a blind pfs character


Advice

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
chad gilbreath wrote:

And chbgraphicarts I didn't mean to offend you. Like I said before I'm basing this character off of my friend who was born completely blind. Tho she is blind she is one of the most charismatic person I know and always helping everyone she meet. She true her best (and successd 9/10) to do thing the way everyone else does and not let her blindness hinder her at all. That's why I want to make a character like this so bad. To show that not every drawback has to be a hinderance. That's why I want the penalty for blindness. Its not cause of role play purposes.

Your friend is probably as awesome as you describe her, but be honest, how long would she last in a career that consisted of successive life threatening dangers the way a Pathfinder's life would be.. avoiding traps, fighting monsters, battling the Aspis Croporation. I sure as hell wouldn't want that life, and I have my eyes. Would she really have survived even Confirmation with a bunch of strangers?


I dunno, may you could rig something with a blind ranger, with a fast animal companion that can inform you of the enemies position in combat and what directions to fire in? This idea brought to mind a certain mentor of a certain drow from the third instalment in a certain series. *Cough Montolio DeBrouchee *Cough. Actually, animal doesn't even needs to communicate with you. Could just make a noise in front of the target or something.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dukeh555 wrote:
I dunno, may you could rig something with a blind ranger, with a fast animal companion that can inform you of the enemies position in combat and what directions to fire in? This idea brought to mind a certain mentor of a certain drow from the third instalment in a certain series. *Cough Montolio DeBrouchee *Cough. Actually, animal doesn't even needs to communicate with you. Could just make a noise in front of the target or something.

It doesn't matter what shennanigans you pull, you can't run a PFS character with a condition that would force it's retirement. Blindness is one of them.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:

It doesn't matter what shennanigans you pull, you can't run a PFS character with a condition that would force it's retirement. Blindness is one of them.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Having a condition doesn't force retirement. Gaining a condition during the course of a PFS scenario then not removing is what forces retirement.

If a character begins the first scenario already having that condition, then the character cannot have gained the condition DURING the scenario. Mandatory buy-off/forced retirement rules do not come into play. The rules are perfectly explicit on that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:

It doesn't matter what shennanigans you pull, you can't run a PFS character with a condition that would force it's retirement. Blindness is one of them.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Having a condition doesn't force retirement. Gaining a condition during the course of a PFS scenario then not removing is what forces retirement.

If a character begins the first scenario already having that condition, then the character cannot have gained the condition DURING the scenario. Mandatory buy-off/forced retirement rules do not come into play. The rules are perfectly explicit on that.

You can't end a scenario with one of those conditions and remain active. That certainly means you can't start with one either.

Dark Archive

Okay I have an idea. It's going to take some work but Inget the feeling you're heart is in it so here we go.

Step one. GM. GM a while lot. This makes a good first impression with your local group, warming them up to more unusual character ideas. But what you really want is cronicle sheets. Lots and lots. Enough to boost a GM baby to level 7.

Got it? Roll up an Oracle with the sight based curse. Gnomes and Halflings have an alternate racial favored class bonus to boost your curse's effective level when determining the bonuses it grants. And at character level 7 you get Blindsense. Just have Blind Fight feat and wear a blindfold. Focus on spells that have out of combat utility or are short range buffs that automatically target only allies.

If you want to play a blind swordsman you can play as Tengu, the only medium race with the same favored class bonus. Many things will still hit you flat footed so focus on strength and good armor over dex.

Liberty's Edge

deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:

It doesn't matter what shennanigans you pull, you can't run a PFS character with a condition that would force it's retirement. Blindness is one of them.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Having a condition doesn't force retirement. Gaining a condition during the course of a PFS scenario then not removing is what forces retirement.

If a character begins the first scenario already having that condition, then the character cannot have gained the condition DURING the scenario. Mandatory buy-off/forced retirement rules do not come into play. The rules are perfectly explicit on that.

If you want to mince words and go that way, sure, it does say gained conditions.

However, there is absolutely no rule that allows you to begin with a condition, as drawbacks are not legal in PFS.

This may not seem fair to some here, but you have to also consider the rest of the people at a table, you are forcing your limitations and hindrances upon them for the sake of your concept. And since this is PFS and not a home group that could all discuss it and agree with it, that would be unfair... and it is why the rules exist requiring you to clear conditions in the first place.

But lets say you were allowed to play and the group has a cleric or oracle and they walk up and cast remove blindness on you... are you going to argue? Try and refuse the spell or save against it? At that point you would be actively disrupting a game for the sake of your concept. And that is not fair.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
You can't end a scenario with one of those conditions and remain active. That certainly means you can't start with one either.

Prove it with a rules citation. Blackbloodtroll provided the citation from the PFSGOP, which I'll quote (in part) again:

"Chapter 5: All conditions gained during an adventure, except for...
"Chapter 7: At the end of a scenario, a PC may have been afflicted with any number of possible conditions.."

You might argue that Chapter 7 includes qualifying afflictions that were gained outside the course of the adventure, but Chapter 5 very clearly and inarguably clarifies that idea as false.

So, really, tell me how Chapter 5 means "all conditions gained at any time" rather than what it says.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You can't end a scenario with one of those conditions and remain active. That certainly means you can't start with one either.

Prove it with a rules citation. Blackbloodtroll provided the citation from the PFSGOP, which I'll quote (in part) again:

"Chapter 5: All conditions gained during an adventure, except for...
"Chapter 7: At the end of a scenario, a PC may have been afflicted with any number of possible conditions.."

You might argue that Chapter 7 includes qualifying afflictions that were gained outside the course of the adventure, but Chapter 5 very clearly and inarguably clarifies that idea as false.

So, really, tell me how Chapter 5 means "all conditions gained at any time" rather than what it says.

The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

Sovereign Court

Fomsie wrote:

If you want to mince words and go that way, sure, it does say gained conditions.

PFS is the natural home of the "RAW IS LAW" mentality. It's not just "the LAW" when you like it; it's universal or the entire paradigm is invalid.

Quote:
However, there is absolutely no rule that allows you to begin with a condition, as drawbacks are not legal in PFS.

With the exception of rules governing phenomenae that have no real world analogues, the rules are permissive rather than restrictive. In other words, in something like being born without eyes (a very real world applicable concept) there needs to be a rule prohibiting it rather than a rule allowing it. So, in this case: Yes. Since there's no rule prohibiting starting blind, you may do so.

To argue otherwise removes not only the CRB's presumption of GM common sense being applied to the adjudication of the rules, it raises very ugly questions about inclusiveness that I'm quite sure Paizo would rather avoid.

Quote:
This may not seem fair to some here, but you have to also consider the rest of the people at a table, you are forcing your limitations and hindrances upon them for the sake of your concept. And since this is PFS and not a home group that could all discuss it and agree with it, that would be unfair... and it is why the rules exist requiring you to clear conditions in the first place.

If the build is able to support the party, then what's the difference? Would you complain about a sighted support character that makes no direct offensive contributions too?

For that matter, what about a simply sub-optimal build? Is it so WrongBad to play a 2h weapon martial w/o power attack that the character should be banned for being a hindrance?

Quote:
But lets say you were allowed to play and the group has a cleric or oracle and they walk up and cast remove blindness on you... are you going to argue? Try and refuse the spell or save against it? At that point you would be actively disrupting a game for the sake of your concept. And that is not fair.

Let's say a cleric insists on trying to heal a naturally-blind character. Who's truly violating the "Don't be a jerk" rule? The cleric's player is trying to "fix" another person's idea of fun.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

That's not a citation; that's your own synthesis of what you say is "RAI".

I'm not disparaging your synthesis.. just pointing out when it comes down to brass tacks, RAW does not support you. And in that position, you'll want to think twice, then thrice, about telling someone they can't play their character because you say it's not allowed when RAW does not back you up.


deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

That's not a citation; that's your own synthesis of what you say is "RAI".

I'm not disparaging your synthesis.. just pointing out when it comes down to brass tacks, RAW does not support you. And in that position, you'll want to think twice, then thrice, about telling someone they can't play their character because you say it's not allowed when RAW does not back you up.

RAW:

The Guide wrote:

Conditions, Death, and Expendables

When playing your own character, all conditions
(including death) not resolved within the scenario or
module must be resolved by the end of the adventure.

First complete paragraph in the subsection. So, sure they start blind, but the very first scenario the condition MUST be resolved by the end of the adventure.

Note the paragraph doesn't say conditions gained or received during the scenario/adventure, it says ALL conditions. Blindness is most certainly a condition.

Now, the section goes on to talk specifics about certain conditions you might gain during a scenario and some leeway for a few, but the baseline rule is you MUST resolve ALL by the end of the adventure.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

That's not a citation; that's your own synthesis of what you say is "RAI".

I'm not disparaging your synthesis.. just pointing out when it comes down to brass tacks, RAW does not support you. And in that position, you'll want to think twice, then thrice, about telling someone they can't play their character because you say it's not allowed when RAW does not back you up.

It takes a very selective unreading of the Guide to say that a player can be allowed to run a character with an affliction which the GUIDE itself says would end his career if it is not corrected by the end of the scenario.

I would also argue that a player who is intentionally running a character that would be a liability to his group, falls under the category of being a disruptive player. And a blind character to the extent that the OP wishes to run is going to be a liability.

Sovereign Court

Sniggevert wrote:
deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

That's not a citation; that's your own synthesis of what you say is "RAI".

I'm not disparaging your synthesis.. just pointing out when it comes down to brass tacks, RAW does not support you. And in that position, you'll want to think twice, then thrice, about telling someone they can't play their character because you say it's not allowed when RAW does not back you up.

RAW:

The Guide wrote:

Conditions, Death, and Expendables

When playing your own character, all conditions
(including death) not resolved within the scenario or
module must be resolved by the end of the adventure.

First complete paragraph in the subsection. So, sure they start blind, but the very first scenario the condition MUST be resolved by the end of the adventure.

Note the paragraph doesn't say conditions gained or received during the scenario/adventure, it says ALL conditions. Blindness is most certainly a condition.

Now, the section goes on to talk specifics about certain conditions you might gain during a scenario and some leeway for a few, but the baseline rule is you MUST resolve ALL by the end of the adventure.

That's called cherry picking your data.

As I acknowledged already, if you want to ignore chapter 5, you could read chapter 7 as applying to every condition in play at the end of the scenario rather than only those acquired during the course of the scenario. But as soon as someone points out chapter 5's reference, you see that natural blindness may be "resolved" by simply ignoring it. Actually, if you really want to go "RAW is LAW", Chapter 5 says you MUST ignore it as it wasn't gained during play.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

That's not a citation; that's your own synthesis of what you say is "RAI".

I'm not disparaging your synthesis.. just pointing out when it comes down to brass tacks, RAW does not support you. And in that position, you'll want to think twice, then thrice, about telling someone they can't play their character because you say it's not allowed when RAW does not back you up.

It takes a very selective unreading of the Guide to say that a player can be allowed to run a character with an affliction which the GUIDE itself says would end his career if it is not corrected by the end of the scenario.

I won't say I like "RAW is LAW", but PFS is what it is. The most cherished idea behind the paradigm however is to keep GMs from banning characters they don't like. That's quite relevant to remember in this discussion. If you don't like a character/concept, you MUST have RAW firmly on your side to say "You can't play that at my table.."

Quote:
I would also argue that a player who is intentionally running a character that would be a liability to his group, falls under the category of being a disruptive player. And a blind character to the extent that the OP wishes to run is going to be a liability.

Well, I won't argue at all with the first sentence. But that's a seperate argument. A well built, relevant character that happens to be blind should be offending noone.

OTOH, a character that turns out to be less-than-par, for whatever reason.. is still legal to play. It's possible, through extreme multiclassing, to build a level 11 character that still has +0 BaB and no spells higher than level 1. Should that be banned, too?


deusvult wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
deusvult wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The rules citation is the Campaign Guide. The Society won't send out members that have a crippling condition that won't be cured, so it ends the career of a blind or otherwise severely impaired character. By that logic, it certainly means that a Venture Captain isn't going to be calling on the services of such an impaired Pathfinder in the first place.

That's not a citation; that's your own synthesis of what you say is "RAI".

I'm not disparaging your synthesis.. just pointing out when it comes down to brass tacks, RAW does not support you. And in that position, you'll want to think twice, then thrice, about telling someone they can't play their character because you say it's not allowed when RAW does not back you up.

RAW:

The Guide wrote:

Conditions, Death, and Expendables

When playing your own character, all conditions
(including death) not resolved within the scenario or
module must be resolved by the end of the adventure.

First complete paragraph in the subsection. So, sure they start blind, but the very first scenario the condition MUST be resolved by the end of the adventure.

Note the paragraph doesn't say conditions gained or received during the scenario/adventure, it says ALL conditions. Blindness is most certainly a condition.

Now, the section goes on to talk specifics about certain conditions you might gain during a scenario and some leeway for a few, but the baseline rule is you MUST resolve ALL by the end of the adventure.

That's called cherry picking your data.

As I acknowledged already, if you want to ignore chapter 5, you could read chapter 7 as applying to every condition in play at the end of the scenario rather than only those acquired during the course of the scenario. But as soon as someone points out chapter 5's reference, you see that natural blindness may be "resolved" by simply ignoring it. Actually, if you...

That is Chapter 5, so no, you I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing it out to you. You seem to have skimmed it.

You're the one who's saying RAW regardless of common sense...

EDIT: And since most of the argument appears to be that the rest of chapter 5 is discussing conditions gained throughout the adventure, this is the only language that would include starting conditions, such as the one the OP wants in the Chapter.

Sovereign Court

Sniggevert wrote:

That is Chapter 5, so no, you I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing it out to you. You seem to have skimmed it.

You're the one who's saying RAW regardless of common sense...

Let's make it an exercise, then. I'll be the one playing a blind character, you're my GM.

You: Ok, scenario's over. You need to buy off blindness.

Me: Nuh uh.

You: Yes, you do. Look here: "When playing your own character, all conditions(including death) not resolved within the scenario or
module must be resolved by the end of the adventure." It's literally the first sentence under the chapter governing this stuff.

Me: Ok, fine. Let's look and see what it says about how to go about resolving it.

You: Well, you have to buy a Cure Blind...

Me (interrupting): Look here, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-6. My blindness condition is from birth, it does not qualify for mandatory buyoff since I didn't acquire it during this session.

You: But you can't end a scenario with blindness, per the line I already cited you. It's even got primacy since it's mentioned first.

Me: It doesn't say that at all. What it says it they "must be resolved". We go through the rules for resolving the condition, and it's explicitly clear that I don't have to buy it off. QED. Condition is addressed and discovered it can remain. It is thus "resolved", even if it isn't cured/removed. Here's my day job roll...


deusvult wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:

That is Chapter 5, so no, you I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing it out to you. You seem to have skimmed it.

You're the one who's saying RAW regardless of common sense...

Let's make it an exercise, then. I'll be the one playing a blind character, you're my GM.

You: Ok, scenario's over. You need to buy off blindness.

Me: Nuh uh.

You: Yes, you do. Look here: "When playing your own character, all conditions(including death) not resolved within the scenario or
module must be resolved by the end of the adventure." It's literally the first sentence under the chapter governing this stuff.

Me: Ok, fine. Let's look and see what it says about how to go about resolving it.

You: Well, you have to buy a Cure Blind...

Me (interrupting): Look here, 2nd paragraph, lines 1-6. My blindness condition is from birth, it does not qualify for mandatory buyoff since I didn't acquire it during this session.

You: But you can't end a scenario with blindness, per the line I already cited you. It's even got primacy since it's mentioned first.

Me: It doesn't say that at all. What it says it they "must be resolved". We go through the rules for resolving the condition, and it's explicitly clear that I don't have to buy it off. QED. Condition is "resolved". Here's my day job roll...

GM: OK. [fills out game report] check, character dead.

Being bull headed either does either side any favors. It's supposed to be a communal game.

And I don't know where you're coming up with the reading for the bolded part as to what constitutes resolved.

Grand Lodge

I Imagine a character similar to Ricky Bobby from Talladega Nights pre stabbing himself in the leg.

XYZ was subject to a Blindness/Deafnes spell at some point early in his Society career and was traumatized. Despite a remove Blindness being cast to remove it, XYZ still believes he is blind. You won't take any penalties, yes, but you could roleplay being blind and make decisions as if you were.

For bonus points you could name your characted Ricky and try to adapt his persona for a few laughs. Or claim you just guessed where something was correctly and your 'supernatural senses' help you overcome you disability.

Sovereign Court

Sniggevert wrote:

GM: OK. [fills out game report] check, character dead.

Being bull headed either does either side any favors. It's supposed to be a communal game.

You'll (in this hypothetical example) be hearing from VOs after they overturn the death. I may have been a bull-headed jerk, but now you're on record as maliciously (and falsely) reporting a character as dead.

Quote:
And I don't know where you're coming up with the reading for the bolded part as to what constitutes resolved.

resolved != cured.

resolved = 1)check to see if qualifying condition(s) exist. 2)If so, check for rules on addressing what action(s) are required. 3)If none are required, then you're done. "Resolved" is accomplished.

I'm looking at step 2 & 3 to explain why a naturally born-blind condition can be "resolved" as being left alone. The rules for how to address blindness explicitly state it only has to be cured/removed if it was acquired during the session.

if there's concern about blindness having been acquired durning a previous session w/o being properly bought off, then auditing the character fixes that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thewms wrote:

I Imagine a character similar to Ricky Bobby from Talladega Nights pre stabbing himself in the leg.

XYZ was subject to a Blindness/Deafnes spell at some point early in his Society career and was traumatized. Despite a remove Blindness being cast to remove it, XYZ still believes he is blind. You won't take any penalties, yes, but you could roleplay being blind and make decisions as if you were.

For bonus points you could name your characted Ricky and try to adapt his persona for a few laughs. Or claim you just guessed where something was correctly and your 'supernatural senses' help you overcome you disability.

And that, as long as it doesn't bog down the table, is perfectly fine by me. It's flavor, that's all. It's when you start including mechanical issues it starts to become a problem and will bog down a table in minutiae.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is absolutely NOTHING in chapter 5 which refers to natural blindness or natural handicaps or any of that "born with it" crap. The text is clearly written with the assumption that characters are not starting the scenario with what would be described as a crippling handicap, of which blindness is clearly defined as in regards as conditions that must be fixed at the end of a scenario if the character is not to be removed from play.

You have provided NOTHING which says that a character can begin a scenario with a career ending condition.

I have made my opinion and my position as a PFS Judge known. I have also stated what I will do as a PFS Judge if you or anyone else brings such a character to a table I run.

If you wish to message Mr. Brock or campaign leadership to censure me on my position, I invite you to do so.

Otherwise, I'm done with this topic.


deusvult wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:

GM: OK. [fills out game report] check, character dead.

Being bull headed either does either side any favors. It's supposed to be a communal game.

You'll (in this hypothetical example) be hearing from VOs after they overturn the death. I may have been a bull-headed jerk, but now you're on record as maliciously (and falsely) reporting a character as dead.

By all means, contact them. Best of luck with restoring your blind character who failed to resolve a condition by willful negligence. Reporting such is neither malicious or false, by my reading, and for interpretation of rules interactions table judges are the arbiters.

I disagree with your resolved analysis. To resolve something is to deal with it. To resolve a permanent effect, you must permanently deal with it. If it keeps coming up each and every chronicle time, the situation has not been resolved.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
There is absolutely NOTHING in chapter 5 which refers to natural blindness or natural handicaps or any of that "born with it" crap.

It does explicitly refer to curing/removing qualifying conditions only when they were acquired during the session. It doesn't get any more simple or black/white than that, really.

Quote:
The text is clearly written with the assumption that characters are not starting the scenario with what would be described as a crippling handicap, of which blindness is clearly defined as in regards as conditions that must be fixed at the end of a scenario if the character is not to be removed from play.

Says you. I say that since character audits are not only legal but expected, it is audits that are intended to catch conditions that weren't satisfactorily bought off. You're presuming that you know what they meant even when they said what they said. And you're presuming that your opinion trumps their words that are in your opinion "in error".

Quote:
You have provided NOTHING which says that a character can begin a scenario with a career ending condition.

You say "cite me a rule that says you can". I say the rules don't work that way; "cite me a rule that says you can't". Prove to me that in PFS I may not make a character with a birth defect. Only in cases where the rules diverge from real-world analogues do the rules become restrictive rather than permissive.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

As others have pointed out, your friend may be amazing and inspirational to you, but she's not actively seeking high conflict situations that are often resolved by violence.

That's sort of what you're doing in Society though.


For the record, I'm all about letting someone play their concept. The blind character sounds neat to me. Just do it within the rules.

I don't think what deusvult is suggesting would fly at any table.

Wear a blindfold. If you need to resolve it at the end of the day. Take off the blindfold. You fluff it as your character is blind and move on.

Cast blindness on yourself. At the end of the scenario, Dismiss the blindness. Mechanically you are blind. Fluff wise, you are blind. You just happen to get one less second level spell, every now and again, from your god.

Cut open your own eyes and cast remove blindness. Whatever floats your boat.

Just do it within the writ of the rules.

Also, talk to your GM ahead of time. I can't say that enough. Finding out at the end of the scenario that your GM is going to kill your character (entirely within their purview if you refuse to have that blindness off your sheet) is a thing you should know before the scenario, not after.


If I was to ever build blind character in PFS, I'd probably do a character with the Cave domain and get tremorsense at level 6. Then walk around with a blindfold lol.

Liberty's Edge

Id recommend just going with what Skaldi said, wear a blindfold until you get Blindness/Deafness and then just not care from there.

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and locking this one. It looks like the original poster has gotten a variety of responses to move forward with, and we'd rather not have this turn into an ugly semantic debate.

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / a blind pfs character All Messageboards
Recent threads in Advice