Yeah, rules changes spoil some of the fun and add other new fun. For what it is worth, I think everyone has made fair arguments. But, I'm convinced I was wrong enough. Still a fun thread, though.
I believe that RAW, Booming Blade cannot be used as it targets "Self" and not the creature. The spell affects your blade which delivers the effect through an attack. The spell itself should need to target the creature to be in line with Warcaster.
I believe that RAW, Booming Blade cannot be used as it targets "Self" and not the creature. The spell affects your blade which delivers the effect through an attack. The spell itself should need to target the creature to be in line with Warcaster.
The spell Booming Blade can’t be used to make an opportunity attack, unless a special feature allows you to do so, such as the War Caster feat
You can see the reasoning behind it in the opinion of the Devs;
@OregonRolledA20 :( still very sad that y'all nerfed booming blade to not work with war caster
@JeremyECrawford Booming blade works with War Caster.
@JeremyECrawford A note about D&D spells with a range of "Self (XYZ)": the parenthetical—which says "5-foot radius," "15-foot cone," or something else—means you are the spell's point of origin, but you aren't necessarily its target. You're creating an effect that originates in your space.
A spell has two kinds of targets, and the distinction isn't always clearly laid out in the rules, so we have to get it from context. There's the target of the spell's casting, which is what is defined in the range area and generally in the first sentence of a spell's description (you target a creature, you target a point, etc.) Then there's the target of a spell's effect. Fireball is a great example of this because it targets a point in space when you cast it, but everyone who makes a save is also a target of the spell's effect and the spell's description tells us that when it refers to those creatures as targets.
What does this have to do with booming blade? It's an expansion on the point Plaguescarred is making in the post above mine. It's not just the devs being arbitrary. They are explaining that this is something that has always been part of the rules.
A spell has two kinds of targets, and the distinction isn't always clearly laid out in the rules, so we have to get it from context. There's the target of the spell's casting, which is what is defined in the range area and generally in the first sentence of a spell's description (you target a creature, you target a point, etc.) Then there's the target of a spell's effect. Fireball is a great example of this because it targets a point in space when you cast it, but everyone who makes a save is also a target of the spell's effect and the spell's description tells us that when it refers to those creatures as targets.
What does this have to do with booming blade? It's an expansion on the point Plaguescarred is making in the post above mine. It's not just the devs being arbitrary. They are explaining that this is something that has always been part of the rules.
"Always" is a bit of a stretch. They didn't have this concept crystalized when it first released. It took them a while to distill their "Intent" into something coherent and explain it to the masses.
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.
What does this have to do with booming blade? It's an expansion on the point Plaguescarred is making in the post above mine. It's not just the devs being arbitrary. They are explaining that this is something that has always been part of the rules.
It would be nice if it actually was part of the rules though; we shouldn't have to rely on unofficial tweets to clarify things, because if you go by Rules As Written alone it's at best unclear, and arguably not what the rules actually say. In RAW terms an initial target must be within the spell's range (the range rules are absolutely unambiguous about this), and range of Self means you and only you can be the target, because that's what the rules say it means.
While it's fairly clear what was intended with the updated SCAGtrips, they use a new type of range that doesn't actually mean anything in the existing rules for which they were written, and they never provided any update to clarify the meaning of this new special range. The only comparable examples are spells like beams and thunderwave, but these are describing the placement of an area effect originating from the character, so Self in this case still means that the target is the caster.
I'd also point out that fireball is actually an outlier in terms of how it's worded, and the same Range rule actually contradicts its uses of the word targets. Most similar spells don't refer to creatures in their area as targets, but simply "creatures in the area", "creatures that failed the saving throw" etc., this is because the target of an area of effect spell is the location where the area of effect originates (the centre for spheres, an edge for cubes etc.), the range rules are very clear on that.
The spellcasting rules in general are one of the more clearly defined areas of the 5e rules as we've got very specific terms used (mostly) consistently, and their meaning in the rules is generally quite clearly defined; fireball in this case arguably contains a mistake, and the SCAGtrips should have been accompanied by updates to the range rules that they need in order to operate properly.
It's one of those cases where you look at the sage advice/tweets on how the designers intend for it to work, and the correct response is "well why don't the rules say that then?" Way too much of that in 5e.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Tweets and discussions that don't get published as sage advice or errata are at best clarifications of intent, they don't alter the Rules As Written, which is a problem; when the rules don't say what was intended, then that's a flaw with the rules because we can't expect new (or veteran) players to refer to tweets and videos for answers to questions that should be covered by the books they paid money for.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your statement. It is RAW, but it's not an explicit rule--rather it's something we can determine to be true based on its context in RAW. "Casting target" and "Spell effect target" are terms I created in order to describe a distinction in how the word "target" is used to mean two different things in the context of a spell.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your statement. It is RAW, but it's not an explicit rule--rather it's something we can determine to be true based on its context in RAW. "Casting target" and "Spell effect target" are terms I created in order to describe a distinction in how the word "target" is used to mean two different things in the context of a spell.
So you'd say it is RAI but not RAW. And their tweets and whatnot are what give us the clarification needed to know how to play it as intended.
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.
it's not an explicit rule--rather it's something we can determine to be true based on its context
^ This is describing RAI. We determine how the rule works by additional context that isn't explicitly a rule.
"Casting target" and "Spell effect target" are terms I created in order to describe a distinction in how the word "target" is used to mean two different things in the context of a spell.
You even had to invent your own "game terms" to explain it. The books certainly don't.
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.
Tweets and discussions that don't get published as sage advice or errata are at best clarifications of intent, they don't alter the Rules As Written, which is a problem; when the rules don't say what was intended, then that's a flaw with the rules because we can't expect new (or veteran) players to refer to tweets and videos for answers to questions that should be covered by the books they paid money for.
The Spells with a new range of Self (X feet) did get Errata. But such document usually only list book changes without further explanations so getting some from other official sources please most people and the Adventure League Organized Play program. A Q&A in Sage Advice Compendium would be great but there isn't one yet.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your statement. It is RAW, but it's not an explicit rule--rather it's something we can determine to be true based on its context in RAW. "Casting target" and "Spell effect target" are terms I created in order to describe a distinction in how the word "target" is used to mean two different things in the context of a spell.
Yeah, the reason booming blade has been made weird in RAW is that as far as the casting a spell rules are concerned the spell's target can only be the caster (due to range Self), but it then triggers an attack, which by the attack rules has its own range and target, but the way the rules are set out these are separate things. It's clear what they intended but the rules don't support it fully because the target is either technically just you, or it's you and the attack target, in both cases not valid for War Caster (which requires the target be only the creature triggering the opportunity attack).
And the silly thing is that there's no reason for it to be range Self at all if the intent is for the range to be the weapon's reach, all they had to do was give the SCAGtrips a range of "reach", then in the text clarify this means the reach of the weapon used, and that it can't be extended beyond that (to fix interactions with Distant Spell and Spell Sniper, which I'm pretty sure the range Self thing was supposed to be there for).
It's one of the things that frustrates me with 5e, WotC often releases these rules with issues, but instead of fixing them in errata, they just leave them as-is and tweet or make offhand comments in videos that people may not see or be able to find when they need them. It's like they haven't heard of this thing called the internet where you can put out digital files with corrections (for the physical releases) or just update the digital releases with the updated text.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The Spells with a new range of Self (X feet) did get Errata. But such document usually only list book changes without further explanations so getting some from other official sources please most people and the Adventure League Organized Play program. A Q&A in Sage Advice Compendium would be great but there isn't one yet.
That's just the SCAG getting the updated version of the cantrips from Tasha's Cauldron though, what's needed was an errata to the range and/or targeting rules for casting spells to actually support this range Self (5 feet) format, which in the current casting rules doesn't mean anything. Range Self however does mean something, and that something means the SCAGtrips don't work with War Caster in RAW.
Like I say though, what's most annoying is they could have so easily done this properly; the range should be "reach", and the description should simply say to use the weapon's reach, and that it can't be extended beyond that reach (to fix the Distant Spell/Spell Sniper issue that changing to range Self was supposedly to fix).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
TCoE and SCAG didn't create new spell Range verbiage though, it existed since PHB, with spells such as Destructing Wave being Self (30 foot radius) or Antilife Shell being Self (10 foot radius) or Antimagic Field as Self (10 foot sphere) for exemple. Such spells create exception since spell with a range Self nornally affect only you but they clearly do not.
TCoE and SCAG didn't create new spell Range verbiage though, it existed since PHB, with spells such as Destructing Wave being Self (30 foot radius) or Antilife Shell being Self (10 foot radius) or Antimagic Field as Self (10 foot sphere) for exemple. Such spells create exception since spell with a range Self nornally affect only you but they clearly do not.
These spells do not function as the developers claim that the SCAGtrips do; the spells you mention are area of effect spells, and an area of effect spell's target is the location at which the area of effect occurs, in these cases originating from Self (meaning you are the target), the area of effect then enables the effect of the spell to apply to one or more creatures within it.
The spellcasting range rule is very clear on how all of these things operate, but it does not allow what the developers claim is how the SCAGtrips work. By RAW the SCAGtrips target the caster (the only valid target of a range Self spell), this then applies an effect which enables them to make an attack. So regardless of whether you consider the attack target to also be a target of the spell (though by RAW it can't be, as it's not within the range of Self), the caster is always one of the targets of the spell, which means it cannot work with War Caster (which only permits as a target the creature that triggered the opportunity attack).
Even if you treat the SCAGtrips like area of effect spells like the ones you mentioned; those spells are not eligible for War Caster either because their target is the caster, not the creatures within their area.
In short, what the developers say is how the SCAGtrips work is not what the rules actually support; they messed up, and instead of fixing their multiple mistakes, so that RAW can actually support RAI, they tweet about it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think most people just treat spells with range Self (X feet) has affecting the caster or originating from it and affecting an area or creatures up to the established distance. All the spells descriptions are usually pretty obvious how they work, most questioning arise when War Caster is brought up.
I think most people just treat spells with range Self (X feet) has affecting the caster or originating from it and affecting an area or creatures up to the established distance. All the spells descriptions are usually pretty obvious how they work, most questioning arise when War Caster is brought up.
To be clear; I'm not questioning how the SCAGtrips are intended to work, it's pretty obvious they're supposed to just be spells that make a melee weapon attack. It's also pretty clear that while trying to fix how the old versions interacted with Distant Spell and Spell Sniper, Wizards of the Coast managed to create a new set of problems instead by using the Self (5 feet) format that area of effect spells use (when it's not an area of effect spell).
Again, the correct range for these spells is "reach", with text ensure the weapon's reach is used (and also the limit of the range). This would solve all the problems. It's how it should have been fixed, and how I suspect most DM's will run it, but for some mad reason the developers went with a notation that doesn't work the way they want it to in the Rules As Written.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Again, the correct range for these spells is "reach", with text ensure the weapon's reach is used (and also the limit of the range). This would solve all the problems. It's how it should have been fixed, and how I suspect most DM's will run it, but for some mad reason the developers went with a notation that doesn't work the way they want it to in the Rules As Written.
I agree this should be the best, i don't know if any existing spell use such a range though so my gut feeling is they resorted to how some of the range Self (X feet) was worded for more homogeneity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, rules changes spoil some of the fun and add other new fun.
For what it is worth, I think everyone has made fair arguments.
But, I'm convinced I was wrong enough.
Still a fun thread, though.
I believe that RAW, Booming Blade cannot be used as it targets "Self" and not the creature. The spell affects your blade which delivers the effect through an attack. The spell itself should need to target the creature to be in line with Warcaster.
The spell Booming Blade can’t be used to make an opportunity attack, unless a special feature allows you to do so, such as the War Caster feat
You can see the reasoning behind it in the opinion of the Devs;
A spell has two kinds of targets, and the distinction isn't always clearly laid out in the rules, so we have to get it from context. There's the target of the spell's casting, which is what is defined in the range area and generally in the first sentence of a spell's description (you target a creature, you target a point, etc.) Then there's the target of a spell's effect. Fireball is a great example of this because it targets a point in space when you cast it, but everyone who makes a save is also a target of the spell's effect and the spell's description tells us that when it refers to those creatures as targets.
What does this have to do with booming blade? It's an expansion on the point Plaguescarred is making in the post above mine. It's not just the devs being arbitrary. They are explaining that this is something that has always been part of the rules.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
"Always" is a bit of a stretch. They didn't have this concept crystalized when it first released. It took them a while to distill their "Intent" into something coherent and explain it to the masses.
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.
It would be nice if it actually was part of the rules though; we shouldn't have to rely on unofficial tweets to clarify things, because if you go by Rules As Written alone it's at best unclear, and arguably not what the rules actually say. In RAW terms an initial target must be within the spell's range (the range rules are absolutely unambiguous about this), and range of Self means you and only you can be the target, because that's what the rules say it means.
While it's fairly clear what was intended with the updated SCAGtrips, they use a new type of range that doesn't actually mean anything in the existing rules for which they were written, and they never provided any update to clarify the meaning of this new special range. The only comparable examples are spells like beams and thunderwave, but these are describing the placement of an area effect originating from the character, so Self in this case still means that the target is the caster.
I'd also point out that fireball is actually an outlier in terms of how it's worded, and the same Range rule actually contradicts its uses of the word targets. Most similar spells don't refer to creatures in their area as targets, but simply "creatures in the area", "creatures that failed the saving throw" etc., this is because the target of an area of effect spell is the location where the area of effect originates (the centre for spheres, an edge for cubes etc.), the range rules are very clear on that.
The spellcasting rules in general are one of the more clearly defined areas of the 5e rules as we've got very specific terms used (mostly) consistently, and their meaning in the rules is generally quite clearly defined; fireball in this case arguably contains a mistake, and the SCAGtrips should have been accompanied by updates to the range rules that they need in order to operate properly.
It's one of those cases where you look at the sage advice/tweets on how the designers intend for it to work, and the correct response is "well why don't the rules say that then?" Way too much of that in 5e.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The devs also discussed the range and target clarification in podcast Dragon Talk Sage Advice Targeting Revisited
https://youtu.be/xUOaQ_XY7wE
Except it's not, as I pointed out.
Saying something is true does not make it true if you won't prove it.But it's still not what the rules say.
Tweets and discussions that don't get published as sage advice or errata are at best clarifications of intent, they don't alter the Rules As Written, which is a problem; when the rules don't say what was intended, then that's a flaw with the rules because we can't expect new (or veteran) players to refer to tweets and videos for answers to questions that should be covered by the books they paid money for.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your statement. It is RAW, but it's not an explicit rule--rather it's something we can determine to be true based on its context in RAW. "Casting target" and "Spell effect target" are terms I created in order to describe a distinction in how the word "target" is used to mean two different things in the context of a spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So you'd say it is RAI but not RAW. And their tweets and whatnot are what give us the clarification needed to know how to play it as intended.
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.
No, what I said was pretty clear and this is not what I said :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No? Huh, sounded like it.
^ This is describing RAI. We determine how the rule works by additional context that isn't explicitly a rule.
You even had to invent your own "game terms" to explain it. The books certainly don't.
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.
The Spells with a new range of Self (X feet) did get Errata. But such document usually only list book changes without further explanations so getting some from other official sources please most people and the Adventure League Organized Play program. A Q&A in Sage Advice Compendium would be great but there isn't one yet.
Yeah, the reason booming blade has been made weird in RAW is that as far as the casting a spell rules are concerned the spell's target can only be the caster (due to range Self), but it then triggers an attack, which by the attack rules has its own range and target, but the way the rules are set out these are separate things. It's clear what they intended but the rules don't support it fully because the target is either technically just you, or it's you and the attack target, in both cases not valid for War Caster (which requires the target be only the creature triggering the opportunity attack).
And the silly thing is that there's no reason for it to be range Self at all if the intent is for the range to be the weapon's reach, all they had to do was give the SCAGtrips a range of "reach", then in the text clarify this means the reach of the weapon used, and that it can't be extended beyond that (to fix interactions with Distant Spell and Spell Sniper, which I'm pretty sure the range Self thing was supposed to be there for).
It's one of the things that frustrates me with 5e, WotC often releases these rules with issues, but instead of fixing them in errata, they just leave them as-is and tweet or make offhand comments in videos that people may not see or be able to find when they need them. It's like they haven't heard of this thing called the internet where you can put out digital files with corrections (for the physical releases) or just update the digital releases with the updated text.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That's just the SCAG getting the updated version of the cantrips from Tasha's Cauldron though, what's needed was an errata to the range and/or targeting rules for casting spells to actually support this range Self (5 feet) format, which in the current casting rules doesn't mean anything. Range Self however does mean something, and that something means the SCAGtrips don't work with War Caster in RAW.
Like I say though, what's most annoying is they could have so easily done this properly; the range should be "reach", and the description should simply say to use the weapon's reach, and that it can't be extended beyond that reach (to fix the Distant Spell/Spell Sniper issue that changing to range Self was supposedly to fix).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
TCoE and SCAG didn't create new spell Range verbiage though, it existed since PHB, with spells such as Destructing Wave being Self (30 foot radius) or Antilife Shell being Self (10 foot radius) or Antimagic Field as Self (10 foot sphere) for exemple. Such spells create exception since spell with a range Self nornally affect only you but they clearly do not.
These spells do not function as the developers claim that the SCAGtrips do; the spells you mention are area of effect spells, and an area of effect spell's target is the location at which the area of effect occurs, in these cases originating from Self (meaning you are the target), the area of effect then enables the effect of the spell to apply to one or more creatures within it.
The spellcasting range rule is very clear on how all of these things operate, but it does not allow what the developers claim is how the SCAGtrips work. By RAW the SCAGtrips target the caster (the only valid target of a range Self spell), this then applies an effect which enables them to make an attack. So regardless of whether you consider the attack target to also be a target of the spell (though by RAW it can't be, as it's not within the range of Self), the caster is always one of the targets of the spell, which means it cannot work with War Caster (which only permits as a target the creature that triggered the opportunity attack).
Even if you treat the SCAGtrips like area of effect spells like the ones you mentioned; those spells are not eligible for War Caster either because their target is the caster, not the creatures within their area.
In short, what the developers say is how the SCAGtrips work is not what the rules actually support; they messed up, and instead of fixing their multiple mistakes, so that RAW can actually support RAI, they tweet about it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think most people just treat spells with range Self (X feet) has affecting the caster or originating from it and affecting an area or creatures up to the established distance. All the spells descriptions are usually pretty obvious how they work, most questioning arise when War Caster is brought up.
To be clear; I'm not questioning how the SCAGtrips are intended to work, it's pretty obvious they're supposed to just be spells that make a melee weapon attack. It's also pretty clear that while trying to fix how the old versions interacted with Distant Spell and Spell Sniper, Wizards of the Coast managed to create a new set of problems instead by using the Self (5 feet) format that area of effect spells use (when it's not an area of effect spell).
Again, the correct range for these spells is "reach", with text ensure the weapon's reach is used (and also the limit of the range). This would solve all the problems. It's how it should have been fixed, and how I suspect most DM's will run it, but for some mad reason the developers went with a notation that doesn't work the way they want it to in the Rules As Written.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree this should be the best, i don't know if any existing spell use such a range though so my gut feeling is they resorted to how some of the range Self (X feet) was worded for more homogeneity.