Fighter the single target king? reeeeally?

been seeing this on here a lot... im curious if you people really do think of the fighter that way?

i grew up with the Gygax tradition that the fighter was designed to be a tank first and damage was second.

the way i always looked at it, all classes should be viable for damage, but none of the 4 core classes of cleric rogue fighter and wizard should really be "damage dealers".  I always considered the barbarian to be the choice for a fighter player who just wanted to damage all the time. 
been seeing this on here a lot... im curious if you people really do think of the fighter that way?

i grew up with the Gygax tradition that the fighter was designed to be a tank first and damage was second.

the way i always looked at it, all classes should be viable for damage, but none of the 4 core classes of cleric rogue fighter and wizard should really be "damage dealers".  I always considered the barbarian to be the choice for a fighter player who just wanted to damage all the time. 



FYI - Gygax is a dirty word for some people around here.
The tradition was never that a fighter was tank first damage second :P He just had the most HP. That doesn't make him a tank. Fighters actually did the most damage of any class until about 5th level when wizards started to get their first real good spells (Or a rogue got off a lucky backstab).
My two copper.
Social Contracts made the Fighter the Tank.  The Fighter in early editions was the toughest character, and before 3e a decent damage dealer.  And had the best Saving Throws.

3e and Monte Cook killed the Fighter as anything other than an MMO styled meat stick, the real stars were the magic users (Clerics, Druids and Wizards.  Sorcerors kinda sucked, over all.)  Mainly because Mr. Cook was a fan of Magic the Gathering's ideal of 'Timmy Cards'.  Which work fine in a TCG, not in an RPG. 
been seeing this on here a lot... im curious if you people really do think of the fighter that way?

i grew up with the Gygax tradition that the fighter was designed to be a tank first and damage was second.

the way i always looked at it, all classes should be viable for damage, but none of the 4 core classes of cleric rogue fighter and wizard should really be "damage dealers".  I always considered the barbarian to be the choice for a fighter player who just wanted to damage all the time. 



I primarily play a tank fighter, when I play a fighter.  Actually, most of my characters are usually a support concept of some type.  However, welcome to the 21st century where everyone, well not everyone - just almost everyone it seems, wants to feel like there junk is bigger than your junk by putting up the bigger numbers.  

"These be interesting time," as my dad would say.   
Being single target specialists is as good a pick as any, to be fair. I don't get where you're getting the tank tradition, 'cause that was never the AD&D I played (or still play, for that matter).
I always saw single-target speciality as more  of a thing for the rogue/assassin or the ranger, or even the paladin.  But it's never been the fighter.  In 1E, their extra attacks actually had to be spread out if there were multiple targets because they were targeted randomly, and they got a boatload of extra extra attacks if they were fighting a horde of 1HD creatures.

Now, I don't think the fighter should be relegated to minion-killing duty.  If there is a dragon in the house, the dude with the sword should not say to himself, "This is a job for the party rogue."  I think the key to the fighter is that, whatever the fight, they are up there in the middle of it.  That means a very solid defense and a flexible offense.
Social Contracts made the Fighter the Tank.  The Fighter in early editions was the toughest character, and before 3e a decent damage dealer.  And had the best Saving Throws.

3e and Monte Cook killed the Fighter as anything other than an MMO styled meat stick, the real stars were the magic users (Clerics, Druids and Wizards.  Sorcerors kinda sucked, over all.)  Mainly because Mr. Cook was a fan of Magic the Gathering's ideal of 'Timmy Cards'.  Which work fine in a TCG, not in an RPG. 

And Cook wasn't even on the ball enough to understand what Timmy cards even are or what they're for. They're exciting flashy things that are cool and powerful-feeling and which are naturally exciting to play with, not traps for noobs like Cook thought. There's obviously some overlap there, but Timmy cards are designed to be cards that appeal to players that play the game to feel something (the fundamental definition of what a Timmy is), not cards designed for bad players to get suckered into playing so they can lose and feel bad.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I disliked the notion of 3.x having intentionally trap options. It made so much sense when I found that out.
I prefer fighters to, as others have suggested, be in the thick of it. If it's killin' a dragon? Toe to toe. If it's a swarm of kobolds? Frontlines. Not a meatshield who absorbs hits so the real damage dealers can ply their trade, but a defensible and offensively capable class.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Social Contracts made the Fighter the Tank.  The Fighter in early editions was the toughest character, and before 3e a decent damage dealer.  And had the best Saving Throws.

3e and Monte Cook killed the Fighter as anything other than an MMO styled meat stick, the real stars were the magic users (Clerics, Druids and Wizards.  Sorcerors kinda sucked, over all.)  Mainly because Mr. Cook was a fan of Magic the Gathering's ideal of 'Timmy Cards'.  Which work fine in a TCG, not in an RPG. 



The sad thing was that the fighter wasn't even a good tank in 3E, because there wasn't any good board control you could do against area effects and flying creatures. Also, the fighter had godawful reflex and will saves, so that really made him useless at tanking. At least in AD&D, fighters had good saves.

Monte Cook just absolutely hated anything that wasn't a spellcaster.
Being single target specialists is as good a pick as any, to be fair. I don't get where you're getting the tank tradition, 'cause that was never the AD&D I played (or still play, for that matter).



Gygax pushed the defender role concept ... but never quite got around to making it really viable mechanically. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

In 1E, their extra attacks actually had to be spread out if there were multiple targets because they were targeted randomly, and they got a boatload of extra extra attacks if they were fighting a horde of 1HD creatures. 



Good point... yes the fighter was a horde manager but those 1HD and sub HD monsters seem to have been avoided by a lot of DMs so that unlike in 4e where minions actually seemed a feature I dont think I ever seen the lawnmower 1e fighter do his thing.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

In 1E, their extra attacks actually had to be spread out if there were multiple targets because they were targeted randomly, and they got a boatload of extra extra attacks if they were fighting a horde of 1HD creatures. 



Good point... yes the fighter was a horde manager but those 1HD and sub HD monsters seem to have been avoided by a lot of DMs so that unlike in 4e where minions actually seemed a feature I dont think I ever seen the lawnmower 1e fighter do his thing.



If you want to see it in action go play the Gold Box Game Pool of Radiance and head out to Sokol Keep. There's one battle where you fight like 50+ goblins all at once. You hit up to 8 targets at once. Of course its per level so you have to level a Hero up and then murder them a few times to get up to that level. I have no compunction about the Hero thing because they turn on you in the final battle of the game with the dragon...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Social Contracts made the Fighter the Tank.  The Fighter in early editions was the toughest character, and before 3e a decent damage dealer.  And had the best Saving Throws.

3e and Monte Cook killed the Fighter as anything other than an MMO styled meat stick, the real stars were the magic users (Clerics, Druids and Wizards.  Sorcerors kinda sucked, over all.)  Mainly because Mr. Cook was a fan of Magic the Gathering's ideal of 'Timmy Cards'.  Which work fine in a TCG, not in an RPG. 

And Cook wasn't even on the ball enough to understand what Timmy cards even are or what they're for. They're exciting flashy things that are cool and powerful-feeling and which are naturally exciting to play with, not traps for noobs like Cook thought. There's obviously some overlap there, but Timmy cards are designed to be cards that appeal to players that play the game to feel something (the fundamental definition of what a Timmy is), not cards designed for bad players to get suckered into playing so they can lose and feel bad.


Yes, because Monte Cook was the only person who made 3e and designed the game...

And during my 3e days I  saw quite a few charging or two-handed fighters that could dish out their fair share of damage. There were some quite effective brute builds.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Yes, because Monte Cook was the only person who made 3e and designed the game...

He's not, but he's the one who put his utter cluelessness on public display with articles talking about Timmy cards.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Yes, because Monte Cook was the only person who made 3e and designed the game...

He's not, but he's the one who put his utter cluelessness on public display with articles talking about Timmy cards.


Wow, harsh much?

Mnote is guilty of a few things in his famous articles, which are really just blogs and not authoratative peer-reviewed journal articles.
Most prominently he's guilty of making a bad anaology. And for misunderstanding a subtle yet significant design element for a game he never wrote for. "Utter cluelesness"? Not so much.
Really what he said was comparable to a Magic designer writing an article on their live journal and miss-using the term "5 minute work day" as a comparison to players going through a deck quickly. 

And while I see Mister Cook take a LOT of flak and hate from gamers, you know who I never see say anything bad about him? People actually in the industry. People who actually make a living gaming and designing and writing instead of commenting from the sidelines. They aren't just politely silent either, declining to comment and the like. Nothing but nice things and praise. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Social Contracts made the Fighter the Tank.  The Fighter in early editions was the toughest character, and before 3e a decent damage dealer.  And had the best Saving Throws.

3e and Monte Cook killed the Fighter as anything other than an MMO styled meat stick, the real stars were the magic users (Clerics, Druids and Wizards.  Sorcerors kinda sucked, over all.)  Mainly because Mr. Cook was a fan of Magic the Gathering's ideal of 'Timmy Cards'.  Which work fine in a TCG, not in an RPG. 

And Cook wasn't even on the ball enough to understand what Timmy cards even are or what they're for. They're exciting flashy things that are cool and powerful-feeling and which are naturally exciting to play with, not traps for noobs like Cook thought. There's obviously some overlap there, but Timmy cards are designed to be cards that appeal to players that play the game to feel something (the fundamental definition of what a Timmy is), not cards designed for bad players to get suckered into playing so they can lose and feel bad.

 
Yes, because Monte Cook was the only person who made 3e and designed the game...



Actually, he was in charge.  He was the LEAD designer.  So HIS VISION of what D&D should be, became.  And frankly it was a bleepin' arcane magic heavy, magical toy christmas tree mess.

So yes, 3e is more or less his fault.  Deal with it.

He's posted several articles as to what he believed D&D was, and you know what, 4e came out because enough people didn't care much for.

And have you seen the polarization that 'Vancian Magic' has on this board???


Yes, because Monte Cook was the only person who made 3e and designed the game...

He's not, but he's the one who put his utter cluelessness on public display with articles talking about Timmy cards.


Wow, harsh much?

Mnote is guilty of a few things in his famous articles, which are really just blogs and not authoratative peer-reviewed journal articles.
Most prominently he's guilty of making a bad anaology. And for misunderstanding a subtle yet significant design element for a game he never wrote for. "Utter cluelesness"? Not so much.
Really what he said was comparable to a Magic designer writing an article on their live journal and miss-using the term "5 minute work day" as a comparison to players going through a deck quickly. 

And while I see Mister Cook take a LOT of flak and hate from gamers, you know who I never see say anything bad about him? People actually in the industry. People who actually make a living gaming and designing and writing instead of commenting from the sidelines. They aren't just politely silent either, declining to comment and the like. Nothing but nice things and praise. 




And you know WHY people in the industry don't say bad things about him?  Because it would look bad for the COMPANY to do so.  It doesn't matter if it's off the record, you bad mouth someone, some sheep on the internet will IMMEDIATELY assume that the company ALSO believes it.  Not to mention it looks very unprofessional to do so.  And that could sink your business and your customer base.

So you play nice with other designers or fellow workers in the industry and hope that no one will ever think you're a bad guy.

And just ask yourself this:  Why did Mr. Cook leave when shortly after he came back to WOTC?

Could it possibly because the guy who used to work beneath him was now HIS boss?  A man called Mike Mearls?  After giving this guy a job, and let's him play with some ideas for D&D via his imprint (Monte Cook Presents) it suddenly turns out that HIS ideas, this Mke Mearls, is suddenly in more demand than he is.  In fact, he gets Mr. Cook's OLD job and designs 4e.  Which didn't need a 3.5 version to fix some severe imbalances found.  Which Mr. Cook was livid with some of the changes.  Like some of the feats, toughness for example, he was annoyed that they changed one of his 'trap' feats.

Mr. Cook was very much into system mastery (something that's also common in C/TCGs, knowing the system of how the cards work to gain an advantage over your opponent) and anything that changed that got his ire.

And Blog Posts are perfect for understanding what he was about, and how wrong he was about certain things.  Maybe you blog about silly nonsensical things, like 90% of the users out there, but when you put ideas and explain some of your visions for a product or a job you worked on, it denotes what was going on in your head, and it's not something people will, nor should, ignore. 
I don't mind the Fighter being good at, you know, Fighting.
Sorta in the Job description.  
It may be jarring to anyone who started after WotC took the helm, to be sure. 
However, from my AD&D memories, only the Dark Sun Gladiator was better in a straight up fight than the Fighter. In that case, the Fighter got big bonuses for mass combat to offset. 
Regardless, I'm very happy that Fighters are great at fighting, rather than meatshielding.
Mind you, bodyguarding options should be available.
Now if only they could do anything noteworthy for exploration or interaction...

Also, could we take the Monte mauling to it's own thread...Undecided
Like him or not, is sorta irrelevant, and making the matter into a thinly vieled 3X bash edition battle is below you good people.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.

If you want to see it in action go play the Gold Box Game Pool of Radiance and head out to Sokol Keep. There's one battle where you fight like 50+ goblins all at once. You hit up to 8 targets at once. Of course its per level so you have to level a Hero up and then murder them a few times to get up to that level. I have no compunction about the Hero thing because they turn on you in the final battle of the game with the dragon...Smile



Good times! Thanks for the walk down memory lane!

I tried playing similar combats with my friends without a computer to assist you. It's horrible. Rolling 50 attacks is so long! Now imagine if one of the goblins manages to knock you prone and they have advantage. Gloups...
Actually, he was in charge.  He was the LEAD designer.  So HIS VISION of what D&D should be, became.  And frankly it was a bleepin' arcane magic heavy, magical toy christmas tree mess.

So yes, 3e is more or less his fault.  Deal with it.


Actually, Jonathan Tweet is credited as lead designer and was credited with most of the PHB. Monte was responsible for more of the DMG (but still wasn't the lead designer), And, regardless, Tweet also answered to Atkinson the then CEO.

He's posted several articles as to what he believed D&D was, and you know what, 4e came out because enough people didn't care much for.

This points is unclear. It seems like you're arguing that 4e came out because people didn't care enough for 3e.

And have you seen the polarization that 'Vancian Magic' has on this board???
Yes, which has little to do with the topic at hand. Many people hate it, many people love it, many people hated it until it was removed and now love it and most people don't care.
I'm not a huge fan of Vancian but it defines D&D and doesn't hurt my game if they keep it in for the people who do like it.


And you know WHY people in the industry don't say bad things about him?  Because it would look bad for the COMPANY to do so.  It doesn't matter if it's off the record, you bad mouth someone, some sheep on the internet will IMMEDIATELY assume that the company ALSO believes it.  Not to mention it looks very unprofessional to do so.  And that could sink your business and your customer base.

So you play nice with other designers or fellow workers in the industry and hope that no one will ever think you're a bad guy.

In which case they would not comment or ignore him, but instead he keeps getting work for multiple different companies and is sought after and praised. He's not treated like the elephant in the room. 

And just ask yourself this:  Why did Mr. Cook leave when shortly after he came back to WOTC?

Could it possibly because the guy who used to work beneath him was now HIS boss?  A man called Mike Mearls?  After giving this guy a job, and let's him play with some ideas for D&D via his imprint (Monte Cook Presents) it suddenly turns out that HIS ideas, this Mke Mearls, is suddenly in more demand than he is.  In fact, he gets Mr. Cook's OLD job and designs 4e.  Which didn't need a 3.5 version to fix some severe imbalances found.  Which Mr. Cook was livid with some of the changes.  Like some of the feats, toughness for example, he was annoyed that they changed one of his 'trap' feats.

Mike Mearls joined WotC well after Monte left.
Mike Mearls wasn't in charge of desiging 4e. He was involved but low down on the totem pole. He didn't recieve cover credit until PHB2.

And try actually reading his article where he discusses Toughness. It's not described as a trap feat. It's described as something that initially looks like it was designed for one class (the fighter) but might actually be better for another class (the wizard). It is an example of system mastery. He's not saying toughness is a bad feat for the fighter, although the merits of Toughness can be debated. If he had chosen a less unpopular feat his comments wouldn't have been so remembered.

Oh, and Toughness (and the fighter class for that matter) were not revised for 3.5e either. Okay... I think the fighter got one additional bonus feat.

Mr. Cook was very much into system mastery (something that's also common in C/TCGs, knowing the system of how the cards work to gain an advantage over your opponent) and anything that changed that got his ire.

Here's the catch though: you can't get rid of system mastery. And there are people who enjoy mastering a system. That's how they find their fun. Optimizing (and the entire CharOp forums) are an aspect of system mastery.

I repeat, nothing Monte said was particularly shocking or horrible, aside from the the unintended implications of using Timmy cards in his anaology, which brough up the idea of "trap" options.



I've written over 250 blogs on the WotC community forums. Hundreds of pages of text. Over a thousand pages really.
I will defend much of what I have said. I will not defend some of what I said. I regret some of what I've said. Blogs do not have the luxury of an editor, or someone else to ask the author to revise for clarity or point out a bad anaology. Sometimes I just want to get someone off my chest and out of my head and into the screen so I can move onto a new topic. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I don't mind the Fighter being good at, you know, Fighting.
Sorta in the Job description.  
It may be jarring to anyone who started after WotC took the helm, to be sure. 
However, from my AD&D memories, only the Dark Sun Gladiator was better in a straight up fight than the Fighter. In that case, the Fighter got big bonuses for mass combat to offset. 
Regardless, I'm very happy that Fighters are great at fighting, rather than meatshielding.
Mind you, bodyguarding options should be available.
Now if only they could do anything noteworthy for exploration or interaction...

Also, could we take the Monte mauling to it's own thread...
Like him or not, is sorta irrelevant, and making the matter into a thinly vieled 3X bash edition battle is below you good people.


I'll stop. 

But in a retrospective perspective it is rather informative. When they revised 3e into 3.5e one of the classes to recieve the fewest updates was the fighter. An extra bonus feat or two.
Clearly, the design perspective was different and the desire for absolute balance was less. Had the fighter been a real issue it would have changed more.

Some of that is likely due to revising a game based on only a year of feedback. Worth noting for the playtest process, and eventual revisions of 5e. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I think a module should include rules for melee characters being able to take on multiple enemies in small groups. Whirlwind/Cleave really aren't good for that type of thing. Even Monks really couldn't go front lines against a bunch of enemies very easily.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I think a module should include rules for melee characters being able to take on multiple enemies in small groups. Whirlwind/Cleave really aren't good for that type of thing. Even Monks really couldn't go front lines against a bunch of enemies very easily.



Improving that ability is kind of a "cinematic" feature.. 

I have conjectured about things like a berserk move, spend 1 ed and for each additional die spent delivers that much damage to any adjacent creature till the beginning of your next turn.

Although might want to allow the player a save if this will harm an ally/innocent or some such.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."