Search Posts
very bottom of last page sorry i edited my post, but thx for that! thats post #250 in a thread complaining about the FAQ change. what i mean is how did people get clued in to the FAQ change in the first place? i monitor the paizo blog and didnt recall seeing it, just checked and it was not in there. ty in advance
what FAQ? i see no FAQ update, just ppl complaining/discussing it?? EDIT - i see the change in the FAQ of course. what i mean is, it was not mentioned in the paizo blog. other than seeing a zillion ppl posting about this, how/where should i have known the FAQ had been updated before being surprised by this at a con?
i completely disagree that it helps with difficult terrain. It says move normally, and paying double cost for difficult terrain are the normal movement rules. If it did ignore any hindrances to movement, then the whole second section mentioning water is redundant. the fact they mention water means its an additional effect.
I have had a ton of monsters thwarted bc they are based on grab then all kinds of horrors. last night it was 15 advanced remorhazes trying to swallow whole people, which dones insane damage as their bellies are basically pure fire. but they cant grab, so they cant swallow whole, so they are just a wimpy bite attack (one) per round. it was a joke. it just seems legal that if a colossal creature shows up and tries to swallow a gnome, it auto fails. i get the spell was meant to allow characters to move, esp underwater. remove hindrances. i have a hard time believing the spirit of the rules was to make the character immune to a gigantic list of special attacks. this thread seems to be in a state of limbo, but ill post anyways. anyone have a way for their to be some way for stuff like swallow whole to work?
Wow i pooched that. Missed word Additional, so yes 4th, and the penalties are not on all attacks but get worse. Let me try again. -2 flurry of maneuvers
1st and 2nd maneuvers no penalty
lvl of 15 replaces BAB Full Round Action
The penalties would be awful, and as I read it, you can only do 3 max, at lvl 15 You replace you BAB of 11/6/1 with your monk lvl, 15 -2 for flurry of blows
Full Round Action
you do not get a 4th action, assuming you are 15th level. You dont have flurry of blows so you dont get an extra attack - you gave up flurry of blows to get flurry of maneuvers, which is very specific about 3 total maneuvers at 15th lvl
So a player stumped me last night, asking me "what are the three things that damned house thrune?" I cant find anything on google that spells out the three, or where the commonplace nickname comes from. Abrogail I sold her soul, was killed by her son... i mean a lot of these are speculation anyone have the actual lore on this moniker? thanks
As part of my goal to read all novels, the PDFs for sale, and then the Free Web Fiction, I have been thoroughly enjoying the free web fiction! However when i click on A knightly Mission by Dylan Birtolo, it goes to a page that should list off all of the chapters and their individual links. Instead it just hows chapter 1. I read chapter 1, wondering if maybe it was just a short piece, but no, the end clearly says (not to mention the story context) that there is more content that is missing. thanks in advance!
So i just read the fantastic short story "Certainty" by liane mercial (well was like a dollar on Audible, so glad paizo stuff is on audible now). anyways, they run into a variant Iomedae priest who is basically burns anyone suspected of evil at the stake. their holy symbol is slightly different (flames not wings) etc. Ive tried googling it, and all i got was one mention on these forums of someone saying "check out iomedae burners" which is what i am trying to do hehe - are there rules in some AP i havent read?
basically any info or references to this Mendevian burner sect are appreciated, hopefully rules info but ill take any story, novel, AP, or lore too! thanks!
I have a question about the Libertys Edge season 7 faction CARD. I am asking it here bc it came up in this scenario, and I do not want to post spoilers in a general faction card discussion (besides, ppl go off the rails instantly) Did anyone give credit for Liberate one or more slaves, captives, or hostages during an adventure The speech Cassiel gives makes me at least consider it, but this hasnt come up before. Since allips are formed by suicide I am leaning strongly towards not allowing it but hoped for some feedback. And also about undead/trapped/imprisoned souls in general. I had always thought of Libertys Edge as only dealing in humans, but the general mandate about corruption made me think a cleric of pharasma who was lib edge could make claims to returning souls to the River of Souls by freeing them from undeath... etc. But ya, School of Spirits. Right now my Libertys Edge PC got a nice boon on his chron sheet but zippo on the faction card and i am trying (within the rules) to find out more specifically what a slave, captive or hostage is.
If i have tremorsense and spring attack, i know what square is occupied. I still have a 50% miss chance though. Can i spring attack into that square? Do they get no AoO? No AoO if i make my 50% An AoO no matter what bc technically i cannot "target" them? I dont think id allow someone cast say magic missile just based on tremorsense (tell me if i am wrong on that one too), so im confused by the definion of "the target of the attack" if I am using tremorsense to attack into a square. Im leaning towards ruling i cannot spring attack and hope to get lucky, but looking for people who know RAW better than i do. thanks in advance!
I had assumed ones with a gp costs were consumed. I went to verify this, and see nothing about it in the RAW. I thought there was some section saying that materials with a cost, except for Focii, were consumed, but i seem to have old dnd bleeding in. - does the ship splinter required by Locate Ship get consumed?
I cant find rules that say any material is consumed. It seems absurd that the 25gp for Divination isnt consumed, but looking for RAW. So sure you need a 5000 gp diamond for raise dead - but where does it say it is consumed and lost? I think ive been making a lot of assumptions.
Well you can command undead on mindless undead so i dont consider it mind control. But food for thought. There wont (i doubt) be a day 2. they just came across some, the cleric resisted the babble, and owned them. I assume my players will find a way to eliminate them long before a day 2 takes place. It was just pretty weird seeing them so powerful against creatures with 130+hp and absolutely deadly attacks, i wanted to double check there was no "Creatures with 10 or more HD have their natural attacks count as magical" or some other dnd-ish thing i had missed. Seems like, in this very limited case, they got lucky. time to find a megalodon or dinosaur herd.
So please tell me I am missing something here. My groups cleric now controls 2 allips. they are incorporeal. 1) is there no rule that creatures of massive size can hit them? As far as I can tell, unless a monster has a feat, these 12 HD giant plants and animals just cant do damage to them. 2) There is no save against the Allips wisdom drain. It isnt listed as a SLA or SP so SR doesnt apply. I cant find anything that says creatures immune to mind-affecting things are immune, so as far as i can tell, these can drain plants. What stops a CR3 Allip from just walking up to a CR10 plant and draining its wis to 0 with touch attacks, immune to any counter attacks?
any solution yet to this only granting players one module of prestige (and the Gm only 2 tables of credit) for three adventures that award three levels worth of xp and prestige? the scenario tracker is still saying Player has already run scenario when they play part 2 and 3 (and the bonus chron) if they have played part 1 =/
this is going fantastically so far. the players noticed Takonihepsu had purple (aka amethyst) eyes, and are convinced she is the ancient Amethyst Sage, who has set up the pathfinder guild to take the fall as she loots this hall. they are making plans to murder her when they see her next awesome.
I am surprised no one has asked this, maybe i am just dense - Did you tell your players about preservation points, and tell them when they earned or lost them? Or was it secret GM stuff? I am about to run this and had planned to keep it secret, but I am expecting my group to bumrush thru it esp after they realize things are disappearing, and end up ticked off at the end that they were undersold on the preservation aspect. Of course ill try to emphasize it from both the VC and Tahonikepsu that they preserve, but did you fellow GMs literally tell them about the scoring system?
Creating a new thing and "borrowing" one are very different. Ive only had a player summon an devil once, and that was bc it could ethereal jaunt and kill some phase spiders for the party that were hiding and spying on them. Since Xill love to do that anyways, and the summoner told her to lay eggs in them if she wanted, i went with it. Woops my example wasnt PFS.
That's why we all love Paizo! And that's the kind of leadership we need in the community! Thanks for being Paizo, Paizo.
If folks want us to do more 6-part Adventure Paths... PLEASE let us know! The 3 part ones seem to be engaging people more and allow for more stories to be told in a year, and I'm hoping that we'll be able to settle into a rhythum that allows for more frequent higher level 3 part arcs, but if people do still want 6 part ones... we need to know. (And that includes seeing evidence in sales and reviews and the like for parts 4–6 of those Adventure Paths, not just requests at the front end.) Sorry if I'm derailing it too much, but for me and the groups I've been playing, looks like the biggest issue with APs is the time it takes to leveling up (and the excess of "unnecessary" battles for the story — looks like they are there just to fill the excessive XP needs). Considering that nowadays most people use to play weekly sessions that have 2-3 hours in length, an 6-part AP takes as long as 3 years (or even more!). The problem is that it's very rare that nobody wants to change their PCs in that long, long time. Also looks like that if we take an AP to play, we are never able to enjoy the other books that Paizo releases in those 3 years, specially in terms of character options and optional rules (and other APs...). So my opinion is that 3-part APs are way better, but not able to solve our groups problems. Of course, as the stories are always incredible, we just have to adapt it to a faster leveling up, but having it printed or RAI would be waaaay better for us (and, I dare to say, for most groups/parties nowadays with those common 2-3 hours weekly sessions). Now, about the AP itself: CAN'T WAIT TO PLAY IT! DWARF ONLY PARTY, OF COURSE!
Love it! May we all have hope and defeat the disease! Best wishes for all.
Can't wait for it! Now I'm dreaming about all 1st Edition APs in CRPG! Haha! (And please let us create por our own magic items now.)
We have Oracle now!!!!! <3
That's awesome! As a 95%-time GM: thanks, Paizo! :D
Just loving all about Second Edition! *.*
Congratulations to Brazilian friends! Last year, with an enormous effort, we were able to release the Playtest in Italian only in November. This time we decided to take more time and go out in April 2020. So again congratulations to Brazilian friends, they must have spent several sleepless nights to be able to reach such goal! We certainly did not sleep well in May and the same will happen until August 1st... But every minute worth it! We're big fans of the game and all the team is working hard!
To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(
I really want that items' DC should not be fixed by the item, but for the user power/level. Just as a sword is more effective in the hands of a higher level character, also should all other items.
Liked the Flat recovery check. It's simple and avoid the use of a DC table and have the same final result (maybe a little more dangerous, what I like), and also make all character more "heroics". Keep this 1.5 way.
I think that ancestries are all lacking something that they use to have. The feeling is that Paizo just scattered their old racial traits from PF1 in higher level feats with few not interesting additions. And my expectation was just: 1) Ancestries receive the same/similar amount of their old racial traits (with some game balance in rules) 2) Ancestries receive NEW very interesting feats to choose in their higher levels that give the sensation that our characters evolution (and options) is different from all other ancestries with some exclusive/good/fun choices.
Shorter APs is a great thing! Keep innovating! And please, dare to write shorter Pathfinder APs later, specially higher level APs to achieve level 20! I'd love it!
Man, you fully read my thoughts (and the same thoughts of the two parties I'm playing the Playtest). Please, Mark (whom reads all the blogs posts haha) and the entire devs team, listen to this guy! The powers scattered among spells is indisputably the worst thing in the book.
That's really good! Please do something similar to Dedication feats. They all show a special entry with the exact SAME text. Please turn this into a standard rule, because there is no need to say the same thing multiple times and because we can gain more archetypes using the new free space.
I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly! However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful: 1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage. I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful! 2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.
I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly! However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful: 1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage. I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful! 2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.
It's odd and bizarre that an expert (or better) character can't take 10 to climb a wall or something like that... You SHOULD bring back take 10 and take 20 as standard rules. It's entirely necessary to keep the pace of the game. And I doubt that someone will choose those Assurance feats forfeiting the other cool skill feats available. At minimum, all characters should gain assurance for free at ALL skills in which they're expert or better. An expert character having to buy a FEAT to receive something like a medium 5 on the D20? Didn't convince me...
Assurance is really terrible and we need take 10 (or take 20) back!
There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon): In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say: For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage. For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels: Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
This seems very reasonable to me.
Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing. Nice to hear that! If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation. Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.
Just passing by to ask for Orcs as a core race! (not in place of goblins, but WITH them!)
My biggest concern about Hero Points: game sessions are not a fix mechanical measure. In some groups, game sessions last between 6 to 8 hours, in others, game sessions last at maximum 2 or 3 hours. The "fix" Hero Points concession should be based on some game mechanic, not something as random as "game session". Maybe 1 Hero Point per level, plus extra Hero Points per heroic deeds and the like, just like it was in APG. APG's way to give players hero points is very good so there is no need to change it.
This is a big issue. Think about a fighter wielding a shield that have to choose to spend his reaction to raise a shield (and receive DR) or to make an attack of opportunity is ok, but USING AN ACTION AND A REACTION to MAYBE use your shield is not so good and hamper the character fun and utility. My suggestion is that the AC circumstance bonus from shield should be a passive bonus. Maybe, just maybe, Shield Paragon should be a 1st level feat, at maximum. But my real thought is that the ability to wield a shield and use it to gain AC bonus should be part of the basic shield proficiency.
Just hoping that in the final CRB there are higher level options for ancestry feats.
Just passing by to beg for orcs in CRB again. :D
Thinking about the wording/layout improvement: For what I saw so far, ALL dedication feats have the same special where You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from this archetype, so why not just make this a common rule and eliminate the need of writing this same special in each dedication feat?
I just totally want ORCS as a playable ancestry in the final rulebook. PLEASE, make room for them! (Even if you have to remove goblins, haha.) Mark, Jason, is there any possibility for that?
Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...They are a nice/interesting option. They are not a fixed class feature. I'm glad to know this! It wasn't clear in the blog post. Thanks for that! (And for the relief! Haha!)
Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...
I also criticize a lot that archetypes should allow a character to change its class features. IMO, you're getting the best thing that made Pathfinder Pathfinder and changing/twisting it in a bad way. The new idea is a good one, but those are not archetypes like we're used to see. The problem isn't that they are changing, is that we'll not be alowed to do the same customization like we always did. What about a rogue without uncanny dodge? Ir a ranger without favored terrain? A fighter without armor training? And an alchemist without bomba/mutagen? Or even a druid without wild shape? That's what bothers me... Hope you guys change it with the playtest.
The wording is completely unrelated to resonance, it's all a question of style and clarity. We originally had it as Operate, Focus, and Command, but Activation was added during editing to make it clearer. If people think it doesn't make it clearer, that's good feedback and it's easy enough to change if that's widespread.100% agree. It's really destroying the elegance of the 3-action economy. If Resonance requires this over-definition, then it's Resonance that should go.A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it. A necklace of fireballs requires you to spend 2 Operate Activation actions That excess of overdefine all actions in game make me miss the days of swift, move and standard actions... 100% agree with Fuzzypaws. Please stop naming each action!!! You're just unnecessary broking the three-action system.
Mark, the only real reason I saw to call a prestige archetype a prestige archetype is because 3.5 Legacy. Any thoughts about that? Why not just call it an archetype, since the rules looks exactly the same? (To identify heavy prerequisites we need just to read the prerequisites). Also, the Special text is totally unnecessary. You should just say in the general/standard archetype rules that one can't select a new dedication feat until he have choosen three feats of the same archetype. You'd save a lot of space to give us more new archetypes in the final corebook (and in future, new books).
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest! Please don't say that ability increases will be similar to Starfinder regarding 2 points to lower than 18 score and 1 point to higher... This is super confusing and not player-friendly...
My biggest hype: Amiri is carrying a bow. If I can use the standard barbarian to build a bow-user barbarian, I'm willingly enough to change editions. :D
We have three players with three different type of colour blindness in our table. They just can't figure out the content of most images in PF1 books. Please do not make icons that will hinder their gaming.
So weaknesses now give a flat bonus damage? That seems... abusable. If you could find a way to repeatedly hit a monster for 1 point of damage, and they take 5 points of bonus damage, that could add up very quickly. I guess it depends on what options are available to ping monsters for small amounts of damage. I have the same concern here...
Very nice! Specially the unique name to DR and energy resistance. Finally! Also, I'm wondering curious about the weakness fixed damage... We really need to see more higher-level monsters to say if it's functional or not...
About the Code. If a god adds to the Paladin Code, where do the tenets fit in the order? Are they added at the bottom or elsewhere? Does it vary per tenet/god? I have the same doubt.
So if in the playtest the shield/armor proficiency will always be the same, the "lower proficiency applies" exists only because you can't add your level twice to your AC to keep the game balanced? Can't you just find another better way to write it? Looks a lot confusing the way it is. Think about a character that bought armor proficiency feats, reached master at armor proficiency, and then raise a shield being untrained. His AC bonus will drop by 2 (+2 from master will be -2 from untrained, then adds +2 from the shield). The way it look is: I'm good with my armor, but when I grab a shield, I can he hitted easier. Just makes NO sense. Maybe giving characters a standard "defense proficiency" regardless of armor and shield being used and then applying the item bonuses would be easier. (And also would help spellcasters without armors and shields to be less hitable.) Of course there are some problems in that idea, like everyone being able to wear an armor and hold a shield, but can he helpful somewhat. Or maybe just saying your armor and shield proficiency both gives you a defense bonus that do not stack and only the better applies (as in the standard bonuses rules), and locking new abilities under armor/shield proficiency ranks? This way, someone trained in armor but not in shields would benefits from the defense proficiency bonus from his armor training and still able to raise a shield (a common action that doesn't need any training) being untrained. He would still benefits from the armor proficiency ranks without being hampered by using a shield, would benefits from the shield item bonus, but would not be able to use specially/advanced shield actions/abilities because he isn't trained in shields. Something like that. Also, I'm TOTALLY disappointed that shields bonuses can't be upgraded. Unless they give abilities that are always improving and giving some combat useful tactics that can be used ALL the time, this will make shield users dissapear from the game...
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?We actually don't know yet that it goes the other way. The blog says "Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed,..." so it's possible that only increasing your handedness requires an action while releasing your grip could be a free action. I hope you're right! Because in Starfinder, any grip change is an action. And that gives you no benefits at all...
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?
Still not happy with spell points for powers activation... Why not power points?!? For what I saw, powers are spell-like, not exactly totally spells. Will obviously create confusions, it's not player-friendly.
"Spell Points" that you use for everything but actual spells is gonna be the most confusing term ever... You REALLY NEED to rethink this term. Seriously, you just REALLY NEED.
So we finally got saving throws with the same/similar scaling numbers than other mathematical progressions in the game. Glad to see this! :D However, the spell proficiency to touch attacks indicates that we'll have greater touch AC to monsters...
There are definitely those at Paizo who agree with this, since everything else that is done by level is on that 0-20+ scale. On the other hand, certain deeply entrenched terminology being changed has a risk of dramatically changing the feel of the game, and I can see both sides on that topic. This is one of a few places. One other that springs to mind for me is that we don't change saving throws and attack rolls to be called saving checks and attack checks in PF1 or PF2, even though everything else is called check, and checks are d20 rolls against a DC, so they both are checks. But imagine how it would sound to call for a saving check?That still have the problem of "well I'm 7th level, why can't I cast 7th level spells?" That's why I suggested Spell Circle or the like. A 4th circle spell can be cast by a 7th level cleric or wizard - you don't confuse folk with multiple incarnations of "level" - and while I didn't have an issue, I've also been playing AD&D and its descendants for nearly 40 years so....Okay. I'm actually going to jump on the bandwagon here for asking for "Spell Level" to be renamed "Spell Circle" or "Spell Sphere" or something similar to that. There is a legitimate reason for this suggestion.How about something like Spell Level and Caster Power? Can you change spell level to spell circle? :D Just look like everything being called level is a little messy...
Necromancy is the school, whereas healing and positive are other traits of the spell (basically "descriptors" like you're familiar with, but not as wordy). So why not have a different line for school and a different line for descriptors/traits? If you put the school among all other descriptors/traits, you'll just make confusion in the head of new players or just make more slow to find the spell's school. I think that is really important to segregate them in the mechanic text block.
Notice how Mark didn't say that spell lists weren't divided up based on the essences. I'm gonna take that as a 100% confirmation that I'm correct in my prediction. There's no other possible interpretation of that.The spell lists are certainly based on the essences in some way. Is it exactly what you guys predicted in this thread? Well, now's not the time to confirm or unconfirm; we have more tricks up our sleeves to share with you in future blogs. I predict if you liked the essences bit in this blog, you will really like a few more of the things to come! I'm betting more in the four spell lists being something like Arcane, Divine, Nature and Psychic and then each class has access to some specific traditions and/or schools/descriptors of each list. For instance: wizards have access to Arcane spell list with material/mental essences, with all schools/descriptors; in the other hand, a "eldritch knight/magus/whateverlikeit" would have access to Arcane spells list with material/mental essences, but only to Abjuration, Transmutation and some other specific schools/descriptors. I guess that, this way, they can build have a more modular core rule to create spell lists to new classes without having to create/think/write all those spell lists and thinking about each spell individually. This way, they will have to think more about concepts, lore, and ideas; and less nitpicking about minor spells, letting the rules do rest by itself. Also this prevents some unbalanced classes' spells list. Basically, I guess paladins, for example, will have a spell list very similar to clerics, but with some "attacking/offensive" descriptor open to them.
I'd go for Critical Success
OR Critical Failure
I know that maybe the way you did is more intuitional since you'll have more Successes than Critical Successes, but the Failure line will lost the intuitional need the same way...
Mark, please give some spoilers here: 1) Since there is no indication/denotation of saving throws here, will saves now be a specific, special defense like the suggestion in Active Spellcasting (Spell Attack Roll) of Pathfinder Unchained? If you guys are doing it, I'll be very happy. Until today, I just don't know why in spells the active character who's casting it don't make any effort (roll a dice to attack) and instead the defender need to. Why this do not use the same logic/reasoning of physical attacks and Armor Class? 2) Also, will the type of save be indicated by any of the spell descriptors? 3) For what I saw, there will be no more spell schools, and now, are they divided/segregated only by descriptors? If they still here, please, create a different line describing the spell school in the spell text block. 4) In the Casting line of the spell text block, I just can't see why there is a need to write "Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting, Material Casting". Will there be another different, new spell action to add here or can you delete the Casting word being repeated a lot of times? Looks like you don't need to repeat it a lot of times, and since they're already in the Casting line, you can save a lot of lines in the spell chapter and use it to add more content in this or another chapter. (Also, when translating it to latin languages, it'll probably occupy 2 lines of text, since many times we use more than one word to translate casting in this context.) 5) And the last one, about design: the SPELL X indication in the title line gives me goosebumps remembering the 4e ability blocks. Do not forget to verify if this gives the same goosebumps to another readers and can make any unworthy harm to the game presentation.
|
