Jump to content

5E: Changing DEX/3 CV to DEX/5 CV


Recommended Posts

I'm looking for thoughts and feedback to help decide on changing the CV calculation from DEX/3 to DEX/5.

 

I would probably drop Martial Arts, as I already feel they're too cheap, and this would make them more so.

I know I have to review all of the combat manuevers to see if they should be changed.

I don't think Skill Levels will need to be repriced; but I'll check anyways.

 

I'm considering because of previous DEX/CV arms races.  Would this help?  Make it worse?

 

Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play 6e and now CVs are divorced from DEX entirely. Pre-6e, DEX is a massive bargain.  For 2 points (not 3 - you would have bought your SPD up anyway), you get CV, DEX skills and initiative.  So 30 points (+15 DEX) buys you +5 OCV and DCV, +15 Lightning Reflexes for all actions and +3 to all DEX rolls.  That's well beyond bargain priced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...DEX is 3 point a point, so you need 9 points for +1 OCV & DCV or 15 points if you make the change.  DEX also contributes a point to SPD and helps with DEX rolls, the utility of which will depend on how much you use them in the game.  It also helps with phase order.

 

+1 OCV and DCV costs 10 points, bought as skill levels, so DEX/3 is definitely favouring increased Characteristic over increased Skill although you could argue that Characteristics can be drained and skills generally can't so the Characteristic should be a little cheaper, but DEX/5 might be going too far the other way.

 

Can I interest you in DEX/4? 

 

That would make +1 OCV & DCV cost 12 points which is the 10 you'd have to pay for Skill levels plus the point it contributes to SPD, for 11 and then an extra point for DEX Rolls and phase order.

 

I appreciate that in Hero everything is /3 or /5 but if you're doing something different anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

Well...DEX is 3 point a point, so you need 9 points for +1 OCV & DCV or 15 points if you make the change.  DEX also contributes a point to SPD and helps with DEX rolls, the utility of which will depend on how much you use them in the game.  It also helps with phase order.

 

+1 OCV and DCV costs 10 points, bought as skill levels, so DEX/3 is definitely favouring increased Characteristic over increased Skill although you could argue that Characteristics can be drained and skills generally can't so the Characteristic should be a little cheaper, but DEX/5 might be going too far the other way.

 

Can I interest you in DEX/4? 

 

That would make +1 OCV & DCV cost 12 points which is the 10 you'd have to pay for Skill levels plus the point it contributes to SPD, for 11 and then an extra point for DEX Rolls and phase order.

 

I appreciate that in Hero everything is /3 or /5 but if you're doing something different anyway...

 

It's just as easy to remove SPD and call DEX 2 points.  In pre66e, that's just DEX with no figured characteristics anyway.

Skill levels have to be set.  CV does not.  I don't need to Abort to use my innate DCV (assuming I am not surprised out of combat) but I do need to act to start those skill levels rolling.  However, that 5 points was used a lot as a proxy for buying up OCV and DCV, leading to 6e costing.

On that basis, everything other than OCV, DCV and SPD is free.

 

+4 DEX, no Figured is 8 points so at DEX/4, you are still saving 2 points and boosting DEX skills/rolls and lighting reflexes.

 

Even at DEX/5, you get DEX rolls and Lightning Reflexes for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Skill levels have to be set.  CV does not.  I don't need to Abort to use my innate DCV (assuming I am not surprised out of combat) but I do need to act to start those skill levels rolling.  However, that 5 points was used a lot as a proxy for buying up OCV and DCV, leading to 6e costing.

 

In 5E, +1 DCV with all attacks is 5 points (5ER 54).  No allocation, always available.  Then symmetry says +1 OCV should be 5 points...ergo, 6E pricing.

 

1 hour ago, Sean Waters said:

Well...DEX is 3 point a point, so you need 9 points for +1 OCV & DCV or 15 points if you make the change.  DEX also contributes a point to SPD and helps with DEX rolls, the utility of which will depend on how much you use them in the game.  It also helps with phase order.

 

 

 

This is backwards, as Hugh's saying.  The OCV and DCV from DEX are *free* in 5E.  DEX is a skill roll stat...that's 1 point.  It incorporates lightning reflexes...1 point.  It adds to base SPD...1 point.  There's your 3 points.  CV...free.  Same with EGO and ECV.  

 

Going to a basis of DEX/4 or DEX/5 largely just shifts the scale a bit, because the absolute OCV and DCV aren't that important...it's the comparison.  So, OK, you drop the common CV a point or two.  You don't change the CV race.  It does mean players will buy the DEX they want for skills and SPD...then use skill levels.  DEX/5 also makes the 3's and 8's the ONLY sensible choices, because you'd be getting +1 CV and +1 skill level at the same time, thus tending to actually homogenize things too much...as would the fact that most characters' CVs, before skills, now have an even narrower spread.  

 

I get the point that martial arts can be too cheap, but recognize...if you remove martial arts, you push every HTH combatant towards STR...especially given that STR also gives QUITE a bit of free points.  That's what martial arts wanted to support...the non-brick HTH type.  (Especially since martial artists are very common.)  Sure, you can incorporate HAs...and you may need to, because the extra DCs from martial arts are capped at your HA damage (HA attack + STR). 

 

And remember:  martial arts may look cheap, but STR *also* gives major freebies.  The root functions of STR are HTH damage and lifting/carrying;  the cost is largely fixed so that +1d6 HTH (+5 STR) costs 5 points, normalizing the damage/END balance across powers.  But +1 STR also gives 2 PD, 2 REC, and 5 STUN.  By 5E costing, that's 11 points.  

 

If anything, what I might suggest is to modify the maneuver point value of +OCV and +DCV.  For HTH maneuvers, +OCV/DCV is 1 point per...but with ranged maneuvers, it's 2 points per.  So now your martial strike is +1 DCV and +2 DCs, for the 4 points.  Still:  you have to consider if this also means you need to tweak skill level costs.  Consider the raw STR builds for HTH...and the concomitant freebies from the STR.

 

Last thought...hmm, how about raising the cost of DEX to 4 points per?  And completely disallow No Figured Characteristics on DEX...because that only affects SPD.  (HD does NOT consider CV to be a figured characteristic.)  Now, this at least partially covers the cost of CV.  Not entirely, no, but buying DEX for the CV alone at least gets somewhat more expensive.  Also possibly shift the CV to DEX/4...I kinda like that suggestion, so that the breakpoints for skills and CV aren't in lockstep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts:

 

I'm not sure Lightning Reflexes is as useful as people seem to think: sure going first is an advantage, but it really does not matter if you go first because you are 1 point better or 20.  There are definitely diminishing returns.

 

I mean, you could decouple everything, work out the new costs then buy 6E and play that, but I'm not sure that is wat the question was - I think it was without changing anything else (in 5e) what do you think of changing OCV and DCV to DEX/5 rather than DEX/3.

 

Yes levels have to be set, technically, but if you're out of combat it is not like you are rocking full DCV anyway and, if you're in combat, or about to be, you're going to set your levels.  Again: can't normally drain levels, but you can drain DEX (or OCV/DCV in 6E) so Skilly McDrainface is probably going to beat DexMonster.

 

Aside:

 

I'm not sure if I like the decoupling in 6E.  I understand why it was done, but it feels like it makes the whole thing more 'blah' and actually makes building a character more complicated and introduces a higher learning bar, which might be why the game is not as popular as it once was.  Anyway, it is not as if characteristic costs were then all then properly balanced. Strength is still way too cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Aside:

 

I'm not sure if I like the decoupling in 6E.  I understand why it was done, but it feels like it makes the whole thing more 'blah' and actually makes building a character more complicated and introduces a higher learning bar, which might be why the game is not as popular as it once was.  Anyway, it is not as if characteristic costs were then all then properly balanced. Strength is still way too cheap.

 

We've had that discussion at length.  Suffice to say, I'm not alone in completely disagreeing on those points.

 

WRT whether it impacted popularity?  Dropping figured stats doesn't make the game more complex...but my gosh, it gave out so, so many freebie points that people miss.  The big chunk is CV, but that's a major investment.  And one might argue if STR is too cheap now...well, then with figured, it's egregiously so.  That said...I wonder more whether it was the rules bloat.  6E in particular aimed for the "universal gaming system" approach, but that's a big factor in why the core rules went from about 600 pages to about 780 pages...and from one book to 2 books.  My orange-cover 4E PDF is only about 220 pages...so things may have started with the big blue book, that was MUCH larger IIRC.  That'd be my first suspicion...the rules bloat.

 

Quick note on Lightning Reflexes...in 6E, it's cost-effective if you're not using DEX skills.  In 5E...maybe with a mentalist?  Otherwise...not really sure I'd ever take it because of the CV aspect.  

 

Capping DEX and CSLs, and perhaps adjusting the cost of +OCV and +DCV for martial maneuvers, has the major advantage of being simpler, and less likely to introduce unintended side effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never liked Growth, but I'd argue...if you wanna take it, it's your choice.  The size penalty is only a small part of the problem, IMO.

 

Shrinking...yeah, that DCV can be nice, but the flip side?  Ranged attackers can readily take "DCV levels" by taking Penalty Skill Levels versus range mods.  Not perfect, but it'll help in many cases.

 

You can't focus too much on individual, separate components, because there's so many different ways for any identified problem to arise.  Plus, a very high OCV may not matter too much...if the character's attacks aren't that strong.  Similarly, a great DCV can be OK...even with a pretty good total defense or a high CON, to avoid being stunned, if the STUN total is low....so maybe it only takes 2 good shots to KO.  The problem's hitting that second time. :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2024 at 1:38 AM, unclevlad said:

 

We've had that discussion at length.  Suffice to say, I'm not alone in completely disagreeing on those points.

 

WRT whether it impacted popularity?  Dropping figured stats doesn't make the game more complex...but my gosh, it gave out so, so many freebie points that people miss.  The big chunk is CV, but that's a major investment.  And one might argue if STR is too cheap now...well, then with figured, it's egregiously so.  That said...I wonder more whether it was the rules bloat.  6E in particular aimed for the "universal gaming system" approach, but that's a big factor in why the core rules went from about 600 pages to about 780 pages...and from one book to 2 books.  My orange-cover 4E PDF is only about 220 pages...so things may have started with the big blue book, that was MUCH larger IIRC.  That'd be my first suspicion...the rules bloat.

 

Quick note on Lightning Reflexes...in 6E, it's cost-effective if you're not using DEX skills.  In 5E...maybe with a mentalist?  Otherwise...not really sure I'd ever take it because of the CV aspect.  

 

Capping DEX and CSLs, and perhaps adjusting the cost of +OCV and +DCV for martial maneuvers, has the major advantage of being simpler, and less likely to introduce unintended side effects.

 

6E requires more points to build the same character you had in 5E and you need to buy more things.  Decoupling made character building more complicated, or at least required you to know the system pretty well to build a character.  Like I say, I understand why it was done (although I think it could have been done better), but I do not think it has made the game more approachable - indeed I'd say quite the opposite.  If you need proof, the original post was by an experienced Hero player who is still using 5E.

 

The Hero brand is based on the idea, the USP, that you can build a character with a certain number of points and it will be relatively balanced against a character with a similar number of points.  Yeah: I know all the objections to that statement - not the point - that is what it the whole idea of point balance is based on.  Now you need to know how the system works to balance a character and that puts off new players.  It does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sean Waters no disrespect to the OP but him choosing 5e over 6e is not proof that 6e is more complicated. Many on these boards didn’t like the change of decoupling characteristics. That doesn’t mean that decoupling is more complicated. However the sample characters dropped the ball because there are very few samples showing how decoupled characteristics can/should work. Rather than just just buying the original CV values. That and having 400pt characters are a bit overwhelming to a new player/GM. Personally they should’ve been 300pt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now.  A point where I disagree with Sean! I am a decouplng radical, I think the really radical approach would have been to go even further.  Characteristics like STR and DEX etc are hangovers from the olden days of gaming.  I dont think it is decoupled stats that put people off it is percieved complexity.

 

I dont think it is more difficult to build a balanced character now than it used to be and I think it probably needs less system mastery than it did before (I mean - I was a wizard at squeezing points out of the characteristics and frameworks).  I can absolutely tell you that any character I designed would wie the floor with any of my casual HERO friends and every single one of the beginners.  Not saying that is different now but it is more in the faces of the newbies that they dont know what they are doing.  The old stats gave them a misplaced confidence of what the standards might be.  Now they have to explicitly look at the guidelines and build to those.

 

Given that the talk moved from DEX to STR is part of my eivdence, CON was obviously one of the other point squeezers in the game.

 

I think that Powers and Skills are the two big elements of the game.  Characteristics like STR, CON, DEX, etc are blackbox hangovers, from D&D most likely.  Characteristics like STUN, END, REC etc are game mechanic counters.

 

If you lost the legacy stats and kept the game mechanical ones you could have a much cleaner system without having to worry about how individual stats skewed the really solid powers or skills elements of the game. 

 

Yes, you might have to have a bit more guidance in there about the things you might want to emulate a superstrong character, or a fast one, or anything else.  You lean more heavily into the guidance on how to set limits for games rather than picking the default and wondering why it doesnt quite work properly.

 

And, obviously, as this is the core system, you release games that exploit the solid core and present things differently to make the game you release, play the way you want it.  If the game you wanted to play leaned heavily on STR as a concept, then you can build that from what you have and sell STR in the game (in the game notes you could indicate what YOU chose to put in that bundle and others, if they were HERO geeks, could tweak it for their games if they wanted).

 

Personally I think D&D leans on the GM to make the game work AFTER everyone has built their characters, trying to manage the plethora of feats, spells and everything else.  HERO leans on the GM BEFORE anyone has even thought about building a character.  If you get the set-up of the game right, then review the characters to make sure they fit the game you want, then there is not so much in the gameplay that you need to do. 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think decoupling makes the game more complex, I do think it makes building a character more complex because the process is less intuitive: if you've got good DEX then it seems logical that you are better at hitting stuff and avoiding being hit, for example.  If you were strong and healthy you automatically could take more punishment and recover faster.  That was  baked in before but not so much now - now you have to know what values you need for the expanded range of Characteristics in order to be competitive.

 

That said, yes: if we were going to do it we might as well have gone the whole hog and got rid of INT and PRE and just used skill levels and made PRE attack a power (if we needed it at all).  Dexterity could just be dealt with by Lightning Reflexes and skill levels, so that can go too.  EGO could just be done with Mental Defence and skill levels, so that can go and Constitution could be done with a limited form of defence or replaced by 'Stun resistance', or somesuch,  and skill levels in poison resistance. Definitely any Characteristic rolls could just be done with skill levels modifying a base 11- roll.

 

Strength could be done with HtH damage with a  little rejigging and a lifting ability.  Of all the primary characteristics, Strength probably makes most intuitive sense, but it is definitely too cheap, which is why breaking it down to it's components (breaking stuff and moving stuff) would be a good idea.

 

To make the game more accessible to new players, rather than example characters tucked away in book 2 we could have templates like Brick, Blaster, Martial Artist, Mentalist, Magician that you can pick up and play or customise rather than having to build everything which, as mentioned above, assumes you know how the game is going to play.  In fact I'd have made book 2 the first book because it would then give you characters and rules and you can pick up and play then delve into character creation when you are more confident and suddenly hero is not looking quite so daunting to the uninitiated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Christougher said:

Yes, but the OP chooses to stick with 5E because of long familiarity, and not liking some of the powers changes in 6E.  

 

The point of the post which few have addressed, is the impact of making that specific change.  Not alternate ideas.

 

Fair enough.  As to how the game will play, there's the cost implications I mentioned above, and you'll have less overall variation in Combat Value, meaning that defences will be a more attractive option, or you'll get people buying skill levels instead of DEX.

 

For example, IIRC Ogre had 18 DEX and 3 overall skill levels and a Speed of 4, which cost 60 points (it's been a while...).  This gave a base CV of 6 and 3 levels (almost always on OCV - this is Ogre - for 9 OCV and 6 DCV).

 

For the same cost you could have had 30 DEX, which would give you the same Speed without having to pay more and base OCV and DCV of 10.  Sure he couldn't then use 2 of the levels for extra damage, but he's already got 60 STR and is now hitting everything and very slippery.  So, yeah; making the change will make DEX less of a bargain and Levels more valuable as Ogre would have a base Combat Value of 4 with three overall levels (for 7 OCV and 4 DCV, probably) or a base Combat Value of 6 with no levels if you go for 30 DEX: he's going to hit more often and be hit less often which will make him, and most brick characters, much tougher and more dangerous opponents.  To be fair, ogre probably did not need oversall skill levels and could have made do with HtH levels.

 

Bear in mind that the cost of DEX is not limited to the things that DEX directly affects: if you are getting hit more often because your DCV is lower you need DCV levels or higher Defences so the low defence Martial Artist type will be quite a bit worse off: because STR and CON affect PD, ED, REC, END and STUN, they become relatively more valuable, which might affect player choices for characters. 

 

Interestingly enough, since decoupling in 6E the sample characters are more homogenous than I remember from previous editions: Eagle Eye, the Martial Artist, has a better PD (21 PD) than the brick, Taurus (20 PD) and they all have pretty similar defences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

For example, IIRC Ogre had 18 DEX and 3 overall skill levels and a Speed of 4, which cost 60 points (it's been a while...).  This gave a base CV of 6 and 3 levels (almost always on OCV - this is Ogre - for 9 OCV and 6 DCV).

 

For the same cost you could have had 30 DEX, which would give you the same Speed without having to pay more and base OCV and DCV of 10.  Sure he couldn't then use 2 of the levels for extra damage, but he's already got 60 STR and is now hitting everything and very slippery.  So, yeah; making the change will make DEX less of a bargain and Levels more valuable as Ogre would have a base Combat Value of 4 with three overall levels (for 7 OCV and 4 DCV, probably) or a base Combat Value of 6 with no levels if you go for 30 DEX: he's going to hit more often and be hit less often which will make him, and most brick characters, much tougher and more dangerous opponents.  To be fair, ogre probably did not need oversall skill levels and could have made do with HtH levels.

 


Whoa...time out.  Pick a better test case.  3 overall levels is a TERRIBLE comparison basis, cuz that's 36 points!!!  That's absurdly expensive to apply *in toto*.  Use 3 points as the level cost, or perhaps 4.  You even note that...eventually. 

 

The analysis is also incorrect.  The absolute OCV and DCV don't matter...it's the comparison.  The attack roll is a form of contested skill roll...it's attacker's OCV vs. defender's DCV.  The accurate point is...people will invest more into skill levels than into DCV...but that's about it.  There's other paths, it need not be just levels, but that, and martial maneuvers if you don't drop them, are the clear-cut paths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I normally do for games is put a maximum of lower point skill levels. In 5th edition that would be 3 Point Skill Levels or less and in 6th edition that would be 5 Point Skill Levels or less. I usually put the max at 5. If you wish to have the character with more skill levels then you will need to purchase higher level skill levels. The reason I do this is to keep characters from trying to get their OCVs up to insane levels by purchasing a ton of lower point levels (I have seen players purchase 10 2 point levels with punch).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

One thing I normally do for games is put a maximum of lower point skill levels. In 5th edition that would be 3 Point Skill Levels or less and in 6th edition that would be 5 Point Skill Levels or less. I usually put the max at 5. If you wish to have the character with more skill levels then you will need to purchase higher level skill levels. The reason I do this is to keep characters from trying to get their OCVs up to insane levels by purchasing a ton of lower point levels (I have seen players purchase 10 2 point levels with punch).

 

Yeah, that's a problem.  In my case, my most common world background is "heroes will have to go 1 versus multiples routinely."  Ergo?  Multiple Attack.  Which generally means buying Rapid Attack and Defensive Attack (so as not to be a sitting duck).  BUT...I've got some hefty OCV penalties to deal with, and RAW says I can't use PSLs on them.  

 

Another...put the finishing touches on a funky healer-variant.  His healing power is cool...well, I like it.  First...touch-based diagnostic sense...figure out, what's wrong?  Then the cool part...his healing power manifests as creating an elixir, or a balm.  It's applied or drunk...then the rest of the time, his power directs it.  The whole power takes a full turn.  As I say...I think it's cool.  His attacks...he can use that directing power on offense...as Blast, No Range.  One is AVAD Power DEF, the other is NND Power Def, Does Body.  But, it's Blast, No Range.  STR doesn't apply, so not many GMs would let DCs from martial maneuvers apply.  Some might allow OCV/DCV to apply...but to avoid that?  3 point levels.  I need 5 of em, tho, to get 1d6 with that NND Does Body.  OUCH.

 

So...I definitely get the point, and mostly agree with it.  I just toss in some other tweaks where I see some other rules gaps.  (PSLs go from single attack to small group to all attacks.  If 'small group' rigidly means 3, that can be rather narrow, and can lead to the point of buying even 5 point levels...because they'll cover range mods, OR CV drop from multiple attack, and can still be used normally.)  Keep the bonus SLs to a min...but maybe expand what PSLs can be used for a bit.  That can work nicely.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2024 at 10:06 PM, unclevlad said:


Whoa...time out.  Pick a better test case.  3 overall levels is a TERRIBLE comparison basis, cuz that's 36 points!!!  That's absurdly expensive to apply *in toto*.  Use 3 points as the level cost, or perhaps 4.  You even note that...eventually. 

 

The analysis is also incorrect.  The absolute OCV and DCV don't matter...it's the comparison.  The attack roll is a form of contested skill roll...it's attacker's OCV vs. defender's DCV.  The accurate point is...people will invest more into skill levels than into DCV...but that's about it.  There's other paths, it need not be just levels, but that, and martial maneuvers if you don't drop them, are the clear-cut paths.

Really? Ogre isn't a good test case? I didn't build him. He's the perfect test case.

 

The analysis isn't incorrect. Build just using DEX and no levels both his OCV and DCV are higher. Relative or absolute, that's better. 

 

Obviously there are other ways you can do things and more efficient level spends, as I think I pointed out, but the original question was about the implications of changing the CV calculation, which was what I was addressing.

 

Time in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I have noticed with 6th edition is that it seems rather pointless to purchase skill levels, with maybe the exception of the very cheap ones. Considering that you can buy up your OCV and DCV with only five point a piece and they work all the time, not just in individual circumstances kinda takes much of the usefulness of Combat Skill Levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

One thing I have noticed with 6th edition is that it seems rather pointless to purchase skill levels, with maybe the exception of the very cheap ones. Considering that you can buy up your OCV and DCV with only five point a piece and they work all the time, not just in individual circumstances kinda takes much of the usefulness of Combat Skill Levels.

And that’s a good point and reason why Limits should be imposed. If you limit base CV levels then CSL become more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I can buy two 3-point levels for 6 points, and get +1 OCV and +1 DCV in most cases that matter to me, for 6 points.  Granted, that gets into G's point that you buy the cheap ones, but in 5E, wouldn't you just buy a higher DEX, rather than CSLs?

 

I think G's making the good point that the All HTH or All Ranged, at least, are generally really poor buys...and the 10 point level is IMO *always* a terrible one.  Drop 2 more points and make it a universal level...the added cost is nothing compared to the added versatility.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2024 at 7:35 PM, unclevlad said:

I think G's making the good point that the All HTH or All Ranged, at least, are generally really poor buys...and the 10 point level is IMO *always* a terrible one.  Drop 2 more points and make it a universal level...the added cost is nothing compared to the added versatility.

 

I think you missed something here.  In 5E, an Overall Level IS 10 points, and a great deal.

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...