I stopped being too concerned with divergence some time ago, when it comes to a lot of things (like class balance!), but I wanted the houserules to be instantly comprehensible (even if mind-bogglingly overdone in terms of options) to someone already playing Pathfinder. Divergence from d20 + modifier compared to DC is something that most 3.5/PF players wouldn't know what to do with, so it was kind of the last thing I wanted to look at. But if there's a simple, non-invasive fix, even if it means looking at a table or rolling 2 dice instead of one, I'm all for it.
But, again, a simple (2d20, drop lowest, +5) isn't going to work instead of 1d20+10, for example, because it suddenly makes you unable to hit DC 28. I do NOT want to have to recalculate all of the DCs in the entire game!
Thanks for the rules rewrite, I recently discovered this thread and the associated rules set. We're probably going to be trying out an adjusted adventure path with these rules to see how it goes.
Is there a description of the non-core spells somewhere? The feats are all nicely rewritten and organized, but the spells (eg in the bard expanded spell list or the monk spells) just reference sources. Are we going to need to find a way to have access to those sources before we can play, or is there a document somewhere out there for this?
I stopped being too concerned with divergence some time ago, when it comes to a lot of things (like class balance!), but I wanted the houserules to be instantly comprehensible (even if mind-bogglingly overdone in terms of options) to someone already playing Pathfinder. Divergence from d20 + modifier compared to DC is something that most 3.5/PF players wouldn't know what to do with, so it was kind of the last thing I wanted to look at. But if there's a simple, non-invasive fix, even if it means looking at a table or rolling 2 dice instead of one, I'm all for it.
But, again, a simple (2d20, drop lowest, +5) isn't going to work instead of 1d20+10, for example, because it suddenly makes you unable to hit DC 28. I do NOT want to have to recalculate all of the DCs in the entire game!
What about something as simple as roll 2d20, add results together, plus skill bonus. If you aren't trained in the skill you are attempting, then the sum of your roll results can never exceed the DC.
So if the DC was 28, and you rolled 2d20 and got a result of 13 and 17, your result would be 30, but then you add you total skill bonus to determine the extra effects of your result. If you were Crippled Craig, then your result is only 28, plus your modifiers, as he isn't trained in the skill. But Awesome Al, however, has a +10 bonus to the skill, so he exceeds the DC by 12 and gets to do cool stuff because of it.
This allows Basic Ben and Crippled Craig to succeed at skill checks more often (or to even attempt a crazy skill check with a high DC), while also allowing Awesome Al the ability to be rewarded for specializing in a skill, as he has a more likely chance of succeeding at the skill check, and also far exceeding it to do the cool stuff he trained for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we going to need to find a way to have access to those sources before we can play, or is there a document somewhere out there for this?
Only if you wish to use those options. It has always been the intent that these rules reference closed content with the expectation that the user owns the sources. Kirth does not advocate piracy or copyright infringement.
BTW, Kirth, I don't know what your distribution frequency/policy is, but I'd still love to take part of it. Don't know if you've sent it and it just hasn't reached me or if you just don't distribute that often, but my email still is superlina95.gmail.com with the first dot being an at-sign (in sweden, they're called "trunk-a's" hehe)
Only if you wish to use those options. It has always been the intent that these rules reference closed content with the expectation that the user owns the sources. Kirth does not advocate piracy or copyright infringement.
Roger, not interested in pirating anything here, I was just wondering if someone had done a rewrite similar to what was done with the feats.
What about something as simple as roll 2d20, add results together, plus skill bonus.
I like where you're headed, in terms of caps, but the 2d20 thing (to expand the range of the number generator) means that the shape of the frequency distribution curves is getting warped in exactly the opposite of how I'm wanting it to -- instead of expanding the high- and low-range ends, we're truncating them by starting with a bell curve instead of a line. 3d20 would make that worse, and so on.
Roger, not interested in pirating anything here, I was just wondering if someone had done a rewrite similar to what was done with the feats.
vip00, Appendix B of Chapter 7 has examples on how to construct a lot of the core evocations and save-or-lose spells using the metamagic feats. For spells not in the core rules, you could re-construct them from the ground up similarly, in most cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about something as simple as roll 2d20, add results together, plus skill bonus.I like where you're headed, in terms of caps, but the 2d20 thing (to expand the range of the number generator) means that the shape of the frequency distribution curves is getting warped in exactly the opposite of how I'm wanting it to -- instead of expanding the high- and low-range ends, we're truncating them by starting with a bell curve instead of a line. 3d20 would make that worse, and so on.
There are d30s for sale out there. It's a bit more clunky, but you could also do a d40 (d4 and a d10) or d60 (d6 and d100). Or a d80 for that matter, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Oh, I forgot: Fie on thee, Kirth! Fie!!
What about something as simple as roll 2d20, add results together, plus skill bonus.I like where you're headed, in terms of caps, but the 2d20 thing (to expand the range of the number generator) means that the shape of the frequency distribution curves is getting warped in exactly the opposite of how I'm wanting it to -- instead of expanding the high- and low-range ends, we're truncating them by starting with a bell curve instead of a line. 3d20 would make that worse, and so on.
Well, the action dice idea could help with the potential high and low end stuff, though adding more dice does always create a curved probability set.
I'd suggest doing exploding dice, then. To represent having a higher potential, you could make it so high ranks in something reduces the number needed to gain an additional die (or dice), and/or increasing the dice you gain; so maybe base you can get a d6 bonus when you roll a 20 naturally, and at 6 ranks you get the extra die at 19, at 11 you only have to roll an 18, and at 16 you can get it on a 17. Add this to Sellsword's suggestion for the bonus cap, potentially excluding the bonus from the exploding die. This increases the chance for higher numbers while also letting you reduce the static bonuses. You could potentially do the same thing for the opposite end, and reduce the potential numbers that cause...imploding? dice.
Oh my! You made a bookmarked PDF?
GIMMEH!
PLEASE!!
dakryn at cox dot net
There's a bookmarked one from this spring floating around somewhere, not fully updated but in pretty good shape, IIRC. If someone who has a copy could fwd it over to Kryzbyn and Ilja, I'd be appreciative.
There's a bookmarked one from this spring floating around somewhere, not fully updated but in pretty good shape, IIRC. If someone who has a copy could fwd it over to Kryzbyn and Ilja, I'd be appreciative.
Sent!
Thanks!
Got it! Thanks :)
I kinda lost track, why do you need a higher range for skill checks again? Sorry, this thread is hard to follow for me.
It's the auto-win/auto-lose at higher bonuses that bugs me. Say Billy's mom has a +20 Perception bonus, and Billy is untrained and a bit clumsy (-1 Stealth bonus). While she's watching TV, Billy tries to sneak past her into the kitchen to steal a cookie.
Billy can't succeed. Ever. He could try to sneak past her every day for his entire life, and never once make it, because the difference between his bonus and his mom's is bigger than the entire range of a d20. That's what's bugging me. No matter what the difference in skill, Billy should have some tiny slim chance, even if it's only 1%.
That's a basic example. At higher levels, though, what happens to Billy pretty much happens to everyone who doesn't max something out. You either go all-out crazy stacking bonuses just to stay remotely competitive, or you resign yourself to the fact that you can never, ever succeed, so why bother even taking that skill in the first place?
I want you to be able to throw a couple of ranks into a skill and still get some use out of it past 5th level or so.
Even worse, it's not just skills, but pretty much everything -- attack bonuses vs. AC, for example, and saving throws, and so on. When a BBEG sorcerer maxes out his Cha and takes Spell Focus, eventually he'll hit a DC at which the people with a good save in that category usually succeed at, but all the people with the poor save progression in that category always need a 20 to succeed.
It's almost like you're better off not having dice, and just saying "whoever has the higher bonus wins." That's sure simple, but it makes for a lousy game. Some element of chance has to be preserved for things to work right.
4e solution: you automatically raise every skill
Then you've still got 10th level guys who can auto-succeed against 1st level guys. I want the 10th level guys to be 10x better, not infinity times better! And you can only do that if the range of random numbers is larger than the maximum bonus size.
As for save DCs... I don't know, sounds like something you need to fix on the other end; as in, you should make it so you can't have a save DC 20 points higher than a save even for a harder (but still possible) fight.
Then we'd also need to narrow the gap between good save bonuses (plus attribute plus resistance, etc.) and bad save bonuses.
As I said before, one approach is to simply make the game so that no bonus can ever be above +10. But that means restructuring the whole game from the ground up. The other approach is to let bonuses get as large as you want, but make sure that the range of random numbers is even larger. It's the latter approach that I'm interested in.
Just thinking aloud here, but let me recap real quick...
No matter what the difference in skill, Billy should have some tiny slim chance, even if it's only 1%.
Critical successes and failures with skill checks. Possibly?
I want you to be able to throw a couple of ranks into a skill and still get some use out of it past 5th level or so.
Low/lower/non-scaling DCs, but then you still have the auto-succeed issue. And you don't want to have to rewrite everything.
The other approach is to let bonuses get as large as you want, but make sure that the range of random numbers is even larger. It's the latter approach that I'm interested in.
A d100 system would work, but then it's not a d20 system. And you cannot easily convert current DCs to a percentage system either, not higher ones anyhow (30 out of 20 is 150%).
Kirth, what kind of range are you looking for? Your range can only be so big when you have 20 digits, and your DCs are mostly within or around that range. Bonuses only shift the range, not expand it (+10 bonus shifts range from 11 to 30, still 20 numbers).
Everything suggested so far (by me at least) revolves around shifting the range by allowing lower-bonus characters the chance to succeed at higher DC checks by raising minimum results. That doesn't exactly increase the range of random numbers, if that is even possible in a d20 system.
Rolling multiple d20s, dropping lowest, only increases your chances of a higher result, but does not guarantee success if the DC is still beyond a character's ability. Rolling multiple d20s and having critical successes does, however, allow for Billy to have a chance at that cookie. This still gives him a chance that he didn't have before, even if his mom has an equal chance of critically succeeding in spotting him. Some chance is better than no chance.
Critical success ranges on skill checks and saving throws is an interesting idea, but also begins to add more book-keeping. It might be worth it, though, if it accomplishes your goals.
I am not sure what direction we should be taking to solve this issue. Is it possible to better define it? And/Or at least better define your need/concern, Kirth? How would making sure that the range of random numbers is larger solve this issue, exactly, if most of your DCs are still within a reachable range for an average Joe (achievable with minor/casual investment)?
What I've been working on is a table, because it lets me see the numbers at a glance. All the middle sections -- where bonuses and DCs are more or less equal -- works on 5% increments, so you could still throw a D20 if you wanted to. It's on the high and low ends that I'm expanding the range of possible results by using a finer gradation in percentages. A person with a +10 skill bonus might roll percentile dice to see the DC he hits, with results something like this:
01 = Total failure
02-05 = DC 5
06-10 = DC 10
11-45 = DC 15
46-70 = DC 20
71-95 = DC 25
96-99 = DC 30
00 = DC 35
That's just an example, not final numbers, but it sort of illustrates what I'm looking for: instead of hitting a DC range of 11-31, we've expanded the possible results range, to DC 0 - DC 35. In this example, Billy (-1 bonus) might hit DC 25 on a "00," and Billy's mom (+20 bonus) might only hit DC 20 on a low enough roll, so that Billy has a numerically-quantifiable chance of sneaking past his mom for once.
Referencing your critical results comments, we could probably accomplish the same thing for skill checks by tossing a d20 and saying "OK, if you roll a 20, roll again to see what extra bonus to add, and if you roll a 1, roll again to see how much to subtract." The advantage of that approach is that you've got a d20 system still, and you just have to remember that 1s and 20s are special (Skill Focus might give a 19-20 "crit range" instead of a +3 bonus), so it works like critical hits do, and people are used to that. The disadvantage is that it's an iterative approach, potentially chewing up more time on each person's turn, whereas rolling against a table is a 1-shot approach -- chuck the dice, look up the resulting DC, and announce it.
Rolling multiple d20s and having critical successes does, however, allow for Billy to have a chance at that cookie. This still gives him a chance that he didn't have before, even if his mom has an equal chance of critically succeeding in spotting him. Some chance is better than no chance.
I guess this really just begs the question: SHOULD he have a chance? Can't some things just simply be impossible to achieve without investment? Like walking on water without training, for example. If Billy never puts in an effort to improve his cookie-stealing skills, should he ever have a chance to succeed?
I guess this really just begs the question: SHOULD he have a chance? Can't some things just simply be impossible to achieve without investment? Like walking on water without training, for example. If Billy never puts in an effort to improve his cookie-stealing skills, should he ever have a chance to succeed?
Exactly so, thus my "no cretins designing space shuttles" comment above. The table example shows that, too. I want to somewhat expand the upper end of DCs reachable, not expand it infinitely.
The disadvantage is that it's an iterative approach, potentially chewing up more time on each person's turn, whereas rolling against a table is a 1-shot approach -- chuck the dice, look up the resulting DC, and announce it.
But doesn't looking up a table also chew up more time? And aren't you limited to the results of the table? What if the DC is 40? 43? 37? Is the table only capped at 35? What I mean is, where is it capped, because there has to be one in a table of set values.
Referencing your critical results comments, we could probably accomplish the same thing for skill checks by tossing a d20 and saying "OK, if you roll a 20, roll again to see what extra bonus to add, and if you roll a 1, roll again to see how much to subtract." The advantage of that approach is that you've got a d20 system still, and you just have to remember that 1s and 20s are special (Skill Focus might give a 19-20 "crit range" instead of a +3 bonus), so it works like critical hits do, and people are used to that.
Now we are beginning to talk about exploding dice and critical successes/failures. I really dig this approach, actually. Even if you roll a nat 1, you could still roll a 1 on your other dice (unless you keep rolling d20s if you get a 1 or 20, like true exploding dice), or 2, still giving you a chance for success after modifiers.
And in opposed rolls, someone could still roll a 20, but then roll really low on their next roll, giving you the chance of success after modifiers.
Going with this method, what would happen if you rolled a 20, and then a 1, a wash? What about the other way? Do the dice keep "exploding" in a given direction if you roll multiple 20s or 1s?
1. But doesn't looking up a table also chew up more time?
2. And aren't you limited to the results of the table? What if the DC is 40? 43? 37? Is the table only capped at 35? What I mean is, where is it capped, because there has to be one in a table of set values.
1. Yes, unfortunately, but whether it would be more added time than rolling more dice and adding up the results remains to be seen.
2. The table could go up to DC 50 or 60 or whatever, but you wouldn't be able to actually reach those DCs unless your bonus were higher than +10. Extrapolating from the example given, someone with a +40 bonus would hit a maximum of DC 65 on results of "00." I'm having a hard time envisioning a way to stack bonuses much higher than that. For DC 43, if you're shooting for the moon anyway, treat it as DC 45; if your bonus is +30 or whatever, your chance of reaching or exceeding it would be 40%, exactly as it is now.
Exploding dice could work -- e.g.,
That would supersede the auto-hit on 20/auto-miss on 1 rules for attacks. Skill focus would let you get a 19-20 critical success range, instead of a +3 bonus to the skill. Improved Iron Will might do the same.
There's also crit success and crit fail; on an opposed test that's an about 10% chance for the underdog to come out on top.
Yeah, that's sort of where things seem to be leaning now.
Exploding dice could work -- e.g.,
If you roll a 20, roll another d20 and add the result of that roll to your total.
The maximum number of additional rolls could be 1 extra d20 per +10 of your normal bonus, or something like that.
If you roll a 1, roll another d20 and subtract the result of that roll from your total, and this could go on forever if you keep rolling 1s. That would supersede the auto-hit on 20/auto-miss on 1 rules for attacks. Skill focus would let you get a 19-20 critical success range, instead of a +3 bonus to the skill. Improved Iron Will might do the same.
I was actually just thinking about this as well. I really dig this method.
Here's a thought on the number of dice that can be rolled:
This system should be based on and scale with game tier, instead character stats. This keeps everyone of similar CR on a level field in terms of chance, regardless of specialization or aptitude.
HD 1-5: up to 1 exploding dice (possible 2d20).
HD 6-10: up to 2 exploding dice (possible 3d20).
HD 11-15: up to 3 exploding dice (possible 4d20).
HD 16-20: up to 4 exploding dice (possible 5d20).
If you roll a "1" during an "explosion" (you rolled a critical success), that dice and all remaining unrolled dice are discarded. Find the sum of all rolled dice.
If you roll a "20" during an "implosion" (you rolled a critical fumble), that dice and all remaining unrolled dice are discarded. Find the sum of all rolled dice.
On a critical hit, you roll confirmation as normal. If your confirmation result is enough to hit the target, you deal critical damage. If not, you add your confirmation roll result to your attack roll, attacking the target as normal.
If, on a critical confirmation roll, you roll a natural 20, your crit multiplier increases by +1 (x2 >> x3, x3 >> x4, etc.)? Or just add exploding dice results to confirmation roll to confirm critical hit as normal?
Referencing your critical results comments, we could probably accomplish the same thing for skill checks by tossing a d20 and saying "OK, if you roll a 20, roll again to see what extra bonus to add, and if you roll a 1, roll again to see how much to subtract." The advantage of that approach is that you've got a d20 system still, and you just have to remember that 1s and 20s are special (Skill Focus might give a 19-20 "crit range" instead of a +3 bonus), so it works like critical hits do, and people are used to that.Now we are beginning to talk about exploding dice and critical successes/failures. I really dig this approach, actually. Even if you roll a nat 1, you could still roll a 1 on your other dice (unless you keep rolling d20s if you get a 1 or 20, like true exploding dice), or 2, still giving you a chance for success after modifiers.
And in opposed rolls, someone could still roll a 20, but then roll really low on their next roll, giving you the chance of success after modifiers.
Going with this method, what would happen if you rolled a 20, and then a 1, a wash? What about the other way? Do the dice keep "exploding" in a given direction if you roll multiple 20s or 1s?
I kind of went into my ideas on this a little bit above, but I'll expand on it here. I feel like having a d20 explode to another d20 just feels weird. The chances of getting more than one is incredibly low, and it makes the range of possibilities extremely wide (allowing for some wonkily bursty rolls, in my opinion). Instead, you could have it explode to another die, like say a d6 or a d8 (maybe even a d12 to make it feel less lonely). This increases the range of numbers while allowing you to limit the bonuses because you're also increasing the average rolls in the process. Having it explode in the opposite direction (imploding, if you will), then this counteracts the average increase, but specialization can change this.
To go beyond this, you could have specializing give higher and/or more dice, or even reduce the number required to explode the die or reduce the imploding penalty (because when Greatest Swordsman Ever makes a misstep, it's going to be a lot less noticeable than Average Joe). You could then limit the static bonuses they get and still increase their average roll in a more randomized way (plus, rolling more dice is always fun).
I think this gives exactly what you were looking for; Billy has a chance at getting a few exploding dice, but Mom could also get a few imploding dice, while keeping Billy from really being able to build a space station while still in grade school. Lowering the die you get from exploding also removes the need for limiting the number of times it can happen, because it becomes less of an issue when it happens more than once.
*Edit* Stupid classes delaying my response. Ah, well.
Vulture -- I woke up this morning with those exact same thoughts -- I think maybe you telepathically beamed them to me!
OK, here's what I'm proposing. These rules do essentially what my table of results did (only not quite as smoothly!), but work off an exploding/imploding die mechanic instead:
CRITICAL FAILURE
On a critical failure for a skill check (assuming the task fails, given the modified result), rather than the task simply failing, some major blunder may committed in the process. For example, a character arrives in a shady bar to meet with an informant; unbeknownst to the player, there is a bad guy lurking there, too. The player rolls vs. Perception to notice; failure indicates that he fails to spot the bad guy.
Critical failure results, on the other hand, might mean that the character doesn't even spot the informant (who might have stepped out for a moment) and thus blows the whole meeting. This is generally a flavor thing, and is used only with player agreement.
If the critical failure die also results in a “1,” roll another d20, and also subtract those results, and so on.
CRITICAL SUCCESS
For attack rolls, for every 5 points of your base attack bonus above +1, roll and additional 1d6 for critical success (maximum +4d6 at BAB +16). For skill checks, use your number of skill ranks instead; for saving throws and ability checks, use your character level to determine the number of dice to roll.
For each natural “6” scored on a 1d6 for critical success, roll another d6 and add the results. The maximum number of additional dice to roll this manner is equal to the number of critical success dice initially rolled.
Critical hits from weapons are handled normally; there is no special interaction with this rule. Specifically, high critical threat ranges do not allow additional success dice to be rolled on 1d20 results other than a natural “20.”
As a point of potential interest, I also wrote up a quick mini-essay in response to people expecting "realism" from high-level characters:
What Does Character Level Mean?
Character CR ... Level Title
1st – 5th ... Journeyman
6th – 10th ... Hero
11th – 15th ... Champion
16th – 20th ... Demigod
A journeyman-level character is a competent adventurer of no great worldwide fame.
A hero has established a great reputation for mighty deeds, and is likely to be known in songs and legends; pseudo-historical figures such as Charlemagne’s paladins, Robin Hood at the peak of his career, and so on, are presented in legend as hero-level characters. This is the maximum level range for any "realistic" framework.
Champion-level characters operate on a scale that cannot be modeled in real-world terms, and leave real-world expectations largely behind. For this reason, many groups will prefer to stop play sometime at or before reaching this level. A champion-level character is one of the greatest adventurers in the world, and will be called upon to save nations, invade other planes, etc.
A demigod-level character’s power eclipses any reasonable considerations. Characters at this level can be expected to save or conquer entire worlds, contest with demon lords, and foil the machinations of gods.
In general, it is assumed that only a modest number of adventurers survives and progresses through each tier. Adventuring is a dangerous profession, and the mortality rate for journeymen adventurers and heroes is high. Those who are not killed will generally settle down, establish strongholds, and retire before reaching Champion level. Very few champions are able to find enough challenges suitable to allow them to acquire demigod-like power.
Also as a side note, I'm strongly considering turning the Prestige Paladin into a collection of fighter talents and feats. So far there has been no real interest in the class in any of the playtests, and I sort of like the idea of being able to be a semi-paladin by selecting the abilities piecemeal.
Also as a side note, I'm strongly considering turning the Prestige Paladin into a collection of fighter talents and feats. So far there has been no real interest in the class in any of the playtests, and I sort of like the idea of being able to be a semi-paladin by selecting the abilities piecemeal.
I like the idea of the paladin being an occupation anyone can get into instead of multiclassing into the fighter. People of all kinds pursue the good fight against evil.
I liked the idea of the prestige paladin, and from a story perspective it makes for good drama to 'earn' the abilites rather than just have them at creation.
That having been said, the more you move towards a classless system (which I think Kirthfinder is kinda half and half) this is a good idea to offer more options to each class.
If you offer them up as feats and such, even a rogue could be a 'paladin', which isn't a bad thing.
I say go for it and test it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin is one of my favorite classes - the favorite, if fact. I have used the class to build a villain in my campaign (a Hellknight turned graveknight), and one of my players is using the class as well.
I particularly like the different synergies given depending on classes taken before Paladin. I would be sad to see it go.
Thanks for the feedback, helio -- I wasn't aware anyone had used it. If you have and feel that way, consider it salvaged!
That reminds me -- if people are actually using these rules at home, any feedback you can give me is extremely valuable. (Preferably things like "X doesn't work for us because of Y," rather than "We like um lol," because my ego is big enough already and because I'd like to fix problems that will inevitably come up.)
The only thing problematic with PP that I found, were his multiple synergies. I could have 4-5 base classes and take a level of PP, and ALL of them would advance as if I've taken multiple multiclass talents.
The only thing problematic with PP that I found, were his multiple synergies. I could have 4-5 base classes and take a level of PP, and ALL of them would advance as if I've taken multiple multiclass talents.
That's true, but you'd be a total gimp until you finally qualified for PrPal, because you'd be unlikely to have enough levels/talents for all those base classes to provide any synergy to each other. I guess the smartest move would be something like a barbarian/fighter/ranger, so that at least your BAB would have been stacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It hurts to admit it, but I'm probably in the "We like um lol," camp.
I downloaded a version of Kirthfinder many moons ago, right around the same time that D&D Next was released. Ever since, I've been all, "Hey guys, I stumbled across this really interesting system, maybe we could--" And my gaming group has been all, "We want to play licensed D&D, gobba-gobba-hay, one of us!" And that was the end of the conversation.
Fie on thee, Kirth, Fie!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to actually get the chance to test the prestige paladin myself.
If you got the ones I sent in October, you could just email them to your players and say, "My way or the highway, chumps! Setting purity demands we use these rules. Enjoy them or find a new game, 'cause I don't allow any Special Snowflakes at MY table!" And then we can see how well that goes over in real life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, my cat just carefully looked over the Races document, walked right in front of me, and used the keyboard to rename the GOBLIN as R5TTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Is everyone cool with that, or should I change it back?