Worst feat ever


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 699 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quote:
and maximum normal human is level 5 or so

Says who?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Quote:
and maximum normal human is level 5 or so
Says who?

The game. It's aproximatedly the CR of real world creatures that a very good trained human *might* defeat with a spear (such as a tigers or polar bears).

It's also the amount of hit points that make falls and the like believable. And yes, I'm aware that once in ten million or so people survive falling from an Airplane. It's not the same than doing so routinarely.

Also, if you put 1 rank per level in jump, it's close to the max jump available for humans. When you are 15th level, you beat real world records while in full plate.

At 8th level, you could put your second bump in STR. That means the strongest human, at lvl 8th, could have STR 22. Take a look to maximum human feats of strength (like lift, and drag, and deadlift). Str 22 is beyond normal human. It's even beyond drug-enhanced normal humans.

At 9th level, you can defeat a Tyrannosaurus in 1 vs 1 combat. Which is beyond normal, real world human reach.

At 10th level or so, you could bull rush an Elephant. That's also beyond normal people in real world.

5th level is, aproximatedly, where your martial mundane character exploits can pass as real world exploits. Beyond that, it's in fantasy-world land. Actually, 5th level is probably stretching the line already.


Yep. Since my Hexcrafter can fly at level 5.
;)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Quote:
and maximum normal human is level 5 or so
Says who?

This very intelligent man makes a pretty good argument for it.

Easily the best thing ever written on the mechanics of D&D, IMO.


Groan. That Alexandrian article has reached religious proportions. It suffers from three fundamental flaws:

1) We don't play PF/D&D on real-life Earth. We play it on Golarion or Faerun or wherever.

2) Half his justifications for the 5th level cap for RL characters are based on skill levels, which are a tiny part of the game and not the best balanced mechanic anyway.

3) If you try equating Conan or Aragorn or whomever to a 5th level character, you can't replicate the stories. They would die. Quickly.

Alexandrian has written a whole lot of good stuff, but that article is not it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. So what? It's still important to recognize that statistically, the most capable human achievements in RL all top out at around 5th level. For him, it was to demonstrate the soundness of the rules system and its consistency, as well as point out how the game literally changes to completely different types of adventures as levels are gained (it was Ryan Dancy, father of the OGL, that was the most prominent voice discussing the "quartiles" of D&D).
As a happy side effect, it also acts as a great defense of why high level warriors being held to real world standards is wrong.

2. Skills and ability checks. What would you have him base it on? Combat rules are intentionally abstracted to all hell for the sake of simplicity, that would be a terrible point on which to measure how realistic D&D is. Skill checks and ability checks are much more specific and clear in goal and accomplishment. Can I craft a masterwork quality weapon? How far can she long jump? Besides that, combat isn't something the vast, vast majority of RL people engage in. Skill and ability checks are universally used by most people. It is a much more sensible aspect to measure.

3. I disagree. 5th level characters are pretty capable. And he mentioned that the class system doesn't really work to model specific literary characters with a slew of unique abilities that may be spread across varous levels in different classes along with extraneous stuff.


To actually answer the OP with my opinion, rather than debate the RL merits of a 20th level Necromancer, I really believe that the worst feat depends on the situation. By this the worst feat can be say, Mounted Combat. If the campaign doesn't use horses, then THAT is the worst feat. If you have a Strength build character, of any melee class, then Weapon Finesse is the baddy. Otherwise, I would say any feat that is there JUST to be a prerequisite, but gives no substantial benefit other that qualifying you for the real feat you want.


Magical Tail, a kitsune's racial feat from the Advanced Race Guide, sounds like the worst feat ever, because it has to be taken for a total of 8 times in order to be used at full effect.

I would have loved it better if you only take it once, but it grows stronger according to your level, like gaining a new tail for every odd level above 1st, maximum 9 tails at 17th level, much like a clerix or wizard gains a new spell level at odd levels.

Would it have been broken if it was like that ? Because I don't see how getting 8 feats in expense of others is balanced.

Shadow Lodge

xorial wrote:
To actually answer the OP with my opinion, rather than debate the RL merits of a 20th level Necromancer, I really believe that the worst feat depends on the situation. By this the worst feat can be say, Mounted Combat. If the campaign doesn't use horses, then THAT is the worst feat. If you have a Strength build character, of any melee class, then Weapon Finesse is the baddy. Otherwise, I would say any feat that is there JUST to be a prerequisite, but gives no substantial benefit other that qualifying you for the real feat you want.

this thread isnt about situational events. its about really bad, horribly written, editor oversites that arent worth the paper they are printed on. prone shooter, and elephant stomp are the best examples of bad(worst) feats.


Worst feat ever? Extra Rogue Talent.

No, I'm just kidding... or am I? ;)


JiCi wrote:

Magical Tail, a kitsune's racial feat from the Advanced Race Guide, sounds like the worst feat ever, because it has to be taken for a total of 8 times in order to be used at full effect.

I would have loved it better if you only take it once, but it grows stronger according to your level, like gaining a new tail for every odd level above 1st, maximum 9 tails at 17th level, much like a clerix or wizard gains a new spell level at odd levels.

Would it have been broken if it was like that ? Because I don't see how getting 8 feats in expense of others is balanced.

(shrug) Each time you take it, you're trading a feat for basically 2 more spells/day. All the spells are useful, and they get steadily better each time. And your caster level = your hit dice, so you can use them at effectively even if you're a fighter or something (although they are based on charisma).

It's really not bad at all. You could be almost a fighter/enchanter if you built your character around those feats, throwing around charm person spells, suggestions, invisibility, and eventually confusion and dominate person. Granted you wouldn't have any combat feats then. In fact, that might be a cool evil NPC to attack my players with. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or you could just be an Eldritch Knight and not through away every single general feat you have from levels 1-17...


DrDeth wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I remember the days when Toughness (back in 3.5e) was the worst feat ever.

It was great if you were a one-shot 1st level Elf Wizard. People forget that few 20th level builds ever got that far.

Fixed for you.

Monte Cooke said that they knew Toughness sucked, but they had to balance it against 1st level elven wizards for one-shot modules.

Yawar


Yosarian wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Magical Tail, a kitsune's racial feat from the Advanced Race Guide, sounds like the worst feat ever, because it has to be taken for a total of 8 times in order to be used at full effect.

I would have loved it better if you only take it once, but it grows stronger according to your level, like gaining a new tail for every odd level above 1st, maximum 9 tails at 17th level, much like a clerix or wizard gains a new spell level at odd levels.

Would it have been broken if it was like that ? Because I don't see how getting 8 feats in expense of others is balanced.

(shrug) Each time you take it, you're trading a feat for basically 2 more spells/day. All the spells are useful, and they get steadily better each time. And your caster level = your hit dice, so you can use them at effectively even if you're a fighter or something (although they are based on charisma).

It's really not bad at all. You could be almost a fighter/enchanter if you built your character around those feats, throwing around charm person spells, suggestions, invisibility, and eventually confusion and dominate person. Granted you wouldn't have any combat feats then. In fact, that might be a cool evil NPC to attack my players with. ;)

+1

Plus it works wonders for ninjas.

Yawar


YawarFiesta wrote:
Yosarian wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Magical Tail, a kitsune's racial feat from the Advanced Race Guide, sounds like the worst feat ever, because it has to be taken for a total of 8 times in order to be used at full effect.

I would have loved it better if you only take it once, but it grows stronger according to your level, like gaining a new tail for every odd level above 1st, maximum 9 tails at 17th level, much like a clerix or wizard gains a new spell level at odd levels.

Would it have been broken if it was like that ? Because I don't see how getting 8 feats in expense of others is balanced.

(shrug) Each time you take it, you're trading a feat for basically 2 more spells/day. All the spells are useful, and they get steadily better each time. And your caster level = your hit dice, so you can use them at effectively even if you're a fighter or something (although they are based on charisma).

It's really not bad at all. You could be almost a fighter/enchanter if you built your character around those feats, throwing around charm person spells, suggestions, invisibility, and eventually confusion and dominate person. Granted you wouldn't have any combat feats then. In fact, that might be a cool evil NPC to attack my players with. ;)

+1

Plus it works wonders for ninjas.

Yawar

8 feats, EIGHT ! Cut that number is half, like having an Improved, Greater and Superior versions, and it would be better than 8 feats.

Yes, it's feasible for characters like fighters, rogues, ninjas, sorcerers and wizards, which all grant bonus feats, but you're pretty much screwed for the other classes.


YawarFiesta wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I remember the days when Toughness (back in 3.5e) was the worst feat ever.

It was great if you were a one-shot 1st level Elf Wizard. People forget that few 20th level builds ever got that far.

Fixed for you.

Monte Cooke said that they knew Toughness sucked, but they had to balance it against 1st level elven wizards for one-shot modules.

Even in a 20 level game, the 1st level elf wizard does have to survive to level 2. Mind you if any retraining opps came by, you'd jump on those.


TheSideKick wrote:
xorial wrote:
To actually answer the OP with my opinion, rather than debate the RL merits of a 20th level Necromancer, I really believe that the worst feat depends on the situation. By this the worst feat can be say, Mounted Combat. If the campaign doesn't use horses, then THAT is the worst feat. If you have a Strength build character, of any melee class, then Weapon Finesse is the baddy. Otherwise, I would say any feat that is there JUST to be a prerequisite, but gives no substantial benefit other that qualifying you for the real feat you want.
this thread isnt about situational events. its about really bad, horribly written, editor oversites that arent worth the paper they are printed on. prone shooter, and elephant stomp are the best examples of bad(worst) feats.

No, it is about the worst feats. I gave my opinion about what is, and is not, the worst feat. Although, I failed to see you complain when it got into a debate about E6 style play.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Does any situation exist in which Mounted Combat can be useful? Yes.

Does any situation exist in which Weapon Finesse can be useful? Yes.

Does any situation exist in which Kitsune Tail can be useful? Yes.

Does any situation exist in which Elephant Stomp or Prone Shooter can be useful? No.

Of Elephant Stomp, Kitsune Tail, Mounted Combat, Prone Shooter, and Weapon Finesse, only Elephant Stomp and Prone Shooter are in the running for worst feat ever. There is literally no situation in which either of those feats provides any benefit to any character taking them, ever.


Epic Meepo wrote:

Does any situation exist in which Mounted Combat can be useful? Yes.

Does any situation exist in which Weapon Finesse can be useful? Yes.

Does any situation exist in which Kitsune Tail can be useful? Yes.

Does any situation exist in which Elephant Stomp or Prone Shooter can be useful? No.

Of Elephant Stomp, Kitsune Tail, Mounted Combat, Prone Shooter, and Weapon Finesse, only Elephant Stomp and Prone Shooter are in the running for worst feat ever. There is literally no situation in which either of those feats provides any benefit to any character taking them, ever.

Magical Tail IS useful, there's no denying it... but I would consider it the worst feat because it's a tax. I could have understood if there were Magical Tail, Improved Magical Tail and Greater Magical Tail, and you would get every SLA in 3 feats, but 8 feats is just overkill.

Try to build a cleric, a druid, a witch, an oracle, a barbarian, an alchemist, a summoner, an inquisitor, a magus or a gunsligner with these 8 feats... you can't, unless you want to be as useless of a commoner.


JiCi wrote:
Magical Tail IS useful, there's no denying it... but I would consider it the worst feat because it's a tax.

It's very expensive, sure, but it's also worth it to give a non-magical character magical abilities. It's not a "tax" if every individual feat in the chain is useful, and the only one that's really not is the third one, "misdirection". You don't have to take the whole feat chain for it to be useful; having a kitsune thief who can disguise himself and charm people at will as a spell-like ability would already be pretty awesome, even if you don't get any more of the feats. Or you could add two more feats and also be able to turn yourself invisible at will twice a day. How useful would that be for a thief who likes to scout and get sneak attacks?

Quote:


Try to build a cleric, a druid, a witch, an oracle, a barbarian, an alchemist, a summoner, an inquisitor, a magus or a gunsligner with these 8 feats... you can't, unless you want to be as useless of a commoner.

Well, you wouldn't do it for most spellcasters, I don't think. Maybe one who's charisma based (sorceress or bard, or perhaps paladin), but even then, it just gives you a few extra spells a day, and you probably have better options.

For non spellcasters, though, it's pretty sweet, if you're willing to reduce your meele ability in order to basically become a fighter/spellcaster without having to mess around with multclass.

The whole point of the feat and multiclass and skill systems in 3.5 and pathfinder is that you can have two different people who are both fighters but who don't look anything alike and play in very different ways, and this is a great example of that. "Not optimal" does not mean "worst feat ever", especially not if it's fun and is actually pretty strong. A fighter who can use displacement to give the enemy a 50% miss chance, who can turn himself invisible, can dominate person, can end whole encounters with confusion suddenly feels like a whole different character.

Shadow Lodge

i would be willing to burn 6 feats to gain confusion, assuming im building for it. but i would also rather play a cleric then a paladin if i wanted to focus on using confusion type control spells.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Of Elephant Stomp, Kitsune Tail, Mounted Combat, Prone Shooter, and Weapon Finesse, only Elephant Stomp and Prone Shooter are in the running for worst feat ever. There is literally no situation in which either of those feats provides any benefit to any character taking them, ever.

Since Pass For Human (which was brought up earlier in the thread) is keeping one of my characters alive right now, I going to strongly suggest that it shouldn't be on the list either. It's highly situational, sure, but it's a definite, tangible, and quite high bonus if you happen to be in a game that calls for it.

Shadow Lodge

just to clerify, a feat tax, for instance, is making a druid HAVE TO have natural spellcaster feat to make its class feature fully functional.

magical tail is not a feat tax, even if you are only interested in confusion or dominate monster it still isnt a feat tax.

besides 2 feats for charm person 2 times per day alone is pretty damn powerful. it can stop a combat before it even begins.


TheSideKick wrote:
i would be willing to burn 6 feats to gain confusion, assuming im building for it. but i would also rather play a cleric then a paladin if i wanted to focus on using confusion type control spells.

I don't think you "focus" on confusion type spells; they either win you a battle by themselves or they're totally useless, depending on who the guys your facing are. So it's probably best to have some of them ready to go to destroy the enemy in some situations, and have other unrelated things you can do if you're fighting undead or something.

I just mentioned a paladin because you want to have a high charisma for the confusion/dominate person/charm person spells DR, and Palidin gets a lot of other good stuff out of having a high cha. Really, the main reason I would think twice about going that route with a paladin is that I would have a lot less fun with mind control stuff if I had to follow a paladin's code while doing it, lol.


Another feat to take into consideration is Trick Riding.

All of its benefits are negligible.

The first lets you auto-succeed on Ride checks of DC 15 or lower, but since the feat requires 6 ranks in ride you'd likely already succeed on such checks with rolls of 4+ (+3 for class skill, +2 for Dex seem reasonable for a mounted combatant).

The second lets you take no penalty to Ride checks for riding barebacked, which doesn't seem like it would happen very frequently.

The third allows you to use Mounted Combat twice per round to negate an attack on your mount. How often is your mount the target of two attacks during a single round? I'd think such occurrences would be fairly rare. Of course, there's also the fact that using Mounted Combat requires an immediate action, so you wouldn't technically be able to benefit from this at all, unless you assume that Trick Riding grants you a bonus immediate action for this purpose :)

In fact, Trick Riding seems to be nothing more than a feat tax for the Mounted Skirmisher feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trick riding doubles the uses of a useful ability. So its useful.

Each extra tail gives you another spell-like ability. Increasing utility each time, hence useful.

Natural Spell adds a utility to *two* already extremely useful class abilities. Useful.

This isn't hard...

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Blame the Editer,

Blame the Editer: the Editor will thank you for it.


Funky Badger wrote:
Trick riding doubles the uses of a useful ability. So its useful.
Are wrote:

The third allows you to use Mounted Combat twice per round to negate an attack on your mount. How often is your mount the target of two attacks during a single round? I'd think such occurrences would be fairly rare. Of course, there's also the fact that using Mounted Combat requires an immediate action, so you wouldn't technically be able to benefit from this at all, unless you assume that Trick Riding grants you a bonus immediate action for this purpose :)

In fact, Trick Riding seems to be nothing more than a feat tax for the Mounted Skirmisher feat.

His statement is valid

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts and the replies to them. Play nice.


I edited the post Nicos replied to (and now Ross has apparently deleted it entirely), so his statement doesn't really make sense now. I apologize for that.

The post originally mentioned the "Disengaging Feint" feat as a poorer version of withdrawing, but I edited the post to remove that mention once I realized that the feat actually allowed the character to move as part of the same standard action used to Bluff. So the character would have a full regular move action left afterwards compared to a normal withdraw.


Ok, let's make this a little more interesting.

Let's ignore feats that just don't work at all because someone screwed up the mechanics, like prone shooting or elephant stomp. Those probably shouldn't be in the book at all, and no one is going to ever actually take those, so they're really irrelevant.

So out of the feats that actually work the way they're supposed to and do what they're supposed to do, which is the worst feat?


Yosarian wrote:

Ok, let's make this a little more interesting.

Let's ignore feats that just don't work at all because someone screwed up the mechanics, like prone shooting or elephant stomp. Those probably shouldn't be in the book at all, and no one is going to ever actually take those, so they're really irrelevant.

So out of the feats that actually work the way they're supposed to and do what they're supposed to do, which is the worst feat?

Extra Rogue Talent --> Powerful Sneak. As this thread has already demonstrated, it's a successful trap that people will take and even defend their decision to take, even though using it makes you worse.


Are wrote:

I edited the post Nicos replied to (and now Ross has apparently deleted it entirely), so his statement doesn't really make sense now. I apologize for that.

The post originally mentioned the "Disengaging Feint" feat as a poorer version of withdrawing, but I edited the post to remove that mention once I realized that the feat actually allowed the character to move as part of the same standard action used to Bluff. So the character would have a full regular move action left afterwards compared to a normal withdraw.

I disagree.

"As a standard action, use Bluff to feint against an opponent. Instead of denying that opponent his Dexterity bonus to AC, a successful feint allows you to move up to your speed without provoking an attack of opportunity from the opponent you feinted for leaving the square you start in.

as written the standar actio is to use the bluff skill. then the feat allow you to move without povokin but i do not see that the move actions is "free"."

EDIT: now i see your point, it porr writed too it could be interpreter in several ways.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Yosarian wrote:

Ok, let's make this a little more interesting.

Let's ignore feats that just don't work at all because someone screwed up the mechanics, like prone shooting or elephant stomp. Those probably shouldn't be in the book at all, and no one is going to ever actually take those, so they're really irrelevant.

So out of the feats that actually work the way they're supposed to and do what they're supposed to do, which is the worst feat?

Extra Rogue Talent --> Powerful Sneak. As this thread has already demonstrated, it's a successful trap that people will take and even defend their decision to take, even though using it makes you worse.

(nods) That's pretty awful, yes. Again, I think that's a matter of broken mechanics, but it's more subtle.

As for other feats work as advertised and do what they are supposed to but are just bad, I can't imagine why anyone would get the Extra Cantrips feat. A feat to add +2 cantrips to your spell list? In what situation could a level 1 sorceress knowing 6 cantrips instead of 4 ever be worth a feat?


Yosarian wrote:
That's pretty awful, yes. Again, I think that's a matter of broken mechanics, but it's more subtle.

Probably true, though it's a bit different from the Prone Shooter family in that "no one is going to ever actually take those, so they're really irrelevant" doesn't apply.

And Extra Cantrips is a pretty good candidate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a bad feat because the guy who wrote it didn't pay attention to what he was doing.

Ferocious Summons (Orc/Half-Orc)
Your summoned creatures gain your ferocity.
Prerequisites: Augment Summoning, Spell Focus (conjuration), half-orc or orc.
Benefit: Creatures you summon gain the ferocity universal monster ability.

They still disappear when they reach 0hp, as per the summoning rules.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Quote:
and maximum normal human is level 5 or so
Says who?

This very intelligent man makes a pretty good argument for it.

Easily the best thing ever written on the mechanics of D&D, IMO.

A small town has the services of multiple spellcasters who can cast 4th level spells. And goes up fast too, to a base of 8th level spells in a metropolis, but can easily be 9th if qualities a used. So max human is 15+.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/settlements


Fred Ohm wrote:

Here's a bad feat because the guy who wrote it didn't pay attention to what he was doing.

Ferocious Summons (Orc/Half-Orc)
Your summoned creatures gain your ferocity.
Prerequisites: Augment Summoning, Spell Focus (conjuration), half-orc or orc.
Benefit: Creatures you summon gain the ferocity universal monster ability.

They still disappear when they reach 0hp, as per the summoning rules.

another feat that does nothing. do we have 10 feats to make the top 10 worst feats?


GeneticDrift wrote:
A small town has the services of multiple spellcasters who can cast 4th level spells. And goes up fast too, to a base of 8th level spells in a metropolis, but can easily be 9th if qualities a used. So max human is 15+.

Max human is 20, since the PCs can reach that.

According to 3.5 rules, though, a large town (2001-5000) has 25% chances to have a 11 or 12th level fighter.
That makes a lot of people who can't figure out how to slash the hand of a big monster as it swipes at them.

I don't know any similar rules for PF, but in their NPC gallery, their max level fighter NPC, the "General" is 11th level and can use this feat.

Quote:

Generals are the masters of the battlefield, expert and

veteran soldiers who conceive and execute tactical plans
and inspire their troops on to victory. Generals may
command from a rearward vantage point, but when
needed, may dive into the fray with sword in hand to turn
the tide through sheer puissance. Generals can be used
as arena champions, masters of fighting schools, or elite
warriors trained to fight with or against spellcasters.

Soldiers and knights can't, though.

I think this is a fault of the 3.x system. Designers apparently though "what will the players want to do, that we can make into feats or class abilities ?" instead of "what would require enough training from the character to be a feat or a class ability ?". And so we get Power Attack, Strike Back, Prone Shooter, etc.
And I think that the Alexandrian's article is rubbish.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GeneticDrift wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Toadkiller Dog wrote:
Quote:
and maximum normal human is level 5 or so
Says who?

This very intelligent man makes a pretty good argument for it.

Easily the best thing ever written on the mechanics of D&D, IMO.

A small town has the services of multiple spellcasters who can cast 4th level spells. And goes up fast too, to a base of 8th level spells in a metropolis, but can easily be 9th if qualities a used. So max human is 15+.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/settlements

Obviously, in the game, you can find humans above 5th level. That's not what the essay is about. The essay is claiming that in real life you could model basically any of the great people who have ever lived as a 5th level or lower character, and thus, the author concludes, the maximum real world potential a human can reach is about 5th level in D&D.

Which many people (such as myself) who like noncasters and wish to see them be useful at all levels of the game then in turn use as an argument for "stop expecting fighting men to obey the laws of physics at high, and even mid-, levels."

Liberty's Edge

just to put my two coppers in. I think one of the worst feats in the game is Diehard......That one in my point of view is a PC killer.


Fred Ohm wrote:

Here's a bad feat because the guy who wrote it didn't pay attention to what he was doing.

Ferocious Summons (Orc/Half-Orc)
Your summoned creatures gain your ferocity.
Prerequisites: Augment Summoning, Spell Focus (conjuration), half-orc or orc.
Benefit: Creatures you summon gain the ferocity universal monster ability.

They still disappear when they reach 0hp, as per the summoning rules.

Is that for all summons (Summon Monster, Summon Natures Ally, etc) or just Eidolons?


Since it requires Augment Summoning and Spell Focus (conjuration), I suppose it was made to use with conjuration spells primarily.

151 to 200 of 699 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Worst feat ever All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.