|
The thing that bothers me most about this is the Emotional Status scale runs from Depressed to Exalted. Exalted isn't the opposite of Depressed! If anything it should be "Exalting," since exalted refers to how others perceive you, not how you feel about yourself. Stupid thing.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Pathfinder (1st Edition) Alpha Playtest Release 1 Skills The playtest was rather daring in this regard: Each class could "tag" a number of skills as Trained skills. The number of tags was equal to your 3.5-era skill points plus Intelligence modifier, such as 2+Int for Fighters, 8+Int for Rogues, and so on. If the Trained skill was also a Class skill, you would roll [d20 + character level + 3 + other modifiers] If the Trained skill was a cross-Class skill, you would roll [d20 + ((character level + 3) / 2) + other modifiers] I believe this was the model also used by True20 We know that by the time we got to Core, they abandoned this model in favor of the more traditional individual skill rank allocation, where you'd earn so many ranks per level depending on class, and then you'd assign ranks to skills, and then if it was a Class skill, you'd also get a +3 flat bonus. The playtest version would have been less fiddly, but the Core version is more powerful for cross-Class skills, since they can get to d20+20 rather than d20+11. Further, eliminating skill ranks would have had some knock-on effects with regards to things like feat and PrC prerequisites. Which is not to say that Paizo couldn't have rejiggered these some other way, but perhaps they felt that the playtest version was too radical a change. As far as skills themselves, the playtest has Deception and Theft, which Core does not ... ... and then Core has Bluff, Sense Motive and Sleight of Hand, which the playtest does not. Looking at the playtest's Deception, it can be used to: * Tell lies, which is what Bluff does in Core * Detect when one is being lied to, which what Sense Motive does in Core * Make a Feint in combat, which is what Bluff does in Core * and pass secret messages, which is what Bluff does in Core Looking at the playtest's Theft, it can be used to: * Open locks, which is what Disable Device does in Core * Pick pockets, which is what Sleight of Hand does in Core * Hide objects, which is what Sleight of Hand does in Core * and identify marks of a thieves' guild, which is not specifically documented in Core Theft is only a class skill for the Rogue * Acrobatics in the playtest still used a flat DC to allow one to move through threatened spaces. In Core, this was changed to be a DC equal to the enemy's Combat Maneuver Defense, which is much harder to do in most circumstances and would have put an end of the 3.5 issue of being able to Tumble willy-nilly through enemies after a certain level of skill * Appraise in the playtest used to have a table of Appraise check DCs to determine the true value of an object, with more valuable objects having a higher DC. In Core, this was changed to a flat DC 20. * Diplomacy in the playtest used to have flat DCs for improving an NPCs attitude towards the player. In Core, this was changed to a flat DC + the target's Charisma modifier. * Perception in the playtest used to have separate uses and rules and DCs and DC modifiers based on whether you were using sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch, hence the provision in the races section of certain races having Perception bonuses, but only for certain senses. In Core, Perception became a much flatter skill, just with a single table of sample DCs for using the different senses. It seems like this was a good change, since the playtest implementation would have been even more fiddly than 3.5's Spot vs Listen checks, even if it was only one skill. * Spellcraft in the playtest was both the skill you would use to identify spells, but also the skill you would use when casting defensively, trying to maintain concentration, and so on and so forth. As you may recall, in 3.5, Concentration was a skill separate from Spellcraft. In Core, concentration checks were removed entirely as a skill and were just a normal part of the combat rules: [d20 + caster level + spellcasting modifier]. The playtest merging Concentration and Spellcraft into one was a good change, but Core went even one step further. As well, Spellcraft in the playtest was an Int-based skill, which made it awkward if you were a Wis-based or Cha-based caster. * In Core, the Stealth skill received an additional clause allowing players to move from cover-to-cover, and receiving another Stealth check at the end of the movement, and not breaking Stealth if the check is successful. The playtest had no such specific rule.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
I would love an explanation of 'limit break' being on here, as well as why 'Exaltation' is banging around. Also 'crystals' and a ten dot scale for 'read/write' and everything about the 'psychology' section really. It's the worst character sheet I've ever seen and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I would love an explanation of 'limit break' being on here, as well as why 'Exaltation' is banging around. Also 'crystals' and a ten dot scale for 'read/write' and everything about the 'psychology' section really. Also what the hell is "Body" doing as a physical combat skill? Is that Toughness? I mean there's already Resilience AND Stamina. And "Minds Skills"? Why is minds plural? Do characters in this game have more than one brain? Furthermore, this is less of complaint and more of an observation, did they just split the lyrics of the Amis part of Return to Innocence to name those magic types? Be real with me Eoris.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
Personally, I've always had a problem with systems that split physical power and resilience up. They should be a stat for how big, powerful, fast, and tough you are, and a separate stat for doing finesse things, and the rest should be mental or social.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Personally, I've always had a problem with systems that split physical power and resilience up. They should be a stat for how big, powerful, fast, and tough you are, and a separate stat for doing finesse things, and the rest should be mental or social. I demand precisely equal granularity between physical prowess and mental prowess. I don't care if it's one number each or a grid like NWoD or an elaborate system where every muscle group and every mental trait are ranked separately, so you can have useless biceps and weirdly overdeveloped memory for song lyrics. Parity, I demand parity!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I would love an explanation of 'limit break' being on here, as well as why 'Exaltation' is banging around. Also 'crystals' and a ten dot scale for 'read/write' and everything about the 'psychology' section really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
I figured this thread would have done a writeup on that sooner or later. It sounds like every 00s stereotype of Final Fantasy in tabletop form.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 12:30
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I think it's designed around having hirelings and multiple characters under your control, which was pretty common with high level D&D back in the day. Having a 'Party Caller' to corral the cats and speak for the whole group was a thing back in the day as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:I figured this thread would have done a writeup on that sooner or later. There was a writeup. It's fairly brief for the density of information in the two books, but at the same time I don't envy anybody trying to do a writeup of this game, it's very hard to parse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:There was a writeup. It's fairly brief for the density of information in the two books, but at the same time I don't envy anybody trying to do a writeup of this game, it's very hard to parse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Having a 'Party Caller' to corral the cats and speak for the whole group was a thing back in the day as well. So wait..."You must gather your party before venturing forth" guy in Baldur's Gate was once a real party job demanding specialist builds?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It's a genuine Heartbreaker, in that someone poured an enormous amount of money (insurance payout? lottery win? home equity loan?) getting those books printed and paying for a ton of art to present their incoherent vision to a baffled and uncaring world. Yeah, I got it when they were clearly emptying out their warehouse of stock in a fire sale. It was a tragic amount of work and effort put into something that's functionally near-unplayable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Loxbourne posted:So wait..."You must gather your party before venturing forth" guy in Baldur's Gate was once a real party job demanding specialist builds? No, the caller is just the person that the GM speaks directly to to ask, "What does the party do now?" This is an important role when there are more than five people in the party. It was common to have up to 20 players apparently, because the amount of pregame effort expected of the GM was very high and no one realized that GMing was a thing that basically any schlub could do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah, larger groups weren't that uncommon early on, I knew a very old AD&D group that was 12+ strong at one point. With groups that large you might have more than one caller to represent smaller groups within the overall party. It speaks to how AD&D really was a craze at one point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Yeah, larger groups weren't that uncommon early on, I knew a very old AD&D group that was 12+ strong at one point. With groups that large you might have more than one caller to represent smaller groups within the overall party. It speaks to how AD&D really was a craze at one point. And most parties had extensive use of hirelings. This was explicitly part of the design process of Tomb of Horrors, it was meant to be a dungeon that couldn't be beaten simply by bringing in an army and throwing bodies at it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
You could really feel the wargaming origins of D&D, some groups had folio folders full of extra characters to substitute the ones who got eaten by a beholder or whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And most parties had extensive use of hirelings. This was explicitly part of the design process of Tomb of Horrors, it was meant to be a dungeon that couldn't be beaten simply by bringing in an army and throwing bodies at it. And yet, as I recall, one of Gygax's original players beat it by doing just that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
One of the big powers of the Fighter in the older editions is that he literally had an army working for him. That's what he got instead of the ability to hide behind a quarter inch pipe or throw fireballs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:And most parties had extensive use of hirelings. This was explicitly part of the design process of Tomb of Horrors, it was meant to be a dungeon that couldn't be beaten simply by bringing in an army and throwing bodies at it. IIRC, the reason there are Charisma-based limits on how many henchmen you can have in AD&D 1E was to nerf Rob Kuntz's favored "throw bodies at the dungeon until it breaks" strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:And yet, as I recall, one of Gygax's original players beat it by doing just that. No they didn't. Don't be ridiculous. You could never beat it by such a simple, expected solution. They beat it by throwing sheep at it, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
JackMann posted:No they didn't. Don't be ridiculous. You could never beat it by such a simple, expected solution. Sheep are just dumber henchmen without hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
JackMann posted:No they didn't. Don't be ridiculous. You could never beat it by such a simple, expected solution. you misspelled F-I-G-H-T-E-R-S
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
JackMann posted:No they didn't. Don't be ridiculous. You could never beat it by such a simple, expected solution. I demand a link!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:One of the big powers of the Fighter in the older editions is that he literally had an army working for him. That's what he got instead of the ability to hide behind a quarter inch pipe or throw fireballs. I miss that ability and it’s a shame you don’t seeing in newer dungeon-crawler games (except ACKS and... yeah, no). I though of including it as a new Advanced Move for the Dungeon World Fighter playbook where you get an army and a squad of elite henchmen that always remain loyal. Calling it “#squadgoals”
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
 Rifts World Book 12: Psyscape, Part 5: "The Guild Leaders claim their Psi-Slayers are the ultimate evolution of the human predator: instinctual, fearless, shark-like killing machines whose nature demands they hunt and kill with the same ruthless determination as any supernatural monster from beyond the Rifts." New Psychic Character Classes By Kevin Siembieda & Patrick Nowak So, first off, the Burster and the Mind Melter are reprinted from the corebook. Why? I guess so you don't have to flip back to the corebook when you're making your psychic... except you totally will anyway, since you still need to reference it for everything else a character needs, including psychic powers. Whups. Well, that's 7 pages covered in useless rehashing, bam. Also, we get the return of the Mind Bleeder, since some are in North America now. That's another 7 pages down. Hey, here's another 1/4 page reminding us that Psi-Stalkers and Dog Boys exist, but those have already been completely reprinted in Rifts World Book 13: Lone Star and even Palladium has its limits. Still, we have about 9% of the book just dedicated to reprinting old classes - over twice the space Psyscape gets, since I'm not letting that go.  "Like my ancient hero Hammer, I will not hurt them, if they say please."  "Time to slay some psi." That all being said, we do get a lot of new psychic classes, so lets get to them. As before, the % by them is the chance of qualifying for a particular class. Traditionally, psychic classes don't have requirements at all, but some of these buck that trend anyway...
 A traditional Ohioan psychic warrior.  When your ability to vamp becomes supernatural We get some side notes that some Psi-Stalkers can make Nega-Psychic / Psi-Nullifier babies, and of course we get the "buy my book!" litany that you might want to buy every other Palladium book that has psychics so you can catch 'em all. I mean, they probably won't actually enhance your game, you can only have so many psychics - and it's not like Heroes Unlimited adds much to to the psychic soup - but you know, you gotta catch 'em all. Next: Psyka-Cola.  Player characters that mess with other player characters' powers = comedy! Alien Rope Burn fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
Pathfinder (1st Edition) Alpha Playtest Release 1 Feats * In the playtest, Acrobatic would add a +2 to Acrobatics and Climb checks. In Core, this was changed to Acrobatics and Fly checks quote:* In general, all Core feats that added +2 to skills would upgrade to +4 if you had 10 ranks in the affected skill. * In the playtest, Alertness would add a +2 to Appraise and Perception checks. In Core, this was changed to Perception and Sense Motive checks. * In the playtest, Athletic would add a +2 Fly and Swim checks. In Core, this was changed to Climb and Swim checks. * In the playtest, Combat Expertise would let you add your Int mod to your AC in exchange for taking a similar penalty to your attack rolls. In Core, this was changed to a flat 1 bonus/penalty that would increase every 4 levels. * In the playtest, Deadly Aim would let you add your Dex mod to your damage in exchange for taking a similar penalty to your attack rolls. In Core, this was changed to a flat -1 penalty to attacks / +2 bonus to damage that would increase every 4 levels. * In the playtest, Defensive Combat Training would add a +4 to your Combat Maneuver Defense. In Core, this was changed to letting you count your Hit Dice instead of your BAB when computing your Combat Maneuver Defense (effectively making you Full-BAB, which would be a significantly buff where applicable). * In the playtest, Improved Bull Rush eliminated the attack-of-opportunity when attempting a Bull Rush, and gave you a +2 bonus on Bull Rush checks. In Core, this feat also gave you a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense against being bull rushed yourself. quote:* Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, and Improved Trip all received the same change in Core to also give you a +2 when defending against the same maneuver. * In the playtest, Intimidating Prowess let you substitute your Str mod for your Cha mod for Intimidate checks. In Core, this was changed to let you add your Str mod on top of your Cha mod for Intimidate checks. * In the playtest, Power Attack let you add your Strength modifier to your melee damage rolls in exchange for taking a similar penalty to your attack rolls. In Core, this was changed to a flat -1 penalty to attacks / +2 bonus to damage that would increase every 4 levels. quote:In 3.5: * In the playtest, Toughness would add 3 HP, plus 1 HP per Hit Dice. In Core, this was changed to 3 HP, plus 1 HP per Hit Dice for every HD beyond the 3rd. They actually nerfed Toughness coming from the playtest. * In the playtest, Arcane Strike would let you declare your weapon as a +1 magic weapon. In Core, this would require a Swift Action, but the bonus would scale every 5 levels up to a +5 magic weapon. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Conduit Spell that lets you ignore arcane spell failure when shooting a spell against a target that you had hit with an Arcane Strike in the previous round. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Arcane Buildup that lets you ignore arcane spell failure completely and gain a +2 bonus to caster level, if you had used Conduit Spell in the previous round. There is no such feat in Core. quote:if any of these or later feats show up in later Pathfinder supplements, my apologies. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Overhand Chop that lets you take a full-round action to make a single attack with a two-handed weapon, and the attack adds twice your Strength modifier rather than the standard 1.5x. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Backswing that lets you take a full-round action to make two attacks with a two-handed weapon, and the second attack adds half your Strength bonus rather than the standard 1.5x, if you had use Overhand Chop in the previous round. There is no such feat in Core. This feat also requires BAB +6, so even if you "stacked" this with an Overhead Chop (first attack at 2x Str mod, second attack at 0.5x Str mod), it seems like it would be obsoleted by attacking thrice since it requires a full-round action either way. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Devastating Blow that lets you take a standard action to make a single melee attack that automatically scores a critical hit, if it hits (but does not activate abilities that only activate on critical hits). It requires that must have used Backswing in the previous turn. There is no such feat in Core.. quote:This is now the second such "feat chain" I've seen, with Arcane Strike -> Conduit Spell -> Arcane Buildup, and then Overhand Chop -> Backswing -> Devastating Blow * In the playtest, there's a feat called Careful Targeting that lets you reduce the miss chance by 20%, and the cover bonus by -2, of any single target that you're attacking. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Exact Targeting that lets you fully ignore all cover and concealment bonuses when attacking a target that was struck by your use of Careful Targeting in the previous round. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Pinpoint Targeting that, on top of ignoring cover and concealment bonuses, would also let you ignore any armor, natural armor, and shield AC bonuses on your targets when attacking a target that was struck by your use of Exact Targeting in the previous round. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, Cleave would let you take a full-round action to make a melee attack, then make a second attack against a different target. In Core, this was changed to a standard action, but would impose a -2 penalty to AC. * In the playtest, Dazzling Display's multi-target intimidate check with a weapon focus did not specify an action type, which would have made it at least a Move action. In Core, this was changed to a full-round action. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Stunned Defense that chains from Dazzling Display - any target shaken by Dazzling Display's intimidate check are considered flat-footed against any attacks made with the weapon used to make the Dazzling Display. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, using Deadly Stroke against a target specified that it needed to have been hit by Stunned Defense in the previous turn. In Core, this was changed to only need any flat-footed or stunned opponent. * What's now known as Improved Shield Bash in Core was called Deft Shield in the playtest, and required Two-Weapon Fighting on top of Shield Proficiency. * Shield Slam in Core would allow you to move along with the target after the free Bull Rush that it granted. The playtest did not have this extra clause. * In the playtest, Double Slice would give you a +2 bonus to attack rolls with your off-hand weapon attacks. In Core, this was changed to letting you add your full Strength mod to damage rolls with your off-hand weapon attacks. * In the playtest, Scorpion Style would reduce the target's speed for 1 round as long as the unarmed attack hits. In Core, this was changed to require a Fort save before it would apply, and the duration would equal your Wis mod. * In the playtest, Gorgon's Fist would daze the target for 1 round as long as the unarmed attack hits. In Core, the effect was changed to a stagger, the effect was changed to require a Fort save before it would apply, and the duration would equal your Wis mod. * In the playtest, Medusa's Wrath would let you make two additional unarmed strikes at full BAB against a target that was hit by your Gorgon's Fist in the previous turn. In Core, this was changed so that you could use Medusa's Wrath against any target that was dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned or unconscious. * In the playtest, Wind Stance would give you 20% concealment if you moved more than 5 feet in a turn. In Core, this was changed to 20% concealment against ranged attacks only. * In the playtest, Lightning Stance would give you 50% concealment, and any target you hit would have a -4 penalty to attack rolls to hit you, if you activated Wind Stance in the previous round. In Core, this was changed to just 50% concealment, and it would activate if you used two move actions or the Withdraw action. * In the playtest, Mobility would make you not-provoke attacks of opportunity to movement this round if you used Dodge in the previous round. It's unclear how "use" would be defined, since Dodge in Pathfinder is a flat +1 dodge AC bonus with no activation. In Core, this was changed to a flat +4 dodge AC bonus against attacks of opportunity. * In the playtest, there's a feat called Razor Sharp Chair Leg that increases the damage die of any improvised weapon you use by one die-size, increases the critical threat range to 18-20, and increases the critical multiplier to x3. There is no such feat in Core (though the prerequisite that makes improvised weapons usable as a baseline, Catch Off Guard or Throw Anything, still exists in Core). * In the playtest, there's a feat called Weapon Swap that lets you swap your main-hand and off-hand weapons after making all of your main-hand attacks in a two-weapon fighting attack sequence. There is no such feat in Core. * In the playtest, Two-Weapon Rend required that you had used Weapon Swap in the previous turn. In Core, there's no such requirement, since Weapon Swap doesn't exist. quote:As a final aside, I wanted to mention the change made for Manyshot from 3rd Edition:
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Why does every d20 game want you to suffer for taking Toughness. I remember ages ago when I was running Pathfinder and one of my players was like 'So there are 200 feats and like 10 of them are worth taking. What's the goddamn point?' E: Basically, the fact that most of my group actively hated leveling up because of all the pointless poo poo to wade through is what killed d20 for us back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
toughness should just give you a +1 AC and like DR 10/-
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Why does every d20 game want you to suffer for taking Toughness. Because having trap options leads to a feeling of system mastery once you realize that yes, this is indeed a bad feat, and I am good player for not taking it. That's the stated reason as far as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
theironjef posted:The thing that bothers me most about this is the Emotional Status scale runs from Depressed to Exalted. Exalted isn't the opposite of Depressed! If anything it should be "Exalting," since exalted refers to how others perceive you, not how you feel about yourself. Stupid thing. It's possible they actually meant "Exultant", and their reach for flowery language exceeded their grasp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Because having trap options leads to a feeling of system mastery once you realize that yes, this is indeed a bad feat, and I am good player for not taking it. I'm still not convinced that wasn't just Monte Cook covering his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Because having trap options leads to a feeling of system mastery once you realize that yes, this is indeed a bad feat, and I am good player for not taking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Lynx Winters posted:I'm still not convinced that wasn't just Monte Cook covering his rear end. It's very hard to believe there was that kind of deliberateness behind it, considering how (apparently) unintentionally bonkers so many other rules are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
I was playing IWD2 with no other knowledge of how DnD worked and I could still tell that +3 HP period was a loving ripoff
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
The original Monte article was basically "He read the magic design team's Timmy/Johnny/Spike story and completely misunderstood how they worked."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:The original Monte article was basically "He read the magic design team's Timmy/Johnny/Spike story and completely misunderstood how they worked." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:The original Monte article was basically "He read the magic design team's Timmy/Johnny/Spike story and completely misunderstood how they worked." Yeah, his apparent takeaway was 'gently caress Timmy, Timmy is a jerk' when Timmy is one of the core demographics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
I feel like this comes up every time the Timmy/Spike/Johnny concept is mentioned, but once again: that the MtG team still fucks up and still often makes terrible or overpowered cards doesn't change that it's a good design insight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Night10194 posted:Why does every d20 game want you to suffer for taking Toughness. I still love that the 3.0 Fighters Book added an entire chain of Toughness feats. I think the last one added a whopping twelve HP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:14
|
|
