Jump to content
Infinitron

Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring

Recommended Posts

the bat-crap crazies know that a fighter is not only s'posed to be able to wade into battle and laugh off direct hits from a trebuchet

LOLd at this bit, nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There were no 4E IE games, and I've never played it. I'm comparing fighters to how they worked in the IE games which this game is a spirtual successor to.

 

Most people on this forum over the last 2 years saw fighters in the previous IE games as just plain bad. The usual, You're trying to defend 2nd ed rules? LMAO. And we're still seeing that from some people. So you're about 18 months too late and arguing from the minority. The majority of posters on this forum will disagree with you.

 

I'm not defending 2nd ed rules as there are problems with it just like any system. I have yet to see the perfect system. I'm just one of those people in the minority that liked how it was in the IE games. I liked the single class or dual-classing or multi-classing.  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, it can be avoided by a Rogue who can get invisible is only the one that initiated the combat or that hits first, making the other rogues out of Scouting Mode.  The solo scenario can be trickier but, off the top of my head, time or movement limit on the ability may help.  For example, if the Rogue moves or attacks, it makes him/her visible.  In any case, I'd rather wait till the devs work out Kaz's idea, which I'm personally looking forward to, at the moment.

 

With a party of 6 rogues. The rogue who initiates combat can go into stealth at the start of combat, but the other 5 can't go into stealth mode as well. Sounds complicated. And a rogue can go invisible but when they move they become visible? Uh, no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gromnir's point about renaming classes is right on, actually - though I'd say the worst offender at the moment is "Fighter". Let's be honest. That's a really, really dumb name for a class. All the classes fight! In addition, it carries with it an expectation of being able to do crazy damage like the ie fighters, simply because it bears the same name when it is not really the same class.

 

I propose that "Fighters" are now termed "Defenders" or something like that. Then the issue people have with an ostensibly tank class having a name that suggests otherwise is solved.

 

Of course, some people just would rather that we have a class that is like the ie fighter (since there isn't one at present). That's also a valid concern, though not one that a name change would fix.

 

EDIT: If you want an alternate name for the Rogue, I'd put forth "Skirmisher" as an idea. Then with the Defender and the Skirmisher, we would have two non magical classes, both focused on helping the party, but one tanking focused and one dps focused. As they pretty much are right now - these would just be names that better describe the classes and don't confuse people by having the same names as what are basically different classes from the ie games.

Edited by Matt516
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Technically, it can be avoided by a Rogue who can get invisible is only the one that initiated the combat or that hits first, making the other rogues out of Scouting Mode.  The solo scenario can be trickier but, off the top of my head, time or movement limit on the ability may help.  For example, if the Rogue moves or attacks, it makes him/her visible.  In any case, I'd rather wait till the devs work out Kaz's idea, which I'm personally looking forward to, at the moment.

 

With a party of 6 rogues. The rogue who initiates combat can go into stealth at the start of combat, but the other 5 can't go into stealth mode as well. Sounds complicated. And a rogue can go invisible but when they move they become visible? Uh, no thanks.

 

Complicated?  Not really.  Actually, it shouldn't take a second to notice that there is no difference in the case of having a single Rogue in the party with just a simple rule-only the first hit matters to activate the invisibility ability.
 
The strictest limit would be that any action cancels the invisibility while this can be softened into something like a certain distance of movement or time.  Also, personally, I found it a useful ability since it saves the Rogue from agro at the start of the combat and gives him/her time to prepare for the combat, even offering a chance of another Sneak Attack.
 
In any case, it's just a suggestion and nothing else.  I'd rather wait for the devs to give more feedback, either by releasing newer version of the beta or just keeping us updated.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gromnir's point about renaming classes is right on, actually - though I'd say the worst offender at the moment is "Fighter". Let's be honest. That's a really, really dumb name for a class. All the classes fight! In addition, it carries with it an expectation of being able to do crazy damage like the ie fighters, simply because it bears the same name when it is not really the same class.

 

I propose that "Fighters" are now termed "Defenders" or something like that. Then the issue people have with an ostensibly tank class having a name that suggests otherwise is solved.

 

Of course, some people just would rather that we have a class that is like the ie fighter (since there isn't one at present). That's also a valid concern, though not one that a name change would fix.

 

EDIT: If you want an alternate name for the Rogue, I'd put forth "Skirmisher" as an idea. Then with the Defender and the Skirmisher, we would have two non magical classes, both focused on helping the party, but one tanking focused and one dps focused. As they pretty much are right now - these would just be names that better describe the classes and don't confuse people by having the same names as what are basically different classes from the ie games.

complaints 'bout the rogue and fighter being boring make little sense to us until we see the proposed suggestions for fixing those classes. most constructive suggestions seen by Gromnir are ways to be making the PoE fighter function more like the bg2 or iwd2 fighter. similarly, most suggestions for fixes of the PoE rogue is ways to make it function like a proper ad&d or d20 rogue. 

 

if this were a matter up for vote, we would be in favor o' changing the fighter and rogue to matt's alternate suggestions o' defender and skirmisher. that being said, it may be too late and not enough. am realizing that the kickstarter built up from core classes, and the rogue and fighter were core classes. the rogue and fighter are crpg staples, and obsidian, perhaps, did not wanna disappoint the expectations o' the ie fanbase regarding obvious classes for inclusion in PoE. if PoE requires a rogue and a fighter, and if those classes needs be more in-line with the bg2 and iwd2 incarnations, then the name changes won't be enough... which is too bad, 'cause am thinking each class has a great deal to offer and radical changes will likely break those classes. 

 

regardless, am extreme in favor o' matt's proposed name changes: defender and skirmisher. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Complicated?  Not really.  Actually, it shouldn't take a second to notice that there is no difference in the case of having a single Rogue in the party with just a simple rule-only the first hit matters to activate the invisibility ability.
 
The strictest limit would be that any action cancels the invisibility while this can be softened into something like a certain distance of movement or time.  Also, personally, I found it a useful ability since it saves the Rogue from agro at the start of the combat and gives him/her time to prepare for the combat, even offering a chance of another Sneak Attack.
 
In any case, it's just a suggestion and nothing else.  I'd rather wait for the devs to give more feedback, either by releasing newer version of the beta or just keeping us updated.

 

 

It is complicated and doesn't make sense. The player who has a party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Mage, Priest and Cipher has one rogue that can go invisible at the start of combat but the other rogue can't because of what seems to be trying to stop exploits. And you also proposed that Rogues could go invisible during combat with an encounter/daily power. So now that power is lost for the second rogue because the first rogue used it? Sounds more like a PARTY encounter/daily power instead of an individual power. And that comes across as completely absurd when you have 2 rogues in your party.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hiro Protagonist II

"It is complicated and doesn't make sense."

 Then, so be it in your eyes.  I obviously disagree, though.  So, feel free to disagree with me.  Also, of course, it shouldn't make sense in simulationist point of view-at very least, that much I understand.

 
"The player who has a party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Mage, Priest and Cipher has one rogue that can go invisible at the start of combat but the other rogue can't because of what seems to be trying to stop exploits. And you also proposed that Rogues could go invisible during combat with an encounter/daily power. So now that power is lost for the second rogue because the first rogue used it? Sounds more like a PARTY encounter/daily power instead of an individual power. And that comes across as completely absurd when you have 2 rogues in your party."
You are mixing two things here.  The one is about possible implementation by the devs which seems to make  the "opening" Sneak Attack less risky while the other is just my suggestion as a mere board lurker.  Then, if I were to implement the additional invisibility and if I needed to integrate it with the first ability (I don't think it's necessarily IMO), I'd simply reduce one count from the Rogue who triggered the invisibility-in fact, I have absolutely no idea on why you came up with an idea of reducing the count from the other Rogues.  That said, of course, I wonder how much my suggestion matters.
 
In any case, I'd rather wait for the devs moves rather than continuing this discussion based on quite a few of conjectures.  I don't have infinite time, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are mixing two things here.  The one is about possible implementation by the devs which seems to make  the "opening" Sneak Attack less risky while the other is just my suggestion as a mere board lurker.  Then, if I were to implement the additional invisibility and if I needed to integrate it with the first ability (I don't think it's necessarily IMO), I'd simply reduce one count from the Rogue who triggered the invisibility-in fact, I have absolutely no idea on why you came up with an idea of reducing the count from the other Rogues.  That said, of course, I wonder how much my suggestion matters.

 

It was you who reduced the count of the other rogues:

 

 

Technically, it can be avoided by a Rogue who can get invisible is only the one that initiated the combat or that hits first, making the other rogues out of Scouting Mode.  

 

So the second rogue wouldn't be able to go invisible as well? Either all rogues in a party can go invisible at the start of combat or only one can and the others can't at the start of combat. Or does this just boil down to a special super duper invisibility scouting sneak attack for one rogue to initiate combat.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hiro Protagonist II

"It was you who reduced the count of the other rogues:"

It's misunderstanding.  I only made the other Rogues unstealthed.

 

"So the second rogue wouldn't be able to go invisible as well? Either all rogues in a party can go invisible at the start of combat or only one can and the others can't at the start of combat. Or does this just boil down to a special super duper invisibility scouting sneak attack for one rogue to initiate combat."

Any Rogue can attack during the Stealth Mode (and score Sneak Attack) but it's only the Rogue who hits the enemy first (and started the combat) can trigger the invisibility.  The "magical" invisibility is only possible during the combat since it's an Special Ability of the Rogues.  Before initiating the combat, even Rogues should rely on their Stealth skills.  This can upset some simulationist people but how much of this game is so simulationist in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I prefer the 'limited movement or until attack' version - stops you invisi-walking all over the map but still allows you to wait for the opportune time to initiate combat for the rogue.

Solves my concern about rogues behind enemy lines at least.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gromnir's point about renaming classes is right on, actually - though I'd say the worst offender at the moment is "Fighter". Let's be honest. That's a really, really dumb name for a class. All the classes fight! In addition, it carries with it an expectation of being able to do crazy damage like the ie fighters, simply because it bears the same name when it is not really the same class.

 

I propose that "Fighters" are now termed "Defenders" or something like that. Then the issue people have with an ostensibly tank class having a name that suggests otherwise is solved.

 

Of course, some people just would rather that we have a class that is like the ie fighter (since there isn't one at present). That's also a valid concern, though not one that a name change would fix.

 

EDIT: If you want an alternate name for the Rogue, I'd put forth "Skirmisher" as an idea. Then with the Defender and the Skirmisher, we would have two non magical classes, both focused on helping the party, but one tanking focused and one dps focused. As they pretty much are right now - these would just be names that better describe the classes and don't confuse people by having the same names as what are basically different classes from the ie games.

 

I absolutely agree about the naming conventions.  I tend to think that some of the D&D classes (especially rangers) are unnatural chimeras because their names lack specificity.

 

Fighter - Guard

Rogue - Scout / Highwayman / Bandit / Guerilla / Ambusher / Skirmisher  (to focus on their roles as unfair fighters)

Ranger - Huntsman / Woodsman / Master of the Hound / Archer / Explorer (This focuses on the man of the wilds / hunter aspect and not whatever the **** Drizzt is)

Paladin - Zealot (This is really more because D&D / medieval romanticism has given people unrealistic views on the virtue of knights, who were surprisingly murderous)

Monk - Flagellant (just for funsies, I think the idea of the kung fu monk is a bit too dominant)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's misunderstanding.  I only made the other Rogues unstealthed.

 

So one rogue can scout a room away, stealth and sneak attack, go invisible and the other rogue in your party (with your mage, fighter, priest and cipher) a room away is unstealthed due to combat beginning. Okay, I understand now.

 

 

Any Rogue can attack during the Stealth Mode (and score Sneak Attack) but it's only the Rogue who hits the enemy first (and started the combat) can trigger the invisibility.  The "magical" invisibility is only possible during the combat since it's an Special Ability of the Rogues.  Before initiating the combat, even Rogues should rely on their Stealth skills.  This can upset some simulationist people but how much of this game is so simulationist in the first place?

 

You're now saying other rogues can go invisible during combat like the first rogue? So my rogue in the above example a room away can click on their invisibility power and enter the room. Okay, I understand now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're now saying other rogues can go invisible during combat like the first rogue? So my rogue in the above example a room away can click on their invisibility power and enter the room. Okay, I understand now.

 

pretty much - a limitation of 'combat mode' engines - but giving the 'limited steps' limitation as Wombat suggested, would remove that as an option while keeping the invisi-power available to all rogues in the team.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There were no 4E IE games, and I've never played it. I'm comparing fighters to how they worked in the IE games which this game is a spirtual successor to.

 

Most people on this forum over the last 2 years saw fighters in the previous IE games as just plain bad. The usual, You're trying to defend 2nd ed rules? LMAO. And we're still seeing that from some people. So you're about 18 months too late and arguing from the minority. The majority of posters on this forum will disagree with you.

 

I'm not defending 2nd ed rules as there are problems with it just like any system. I have yet to see the perfect system. I'm just one of those people in the minority that liked how it was in the IE games. I liked the single class or dual-classing or multi-classing.  :mellow:

 

I think you misunderstand. PoE fighters do not feel like 2E or 3E D&D fighters. Josh has said many times that a player should be able to build a class so that it "feels" the same as the IE games. I'm trying to come up with suggestions to make them feel similar within the framework of PoE rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There were no 4E IE games, and I've never played it. I'm comparing fighters to how they worked in the IE games which this game is a spirtual successor to.

 

Most people on this forum over the last 2 years saw fighters in the previous IE games as just plain bad. The usual, You're trying to defend 2nd ed rules? LMAO. And we're still seeing that from some people. So you're about 18 months too late and arguing from the minority. The majority of posters on this forum will disagree with you.

 

I'm not defending 2nd ed rules as there are problems with it just like any system. I have yet to see the perfect system. I'm just one of those people in the minority that liked how it was in the IE games. I liked the single class or dual-classing or multi-classing.  :mellow:

 

I think you misunderstand. PoE fighters do not feel like 2E or 3E D&D fighters. Josh has said many times that a player should be able to build a class so that it "feels" the same as the IE games. I'm trying to come up with suggestions to make them feel similar within the framework of PoE rules.

 

are you sure about josh quote on that? am not actual suggesting you are wrong, because we don't know. our recollection is that he said you could play a wizard in PoE same as an ie wizard. conversely, we recall josh making a point that fighters in the ie games were equally efficacious at defense and offense (perhaps excessively so... for some reason, "massive" is a word that sticks in our noggin regarding ie fighter capacity to deal damage) and that were something they were getting away from with the PoE fighter... but we could be wrong on that. am honest not certain. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand. PoE fighters do not feel like 2E or 3E D&D fighters. Josh has said many times that a player should be able to build a class so that it "feels" the same as the IE games. I'm trying to come up with suggestions to make them feel similar within the framework of PoE rules.

 

 

The reason why they're not like 2E or 3E D&D fighters is because they're not. They're based on 4E fighters. And PoE takes a lot from 4th Edition D&D. A lot of classes are not the same. The Rogue in 4th ED is not the same as a Thief in 2E.

 

Also, not sure about that quote. They're not designed that way. They're designed to be on the front line as defenders which is where their strengths are. I don't think you can make them like 2E or 3E fighters. But I'm interested to see how this all pans out and if you can make a 4th ed Fighter into a 2E/3.x Fighter. Or at the very least, make them 'feel' like them but I don't really know what that means.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps we edited our recollection regarding "massive" into our post above. however, if you think we is gonna type "josh sawyer" and "massive" into a search engine, you is freaking nuts. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'd like to see most of classes eliminated and stratified by talents at every level. Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians would be the same base selecting 2 or 3 talents at creation, then one every level thereafter. Other very similar classes, like Priest & Druids would distinguish themselves the same way, but perhaps broaden their gulf by having spell selection related to domains. Even Monks & Ciphers for to that point, as those classes are both Gish with a converse resource mechanic.

 

Between the "make any build" attribute system and people naturally falling into whichever role they desire through custom builds...it all seems very sensible to do things that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'd like to see most of classes eliminated and stratified by talents at every level. Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians would be the same base selecting 2 or 3 talents at creation, then one every level thereafter. Other very similar classes, like Priest & Druids would distinguish themselves the same way, but perhaps broaden their gulf by having spell selection related to domains. Even Monks & Ciphers for to that point, as those classes are both Gish with a converse resource mechanic.

 

Between the "make any build" attribute system and people naturally falling into whichever role they desire through custom builds...it all seems very sensible to do things that way.

Bleh. No thank you. I like our 11 classes. Many of them just need to be further fleshed out.

  • Like 3

"Now to find a home for my other staff."
My Project Eternity Interview with Adam Brennecke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gromnir's point about renaming classes is right on, actually - though I'd say the worst offender at the moment is "Fighter". Let's be honest. That's a really, really dumb name for a class. All the classes fight! In addition, it carries with it an expectation of being able to do crazy damage like the ie fighters, simply because it bears the same name when it is not really the same class.

 

There's something to be said for sticking with what players know, particularly with a game that's intended to provide a feel for the IE series. Providing that feel is what helped sell the Kickstarter, so I can't imagine they'll want to stray too far from it. Especially given all the changes they've already made.

 

A conservative opinion, I know.


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an aside, while some folks inexplicably wanted to turn it into a Balance Is Bad debate, the developer's update regarding barbarians and fighters made it abundant clear that those two classes were, to use mmo parlance, tanks. is maybe one or two people that bothered to ask josh why the fighter looked like a kinda straightforward tank. the wacky thing 'bout our recollections o' that thread is that we see some folks in this thread that am recalling posted in the fighter and barbarian developer update thread, so is not as if these folks can pretend they were caught unawares.  obsidian were not sneaky 'bout their implementation o' the PoE fighter (or rogue for that matter,) and is actual kinda weird to see some folks who were seeming positive 'bout the PoE fighter from the update that is now wondering why they can't be more like bg2/iwd2 fighters. perhaps the PoE fighter isn't the tank you expected, but it were revealed to be, unequivocally, a front-line, weapons-based combatant able to absorb a great deal o' punishment... a tank. 

 

defender & skirmisher

vanguard & scout

argyraspides & agrianes

 

whatever.

 

including eleven classes in PoE required considerable definition of roles o' those classes. the PoE fighter IS a tank. if a name change helps folks adjust to that change, so much the better.

 

"There's something to be said for sticking with what players know, particularly with a game that's intended to provide a feel for the IE series. Providing that feel is what helped sell the Kickstarter, so I can't imagine they'll want to stray too far from it. Especially given all the changes they've already made.
 
"A conservative opinion, I know."
 
yeah, Gromnir recognized earlier that perhaps it is too late to save the current fighter class. more than a few folks is gonna want to play a bg2/iwd2 version of the fighter and rogue, and PoE doesn't have those. one reason obsidian doesn't have such is 'cause both those classes were broken in their own way. there was no point in playing a single-class thief in bg2, 'cause thieves were relatively crap in combat, and you could maximize their actual useful thief skills by level 7 or 9. fighters, on the other hand, were weapon-based juggernauts able to kill and defend with equal efficacy... and kits didn't help. play as a kensai and you became less defense oriented but you were able to do even more damage. play as a berserker and you got immunity to many o' the most harmful spells in the game.  
 
rogue and fighter is not ad&d or d20 versions. if they need to be more in-line with d&d archetypes... well, then they need serious overhaul.

 

 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 2

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure about josh quote on that? am not actual suggesting you are wrong, because we don't know. our recollection is that he said you could play a wizard in PoE same as an ie wizard. conversely, we recall josh making a point that fighters in the ie games were equally efficacious at defense and offense (perhaps excessively so... for some reason, "massive" is a word that sticks in our noggin regarding ie fighter capacity to deal damage) and that were something they were getting away from with the PoE fighter... but we could be wrong on that. am honest not certain. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

There was a post somewhere where Josh said they added offensive abilities to Paladins because their previous version didn't feel IE-y enough.

 

 

The reason why they're not like 2E or 3E D&D fighters is because they're not. They're based on 4E fighters. And PoE takes a lot from 4th Edition D&D. A lot of classes are not the same. The Rogue in 4th ED is not the same as a Thief in 2E.

 

Also, not sure about that quote. They're not designed that way. They're designed to be on the front line as defenders which is where their strengths are. I don't think you can make them like 2E or 3E fighters. But I'm interested to see how this all pans out and if you can make a 4th ed Fighter into a 2E/3.x Fighter. Or at the very least, make them 'feel' like them but I don't really know what that means.

 

 

I made two suggestions for powers fighters could have that I think would help in this thread. What do you think of them?

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...

×
×
  • Create New...