a neat buff for artillerist could be to increase the flamethrowers range to like 30 to 45ft cone along with a bit bigger damage boost to the cannons. tho choosing the cannon to explode is 100% useless id never see a reason to do that over just attacking
I've never played an artillerist, but I was contemplating the subclass recently, and finding it much more appealing if I thought of it as say my tiny flame-throwing dragon construct. Or, if I just used it always as a healing ray. I think there are some interesting options for some quite different character types that didn't occur to me on the first read.
Having to pay your first round action to initiate it is a little pricey. You could buff it rather nicely by allowing your player to create it before turn order starts.
The cannon does way more damage than the steel defender but the steel defender is a lot more versatile, and lasts indefinitely.
the fact that the cannons arent with you 24/7 is weird but the one hour time limit is also long enough to not be a problem really. i played one and the DM allowed me to bring out my cannons for a bonus action which turned out to kinda hurt my DPR and i went back to using an action. i couldnt use the cannons when i summoned them if i summoned them with a BA
Artificer trade a little raw power for flexibility. And I think it is a fair trade of.
Rangers and Paladins are stuck on their Selection of Spells and Fighting Style. While a Artificer can chose between different infusions and a whole list of spells per long rest.
Yes the Alchemist suffers some problems, but so does the Beastmaster.
Overall I think it is a very fun and versatile class, the jack of all trades of the halfcasters.
Artificer trade a little raw power for flexibility. And I think it is a fair trade of.
Rangers and Paladins are stuck on their Selection of Spells and Fighting Style. While a Artificer can chose between different infusions and a whole list of spells per long rest.
Yes the Alchemist suffers some problems, but so does the Beastmaster.
Overall I think it is a very fun and versatile class, the jack of all trades of the halfcasters.
Actually, Paladins can swap out their spells on a long rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It's not a bad question. But for me, I can't give you an answer to that poll. But I can give you far too verbose of a response.
I think one reason is because I believe the artificer's class power rating is the most dependent on the DM's flexibility and patience, for how creative artificers need to be to sometimes keep up (or even exceed). The more of that flexibility for creative tool use, crafting magic items, allowing for breaks from what was written on the source material page 'because the artificer did something clever again' type of stuff, the more that power scale starts to shift. Which makes sense, as they are a class literally designed to be highly flexible, yet needing to be creative in play and using those wide abilities to stay on equal footing.
Related to this, the class does need an in-depth once over from WoC to provide clarity on all kinds of things... for instance, homunculus speech/food/water/air/sleep or the dreaded "anti-magic field + artificers/defender/arcane armor" conversation. (Not for infusions, as it is specifically stated those make mundane items into magic items, and magic items are subject to being suppressed. Technically the same should hold true to the homunculus infusion, as it is a mundane gem made into a magic item by virtue of being an infusion.) It actually has bothered me how little Crawford appears to be willing to clarify these things, when there are glaring points of ambiguity, and what little has been given is clear but presents the problem of two things being true at once, in spite of their contradictions. I really haven't seen anything other than the Steel Defender ruling for Anti-Magic field from Crawford, which was very clear in its response, yet opened a new can of worms for the likes of say, an Armorer who then points to that same post and then at their armor. Quote Crawford: "An artificer's steel defender isn't a spell, a magic item, or an effect labeled as magical by a rule. It is therefore not affected by the antimagic field spell." This forces the DM and players to face the games rules in a way no other class does, as it really doesn't make a lot of sense that an anti-magic field wouldn't disrupt things when the involvement of magic thematically has been made clear, except that it was ruled out by game mechanics. At least we always have the fall back of "the DM rules," but I fear this is one of the reasons that some DMs just flat out turn away artificers (acknowledging that many are also unable to imagine a non-steampunk artificer, and will rule them out for flavor reasons, something I understand and respect.)
I also think it depends on the circumstances of the campaign. Is it a fresh start type of thing? Then yes, every artificer hates the early levels, especially level 1. Tier 2 start? It's not so bad, not really, but you probably aren't a standout. Tier 3(ish) start, where a lot of people will just be rolling up fresh characters for a campaign like Eve of Ruin, and DMs will hand out varying degrees of starting loot? I think the average artificer probably sitting in a good spot right there, assuming the DM remains class agnostic in the effort and is keeping it to +2 weapons and +1 armors (rare) loot. If the DM is being ridiculous and sending the party in with starting gear, the artificer is a king for a while. At the same time, if the game world starts becoming suffused with +3 bonused very rare and legendary magic items, or uniques and artifacts everywhere, there will be quite a drop in the artificer's power again, unless they equally benefit somehow. But if they hit 20 as a pure artificer, that capstone really can shift things again! (Which isn't necessarily related to the point, but just goes to show how many variables really effect how strong the artificer is compared to others.)
Finally, as others have pointed out far better than I can, the sub-classes aren't balanced between themselves. I don't believe playing an Alchemist or Artillerist is bad, but it sure takes a lot more effort to keep up to the contributions that an Armorer or Battle Smith is going to have an easier time making.
Why should a Steel Defender be shut off by AMF, when a BM's pet, a Drakewarden's Drake, a Wildfire Druid's Spirit and a Creation Bard's Dancing Item aren't? I think Crawford's ruling is both consistent and fair. It's the same reason that golems and skeletons don't shut down inside one, despite also being powered by "magic."
I'm currently playing a level 19 artificer - leveled from first level - in a campaign with another artificer. One is an Artillerist and the other an Armorer.
Overall, I've found the class quite reasonable. However, the value of the infusions in many cases depends strongly on the campaign itself. No other class is as dependent on the world building for assessing the overall power and usefulness of the class.
In a low magic world, an artificer can be king. They have access to a number of magic items that can be used by the artificer or used to support and supplement the party. However, their enhancements cap out at +2 for weapon and armor bonuses and the items available to replicate on each list could be useful in some cases but in many campaigns would just prove to be redundant when the DM provides more or better magic items. For example, at level 14, the artificer can infuse a belt of hill giant strength but in some campaigns it is likely that the party might have found similar but better magic items by this point if not earlier. A belt of Hill Giant strength could be considered a tier 2 item (level 5-10). As a result, the artificer's infusion ability which is pretty central to the class becomes devalued depending on the campaign.
At lower levels, the armorer can get magic weapons early in tier 1 which can be a boon. However, DMs may think that since the artificer has a magic weapon then the rest of the party should have a chance to have one too. So, again, depending on the game and DM, the key features of the artificer can get devalued relative to other classes that aren't dependent on world building decisions.
The artificer does have some exceptional features - Flash of Genius is an amazingly useful ability. The level 20 capstone is very powerful and greatly increases the survivability of the Artificer. However, multiclassing a few levels of wizard is always tempting and offers quite a bit of versatility so there is a trade off.
--------
In terms of changes/clarifications that might be nice ...
1) I agree that Mending should be a class cantrip in addition to the 2 they select at level 1. Mending is extremely thematic for the class and one would think every artificer would learn it - but taking Mending leaves only one cantrip from all of the rest to choose from.
2) I'd like additional clarification on the armorer infusions and how they can be stacked especially after level 9 when each piece of a set of armor can be infused separately.
In particular, it would be nice to have some rules on whether the Thunder Gauntlets and the Arcane Propulsion Armor infusion effect on the gauntlets can be stacked. There seems to be quite a bit of argument about this for some reason. Personally, I think it is fine from a mechanical, RAW and balance perspective but opinions differ. It is certainly less effective than the level 11 paladin Improved Divine Smite that adds d8 radiant damage to every weapon attack they make - so adding a d8 force damage to an armorer gauntlet attack certainly wouldn't be unbalancing. Considering, the base line armorer damage without that slight bump remains 2x(d8+stat) until level 20 using the suit's built in weaponry ... that seems extremely lackluster compared to other classes (especially the half-casters or even the Eldritch Knight).
If you compare the armorer to the artillerist .. the artillerist can create two force ballista cannons at level 15, each of which does 3d8 force damage and both of which can be fired as a bonus action. They can also add in firebolt which can do an additional 3d10 at level 15. The armorer has two gauntlet attacks for 1d8+int (probably 1d8+5 by that level - which is slightly more than the average damage from 4d8). Adding the d8 from Arcane propulsion armor can bring this to 2x(2d8+5) ... if the armorer casts Haste then they can have one more attack for 2d8+5 which brings the total damage into a similar range as the artillerist but the armorer has had to spend a spell slot and an infusion to get there.
So, although the armorer can be fun to play at higher levels ... it does seem to need some tuning.
Don't forget the Arcane Firearm for the Artillerist. Casting the spell through the firearm adds an additional 1d8. Not a huge amount, but it helps. At level 5, they can deal out 5 dice of damage every turn using only cantrips and the seige engine. At levels 9 and 11 they'll gain an additional die (engine at 9, cantrip boost at 11) bringing them up to 7, without expending much in the way of resources.
But I think in the end, the subclasses need the boost more than the base class. Alchemist needs more, and the artillerist needs more uses of eldritch cannon - either 2x proficiency bonus per day, or restored on a short rest.
Mending needs to be a core level 1 feature, absolutely. 2 cantrips on a half-caster with the most unique caster progression in the game is too punishing otherwise, and Mending both fits thematically and is nearly required by their class features.
Secondly, and this is the radical bit, both Extra Attack and Arcane Firearm/Int-to-Cantrips need to become core class features. This will go a long way towards normalizing the varied power levels between the specializations, and fits the class theme of versatility.
Also, there is no sane reason why Infused Items can't be equal to Proficiency Bonus. Right now, they lag by 1 level, and you can't honestly say that that is a needed balance detail that is relevant to the design.
Alchemist needs redesigned from the ground up.
Finally, Artificer needs to be in the PHB, or it will forever be an appendix-failed-abortion-baby with no support and endless "mother may I" whenever any new supplement comes out.
Also, there is no sane reason why Infused Items can't be equal to Proficiency Bonus. Right now, they lag by 1 level, and you can't honestly say that that is a needed balance detail that is relevant to the design.
The only problem inherent in setting Infused items equal to the Artificer's proficiency bonus is then 2 levels of Artificer in a multiclass is all you need to have a scaling number of infusions down the road as proficiency bonus isn't tied to class level but to character level.
However, plenty of infusions (including the Replicate Magic Item infusion) have level prerequisites that are specifically artificer levels so the stronger infusions would still be inaccessible on an Artificer 2, Anything else 18 multiclass, but they could still have 6 low level infused items instead of only 2. Which frankly I think I'd be okay with. You still can't have repeats of the same infusions (Except Replicate Magic item which is weird that way) so you still can't give everyone in the party a +1 weapon, granted at 20th level that's probably not the best use of 6 infused items.
Ultimately, I'd still like it shown as a column in the class table even if it scales directly with prof bonus. Makes it feel like there's more there.
The only problem inherent in setting Infused items equal to the Artificer's proficiency bonus is then 2 levels of Artificer in a multiclass is all you need to have a scaling number of infusions down the road as proficiency bonus isn't tied to class level but to character level.
It could be "equal to PB", but at the same time not "equal to PB", in the sense that the table could have it equal, without anything anywhere specifically spelling out "it is equal to PB". But also, I do not consider "you get Tier 1 infusions with a two-level dip, yay!" a major problem, especially as the infusions do not scale with character level, nor do you unlock new ones. "The party has too many +1 armors and alchemy jugs and bags of holding" is not a problem I see many tables having, honestly.
2 by 2 for me. Most of the class is solid. but the pseudo caster alchemist needs more tools, more slots, or more elixir/action economy for that. (Alternatively it could lean in the opposite and get more cantrip friendly combo damage)
armorer imo is great but does have some trouble with too little durability for the "durable subclass" (i.e. not enough free temp hp nor something liek shield spells)
2 by 2 for me. Most of the class is solid. but the pseudo caster alchemist needs more tools, more slots, or more elixir/action economy for that. (Alternatively it could lean in the opposite and get more cantrip friendly combo damage)
armorer imo is great but does have some trouble with too little durability for the "durable subclass" (i.e. not enough free temp hp nor something liek shield spells)
thats fair i could see them "giving double PB uses" or they come back on a short rest
2 by 2 for me. Most of the class is solid. but the pseudo caster alchemist needs more tools, more slots, or more elixir/action economy for that. (Alternatively it could lean in the opposite and get more cantrip friendly combo damage)
armorer imo is great but does have some trouble with too little durability for the "durable subclass" (i.e. not enough free temp hp nor something liek shield spells)
I like the Artificer concept, but the alchemist feels like the worst subclass (though other people have said it plays better than it looks on paper). Still...
I remember an old unearthed arcana that has an alchemist that was pretty different and had the ability to create alchemist's fire as well (or a spell-like effect that replicated it, can't remember the details). I think this version may have needed a lot work but I did like the concept. Then when the actual alchemist came out it was....even worse.
Changes I would like for the alchemist:
Get rid of the random element. Random can be fun in some cases, but it doesn't make sense here at all.
The ability to create flasks that can be thrown for damage. Examples are alchemist's fire, flasks of acid, smoke bombs etc. These should scale in some way
More uses of the ability to create potions, flasks and elixirs.
2 by 2 for me. Most of the class is solid. but the pseudo caster alchemist needs more tools, more slots, or more elixir/action economy for that. (Alternatively it could lean in the opposite and get more cantrip friendly combo damage)
armorer imo is great but does have some trouble with too little durability for the "durable subclass" (i.e. not enough free temp hp nor something liek shield spells)
I like the Artificer concept, but the alchemist feels like the worst subclass (though other people have said it plays better than it looks on paper). Still...
I remember an old unearthed arcana that has an alchemist that was pretty different and had the ability to create alchemist's fire as well (or a spell-like effect that replicated it, can't remember the details). I think this version may have needed a lot work but I did like the concept. Then when the actual alchemist came out it was....even worse.
Changes I would like for the alchemist:
Get rid of the random element. Random can be fun in some cases, but it doesn't make sense here at all.
The ability to create flasks that can be thrown for damage. Examples are alchemist's fire, flasks of acid, smoke bombs etc. These should scale in some way
More uses of the ability to create potions, flasks and elixirs.
1) Note that only the free flasks are random. When you make additional flasks by spending your spell slots you get to choose the effect. 2) They can make alchemists fire etc just fine using the rules in Xanathar's. You can make one dose of {thing} per long rest without a check, and can probably ask your DM to make a check for more at a time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alchemist needs a huge buff. I think of the alchemist class in Pathfinder.
Armorer is mostly balanced, though higher hit dice and/or some resistances would be nice compared to other "tank" classes.
Artillerist needs a buff.
Battlesmith is balanced as a single class and may be slightly over-powered as a 3-level dip for bladesingers.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
a neat buff for artillerist could be to increase the flamethrowers range to like 30 to 45ft cone along with a bit bigger damage boost to the cannons. tho choosing the cannon to explode is 100% useless id never see a reason to do that over just attacking
I've never played an artillerist, but I was contemplating the subclass recently, and finding it much more appealing if I thought of it as say my tiny flame-throwing dragon construct. Or, if I just used it always as a healing ray. I think there are some interesting options for some quite different character types that didn't occur to me on the first read.
Having to pay your first round action to initiate it is a little pricey. You could buff it rather nicely by allowing your player to create it before turn order starts.
The cannon does way more damage than the steel defender but the steel defender is a lot more versatile, and lasts indefinitely.
the fact that the cannons arent with you 24/7 is weird but the one hour time limit is also long enough to not be a problem really. i played one and the DM allowed me to bring out my cannons for a bonus action which turned out to kinda hurt my DPR and i went back to using an action. i couldnt use the cannons when i summoned them if i summoned them with a BA
When it explodes, it can damage everyone within a radius. If you have spare spell slots it is a reasonable option.
I don't agree that they are the strongest half caster.
I think it is the paladin
maybe but its normally better off just using the ability again also half casters are always hurting for spell slots lol
Artificer trade a little raw power for flexibility. And I think it is a fair trade of.
Rangers and Paladins are stuck on their Selection of Spells and Fighting Style. While a Artificer can chose between different infusions and a whole list of spells per long rest.
Yes the Alchemist suffers some problems, but so does the Beastmaster.
Overall I think it is a very fun and versatile class, the jack of all trades of the halfcasters.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]Actually, Paladins can swap out their spells on a long rest.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It's not a bad question. But for me, I can't give you an answer to that poll. But I can give you far too verbose of a response.
I think one reason is because I believe the artificer's class power rating is the most dependent on the DM's flexibility and patience, for how creative artificers need to be to sometimes keep up (or even exceed). The more of that flexibility for creative tool use, crafting magic items, allowing for breaks from what was written on the source material page 'because the artificer did something clever again' type of stuff, the more that power scale starts to shift. Which makes sense, as they are a class literally designed to be highly flexible, yet needing to be creative in play and using those wide abilities to stay on equal footing.
Related to this, the class does need an in-depth once over from WoC to provide clarity on all kinds of things... for instance, homunculus speech/food/water/air/sleep or the dreaded "anti-magic field + artificers/defender/arcane armor" conversation. (Not for infusions, as it is specifically stated those make mundane items into magic items, and magic items are subject to being suppressed. Technically the same should hold true to the homunculus infusion, as it is a mundane gem made into a magic item by virtue of being an infusion.) It actually has bothered me how little Crawford appears to be willing to clarify these things, when there are glaring points of ambiguity, and what little has been given is clear but presents the problem of two things being true at once, in spite of their contradictions. I really haven't seen anything other than the Steel Defender ruling for Anti-Magic field from Crawford, which was very clear in its response, yet opened a new can of worms for the likes of say, an Armorer who then points to that same post and then at their armor. Quote Crawford: "An artificer's steel defender isn't a spell, a magic item, or an effect labeled as magical by a rule. It is therefore not affected by the antimagic field spell." This forces the DM and players to face the games rules in a way no other class does, as it really doesn't make a lot of sense that an anti-magic field wouldn't disrupt things when the involvement of magic thematically has been made clear, except that it was ruled out by game mechanics. At least we always have the fall back of "the DM rules," but I fear this is one of the reasons that some DMs just flat out turn away artificers (acknowledging that many are also unable to imagine a non-steampunk artificer, and will rule them out for flavor reasons, something I understand and respect.)
I also think it depends on the circumstances of the campaign. Is it a fresh start type of thing? Then yes, every artificer hates the early levels, especially level 1. Tier 2 start? It's not so bad, not really, but you probably aren't a standout. Tier 3(ish) start, where a lot of people will just be rolling up fresh characters for a campaign like Eve of Ruin, and DMs will hand out varying degrees of starting loot? I think the average artificer probably sitting in a good spot right there, assuming the DM remains class agnostic in the effort and is keeping it to +2 weapons and +1 armors (rare) loot. If the DM is being ridiculous and sending the party in with starting gear, the artificer is a king for a while. At the same time, if the game world starts becoming suffused with +3 bonused very rare and legendary magic items, or uniques and artifacts everywhere, there will be quite a drop in the artificer's power again, unless they equally benefit somehow. But if they hit 20 as a pure artificer, that capstone really can shift things again! (Which isn't necessarily related to the point, but just goes to show how many variables really effect how strong the artificer is compared to others.)
Finally, as others have pointed out far better than I can, the sub-classes aren't balanced between themselves. I don't believe playing an Alchemist or Artillerist is bad, but it sure takes a lot more effort to keep up to the contributions that an Armorer or Battle Smith is going to have an easier time making.
Why should a Steel Defender be shut off by AMF, when a BM's pet, a Drakewarden's Drake, a Wildfire Druid's Spirit and a Creation Bard's Dancing Item aren't? I think Crawford's ruling is both consistent and fair. It's the same reason that golems and skeletons don't shut down inside one, despite also being powered by "magic."
Don't forget the Arcane Firearm for the Artillerist. Casting the spell through the firearm adds an additional 1d8. Not a huge amount, but it helps. At level 5, they can deal out 5 dice of damage every turn using only cantrips and the seige engine. At levels 9 and 11 they'll gain an additional die (engine at 9, cantrip boost at 11) bringing them up to 7, without expending much in the way of resources.
But I think in the end, the subclasses need the boost more than the base class. Alchemist needs more, and the artillerist needs more uses of eldritch cannon - either 2x proficiency bonus per day, or restored on a short rest.
Best use for Haste action on an Artificer is your spell storing ring. My Artillerist (13) is doing:
Booming blade : 1d8+3d8 +6 (potential 3d8)
Hasted activation or spell storing: 3x2d6
Bonus action: 3d8
average if all hit: 58
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]Mending needs to be a core level 1 feature, absolutely. 2 cantrips on a half-caster with the most unique caster progression in the game is too punishing otherwise, and Mending both fits thematically and is nearly required by their class features.
Secondly, and this is the radical bit, both Extra Attack and Arcane Firearm/Int-to-Cantrips need to become core class features. This will go a long way towards normalizing the varied power levels between the specializations, and fits the class theme of versatility.
Also, there is no sane reason why Infused Items can't be equal to Proficiency Bonus. Right now, they lag by 1 level, and you can't honestly say that that is a needed balance detail that is relevant to the design.
Alchemist needs redesigned from the ground up.
Finally, Artificer needs to be in the PHB, or it will forever be an appendix-failed-abortion-baby with no support and endless "mother may I" whenever any new supplement comes out.
The only problem inherent in setting Infused items equal to the Artificer's proficiency bonus is then 2 levels of Artificer in a multiclass is all you need to have a scaling number of infusions down the road as proficiency bonus isn't tied to class level but to character level.
However, plenty of infusions (including the Replicate Magic Item infusion) have level prerequisites that are specifically artificer levels so the stronger infusions would still be inaccessible on an Artificer 2, Anything else 18 multiclass, but they could still have 6 low level infused items instead of only 2. Which frankly I think I'd be okay with. You still can't have repeats of the same infusions (Except Replicate Magic item which is weird that way) so you still can't give everyone in the party a +1 weapon, granted at 20th level that's probably not the best use of 6 infused items.
Ultimately, I'd still like it shown as a column in the class table even if it scales directly with prof bonus. Makes it feel like there's more there.
It could be "equal to PB", but at the same time not "equal to PB", in the sense that the table could have it equal, without anything anywhere specifically spelling out "it is equal to PB".
But also, I do not consider "you get Tier 1 infusions with a two-level dip, yay!" a major problem, especially as the infusions do not scale with character level, nor do you unlock new ones. "The party has too many +1 armors and alchemy jugs and bags of holding" is not a problem I see many tables having, honestly.
2 by 2 for me. Most of the class is solid. but the pseudo caster alchemist needs more tools, more slots, or more elixir/action economy for that. (Alternatively it could lean in the opposite and get more cantrip friendly combo damage)
armorer imo is great but does have some trouble with too little durability for the "durable subclass" (i.e. not enough free temp hp nor something liek shield spells)
thats fair i could see them "giving double PB uses" or they come back on a short rest
I like the Artificer concept, but the alchemist feels like the worst subclass (though other people have said it plays better than it looks on paper). Still...
I remember an old unearthed arcana that has an alchemist that was pretty different and had the ability to create alchemist's fire as well (or a spell-like effect that replicated it, can't remember the details). I think this version may have needed a lot work but I did like the concept. Then when the actual alchemist came out it was....even worse.
Changes I would like for the alchemist:
1) Note that only the free flasks are random. When you make additional flasks by spending your spell slots you get to choose the effect.
2) They can make alchemists fire etc just fine using the rules in Xanathar's. You can make one dose of {thing} per long rest without a check, and can probably ask your DM to make a check for more at a time.