Monster Manual II




  • monster_manual_II.jpg
    18.2 KB · Views: 161
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


First Post
My initial feeling about this book was less than enthusiastic. "More monsters, more templates, bla bla bla..." After reading that the crystal dragons would be included, I was even more wary, as those monsters had been released as Psionic Handbook Web Enhancements. Was I going to be paying for monsters that were already released for free? After seeing the sneak previews and full monster lists on the WoTC website, I was much more eager. And so when I got to look at this book, I tried my best to keep an open mind.

This is a very good book.

The Introduction
Much more substantive than the first MM introduction. Several pages are dedicated to the actual game design of monsters by type. This information did originally appear in a Dragon magazine, but to have it appear in an "official" publication is quite nice, both for evaluating existing monsters and for the enterprising who wish to make their own.

Also included in the introduction are some other reprinted information that should have been in the MM introduction, such as the Face/Reach table & nonability definitions for attributes.

The Monsters
The learning curve on how to make readable books seems pretty good for WotC. The stat blocks are now formatted with alternating white & tan lines for each section, visibly distinguishing where a monster's attack routine ends and where it's damage description begins. Not only is it easy on the eyes, but it also makes for quicker reference.

Several key game mechanics have been added or adjusted in the display information. A monster's AC entry includes touch & flatfooted AC. (I know this originally appeared in Monsters of Faerun but it's nice to see here) Monsters with Improved Grab or similar abilities now have their grapple check number listed with the ability. (this number being the easiest to mis-calculate and underestimate) Most monsters also include their ECL listing, for players wanting to try something different, which is a number that in retrospect should have been included with almost every monster from the first MM.

There are a large number of higher CR monsters, which is certainly useful for the DM with a long-running campaign. The monsters themselves seem well-balanced, entertaining, and mostly well-thought out, but as the monsters get bigger & bigger, the game mechanics start to get a little odd.

Besides Gem Dragons, other monsters present are re-prints from other sources, including most of the monsters from Masters of the Wild. About 1/3 of the monsters listed are from older versions of the game, taken from the old Fiend Folio, & Monster Manual II. In the case of 3E reprints, this is an irritation, but in the case of older monsters, it's nice to finally have a game tested 3E Banshee. And, since I specifically mentioned them, the Gem Dragons get a very nice treatment in this book, as do most psionic-flavored creatures, with notations making them compatible with a 'standard' 3E game, or balanced when using the Psionics Handbook

Many of the monsters listed are not merely "throw & go" monsters. A ravaging CR 12 monster that kills purely for sport can't be used as a random encounter without damaging the player's suspension of disbelief. Like the 30'x50' dragon in a room with only one 10' x 10' door, the CR 19 monster that's found wandering the forest just doesn't make sense. So while it's nice to have higher CR monsters, this book does require a little more work to integrate it into an ongoing campain. Again, that's less of a flaw of the book, and more of the d20 system.

This book is more ambitious than the first Monster Manual in terms of it's templates. There are still a few "generic" templates, such as Monster of Legend, Spellstitched, Titanic and Warbeast which are really little more than monster "power-ups". There is a Death Knight template that delivers exactly what older games expect & hope for. The Half Golem templates are another example of something that very strongly lends itself into integration into the game setting versus mere random encounter. The chimeric and tauric templates are very good tools, if a bit tricky to understand, for DMs wanting to put more fantasy in their fantasy games.

Much of the artwork is good, some of it very good. Others are less than inspiring, but on the whole, given the very strange nature of some of the monsters, the artwork is more than passing.

The Monster Manual II is roughly the same page count as the first MM, but priced at $29.95. The value remains constant, if not slightly higher. Aside from the combat uses of the monsters presented, many lend themselves to story arcs and/or campaign development, which in and of itself has inherent value.

the Jester

Well, after waiting for months to see how it all turned out, I have to say that I am more than happy with my copy of the Monster Manual II. From the freakish staring eye surrounded by teeth to the CR charts in the back that didn't include other books (that's a pet peeve- charts that refer to books other than the one they're in), I like the way it looks. Most of the interior art is better-looking on the page than it was on the web preview. The gem dragons pics are just about the book's only flaw that I've noticed so far, visually. There's even a picture that saved a monster for me- the gravorg. Reading its stats online didn't make it sound appealing, but the picture of it makes it one of my favorite monsters in the book- it's cute. Also, I think they paid a lot more attention to the placement of the art in the MMII than in the MM; this book doesn't have those annoying distorted blocks of text.

It seems like the creatures in the MMII are well-thought out, with a good mix of old and new. Some of the oldies are considerably different than they used to be, and I'm sure that I don't recognize all of them- some of them are from particularly weird sources. But I like almost everything in the book. The corollax, or color spray parrots, and ether scarabs are wonderful low-level monsters with a weird approach; neither one is designed precisely as an adversary for pcs, but either could make for a fun and dangerous encounter. Old favorites include the death knight, neogi, boggle, crimson death, phoenix, son (now spawn) of Kyuss, and more. One thing of note here: what may be my favorite of the new creatures, the avolakia, ties into the Kyuss legend, something I've profoundly loved since I first set eyes on the 1st edition Fiend Folio. I do wish the zodar had made the cut, but we can always hope it gets into an adventure or maybe the 3e Fiend Folio.

I could have used a quickling, or some sort of evil fey. There are only four fey in the book; it seemed tilted a little towards outsiders, but that's okay; they have a great deal of variety there. There aren't any new humanoids in the book, unless you count the captured one, which is a template. But the balance between lower (below 10) and higher (above 10) CR monsters is perfect for my taste: about half and half. CRs range from 1/4 to 28, and the high-CR monsters deserve it (with the exception of the mountain giant- I'd give him about a 17).

It seems like a lot of the emphasis in this book involves the use of underexploited special abilities. I noticed a ton of critters that have the Wounding special attack, lots of trample, etc. The book also includes "Outsider traits" as a special quality for the outsiders in it, unlike the first MM. There's also a decent amount of attention paid to adventure hooks, which is a quality I truly love about several of the WotC hardbacks for 3e (especially the Manual of the Planes). The beginning has a long and good section on creating monsters which will spare me the need to have that darned photocopied section of my copy of the Dragon article in my binder of monsters all the time.

I also like the fact that WotC put a couple of monsters from the Creature Collection in the back of it. I love that the OGL has been such a success, and the fact that it's coming full circle is, imho, fantastic.

I gotta go with a high rating on this one; it was well-worth the price I paid, and I hope WotC keeps up the good work on its forthcoming products.


First Post
Well, one of the most anticipated and eagerly awaited books of 2002 from Wizards of the Coast, was the MM2. Did it live up to the hype? I don't think so.

First the good:

The book starts off with explanations of the types of monsters (Magical Beast, Construct, etc.) and various tables detail suggested ability score ranges, suggested Min/Max HD based on size, how a monster's BAB advances, which saves are good, etc. This is an expansion of the rules in the front of the first MM and is very close to the information Wizards published in Dragon magazine regarding monster creation. Overall, this is one of the best sections of the book as it really helps in monster design and creation.

The layout. While it still seems to follow the first MM's style (which I personally didnt have a problem with), this one seems cleaner for some reason. The entries seem easier to find and read. I didnt have any problems with the first MM, but this one does seem to do things better.

The artwork. The artwork in the book has its good points and its bad points. Some of it is excellent (the famine spirit, the hellfire wyrm, runic guardian, and the linnorms), some of it is a bit cartoony (jermlaine, red sundew), and some is just bad (see below). Overall, the art is mediocre. Lockwood and Reynolds did the best stuff in the book; the others, in a lot of places, leave something to be desired.

The Monsters: Some are very good. Some are not (see below). Some of the more creative ones seem to be the nethersight mastiff ( a large doglike monster that can wrench a person from the ethereal plane with its bite), the effigy, the runic guardian, the fell drakes, and some others. The Spell-stitched template is interesting.

Now the Bad:

The Art: Ok, what the heck is the blue thing that should be a boggle? That has got to be one of the worst pictures of the boggle (since it is from first edition) that I have seen. The jermlaine; a Saturday morning cartoon picture. Where is the coyote and roadrunner? The gem dragons. Why didn't Lockwood do the dragons? He knows how to draw dragons. The corpse gatherer. A pretty interesting monster, but the artwork leaves a lot to be desired.

Monsters. The selection of monsters for this book, to me, is not all that exciting or well thought out (raggamoffyn; while from an older edition of the game, its still pretty lame). And in some cases, it doesnt seem a lot of creativity went into some of them (Abeil- the bee people, the ocean strider).

In some places, Wizards completely revamped the monster from the original (which isnt bad in some cases, but what is the reasoning behind the 26 HD banshee?). Is it just me or does it seem like an overabundance of monsters have the Improved Grab ability? While useful, couldn't the designers come up with something more creative than every other monster having this ability?

The CRs seem pretty good in most places (though I think they goofed the mountain giant; CR 26?). It would've been nice to match the CRs up with the monsters from the Epic Level Handbook. The monsters in that book could easily (in some cases) beat a monster in the MM2 with an equal CR. I think some of the CR 20+ monsters in the MM2 were simply given a high CR rating because the designers decided they needed higher CR monsters for the book.

Last complaint about the monsters, the War Beast template. A monster born and raised as a mount. Is this really necessary as a template? Aren't there rules some of the monsters' entries in the MM and MM2 that talk about training a creature and raising a creature as a mount? Do we really need a template for this? Yes, this template applies to a wider range of monsters (including vermin), but I don't see the need for the template.

Overall, I wasn't very happy with the book. While there are some useful monsters in the MM2, the book as a whole leaves a lot to be desired. Just wasn't what I was expecting or looking forward to. I have heard some people complain about the lack of ecology or campaign information (the same complaints that echoed around after the MM came out). While that could be a bonus, I guess, I don't really need that information. I think I can come up with some things on my own.


First Post
I picked up this book about 2 weeks ago and I finally put some thoughts about to share.

1) Art Work: 8/10
I've seen worse but this was definately as good as MMI. The art in a monster book is a huge factor. If the monster looks
rediculous I have hard time convincing myself to buy it. Needless to say some of the art work was amazing. Famine Spirit,
Fiendwurm, Felldrake, Hellfire Wyrm (This one was a WOWer), Linnorm, Phoenix (Another WOW), Runic Guardian, Teratomorph, Spellgaunt, Tempest, Death Knight, Half-Golems, Spellstitched, Tauric, Scorpionfolk, Ragewind, the Devils. the
Demons, the Clockwork Horrors, Avolakia and Automaton were of the best. The Terrible ones included: Grimalkin, the
Dragons (Ouch!), the Boggle, the Bogun, the Celestials, the Weirds (I am not into showing naked pictures to my kids),
Gambol, Gravorg (Which looks like a little cat to me than a nasty large sized carnivorous predator.), Greenvise, Grizzly
Mastodon, Jermlaine (Ouch! Rediculous), Julajimus, Red Sundew, Swamplight Lynx (Hugh?! Looks like a friendly cat to me
more than a monster), The Yugoloth (The picture could have been amazing but the drawing just looked like a Pink and the
Brain Cartoon, especially the Yagnoloth, totally destroyed its believability as a fearsome outsider.), Desmodu Bats and

2) Content: 10/10
Much better than MMI content. It has psionical versions of the monsters. It contains ECLs for monsters that are possible
ideas for players to choose as a race, though some are under powered like Bladelings. I would have liked to see more
Fey. I am very happy to see the Thri-kreen, Gem Dragons and the Braxat, especially the psionical versions of them.

3) Usability: 10/10
It really got useful for me. The monsters were high level setting with wonderful ideas. There is a large variety. The
templates in the back are very good. There was a lot of underwater monsters that can be used in an underwater
campaign (Something MMI was weak on). For those without the MotW, it had the Legendary animals. Some of the classical
monsters showed up like Banshee, Firbolg and Hook Horror.

Overall: 9/10.

By Steve Creech, Exec. Chairman, d20 Magazine Rack

This review is for Monster Manual II by Wizards of the Coast. Following up on the successful Monster Manual (which is part of the three Core Rules books), this 224-page book offers 136 new or revisited monster entries for a retail price of $29.95.

My first impression when I leafed through the book was less than enthusiastic. However, a closer examination showed some real gems within these pages. The introduction is much cleaner and the terms are much easier to understand than in the previous MM. The charts, as always, are comprehensible and easy to read.

There are many monsters present from previous editions that have been updated to 3rd edition. The banshee, boggle, catoblepas, crimson death, death knight and phoenix are good examples of this. Some, like the clockwork horror and neogi, come from some of the “alternate” game settings like Spelljammer. Chainmail fans will also find many familiar entries in this book. There are a couple of monsters that come from other existing 3rd ed. Wotc publications. The twig blight originally was presented in The Sunless Citadel, while legendary animals come from Masters of the Wild and again in Epic Levels Handbook. There are some original monsters within the pages, but not as many as I had hoped. The fiendwurm, chain golem, hellfire wyrm, and ocean strider are good examples.

The challenge ratings are widely spread with some monsters having CRs above 20. The lowest CR is ¼ while the highest is 28. The bulk of the CRs are 7 and above.

Overall, Monster Manual II makes a good, but not absolutely necessary, addition to a GM’s library. My personal favorites are the chain golem, gem dragons, hellfire wyrm, ragewind, tempest, and death knight (which is actually a template). It’s a good buy for the tougher range of creatures and for the nostalgia of seeing some old favorites updated.

To see the graded evaluation of this product, go to The Critic's Corner at


The Monster Manual II has only just (4th Nov) been released here in Europe. It’s been out in America for months. If I were reviewing Wizards of the Coast’s distribution skills then they’d be getting a stinky 1/10 rating. At this rate we’ll be lucky to see D20 Modern by Christmas.

Was it worth the wait?

If you’re a monster fan, one of those players who see Dungeons and Dragons ‘roll-playing’ as a succession of battles against interesting monsters then it probably was worth the wait. The range of creatures in the book is pretty good, the Challenge Ratings start off at less than one and push past the maximum values in the first Monster Manual with creatures with CR of 27 and 28.

Art is a subjective thing but I like the illustrations in the book. They’re bold and colourful but at $29.95 (£19ish) the 224-paged hardback makes for an expensive purchase if you’re only after the quarter-sized illustrations.

I don’t think the book is worth the wait. Sure, some of the creatures in it are fairly nice but they’re also available, in other guises, in other books. There’s nothing particularly new or impressive about any of the offerings though; they could be (and might just be) monsters that fell to the cutting room floor during the production of book one. The interesting looking ones tend to have appeared elsewhere. Some of the stupid ideas, like Legendary Animals, appeared elsewhere too. Legendary Animals were rubbish in Masters of the Wild and re-printing them here just makes that failing worse. There isn’t any compelling reason to use any of the creatures from the book either; if there’s a scene in your game where a monster from book two would fit then you can be sure that there’s also a monster or from book one that would fit just as well. If MM2 had specialised on giving us monsters from different environments, artic, underwater, desert or astral then at least you would have reason to reach for the book in preference to Monster Manual 1 for some scenes but this isn’t the case.

Monster books can be quite appealing. I’m not a crunch fan but there’s something about getting to grips with a beastiary that equates to learning the biology of a campaign world. A clever creature compilation capitalises on that. The Monsternomicon, for example, has a set of rumours, ordered by rarity, that characters might know about each monster – and that’s a great idea. You can’t claim that Wizards of the Coast didn’t notice the standards rising because some of the creatures in MM2 are borrowed (if re-named) from some of the independent d20 books that pushed the standards higher.

The first section of the book does slightly better than the first book but not much. It re-visits the discussions on types of monsters, monster feats, size categories and suitable stats for the different sorts of creatures because the same discussion from the first book wasn’t as clear as some of the players wanted. It’s more of the same just said differently and that’s just the problem with the bulk of the book. This pre-monster section had the opportunity to save the book. It could have upped the level of intelligence in the book. I was really hoping we’d be given a formula for calculating challenge ratings or more pointedly the assumptions on what the "appropriate equipment" for characters are. The challenge ratings make assumptions that I as a GM don’t necessarily want and this book could have helped me sort that out but it completely fails. I’ve no improved understanding on whether 5th level characters should have +1 magic weapons in order to be a fair match for a CR 5 creature or not. If I’m running a fantasy game where magic weapons are as rare as moon dust then I might as well throw the entire challenge rating system out of the window.

The book has been a disappointment but it does do what it says it’ll do. It does give me more monsters. Important opportunities have been wasted but that’s not quite the same thing as being negligent. Initially I rated the book below average but I generally wait a day before publishing a review and during this wait I’ve relented and decided that "average – without distinction" would be more appropriate.

* This GameWyrd review was first published here.

Review of Monster Manual Two

This is the eagerly awaited second monster book that Wizards has put out. It is better then the first one, however, the bar on these types of book has been raised by the great production of books like Creature Collection Two, Legion from Hell, and the Monsternomicon. The Monster Manual Two is not as good as these books. The other books have a higher level of creativity and more information per monster. Monster Manual Two seems to be an odd collection of monsters that have no relation to each other or anything. While this is the same format as in Monster Manual One, I feel that in the two years in between these books the goal of a Monster Book has changed. I also feel that many of the monsters in this book are just not that interesting. When I read through a book of monster I believe as I read through the entries I should be thinking of encounters and ways I can use this in my game. I want to be excited about flipping the pages, but that did not happen in this book. In this book as I read through it I found my self wondering if these monsters will add anything to a campaign.

The book starts off with a very good section of explaining everything one needs to know to creature creatures and all the special abilities that goes with them. They rewrote a lot of the stuff in the original Monster Manual and cleaned it up a lot. This section is excellent and will help anyone that wants to create monsters on his or her own or tinker with the current ones. It then goes through the stat block and the rules for advancement. These rules are all well done and are greatly needed. This is by far the best section of this book. A read through of this section will help any one in using and understanding all the abilities of the varies monsters in not just this book but others as well.

For the most part, the monsters in this book are of a higher challenge ratings then the first Monster Manual. There are nine creatures, excluding the dragons, with a Challenge Rating higher then 20. This was intentional to support higher-level characters and higher-level challenges. It would have been nice if they had including rules for using the Epic Level Handbook with them, though. Wizards does not have to make books require anything except the three core rules books, but it would be nice if they would include footnotes for those of use with more then the core rules. While many of the creatures have a high CR rating, I wonder if some of them truly warrant a CR as high as they are given. Many of the high CR monsters have one or two really low saves, low AC, low SR, or some other game mechanic that will make it for characters of the correct level to have an easy time with the creature.

There is the usual wide variety of creatures in this book. It seems that the writers even went out of their way to make sure there are plenty of undead, plant, and construct creatures in this book. This does provide a wide range of strange creatures to use, but by increasing the number of strange encounter it will only make the strange seem mundane.

Abeil: This is a race of bee like humanoids. They are expansionist that expand but do not revolt to combat; instead they prefer to push others out of their territory. There is a small section on their society. I think this section should have been expanded upon and could make this a more dominate race in many worlds.

Boggle: This is a silly little creature that steals and runs from fight. The picture is ridiculous and looks like something from Saturday morning cartoons. There are not many creatures like it, but in a book designed for higher CR creatures this really does not fit.

Bogun: This is an odd little creature that seems to be solely here to give Druids a new type of weird creature ally. I’m not sure the purpose of this as they are not that useful or interesting.

Dragons, Gems: These creatures are one of the few highlights in this book. Many people enjoy using Dragons and it seems that one can never have enough dragons.

Elemental Weirds: This is another good set of creatures. There is one for each of the four elements. Theses creatures are known for their divinations. Each element has an area that it can make predictions on. This shows the creativity that Wizards people still have and I would have liked to see more creatures that can serve a purpose other then killing machine.

Linnorm: These are an ancestor to the Dragon. However, they seem to be a dieing race and there are no lawful or good versions. An interesting little story, but fluff like this should really be up to the DM because it might not fit his campaign world. I like that Wizards made the attempt however, I think they did it poorly. It reads more like a hint or a blurb of things to come. This information would have made a better side bar as a way of using these creatures. They also could have included stats for younger versions and other types. Also, if they must place this type of back-story it would be nice if they would complete it. AS it is now, it’s an incomplete little blurb that really does not help anyone.

Mudmaw: This is a crocodile with tentacles coming out of its mouth. It seems like a creature that some random abilities and tentacles were given to.

Wyste: This is a large wormlike creature that lives in slime. The creature is Twenty-five feet long, so the sheer amount of slime must be the size of a lake. That seems rather large for a pool of slime and those are not that common in any campaign world.

The art in this book ranges from extraordinary like the Tempest, too cartoonish like the Teratomorph. A few of the creatures do give ECL’s for them, so they can be used as PCs. For many of these creatures it would be nice if the actual racial bonuses would be given. Many of these Ecls are very high and can only be used in games that border on the epic. Another chance for them to include a small sidebar to tie this book with the Epic Handbook. Last in the book are the templates. These seem okay and useable. The Chimeric Creature template will make for interesting monsters to surprise PCs and the Deathknight is one that many PCs will demand to play.

Overall, I was not happy with the creatures in here. Many of the creatures are just there to challenge players. They are eating machines that are expected to be killed or to kill. This is a book to look through and to stock dungeon crawls and hack and slash games.


First Post
I bought this when it first came out and was kinda dissapointed, and is some cases appalled.
When I originally found this site, this is the first thing I came to look at, to see who else didn't like the MMII. I was amazed to find anyone had given it five stars, even to the point of saying it was better than the MMI!

I read closer and sort of understood. I don't agree, but I kinda understand. The art is mostly good {especially the famine spirit and the hellfire drake} and some of the monsters are things I, and others, had wanted to see in 3e. I personally liked the linnorms, especially corpse tearer. I used him extensively in a 2e campaign, other people have liked the gem dragons and the banshee/famine spirit. I realized it isn't all bad, before reading and thinking I would have given it a 1 star rating.

Here's why:

After reading several creatures in the book, I have no trust whatsoever for the CR assigning mechanic they used.

case in point

-Adamantine Clockwork Horror
AC 28
SR 22
spell like abilities: at will, disintegrate, mordenkainens disjunction, implosion.
CR? a whopping 9

I read through the clockwork horrors, and started reading the description for this one, there's only one in the world, it's the head of a planet destroying operation, and I really expected it to be nasty {it is} but CR 9? It can cast 2 9th level spells at will! I understand they kept some CR's artificially low to make the creature more memorable/nasty {dragons} but 9 is ridiculous. your fighter would never hit it, especially after he, and everyone else, lost most, if not all, of their magical equipment in round 1. Disjunction is a nasty, nasty spell. Your wizard/sorceer would have serious problems getting through it's SR, and if he managed to, he'd probably get imploded next round. Good luck with that Fort save.

I seriously thought that the CR was a typo and expected it to be fixed in the errata. That's how ridiculous this seems to me. This isn't 1 CR wrong like the girallon, this is 4-5 CR low.

next up
-elemental weirds
I think these were CR 10, they were bound to a pool, and if I remember right the pool was seriously deadly to stand in. They had other powers, but mainly I only had one serious gripe: they were 18th or 20th level sorcerers on top of being elementals and having other powers.
Once again we have a creature that has access to 9th level spells being expected to go up against PC's with 4th-5th level spells.

I believe this was because the weirds were supposed to be oracles or benevolent or something, completely unlike 2e weirds {not that I have a problem with that, it's an interesting idea} so the PC's weren't supposed to really fight them, they were supposed to be plot points. Woe to the 10th level evil/greedy party that starts that fight, this was 3.0 if you remember, and they were one time stop/meteor swarm {or horrid wilting or whatever} combo away from TPK.

Of course only a vengeful or just plain bad DM would put this creature in a situation where the PC's would be likely to fight it, but that doesn't excuse bad CR mechanics.

-mountain giant/hellfire drake
I think other reviewers have talked about the mountain giant, but I played a campaign into epic levels and our party would have rather fought 2 or 3 mountain giants {CR 26} than one lavawight {CR 23 w/permanent HP drain. and I mean permanent, no restoration for you} Same with the hellfire drake. I really like the picture, and the idea, but it didn't match the CR's in the epic level handbook. I think that may be the fault of the epic level handbook though, for having unrealistically low CR's. I don't see my 22nd level party only using 20% of their resources killing an Anaxim, for example.

This is just three monsters that I can think of of the top of my head. This caused me to start looking at every monster with several grains of salt, to the point where I would just pick things apart and was completely unable to bring myself to trust anything out of that book. I wondered if they had done ANY playtesting, and concluded that they probably hadn't.

I understand if you liked the book, after all, it brought in the banshee and made it a badass worthy of the spell wail of the banshee. It also has some very good art. I can only assume some people didn't read the clockwork horrors very closely. No book with that large of a screw up in it should get 5 stars.

CR 9!

{if I've made any factual mistakes or quoted too much of the ACH's stats please tell me and I will edit. I don't know how much I'm allowed to quote for review purposes. Further I know that this is a review of an outdated 3.0 product and the world has moved on, etc. it just really angered me at the time}
Last edited:

Epic Threats

An Advertisement