Jump to content
sentry0

Magic Systems: To Divide or Not?

Recommended Posts

I'm designing a magic system (fairly standard suff; no frameworks, foci, gestures, incantations, etc) and spells are coming in around 12 real cost on average, all in.  Some magic systems (like The Turakian Age) will take that real cost and divide it by some number, let's say 3.

 

I honestly cannot decide if I want to do this or not, I'm of two minds on the subject.  Part of me says not to do it because magic is potent and someone who can shoot fireballs at will shouldn't get a point break for it.  On the opposite side, I feel like spells may be a bit too expensive and spellcasters will end up feeling shallow compared to the source material as a result.

 

What are your thoughts on the subject? Give magic users a point break or not?  What worked for you in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both parts of your divided mind are correct.

Casting spells at will is OP, If and only IF the spell effects are above what non-casters have access to.  For example, if a missile weapon that can be purchased at a shop does 1d6 RKA, then spells that do similar damage should be available at a fairly low cost.  However, if spells are doing more damage than what other characters have access to, then full cost is appropriate.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Urlord said:

Both parts of your divided mind are correct.

Casting spells at will is OP, If and only IF the spell effects are above what non-casters have access to.  For example, if a missile weapon that can be purchased at a shop does 1d6 RKA, then spells that do similar damage should be available at a fairly low cost.  However, if spells are doing more damage than what other characters have access to, then full cost is appropriate.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

 

That is helpful, thanks.

 

I would say spells are slightly above average compared to base weapon damage.  That edge goes away rather quickly when you factor in things like Martial Arts, Deadly Blow, and Weapon Mastery.  All of which I fully expect non-magic users to have in some combination.

 

That makes me lean towards giving them a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone on this rant before, but why should spells that duplicate the effects of equipment be treated any differently than equipment? 

Why does Wally Warrior get his RPD and HKA and RKA for free while Sally Sorceress has to buy the spells of Arcane Plating and Flesh-Burning Touch and Aether Arrow? 

Why not say "Here's a suit of armor.  It's RPD 9 with -1 in Limitations.  Here's the talisman you need to cast the spell of armor.  It's RPD 9 with -1 in different Limitations.  They won't stack.  Buy whichever, or both if you've got the coin."? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I've gone on this rant before, but why should spells that duplicate the effects of equipment be treated any differently than equipment? 

Why does Wally Warrior get his RPD and HKA and RKA for free while Sally Sorceress has to buy the spells of Arcane Plating and Flesh-Burning Touch and Aether Arrow? 

Why not say "Here's a suit of armor.  It's RPD 9 with -1 in Limitations.  Here's the talisman you need to cast the spell of armor.  It's RPD 9 with -1 in different Limitations.  They won't stack.  Buy whichever, or both if you've got the coin."? 

 

There is a simple counter and it's you can't take Sally Sorcerer's Aether Arrow spell away from her.  You may be able to deny her the ability to cast it by exploiting the limitations on the spell, but she will always have that spell.  Wally Warrior can lose his Vorpal Blade permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

There is a simple counter and it's you can't take Sally Sorcerer's Aether Arrow spell away from her.  You may be able to deny her the ability to cast it by exploiting the limitations on the spell, but she will always have that spell.  Wally Warrior can lose his Vorpal Blade permanently.

So if Sally builds her Aether Arrow as requiring a Focus or components that can be taken away, she can have it for coin instead of points? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

So if Sally builds her Aether Arrow as requiring a Focus, she can have it for coin instead of points? 

 

My take is that if she requires a focus to cast the spell it would still cost her points regardless if the focus is expendable or just a standard focus.  Expendable foci can be bought/found/stolen and a personal focus that is paid for with points can't be stripped from her forever... maybe if she put Independent on the spell then it would make sense.

 

I would take the same stance if Wally Warrior wanted to buy his Vorpal Blade with points, it's a character defining trait at that point and I wouldn't take it away permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, from my perspective, spells are tools, they are the weapons and armor of the mage.  If someone can buy a sword with gold or find it in the dragon's treasure horde, then why can't you with spells?  The points should go into the skill to use the magic, not the tools themselves.  Warrior Boy pays points for dexterity and OCV and skill levels and familiarities, but his sword he buys with money or finds.  Archer boy buys his bows and arrows or even makes them.  They don't pay points.  Why should a wizard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

My take is that if she requires a focus to cast the spell it would still cost her points regardless if the focus is expendable or just a standard focus.  Expendable foci can be bought/found/stolen and a personal focus that is paid for with points can't be stripped from her forever... maybe if she put Independent on the spell then it would make sense.

 

I would take the same stance if Wally Warrior wanted to buy his Vorpal Blade with points, it's a character defining trait at that point and I wouldn't take it away permanently.

Then you're contradicting yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wizard can also load up on mundane weapons and armor for no point cost, only coin.  

 

I usually consider mundane weapons to be well enough limited by Normal Characteristic Maxima, STR minimums, and the like, that anything anyone pays points for should have the opportunity to go a little bit higher.  

 

sentry0, to answer your original post, I would go ahead and charge full cost for them, possibly with the idea that they may modify their build into a Multipower or VPP eventually.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

See, from my perspective, spells are tools, they are the weapons and armor of the mage.  If someone can buy a sword with gold or find it in the dragon's treasure horde, then why can't you with spells?  The points should go into the skill to use the magic, not the tools themselves.  Warrior Boy pays points for dexterity and OCV and skill levels and familiarities, but his sword he buys with money or finds.  Archer boy buys his bows and arrows or even makes them.  They don't pay points.  Why should a wizard?

 

Not that I want to die on this hill but do spellcasters learn spells in that scenario?  You can literally take Archer boys bow from him in game and destroy it in front of him and it's gone forever*.  How would you do that to a spellcaster if they have learned the spell?  You can deny a spellcaster the ability to cast but not destroy their spell (without a transform, which is not in the same league as a simple Disarm maneuver).

 

*To me paying points for something means that it can't be taken away permanently unless it's also Independent.  If Archer boy paid points for his bow and I destroyed it in game he would be getting his focus back eventually... because he paid points for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the spell system you use, but if every spell requires a focus, or time to prepare, etc, then yeah its just as easy to prevent them from casting their spell as taking bow boy's bow away from him.

 

See, the presumption in Fantasy Hero is that spells are superpowers, and they are not.  Magic is not Cyclops blasting with his eye beam or Scarlet Witch manipulating reality.  Its not easy, on command, reliable, etc.  Spells are a different sort of creature entirely -- or they should be in order to set fantasy apart from comic books.

 

If your magic is fundamentally indistinguishable from superpowers, what does that make the game feel like?  You're trying to make them feel special and distinct with the base requirements ('foci, gestures, incantations, etc") so I think that's on the right track.  But you can extend that out and examine how the game compares in terms of abilities between different types of characters.  Bow Boy relies on the focus of his bow to exercise his abilities and skills with archery.  Mage Boy relies on the focus of his spells to exercise his abilities and skills with magic.  Yet he has to pay points for every "arrow" he gets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

Elaborate please.

Crossbow.  RKA.  Physical item that can be bought, sold, made, lost.  Can go away in a single disarm or object-targeted attack.  Easily taken away and costs coin. 

Talisman of Aether Arrow.  Physical item that can be bought, sold, made, lost.  Can go away in a single disarm or object-targeted attack.  Easily taken away and costs points, despite your defense of costing points being the "untakeawayability" of magic. 

 

1 minute ago, sentry0 said:

Not that I want to die on this hill but do spellcasters learn spells in that scenario?  You can literally take Archer boys bow from him in game and destroy it in front of him and it's gone forever*.  How would you do that to a spellcaster if they have learned the spell?  You can deny a spellcaster the ability to cast but not destroy their spell (without a transform, which is not in the same league as a simple Disarm maneuver).

You're getting blinded by SFX here.  "You can deny an archer the ability to shoot by taking away their bow, but you can't destroy his archery." perfectly mirrors your stance on spellcasting.  Consider very carefully why you think there's a difference. 

The "Magic" that can't be taken away is CSLs with magic, the Magic skill, etc.  Just like the "Archery" that can't be taken away is the CSLs with bows etc. 

If the spell requires an extrinsic item, it's not an intrinsic part of the character like you claim it is. 

 

5 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

How would you do that to a spellcaster if they have learned the spell?  You can deny a spellcaster the ability to cast but not destroy their spell (without a transform, which is not in the same league as a simple Disarm maneuver).

Take away the item they need to use the spell, duh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Crossbow.  RKA.  Physical item that can be bought, sold, made, lost.  Can go away in a single disarm or object-targeted attack.  Easily taken away and costs coin. 

Talisman of Aether Arrow.  Physical item that can be bought, sold, made, lost.  Can go away in a single disarm or object-targeted attack.  Easily taken away and costs points, despite your defense of costing points being the "untakeawayability" of magic. 

 

You're getting blinded by SFX here.  "You can deny an archer the ability to shoot by taking away their bow, but you can't destroy his archery." perfectly mirrors your stance on spellcasting.  Consider very carefully why you think there's a difference. 

The "Magic" that can't be taken away is CSLs with magic, the Magic skill, etc.  Just like the "Archery" that can't be taken away is the CSLs with bows etc. 

If the spell requires an extrinsic item, it's not an intrinsic part of the character like you claim it is. 

 

Take away the item they need to use the spell, duh. 

 

I think with your "duh" punctuation I'm done discussing anything with you.  

 

Thanks all, I have what I need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sentry0 said:

I'm designing a magic system (fairly standard suff; no frameworks, foci, gestures, incantations, etc) and spells are coming in around 12 real cost on average, all in.  Some magic systems (like The Turakian Age) will take that real cost and divide it by some number, let's say 3.

 

What are your thoughts on the subject? Give magic users a point break or not?  What worked for you in the past?

 

My thoughts on this.

 

Warrior type characters can just as easily build abilities that mirror fighting techniques that don't fit into the standard martial maneuvers. For example, there are sword techniques designed for the montante (a style of two-handed sword) that are denial of movement techniques. For the sake of argument: CE -24m Running, Selective 4m AoE, Gestures w/ both hands throughout, No Range, and IIF (Great Weapon of Opportunity). This is a warrior "spell" which would be no different from a mage casting a spell that required a mage staff. In fact, it would probably be cheaper for the mage, since he could tack on additional limitations pretty easily (incantations, OAF, etc.)

 

For a "standard" fantasy game, I would give no cost break to either of them. Both players have the opportunity to build out additional effects for their characters, there's no reason to offset that.

 

Ultimately, that's my personal take on it. I might change that if there was some really compelling story reason that made me want to highlight magic. The cost break in TA is to support the fiction/genre emulation.

 

And as much as I am tempted, I am not getting pulled into the debate raging above. This is my opinion and what works for me. Take it or leave it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to: what role do you want magic to have?

 

I prefer a low magic, low fantasy feel. So in my home setting I don't give points breaks to spells and mundane equipment is bought with money, not points. In this scenario magic works best if  it does things swords can't. So the spells I have created for the setting tend to do either do things like give bonuses to allies, heal, fly, unusual defenses, etc. Many attack spells target different defenses; so transforms, flashes, mental attacks, physical attacks based on ECV, indirect attacks. There are spells that duplicate what mundanes can do; they're not the most efficient points spend, but if a player wants to sling rocks around using magic instead of using a sling, so be it.

 

If you want more of a classic DnD style game with tonnes of powerful spells, then divide by 3. Or 5. Or whatever number you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently running a Pillars of Eternity 1-converted-to-HERO adventure for my Saturday crowd.

 

We all agreed that Multipowers made additional spells too cheap.  I'm using a custom multiplier of 0.4 (divide by 2.5) and the level 1 spells are coming out at about 5 points each.

We'll see how it scales or if I have to adjust that for the higher levels spells.

 

The big difference for me is how the magic compares to readily available non-magic options.

 

Spells that provide resistance defense are very strong and cheap.  I use the old 4th edition encumbrance rules so armor comes with substantial drawbacks.  I restrict these fairly tightly so that wizards aren't better tanks than the guy in plate armor.

Spells that provide damage output I want to be pretty cheap until they are better than a bow and arrow.  Charging the mage 10 points for Eldritch Blast and the archer 0 for flying-pointy-stick when they do the same damage is no good.

 

However, the mage has a big advantage in flexibility.  They get one-hex AoE's, NND attacks, mind altering spells, entangles, etc.

 

Finding the right balance is tough and finding the spot where the group of players *believes* the game to be balanced is an art form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'm allowing Multi-Powers to define spells (at least for divine casters). They learn 'aspects' of their God(s). Each aspect is its own MP. So for example, my player knows the Diamond Sword of Talia, an MP which contains offensive spells, and the Rose Shield of Talia which contains healing and buffs.

 

MPs cannot have more slots than their INT/4. If you want more spells of that type, you need to devote to a new god in the pantheon and learn their 'sword' or 'shield' or 'helm/crown' for whatever kind of spells. Also, the player can't simply buy new spells when they want. Much like Wizards in old school dnd, they will need to put in effort and probably gold to get a new spell. Yes, individual spells are cheap, but they still have the multipower limitations and buying a new one after they reach X spells is another limit. Further the concept of what can go in the multipower is fairly restricted so you may need a new one if you want, say, a movement spell or something that doesn't fit one of the MP you already have.

 

It's an experiment, but we'll see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 2:20 PM, sentry0 said:

What are your thoughts on the subject? Give magic users a point break or not?  What worked for you in the past?

 

You might try something similar to what you see in some MMORPG's, where spells are "learned" from a trainer for coin, not points.

 

The mage has a skill they pay points for, such as Magic, that allows them to cast any spell they have learned. The Magic skill is modified by how powerful the spell is: the more powerful the spell, the harder it is to cast. The trick is to try and make the modifier such that a low level spell (i.e. Magic Missile) that does 1d6RKA is about as easy to cast as a firing a bow that does 1d6RKA on average. That helps keep things balanced between magic users and non-magic users (but not perfect by any means). More powerful spells cost more coin, just as better weapons and armor do.

 

You might also want to consider other balancing factors, such as weapons and armor can be taken away, but a spell can't. That could tip things against the Mage (increasing cost and/or the skill modifier). However, if you require all spells to have a focus then they can be taken away and the balance tips back. For instance, requiring the Magic Missile spell to use a wooden shaft the caster holds in their hand (like a wand) that flies out of their hand and turns to a magic arrow in flight. Then, it requires "arrows" just like a bow does. However, I like the idea of only a very few, special spells requiring a focus, but I'm probably the only one.

 

A disadvantage to all this is, in addition to a list of weapons and armor, you now need a list of spells, too. No player made spells! (Unless approved by the GM, of course). That puts a huge burden on the GM, but I think gives them more control over balancing casters versus non-casters.

 

For what it's worth, I've been working on just such a magic system and I like the way it is going. I just don't have anything yet to release into the wild.

 

Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to point out that while I love the Turakian Age setting, the magic system for it is very broken and unplayable RAW. This goes for 5th edition and the 6th edition Grimoire. In fact I would go so far as to say that 99.99% of players have never played it as it is written, because magic users (not clerics/priests) are super under powered in it and if played RAW would be almost useless as Magic casters, and instead spend most of their time as under-powered fighters using swords, knives, etc...

 

Why? Almost ever spell is build with an OAF EXPENDABLE! 

 

You want to cast the fairly common (in fantasy) Firebolt spell? Well each time you cast it (doing 2d6 RKA) you need to use (and it is then destroyed) golden rod studded with gems. What in the ever loving hell? How many Golden Rods with studded gems do you expect a mage to carry with them? Especially when they are VERY DIFFICULT to OBTAIN? Does he/she start with 5 of them hanging from their belt for free? So that way they can attack 5 times before the spell is useless to them and they need to buy more Gold Rods studded with Gems to cast the spell again? 

 

How about the cool Druid ability to grow claws and attack enemies in hand to hand? Each time they want to cast that that have to use (and it is destroyed in the casting) a severed animal paw of a carnivore creature that has claws. So, does the Druid in your game walk around with a bunch of severed animals paws hanging off their clothing? That would go over well in social situations. And what about the smell of carrying around a bunch of severed animal paws?  

 

And there are even crazier OAF Expendable items needed for some of the spells. A piece of cloth ripped from the robes of a necromancer, a bone from a lich, and on and on and on. Items that it would be hard to ever find one of, let alone multiples of the item so you can cast the spell more then once in the campaign. And heaven help you if you also use the encumbrance rules, because an effective magic caster is going to be weighed down by all the multiple expendable foci they need to carry. Or have to be super careful carrying around the OAF FRAGILE EXPENDABLE Glass Bubble. Seems like that would break during the first combat, or extended horseback ride.

 

Plus, do you allow the casters to start with these (often) super rare and hard to get items? Some of them are super valuable. Some valuable enough that the caster probably wouldn't need to go adventuring, they could just sell the items and live comfortably off of the gold. But if they don't start with at least one of each foci needed, then they wouldn't be able to cast any of their spells and would need to spend the first few sessions trying to find/buy them before they could start being effective. 

 

All of this is of course solved by making them not Expendable foci, but that is not RAW and would also alter the cost of all the spells in the books because it is a lesser Limitation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should have two or more stages of magic.  The first stage is the simple stuff that any beginning mage can do.  It doesn't cost points, other than a magic skill roll and maybe a weapon familiarity with that type of spell.  You pay money for your spellbook or scroll, but the spells themselves are just like mundane weapons.

 

So we've got Bob, a wizard's apprentice, who has snuck out of the tower and made off with a book of magic, a couple of scrolls, a talisman, and about a year's worth of training.  He's got Magic Skill at 12-, and has to make this any time he wants to cast something from his book of magic.  He's got WF: Fire Magic, WF: Divination Magic, and WF: Transmutation Magic.  Since these are "categories" of magic they cost 2 points each.  It's the equivalent of having WF: Swords or WF: Bows.  So Bob has spent a total of 11 points to know how to do basic magic, and he'd have to spend however much money the book is worth to replace it if he lost it (he begins with it as starting equipment).  Unlike a warrior, Bob has to make a skill roll to do anything, and the spells that this works for are all created by the GM and balanced as if they were mundane equipment.  An arrow from a crossbow may do 2D6 damage, while Bob's Spell of Fiery Bolt does 2 1/2D6 but requires a skill roll first.  You can take away the warrior's crossbow, but you can also take away Bob's spellbook.  Perhaps you can raise an undead skeleton warrior if you've got WF: Necromantic Magic, and all you need is a dead body and 10 gp worth of rare powders (which might be enough money for a normal person to hire a generic mercenary for a week).  Magic is a bit more powerful but also a bit less reliable.

 

Eventually Bob has gained some experience and wants to be a more successful wizard.  So he buys Deadly Blow or whatever it's called with his Fire Magic.  Now instead of a 2 1/2D6 Fiery Bolt, he does 3 1/2D6.  Now he's cooking with gas, and he's actually pretty impressive.  He can reduce an orc to cinders with one shot.  But he's also poured quite a few points into that ability, and he's gonna be similar to a fighter who has a weapon he's specialized in.  If this were a video game, the archer character would be shooting arrows at enemies while the wizard is shooting glowing energy thingys at them.  Functionally they're very similar.

 

The final level of magic would be to just buy your spells outright.  Things like this probably shouldn't duplicate normal powers.  Raising the dead, creating an undead legion, now you're into what we might call "strategic level magic".  You can bring down the walls of a castle, or summon a storm.  They aren't necessarily things you'd use in combat, and they aren't necessarily spells that you'd have a lot of.  A full-scale wizard who can change into forest animals, mesmerize people with his voice, and knows how to build golems is a devastating opponent even for a kingdom.  He's just not the kind of guy who goes running around dungeons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mallet said:

I think it is important to point out that while I love the Turakian Age setting, the magic system for it is very broken and unplayable RAW. This goes for 5th edition and the 6th edition Grimoire. In fact I would go so far as to say that 99.99% of players have never played it as it is written, because magic users (not clerics/priests) are super under powered in it and if played RAW would be almost useless as Magic casters, and instead spend most of their time as under-powered fighters using swords, knives, etc...

 

Why? Almost ever spell is build with an OAF EXPENDABLE! 

 

You want to cast the fairly common (in fantasy) Firebolt spell? Well each time you cast it (doing 2d6 RKA) you need to use (and it is then destroyed) golden rod studded with gems. What in the ever loving hell? How many Golden Rods with studded gems do you expect a mage to carry with them? Especially when they are VERY DIFFICULT to OBTAIN? Does he/she start with 5 of them hanging from their belt for free? So that way they can attack 5 times before the spell is useless to them and they need to buy more Gold Rods studded with Gems to cast the spell again? 

 

How about the cool Druid ability to grow claws and attack enemies in hand to hand? Each time they want to cast that that have to use (and it is destroyed in the casting) a severed animal paw of a carnivore creature that has claws. So, does the Druid in your game walk around with a bunch of severed animals paws hanging off their clothing? That would go over well in social situations. And what about the smell of carrying around a bunch of severed animal paws?  

 

And there are even crazier OAF Expendable items needed for some of the spells. A piece of cloth ripped from the robes of a necromancer, a bone from a lich, and on and on and on. Items that it would be hard to ever find one of, let alone multiples of the item so you can cast the spell more then once in the campaign. And heaven help you if you also use the encumbrance rules, because an effective magic caster is going to be weighed down by all the multiple expendable foci they need to carry. Or have to be super careful carrying around the OAF FRAGILE EXPENDABLE Glass Bubble. Seems like that would break during the first combat, or extended horseback ride.

 

Plus, do you allow the casters to start with these (often) super rare and hard to get items? Some of them are super valuable. Some valuable enough that the caster probably wouldn't need to go adventuring, they could just sell the items and live comfortably off of the gold. But if they don't start with at least one of each foci needed, then they wouldn't be able to cast any of their spells and would need to spend the first few sessions trying to find/buy them before they could start being effective. 

 

All of this is of course solved by making them not Expendable foci, but that is not RAW and would also alter the cost of all the spells in the books because it is a lesser Limitation. 

 

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion about expendable foci early on in my design.  I mainly don't like them because of book keeping tbh 😂. The reasons you list are just more reasons to dislike them.  I'm using reusable foci but  strongly debating removing them entirely at this point.

 

I'm settling in on my design by using some of the constructive comments in this thread.  I'm happy with how it's turning out so far.  I'm trying to make the magic system flexible enough so that players have options when buying spells. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sentry0 said:

 

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion about expendable foci early on in my design.  I mainly don't like them because of book keeping tbh 😂. The reasons you list are just more reasons to dislike them.  I'm using reusable foci but  strongly debating removing them entirely at this point.

 

I'm settling in on my design by using some of the constructive comments in this thread.  I'm happy with how it's turning out so far.  I'm trying to make the magic system flexible enough so that players have options when buying spells. 

 

One idea that can make spellcasting limitations fun is allowing a low base active points cap and let that be multiplied upwards by limitations.

 

Ex:  The RAW magic cap for the campaign is 15 AP x (1+limitations).  Now the mage can do something like OAF-Wand + Incantations + gestures + full phase to cast to get a deadly 45 AP / 3d6 RKA.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...