|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 22, 2015 20:54:56 GMT
well from what i read, pathfinder existed before 4th edition. it was a system made to enhance 3.5 and was entirely compatible with 3.5. but as 4th came out, paizo lost the liscence as wotc didn'T reinstate it. as such the game itself called pathfinder came out.
but whatever... if you read pathfinder and 4th you notice how many similarities there are with 5th edition. so whatever they chose... its clear 5e is a mix of every editions up to this point.
|
|
sotf
Advice Guru
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by sotf on Jul 23, 2015 0:34:11 GMT
Although I enjoyed 4th edition there were undeniable complexities for the sake of complexity built into the system. Although as a DM I really enjoyed the encounter design. That being said 5th edition is fantastic, but I have no way to compare it to pathfinder as I never dabbled with pathfinder. Skimmed pathfinder over a few times at the LGS and came to the conclusion that it was 3.5 repackaged with a much better art director. I was never a big fan of 3rd or 3.5 edition. That being said I loved the D20 game of Iron Heroes which was more or less 3rd edition. It was written by Mike Mearls and so when I discovered that he was part of the design team for 4th edition I tricked myself into thinking it would be awesome! An illusion that kept hold on me until I got 5th. After 2 sessions with 5th edition I took all my 4th edition books (15 of them) to a local "buy, sell, trade" bookstore and I've never looked back. In fact I've role played more in the last six to eight months more often that I did the previous decade and I don't see the trend slowing for the foreseeable future. I tend to keep rulebooks, never know when you might get some idea that can be served by reworking a monster/location/feat/character from older editions and other games.
|
|
Mortal Knight
Paint Manipulator
Current Game: Return to Serenity (Custom Campaign)
Posts: 194
|
Post by Mortal Knight on Jul 23, 2015 3:05:08 GMT
well from what i read, pathfinder existed before 4th edition. it was a system made to enhance 3.5 and was entirely compatible with 3.5. but as 4th came out, paizo lost the liscence as wotc didn'T reinstate it. as such the game itself called pathfinder came out. but whatever... if you read pathfinder and 4th you notice how many similarities there are with 5th edition. so whatever they chose... its clear 5e is a mix of every editions up to this point. You are right in the before 4th edition aspect I was only useing it as an example. It is not completely compatible with 3.5 in fact they have a lengthy conversion guide for the game on the site. Paizo was the publisher of Dragon Magazine and a number of supplements and really wanting to go into the history of it Paizo wanted to keep making 3rd party stuff for 3th knowing 4th was coming they instead lost the rights and due to the popularity of their works decided to set up Pathfinder RPG instead of seeking to get it back. At least that is what I have heard on the forums. Now we all know the internet can lie from time to time so either that forum admin was telling the truth or exaggerating a bit is beyond my knowledge however 5th edition is meant to be a complete back to the roots work over saying it is like 3rd or 4th means you should really look into the mechanics more. The only thing it has kept from either are a few choice spell names and the D20 system which is tweeked a bit to. I have only played through level 5 but I'll tell you know that game felt more like AD&D or D&D to me than 3.5 or 4th any day.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 23, 2015 8:48:09 GMT
encounter wise it felt like ADnD for sure... but aside that, nothing else looked like it. i remember quite well my days playing ADnD and it was a nightmare stats wise. 5e is much closer to 3e stats wise which was much cleaner then any adnd. then 4e came and they removed even more stats. 5e removed the rest of the useless stuff.
basically its encounters from the old days, but cleaner engine much like 3e and 4e were. and thats exactly what mike mearls wanted when he did 5e. also, take into the balance that mike mearl who created 5e, also created 3e. which leads us even more into believing that he took 3e as a reference.
these reasons, are exactly why i say its a dumbed down version of 3e. but whatever 5E is much better then any previous versions if you ask me.
|
|
Mortal Knight
Paint Manipulator
Current Game: Return to Serenity (Custom Campaign)
Posts: 194
|
Post by Mortal Knight on Jul 23, 2015 15:55:58 GMT
My big beef with the system is the removal of the feats it in the pick and choose since with the you select you class and archetype and then have a very very limited amount of what you can and can't do in the future. I'm about to start picking up a 5e game with an old friend that has published work with Frog God Games he loves 5e and is pushing for me to go level 1 thru 20 with him in a game. I'm a tabletop guy first so I'm always willing to give games chance after chance but 5e always felt more like selecting your path and going down it instead of this is exactly who I want to be and look at what I have built.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 23, 2015 17:17:32 GMT
thats exactly why its cool though. can't have people min max by doing the 10 class characters. you just can't take fighter for the sake of it now. in 3e and pathfinder you were almost always taking a level of fighter purely for the feat it gave. and since stats boost weren't in class. it made choices much eassier to make.
here you have to commit which makes the choices much rarer. here you say feats were removed, but its entirely false. most DMs use the variant system of feats. and why wouldn't they. its a great system that should of been in the core set. feats are an actual choice now, either you gain +2 to your stats, or you get a feat. and feats are much more powerfull now then they were back then. the bonus to stats are now in class, so some gets more and others gets less. but the point stays, you will be missing out if you multi class too much.
overall, the system is greater then the previous systems, at least in my opinion. my only beef with it, is that some classes are much more powerfull then others. some classes have great choices, but others seems like having only shitty choices. i also dont really like the advantage system. disadvantage is so hard to get. yet advantage is given so easily.
|
|
Mortal Knight
Paint Manipulator
Current Game: Return to Serenity (Custom Campaign)
Posts: 194
|
Post by Mortal Knight on Jul 23, 2015 18:01:10 GMT
thats exactly why its cool though. can't have people min max by doing the 10 class characters. you just can't take fighter for the sake of it now. in 3e and pathfinder you were almost always taking a level of fighter purely for the feat it gave. and since stats boost weren't in class. it made choices much eassier to make. here you have to commit which makes the choices much rarer. here you say feats were removed, but its entirely false. most DMs use the variant system of feats. and why wouldn't they. its a great system that should of been in the core set. feats are an actual choice now, either you gain +2 to your stats, or you get a feat. and feats are much more powerfull now then they were back then. the bonus to stats are now in class, so some gets more and others gets less. but the point stays, you will be missing out if you multi class too much. overall, the system is greater then the previous systems, at least in my opinion. my only beef with it, is that some classes are much more powerfull then others. some classes have great choices, but others seems like having only shitty choices. i also dont really like the advantage system. disadvantage is so hard to get. yet advantage is given so easily. See variant rules to use feats not my cup of tea plus how am I supposed to build my far shot bard without being able to select the feats I need to make him. Sure I can go down a path as I have said time and time again and then come level 12 I could hate what I have made or I can build slowly and know that among the hundreds of feats out there that I have my choice to make and if need be and my GM is kind enough I can spend the time retraining those if need be. As for multiclass when it comes down to that not many really multiclass if they aren't playing Witch or a similar class that gives little in bump at level 20. Wizard for example will make you immortal at level 20, Fighter gain weapon mastery making the confirm crit alway confirm and giving you a higher multiplier to that crit damage. A witch on the other hand gives an additional Hex making this a good multi class and is really built to multiclass. However you wouldn't want to multiclass something like the Wizard Pathfinder makes this a big decision. In Fact any experienced player most of the time will even stay away from prestige classes because of this same reason. I personally have only played with a player going for Eldritch Knight that took the Fighter class to gain the prerequisite to go into that Prestige class. I can not give this system a better than any other system I do not like that my skills are so limited, my feats have to play off variant rules to work, that everything is so powerful for the player it becomes hard to keep a proper CR set for the group. That being said I am a Pathfinder guy but before that I was a 3.5e guy and then a 4e guy and if it wasn't for 4e just being a power system be it per encounter or daily I would have stuck with it but a Fighter should be a feat based character not I have this special power that allows [X] plus my feats. I do love the spell system for 5e thou the fact that your spells grow in power with you is awesome but weapons and armor seems a little off to me in 5e. Setting a specific number to AC for PLate and not adding the DEX mod to that number just feels weird it seems like if I have a fighter that is more agile than you my armor would be more effective in ways such as dodging and deflection so why limit that set to an 18 and not the common 10+DEX+9+Misc? Speaking of plate where is my option for half-plate and full plate why limit the players. There it is again Limit. We can both agree that the two systems have their flaws and no one system will I ever consider to be the perfect system but to consider 5e the best system of any before it to me sounds insane but then again I didn't grow up in AD&D books so to me this seems more foreign I grew up in 3.0 and 3.5 book so of coarse we gravitate to what we feel more comfortable with. Pathfinder has a system for almost everything you want to do from Chase to Mass Combat and I am by far a by the system kinda guy but that is one thing 5e is it is a system that has enough open to toy with that you can create your own rule sets and not feel like it might conflict with something else you have made down the line. So sure 5e is good like that but when it comes down to as a player I personally can't stand the character creation because of those same limitations you enjoy I don't see them as a good thing. I see it as pulling away from the roleplay element and giving it more of a scripted element I want that personalized experience I want to build a character ground ground up and not be told that I can't achieve what I want to do because of my class. Before I forget the Advantage system does exist in certain Feats in Pathfinder. As for the stats per class I do enjoy that making them a specific bonus is kinda nice and does make you consider which class to take for those bonuses but why not just let the players choose? Another limitation but at least that one makes sense. This mate has been a good debate.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 24, 2015 11:03:01 GMT
im confused... i think you are mistaking the beta test books and rules for the official ones. cause most of what you said, isn't even in the official book. so i think i lost myself somewhere... variant feats are just an optionnal rule, and most DM uses it as if it was part of the system. and there is not 100+ feats, there is like 50 at best. and im pretty sure you can do whatever you want with it.
as for fighters being a feat beast.... they still are. they are the only class with so many ABSI. while everyone else have ABSI at level 4,8,12,16,19... the fighter gets ABSI at 4,6,8,12,14,16,19 making him able to get much feats and still cap his 2 main stats. also, the eldritch knight is probably the weakest of the archetypes. champion rocks hard, and battle master takes the top because 1d8 more on each hit is nothing to sneeze at.
overall im confused... i'd say if you dont take any of the variant rules, the game system is just too basic. but if its your fun to play a game without any changes to the engine. then suits you. i think your problem is that you like creating stuff more then playing with it. its how i understand this. makes me think of my cousin, he hates 5e because its too basic. loves 3.5 more because its wide open. but hes the kind of player that changes characters every 4-5 games. because he likes creating more then he likes playing.
the only thing i really hate about WOTC is how they are keeping their creations for themselves... we got nothing but backgrounds with the tiamat adventure. we got a few new spells and a few new races with elemental evil. and now we'll get a psychic class with the new supplement... they are literally giving us stuff drop by drop every 6 months... i hate that. i wish they'd give us a bit more... at least a new class and 2-3 new races along with 4-5 new feats would be much better.
|
|
Mortal Knight
Paint Manipulator
Current Game: Return to Serenity (Custom Campaign)
Posts: 194
|
Post by Mortal Knight on Jul 24, 2015 14:57:47 GMT
If you are saying pathfinder only has 50 you are very mistaken sir and I never said fighter wasn't a feat beast that happens to be my class I'm comparing system to system 5e has variant rules for feats I understand that but why is it not part of the core mechanic of the game?
As I have stated and seems not to get addressed is how 5e forces you down specific paths based on the game its self choices are just more limited by the game mechanic its self sure it leaves plenty open for you to make yourself but when it comes to having all the content you need as you said it drops little by little BC WotC care only for their money not the player as they have showed time and time again. As any successful company does but remember Paizo isn't hunting down and trying to stop custom campaigns that are free or free info sites. 5e is a money machine in the end and for me I'm want a game where I don't have to wait 6 months for what I want to play.
This is the great thing about being a gamer being able to have different opinions
|
|
|
Post by wilmanric on Jul 24, 2015 17:55:39 GMT
There will be dead adventurers too, if done correctly!
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Jul 25, 2015 3:51:51 GMT
There will be dead adventurers too, if done correctly! If there are kobolds, and I am involved in their presence in the game, then there will be many deaths, indeed. I shall name their cavern the Cave of A Thousand Deaths...
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 25, 2015 7:38:12 GMT
mortal knight... thousands of feat... most of which are useless... 5e combined like a 100 or so feats into much more powerful version. example... power attack and cleave are now one feat. charge and bulrush... one feat as well. fact is... feats forced you into builds as well in other editions. here not so. as if you pick feats. you lose stats. so it gives you even more choices.
as for paths...you are not forced into anything. on the contrary you have choices to make. same as the other editions. unless you tell me you never multiclass in older editions.
again seems to me you hate a system simply for being less cluttered.
|
|
Mortal Knight
Paint Manipulator
Current Game: Return to Serenity (Custom Campaign)
Posts: 194
|
Post by Mortal Knight on Jul 25, 2015 17:23:36 GMT
I can see why you would say that but it really isn't because it is less cluttered it just feels more like a MMO set up with a talent tree feel. I just enjoy a mass of choice and while some do seem useless and sure I'll never personally ever choose some Pathfinder is a game mastery set up and by that I mean that if you find the right combos any class can be deadly and many of those useless feat play into that system I personal feel that is our a RPG for me shold be I like to build as much as play I typically play a Dwarf Fighter named Ordell Stromseige but I often will just sit around the house building random characters just to have on hand incase I need NPCs for my game. This building over and over again has showed me that no matter the class there are so many options to you and multiclassing is really not something I like to do as I stated before you loose those level 20 awesome abilities and I honestly in the last 4 years I have been running Pathfinder games never once had any of my players want to multiclass because of that same reason. Back in 3.5e and when I ran that system multiclassing seemed more common with my players. Since starting this conversation with you I have looked more and more into 5e trying to see it through a different set of eyes and it still just feels less like a hero I want to be and more like a hero DND wants me to play.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 25, 2015 19:16:02 GMT
as i said... you are like my cousin... you preffer creating characters then actually play. my cousins like that as well... he would be playing a charcater. but what he loves is to create what comes in his mind. he never plays the basic characters. he never plays regular choices. his characters are always a bunch of complications and off the record characters. in th eend, he plays his characters only to see what they ar elike in play. once they are tested, he drops out or just create another one.
i also like creating characters... but there is one thing i hated about 3.5. which is what i played for years. the fact that you'd need to look thru hundreds of books just to find that one feat you were looking for. the fact that creating a character was taking me like a whole week just to make him perfect. the game was a min mxing hell to me. the game was designed to be min maxed and in the end you'd have a multi classed character everytimes. there was no reasons not to min max or multi class your character. and in the end the basic classes were so outmatched that it was making the game so unbalanced.
gotta admit that much... characters in pathfinder and 3.5 were simply indestructables. try and defeat a crusader. that class is what the fighter should of been right away. there is a good reason why most DMs were banning the book of 9 swords. there is also a good reason why most DMs banned supplement books. even though i still love 3.5... i will admit that it was way too unbalanced... anything after level 8 was unplayable. and certain classes were so strong that before level 8, they were godly and could take on creatures almost 10 levels above them.
|
|
Mortal Knight
Paint Manipulator
Current Game: Return to Serenity (Custom Campaign)
Posts: 194
|
Post by Mortal Knight on Jul 26, 2015 8:49:01 GMT
3.5 did get way unbalanced but as I said I play my fighter rarely anything else and I never multi class myself I do multi class NPC from time to time and as for advanced classes I don't think they unbalance pathfinder as much as they did in 3.5 do you remember Psionics that just made everything a plow through. But Pathfinder is not a indestructible build I promise you that I have one player at my table and in my campaign that still has his 2nd character of his campaign granted most encounters are based off a hard or epic difficulty but once you pass level 10 in Pathfinder the difference in a CR 10 and CR 11 or 12 is a huge jump.
I agree there is a lot of min maxing when it comes to pathfinder its almost a must with all the supplements which can take a little away but if you study the game you find really interesting builds. Myself I may play the same fighter but I typically will try a new build for each game I play. As for being all for creating I'm considered one of the top DMs in my town and while their aren't many here it is a necessity for me to always make new character build after all when you have up to an audience of 10 or 20 people when we do a public game it keeps things interesting. Plus have you never been building a random build just to see how it flowed then got inspired by the build enough to turn it into a hook or main villain maybe even the next big local hero the group meets up with.
I never play my NPC builds in anyone else's games because I want them to be seen as just that character that they are and sometimes when I share that the boss they just barely beat or whipped the group was the same level and point buy just a better build than the min maxers at the table the look in those eyes is just satisfying and often gets them away from those builds they find on the forums and gets them to studying the game. Creation is 3/4 of my job as a DM and for me not to be building character after character would be dropping the ball for my players.
For instance I had surgery and my campaign went on hiatus for 6 weeks in a row the first game we had a chance to play I had 12 people show up at my door and 6 of those had never even been in my game they just heard about it of coarse I have a limit of 7 at my table so 5 of them had to jump in and out playing just friendlies but when I had 20+ characters to choose from they got a feel of the game from a different stand point then they would typically play and my main 6 were so eager to get back to the table they had no problem waiting and even had created all kinda of ideas of how the game was going to play story wise they felt it necessary to print and show me the emails and without all those random bored builds most of that never would have happened simply because without a good supporting cast a story is just a story but with the right cast that story becomes a alternate reality of a sense.
I love to play but at my core I love to build a world and build the NPCs to form a story around and a DM will always be where my heart is over being the player any day simply because I love to create. When I am the player however I always just bring ordell I'm not the type to want to drop character after character because I found my character and I love to play as that stern dwarf voice of reason and honor.
And honestly I feel a little bad because I never saw the nine swords stuff. And I still don't get why you say multi class is so used I literally know a hand full of people who don't multi class outside of the reason of the prestige class they want to play and even with them I know maybe a hundred and most of them are on the forums any experienced pathfinder player will tell you that you shouldn't just because if you get to level 20 again you lose to much in that level 20 spify.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Jul 26, 2015 19:42:53 GMT
Throwing out rule 0 and restricting the DM's ability to flex the rules to adjust to the situation (for or against the PC's) will lead to ongoing problems in a campaign. It is basically hamstringing of one of the key people in a game.
Multiclassing isn't a problem unless you let it be. Pun-Pun, while viable as per RAW, will never happen in a game with a DM that says "Nope, doesn't work." Even if the rules say they should work, the DM flexed his muscle to say no. Same goes for the player who wants to minmax has character via multiclassing: explain to me how your character decided to go from the martial expertise of being a fighter (much less convinced someone to give him the training with sub-par strength stat) to being a wizard.
Explain it to me and sure, we'll go with it. If not...nope.
You want to dip into a prestige class? All prestige classes in my games have an RP requirement for entry. You want the most badass abilities from that class? You better get involved in the RP for it.
Bad guys too hard/easy? A quick adjustment of hit points can fix that...or the tactical use of on the fly circumstantial changes. Perhaps the lone werewolf the players are facing is joined by 3 more who were waiting to ambush...and one of them is an alpha, with advanced stats (which you can make up on the fly depending on how things went with the original wetewolf).
Take that power away...the power to DM in a way that enhances the game...and yeah, your players are gonna overpower you every time. The game is purposely tilted in the players' favor because they EXPECT the DM to do this.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 26, 2015 20:30:09 GMT
can't agree more on this... my only beef in this reasoning is that most of the time the players feel they are playing against the DM. the other part of the players thinks they are heroes, and heroes just kick ass. there is nothing more bad ass then pulling off a win against an evil being. and anything less then that isn't satisfying at all. basically most players, not to say the majority expect to win reguardless of how many died during the fight. thats why the game is balanced toward them. not because the DM can change things... but because the players feels cheated and not very heroics when they fail.
as for multiclassing... dude how many times did one guy learned more then one thing ? i hate bringing reality into this, but lets be real honest here... there is no reasons as to why one guy couldn't learn a fuck ton of classes. aftera ll, hes dilluting his heritage on his own. and im quite sure i can totally give you a reason to everything i've done including the fabled 16 classes rogue !
it is only normal for someone to ditch the bad stuff from one art to maximise the good stuff. as bruce lee once said... why would someone voluntarily use a bad move that will get you countered when you can take another diciplines moves and adapt it to a better chance of winning ? or did you think jeet kun do was just one art ? bruce lee even uses sword fight techniques to make his art. and look where it got his art.
fact is... there are tons of bad stuff in classes, to a point where people had "NO" choices but to multiclass. this is what i like about 5E... the only real reason to multiclass is because the ultimates aren't all good. aside fromt hat the lower levels are a must and if you multiclass, you almost always have no choice but to go 3 levels, which stops multiclassing because you lose so much in the process.
exemple... im creating an aarokocra monk fighter... i'm taking fighter simply for its superiority dices. but to get that i need 3 levels. and monk is good all the way up to 17 levels. i'd start to lose too much if i go below that threshold. see thats what multiclassing should of been to begin with. that was the problem with classes back in 3.5 and pathfinder, there was classes way too good to pass up and in the end the basic ones were just sub par right away. best exemple... fighter, nobody made a fighter anymore... the other melee classes were just too good. and the only reason to take fighter became for the free feat. this alone shouldn't have ever hapenned !
exemple of classes that simply threw the fighter off... crusader... they had stances, they had abilities. they came back every 3 rounds with the right feats. that meant that after 3 rounds without using anything... they get the said ability right away. so that made them fighters with sneak attacks without even multiclassing. because lets be honest... 2d6 damage that bypasses hardness and DR was just too good to pass up. and he was able to do that every rounds. +2 hit points every hits... count me in on regeneration. and if things were wrong... he could even go healer by healing 1d6 damage per rounds. without using any ressources.
when you get a class that does it all, thats when you know you lost control of your game.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Jul 26, 2015 22:12:53 GMT
How often to people multiclass in real life? Rarely, if ever. Bruce Lee is a monk...the fact that he adopted a different style of fighting does not indicate multiclassing. That is a stylistic representation, not a mechanics one. If anything, he took a feat to better represent the differing fighting style.
IF we are translating the game to reality.
Each class represents a conglomeration of similar life paths. A fighter is an athletically minded person who tuned his prowess towards fighting. If you wanted merely an athlete, the Expert class is for you.
You may be able to make a BETTER rogue by flopping classes about. Should you? No, because there is no justification, realistically (or even fantastically) to do so for 16 classes. I would have made you retire the character at the 4th class change and suggest you play a class that solidly represents your concept better throughout the class progression.
Or suggest you switch to GURPS, which micromanages such arbitrary changes better (but is also a micromanagement nightmare).
Each class is meant to encompass lifepaths in a broad spectrum in D&D. The minmax problem isn't a problem with the classes themselves being too restrictive. It's a matter of player entitlement and DM generousity (to the point of being too generous).
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jul 27, 2015 19:28:37 GMT
oh god... so you think people learn a single job in their life and stops at that... sorry man, but i am at about 5 different jobs right now...
my first specialisation was computer hardware, then it was extended to programming as well. none of it worked out for me, so i switched career. and i did about 4 times like that. so 5 different specialisation, you'd think one would forget what he did before, but thats not true. you keep it. its called adding strings to your bow. same happens in d&d. one doesn'T just learn how to be a fighter, some have more experiences. some actually learn other stuff. the book itself describes the classes as jobs. the book itself encourages you to seek more by looking into other classes.
realistically... if you'd be stopping me from doing that shitty 16 classes rogues... i'd be like then you are stopping someone from getting very good at what he wants to do. the 16 classes of rogue only serves a single goal... to make sneakattacks better. so by saying the character is not real... i'd say ok... so you have a class in university that could further up your specialty, yet just because you dont want to have too many degrees. you wont take it ? even though it would specialise you even more into that same branch ?
at that point if you wouldn'T understand a rogue trying to maximise his deadly sneak attacks, i'd simply quit your gaming group.
as for bruce lee, he wasn't a monk man... he was a true warrior. he did everything to perfect his art. his art actually consist of 3 martial arts, because he felt each martial arts had their strenght and their weaknesses, and he tryed to remove as much weaknesses as he could. in all honesty if you can't understand how evolution works and how one can try and evolve, then its futile to play for roleplaying man. roleplaying is exactly that, not just a set of minds you add to a character. its evolving said character. by stopping classes for the sake of stopping it, then you are forcing a player into not roleplaying his character to the max, as you are stopping his experience from being acquired.
the minmax problem doesn'T come from DM at all... i'd say i'd never play with you as a DM then.. simply because what you are telling me is... i can't do the character i want. planning a character is part of the game man, if i can't plan my character as i want it, then why would i play the game ? its too restrictive to me.
|
|
|
Post by nvdberg on Jul 27, 2015 19:38:31 GMT
Gentlemen, even though a good discussion is healthy...
It has become quite clear both your views are very different.
|
|