D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[Chaosmancer]

I have never said that min/maxers don't care about role playing. I know many that are also great role players.

This quote from you, about two pages back, seems to disagree with that assertion:

I appreciate what your saying, but the "they" in your "they build a different character" is not the same as "they" the people who play D&D. Again, if you are a min/maxer I get it. And just like you have said something repeatedly, I have said something repeatedly as well about min/maxers: the only time they want a rule changed is when they are unable to min/max a better character. That is the only reason they ever really argue for a rule change. ASI is blocking a group, not from role playing in a role playing game, but from roll playing a stronger character in a role playing game.

-----

It is, why would anyone want a rule, that is the pillar of the game's mechanics, changed? Why toss out all the lore for 5%?

Well, since 0% of all lore is being changed, don't worry. Because again, these are rules for PCs. The NPCs can do whatever it is they normally do. I don't bother statting out the village of elves. So, whether they have a 12, 14, 16, or 18 Dex never comes up. It literally doesn't matter.

To repeat, no lore is being tossed out with this change. All this change does is make PCs more unique, and they were already unique.

My answer is directly in front of you. I have stated many times: take everything into account, not just attack rolls and hp. Your elven barbarian (which is awesome btw) isn't as strong as your dwarf. But, they move faster. They are way better at their skill challenges! In fact, they are 5% better (same as attack and hp) at up to 10 skills than your dwarf. 10 skills! 5% better! That seems like a lot. Not to mention they have a greater range of saving throws that are better. As far as AC, I believe the elf's would by +1 above the dwarf, no?

As far as feats, I know many that would play the dwarf in your example and just give themselves a 19 strength. So increasing in levels does little to negate advantages/disadvantages, or at least that would be a hard one to prove (because all players choose differently).

10 Skills (actually 8)! Most of which I don't care about for my Barbarian. Who cares if I'm good at sleight of Hand or Medicine? I'm a barbarian, I don't want those skills anyways.

And the AC is the same, Elf gets 2+2=4, Dwarf gets 3+1=4


But, you are missing the point, yet again. What I give up for being better at non-barbarian things, is being worse at being a barbarian. That is the whole picture. I'm +5% Not Barbarian and -5% Barbarian. So, now I have to weigh, is being a barbarian what I really want? Because if I want that, I should take things that increase barbarian, and if I don't want that... is there another class like Druid or Ranger, that could give the same nature vibe and be better with Elf?

Wood Elf Ranger is a classic ranger, ideal match up, I just have to not play the barbarian and instead play into the trope.


And this is the problem.

I have no doubt Chaosmancer, that you are both, a great roll-player and role-player. No doubt. In fact, my guess is, if I were part of your table, I would think your character concepts and role-play are awesome. And I'd appreciate you being efficient with your combat skills.

But the reason I keep posting is because a core pillar of the game mechanics and lore should not be changed just so some players can have their "everything" character.

No lore is being changed. Character creation is not a pillar of the game.

But, since you refuse to acknowledge that and insist that everything must stay the same, where can we go? I guess we keep the game the same so that some players can have their "status quo"

Sure, I guess. But they affect each other. Like the tropes we associate with certain races have at least partly been moulded over the years by rules supporting those tropes. The first strength 17 halfling berserker or super smart ork wizard might be surprising the next seven thousand of them wont. And once it becomes the norm that every race is equally good at everything it will affect how people think about them and what tropes they associate with them.

I'm going to put forth a novel idea.

I don't care about being surprised 5 years down the line. I would like to see more diverse races now. I don't care that in 5 or 7 years that I might be bored of seeing Orc Wizards. Right now I'm bored of seeing Gnome wizards.


And honestly, you are putting so much stock in "surprise". Do you ask your players not to play human fighters, because there is no surprise there anymore? Just, yawn human fighter, same old same old? I certainly don't. I also don't approach each character as though their race/class tells me everything about them. People can surprise you with the details of their character, or they can play the same thing in and out. But that is a player personality aspect, the rules don't force them to do this.

Here, just as an example. I'm going to make four different characters.

Wood Elf Ranger
Tielfing Bard
Gnome Wizard
Dragonborn Paladin (Oath of Vengeance)

Their backstory? "I am an angry loner, out for revenge against the demon that killed my parents."

I made four mechanically different characters, with the exact same personality and backstory. If I had played three of these, and then made the fourth, you wouldn't be surprised. I'm not shocking you, I'm literally playing the exact same backstory every time.

But, if I did something like

Dwarven Bard -> Free loving Dwarf out to find a lost poetic Epic in an ancient Dwarven Ruin
Dwarven Fighter -> A timid warrior, whose first battle saw them face down a shadow dragon, he is the only survivor, and fled in shame for his cowardice in the battle
Dwarven Wizard -> Grandson of a great wizard, heir to a clan of wizards, with a proud and exacting tradition stretching back aeons. He is out to retrieve an artifact for the clan
Dwarven Warlock -> After falling down a mine shaft, you found the Book of Iron. But, your patron promises you wealth and power beyond your wildest dreams if you can locate the Books of Bone and Stone.

I've played the same race! And... each one is a different personality and backstory, a lot playing into Dwarven tropes and exploring ideas and facets of dwarven culture... And fi none of them "surprised" you, who cares. I think they sound like fun.

Your party aren't going to regard you as letting them down if you deal a few less hit points a round.

They might not, but I would. I know my sheet, I know that I chose to be less effective in my role.

In the long run, this will punish the players that want to play the underdog because of the surprise factor it will give them (I know that until the dwarven wizard has cast two or three spells, his enemies assume he has used a magical item). No longer will a DM play the surprise factor on the foes of the players because nothing is unexpected (or expected). If you have no reasons to assume X because the rules do not suport it a tiny bit, then the world should not assume X either.

I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about here. Legitimately.

If I say "The orc stands before dressed in robes and holding a staff-" The players immediately identify it as a spellcaster. 100% The only way to surprise them at that point would be to make the orc a monk, or a weird cleric/paladin. Because robes+staff = spellcaster

It doesn't matter if it is an orc, a troglodyte, an elf or a sentient tree, those clues tell my players they are dealing with a spellcaster.


And as for the enemy... why shouldn't they assume that Dwarves can be wizards? Nothing prevents it. Especially for NPCs where their stats don't matter, dwarves should have a wizard tradition, unless they are content being cut off from one of the most powerful forces in the multi-verse. And, considering Eldritch Knights are a type of fighter, and clerics wear armor then even seeing an armored warrior casting magic shouldn't surprise anyone.


Finally, if this is really important to you... keep it! Let the hobgoblin forces be bamboozled by a dwarven wizard. They are falling for stereotypes, happens to people all the time. "What do you mean you were bit by a shark, you were in a river." "Yeah, river sharks are a thing!" But this is such a minor concern that I don't even understand why it would bother you.

As for playing the same race all the time is wrong...
Up to a certain point, it is not. Players are entitled to play their favorite race and again I see nothing wrong in that. But knowing that playing your elf might gimp you in doing a strength base barb might force you to leave your comfort zone to do something else and make you realise that: "Hey! Half-Orcs are not so bad after all!" or "Good lord! That Dragonborn was something to play!" It gives you a chance, a reason, a motivation to explore something new. Sure you can make an elf and make it a barb, a paladin, a monk or any class you want. But you know that certain combinations are a wee bit better. We are lucky that in 5ed, a character is not really punish to make unusual combo. Try to do that with the 1ed racial maximums and we'll see. The goal in RPG is to explore and pretend we are something else. Always pretending the same thing seems to go against this exploration of variety that I love so much.

+2 strength isn't what makes a Half-Orc interesting to play. So, you can still try and convince players to play something else, to go and explore a variety of cultures and options. In fact, the removal of Racial ASI's makes it even easier to explore some of this.

How do dwarves approach Bardic music or Wizardly arts? How does the worship of a Gnome Cleric differ from a humans? What kind of challenges might a Goliath Ranger encounter in the tops of the world?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Chaosmancer I don't terribly care about surprise, and I was not one to brought it up. I was merely responding. Also, in a normal game skills matter so they are perfectly valid thing to take in account while discussing balance. Overall, fixating on 5% increase in the raw killing power in exclusion of all else seems pretty bizarre to me. But I guess some people play way more combat heavy games than what I assume to be the norm. Besides some skills such as stealth matter even in combat. And other features too; speed matters a lot so there an Elf barbarian would have another big advantage over the dwarf.

 

[GreenTengu]

In the long run, this will punish the players that want to play the underdog because of the surprise factor it will give them (I know that until the dwarven wizard has cast two or three spells, his enemies assume he has used a magical item). No longer will a DM play the surprise factor on the foes of the players because nothing is unexpected (or expected). If you have no reasons to assume X because the rules do not suport it a tiny bit, then the world should not assume X either.

Again, in the begining you will see a wide variety of races and classes combination. Then, after a few games when the novelty wears off, you start to see patterns in the characters your players will make. It will not be that evident at first. Then after a little while, you'll realise that sometimes, a restriction is a big bonus in its application. Racial ASI are there to make character's creation richer and not the opposite. Yes it makes it harder (but not much) to make certain class combinations, but in doing so, it makes these combinations all the more interesting.

I can see some argument in regards to this applying to the class of "wizard" in particular, because magic gained specifically through academic study presupposes that the culture the character comes from has the infrastructure for academies and an affinity for arcane arts. But what about every other class? Right now, unless you are playing a Fighter or Paladin-- there is very little reason or advantage to playing a Dwarf. But, if one were to accept that there is a whole society of just Dwarfs out there?

Dwarf Rogues would most certainly exist-- they regularly deal with Kobolds and other subterranean threats that make specialists in disabling traps, picking locks, approaching stealthily and using poison would most definitely be a thing-- and putting outside threats aside, even within their own society there are going to be thieves and criminals. So is a Dwarf Rogue a viable character if you can choose any other race for you Rogue character?... Well... no. Not really. As as a result-- Dwarf Rogues are hardly ever seen even though it shouldn't be a "surprise".

Dwarf Rangers should be super common. Dwarfs need to be able to patrol their mountains and tunnels with people who are specialized in living off the land. Furthermore, given their slow movement-- naturally Dwarfs are going to want to use ranged weapons. So is a Dwarf Ranger a viable option?... Well... no, not really. Other races give bonuses to Dexterity which is the primary attribute for Rogues and none of the Dwarf racial bonuses help you out in that regard. So... virtually never do you see Dwarf Rogues even though it shouldn't be a surprise to see them.

I also have absolutely no trouble imagining a Dwarf order of monks given that there is already the suggestion that self-discipline is something that some, but by no means the majority, of Dwarfs focus on. Becoming hard as the mountain so that blows bounce off of you and punching with the force of an avalanche seems very Dwarfish. But-- again-- this is a Dexterity-based class which pretty much means you are going to be at a disadvantage if you chose to play a Dwarf.

How about a Dwarf earth-affinity Druid? Or a Dwarf Sorcerer who taps into ancient Giantkin bloodline? A dwarf bard who sings epic ballads of their warrior past? None of them should be surprising! They should all be a pretty natural extension of the race.

And while a Dwarf Warlock who has fallen to the worship of a great old one lurking below the surface of the earth after having wandered too deep should by no means by common-- its also a natural extension of the race's thematic elements.

But when it comes to the D&D system where you choose a complementary race and class-- hardly any of these are really functionally options. We almost only see people playing Dwarfs as Fighters, Clerics or Paladins and not all of the other things that would naturally arise from a Dwarf society-- for the pure reason that the mechanics mean that if one is going to choose any of the other classes that it is easy to imagine a Dwarf being, by choosing another race you get a 10%-20% better success chance on every roll related to the class you make in the game.

Why should a PC be effectively a entire level or more worse for having chosen a race/class combination that totally makes sense and is very thematic and would naturally arise out of the setting?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Dwarven Bard -> Free loving Dwarf out to find a lost poetic Epic in an ancient Dwarven Ruin
Dwarven Fighter -> A timid warrior, whose first battle saw them face down a shadow dragon, he is the only survivor, and fled in shame for his cowardice in the battle
Dwarven Wizard -> Grandson of a great wizard, heir to a clan of wizards, with a proud and exacting tradition stretching back aeons. He is out to retrieve an artifact for the clan
Dwarven Warlock -> After falling down a mine shaft, you found the Book of Iron. But, your patron promises you wealth and power beyond your wildest dreams if you can locate the Books of Bone and Stone.

I think they sound like fun.

Since dwarves are my favorite race, I think these all sounds good.

Well, except the Bard. I don't like Bards...

Love the Warlock backstory though, and I can see many adventures based on it. Would make an awesome NPC!

 

[Helldritch]

I can see some argument in regards to this applying to the class of "wizard" in particular, because magic gained specifically through academic study presupposes that the culture the character comes from has the infrastructure for academies and an affinity for arcane arts. But what about every other class? Right now, unless you are playing a Fighter or Paladin-- there is very little reason or advantage to playing a Dwarf. But, if one were to accept that there is a whole society of just Dwarfs out there?

Dwarf Rogues would most certainly exist-- they regularly deal with Kobolds and other subterranean threats that make specialists in disabling traps, picking locks, approaching stealthily and using poison would most definitely be a thing-- and putting outside threats aside, even within their own society there are going to be thieves and criminals. So is a Dwarf Rogue a viable character if you can choose any other race for you Rogue character?... Well... no. Not really. As as a result-- Dwarf Rogues are hardly ever seen even though it shouldn't be a "surprise".

Dwarf Rangers should be super common. Dwarfs need to be able to patrol their mountains and tunnels with people who are specialized in living off the land. Furthermore, given their slow movement-- naturally Dwarfs are going to want to use ranged weapons. So is a Dwarf Ranger a viable option?... Well... no, not really. Other races give bonuses to Dexterity which is the primary attribute for Rogues and none of the Dwarf racial bonuses help you out in that regard. So... virtually never do you see Dwarf Rogues even though it shouldn't be a surprise to see them.

I also have absolutely no trouble imagining a Dwarf order of monks given that there is already the suggestion that self-discipline is something that some, but by no means the majority, of Dwarfs focus on. Becoming hard as the mountain so that blows bounce off of you and punching with the force of an avalanche seems very Dwarfish. But-- again-- this is a Dexterity-based class which pretty much means you are going to be at a disadvantage if you chose to play a Dwarf.

How about a Dwarf earth-affinity Druid? Or a Dwarf Sorcerer who taps into ancient Giantkin bloodline? A dwarf bard who sings epic ballads of their warrior past? None of them should be surprising! They should all be a pretty natural extension of the race.

And while a Dwarf Warlock who has fallen to the worship of a great old one lurking below the surface of the earth after having wandered too deep should by no means by common-- its also a natural extension of the race's thematic elements.

But when it comes to the D&D system where you choose a complementary race and class-- hardly any of these are really functionally options. We almost only see people playing Dwarfs as Fighters, Clerics or Paladins and not all of the other things that would naturally arise from a Dwarf society-- for the pure reason that the mechanics mean that if one is going to choose any of the other classes that it is easy to imagine a Dwarf being, by choosing another race you get a 10%-20% better success chance on every roll related to the class you make in the game.

Why should a PC be effectively a entire level or more worse for having chosen a race/class combination that totally makes sense and is very thematic and would naturally arise out of the setting?

Ok, let's take a look.
Dwarves have two subspecies in the PHB. So far I have seen:
Dwarven rogue, both mountain and hill. Mountain dwarf gives better armor, the dump stat is usually in st but the bonus in CN is really good for rogues. The hill dwarf, is a different focus but the bonus to wisdom helps with skill checks. Both dwarves have resistance to poison which, for somebody checking traps is nothing to sniff at. The downside? The lower dexterity. The dwarves won't get a 16 in there but the mountain dwarf took Medium armor master, and his next two ASI were in Dexterity. He also took a few level of fighter as a personal choice (and RP reason) where the hill dwarf went all in on the rogue aspect.

A ranger would fall in the same category of the rogue. Similar problems, but not necessarily similar answers. Medium armor master would be prime choice unless the character goes all in for strength on a mountain dwarf. Then the feat heavy armored would come in handy. Wearing a plate might be surprising for a character usually relying on stealth but other than stealth, most of the ranger's skills are either ST base or Wis based. Using two battle axes can be nice to see. (We have had the hill dwarf but not the mountain...)

Dwarf Bard, Sorcerer and Warlock falls in the same categorie of the dwarven wizard. An armored caster that can be surprising. Both races will have similar response to the problem of not having 15 in their prime stats. A half feat might come in handy to compensate and bring good RP and to play even more on the "surprise" armored caster! Ya didn't see it coming did you?

This brings us to the dwarven monk. A dwarven monk would probably put the dump stat into charisma. The mountain dwarf will thus have between 12 or 14 in strength. A good thing for the athletic checks for grappling opponents. Constitution would high and it is ok. But the real surprise comes from... Armored Monk! For a few level, the mountain dwarf would be able to compensate his "lower" dex with a good medium armor. Nothing prevents him from being a monk and wearing armor save the way his AC would be calculated. Not a big loss. He would be able to put 14 in dexterity, 13 in constitution and 15 in wisdom. This would bring the mountain dwarf in a good spot for the time needed to get his dex higher with his next three ASI. No mobility for this dwarf but he would start with a better AC anyways. The hill dwarf would get a good wisdom, nice HP and would start with a higher wisdom. Giving him equivalent AC and raising the dex as the mountain dwarf would. Not bad. I'll suggest it next campaing just to see...

And what about the druid. The druid would fall as the cleric. The mountain dwarf would bonuses to strength and constitution and the hill dwarf would bring hp and a bonus to wisdom. Both characters would benefits from the bonuses the dwarves bring to the table. I do not see many druids at my table but a dwarven druid would be nothing to sniff at. I know that it is no longer in the game. But in previous editions it was possible to make plate from the shells of Ankhegs and Bullets (if I remember correctly) Dragon scale mail is also a thing. A dwarf with the blacksmith/armorer tool would be able to build himself such a thing. I know that I would allow it. And the dwarf would be able to repair his armor! But of both dwarves, the hill dwarf would be the best choice.

The Racial ASI forces a player to work around the bonuses to make something unique and not often seen. I see this a nice bonus to RP.

 

[Scott Christian]

We are at a point in RPG where lore is the cause of Racial ASI and where Racial ASI support the lore. Which came first? The chicken or the proverbial egg? (rethorical question here, do not answer please). By removing Racial ASI you remove a bit of the lore. Up to which point, lore will no longer apply. After a time, since race can do anything in any combination, you remove the surprise element from doing something out of the expected since nothing is ever expected.

In the long run, this will punish the players that want to play the underdog because of the surprise factor it will give them (I know that until the dwarven wizard has cast two or three spells, his enemies assume he has used a magical item). No longer will a DM play the surprise factor on the foes of the players because nothing is unexpected (or expected). If you have no reasons to assume X because the rules do not suport it a tiny bit, then the world should not assume X either.

Again, in the begining you will see a wide variety of races and classes combination. Then, after a few games when the novelty wears off, you start to see patterns in the characters your players will make. It will not be that evident at first. Then after a little while, you'll realise that sometimes, a restriction is a big bonus in its application. Racial ASI are there to make character's creation richer and not the opposite. Yes it makes it harder (but not much) to make certain class combinations, but in doing so, it makes these combinations all the more interesting.

As for playing the same race all the time is wrong...
Up to a certain point, it is not. Players are entitled to play their favorite race and again I see nothing wrong in that. But knowing that playing your elf might gimp you in doing a strength base barb might force you to leave your comfort zone to do something else and make you realise that: "Hey! Half-Orcs are not so bad after all!" or "Good lord! That Dragonborn was something to play!" It gives you a chance, a reason, a motivation to explore something new. Sure you can make an elf and make it a barb, a paladin, a monk or any class you want. But you know that certain combinations are a wee bit better. We are lucky that in 5ed, a character is not really punish to make unusual combo. Try to do that with the 1ed racial maximums and we'll see. The goal in RPG is to explore and pretend we are something else. Always pretending the same thing seems to go against this exploration of variety that I love so much.

Very well explained. But, the explanation will not be heard. Sorry. It is the same thing I have been saying, I just wasn't as smart and put it into a metaphor. Without a strength/weakness you lose the ability to go against the norm. Once that changes, then lore has little meaning. Once lore has little meaning, then everyone begins to become the same. Homogeny.

Call it a slippery slope fallacy. Call it not true and say you'll have greater diversity. None of that is true when thinking about the long term. But, it is difficult to think long term impact on anything, let alone a role playing game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Helldritch excellent stuff. These are exactly the sort of characters I want to see. Much more interesting than every race just defaulting to the same cookie-cutter builds.

 

[Scott Christian]

I’ll see what? Fast food restaurants? You haven’t actually explained the metaphor.

I had the food metaphor, not Helldritch. I explained it later on, in the post above this one. But, in the end, it just comes down to what people want. Min/maxers want a change so their character can have "everything," and people that want ASI's to stay know that it attaches to lore and creates a heterogenous array of characters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can see some argument in regards to this applying to the class of "wizard" in particular, because magic gained specifically through academic study presupposes that the culture the character comes from has the infrastructure for academies and an affinity for arcane arts. But what about every other class? Right now, unless you are playing a Fighter or Paladin-- there is very little reason or advantage to playing a Dwarf. But, if one were to accept that there is a whole society of just Dwarfs out there?

Dwarf Rogues would most certainly exist-- they regularly deal with Kobolds and other subterranean threats that make specialists in disabling traps, picking locks, approaching stealthily and using poison would most definitely be a thing-- and putting outside threats aside, even within their own society there are going to be thieves and criminals. So is a Dwarf Rogue a viable character if you can choose any other race for you Rogue character?... Well... no. Not really. As as a result-- Dwarf Rogues are hardly ever seen even though it shouldn't be a "surprise".

Dwarf Rangers should be super common. Dwarfs need to be able to patrol their mountains and tunnels with people who are specialized in living off the land. Furthermore, given their slow movement-- naturally Dwarfs are going to want to use ranged weapons. So is a Dwarf Ranger a viable option?... Well... no, not really. Other races give bonuses to Dexterity which is the primary attribute for Rogues and none of the Dwarf racial bonuses help you out in that regard. So... virtually never do you see Dwarf Rogues even though it shouldn't be a surprise to see them.

I also have absolutely no trouble imagining a Dwarf order of monks given that there is already the suggestion that self-discipline is something that some, but by no means the majority, of Dwarfs focus on. Becoming hard as the mountain so that blows bounce off of you and punching with the force of an avalanche seems very Dwarfish. But-- again-- this is a Dexterity-based class which pretty much means you are going to be at a disadvantage if you chose to play a Dwarf.

How about a Dwarf earth-affinity Druid? Or a Dwarf Sorcerer who taps into ancient Giantkin bloodline? A dwarf bard who sings epic ballads of their warrior past? None of them should be surprising! They should all be a pretty natural extension of the race.

And while a Dwarf Warlock who has fallen to the worship of a great old one lurking below the surface of the earth after having wandered too deep should by no means by common-- its also a natural extension of the race's thematic elements.

But when it comes to the D&D system where you choose a complementary race and class-- hardly any of these are really functionally options. We almost only see people playing Dwarfs as Fighters, Clerics or Paladins and not all of the other things that would naturally arise from a Dwarf society-- for the pure reason that the mechanics mean that if one is going to choose any of the other classes that it is easy to imagine a Dwarf being, by choosing another race you get a 10%-20% better success chance on every roll related to the class you make in the game.

Why should a PC be effectively a entire level or more worse for having chosen a race/class combination that totally makes sense and is very thematic and would naturally arise out of the setting?

I have a Dwarf Artificer...but that doesn't really disprove your point.

But, to your point, you can still put a 16 in your class-effective score, and benefit from your racial ASIs too. A dwarf of any class is going to be tough, and probably strong or wise as well. Your dwarf monk can put his best score in Dex, and his ASIs will give m him an edge in other stats that a monk from another race wouldn't have. It's part of what makes him a dwarf monk. If I were statting a dwarf monk NPC, I would probably take a monk stat block and bump up his Con, easy-peasy. I see no reason you shouldn't apply the same philosophy to a PC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have a Dwarf Artificer...but that doesn't really disprove your point.

But, to your point, you can still put a 16 in your class-effective score, and benefit from your racial ASIs too. A dwarf of any class is going to be tough, and probably strong or wise as well. Your dwarf monk can put his best score in Dex, and his ASIs will give m him an edge in other stats that a monk from another race wouldn't have. It's part of what makes him a dwarf monk. If I were statting a dwarf monk NPC, I would probably take a monk stat block and bump up his Con, easy-peasy. I see no reason you shouldn't apply the same philosophy to a PC.

I was assuming point buy, but even with the array you can get a 14 or 15, which isn't too shabby and fits perfectly into bounded accuracy assumptions. Like Hellditch says.