|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I hope your wife continues to recover speedily and well! All my wishes to you and yours! Thanks, End! The support we've received from the gamer community has really helped us keep our spirits up. :) Zombies and skeletons not having feats might make it hard to get those, but that does inspire me about possibilities for new wyrd wands :D Well I did include an option of just giving them as bonus undead powers, with the relevant CR adjustment rules. Best wishes to you and your wife. Thanks! And this sounds awesome. Definitely going to have to add it to my list. I look forward to seeing your opinion of it. :)
I kind of disagree about the difference between handling and not allowing it to spoil your fun I'd say handling something properly means being capable of having it not spoil your fun when you encounter it but whatever. Then we will have to disagree on this. I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to say that, as an adult, you should always be free of any negative emotional reaction to others words, no matter what those people say, as long as they avoid rape and racism. Anything less than that, and cursing can cause you to have less fun. Also I can only think of one religious curse off the top of my head and at least in my experience it's one of the least offensive curse words. Wow. I mentioned that I cuss like an injured sailor, so maybe I'm just foul-mouthed beyond your experience. But I can come up with half a dozen off the top of my head -- which obviously I can't post here due to forum rules. (As this is , effectively, Paizo's "house.") If I get to count each major variation as a seperate curse (the difference between "Thor Smash It!," "Thor Smash It With a Hammer!" and "Thor Smash it In The Crotch," to give some analogy curses as examples of what I am talking about) would bring me to dozens at least. Many of which are specifically forbidden in at least one religion. I don't tend to think of playing games with friends or playing games in general as polite company but that's a case by case sort of judgment to make. Here I agree, it's a case-by-case basis. And if a person you only see when you are at their house to game asks you not to curse, pretty clearly they want you to be in "polite company" behavior. I still think it's somewhat unreasonable behavior it's like throwing someone out for using any other slang word. I strongly disagree. Swearing has been shown to have a different physiological reaction in both user and listener than other words spoken with the same vehemence. At the causal geek (rather than scientific) level, Mythbusters showed it expanded pain tolerance. To quote the very first thing that popped up in a quick google search "Laboratory tests show that taboo words activate brain areas associated with negative emotion, which are largely centred in the right hemisphere, and that this process is involuntary." Words that can cause an involuntary negative emotion are not just like other slang. If we were having a discussion about whether or not it was reasonable to throw someone out of your house for using the word y'all or sup or chill would your opinion change? Would it be acceptable to use traditional insults instead of modern curses such as fool, madman, or wretch? I think I answered that with my basis for believing their is a scientifically proven difference in the involuntary reaction humans have upon hearing the words. That said I agree it is your own responsibility to leave if you cannot accept the rules of a house but just because it's the rule doesn't make it reasonable it just makes it the rule. And that casting someone out of your presence for their style of speech may be overreacting. We seem to agree at the core. to me, however, it's not being cast out because of a speech pattern. It's being cast out due to disrespecting the host by failing to go along with clearly communicated rules. If the OP had told his hosts "I'm not comfortable changing my speech for your comfort. If that's a requirement, I won't be able to attend any game in your house." and then told the GM "I don;t feel it's fair for je to be unable to play over someone else's speech preferences, can we plan at lcoation X instead?" I'd have felt the OP was behaving reasonably. Instead, the OP admits he kept cursing, after being asked not to (and presumably without giving a refusal to follow such a guideline). And THAT, the failure to respect the rules of the house after deciding to attend on occasions after those rules have been clearly outlines, is rude.
Because honestly once your an adult you should be able to handle people cussing except for use of the word rape when in the presence of victims which is only okay if they're okay with it or racial slurs which just aren't okay in general. Being able to "handle" something, and having it not spoil your enjoyment of a social activity are very different things. Further, being the host of a game session, especially one in which you allow in people you aren't yourself friends with, is a very different situation than one where you personally invited someone over. Many cursewords have a religious element to them, which can make people uncomfortable. There are individual words, usually involving genitalia, that a very large segment of society find unacceptable in "polite" company. In short while I agree that you have listed some fine examples of speech I wouldn't want in my house, it's far from a complete list, and I entirely disagree with any suggestion that I'm being unreasonable to ask people to not continue to use any language I don't want in my home. Honestly, once you are an adult, you should be able to take responsibility for your vocabulary and be aware that what you say may make you unwelcome, especially if you continue to use language a host has communicated to you is unacceptable in their home. You of course have the choice to not moderate your speech. The host then has every right to disinivite you. that isn't over-reacting, that's taking steps to ensure their home remains a comfortable environment for them. In essence, they have decided not to hang out with you anymore. Since the "hanging out" happened in their home, in order to avoid hanging out with you, you can't go there anymore.
As Hyrum has noted elsewhere, it’s a Double Tap week, with two Bullet Points being released! The feats in #1 with a Bullet Point: 7 Feats for the Undead, which all have being an undead creature as one of their prerequisites, are:
Owen is working like crazy - here I am not even having bought the firearm one... Oo Heheh. You ain't seen nothing yet. On a more serious note, I spent most of the past week sitting in my wife's hospital room as she tried to recover from surgery. (She's fine and at home now.) That made it really hard to focus on the threads woven through our longer products, but BPs are short enough I had no trouble going through playtest notes and polishing up drafts in single sittings.
As Hyrum has noted elsewhere, it’s a Double Tap week, with two Bullet Points being released! The feats in #1 with a Bullet Point: 7 Feats for the Undead, which all have being an undead creature as one of their prerequisites, are:
Gamer-guest etiquette can be tricky. The fact that ours is a social hobby means sometimes there are problems totally outside the game, often based on expectations, and it sounds like you have run afoul of this. I am often the host of games I run and/or play in. Inf act, I'd say that's the case 90% of the time. So, I can understand what frustrations the hosts are feeling. If you were a guest at a game in my house, I would have had a talk with you at this point, but I'd have been pretty firm that you'd crossed a line, and I needed you to know you'd crossed a line. I'd also feel like I shouldn't have had to talk to you about this situation, so I'd be annoyed. As I read your post, in the past 3 game sessions in a row you a: failed to pay for pizza. Now, I'm not sure if you failed once and then didn't pay or eat pizza the next two times, or if you failed once, then skipped pizza the next two times (neither eating nor paying). If the former, then you are guilty of a minor transgression, but still a transgression. You essentially borrowed money on a promise to repay, and then have failed to do so twice. That's inconsiderate. The group did you a favor, with no forewarning they would need to, in feeding you. Once they approve you eating their pizza with a promise to repay, you have an extra duty to make sure you do so. Failure to live up to that not once, but twice, shows a serious lack of respect for the people who did you a favor. If you ate pizza three game sessions in a row and never paid for it (which as I said isn't clear to me), then you are guilty of a major transgression. You compiled all the problems I just listed above with mooching, knowing you already owed folks money, and without asking if it was okay the second two times (or else, presumably, they would have "mentioned the debt," which you say didn't happen). This is the context by which the next two points must be seen. Over the same time period you were mooching food form the group (pizza) and failing to repay it (on two subsequent occasions), you stopped bringing your own snacks. Even if you were the only person eating your donuts, you were showing a willingness to provide. I would strongly guess the perception is that since you didn't bring the snack that you normally eat, you ate more of the snacks brought by others. Whether this is true or not is immaterial, actually. Not bringing snacks isn't a transgression lacking an agreement to the contrary. Not bringing snacks when you are already mooching pizza and showing disrespect by failing to pay for the pizza-debt over the next two sessions makes this look much less like a matter of being very forgetful, and more like a conscious decision to eat other's food without bringing anything yourself (money for pizza, or snacks). Then, the milk. If you were asked not to drink the milk, and you did so anyway, you are guilty of a major transgression. You violated the rules of the host. Taken to an extreme, you stole their milk. (You took something you did not buy, and had no reasonable expectation you were welcome to). That's way beyond merely inconsiderate. It doesn't matter that it was "just" milk or that you only took it once after after you were told not to. This is not the behavior of a good guest, or even a reasonable adult. Combine these three issues, and you stopped paying for pizza, failed to repay a debt on the next two opportunities you had to do so, stopped putting in any effort to cover the group's combined food needs, and took milk you specifically had been told you were not welcome to. No one of these things is a big deal. combined, they show a pattern of disregard and disrespect. I can't speak to the swearing. I cuss like an injured sailor. My ability to moderate this around others is not as good as I'd like. Certainly if I had been warned about my language and then cussed on even two more occasions, I would totally understand if a group told me I was no longer welcome. If I was both cussing and drinking milk I had been told I was not welcome to, I'd expect to be asked to leave. That is classic "bad guest" behavior. From the sound of things, you created a tend of showing disrespect for the food (and thus labor which bought the food), and rules of your hosts. Seeing each incident as a minor transgression by itself does not give the weight of events over 3 sessions the gravity I honestly believe it deserves. I think at the very least, repayment of pizza money and an apology for violating the clearly laid-out expectations of you hosts regarding milk and cussing are in order. After that, if you care to, you could see if that bridge is permanently burned.
Owen, I think they don't really address that in new classes. The core Rulebook has the metamagic portion written in terms of specific classes if I recall correctly , which causes RAW issues with new spellcasters. Yeah the core rulebook is written class-specific, but the info in there seems clear on RAI. To whit: Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell's normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.) The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat. Emphasis mine. While this is clearly in a section for "Bards and Sorcerers," it also makes some general statements about "such characters." If you were talking pure RAW, that would be arguable (though i think I could win an argument claiming it applied to oracles, and even godlings, by RAW). When looking at RAI, it looks pretty cut-and-dried to me. Further Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: A cleric spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell, or a druid spontaneously casting a summon nature's ally spell, can cast a metamagic version of it instead. Extra time is also required in this case. Casting a standard action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast. The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which can be cast as a swift action. Emphasis mine, again. Here the section head is class-neutral, and the relevant sentence is class-neutral. It's true that clerics and druids get mentioned, but there's nothing that suggests that's the only classes the rule applies to. Again, as RAW it's arguable (though I still think RAW supports the idea that spontaneous metamagic spells = full round action), but RAI is clear. Given how the rules are presented, I probably ought to call it out for every new spontaneous spellcasting option I create, though if the oracle and inquisitor haven't done so at least I am, at worst, as bad as Paizo on this question. I hope your wife gets well soon! Thanks! It looks like she'll finally get to come home today, after a full week more hospitalization and 1 more surgery than we expected. I'm exhausted, but it'll all have been worth it once she recovers.
Sorry, I thought I answered these though I admit I don't see the reply I remember typing out. Maybe I'm going mad... 1) When using a Divine Trait for an Oracle Mystery Revelation, once taken, does it qualify you for the Extra Revelation feat? It looks to me that by RAW, the answer is "No," and "It wouldn't do you any good anyway." Divine Trait doesn't give you the revelation class feature, as the Extra Revelation feat prerequisite requires. It gives you the Divine Trait class feature, which then lets you select a revelation. That's Hair Splitting #1. Hair Splitting #2 is that I don't think the listed benefit for Extra revelation would do you any good anyway. The benefit notes you must "meet all the prerequisites" for any talent you take. But since revelations (unlike feats) don't have a "prerequisites" stat entry, we have to take a broad view of what is meant by "prerequisites." The base prerequisite of all revelations is that you are an oracle of the appropriate mystery, and the Divine Portfolio trait clearly doesn't go that far. 2) My assumption is 'no'. But if you use a Divine Trait Rank for Sorcerer Bloodline, take Arcane and gain an arcane bonded item, if you lose the item, do you roll concentration to cast spells? You are correct, the answer is "no." 3) Obviously godlings aren't mentioned under metamagic for whether or not they use a full-round action with them. Since they are essentially sorcerer's, is the assumption they take a full-round action when using metamagic on spells? It's pretty clear from the metamagic feat description that any form of spontaneous spellcasting has to take extra time to add metamagic feats, so I'd say that applies to eldritch godlings as well. That said, does anyone know where that question is directly addressed for oracles, for example? I'm at the hospital in my wife's room at the moment, so I don't have my books with me, and a quick review of online rules doesn't show me where oracle metamagic is addressed. 4) If metamagic does make it an FRA, would the 'Swift Casting' Scion Talent affect this? Would it also reduce Immortal Invocation? Assuming you mean the swift casting minor ascendancy (and that I wasn't silly enough to make swift casting both a minor ascendancy and a talent), yes it would apply to metamagic casting times. Therefore it also applies to Immortal Invocation.
I've been looking at Godlings as well. I have some questions. Great! We love questions. 1) Does the Minor Ascendancy reduce the casting time of Major Ascendancies like Immortal Invocation and Dual-Casting? I'm sorry, which minor Ascendancy? 2) Would a Mighty Godling, who puts a divine rank into Divine Portfolio I, and takes the Lore revelation Sidestep Secret replace his Dex with the modifier of his choosing? Yes. Though just like using Cha, whatever modifier he chooses for Sidestep Secret is limited by his Max Dex bonus if he wears armor. Thanks. Any time!
Ouch! But if you took THAT down, I think your DM was right to unleash it on you!
Hey End, thanks for the review! to address to questions asked, the death knight does not have its own spell lst. It specifically says "Beginning at 4th level, a death knight
Which is why the new spells presented list their anitpaladin level, rather than their death knight level. As for the linear design and only 2 death bonds, here I am matching the antipaladin/paladin design choices. The thing is that with a broader range of alignments available (6 possible death knight alignments, rather than 1 for antipaladin or paladin), the class is already more flexible in concept than it's closest cousins. If I made it significantly more flexible in design as well, the end result would be more powerful than either of the other classes, and I absolutely did not want to do that. Also, at 17 pages and with 17 new spells, I felt this was as much content as I could justify for a product presenting one class. Given the class's popularity, and thematic link to death mages, an expansion book is certainly a possibility.
Get More Bang For Your Buck!
Includes the following magic properties:
Burrowing. +3 bonus
Dependable. +1 bonus
Dimensional Capacity. +1 bonus
Entangling. +1 bonus
Hot Lead. +2 bonus
Ricochet. +4 bonus
Get More Bang For Your Buck!
Includes the following magic properties:
Burrowing. +3 bonus
Dependable. +1 bonus
Dimensional Capacity. +1 bonus
Entangling. +1 bonus
Hot Lead. +2 bonus
Ricochet. +4 bonus
Web of Steel is an armor bonus. It doesn't stack with any other armor bonus, including (but not limited to) mage armor, bracers of armor, actual armor. It requires your weapon be in hand, so you can't do it just with unarmed strikes. If you are disarmed, it stops working. If you are immobilized (or would otherwise lose your dodge bonus) it doesn't work.I assume this means natural weapons also do not activate this feat, correct? Correct.
As Magic-User allows it to be taken more than once, for different classes, why not Gestalt? Because no matter how many spells you have access to, economy of action still limits how many you can unleash at once. But many class abilities are passive and powerful, and even if you are Horrifically Overpowered you don't need access to more than 2 sets (your actual class, and those from the feat). So honestly? Even in a book dedicated to the unbalanced, it was too unblananced.
Wish this was a product for the Words of Power system, but the bloodline and Power Word Unzip spell makes up for it! One reason I made "Power Word Spells" the first part of the title was to make sure people knew what this was, and what it wasn't (that is, more power word something, and not words of power). I may tackle the later at some point, but this actually spoke to me louder.
I'm playing a fetchling shadow assassin. excelent race/class combo if I do say so myself. Yes, I can see how shadow assassin would appeal to fetchlings. :D does the shadow assassin need to be in shadow or have shadow near him in order to create a shaadow blade. most skills that require dim or darker lighting say so. Is this the case? No, the shadow assassin does not need any special lighting to create a shadowbalde. He can do it at any time. if I choose shadow blade, exotic style, and shuriken style. at level 16 would that mean my summoned shurikens have 1d2 + 3d6 + 5? For shurikens that you create with the shadowblade talent? Yes. if I choose spell style and end up taking disguise self. would I get two disguise self spell like abilities per day since it is also a race skill of fetchlings? Yes. i've seen in two differnt versions of this class milling about the biggest diference is one includes a shadow poison style (along with a use poison talent), the other does not. which is more up to date? The one with shadow poison is the most up-to-date. It can be found here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/Shadow -Assassin You may have also seen builds using feats from #1 With a Bullet Point: 7 Shadow Assassin Feats. I can guarantee there are more quiestions on the way. glad to have a place to put them :) We love questions! Hopefully the Shadow Assassin will get revised and updated later this year, as I'm trying to get through all out early classes.
so am I supposed to assume that although they only say "level" in the first quoted sentence, they actually mean "barbarian levels" and that the barbarian rage-time is increased only by barbarian levels, not the overall level? Yes. For the special abilities a character gets from a class, only levels in that specific class unless an ability specifically says otherwise.
Just got this, and I quite like the ideas, especially the weapons. Are there plans for a sequel? Yes.
Out of curiosity, why did you have the Logos domain's first level power not follow the same pattern as the other domains for number of uses per day (3 + Wisdom modifier)? While that is the most common formula, it's not universal. The animal domain's 1st level power is a number of rounds per day equal to 3 +{ level. The feather sub-domain gives consistent bonuses to Perception and initiative checks in surprise rounds. In this case, I felt the 1st level power was too powerful to allow as often as normal while also situational enough that a well-balanced character wouldn't need it that often at lower levels. This was the solution to not making it overpowered early, but still useful later in life.
If want you want RAI, then definitely no you can't take one level of Mystic Theurge and add two casting levels to the magister class. I'd also argue RAW is clear enough on that point that someone would have to be intentionally trying to "get away with something" to claim you should be able to add two spellcasting levels to magister with one level of mt, but that would be starting a debate no one appears to be arguing. :)
This is great, but right now, there is no other way for a character to even guess whether or not a monster has been weakened sufficiently to be vulnerable to a power word spell. Sure, the players know how many hit points a monster has and how many hits it's taken, but there really should be some way an enchanter or Logos-domain cleric can estimate this sort of thing in-character. I agree. But. A lot of groups already have rules they use to determine such things. Healing checks. Perception checks. Appropriate Knowledge checks. If I introduce a new universal way for something so basic to be resolved, I risk taking away the ability of characters to do it well or do it at all (if I change it to a different skill with no synergies to their characters, or make it a feat or other resource when they currently do it without having to pick up a special ability). Given how basic "how many hit points does it have" is, this is going to be in existing houserules a lot. Other groups will feel a character SHOULDN'T be able to gain such information without s supernatural or magic resource. After all, spellcasters don't automatically get to know what the save bonuses of monsters are, and there's debate about how much you can learn about immunities and resistances from Knowledge checks. Such groups wouldn't want such rules to be added, and GMs often don't want to allow anything from a source where they see something they need to ban right off the bat. This option, making it a magic power for sorcerers in tune with the spells that work off it, allows it to be added to a game without changing how the core rules of that game already function. Another way to handle this would be to make suggestions in a sidebar. And, speaking of enchanters, I've been thinking about a focused arcane school for those who wish to specialize in power words; I'd call it Locution. A Locutor would probably replace the enchanter's aura of despair at 8th level with the Logos domain's power word of command ability. He could keep the basic enchanter's dazing touch, but I'm not sure what he could use to replace Enchanting Smile. A Locutor wouldn't be interested in the subtle manipulations that most enchanters favor; he would speak, and creatures would obey. That's all very cool. If I'd thought of it, I might have included such a thing in the book. :)
I think that a read of the Kate Daniels series would provide a really interesting way to flavor this. Merely seeing a new word of the first language provokes a struggle to master it (that could mean you down on the ground screaming -- and that's if you succeed). But then speaking a single word has immense power, since its primal nature reshapes reality. I've also seen some Skyrim fans talk about how much it links with new character ideas they recently developed. I think one of the reasons I have always loved power word spells so much is that the idea of words with real magic power is a common trope in a lot of my favorite fantasy fiction. I'm glad to have expanded those options for people with similar tastes in fantasy. :)
Silly question time, but are the Wolf Heads related at all to the Norse and Germanic ulfhednar, who I've heard referred to as 'Viking special ops'? No, though a common thought process is connected to the naming conventions of each. My wolf heads are derived from the declaration of outlawry in old English law "Caput lupinum" which marked a man as someone citizens could legally harm. The ulfhednar wore actual wolfskins, and were warriors dedicated to Odin, berserkers, or both.
Essentially it is laying out the spell selection method. When you see 4+3 in the 2nd level column of the spell's known table it means you know 4 2nd level spells from your primary list, and 3 spells that can be from a different list OR from your primary list (because half of your spells known must be from your primary list). First, an apology to scary harpy. I'm not used to seeing rules questions here, rather than in the product or 3rd Party compatible threads, so I didn't see your question in a timely manner. Kolokotroni is correct on what the numbers mean and how they work -- it's nice that such questions often get answered even if I don't see them In general I don't reply on threads that ask opinions about whether something I wrote is balanced, because I'm obviously biased. That said, I am always happy to answer rules questions, so do feel free to ping me with a pm on a rules question if you don't want to hunt down the product thread. (I would ask people give me permission to them copy the question into the right thread, in case anyone else has the same question.)
HEY!! How come I didn't make the cut?! What are you tryin' to say, here, Stephens? Huh? A thousand apologies, good sir! My intern goblins, responsible for bringing me lists of appropriate power word candidates, never even showed me your resume. It is an oversight of the highest villainy! Let's have it out. Right here, right now. You and me, mano e mano, zipper vs. zipper-undoing-dweomer. I guarantee you'll be caught with your pants down, sir. No need, I assure you! Instead, let's just add you, here, as a bit of "bonus" material, shall we? Power Word Unzip
You utter a single word of power that instantly causes on piece of clothing (including magic clothing, such as magic boots and gloves, but not a shield or armor of any kind) to completely unzip, untie, and unlace itself and fall off one creature of your choice, whether the creature can hear the word or not. Any creature that currently has 46 or more hit points is unaffected by power word unzip.
Okay folks, here is every Pathfinder spell someone considered "iconic." Anything to add? If not, I'd love to see people list the top 10 iconic spells form this list, in order, and if you want to vote against up to 2 spells as :not iconic enough to count." Acid arrow
You have a death mage and now a death knight, any plans on a more roguish version in the future? So, a "Death Stalker" class? No such plans at the moment -- I think the shadow assassin mostly does what I wanted to do in regards to a different theme of rogue. But I [i]could/i] seem some "Grave Talents" for a death-themed shadow assassin, or possibly a Death Stalker archetype. Is there anything in particular you were thinking such a class might offer as a new take on the role and theme? Of course that doesn't mean we'll never do something of the sort as a base class. If I come up with a really good Death Stalker idea for a class, or a freelancer brings me a good write-up, I'd happily publish such a thing. :)
Sorry if that's unclear. No, you can always have one greater judgement up if you are high enough level to select (each has its own level restriction). However if it counts as three judgments for purposes of the second judgment and third judgment abilities then it's the only judgment you can have up at once. So a 12th level inquisitor can select the weakening judgment, and use it. However even though he already has Second Judgment as an ability, he can't use weakening and another judgment at the same time. Even when he reaches 16th level and gains Third Judgment, he won't be able to have weakening up at the same time as any other judgment. Conversely if an inquisitor selects the durability judgment at 9th level, when he already has Second Judgment, he is still restricted to just durability when he has it active. But when he reaches 16th level and gains Third Judgment, he could have durability and destruction active at the same time (though not durability and inexorability, if he had selected it). It is only for purposes of the Second and Third Judgement abilities that these count as more than one judgment. As far as the base judgment ability works, they are just one judgment.
I just realized I've GMed longer than he's been alive. Maybe I should be a little gentle. You think? I mean, you have more experience with, well, everything than he does. :D I mentioned that he should friend you on Facebook. I also told him that you are often here to answer any questions and provide advice. QFT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
