Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Many GMs do not allow AP-specific traits outside of their selected AP save in special circumstances. The point of a Campaign Trait is to add flavor unique to the style of campaign, such as being buddy-buddy with Ameiko. You can't take for granted that it's allowed.

That said, I see what you're saying. I think the rarity of the trait is the main saving grace, but that's not much.


BigDTBone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

It is a campaign trait for an AP though.

An alternative is a 1 level dip in Cryptic, Urban Ranger, or Investigator.

That doesn't change that it is published in a first party product. It tells you exactly how Paizo values the rogue iconic ability. A little less than a trait.

To be fair, overpowered traits are much more likely to slip through quality control if they are campaign traits.

What gets printed for a specific campaign isn't necessarily indicative of Paizo's general design principles.


BigDTBone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

It is a campaign trait for an AP though.

An alternative is a 1 level dip in Cryptic, Urban Ranger, or Investigator.

That doesn't change that it is published in a first party product. It tells you exactly how Paizo values the rogue iconic ability. A little less than a trait.

It's 1/3 of a trait (the other 2, +1 skill and a class skill). SO it's 1/6th a feat... :P

Liberty's Edge

Campaign traits are far, far more likely to approach or even exceed the power of feats than do other traits. (See also, Sword Scion from Kingmaker.) Moreover, Mummy's Mask was more-or-less explicitly the "tomb raiding" AP, where "for the love of all the gods, have someone with trapfinding" was practically a direct-to-the-players command from the the line developer. The existence of that trait actually, somewhat paradoxically, proves how valuable Paizo sees trapfinding: it was important enough to use a trait to make sure that even parties without rogues or similar classes would have access to it.


Yeah, Shisumo nailed it. The point of the Mummy's Mask campaign trait is both "you really want trapfinding for this AP" and "we don't want to force people to use specific classes for this AP."

Hell, Serpent's Skull could've done with a trapfinding trait. Traps (and nasty ones at that) all over the dang place in that AP.


All that aside, I still have fond memories of running through trap-filled dungeons without ever having a rogue (or any class capable of disarming traps) in the party. We removed traps by experimental design - aka, we set them off in an investigative manner. Fun times.


Zhangar wrote:
"we don't want to force people to use specific classes for this AP."

Why not just replace 'this AP' for 'pathfinder'?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Threads like this can make stamp-collecting seem appealing. :-(


graystone wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
"we don't want to force people to use specific classes for this AP."
Why not just replace 'this AP' for 'pathfinder'?

Because Paizo made it a campaign trait. So by default it's only limited to that AP; using it outside of that AP definitely requires GM persmission.

(Also, it may be worth noting that the trait in question is NOT PFS legal.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I came to this thread to hide from Stupid Swarm Splash Weapon Debate #6.

I regret it now.

I need a new hideout.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Righty_ wrote:
Or his wins weren't based on lucky die rolls or a soft gm, but playing smart and using the tools at hand.

I would like to point out that the same level of system mastery required to make a Rogue adequate would make an extraordinary Investigator, Alchemist, Ranger, Slayer, Bard, or Inquisitor.

Saying that you played smart using the tools at hand to play a Rogue is basically playing under a handicap. Which is fine if you're a veteran player with a bunch of rookies you don't want to overshadow, but if we were gonna play a difficult campaign like Way of the Wicked or Rappan Athuk I wouldn't want a Rogue there.

Way of the Wicked was supposed to be hard? We had the DM adding 2-3 CRs to encounters and were still stomping, even with some subpar builds and flavor concessions (took out a CR25 and two CR20s simultaneously at APL18). We're doing Rappan Athuk now and we had a goblin Ranger/Rogue with us for the first several months whose primary uses were carrying junk and adding gnoll bits to potions (to make them more effective). Are there encounters that kill a PC now and then? Sure, but no more so than any other megadungeon. Our summoner's eidolon uses a freaking Greatsword; we are FAR from optimized. (also note that Ranger/Rogue into Horizon Walker is INCREDIBLE in a mega dungeon, and that YES, those Rogue levels are needed for maximum jank)

The truth of the matter is that you DON'T need to power play this game. You CAN build a subpar build, be effective enough to get along, and still have a boatload of fun. Saying that there is one correct way to play is insane.

And this is what I think Vamp was talking about. Look at this thread. Page after page of arguing about what boils down to just play style. So much hatred over something that simply doesn't matter. So a longsword is mathematically better than a battle axe. So what? If you like the axe aesthetic, use a freaking axe.

Let it go. Have fun.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Let it go. Have fun.

Doesn't work for everyone. The aesthetics grate on some people and comfort others.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Let it go
Let it go
Can't keep this up anymore
Let it go
Let it go
It's a step off from a flamewar
They don't care
What you're going to say
So just leave it be
It's not that important anyway


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Let it go

Let it go
Can't keep this up anymore
Let it go
Let it go
It's a step off from a flamewar
They don't care
What you're going to say
So just leave it be
It's not that important anyway

This brought me to tears. A+


Kind of sad you ended with those last two statements Twitch. I was agreeing with your post and was rewarded with unnecessary labeling of me having bad wrong fun. You've shown more vitriol than I ever have in this thread.

@TriOmegaZero
Shame on you for agreeing.

Shadow Lodge

I wonder if this will end in something productive


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want some sort of prize. I heroically resisted the urge just now to make a spoof thread defending Commoners and condemning those who dis them as being non-roleplaying powergamers. I really wanted to do it. But Paizocon is in two months and those moderators are really scary in person. :(


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Righty_ wrote:
Or his wins weren't based on lucky die rolls or a soft gm, but playing smart and using the tools at hand.

I would like to point out that the same level of system mastery required to make a Rogue adequate would make an extraordinary Investigator, Alchemist, Ranger, Slayer, Bard, or Inquisitor.

Saying that you played smart using the tools at hand to play a Rogue is basically playing under a handicap. Which is fine if you're a veteran player with a bunch of rookies you don't want to overshadow, but if we were gonna play a difficult campaign like Way of the Wicked or Rappan Athuk I wouldn't want a Rogue there.

Way of the Wicked was supposed to be hard? We had the DM adding 2-3 CRs to encounters and were still stomping, even with some subpar builds and flavor concessions (took out a CR25 and two CR20s simultaneously at APL18). We're doing Rappan Athuk now and we had a goblin Ranger/Rogue with us for the first several months whose primary uses were carrying junk and adding gnoll bits to potions (to make them more effective). Are there encounters that kill a PC now and then? Sure, but no more so than any other megadungeon. Our summoner's eidolon uses a freaking Greatsword; we are FAR from optimized. (also note that Ranger/Rogue into Horizon Walker is INCREDIBLE in a mega dungeon, and that YES, those Rogue levels are needed for maximum jank)

The truth of the matter is that you DON'T need to power play this game. You CAN build a subpar build, be effective enough to get along, and still have a boatload of fun. Saying that there is one correct way to play is insane.

And this is what I think Vamp was talking about. Look at this thread. Page after page of arguing about what boils down to just play style. So much hatred over something that simply doesn't matter. So a longsword is mathematically better than a battle axe. So what? If you like the axe aesthetic, use a freaking axe.

Let it go. Have fun.

If the posts/comments Vamp was complaining about were from someone telling us about noob player #100 at his table the I would probably agree. However much if this information comes from the advice forum where someone is asking for the best way to do X.

Also Vamp, from his newer post, is not really complaining about the advice, but the rudeness he felt in which it was given at times, and some real life gaming situations with what I would call jerks(and I am being nice about it).

Also that word "hate" is overused, and in this case misapplied. Yes I know this was a long thread so you may not have noticed the difference between his opening post, and his later ones. Reading 100's of post can be tedious.


ElementalXX wrote:
I wonder if this will end in something productive

There were a few productive posts, but generally it's hard to turn a thread that starts like OP into something actually productive. If you came looking for productivity, you came to the wrong place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the spirit of this thread, I would like to add my thoughts with one last list to finish things up.* :)

Five Things I Learned One Can Learn After My One's Girlfriend Left Me One
1. There is a common misconception that she dumped one. Actually, one dumped her. So there, Mom.
2. She was crazy. CRAZY.
3. I One don't even care.
4. She was probably not even into guys. Especially not handsome ones. Like me one.
5. I'M BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOU SHEILA SHEILA WHY WON'T YOU CALL ME

Disclaimer: Any relation to real persons, unliving or dead, is probably because "Sheila" is a fairly common name. Kobold Cleaver has never had a girlfriend and does not know anyone named Sheila. He is not sure why this is the second time he has made a joke about this in this thread, but he believes it to be because this thread gives him similar levels of sadness to the crippling loneliness he experiences every second of his pathetic adventurer-cleaving life.

*Pleeeeeeease.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Kind of sad you ended with those last two statements Twitch. I was agreeing with your post and was rewarded with unnecessary labeling of me having bad wrong fun. You've shown more vitriol than I ever have in this thread.

@TriOmegaZero
Shame on you for agreeing.

Tsk. I didn't mean for it to be in that manner, honestly. The "you" was not directed at Insain Dragoon specifically, but at players in general, myself included.

"Let it go. Have fun." was directed at the amount of back and forth between all sides in this conversation.
Honestly, let's look at this thread. We've been moderated, for crying out loud. Not once, but twice been asked to keep it civil. I'd call that vitriol.

So Insain Dragoon likes numbers. More power to you. So Twitchiopolis likes flavor concessions. That ain't wrong either. Different strokes for different folks.

wrathstrike wrote:
Also that word "hate" is overused, and in this case misapplied. Yes I know this was a long thread so you may not have noticed the difference between his opening post, and his later ones. Reading 100's of post can be tedious.

Quite too long. I'm mostly glossing it over, truth be told. Honestly, I have plenty of argument to support Vamps original five points, but seeing as it just seems to be a shouting match in the forums at times, I barely feel like commenting at all.


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Kind of sad you ended with those last two statements Twitch. I was agreeing with your post and was rewarded with unnecessary labeling of me having bad wrong fun. You've shown more vitriol than I ever have in this thread.

@TriOmegaZero
Shame on you for agreeing.

Tsk. I didn't mean for it to be in that manner, honestly. The "you" was not directed at Insain Dragoon specifically, but at players in general, myself included.

"Let it go. Have fun." was directed at the amount of back and forth between all sides in this conversation.
Honestly, let's look at this thread. We've been moderated, for crying out loud. Not once, but twice been asked to keep it civil. I'd call that vitriol.

So Insain Dragoon likes numbers. More power to you. So Twitchiopolis likes flavor concessions. That ain't wrong either. Different strokes for different folks.

wrathstrike wrote:
Also that word "hate" is overused, and in this case misapplied. Yes I know this was a long thread so you may not have noticed the difference between his opening post, and his later ones. Reading 100's of post can be tedious.
Quite too long. I'm mostly glossing it over, truth be told. Honestly, I have plenty of argument to support Vamps original five points, but seeing as it just seems to be a shouting match in the forums at times, I barely feel like commenting at all.

I was being genuine when I said I understand why you may have skipped some post. If I come into a 4 page thread I tend to scan more than read also.


wraithstrike wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Kind of sad you ended with those last two statements Twitch. I was agreeing with your post and was rewarded with unnecessary labeling of me having bad wrong fun. You've shown more vitriol than I ever have in this thread.

@TriOmegaZero
Shame on you for agreeing.

Tsk. I didn't mean for it to be in that manner, honestly. The "you" was not directed at Insain Dragoon specifically, but at players in general, myself included.

"Let it go. Have fun." was directed at the amount of back and forth between all sides in this conversation.
Honestly, let's look at this thread. We've been moderated, for crying out loud. Not once, but twice been asked to keep it civil. I'd call that vitriol.

So Insain Dragoon likes numbers. More power to you. So Twitchiopolis likes flavor concessions. That ain't wrong either. Different strokes for different folks.

wrathstrike wrote:
Also that word "hate" is overused, and in this case misapplied. Yes I know this was a long thread so you may not have noticed the difference between his opening post, and his later ones. Reading 100's of post can be tedious.
Quite too long. I'm mostly glossing it over, truth be told. Honestly, I have plenty of argument to support Vamps original five points, but seeing as it just seems to be a shouting match in the forums at times, I barely feel like commenting at all.
I was being genuine when I said I understand why you may have skipped some post. If I come into a 4 page thread I tend to scan more than read also.

I figured as much. I think we're all on the same page here. No worries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey rewriting songs is my thing :-)

And wow I agree with Wraithstrike.
And to some degree with Dragoon

Except - I don't need an over the top character in most of PFS. My comments on the past are mainly directed toward

...rogues cant participate in combat
...experts & adepts are better or equal
...rogues have no good talents
...rogues can't hit with sa at range on full attacks.

I've agreed there are a host of more powerful character builds than rogues, but that next step... rogues are useless... it's not accurate. Yes you can build a Rogue that hits 1/rnd and is very weak. But there are some nice builds that work well for me. Ive posted them before.

I started collecting data on each scenario I play. And I pass around the sheet to other characters to 'rate the rogue' - :-) So far no one has checked I wish the Rogue was an expert instead box.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no niche protection here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

No, you just fought dumb wizards.


TOZ wrote:
There's no niche protection here.

But if you put a little tape over the slot, you can bypass that pretty easy...

Sovereign Court

Chess Pwn wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
memorax wrote:
Smart npcs are not going to make a straight line for the armored Fighter. Unless the Fighter is either a archtype or disguised by a illusion spell. Enemies are going to bypass them and go for lightly armored targets.
That's why smart fighters get two hats of disguise. One for them - one for the wizard. Switch looks. :P
Because those enemies would attack the wizard that is in their face with the big sword, but would not go after the armored guy casting spells? I thing spell casting is worth the focus regardless of how armored. But I do think it's a neat idea.

I'm not saying that the disguise would work more than a couple rounds into a fight - but it'd certainly work before the fight begins and for 12 seconds or so. (And most wizards wield a light mithril shield anyway - the hat can make it look like a heavy.)

And enemies without spellcraft wouldn't know a disguised wizard from a cleric at the very least.


BigDTBone wrote:
No, you just fought dumb wizards.

Isn't a dumb wizard a contradiction in terms? Intelligence is their primary stat.

Dark Archive

Yeah but they dump wisdom and think most objects cost 2 gold 5 silver.


Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

You were up against 20th level wizards in RofRL?! And you won!? How?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
Isn't a dumb wizard a contradiction in terms? Intelligence is their primary stat.

The proper way to GM an enemy wizard (or any other enemy) is to lose to the party. Your GM is playing correctly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ BookRat - In case you're not joking (because this is the Internet),

about the dude on the cover of multiple books:
killing a L20 wizard is the actual final goal of RotRL. =P

Book 5 RotRL:
Though you DO face a pile of L15ish wizards in book 5. Fortunately for the party, they all hate each other and don't work together. And often have hilarious problems, like the guy who attained immortality but can't leave his throne, or the guy who turned his brain into metal and doesn't retain info properly anymore. Or the guy who died and left behind a half-dozen simulacrums of himself and of his favorite succubus. The Lich and the Wrathlord are the two "real" fights out of the posse of screwball wizards.

Edit: Not sure if Karzoug's level is really a spoiler, but spoilered out of an abundance of caution. Sorry. I added more detail on Book 5 since I spoilered it.


The Plane of Elemental Dungeon ("Runeforge") is lousy with wizards.

You can't even go to the bathroom without waiting in line behind a Vraxeris or three.

... wait a second.

Where are the toilets, Paizo? Where?!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh good, my duplicate minis will come in handy!


Snowblind wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

It is a campaign trait for an AP though.

An alternative is a 1 level dip in Cryptic, Urban Ranger, or Investigator.

That doesn't change that it is published in a first party product. It tells you exactly how Paizo values the rogue iconic ability. A little less than a trait.

To be fair, overpowered traits are much more likely to slip through quality control if they are campaign traits.

What gets printed for a specific campaign isn't necessarily indicative of Paizo's general design principles.

Wasn't that trait reprinted in People of the Sand, making it a non-campaign specific trait anymore?

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

It is a campaign trait for an AP though.

An alternative is a 1 level dip in Cryptic, Urban Ranger, or Investigator.

That doesn't change that it is published in a first party product. It tells you exactly how Paizo values the rogue iconic ability. A little less than a trait.

To be fair, overpowered traits are much more likely to slip through quality control if they are campaign traits.

What gets printed for a specific campaign isn't necessarily indicative of Paizo's general design principles.

Wasn't that trait reprinted in People of the Sand, making it a non-campaign specific trait anymore?

It's in People of the Sand as the Mummy's Mask campaign trait. People of the Sand (like most of the "People of..." books) has a mini-AP Player's Guide in the back.


So... Would say everything else in that book is AP-specific?


@ Lincoln -

Runeforge dynamics:
No one there actually needed to eat or drink - the demiplane grants a ring of sustenance effect. And so no toilets. Though I suppose the entire Sloth wing IS a giant toilet now.

@ Lemmy - No. The campaign trait gets reprinted in a section that spells out that it's a campaign trait.


Lemmy wrote:
So... Would say everything else in that book is AP-specific?

No, but irrelevant to the portions of the book that are spelled out as AP specific.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Righty_ wrote:
Hey rewriting songs is my thing :-)

Alright, here are your royalties. I put them on this piece of paper. No, don't bother searching it, you don't have Trapfinding anyways.


Xexyz wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
No, you just fought dumb wizards.
Isn't a dumb wizard a contradiction in terms? Intelligence is their primary stat.

It's like I always say: Adventurers are really smart, but in the stupid way.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Designing weak rogue talents was probably the design choice, which is weird.
Amen.
Imagine if Rumormonger was a Supernatural ability that allowed the Rogue to change reality by making people believe in a falsehood until it becomes true, a la Persona 2. Now that would be a tenth level ability.

Bard has something similar in flavor with Pageant of the Peacock. That comes online at 4th.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
No, you just fought dumb wizards.
Isn't a dumb wizard a contradiction in terms? Intelligence is their primary stat.
It's like I always say: Adventurers are really smart, but in the stupid way.

Even those with 30 Wisdom.


chaoseffect wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
No, you just fought dumb wizards.
Isn't a dumb wizard a contradiction in terms? Intelligence is their primary stat.
It's like I always say: Adventurers are really smart, but in the stupid way.
Even those with 30 Wisdom.

Especially those with 30 Wisdom.


Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

"Wizards are Invincible" is incorrect.

"The Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcanist Spell List is sufficiently powerful that a sufficiently clever player with good system mastery can solve basically any problem the GM can come up with" is correct.

A sufficiently paranoid, clever, hyper-optimized wizard is hilariously overpowered in a fair fight. In an AP, the wizard is not optimized, does not use overly meta broken tactics, is heavily outnumbered, and usually gets taken by surprise and, this is important, is played by a character who WANTS YOU TO WIN because the wizard scry'n'frying the party in their sleep or evading them forever is boring.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Xexyz wrote:

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.

"Wizards are Invincible" is incorrect.

"The Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcanist Spell List is sufficiently powerful that a sufficiently clever player with good system mastery can solve basically any problem the GM can come up with" is correct.

A sufficiently paranoid, clever, hyper-optimized wizard is hilariously overpowered in a fair fight. In an AP, the wizard is not optimized, does not use overly meta broken tactics, is heavily outnumbered, and usually gets taken by surprise and, this is important, is played by a character who WANTS YOU TO WIN because the wizard scry'n'frying the party in their sleep or evading them forever is boring.

I think what you are saying is that the player who uses guile and smarts and all their available resources to make the rogue "very playable," will make a wizard "invincible."

I just want to make sure I'm following that correctly.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say that the most notable thing I've learned on the Paizo forums is that it's a terrible idea to grapple a succubus.

Wait.

Or did I learn it's a great idea?

351 to 400 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong All Messageboards