PDA

View Full Version : Shadow Blade Feat: Dex AND Str, or Dex OR Str?



Lycanthromancer
2010-06-14, 04:40 PM
The DM says the Shadow Blade feat replaces your Str modifier on damage with your Dex score, Rules as Written, but I say that the 'bonus on melee damage' and lack of reference to replacement means that it adds it to damage.

According to the text of the feat, who is right?

Here's the relevant text:Benefits: While you are in a Shadow Hand stance, and attack with one of the discipline's preferred weapons, you can add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon.
So, folks, who's following RAW, and who's not?

Reynard
2010-06-14, 04:44 PM
It says: 'add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus'.

If it was in place of Str, it'd say so.

tyckspoon
2010-06-14, 04:44 PM
^what he said. No replacement is mentioned, so no replacement is done. You get Dex+Str, which is of more use to most characters.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-14, 04:45 PM
So, folks, who's following RAW, and who's not?

Your DM is right because is the DM :smalltongue:

Said this, seeing the text, yes I'd say that dex modifier is a further bonus. Are there other references to the feat in the book? Maybe you could have some unexpected suggestion from, say, an NPC example or so.

Even if, WotC is not so great for sample NPC :smallwink:

demidracolich
2010-06-14, 04:46 PM
My groups always plays with it replacing str but because its more situational I think that is fine. Because it isn't really fair for dex melee classes to have to take two feats to deal the same damage as str based classes.

lsfreak
2010-06-14, 04:52 PM
It's a bonus on top of Strength damage. The table reads that it replaces Strength, your DM might be thinking of that, but text-trumps-table.

Khellendross
2010-06-14, 04:54 PM
Is there actually a direct contradiction between table and text? Not really. Shadow Blade's never explicitly states you gain the Dexterity modifier AS WELL AS the Strength modifier, it simply states you gain your Dexterity damage as a bonus to damage. There is no true hard contradiction, so therefor the table is correct. There is more leaning it to that conclusion than the other.

Weezer
2010-06-14, 05:09 PM
Is there actually a direct contradiction between table and text? Not really. Shadow Blade's never explicitly states you gain the Dexterity modifier AS WELL AS the Strength modifier, it simply states you gain your Dexterity damage as a bonus to damage. There is no true hard contradiction, so therefor the table is correct. There is more leaning it to that conclusion than the other.

Your argument makes no sense. You seem to be saying that since text and table don't really disagree to ignore the text? Seems nonsensical to me.

The wording is "a bonus on melee damage" so you add it to whatever your damage would have been without the feat. It says nothing about changing other bonuses to damage, such as str.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 05:16 PM
Is there actually a direct contradiction between table and text? Not really. Shadow Blade's never explicitly states you gain the Dexterity modifier AS WELL AS the Strength modifier, it simply states you gain your Dexterity damage as a bonus to damage. There is no true hard contradiction, so therefor the table is correct. There is more leaning it to that conclusion than the other.If the text actually was vague I'd agree, but it clearly states that you add (not replace) your dexterity modifier to your damage.

Khellendross
2010-06-14, 05:16 PM
What I'm saying is that it doesn't explicitly say in the text you get to add your dex on top of your str. It only eludes to it but when you look at the table it becomes clear which why it's suppose to go. You can say it's "nonsensical" but it's not.

It's vague enough imo and others on other boards I've read that it would be a dex replace.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 05:25 PM
What I'm saying is that it doesn't explicitly say in the text you get to add your dex on top of your str.

It explicitly says you add your Dex bonus to your melee damage. For free. It says nothing about taking away Str or anything else.

Emmerask
2010-06-14, 05:31 PM
The DM says the Shadow Blade feat replaces your Str modifier on damage with your Dex score, Rules as Written, but I say that the 'bonus on melee damage' and lack of reference to replacement means that it adds it to damage.

According to the text of the feat, who is right?

Here's the relevant text:Benefits: While you are in a Shadow Hand stance, and attack with one of the discipline's preferred weapons, you can add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon.
So, folks, who's following RAW, and who's not?

Problem is that the short text says instead while the detailed one says as a bonus.
The short one excludes the longer it specifically says instead.
The detailed one is more of a problem because:
you can add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon can mean both, instead or and :smallwink:

A says X
B says X or Y

So X (which means instead of str) is correct :smallwink:

So yes I would say your dm is correct on that one, though there is some wiggle room for both interpretations

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 05:35 PM
So if I made a feat that added a bonus to something, I’d have to be extra, extra careful to say “does not replace any current bonus” in the feat text just to keep it safe from typos in the reference table?

And, yes, it’s just a quick reference table. That’s why text trumps table. It’s not meant to have any actual rules. It’s just there to help you find a feat without reading through huge blocks of detailed description. It’s quick reference, not rules. The text must be able to function without the table. If you have to use both the table and the text, you’re doing it wrong.

Note that the SRD includes no such reference table for its feats. If Tome of Battle was written up SRD style, there would be no reference at all to Dex replacing Str.

Emmerask
2010-06-14, 05:39 PM
But then we might have enjoyed an errata which clarified it :smallwink:

And yes I agree that text trumps table BUT in that case the text does not necessarily exclude the table :smalltongue:

Keld Denar
2010-06-14, 06:00 PM
Hmmmm, so if you were completely Dex SAD, and pretty much dumped Str (Grey Elf or Halfling with a 6 Str), since its an add, not a replace, you'd still take your Str penalties on top of your Dex bonus.

And is more useful if you have a positive mod, or is more useful if you have a negative mod, and both equal out if your Str is 10 or 11.

I agree with the And reading, for the reasons stated by others. Guess you still can't completely get away from dumping Str...

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 06:03 PM
But then we might have enjoyed an errata which clarified it :smallwink:
Clarified it? Without a table, there’d have been no suggestion about it replacing Strength. As such, nothing to clarify.

To say otherwise would be like saying a Paladin’s Divine Grace is meant to replace the Constitution, Dexterity, and Wisdom modifiers on saving throws.


And yes I agree that text trumps table BUT in that case the text does not necessarily exclude the table :smalltongue:
I reiterate, the text is meant to be able to stand alone from the table. If you need the reference table along with the text, your feat is totally borked.


Hmmmm, so if you were completely Dex SAD, and pretty much dumped Str (Grey Elf or Halfling with a 6 Str), since its an add, not a replace, you'd still take your Str penalties on top of your Dex bonus.
Of course, you’re still doing +Dex mod more damage than you would be without the feat, so it’s still a net bonus.

And if you’ve so thoroughly dumped Strength, why are you looking at Melee feats, anyway? You should be staying out of melee.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:08 PM
Okay, simply put, the feat doesn't NEED to explicitly say that you keep your Str on melee damage. It doesn't. Why? Because that is the default behavior of adding a bonus to something. By default, adding a bonus doesn't take anything away.

If you continue with this ridiculous sentiment, I will begin to argue the following:
Improved Initiative: it replaces your Dex bonus to initiative with a flat +4.
Point Blank Shot: it replaces your Dex bonus to ranged attacks within 30 feet with a flat +1.
Skill Focus: it replaces your relevant ability mod to the selected skill with a flat +3.
Spell Penetration: it replaces your actual caster level with a flat +2 when trying to overcome a creature's spell resistance.
Weapon Focus: it replaces your Str or Dex bonus to attacks with the selected weapon with a flat +1. (But don't worry, because Greater Weapon Focus explicitly stacks with it!)
Weapon Specialization: it replaces your Str bonus to damage with the selected weapon with a flat +2.
Combat Casting: it replaces your Con bonus to Concentration checks with a flat +4 when casting defensively or while grappled or pinned.
Endurance: it replaces your relevant ability mod with a flat +4 when making Swim checks to avoid nonlethal damage, checks to continue running, checks to avoid nonlethal damage from a forced march, checks to hold your breath, checks to avoid nonlethal damage from starvation and thirst, and Fort saves to avoid nonlethal damage from hot or cold environments or to resist suffocation.
Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes: they replace your relevant ability mod to Fortitude, Will, and Reflex saves with a flat +2.
Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Dilligent, Investigator, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Self-Sufficient, and Stealthy: they replace your relevant ability mod to their respective skills with a flat +2.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 06:10 PM
you can add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon can mean both, instead or andNo. It means exactly what it says: You add your Dexterity modifier to your damage. When you add modifiers, the general rule is that they don't interfere with other modifiers, barring stacking rules and such. Lacking any exceptions to a general rule does not mean a feat is vague or subject to various unmentioned exceptions. It clearly means that feat is not subject to those exceptions unless they are written down. If the reference table contradicts the rules text by including these exceptions, well, text trumps table.

Keld Denar
2010-06-14, 06:11 PM
You could be completely Dex SAD, or dependant only on Dex and say...Cha with something like Divine Might. Think Pixie Glaivelock/Paladin or something. Or maybe Factotum/Rogue who gets all of his +dmg from other features.

Str in melee is WAY over rated...unless you hapen to be in melee with Shadows...

Emmerask
2010-06-14, 06:11 PM
Clarified it? Without a table, there’d have been no suggestion about it replacing Strength. As such, nothing to clarify.


Yes, clarified, because there are two contradicting statements made, one of them is what the designers intended the feat to be the other is a typo or missing word.

The divine Grace analogy is pretty much wrong because there is no textbox which says instead of... so uhm just no :smalleek:

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:14 PM
Yes, clarified, because there are two contradicting statements made, one of them is what the designers intended the feat to be the other is a typo or missing word.

I see no contradictory information within the feat's text.

EDIT: For reference, the text of Weapon Finesse does explicitly state that "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls." This is the text (with the reference to attack rolls replaces with damage rolls) that the Shadow Blade feat would HAVE TO HAVE in order for it to not just be a bonus.

Emmerask
2010-06-14, 06:15 PM
I see no contradictory information within the feat's text.

:smallsigh::sigh:

well yes players often only see what they want to see :smallwink:

Longcat
2010-06-14, 06:17 PM
In D&D, text trumps table.

Hence, Dex+Str

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:17 PM
:smallsigh::sigh:

well yes players often only see what they want to see :smallwink:

LOL, nice. Okay then, show it to me. :smallmad:

EDIT: Again,

I see no contradictory information within the feat's text.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 06:18 PM
:smallsigh::sigh:

well yes players often only see what they want to see :smallwink:And poor debaters often only ad hominem who they want to ad hominem. The flavor text indicates that you use your "natural agility" to "augment" your attacks with the appropriate weapons. Nowhere in the feat's text does it hint that you are no longer using strength to hurt your enemies.

Emmerask
2010-06-14, 06:26 PM
Clarified it? Without a table, there’d have been no suggestion about it replacing Strength. As such, nothing to clarify.


This was the initial response windrider sees no contradiction between the textbox and the text and has seemingly no need for an errata to clarify...
I think differently there because there clearly is one.

I thought your post was not really serious with the within the TEXT, when clearly the argument about the errata was about both the box and the text :smallwink:
So I didn´t really take your post seriously (if it was then sorry), no within the text there is no contradiction whatsoever... still we as players (and dms) don´t know what the actual designers intention for the feat was, hence my remark about the errata.

hope this clears things up for you killian :smallsmile:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 06:31 PM
This was the initial response windrider sees no contradiction between the textbox and the text and has seemingly no need for an errata to clarify...
I think differently there because there clearly is one.He's saying that, without a table, there is no rules contradiction. Your response is that there is obviously a contradiction between the table and the text. Hmm...

Emmerask
2010-06-14, 06:33 PM
okay then for him the table is a blank spot in the book it does change very little :smallwink:
Because there is a table and it does contradict and therefore a clarification would be welcome (on my part atleast), but we will never get one

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 06:35 PM
okay then for him the table is a blank spot in the book it does change very little :smallwink:It's a handy reference tool.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-14, 06:35 PM
Its pretty obvious that it is Dex+Str

I mean, when you smite evil as a paladin, do you ONLY add your cha bonus to hit instead of cha+str?

Adding two modifiers to hitting/damage isn't unheard of people.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:36 PM
I thought your post was not really serious with the within the TEXT, when clearly the argument about the errata was about both the box and the text :smallwink:
So I didn´t really take your post seriously (if it was then sorry), no within the text there is no contradiction whatsoever... still we as players (and dms) don´t know what the actual designers intention for the feat was, hence my remark about the errata.

hope this clears things up for you killian :smallsmile:

Actually, it was I who was trying to clear things up for you. But you seemed to have completely missed the point, which is that the table may as well not exist as far as RAW is concerned. (This was originally a question of what the feat does by RAW.) Frankly, the designers' intentions are besides the point. The table is a reference, nothing more. It contains ZERO rules text. It is nothing more than a convenience, and yet you are allowing it to confuse you.

The text of the feat is COMPLETELY CLEAR about what it does (grants a situational bonus, without taking anything away). Please accept that if you want it to work a different way, that is a house rule and not RAW.

Tavar
2010-06-14, 06:37 PM
okay then for him the table is a blank spot in the book it does change very little :smallwink:
Because there is a table and it does contradict and therefore a clarification would be welcome (on my part atleast), but we will never get one

Don't we already have one, in the form of official policy? Namely, that Text Trumps Table?

Khellendross
2010-06-14, 06:37 PM
KillianHawkeye~ LOL you crack me up. You take one statement and try to put words into others mouths. This is an isolated incident where I feel it's not 100% clear cut and dry and you try to warp it. You really need to settle down. I never said anything about those other feats and those other feats don't have a text to box problem LOL

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 06:38 PM
From Tome of Battle Errata

"When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.

So now we have the first bit of RAW, cleared up. What does the ability say, well when in a shadow hand stance and using the right weapon

"you can add your dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage rolls for attacks made with that weapon"

The description of the ability states as a bonus, so by RAW it is a bonus, cry about the secondary reference all you want, by RAW its wrong and the primary source is right.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:38 PM
Don't we already have one, in the form of official policy? Namely, that Text Trumps Table?

Yes, but either they have their fingers stuck in their ears or they don't understand what that means. :smallannoyed:

EDIT:

KillianHawkeye~ LOL you crack me up. You take one statement and try to put words into others mouths. This is an isolated incident where I feel it's not 100% clear cut and dry and you try to warp it. You really need to settle down. I never said anything about those other feats and those other feats don't have a text to box problem LOL

Well, I DID say that it was ridiculous. Don't blame me. :smallbiggrin:

But my point was that any one of those feats could have had some stupid discrepancy like the one we're actually discussing, and then we'd be talking about that feat instead of this one.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-14, 06:42 PM
KillianHawkeye~ LOL you crack me up. You take one statement and try to put words into others mouths. This is an isolated incident where I feel it's not 100% clear cut and dry and you try to warp it. You really need to settle down. I never said anything about those other feats and those other feats don't have a text to box problem LOL

Of course you didn't mention anything about those other feats: Hawkeye used them as an example to show how your logic does not apply in this circumstance.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 06:42 PM
Yes, but either they have their fingers stuck in their ears or they don't understand what that means. :smallannoyed:


I'm guessing a little of both, I went ahead and checked the errata but sadly no mention but it does have the very nice rule right up top about how text trumps table.

Tavar
2010-06-14, 06:43 PM
Wait. Oh God. The Tome of Battle Errata is almost worthless, but it does actually address this issue? That's hilarious.

Personally, though, I'd let it do either option, chosen when taking the feat.

olentu
2010-06-14, 06:43 PM
Er does the table not say one can swap dex and strength for damage rolls with shadow sun weapons or am I remembering incorrectly. Assuming that I am not then there is probably no problem since I do not recall seeing any shadow sun weapons.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:45 PM
Er does the table not say one can swap dex and strength for damage rolls with shadow sun weapons or am I remembering incorrectly. Assuming that I am not then there is probably no problem since I do not recall seeing any shadow sun weapons.

LOL

omg, you're right! Shadow Sun weapons?? hahahaha

/thread

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 06:45 PM
Er does the table not say one can swap dex and strength for damage rolls with shadow sun weapons or am I remembering incorrectly. Assuming that I am not then there is probably no problem since I do not recall seeing any shadow sun weapons.
It doesn't matter what the table says, the description of the ability states you add your dex as a BONUS on melee damage rolls. No mention of swapping is made thus it doesn't happen.

Tables are reference material only not rules.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 06:47 PM
I think we all learned a valuable lesson today. :smallwink::smallamused:

Reynard
2010-06-14, 06:49 PM
In support of the Dex+Str side, there are feats that replace your Str mod to damage with another ability.

Guess what it says in the rules text?

Quirinus_Obsidian
2010-06-14, 06:50 PM
What I'm saying is that it doesn't explicitly say in the text you get to add your dex on top of your str. It only eludes to it but when you look at the table it becomes clear which why it's suppose to go. You can say it's "nonsensical" but it's not.

It's vague enough imo and others on other boards I've read that it would be a dex replace.

If WotC wanted the DEX damage to replace the STR damage, then it would say that. It is up to the DM to decide; but past experiences with WotC products show that if WotC made a specific rule to do something, then it would be written that way. For example, the "Natural Spell" (cheese) feat states specifically that it only works in Wild Shape. It does not work with alternate forms, or with the shapeshift druid variant (which is awesome!).

If they wanted it to replace STR for damage, then they would have written it like Weapon Finesse.

This is why we never read the tables, unless we are looking for something *very* quickly, or to make sure we are in the right book (Damned Complete series). The actual feat text over rules the table.

Wow... epic ninja'ed

Tavar
2010-06-14, 06:59 PM
In support of the Dex+Str side, there are feats that replace your Str mod to damage with another ability.

Guess what it says in the rules text?

What feats are those? I ask, as I've never seen them, though I think they should be more common.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 07:01 PM
Wow... epic ninja'ed

If my epic you mean failure then yes,
The description of the feat alone makes it clear its a bonus not a replacement. If you ignore the table which in any rules conflict you should there is no issue.
Saying it replaces strength is adding a rule to the text that doesn't exist with in the ability.
What the table isn't relevant and never will be in a rules argument.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 07:05 PM
Guys, guys, thanks to olentu we know that there's no more conflict between the text and the table. In fact, they can both be right.

The feat's text grants your Dex bonus as a bonus to damage while using a Shadow Hand weapon in a Shadow Hand stance. Additionally, according to the table, you replace your Str bonus to damage with your Dex bonus when wielding a Shadow Sun weapon. So we just need to figure out what these "Shadow Sun" weapons are, and then this argument can finally be resolved. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Wait, guys, I found something. The example Shadow Sun Ninja is listed as using unarmed strikes, kama, and light crossbow. I guess these are the "Shadow Sun" weapons the table is referring to. :smallwink:

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 07:09 PM
What feats are those? I ask, as I've never seen them, though I think they should be more common.

I can recall one, Combat Insight an epic feat[Complete warrior p151] replaces strength with intelligence for all melee weapon damage rolls.


Guys, guys, thanks to olentu we know that there's no more conflict between the text and the table. In fact, they can both be right.

The feat's text grants your Dex bonus as a bonus to damage while using a Shadow Hand weapon in a Shadow Hand stance. Additionally, according to the table, you replace your Str bonus to damage with your Dex bonus when wielding a Shadow Sun weapon. So we just need to figure out what these "Shadow Sun" weapons are, and then this argument can finally be resolved. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Yeah the shadow sun typo in the table really helps in invalidate it completely.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 07:15 PM
Yeah the shadow sun typo in the table really helps in invalidate it completely.

It also had the side effect of making the conversation 10x more fun (for me). :smallamused:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 07:16 PM
Don't get your hopes up. If the table was a reprint of Timecube and the text was something mildly powerful I'm sure there would be people arguing for the Timecube interpretation.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 07:18 PM
Timecube? :smallconfused:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 07:21 PM
Not safe for work or general reading comprehension. (http://www.timecube.com/)

Weezer
2010-06-14, 07:21 PM
Timecube (www.timecube.com) It's all a conspiracy!

EDIT: I didn't actually get ninja'd, it's all an illusion created by the four cornered day.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 07:22 PM
Timecube? :smallconfused:

Edit: Yep lost his mind.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 07:27 PM
Man, I know I've read some crazy stuff on the internet, but this... what is this I don't even

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 07:36 PM
Man, I know I've read some crazy stuff on the internet, but this... what is this I don't even
The least nutritious word salad in the history of word salad?

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-14, 07:37 PM
The least nutritious word salad in the history of word salad?It came from McDonald's?

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 08:11 PM
It came from McDonald's?
Eh, I think even McDonald’s might have a leg up here.

(As far as fast-food salads go, I thought McDonald’s came closest to what you might call “healthy” anyway… Ah, well, I don’t think this is quite the place for that particular debate.)

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-14, 08:17 PM
Eh, I think even McDonald’s might have a leg up here.

(As far as fast-food salads go, I thought McDonald’s came closest to what you might call “healthy” anyway… Ah, well, I don’t think this is quite the place for that particular debate.)They spray their salads with sugar. Not healthy at all.

Anyway, I was going to take Shadow Blade, but it doesn't work with my soon-to-be pyrokineticist's fire lash, so maybe not.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 08:40 PM
They spray their salads with sugar. Not healthy at all.
Ah, but I didn’t say it was actually healthy. Just that it came the closest to what you might call “healthy” when compared to other very-much-not-healthy fast food salads. :smalltongue:

Still, I’ll have to investigate that more.


Anyway, I was going to take Shadow Blade, but it doesn't work with my soon-to-be pyrokineticist's fire lash, so maybe not.
Yeah, probably a good idea to look for something else, then.

Glimbur
2010-06-14, 09:45 PM
What feats are those? I ask, as I've never seen them, though I think they should be more common.

Force of Personality, Complete Adventurer page 109. Use Cha instead of Wis for will saves against mind affecting things only.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-14, 09:50 PM
^ I think his question was specifically about things that replace the stat used for melee damage, not general stat replacements.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-15, 10:35 AM
So it's sixteen people for Dex + Str, and two against (and two of those people are the original holders of our respective arguments in the first place).

The fact that the table text isn't actually rules text AND it's completely incorrect in other ways kind of shuts the rest down, doesn't it?

Fax Celestis
2010-06-15, 11:16 AM
The fact that the table text isn't actually rules text AND it's completely incorrect in other ways kind of shuts the rest down, doesn't it?

Well, that, and reading it as "or" makes it a shoddy feat no one will take, while reading it as "and" makes it a good feat in the right build.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-15, 11:19 AM
Well, to be fair, "or" would be good in the hands of a character with 6 Strength and 24 Dexterity.

PId6
2010-06-15, 11:39 AM
I'd actually prefer the "or" interpretation on most of my rogue and swordsage builds, since I always end up with 8 (or less) Str on all of them. Still, the text is quite clear on what it does, and "and" is unfortunately correct.