Class Rebalancing


Product Discussion

Dark Archive

I'd like to put forth an Idea. I dont think it's been done before in a tabletop rpg, but I don't see any reason it can't be.

Think about WoW (or any MMO) for a second. If a class is overpowered, or underpowered, or an ability is overpowered or underpowered,what do they do?

With the new version, they make an update that changes it to be more or less powerful as appopriate.

Is there any reason that something similar can't be done in pathfinder? (Errata for power balance instead of just errata for typo and error fixing.)

The books come out.

- Ability A. causes some problems.
- Feat B is worded in such a way that it doesn't behave the way they originally intended it.
- Paizo updates it and releases it either free or really cheap as a "Pathfinder 1.01" patch pdf, detailing everything problematic they've changed in the past 6 months across all books (Preferably with the new full class writeup).
- New printings of the book include the updates, but old printings can check the version number (and grab the updates online for cheap or free as above).

Odds are that each "Patch" would contain several base classes and occasionally a PrC. I'm okay with that. And unlike with MMOs, when the players complain "Paizo nerfed wizards too much this patch" the GM still has the option of using wizards from the last version.

I think this would be a good idea, and then when people are dissatisfied with a class or whatever and it's already been printed, that's not as big a deal.


They do something very similar already. Its called errata.

Resources page

Edit: I just saw you mentioned the errata.

IF power balance is so messed up they need to print something later to fix it, I would rather they just used that extra effort to make the thing work in the first place...

Dark Archive

I'm sure they do, just like I'm sure that the MMO People do. It doesn't always work.

They have the open playtests, but they don't put everything up for playtest - and really, they can't. However, if they were to release patches, then issues that crop up that they missed with their initial test could be addressed.

Sometimes it might be as simple as rewording something to work as they intend it to as opposed to how it was printed (Charge + Vital Strike working together, I remember one of the devs saying).

Rewording a broken spell or class ability, etc.

I'm thinking a semi-annually or quarterly patch would work. It would include errata, but also include fixes for things that weren't well balanced initially.

They could put aside a section of the forums for people to note parts of the system that don't work well, and then be able to comb through them and figure out which ones need addressing most.

Dark Archive

I'm not just talking changes for a single book, I'd like to add, I was suggesting, like a quarterly magazine style thing that incorporates all of the changes of that quarter, to all the paizo books across the line.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Isn't this what they pretty much do with 4e?

Dark Archive

Dragnmoon wrote:
Isn't this what they pretty much do with 4e?

I don't really know. I've only played 4e a handful of times since way back when the PHB2 came out.


Not intending this as an attack, so pretend you can see me smile as I say the below comments. :)

Errata to clear up language and rules as intended is fine. Changing the game because something needs "Nerfed" or is "Broken" as compared to another class is not something I would ever support and would actively voice my opinion to.

This is not a MMO or PvP game. Classes do not need to be balanced against each other. The only reason WoW and other games rebalance classes is due to PvP. PvE is not a concern because if the boss is too weak they change the boss rather then the characters.

The game is not about who can kill x faster or do the most damage per round. It is a role playing game where players use their characters as a team to achieve a goal and have fun. The DM is not a computer and he/she can make intelligent decisions and work with his/her group to come up with any specific house rules they feel they need to allow their group to have fun.

I would rather not have Paizo pay their employee's a lot of money and time to spend months and years going back over the game design they have already done every quarter when they could be putting the majority of that time to developing new product to expand the game with new material. Fixing typo's and errors is good and expected. Reinventing the same classes over and over is not IMO.


It's about finding the right table.

Class balance is only important if you play PvP.

Dungeons and Dragons (and by extension, Pathfinder) was never about PvP. It was about the Party v The Environment (enemies, nature, etc).

I find the dicussions of "This class WINS" tiresome at best. A 'need' for balance assumes that if we are having fun with the game, as-is, we are doing it wrong.

Case in point-Current Party ofr the game I am running: Halfling Rogue, Elven Sword and Board Fighter, Half-Elf Curved Blade Fighter, Human Paladin, and Elf Wizard. We have zero party balance issues as everyone simply plays-there is no 'winning' unless you consider leaving the game room as a group laughing and joking about the party's success and failure is winning. (And, btw, I *do* consider and enjoyable evening with friends 'winning') But that party has three and a half gimps! The Fighters, surely are worthless, the Rogue, beyond a question, worthless. The Paladin wields a rapier for all's sake! What a bunch of gimps! They couldn't fight their way out of a brown paper bag soaked in water and the opening left wide!

Balance is an illusion sought by players that miss the point. Any DM worth his (or her!) salt can modify, change, create, adjust, nudge, bump an adventure to suit the players, the PCs party build choices. Refering to the previous party, they are constantly challenged and only once have they been threatened with a TPK. Why? because the encounters were planned to *them* not the proverbial three wizards and two clerics party. That would reqire different planning and different encounters, wouldn't it?

If you need "Balance" may I point you in the direction of competitve war-game styled fare? Warhammer 40k, Flames of War... or if you must have it as an RPG, WoW is probably your best answer.

Pathfinder is not about PvP; it is not about competition. Any player that *seeks* to outshine his playmates may want to think about a different game.

Congratulations, you win D&D. The end boss was hard.

(Ninja'd by Thazar!)

GNOME

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Isn't that what house rules are for?


Darkholme wrote:
Is there any reason that something similar can't be done in pathfinder? (Errata for power balance instead of just errata for typo and error fixing.)

The difference is that in a table top rpg, there are no clear parameters to judge power about.

In an mmo, it's much easier. Either you healer heals enough, or he heals to much or to little. You know what mosters you created so you know what dps they do.
Same for a fighter. Either he does enough damage or he doesn't.

In a table top rpg, things are much more complicated. How are you going to put a number on a social interaction? How will you value the rogue if he only picks one lock though saves the adventure by doing so?

Things are to complex and vague in a table top. Just look at the numerous threads about power (for instance of the rogue). You'll see people making strong point for either side.


Side note, as ex-WOW player, about balanced classes:

AHAHAHAAH WHAT?


Don't take this the wrong way when I ask you: Are you mad?

Sure, in computer games it works. And in computer games it's necessary.

But neither is true for Pathfinder. It doesn't work because the game doesn't autopatch itself. And even if it did, people don't autopatch their rules knowledge.

Only yesterday, I told someone on the boards here that what he wrote was wrong because he still though Far Shot would increase the range, which it does no longer do in Pathfinder. And Some other guy complained about haste based on what seemed to be the 3.0 wording of the spell.

And that's from a system where changes were made twice, each time years apart.

If you turn it into a quarterly rebalance orgy, people's head will explode. And people with exploded heads can't buy new rulebooks, meaning Paizo would go bankrupt!

As a Paizo fan, and person with an yet unexploded head, I'm against that!

So it doesn't work. But it's not really necessary, either: This is not a computer game with a big focus on PvP, with all kinds of fixed, computer-controlled and -enforced rules in place that govern all kinds of things. It's a cooperative game controlled by the people that play it. They can make the changes they feel the game needs themselves.


Karel Gheysens wrote:
Darkholme wrote:
Is there any reason that something similar can't be done in pathfinder? (Errata for power balance instead of just errata for typo and error fixing.)

The difference is that in a table top rpg, there are no clear parameters to judge power about.

In an mmo, it's much easier. Either you healer heals enough, or he heals to much or to little. You know what mosters you created so you know what dps they do.
Same for a fighter. Either he does enough damage or he doesn't.

In a table top rpg, things are much more complicated. How are you going to put a number on a social interaction? How will you value the rogue if he only picks one lock though saves the adventure by doing so?

Things are to complex and vague in a table top. Just look at the numerous threads about power (for instance of the rogue). You'll see people making strong point for either side.

+1

3rd edition and 3.5 were *intended* to be somewhat balanced when played in a small map for miniatures, which basically ruins the game balance for anyone playing the game in a different way.
Thus balance is a very vague concept in PnP RPGs. At much you can say things like "class X is class Y with more hps and thus better than class Y" or "that class depends too much of how the GM runs the campaign", but discussing about classes so different as rogues and fighters is just silly.

Finally, there is a powerful anti-rulez-changez Lobby :p


FireberdGNOME wrote:
Balance is an illusion sought by players that miss the point. Any DM worth his (or her!) salt can modify, change, create, adjust, nudge, bump an adventure to suit the players, the PCs party build choices.

The point of 'balance tweaks' would be to make it so that you don't 'need' to modify/change/create/adjust etc. etc. to make it so the player with a Monk can share the spotlight (mechanically) as well as the player with a Wizard, especially at higher levels.

And interaction clarifications (Does ability X work with ability Y) is a very useful thing to have errata for, so the DM doesn't have to adjudicate a ruling due to ambiguous wording.

If things were more 'balanced' then the barrier to entry for new DM's wouldn't be so high, and they could have more successful games without having to work as hard, and everyone would have a better time. Experienced DM's benefit little from 'balance' tweaks, since they either would make them on their own, adjust their adventure so it suits the players, etc. But if you get a new DM running a published module, they can use all the help they can get.

I like the OP idea, but I think it would have to be yearly updates. Higher frequency would just cause trouble.


I'd like to chime in here from a different perspective:

Aside from RPG's, one of my hobbies is tournament level fighting games (Street Fighter/Tekken ect). The game balance is very important to the tournament health of these games, but interestingly; 90% of players couldn't tell you what is broken and what isn't. They all *feel* they know, but honestly they don't. Why is that? Because in order to understand the system of the game you need to push it to the limit to find its flaws. This is generally done in tournament play. Most players never reach this level.

Now lets flip back to RPG's. The point is pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE from a tournament level fighting game. Were not here to eke out every bloodless edge we can find out of the system to win. We use the rules as a framework to life our imaginative fantasies into a more tangible realm. Winning has no tangible definition in an RPG.

Cleaning up some misinterpretations for ease of use is one thing, but a balance patch? I don't think it's ever really warranted.

Unlike in a fighting game, in RPGs, if something is unbalanced to one group, it can often be chalked up to any factor BUT system flaw, and at the same time, just as easily fixed regardless of the source of the imbalance. It could be chalked up to GM style, bad luck, bad build. Rarely is it the systems fault because SO MUCH of the game is just invented on the spot. It's not a closed system. House rules exist in pretty much EVERY game. Don't listen to people who tell you "If you houserule, your not playing Pathfinder".

I know there are some who might disagree with some of my asserstions. I think they should give fighting games a try. =)

-Idle

Edit: Edited for clarity, and minimal hostility.


Some balancing and maybe rebalancing can help when there are egregious problems. Nobody wants to feel like a cohort.

I've been in games where a couple of members of the party were so packed full of splatbook that either of them could have soloed the entire adventure. Fortunately, the DM had them cut out their junk.

And it doesn't even take splatbooks to unbalance things. Even in just core, you can have radically different levels of ability, such that a meagre challenge to one party member would be utter death to another.

You don't want to have to sit out a fight time and time again while Superman handles it.

Balance is important. There's rarely any solid agreement on what it means, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


My take on balance is you really cant have it, as you cant rely on diffrent groups playing things the same way. MMO's like it has already been pointed out hard coded rules, X + Y = Z. In PnP this isnt always the case so how can you take group/player X's view that something is unbalanced over group/player Y's who feels its fine.

As an example on these boards it seems most are of the opinion that casters rule, No I have worked hard to get my group to play the characters they want to not what they think they should.

So does anyone play a cleric? not much. Does everyone play arcane casters? Very rarely anyone plays an arcane caster. Does this mean were doing it wrong? Does this mean those classes arent balanced enough for us to play them? Its about your group and what your group likes to do to have fun.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Personally... the excessive tinkering and "rebalancing" of classes is what more or less took the blush off the rose for me in Warcraft. Might be because I play a hunter, and hunters (and other DPS only classes) have been continually marginalized by Warcraft's misplaced obsession with making everything balanced. Turns out, that doesn't really work, because if you let the classes capable of healing and or tanking also do comparable damage to a DPS only class, suddenly the DPS only classes start becoming unnecessary. It's really frustrating to get to enjoy and learn and master a class, only to have it suddenly turned on its head because players of another class were unhappy with the fact that a class capable of filling two or three roles in the game wasn't as good at any of those roles as a class focused on only one role.

It's the same kind of complaint folks make about multiclassed spellcaster/fighter types. And the magus was our response. And yes, I was very nervous that it could have easilly made fighters and wizards irrelevant. Fortunately, I think we found a good midline... but that does mean that the folks who wanted something as good as a fighter and as good as a wizard all rolled up into one greedy package are going to be disappointed.

Our philosophy with creating new classes is to make them NOT force us to rebuild existing classes. And personally, I'd rather new classes be slightly less powerful overall than core classes anyway, since that prevents what folks call "power creep" and keeps those core classes relevant.

Our design team, though, is going to do the best they can to make sure that all new classes, be they new base, core, or alternate classes, are relatively equal in play value.

Grand Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
SUPER GROOVY INSIGHTFUL STUFF

Thanks man, sound and solid. I like it and agree completely. The trick is finding that balance of power. I hate it when you have a new class that outshines the fighter in combat, when that is what the fighter is supposed to excel at... same with the spellcasters and the rogues...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Furthermore... the actual GOAL of class balance is kind of impossible. Because the classes aren't all built to do the same thing.

And just because one element of the game (combat in a dungeon) is so overwhelmingly iconic to what happens in the game doesn't mean that every single class has to assume that element is the baseline to which its power needs to be measured by.


Darkholme wrote:
I think this would be a good idea, and then when people are dissatisfied with a class or whatever and it's already been printed, that's not as big a deal.

See that referee there? The one running the game? That is one of the things he/she is there for. To make the changes to the system that YOUR GROUP want and think are balanced.

You don't need constant game balancing in table tops because you have an actual living brain running the game. Unlike MMO's.

And I say this with about 12 years of MMO experience myself. Table top is not MMO. MMO is not table top. They share sword and sorcery motiff's and the major similarities end there.

Mr. Jacobs? Your a friggin' genius. Thanks again to you and Paizo.

Dark Archive

Fair points all, it was just an Idea I had, and I can admit that it wasn't a great one. It was just a matter of: hmm, have they ever thought of anything like this? lets see what people say.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

As another former WoW player, I have to disagree with constant changes. Every few months, I had to relearn my class mechanics because I had the misfortune to play one of the most frequently redesigned specializations. It always seemed like once they poked their fingers in, they couldn't resist doing it again and again and again.


Darkholme wrote:
Fair points all, it was just an Idea I had, and I can admit that it wasn't a great one. It was just a matter of: hmm, have they ever thought of anything like this? lets see what people say.

No problem. when i red your first post it sounded like a neat idea. Then i read ever other persons post, i agreed with them too. No harm in posting your ideas though.


Thazar wrote:
The only reason WoW and other games rebalance classes is due to PvP. PvE is not a concern because if the boss is too weak they change the boss rather then the characters.

As an avid WoW player, I can say this statement is 100% incorrect. Classes are balanced more on PVE than PVP, although both are important.

In PVE, it's a great concern that all DPS classes do around the same damage. Sometimes a class with do slightly less damage (maybe 20%) but they also bring a lot more utility to the group. But they all do about the same damage.

This is definitely not true with Pathfinder right now. The class with the most survivability (Fighters) also happens to be the top DPS class, by a long shot.

Part of class design is balancing:
1) DPS (damage)
2) Survivability
3) Crowd Control (fear, Hold Person, etc)
4) Utility (skills, buffs, etc)

For example, a Fighter has the best DPS and survivability, low utility (but they do have mobility now), but they have medium CC now (that combines with the DPS) at higher level. Maybe that's too much?

Are rogues supposed to be medium DPS, low survivability, medium utility, low CC? Are wizards supposed to be low DPS, medium survivability (low at low levels), high utility, high CC? I don't have the answer, but these are questions the designers have to think about.

4E balanced everything, perhaps too much, where everyone does approximately the same damage. It's actually both a good thing and a bad thing, but the way they did it, they made it an extremely boring thing imo. I don't want to see PF ever go down that road, but more balancing, especially in terms of DPS, would be welcome.

Anyway, back to the point, I'd like the designers to consider these things in the class design of the next version of Pathfinder, whenever that is. Maybe it would be a good idea just to playtest the various ideas anyway.


KaeYoss wrote:

And that's from a system where changes were made twice, each time years apart.

If you turn it into a quarterly rebalance orgy, people's head will explode. And people with exploded heads can't buy new rulebooks, meaning Paizo would go bankrupt!

QFT. These were some really good points. Too much change, even free change, would make people's heads explode.


In WoW or any other MMO its easy to quantify imbalance. if Class X is doing superior to Class Y in every situation then they need to buff one or nerf the other (depending on overall performance compared to the others doing that similar role).

How would you balance D&D? Some say rogues are fine, others say they suck. Some say monks do well others say you are better off with a commoner. Some love fighters others consider them clean up crews for the 'real players'.

Who gets to pick balance? There is no real "guide stone" for balance in a PnP game. Personally I love Paizo's stance on it- largely because I myself agree with it. The classes are fine and if you disagree then houserule otherwise.

I would not like either side of the "war" though to get their way with tinkering though because that would just screw things up. I love the game as written despite the "problems" many people see with it.

As has been said before: Balance is the group working together. Balance isn't who has the highest DPR.

-S


Selgard wrote:
Balance is the group working together. Balance isn't who has the highest DPR.

On the other side of that, it's not really fun when one guy does 75% of the damage and you just sit around waiting to heal or buff him either.

That's one concept that 4E actually got right, everyone can contribute something that's somewhat effective, always.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TakeABow wrote:
The point of 'balance tweaks' would be to make it so that you don't 'need' to modify/change/create/adjust etc. etc. to make it so the player with a Monk can share the spotlight (mechanically) as well as the player with a Wizard, especially at higher levels.

Mate, as a monk, I can THROW A DRAGON. : D

Hang on, let me picture that again...

...

...

...

: D

(Yeah, I know that doesn't invalidate your point, but nonetheless I thought it was so cool that I just had to bring it up!)

James Jacobs wrote:
... but that does mean that the folks who wanted something as good as a fighter and as good as a wizard all rolled up into one greedy package are going to be disappointed.

That's no problem, I sense a sihedron rune tattoo in their future. : )

Jason S wrote:
On the other side of that, it's not really fun when one guy does 75% of the damage and you just sit around waiting to heal or buff him either.

A lot of that does tend to depend on individual personalities. Some gamers can't bear to not be in the spotlight, and some gamers play combat classes and nothing else. Some gamers prefer the roleplaying side to the hack & slash side. As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, a lot of it has to do with finding the right gaming group. I'm lucky enough to be in a group where we're friends first and gamers second. Not everyone is that lucky, but it sure makes a big difference to our approaches to campaigns.


Darkholme wrote:

I'd like to put forth an Idea. I dont think it's been done before in a tabletop rpg, but I don't see any reason it can't be.

Think about WoW (or any MMO) for a second. If a class is overpowered, or underpowered, or an ability is overpowered or underpowered,what do they do?

With the new version, they make an update that changes it to be more or less powerful as appopriate.

Is there any reason that something similar can't be done in pathfinder? (Errata for power balance instead of just errata for typo and error fixing.)

The books come out.

- Ability A. causes some problems.
- Feat B is worded in such a way that it doesn't behave the way they originally intended it.
- Paizo updates it and releases it either free or really cheap as a "Pathfinder 1.01" patch pdf, detailing everything problematic they've changed in the past 6 months across all books (Preferably with the new full class writeup).
- New printings of the book include the updates, but old printings can check the version number (and grab the updates online for cheap or free as above).

Odds are that each "Patch" would contain several base classes and occasionally a PrC. I'm okay with that. And unlike with MMOs, when the players complain "Paizo nerfed wizards too much this patch" the GM still has the option of using wizards from the last version.

I think this would be a good idea, and then when people are dissatisfied with a class or whatever and it's already been printed, that's not as big a deal.

This would cause me to quit playing Pathfinder


I think Balance really is in the eye of the beholder and its impossible to ever attain it. case in point the frequent Summoners are over powered threads or the current rogues do more damage than fighters OMFG thread. (which seems to be worded exactly the same in its OP as the last one)

It really inst attainable and Balance will exist based on the playstyle of the people at your Table.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No matter how many Beholders I kill, I can never find anything in their eyes. :(


Mojorat wrote:
I think Balance really is in the eye of the beholder and its impossible to ever attain it. case in point the frequent Summoners are over powered threads or the current rogues do more damage than fighters OMFG thread. (which seems to be worded exactly the same in its OP as the last one)

The reason "OMG SUMMONERS ARE BROKE!" threads exist is because of serious design problems with the class stemming from attempts to balance it so that no one understand how the damn thing works.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

Fortunately, the DM had them cut out their junk.

I was skimming through this thread and this line caught me completely out of context.

... carry on

Torger


Cartigan wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
I think Balance really is in the eye of the beholder and its impossible to ever attain it. case in point the frequent Summoners are over powered threads or the current rogues do more damage than fighters OMFG thread. (which seems to be worded exactly the same in its OP as the last one)
The reason "OMG SUMMONERS ARE BROKE!" threads exist is because of serious design problems with the class stemming from attempts to balance it so that no one understand how the damn thing works.

No i think they Exist in a large part because people Fail to Read. The only Design Factor they could have benefited from is a /clear/ Write up on how Monsters Interact with natural weapon attacks and manufactured weapons.

And I think in most people reading comprehension sould solve the second problem.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Wooo, mojorat said I lack reading comprehension!


Given the frequent ambiguity in the rules, I'd suggest that technical writing is as much, if not more, to blame than reading comprehension.


James Jacobs wrote:

Furthermore... the actual GOAL of class balance is kind of impossible. Because the classes aren't all built to do the same thing.

And just because one element of the game (combat in a dungeon) is so overwhelmingly iconic to what happens in the game doesn't mean that every single class has to assume that element is the baseline to which its power needs to be measured by.

It is statements like this one that make me respect the Paizo design team.


Damian Magecraft wrote:
It is statements like this one that make me respect the Paizo design team.

+1


Except most classes pretty much ARE built to do the same thing. Fighter or Barbarian? Sorcerer or Wizard? Cleric or Druid? Or better now with the new classes that tap into the same spell lists. Even if you break it down into a class' secondary foci, there are doubles. Alchemist or Druid? Inquisitor or Cleric?

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Damian Magecraft wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Furthermore... the actual GOAL of class balance is kind of impossible. Because the classes aren't all built to do the same thing.

And just because one element of the game (combat in a dungeon) is so overwhelmingly iconic to what happens in the game doesn't mean that every single class has to assume that element is the baseline to which its power needs to be measured by.

It is statements like this one that make me respect the Paizo design team.

Ayep.

Frankly, I view it as the job of the GM in a home campaign to create adventures that showcase the abilities of the players' characters. However, I view it as the responsibility of both the GM and the players in convention games to be sure everyone has fun.

In both cases, there's no such thing as OMG THIS CLASS SUXX0RS IT SO BROKE!!!!#!@#$!@#! ... but there are broken players and GMs.

My opinion is that anyone who plays a collaborative game (which is what Pathfinder is) and then maximizes their own fun at the expense of everyone else's fun is ruining it for everyone - for themself because nobody will want to play with them, and for everyone else because it trashes the game.


Cartigan wrote:
Except most classes pretty much ARE built to do the same thing. Fighter or Barbarian? Sorcerer or Wizard? Cleric or Druid? Or better now with the new classes that tap into the same spell lists. Even if you break it down into a class' secondary foci, there are doubles. Alchemist or Druid? Inquisitor or Cleric?

And how many of those have full access to to the others features?


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Except most classes pretty much ARE built to do the same thing. Fighter or Barbarian? Sorcerer or Wizard? Cleric or Druid? Or better now with the new classes that tap into the same spell lists. Even if you break it down into a class' secondary foci, there are doubles. Alchemist or Druid? Inquisitor or Cleric?
And how many of those have full access to to the others features?

It doesn't need to be full access, but rather sufficient access to deal with most situations.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Class Rebalancing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion