Character Creation Tools
Yesterday, Matt James posted an interesting essay on character themes over at Loremaster.org. The broad concept is that character themes could have applications beyond the way they are currently used and could operate as a multiclassing engine, “template” races, and so on. It’s an interesting thought and you should go read it. My thoughts follow.
Character themes were a collaborative effort, one born from a discussion around a conference table a couple of years ago. Dark Sun design had just started. I had flown to Seattle for meetings about the outline, contents, and design direction. At that point, we were still hashing out the outline, whether gladiator would be a class, if we needed a new half-giant race and whether or not it should be Large. We debated the virtues of the background system and on and on. The main thrust of the “big” meeting was to decide how we would handle the setting’s most distinctive character types.
Dark Sun benefits from strong character concepts arising from the rich setting. It’s a world of slave warriors battling for their freedom in the gladiatorial pits. Terrible sorcerer-kings rule the civilized lands like gods. Elemental priests commune with the land and draw power from inscrutable beings of earth, air, fire, and water. Sure, there are rogues, fighters, wizards, and the like, but characters in Dark Sun are more than their classes and races. They have identities bound to the setting.
At this meeting, I put forward the idea about presenting these character archetypes as hybrids, something that had been discussed before. Rather than create a new class for each one (gladiator, templar, dune trader, elemental priest), we’d present them as half-classes. A player could choose a regular hybrid class and then bolt on the setting specific hybrid class. This way you could be a fighter/gladiator, fighter/dune priest, and so on, without having to design a dune trader class or a templar class. Conversation continued and the idea evolved into a separate layer or, rather, a new pillar for character creation.
Pillars of character creation? So a pillar is a fundamental decision you make about your character’s identity. Your racial choice is a pillar as is your class choice. I would argue that skill selection, feats, and powers are also pillars, albeit shorter ones. The more pillars in the game, the more varied and distinct player characters become. We had been hunting for a new pillar for a while. Player’s Handbook 2 introduced the background system. Backgrounds, in my opinion, do not quite achieve pillar status since they lack strong mechanical repercussions. Yes, you can get a +2 bonus to a skill or add a skill to your list of class skills or gain an extra language. And yes, you can piece together a history using background elements. But once you make these decisions, the background loses importance and eventually fades into, well, the background.
Character themes are backgrounds on crack. They establish a history, a calling, or an occupation that adds story to your character and also presents new mechanical options. We can hang feats, paragon paths, and backgrounds on themes to ensure your choice is meaningful and can shape your character’s development as he or she climbs through the heroic tier.
Matt is right in saying that character themes can and should have applications beyond the history/calling/occupation concept and could be used to address a wide range of character concepts beyond the traditional class-race pairing. I agree the dampyr, vistani, elan, and foulborn would have been better had they been themes. And I also think themes could bear the multiclass burden. Heck, I can totally see Multiclass Cleric as a theme. You get limited healing word for selecting the theme and then freely power swap to pick up cleric attack powers and utility powers. Sprinkle in a few cleric class features gained at, say, 5th and 10th level, and you’re done.
So what’s the problem? Why write commentary to Matt’s essay? To be honest, I quite like Matt’s proposal. I just have a couple of reservations.
Equal Weight
Last week, I talked a bit about feats and how certain options are almost mandatory due to gaps in the mathematical architecture. The existence of must-have feats renders choice in feat selection to something not unlike an illusion. You *could* take Literacy, but you’ll probably take Heavy Blade Expertise instead. Since the latter affects your character performance on a consistence basis and since the former has limited applications, most players will gravitate toward the feat they can use. Feats that do not add to a character’s performance on a consistent basis become suboptimal choices and are thus discarded.
So in order for themes to work, they need to offer the levels of advantage or players will just gravitate toward the ones that benefit them the most. Of course, there ought to be themes that benefit controllers just as there are themes that benefit defenders and so on. However, there need to be enough themes for each role/character concept to offer true diversity. This leads to my next point….
Scope
To provide meaningful choice, you have to create several options. Oodles of themes. You would need at least three themes for each character role and probably more themes for over-represented roles. And this is just to start. Looking at Dark Sun, if you play a front line heavy hitter, you have three options: gladiator, primal guardian, or wasteland nomad. In a group feature two frontline heavy-hitters, there’s a good chance both characters will be gladiators. Of course they may differ in class choice, but the theme elements will be identical for both characters. Rather than provide a way to individuate the characters, a limited array of themes actually make them more similar.
So we need lots of themes and of equal mechanical weight (at least in regard to the likely character types who would select them). A theme isn’t like a feat where we can generate two dozen and fit them into two pages. A theme needs at least 2 pages and maybe more. I can imagine an entire book devoted to themes. The more we add, the more mechanical baggage we pile onto a game already creaking under the weight of its mechanics.
Absurd Reduction
Finally, expanding what a theme covers steps onto the class and race responsibility. If we have a vampire theme, why don’t we have racial themes like elf or dwarf (which is what we’d get if we had “half-race themes)? If we have multiclass themes, then why don’t we just do all classes as themes? Imagine: you create a warrior/mage/priest/rogue (basic class) and then apply themes to define your race (elf, dwarf, human) and class expression (paladin, fighter, and so on). Isn’t this what race and class choice do already?
I dig themes. Heck, I had a hand in their creation. I also think we could do more with themes than we’re doing now. God-related themes, fighting style themes, template race themes and more could all offer interesting mechanical options for further customization. So I don’t actually object to what Matt put forward. I just worry that themes could push beyond their intended purpose. Each pillar ought to answer a question about your character’s identity.
Race: Who your character is.
Class: What your character does.
Feat/Power: How your character does what he or she does.
Background/Theme: Why your character does and from where your character comes.
If the above is true, then it is important to preserve the pillars to ensure they retain their mechanical relevance. If we allow themes to dictate the what, it diminishes the need for class. If we let themes describe the who, then we have less reason to have race. This might not be bad. In fact, it might be pretty cool. But it’s not D&D. History weds us to the race-class character structure and I believe it’s vital to preserve the game’s identity by strengthening race and class decision points rather than dilute them. This said, I still believe themes are a powerful tool thatstrengthen character concepts, but I worry about only if themes stand as their own pillars and do not topple the rest.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
I agree. You have effectively expanded upon the concerns I had but did not put into the article. I worry that themes could easily become a crutch for character development, not unlike prestige classes in 3.x.
So, Rob, when will our dark masters give me a call to work on this sorucebook?
I agree. Theme is the perfect mechanic for expressing certain monsters in playable version (vampire, lycanthrope, etc), but also environmental variants on races (desert, mountain, aquatic, etc), and professions.
I have been against themes since their beginning. I can’t quite put my finger on why but they bother me. And they are very popular which pretty much puts me on the losing side and of the minority. See, I don’t mind tax feats. I don’t have to get Weapon Focus or Weapon Expertise for my fighter. I’d be just as happy picking Quick Draw or a racial feat such as Human Perserverance. The plus one to hit isn’t that critical. Nor is my group going to get angry if I plop down a Fighter with Basket Weaving feats or a skill focused feat. That sorta ties back with themes.
Why does every PC have to be super dooper decked out? I am sorry if this offends but I am likening 4th as the Prima Donna era of character creation. Be the best, have the highest stats, best feats, best powers, etc… Worst part is that isn’t even necessary. That’s why the earlier monster design fits my style better. Monsters stuck around longer because my character wasn’t doped on metamorphines or the Mr. Universe hero. Yes, PCs are suppose to be godlike. I get it. But it’s being pushed down the throat, so to speak.
A PC with middle of the road feats or powers is just as fun as the optimized ones. In fact, in my years of constant playing 4th, I’ve seen little difference in either one. Trust me, I’ve played them all. But, it’s what the majority of role-players want, so I’m just going to have to deal with it I suppose.
The “Absurd Reduction” section really hit the nail on the head here, that sounds like a jumbled mess of confusing bits that doesn’t feel like D&D at all. On the other hand themes that fit fighting style etc, could be really evocative and flavorful without changing too much.
I am looking at themes less as an increase to inevitable power creep and more as a way to open the game up to more options that provide depth. Not every PC has to be decked out. I’m sure it exists in some groups, but its not inherently prevalent in my games due to my DM-style.
True. If themes remain optional, I’ll survive it. If they become a requirement, I’ll be annoyed. Could’t the extra Encounter power for free be argued as a power creep? Doesn’t this put a character without a theme at a disadvantage from those that have it. That’s where the concern for themes becoming a requirement comes from. They do add a rich flavor to characters, I’m just against the extra encounter power for free.
I look at Themes like I did the Kits in 2nd AD&D
The Themes can also be used to apply a sub-type to a race. You are a Dwarf first and foremost – but you happen to be a Sheild Dwarf.
I think they are a great way to help customize a character that extra little bit, more so than backgrounds are.
4e PC’s have the biggest bag of tricks ever compared to previous editions, making it hard enough to kill them as is. The power creep factor is indeed pretty relevant, but does one extra power count though? Maybe, but I’m not so sure. Can’t really say much more beyond waiting to see what comes next.
I very much enjoyed reading both Matt James’ article and your response, you both bring up a lot of good points, and I think Themes are a wonderful innovation in the game, and one that has so far been pretty under-used!
I think I generally agree with your concerns about themes though have to disagree with your vampire example in particular. I know in the past Vampire has been done as a race, and now it’s being done as a class, but I have to agree with Matt James, I think it works best as a theme. Look at it this way: Let’s say I want to make an Elf wizard, who’s a vampire. Perhaps they were an elf rogue before being bit. I don’t really see why they would lose their arcane skills or stop using them, just because they’re now a vampire. Likewise before being bit they were an elf, I don’t think it’s necessary to eliminate those features, and it would be a fun/interesting way to allow differences between vampires depending on what race they were before they were bit. Now dwarven vampires are a bit different than hafling ones, and human ones, etc. It allows players more choice in creating their characters.
That’s not to say that the current vampire class looks bad at all, I very much enjoyed the preview and recent design and development article on it, but I still think that maybe a theme would have worked better, (or maybe a theme alongside the class, so you can decide if you want to fully embrace being a vampire or if you want to be a vampire who is still interested in doing other stuff).
Whoops! I originally had “Elf rogue who’s a vampire” then decided that the idea of a Vampire Wizard was much cooler. Sadly looks like I missed one instance of “rogue” in my editing! Sorry for any confusion. I’ll go to the embarrassment corner now…
There’s more than one way to do everything.
Right now, if I want to make a character that’s more than a single class, I can take a multiclass feat (even for a class that doesn’t exist, such as the Bravo); make a hybrid; make feat, race, and power choices that expand my repertoire beyond what my class can normally do; take a background; take a theme (if there’s one that fits; or even do nothing mechanical and just reflavor things the rules don’t cover. Or I can do a combination of all of those. Each of them has strengths and limitations.
All of those appeal to a lesser or greater degree to different people. I happen to love multiclass feats and I feel that there’s a lot of untapped potential there. One of my current characters is a rogue who is going to paragon multiclass into wizard. Other people can’t stand them, though I think most anyone would take a multiclass feat in lieu of, say, Skill Training or Ritual Casting, if they meet the prerequisites.
What I’m getting at is that I’m fine with there being feats (i.e. the dhampyr feats), a race and a class that are “vampiric.” If there were a theme, I’d be fine with that, too.
That said, I would like it if there were a trade-off for taking a theme (or a background), as there are for most other options (apart from non-mechanical reflavoring), but that’s probably not going to happen.
@pdunwin – You bring up a great point, all of these things can all exist in the same system and just provide people with different levels and ways to customize their characters.
I guess the trade-off for taking a theme, is that you can’t take a different theme. But that’s only really a trade off if you’re playing in a game where everyone is taking themes (which to be honest if i were running a game using themes I’d probably have everyone take them just to keep things somewhat even).
Without themes and backgrounds we have race and class. Its classic and we all understand it. However, I disagree with the assessment that race defines who your character is, class defines what your character does, and feats describe how they do it. It sounds nice mechanically for a system, but its just not how 4e is. Race defines what your character can do, both rp wise in many settings, and mechanically with racial powers and traits. Even mores so, class defines who you are. Maybe not intentionally, but NPCs are going to treat someone who appears to be a fighter and someone who appears to be a wizard differently.
So there’s already an overlap on jobs for these pillars. On top of that, class defines PCs far more than race, even with the changes in 4e that were meant to close that gap. Unless you pick allot of racial feats or a racial Paragon Path (which are far outnumbered by class and source options), once you hit Paragon, its easy to forget your race while playing.
I think what really makes players memorable and unique is when we get interesting combinations. Ask someone what they’re playing and you’ll most likely here Half-orc barbarian, elven rogue, or Warforged Psion. A human paladin however, much more common will probably just be described as a Paladin or perhaps by his virtue or paragon path.
So one more layer, thats really defining, is all the better. Ran out of time. More later likely.
I think you identify central ‘problem’ of themes here, which is that we could create tons and tons of themes if we wanted.
I like themes but in part because I think they are a good ‘solution’ to existing 4e problems – themes are more meaningful and more flavorful than, say, multiclass feats. I would rather take the Dune Trader theme than try and finagle myself into a multiclass warlord and reflavor some abilities. But that’s not necessarily because multiclass feats aren’t great, but because the /current/ multiclass feats aren’t great.
In a hypothetical 4.5e, themes might lose some of their luster if other elements of the system were revised and more effectively served their purpose.
I like themes, but I think of them as tools of a campaign setting. In the core books, you could probably come up with a handful of “generic” themes, in the same way that the core books have paragon paths. But I would much prefer to see themes fleshed out in campaign settings, where they can be used to achieve campaign-specific thematic goals.
Here’s a proposal: Themes replace Feats
As RJS pointed out, there are a lot of problems with Feats in their current implementation. If those problems are fixed (by stripping out math feats and power feats, etc.), there’s not a lot left that any reasonable person would describe as a “feat”. I think “theme” would be a better title, and themes might indeed handle multi-classing better than feats.
I think Themes as presented in the Dark Sun CS are the right track; I like them as a replacement for background, and a tool to develop your character outside of the constraints of class. I played a Dwarf Shaman with the Dune Trader theme in a Dark Sun game, and loved it; the theme provided both a strong background element for my character (he was a dune trader!), and allowed me to take powers outside of his Shamanic ability. Sure, he primarily dealt with spirits, but when needed, he could pull out a dagger and scrap with the rest of the party. It made me feel more like the character was a living person with experience and learned tricks, and not just a dwarf who dealt with every problem by summoning a desert spirit.
The problem with this thus far is that they only exist for Dark Sun. I’m very eager to see the Themes in Neverwinter, but as I’m unlikely to run a Neverwinter game, and they’re explicitly tied into the setting, I expect them to be a little useless for me.
I don’t think it would be too complicated to provide Themes for Points of Light, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, or etc; all you really have to do is create the concept, give a ‘free’ power or feature, then create a power for every level. That’s only about as much work as creating new class builds. If WotC made a big book of themes, or released them over DDI, I imagine that would be popular (and a solution to their current dearth of content).
Good points Rob, but I stand by my stance that a vampire class is just sloppy design. A vampire theme is a much more elegant mechanical expression for this type of character.
someone asked what people thought would make good themes and i thought something tied to deities, looks like great minds think alike
the only problem with themes is they are limited to dark sun. what about some retroactive themes for the other settings? it seems like i heard neverwinter is getting some
It’s not sloppy design. There’s more than one way to do everything and a class offers options no other mechanic can. And it doesn’t preclude the creation of a theme in the future.
@Goken Themes are primarily a character concept and then powers. While feats might have concepts, and might have powers, most have mechanics that themes don’t replicate. So while we may not need feats, I don’t see themes as being a replacement.
I think Jason is giving us the right idea here, where themes are a fun way to help define your character, that I feel is much longer lasting than backgrounds, or feats. We could certainly create them till the cows come home, but we could also have say eight, that covers allot of ground and then multi-class feats for at least the original classes.
We’ve managed to mentally deal with a million zillion Paragon Paths.
Yes! I think themes for multiclassing would fit in VERY well with your idea of story-based subclasses from an earlier post.
Rather than playing a multiclass Fighter/Wizard or hybrid Fighter|Wizard, both of which weaken the story-meaning of Fighter and Wizard, or needing to invent a new Fighter subclass (spellblade, swordmage, etc) or Wizard subclass (spiral tower) which balloons out the number of classes, you could play a Fighter[Wizard's Apprentice] or a Wizard[War Veteran] or something.
So Class and Theme are both unified packages of story and mechanics; but Class is the “major” category and Theme is the “minor” category. A subclass could even be done as a Theme limited to a single Class (e.g. maybe only Fighters qualify for the Knight Theme).
@BrianLiberge “We’ve managed to mentally deal with a million zillion Paragon Paths.”
Haha, you’re right, and PPs are something I didn’t even consider. I’m okay with them for the most part, but I like Themes a lot more. In a hypothetical 4.5/5e I would be comfortable getting rid of PPs entirely and instead focusing on having a Theme from level 1 to 30.
Just got my hands on Heroes of Shadow. The Vampire is anything but sloppy. Wouldn’t want 2 of them in a party but as a class it’s a pretty new concept; an awesome twist on class design.
While HoS is for sure Essentials based (which themes back to Essentials in general as evergreen) the book is chalk full of options and so far I haven’t seen one that is wasted creativity.
Special thanks to Schwalb for picking art on the Warlock-Binder that is a mirror image of the Unhallowed High Inquisitor miniature. I’ve never been able to find a class that truly fits that miniature in 4th until now.
I’m surprised HoS didn’t have themes in it- would have been a good opportunity for them.
Can themes work with Essential builds?
I love this idea but my first thought was the glut of prestige classes we had in 3.x
I’m glad so many people are receptive to my article
@Jason
The only problem with having a Theme that runs 1-30 is the lack of change. I like that the character’s race and class represent permanent parts of a character where Theme, Paragon Path and Epic Destiny in segments describe the more fluid or transitional parts of a character. That is, some things about you are the same as 10 years ago and some aren’t. A mechanic that mirrors that dichotomy interests me.
Also, anyone interested in seeing how multiclass Themes might work should go here:
http://at-will.omnivangelist.net/2011/03/multiclassing-2-0-hypothesis-detailed/
Just sayin’.
What is clear to me watching players play Dark Sun is that players are asking for more than just race and class. Themes give them a reason to exist, a motive for their actions, a richer backstory. Backgrounds just don’t register but themes do.
I actually think that design-wise the best use of themes is to make them setting-specific. Make them always focused on the place where the PC is based. Dark Sun, Eberron, FR, Greyhawk. Make them based on setting so that they ground the PC in the setting and the campaign. This is what is happening in Dark Sun.
For home campaigns, DMs can take an existing theme and reskin it or use it as the basis for a new one that fits the campaign.
I really don’t want to see “The Complete Book of Themes”. I want them to be precious and limited. It is fine to have two Dune Traders in a campaign, because that actually makes sense. Two Gladiators? Awesome. This is a case where duplication actually can be a strength. If a player needs variety it is simple enough for a DM to work with a player to do so. In most cases it will work just fine to have duplication. The rest of your build is likely different and this is the common thread (with a change in story, such as one PC being a gladiator from the Greco-Roman Balic and another from the African Gulg).
I agree with Alphastream. Keeping themes based on campaign settings would a good idea. I especially like the notion of grounding the players into the world. I could live with themes this way. Man, I want a Greyhawk Capaign setting- badly.
[...] a short aside, some of you may have noticed the Theme and Multiclassing discussions over at Robert J. Schwalb’s site and Matt James’ site. I’d like to take a moment to provide a perspective on some [...]
So does that mean another Gladiator theme needs to be made for the Forgotten Realms and the POL?
And how many different variations are there for Peasant Theme?
It appears to me that Theme is the equivalent of PP or ED for Heroic Tier. I fall on the side of the more themes there are, the better. I haven’t used them yet. I have never played Dark Sun. (sorry Alphastream)
But I’ve been very interested since the At-Will article was written, posted by Raven Cedrylle.
Multi-class would be great for my Fighter that used to be a warlord. (Not class warlord, background). And then the recently released Ordained Theme would work great for the cleric who is an old man, who just started adventuring life. And adding in the slave theme from Dragon that was originally for Dark Sun is a great back story for our Avenger. Themes are absolutely who you were, and at level 11 you now become something else, like a Stalwart Knight or a Doomguide or a Steelsky Liberator.
A final thought. If we are concerned about page count and how many themes we would need, there are no page counts if everything is digitally delivered, but that’s another soapbox.
Rogate og?oszenia na p?ocie ?roda, 1 czerwca 2011 (08:03) Kartki z nazwiskami radnych gminy Zabierz?w (woj. ma?opolskie), zosta?y porozwieszane przy wej?ciach do gospodarstwa turystycznego. To protest przeciwko planom likwidacji Rogatego Rancza. Samorz?dowcy twierdz?, ?e to manipulacja. “Radni Gminy Zabierz?w zabiegaj?cy o likwidacj? Rogatego Rancza” – mo?na przeczyta? w nag??wku og?oszenia przy wej?ciu do gospodarstwa turystycznego. Dalej jest informacja, ?e to klub przewodnicz?cej Rady Marii Kwa?nik i nazwiska trzech os?b. Na ko?cu widnieje podpis: Klub Przyjaci?? oferty pracy bochnia Rogatego Rancza. Przewodnicz?ca Maria Kwa?nik jest tym oburzona. Przypomina, ?e gospodarstwo stoi nielegalnie. – Nie radni decyduj? o tym, czy ma istnie?, czy nie. To sprawa inspektora nadzoru budowlanego, kt?ry wyda? decyzj? rozbi?rki – zaznacza. “Dziennik Polski” informowa? kilkakrotnie o tym, ?e obiekty stoj? w miejscu, w kt?rym nie dopuszcza si? zabudowy ze wzgl?du na teren rezerwatu Ska?a Kmity. Ponadto zabudowa jest sprzeczna z zarz?dzeniem wojewody, zakazuj?cym sytuowania obiekt?w sto metr?w od ciek?w wodnych, a rzeka Rudawa (na kt?rej jest uj?cie wody) p?ynie zaledwie kilkana?cie metr?w dalej. Na ostatniej sesji by? projekt uchwa?y, zobowi?zuj?cy Rad? Gminy do punktowej zmiany planu zagospodarowania terenu, na kt?rym stoi Ranczo. Domki gospodarskie, przeznaczone dla ma?ych zwierz?t, kt?re tam si? znajduj? i obiekty rekreacyjne w og?le nie powinny by?y tam powsta?. Powiatowy inspektor nadzoru budowlanego W?adys?aw Gwiazdowski wyja?nia? wiele razy, ?e obiekty zosta?y postawione niezgodnie z obowi?zuj?cym planem zagospodarowania, na terenie zieleni le?nej, wykluczaj?cym jak?kolwiek zabudow?. Tymczasem grupa radnych z Jerzym Kowalikiem na czele postanowi?a pom?c Rogatemu Ranczu. Czy uchwa?a mia?a na celu zalegalizowanie zabudowy? – Nie chcieli?my niczego przes?dza?, ale podj?? dyskusj? i upowa?ni? pani? w?jt do wyja?nienia sprawy – m?wi Jerzy Kowalik. – W?a?ciciel Rancza wielokrotnie pomaga? osobom potrzebuj?cym w naszej gminie. Sponsoruje imprezy dla dzieci, wspiera senior?w, dotuje rozgrywki sportowe; nigdy nie odmawia. To miejsce odwiedza wiele dzieci ze szk?? i ?wietlic. Dlatego chcemy pom?c jego w?a?cicielowi w staraniu si? o mo?liwo?? dalszego dzia?ania – zaznacza Kowalik. Na sesji wi?kszo?? radnych spraw? Rancza nie chcia?a si? zajmowa? i usun??a j? z porz?dku obrad. Za to nazwiska niekt?rych pojawi?y si? przy wej?ciu do gospodarstwa. Przewodnicz?ca Rady Gminy zaznacza, ?e “oferty pracy bochnia szermowanie jej nazwiskiem i kilku innych radnych jest manipulacj?”. – Nasze nazwiska zawis?y na p?otach dlatego, ?e nie zmieniamy planu i nie robimy dla nikogo wyj?tk?w. Przekwalifikowanie terenu rezerwatu i okolic rzeki by?by niebezpiecznym precedensem, kt?ry m?g?by wywo?a? lawin? podobnych wniosk?w, a przecie? wobec prawa wszyscy s? r?wni – m?wi. – Nieprawd? jest, ?e ja czy pozostali radni d??? do likwidacji Rancza. To sprawa nadzoru budowlanego. A za wycofaniem uchwa?y na sesji g?osowa?o nie czworo radnych, tylko dwunastu – dodaje przewodnicz?ca. Menad?er Rogatego Rancza Tomasz Krakowski powiedzia?, ?e kartki kto? rozwiesi? w sobot?. Kto to by?? – Przyjaciele Rogatego Rancza, kt?rym zale?y na jego istnieniu. Dlatego kartek tych nie zdejmujemy – ucina kr?tko Krakowski.
My girlfriends an myself have been getting a great dieting product at this website, has anyone tried it so I can add some feedback. It’s at Free Trial Acai Berry. Let us know what you think. Thx!