Maezer's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,192 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 1,192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Yqatuba wrote:
The whole concept seems really silly to me. Why not just a general "Lore: Theology" skill? Or, failing that, a "Lore: Inner Sea Gods'' skill and a separate skill for each other culture's pantheon (but not a separate skill for each of the 100+ gods in the setting.)

Isn't what you want just the religion skill as it already exists. A skill as lore is suppose to be fairly specialized.

And I'd lean toward the reason they did it that was page space. Having to write a description for every god in an ever expanding list would be excessive.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Archetypes can't alter or replace the same feature. And both the listed archetypes alter or replace wildshape so you cannot use them together.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I am certainly no expert. (And you'd probably have 10x the luck posting on the VTT forums.) But this is my limited take.

The PDF to Foundry module is just for the adventures. It cover most, but not all of the paizo published mods completely. I don't think abomination vault is done yet. Though all of Agents of Edgewatch is.
From my experience it does a fairly good job importing the map (with wall and doors) and imports the mobs as stat blocks (you still need to grab art for them) and position them. Is it ready to play But its a good starting point and would reduce setup time.

The character sheet is vastly more functional. A lot more content can be dragged and dropped into the character sheet. There is a module to import from Pathbuild and/or herolab which seems to work fairly well (though not flawlessly.)

I think its worth the transition. (I personally think the doors alone are worth it for anything with a dungeon crawl.) Visual targeting and easier AoE effect drawing/manipulating is nice improvement. The pause button is nice. I think its probably worth the pain of transitioning, but I can't really judge that for anyone else.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can total understand and largely agree with all of the facts he states. Players do get into ruts and repetitively do the same thing. I can see and understand this complaint.

What I don't understand is.... how does he like 5e? 5e feels like FAR fewer choices and more much deeper and more entrenched ruts. Character builds are far more cookie cutter. To the point I almost never have to look at any players character sheet to know what abilities/spells they have.

What I do understand is 5e makes for better youtube content. Because you can easily identify the best options and tell people about them, and people largely agree with you.

What I think Pathfinder 2e does really well is... when a player takes a suboptimal path. They (probably) aren't totally worthless when sitting at table with optimized characters.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If the caster has been maintaining concentration on a particular 60' cone for 3+ rounds I'd just give him the information. I have a fairly hard time believe that the casting/effects of a 6-8th level spell within 60 feet that a character is focusing on aren't fairly noticeable without detect magic unless they have minimal/non-existant spellcasting skills.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kimera757 wrote:

Is Tremorsense an "accurate" sense? Can you distinguish between two people standing near each other with Tremorsense? Mirror Image only duplicates something visible, the clue is even in the name.

No, its not an accurate sense. All it gives you is the location (the square.) If tremorsense is your only sense, ie you are blind to the opponent otherwise then you ignore the mirror images and just have the 50% miss chance for total concealment if that is what you meant.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The original post wss deleted I imagine.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gilfalas wrote:

To me and my gaming friends a dump stat is one you lower to try and get more points to put in other stats. Not just the stat that happens to be your lowest.

So in you're 92 point buy system starting at 0. Having a 1 in a stat is just your lowest... but having an 8 in D&D 3.5, a 7 in Pathfinder, or a 10 in starfinder and you're "dumping?" Really. All you're doing is change the minimum amount of resources you have to invest in a stat.

If the minimum allowed is an 17, and you leave it at an 17 while raising other stats, you've dumped a stat as much as you possible can.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gilfalas wrote:

Oh I play with a very special group of people who don't believe in dump stats.

Differing definitions of dump stat. If you have stat you put less resources into than any other you're dumping it. I suppose if you started with all all stats within 1 or 2 of each other and made efforts to maintain that balance them throughout the game, I might believe your group didn't have dump stats. But I find that highly unlikely irregardless of your stat generation method.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If you're looking for a strict RAW interpretation, then in the current rules I don't think vehicles can load out starship weapons. But most/all of the vehicles I've seen so far in starfinder are relatively small compared to starships (even tiny ones.)

While I don't think it should be impossible to mount star ship caliber weapons on a vehicle. A Tiny starship is only 20-60' in length so I'd assume a 20-60' vehicle could mount a similar amount of ordnance. I tend to think these vehicles would be more akin to mobile ICBMs launchers than tanks or infantry fighting vehicles.

And that fixed emplacements are probably for direct fire weapons as I don't think many vehicles would be able to aim them with enough ease to make them worthwhile.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I like the concept. I think 4 upgrades might be too many, since the cost per upgrade isn't scaling and the points gained per upgrade increases (at least as I am reading it).

The range/radius of the weapon templates (Line/Cone/Burst) need to be defined and are vastly under costed. In truth they should probably be limited to improving weapons with those properties already as they tend to have Reduced Damage/Increase Ammo Consumption/Unwieldy built in.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If the GM is writing an adventure then he's more or less going to have to make his own adaptation. If I was to wing it, I'd divide the PCs weapon damage by 10 and use 5 + 2*ship tier for hardness. If the PC is using a tank (or heavy military vehicle) or starship caliber fixed emplacement, then it should do damage akin to a fighter sized starship in my opinion.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:
It's in case people ignore the suggested point buy and decide to roll stats. If you start with a rolled 18 and have a racial +2, you can get to 30, or 32 with a +4 racial bonus.

If you use the optional rolling ability scores any theme or racial modifier that pushes would push an ability beyond 18 is lost.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You don't have to go themeless/different theme, those extra points are just lost. The actually rules are in the optional stat generation method section.

"You still can’t have any single ability score higher than 18. If points from a race or theme would push you over that amount, you still just get the 18, and those additional points are lost; they can’t be assigned anywhere else."

You can probably work something out with your GM. But if you wanted the book written answer there it is.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'll admit 10 minute wait is a huge drawback in my mind. 10 minutes should mean cops/reinforcements arrive, the bad guy escapes or the bomb explodes. If you can sit around and do nothing for 10 minutes in practical terms it means the encounters aren't meaningfully linked together.

When looking at character durability you need to look at hits to incapacitation. We might have many more total effective hp than pathfinder but enemies are hitting harder and vastly more often so characters don't feel nearly as durable.

And there is also the frustration that everything you fight feels superior to you. The npc has the better to hit roll. And often has abilities/perks you don't even have the option of taking. My players were so annoyed at level 1 when bad guy laser pistols did 1d4 +1 damage in their hands but on 1d4 in the pc it nearly ended the game right there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
quindraco wrote:
NPC EAC/KAC roughly correlates with 10+3L/4, which is non-Soldier/Solarian BAB, so players get an edge while leveling provided they invest in things like stat buffs for their accuracy stat, etc.

I think this logic is flawed.

A CR 1 combatant has EAC 11; KAC 13.
A CR 20 combatant has EAC 35; KAC 37
A CR 25 combatant has EAC 42; KAC 44

I would use approximate enemy EAC as 10 + 1.6*L; And KAC as 12 + 1.6*L.

To maintain the same average accuracy from 1 to 20. A soldier needs to increase his to hit bonus by 24. He gets 19 BAB, 2 to 4 (depending on starting stat) from attribute level increases, 3 from a item based enhancements. Which means average hit rate should stay about the same from level 1 to 20 if you're a an optimized full BAB class.

It is slightly worse for explosive weapons though. The average combatants reflex save increased by 18 over 19 levels. And save target DC only increases by 10+Stat mod change or 15 if fully optimized. So no matter what you do, the chance your opponent will save for half damage increases over time.

A core belief in Starfinder seems to be every character will absolutely maximizes anything he does, if he doesn't he can expect to get progressively worse at it as he levels up.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That's pretty terrible math. 8*6d6=48d6 not 60d6. And assuming every bad guy fails every reflex save after you reduce the save DC by 4 for full attacking is a bit over optimistic. Consider the DC will be Dex+5+10-4 (lets be generous and say your party a 20 average dex so DC16) and then reduced the DC by 4 if they aren't proficient with grenades (but we will assume they all are) and the average level 10 combatant will get +12 to his reflex save. So they save for half damage (if no one has evasion) 85% of the time.

Is it more damage than if they all walked around with shock casters at 2d10+10 (assuming proficiency and specialization) per shot, save for half. Sure, but its fairly close... and you get functionally unlimited shots from the shockcaster at a fraction of the cost.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ghostunderasheet wrote:

Point being if your a jellyfish person your the only one that can tell which is the right restroom for you. unless your a expert on hanar physiology. But a criminal would not be an expert or care for culture ahead of time or actively research the nuances and minutiae of culture to the point that he would understand the influaces of politics, religion, history and other factors might have on and influace the culture develope to this point and time.

I don't see how being a hanar expert would help. If you have no information with which to differentiate between different choices then it doesn't matter what knowledge you have. Knowing that the correct bathroom is giving off a certain type of radiation or some other way of telling the correct room from the incorrect doesn't help if you don't have any method of detecting that difference.

I can very much see the problem that the ruleset of Starfinder has extremely broad skills. And the operative has a stupidly broad range of skills eventually allowing him to have max ranks in all but profession is a bit over the top.

But given the Starfinder ruleset, the culture skill definitely seems like the right skill to me to be making an educated guess assuming there is some cultural information to work with if he's allowed to see how the hanar are interacting with the rooms. Though if you give them building plans a combination of life science/engineer might work as there likely is some similarity in waste disposal methods.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That's more or less exactly what it does. Its going to set a flag that someone can easily search for to see what people have identified as a question. They seem to be even less interested in answering Starfinder Questions than pathfinder ones though (which was pretty infrequent in itself.)

I miss the days when Dungeon/Dragon magazine came out with a regular page of FAQ updates per issue. (That said the FAQ for 3.x was quite a book in itself by end days).

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I doubt there was any reason other than they copied the spell list largely intact from D&D 3.5. To the best of my knowledge there never has been anything approaching an official reason as to why the stat buff spells were distributed with their peculiar gaps as they were.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The only penalties associated with charge are -2 to AC, and -2 to the attack roll. Movement restrictions aren't penalties thus aren't ignored.

You could use your move action to move you character to a position where a charge is a legal action then use standard action to preform the stellar rush.

No you can't combine stellar rush with a full attack. Making a stellar rush uses your standard action for the turn. Since you no longer have a Swift, Move, and Standard action remaining after making a stellar rush you can't make a full attack. Or if you full attack first, you don't have a standard action remaining to make a stellar rush.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
lock wood wrote:

if you have 2 in your hand can you trow both. do you need two hands to use it do to having to pull the pin?

and do you take a -4 to the DC

Yes you could take a full attack action and throw a grenade with every attack.

There is no action to 'pull the pin.' Figure they are smart grenades in some function. If you have quick draw, the throw weapons don't even have to start in your hand.

Yes they take the any penalty to the attack roll to the save DC.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You probably are right to some extent. Shatter didn't change much from 2nd Edition D&D to 3rd or at all from 3.0 > 3.5 > Pathfinder.

That said the Glass Golem specifically states its vulnerable to the shatter spell as a crystaline object. So its not completely without use even by the strictest RAW.

For GMs attempting to follow RAW tightly I think they are better off evaluating each creature individually to determine if it has a crystal nature. I can't see many saying Shatter would not work on a Crystal Golem, Crysmal, or a Crystallis example for the most part.

If I was the GM, I'd let you use it on just about anything with crystal in the description and anything vulnerable to sonic damage.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Its fairly expensive to maintain. By the mid to late game you'll need 3 weapons at least 3 hands. But if those are things you can overcome than you're damage output is actually pretty good.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think you'll find players take every credit available to them. Regardless of their wealth in comparison to the wealth by level table. The only time they don't is if they are subject to fairly extensive repercussions for doing so. (But as in most games they are getting away with murder on a regular basis such repercussion generally feel very disproportionate.)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As this is the rules forum. Since there is no way to get weapon proficiency with starship weapons you don't have the prerequisite to take weapon focus with it.

As a GM if you want to sell me on spending a feat for +1 on starship weapons I'd be fine. But its not in the current rules and I wouldn't expect it to appear anytime soon.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Was this ever written into the Pathfinder rules? I assumed it was always just an assumption and a power grab by players. I fully expect the same assumption to remain true for Starfinder, though the benefit (and cost of doing so) is much less.

I understand the logic behind it as you spent the resources to be able to do such and it would have been to your benefit to do so, and you had effectively near unlimited back story time to do it so why would you have done it.

But I didn't think it was ever written down as a rule that you could. The closest thing I remember is the GMs Guide (or maybe ultimate campaign) recommended that you give players about +25% to starting wealth per crafting feat. Generally a far cry from the 75% or more I generally saw players try to leverage Craft Wondrous Items too. Of course that is my play experience.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:

And there is an errata on that so that the Prot Evil is no longer continuous.

I don't see any errata for Seekers of Secrets. And to my knowledge Paizo generally doesn't errata there small books (Chronicles etc.) Were the ioun stone/wayfinder interactions reprinted in a more recent book?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Not particularly. At least going off the assumption that you aren't being showered with plentiful on level (or beyond) gear, there's not a single chance in hell I'm ever going to buy an ultrathin doshko over near any other melee weapon outside CQC envoys. Full attacking just does more work,

I wouldn't make that assumption. A CR X creature should have level X gear. Crossing mooks near your level should be a pretty common occurrence. That's one of the main reason behind the 10% sell back price. (And the item level system as a whole.) So you can actually encounter and loot usable gear. The Lieutenants and Boss should be packing slight high level gear.

Rather than facing a CR+3 boss with CR-3 gear as was the norm in Pathfinder because NPC wealth per level scaled so much slower than player wealth.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Just give kneel the same entry/exit costs as prone. And you've pretty well dealt with any balance issues. Of course not many people would ever use it... but not many people ever used kneeling when as it is half halfheartedly written into Pathfinder.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Refer to the wealth by level table on page 391 for characters starting beyond 1st level.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

When you do So, do they give you 100% of the old phone's original value as discount Or is the discount substantially reduced. Granted probably not to 10%. But the probably give you less than the current (much reduced) price they sell your old phone for.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You could have a dozen unwieldy weapons. You can't use any of them as part of a full attack irregardless of if that part of the full attack would be the first attack, the second attack or some other part of the full attack.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This should probably be in the homebrew section. Beyond that I'd be against the free action. Starfinder has made a concerted effort to reduce free actions and this would buck that trend.

Assuming you don't have anything better to do with your swift and many character's don't. It leads to this akward situation where a character stands does all his relevent actions than resumes kneeling. Creating a stupid pseudo jumping jack action just to get a mechanical benefit.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
taks wrote:
I've always wondered: what's the point of pricing rules if the default response is that they shouldn't be followed?

The core rule book plainly states:

"The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table 15–29."

The default response actually follow the rules and not ignore step 1.
Generally people want to ignore compare step and jump right to the table it tends to be to create vastly more powerful/cost efficient items than what currently exists.

Developers write/design spells with the idea that there use is going to be limited by class features. If the bump up the power of a spell because the class has a very limited numbers of spell (ie Paladin/Ranger) or by restricting it to personal use within the confines of a class that has access to that spell its might be appropriate. When transforming those spells to magic items, you are lifting/bypassing those design limitations, thus you should probably be paying more than bare minimum as suggested by table 15-29.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Damage is split 50/50 between types. So for F&E half would be Fire half Electricity. Then you'd apply resistances to each part of the damage.

The rule is on p. 169, under weapon damage:

Starfinder Core Rulebook wrote:

The energy and kinetic damage types are described below,
including the abbreviations for each that appear in the weapon
tables in this chapter. Weapons that deal multiple types of
damage have an ampersand between the types (such as “B & E”
for a weapon that deals bludgeoning and electricity damage).
For such weapons, half the damage dealt is one type, and half
is the other (if the damage done is an odd number, select one
damage type to round up, rounding down the other damage
type normally).

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Crix is written as male as is the GM in example 1. But does it really matter? Even if it was 100% female?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The captain only needs a dc10 check to aid others with the appropriate skill. And that should only get easier over time.

That said I think a captain is required. Just a slot that can only be filled by a single person.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron the Paisley wrote:
Do you get any resolve points when leveling? Or is it only when your key ability score changes?

Yes you do.

Starfinder Core Rules wrote:

You have a number of Resolve Points equal to half your character
level (rounded down, but minimum 1) + the modifier of your key
ability score (the ability score that is most important to your
class—see page 58). Even if you have a negative modifier, you
always have at least 1 Resolve Point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Name Violation wrote:
Weapon specialization exists for drones. They can take it, and don't get it free

Not true. Drones get weapon specialization for free at level 3 like everyone else. Weapon specialization exists as a feat, so the authors didn't have to reprint the weapon specialization text for every class they printed. And maybe a bit of future proofing.

Starfinder Core Rulebook wrote:

Your drone is proficient in your choice of small arms or basic
melee weapons, and it gains specialization in that weapon type
once you reach 3rd level.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You don't get 4 grafts either. You get to select 4 creatures which will come with an appropriate graft or two. For example if you summon a large devil, it gets the summoning graft and the devil graft.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly it seems reasonable good to me. The to hit values seem solid. The damage scaling is a little weak. But for at its base it seems superior to baseline Summon Monster X. The if you are summoning the top tier or two of creatures they should actually be able to hit your target.

You are losing most of the flexibility of Spell Like abilities... but I think it's probably still worth a spell slot or two.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
Since you're in a straight 5ft corridor, no lines pass through a wall and not all run along a wall. Not cover.

In the example picture #2 not all corner to corner lines run along a wall. Upper left of the Vesk to Upper left of the Ksarik doesn't run along or through a wall. So why would it have cover if all you need to do is have a single corner to corner line that doesn't run through or along a wall.

The term "run along the border of a wall" never appears in the actual cover rules (any where else in the rule book at all). I find it rather hard to believe the cover rules were meant to be different between the diagram and the plain text.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The math for when to use Deadly Aim was broken down in the 6th post. There certainly are circumstances when B*(N-1) > 2D is true and using Deadly Aim is the correct option.

In Knight Magenta example, assuming a Bonus Damage of 3 from Deadly Aim and hitting KAC on 10+ w/o using Deadly Aim, using the reaction cannon You have:

3*(11-1) > 2 * (18-5)
30 > 26

So in that situation using Deadly Aim would be correct. But is increasing your average damage per round from 7.4 to 7.45 actually worth a feat? Compare it to weapon focus, which is beneficial much more often. Weapon Focus would change your dpr to 8.05 w/o Deadly Aim, or 8.25 with Deadly Aim.

I'd recommend ranged combatants take Far Shot before Deadly Aim... I think they'll get more use out of it and when it works it will provide a larger benefit when it does work.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The ranged cover rules written and the caption in the graphic don't match up. I'd learn toward using the written rules and not the captioned rules until it gets clarified.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Its defined in the same paragraph. 'Cruising Flight' renders you 'off-target' and 'flat footed'. Those conditions are describe on page 276.
In essence you take a -2 to AC, -2 to attacks, and can't make reactions while in cruise flight mode. I don't see any reason why your speed would change, so it would remain 30' per move action.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They clearly wanted a system other than 'We top everyone HPs off with CLW wands (or other form of healing) after every fight'. Now if you are in a running battle you have to either break so long the bad guys probably have lots of time to regroup/escape/plant the bomb/etc. or not going into the next fight completely healed.

I kind of wish they would have had absolutely no stamina healing other than the 10 minute rest, but so far I think I like how it works out. Granted I haven't seen anything but low level play so far.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Minor actions can be taken once per round. Since a round consists of the Engineering, Helm, and Gunnery phases, you will not be able to use glide and snap shot in the same round.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
d'Eon wrote:

I wonder if the feat represents a shift from Pathfinder to Starfinder. Power Attack was a gimme feat for anyone that qualified, and Starfinder seems to have just baked the bonuses in to the main damage classes. If you need Deadly Aim to compete in damage, it should have been included in the class, since everyone will just take it anyways.

Pathfinder has characters hitting on 2+ at relatively low levels. If you're hitting at 2+ deadly aim would be a good feat. Pathfinder base weapon damage barely scaled. If in starfinder you don't take advantage of the scaling weapon damage, (ie you use a level 1 or 2 weapon at level 8+) then deadly aim looks mathematically feasible.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MagicA wrote:

So then, it seems really the only people who benefit from deadly aim are Operatives using Trick Attack, but even then without having a Full BAB, taking a -2 is a bit of a risk

Not really. I would not recommend anyone take deadly aim. All people are arguing is in which narrow circumstances deadly aim might be mathematically beneficial. If a fairly narrow set of circumstances and thus not really worth the feat cost unless you are a soldier with 10 extra combat feats... because there simply aren't that many good combat feats.

1 to 50 of 1,192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>