Beltias Kreun

Jacob Saltband's page

2,169 posts. Organized Play character for Artglow Saltband.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Anyone know why, at the start of the D&D era, the adventuring professions were called claases?

Shadow Lodge

How about wuxia style combat in a game system.

Shadow Lodge

Pretty much the title, roommate wanted me to ask.

Shadow Lodge

Thanks for the info....is this the same group that's doing Dungeon World?

Shadow Lodge

Whats the best system to run a Post Apocalyptic Survival game?

Say a near future at start...

Or maybe a far future at start....

Also what about a fantasy post apocalyptic game, how would that work?

Shadow Lodge

BlackJack Weasel wrote:

Hi everyone, I've been wondering. does anybody here actually make 'bad gaming choices' because its beneficial for the story or maybe, its just the way you envision your character behaving.

I've seen a lot of videos and threads complaining about and or mocking bad players, or at least players making stupid decisions which results in them getting killed. but this got me thinking, is it wrong to make stupid decisions if those decisions portray a character more honestly or lead to a more interesting narrative.

I mean, you could argue that it was stupid of luke to disobey yoda and leave dagobah to confront Darth Vader. But it made the narrative the story that much better.

The other day I was watching clips from Critical Role and I was watching the bit where the character Grog, the Goliath Barbarian with an intelligence of 6 haggled up instead of down because the player thought it'd be more in character. And personally I really enjoyed watching it and I think it made for a better story despite the fact that it had a negative impact on the actual players.

All of this got me thinking, there seems to be a lot of people who think players who make bad decisions in game should be punished by the dm or the other players. but what if you want to play a rash character who leaps in and doesn't think of the consequences. should you be punished for playing a character like that?

There was no negative impact on the party as spending/losing a few thousand gold worth of creature parts (dragon teeth and vials of old dragon blood) at character lvs of 12+ isn't that much of a loss.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

And yet the majority of classics in the genre have nothing to do with Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.

Basically, your point boils down to...

"this is what I'm used to, therefore, we must use the word 'normal'"

Even if it isn't "normal" or "traditional" to someone else.

I'm very curious what "majority of classics" you think don't fit?

Can you give a few examples?

Just to see if I'm missing something or if you're using a narrower definition than I am.

Burroughs, Howard, Zelazny, Leiber, Vance, Camp, Lovecraft and Moorcock (most are listed as influences on D&D in the AD&D DMG as well). I'm not saying they're the only important authors, but rather important authors who's work doesn't fit the mold of Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.

And before someone responds "But those are science fiction", yes, they're fiction, but there really isn't any science in them, and many works are broadly accepted as being within the fantasy genre.

At least some works by most of those authors fall within the broad definition I'm using. Others wouldn't, admittedly. Not Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy, but I wouldn't limit it that far. Definitely within the TVTropes "Medieval European Fantasy" bit quoted earlier.

Not Barsoom - no real magic, too many tech type toys and explicitly set on another real planet.
Conan, definitely.
Zelazny's very broad. Having written everything from pretty hard SF to fantasy. Most of his stuff doesn't qualify, in my mind.
Leiber, yes.
Vance, I think, though I haven't read much in a very long time.
deCamp, certainly. The Incompleat Enchanter stuff takes place in worlds of European legend.
Lovecraft is mostly horror. Even the more fantasy Dreamlands stuff isn't much like anything I've ever seen in a D&D game.
Moorcock is another very broad author, but much of the Eternal Champion stuff would qualify. Elric, especially.

What about Edding or Feist?

Shadow Lodge

137ben wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
(everyone else is dead and he needs help so he training the int 4 surviving person. Collages would be close to the same thing.

That right there is the reason not to make minimum stat requirements a default part of the core rules. The rules aren't just for your campaign, they're for all campaigns, ever, about all characters in all worlds, including the example you just gave.

Most of the time you won't have a wizard with low intelligence. That is enforced in the rules my making lots of wizard abilities dependent on intelligence. In rare circumstances, you might want a wizard with a low intelligence, and that's why the rules allow for that possibility. There aren't explicit minimum stats for classes because
a)In almost all circumstances, those minimums would be followed whether they are listed or not, so most of the time they would just be a waste of ink
b)In rare circumstances there could be a reason to have a character with an unusually low ability score for a class, and having minimums in that case would be harmful to the game.

You could just as easily remove the minimums for extreme cases instead of not having them at all.

Its probably just theory crafting but I'm see alot of characters posted that dont come close to following the unlisted minimums. One example was 4 int 20 wis wizard.

Shadow Lodge

Why do you think there aren't any stat minimums in 5e? Why do you think this is a good/bad thing?

Personally I think its not a good thing mainly because it doesn't make since to me. Lets take wizard for example. I don't think any master would take on an apprentice who doesn't have the potential to be at least as good as he is, there are exceptions of course but (my opinion) extremely rare (everyone else is dead and he needs help so he training the int 4 surviving person. Collages would be close to the same thing.

The wizard example would work for most classes I think.

At least this is my opinion on why I think no minimums is not good.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Multiple Ability Checks"

'Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so: the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating a check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again.'

Shadow Lodge

Thanks but all that thread talks about is who should be cast. I'm more interested in the story that going to told, the story can make or break a movie even if they cast a good actor.

Shadow Lodge

Thoughts?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what is Role Assumption and how is different from Role Playing?

Shadow Lodge

Now I had a question on this and was hoping that the learned and experienced people of this forum could help.

Quote:

"Realms of role playing

Let’s start pushing the pendulum the other way
by Gary Gygax, 1985

There was a long period of time when action, rather than role playing, was the major focus of gaming, and this was especially true with respect to tournament scenarios at conventions. Thus, an AD&D® game scenario would typically stress combat with monsters to achieve the goal set before the characters. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way much emphasis is being placed on how well the player takes on the role of his or her character. Personification and acting are replacing action of the more direct and forceful type be it sword swinging, spell casting, or anything else. Before this trend goes too far, it is time to consider what the typical role-playing game is all about.

First, it is important to remember that ‘role-playing' is a modifier of the noun game. We are dealing with a game which is based on role playing, but it is first and foremost a game. Games are not plays, although role-playing games should have some of the theatre included in their play. To put undue stress upon mere role-playing places the cart before the horse. Role playing is a necessary part of the game, but it is by no means the whole of the matter.

Role playing is similar to, but not the same as, role assumption. The latter term is generally used to identify the individual’s acceptance of a part which he or she could actually perform. While a child might play the role of a parent, an adult would assume that role when dealing with his or her children. This distinction is important in the context of gaming because of the stress now being placed upon role playing. Too much emphasis in this direction tends to make playing out an adventure more of a children’s let’s pretend activity than an action-packed game which involves all sorts of fun, including the playing of a role but other fun aspects as well.

A role-playing game should be such that players begin the personification portion as role play, and then as they progress the activity should evolve into something akin to role assumption. This does away with stilted attempts to act the part of some character. In place of this, players should try to become that person they are imagining during the course of the game, and conduct the actions of their characters accordingly. A spy, for example, speaks in one way to his superiors, in another way when he converses with his equals, and in yet an entirely different way when he is attempting to penetrate an enemy installation and is impersonating a plumber, perhaps. Implemented in this fashion, the concept becomes one of roles within roles.

This applies to all role-playing games, of course. Straining to play a role is certainly contrary to the purpose of the game. The actual reason for gaming is fun, not instruction in theatrics or training in the thespian art. Role playing is certainly a necessary and desirable part of the whole game, but it is a part. Challenge, excitement, suspense, and questing are other portions equally necessary to a game of this nature.

Problem solving is the typical challenge in a role-playing game. Whether it is discovering a murderer, finding a magic sword, or seeking to expose a gang of criminals, this element is an integral part of such interactive gaming. And ‘note that problem solving, in this context, has to do with a problem to be solved by the character, not a problem (such as How do I role-play this situation?) to be solved by the player.

Combat, survival amidst threatening conditions, or stalking an opponent are typical means of adding excitement and suspense into the whole. These are action oriented portions of the game activity which call for little role playing but a fair amount of role assumption. The magic-user character (and thus, the player of that character) must know his or her spells and how to utilize them efficiently. The explorer must know outdoor craft. Whatever the situation, setting, or character being played, skill not theatrics is what is called for here.

Having a goal, understanding it, and remaining steadfast in its completion are likewise necessary to role-playing games. This questing, if you will, again has little or nothing to do with role playing in the acting sense. It is closer to role assumption and is a measure of gaming ability and skill.

Role-playing games are different from other games in that they allow participants to create a game persona, develop this character, and enhance his or her skills and abilities. While some considerable amount of acting is most beneficial to play, this is by no means the sole objective or purpose. The fun of such gaming includes all the other elements mentioned, plus the interactive relationships which develop between the various characters of the players participating. In the well-balanced game, role playing should quickly become role assumption, which then again leads to character role playing roles within roles!

Not every game of this sort must be completely balanced with regard to all of these aspects. Such a decision is entirely in the hands of the game master and the players. If a particular group desires to stress acting, or combat, or problem solving, or any other singular feature of the whole, that is strictly up to the individuals concerned. How they enjoy gaming, and what constitutes fun, is theirs alone to decide.

This last point extends not only to players but to products as well. A particular game might be designed to stress one aspect over others. Role playing can be the major thrust, or action and combat, or any of the other elements. Similarly, the underlying game might offer one or another while its accessories and scenarios develop some different aspects. Most games and support material are general and offer a reasonably well-balanced mix.

But is this true for competition situations as well? In contrast to a long period when such tournaments tended to feature hack-and-slash, shoot-‘em-up, and blast-‘em-out situations, there is now a trend toward downplaying everything except the theatrical side of gaming. This tendency has evidenced itself to a lesser extent in some support materials, it must be noted. The reaction is not altogether unwarranted, for many particpants seem to have been ignoring role playing completely, or nearly so, in their games. Instead, it is usual for such games to stress direct, usually violent, action. This is a true detriment to fully appreciating the scope of role-playing games; as with most things, one extreme is just as undesirable as the other.

The current vogue of placing seemingly undue importance on the role-playing portion of the game is simply meant to inform and educate participants about a very important segment of what differentiates these games from other types of games. It is to be hoped that the needed training thus afforded will enable game participants to go beyond role playing of their characters and enter into role assumption instead. Once it is understood that role playing is a vital ingredient of the game, and players understand how to actually accomplish it, the undue attention can be discarded.

Balanced games are certainly the most enjoyable sort for the great majority of players. A meal does not consist of but one thing if it is to be an enjoyable one. By the same token, a role-playing game must have all the ingredients which allow it to be varied and enjoyable. Playing and assumption of roles, interpersonal dealings, action, problem solving, excitement, suspense, and questing are all important to make the whole. The portions can be mixed in different amounts, but each should have a degree of existence within the scope of the whole.

It is common for scenarios to identify the level of experience and skill recommended for those utilizing the material they provide. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to also identify any particular stress the scenario places upon a certain aspect of the game activity role-playing, action, problem solving, or any other.

Tournament scenarios and competitions might also benefit by such identification. Prospective entrants would then be able to determine which aspect they favor, or possibly need to learn more of, before they entered the event. Participants who find their enjoyment lies in one area or another would thus be able to select events optimal for their tastes and avoid those which they might find less fun making the competition experience more enjoyable for everyone who does take part. Is the player who has difficulty personifying a well-understood character any different from an excellent thespian who misplays the game otherwise? By being able to identify the focus of a scenario, not only would players be informed, but they would also be given the opportunity to round out their abilities in weak areas if they chose to do so.

Play of the game is the thing. Play includes development of the character and personification thereof, role assumption and role playing, and the rest. After all, fantasy in whatever form is integral. Whether fighting a dragon, piloting a starship, or shooting it out with evil enemy agents, the action imagined during the game is what really makes it fun. The pendulum did need to move a bit to balance things, but it must not go too far, or the realms of role playing will become small and constricted instead of being as they should be as broad and varied as the imagination."

What is role assumption and how is it different from role play?

Also wanted to see what peoples opinions on this article were.

Shadow Lodge

So in 5e medicine is a wis based skill. Did the WoTC developers feel that medicine was more about intuition and insight then about learning?

Shadow Lodge

Tormsskull wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Not really, armor isn't the only thing protecting a character. People also block incoming attacks - and a more powerful attack is harder to block or may still cause injury even if partly blocked.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The truth is, as you say below, that the combat system is abstract. So strength granting a bonus to accuracy can make sense with that understanding.

If that weren't the case, then the argument that "strength allows you to penetrate armor and thus strike the individual wearing the armor" wouldn't always apply, and as such the strength bonus to accuracy wouldn't always apply.

This is in a thread questioning Dex to damage. Obviously some people are cool with it, some people think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, etc. But if we're going to casually examine how Dex could be applied to damage or if it makes sense, I think its fair to question the concept of strength to accuracy.

I agree, dex should have been to hit and str should have been to damage, but we're stuck with what we've been give for the last 30ish years.

For me dex to damage doesn't make sense from the precision aspect as we already have that to explain why thieves get extra damage when they sneak attack.

I'm fine with using dex to damage in our 5e game but it just doesn't make all that much sense to me.

Shadow Lodge

Why does dex to damage make sence to you?

Or why does it NOT make sence?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why not go online and download some 1e or 2e modules? Their available for free from some websites. Your pkayer wants 'classic' and there few things more 'classic' then early DnD modules.

Shadow Lodge

I though the Daredevil tie-in was done well.

Edit: Maybe tie-in is bit strong of a word.

Shadow Lodge

Tels wrote:

*reads*

Oh look, nothing people haven't already said and been refuted.

Refuted?? Where are these refuting post?

Shadow Lodge

I'll check them out thanks!

Shadow Lodge

Is there a 5e message board somewhere that is as good as Paizo's pathfinder message boards?

Shadow Lodge

Thanks for the info. Still new to the way skills work in 5e.

Shadow Lodge

Thanks for the info.

Shadow Lodge

It says 'regains additional hit points equal to 2+ the spells level.'

Is it talking about the spells actual level or the spell slot used?

Cure wounds is 1st, prayer of healing is 2nd, mass cure wounds is 3rd, etc or cure wounds cast at 3rd lv?

Is what I'm asking clear enough or should I explain more?

Shadow Lodge

What skill/ability score governs riding mounts?

Shadow Lodge

Damon Griffin wrote:

Registering my guess, with no supporting evidence, regarding Hank Henshaw:

Some people have speculated Henshaw may be the Martian Manhunter, on the strength of nothing more than a flash of red eyes and a comment that he "used to" have a family.

In the comics, Hank Henshaw became the Cyborg Superman after his human body was disintegrated by radiation; he beamed his mind into the birthing matrix that carried Superman from Krypton to Earth as an infant and constructed a cyborg body in the image of Superman. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Kara's ship, which we know the DEO has on hand, was at some point involved in transforming Director Henshaw into a not-fully-human form.

So in the comics was Henshaw a telepath? That was the impression I got from the lastest episode.

Shadow Lodge

Not knowing very much of DC superman/girl stuff, the red eyes of hank made me think of martian manhunter.

Shadow Lodge

How do you handle creature identification/knowledge?

Shadow Lodge

How did you decide masterwork/superior quality items worked in your game? If you even decided to add this.

Shadow Lodge

If you look at the full casters, which is who I was talking about, its 2 wis, 1 int, 3 cha.

Shadow Lodge

I was justing wondering why 5e decided to with 3 CHA casters over a 2/2/2 split....

Shadow Lodge

Ok I didnt remember the 5e version very well, it used to be a very well camouflaged hut.

Shadow Lodge

Then why is Tiny Hut spell a ritual spell? Sure its not an extra dimensional space but its pretty well hidden.

Shadow Lodge

Wonder why Rope Trick spell doesnt have the ritual tag? Seems to me to be a good spell for ritual...

Shadow Lodge

Turin the Mad wrote:

"Dances with Earth Breaker" of the Shoanti highlands

NG Shoanti human Universalist Wizard 4th, 20 point buy for ability scores.

AC: 12, 11 flat-footed; touch AC 11, 10 flat-footed
hp: 30 (18 from 4d6 class HD +4 Con +4 favored class +4 fast learner) (assumes PFS standard of 4 hp/HD after 1st)

Fort +2, Reflex +2, Will +4

14 Str (+6 bonus on checks to break or lift objects), 13 Dex, 12 Con, 19 Int, 10 Wis, 10 Cha.
Light Load: 58 lbs. Favored Class: Wizard (bonus assigned to hp)

Traits: Highlander, Shoanti Tattoo

Feats: Fast Learner (human bonus), Scribe Scroll (Wizard 1st), Knowledge is Power (arcane discovery) (1st), Point-Blank Shot (3rd).
Proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, earth breaker, heavy crossbow, klar, light crossbow, quarterstaff and Shoanti bola.

Languages Known: Common (Taldane), Varisian (native); Draconic, Gnoll, Necril, Thassilonian (bonus from Int); Goblin, Celestial, Giant, Terran (from 4 ranks' Linguistics, listed in order of acquisition)

Hand of the Apprentice (su): 7/day, 30' range, see gear.

Spells Preparable (prepared spells to be decided by the actual player)


  • 2nd Level (DC 16): 3/day 2 base +1 from Int - recommended are bear's endurance, bull's strength and either false life or mirror image
  • 1st Level (DC 15): 4/day 3 base +1 from Int - recommended are grease, mage armor (2) and either protection from evil or shield.
  • Prepared Cantrips (DC 14): 4: dancing lights, daze, detect magic, disrupt undead

Spellbook (Wizard's)


  • 2nd Level bear's endurance, bull's strength, false life, summon monster 2 2 each for free from 3rd and 4th level for a total of 4.
  • 1st Level feather fall, grease,
...

Did you remember the stat at 4th level? Didnt see it listed, make int 20 for an extra 1st lv spell slot

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

At least to me this was unclear....

The 2nd paragraph said it was to the GM as to how long training took and how much it cost.

But the 3rd paragraph stated it took 250 days and 1gp per day.

Maybe I missed something....?

Ok I think I got it. The 2nd paragraph talks about finding a teacher which means training always takes 2/3 of normal year.

Shadow Lodge

At least to me this was unclear....

The 2nd paragraph said it was to the GM as to how long training took and how much it cost.

But the 3rd paragraph stated it took 250 days and 1gp per day.

Maybe I missed something....?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry forgot to specify 5e.

So there isnt a 'caster level' in 5e? Ok cool that makes it easier.

Shadow Lodge

As I understand it, caster level is equal to character level. Is there ant exception to this ruling?

Shadow Lodge

A feat I like to use is Felling Smash from Ultimate Combat.

Shadow Lodge

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Right but the poor wording is:

Kalshane wrote:
"Once you gain a domain spell,"
which leaves open the question of, "what about the other spell?" They could have said "Once you gain the domain spells for that level," which would have been clearer.

Yes, this is why I asked, to see how others read it and if anyone else saw that it was somewhat unclear.

Thsnks all for the responses.

Shadow Lodge

Thanks for the info.

Shadow Lodge

Do you gain both domain spells when reach the level for those spells or do you need to choose one of the two spell available?

Shadow Lodge

TarkXT wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

Alrighty because my brain is in that mode right now. Let's show you my arcane might.

Like, the conjurer is funny. But it's not funny.

Like here's a stat line for you.

Half Orc
Str:19
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:14
Wis: 7
Cha: 7

Hilarious right?

So we get oen feat.

Ima take Improved Initiative because I can.

Than I'm going to take Compy familiar because I can.

So a +10 to initiative without even trying very hard.. I can hit +12 or even +14 easily.

But what school?

Enhancement is funny because I could enhance myself and force the fighter to run into my lognspear.

But, I'm feeling hilarious and grabbing Transmutation because 20 strength for free is too amusing to go without.

Okay then so we go with Protector archetype on familiar.
as for the rest? Eh, I don't care anymore at this point.If the fighter is an archer I can vanish and run right up to him and sunder his bow outside of his reach. If not I can take my time and get my ac up to 22, get 15 foot reach. Whatever floats my boat.

Point being is this kind of thing is always incredibly silly.

This guy could buy or conjure a mount, a lance, and just run over the fighter probably.

Just curious, where do you get the proficiency for the longspear or lance?

A trait?

Hey look, an actual problem with the build. :P

Figured wizards had simple weapons, you know, because just about everyone else does.

Makes little difference really since he's a half orc and jsut get a falchion.

Lance proficiency is a feat away or maybe a trait if I dig deep enough.

Matters little really,. it's a joke build to play wiht a joke point. PvP scenarios like this are virtually useless in a balance discussion as the game is not balanced for 1 on 1 combat in that fashion.

True.

An asside, Heirloom Weapon trait could get you the prof. you'd need.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:

So we've seen a lot of talk concerning the conversion of adventure paths, but not as much about the appropriation of modules.

I recently ran the Retribution adventure by Raging Swan, and thoroughly enjoyed it, leaving me to wonder what other modules might be good to convert.

I've been eying some of the older modules as well, and I imagine them to be even easier to convert than newer products, especially in paring down treasures. What do you all think? Any experiences with classic modules?

Bump, sounds like stuff I be interested in.

Shadow Lodge

TarkXT wrote:

Alrighty because my brain is in that mode right now. Let's show you my arcane might.

Like, the conjurer is funny. But it's not funny.

Like here's a stat line for you.

Half Orc
Str:19
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:14
Wis: 7
Cha: 7

Hilarious right?

So we get oen feat.

Ima take Improved Initiative because I can.

Than I'm going to take Compy familiar because I can.

So a +10 to initiative without even trying very hard.. I can hit +12 or even +14 easily.

But what school?

Enhancement is funny because I could enhance myself and force the fighter to run into my lognspear.

But, I'm feeling hilarious and grabbing Transmutation because 20 strength for free is too amusing to go without.

Okay then so we go with Protector archetype on familiar.
as for the rest? Eh, I don't care anymore at this point.If the fighter is an archer I can vanish and run right up to him and sunder his bow outside of his reach. If not I can take my time and get my ac up to 22, get 15 foot reach. Whatever floats my boat.

Point being is this kind of thing is always incredibly silly.

This guy could buy or conjure a mount, a lance, and just run over the fighter probably.

Just curious, where do you get the proficiency for the longspear or lance?

A trait?

Shadow Lodge

'Magical creature' seem very broad to me, so a 'magical race' would fit easily but check with your GM.

Shadow Lodge

In the games I played in, temples had a least a few scrools and potions for sell. Usually the high priest ensured these were available so he had the gold to gild his blessed golf clubs.

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So you're 'not playing in the world series' is just you telling people their not playing a high power level game because theres a rogue in their game.

More or less correct. I use Age of Worms as an example for a reason. It's an AP written for 4 PCs in which many encounters, if played to their potential, are more or less guaranteed TPKs unless every one of the four is fully optimized AND the party cooperative tactics are flawless. There's no wiggle room at all in some of those encounters. Much like, to win the World Series, you can't be giving away runs all season.

Most people don't want to play like that all the time. I enjoy it on occasion, but occasionally I need a break from it, too. That's why I mentioned that I enjoyed Little League -- there was plenty of room for error there, which allowed us to learn and grow.

I like the whole spectrum of gaming.

I quibble with the rogue because it supports only one end of that spectrum.

Ok I agree with what your for the most part. Probably, I havent encounter the problem some have with the rogue, because I havent been in groups that were considered high powered.

1 to 50 of 2,169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>