Why did they change the description of Breastplate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This has been bugging me. This single issue, more than any other at the moment, bothers me about the Pathfinder rules.

In 3.0/3.5 D&D, the description of "breastplate" armour ran thus:

"A breastplate covers your front and your back. It comes with a helmet and greaves (plates to cover your lower legs). A light skirt or suit of studded leather beneath the breastplate protects your limbs without restricting movement much."

However, in stark contrast, the Pathfinder description of this armour reads:

"Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal."

Say what?

And the recent Ultimate Equipment book drives home the point even further by emphasizing that the breastplate covers only the front of the torso. So they really do mean that this is a single piece of metal affording its wearer a +6 Armor Bonus.

And not only does the Pathfinder version offer a higher Armor Bonus, but its weight remains unchanged from 3.5e D&D?

This "single piece of sculpted metal" weighs a whopping 30 pounds? If so, that makes it heavier than darn near any breastplate ever manufactured in history.

http://www.allenantiques.com/Armour-Breastplates-Collection.html

See the above link for some actual weight figures for real "single piece" breastplates. Note that even the heaviest shot-proof breastplate doesn't even break the 20-pound barrier.

And it gets one two-thirds the way to the Armor Bonus of Full Plate?

I have a much easier time believing that the old D&D 3e combination of cuirass (that is, breast and backplate), helmet, and greaves adds up to a +6 Armor Bonus while weighing in the neighborhood of 30 pounds than I do accepting the same claim that Pathfinder makes for their "single piece of sculpted metal."

Can we change this, please, Paizo?

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dude, it's a game. It's not a Medieval Warfare Simulator. If this bugs you, I suggest to stop reading the book right now because there are things out there that will get you a cerebral haemorrhage if you set your expectations that the game is written by PhDs in Physics, Biology, Medieval Economy, Sociology and Military History (hint: it's not).


Heck, I don't even ask that they do some basic research on real-world armour.

I just wanna know why they changed the description from 3e. What was the purpose of reducing it to only covering the only the front of the torso while raising the Armor Bonus and leaving the weight still at 30 pounds?


ArmoredSaint wrote:
I just wanna know why they changed the description from 3e. What was the purpose of reducing it to only covering the only the front of the torso while raising the Armor Bonus and leaving the weight still at 30 pounds?

Why does this even matter? It gives +6 AC for 30 lbs. of weight. That's all that's relevant. What body parts it covers has no game effect whatsoever.


It gives +6 Armor, +3 Max Dex, and a -4 ACP because it is more expensive than Chainmail that only offers +6 Armor, +2 Max Dex and a -5 ACP.

That's why.

Reality be darned, it's a game. If you like you can even 'skin' your breastplate to *barely* cover your torso ala Boris Vallejo art.

Thank you for listening :)

GNOME

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

+1 mpl

Paizo's description likely got cut to save on word count (if you're doing a 500+ page book, every letter counts) and nobody really bothered to describe what exactly a breastplate gives you because, well, that's information with no relevance to the game since helmets and greaves have no mechanical effect whatsoever.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Just another reason PF is inferior to 3.5.

:)


Wait I thought they did it so everyone could wear a Headband of awesome stat boosting. I mean if the armor is magical and includes a helmet then it eats up your head slot; right?

All goofing aside Gorbacz is right, the equipment list is riddled with inadequacies and inconsistencies mechanically. Then there are a few historical fallacies or outright errors.

Once we start fixing one, we have to fix them all. I've been down that rabbit hole. It's lonely there.

Shadow Lodge

Looked at the weapons lately, have you?

Just asking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Look guys - people have different preferences in what they want out of their games. Maybe ArmoredSaint likes a certain level of detail in his games. Maybe more then just the "mechanical effects" matter to him, maybe in his games he wants to buy gloves made from the finest basilisk hide, with bloodstones studded on each knuckle, and its important to him that that is accurately reflected on the price even though there wont be a single mechanical benefit what so ever. Or maybe simply put he noticed something and got curios.

So your priorities in what you want from a game session are different then his. So their different fine; but their not right while his are wrong.

So dude relax their are all kinds of hobbyists out there, and if that bugs you, you might as well leave the hobby since there are all kinds of playing styles and preferences which might give you a hemorrhage


jinat wrote:
Look guys - people have different preferences in what they want out of their games. Maybe ArmoredSaint likes a certain level of detail in his games. Maybe more then just the "mechanical effects" matter to him, maybe in his games he wants to buy gloves made from the finest basilisk hide, with bloodstones studded on each knuckle, and its important to him that that is accurately reflected on the price even though there wont be a single mechanical benefit what so ever. Or maybe simply put he noticed something and got curios.

I'm sorry, but if someone seriously wants the rules to give different prices for all kinds of rare materials and their combinations together with a good description for each, then you need an entire book just to describe the Breastplate.

What's basically been said here is: The rules cover the "important" game mechanics for the breastplate. How you fluff it and describe it actually looking on you, is totally up to you and your GM. You like the 3.5 description better? Go for it.
And well, if you want some rare gauntlets to go with it, you'll have to wing it in regards to the price, the rules simply can't cover everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, but if someone seriously wants the rules to give different prices for all kinds of rare materials and their combinations together with a good description for each, then you need an entire book just to describe the Breastplate.

What's basically been said here is: The rules cover the "important" game mechanics for the breastplate. How you fluff it and describe it actually looking on you, is totally up to you and your GM. You like the 3.5 description better? Go for it.
And well, if you want some rare gauntlets to go with it, you'll have to wing it in regards to the price, the rules simply can't cover everything.

I don't disagree with you, i just disagree with responses like "If this bugs you, I suggest to stop reading the book right now" and "Why does this even matter?" Well it obviously matters to the original poster. If there are like minded individuals to ArmoredSaint then hell get the discussion he wanted and if there arn't then he wont get any posts.

What he shouldn't have gotten are people telling him to what matters and to stop reading etc.

Silver Crusade

ArmoredSaint wrote:

And it gets one two-thirds the way to the Armor Bonus of Full Plate?

I have a much easier time believing that the old D&D 3e combination of cuirass (that is, breast and backplate), helmet, and greaves adds up to a +6 Armor Bonus while weighing in the neighborhood of 30 pounds than I do accepting the same claim that Pathfinder makes for their "single piece of sculpted metal."

Can we change this, please, Paizo?

I never noticed that before, but I believe what you're looking at us an artefact created through the 3.5 -> Pathfinder conversion. It's obviously wrong, so what probably happened is someone was monkeying with the breastplate description, probably to make it a light armour, but then they decided to leave it as medium, and forgot to change the description back.


Oh wait.

I do apologize if I came across as an ass.
My point is that there are a great many things wrong with the CORE equipment list. "Fixing it" is a big project. I've tried, and found that a great many people just don't care. Heck there are tons of people who don't even use it, they use the "Simple Alternative" list that can be found online in numerous places.

I really feel like part of the descriptive change comes from the head slot issue for clerics. It was simplified to cut down the inevitable argument that magic armor precludes the WIS booster. The page count concession likely played an issue as well.

But couple this with the odd way armor works,( and doesn't work) in the general armor rules, add in body slots for magic items. Then configure proficiency and movement and there are some things in armor that leave a great deal to be desired.

And Weapons, whoo boy those really are a mess.

I'm not discounting the OP's opinion or desires but I concede that the newer version is more literally correct. A breastplate covers your chest. If you add in greaves, gauntlets, helm and a skirt and you get 1st Ed. plate armor.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
jinat wrote:


What he shouldn't have gotten are people telling him to what matters and to stop reading etc.

Guy asks Paizo to take their time off and write historically correct description of armor types instead of writing awesome adventures or mythic rules or ultimate campaign.

No go here.


It is called Breastplate Armor, so I guess they changed it to be more breastplate like and less halfplate like. Not sure why something called Breastplate would cover your whole body, just like I would be shocked if a chain shirt covered more then the torso.

Also people are just trying to manage expectations. In reality they probably did not like the original description and changed it. Trust be told the Core Rulebook is pretty much 47 dollars worth of mechanics and 3 dollars worth of fluff. It has some nice descriptions of things but that is not what you are actually paying for. If you are really interested in realism then you will need to alter Pathfinder a lot, or try a different game, because taking Pathfinder as is will just result in disappointment for you.

I think there is also a lot of people on the forums that need Paizo to tell them what is and is not ok to do in their game, and I think it started a rather tame culture war on the forums.


I prefer chainmail to be the best medium armor in the game, so as a houserule, I switched the labels of breastplate and chainmail.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
jinat wrote:


What he shouldn't have gotten are people telling him to what matters and to stop reading etc.

Guy asks Paizo to take their time off and write historically correct description of armor types instead of writing awesome adventures or mythic rules or ultimate campaign.

No go here.

Guy asks no such thing he simply states

"I just wanna know why they changed the description from 3e" that's it.

He also said "Heck, I don't even ask that they do some basic research on real-world armour."

And i also belief that some posters have now genuinely answered his question.

So all is good again.


ArmoredSaint wrote:

"Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal."

http://www.allenantiques.com/Armour-Breastplates-Collection.html

While the weight is clearly off, the new description seems to accurately describe pretty much every image in that link.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The weight of the breastplate is what bugs you about the weight of weapons and armors in this game? Really?


Personally it's a pretty low priority issue for me but I generally assume that people who wear breastplate generally have hard leather or metal greaves and bracers as well as a leather or chain skirt to protect the groin.

Some people might wear studded leather leggings as well.

I do think the point about D&D being a bad medieval combat simulator is valid but I don't think there is a problem assuming that people would actually wear something more than a metal breastplate.


While it isn't what bothers me most about PF, I agree, it's abit silly.

Alot of people seem to be overreacting to ArmoredSaint's post. He wants armor descriptions to make abit more sense THEREFORE Paizo should not write new adventures, should spend less time writing new material and more time on armor descriptions, automatically means he has a problem with fantasy physics etc. etc.

Chill yo.

Personally, when it comes to armor, what bother me most is how sucktastic shields are. Honestly, your best defense in a sword and shield fight is your sword and shield!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dreihaddar wrote:

While it isn't what bothers me most about PF, I agree, it's abit silly.

Alot of people seem to be overreacting to ArmoredSaint's post. He wants armor descriptions to make abit more sense THEREFORE Paizo should not write new adventures, should spend less time writing new material and more time on armor descriptions, automatically means he has a problem with fantasy physics etc. etc.

Chill yo.

Personally, when it comes to armor, what bother me most is how sucktastic shields are. Honestly, your best defense in a sword and shield fight is your sword and shield!

What about sword and shield vs. 30 ft. tall giant with a 20 ft. long club fights? ;-)

The game abstracts many things for a reason.


Thus me specifying "in a sword and shield fight".

For the sake of argument no armor, short of something magically reinforced with some kind of shock absorption would help against a giant.

Still doesn't change that your best defense against a regular opponent is your own sword and shield and not 'letting him hit you in your armored face/chest". You don't need to rework the entire system. Just make shields a larger part of your armor set.


Look at the rules for piecemeal armor in Ultimate Combat, it helps to explain where some of thought into the armor pieces might be coming from.

For instance, the chain shirt, is just chain mail, without the extra arm and leg bits.

The breastplate is just plate armor without the extra arm and leg bits.

Makes it easier to define armor and parts thereof in game useable terms.


Dreihaddar wrote:

Thus me specifying "in a sword and shield fight".

For the sake of argument no armor, short of something magically reinforced with some kind of shock absorption would help against a giant.

Still doesn't change that your best defense against a regular opponent is your own sword and shield and not 'letting him hit you in your armored face/chest". You don't need to rework the entire system. Just make shields a larger part of your armor set.

I think his argument is in fact no armor would really be useful in that situation as well. The game has to assume things in order to function as a game, or most people would be dead by level 2. Now in theory the game numbers are balanced and if you upped shields you could throw off the whole thing. In practice that is probably not true. But again it all comes down to it being a game first.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
jinat wrote:

Guy asks no such thing he simply states

"I just wanna know why they changed the description from 3e" that's it.

He also said "Heck, I don't even ask that they do some basic research on real-world armour."

That's what's got me scratching my head about the responses this thread has gotten.

ArmoredSaint didn't post in the rules subforum, he didn't accuse anyone of designing it wrong, he just said "this is a curious change" and "this is what makes the change curious to me". All I see is a guy trying to satisfy his curiosity and being told he shouldn't demand ultra realism in his game and to chill out or ship out.


They changed it because it's a breastplate. A breastplate and greaves are different items, even by your medieval armor research's reckoning. Same with the helmet. A helmet is not a breastplate.

Perhaps that is why they changed it, to give a more accurate account of the equipment you're purchasing?

Buying a suit of armor (greaves, breastplate, pauldrons, gauntlets, vambraces, etc...) is a lot different than buying piecemeal.

If I go into Joe's Armor Emporium and ask him for a steel breastplate, I don't expect to say "Whoa, buddy, where's my helmet?"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread about the OP's question.

Better descriptions are better. They help visualize the objects in which you entrust your life as an adventurer. If you hate the fluff of more detailed descriptions, you're free to change it. But providing a little bit of inspiration- even another sentence in the flavor text of equipment, is always welcome to me and I tend to like good flavor text in the stuff I design as well.


Is the text of the original 3.5 armor ogl? Or was it not included in the SRD, so paizo was required to write a new description?


The Red Mage wrote:

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread about the OP's question.

Better descriptions are better. They help visualize the objects in which you entrust your life as an adventurer. If you hate the fluff of more detailed descriptions, you're free to change it. But providing a little bit of inspiration- even another sentence in the flavor text of equipment, is always welcome to me and I tend to like good flavor text in the stuff I design as well.

The argument is not that flavor does not matter. The argument is that if the devs have to choose to explain a rule well or provide better flavor the flavor will be sacrificed first since the mechanics are more important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does it even matter? Your armor can look like anything you want it to.


Zhayne wrote:
Why does it even matter? Your armor can look like anything you want it to.

Mine looks like footie pajamas.

The kind with the flap in the back, you know.

P.S. anyone want to go Thread Spelunking with me?

Grand Lodge

Um.. if a breast plate is a single piece of metal, does that mean you are always using piecemail when you wear a breast plate by itself?


Dungeon Grrrl wrote:
Is the text of the original 3.5 armor ogl? Or was it not included in the SRD, so paizo was required to write a new description?

This is the entirety of the Open Content description of the breastplate from the 3.5 Players Handbook.

Quote:

Breastplate

It comes with a helmet and greaves.


Well, the item now described is a breastplate. In 3.5, it was actually a corselet or lorica segmentata. I don't think the Pathfinder devs actually cared about that very much, but it's true.


"Necromancer raise the thread, and let me see them fight (ight ight ight)

Hell yeah! Raise 'em up, raise, raise 'em up!

Zombies all around me I be hackin' 'em all up
I be hackin' 'em all up
I be hackin' 'em all up

When there's zombies all around me I be hackin' 'em all up"

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You wish to know why they made the description of breastplate smaller? Because they wanted to fit more delicious game material. Those extra words build up and the Core Rulebook has to fit ALOT of information. A few lines of information that can be discovered by the TINIEST bit of google-fu is not nearly important as insuring there is room for every rule the game needs.

So there's you answer man.


I personally way prefer the description of Breastplate that makes it sound like Greek Hoplite or Roman Gladiator armor. If your group is the type that gets really detailed with the reality of what your character is wearing, then ask the GM really quick if you can be treated as wearing helmet and greaves as flavor. Since there are no called shots to the head or shin, usually it doesn't really matter here. I am glad someone noticed too that the description is kind of ridiculous.

I don't know why so many people are against someone asking about this.

Liberty's Edge

My "breastplate" in the modern military weighed more than 30 pounds. Why is one made of steel weighing 30 pounds crazy?

US Military Body Armor

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


The argument is not that flavor does not matter. The argument is that if the devs have to choose to explain a rule well or provide better flavor the flavor will be sacrificed first since the mechanics are more important.

Then the mechanics should be laid out in the simplest, most efficient terms possible to provide more room for flavor that will get people into the spirit of the thing. Many of the mechanics in the CRB are presented in a longwinded, confusing way, at least according to a lot of people I've talked to that haven't played older editions of DnD or PF yet.

There are also some redundancies that can be done away with. Two sentences of flavor text for primary equipment isn't going to overfill the books.


The Red Mage wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


The argument is not that flavor does not matter. The argument is that if the devs have to choose to explain a rule well or provide better flavor the flavor will be sacrificed first since the mechanics are more important.

Then the mechanics should be laid out in the simplest, most efficient terms possible to provide more room for flavor that will get people into the spirit of the thing. Many of the mechanics in the CRB are presented in a longwinded, confusing way, at least according to a lot of people I've talked to that haven't played older editions of DnD or PF yet.

There are also some redundancies that can be done away with. Two sentences of flavor text for primary equipment isn't going to overfill the books.

The mechanics are laid out in the simplest form, and they still have to go back and do more explaining at times. It is just that the rules are so complex, that the inherently take up a lot of space.

People also pay for rules more than they pay for flavor. It is easier to ignore the description on what a sword or any armor looks like, than it is to make up my own game system.

In any business you always support the primary money maker first. Many players just want to kill things, and even those that like flavor a lot still need the rules. That is why you can look at the equipment list and see a chart with prices, but no descriptions, not even one word, for some items.


Tortilla wrote:

I personally way prefer the description of Breastplate that makes it sound like Greek Hoplite or Roman Gladiator armor. If your group is the type that gets really detailed with the reality of what your character is wearing, then ask the GM really quick if you can be treated as wearing helmet and greaves as flavor. Since there are no called shots to the head or shin, usually it doesn't really matter here. I am glad someone noticed too that the description is kind of ridiculous.

I don't know why so many people are against someone asking about this.

Like I said nobody is against him asking.


The Shining Fool wrote:

My "breastplate" in the modern military weighed more than 30 pounds. Why is one made of steel weighing 30 pounds crazy?

US Military Body Armor

Because yours stops bullets, and medieval breastplates don't?

Or if you prefer the real answer, it's because we still have medieval breastplates and when you place them on the scales they weigh about 6-7 lbs. Not even close to 30. :)


Dear Paizo,

Where are the good discussion threads?

Sincerely,

KK

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jinat wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
jinat wrote:


What he shouldn't have gotten are people telling him to what matters and to stop reading etc.

Guy asks Paizo to take their time off and write historically correct description of armor types instead of writing awesome adventures or mythic rules or ultimate campaign.

No go here.

Guy asks no such thing he simply states

"I just wanna know why they changed the description from 3e" that's it.

He also said "Heck, I don't even ask that they do some basic research on real-world armour."

And i also belief that some posters have now genuinely answered his question.

So all is good again.

Lots of descriptions got changed. Some were to reduce word count. Others because the decision was made to change actual mechanics.

But the most important thing to remember... Pathfinder is not D+D 3.X, it's not D+D 3.0, it's not D+D 3.5, and it's not a D+D 3.75 that WOTC would have created. It's Pathfinder 1.0, and I'll be satisfied if it remains 1.0 till the end of time.


ArmoredSaint wrote:

This has been bugging me. This single issue, more than any other at the moment, bothers me about the Pathfinder rules.

In 3.0/3.5 D&D, the description of "breastplate" armour ran thus:

"A breastplate covers your front and your back. It comes with a helmet and greaves (plates to cover your lower legs). A light skirt or suit of studded leather beneath the breastplate protects your limbs without restricting movement much."

However, in stark contrast, the Pathfinder description of this armour reads:

"Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal."

Say what?

And the recent Ultimate Equipment book drives home the point even further by emphasizing that the breastplate covers only the front of the torso. So they really do mean that this is a single piece of metal affording its wearer a +6 Armor Bonus.

And not only does the Pathfinder version offer a higher Armor Bonus, but its weight remains unchanged from 3.5e D&D?

This "single piece of sculpted metal" weighs a whopping 30 pounds? If so, that makes it heavier than darn near any breastplate ever manufactured in history.

http://www.allenantiques.com/Armour-Breastplates-Collection.html

See the above link for some actual weight figures for real "single piece" breastplates. Note that even the heaviest shot-proof breastplate doesn't even break the 20-pound barrier.

And it gets one two-thirds the way to the Armor Bonus of Full Plate?

I have a much easier time believing that the old D&D 3e combination of cuirass (that is, breast and backplate), helmet, and greaves adds up to a +6 Armor Bonus while weighing in the neighborhood of 30 pounds than I do accepting the same claim that Pathfinder makes for their "single piece of sculpted metal."

Can we change this, please, Paizo?

If my players were against any foe wearing just a breastplate, I'd allow them to make a called shot at -4, and entirely negate the ac of the armour (including if it is magical), as they cut the face, head, neck, arms, groin or legs.

Yes, it used to be an armour set, because leaving large parts of your body unprotected is damn foolish. Not even a helmet and gauntlets? Bah!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


If my players were against any foe wearing just a breastplate, I'd allow them to make a called shot at -4, and entirely negate the ac of the armour (including if it is...

It must really suck to be those wizards and sorcerers who are only wearing bracers then. After all, they just cover your wrists. If I wanted grimdark realism, I'd be playing Warhammer. Pathfinder is about playing action heroes, the armor mechanics clearly betray an appropriate nod towards cinematics.


LazarX wrote:
jinat wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
jinat wrote:


What he shouldn't have gotten are people telling him to what matters and to stop reading etc.

Guy asks Paizo to take their time off and write historically correct description of armor types instead of writing awesome adventures or mythic rules or ultimate campaign.

No go here.

Guy asks no such thing he simply states

"I just wanna know why they changed the description from 3e" that's it.

He also said "Heck, I don't even ask that they do some basic research on real-world armour."

And i also belief that some posters have now genuinely answered his question.

So all is good again.

Lots of descriptions got changed. Some were to reduce word count. Others because the decision was made to change actual mechanics.

But the most important thing to remember... Pathfinder is not D+D 3.X, it's not D+D 3.0, it's not D+D 3.5, and it's not a D+D 3.75 that WOTC would have created. It's Pathfinder 1.0, and I'll be satisfied if it remains 1.0 till the end of time.

Pathfinder has taken huge amounts from 3.5. Many of the new classes and abilities, they also came about as far back as 3.0 in the concept and abilities sense (often taken from feats in side published here and there material).

It is not pure, it is not clean, it is not especially original. It stacks a lot from different sources to great success (good on it for selling itself so well).


LazarX wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


If my players were against any foe wearing just a breastplate, I'd allow them to make a called shot at -4, and entirely negate the ac of the armour (including if it is...

It must really suck to be those wizards and sorcerers who are only wearing bracers then. After all, they just cover your wrists. If I wanted grimdark realism, I'd be playing Warhammer. Pathfinder is about playing action heroes, the armor mechanics clearly betray an appropriate nod towards cinematics.

That is a very good point. The bracers should do jack vs certain types of attacks. I get they move to protect, but there is zip beyond them protecting. If magical bracers, hack legs off, lol, then get an ale.

Called shots are an old bit of fun, and can encourage the players to think and get involved "attack the weak spot!"

But magic is a bit of a separate issue, if you just have a breastplate, any greatclub or arrow coming down at your head, is not going to hit the armour until it goes through your head. So armours are sets in my games, and if you go a skirt or bracers, that isn't much protection.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why did they change the description of Breastplate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.