Crayon's page

591 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 591 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Liked: Simple unified mechanics.

Wanted: Feat-less variant

Hated: Excessive customization

Will Miss: Nowt (still playing)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
smaggi wrote:
So far, I hate 2E, it's the worst of D&D's 4E with 5E gimping. Sure, there was a lot of rules bloat in 1E but you don't have to use everything, if you keep it simple and gradually integrate. However, 2E and D&D 5E will get right back to rules creep because of eonomics, selling one-shot modules and adventure paths don't pay the bills, sourcebooks in which everyone in the group "must own" does.

5e seems to be doing OK so far with a limited release schedule. Paizo likely could too though I think it's unlikely that they'll actually do so.

I do think Paizo would like to put some brakes on the supplement treadmill as well - that business model's pretty much dead as it is and beyond a certain point you're just competing against your own product which means greater overhead/production costs for the same income.

Personally, I don't really care for either game - too modular for my tastes, but there's no point dwelling on that. Just play something you do like instead.


The lack of compatibility between PF2 and its predecessor was both explicitly mentioned by the developers in the lead-up to the playtest well over a year ago and, frankly, was obvious anyway.

The utility of this guide then is primarily for people who don't frequent the Paizo website - ie. not any of us.


Mantriel wrote:

I am trying to put money aside for Pathfinder 2e.

If I would like to buy everything from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game/Pathfinder Rulebook, the Pathfinder Adventure Path and all of the setting materials, how much money should I put aside each month? (No pawns, flip mats, miniatures, cards, character sheets, modules or society scenarios.)

I guess one campaign setting book every quarter for 25$ (perhaps every two months?)
One new big hardcover every quarter for 55$
Adventure Path each month for 25$
I am not sure about the companion line.

25*0.5+55*0,25+2=51,25$ each month?

Play from the SRD = $0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most Move actions, Standard action, etc are treated identically under the rules though which is most definitely not true of PF2 where they're still subdivided up into lots of categories that reflect how they function.

In practice it's no better than PF1 and arguably worse since at least in PF1 almost everything was followed the rules for either standard, move, or full-round.


SoulDragon298 wrote:
Been a while since I’ve been on these boards, and a whole new edition of Pathfinder is upon us. I was wondering what some of the changes are between first and second edition. I remember a friend of mine showing me stuff from the playtest, and tbh, I really didn’t like what I saw. But now that the full version is out (or at least, I think it is), what are the major (and any minor) changes between editions?

A lot. Probably be easier to list the similarities.

Both use d20 for their core mechanic
Both use Vancian casting (at least in part)
Both have a similar complement of Classes and Races/Ancestries (though some are almost unrecognizable)
The six Ability Scores are unchanged as is Alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another problem I noticed is that a lot of the sheet is wasted at low levels


Hmm perhaps it might be advisable to just have new players write their stats down on a sheet of ruled notebook paper?

It would be less 'intimidating' looking and would probably have sufficient space for a starting character to write down most of the pertinent information...


MongrelHorde wrote:

Logically I don't think this is true for a few reasons. If the main driving force for older (and/or more experienced) players was complexity of a given system people would not have rebuked 4E and moved to Pathfinder.

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

Finally, if that were true across time (more simpler systems being more attractive) there would be large groups of people who would play with no system and would just play out a story.

One mustn't underestimate the importance of inertia.

People tend to keep doing what they're doing unless some new force is introduced into their system.

Anyway, I don't think complexity is necessarily THE driving factor, but I do think it's an important one and more likely to dissuade 5e players from trying PF2 than it is to act as a draw.

I'm also not sure 4e was much less complex than 3.5 it just had its complexity in different places than previous editions (and places I'd much rather remain simple and highly abstracted). As for the rest, lots of gamers do freeform RP either instead of, or in addition to, more conventional RPGs.

An anecdote: I was a playtester for Ars Magica 5th Edition and thus learned about Dies Irae and the end of that game-line about a year before the general public and almost instantly things changed.

My saga was largely unaffected and continued until pretty recently, but lot of the mental energy that I had previously devoted to that game and its content was left without an outlet - my interest in new books decreased, I didn't visit the forums as frequently as I used to, and I started looking at other games again - something I hadn't done with any seriousness in almost a decade.

In the end, I spent most of the time and money I put toward gaming getting reacquainted with old friends like Call of Cthulhu and GURPS, but I could just as easily have picked a new system in that turmoil. It didn't matter that I could (and in fact did) just keep playing 5e because playing the game is just one way that I engaged with it.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
The scimitar thing really never made much sense. But really the entire idea of the D&D druid didn't really make much sense when you think about it. Scimitars are nothing like sickles other than both have curved blades, but that was enough to make it the iconic weapon for them. The absurdity of the no metal armor, even though all other metal is fine, just not if it gives an armor bonus has already been discussed. The fey cold iron thing doesn't hold up considering cold iron is a different material than standard iron in Pathfinder, and there is no exception for things like copper where they have no issues at all. The no metal at all version is even more absurd. But even the concept of them being fantasy environmentalists was more or less invented out of whole cloth with some highly romanticized ideas of historical druids for inspiration. Historically they revered nature, as they were animists, but there was none of the "I need to protect the forest from being cut down, even though I use wood all the time." that has come in through D&D. I suspect that came from the times, and the new-age revival that was going on with ties to the growing environmentalism movement. Basically, I blame hippies. So with a mixed up origin like that, it's no surprise that they don't really hold up to scrutiny. But also because it really has little connection to it's inspiration, the grandfathered ideas about what a druid is, are basically all it has.

Well, I mean the scimitar *does* still have a crescent-shaped blade which gives the moon symbolism that's appropriate to both versions of the druid.


Samurai wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I like the post from the guy who said the people who say PF2 is copying off of 4E should have a debate with the people who say PF2 is copying off of 5E.

Obviously copying off of 4E would be a terrible idea. Since, even its publishers abandoned it after only a few years.
I feel like PF2 will be... PF2.
Yep, and I wonder how many 5E players will move over to it as well, not because 5E is bad (it isn't, it's the best edition of D&D in many years), but because Pathfinder has a lot more character customization. Most classes in 5E only get a feat every 4 levels, and most classes have several fairly dead levels. When players see just how much customization Pathfinder allows, I think for some players it will be a revelation.

I'm guessing very few.

It's all well and good to talk about character customization, 'depth' and so on, but in my experience most groups tend to gravitate towards simpler systems as their players increase in age and experience within the hobby.

It is debatable whether PF2 is more or less complicated than PF1, but it is definitely more complicated than D&D 5e so I just can't see many groups making the change particularly as 5e is at least as ubiquitous as Pathfinder these days if not more so...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
Those are... very blue and beige. They're a bit of an eyesore.

You're not wrong, but that seems to be par for the course where colour CSs are concerned - just stick with the printer-friendly one.


Cydeth wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Cydeth wrote:


Of all things, it was the art that nearly drove me away from PF2. I figure I'll get the first few books, then make a decision.
I wonder if your dislike of the art comes from the playtest rulebook or the recently published blogs?
It wasn't the playtest art for me, as I commission a fair amount of art and sketches are always weird. What had me unhappy were the vast majority of new iconics. I only changed my mind when I saw art from the interior of the new Bestiary and Core Rules, but if the art starts veering back toward what I've seen for the new iconics, I'm going to drop PF2.

New Iconics? I thought there was only one (Fumbrus)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zean wrote:

So I was reading the Paizo Blog post, Adventure Marches On

And I noticed this

Pathfinder 2nd Edition wrote:


Brutish Shove
Feat 2
Keywords: Fighter, Press
Requirements: You are wielding a two-handed melee weapon.

Effect: Throwing your weight behind your attack, you hit your opponent hard enough to make it stumble back. Make a Strike with a two-handed melee weapon. If you hit a target that is your size or smaller, that creature is flat-footed until the end of your current turn, and you can automatically Shove it, with the same benefits as the Shove action (including the critical success effect, if your Strike was a critical hit). If you move to follow the target, your movement doesn't trigger reactions.

This strike has the following failure effect.
Failure: The target becomes flat-footed until the end of your current turn.

And I was reminded of the D&D 4E Power, Tide of Iron:

Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition wrote:


Tide of Iron
At-Will
Keywords: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Requirement: using a shield
Target: one creature
Attack: Strength vs AC
Flavor Text: After each mighty swing, you bring your shield to bear and use it to push your enemy back.
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size category larger. You can shift into the space that the target occupied.

Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.

Now obviously the maneuvers are still different. Notably:

  • - Brutish Shove requires a Two-Hander while Tide of Iron requires a Shield
  • - Brutish Shove inflicts the Flat-Footed condition, even on a Failure (but not a Critical Failure).
  • - Brutish Shove has the Press trait, meaning it cannot be the first attack
...

Unknown and probably unknowable.

PF2's mechanics doesn't really seem to have any more in common with D&D 4e than they do with 5e so I don't think there's any direct connection there.

Ultimately though, to what extent, if any, PF2 borrows from 4e is purely an academic matter and the system needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

The only thing it really seems to be actively emulating from 4e is that game's emphasis on tactical movement and combat which, for me, is reason enough to avoid it, but ultimately it will depend on what aspects of 4e you liked or loathed.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.

If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.

I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.

Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.

This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.

The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.


Voss wrote:
Crayon wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'd wait on the SRD before deciding
I would actually recommend not doing this. I find SRDs a good way to reference information, but a bad way to learn the information. If $15 isn't too much money for you, I'd definitely recommend purchasing it.

Agreed. I was recommending perusal of the SRD to get a sense of whether or not PF2 is a system you actually want to learn which I think it should prove adequate for.

As for actually learning the rules from an SRD, it would admittedly be a challenge (at best) due to the layout if nothing else

I'm not seeing this. RPG books are reference materials, they don't need to be read in a strict order. Unless the SRD version ends up abysmally nested with no links or sidebar/top bar menus, material is more accessible, not less.

Learning rules is a matter of flowing from one topic to the next, which can easily be done on modern webpages.

And while hopefully they are not, if the final books are as badly edited and organized as the playtest, an SRD website version will be a flat out far superior way of learning the rules.

An interesting position.

How do you feel the PF1 versions of the core and its SRD compare to each other in that respect?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'd wait on the SRD before deciding
I would actually recommend not doing this. I find SRDs a good way to reference information, but a bad way to learn the information. If $15 isn't too much money for you, I'd definitely recommend purchasing it.

Agreed. I was recommending perusal of the SRD to get a sense of whether or not PF2 is a system you actually want to learn which I think it should prove adequate for.

As for actually learning the rules from an SRD, it would admittedly be a challenge (at best) due to the layout if nothing else


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Alternately, take a look at the playtest files if you can find them anywhere (I'm told Paizo pulled them from this site).

They just moved the playtest files.

- Original version and update 1.1

- Update 1.6

I still have my copies, but thanks anyway...


I'd wait on the SRD before deciding, it's only a few more weeks. That said, we've already made our decision to pass based on the playtest and previews.

Alternately, take a look at the playtest files if you can find them anywhere (I'm told Paizo pulled them from this site). Certain things have no doubt changed in the final draft, but it will give you an idea of the new core mechanics and the general direction the game is headed.


swoosh wrote:

Clicked this thread interested to see what people had to say about the way the game was played and the mechanics described in the blog.

Did not expect five pages of people arguing over how long a week is. Or that and darkvision is too confusing of a phrase for the average group.

This fanbase. I think I finally get why so many people say screw it and just go play 5e instead.

I know it's a joke, but that's what my group and I recently decided to do. We passed originally due to some annoying bits, but with some judicious application of houserules I do think it'll be a better fit for us than PF2...


Magic isn't beholden mortal reckoning (which would likely vary by region anyway) so with month I would presume we're talking about a standard lunar month of 28 days (or whatever the equivalent is on Golarion). Essentially this is the same as Year or Day though the question of whether we're talking about a 'full X' or merely 'until the next X' will likely have to be resolved elsewhere.

My own preference (as a GM) is for strong guidelines that I can then use to make informed decisions as befits the situation. For this reason, I tend to favour lighter systems than PF2 looks to be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You realize all of this is pointless without some objective measure of whether a given character is 'playable' or not.

Having myself participated in many session with characters that the denizens of this board would decry as non-viable, I really do think some people have very odd standards on this...


Temperans wrote:

Hmm that's one thing that people supporting PF2e apparently dont get.

PF1E IS BUILT OF MATH BUFFS.

Everything in the system is made so that low level characters are very weak, and every feat, item, class, skill, trait, etc. is made to make that weak character not weak. That was done by using Math buffs while also adding some new abilities every so often.

They keep saying how everyone just took Math feats, but half the feats people with system mastery picked arent even Math fixes (unless they were pre-reqs). A lot of the feats they take enable you to do something different with your resources, while pushing what ever parameter you were trying to max: Besides what choice is there when its expected to have X amount of stats or you just get poofed?

Example: I was once playing Kingmaker as a Summoner with a Bodyguard Eidolon, I meant it to go in front of me at all times unless I wanted to use Summon Monster. Well the GM decided to send us into the room and I was placed as the second to enter. Zombies appeared ate my brain and I failed the save, I died the next round.

Anyways my point is that PF2e solved the Math fix problem, they solved the feat tax problem, they solved the skills arent very useful for mosts problem, they fixed the magic item reliance problem: An then they go backwards and mess with Archetypes, Multiclassing, Class ability/Feat progression. Its to the point where any character that wanted to just dip for X archetype, while it self having Y archetype and Z feat needs to use up 5-7 class feats, that's (if I did the math correctly) at least 10th level. You know how soon that was available in PF1e? 2nd level, and you still had all your feats and class abilities from both classes.

Controversial. I'm not sure PF2 solved any of those...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if you like Feats (eww), it's hard for me to see how anyone could think there're too few of them in PF2. It seems very much the opposite as far as I'm concerned...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The 3.X system (Skill Ranks & BAB & Save Modifiers...) seems pretty different from the 5e's level-based Proficiency modifiers and PF2's Proficiency + Level system. I'd call that more than just terminology.

This is fair, but in terms of skills specifically, PF2's skill system isn't very similar to 4E or 5E's either. Both of those are binary in different ways (you either have skills or you do not...there are a few exceptions in 5E who get Expertise, but it's generally a Class Feature, and even that is only three levels of skill).

PF2's mid point, with Skill Ranks, but only in limited numbers and adding level to all trained skills, plus larger bonuses at more training, has as much in common with the Skill Points of 3.5 as it does with that.

It's also a much more robust skill system than...quite possibly any other D&D/PF iteration simply because of the major subsystem that is Skill Feats.

They're all Ability+Skill+d20 at their core they're just adapted to different rates of scaling DCs.

Pass/Fail is easier to adjudicate, more balances, and easier to use in play than the graded model PF2 utilizes.

As for Skill Feats, we've had Feat taxes in 3e and 4e as well. Doing away with the awful things was one of 5e's greatest triumphs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My limited understanding is that both methods are used in qigong. Colloquially, they're referred to as Buddhist and Taoist breathing and have very different purposes in the meditations, but I can't expound further than that as my personal experiences were both very limited and happened over a decade ago...


GentleGiant wrote:


The overall ABC process, no, why would it? The options you have to choose between have changed and/or expanded, though. They've rewritten several of the ancestry options between the playtest and the final version.

I guess I just expected blog to preview something that hasn't been, I dunno, previewed multiple times in the past...


Squiggit wrote:
I'm not quite sure why it's a bad thing for a high level character to pick up a feat and gain a bunch of cool benefits. They're quite literally 'legendary' after all.

'Cool' is very subjective and PF2 characters are already cluttered up with large numbers of highly situational abilities that might come up once or twice per campaign if you're lucky.


Not to sound rude or ungrateful as I do appreciate the effort, but at a glance it doesn't seem like much, if anything, has changed in the char-gen protocol since the playtest first dropped 11 months ago...

*confused*


By all means correct me if I'm wrong (we only played a few sessions and nobody was a Paladin), but I'm quite sure Paizo did cite 'armour-use' as the class's proposed niche in this new edition.


I have given some consideration to the idea as it would seem to mitigate some of PF2's problems, but there are too many other systems that fill the niche far better to really make it worthwhile IMO.


PF2 really isn't very similar to 3e - it shares as many, if not more, design elements with 4e and 5e...


PFSocietyInitiate wrote:

I'd like a martial class built around charisma which strengthens yourself and your allies. I imagine you would need a spell pool or something similar to balance it since it would be pretty broken to apply a bonus as strong as rage to everyone in your party while it'd be boring to have bonuses significantly weaker than rage.

Ability paths could include one focused on enhancing yourself, enhancing 1-2 people or enhancing a large group.

You could give yourself/others re-rolls, temporary HP, extra movement, extra actions, bonus to AC or attack.

Ideally this class would be as good at supporting others as the bard but in a martial twist.

I think Marshal would be a good name for it for obvious reasons.

Sounds like a concept that would work fine with at least 4 existing classes (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer)


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Which was a bigger "bloat" problem- there were 30ih classes or there were 10,000 feats?

I never had a problem with too many classes, since "class" is a top level choice- I know right away whether I do or do not want to play a Bloodrager or a Spiritualist. PF1 could have had 4 times as many classes and "picking a class" would still be a lot easier than "picking spells."

More like 40ish, but that's nipicking.

Even at it's most charitable, however, that seems more like an argument for reigning in the number of Feats - or better yet, omitting them from the game altogether - than for adding even more redundant classes to a game that arguably has too many already.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Few if any.

The class bloat of PF1 was one of its worst features and the new class design should make it possible to represent a much broader subset of character types with each individual class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With the benefit of retrospect, a lot of my complaints with the art have come down to pose and positioning and probably results in the pictures having to be dynamic and exciting, but without anything to give them context.

I may not know why Kyra's standing with her legs spread so wide or why Amiri's making that duck-face, but while they do look a bit weird at times, it's ultimately preferable to the characters looking as though they were posing for DMV photos (Harsk does come close, but it kinda works for a dwarf)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the cloak makes it easy to imagine shoulders so that's a plus and this dress is nicer than... whatever she was wearing prior.

That said, her legs are oddly far apart and she's wearing a weird grimace for some reason (maybe she got lunch at the same place as Amiri and it ain't sitting right?)


Kelvorn wrote:

We are a family of Pathfinder Players. I DM three different groups (friends, coworkers, and family).

Well about three weeks ago they discovered 2e and now almost want to just completely retire the current games due to anticipation and excitement.

I had pondered an idea to use the playtest rules and have them roll up some characters and maybe play some dungeon crawls and what not for the next three months but given that much has/will be changing from the playtest I am not sure that is a good idea. Learning new rules just to relearn new rules can be hard.

Anyone else suffering from this "Stalemate" situation that I have found myself and my groups in?

Won't be making the switch myself, but depending on how frequently you conduct sessions, 3 months seems like the ideal amount of time for you to wrap up the main storyline of your current campaign in time to start fresh in August


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Bernard wrote:
I like the changes. I still think the shield should be a kite shield but at least the tower shield is appropriate for a heavily armored warrior. I don't understand the choice of a long bow over a short bow.

Unless Seelah's 8-9 feet tall now, that looks like a shortbow to me.


Armour's a bit more form-fitting than I'd have liked, but even without the pauldrons she does, at least, appear to possess shoulders so that's something.

Her face looked a bit deformed in the thumbnail too, but it disappeared after clicking on the illustration.


Bardarok wrote:
Crayon wrote:
As with the rest of the PF2 iconics, I think his shoulders and feet look a bit odd, but otherwise not much to talk about.
They really are all narrow shouldered now. It made sense for the halfling, gnome, and elf I guess since they were non-human. And it seemed like there was a story reason why the barbarian would be, at first glance, a bit scrawny. But it's standing out as strange with this guy and the dwarf.

I can kinda see it with Halfling if you were making them tunnel-dwellers like hobbits - where a lack of collarbones would aid them in wriggling through tight spaces, but in most of the other cases they probably oughtn't to have arms growing out of their necks - it is also possible they're wearing some sort of shoulder-pads under their clothes, I suppose...


I like that he's no longer wearing scratch-sleeves like an infant. He looks a bit older too as well as being of slighter build.

As with the rest of the PF2 iconics, I think his shoulders and feet look a bit odd, but otherwise not much to talk about.


I suspect it's gone. The new Ancestry mechanics seem like they'd make Reincarnation a huge hassle to integrate - it also doesn't neatly fit into the current magic paradigm very well either.


Symb10nt wrote:
Will switching a character from Pathfinder to Second Edition be easy or difficult?

PF2 really isn't close enough to PF1 mechanically for converting characters to really be practical.

At best, you may be able to recreate your PCs from the ground-up..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chakat Firepaw wrote:

I wouldn't say cuter, but the older ones don't scream "the art director said make them cute and marketable," to me.

TBH, I've never really been a fan of that set of proportions. It works for comedic and it works for being creepy but outside of that I have almost never come across it working.

The old kobolds had an awkward gangly appearance that I found endearing while the new ones look more muscular and imposing to me...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

YMMV, but for my money the old kobolds were cuter. *shrug*


Glad to hear that they've settled the ear thing (for now, at least). Lini does look pretty similar to her previous iteration. She does look a bit taller than before, but that could just be an optical illusion from her being slimmer now.

Droogami's paws almost looks to be plantigrade, however, which is a bit strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, his head looks less triangular now that it's coloured which is good, but the anatomy still strikes me as 'off' somehow. Particularly with regard his neck and shoulders...


Ssalarn wrote:

I'm kind of curious about when the brutish dwarves with axes trope really got locked in to how people interpret fantasy. I don't think it was Tolkein; Thorin Oakenshield used a sword as did several other dwarves, and dwarves have been considered skilled craftspeople across a broad range of franchises.

Was it Gimil from the Lord of the RIngs, the dwarf in green from Golden Axe, or is it something that's just kind of slowly gained momentum a piece at a time because of how the classic portrayal of dwarves meshed with D&D mechanics?

I'm all for new concepts and broader categories. If the ranger being a dwarf is a clear signal that Pathfinder is not the same game as D&D, great. If Paizo gets a little weirder and wilder as they embrace their own brand, even better. Maybe we'll get a CG Halfling Champion (Liberator) iconic who wears full plate and wields a slingstaff. I legitimately think that would be sweet.

IIRC, 'The Hobbit' described Dain's army as being armed primarily with axes and mattocks.

Possibly also a nod to the race's origins in Norse mythology.

As far as my own critique goes, this new Harsk seems to lack kneecaps. The expression is interesting too my first thought was some kind of mind-control, but maybe just Dwarven stoicism?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Always thought it was 'Kee-ra'

Apart from that, it's pretty good though her legs seem awfully far apart which conveys a more stable approach to combat as oppose to the mobility being cited in the video - though perhaps she just completed spin and is regaining her footing...

1 to 50 of 591 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>