Initiative at the start of each round!?

[Snig]

So I just started a new campaign and we had a few people who though that it was a better idea to roll for initiative at the start of each round?

Since the DM said he wanted to do everything by the books, I mentioned that is should be at the start of each encounter and that's it, just roll once.

Has anyone every played this way before? I never have but I am wondering if it is a common practice? Seems to me like it could cause some imbalance?

[Snowbluff]

It slows the game down. You know the point in a game where the DM has to get everyone to be quiet and ask for their initiatives individually? Imagine that every single round.

[eggynack]

Well, it makes the game a bit more swingy, because you can have someone act twice in a row. That can be pretty devastating on a caster. Probably more importantly, that's a hell of a lot of rolling, especially in any sort of large combat. It seems like a better idea to just keep the game as is, with pre-encounter rolling.

[Agincourt]

I played that way once (as in 1 session). I didn't like it.

First off, it wastes a lot of time rolling dice at the beginning of the round. It makes it possible for you to go last one round and then first the next round. It makes the game more metagamey to me because I started thinking, "maybe I'm going last this round, but maybe not next round. So it might be a good idea for my squishy sorcerer to run up, cast Color Spray and then hope I go first in initiative next round." It makes it functionally a really bad idea for a character to do something like hand another character an item.*

All of those things may or may not be a bad thing for a group. I can see the counterarguments in that combat is unpredictable so a character shouldn't know where in "initiative" he is. But the biggest one for me is that it makes combat even longer.

*E.g., my character wants to hand the barbarian the bludgeoning weapon he really needs, but who knows how long I will have to stand here waiting for him to take it.

[GreenETC]

My group and I have done it before, and we also tried drawing cards from a deck at the top of each round and going in order based on number. It slowed things down a lot and we had way more moments of confusion where people didn't act or forgot to act because they forgot their number or left their card face down by accident.

Not to mention it makes things really swingy since you can never predict when anything is ever going to happen, and PCs can end up going straight in a row and full attack someone to death, or end up having nothing to do because they just cast a spell and they were going to wait for enemies to escape it before casting again.

[ThreeDSix]

We're playing a campaign with this setup.

What my DM did was make an excel sheet, then he just presses randomize at the beginning of every rounnd.

From personal experience I find it works well and makes combat a little more fluid and unpredictable. I enjoy it. Makes the guys with the high initiatives enjoy their Improved initiative a lot more.

[Thespianus]

Weird, second post in one day I get to write that in my group we play it this way. ;)

But, yeah, it makes some things a bit weird. Effects that last "until your next round" can either be zero time (if you go last in one round and first in the other), or it can be almost two full rounds (if you go first in one round and last in the other). Spells with a One Round casting time is smart to cast if you're going late in your round, etc, etc.

It can also have the interesting effect of leaving the Ubercharger stranded with low AC after a Shock Trooper-charge, in a very open situation, with many bad guys rushing in on their initiative TWICE before the Ubercharger can get out of dodge.

It makes spells like Nerveskitter a bit weird, since you cast them at the beginning of the encounter, it lasts for one roll of Initiative, etc, but then you roll Initiative every round of the encounter. So the DM should compensate for a few things like that, making Nerveskitter last the entire round, for example.

One thing, though, is that when you roll initiative this frequently, everyone gets pretty good at delivering their results, so I find that it doesn't really take up a lot of time once you get used to it.

If you're playing Chaotic characters, this should be right up your alley, though. :)

[Studoku]

Rolling initiative every round does change a few things.

First, it slows the game down when you have to sort out the initiative order every round. You also need to get everyone to shut up and roll in the middle of combat on a regular basis when during combat one of the worst causes of players zoning out when it's not their turn.

Second, you make combat harder to plan and more chaotic. Players have to deal with the possibility of enemies getting two actions in a row with no way to respond. This only gets worse when you combine it with group initiative- watching the entire encounter take two turns in a row will is not fun.

The players sometimes get lucky and use this to their advantage but it isn't necessarily a good thing when a single poor initiative roll means an encounter dies without doing anything.

The worst part of this system though is that there is no advantage to using it- at least none I've seen or heard of.

[Kalirren]

Works just fine in PbP. I use it in my Kingmaker game to prevent encounters from bogging down from progressing down a potentially very long initiative order. I make them declare their action and roll their initiative simultaneously, in a single post, so there's no metagaming about choosing riskier actions because of a low initiative roll.

[Thespianus]

The worst part of this system though is that there is no advantage to using it- at least none I've seen or heard of.
There are advantages: People who invest in Initiative Feats gets a decent payback this way.

Improved Initiative, Nerveskitter, etc are bonuses that modify one roll only per encounter, and if you roll poorly, even with II and Nerveskitter, you will be reacting instead of acting through the entire encounter.

Rolling every round means that your statistical advantage will crop up more often.

[Sylthia]

Strictly from a time perspective, I'd be against it. In an environment where one could figure out the order instantly it might work, but I don't want to spend 5 minutes in between every round figuring out the new order.

[137beth]

There are advantages: People who invest in Initiative Feats gets a decent payback this way.

Improved Initiative, Nerveskitter, etc are bonuses that modify one roll only per encounter, and if you roll poorly, even with II and Nerveskitter, you will be reacting instead of acting through the entire encounter.

Rolling every round means that your statistical advantage will crop up more often.

I agree, and I like it in theory--I've also seen it used to good effects in videogames, and I suppose it could work in a pbp game.

However, at the gaming table, it really slows things down to the point where I'd rather just not do it.

[Thespianus]

Strictly from a time perspective, I'd be against it. In an environment where one could figure out the order instantly it might work, but I don't want to spend 5 minutes in between every round figuring out the new order.

To my experience, it takes less than 20 seconds extra, but that might be strongly dependent on the group, ofcourse.

[bot]

+1Thespianus, we have always rolled each round, never considering that it could be done differently. But I can see its apparently common practice to roll only once.

I can see the bonus in not having to wait for new roll each round. But I think the reason why we like it, is because it adds some extra chaos, as someone already mentioned - stuff gets a bit less predictable, just like a battle should be ;-)

[Chronos]

This used to be standard, back in 2nd edition. The biggest problem I have with it is that it makes the boundary between one round and the next, which is supposed to be a mere abstraction, into a real, tangible thing. If you walked in on the middle of a 3e combat, and saw Bob attack, then Frank, then Jim, then Bob, then Frank, and so on, you would have no way of knowing which of the three of them had the highest initiative, and when the rounds were actually ending. But in 2nd edition, if you saw Bob act twice in a row, well, that must be the start of a new round on his second action.

[some guy]

I've only done it when there was also group iniative, which makes it fast enough. One of the players rolls a d6, GM rolls a d6, yer done.

[bot]

To my experience, it takes less than 20 seconds extra, but that might be strongly dependent on the group, ofcourse.

+1, it's real quick when it's all you're used to doing. But I guess without it'll still quicken up the game. Maybe I'll try next gaming session to roll only once - if there is a battle that session :)

[Thespianus]

I've only done it when there was also group iniative, which makes it fast enough. One of the players rolls a d6, GM rolls a d6, yer done.

I take it that Improved Initiative is a rare Feat at your table? ;)

At the end, it all boils down to what makes the game fun, anyway, doesn't it? But if your DM insists on the "Roll once per Round"-thing, you can at least know that if you encourage the others to focus when the initiative rolls around, you can get it done nice and smoothly.

[some guy]

I take it that Improved Initiative is a rare Feat at your table? ;)

Well, I usually use personal once per encounter iniative, but during some fast oneshots I use group ini. Also it makes chase scenes a lot easier/faster.

[ericp65]

I've always played rolling initiative each round. I feel it's more fair.

[Agincourt]

For those of you who roll initiative each round, how do you rule Nerveskitter works? Does it last rounds/level, for the entire combat regardless, or is it still 1 round duration? Depending on the ruling, it either becomes a more valuable spell or nearly useless.

[Thespianus]

For those of you who roll initiative each round, how do you rule Nerveskitter works? Does it last rounds/level, for the entire combat regardless, or is it still 1 round duration? Depending on the ruling, it either becomes a more valuable spell or nearly useless.

It lasts for the entire Encounter, just as the original spell. The only difference is that it affects more rolls. Mathematically, it's the same, given a long run of Encounters.

[Agincourt]

Nerveskitter as printed lasts 1 round and has the clause, "If the subject does not make an initiative check within 1 round, this spell has no effect." Making it last the entire encounter is an alteration of the spell. It is a houserule that makes sense to me, but it's a change nonetheless.

[Thespianus]

Nerveskitter as printed lasts 1 round and has the clause, "If the subject does not make an initiative check within 1 round, this spell has no effect." Making it last the entire encounter is an alteration of the spell. It is a houserule that makes sense to me, but it's a change nonetheless.

Nerveskitter is usually cast as an Immediate Action spell just when combat starts, basically when the DM says "Roll Initiative", isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong here.

The RAW version affects the one Initiative roll you make, that will be your initiative during the full encounter, in other words: The Initiative Roll bonus will affect your Initiative for the entire encounter.

With the modified version, to fit the "Roll Initiative Every Round"-rule, you have the same limitation (If the first roll for Initiative isn't made within one round, the spell vanishes, just as it says) but you get the bonus for every Initiative roll of the encounter. In other words: It affects your initiative for the entire encounter, just as the original.

Or am I missing something here? The effect seems identical to me.

[Agincourt]

There's are subtle but important differences between having Nerveskiter last for 1 die roll and having it last the whole combat. Take the example of a party Sorcerer deciding whether to counterspell an evil Cleric in round 2 of combat:

Group 1 only rolls initiative once per encounter. The Sorcerer has a higher initiative so counterspelling the Cleric is not an issue. The Cleric goes on count 14 of the initiative and does indeed cast a spell. This moves the Sorcerer's place in initiative to count 14, just before the Cleric. For the rest of the combat, assuming no more alterations to the initiative order, the Sorcerer goes at count 14.

Group 2 rolls initiative every round and the players declare their actions when it comes to their turn. The Sorcerer beats the Cleric in initiative and tells the DM his counterspell plan. The Sorcerer then holds his action until just before it is the Cleric's turn to act, but this has absolutely no effect on initiative for the rest of the combat. The next round, initiative will be re-rolled and unaffected by his readied action. With Nerveskitter up, he is likely going to go early in round 3 and won't be hurt by his decision to waste some time in round 2.

Group 3 rolls initiative every round and the DM asks the players to declare their actions before they know who goes in what order. Also, the DM rules Nerveskitter only lasts 1 round. Here, counterspelling is really risky. The Sorcerer doesn't even know if he will go before the Cleric this round. If he decides to counterspell and fails to act before to the Cleric, he wastes his entire round. The Sorcerer, if it's important enough to counterspell, might cast Nerveskitter just to ensure he goes before the Cleric even though he knows it will last only 1 round.

Can you see how subtle changes in the various ruling can change how valuable Nerveskitter is? I'm not saying that any of these methods are right or wrong. I am just interested to know the effects.

[Thespianus]

Can you see how subtle changes in the various ruling can change how valuable Nerveskitter is? I'm not saying that any of these methods are right or wrong. I am just interested to know the effects.
At no point have I disagreed with you that the different rulings of how Nerveskitter works makes the spell stronger or weaker.

And, yes, the odd rules for Delaying an Action in RAW (which never really made sense to me) changes when you roll initiative every round. That was a scenario I missed.

As I wrote earlier, rolling every round gives character that has picked Initiative-improving feats and spells a bit more of an advantage, but it also gives the other characters the chance of going before that character in certain rounds, when the luck of the die is reversed.

The 3rd scenario you describe makes my head hurt, and I don't want to think about it :)

[Lapak]

Based on my experience with earlier editions, if you JUST reroll every round you've added a fair bit of work and a lot of randomness to encounters without a huge return-on-investment (except for the niche case of initiative-improving methods as mentioned.) And additional randomness almost never favors the PCs, because they face more of it than any given NPC. Sooner or later they'll run into a the-entire-other-team-goes-twice-between-our-turns roll and take a terrible beating.

But the point of initiative-every-round in 2e, in a nutshell, was to make players choose between powerful actions and quick ones: the roll was modified based on what you were doing. Daggers acted faster than two-handed swords; higher-level spells would fire off later than lower-level ones. You could hurl a throwing axe at an enemy archer twenty feet away a lot quicker than you could run up and hit him with a battleaxe; you could rattle off a Magic Missile and be almost sure you'd complete it or put together a Meteor Swarm and hope your buddies could keep you from getting interrupted.

So if I was using modifiers based on actions, I'd bother with it - it adds a another layer of tactical decision-making to each round. But for raw rolls where you act when your turn comes up I wouldn't bother.

[Terazul]

Don't particularly care for it because it makes it more annoying to calculate remaining time on buffs, given durations count down on your turn. Also you end up with swingy things, and shenanigans when things that mess with initiative (White Raven Tactics, I'm looking at you) get tossed into the fray, and doubly worse for coordinating with your allies, since suddenly the person performing the follow-up to your action from this turn is now going last next turn; Oh hey, looks like that Cloudkill I was going to be on the edge of near this group of <insert generic enemy here> isn't coming until initiative 1. Shame they all rolled really well this turn and now I'm going to be completely surrounded, when before I would've had a chance to escape. That just seems entirely frustrating :smallannoyed: Dynamic, sure, but not necessarily in a good way. I honestly just feel it adds more complications than... well anything good beyond "novelty" or "chaos". If that's good at your table to begin with.

For those saying this benefits people who optimize for initiative more, well, they already get benefited more; They get to go first more often than someone who hasn't. Whether one roll, or a roll every round, they have just as much chance as rolling poorly as they do well. They continue to roll higher than they would have without it, anyway.

[Novawurmson]

We're playing a campaign with this setup.

What my DM did was make an excel sheet, then he just presses randomize at the beginning of every rounnd.

From personal experience I find it works well and makes combat a little more fluid and unpredictable. I enjoy it. Makes the guys with the high initiatives enjoy their Improved initiative a lot more.

...that actually might work. Could you ask your DM how he set up the excel sheet?

[Thespianus]

For those saying this benefits people who optimize for initiative more, well, they already get benefited more; They get to go first more often than someone who hasn't. Whether one roll, or a roll every round, they have just as much chance as rolling poorly as they do well. They continue to roll higher than they would have without it, anyway.

While this is true from a statistical stand point, rolling every round makes a large difference in the experience of having Improved Initiative.

But, yeah, I absolutely see downsides with rolling every round as well. Just saying that there are some benefits as well.

[Lord Vukodlak]

To my experience, it takes less than 20 seconds extra, but that might be strongly dependent on the group, ofcourse.
Honestly how many times a secession does your group get distracted by out of game talk and forget whose turn it is in the initiative order. Rerolling every round only magnifies this problem ten fold.

But here's why rolling initiative every round doesn't work, the duration of spells, effects and other things are often measured in rounds.

Say I go last in the initiative order and use color spray to stun a group of 5HD enemies for 1 round. But then I go first the next round.... when do they become unstunned? Say I got first in the initiative order and stun a group of enemies for 1 round but go last in the next round.

The order of initiative is used to determine when effects end so its important to keep the same initiative order for the whole encounter.

[Lapak]

As far as the 'effect lasts X rounds' approach goes, there's two relatively trivial solutions to it that could replace the caster's turn as a counter:

- the end of the actual combat round, or
- the initiative count on which the spell actually went off.

[Person_Man]

If you were to do it, I would suggest the Excel solution. Use the Random Number formula (http://www.mathwave.com/articles/random-numbers-excel-worksheets.html), setup for D&D (http://mountlissenberg.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/251914_10150860983548171_518358170_9959630_1821400 682_n/):


Generating a random number is done by using the RAND() function. Type”=RAND()” in a given cell in Excel will return a random number between 0 and 1 like 0,763457 or 0,15423. Every time you press the F9 button the number will change. Random but not very useful numbers yet, usually in D&D we deal with whole numbers and not with decimals.

Adding INT() (for Integer) to the function will round down all of the numbers generated. Change “=RAND() to “=INT( RAND() )” and all those pesky decimals disappear,the cell will only return “0″ though which is not very useful. The random numbers between 0 and 1 are still there though,multiplying those with 2 will generate a number between 0 and 2. Type in “=INT(RAND()*2)” and hit F9 a few times, you will see either a 0 or a 1 appear. Basically a 1d2-1. If you want a normal d2 (or the flip of a coin) you will have to add a 1: “=INT(RAND()*2)+1″ This will return a integer number between 1 and 2: a 1d2. “=INT(RAND()*6)+1″ is a d6,”=INT(RAND()*12)+1″ is a d12, “=INT(RAND()*37)+1″ is a d37 and so forth.

So for 1d20, it's:

=INT(RAND()*20)+1

Make another column for each player and NPC's Initiative modifier. Add the d20 column to the Initiative modifier column for each players in a new column. Use the Sort function, and you get everyone's result.

Everyone takes their turn, with the highest Initiative going first. When everyone has taken their turn, the round ends, the DM hits F9 and uses the Sort function (which takes 2 seconds), and a new round starts.


However, I would not suggest doing this in high level games. 3.5 D&D combat can be very, very deadly. Even a lowly Tier 5 Samurai can deal hundreds of points of damage with a simple Power Attack combo. And we're all aware of how high level magic can be an auto-win button.

Rolling Initiative every round makes SADer builds (like Dex/Int or Dex/Wis casters) and Initiative bonuses a lot more powerful, and it makes battlefield control (like a Fighter attempting to lock-down a caster with Mage Slayer or a Readied Action) much more difficult.

[Thespianus]

Honestly how many times a secession does your group get distracted by out of game talk and forget whose turn it is in the initiative order. Rerolling every round only magnifies this problem ten fold.
Honestly? Very rarely. And since we re-roll every turn, we have the order fresh in memory.


But here's why rolling initiative every round doesn't work, the duration of spells, effects and other things are often measured in rounds.
It works, and it works fine. Sometimes you get a long effect from casting a spell, sometimes you get a very short effect. It's not a problem, it's a feature of the way we roll initiative. If you stun a group of enemies, sometimes they are stunned for almost 2 rounds (if you go first in one round and last in the other), and sometime they aren't stunned long enough to give your party any advantage ( if you go last in one round and first in the other).

It is more dynamic and random, but it works fine.

At the end of the day, each to his own. If your DM wants to use this, and the player feels it is slow and weird, tell the DM, maybe he'll change his mind.

[Togo]

The thing to watch for when doing this is the effect of having two actions in a row. This can lead to some strange situations, like someone being able to outdistance a pursuer of greater speed, grappling and then pinning someone before they have a chance to act, someone having all their magical defences dispelled and then being attacked before they have a chance to act, getting full attacked twice without being able to heal, run or counterattack, or a group streaming past a single defender who can't take attacks of opportunity, and so on.

[Pickford]

There are advantages: People who invest in Initiative Feats gets a decent payback this way.

Improved Initiative, Nerveskitter, etc are bonuses that modify one roll only per encounter, and if you roll poorly, even with II and Nerveskitter, you will be reacting instead of acting through the entire encounter.

Rolling every round means that your statistical advantage will crop up more often.

I think that's the point of them being balanced the way they are. If II was used on every round it should be reduced to a +1 bonus, same with nerveskitter. Otherwise they would be far too powerful.

[Thespianus]

The thing to watch for when doing this is the effect of having two actions in a row.
Yes, this is absolutely an issue, and it forces you to think a bit more. For example, if you go last in a round, you have to plan differently than if you go first in the same round. It leads to really interesting situations, for example: I was able kill a Medusa in 2 rounds by casting Grease at a Medusa's feet in round 1, as I went last, and in round 2, I won initiative, and was able to sneak attack the Medusa with an Acid Splash + Craven + Hunter's Eye for a glorious amount of hurt.

On the other end of the spectrum, it really hurts when you get two rounds of hurt applied to yourself, between your own actions. So if you go early in one round, you need to consider your options. To me, it's a lot of fun. To others, this might be horrible. YMMV.


I think that's the point of them being balanced the way they are. If II was used on every round it should be reduced to a +1 bonus, same with nerveskitter. Otherwise they would be far too powerful.

Why do you think it would be too powerful?

You would have a +4 boost on your initiative roll every round instead of every encounter, but it averages out to the exact same value. You still have to roll decently to be able to go first in every round, the only thing you get is a bigger variation on what initiative count you get to go at.

That the advantage crops up more often was meant as a subjective experience thing ( You experience the effect of your Feat more often), not a mathematical term. In mathematical terms, the effect is the same. (except for the case with delaying your action, as mentioned above, but that's not dependent on II being too powerful. )

[TuggyNE]

That the advantage crops up more often was meant as a subjective experience thing ( You experience the effect of your Feat more often), not a mathematical term. In mathematical terms, the effect is the same. (except for the case with delaying your action, as mentioned above, but that's not dependent on II being too powerful. )

It's not exactly identical; if anything, it's more evenly distributed, which favors the PCs slightly. However, there's no direct benefit to having to roll more often. Consider two spells, one which does 1d12 damage and then repeats that same damage for 4 rounds, and the other does 1d12 damage every round. If you roll low on the first one, you get a much smaller total damage, but over many castings the two spells will have the same mean damage.

Statistics are subtle.

[eggynack]

Or you could just skip nerveskitter entirely, take primal instinct, and get your initiative boost all day. You also get it at +5, and pick up a +5 to survival checks, and an in to uncanny dodge, basically for free. In other words, screw annoying statistical issues involving initiative a round, and be a druid. As always, all universal game changes are useless against the might of a druid. You could also be a sorcerer, but those guys are less interesting.

[Roguenewb]

I had a group that did this by computer, and it made life more chaotic as people are saying. I think, interestingly, that it favors non-casters. Casters who are setting up a combo of spells, or using a spell that will defend them for a round but demands they go at the same point next turn, get really wonky. Defenses that are considered reliable or risks considered minimal can get way nastier. Shock trooping a pair of guys usually means one full attack. But now it could mean two...

Color Spray might set you up to lay down the hurt next turn, or they could snap out of it before you and cream you.

I generally found that things I had become bored with in normal initiative D&D were a little less powerful, and that randomness hurts the characters focused on careful awesome planning (like most tier 1s).

I recommend it if you have a computer setup to spit it out automatically, and players who don't mind simply going when you tell them and not complaining or metagaming.

[eggynack]

I had a group that did this by computer, and it made life more chaotic as people are saying. I think, interestingly, that it favors non-casters. Casters who are setting up a combo of spells, or using a spell that will defend them for a round but demands they go at the same point next turn, get really wonky. Defenses that are considered reliable or risks considered minimal can get way nastier. Shock trooping a pair of guys usually means one full attack. But now it could mean two...

Color Spray might set you up to lay down the hurt next turn, or they could snap out of it before you and cream you.

I generally found that things I had become bored with in normal initiative D&D were a little less powerful, and that randomness hurts the characters focused on careful awesome planning (like most tier 1s).

I recommend it if you have a computer setup to spit it out automatically, and players who don't mind simply going when you tell them and not complaining or metagaming.
This doesn't seem accurate to me. I'd far rather cast two spells in a row than charge twice in a row, and wizards are far more capable of dealing with some time in between their turns. Color spray is a bit of an aberrant case, because it's often only going to last for only one round, and that's problematic here. So, let's not use color spray. Instead, how about the wizard casts stinking cloud, or when the barbarian tries to shock trooper him, he casts greater mirror image. How about the wizard just casts fly, and suddenly makes the charger's tactics pointless. How about the wizard uses one of his ways to screw with the action economy, like celerity, or even nerveskitter.

If you think that messing with initiative is going to screw up wizards, I just don't see it. A lot of people think that successful wizard tactics rely on a series of carefully planned spells, layered one after the other, until he creates some sort of super combo. In reality, successful wizard tactics rely on spells that can achieve victory, all on their own. Do you think that solid fog, or web requires pre-planning? They do not. They just take a single standard action, and can be cast from a distance where two enemy turns don't do much.

Meanwhile, I think that this change actually screws over barbarians by a lot. In a normal situation, a charger build's best defense is a good offense. He rushes in, activates shock trooper to the maximum level, and one shots the enemy. Under normal circumstances, the loss of AC would be trivial, because the enemy that would ordinarily be stabbing the barbarian to death is dead, and nearby enemies are too far away to get a full attack. Under these circumstances, the barbarian rushes in, kills the guy, and then is stuck there for two turns. That's more than enough time for the surrounding enemies to just kill him outright, or at least maim him. Wizards aren't the ones rushing deep into the enemy lines to use their tactics. Melee guys are.

[Thespianus]

It's not exactly identical; if anything, it's more evenly distributed, which favors the PCs slightly. However, there's no direct benefit to having to roll more often.

And the subjective experience trumps statistics or factual benefit every day, for a lot of people. Seeing the practical use of a Feat you have selected often will make you feel better about having selected the Feat.

But, no point in arguing this. We see the benefits we want to see, and this thread goes some ways towards highlighting the differences between the various systems.