Running math comparing daikyu to shortbow, and both to composite shortbow, over the course of 20 levels of character... I've slightly adapted my stance on the weapon.
It is better damage than a shortbow if you have the same proficiency level in both weapons, but by a very small amount. A similar comparison of martial to advanced nearest-neighbor (scimitar to orc necksplitter) shows a nearly 14% increase in damage, where the daikyu is around a tenth of that improvement over a shortbow. So a campaign really needs to let the 20 extra feet of range increment be relevant in order for the daikyu to be a noteworthy choice for the cost of feat(s) used to get it.
Comparing to a composite shortbow, however, comes out to an obvious conclusion with a less-obvious cost; it does more damage (still not by as wide of a margin as the scimitar to necksplitter comparison)... but when punching up the build math I was looking at the difference between ability scores.
For the non-composite-using build, putting points where I'd want them, I was looking at Str 10, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 10 at 1st level, eventually raising to Str 10, Dex 24, Con 20, Int 18, Wis 20, Cha 12. Where the composite-using build, again putting points where I'd want them, I was looking at Str 14, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10, rising to Str 18, Dex 22, Con 18, Int 14, Wis 20, Cha 12.
So the cost of a couple extra points of damage, when viewed from a perspective of "I am building a character to be an archer", starts at 2 points of Con and 4 points of Int, and ends up being 2 points of Con and 4 points of Int.
For me, paying a feat or even two for a small damage boost makes more sense that paying 1 HP/level, 1 point of Fortitude, 2 languages, and 2 trained skills... though I could also just as easily get something else interesting with those feats, because I favor diversity over max specialization in the first place.
This is interesting, but difficult to situate in game play for me. Is this comparing 1 full bonus attack with a short bow vs a Daikyu? a full round of fire? And at what level?
I agree that the weapon is not worth using with a penalty, but by level 6 that shouldn't be the case and unless the character started with a 16 STR on top of an 18 Dex, they won't be getting more than a +1 until level 10, and that is really sinking a ton of character resources into essentially keeping up with a weapon that can be picked up for one feat. It seems like if you are using triple shot regularly, or even just double shot and something else, the reduced likelihood of crits is going to make the bigger base damage work out a lot better in your favor.
A precision ranger is probably still better off with a short bow, as is any character trying to act like a sniper and hide often, but a D8 base die makes for a much better multi-fire weapon than a D6 with deadly weapon.
Is this comparing 1 full bonus attack with a short bow vs a Daikyu? a full round of fire? And at what level?The comparison was using fighter proficiency levels assuming bow group focus, automatic bonus progression setting when potency and striking benefits were gained, and at levels 1, 4, 12, and 20 to get a sense for how extra damage dice played into equation without doing math at literally every level.
The damage value assessed was a singular attack against an AC from the "high" column of the creature building tables for the same level as the character.
I didn't go into more than one attack per round territory because I wasn't feeling like doing more math, and it is very situational how many attacks are appropriate to be making, but it does seem plausible that a more rapid attack rate would accentuate the higher damage the daikyu already has.
Thanks for clarifying, and doing that work!
I think it is pretty easy to get dismissive of weapons and spells and feats when they don’t necessarily work really well with one specific build, when that happens to be the specific build of our character. The advanced ranged weapons are very much weapons you have to build into using, rather than just assuming that they will be better weapons than their martial alternatives. This is perfectly fine with me. It is definitely going to be that way with firearms as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a character who is already equally skilled with the longsword, shortsword, bastard sword, greatsword, scimitar, katar, falchion, machete, dogslicer, elven curve blade, katana, khopesh, nine-ring sword, poly tool, and temple sword. Why are, so-called, advanced swords so much more difficult for this character to learn?In regards to Verdyn's question, the reason is mainly a bit of realism: Most of the typically-advanced weapons from other cultures have a tendency to be false friends. They have enough similarity to weapons you're familiar with to make you think you know what you're doing, but are just different enough to throw you off when using them. The differences in sword weighting and balance would have a noticeable effect on your swing, for example, if you were to go from an arming sword to a wakizashi (or vice versa), and you'd be liable to forget that the wakizashi isn't double-edged like the arming sword
So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).
Most likely because it depends on cultural assimilation, which is an extremely hard thing to model accurately in a game meant for fun, and thus "exotic" weapon categories have a tendency to mush together as a mix of "too strong" and "too uncommon" (something which PF2 handles more elegantly than most systems, with the [Uncommon] trait). It was more of a game-independent general reply to your initial question than a comment about PF2 specifically.
Why is every type of non-western weapon always considered advanced even though weapons that were rarely used IRL, such as flails, are considered martial?
If looking at it in PF2 specifically, I would say the daikyu is advanced because most Golarian cultures don't see a need for mounted longbows, and otherwise dismiss it because it's easier to standardise normal longbow training than to assess which specific type of longbow a given student would excel at and then provide proper individual training.
-----
In regards to Verdyn's question, the reason is mainly a bit of realism: Most of the typically-advanced weapons from other cultures have a tendency to be false friends. They have enough similarity to weapons you're familiar with to make you think you know what you're doing, but are just different enough to throw you off when using them. The differences in sword weighting and balance would have a noticeable effect on your swing, for example, if you were to go from an arming sword to a wakizashi (or vice versa), and you'd be liable to forget that the wakizashi isn't double-edged like the arming sword.
So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).
okay first thing, there is no such thing as "false friend" in Pathfinder given that the devs give blanket training in huge swaths of weapons. Also if it were a matter of training then a person who knows how to use an advanced weapon should have the same bonus as a person using a martial weapon. So it has nothing to do with realism. Heck by that metric PF1 is more realistic given that they used exotic to classify weird weapons, and only required 1 feat to get training.
Second, a ropera is literally just a rapier maybe with a cutting edge, that has a straight and narrow blade used for piercing with a basket hilt to protect the hand. A katana is a curved slashing blade with a disk guard. The two are used in entirely different ways and no one would ever confused the use of one with the other. If you had used a Chinese Jian however which works really similarly to a rapier (just broader blade and no basket guard).
Third, this is just too hilarious "it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada." "It'll...
They may not be false friends in PF2 specifically, but they do have a tendency to be false friends if one is unaware of the differences, as stated. I hoped that the mention of two weapons that don't exist in PF2 (arming sword, espada ropera) would serve as sufficient indication that I was looking at the underlying logic rather than its mechanical implementation in this one game specifically, but alas.
(And for the second one, that was the point. ;3 I was saying that just being different types of swords does not by any means mean training with one can count as training with the other, and that standard "exotic/advanced" classifications exist to prevent wildly different weapons from becoming false friends since "they're both swords", as many players might not actually be familiar with the differences between them. The use of embarazada was also entirely intentional, just a fun little tongue-in-cheek false friend. ;3)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to Verdyn's question, the reason is mainly a bit of realism: Most of the typically-advanced weapons from other cultures have a tendency to be false friends. They have enough similarity to weapons you're familiar with to make you think you know what you're doing, but are just different enough to throw you off when using them. The differences in sword weighting and balance would have a noticeable effect on your swing, for example, if you were to go from an arming sword to a wakizashi (or vice versa), and you'd be liable to forget that the wakizashi isn't double-edged like the arming sword.
So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).
Spaniard here, the word you were probably looking for was "embarazoso" (embarrassed), which is a word used as an adjective for a determined situation the subject is in. When I was taught english I was told that when translating from one language to another context usually matters a lot when choosing certain words over anothers, specially the ones that are opened to ambigüity.
If that was an intentional pun then sorry for barging in and ignore my post entirely my good sir.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there? The Daikyu seems rather unique in its awfulness. I have trouble thinking of a weapon that's as bad as it, maybe only the heavy crossbow. And even then, I can think of more characters that would make use of a heavy crossbow just because it's simple.
Sort of late reply, but I think Heavy Crossbow is actually pretty sweet depending on who's using it. The key is never ever reloading, which is totally feasible as a low level Wizard (you're probably not using those hands for anything for the first couple of levels anyway). Getting a d12 ranged attack once per fight is not unlike getting an extra focus spell, and once you've fired you can drop the crossbow as a free action if you need to use those hands for anything. IMO, low level crossbow usage is actually pretty optimal for a lot of characters.
But Daikyu sucks, yes.
Are there? The Daikyu seems rather unique in its awfulness. I have trouble thinking of a weapon that's as bad as it, maybe only the heavy crossbow. And even then, I can think of more characters that would make use of a heavy crossbow just because it's simple.Sort of late reply, but I think Heavy Crossbow is actually pretty sweet depending on who's using it. The key is never ever reloading, which is totally feasible as a low level Wizard (you're probably not using those hands for anything for the first couple of levels anyway). Getting a d12 ranged attack once per fight is not unlike getting an extra focus spell, and once you've fired you can drop the crossbow as a free action if you need to use those hands for anything. IMO, low level crossbow usage is actually pretty optimal for a lot of characters.
But Daikyu sucks, yes.
Low-level caster was actually the character I had in mind when I wrote that.
So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).Spaniard here, the word you were probably looking for was "embarazoso" (embarrassed), which is a word used as an adjective for a determined situation the subject is in. When I was taught english I was told that when translating from one language to another context usually matters a lot when choosing certain words over anothers, specially the ones that are opened to ambigüity.
If that was an intentional pun then sorry for barging in and ignore my post entirely my good sir.
Yeah, I was wondering how epic a fumble the must have been in order to leave him pregnant.
In regards to Verdyn's question, the reason is mainly a bit of realism: Most of the typically-advanced weapons from other cultures have a tendency to be false friends. They have enough similarity to weapons you're familiar with to make you think you know what you're doing, but are just different enough to throw you off when using them. The differences in sword weighting and balance would have a noticeable effect on your swing, for example, if you were to go from an arming sword to a wakizashi (or vice versa), and you'd be liable to forget that the wakizashi isn't double-edged like the arming sword.
So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).
Spaniard here, the word you were probably looking for was "embarazoso" (embarrassed), which is a word used as an adjective for a determined situation the subject is in. When I was taught english I was told that when translating from one language to another context usually matters a lot when choosing certain words over anothers, specially the ones that are opened to ambigüity.
If that was an intentional pun then sorry for barging in and ignore my post entirely my good sir.
It was an intentional pun, yes, intentionally using a false friend. Mentioned a Spaniard specifically so anyone that didn't know what "embarazada" actually means would know which language to translate it from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way it's kind of a bad example, because in PF switching from a shortsword to a wakizashi doesn't cause any problems (except that the wakizashi is just a worse weapon all around) and our Spaniard would only run into an issue if they don't have the strength to wield their new katana... but even then that's really a different problem entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way it's kind of a bad example, because in PF switching from a shortsword to a wakizashi doesn't cause any problems (except that the wakizashi is just a worse weapon all around) and our Spaniard would only run into an issue if they don't have the strength to wield their new katana... but even then that's really a different problem entirely.
You missed the part where neither PF1 nor PF2 actually have one of the weapons I mentioned (espada ropera), and the later post where I said it was a general explanation of the concept of "exotic/advanced" weapons and not their PF2 implementation specifically (which, again, it explicitly could not have been, due to one of the example weapons not existing in PF2). You misunderstanding the example does not make the example bad. ;3
You missed the part where neither PF1 nor PF2 actually have one of the weapons I mentioned (espada ropera), and the later post where I said it was a general explanation of the concept of "exotic/advanced" weapons and not their PF2 implementation specifically (which, again, it explicitly could not have been, due to one of the example weapons not existing in PF2). You misunderstanding the example does not make the example bad. ;3
If your example doesn't apply to PF2 why give it at all? My initial complaint was about why PF2 silos advanced weapons the way it does given how many weapons any given weapons-focused character can already use.
You missed the part where neither PF1 nor PF2 actually have one of the weapons I mentioned (espada ropera), and the later post where I said it was a general explanation of the concept of "exotic/advanced" weapons and not their PF2 implementation specifically (which, again, it explicitly could not have been, due to one of the example weapons not existing in PF2). You misunderstanding the example does not make the example bad. ;3If your example doesn't apply to PF2 why give it at all? My initial complaint was about why PF2 silos advanced weapons the way it does given how many weapons any given weapons-focused character can already use.
Your initial complaint could be interpreted as broadly talking about the phenomenon in TTRPGs, which is also the level Omega Metroid was on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You missed the part where neither PF1 nor PF2 actually have one of the weapons I mentioned (espada ropera), and the later post where I said it was a general explanation of the concept of "exotic/advanced" weapons and not their PF2 implementation specifically (which, again, it explicitly could not have been, due to one of the example weapons not existing in PF2). You misunderstanding the example does not make the example bad. ;3If your example doesn't apply to PF2 why give it at all? My initial complaint was about why PF2 silos advanced weapons the way it does given how many weapons any given weapons-focused character can already use.
Because your question was worded in a general sense, so I figured it would be best to look at the underlying logic rather than a single specific implementation.
As I said previously a "espada ropera" is literally just a rapier. But some verions could be used to make cuts. Its like making a 1d6 rapier that can do slashing or piercing. Its not really interesting from a gameplay point of view.
It's technically an immediate predecessor of the standard rapier, which may or may not be classified as a rapier depending on who you ask, just like the spada da lato. So, not quite, but I can see why you say they're the same.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The year is XX97, twelve generations into a protracted nuclear winter set off in the 24th century by one forgotten global superpower or another. Food is no longer as scarce in the northern gas and steel emirates as relations with the new prairie republic have improved but plastics and synthetic bio-tissue reserves are at an all-time low leading to much anxiety among the peoples of these nations.
Toothvore Hurricanes are still hammering the west coast but grow more infrequent with each passing week, thaw season is on its way out after all. Shellbie Markeep down at the 'berg administration office has assured the whole community that with the refreeze and protective cloud cover will arrive any day now but I am personally doubtful, it's not right that only one person should be trusted to track the calendar.
Tomorrow is OT-Day. The elders have the ceremonies prepared for the occasion and in the spirit of the holiday, the whole family spent the morning drafting their own arbitrary and very personal arguments about the semantics of historical "fact" and anachrony. The local Primarch for our commune will lead the start of the discussion, as is tradition, about issues of the utter utmost importance to our survival and the heads of each family will summarily interrupt him, and in turn each other to bicker about unrelated topics ranging from the ethics of ancient warriors known as "Green Barrettes" and the contemporary gunpowder weapons of the legendary "US Naval Sealant" brigade. I hope that I'm able to shout loud enough that some fertile maid might hear my argument and find it sound so that I might lay claim to arible land in the mountains and finally move out of the grandparent's cellar to raise a proper bicker of children outside of moisture farming industry.
One “mistake” that was made with this bow, beyond the reload issue, is that the ability to fired while mounted should have been a trait instead of a line tucked into a weapon description. Even though longbows are the only bow weapon that wouldn’t have this trait, it would draw attention to it as an intentional positive aspect of the weapon, especially as mounted combat steals actions, so being mounted and reloading is a big action waster.
But I don’t think weapon traits got as thorough a thinking through as the have now until after the guns and gears play test.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns and Gears just added the repeating crossbow is nearly identical to the daikyu but gains an extra 40 feet of range at the cost of a 3 action reload every 5 attacks.
You could drive a bus through the difference you just labeled "nearly identical", it's not the only difference, and it isn't the only advanced ranged weapon in the book. No, it does not tell us anything, as the two weapons have very little to do with one another besides being in the same general category.
|
|
If it's on purpose then they wasted ink on it. Why spend time on something that will never see use? It's completely baffling.
Very strange indeed, but it's not like this is the first time something utterly and tossingly useless was printed where it makes no sense and the design/faq/errata team kept the questions for it left-on-read.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think the better answer isn't that Paizo is sending a message, but just that they aren't as rigorous with weapon tier balancing as the forums think they are. The numbers re all over the place.
Like it's really hard to look at the Hornbow, Daikyu and Repeating Crossbow and say they're relatively equal unless you put a lot of value on range.
But if you do that then the hornbow's tiny range doesn't make sense next to the composite shortbow either, since it's only a small step up over that weapon.
And while this thread is about bows, it's not the only example of an advanced weapon looking weirdly not great compared to its martial counterparts, or of two weapons in the same tier seeming out of balance with each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think the better answer isn't that Paizo is sending a message, but just that they aren't as rigorous with weapon tier balancing as the forums think they are. The numbers re all over the place.
Like it's really hard to look at the Hornbow, Daikyu and Repeating Crossbow and say they're relatively equal unless you put a lot of value on range.
But if you do that then the hornbow's tiny range doesn't make sense next to the composite shortbow either, since it's only a small step up over that weapon.
And while this thread is about bows, it's not the only example of an advanced weapon looking weirdly not great compared to its martial counterparts, or of two weapons in the same tier seeming out of balance with each other.
Completely agree with this (Just compare the halberd with the guisarme or the gill hook, for example), and I will add that it is completely fine that some weapons are worse than others in the same tier, it is the price we have to pay for actual mechanically interesting weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Completely agree with this (Just compare the halberd with the guisarme or the gill hook, for example), and I will add that it is completely fine that some weapons are worse than others in the same tier, it is the price we have to pay for actual mechanically interesting weapons.TBH I think the better answer isn't that Paizo is sending a message, but just that they aren't as rigorous with weapon tier balancing as the forums think they are. The numbers re all over the place.
Like it's really hard to look at the Hornbow, Daikyu and Repeating Crossbow and say they're relatively equal unless you put a lot of value on range.
But if you do that then the hornbow's tiny range doesn't make sense next to the composite shortbow either, since it's only a small step up over that weapon.
And while this thread is about bows, it's not the only example of an advanced weapon looking weirdly not great compared to its martial counterparts, or of two weapons in the same tier seeming out of balance with each other.
Seems all the same to me.
1d10 + reach + 1 specific trait.
Depends the character, it can be better one than another.
It's like comparing the fauchard with a glaive.
Daikyu feels different.
The trip or grapple trait can be meaningful in most of fights if build for it, specially with a reach weapon. Versatile will be meaningful once or twice per campaign at most.
The halberd is a good weapon, but there are weapons strictly better than it, my point was that weapons being worse than others isn't something exclusive to this bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Completely agree with this (Just compare the halberd with the guisarme or the gill hook, for example), and I will add that it is completely fine that some weapons are worse than others in the same tier, it is the price we have to pay for actual mechanically interesting weapons.TBH I think the better answer isn't that Paizo is sending a message, but just that they aren't as rigorous with weapon tier balancing as the forums think they are. The numbers re all over the place.
Like it's really hard to look at the Hornbow, Daikyu and Repeating Crossbow and say they're relatively equal unless you put a lot of value on range.
But if you do that then the hornbow's tiny range doesn't make sense next to the composite shortbow either, since it's only a small step up over that weapon.
And while this thread is about bows, it's not the only example of an advanced weapon looking weirdly not great compared to its martial counterparts, or of two weapons in the same tier seeming out of balance with each other.
Seems all the same to me.
1d10 + reach + 1 specific trait.
Depends the character, it can be better one than another.
It's like comparing the fauchard with a glaive.
Daikyu feels different.
The trip or grapple trait can be meaningful in most of fights if build for it, specially with a reach weapon. Versatile will be meaningful once or twice per campaign at most.
The halberd is a good weapon, but there are weapons strictly better than it, my point was that weapons being worse than others isn't something exclusive to this bow.
On the other hand, if you don't build for athletics, the trip or grapple is kind of useless. And then the versatile trait is better than nothing.
Most weapons and armor are the best choice for at least one specific build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is that a martial weapon? Even simple weapons get one trait at 1d6.
It's not the end of the world, because we can just not use those weapons but it sort of undermines the whole idea of weapon tiers a little.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Paizo will now transition to releasing whatever, in the style of throwing all kinds of crap on the wall and just see what sticks, instead of practicing quality control. Another indicator for that is the newly released Lion Scythe. What was the design philosophy behind that weapon? How to make the most boring weapon imaginable? Why release it at all?
It's literally a worse Kukri. As in, a Kukri is a martial knife that deals 1d6 slashing damage, and has some weapon traits on top of that.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defending the Lion Scythe, it looks like AoN missed that it's agile, finesse, and trip from looking at the book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defending the Lion Scythe, it looks like AoN missed that it's agile, finesse, and trip from looking at the book.
I believe AoN has a discord for reporting any errors that come up.
Edit:
With new features come potential bugs, so as always if you spot anything awry, please come let us know on one of our Discord feedback channels. We'll be doing another update this weekend to fix any issues found during that time, so let us know as soon as possible if you find something to ensure it stands the best chance of getting fixed in time (otherwise, it'll be a bug until the next official release).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Paizo will now transition to releasing whatever, in the style of throwing all kinds of crap on the wall and just see what sticks, instead of practicing quality control.
They basically have already, most stuff post the Core book (and I have my gripes with the core book) have been below core power and rather random with how well it works (see the Witch and Magus, for one).
The only explanation that makes sense is that dropping the splat books lost them a lot more money than anticipated, because they're pumping crap out faster than they can finish designing it. Which also counters the quality control issue they wanted to solve by not doing splat books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When they eventually errata the Daikyu I hope they also insert a new trait for the bit where longbows can't be used mounted. I can understand why they might not have done so originally, but it would be just good for making sure you don't forget the rule when throwing a character together if you see some trait (maybe call it 'infantry') listed there on it that means that the weapon can't be used mounted.
|
|
If thewastedwalrus is right, then this is simply an error on the AoN website, in which case my rant can be ignored. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions so quickly, but in my defense, I have never encountered an error on AoN before that. Props to the author of the website for that.I guess Paizo will now transition to releasing whatever, in the style of throwing all kinds of crap on the wall and just see what sticks, instead of practicing quality control.They basically have already, most stuff post the Core book (and I have my gripes with the core book) have been below core power and rather random with how well it works (see the Witch and Magus, for one).
The only explanation that makes sense is that dropping the splat books lost them a lot more money than anticipated, because they're pumping crap out faster than they can finish designing it. Which also counters the quality control issue they wanted to solve by not doing splat books.
That one weapon is an error,the rest of it isn't. There are plenty of cases of them throwing stuff at the wall without that one glaring example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There would be more overpowered stuff if quick slapdashing was their whole production process. It's almost like they're making a concerted effort to avoid power creep by generally aiming for slightly below the Core Rulebook in power. But no way a system like this would do something like that. ;o
|
|
There would be more overpowered stuff if quick slapdashing was their whole production process. It's almost like they're making a concerted effort to avoid power creep by generally aiming for slightly below the Core Rulebook in power. But no way a system like this would do something like that. ;o
Uhh, no. You can easily have slapdash and weak, just read the recent 4 books. Amd sure, there's effort to avoid power creep, but it isn't really that fun or interesting when there's 1 or 2 usable things in a whole book.