Amulet of True Strike?

[Bulix]

Hey,
Can I, as an Artificer, create an amulet or ring of True Strike. Assuming I can pay for the gold and XP for it to be continuous... I get the bonus on all attack rolls?
Also, as a low level Artificer where do I get the money to make Magic Items?

Thanks :smallsmile:

[Boci]

The custom magical item chart are not rules, but guidelines. You would need to look at the to hit bonus instead of the continuous spell. As such, a continuous true strike item would cost 800,000gp (20 x 20 x 2,000gp), or 400,000go in raw materials to craft.

[Flickerdart]

A continuous item of True Strike as the spell is worthless, since it would discharge after one hit.

[silverwolfer]

Money problems= ask your DM

Creation Problems= 800,000 gold to make

For Everything Else= Weapon of Spell storing

[Flickerdart]

True Strike is not a legal spell to cast into a Spell Storing weapon, and even if it weren't, you wouldn't get the benefit of the spell anyway, since a Spell Storing weapon casts the spell inside on the creature you hit.

[sdream]

I think the "compare to hit bonus" argument is bull... it does not provide +20 damage to each hit or allow penetration of DR.

That said, continuous and on use spell effects are also bull. You spend the normal action to activate a spell (we'll give you a pass on attacks of opportunity).

You want to swift and silent activate? Apply quicken and silent level increases. You want to increase a duration? Reference extend and persist. You want multiple charges, reference twinned. You want automatic activation without an action cost you actually need the spell named contingency. It's not level 1.

The solution to people using the power of spells is to stay consistent. Then anything abusive is probably an abusive spell too, and you should fix both.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the "compare to hit bonus" argument is bull... it does not provide +20 damage to each hit or allow penetration of DR.

That said, continuous and on use spell effects are also bull. You spend the normal action to activate a spell (we'll give you a pass on attacks of opportunity).

You want to swift and silent activate? Apply quicken and silent level increases. You want to increase a duration? Reference extend and persist. You want multiple charges, reference twinned. You want automatic activation without an action cost you actually need the spell named contingency. It's not level 1.

The solution to people using the power of spells is to stay consistent. Then anything abusive is probably an abusive spell too, and you should fix both.
I disagree. Throwing away a standard action one turn in order to insta-hit on the next is a perfectly valid level 1 spell. It's all of the attempts to make them happen on the same turn, or apply to every attack, which is the problem.

[gorfnab]

From Rules of the Game: Making Magic Items (Part Seven) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050118a)


Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring of true strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.

Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.

So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.

Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.

[sdream]

I disagree. Throwing away a standard action one turn in order to insta-hit on the next is a perfectly valid level 1 spell. It's all of the attempts to make them happen on the same turn, or apply to every attack, which is the problem.

I completely agree with you. What you quoted was intended to suggest that someone building an amulet of quick strike should be able to do so for 2k as long as they were willing to use a standard action to trigger it to take effect on their next single attack roll.

An amulet of quickened true strike would be a swift action, so could be used each turn as part of a full attack (but it is a much higher effective spell level, still only applies to one attack roll, and takes your swift action for the turn)

[Tvtyrant]

I completely agree with you. What you quoted was intended to suggest that someone building an amulet of quick strike should be able to do so for 2k as long as they were willing to use a standard action to trigger it to take effect on their next single attack roll.

An amulet of quickened true strike would be a swift action, so could be used each turn as part of a full attack (but it is a much higher effective spell level, still only applies to one attack roll, and takes your swift action for the turn)

In that case we are in perfect accord. :smallbiggrin:

[TopCheese]

Make your weapon's handle be a resetting trap of true strike? When you swing you activate strue strike by pushing a lever or button.

[Andorax]

Make your weapon's handle be a resetting trap of true strike? When you swing you activate strue strike by pushing a lever or button.

Is there a point to coming up with quasi-legal means to an end that is clearly broken?

[silverwolfer]

Think it is called optimizing my dear one eyed beholder, even if broken. Some want tier god level items.

[MrLemon]

Since we are in resetting spell trap territory now anyway, here's a corresponding Old Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247887) about that.

To quote Andorax from this thread and basically solving the OP's question:
A bowstring (touch trigger) of True Strike would only cost 500. Note the additional hidden costs of a wall of force* resetting trap on your PHB triggered to incoming DMGs

*or similar (if you hate one of your fellow players, I think there was a spell or power to swap places :smallamused: )

[Boci]

I think the "compare to hit bonus" argument is bull... it does not provide +20 damage to each hit or allow penetration of DR.

True, but it stakes with the bonus of a magical weapon. Bonuses that stack with the basic method of acquiring them are more expensive (compare a resistance bonus to saves to a different type of bonus).


Think it is called optimizing my dear one eyed beholder, even if broken. Some want tier god level items.

Theoretical optimization, and not commonly used even there because its considered too easy I imagine. And on a nitpick note, the beholder avatar has 9 eyes.

[silverwolfer]

no it has 8 googly eyes

http://www.tnca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/googlyeyes.jpg

[Boci]

no it has 8 googly eyes

Too late (you posted 1 minute after my edit). Still isn't a 1 eyed beholder.

[dantiesilva]

...I made a level 1 human warrior with an AC of about 35, so it is not an instant hit. Its a must to hit someone who optimizes. Keep in mind all I had to work with was 100gp to equip him with. Tower shield, Chain shirt, Thats +12 right there.
Phalanx fighting+3
Shield wall+2
Dodge+1
Mobility +4

Thats 32. Total defense +4 for 36. So again without true strike you can not hit this level 1 human. Unless you roll a crit every roll.

[Boci]

...I made a level 1 human warrior with an AC of about 35, so it is not an instant hit. Its a must to hit someone who optimizes. Keep in mind all I had to work with was 100gp to equip him with. Tower shield, Chain shirt, Thats +12 right there.
Phalanx fighting+3
Shield wall+2
Dodge+1
Mobility +4

Thats 32. Total defense +4 for 36. So again without true strike you can not hit this level 1 human. Unless you roll a crit every roll.

1. How many feats do you have?

2. Source of feats?

3. Mobility only grants an AC bonus to AoO provoked from movement.

4. Chainshirt costs 100gp, so you cannot have a tower shield by your own restrictions.

5. Chainshirt + tower shield is +8 AC.

So that is in fact 24 AC, 28 with total defense, assuming you can have and meat all the preqs for the feats. Oh and bonus round.

That is not optimizing, as the character cannot harm anyone with their club as a weapon (you have no gp left so you need to use a free weapon), to which they take -2 penalty to attack thanks to tower shield. Not that attacking is a problem if all he ever does it take full defense. In which case he may as well use a standard action to take cover and be immune to attacks that target AC.

[dantiesilva]

4 feats.

1 human
1 1st level
1 flaw
2 flaw

Complete warrior
Herros of battle is the other one I believe.

And for your weapon problem thats when one of the worst classes in the game becomes the best. Samurai. Gives you two free masterwork swords. Yay swords. Though I did use a warrior so I understand your point there.

As for the 100gp, yea forgot that is how i won a war competition not the orginal bulild I made. Had to make 600 soldiers. @00 from level 1-2 each. Having only commoner, warrior and adept available. And having at the very least 25 adepts each level.

[Boci]

4 feats.

1 human
1 1st level
1 flaw
2 flaw

Fair enough.


Complete warrior

Phalanx fighting only gives +1 to AC (and it requires a heavy shield, not a tower shield). To give +3 you need to be within 5ft of an ally wielding a heavy shield and a light weapon, not a popular combination.


Herros of battle is the other one I believe.

This one has less strict requirement (although samurai is still out). It works with all shield, but requires you to be adjacent to another character wielding a shield. Useful in the army, less so for an adventurer.


And for your weapon problem thats when one of the worst classes in the game becomes the best. Samurai. Gives you two free masterwork swords. Yay swords.

Samurai are not proficient with shield of any kind. Ouch. (Even if they were, your attack bonus still suffers, but they do give +2 to average damage as your dice roll increases from d6 to d10).


As for the 100gp, yea forgot that is how i won a war competition not the orginal bulild I made. Had to make 600 soldiers. @00 from level 1-2 each. Having only commoner, warrior and adept available. And having at the very least 25 adepts each level.

For someone who just won a competition with this concept, you demonstrate a startling lack of knowledge on the finer points.

Overall, your AC is 20 18 and you are stuck using a light weapon, assuming you still have money left after the 107gp budget for armour (120 if you want a metal heavy shield). You take a -2 penalty to this attack. Samurai is out. If you are adjacent to an ally with a shield, your AC rises to 24 20, (22 if they are using a heavy shield and light weapon combination and likewise has the phalanx fighting feat), but you gain no bonuses to offense, so enemies have 0 motivation to attack you.

Edit: Forgot that phalanx fighting made a tower shield impossible.

[Andorax]

To quote Andorax from this thread and basically solving the OP's question:...

Context, my friend...the statement was made to illustrate the absurdity of the "beneficial resetting spell trap".

[dantiesilva]

If enemies want to get to anything else they have to fight you. My army took out a dragon with the least amount of losses. Made every other army not even able to move, and has been proven with only 20 people, 10 being the ones I just put out, able to take out 6 giants in 5 turns with ease. And a tower shield is made of metal, and it is heavy, most GMs will allow it. But by RAW I do see your point. And playing a spartan is not popular, since when. XD O wait thats right everyone goes trip happy nowadays. But in the end I was merely pointing out the fact that true strike does not guarnetee auto hit, even at low levels it can be countered in ideal conditions. The point is with them is to make a wall, you are that wall. To get to the squishy you have to get by those in front. And then thier is the knight class that gives knights challenge.

[Boci]

If enemies want to get to anything else they have to fight you.

Hence the comment about such tactics being useful on the battlefield but not in a adventuring party.


And playing a spartan is not popular, since when. XD O wait thats right everyone goes trip happy nowadays.

Except playing a spartan means you avoid phalanx fighting, because Spartans used spears (which are not light weapons.) A spartan would be armed with a heavy shield in their primary arm and a shortspear in their offhand and would take the agile shield fighter feat from Ph II.


But in the end I was merely pointing out the fact that true strike does not guarnetee auto hit, even at low levels it can be countered in ideal conditions.

Even in ideal conditions, your characters had 22 AC (24 is tower shield is allowed). With a plus 20 to hit, that is auto hit (since the minimum roll is 2 for 22, + stat modifier). Maybe a first level rogue who does not yet have weapon finesse and only 12 strength will miss on a natural 2 with a melee attack.

[dantiesilva]

Are you forgetting they get An AC bonus from high Dex? As well as the Dodge. Thats another +5 at best. +3 with tower shield. Making AC now 27-25.

Still do not get where you are getting 22 from.

Auto 10+ DEX + 4 (armor)+ 4(towershield if low dex if high +2 from heavy shield)
So18+Dex
+1(dodge against target you are fighting) +1 Phalanx fighting ( +5 total if you have two people on the side of you with a heavy shield and a light weapon)
so 20 (24 with the two people) + dex

Shield wall +2 +4 mobility

So 26 ( because you have to have the two people) +Dex
30+Dex if you are against an AoO, which many people I know love building types that grant you tuns of them. In ideal conditions you have 26+dex. That is alot more then the 22 you said. That means they have to roll at the very least 6 to hit with a +0 to dex if you max out dex thats a 10 they have to roll. Its not that ease to hit you.

[Boci]

Are you forgetting they get An AC bonus from high Dex?

I didn't consider such a character having high dex, but I guess it makes sense. They are trying to completely cripple themselves so they probably would avoid strength.


Still do not get where you are getting 22 from.

Base of 10 + 4 for chain shirt + 2 for heavy shield +3 for phalanx fighting +2 for shield wall +1 for dodge.

So that is 22. +dexterity modifier and +2 if the DM allows you to use the tower shield with phalanx fighting. So yes, I did make a slight mistake.


+1 Phalanx fighting ( +5 total if you have two people on the side of you with a heavy shield and a light weapon)

No. The feat stats that you get +3 for having two or more allies adjacent. Under no circumstances do you get +5 from that feat.


So 26 ( because you have to have the two people) +Dex
30+Dex if you are against an AoO, which many people I know love building types that grant you tuns of them. In ideal conditions you have 26+dex. That is alot more then the 22 you said. That means they have to roll at the very least 6 to hit with a +0 to dex if you max out dex thats a 10 they have to roll. Its not that ease to hit you.

Correct total is 22 + dex or 24 + dex if the tower shield is allowed, realistically capping at 26 in both cases.

1st level martial character rolls a 2 on their attack roll. So far we have 22. We add +1 for BAB and +3 for states. Oh look, he still hits you.

Congratulations. With a tower shield and a +2 dexterity modifier (and the DM changing RAW in your favor) or a heavy shield and 18 dexterity, and in both cases standing adjacent to an ally wielding a heavy shield and a light weapon, you can avoid being hit on a 2 in this hypothetical scenario. If the attacker has less than 16 in their attack stat and/or isn't a full BAB class, is not charging or flanking and does not have the weapon focus feat/a bard playing IC or any other way to increase their attack (beyond the +20 from the ring of true strike).

Also, mobility only gives you the bonus to AC against AoO from movement. Not for standing up from a being prone or other such things.

[dantiesilva]

You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action, so it helps you against any attacks of opportunity you incur
during the round.

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you
are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your
AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must
give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide
cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by
targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower
shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty
on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not
line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if
you’re blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from
you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment,
though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A
successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total
concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss
chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent
with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the
opponent occupies. So you can actually get rid of the mobility for something better.

Now because it grants total concealment that means it grants cover. Table 8-6: Players handbook. +4 Again you have to go by all the rules.

[Boci]

You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action, so it helps you against any attacks of opportunity you incur
during the round.

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you
are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your
AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must
give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide
cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by
targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower
shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty
on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

Now because it grants total concealment that means it grants cover. Table 8-6: Players handbook. +4

You have to give up the normal shield bonus to get total cover. And it does not grant total concealment based on what you quoted, it grants total cover.


Again you have to go by all the rules.

Oh really? All the rules? Like how you cannot use phalanx fighting with a tower shield?

[dantiesilva]

Its heavy, its metal, and its a shield. It does not say anything about not being able to use with a tower shield like it does with shield bash. And if you look at roman soldiers they had tower shields. So it is realistic. And I copy and pasted wrong one for total concealment.

So that is +4-8 depending on interpretation. As you pointed out he has almost no combat ability but with the Spellcasters and archers behind the wall you are all set. Though I did not state this earlier I will throw in now Mage armor, shield, magic vestment. for another +12 to AC all low level spells. Protection from Alignment adds another +2= +14 Entropic shield for 20% miss chance, and shield of faith +2. So +16 and 20% miss chance. It is more focused on large scale battles winning the war, but is doable. But that is when it just gets into craziness.

[Flickerdart]

Its heavy, its metal, and its a shield. It does not say anything about not being able to use with a tower shield like it does with shield bash. And if you look at roman soldiers they had tower shields. So it is realistic. And I copy and pasted wrong one for total concealment.

That's...not how rules work. A heavy shield is a specific item. The feat does not call for "a shield that is heavy".

[Boci]

Its heavy, its metal, and its a shield.

You just quoted the tower shield description. Can you tell me what is wrong with the above sentence (tower shields are not made of metal).


So that is +4-8 depending on interpretation.

I'm pretty sure it makes you un-target-able with attacks that target AC (save for spells).


As you pointed out he has almost no combat ability but with the Spellcasters and archers behind the wall you are all set.

Until your wooden shield is sundered.


Though I did not state this earlier I will throw in now Mage armor, shield, magic vestment. for another +12 to AC all low level spells.

None of those stack with the bonuses you already have.


Protection from Alignment adds another +2= +14

That was does stack.


Entropic shield for 20% miss chance,

For ranged attacks only.


and shield of faith +2.

Doesn't that give a deflection bonus that will not stack with protection from alignment?


So +16 and 20% miss chance.

No it isn't.

[Lostbutseeking]

Its heavy, its metal, and its a shield. It does not say anything about not being able to use with a tower shield like it does with shield bash. And if you look at roman soldiers they had tower shields. So it is realistic. And I copy and pasted wrong one for total concealment.

So that is +4-8 depending on interpretation. As you pointed out he has almost no combat ability but with the Spellcasters and archers behind the wall you are all set. Though I did not state this earlier I will throw in now Mage armor, shield, magic vestment. for another +12 to AC all low level spells. Protection from Alignment adds another +2= +14 Entropic shield for 20% miss chance, and shield of faith +2. So +16 and 20% miss chance. It is more focused on large scale battles winning the war, but is doable. But that is when it just gets into craziness.


Neither mage armor nor shield stack with actual armor or a shield. Shield of faith does not stack with protection from x.

Magic vestment on both the shield and armor will give you a total of +2 (at this level) while either of Protection or Shield of faith will add a second +2.

The big take home message is you really need to go reread the actual rules in their totality instead of just cherry picking.

[ericgrau]

Continuous true strike: 20 x 20 x 2000 x 10 (epic) = 8,000,000 gp for +20 enhancement bonus. A +20 insight bonus would probably be 40,000,000 gp.

Standard action activated true strike 1 / day : 1 x 1 x 1,800 /5 = 360 gp

Swift action activated true strike 1/day: 9 x 5 x 1800 / 5 = 16,200 gp.

For more uses multiply the cost by the number of uses. For a slotless item double the cost. For a slotless item with related abilities, the 2nd most expensive ability gets 25% off, and the 3rd and later 50% off (after doubling the cost). For slotted items with different unrelated abilities, the 2nd most expensive ability costs 50% more, as does the 3rd and onward. Slotless items with multiple unrelated abilities and slotted items with multiple related abilities don't get a price change. The above assumes command word activation; other activation has the same activation time but costs X * 2,000 gp instead of X * 1,800 gp.

Technically you could make at will true strike as well, but these are guidelines not rules and the DM should disallow any abuse. At will true strike + stealth is too abusable, especially if it's not command word activated.

Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)

[sdream]

Technically you could make at will true strike as well, but these are guidelines not rules and the DM should disallow any abuse. At will true strike + stealth is too abusable, especially if it's not command word activated.

Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)

I read charges per day as an optional discount step, anything over 4 is considered to probably on average be "all you need".

If a caster can do it it's fair use, or the spell should be nerfed as well. I know these are not the default rules (they throw it to rule 0) but I think Dms should use the existing mechanisms first. You want a true strike that can be triggerrd silently, pay for the silent metamagic (becomes an effective lvl 2 spell).

[ericgrau]

In open combat 5 charges might as well be at will. But hit and run sniping at 1000 foot range could use it many more times than that. I'm sure there are a dozen other tricks too. That's why DMs shouldn't give out at will true strike items whereas at will is ok for many other spells.

[tiercel]

hit and run sniping at 1000 foot range

The obvious problem with this kind of sniping is actually *detecting* your target at 1000 feet; as per the description of the Spot skill, your Spot check can be used to determine the distance at which an encounter begins, and Spot checks take a penalty for distance of -1 per 10ft.

A -100 modifier to your Spot check is going to throw a pretty serious crimp into your plans to play mini-artillery from ~0.2 mile away (depending on your interest in optimizing your weapon's range).

At least many Long range spells are aiming at an area, so you can just lob a fireball into the general vicinity of your target, but an arrow is a teensy bit more precise. (But technically, getting full use of your Long range of spells is RAW problematic against non-ginormous targets because of the distance penalty to Spot checks, especially since many casters don't even get Spot as a class skill.)

[ericgrau]

If he's hidden. Spot is way overused. You aren't blind without it.

Right in the skill description it says spot is used primarily for finding hidden foes. Sometimes it helps you find foes that are otherwise hard to see. People take "hard to see" way too far and call for spot checks against non-hiding foes way more than hiding foes, which is the opposite of the rule.

It makes little difference though because there are 11 other ways to hit and run or otherwise abuse it with magic and so on. Or simply reactivate it continuously and effectively get a non-action true strike at round 1 of every fight for only 1,800 gp rather than blowing 16,200+ gp on a 1/day quickened version. Or etc. Saying there are only a dozen ways to abuse it is a bit generous.

[SamBurke]

Hey,
Can I, as an Artificer, create an amulet or ring of True Strike. Assuming I can pay for the gold and XP for it to be continuous... I get the bonus on all attack rolls?
Also, as a low level Artificer where do I get the money to make Magic Items?

Thanks :smallsmile:

You're looking at a whole lot of options, mostly based on GM interpretation of flimsy rules and non-applicable errata, as well as some bluster from former DMs who don't want their game ruined, and with reason.

HOWEVER, a Continuous, or "USE ACTIVATED" True Strike will cost at minimum, 6k.

I wouldn't use it, because it's like cheese. The times I have purchased it, I never used the thing... it's too cheap, man.

[tyckspoon]

Right in the skill description it says spot is used primarily for finding hidden foes. Sometimes it helps you find foes that are otherwise hard to see. People take "hard to see" way too far and call for spot checks against non-hiding foes way more than hiding foes, which is the opposite of the rule.


I tend to agree, but calling Spot checks on non-hidden things isn't baseless; the example DC for a 'very easy' task (DC 0) is 'Spot something large in plain sight.' And while that is indeed a trivial task that most characters can auto-succeed on, it's not the same thing as 'no check is needed'. It leaves space for difficulty modifiers or penalties to Spot that make it possible to actually fail to see that large thing, such as, well, the distance modifier; something that is far enough away that it penalizes your chance to Spot it is no longer easy to see or in plain sight. (I think the penalty is pretty absurd- 10 feet is not far enough to be an impairment if you don't already have a vision problem- but RAW be what RAW be.)

[Telonius]

As a DM: Sure, you can make it, at that cost. But do realize that not all epic-level adventurers have the Good alignment.