Broken Classes

[Sacrieur]

Why are there so many broken classes in D&D? Just open up your Complete Warrior and look at Exotic Weapon Master or Occult Slayer.

Did they just make up the stuff at whim or did they rigorously test it? Then again around these parts there is a lot of optimizing. Still though, Abjurant Champion is an extremely good PrC, but so many other classes in the Complete Mage are absolutely terrible. DEAR GOD WHY?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Why are there so many broken classes in D&D? Just open up your Complete Warrior and look at Exotic Weapon Master or Occult Slayer.

Did they just make up the stuff at whim or did they rigorously test it? Then again around these parts there is a lot of optimizing. Still though, Abjurant Champion is an extremely good PrC, but so many other classes in the Complete Mage are absolutely terrible. DEAR GOD WHY?

Neither of those classes is broken, nor exceptionally strong, either. Yes, both see use, but that doesn't mean it can cause an XK-end of the world scenario.

Also, you should specify what you mean by "broken." A wizard can be broken due to actually breaking down the game with some spells or just be broken by being stupid strong. A truenamer, meanwhile is broken because it quite literally doesn't work.

[Veyr]

You answered your own question:

Did they just make up the stuff at whim or did they rigorously test it?
"Yes," and "No," respectively.

[TroubleBrewing]

I think the OP refers to broken as "unusable". The answer isn't as easy as "no playtesting + no forethought/rules knowledge = dwarven defender". It has more to do with the fact that TO and PO didn't really start to snowball into the monster that it is today until a few years after the game had already come out. Regardless of the level of optimization present in games worldwide, the fact of the matter is that most people think that 3.5 is for the most part balanced. I've seen parties composed of Fighter, Monk, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard, and the players all complain that the wizard isn't pulling his/her weight. I've seen an equal number of parties where the Barbarian tries to take ranger levels because he's sick of the Ranger out-damaging him. Optimization has less to do with actual class strength and more to do with player strength. People still play cruddy classes for the same reason some people prefer MGD to real beer: They just don't know better.

[Firechanter]

What are PO, TO and MGD?

When I read the Thread title, I first decided that "broken" probably was meant in the sense of "stupidly overpowered to the extent of breaking the game", and like a reflex my mind flashed "Wizard, Druid", and as an afterthought, "Cleric".
The splat title "Complete Warrior" is pretty much the last thing I associate with "broken" in this sense. Au contraire, a lot of CW stuff is broken _the other way_, i.e. too weak, not doing what it's supposed to do, trap classes/PrCs/feats etc.

[Mayhem]

Just as they commision art, they also sometimes commision someone to come up with a class based on a description. So they either make the class or go without, regardless of whether the concept works. I'm not sure if that's how the official wizards of the coast works, but I've had a hand in designing a 3.5 base class for such an occasion. I don't recall who it was for or what book it was published in though, it was a while ago when 3.5 was fresh on the shelves.
Good for buisiness, not so good for a roleplaying game.

[Gnaeus]

What are PO, TO and MGD?


Practical Optimization:

Roughly speaking "the art of making the best character that will not make the DM or other players angry at you".

Theoretical Optimization:

"the art of making crazy characters which are legal by the rules but not intended for actual play"

Miller Genuine Draft (I think)

something marketed as beer.

[jiriku]

Miller Genuine Draft

An insult to beer's good name.

Fixed it for you!

[true_shinken]

People still play cruddy classes for the same reason some people prefer MGD to real beer: They just don't know better.
Or maybe they don't care about the power level as much, since D&D is not about winning or losing.

[VirOath]

Or maybe they don't care about the power level as much, since D&D is not about winning or losing.

Oh, DnD is all about winning. Just, not winning as the normal convention implies. :smalltongue:

Yes, the goal is to have fun and enjoy yourself. That's how the table wins, DM included. Because if it's not about winning, then campaigns cannot be made of Win.

[Firechanter]

Thanks for the explanations. Okay, well I have always been all for Practical Optimization, plus I have a habit of reading the rules As Intended, and usually don't even see the exploits detected by TOs.
Unfortunately, there are some players who don't see the difference between TO and PO. But there still seem to be even more players who don't care about optimization at all. Call them NO or whatever (for non-optimizers).

A game probably works best when all players are either NO or PO. It can also work when these two groups are mixed, but that can already be problematic. The NO has to see how their fighter is being outshone by the PO's Cleric, while the POs complain that the NOs aren't pulling their weight. My sympathy ends where a NO complains that a PO is more effective in game.

[sonofzeal]

...but so many other classes in the Complete Mage are absolutely terrible. DEAR GOD WHY?

From the PrC Tier System...

Abjurant Champion +1
Holy Scourge +1
Lyric Thaumaturge +1
Master Specialist +1
Nightmare Spinner +1
Unseen Seer +1
Wild Soul +1
Eldritch Disciple +0
Eldritch Theurge +0
Ultimate Magus (w/o fast entry tricks) +0
Enlightened Spirit -1

...looks good to me. A little above average all around, but not a single class that's truly broken in either direction.

Maybe you should explain what you mean by "broken".

[Gnaeus]

A game probably works best when all players are either NO or PO. It can also work when these two groups are mixed, but that can already be problematic. The NO has to see how their fighter is being outshone by the PO's Cleric, while the POs complain that the NOs aren't pulling their weight. My sympathy ends where a NO complains that a PO is more effective in game.

Your sympathy ends for whom, the fighter, or the cleric?

PO can actually work fine in mixed groups. A battlefield control/party buffer wizard or a Dragonfire Inspiration bard could be very, very optimized, and at the same time much loved by the fighter. The ultimate goal of PO is to make a character that is playable. In some cases, PO could even involve deliberately weakening your character, so as not to outshine the other people at the table. Check the link in my sig for details.

[Firechanter]

I meant my sympathy for the NO character (in this case, the Fighter). But I worded that poorly. I should have added: when that NO player deliberately plays a gimp, and/or refuses to accept advice how to fill his niche more properly.
I am always happy to work with other players to see how to get more out of their character concepts. What I don't do is do all the work myself and give them a finished character, even if the other player asks for it, because the effort that has to go into a well-built character typically isn't appreciated.

Long story short, if the other player says "I don't want to bother with character optimization, and I don't want your character to be better than mine", _then_ my sympathy ends.

[Sacrieur]

Some classes are very usable for a single ability or such. But by broken I mean not worth playing. You may claim a wizard or sorcerer is too powerful and can break the game (the sorcerer can learn non-sorcerer levels) and regard that as broken, but I don't think so. It's fun. I've played plenty of Sorcerers and Wizards. They're fun to play.

As mentioned above the goal of D&D is to have fun. So if someone picks up a class like Occult Slayer expecting to be a serious wizard kill machine and then is laughed at when he is easily killed by Forcecage + Cloudkill, which is even a terrible combo.

When a character sucks at what he is meant to do, like as mentioned above a barbarian doing less damage than a ranger, then the game becomes no fun at all. You're practically useless, even for your main purpose. This can be even more terrible for classes such as knight or kensai, who punish you for trying to have a bit of fun and claim, "with great power comes great responsibility," without giving you any great power. So no, I can't steal this tome of strength +4, because that would be unlawful.

So you're not having any fun when you're not in battle, you're not having any fun in battle, so what the hell?

[Firechanter]

Maybe to better distinguish between the two readings of "broken", it might be better to call the type intended here "defunct", "dysfunctional" or somesuch.

[JaronK]

What's so horrible about Exotic Weapon Master? Exotic Flurry is actually pretty good, and the entry requirements are really easy.

JaronK

[~Nye~]

In any game like this diversity is important, but I feel balance is less important. I often play classes like the healer and the fighter because it makes me a more resourceful player, as opposed to relying on my class abilities and spells. In our group we often make gimp builds for first time players who are often one trick ponies to keep the fluency of play rolling.
Anyway, in terms of balance the classes outlined in the ToB are relatively powerful the damage potential is in some cases rediculous. Essentially a ToB class can take down a CR 3 creature at lvl 1. IMO Abjurant champion is relatively OP because of the rediculous synergy potential, it being a 5lvl prestige an' all. But thats just my opinion.
The fighters I've DMd for I've just ended up making homebrew legacy weapons for them to drool over, it keeps them happy, and means their feats can be put into a worthwhile investment.

[Urpriest]

Exotic Weapon Master and Occult Slayer are both actually fairly well-regarded among optimizers. If you're going for non-TOB mundane melee then they're some of the better options.

[Keld Denar]

As JaronK mentioned, Exotic Flurry of Strikes is a pretty awesome ability. I built a great build that uses an Urgrosh as a 2handed weapon that uses Flurry of Strikes to get more 2handed PA damage in a round. It only says you have to be using a double weapon, not wielding that double weapon AS a double weapon. If you are only attacking with one end at a time, you aren't TWFing, but in reality 2hand fighting. Minor technicality, big boon! Uncanny Blow is also fun for squeezing a few extra points of damage out of your strength score. The rest of the abilities are pretty niche,

Occult Slayer is kinda a misnomer. Its not really that good at "slaying" wizards. Its better at not getting killed by casters. The extra 1d6 is pretty meh, but the real golden abilities are the spell reflection (assuming you "fix" it to read immediate action rather than free action, since immediate actions didn't exist when CWarrior was printed) and the Mind Blank. Permanant Mind Blank is like, 110,000g in ring form. Thats...awfully expensive. 5 levels of a full BAB class to get it for free is a pretty nice boon. The +3 untyped bonus to all saves is pretty nice too, since it stacks with your Cloak of Resistance and other swag. Could have used a stronger Fort save, but all in all, not bad.

The only real vulnerability it doesn't cover is ranged touch attacks. You can still get Enervated or Orb of Fire'd to death, which the Spell Turning doesn't help against, but one class can't do EVERYTHING...

[Doc Roc]

As JaronK mentioned, Exotic Flurry of Strikes is a pretty awesome ability. I built a great build that uses an Urgrosh as a 2handed weapon that uses Flurry of Strikes to get more 2handed PA damage in a round. It only says you have to be using a double weapon, not wielding that double weapon AS a double weapon. If you are only attacking with one end at a time, you aren't TWFing, but in reality 2hand fighting. Minor technicality, big boon! Uncanny Blow is also fun for squeezing a few extra points of damage out of your strength score. The rest of the abilities are pretty niche,

Occult Slayer is kinda a misnomer. Its not really that good at "slaying" wizards. Its better at not getting killed by casters. The extra 1d6 is pretty meh, but the real golden abilities are the spell reflection (assuming you "fix" it to read immediate action rather than free action, since immediate actions didn't exist when CWarrior was printed) and the Mind Blank. Permanant Mind Blank is like, 110,000g in ring form. Thats...awfully expensive. 5 levels of a full BAB class to get it for free is a pretty nice boon. The +3 untyped bonus to all saves is pretty nice too, since it stacks with your Cloak of Resistance and other swag. Could have used a stronger Fort save, but all in all, not bad.

The only real vulnerability it doesn't cover is ranged touch attacks. You can still get Enervated or Orb of Fire'd to death, which the Spell Turning doesn't help against, but one class can't do EVERYTHING...


Weirdly enough, you could argue that a free action can be used during an immediate action.

[TroubleBrewing]

Well, sure, but what's the immediate action you're performing that you can then use a free action during?

I mean, an immediate action is usually triggered by something. No trigger, no chance to use a free action.

Maybe I'm wrong?

[MarkusWolfe]

I've seen an equal number of parties where the Barbarian tries to take ranger levels because he's sick of the Ranger out-damaging him.

But.....how? Even if the barbarian just sticks to simple things like power attack....how?

[Greenish]

I have a habit of reading the rules As IntendedNot always so easy, though.

Anyway, in terms of balance the classes outlined in the ToB are relatively powerful the damage potential is in some cases rediculous. Essentially a ToB class can take down a CR 3 creature at lvl 1.Well, 1st level isn't exactly the best balance point ever, and the damage of ToB classes is about on the level with medium-OP other melee.

As JaronK mentioned, Exotic Flurry of Strikes is a pretty awesome ability. I built a great build that uses an Urgrosh as a 2handed weapon that uses Flurry of Strikes to get more 2handed PA damage in a round. It only says you have to be using a double weapon, not wielding that double weapon AS a double weapon. If you are only attacking with one end at a time, you aren't TWFing, but in reality 2hand fighting. Minor technicality, big boon!Revenant Blade, hur dur dur. :smallwink:

[TroubleBrewing]

But.....how? Even if the barbarian just sticks to simple things like power attack....how?

For a lot of the barbarian players in my early days of D&D, PA was merely a prerequisite for cleave, which was where the REAL money was at. :smallannoyed:

[MarkusWolfe]

For a lot of the barbarian players in my early days of D&D, PA was merely a prerequisite for cleave, which was where the REAL money was at. :smallannoyed:

Woah. Are we even talking about the same edition here? Cleave and Great Cleave are important feats when you're going up against a lot of little guys (I do recall killing 20 level 3 Ninja goblins in a single round as a level 12 barbarian) but at the end of the day your toughest fights are going to be against one big guy with a large pile of hitpoints. In those fights, Cleave and Great Cleave do nothing for you, excluding saving you some resources on the way there. And even against medium guys, a decently intelligent play should be able to figure out 'Hey, my attack bonus is higher than these guys AC! I would loose nothing if I power attacked....' and that's not even considering the various methods to pump up your power attacks.

[erikun]

Power Attack isn't really that useful in the early levels. What, are you going to Power Attack for -2? Against the guy in heavy armor, or against the guys who die in one hit anyways? Heck, Cleave is far more valuable before level 5 or so, as you can nearly double the number of attacks you make if you're killing everything anyways in a single hit.

[Keld Denar]

Cleave is generally a decent feat if you have a reach weapon. Unless you are fighting one single big bad guy every fight, most fights will have 3-4 enemies. Assuming your party is helping to control them, chances are you'll get 1-2 cleaves per combat. Not very many feats will give you a couple of extra attacks a combat, and almost none of them work even with a standard action.

Great Cleave, however, is a total waste, except in the even you fight a lot of foes with Mirror Image. Great Cleaves only virtue is that it is AMAZING for stripping the images off a foe, possibly one of the best abilities for it.

[true_shinken]

Great Cleave, however, is a total waste, except in the even you fight a lot of foes with Mirror Image. Great Cleaves only virtue is that it is AMAZING for stripping the images off a foe, possibly one of the best abilities for it.
Clever. Never thought of it.

[Keld Denar]

Unfortunately, like everything else, masters do it better. Whirling Blade is better for image stripping. Even if you aren't a gish, its not hard to hit mirror images. An eternal wand of Whirling Blade is a great wand chamber filler for anyone with a slashing weapon and arcane casting or the UMD skill.

[Thugorp]

I think the OP refers to broken as "unusable". The answer isn't as easy as "no playtesting + no forethought/rules knowledge = dwarven defender". It has more to do with the fact that TO and PO didn't really start to snowball into the monster that it is today until a few years after the game had already come out. Regardless of the level of optimization present in games worldwide, the fact of the matter is that most people think that 3.5 is for the most part balanced. I've seen parties composed of Fighter, Monk, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard, and the players all complain that the wizard isn't pulling his/her weight. I've seen an equal number of parties where the Barbarian tries to take ranger levels because he's sick of the Ranger out-damaging him. Optimization has less to do with actual class strength and more to do with player strength. People still play cruddy classes for the same reason some people prefer MGD to real beer: They just don't know better.

What are TO and PO? Also, it occurs to me that the reasons people play classes like ranger or fighter might have something to do with role-playing or some thing... :-p

[Mystic Muse]

What are TO and PO? Also, it occurs to me that the reasons people play classes like ranger or fighter might have something to do with role-playing or some thing... :-p

If I recall correctly, theoretical optimization and practical optimization. The first is never intended to be used in a game, the second is.

[Keld Denar]

TO is theoretical. This is what is possible within the mechanics of the game. Things like the Hulking Hurler who needs scientific notation to calculate damage, or the Ruby Knight Windicator who can circumnavigate the earth a dozen times in under 6 seconds (and break the speed of light). TO is a thought exercise, not ment to actually be played in a game.

PO is practical. PO is being good at your role. You aren't the "best swordsman in the realm" if you are dealing 1d8+4 damage at level 10. It generally involves a list of constraints, typically limited by book access or tier limits (T3 max, for example), or constrained around a theme or prestige class.

And playing a fighter or a ranger means you are RPing your class. Classes are a metagame construct. You can be a fighter without any levels in fighter, or a ranger without any levels in ranger. You are LIMITING your RP if you equate class with role. Think outside the class, and consider the build as a seamless construct to represent a given theme or role.

[Thugorp]

Why not just Home-brew a class... it seems like that would be the logical extension of that philosophy rather then taking ten established ones(yes ten is hyperbolic, no it is not meant aggressively it is just how I talk)

[Keld Denar]

That is one option. Some homebrew is good (and balanced), but some is...not.

Sometimes its easier to work within the already established parameters fo the game. To each, their own.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Unfortunately, like everything else, masters do it better. Whirling Blade is better for image stripping. Even if you aren't a gish, its not hard to hit mirror images. An eternal wand of Whirling Blade is a great wand chamber filler for anyone with a slashing weapon and arcane casting or the UMD skill.

Was the bolded part an appropriate typo? That's a rather nice combo regardless, and I definitely know of at least one spell I'm going to be preparing/getting a wand of when I finally put that Factotum build together, thanks.

Also, Thugorp, homebrewing a class can take a long time, and if it turns out really badly it's the fault of whoever homebrewed it, often a member of the group. By using stuff in published books we can just shake our heads and think "oh, WotC" whenever something turns out wrong, and if you've already bought the books it's a waste not to use them. And building something useful and flavourful from a bunch of parts written by different authors for different things is enjoyable just for the challenge (at least to some).

[LordBlades]

Also, it occurs to me that the reasons people play classes like ranger or fighter might have something to do with role-playing or some thing... :-p

This is where practical optimization comes in; let's say you are attracted to the RP opportunities of being a monk. You can play a Monk (the class) and suck mechanically or you can make a more optimized build (unarmed swordsage, Talashtora whatever etc.) that gives you the same RP feeling but also delivers mechanically.

[ScionoftheVoid]

This is where practical optimization comes in; let's say you are attracted to the RP opportunities of being a monk. You can play a Monk (the class) and suck mechanically or you can make a more optimized build (unarmed swordsage, Talashtora whatever etc.) that gives you the same RP feeling but also delivers mechanically.

And since you probably don't have the concept of "ineffective fisticuffs man" the more optimised setup is better for RP as well as for keeping up with level-appropriate (and possibly above-level-appropriate) encounters.

[Amphetryon]

Some classes are very usable for a single ability or such. But by broken I mean not worth playing. You may claim a wizard or sorcerer is too powerful and can break the game (the sorcerer can learn non-sorcerer levels) and regard that as broken, but I don't think so. It's fun. I've played plenty of Sorcerers and Wizards. They're fun to play.

As mentioned above the goal of D&D is to have fun. So if someone picks up a class like Occult Slayer expecting to be a serious wizard kill machine and then is laughed at when he is easily killed by Forcecage + Cloudkill, which is even a terrible combo.

When a character sucks at what he is meant to do, like as mentioned above a barbarian doing less damage than a ranger, then the game becomes no fun at all. You're practically useless, even for your main purpose. This can be even more terrible for classes such as knight or kensai, who punish you for trying to have a bit of fun and claim, "with great power comes great responsibility," without giving you any great power. So no, I can't steal this tome of strength +4, because that would be unlawful.

So you're not having any fun when you're not in battle, you're not having any fun in battle, so what the hell?

Different tables will see very different interpretations of 'useless' relative to the others at the table and the skills/choices of the DM in playing to the strengths of the PCs. Some folks will also argue that they have fun by virtue of their ability to immerse themselves in the character, even as that character struggles to succeed.

Are they Doing It Wrong when they're having fun?

[LordBlades]

Different tables will see very different interpretations of 'useless' relative to the others at the table and the skills/choices of the DM in playing to the strengths of the PCs. Some folks will also argue that they have fun by virtue of their ability to immerse themselves in the character, even as that character struggles to succeed.

Are they Doing It Wrong when they're having fun?

You're only doing it wrong when your fun starts to impact the fun of the other people at the table. And that's equally true for the guy that plays the God Wizard in a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue group and the guy wanting to roleplay 'the wimp monk' in a full Tier 1 party.

[Keld Denar]

Was the bolded part an appropriate typo?

Yea, that's what I get for posting from my phone. Stupid autocomplete...

Should have said caster.

[TheGeckoKing]

I always find Necrocarnate to be REALLY broken. Either it's "Good god, I suck as a Meldshaper" or "BWHAHAHAHAHAHA INFINITE ESSENTIA BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

[Veyr]

Yes, the Necrocarnate has that problem.

[TheGeckoKing]

I've always been tempted to post a Necrocarnate Fix, but I don't know how much interest there would be.
Oh, and now that I think about it, Apostle of Peace also sucks. It's a worse version of the Ur-Priest prc, with a limited list, and requires you to take four feats that'll drive most parties to the brink of killing the Apostle. :smallannoyed:

[Frozen_Feet]

Just to offer one more set of definitions:

Practical Optimization: making optimal choices with the context of an actual game.

Theoretical Optimization: making optimal choices with the context of the whole system, as it is written.

There's some overlap between the two - TO tricks can be applicable within an actual game if said game is broad enough in scope, and PO tricks sometimes duplicate or double as TO tricks.

But since context of actual games vary a lot, the fields can be very different indeed. For example, if casters are banned, no TO trick involving them is applicable as PO, because they aren't even an option! TO tricks involving WBL or other mutable guidelines are often unreliable since games can't be counted to follow them. Rule exploits based on ambiguous wording or such are poor for PO, since the GM could easily veto them.

The differences can go even further - and these are just mechanical differences. It becomes another whole ball game once you step outside the game rules and venture into "social optimization", ie., trying to be a swell guy and not making anyone mad.

[Cog]

Why not just Home-brew a class... it seems like that would be the logical extension of that philosophy rather then taking ten established ones(yes ten is hyperbolic, no it is not meant aggressively it is just how I talk)
For me, it's kind of like playing with Legos. Sure, you could break out the modeling clay and tweak every detail just so, but sometimes it's more fun to take existing pieces and see how you can fit them together.

[Sacrieur]

Why not just Home-brew a class... it seems like that would be the logical extension of that philosophy rather then taking ten established ones(yes ten is hyperbolic, no it is not meant aggressively it is just how I talk)

A lot of us do.

[Ravens_cry]

I always find Necrocarnate to be REALLY broken. Either it's "Good god, I suck as a Meldshaper" or "BWHAHAHAHAHAHA INFINITE ESSENTIA BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Considering it is a 'villain' class, most tables I am aware of do not allow evil characters, probably the latter. Nothing says ultimate powah like skinny goth chicks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20050909a&page=4) in too many belts. Or dudes, I honestly can't tell.

[Greenish]

Considering it is a 'villain' class, most tables I am aware of do not allow evil characters, probably the latter. Nothing says ultimate powah like skinny goth chicks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20050909a&page=4) in too many belts. Or dudes, I honestly can't tell.Evil can be fun. :smallwink:

And the picture is supposed to be of a female human, as unlikely as that seems.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Considering it is a 'villain' class, most tables I am aware of do not allow evil characters, probably the latter. Nothing says ultimate powah like skinny goth chicks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20050909a&page=4) in too many belts. Or dudes, I honestly can't tell.

Belts are the sign of a good sorcerer, after all!:smallwink: Just look at Lulu and Hennet.

[Ravens_cry]

Evil can be fun. :smallwink:

And the picture is supposed to be of a female human, as unlikely as that seems.
To quote The Other Wiki: [citation needed]

[true_shinken]

To quote The Other Wiki: [citation needed]
You know, they call it The Other Wiki in tvtropes because tvtropes is, well, a wiki.
These forums are not a wiki, so it sounds pretty weird.

[Ravens_cry]

You know, they call it The Other Wiki in tvtropes because tvtropes is, well, a wiki.
These forums are not a wiki, so it sounds pretty weird.
Since it is capitalized, it is now a name and is therefore not subject to interpretations by literal meanings. Also, it does not answer the question.:smalltongue:

Belts are the sign of a good sorcerer, after all! Just look at Lulu and Hennet.
*googles Lulu*
Woah, she has huge . . .tracts of belts. You know, you may be onto something here, Hennets costume looks like it is entirely made of belts.

[Greenish]

To quote The Other Wiki: [citation needed]MoI pages 134-135.

[Ravens_cry]

MoI pages 134-135.
Ah, thank you.l:smallsmile: