2E and Weapon sizes

[Username17]

There was a lot to get confused by I found. Like how many hands it took to wield a large greatsword for instance. It was actually two handed for a large creature, but one handed for a huge creature and so on. That was well... complicated.

OK, I see you managed to get plenty confused by the extremely simple fvcking system, so I'll grant that there was evidentally something to be confused by:

Weapons your sized are one handed.
Weapons smaller than your size are light.
Weapons one size larger than your size are two handed.
Weapons two or more sizes larger than you cannot be used.

A Large Greatsword is the normal Greatsword. It was listed under "Large Weapons". There was no fvcking mystery to it. It was used two handed by a medium creature. It was used one handed by a large creature. It was used as a light weapon by a huge creature. A small creature couldn't use it at all.

I'll grant that you apparently got completely confused by absolute size categories, but I am totally at a loss to explain how you did that.

It'd have actually worked if it was just called a large sword, and everything was based on size comparison. So if you were greater than the size of your weapon it was considered light, if you were equal to it, it was a one handed weapon and if the weapon size was greater than your size by one, it was two handed. That'd have probably worked the best.

That was the rules! Holy shit, what the hell were you doing?

A small greatsword was in fact one handed for a medium creature and a light weapon for a large creature, and the same thing as a longsword. It was also the same thing as a large shortsword. And that was just dumb and overly complex.

Don't say "in fact" when you don't know what you are talking about. What you are describing is the 3.5 rules. In 3rd edition, a "Small Greatsword" was a "small weapon". That means that it was usable by a halfling in one hand.

Now, sometimes some jackass would write up a "Greatsword for a Small character (Medium Greatsword)" which was confusing, but that was non-standard nomenclature.

If size is going to be the be all end all, then all you need is size. You don't need "longbow" and "shortbow" and "longsword" and "shortsword" and all that other crap. You just need a size and a weapon type. Small sword, large sword, medium sword, huge sword, etc.

I agree. And that's the direction that 3rd edition was heading. 3.5 went the opposite direction however, and made arbitrary distinctions between "longbow" and "shortbow" more important across size categories. In 3rd edition, every small bow had the same range, and every medium bow had the same range, and every large bow had the same range and so on and so forth. So the name "longbow" was entirely flavor, it didn't actually have any effect on the game. A "halfling longbow" was the same as a "human shortbow" game mechanically, it was just flavor text that you could put on your weapon if you wanted.

In 3.5 it's not. The fact that a spear is made for a halfling can cause a spear the same size to suddenly start granting reach when it wouldn't have if made for a human. The name and the size are extremely important, and the size no longer corresponds to actual physical size in any way. It's a total step backwards in accessability and convertability.

large shortsword= medium longsword= small greatsword = huge dagger = tiny full blade.

No. It's "Large Shortsword" = "Large Greatsword" = "Large Longsword" = "Large Dagger". That was the dagger trick, remember? Every large bladed object was the same, so you could call your greatsword a dagger and make claim that you could use it with a simple weapon proficiency.

Your basic problem with 3rd edition weapon size rules seems to have been that you were mistakenly using 3.5 weapon size rules. No wonder you thought they were terrible.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1135016864[/unixtime]]
No. It's "Large Shortsword" = "Large Greatsword" = "Large Longsword" = "Large Dagger". That was the dagger trick, remember? Every large bladed object was the same, so you could call your greatsword a dagger and make claim that you could use it with a simple weapon proficiency.

Your basic problem with 3rd edition weapon size rules seems to have been that you were mistakenly using 3.5 weapon size rules. No wonder you thought they were terrible.

Even if you do things the above way, it's still confusing as hell when you try to determine the damage. Since you've got to know the base size of the weapon you're talking about and then scale upwards to the size of the weapon. And honestly the fact that I screwed it up is only an indication of how confusing and illogical it really was.

It just doesn't make much sense to have large daggers and large greatswords in fact be the same thing. That's just... stupid. As I said before, if you're going to do that, you shouldn't have greatswords and daggers, and instead just have swords.

I still make the argument that for 3.0 to work, it had to ditch the stupid weapon names and just have "Large sword" for longswords, greatswords and shortswords, and perhaps "large curved sword" for scimitars and so on.

It wasn't that weapon size relative to creature size was a bad system, it's just the stupid naming conventions that I am opposed to. Whether you want to say that a large dagger = a large greatsword or a tiny greatsword = a medium dagger or whatever doesn't really matter. Either way there are too many equivalencies under that system.

The 3.5 system isn't great either, but at the very least people can say huge greatsword and you're talking about one unambiguous weapon. It may hose small characters and all kinds of other crap, but you have a system to describe any weapon under one and only one name. That's a good thing.

As for the whole improvised weapon crap under 3.5, I don't have a problem with that, becuase first, those rules are rarely used anyway. Second, I don't have a problem with improvised weapons using rather loose and improvised rules.

[The_Matthew]

and perhaps "large curved sword" for scimitars and so on.

Actually, that would be a Falchion. A large scimitar is inferior to a falchion under the 3.0 weapon sizing rules because it does 1d8 instead of 2d4. Much like how you would want a large battleaxe or handaxe instead of a greataxe (2d6 vs 1d12), or a large light flail instead of a heavy flail (2d6 vs 1d10).
Of course not only did these issuse not go away for 3.5, but they actually showed in the weapon charts that their craptastic weapon sizing rules aren't even consistent. With the way they're written, a medium heavy flail dosn't do as much damage as a small heavy flail that is enlarged to be a medium weapon, really it dosn't. So, if I buy a small greatsword (1d10 damage) and have the wizard enlarge it to become a medium greatsword, I will end up with a 2d8 weapon that counts in every other way as the regular 2d6 greatsword.
Yeah, this makes any sense at all.

[Username17]

Even if you do things the above way, it's still confusing as hell when you try to determine the damage. Since you've got to know the base size of the weapon you're talking about and then scale upwards to the size of the weapon. And honestly the fact that I screwed it up is only an indication of how confusing and illogical it really was.

No.

There was nothing to be confused by. There was no hidden piece of illogic. Apparently you just never read the rules and were making thigs hard for yourself by imagining that they were something other than they were.

The size of a weapon compared to your size determines whether for you the weapon is light, one-handed, or two-handed for you to use.
Light: If the weapon's size category is smaller than yours (such as a human using a Small weapon), then the weapon is light for you.
...
One-Handed: If the weapon's size category is the same as yours (such as a human using a rapier), then the weapon is two-handed for you.
...
Two-Handed: If the weapon's size category is one step larger than your own (such as a human using a greataxe), then the weapon is two-handed for you.
...
Too Large to Use: If the weapon's size category is two or more steps larger than your own (such as a gnome trying to use a greatsword), the weapon is too large for you to use.

Then the handy chart on page 98 splits weapons up into sizes.

These rules had flaws, but confusing wasn't one of them. They were made of a transparent crystal that would honestly take a fvcking moron to misinterpret.

Weapon size changing rules were likewise obvious, though then as now they were unfortunate. The fact is that the damage changing rules were not written together with the weapon write-ups and do not synch properly. Many times a weapon is bumped up or down a little bit of damage for some arcane "that looks good" purpose and when that rams up into the weapon size changing rules it makes the world turn into stupid.

But those rules weren't confusing in 3rd edition. They were stupid, but they weren't confusing. The 3.5 rules are just as stupid (as Mathew so eloquently pointed out), but now they are also confusing on top of that.

I am unable to comprehend how you had difficulty understanding the rules for weapon sizes in 3rd edition. I can understand how people might not understand the rules for weapon sizes in 3.5, since they are contradictory, incomplete, and obviously completely unplaytested.

-Username17

[erik]

Amen. I used to read the Wizards boards pretty damned religiously, and before 3.5 I never *once* saw any mewling retards complaining about the way weapon sizes were handled. Only after the changes did the slobbering masses come out thanking the designers that weapon sizes were more realistic now. What the fvck?! Shorter sticks giving longer reach because they were made for creatures with shorter arms? Huzzah for the morons!

Nobody ever to my knowledge used stupid large dagger-fu. You can throw greatswords at 10' range increments anyways (with a couple penalties, sure, but giant daggers never ever ever ever came up). I was aware and saw others were aware that there were nominal inconsistencies balance wise in 3.0 weapons. But what the hell, great clubs were martial weapons, and the spears were simple weapons. Not all was fair in the world. 3.5 didn't change anything except make it idiotic and incompehensible.

Weapon size alterations was just one of the unasked-for, unplaytested, unneccesary and stupid changes that were required to justify 3.5 (as opposed to a 3.1, or simply a decent errata or alterate rules supplement). They had to make their money, and I respect that, but 3.5 could only be justified if rules were arbitrarily changed in order to accentuate the differences between editions, and we get a steaming pile of weapon sizes to mark that momentous shuffle forward.

Random, it really is funny when you tried to highlight 3.0's flaws by describing 3.5. Even my friends who couldn't figure out attacks of opportunities or grapple checks given open books, 30 minutes and a phone a friend lifeline- even they! They had no problems whatsoever comprehending how handedness and weapon sizes worked in 3.0.

In 3.5, I still have to worry how a variety of DMs are going to rule on how my mounted lancer is able to use his weapon. My lance is able to be wielded one handed when mounted, so does it then become a one-handed weapon which doesn't give me mucho power attack (oh, and thanks again 3.5 for beefing up two-handed fighting, really needed it!) even when wielded with both hands? Or does it stay a two-handed weapon that may be wielded with one hand, and preserve it's two-handed power attack and strength mods? Does my lance change in disarmability/sunderability, regardless of how I am holding it?

Some of these answers are better supported by the rules than others, but there is definitely ambiguity thanks to the stupid-ass weapon size terminology which mucked everything up.

[User3]

There were a couple things I personally didn't like about 3.0 weapon sizes that are no longer an issue in 3.5:

* Long spear was practically identical to Heavy Lance, both being martial weapons, except one was Medium and one was Large. A light lance was Small, so dual-weilding lances on foot was actually a pretty decent tactic for all the human ranger1/rouge19 characters running around in 3.0.

* Small characters needed both hands to weild a rapier, a traditionally one-handed weapon. There weren't any Small rapiers listed in the Player's Handbook, and halfling rogues wouldn't proficient with them anyway.

[RandomCasualty]

1135062936[/unixtime]]
Actually, that would be a Falchion. A large scimitar is inferior to a falchion under the 3.0 weapon sizing rules because it does 1d8 instead of 2d4. Much like how you would want a large battleaxe or handaxe instead of a greataxe (2d6 vs 1d12), or a large light flail instead of a heavy flail (2d6 vs 1d10).
Of course not only did these issuse not go away for 3.5, but they actually showed in the weapon charts that their craptastic weapon sizing rules aren't even consistent. With the way they're written, a medium heavy flail dosn't do as much damage as a small heavy flail that is enlarged to be a medium weapon, really it dosn't. So, if I buy a small greatsword (1d10 damage) and have the wizard enlarge it to become a medium greatsword, I will end up with a 2d8 weapon that counts in every other way as the regular 2d6 greatsword.
Yeah, this makes any sense at all.

Yeah, I think 3.0 probably had a more sound basis for a system where size determined handedness, but really, 3.0 had crappy rules for sizing weapons up and down, because for the most part it didn't expect you to do that. Halflings just used longswords as greatswords, and shortswords as longswords and so on.

The entire problem with 3.0 comes from applying redundant labels to weapons and causing confusion whenever you try to scale the system.

In 3.5 it's relatively simple. You find the weapon you want the creature to use, then you set the weapon size equal to the creature's size. So if I want my huge giant to weild a greatsword, I look under greatsword, and size it up two categories and I've got my huge greatsword.

In 3.0, that's not really the case. First I need to know the size of the creature I need to make a weapon for. Then based on handedness, I have to add one. Then I have to find the size of the original weapon (large for a greatsword for instance), then figure the difference between large and the target creature's size. Then, I can scale things up. And I'm left with a weapon that could be known by pretty much any other name. Huge greatsword, Huge longsword or huge shortsword. Call it whatever you want, whatever you happen to be proficient or weapon focused with. How is this better again?

[PhoneLobster]

Hey... that 3.0 example is adding in a whole bunch of fake extra steps for no good reason.

[User3]

1135124243[/unixtime]]Hey... that 3.0 example is adding in a whole bunch of fake extra steps for no good reason.

Yep, in 3.0 you know how many steps up from "medium" "huge" is, and therefore increase a greatsword's damage by two steps.

If the size of the item becomes important, you size it up twice from its from its normal object size (medium? small? I don't remember).

[RandomCasualty]

Well, I can see there's no convincing anyone of this, but what can I say, that's just my opinion. I find the 3.5 system to be more intuitive and easier to use and found the 3.0 naming conventions confusing.

If you didn't, well great I guess, but I still prefer 3.5 over 3.0.

[The_Matthew]

1135134241[/unixtime]]Well, I can see there's no convincing anyone of this, but what can I say, that's just my opinion. I find the 3.5 system to be more intuitive and easier to use and found the 3.0 naming conventions confusing.

If you didn't, well great I guess, but I still prefer 3.5 over 3.0.

Wait, it's more intuitive if I can abuse size changing to have a 5d8 damage dagger? It makes more sense to you that a medium (small) gratsword does more damage than a medium (medium) greatsword? It makes more sense that there are two charts that aren't even consistent when they are right fvcking next to eachother, not to mention is inconsistent with the other two charts that they printed in other books? Yeah, instead of one chart that has a couple of inconsistencies and being able to use a small greatsword in one hand without penalties we should have multiple inconsistent charts that make little sense and make us argue with the GM that our small greatswords are medium longswords so that we don't get the shaft, unless the primary fighter is using daggers that do 5d8 damage without magical qualities. Yeah... more intuitive.

[Username17]

What Mathew is touching upon is the fact that in 3rd edition, the weapon size changing rules came in an expansion book (Sword and Fist), and were a simple list that you moved up and down on. In 3.5, the weapon size changing rules are built into the basic rules (actually they are present, but substantially different in each core book), and shrinking weapons follows a different mechanic than growing weapons.

In 3rd edition, if you shrunk a weapon and grew it back up again, you got the same weapon on the back swing, because it was a simple list of one damage code after another. In 3.5, growing weapons causes them to do more damage than shrinking them causes to lose. So if you take any weapon and shrink it and grow it enough times, you do a metric crap tonne of damage.

---

That being said, the weapon size changing rules are bad, and putting them out of the way where they won't be used often is a Good ThingTM. The Falchion is a better weapon under every size changing rule than you would expect to get out of growing a Scimitar - and it's still a worse weapon than a Scimitar! The Scimitar does 1 less average damage than its equivalent lower threat weapon - the Longsword. That means that if you are facing enemies effected by crits, you are breaking even if you are inflicting 20 points of damage average per swing before crits (possible, but difficult). The Falchion does 2 less damage than its equivalent weapon - the Greatsword. That means that you need to be handing out 40 points of average damage before crits to break even with a Falchion. The Falchion does 43% more damage from its damage die, 50% more damage from strength, and if using 3.5 rules it even does 100% more damage from power attack. But it needs to do 100% more damage overall just to break even, and it doesn't do that.

The Heavy Flail, on the other hand, is substantially worse than what you'd expect to get out of a size increase on a Medium Flail, but it's still a fantabulous weapon because growing a weapon size is fundamentally advantageous for a weapon based on disarms.

The only fair way to make weapons in Dungeons and Dragons is to ad hoc each one and increase and decrease its weapon on a case by case basis until there's a reason to use each weapon. The weapon size changing rules are always going to generate weapons worse than actual playtesting. Putting weapon sizing rules into the basic book was a horrible mistake. Putting six different size changing rules in the core books (because the rules are different for growing and shrinking, and the rules are different in each core book) is completely inexcusable.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

OK, after consulting the sizing mechanics in 3.5, I agree that they do suck ass.

So how about this. Instead of using that inane die shift mechanic, what if we simply said that when weapons sized up, they added or subtracted their size modifiers from the damage?

So using 3.5 rules, a medium longsword deals 1d8 damage. A small longsword deals 1d8-1 damage. A large longsword deals 1d8+1 damage, a huge longsword deals 1d8+2, and so on.

Greatswords use the same mechanic but are a base 2d6 instead.

If we wanted to get more consistent here, such that a battle between rats became more than a 1 damage fest, we could add or subtract size modifier from damage recieved as well. So small creatures take 1 extra damage from every attack for instance and large creatures take 1 less damage. This means that a fight between halflings would effectively be the same as a fight between humans. Since halfling weapons deal less damage, but halflings take more to compensate.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Aren't small races screwed over enough though? I'd consider an additional -1 penalty to damage and +1 to all damage taken to be pretty much anal rapery.

[RandomCasualty]

1136127779[/unixtime]]Aren't small races screwed over enough though? I'd consider an additional -1 penalty to damage and +1 to all damage taken to be pretty much anal rapery.

Honestly, I find the "small races are screwed" argument doesn't hold much water. A +1 to hit and +1 AC is much mroe useful than -1 to damage dealt and +1 to damage taken due to how the hp mechanics work.

About the only real advantage mediums have is that they enlarge to large creatures and get reach and small creatures enlarge to medium and get pretty much jack. Aside from that, small and medium are more or less equivalent and the "hosing" of small characters is more false perception than anything else.

[Josh_Kablack]

If I am interpreting RC's notion correctly, his idea would actually hose small races less than either 3.0 or 3.5 weapon rules.

In 3.0, a human got to use a 1d8 longsword as a 1h martial weapon but a halfling was stuck with a 1d6 shortsword as a 1h martial weapon. In 3.5, a human still uses a 1d8 longsword as a 1h martial weapon, but the halfling now uses a small longsword dealing 1d6. In RC's system, the halfling would use a small longsword dealing 1d8-1. Assuming RC means to keep the "minimum 1 point of damage rule", that would mean that the halfling would deal the same minimum damage, 0.125 more points of average damage and 1 more point of maximum damage than a halfling currently deals with a longsword.

Additionally, in the current system, going from medium to small costs 1.5 points of average damage for any weapon which deals 2 dice at medium size (greatsword, falchion, guisarme, ransuer, sycthe, spiked chain). In RC's proposed system, this would instead only cost one point of average damage. Again, less than that if you keep the 1 point minimum. (The actual number will be [die size-1]/die size), which is always going to be less than 1.

No, RC's potential system actually hoses really big races and weapons. In the current system, going from Large to Huge or going from Huge to Gargantaun usually adds another 1d6 or 1d8 to a weapon's base damage, and going from Gargantuan to Collosal usually adds another 2d6 or 2d8, and he's proposing that each step instead only add +1. So for example, a collosal greatsword would go from dealing 8d6 to dealing 2d6+4, for a loss of 17 points of average damage.

Now the idea about small races taking more damage, that probably does hose small races unfairly when combined with the current guidelines about size and constitution, but might make a decent substitute for trying to increase Con with size.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Ah, okay. I think I understand RC's point a bit better.

[Username17]

I think that damage should be by weapon size, and that weapon types should apply a static bonus or penalty to that.

So a "Scimitar" should do 1 less damage than a "Warhammer" - that's fine. And so using a Warhammer would be a 1 point damage bonus over using a Scimitar regardless of weapon sizes.

So a medium warhammer would do "Medium Weapon Damage + 1," while a medium Scimitar would do "Medium Weapon Damage."

Once you've figured out the relative bonuses of different weapons, you could plausibly claim that they are fairly applied to different weapon sizes in exactly the same way. Of course, it still wouldn't be completely fair. The more damage you do the more willing you are to forgo a point for a damage multiple (like the scimitar), and the less willing you are to forgo a point of damage for an optional weapon manuver (like the Ranseur). But it's close enough.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1136136078[/unixtime]]
Now the idea about small races taking more damage, that probably does hose small races unfairly when combined with the current guidelines about size and constitution, but might make a decent substitute for trying to increase Con with size.

I'd really like to see size modifiers in some way or another replace all the ability score shifting that relates from changing size. We already allow larger creatures to carry more encumbrance, so why can't instead of increasing their strength just grant size bonuses on certain strength related checks, like forcing a door or grappling for instance. Other strength style checks, like a climb check shouldn't be further enhanced by your size.

But I really like the idea of not giving big creatures strength bonuses "just because". Their bonuses to damage should be factored into their weapon sizes. As for bonuses to attack, I've never really saw a great reason why giants are supposed to be super accurate. If anything hill giants are usually associated with the "clumsy oaf" archetype and should have pretty poor attack rolls, but high damage.

[Crissa]

1136304520[/unixtime]]I'd really like to see size modifiers in some way or another replace all the ability score shifting that relates from changing size. We already allow larger creatures to carry more encumbrance, so why can't instead of increasing their strength just grant size bonuses on certain strength related checks, like forcing a door or grappling for instance. Other strength style checks, like a climb check shouldn't be further enhanced by your size.

Total agreement here.

I've played around with the numbers (as I'm sure you're aware) and the bonuses to being large or quadrupedal more than outweigh the capacity that these critters are supposed to be carrying.

I never understood why the 3-18 couldn't work for every critter, and then be modified by size - the rules already have a method for this. Throw in Frank's simplified weapons, and you've hardly changed anything but the equipment list.

But then again, a mouse with Strength 10 would probably tweak the average player - even if the mouse was dealing with huge negatives by being whatever is below diminuative.

It's all leverage, anyhow.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Considering precedent, balance, and the kind of characters people seem to want to make all size modifiers should probably just go away.

If small characters want to wield small weapons go ahead. If they want to be the weak agile guy go ahead.

But having modifiers and limitations that prevent or inhibit them from being pint sized Conan is dumb.

Size should probably just determine how many halflings you can stuff inside a bread box and thats it.

[User3]

1136549014[/unixtime]]Considering precedent, balance, and the kind of characters people seem to want to make all size modifiers should probably just go away.

If small characters want to wield small weapons go ahead. If they want to be the weak agile guy go ahead.

But having modifiers and limitations that prevent or inhibit them from being pint sized Conan is dumb.

Size should probably just determine how many halflings you can stuff inside a bread box and thats it.

I'm all for this.

I remember playing the Holmes version of D&D that came in a box. Halflings got a -1 Strength penalty, and a note in their description that said something like, "A halfling may use all the weapons of the fighting-man, so long as they are 'cut-down' to size." That was all. There weren't all sorts of crazy charts you had to look at, because no matter what weapons you used you did 1d6+Str damage per attack unless you were some sort of monster. If you were the DM and you wanted to be a jerk-- uh I mean, "be more realistic"-- you could assign weapon speeds and penalize halflings for being small and all that other crap Gygax gave us when we decided we needed "Advanced" D&D.

[RandomCasualty]

1136558691[/unixtime]]
I'm all for this.

I remember playing the Holmes version of D&D that came in a box. Halflings got a -1 Strength penalty, and a note in their description that said something like, "A halfling may use all the weapons of the fighting-man, so long as they are 'cut-down' to size." That was all. There weren't all sorts of crazy charts you had to look at, because no matter what weapons you used you did 1d6+Str damage per attack unless you were some sort of monster. If you were the DM and you wanted to be a jerk-- uh I mean, "be more realistic"-- you could assign weapon speeds and penalize halflings for being small and all that other crap Gygax gave us when we decided we needed "Advanced" D&D.

Ironically this method penalizes small races still. The biggest "nerf" to small races is having to get specialty weapons, especially back in early editions when you couldn't make your own magic weapons. Good luck finding a halfling sized short sword.

Numerically a -1 to damage isn't all that bad, so I'm not sure why everyone gets up in arms about it as though it was the worst thing in the world.

Taking a tradeoff of +1 to attack rolls and AC is well worth a -1 to damage. I still fail to see how small races are being hosed so badly on that deal. Look at it this way. You take a greatsword, and you power attack for 1 point. You now have a +1 to damage and a +1 to AC.

It seems to me that small races come out on top. If you want to know who is really getting hosed, it's spellcasters who aren't small. Small fighters get along just fine.

[User3]

1136562023[/unixtime]]Ironically this method penalizes small races still. The biggest "nerf" to small races is having to get specialty weapons, especially back in early editions when you couldn't make your own magic weapons. Good luck finding a halfling sized short sword.

I've never really found this line of arguement convincing. D&D has lots of little people, and they ought to have stuff you can steal. If you aren't facing your fair share of goblin chieftains, kobold sorcerers, ice mephits and wicked gnomes, you should probably bring that up with your DM.

You can also probably expect to face stuff like stone giants at some point, in which case it doesn't matter if your character is human or halfling: their swords are too big for you to use either way.

[Crissa]

Well, if you want to see what happens when size modifiers go away, examine EarthDawn (original).

You end up with tiny creatures with the power and benefits of every other creature - but no actual need for such.

The tactical advantages of being small or large cannot be hand-waved away, without removing some level of immersal in the game world, which players can and do resist.

-Crissa