Secret Wizard's page

4,960 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,960 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1st minor question: -2 on thievery with a feat that requires training in it and a +1 to dex? Clearly this factors in both the armor and holding a shield. Ok, so why would a paladin character ever pick pick-pocket as a skill feat, if they were going to be a sword and board paladin? I get that they want to really beef up the flavor of Seelah being a street urchin, but couldn't they at least then have made her a two-handed weapon paladin so the penalty to her skill feat doesn't make it essentially useless (assuming the paladin could ever find a use for it without falling.) The two-handed version of Seelah would make the Rebutitive strike a more significant reaction and wouldn't lay on hands require a free hand for at least the touch action, if not the somatic part of the casting?

That skill feat is nowhere near useless. I agree that it's pretty sad you can't use it in combat well due to holding a shield and a sword, but it's a fantastic non-combat ability to have on an unexpected type of character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SnowFever wrote:
What is wrong with Kyra's left leg?

Her sandals have raised tips so perspective makes her left foot look smaller.

Man I'd have thought they'd do away with Vancian spellcasting and move on Arcanist style stuff. Surprised.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:


That is good to know. I actually assumed that folks would be traveling back to Thassalon or whatever. Admittedly, all of my knowledge w.r.t. that topic comes from half listening to last week’s Paizo Friday while at work. Even if I was being flip, I suppose that it was not the best idea to spread inaccurate information.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am probably most excited to play Alchemist. Has anyone heard if thrown weapons can attack with strength? I ask this for no particular reason.

Nope! But if I had to hunch it, it's only Dex. Because it really makes no sense for Str to be involved in lobbing a bomb. Throwing a javelin or handaxe perhaps, not a bomb.

But again that's just my opinion.

I believe Mark implied it was dex earlier with regards to giving Rogues and Rangers bombs.
Ahhh. Alas. That is essentially what I expected. I hope there are some ranged weapons with a keyword that adds your strength to accuracy, but I think it does make sense that hitting a foe with a bombs is more about finesse than raw power.
Strength can play a role though. The stronger you are the harder you can throw it and the faster it will travel and.the harder it will be to dodge. But I think if we wanted to get simulationist on here we would probably make it so that high strength increases the range of thrown object. But all that gets too complicated to be worth it I imagine.
Well, I was thinking that thrown weapons could key off either strength or dex, potentially. That would move towards creating more parity between strength and dex as stats since it would give str builds ranged options in the same way dex builds have finesse melee options. That said, such a thing can happen just as well through certain weapons having a “strength to throw” keyword.
Thrown weapons working off STR seems to work OK in 5e, FWIW. But I feel like that is the...

I think DEX-to-damage is worse than online image sharing communities (so pretty damn bad), and I would hate to see STR-based throwing accuracy. STR should just factor into the damage.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Love the new Seoni that doesn't look like a stripper. Good work, art team.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

PF2 also needs the Shaman back to represent a cleric analogue for more animistic cultures.

Keep it. Nothing holding back from Clerics being animistic other than the othering of pantheistic religions.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
I am really excited about the sorcerer changes. This seems really solid as far as class design. My wife will also be pleased, if for no other reason than because she loves spontaneous healers, but hated the oracle's curse.

I really hope that the sorcerer being able to do a "no strings attached" divine spontaneous caster means that when PF2 does get around to the oracle, they can really lean into the curse. Since people like your wife can play sorcerers, but personally I really loved oracle curses and wished there was more meat to them.

Oracle occupies too much interesting thematic space to be relegated to a "kind of sorcerer" anyway.

I found Oracle Curses to be terrible class design. They didn't mesh with the class at all, and seemed to be tacked on to their chassis.

I love Curses as a CHARACTER BUILDING tool though, and I think Archetypes are a much better way to apply Curses.

10 people marked this as a favorite.


Ok give it up, who in Paizo is a Belgium Stan who pushed for the article on Hazard today?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:

As someone mentioned up thread, there is a concerted effort to avoid the "this is always the best choice." If Hunt Target was turned into a flat +1 to all attacks, you would have a million Range 1/Other Class XX running around.

I know it's a sacred cow but I do hope PF2E does away with level-based multiclassing, and handles it more like an archetype.

Ludovicus wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Save it for the playtest guys.
If the community's already attentive to specific potential issues before the playtest, it's possible that more people will zero in on those issues during the playtest if they come up. Since Paizo tends to be more responsive to community feedback when it's loud and unified (case in point: shifter), this might induce them to fix problems they otherwise wouldn't have. Everyone here wants PF2 to be good!

On thematics, sure. Mechanics? Possibly.

Crunching numbers? Nonsense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Save it for the playtest guys.

The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.

First thing I'll try to do when the book comes out is a high INT or CHA, STR-based Monk. If that can work, then I'll be more than satisfied.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

You know, I hope that "string of feats" is a lot sexier than the old TWF feat tree was.

I mean, Double Slice is REALLY good in PF2, so I probably shouldn't be too worried. But having too many feats devoted to a single thing (even if they are all really good feats) can make it hard to diversify.

I think the real challenge, in general, is to strive for feats that are circumstantial without being niche.

Double Slice is REALLY good. If you TWF, you pick up Double Slice. It's a no brainer.

However, if there's a, say, "Triple Slice" down the road, then it becomes a "railroad" for character builds.

I hope the next few feats down the line are things to the tune of "You gain the ability to [R] Parry while dual-wielding for +2 AC" or "If you hit an enemy two or more times in the same turn, that enemy is stupefied X, where X is the amount of times you've hit them", and so on.

Things that make your character relatively unique without being the end-all, best option out there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ranger Combat Styles are a bandaid for a broken feat system. There's no need for any equivalents.

You mean without the feats? It'd only cause trouble, as part of the power budget of each class is in the feats, and may cause people to think the classes look worse than they are just because they don't have access to a big part of their identity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will likely just run calcs on all martial classes to compare outputs and such.

And my point is that the CRB Monk is the same, except it's bad at hitting stuff.

mrianmerry wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Azih wrote:
Honestly the Unchained Monk was pretty Brawler-esque too, with Full BAB, and Low Will Saves.

What does it take for people to stop being willfully wrong?

UnMonk has ridiculous Will saves. You are acting like 1E Wizards have little skills to use because of their low skill ranks (when they actually have a ton due to INT focus) or Rogues having high damage due to high sneak attack (when they are actually crippled by lack of venues to increase attack rating).

A class isn't their chassis only.

I think that this was in reference entirely to the chassis of the class.

Also - an UnMonk has only his Wisdom to bolster his poor base save, and no UnMonk without Guided will be raising their Wisdom stat as a primary.

What do you define as a ridiculous Will save?

WIS focus, free feats to spend on Iron Will, no need to give away Still Mind to be a competent class, available traits to spend on +Will stuff, flexible WBL economy to keep up on resistances and enhancement.

If you turn to the CRB Monk, their Will saves were dismal because they needed a ton of CON to compensate for d8, usually went Sohei to be able to dump WIS while maintaining acceptable defences, went overboard on attack attributes to reliably hit, spent every single one of their feats to compensate for bad attack ratings and low mobility, had to game their economy to gain attack rating in any way shape or form it could be attained, so on and so forth.

In the end, an UnMonk, due to low opportunity cost, usually had well above average Will saves.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:
Honestly the Unchained Monk was pretty Brawler-esque too, with Full BAB, and Low Will Saves.

What does it take for people to stop being willfully wrong?

UnMonk has ridiculous Will saves. You are acting like 1E Wizards have little skills to use because of their low skill ranks (when they actually have a ton due to INT focus) or Rogues having high damage due to high sneak attack (when they are actually crippled by lack of venues to increase attack rating).

A class isn't their chassis only.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

I thought I noticed the Rogue doing less static damage during the last couple of Glass Cannon episodes. Adding +2 instead of +4, so I wonder if they decided to remove Dex-to-Damage from the playtest.

Of course it's possible that I just misinterpreted.

someone please confirm, champagne on ice waiting

I think the problem is Good/Evil being used to describe things, rather than determining their goals.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
That spell single-handedly forced Rangers to maximize their bonus
The f&+@ it did. Adherence to optimizing numbers did that.

That's the problem 2E fixes.

The existence of a hyper-optimal playstyle makes balancing wildly variable. The idea here is that player power should be predictable within restricted bounds.

Like the 2E Ranger with Monster Hunter will likely be stronger when their Recall Knowledge skills are applicable, but not that much weaker than one without.

And there's no option that leaves it in the dust.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Also, as I said all I see is 'not being lawful good stops them being the champions of good' arguments, which implies LG is the only alignment worthy, and indeed is the best good. (When in fact LG is as tyrannical as LE, it just has better PR for it's psychotic savagery and aims of eradicating all 'evil' races and people from the world. )

Are we now claiming that LG is actually Evil ?

I see how this could hurt the LG-only Paladin crowd, as well as many others beside

I'm saying it's Tyrannical, which is not the same thing. Benevolent Dictatorship is a thing, and the Detect Evil- Pala Smite game play that even shows up in the Lore gives that impression as well, it is totalitarian, it is brutal but it has the mandate of heaven and an omniscient morality license, so as the game-universe works, not evil, as an alignment and structure for a nation to live in? Horrifying.

Tyrant was a neutral term in Ancient Rome.

Paladin was a neutral term in Charlemagnian ages.

Liberator is what we were supposed to be greeted as in Iraq.

And so on and so forth.

Sadly, Alignment and Politics, particularly racial politics, are deeply intertwined. There's little one can do about it.

Fighter seems like the best design of them all.

Still on the fence about Monks regarding thematics, not totally sold on how Rangers work, and Barb totems rub me the wrong way.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Putting Snares on the CRB seems counterintuitive – it's highly unlikely they'll be effectively used. New players could get tricked into spending their feats for something that would rarely come into use.

Snares are a trap option.

I'd rather have an easier time building Obi Wan Kenobi or Groot with the base Monk than McGregor or Mayweather.

19 people marked this as a favorite.
What is wrong with how wands and gaffs functioned in fist ? Who ever is rioting is making things overly complex for no reason. Make it easy if you want to use a staff or wand when you prepare your spells. Spend 1 point of resonance and you can use a number of charges from that item equal to your total resonance score.

Counterpoint: If it's not intuitive, don't do it. Why would a Cleric value a box full of Wand of CLW more than a single Wand of CSW?

For a character, obtaining powerful items should always be more important than hoarding low power items. It just works better to maintain immersion.

A high level Bard stocking up on CLW wands is as metagamey as it gets, and also the right call for many games.

Therefore, go with the intuitive thing – encourage players to use their powerful items.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

There was a big dang discussion/argument/conjecture session I was in regarding this some time ago. Mark eventually stepped in to do some clarifying on the matter. It seems like the damage math is gonna check out.

Lest this turns into a DEX-to-damage discussion, I just wanted to say, damage was never the problem in these concerns.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
So Agile is kinda like Speed Factor?

Pretty much, yeah.

It'd be very possible to have an Agile Weapon that is not a finesse weapon, too, though we lack examples at the moment. Double-weapons or those designed to be wielded in pairs (like Sawtooth Sabres) seem likely to fall into that category, for example (since one weapon needs to be agile for TWF to work properly).

Longswords seem like a good fit for Agile without Finesse.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
I would prefer if Ki was called something else (maybe a sidebar explaining how it can be called that for certain Japanese-themed characters), and the removal entirely of Asian/Oriental/Monk weapons (they can simply be among names used for standard weapons, they should not be inherently different/special because they are from the East).

You now have spell points instead of ki points and weapons won't be exotic because they are Eastern but because they are powerful.

That said, you pretty much need their to be a specific subset of weapons with the monk trait for balance reasons, and I don't have a problem with a good number of them being Eastern. I think if they are going to make separate weapons though the weapons should be mechanically unique. Since pathfinder weapons have never been historically accurate I don't see why flavor can't be mutable, so if a katana and a longsword have the same stats just call them both longsword. But if a katana has a different set of weapon traits you may as well call it a katana.

I think this is all unneeded. Monk weapons are simply regular weapons with less item budget and MONK slapped on them.

Restricting Flurry to Simple Weapons would accomplish the same thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
4) Every finesse weapon we have seen so far has also been agile, so on average they seem to be more accurate on iteratives.
This doesn't appear to be true, actually. Formerly Light weapons seem to get both, but the Rapier seems to have Finesse but not Agile.
Which seems a bit odd, the separation of agile and finesse.

A whip should be Finesse, but it should not be Agile, as it swings in broad arcs.

Similarly, a rapier requires a stretched back pull to be used again, so it's not Agile either.

What's the point of Constitution?

Here's a stat that seems unnecessary. It's the reward for players who overspecialize and ignore other stats – and it's not that great at that either, particularly in a system with limited attributes as this.

The retroactive gaining of HP when CON is boosted seems like antiquated design.

Fortitude saves are a thing, but wouldn't it be easier to tie Fortitude with Strength? I know that being buff doesn't make your immune system better, but, kept within the realms of common expectations, the hale and hearty usually have a good deal of strength too.

Dunno, just seems to me like there's not much there for CON to do.

Azih wrote:
Tangential thought then is that it seems super easy to homebrew your version by making Flurry of Blows a class feat for Monks and Fighters and swapping Ki Strike in as a core feature of the Monk.

And/or convincing devs that should be healthier for the playtest.

If no, then why do we need an alignment restriction?

Feels like needlessly tying yourself up on building up a core class. You could use it to make NG, CE, etc. Paladins too.

Yes, this is the 5E treatment, which has some issues – namely, dealing Radiant damage even with Evil Paladins – but nothing that couldn't be solved with the right mechanics and a thesaurus to rename everything that has been slapped with "..of Justice".

5 people marked this as a favorite.

My opinion is that ki should be baseline for Monks and that unarmed mundane characters should be Fighters.

Weaponry for Monks, and Flurry of Blows, are tangential. The core is mysticism and martial training combined. I'd rather have ki as a 1st level feature than Flurry, which might as well be a Fighter thing.

But that's another concept altogether.

Felinus wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

What Shinigami said.

The one example I could think of is the Maddened Chirurgeon – the lanky slasher. In those cases, it's always more typical of those type of STR-neutral-or-worse characters to overexploit Stealth, hit-and-run, poisons, distractions, etc.
...crits (anatomist) and bleeding damage!

Also good and not related to DEX-to-damage! All DCs could be DEX-based.

So while the DEX character uses their class feats to pick up base damage with bleeds and such, the STR character uses them for defences.

The question is what balance is there to be struck, in which picking up defences as DEX and offenses as STR does not create overspecialized beasts.

Putting a lot of class budget into Styles, in the case of the Monk, sounds like a good deal, as they are mutually exclusive.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What Shinigami said.

A class with a Sneak Attack feature gets more damage out of hitting, than more damage out of an added bonus that gains in value through a series of hits.

Therefore, giving DEX to accuracy, and not to damage, to classes with burst is an accurate portrayal.

And you are always free to spend a few points into STR – after all, which Dexterous Rogue in fantasy isn't packing some muscle? Even your archetypical Ratfolk Thief should have some sinew for climbing, swimming, pushing and pulling crates, and so on.

The one example I could think of is the Maddened Chirurgeon – the lanky slasher. In those cases, it's always more typical of those type of STR-neutral-or-worse characters to overexploit Stealth, hit-and-run, poisons, distractions, etc.

I see no point of DEX-to-damage.

The Raven Black wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

If DEX to damage works only for low-damage melee weapons then STR gets monopoly on high-damage weapons and ranged weapons. That combined with needing a feat for DEX to damage sounds enough for balance IMO

I do not think DEX to damage should be taboo, nor exclusive to a Class

What's the point in DEX-to-damage in a system with 4 skill ups, other than opening the doors to rampant optimization?

Other than saying "you'll be worse at mental skills because you must go STR"?

I am sorry I did not understand what you mean with a system with 4 skill ups

I want DEX to damage to play agile characters that do not rely on muscles but rather on finesse to hurt their opponents

And this kind of characters should not need to be skillful Rogues IMO

I have complete faith in the ability of the devs to build this into the system in a way that prevents rampant optimization

4 attribute boosts per 4 levels is what I mean.

And if you want that, play a class that has high base damage that doesn't rely on total damage rolls, so you are able to have high DEX and modest STR (like 12 or 14, like every typical Rogue), and you'll deal damage because you are agile, not as much because you are strong.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

If DEX to damage works only for low-damage melee weapons then STR gets monopoly on high-damage weapons and ranged weapons. That combined with needing a feat for DEX to damage sounds enough for balance IMO

I do not think DEX to damage should be taboo, nor exclusive to a Class

What's the point in DEX-to-damage in a system with 4 skill ups, other than opening the doors to rampant optimization?

Other than saying "you'll be worse at mental skills because you must go STR"?

The Raven Black wrote:

I remember my archer Paladin in PF1 locking the door after his teammates escaped through it. Not because he was suicidal or glory-hounding but because he had the best saves by far and thus some hope of keeping the monster at bay for a few precious rounds

Thankfully the party's Cleric quickly succeeded on a save and proceeded to cure the rest of them while my Paladin endured

I hope PF2 Paladin's defenses will allow this

I hope the game is balanced in a way that everyone can do this, in a different fashion.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

@CheBurn: A lot of your arguments are based on legacy concerns, not good class design.

Legacy concerns will be forgotten. They will be ignored. If the game functions well, they will fade away.

The "Flurry of Misses" comments in this thread are an example of that. People don't know how enemies are blocked, don't know how attack boosts will be handled, etc. They just see numbers and assume things.

Same thing with the "low Will saves of the UnMonk". Yeah, right. Like CRB Monks had extra points to put into WIS, or extra feats to go for Iron Will. UnMonks have as-high Will saves as CRB Monks, but people get hung up on the class table rather than what actually matters – praxis.

Again, it's tantamount to saying Wizards had few skill ranks per level because they had 2 + INT.

There is, however, a case to be made with the Fighter comparison. If the Monk is "Fighter but unarmored", then it's an arms race against the Fighter, as they attempt to achieve the same goal – "hit hard, don't get hit too hard, have some out-of-combat utility."

I believe there are some acceptable combat differences between Fighter/Monk:

- Fighter should have better sticking power than Monk.
- Monk should be better at disengagement than Fighter.
- Fighter should have more on-demand AC (see: Raise Shields and such).
- Monk should have more TAC.
- Fighter should have better Fortitude saves.
- Monk should have better Will saves.

See the problem here? Everything I mentioned is in-combat tuning. It's a all measure of outputs, rather than different standalone concepts.

That's why I argue that adding the mystic element baseline to the Monk is better for the overall identity of the Monk – like a Fighter, but has an expendable pool of supernatural powers.

I personally would make unarmed something Fighters can be good at too, and focus more on how Mysticism allows the Monk to excel in combat to separate their identities further.

So, to summarize: I'm not concerned about people clamoring about legacy issues. I'm worried about, in this edition, how will the Monk be differentiated from the Fighter.

i wont miss them

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's my perpective ATM, but if Paizo is able to make Martial Artist into a compelling class, I'll give it a look.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
\ The only thing incentivizing you to use unarmed was stunning fist and style strikes, and maybe DR at certain levels. Even these things probably push you towards being a mixed striker-- use unarmed for the style strikes where appropriate or stunning fists, but otherwise make all your attacks with weapons. But the mixed striker routine carries problems with both resource expenditure-- AoMF was already twice as expensive, then add a weapon on top of that-- and additional complexity mid-combat.

AoMF is the big issue, really. Other than economy and critical range, Dragon Style solves most other issues and requires less feats.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
kaid wrote:
For your dex to lag far enough behind to be a problem would have to be done intentionally by just refusing to boost it which makes little sense for a monk not to spend one of their 4 boosts on it when they get their boosts.
That is roughly what Mike did with Cobra, just to see what happened if he did. It might be worse for him if he wasn't just so darn mobile, always leaping and flying around. With two other front-liners, there's usually someone else the enemies would have to move past to get to Cobra, and they have more trouble flanking him when he comes in at the edge of the fight and pulverizes the stragglers, arcing lightning damage into the main masses before leaping into a flank against an enemy who's already started working down the barbarian and might want to finish that rather than switch to the new target (even though it turns out he's easier to hit than the raging barbarian, they won't know that until they divert effort to him, and splitting up your damage to two targets isn't usually as good as focus fire; in fact, even in the case where the enemy switches targets, splitting damage to him instead of focusing down the barbarian is probably a win for Cobra, as it makes it easier for the shield fighter Solveig to protect them and the cleric to heal them).

This doesn't sound too flattering.

Sounds like enemies that focus a STR Monk would mow them down easily, whereas the Barbarian has temporal HP to pad it out.

Even the mobility and damage of the Monk are put into question, given that the Barbarian is probably as good in terms of output and mobility, and has HP padding.

I don't want STR Monk to be Barbarian-but-needs-team-coordination.

Again, high skill games and low level AC for STR remain a concern to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

So it seems to me like we are looking at three main builds:
Dex/wis/con: dodge wuxia monk. Hard to hit, deal okay damage, have some neat little tricksy tricks. All their saves are gonna be hella impressive too.
Str/dex/con: DPS monk that is a little easier to hit but hits hard in return. I worry that this build has little support but maybe the damage will truly be sick when we know all the mechanics at play here.
Dex/con/wis: dodge tank monk. This is pretty much the first kind of monk but with more health and fewer tricks.

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

My concern is early on, when the STR Monk has 12 or 14 DEX and no Bracers of Armor.

Quandary wrote:
Don't really get the hysteria myself, a STR build will always be a few points behind DEX build in AC... Shocker? Nothing to fix there.

My concern is being 3 points behind a Rogue until you can afford Bracers of Armor (which I assume are a flat +2 base). Thematically, that sounds like a disconnect. Mechanically, it's asking to get destroyed.

I see that Paizo shares a lot of my considerations, except what the core of the Monk is :P

Oh well, nice to see some Martial Arts. I like how Styles work.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
It's also fair to say that given equal access to bracers of armor and +X armor, a rogue in light armor with the same Dex as the monk will always be lower or equal to the monk's AC.

Yep, that's been established! Really happy about how Bracers of Armor work now.

My concerns are:

1. Pre-magic armor AC. I suppose d10 vs d8 on Rogues makes it a little more even, I assume Monks will have access to "Raise Shield" alternatives in Bo Staves too?

2. STR-based Monk AC. Haven't heard how STR-based Monks will survive. To clarify, I assume STR-based will have 12 or 14 DEX on creation, and would remain lower on the DEX department as they level up. As mentioned before, an Expert Unarmored Proficiency feat that grants high STR characters a small boost to AC will suffice.

Logan Bonner wrote:

Happy Tuesday! Here are a couple tidbits that weren't in the blog.

Monks have 10 + Con mod HP per level.

Monks have no alignment restriction.

All great to hear! Thank you for the alignment latitude!

1 to 50 of 4,960 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>