PossibleCabbage's page

4,545 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Eh. I'll take "every high-level Sorcerer is good at climbing" over "no high-level Sorcerer is good at climbing". Wizard might have a choice between good and bad on any given skill, but that's only because they could afford tons of Int. Paladins, Clerics, Fighters, and Sorcerers just got to suck at almost everything.
Any sorcerer that wants to be good at climbing in Pathfinder can be good at climbing in Pathfinder.

However, investing significant resources in "being able to swim or climb" is a tremendously poor use of resources for a Sorcerer (or most people but especially a Sorcerer). Now you get to be competent at basic tasks without sacrificing your ability to do the things you are expected to be able to do.

So one thing I'm not clear on is- what role does intelligence play in this?

Formerly a high IntMod gave you bonus skill ranks every level, but since the quanta of "investing in your skills" is different ranks of proficiency" it seems like intelligence would way too good if it constantly gave you extra proficiency ranks.

So I wonder if I can stop rolling high Int Paladins just so they can be extremely well-read.

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
The solution in general is to dump levels and buy competencies independently of each other. Point based systems likes GURPS let you buy extra spellcasting without raising your HP, attack rolls, or swimming talents. Point based systems have their own problems, but aren't really on the table.

I feel like if you don't want to play "extremely competent heroes" then d20 games are not the right choice. Which is fine. Other games won't be as good at doing what Pathfinder does well as Pathfinder is, but better at other things.

If the only thing that will satisfy you is "no classes, no levels, no alignment, and a slow competency curve" it might be better to just play something that tries to do those things instead of forcing that peg in this hole.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel though that a game in which +1 to a skill is every bit as valuable as +1 to hit with a specific weapon or +1 to a specific save is worth pursuing. So anything that takes us further from that I don't think is a good reaction to the playtest.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
The third thing I see a lot here is how adventures would be able to destroy NPCs at their specialties without even noticing. Special rules for NPCs should be able to counteract this if they dont get the same "ceiling" based on Adventuring level.

I feel like one of the assumptions of the game (not the world, just the game) is that people or things of very different levels never go up against each other in a head-to-head competition. Or if they do it's not a matter of rolling dice so much as narrating how the higher level people wipe the floor with their competition.

Just as one wouldn't set their level 16 party against CR 1 enemies, one should not set their level 16 party against level 1 bakers in a bake-off". Rules are intending to model the actions of great heroes, not to accurately model the fact that "some craftspeople are better at their jobs than others."

Making the experienced heroes less competent so that it is possible to use the same rules to run "Top Chef Golarion" with NPCs who are not adventurers is a the wrong decision because the game isn't about chefs, it's about heroes. If you try to make the game model all things accurately, you're going to end up with a mess. I mean, the economy made no sense in PF1, but that was fine. People interested in fantasy games with realistic economies and chef competitions can probably find a game which does those things specifically.

I suspect part if it is that the alchemist in PF1 is sort of a hodgepodge of class features that don't really go together except in that they all involve alchemy. Vanilla PF1 alchemist is the person who hulks out as Mr. Hyde and the person who brews potions and the person who hurls explosives. It sorta goes together but it kinda doesn't.

So combined with the fact that the alchemist is a pretty popular class, I bet a lot of folks at Paizo have spent time thinking about "how to design a better alchemist" and this might have led to a bunch of ideas that informed the rest of PF2's class design. At this point you have to include it, I figure.

Also, at some point they decided to make goblins a core race, so they wanted a goblin iconic and what class is more befitting goblins, honestly?

As I understand it:

NPC swordsman who is bodyguard to the queen: built with PC rules.
NPC baker who asks the PCs to investigate the noises in his basement - not built with PC rules.

Basically the rule of thumb is if there's no reason for the PCs to fight someone, and if they decide to they wouldn't actually have a chance, they don't need a full stat block. All you need is their modifiers for a few checks they might make. So this probably is the majority of NPCs- the butcher, the baker, and the guy who makes candlesticks all don't need full stat blocks. No GM is going to make the baker roll for how good the cake is, as though it matters for the story anyway. If "producing a sufficiently amazing cake" is actually a matter of dramatic tension, a PC should be rolling for it.

I would think the CHA 18 fighter who has not invested at all in social skills is the sort of person who is so confident in their own personal magnetism, they haven't really had any reason to consider deeply the personhood of people other than themselves, and is bad at empathy.

Whereas the CHA 8 fighter who has invested heavily in social skills is someone who is a bit insecure, but has worked at understanding and getting along with people in order to combat this perceived shortcoming.

So that works. Cha 18 fighter is great fun at parties but is liable to insult people by accident in a formal diplomatic situation, whereas the Cha 8 master of social skills will know just what to say in each situation- their delivery might not be as impressive, but they know how to avoid insulting people by accident and can navigate a social minefield.

It's interesting that people critical of the new system have highlighted how good a high level wizard with no training is at skills compared to someone who is a master of them, and missed how a high level wizard with no training now has nearly as good a modifier to "attacking with a greatsword" as does the fighter who is a master of the blade.

Big difference though, the fighter will have invested a lot of feats into things that let them be generally better and take new actions while fighting with a greatsword and the wizard will not have. So presumably high level martials will have fun things to do beyond "attack to do damage".

Arssanguinus wrote:
So we are pretty much stuck with the skill silliness for untrained individuals, it seems.

I mean, "you can't attempt that untrained" was a thing in PF1, so we're going to be fine.

master_marshmallow wrote:

So, how does proficiency affect things other than skills?

Is it tied to weapon groups? Can I be legendary with swords and use a legendary weapon to get level +6 to hit?

Mark Seifter said something to the effect of "just wait until you see what one can do with proficiency in armor" so I think it's even more dramatic (and a legendary heavy armor user will also get +6 AC).

Alydos wrote:
There are 500+ posts now, did they ever do official followup and tell us that people at different tiers roll on different tables? So it's not just a +3, it's a +3 on a table with different DCs or somesuch?

Sorta. An level 20 wizard untrained in disable device will have a huge modifier, but since they are untrained they cannot even attempt to pick a lock let alone crack a safe. So a level 1 rogue with training in disable device is better at mundane lockpicking than a level 20 wizard.

Similarly, the example Seifter gave above is that an expert trained swimmer might just have a swim speed so a lot of things they will simply not need to roll. A higher level character might have a bigger modifier, but they will need to roll to swim across the river and the expert swimmer will not- the expert swimmer can just do it without rolling. Even the best result the hapless level 20 wizard can manage on the swim check will probably not equal the level 9 fighter with the swim speed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
For some reason I think things like lying, climbing, jumping, surviving in the wild, and sneaking will all be things that you can do untrained.

Context is going to matter a lot though. Like plausible low-impact lies, climbing a knotted rope, surviving in a forested region in the summer, sneaking in the dark, or sharpening a blade? Sure, those are things people can do untrained.

Implausible lies that get people to do stuff for you, free climbing a frozen waterfall with no tools, surviving in the arctic in the winter, and sneaking through a brightly lit room, or forging masterwork plate are not.

So it's not as simple as "I use stealth", the question is "to do what?" and subsequently "can you even do that with your proficiency level?"

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:

I would think Pathfinder would avoid anything resembling 4e EVEN IF they could make the mechanics good.

Like this system could be God's gift to RPGs, but the Pathfinder fan-base is about as rabidly anti-4e as any fan-base could be.

I really liked 4e. I just had no earthly idea how to run it, and it wasn't very well supported. Nonetheless, I think it had a lot of good ideas. Edition warring never did anybody any good, and it's foolish to assume there's nothing of value to learn from any game.

It is my sincere hope that Paizo devs won't reject any good ideas because they are reminiscent of some other game that some people don't like.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Having the difference between characters at the same level be a small number avoids situations where "Player A will critically succeed on any roll on which player B barely fails".

In the new game "beating the DC by 10" (or falling short by 10) can have major effects. So you can't have like a 20 point spread between people in the party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
28. Vs, say, 23. That’s it. Unskilled vs legend. That spread is ridiculous.
The spread gets much bigger if the 23 isn't even allowed to try some checks.
It’s ridiculous for that to be the spread on the things they can both try.

All of the things that you can attempt checks for untrained are things that great heroes should be able to do without really trying, which conveniently they are.

A reasonable definition of "a thing one can attempt untrained" would be "a thing that one of the great heroes would never even struggle in doing" like "climb a rope" or "sail on calm seas" or "walk on the ice without falling down" or "know what a dragon looks like."

master_marshmallow wrote:

So let me get this right?

If I'm untrained in something, Acrobatics, my check will be DEX+lvl-2?

So you add the level to everything, and the mathematical differences only comes from the degree to which you have invested your skill [resource name]s?

However, that same degree has tied to it a list of tasks that are gated to the degrees of proficiency themselves?

Seems to be basically correct. Gaining levels makes you broadly competent in those tasks pretty much anybody has a good chance of completing, but you can't even attempt things that require specific expertise or mastery because you haven't the foggiest idea how to free climb a frozen waterfall or paint a masterpiece or forge masterwork plate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, how is a level 20 wizard being better at swordfighting than a level 4 fighter (as it was in PF1) any weirder than the level 20 wizard being better at rope climbing than the level 4 fighter?

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I think the game is improved by not preventing the party from sneaking into anywhere because one of their number is a Gorumite warpriest with low dex who wears religiously significant fullplate and has put none of their meager skill ranks into stealth, and the party is unwilling to just leave one of their number behind.

So now we get a situation where the party can attempt to sneak into places with a reasonable chance of success despite their Gorumite pal, but if they blow it (via a critical failure) it's almost certainly the Warpriest who is responsible.

I like that tactics like that are now available without the entire party needing to be built for it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
So basically, if you're playing a scholarly wizard at high levels who isn't a god-tier athlete/con-artist/survivalist you're playing wrong. Good to hear.

People who get to level 20 don't do so by staying home and reading books, they get that way by going out and having adventures. In the course of these adventures at some point the Wizard might have had to climb a rope, might have had to be on a ship, might have had to move quietly, might have had to tell the difference between a dragon and an ooze, might have had to cook a meal, etc. So is this a level 20 character who has retained none of this? A level 20 wizard, who is likely by virtue of their profession someone intelligent, curious, and thoughtful never saw a companion do something and learned anything from it? Someone who has attained level 20 without meaningful personal growth and overall competency?

Is this not something you've noticed in real life? Like I am not a trained auto mechanic by any stretch but over the course of my life I have learned how to change out a tire, how to change my oil and filter, etc. Once upon a time I did not know these things. How did I learn them? I was in a situation where this information was relevant and I retained it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I'm going to be houseruling the hell out of this system. I really dislike that it's impossible to have a high level character who isn't a master of lying, climbing, or sneaking.

Why should high level characters ever fail at mundane tasks? I think that's basically the question these rules are posing. If it's an obstacle appropriate to the calibre of heroes we're talking about, then you require training, but "sneaking through an area in the dark when there's a lot of ambient noise" isn't something experienced adventurers should fail at, even if they are untrained in stealth. The sorts of things that you can easily do untrained at high level are likely the sorts of things I don't even ask high level characters to roll at.

Like a level 20 character who cannot climb a rope and who starves to death in the woods if no one helps them is hardly a hero.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Despher wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
a character legendary in Thievery might be able to steal the armor off a guard
I juste puked in my mouth. This is so retarded. Who wants that in their game?! Stop, new is not better.

Same. I regularly will let PCs do things they propose solely because those things are funny and the point of the game is to have fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I had a number of PF1 characters where I invested max ranks in a frankly useless skill because it was a thing that character should be good at. Like a Changeling Monk who had sworn off her cannibalistic urges and swore herself to a strict vegan diet taking max ranks in Profession (Chef) ("how I would cook and eat you, I won't mind you, but if anybody is taking notes I have considerable expertise" played into more than a few intimidate checks) or a Dwarf Telekineticist who ran off and joined the circus who took max ranks in Sleight of Hand and Perform (Comedy) so she could be a comedy juggler (the comedy is there to serve the juggling, dwarves have a cha penalty).

So is there any reason to become a legendary chef or juggler in PF2? Is this sort of thing even possible?

Trimalchio wrote:

Based on this system a level 15 barbarian completely untrained is going nto walk all over every level 5 highly trained team in every skill.

I guess pf2 is the mmorpg edition.

I mean, a level 15 character should eat a level 5 party for lunch in combat (as it should be) so why not everywhere else too?

MerlinCross wrote:
Dominik D wrote:
i wonder how this will be balanced. isnt this going to favour some skills over others? for example diplomacy will be insanely strong.

Especially since CHA is a big thing in this one.

Even discounting that, I fear the coming dipolmanciers

I feel like the skills that people valued very little in PF1 are the ones you can go gonzo with for the higher proficiency skill unlocks, while the ones that were valued very highly are ones it's probably better to be conservative with.

Some logic like that might be why perception is no longer a skill.

Mekkis wrote:

So, where in Pathfinder, there is the trained/untrained divide specifying what your character can't achieve, we now have a "You must be at least Expert in this skill to succeed here" barrier.

So the system is intrinsically limiting a character's abilities. And every time more options with these "skill barriers" are printed, it will continue to limit them.

I feel like it comes out this way in practice anyway, since a lot of times GMs will be skeptical of, say, a rogue's ability to sneak down a well-lit hallway filled with people without being seen. So something explicitly saying "well lit-hallway full of people looking for you? Master level, here's the DC" is only an asset, since most GMs wouldn't let you attempt it otherwise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm also pretty excited about playing a rogue where "super good at skills" is something legitimately awesome rather than just "something magical people can easily beat you at" (there is at least one spell in PF1 that give up to +30 to a skill check!) Where I can be an asset to the party because "higher level skills are super useful" not just to handle traps and do sneak attack damage. I don't think the way to make skills impressive is "higher numbers" but "recontextualizeing what skills can do" so I feel like they are on the right track.

I'm really hoping we get a PF2 version of the phantom thief archetype.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
eddv wrote:
No bobby you cant bluff the guard into thinking youre a noble because you dont have the Fake Noble skill feat" is just the absolute worst.
I wouldn't call it "the absolute worst", but I share your concern that this kind of thing might become heavily entrenched in PF2 with the proposed skill system. I think this has the potential to be really great, but if implemented incorrectly could lead to the sort of nonsense you're suggesting.

I feel like "anything that anybody can attempt with some idea of how to do it" should be fair game for untrained people to do. Like "telling a plausible lie, when agreeing with it puts minimal onus on the listener" should be in that category, easily. So you could bluff the guard, untrained, in that you are a noble and thus shouldn't be hassled, but you might need some skill unlocks to bluff the guard that you are a noble and thus it's fine to loan you money and their keys, since any noble is going to be good for the loan and won't do anything untoward with the keys.

But "examples" are going to be really important in that chapter I feel.

From that blog post the sense I get is that Skill checks for people who are really good at a thing are going to be more relevant in combat than in the previous iteration of game. Like if you can drop an enemy into a catatonic state with a single action successful legendary intimidate check, then that's a thing you're going to want to do a lot. Like no amount of bluff or diplomacy in combat allows you to get an antagonist to switch sides during combat in PF1, but in PF2 if this is possible then every +1 will matter quite a bit.

If things like athletics or acrobatics checks as part of move actions allow players to make attacks they normally would not be able to do (say versus flying creatures) then those bonuses are going to be every bit as important as to-hit bonuses.

But for my money making skill bonuses every bit as valuable as save bonuses or attack bonuses is a worthy goal.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like I'm going to need to see "what sorts of things people at various levels are and are not allowed to attempt skill checks in" before I can really make sense of this.

Since sure, the difference between untrained and legendary is a small number, but if the legendary character can Shoryuken flying creatures while the untrained character at the same level can "climb a rope really well" but can't free climb at all, that's probably all right. It's not actually interesting, IMO, for experienced heroes to struggle to complete a task so "everybody who is level 20 can climb a rope, identify a dragon, tread water, move quietly in the dark, etc." is just fine.

But I really want to dragon punch a dragon now.

It is still not possible to wear two pairs of magic boots, since you cannot plausibly wear two pairs of shoes at the same time. We've just changed the limiter from "arbitrary item slots" to "sense". Now, however, you can wear two cloaks or seven rings or five amulets and there's no opportunity cost for not having a magic item for your eye slot or body slot.

Also "Dwarves are inherently resistant to magic, hence Dwarves have a harder time using magic" makes complete sense. After all, in older games in this family it wasn't possible for a Dwarf to be a Wizard and that was the exact justification.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we really should read the book before we conclude "necessary buffs are now impossible" (since those buffs might no longer be necessary) or "a class might have nothing to do but heal or buff" (since we don't know what options classes even have).

But I will say that "A fighter drinks a potion to be awesome on the first round of combat" is not exactly a part of the fantasy I want to preserve. I will gladly take "fighters are better" (and also "you can wear many capes" but that's just a bonus) in exchange for "they consume fewer potions". I actively disliked how essential consumables were in PF1, and am happy if they are less important in PF2.

I do wonder if "Charisma is keyed to resonance" means that UMD is no longer a skill, so anybody can just pick up a wand or a scroll and use it, provided they have resonance left. I think that would be a neat change.

UMD was one of those "it's so good you need it" skills, and we already got rid of one of those when Perception was made a non-skill.

I think "getting rid of item slots" is of value in and of itself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hargert wrote:
I for one think item slots are a much more natural way to limit magic items

I don't think there is anything remotely natural or sensible about "you can wear a magic hat, headband, and goggles because your head, your forehead, and your eyes are all different body parts, as well as a magic cloak, shirt, and armor even though those all go on one on top of the other, but you can only ever equip 2 rings despite having more than 2 fingers and your fingers are clearly distinct from each other." But your mileage may vary.

Likewise, there is nothing natural or sensible about "you can put on 3 magic amulets, but only the one you put on first functions, if you tear it off then the second oldest one starts working".

I am glad item slots are going away and will tolerate resonance purely for that.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
let's say this is a high magic (and therefore high difficulty) campaign

I would say that in a high magic campaign one should increase the resonance limit (and this should probably be in the book too).

Being able to tweak the resonance scores to match "how much magic there is in this game" is a better way to make a game feel more or less magical than simply having more or fewer magic items available, and is certainly a better option than "eliminating certain item slots."

FWIW WBL for PF1 for a 3rd level character is 3000 gp. If we assume they're doing something like ABP, the 3rd level fighter should have no more than like 2000 gold's worth of magic items. So this does seem like an example concocted to artificially exaggerate how tight the resonance limit is.

Now a 5th level fighter might be able to afford a magic weapon, shield, and boots, but they're also going to have 6 points of resonance with 10 charisma. So they can equip magic armor, an amulet, and awesome boots while wielding a sword and a shield and still have 3 resonance left over.

"Roll more dice so things aren't so swingy" is certainly an inelegant kludge for smoothing out the math. "Comparing to a threshold" is going to be a lot faster in practice, which is nice.

QuidEst wrote:
I think crits on a twenty are valuable so that there’s a chance to crit against hard-to-hit bosses. Having no chance of critting takes away some excitement.

Do we know for sure that there isn't something special that happens on a 20 or a 1? I imagine that will be a common house rule, at least.

Bloodrealm wrote:

Depending on how the DCs are calculated, I'm guessing that either everyone will be good at skills or everyone will be middling/bad at skills.

They're also going to need to think very VERY hard about what things they gate behind skill unlocks and which are open.

I feel like the majority of things locked behind proficiency unlocks will be the truly impressive things someone good at it can do. Anything that "obviously you can try that" shouldn't be locked, the unlocks should tell you which implausible-yet-awesome things you can do.

So even if my trained athlete is only a half-dozen behind your legendary athlete in terms of the numerical modifier, that just means we're both pretty good at jumping over 10' pits, but the legendary athlete can do it without a running start or just run on walls, whereas I have to jump like a sucker.

I feel like they will release the character sheet once they are done previewing all the things the character sheet would inadvertently reveal. After all, there's no point in having 30,000 threads on the forum about "What is this new term on the new sheet which is not on the old sheet? How does it work?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's say we replaced the "CLW" wand with a healer's kit and someone who has invested in the heal skill. Since "levels of skill proficiencies" work like skill unlocks in unchained, you can have the healer heal progressively more damage in progressively less time as they advance to legendary status.

Of course, the tradeoff here is that the "healer's kit" will take long enough to use that one's short term buffs will expire before you're good to go (like this takes 15 minutes) but I figure "should we keep going or heal up" is a reasonably good tension.

If the game worked like this, it would be more thematically satisfying wouldn't it? Applying bandages and poultices is sort of a better fantasy than "waving a stick".

Here's how I would suggest this work, if it doesn't already-

If you are at 0 resonance, the first time you use a consumable magic item (e.g. a potion) it always works, then you roll to see if the next item is going to work or if you're cut off.

If you do this you can feel free to use your cool boots even if you're at 1 resonance since you know that the emergency healing potion is available. If you use the emergency healing potion and you find out that the next emergency healing potion won't work, that's a good sign to find a place to camp. (Related: do we know "resting" is the only way to regain resonance?) If you trudge on when you're out of resonance and the next potion won't work, it's really not different from continuing on once you're out of spell slots.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, for my money I don't really like consumable items as a player, nor do I really like their importance as a GM. It feels like "you read a scroll at no cost to yourself save gold" is kinda the least interesting way to generate a given effect, and magic wands shouldn't be the sorts of things we burn through a sack of in the course of running through a dungeon.

So I would prefer pretty much anything else besides wands and potions for out of combat, non-emergency healing. Potions are fine for "pour down the throat of the unconscious person" in a pinch, but I can do without wands entirely as they are in PF1.

KingOfAnything wrote:
You only need one point in reserve to ensure you can drink a potion. And magic is not the only way to heal.

Isn't the "one point for emergencies" thing built into the mechanics too? I think that once you're at 0 resonance, the next thing is going to work, but you roll to see if the one after that is going to work. So if you fail that roll (or once you fail a subsequent roll) you can suggest resting soon if possible.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Either "resonance" or "give equal weight to social interaction as you do combat". I'm fine with whichever.

Every Day should have 4-5 combats and 4-5 fancy parties to attend.

But in seriousness I prefer resonance to magic item slots.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Longswords vs arming swords? What about broadswords?

I confess I used to be slightly annoyed that the "rapier" in the game was really much closer to a smallsword or a french duelling épée, but then I realize it doesn't even remotely matter since those swords are what people think of when they hear "rapier", so ensconced as they are in the popular consciousness from Eroll Flynn movies and the like.

I do think maybe the best thing is to make the heal skill really good at repairing HP damage if the party has like 15-60 minutes to kill and someone has invested in it? If you did this, you could leave healing magic for emergencies in combat, when you can't stop for a bit, and for the really nasty stuff and you wouldn't need wands or potions otherwise.

I think we're only seeing half of the picture in an "attempt to quash the ubiquitous CLW wand". Which is to say, you can make people not want to use CLW wands via something like resonance, but you can make people really not want them with something like resonance and by making non-wand healing awesome.

In another thread Seifter mentioned a game in which the Barbarian was the healer, and was awesome at it, so it's presumably not something you even need a wand for anymore.

Arssanguinus wrote:
And the next athlete down from legendary will be only a hairs bredth below the best in existence.

Unless "run up walls" is an action you need the legendary skill proficiency to attempt. Remember, these things function like Skill Unlocks in Unchained.

I honestly kind of like the implication of resonance- that everybody has the potential to work magic. It's assuredly harder for some than others, but the fact that everybody's going to have resonance (at least past a certain level) and thus the abililty to work magic in some sense makes a lot more sense to me in a world in which magic is real and very useful. It at least makes more sense to me than "the person who cares exclusively about swords who neglects to learn how to do basic magic that could make their life easier".

1 to 50 of 4,545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>