Jump to content

Cost of strength vs. benefit


ioticus

Recommended Posts

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

I gotta admit...something needs to happen with COM. I think making it a basis for more skills would be good, though. Then of course it becomes too effective. And alternatives get complicated. So I say make COM 1:1 and make it an optional basis for several skills in place of PRE. No, wait, I just changed my mind, keep COM at 1:2 and allow it as an optional basis for a limited set of skills - bearing in mind that COM doesn't have PRE's other effects I think that's okay, perhaps, even if it opens a munchkin door. But if the skillsets are limited enough...why not?

 

But I'm thinking aloud here so please bear with me on that understanding...

I'd vote for the dropping it unless there were skills specifically made for it. I really can't think of any.

 

What I'd like to see is a set of Skill Levels instead of Skills that are always linked to a specific characteristic. Some of the White Wolf systems allow any Skill/Attribute combo, it just has to apply to the given situation. Thay way, you might be needing to make a Persuasion Roll based on DEX (to litterally fast talk) or an Acrobatics Rolls on PRE for a performance rather than a combat. In cases like this, you can then base any given Skill roll on COM, depending upon the situation.

 

This is probably to radical a change for HERO though, even for the next or any future editions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

I'd vote for the dropping it unless there were skills specifically made for it. I really can't think of any.

 

What I'd like to see is a set of Skill Levels instead of Skills that are always linked to a specific characteristic. Some of the White Wolf systems allow any Skill/Attribute combo, it just has to apply to the given situation. Thay way, you might be needing to make a Persuasion Roll based on DEX (to litterally fast talk) or an Acrobatics Rolls on PRE for a performance rather than a combat. In cases like this, you can then base any given Skill roll on COM, depending upon the situation.

 

This is probably to radical a change for HERO though, even for the next or any future editions.

Skills? Persuasion. Conversation (you may not think so but people look more than listen) Seduction Acting etc.

 

Actually it'd be kinda cool. I think I'm going to do this. It'd be interesting just to see, anyway, and it would differentiate from the more versatile (double costed) PRE. It's a great way to model those characters who are beautiful with no real presence exactly, no ability to command but to influence through looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

I'd vote for the dropping it unless there were skills specifically made for it. I really can't think of any.

 

What I'd like to see is a set of Skill Levels instead of Skills that are always linked to a specific characteristic. Some of the White Wolf systems allow any Skill/Attribute combo, it just has to apply to the given situation. Thay way, you might be needing to make a Persuasion Roll based on DEX (to litterally fast talk) or an Acrobatics Rolls on PRE for a performance rather than a combat. In cases like this, you can then base any given Skill roll on COM, depending upon the situation.

 

This is probably to radical a change for HERO though, even for the next or any future editions.

Oh PS, wanted to call this out separately anyway, I like that White Wolf idea, M&M adopts that as well even though there is a "default" char.

 

Now here's something insane...all powers, etc., all based on chars!? Energy Blast = STR usable at range, usable against ED; Extra-Dimensional Travel = All Chars usable in other dimension (circular as you have to define the advantage first but hey!); Desolid = Extra-Dimensional Travel Only To Dimension One "Phase" From This; Chemistry = +X INT Usable Only with Chemistry (IOW, you buy an INT skill as the basic INT roll with additional INT usable only with that skill, the limitation would be like,well silly like -1/10 - hmmm, so maybe INT skills are modelled as an MP?)

 

BWA HA HA HA HA HA I'm MAAAAAD!

 

It would be funny to build "the truly - and we mean it - ULTIMATE - toolkit". Everything builds up from just chars. I might just do that on a lark...nah, I'll never have that kind of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

You know, I've been reading this thread off and on so I don't really remember if anyone mentioned this but:

 

Hit's really hard:HA +15d6; Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2)

 

Buff as hell and hits really hard...: +75 STR, NFC (-1/2)

 

Which power would you rather have? Each costs the EXACT same amount. Both add +1d6 damage in melee for every 3.33 character points spent.

 

However, the second power also does all of the following: increases a characteristic roll, increases maximum leaping distance, increases maximum throwing distance, increases maximum lifting capacity, increases the characters ability with Grabs and Disarms, increases the characters ability to escape Entangles and probably some other stuff that I am just not thinking of at the moment.

 

While it's probably against the spirit of the rules, if the GM allowed, it is entierly possible that a player could take a limitation on STR such as "Only to Cause Damage -1/2", which would make STR even cheeper at doing damage in melee then HA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

HA has been known to be pointless for a while.

 

When it cost 3 it was considered to good, plenty of +20d6 slots in MPs.

 

Now if it cost 5pts and was o end it woud be better. most HAs are 0 end by their description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Interesting. So, if I change STR to 2 points, what exactly "pops out"? Yes, I'd change HA to 5 points also. Is that the only pop out? It seems to me that everything else fits just fine after that.

 

Maybe this is argument #4: If you "fix" the cost of STR, something else gets broken. (You still have to specify what, though.) This is similar to argument #2.

 

One thing pops out, the End cost of str, Str would have to a special case and cost 1 end / 20pp.

 

Personally i think increase cost would be good for bricks. Str has always been to cheap, and Will always be to cheap.

 

1 Uberbricks would be rare, not 10 a penny, no casual str 60 characters.

2 No cheasy MPs with +40 o end str, turning them into Uberbricks, demi bricks yes.

3 Drain/transfers/suppress less effective, got to be worth something.

4 You now have a reason to buy figs, enforced stupidity by game system is not a selling point for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Oh PS' date=' wanted to call this out separately anyway, I like that White Wolf idea, M&M adopts that as well even though there is a "default" char. [/quote']

The Skills idea was one I had a while back, but threw out because it would be too much work and the system is fine and works the way it is ( you can use a seperate CHAR Roll as a complimentary roll, or use penalties if the character lacks something important to this particular use of the skill, like looks).

 

They way I had it work, was that you'd get a CHAR Roll for 3 points. The CHAR Roll you use each time would depend upon how the skill is used. As usual, you'd get a +1 to the roll for 2 points. Background skills would work the same way they do now, except for the extra point they'd be CHAR bases like the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

HA has been known to be pointless for a while.

 

When it cost 3 it was considered to good, plenty of +20d6 slots in MPs.

 

Now if it cost 5pts and was o end it woud be better. most HAs are 0 end by their description.

HA should be 0 END, like Aid is now. I'm not sure if that would make it too unbalanced, or unbalanced at all, but it would keep in in line with STR and Martial Arts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

4 You now have a reason to buy figs' date=' enforced stupidity by game system is not a selling point for the game.[/quote']Could you please explain this? I have absolutely no idea what any part of this statement means. What figs? What enforced stupidity? :confused:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

As you get more points than you spend on figs, ergo str is free up to a point.

 

See examples of Firewing ,Dark Seraph .......

 

The word "concept" does not justify Champions Heroes inbuilt stupidity for these characters.

 

Players will always try to build efficient characters, only people with unlimited points would build Firewing, ie GMs.

 

I thought this had been previously demonstrated, by the str 90 Firewings/seraphs for NO extra cost. ( people seem to gloss over this, " not concept" )

 

If you dont get whats wrong with str after 450 posts, then you will never understand/agree. agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

I'd agree to disagree. But mainly on the point about only GMs building characters like Firewing. All of my players would rather play to concept than to point efficiency. Like the mention of Z'lf above, there characters just would be the same with a 90 STR.

 

It's like saying the diabetics are getting jipped at the buffett because they don't use the dessert bar. So I don't get the extra XX STR. Big deal, I wasn't gonna use it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Well, Bricks become less viable IMO. If I tend to run in a 15d6 game, suddenly having to spend 130 points on one power instead of 65 makes it more difficult.

ECs suddenly appear much more broken to me and cheesy limitations become more prevalent.

I usually run/play in 250 or 350 pt games with about 10-12 DCs, and IME, bricks are still quite viable and competitive at 2:1 STR. Those figured characteristics are very useful, especially the PD. How many other powers include their own defense? Only one: PRE. True, with STR more expensive, bricks have to think a little more about tactics, but that makes the game more fun, IMO. A brick (or any character) who uses no battle strategy other than, "Hulk smash!" isn't going to win the fight (and shouldn't).

 

And the lack of range isn't that big a deal when you can throw things. And you also have the option of movement powers to get close to your foe. Since you've got better defenses, you can afford to be hit more. IME, an energy projector can't take a move thru from a brick as well as a brick can take an EB from an energy projector.

 

In addition to the throwing things, you also get other maneuvers with your STR: move-thru, move-by, haymaker, grab, etc. that you don't get with EB.

 

Oh, and you also get the first 10 points of STR for free.

 

Rich people will be just fine if the price of yachts goes up, and bricks will be just fine if the price of STR goes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Phil, just because you don't understand my statement doesn't mean I haven't addressed the cost of strength. I'll try to be clearer: Strength is not underpriced because you can save points elsewhere by using frameworks for other powers and because you receive similar savings with other primary characteristics.

 

If you think that doesn't answer your question it's because you are setting up a criteria that I don't agree with. I know strength gives you a lot of figured characteristics. So does dexterity. So does constitution. So does body. They are meant to. That's why there are figured characteristics. If you don't like figured characteristics that's another thing, but strength is not underpriced considering what you get for other characteristics and what you can do with frameworks and you have to consider these things because measuring the value of strength requires comparison.

And just because I didn't explicitly spell out all the advantages which I assumed everyone already knows doesn't mean I am not comparing. None of those other things you mention gives you what STR gives you. There's only one Characteristic that comes anywhere near, and that's CON, which gives you 21 points worth of figureds for 20 points, plus being less likely to be Stunned, and +2 on CON rolls. Compare this to STR which gives you 19.667 points worth of figures and powers for 10 points, plus increased throwing, x4 lifting, and +2 STR rolls. How do these compare? 21+ for 20 vs. 19.667+ for 10 (39.333+ for 20). If you think that +2 CON rolls and Stunning prevention worth more than 18.333 points more than the extra throwing, x16 lifting, and +4 STR rolls, you're welcome to try and convince me.

 

No other primary characteristic gives savings similar to STR. BODY gives you 1 point of STUN for the 2 points, DEX gives you 10 points worth of SPD for each 30 points. And no framework gives you back points. Even if you build a framework that has a potential 1000 AP of power in it but only cost you 100 points, you're still spending positive points. You don't get back any. And any point saving constructs that can apply to frameworks can usually also be applied to STR.

 

In short, you can save points with a framework, but you get back points with STR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

And just because I didn't explicitly spell out all the advantages which I assumed everyone already knows doesn't mean I am not comparing. None of those other things you mention gives you what STR gives you. There's only one Characteristic that comes anywhere near' date=' and that's CON, which gives you 21 points worth of figureds for 20 points, plus being less likely to be Stunned, and +2 on CON rolls. [b']Compare[/b] this to STR which gives you 19.667 points worth of figures and powers for 10 points, plus increased throwing, x4 lifting, and +2 STR rolls. How do these compare? 21+ for 20 vs. 19.667+ for 10 (39.333+ for 20). If you think that +2 CON rolls and Stunning prevention worth more than 18.333 points more than the extra throwing, x16 lifting, and +4 STR rolls, you're welcome to try and convince me.

 

No other primary characteristic gives savings similar to STR. BODY gives you 1 point of STUN for the 2 points, DEX gives you 10 points worth of SPD for each 30 points. And no framework gives you back points. Even if you build a framework that has a potential 1000 AP of power in it but only cost you 100 points, you're still spending positive points. You don't get back any. And any point saving constructs that can apply to frameworks can usually also be applied to STR.

 

In short, you can save points with a framework, but you get back points with STR.

Not really. You've still spent the points. You get no points back unless you sell them back. And given that many characters are simply not conceived as being tremendously strong, not everyone is going to buy superhuman levels of strength.

 

Actually, I can give you the best reason of all STR isn't underpriced: It's by far the single most common attribute of heroic characters in fiction. It's just as common for pulp heroes as it is for superheroics (Think of Tarzan or Doc Savage; both of whom would easily have 28 or 30 STR in HERO.) HERO is not intended to be an accurate representation of real life. It's meant to permit players to recreate the heroic deeds from fiction and film. Strength is not too cheap; it's the correct price needed to recreate the genre. Only if HERO was a wargame would it be too cheap. I think we can all probably agree HERO is not a wargame, can't we? This is still about role-playing. Cost effectiveness is simply not as relevant as the ability to accurately recreate the intended genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

And just because I didn't explicitly spell out all the advantages which I assumed everyone already knows doesn't mean I am not comparing. None of those other things you mention gives you what STR gives you. There's only one Characteristic that comes anywhere near' date=' and that's CON, which gives you 21 points worth of figureds for 20 points, plus being less likely to be Stunned, and +2 on CON rolls. [b']Compare[/b] this to STR which gives you 19.667 points worth of figures and powers for 10 points, plus increased throwing, x4 lifting, and +2 STR rolls. How do these compare? 21+ for 20 vs. 19.667+ for 10 (39.333+ for 20). If you think that +2 CON rolls and Stunning prevention worth more than 18.333 points more than the extra throwing, x16 lifting, and +4 STR rolls, you're welcome to try and convince me.

 

No other primary characteristic gives savings similar to STR. BODY gives you 1 point of STUN for the 2 points, DEX gives you 10 points worth of SPD for each 30 points. And no framework gives you back points. Even if you build a framework that has a potential 1000 AP of power in it but only cost you 100 points, you're still spending positive points. You don't get back any. And any point saving constructs that can apply to frameworks can usually also be applied to STR.

 

In short, you can save points with a framework, but you get back points with STR.

 

 

I generally agree with this, but I have to say that Dex is a better buy than Str. OCV/DCV, initiative, Dex rolls, and Agility skill rolls for a mere 2 pts per point (after speed savings).

 

When looking at figureds, I generally separate them into 2 groups, the ones you would buy up anyway, and the ones you wouldn't.

 

I classify PD, ED, and Spd in the first group, and Rec, End, and Stun in the second group. The first group is clearly more valuable since you would be spending the points anyway. The second group is less valuable since you wouldn't necessarily buy them up, but are kinda forced to as a "package" when you buy up a primary. To get the "true" cost of a characteristic, I would subtract figureds from the first category point for point since you would be paying for them anyway. Category 2 figureds are worth about 2/3 of their face value IMO, to represent the lesser flexibility you have with them and the fact that Champions over values them to some extent.

 

Dex costs 60 pts for +30 Dex, and you get +10 OCV, +10 unlimited DCV, +30 initiative, +6 Dex rolls, and +6 Agility Skill Rolls. This would easily cost you about 175 pts if you were to try and build this through CSLs, lightning reflexes, and pluses to agility skill rolls. Of course it's not actually worth 175 pts of effectiveness, but it's probably worth at least 100. And worse, you generally can't put CSLs, Lightning Reflexes, etc in frameworks.

 

Str costs 24 pts for +30 Str after factoring the PD savings. You get effectively 18 pts of figureds (after factoring the 2/3 discount), +6d6 HA, the lifting, throwing, etc. About 40-50 pts worth of stuff for 24 pts. And you can stick the +6d6 HA in a framework, so it's easier to substitute for.

 

Con costs 54 pts for +30 Con after factoring the ED savings. You get effectively 38 pts of figureds (after the 2/3 discount). You get +30 to resist Stunning and +6 to Con rolls. About 65-70 pts worth of stuff for 54 pts. A distant third to Dex and Str in effectiveness.

 

I'd say that the most effective primaries are Dex, Str, and Con in that order. Pre can be very effective, but you have to buy it at very high level before it can crack the "big 3".

 

The above analysis can become skewed though, if you pick a figured characteristic to sell back. For instance, if you sell back all the End from Con, it now costs only 24 effective pts for about 44-50 pts of "value". Similarly, you can sell back Stun and now Str costs 9 effective points for about 30-40 pts worth of "value".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Actually' date=' I can give you the best reason of all STR isn't underpriced: It's by far the single most common attribute of heroic characters in fiction. It's just as common for pulp heroes as it is for superheroics (Think of Tarzan or Doc Savage; both of whom would easily have 28 or 30 STR in HERO.) HERO is not intended to be an accurate representation of real life. It's meant to permit players to recreate the heroic deeds from fiction and film. Strength is not too cheap; it's the correct price needed to recreate the genre. Only if HERO was a wargame would it be too cheap. I think we can all probably agree HERO is not a wargame, can't we? This is still about role-playing. Cost effectiveness is simply not as relevant as the ability to accurately recreate the intended genre.[/quote']

Wow! I think this is the first actual argument in favor of the cost of STR. Namely that "We wish to encourage buying up STR, because most heroes (PC's) in most genres tend to have high strength." That's a fine argument. And it fits with what some others have said about raising the cost only for certain genres.

 

When looking at figureds, I generally separate them into 2 groups, the ones you would buy up anyway, and the ones you wouldn't.

 

I classify PD, ED, and Spd in the first group, and Rec, End, and Stun in the second group. The first group is clearly more valuable since you would be spending the points anyway. The second group is less valuable since you wouldn't necessarily buy them up, but are kinda forced to as a "package" when you buy up a primary. To get the "true" cost of a characteristic, I would subtract figureds from the first category point for point since you would be paying for them anyway. Category 2 figureds are worth about 2/3 of their face value IMO, to represent the lesser flexibility you have with them and the fact that Champions over values them to some extent.

Interesting. And this is the second argument in favor of the current cost of STR (at least slightly more in favor). Namely that: "Some of the figured characteristics gained from STR wouldn't be bought up otherwise and aren't really as valuable to count against its cost." This is a valid argument. I don't agree with the exact numbers you give, but it is a true and important consideration. You make an interesting point about DEX, but I don't think I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

In addition to the throwing things, you also get other maneuvers with your STR: move-thru, move-by, haymaker, grab, etc. that you don't get with EB.

 

Oh, and you also get the first 10 points of STR for free.

 

Rich people will be just fine if the price of yachts goes up, and bricks will be just fine if the price of STR goes up.

 

I'm just going to have to disagree, because we're not going to come to any understanding. I wouldn't of said anything more, but I had to point out, haymaker is available for EB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

I'm just going to have to disagree' date=' because we're not going to come to any understanding. I wouldn't of said anything more, but I had to point out, haymaker is available for EB.[/quote']

How would a Brick and an Energy Projector each handle the following situations?

 

 

  • villian with ability to project a dozen or more holograhpic images of himself.
  • villian with very obvious damage shield ('Human Torch' type, Lightning projector with sparks flying around, etc.)
  • a limitied visibility visibility opponnent (either due to darkness or invisibility) and there is not too many large objects to through around.
  • a speedster with enough movement to virtually garantee that he never stays in HTH range for very long with anyone.

are these situations that contrived??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

How would a Brick and an Energy Projector each handle the following situations?

 

 

  • villian with ability to project a dozen or more holograhpic images of himself.
  • villian with very obvious damage shield ('Human Torch' type, Lightning projector with sparks flying around, etc.)
  • a limitied visibility visibility opponnent (either due to darkness or invisibility) and there is not too many large objects to through around.
  • a speedster with enough movement to virtually garantee that he never stays in HTH range for very long with anyone.

are these situations that contrived??

 

 

What else does the brick and EB have? That's very important. The EB usually has a multipower and/or EC while the Brick may have either, but most likely has more points to play with than the EB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

What else does the brick and EB have? That's very important. The EB usually has a multipower and/or EC while the Brick may have either' date=' but most likely has more points to play with than the EB.[/quote']

assume movement, dex, speed, defenses are all equivalent.

 

the EB has a ranged attack that can be spread.

The Brick does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

assume movement, dex, speed, defenses are all equivalent.

 

the EB has a ranged attack that can be spread.

The Brick does not.

 

 

Then you're shortchanging the brick since he's presumably spent less points on his Str than the EB has spent on his energy blast. Presumably he'd have a higher dex/spd or defenses.

 

And the brick can use the terrain for free area effect range attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Then you're shortchanging the brick since he's presumably spent less points on his Str than the EB has spent on his energy blast. Presumably he'd have a higher dex/spd or defenses.

 

And the brick can use the terrain for free area effect range attacks.

your missing the point of most of the examples I gave Gary.

The EB can use his ranged attacks to increase his chances to hit, weed out the holograms and not have to reach out and actually touch his targets. Depending on terrain is a dicey proposition and can have out of combat consequences above and beyond those that the EB might deal with. Range gives more options. If just smacking target X is the ONLY GOAL, the Brick probably better. Target X is rarely going to stand toe to toe for that very reason and will plan accordingly. Bricks are the most effective but also the easiest to plan for type of character. A master villian knows how strong Brick Z is and devises defenses/traps etc.. to deal with him. Other types of powers (which neatly fit into various power frameworks that include primary ranged attacks) are usually necessary to deal with such obstacles. Pure COMBAT ability is NOT the only measure of effectiveness*.

 

* have you decided to not participate in the combat wombat thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

Wow! I think this is the first actual argument in favor of the cost of STR. Namely that "We wish to encourage buying up STR, because most heroes (PC's) in most genres tend to have high strength." That's a fine argument. And it fits with what some others have said about raising the cost only for certain genres.

 

 

Interesting. And this is the second argument in favor of the current cost of STR (at least slightly more in favor). Namely that: "Some of the figured characteristics gained from STR wouldn't be bought up otherwise and aren't really as valuable to count against its cost." This is a valid argument. I don't agree with the exact numbers you give, but it is a true and important consideration. You make an interesting point about DEX, but I don't think I agree.

I can't help but point out that the "STR is genre" argument has been the one I've pushed during and prior to this thread. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit

 

your missing the point of most of the examples I gave Gary.

The EB can use his ranged attacks to increase his chances to hit, weed out the holograms and not have to reach out and actually touch his targets. Depending on terrain is a dicey proposition and can have out of combat consequences above and beyond those that the EB might deal with. Range gives more options. If just smacking target X is the ONLY GOAL, the Brick probably better. Target X is rarely going to stand toe to toe for that very reason and will plan accordingly. Bricks are the most effective but also the easiest to plan for type of character. A master villian knows how strong Brick Z is and devises defenses/traps etc.. to deal with him. Other types of powers (which neatly fit into various power frameworks that include primary ranged attacks) are usually necessary to deal with such obstacles. Pure COMBAT ability is NOT the only measure of effectiveness*.

 

* have you decided to not participate in the combat wombat thread?

 

That's why we need to determine how the brick has spent his extra points. He may have other abilities that allow him to pass those challenges.

 

You cherry picked several examples that theoretically gave the advantage to the EB, but it's just as easy to cherry pick other examples that give the advantage to the brick. For example, a parking lot vs a DCV 17 martial artist. The EB will probably have to spread his EB to the point of uselessness to hit, while the Brick can just grab a car and start pounding. One single hit should be enough. Also, against a low DCV target (assuming hit locations not in play which helps both equally), the EB is stuck to the 12d6 EB, while the brick with 30" leap can do 22d6 damage with a movethrough to Godzilla.

 

As far as I know, there's no consensus on any ground rules for the combat wombat thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...