How many sessions to level?

[Dalebert]

We've been 4th level for a couple of games. If the two games since we leveled are indicative of the rate of x.p., I've calculated at least 20 more sessions at about 4 hours each to reach 5th. Last session we fought four orcs, their slightly beefed up leader, an ogre, and 2 perytons. Today's we fought 2 hobgoblins, 4 goblins, and 10 stirges. I've dropped hints to give us bigger stuff to fight. Whenever I insinuate that the pace seems a little slow, I get jokingly called a munchkin. He's following a module and he tends to follow it to the letter with very little creative adjustent.

I'm playing in several games and I'm left with the impression that the pace of leveling is fairly slow in this edition without any optional rules, like multipliers for fighting multiple opponents. In another game, the DM has used a couple of optional rules including that one and the pace is considerably faster (so far)--about 3 or 4 sessions to level, though those sessions often run 5 or 6 hours.

What do you consider to be a reasonable amount of real time, say in hours of gaming, to go up a level, roughly? Is 20 too fast? Is 80+ too slow? Should I learn to live in the moment and just be happy to play for another 20 weeks at 4th level?

[JFahy]

We've been 4th level for a couple of games. If the two games since we leveled are indicative of the rate of x.p., I've calculated at least 20 more sessions at about 4 hours each to reach 5th. Last session we fought four orcs, their slightly beefed up leader, an ogre, and 2 perytons. Today's we fought 2 hobgoblins, 4 goblins, and 10 stirges. I've dropped hints to give us bigger stuff to fight. Whenever I insinuate that the pace seems a little slow, I get jokingly called a munchkin. He's following a module and he tends to follow it to the letter with very little creative adjustent.

I'm playing in several games and I'm left with the impression that the pace of leveling is fairly slow in this edition without any optional rules, like multipliers for fighting multiple opponents. In another game, the DM has used a couple of optional rules including that one and the pace is considerably faster (so far)--about 3 or 4 sessions to level, though those sessions often run 5 or 6 hours.

What do you consider to be a reasonable amount of real time, say in hours of gaming, to go up a level, roughly? Is 20 too fast? Is 80+ too slow? Should I learn to live in the moment and just be happy to play for another 20 weeks at 4th level?

I like to see my groups ding every 2-4 weeks. We play 3-4 hours, pretty much every Friday, so 6 to 16 play hours per level??

My groups pretty much always start at level 1 and I try to wrap things up by the early to mid teen levels if not sooner, so keep that in mind if you're aggregating numbers.

(PS: I also noticed there's a wicked transition from 'fairly swift progression' to 'man, we've been level 4 a long time'.)

[Mikeavelli]

The XP gap between 4-5 is huge. It's an intentional decision on the part of the designers, mostly because the power difference between 4th and 5th level is also huge. I ran a game that started at level 1, and went up a level every 1-2 sessions. Following the rules to the letter, we went about 4 sessions without the players getting enough xp to level up to 5th, so I decided to just fudge things and have them level up anyways.

My sessions also take about 4-6 hours a piece, and spending 20 hours at level 4 is somewhat frustrating, and I would recommend far less play time than that.

[Easy_Lee]

I think it should start fast and increase for later levels. Level 2 took about one full session for my group, and 3 took 2-3 sessions. That said, staying the same level for several weeks in a row is not as exciting for the players.

If you calculate experience properly, and continue sending level-appropriate challenges at your players, you shouldn't have to worry too much.

[Kane0]

Judging by my own experience, every 24 hours or so of play time seems good. Thats two sessions if you do 12 hour games (roughly one level per month if you go every fortnight), every 4 sessions if you do 6 hour games (also roughly one level per month if you play once a week) or every 6 sessions if you have 4 hour games (about a month and a half if you play each week, or just under a month if you play twice a week). If you want a faster pace just halve those numbers.

Then again we don't level often cause we tend to play long spanning games and hate dealing with some of our players during the level-up process.

Of course getting from level 1 to 2 should be in the first session, and arguably 2nd to 3rd in the next. The DMG throws out multiple options depending on how you want to run things:
- Pure XP (granted for challenges, encounters, plot, etc)
- By milestone (Major events in your story)
- By sessions (one level every 2-3 sessions, adjust accordingly)
And each one can be tailored to suit.

[Envyus]

We've been 4th level for a couple of games. If the two games since we leveled are indicative of the rate of x.p., I've calculated at least 20 more sessions at about 4 hours each to reach 5th. Last session we fought four orcs, their slightly beefed up leader, an ogre, and 2 perytons. Today's we fought 2 hobgoblins, 4 goblins, and 10 stirges. I've dropped hints to give us bigger stuff to fight. Whenever I insinuate that the pace seems a little slow, I get jokingly called a munchkin. He's following a module and he tends to follow it to the letter with very little creative adjustent.

I'm playing in several games and I'm left with the impression that the pace of leveling is fairly slow in this edition without any optional rules, like multipliers for fighting multiple opponents. In another game, the DM has used a couple of optional rules including that one and the pace is considerably faster (so far)--about 3 or 4 sessions to level, though those sessions often run 5 or 6 hours.

What do you consider to be a reasonable amount of real time, say in hours of gaming, to go up a level, roughly? Is 20 too fast? Is 80+ too slow? Should I learn to live in the moment and just be happy to play for another 20 weeks at 4th level?

What Module are you playing and how many party members do you have.

Anyway it should not take 20 sessions to level.

[hymer]

DMG p. 261. Level Advancement without XP - Session-Based Advancement


A good rate of session-based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session of play, 3rd level after another session, and 4th after two more sessions. Then spend two or three sessions for each subsequent level. This rate mirrors the standard rate of advancement, assuming sessions are about four hours long.

So that's what the developers think.

[Rallicus]

The developers must be smoking the good stuff then, cause that statement totally contradicts the XP they hand out for appropriate level encounters, the idea of milestones, etc. 8 hours to level 1-3? Really?

[hymer]

The developers must be smoking the good stuff then, cause that statement totally contradicts the XP they hand out for appropriate level encounters, the idea of milestones, etc. 8 hours to level 1-3? Really?

It squares pretty well with what I'm experiencing so far, although my 5th edition campaigns/games have started pretty much in the thick of it. If there is a lot of stuff that doesn't give XP that needs to be dealt with, it obviously changes the rate.

[silveralen]

The developers must be smoking the good stuff then, cause that statement totally contradicts the XP they hand out for appropriate level encounters, the idea of milestones, etc. 8 hours to level 1-3? Really?

Not really? Most combats take around 20 mins at my table, at least roughly medium encounters, harder ones maybe stretch it to 30-40. You need about 15 medium encounters to level. That comes out to about 5 hours of combat, with the other three being non combat. For three sessions, you'd be looking at 5/12 hours in combat. That gives a rough range of 40-65% combat per sessions.

Now, even 40% could be combat heavy for some tables. For less combat heavy tables, the rules for noncombat encounters and XP might be beneficial.

I think a lot of people play low combat games and are a bit thrown by the assumptions the designers had.

[Yagyujubei]

every 3-4 sessions works totally fine if you actually fight enemies that are of the appropriate difficulty. you're just fighting stuff that's way too easy. CR is horribly misleading in this edition. you can kill stuff way above suggested CR without too much trouble.

my lvl 8 group has actually run into the problem now that to make encounters challenging we need to put in mobs that total entire levels worth of XP for all of us. like our last encounter was really tough, but after looking up xp values I realized that what we had fought was worth enough xp to level up completely to 9 and get about a fifth of the way to 10.

that aside, you may consider recommending that your DM start giving out XP for particularly good RP or out of battle accomplishments to speed things up a bit, or big bonuses for completing missions/quests.

[Dalebert]

Sounds like my notion of about 3 to 4 sessions or about 20 hours per level isn't too far off of the general sense and I'm not a munchkin for thinking 80+ hours and about 5 months real time to get to level 5 is a bit long.

So in the "slow" game, I'm trying to put my finger on what exactly might be slowing the pace so much. I think part of it is that it's a bit light on combat and I seem to recall the DM saying we could get xp from other things like completing missions, but I have no recollection of getting anything like that. If we did, it was quite piddling. For instance, we rescued some folks and returned them and got financial rewards and incredible gratitude, but no xp that I can even recall. The last two games, we had two combats. I'd say they lasted between 20 to 60 minutes each.

So if we're expected to level after about 15 encounters, it should still only take maybe 7 weeks in theory. I tend to agree that the numbers they assign do not tend to align with their expectations of leveling rates. I just hate to come across like I'm hyper-critical of my DM and how he handles things, but it feels like DMs have to be attentive to these things and can't just really on the math in the books.

That's starting to seem like an ongoing problem with this edition. It's just so swingy from one DM's style to the next.

[Fwiffo86]

If you look at the required xp to level from 19-20 you should find something funny. Based on the recommended xp per day chart, it would take just about 17 hours game time to level from 19-20

[EvanescentHero]

As a DM, I despise calculating XP and planning for every little thing. I also don't like having to worry about working out XP for random encounters. As such, I simply level my players up when I feel the time is right--usually two or three sessions so they get a chance to play with their new stuff, but don't feel like they're stagnating at a specific level. This method makes things much simpler for me, as that way I can make sure everyone levels up at the same time, and keeps me in control of their power level so it's tuned properly to the story.

[Fwiffo86]

As a DM, I despise calculating XP and planning for every little thing. I also don't like having to worry about working out XP for random encounters. As such, I simply level my players up when I feel the time is right--usually two or three sessions so they get a chance to play with their new stuff, but don't feel like they're stagnating at a specific level. This method makes things much simpler for me, as that way I can make sure everyone levels up at the same time, and keeps me in control of their power level so it's tuned properly to the story.

I used to do this as well. Then I realized that it takes away the incentive to not die. If everyone levels after time played instead of accumulated xp, characters that die are not held back in leveling, and thus, there is no incentive to avoid dying.

[Chaosvii7]

I think it's easier to find something to pace yourself with so you can chart out experience gain. Somebody once came up with the idea of milestone leveling based on your proficiency bonus. Levels 2 and 3 are each one session's worth, and then every level afterward takes one session per point of proficiency bonus. Level 4 is two sessions, 5-8 are 3 sessions per, etc. That's the standard I hold myself to. Another idea is to go for one level per month for every level after 4. It means you can take things slow at first and then get it really going. It's also workable as a milestone, so that it's based on sessions less so the encounters themselves. Takes pressure off of complex encounter building.

[silveralen]

Sounds like my notion of about 3 to 4 sessions or about 20 hours per level isn't too far off of the general sense and I'm not a munchkin for thinking 80+ hours and about 5 months real time to get to level 5 is a bit long.

So in the "slow" game, I'm trying to put my finger on what exactly might be slowing the pace so much. I think part of it is that it's a bit light on combat and I seem to recall the DM saying we could get xp from other things like completing missions, but I have no recollection of getting anything like that. If we did, it was quite piddling. For instance, we rescued some folks and returned them and got financial rewards and incredible gratitude, but no xp that I can even recall. The last two games, we had two combats. I'd say they lasted between 20 to 60 minutes each.

So if we're expected to level after about 15 encounters, it should still only take maybe 7 weeks in theory. I tend to agree that the numbers they assign do not tend to align with their expectations of leveling rates. I just hate to come across like I'm hyper-critical of my DM and how he handles things, but it feels like DMs have to be attentive to these things and can't just really on the math in the books.

That's starting to seem like an ongoing problem with this edition. It's just so swingy from one DM's style to the next.

It isn't so much the DM can't rely on the math in the books, it is that DMs keep selectively ignoring certain assumptions without compensating. 1-2 combats per 5 hour session is well under the assumptions.

Basically, your DMs style is he doesn't like combat and doesn't want you to level. his response when you mentioned it basically confirms this. If that doesn't work for you, you will have a bad time.

Though the fact one of your combats hit the hour marker means it was probably worth a big chunk of XP I'd assume, that or you had a lot of drag.


As a DM, I despise calculating XP and planning for every little thing. I also don't like having to worry about working out XP for random encounters. As such, I simply level my players up when I feel the time is right--usually two or three sessions so they get a chance to play with their new stuff, but don't feel like they're stagnating at a specific level. This method makes things much simpler for me, as that way I can make sure everyone levels up at the same time, and keeps me in control of their power level so it's tuned properly to the story.

This is by far the easiest way. I plan out how long I expect certain parts of the adventure to take, and usually have a big encounter or milestone planned every 2-4 sessions, after which leveling happens. It is the easy way to do it for sure.

[Garimeth]

DMG p. 261. Level Advancement without XP - Session-Based Advancement


A good rate of session-based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session of play, 3rd level after another session, and 4th after two more sessions. Then spend two or three sessions for each subsequent level. This rate mirrors the standard rate of advancement, assuming sessions are about four hours long.

Personally I don't ever even use XP anymore.

[7heprofessor]

I level my PCs every other session from levels 1-5, every two sessions from 5-10, and three sessions from 10-20 regardless of battles. I also scroll blocks of time in between adventures so the characters don't go from level 1-20 in only three weeks...

Players like to level up and get new abilities, and our sessions are long enough (5 hours) that they have an opportunity to use their cool new powers a few times before they gain some new ones. It keeps them engaged and more interested in making a cool story, rather than worrying about XP-grinding.

Either way...just my 2 cp

[EvanescentHero]

I used to do this as well. Then I realized that it takes away the incentive to not die. If everyone levels after time played instead of accumulated xp, characters that die are not held back in leveling, and thus, there is no incentive to avoid dying.

Well, except that in general characters are gonna want to keep themselves alive, and I trust my players to roleplay well enough. Plus there's the fact that not everyone has access to resurrection magic, and there's no guarantee of finding someone who can raise a dead character.

[Yagyujubei]

I would probably break it up as 1-4 one session 5-9 two sessions 10-16 three sessions and 17-20 four sessions myself.

that way a full character progression takes about a year, which I think it should. and you can divide your campaign into a 4 season story arc to break up and allow for long passages of time. I mean reaching full level should take a character a long long time, like roughly half a human lifetime in years (40ish)

[Garimeth]

Well, except that in general characters are gonna want to keep themselves alive, and I trust my players to roleplay well enough. Plus there's the fact that not everyone has access to resurrection magic, and there's no guarantee of finding someone who can raise a dead character.

Agreed, resurrection in my games are rare, and never easy, the only exception would be a PC who has the ability to do it, which has only happened once in all the years I've been playing, as my PCs never seem to play divines.

[Theodoxus]

Huge fan of milestones. Have always hated tracking piddly xp increases - I only do so as a player if we're playing PF and I can use the Hero Lab app on my iPad.

I love Paizo Adventure Paths because even though the XP is provided for quests and encounters, it's also extremely easy to just milestone it, as they let you know what level everyone should be by the time you hit a specific chapter (and modifying the encounters on the fly if they're too hard/easy is simple enough).

Regarding death and xp loss with Milestones, I've never had an issue... If a character is behind for whatever reason, I let them catch up, generally at an 75% rate (though that can change depending on circumstance). Thus after 75% of the current chapter, they level up 1 level (to a maximum of equal to the rest of the party). They don't level with the party at the start of the next chapter, but rather after 50% into it again, to the party maximum. This continues for each milestone until they're equal to the party. Although to be honest, I've never had a character be less than 2 levels behind at any point, so it doesn't stay for very long.

The primary reason I like chapter based milestones is because the players know their leveling is based on their progress through the book, not on an arbitrary number of dead things beneath their feet. It might be a bit metagamey, but my players are wise enough to not game the system. It can make for some levels to last months; but the players enjoy the side quests and subplots - they're having fun, so I don't stress too much (though I have been known to push when I'm excited about an upcoming event and want to play it through, but they're dragging their feet getting to it.)

[Envyus]

Sounds like my notion of about 3 to 4 sessions or about 20 hours per level isn't too far off of the general sense and I'm not a munchkin for thinking 80+ hours and about 5 months real time to get to level 5 is a bit long.

So in the "slow" game, I'm trying to put my finger on what exactly might be slowing the pace so much. I think part of it is that it's a bit light on combat and I seem to recall the DM saying we could get xp from other things like completing missions, but I have no recollection of getting anything like that. If we did, it was quite piddling. For instance, we rescued some folks and returned them and got financial rewards and incredible gratitude, but no xp that I can even recall. The last two games, we had two combats. I'd say they lasted between 20 to 60 minutes each.

So if we're expected to level after about 15 encounters, it should still only take maybe 7 weeks in theory. I tend to agree that the numbers they assign do not tend to align with their expectations of leveling rates. I just hate to come across like I'm hyper-critical of my DM and how he handles things, but it feels like DMs have to be attentive to these things and can't just really on the math in the books.

That's starting to seem like an ongoing problem with this edition. It's just so swingy from one DM's style to the next.

What Module are you playing. Because me and some other people are not finding it a problem. It may be that he is forgetting to give you exp for some things or that he is not using the encounter guideline's correctly to give you harder and more rewarding fights.

I am thinking you might be on Hoard of the Dragon Queen chapter 4. Which is just a slow paced chapter depending on the GM. Still the pace should pick up.

[Dalebert]

I am thinking you might be on Hoard of the Dragon Queen chapter 4. Which is just a slow paced chapter depending on the GM. Still the pace should pick up.

I think that's it. Is that the one with the banshee, the friendly necromancer, and Wave Echo Caverns? We just got to the caverns.

[Envyus]

I think that's it. Is that the one with the banshee, the friendly necromancer, and Wave Echo Caverns? We just got to the caverns.

No that's Lost Mine of Phandelver. Anyway the Adventure is supposed to take you to level 5. You will defentently gain more then enough xp to level up in 1 to 3 sessions in Wave Echo Cave. Depending on how much Xp you have.

Question did you guys go to Thundertree yet?

[goto124]

I used to do this as well. Then I realized that it takes away the incentive to not die. If everyone levels after time played instead of accumulated xp, characters that die are not held back in leveling, and thus, there is no incentive to avoid dying.

Isn't it troublesome and expensive to get yourself ressurected? Wouldn't the rest of the party have to drag your corpse around and find someone with high enough Cleric levels, as well as the required components?

'Dude stop dying already'

[Knaight]

Not really? Most combats take around 20 mins at my table, at least roughly medium encounters, harder ones maybe stretch it to 30-40. You need about 15 medium encounters to level. That comes out to about 5 hours of combat, with the other three being non combat. For three sessions, you'd be looking at 5/12 hours in combat. That gives a rough range of 40-65% combat per sessions.

Now, even 40% could be combat heavy for some tables. For less combat heavy tables, the rules for noncombat encounters and XP might be beneficial.

I think a lot of people play low combat games and are a bit thrown by the assumptions the designers had.

I'm not sure that it's a lot of people play low combat games so much as the assumption is for a really, really high combat game. You're talking about 5 fights per session, which eat 62.5% of playtime between them. There's a lot of room to be under that while still being a pretty combat heavy game, which could easily get to 6-7 sessions per level by the XP advancement rules.


Well, except that in general characters are gonna want to keep themselves alive, and I trust my players to roleplay well enough. Plus there's the fact that not everyone has access to resurrection magic, and there's no guarantee of finding someone who can raise a dead character.
Even if resurrection magic is easy and the role playing is terrible, players of dead characters temporarily don't really get to play the game. That seems like a pretty strong disincentive to me, unless you're looking at the particular sort of player which isn't invested in the actual play and just wants their characters experience to go up so they get more powerful - a type I've heard of and never seen, which sounds thoroughly unpleasant to play with.

[EvanescentHero]

Even if resurrection magic is easy and the role playing is terrible, players of dead characters temporarily don't really get to play the game. That seems like a pretty strong disincentive to me, unless you're looking at the particular sort of player which isn't invested in the actual play and just wants their characters experience to go up so they get more powerful - a type I've heard of and never seen, which sounds thoroughly unpleasant to play with.

That's also very true! Being dead isn't fun.

[silveralen]

I'm not sure that it's a lot of people play low combat games so much as the assumption is for a really, really high combat game. You're talking about 5 fights per session, which eat 62.5% of playtime between them. There's a lot of room to be under that while still being a pretty combat heavy game, which could easily get to 6-7 sessions per level by the XP advancement rules.

Uh... I have a hard time defining combat heavy as less than 33% of the play time. To be honest, I think combat heavy is going to be at least 50% combat. For 4 hour sessions, even at 33% combat, you are coming in under 6 sessions assuming an average fight is about 20 mins (harder fights might take longer, but give proportionally more XP) and that it takes 15 medium sessions to level (less true once you pass about level 10, 15-16 tends to be the absolute upper limit of how many encounters it takes).

I think you have a very different definition of high combat, for me 25% combat is not high, 33% isn't even high. I've always considered around 50/50 to be average. I've only played a few game dramatically below/above that.

Remember, they said between 2-3 sessions, not every 2 on the dot. 62.5% is the very upper end of what they planned for.

7 sessions is not high combat, that'd be 20% or less. That's when you use the rules for non combat XP.

[Tarrab]

You know, the system I use when I DM is a preety simple one and most of my players really like it. As a base, they go up in level if they play a number of sessions equal to the level they are about to get (so six sessions for level six). This usully allows them to experiment and get acquainted with any new abilities they got during level up. Also, usually after half of those sessions are done, I start increasing the challenge a bit, and if they survive a really dangerous couple of situations/fights/bosses, they might just need to play 3/4 of the way to the next level up.

[goto124]

Even if resurrection magic is easy and the role playing is terrible, players of dead characters temporarily don't really get to play the game. That seems like a pretty strong disincentive to me

For a while I thought 'deadtime' referred to this...

[Narren]

How many people played 2nd edition? Is it just me, or does it seem like advancement was far slower (depending on your class, of course) in that edition?

[Fwiffo86]

How many people played 2nd edition? Is it just me, or does it seem like advancement was far slower (depending on your class, of course) in that edition?

It was far slower. Largely because after awhile, you needed hundreds of thousands of xp just to level once. And people have different xp charts. The more stuff you got to do (options) like the wizard, the longer it took to level. It was quite common to see a level 16 rogue with I think a level 8-10 wizard in the party.

[rhouck]

How many people played 2nd edition? Is it just me, or does it seem like advancement was far slower (depending on your class, of course) in that edition?

Haha my thought exactly. Kids these days and their fast leveling :smallwink:

I did some of the math awhile ago elsewhere (in a discussion about 1e/2e compared to 5e):


I would also keep in mind that leveling happens far quicker in 5e versus 1e --- 64,000xp (2,560 kobolds @ 25xp) versus 500,000xp (71,429 kobolds @ 7xp) to reach 10th level. So the amount of playtime to reach 10th level in 1e versus 5e is vastly different (5e is built around reaching 20th level playing once a week for a year). . . . By the time a 5e barbarian has killed 14,200 kobolds (he's had a very boring career and an unimaginative DM), he has reached 20th level -- whereas the 1e fighter is only halfway through 7th level

Not to mention it was a hell of a lot easier to die and stay dead...

[hymer]

The more stuff you got to do (options) like the wizard, the longer it took to level. It was quite common to see a level 16 rogue with I think a level 8-10 wizard in the party.

Well, when a rogue (bard or thief) hit level 16, it'd be at 1.32M XP. At that point, the cleric, druid, fighter and wizard would be level 13. The cleric would be just 30k XP short of 14. The paladin and ranger would still be level 12. But it's a snapshot, not a general overview of leveling progression. Take a druid vs. cleric comparison. Cleric is swifter from level 1-4, then the druid is ahead until level 14, after which true weirdness overtakes the druid. Leveling a druid was quite weird from level 17 onwards.
Another snapshot at .5M: Fighter just made level 10, paladin and ranger are one level behind, the wizard is already level 11, the cleric is level 10, and the druid and the the rogues are well ahead at level 12.

[MeeposFire]

It was far slower. Largely because after awhile, you needed hundreds of thousands of xp just to level once. And people have different xp charts. The more stuff you got to do (options) like the wizard, the longer it took to level. It was quite common to see a level 16 rogue with I think a level 8-10 wizard in the party.

However this was partly averted if you use the various optional XP rules in AD&D such as gold for XP (which was used in basic and 1e as actual rules and 2e made optional). For instance in 2e if you found 10,000 GP in a horde then you get 5000xp. If there was a magic weapon in the horde you also received xp for that as well. You could also get XP from using class abilities and RPing your character in certain ways. Also due to the large tables DMs could give out bonus XP as rewards to give players reasons to RP in effective ways since it would not strain XP budgets. IN 3e and 4e this is more difficult to do because the XP it takes to level is small enough that adding effective XP actually can significantly change how fast you level.

Regardless if you actually use those variant XP rules leveling can happen much faster (also quest rewards). If you play 2e using only monster XP as the means to gain a level 2e becomes painfully slow.

[Falka]

As far as I can tell, levels from 1 to 4 are meant to be obtained pretty quickly, while the gap between level 4 and 5 is pretty big. It took more than double of the average amount of sessions for PCs in my party to get to level 5 (I ran HotDQ).