log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E 3/4 Caster: Its Absence and Design Space in 5E

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
An open discussion question for polite musings.

Currently, 5e D&D has full casters (i.e., wizard, bard, druid, cleric, sorcerer), half-casters (i.e., artificer, paladin, ranger), and even 1/3 or one-third (e.g., Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, etc.). Absent within this quarter-based schema is a 3/4 or three-quarters caster. Is there a reason that 5e either chose not to design a 3/4 caster and is there room in the game for such a progression? Furthermore, would any of the existing classes have been better off as 3/4 casters than their current spell progressions?

So here's how I approach the issue- we have 13 classes.

Of those, five (more than 1/3) of them are full casters. Wizard, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer.
Another three are 1/2 casters. Artificer, Paladin, Ranger.
Another one uses a different mechanism, but is arguably a fully caster. Warlock.

So 9/13 classes (70%) are already brimming with spells.

The four remaining classes are Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, and Monk. Those already have two options for 1/3 casters. Maybe more depending on how you classify some of the Monk subclasses.

In short, the issue isn't the dearth of design space for casters; it's the absence of real non-caster options.

Now, let's put that aside. Assume you want more spellcasters and more variety of ... bewitching? Enspelling? Blasting? Anyway, this is the issue you come up with-

The design space between half-caster and full caster is already very limited. I would say that while there is sufficient differentiation between half-casting (in terms of spell slots and maximum spell level) to be worth it, the difference between a full and a 3/4 (or 2/3) caster just isn't there in 5e because there aren't enough tradeoffs elsewhere.

So, I would look at this in a slightly different way; in order to introduce differentiation, I would not have 3/4 casters. Instead, I would promote variety through one of two methods:

A. Completely differentiated spell lists. The primary issue of "samey-ness" between spellcasters is largely due to overlapping spell lists. If you want spellcaster to be different, you need to more strictly patrol the boundaries of their spell lists (but this is often unpopular with players).

B. Mechanics. The simplest way to make the spellcasters play differently is to change them up mechanically. The two best examples of this are the Paladin and the Warlock. The Paladin does this in the simplest way possible- by using spell slots to power a different ability (smite). For many players, Paladins seem more martial than half-castery because they are using their spellslots for a specified purpose, not to cast spells. The more involved method is to create classes like the Warlock, which have different underlying mechanics that allow for differentiation.

IMO, etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

D&D doesn't need more casters. D&D needs more non-casters. I'm talking about guards. I'm talking about scouts. I'm talking about knights. I'm talking about watchmen, assassins, thieves, trappers, archers, barbarians, berserkers, cavaliers, mercenaries, beastmasters, shieldmaidens, outriders, bounty hunters, corsairs, battle captains, warlords, zealots, foresters, pugilists, and all the rest.

3/4 casters? How about 3/4 martials? No, how about 5/4 martials. We need martial equality NOW.
 

Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
Ya... nope. I vehemently opposed to this idea. Otherwise spell level are completely meaningless and just add fiddliness and wordiness for no reason and no gain. Might as well just go back to 4e style powers that are unique to each class.
I would say that the "Gain" is that all of them have the ability to whip out the same magnitude of magic for game balancing purposes in a given encounter, while also differentiating the classes significantly through available spell slots. The Bard winds up with a lot less slots than the Wizard or even Cleric, so they must rely on other aspects of their class once their limited spells are expended.

It also hearkens back to AD&D's "Seven Circles" of Cleric spells.

If the phrasing is too much, call them Level for Arcane, Circle for Divine, Cycle for Primal, and Stanza for Bards.

In which case a 9th level spell is as powerful as a 7th circle spell or a 5th stanza spell.
 

In short, the issue isn't the dearth of design space for casters; it's the absence of real non-caster options.
[...]
If you want spellcaster to be different, you need to more strictly patrol the boundaries of their spell lists (but this is often unpopular with players).
I find the juxtaposition of these statements somewhat humorous.

The absence of real non-caster options is heavily driven by the fact that if you don't have magic, 5e doesn't have much design space for you to play in. And people heavily play the magic classes in part because having cool tools to use is popular, extremely so.

That is, there's a perfect mirror of the second sentence, but for non-casters: "If you want non-casters to be common, you need to more richly fill the design space of non-spell actions (but this is often unpopular with players.)"

People crapping on the Warlord and decrying how dumb and bad it is to have too many classes, among other popular (and vocal) stances, are directly responsible for generating the "oops, all casters" feel of 5e.

I would say that the "Gain" is that all of them have the ability to whip out the same magnitude of magic for game balancing purposes in a given encounter, while also differentiating the classes significantly through available spell slots. The Bard winds up with a lot less slots than the Wizard or even Cleric, so they must rely on other aspects of their class once their limited spells are expended.

It also hearkens back to AD&D's "Seven Circles" of Cleric spells.

If the phrasing is too much, call them Level for Arcane, Circle for Divine, Cycle for Primal, and Stanza for Bards.

In which case a 9th level spell is as powerful as a 7th circle spell or a 5th stanza spell.
I still don't really see the point of this myself. It sounds like repeatedly reinventing the wheel purely to make similar things different. It'll also lead to even more page space dedicated to spell-like stuff, since now no two classes (except perhaps Wizard and Sorcerer) share any part of their lists. I'm with Undrave on this one, not that that should surprise anyone. If you go to this extent, you've effectively reinvented 4e powers but with the awkward imposition of radically-different scaling factor, making it much more difficult to balance casters even with one another, let alone with non-casters.

Plus, it's not like 5e didn't try something like this. Remember the playtest Sorcerer and Warlock? Super neat ideas. Sorcerer used spell points exclusively rather than spell slots, and physically changed (gaining various bonuses, mostly passives); the example, Dragon Sorcerer, slowly became a beefy meleeist. Warlock had all sorts of boons obtained through some kind of sacrifice or exchange; the example, Archfey, got various effects related to charm and beauty and such.

And then people apparently hated on them SO MUCH in just the first survey that WotC scrapped them both entirely and never even attempted to show new versions until after the public playtest ended.

Again, you're gonna be fighting an uphill popularity battle. People complain that things are too samey, and then complain that they're too different if you change them.
 

Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
I still don't really see the point of this myself. It sounds like repeatedly reinventing the wheel purely to make similar things different. It'll also lead to even more page space dedicated to spell-like stuff, since now no two classes (except perhaps Wizard and Sorcerer) share any part of their lists. I'm with Undrave on this one, not that that should surprise anyone. If you go to this extent, you've effectively reinvented 4e powers but with the awkward imposition of radically-different scaling factor, making it much more difficult to balance casters even with one another, let alone with non-casters.

Plus, it's not like 5e didn't try something like this. Remember the playtest Sorcerer and Warlock? Super neat ideas. Sorcerer used spell points exclusively rather than spell slots, and physically changed (gaining various bonuses, mostly passives); the example, Dragon Sorcerer, slowly became a beefy meleeist. Warlock had all sorts of boons obtained through some kind of sacrifice or exchange; the example, Archfey, got various effects related to charm and beauty and such.

And then people apparently hated on them SO MUCH in just the first survey that WotC scrapped them both entirely and never even attempted to show new versions until after the public playtest ended.

Again, you're gonna be fighting an uphill popularity battle. People complain that things are too samey, and then complain that they're too different if you change them.
Did y'all just -not- play AD&D or 3e/3.5/Pathfinder?

You can have the same spell on multiple spell lists at different levels. Pre 4e that's largely how it was done. A spell would be 7th level for Wizards, 6th level for Clerics if it was something meant to show off Cleric magic prowess or fell into their wheelhouse more than other classes.

"Reinvent 4e powers" my beautiful backside. I'm reinventing AD&D 2e Cleric Circles. LITERALLY.

As far as the playtests for Sorcerer and Warlock: I didn't bother. And I have no clue what it's got to do with what I'm suggesting, here. Which is "Squish spell levels a bit for some classes to help them feel different while still having 'Full Caster' level power while also making room in their leveling progress for class abilities that aren't just gaining more spell levels and slots"

Like... what part of that is "Melee Sorcerer" or "Warlock with Feystuff"..?
 

Minigiant

Legend
What is the difference between these spells

  • Chain Lightning
  • Circle of Death
  • Contingency
  • Create Undead
  • Create Homumonculus
  • Disintegrate
  • Eyebite
  • Flesh to Stone
  • Freezing Sphere
  • Globe of Invulnerability
and these spells
  • A D Horrid Wilting
  • Antimagic Field
  • Antipathy/Sympathy
  • Clone
  • Control Weather
  • Demiplane
  • Dominate Monster
  • Feeblemind
If there is no consistent divide or difference between 6/7th and 8/9th level spells, there is no real point to a 3/4 or 2/3 caster.
 

I think this is a good observation. Making a 3/4 caster implies that you would need to fill the remaining 1/4 with skills and martial abilities, and nobody can agree on what that would look like. Only light armor and shields? Simple weapons only, one martial weapon, all martial weapons? Medium armor but not shields? Two extra skills and a martial weapon, but no armor?

I don't see how this could produce anything but a Hexblade 2.0.
It also depends heavily on what spells make up the spell list
What is the difference between these spells

  • Chain Lightning
  • Circle of Death
  • Contingency
  • Create Undead
  • Create Homumonculus
  • Disintegrate
  • Eyebite
  • Flesh to Stone
  • Freezing Sphere
  • Globe of Invulnerability
and these spells
  • A D Horrid Wilting
  • Antimagic Field
  • Antipathy/Sympathy
  • Clone
  • Control Weather
  • Demiplane
  • Dominate Monster
  • Feeblemind
If there is no consistent divide or difference between 6/7th and 8/9th level spells, there is no real point to a 3/4 or 2/3 caster.
I did a quick job of this so may have misnumbered or wound up with things on the wrong line
1631067367515.png

The big problem us that in o5e casters continually slow their rate of slot progression until they basically stop scaling at nine or ten. Presumably when creating 2/3 & 3/4 casters they would unnerf 1/1 full caster slot progression
 

Did y'all just -not- play AD&D
Not really. I mean, a tiny bit, but not really.

or 3e/3.5/Pathfinder?
Tons. Which is why I'm not at all keen on EVER going back to the ways it does things.

You can have the same spell on multiple spell lists at different levels. Pre 4e that's largely how it was done. A spell would be 7th level for Wizards, 6th level for Clerics if it was something meant to show off Cleric magic prowess or fell into their wheelhouse more than other classes.
I'm aware. I'm also aware of (a) the serious balance problems it created and (b) the very good reasons why 5e didn't replicate that. (One of the few design decisions in 5e that I unequivocally support, actually.)

"Reinvent 4e powers" my beautiful backside. I'm reinventing AD&D 2e Cleric Circles. LITERALLY.
That's what you said. But if it actually ends up balanced, I honestly don't see what the difference is between this and 4e powers with a funky schedule; they'll all be unique to each class, or so it was implied, since your proposed 5th level stanza Bard spell is meant to be the equivalent of a 9th level Wizard spell or a 7th circle Druid spell. And if it doesn't end up balanced, then yes, you would have reinvented the old way of doing things, which would cause a lot of problems. I had assumed you were not interested in intentionally making unbalanced mechanics. Are you meaning to disabuse me of that assumption?

As far as the playtests for Sorcerer and Warlock: I didn't bother. And I have no clue what it's got to do with what I'm suggesting, here. Which is "Squish spell levels a bit for some classes to help them feel different while still having 'Full Caster' level power while also making room in their leveling progress for class abilities that aren't just gaining more spell levels and slots"

Like... what part of that is "Melee Sorcerer" or "Warlock with Feystuff"..?
It's not those specific things, and it's a bit tedious that you are taking it as such, as I felt I was pretty clearly giving examples of the kind of thing that it sounded like you're talking about, not "it would be EXACTLY this SPECIFIC thing and NEVER anything else." Like...could you have at least a little charity in reading what I wrote? I was giving those as examples of classes with actually unique ways of doing things, that had class-specific abilities on entirely different schedules from one another (as in, not even commensurate the way 5e spells currently are). You specifically described it as "the same level of power"--rather than them actually being literally identical spells. Which, I mean, if you had meant they were literally the same spells, you could have just said, "a 5th-stanza Bard spell is a 9th-level Wizard spell" (though the practicalities of how that would work are...complicated at best, and I think you have an extremely rosy perception of how easy it is to design such things).

So it seemed pretty clear to me that you were inventing class-specific lists of opt-in actively-spent abilities, where the rate at which one gets them is radically different from one class to another. Which is quite easily read as "4e powers, but without the common resource schedule."
 

Did y'all just -not- play AD&D or 3e/3.5/Pathfinder?

You can have the same spell on multiple spell lists at different levels. Pre 4e that's largely how it was done. A spell would be 7th level for Wizards, 6th level for Clerics if it was something meant to show off Cleric magic prowess or fell into their wheelhouse more than other classes.
Been there, experienced that, didn't much like it there, and double don't like trying to graft it into the 5e system of spell levels and upcasting.
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
The 5e fullcasters are already bare bones at the highest levels, only one for each of the highest level slots. I cant imagine it being even worse.

I lack interest in a nerfed spellcaster, a hypothetical 2/3s or 3/4s caster that wouldnt get much for the single slot 8 and single slot 9, anyway.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
5e was designed with 6-9th level spells being the broken spells . The 1/2 caster isn't supposed to get them.

Adding a 3/4th caster requires defining the difference between 6th and 7th level spells and 8th and 9th level spells outside of power.
Actually, slot 5 spells have many very powerful spells. By contrast, slots 6 to 8 tend to disappoint and often are noticeably subpar enough to belong in one of the lower levels. Only one or two spells per slot are worthwhile. Thus the high slots are less effective than one might hope.

Few games reach these slots. There would be more complaints if they did.

Generally, restricting spells by class severely interferes with the ability to ensure that the spells of the same slot balance with each other.

Slot 9 tends to be powerful.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Wish is exceptionally powerful. It merits being its own spell, at slot 10, becoming available at level 19.

Wish is a universal magic, the essence of magic itself. It seems to me, any fullcaster can gain this spell at level 19, by means of various thematic flavors.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Actually, slot 5 spells have many very powerful spells. By contrast, slots 6 to 8 tend to disappoint and often are noticeably subpar enough to belong in one of the lower levels. Only one or two spells per slot are worthwhile. Thus the high slots are less effective than one might hope.

Few games reach these slots. There would be more complaints if they did.

Generally, restricting spells by class severely interferes with the ability to ensure that the spells of the same slot balance with each other.

Slot 9 tends to be powerful.
The 6th-9th level spells and slots tend to have easier ability to warp campaigns.

5th level and below are powerful but tend to have duration, target, or restrictions that limit abuse.
 

D&D doesn't need more casters. D&D needs more non-casters.
I'm just stick to death everything using spell slots and the same master spell list from the PHB. I like supernatural stuff like the echo knight, the psi knight, and the runeknight, but what makes them stand out so much is that most of the 5e subclasses keep going back to the well over and over and over and over.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
The 6th-9th level spells and slots tend to have easier ability to warp campaigns.

5th level and below are powerful but tend to have duration, target, or restrictions that limit abuse.
I agree in principle.

With regard to the actual spells, the slots 6 to 8, are highly imbalanced compared to each other, mostly conspicuously subpar compared to other spells.

For example. Sunbeam and Freezing Sphere are more comparable to slot 5 spell. Circle of Death is more comparable to a slot 3 spell. And so on.

The high slot spells tend to imbalance thus be less useful as a metric to determine class balance.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
I would say that the "Gain" is that all of them have the ability to whip out the same magnitude of magic for game balancing purposes in a given encounter, while also differentiating the classes significantly through available spell slots. The Bard winds up with a lot less slots than the Wizard or even Cleric, so they must rely on other aspects of their class once their limited spells are expended.

It also hearkens back to AD&D's "Seven Circles" of Cleric spells.

If the phrasing is too much, call them Level for Arcane, Circle for Divine, Cycle for Primal, and Stanza for Bards.

In which case a 9th level spell is as powerful as a 7th circle spell or a 5th stanza spell.
I played plenty of 2e and 3.x back in the day, and I didn't find that spells at different levels made things more interesting, just more wonky.

What you're proposing with the bard is effectively the same as eliminating every even level spell from their spell list (in 5e). While that would certainly differentiate them, it would do so in a way that simply doesn't add much that I can see, beyond a greater potential for dead levels.
 

Minigiant

Legend
I agree in principle.

With regard to the actual spells, the slots 6 to 8, are highly imbalanced compared to each other, mostly conspicuously subpar compared to other spells.

For example. Sunbeam and Freezing Sphere are more comparable to slot 5 spell. Circle of Death is more comparable to a slot 3 spell. And so on.

The high slot spells tend to imbalance thus be less useful as a metric to determine class balance.
That's more from WOTC being willy nilly and inconsistent with damage spells
 

Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
Not really. I mean, a tiny bit, but not really.
Fair.
Tons. Which is why I'm not at all keen on EVER going back to the ways it does things.
Also fair.
I'm aware. I'm also aware of (a) the serious balance problems it created and (b) the very good reasons why 5e didn't replicate that. (One of the few design decisions in 5e that I unequivocally support, actually.)
It definitely caused some balance issues. Which this suggestion fixes by bringing the levels you get access to spells to the same character level even if your individual class's "Spell Level" is a bit different. But that's kind of beside the real point that you're making, and I respect that.
That's what you said. But if it actually ends up balanced, I honestly don't see what the difference is between this and 4e powers with a funky schedule; they'll all be unique to each class, or so it was implied, since your proposed 5th level stanza Bard spell is meant to be the equivalent of a 9th level Wizard spell or a 7th circle Druid spell. And if it doesn't end up balanced, then yes, you would have reinvented the old way of doing things, which would cause a lot of problems. I had assumed you were not interested in intentionally making unbalanced mechanics. Are you meaning to disabuse me of that assumption?
See... I don't get the "Powers" thing that you're going for, here. Maybe I didn't play enough 4e to understand your particular perspective. This part kind of helps, though:
So it seemed pretty clear to me that you were inventing class-specific lists of opt-in actively-spent abilities, where the rate at which one gets them is radically different from one class to another. Which is quite easily read as "4e powers, but without the common resource schedule."
So... What I'm taking from this is: All Spells are basically 4e Powers, but this design decision breaks it from the "At Will/Encounter/Daily /Utility" structure that 5e has in the form of near-identical spell slot availability across full casters.

Feel free to correct me on this if I've misunderstood, but that's what I'm taking from this 4e comparison.

And the answer is... I don't feel like it's nearly the same. In any regard. Yeah, Bards would wind up with fewer spell slots compared to Wizards and Clerics (Lacking parity in the form of 2nd level, 4th level, 5th level, and 8th level spell slots, as compared to the Wizard. So where a Wizard would get 22 Spell Slots per day (Plus Arcane Recovery) the Bard would get 12, just about half, as it stands. (Though that could probably be workshopped a bit, for balance purposes)

But, honestly... how many characters cast 22 spells in a day? We often talk on these boards about how combat rarely lasts more than 3-4 rounds and practically no one uses the 6 encounter 3 short rest day. 6-10 rounds of combat means the Wizard will be dumping their highest level spells and so will the Bard, but where the Wizard has 7th level spells to follow up that 8th and 9th, the Bard would only have the 8th and then be down to 6th. And thus have to rely on other class abilities in place of them. To also play "Fighter" or "Rogue" or, y'know... Bard.

Where it would really matter is in the first 10 levels, anyhow, where most D&D play takes place. And in that range the Bard is losing 2nd and 4th level spell slots. So they'd have 9 spell slots compared to a Wizard's 15. 3/5ths of the available slots is pretty strong, but without the flexibility and granularity of the Wizard.

Personally I think that's pretty fun. And in place of the 2nd and 4th level spells: New Class Abilities that better suit Bards. Which is where your final position steps up.
It's not those specific things, and it's a bit tedious that you are taking it as such, as I felt I was pretty clearly giving examples of the kind of thing that it sounded like you're talking about, not "it would be EXACTLY this SPECIFIC thing and NEVER anything else." Like...could you have at least a little charity in reading what I wrote? I was giving those as examples of classes with actually unique ways of doing things, that had class-specific abilities on entirely different schedules from one another (as in, not even commensurate the way 5e spells currently are). You specifically described it as "the same level of power"--rather than them actually being literally identical spells. Which, I mean, if you had meant they were literally the same spells, you could have just said, "a 5th-stanza Bard spell is a 9th-level Wizard spell" (though the practicalities of how that would work are...complicated at best, and I think you have an extremely rosy perception of how easy it is to design such things).
You're using something I have no reference to which was bad game design and saying "This thing was bad game design." and I'm like... "Okay... so ... don't do bad game design?"

Maybe we should talk about what special thing we'd give Bards at 3rd or 4th level to offset the loss of 2nd level spellcasting and then try to design and balance it well, then compare it to the loss? My idea was some form of Magical Performance that they can keep active every turn as a Concentration Effect (Since they'll have less spell slots to use Concentration Spells in) which apply party buffs or enemy debuffs. Maybe something like granting extra movement and a d4 to attack and damage rolls to up to 10 characters, or a distracting performance which applies disadvantage to various skill checks for enemies, or some kind of staccato performance which lets the Bard expend their reaction to impose disadvantage on enemy attack rolls by playing a harsh note right when they swing or something... And having the Bard get access to several of these performances at different levels. With performances learned at higher levels being stronger than lower level performances.

Basically giving them Concentration Spells that are specific and explicit to the Bard Class and baked into the chassis itself to help reinforce the idea of Bards being performers and buff/debuff/manipulators. Sort of how Warlocks gain Invocations to help reinforce their specific narrative of being "Strange Spellcasters Empowered by Weird Methods".

As to the Stanza/Circle/Level thing... Sure. I apologize for not getting my point across that they could share spells between lists fairly effectively, so long as the power-level was respected. No giving Bards access to Wish as a 4th "Stanza" spell, for example (Equivalent to 8th Level Wizard Spells). That's really on me.

And I think I finally understood the 4e thing, here. Because you thought I was talking about making a whole boatload of Bard-Only spells and that was the only spells they could take, compared to Wizard-Only and Cleric-Only. Yeah, that wasn't my intention, and I apologize for failing to get it across.
Been there, experienced that, didn't much like it there, and double don't like trying to graft it into the 5e system of spell levels and upcasting.
Fair.
Mostly did, and I don't fancy going back to that system if I can. It was largely preserved in Pathfinder due to OGL and compatibility. But it's not exactly some mystery why the 3E spell system got dumped by 4E, 13th Age, 5E, PF2, or nearly any designer who worked on or touched 3E. It was a hot mess.
Mostly fair. Though the reason it got dumped by 4e was to try and make the game Mini-Wargames-Style so all spell concepts had to go out the window in favor of making it all inter-class-compatible for balancing purposes.

13th Age was never meant to be D&D and wasn't based on 3e, 5e picked up the shattered pieces of 3e and 4e and put them back together, and PF2 completely shifted their paradigm to "Everything is FEATS! You want a Feat for your Feet? HAVE FEET FEATS!!!" so they did their own total restructure...

But. That's different from what I've suggested, as well.
I played plenty of 2e and 3.x back in the day, and I didn't find that spells at different levels made things more interesting, just more wonky.

What you're proposing with the bard is effectively the same as eliminating every even level spell from their spell list (in 5e). While that would certainly differentiate them, it would do so in a way that simply doesn't add much that I can see, beyond a greater potential for dead levels.
Fair. It does have an opening to create Dead Levels. Though the core idea is explicitly to fill those Dead Levels with something specific to the class, such as Bardic Performances or some kind of Cleric Rite or something similar. Just something to better differentiate the classes outside of their spellcasting.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Mostly fair. Though the reason it got dumped by 4e was to try and make the game Mini-Wargames-Style so all spell concepts had to go out the window in favor of making it all inter-class-compatible for balancing purposes.
You say this as if this was the only reason it got dumped as opposed to there being multiple reasons it got dumped in 4e.

13th Age was never meant to be D&D and wasn't based on 3e, 5e picked up the shattered pieces of 3e and 4e and put them back together, and PF2 completely shifted their paradigm to "Everything is FEATS! You want a Feat for your Feet? HAVE FEET FEATS!!!" so they did their own total restructure...
13th Age was designed by Jonathan Tweet (3e Lead Designer) and Rob Heinsoo (4e Lead Designer) to essentially be a spiritual hybrid of 3e and 4e D&D.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top