A second look at Table 9: Extras

Alright, now we're getting to the fun stuff.

The previous tables cover the abilities and stats that are more or less shared between all the classes. These next two tables focus on the specialized abilities, skills, and talents that can help make a class unique.

Table 9 has the special abilities and skills that even humans can master.  I tend to think of these as teachable skills.  Table 10 on the other hand is for all the abilities that require non-human physiology or heritage.  Wings, gills, and eyes that see infrared are all definitely "beyond human".

Between those two extremes is a whole host of natural talents and innate magical abilities.  I'll leave it up to the individual DMs to decide which abilities their human classes can use.  Different campaign settings are going to put different limits on human potential.  You might give humans access to psychic talents and innate magic abilities, or reserve those for non-humans only.  If human clerics have the Turn Undead ability, can other human classes channel different supernatural forces; talking to spirits, summoning djinn, or making infernal pacts?  Different worlds are going to play by different rules.  It's really up to you to draw the dividing line between human and non-human abilities.

Table 9: Extras

Open Locks - +10%

Remove Traps - +10%

Pick Pockets - +10%

Move Silently - +10%

Climb Sheer Surfaces - +10%

Hide in Shadows - +10%

Hear Noise - +10%

Backstab - +10%

Student of Linguistics - +20%

(Read Languages 80% at L4 & Arcane Scroll use 10% failure at L9)

Turn Undead - +20%

Magic Research at L9: create spells, scrolls, and items - +25%

The only abilities I have listed in Table 9 are the ones already used by the human classes in B/X.  I'm sure to make additions, but for now I want this table to just be bare bones so that I can use it as a template for almost any setting.

The costs here are all highly subjective, so feel free to ignore my numbers and make up whatever costs seem fair to you.  Even if you want to keep the B/X xp tables unchanged, you could raise Backstab and Climb Sheer Surfaces to 15%, and lower Move Silently and Hear Noise down to 5%.  Trading percentage points between Turn Undead and the Cleric Spell Progression is really easy, same with Magic Research and Magic User Spell Progression (but that applies to the Elf class too).

If you want some rough guidelines...  

When making new abilities, I usually try to imagine what level of spell could create that same effect, then I set the cost at around 15% per spell level.  If the effectiveness of the ability is scaling based on character level (like thief skills and turn undead) or it doesn't start until the character reaches 4th level, I reduce that cost to about 1/2.  If the ability isn't gained until level 9, I reduce the cost to 1/4.

Good luck, and have fun!

A second look at Table 8: Magic Items

This table shows the costs to use the various types of magical items.  Magic users can't use normal armor, so they obviously do not need to pay the 5% to use magical armor.  Magic users can use magical robes and clothing because those are Miscellaneous Magic Items, just like the boots and cloaks.

I basically ignored Mr. Crabaugh's magic item table once I saw that he was using a single category for Potions/Rings and another for Wands/Staves/Rods.  Mine is divided into more item types and has different costs.  I find it interesting that we both arrived at a total cost of 70% for a class who can use all types of magic items.  I hadn't noticed that until a moment ago.

Table 8: Magic Items
Weapons - +5%
Armor - +5%
Potions - +5%
Rings - +5%
Protection Scrolls - +5%
Misc. Magic Items - +5%
Staves&Rods - +0% (but these often have class restrictions)
Wands - +10%
Divine Scrolls - +10%
Arcane Scrolls - +20%

I can imagine all sorts of magic item restrictions for various custom classes.  If Robot was a class I doubt they could drink potions.  A class of walking octopodes ("Walktopus"?) might have trouble wearing magic rings, or not; I guess it depends on the DM.  How about a class of limbless psionic worms who levitate and use telekinesis to wield weapons?  I bet they have trouble using magic rings.  There are a lot of options out there, that's why I wanted more categories.

I can think of two ways to make a class unable to use any magic items (and pay 0% on this table).  They could have an anti-magic aura, but I imagine that would have a rather high cost on the Beyond Human Abilities table.  The other would be to give the class some kind of allergy to magic.  I think I would set the cost of a magical allergy ability to 0%.  It would be like a free Detect Magic ability due to the rashes and uncontrollable itching when a magic item gets too close, but spells cast against them might do extra damage and even healing magic might send them into fits for a time.  I'm not sure how fun it would be to play such a class, but to each their own.

I set Staves&Rods to 0% because of a single item, the Rod of Cancellation.  I think a class that can't use any magic items should still be able to use a device that un-magics items.  If there is a Rod of Cancellation I don't see why you can't have one in the form of a staff or pole.  Some magic items you want to un-magic from a distance, right?

Overall I've kept the costs on this table pretty low.  I considered raising the costs for cleric and magic user scrolls in order to lower the costs of their spell casting tables.  Putting the cost of single use scrolls at about 1/10th the cost of daily spellcasting seems fair to me, but if your campaign setting has an abundance of scrolls you might like to adjust those costs.

Looking over all this again, I have found a couple of improvements I should make.  I'm raising the cost of using magic weapons to 10%.  A lot of monsters require the use of magic weapons to hurt them.  I think that being restricted from using magical weapons is more of a detriment than being restricted from using potions, or magic armor.  The other change is to lower protection scrolls to 0%.  I believe that all classes should be able to use the warding scrolls, even the guys with magical allergies.  You could rationalize it by ruling that the warding scrolls are non-magical writs and contracts that have been signed via magic by demi-gods or demon lords.  Reading them aloud (or presenting the scroll to the monster?) causes those powerful entities to fulfill the agreement by protecting the reader.  Or not.  Maybe you want those protection scrolls to be highly magical, and those PCs who are illiterate or allergic to magic will just have to suck it up and go uncompensated for not being able to use them.  They can probably just stand next to their buddy while he reads it anyway.

So, here are the changes.

Weapons are raised to 10%
Protection Scrolls lowered to 0%

Not a big change, but moving that 5% could matter to some pacifistic class who never uses any weapons.  I bet they'll deserve it.  I'll go edit the original post now.

A second look at Table 7: Weapons

The basic idea here is that if a class can use any of the individual weapons listed in parentheses, then they should pay the cost for the category. 

I did my best to break the weapons into sensible categories.  If a class can use one of the weapons in a category, they can probably use them all.  Given the infinite number of possible classes there is bound to be the odd exception. Like how robots can't use blowguns unless they have an air compressor.  It's hard to account for the infinite number of possible species and shapes.  Also, the existing classes forced the creation of some categories. The clerics wanted me to split the blunt weapons from the sharps.  Magic users needed daggers split from short swords.  The dwarves and halflings want the short bows split from the long bows.  Maybe I should split the bows again so the small folk can just pay 5% for the short bows? Hmm.

I can't seem to stop making changes to this table.  I keep splitting and combining categories and changing costs.  Something about this table just doesn't feel right, you know?  I'll look it all over one last time and see if I can finally let it go.

Table 7: Weapons
~Freebies~

+0% - Fist/Finger (brass knuckles, war fan, spiked gauntlet, bagh nakh)
+0% - Thrown Blunt (boomerang, stick, stone, flask)
+0% - Thrown Sharp (dart, throwing knife, shuriken)
+0% - Point & Shoot (blowgun, slingshot, wand)

~Ranged Weapons~

+5% - Mechanical (catapult, crossbow, ballista)
+5% - Thrown Poles (spear, javelin, trident)
+10% - Bows (short bow, long bow)

~One-Handed Weapons~

+5% - Blades (dagger, knife, kukri, sickle)
+5% - Blunt (club, hammer, mace, sap)
+5% - Flexible (flail, sling, whip, spiked chain, bola, net, nunchaku)
+10% - Choppers (hand axe, light pick, kama, spiked mace)
+15% - Swords (short sword, long sword, scimitar)

~Two-Handed Weapons~

+5% - Quarterstaff
+10% - Heavy Weapons (heavy version of any used one-handed weapon)
+15% - Pole Arms (pike, glaive, morning star, lance)

----------------------------------------------------------------
+90% - Any Weapon

Freebies is the section for weapons that are low damage and just dead easy to use.  They all cost 0% because I didn't feel that a class should have to pay extra xp to use this stuff.  I thought categories might still be useful though.  Clerics can't use the Thrown Sharps.  Fist/Finger weapons are hard to use when you only have tentacles.  A creature whose primary sense is smell might not be able aim at enough distance to use Point & Shoot.

Mechanicals are those weapons that require a bit of preparation.  They need to be wound up, pulled back, have the spring set into place, ect.  I imagine that some species just aren't bright enough to ever use this stuff, like trolls and ogres maybe.  Crossbows aren't available to magic users, I assume for being too cumbersome as opposed to too complicated.  Oh, and here is the part where I realize that I forgot to ever give Clerics access to catapults.  Nooooooooooooo.  Looks like I'm doing another revision at the end of this post.  Should magic users be able to use catapults?  Depends on the situation, right? Hmm, maybe the siege weapons should all cost 0%. 

I could probably do a whole post about why the pole weapons are split into Thrown Poles, Quarterstaff, and Pole Arms.  The short answer is that a Halfling can use a spear or javelin, but the other poles are too big; while a Hawkman (or Snail-dude) can use a Quarterstaff, but the back end of spears and pole arms would knock against their wings (or shell).

I ended up combining the short and long bows into Bows.  I think if you can use one then you know how to use the other.  I'd argue that halflings and dwarves can use longbows, they'd just need to stand on a table.  Oh wait!  Their short arms probably couldn't pull the string back far enough.  Huh, I guess I should split these up again.

The Blunt and Choppers I almost combined because they all use the same swinging arm motion.  I suppose that the Choppers do require a little more control to keep the blade pointed forward.  Honestly though I find it hard to imagine any class except cleric who would use one type but not the other.  Anti-clerics who use only edged weapons?  I'd best just leave it alone.

Flexible weapons require a fair amount of coordination to use.  If you're building an especially clumsy class, they probably can't use any of these without hurting themselves.

I set the cost for Swords a little higher than other weapons.  Swords are versatile.  They can slash, stab, or bash with the pommel (that's where the word "pummel" originated).  Besides that, the best magical weapons tend to be swords.  I think the cost is justified.  If your class can't use swords you probably deserve a little more xp than the class that can't use bows, right? Maybe? Hmm.  Maybe I should split the short swords from the long swords again.  I can imagine species able to use one but not the other.

I rather like the way that Heavy Weapons are set up now.  Use of a heavy flail requires Flexibles and Heavy Weapons.  A two-handed sword requires Swords and Heavy Weapons.  It does force a giant class to pay for categories of weapons that might be too small for them to actually use, but they'll be able to hold a great sword in one hand and a shield in the other so I bet they'll get over it.

Revision time again.

I'm going to rename ~Freebies~ to ~Very Small Weapons~
I'm going to remove any mention of siege weapons and just rename Mechanical to Crossbows 5%
I'm splitting the swords into short swords 5% and long (and bastard) swords 10%
I'm splitting the bows into short bows 5% and long bows 5%
I'm raising all the Level Limit costs 5%, so I can make a custom class that tops out at 7th level
I'm making Magic Users pay for Flexibles 5%, I figure they can use nets and maybe whips or slings
I'm reducing the cost of Magic User Spell Table to 250%, because I've always wanted to

Now I'm going back to edit the original post again.  My sense of aesthetics wants this weapon table to be more streamlined, but it seems to work best when it's messy and full of options.  It feels finished now, so hopeful I can leave it alone.

A second look at Table 6: Armor

Not the most exciting table, but I'm really happy with it how it turned out.  I started with the intention of putting the cost for using Any Armor at two-thirds the cost of Any Weapon, so I'm glad my recent revisions brought back that 2:3 ratio.  I'm not sure why I think it's a good ratio, but I'll just trust my gut and rationalize it later.  You know, the usual.

Table 6: Armor
None - +0%
Padded or Leather - +5%
Studded Leather - +5%
Scale or Hide - +5%
Chain - +10%
Banded or Splint - +10%
Plate - +15%
Shield (wood or metal) - +10%
------------------------
Any - +60%
Stealthy armor only (padded, leather, studded) - +10%

The only cost I see on this table that might be questionable is the 10% for shields.  I set shields at 10% because they're versatile and can be used with any type of armor, also because magical shields stack with magic armor.  Magic shields tend to get more special effects than magical armors (at least at the tables where I play).  If your class can't use shields then you're probably giving up some cool protection effect at later levels, in addition to the +whatever on the shield.

A lot of people also use house rules so that shields do more than just improve AC by 1.  That's not why I set the cost at 10%, but I'm just saying.  If using Shields Shall be Splintered or an alternate AC/Armor table helps you feel better about the 10% cost, that's a pretty easy fix.  If you must change shields to 5%, then raising Splint/Banded to 15% would put all seven classes back at the same xp totals... and make me groan in disgust.  It's your game though, do as you will.  Moving on.

In my original post I almost put a few extra options below "Stealthy armor only".  I decided against it because I felt that the costs should vary based on how different DMs implement the options.  Say you decide to make a class who were all decidedly vegan, they refuse to use anything made from animals at all.  Since they can still use padded or scale armors, the only cost to subtract is the 5% for Studded Leather, so according to the chart they'd pay 55% total.  Maybe 50% is more appropriate if you assume that Leather and Hide armor are both worth 2.5% each.  Also, the DM could decide that replacing leather straps with different materials makes vegan plate armor less effective.  If some of their armors are getting AC penalties, then maybe 40 or 45% would be fair.  It's all open to interpretation.

One last example.  Say you decide to make a B/X Druid class.  I'm not sure why they think metal is unnatural, but they're against using it; fine.  Padded & Leather, Studded, Hide, and wooden Shields comes to 25%, but what if they get creative.  What's the cost for bone splint, or wooden plate, and what's the AC?  I'd give them 35% total and AC near chain, but that's just me.  It's all rather subjective, but I hope this table provides a good framework for DMs to build onto.

A second look at Table 5: Saves

This table surprised me by being the one I spent the most time on.  Saves are weird.  I spent a long time trying to find the best way to quantify and compare them all.  Eventually, I felt that I got the cost ratios balanced to reflect the effectiveness of each save table.  I was happy.  A few days later I decided to revamp my weapons, armor, saves, and hit progression tables all at once.  The ratios inside each table were fine, but the costs for the weapons and armor were really high compared to the low costs in the saves and hit progression tables, so I knew I had to even it all out.  As a result my precious save cost ratios got screwed up.  I meant to go back and fix it later, but that is a very tangled web to weave.  Maybe I'll have one last go at it.

Here's how it looks right now...

Table 5: Saves
Normal Man - +0%
Magic User +10%
Thief - +10%
Cleric - +20%
Fighter - +30%
Elf - +35%
Dwarf/Halfling - +60%

 
Not to shabby.  The cost of the Cleric saves bothers me a little, but I can live with it.  I should probably explain how I went about comparing all these save tables.

At first I was going to have poison and spell saves be more valuable than the other types, but I changed my mind.  I imagine that poison and spell saves get rolled more often than the other types, but it really just depends on the individual DM and the enemies and challenges they place into the setting.  If Blue DM likes to use venomous creatures, and Green DM is running a Hogwarts campaign where everyone is using wands, while Red DM uses a lot of area effect traps that require Dragon Breath saves, then it gets really hard to quantify how much better save vs. poison is compared to save vs. wands, if at all.  I gave it all up and decided to just assume that all save types were created equal.  I doubt it's true, but it does make comparing the save tables easier.

Assuming that all save types are equal also makes it easier to create new customized save tables.  You could take numbers from one type of save and spread them into the other types in the same row.  So long as the totals are equal, then the new save table costs the same as the original.  Keep it within reason though.  I'd suggest not letting any save category drop more than one per character level.  Like, fighter saves drop every three levels, so I wouldn't reduce any save by more than three each time.  I don't advise fiddling with the Dwarf saves, they're crazy enough already.

In the end, I weighed all the save tables against each other simply by adding the five saves in each row together.  Then I compared all the first level totals against each other, second level totals against each other, and so on.  Low score wins.  Here's the summary of how that worked out.

• Normal Man saves start awful and never improve at all.  Cost = 0%  
• Magic User saves cost 10%.  That gap will leave room for a "worse than MU" custom save table used by some new and accident prone class.
• Magic User and Thief save totals are usually even or very close.  Thieves have better saves at levels 5, 9, and 10, but magic users have an edge at 6,7,8, and are way better off at levels 11 and 12.  I think it's a tie, so I made their costs equal.
• The gap between Thief saves and Cleric saves is far greater than the tiny gap between Cleric and Fighter save totals.  Like around three times greater.  Cleric saves seem to start off better and progress at a faster pace than any of the others.  I'm guessing that they get some kind of bonus for being buddies with a deity.
• Elf saves are the same as fighter saves, except that elves are a bit more resistant to spells and petrification.  Cost = (Fighter save cost +5%).
• Dwarf/Halfling saves are equal to fighter saves if you skip the first two tiers, except Dragon Breath which just skips one tier.  On average Dwarf saves are about one and a half times better than Fighter saves for any given level, but considering that their saves at first level are ridiculous good; I'd put the cost somewhere around 1.75 times the cost of Fighter saves.

So, what I really want to do is raise the cleric saves by 5% and lower Dwarf/Halfling saves by 5%.  That would put a 15% gap between the Thief and Cleric saves, 5% between Cleric and Fighter saves, and a 10% gap between Cleric and Elf saves.  It would also put Dwarf/Halfling saves close to 1.85 times the cost of Fighter saves.  Yeah, that all lines up with the ratios nicely.

The trouble is finding different costs to lower without messing up the other tables.  The whole reason I started doing this was to get the final xp totals at the end to match the B/X books, so for every 5% I add to a class I need to lower 5% somewhere else.  Since a lot of the abilities are shared by multiple classes, changing any cost can start a kind of chain reaction.  Oh, and it'd be nice if all the ability costs looked reasonably balanced once I'm finished.

I'm just rambling now because I'm not quite sure how to pull this off.

I'd always meant to rework the weapons table a bit.  Also, I had an idea yesterday to lower the cost of some of the armor types.  I know that some people prefer to play with ascending AC and allow PCs to use Dex as AC if unarmored.  I think I can get these armor costs to look good whether you play that way or not.  If I can just get all these changes to line up so that the costs all balance...

*Days Later*

OK, got it.  This is probably my last revision.  I managed to fix (almost) every cost that bothered me.  I even got Climb Walls and Backstab back at 10% each, which is where I secretly preferred them.  Here's the rundown of all the changes.

Cleric saves 20%, now 25%
Dwarf/Halfling saves 60%, now 55%
Short Bow 5% and Long Bows 5%, now Bows 10%
Short Swords 5% and Long Swords 5%, now Swords 15%
Massive Blunt 5% and Massive Sharp 10%, now Heavy Weapons 10%
Choppers 5%, now Choppers 10%
Pole Arms 10%, now Pole Arms 15%
Scale and Hide Armor 10%, now 5%
Banded and Splint Armor 15%, now 10%
Climb Walls 15%, now 10%
Backstab 15%, now 10%

Now I'm off to edit the original post.

A second look at Table 4: Level Limit

Level limits!  Everyone's favorite topic. Let's skip the part where I wax poetic about humanity's potential for greatness vs. other species.  B/X has level limits, so my system for creating customized B/X classes includes a table with their costs.

If you want to use this system but don't want to use level limits, you can!  Just throw this table out, increase the cost of infravision to 25%, and increase the dwarf Stone Sense ability to 20% (those seem a tad high, but not by much).  Fair enough?  

If you do want to incorporate level limits into your custom classes, here is what I came up with.

Table 4: Level Limit
(Humans pay 0% for no cap)
8 - +0%
9 - +5%
10 - +10%
11 - +15%
12 - +20%

This table bothered me for the longest time.  It just seemed so unfair that the humans were paying 0% while the dwarves, elves, and halflings were paying a fee for level caps.  It didn't make any sense... until about an hour ago when the answer hit me like a ton of bricks.

Level limits are the price you pay for access to Table 10: Beyond Human Abilities.

The cost is based upon the level where you cap.  If your class caps at level 8, then access to Table 10 costs you nothing.  Otherwise, access to the abilities in Table 10 costs (max level-8)*5%.

That's why humans pay 0%.  They don't have access to all the cool stuff in Table 10.  Infravision, wings that let you fly, innate magical abilities, tremor sense, bonus AC vs. large creatures due to your small size, immunities, resistances, water breathing, and gods know what else.

So, if you make a species like, I dunno... Andorians.  You decide that their antenna and blue skin are only cosmetic changes that grant no special abilities.  You give them some Extras from Table 9 but nothing from Table 10; then Andorians don't need a level limit.

On the other hand you can also make a class for Hawkmen and declare that they don't hit their level cap until 12th.  They would pay 20% ([12-8]*5%) for access to the functional wings in Table 10, plus the cost of the wings.  I think I listed slow functional wings as costing 50%, I imagine hawkmen as being swift but not super agile fliers so maybe 60-65%.

I think it's fairly easy to tell which abilities are "Beyond Human" and which aren't.  I'm not going to worry right now about listing every possible ability in it's proper table.  The real question I have is if 12th is the highest possible level cap.  Can a class pay 60% for a level cap at 20th?  I'm still undecided, but ultimately it doesn't matter.  Individual DMs are going to decide for themselves anyhow.

OK, so...

In the original post I'm changing the sentence under Table 4 from "(Humans pay 0% for no cap)" to "(Level limits grant access to Table 10: Beyond Human Abilities)".  Then I'm moving the dwarf, elf, and halfling abilities from Table 9 to Table 10.  Some of that stuff (like bonus languages) belongs in Table 9, but most of it doesn't.  I'll expand those tables and clean them up in a few days.

A second look at Table 3: Hit Progression

Here's what I'm taking another look at.

Table 3: Hit Progression and Hit Points after level 9
Normal Man - +0% (+1hp after L9)
Magic User - +15% (+1hp after L9)
Cleric/Thief - +30% (+1hp after L9)
Fighting Man - +70% (+2hp after L9)

Bonus Hp after L9
(in addition to the standard amount listed above, will also raise xp for L10+)
Bonus +1hp - +10%

Ignoring the hit points after level nine for a moment, I'll try to explain where I got the costs for the hit progression tables.  Normal Men never progress at all and are nearly as skilled as a first level magic user, so I gave them the lowest possible cost of 0%.  Magic Users suck at combat, but they're far better than Normal Men who never progress at all, so I put their hit chart cost at 15%.  This cost gap will accommodate a couple of new and awful hit charts that I might inflict on cross-eyed brownies, blind mole people, or others whose combat skills fall between a normal man and mage.  Then I just doubled the cost for the Cleric/Thief (30%), and doubled it again for the Fighter progression (60%).  Later I added another 10% to the fighter's table to account for the additional hp after level nine and general awesomeness.

I justified all this to myself much later.  If you care to crunch down all the numbers, round profusely, and basically ignore the first few levels; fighters are sort of almost twice as effective at hitting baddies as clerics and three times as effective as magic users.  Costs of 20-30-60 seem appropriate based on those ratios. Once I considered that the basics of combat training are far easier to learn than the advanced maneuvers, the 15-30-70 costs made sense to me.

Back to those hit points now.  This was originally two different tables, one for hit progression and another for hit points after level nine.  I combined them shortly after Table 1 took it's current form.  Mainly this came about because at the time I was requiring Halflings to pay for the "after name level" hit points even though they topped out at eighth level.  Then I saw that the higher "after name level" xp requirements of Dwarves and Thieves could be blamed on them gaining a hp in addition to those of their combat peers.  It all made sense in a weird moment of clarity, so I tied the "after name level" hit points to combat proficiency.  Normal Men get +1hp after L9 because I thought it would be sad to level a character from 9th to 10th and not gain a hit point.  I'm generous like that.  If you decide that Normal Men combatants don't deserve it and should get +0hp after 9th, I wouldn't think less of you.

Now somebody out there is going to ask about the cost of that Bonus +1hp (because I know I did). "Why are thieves and dwarves paying +10% every level in addition to the higher xp after name level?"  I'm not sure honestly.  This discrepancy convinced me make a new house rule for my own games.  Thieves get a minimum of 2hp per level.  Dwarves get a minimum of 3hp per level.  So, if one of those guys goes up a level and rolls a 1 or 2 for hp, then they get the minimum instead.  I mean they're paying for those hp every level, right?  It makes sense to me.

Another alternative is reducing the cost of the bonus +1 hp after L9 to 0% (but it still raises xp for level 10+), then raise thief and dwarf special ability costs to compensate.  Climb Walls starts off pretty high, so maybe it should cost 15%.  Backstab might also deserve to cost 15%.  For the Dwarves I'd raise their language skills up to 10% (to match the elves), and their Infravision up to 15%.  Then elf Infravision goes up to 15% to match the dwarves, so I'd lower the elves Connection to Nature down to 15%.  Hmmm...  That looks good actually.  Really good.  Crap.  I wish I'd have thought of this sooner.  I'm going back to edit the original post again with these new changes.  I'm scrapping the minimum hp house rule that I mentioned a moment ago, I think these changes work out better all around.