Talk:Original Race Rebuilding (3.5e Variant Rule)

Additions & Suggestions

You may want to add things like; amphibious, and while you are at it, the equivalent for other random enviroments. And cantrips at will, always fun. 76.24.17.132 01:32, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Added the amphibious, thanks, as well as webbed feet; check out Magical for the second ;-) I'm just not sure how balanced cantrips at will could be compared to the other traits... --Ghostwheel 01:38, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, it costs 5 points to be a fish. No stat mods, no nothing, but a swim speed for 10' and unlimited underwater breathing. Amphibious should include a swim speed equal to base or atleast 20'. When trying to create a truly underwater race it should cost fewer points no? Orrr, make things like cant breathe above water, or must be in water every so often into flaws. --CTLC 03:10, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion that might help with CTLC's gripe: Limited Air Breathing as a flaw that you can take to have crappy land walking durations like aquatic elves and No Air Breathing as a flaw that makes you stick to water or whatever else without magical aids. - TarkisFlux 03:07, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

After further thought, I think you need to improve a few of these.

• The base version of Magical is not worth 1 point, though 2 cantrips 3 times a day might be. The problem is that cantrips don't scale, they don't add on to anything that does scale (and so can't put you ahead), and they're just minor flavor things after level 3 (at best) so I think they should be priced as such.
• Climber / Webbed Feet are rather weak. If you're trying to make them ToP compatible (and I think you are), they should at least be equal to half your base speed at base so they're not overshadowed by the basic check result (here's swim for reference), especially since having an alternate movement rate doesn't preclude you losing position (i.e. falling off a cliff) anymore. Now, that's not to say that you don't get nice things for having an alternate movement rate, they're just nice things that don't come up all that often in a regular game (and so should be cheapish) or they're nice things that everyone should have anyway in a game based in an alternate environment (and so should be cheap or free).
• While I agree that tactical flight can be problematic in a rogue level game at too early a level, I think you're waiting too long to give the double purchase of Winged a solid benefit. Right now it's seriously overpowered by alter self, which is accessed 3 levels earlier. You could probably affor to give them clumsy flight for a minute per con mod from the start (which will allow them to skip some traps and encounters, but is so crappy as to be useless in most combats), and then move it up from there.

- TarkisFlux 20:00, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Added the Aquatic flaw for characters who can breathe underwater, allowing one to make a character who can move at one's base speed underwater while never coming up for only 3 points. (2 if you limit yourself to 10' speed). I didn't actually have Tome of Prowess in mind when I created the the climbing/swimming traits, but don't really have any objections to raising them to 1/2 base speed--that'll only raise it by 5' for most characters, and max 20' for characters who gained a +10' move speed.

As for flight, you're comparing a system that's supposed to be rogue-level with a wizard-level spell--we might as well say in the same way that +6 natural armor should be only a few points because one can Alter Self into a troglodyte. I actually based it loosely (well, not so loosely) on the flight granted by Dragon Wings (Races of the Dragon), Dragonborn (same book), and Raptorans (Races of the Wild); it actually lets you fly for far longer times than that, since you can fly up for one round, then glide around for the next 6 rounds before reaching the same level you were before by taking only a single move action each round (to prevent stalling). Hope that explains some of my rationale for why Winged costs so much--flight is just that powerful under many conditions for a ranged attacker, as well as for the utility aspect.

Also, what would you suggest as far as Magical goes? I based the current one off of the Gnome's abilities, and made it mostly for flavor. There are a number of traits that are really mainly for flavor, rather than power, and keep these at 1 trait slot. I plan on adding more of them when I have the time (we're just about a week from Finals currently), but the one-point traits aren't meant to be strong--just flavorful. Still, if you've got a better suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it :-) --Ghostwheel 07:19, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize you considered alter self above rogue level, but that's fine. And I agree, flight is awesome under many conditions for a ranged attacker and utility stuff, I just disagree that it's more awesome than some of the other stuff you've written for the same cost. It's not a big deal though. I'll check out the races spells you're comparing it to and see if I have anything else to add. - TarkisFlux 07:40, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ya need poison immunity and natural weapons (and poison natural weapons), otherwise you can't create monstrous races with this.--ThirdEmperor 09:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea--check out the new durable trait! As far as natural weapons go... it's just that there are so many different natural weapons out there that I'm not sure if it would be feasible under the scope of this system to add them... (Tentacles, horns, bite, claws, gore... How many should one PC have? Should they have different damage ranged? Etc...) --Ghostwheel 10:09, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Two Claws; 1d4 damage each, 2 trait points (extra trait point(s) increases damage to d6). One gore/horn (same thing) attack, 1d8 damage, 2 trait points. One bite attack, 1d8 damage, 2 trait points. Slam deals 1d8 damage, 2 trait points. Tentacles should only be for aberrations. --TK-Squared 10:36, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

The only thing is that it makes this option incredibly more spectacular than virtually all other options for specific characters--why would a rogue care about getting +1 to attack when they could get an extra 3 attacks on top of all their others when sneak attacking, going from 60d6 to 90d6 just from a trait or two? :-/ Currently for such a character, Slight Build and Dextrous probably push ahead, but I think that this would blow both out of the water. --Ghostwheel 10:42, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the way I play, but I wouldn't think natural weapons would increase the number of attacks. I'd have it you replace your existing hands with claws (or tentacles). That way you could make either 2 weapon attacks or 2 claw attacks, but not 2 of each (you could do one of each). As for Slam, and gore, I'd figure those would probably be full round attacks. I just don't see a human rogue holding 2 rapiers to get two weapon attacks, then lowering his head for a horn attack. Not in a single round at least. Maybe you make some sort of mechanic to allow these natural weapons during a grapple. Honestly, I don't see an instance when a character past level 3 would use a bite attack (or really any natural attack) unless he can't move his arms(or has been disarmed). --The Badger 19:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Balanced?

Having some trouble seeing where this variant comes out balanced. First, you can build a race that get -6 to Str, -6 to Dex, -6 to Con, -6 to Int, -6 to Wis, -6 to Cha, and +14 Initiative, which I'm tempted to say is the weakest race you could ever have. On the other hand, you could very easily take the Large size trait, the Powerful Build trait, and then the Honest flaw (and, if that's a flaw, then this world is doomed), and suddenly be wielding Huge sized weapons at level 1, with the added benefit of being eternally moral in Kantian philosophy (as far as lying goes, at least), which might him in Diploland. Also, wondering why Large size costs more than Powerful Build. Powerful Build is being Large without any form of drawback, wouldn't that be twice as good as just being large sized? --Mock Turtle 03:28, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

*sighs, facepalms* Please read things before making balance comments. You can only choose each trait once. And yes, huge sized greatsword would do 6d6 damage, which isn't that far from a rogue's 2d6 twice per round, and doesn't scale unlike the rogue's ability, and you take a penalty to both attack and AC by doing so. Large costs more than Powerful Build due to reach, which is the biggest reason that one would want to get Large. (See: Stand Still, Combat Reflexes, Thicket of Blades) --Ghostwheel 03:39, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ability Scores

The ability score altering traits, don't seem congruent. For example, Stout costs 3 slots but states "You may instead take this trait at the cost of three trait slots to remove the associated penalty" - you mean four right? Then there is Strong which costs 3 yet is correctly worded "This trait can be taken one more time to negate the Dexterity penalty". Can you make the ability special more homogeneous? Thanks

Also, whats with your resent edit of flaw slots? While I would agree that most needed to be lowered, I think the following were fine where they were: Unlucky, Unbalanced, and mostly Meager. --Franken Kesey 07:31, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the altered ability-enhancing traits. If you think anything should cost more/less or think that flaws should grant more/less trait slots and don't have a mathematically sound reason (which would be hard, since the points awarded are based on fairly subjective measures) or one that is strongly pertinent to game balance, you can ask your specific DM to award/cost more/less trait slots on different flaws/traits. --Ghostwheel 09:32, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well one thing that poked my eye was Meager, reduces ALL ablility scores by 2 for 4 points? I know that this should be a flaw but such a crippling flaw? I mean 6 to all at the begining and not even a feat? Lets say you want to get charismatic without the negative, you have to pay 5 points... so decreasing all your ability scores can't even get you a full buy in one. Well Pathetic flaw gives you a feat in UA, ok some of the flaws are laughable in UA for a feat, but stil. Or Feeble it is quite a low blow but gives a shiny feat... Shouln't it rather be "Reduce one ability score by 2. Gain 3 slots. You can reduce an ability score only once"? That would be a 2 abiliy scores to 1 feat ratio. And same for lesay half orc, -2 int -2 cha +2 str, 3 + 3 - 5, or other races with stat adjustments. I know that you don't like +4 bonuses on stats, but this comes at a nice juicy cost. You could alow the 3 pont "shift" and the 5 point buy to the same stat once each. This would result in +4 to one ability score, at a 2 tslot cost and -2 to three ability scores, leaves you with 8 points. Or not aloving to buy 3 shift and 5 buy could result in +2 str -2 dex +2 con -2 wis -2 cha, P build, Tough, Durable.--Sergejsvk 18:10, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. First of all, you need to understand the basic differences between flaws from UA and the ones from here. In general, most people realize that not enough feats are given in 3.5; F&K in Tome decided to make feats much more powerful instead of increasing the number the number of feats given (since each feat is basically worth a number of feats from the base system). In UA, rather than rewriting all the feats, the designers decided to try to give out two extra feats at first level. So that it wouldn't look like you're getting "something for nothing", the designers put in penalties that look as though they're about the inverse of a feat-and-a-half. However, they're not really damaging, since one can choose whatever flaws one wants, allowing someone to pick up something that doesn't really hurt them much. The penalties aren't really there to hurt you--they're there so that DMs won't QQ about giving players extra feats. In fact, you might as well simply give people a couple of extra feats for free and just forget about the penalties--that's what I do in my games.

Now, in this, flaws are meant to hurt. They're not your pansy-namsy "oops, we made a mistake, here's a fix that hopefully won't piss DMs off" stupidity. They're meant to be weighed carefully against how many trait slots they give you, and you're supposed to agonize over whether to take them or not. That's balance--when two choices are close enough to being equal in power that it's hard to choose one over the other. Now, sure, there are some characters that don't rely on ability scores that much (warlock, dragonfire adept, a few others) who might jump for the flaw. And there are others who'll take it because they want a few extra points and are SAD enough that they won't care much about 5 of the other scores being one modifier lower. But no one's going to jump for the flaw the first time they see it.

Tl;dr version: These are not the same as UA flaws. Comparing the two is a waste of time. --Ghostwheel 22:23, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

A quick attempt to break this

So I want to create a LA+0 giant type dude that has a lot of reach. I don't care about his mental stats at all and I probably don't care about his Dex. I pick the flaws: Honest (+1), Clumsy (+1), Unskilled (+1) because I don't care about skills or AC (I just care about lots of reach) and I'm really dumb, so I always just tell the truth. The stat penalties hurt a bit, but not enough to stop me from picking with my 8 points: Large and Powerful Build. So I have a giant dude that can wield really big weapons. Not broken at LA+0? Err... Maybe not. We will see.

Then I decide to pick Psychic Warrior as his class and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain) and Combat Reflexes (PsyWar bonus feat). I have a 20ft. reach that I can smack people with for 3d6 damage. I can also expand myself to increase that reach to 30ft. My weapon deals 4d6 damage in this case. Also I can grapple with a +8 size modifier. With expansion, +12. With expansion and grip of iron (this is a level 2 character at this point), +16.

The damage barely makes me raise an eyebrow; by level 4ish, a combat rogue's going to outdamage the character, so that doesn't really matter too much. And there are enough ways to get Large size and/or reach that I don't mind giving a small leg up to specific characters--and you didn't mention any of the downsides. The character is going to have -1 to attack, -2 to AC, very few skill points, and is going to make any attempts at subterfuge or stealth when someone shouts, "Is anyone there?" impossible. Taking these into account, it just about balances out, especially since he's got only d8 HD (for at least the first few levels) and is always going to have a rather high penalty to AC. --Ghostwheel 01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

The lowered AC is hardly significant when I have a 30ft. reach. And there are totally ways for a clever party to get around the honest flaw. It may sound gruesome, but cutting out his tongue would do the trick. This guy is just a big giant that kills things after all. Skill points don't matter because this guy is just the party meat shield. He'll probably end up taking ToB classes and improved trip and perform significantly better than existing builds of the same type. PsyWar was just an illustration. Basically this race customization tips the power curve because it allows a build to gain benefits that make a significant difference. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 16:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

If you're expanding yourself for 30' reach, and taking Clumsy as well, then you're taking at least -3 to AC--there are quite a few foes (Incorps, fliers, ranged attackers, big monsters, monsters with reach, monsters with high AC, artillery monsters, tumblers, monsters with Mobility, and more) that don't care much about your reach, and can just dance away to negate. Losing skill points isn't nothing--it means that you won't be able to invest in skill tricks, won't be able to help the party in crucial situations when skills are needed (D&D is more than "just" combat, and as long as it doesn't unbalance combat, I don't mind too much). Sure, race customization can give slightly more power to certain concepts--but does it unbalance them? And compared to what? Compared to Mineral Warrior, Half-Minotaur, Lolth-Touched, or Feral? What about compared to a Magic-Blooded Half-Lunar Sorcerer who gets +6 to Charisma and a bonus feat? Or someone who goes Dragonborn Mongrelfolk and picks up Spiritual Weapon? Waterborn Orcs? Strongheart Halflings, or maybe Whisper Gnomes? Relatively, the above character is relatively weaker than all the above templates or races. I don't mind if it tips the curve--does it overpower it, especially keeping the hit to AC and attack in mind? --Ghostwheel 16:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Attempt #2 is a druid. He wants Adaptable (3), Wise (2 or 3), Powerful Build (2) -- it counts in wildshape, Intelligent (2 or 3), and Talented (2) in that order. He can pick Slow (+1) without any loss because it disappears when he changes form. He will also pick unreactive (+1). And he can buy everything but intelligent and talented. So he gets: +2 Wis, -2 Cha, a bonus feat, and powerful build. All he loses is -3 init.

I'd also say that Slow counts in wildshape if Powerful Build does. Flaws don't just disappear if you polymorph or change your creature type. As for the grapple possibilities... well, wizards still do it better. Furthermore, I've always felt that size modifiers were stupid in how far they boosted your grapple checks and would have them toned down if I could. --Ghostwheel 01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

They may not be broken, but they definitely come out a LOT stronger than a human (previously the best race, arguably). Basically, this is a min-maxer's dream (although I'm sure you are aware of that). It always happens with stuff you can customize.

I've always heard people say that humans were the "middle of the road" race, and that strongheart halflings, waterborn orcs, and dwarves were stronger than humans. All in all, I'm just not seeing the power boost from race as being big enough to raise a character's power above "rogue" level. That's the thing I was aiming for--customizability and potential power without breaking the rogue-level "ceiling" so to speak--without the right classes, I'm not even sure it breaks the fighter level ceiling on its own if the character takes levels in paladin or ranger or the like. --Ghostwheel 01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I guess the thing is: should racial features play a significant role in character creation? Seeing as this is a complete rebuild of the race system, that is the right question to ask. If you feel that a race should play a very significant role, then this rule set hits the mark well. I prefer races to be a bit more homogenized, so they all basically are the same thing with a few quirks that define the race as different. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 16:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I feel that they should matter a bit more, though not so much that they completely tip the power of a character. However, if you feel that way and want to use the system, it's flexible enough to support that! Just reduce the number of trait slots given to 3, and don't allow flaws. Poof, done. --Ghostwheel 16:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on the note of min-maxing, you might want to consider toning down the cost of "flavor abilities". Hatred should only really cost 0.5 points, same with Sleepless, Stonecutting, and Stability. That might help balance it a little.

I actually planned on doing something similar, though the other way around, basically doubling the number of points given and keeping the flavorful abilities at their current value while doubling the cost of everything else. --Ghostwheel 01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff! You should consider some stuff like flavorful skill bonuses (+2 to two skills). A lot of races have something like that. Also, why is Small the same number of slots as Slight Build? Stacked together, sure, they work well. Small on its own isn't all that great. Especially with the built in 10ft. speed decrease. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 16:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

After doubling everything, I'll probably raise Slight Build by one--it just was close enough in power and the differences between points were big enough that I left it as-is for then. --Ghostwheel 16:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, this is an interesting idea, assuming the DM has a large role in what selections the players make. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 20:19, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-D Let me know if you think that anything should be at a different cost. --Ghostwheel 01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

LA Variant

A possible addition for those wishing for a higher LA race.

"For every additional +1 to LA gain 4 more trait slots."

Could this work? --Franken Kesey 21:34, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't like LA. The whole point of this is to do away with LA and allow for flavorful, semi-customized races without the need for anything like LA. --Ghostwheel 09:26, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

What carries over?

This rebuilds races, and I think that's rad. I have to ask, however, what do we save from the original races? All racial traits are wiped out, clearly, but what about sizes? Does a halfling rebuild have to spend 3 points to be "small", or can he carry that over? Is this system more geared to generating all new unique races(based on a 30' base land speed medium humanoid), rather than tweaking existing ones? The way I see it, if I want to recreate a halfling-esque race, I'm spending all my points on small and dexterous. If I want the +1 bonus to saves (as the SRD has) I have to take a flaw. --The Badger 00:53, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

This rebuild assumes that the "original" is a blank humanoid with 30' speed; some races are more overpowered than others, which means that some can't be created. However, I'm going to shortly change the way numbers are set to allow for greater degree of difference between them to allow for more flavorful things (in theory). So while you couldn't create a halfling with all its bonuses, there are other races that can be built--and improved. Take a look for a moment at the half-elf. You could create a different half-elf with this, one that was able to do more things than simply get +2 to diplomacy checks (or whatever). So it balances out. That said, specific DMs can allow or ban certain traits or flaws, and can give more or less trait slots depending on the power level they want to achieve. --Ghostwheel 07:45, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Changes look good, I just want to remind you to change the special text for the ability mod traits (charismatic, dexterous, etc) as they cost 3 slots, but removing the penalty also also costs 3. I'd change it for you, but I don't know how much extra you want it to cost. --The Badger 16:15, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Do creature types, and subtypes carry over? Otherwise this variant would just be making a whole bunch of mechanically pleasing humans - forgetting the flavourful part of the intro paragraph. --Franken Kesey 07:45, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'll add an option that changes your subtype later, but for the base creature, you're a plain humanoid (of your pick) with 30' base speed. If you think that just makes humans, then it sounds like you've got a very narrow point of view. Flavorfully, most things can be made. --Ghostwheel 09:13, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Racial Weapons and Armor

Could there be a trait that gave racial weapons, like the Ortshell Appilon's, the Lizardfolk's, or Centaur's natural weapons? Also a natural armor trait would be a nice addition to this variant. --Franken Kesey 08:04, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Familiarity gives the equivalent of racial weapons. Change Nimble to an armor bonus and you've got the second one. --Ghostwheel 09:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon familiarity does nothing for natural weapons - my initial inquiry. --Franken Kesey 09:51, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think what Franken Kesey wanted is natural weapons, not racial weapons. Like a trait called "Horns" that gives you a gore attack. --The Badger 19:13, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Then he should use correct terminology; that said, if someone wants to do the math and show the increase in a combat rogue's damage vs. AC 53 between the difference from +2 attacks to +1 to attack (from higher dex), then I'd know how many trait slots to award it. --Ghostwheel 19:36, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ability Scores - Pathfinder?

Thinking some more on ability scores, I'm thinking about automatically making them part of a race (and lowering points slightly from that). Perhaps something like +2 to two scores and -2 to one, or just +2 to one score without the penalty (same as Pathfinder, the latter option gaining you an extra point or two perhaps). Need to think about it some more, chime in if you stumble on this and would like to, though this is mostly jotting down my thoughts so I don't forget. --Ghostwheel 15:34, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea.

This is a dream come true.

This system united with the `Simplified Races' is like a dream come true. Thanks; it is really as races should be. Otherwise it happens as in Publication:Unearthed Arcana/ lots and lots of small variants of the same race: this way you can play exactly the character you want. Of course the prices can be changed, but it is largely subjective... the point is: the idea is pure win. Bravo! Ezzetabi 14:06, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the praise--I appreciate it. Enjoy them ;-) --Ghostwheel 06:03, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Caster Level

What is the caster level for the magical ability?--Parakee^Talk 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

HD --Ghostwheel 06:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Otherworldly is a complete waste of points

Or at least otherworldly past level 1 of it(which is as far as you really need to go to avoid "Humanoid" targeting). You gain nothing from it, yet it can cost you all of your points. I'd suggest either granting SOME benefits for levels in it, or make it actually just a flavor ability(costing at most 1 point, since it doesn't do you much good). I mean, it's rare that someone wants to be a plant, but if you don't benefit from any type advantages, there's no reason to charge for it. In fact, it's perhaps smarter to make them defects, since you gain nothing, but there are way more special attacks one can throw at something which isn't humanoid or a monstrous humanoid then one can do against them. I usually just go with Monstrous Humanoid and convince my DM it's really not worth spending points on, since it's flavor.--YX33A 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless I misread and misunderstood. I see know that I don't get subtype bonuses for later types, so I figured this meant I don't get any actual type bonuses at first. If I understand correctly, I would get some advantages for each type, but not subtype bonuses(such as ones for fiends, or elemental types for dragons). Which makes it worth the cost, I guess, even though the majority of bonuses a outsider or dragon gets is dependent on subtype or specific entry(subtype for outsider, entries for dragons). Though yeah, I'd still opt for a true flavor version of the first two levels if possible.--YX33A 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some really weird, really powerful optimizational uses of the Outsider type, which is why it costs so much. --Ghostwheel 05:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Spell-like/Psi-like Racial Ability

Could there be a Spell-like/Psi-like racial trait? Something like:

• Psi-like Abilities (Ps): Choose a single first level power, the Psionic creature gains the power as a psi-like ability 2/day (DC 11 + 1/2 HD + intelligence modifier, manifester level 1). --Franken Kesey 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no level 0 powers, it would probably be once per day. --Ghostwheel 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Shapechanging

What are your thoughts of having a limited shape changing trait? Perhaps one that gave 1 or 2 alternate forms? --Franken Kesey 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you gained no movement types, no change in physical ability scores, and no natural armor/natural weapons, I'd probably be fine with that. Or it could be scaling depending on how many points spent. --Ghostwheel 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

Can one rate variant rules? --Franken Kesey 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Ghostwheel 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you write up an ability for the above sections (or detail why they do not fit), I will give this variant rule a rating. --Franken Kesey 01:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)