medtec28's page

* Pathfinder Society GM. 246 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 35 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Baarogue wrote:

Is this thread bait?

The only outcomes I can see from threads like this about any clarified rules are people getting salty or in denial about being on the losing side of the old arguments, or gloating about being on the winning side. The new bit nulls all old debates and doesn't give any room for new ones, much like the clarification on doubling persistent damage did before it

This is fair, I guess none of this matters, we’ve told them we don’t like it, it is now up to Paizo to listen or not.


I think this would go over better if they simply admitted it is a change, it's not a clarification or an errata, they made multiple rounds of errata and it never was clarified. Admit that y'all made a change.


breithauptclan wrote:

First, is there anything more you are hoping to get from this thread than the previous two threads on the subject?

------

Yes, it is a change - the rule text literally changed.

Whether that is a correction to what the developers originally intended, or a shift in the rules that the game developers want to make - you would have to ask them. There is evidence for both cases and I am not going to put words in their mouths regarding their intentions.

Previously, the Wounded condition states that it only applies when you gain the Dying condition. The Knocked Out and Dying rules also say to add your Wounded value to what value of Dying you gain when you are dropped. The Recovery Check section of the death and dying rules did not say to add your Wounded value at any point. However, the Taking Damage while Dying rules did have a reminder to add your Wounded value to your increase in Dying - which is odd since the Wounded condition does not say to do that.

In the Remaster, the Wounded condition is unchanged - it still does not state that it applies at any time other than when you gain the Dying condition. The Knocked Out and Dying rules are also unchanged.

However, the Recovery Check rules have been updated (link to preview image) to state that when you fail or critically fail the recovery check that you do add your Wounded value to what you increase your Dying value by. That is new. That also does not contradict what the Wounded condition says. The Wounded condition does not have to be the only source of rules process. The Death and Dying rules do still exist and should be the place where the entire process is defined. If your character has the Wounded condition, then its value can be referenced by other rules without problems - even if the Wounded condition does not mention all of the places that do so.

Also, the...

It would be hard to believe that it would be a sudden clarification after 4 rounds of CRB errata haven't contained any changes to the wording...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Do y'all want to take this to a different thread so people can talk about their other dislikes besides the dying rules?

this was attempted, thread was closed

1/5 *

We’re going to be attending virtually from our hotel room

1/5 *

Kishmo wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
Want: Starfinder Tiefling boon
Just FYI, aasimars and tieflings are both purchaseable in the boon store, for the low, low, cost of 80 Spacey-Ps!

understood, but when building against type, the extra +2 is still useful.

1/5 *

Want: Starfinder Tiefling boon
Have: small collection of Gencon boons from years past as well as one charity boon
I want to see if there are any of these out in the wild unused anymore before I go digging around, since most of mine are boons I never saw myself using. Trying to recreate a prior character then needs to shore up some weaknesses.

1/5 *

I’m assuming they haven’t been able to reacquire the rest of the Sag after 2021

1/5 *

This seems to imply that there will be an in-person presence at Gencon, so I will call that a win.

1/5 *

I hear and feel all of this. NJ wasn’t thriving pre-pandemic, but it is literally impossible to get anything face-to-face here at all…


Grankless wrote:
You can still share a PDF with people. Just don't be posting it publicly and it's totally fine for your friends to read your book.

Fairly certain that this is, in fact, discouraged. As I indicated above, most digital media only gives you the right to use it, not ownership of it. here is a post from 9 years ago supporting my position.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q18r?Digital-sharing-questions


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yoshua wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
not happy to see this, and it will likely impact my future Paizo purchasing. For me, the issue is ownership. If I buy a physical book, I own it, I can read it, loan it to a friend, give it away as a gift, or sell it to someone when I am done with it. As a digital file, I own nothing, I purchase the ability t9 use data on my personal devices. I still feel like ownership has a value.
Confused... Why wouldn't you still be able to buy the physical books? Maybe I am reading your post wrong or you might have read the blog a little off? They aren't transitioning to PDF only, just adjusting prices for the PDF's.

no, but they are increasing the price of the digital product, a product which already lacks most of the perks of “ownership”. The difference in cost, in my mind, offsets the lack of “ownership”

I was only intend8ng to highlight one of the often overlooked differences in physical and digital media…


1 person marked this as a favorite.

not happy to see this, and it will likely impact my future Paizo purchasing. For me, the issue is ownership. If I buy a physical book, I own it, I can read it, loan it to a friend, give it away as a gift, or sell it to someone when I am done with it. As a digital file, I own nothing, I purchase the ability t9 use data on my personal devices. I still feel like ownership has a value.

1/5 *

As far as the content of the PFS special, I very much enjoyed it. I do feel like they missed the boat on the mustering though, nothing quite says “COVID precautions” like the packed hallway outside of the Sagamore.

I was wondering if the last minute pull out resulted in this year’s loss of space…

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to jump on here and say that I very much enjoyed the interactive special last night and I very much appreciated how there was no pause to give Paizo their standing ovation like previous years. That had been a complaint of mine for years, so thank you for listening.

1/5 *

my interpretation is that you can
1) Earn income using diplomacy instead of craft/lore/performance
or 2) Use it to decrease the cost of an item, to represent finding a discount, using the same earned income roll

additionally you get 2 extra GP if you start with the feat

1/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am aware of Thurston's post, however can I point you to the very next post where

Mike Kimmel wrote:
We know we won't please everyone. And that's okay. We appreciate your feedback, as it helps us make these decisions.

So I would say that not only am I trusting, but am also honoring this request.

1/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Do you propose that they exclude tier 1-2?

As was expressed, they only have so much staff time that they can spend on the interactives as a project. That is probably what the 'feasible' means.

Do you propose that they ignore other projects or overwork their staff for your sake?

This is a level of argumentativeness that I have thus far consciously avoided in my posts. You asked for my opinion, and I have given it. How, or even if, Org Play chooses to accommodate my wishes is not up to me, it is up to them. I do not know what resources are available, and i doubt you do either. I simply want to show them that there might be more value than they have perceived.

Do I think they should exclude tier 1-2? Frankly and honestly, I do. I do however recognize that the specials are an excellent marketing tool. I do not, however, think that they are in any way welcoming to a brand new player, there are just too many moving parts. My first experience at a PFS table was at Gencon and it was a lousy one. If my second game was "Siege of Diamond City", I would have had n clue what was going on. But once again, it is not up to me, it is up to them. All I can do is make the experience for any new player at my table to have a better first experience than I did.

Either way me and my friends will likely be at a 3-4 table at in-person Gencon for the PFS special, and will likely have 2-3 empty seats. Feel free to join our table if you wish, I'm sure it will be an awesome game. I am however done pleading my case here.

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This issue lies with the words “not feasible”. What does that mean? Not possible? Clearly not. Too hard? Likely, but how is that determined? Well, for me too hard means effort > value. What I, and I believe some others, are trying to do is emphasize the value as being greater than they perceive. That might alter the “Too hard” equation.

That is my intention here. I will tell you that every year for the gencon special, the high and mid tier tables sell out, and I can always find low level seats available. Seems like their is some demand. I am accepting of this in the now, just hoping it will not be a forever answer.

1/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, in interest of full disclosure, my highest PF2 character is lv4 and I only had 2 PF1 characters at level 12, so there is that.

But, for me, the game of PF2 feels very same-y. My character diesn’t feel all that unique compared to others,that feeling decreases as I go up in levels because the composite of all my choices make things feel different. As to how high, I would say it should go all the way to 20, because why are those levels there if not to be played? And if they are meant to be played, than why not in the awesome multitable specials that are typically the highlight of my Gencon experience?

I don’t have the luxury of a home gaming group, or a stable schedule that would support one, so Org Play is literally all I have. I know it isn’t my game, but I intend to keep pushing to make it one I can enjoy as much as possible. I’m trying to do that in a more polite and dare I even say better way than the vitriol and venom I was know to spew on these same boards a few years ago, but my intentions have always been to make PFS the best campaign it can be.

So that is my answer to why? What is your reason for not having higher level content?

1/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought one of the big selling points for this not-quite-so-new system was that it better supported high level play?

So I would ask Why Not?

1/5 *

It has nothing to do with trust or lack there of. If one is ignorant to a problem, one cannot address it, regardless of the amount of good will or good intentions. Most of the posts in this thread have been polite and respectful. If we did not trust the OP staff, why would we be wasting our time here at all?

1/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
...if we do not, than nothing will change
That is a curious assumption. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

in my experience change seldom happens without a reason. They made this change because it makes things easier for them. If everyone likes it, why would they change it again. If people respectfully object, we might get high level specials back. Then again we might not. If everyone appears to think that low level specials are the right decision, then low level specials will clearly be here to stay.

1/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

Level 1 is a necessity. A shorter range is all that is feasible. 1-6 level range for interactives is logical. It seems to have nothing to do with the ease with which 7+ play can be made.

Currently there are around 11 scenarios that can be played at levels 7+. There are just about 3 seasons. That makes around 4 scenarios per season that can be played at levels 7+. I do not consider that a bad ratio.

I would encourage folks to look at the stats and be reasonable.

I think most people have been reasonable, just not happy. If we share our displeasure, things might change, if we do not, than nothing will change

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m going into this with a “We’ll see” approach. My initial reaction was negative, Gencon is typically my only real chance for high level play, but since I don’t even have a mid-level PC in PF2, I have no horse in the race. Let’s see what happens, Thursty has already said that they haven’t forgotten about those of us who want high level capstone adventures, let’s have a little trust,

Also, it’s nice to not be frantically trying to play all the metaplot before gencon

1/5 *

Grcles de Cross wrote:

Considering that I have only played these Mega-Table games F2F I am wondering how (or even if) those of us that will be playing online during Gencon 2022 will play this game? Will, there be a single VTT used? Are VTTs even taken into consideration in the design? I could easily understand why it might be a huge amount of work to include it.

Oh, I am also wondering when I could pre-Order this game.

GregDC

played online the last two years, worked out pretty well, you play on you vet, and then tune in to twitch to watch the house announcements. The best part was not having them hold up the event so the C-Suite could get their standing ovation.

1/5 *

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:

I'm sorry but the whole respiratory issue is a complete and utterly nonsensical excuse. You'd have to be in such a horrendously bad state that you'd couldn't even attend the convention in normally let alone live a normal life. Same goes for sensory issues.

Grumble.... Grumble....

With all due respect, i feel like this is a drastic oversimplification. I think masking should be encouraged, and as a matter of fact I am still wearing mine despite the lifting of the general mandate here, but they are uncomfortable and can definitely feel quite claustrophobic. I spent the better part of 2 years wearing a half face respirator for 12 hours each day, and that was only tolerable due to circumstances and the fact that I could walk out side to breath every few hours.

The point is, it's not for us to judge each others levels of discomfort. If yours is such that wearing a mask is a deal breaker, I'll keep a seat at the table warm for you next year.

1/5 *

I know it's not very germane to this thread, but I would love to see a feat that allows the addition of the non-lethal trait to spell combat.

1/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
I will tell you that i have been told twice at society tables that dying rules are only used for PC's, so clearly this isn't widely distributed or hasn't quite caught on yet.
The CRB says to use dying rules for NPCs when appropriate. If it comes up at your table, show them page 459.

See, it's that line "when appropriate" that means if the GM says they die, they die. Even if there is someone to cast stabilize on them on the very next action

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will tell you that i have been told twice at society tables that dying rules are only used for PC's, so clearly this isn't widely distributed or hasn't quite caught on yet.

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish to echo this sentiment. Perhaps the term access needs to be further characterize, as it seems if a gunslinger has "access to all firearms" I assumed that included the clan pistol. Using my retrospectoscope, I can see that this was likely a mistake as a clan pistol is a half-price dueling pistol with an ancestry trait.

1/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Speidel wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
CrimsonKnight wrote:
i just hope there is no boon point tax on the new classes like there is for most ancestries.
my fear remains that gunslinger will be permitted, but firearms will be gated behind acp. I am not really interested in playing a gunslinger with a crossbow.

Let me modify my above statement then: Inventor and Gunslinger will both cost a grand total of 0 AcP to play as intended. Part of what we have to sort through with G&G is "okay so which guns does any gunslinger get."

But we're not going to nickel-and-dime you to play a gunslinger who actually shoots guns.

thank you for the reply.

As someone known to criticize the pace of sanctioning loud and often, I appreciate how timely it has been. The fact that people are surprised to have a month’s delay at this point i# at estimate to how hard the team has been working at it. As far as I can remember everything has been sanctioned on or around release date for over a year. awesome work in my opinion

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonKnight wrote:
i just hope there is no boon point tax on the new classes like there is for most ancestries.

my fear remains that gunslinger will be permitted, but firearms will be gated behind acp. I am not really interested in playing a gunslinger with a crossbow.

1/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
You cannot expect every leave 1-4 scenario to be targeted at n00bs. Experienced players play them too and would like to be entertained as well.

If a player at my table referred to me, or anyone else, as a "N00B' I would leave and never come back. That comment seems intended to diminish people with less experience than the speaker. Do we need to perpetuate that? Aren;t we better than that?

1/5 *

Adam Yakaboski wrote:
The Inheritor wrote:
Someone said wrote:
their abuse at the tables by people who aren’t interested in representing adventurers of all capabilities"
Im sorry, what?
The person who wrote that material got death threats and a bunch of fascists had temper tantrums over similar material.

Seriously, sometimes I truly hate people

1/5 *

I'm hoping that not only will have access to the classes, but the gear as well. would stink to have access to a gunslinger, but not access to a gun.

1/5 *

okay, fair enough on the level bump discussion.

with regards to the toxicity of playing up for more rewards, do you truly think the playing up for more pain is the better solution? perhaps 3ven something simple like “if you play up you receive no fewer than 8 treasure bundles” or a small increase in ACP when playing up. Although with the difficulties already present in the reporting software, that second one is unlikely.

1/5 *

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:
medtec28 wrote:
Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

You would almost *certainly* overshoot the scaling in the other direction.

I could see an argument for allowing mentor boons to apply to all low tier characters. But honestly anything beyond that would definitely break the math in favor of the players.

I think you are going to have to clarify how this is true. if the DC's are set with the expectation that all players are level 3-4. raising the effective character level for all those playing up would make them slightly less effective than level 3 characters?

Also, how is applying mentor boons to all low tier different than my suggestion?

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
In an extreme case, I've even seen a public table suddenly become a private one in order to deny a particular player a vacant seat.

If I ever saw tis happen at a shop, I would walk away and never go back. I don't understand how anyone can consider this to be acceptable.

1/5 *

As I understand the level bump concept, you don't actually get extra levels, you just get an effective bonus on all of your rolls

Guide to Organized Play wrote:

Mentorship and PC Level Bumps

To provide low level players a more fun and fair experience, PCs whose level equals the adventure’s base level (such as a 3rd-level PC playing in a Level 3–6 scenario) gain a temporary boost when playing in the higher level range called a level bump to represent the higher-level PCs’ mentorship and support.

Increase every DC the PC has by 1.
Increase the attack modifiers, attack damage, spell damage, saving throw modifiers, skill modifiers, Perception modifiers, and AC of the PC by 1.
Increase the Hit Point totals of the PC by 10 or by 10%, whichever is higher.
These adjustments are less beneficial than gaining a level, yet they provide the PC more survivability and opportunity to contribute to the adventure experience, reducing the degree to which higher-level PCs might overshadow these less experienced Pathfinders.

1/5 *

Just an off the cuff idea here, would giving everyone playing up a”level-bump” to the minimal level for the tier be an option that is not too disruptive, but might make things more enjoyable? ie in the prior stated example of 1,1,2,2,2,4, the two level 1’s would be playing at +2 and the three level 2’s would be playing at +1

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Bickel wrote:

Design only goes so far. The crit attack system, crit failures, and the more refined scenario scaling system puts more responsibility on the GM and players than e1 did.

When I see the DC 21 for a level 1-2, my assumptions are: the party was playing at a higher difficulty, and the GM made an error of some type.

GMs need to be better prepped. More than once, I have pulled e2 scenario because I wanted to review the stats for a very difficult encounter, hazard, or skill check. Then I discover that the GM used the wrong DCs or ran the encounter/hazard incorrectly. In PFS1, PCs were capable of powering their way through these type of errors. In PFS2, these type of errors turn lethal

Players and GMs need to watch and manage the level mix. Don't bring a level 1 into a party of lvl 4s. The bump to the level 1 will not always be enough. Don't bring a lvl 4 into a party of lvl 1s. The level 4 might not have any trouble with increased difficulty, but it could crush the level 1s.

I didn’t br8ng up the whole playing up debate initially because it is a separate issue. However, I do agree. Playing up never feels good to me. I have resolved to avoid it as much as possible. Twice I have played in a game where someone has dropped their level 4 character on the board at a last moment to pull us up. Both times we had a level range of 1,1,2,2,2. 13 Challenge points, no question you are playing low level, then someone within 10 minutes of the start time pulls out his level 4. all of a sudden we jump to 19 challenge points, high tier. if I know in advance, I walk away. did so multiple times at Gencon. I find this example truly frustrating because by the old APL system we would be playing down with an APL of 2, nice and easy math there.

The “Playing Up Problem” is exacerbated by the fact that you get nothing for the increased risk. Playing unused to reward more gold, but now it rewards less because you are more likely to miss treasure bundles, and it doesn’t feel good to get one-shot to dying 2 in every combat.

playing up just feels bad.

1/5 *

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Oh. I left off a very important part of my way-to-long post during one of its rewrites: there are some really great scenarios out there. I appreciate the time, energy, and care that each author and the development team puts into the work.

I wanted to echo this, I have had fun with alot of scenarios over the years, and even the ones I might not have enjoyed are beyond my abilities as a writer. I see nothing wrong with trying to push things to be better, but please understand that I appreciate what you are already doing.

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have sent yo7 a PM, I am intentionally no5 posting the scenario, even in spoiler, as it would generate the usual, “My table had no problem with that one.” posts. I feel like that does nothing to generate conversation.

1/5 *

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:
medtec28 wrote:

The rulebook has deemed that a standard DC for a level 2 check should be a 16, a “hard” check an 18 and a “very hard” check a 21. It was apparently decided that a tier 1-2 scenario needed to have multiple “very hard” challenges per encounter.

Group Attempts

Source Core Rulebook pg. 504 2.0

The DCs in this chapter give an individual character a strong and increasing chance of success if they have some proficiency. On occasion, though, you’ll have a task that only one person in the group needs to succeed at, but that everyone can attempt. The number of dice being rolled means that there’s a very high chance at least one of them will succeed. Most of the time, that’s perfectly fine, but sometimes you’ll want the task to be a challenge, with some uncertainty as to whether the party can succeed. In these cases, make the check very hard, or incredibly hard if you want it to be particularly difficult or at high levels. At these DCs, most of the party will probably fail, but someone will probably still succeed, likely a character who has heavily invested in the given skill, as is expected for specialized characters.

If you look at my emphasis, you will understand why I feel this does not apply to the aggregated checks minigame.

1/5 *

They have graduated levels of success tat are predicated on tallying the number of successes made. This is a mechanic that, while prevalent, seems limited and is something I am becoming more and more dissatisfied with each time I see it, and was proposing a different way of proceeding.

Also, not sure why you would equate this to a fortune effect.

Archives of Nethys wrote:
A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use. If a fortune effect and a misfortune effect would apply to the same roll, the two cancel each other out, and you roll normally.

Doesn't seem like my example applies to this at all, I may lack the insight of a rules designer, but I cannot find a way to equate these two concepts.

1/5 *

I agree as well, and these last few posts have been awesome, thank you. I was struck with an idea for what might be a better way to handle s9me of these skill challenges, and I wonder wha5 people might think.

What if instead of the standard PF2 skill challenge, the one where everyone roll twice and get successes = to the number of players, we went to the everyone who wants to roll (be it survival, diploamacy etc), we used the same levels of graduated success we have for recall knowledge during the info dump session at the beginning. Then gave a bump for anyone who is expert/mater, etc.

example: You five intrepid adventures need to cross the scorching desert to secure the magic fin of awesomeness before the evil apocalypse society gets there first. You will be rolling survival to determine if you get there safely and quickly. Amiri, Lini and Harsk roll their checks. I consult my chart, if they fail to hit a threshold they arrive after the opposing group, and are fatigued, if the succeed at the threshold they arrive just after the other group, a little better, just before, if they blow the check out of the water they are there and can fortify their position. Oh, wait, Harsk is an expert in survival, even if he wasn’t the highest check, his expertise moves the dial one step better along.

All three players get to roll what could be a meaningful check, and Harsk, who put a skill boost into survival, gets to feel awesome regardless of what the dice say at the end, because his expertise matters.

What do you all think?

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alison-Cybe wrote:


The point where players don't have fun is when -nothing- happens.

I'm not sure I totally agree. Most, if not all, of the skill challenges I've participated in thus far have had stakes, if you fail things get worse, if you succeed they get better. So, by the definition above "Something Happens". But I'm not sure that makes much of a difference. I would argue that there needs to be some degree of forward momentum. This is often how I feel when I am forced to play up, I fail nearly every skill check, and I wonder, "Why am I even here, I am contributing nothing to the table." And now that we're virtual, I can't even say I brought the donuts.

But this might also be a little tangential to my original point.

1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Another scenario author here, reading everything with interest. At some point, I may take off my author hat, and come in wearing my GM hat and offer my own opinions on this. But for now, I am here, listening and learning so that I can be better next time.

Yours,
Hmm

I, for one, would love to have the insight of an author here, as we are clearly attributing thoughts and motivations to y'all without evidence.

1/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Math might not be the whole of the answer, you are right, but I still maintain that, at least with respect to the recent low-level releases, the math is suspect. As I said in my initial post, a critical failure on an 11 at level 2 means that the DC is set at least at 21. Standard DC, in the book, generated by he developers for the system, and not an arbitrary number selected by me, is 16. The "Very Hard" adjustment is +5. Why does an introductory scenario need to have multiple very hard checks. If there isn't a narrative reason for this, then the game is not following it's own rules at this point.

Particular before any of these characters have any way to mitigate these difficulties. Aid another is now effectively a high level option, Item bonuses are not available until higher levels, and these mythical circumstance bonuses seem to be dependent on if the GM stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

So we are left with two options here.

1) We can do nothing, say everything is fine here, no need to improve, there are no problems here.

2) we can say there is a problem and do something, anything, to try to fix it.

Soup seems to be in the first camp, I am firmly and squarely in the second. My suggestion is to start by makin the math align with the math suggested in the rulebook, and seeing if that works. Seems reasonable to me. If it doesn't work, then I'm wrong, and maybe nothing is wrong with setting level 1's and 2's up to fail.

1 to 50 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>