Ad&d(black book)

[RagnaroksChosen]

So a friend of mine is going to run Ad&d and i want to optimize a bit. Haven't played for about 6-7 years.. so i have some questions

Is it better to multi class as a demi human? I don't see a reason why not to.
Is it better to have a fast weapon that does less damage or a slow weapon that does more?

Are wizard specializations any good vs strait wizards...
and lastly what was your favorite character when you played Ad&d?

[nagora]

So a friend of mine is going to run Ad&d and i want to optimize a bit. Haven't played for about 6-7 years.. so i have some questions

Is it better to multi class as a demi human?

Absolutely. Multi-classing is the demi-human's big bonus ability. Unless something changed in 2ed then the only reason to single-class is a 2-level boost to their level caps, which is unlikely to matter to any real PC with the possible exception of halflings.

Is it better to have a fast weapon that does less damage or a slow weapon that does more?

It depends on your foe. Take a variety, hire a squire/weapon bearer to come with you and select as needed.

Are wizard specializations any good vs strait wizards...

I don't know 2ed, so I'm not sure.

and lastly what was your favorite character when you played Ad&d?

Fighters. Salt of the earth and all that.

[Matthew]

Multi Classing as a Demi Human is usually worth it in the long run, but it does mean that you will be gaining levels fairly slowly compared to a single classed character. One of the major differences between 1e and 2e is that Elf/Half Elf Fighter/Mages cannot wear armour and cast spells, which sucks.

Weapon speeds only matter insofar as your DM is using them, but most two handed weapons flat out suck in 2e because the weapon versus armour tables were expunged. A lot of optimising depends on what optional rules are in play.

Specialist Wizards get one more slot per spell level in exchange for losing a school of magic. A lot of the advantage of that depends on your DM and what spells he makes available.

I have a soft spot for Paladins, but I think Fighters were my overall favourite class; that said, I will happly play just about anything (except Druids, I hate them).

[DigoDragon]

1. Multiclassing is pretty good for the demi-humans. My wife loved a Half-elf Fighter/Cleric combo and made it work frighteningly well.

2. Why not both? Carry a fast weapon and a slow weapon. Also, having weapons with different damage types (Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning) isn't bad either.

3. I never specialized with wizards, but they could be pretty good if you have a particular school youl ike using often.

4. I once had a rakasta fighter (Dio) that was a mage-hunter specialist. What him him so much fun was that he was in an ALL WIZARD party 6 players and I'm the only melee capable character!? Dang was that a crazy adventure.

[Lord Blace]

So a friend of mine is going to run Ad&d and i want to optimize a bit. Haven't played for about 6-7 years.. so i have some questions
Is it better to multi class as a demi human? I don't see a reason why not to.

Depends on how long the game runs and your stats. If it's going to be a long campaign, and you've got some amazing stats, go human and dual class.

Is it better to have a fast weapon that does less damage or a slow weapon that does more?

If you're allowed combat and tactics, get the required weapon profs and go into two weapon fighting. Dual wielding long swords at no penalty is great.

Are wizard specializations any good vs strait wizards...

Depends on what you want. Evokers are a viable choice in 2E.

and lastly what was your favorite character when you played Ad&d?

I lurved playing buff and blast wizards.

[hamlet]

The first thing I'm going to tell you is that "optimization" in the sense that most 3.x gamers think of it, will avail you little in an AD&D game.

However, some smart moves in equiping your character will net you several benefits that are worth the time.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about AD&D 2nd edition, which is not the same as the first edition, though extremely similar.

1) It is not always better to multiclass as a demi-human. While multiclassing will effectively give you more power at an equivalent level, your leveling will be drastically slowed as you are required to split all XP straight down the middle. While you might enjoy being a fighter/mage elf, by the time you are reaching 3rd and 4th levels, the single classed human mage will probably be into 5th level, or even 6th.

It's entirely your call and, as with everything in AD&D, it's a tradeoff.

2) As Nagora said, carry a variety of weapons. Small, fast weapons are really great against things like wizards and clerics who, if they get stuck before they can finish their spell, cannot complete the casting. They're also good as backups if you lose your primary weapon or if that one proves inneffective.

Always ALWAYS carry some sort of bludgeon with you, even if you are not proficient. A common, low level monster is the basic skeleton and if you don't have so much as club1, those 1 hd skeletons become immeasurably more dangerous. Take it from a guy who used 25 skeletons to nearly decimate a 5th level party.

At the other end of the spectrum, the party "heavy hitter" should be carrying one or two "Conan Style" BFS (big f'n swords) and spears, polearms, etc. Sometimes, though not often, the best solution is to hit the bad guy hard and often and nothin' says pain like a 4 feet of steel in your gut. Spears are nice, Pikes are better if you're out in the open. You can, with clever tactics, kill a dragon with a few pikes and a few tower shields.

I'll also put in special mention for the kopesh. A bit heavy and slow, but very good for "room clearing" with medium sized creatures as it does reliably more damage than long swords or similar sized weapons.

3) Depends on the campaign, depends on the situation, depends on my mood. If I had to answer that, it would definately be the fighter, especially if the DM will allow multiple specializations. In a suit of banded mail with a good weapon in hand (bastard sword is always good and so is, surprisingly, a kopesh), wading into the fray against goblins.

However, a well played 2nd edition cleric can come up with frightening power, though not of the direct "I KILL YOU!" sort. Learn the power of the "prayer" spell, my friend. Learn it and use it often. Glyphs of Warding are unspeakably useful if you are clever. Put on on the tip of a weapon and that first hit will result in an absurd amount of extra damage. Put it on an arrow and you can get yourself an instant paralyzed squishy mage if he fails a save.



The absolute best advice that I can give you for playing AD&D is to realize that the rules do not govern what you can or cannot do. Don't use the rules to determine what you want to do, figure out what your character wants to do, and then use the rules to determine what happens.


EDIT: I forgot about specialist wizards. Their use and coolness depends on what spells are available in the campaign. The more spells you have, the less of a sacrifice those 1-3 forbidden schools will be. If you're going straight core, then the Transmuter is an excellent choice as Alteration spells are very useful (learn the power of the Enlarge spell) and you only give up Abjuration (a real hit if that's your thing) and Necromancy (not great unless you're specializing).

Also, do NOT use the Powers and Options books. They stink like three day old fish.

[Kurald Galain]

Is it better to multi class as a demi human?

Generally, yes. You will be about one level behind, but have the features of two classes. In a campaign starting at level 1, perhaps not; in other situations, go for it.

Is it better to have a fast weapon that does less damage or a slow weapon that does more?

The best weapon, ironically, is the dart, because of its ludicrously high throwing speed if you specialize in them. Barring that, all melee weapons have the same attack rate, so pick one that does the most damage. Shields provide too small a bonus to matter, until you get to enchant them.

Are wizard specializations any good vs strait wizards...

Strongly yes if transmuter or invoker, probably not otherwise (depending on splatbook availability, but only alteration and invocation have enough variety to be worth specializing in). Note that unlike in 3E, blast spells are actually good.

and lastly what was your favorite character when you played Ad&d?

A shy wizard.

[Matthew]

The best weapon, ironically, is the dart, because of its ludicrously high throwing speed if you specialize in them.

Heh, heh. That was a crazy loophole; the designers started taking measures against that in later supplements. The Fastest Dart Thrower in the West featured in Baldur's Gate as a joke about it all.

Barring that, all melee weapons have the same attack rate, so pick one that does the most damage. Shields provide too small a bonus to matter, until you get to enchant them.

Depends on what you're fighting [i.e. the size of the monster], but I wouldn't advise a two handed sword (1d10/3d6)over a long sword (1d8/1d12). The damage to armour class trade off doesn't seem worth it to me.

[hamlet]

Depends on what you're fighting [i.e. the size of the monster], but I wouldn't advise a two handed sword (1d10/3d6)over a long sword (1d8/1d12). The damage to armour class trade off doesn't seem worth it to me.

A while ago, I would agree with you 100%. However, I've seen the power of a 2 handed sword in combat with a fighter of decent strength. He mowed through a group of goblyns (note the spelling) like they were grass and the fun didn't really get started until he hit the carniverous tree at the back of the fight.

As long as you're able to take the occasional hit that a shield would have protected you from, a two handed sword can make a specialized fighter like a blender.

[Blanks]

EVERYTHING BELOW IS STRICTLY POWERORIENTED, no roleplaying considered. You can work that out yourself :)

Is it better to multi class as a demi human? I don't see a reason why not to.

And you are right, there is almost none.
The problem is the way xp scales, meaning that you will be just one level behind. Ask yourself, would you rather be level 10 mage or level 9/9 magefighter?

The only thing stopping you are level caps. If you plan to play to level 20 or something, always choose human. Otherwise the best bet is a demihuman.

Is it better to have a fast weapon that does less damage or a slow weapon that does more?

If you are fighting spellcasters your best bet is dualwielding daggers or something. Otherwise go with slow weapons, the extra damage is important.
Depending upon strenght score, availability of mastery styles and so on, the most damage is given by dualwielding as have been mentioned. If you can take mastery (+3 damage and hit), dualwielding short swords is viable. Otherwise long sword and short sword is a good combination.

Are wizard specializations any good vs strait wizards...

Yes, I would say. But it depends a lot upon the GM. I wouldnt go invoker, as the banning of alteration is a serious limit to your spell list.

and lastly what was your favorite character when you played Ad&d?

Aaah there have been so many, but almost all have been casters. A necromancer/priest of myrkul springs to mind (houseruled to allow specializing even though multiclassed)


A couple of other comments:

@ skeletons and blunt weapons:
A high level fighter should NOT use blunt weapon. Between mastery, magic weapon, and extra attacks from specialization, switching to blunt weapons is inefficient. (we houseruled 1/4 damage to induce people to use blunt weapons)

@ dualclassing
completely agree - definitely do it if you have the stats.

@ skills and powers
That book is the single reason i kept to 2E as long as i did - its really good IMO.

@ sounding very "high and mighty"
Sorry, typed quickly and unwilling to rewrite the entire stuff. No offence meant to anyone, lots of good advice from the other posters

[hamlet]

@ skeletons and blunt weapons:
A high level fighter should NOT use blunt weapon. Between mastery, magic weapon, and extra attacks from specialization, switching to blunt weapons is inefficient. (we houseruled 1/4 damage to induce people to use blunt weapons)

@ skills and powers
That book is the single reason i kept to 2E as long as i did - its really good IMO.

@ sounding very "high and mighty"
Sorry, typed quickly and unwilling to rewrite the entire stuff. No offence meant to anyone, lots of good advice from the other posters

Blunt Weapons and Skeletons: Weapon mastery is dumb. I can't think of a legitimate reason to have it in the game, especially since according to the PHB, weapon specialization was described as being among the best with that weapon in the first place. Mastery always struck me as "the best of the best of the best of the best . . .. " and just got very silly very fast. Plus, unless you're playing high powered games (and if you go strictly by core, you won't be) skeletons are a larger threat if you aren't using something like a mace or club. An average strength fighter (i.e., no bonus to damage or hit) will not have a great chance of killing a skeleton in one blow unless he's holding a blunt weapon.

Skills and Powers: Gag me please. I can't stand those books. Almost nothing of worth in them at all.

And no, you don't offend me. You just strike me as pretty much the exact opposite type of gamer as myself.

[Matthew]

A while ago, I would agree with you 100%. However, I've seen the power of a 2 handed sword in combat with a fighter of decent strength. He mowed through a group of goblyns (note the spelling) like they were grass and the fun didn't really get started until he hit the carniverous tree at the back of the fight.

As long as you're able to take the occasional hit that a shield would have protected you from, a two handed sword can make a specialized fighter like a blender.

I am not sure about that. If you've got a fighter with a good strength, you should be even more wary of using a two handed weapon. Say, for instance, that you have a fighter with strength 18/50, that would mean he was getting +1 to hit and +3 to damage...

1d10+3/3d6+3 = Average 8.5/13.5
1d8+3/1d12+3 = Average 7.5/9.5

Add on specialisation (+1 to hit and +2 damage)

1d10+5/3d6+5 = Average 10.5/15.5
1d8+5/1d12+5 = Average 9.5/11.5

...the more 'bonus damage' a character gets, the less the damage dice of the weapon matter. Certainly not enough to sacrifice a +1 to +6 bonus to armour class for.

It's even worse if you use the Complete Fighter's Handbook, as Two Handed Weapon Style Specialisation nets a +1 bonus to damage when using one handed weapons two handed, but no bonus damage when using a two handed weapon.

[Premier]

Do note that many bits of advice above assume certain things about your particular game, things which can in fact go many different ways.

Many DMs have house rules for demihuman level limits, possibly rendering your plans invalid. Many have house rules or just simplifications of weapons, not using weapons speeds and the like, possibly rendering your plans invalid again. Many use the various Complete Race/Class handbooks in 2E, offering you subraces and class kits to pick from. Many don't use the Player's Option books, rendering any plans of multiple specialisations, fighting styles and masteries null and void. Ultimately, there are just too many unknown factors to indulge in 3E-style pre-planned character building.

But that's fine; that's actually an advantage. Forget the 3E mentality and don't let yourself get hung up on getting "optimised". Just ask the party what classes they'd need the most, come up with an interesting, dramatic character personality you'd like to play, and find the simplest, most immediate way of translating that into an actual class/race combination. And just play. The measely +2 bonus you might squeeze out from your optimal character pales in comparison to the importance of playing intelligently. The guy with the highest bonuses isn't the one to survive the longest. The guy who scouts ahead, makes plans, equips wisely, and knows when and what to ask is. And none of that requires leet stats.

[hamlet]

I am not sure about that. If you've got a fighter with a good strength, you should be even more wary of using a two handed weapon. Say, for instance, that you have a fighter with strength 18/50, that would mean he was getting +1 to hit and +3 to damage...

1d10+3/3d6+3 = Average 8.5/13.5
1d8+3/1d12+3 = Average 7.5/9.5

Add on specialisation (+1 to hit and +2 damage)

1d10+5/3d6+5 = Average 10.5/15.5
1d8+5/1d12+5 = Average 9.5/11.5

...the more 'bonus damage' a character gets, the less the damage dice of the weapon matter. Certainly not enough to sacrifice a +1 to +6 bonus to armour class for.

It's even worse if you use the Complete Fighter's Handbook, as Two Handed Weapon Style Specialisation nets a +1 bonus to damage when using one handed weapons two handed, but no bonus damage when using a two handed weapon.

The guy has a 17 strength, the highest this group has seen in, literally, 4 years of gaming this campaign. I think that's +1/+1? Don't have the books with me.

He has no magic items at all, and to be completely honest, except for the wizard who, against ALL odds, has survived since the beginning of this campaign, magic items are extremely rare. His chances of having a magic shield or suit of armor (let alone anything beyond +1) is virtually nil.

So, when it all comes down to the math, his suit of banded mail (AC4) and his decent DEX (enough to get him to AC1 with no magic) is enough to protect him against all but the most dire of foes.

So, yes, you're right in that, over time, those solitary +1's and +2's from higher strength and magic are more than the random die, in our gritty corner of the AD&D 2e world (basically, straight core with only a very few modifications), that 1d10 makes all the difference.

The guy's a 3rd level fighter standing next to a 6th level cleric and 6th level Transmuter, and he still consistantly does the most damage barring special circumstances.

Makes my cleric look like a chump, really, except where undead are involved. I have the luck to posess, arguably*, the most powerful magic item in the group which is an amulet permitting me to turn undead at two levels higher.

It all depends on how you play the game, really, and how the world is set up. Ours is grim, gritty, horrifically violent and violating, and we are heroes by the skin of our teeth dangit!

Plus, it really helps that the new guy's dice practically sing at the table. Must check to see if they're rigged.

*I say arguably because the party recently came into possession of a "Net of Entrapment" which, after months of just lugging it around in a back pocket, has begun to prove extremely useful when facing things like JuJu Zombies (when you have only 3 +1 weapons in the entire party all carried by the same guy) and Goblyns (so that they don't, you know, bite your face off and eat your brain).

[Matthew]

Do note that many bits of advice above assume certain things about your particular game, things which can in fact go many different ways.

Yes, I noted that above, but it is definitely worth emphasising. AD&D 2e is designed be built.

The guy has a 17 strength, the highest this group has seen in, literally, 4 years of gaming this campaign. I think that's +1/+1? Don't have the books with me.

Yeah, that's right.

He has no magic items at all, and to be completely honest, except for the wizard who, against ALL odds, has survived since the beginning of this campaign, magic items are extremely rare. His chances of having a magic shield or suit of armor (let alone anything beyond +1) is virtually nil.

So, when it all comes down to the math, his suit of banded mail (AC4) and his decent DEX (enough to get him to AC1 with no magic) is enough to protect him against all but the most dire of foes.

Heh, heh. Well, magic is always a variable consideration. I don't generally play a lot of magic rich games either. Most of our games top out at around armour class 0 as well.

So, yes, you're right in that, over time, those solitary +1's and +2's from higher strength and magic are more than the random die, in our gritty corner of the AD&D 2e world (basically, straight core with only a very few modifications), that 1d10 makes all the difference.

Fair enough. So no 'fine' quality weapons either, I presume?

The guy's a 3rd level fighter standing next to a 6th level cleric and 6th level Transmuter, and he still consistantly does the most damage barring special circumstances.

Makes my cleric look like a chump, really, except where undead are involved. I have the luck to posess, arguably*, the most powerful magic item in the group which is an amulet permitting me to turn undead at two levels higher.

It all depends on how you play the game, really, and how the world is set up. Ours is grim, gritty, horrifically violent and violating, and we are heroes by the skin of our teeth dangit!

Plus, it really helps that the new guy's dice practically sing at the table. Must check to see if they're rigged.

Yeah, sheer luck at the table often makes a much bigger difference than statistical examination.

[hamlet]

Fair enough. So no 'fine' quality weapons either, I presume?


Yeah, sheer luck at the table often makes a much bigger difference than statistical examination.

Well, one of the group had a "fine quality" sword and full elven chain . . . but he got swallowed by some plant and all of his gear was melted. Fellow survived just barely (and I mean BARELY) but had to have his skin regrown over the course of a week's worth of devoted cure spells.

And just to make it clear, "bad things happen" is kind of the motto of the game. Really bad things do happen, and most often as a result of the party's actions. And not just to us. We were, indirectly, responsible for the erasure of a small farming village lately, and that one's still sticking in the craw I'll tell you.

On the other hand, we have lots of opportunities to really prove ourselves heroes and trully show how great we can be, simply because we do it without the rod of smiting.

[RagnaroksChosen]

hmm interesting i believe the only thing he does is throw out the demi human race caps... and we use the proficiency system.. not sure about the others..

I know optimizing is really crazy done but the tips and tricks you guys are giving me are a big help keep it up if you can..

Only the core three books are avalable phb dmg and mm...
but thanks.

[Chronos]

If you're starting at first level, specialization is pretty much essential for wizards. Wizards in 2e didn't get bonus spells for high intelligence, and there were no 0-level spells, which means that at first level, you got a grand total of one spell per day, and that was it. So once a day, you could be moderately useful, and then the rest of the time, you completely sucked. Two spells a day was still pretty pathetic, but hey, it was a big improvement.

Generally, yes [it's better for a demihuman to be multiclassed]. You will be about one level behind, but have the features of two classes. In a campaign starting at level 1, perhaps not; in other situations, go for it.

Even more so if you're starting at 1. At level 1, you can be (say) a level 1 mage, or you can be a level 1 mage and a level 1 thief. There is no drawback whatsoever to multiclassing, at first level. Well, aside from the absolute headache of calculating everything, of course.

[hamlet]

hmm interesting i believe the only thing he does is throw out the demi human race caps... and we use the proficiency system.. not sure about the others..

I know optimizing is really crazy done but the tips and tricks you guys are giving me are a big help keep it up if you can..

Only the core three books are avalable phb dmg and mm...
but thanks.

If you stick to the core books only and the DM has no house rules about character generation (i.e, point buy), then you'll have to learn a new way of making a character, really.

While you can go in with a concept of what you'd like, that's no garuntee that your end result will be that.

The best way to "optimize" here is to learn how to take what the ability rolls give you and make the best out of them. And no, just because you rolled a 17 Int doesn't mean that you are neccessarily a wizard.

[nagora]

If you're starting at first level, specialization is pretty much essential for wizards. Wizards in 2e didn't get bonus spells for high intelligence, and there were no 0-level spells, which means that at first level, you got a grand total of one spell per day, and that was it. So once a day, you could be moderately useful, and then the rest of the time, you completely sucked.

Did cantrips get cut out of 2e? I didn't know that. Still, in 1e sleep was the nuclear option for most 1st level parties ("Okay, that's it - I'm calling it! Sleep 'em!") so cantrips didn't see much action in the early stages anyway.

[Matthew]

Did cantrips get cut out of 2e? I didn't know that.

You mean the Unearthed Arcana version? Kind of. There was a cantrips spell and a whole load of articles, but the Player's Option: Spells & Powers basically reintroduced the whole concept.

Still, in 1e sleep was the nuclear option for most 1st level parties ("Okay, that's it - I'm calling it! Sleep 'em!") so cantrips didn't see much action in the early stages anyway.

True, or charming some poor fellow. In 2e, you really want the Armour spell, as it's duration is "until used up", which at Level One is forever. Cast it on everyone, especially your Thief buddies, etc...

[nagora]

True, or charming some poor fellow. In 2e, you really want the Armour spell, as it's duration is "until used up", which at Level One is forever. Cast it on everyone, especially your Thief buddies, etc...

Ah, well, sleep had that "area of effect" quality that casters with only one spell per 4hrs really like, plus when you drop the ogre that's about to flatten your 1st level party, you get your magic-using geek self some chicks respect!

[RagnaroksChosen]

Ah, well, sleep had that "area of effect" quality that casters with only one spell per 4hrs really like, plus when you drop the ogre that's about to flatten your 1st level party, you get your magic-using geek self some chicks respect!

Per 4 hours??

[Siosilvar]

Yes, I believe you needed to wait 4 hours or spells you cast counted against you... Or was that casting spells when your 8 hour rest is interrupted?

[hamlet]

Did cantrips get cut out of 2e? I didn't know that. Still, in 1e sleep was the nuclear option for most 1st level parties ("Okay, that's it - I'm calling it! Sleep 'em!") so cantrips didn't see much action in the early stages anyway.

Cantrips did not get removed, it became a non-specified first level spell. Surprisingly useful even though it strove desperately to be totally useless.

Most frequent use in our group was to use it to turn the paladin's war horse pink with purple poka-dots.

[Chronos]

Cantrips did not get removed, it became a non-specified first level spell. Surprisingly useful even though it strove desperately to be totally useless.

Yeah, the spell that's now called Prestidigitation in 3.x used to be called Cantrip in 2nd. It's basically the same, except for the level. And yes, it was incredibly useful back then, too, but you couldn't really afford to use it when it was the only thing you had all day.

[nagora]

Per 4 hours??

To recover 1st-2nd level spells in AD&D (1e, perhaps it changed in 2e) the caster had to first rest for 4hrs and then spend 15min per level per spell to prepare them for use. Obviously, this depended on magic users having some form of spell book (either their main book or a travelling version) and somewhere to "relax" but most groups were familiar with the idea of hit-and-run tactics at low level.

[Matthew]

Cantrips did not get removed, it became a non-specified first level spell. Surprisingly useful even though it strove desperately to be totally useless.

Most frequent use in our group was to use it to turn the paladin's war horse pink with purple poka-dots.

Not the same thing as what we're talking about. Cantrips in Unearthed Arcana 1e are actual 0 Level spells that Magic Users and Illusionists can use in addition to their normal spells.

To recover 1st-2nd level spells in AD&D (1e, perhaps it changed in 2e) the caster had to first rest for 4hrs and then spend 15min per level per spell to prepare them for use.

Yep, changed from four hours to 'a restful night's sleep'. As with most things in 2e, exactly what was required became more vague, so that the DM could interpret it to suit his game.

[nagora]

Yep, changed from four hours to 'a restful night's sleep'. As with most things in 2e, exactly what was required became more vague, so that the DM could interpret it to suit his game.

Ah, right. Well, 1st level magic users were over powered.

To be honest, though, it was rare that a 1st level caster used the rule, although it did happen. It was more often used by a higher-level caster on the "exit" phase of a scenario where there wasn't time to recharge completely but, with everything else used up, 6 or 8 hours to regain a batch of lower level spells was worth doing.

[Kurald Galain]

To recover 1st-2nd level spells in AD&D (1e, perhaps it changed in 2e) the caster had to first rest for 4hrs and then spend 15min per level per spell to prepare them for use.

Yes. As I recall, 2E reduced it to ten minutes per spell level, which still adds up to an extreme amount of time for higher-level casters.

The only place where I've actually seen this rule followed is in the computer RPG Eye of the Beholder, which has fairly ludicrous hour counts whenever you click on the rest button.