When RAW vs. RAI rears it's ugly head...


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, so this is maybe better in the advice section, but I'm putting it here for now, if people want to flag it for elsewhere and Paizo agrees, I'm okay with that...

There are other examples, but the most glaring case of the RAW making a feat completely worthless for characters that qualify for it can be seen in

Animal Archive wrote:

Boon Companion

Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.

Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class feature.

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.

Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.

So, while you can take it for a familiar, AS WRITTEN it doesn't do anything for your familiar, since it gives you +4 effective druid level, not wizard level. We all know the RAI of course MUST be druid OR wizard as needed for the companion or familiar, but this is not what it says.

So, anyone have any other examples where word count or other reasons make it so the RAW and the obvious RAI are wildly out of sync?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you need combat expertise to take improved trip. Then when you try to use the feats in this feat line together, you get worse at your intended goal of tripping people, because combat expertise lowers your CMB when you use it, and if you aren't supposed to use the feats in the same feat tree together, then why the hell are they even in the same tree?

Also, as written, a Tyrannosaurus can swallow a Stegosaurus whole. Gonna assume that one qualifies...


Green Smashomancer wrote:


Also, as written, a Tyrannosaurus can swallow a Stegosaurus whole. Gonna assume that one qualifies...

Gets me every time. *wipes away laughter tear*


Green Smashomancer wrote:

then why the hell are they even in the same tree?

NOt sure why it was that way in 3.5, but in PF it seems that the combat maneuver have to be as hard as posible by design in order to martial be focused in HP damage.


Scavion wrote:
Green Smashomancer wrote:


Also, as written, a Tyrannosaurus can swallow a Stegosaurus whole. Gonna assume that one qualifies...
Gets me every time. *wipes away laughter tear*

Honestly it's funny to the point that I'm not entirely convinced it was an accident.

Oh, and there's that Tail Terror debacle from a while ago. Depending on the side of the fence you're on, it probably qualifies.


Tail terror debacle?


There used to be a lot more and the devs are aware of the ones that still exist


Okay, so I am NOT suggesting moving this to the PFS area, as this is about the base game rules, not PFS but as an aside am curious if anyone knows, what's the PFS ruling on Boon Companion? Is it RAW and therefore worthless to a character with a familiar, or have they house ruled it to what's obviously RAI?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Tail terror debacle?

*puts in pipe* A long time ago back when I was but a wee lurker (like three months or so), someone came onto the boards with a simple question: can a human take Racial Heritage to qualify for feats specific to other races. The feat in question was the Kobold feat tail terror, which gave you a tail attack (or increased the damage die? Not sure in my old age...). Arguments raged, FAQs were clicked, dogs hid under sobbing mothers, and all sorts of debates and interpretations showed up. Some said that you couldn't take the feat because the human did not necessarily have a tail to begin with, some said it worked fine, others still said it could be taken, but didn't do anything until the character worked out a way to get a tail, and so on. To this day, I dare say the whole thing was pointless, as I recall the exact response from the developers was "no response needed." A bit silly a scenario to begin with if you ask me. *keeps pipe in because the image of a lizard with an old-fashioned pipe in his mouth pleases me*


Green Smashomancer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Tail terror debacle?

*puts in pipe* A long time ago back when I was but a wee lurker (like three months or so), someone came onto the boards with a simple question: can a human take Racial Heritage to qualify for feats specific to other races. The feat in question was the Kobold feat tail terror, which gave you a tail attack (or increased the damage die? Not sure in my old age...). Arguments raged, dogs hid under sobbing mothers, and all sorts of debates and interpretations showed up. Some said that you couldn't take the feat because the human did not necessarily have a tail to begin with, some said it worked fine, others still said it could be taken, but didn't do anything until the character worked out a way to get a tail, and so on.

*curls up in the corner and cries*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Tail terror debacle?

*puts in pipe* A long time ago back when I was but a wee lurker (like three months or so), someone came onto the boards with a simple question: can a human take Racial Heritage to qualify for feats specific to other races. The feat in question was the Kobold feat tail terror, which gave you a tail attack (or increased the damage die? Not sure in my old age...). Arguments raged, FAQs were clicked, dogs hid under sobbing mothers, and all sorts of debates and interpretations showed up. Some said that you couldn't take the feat because the human did not necessarily have a tail to begin with, some said it worked fine, others still said it could be taken, but didn't do anything until the character worked out a way to get a tail, and so on. To this day, I dare say the whole thing was pointless, as I recall the exact response from the developers was "no response needed." A bit silly a scenario to begin with if you ask me. *keeps pipe in because the image of a lizard with an old-fashioned pipe in his mouth pleases me*

What this? I've always had it.

I'm sure I would have noticed you had a tail.

You never pay attention to me.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

most glaring case of the RAW making a feat completely worthless for characters that qualify for it can be seen in

Animal Archive wrote:
calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level.

In context we know what the rules say, so we know RAW.

If we deliberately choose to read them in a very pedantic way, we run into some trouble. But really, it isn't a problem here.

This increases "class", in context the only class that is relevant is the class granting you the familiar (if you don't have an AC.)

It limits your effective druid level, which you don't have. So the good news is 0+4 is less than your character level unless you are 3rd level. If you are 3rd level, good news. Your familiar isn't limited by effective druid level, only Animal companions are.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For me if you know the RAI there is no need to even worry about the RAW. That is what opens the door to silly arguments about whether or not a human with no tail can make a tail attack...However without the semantic arguments these boards would be a lot more...well boring.


Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?


Chaotic Fighter wrote:


What this? I've always had it.

I'm sure I would have noticed you had a tail.

You never pay attention to me.

Hey, I pay attention to you, you're... a very nice dwarf? Something... Beard-Capable, that much is certain.


seebs wrote:
Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?

Even I, insane Derro, am disturbed by this image. Just think of the Kobold tail attachments man!


seebs wrote:
Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?

Don't joke. Apparently there is some sort of mech-tail item that was a major bone if contention for like 500+ posts in that thread.


James Risner wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

most glaring case of the RAW making a feat completely worthless for characters that qualify for it can be seen in

Animal Archive wrote:
calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level.

In context we know what the rules say, so we know RAW.

If we deliberately choose to read them in a very pedantic way, we run into some trouble. But really, it isn't a problem here.

This increases "class", in context the only class that is relevant is the class granting you the familiar (if you don't have an AC.)

It limits your effective druid level, which you don't have. So the good news is 0+4 is less than your character level unless you are 3rd level. If you are 3rd level, good news. Your familiar isn't limited by effective druid level, only Animal companions are.

So then by that logic, if I am a level 4 Witch and a level 3 Gunslinger, I get a +4... it's therefore 8 since it's a familiar not an animal companion and only druid level is limited?

Now, I don't think that's how it works, but as it is worded, your effective druid level is referenced, wizard level is not. It should be, simply because there are GMs that are that pedantic.

Or, ARE you saying that a character with a familiar can exceed their character level but those with animal companions cannot?

Mike Franke wrote:
For me if you know the RAI there is no need to even worry about the RAW. That is what opens the door to silly arguments about whether or not a human with no tail can make a tail attack...However without the semantic arguments these boards would be a lot more...well boring.

Well, while I agree to some extent, not every case of the RAI vs. the RAW is clear cut, and even when it is, some GMs are hardcases that enforce the RAW over RAI every time. So, it's in cases like this that becomes a major problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No writing of the rules is ever going to be so tight that they cannot be deliberately misread if you really try hard. This is why lawyers are so rich.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
seebs wrote:
Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?
Don't joke. Apparently there is some sort of mech-tail item that was a major bone if contention for like 500+ posts in that thread.

Did you really just say bone of contention in this context?


seebs wrote:
Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?

tails come from the rear... what are you suggesting here?!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
No writing of the rules is ever going to be so tight that they cannot be deliberately misread if you really try hard. This is why lawyers are so rich.

True, though as I said above, I've known GMs that would say as you have a druid level of 4 means nothing to a familiar, therefore the feat doesn't affect a familiar. I don't play with him anymore, but having known him, I have learned stuff like this DOES matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Tail terror debacle?

*puts in pipe* A long time ago back when I was but a wee lurker (like three months or so), someone came onto the boards with a simple question: can a human take Racial Heritage to qualify for feats specific to other races. The feat in question was the Kobold feat tail terror, which gave you a tail attack (or increased the damage die? Not sure in my old age...). Arguments raged, FAQs were clicked, dogs hid under sobbing mothers, and all sorts of debates and interpretations showed up. Some said that you couldn't take the feat because the human did not necessarily have a tail to begin with, some said it worked fine, others still said it could be taken, but didn't do anything until the character worked out a way to get a tail, and so on. To this day, I dare say the whole thing was pointless, as I recall the exact response from the developers was "no response needed." A bit silly a scenario to begin with if you ask me. *keeps pipe in because the image of a lizard with an old-fashioned pipe in his mouth pleases me*

I believe the in-thread comments by a developer were in line with the, yeah you can take it but it won't do anything for you because you don't have a tail, interpretation.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks like the implication is that there are no limitations on how high it can boost a familiar's level, which makes sense, given their relatively low individual power compared to animal companions.


Davor wrote:
It looks like the implication is that there are no limitations on how high it can boost a familiar's level, which makes sense, given their relatively low individual power compared to animal companions.

Hmmm, see now THAT is not how I would interpret it, so in a way, you make my point even better than I did... maybe the RAI is NOT so obvious as I thought it was.


Mike Franke wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
seebs wrote:
Hmm. What about a male human wearing a kilt?
Don't joke. Apparently there is some sort of mech-tail item that was a major bone if contention for like 500+ posts in that thread.
Did you really just say bone of contention in this context?

Yes. Yes he did. *Golf clap*

On topic: it only matters if the people you are playing with care about every word meaning only one thing and adhereing to every minuate of the rules. If you play with that atmosphere, I'm sorry.
If you enjoy it... *backs away slowly*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Franke wrote:
For me if you know the RAI there is no need to even worry about the RAW.

The problem, of course, being that barring developer statements it's hard to be sure what exactly the RAI is, and even then it's not very accessible unless it's in an official errata/FAQ (at which point it becomes RAW anyway). When it comes to resolving a rules question, most groups would go with what's written in the book over "No guys, I totally read on the forums that one of the devs says it works like this."

Granted, a lot of how rules issues work depends on the group dynamics; some groups are pretty casual and don't mind just making stuff up on the fly as long as it keeps the game fun, and some groups stick to the RAW like holy writ. I've played with both types of groups, and had fun with both.


Davor wrote:
It looks like the implication is that there are no limitations on how high it can boost a familiar's level, which makes sense, given their relatively low individual power compared to animal companions.

It says, and I quote "animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher,..."

Yeah it should be errata'd to say class level for the purposes of determining the power of your animal companion or familiar, or something similar.

edit: The AC normally has more combat power, but familiars with their intelligence can be useful in ways that DPR can't.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

ARE you saying that a character with a familiar can exceed their character level but those with animal companions cannot?

GMs are hardcases that enforce the RAW over RAI every time.

I'm saying we know what it is trying to do, do it. But if you find yourself with a hardcase GM your rebuttal is that you are not limited by EDL.

As for the existence of hard case GM's, I don't see them hardly ever. In fact, I don't know that I have ever seen one other than on the forums.

fretgod99 wrote:
I believe the in-thread comments by a developer were in line with the, yeah you can take it but it won't do anything for you because you don't have a tail, interpretation.

Yes, but it was more like "of course it doesn't grant a tail and why do people ask these type of silly questions?"


James Risner wrote:
"of course it doesn't grant a tail and why do people ask these type of silly questions?"

Well it seems a LOT less silly when that same human can grow a 10' tongue or a third eye by RAW. But a tail? 'of course' that's out of the question... [rolls eyes]

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
it seems a LOT less silly when that same human can grow a 10' tongue or a third eye by RAW. But a tail? 'of course' that's out of the question... [rolls eyes]

Different RAW, those says you grow a tongue or eye. The tail feat did not.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another interesting RAW v. RAI thing is that if you are a Brother of the Seal or a Champion of Irori, and you take Monastic Legacy, each level of the PrC counts as 1.5 monk levels towards unarmed strikes.

Monastic Legacy wrote:
Add half the levels you have in classes other than monk to your monk level to determine your effective monk level for your base unarmed strike damage. This feat does not make levels in classes other than monk count toward any other monk class features.

Technically the PrC levels aren't monk levels. Its not a ruling I support, utilize, or agree with, but it is an interpretation of RAW.


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
it seems a LOT less silly when that same human can grow a 10' tongue or a third eye by RAW. But a tail? 'of course' that's out of the question... [rolls eyes]
Different RAW, those says you grow a tongue or eye. The tail feat did not.

Why are you assuming the human grows a tail when they take the feat? If your daddy is a Kobold it's reasonable that you would be born with Kobold-like features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The dead condition unlike being paralyzed does not state that you can no longer take actions, and it is possible to go directly to dead without gaining the "dying" condition which also stops you from taking actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
The dead condition unlike being paralyzed does not state that you can no longer take actions, and it is possible to go directly to dead without gaining the "dying" condition which also stops you from taking actions.

I think Godwin's law needs a PFRPG variant which replaces Nazis and Hitler with "the dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions."

Double points if you are using that reference to demonstrate that the rules should be read with "common sense" when you really mean "but, I want to!"

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Arachnofiend wrote:
Why are you assuming the human grows a tail when they take the feat? If your daddy is a Kobold it's reasonable that you would be born with Kobold-like features.

Because the feat says you can use your tail to make attacks, but doesn't say you grow one. Humans don't have tails, even Kobold legacy ones.


James Risner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Why are you assuming the human grows a tail when they take the feat? If your daddy is a Kobold it's reasonable that you would be born with Kobold-like features.

Because the feat says you can use your tail to make attacks, but doesn't say you grow one. Humans don't have tails, even Kobold legacy ones.

Check out the bastards book once. Humans can start with things like hooves and wings. But tails... silly... [rolls eyes again]


EvilPaladin wrote:
Another interesting RAW v. RAI thing is that if you are a Brother of the Seal or a Champion of Irori, and you take Monastic Legacy, each level of the PrC counts as 1.5 monk levels towards unarmed strikes.
Monastic Legacy wrote:
Add half the levels you have in classes other than monk to your monk level to determine your effective monk level for your base unarmed strike damage. This feat does not make levels in classes other than monk count toward any other monk class features.
Technically the PrC levels aren't monk levels. Its not a ruling I support, utilize, or agree with, but it is an interpretation of RAW.

Oh wow. That actually sounds cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Why are you assuming the human grows a tail when they take the feat? If your daddy is a Kobold it's reasonable that you would be born with Kobold-like features.

Because the feat says you can use your tail to make attacks, but doesn't say you grow one. Humans don't have tails, even Kobold legacy ones.

Check out the bastards book once. Humans can start with things like hooves and wings. But tails... silly... [rolls eyes again]

And the terrible Tail Terror is back! I'd like to thank everyone involved who decided to start arguing in bold about it and telling us they are rolling their eyes for this wonderful achievement.


Green Smashomancer wrote:
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Why are you assuming the human grows a tail when they take the feat? If your daddy is a Kobold it's reasonable that you would be born with Kobold-like features.

Because the feat says you can use your tail to make attacks, but doesn't say you grow one. Humans don't have tails, even Kobold legacy ones.

Check out the bastards book once. Humans can start with things like hooves and wings. But tails... silly... [rolls eyes again]
And the terrible Tail Terror is back! I'd like to thank everyone involved who decided to start arguing in bold about it and telling us they are rolling their eyes for this wonderful achievement.

Yeah, this thread is for mentioning of stuff, not a new thread to beat Tail Terror like a dead pegacorn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first houserule is The Most Important Rule. My second houserule is "The GM interprets rules as intended (RAI), not strictly as written (RAW)."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To clarify...

Tail Terror:
... The character for which the question was proffered was a Half Orc that had Racial Heritage (Kobold).

Once the designer came in and clarified the "common sense" aspect of using rules that don't quite mesh with unintended usage and the tail of Tail Terror needs to actually be there to use the feat, another aspect further extended the thread when someone brought in a what if. Aasimar with an alternate race (Kobold) that has a racial trait (Human Scion?)that makes it human. I would say the trait taken would emulate the race the Aasimar appears to be, but that isn't Rules As Written...

So, my question. Is a familiar actually an Animal Companion?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When it doubt Common Sense and Rules as Intended are far more important than following the letter of the rule (RAW).

The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).

Personally, the rules as intended are more important than anything else to me.


thaX wrote:

To clarify...** spoiler omitted **

So, my question. Is a familiar actually an Animal Companion?

No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

When it doubt Common Sense and Rules as Intended are far more important than following the letter of the rule (RAW).

The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).

Personally, the rules as intended are more important than anything else to me.

Exactly this. The words on paper have but one purpose: to convey the author's intent. The words aren't the professional game designer. The professional game designer is, and it's their intent that matters.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

rehash of old thread re-Tail Terror:
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
"of course it doesn't grant a tail and why do people ask these type of silly questions?"
Well it seems a LOT less silly when that same human can grow a 10' tongue or a third eye by RAW. But a tail? 'of course' that's out of the question... [rolls eyes]

This was gone over again and again in the thread, one guy looking as a word and saying it means something. You can say your character has yellow eyes, a slight tinge to her skin that would match scale color, speaks with long Sss'es and such. The passage in the Core book does not, however, give license to have extra arms, wings, or even a tail.

The Bastard's of Galorian book has some alternate rules that would most likely require GM approval. (I doubt it is PFS approved)

The overall sillyness of that thread revolved around some wanting something for nothing. It was an innocent question, would a Half Orc using Tail Terror have the damage die go up for the size difference between the character and the original race that would normally take the feat?

I maintain, if the half orc could gain a tail (Using a magical item like Monkey Belt, for example), the damage would go up one step.

It soon turned into a very silly discussion.


Cheapy wrote:
Claxon wrote:

When it doubt Common Sense and Rules as Intended are far more important than following the letter of the rule (RAW).

The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).

Personally, the rules as intended are more important than anything else to me.

Exactly this. The words on paper have but one purpose: to convey the author's intent. The words aren't the professional game designer. The professional game designer is, and it's their intent that matters.

The problem being that, barring official statements/errata/FAQ, it's rather hard to know what the designers intended the rules to be, other than looking at what they wrote down (and most people class errata/FAQ as part of the RAW). Otherwise, it's less RAI and more "Rules The Way I Personally Think They Ought To Be." (RTWIPTTOTB?) Not helped by the fact that reasonable people can disagree about where the dividing line is between exploiting loopholes in the rules and working cleverly within the rules, or what the clear intended function function of a given rule is.

The more you deviate from what's written down, the harder it is to maintain a consistent and transparent rules set (Harder, not impossible; you can always keep a list of house-rules and such). Now, obviously this doesn't mean that stuff like the fact that rulebook doesn't say being dead prevents your character from taking actions is legit (unless you're in an undead campaign), but I generally expect that if I have a rulebook for a game, the rules in said book apply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. Once you get your head in the rules, I've found it is actually pretty easy to figure out the intent. There are a few guidelines you need to follow, and having done actual design helps a lot since it gets you in the mindset. There've only been a few cases I can remember where I wasn't able to figure out with pretty good certainty the intent.

I do despise the bastardization of RAI to mean "Rules as IWantThem" though. I'll gladly say what the intent is, even if I disagree with it.


Cheapy wrote:

I don't know. Once you get your head in the rules, I've found it is actually pretty easy to figure out the intent. There are a few guidelines you need to follow, and having done actual design helps a lot since it gets you in the mindset. There've only been a few cases I can remember where I wasn't able to figure out with pretty good certainty the intent.

I do despise the bastardization of RAI to mean "Rules as IWantThem" though. I'll gladly say what the intent is, even if I disagree with it.

I think a lot of people arguing a rule is X when it is blatant that it is not X are players that don't get to GM. Most GM's I have met don't care what the rule is, as much because if we don't like the official version we will just change it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Claxon wrote:

When it doubt Common Sense and Rules as Intended are far more important than following the letter of the rule (RAW).

The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).

Personally, the rules as intended are more important than anything else to me.

Exactly this. The words on paper have but one purpose: to convey the author's intent. The words aren't the professional game designer. The professional game designer is, and it's their intent that matters.

The problem being that, barring official statements/errata/FAQ, it's rather hard to know what the designers intended the rules to be, other than looking at what they wrote down (and most people class errata/FAQ as part of the RAW). Otherwise, it's less RAI and more "Rules The Way I Personally Think They Ought To Be." (RTWIPTTOTB?) Not helped by the fact that reasonable people can disagree about where the dividing line is between exploiting loopholes in the rules and working cleverly within the rules, or what the clear intended function function of a given rule is.

The more you deviate from what's written down, the harder it is to maintain a consistent and transparent rules set (Harder, not impossible; you can always keep a list of house-rules and such). Now, obviously this doesn't mean that stuff like the fact that rulebook doesn't say being dead prevents your character from taking actions is legit (unless you're in an undead campaign), but I generally expect that if I have a rulebook for a game, the rules in said book apply.

Many RAW arguments come up because "I want to." Some are legitimate questions, though the majority are the former.

Many of them can be solved by looking at the intent of the person bringing the argument.

This does not mean that some of them do not need addressed.

Unfortunately and unintendedly, PFS' emphasis on RAW has pushed the "because I want to" RAW-fights to the forefront, since DMs are unable to disagree with it. Therefore, instead of working things out at the table, there is a benefit (and almost requirement?) to running to the developers and starting a very long forum thread over even the smallest aspects of the game.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / When RAW vs. RAI rears it's ugly head... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.