Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Tony Vargas]

Can we PLEASE actually discuss the class at hand? If you don't feel that there's enough to a warlord, fair enough. That's fine. Go start your own thread that we can safely ignore. For the love of little kittens, PLEASE STOP with the drive by edition war crap.

Well, sub-class at hand. Which is a hopeful step, though it can't plausibly deliver anything more than a faux-MC Fighter/Warlord. Expecting more from a fighter sub-class is unrealistic.

Ah. I had no idea that the term ‘gambit’ was being used this way.

It's just being used in the podcast to refer to warlord features.

To me, a gambit always means an ‘opening move’. But one that sets up future moves.
I guess ‘gambit’ could work for a strategic maneuver. But it is always one that requires an other movement to follow up. And it is never the conclusive move in itself.
In the sense of a requiring a follow-up move. The term ‘gambit’ is actually a good technical term for granting an extra attack.

Interesting.

Of course not. That's why WotC does surveys, and runs with ideas that get 80% approval. This is literally the same reason that ranger has gone through round after round of revision. No one agrees exactly what it should be.

Except it's not. The Ranger started as a (rather tenuous) Aragorn clone, with alignment & logistical restrictions, an extra HD at level 1, specific woodsy skills, a focus on killing giants, and, at high level, magic and oddball woodsy followers. ::huh?:: In 2e, it got Drizztzed into a lighter-armored, TWFer. In 3e, it started out with bonus feats focued on TWFing or Archery, then switched to 1/2 caster spells, got good skill points, full BAB, an animal companion - and could pick a variety of 'favored enemies' rather than just giants. Then, in 4e, the spells are gone, the TWF/Archery dichotomy stays, and the animal companion is gone (no, wait, it's back, no, wait, it's gone again, but the spells are back, sorta, in Essentials).

So, it never had a clear, broadly applicable concept in the first place, and what it was changed in each edition. That's pretty muddled.

There's no such issue with the Warlord. It has a clear, strong archetype in genre, myth, legend (and, as a non-magical concept, other genres and history). It has had only one implementation, which was clear, balanced, and effective.


And the martial power source, in the sense of non-magical 'powers' that recharged on a rest and did cool things, is already there in 5e, there's Action Surge & Second Wind, and BM Maneuvers. So, meh, to the Trojan Horse theory, though it certainly does shed some light on what's driving Rem to bomb the thread.

OK, this, I think, is a notable point. You see it unquestionably as a specialization class. I see it as very strongly a uniqueness class. This causes very different approaches to defining character concept for the class and its subclasses.

Yep, and it's probably going to be hard to see eachother's PoV, too. One of the few, more nearly plausible criticisms of the Warlord concept is that (like the fighter & rogue) it's abilities, since they're not magical or god-granted or anything, are "things anyone can do." Anyone can hit you with a greatsword, the fighter does it a lot better than just anyone. That kinda thing. By the same token, any fighter can hit you with a greatsword, the one with the GW style & feat does it that much better.

The Warlord's use of tactics, inspiration, maneuvers, plans, opportunities, preparation, allies, deception, etc to try to achieve victory in battle are not exclusive to any one flavor or warlord, not entirely. So that doesn't really point to a class with specific abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, like, ironically, the fighter (which also really shouldn't have abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, but very demonstrably does). And, also ironically, like the wizard, which defies genre in making all spells theoretically available to all wizards (in genre, most characters that display magic, display a fairly specific set of magical powers), and does so very neatly with traditions that each emphasize a school of magic, rather than specializing in it to the exclusion of one or more others.

So it seems clear that the Warlord should be one of those classes with most of it's capabilities tied up in a pool of very flexible features on the chassis, with sub-classes taking different approaches to using them, with different advantages to do so with certain sorts.

The specialization approach depends on its gambits. As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits

(effectively, create a spell list for the class) ... , or alt-spellcaster class.

Be careful with that phrasing: a battle-cry of the edition war was "Fighters Cast Spells!" and the Warlord is concept is quite explicitly non-magical in the base class.

and you expect that selection of gambits, with possible enhancements via subclass, to be how the character is defined.

No, actually, and it's a very important point. The selection of gambits should tell you next to nothing about a given Warlord, just as the spells a wizard preps that day or the weapon a fighter picks up at random tell you nothing about him. Rather, it's how they excel at some gambits rather than others, and how they bring them together that'll be more defining.

The uniqueness approach depends on subclasses. It may have gambits (I haven't tried to build the mechanics for it), but the character concept is tied to the subclass, rather than the class+gambit selection. It builds on more narrowly-defined ideas to help shape what the character is like, which I think is essential for a class that has a much weaker class concept definition.

That makes it doubly-inappropriate for the Warlord, since, to a degree, they must be pragmatic about what they do. A bravura might prefer to mix it up in high-risk, winner-take-all melee, and have his allies charge in with him, but given a unit of low-level archers to work with, he'll have to try something else.

In any case, this creates divergent approaches in even building the class, right from the start. And it's not the only divergence, as Zard mixes the two together.

Also keep in mind that he is actually going through a process of homebrewing, while you're intellectually wool-gathering over a class you care nothing about, and I'm speculating about a path to a reasonable version of a class I do appreciate and have enjoyed playing in the past. So we have very different viewpoints and approaches, and also the level of detail we're interested in varies a lot. Zard likes to jump strait to the rubber on the road of mechanics, you seem more concerned with high concept, though, how much of that you can see from a place of indifference I'm not so sure.

He puts the gambit selection system in the main class, and then adds subclasses that come in at level 3. Given how weakly he defines his subclasses, it really should be built with the subclasses coming in at level 1.

I'm not sure that's the iron rule of 5e design you take it to be.

I build the concepts first, and then put together some vague ideas on mechanics that could go with them.

I honestly don't even want to go so far as specific mechanics, just a vague suggestion of the structure of the mechanics would be fine with me. Concept, capability in broad strokes, and a general structure - I don't want to create a class to hold up against whatever comes down the line in comparison, that'd be counter-productive, in my view.

In order to be convincing at a general player level (and more specifically, the general player of 5E, not 4E, and not the narrow group of character optimizers)

According to WotC's own research during the playtest, fans of exactly one edition are a comparative oddity. Fans of 4e were either new to the game, or had been fans of past editions as well, and gave 4e a chance - that attitude has meant that we're mostly (virtually all, really) fans of 5e, as well, because we're new-ed adopters, by nature. So a player of 4e likely is a player of 5e, especially if he wants a 5e Warlord. There's not really a big conflict there.

Those who want the warlord excluded were distinctly non-fans of 4e, and if they have returned to the current ed with 5e, it's because the less-optional PH-standard, maybe even just the basic pdf, are to their liking, and they've not had to deal with a series of new, numbered PHs, muddying the water. 5e keeps everything after the PH optional. So 'not wanting' something is fully-supported by making it optional. There's thus no compromise with or consideration of people who want the Warlord excluded: they already have what they want, full stop.

I feel like the level 3 approach works better.

I'm not sure I disagree about the 3 level part. It has symmetry to the other non-casters, for instance. But I also don't see this interlocking between the level you pick your sub-class and whether the bulk of the class's power is versatile and in the chassis, or specialized and isolated in sub-classes.

Give Mike Mearls' comment about not enough design space for more subclasses

Keep in mind that he didn't rule it out in the future, and that, some years ago, he publically said he couldn't wrap his head around the warlord in the first place. Now, he's finally getting the Tactical Warlord, a bit. That's progress.

As for not enough design space, it's not what he said, there's tons of design space, he was just looking exclusively at a tactical warlord concept and not seeing where to go for other sub-classes - because he was, in essence, looking at only one. It can't be that he's unaware of the other flavors that have already seen print - nor the 'lazy' builds fans came up with, either.
I think I've seen him do this before, in the playtest. He'll address something, but quietly overlook a large portion of it to focus on the point of interest. Maybe more will come of it later, maybe not. ::shrug:: His approach to design seems very creative & unstructured, that way.

I suspect he's also approaching it from the level 3 perspective.

It's a fighter sub-class, so he has little choice in the matter unless he wants to break radically from the pattern of sub-class design. Even so, he noted in the first podcast that leaving the Warlord nothing warlordly for the first two levels was a problem, and he considered kludging in a Combat Style to tide the sub-class over.

Early it may help. Max level, A PDK is pretty beast at the warlord role when compared with a fighter. Grants 12 attacks. Heals about 200 in the day. Helps with saving throws too. Just in raw numbers ...

The fighter is a raw-numbers class, really. It had good hps, can wear heavy armor with good AC, and, above all, has high DPR. The PDK at top level does suddenly double up on some of it's stuff, but the total numbers are deceptive. It's not like a PDK could heal his 220hp barbarian friend for a total of 200 hps in a particularly tough battle, for instance.

The Purple Dragon Knight fails on those 2 fronts. It'd be just like a Wizard class that only started getting spells at 7th level and then only started getting level 1 spells at that time. Such a class would even meet all the checkboxes for being a wizard but it would be a wizard that no wizard fan would be happy with because it gets its defining abilities to slow and they aren't strong enough when you get them.

That's about it, really. Fighter sub-classes work for concepts that build on or tack-onto the core thrust of the fighter chassis, and it's a tank chassis. Good AC, good hps, high DPR.

Of the Warlord's 8 previous-ed de-facto sub-class-equivalents, one arguably fits that chassis: the secondary-defender Bravura. He's not even aiming for that, but for the more complex Tactical warlord, so it really is going to have to be more of a Fighter/Warlord faux-MC sub-class, at the end of the exercise. Still, if it comes up 1/3rd Warlord any better than the EK pulls off 1/3rd Wizard, it could be a good starting point to extrapolate designs for the full class. Of course, we thought that about the BM, too, and they've taken maneuvers exactly nowhere. :shrug:

 

[Kinematics]

Twitch.tv archive link: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621

General transcript of what was written down (plus some spoken comments):


What should we compare the Warlord to?

* Area of focus abilities used in addition to attack/heal/damage buff
* Concentration
* Area of focus should be a 10 foot cube. <reminder that it has a vertical component> Can place anywhere, including in the air
* Multiple instances of abilities by multiple Warlords should generally not stack.
* Reactions? Opportunity?

<Wants tactical abilities to be on par or better than equivalent Wizard spells>

1st Level

Compared vs Fog Cloud, Grease

Dire Wolf Tactics: When a hostile creature in your Area of Focus is hit by an attack, it is knocked prone.

Shield Wall: Allies in your area of focus gain a bonus to AC. +1? +2?

Reorder Ranks: Spend half movement to swap position with any other ally in the area of focus. Swapping does not provoke OA?

Clever Movement: Allies do not provoke OA in area of focus.

Charge Magnet: You can use your Action or Reaction to move an ally into the area of focus.

*? Attack buffs on targets in area of focus triggered on Warlord's attack.

Help Boost: When the Warlord uses the Help action, it applies to everyone in the area of focus. All Warlords get this?


2nd Level

Compared vs Cloud of Daggers, Darkness, Flaming Sphere


4th Level

Compared vs Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles

Size has to be at least comparable to 20' cube or 60' wall

Not worried about the damage of those spells, since the damage component is in the dice pool for healing/damage, and won't be incorporated here.


* Find ways to get abilities to dovetail with things like Wizard spells that are partially tactical.


Capstone?: Allies in your area of focus use an action

 

[Zardnaar]

Twitch.tv archive link: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621

General transcript of what was written down (plus some spoken comments):


What should we compare the Warlord to?

* Area of focus abilities used in addition to attack/heal/damage buff
* Concentration
* Area of focus should be a 10 foot cube. <reminder that it has a vertical component> Can place anywhere, including in the air
* Multiple instances of abilities by multiple Warlords should generally not stack.
* Reactions? Opportunity?

<Wants tactical abilities to be on par or better than equivalent Wizard spells>

1st Level

Compared vs Fog Cloud, Grease

Dire Wolf Tactics: When a hostile creature in your Area of Focus is hit by an attack, it is knocked prone.

Shield Wall: Allies in your area of focus gain a bonus to AC. +1? +2?

Reorder Ranks: Spend half movement to swap position with any other ally in the area of focus. Swapping does not provoke OA?

Clever Movement: Allies do not provoke OA in area of focus.

Charge Magnet: You can use your Action or Reaction to move an ally into the area of focus.

*? Attack buffs on targets in area of focus triggered on Warlord's attack.

Help Boost: When the Warlord uses the Help action, it applies to everyone in the area of focus. All Warlords get this?


2nd Level

Compared vs Cloud of Daggers, Darkness, Flaming Sphere


4th Level

Compared vs Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles

Size has to be at least comparable to 20' cube or 60' wall

Not worried about the damage of those spells, since the damage component is in the dice pool for healing/damage, and won't be incorporated here.


* Find ways to get abilities to dovetail with things like Wizard spells that are partially tactical.


Capstone?: Allies in your area of focus use an action

I think my capstone is something like all allies gain an action surge.

 

[Kinematics]

So, today's stream didn't advance much past the previous idea list, but it helped better refine the scope of how things would be built.

Mike is mostly looking at these as the cantrip-level abilities, always on, and likely being concentration effects. At the same time, he wants to look at how much can be put into the "box" at various levels, by comparing to what effects can be gained from various Wizard spells.

1st level looked at Fog Cloud and Grease. Grease indicates that being able to knock an opponent prone is acceptable at 1st level, and got wrapped into the Dire Wolf Tactics ability. He also noted that it should work on any attack, including magic attacks from the Wizard or Warlock or whatever, and that (as reminded by a comment in chat) it should work on flyers (who would crash to the ground if knocked prone).

Fog Cloud was a little problematic because it inconveniences both sides, and he wanted to avoid that. He went with granting an AC bonus to everyone in the area of focus. He decided against disadvantage, both because of its power, and because of conflicts with existing abilities that are similar, such as the Fighter's Protection fighting style. On the other hand, it's similar to Shield of Faith, which gives +2 AC to one person, so giving +1 AC to everyone in the area of focus was ballparked as comparable.

He brought back in the idea from last week, of swapping positions. He started it with a cost of 10' of movement, but changed it to half movement. Noted that they'd have to think over how it worked as the area got larger, and it became a bit like teleportation.

There was the ability from last week, of allies not provoking opportunity attacks while in the area of focus.

He added a new idea of being able to move an ally into the area of focus using either an action or a reaction. Limits weren't specified, but would probably be something like they can move up to their normal move speed in order to reach the area of focus. I could see this being useful if you needed to gather everyone up just as something was about to happen, but one person was too far away to get the benefit of whatever AOF ability was being used. Or maybe force someone to move to the cleric, or get someone next to the enemy that the thief is trying to sneak attack, etc.

There was a comment in chat that led to the side note of providing attack buffs on the Warlord's attack. The example was something like a blind-side attack on an enemy to prevent the enemy from being able to make opportunity attacks. This option was a bit vague in how it would interact with everything.

And the Help Boost was something that was intended to be useful out of combat, as well as in combat. It's probably more useful when time is of the essence, but you could see it with something like everyone needing to climb a cliff face, and the Warlord being able to do a Help that gives advantage to the entire group at once, rather than trying to get people up one at a time.


He considered Cloud of Daggers and Flaming Sphere, mostly to comment on damage vs area. However the damage component for Warlord's abilities is tied to the dice pool, and shouldn't be something that's getting added to the Warlord's tactical abilities.

Fire Wall was also brought up, as it indicates that by that level (7th), the Warlord should be able to cover at least around a dozen squares (60 feet long), though the spells also work as 20 foot cubes, and thus maybe 16 squares, depending on how he decides on shaping.

At the low end, that would be going from 4 squares to 12 squares between levels 3 and 7, so +2 squares per level? Or he might start with a higher size, since the Warlord subclass comes in at level 3, and the smallest spell effects would be from level 1. If I were to speculate, I'd go with level+5 squares, starting with 8 at level 3, or level+3 squares, getting 6 at level 3, and 10 at level 7. The exact form doesn't matter too much, just the indication that it should scale with level at a decent rate.


The capstone (written as level 20, because he couldn't remember what level the subclasses capped out at) was being able to grant everyone in the area of focus a full action. This didn't take away the Warlord's ability to also act in that same turn. It would be one of those once-per-day nova abilities. Note that this was just off-the-cuff as a response to a comment in the chat.


~~~

As I said, it didn't get a lot beyond what was provided in the framework from last week, though honestly that was mostly because of the time limit of the stream. It did reinforce that the dice pool for healing/damage would be its own thing, and wouldn't be used to fuel these extra abilities. At the same time, these extra abilities wouldn't be granting direct damage either.

While he looked at what options opened up as level increased, he didn't note anything regarding needing to be a certain level to use any given ability. They might be like the Battlemaster's maneuvers, where you just keep picking up more options as you level. I think he wants to avoid making them spell slot-like, in that you get this ability at level 3, and this ability at level 5, and this at level 7, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While he looked at what options opened up as level increased, he didn't note anything regarding needing to be a certain level to use any given ability. They might be like the Battlemaster's maneuvers, where you just keep picking up more options as you level. I think he wants to avoid making them spell slot-like, in that you get this ability at level 3, and this ability at level 5, and this at level 7, etc.

That was a problem with BM maneuvers, some of them started out a bit strong for level 3, and then as you leveled, you picked your 4th-string and later choices, so it ended up front-loaded. Aside from that BM CS dice are strongly analogous to spell slots, say, of a Warlock. As you level up, your slots get higher level or your CS dice bigger, and they do more, even when you use them to use a maneuver or cast a low-level spell you first learned at 3rd level.

Level gating, in general, in D&D is a major way of showing advancement within a class, and the way the BM lost sight of it didn't work out to well, IMHO.

I don't think gambits should get a half-level rating like spells, nor a level-you-picked-'em-at rating like 4e powers, rather it'd be pretty intuitive and reasonable to level-gate them by Tiers of play. So 'maneuvers' like the BM's half-dozen vaguely-warlordly maneuvers, could be Apprentice-Tier gambits, then you graduate to heroic battle-plans, then grand stratagems, and finally pass down a legacy of a new military doctrine, or something like that. ::shrug::

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

That was a problem with BM maneuvers, some of them started out a bit strong for level 3, and then as you leveled, you picked your 4th-string and later choices, so it ended up front-loaded. Aside from that BM CS dice are strongly analogous to spell slots, say, of a Warlock. As you level up, your slots get higher level or your CS dice bigger, and they do more, even when you use them to use a maneuver or cast a low-level spell you first learned at 3rd level.

Level gating, in general, in D&D is a major way of showing advancement within a class, and the way the BM lost sight of it didn't work out to well, IMHO.

I don't think gambits should get a half-level rating like spells, nor a level-you-picked-'em-at rating like 4e powers, rather it'd be pretty intuitive and reasonable to level-gate them by Tiers of play. So 'maneuvers' like the BM's half-dozen vaguely-warlordly maneuvers, could be Apprentice-Tier gambits, then you graduate to heroic battle-plans, then grand stratagems, and finally pass down a legacy of a new military doctrine, or something like that. ::shrug::

I've disagreed with you quite a bit in this thread, but your comments on frontloading and level gating are spot on, and are one of the reasons the alchemist artificer feels so bad. You don't want your unique features be I pick the second and third and 4th best choices of a given set you want to really feel like you are growing as a character.

Edit: In addition Warlock provides a great example of how to level gate more powerful choices in 5e with the invocation system. All designs for selection of subset to give more choice need to have something like the level gating feature to allow for more powerful versions whether that is full class or subclass design.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've disagreed with you quite a bit in this thread, but your comments on frontloading and level gating are spot on, and are one of the reasons the alchemist artificer feels so bad. You don't want your unique features be I pick the second and third and 4th best choices of a given set you want to really feel like you are growing as a character.

Edit: In addition Warlock provides a great example of how to level gate more powerful choices in 5e with the invocation system. All designs for selection of subset to give more choice need to have something like the level gating feature to allow for more powerful versions whether that is full class or subclass design.

That is why I used the warlock as a template and added the Rogue bonus ASI for a level 10 feature. To convert a 4E power you turn it into a "invocation" and can level gate or subclass it from there.
Its the best chasis to make a 4E type PC and if you make short rest mechanics some you can duplicate AEDU especially if you use the short rest= 5 minute rule.

From there you can make a warlock or even an alternate PHB if you want if you could be assed rewriting all of the 5e classes. Alot of 4E design concepts are in 5E they just compressed 30 levels into 20 (or even 10-15) and instead of 1W, 2W etc you just get an extra attack or a bonus dice of damage (hex, hunters quarry, lvl 8 cleric ability, colossus slayer etc).

4E mechanics were mostly fine at least in terms of how they work, the mistake was every class being AEDU (which made no sense for some ie Fighters), and the tactical playstyle. Most of the hate directed at 4E basically boils down to the class design and the playstyle that design enabled. The design was to restrictive if nothing else and they had to do things like design a powers lists to enable some classes to use archery or TWF. You could probably keep the 4E rules and rewrite the classes chapter and use it to clone a system for example, 5E could be used to make AD&D 3E or vert stripped down B/X type game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is why I used the warlock as a template and added the Rogue bonus ASI for a level 10 feature. To convert a 4E power you turn it into a "invocation" and can level gate or subclass it from there.

The warlock makes some sense as a template because it's mostly short-rest-recharge, and 5e martial classes seem to mostly get short-rest-recharge, when they get recharge at all. A little dimensional analysis of EK & Wizard, applied to the BM & Warlock, and you could come up with a fair 'budget' for a Warlord design, been used as a starting point around here a number of times, IIRC.

Mike, though, seems to think that healing must be mapped to daily resources, so that's a stumbling block.

The [AEDU] design was to restrictive if nothing else and they had to do things like design a powers lists to enable some classes to use archery or TWF

It really was restrictive and difficult - from the design point of view. Trying to build a new 4e class - any class - from scratch was brutal slog. Building a class from the 2e guidelines, or a 3e PrC or a 5e caster class leveraging existing spells, or even an Essentials Sub-class with no cross-compatibility with it's supposed parent class, is as nothing by comparison.

That's one thing about adding the Warlord to 5e: it will certainly be much easier than creating it for 4e was.

 

[Zardnaar]

The warlock makes some sense as a template because it's mostly short-rest-recharge, and 5e martial classes seem to mostly get short-rest-recharge, when they get recharge at all.

Mike, though, seems to think that healing must be mapped to daily resources, so that's a stumbling block.


It really was restrictive and difficult - from the design point of view. Trying to build a new 4e class - any class - from scratch was brutal slog. Building a class from the 2e guidelines, or a 3e PrC or a 5e caster class leveraging existing spells, or even an Essentials Sub-class with no cross-compatibility with it's supposed parent class, is as nothing by comparison.

That's one thing about adding the Warlord to 5e: it will certainly be much easier than creating it for 4e was.

We were playing Darksun in late 3E with some houserules and I tried making a 4 psion. Did not work well. I have never really designed my own class form scratch though, class variants in AD&D 2E using published rules or once again class variants in 3E sure. I used the UA Druid to avoid CoDzilla in 3.5 (at least tone it down).

We did do theory crafting about the 2E design your class rules and some of the Skills and Powers things which were essentially point buy classes and races.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We were playing Darksun in late 3E with some houserules and I tried making a 4 psion. Did not work well. I have never really designed my own class form scratch though, class variants in AD&D 2E using published rules or once again class variants in 3E sure. We did do theory crafting about the 2E design your class rules and some of the Skills and Powers things which were essentially point buy classes and races. I used the UA Druid to avoid CoDzilla in 3.5 (at least tone it down).

I "designed" classes in 1e - they were laughable, but the process wasn't difficult, just ballparking from existing classes. In 2e I used the DMG guidelines to create two classes, one of which a player used to make a character that went to 18th level (in large part because it was one of those goofy-low-exp classes, everyone else was 11-14th) - oh, and years later I created a 2e Warlord in an afternoon just on a lark. 3e I created any number of PrCs. 4e? Brick wall. Monsters (and, thus, Companion characters and other NPCs) were easy, magic items weren't bad, but classes (and, really, any player-facing option) were a real PitA.
OTOH, Essentials came out and I banged out a couple of fighter sub-classes, again, in an afternoon.
5e I took a stab(npi) at a non-Ki, weapon-using martial artist class, and, even adding outré mechanics (it rolled multiple dice to attack, like a storyteller dice pool, and 'spent' hits /and misses/ to do maneuvers) it wasn't too insanely difficult, because you have so much freedom and design space to muddle around in. In that, and many other ways, 5e is just a pleasure to tinker with & run - a real DM's edition.