Pallid Mask

The Once and Future Kai's page

579 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 579 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The title presumes that Paizo was in "control" of the tabletop roleplaying market. That seems like a mistaken assumption. Paizo never had "control" of the TTRPG market, it was ahead in market shares because of Hasbro's corporate mismanagement of D&D. Yes, Paizo absolutely made some smart business decisions during the Fourth Edition era but they've never come close to having the financial resources of Hasbro or the brand recognition of D&D.

Lord Fyre wrote:
When D&D 5E came out in 2014, it was not an immediate smash. Pathfinder 1E was still quite dominant in the marketplace.

This is like asking "How did the Nintendo Wii outsell the Playstation 3?" It's simple; D&D Fifth Edition introduced a metric ton of new people to tabletop roleplaying. This was a net positive to tabletop roleplaying in general, including Paizo. D&D Fifth Edition was far more accessible to the new people, leveraged it's broad brand recognition, and benefitted from the 2010s boom in 80s/90s nostalgia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr Jade wrote:
I've just started playing PF2, and I was wondering what is the balance here?

Class parity is a selling point. It doesn't go as far as Fourth Edition, classes still feel distinct, but it's worlds improved from 3/3.5/Pathfinder.

Mr Jade wrote:
Most 3.X+ games skew aggressively towards casters...

One of the persistent complaints from a certain demographic is that the system no longer skews caster.

Mr Jade wrote:
However, martial classes do not have these, and I fear it will again skew fighters towards the lower realms of play.

Never fear. Martials are not only influential but interesting. The new action economy and critical system opens up battlefield mobility and makes for dynamic combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once devoted way too much time arguing that Paladins' divine courage in D&D 3.5 was abusive. The core argument being that fear is natural and keeps us from harm. Divine courage removes fear specifically so Paladins throw themselves in harm's way. This demonstrated, I argued, that 'good' deities were actually manipulative and exploitative.

The point - I was putting too much thought into it and so are you.

It's system mechanic. There's a way to interpret it that's dark. There's also a more obvious way to interpret it that's not dark.

Familiars are not slaves... Summons on the other hand...


I'm a bit disappointed... You set the bar high with the new Iconic Oracle so I was hoping to see something more interesting here.

...like a Hobgoblin Swashbuckler or Leshy Investigator.


The only class that I missed personally was Oracle. It's my favorite base class...in any system. So I am looking forward to its return very much.

Looking over the list I didn't see much there that stirred up feelings. But I know some of my players want the Summoner back so that gets my vote.

Themetricsystem wrote:
-Summoner

In regards to the Gunslinger, I had many players in Pathfinder 1st edition who were interested in it but who then quickly became disinterested after reading how it actually worked. So, depending on how its revised, I could be convinced to get behind that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was very enthused about Starfinder but then Pathfinder Second Edition hit and I have no desire to go backwards on system mechanics. I know it's too soon for a second edition.

But I'd welcome the equivalent of Starfinder Unchained with guidelines on integrating certain Pathfinder Second Edition rules.

⮚ Three Action Economy
⮚ Restrict AoOs
⮚ Reactions
⮚ Species Progression

Also, I'd like future printings of the Starfinder Core Rulebook, Alien Archive, and so to retcon naming conventions.

⮚ Race to Species
⮚ Subrace to Subspecies

Beyond that... I'm excited for Mecha, would like more on Starships, and hope that Psionic kickstarter surprises everyone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Maybe the Illuminati got to them.

Why would Steve Jackson Games go after Dreamscarred Press?


I love it. One of my favorite Pathfinder characters was a Tengu Oracle not so imaginatively named Nevar Suvroc. Glad to see this ancestry being an iconic and quite pleased it's my favorite class.


Draco18s wrote:
(And I'm still looking for a TTRPG system that would adequately support him).

My last character in Fate Core was a floating blob of sentient disease. That system supports basically any concept. The only problem is that it didn't feel very mechanically distinct.


keftiu wrote:
I heard something to that effect, but wasn’t sure.

There's nothing official but my slow building dread that Dreamscarred Press is going to collapse over the Starfinder Psionics kickstarter seems increasingly justified. This is really depressing.

I'm a backer. Personally, I don't really care if the Psionics book comes late with only a few scattered updates. But I don't see how a business their size can survive this. Not without taking a major hit to their reputation and morale.

Five months is a long time to go without an update. Most backers just seem to want to know what's happening. A growing minority are upset and want refunds. Their forums and social media are dead. Customer questions are sitting unanswered. It sounds like digital orders are being processed, no idea about physical.

Dreamscarred Press is one of my favorite small publishers. It's just sad to think that this would do them in. I was really looking forward to their approach to Second Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My groups used shields quite a bit and they were AWESOME...because we misread the rules. RAW the new shield rules are a mess, but they do have some great cinematic potential when misinterpreted. Shield block prevented a lot of damage and was very cool.

It's kind of hard for me to judge weapon & shield vs two handed weapon as that was split along Fighter/Barbarian lines in my groups. The sword and board Fighter out-damaged the two handed weapon Barbarian every time...but I think that was more the Fighter's superior accuracy than equipment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks again for this app! I ran a Holiday one off using the Pathfinder Playtest rules and this made creating higher level characters a piece of cake! Thanks for maintaining it and including the 1.6 update. The interface was great, only issue was some crashes around exporting to pdf (may have been due to my pdf reader).


Combat Monster wrote:
We don't need "all new, all different" for it's own sake. Having ability scores isn't broken. Considering it will alienate some players out of buying into 2nd Edition, what bonus is there to remove them?

They serve no purpose in the new system except to halve ability boosts over 18. Removing them would reduce complication by removing an unused mechanic and free up much needed space on the character sheet.

If Paizo is going to keep them in then they need to make more use of them (which first edition did). Keeping them in for the sake of tradition alone makes no sense - either make scores meaningful or remove them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for Ability Scores disappearing. In fact, I've stated this opinion on a few surveys. Remove an unnecessary layer of complication - to my knowledge they're only used for ability boosts above 18 and that's not enough usage to justify scores.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather that they give the squishes access to interesting reactions of their own. Like reactive teleport, magic shield, etc.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it's a toss up between Proficency Increases and Exploration Mode.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind seeing the divided up by Druidic Order.

Animal: No animal hide.
Plant: No plant materials.
Storm: ???
Wild: No metal.

Or the opposite. Animal only wears Hire, Plant only wears plant materials, etc.


This belongs in website feedback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?".

Tying bonus weapon damage die to proficiency for PCs and NPCs resolves the issue, in my opinion. NPCs don't need a magic weapon to be threatening currently...it's just strange that PCs need one to be threatening.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

I think there's amble design space here for a solution that checks both boxes. NPCs can have special rules that don't overtly clash with PC rules. They don't have to operate by the same rules...they just need to "feel" like they're playing the same game to the PCs.

I'd definitely like to see special rules for NPCs that simplify creation, ensure "threat", and allow for interesting interactions. But that's all on the GM side of things - on the PC side NPCs should not feel like they're playing by different rules.


I like the Beastiary set-up for creatures/monsters.... Not such a fan for NPCs. NPCs don't need the same creation rules as PCs but they shouldn't be using the same set-up as a Griffon or Aboleth. There should be some common ground between NPCs and PCs (such as bonus weapon die).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for putting this together. I watched it after my Fate Core game on Friday but it's always nice to have someone put it in writing.

Joe M. wrote:
2) Resonance/Focus. Folks didn’t like the original system. Feedback on the Resonance/Focus test was very fractured, all over the place as to what folks liked and didn’t like. Jason: so if none of these options is attracting overwhelming support, then none is the obvious right choice. They might end up going with one of the options they’ve floated, but they’re going to take a hard look at it and see if it’s something we’ve seen or something else. They’ve got a couple “solid leads” and are working on it

I'm running the Resonance Test the Friday after Thanksgiving so, grain of salt, but this was my impression as well. For the most part, there's not a lot of interest/support for Focus for magic items....but there are some bright points. Like the Staff rules.


It may not make sense thematically... But I have a strong attachment to the restriction. Primarily because my first TTRPG character was a Druid in ADnD. Again - I know it really doesn't make sense but TRADITION! TRADITION!


I like the thought but not the implementation (because it uses Exploration Mode's current set-up). My big problem with Exploration Mode is that it's essentially a big list of static options (e.g. Select a Tactic and that's it) rather than a dynamic ruleset (e.g. Combat Mode's Action Economy). It adds Tracking Complexity rather than Depth.

Ambushing opponents should definitely be supported (by more than just positioning)...but I don't like it being a static option. I'd been hoping that Exploration Mode's core chassis would get more attention during the playtest. :-/ The fact that you needed to suggest this illustrates a weakness in the system (which is at the top of my list as I'm sold on Combat and Downtime modes as they are).


Personally, the point of the thread I suppose, was trying to understand why Flat checks were implemented instead of Fortitude checks or something similar. I'm not necessarily opposed to having a Barbarian roll to determine Rage duration (going to be testing it in play soon) but I don't understand why it would be purely random. Why the move away from player investment?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:

- How a lot of Feats give new Action/Reaction options instead of numerical bonuses

- Rangers and Paladins being their own thing instead of Half-Casters
- Fighters as a whole, the class just feels like a Fighter should have always been for me

Great additions. Fighters and Monks absolutely floored me with much they improved in the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
While I liked how some feats such as the skill feat seemed to automatically scale based on their proficiency, and like to see feats that get a bit better as you level. I certainly don't want it to be pushed to the point where you pick your ancestry, your background, your class, your path, and your feat (defining the chain) and voila all your choices are now made... watch as your character levels up to 20 based on those choices.

I don't think anyone wants things to go that extreme...but I'd greatly prefer selecting a feat that scales with level/proficiency to a chain of feats that accomplish the same goal. That leaves later feats for new abilities and multiclassing. As noted, I also want proficiency divorce from feats entirely into it's own progress.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite things...

- Open Skill Proficency
- Action Economy
- Modular Design / Easy to Houserule & Homebrew
- Archetypes / Multiclassing
- Sorcerers of diverse Magical Traditions
- Restricted AoO
- Tactical Gameplay
- Ancestries (in theory)
- ABC +4 character creation
- Four Tiers of Success
- Improved Class Parity
- Rituals
- Downtime Mode and Crafting
- Stronger Skills
- CMB replaced with Skills


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
"Moar feats" is still a viable answer as far as I am concerned, though.

Please no. There's enough tracking complexity at mid to high levels as is. Fewer options that scale better are the way to go.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. I'm a big fan as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Up until now, I felt that percentile die (and their playtest successor flat checks) have largely been limited to random elements that were beyond a player's control. Some examples are miss chance due to concealment, casting a spell with wild magic, or determining what a creature is reincarnated as.

Given that - it seems like a significant shift in design philosophy for flat checks to apply to areas where character options have traditionally had clout. The two examples from 1.5/1.6 are a Flat Check for Death & Dying instead of a Fortitude Save and a Flat Check to determine the duration of Barbarian Rage.

Do think this represents a shift in design philosophy? If so, what do you think of it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On further reflection, Mending should really work like Magic Missile or Heal.

Does something with three actions (remove a Dent in combat?), does more with one minute, and does a lot with ten minutes.


ErichAD wrote:
Exploration mode is awful. It didn't make my list since it can be removed without changing anything else in the game. Even trying to use it, I realize I'm not doing a good job of it since it doesn't do any of the things it needs to. So exploration gets bumped since complete removal is a no effort fix.

Can it? Unless I'm missing something, removing Exploration Mode affects dozens of Skill Feats and several Class Feats? I have my own 'system' that I've used in Pathfinder First Edition but I don't like invalidating player character options which means...that I'll need to proactively edit/filter characters options that rely on Exploration Mode as is? I'd rather that they address some of my concerns before publishing Second Edition. This could really be one of Second Edition's strong points (in my opinion)...if they focused on this.

Tridus wrote:
Thanks for putting all this together!

My pleasure. I was a big fan of the original topic.

Tridus wrote:
Amazing how high the action economy is. That is as high as a number in a survey like this will ever get.

Absolutely.

Tridus wrote:
As for resonance... probably a couple factors there. They already said it's changing, so it feels less pressing even if you still don't like it.

That's probably true. The change in names probably had something to do with it as well - Resonance becoming Magical Item Slots and Focus becoming Original Resonance + Spell Points. I should probably run the Resonance Test... I've heard great things about the Staves rules (granted the Wands rules sound terrible).

Tridus wrote:
Speaking for my table, we just disconnected from the whole system. It means we hardly ever use consumables and only use a limited number of activate items at all.

That's been my experience. My existing players usually make heavy use of consumables in Pathfinder First Edition...I wonder if they've been avoiding them specifically because of Resonance. I'll have to ask them.

Tridus wrote:
Quote:
I am disappointed that only a few of us are troubled about Exploration Mode. :(
I don't think a lot of people understand exploration mode. For me, it's this vague thing the DM adjudicates and I don't have a strong understanding of how it even works or what's going on behind the DM screen, so it's hard to articulate concerns about it.

It's definitely a GM side issue... But I'm very concerned about it because it constitutes the bulk of out of combat gameplay and hasn't been given a lot of attention. Also, of course, there's that I was hoping for more. I really want more teamwork inherent to the system (e.g. Deception's Distract usage) and a general upgrade of Social Tactics.


Ability Score Generation: Eh. For experienced players I’d agree but the new players I introduced definitely had an easier time with it. I think rolling still has it’s appeal but this is a lot more intutive than point buy.

The Level Modifier I’m neutral on this one myself. I understand the positives and the negatives - but both are very theme dependent. I’ll probably switch between using it as is and houseruling it out depending on the theme of the campaign. One of the strengths of the system is that a GM can easily houserule this out.

UTEML: Agreed. Good example.

Criticals on Threshold: Yeah. I have a hard time with this one because I really love it...but I hate the consequences of including it. I don’t understand the slowing down the game complaint...hasn’t really been a problem at my table. But then, I generally calculate most of the math myself and keep ACs/DCs secret from the players.

* DCs and modifiers for everything: Don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here?

* The bugbears:  Okay? Is the playtest worse than Pathfinder First Edition at this? Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Skills as Initiative: Yeah. Same here. It’s really only had an impact for monsters. Reintroducing the surprise round might help.

Exploration Mode: Absolutely. This mode constitutes the bulk of out of combat playtime but it’s gotten barely any attention in the playtest. I’m really concerned about this - on a surface level it seems easy to houserule out but it influences dozens of Skill Feats and several Class Feats. I wish that they’d focused more on this instead of Resonance. I'd have abandoned Doomsday Dawn to run an Exploration Mode test for my groups (so far, we've skipped the Resonance test).

* Hero Points  Absolutely agree. It’s an unnecessary meta-currency. I’ve been running four playtest groups and none of them have embraced Hero Points.

* On the matter of Ms Brunel This is true but... I don’t usually run published adventures and I’m an experienced GM so this hasn’t been a problem for me. Better guidelines for published materials/novice GMs would be a definite plus...just not for me, personally. It's been interesting to run Doomsday Dawn...feels very restrictive compared to my usual style.

* The layout: Good points.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of strange to me that magical repair takes a longer amount of time than mundane repair. Even taking the same amount of time seems off. It's magic? Isn't supernaturally fast mending the appeal of it? Watching something patch itself back together in seconds inspires wonder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Yes, the way Catfall works would be a great baseline for almost all or even all of the Class Feats, scaling based on your Proficiency level, with really cool stuff at Master and Legendary. This actually solves a lot of problems, the two biggest ones being bland Skill Feats and lack of differentiation between Proficiency levels.

Indeed. "Master and Legendary not feeling 'special'" was a significant concern among the 58 posters I polled in the most recent 3 Thing You Love 3 Things You Hate Thread. I think revising all Skill Feats to work like Catfall would go a long way towards rectifying that (at least for Skills).


thewastedwalrus wrote:

Actually, I couldn't find anything in the book that says polymorphed characters can't cast spells, other than if they lack the ability to make the specific actions for the spell (VSM).

But I very well could be wrong about that, and I'd appreciate a quote if anyone knows where it is.

It's in the individual spell entries. Here's Pest Form.

Quote:
Your pest form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, or spending most actions with the manipulate trait that require your hands (the GM determines which manipulate actions you can spend if there’s doubt). You can dismiss this spell by using an action (this action has the concentrate trait).


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I figured the best way to do this is with some sort of wiki/srd, but I don't think one emerged.

I've been using http://pf2playtest.opengamingnetwork.com/ but they've only incorporated the core playtest materials. Hopefully they'll start adding the Updates now.


NoxMiasma wrote:
Has any other party had monks just parkour their way through problems, and the adventure just kind of shrug?

I use to see this a lot (minus the Wall Running) in 3.5 but not so much in Pathfinder First Edition. It's a funny tactic...but I don't mind it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good point. My groups are running behind on the survey (we're still running 1.4) but will be tackling a new section soon (using 1.6) so updating this is important.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It feels like Sorcerers and Clerics are in the same boat regarding class powers needing to be flashier, more interesting, more build defining, or just more useful.

Sigh. I wish that the Dwarf Ancestry had some kind of Crafting boost so they could be excellent Chirurgeons. It makes me miss the "Racial Archetypes" from Pathfinder First Edition - something like Dwarf Chirurgeons brew Ale of Life instead of Elixirs of Life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TwoWolves wrote:
Regarding the Duration of Shapeshifting, it's an easy fix: Make the duration in hours UNTIL you make an attack, at which time the remaining hours convert to rounds/minutes.

I think they could leave it hours unless they plan to add Natural Spell. Shapeshifted Druids without spellcasting are hardly broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sadie wrote:
A proficiency increase should never be a feat. It's simply too large and important a change to fit into the scale of feats.

Agreed. I hate having proficiency increases buried in feats. It adds unnecessary complication to the system and locks players into progressions that aren't very interesting.

sadie wrote:
As people pointed out in that thread, balancing free choice of proficiency is going to be really hard, so it's probably not a viable choice.

Disagreed. It wouldn't have been viable in Pathfinder First Edition but Paizo tightened up the math to such an extent that I think it's viable here.

As I noted in the thread, I'd just take your proposal one step further and split proficiency increases into three categories (Defense Increases for Saving Throws/AC, Offense Increases for Weapon Groups/Spellcasting, and Skill Increases for...Skills). Classes that are traditionally 'weapon masters' would get more Offense Increases, Classes that are traditionally 'defensive walls' would get more Defense Increases, and the Rogue would continue to get an absurd amount of Skill Increases. Each "pot" balanced internally and for the class in question.

sadie wrote:
However, I made a more realistic suggestion, that class paths / specialisations should determine some or all of your proficiency increases.

This is a good proposal but I still prefer your original one. It's a lot more transparent, cuts down on tracking complexity, and enables a wealth of character options.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ki Rush has verbal casting, so you have to make noise as you move to gain concealment?
I mean I think I'm fine with annoying everybody else with "whoosh", "nyoom", or "hyperdrive, engage"
im going to have a phone soundboard with link's rolling shouts from zelda, personally.

Gotta go fast!


Lyee wrote:
I played around with proficiency assigning systems a lot. I do not think they are the answer.

I don't think they resolve every problem but I do think they're the most intuitive thing to remove from Class Feats and that doing so would drastically open up character options in the system.

Instead of needing to take an archetype (which comes with heavy restrictions) to improve armor proficiency, just use a Defense Increase to boost it. This lets archetypes be focused on abilities rather than proficiency. What to play an armored wizard? It draws investment away from other defensive proficiencies (like saving throws) but is otherwise easily done.

Lyee wrote:
I think we need something on top of proficiency. A way to 'Invest' in a fighting style, even if you already get Training in it. My suggestion is to give players 1 feat from a pool of level 1 Combat Style feats, such as Double Slice, or 2 of these for Fighters.

I think this is a good suggestion. Something like this is definitely needed.

I'm more interested in non-traditional builds. Like the example provided earlier of a dagger focused Wizard who forgoes INT for DEX and uses spells for utility. The problem for this Wizard is that they'll need to take an archetype to improve at wielding daggers. Why not just let them make the choice of investing Offense Increase into weapon proficiency or spell casting proficiency?


sadie wrote:
I think the solution has to be taking some things out of the class feats pot right now, and putting them in their own smaller pots. Exactly which things to take out isn't obvious, though.

Well... I think a good starting point would be a certain Owlbear's suggestion of choosing your proficiencies. That seems like the most intuitive thing to break out of class feats.


Yesterday, Update 1.6 went live marking the end of the Playtest Updates. I thought now was a good time for a retrospective and had been planning to make this thread...but it looks like I'm not the only one who thought this was a good idea.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
Would it be possible to have new survey for a perspective that includes all updates?

One of the few remaining surveys I want to make sure we get out there is one talking specifically about the changes in the updates.

Just because it is in an update does not mean it is final. The updates are specifically so we can test out additional rules for the game.

So I'll be looking forward to that survey! But until then let's chat about the Updates here.

What Update was your Favorite?

Update 1.2 remains my favorite for abolishing Signature Skills and increasing the minimum skill threshold for all classes. Unlocking Skill proficiency had a drastic impact on the game and enabled a broad range of new character options. I'd love to see something similar implemented for all proficiency.

What Update did you Hate?

Oddly enough, I feel the most negatively about Update 1.4. It took a step in the right direction but in the process messed up several Ancestries. Gnomes made out like bandits while the changes to many other Ancestries were lackluster. Also, I hate what it did to Dwarves. This is a hard one because, in theory, I like the direction but I hated the details of the implementation.

Bonus: Rank the Updates.

I'm not taking this bonus question - I can't remember what Update 1.3 even changed - but I have a feeling it might show up on a survey.

Bonus: What Update do you wish we'd seen during the Playtest?

I'd have loved to see an Update focused on Exploration Mode along the lines of the Resonance Test. The core rules for Exploration Mode only take up two pages...so it would have been feasible to test out revisions to them.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Cognita wrote:
But if the conclusion y'all arrived at from the playtest is that parties need LESS access to healing (nerfing cleric channel energy?!) then I really don't know what to say.

It's not that parties need less access to healing...it's that the Cleric was too good at healing. This update also contains healing buffs for Paladin, Druid, and Alchemist. Not locking dedicated healers into a single class is a good move.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
...and the shortbow gain the Agile property.

This would be the ideal solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Like, if nobody in party is using the perception tactics, that mean when they enter room with perception dcs nobody can roll them? And vice versa if they used tactic to roll knowledge? So does that mean to be safe player with good knowledge and perception skill has to once in every room switch tactics so they are allowed to roll both?

I believe so... I'd prefer something like the action economy. In 10 minutes a character can be doing three things (searching, looking out, etc) and you get a free reaction (reactive Perception, reactive Recall Knowledge, etc).

But I also want better teamwork options - aid other isn't very strong and, worse, it's boring. Love to see more interplay between allied skillsets setting up advantages. Deception's Distraction use is the best existing example of this that I can remember at the moment.


This would also open up the character customization bottleneck - freeing up class feats for other things while proficency advances independently.

1 to 50 of 579 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>