Meophist's page

383 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't say they need to be on the ground in order to be in the stance, just to go into the stance. So I imagine once you're in the stance, you're free to go into the air and do Falling Stone strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Meophist wrote:
Armor spell failure is probably gone, but it seems heavy armour proficiency requires either to have it in your class, or to multiclass into Champion. So to have a heavy armored spellcaster, you either need to play as a Fighter or Champion and multiclass into a spellcaster, or start in a spellcaster and multiclass into Champion, each of which has their limitations.

Did they say that they removed the armor profocincy feat?

I didn't think about that, although that's still probably a heavy feat investment.

Lanathar wrote:

Probably a bit easier than 1E for the arcane casting hellknighf I mentioned . I think you need three feats in 1E for a full plate Signifer

Because the suggestion is that you would only need the one dedication feat? Is that right ? (If you started as a spellcaster). Or is that wrong ?

Starting as a martial class seems like it may take more investment to build up the casting but that is probably not the route to take

And this is without knowing what the hellknight prestige archetype does.

According to the multiclass archetype thread, you need the dedication to get Trained and another to get Expert. It doesn't mention anything higher than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Armor spell failure is probably gone, but it seems heavy armour proficiency requires either to have it in your class, or to multiclass into Champion. So to have a heavy armored spellcaster, you either need to play as a Fighter or Champion and multiclass into a spellcaster, or start in a spellcaster and multiclass into Champion, each of which has their limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meophist wrote:
From my question, it feels like an issue is that there's two types of ability scores. I'll call the two types "active", and "passive" for now.

The issue with the active/passive disconnect is that it's not strictly true. Intelligence and Strength both have meaningful passive effects (Int adds Skills while Str governs Encumbrance and reduces heavy armor's movement penalties...the latter lets you use it as a replacement for Dex on AC in many ways). And one of the 'passive' Abilities also have active effects as well (Dex is used on many attacks).

Plus anything used as a casting stat becomes active.

So that leaves literally every score with meaningful passive effects you would rather not be without (though Str and Dex can sort of sub in for each other in some ways)...except Charisma.

So yeah, I think Charisma needs help, but it's more because of its lack of passive effect than anything.

I mean, sorta? Maybe I should elaborate more.

A "problem", or sorts, for Dexterity is that it often acts like a passive and an active score. If you use a finesse or ranged weapon, Dexterity is used as both a passive(for defenses) and an active(for attacks) ability score.

As it is, the three active scores, Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma, are the easiest to dump, since it's relatively easy to not care about their passive effects, while the defenses Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom's defense increases are less ignorable(with the exception of Dexterity on heavy armour builds).

I don't think this is too bad of an idea, although having certain ability scores do the effects of others creates problems for this, and abilities scores doing both jobs as well.

Being a specific defense is a huge boon for Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, and that's something that could help, but would be really difficult to add-on later. That said, I think that was a part of the current's D&D's solution to the problem?

IIRC, D&D 4th edition had the idea of allowing either of different pairs to serve as defensive saves. I imagine this helped, but I feel there's still an issue with Dexterity being responsible for so much defense? Then again, I remember hearing that some Paizo folks experimented with splitting Dexterity in two and that was still really powerful.

…It feels like too complex a problem to solve simply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From my question, it feels like an issue is that there's two types of ability scores. I'll call the two types "active", and "passive" for now.

Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom are the "passive" scores. These are basically the scores that are always in effect and scores you want to have at least some of at all times. Each also contributes to a type of defense, Dexterity being AC and Reflex saves, Constitution being HP and Fortitude saves, and Wisdom being Will saves.

Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma on the other hand are more "active" scores. These are scores to be invested in in order to do something in specific. In general, a character is unlikely to raise more than one of these, specific to their character concept. These generally don't increase any sort of defense.

So the basic idea seems to be that you focus on one "active" score and raise the "passive" ones to round them out for defense. There does seem to be a bit of an issue that some of the "passive" scores can also work as an "active" score, which decreases the need for as many ability score increases.

…This is probably all old news for folks here, but I feel this shows one of the issues with Charisma.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ryu's Hadoukens aren't actually made of fire or anything, they're a sort of "wave energy", which could be represented by Ki blasts pretty easily, I think.

Although out of the original 8 world warriors, Dhalsim would probably be the most difficult to replicate, followed by Blanka.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess one solution would be to limited to two actions as long as you have a minion, but the minion always has access to two actions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I'd personally like to see the return of the PF1 style Trait System as optional.

Tie CHA to that, everyone starts with 2 Traits + CHA Modifier.

This helps ground Traits in what they were supposed to be in the first place, defining aspects of your character's history and personality. Sure that means uninvested Dwarves only get 1 Trait, and that Bards will end up with a TON of Traits, but thematically I think that fits.

Give a VERY close eye towards the kinds of minor bonuses that Traits can give this time around instead of publishing them all loosey-goosey whereby 2/3 of all Characters just choose the +1 Save of choice or +2 Init every time. Perhaps it would be a good way to reduce a single Uncommon "Gate" for stuff outside of the Ancestry or Archetype system too.

Thoughts? Has this idea already been crushed to a fine paste and sprinkled on Ancestral Weapons grave?

I feel this will make character creation a lot more complex and slower than it already is, which feels like a good reason to pass on this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do mostly feel that dedications aren't available at the first level because they don't want to front-load too many decisions for newer players. More experienced players can probably just start at level 2 to get around those restrictions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really have much experience with tabletop RPGs, so I don't really know too much about this sort of stuff but…

First character idea that came to mind was a simple spear & shield fighter. That said, when I looked at the playtest, it seemed the spear was a simple weapon and there wasn't really any martial polearm that could be used with a shield, so my character idea feels like it ends up a bit subpar from the get-go. Hopefully there's more support for this.

Next idea is more complex and kinda weird. The main idea is that he's a man with humble ambitions, managing a small business in a town. He focuses on crafting things, probably either an Alchemist or a Wizard, to help people around him. That said, from time to time, he gets strange requests. Some people seem to think he's some sort of accomplished adventurer and ask him to do some wild things. Although he keeps on the cautious side, he has difficulty turning down a request although he promises no results. He tends to make an honest attempt but tries to avoid putting his life into too much danger.

…But at night, he turns into someone else entirely. A woman rogue with a knack for adventure, she spends much of her time completing the requests he receives without his notice. The two change personas at the same time every morning and evening and each are effectively sleeping while the other is active with no memory of the other's actions. Since the man takes extensive notes on everything that happens in his life, the woman reads these notes to get a good understanding of what went on and is very aware of the man counterpart's existence, but he doesn't quite believe in her's. Regardless, when folks ask him for help on adventuring things, they're generally asking for her help in actuality.

The basic idea of this character would be to use two sheets, and they will be switched involuntarily at fixed intervals of the day. I don't really know how practical this would be in a tabletop RPG and would likely require coordination with a DM to execute, but I like the idea at least.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!
+1 for Magical Girls. #SorryNotSorry

A Magical Girl/Sentai/Kamen Rider-style class could actually be pretty neat, I think. I would like to see that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
On this particular point i’ll agree to disagree, and feel a couple of days would be much too short a time frame
It depends how familiar they are with the spells. If they have been playing with the game and know the spells well enough that they don't have to look up what they do, it wouldn't be hard to spreadsheet the spells by level and add a quick mark to each spell for it's spell list as you go down the sheet. Now if you just grabbed someone that's never looked at the spells before, yeah it'll take a long time reading up on each spell. So depending who did it, either one of you could be right. ;)

I mean, doing that is one thing, but in terms of game design, it's difficult to simply make changes like that. You can make the four lists, sure, but are they fun, balanced, contain enough variety within them? A lot of this stuff needs testing. Pathfinder is a large, interconnected system, making changes in one part has ripple effects throughout the whole system.

I don't really see it as being something that can simply be done in a few days, regardless of their familiarity with the spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.

That seems unlikely to me. You're already picking an ancestry feat, a skill feat via background, and possibly a class feat. Four feats seems like a bit much to throw together all at once for new players. I could be wrong about that, but if so, I really doubt they'd add the rather dizzying possibilities of every multiclass feat in on top of that.

Since players choose a heritage at first level anyways, they could change the ancestry feat choice for a class feat choice at the first level, swapping it for the class feat choice at second level.

That said, it's probably a bit more complex than that, and selecting two class feats at first level would feel weird. Giving each class a class feat at the first level and having additional features for the ones that already have one seems more elegant.

That said(the second time), it's likely better for newer players to not front-load so many choices at the beginning as allowing archetypes at the first level would do. Another possibility is to just have some "training wheels" levels with the choices more spread apart that could be skipped for more experienced players.

A number of competing priorities does feel like it can make this part of game design challenging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like intelligence penalty as a thing for ancestries in general. It's not an idea I'm in favour of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.
A more recent discovery I made by analyzing the math (that other people probably already figured out) Is that besides some edge cases (Goblins), monster AC is too low by the same amount that their attack is too high. This means even if the monster is more lethal, PCs are also more lethal against them, this sort of "balances" out these attack advantages and results in inflated damage/crit rate from both sides. However, it also results in jarring stat blocks that don't add up with PCs. Giving all PCs +1 or +2 prof bonus from trained but keeping AC the same (Base 8 or 9) would equalize this. We'd gain proper homogeneity between monsters and PCs without increasing the miss chance.

I want to talk a bit about this.

The math in both Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2 has a bit of an oddity: AC increases way more at level 1 than at any other level, and it's mostly just AC. This is because putting on armour itself gives a big bonus, and it generally only increases by one or two in each level after the first.

I think in order to compensate for this, before, level 1 characters had little HP, so when they do get hit, it means a lot, but they're not going to get hit much. This made low levels very swingy compared to later levels.

One of the goals of Pathfinder 2, it seems, to make play across levels more even. So players gets more HP at first level, monsters have higher attack modifiers and lower AC, because relatively speaking, that's how it's going to be through the rest of the levels, relatively speaking.

Because all other values generally only increase by one or two per level, this means the difference between player numbers and monster should be most felt at the first level, and should gradually even out over time.

This is all mostly my theory, anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:

After failing with math, people fail with reading. (Unless it has been errataed)

The Ki Strike power doesnt have a cost.

You can use it as often as you like as long you have the ability to do verbal casting (i.e. youre not silenced)

Both the Power description or the Feat say anything about having a cost, it just gives you your first access to Spell Points.

You gain the ki strike ki power (see page 234). This power is a type of special spell you can cast by spending Spell Points.

This is what the feat says(emphasis mine). That said, it doesn't say how many Spell Points you need to spend to use it, but it probably was intended to be one point, as opposed to zero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

Rewording this again.

You are in the middle of leveling up to 5th level of your Wizard with the Fighter dedication feat.
For your 5th level Ancestry feat you select Natural Ambition (which gets you a 1st level class feat).

Which feats do you consider 1st level class feats?
How would Fighter Resiliency (a 4th level fighter archetype feat) get to be a 1st level class feat?

Would you allow someone to select Natural Ambition (Conceal Spell) at 5th level?

You could've highlighted the "class" part too, since archetype feats aren't class feats.

Except there's a special rule that lets you replace a class feat choice with an archetype feat, and there's no rule saying that the restrictions on the class feat also apply to the archetype feat since they're different types of feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since it works on skill checks, I think it work cause issues if Guidance didn't have Bolstered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reason the second one exists is so that the damage of a Fireball hitting multiple targets and only some critically failing the saving throw can be done more or less fine.

The former helps keep variance in check, making the extreme outcomes less likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Telekinetic Projectile is a cantrip that starts with doing 1d10 damage. Its damage "increases" to 1d8 + spellcasting modifier when heightened to 3rd. It then increases to 2d10 + modifier at 5th, 3d10 + modifier at 7th, and 4d10 + modifier at 9th.

The amount of damage at 3rd appears to be mistaken given the pattern, and should probably be 1d10 + spellcasting modifier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Caster/Martial disparity is likely going to be a thing, yes. I think it would be pretty much impossible to go from PF1 to a system where it isn't a thing without making something that's pretty much entirely different.

That said, I don't think it's quite as severe as some are thinking here. I think it's important to note that magic spells, by default, costs 2 actions to use. This means that it actually takes up quite a bit of a turn to use, as opposed to a single attack by a martial character, for example. Turn/action economy is going to be very important in PF2, I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
whew wrote:
Perhaps the pre-req should be 14 for half-elves only, since half-elves were good multi-classers in PF1 and they seem slightly under-powered in the preview.

I feel it would be better if they need 1 less feat to get a new dedication feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This does allow me to make a Sorcerer who wants to get into "real magic" by taking Wizard multiclass feats. A Sorcerer who takes Wizard levels while still keeping up their Sorcerer levels was… suboptimal in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Meophist wrote:
I feel that if you want to multiclass to Wizard as a Fighter, making it so that they need to make some ability score sacrifices in order to do so isn't a bad idea. Otherwise, it might turn into a situation where there's little point in not multiclassing. The current method should allow multiclassing to be powerful, while still not being appropriate if you want to be really good at what your primary class gives you.

I am not sure I quite buy this. An alchemist can freely multiclass into wizard without a problem, and gain all of the benefits of doing so. The alchemist suffers minimal opportunity cost in doing so.

I do not see why a fighter, conversely, should have to sabotage their ability scores for the same package.

An Alchemist have a lot more overlap in what their class features do to a Wizard than Fighter does; the cost is lower with them because they don't benefit as much. Likewise, the Fighter has an easier time getting into Rogue or Barbarian since it doesn't really increase the versatility of the Fighter character as much.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that if you want to multiclass to Wizard as a Fighter, making it so that they need to make some ability score sacrifices in order to do so isn't a bad idea. Otherwise, it might turn into a situation where there's little point in not multiclassing. The current method should allow multiclassing to be powerful, while still not being appropriate if you want to be really good at what your primary class gives you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there's room for a non-magical non-sneaky skill monkey.

Also, some sort of engineer class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I imagine giving half-elves free access to multiple ancestry feat types gave a bunch of issues, balance-wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Meophist wrote:
I sorta feel one possible solution to a lot of the problems people have brought up with ancestries would be to give humans two ancestry feats to start, and improve the other base ancestries to make up for it.

Eh. Two ancestry feats at 1st level would be REALLY potent on a human, because they could take so many different things. I think to make it work you'd either need to limit it to a heritage feat (and have a generic human heritage for those who don't want to be halfies) or take away the human's ability to choose class and general feats. And if you do the former, it kind of raises the question of why not just give everyone another feat to spend on heritage at level 1.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to give the human an extra skill training or two at 1st level. That would also be pretty close to emulating the basic human package from PF1.

I do feel human feats may have to be restricted at bit, at least at first level, but this would be the only way of getting something like a planetouched Half-Orc.

Here's another advantage of giving humans two ancestry feats at first level: You can write up Half-Elf and Half-Orc entries with the respective feat built-in, and they'll act like any other ancestry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I sorta feel one possible solution to a lot of the problems people have brought up with ancestries would be to give humans two ancestry feats to start, and improve the other base ancestries to make up for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand the appeal of level-by-level multi-classing. It allows character growth to be more fluid and dynamic. However, given the constraints of what Pathfinder is, it has a number of issues that I'm not convinced is entirely fixable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
Meophist wrote:
I like the idea of potentially merging Strength and Constitution, although that's a change that would require a lot of work. This would mean that investing in Strength will give you HP and Fort saves, while investing in Dexterity will give you AC and Reflex saves, so they each give you defense in a different way.
It would more sense to merge strength and dex. Just move encumbrance over to constitution and call it good.

People like to build fantasy archetypes, and characters who are strong but not dexterous, or very dexterous but not strong, are fairly common archetypes and they probably should be able to be represented. On the other hand, a character who is strong but not durable feels a bit weirder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A possible solution: Ability Feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel the single action Inspire Courage takes is a bit of an abstraction. It doesn't take literally 2 seconds to do, but it's something that can be while you do other things; it still takes effort to do, so you can't quite do as much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say I prefer Rogues having the option to get spellcasting ability rather than the Bard having the Rogue-but-with-spellcasting niche. I think it would otherwise dilute the class identities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This makes me rather curious about how an occult Sorcerer would play, particular in comparison to the Bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This explains the spell rarity we heard about for the Druids. Interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Angelic Sorcerer seems like it can act well as a simpler "cloth" Cleric that's more spell-focused and can focus on mostly just healing should they choose, especially with Divine Evolution. I like this.

That said, it does kinda end up feeling like a worse Cleric right now, even if it can give the simplicity some want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've noticed a theme running along these class previews:

Mostly, it's how the feat system allows for a lot of class build flexibility, but also how the first level feat encourages the type of that class you want to build. The Ranger can go into, presumably, spells, but also certain weapon specializations, animal companion, teamwork, or snares. Each seems to have more feats that build into that type, so what you choose first can put you into that direction.

Spell feats help other spell feats by giving you more spell points, weapon specialization feats allows your weapon attacks to be better so they naturally build upon themselves, I imagine there are further animal companion feats to improve your animal companion, there seems to be snare feats that build on your snares, teamwork feats seems to build upon themselves the least although there could be stuff there too. So it can be quite beneficial to choose a direction and commit, but there still room to go for versatility which may have its own advantages.

I had something else, but on further review, I'm less sure about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
worldhopper wrote:

NEGATIVE:

-Monster Hunter looks, frankly, awful. I know a +1 means more in 2E, but for one attack roll, and only on a critical success? Take off one of those restrictions (either make it last the duration of the Hunt or make it proc on a regular success) and it might be worth taking.

Something that may be easy to miss is that you can give the bonus to your whole party, which means a +1 to your entire party's next attack, which could help with critical attacks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that with archetypes and the customization classes have with feats now, each class needs a mechanical identity that the class needs to have to define it as that class. For the Rogue, this would be its Sneak Attack, for example. There aren't going to be Rogues without it; it's going to define the class.

If a similar class is desired without Sneak Attack, that's probably better served as a different class rather than an archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I also don't like having both Resonance and Spell Points. As I understand it, these are going to compete thematically, no?
Not really. Spell Points is your own inherent magical power (from class, etc). Resonance is for using magical items. The only cross-over is Alchemist which doesn't have Spell Points but has enhanced Resonance to compensate for it, but the whole point there is Alchemist is conceptually about using magical items.

Isn't the Alchemist using alchemical items, which are non-magical?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Since everyone has resonance does that mean anyone can use a staff even if they are not a spell caster?

Well, the Staff of Healing specifically recharges according to your highest level spell slots, so a character without spell slots will get relatively little out of it, although there doesn't appear to be anything preventing another character from charging it then having a non-caster use it, aside from the 24-hour delay(maybe? It's not too clear). A Wizard can use this on its own for some extra healing, however, from what I can tell anyways.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
The cloak allows you to cast the ghost sound cantrip as an innate arcane spell.

Cantrip means it is automatically cast at the highest level of spell you have, right? What if you don't have spell levels? Can you still use this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Samurai and Ninja might make for good universal-ish archetypes.

Would also like archetypes for certain playstyles, like archery, unarmed combat, going into magic for martial classes, maybe stuff like crossbow specialization?

Also, Scout might make a good universal archetype.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Let's drop the "everything is called a feat" discussion, as it is not really relevant to this thread. Although I must say it is kinda fascinating watching all of you mirror the internal debates we had about 18 months ago when the issue was raised in house.

Sort of tangential to the topic of the thread, but is there any chance of getting a sort of "developers' notes" to go with the playtest so we can be aware of arguments y'all have already been over and what was decided and why? I figure this sort of thing might seem unprofessional in a finished product (though they are literally in the core rules as sidebars in 13th Age, which is kind of charming), but it would be fair to do for the playtest.

I mean, I for one would find this fascinating, but y'all are likely too busy.

I actually loved that about 13th Age. I love it when the why of something is explained, "this is what we were thinking and why we did it this way." It gives an additional frame of reference to consider when changing stuff - you can agree with the reasoning but not the actual decision, or you can disagree with the reasoning and get a better sense of why the decision rubs you the wrong way.

As much as I would love this… I feel it would hurt the playtest.

So, the problem with putting out all of your thinking out to others with any sort of thinking problem is that you can put other people into the same frame of reference and point of view that you have. If you want other people to agree with you, this is fine, but if you want different and fresh frames of references and points view, this can be quite a hindrance. New ideas on how to do things can be great, but they're less likely to come up with the players share the same thought process as the developers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Multi-use consumables" could be a book of scrolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, some observations:

You can effectively choose a path for the Monk starting at the first level using your first feat. You can be a weapons fighter Monk with the Monastic Weaponry, Unarmed fighter Monk with a fighting style feat like Crane Wing Stance, or a Ki fighter Monk with Ki Strike.

Personally, I'm not too big on the Ki feat being a striking move that gives +1 attack bonus. I feel Ki can be more differentiated from the others, perhaps supporting a more supportive style with Ki-based healing, maybe?

Something else I noticed is that, let's say you want to be a Dexerity-based Monk but you also want a lot of Wisdom and use a bunch of Ki abilities. You sorta still get more out of having 18 Dexterity than you do out of 18 Wisdom, since the Ki Strike feat lets you get +1 attack bonus sometimes, but 18 Dexterity gives you +1 attack bonus always and you still get 3 uses of Ki Strike(as opposed to 4), along with all of the other bonuses of the higher Dexterity.

Of course, some of this changes as one increases in level, and there's still a lot of other stuff to consider, but still, hm…


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I'm a bit hoping is that Ninja becomes an archetype for the Monk, Rogue, and Bard. I feel the Ninja is a class in between those three, depending on how you want to build one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, if a target saves against quivering palm, do they become immune to the unarmed strike that's a part of future quivering palm?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if I can really consider levels to be mundane.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>