Cleric of Iomedae

Ressy's page

68 posts. Alias of Ben Adler.


RSS

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

If you find a way to get a fly speed you can use Flyby attack, which IIRC lets you take any standard action during the move.


Actually another player and I were discussing this last week.
We decided that if you were to be reincarnated, and had an item allowing a permanent alter self effect to look like your old self, it was advantageous in every single instance, except inside antimagic fields, or when you come back as a Kobold, and honestly the Kobold isn't that bad for a Rogue even.

Personally I love using it as a player, though it's most interesting when the GM allows older tables, or interesting circumstances (like a paladin/cleric who is extremely devout having their reincarnation chart fudged by their deity).


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Here is what bothered me the most.

Main thing that bothers me: oaths helped make up for the low will save, and Wisdom as least important attribute.

Without Oaths, my lvl 12 cavalier (+6 Will save) will fail just about any will save he's subjected to most of the time, even a DC 20 he'd fail 65% of the time. And as a level 12 character most threats have much higher save DCs.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

I'd just replace the line for "increase the bonus granted by the oath" to "increase the bonus granted by the teamwork feat", and replace the ability to take an additional oath with......an additional teamwork feat.

Knight's Challenge would increase the bonus damage by 50%, or perhaps double it, as it is a once per day, high level ability.

All subject to change when the updated PDF is released, of course.

Using some of those teamwork feats is hard enough for a mounted character with a focus on charging, and the reactive nature of some of the better tactical feats.

Also, somewhere in the class, perhaps inside one of the Orders, can we get a class feature that makes the abysmal will saves less of an issue? I was kinda counting on the oaths to do that pre-revision.


Black Harlequin wrote:
As it is currently stated in the write up, I see no reason it shouldn't be multiplied. Pretty much like Power Attack damage.

It certainly makes Lance+Spirited charge scarier...

Here, have 3x your level added to your charge attack damage.
Oh, and 3x that on a critical hit!


The iPad does certainly look like it has the promise of being a terrific D&D tool, and certainly it would be easier to use than my 17" laptop I end up setting up for most games.
Though having several PDFs open at the same time, and being able to alt-tab (or apple-tab) from PDFs to excel based character sheets would be lovely to have.

What I really want is one of these. and I hope apple makes a line of higher-powered tablets running real OSX (and possibly Windows via bootcamp)


Even the way they are now I find them quite nice.
It's a handy way for my character (with Craft Staff) to have a large number of spells available in the same spell slot, and cast them multiple times if required.
Say there's a bunch of 1st level utility spells I want to have available, I can make a staff with all of them and thereafter cast any one of them up to ten times, and if I keep it to only one of any of them per day it's pretty much the same as having prepared whichever spell it is that I happened to need.


I started printing mine out of cardstock years ago, when I got tired of erasing through them.

Try using some natural colored cardstock (the off-white, non-bleached stuff) instead of the white stuff, looks very nice.


It would be really nice to get a Developer or someone official to specifically state if spikes and bashing stack in pathfinder or not.

However I think you're all scaring them off.


Xum wrote:
Ressy wrote:

Mainly I'd like a better way to differentiate one specialist wizard from another, or a better way to differentiate clerics.

I don't care if it's feats (some feats that aren't so darn generic for spellcasters would be lovely) or alternate class features, or prestiege classes. Mainly I just want something apart from a prepared spell list that sets Wizards apart from one another. This is even more needed for clerics, since their list is pretty thin for effective spells, and they all get channel.

I don't think you are right, I think the difference beetween characters is more than just sheet and spells. I think the Wiz specialization is already a lot different, the spells u got and the character on itself.

Clerics have lots of diference with diferent domains and diferent deities, it's more of a fluff thing and choice of feats/spells/style of play.

I beg to differ, I'm playing a Diviner, and the only divination flavor I get from my Specialization is that I'm slightly better at scrying, I know when I'm being scryed upon, and I generally manage to get the hell out of dodge before anyone else can act in combat.

Oh, and I can give up an action to give someone else a small bonus to everything they do for a round, which comes up very infrequently.

On the whole since every Wizard can have every spell, and there are some very iconic spells that just about every Wizard is expected to have in their spellbook or prepared, the Schools don't really differentiate Wizards from eachother very much.

The only real individuality my character has, class-wise is from the 3 levels of Loremaster I have, which gives me the ability to roll every single knowledge check there is. I took loremaster because there really isn't any reason not to, apart from advancing the limited benefits I get from my School. Oh, and having to sink 4 feats, only one of which isn't on the short list of feats that are worth getting for Wizards.

And I do roleplay the character in a unique manner, it just irks me that my school specialization adds practically no flavor, and there's no way to increase the "diviner" portion of my character short of gimping him significantly in combat with sup-par spell selections that may end up getting us all killed.


Mainly I'd like a better way to differentiate one specialist wizard from another, or a better way to differentiate clerics.
I don't care if it's feats (some feats that aren't so darn generic for spellcasters would be lovely) or alternate class features, or prestiege classes. Mainly I just want something apart from a prepared spell list that sets Wizards apart from one another. This is even more needed for clerics, since their list is pretty thin for effective spells, and they all get channel.


I would like to see at least one prestige class for each school of wizardry, each sorcerer bloodline, and most of the clerical domains.

I think for instance an Abjuration Prestige Class that gave some more abjuration themed abilities at the cost of one or two levels of spell progression (and advanced your Abjuration specialty) would be nice to have, ditto for all the other non-spellcasting things the spellcasters have now.


tejón wrote:

Why? I just checked, it's actually been that way since 3.5, so possibly this was just never reviewed?

Even ignoring the simulation disconnect, other than certain classes' proficiency restrictions, that's the only reason to use a shortbow, composite or otherwise!

Curious whether ye Paizoans have an actual reason for this?

Umm, why wouldn't you be able to use a longbow while mounted?

And yes, some weapons are inferior. It's been this way for a long time. When was the last time you saw someone use a club when they had the opportunity to use a mace?


There's several interpretations to the Caster Level on magic items:
Absolutely required to be this level
Pre-requisite that may be ignored for a +5 to the spellcraft DC
Pre-requisite that may be ignored for a +5 to the spellcraft DC per caster level you're short
Purely a measure of how difficult an item is to dispel, and for deciding the base spellcraft check to create the item.

Personally I favor the last interpretation, since there's plenty of cheap magic items that are mainly useful at low level, and have silly CLs listed. Bags of holding or stat increasing items are a good example.


Greater Invisibility is the best way to get sneak attack damage reliably with ranged attacks (after the first round of combat).


Dennis da Ogre wrote:

More spells for rangers that help them in combat and with stealth... swift spells would be nice for combat.

If they do a bunch of ray/ orb spells please keep them in the appropriate schools of magic. It would be nice to see the evokers remain the best blasters.

And how about some archery-related Ranger spells. Cmon, they're supposed to be the best archers, but right now Fighter blows them out of the water if they spec in archery.


I have no problem per se with DM fiat, however it can be irritating when the GM sees something one way, the player sees it another, and the difference isn't brought up until much later, say in the middle of a combat where a player has been counting on their interpretation.

The big thing I have to say about DM fiat, is at the outset to talk to your players before pulling out a big NO, and even more so to make it clear before the game even starts any houserules you're using, any interpretations you're making on rules or character abilities. It's no fun to find out that that the GM heavily restricts item crafting after you take a bunch of item crafting feats for instance.


concerro wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
William Timmins wrote:

Ah. I'm a bit confused why it's listed for some animals and not for others? Just a typo?

Probably. Might have something to do with fitting all of the stat blocks on the page the way they did too. Might just be a disconnect between design philosophies between monster stat blocks and animal companion stat blocks.

In the end, of course, giving an animal companion its skill bonuses and senses and all that where they differ isn't that game breaking, and if you want to houserule in an eagle's bonus on Perception checks, that's cool too.

Hello James. The book says "An animal companion's abilities are determined by the druid's level and its animal racial traits."

I am just pointing this out so it can be corrected before the next printing of the book if the intent was to only give what is explicitly listed.

That might refer to the traits they automatically gain as creatures of the "animal" type, such as low light vision.

Just another interpretation.


The sunder *might* be for snapping things using the sai for leverage (getting something inbetween the tines and twisting it till it breaks).
Just a thought, since there are swordbreaker type weapons that are somewhat similar in design.


Cralius the Dark wrote:
Shadowheart wrote:
Makes me miss one prop I used to have. I forget the name at the moment, but it consisted of a metal core floor plate with a grid designed to look like stone flooring and a set of wall and door pieces with small magnets on their bases, so that I could set up a small dungeon for an encounter, and then re-arrange the walls as needed for other encounters. It added a really nice touch to a game back in the day, when the players could actually get a look at what the dungeon area looked like, with walls and passages and such.
Was this made for gaming purposes or was part of another game? I played in a game and the DM had this. I didn't think about it until years later and I tried to find it but had no idea what I was looking for.

I knew someone with a couple sets of those, I think his are for some sort of miniatures game.

I remember it being called something like "ninganos" (pronounced neen ga nos)


You know what I'd like?
A variant of Dispel Magic/Greater Dispel Magic that's created purely for Counterspelling. Nobody ever uses counterspelling that I've seen due to the limitations (must have correct spell, or Dispel Magic for a 50% or so chance, must ready an action at the correct target).

A lvl 5-6 spell that was dispel magic, only for counterspelling, and cast as an immediate action would be quite fun I think.
Or a higher level Dispel Magic that automatically countered spells of lvl x or lower.


Since Spellcraft is used to identify spells as they are cast, one would assume that a Spellcraft check would allow someone to know of the existence and effect of spells.
Essentially, how would a Wizard recognize it when a Druid casts reincarnate, if the Wizard has no idea what reincarnate is.

If you don't like having players read through other classes spell-lists, you could have them make a spellcraft check to find a spell that has a certain effect, and then give them the information if they made the check.


default wrote:
Dragonnes (From the Bonus Bestiary) can be taken as animal companions by anyone with Leadership and an effective druid level of at least 10, which gets bumped down by 4. As dragonnes have an int of 6, couldn't we expect something like this for griffins, wyverns- those 'exotic' mounts. They'll just have to deal with having d8 hit dice, and can get any traits as companion Special Qualities.

There's some strange stuff in the Bonus Bestiary, though having Leadership and AC progression meld this way is quite interesting.

Though I'd personally say that the 4 effective lvl hit is a bit much, considering it isn't that much better than other animal companions, and is requiring a feat on top of that.


concerro wrote:

Animal Companions

An animal companion's abilities are determined by the druid's level and its animal racial traits

Racial traits are anything that race gets. Bonus feats are a part of racial traits. Regular feats are not.

On a separate note: Wolves don't get improved trip, but they do the the trip(monster ability)

Actually, in a different thread one of the Paizo (official) people came in and said that racial stuff that isn't in the stat blocks isn't included in ACs, but that if you decide to houserule it in, it's probably not a problem.

*trying to find the post*


Interesting, so many little changes.


Caineach wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Stone the Crows wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that to cast a Verbal only spell you need to make a Concentration Check [which you have little to no chance in making]?

So just speaking [eg. Dimension Door] requires a check?

PFRPG page 206
Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast
while grappling or pinned are those without somatic
components and whose material components (if any) you
have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration
check (DC 10 + the grappler’s CMB + the level of the spell
you’re casting) or lose the spell
.

That seems, well, a little harsh.

It brings spellcasters down a notch, giving the physical types a real chance at beating them. Still, my 5th-level sorceress witch with her +17 concentration modifier, has a real chance of getting her spell off.
+5 stat, +5 lvl, +4 feat, not sure where the other +3 comes from...

Note that that +4 from feat only works when casting on the defensive IIRC, and would not help when grappled, damaged, etc...


I could also see many wizards deliberately creating "cursed" items that only work for certain races/classes/genders.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Ressy wrote:


Comparing Apples to Oranges here, even if you took Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword on a character not proficient with it's martial equivalent and the GM decreed you didn't know how to swing it around with 2-hands.
Shields are a martial weapon, not exotic.

But I would never allow a player to skip one feat, you would need both feats to use a bastard sword. It is a martial weapon, but the feat allows it one handed. You can not use it one handed if you could not use it to start with. Same with the shield

Strictly by the rules, nothing ever says you need to be proficient with a Bastard Sword as a Martial Weapon before you take EWP and get it as an exotic weapon, though you do need to be proficient with at least one martial weapon to qualify for the feat.

Personally I'd allow anyone who qualified for the feat to take EWP Bastard Sword and get it 1 and 2handed, but then I don't like making my players take ungodly amounts of feats for what eventually equates to +1 or +2 to damage. Generally I find they want to do these things for a concept more.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Teydyn wrote:

Another viewpoint:

Is Shield Bash so good it warrants the use of 2 feats?

IMO no, so Shield Prof removes the -4 on attacks with shields.

Two words for ya. Bastard sword. It also needs 2 feats

Comparing Apples to Oranges here, even if you took Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword on a character not proficient with it's martial equivalent and the GM decreed you didn't know how to swing it around with 2-hands.

Shields are a martial weapon, not exotic.

That said, it does seem that strictly by RAW you'd need to take the martial wep proficiency for your shield to bash with it, but look at it this way: one feat to use a shield for bonus AC, and a second feat to use a shield as a weapon as well. You are getting benefit from both feats.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

The listed CL is for a standard version of that item.

A 1st-level pearl of power, for example has a CL 17.

I can create a pearl of power at 5th-level since that CL 17 is not a prerequisite. However, if I did create said pearl so early in my career, wouldn't my pearl end up as a CL 5 pearl of power (1st) making it far easier to dispel?

This can be especially important on items such as a hat of disguise or a ring of invisibility where the CL might determine the duration or other variables of the activated spell effect.

If it doesn't work this way, then what's to keep me from arbitrarily assigning CL 20 to any homebrew item I ever create (which being homebrew, could even be a standard magic item out of the Core book, but with a higher CL)? Also, if one can pick the CL, why aren't all magic items CL 20? Or CL 100?

The caster level the item is created at determines the Spellcraft DC to create it. If you as a level 1 player tried to make a CL 20 item, the dc would likely be out of your reach and you may very well end up with a cursed item instead.

Here's an entry on the fan-made FAQ that's relevant, though there's no source


james maissen wrote:
Guthwulf wrote:
Can a spell casting caster with spring attack, more forward, cast a touch spell (a melee attack), and then move away?

Any spell caster could do the following:

Standard Action: Cast a touch spell (with casting time 1 standard action, and range touch)

Move Action: Move up to target, without using your full movement rate.

Interrupting the move action, take a free action: deliver touch spell

Complete the move action, using the rest of your movement rate.

-James

No, you can take the melee attack as part of the spell casting, if you do not make the melee attack as part of casting the spell it requires it's own standard action to touch someone (however touch spells are a free action to apply to yourself, and I think there are rules about touching willing targets that reduce the action required)


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Sheboygen wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

step 1: place phylactery in an iron golem

step 2: place golem in a large bag of holding
step 3: place bag of holding in another golem
step 4: repeat steps 2 and 3 until you run out of golems and bags
step 5: place the last bag in a permanent prismatic sphere in a deep casum in Eox or similarly airless planet(oid)
Steps 1-3 would work beautifully. Once you got to step 4, you create one of those inconveniencing tears in the fabric of reality, and are sucked in. Or something like that. Either way, the Lich would end up inside a bag of holding.
wow wouldnt it suck to lose your phylactery like that, dumbest lich in history of mankind ^_^

Argh, forum ate my post, twice.

SRD wrote:
A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions.

So putting your phylactery inside an extradimensional space, and putting that item inside another extradimensional space is a great way to make it inaccessible. You can use a permanent rope-trick to keep the Portable Hole+Bag of Holding thing from sending your phylactery to the astral plane. (Nothing can be placed inside either a portable hole or a bag of holding inside another extradimensional space)

I think plane shift allows you to leave extradimensional spaces, but not enter them, but I may be wrong.


If you really wanted to houserule an expanded list of higher level, more powerful mounts for the Cavalier, let them trade out the feature for Leadership (Cohort Mount only, Cohort fixed to always -2 levels of Character).
Not that it's actually hard to get feats in this system.


1) Use spells to get a fly speed.
2) Take Flyby Attack (which IIRC lets you take any standard action during the movement)
3) ???
4) Profit


Pirate wrote:

Aarrr...

The Roc is in there. The deinonychus was accidentally deleted while I was adding all the links. It has been re-added.

^_^

...and in an attempt to not completely highjack this thread:

Other than having to use a wolf instead of a riding dog for a first level halfling cavalier, I think that the mount system is just fine the way it is. :)

Ah you're right, I missed Roc.

And I agree with mounts being fine as they are. Cavaliers (especially small ones) have plenty of choices, and anyone can get a good high level mount with handle animal or the Leadership feat.


Nice List, but I think you're missing a few.
I didn't see Roc (starts medium, advances to large, Bestiary) or Deinonychus (Ridable at lvl 7 for small sized characters via Animal Companion)


northbrb wrote:
I agree with this idea, in ancient lore Berserkers would run into battle wearing nothing at all but maybe body paint.

Or the blood of their enemies, either way.


Kvantum wrote:
Shane LeRose wrote:
YuenglingDragon wrote:


You write that you decided to rack up the claws once you saw that the number was unlimited. But why then act surprised when the damage is through the roof? That's practically all you spent points and feats on.

Anything with sufficient flexibility can be broken and it looks like you went out of your way to break it. I'm not placing a value judgment on that decision, I'm just trying to figure out why there's an uproar.

Why is there an uproar? Really? Are you kidding me? Name another class that deals as much damage that consistently.

You decide to push a rule to its breaking point then complain that there's a breaking point, and suddenly this is a design flaw?

Easy solution: set a maximum of 4 claws for a Medium or Small Eidolon, 6 for a large Eidolon, and 8 for a Huge. The size evolutions don't give you the claws automatically, they just give you more capacity for them.

This is exactly the sort of thing he's suggesting is in the actual class description, so you know, DMs who aren't familiar with the class don't suddenly have a many-tentacled monstrosity screwing up their games and requiring rebuilding. Not all players can control their character's power level well.


Surround it in anti-magic fields, or if your GM allows, use lead sheeting to block divinations.


Btw, she's a necromancer right, so it wouldn't be totally out of the question for her to have somehow acquired a scroll or such of clone, in case you feel like bringing her back.

The problem with fighting necromancers is that they never stay down.


Hyla Arborea wrote:

The ability of create water in infinite amounts indeed changes the game.

The difference is that a cleric can now take an entire army through the desert, not just a party of adventurers as in older versions of the game.

Does that break the game? I think not. Deserts just aren't real barriers for armies any more and oasises (is that the correct plural?) aren't nearly as important as in the real world.

I can's say that I particularly like these implications though.

I've generally found that bags of holding do the same thing anyhow, not to mention items of "create food/water" x/day.


Scipion del Ferro wrote:

That would take so retardidly long to make. Even just a medium sized one.

We'll say the base price of 2,000gp, DC 20 for a medium object

Level 10 Wizard with 22 Int

+26 Craft (Construct) = +6 Int +10 Ranks +3 Class skill +2 Construct laboratory +2 master artisans tools +3 Skill Focus (Craft (Construct))
High enough to take 10 with a fast crafting check of DC 30

Base crafting price is 20,000sp
Week 1 - 36 x 30 = 1080sp in progress

At this rate, it would take 19 weeks (4.75 months) to make a single medium sized animated object.

Edit: Oh whoops, I did not notice Craft Construct is actually a feat that let's you animate them at the rate of 1,000gp per day of the market price. What I said though is still useful to keep in mind as it would take about 3 months of Craft (Pottery) to make the body for a Clay golem and 20 months of Craft (Armor) to make the body for an iron golem

Or one use of the Fabricate spell, which no wizard should ever be without.


Something to think about when considering if the images are "adjacent" to each-other.
More than one creature can share a 5' square if they're tiny or smaller, are they adjacent?


Abraham spalding wrote:
However specializing in Divination is rather easy, and if those tactical feats make it in as they are now one of them would be really nice as a first level feat for the entire party.

Tactical feats?


Mynameisjake wrote:

I'm pretty sure the 50% miss chance is being misinterpreted by some. If you close your eyes then you have a 50% chance of automatically missing, and 50% chance of getting to roll normally, not of automatically hitting.

As for Cleave and Great Cleave, they did work in 3.5, and I don't see any significant differences in PF. If you hit, you get another swing, illusion or not.

The spell specifically states that it has no effect on you if you close your eyes.

Thus closing your eyes means you get to attack them as though the spell weren't there (albeit with eyes closed)


Pre-ordered my copy.
I know several people who would love the extra alchemical options.


Dork Lord wrote:
JustABill wrote:
You might consider slighting divination. Generally speaking, I like the ability to cast divinations, but seldom cast many, and often cast them during down time, when spells per day isn't terribly important.
I don't know... Divination Specialists get some juicy stuff.

Oh yeah, Divination specialists get some great stuff, however it's not all that bad of a school to dump if you're not a diviner.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

So what is it? Is bashing untyped or not?

Shield Bash: A type of attack, specifically an attack with a shield

Bludgeoning: A type of damage, damage typically done by blunt weapons
Bashing: A Special Ability defined thusly:
SRD wrote:
A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.

Note that no type is given for the bonus, so the bonus is un-typed. (The "as a weapon of two size categories larger" is text describing how the increased damage is calculated)

and to further clarify matters the other terms used in the discussion thus far:
Size bonus: a type of bonus (like an enhancement bonus)
Enhancement bonus: a type of bonus, usually numerical (as in +2 shield)
Shield Spikes: an addition to a basic shield, similar to masterwork in that the item retains the same type, but is improved in function.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Ressy wrote:


Actually, it does not add a "size" bonus, the bonuses are untyped.
Size bonuses are what Beast shape etc... give you

But it does, You count as 1 size larger. The bashing counts the shield as 2 sizes larger. It states size, not damage. It could say the next higher damage dice. It does not it calls out size.

You make an item large, and up the damage, then make it huge and take damage from huge. You do not however add them together. You take the highest of the 2, not the combined total.So we have 2 effects that make the damage a size larger. you take the largest bonus not the total.

If this works then so should adding two spikes to a shield, as they stack. Heck why not 3 spikes then bashing, lets add bashing twice or maybe 3 times as you say it stacks and all

Until ya can show me where it says "this is the exception to the normal rule " they do not stack

Your references are wrong.

Again.

The not stacking size bit you're talking about is for spells that increase your size category (and they all explicitly state they don't stack with other size increasing magics) and a 3.5 rule where you couldn't stack effects that let you wield larger than normal weapons (such as the Goliath racial ability and Monkey Grip feats).
Neither of them apply to a weapon dealing damage as though it were a larger weapon.

In this case the intention seems to allow for the enchantment and spikes to be suitably generic that they don't need specific examples of every usage with damage numbers, such as if a splat book had come out with an exotic shield that counted as a heavy shield but had a base bash damage of 1d6 instead of 1d4. If the bashing property had a table of values instead of a dice size increase, the new shield would have to have it's own table and specific numbers.


Quandary wrote:

I just don't like how the "all-in-same-square" approach makes it so pretty much anybody but un-intelligent animals would realise it's an illusion type of effect and that their best chances are to close their eyes and swing, which drastically changes the effect of the spell.

...Ironically, un-intelligent animals very often have scent, so would be the ones who WOULD be able to discern the correct square using the old version... /shrug

Well, once you've taken out some of the illusions (which isn't really that hard) then you're much better off with your eyes open.

Not to mention if I was playing the caster I'd make sure to keep 5' stepping around so someone with their eyes closed would need to guess the square I'm in.
Not to mention all the horrible penalties for having your eyes closed in combat.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>