Can you take 10 on climb?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Aratrok wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.

...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.

Oh, wait.. maybe in cases of being hit by a truck, there should be an initiative roll and then a perception check to see if he notices the truck and gets out of the way in time.

That would be a bit more realistic.

Hmm....

If you are going to be hit by a truck, doesn't that constitute combat?

Keep doing this. It's gold.

*munches popcorn*

Can I get kettle corn instead? I've always been partial to the stuff.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:

Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.

...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.

Once players learn about the option. And if they know the DC. Usually, they don't.

Tell me, what do you do when the DC is 10 and the PC has a +9 bonus?

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This has been painful to read.


What about Barbarian Brad who has more than 120hp? Even the most damaging of falls does not seriously threaten him so can he take 10 on a climb check?


Avoron wrote:
"The focus of your check cannot be the distraction that prevents you from taking 10, nor can the possibility of failure be the threat that prevents you from taking 10."

/thread

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


DC 10 "A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship's rigging"

And as you know, no one has ever fallen out of ships rigging...

That's the problem. Take 10 eliminates risk.

On the other hand sailors weren't dying every fourth climb up the rigging. Falls generally were born out of drunkenness, bad weather, tiredness or other external cause.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.

...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.

Or you could just not be obtuse about the whole thing and decide whether take-10 applies based on relevant conditions on a case-by-case basis instead of declaring the entire basis of the take-10 ruleset invalid using niche examples of things that *have* happend and therefor inexplicably *must* happen a minimum of 5% of the time.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm kinda bored and am throwing out my thoughts on this whole thing as they come to me.

I'm not arguing that RAW is invalid. It is what it is. Mostly, I'm just amusing myself.

Besides, the 5% thing won't happen with a skillful enough character. There is no auto-fail on a 1 with skill checks. So, a 5th level rogue with 5 ranks in climb and a dex of 20 will still not fail even on a 1.


born_of_fire wrote:
What about Barbarian Brad who has more than 120hp? Even the most damaging of falls does not seriously threaten him so can he take 10 on a climb check?

I think the massive damage rules might have something to say about that. :D


Quintain wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
What about Barbarian Brad who has more than 120hp? Even the most damaging of falls does not seriously threaten him so can he take 10 on a climb check?
I think the massive damage rules might have something to say about that. :D

Good point but Barbarian Brad can fall a long way before massive damage threatens him. Take 10 if the climb is up to 90'? Or higher since 90' assumes more than average rolls?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are being willfully ignorant of RAW.

You are being willfully ignorant of RAI.

You are being willfully ignorant of Developer input, noting RAI, and how it matches RAW.

Unless, you are just arguing how you believe it should be, and how you would run it in your game.

If that's the case, say so, because then, the argument is over.

No one will tell you that you cannot houserule.

Sovereign Court

Quintain wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
What about Barbarian Brad who has more than 120hp? Even the most damaging of falls does not seriously threaten him so can he take 10 on a climb check?
I think the massive damage rules might have something to say about that. :D

I do believe that Massive Damage is an optional rule.


Quintain wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
What about Barbarian Brad who has more than 120hp? Even the most damaging of falls does not seriously threaten him so can he take 10 on a climb check?
I think the massive damage rules might have something to say about that. :D

a) Massive damage rules are optional

b) Even at max damage (10d6), a fall cannot do enough damage to force barbarian brad to take a massive damage check unless it rolls maximum damage - brad could probably fall 1/6^10 times and not get this combination.


On people not seeing the truck:

There are basically 3 possibilities:

- They were incapable of seeing the truck due to poor visibility or low Perception bonus (both of which explain why they would fail the DC even if taking 10)
- They were distracted (say, by texting or reading). And that distraction made it impossible for them to take 10.
- They actually saw the truck but were incapable/unwilling to evade it (in which case the Perception check is irrelevant).

I don't see how any of those conflicts with the Take 10 rules.


Lemmy wrote:

On people not seeing the truck:

There are basically 3 possibilities:

- They were incapable of seeing the truck due to poor visibility or low Perception bonus (both of which explain why they would fail the DC even if taking 10)
- They were distracted (say, by texting or reading). And that distraction made it impossible for them to take 10.
- They actually saw the truck but were incapable/unwilling to evade it (in which case the Perception check is irrelevant).

I don't see how any of those conflicts with the Take 10 rules.

Or the truck came around a corner too fast for the person to react...this is what happens most of the time.

Kinda lends credence to the initiative option.

Isn't falling damage max'd out at 20d6?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are being willfully ignorant of RAW.

You are being willfully ignorant of RAI.

You are being willfully ignorant of Developer input, noting RAI, and how it matches RAW.

Unless, you are just arguing how you believe it should be, and how you would run it in your game.

If that's the case, say so, because then, the argument is over.

No one will tell you that you cannot houserule.

I'm doing none of these things. I'm amusing myself with a discussion of the rules.

BBT, take some blood pressure meds and relax. Not everything is worth arguing until the horse is dead.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I got hit by a truck.

Did not see it coming.

I was on lunch in High School, and wanted to get across the street to have a cigarette. So, I ran across the street, bam, hit by a truck.

I was too focused on that cigarette, to take notice.

Cigarettes will kill you man.


Quintain wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

On people not seeing the truck:

There are basically 3 possibilities:

- They were incapable of seeing the truck due to poor visibility or low Perception bonus (both of which explain why they would fail the DC even if taking 10)
- They were distracted (say, by texting or reading). And that distraction made it impossible for them to take 10.
- They actually saw the truck but were incapable/unwilling to evade it (in which case the Perception check is irrelevant).

I don't see how any of those conflicts with the Take 10 rules.

Or the truck came around a corner too fast for the person to react...this is what happens most of the time.

Kinda lends credence to the initiative option.

Isn't falling damage max'd out at 20d6?

I don't see the reason for a Initiative check, unless the truck were specifically aiming at the person. Otherwise, I'd at most rule it as a single attack against flat-footed AC (if the person fails the Perception check to notice the speeding truck)... Or maybe allow the person to roll a Reflex save.

Intiative implies intent to fight. That's most likely not the case... And what does that have to do with taking 10 on Perception checks?


Quintain wrote:

Highly doubtful, given advantages that Take 10 allows - *Auto - success*.

...just can't see it happening as long as the option is given.

Oh, wait.. maybe in cases of being hit by a truck, there should be an initiative roll and then a perception check to see if he notices the truck and gets out of the way in time.

That would be a bit more realistic.

Hmm....

If you are going to be hit by a truck, doesn't that constitute combat?

I think if you have everyone roll all the time for maneuvering in traffic, the rate of collisions would be much, much higher (you've crossed the street well more than 20 times and not been hit, right?). Conversely, you could adjudicate this by making the base DC preposterously low. It'd have to be so low, however, that you would pass even on a 1, and that'd preclude _any_ failure.

I don't think the d20 engine is meant to model reality so much as it is to meant to resolve issues which would otherwise be under dispute. Role play is the primary mechanism of storytelling, and roll play is used to adjudicate to avoid getting bogged down arguing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From SKR back in 2011. Hope it helps The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.

I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?

Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I don't think even direct Developer input will help at this point.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I can't even clearly understand the reason for rejecting Take 10's. If the circumstances permitting Take 10 are present, why exactly can't someone take a 10?

Shadow Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I don't think even direct Developer input will help at this point.

How about some optimism? We still haven't gotten to tying shoes yet.


As I have said, I think running it either way would be fine.

Just for clarity, a list of the remaining reasons why I think the extreme danger of failure could sometimes stop people from taking 10:

1. The RAI of the Contact Other Plane FAQ seems to clearly indicate that this can be the case.

2. You don't automatically fail on a 1. If something is really a "trivial obstacle," then you shouldn't have to worry about what your roll. You can just roll and get on with the game. If you fail whenever you perform below average, than that's not a trivial task. That's a challenge.

3. None of the counterexamples stop the standard of "significant and distracting threat" from working. If you're high enough level that you don't have to worry about what happens if you fall, or if you are good enough at climbing that you simply won't fall, then there's no problem. If there's a significant and distracting threat, that is a problem. And it apparently stops people from taking 10.


James Risner wrote:
I can't even clearly understand the reason for rejecting Take 10's. If the circumstances permitting Take 10 are present, why exactly can't someone take a 10?

Because he wants failures.


If you don't want a chance of failure, why give your PCs a task that they might fail and that will have extreme consequences upon failure?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Because he wants failures.

Mean bastard in't he?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
If you don't want a chance of failure, why give your PCs a task that they might fail and that will have extreme consequences upon failure?

I do want a chance of failure - if they approach it wrong or if they do it under bad conditions. What I don't want is the multiplying kind of chance of failure that comes with having to make a bunch of rolls for a long climb for example.

If I had to roll more than a couple times, I wouldn't even try a climb unless I couldn't fall - (Need to roll a 5 or less to succeed.) 10' wall, I'll give it a try. Even a 20'. Much beyond that your chances of rolling very low get too high, especially if multiple people have to roll it.

But even with Take 10, they may still have to do things like a rig a rope (or a haul system!) to get the poor climbers past the obstacle. OR even use magic or other resources to place the line if no one can Take 10 on the bare wall.


Ravingdork wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because he wants failures.
Mean bastard in't he?

Tragedy, ain't it?


Avoron wrote:
If you don't want a chance of failure, why give your PCs a task that they might fail and that will have extreme consequences upon failure?

"Extreme consequences" are very subjective. The risk presented by failing a climb roll vary greatly depending on the height of the climb and the climber's HP pool. A 10' climb for a level 1 Wizard with nothing invested in Acrobatics is much riskier than the same climb for a level 1 Barbarian invested in Acrobatics. If they're not distracted, why not let the players decide for themselves whether they want to take 10 as the rules provide rather than creating artificial hurdles because you don't like the idea of climbing being a routine task for some?


Quote:
So, a 5th level rogue with 5 ranks in climb and a dex of 20 will still not fail even on a 1.

CLimb skill uses the strength modifier, not a dex modifier, unless there's an ability or feat that switches that of which I am not aware.

In any case, a 5th level rogue with 5 ranks in climb with a 20 in the relevant ability score, in the real world, would be superhuman in climbing ability. Remember that the game is designed to surpass the best real-world human capabilities around level 5 or so, and said 5th level rogue with 20 in the relevant ability score would have 5+3+5 (assuming no other investment in the skill) = 18.

Do you really think that a person who has invested that much effort into learning to climb a "An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon" would fail 1 out of 20 times they tried?


born of fire: Exactly. For some people it's an extreme danger, for some people it is not. And there's definitely a gray area about whether it's a "significant and distracting threat." I just feel that, if I were GM, there are some circumstances where the consequences of failure clearly do constitute such a threat.

Paladin: Not one out of 20 times they tried. One out of 20 times that they try when there is a significant and distracting threat. That's just how I interpret the rules. In real life, I have no idea, but I sort of think they would eventually mess up, and they would probably be more likely to if they were climbing above a 300 foot drop with no safety gear.


Avoron: I was quoting Quintain. He's arguing that there should be a 1-in-20 chance of failure even for a character who's practically the peak of what real-life humans are capable of in regards to wall-climbing.

People are able to do some pretty extraordinary things. Those things wouldn't happen if they had a 1-in-20 chance to fall every time they moved 7.5 feet.

Liberty's Edge

Avoron wrote:

As I have said, I think running it either way would be fine.

Just for clarity, a list of the remaining reasons why I think the extreme danger of failure could sometimes stop people from taking 10:

1. The RAI of the Contact Other Plane FAQ seems to clearly indicate that this can be the case.

2. You don't automatically fail on a 1. If something is really a "trivial obstacle," then you shouldn't have to worry about what your roll. You can just roll and get on with the game. If you fail whenever you perform below average, than that's not a trivial task. That's a challenge.

3. None of the counterexamples stop the standard of "significant and distracting threat" from working. If you're high enough level that you don't have to worry about what happens if you fall, or if you are good enough at climbing that you simply won't fall, then there's no problem. If there's a significant and distracting threat, that is a problem. And it apparently stops people from taking 10.

1. There is no RAI on that FAQ. It was a specific ruling for a specific spell, which has since had its specific RAW modified to disallow take-10 while leaving the take-10 rules untouched. The "It's distracting" bit was just an excuse.

2. DCs are set under the assumption that take-10 is a possibility under most normal circumstances, and calibrated around 10+ modifier as being the "reasonable to do all the time" bar for every skill. If you remove take 10 and say that a nat 1 is the bar for guaranteed success, that's fine, but you have to recalibrate the system's skill DCs to account for the now-incorrect assumption made when they were first set. This will result in DCs dropping by 5-10 in nearly all non-opposed cases, and nearly all skills will have a -5 distracted penalty as a possibility instead of denying the take-10.

3. All that people are arguing is that the result of the skill check cannot, on its own, be the significant and distracting threat or most standard and accepted uses of take-10 are invalidated.


Avoron wrote:


I have no idea, but I sort of think they would eventually mess up, and they would probably be more likely to if they were climbing above a 300 foot drop with no safety gear.

Yet the failure rate is actually far less than that with regular old real world humans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_solo_climbing


Ravingdork wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because he wants failures.
Mean bastard in't he?

I get that...alot. My co-players in Pathfinder won't even come to the table when I'm GM'ing Hackmaster 5th ed.

I don't necessarily want failures, I want danger.

Note to those who are talking about failures 5% of the time. There are no auto-skill failures on a roll of 1.

All of the tying of shoes etc and the trivial things like crossing the street (Damn, BBT -- look left, look right...then cross) can easily be explained by having a successful skill check against a auto-roll of 1 given enough positive modifiers.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
I don't necessarily want failures, I want danger.

My suggestion would be to use situations that are actually dangerous and result in higher DCs.


Quote:


Otherwise, I'd at most rule it as a single attack against flat-footed AC (if the person fails the Perception check to notice the speeding truck)...

Damn, dude, at least give them a chance to not get hit by the truck. ;P

Tri,

The problem is, by RAW, you can take 10 regardless of the DCs involved. ..unlike say the Knowledge checks.

The only thing that prevents Take 10 is combat or distraction.


...And if they don't have a high enough modifier they fail the check when they Take 10.

This is really, really damn simple. Take 10 is your routine effort. If you are good at a thing, you will routinely succeed at it.

That's not a "problem" as you keep stating. That's how it's SUPPOSED TO WORK.


Quintain wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because he wants failures.
Mean bastard in't he?

I get that...alot. My co-players in Pathfinder won't even come to the table when I'm GM'ing Hackmaster 5th ed.

I don't necessarily want failures, I want danger.

Note to those who are talking about failures 5% of the time. There are no auto-skill failures on a roll of 1.

All of the tying of shoes etc and the trivial things like crossing the street (Damn, BBT -- look left, look right...then cross) can easily be explained by having a successful skill check against a auto-roll of 1 given enough positive modifiers.

But there's nothing between that 5% and 0%. And with a 5% and multiple rolls, you quickly jump to much higher chances of failure.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Otherwise, I'd at most rule it as a single attack against flat-footed AC (if the person fails the Perception check to notice the speeding truck)...

Damn, dude, at least give them a chance to not get hit by the truck. ;P

Tri,

The problem is, by RAW, you can take 10 regardless of the DCs involved. ..unlike say the Knowledge checks.

The only thing that prevents Take 10 is combat or distraction.

Exactly. And some of those times you'll fail because your Take 10 isn't good enough.

That's the risk you take using Take 10.


Avoron wrote:

born of fire: Exactly. For some people it's an extreme danger, for some people it is not. And there's definitely a gray area about whether it's a "significant and distracting threat." I just feel that, if I were GM, there are some circumstances where the consequences of failure clearly do constitute such a threat.

Paladin: Not one out of 20 times they tried. One out of 20 times that they try when there is a significant and distracting threat. That's just how I interpret the rules. In real life, I have no idea, but I sort of think they would eventually mess up, and they would probably be more likely to if they were climbing above a 300 foot drop with no safety gear.

Except when you get to long climbs the chances are FAR more than 1 in 20, because you have to make so many checks.

Consider a character with a +15 in Climb. He's really good at climbing! If you let him take 10 he can climb that DC 25 300 foot natural rock wall, as you might expect a character who is really good at climbing to do.

If you DON'T let him take 10...

Let's assume he's got a speed of 30. That means he can climb 15 feet for every 2 move actions he takes (if you're generous and let him round up on full moves). So, to get up that 300 feet will take him 40 move actions - assuming all his checks are successful, in reality it will be a fair bit more than 40. He has to make a Climb check for every one of those move actions.

Each time he rolls, he has a 45% chance of failing the climb check. He only *falls* on 25% of his checks, but that's enough to make it so that his chances of actually finishing that 300 foot climb without falling are LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, assuming I did my napkin math right. (40 successes before 1 failure with a 25% chance of failure.)

This is why not letting people take 10 on their climb checks is utterly absurd.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Avoron: I was quoting Quintain. He's arguing that there should be a 1-in-20 chance of failure even for a character who's practically the peak of what real-life humans are capable of in regards to wall-climbing.

People are able to do some pretty extraordinary things. Those things wouldn't happen if they had a 1-in-20 chance to fall every time they moved 7.5 feet.

It's not just a 1 out of 20 chance...it's no chance, regardless of the amount of time the climb takes, how high they climb or any other quasi-real world circumstance will require a roll introducing the potential for failure. The DC to climb can be 100 and the climber can still take 10.


Quote:


..And if they don't have a high enough modifier they fail the check when they Take 10.

In the first 10' of the climb ensuring they won't try to make the climb.


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Otherwise, I'd at most rule it as a single attack against flat-footed AC (if the person fails the Perception check to notice the speeding truck)...

Damn, dude, at least give them a chance to not get hit by the truck. ;P

Tri,

The problem is, by RAW, you can take 10 regardless of the DCs involved. ..unlike say the Knowledge checks.

The only thing that prevents Take 10 is combat or distraction.

So? What's the problem with that?

Take 10 is only an auto-success if your skill modifier + 10 > DC.

If the DC is too high to succeed on the Take 10, you don't succeed. So, if things are too difficult (i.e., the DC is high), taking 10 doesn't do anything to benefit you.

Take 10 is only relevant for characters and circumstances where putting in an everyday performance will guarantee success.

So, why shouldn't the world's greatest mountain climber be able to Take 10 on a cliff that nobody but expert climbers would even attempt? If the world's greatest mountain climber has invested enough of his/her resources to make that climb a matter of routine, s/he should be able to overcome that obstacle without much worry.

That an everyday commoner couldn't possibly Take 10 and succeed doesn't mean that your high level PCs should be prevented from doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's your point?

No, really, what's your point?

What, EXACTLY is your problem with the fact that a person can try to climb a thing, go "Huh, that's hard." and then not climb it?


Quote:


Each time he rolls, he has a 45% chance of failing the climb check. He only *falls* on 25% of his checks, but that's enough to make it so that his chances of actually finishing that 300 foot climb without falling are LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, assuming I did my napkin math right. (40 successes before 1 failure with a 25% chance of failure.)

This is why not letting people take 10 on their climb checks is utterly absurd.

Your description is exactly the reason why I think allowing people to take 10 on climb checks IS absurd.

It's a 300 foot climb, not a stroll in the park.

You are literally moving contrary to pull of gravity a distance equal to 60 times your own height.

And you think that you should be able to make that climb with NO danger at all whatsoever?


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


..And if they don't have a high enough modifier they fail the check when they Take 10.

In the first 10' of the climb ensuring they won't try to make the climb.

Ok. And?

So, they start climbing at get up about 10' and go, "Wait, hold on guys. This looks a lot harder than I thought it would be. I don't know if I can do this." And then they don't. Because they'd fail the check.

In that event, they can find another way up. Or, they can risk the climb anyway, and hope they roll well enough (assuming it's a relatively short climb).

So, where's the problem?


Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Each time he rolls, he has a 45% chance of failing the climb check. He only *falls* on 25% of his checks, but that's enough to make it so that his chances of actually finishing that 300 foot climb without falling are LESS THAN ONE PERCENT, assuming I did my napkin math right. (40 successes before 1 failure with a 25% chance of failure.)

This is why not letting people take 10 on their climb checks is utterly absurd.

Your description is exactly the reason why I think allowing people to take 10 on climb checks IS absurd.

It's a 300 foot climb, not a stroll in the park.

You are literally moving contrary to pull of gravity a distance equal to 60 times your own height.

And you think that you should be able to make that climb with NO danger at all whatsoever?

If you've spent the resources to be good enough to have a +15 modifier in Climb vs. a 25 DC Climb Check? Yes. Yes, I do.


If you're good at climbing YES.

That is what everyone has been trying to beat into your skull for the past few days.

To people with the modifiers that let them take 10 on these sort of checks, climbing a cliff like that IS a troll in the park.

That's the point.

It i the entire reason the mechanic exists.

We get that you don't like it.

But that doesn't change the facts.

Get over it. Houserule it. I don't care.


Rynjin wrote:

What's your point?

No, really, what's your point?

What, EXACTLY is your problem with the fact that a person can try to climb a thing, go "Huh, that's hard." and then not climb it?

Avoidance of danger in an RPG by PCs by exploiting a method of meta-gaming.

That, and the inconsistency between analogous rules (see my acrobat skill analogy).

And I'm brainstorming.

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you take 10 on climb? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.