Mierul Ardelain

Thebazilly's page

Organized Play Member. 361 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sporelock wrote:
I'm pretty excited about these dudes being playable soon. Also, I'm impressed that you guys are going out of your way to give the "savage" ancestries a lot more depth. Kudos.

Yeah, it's really cool to see that even the "obscure" races have their cultural history detailed out. It lends a lot more verisimilitude to the setting.


The Rot Grub wrote:
The white dragon absolutely destroys a Level 1 party, because its HP and damage are so much higher than the party's. It looks like the factor of the dragon being +Level is outweighed by other increases, at least for Level 1 parties. Conclusion: simply removing +Level for monsters is only a small part of what distinguishes low and high level monsters!

This is to be expected. Parts of the community seem to have latched on to the proficiency system as a numbers treadmill, but it's a little more complicated than that.

Higher level monsters have item bonuses factored into their skills and abilities.

Higher level monsters have higher ability scores.

Higher level monsters have much greater HP due to having more "hit dice."

Higher level monsters do more damage thanks to getting die increases similar to striking runes.

Subtracting level from everything is probably a fine houserule, but I suspect that correctly balancing the game around bounded accuracy would require completely rebalancing the core math.


Torrent is probably not a good choice, as noted. Unless the pirates have kidnapped someone.

Order of the Pike is likewise specialized in monster hunting, and unlikely to go raiding the high seas for mere pirates.

Of the orders, I'd say the most likely pirate hunters would be Chain (bounty hunters), Rack (disbanding nascent revolutions), or Coil (based in Sargava, now Vidrian).

You can look up all the Hellknight orders on the Pathfinder wiki to read more about them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:
I am really enjoying all of Liane's flash fiction pieces. Time to go find those novels I guess!

Seconded! She packs a lot of vivid description and emotion into these short pieces. I hadn't heard of her before, but these have gotten me interested in her writing.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

This.

I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?

Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.

That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.

If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

Except it's not for the Duergar who are all black/ashen, and all evil. Drow didn't even have real-life skin tones previously. It's not tied to melanin levels as it is in real life. Black humans aren't inherently or perceived as evil. And there are other problematic areas that aren't touched, so it's a shallow change.

You've been missing the point and continuing to argue with every single post anyone else makes for 5 pages now, so I don't expect that anything I say will get through to you.

Duergar are depicted as gray in the Bestiary, and have always been gray in Paizo products as far as I am aware.

Pure black is not a real life skin tone but it was used in blackface depictions - literally white people painting themselves pure black to mock black slaves. I shouldn't have to explain why this should be avoided.

The presence or absence of other problematic elements in the setting has no bearing on this singular change. Paizo chose to remove this problematic element. Perhaps they will remove others later on.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?

Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.

That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.

If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
The D20 dice is the master of all things. If you got poor rolls, with bounded accuracy, you will be in a lot of pain. You can't maximize enough to protect you from bad rolls.

Oh boy is that the truth. 4 sessions in and all the players have been having a streak of bad luck, while the GM has been rolling hot. (Last night, nobody rolled above a 5 for at least an hour, while the GM rolled 3 critical attacks in a row.)

It was so demoralizing we had to stop the session halfway through.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
FrostFox wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Color theory is a generalization that has been pounded into our heads so much that some people are fool enough to take it as unilateral fact

For example, yellow is supposed to represent positivity and joy, but too much yellow makes me want to kill people.

So you posit that color theory is pounded into us, and not culturally or psychologically relevant?
I posit that that pounding informs the culture and psychology. You are not immune to propaganda
And yet the perceptions are largely the same across worldwide cultures. Blue is comforting because the sky is blue and we are diurnal animals. The Dark is frightening because we cannot see in it. Certainly it's not locked in stone, but to say it isn't impactful itself is ignorant.

The concept of "blue" doesn't even exist in some worldwide cultures. Some African languages call the sky white and the rivers black. The Ancient Greeks referred to the sea as wine colored.

Color based symbolism is not as objective as you think it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Drow should be the color of blind cave salamanders and I will GM fiat whatever the books say anyway.

I would be good with that.

blind cave salamander coloring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_salamander#/media/File:Speleomantes_supr amontis02.jpg

That salamander clearly has functional eyes.

You're looking for this one.


Ckorik wrote:
As an aside - I didn't see JJ say they would be shades - I saw him say 'lavendar over lilac they can't be both' - and I think.. why not both?
James Jacobs wrote:

By "Both" in this case I was implying stripes or spots or the like, which would be interesting but not really what we wanted to go for.

With each new drow we illustrate, I absolutely DO expect the shades to vary. But with one illustration, or even two (as you get in this book), when they're intended to serve as baselines and references four our artists as well as the first impression for tens of thousands if not more newcomers to the game... we only get that one chance.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pbs&page=5?Niche-Request-Gnoll-Ancestry# 237


7 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:
There is no mistaking Drow complexion for real life complexion or their bone-structure/figures.

I find that argument awfully disingenuous, because the obvious real-life parallel is blackface, which did involve people literally painted pure black.

I'm all for avoiding the unfortunate implications of dark skin = bad and light skin = good. Cave dwelling creatures should be sickly pale anyway. And as noted, Drow likely come in a variety of blue or purple shades.


I thought I remembered reading that her colors are purple and grey.

The wiki lists blue and white as well. I will check a few books once I get home.


CRB Page 277 "Attacking with a Shield" wrote:
A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes.

You can put runes on your shield boss or shield spikes, which function just like a weapon.

Shields without a boss or spikes cannot have runes.

You could put runes on your weapon and copy them to your shield with doubling rings or vice versa.


shroudb wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

Fear Gem

Item 4
Price 20 gp

If you have the Intimidating Strike feat, increase the frightened condition value from this Intimidating Strike to frightened 2, or frightened 3 on a critical hit.

Activate ** Intimidating Strike

Maybe buy/craft a lot of this talismans? 20gp is a lot for each, but at lvl 10 when fearsome brute comes online they should be a lot more affordable.

missed that within the conversation about activities.

thank you, that was exactly what i was looking for.

it even leaves behind loot for the players^^

The Fear Gem is a Talisman, though, which is a consumable.

In addition, you can only have one Talisman attached to a weapon at a time, and it's something that requires you to spend a few minutes and Craft to attach one. So not something that can be done in combat.

Though I suppose your NPC enemy could have a quiver of swords that each have a talisman on them and just drop them after they're used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Now that's what I call Choose Your Own Adventure.

Twitch Plays Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RiverMesa wrote:
Gloom wrote:

I would love a book that focuses on crafting magical and wondrous items, setting up mad scientist style workshops, and gathering crazy ingredients.

Something like the Dwarf that sets up a forge inside of a volcano that has a thin border to the plane of fire and powers their furnaces off of the magma.. or a Lich that puts together a Frankenstein style laboratory to create their Undead.

Would love to see adventure hooks based on digging into a long lost mine near the world wound to gather a special mineral or venturing into the plane of earth to get a special type of coke or coal to make a magic item.

Ways to get high end crafting tools and facilities and adventure hooks to get people out of their workshop beyond "I buy 1000 GP worth of materials to craft this item."

I was thinking of something very similar, but centered around alchemy instead. Like an "Ultimate Alchemy" of sorts.

Could even combine it into something like an "Alchemy & Artifice" book.

Bonus points if it's an LO book and is thus strongly informed by Golarion lore (granted, even core line books are strongly informed by Golarion now, but still).

This would be awesome. I'd love to see the Alchemist get their weird/gross options back. Tumor familiars! Tentacles! Clones! Vestigial limbs! Drink a potion and peel your skin off and have it crawl under a door! Vomit spiders on your friends and enemies!


The Fear spell, probably.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:

The amount of type it took for me to realize that it was a pun, and not some complaining about something again, brings me shame.

Hopefully kobolds in the APG gets some good trap synergy in their ancestry feats.

I take this as a compliment. Also kind of traumatized by kobolds and traps so I'm on a fence on that.

I am, too, but as a GM. XD

When I ran Kingmaker, my players allies with the kobolds. Fast forward to the mass combat section and they end up with a kobold army... Paizo gave the kobolds an ability to set traps/ambushes as part of mass combat. My players devised a strategy where the kobolds would set traps, let the enemy walk into them, and then immediately retreat, and repeat.

Using this strategy, the kobolds delayed an army nearly ten times their size for three solid weeks and did so much damage the army had to retreat.

It's now canon in my home games that no army is willing to engage an army of kobolds on their own turf. XD I would be very happy if PF2e gives kobolds trap synergy that supports that flavor; my players will love that.

Vietnam: Kobold Boogaloo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sfyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The nice thing about Running Reload is the tactial movement, getting clear lines of fire to remove cover bonuses or sneaking to get targets flat-footed. Or just avoiding damage to yourself. That stuff is pretty hard to factor into white room DPR calculations, but I'm pretty convinced it can make up for the gap with the bow, and it certainly makes for a more engaging play style than the PF1 five foot step machine gun turret longbow.
I've seen people saying that you can use the Sneak action to get hidden (and get flat-footed bonuses) multiple times, but when I read the Sneak action what I understand is you only keep hidden from creatures you are already hidden from. What am I missing?

You have to use the Hide action before Sneaking. The Sneak action is used to move without being detected. The Hide action enters you into "stealth mode."

Edit: You could also use something like Invisibility to Sneak, as Invisibility automatically makes you Hidden.


Castilliano wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
HidaOWin wrote:
Also despite being uncommon its possible a ranger might get their mitts on an alchemical crossbow. On demand access to different elemental damage to hit opponents right in the weaknesses is very on brand for a ranger.
Alchemical crossbow?

It's in one of the adventures, and seems to be tilting the conversations re: Alchemists (as a patch) and crossbow wielders (as a "must").

Hopefully it's not Power Creep, Part I.

Could somebody post its stats?

It's from Fall of Plaguestone.

AoN has the stats already.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, there's no limit on how often you can use the action. You could use it 3 times in one turn if you wanted to, although that wouldn't do you much good.

You can use it even if you haven't lost all your Temporary HP. It would just reset your Temp HP to max.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the Horse is currently the only creature with the Mount ability. I suspect that when we get camels and axe beaks and the like, they will have it as well.

The presence or absence of the Mount ability also doesn't prevent you from riding your animal companion, and it's honestly not that bad of a penalty.

Riding Animal Companions, CRB Page 214 wrote:
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it’s especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.

As for Bestiary monsters, it appears none of them have the Mount trait, including the Horse. It appears that the Mount trait only interacts with the Animal Companion rules. For Bestiary monsters, there's no restrictions as long as the creature is large enough to ride, is friendly enough towards you to allow you to ride it, and make your Handle Animal checks or have the Ride feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellestil wrote:
How does the ranger get to attack 6 times? I thought impossible flurry was a 3 action cost.

Impossible Flurry is 3 actions, but it allows you to make 3 Strikes with each of your weapons. The feat requires you to be wielding two weapons, so 2x3=6 attacks (at maximum MAP for all attacks).

If you're a Flurry Edge Ranger, your maximum MAP on your Hunted target is -2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Double Slice

"You lash out at your foe with both weapons. Make two Strikes, one with each of your two melee weapons, each using your current multiple attack penalty."

Does that mean that if the this is the first Strike of the round, both attacks have a 0 penalty?

That's correct. Double Slice is an excellent feat for dual-wielding characters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
It's too bad we didn't get the answer to whether or not Dex can be used in place of STR for Athletics checks when wielding a finesse weapon such as a Whip.

My group ruled that you could use Dex for Trip/Disarm/etc. with a Finesse weapon.

The Finesse trait says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."

A Trip, Grapple, or Disarm has the Attack trait, and is therefore a type of attack.

It could stand to be clarified, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the summary! I'm really excited to hear that the monster rules will get to us before January. Also happy to hear about the fix to unarmed proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed! The PF2 books look wonderful and I love the art and layout work in them. The overall organization of the chapters and information is fairly good, too, which is one of the most difficult parts of designing an RPG book. (If you've ever played WoD or first edition 7th Sea, you'll see what I mean.)


I saw some analysis on Reddit of TWF damage, and a Barbarian (multiclassed several times) with two non-agile weapons won out.

This has gotten me wondering, since I thought the reduced rage damage for agile weapons was a balancing factor more than thematic enforcement.

Are agile weapons just not worth using for Barbarians?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
Those poor Tengu mothers having to make an egg of the size of a watermelon.

Even more unfortunately, ovulation occurs in birds regardless of whether the egg is fertilized. Hopefully they only produce one a year.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tengu are the same size as humans, and their babies are probably similar. Therefore, a Tengu would need to lay an egg large enough to contain a human newborn.

According to Wikipedia, the average infant is 14-20" measured from head to heel and weighs 6-10lbs... which means the 16" long egg is probably required!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can use Scouting lore to sell cookies door-to-door during downtime.


Wheldrake wrote:
Can't you retch your guts out for a single action and get a new save? Without any limits on the number of times you try?

There are some afflictions that cause a sickened condition that can't be reduced and last several days. Mostly diseases, I think. (Which makes sense, if you've ever had a nice bout of norovirus...)

Also, Mariner's Curse, as noted.


By RAW, the afflicted character could not drink water and would die of thirst.

The condition does say "willingly ingest," though. So, technically, the PC could be waterboarded into not dying of thirst by their allies.


Chetna Wavari wrote:

I'd say that the effect that knocked them out was the AoO that occured on your turn. So, you are moved in initiative order to directly before your own turn which is now over as you cannot make further actions. Being as your turn in initiative order is now directly before your previous turn you won't be triggered again on this round of combat.

As such, you don't actually change initiative order.

This makes the most sense to me, as the intention is clearly to have a full round for your allies to conceivably rescue a dying character before they have to make dying saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group is playing in the Warhammer Fantasy setting, since we've all been binging on Total War lately.

Honestly not a lot of houseruling went into it. We changed some languages and switched out a few weapons on Ancestry feats, and that's pretty much it.

We did handwave the whole winds of magic system though, and are using the Vancian system. Nobody in the party is a spellcaster, so it's not terribly important.

PF2 is probably not the system if you want a grim WHFRP style game, but we're playing elven pirates, so there's nary a ratcatcher in sight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I'm rather confused about the rogue feat "Poison Weapon." Is this required simply to apply an injury poison to a weapon? That sounds like a terrible feat tax and class gating of a rather simple thing. Or is this just a way of doing it as a single action instead of more by default (then what does it normally take)? Or is the mention that when you hit apply the poison effect mean you just bypass the saving throw and start with stage one? And what are the stages and save DCs for the simple poison it allows you to make? Is it just an extra d4 of damage of the poison type and doesn't use the full poison rules?

Applying an injury poison to a weapon is usually 3 actions. The number of actions required is listed in each poison's stat block.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Breakbone wrote:

Bruno Breakbone, a handsome and beautiful tet--er-- monk, is waiting for someone to compile the average saves of monsters from Bestiary.

Until then, here is comparison of Athletics skill and Assurance vs FORT and REF saves based on the playtest monster statistics.

Please note: Class-specific ways to boost your athletics skill (like Barbarian's Furious Bully class feat) are not included.

The lovely tqomins has done this already!


12 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
3.5/PF is a system that gave a staggering amount of control to players. Shifting that back to the GM is alright with me. It's way more fun to do a quest for a cool reward instead of go shopping at the Magic Mart.
In what universe is it more fun to go on a long quest for an item instead of just buying/making it and getting to actually use it for your next long quest?

I prefer to spend my time playing the game instead of waiting half an hour while everyone pores over equipment lists and subtracts gold from their inventory.


If you're investing in Shield Block, you're probably going to upgrade into Sturdy Shields as you keep leveling up.

I don't know if anyone's run the math on the forums yet for Sturdy Shields vs expected damage, but I'd suspect the developers have.


If you have a land speed of at least 30ft, you can use the Leap basic action with no check.

Otherwise, you will have to make an Athletics check to Long Jump.

The DC is equal to the distance you're attempting to move. Per the rules for Leap, you have to jump 15ft to entirely clear a 10ft pit, so the DC is 15.

You could also Leap normally, then attempt to use the Grab an Edge reaction to catch and pull yourself up.


Joe Average would actually get better use out of Assurance than a min-maxed PC, since Assurance uses only proficiency modifiers and not Ability modifiers.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Shackles! You can't have swashbuckling pirate adventure without a brace of pistols and some cannons on your ship.


Rerednaw wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Yeah, Rangers are absolute DPS machines if they want to be.

Although I do appreciate that there is a fair bit of support for single-shot crossbow builds also; Rangers have arguably the highest reliable single-hit damage in the game and it requires them to use a crossbow or other Reload weapon.

Just with a relatively trivial amount of optimization, a Ranger with a heavy crossbow using Perfect Shot can do 4d12+2 (crossbow ace) + 3d8 (precision) + 3d6 (elemental) = ninety-two damage with a single shot.

Would this not also work with a melee build? With up to 6 attacks?

A TWF Ranger can probably get comparable damage, but will be picking different options. Probably even more damage, to compensate for the additional action cost and the probability of damage resistance.

The Precision Hunter's Edge (that +3d8 damage) only applies once per round, for example. As does Crossbow Ace (which increases the Heavy Crossbow to d12s).

The 6-attack build is probably taking the Flurry Edge instead, and a multitude of different feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To add some more anecdotal evidence to the pile...

My FLGS had sold out of copies of the Standard CRB as of Saturday afternoon. My fiance ended up buying a Deluxe edition just because he wanted a physical copy.


All correct on Power Attack.

larsenex wrote:
Twin feint, I can attack with both weapons. Assuming I am standing there, First attack is at full bab, second would be -5 for the multi attack penalty unless I am using an agile weapon then its only -3. If the first attack hits then the 2nd attack qualifies the target as 'flat footed' which means I would get sneak attack dmg added if I were a rogue. Is all this good so far?

Agile weapons are -4 on the second attack, and -8 on the third.

You don't need to hit with the first attack for the opponent to be flat-footed on the second. You do get Sneak Attack on the second attack, as the opponent is flat-footed.

larsenex wrote:
Double slice: I attack with both weapons. Assuming I did not move & its my first attack, both attack at my current multi attack. Does this mean both rolls are without any multi attack penalty? I get that they count as two attacks so I essentially gave up two actions to get two full attacks without a penalty. Am I right so far?

You can move before attacking and still attack at full bonus. Only actions with the Attack trait increase your Multiple Attack penalty. You're correct on the rest - Double Slice gives 2 attacks at the same MAP, which is none if it's your first Attack action in the round.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's more about changing the baseline assumptions.

If a GM restricts an option that the rules assume is freely available, the GM is taking something away. The PF1 rules assumed everything is an option for players. Restricting race or spell options, or saying something like "I want that item to be a special reward later" could end up with players rightly miffed for being denied an option that is supposed to be open.

If instead there are options that you have to ask to use, or get as important loot in a dungeon, or a special quest reward, they are fun bonuses that the GM gives out.

I personally find that a lot more compelling than just buying items.

It also has the aforementioned benefits of allowing easier setting and campaign customization by switching up the rarities of various items.


Halcyon_Janissary wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:


You quoted the exact rules text that allows you to use Focus powers already.
...
Taking the class feat allows you to use the Uncommon Focus power. Your Class grants you access to it. There is no other way to gain a Focus power.
If the only way to get a focus power is by taking a class feat to get it, and class feats cannot be invalidated by rarity tag, then why have a rarity tag on focus powers?

I would assume future-proofing, in case a later rule interacts with Focus powers. Or just marking them as not available to be taken as spell options, since they are technically "spells," even if they don't work the same way mechanically.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Halcyon_Janissary wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
You seem to be either missing or deliberately ignoring the part where the class feat that gives you the Focus spell is NOT uncommon, and thus follows the rule that class features can give you access to uncommon things.

Your claim makes logical sense but doesn't hold up to the text.

Are there are ways to get focus powers other than class feats and items?

Assiming no, then none of the class focus powers need the uncommon tag, since by your logic class feats invalidate the tag, and items that grant class feats (if they exist) are limited by their own rarity rating.

But, all of the focus power abilities do have the uncommon tag. So while a GM could not disallow the ability to select the feat (could through GM fiat anyway, but that's not a thing the rulebook needs to worry about) but per the book they could bar selecting the power that the feat grants access to.

If only some of the focus powers had the uncommon tag this would make sense; instead all the focus powers have.the uncommon tag.

You quoted the exact rules text that allows you to use Focus powers already.

"Halcyon_Janissary wrote:
"Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class"

Taking the class feat allows you to use the Uncommon Focus power. Your Class grants you access to it. There is no other way to gain a Focus power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Halcyon_Janissary wrote:

"Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class"

Sooo, any focus power at all is explicitly at the whim of the GM?

No, the exact opposite. Taking the class feat gives you automatic access to the Focus Power.

1 to 50 of 361 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>