So, if you take the inventor dedication, and you are not trained in medium armor, but you choose the armor innovation, then are you trained in that innovation? Because the armor innovation is medium armor. And the archetype doesn't mention anything about needing to be trained in medium armor before taking the innovation or giving you medium armor proficiency.
So it would seem the intention is that you are trained in your armor innovation, though obviously not in all medium armor.
Following that logic then what if you choose weapon innovation, and you don't have martial weapon proficiency, but it gives you the option of choosing a martial weapon, are you then trained in your innovation if you choose a martial weapon?
I ask this because taking the construct innovation is very powerful because it gives you something you can't just buy. But if you take the weapon innovation then it seems like it's just slapping the innovation title on a weapon you could easily buy. This seems very imbalanced. Even the armor innovation is something you can't just buy in a shop. But, if you don't have martial weapon proficiency like with my sorcerer, and this gives you proficiency in one martial weapon, then at least it would be somewhat balanced for characters that don't already have martial weapon proficiency, since it's giving them something they couldn't just go out and buy. (Though I would still say that it's a little lame for classes that already have martial weapon proficiency and they want to use the weapon innovation, this basically just slaps the innovation title on a weapon they can buy in any shop)
|
Looks like you still need Medium Armor proficiency or Martial Weapon proficiency. Nothing in Innovation rules makes you proficient with it, the rules just makes everyone else not proficient with it.
The Weapon or Armor aren't useless, you can get Explode at level 6 and Basic Modification at level 8, and you are still able to take other Modification Feats with Basic and Advanced Breakthrough.
See, I'm wondering if this is a case of an oversight. The Innovations don't mention training because the Inventor is already trained in medium armor and martial weapons, it doesn't need to say you are trained in them again, it would be redundant. But then they go to make the archetype and just say go pick an Innovation from the Inventor. Since it doesn't list medium armor proficiency as a prerequisite and just says you can take the innovation, then there is an oversight here. I'm thinking they never actually thought about what if the person taking the Inventor Archetype isn't trained in medium armor, I think they likely never thought about it. So it seems ripe for an errata. But the question is would they errata that proficiency is a prerequisite or that proficiency is a given?
And I ask about armor even though I want to take a martial weapon innovation because the armor is only medium armor and doesn't have a choice and so the answer to that question will give me the answer as to whether weapon innovation will give me training in a martial weapon.
Looks like you still need Medium Armor proficiency or Martial Weapon proficiency. Nothing in Innovation rules makes you proficient with it, the rules just makes everyone else not proficient with it.
The Weapon or Armor aren't useless, you can get Explode at level 6 and Basic Modification at level 8, and you are still able to take other Modification Feats with Basic and Advanced Breakthrough.
If this were a skill feat or something, I'd agree with you, the intention would probably be that you needed proficiency as a prerequisite. However, for a multiclass archetype dedication, this would be unprecedented. The only prerequisites for any multiclass archetype are certain ability scores. And unless I'm mistaken, there are no other subclasses that you could take with a any other multiclass dedication that would require some additional proficiency. So going from that, I don't see Paizo intending to lock out casters from taking the Inventor archetype with Armor Innovation, or at least putting an additional burden on them to wait to take the armor proficiency general feat at level 3 then they can only get the Inventor Armor dedication at level 4, while all the martial classes with medium armor proficiency get to take Inventor Armor at level 2.
This presents another issue, that I also don't think the devs ever thought about, scaling. If they were to agree that anyone taking Inventor Armor dedication at level 2 is trained in that armor, how does the proficiency scale if they never get general medium armor proficiency, would they be stick at trained forever? So a fighter can be even more powerful as an Inventor than a Sorcerer could ever be? Doesn't seem like that's the intention to me. Again, I think there may not be any intention yet, I think they never thought about it before.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems completely intentional and is mostly in line with other mechanics. The developers have, unlike in other editions, placed a very large premium on proficiency in PF2. Buying better weapons and armor is a large investment. So it's probably by design you don't get that with the Inventor.
Not everyone is going to be able to benefit from every archetype they qualify for. Picking up an armor innovation when you're not trained in medium armor sounds an awful lot like picking up the Archer dedication when you dumped dex. A bad idea? Sure. Allowed? Also yes.
I mean, they could've required medium armor proficiency for the armor innovation, but I don't think they really need to. It would look weird if it was in the innovation itself, since Inventor's are automatically trained in medium armor anyway, and it would be clunky to add a note about it in the dedication, and it would also set an odd precedent of the game telling you what a feat doesn't give you instead of what it does, which isn't something that's typically done unless the wording is particularly confusing.
Nothing in second edition stops you from using any type of armour or weapon without proficiency; you will just never be very good with them.
Archetype dedications' power budgets are quite small, so it's not at all out of line that the artificer doesn't offer any additional proficiency.
Not everyone is going to be able to benefit from every archetype they qualify for. Picking up an armor innovation when you're not trained in medium armor sounds an awful lot like picking up the Archer dedication when you dumped dex. A bad idea? Sure. Allowed? Also yes.
Ah, but there you are a) comparing to a non-multiclass archetype and b) ability scores are the only prerequisites on multiclass archetypes to this point anyway. So I feel this is not entirely relevant to the discussion of armor or weapon proficiency for a multiclass archetype subclass. If we were talking about general archetypes I would agree with you! Or skill feats, or even other abilities. But I think we need to specifically compare only to multiclass archetypes and then it would be unprecedented to lock certain subclasses from being taken at level 2 from certain classes (because you'd need to take the armor proficiency general feat at level 3 first, if you are a sorcerer for example --Edit: no wait, I just realized it's medium armor so the sorcerer would be untrained until taking armor proficiency at level 3 AND level 7! ). I think the problem is that this is a whole new problem, never encountered before, where a multiclass dedication gives you a specific weapon or armor, so I honestly think the devs did not consider the ramifications of this in regards to proficiency. That's my point, I think the intention actually was that any class taking Inventor Dedication at level 2 should be able to choose any Innovation and that every class would be able to use that innovation equally. I think they totally didn't think about how proficiency was needed for certain classes. They just pointed to the Innovation class feature and said "choose one" and I think their intention was that any class could choose one and use it equally. I think not providing training and scaling for the innovation is a total oversight. Otherwise, this one multiclass dedication is unbalanced to all other multiclass dedications in who can fully use the dedication as written (aside from ability scores, the only prerequisites that multiclass have ever had till now). Do you really think they intended for Inventor archetype to be inconsistent with the other multiclass archetypes?
Nothing in second edition stops you from using any type of armour or weapon without proficiency; you will just never be very good with them.
Archetype dedications' power budgets are quite small, so it's not at all out of line that the artificer doesn't offer any additional proficiency.
You do have a point, that it can still be technically used without proficiency. However, is that what you think the devs intended? I don't, I think they intended for the innovation to be used to it's full potential within the confines of the archetype and what mods and feats it allows, I don't think they intended this proficiency issue, I think they just forgot to consider it, because it's never been a thing they needed to consider before when making an archetype.
In fact, I think they probably if anything intended the proficiency to scale just as an Inventor would scale. Because otherwise, let's say you actually chose a simple weapon for your weapon innovation, and you are a sorcerer: a fighter would still be far better at being an Inventor Archetype with simple weapon innovation than your sorcerer, because it scales better in simple weapon proficiency. I think they likely intended the scaling to be equal, because in the back of their brain they had Inventor scaling proficiency but didn't ever realize, as written, they forgot to provide that in the Inventor Dedication.
As an additional thought experiment, let's think about a hypothetical Adventure path, something like strength of thousands or maybe just a one shot. And you are playing in Pathfinder Society play. The path/one shot has every character taking Inventor Archetype, like how SoT has everyone with a magic Archetype. And the adventure starts at level one or two. Someone at the table wants to be a caster while everyone else is martial classes. At level two all the martials can take any Innovation without issue. But the Sorcerer really wants Armor Innovation. He takes it, but he's untrained in it, will never be trained unless he takes Armor proficiency general feat at level 3 AND level 7! I don't think that's working as intended.
In fact, I think they probably if anything intended the proficiency to scale just as an Inventor would scale. Because otherwise, let's say you actually chose a simple weapon for your weapon innovation, and you are a sorcerer: a fighter would still be far better at being an Inventor Archetype with simple weapon innovation than your sorcerer, because it scales better in simple weapon proficiency. I think they likely intended the scaling to be equal, because in the back of their brain they had Inventor scaling proficiency but didn't ever realize, as written, they forgot to provide that in the Inventor Dedication.
I didn't realize we were talking about scaling too... Yeah, that's just flat-out wrong. Guaranteed. Not even close to being a possibility.
The fighter dedication (and let's keep in mind that the fighter's whole shtick is weapon proficiency) doesn't even get automatically scaling proficiency and it definitely doesn't give you the same scaling as a martial. It gives you trained at level 1 and (at the cost of a feat) expert at level 12. As many others have mentioned: proficiency isn't easy to get in pf2.
I didn't realize we were talking about scaling too... Yeah, that's just flat-out wrong. Guaranteed. Not even close to being a possibility.
The fighter dedication (and let's keep in mind that the fighter's whole shtick is weapon proficiency) doesn't even get automatically scaling proficiency and it definitely doesn't give you the same scaling as a martial. It gives you trained at level 1 and (at the cost of a feat) expert at level 12. As many others have mentioned: proficiency isn't easy to get in pf2.
Ah, okay, finally something I can really compare, thank you! Though still not the same thing, as the fighter is about general proficiency, not proficiency in a single weapon, which the entire base of the weapon innovation subclass, whereas weapon proficiency is just one aspect of the fighters core essence (I'd argue the feats are actually the main fighter Archetype aspect, as feats are actually it's gimmick, and so weapon proficiency is just a big secondary bonus). I absolutely agree they don't intend the Inventor dedication to give full Inventor scaling for all armor or weapons. And I will now also concede that if scaling is to be provided, then based on the Fighter dedication feat, it will likely require an additional Inventor Archetype feat to be able to scale the weapon at all; you are very correct, I had noticed that armor and weapon proficiency is very hard to come by, months back I tried to figure out how my sorcerer could take Eldritch Archer when I eventually get to level 6 but the expert bow proficiency prerequisite was just impossible to get! I still think they just didn't consider lack of training or scaling at all when they whipped up the Inventor dedication, I just don't think the thought crossed thier mind, because if they had and decided no proficiency would be given, they'd have known it would be a point of contention, especially in PFS, and they'd have clarified it in the dedication that no proficiency is given.
Isn't it somehow similar to the conrasu exoskeleton or the android ( warrior heritage ) martial weapon proficiency?
thank you, these are also excellent examples, I've not yet taken the time to examine those ancestries before now, not apples to apples since they are ancestries, but it's at least more on the scale of multiclass archetypes than trying to compare to skill feats or even general archetypes. As my sorcerer is a gnome, it also reminds me how costly it is just to take ancestry feats for gnome weapon familiarity/proficiency. Then you look at the general feats for armor/weapon proficiency and you see they put a high price on proficiency in 2e. So, I'll concede, they definitely do NOT intend Auto scaling of proficiency for either the Armor or Weapon innovation in the Inventor Dedication. I still don't think that answers the training question though. In fact, the Conrasu exoskeleton reinforces my view, as they do not give the Conrasu any armor proficiency at all but instead give it a +4 bonus to AC! So, that makes me even more convinced that Inventor Dedication should come with training for any Innovation you choose, whether armor or simple or martial weapon (they wouldn't do the bonus thing because that would make it OP for fighters and the like).
So it seems ripe for an errata. But the question is would they errata that proficiency is a prerequisite or that proficiency is a given?
I don't think that the dedication should give additional proficiency in either weapon or armor. And I definitely don't want to have proficiency be a requirement to take the dedication.
But I also don't want 2/3 of the Innovation choices to be automatically excluded from half of the classes.
I would rather see an errata saying that the Archetype allows you to use a simple weapon or light armor or Explorer's Clothing as the base item for your Innovation choices.
In fact, the Conrasu exoskeleton reinforces my view, as they do not give the Conrasu any armor proficiency at all but instead give it a +4 bonus to AC!
I don't think you're quite understanding that heritage. It gives you a +4 item bonus to AC and a dex cap of +1... That's pretty much just medium armor. To be more specific, it's functionally identical to breastplate with the comfort trait that can't be removed (or broken/destroyed).
You can pick simple weapon or light armor for base innovation choices. OP just wants something that isn't listed in the dedication feat to be added.
I thought I had mentioned in my initial post, but I guess I didn't. I'm aware that weapon innovation gives you the choice of simple weapons, but I'm not convinced they considered that wizards wanting Inventor dedication with weapon innovation at level 2 would effectively be limited to use the club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow, or staff as thier innovation, as that's all they are trained in. They'd need Weapon proficiency at level 3 to even use a bow or sword innovation, is that really the intention? The dedication just says choose an innovation and the innovation says choose a simple or martial weapon, I believe the intention is that you should be able to choose any Innovation and use it effectively (effectively meaning being at least trained in it, otherwise it's less powerful than your other weapon or armor options of your class).
And for Armor it's even worse, casters don't have light armor, so most all of them would be pushed out of taking Armor Innovation at level 2, they'd want to wait until after they could take armor proficiency general feat at level 3. But wait, two of the initial mods are specific to the subterfuge and power suit armor specifically and those are medium armor. So, in order to use those, a caster would need to take armor proficiency at level 3 and 7 in order to make full use of those specific innovations. That is a very heavy cost and while it might be worth it to someone willing to put all of their feats into this, it makes the cost far higher than any other multiclass and that's the point I keep trying to make. Not having at minimum trained proficiency in the innovation dedication for casters is not balanced compared to any other class taking the dedication, and is not balanced to anyone taking it for the construct, it's unbalanced, and that's what is bugging me because 2e's middle name is balance.All the dedication says is choose an innovation and I believe, short of the devs literally saying otherwise that they fully intended any class to be able to take either innovation at level 2 and be at minimum trained in it, they simply never considered that they needed to state that because they just overlooked it.
In fact, the Conrasu exoskeleton reinforces my view, as they do not give the Conrasu any armor proficiency at all but instead give it a +4 bonus to AC!I don't think you're quite understanding that heritage. It gives you a +4 item bonus to AC and a dex cap of +1... That's pretty much just medium armor. To be more specific, it's functionally identical to breastplate with the comfort trait that can't be removed (or broken/destroyed).
exactly, they get medium armor proficiency in their exoskeleton without stating they have medium armor proficiency. I understood it exactly and it supports my position.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Conrasu do not get proficiency as part of that heritage, you're incorrect.
Uh, Conrasu do not get proficiency as part of that heritage, you're incorrect.
they get "effective" proficiency, they essentially get a bonus that replaces proficiency such that they "effectively" have proficiency, it's actually very smart on the devs part.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No they don't. A conrasu without medium armor proficiency gets 0 proficiency bonus while wearing medium armor.
The +4 is the value of the armor itself. A level 1 Conrasu Wizard with the Rite of Reinforcement would have 3 less AC than a level 1 Conrasu Fighter, because they don't have medium armor proficiency and therefore no proficiency bonus.
How exactly? To my understanding a wizard conrasu with Rite of Reinforcement will basically be stuck at mid teens AC because they can't add their level to their AC unless they spend two feats to actually be able to use it or get a dedication to use it.Uh, Conrasu do not get proficiency as part of that heritage, you're incorrect.they get "effective" proficiency, they essentially get a bonus that replaces proficiency such that they "effectively" have proficiency, it's actually very smart on the devs part.
dang, okay, you are right, I was ONLY looking at level 1 Conrasu sorcerer/wizard with rite if reinforcement, and that actually looks pretty good, better than explorer's clothing at least. Truthfully, I am very unknowledgeable about armor in general, as I just use mage armor. Now that I tried plugging in on Pathbuilder, if you set it to level 20, holy cow yeah, that AC is absolutely garbage without taking armor proficiency general feats. Alright, so Conrasu doesn't help my argument at all then, that was just a wasted tangent. I'm not sure it says anything about the Inventor Dedication at all because the Conrasu is a very unusual ancestry with very unusual abilities, and while Inventor is uncommon it's not nearly as unusual as Conrasu, so I don't think you can compare the two as much as it seemed when it was first brought up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lazarus, I think the biggest cognitive problem you're having with this is that you're trying to view it through the lens of getting another class. It's not. What it is is spending a class feat on something that's outside the list for your class.
Look at all the other MC/Archetype dedications. They mostly have a similar power, and few, if any, on their own outshine the best class feats. The advantage of Dedications is that they unlock access to feats from their MC/Archetype that you can then spend more class feats on later.
The Dedications that give any proficiency all give very little else in the Dedication feat itself. As has been pointed out, proficiency is expensive in terms of internal costing, and proficiency progression moreso.
Of course a fighter will be better at wearing armour with bells and whistles, or swinging a sword with gizmos hanging off it than a sorceror; the fighter is already trained in wearing armour and swinging a sword, where the sorceror is not. For the fighter, Inventor MC Dedication and the follow-on feats just add options to things he already knows. For the sorceror, it's picking up a completely alien set of implements.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can pick simple weapon or light armor for base innovation choices. OP just wants something that isn't listed in the dedication feat to be added.
Ah, you can have a simple weapon.
The armor is always Medium armor though. Even though one of the choices has the stats of Light armor, it is still Medium armor and requires Medium armor proficiency.
Lazarus, I think the biggest cognitive problem you're having with this is that you're trying to view it through the lens of getting another class. It's not. What it is is spending a class feat on something that's outside the list for your class.
Look at all the other MC/Archetype dedications. They mostly have a similar power, and few, if any, on their own outshine the best class feats. The advantage of Dedications is that they unlock access to feats from their MC/Archetype that you can then spend more class feats on later.
The Dedications that give any proficiency all give very little else in the Dedication feat itself. As has been pointed out, proficiency is expensive in terms of internal costing, and proficiency progression moreso
That's all fair and valid and reasonable and I mostly agree. But the phrasing you use makes me still wonder if you are talking about full general proficiency, because that is certainly off the table, it was never in question. The question is proficiency only in the innovation it tells you to choose. The issue of scaling has definitely been cleared up here, this dedication definitely does not provide any proficiency scaling, no one can argue that.
What I'm stick on is: did the dev writing Inventor archetype say, "choose an innovation", and in the back of their mind thought, but if you aren't naturally trained in Medium armor, then you don't get to be trained in the Power suit even if you choose it.
OR: Did the dev say "choose an innovation" and in their mind they thought, anyone who can take this dedication can use any of the innovations in a useful way equally no matter what class as long as they meet the INT prerequisite of it, and they never realized lack of training would make Subterfuge suit difficult to fully use by half of the classes, or half the classes could not fully use a martial weapon even though the Innovation page they refer to gives the option of a martial weapon.
All I think is that there needs to be one line that say "you are trained in your innovation". That's it, and I don't think that's OP or unbalanced, I think it's exactly what's intended.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 to what Asethe said
I see it very similarly to a spellcaster taking any other martial, most of which don't give you any additional weapon or armor proficiency and are generally going to be good for some builds and bad for others. Fighter gives you a bit for weapons, because fighters are the ultimate masters of weapons, and champions give a bit of armor, because they're the masters of armor, but other than that you're stuck with what you got. A wizard with inventor multiclass dedication isn't really a wizard/inventor in pf2 (even if they invest heavily in that archetype). They're a wizard with some stuff from inventor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm stick on is: did the dev writing Inventor archetype say, "choose an innovation", and in the back of their mind thought, but if you aren't naturally trained in Medium armor, then you don't get to be trained in the Power suit even if you choose it.
OR: Did the dev say "choose an innovation" and in their mind they thought, anyone who can take this dedication can use any of the innovations in a useful way equally no matter what class as long as they meet the INT prerequisite of it, and they never realized lack of training would make Subterfuge suit difficult to fully use by half of the classes, or half the classes could not fully use a martial weapon even though the Innovation page they refer to gives the option of a martial weapon.
The dev intention, as it has been shown in previous offerings this edition, has never to automatically make something in a dedication useful just because you chose to take it, just to make it usable. There is a world of difference between those two things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm stick on is: did the dev writing Inventor archetype say, "choose an innovation", and in the back of their mind thought, but if you aren't naturally trained in Medium armor, then you don't get to be trained in the Power suit even if you choose it.
OR: Did the dev say "choose an innovation" and in their mind they thought, anyone who can take this dedication can use any of the innovations in a useful way equally no matter what class as long as they meet the INT prerequisite of it, and they never realized lack of training would make Subterfuge suit difficult to fully use by half of the classes, or half the classes could not fully use a martial weapon even though the Innovation page they refer to gives the option of a martial weapon.
I mean, I'm not a mind reader, so I can't know for sure, but I don't see any indication within the rules to suggest that there was a typo. Moreover, the more you look into the power level of feats the more the existing wording makes sense. Flavor-wise it might "feel" right, but it really is a big power spike. And being trained in all martial weapons is very similar to being trained in a specific martial weapon, same with armor proficiency; so the fact that it's "just" for that innovation doesn't make a big difference.
Also, I'd like to point out that this isn't a one person job. It's not "they had in the back of their mind..." because what one person was thinking at the time isn't what makes it to the final product.
The dev intention, as it has been shown in previous offerings this edition, has never to automatically make something in a dedication useful just because you chose to take it, just to make it usable. There is a world of difference between those two things.
This still seems like a new, untested situation to me, no other multiclass dedication has ever GIVEN you a specific armor or weapon before. Especially if you look at it less as a lack of proficiency and more like a penalty. At level 20, a sorcerer gnome with Inventor Dedication with armor innovation taken at level two is taking essentially at least a 20 point AC penalty to use thier Power suit armor at level 20 vs just using level 1 spell mage armor, and nearly 25 AC penalty compared to heightened mage armor spell lvl 10.
Where if they were just trained in the armor innovation, then there is almost no penalty.All the dedication needs is "you are trained in your innovation" and the archetype dedication is balanced with itself (because construct innovation is very powerful without needing any additional training) and with other multiclass.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your character isn't already trained in medium armor, pick a different Innovation.
Characters don't wear more than one armor. Having proficiency in the one armor is the same as having proficiency in all medium armor. That is too much power for the dedication. Champion gives you that, but it was designed and balanced to give you that.
As I mentioned earlier, a better option (houserule or errata) would be to allow a light armor or cloth armor version of the armor Innovation. That lets the character use their existing armor proficiencies. The option doesn't feel broken, but it isn't giving a power spike either.
I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond! Looks like I'm at an impasse, I think we've covered all the bases, but I still think the intention is to be trained in your chosen innovation, no more, no less. Otherwise, in my opinion, the whole archetype is pointless for casters who want armor or a specific martial weapon. It's still a fantastic archetype if you want the construct though! Or if your class already has the training and scaling to make good use of the armor/weapon.
I highly doubt we'll ever get any official ruling either way, not likely even one saying they definitely didn't intend for you to be trained. I suspect most home GMs would rule in favor of training for rule of cool, whether they agree it is RAI or even if they don't believe that is the RAI and are willing to house rules it anyway. Meanwhile tables at PFS and the like would most certainly go by the absolute RAW, which doesn't mention training specifically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
but I still think the intention is to be trained in your chosen innovation, no more, no less. Otherwise, in my opinion, the whole archetype is pointless for casters who want armor or a specific martial weapon.
Huh. And here I was thinking that the entire point of the class and its multiclass archetype was for crafting bizarre and strange things. That is why the archetype has a feat specifically for giving crafting proficiency.
If you want an archetype to add armor proficiency to your caster, use Sentinel or Champion. If you want weapon proficiency, use any of the various weapon combat style archetypes or Fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sympathize with the position, Paizo's been really weird about proficiency this edition in a way I think genuinely makes PF2 worse for no benefit... I'd even agree it's a weirdly designed feat, because picking an armor or weapon innovation doesn't actually do much of anything on its own, but at the same time it really feels like wishful thinking to call this an impasse or imply there's any uncertainty.
There's no ambiguous language or indication that something is fundamentally broken and there are other, similar abilities with the same problem. Furthermore, we can see how much Paizo values proficiency by looking at something like fighter dedication, which suggests that tacking on effectively the same benefit to the inventor feat would be out of bounds with their designed power budget. Finally, if the feat was intended to give training, we'd probably see a followup feat for advancement (like fighter/champion dedication or ancestral weaponry feats) and we don't see that either.
For better or for worse, Paizo wants to make picking up new martial weapons or armor an expensive or involved process and the inventor dedication is completely consistent with that.