Hellknight

HeHateMe's page

Organized Play Member. 973 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 973 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

SuperBidi wrote:
lemeres wrote:
While 6th seems a bit later, the consistent extra persistent damage is not really something to sneeze at. It also come right when you would also be able to grab reach at the same time.

Wild Morph is extremely valid. I made damage simulations between a wild shaped druid and a wild morphed one. Wild morph was obviously behind, but not that much to not be an option. And it allows you to continue casting spells.

6th level is the sweet spot where wild morph starts to really be a thing.

I've had trouble understanding the spell heightening by level, does Heightened (6th) mean 6th character level, or when you are able to cast 6th level spells? Two very different meanings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought it said "Citrus Weapons" lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just choose Acid or Electricity, hardly anything resists those.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's poorly done that in a book titled "Gods and Magic" there are only THREE Divine spells. That's it. Also, there aren't any decent feats for Cloistered Clerics.

On the bright side, the extra gods were a welcome addition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group is going through Age of Ashes right now and there are more flying creatures in that campaign than any other I've ever seen. My Frog Barbarian is doing just fine, kicking ass.

It's just a matter of playing smart. Don't rage right away if you think there's any chance the monsters will fly. Rage only takes one action, so you can rage once you close into melee range and are relatively sure the monsters won't fly away.

If the monsters fly, shoot them with a ranged weapon. I recommend compound bows. At higher levels you have other ways of dealing with them, like Sudden Leap. People act like Barbarians are helpless without rage, and it's just not true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Or don't rage and use a ranged weapon. Something you said you didn't want to do.
The problem is less 'don't rage and use a ranged weapon' and more that in the scenario the OP describes means they either stands around doing nothing for 9 rounds or gives up the ability to rage for the rest of the day.

One of the conditions of Rage is that there have to be "enemies you can perceive". If you're caught raging with flying bad guys, just run out of the room so you can't see them, then you can drop out of rage and use ranged weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most flying enemies are pretty obvious, they have wings and such. So what I do with my Frog Barbarian is just use my compound shortbow or throw javelins instead of raging. Arrows and javelins don't do quite as much damage, but it's not bad either.

Later on, you can enchant them so you can be even better at ranged combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
prileska wrote:

As title, torn between the two.

One hand is my old, 55yr old angry old dude, taking dragon spit and dragon prince, tattoo line of feats, multiclassing into runescarred, Dragonbarb. It's a cool theme, half naked, buff tattooed old guy with red hair, draconian eyes, etc.

Other hand is a half elf human Barb sorc, going elf atavism to ancient elf for sorc, instead of tattoos, going sorcerer casting feats, still going with dragon ancestry stuff though, again, thematics.

On the third hand, because why not, is a titan Barb. Was thinking hobgoblin half orc, not going caster options, just pumping up reach with a big axe, cleaving and whirlwinding.

Any suggestions, options I'm not thinking of?

Going Barb 100%, we got a goblin range rogue, a cleric healer, and a dragonblood sorc.

I'd go with Dragon Barbarian, personally. Giant Barb is too much of a glass cannon. They hit hard but they're too easy to crit and go down way too fast. They're fragile, and for me, that ruins the whole Barbarian vibe.

That said, you may like different things than I do. These are just my personal thoughts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

Spellcasters have been severely nerved by the new action economy. Last time I played my 1st edition Cleric could move, use my shield for AC, make a knowledge check, maintain a spell (e.g. Bless) and cast a new spell all in one round. Now I would need 6 actions / round to do so.

I concur with the OP that the current spellcasters dilemma is not so much about what mundane things to do when you have already cast a 2-action spell as there are plenty of simple actions for that but about what spells to cast when you already did two mundane things, e.g. after you moved and raised your shield.

All the while melees that could either move and attack or do a full attack can now do all the fancy stuff.

I agree, though I'd like to point out that the "Raise a Shield" action gimped martials as well. It was an absolutely terrible idea to make using a shield an action.

Lesson learned, my next character will be using a two-handed weapon instead of a shield.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I quite like the 2e backgrounds system as well, it's fun and flavorful.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The other major issue is that the core book straight lies to you about Mutagenist being a viable option. The drawbacks to most of the mutagens are horribly crippling. That, combined with only having light armor proficiency means there's no place for the Mutagenist in melee combat.

The only combat focused Mutagen I've seen that doesn't have a crippling drawback is the Energy Mutagen. Of course, it happens to be Uncommon so getting access to it is entirely up to the GM.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's because 2e Alchemist is an extremely poorly designed class. If you wanna play a skill monkey, Rogue is way better. If you play a healer, Cleric, Druid, and divine Sorcerers are way better. If you wanna play a skill monkey and healer, Bard is way better.

Alchemist isn't good at anything really, except crafting. I'd recommend playing something else.


Just take the Conversion Inquisition, that lets you use Wis instead of Cha for all social skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
That said, 5e had been out for like 5 years and has had only two player-facing books come out in all that time (Core Rulebook and Xanathar's). So, I actually wasn't far off.
5e doesn't really do "GMs only" books, and you've left out Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, Acquisitions Incorporated, and Eberron: Rising from the Last War that are each more player-facing than not.

A few pages of options in a 100+ page book isn't useful to me. I didn't forget those books, I left them out because those are examples of what I don't want Paizo doing. As far as I'm concerned, unless a book is mostly character options, it's not worth my money. Of the 5e books I've seen, only Xanathar's fits that description.

I'm not bringing this up to crap on 5e, I'm bringing this up to say I want Paizo to go a different direction. There's more than one valid approach after all. Just my perspective, I don't claim to speak for anyone else.


thenobledrake wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
If you want a game where 5 years go by without a new book coming out, there's 5e.
That actually happened? Is Hasbro trying to kill D&D???

Pretty sure that the answer to the first question is "no."

Not gonna go check to be sure, but I recall there being a new book every year even if you don't count the published adventures.

As for them trying to kill D&D, it clearly doesn't matter that they do it but... kinda, yeah, they keep doing stuff like having their adventure products have random bad mechanics that ignore already established mechanics (like an adventure which has a party roll stealth and every 2 failures results in a random encounter, instead of using the random encounter rules from the DMG), or just have really inflexible or outright shoddily written plot lines (one of their newer adventures reads like a cranky kid that wants their friend to play their story their way with it's 'this NPC could legally kill the characters for not doing what he wants, but he's being nice right now' nonsense).

But none of that matters because they keep the attention focused on "D&D is a fun thing to do with friends, and all these celebrities love it" instead of on the details of the game materials themselves.

Well, my comment was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek. That said, 5e had been out for like 5 years and has had only two player-facing books come out in all that time (Core Rulebook and Xanathar's). So, I actually wasn't far off.

Almost all of their books have been published adventures or bestiaries, for GMs only. That's not the direction I want 2e to go. I don't want a dumbed-down, basic game for noobs. I want depth, I want options.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder has always been geared towards a fanbase that prizes customization. In general, we want more clssses, feats, archetypes, etc.

If you want a game where 5 years go by without a new book coming out, there's 5e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Given that much classes + 4 new ones, i would prefer more archetypes instead of classes.

Couldn't disagree more, the archetype/multiclassing system is pure awful. I'd prefer more classes, the ones we have so far are all cookie cutter and completely unoriginal. The martial classes are pretty much all the same, and the caster classes are pretty much the same.

I want original classes, ones that break the mold. Just my .02, I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
In 1e you had plenty of choices if you wanted to go that route: Inquisitor, Hunter, Bard, Occultist, Magus, Alchemist, Spiritualist, Skald, etc.

And how many books did all those take?

Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, Occult Adventures, Ultimate Magic.

I agree Rysky, that's the point I'm trying to make. There's plenty of ideas for additional content, Paizo doesn't need to slow down or stop making books, as some people seem to think.


The other issue is that the classes in the CRB and even the ones announced in the playtest are a bit...cookie cutter. All the frontline melee classes seem the same, and the casters seem the same. Don't get me wrong, I still really like 2e, I just feel that there are many different types of classes and playstyles that haven't even been explored.

For example, a melee caster (or Gish). The closest 2e comes to this type of character is the Warpriest, which is pretty badly designed. Actually Cleric in general was poorly designed. In 1e you had plenty of choices if you wanted to go that route: Inquisitor, Hunter, Bard, Occultist, Magus, Alchemist, Spiritualist, Skald, etc.

Even with the new APG classes, this type of character doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty big void that could be filled in the somewhat near future with a new book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not concerned, I want more options. Frankly, 2e is really thin on decent build options. Particularly for casters, who are mostly awful.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter is one of the better classes in 2e. If you're looking at the Fighter edition by edition, 2e Fighter far surpasses 1e Fighter. It's not even a contest.


Gishes are so popular that I'm surprised Magus wasn't one of the new classes announced in the APG playtest. I would bet any amount of money that more people were clamoring for a 2e Magus than for Investigator and Swashbuckler combined.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Why?

Well, it's not just mechanics to everyone. Some folks are heavy into the narrative. Playing a Sorcerer is basically a fantasy dude with the X-gene. That doesn't appeal to everyone.

Oracle has a different feel. That feel has a strong ludonarrative harmony with the curse mechanics. Once they balance it a bit better, I can see a definitive draw on that alone.

"Fantasy dude with the X-gene" is the best description of a Sorcerer that I've ever heard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Oracle, as much as I hate the 2e version of that class, I will say one good thing about it: Oracle is a natural fit for multiclassing and archetypes. Their feats are so underwhelming that there's really no reason you can't just use all your class feats on multiclassing feats or archetype feats. You really don't lose anything by doing this.

I'm tempted to do exactly that when the official class comes out: play a Battle Oracle, multiclass Fighter, and use all of my class feats on Fighter feats while still retaining divine spellcasting.


Lanathar wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.

Could you help clarify for me how it has changed ? I clearly haven’t looked closely enough

In 1e, once you learned a spell, you could cast it and it automatically scaled up to your level. Take Fireball as an example. In 2e, you need to learn Fireball again each time you gain a casting level, otherwise it never scales up. In 1e, Fireball did 1d6 damage per level, so as long as you learned it once, you never had to learn it again. Alot of blasting spells were like that.

Now that I give it some thought, I think giving Sorcerers more spells learned per level than Bards would've been a good way to balance the classes. The general consensus is that Bards are better than Sorcerers, and I'd have to agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only problem I really see with Sorcerers is that they nerfed spontaneous casting. If it still worked the same way it did in 1e, Sorcerers would be great.

Otherwise I think Sorcerer is pretty well designed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist, particularly Mutagenist, is trash in 2e. That seems to be the consensus anyway. The issue is that the 2e design philosophy seems to be that each class can only do one thing. Alchemists have been relegated to a support role by the developers, which basically means they're weak in combat.

The only thing 2e Alchemist can do well is craft stuff. If you were thinking about creating a 2e version of your Mutagen-chugging melee monster from 1e, forget it. Play a Barbarian instead.


graystone wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
graystone wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
The big thing curse needs to do is be worth the bang for the buck it's charging. In PF1 Kinetisist was in a similar boat where it took penalties in exchange for using its powers and it got bonused based on how harsh the penalties were. And by penalties I mean working with a smaller pool of hit points.
LOL I LOATHED the 'punch myself in the face' method of burn and the oracle now has a much worse version for much, much less payback for doing so. The only good thing here is that you can totally ignore the curse by ignoring the revelation spells and since they aren't very exciting it doesn't feel like a huge lose. Time to multiclass!
Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself...
Yep, that's exactly what it felt like when I tried to play a kineticist. Or the southpark version of roshambo to power up... ;)

I was a fan of the 1e Oracle, and from my perspective the only good thing about the 2e Oracle is you can completely ignore the horribly crippling curses by just not casting the revelation spells, which aren't very good to begin with.

Which of course, brings me back to the title of this thread. Why play an Oracle instead of a Divine Sorcerer? Two extra HP per level? Dunno, that was the only real reason I could think of.

What they should do is dump those trash revelation spells and turn revelations into class feats, each tied to a particular Mystery. The same way some Barbarian class feats are tied to specific Instincts. Also, they should just have a separate list of curses you can choose from that develop and change over time. To make Oracle even more unique, they could have some class feats that change the way curses work or mitigate their effects.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
The big thing curse needs to do is be worth the bang for the buck it's charging. In PF1 Kinetisist was in a similar boat where it took penalties in exchange for using its powers and it got bonused based on how harsh the penalties were. And by penalties I mean working with a smaller pool of hit points.
LOL I LOATHED the 'punch myself in the face' method of burn and the oracle now has a much worse version for much, much less payback for doing so. The only good thing here is that you can totally ignore the curse by ignoring the revelation spells and since they aren't very exciting it doesn't feel like a huge lose. Time to multiclass!

Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself...


The Extinction Curse AP book 1 comes out in January, so if you're interested in running that one, it'll be here pretty soon. Hang in there!


Luis Loza wrote:
There are spells for all four traditions of magic in this book. They are in the form of new spells for general use and new focus spells from the new domains featured in this book.

Thank you for the clarification!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, is this book only going to have Divine spells and feats, or will it include spells and feats from all the traditions of magic? Even if it's only Divine stuff in this book, that would still be cool, since the Divine list needs the most help by far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyder wrote:

I loved curses in PF1 Oracle. They offered a lot of good RP potential in addition to mechanical draw backs that were eventually compensated for as you character grew to overcome/compensate for the difficulties of the curse. My favourite was Clouded vision. I agree many of the curses were weak or easily ignorable but that was a flaw with the design of those curses not the way curses worked.

PF2 Oracle curse is nothing like that. Its a pure mechanic nightmare. It has no 'character learning to compensate' functionality. It has limited RP potential. Its just bland and boring. Its not even a good risk reward mechanic or powering up mechanic.

In PF2 given you are locked to the 1 chassis (effectively class) it would have been even easier to stick with the PF1 design. Compensations could have been feats. Escalations in the negative effects of the curse (the PF2 model) could still have coexisted with this. Right now though everything I loved about the PF1 implementation has been scrapped for a pure mechanics system that locks each mystery down to 1 play style. Gone are hallmarks of power tailoring from PF1. Gone are the RP potential of curses outside of combat. Gone is the idea of character growth and compensation for the curse handicap. All the beautiful fun and rewarding parts are gone for a concept which just isn't all that fun. The compensations are weak, focus spells (which are about as powerful as other classes get) aren't all that interesting or rewarding. The benefit of using them more is removed by having less normal spells to play with. Then its double compensated for by often crippling curse effects. The Battle Oracle suffering a disadvantage in social situations once the curse is on for the day unless they punch someone each round is an example of how farsical it is. If the minor curse only triggered when combat was on for the rest of the day it might make better mechanical sense.

The Oracle went from being an RP potential beast to one that is extremely hampered mechanically for good RP...

I agree with everything you said and have pointed out basically the same things. I gotta admit it is kinda funny that if the Battle Oracle wants to use social skills while his major curse is active, he has to b%$$+ slap the person he's talking to. That might work for Intimidation, but Diplomacy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alaryth wrote:
I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.

Well yeah, that's why I included a range of possibilities in my post, from "not as good" to "completely unplayable". I'm observing my friend to try to figure out where on that spectrum 2e casters are. At some point though, I wanna try it out and see for myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.

Definitely. The guy I'm talking about loves Sorcerers and played them exclusively in 1e. Also, I've played casters in 1e, and I can see how little his Sorcerer is doing in 2e.

Also, I've read the core book and could see that casters got beat with the nerf bat pretty hard. I'm just not sure how hard yet: completely unplayable? Or just not nearly as good as they used to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have any actual experience playing a caster in 2e, my current character is a Barbarian, and he's been alot of fun. The Sorcerer in our group seems to be having less fun though, plinking away with trash cantrips like Daze. I kinda feel bad for him, but then again, we're low level. Maybe his character will get better at higher levels.

If we do another campaign, I think I'll play a caster just to get the experience and see how bad it really is. Looks bad so far though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Naw, because then the caster can cheat and just use reach spell on it.
Which results in even worse action economy, 3 action casting instead of 2. That's a fair trade imo, not a cheat.

Eh, I dunno, that wouldn't work at my table. If a martial cant easily exceed that at will from 30 foot range (the effective engagement distance of most dungeon crawls), then thats a problem for me. But if it works at your table, cool.

I will be releasing some cards soon with some InDesign templates. If you want to pump up melee cantrips, its trivially easy to make some 4x6 spell cards, give them to your players, and have at it.

As a GM though, I think cantrips are mostly fine. If anything, I nerfed Electric Arc since it stepped far too hard on ranged martial toes.

Oof that's harsh. 2e casters already border on useless, and Electric Arc was the only cantrip actually worth spending 2 actions to cast. The rest are a waste of actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as streamlining the system and simplifying, I agree that PF2 is mostly successful. I say mostly because of two things that became unnecessarily complicated in 2e: sensing things, and conditions.

Conditions have become so complex that my group really needed the condition cards to track them. Btw, the condition cards are a great product.

Hidden, Undetected, Concealed, Detected, Observed, wtf?? Unnecessarily complex and hard to understand, this particular piece of the rulebook is a streamlining fail.

Otherwise, my group is really enjoying the 2e system. Cheers Paizo!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Naw, because then the caster can cheat and just use reach spell on it.

Which results in even worse action economy, 3 action casting instead of 2. That's a fair trade imo, not a cheat.


Data Lore wrote:
Cantrips are fine, imo. They measure up well (ie, worse but still useful) when compared to martial ranged options.

I can see that. I still think melee range cantrips like Chill Touch need to be buffed up though.


Every Instinct gets Raging Resistance at lvl 9.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the OP's gloom and doom is overly dramatic. However, I do agree that casters have been nerfed a bit too hard in 2e.

I used to enjoy playing divine casters in 1e, but the divine spell list sucks so bad in 2e, I won't play one anymore. That said, martial characters are so much more fun in 2e than they used to be. I love playing my Animal Barbarian.

I think the biggest issue is how crappy cantrips are: 1d4 damage, really? I think d6 or even d8 would've made casters much more relevant in combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Honestly, main thing I'm really getting from this thread is that people can't read- while your curse comes with penalties every time it increases, they all provide benefits as well.

The two I like the most:

Fire Oracle does extra damage to any foes around them and can use one of their actions (you know, the leftover action after casting a two action spell?) to suppress the damage on themselves. They're a walking nuke, and the revelation spells really emphasize this.

Life gets an extreme boost to healing output, and it doesn't matter at all if you're well protected by your party, and holding the health potions.

An Oracle that never pushes their Curse is horribly sub-optimal relative to the Oracle that does push it, the tuning should be adjusted, but the people who want curses to go back to pf1e's ignorability model can't in good faith assert that these curses encourage never using revelation spells.

Or maybe we can read just fine and we decided we don't like the cost/benefit ratio. I've read the curses and while I see that there are some benefits, I think those benefits are fairly mild compared to the drawbacks. Except Battle, that one is actually cool.

Not only did they get rid of revelations, which were awesome, but they replaced them with these garbage spells that activate your curse every time you cast them. I don't see that being a fair trade at all.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it hilarious that the most effective way to play an Oracle in 2e is to never cast your revelation spells. Alot like how the most effective way to play an Alchemist in 2e is to never use Mutagen.

There's something really wrong with the design of some of these classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

BFS trope

Exists in plentitudes of fiction outside of Manga/Anime, and dating all the way back to the epic of Gilgamesh.

Ah I see now, thank you.


Captain Morgan wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

My big issue is the weapon itself. I hate that you need this stupid special weapon to use your abilities. I would prefer having the extra damage and the clumsy penalty because I'm bigger and stronger than anyone else due to my giant powers, not because I have a stupid looking weapon.

It irritates me to no end that the only reason Giant Instinct is like that is because of Amiri. I don't wanna play any of the damn iconics, I wanna play my own character.

No, giant Instinct is like that because wanting to play someone with an unreasonably large sword is a very popular trope in fiction. You may not like it, but lots of people do. There's a reason 3 of them have been rolled up in games I've run since the playtest dropped, and it ain't Amiri.

That's a trope? I've read a ton of fantasy books and never even seen that. Must be a manga thing I guess, I don't pay much attention to that genre.

That explains it at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My big issue is the weapon itself. I hate that you need this stupid special weapon to use your abilities. I would prefer having the extra damage and the clumsy penalty because I'm bigger and stronger than anyone else due to my giant powers, not because I have a stupid looking weapon.

It irritates me to no end that the only reason Giant Instinct is like that is because of Amiri. I don't wanna play any of the damn iconics, I wanna play my own character.


Which AP is the one where you play Absolom cops? I haven't heard of that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

There's definitely a significant group of players who love the "power at a price" theme. I'm not one of them, I look at Oracle and see "Sorcerer with Disabilities".

Too bad, cause I really liked the 1e Oracle. Paizo is developing a habit of taking classes I really liked in 1e (Alchemist, Oracle) and making them suck. Not a good thing for me, that's for sure.

Listen: The alchemist sucked in PF1 as well so I'd say that its place in the power distribution has more or less stayed the same. And of course oracle is going to be worse in PF2E; oracle was awesome in PF1 because it was a power/talent class and now ALL classes are that way in PF2 (and there are no longer "real" feats outside of class powers in this metaphor).

That later point is more or less the thing about PF2E that I am most disappointed by.

That said, I think this version of Oracle has neat little niche that is suitably separate from the sorceror.

Hate to break it to you brother, but you're in a pretty small minority when you say PF1 Alchemist sucked. There were alot more "OMG Alchemist is OP" threads than there were "Alchemists are Underpowered" threads on these forums.

Most people who loved that class hate the PF2 version. I loved playing a Mutagen-swilling melee monster in PF1, which isn't even a viable option in P2, sadly.

Regarding Oracle, I liked the variety of choices in 1e: I could choose a Mystery, several Revelations, and a Curse. Lots of possible combinations. P2 did away with that, which I hate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's definitely a significant group of players who love the "power at a price" theme. I'm not one of them, I look at Oracle and see "Sorcerer with Disabilities".

Too bad, cause I really liked the 1e Oracle. Paizo is developing a habit of taking classes I really liked in 1e (Alchemist, Oracle) and making them suck. Not a good thing for me, that's for sure.

1 to 50 of 973 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>