambiguous, why fight against a clarification?
I don’t understand.
What mystifies me is how this ability got past editing/playtesting without someone pointing out that there MAY be an issue...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note when something produces this much confusion and debate
What do people think is gained by arguing the rule makes sense? Clearly at best it’s deeply ambiguous, why fight against a clarification?
I don’t understand.
Very much this. I can't for the life of me understand why even those who insist it works fine wouldn't want a clarification since this very thread makes it obvious that it's confusing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it clearly says it is a polymorph effectThat's actually not what the text says. If your argument is going to hinge on strict RAW, don't cut words or paraphrase.
and the polymorph rules tell us that we take the base speed of our new form. Except our new form doesn't have a base speed listed.You're not taking that far enough. It's not just that youre new form doesn't have a listed speed. Your new form has no listed anything because there's no entry for it anywhere. "Protoplasmic blob that has the same volume and weight" doesn't exist.
So the lack of a defined speed is a moot point, because you can't follow the general polymorph rules in the first place. They don't apply. There's nothing to reference. So you can't use them at all.
The polymorph works just fine. You're turning into a protoplasmic blob. It doesn't need an entry for you to polymorph into it. Since it doesn't have any statblock it doesn't have any special movement types or abilities listed to gain so we don't gain any. Thus speed is the only thing that we must gain that we don't know how to deal with, everything else about the polymorph rules work fine.
If you feel this is wrong and something more about the polymorph rules are being broken please point out specifically what that is and how it's broken rather than making some blanket statement that it's obviously broken and not to be used or referenced.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What mystifies me is how this ability got past editing/playtesting without someone pointing out that there MAY be an issue...On a related note when something produces this much confusion and debate
What do people think is gained by arguing the rule makes sense? Clearly at best it’s deeply ambiguous, why fight against a clarification?
I don’t understand.
I'm actually a little sympathetic here. I could totally see the freelancer who wrote it not being familiar enough with the polymorph rules to understand the issue and then the editing staff not quite thinking it all the way through as its not an obvious error until you dive into it. Hell, I didn't notice it on my first read through.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know why everyone's so focused on the movespeed thing. Poor editing and wording of abilities is the least of the reasons why the archetype doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did.
But then the amount of things that seemed to slip through this book is pretty saddening given I’ve only really skimmed it .-.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know why everyone's so focused on the movespeed thing. Poor editing and wording of abilities is the least of the reasons why the archetype doesn't work.
I may be going out on a limb here but I think some people find being an unmoving undefined blob of protoplasm for 23 hours a day un-attractive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually a little sympathetic here. I could totally see the freelancer who wrote it not being familiar enough with the polymorph rules to understand the issue and then the editing staff not quite thinking it all the way through. Hell, I didn't notice it on my first read through.
Oh, I totally understand how the author could have handed it in and not seen the issue. I'm wondering how it got past someone that IS familiar with polymorph and/or tried to make one up to test it out. I got the impression that the book got some internal playtesting so that's what made me wonder.
I in NO way was trying to say anything bad about the author. I know how hard it is to notice mistakes in your own work as what's obvious to you might not be to others. I give him props for coming into the threads to let us know what he was thinking when he made the archetype. ;)
What mystifies me is how this ability got past editing/playtesting without someone pointing out that there MAY be an issue...On a related note when something produces this much confusion and debate
What do people think is gained by arguing the rule makes sense? Clearly at best it’s deeply ambiguous, why fight against a clarification?
I don’t understand.
Even if something is pointed out during playtesting, that doesn't mean it will get changed. I made a bunch of noise about power problems in the Mythic Adventures book, but that was drowned out by people complaining about mythic points being stat based. It is perfectly possible that other issues drew the editor's focus away from the oozemorph (and the shifter in general I guess).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with the Vigilante class? It's a great class (with some mediocre archetypes, but so it goes.) Like the Avenger Vigilante is easily one of the more functional martials.
Even if something is pointed out during playtesting, that doesn't mean it will get changed. I made a bunch of noise about power problems in the Mythic Adventures book, but that was drowned out by people complaining about mythic points being stat based. It is perfectly possible that other issues drew the editor's focus away from the oozemorph (and the shifter in general I guess).
I can understand that to a point but this is an issue that makes something unplayable and I'd hope severity of that level elevates it above other issues.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I The rules are written in natural language, not math or code or something completely unambiguous.
Before I'm misinterpreted, I want to point out that I completely agree with you.
But I thought that I should point out that not even computer code is completely unambiguous. Certainly the C and C++ languages have undefined areas and programs written using these undefined areas are ambiguous. I believe that this is also true for many other computer languages but am not totally certain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the art is pretty great, the Autumn witch and the Green knight cavalier stuck out to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m happy with the Ooze being a negative. I do think they should start with more time available in alternate forms than they currently do though.
The main things for me is defining what the Ooze can do and letting it speak. Being dumb for 23 hours is rough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m happy with the Ooze being a negative. I do think they should start with more time available in alternate forms than they currently do though.
The main things for me is defining what the Ooze can do and letting it speak. Being dumb for 23 hours is rough.
See, I have think an archetype named oozemorph should be an auto-pick for those players who actually want to play an oozy character. Why should they be punished for playing the kind of character they want to play?
See, I have think an archetype named oozemorph should be an auto-pick for those players who actually want to play an oozy character. Why should they be punished for playing the kind of character they want to play?I’m happy with the Ooze being a negative. I do think they should start with more time available in alternate forms than they currently do though.
The main things for me is defining what the Ooze can do and letting it speak. Being dumb for 23 hours is rough.
They’re not punishing you. Punish is too provocative a word.
They’re reinforcing the lore that being an Ooze isn’t a good thing. It’s not an enviable position to be in. Ooze morphs leverage the niche powers of the Ooze but suffer the disadvantages of being so tied to a massively simplistic and handicapped oraganism.
I think that makes sense. If you just want to turn into a Ooze sometimes isn’t there a Druid archetype that already does that?
The Ooze Morph is much more closely tied than that.
EDIT: to clarify I am one of those people you’re talking about. I do want to play an Ooze character. I made one, it was the first thing I did after getting the PDF. I did run on the assumption that the archetype would be fixed so that you maintain your previous forms movement speed I quietly hoped that I’d be able to start at level 4 if I ever played the character. But nevertheless, I want to play one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you appreciate the consequences of what you're advocating. You're saying that any time a developer makes a mistake you are free to make significant alterations to the way general rules work.
Yeah. And? Comes with the DM screen.
Or the character sheet.
Relax. Its not open heart rocket surgery.
A feat grants proficiency in the googladooperdorp. Googladooperdorps don't exist but the writer of the feat mentioned he likes nunchucks in a blog post so googladooperdorps must be nunchucks. That's RAI and not a house rule!
Since you have a creature, that is taking a class, that is taking an archetype, that is more like a Chucktwirler prestige class getting proficiency in "the chucks" and concluding that they mean numchucks.
Errors should not be corrected by assuming they're intentional and then changing general rules to make it work. Errors should be corrected through errata or houseruled.
But they won't be, not as quickly as they're made. This is simply how the game is. The practical, functional, and sane approach to that reality is to accept that ambiguity is a thing, make your best possible conclusion on a heady mixture of raw,rai, balance, sense, and consistency. That is not a house rule. it is not a change to the rule. It is an interpretation of the rules. The rules need interpretation. The people that wrote them will tell you that. Listening to them does not result in an aberration.
A house rule is something like using the critical hit deck, or auto confirming criticals. Deriding basic sense and sanity by calling it a deviation from the pure one true raw gives the rules a bad name.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure a wooden leg isn't getting you around the oozes magic item restrictions. Although the image of two peg legs two peg arms two eye patches and two parot skeletons floating in an ooze
" I'm twice the pirate you arrrrrr..."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
sane approach
Just putting it out there
Appealing to sanity probably isn’t going to go well. Way too provocative.
Well if and when they make an eratta to this..
Are folks hoping they stick with the current set up.. "ooze is the punishment, be human as much as possible"
or ar they hoping they'll reverse it (or hoping they'll make another archetype where you become more oozey as time goes on?)In general though. if they do rework some stuff with eratta.. all this conversations made think of a few things..
Since relaly... its very light on things it gets as it levels up...
What would be good to add to it?I love the idea that you'd get some sort of ooze choices as you level up..
Some choices would increase your movement speed or jump speed because you are more elastic. some choices that would increase your DR ability (maybe makei t harder to bypass. some choices that let you increase your damage die, or what yoru natural attacks bypass(like the shifter aspects do). Some choices that give you acid reesistance and acid damage. maybe an ability to get a "breatH of acid goo"
and of course... definitely the ability to give up multi natural attacks to get one bigger oneremoving the time usage for just being in humanoid form would also work.. but keep duration for usage of alter self and the later beastm orhps (and insert oozeform spell)
and allowing magic items of some kinds....
I think being a hideous ooze that can't speak is punishment enough, and a great roleplaying opportunity.
I would want them to treat it like a polymorph effect for magic items explicitly, too many wonky iterations otherwise. I would also want bracers of armor to work while polymorphed (that would actually fix the shifter enough to make it functional as a melee martial).
I'm torn on the base speed. It probably SHOULD keep your base race movespeed because otherwise you lose that and move speeds are part of race balance. Invalidating your race choice just seems like bad design even if some of the outcomes are wonky. So the clarification I would want is that they explicitly say ooze form only alters your base form to clear up all confusion. Otherwise, the only races that matter for an oozemorph are one's with bonuses not tied to form like Humans. I predict they will remove special movement types, but they may leave base movespeed.
I would also want them to say that everything you turn into looks like an ooze in color palette. Seems to fit the theme better.
I would want morphic weaponry to be able to replace natural attacks not just add to them, just like shifter claws.
Damage reduction being tide to armor type is weird even without the only instance of nonmetal armor restrictions. Either say oozemorphs can't wear armor or make this DR specific to oozeform and beastshapes.
I would want them to remove Druidic from oozemorph. Their flavor doesn't say they even study with other circles. They are apparently learning druidic from germs and molds or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you make them mute as an Ooze don’t you also make Lashunta the #1 race choice?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you appreciate the consequences of what you're advocating. You're saying that any time a developer makes a mistake you are free to make significant alterations to the way general rules work.
Yeah. And? Comes with the DM screen.
Or the character sheet.
Relax. Its not open heart rocket surgery.
A feat grants proficiency in the googladooperdorp. Googladooperdorps don't exist but the writer of the feat mentioned he likes nunchucks in a blog post so googladooperdorps must be nunchucks. That's RAI and not a house rule!Since you have a creature, that is taking a class, that is taking an archetype, that is more like a Chucktwirler prestige class getting proficiency in "the chucks" and concluding that they mean numchucks.
Errors should not be corrected by assuming they're intentional and then changing general rules to make it work. Errors should be corrected through errata or houseruled.But they won't be, not as quickly as they're made. This is simply how the game is. The practical, functional, and sane approach to that reality is to accept that ambiguity is a thing, make your best possible conclusion on a heady mixture of raw,rai, balance, sense, and consistency. That is not a house rule. it is not a change to the rule. It is an interpretation of the rules. The rules need interpretation. The people that wrote them will tell you that. Listening to them does not result in an aberration.
A house rule is something like using the critical hit deck, or auto confirming criticals. Deriding basic sense and sanity by calling it a deviation from the pure one true raw gives the rules a bad name.
I'm perfectly okay with people interpreting ambiguous rules however works for them. If down the road that ambiguity is clarified through errata, they should get on board or make a house rule.
To make changes to the rules and then refuse to admit that they've done so and argue that no further errata is needed because it's working for them is actively unhelpful.
It just sounds like you don't want to admit you play fast and loose with the rules. It's okay, you can admit you're not a RAW type of person.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perfectly okay with people interpreting ambiguous rules however works for them
I am not okay with people deriding basic rules interpretation as house ruling. It's harmful to discussions about the rules and its harmful to the game. Case in point..
To make changes to the rules and then refuse to admit that they've done so
Option 1, I read the rules with the persnicket cranked up to asmodeous. The Ooze morph has a base land speed of 1/0 because it doesn't have a speed of zero it doesn't have a speed. Math breaks. the world collapses in on itself, game over.
Option 2: The ooze had a base speed of its previous species speed. Since i don't have another value to change it to, I leave it there.
option 3: you're an ooze. you don't have legs. You're kinda slow. Most oozes are speed 20 aren't they? your speed is 20.
Picking option 2 or option 3 is not a change to the rules If the archetype said your move is 20 and you make it 30, THATS a change. Filling in a blank or deviation from RAW to rai is not house rules. RULES as intended is still the rules. It's an enormous part of the game and going along with it is necessary. Stop trying to make it a bad thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop trying to make it a bad thing.
they aren't. They explicitly said it wasn't a bad thing.
Don't try to moralize the discussion. Its got nothing to do with that.
They're saying that changing the rules from how they work as RAW even if RAW they don't work, is a house rule, you're saying its RAI and not a house rule.
its got nothing to do with either being bad. You're the one doing that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See how you had to ignore the polymorph rules for something that explicitly says its treated as a polymorph effect in order to reach your interpretation? That means you did in fact have to change the rules to get there.
I've stated repeatedly that it was certainly the author's intention for you to keep your base speed, but it simply isn't what the rules say. And no matter how many times people say that it is because the archetype is functional that way, it doesn't make it any more true. The archetype says it's treated as a polymorph effect and gives it no qualifiers, so you use the polymorph rules which explicitly replace your speed which then leaves you with a missing speed. That IS what the RAW says. Which is why we need a clarification.
I'm pretty damn sure I know how it's supposed to work, and it's what you're saying BNW. But that's not what's printed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See how you had to ignore the polymorph rules for something that explicitly says its treated as a polymorph effect in order to reach your interpretation?
No. I don't see that because that isn't remotely what happened.
What rule am I ignoring? None. Nadda. Zip zero . ZILCH rules are being ignored. Followed every single one of them to a T and then the situation that we have went zooming right past them into something that there are no rules for.
"not slavishly followed" is not ignored.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright man. If you wanna call ignoring the rules because the way they're written makes things broken following them, go for it.
I'm gonna keep insisting we get an FAQ to clarify a poorly worded archetype though. That way when you follow all the applicable rules to their end you get something that works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright man. If you wanna call ignoring the rules
Point to one rule i'm ignoring.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright man. If you wanna call ignoring the rulesPoint to one rule i'm ignoring.
You're ignoring the fact that the polymorph rules say you get the speed of your new form and we have no speed listed for that form and this creates an issue. It's likely that it's supposed to be your normal speed, but right now we have an undefined speed that could be anything.