Silver Dragon

Draco18s's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 1,568 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,568 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Charlesfire wrote:
So what happens if you kill the target with a reaction while the target is casting a spell? Does it prevent the spell from being cast?
Core 462 wrote:

Disrupting Actions

Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of
Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action
is disrupted
, you still use the actions or reactions you
committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s
effects don’t occur
. In the case of an activity, you usually
lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of
that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity
requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you
lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes
beyond simply negating the effects that would have
occurred from the disrupted action

Arguably no, if you kill a spellcaster when they provoke when casting, the spell does not go off.

lemeres wrote:

Because I read very, very weird things, I read a fantasy setting that touched on this issue. Under this explanation, bird creatures would keep even unfertilized eggs and use normal nesting behavior. This is because it tricks their biological clock.

When you take away the egg, their body panics ('something ate my babies, I need to make new babies'; one type of 'selective pressure' mentioned before) and goes straight back into egg laying mode. But sitting on the egg makes the body think it is in caretaker mode, and as such it will put off egg laying for several extra months.

Yep. And there's a species of songbird (I can't recall which one) that will lay eggs until it has 8 in the nest. Because of the one-egg-a-day production time, researchers actually tested to see how long the bird would keep laying eggs if they kept removing one.

It went on for some time, but I don't recall how long.

What stops you from ending your turn and using the free action on someone else's turn? That quote says that it goes away at the start of your turn but if you spend all three actions, then go "my turns over" and then on the next player's turn you activate Bespell Weapon, which lasts "Until the end of your turn"...

Lady Melo wrote:
they ended there last turn

"Their" The word you are looking for there is "their."

They're there. Their heir.

Edge93 wrote:
As a general rule a "last action you took" thing has to be on the same turn. Otherwise you could Cheese Metamagic in a similar way too.

I can't find this. Activities which take multiple actions are specifically called out as needing to all be done on one turn (461). Metamagic specifically calls out that it has to be directly before the "cast a spell."

I cannot find any reference to "the last action you took" as a defined term (or what distinguishes it from "your most recent action").

Crexis wrote:
For electric arc, the save is a reflex. Does that mean if they make the save no dmg taken, if they fail its damage as usual and if i Crit its double damage?

It uses a basic save. Success is half damage. No damage is a critical success.

At level 1 I got 18 wis (+4) mod and I'm trained in spell attacks/spell DC's. What does the enemy have to roll to succeed reflex save? 10 + 4 + 2 = 16 before any of his mods? Is that right?

Trained is "level +2" so it's 10+4+3=17

These look fantastic.

I'd really like to see a set done for kobolds at some point at this level of detail and care. There's a real lack of decent entries in the adorable lizard in miniature category.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
There's still the issue of being 14 inches long. The 11 inch circumference would be about 3 and a half inches in diameter. 14 by 3 is a really weird elongated shape. I suppose the 14 inches could also be circumference along the other axis, then it's be about 4.5" by 3.5" which is smaller than the ostrich (5.9" by 5.1"). That seems a bit too small. I'm thinking that maybe 7" by 6" might be the most reasonable numbers.

I think the length (16, not 14) was decided as a multiple factor of the diameter. If we take the original number of 11 inches and pull the excess pi back out and get that 3.5" then multiply by ~1.5 (11 * 1.45 = 16) we get 5", which is pretty reasonable.

JohannVonUlm wrote:
Thank you for this topic. It made me smile.

I know waaaaay too much about birds.

I am not sorry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
In practice a nat 20 is a success. For it not to be you would have to critically fail on a nat 20, because a nat 20 boosts the success category by 1 step.
Not quite. If your nat 20 would be a critical failure, you would improve it one step to a failure. If your nat 20 were a simple failure, it would improve one step to a simple success. Only if your nat 20 would be a success is it improved one step to a critical success.

...That's what he said.

thorin001 wrote:
For it not to be [a success] you would have to critically fail on a nat 20
Wheldrake wrote:
If your nat 20 would be a critical failure, you would improve it one step to a failure.

The 1 comes first. Without taking the 1 into account you don't know what your success/failure is. If you add it to the +14 to get 15 you ALREADY have a crit-fail as the 1 resolves.

(Then you compare to the DC (succeeded anyway, only a regular fail), then your feat kicks in)

Xenocrat wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Naw, you do that on the previous round. :P
Yes, after seeing three of your buddies who just hit the dragon get obliterated by a breath weapon. Did he roll a 1 or 2 on his d4? Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?

I'm poking fun at the whole notion of rounds, hush!

Everyone is pulling the scroll as their third action (got to spend a few actions moving into position afterall) and then on the next round reading it.

Xenocrat wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

*Nasally voice* Um actually, the trick magic item users can only shoot two missiles at a time because the feat takes an action to use. */Nasally voice*

Real talk though, I don't have anything to add. This is just funny. PEW PEW MOTHER-

Damn it, I thought people were going to call me out on the action to draw your scrolls!

Naw, you do that on the previous round. :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
they can really entrap enemies in nasty catch-22s.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Most birds don't lay unfertilised eggs. Chickens are an exception
That’s not quite true; while it is relatively rare for wild birds to lay unfertilized eggs, the only reason they don’t do so is because they’re reliably getting their eggs fertilized in the wild. On the rare occasion that a wild female bird isn’t successfully fertilized during its mating season, it will still lay the egg, and even attempt to incubate it.

That's not wholly true either. There are species of birds that don't lay eggs except after a successful mating. I'm blanking on an example at the moment, closest I can come up with in <5 minutes is the snowy owl, which lays more eggs depending on how many lemmings her mate brings her during the courting period (an example that has a seemingly odd correlation).

The gryphons of the series of books The Black Gryphon had weird biological quirks like that baked in because their wizard creator wanted to insure that the only gryphons that would have kids would be the ones that were going to be decent parents. Quirks inspired by real birds (because Weis did her research).

Essentially its just a matter of the right "triggers" arising due to selection pressures.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Ah! I bet that's where the error was. It should be 11 inches in circumference, not diameter. That makes a lot more sense to me.

That would make a lot more sense. It would still be impressively large but at least on the not-immersion-breaking end of the spectrum.

As an aside, the shell takes time to form. Chickens lay one egg about every 24 hours (plus or minus an hour) of which the egg spends 20 hours in the shell gland getting its nice pearly white outer surface (20 -> 44 hours is roughly double for an increased thickness on the order of 10x).

Chicken shells are also not very thick. Ostrich eggs are about 2 millimeters thick and cursory research shows that ostriches lay one egg every other day (during breeding season, chickens are weird in that they lay all year round, thanks humans!) so it spends quite a bit more time getting its shell, though it appears that the process is occurring more rapidly in the ostrich (probably accounts for the less-smooth surface?).

Chicken eggs hatch in about 21 days and ostriches in 42.

So 4 months for tengu is not [i]unreasonable[/u], only two and a half times longer than an ostrich for an egg of comparable size (if we go by adjusted numbers regarding s/diameter/circumference), which kind of makes sense as tengu are going to be less vulnerable to predation during the gestation period (all that "culture" and "society" junk).

Just to throw some numbers out there.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Human babies are also much softer and squishy when new born, as opposed to eggs with their hard shells.
Aren't eggs, when first laid, quite malleable?

Reptile eggs, yes. Because they don't have a shell. The outer surface is a modified cell membrane.

Bird eggs, no. Because that hard bit on the outside that makes it so difficult to make omelets in the morning comes out of the bird already rigid. The cell membrane in bird eggs is the thin skin layer just under the shell that makes it easy to peel when hard boiled.

I (my mother) owned chickens for a couple years.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I got pointed at this bit of the Bestiary:

Tengus reproduce by laying eggs: the average tengu egg is about 11 inches in diameter and 16 inches tall and takes 4 months to hatch.

Yes, that's what it actually says.

Christ that's massive.

REALLY REALLY MASSIVE. Dear god, one would feed like twelve people if you made it into omelets.

Tengu aren't ravens, they're kiwi birds. I feel for their fragile bird pelvises.


Leotamer wrote:
But I would like a summoner path which allowed you to have an equine eidolon focused around riding. If I played a mounted character, I would like the option of riding around on a nightmare. (Pegasuses are also cool, but probably will be level-locked.)

I give you Vdri Vhir wer Inik who is definitely a Real Dragon.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
But with that as well, wouldn't that be +5d4 added, since the cantrip has a base of 1d4 and is basically spell level 0?

No, because its only heightened +4. Cantrips are always "whatever spell level you can cast" and the lowest you can cast is 1. So 1: what's listed. 2: 1[+1]

I made a post during the playtest at some point about flying speeds, but I can't find it now.

The slowest non-hovering fly speed of any actual bird is 5 mph (during courtship displays) which is a little over 7 feet per second. This is a reasonable baseline for non-magical flight.

As rounds are 6 seconds long, that translates to 45 feet per round.

A fly speed of 15 feet is ridiculously slow. Yes the 3 action system means you can spend up to 3 actions flying (and reach that 45 foot 5 mph speed), but it means you can do literally nothing else in order to be as fast as American woodcock when it's trying to impress a mate with its ability to not fall out of the air.

If you only spend 1 action on moving you are just barely out-pacing a mosquito, the slowest flying insect, at 1.5 mph.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
I honestly don’t know how to respond to your post. The chained summoner had fully customizable Eidolons. The unchained summoner does not, although it is still greatly customizable.

Boo hoo?

I have an unchained summoner and I did, in fact, solo a fight that was wrecking the rest of the party (well up until an invisible wizard showed up and cast Fear and I failed both will saves, but absent that I absolutely was ruining the undead who couldn't hit me (er hit the eidolon) and I (the eidolon) could kill in one or two hits. The entire rest of the party combined couldn't match that). Post-failed-save meant that I retreated into a corner on the ceiling and the wizard and their undead left me alone (1. the wizard couldn't see me and 2. the zombies couldn't fly).

Yes, an UNCHAINED summoner did that. I didn't even optimize. I had a theme, I went with the theme, I stuck to the theme, and thus 'behind the curve' a little bit and still dominated the fight.

People say that the chained summoner is "better" and while that's true, the unchained summoner is no slouch.

Edit: or they might decide they can do it better in PF2, and open the floodgates again. No one knows, probably not even the devs at this point.

Therin lies my point. The fact that "the chained summoner might be dead" does not equate to "the summoner is dead."

Frogliacci wrote:

Considering how Summoner had no class features other than Eidolon and SLA summons, I'm almost certain that evolutions would be summoner feats rather than part of the Eidolon's build.

Spontaneous summoning would probably work like the cleric's extra heal or harm. You gain additional spell slots at the highest level equal to 1 + Charisma (or another ability score, since Summoners are Charisma casters) to cast summoning spells.

And I think this would be interesting to see. It definitely fits into the mold that PF2 has struck, and it might actually work well.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Frogliacci wrote:
But having a fully customizable outsider best friend won't be supported by rules for a long time.
If ever. They seem to greatly prefer the unchained summoner, after all.

I don't know what unchained has to do with "PF2 will never see them."

shroudb wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Definitely seems like Deadly is better than Fatal then. You might not increase the base die with Deadly, but the extra damage improves as the number of damage dice improve from Striking runes. Fatal has no such increase.
fatal gets a much bigger boost from striking runes, since it modifies your base die

You get more benefit from deadly until you're fighting things more than 2 levels lower than yourself (when you start critting more often).

I did the math back during the playtest.

Fatal is a better trait, but you're taking a die size or two of lower base damage rating to have it.

20 people marked this as a favorite.

I do agree that the lack of a general feat for weapon/armor proficiency greater than Trained is a problem (if being "almost as good" as a fighter is fine for levels 1-6, why is it suddenly not-fine after that?)

But I don't see that as a player agency problem. Player Agency has literally zero foxes to give about how you stat-build a character. The two aren't even on the same planet, much less intimately involved with each other.


What is Agency?

I personally define agency by three criteria:

1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.
2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

Notice how literally zero of those bullet points relate to class features, feat choices, race, attributes, or any other statistic.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Fatal: The fatal trait includes a die size. On a critical

hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size
instead of the normal die size
, and the weapon adds one
additional damage die of the listed size.

The bolded part here doesn't matter with regards to the question. If you had 2d6, they're now 2d8 (then double them).


Fatal: The fatal trait includes a die size. On a critical

hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size
instead of the normal die size, and the weapon adds one
additional damage die of the listed size

This is the part we have to figure out.


Deadly: On a critical hit, the weapon adds a weapon

damage die of the listed size. Roll this after doubling the
weapon’s damage.

Definitely do not double that die, pretty clear.

Now then, general rules.


Doubling and Halving Damage

Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of
damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a
critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save
against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage
normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses,
and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as
appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). The GM
might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the
modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling
the entire result, but this usually works best for singletarget attacks or spells at low levels when you have a
small number of damage dice to roll. Benefits you gain
specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon
rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die
from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled.

No, you do not double the bonus die from Fatal.


or the extra damage die

from the fatal weapon trait

Page 451.

lordcirth wrote:
The problem is that focus spells are weaker than normal spells, so it would immediately become optimal for wizards to get a powerful wand and sink all their focus into using it.

What about instead of "get a second use, no explody" it was a +5 on the roll and/or if you fail the check the wand becomes "broken" instead of "destroyed" (stipulation that it can't be used again for 48 hours even if repaired)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
with Undead being my favorite example as they tend to have solid Will saves for literally no obvious reason, just as a quirk of the way they're designed.

Well, for one, the mindless ones...

They have no minds!
Its kind of hard to tamper with a thing's mind when it doesn't have one.

The intelligent undead? Their mind is all they have.

Zapp wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I liked Shadowrun's version a bit better. You could "spend" or "burn" an edge point. Burning meant you could never gain that point back, unless you spent character resources (Karma) to do so, but could avoid dying.
Yeah, you totally want to separate the "reroll" ability from the "not dying" ability, since the latter is so phenomenally more valuable than the former.

Indeed, which is why I thought the playtest's costs were backwards. No one would ever spend all three points on an extra action instead of not-dying three times. Or two to reroll a failed save (if you still fail you get a point back, woo! You can now spend it to not die, what).

The brilliance behind Shadowrun's Edge is that if you burnt a point to avoid dying (which you can do even if you have spent all your edge; basically "current vs. maximum"), it meant that your regular usage also suffered. For those unfamiliar with the system, SR runs on a "take a fistful of d6s based on your attribute+skill and roll them, count all the 5s and 6s, compare that to a threshold."

- If you spent a point of edge before you rolled you got two effects: (1) you added your Edge to the fistful of dice and (2) you would explode 6s (they counted, then you rerolled them, repeat until no 6s remain).
- If you spent a point after you would pick up the 1-4s and reroll those.

You could do this as long as you had points of Edge remaining (typically refreshing between missions/during downtime, which in the official games was no more than one mission a week). But notice how crazy awesome spending edge is before you roll dice: You added your Edge dice to the dice pool. An Edge of 6 was six extra dice six times. Having to burn edge and not-die you drop down to 5 meant only five dice five times.

And the karma cost to get that point back...hoo boy, it was expensive. [new rating] * 5.

Just to understand how much 30 Karma is, the first mission my group did last week (it took us 2 actual sessions) rewarded us with three karma. Getting more than about 8 for a single mission is rare.

Most characters tended to run 3-5 Edge, getting more costs too much at chargen and having less than 3 was dangerous (if you did though, pretty much the only thing you used it for was to not-die and you'd just buy it back for 5 karma).

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Even Shadowrun and other games where the players actually are purely mercenary usually have some reward other than cash that has meaning.

Oh people have done the math. Its more efficient to steal cars than it is to go running. People don't because its boring.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Yes, compared to a Bard, an Alchemist doesn't buff as much. But the Bard uses one action per round to get his buff, while the Alchemist uses half a reagent per target beforehand.

...and the target spends an action to get the benefit (probably two, since they have to retrieve the item from their belt).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mad Beetle wrote:
I propose to remove this paragraph in my home games, there is no way in heaven that a 850 kilo young dragon wont be hurt from falling 300ft in pretty much an instant after being hit by an exploding super-glue bomb.

Because it didn't magically snap their wings shut.

TheFinish wrote:
Not sure if this happens anywhere though. If it does, it's something to mark.

Its called "Basis Save." Its on page 449.

Oh hey, Power Attack is lower than SSS pretty much across the board.

Is this supposed to say adjust temperatures up?

No, you adjust the temperature numbers listed in the table downwards.

For example:

Mild heat 95º F* to 104º F*

If there is humidity, then "mild heat" is in the range of 80-90. The-actual-temperature-that-it-is is still 100, but has moved from Mild Heat to Severe Heat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
The hard cap at 4 creatures does also penalize larger than usual parties as well as anyone with familiars and animal companions. Also causes problems for transporting rescued NPCs and the like.

Thoughts: rephrase "max 4" to "whatever your typical table size is because things are supposed to be balanced at 4 players, if you have five, whatever just go with it" and "animal companion and familiars come along free free."

Considering that there exists a cleric feat that lets you go "lol, my armor/weapon is a holy symbol now because I drew on it, so I don't need a real one" I'm going to go with "no you can't do that."

shroudb wrote:
well, for sure you'd have to reduce DCs, Acs and Saves by 2 as well.

And monster rolls of all kinds.

Lost In Limbo wrote:

I just wanted to note with these two spells that "until your next daily preparation" is even better than you're implying.

Core Rulebook 305 wrote:
If a spell’s duration says it lasts until your next daily preparations, on the next day you can refrain from preparing a new spell in that spell’s slot. (If you are a spontaneous caster, you can instead expend a spell slot during your preparations.) Doing so extends the spell’s duration until your next daily preparations. This effectively Sustains the Spell over a long period of time. If you prepare a new spell in the slot (or don’t expend a spell slot), the spell ends. You can’t do this if the spell didn’t come from one of your spell slots. If you are dead or otherwise incapacitated at the 24-hour mark after the time you Cast the Spell or the last time you extended its duration, the spell ends. Spells with an unlimited duration last until counteracted or Dismissed. You don’t need to keep a spell slot open for these spells.
So you only need to keep one spell slot in reserve, rather than not preparing any new spells at all.

Sure. One spell slot per active spell.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
That is a great description of how they are used, but I am trying to parse out the design reasoning.

So that they don't need:

Cleric spell list
Paladin spell list
Sorcerer spell list
Wizard spell list
Witch spell list
Bard spell list
Ranger spell list
Druid spell list
Alchemist spell list
Inquisitor spell list
Magus spell list
Summoner spell list
Bloodrager spell list
Shaman spell list
Medium spell list
Mesmerist spell list
Occultist spell list
Psychic spell list
Spiritualist spell list
Antipaladin spell list

You think I'm making this up? I am not making this up. Every single one of those classes has a unique spell list. That's gone. Everything is simpler now. Every class gets one of four themed spell lists.

Dude, the books only came out yesterday.

I think this is taking Day-1 DLC expectations too far

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
It is reasonable to think that someone might still want a hurried retreat even if someone isn't standing right over them holding a weapon on them.

Oh sure, which is why I sorta babbled a bit about potential tweaks.

I didn't expect to be so on the money about it already existing in the Bestiary though!

Rysky wrote:
Uh, Toughness and Improved Toughness got combined in Pathfinder. You get 3 HP immediately and then at 4th level and every level after you get an extra HP

Tells you how long its been since I looked at it, then, huh? :D

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

If i’m not forced to take it; combat expertise and point blank shot; I don’t see it as a tax. Skill focus shows my character set time aside to dedicate towards a skill; iron will shows they have, well, an iron will; toughness shows they can take a hit, weather through training or body build.

That’s how i always view them at least

Toughness is, by itself, frankly pointless. Yes, you get 3 more hp. But above 3rd level or so, those 3 hp vanish into irrelevance. The odds that you end up at a positive hp score below 4 is increasingly vanishingly small, but you need the feast to access other things.

I almost think you're thinking of Improved Toughness, which is 1 hp per level....and requires Toughness. Mechanical benefit? About +2 CON (less because of Fort saves) for 2 feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hurried Retreat [SINGLE ACTION] Feat 1

You can stride up to your speed plus 5 feet and gain a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against reactions triggered by this movement. You must end this movement in a space that’s not adjacent to any enemy.

Might be worth including that you have to start adjacent to an enemy, or in some way otherwise prevent people from using Expeditious Retreat as Expeditious Charge.

Not ending adjacent helps, but a second move action would result in (up to) 55 movement to get next to someone. Maybe that's fine, just a thought.

I'd also like to see some more 9th level options as the two you have are both heritage locked.

Love it though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The new heightening mechanics do way more for spontaneous casters who basically get bonus spells known from it.

Uh...not in the playtest they didn't. They explicitly did not get that (but wizards did). Did that change?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grumpus wrote:

Is there any reason they couldn't just use: "Heightened (+2) The shield's hardness increases by 5"
Seems like it would have saved space. Or am I missing a reason to list out specific levels for heightening in this case?

+5 doesn't match. The base hardness is 4. That would lead to 4, 9, 14, 19 hardness instead of the the intended 4, 10, 15, 20.

Yoshua wrote:
Need mini's for these new versions... Wide heads of these dragonlords are needed

I used these boys about a year ago. Not actually kobolds, but they're amazing (I looked at a lot of minis trying to find some good 'bolds and I'm very happy with mine).

I see things have deteriorated from "loads about 50% of the time" (pretty consistently every other page load for a forum page, not a thread) to "loads about 10% of the time."

No joke I had to load the 2nd Ed forum 15 times just now and Website Feedback about 8 before it worked.

Got a tweet reply from Paizo:

Yes, we are aware if the issue and are on working on it. We hope to fix it today. Thanks!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Real talk though, I was watching the forums pretty closely during the Playtest, especially around HoU, and I didn't see anyone making that kind of claim.

Dude. You were.

Same here. Additionally links that I've visited frequently (e.g. Chrome tells me I go to a lot) also redirect to the home page (because the link is now er, or is that (IncInc??))

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
Is that the level 9 one with the church of Desna and the waves of demons and undead? Our party survived that without any deaths, including the demilich. But we had a good party composition and lots of heals.

Yep, that one.

Party composition, (un)lucky dice rolls, and other factors all played a part in the results, but there are folks around here who use the fact that "my group beat it all" to say "the adventure wasn't that hard and the system isn't deadly" despite the fact that there's only correlation, not causation.

98% of groups died. The take away should be, "most parties can only get to wave 5" not "my group made it all the way, I don't see what the problem is."

1 to 50 of 1,568 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>