Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Before diving in; I do enjoy the game. Personally I think it was a touch too early for even early release. But I am still glad I have it. I have played each class to level 4 full disclosure.

Lets start with the classes and the archetypes.
Fighters: Obviously the most generic front line class. However, picking the Battle Master was a risky choice, for early access in part because it has such a high skill curve and since you negated the majority of the choices it turns into a bad Champion. Simple is not always bad. The Eldritch Knight. True Strike is awful in general. But the Eldritch Knight is a good class when built right, which again high learning curve.

Warlock: No, just no. Eldritch Blast is the gimmick of the warlock, and outside of story purposes for a GM, the warlock offers very little on the whole. So either make it as the NPC only, or really spice it the hell up. Because right now you gave them the worst Patron Benfit in the game. Also the Fiend is way more worth it than the old one. So lots of work needed there.

Cleric: Let me break it down I will arrange the players handbook domains from best to worst: War, Life, Tempest, Light, Nature and lastly Trickery. You hopefully the issue. The Shadow Domain was added later which surpasses Trickery by a wide margin.

Rouge: Given the premise of the game, the Thief archetype was a bad call in general. Assassin would have been much better. Arcane Trickster has the same issue as Eldritch knight, high learning curve to be useful.

Rangers: They are okay, you did them a solid by improving their mechanics quite a lot. However they are still rangers. You made them far more Hunter based than anything else with some very random aspects into, like the Ranger Knight.

Wizards: Solid choice, but since control magic isn't that useful in this game so far. Which is weird given the fact that you have: Terrain effects, Status effects and other aspects for a control mage. You basically screwed that with the Dice roll mechanics which I will cover later on in this review.

The Followers:
Lae'zel: Who ever designed her, needs to be fired. Flat out. Because they gave you the absolute worst trope imaginable. The arrogant above it all character. A couple of things to understand about that trope, she is level 1. Which means at best she is a peon. And the things she is fighting have more than a few ways to flay her alive. No Githyanki individual is stupid enough to try and fight an Illithid. And the way she acts towards mortal races, while on the material plane she would know damn well would get her killed in a heart beat. So that cocky, undeserved arrogant attitude is the worst character trait to give anyone. And I mean anyone. GM's tend to kill off and/or boot players who use this trope, because its beyond irritating and it gets old fast. Like within seconds fast. -10/10

Astarion: Whoever designed him, give a medal. Because he is interesting, well within the realms of character for what he is. He shows signs of struggle and various other character aspects that keep him interesting and fun. 8/10

Gale: He is an unbridled meh. He is a character that at best you would use because he is a wizard and you need one. At worst you let him die first. Because its the most common trope for spell casters used. The insightful insufferable know-it-all. Its worse because he flat insults the PC being the same level and knowledge base as the player. And has no problem or interaction with a a Warlock? Really? The two classes don't get along. 5/10

Shadowheart: Of all the cleric choices you could have, you picked the worst one. Trickery is funny and it sounds funny. But in practice, its awful. And she is the embodiment of a contraction. Her approval and disapproval ratings are so all over the place its not even funny. On top of which, she is utterly annoying and whinny. And the interactions between her and Lae'zel make me want to scream. A cleric who doesn't get along with a fighter is a recipe for a disaster given the you know tank/healer interactions that are kind of core. 2/10

Wyll: He is an interesting character, with him being a warlock its interesting. But given that he doesn't seek knowledge or power, but instead decides to prove his own worth is a class contradiction and conflict. 6/10

With interactions; make the default regardless the player character. Since most people will design them as a leadership role to begin with. Since that's what people are used to with Baldur's Gate. That or have it as “X-follower has this skill use them” either of the choices or both would be very effective in the long run. Doubly if you are trying to make it story driven around the followers as much as the player character.

Add in feats, for the love of god, add them in. They will help round out things so much. On top of which it will allow a far better choice for humans given the Alternate Template of +2 to any 1 attribute or +1 to any 2 attributes, bonus skill proficiency and bonus feat. In truth the bonus skill proficiency should be a must anyway. Because right now +1 to all attributes is worthless.

Make backgrounds more interesting than simply providing 2 skills. Including dialogue options the bonus effect found in the players handbook. Just something otherwise they are simply a gimmick at best.

Follower Mechanics
If you are not wanting to add in as many characters as the first two games did, due to the cost of voice acting, coding, animation, art and so on (Which by the way would make excellent DLC). Then add in mercenaries (A cheap cop out), or interactive followers. Two early examples of this; the Intelligence devourer, and owlbear cub. Have them as companions, they would gain levels and you could train them and give them abilities over time so they aren't a level 1 nothing.

Alignment and Approval
Both of these mechanics need improvement.
With alignment; if you don't want to lock in choices instead have four bars (Which the player can view) where they grow based on choices made in game; Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil. The bars would rise and fall, allowing more dialogue options both with people and Companions. In fact could even take it a step further and allow bonuses to skills: Lawful (Persuasion), Chaotic (Deception), Evil (Intimidation) and Good (Persuasion). Additionally with the followers you would give them a flat disposition amount, so the player knows what their leanings are allowing an easier time understanding how to keep them loyal and friendly.

Approval; make a fleshed out character and given them observable meters for the players. With benefits and consequnces.


Improve the dice roll mechanics for the love of god; the biggest issue right now is failure is far more common than success. With an average of DC: 10-15 which is the overall recommended DC for player levels 1-4, success on non-proficient should be around 68%. right now its the opposite, where you only have 42% chance of success. That being said it makes the cantrip Guidance utterly busted. The issue comes down when you have battle and you miss your attacks 8 times in a row (This happened to me on 6 different runs). And the cleric misses spells more than 70% of the time, making her a pure support since its a waste of spell slots. Doubly since everything and their mother resists the only damage ability she has.

The point buy mechanic for attributes; its okay. Its smart because it would prevent PCs from doing what they did in the first two games where they roll until they have 15+ in every attribute. However if you choose to do that, at cap at maximum +3 modifier you need to double the attribute provided bonuses to create a slightly more balanced situation since: 9 in 1 attribute, 10 in 2 attributes, 14 in 2 attributes and 16 in the final, is an okay spread in the table top but in video game you need higher base level stats to remove the generic feeling. Or implement critical success factors which could again alter the issues.

Either buff familiar/summons or remove them. This is a flat issue with summoning and familiar in general. It either needs to scale with the player or not be there. Because it becomes a waste rapidly.

Knowledge base: When a wizard attacks an enemy, they should be rolling to see if they know what damage times will affect it or not. Example; Imps in the beginning if you took firebolt they are taking half damage but there is no indication as the players knowledge grows in game, there should be markers for indication.

With spell casting, since you already use terrain and surface effects. Really should look at the players companion from the first expansion in D&D because it allows control mages beyond enchantment. Which should also be a thing. The big attraction of wizards and warlocks is the ability to play a control mage. Otherwise just user sorcerer since they actually do damage effects pretty much exclusively.

Add in ways to obtain proficiency especially for weapons and armors. Its an alternate rule found in the Dungeon Masters manual but a very good one. The big draw of making a player character is to feel above the standard templates, it will help with the role playing aspects. The first two games, allowed this with party composition, dialogue choices and class choices which could generate that effect a lot.

Auto pass checks; I have seen where you need a 1 or higher to pass. Just add in an option to automatically succeed. Because the dice roll effect literally becomes a loading screen. And yeah that will get old fast.

On the whole its solid for early access and fun. But there is some need for improvement.

Last edited by SomethingCat; 07/10/20 07:05 PM. Reason: Grammatical issues, and better cohesive writing.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SomethingCat


Either buff familiar/summons or remove them. This is a flat issue with summoning and familiar in general. It either needs to scale with the player or not be there. Because it becomes a waste rapidly.

Knowledge base: When a wizard attacks an enemy, they should be rolling to see if they know what damage times will affect it or not. Example; Imps in the beginning if you took firebolt they are taking half damage but there is no indication as the players knowledge grows in game, there should be markers for indication.

With spell casting, since you already use terrain and surface effects. Really should look at the players companion from the first expansion in D&D because it allows control mages beyond enchantment. Which should also be a thing. The big attraction of wizards and warlocks is the ability to play a control mage. Otherwise just user sorcerer since they actually do damage effects pretty much exclusively.

Add in ways to obtain proficiencies especially for weapons and armors. Its an alternate rule found in the Dungeon Masters manual but a very good one. The big draw of making a player character is to feel above the standard templates, it will help with the role playing aspects. The first two games, allowed this with party composition, dialogue choices and class choices which could generate that effect a lot.

Auto pass checks; I have seen where you need a 1 or higher to pass. Just add in an option to automatically succeed. Because the dice roll effect literally becomes a loading screen. And yeah that will get old fast.

On the whole its solid for early access and fun. But there is some need for improvement.



All of what you wrote was really well put, however i specifically really resonate with these. Specifically, i think there are certain alternate rulings that could specifically benefit the video game format and like you mentioned ways to obtain proficiency is one of them.

Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Yeah, Lae'zal, i can see what they are trying to do with her, but it kinda doesn't work considering the circumstances. Literally the only reason we took her was because we needed a frontliner, even then we sat on the screen for 5 mins thinking if it was worth having her around because my god she was annoying.

Can't say anything Wyll because he got zerked in the first fight you see him and he died at turn 2 or something. Got "shocked", and was "dead" dead lol. No revive worked.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
This would benefit it you split it in different threads per theme (mechanics, companions etc)

Joined: Oct 2017
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by SomethingCat
Lae'zel: Who ever designed her, needs to be fired. Flat out. Because they gave you the absolute worst trope imaginable. The arrogant above it all character. A couple of things to understand about that trope, she is level 1. Which means at best she is a peon. And the things she is fighting have more than a few ways to flay her alive.


All companions have that problem.

"Astarion is a High Elf Rogue who has prowled the night as a vampire spawn for centuries". And in all those centuries he never learned to kill something bigger than a rat? (Level 1) Also, he's arrogant, too.

"Shadowheart was sent on a suicide mission to steal an item of great power." as a level 1 character?

"Wyll made his name as the heroic 'Blade of Frontiers'." as a Level 1 character?

The origin stories are terrible through and through. They're all some kind of super hero, yet when they hit you with a stick, worst it does is tickle you.

If you want to play a normal person, there isn't one origin story for you. There's no butcher's son trying to become a knight. No huntress who was snatched while travelling to her love of life. No monk getting drunk in a bar, when he was taken out of the blue by an Illithid. No mage scholar who got exiled for reading into dark magic or something. Very disappointed.

Last edited by Daniel213; 07/10/20 08:14 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm hopeful at least that Liz can be adjusted a tad, change the current dialogue to be used if she really hates you (and all of reality), then play up the noble side of her character where she's supposed to cleanse reality of the Illithids because they're a threat to all life.

Downplay the arrogant xenophobia into a subtle racial supremacist vibe where she's surprised the elves learned how to pick up their own droppings as long as she keeps it to herself, but right now even to another Githyanki player she's... words cannot express.

Given I specifically designed my character to get to know her with the best chance of things not going horribly it was rather a deadpan moment truly coming to grasp the core of her character... well I say a core, really it's more like a hissing, roiling ball of spite and general hatred for all living things and that rock over there.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I am going to add my voice to the chorus regarding followers.

I would suggest you consider your NPCs as people and individuals first, and character and story elements second. The sad truth of the matter is what contributes to a good story really hasn't chanced in the last several thousand years. Consider Homer. He wrote about individual characters and the dramatic events of their lives, what was done only mattered because of those who were doing it. The Illiad is not about the fall of Troy. Noone cares about its looted wealth and razed walls. It is about the fall of Achilles and Hector, the struggles of Patroclus and Paris, the hubris and humbling of Priam and Agamemnon. Epic can not exist without the human element and is entirely a matter of significance rather than scale.

As it stands, their level should be a reflection of their experiences as well as the scope of their understanding. Additionally, they are also incredibly uninteresting in their motivations and back stories, they come across as cliché rather than sincere.



Last edited by DistantStranger; 07/10/20 08:37 PM.
Joined: Oct 2017
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by DistantStranger
I am going to add my voice to the chorus regarding followers.

I would suggest you consider your NPCs as people and individuals first, and character and story elements second. The sad truth of the matter is what contributes to a good story really hasn't chanced in the last several thousand years. Consider Homer. He wrote about individual characters and the dramatic events of their lives, what was done only mattered because of those who were doing it. The Illiad is not about the fall of Troy. Noone cares about its looted wealth and razed walls. It is about the fall of Achilles and Hector, the struggles of Patroclus and Paris, the hubris and humbling of Priam and Agamemnon. Epic can not exist without the human element and is entirely a matter of significance rather than scale.

As it stands, their level should be a reflection of their experiences as well as the scope of their understanding. Additionally, they are also incredibly uninteresting in their motivations and back stories, they come across as cliché rather than sincere.



Well said.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by SomethingCat

Follower Mechanics
If you are not wanting to add in as many characters as the first two games did, due to the cost of voice acting, coding, animation, art and so on (Which by the way would make excellent DLC). Then add in mercenaries (A cheap cop out), or interactive followers. Two early examples of this; the Intelligence devourer, and owlbear cub. Have them as companions, they would gain levels and you could train them and give them abilities over time so they aren't a level 1 nothing.

25 companions in BG2 and only 5 in BG3. We need more, a lot of more companions.

Originally Posted by SomethingCat

Alignment and Approval
Both of these mechanics need improvement.
With alignment; if you don't want to lock in choices instead have four bars (Which the player can view) where they grow based on choices made in game; Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil. The bars would rise and fall, allowing more dialogue options both with people and Companions. In fact could even take it a step further and allow bonuses to skills: Lawful (Persuasion), Chaotic (Deception), Evil (Intimidation) and Good (Persuasion). Additionally with the followers you would give them a flat disposition amount, so the player knows what their leanings are allowing an easier time understanding how to keep them loyal and friendly.

Alingment and reputation are necessary,

Originally Posted by SomethingCat

Knowledge base: When a wizard attacks an enemy, they should be rolling to see if they know what damage times will affect it or not. Example; Imps in the beginning if you took firebolt they are taking half damage but there is no indication as the players knowledge grows in game, there should be markers for indication.

Bring back the Spellbook like BG1 and 2.


Last edited by Darth Rauko; 07/10/20 09:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Sorry, there might be useful information in here, but the opinions stated as hard facts put me off and then I didn't make it past Warlock since I opted to play Warlock specifically for EA. You shouldn't be looking at this in terms of raw combat capacity. This is a roleplaying game. I wanted to see what I could do with a Warlock for RP, which has already provided some interesting options.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Sweden
I miss my alignment frown I think that would be great if you got to choose that and then after that some of your subclass choices would be changing. Say as a Rogue you get Assassin instead of Thief if you are rolling a evil character. But yes more of that and of deities, even a atheist character is interesting in a world where you can throw spells based on your god. Also this makes for great flavor of your character, and can give you some minor dialogue choices.

But yeah, game is a EA but it has to focus more on being a BG3 then DOS3. And with that comes a lot of what is written above, there is something to base the game on. So please Larian, don't ruin it.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
Where exactly is Shadow Domain found, in the sourcebooks? I can't find it anywhere.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Where exactly is Shadow Domain found, in the sourcebooks? I can't find it anywhere.


No longer a thing, sadly... it existed in 3.5. Shar grants the Death or Trickery domain in 5e.

Joined: Jan 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jan 2020
just bury the game and make DOS3 this game is a forced mess with so many forced and broken mechanics trying to appease BG fans that will experience absolutely zero nostolgia from this game. I dont think this game is fixable.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Emulate
just bury the game and make DOS3 this game is a forced mess with so many forced and broken mechanics trying to appease BG fans that will experience absolutely zero nostolgia from this game. I dont think this game is fixable.


Now now, the situation is not THAT dire. Sure, nostalgia might not carry this game, but it still could turn out good... hack, it starts with a Githyanki raiding party riding Red Dragons taking down a Spelljammer Nautiloid! You can't get more (old school) D&D then that!

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Classes: At the moment they all seem fine to me although non-life clerics imo are woefully underperforming, and apparently wizards can learn EVERY spell that you get on scrolls making them mega lore bards, so...

Companions: I honestly don't care for any of the companions outside of Wyll. The others are either rude, annoying or generic, or an unhealthy mixture of rude and annoying like Lae'zel. As a cleric "main" i'm sad that the one frontliner is an abusive drill sergeant. I was hoping she'd be like Madora from DOS 1, where you can actually have ups and downs with her but overall she'd be a cool character to be around, but oh well...

Alignments: I respect their reason for not wanting alignments and honestly I don't want alignment either.

Knowledge Base: I agree with this. You can already tell what a creature is resistant/immune to by right clicking them and pressing examine but I think that should be expanded upon by making your character roll an appropriate knowledge check instead of just outright having the info given to you. On a fail you have to try again the next time you'd see a creature like that. They did something similar with the loremaster ability in DOS II but in that case just having high enough points gave you the information on the enemy you were fighting.


Elf Cleric for Hire! I only accept gold or compliments to my healing. Doubting me costs EXTRA.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Classes: There seem to be a lot of lacking (sub) class options, I'd put that mostly on EA. Some of the standout things that need fixing is wizards being able to learn every spell, Rogues - just in general- no expertiese and the plethora of bonus actions everyone gets really take away a lot of what makes rogues special. And just a whole bunch of missing subclass features. Overall they seem very much still a work in progress and I expect that to improve a lot in the coming months.

Companions: This is my biggest concern. Mechanics can be fixed and polished. With voice acting, story writing etc. It's unlikely we will see big changes to the companions. And they're all very underwhelming. So far I can tolerate Wyll and Gale in my party, and Gale's only positive is that he isn't a negative like the others. I wish I could say something good here. But the companions just aren't doing it for me.

Alignment: Meh, it's not really a factor in 5e anymore, so nothing wrong with not making a big deal out of it.

Knowlege Base: Could definitely use some better UX



Joined: Jul 2014
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jul 2014
OP doesn't sound like a D&D veteran at all...

Quote

Gale: He is an unbridled meh. He is a character that at best you would use because he is a wizard and you need one. At worst you let him die first. Because its the most common trope for spell casters used. The insightful insufferable know-it-all. Its worse because he flat insults the PC being the same level and knowledge base as the player. And has no problem or interaction with a a Warlock? Really? The two classes don't get along.


where do you get that notion from? how do classes not get along? that is totally character specific preference. has nothing to do with the class. maybe you play it like that on your table, but that definitly isn't a rule or anything.

Quote
Wyll: He is an interesting character, with him being a warlock its interesting. But given that he doesn't seek knowledge or power, but instead decides to prove his own worth is a class contradiction and conflict. 6/10


again pretty one sided view of characters. a class doesn't define a character as much. a warlock doesn't need to seek power or knowledge at all. all a warlock is, is someone having a pact with a higher being. nothing more.
you can have a pact with all sorts of higher beings for whatever reason.

Quote
Alignment and Approval
Both of these mechanics need improvement.
With alignment; if you don't want to lock in choices instead have four bars (Which the player can view) where they grow based on choices made in game; Lawful, Chaotic, Good and Evil. The bars would rise and fall, allowing more dialogue options both with people and Companions. In fact could even take it a step further and allow bonuses to skills: Lawful (Persuasion), Chaotic (Deception), Evil (Intimidation) and Good (Persuasion). Additionally with the followers you would give them a flat disposition amount, so the player knows what their leanings are allowing an easier time understanding how to keep them loyal and friendly.


now i think i know where that "veteran" comes from.
dnd 5e got rid of alignment as much as possible. this game follows this trend. and it is a good choice.
characters aren't as one/two dimensional as OP wants them to be. you aren't restricted by classes and aligments anymore, you are now able to make deeper characters. alignment restrictions and class-lore definitions are a thing of the past. and that is a good thing. nobody liked the lawful stupid paladin in the party. well now you don't have to be one any more.
warlocks don't need to be evil (there was a prestige class that needed them to be). not any more.

Joined: Jun 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2014
OP, you're a D&D vet as much as I am the Queen of England

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
I am not gonna defend my own stats or anything like that but allow me to illuminate my choices, within the given mechanics of 5th edition which is where I used this entire basis. Besides its not just D&D I am intimately familiar with.

But I will address the comments as best as I can.

Warlocks were introduced in 3rd edition, as a mock up class originally for the sole purpose of adding in a different flavor to the typical Cleric and Wizard as an offshoot combination. Put simply; since warlocks by default are either knowledge hungry or power hungry, they are willing to make deals with beings the ultimately know could crush them like a bug to access such knowledge and power. When you take into the accountable factor of wizards being studious and seeking to perfect the use of the Weave to ascend themselves beyond what the mortal races can do (this includes races that also live exceedingly long times). And since their implementation there has been quite a lot of lore friendly conflicts between the wizards and warlocks. Simply for a flavor aspect behind how power and knowledge is obtained. I.e. hard work versus short cuts.

Its not a matter of one dimensional, its a matter of the chosen patron. A demon, demons are greedy by nature. With all the available patrons from Fey, Old Ones, Lost gods, forgotten spirits, hell even some legendary monsters, and of course celestials. When you select a demon there is very little that stops the nature of a demon, with of course the exception of the upper tiers of demon and devil lords along with their arch-dukes and so on. And warlocks derive their power from a deal, fiendish deals require a direct benefit for both the character and the demon in question. Its the only pact that is monochromatic. That's where my notion is coming from, is knowing the straight up nature of fiends. Don't believe me? Look at all the stories of people who made deals with fiends and the fiend got tired of waiting, or bored with the feckless mortal.

I wasn't criticizing their choice of removing it. We all know the alignment system is stupid and needs to be reworked into something entirely new. Merely offering a tangible way to allot character choices, dialogue options and so on without an organic DM allowing adjustments. Its a computer program at the end of the day, if you need further proof of why its a bad choice to have it so loose, look at Mass Effect Andromeda. Interesting idea but the overall application makes the dialogue choices consequence free. Which is why I suggested the four bars, separate effects but gives the player multiple ways to outline their character as an archytpe, a leader, a diplomat and so on. Simply by investing in 2-3 of the lines.

You all seem to mistaking this for an organic game which has far greater variety. If we tried to apply the same level of variety to the game, it would never be finished because each option would have to have a train of cause and effect. The reason video games, need such systems isn't to restrict the player its to make it easier on the designers for the purpose of the story.

As a DM, you can make choices and adjust accordingly, you become the consequence of story telling. But since a video game has to have a beginning, middle and end they need a way to measure outcome and consequence.

People have been mocking me in this thread as if I don't know what I am talking about. But you are all forgetting that the most basic source of this game; is the fact its a program. Its basically a complex visual module for any edition from the Times of Struggles, Ravenloft, the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, The Dragon Wars, the Time of Chaos, Veknas' secrets and so on. They need to weave that story. Even with the first two games they had choices but an end goal. But no one complained about the 'rigid' aspects because a story was weaved.

And that is the purpose; a story needs to be weaved. But we are the ones determining how to get to the end and of course what our choices lead to. Or have people already forgetting the issues with Mass Effect 3's ending?


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5