This true, but the crit changes nerf everyone. No Critical Smites, Sneak Attack or any other added damaged dice associated with attacks. These changed don't really help narrow the gap.
Have any of the videos clarified re:sneak attack in particular? Personally my suspicion is that we might see new wording; for example, currently hunter's mark and sneak attack only refer to "extra damage", but they could change that to "extra weapon damage", which is essentially what they already do, but should make them eligible for critical hits by increasing the damage of the weapon itself?
Since Rogue is basically built around a single, nasty attack, then it makes sense for it to be very swingy as it's a somewhat "luck" based class (sneaking, scouting and surprise attacking are inherently high risk).
Dropping it from divine smites is probably the right call though; paladins are strong this edition, with smites triggering once you know you've hit, holding back your highest level slots for a critical hit can deal huge damage (as much as a Rogue's sneak attack).
I am curious though what they might do to balance spells; as most attack-based spells are wasted if they miss, compared to the usually more reliable save for half damage spells. Part of that trade was the chance of some really high damage, so I'll be interested to see if attack spells start adding the spellcasting modifier to damage or something to compensate.
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.
This true, but the crit changes nerf everyone. No Critical Smites, Sneak Attack or any other added damaged dice associated with attacks. These changed don't really help narrow the gap.
Have any of the videos clarified re:sneak attack in particular? Personally my suspicion is that we might see new wording; for example, currently hunter's mark and sneak attack only refer to "extra damage", but they could change that to "extra weapon damage", which is essentially what they already do, but should make them eligible for critical hits again.
Since Rogue is basically built around a single, nasty attack, then it makes sense for it to very swingy as it's a somewhat "luck" based class (sneaking an surprise attacking are inherently high risk).
Dropping it from divine smites is probably the right call though; paladins are strong this edition, with smites triggering once you know you've hit, hoarding them for critical hits can result in some huge damage when you finally get one.
I am curious though what they might do to balance spells; as most attack-based spells are wasted if they miss, compared to the usually more reliable save for half damage spells. Part of that trade was the chance of some really high damage, so I'll be interested to see if attack spells start adding the spellcasting modifier to damage or something to compensate.
The only thing that we know is what the UA says. Anything else is speculation. No one at WotC has informed the public in any fashion that there might be other critical changes so it is best to go solely on what they have said. That means no doubling Sneak Attack dice or any other dice beyond the weapon dice.
This true, but the crit changes nerf everyone. No Critical Smites, Sneak Attack or any other added damaged dice associated with attacks. These changed don't really help narrow the gap.
Have any of the videos clarified re:sneak attack in particular? Personally my suspicion is that we might see new wording; for example, currently hunter's mark and sneak attack only refer to "extra damage", but they could change that to "extra weapon damage", which is essentially what they already do, but should make them eligible for critical hits by increasing the damage of the weapon itself?
Since Rogue is basically built around a single, nasty attack, then it makes sense for it to be very swingy as it's a somewhat "luck" based class (sneaking, scouting and surprise attacking are inherently high risk).
Dropping it from divine smites is probably the right call though; paladins are strong this edition, with smites triggering once you know you've hit, holding back your highest level slots for a critical hit can deal huge damage (as much as a Rogue's sneak attack).
I am curious though what they might do to balance spells; as most attack-based spells are wasted if they miss, compared to the usually more reliable save for half damage spells. Part of that trade was the chance of some really high damage, so I'll be interested to see if attack spells start adding the spellcasting modifier to damage or something to compensate.
I will note that I am pretty sure most of the attack spells that people actually cast are cantrips, though guiding bolt and chromatic orb are definitely low level exceptions, and cantrips do not do half damage on a save. Further Spell casters have the advantage of being able to target the enemies weaker defense. Where martials will always aim for AC. The spell caster can target, wisdom, dex, int, con, or AC with a spell. So they have more ways around an enemies defense, so this may be something they are taking into account.
Still I don't like the crit changes from a feel perspective. It just doesn't feel good as a caster to not get crits.
I think cantrips not being able to crit would be a shame. As for leveled spells, I don't think I would care as much.
Mainly I see the cantrips as the casters sword or bow attacks and should be treated similarly.
On an aside I think the first level feat will be one of the best things to be made mainstream for dnd. I have known people who played with it and some of the feats just made level 1s too strong. I like the idea of limiting it to a smaller pool of options. It allows more opportunities to dip into a certain concept (ie healer) or class (musician) without having to take a level. Or you can lean into an aspect, such as a more caster oriented ranger. Take a race that gets some spells, magic initiate primal, and later on druidic warrior, gives a bunch of spell options to a ranger. The otherside could be a Cleric with savage strikes to show they are from a martial sect while not being a paladin.
This granularity gives a better opener to a character having a personality outside of written backstory.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
If you take a weapon with your background you should be proficient with that weapon.
I don't believe there's an option to take a weapon proficiency in your background, just tool proficiency along with skills and a language.
Which really makes sense, imo. Otherwise, every wizard, monk and bard will be running around with a greatsword, instead of a tool proficiency. Because would you rather have a weapon proficiency that you'll use regularly (maybe not the wizard in this case, but others), or a tool proficiency that will come up, I don't know, maybe 3 times in an entire campaign?
That said, once we see the changes to the classes, none of that may be an issue anymore.
If you take a weapon with your background you should be proficient with that weapon.
None of the current 5E backgrounds or the playtest background system involve gaining proficiency with weapons or armor.
If by "taking a weapon" you're talking about using the 50gp from the new playtest background system and using it to purchase a weapon, that's not how it works, and it probably shouldn't be. If anything, it's currently the other way around. There are backgrounds where as part of your starting equipment you get a copy of the instrument/gaming set/etc you took proficiency in as part of that background. Using 50gp to sneak in an extra weapon proficiency, when the current downtime rules offered by Xanathar's Guide put the cost of learning a tool or a language proficiency at baseline 250gp & ten weeks, not gonna happen.
getting rid of crits for spell attacks seems unbalanced to me. 10% relative nerf to casters. you get inspiration but no crit... makes the game less fun for casters. critical roll... who cares... youre a caster...
i would say the game might move faster, but people will still crit fish since you get inspiration.
I get nerfing guiding bolt crits, or sneak dice... but nerfing anything that isnt a weapon or a fist seems like an overcorrection.
to be fair casters can do exponentially more damage then standard weapon attacks.
cuz spell slots are not infinite. it seems that wotc was unhappy with the current balance, and their change suggests that they think martials are underperforming or spell attackers /rouges/paladins are overperforming... or they have shinanigans for seperating weapon/unarmed and spell attacks/dmg.
getting rid of crits for spell attacks seems unbalanced to me. 10% relative nerf to casters. you get inspiration but no crit... makes the game less fun for casters. critical roll... who cares... youre a caster...
i would say the game might move faster, but people will still crit fish since you get inspiration.
I get nerfing guiding bolt crits, or sneak dice... but nerfing anything that isnt a weapon or a fist seems like an overcorrection.
to be fair casters can do exponentially more damage then standard weapon attacks.
cuz spell slots are not infinite. it seems that wotc was unhappy with the current balance, and their change suggests that they think martials are underperforming or spell attackers /rouges/paladins are overperforming... or they have shinanigans for seperating weapon/unarmed and spell attacks/dmg.
I think it may be single encounter, single roll problem rather than overall balance. With rogues and paladins a single crit can take an encounter from Hard to easy. Or deadly to moderate, and make what was supposed to be the epic conclusion into something small and trivial. Spell attacks like guiding bolt or later crown of stars with their fist fulls of dice can do so similarly. But a fighter getting a crit feels good without completely ending the encounter. Even the barbarian whohas the brutal critical feature at high levels to make their crits feel better, pale in comparison to a rogue or pally crit from 6 levels ago. The more I play with it the more I like it.
It seems like they are nerfing critical hits, too. They are only applicable to weapon or unarmed strikes, and only roll the damage die for the weapon or unarmed strike. So no spell crits and no sneak attack massive crit damage.
I think it's important to recall a basic precept of D&D. Unless the rules specifically state you can't do something....... you can do it.
Nowhere in the playtest rules does it say that Critical Hits can't be applied to sneak attack, or smite. Spellcasters have had the advantage in damage for quite some time. And though this may be an attempt to boost melee damage the rules doesn't specifically say crits can't be applied to spells.
I was going to wait until I'd read the whole thread to comment on anything but this is so blatantly wrong that I shelved that idea.
By your logic, Barbarians can smite, Sorcerers can Sneak Attack, and Monks have full access to the Wizard spell list and can cast every spell at-will regardless of level. That is not how this game works. That's an anarchy mindset that strips the rules entirely and makes this not a game, but a chaotic kindergarten make believe where two kids are fighting over who shot who and whose force-field rebounded the bullets that shot them.
The rules tell you what you can do. Anything not listed or a part of basic humanoid function (such as breathing, going to the bathroom, blinking, etc) is assumed to be off-limits, particularly if it has a mechanical effect (doubly so if that mechanical effect is in combat), unless otherwise discussed with and allowed by the DM within the bounds of what they consider reason.
If the rules don't explicitly say you can do something, you can't unless the DM gives it the thumbs-up.
Your DM may okay doubled Sneak Attack on a crit while playing whatever OneD&D becomes, and that's fine. But it's also a house rule. It is homebrew. It is not what the game is written or balanced for, and may skew how the game is played unfavorably and cause a cascading wave of sequential problems based on how the rest of the game is set up. We don't know the latter part yet because we don't have full rules for the playtest, so it may be inconsequential. Or it could break new, redefined bounded accuracy guidelines.
Coming at this game from a, as Treantmonk put it, "TRDSIC" or "turd-sick" perspective, with the assumption that "The Rules Don't Say I Can't," is a fast-track to getting kicked out of a lot of tables. And you certainly can't use that mindset to judge the functionality of experimental playtest rules.
Is this thread the main launchpad for OneD&D stuff in the forums? I'd kinda expected them to put up a dedicated subforum rather than shunt it into the Unearthed Arcana one.
they may in the future, would not be a bad idea.
As for the weapon proficiency not being present in race or background in this iteration, definitely something to bring up in feedback. Would getting one weapon proficiency instead of a tool be an adequate exchange? Would two weapons be too much for a tool proficiency? Perhaps being able to exchange the tool proficiency or language for a weapon proficiency would make sense. The time to properly learn a weapon could be similar to a language or a tool, but I kinda get the feeling that they wanted to have other things that are not necessarily combat focused. Probably quite a few people that would get a longbow for their mage, or a Greatsword for their cleric.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
So everyone wants to make a big deal out of the critical damage changes. I would like to see some sage advice on this change before going nuts over it. However, if you are opposed to the change, upvote those posts complaining about the change so that WotC sees your input.
I agreed with and upvoted the rest of your post, but just want to say: This is poor advice, or at least unnecessary. I guarantee WotC doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to go scouring forums for what gets upvoted. The better advice would be to wait until the official survey referenced on the landing page for OneD&D is open on September 1st and submit opinions, impressions, and other feedback directly there. That is where they'll be focusing their attention when seeking player input.
So everyone wants to make a big deal out of the critical damage changes. I would like to see some sage advice on this change before going nuts over it. However, if you are opposed to the change, upvote those posts complaining about the change so that WotC sees your input.
I agreed with and upvoted the rest of your post, but just want to say: This is poor advice, or at least unnecessary. I guarantee WotC doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to go scouring forums for what gets upvoted. The better advice would be to wait until the official survey referenced on the landing page for OneD&D is open on September 1st and submit opinions, impressions, and other feedback directly there. That is where they'll be focusing their attention when seeking player input.
Here is hoping they'll listen. Looking at what happend with Strixhaven, Psionics, the movie and Speljammer I'm not optimistic.
getting rid of crits for spell attacks seems unbalanced to me. 10% relative nerf to casters. you get inspiration but no crit... makes the game less fun for casters. critical roll... who cares... youre a caster...
i would say the game might move faster, but people will still crit fish since you get inspiration.
I get nerfing guiding bolt crits, or sneak dice... but nerfing anything that isnt a weapon or a fist seems like an overcorrection.
to be fair casters can do exponentially more damage then standard weapon attacks.
cuz spell slots are not infinite. it seems that wotc was unhappy with the current balance, and their change suggests that they think martials are underperforming or spell attackers /rouges/paladins are overperforming... or they have shinanigans for seperating weapon/unarmed and spell attacks/dmg.
I think it may be single encounter, single roll problem rather than overall balance. With rogues and paladins a single crit can take an encounter from Hard to easy. Or deadly to moderate, and make what was supposed to be the epic conclusion into something small and trivial. Spell attacks like guiding bolt or later crown of stars with their fist fulls of dice can do so similarly. But a fighter getting a crit feels good without completely ending the encounter. Even the barbarian whohas the brutal critical feature at high levels to make their crits feel better, pale in comparison to a rogue or pally crit from 6 levels ago. The more I play with it the more I like it.
I agree 100%. I am not at all fond of the nova-crit reducing the epic final boss battle to one lucky shot. I like the new crit rule (though I feel monsters should get to crit as well).
So everyone wants to make a big deal out of the critical damage changes. I would like to see some sage advice on this change before going nuts over it. However, if you are opposed to the change, upvote those posts complaining about the change so that WotC sees your input.
I agreed with and upvoted the rest of your post, but just want to say: This is poor advice, or at least unnecessary. I guarantee WotC doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to go scouring forums for what gets upvoted. The better advice would be to wait until the official survey referenced on the landing page for OneD&D is open on September 1st and submit opinions, impressions, and other feedback directly there. That is where they'll be focusing their attention when seeking player input.
Here is hoping they'll listen. Looking at what happend with Strixhaven, Psionics, the movie and Speljammer I'm not optimistic.
Basically all of those are evidence they do listen.
Is this thread the main launchpad for OneD&D stuff in the forums? I'd kinda expected them to put up a dedicated subforum rather than shunt it into the Unearthed Arcana one.
they may in the future, would not be a bad idea.
As for the weapon proficiency not being present in race or background in this iteration, definitely something to bring up in feedback. Would getting one weapon proficiency instead of a tool be an adequate exchange? Would two weapons be too much for a tool proficiency? Perhaps being able to exchange the tool proficiency or language for a weapon proficiency would make sense. The time to properly learn a weapon could be similar to a language or a tool, but I kinda get the feeling that they wanted to have other things that are not necessarily combat focused. Probably quite a few people that would get a longbow for their mage, or a Greatsword for their cleric.
I will have to think about that some more.
personaly i kinda like weapon proficiancies being ties to class and backgrounds and tool proficiancies being tied to race and background
I wonder whether first level feats will eventually include the armor mastery ones, or one giving proficiency in a couple martial weapons. Nice little add on, though I think I would take Magic Initiate on most of my characters.
Still have the annoying thing of every race but a few get darkvision. Nine races and six of them have darkvision. They love throwing that out. Need to change that, at least have some have it at a lesser range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I recommend that you go watch the video. It has been confirmed by WotC that the intent is that ONLY Player Characters will benefit from Criticals.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Have any of the videos clarified re:sneak attack in particular? Personally my suspicion is that we might see new wording; for example, currently hunter's mark and sneak attack only refer to "extra damage", but they could change that to "extra weapon damage", which is essentially what they already do, but should make them eligible for critical hits by increasing the damage of the weapon itself?
Since Rogue is basically built around a single, nasty attack, then it makes sense for it to be very swingy as it's a somewhat "luck" based class (sneaking, scouting and surprise attacking are inherently high risk).
Dropping it from divine smites is probably the right call though; paladins are strong this edition, with smites triggering once you know you've hit, holding back your highest level slots for a critical hit can deal huge damage (as much as a Rogue's sneak attack).
I am curious though what they might do to balance spells; as most attack-based spells are wasted if they miss, compared to the usually more reliable save for half damage spells. Part of that trade was the chance of some really high damage, so I'll be interested to see if attack spells start adding the spellcasting modifier to damage or something to compensate.
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 only thing that we know is what the UA says. Anything else is speculation. No one at WotC has informed the public in any fashion that there might be other critical changes so it is best to go solely on what they have said. That means no doubling Sneak Attack dice or any other dice beyond the weapon dice.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I will note that I am pretty sure most of the attack spells that people actually cast are cantrips, though guiding bolt and chromatic orb are definitely low level exceptions, and cantrips do not do half damage on a save. Further Spell casters have the advantage of being able to target the enemies weaker defense. Where martials will always aim for AC. The spell caster can target, wisdom, dex, int, con, or AC with a spell. So they have more ways around an enemies defense, so this may be something they are taking into account.
Still I don't like the crit changes from a feel perspective. It just doesn't feel good as a caster to not get crits.
I think cantrips not being able to crit would be a shame. As for leveled spells, I don't think I would care as much.
Mainly I see the cantrips as the casters sword or bow attacks and should be treated similarly.
On an aside I think the first level feat will be one of the best things to be made mainstream for dnd. I have known people who played with it and some of the feats just made level 1s too strong. I like the idea of limiting it to a smaller pool of options. It allows more opportunities to dip into a certain concept (ie healer) or class (musician) without having to take a level. Or you can lean into an aspect, such as a more caster oriented ranger. Take a race that gets some spells, magic initiate primal, and later on druidic warrior, gives a bunch of spell options to a ranger. The otherside could be a Cleric with savage strikes to show they are from a martial sect while not being a paladin.
This granularity gives a better opener to a character having a personality outside of written backstory.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
If you take a weapon with your background you should be proficient with that weapon.
I don't believe there's an option to take a weapon proficiency in your background, just tool proficiency along with skills and a language.
Which really makes sense, imo. Otherwise, every wizard, monk and bard will be running around with a greatsword, instead of a tool proficiency. Because would you rather have a weapon proficiency that you'll use regularly (maybe not the wizard in this case, but others), or a tool proficiency that will come up, I don't know, maybe 3 times in an entire campaign?
That said, once we see the changes to the classes, none of that may be an issue anymore.
None of the current 5E backgrounds or the playtest background system involve gaining proficiency with weapons or armor.
If by "taking a weapon" you're talking about using the 50gp from the new playtest background system and using it to purchase a weapon, that's not how it works, and it probably shouldn't be. If anything, it's currently the other way around. There are backgrounds where as part of your starting equipment you get a copy of the instrument/gaming set/etc you took proficiency in as part of that background. Using 50gp to sneak in an extra weapon proficiency, when the current downtime rules offered by Xanathar's Guide put the cost of learning a tool or a language proficiency at baseline 250gp & ten weeks, not gonna happen.
cuz spell slots are not infinite. it seems that wotc was unhappy with the current balance, and their change suggests that they think martials are underperforming or spell attackers /rouges/paladins are overperforming... or they have shinanigans for seperating weapon/unarmed and spell attacks/dmg.
I think it may be single encounter, single roll problem rather than overall balance. With rogues and paladins a single crit can take an encounter from Hard to easy. Or deadly to moderate, and make what was supposed to be the epic conclusion into something small and trivial. Spell attacks like guiding bolt or later crown of stars with their fist fulls of dice can do so similarly. But a fighter getting a crit feels good without completely ending the encounter. Even the barbarian whohas the brutal critical feature at high levels to make their crits feel better, pale in comparison to a rogue or pally crit from 6 levels ago. The more I play with it the more I like it.
I was going to wait until I'd read the whole thread to comment on anything but this is so blatantly wrong that I shelved that idea.
By your logic, Barbarians can smite, Sorcerers can Sneak Attack, and Monks have full access to the Wizard spell list and can cast every spell at-will regardless of level. That is not how this game works. That's an anarchy mindset that strips the rules entirely and makes this not a game, but a chaotic kindergarten make believe where two kids are fighting over who shot who and whose force-field rebounded the bullets that shot them.
The rules tell you what you can do. Anything not listed or a part of basic humanoid function (such as breathing, going to the bathroom, blinking, etc) is assumed to be off-limits, particularly if it has a mechanical effect (doubly so if that mechanical effect is in combat), unless otherwise discussed with and allowed by the DM within the bounds of what they consider reason.
If the rules don't explicitly say you can do something, you can't unless the DM gives it the thumbs-up.
Your DM may okay doubled Sneak Attack on a crit while playing whatever OneD&D becomes, and that's fine. But it's also a house rule. It is homebrew. It is not what the game is written or balanced for, and may skew how the game is played unfavorably and cause a cascading wave of sequential problems based on how the rest of the game is set up. We don't know the latter part yet because we don't have full rules for the playtest, so it may be inconsequential. Or it could break new, redefined bounded accuracy guidelines.
Coming at this game from a, as Treantmonk put it, "TRDSIC" or "turd-sick" perspective, with the assumption that "The Rules Don't Say I Can't," is a fast-track to getting kicked out of a lot of tables. And you certainly can't use that mindset to judge the functionality of experimental playtest rules.
they may in the future, would not be a bad idea.
As for the weapon proficiency not being present in race or background in this iteration, definitely something to bring up in feedback. Would getting one weapon proficiency instead of a tool be an adequate exchange? Would two weapons be too much for a tool proficiency? Perhaps being able to exchange the tool proficiency or language for a weapon proficiency would make sense. The time to properly learn a weapon could be similar to a language or a tool, but I kinda get the feeling that they wanted to have other things that are not necessarily combat focused. Probably quite a few people that would get a longbow for their mage, or a Greatsword for their cleric.
I will have to think about that some more.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I agreed with and upvoted the rest of your post, but just want to say: This is poor advice, or at least unnecessary. I guarantee WotC doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to go scouring forums for what gets upvoted. The better advice would be to wait until the official survey referenced on the landing page for OneD&D is open on September 1st and submit opinions, impressions, and other feedback directly there. That is where they'll be focusing their attention when seeking player input.
Here is hoping they'll listen. Looking at what happend with Strixhaven, Psionics, the movie and Speljammer I'm not optimistic.
I can guarantee you they listen to feedback on UA. They murdered my favorite UA's in their sleep because they listened to the feedback they got.😭
I agree 100%. I am not at all fond of the nova-crit reducing the epic final boss battle to one lucky shot. I like the new crit rule (though I feel monsters should get to crit as well).
Basically all of those are evidence they do listen.
personaly i kinda like weapon proficiancies being ties to class and backgrounds and tool proficiancies being tied to race and background
I wonder whether first level feats will eventually include the armor mastery ones, or one giving proficiency in a couple martial weapons. Nice little add on, though I think I would take Magic Initiate on most of my characters.
Still have the annoying thing of every race but a few get darkvision. Nine races and six of them have darkvision. They love throwing that out.
Need to change that, at least have some have it at a lesser range.