Reconsider the Blood Money ban.


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Several have been mentioned thus far, BigNorseWolf. A "team player" character built around the ability to Raise Dead using Blood Money, as opposed to Ultimate Mercy. Literally any necromancer desiring to regularly raise the dead. I will personally note that Heart of the Metal and Blood Money were a key component of my natural attacking Witch/Magus in PFS; now he has no way to reliably bypass damage reduction, without spending money desperately needed for Pearls of Power, rods, armor, you name it.

EDIT: To be clear, I still find the fact that it was banned at all mystifying, and would prefer a recant of the ban to grandfathering if possible. No evidence has been produced in this thread that it did anything other than provide people that worked hard for their savings some extra change in their pocket. It doesn't raise the dead, nor the undead, nor provide DR 10-- it just saves money at the cost of a spell slot and ability damage, or multiple spell slots (including cross-class spell access somehow).

The Exchange 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
I would also appreciate grandfathering. I can plan for what is and isn't legal when I make my characters.
Whats a build around this particular spell that gets nerfed harder than merely the removal of the spell?

Is there an issue with me wanting to use the spell I purchased for the characters I purchased it for in itself?

That said I do think any of the various builds above probably meet the criteria you are looking for or maybe the people who just enjoyed the flavor of the spell.

Personally I don't think saving a few hundred gold a scenario is an issue. I also have a paladin character who can raise people and their reaction is always thanks so much much I really appreciate it! I think anyone getting upset about someone using blood money to create the same effect doesn't have the interest of the players in mind.

Edit:

Exguardi wrote:
To be clear, I still find the fact that it was banned at all mystifying, and would prefer a recant of the ban to grandfathering if possible.

This is my position as well. The grandfathering is basically a concession to if leadership has to have it that way for some reason. I would vastly prefer the entire thing turned over.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As much as I hate to discourage people, I feel like you are fighting an uphill battle. I strongly believe that Blood Money was maid illegal basically by popular demand.

Shadow Lodge

So for characters who have blood money already in their spellbooks/familiar or as a spell known, I would assume that they simply replace the spell?

Sovereign Court 5/5

honestly i always enjoyed the spell and i know in my region it really wasnt that abused, but its legallity does not effect me much in the end, just means no more free buffs for the party. my wizard will just start making the group pay for the material cost of expensive items.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've often said that if I was allowed to ban a single spell it would be blood money. It is just ridiculous that a first level spell changes/eliminates one of the balancing mechanisms built into the game (spell component costs).

So kudos to Paizo for banning this.

Sovereign Court 5/5

spells can be used to manipulate every other aspect of the game, whats the big problem with manipulating component cost also? you have 1st lvl spells that negate falling damamge, allow you to function in areas with no air, plus alot of other restrictions(not at home to pull my wizards spell list up). It is kinda the concept of magic, that it bends/breaks the rules of reality.

id like to know some honest problems that the spell has caused for people. free spells that benefit the party should not be a problem for gms as its not our job to kill players, we are only at the table to tell the story and provide a challenge for the players.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Nohwear wrote:
As much as I hate to discourage people, I feel like you are fighting an uphill battle. I strongly believe that Blood Money was maid illegal basically by popular demand.

I believe that it was banned to reduce table variation on how it was implemented.


We hear time and time again that casters are more powerful. This spell actively makes that worse. If a person dies for longer than a round then you should pay to have them resurrected/restored etc.

There are plenty of free buffs, but starting every fight with stoneskin is frustrating for DMs, particularly when cast on a high AC character.

Scarab Sages 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad to see it gone also. I never liked the way it let casters effectively bypass for free a basic constraint of the game.

4/5

FYI, nothing is going to change over the weekend. It's a holiday weekend, so for now we are left with discussion.


TOZ wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
As much as I hate to discourage people, I feel like you are fighting an uphill battle. I strongly believe that Blood Money was maid illegal basically by popular demand.
I believe that it was banned to reduce table variation on how it was implemented.

If the issue was one of table variation, there are better ways of fixing that. Just clarify when the components are used up.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Last week I finally used my dhampir boon to make a Thassilonian Specialist necromancer/cruromancer. The base necromancy school is laughably awful, and the mid-level cruromancer stuff is based around increasing the number of undead you can animate/control. I was look looking forward to using blood money with animate dead to make this character's class features useful without being a huge gold sink.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
MichaelCullen wrote:
If the issue was one of table variation, there are better ways of fixing that. Just clarify when the components are used up.

The PFS team clearly didn't want to answer that question in place of the design team. So the simplest way of dealing with the problem themselves was to remove it from play.

Silver Crusade 3/5

I don't get what the big deal is about blood money, personally. Even getting a free raise dead, that is something that helps other players at your table. I think that is a good thing for PFS.

I'm with those who say it should remain legal, and I don't even have any characters with this spell, either currently or in the works.

I feel bad for those players who bought the book with the hopes of using this spell.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ragoz wrote:

Is there an issue with me wanting to use the spell I purchased for the characters I purchased it for in itself?

Yes. There is an issue that the ability is overpowered and leaving it in is problematic. That and your desire to use the spell are competing. Some spells are balanced out by their expensive material component and easily removing that affects a lot of things in the game.

To me, overpowered wins out against I want to use it. If your entire build relies on it grandfathering seems a fairer option.. but I'm not seeing it. Your build still works, it just needs to pay more money. Your build doesn't fall apart or fail to fire because you're missing a rod or two. Its not like the slashing grace debacle where once it was changed characters fell apart entirely.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

The Fox wrote:
I don't get what the big deal is about blood money, personally.

This thread may help explain it.

Silver Crusade 3/5

TOZ wrote:
The Fox wrote:
I don't get what the big deal is about blood money, personally.
This thread may help explain it.

I understand why other people think it's a big deal. I guess I meant to say that I disagree with those who think it's a big deal.

1/5

This is similar to people who had high int and wis preparing for early entry theurge and then it was changed. Now their stats don't make sense. So a wizard getting a 14 or 16 str for this spell, now has nothing it want's that str for. And depending on what level they are, will find it easier to abandon the character than play it.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yes. There is an issue that the ability is overpowered and leaving it in is problematic.

How is it overpowered? No one has posited anything beyond 'it saves you some gold'. In fact...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Your build still works, it just needs to pay more money. Your build doesn't fall apart or fail to fire because you're missing a rod or two.

That's actually kind of the point when it comes to the necromancer or the Raise Dead character-- it DOES fall apart without access to Blood Money. Unlike Stoneskin or Heart of the Metal, which my Magus could (painfully) afford, the restrictions on raising the (un)dead in Pathfinder Society means that drastic measures need to be taken for the character to stay viable (in terms of 'being able to afford the base items the game assumes you have') while regularly exercising their primary mechanic.

But leaving that aside, I don't understand what 'your build isn't completely worthless without it' has to do with the argument against banning Blood Money. It wasn't banned previously, and it is now. Several people in the thread are asserting that this is an erroneous decision due to it not being powerful enough to necessitate a ban.

Various reasons have been suggested as to why it is too powerful, but none other than 'I don't like that it saves you money' seem to have any tracking. It can't be used efficiently from a wand, it takes incredible character-building acrobatics to try to negate the ability score damage aspect (and tons of spell slots), and the average cost savings barring past-end-of-play shenanigans seem comparable to the savings an alchemist gets with his 1/3rd price alchemical items over his career at best.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Exguardi wrote:
But leaving that aside, I don't understand what 'your build isn't completely worthless without it' has to do with the argument against banning Blood Money.

It has to do against grandfathering.

Some characters work like a finely tuned watch. gear A turns drive B which moves Spring C. If you buy gear A, drive B, and spring C and then drive B gets removed you haven't just lost drive B , you've lost drive B AND Gear A and spring C because none of them work anymore.You either need to let them keep drive B or trade in EVERYTHING, not just drive B.

An undead controling necromancer should be able to take control of undead as they crop up to savemoney, and only raise as necessary.

Quote:
It wasn't banned previously, and it is now. Several people in the thread are asserting that this is an erroneous decision due to it not being powerful enough to necessitate a ban.

I disagree. Its a bigger impact on WBL, and that gets the whamhammer in pfs

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Roberts wrote:
FYI, nothing is going to change over the weekend. It's a holiday weekend, so for now we are left with discussion.

Moreover, nothing's going to change until the team is all back in Seattle to discuss the matter.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Contributor—Canadian Maplecakes

4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
FYI, nothing is going to change over the weekend. It's a holiday weekend, so for now we are left with discussion.
Moreover, nothing's going to change until the team is all back in Seattle to discuss the matter.

Happy holidays, John, Linda, and Tonya. :)

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Please consider making it legal again.

4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't break the wealth per level seriously when it comes to animate dead.

In non-PFS play characters don't need to animate their minions every four-five hours or so of play time. In PFS though the minions disappear at the end of the scenario. This means that creating undead in PFS cost more and lowers the effective wealth by level of the necromancer by more than it should as compared to non-PFS Pathfinder.

Blood Money helps counter that.

In the end I'm not upset by the ban, but I'm not happy either. I feel really bad for the people I know who bought the book for Blood Money because it's not a cheap book.

I'm sad because it seems that PFS is slowly getting more restrictive as time goes by and I'm starting to hear more disappointment from my players these days.

It's starting to become more about what they can't play rather than what they can when the discussion of new books and old books comes up. It wasn't always that way though.


John Compton wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
FYI, nothing is going to change over the weekend. It's a holiday weekend, so for now we are left with discussion.
Moreover, nothing's going to change until the team is all back in Seattle to discuss the matter.

Have a merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
The Sword wrote:
If you are making builds centred around it, you are already taking advantage of the spell, and begging for it to be banned!

While I am not taking a position on whether or not blood money should be legal, this attitude is terrible. "You're building your character around a specific ability? You're bad!" So my channel energy-focused cleric should expect a channel energy ban? My fireball wizard should just crumple up his character sheet because obviously, fireball is on the chopping block?

Come on. Blood money is a unique spell. Making a character who uses it heavily is no worse than making a character who uses a bastard sword heavily. Don't shame people for using perfectly legal character options, just because they later got banned. I see this constantly when something in Additional Resources changes - people attacking the players who used the now-banned option.

1/5 Contributor

If we're simply voicing thumbs ups or thumbs down as some folks have done I'm for the ban. Quite happy with it.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

As someone who used it "nicely" in a home game, and found it quite reasonable, I'm in the middle on the banning... but I've always been surprised that it was legal at all.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

BigNorseWolf wrote:


An undead controling necromancer should be able to take control of undead as they crop up to savemoney, and only raise as necessary.

Unless you build it correctly at which point you could do it seven times a day at no cost with that number constantly going up and up. Like seriously Im entirely amazed the Necromancer by default is that bad to the point where yeah Blood Money doesn't do much in comparison to what you would expect a Necromancer to be.

Silver Crusade

I think to really hammer this down, what needs to be looked at is the spells most commonly used with Blood Money, and if they break the WBL/power curve.

Something that keeps being mentioned is Stoneskin. Now me, I don't think that Stoneskin losing the material component cost breaks it. It makes it stronger, but I never thought the material component cost was a great balancing factor myself.

Mentioned above, animating the dead isn't really that bad due to how PFS handles undead and such (in a normal game, it's considerably more powerful.

Raise Dead is another one, but as shown, there's other ways to get around being dead, and while some can say it makes death trivial, for organized play, I don't really care much for 'super hardcore' feel to the game.

Those seem to be the main ones, I may be missing more, but with the 12 level cap, Blood Money is staying away from some of the things that REALLY break it wide open, and I doubt there's many chances to even get to that point in a PFS game due to how strict it is about WBL.

If there's any other spells that are heavily influenced by this, they should be looked at an examined to find out if they're made unfair by Blood Money, or simply made more effective.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

If it were Strength Drain, I would be OK with the spell. Although I think Con Drain would be more appropriate mechanically given that it is blood loss.

The spell was written for a 3.5 AP and in this context is a good spell. Money is hard to come by and losing a character mid-campaign is disruptive to the flow of the story. In a PFS setting, characters die rarely enough, having a significant cost to dying gives incentive to playing your character well and meaning when it dies heroically holding the line.

I have rarely seen Blood Money used for 100 gp components, it's usually 1,000's of gp. I am happy to see the spell as written removed from play.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

EricMcG wrote:

If it were Strength Drain, I would be OK with the spell. Although I think Con Drain would be more appropriate mechanically given that it is blood loss.

The spell was written for a 3.5 AP and in this context is a good spell. Money is hard to come by and losing a character mid-campaign is disruptive to the flow of the story. In a PFS setting, characters die rarely enough, having a significant cost to dying gives incentive to playing your character well and meaning when it dies heroically holding the line.

I have rarely seen Blood Money used for 100 gp components, it's usually 1,000's of gp. I am happy to see the spell as written removed from play.

The 3.5 version cost xp and was 2nd-level... the Anniversary Edition is what made it crazy good.

My issue was always that it's an extremely rare spell, found only* in the end villain's spells. It shouldn't be everywhere. PFS actually smooths this out for me, since Season 4 seems to be written in a post-Rise of the Runelords world. It makes sense that the Society would have gotten ahold of it, and that its agents might learn the spell.

*I'm pretty sure. Please correct if wrong.

Silver Crusade 5/5

FWIW, I support the removal of Blood Money.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
*I'm pretty sure. Please correct if wrong.

RotRL Spoilers:
I think that it is found two books before that in a certain Thassilonian library. I remember James Jacobs saying something about it being intended that those ancient spells become available as treasure for arcane spellcasters. That happens around 12th or 13th level.

Your point still stands. It is a rare spell.

Scarab Sages 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm absolutely okay with the ban if it really is breaking the WBL. I've not seen this as a real issue in my play nor have I seen it an argument put forth by anyone that says it really is breaking the curve. But that doesn't mean it doesn't.
If the spell was disruptive I could also agree with a ban, though the spell certainly isn't that. Not anymore than anything else with table variation that remain legal. Also here is James Jacobs on when a spell uses its component.
What I wouldn't be okay with is if the ban was done by popular decision. Just because some other player or GM does not like rule shouldn't mean PFS should make it illegal. Maybe for certain GMs you may not want to play a certain character at their table... okay, but PFS shouldn't outright ban things for that reason. It's easy enough to say "I plan on using option A that is legal, how do you rule Typical Table Variation B?" But I worry if the direction PFS takes is one of ban by popular vote.

4/5

John Compton wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:
FYI, nothing is going to change over the weekend. It's a holiday weekend, so for now we are left with discussion.
Moreover, nothing's going to change until the team is all back in Seattle to discuss the matter.

Thanks John for chiming in. Happy holidays to the Paizo office! :)

Lantern Lodge 3/5

So for those who believe it is overpowered in general use, I ask one question: As compared to what?

That is really the crux of the issue for me. What is our universal scale for measuring if something is overpowered or not? Of the many things I personally find to be overpowered, blood money is not high on that list until we are at extreme levels of play. Even then, for PFS, it's far less of an issue since a free wish will have no lingering effects from scenario to scenario. Does it really matter if I did the cool free wish to win, vs. slinging a dazing persistent hungry darkness?

Specifically to animate dead, the spell is not bad...the issue for me is just that the minion created is nothing to write home about compared to the way most people I have played with build their PCs. So your necromancer can raise those minions just for the cost of a spell slot? That's fine with me. It's basically just a re-flavored summoned monster at that point, who lasts longer, but loses useful spell-like abilities. Steve's melee PC is still far better at everything fighting related than either of them, so who cares?

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

It doesn't break the wealth per level seriously when it comes to animate dead.

In non-PFS play characters don't need to animate their minions every four-five hours or so of play time. In PFS though the minions disappear at the end of the scenario. This means that creating undead in PFS cost more and lowers the effective wealth by level of the necromancer by more than it should as compared to non-PFS Pathfinder.

Blood Money helps counter that.

In the end I'm not upset by the ban, but I'm not happy either. I feel really bad for the people I know who bought the book for Blood Money because it's not a cheap book.

I'm sad because it seems that PFS is slowly getting more restrictive as time goes by and I'm starting to hear more disappointment from my players these days.

It's starting to become more about what they can't play rather than what they can when the discussion of new books and old books comes up. It wasn't always that way though.

Thanks Jeffrey, that was very eloquently stated, and put my personal feelings into words better than I could have.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

There are a number of unresolved rules issues with this spell, and even if you somehow ignore/resolve those, you can save quite a lot of money.

I just checked and it is entirely possible for a 7th level shaman with 11 INT and 12 CHA to take the lore hex as your wandering hex (just like the iconic shaman) to provide free restorations (removing negative levels is can be quite an advantage). Raise dead is usually out of reach for shamans in PFS play, but even that one could be significantly discounted.

While I do own the source, I wholeheartedly support the removal of this spell.

It may have many legitimate undisruptive uses, but that isn't usually the reason why something is removed as an option.


If expensive spell components are a method to prevent spamming key spells, then blood magic removes this restriction. If you are happy with the spells being spammed then you probably don't have a problem with blood magic.

Str damage for wizards is largely inconsequential and is easily healed in any event.

3/5 5/5 *

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

There are a number of unresolved rules issues with this spell, and even if you somehow ignore/resolve those, you can save quite a lot of money.

I just checked and it is entirely possible for a 7th level shaman with 11 INT and 12 CHA to take the lore hex as your wandering hex (just like the iconic shaman) to provide free restorations (removing negative levels is can be quite an advantage). Raise dead is usually out of reach for shamans in PFS play, but even that one could be significantly discounted.

While I do own the source, I wholeheartedly support the removal of this spell.

It may have many legitimate undisruptive uses, but that isn't usually the reason why something is removed as an option.

My Life Oracle can do the same thing with restoration, it's never seemed particularly broken to burn an extra spell slot (2nd level for him) to be able to mitigate drain or negative levels to me. And it's only 'free' for him if you ignore the fact I dumped 25k gold to be able to use raise dead with it, and I still spend lesser restorations to remove the ability damage, since higher level spell slots are valuable.

And honestly, I know a monk who can spend one Ki to mass restoration everyone within 30 feet for no material component. So a caster using an extra spell slot to do it for 1 person just doesn't seem like an issue to me.

Now that said, I'd be happy if they just grandfathered it so I don't have an oddly strong life oracle for no reason. The only other character I have with the spell has it for thematic reasons, but he's never cast it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Suede , ok, and how much character investment do those abilities take?

We're talking about the investment of one spell, or one wand. Its a very very low investment for the character

3/5 5/5 *

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Suede , ok, and how much character investment do those abilities take?

We're talking about the investment of one spell, or one wand. Its a very very low investment for the character

The exact same investment that a life oracle or witch would take for free restorations. An archtype selection. Except they can't eventually do it as an AoE effect to everyone nearby.

Though to get it to 1 Ki, you need to buy a ring. Which is comparable to buying a belt for strength, or putting more ability points into it at creation.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
This is similar to people who had high int and wis preparing for early entry theurge and then it was changed. Now their stats don't make sense. So a wizard getting a 14 or 16 str for this spell, now has nothing it want's that str for. And depending on what level they are, will find it easier to abandon the character than play it.

I was hit by that. A Mystic Theurge wannabe. I could have retrained the Cleric level but it was such an integral part of the character that I chose not to.

And this was with a Core character to boot.

And you know what? The character is still a very viable character. Oh, its definitely a little weaker than a pure wizard but "a little weaker than a pure wizard" is still powerful enough.

People worry far too much about making their character as powerful as possible.

Scarab Sages 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Suede , ok, and how much character investment do those abilities take?

We're talking about the investment of one spell, or one wand. Its a very very low investment for the character

You can't wand it unless you are also using a quickened spell. A wand usage of Blood money is a standard action, and the second spell must be cast on the same turn as blood money or the components are wasted.

Also, for more than one casting it requires more than one first level slot. First level slots are valuable... thus for more casting the investment is not that low at all.

Scarab Sages 2/5

The Sword wrote:

If expensive spell components are a method to prevent spamming key spells, then blood magic removes this restriction. If you are happy with the spells being spammed then you probably don't have a problem with blood magic.

Str damage for wizards is largely inconsequential and is easily healed in any event.

To be fair, you can't really 'spam' cast a spell using blood money without using separate resources to heal the str damage done. Even then, you are taking up first level slots to do so, one for each casting of a higher level spell you wish to remove the component cost to.

So, to save money, you must use extra resources that are not coin. Some of which may cost coin if you have to wand restos.

Play with the spell sometime, you'll see that it isn't really 'free' unless you only cast it once for a price of less than 500 gp. Even then, you leave yourself more vulnerable to str damage from other sources.

The spell only does something no other class can do when wish becomes relevant.

Before wish, the best use for blood money with a wizard/sorcerer is stoneskin, which means the fighter in the group may get that cast on him more often. Heart of the Metal is a worthy spell to use this strategy on as well. Which is also a party spell.(As, in PFS, the fighter can't pay a wizard for casting spells for him, thus the spell is left only for the caster to pay).

For the witch, raise dead can become 'free' at the cost of requiring restoration casts or for the adventure to be over.

For an oracle, full restos and raise dead work similar to the witch.

And, of course, don't forget... those casts may be used for the party not just for the caster. In fact, most of the best uses for blood money are for casting on other players.

Its usage with animate dead I will bring up lightly, only because animate dead is its own discussion. But, one that is not really sustainable without blood money... though I still believe it needs a 'patch' in PFS outside of casting a secondary spell.

Scarab Sages 1/5

Lormyr wrote:
Jeffrey Fox wrote:

It doesn't break the wealth per level seriously when it comes to animate dead.

In non-PFS play characters don't need to animate their minions every four-five hours or so of play time. In PFS though the minions disappear at the end of the scenario. This means that creating undead in PFS cost more and lowers the effective wealth by level of the necromancer by more than it should as compared to non-PFS Pathfinder.

Blood Money helps counter that.

In the end I'm not upset by the ban, but I'm not happy either. I feel really bad for the people I know who bought the book for Blood Money because it's not a cheap book.

I'm sad because it seems that PFS is slowly getting more restrictive as time goes by and I'm starting to hear more disappointment from my players these days.

It's starting to become more about what they can't play rather than what they can when the discussion of new books and old books comes up. It wasn't always that way though.

Thanks Jeffrey, that was very eloquently stated, and put my personal feelings into words better than I could have.

Agreed! Anytime an option that has been legal for several years, and then becomes banned, it's a very sad day.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
I am glad to see this spell gone, and was surprised it was legal for this long.

+1

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Compromise? Change it for PFS from ability damage to ability burn.

1 to 50 of 233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Reconsider the Blood Money ban. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.