D&D 5E Reliable Talent. What the what?

[Ilbranteloth]

Would you prefer the 3E model? That the modifier could easily be +20, such that anything an expert could possibly fail at (DC 22, in this example) might still be entirely beyond the capability of someone untrained? There were plenty of complaints about the 3E model, where the specialist was the only one who even had a chance.

How could you possibly address this issue, without breaking from the 1d20 mechanic entirely? Reliable Talent is one approach, but people don't seem very happy about it. What are some alternatives?

Really, I think the system as designed addresses most of the issues, with a few minor modifications. I don't think I explained my thoughts very well in my earlier post, so:

1. Your passive score essentially provides a floor for your skill ability. That is, most of the time, below this threshold you don't significantly risk failure without other mitigating circumstances. That doesn't mean you can't, but most of the time you probably won't need to make a check if the DC is less than this. This is a number that can help your consistency when determining whether a check is needed or not.

2. When making a skill check, if you have proficiency, then you know you can succeed, it's really a question of how long it might take and if there are any complications. Most of the time you can use the difference between the DC and the roll as a measure of time. This eliminates the need for retries. I also consider other complications/consequences if you fail by 5 or more, 10 or more, 15 or more, etc.

3. If you are non-proficient, the check is closer to a success/fail check. Again, retries generally don't work.

4. I usually don't allow a non-proficient character to attempt something that has a DC of 20 or higher. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but a guideline - if the task is a complex one and the DC is 20 or higher, then I think you'd need actual training to succeed at it. For example, if you claimed to be a minstrel, and were asked to play a particular piece that's a favorite of the king's on the lute, then no amount of luck will allow an untrained individual to succeed. That doesn't mean that they might not be able to find another way to bluff their way through the scene, they just won't be able to play the piece.

5. Rolling a check requires an action, generally above and beyond the normal circumstances. So walking through a forest is usually a passive Perception check, and the checks are based solely on the passive score. Going slowly and keeping your eye out for trouble? A passive check with advantage, and I'll usually take into account your full capability (20+). For a Perception check this means you'll probably get a sense something is wrong, (the "hint" approach), but will need to do something to make a check. Climb a tree to get a better vantage point? Then I might ask for you to roll.

6. The DM asks for a check dependent upon the actions the character takes. In many cases, the action resolves the question itself with a success, or with no chance for success, so no roll is needed. If the character has no chance for success, there's no point in a roll.

7. Advantage to a passive check (+5 modifier) does not increase your capability, only your chance for success. That is, your measure of capability is 20 + ability and/or proficiency modifiers, not circumstantial modifiers.

--

There are a number of factors as to why I prefer to do things this way.

1. I want to eliminate re-rolls. Not by an arbitrary rule that says "no rerolls," but because the rolls already take into account that you will continue to retry until successful, unless there's some other factor.

2. I want to reward proficiency. The chance of outright failure is lower with proficiency, although the circumstances matter here too.

3. I want to better define the guidelines of when to roll. We already hand-wave all sorts of skill checks. By basing most rolls off of passive scores there's a guide to work with. You can still opt not to make a check even when the DC is higher than the passive score. I do that all the time, because their score might be increased due to advantage, but frequently because there is no consequence to taking some extra time. This directly ties into the frequent advice given about when to ask for a skill check, but utilizes the passive score to help with that guideline when needed. I also take into account the character's full capability (20 + modifiers) here.

--

Now we have altered the math in a few ways because we feel that 5e makes things too easy. That's our personal preference. As mentioned before, I think that most of the published DCs are too low. It's not a hard and fast rule, and is largely irrelevant since we don't use the publishes APs. But when people complain about expertise and reliable talent, particularly in relation to passive Perception checks, this is the first thing I'd consider. Again, the detection DC for traps in ToH seems way too low for a dungeon of that nature.

We also felt that the idea that somebody untrained could be significantly better than somebody trained in some cases, and also that the difference between no modifiers and expertise got too wide. In addition, the way proficiency is defined is inconsistent across different aspects of the game. Using this for skills only is simple, using it across the game like we did is more complex.

So we use the following system:

Non-proficient: Ability modifier, with a maximum bonus of +1 (we'll actually probably use a maximum bonus of 1 less than proficiency at a given level).

Proficient: Ability modifier or proficiency modifier, whichever is higher.

Expertise: Ability modifier plus proficiency modifier.

--

For reliable talent itself, it's more or less redundant for me since it's essentially the same as a passive score. The complaint still seems like one of degree of benefit. That people don't like how many things it makes an auto-success by rule. That, to me, is a math issue. Either reliable talent should work differently, such as a +5 bonus (which is essentially advantage, although it could stack with advantage) would probably do the trick for most people.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This isn't "only the specialist has a chance". This is "people with no skill at a task and no natural aptitude do not have a chance". And the answer to your question is - yes. I do prefer it.

I could have used a better example, I suppose. If you're facing a DC 40 lock, which is an item in the PHB that costs less than half the price of a masterwork dagger, then the incredibly skilled and/or talented fighter with +17 to the check can still not succeed; you need a minimum of +20 before you have the smallest chance of success. And since you need like +30 in order to have a reasonable chance, nobody even bothers to build a character who only has +17 on the check. If you look at a handful of character sheets for level 15 characters in 3E, you'd spot a lot of skills with 18 ranks and a lot of skills with zero ranks and not a lot in between.

The actual problem was that challenge DCs automatically increased. A monster didn't have to do anything to be really good at listening, hiding, spotting etc. It just had higher numbers. Similarly every wall in a higher level dungeon would be slick (apparently adamantine walls increase climb DCs by 45 points over iron ones!), every door would have a better quality lock etc. So instead of DC 20 being a rare "only an expert can do this" moment, it became the everyday. Which sucks.

I'm not sure which edition you're talking about here. Monsters in 3E certainly didn't get better just with level or hit dice, because they used the same rules that PCs used, which meant they quickly fell behind the curve in anything they didn't actually invest points into at every opportunity. And I can't speak for what your DM decided the walls were made of in whatever dungeons they ran, but I can say that I played in a Pathfinder adventure path which eventually got to the point of using DC 42 locks, because my level 14 rogue had to try like six times in order to succeed, even though she was highly specialized at picking locks.

The answer is pretty simple. Use the 3.5e skill scale, but don't link monster skills to their combat stats, and don't assume that an area for adventurers of a specific level is entirely comprised of challenges for specialists of that level.

And now you have a gibbering orb that has a perception check of +15 for visual wisdom(perception) checks (after all - it's sole claim to being perceptive is that it has lots of eyes...), +0 for any other wisdom(perception) checks and a stealth score of +0 or lower. Because DCs describe how hard it is to do something, not the challenge level that the game is currently at. If it turns out to be trivial to walk past a specific monster... then guess what? It's not going to be used as a guard dog!

My intuition is that this wouldn't work as well as you think it might. The 3.5 skill scale measures skill modifiers between -5 and +35 or so, with example DCs between 0 and 40. And generally speaking, magic and gimmicks aside, that system only works (to the extent that it does) because the dungeon design assumes specialists of a certain level; without that assumption, you would have a ton of checks that fall outside the scope of the d20, one way or the other.

I guess it really depends on how you stat up the PCs, though. If PCs also had skill bonuses that were entirely independent of their combat level, then low-level specialists would already succeed at high-difficulty checks, and you would never really get to see them progress at all; it may also mean that there's no point in having +20 to a check, even if there are plenty of DC 20 challenges in the dungeon, because you need someone with +35 in order to bypass the DC 40 checks and they might as well handle all of the easier checks since they're already here. But if PCs advanced their skills at the standard 3.5 rate, and skill DCs within the dungeon were entirely independent of the level of the party, then low-level parties would often come across high-DC checks that they have zero chance of making, and high-level parties would often come across low-DC checks that they have zero chance of failing (which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it can be frustrating to specialize heavily in something and still have no chance of succeeding).

 

[Quickleaf]

My players are just on the verge of 12th level, and while I've had plenty of experience DMing earlier editions at high levels, this will be our first foray into the upper levels of 5E. As one might expect, there are a few rules that are taking us by surprise as we see them in actual play for the first time, and none more so than our rogue's Reliable Talent.

Delving into the internet, there have been plenty of threads on plenty of boards parsing this ability, but I wanted to get some fresh perspective on it if there's any to be had.

Now, to be fair, we've only played two sessions with Reliable Talent in effect, and in only one of those did it rear it's ugly head, but those instances were enough to make me want to take a serious look at it.

For nearly every skill check I threw at our rogue he simply auto-succeeded. His Perception, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics and Stealth are already through the roof anyway, which is fine, but now, if the DC is 20 or below he may as well not even roll. And that seems insane to me.

I can't think of many (or any, off the top of my head) things that the PC's might attempt in the game that they can simply succeed at without limit or use of some kind of resource. And it's only going to get worse as he levels up. As it currently stands, I can see no reason why he couldn't tell me he's going to go out on the town on a thieving spree and my whole job would be to just hand him a list of loot as long as he isn't breaking into the local thieves guild or the kings castle.

This seems wholly at odds with cooperative story telling. With no chance of failing there is no drama. I could even see it in the players eyes when, during our last session, he listened at a door for noise and barely looked at his dice when he rolled it. Everybody at the table knew he couldn't fail, and quite frankly, it was kind of a bummer.

I've read plenty of posts online giving some pretty reasonable validations for Reliable Talent, but none of them really address the problem of the lack of drama inherent in an auto-succeed ability.

And yes, sure, I could raise DC's through the roof, but that seems cheap. As they take on tougher and tougher challenges, DC's will rise, but they need to make sense. I'm not going to counter his thieving spree with every house having DC 25-30 security measures.

I hate to nerf. The player built his character and got this far, and he should reap the rewards. And the devs built the ability for reasons that I have to believe make some sense. And I have to believe it's been play tested, and I am loath to tinker with house ruling stuff without very good reason. But this is making my brain itch.

So what I'm asking for here is how other DM's have dealt with this and how it's affected your games. Is it as broken as it appears? Have your players abused it? If so, what did you do about it?

If I do move forward with a nerf, I have a couple of ideas.

1. Implement the natural 1 rule for skills. It doesn't seem out of line that a skill attempt, like an attack, could fail on a 1. Even masters of their crafts sometimes err. In fact, I don't really understand why skill checks are exempt from the natural 1/20 rule in the first place. Furthermore, our rogue has the Luck feat, so his odds of failing a skill check would be pretty darn low. But at least there would be SOME chance of failer that would make his roll mean something.

2. Change the rule to give him advantage on skills checks with prof bonus skills. Again, this gives him a significant boost to those skills (some of which he also has expertise in) so his success rate would be very high, but again, there would be some small chance of blowing it.

I have always treated natural 1's as auto-fails and natural 20's as auto-successes, regardless if it's an attack roll or skill check. Haven't yet played with players who don't like that ruling after 30+ years of D&D. But I don't think you *need* to do that just on account of Reliable Talent.

The thing to keep in mind about the rogue's Reliable Talent is that it's an invitation for "yes and..." or "yes but..." cooperative storytelling. The player choose to play a rogue, choose to invest moderately in skills, and attained 11th level as a rogue, so what they're wanting is a skill monkey who succeeds on many skill checks. No problem. You as DM just need to be flexible and creative.

He wants to go on a stealing spree? That sounds like something best handled as criminal downtime activity... there's a good approach in Unearthed Arcana here: https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA_Downtime.pdf

If this goes on for a bit in a settlement, you could incorporate it into your adventure, maybe having one or more of the rogue's targets wind up dead, and the lead suspect is the "thief in the night" who has been pilfering from merchants throughout the city. When the PCs are hired to investigate the murders by a patron, the rogue PC now has extra motivation to figure out who the killer is.

Alternately, you could have the settlement escalate its defenses. Maybe the local lord pays for a diviner's aid in determining the culprit. Maybe a false arrest is made of several "innocents" in an effort to flush out the culprit. Maybe magical lanterns are placed throughout the settlement which impose disadvantage on Sleight of Hand & Stealth checks made within their light. Maybe the wealthy take to having glyphs of warding (or similar magic) cast on their decoy belt pouches, while keeping their real valuables in money belts that just can't be pilfered. Maybe the local thieves' guild wants its cut and brings its own experts in to track the culprit and deliver an ultimatum: give the guild 50% or else. Maybe a new captain of the guard sets up an irresistible lure and a sting operation to catch the culprit. Maybe bolstered security (due to the rogue's activities) bites the party in the ass when trying to get access to a noble or his castle during their quest. Maybe the PCs later encounter one of the rogue's victims, and the theft led to calamity for him, relating a tale sure to tug at the heart strings of players of good-aligned PCs, leading to an inter-party dilemma.

So many fun cooperative storytelling opportunities for this.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I could have used a better example, I suppose. If you're facing a DC 40 lock, which is an item in the PHB that costs less than half the price of a masterwork dagger, then the incredibly skilled and/or talented fighter with +17 to the check can still not succeed; you need a minimum of +20 before you have the smallest chance of success. And since you need like +30 in order to have a reasonable chance, nobody even bothers to build a character who only has +17 on the check. If you look at a handful of character sheets for level 15 characters in 3E, you'd spot a lot of skills with 18 ranks and a lot of skills with zero ranks and not a lot in between.

This is still just to do with how common those higher numbers are, and how you never see a lower DC. If you're facing one DC 40 lock in an entire dungeon, but the rest of the dungeon is filled with DC 20 locks, then there's value in having +10 to lockpicking. If there's nothing but DC 40 locks, then +10 lockpicking may as well be +0.

Also - it just makes sense that a DC 40 lock is made by someone with the ability to hit that DC with a skill, which means that it really shouldn't be as common as the PHB says.

I'm not sure which edition you're talking about here. Monsters in 3E certainly didn't get better just with level or hit dice, because they used the same rules that PCs used, which meant they quickly fell behind the curve in anything they didn't actually invest points into at every opportunity.

There's a table of skill points per hit dice, and it tends to mean that monster skills scale with hit points. Since most monsters invest in opposed skills, that means that the DCs for hiding, sneaking, spotting and hearing go up according to the challenge level.

And I can't speak for what your DM decided the walls were made of in whatever dungeons they ran, but I can say that I played in a Pathfinder adventure path which eventually got to the point of using DC 42 locks, because my level 14 rogue had to try like six times in order to succeed, even though she was highly specialized at picking locks.

Sure. And if everything is just scaled on challenge level, then you end up with the problem you describe: go hard or go home.

My intuition is that this wouldn't work as well as you think it might. The 3.5 skill scale measures skill modifiers between -5 and +35 or so, with example DCs between 0 and 40. And generally speaking, magic and gimmicks aside, that system only works (to the extent that it does) because the dungeon design assumes specialists of a certain level; without that assumption, you would have a ton of checks that fall outside the scope of the d20, one way or the other.

No - you have a range of challenges for people of different skill levels, which is exactly what you are asking for, while at the same time having some doors that a lowly peasant cannot pick, and skill modifiers for your heroes that actually matter without needing to arbitrarily say "this guy gets double, and this guy can't roll below a 10" to make them good at things.

I guess it really depends on how you stat up the PCs, though. If PCs also had skill bonuses that were entirely independent of their combat level, then low-level specialists would already succeed at high-difficulty checks, and you would never really get to see them progress at all; it may also mean that there's no point in having +20 to a check, even if there are plenty of DC 20 challenges in the dungeon, because you need someone with +35 in order to bypass the DC 40 checks and they might as well handle all of the easier checks since they're already here. But if PCs advanced their skills at the standard 3.5 rate, and skill DCs within the dungeon were entirely independent of the level of the party, then low-level parties would often come across high-DC checks that they have zero chance of making, and high-level parties would often come across low-DC checks that they have zero chance of failing (which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it can be frustrating to specialize heavily in something and still have no chance of succeeding).

It's only frustrating if you know for some reason that you will never, ever come back to try it again. Otherwise it's a challenge to keep your character motivated on building their skill.

And like I said - if you have a wide range of DCs, then high level parties will see benefit in having non-maxed out skills, which is the problem you were complaining about. If a complex is filled with DC 20 doors, then having people other than the party rogue able to open them is useful... but he still gets his spotlight time because there's that one DC 40 door.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There's a table of skill points per hit dice, and it tends to mean that monster skills scale with hit points. Since most monsters invest in opposed skills, that means that the DCs for hiding, sneaking, spotting and hearing go up according to the challenge level.

Fair enough, but you shouldn't only be encountering monsters that are exactly equal to your level, any more than you should only encounter locks that are designed for a rogue of your level. For as long as you want to tie skill ranks to character level or hit dice, a moderately-stealthy character will be able to sneak past a low-level monster but not a high-level one, and that's something.

You could also divorce skill ratings from level and hit dice entirely, of course. You could let that eyeball monster have Passive Perception 25 regardless of how well it fights, and let it auto-spot anyone with less than +5 to Stealth while anyone with Stealth +35 can ignore it entirely, and have level 1 characters with Stealth bonuses between +0 and +40. That's potentially workable, even if D&D has never gone that route in the past. Setting your skill ratings would be an important part of character generation, and you'd probably want a complicated point-buy system to encourage moderate scores, but you could do it.

And like I said - if you have a wide range of DCs, then high level parties will see benefit in having non-maxed out skills, which is the problem you were complaining about. If a complex is filled with DC 20 doors, then having people other than the party rogue able to open them is useful... but he still gets his spotlight time because there's that one DC 40 door.

But if you have the super rogue with +39 to the check, then what's the point of having the fighter with +17? The fighter will never get a chance to even attempt those DC 20 locks, because the rogue is there.

If you have a bunch of DC 20 locks, and one that's DC 40, then that's a good reason to bring a fighter who has +17 if you don't already have a rogue with +39.

 

[schnee]

When a DM doesn't have a consistent picture of how his world works, then the temptation is always to scale the challenge entirely to the PC's. The result can be end up being punishing a PC for getting good at something, either by removing that challenge entirely or else by continually scaling the difficulty upward the more the player invests in being good at something.

Things like... the DC of a lock or trap being constantly increasing as the PC levels up bugs me. I'm similarly annoyed when the level of the guards in the dungeons increases according to the PC's combat ability. Things like Paizo adventure paths, though I admire much of the craftsmanship in them, annoy me with how much they seem to resemble 'zones' where everything in zone 3 could kick the butt of everything in zone 1.

If you don't like that the PC's leave certain challenges behind, just don't have them level up. Save all the hassle of making the numbers bigger if the difficulty is going to increase by the same amount.

Well, to be fair, this is realistic in the real world. If you look at Langley, Virginia for example: the surveillance quality, security guard capability, and lock strength will vary greatly between a gas station, police station, and the CIA headquarters.

So, a 1st level thug knocking over the gas station will face one tier of challenge, but the 20th level spy infiltrating the CIA headquarters will face something else. And, in real world terms, these things co-exist closely. The same can apply to a fantasy setting, given some thought to verisimilitude and interrelationships by the DM.

It's really easy to do badly, though, and generally seems that way because it's 'boring' to hand-wave the challenges that can occur from the low tier zone to the high tier zone. Sometimes it's useful for narrative purposes to encounter one or two of those at the party per 'tier' of difficulty of the areas, and having robust random encounter tables and a thoughtful overall 'framing' for an area basically solves that. But, that stuff chews up precious game time, so it needs to be sparing.

But, that's a good deal of work up-front, and presumes either an encounter style not really designed into the game, or a sandbox / West Marches style - popular, but not the dominant play style.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, to be fair, this is realistic in the real world. If you look at Langley, Virginia for example: the surveillance quality, security guard capability, and lock strength will vary greatly between a gas station, police station, and the CIA headquarters.

All of that is true, but it's the sort of reply that makes me think you didn't understand what I was saying. In this case, the difficulty in breaking into the building is based on the fact that you have a consistent picture of how the world works. As such, the lock strength is based on the fact that gas stations have a certain level of security (pretty much anywhere, with variation perhaps based on the prevalence of property crime), police stations have a certain level of security, and sensitive government installations have a certain level of security. You could conceivably, before the start of such a campaign write up the stats for typical security of such buildings regardless of where they were found, and then just stick to your choices.

That is coherent, but it's precisely the thing I was recommending.

What I was complaining about was something quite different.

One approach that I complained about was tailoring the level of security to the PC, so that the lock strength at the gas station was based on how good the PC was at picking locks. That is to say, the DM decided that it would be 'boring' to make breaking into the gas station easy for a high level PC, and so invents elaborate security (or at least, high DC's) because the DM sees his job as 'providing challenge'. That ultimately ends up punishing PC's for being competent.

Another approach I complained about was having the gas station, police station, and CIA headquarters all have masterwork locks because 'Langley VA' was a zone designed for high level play and so everything in the zone was more difficult. This approach is sometimes seen in PnP adventure paths (or MMORPGs). The trope might be best typified by, "The bears are now level 80."

So, a 1st level thug knocking over the gas station will face one tier of challenge, but the 20th level spy infiltrating the CIA headquarters will face something else. And, in real world terms, these things co-exist closely.

Sure, but that's not the problem that I see in this thread. The problem I see in this thread is that people are somewhat upset that the 20th level spy faces no challenge if he turns his attention to knocking off gas stations. So? The fault there is not the system, but the PC for setting his sights so low. A 20th level spy that can break into the CIA headquarters should be creating those sort of stories. But, if he for some reason wants to knock off a gas station, it shouldn't be suddenly harder to do now just because he's 20th level, than it would have been had he attempted the same thing at 1st level.

The same can apply to a fantasy setting, given some thought to verisimilitude...

Verisimilitude was exactly what I was advocating when I wrote, "When a DM doesn't have a consistent picture of how his world works..."

 

[pemerton]

But if you have the super rogue with +39 to the check, then what's the point of having the fighter with +17? The fighter will never get a chance to even attempt those DC 20 locks, because the rogue is there.

Two thoughts on this.

First, the fighter only becomes redundant if the party operates as a gestalt entity. As soon as you have differences of opinion in the party (eg the fighter wants to go through the door, but the rogue doesn't) then the fighter's skill becomes useful (for the player of the fighter, at least).

Second, the issue of redundancy only rarely comes up in D&D combat, because D&D combat is not framed as duelling but as a whole-party affair. At which point having a mage with a dagger alongside the fighter isn't as useful as having two fighters, but is still better than a fighter on his/her own. If non-fighting challenges are framed in similar terms, then having the fighter who can pick locks is not redundant. This can be anything from providing assistance (analogous to the mage flanking to buff the fighter or activate a rogue's sneak attack) to being there when the rogue is elsewhere to there being two locks that need to be picked simultaneously.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

First, the fighter only becomes redundant if the party operates as a gestalt entity. As soon as you have differences of opinion in the party (eg the fighter wants to go through the door, but the rogue doesn't) then the fighter's skill becomes useful (for the player of the fighter, at least).

Possibly. The idea that the party is working together toward a common goal is one of the basic assumptions of D&D, but it's not necessarily required that you play that way. If nothing else, though, cooperation is usually encouraged because the alternative involves someone sitting around and not playing for long periods of time.

Second, the issue of redundancy only rarely comes up in D&D combat, because D&D combat is not framed as duelling but as a whole-party affair. At which point having a mage with a dagger alongside the fighter isn't as useful as having two fighters, but is still better than a fighter on his/her own. If non-fighting challenges are framed in similar terms, then having the fighter who can pick locks is not redundant. This can be anything from providing assistance (analogous to the mage flanking to buff the fighter or activate a rogue's sneak attack) to being there when the rogue is elsewhere to there being two locks that need to be picked simultaneously.

Some games make an otherwise-redundant skill useful by requiring the secondary actor to succeed on a skill check in order to provide a bonus to the main actor, but 5E doesn't do that by default. Some people have suggested that they require someone to be proficient in a skill in order for them to take the Help action, but even that doesn't really solve the issue, although I suppose it's better than nothing.

 

[pemerton]

Possibly. The idea that the party is working together toward a common goal is one of the basic assumptions of D&D, but it's not necessarily required that you play that way. If nothing else, though, cooperation is usually encouraged because the alternative involves someone sitting around and not playing for long periods of time.

I don't think your last sentence is true. Certainly not in my experience. To explain the basic idea: if PC 1 is arguing with PC 2, then the players of both PC 1 and PC 2 are involved in the action.

Some games make an otherwise-redundant skill useful by requiring the secondary actor to succeed on a skill check in order to provide a bonus to the main actor, but 5E doesn't do that by default. Some people have suggested that they require someone to be proficient in a skill in order for them to take the Help action, but even that doesn't really solve the issue, although I suppose it's better than nothing.

That leaves at least two of the possibilities I mentioned available (the fighter being there while the rogue is not; there being two lock that need to be picked simultaneously) and others that I haven't thought of yet.