Advanced Race Guide Preview: Kill it With Fire!

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Everyone knows goblins have an unnatural love of fire. They love to see it flicker and burn to the sounds of their enemies' screams. While goblin adventurers, in an effort to get along with other more squeamish races, may control their pyromaniac urgings, others learn to harness that power and focus it into devastating force.

Of course, since the goblin section of the Advanced Race Guide has plenty of options for fiery destruction, an alchemist archetype focusing on fire seemed like a good fit, so this week we present you with the fire bomber. As you'll notice from this archetype, there are many more options for goblin mayhem in this book, from a host of feats to some new discoveries, but you will just have to wait until the book comes out to check those out.

Fire Bomber (Alchemist)

Fire bombers are exceptionally good at using bombs to burn creatures and blow things up, but are not quite as good at creating other types of bombs or extracts. A fire bomber has the following class features.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fire bomber treats torches as a simple weapon.


Illustration by Andrew Hou

Fire Bombardier (Su or Ex): At 1st level, when a fire bomber throws a bomb that deals fire damage, all creatures in the splash radius take an additional point of damage per die of fire damage dealt. Fire bombers only add their Intelligence bonus to damage from bombs or alchemical substances that deal fire damage. This otherwise works like the alchemist's bomb and throw anything abilities. This ability alters bomb and throw anything.

Bonus Feats: A fire bomber can select the Burn! Burn! Burn!, Fire Tamer, or Flame Heart feat in place of a discovery.

Fiery Cocktail (Su): At 4th level, whenever a fire bomber uses a discovery that deals damage other than fire damage, he can split the damage dice evenly between the bomb's primary damage type and 1d6 points of fire damage; when there is an odd number of damage dice, the odd die of damage comes from the primary damage type. For example, an 8th-level fire bomber could throw a concussive bomb that deals 2d6 points of fire damage and 3d4 points of sonic damage. Additional effects from the bomb still apply, but the save DC for admixture bombs is reduced by 2. This replaces the alchemist's 4th-level discovery.

Fire Body (Ex): At 8th level, a fire bomber adds elemental body I to his extract list as a 3rd-level extract. Elemental body extracts prepared using fire body are limited to fire elementals only. This ability replaces poison resistance +6.

Improved Fire Body (Ex): At 10th level, fire bombers add elemental body II to their spell list as a 4th-level extract. Elemental body extracts prepared using improved fire body are limited to fire elementals only. This ability replaces poison immunity.

Greater Fire Body (Ex): At 14th level, fire bombers add elemental body IV to their spell list as a 5th-level extract. Elemental body extracts prepared using greater fire body are limited to fire elementals only. This ability replaces persistent mutagen.

Discoveries: The following discoveries complement the fire bomber archetype: fire brand, rocket bomb (see sidebar); explosive bombs, fast bombs, inferno bomb, precise bombs (Advanced Player's Guide); breath weapon bomb, explosive missile, immolation bomb (Ultimate Combat); bottled ooze, confusion bomb, strafe bomb (Ultimate Magic).

Next week, WARK!

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Alchemists Andrew Hou Goblins Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Cheapy wrote:

Are there suggestions on how to deal with the goblin's hatred of books and the fact that alchemists must use them?

Or are they intended to be the exceptions?

Most likely it's not going to be touched on, since the reading taboo is a Golarion-specific thing.

Then again, so's the pyromania... Still a very nice thing for goblins though!

The Exchange

Odraude wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Next week, WARK!

CHOCOBOS!!

That's what I got out of it.


Name Violation wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
It modifies the normal proficiencies in the same way that the Bonus Feats archetype ability modifies discoveries without explicitly saying so.

Bonus Feats: A fire bomber can select the Burn! Burn! Burn!, Fire Tamer, or Flame Heart feat in place of a discovery.

that is a new class feature. alchemists dont have "bonus feats" as a normal class feature, and says they CAN do something inplace of a discovery

Its not difficult to understand at all. Plenty of archetypes modify or add on to something without replacing anything. Goblin alchemists gain proficiency with torches as a simple weapon (if I'm not mistaken, they're usually an improvised weapon). It doesn't replace any of the alchemist's base proficiencies because it doesn't say it does. For a similar-yet-difference example, see the Monk (sensei) archetype, which adds Diplomacy, Linguistics, and all Knowledge skills as a class skill. It doesn't replace the default Monk skill list; it adds on to it. Another example is the geisha archetype, which adds Tea Ceremony without replacing any class features.


Mikaze wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Are there suggestions on how to deal with the goblin's hatred of books and the fact that alchemists must use them?

Or are they intended to be the exceptions?

Most likely it's not going to be touched on, since the reading taboo is a Golarion-specific thing.

Then again, so's the pyromania... Still a very nice thing for goblins though!

Goblins of Golarion states that Goblin Alchemists and Wizards record their spells via pictorial instructions instead of words.

However, the Goblin love of fire and hatred of horses, dogs, and books is written in Bestiary 1, so it might be OGL. Maybe. Kind of hard to tell nowadays. :-P


FallofCamelot wrote:

Yeah sorry. I'm in a bad mood today for some reason.

A touch of Non Specific Crossness.

Positivity... Right... oh yeah America. The Avengers Movie was awesome. Thanks for that.

Just making an observation about how the comment section on here contains several grumpy remarks. I don't really care if you want to be a wet bedroll and hate goblins. The rest of us continue to love them, Baron Von Sourpuss.

P.S. Pumped about The Avengers this Friday! WOO!


Golden-Esque wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Are there suggestions on how to deal with the goblin's hatred of books and the fact that alchemists must use them?

Or are they intended to be the exceptions?

Most likely it's not going to be touched on, since the reading taboo is a Golarion-specific thing.

Then again, so's the pyromania... Still a very nice thing for goblins though!

Goblins of Golarion states that Goblin Alchemists and Wizards record their spells via pictorial instructions instead of words.

However, the Goblin love of fire and hatred of horses, dogs, and books is written in Bestiary 1, so it might be OGL. Maybe. Kind of hard to tell nowadays. :-P

I could also see a goblin alchemist using his sense of smell or taste to remember what ingredients to mix together.


Starfinder Superscriber
Odraude wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Next week, WARK!

CHOCOBOS!!

Yay Chocobos!


FallofCamelot wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
The core races got 10 pages and lot more from other books, it's about time the other races, particularly the strange ones, got some love.

They are core races for a reason. I don't want each party I see to be a walking freakshow of cat people, tengu, goblins and wayang.

By all means have your fun. You are all entitled to that. I just see this as villain decay. IMO the evil nasty nature of Goblins has been lost with all this. Goblins are now loveable Jerry Lewis caricatures and that is a mistake.

Just my opinion. I'm still buying the book :).

Racist. ; D

Grand Lodge

CAWWWW!
Wait, no, *ahem*, I meant to say...
WAAARRRK!


FallofCamelot wrote:
They are core races for a reason.

And what reason would that be?

That said, I'm hoping that "Wark!"' has something to do with axebeaks.


the reason is that they were core races in 3.5. (nobody said that they are core for a good reason)

@J-Spee even if they smell, they don't know all recipees by heart, so they need a book that says "3 spoons of thing smelling like poo, 1 ounze of thing smelling like goblin-dog butter and you've got a potion that tastes like arsenic and make you go big."
They are not sponanious casters, thus need to prepare from something. Also alchemists not only mix things, they infuse it with their magic, and is thus not necessarily based of smell.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

In the face of some recent complaints:

Y'know, some of us like to have settings where goblins and other such "unusual" races are considered standard player races that aren't bound to a villain stereotype.

Really really hoping this book delivers in that area.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Ok, I like the archetype, but I'm having some problems with the wording of the Fiery Cocktail ability. It just seems really convoluted: "he can split the damage dice evenly between the bomb's primary damage type and 1d6 points of fire damage." The example would make this clear, except I first spent time wondering where the extra die of damage came from, before looking up the concussive bomb discovery. I just think it's really tough to understand that the intent is to split damage dice evenly, and the fire part is always d6s.

At least I think that is the intent.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
Does Burn! Burn! Burn! work with bombs?
It works on Mundane and Alchemical sources of fire. Bombs are Alchemical.
Were that true, I wonder what that means for Swift Alchemy and (for example) mutagen. I remember a lengthy discussion that ended with people concluding (well, at least me being convinced) that mutagens were affected by that, which would mean Burn! Burn! Burn! wouldn't work with bombs either.

I don't see how that follows. If Mutagen and bombs are effected by swift alchemy, then they're alchemical, they would be affected by Burn! Burn! Burn!.


Stratagemini wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
Does Burn! Burn! Burn! work with bombs?
It works on Mundane and Alchemical sources of fire. Bombs are Alchemical.
Were that true, I wonder what that means for Swift Alchemy and (for example) mutagen. I remember a lengthy discussion that ended with people concluding (well, at least me being convinced) that mutagens were affected by that, which would mean Burn! Burn! Burn! wouldn't work with bombs either.
I don't see how that follows. If Mutagen and bombs are effected by swift alchemy, then they're alchemical, they would be affected by Burn! Burn! Burn!.

It doesn't follow because I forgot the letters "n't" after "were" =/

Silver Crusade

Arevashti wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
They are core races for a reason.
And what reason would that be?

Because they are the most populous and accepted races.

Silver Crusade

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:

Yeah sorry. I'm in a bad mood today for some reason.

A touch of Non Specific Crossness.

Positivity... Right... oh yeah America. The Avengers Movie was awesome. Thanks for that.

Just making an observation about how the comment section on here contains several grumpy remarks. I don't really care if you want to be a wet bedroll and hate goblins. The rest of us continue to love them, Baron Von Sourpuss.

P.S. Pumped about The Avengers this Friday! WOO!

I didn't say I didn't like them. I just don't like how they are being diluted. Frankly the menace is being removed.


I think it's actually because they were the core races in 3.5, and Paizo didn't want to change too much.

Like making halflings monsters.

Grand Lodge

Mikaze wrote:

In the face of some recent complaints:

Y'know, some of us like to have settings where goblins and other such "unusual" races are considered standard player races that aren't bound to a villain stereotype.

Really really hoping this book delivers in that area.

This.

I've played all the other "core" races to death over the last 20+ years. I'm always looking for something new to play or use as a villain. A sadist, psychopathic goblin pyro with a penchant for knives would make an excellent villain. As long as I _PROMISE_ not to cut, or burn, my fellow party members she might make a good character as well.

What really excites me about the ARG is that i can reskin any of these races and use them in the science-fantasy space opera I want to run. It will be a non-humanocentric campaign where humans are just another upstart young race that hasn't paid its dues but expects everything just handed to them because they want it. Some of the older races find the attitude to be amusing, others less so.

TssSSsssSSss:
GOBLIN GRENADE!

SM


hmmm...concept: Goblin firebomber in Skull and Shackles... he's the ship's mascot and cook :-)


FallofCamelot wrote:
Arevashti wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
They are core races for a reason.
And what reason would that be?
Because they are the most populous and accepted races.

And in Katapesh, every member of any race is welcome as long as they don't cause trouble.

Goblin infestations are rather common and if they aren't taken care of, they can overrun a town with sheer numbers. That makes them 'populous' so they should obviously be a Core race.

Silver Crusade

But not accepted Azten. Goblins are seen by most people as vermin. Katapesh is unusual, everywhere else a Goblin gets strung up.

Silver Crusade

FallofCamelot wrote:


I didn't say I didn't like them. I just don't like how they are being diluted. Frankly the menace is being removed.

One thing as a counterpoint to this statement. This book is as much a resource to GMs as it is to players. I don't allow goblin PCs in my campaign but my first response was that I could not wait to use this in my campaign. Thus was born Kramas, a goblin fire bomber who is going to debut in my campaign as a minion of the BBEG of this campaign arc. If you don't want people in your game to use them as player options, that's great. But also take a moment and think about all the fun a GM can have with these buggers.

Silver Crusade

That's true AoG. I still doubt I will get that much out of those pages though.


So, WARK! = Tengu, maybe?


I hope Catfolk get a preview.

I would also like to see Gnomes, Dhampir, and Aasimar as well.


An Aasimar preview would be awesome. +1 to that.

Silver Crusade

Aren't they doing a whole book on Aasimar?

And my guess would be Tengu too.


Yes but I have seen a lot more stuff in pathfinder related to Tieflings then I have Aasimar. I have played almost nothing but humans since 3.0 and would like some races that are interesting.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
I don't see how that follows. If Mutagen and bombs are effected by swift alchemy, then they're alchemical, they would be affected by Burn! Burn! Burn!.
It doesn't follow because I forgot the letters "n't" after "were" =/

Swift Alchemy wouldn't apply to bombs anyway, they're an instant ability. But from a design Perspective, it makes very little sense to give the Fire Bomber (which seems very fire and bomb focused) a specific feat that affects alchemical sources of fire damage, as an Alchemist, and then expect it not to apply to the bombs. It makes little to no sense. That said. Aside from the fact that bombs are not magical, and as a supernatural ability probably aren't mundane, there's nothing to really tell what type of item they are. Well, Except that they're part of a class called the Alchemist. I'm almost completely certain that they're Alchemical items and Burn! Burn! Burn! would apply. Also? Unless I hear a ruling from the devs as far as swift alchemy, I don't see why there might be a prohibition on that end. It wouldn't affect Extracts, those are spells in potion form, not alchemical items. But for Mutagens there seems to be nothing against it in the text.


okay, a second riddle then:
if the torch is a simple weapon for our goblin alchemist, he can make it a (masterwork) torch +5.
Then he hands this torch +5 to a monk or fighter, and that one got an improvised weapon with enchantment bonus, a thing that was till now not possible because improvised weapon couldn't become masterwork. (I believe there was one archetype that profited greatly if this was achieved, I forgot which one however)


Stratagemini wrote:
...

Alchemists can use alchemical fire too :)

But I wouldn't mind some clarification as well, although I'm far more interested in the mutagen.

Of course, perhaps they're updating the feat. They don't generally refer to non-core stuff in the Core line, and that feat is not from the core line. It's probably being reprinted and possibly updated.


Richard Leonhart wrote:

okay, a second riddle then:

if the torch is a simple weapon for our goblin alchemist, he can make it a (masterwork) torch +5.
Then he hands this torch +5 to a monk or fighter, and that one got an improvised weapon with enchantment bonus, a thing that was till now not possible because improvised weapon couldn't become masterwork. (I believe there was one archetype that profited greatly if this was achieved, I forgot which one however)

Why would that work? It's still not a weapon.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The monk of the empty hand would benefit. And I don't see why you can't make masterwork improvised weapons. We can masterwork Telescopes and Fiddles afterall. the question is Does that masterworking carry over to their use as an improvised weapon?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My wife treats me like a king.

Does that make me a king?


Golden-Esque wrote:
However, the Goblin love of fire and hatred of horses, dogs, and books is written in Bestiary 1, so it might be OGL. Maybe. Kind of hard to tell nowadays. :-P

I haven't read an OGL in awhile but I don't think "flavor-text" is generally covered as Open Game Content. It would be stated in the Bestiary's OGL though, whichever way is the case.

The flavor-text for the goblins is reproduced in the Pathfinder Reference Document so it might be covered.


Goblin + Alchemist + Fire Bombs... huh, Ziggs the hexplosives expert from League of Legends much ?

Silver Crusade

FallofCamelot wrote:
Arevashti wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
They are core races for a reason.
And what reason would that be?
Because they are the most populous and accepted races.

That depends on the setting, and this book is supposed to be setting-neutral.


FallofCamelot wrote:
But not accepted Azten. Goblins are seen by most people as vermin. Katapesh is unusual, everywhere else a Goblin gets strung up.

If this was a Golarion specific book I could see your point, but it isn't it is setting neutral. What if someone was using this to run and Iron Kingdoms or Eberron game, both of which have goblins as normal sapient creatures. Of course in the former halfling, half-orc, and gnome are unavailable as they do not exist.

Why is it that the core races are considered core? Well because they're the ones that were in 3.5 and no better reason. To be honest I find no real reason besides tradition for both gnomes and halflings to exist as core races. Chuck one into the bestiary, they're as superfluous as teh "aquatic version of this other thing" races.


I can't wait to see what they did with the under used or weird races like Merfolk, Strix, Gripli, Svirnfneblin, etc.


Dragon78 wrote:
I can't wait to see what they did with the under used or weird races like Merfolk, Strix, Gripli, Svirnfneblin, etc.

I'm especially interested in seeing what was done with the races that only have 1 or 2 abilities. Like Hobgoblins!

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
...

Alchemists can use alchemical fire too :)

But I wouldn't mind some clarification as well, although I'm far more interested in the mutagen.

Of course, perhaps they're updating the feat. They don't generally refer to non-core stuff in the Core line, and that feat is not from the core line. It's probably being reprinted and possibly updated.

So I asked James Jacobs Here's the answer:

James Jacobs wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
The alchemist's Bomb feature? does it count as an Alchemical Item for feats like Burn! Burn! Burn! from goblins of Golarion?
It does not count as an alchemical item.


Richard Leonhart wrote:
the reason is that they were core races in 3.5. (nobody said that they are core for a good reason)

Point, but that sounds suspiciously like "because they just are." Which is less a reason—good or otherwise—than an attempt to evade the issue altogether.

FallofCamelot wrote:
Because they are the most populous and accepted races.

Except Mikaze pretty much covered it when he said:

Mikaze wrote:
[...]this book is supposed to be setting-neutral.


@Arevashti
You are right, it's not a real reason. But then again you could ask why laserswords aren't core weapons, when it is supposed to be setting neutral.
Tech-level, main races and similar things are part of the systems assumptions and all (official) settings will build upon that.
As PF only has one setting I can't argue it there, but Eberron and Forgotten Realms assumed both the same stuff, and added a bit of setting dependant material.

The reason is either "Because Paizo (or 1E) said so", or "because the system is as such".
Humans (and the other core races)are just axiomaticly the most populous of intelligent species on the material plane.
You can change axioms in your settings, but you will have to rethink a lot. Like if you make demons the main race, then hold person becomes a weirdly balanced spell.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Arevashti wrote:
Richard Leonhart wrote:
the reason is that they were core races in 3.5. (nobody said that they are core for a good reason)

Point, but that sounds suspiciously like "because they just are." Which is less a reason—good or otherwise—than an attempt to evade the issue altogether.

FallofCamelot wrote:
Because they are the most populous and accepted races.

Except Mikaze pretty much covered it when he said:

Mikaze wrote:
[...]this book is supposed to be setting-neutral.

The real reason is that despite claims/appearances to the contrary, D&D and its derivatives (such as PF) are not really setting neutral. There are a whole host of setting assumptions built into the core system, such as Vancian magic, the existence of certain iconic magic items, the core races, the core classes, alignments, etc. World-building is influenced by these assumptions, to the point where a GM has to specifically call out exceptions and omissions (see 2e Dark Sun for example).

In my local group this was the reason for a lot of the anti-4e backlash, because so many of the fundamental assumptions were changed/tweaked that it felt like we couldn't run games on the same worlds without drastically altering the worlds.

So it's kind of a circle started by tradition that the core races are core: 1e had those races, so people built worlds that had those races more prominently featured, so new editions have to have those races so that people could keep using their worlds. Honestly, this book will be a step towards a more setting-neutral system as it will increase options for GMs wanting to branch away from the traditional set.


ryric wrote:

The real reason is that despite claims/appearances to the contrary, D&D and its derivatives (such as PF) are not really setting neutral. There are a whole host of setting assumptions built into the core system, such as Vancian magic, the existence of certain iconic magic items, the core races, the core classes, alignments, etc. World-building is influenced by these assumptions, to the point where a GM has to specifically call out exceptions and omissions (see 2e Dark Sun for example).

In my local group this was the reason for a lot of the anti-4e backlash, because so many of the fundamental assumptions were changed/tweaked that it felt like we couldn't run games on the same worlds without drastically altering the worlds.

So it's kind of a circle started by tradition that the core races are core: 1e had those races, so people built worlds that had those races more prominently featured, so new editions have to have those races so that people could keep using their worlds. Honestly, this book will be a step towards a more setting-neutral system as it will increase options for GMs wanting to branch away from the traditional set.

Except that's not true. Neither gnomes nor half-orcs were core races in 1E. Both were from non-core materials that proved popular enough that they were added to the core roster later; gnomes in AD&D revised and half-orcs in 3rd edition. The idea that goblins, so far the single most popular non-core race in Pathfinder, could be added to the core races in a say Pathfinder 2nd edition is not too far-fetched. Hell them and kitsune seem to be more popular than gnomes and halflings if board participation is anything to go by.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Except that's not true. Neither gnomes nor half-orcs were core races in 1E. Both were from non-core materials that proved popular enough that they were added to the core roster later; gnomes in AD&D revised and half-orcs in 3rd edition. The idea that goblins, so far the single most popular non-core race in Pathfinder, could be added to the core races in a say Pathfinder 2nd edition is not too far-fetched. Hell them and kitsune seem to be more popular than gnomes and halflings if board participation is anything to go by.

My 1e PHB disagrees with you. It contains both gnomes and half-orcs.

Pre-AD&D they were not present, however.


ryric wrote:


My 1e PHB disagrees with you. It contains both gnomes and half-orcs.
Pre-AD&D they were not present, however.

Sorry AD&D first and second edition blend together for me so I assume by 1st edition most people mean OD&D. That still doesn't address the point that they weren't originally playable, but were later introduced. Tradition for the sake of tradition is pointless. Just about every official campaign setting out their changes up the races and makes certain existing races either pointless, or nearly unrecognizable.

I also fail utterly to see how in any setting half-orcs could be more common than orcs unless some calamity came about that wiped out and specifically targeted full blooded orcs.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I also fail utterly to see how in any setting half-orcs could be more common than orcs unless some calamity came about that wiped out and specifically targeted full blooded orcs.

The Core Races aren't necessarily the most common ones, they're the 'civilized races'. The ones with organized kingdoms (or who live in the organized kingdoms of others as full citizens). Orcs tend more towards warring barbaric tribes too fractious to form full nations, and are generally not accepted readily in such nations.

That's really the criteria, and yes it does have a specific Tolkien-esque set of world assumptions. The kind where you can have never layed D&D but read a lot of fantasy books and not be surprised by most of the PC race choices.


Many of the prior settings played around with what is or isn't a core race. Dragonlance doesn't have half-orcs, but Kender and Minotaurs (I think?) were major players. Eberron I think had most of the core, but they also had shifters, warforged, and changelings as important races.

The core races were built based on what were the major races in popular fantasy at the time (namely Tolkien and his clones). A lot of fantasy settings however are moving away from those classical races, either ditching them completely or radically rebooting them into something else. A DM might very well not want to run a setting with standard races.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Advanced Race Guide Preview: Kill it With Fire!--Fire Bomber (Alchemist) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.