Natural Explorer varies depending on the campaign you're in. If you're doing an entire campaign in the jungle or the Underdark, then Natural Explorer eliminates a lot of the danger posed by the environment. If you're doing a story of the week style, as a lot of my friends do, I could see why some people don't care much for the Ranger.
My first Ranger character started with woodlands and hills to match his background. 10 levels later he had not set foot in either.
Which is exactly why the feature is lousy, the revised ranger over compensated and I think they have finally provided a solution that is great. All the options are interesting and feel like they fit with the Ranger, but they are beneficial everywhere.
Well your example is good. While the sorcerer in question was built to excell against frost giants he suddenly excell against fire giants too, removing one of the class most obvious drawbacks, and in the process removing a wizards primary advantage.
it also takes away the logic behind how sorcerers gain spells. They are born with their powers, so how do you change them from day to day? Changing one spell on level up is a gradual slight change, but day-to-day changes is major.
Too me this change is much in line with the social maneuvers of the battlemaster. Its not like it makes a dramatic shift of power, but it makes little logic sense and steps on other classes abilities, which I find bad.
fof a sorcerer I would much rather allow they to ignore resistance or something else that makes them better at what they do than remove their class buildup.
Well your example is good. While the sorcerer in question was built to excell against frost giants he suddenly excell against fire giants too, removing one of the class most obvious drawbacks, and in the process removing a wizards primary advantage.
it also takes away the logic behind how sorcerers gain spells. They are born with their powers, so how do you change them from day to day? Changing one spell on level up is a gradual slight change, but day-to-day changes is major.
Too me this change is much in line with the social maneuvers of the battlemaster. Its not like it makes a dramatic shift of power, but it makes little logic sense and steps on other classes abilities, which I find bad.
fof a sorcerer I would much rather allow they to ignore resistance or something else that makes them better at what they do than remove their class buildup.
Very much agree. Sorcerers changing around their spells on LR makes no logical sense to the lore or mechanics of the character. [...]
The example was from the recent Dragon+ interview with Jeremy Crawford, and one of the design inspirations.
If you reject spell versatility because of flavor, I disagree, but understand. In that case, your table can just not adopt the option.
As for keeping any class in their niche, even if the focus of the campaign changes, like Guytza, I enjoy this game collaboratively. If you prefer a more competitive game, again, your table can just not adopt the option.
In either case, as all options in this UA are optional, I don't see how this feature is broken. You may prefer not to use it, but that is down to style, not mechanics.
Well your example is good. While the sorcerer in question was built to excell against frost giants he suddenly excell against fire giants too, removing one of the class most obvious drawbacks, and in the process removing a wizards primary advantage.
it also takes away the logic behind how sorcerers gain spells. They are born with their powers, so how do you change them from day to day? Changing one spell on level up is a gradual slight change, but day-to-day changes is major.
Too me this change is much in line with the social maneuvers of the battlemaster. Its not like it makes a dramatic shift of power, but it makes little logic sense and steps on other classes abilities, which I find bad.
fof a sorcerer I would much rather allow they to ignore resistance or something else that makes them better at what they do than remove their class buildup.
Very much agree. Sorcerers changing around their spells on LR makes no logical sense to the lore or mechanics of the character. [...]
As for keeping any class in their niche, even if the focus of the campaign changes, like Guytza, I enjoy this game collaboratively. If you prefer a more competitive game, again, your table can just not adopt the option.
In either case, as all options in this UA are optional, I don't see how this feature is broken. You may prefer not to use it, but that is down to style, not mechanics.
I think allowing Sorcerers to change one spell known after a long rest is a drastic shift in power and versatility. The restriction of a small list of spells known was meant to balance the other abilities they have.
Think of it this way. Hi guys, I'm a Sorcerer built to excel in social situations and misdirection. What? we are going to a dungeon filled with nasty monsters. good thing it will take 5 days to get there so I can become a battle mage.
Well your example is good. While the sorcerer in question was built to excell against frost giants he suddenly excell against fire giants too, removing one of the class most obvious drawbacks, and in the process removing a wizards primary advantage.
it also takes away the logic behind how sorcerers gain spells. They are born with their powers, so how do you change them from day to day? Changing one spell on level up is a gradual slight change, but day-to-day changes is major.
Too me this change is much in line with the social maneuvers of the battlemaster. Its not like it makes a dramatic shift of power, but it makes little logic sense and steps on other classes abilities, which I find bad.
fof a sorcerer I would much rather allow they to ignore resistance or something else that makes them better at what they do than remove their class buildup.
Very much agree. Sorcerers changing around their spells on LR makes no logical sense to the lore or mechanics of the character. [...]
As for keeping any class in their niche, even if the focus of the campaign changes, like Guytza, I enjoy this game collaboratively. If you prefer a more competitive game, again, your table can just not adopt the option.
In either case, as all options in this UA are optional, I don't see how this feature is broken. You may prefer not to use it, but that is down to style, not mechanics.
I think allowing Sorcerers to change one spell known after a long rest is a drastic shift in power and versatility. The restriction of a small list of spells known was meant to balance the other abilities they have.
Think of it this way. Hi guys, I'm a Sorcerer built to excel in social situations and misdirection. What? we are going to a dungeon filled with nasty monsters. good thing it will take 5 days to get there so I can become a battle mage.
It's a shift in versatility, yes (it's literally in the name, spell versatility).
A shift in power? No.
The class is balanced in the number of spell slots, the spell list, and how many spells are 'prepared' (known) at a time.
How would the sorcerer's player feel in that situation? A social specialist in a dungeon delve?
How do the other players feel in that situation? A team mate that is a liability rather than an asset?
How does the DM feel in that situation? Knowing that they created a setting in which one player is practically useless?
What is the alternative? Have the player retire this character and make a new one? Maybe a sorcerer that is specialized in dungeon delving?
I do think that the game experience will benefit from letting the sorcerer change his repertoire in that situation.
The argument that we can just choose not to adopt it goes both ways. People can also choose to homebrew. We all know what gets into books becomes a lot more weight behind it, thus we all care one way or another :)
as for collaborative vs. Competetive I storngly believe it is in the mature of games to have competetive aspects too it. Even in a purely collaborative game few likes to be the weakest link, and many get annoyed if someone shines too much. In dnd some classes shine a lot in certain niches, and are thus rather weak in many others (hello rogue), while others are generally good but not very good at anything.
to mee the sorcerer have massive firepower (due to quicken spell) and when creating the character you get to become either very powrful at something (say an enchanter), or a broad toolkit (selecting generic spells). If you can do both I think it both removes class-uniqueness and key balance.
i agree balance is a means to a good experience, but what makes 5e so unique is that it managed to both streamline and keep uniqueness while simultaneously keeping the game remarkably well balanced! That is a supreme feat I really want to protect, and as you see from my initial post I hVe no problem with changes when they improve stuff :)
But again, what about the player who made some choices about spells and is feeling particularly useless or not having fun? Why not let them switch things out so they're having fun again while still remaining within the purview of the same class?
Balance is only a goal to help preserve fun. It shouldn't be a goal just because.
How do you solve the design problem Jeremy Crawford was trying to fix with this document, where a group of players is content to sit at level 5 and play there for two or more years and thus deny the sorcerer/bard/warlock a chance to change out a spell they didn't know they hated until they tried it on the level-up they never get?
How do you solve the fact that virtually the entirety of the D&D playerbase considers the sorcerer to be drastically weaker than the wizard, since the sorcerer has the same crap-ass d6 hit die, complete lack of proficiencies, and general feeble Magic Man uselessness as the Wizard, but with the fewest known/prepared spells of all full spellcasters? Note that the sorcerer is also the only innate/spontaneous spellcaster without a d8 hit die and armor/weapon proficiencies - both the bard and warlock have a d8 and basic combat kit, as does the cleric and druid despite the fact that they're preppy casters with a Wizard-sized spell pool.
Everybody likes to say "But Quicken Spell!", whilst forgetting that Quicken Spell is not a base class ability but an optional feature, one of a pool of similar features, that the sorcerer only realistically ever gets two picks from. Not every sorcerer has access to Quicken Spell, some people pick Metamagic that actually fits their character instead, and those sorcerers are typically held to be the weakest spellcasters in the game primarily because their tiny spell lists and near complete lack of non-spell class features means they cannot contribute in more than one or two areas of play.
How do you fix this, Rasmus? You hate Spell Versatility, got it. What do sorcerers get in its place, and how do you solve groups not allowing the sorcerer to use the class features it already has, i.e. spell swap on level up?
No, Gnottyette, they aren't gonna be up for a while. This is waaaay more complex that the usual UA. Hell, I'll bet it's more complex than adding the Artificer...
The argument that we can just choose not to adopt it goes both ways. People can also choose to homebrew. We all know what gets into books becomes a lot more weight behind it, thus we all care one way or another :)
as for collaborative vs. Competetive I storngly believe it is in the mature of games to have competetive aspects too it. Even in a purely collaborative game few likes to be the weakest link, and many get annoyed if someone shines too much. In dnd some classes shine a lot in certain niches, and are thus rather weak in many others (hello rogue), while others are generally good but not very good at anything.
to mee the sorcerer have massive firepower (due to quicken spell) and when creating the character you get to become either very powrful at something (say an enchanter), or a broad toolkit (selecting generic spells). If you can do both I think it both removes class-uniqueness and key balance.
i agree balance is a means to a good experience, but what makes 5e so unique is that it managed to both streamline and keep uniqueness while simultaneously keeping the game remarkably well balanced! That is a supreme feat I really want to protect, and as you see from my initial post I hVe no problem with changes when they improve stuff :)
Sure, we can homebrew what we want for our tables, but I appreciate the designers to provide 'sanctioned' options, that are in line with the game design, and where I don't have to do the heavy lifting on my own.
Regarding the "but my sorcerer have chosen fire spells in a campaign on the elemental plane of fire" argument and its siblings I have a different approach.
When really odd things happen, you fix it via homebrew. Rules are for the vast majority (not the game where one level takes 2 real-life years). I hardly ever hear the same argument about a fighter in who is stuck in a social campaign, or a rogue in a desert who never encounter traps, and have a hard time using his many skills. Somehow this always comes up in relation to magic-users, who strickly speaking have the greatest level of player-customization already.
And just to make it clear, I am also against skill/feat retraining as a canon-rule. This part of the game doesn't need fixing. What we do need though are more choices to begin with, particularity in the non-magic spectrum since pretty much everyone wields magic in 5e.
How do you solve the design problem Jeremy Crawford was trying to fix with this document, where a group of players is content to sit at level 5 and play there for two or more years and thus deny the sorcerer/bard/warlock a chance to change out a spell they didn't know they hated until they tried it on the level-up they never get?
How do you solve the fact that virtually the entirety of the D&D playerbase considers the sorcerer to be drastically weaker than the wizard, since the sorcerer has the same crap-ass d6 hit die, complete lack of proficiencies, and general feeble Magic Man uselessness as the Wizard, but with the fewest known/prepared spells of all full spellcasters? Note that the sorcerer is also the only innate/spontaneous spellcaster without a d8 hit die and armor/weapon proficiencies - both the bard and warlock have a d8 and basic combat kit, as does the cleric and druid despite the fact that they're preppy casters with a Wizard-sized spell pool.
Everybody likes to say "But Quicken Spell!", whilst forgetting that Quicken Spell is not a base class ability but an optional feature, one of a pool of similar features, that the sorcerer only realistically ever gets two picks from. Not every sorcerer has access to Quicken Spell, some people pick Metamagic that actually fits their character instead, and those sorcerers are typically held to be the weakest spellcasters in the game primarily because their tiny spell lists and near complete lack of non-spell class features means they cannot contribute in more than one or two areas of play.
How do you fix this, Rasmus? You hate Spell Versatility, got it. What do sorcerers get in its place, and how do you solve groups not allowing the sorcerer to use the class features it already has, i.e. spell swap on level up?
I answered the first one above.
As for the "sorcerer is weak" argument, it sounds like you think the wizard is also weak. They just aren't, one just have to know how to do them: For example, here is a sorcerer 18/warlock2:
SORCERER SPELLS LV0 Light, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Booming Blade, Fire Bolt, Message LV1 Absorb Elements LV2 Suggestion WIS, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Web DEX LV3 Counterspell, Dispel Magic LV4 Banishment CHA, Confusion WIS LV5 Hold Monster WIS, Animate Objects LV6 True Seeing LV7 Plane Shift CHA LV8 Dominate Monster WIS LV9 Wish
It will never ever be useless, and works at every level up to 20. Even better, they use charisma and not intelligence, which is universally better.
And Quicken isnt the only crazy metamagic. Still spell makes you immune to counterspell, meaning you have a massive advantage in most magic duells, and can always count on escaping.
As for "but let say I don't choose the good options because it fits better to use weaker ones", well balancing have to assume a minimum measure of class-utilization. It will always be possible to create sub-par characters. For example a strong archer, or a dexterous great sword wielder. When designing the system this cannot be an argument to give the fighter extra stuff. And versatility is very much stuff that matters, as proven by wizards in edition after edition.
If you ask me, the best fix is a GM guiding players making characters and talking to them between sessions to ensure their characters can shine on a regular/semi-regular basis. This is after all the easiest part to control as a GM, without the downsides of giving spellcasters even more versatility.
If you ask me, the best fix is a GM guiding players making characters and talking to them between sessions to ensure their characters can shine on a regular/semi-regular basis. This is after all the easiest part to control as a GM, without the downsides of giving spellcasters even more versatility.
If my DM day me down between sessions to “guide” me in what to choose for my Character I would look at them like they just grew a second head on top of the first one.
A much simpler fix is to simply give players options to choose from when they level up instead.... 🤔
I personally think those options would be better tied to the individual subclasses instead of the main classes, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
Guiding is only needed rarely. I have played my 1000s of hours both as GM and Player, and this have only happened to me when I have new players or really weird player personalities that either make useless characters and complain about others beeing OP, extreme unlogical min/maxing, or disruptive in other ways. In 99% of cases I just remove annoying options as you mentioned (flying races for instance).
My point is just that we dont make rules for the 1% of weird cases, rules must be made for the 99%.
Well, they have a permanent lv 3 spell on from level 1 without concentration, can kite a long list of encounters without risk and in many fantasyworlds (inkluding forgotten realms) they are so unique you become the certerpiece of absolutely all campaigns unless its a very special campaign with monstrous races.
I played way back in the ‘90s when players could combine stuff from literally DOZENS of books all written by different people that would give their characters ridiculously unbalanced options when combined. I can’t help but feel that a little thing like a flying speed can be managed.
Indeed, 3.5 was built-in unbalanced, with spellcasters running the world, but massive mobility-advantage is such a huge advantage it is hard to manage in any edition. Give an arrakocra a longbow or a long-range eldritch blast and the only way to manage it is another flyer (more or less) to make the encounter meaningfull. Anyhow, this is getting way of-topic :) I guess this derailed from a discussion of what level of balance should be the basis for game-design, and if versatility constitutes power or not.
Which is exactly why the feature is lousy, the revised ranger over compensated and I think they have finally provided a solution that is great. All the options are interesting and feel like they fit with the Ranger, but they are beneficial everywhere.
The example was from the recent Dragon+ interview with Jeremy Crawford, and one of the design inspirations.
If you reject spell versatility because of flavor, I disagree, but understand. In that case, your table can just not adopt the option.
As for keeping any class in their niche, even if the focus of the campaign changes, like Guytza, I enjoy this game collaboratively. If you prefer a more competitive game, again, your table can just not adopt the option.
In either case, as all options in this UA are optional, I don't see how this feature is broken. You may prefer not to use it, but that is down to style, not mechanics.
Thank you for elaborating! It helped me :)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I think allowing Sorcerers to change one spell known after a long rest is a drastic shift in power and versatility. The restriction of a small list of spells known was meant to balance the other abilities they have.
Think of it this way. Hi guys, I'm a Sorcerer built to excel in social situations and misdirection. What? we are going to a dungeon filled with nasty monsters. good thing it will take 5 days to get there so I can become a battle mage.
It's a shift in versatility, yes (it's literally in the name, spell versatility).
A shift in power? No.
The class is balanced in the number of spell slots, the spell list, and how many spells are 'prepared' (known) at a time.
How would the sorcerer's player feel in that situation? A social specialist in a dungeon delve?
How do the other players feel in that situation? A team mate that is a liability rather than an asset?
How does the DM feel in that situation? Knowing that they created a setting in which one player is practically useless?
What is the alternative? Have the player retire this character and make a new one? Maybe a sorcerer that is specialized in dungeon delving?
I do think that the game experience will benefit from letting the sorcerer change his repertoire in that situation.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Balance should be used in service to gameplay experience, not as an end in and of itself.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The argument that we can just choose not to adopt it goes both ways. People can also choose to homebrew. We all know what gets into books becomes a lot more weight behind it, thus we all care one way or another :)
as for collaborative vs. Competetive I storngly believe it is in the mature of games to have competetive aspects too it. Even in a purely collaborative game few likes to be the weakest link, and many get annoyed if someone shines too much. In dnd some classes shine a lot in certain niches, and are thus rather weak in many others (hello rogue), while others are generally good but not very good at anything.
to mee the sorcerer have massive firepower (due to quicken spell) and when creating the character you get to become either very powrful at something (say an enchanter), or a broad toolkit (selecting generic spells). If you can do both I think it both removes class-uniqueness and key balance.
i agree balance is a means to a good experience, but what makes 5e so unique is that it managed to both streamline and keep uniqueness while simultaneously keeping the game remarkably well balanced! That is a supreme feat I really want to protect, and as you see from my initial post I hVe no problem with changes when they improve stuff :)
But again, what about the player who made some choices about spells and is feeling particularly useless or not having fun? Why not let them switch things out so they're having fun again while still remaining within the purview of the same class?
Balance is only a goal to help preserve fun. It shouldn't be a goal just because.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
All right, Rasmus.
How do you solve the design problem Jeremy Crawford was trying to fix with this document, where a group of players is content to sit at level 5 and play there for two or more years and thus deny the sorcerer/bard/warlock a chance to change out a spell they didn't know they hated until they tried it on the level-up they never get?
How do you solve the fact that virtually the entirety of the D&D playerbase considers the sorcerer to be drastically weaker than the wizard, since the sorcerer has the same crap-ass d6 hit die, complete lack of proficiencies, and general feeble Magic Man uselessness as the Wizard, but with the fewest known/prepared spells of all full spellcasters? Note that the sorcerer is also the only innate/spontaneous spellcaster without a d8 hit die and armor/weapon proficiencies - both the bard and warlock have a d8 and basic combat kit, as does the cleric and druid despite the fact that they're preppy casters with a Wizard-sized spell pool.
Everybody likes to say "But Quicken Spell!", whilst forgetting that Quicken Spell is not a base class ability but an optional feature, one of a pool of similar features, that the sorcerer only realistically ever gets two picks from. Not every sorcerer has access to Quicken Spell, some people pick Metamagic that actually fits their character instead, and those sorcerers are typically held to be the weakest spellcasters in the game primarily because their tiny spell lists and near complete lack of non-spell class features means they cannot contribute in more than one or two areas of play.
How do you fix this, Rasmus? You hate Spell Versatility, got it. What do sorcerers get in its place, and how do you solve groups not allowing the sorcerer to use the class features it already has, i.e. spell swap on level up?
Please do not contact or message me.
Are these available on character sheets on dnd beyond?? Can’t see the options for cleric showing up
WWW.WERERATSTUDIOS.COM
DND PODCAST - THE CHICAGO TABLE -
www.thomaskiserart.com
No, Gnottyette, they aren't gonna be up for a while. This is waaaay more complex that the usual UA. Hell, I'll bet it's more complex than adding the Artificer...
Sure, we can homebrew what we want for our tables, but I appreciate the designers to provide 'sanctioned' options, that are in line with the game design, and where I don't have to do the heavy lifting on my own.
I actually don't think we need to provide alternate solutions for the issues the UA wants to address, here in this thread.
I'm happy when we can agree that at least *some* tables have those issues and that the UA is a decent way to address those.
If another table has no issues or likes competitiveness and everyone is having fun, I am good with that table. D&D is for everyone ;)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
See here ;)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Regarding the "but my sorcerer have chosen fire spells in a campaign on the elemental plane of fire" argument and its siblings I have a different approach.
When really odd things happen, you fix it via homebrew. Rules are for the vast majority (not the game where one level takes 2 real-life years). I hardly ever hear the same argument about a fighter in who is stuck in a social campaign, or a rogue in a desert who never encounter traps, and have a hard time using his many skills. Somehow this always comes up in relation to magic-users, who strickly speaking have the greatest level of player-customization already.
And just to make it clear, I am also against skill/feat retraining as a canon-rule. This part of the game doesn't need fixing. What we do need though are more choices to begin with, particularity in the non-magic spectrum since pretty much everyone wields magic in 5e.
I answered the first one above.
As for the "sorcerer is weak" argument, it sounds like you think the wizard is also weak. They just aren't, one just have to know how to do them: For example, here is a sorcerer 18/warlock2:
WARLOCK SPELLS
LV0 Eldritch blast, Mage Hand
LV1 Shield, Hex, Expeditious Retreat
SORCERER SPELLS
LV0 Light, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Booming Blade, Fire Bolt, Message
LV1 Absorb Elements
LV2 Suggestion WIS, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Web DEX
LV3 Counterspell, Dispel Magic
LV4 Banishment CHA, Confusion WIS
LV5 Hold Monster WIS, Animate Objects
LV6 True Seeing
LV7 Plane Shift CHA
LV8 Dominate Monster WIS
LV9 Wish
It will never ever be useless, and works at every level up to 20. Even better, they use charisma and not intelligence, which is universally better.
And Quicken isnt the only crazy metamagic. Still spell makes you immune to counterspell, meaning you have a massive advantage in most magic duells, and can always count on escaping.
As for "but let say I don't choose the good options because it fits better to use weaker ones", well balancing have to assume a minimum measure of class-utilization. It will always be possible to create sub-par characters. For example a strong archer, or a dexterous great sword wielder. When designing the system this cannot be an argument to give the fighter extra stuff. And versatility is very much stuff that matters, as proven by wizards in edition after edition.
If you ask me, the best fix is a GM guiding players making characters and talking to them between sessions to ensure their characters can shine on a regular/semi-regular basis. This is after all the easiest part to control as a GM, without the downsides of giving spellcasters even more versatility.
If my DM day me down between sessions to “guide” me in what to choose for my Character I would look at them like they just grew a second head on top of the first one.
A much simpler fix is to simply give players options to choose from when they level up instead.... 🤔
I personally think those options would be better tied to the individual subclasses instead of the main classes, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Guiding is only needed rarely. I have played my 1000s of hours both as GM and Player, and this have only happened to me when I have new players or really weird player personalities that either make useless characters and complain about others beeing OP, extreme unlogical min/maxing, or disruptive in other ways. In 99% of cases I just remove annoying options as you mentioned (flying races for instance).
My point is just that we dont make rules for the 1% of weird cases, rules must be made for the 99%.
What’s wrong with flying races?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, they have a permanent lv 3 spell on from level 1 without concentration, can kite a long list of encounters without risk and in many fantasyworlds (inkluding forgotten realms) they are so unique you become the certerpiece of absolutely all campaigns unless its a very special campaign with monstrous races.
I played way back in the ‘90s when players could combine stuff from literally DOZENS of books all written by different people that would give their characters ridiculously unbalanced options when combined. I can’t help but feel that a little thing like a flying speed can be managed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Indeed, 3.5 was built-in unbalanced, with spellcasters running the world, but massive mobility-advantage is such a huge advantage it is hard to manage in any edition. Give an arrakocra a longbow or a long-range eldritch blast and the only way to manage it is another flyer (more or less) to make the encounter meaningfull. Anyhow, this is getting way of-topic :) I guess this derailed from a discussion of what level of balance should be the basis for game-design, and if versatility constitutes power or not.