Items with always active properties held in off-hand with shield

Perun

Mushroom
It's basically what the (lengthy) subject line says. One of my players asked me if an always active property of an item (a totem, in this case) will continue to work if the item is held in the off hand when the character is already using a light shield. He's aware that he can't use the totem for his druid evocations while it's held in the shield hand, but we're not clear on the always active, not-really-all-that-useful-in-combat stuff. I think you have to actively wield a weapon or implement to gain any of its properties or abilities... but on the other hand, you could hold a sunrod (which admittedly, is neither a weapon nor an implement) in the shield hand and it will still shed light, which is generally more useful to a character that doesn't have low-light vision or darkvision than a Perception bonus.

For the record, the character is a gnome bard, with the Initiate of the Old Faith feat, and the item in question is the Totem of the Watchful Spirit (I think).

Thanks in advance.

Regards.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

DreamChaser

Explorer
As I understand it, you only gain the benefit of an item when it is properly equipped. This means you can't gain the benefit of a sword while it is sheathed nor or a shield when it is slung across your back.

In the case of any weapon or implement, I would only allow the property to function if the character is able to use the active (attack / daily) abilities of the item which means it must be in an emply hand.

The difference with a sunrod is that it doesn't have a benefit. It simply has a function - one that operates equally well strapped to your head, hung on a wall, and sunk into a barrel of ale.

DC
 

eamon

Explorer
According to The FAQ, you benefit from implement properties of implements held in the same hand as a light shield.

The PHB (p. 225) merely states that properties are constantly active; the AV (p. 56) elaborates specifically for weapon properties, stating that you must be wielding a weapon to benefit.
 

DreamChaser

Explorer
According to The FAQ, you benefit from implement properties of implements held in the same hand as a light shield.

The PHB (p. 225) merely states that properties are constantly active; the AV (p. 56) elaborates specifically for weapon properties, stating that you must be wielding a weapon to benefit.

These ideas contradict each other (as is often the case with FAQ items). Implements are "weapons" for casters. If AV is correct, then the FAQ is not. If the FAQ is correct then AV is not.

It raises the question of why a magical dagger held along with the light shield with a sword and board fighter (or warlord) would not grant it's property but the wand held by a bard would. Or the dagger held by the bard who took Arcane Implement Proficiency to gain dagger as an implement.

Or what about the fact that many weapons simply are implements...staffs for example. Technically, a light or heavy blade is always an implement for swordmages everywhere. Why can't my fighter gain the benefit of the short sword he holds with his shield...it is an implement for his swordmage buddy?

IMO, treating Implements and Weapons as different from each other when it comes to properties working is a scary and arbitrary ruling that penalizes the martial power source and defenders over the other roles / sources.

IMO, the only difference between implements and weapons is the type of power they are used with.

My ruling that is (I believe) in line with the RAI:

Weapon / Implement = grants bonus to attack and damage when used with a power that has the correct keyword. If a power has the Weapon keyword, you gain the weapon's proficiency bonus. If the power has the implement keyword, you don't. If it has neither keyword, you cannot use a weapon / implement to use the power. In order to gain any benefits from a weapon, implement (attack bonus, damage bonus, property, powers), you must be properly wielding the item.

Thus, a swordmage cannot use swordmage implement powers with a glaive held in one hand; a bard cannot use an implement power with a wand held in the hand he uses to hold his shield. A ranger cannot attack with a ranged power using the bow strapped to his back. In all of these cases, the character's don't gain the benefit of any properties, either.

There are no other differences between these types of items.

DC
 
Last edited:

Oompa

First Post
These ideas contradict each other (as is often the case with FAQ items). Implements are "weapons" for casters. If AV is correct, then the FAQ is not. If the FAQ is correct then AV is not.

It raises the question of why a magical dagger held along with the light shield with a sword and board fighter (or warlord) would not grant it's property but the wand held by a bard would. Or the dagger held by the bard who took Arcane Implement Proficiency to gain dagger as an implement.

Or what about the fact that many weapons simply are implements...staffs for example. Technically, a light or heavy blade is always an implement for swordmages everywhere. Why can't my fighter gain the benefit of the short sword he holds with his shield...it is an implement for his swordmage buddy?

IMO, treating Implements and Weapons as different from each other when it comes to properties working is a scary and arbitrary ruling that penalizes the martial power source and defenders over the other roles / sources.

IMO, the only difference between implements and weapons is the type of power they are used with.

My ruling that is (I believe) in line with the RAI:

Weapon / Implement = grants bonus to attack and damage when used with a power that has the correct keyword. If a power has the Weapon keyword, you gain the weapon's proficiency bonus. If the power has the implement keyword, you don't. If it has neither keyword, you cannot use a weapon / implement to use the power. In order to gain any benefits from a weapon, implement (attack bonus, damage bonus, property, powers), you must be properly wielding the item.

Thus, a swordmage cannot use swordmage implement powers with a glaive held in one hand; a bard cannot use an implement power with a wand held in the hand he uses to hold his shield. A ranger cannot attack with a ranged power using the bow strapped to his back. In all of these cases, the character's don't gain the benefit of any properties, either.

There are no other differences between these types of items.

DC

And me thinking it was quite simple;

- An implement used to cast a power must be wielded in a free hand (no light shield)
- An implement used for its passive benefit (+1 defences or something like that) can be hold in the light shield hand, but the user cannot use that implement for an attack unless it switches hands..
- An implement stowed in a bag or between a belt does not function.
 

UltimaGabe

First Post
These ideas contradict each other (as is often the case with FAQ items). Implements are "weapons" for casters. If AV is correct, then the FAQ is not. If the FAQ is correct then AV is not.

I see no reason why the two can't both be correct. Weapons, although they fulfill the same role as implements, are different than implements. Specifically, their magical properties are a different category. You can't have a vorpal Holy Symbol, for example, and you can't have a Dagger of Enfeeblement. Enchanting a weapon requires choosing an ability from a different list than enchanting an implement. Why can the rule not mean that Implement special abilities (that is, special abilities derived from the Rod, Staff, Orb, Wand, Holy Symbol, or Totem sections of the relevant sourcebook) can function when held by a shield-bearing hand, but weapon special abilities (special abilities derived from the weapon sections of the relevant sourcebook) can't?
 

DreamChaser

Explorer
I see no reason why the two can't both be correct. Weapons, although they fulfill the same role as implements, are different than implements. Specifically, their magical properties are a different category. You can't have a vorpal Holy Symbol, for example, and you can't have a Dagger of Enfeeblement. Enchanting a weapon requires choosing an ability from a different list than enchanting an implement. Why can the rule not mean that Implement special abilities (that is, special abilities derived from the Rod, Staff, Orb, Wand, Holy Symbol, or Totem sections of the relevant sourcebook) can function when held by a shield-bearing hand, but weapon special abilities (special abilities derived from the weapon sections of the relevant sourcebook) can't?

This is a specious argument. Each implement type (including weapons) has it's own list. Saying that weapons have different enchantments doesn't make them any different from any other implement.

If one permits implements to grant passive benefits (like +1 to defenses) when held but unusable one must logically grant it to weapons as well to avoid penalizing weapon-focused characters.

DC
 

eamon

Explorer
This is a specious argument. Each implement type (including weapons) has it's own list. Saying that weapons have different enchantments doesn't make them any different from any other implement.
Let's follow your logic for a moment: the question being whether implements and weapons are the same thing. You are confronted with a difference between implements and weapons (namely, usability of properties without "wielding" them). You are also confronted with another related difference (the enchantments which provide said properties). You suggest this difference doesn't actually make them different. Then you suggest that since they aren't different, this difference doesn't exist!

Well, that solves it: since there's no difference, there's no difference.

If one permits implements to grant passive benefits (like +1 to defenses) when held but unusable one must logically grant it to weapons as well to avoid penalizing weapon-focused characters.
Penalizing weapon based characters simply doesn't come into it; there's a whole bunch of other rules with also don't work identically (just to start with, the damage dice, proficiency bonuses and feats available; the powers that use them, the class features of the classes that focus on them, etc.), so you can't just assume that some (fairly tiny) balance difference like this isn't actually balanced by anything else. In fact, due to the variety of weapon-specific feats+items, the common stance is rather that weapon users have a small edge, resulting in the fact that it's somewhat attractive to use weapons as implements when possible.

In any case, weapons are not a type of implement. They may be similar, but they are not identical - as, for instance, in this case (but see below). There are also various other relevant distinctions


  • You can use a weapon you are not proficient with to attack. You cannot use an implement you are not proficient with. Using a weapon you aren't proficient with means losing its proficiency bonus (p. 219)
  • Weapons have specific damage dice; implements do not.
  • Weapons differ in terms of proficiency bonuses and range (or reach and other properties). These modify the usage of most weapon powers. Implements have neither.
  • Being proficient with a weapon means you can use that weapon equally well for Weapon powers that you know of any source and of any class (barring a few explicit exceptions). By contrast, implements are tied to classes. If you learn a power from another class, you cannot use implements from your primary class (that aren't also implements of your secondary class) with powers of that secondary class even if they are implement powers.

Now, though weapons aren't implements, it is true that this distinction (concerning properties) isn't very consistent: a better reason being because some PC's can use weapons as implements. What to do with such characters? Well, the rules seem to suggest that as long as you can wield it as an implement, it's properties are active when merely held. Yes, that's pretty nasty - I think we can assume that this wasn't a focus of the design team.

But let's not exaggerate the problem. It's surmountable. Also, weapon properties tend to only affect powers delivered with the weapon (again according to the AV). For such properties, there's no conundrum; who cares if the property is active on a weapon that isn't wielded if it only affects attacks made with it - there aren't any such attacks.

In any case, some properties don't look to be written with the "you must wield it" rule in mind anyhow. For example, a brilliant energy weapon gives off bright light unless covered and sheathed. Presumably, that property is active even when it's not even held, otherwise the "covered and sheathed" part is a little pointless. The vast majority clearly affect attacks (made using the weapon), and there's no issue of them being active or not when held; it just doesn't matter. Others clearly apply at all times - again, there's no issue with weapons vs. implements here. Only very few weapons really have properties that might have an effect when not wielded in the first place.

What does wielding as used in D&D mean any how? It's not even clearly defined, but it looks to be attack related; you need to wield a weapon to attack with it. Most properties are also attack related. I think it's quite reasonable to assume the AV section is written in this context - i.e. that the requirement to be wielding a weapon (i.e., to be able to attack with it) applies specifically to those (most common) properties that affect attacks. In short, they're explaining not a generic limitation of properties, but rather the context within which you should interpret them. If a property speaks of affecting an attack somehow, the assumption is that you are using that weapon for the attack.

To wrap it up:

  • Weapons are not implements (or vice versa)
  • Implement properties are active even when merely held
  • Weapon properties are active only when wielded - but there are properties for which this apparently doesn't hold; they don't make any exception explicit, but it looks obvious there should be one. This rule not on stable footing.
  • The system isn't water-tight anyhow; weapons can be used as implements, so for some (rare) properties that actually affect things other than attacks, there may be some confusion.
  • For the vast, vast majority of cases, there won't be a problem, and for most of the remaining cases, the problem will be minor; whichever way the DM rules (on weapon properties that affect non-attack actions when used as implements by PC's that can do so) will be fine.
 
Last edited:

DreamChaser

Explorer
Let's follow your logic for a moment: the question being whether implements and weapons are the same thing. You are confronted with a difference between implements and weapons (namely, usability of properties without "wielding" them). You are also confronted with another related difference (the enchantments which provide said properties). You suggest this difference doesn't actually make them different. Then you suggest that since they aren't different, this difference doesn't exist!

No...I'm saying that the reason given for the difference was not a reason that defined there being a difference. Saying that item x has different enchantments than item y does not define a difference beyond item x and item y...it showcases a difference between the specifics not the categories.

Rods, wands, orbs, staffs, holy symbols, totems, tomes, ki focuses, and weapons draw from different enchantment lists. That does not tell anything about their role or properties (that is to adjust attack and damage rolls), it just says they fall into different categories when it comes to enchantments.

We really have two entirely unrelated taxonomies: combat function and enchantment list / type of item.

IF, all implements (regardless of type) drew from one list and all weapons from another, this would be a valid argument. It is not, thus it is not. Thus my comment about **that** argument being specious.

Additionally, given that CustServe and FAQ entries have long had a tendency to apply liberal and not always textually supported interpretations to the RAW, the point of this thread is essentially the question of whether said "difference" as stated in the FAQ is valid and thus, whether it is actually a difference or not.

That being said, eamon, you have draw to mind differences that I had not specifically considered in my post...the able to wield while not proficient and fixed damage. I concede that weapons and implements clearly fall into different subclasses of attack / damage items.

Still, I hold that a ruling that allows a property to be gained while not actually / correctly wielding the item is not in keeping with the intent of the rules given that off hand weapons, rings, and all worn items only function when properly worn, held, applied. You can't wear rings in your ears, you can put boots on your hands, etc. and gain the benefit of said items.

eamon said:
What does wielding as used in D&D mean any how? It's not even clearly defined, but it looks to be attack related; you need to wield a weapon to attack with it. Most properties are also attack related. I think it's quite reasonable to assume the AV section is written in this context - i.e. that the requirement to be wielding a weapon (i.e., to be able to attack with it) applies specifically to those (most common) properties that affect attacks. In short, they're explaining not a generic limitation of properties, but rather the context within which you should interpret them. If a property speaks of affecting an attack somehow, the assumption is that you are using that weapon for the attack.

The issue comes up more of a person holding four wands in one hand: Are they doing anything different from the implement + shield person? Should they be permitted to gain all four properties? Wield = able to attack with it (barring other conditions).

YMMV

DC
 
Last edited:

eamon

Explorer
That being said, eamon, you have draw to mind differences that I had not specifically considered in my post...the able to wield while not proficient and fixed damage. I concede that weapons and implements clearly fall into different subclasses of attack / damage items.

Still, I hold that a ruling that allows a property to be gained while not actually / correctly wielding the item is not in keeping with the intent of the rules given that off hand weapons, rings, and all worn items only function when properly worn, held, applied. You can't wear rings in your ears, you can put boots on your hands, etc. and gain the benefit of said items.

[...]

The issue comes up more of a person holding four wands in one hand: Are they doing anything different from the implement + shield person? Should they be permitted to gain all four properties? Wield = able to attack with it (barring other conditions).

It certainly isn't particularly obvious or intuitive, this distinction on properties, and as you say, it may open a can of worms.

The only thing I have to add is that this isn't really a case of custserve or the FAQ over-liberally applying rules - there just aren't any rules on when properties apply. Stuff like shedding light doesn't sound like it requires you to be wielding it, particularly if it goes on to say that it sheds light until sheathed and covered. The PHB (a more appropriate rules-source) simply says properties are constantly active (or active under certain conditions). For slotted items, this is pretty clearcut; you can have only one item of each slot active at a time (and two rings), but weapons + implements are unslotted. Holy symbols can even be worn, so you could conceivably have quite the large number of them.

So, if you're holding an unslotted item with a property, but you can't use the hand you're holding the item with to attack, well, what happens to the properties?

It's just not well defined, RAW or RAI, as far as I can tell. The AV isn't the spot for new general rules, and it only mentions weapons. The FAQ is also not the sport for new general rules, but it is the spot for general clarifications, and it mentions implements. This isn't a great situation. Well, that's just all there is, AFAIK.
 

WalterKovacs

First Post
If one permits implements to grant passive benefits (like +1 to defenses) when held but unusable one must logically grant it to weapons as well to avoid penalizing weapon-focused characters.

DC

There are a vast number of examples where weapon-focused characters are granted benefits that are not granted to implement users. Many are simply built into the system (i.e. feats, enchantments, etc) but it has rarely been a situation where both sides were treated equally. There are the energy enchantments on weapons (which can turn all damage to a damage type ... there is one implement that can convert one of two energy types into the other type only), the weapon focus feats (compared to the limited, and stat requirement based, energy focus feats). Even some of the damage type feats (like cold resistance granting combat advantage) are actually more useful for a weapon wielder with an item that makes all their attacks cold (which they can turn off if they run into someone with resistance/immunity to cold) than it is for a caster that specializes in attacks with that energy type.

As for the issue of holding 4 wands ... while logically possible, it isn't something that is allowed by the rules. The light sheild situation is a specific case because the rules allow something to be held while the shield is "in" that hand. Otherwise, each hand can hold one item. (the holy symbol thing, lacking an actual slot, was dealt with ahead of time as if you have more than one, none of them work ... I would expect Ki foci to work similarly once they come out and start having actual enchantments above the basic Magic Ki Focus they have now.
 

The issue with allowing implements properties to work when held in the shield hand is pretty much like this:

I'm a fighter and I have a Defensive Dagger (AV 67) and I use a light shield. I can't hold it in my shield hand and gain the benefit. However my buddy the Sorcerer standing next to me CAN. Same exact item, same situation but simply because dagger is an implement for him he gains the use of the property. Note that there is not even any relationship between how he uses it and the benefit he gets. Its not like he's using it as an implement and it works differently, he's just holding the thing, same as I am. This is why I object to the FAQ entry in question and will ignore it.

Another reason is just sheer complexity. Realistically when playing the game most of your players are not rules lawyers. If something works a certain way for character X, then it should work the same for character Y unless there is an obvious difference in the way the characters function related to the thing. Wizards can use wands, fighters can't, that's simple and understandable to all players. Some item working differently, especially a passive type of effect, simply due to obscure rules lawyerly text in some FAQ entry is not player friendly at all.
 

DreamChaser

Explorer
As for the issue of holding 4 wands ... while logically possible, it isn't something that is allowed by the rules.

Can you cite for this?

AbdulAlhazred said:
I'm a fighter and I have a Defensive Dagger (AV 67) and I use a light shield. I can't hold it in my shield hand and gain the benefit. However my buddy the Sorcerer standing next to me CAN. Same exact item, same situation but simply because dagger is an implement for him he gains the use of the property. Note that there is not even any relationship between how he uses it and the benefit he gets. Its not like he's using it as an implement and it works differently, he's just holding the thing, same as I am. This is why I object to the FAQ entry in question and will ignore it.

Exactly...thank you for providing the specific example of how screwed up this ruling is.

DC
 

sfedi

First Post
One thing I'd like to point out is that while weapons have a lot of flexibility, in terms of different proficiency bonuses and properties, implements come with the perk of having attacks that target multiple NADs, which could probably give you a +1 or +2 to your to hit chance (depending on the particular foe and your selection of attacks)
 

WalterKovacs

First Post
Can you cite for this?

Cite where it doesn't say you can hold multiple things in the same hand? The book rarely lists every thing you cannot do unless it's a specific exception. In the case of the light shield, it is specifically allowing you to hold something in the same hand you are using to wield something else, which you otherwise could not do.

Light Shield specifically says that you can hold an item in that hand even though you need to "use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly." While it doesn't say anything about being unable to hold 4 wands at once, it also doesn't say anything about being able to either.
 

eamon

Explorer
The issue with allowing implements properties to work when held in the shield hand is pretty much like this:

I'm a fighter and I have a Defensive Dagger (AV 67) and I use a light shield. I can't hold it in my shield hand and gain the benefit. However my buddy the Sorcerer standing next to me CAN. Same exact item, same situation but simply because dagger is an implement for him he gains the use of the property.
Well, the defensive dagger isn't an enchantment; it's not clear to me that that weapon property even applies at all when used as an implement. Would a versatile weapon when used as an implement gain +1 to damage rolls when used two-handed?

In any case, the example you give is less abusive than it seems. Firstly, it requires a light shield - which sorcerer's aren't proficient with anyhow, and they can take TWF/TWD feats which provide equal AC and more damage anyhow. A parrying dagger and a spiked shield would even work without any feat investment, although that would require two mage's enchantments.

By contrast, the fighter could just use a heavy shield and gain +1 ref and have no issues with an otherwise useless dagger.

There are cases where this creates odd corner cases, but I don't think this is one of them (or, if you rule that it is, that it matters).
 


Well, the defensive dagger isn't an enchantment; it's not clear to me that that weapon property even applies at all when used as an implement. Would a versatile weapon when used as an implement gain +1 to damage rolls when used two-handed?

In any case, the example you give is less abusive than it seems. Firstly, it requires a light shield - which sorcerer's aren't proficient with anyhow, and they can take TWF/TWD feats which provide equal AC and more damage anyhow. A parrying dagger and a spiked shield would even work without any feat investment, although that would require two mage's enchantments.

By contrast, the fighter could just use a heavy shield and gain +1 ref and have no issues with an otherwise useless dagger.

There are cases where this creates odd corner cases, but I don't think this is one of them (or, if you rule that it is, that it matters).

Yeah, confusingly defensive is actually an enchantment. There are others too, enchantments that work via properties that are "always on". In AV in a quick scan I see Bloodthirsty Weapon (could be very interesting for a caster), Brilliant Energy Weapon (but works for anyone), Defensive Weapon, Demonbane Weapon, Holy Healer's Weapon, Lucklender, Mace of Healing, Medic's Weapon, Prime Shot Weapon, Shapechanger's Sorrow, Staggering Weapon (but not any good as an implement), Subtle Weapon (yoinks!), Thundergod Weapon (probably not much use), Vanguard Weapon (ditto).

All of the above are by this ruling now usable by an arcane caster even when using a light shield.

And a light shield is NOT a bad idea for a caster. Especially if he can still use his SUBTLE WEAPON with it!!!! I mean that thing is a premo weaplement. Bloodthirsty ain't bad either, defensive is good, etc. I'd happily take a proficiency in light shield as a sorcerer vs TWD. Heck I can STILL wield the spiked shield. Heck, its a light blade, I can now have spiked shield as a light blade weaplement, hold another weaplement in my hand and use its properties (or a straight implement, rod of ruin anyone?) AND have my main implement. hi-diddly diddle.

Honestly its not the worst thing in the entire universe, but why cant the fighter or the cleric do the same thing? Oh, they can, by MCing into swordmage or sorcerer, "rolls eyes". Its just way too confusing and its nonsense. Every 4e player has to be a rules lawyer now? This is dumb. Weaplements are a nightmare from that perspective already.
 

eamon

Explorer
I'm gonna guess you don't own Adventurer's Vault because Defensive is, in fact, an enchantment.
Actually, there are three "defensive" properties; I believed AbdulAlhazred was refering to the defensive weapon property, such as on the parrying dagger or the cutting wheel - this grants +1AC, after all, and is interesting to have. There's also the defensive weapon enchantment, but this isn't that interesting to have, and the defensive implement enchantment for staffs, which grants +1 to FRW and also +1AC if you're a staff-wizard (which is potentially interesting).

I agree that this is a potentially attractive option for a caster with light shield proficiency, and that the rules are messy. I don't agree that it's necessarily problematic balance-wise, nor that this ruling is merely the fault of the FAQ - it's ill-defined, but the FAQ ruling is quite consistent with the books.

To me, it's worth comparing to the iron armbands (if anything, this is less of an issue). It's a problem, and could use a fix, but it's not nearly important enough to be worth bothering about (I don't like long lists of house rules). Unlike the iron armbands, I seriously doubt this will come up in most games; most casters don't have a light shield proficiency; the bard (which does) uses wands, instruments or a very small list of songblades (which don't have these interesting properties). Looks like you'll need stat prereq's and at least one feat invested - in addition to an extra item cost to gain these benefits; realistically, for a feat you could also just enchant a parrying dagger and have almost the same thing anyhow - and then you can even use TWD and dual implement mastery and other juicy bits, and the feat doesn't require a stat prereq.

So, sure, it's not 100% percent consistent, but no, it doesn't matter. Seriously, there are so many tiny inconsistencies, I'm just not going to bother with something this irrelevant.

If this were problematic - has anybody actually seen this in-game and was it significantly better than a plain parrying dagger?

If the answer to either is no, you should ask yourself why you care. If a player wants to do this (and probably feel all smart for thinking of it), and it's not a balance problem, and probably not a consistency issue (I doubt he'll pick a weapon enchantment), then why interfere with their character building fun? What's the point?
 

There may be many small inconsistencies as you call them eamon, but the point is to have LESS of them and to have less of a demand for players to require system mastery of obscure elements of the rules in order to understand all of the options available to their characters. The more of this crap there is in the game, the more it slides down the slippery slope towards 3.x where the whole game was about knowing that X was a trap option and obscure PrC Y combined with 3 levels A followed by 2 levels of B and feat C made "I WIN". Feh! It just smells bad.

Don't reduce this discussion to a debate about the Defensive Weapon enchantment. Look at all the other ones that are available as well. No, I don't think any of them are game breaking, but every little tricky dicky foo fah that exists in the game like this just makes it a worse game and not a better game. If its "no big deal" then isn't the superior option to simply rule consistently? What is gained by ALLOWING this.

And if you want to discuss it in terms of something that might be unbalancing then I think you need to look at Subtle Weapon as your potential culprit because Subtle Weapon is a very powerful enchantment. It figures prominently in weaplement cheese.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top