D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
The example I gave in this thread. Skill use. There's very little guidance on how to adjudicate the skills, on what they actually do. Or even using ability scores in general. Or how to bring magic items into a game. The prices listed are several thousand gp wide, and the advice given on how many to give players is "use your judgement"--but there's no advice given on how to develop that judgement. A post earlier suggested that the issue is really with the DMG, where the guidance should be, but is absent. It's fine to say "use your judgement", but without helping the DM develop that judgement, it's useless advice.
Needless to say, I disagree with pretty much all of this. I think all of those things do exist, at least in adequate guidance. If not, then wouldn't you think it would be a pervasive problem among gamers? Your complaints are almost non existent among the millions of gamers who play. That tells me that those problems aren't really problems as a whole. I get how it doesn't meet what you want, and that's OK, but that doesn't mean the game is lacking in those areas like you claim. I.e., your experiences are hardly universal or evidence that the game in general is lacking.

The game does tell you what ability scores are, how they are defined, and how they are used (by giving modifiers, how they are generated, and telling you what types of skills would be related to each one). I'm not sure what more you could need. Same with skills. Same with magic items (it tells you how items are sorted by rarity, and what levels PCs typically tend to be when they find items by said rarity). The DMG literally includes guidelines on everything you just listed, so I have to ask, did you even read it?

If you're looking for detailed black and white hard lines for every possible scenario, you're not going to get it. That would result in a book 1000 pages long and even then things would be missing. D&D learned the hard way that when you put things like "player of level X will have this exact amount of magic items of this type' and "skills are used exactly like this and only like this", you end up with players who rely on that and can't or won't think creatively. It's the entire philosophy of "anything not expressly prohibited is possible." As I mentioned, what you described as wanting feels like shackles. A prison. "If there isn't a specific rule for it, you can't do it."

And I for one am glad that D&D got away from that. Judging by the sales #s, so are most people. But either way, none of that means that the rules are missing as you claim. I just reopened my DMG and yup, everything you claim isn't there is. Guidelines and rules for how to handle skills, ability scores, magic item frequency, etc. The 5e DMG is actually quite extensive. In fact, I ignore about half of it because I already know how I want to handle it in game.
 

OB1

Explorer
The latest Amazon sales numbers I think pretty clearly show what people prefer in terms of crunch in their TTRPG

D&D 5e PHB - #89 overall in books after 5 years in print
Pathfinder 2e - #1,246 in books after 3 weeks in print (though it did push ahead of 5e in the first week of it's release)

I think the above also speaks to when we should expect 6e (if ever). 6e won't come because of some predetermined expiration date for how long an edition 'should' exist. It will come when it no longer attracts significant numbers of new players.

If you think about the classic sports that exist now, Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc, all went through periods in their early history where the rule system changed extensively before settling into their modern forms where rules evolve very slowly.

I think it's an open question as to whether D&D needs another major revision before settling into that state, but I think there is a very good chance that we only see revision (not revolution) going forward.
 

Parmandur

Legend
The latest Amazon sales numbers I think pretty clearly show what people prefer in terms of crunch in their TTRPG

D&D 5e PHB - #89 overall in books after 5 years in print
Pathfinder 2e - #1,246 in books after 3 weeks in print (though it did push ahead of 5e in the first week of it's release)

I think the above also speaks to when we should expect 6e (if ever). 6e won't come because of some predetermined expiration date for how long an edition 'should' exist. It will come when it no longer attracts significant numbers of new players.

If you think about the classic sports that exist now, Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc, all went through periods in their early history where the rule system changed extensively before settling into their modern forms where rules evolve very slowly.

I think it's an open question as to whether D&D needs another major revision before settling into that state, but I think there is a very good chance that we only see revision (not revolution) going forward.
Yeah, RPGS have only been in existence for 45 years: what has happened so far is not necessarily reflective of the future of gaming.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
It isn't that it isn't meant to be combat effective, which it is if used properly, it just isn't doing what people want. Dan Dillon,now a full Designer for WotC, has done good work breaking this down.
lol I"m done with this. A pet creature cannot be working properly if it literally cannot survive succeeding on saves on AOEs or traps past level 10 or 12, and cannot be regained without taking a bunch of time out of adventuring.
Familiars work because it takes 10 minutes and some gold, or a spell slot and some gold. Find Steed mounts work because they can survive some amount of danger, and can be regained with 10 minutes and a 2nd level spell slot.
Animal Companions cannot survive any amount of danger for half the level progression of the game, and regaining them relies on DM fiat to even be possible at all, and takes more time than either of those options. And does, at best, the same amount as either of those. Except you have to be much more careful with it. Their intentions are meaningless, as well. It doesn't change what the problem is, and how it can be fixed.
 

Parmandur

Legend
lol I"m done with this. A pet creature cannot be working properly if it literally cannot survive succeeding on saves on AOEs or traps past level 10 or 12, and cannot be regained without taking a bunch of time out of adventuring.
Familiars work because it takes 10 minutes and some gold, or a spell slot and some gold. Find Steed mounts work because they can survive some amount of danger, and can be regained with 10 minutes and a 2nd level spell slot.
Animal Companions cannot survive any amount of danger for half the level progression of the game, and regaining them relies on DM fiat to even be possible at all, and takes more time than either of those options. And does, at best, the same amount as either of those. Except you have to be much more careful with it. Their intentions are meaningless, as well. It doesn't change what the problem is, and how it can be fixed.
Sure, their design intentions matter for what the Class can do, and what the game objects accomplish when used as intended. When used as intended, the Beastmaster is quite effective. The trouble is the mismatch between design intent and player desire. And giving what many players want from a pet option requires more oomph. Simple as that.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Sure, their design intentions matter for what the Class can do, and what the game objects accomplish when used as intended. When used as intended, the Beastmaster is quite effective. The trouble is the mismatch between design intent and player desire. And giving what many players want from a pet option requires more oomph. Simple as that.
You're joking.
Have you actually tried to use the BM ranger for what they claim it was intended for? (yeah, bears are totally intended to be purely exploration helpers. Sure thing. They're full of crap, and don't want to admit that they biffed the beast stats.) After about level 8, certainly 12 at the latest for the tougher pets, it can't reliably survive successful saves against traps and AOEs. It being intended to be frequently replaced, if true (it isn't), would simply be bad design, at best. They knew damn well that players who want to play a BM ranger don't want to replace their pet every other adventuring day.

But the class was clearly meant to be able to stand beside the ranger in a fight, and it cannot do that. Simple as that.
 

Parmandur

Legend
You're joking.
Have you actually tried to use the BM ranger for what they claim it was intended for? (yeah, bears are totally intended to be purely exploration helpers. Sure thing. They're full of crap, and don't want to admit that they biffed the beast stats.) After about level 8, certainly 12 at the latest for the tougher pets, it can't reliably survive successful saves against traps and AOEs. It being intended to be frequently replaced, if true (it isn't), would simply be bad design, at best. They knew damn well that players who want to play a BM ranger don't want to replace their pet every other adventuring day.

But the class was clearly meant to be able to stand beside the ranger in a fight, and it cannot do that. Simple as that.
Bears are not eligible as BM pets. They recommend birds or snakes. Not combat heavies.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I did, briefly, play in older versions of the game, and hated it--but for very different reasons. There were so many restrictions on character creation back then that it truly stifled any kind of creativity out of me.
I'll turn that right back on you and say that if you ignore mechanics and focus on personality when creating a character there's no limit at all to what can be done.

The idea that every aspect of a character's personality always has to be somehow reflected in the game mechanics is the direct path to 3e/PF rule-for-everything madness. And that kills creativity far faster - you spend too long ticking little boxes. (and in case you're wondering, yes I did my time in 3e)

Disagree. The weekly 3.x games I'm in feature a lot, a LOT, of roleplay, completely independent of the mechanics. Sure, the rules do come up, but there's tons of roleplay all the time. I wouldn't game with those folks if there wasn't roleplay. This is what's known as the Stormwind fallacy, which is to say that focusing on rules to build a powerful character (or, more broadly here, focusing on mechanics) means that one can't roleplay. I play with some of the munchiest people I've ever met and they're also some of the best roleplayers. One is a classically-trained actor and another plays one on TV in game.
My problem in 3e was that it seemd every time I tried to roleplay something and-or try an off-the-wall action I had to consult my flippin' character sheet (or the PH) first to see if I was allowed to do it, which hauls me out of immersion and disrupts my train of thought. And that has nothing at all to do with relative character power.

And not all of us have professionally-trained actors at the table. :)
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
The design constraint of the beast master is to have a PC and their pet combined be roughly balanced with every other class/subclass. I think a lot of people make the mistake in assuming they want the pet to be basically another PC. Well, that would make the beastmaster too OP. Not gonna happen.

So what does that mean? The core ranger class offers many abilities regardless of subclass, so let's just compare the subclasses

Hunter:
At 3rd level, you can do around an extra 1d8 damage
At 7th level, you get conditional defense. Nothing too major. An AC bonus on subsequent attacks (not the first) from a creature against you. OR advantage on frighten saves. Or enforcing disadvantage on opportunity attacks. So basically, probably about 1/4 of all attacks against you if that.
At 11th level, you get more attacks, but not as big as people assume. You already have 2 attacks, but you're giving both of those up to either do volley or whirlwind. Again, conditional, and you're probably only getting a bonus of one or two additional attacks in those situations. So evened out, maybe an extra half attack per combat round.
At 15th level, you can basically half the damage against you once per round. (half to none on a made save, and half on a successful hit against you)

Now the beast master:
At 3rd level, you get your pet. Let's say a panther because Drizzt (yawn) 24 HP and 14 AC (increases with your prof bonus). What advantages does this give you (assuming your physical attack is better so not considering that a bonus to damage on a per round basis):
  • adv on perception checks.
  • no cost movement (meaning you can use it to detect or attack creatures from a distance without putting your PC directly in harm's way, or attacking creatures you can't see from your current position, or granting an ally advantage via help at a distance--this is a big one)
  • being able to knock opponents prone (again, at a distance)
  • simply by being another person on the battlefield, can take attacks that would normally go at you or an ally. In mechanical terms, that's damage reduction to you or an ally. 24 points per long rest? That's significant. Even outside of all other benefits, which subclass ability grants you 24+ points of potential damage reduction at 3rd level?
At 7th level, you basically can grant advantage any anyone via help at no cost to your normal attacks unless you dual wield (since it's a bonus action). Or it can dodge, which significantly improves it's damage reduction ability mentioned above since it is harder to hit and can suck up even more attacks that would otherwise be directed at you or an ally
At 11th level, it makes 2 attacks at the cost of one of yours. If each attack from you does 1d8+4 (ability mod)+2 (assume magic item or equivalent bonus at 11th level) points of damage, and each panther attack does +8 to hit and 1d6+6 damage, then compare: giving up 10.5 points to gain 19 points--or +8.5 points of damage per round.
At 15th level, when you cast as spell targeting you, you also target your pet. Like stoneskin, which reduces your damage by half, as well as your pet's.

So to compare:
3rd level: advantage beast master
7th level: advantage beast master (free advantage and damage reduction every round is better than highly conditional defense bonus from hunter)
11th level: advantage beast master. The 8.5 extra points of damage outpaces the extra half extra damage you get from volley or whirlwind. You'd have to attack 5 or more enemies on your turn for hunter to outpace this. How often does that happen when the beast master can do this every single turn?
15th level: advantage hunter. Both grant half damage (or other versatility with beast master), but hunter doesn't have to use a spell slot to do so.

In summary
The beast master and the benefits aren't nearly as bad as people keep assuming. In some cases, maximized damage in any given round might be less, but the versatility of the beast master far outpaces that. If you assume the pet should be the same as an equal level PC in terms of AC,HP,Dmg, of course it's gonna look weak. But for reasons already presented, that's incredibly flawed to look at it like that.
 

Parmandur

Legend
The design constraint of the beast master is to have a PC and their pet combined be roughly balanced with every other class/subclass. I think a lot of people make the mistake in assuming they want the pet to be basically another PC. Well, that would make the beastmaster too OP. Not gonna happen.

So what does that mean? The core ranger class offers many abilities regardless of subclass, so let's just compare the subclasses

Hunter:
At 3rd level, you can do around an extra 1d8 damage
At 7th level, you get conditional defense. Nothing too major. An AC bonus on subsequent attacks (not the first) from a creature against you. OR advantage on frighten saves. Or enforcing disadvantage on opportunity attacks. So basically, probably about 1/4 of all attacks against you if that.
At 11th level, you get more attacks, but not as big as people assume. You already have 2 attacks, but you're giving both of those up to either do volley or whirlwind. Again, conditional, and you're probably only getting a bonus of one or two additional attacks in those situations. So evened out, maybe an extra half attack per combat round.
At 15th level, you can basically half the damage against you once per round. (half to none on a made save, and half on a successful hit against you)

Now the beast master:
At 3rd level, you get your pet. Let's say a panther because Drizzt (yawn) 24 HP and 14 AC (increases with your prof bonus). What advantages does this give you (assuming your physical attack is better so not considering that a bonus to damage on a per round basis):
  • adv on perception checks.
  • no cost movement (meaning you can use it to detect or attack creatures from a distance without putting your PC directly in harm's way, or attacking creatures you can't see from your current position, or granting an ally advantage via help at a distance--this is a big one)
  • being able to knock opponents prone (again, at a distance)
  • simply by being another person on the battlefield, can take attacks that would normally go at you or an ally. In mechanical terms, that's damage reduction to you or an ally. 24 points per long rest? That's significant. Even outside of all other benefits, which subclass ability grants you 24+ points of potential damage reduction at 3rd level?
At 7th level, you basically can grant advantage any anyone via help at no cost to your normal attacks unless you dual wield (since it's a bonus action). Or it can dodge, which significantly improves it's damage reduction ability mentioned above since it is harder to hit and can suck up even more attacks that would otherwise be directed at you or an ally
At 11th level, it makes 2 attacks at the cost of one of yours. If each attack from you does 1d8+4 (ability mod)+2 (assume magic item or equivalent bonus at 11th level) points of damage, and each panther attack does +8 to hit and 1d6+6 damage, then compare: giving up 10.5 points to gain 19 points--or +8.5 points of damage per round.
At 15th level, when you cast as spell targeting you, you also target your pet. Like stoneskin, which reduces your damage by half, as well as your pet's.

So to compare:
3rd level: advantage beast master
7th level: advantage beast master (free advantage and damage reduction every round is better than highly conditional defense bonus from hunter)
11th level: advantage beast master. The 8.5 extra points of damage outpaces the extra half extra damage you get from volley or whirlwind. You'd have to attack 5 or more enemies on your turn for hunter to outpace this. How often does that happen when the beast master can do this every single turn?
15th level: advantage hunter. Both grant half damage (or other versatility with beast master), but hunter doesn't have to use a spell slot to do so.

In summary
The beast master and the benefits aren't nearly as bad as people keep assuming. In some cases, maximized damage in any given round might be less, but the versatility of the beast master far outpaces that. If you assume the pet should be the same as an equal level PC in terms of AC,HP,Dmg, of course it's gonna look weak. But for reasons already presented, that's incredibly flawed to look at it like that.
Quite correct: the problematic aspect is that this is a bit of a tougher Subclass to use effectively, but narratively it appeals to newer players. Hence, expectations and reality collide and result in a significant minority report of dissatisfaction.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Will I get shot if I just say adventuring pets of any kind are annoying and that I for one would be happy to see the end of them?

shields up!
Naw. "Pet classes" are great for CRPGs, and a PITA for TTRPGs.

There are many players that love them (either because they believe they will come up with clever ways to abuse the rules, or they are emotionally stunted and want the love of fictional pet and/or undead), but my table has had a multi-decade ban on them, because the hassle is never equal to the fun.

This includes Beastmasters, wanna-be Drizzts, Necromancers, Summoners,Demon Binders, and any all sorts of other character classes that primarily operate through one or more surrogates.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Naw. "Pet classes" are great for CRPGs, and a PITA for TTRPGs.

There are many players that love them (either because they believe they will come up with clever ways to abuse the rules, or they are emotionally stunted and want the love of fictional pet and/or undead), but my table has had a multi-decade ban on them, because the hassle is never equal to the fun.

This includes Beastmasters, wanna-be Drizzts, Necromancers, Summoners,Demon Binders, and any all sorts of other character classes that primarily operate through one or more surrogates.
It must really chap your hide how 5e made call woodland beings so overpowered then ;)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Naw. "Pet classes" are great for CRPGs, and a PITA for TTRPGs.

There are many players that love them (either because they believe they will come up with clever ways to abuse the rules, or they are emotionally stunted and want the love of fictional pet and/or undead), but my table has had a multi-decade ban on them, because the hassle is never equal to the fun.

This includes Beastmasters, wanna-be Drizzts, Necromancers, Summoners,Demon Binders, and any all sorts of other character classes that primarily operate through one or more surrogates.
I don't mind Summoners, Necromancers, and so forth so much; as most of their "pets" are temporary things - they're usually intended as no more than short-term cannon fodder, and work just fine as such.

But a true pet that's intended to stick around and survive - annoying. :) (wizard familiars also fall into this category)
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Bears are not eligible as BM pets. They recommend birds or snakes. Not combat heavies.
You're right about the bear. I'd forgotten that. The second sentence is completely false. They recommend no such thing.

Further, the description literally refers to the pet as a combat companion.

The Beast Master archetype embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the wild. United in focus, beast and ranger fight the monsters that threaten civilization and the wilderness alike.

Ranger’s Companion

At 3rd level, you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you.
Then we come to the actual mechanics of the class. At level 3, a 1/4 CR beast is a perfectly good combatant alongside the party. Then it gets scaling that clearly intends to keep it's attack, AC, and HP at a point where it won't die every single time you let it participate in a fight.
Choose a beast that is no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in. Its hit point maximum equals the hit point number in its stat block or four times your ranger level, whichever is higher. Like any creature, it can spend Hit Dice during a short rest to regain hit points.

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.

If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself. The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack.

While traveling through your favored terrain with only the beast, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.

If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements.
I don't know why you are stuck on this idea that it was never the intent that this subclass was meant to have a combat pet, but you're objectively incorrect.

That's very clearly a pet that is supposed to be usable in both exploration and combat. Most of it's features relate to combat, in fact. The features you get as you level up are also related to using the beast in combat.

The only subclass levels where you don't gain a boost that is specific to using the pet in combat is 15th, and sharing spells is at least as useful in combat as it is in exploration, and is the first time after level 3's benefit of getting your proficiency in it's skills and stealthing better while traveling with you that the pet gets any benefit at all outside of combat.

If they'd meant it to primarily be a scouting buddy, they'd have given it extra skill proficiency, or given the BM ranger something like Beast Sense as a bonus spell or feature, or the ability to communicate basic ideas with your beast (ya know, so it can scout ahead and report back, or you can both scout different directions and share info, etc), or literally anything at all as you level up that makes it a better scout, instead of making it better at fighting.

And literally all it needs is a different HP scaling setup. That's it. Just give it a Hit Die per level you gain, and you're done, as far as balance goes. It just needs to keep up with average enemy damage output. Player expectations would be better met by giving it an attack either with your bonus action or on it's own, and there is room for that in balance terms, but it wouldn't be required to "fix" the BM Ranger. Your claim that the BM as an archetype just isn't going to work, or just will not be included in a 6e, is just nonsense that you can't back up with literally anything at all but repeating the claim.
 

Parmandur

Legend
You're right about the bear. I'd forgotten that. The second sentence is completely false. They recommend no such thing.

Further, the description literally refers to the pet as a combat companion.



Then we come to the actual mechanics of the class. At level 3, a 1/4 CR beast is a perfectly good combatant alongside the party. Then it gets scaling that clearly intends to keep it's attack, AC, and HP at a point where it won't die every single time you let it participate in a fight.


I don't know why you are stuck on this idea that it was never the intent that this subclass was meant to have a combat pet, but you're objectively incorrect.

That's very clearly a pet that is supposed to be usable in both exploration and combat. Most of it's features relate to combat, in fact. The features you get as you level up are also related to using the beast in combat.

The only subclass levels where you don't gain a boost that is specific to using the pet in combat is 15th, and sharing spells is at least as useful in combat as it is in exploration, and is the first time after level 3's benefit of getting your proficiency in it's skills and stealthing better while traveling with you that the pet gets any benefit at all outside of combat.

If they'd meant it to primarily be a scouting buddy, they'd have given it extra skill proficiency, or given the BM ranger something like Beast Sense as a bonus spell or feature, or the ability to communicate basic ideas with your beast (ya know, so it can scout ahead and report back, or you can both scout different directions and share info, etc), or literally anything at all as you level up that makes it a better scout, instead of making it better at fighting.

And literally all it needs is a different HP scaling setup. That's it. Just give it a Hit Die per level you gain, and you're done, as far as balance goes. It just needs to keep up with average enemy damage output. Player expectations would be better met by giving it an attack either with your bonus action or on it's own, and there is room for that in balance terms, but it wouldn't be required to "fix" the BM Ranger. Your claim that the BM as an archetype just isn't going to work, or just will not be included in a 6e, is just nonsense that you can't back up with literally anything at all but repeating the claim.
Eagles, hawks and snakes are prominent examples in the book. The strongest critters are weak pack critters, not bruisers.

They contribute to combat, in a way comparable to the equivalent level features of other subclasses as demonstrated above by @Sacrosanct . They are bonuses and tactical options for the PC, not agents in and of themselves.
 

DWChancellor

Kobold Enthusiast
My vote is for 5.5E. A cleanup and re-tightening of the rules and books. A big push for redesigning core monsters to have a greater variety of (interesting, not just gotcha) gimmicks. I rely on 3rd parties for a lot of that right now since the MM really only has a few tricks. One thing 4E did better was to make "families" of monsters feel more related which is weaker in 5E.

Everything else feels (to me) like changing it would lose as much as it gains. A testament to the excellent work on 5E.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Eagles, hawks and snakes are prominent examples in the book. The strongest critters are weak pack critters, not bruisers.

They contribute to combat, in a way comparable to the equivalent level features of other subclasses as demonstrated above by @Sacrosanct . They are bonuses and tactical options for the PC, not agents in and of themselves.
They demonstrated no such thing. Show me these examples, by the way. They aren't in the writeup for the ranger, at all, so far as I can tell. The strongest critters are fine at levels 3 to about 6 or 7. In that level range, you can choose a primarily scouting and advantage granting pet, or a pet that fights beside you, and the class doesn't punish either choice. It's later levels where one option becomes a trap.

What sacrosanct demonstrated was a misunderstanding of the subclass and what it's features are. 24 hp (at most) of mitigated damage isn't an actual thing when the pet can die from incidental damage from an AOE, and when almost no one that wants to play the archetype is really down for constantly replacing their subclass granted pet with an entirely new animal chosen from animals available in the area in which they're currently adventuring. What CR 1/4 beasts are you finding in dungeons, by the way? And it sure as hell isn't 24hp soaked up per long rest.
It takes 8 hours to regain the pet. There is no indication that this can be done as part of a long rest. How much time will the party let you take up regaining a pet every single adventuring day?

The idea that properly scaling HP (ie, HP scaling that doesn't decrease the pet's power over time) would make the pet equal to a full PC indicates a total lack of understanding, or refusal to admit to, what a PC has to work with. The pet has no special class features, very few proficiencies, etc. It's a wolf or whatever with some more HP. That doesn't compare at all to any PC class.

I did, however, demonstrate that your claim that it's supposed to be a scouting pet and NOT a combat companion is objectively false.
 

Advertisement

Top