What do you mean the dragon is wearing armor!?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 190 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As others have mentioned, most monsters can't go shopping. A doppleganger could, but an ogre? An Ogre might kill a samurai and claim his medium sized +1 Katana, but it's like going to favor the greatclub anyway, and use the katana as a pretty knife.


boring7 wrote:
Finally, dragons will use potions if they can, but it's actually a rather difficult proposition.

Is anyone else imagining a dragon wearing this:

http://www.after5catalog.com/images/products/172-06601P1.jpg

or is it just me?


Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, but:

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


Because the monster is now one or more CR above what it should be.

From complaints I have heard about some Adventure Paths (specifically Wrath of the Righteous), it sounds like sometimes you really NEED this.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


Which means it gets more treasure, commensurate with it's difficulty.

Which means, possibly, the PCs get more treasure than they should at that level.

Alternatively, if the items used by the monster are part of its treasure, that potentially reduces the amount of treasure PCs get for a challenge of that level.

The latter is what you want to keep the PCs from getting over-geared.

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


And worse, if the monster uses monster specific items , such as Dragon shaped armour, the PCs then have a magic item that they can't use anyway. This is very much like taunting your players. Showing them magic items that they then can't use. Sort of like giving them barbarian specific armour in a party with no barbarians.

So what's supposed to be wrong with that? :-)

Liberty's Edge

I've got a big throw down between the party and an adult red dragon coming up on Tuesday night. He's been fighting a running battle with a group of Eagle Knights for years, and has converted a large portion of his horde (about half) into combat gear to enhance his already potent abilities. He has barding (+1 parade armour to make him look terrifying), a couple of wands, rings, a cloak of quick reflexes, a few potions and an amulet of mighty fists (+1 viscious) on his person. All of which he knows how to use and lots of experience fighting powerful humans. He's smart, viscious and has a chip on his shoulder, so he won't be a push over. That being said, he's arrogant and enraged, so he'll make a few critical mistakes and everyone rolls a "1" on saving throws vs. death from time to time.
The dragon is CR 14 (or 15 since he has a heroic stat array) and the group is 5 Level 11 PC's, so it ought to be a good scrap. This is meant to be a memorable boss fight, so I'm pulling out the stops. Normal, less intelligent foes might not be able to make use of thier wealth quite so effectively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkholme wrote:

The way *I* see it, a level 1 NPC has next to no life experience. Even if experience only comes from combat, your typical farmer who has never had to do anything more dangerous than set some rat traps will go up a few levels. Sure they might be commoner levels, but by age 30-35 I'd expect him to at least have 5 or 6 of them.

That level 1 fighter? He has no life experience and just got out of basic military training. He's not a hero, and not a big deal.

The city guard who has been protecting everyone from orcs and goblins for the past 5 years? He's at least level 6, unless it's a really quiet place with few external threats.

The ex-soldier you run into, who has done a couple of tours against a foreign nation and survived? Somewhere between level 8 and 10.

If you somehow each 40 and are still level 1, well, you've never had to deal with ANY signifiant threat, and have lived a charmed life free of hardship, because if you've even gone so far as to set rat traps that kill 10 diseased rats (which are worth 135xp each), you're now level 2. Win at least 7 fist fights against unskilled teenagers over the course of your life? Level 2.

And that's assuming it doesn't make sense to award XP for things outside combat (which I think it does). So you'd have to have led a very charmed, lazy life, where you didn't have any real experiences, to be level 1 forever.

I think this idea of "NPC's are permanently lame" comes from the old rules that npc's were 'level-0' characters. Thankfully, that has changed quite a bit, and for the good. The NPC classes are an amazing boon for world-building - if they are used. I believe any human NPC with anywhere near a successful career would be gaining a new level every 3-5 years through age 30, then maybe every 5-8 years after that. With a median age in the upper 30's, that means a bulk of NPC's are going to be 6th level or so. This makes a lot of sense. Sure, the 35 year old barkeep isn't a 'hero', but I'm willing to bet he would have little trouble beating the crap out of the spunky 17 year old 'level 1 fighter' who's causing trouble.

The idea that the only way to earn 'experience' is by killing things is horribly limited. To me, even PC downtime activities, if skill based, should earn XP. Combat being the only thing that leads to XP would only makes sense if all you gained from XP was combat prowess.

Liberty's Edge

The PFS day job check could easily be adapted to use as an xp generator for day to day living. Just check weekly to see how much experience you gain from unskilled labor or underwater hand modeling and you're golden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Finally, dragons will use potions if they can, but it's actually a rather difficult proposition.

Is anyone else imagining a dragon wearing this:

http://www.after5catalog.com/images/products/172-06601P1.jpg

or is it just me?

Only red dragons, because of the necks.

*rimshot*

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkholme wrote:
I'm somewhat inclined to stop running the dragons like Smaug, and start running them like the dragons isn Shadowrun instead.
Kimera757 wrote:
I don't like that idea. Those "smart" dragons come across as fiends. If I'm looking for that kind of intelligent schemer, I'll use a pit fiend.

Hmm, there is a precedent in D&D for dragons operating more like their Shadowrun counterparts. In Faerun, The world was originally filled with dragon kingdoms, metallic and chromatic. The elves used High Magic to put an end to that, but the Sarrukh rose up in place of the dragons for a while one the dragons weren't in charge any more. It's also not that uncommon for the shapeshifting dragons to live among demihumans.

But also, I think it would work out very differently if you used a Pit Fiend than if you used a Dragon.

For one the Pit Fiend's goal is going to align more with the goals of the hells, and his intention is going to be to rise through the ranks of the hells.

The dragon, on the other hand, isn't concerned with climbing a hierarchy. The dragon will have far-reaching plans and will want to kepp itself alive, but it's goals are still individual and hoard-based. The difference, being that instead of defining a hoard as "shiny things the dragon lays on" you define the hoard as "things of value that the dragon owns". As a result, the dragon's hoard will include valuable subordinates & allies, as well as things like Land, and Kingdoms, and Economies. This kind of goal will be somewhat universal amongst the dragons, and how they approach it would vary by dragon breed. A red dragon might have a horde of well-trained orcs, which he controls by demonstrating his strength, whereas a silver dragon might control a college of mages.

The more I describe this, the more I like it. Dragons live basically forever, and they're highly intelligent. You'd think they would put that intellect to use for more than hanging out in a dingy cave by themselves; and instead use it to surround themselves with not only things they found pleasant, but experiences they found pleasant. I think I will have to start including more things of value (Guilds, Factions, Cities, Colleges, Armies, Ships, Fleets, Heroes) which are under the control of various dragons.

Might give me a reason to make use of dragons with equipment, as well. It makes the dragons more active in the world, which means different kinds of dragons are more likely to end up butting heads. ;)

Sovereign Court

There aren't many dragons like Smaug in pathfinder funny enough. Not many just sit in their lair and do nothing. As far as I can think of, there is only one dragon like that in Golarion and he lives literally under the five king mountains where he hides the artifact, the Axe of Dwarvish lord...Dwarves are looking for a dwarvish major item but there is a dragon...except here the dwarves don't know about it.

Red Dragons are basically classic tyrant villain. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometime you just need to have the big guy red tyrant in charge and that's where the big red dragon comes in. They have many minions under their commands, between liches, demons , vampires etc...going through all the minions to face the boss is always quite pleasing.

Green Dragons and Blue Dragons are excellent for long term schemes tho and are the most likely kind of dragons that you would find behind great plot, secret dark master of guilds, cults etc...they are also the ones most likely looking for strange rituals, secret magical powers etc...

White and Black Dragons on the other end are mostly here for the fun of fighting dragons who aren't into diplomacy and just want to destroy everything in their path.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think it really stems from two things. First, which somebody else already mentioned they just might not *like* spending their hoard on things like armor for themselves. Second ego, i imagine a many hundreds of year old being who knows he's bigger, stronger, and smarter than just about anything he could possibly meet simply wouldn't feel the need to armor himself against the likes of puny mortals. Especially when his scales are stronger than any armor.

While not all dragon's are like Smaug, they were heavily influenced by his representation in The Hobbit, and he was a very prideful creature.

Scarab Sages

The most dangerous monster of all already wears armor.


Jeraa wrote:
While the dragon doesn't need armor against lesser creatures, what if going up against another dragon?

I'm sure it's down to how I envision dragons, but with their haughty and superior attitude, I can only imagine how that would go down: "You're so cowardly and pathetic that you would use metal plates to protect yourself, like a wretched human? Are you so soft and inept that you cannot fight like a dragon?"

Lucy Valentine wrote:
If there's an ogre witch (which sounds plausible)

How does a witch of an INT 6 race sound plausible? They would be completely unable to cast spells.


I'm reminded of the Cinematic Trailer for Warcraft:Cataclysm with all these dwarves Welding Plates of metal onto this massive Dragon and it prepares to unleash fury and break the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And then the dragon with armor kills the dragon without armor, and someone learns a valuable lesson about self protection. :P

Your standard ogre has an Int of 6. One with class levels definitely has more. I recall an ogre necromancer in Rise of the Runelords, for example. I won't spoil it, mostly so nobody here loses their lunch, but she's definitely capable of casting spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think most dragons are probably smart enough to know that their flesh isn't invincible either. Plenty of other dragons and dragon-typed creatures have been killed before.

That said, the biggest deterrent to dragons wearing armor is just that it's impractical for most of them. Nothing more, really. Dragons need to spend feats to avoid check penalties to attacks in any armor heavier than masterwork, but most dragons are going to have mage armor anyway which weighs nothing. This fact along with the fact dragons have better things to spend their feats on, I think leads to the most common reason as to why they don't bother with armor.

That and some people freak out if you have dragons in armor. I once mentioned that in a revised Red Hand of Doom game, one of the dragon NPCs I had wore some spiked masterwork studded leather gifted to him for being an officer in an army. It was +3 armor on a dragon that actually knew mage armor (so it was nothing but a status symbol of his proud position in the army) and people on the Paizo boards went slobbering-nuts about how horrible I was for being mean to monks. XD


An ogre witch probably has an Int of about 11. Barely capable. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from having an ogre cleric instead.

An ogre cleric would have CR higher than a regular ogre. At this point, you might as well have a band of classed ogres. They already get better loot, and can even pick it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wolfsnap wrote:

The most dangerous monster of all already wears armor.

i knew what was waiting for me before i clicked it...


Smaug wasn't even THAT different than the Great Dragons of Shadowrun and Earthdawn. The difference came down to the fact that while he was proud to be "king under the mountain" he was too much of a psychotic hermit to keep subjects and slaves.

Aratrok wrote:
And then the dragon with armor kills the dragon without armor, and someone learns a valuable lesson about self protection. :P

Depends on how much dragon society you have. A lot of settings where the dragon is more than a random encounter have complicated and byzantine rules of draconic etiquette, how challenges and duels work (the "challenge of claw and wing" has numerous rulesets depending on the situation) and when someone blunders into this elegant waltz like a sledgehammer to the knee (i.e. murdering his opponent and breaking the rules) he tends to attract a lot of trouble, usually starting with economic and proxy attacks and ending with stirring up a lot of trouble in his neighborhood and framing him for the "wicked dragon attacks that plague our nation."

Murderhobos are, after all, a near-infinite resource.

Kimera757 wrote:

An ogre witch probably has an Int of about 11. Barely capable. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from having an ogre cleric instead.

An ogre cleric would have CR higher than a regular ogre. At this point, you might as well have a band of classed ogres. They already get better loot, and can even pick it.

Isn't there a witch archetype with a different casting stat? I mean besides Scarred Witch Doctor which you could house-rule a variant for Ogres for and wreck everyone's day?

Sovereign Court

You can always house rule whatever you want. Scarred Witch doctor could indeed theme wise fit many tough humanoid, giant and monstrous humanoids races, I mean after all, scarred witch doctor doesn't exactly use any "orc" feature to be a racial archetype in the first place.


Bandw2 wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:

A Dragon with armor is just... really, really, corny. It looks stupid. Hey, play the way you want- but it sounds, and looks stupid.

Now a Dragon throwing up Mage Armor (the best version of it if you are using other sources) and wearing a Ring of Protection... and maybe another buff if you want to go wild, sure, go for it.

Not really.

I mean, it is not that hard to visualize a dragon in plate barding...

Oh, I can visualize it, where it's stat based stuff fueled by rules... not fueled by story. I can also visualize a purple-polka dotted tentacled bear wearing a top hat, doesn't mean I'm putting one in my game. It's just bad.

Someone can make up all the story stuff in the world for it, but it would be bad story stuff and would make dragons weaker and less mysterious, and less potent. Anything that puts a dragon in armor is bad. It makes them more like steeds or humans. They are dragons. Elemental beasts to be feared, not creatures that strap on plates of metal to protect themselves from the puny swords of others (or even when facing their own kind it should be a clash of titanic forces that mortals run from).

I would rather the GM just arbitrarily increase the Natural armor bonus to what he wanted it to be than do that. Which I might do when I run (or use advanced mage armor, etc).

Anyway, I could go on and on, but there's not much point in debating with me anyway :) Hopefully I haven't been too obnoxious.

if you have trouble imagining a dragon in platemail, imagine a dragon in padded armor.

Or I can imagine a dragon in a tuxedo to get ready for a fancy occasion. Or a dragon carrying a parasol to protect it from getting wet when it's raining. But that isn't much of a dragon to me. And neither is a dragon who wears armor. My two cents.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:

A Dragon with armor is just... really, really, corny. It looks stupid. Hey, play the way you want- but it sounds, and looks stupid.

Now a Dragon throwing up Mage Armor (the best version of it if you are using other sources) and wearing a Ring of Protection... and maybe another buff if you want to go wild, sure, go for it.

Not really.

I mean, it is not that hard to visualize a dragon in plate barding...

Oh, I can visualize it, where it's stat based stuff fueled by rules... not fueled by story. I can also visualize a purple-polka dotted tentacled bear wearing a top hat, doesn't mean I'm putting one in my game. It's just bad.

Someone can make up all the story stuff in the world for it, but it would be bad story stuff and would make dragons weaker and less mysterious, and less potent. Anything that puts a dragon in armor is bad. It makes them more like steeds or humans. They are dragons. Elemental beasts to be feared, not creatures that strap on plates of metal to protect themselves from the puny swords of others (or even when facing their own kind it should be a clash of titanic forces that mortals run from).

I would rather the GM just arbitrarily increase the Natural armor bonus to what he wanted it to be than do that. Which I might do when I run (or use advanced mage armor, etc).

Anyway, I could go on and on, but there's not much point in debating with me anyway :) Hopefully I haven't been too obnoxious.

if you have trouble imagining a dragon in platemail, imagine a dragon in padded armor.
Or I can imagine a dragon in a tuxedo to get ready for a fancy occasion. Or a dragon carrying a parasol to protect it from getting wet when it's raining. But that isn't much of a dragon to me. And neither is a dragon who wears armor. My two cents.

that's the joke.


boring7 wrote:


{. . .}
Isn't there a witch archetype with a different casting stat? I mean besides Scarred Witch Doctor which you could house-rule a variant for Ogres for and wreck everyone's day?

Alternatively, you could use an Ogre Mage -- these are known to lead Ogre bands sometimes. More of a problem than Int score is all those monster HD that hamper any kind of spellcasting class advancement (same as if you went Fighter 8 and then decided to become a Wizard without ever bothering to substitute Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer levels for Fighter levels).


UnArcaneElection wrote:
boring7 wrote:


{. . .}
Isn't there a witch archetype with a different casting stat? I mean besides Scarred Witch Doctor which you could house-rule a variant for Ogres for and wreck everyone's day?

Alternatively, you could use an Ogre Mage -- these are known to lead Ogre bands sometimes. More of a problem than Int score is all those monster HD that hamper any kind of spellcasting class advancement (same as if you went Fighter 8 and then decided to become a Wizard without ever bothering to substitute Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer levels for Fighter levels).

At least with the monsters you get a nice discount to your total CR based on your current CR. I mean, you can go from Ogre Mage 8 / Wizard 8 and only be CR 12 (effectively +4 levels), and you'd get a nice bonus in that you're using 15 PB instead of 3, and the extra HD might make some of your existing monster abilities better (since most DCs are 10 + 1/2 HD + ability mod).


Interesting -- I could have sworn to having seen something like that, but I can't remember where you find it. I wonder fi this could be made to work for regular PCS who multiclass, which currently isn't a very good idea except for carefully planned dipping. 1st/2nd Edition D&D multiclassing actually sort of did this (although then you had the arbitrary weirdness of having hard limits for anything other than Thief for anyone who wasn't Human).

Shadow Lodge

Jeraa wrote:

My monsters make full use of whatever treasure they have. You can bet that the magical sword in the treasure is going to be in the hands of the orc chieftain, the masterwork armor on his second in command. The village shaman will make use of any scrolls they may have.

If the dragon feels it needs armor, then don't be surprised when you see a dragon in full plate.

I'd love I MEAN love to see a dragon on full plate. All that sexy ASF would totally neuter the dragon.


TheSideKick wrote:
Jeraa wrote:

My monsters make full use of whatever treasure they have. You can bet that the magical sword in the treasure is going to be in the hands of the orc chieftain, the masterwork armor on his second in command. The village shaman will make use of any scrolls they may have.

If the dragon feels it needs armor, then don't be surprised when you see a dragon in full plate.

I'd love I MEAN love to see a dragon on full plate. All that sexy ASF would totally neuter the dragon.

Buff buff buff buff called armor (only way its getting on anyway)

Spells are for people without 6 attacks a round.


Monster-specific magical items might be the trick. Such as a Dragon Ring of Harden Armor. Its useless as a treasure for pcs since humanoids can't use it and has little market value, but the dragon still gets improved armor in a natural way - the dragon has in-built armor so better to enhance that than slap metal plates over the top like soft-skinned humans must do.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Interesting -- I could have sworn to having seen something like that, but I can't remember where you find it. I wonder fi this could be made to work for regular PCS who multiclass, which currently isn't a very good idea except for carefully planned dipping. 1st/2nd Edition D&D multiclassing actually sort of did this (although then you had the arbitrary weirdness of having hard limits for anything other than Thief for anyone who wasn't Human).

In Pathfinder, this is in the Bestiary under Monster Advancement, Adding Class Levels. It is kind of loose though, wanting the DM to categorize a monster into Combat, Spell, Skill or Special to determine which classes are key or non-key.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you know this is a good point, people complain about armor proficiency, when all they need is a level of fighter.


I have no problem with monsters making full use of their treasure. Having said that.

1) Some creatures really are too stupid to make much use of anything.
2) Some creatures might value the treasure more than magic items. The classic is the dragons hoard. Many of the legends/stories/novels have the dragon just accumulating piles of gold for its own sake. I can see that they might not want to part with any gold for a suit of armor. However, they are also intelligent. So if a dragon were to see the need/threat it is reasonable that it would get some stuff to enhance it's power.
3) I will consider whether or not I feel it is reasonable for the creature to be able to get better gear beyond randomly acquired during its existence. A wight might be smart enough to know a suit of shadow armor would help it, but it may have trouble walking into town to get someone to make it. OR it might have to pay more to have an agent aquire the armor. Meaning it would use a greater than usual portion of the treasure.
4) Other than an adventurer, I think it unlikely that most intelligent beings would spend all their cash on combat magic items. In RL, even people in very dangerous occupations or locations typically do NOT spend most of their cash on defense/offensive stuff. So they will have some cash, some convenience items, some entertainment items, some property, etc... But I don't usually bother listing that out, since the group rarely cares what it is. They just want the cash equivalent value.
5) I'm too lazy and don't have the time to re-write every encounter in a module or AP. I usually only bother to do a bunch of work on the interesting and/or important encounters.


Wyntr wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Interesting -- I could have sworn to having seen something like that, but I can't remember where you find it. I wonder fi this could be made to work for regular PCS who multiclass, which currently isn't a very good idea except for carefully planned dipping. 1st/2nd Edition D&D multiclassing actually sort of did this (although then you had the arbitrary weirdness of having hard limits for anything other than Thief for anyone who wasn't Human).

In Pathfinder, this is in the Bestiary under Monster Advancement, Adding Class Levels. It is kind of loose though, wanting the DM to categorize a monster into Combat, Spell, Skill or Special to determine which classes are key or non-key.

In all honesty, if it doesn't advanced existing spellcasting, it's probably smarter to treat most-everything as non-associated. Due to the way encounters scale, every +1 CR should make a creature significantly more challenging. That makes some sense when you consider how well-designed classes scale (even martial characters have dropped the linear progression trope in PF, with a few exceptions). In general, their slowed advancement of class features combined with the effectively forced multiclassing is kind of an issue.

It's an interesting thought about setting the CR of multiclassed characters like dealing with associated/disassociated levels. I can't say that a Bard 10 / Cleric 10 wouldn't probably be closer to CR 15 than it would CR 19, for example. Nor could I particularly say that a Druid 8 / Sorcerer 4 is looking like a CR 12 encounter (but a CR 10, sure).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkholme wrote:
And if you do what some of us do, and make the WBL chart and magic items in the book into a system for buying a variety of inherent character bonuses instead of money

Did someone just mention Swordbearer?

Among its innovations were:

Wealth is measured not by money but by Social Status.

A person of a given social status can obtain things appropriate to that status or below. Status can go up to to a windfall, or down to a reversal.


There are several options for armor to get around the hassle of donning armor- polymorph self lets a dragon take a smaller form then retake their true form inside the armor; a magical symbiote that functions as armor; a magical construct that functions as armor that forms itself onto the dragon. All three get around the hassle of donning armor. With the Technology Guide as inspiration, you could add a futuristic alloy to the campaign that takes dragon-type fire for heat and dragon-type strength to shape, producing light but effective armor for dragons.

Liberty's Edge

There's a spell for summoning your armour. A dragon that uses armour would probably spend the time learning to cast it. Also, a lot of dragons have humanoid assistanst/companions/slaves that can do the job of arming the dragon just fine.

Dark Archive

Dragons don't wear armor because money is SOOOOO comfortable to roll around in.


Dragon could have a tribe of kobold slaves to put the armor on him when he decides he needs to get serious about stomping someone


Ballistas hurt. Took one time to figure that out and decide they didn't want anymore of that.


Would armor do much against a ballista? Actually, isn't hitting a dragon with a siege weapon kind of hard, if the dragon if flying? The dragon might be a large target, but it can fly fast.


Kimera757 wrote:
Would armor do much against a ballista? Actually, isn't hitting a dragon with a siege weapon kind of hard, if the dragon if flying? The dragon might be a large target, but it can fly fast.

By the rules, speed has no bearing on AC. Its just as easy to hit a moving target as it is one standing still.

It is harder to hit a dragon with a siege weapon than it is a normal weapon, but only because of the size of the siege weapon (-2 penalty per size difference from the firer, but that can be reduced by adding extra crew).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Jeraa wrote:
Kimera757 wrote:
Would armor do much against a ballista? Actually, isn't hitting a dragon with a siege weapon kind of hard, if the dragon if flying? The dragon might be a large target, but it can fly fast.

By the rules, speed has no bearing on AC. Its just as easy to hit a moving target as it is one standing still.

It is harder to hit a dragon with a siege weapon than it is a normal weapon, but only because of the size of the siege weapon (-2 penalty per size difference from the firer, but that can be reduced by adding extra crew).

there's always wind stance or whatever if you actually want to fly around and be hard to hit. though it still doesn't use your speed.

151 to 190 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you mean the dragon is wearing armor!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.