Is it me or is it no longer necessary to bring weapons that actually fit indoor / tunnel fights?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I have always brought along weapons that can replace my axe or other weapon which requires a good deal of space to wield when we end up in tunnels or other confined spaces. But, since startingin on PF I have yet to be told I can't swing a great axe, ect. in any environment I have entered. This has been the way it has gone in every game I have played and was just curious if I was missing the bits of reality that did make the tactical bits of planning an assualt necessary.

Grand Lodge

Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
I have always brought along weapons that can replace my axe or other weapon which requires a good deal of space to wield when we end up in tunnels or other confined spaces. But, since startingin on PF I have yet to be told I can't swing a great axe, ect. in any environment I have entered. This has been the way it has gone in every game I have played and was just curious if I was missing the bits of reality that did make the tactical bits of planning an assualt necessary.

"Realism" is taking more and more of a backstep to "Fun".

There was a time my Greatsword fighter carried a shortsword... for precisely the above reason (and a few daggers to boot), but now it largely depends on the DM style.

Me? I think that DM putting in hazards and terrain restrictions for flavour every now and then is fun.


Same.

I find it mysterious that it doesn't come up, I think its a 50/50 mix of GM's not wanting to be mean and ruin the 'fun' of people all specced up on one weapon, or GM's just aren't thinking about it.

I still impose that on my players though.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I admire your roleplaying spirit, but it's because there are no rules that account for the space required to use a weapon. Feel free, however, to propose houserules that you feel simulate the difference between a gladius and a greatsword.


Our home group still worries with it which led them into kobold tunnels one time in which only the gnome and halfling could even stand.

The two of them proceeded to become a mobile crossbow platform by the halfling borrowing the fighters medium hvy shield and the gnome shooting around it as the party crawled behind them.


Its more a case of being squeezed in a tunnel.

There are squeeze rules, which sort of cover it, but its come down a long way from 2nd ed where it was a bit more prescriptive.

2HS and 2HB were no no's, yet Pierce was ok.

I miss Tunnel Fighters as a kit too :(


We face this kind of thing frequently in our campaign. Small tunnels, cramped hallways, the annual getting swallowed by a purple worm. . . .


Mergy wrote:
I admire your roleplaying spirit, but it's because there are no rules that account for the space required to use a weapon. Feel free, however, to propose houserules that you feel simulate the difference between a gladius and a greatsword.

Exactly

Some people like martial classes having reasons to carry many weapon types - it gives a reason for martial types to have weapons sticking out all over them. For example, the classic schtick of a merc is that when you have them at 'gunpoint' and are taking their weapons away, it takes several minutes to do it. There's little actual reason to be armed to the gills like that in PF. I think that detracts from the fun.

But, there aren't any rules for 'space required' to use a weapon. It's a gap that should be filled.

The Exchange

I tend to add penalties occasionally for weapons in tight quarters. I did so recently in my kingmaker game here on the boards when they were fighting in some tight tunnels. I prefer to give a penalty rather than a blanket ban though.

I do similar things for weapons in places filled with NPCs as well. Swing a great sword while a panicked crowd rushes past, or in the midst of a bar or building full of innocents and things get messy fast.

I also apply realism effects to spells where necessary, but mostly in situations where innocents can be hurt. Casters need to think more carefully when evoking and sometimes summoning (particularly fiendish things) in my games. My players seem to like it.

Cheers


I think it's a good thing. Means you can dual wield katanas in a brawl inside a cramped sake house instead of just a wakizashi.
*runs*


Why punish the guy with the big weapon, what does he get in compensation for having to spend extra feats and magic weapons to use in certain situations?

What is next having rules for weapons getting stuck in shields, broken bones when hit with warhammers, ect?

I mean this is a fantasy game not a real world simulator, fireballs don't fill to volume and my halfling fighter with a polearm can use it to attack in a tight tunnel and hit something 10' away with it. Let the guy have his fun if we can imagine dragons and wizards we can image some cool way this works as well.


I don't see it as punishment, my Greatsword Fighter carried around a short sword and three daggers for the specific time in close-quarters or very small spaces, like tunnels and the like.

But as mentioned above, it really depends on the GM and the campaign's tone, but I like playing in the kind of campaigns that care about this things, both as a player and as a GM.

In the end it's a matter of preference, and that's the beauty of the game.


1) Melee have a hard enough time as it is

2) You would be surprised how agile those big "unweildy" weapons can be. They can be grabbed like a quarterstaff, or you can use them to thrust instead of slash of you have to.

3) If the tunnel is small then people have less room to DODGE that giant blade coming at their head.


Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
I have always brought along weapons that can replace my axe or other weapon which requires a good deal of space to wield when we end up in tunnels or other confined spaces. But, since startingin on PF I have yet to be told I can't swing a great axe, ect. in any environment I have entered. This has been the way it has gone in every game I have played and was just curious if I was missing the bits of reality that did make the tactical bits of planning an assualt necessary.

It is not realistic, but sometimes people just want simplicity. Even if you are carrying a large weapon somehow, and you are in a tunnel sized for a kobold you can still swing it.


Quote:


It is not realistic, but sometimes people just want simplicity. Even if you are carrying a large weapon somehow, and you are in a tunnel sized for a kobold you can still swing it.

It is realistic. If you're in a 3 foot tall tunnel you're squeezing, and take a -4 penalty to hit. Seems about right.


I think it also depends on whether you started playing back with 1st and 2nd edition or not until 3rd edition and PRPG. The more grid map-dependent the GM and/or party, the more 10 foot high by 10 foot wide tunnels, passages, etc you will see, where the size of the weapon never gets in the way. Sometimes I miss the days where the party had to go single file down a narrow passage with the ceiling just high enough that the humans in the group did not have to duck, where one or maybe two party members at a time could get into melee and the rest of the party had to take their chances with using magic or missile weapons against the enemy.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:


It is not realistic, but sometimes people just want simplicity. Even if you are carrying a large weapon somehow, and you are in a tunnel sized for a kobold you can still swing it.
It is realistic. If you're in a 3 foot tall tunnel you're squeezing, and take a -4 penalty to hit. Seems about right.

You are not getting full power behind that swing with a slashing weapon, and probably not with a piercing one either. A kobold or goblin is about 4 feet tall and 50 or so pounds. That is about the size of a 7 year old probably.

A realistic rule would be to apply a penalty to attack and damage. I would not like such a rule, but it would be realistic assuming the weapon could be used at all. I really doubt a reach weapon could be used if it was meant for slashing.


Paraxis wrote:

Why punish the guy with the big weapon, what does he get in compensation for having to spend extra feats and magic weapons to use in certain situations?

Ummm how are truck drivers compensated when they turn up at a suburban McDonalds drive through and the space is too small for their 18 wheeler and they can't get it around in the carpark.

I find converations about compensation a bit humourous... you know you could just buy a dagger and not be fully tricked out with it.


Shifty wrote:


Ummm how are truck drivers compensated when they turn up at a suburban McDonalds drive through and the space is too small for their 18 wheeler and they can't get it around in the carpark.

I find converations about compensation a bit humourous... you know you could just buy a dagger and not be fully tricked out with it.

Why buy a dagger? grapple or an unarmed strike would be more effective/less expensive. (no I'm not afraid of melee kobold's getting AOO's)

Or hell, just hold your enormous hammer or shield in front of you and keep moving foreward, nothing has the strength in that small a space to stop you and eventually you'll hit a larger space.

Alternatively invest in wands of expeditious excavation, or have the druid burrow a tunnel under the tunnel to make a bigger tunnel. Point is, buying that dagger is still the least effective option.


Paraxis wrote:

Why punish the guy with the big weapon, what does he get in compensation for having to spend extra feats and magic weapons to use in certain situations?

Why punish the knife fighter by arbitrarily taking away one of his biggest comparative advantages?


Small spaces with limited room to swing around that Greatsword or Halberd is a Hazard as far as I'm concerned, and is used accordingly. (albeit, sparingly)
When the big Fighter decides to squeeze his big, plate armored, Spiked Chain-wielding arse down the Mite-hole, he can expect to have some issues if he doesn't put away his whirlly death and pull out something more space-appropriate.

Same deal with blaster casters throwing Fireballs down rabbit holes that contain fellow PCs. Its going to fill EVERY square until it reaches it's spread limit. Which may or may not include HIS OWN square.

I'm all for Magic 101 physics. I mean dragons can fly and giants can walk around despite comparative real-world gravity, but a cramped space is a cramped space.


lordfeint wrote:
Same deal with blaster casters throwing Fireballs down rabbit holes that contain fellow PCs. Its going to fill EVERY square until it reaches it's spread limit. Which may or may not include HIS OWN square.

That's one of those niche rules I miss about 1e.


This would boost the cave druid as well which at second level do not take squeezing penalties.

I think a shortsword might be better than a dagger in close quarters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
lordfeint wrote:
I'm all for Magic 101 physics. I mean dragons can fly and giants can walk around despite comparative real-world gravity, but a cramped space is a cramped space.

This is something I just don't get. You're completely fine with things in a fantasy game defying gravity, but not a cramped space? What's valid fantasy physics and what isn't? When you have an attitude like yours, you end up needing to houserule every single thing in the universe in order to stay consistent, and don't expect your players to be able to keep track of it all. Why not just, you know, go by the rules and leave it at that? If something imposes a penalty, it imposes a penalty (like squeezing). If it doesn't, it doesn't.


I do think some weapons should be better in these circumstances, but elaborate rules taking up space in the core book are not really needed.. nobody is going to remember the rule when it actually comes up.

Just allow the GM to make a on the spot ruling without slapping the RAW in his face and all will be fine.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I think it's a good thing. Means you can dual wield katanas in a brawl inside a cramped sake house instead of just a wakizashi.

*runs*

SSSHHHHH! Use your indoor sword.

I like the idea of putting some kinds of limits on huge weapons in tight spaces, HOWEVER when it comes to adding realism, the martial types get screwed, while the casters get a free pass. The more realistic it gets, the more powerful casters get.

If you want to simulate tight spaces, you could always use a mechanic like swallowed whole.

There is also the problem with sheathing a pole-arm or greataxe. You just can't store it nearly as quickly as a smaller weapon. I think it would be fine to say that some large weapons take a standard action or more to put away.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Paraxis wrote:

Why punish the guy with the big weapon, what does he get in compensation for having to spend extra feats and magic weapons to use in certain situations?

Ummm how are truck drivers compensated when they turn up at a suburban McDonalds drive through and the space is too small for their 18 wheeler and they can't get it around in the carpark.

I find converations about compensation a bit humourous... you know you could just buy a dagger and not be fully tricked out with it.

Thread winner for me. As DM I get annoyed at players whining everytime you present with a situation that isn't optimal for their current build. If some are upset by not having room for their 2H sword they would have hated the time I had the Wizards spellbook

stolen and it took 4 days for the party to find and recover it...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UltimaGabe wrote:
lordfeint wrote:
I'm all for Magic 101 physics. I mean dragons can fly and giants can walk around despite comparative real-world gravity, but a cramped space is a cramped space.
This is something I just don't get. You're completely fine with things in a fantasy game defying gravity, but not a cramped space? What's valid fantasy physics and what isn't? When you have an attitude like yours, you end up needing to houserule every single thing in the universe in order to stay consistent, and don't expect your players to be able to keep track of it all. Why not just, you know, go by the rules and leave it at that? If something imposes a penalty, it imposes a penalty (like squeezing). If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Call it 30 years of playing almost exclusively with the same group of players. I've had TIME to refine house rules. It takes much more time to explain the new rules of each edition of D&D/Pathfinder then it does to carry over what I liked about other editions and just tack on new stuff.

So for me, at least, it's not about what this new rule set says, its about how much I like about this new rule set and what is going to make the cut.

I have the priveledge of playing with people that don't generally nitpick over not being able to swing a 12' polearm around a 3' passage.

It boils down to You do what YOU like, and I'll do what I like.


Dapifer wrote:

I don't see it as punishment, my Greatsword Fighter carried around a short sword and three daggers for the specific time in close-quarters or very small spaces, like tunnels and the like.

But as mentioned above, it really depends on the GM and the campaign's tone, but I like playing in the kind of campaigns that care about this things, both as a player and as a GM.

In the end it's a matter of preference, and that's the beauty of the game.

The reason it's a punishment is this: Wealth by Level. At level 15, the caster needs one item for each slot he can hold. ONE. Marital classes already need to spread their wealth thinner, and already are outclassed. If you require terrain appropriate weapons, you need to toss out Wealth by Level, or the martial class gets even MORE hosed.


ThatWeirdGeckoGuy wrote:


The reason it's a punishment is this: Wealth by Level. At level 15, the caster needs one item for each slot he can hold. ONE. Marital classes already need to spread their wealth thinner, and already are outclassed. If you require terrain appropriate weapons, you need to toss out Wealth by Level, or the martial class gets even MORE hosed.

A big reason wizards seem to come out ahead is because many GMs play softball with them - wizards don't have to invest in protecting their spell books, they often get 15 minute adventuring days, etc.

As long as there are two classees, one of which the GM is playing softball with and the other not, the one being played softball with is going to come out ahead. This has nothing to do with requiring different weapons for different situations.

Right now, a fighter needs 3 weeapons; his main weeapon, his backup weapon (in case he gets disarmed or his main weeapon gets sundered), and a ranged weeapon. Adding a small weapon is a small extra burden.

Now, what if a player wants to play a Halfling knife fighter whose main combat tactic is to get in close where larger weapons aren't so useful? Should the GM say, "sorry, but I took away your fighter's main advantage because somebody who likes to fight with claymores thought I was penalizing him if he couldn't easily do it in cramped quarters"? And then, should I add, "..so, the character concept you want to play has been nerfed to the point of unplayability"?


Even if you are a stickler for simulationism, polearms make pretty good tunnel weapons (as long as you don't have to turn around). Greataxes and greatclubs, sure, those could be a problem, but it's not like you're normally lifting a glaive over your head to bring it down - you lift it a little bit and let momentum do the rest when you're chopping with it.


ThatWeirdGeckoGuy wrote:


The reason it's a punishment is this: Wealth by Level. At level 15, the caster needs one item for each slot he can hold. ONE. Marital classes already need to spread their wealth thinner, and already are outclassed. If you require terrain appropriate weapons, you need to toss out Wealth by Level, or the martial class gets even MORE hosed.

Aside from the few small (and usually trapped) tunnels and crawlspaces I have that lead to the actual fighting areas, I don't think I've had my players actually fighting in small places after level 4 or 5.

Much less level 15.
Unless you count being swallowed whole.
(in which case, No, you cannot use your glaive to hack your way out... unless you were swallowed by a leviathan or REALLY big Purple Worm.)


I tend to be fairly merciful primarily because people do not exist in 5x5x5ft cubes and melee eachother by standing up agaisnt one another. If I feel such penalties are justified I tend to let the character be aware of it when they enter that situation. Otherwise I don't bother.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) Melee have a hard enough time as it is

2) You would be surprised how agile those big "unweildy" weapons can be. They can be grabbed like a quarterstaff, or you can use them to thrust instead of slash of you have to.

3) If the tunnel is small then people have less room to DODGE that giant blade coming at their head.

Obviously rangers beat them out at higher levels just because of accessibility to targets and full attacks. What are some other good damage dealers at higher levels? Other than the alchemist and summoner.


Fergie wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I think it's a good thing. Means you can dual wield katanas in a brawl inside a cramped sake house instead of just a wakizashi.

*runs*

SSSHHHHH! Use your indoor sword.

I like the idea of putting some kinds of limits on huge weapons in tight spaces, HOWEVER when it comes to adding realism, the martial types get screwed, while the casters get a free pass. The more realistic it gets, the more powerful casters get.

If you want to simulate tight spaces, you could always use a mechanic like swallowed whole.

There is also the problem with sheathing a pole-arm or greataxe. You just can't store it nearly as quickly as a smaller weapon. I think it would be fine to say that some large weapons take a standard action or more to put away.

That's where you're wrong if the game was realistic casters couldn't function.


TarkXT wrote:
I tend to be fairly merciful primarily because people do not exist in 5x5x5ft cubes and melee eachother by standing up agaisnt one another. If I feel such penalties are justified I tend to let the character be aware of it when they enter that situation. Otherwise I don't bother.

I don't think a GM who takes away the comparative advantage of a PC concept (for example, not giving a knife fighter a comparative advantage over a larger weapon user in tight quarters) is being merciful.

He's being biased.


TarkXT wrote:
I tend to be fairly merciful primarily because people do not exist in 5x5x5ft cubes and melee eachother by standing up agaisnt one another. If I feel such penalties are justified I tend to let the character be aware of it when they enter that situation. Otherwise I don't bother.

that actually makes sense. i would base the penalties off of the squeezing rules.

but i would let the knife fighter have his shine.


Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)


Ion Raven wrote:
Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)

probably a long time ago. i'm not afraid of sundering player weapons, and even though i hate stealing spellbooks. i would do either with a few conditions.

i would leave some temporary replacement tools at some point.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
UltimaGabe wrote:
What's valid fantasy physics and what isn't?

I'm going to assume that you play D&D/PF, and under that assumption, I am going to further assume that you can fully visualize in your mind's eye, a dragon flying overhead, or a full sized giant walking by...

Pretty easy stuff I imagine (no pun intended)...

How then, can you imagine a sword that is say 4 1/2 or 5 feet in total length begin effectually wielded by a person who is 5 or 6+ feet tall in a space that is no more than 3 or 5 feet in height and width??

I can't! At least not without hand waving solid matter so that the sword somehow magically passes through the tunnel walls (and that seems pretty silly to me)...

That is how I define what is and isn't fantasy physics...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ion Raven wrote:
Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)

No, but then combat rounds used to be a minute... :p

Anyhow the point is that if the BIG WEAPON players insist on getting into cramped quarters then either they adapt, use a sub par weapon, or find another way to get to where they want to go that doesn't involved cramped quarters.

Get a reduce person going or something, dunno, don't care... but if you can't operate as a class and become completely ineffective by not being given your optimal terrain for your optimal weapon then its a worry about just how specialised you have become.

Ditto to the nerfing of close quarter fighters, you have nerfed their builds arbitrarily, which is a bit uncool... especially as those sort of builds have been put in RAW... :(

And yeah SOD might be just as happy giving the Kobolds a punch in the chops, I still like the concept of daggers or a hatchet though.


LilithsThrall wrote:


That's one of those niche rules I miss about 1e.

+1


Shifty wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)

No, but then combat rounds used to be a minute... :p

Anyhow the point is that if the BIG WEAPON players insist on getting into cramped quarters then either they adapt, use a sub par weapon, or find another way to get to where they want to go that doesn't involved cramped quarters.

Get a reduce person going or something, dunno, don't care... but if you can't operate as a class and become completely ineffective by not being given your optimal terrain for your optimal weapon then its a worry about just how specialised you have become.

Ditto to the nerfing of close quarter fighters, you have nerfed their builds arbitrarily, which is a bit uncool... especially as those sort of builds have been put in RAW... :(

And yeah SOD might be just as happy giving the Kobolds a punch in the chops, I still like the concept of daggers or a hatchet though.

in my last post, i said i wouldn't put too much effort into sundering a weapon or stealing a spellbook without some temporary replacement tools.

those tools would not be exact replicas. they would probably be nerfed and difficult to work in. but they would be available.

i don't give a damn what the wealth by level table says after you start play. i see it as a quick way to calculate one's starting wealth when making a higher level character. nothing more.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)

No, but then combat rounds used to be a minute... :p

Anyhow the point is that if the BIG WEAPON players insist on getting into cramped quarters then either they adapt, use a sub par weapon, or find another way to get to where they want to go that doesn't involved cramped quarters.

Get a reduce person going or something, dunno, don't care... but if you can't operate as a class and become completely ineffective by not being given your optimal terrain for your optimal weapon then its a worry about just how specialised you have become.

Ditto to the nerfing of close quarter fighters, you have nerfed their builds arbitrarily, which is a bit uncool... especially as those sort of builds have been put in RAW... :(

And yeah SOD might be just as happy giving the Kobolds a punch in the chops, I still like the concept of daggers or a hatchet though.

in my last post, i said i wouldn't put too much effort into sundering a weapon or stealing a spellbook without some temporary replacement tools.

those tools would not be exact replicas. they would probably be nerfed and difficult to work in. but they would be available.

i don't give a damn what the wealth by level table says after you start play. i see it as a quick way to calculate one's starting wealth qwhen making a higher level character. nothing more.

Gotta say i disagree here, first I never do weapon drops, where there is stuff because they need stuff, not because it makes sense. Also if they lose there stuff then they werent prepared, probably bout time to roll a new character cause you fud up. If i forced that situation past any precautions im a s~$~ty DM and shouldnt be dming.

Having said that, I dont think penalizing two handers in small spaces makes a lot of sense. These guys are super human, it probably takes 2 inches of space for him to flourish his weapon in an effective manner, then again if this was a rule in a campaign I played in I would carry a heavy/tower sheild just for this occasion when I can crouch foreward with no fear of being hit ( cause realistically nothing is getting past the shield and it also makes no sense that anything could swing there dagger hard enough to sunder it.)

Yes its as boring as it sounds, welcome to realism.


LilithsThrall wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I tend to be fairly merciful primarily because people do not exist in 5x5x5ft cubes and melee eachother by standing up agaisnt one another. If I feel such penalties are justified I tend to let the character be aware of it when they enter that situation. Otherwise I don't bother.

I don't think a GM who takes away the comparative advantage of a PC concept (for example, not giving a knife fighter a comparative advantage over a larger weapon user in tight quarters) is being merciful.

He's being biased.

Or we could go by RAW and not do it at all.

Like I said I tend not to bother except in curcumstances where characters are swinging weapons with wide arcs (Scythes, heavy flails, certain pole arms) in narrow spaces that don't give them at a very good angle which is a remarkable rarity. It's not being any more or less biased then peppering anti magic fields about a place.


i would give weapon drops, it makes more sense in my 0HD humanoid Dominated settings.

i don't use a lot of monsters, NPCs, hell yeah!

favored enemy 'human' is probably the best favored enemy in my campaigns, animal is almost just as good.

i may use a more iconic monster, if the situation calls for it. but monsters are a rarity for me beyond a few templates.

and i do modify approrpiate creatures as i see fit.

for example, if my plot demands an angel of suffering, i will modify the closest appropriate angel to match my needs. it's merely a matter of equipment, feats, and spell selection. sometimes alignment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) Melee have a hard enough time as it is

2) You would be surprised how agile those big "unweildy" weapons can be. They can be grabbed like a quarterstaff, or you can use them to thrust instead of slash of you have to.

3) If the tunnel is small then people have less room to DODGE that giant blade coming at their head.

This... Plus I don't think it's been mentioned in the PHB/DMG since it said advanced dungeons and dragons on the cover... the omission of it and dozens of other bizarre edge case rules for planetary alignment situations was an improvement


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It is realistic. If you're in a 3 foot tall tunnel you're squeezing, and take a -4 penalty to hit. Seems about right.

This is really all that needs to be said on the subject.

lots of people wrote:
...swing...in a small space...

There is more than one way to use any given weapon. It's not an issue.


Regarding using large weapons in small spaces, I don't care who you are, you're not gonna be using a claymore in a telephone booth as easily as you're going to use it out on the street.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You should be using grappling restrictions in a phone booth anyway.

Me, I just give them a -2 to attack rolls and call it a day. I don't know that there have ever been rules on what weapons can be used in what spaces in 3E. Maybe the squeezing rules.

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is it me or is it no longer necessary to bring weapons that actually fit indoor / tunnel fights? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.