Hi thanks for that, I can see it has been updated on DnD beyond but I must have an old edition of Xanathars, does seem to spit in the face of a necromancer who's specific skill is the dealings of life and death
It's basically a genre trope for the Forgotten Realms that necromancy = evil, just like it's generally accepted that daggers aren't heroic but swords are; cowls are evil but capes are cool; bad gods have cultists while good ones have priests; and so on.
Some content exists that pushes back on it, but generally speaking it's pretty integral to the vibe of the setting. Discuss with your group before you go against it.
That said, during the Great Spell School Categorization, a few spells got put into the necromancy school that nobody would usually consider to be necromancy. I think for a while even Cure Wounds was on there! This did irreparable damage to the whole concept of "necromancy = evil," and the damage lasts to this day.
In other settings it's different. But I'm not real familiar with most of those. I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts. Vampires exist but they're just citizens, and it's possible to become a lich without destroying innocent souls or doing a murder.
I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts.
That's not morally neutral. It may not be unforgivably evil... but that still doesn't mean morally neutral. Ask anyone if they want their body turned into a mindless meat puppet tat does anything their master commands and they'll give you a pretty resounding No.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's not morally neutral. It may not be unforgivably evil... but that still doesn't mean morally neutral. Ask anyone if they want their body turned into a mindless meat puppet tat does anything their master commands and they'll give you a pretty resounding No.
Not to get into a theological debate, but depending on their spiritual beliefs, such as one where the body is a mere shell left behind when the soul moves on, there may be some who would have no issue with their bodies being used in such a way. Depending on the reason for the creation of the zombie, there may be those who would welcome their body be used in such a way.
I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts.
That's not morally neutral. It may not be unforgivably evil... but that still doesn't mean morally neutral. Ask anyone if they want their body turned into a mindless meat puppet tat does anything their master commands and they'll give you a pretty resounding No.
It's my understanding that on Ravnica, people don't really tend to care about that sort of thing. Everybody needs the city to function, for one thing, so some sacrifices are perfectly acceptable for the common interest, but moreover, there just isn't a history of religion insisting that there's anything sacred about the corpse. Since the soul is observably the core of being, the body is basically a material possession, like a pair of shoes, and when you're dead you have no use for it anymore. People don't come back the way they do in the Realms, even though the setting guide doesn't really tell you to ban resurrection magic (though arguably it should).
But the morality on that plane is a little skewed anyway. I mean, it is in any setting, but in Ravnica it's more apparent because of the way it contrasts against the particular type of skew we're used to in fantasy settings. Like, all the factions on Ravnica are arguably evil, and I would say the city is essentially a fascist state. Making an unambiguously virtuous character for a Ravnica game would be a weird move. If you were going around trying to combat the use of zombies for labor on Ravnica on moral grounds, people in the city would just laugh at you.
Anyway, my point was just that Ravnica's a setting where you could raise zombies and nobody would organize a mob to burn down your house, or call you a dark lord or whatever. Though the guild that handles zombies might strongarm you into following their rules and/or paying fees. But the Realms isn't like that. You raise undead there, you're a bad guy, or at best an antihero who's sacrificing your own decency for a perceived greater good.
Hi thanks for that, I can see it has been updated on DnD beyond but I must have an old edition of Xanathars, does seem to spit in the face of a necromancer who's specific skill is the dealings of life and death
Mally
Some things are done for balance reasons, not because they’re trying to make your life harder. A spell that did 16 damage to you but healed someone 64hp is a net gain of 48hp for the party, and outpaces every single healing spell in the game 3rd level and lower.
I find considering the implications of what you want and balancing that against the balance of the game is much better than automatically assuming it’s “spitting in the face”.
DnDSwede is right. If it said "equal to the damage dealt" it would not take into account any weaknesses or resistances. But it is the damage "taken" so it would apply. That means the target will be healed for 32, not 64, hit points.
In the descriptionof resistance "So if a creature was resistant to cold damage, and 'TOOK 20 COLD DAMAGE' from a spell (or any other source of cold damage) the creature would actually only take 10 cold damage."
Emphasis mine but the ruling clearly states you TAKE the rolled necrotic but you subtract half that damage from your HP
DnDSwede is right. If it said "equal to the damage dealt" it would not take into account any weaknesses or resistances. But it is the damage "taken" so it would apply. That means the target will be healed for 32, not 64, hit points.
In the descriptionof resistance "So if a creature was resistant to cold damage, and 'TOOK 20 COLD DAMAGE' from a spell (or any other source of cold damage) the creature would actually only take 10 cold damage."
Emphasis mine but the ruling clearly states you TAKE the rolled necrotic but you subtract half that damage from your HP
Your quote contains two separate uses of the word take, so I stil believe it stands as I said before. There is a difference between dealt and taken.
That said, it has been clarified in the errata naruhoodie pointed out. Life transference now reads:
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
DnDSwede is right. If it said "equal to the damage dealt" it would not take into account any weaknesses or resistances. But it is the damage "taken" so it would apply. That means the target will be healed for 32, not 64, hit points.
In the descriptionof resistance "So if a creature was resistant to cold damage, and 'TOOK 20 COLD DAMAGE' from a spell (or any other source of cold damage) the creature would actually only take 10 cold damage."
Emphasis mine but the ruling clearly states you TAKE the rolled necrotic but you subtract half that damage from your HP
Your quote contains two separate uses of the word take, so I stil believe it stands as I said before. There is a difference between dealt and taken.
That said, it has been clarified in the errata naruhoodie pointed out. Life transference now reads:
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
That's rough, I missed that part. Immunity too since it's negated not reduced? Not that necrotic Immunity is common but..
DnDSwede is right. If it said "equal to the damage dealt" it would not take into account any weaknesses or resistances. But it is the damage "taken" so it would apply. That means the target will be healed for 32, not 64, hit points.
In the descriptionof resistance "So if a creature was resistant to cold damage, and 'TOOK 20 COLD DAMAGE' from a spell (or any other source of cold damage) the creature would actually only take 10 cold damage."
Emphasis mine but the ruling clearly states you TAKE the rolled necrotic but you subtract half that damage from your HP
Your quote contains two separate uses of the word take, so I stil believe it stands as I said before. There is a difference between dealt and taken.
That said, it has been clarified in the errata naruhoodie pointed out. Life transference now reads:
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
That's rough, I missed that part. Immunity too since it's negated not reduced? Not that necrotic Immunity is common but..
That's what I would rule on my table anyway :) If you're immune, damage taken is 0
Either reduction is distinct from both immunity and resistance or neither - there's no basis for thinking "can't be reduced" allows exactly one of resistance or immunity. I think the RAI is that neither work, but you could allow both to work - Xanathar's rules for the order in which you modify incoming damage implies reduction is a specifically distinct step, but it uses "subtraction" as the word for what you do when you have a reduction effect (like Heavy Armor Master, which uses "reduced"), so it's not explicit.
Either reduction is distinct from both immunity and resistance or neither - there's no basis for thinking "can't be reduced" allows exactly one of resistance or immunity.
Sure there is. Resistance is division by 2, immunity is multiplication by 0. One is mitigation, the other is prevention. One is some, the other's none. There's a difference in kind, not only in degree.
I don't think that's the RIGHT way to deal with it, but there is ...a.... basis, lol.
Anyway, after errata the only question is "does vulnerability boost the healing of this spell?" I would say it's a pretty definitive "yes." If we're gonna Well Actually this, I wanna see somebody defend the opposite, lol.
Hi thanks for that, I can see it has been updated on DnD beyond but I must have an old edition of Xanathars, does seem to spit in the face of a necromancer who's specific skill is the dealings of life and death
Mally
Some things are done for balance reasons, not because they’re trying to make your life harder. A spell that did 16 damage to you but healed someone 64hp is a net gain of 48hp for the party, and outpaces every single healing spell in the game 3rd level and lower.
I find considering the implications of what you want and balancing that against the balance of the game is much better than automatically assuming it’s “spitting in the face”.
I do get what you are saying however the ability of a necromancer to half the amount of necromamtic damage taken kicks in at level 10 and Is a specific trait assigned to necromancer. Yes this would then make the level 3 spell more affective but only to the necromancer class who specialises in dealing with life and death. I haven't really played a cleric but I'm sure most of their healing spells don't have a life "cost" when casting and by the time the necromancer ability kick in the cleric can cast level 5 spells.
It's basically a genre trope for the Forgotten Realms that necromancy = evil, just like it's generally accepted that daggers aren't heroic but swords are; cowls are evil but capes are cool; bad gods have cultists while good ones have priests; and so on.
Some content exists that pushes back on it, but generally speaking it's pretty integral to the vibe of the setting. Discuss with your group before you go against it.
That said, during the Great Spell School Categorization, a few spells got put into the necromancy school that nobody would usually consider to be necromancy. I think for a while even Cure Wounds was on there! This did irreparable damage to the whole concept of "necromancy = evil," and the damage lasts to this day.
In other settings it's different. But I'm not real familiar with most of those. I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts. Vampires exist but they're just citizens, and it's possible to become a lich without destroying innocent souls or doing a murder.
I think the whole concept of necromancy = evil and the bad guys is wrong. If that was the case why would you had it as one of the main paths a mage can follow. It also goes into what you class as evil.
I believe that just like any other class aer necromancer could be good of evil. Yex one could raise a horde of zombies and skeletons and try to take over a city, ruling it as he/she sees fit, however a Necromancer could use his power to talk to the victims of a serial killer to find out the killers identity and the raise the bodies of his victims to extract justice on said killer.
It's basically a genre trope for the Forgotten Realms that necromancy = evil, just like it's generally accepted that daggers aren't heroic but swords are; cowls are evil but capes are cool; bad gods have cultists while good ones have priests; and so on.
Some content exists that pushes back on it, but generally speaking it's pretty integral to the vibe of the setting. Discuss with your group before you go against it.
That said, during the Great Spell School Categorization, a few spells got put into the necromancy school that nobody would usually consider to be necromancy. I think for a while even Cure Wounds was on there! This did irreparable damage to the whole concept of "necromancy = evil," and the damage lasts to this day.
In other settings it's different. But I'm not real familiar with most of those. I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts. Vampires exist but they're just citizens, and it's possible to become a lich without destroying innocent souls or doing a murder.
I think the whole concept of necromancy = evil and the bad guys is wrong. If that was the case why would you had it as one of the main paths a mage can follow. It also goes into what you class as evil.
I believe that just like any other class aer necromancer could be good of evil. Yex one could raise a horde of zombies and skeletons and try to take over a city, ruling it as he/she sees fit, however a Necromancer could use his power to talk to the victims of a serial killer to find out the killers identity and the raise the bodies of his victims to extract justice on said killer.
I'm just telling you how it is. I don't even disagree with you, it's just that the Realms has its own opinions.
And anyway, the argument of "it's in the Player's Handbook so it must be morally/culturally ok in the setting" holds no water -- the Thief is literally a thief, and as far as I know, thievery is illegal everywhere. All the Realms gods of the Tempest Domain are evil, and their Clerics usually are too. Read about Talos priests sometime, they're not friendly. The Fiend Pact is gonna be a hard sell, as well. There's plenty of dubiously moral stuff available as core options. The backgrounds chapter gives you a bunch of evil traits, too. Just as many as good ones, surely. If you want to be evil, the book says go ahead. Is it possible to make these characters not evil? Yeah, of course. Is the default assumption that they would be evil? Obviously.
It's basically a genre trope for the Forgotten Realms that necromancy = evil, just like it's generally accepted that daggers aren't heroic but swords are; cowls are evil but capes are cool; bad gods have cultists while good ones have priests; and so on.
Some content exists that pushes back on it, but generally speaking it's pretty integral to the vibe of the setting. Discuss with your group before you go against it.
That said, during the Great Spell School Categorization, a few spells got put into the necromancy school that nobody would usually consider to be necromancy. I think for a while even Cure Wounds was on there! This did irreparable damage to the whole concept of "necromancy = evil," and the damage lasts to this day.
In other settings it's different. But I'm not real familiar with most of those. I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts. Vampires exist but they're just citizens, and it's possible to become a lich without destroying innocent souls or doing a murder.
I think the whole concept of necromancy = evil and the bad guys is wrong. If that was the case why would you had it as one of the main paths a mage can follow. It also goes into what you class as evil.
I believe that just like any other class aer necromancer could be good of evil. Yex one could raise a horde of zombies and skeletons and try to take over a city, ruling it as he/she sees fit, however a Necromancer could use his power to talk to the victims of a serial killer to find out the killers identity and the raise the bodies of his victims to extract justice on said killer.
I'm just telling you how it is. I don't even disagree with you, it's just that the Realms has its own opinions.
And anyway, the argument of "it's in the Player's Handbook so it must be morally/culturally ok in the setting" holds no water -- the Thief is literally a thief, and as far as I know, thievery is illegal everywhere. All the Realms gods of the Tempest Domain are evil, and their Clerics usually are too. Read about Talos priests sometime, they're not friendly. The Fiend Pact is gonna be a hard sell, as well. There's plenty of dubiously moral stuff available as core options. The backgrounds chapter gives you a bunch of evil traits, too. Just as many as good ones, surely. If you want to be evil, the book says go ahead. Is it possible to make these characters not evil? Yeah, of course. Is the default assumption that they would be evil? Obviously.
Yeah I agree but also breaking the law doesn't always = evil. Technically Robin Hood was a thief but wasn't evil. Again like I said it's the actions you do that make it evil. Ever class has the ability to be good or evil. A fighter could be evil or good. A Necromancer could see the body as just a machine once the soul has departed to its god and infuses it with his magic and then use thoes animated bodies for good. Does that make him evil or just using tool, that is a conversation that should be roll played within the party in my opinion
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage,which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
Lahke forgot to mention the part of the spell that i have underlined. This brings me to an interesting question that i hope someone can answer. I currently play a topaz dragonborn grave domain cleric. My character also has a natural resistance to necrotic damage. With the Life Transference spell does it mean that my character's natural resistance to necrotic damage not come into effect?
Yeah. You would ignore both resistance and immunity to this necrotic damage. Because the damage cannot be reduced in any way.
Interestingly, you wouldn't ignore Vulnerability to necrotic damage. That would increase the damage (and thus also the healing).
But whatever dice you roll on that 4d8 the caster is 100% taking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was errata'd: https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/XGtE-Errata.pdf
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Hi thanks for that, I can see it has been updated on DnD beyond but I must have an old edition of Xanathars, does seem to spit in the face of a necromancer who's specific skill is the dealings of life and death
Mally
It's basically a genre trope for the Forgotten Realms that necromancy = evil, just like it's generally accepted that daggers aren't heroic but swords are; cowls are evil but capes are cool; bad gods have cultists while good ones have priests; and so on.
Some content exists that pushes back on it, but generally speaking it's pretty integral to the vibe of the setting. Discuss with your group before you go against it.
That said, during the Great Spell School Categorization, a few spells got put into the necromancy school that nobody would usually consider to be necromancy. I think for a while even Cure Wounds was on there! This did irreparable damage to the whole concept of "necromancy = evil," and the damage lasts to this day.
In other settings it's different. But I'm not real familiar with most of those. I know on Ravnica there's basically a division between body and soul, so it's morally fine to make zombies but evil to make ghosts. Vampires exist but they're just citizens, and it's possible to become a lich without destroying innocent souls or doing a murder.
That's not morally neutral. It may not be unforgivably evil... but that still doesn't mean morally neutral. Ask anyone if they want their body turned into a mindless meat puppet tat does anything their master commands and they'll give you a pretty resounding No.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Not to get into a theological debate, but depending on their spiritual beliefs, such as one where the body is a mere shell left behind when the soul moves on, there may be some who would have no issue with their bodies being used in such a way. Depending on the reason for the creation of the zombie, there may be those who would welcome their body be used in such a way.
It's my understanding that on Ravnica, people don't really tend to care about that sort of thing. Everybody needs the city to function, for one thing, so some sacrifices are perfectly acceptable for the common interest, but moreover, there just isn't a history of religion insisting that there's anything sacred about the corpse. Since the soul is observably the core of being, the body is basically a material possession, like a pair of shoes, and when you're dead you have no use for it anymore. People don't come back the way they do in the Realms, even though the setting guide doesn't really tell you to ban resurrection magic (though arguably it should).
But the morality on that plane is a little skewed anyway. I mean, it is in any setting, but in Ravnica it's more apparent because of the way it contrasts against the particular type of skew we're used to in fantasy settings. Like, all the factions on Ravnica are arguably evil, and I would say the city is essentially a fascist state. Making an unambiguously virtuous character for a Ravnica game would be a weird move. If you were going around trying to combat the use of zombies for labor on Ravnica on moral grounds, people in the city would just laugh at you.
Anyway, my point was just that Ravnica's a setting where you could raise zombies and nobody would organize a mob to burn down your house, or call you a dark lord or whatever. Though the guild that handles zombies might strongarm you into following their rules and/or paying fees. But the Realms isn't like that. You raise undead there, you're a bad guy, or at best an antihero who's sacrificing your own decency for a perceived greater good.
Some things are done for balance reasons, not because they’re trying to make your life harder. A spell that did 16 damage to you but healed someone 64hp is a net gain of 48hp for the party, and outpaces every single healing spell in the game 3rd level and lower.
I find considering the implications of what you want and balancing that against the balance of the game is much better than automatically assuming it’s “spitting in the face”.
In the descriptionof resistance "So if a creature was resistant to cold damage, and 'TOOK 20 COLD DAMAGE' from a spell (or any other source of cold damage) the creature would actually only take 10 cold damage."
Emphasis mine but the ruling clearly states you TAKE the rolled necrotic but you subtract half that damage from your HP
Your quote contains two separate uses of the word take, so I stil believe it stands as I said before. There is a difference between dealt and taken.
That said, it has been clarified in the errata naruhoodie pointed out. Life transference now reads:
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
That's rough, I missed that part. Immunity too since it's negated not reduced? Not that necrotic Immunity is common but..
That's what I would rule on my table anyway :) If you're immune, damage taken is 0
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Either reduction is distinct from both immunity and resistance or neither - there's no basis for thinking "can't be reduced" allows exactly one of resistance or immunity. I think the RAI is that neither work, but you could allow both to work - Xanathar's rules for the order in which you modify incoming damage implies reduction is a specifically distinct step, but it uses "subtraction" as the word for what you do when you have a reduction effect (like Heavy Armor Master, which uses "reduced"), so it's not explicit.
Sure there is. Resistance is division by 2, immunity is multiplication by 0. One is mitigation, the other is prevention. One is some, the other's none. There's a difference in kind, not only in degree.
I don't think that's the RIGHT way to deal with it, but there is ...a.... basis, lol.
Anyway, after errata the only question is "does vulnerability boost the healing of this spell?" I would say it's a pretty definitive "yes." If we're gonna Well Actually this, I wanna see somebody defend the opposite, lol.
I do get what you are saying however the ability of a necromancer to half the amount of necromamtic damage taken kicks in at level 10 and Is a specific trait assigned to necromancer. Yes this would then make the level 3 spell more affective but only to the necromancer class who specialises in dealing with life and death. I haven't really played a cleric but I'm sure most of their healing spells don't have a life "cost" when casting and by the time the necromancer ability kick in the cleric can cast level 5 spells.
I think the whole concept of necromancy = evil and the bad guys is wrong. If that was the case why would you had it as one of the main paths a mage can follow. It also goes into what you class as evil.
I believe that just like any other class aer necromancer could be good of evil. Yex one could raise a horde of zombies and skeletons and try to take over a city, ruling it as he/she sees fit, however a Necromancer could use his power to talk to the victims of a serial killer to find out the killers identity and the raise the bodies of his victims to extract justice on said killer.
I'm just telling you how it is. I don't even disagree with you, it's just that the Realms has its own opinions.
And anyway, the argument of "it's in the Player's Handbook so it must be morally/culturally ok in the setting" holds no water -- the Thief is literally a thief, and as far as I know, thievery is illegal everywhere. All the Realms gods of the Tempest Domain are evil, and their Clerics usually are too. Read about Talos priests sometime, they're not friendly. The Fiend Pact is gonna be a hard sell, as well. There's plenty of dubiously moral stuff available as core options. The backgrounds chapter gives you a bunch of evil traits, too. Just as many as good ones, surely. If you want to be evil, the book says go ahead. Is it possible to make these characters not evil? Yeah, of course. Is the default assumption that they would be evil? Obviously.
Yeah I agree but also breaking the law doesn't always = evil. Technically Robin Hood was a thief but wasn't evil. Again like I said it's the actions you do that make it evil. Ever class has the ability to be good or evil. A fighter could be evil or good. A Necromancer could see the body as just a machine once the soul has departed to its god and infuses it with his magic and then use thoes animated bodies for good. Does that make him evil or just using tool, that is a conversation that should be roll played within the party in my opinion
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
You sacrifice some of your health to mend another creature’s injuries. You take 4d8 necrotic damage, which can’t be reduced in any way, and one creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of hit points equal to twice the necrotic damage you take.
Lahke forgot to mention the part of the spell that i have underlined. This brings me to an interesting question that i hope someone can answer. I currently play a topaz dragonborn grave domain cleric. My character also has a natural resistance to necrotic damage. With the Life Transference spell does it mean that my character's natural resistance to necrotic damage not come into effect?
Yeah. You would ignore both resistance and immunity to this necrotic damage. Because the damage cannot be reduced in any way.
Interestingly, you wouldn't ignore Vulnerability to necrotic damage. That would increase the damage (and thus also the healing).
But whatever dice you roll on that 4d8 the caster is 100% taking.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.