Ashiel's Guide to Adventure Preparation


Advice

201 to 250 of 331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.

Dark Archive

ciretose wrote:
A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.

Magic items are treated differently in the rules than items that have a spell cast on them. For example, if we look at dispel magic we can see that it says:

"You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, or to counter another spellcaster's spell"

Now, if a magic item and an object that simply has had a spell cast on it were the same then there would be no need for an entry for an object with a spell cast on it and one for a magic item. In fact, they even have different things happen to them as a product of the spell, with one being suppressed and the other ending.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.

I cast continual flame on my amulet of natural armor.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOOOOOWWWW!!!!???!!!


ciretose wrote:
It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.

So if I put the continual flame necklace on over my amulet of natural armor the continual flame necklace goes out?


ciretose wrote:
A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.

Incorrect on both counts. Sorry.


TarkXT wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.
So if I put the continual flame necklace on over my amulet of natural armor the continual flame necklace goes out?

[sarcasm]Obviously it makes the amulet cost 1.5 times its usual value.[/sarcasm]


Ashiel wrote:
[sarcasm]Obviously it makes the amulet cost 1.5 times its usual value.[/sarcasm]

Nah, you'll just need a necklace worth 1.5 times the usual value to employ continual flame on it...

*ducks for cover*

Liberty's Edge

TarkXT wrote:
ciretose wrote:
A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.

I cast continual flame on my amulet of natural armor.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOOOOOWWWW!!!!???!!!

My god says it is still a slot, still requires a move action to uncover. If you later get a better amulet, you'll need to recast it on that on as well. I suppose all of your amulets could be on heatless fire, which would be interesting...but as a DM I would ask for detailed explainations of how you were covering it, uncovering it, etc...

As to the second question, the slot rules are clear. Pg. 459 of core.


I don't think that every GM is going to be as nit picky about an amulet with continual flame on it as they would with something comparable with +1 to hit and damage with natural attacks.

The best part about this document is that it is only suggestions and the GM is always free to nix something that they don't feel is appropriate for their games. Ashiel even makes mention of this when she says "Your mileage may vary."

I can't read the whole document right now because of a problem I'm having with T-Mobile and data speeds but I will after the 8th when things reset (or sooner if they fix the problem they caused with my data). If it's like what's been posted here already, I don't think I'm going to have too many issues with it.

The issues I would have would be potion pricing but that's something that is easily addressed and has been brought up by enough people already.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.
Incorrect on both counts. Sorry.

If you are confident, FAQ it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer:

When there is something that is noted as working within the rules, but does not give guidelines makes an attempt to figure out how you do it using the normal rules already in existence (such as touch attacks, splash weapons, etc).

You should highlight these sections some how so people know when they are getting into grey areas that are not covered by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.

The necklace does not depend on being worn to function.


Ya know....

Continual Flame can be used as a hell of a distraction. Throw a marble or something with continual flame cast on it down a hallway or through a room in a dungeon, I can almost guarantee curious creatures, humanoids unfamiliar with the tactic especially, will follow it, or go see 'wut go on?'.

Perfect for a rogue/ninja to shank them from behind.... Or if you want, so you can go the other way without too much worry...

I vaguely recall somewhere in the rules that light will eventually stack and make it brighter. That is enough candles will eventually emulate daylight. But that might be an old relic from a previous version I'm thinking of. If it's not, just continual flame every marble in a marble bag and toss the thing into a dark room....

OH OH! Continual Flame a Tanglefoot Bag, one that's strung to the ceiling! Rigged as a trap, curious idiot comes to see... Trap trip, tanglefoot bag is go!

Don't mind me, I'm suffering lack of sleep and some intense insomnia...

Edit: Hopefully my edit won't make it a double post this time!

I think I'm in love with that spell now... *Devious Grin!*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brambleman wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.
The necklace does not depend on being worn to function.

We do have rules now for creating a magical item that is similar, slotless, and had a CL requirement above what heighten spell would add.

Doubling the value (for a 4th level spell instead of a 2nd) you could argue that Ashiel's item is much better priced (330 gp for v. 150 gp)

See the Ioun torch


ciretose wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
ciretose wrote:
A magic item is an ordinary thing with a spell cast on it. Of course it takes up a slot.

I cast continual flame on my amulet of natural armor.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOOOOOWWWW!!!!???!!!

My god says it is still a slot, still requires a move action to uncover. If you later get a better amulet, you'll need to recast it on that on as well. I suppose all of your amulets could be on heatless fire, which would be interesting...but as a DM I would ask for detailed explainations of how you were covering it, uncovering it, etc...

As to the second question, the slot rules are clear. Pg. 459 of core.

I'm sorry your just coming off as very knee jerky here. Particularly since the simplest method around the silliness is to wrap said necklace against the shaft of my spear. And it will still function. You can argue how difficult it is to cover it, etc. etc. that's irrelevant to the argument you're making about it taking up a slot.

Therein lies the difference between a slotted item and a spell cast.

A slotted item only functions while taking up that slot. And depending on this slottedness it's price goes up or down. If you want a clear example of how this functions in action simply take a look at the cape of the mountebank. You can't simply take it out of your pack and activate it, you have to wear it. If you wanted to do as I described you'd have to build it like a non slotted item which in turn increases the cost.

Continual Flame does not function like this. It does not create a magic item it merely places an effect on one. It's cost doesn't increase because it's cast on an amulet as opposed to say a stick. A light spell doesn't turn off my sword nor fail to function when cast on my magic sword does it?

If you want to argue that it creates a magic item I'd have to argue that the item it creates is in fact slotless since the spell does not specify anywhere about the nature of the objects being created only that they give off light.

To go on further the process for creating a continual flame item does not fit the standards for creating a magic item as listed in the rules you like to cite here. I do not need a quiet uninterrupted area to cast the spell, nor do I need eight hours or so of work. I just need a standard action and 50gp of ruby dust.

And yes ultiamtely bob is right. It's very nit-picky for no real reason. It's not RAW hell I'm positive it's not even RAI it's silliness born out of a distaste for a lightsource that leaves ones hands free. I don't believe anyone's argued against it taking an action to cover or uncover. It's the thought of a mundane item with a spell cast on it taking up a slot that makes no sense. Especially when that never appeared to be the intent or follow any kind of RAW.


I was always partial to putting these spells on a "bobbim light"

Or a "yo-yo" as the case maybe.

Liberty's Edge

Ahorsewithnoname wrote:
Brambleman wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.
The necklace does not depend on being worn to function.

We do have rules now for creating a magical item that is similar, slotless, and had a CL requirement above what heighten spell would add.

Doubling the value (for a 4th level spell instead of a 2nd) you could argue that Ashiel's item is much better priced (330 gp for v. 150 gp)

See the Ioun torch

This is all I am saying. Ioun torches are pretty much must have after a certain level, and this is an enhanced version in a sense. Casting it on an ioun stone is an easy fix, as an example.

It is a good idea, but when you drift into trying to loophole slotless items...


I don't even think getting into raw about light sources is much fun either. This would also mean I can't make a wizard that wears three or more rings and has arcane marks on them becuase they would take up a slot each and why the heck can't I do that?


ciretose wrote:
Ahorsewithnoname wrote:
Brambleman wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is a necklace that has a permanant spell effect. It takes a slot.
The necklace does not depend on being worn to function.

We do have rules now for creating a magical item that is similar, slotless, and had a CL requirement above what heighten spell would add.

Doubling the value (for a 4th level spell instead of a 2nd) you could argue that Ashiel's item is much better priced (330 gp for v. 150 gp)

See the Ioun torch

This is all I am saying. Ioun torches are pretty much must have after a certain level, and this is an enhanced version in a sense. Casting it on an ioun stone is an easy fix, as an example.

It is a good idea, but when you drift into trying to loophole slotless items...

You should probably read the cdescription.

Ioun Torch wrote:


This item is merely a burned out, dull gray ioun stone with a continual flame spell cast upon it. It retains the ability to float and orbit, and allows the bearer to carry light and still have his hands free. It may be in any crystalline shape common to ioun stones (ellipsoid, prism, sphere, and so on).

All this is is the official writing of an idea anyone could have come up with.

And it still functions whether or not It's floating about me. Unlike ioun stones that give bonuses.

Liberty's Edge

Yes, it is 50 gold for the spell and 25 for the burned out floating rock.

1.5 times the cost of the spell to make it slotless. Make sense to me.

If it were meant to be slotless, why pay the exrta 25 when a wizard could cast it on anything for 50?

Liberty's Edge

doctor_wu wrote:
I don't even think getting into raw about light sources is much fun either. This would also mean I can't make a wizard that wears three or more rings and has arcane marks on them becuase they would take up a slot each and why the heck can't I do that?

Arcane mark is a cantrip that has no mechanical benefit. Not even close to the same thing.


ciretose wrote:

Yes, it is 50 gold for the spell and 25 for the burned out floating rock.

1.5 times the cost of the spell to make it slotless. Make sense to me.

If it were meant to be slotless, why pay the exrta 25 when a wizard could cast it on anything for 50?

Because a floating rock is more durable than a thin silver amulet?

Because have like thirty of them flying about my head looks cool?

The better question to ask is why spend 110 gold on an everburning torch when it is equally slotless just not hands free?

Of course you could just spend 50gp to cast the spell.

Liberty's Edge

An everburning torch isn't slotless. You need to hold it.

Liberty's Edge

Besides, who buys everburning torches when you can get the ioun lamp? Those are just things you find and sell, right?


ciretose wrote:
An everburning torch isn't slotless. You need to hold it.

Actually I can also tuck it in my belt, attach a piece of string to it and let it hang from me (like for example around my neck).

And yet it still functions. I can lay it on the ground, I can throw it at the other guy and it'll still be giving off light granting me a form of mechanical benefit. I can juggle like six of them and a magic sword and yet all of these things will continue to function (though seeing someone try to make attack rolls with the sword while doing that would be interesting....now I have an npc villain idea).

And you'll note that the everburning torch is a mundane item udner equipment, not a magic item under the magic items section. This has been true since before pathfinders inception. The only reason for the ioun torch to be near the amgic items section is the fact that it requires a magic item (the dull gray ioun stone) to work.

Point being here, is that you have no argument. You have no rules to support you and are trying to make the spell does something it does not. Continual flame does not make a magic item. It puts an effect on a mundane item that may or may no be magical. You are arguing purely for the sake that it does not click with your ideals. Spell effects alone do not create magic items.


ciretose wrote:
Besides, who buys everburning torches when you can get the ioun lamp? Those are just things you find and sell, right?

Why get an ioun lamp when I can cast it on the skull of an enemy impaled upon the shaft of my dread spear?

How's that for some imagery? :D


Continual flame just gets cast on something. It doesn't follow the magic item creation rules. There is nothing in the spell description that even hints that casting it on an object now makes it a magic item the same way that other spells do. Everburning torch is not a magic item either. It's listed with the other mundane equipment. The spell just makes a permanent torch that doesn't have any heat. I don't see why anyone would want to make this more than it is.

Now, if the same item was command word activated with continual flame, then I would say it's a magic item. Now we have to move to the item creation rules. The reason why the ioun torch is a magic item is because the stone itself is already magical. It's a cheap one at that.

Let's look at this another way. If I cast light on one of the BBEG's non-magical rings, do I turn off the Ring of Protection and the Ring of Jumping? Is this a way to use light offensively? Reach light is only a 1st level spell and requires no save.


@ciretose, I would love so much to play with you as a GM

ennemy comes with belt of immortality (or whatever awesome magic item with a slot), I cast something with permanency on it, and it stops working because he would wear two such things (belt in this case) with magic, right?

Sorry, I'm certain enough that you're wrong that I won't click on FAQ.
If you cast light on grain of salt, an glue it to your necklace, it's not a magic necklace, nor does it fill a magical slot. Also if I cast it directly on the necklace, it's not a magic necklace, it's necklace with a magical effect anchored on it.

Anyhow, if you want to stay with your opinion that's fine, I'll stay with mine and I doubt I'll come across a player or GM that doesn't share it.

Liberty's Edge

Page 459 of the core rules. Top right two paragraphs.

If your GM is allowing otherwise, it is your house rule.


ciretose wrote:

Page 459 of the core rules. Top right two paragraphs.

If your GM is allowing otherwise, it is your house rule.

It's not a magic item. Or are you trying to say that only one continual light spell can be cast per day?


ciretose wrote:

Page 459 of the core rules. Top right two paragraphs.

If your GM is allowing otherwise, it is your house rule.

Irrelevant.

Continual flame still doesn't make a magic item.


CRB pg. 459 wrote:

Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect.

Some items can be worn or carried without taking up a slot
on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates
when an item has this property.

This?

Liberty's Edge

"Any of these substances except for the everburning torch and holy water can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill."

Why? Because you need to imbue them with magic for them to work. Why? Because they are magical items.

If an item that has a permanent spell cast on it, that detects as magic, is not a magic item, what is it?

@Richard Lionheart
"Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect.
Some items can be worn or carried without taking up a slot on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates when an item has this property."

Casting a spell on some other object he is wearing doesn't negate any effect of what he is wearing. It simply means you can't have more than one item in a given slot with a magical effect. Same as if you wore an amulet of natural armor and an amulet of mighty fists, only one would work.

You can add continual flame to a magic item, however if a mundane item is permanently imbued with magic it is then, logically a magic item.

That is kind of the definition of a magic item. An item that is magic.


Quote:
You can add continual flame to a magic item, however if a mundane item is permanently imbued with magic it is then, logically a magic item.

Except the part where it doesn't follow any of the rules for creating magic items.

And again. irrelevant.

Continual flame does not make a magic item. You can house rule that it does based on that logic. It still does not make a magic item.

Liberty's Edge

It is a house rule that an item that is magical is a magic item?

Sovereign Court

Jeremiziah wrote:

It's so beautiful, you should put an OGL statement at the end.

If I'm starting an RPG company using people on these boards that aren't already a clear-cut member of such a company, I'm picking you and Kirth and Alex Kilcoyne.

If I thought any of you might take me up on it, I'd actually propose it.

Keep me posted ;)


ciretose wrote:

Casting a spell on some other object he is wearing doesn't negate any effect of what he is wearing. It simply means you can't have more than one item in a given slot with a magical effect. Same as if you wore an amulet of natural armor and an amulet of mighty fists, only one would work.

You can add continual flame to a magic item, however if a mundane item is permanently imbued with magic it is then, logically a magic item.

That is kind of the definition of a magic item. An item that is magic.

It doesn't work like that. You can wear a dozen magic rings at a time but none will function. It's not like they fall off your fingers. They just don't work. So if this is the case, can you cast light as a form of dispel magic?

Also, the item is not imbued with magic. If it was, then the casting time would be 1 day and it would cost 1,000 gold. Instead the casting time is 1 standard action and it costs 50 gold for the spell and 60 for someone to cast it for you (incidentally, that is the same as it costs for an everburning torch...). You don't even need a feat to create it.


ciretose wrote:
It is a house rule that an item that is magical is a magic item?

It is if you rule that a mundane item with a spell cast on it is.

And before you go "well that's what all magic items are."

No they are not.

Magic items have rules for their creation. Continual flame does not follow them. Nor are the items it makes magical. If such were the case the everburning torch would be listed as a wondrous item. It is not. If it was meant as a bypass for those rules it would be listed under the spell. It is not.

Until you can prove that continual flame makes a magic item rather than puts an effect on one the rules you are citing do not apply.


@ciretose
so dispel magic has "If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties."
here we have the clear term magic item, however permanency has the duration of permanent, which (unlike instantaneous) can be dispelled.

so, as both are treated differently, they can't be the same. I think that's the closest I get to a proof, using pure logic and RAW, well apart from the obvious part that it's not listed under magic items in the core rulebook. And it's not always as easy as magic item = item that's magical, or a rainbow would be a bow that rains.

Liberty's Edge

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Casting a spell on some other object he is wearing doesn't negate any effect of what he is wearing. It simply means you can't have more than one item in a given slot with a magical effect. Same as if you wore an amulet of natural armor and an amulet of mighty fists, only one would work.

You can add continual flame to a magic item, however if a mundane item is permanently imbued with magic it is then, logically a magic item.

That is kind of the definition of a magic item. An item that is magic.

It doesn't work like that. You can wear a dozen magic rings at a time but none will function. It's not like they fall off your fingers. They just don't work. So if this is the case, can you cast light as a form of dispel magic?

Also, the item is not imbued with magic. If it was, then the casting time would be 1 day and it would cost 1,000 gold. Instead the casting time is 1 standard action and it costs 50 gold for the spell and 60 for someone to cast it for you (incidentally, that is the same as it costs for an everburning torch...). You don't even need a feat to create it.

I'm not saying you can use light to dispel magic. That is ridiculous and I said why up thread when someone else said that, so let us kill that whole derail here and now.

I'm saying if an item is magical, it is a magic item. I didn't think this was controversial, but apparently it is. Seems very straightforward to me that if something detects as magic and produces a magical effect, it's a magic item...but apparently there is some debate that I frankly don't get. But moving on...

I am also saying that only one magic item per slot can be active at a given time. Because that is exactly what the rules say.

You can cast spells on magic items and have a single item with multiple effects, but you can't have multiple items in the same slot be active at the same time. Because the rules say you can't. You can have more than one magic item on a slot, but only one can be actively providing a magical effect.

Imbuing actually doesn't cost 1000 of gold, the magic item guidelines have rules for single use items as well. Scrolls and potions are magic items as well, by any definition you like.

So please don't put words in my mouth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this discussion should be taken to another thread. It's gotten way off-topic. Just my 2cents.


ciretose wrote:

I'm not saying you can use light to dispel magic. That is ridiculous and I said why up thread when someone else said that, so let us kill that whole derail here and now.

I'm saying if an item is magical, it is a magic item. I didn't think this was controversial, but apparently it is. Seems very straightforward to me that if something detects as magic and produces a magical effect, it's a magic item...but apparently there is some debate that I frankly don't get. But moving on...

I am also saying that only one magic item per slot can be active at a given time. Because that is exactly what the rules say.

You can cast spells on magic items and have a single item with multiple effects, but you can't have multiple items in the same slot be active at the same time. Because the rules say you can't. You can have more than one magic item on a slot, but only one can be actively providing a magical effect.

Imbuing actually doesn't cost 1000 of gold, the magic item guidelines have rules for single use items as well. Scrolls and potions are magic items as well, by any definition you like.

So please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said that if you put continual flame on an amulet it takes up the amulet slot. You then proceeded to discuss magic item slots, implying that continual flame on any item will take up the appropriate slot (a ring, belt, etc). If that is the case, then you should be able to cast light on the lich's non-magical necklace to dispel the amulet of natural armor. There would be no save and it would be a 1st level spell (reach spell would be the best way to cast it). Much better than using dispel magic.

As for the item creation rules, you can only create one item a day under normal circumstances. This means if you rule that continual light makes something a magic item, then you can only cast it once per day otherwise you violate that rule.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm taking exactly what was said and applying it equally.

Also, how is it a magic item when the cost to create it doesn't follow the item creation rules in the slightest? It follows the rules for having someone cast a spell for you and adds the material component. You need feats to create magic items. You don't need a feat to create an everburning torch. It is not a magic item.


Continual flame is a permenent duration spell effect, same as using permenancy on another spell. Any object that it is anchored to, is still as mundane or magical as it was originally.

@ ciretose

The paradigm under which this guide was written is this:

Magic Item is a proper noun in rules parlance, referring to objects constructed through the rules outlined, acting outside of the normal rules for spells. A Magic Item has a number of properties different from a permanent spell, among these are the possibility of slot dependence, effects that can differ from the spells used in their construction, and the property of reactivating in a number of rounds after being dispelled. It is not subject to spells such as shatter or mage hand.

A mundane pendent, that has had the spell "continual flame" cast upon it will be subject to shatter and mage hand spells. If it is dispelled or taken into an antimagic field, the spell must be recast. The flame will burn no matter if it is worn or not, and will not use a slot under any circumstance.

The OP, and the majority of posters to this thread are operating under this interpretation, which has been held up for as long as we have known the issue.

If you interpret it differently, that is fine. But the guide is being written by the OP, for the Majority. Use what you wish, or do not.

@ Everyone

I would like to request that this issue be moved to it's own thread. I will happily FAQ the post.

Liberty's Edge

@Bob

The rule says "However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."

Otherwise I could throw a necklace on BBEG to negate his existing necklace. But I can't because the first item is the active item. Any other item can't be made active because the first one is active.

If you are wearing a magic item then put another one on, the first item is the active item until you remove it.

Either an item that is magic is a magic item or it isn't. It is an honest disagreement of a reading of the rules. I've been in a lot of threads with you and I respect your opinion, but you are better than resorting to try and put words in my mouth.

Liberty's Edge

Also, the magic item rules are guidelines. The Ioun torch doesn't follow pricing either, but no one is arguing it isn't a magic item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Also, the magic item rules are guidelines. The Ioun torch doesn't follow pricing either, but no one is arguing it isn't a magic item.

Because it's a magic item with a spell cast on it. Not a mundane item with a spell cast on it. It starts as magic item and ends as one.


ciretose wrote:

@Bob

The rule says "However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."

Otherwise I could throw a necklace on BBEG to negate his existing necklace. But I can't because the first item is the active item. Any other item can't be made active because the first one is active.

If you are wearing a magic item then put another one on, the first item is the active item until you remove it.

Either an item that is magic is a magic item or it isn't. It is an honest disagreement of a reading of the rules. I've been in a lot of threads with you and I respect your opinion, but you are better than resorting to try and put words in my mouth.

Stop. No one wants to have this argument, and you're filling Ashiel's thread with spam.


Aratrok wrote:


Stop. No one wants to have this argument, and you're filling Ashiel's thread with spam.

direct ciretose here.


Aratrok wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Bob

The rule says "However, additional items beyond those in the slots listed above have no effect."

Otherwise I could throw a necklace on BBEG to negate his existing necklace. But I can't because the first item is the active item. Any other item can't be made active because the first one is active.

If you are wearing a magic item then put another one on, the first item is the active item until you remove it.

Either an item that is magic is a magic item or it isn't. It is an honest disagreement of a reading of the rules. I've been in a lot of threads with you and I respect your opinion, but you are better than resorting to try and put words in my mouth.

Stop. No one wants to have this argument, and you're filling Ashiel's thread with spam.

Thank you, Aratrok. It's possible that he was doing that on purpose. Ciretose has a history of trying to harass me on these boards; but no one has done anything about it, to my knowledge. TriOmegaZero called him out on it once, and was forever branded a Paizo-Hero in my eyes since.

201 to 250 of 331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Ashiel's Guide to Adventure Preparation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.