HyperMissingno's page

1,416 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

It's starting to become silly when people compare unarmed strike damage to two-handed weapon damage.

You know, one of those is prescribed lower damage universally because it actually gets to use their hands. Please compare to other things like a finesse weapon before I start comparing multiclass cantrip damage to 10th level slots.

This is not an unarmed strike vs. a two handed weapon. This is a focus spell with strength bonus vs. a two handed weapon with some extra class features and strength bonus vs. a buncha cantrips with casting stat bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Exactly, HyperMissingno. When you have to pay a focus point, a 1st level spell (True Strike tax), a whole lot of money, a bunch of feats, and you still deal less damage than a cantrip?

That's not a good look for any ability.

It's even more spells if you end up using stuff like false life to keep yourself up. At this point I feel it's better to use the claws and then throw out bluff to keep opponents off of you by making it seem like glowy dagger is more deadly than it really is. Or, you know, pop it for that AC and resistance.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't realize that 2-10 was better than 5-14. Or 7-16 from a raging barbarian. Or 6-20 from a precision ranger. Or 6-24 from a Power Attacking Fighter. By the way you have to spend an action for this 2-10 while the martial gets the 5-14 at the start unless they didn't have their weapon drawn already, something that's pretty rare in my experience and I'm in the AP where you need to sheath your weapon the most.

"B-but, but the s-strength score"
I would give you this argument, but you mentioned Finesse. The only way Finesse is going to help the claws is if the Str is 14 or below, and let me tell you 14 str/16 dex is gonna put a strain on that ability budget. You still have a casting stat to take care of. What, you wanna run around in melee as a bad fort class with only 12 con? Have fun in Paizo's poison chambers then. And that's before the HP problem.

The highest I can see someone reasonably expect push the damage of the claws early on is 3-11. Any further would leave you extremely vulnerable while in melee range or would sacrifice your casting ability too much. A focus point to just be able to deal 3-11 damage ain't worth it when you have cantrips dealing 5-8 (or 5-11) damage for free that you can use from range and run off your main stat. You get way more damage types too, and one of them hits two targets at once and runs off of saves instead of attack rolls.

Gods I was calling the offense part of Dragon Claws a shiny dagger but now that I look at the practical math I'm afraid I have to downgrade it to a glowy dagger. This damage is embarrassing if it's struggling to compete with the cantrips.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel I should clarify something. I feel looking at a spell called Dragon Claws and expecting to be able to tear into people like a gatdang dragon with it is not an unreasonable expectation.

Now what qualifies as that is subjective but I feel d4 + d6 with sorcerer weapon profs isn't gonna cut it. Cyouni's 2d6 on sorcerer spellcasting profs sounds better, especially since it gets more d6s faster. I don't think people would mind only getting one attack from it either, though I'm not the most offense oriented person so I might be off the mark.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragon Claws are still good past level 5. The problem is that it's not good in the way people want it to be. It's a one-action defensive spell with a shiny dagger you're free to use if you want. Most people don't want a shiny dagger on top of a defense boost when they see Dragon Claws, they want to tear into their opponents like a gatdang dragon.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if people would have a problem with Dragon Claws if it was called Dragon Resilience instead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
I'll be honest I don't think the fort saves thing matters all that much. They can easily get to Master late game with Canny Accumen, and while that's not as good as getting automatic crit success and happens can happen.

Canny Acumen only gives you master at level 17. That's 6 to 8 levels later than other classes get Master assuming your campaign even gets to that level. I wouldn't call these small gaps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to throw something into the ring that I thought of recently. Casters have crappy fort saves. You know who loves fort saves? Paizo loves fort saves. A lot.

A melee caster is gonna be subject to tons and tons of fort saves and I wouldn't be expecting them to do all that well against them. Form spells don't have a bonus to fort saves after all, nor do the crappy claw n' jaw focus spells. Even the mooks with fort saves are gonna be a problem for casters unless they pump con, and they're already working on a tight ability budget with str, dex, and [CASTING STAT] all crying for attention.

I'm pretty sure Thrash's purpose is not to be a main source of damage. It's a way to spend all the remaining actions doing some good chip damage after you have something grappled without needing to worry about your MAP. Personally I prefer Maintain, Thrash, Thrash over Strike, Thrash, Thrash, especially with Barbarian's AC issue. The less actions the boss gets the better.

Champion and Ranger the only classes that have the biggest, old features locked behind feats. Even then Champion still gets divine ally and lay on hands for free in addition to their new reactions. Ranger meanwhile has adopted Slayer's target mechanic.

Fighter, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Investigator, Monk, Oracle, Rogue, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler, Witch, and Wizard all get some if not all of their major, old features (or equivalents to those old features) without spending feats. Now granted some get more features for free than others but Sorcerer isn't spending a feat for a bloodline.

Based on how Paizo has been doing things a 2E incarnation of Occultist getting read object without spending a feat is very likely. It's a big part of the class thematically and can be a big part of the class mechanically depending on the GM. That said I can easily see it having some feats to upgrade it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wegrata wrote:
They could always make object reading an uncommon class feat rather than making the entire class uncommon.

Eeeeeeh, I feel something that iconic to occultist shouldn't be under the lock and key of feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel Occultist is getting hit with the Uncommon tag. Object Reading can be tough for a GM to deal with if they're not prepared for it, I speak from experience.

Can you get your hands on a Gill Hook? It makes grapple mean if you can get a grip on an enemy that has less reach than you since they have to spend an action to escape, succeed, and step if they want to attack you. Plus it's got a nice damage die. The only catch is it's an uncommon, racial weapon so you have to ask your GM or grab adopted ancestry to get it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Because you implied that big boss battles are rare...

No I didn't.

You're conflating hits so hard even barbarians "die" in "a couple" with "big boss battles". I've seen the latter despite not having seen the former, on account of them not being synonymous.

You're gonna need to get to rewording then because from your post a page back you seemed to be arguing that this is only a thing in big boss battles and that big boss battles are rare which is something I disagree with.

thenobledrake wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
I mean our table doesn't fall that much either...
Then why were you arguing with my statement? I'm confused.

Because you implied that big boss battles are rare, which I have found to not be the case. That was the entire point of my first post at you.

thenobledrake wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
I mean, have you seen Paizo APs? My table's been running through Agents of Edgewatch and big boss fights have been a pretty regular occurrence. Hell it's not unusual for us to have two big boss fights in a single day.

I have seen them. I'm also playing them. I play a wizard in Edgewatch, and I get in melee range whenever I want to (which is often because it's often easier to aim my particular area spells by getting all up in someone's face). The only time the character has spent on the floor was when a devil crit me twice in the same turn.

And the other characters in the party, especially the fighter (the nearest thing we have to the barbarian in the prior statement) have remained outside of "dies in a couple of hits" territory.

I mean our table doesn't fall that much either, but that's only because we're running a redeemer shield champion, a heal font cleric, and a battle medicine specialist in the same party. Plus my ranger has a fair amount of heals on her too. Without the very high amount of damage reduction and recovery our party has we're all individually liable to get squished in as little as 2 rounds when a big fight comes around aside from the champion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The barbarians with 12 HP and good armor dies in a couple of hits. The casters dies in half as many at best.
I haven't found that to be particularly common... but yes, I can see how facing creatures sitting at the high end of what the game says is possible to deal with at high regularity could skew the perspective of what is likely to happen if your "frail" character steps into melee range.

I mean, have you seen Paizo APs? My table's been running through Agents of Edgewatch and big boss fights have been a pretty regular occurrence. Hell it's not unusual for us to have two big boss fights in a single day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not the only one that finds it wrong that monk multiclass is looking like a better archetype for dragon claw sorc than dragon disciple, am I?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Can I just say that I want more hair feats? Better reach, grapple, stuff the White Hair Witch had back in the day, maybe a status bonus to athletics or using Int over Str when using the hair, fun stuff like that.

The thing is while no class gets deep features some of the features can lead into deep skill trees. Like the Barbarian instincts go in pretty different territories when you consider the feats each one unlocks. The big thing is that some of these are passives.

If each bloodline offered a feat line that wasn't all focus spells I'd be more into 2's sorcerer.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerer bloodlines are deep? They feel super shallow to me, at least in this system. Maybe that's because they moved all the cool passives like stretchy arms to the focus spell camp. Those things feel different when you have to activate them every time.

thenobledrake wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
...unfair and gamist metagaming...
It was in-character knowledge that the situation was suspicious; there is nothing unfair, gamist, or metagaming about remaining suspicious of a suspicious situation even though you can't tell a person involved in that situation is lying to you.

Nononono, using presented information is gamest because games like Ace Attorney and Danganronpa gamify stuff like that.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the PCs are allowed to believe and react however they want to my NPCs, just like I'm free to control the info the players learn about my NPCs without rolls

I'm pretty much of the same mind. Failing a sense motive check that I rolled in secret just means the PCs don't get any free hints, not that they have to take the NPC's every word as fact. There's a huge difference from reading the AP in advance and putting the dots together based on everything presented to you in character.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cyder wrote:
In this case why pick Oracle over Divine Sorc? Genuinely curious.
More skills, trained in light armor, improved refocus along with the almost complete lack of interesting feats I don't mind spending on something else. With a sorcerer, I'd be torn about using most of the feats on archetypes but since I have NO interest in interacting with the curse mechanic, I can ditch the majority of the class feats.

Not to mention that Oracle is a master at nabbing spells from other lists. You want both Fireball and Haste on a divine caster? It's pretty easy with Oracle.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Travelling Sasha wrote:

Oh, and I'm not sure how people might feel about this, but a Gods and Magic 2.0, focused more on religion. Maybe with archetypes for followers of the most relevant deities?

Now, you might say: "But Sasha, you can just pick the Cleric Dedication for that" which, yes, it's fair. But, what if I want mechanical support for characters that are not granted powers, but still have a deep relation with the faith and its practices? I mean alright, you can just bump religion for that, yeah, but there's some really cool room for development in there!

I'd rather have more information on deities without much info on them than archetypes dedicated to the inner sea gods tbh. Like, gimmie the scoop on Alglenweis or Chamidu. We have a lot of deities without even a description and while the edits and anathama can paint a picture it's not the clearest one.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Exocist wrote:
That does mean they’re effectively taxed out of feats to get the spells they need though, and it’s contingent on having a deity with the right spell.
Oracle's feat list is kiiiiinda lackluster so getting taxed out of feats isn't that big of a deal for the class unless there's some shiny archetype you want a lot of feats from or if you actually want one of the focus spells from your mystery.
I've noticed this too. Building oracles kind of sucks due to their uninspiring feat choices.

Thankfully Divine Access and archetypes that give out focus spells are both things. Splash in Blessed One dedication and bada bing, bada boom, you have a ton of Lay on Hands points to heal up the party with. Flavorful too. Even if you actually want to use your curse it gives you something to do with the spare focus points you may or may not have that doesn't put you further into your curse state.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Exocist wrote:
That does mean they’re effectively taxed out of feats to get the spells they need though, and it’s contingent on having a deity with the right spell.

Oracle's feat list is kiiiiinda lackluster so getting taxed out of feats isn't that big of a deal for the class unless there's some shiny archetype you want a lot of feats from or if you actually want one of the focus spells from your mystery.

Now the deity part is an issue but if you can't find the spell you really, really want there's always Mysterious Repertoire which can get you a single spell of your choice onto your list. It is 14th level though so you will be waiting a while.

This looks like an advise question and not a rules question, flagged so it's moved to the right forum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the PCs are expected to take the die rolls and not pay attention to the roleplay evidence for believing an NPC's lie then the PCs get to just throw charisma checks at NPCs without roleplaying. It's only fair.

To be clear I would not mind playing this way since I'm on the Autism Spectrum and have a fair amount of trouble with social stuff, I'm just warning y'all to the door you're opening up.

Worldbuilding is hard. Really bad word hard. I pretty much have 1/4th of a world to write and it's still stupid hard to do. I don't blame or shame anyone that uses Golarion for their games.

I personally don't use Golarion because I have my own stories I wanna make that Golarion doesn't play nice with. I do however poach from its deity pool. The inner sea gods in particular are just perfect for general fantasy settings since they hit all the major notes you'd need.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly the big 6 in PF1 aren't even the big 6. They're the big 3 or the big 4 for MAD characters. All you need is a magic weapon, a cloak of resistance, and the belt/headband to upgrade the stats you want. AC is extremely easy to dump in that system without shooting yourself in the foot once you get into magic item territory. Just get something to cancel crits and you're good.

This goes double for GMs that heavily use natural attack monsters as bosses. You have to put yourself in debt to get the AC you need to have a 4 miss you unless you're a class that specializes in high AC like paladin. Can't even count on iteratives to give you a chance to evade the later attacks.

Onto PF2 I don't mind the PCs needing magic items to keep up with the big nasty monsters they're fighting that much anymore. What I do mind is that the NPCs get such high numbers without magic items. Especially when it's normal stuff like a jailer or a bandit.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

-The Great Book of the Damned-

All things hell, devils and devil worship. Basically like the first volume in 1E, but a lot more of it. I especially want an expanded set of lore for the archdevils - my buddy Dispater deserves even more awesome lore - and secondary powers of hell. I hope we see some "day to day" stuff as well, just to make it feel more alive. Playable devil option obviously ;).

If that is too limited in scope, it could be combined with Cheliax-related content, which I am rather interested in as well. Evil has taken a few blows too many in recent times, so they could use some love.

I'd rather have a book on outsiders in general. Fiends tend to get too much of the fun when it comes to that. Like, Demons and Devils get special treatment with individual bloodlines while the Celestials all have to share a single bloodline. Celestials should get the love as should the Aeons, Inevitables, Protiens, and the Elementals.

Remember that anathema applies to you, not your companions. Now if your companions break your anathema regularly you might wanna have a talk, but if they're breaking this anathema only in extreme situations, and for this anathama mindless undead attacking counts as an extreme situation, you should be okay.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

More info on the gods with little written about them would be nice.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any reason we can't have both 3 book AP and 6 book APs?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Look, I just want an official Polearm User archetype. I don't care what book it's from, I don't care how we get there, I just want one that dedicated to polearms with Lunge and Lunge Stance and Attack of Opportunity and other goodies.
So, why not play a fighter with the Staff Acrobat archetype?

I want Non-Fighter Polearm users to have the same ability to get polearm goodies that Two Weapon Fighting, Non-Polearm Two Handed Fighting, Single Hand Fighting, Archery, Unarmed Combat, and Sword n' Board users all get by going into archetypes.

All those fighting styles get a common archetype specific to them that all give fighter feats earlier and extra proficiencies that scale with you as you level up. Polearm users have none of that so they have to sub into Fighter to get those goodies, which means trying to grab Positioning Assault will have to wait until level 16 for instance.

Plus Staff Acrobat takes until level 10 to give benefits not related to shove/trip and has a hefty 16 dex prereq. It doesn't even give you any extra proficiency like the other archetypes do.

Look, I just want an official Polearm User archetype. I don't care what book it's from, I don't care how we get there, I just want one that dedicated to polearms with Lunge and Lunge Stance and Attack of Opportunity and other goodies.

So I know Fumeiyoshi is a god of envy among other things but I was wondering if he would ever form alliances with other deities. Particularly deities that are enemies of other deities that fall under "those who have good fortune they don't deserve" in his eyes. An Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend situation if you will.

This assumes he's not stuck in that tomb and is aware of the deities in question of course.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean...Cleric doesn't take that much work to yank out the deity part from its mechanics either. Just have them pick a weapon, pick a skill, pick 3 spells (one at 1st level) and pick 4 domains. If all you want is mechanics and not flavor then godless cleric is not only operational but it's also optimal. Full control over your spells and weapon after all. You just don't see anyone advocating for it because it spits all over the thematics of the class.

Champion is the same way, mechanically easy to tear out the deity. It's just finding an uncommon weapon you want, a skill, and some domains if you want to spend some feats for them. Thematically it's a different story. That power doesn't come from nowhere and it certainly ain't something a Sorcerer or Oracle can produce with how neutered their weirdness is in PF2.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're gonna need a pretty big justification for the power source of a champion that's working without a deity. The reactions alone are beyond what a mortal is doing solo, especially a mortal that's working with a lot of martial might.

Avenger wouldn't work for Inquisitor without so many lore and mechanical changes to make them into basically a different class. There's no divine connotation nor is there any hint that it's good at finding enemies of your faith by any means necessary and eliminating them. The closest things to a name change I can think of are Executioner and Extremest, but that also lacks the divine connotations so I wouldn't use it.

Now if we turn it into an archetype or a subclass we can go with Divine Executioner since those don't need to be a single word unlike classes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But the forceful trait doesn't mention requiring a strike or making an attack that does damage. All it mentions making an attack.

Can we get the big martial book soon? I want a polearm user archetype.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
An interesting question, but are there any weapons with both the forceful and trip traits? I see several with both forceful and sweep, which seem to work well together.
Not currently. But there are 2 stances that give unarmed attacks with the Forceful trait.

There's also the Knockdown feat which lets you spend 2 actions to strike and then make a trip attack with a 2 handed weapon even if it doesn't have the trip trait.

Forceful Trait
"This weapon becomes more dangerous as you build momentum. When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice, and each subsequent attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice."

Attack Trait
"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."

Does this mean if you use an attack action, such as trip, with a forceful weapon that it counts for the bonus damage for that turn?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Since PCs and NPCs gain power differently I need to explain how they gain power differently and not just why the PCs gain power so much more quickly than the NPCs.
Why do you need to explain this? Does the mechanical difference between an NPC statblock, a PC sheet, and a monster statblock need an in world explanation? The difference between the three is their utility in play either to the player or to the GM - and doesn't serve an explicitly narrative function that would need explaining.

I treat the mechanics as a science in my world, it's a massive help for me wrapping my brain around the fantasy world and figuring out how this stuff really works.

In PF1 this works out because everything follows those rules all the time. Even the monsters follow the rules to the letter. Feat every other hit die on odd numbers, BAB and Save system operates this way, all that stuff. There may be bonus feats and very high stats, but they're still operating under the same rules as the PCs and NPCs with PC classes aside from the first Hit Die not being full and not having any favored class bonuses. I can tell where the NPC with a class is getting extra HP/skill points from compared to a monster and thus rationalizing the difference is effortless.

In PF2 a creature can get a free bonus with 0 explanation. Take the Jailer for instance. He has +4 strength and yet his club deals d6+8, his crossbow does d8+4, and throwing his club does d6+6. There's no listed area where he gets his bonus from. It sure as hell ain't from Weapon Specialization because he's level 3 and that's not till level 7 for martails. His math doesn't even add up legendary prof anyway, he's expert. There's no way this level 3 jerk has Greater Weapon Specialization. Oh, and there's the part where his weird, +4 bonus is halved for throwing the club but not shooting the crossbow for no discernible reason. The thrown quality doesn't have any text about cutting any bonus in half, strength or otherwise, it's just going from +4 to +2 with no explanation. It would be one thing if he had abilities the PCs couldn't get, in fact that's a neat idea and prevents options meant for NPCs mingling with options meant for PCs, but bonuses should be given a source.

Also his HP is off. Accounting for the 8HP humans get he's gotten 37HP from 3 levels. And we know it's 3 levels because the math checks out with proficiency rules. This means he's getting 12 and 1/3 HP per level. Now I'm fine with levels giving weird HP values. Everything in PF1 gains an HP value with a hidden .5 attached to the end at each level. The problem is that the con bonus doesn't interact in any meaningful way. Either we're working with Barbarian hit points with the con score divided by 3 or we're working with fighter hitpoints with the con score multiplied by 2 and 1/3. If he had 1 less Hit Point and an extra point of con his HP would math out perfectly.

What makes this worse is that a lot of other things math out perfectly. AC? Perfect match for trained prof. Saves? Expert in fort and ref and trained in will. Skills? Trained in diplomacy and expert in athletics and intimidate. Odd that there's two expert skills at level 3 but the math still checks out. Some rules are being followed to more or less the letter while others are being tossed into the wood chipper.

This may be nothing for some DMs and even a boon for others, but for me it's a massive problem. Why are the monsters and NPCs following different rules than the party? Are we just operating with different internal power cores? Is everyone just making deals with devils/fae/celestials/dragons/gods/etc. on the side for hidden bonuses? Are they just hopped up on drugs? I don't care what the explanation is, I'll take they had a really good nap, just give me some reason.

Now granted I'll figure out the in-universe reason for rulebreaking with time but for now it's an especially annoying box on a long list of "things I have to get organized in order to run my setting in PF2."

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I think the disconnect people are having with the world is that PCs gain power in specific and predictable ways. NPCs have ways of following rules and formulas to determine power level, but they can also be arbitrarily set as needed for the world.

Honestly one of the things that's been a bit of a hangup for me in setting my world to its PF2 era is how differently PCs and NPCs gain power. It's not like PF1 where I can make a PC and then just throw them into the game as an NPC. Since PCs and NPCs gain power differently I need to explain how they gain power differently and not just why the PCs gain power so much more quickly than the NPCs.

Nicolas Paradise wrote:

Seriously for vague rp rules that I have honestly seen many GM's just forget, You get the best AC in the game, all martial access, focus spells, free enchantments, great saves, two reactions, aoo, a cool edict dependent reaction and side healing.

And because of how armor and saves have changed in 2E Champions aren't MAD anymore. Like Str and Con are king, get Cha is cool for skills and any +1 for wis for saves and you are set. 1E Paladin needed every stat but int.

You get shield block for free, not aoo. You can get aoo for a feat without archetyping, but it's not free for champions.

Also PF1 paladins weren't as MAD as you think. With divine grace adding cha to your saves and heavy armor you could get pretty low on dex and wis without endangering yourself. Int was handy if you wanted extra spells on your list but not necessary. For most paladins all they needed was str, cha, and con and they were set to wreck.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally find Champion codes a lot more clear cut, which I highly appreciate since breaking the code means I lose powers and abilities. I'm also glad that your alignment actually means something here.

What I love the most however is that the good Champions are actually good at protecting people beyond just taking out big threats and sometimes parking their heavily armored rump in a chokepoint. Now they reduce damage to other people, and usually only other people, with their special reactions.

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

I actually hew toward letting them define the physical laws of reality, not in the OOTS kind of way, but more in the sense that the things that are true due to the game system, are true in the fiction as well.

In other words, adding level to everything does mean that power scales more like it does in an anime than "real life" people really are durable to take multiple hits from fireballs and sword swings and such. They really can just dodge things that aren't skilled/strong enough to hit them, or just have the attacks bounce off.

Spell slots really are a reflection of how casting works, although the in-universe explanation has more to do with training the soul.

This means my worldbuilding actually uses each element as a prompt and then writes the laws of reality accordingly.

Probably my favorite part of building my worlds is looking at the mechanics of the system I'm using, going "this is canon" and then figuring out just what the hell that means for the world.

1 to 50 of 1,416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>