I play 5E over PF now and mostly its easier to run.
If you took 5E ripped out the classes, plugged in PF type classes and added in microfeats and a tweaked fort/ref/will saves you could have a great variant of D&D.
5E did flub a few things that were conceptually great.
1. Bounded accuracy. Smaller numbers is great but ACs are a bit to low, and AC could perhaps top out at 30 instead of 35.
2. Multiple attacks at no penalty. They killed iterative attacks which are basically exclusive to 3.x systems.
3. Advantage/disadvantage
4. Scaling spells requiring higher level slots (damage spells could scale IMHO).
5. 6 saves good idea, execution was off and you more or less have 3 saves anyway as 75% of them are con/dex/will.
6. Removing a few spells.
7. Magic item system (can't buy them).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a lot of objections to the "bounded accuracy" of 5e. As I understand it, that was implemented to curb the powergaming/minmaxing that is common in Pathfinder. Do you guys not see the minmaxing as a problem, or is bounded accuracy just not your preferred way to fix it?
For many powergaming/minmaxing is a feature not a problem, and if 5E is already covering that niche Pathfinder should not do the same.
5E is already the game of 'toned down.'
Therefore I would hate to see PF2 take the same path.
Totally agree
They pretty much confirmed the similarities, by saying it's one of the things they found out on their own Erik went on quite the rant about it.Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
Do you happen to have a link? I went through all of Erik's posts in the past few weeks and didn't see anything. Perhaps it's on another site?
The podcasts haven't suggested such a thing either.
The closest we have is Mark's thought experiment, which describes a system very similar to Starfinder's casting system, but not 5e's.
I haven't seen anything which confirms, much less even suggests, that PF2 will have a spell system similar to 5e.
|
One GM's 'out of hand' is another GM's 'crazy awesome'
Saves need a bit of rejiggering to obtain a better balance at high levels, but I love the crazy epic of high levels and fully embrace it.
I'd say it makes them pointless or trivial. It makes finding like interesting armor or something similar pointless because things just hit you anyway on 2's.
You're not epic because numbers are high, especially when it's all the numbers. Divide everything by 10 and it's exactly the same game.
|
As a player, I keep my power curve around the level of the others in the group.
I guess my main problem is I have people in my group who will always min max, meaning that if I want to make a non-optimal character for fun/roleplay reasons, then I'll probably have less fun because my character seems less heroic than others, and my DM has a hard time making encounters that are an appropriate challenge for everyone.
And I'm not even really making *weak* characters...just not minmaxed.
I'm seeing a lot of objections to the "bounded accuracy" of 5e. As I understand it, that was implemented to curb the powergaming/minmaxing that is common in Pathfinder. Do you guys not see the minmaxing as a problem, or is bounded accuracy just not your preferred way to fix it?I've never found it to be a problem.'Minmaxing' only became a problem for me when I had inexperienced players trying to play the weaker classes that require minmaxing to be viable.
Hand them a druid or wizard or cleric or sorcerer or witch or summoner or alchemist or bard with a few basic guidelines of how to build and play one and it's all good.
Barbarians and Paladins are sort of a middle ground.
Fighters and Monks and Rogues and Rangers? Forget it. Advanced System Mastery required to try to drag these classes up from the dregs and become viable party members.
Have always found this statement a bit weird. If you have newbie players starting at level 1, then that Beginner Box premade Valeros is the fricken' king of the battlefield. Has Improved Init, Weapon Focus and Power Attack... If you hold the longsword with 2 hands you are already oneshotting all the threats for like the next 2-3 levels and hitting very reliably.
From my experience, the martials are so straightforward and effective at the earlier levels that he won't feel "useless" for a pretty long time. If the mages themselves are newbies and non-optimized, it'll take even longer.
Balance issues start when you begin min-maxing. So that's the price you pay. Your superpowers only hurt the weaker PCs in the group and are irrelevant to a decent GM.
As a player, I keep my power curve around the level of the others in the group.I guess my main problem is I have people in my group who will always min max, meaning that if I want to make a non-optimal character for fun/roleplay reasons, then I'll probably have less fun because my character seems less heroic than others, and my DM has a hard time making encounters that are an appropriate challenge for everyone.
And I'm not even really making *weak* characters...just not minmaxed.
That's more a group dynamic issue than a min/max one. If you know that others enjoy making characters higher on the curve, you can either #1 keep up or #2 make a character you know is going to be sub-optimal in comparison.
So IMO, if you're making a 'fun' character that you know will be "less fun because" they are "less heroic" then they aren't really fun are they? Not every concept fits every game, no matter how interesting they may look on paper.
Lastly, from my experience, the "bounded accuracy" of 5e 'fixed' the issue you have by making EVERYONE "probably have less fun because [every] character seems less heroic".
They pretty much confirmed the similarities, by saying it's one of the things they found out on their own Erik went on quite the rant about it.Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
Do you happen to have a link? I went through all of Erik's posts in the past few weeks and didn't see anything. Perhaps it's on another site?
The podcasts haven't suggested such a thing either.
The closest we have is Mark's thought experiment, which describes a system very similar to Starfinder's casting system, but not 5e's.
I haven't seen anything which confirms, much less even suggests, that PF2 will have a spell system similar to 5e.
hereThey pretty much confirmed the similarities, by saying it's one of the things they found out on their own Erik went on quite the rant about it.Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
Do you happen to have a link? I went through all of Erik's posts in the past few weeks and didn't see anything. Perhaps it's on another site?
The podcasts haven't suggested such a thing either.
The closest we have is Mark's thought experiment, which describes a system very similar to Starfinder's casting system, but not 5e's.
I haven't seen anything which confirms, much less even suggests, that PF2 will have a spell system similar to 5e.
Thanks! I haven't had the chance to listen to that yet. It's on my weekend playlist.
1. Proficiency. Characters are just better with it. I can see PF2 Classes giving maybe a specialized Proficiency.
2. Inspiration. Running a 5e group now and they love it, plus it seems to inspire RP and creativity from players. PF has Action Points, but they need to be core. A reroll mechanic is crucial.
3. Move-Action-Move. PF2 will have that with the 3 actions.
4. Archetypes. PF2 will edge 5e here.
5. Death Saves. Wow is this dramatic for a group! They really get into it and I've seen it lead to great RP with characters helping each other at their own risk.
6. Feats. 5e feats are Macro-Feats containing elements of 2-3 normal ones. PF2 could steal that to streamline and still have a stronger selection than 5e.
Adding these while streamlining optimization and combat could be the prize.
|
the one thing that 5e has that PF2 will not is the end of Vancian (Prepared "Fire and forget") Casting. Using the superior Spontaneous Casting mechanic as the undercarriage for spell casting should have been the norm in 3.0, but we instead got two Mages called Sorcerer and Wizard that were basically the same class.
Now instead of (or on top of) getting higher level spells/spell slots at later levels, Sorcerers have another delaying balance act to account for the mechanical advantage of their mechanic. This was or is unnecessary and will serve to confuse and frustrate new players.
|
The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.
In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.
In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!
When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).
In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...
I'm not sure what's so heroic about every combat you enter being an assured thing. That's actually the opposite of heroic, in my book, instead sounding rather cowardly.
1. Inspiration. PF2 needs a reroll rule. Use Action points but all the modern games have a reroll rule and my 5e groups love it. It frees players from the d20.
2. Feats. PF2 should be better here. 5e feats are macro, taking in 2-3 normal feats. PF2 can do this easy by streamlining and still have more choices.
3. Action economy. 3 actions is imo an improvement on 5e.
4. No Xmas Trees. PF2 will drop slots and make questing for magic the norm, rather than shopping.
5. Proficiency. Just makes low-level FUN.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whats the working definition of hero here? Guy who can slaughter a million goblins without breaking a sweat? That sounds more like supers than heroes. If i fought iron mike tyson he'd whip my ass. If iron mike fought me and 9 of my buddies he'd get beat. I think Mark mentioned this same line of thought earlier. You are either cool with being super or you are not. Paizo is cool with it so there is no worry about BA in PF2.
I seem to be in a pretty small club with my workding definition of "heroic". Maybe it's influenced by the fact that I played Call of Cthulhu for a long time before I ever touched one of the d20-spawned editions of D&D. For me, true heroism is when the character throws themselves at the forces of evil, knowing they are outmatched and almost certain to die, but that they might save others with their sacrifice. A band of near-demigod 20th level heroes slaughtering a band of goblins....not all that heroic.
Marketing. D&D has so many channels preaching the doctrine it's unlike anything I've seen since TSR had D&D commercials on TV.
Paizo has to get a very strong online marketing machine. I'm thinking WotC's hire if Welch was part of a grand online marketing thing tied into D&D Beyond.
And a face.
Market or no?
Plus, PF2 emulating the Powered by the Apocalypse games like D&D 5e. Inspiration, Backgrounds, specialized classes that couch bounded accuracy, skill checks vs. opposed skill instead of GM fiat.
Most players don't have the gaming pedigree to see how the hobby changes.
*shrug*
Running 5e groups now and Inspiration, Advantage/Disadvantage, and Proficiency rock. PF2 needs to steal these. Work the bonuses into Classes. Use Action points for Inspiration since Paizo had it. Adv/Disadv can be worked into class features.
Paizo needs to steal and get the market share. Just that. Or you lose players to GURPS Fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So much good stuff - a lot of which our group ported across into PF anyway.
**NO BRAINERS**
Short rests - wow, these speed play up so much and make clerics less of a must have.
Inspiration - simple and rewards role playing
Legendary Monsters - the most awesome way to make end bosses feel strong without needed to have a horde of minions. Maybe create a legendary template.
Death saves - prevent point of death being a mathematical calculation and throw in some jeapardy.
**DEFINATELY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED**
Spells known - makes wizards flexible but not too flexible. They become manageable at all levels without having a degree in accounting
Scaling magic - magic that uses spell slot to scale rather than doing it automatically.
Cantrips - scaling base attacks so wizards don’t need to fire crossbows!
Stat based saving thrones - makes working out saves so much more intuitive and adds a new dimension to matching spells against defenses.
More hp for monsters - 1 hit kills are much less of a thing.
Remove feat chains - it means reducing the power of some feats but so much more elegant.
**CONTROVERSIAL BUT AWESOME**
Bounded accuracy - AC now means something rather than being a waste of time, auto fail and auto success are less of a thing (in 5e you just don’t roll for trivial difficulties) encounter balance is much much much easier, and everyone in the party can contribute. Fighters feel good because they get multiple attacks not because they’re better than a rogue with a dagger.
Concentration - the single most elegant way of speeding up combat, preventing one encounter days and curbing the nonsense of some wizards over level 5. But I accept that it is anethama to the proponents of the god-wizard.
Magic Items - they feel special, they add choices, rather than increasing the stats of existing choices. Love the reduced book keeping.
Fitnesse weapons - they make all PCs awesome in combat and the fighter is differentiated in other ways. The fighter is now awesome by the way and one of our most popular classes.
Tie stat increases to class - allow but discourage excessive multiclassjng by making stat increases a class ability at key levels. Flex these levels to balance classes.
*******
In summary a lot of people are saying 5e is dumbed down, which it isnt. To any outsider it is still a game with complexity, with hundreds of choices, hundreds of spells, dozens of feats etc etc. in comparison to Pathfinder with 10 years bloat there are less options but not when you compare it to 3.0 when it came out.
In 5e when you want to be a specialist in Varisian artifacts you take proficiency history and write it in your background, you tell your GM and when Varisian artifacts are in the game he gives you advantage.. In Pathfinder 1e you want a trait that gives you +1 on history checks dealing with varisian artifacts. A feat that allows you to decipher the uses with a DC 25 know(arcana) check and gives +1 to spell level when using the spells cast from varies Ian artifacts etc etc etc. The problem is the mechanical differences for Pathfinder in most games are either trivial or incredibly good depending on the campaign. Whereas the potential for RP and fun is still there in 5e there just isn’t a specific feat or trait for that choice.
5e is simpler but it isn’t simple. Instead it’s more intuitive and arguably more powerful because you can do more with the rule set as a player and DM because the space to invent has been built into the system. Rather than requiring specific permissions and exemptions to do anything.
Paizo should make intuitive and clear rules a key part of its design structure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing unfortunately, i really hated 5e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
Wait, WotC came up with this spell system in 2012 and 2013. That's 5-6 years ago.
Paizo said that they started this stuff around 2014 at the earliest. (Normally they say it was around 2 years ago though, which would put it in 2016).
So...maybe technically...maybe???
And it just HAPPENS to run just like 5e's spell system???
Is it really like 5e's spell system? Or is that just what we are drawing to because if it is...that's actually pretty suspicious to tell the truth.
Could be that happened, but it sounds AWFULLY coincidental...
That's saying, of course, that it really does work like 5e spell system. (I do admit though, from what I'm hearing, it DOES sound an awful lot like it).
I'm not sure what's so heroic about every combat you enter being an assured thing. That's actually the opposite of heroic, in my book, instead sounding rather cowardly.The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.
In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.
In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!
When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).
In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...
Not every combat is an assured thing, but you don't have to think no-name nobody goblins are going to kill you on a random encounter.
If you die, it's going to be against an ARMY of them...OR against something that is equally dangerous and can wipe out an army themselves...and you die against THAT...not the 1hd goblin tribe.
Heroic is Charlemagne, his Bishop, and his 12 Paladins holding the pass against an entire army of enemies.
Heroic is the Aragorn fighting through entire troops of Orcss and Gandalf on the Wall fighting in holding off the immeasurable armies of Sauron.
Heroic is Japanese Anime when the Hero smashes through the entire forces of the enemy arrayed around him.
Heroic is Neo wiping out a hundred Agent Smiths piling on him.
Unheroic is Lancelot riding into Camelot to rescue Guenivierre and being challenged by 3 squires and dying instead of rescuing her because he's that weak.
Unheroic is Han Solo dying in the attack on Maz Kanata's from two stormtroopers before he even has a chance to heroically face his son.
Unheroic is Darth Vader being killed outright in Rogue One because he cannot march right through and slaughter all the rebels in his path...
This is the difference between 5e and PF
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
one thing that was in 5e that I hope stays in 5e is the stupid ability score caps
THats one of the best parts of 5E.
AD&D capped at 25, B/X at 18, uncapped is one of the big problems of 3E and 4E.
one thing that was in 5e that I hope stays in 5e is the stupid ability score capsTHats one of the best parts of 5E.
AD&D capped at 25, B/X at 18, uncapped is one of the big problems of 3E and 4E.
Not exactly...that's a 5ism the creators of it used to try to justify Bounded Accuracy, but that's no more true than stating that -10 was the lowest AC (it wasn't...there was at least ONE monster that had a lower AC and showed that it could be lower).
In addition, it wasn't about all AD&D, it was about 2e. In 2e, the Deities were not stated, but if asked, they were said to have ability scores FAR higher than a mere mortal could dream of and could not be engaged in combat.
The reason some assume 25 was the highest was because there were no tables that extended beyond this. It is like the assumption that the highest level you could get was level 20 in 2e (which also was untrue...it was unlimited, unless you abided by the rules found in a LATER handbook that came out called High Level Campaigns which stated the Highest level was 30....which also was contradicted by a book in the Forgotten realms 2e series which allowed levels to go up to 40...and so on and so forth).
Someone could get a 26 STR...but there were no rules that would tell you what bonuses or what you could do with 26 STR.
The same applied for spelltables in AD&D 1e...you could extrapolate them out and figure out what you probably would be able to cast at high levels, but the tables did not go infinitely up. However, there were those who played 100th level (and higher) characters.
For fun, in AD&D, you can play the extremely broken module...Throne of Bloodstone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every combat is an assured thing, but you don't have to think no-name nobody goblins are going to kill you on a random encounter.
...
Unheroic is Lancelot riding into Camelot to rescue Guenivierre and being challenged by 3 squires and dying instead of rescuing her because he's that weak.
Unheroic is Han Solo dying in the attack on Maz Kanata's from two stormtroopers before he even has a chance to heroically face his son.
Unheroic is Darth Vader being killed outright in Rogue One because he cannot march right through and slaughter all...
Yeah it doesn't sound like you've played much 5e if this is how you describe the encounters. The goblin has a +4 to hit and deals 1d6+1 damage and has maybe 7 hp with AC 15.
The 11th level fighter PC has about 90 hp, can heal mid combat, attack three or four times at +8 or so, with AC 20 ish.
The squires/goblins/rebel troopers don't kill the PC but they may knock a couple of hit points off.
I don't think you understand the principal of bounded accuracy. It is about preventing auto success and auto fail. Preventing combat becoming trivial unless DMs are locked into combats with a narrow range of CRs. It prevents AC being meaningless because all monsters hit on +20 or more.
In 5e the low level PCs can take on the Red Dragon becasue it is physically possible for them to hit it but they need to do it in several stages with a cunning plan and a way to heal up otherwise they will get roasted. In existing pathfinder this is impossible, the lower level PCs can't scratch the thing.
I like quite a bit about 5e too, though I’d be fine with P2 doing things differently.
My favorite thing about 5e is how much faster combat is.
My second favorite thing about 5e was the removal of the huge pre-buff routine.
Playing Wrath of the Righteous really highlighted these advantages — combats in the sixth book of WotR would take more than one session to complete, and the party ran around with well over a dozen buffs up.
Not according to Logan, apparently.Mark just happened to come up with a system that works just like 5e for spellcastingThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?Well.. yes and no.
They did say they developed their spell system before 5e came out. They have not said their spell system is similar to 5e. Commenters have speculated and claimed that the spell system is like 5e without any evidence and an extremely limited view of the PF2 spell system.
Wait, WotC came up with this spell system in 2012 and 2013. That's 5-6 years ago.
Paizo said that they started this stuff around 2014 at the earliest. (Normally they say it was around 2 years ago though, which would put it in 2016).
So...maybe technically...maybe???
And it just HAPPENS to run just like 5e's spell system???
Is it really like 5e's spell system? Or is that just what we are drawing to because if it is...that's actually pretty suspicious to tell the truth.
Could be that happened, but it sounds AWFULLY coincidental...
That's saying, of course, that it really does work like 5e spell system. (I do admit though, from what I'm hearing, it DOES sound an awful lot like it).
You've got both your timeline wrong and your statement that "it runs just like the 5e spell system" wrong.
5e came out in late 2014. That's all the bench mark Paizo needs to claim they developed this "before 5e came out." It doesn't matter when WotC was working on it. Paizo couldn't see WotC's draft work on their own product. The two companies are competing, they don't share their work with each other. Additionally, the developers have flat out stated that they've either never played 5e or only played it minimally. They prefer their own system. And if you don't think a company can be working on a project for 5-6+ years, then you've got a lot to learn about how companies operate. Successful companies are those who can look forward and have continuous development and improvement.
As for how similar they are, the only thing they have that's similar is scaling spells with higher spell slots, but even that does work the same in the two editions.
In 5e, you have a pool of spells you prepare, and then during the day you choose which spell slots to use when you cast. So you prepare fireball, and then can choose to cast it as a 3rd level spell or maybe a 5th level spell when the time comes.
In PF2, you have to prepare your spell slots with assigned spells per slot, just like in PF1. So if you want a 3rd level fireball, you prepare it in a 3rd level slot. If you want a 5th level fireball, you prepare it in a 5th level slot.
Those are not the same system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only things that I like about 5th edition are backgrounds & inspiration and the art. The rest, including the spellcasting system, should stay as far away from Pathfinder 2nd edition as possible IMHO.
Personally, I'd like to see the arcanist style casting as the default for prepared casters like wizards and clerics, where you choose what spells you prepare each day but you don't decide what slots are used for them until you actually cast them (so you can on the fly upcast a fireball in a higher level slot, for example). That seems unlikely though based on what I've heard about prepared casters so far.
Other than that, my favorite thing in 5e is cantrips that remain useful all through the game. I don't want a wizard to have to pull out a crossbow, let ray of frost actually be useful instead!
one thing that was in 5e that I hope stays in 5e is the stupid ability score capsTHats one of the best parts of 5E.
AD&D capped at 25, B/X at 18, uncapped is one of the big problems of 3E and 4E.
I agree capping is good. However, magic items in 5e contribute to uncapping it.
A player cannot naturally increase a stat over 20. This means that there is a peak which someone's body can reach, and to me, applies realism. It also prevents munchkin min-maxing at early levels for game-breaking ammounts of damage.
A belt/potion of X giant's strength though, still flat sets your ability score above a certain point. Most above 20, up as high as 26 (if I recall, at least that's the one I remember)? And it's a flat set, not a +2 or 3. An 8 str char attunes to the belt and it gives him the strength of Heracles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct. However the belts of giant strength are pretty rare items and I guess you just wouldn’t add one to the party treasure unless it made sense. Legends are filled with stories of people getting immense strength or speed so i can see why they are in there. However they are far removed from the existing big six.
Specialized Wizards not having prohibited schools that is something I will like to see in PF2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to thank all the community members who have experience with 5E and who are posting in this thread. I've been playing Pathfinder for years but stopped playing D&D when they moved to 4th edition. I'm intrigued with what has been posted about 5E. It seems like it is a significant commercial hit and based on the comments in this thread I can see why. I think this thread could be really valuable to Paizo. They have an "Apple" moment here. By that I mean they can iterate on existing products and make a superior product (i.e. blackberry to iPhone). If they can take the strengths of D&D 5e (sounds like most of them are built around player accessibility, easier to use rules, and easier NPC/monster creation) and the strengths of Pathfinder 1E (Player customization through many class and race options, archetypes, a rich campaign world with tons of existing support, etc.) and combine them to make a superior product, this could really be great. I am slowly becoming more excited about Pathfinder 2E.
Specialized Wizards not having prohibited schools that is something I will like to see in PF2
I'm on the fence with this.
On the one hand, I do like it. Less restrictions.
On the other hand, I like as a player, needing to make different choices. I gave up Transmutation and Conjuration and it basically said most spells were inaccessible. It made me need to make a unique wizard since I couldn't even take Mage Armor.
Oherall though, I'm generally for less restrictions. Maybe a sidebar option? So a DM could allow either option in their campaign.
Then again, a player could always choose to not take spells of certain schools of their own volition. So hmm... Pickle.
With Return of Runelords beign a future AP, and Golarion infusing NPF, I doubt specialization goes away anytime soon.