Guns


Advice

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Kolokotroni wrote:
Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Yup, played Metamorphasis Alpha and Gamma World, and the TSR space game I can't remember the name of, even read some spelljammer stuff (never allowed it near my games) and I've read 'The Dying Earth' (good stuff by the way). Just never thought guns would be part of any standardized default d&d type setting.

Depends on what you mean by standard. Greyhawk always struck me as the standard setting for it (obviously not everyone agrees. Expedition to barrier peaks takes place in greyhawk, written by Gygax himself in the 80's i believe. It literally takes place on a crashed space ship, with lazer guns and robots. But is a dnd adventure that takes place in the standard dnd setting written by gygax himself. I dont know how much more standard it can get.

Quote:

I played in dozens of campaigns and thousands of sessions and guns came up exactly zero times in a d&d setting. I'll agree his spells were Vancian, but the setting? Pure RE Howard, Tolkien, Leiber, Anderson, Lovecraft and Moorcock with Greek, Arthurian, and Norse myth thrown in. Later stuff crept in like rats in the walls.

See above about barrier peaks. It didnt creep in, it was always there, it just wasnt a major point of emphasis.

Still I would be willing to be convinced that 1st e ad&d had firearms (I gave away my books decades ago) but I sure don't remember them. And If they are there they shouldn'a be!

Shouldnt be is an opion, but certainly not factual. And regardless of what was or wasnt part of 'dnd' of the past, it is part of golarion. Paizo has put a MUCH bigger emphasis on having a single campaign setting, so it is alot more all inclusive. They are modular, you can easily for instance remove alkenstar from the setting and there is no vast permiation of guns and old west themes, but if a dm is using all of golarion, just about everything is in there. Ninjas, gunslingers, robots and space ships, even some 20th century themes in reign of winter (WWI era russia),...

Should have been clearer, I quit playing in 1980ish certainly by 1981, I saw the cover of the barrier peaks but nobody I know and I certainly never opened it. Yes indeed, shouldn'a be is an opinion.

I was certainly unaware that Gygax had gotten so far from what he originally wrote.

My point was that it was an element I was certainly not expecting and it was never commonly used at the time I played. I was just looking for ways to deal with it when I am so much older and have a more forceful personality than our much younger (I have older children than he is) GM, whom I want to support and nurture not only as a roleplayer but as a friend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

Obviously, in Pathfinder, they are intended to do that, or else they wouldn't be able to do that.

In a world of dragons, elves, wizards and gods that are proven to exist, realistic firearms gets your goat?

I apply the same rules to my role-playing games that I apply to movies and books and other forms of narrative entertainment - I can buy just about anything as long as the rules stay internally consistent. For PF, gunslingers much more than guns break those rules.

That's just on the mechanical side. As I said, I don't care for their flavor in my games either.


Just my 2 cents on Pathfinder in general is that the system is vastly over complicated and over powered. The only reason that we are running it is because the GM and our organizer are both aspergery OCD types who really, really like big complicated rules. And they admit that.

I (all the other 5 players) wanted something like one of the many free retro clones, Castles and Crusades or anything that wasn't bigger and more complex than the RCW traffic section.

You can tell great stories with the simplest of mechanics. Guns no more bother my sense of disbelief than they do in the real world. It was simply not what I expected in a high fantasy (like Castles and Crusades) game. Since Castles and Crusades seemed very like the old d&d and it was Gygax's final word on the subject that was the feel I was expecting. If there were guns in there somewhere I am just going to go cry now.


Murlynd (as in "of the spoon") had a pair of "wands" that were totally not revolvers, and just happened to make a loud bang and fired "small but deadly missiles" when used.

Go on, let it all out. You'll feel much better!


If you're running with a homebrew campaign setting, there's nothing to worry about. Just... don't go out of your way to build in support for this one optional ruleset and class, from this sourcebook of weird optional rules intended to just pick and choose from in the first place.

If you're running/playing a game set in the official default campaign setting... worry about it even less. The general approach is kind of a wide net sort of thing, where a lot of weird themes are relegated to a lot of obscure corners of the world. What guns exist in said default setting are pretty much relegated to this tiny out of the way country where a nasty war between mages left people generally favoring technology over magic, so you have this isolated patch for western themed games. And said patch is pretty darn far removed from the hunk of the world with all the big kingdoms of elves and dwarves and orcs and feudal lords of various city states and the barbaric lands up north and all that.

Guns also tend not to show up in any of Paizo's adventure modules that come to mind (except for part of the Reign of Winter Adventure Path, but that's pretty much the official Campaign of Weird Crazy Stuff).

So seriously, don't sweat it...

... unless you have one of those groups where there's the one player who throws a big fit unless every single thing that has ever been officially printed as an option for PCs is on the table for him regardless of any restrictions printed along with it on what sort of characters can actually take it. But that's bound to cause problems regardless of what options are around.


Googleshng wrote:


So seriously, don't sweat it...

... unless you have one of those groups where there's the one player who throws a big fit unless every single thing that has ever been officially printed as an option for PCs is on the table for him regardless of any restrictions printed along with it on what sort of characters can actually take it. But that's bound to cause problems regardless of what options are around.

No our group are all mature older guys. We are not going to cause problems (other than picking the wrong damn game to begin with lol). The group is already pooling to buy rule books. I started crying then because now were _really_ never going to switch to another system if we buy a mega-ton of books.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

/Derail on

Karl if you guys are just geting back into gaming with Pathfinder, I highly recommend the Rise of the Runelords AP and then Kingmaker in that order. Most of our group are grognard age and they absolutely loved RotRL. Kingmaker is still going on and they are loving that as well, since anyone who played 1st ed remembers trying to get high enough to have your own keep and men at arms :)

/Derail off

Personally our group was more disturbed by the idea that clerics couldn't wear heavy armor out of the box than they were upset by guns and samurai (we are a nitpicky group, they don't like oriental stuff either lol).

And you probably wont ever have to switch games because I suspect Paizo is going to leave the rules alone as much as possible in order to keep focus on their adventure path and modules lines. I know they keep making hardbacks, but most are just fleshing out classes, monsters, and new optional rules (Ultimate Campaign) vs revamping core stuff. As long as there is enough new stuff to keep Seekers of the Next New Shiny Thing happy, they don't risk upsetting any applecarts and causing their core fanbase to explore other gamesystems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im with you on this one Karl to me guns and fantasy just don't sit right if you take my meaning
I think you should got worry to much and try yo enjoy the game .
It's still D&D at the heart


Karl, don't buy books yet imo, use d20pfsrd.com for now. That way you know which books to buy.


Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Just my 2 cents on Pathfinder in general is that the system is vastly over complicated and over powered. The only reason that we are running it is because the GM and our organizer are both aspergery OCD types who really, really like big complicated rules. And they admit that.

I (all the other 5 players) wanted something like one of the many free retro clones, Castles and Crusades or anything that wasn't bigger and more complex than the RCW traffic section.

You can tell great stories with the simplest of mechanics. Guns no more bother my sense of disbelief than they do in the real world. It was simply not what I expected in a high fantasy (like Castles and Crusades) game. Since Castles and Crusades seemed very like the old d&d and it was Gygax's final word on the subject that was the feel I was expecting. If there were guns in there somewhere I am just going to go cry now.

Looks like PF isn't for you, then. Best to go find a game you'll enjoy.

And for the umpteenth time, there were guns in 1e.

And Gygax's opinions stopped mattering a LONG time ago, if they ever really did.


I want to add that the Paizo people have done a kick ass job of writing, editing, illustration, etc. The adventure paths and free! support materials show true professionalism and love for their work. If I were a writer I'd be proud to point to this work.

My only issues are my own preferences not with what they've done with their game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The current campaign I have started on roll20, has no guns..no psionics..no advanced character classes..mostly just the core rulebook, a lot of races (monsterous and what not) and even a very distinctive restriction on equipment to match the setting..(late iron age, with a few variations)

and as to firearms in 1st ED ad&d...I remember a few Dragon magazine articles on it, and a few charts of alternate methods of implementation.

But there was never a class specializing in them, they were not even a speck on the radar of the game in those heady days of RPG, and Expedition to the barrier peaks did have laser weapons...and a handy flow chart to see if the player could figure them out..or shoot themselves.
Was a lot of fun.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
My only issues are my own preferences not with what they've done with their game.

Your fellow players are going to have more of an effect on your enjoyment of the rules than the rules themselves.

We have a few players locally that use their gunslingers as bludgeons to overcome encounters as quickly as possible and crow to the sun about their accomplishments.

We have some that use their gunslingers to backup the party consistently and play more conservatively.

This is not a new dichotomy to you I am sure.


Zhayne wrote:

Looks like PF isn't for you, then. Best to go find a game you'll enjoy.

And for the umpteenth time, there were guns in 1e.

And Gygax's opinions stopped mattering a LONG time ago, if they ever really did.

Sure there were guns in 1st e. I just never saw or heard of them played. And I will be playing a game I enjoy because it's the time with friends I enjoy. So Pathfinder it is. As for Gygax and Arneson's opinion not mattering well, there I'll respectfully disagree. I doubt we'd have this conversation without them.

Don't get me wrong. I fully intend to enjoy myself I was just jarred when I heard guns and gunslinger. After engaging with all you folks I am confident the game will be something I enjoy.

I drive a monster of a car (I live in a very rural area and have a full quiver of kids and grand kids). Is it bigger and more complicated than my first car ('63 Ford Fairlaine)? Yes. Would I trade for my old car back? No but I can still feel nostalgic for it.

I'm in on Pathfinder partially because of what you've written.


Wiggz wrote:
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Pathfinder is a rewrite of the 3.5 version of D&D, which came about long after Mr. Gygax's time with the game.

Last version of d&d I played was 1st e ad&d when Regan was in his first term. I heard 'd&d' and thought, 'how different can it be?'. Boy was I in for a surprise. Some of the changes were fun looking others were, 'whoa, that's really different'. Still I am determined to give it a chance. I'd hate to give up on something I missed for thirty some years.

Guns are definitively a point of contention for many. I personally tend to look to my fantasy to be of the Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones flavor... others enjoy robots, space ships and ray guns as part of their 'fantasy' flavor. There is no such thing as 'badwrongfun', but there is a legitimate reality to the fact that one group's style of play may not suit you as well as another's. I don't know how realistic an option it is for you, but I hope you find another group to enjoy Pathfinder with if this group's style doesn't feel right.

Personally, I've seen nothing that guns add to a campaign that justified their inclusion if even one member of the group doesn't care for that particular flavor in their games.

I don't care for alignment (in fact, I'm certain I hate it more than OP dislikes guns), but if it works for the table then it works for the table.


Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Looks like PF isn't for you, then. Best to go find a game you'll enjoy.

And for the umpteenth time, there were guns in 1e.

And Gygax's opinions stopped mattering a LONG time ago, if they ever really did.

Sure there were guns in 1st e. I just never saw or heard of them played. And I will be playing a game I enjoy because it's the time with friends I enjoy. So Pathfinder it is. As for Gygax and Arneson's opinion not mattering well, there I'll respectfully disagree. I doubt we'd have this conversation without them.

Don't get me wrong. I fully intend to enjoy myself I was just jarred when I heard guns and gunslinger. After engaging with all you folks I am confident the game will be something I enjoy.

I drive a monster of a car (I live in a very rural area and have a full quiver of kids and grand kids). Is it bigger and more complicated than my first car ('63 Ford Fairlaine)? Yes. Would I trade for my old car back? No but I can still feel nostalgic for it.

I'm in on Pathfinder partially because of what you've written.

Hope it's a blast. : D

Seriously, if you're playing with friends, you'll have a great time, guns or lasers or everybody's made of cheese. Make a wizard or a fighter or a rogue like the good old days and make with the roleplaying!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

See above about barrier peaks. It didnt creep in, it was always there, it just wasnt a major point of emphasis.

Still I would be willing to be convinced that 1st e ad&d had firearms (I gave away my books decades ago) but I sure don't remember them. And If they are there they shouldn'a be!

Other than the "Sixguns & Sorcery" bit in the DMG (pg. 112-113), and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, the quasi-deity Murlynd (Greyhawk boxed set, published even before 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana) used two revolvers: "As noted, Murlynd is prone to carry technological weapons (variously called '45s,' 'six-shooters,' and 'hog legs') which he is able to employ in both left and right hands." So, the "two-pistol gunslinger" isn't new, either.

As with Golarion, it was presented as an option (not widespread, but an option). Note that Gygax drew inspiration from pulp fantasy/sci-fi as much as (if not more than) "traditional" (which was nothing of the kind in the '60s and '70s) Tolkienesque fantasy. Think John Carter as much as Conan. Appendix N: Inspirational and Educational Reading makes that fairly explicit, as does "Vancian" casting (i.e., based on Jack Vance's Dying Earth series, which is hardly "traditional" fantasy).


blahpers wrote:


I don't care for alignment (in fact, I'm certain I hate it more than OP dislikes guns), but if it works for the table then it works for the table.

Alignment questions are as old as the game. I've played fantasy games with and without them. I like a bright line in some settings but can do more nuanced in others.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Please, Tolkien had Shotguns in LotR world.

I honestly don't remember this. Where was it in the story?

Zhayne wrote:

Obviously, in Pathfinder, they are intended to do that, or else they wouldn't be able to do that.

In a world of dragons, elves, wizards and gods that are proven to exist, realistic firearms gets your goat?

I would quibble over the bolded part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your group can always have a quick discussion about what tone they'd prefer, and decide on which parts of the rules to use and which to drop. If most of the group is against the presence of guns, it shouldn't be hard to reach a consensus on dropping them.


Out of curiosity, do rapiers also bug you?


Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
If you hate guns that much, you're going to love the fact that the official default setting has androids.
I just died a little inside.

So did Greyhawk. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (written 1976, published 1980), written by Gygax himself. It also included guns.

I think you're overromanticizing a purity that was never there.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Please, Tolkien had Shotguns in LotR world.

I honestly don't remember this. Where was it in the story?

Zhayne wrote:

Obviously, in Pathfinder, they are intended to do that, or else they wouldn't be able to do that.

In a world of dragons, elves, wizards and gods that are proven to exist, realistic firearms gets your goat?

I would quibble over the bolded part.

It was in the same world, bur not main storyline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Giles_of_Ham


Starbuck_II wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Please, Tolkien had Shotguns in LotR world.

I honestly don't remember this. Where was it in the story?

...
It was in the same world, bur not main storyline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Giles_of_Ham

Well, according to the wiki, it isn't middle earth it is an imaginary Britain.

All the same, thanks for bringing it up. I will try to get my hands on a copy to read.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Please, Tolkien had Shotguns in LotR world.

I honestly don't remember this. Where was it in the story?

...
It was in the same world, bur not main storyline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Giles_of_Ham

Well, according to the wiki, it isn't middle earth it is an imaginary Britain.

All the same, thanks for bringing it up. I will try to get my hands on a copy to read.

And thus in the same world about as much as we are, since Middle-Earth was concieved as a mythology for Britain.

It's a cool little story by the same author. Barely in the same genre, certainly not the same setting.


Doug OBrien wrote:
Out of curiosity, do rapiers also bug you?

Me? We'll yes frankly but what else is a skinny wristed elf to use? I mean how long can he old up Gnort's 50lb broadsword. ;>)

I know they are an anachronism but they fit the High fantasy genre. So I squint and call it a short sword.


Blackmoor...Temple of the Frog.
Androids and blasters. As did Barrier Peaks. Its been around from 1ed, nothing new.

I fondly look back at 1ed D&D with rose tinted glasses then remember the gack we had to put up with.
Cast Haste...age a year.
Met a ghost...age 10-40 years.
Miss a save...die. And we'll sting you for a point of CON to get you back.
Wanna eleven paladin? Sorry no. You you can be an elven wizard but you can't go past 12th level.
Wanna be a thief which fires a bow or be CG? Sorry rules say no.
And no one can climb a wall except the thief. Who is a 1/2 Orc and limited to 4th level (or something stupid)

Go into Pathfinder with an open mind and forget what went before. Acknowledge its influence on the game today but also remember its many, many faults.


Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Blackmoor...Temple of the Frog.

Androids and blasters. As did Barrier Peaks. Its been around from 1ed, nothing new.

As others have said, it's been around, but it's been around as elements in occasional experimental modules, not as the main feature of a base class.

That's a big difference.


thejeff wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Please, Tolkien had Shotguns in LotR world.

I honestly don't remember this. Where was it in the story?

...
It was in the same world, bur not main storyline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Giles_of_Ham

Well, according to the wiki, it isn't middle earth it is an imaginary Britain.

All the same, thanks for bringing it up. I will try to get my hands on a copy to read.

And thus in the same world about as much as we are, since Middle-Earth was concieved as a mythology for Britain.

It's a cool little story by the same author. Barely in the same genre, certainly not the same setting.

Middle Earth was an imagined setting for prehistoric earth. Farmer Giles of Ham is a fairy tale set in an imagined but different Britain and much later in history. So while there were no shotguns with Paris and Achilles at Troy I have no problem with shotguns at Galipolli.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Blackmoor...Temple of the Frog.

Androids and blasters. As did Barrier Peaks. Its been around from 1ed, nothing new.

As others have said, it's been around, but it's been around as elements in occasional experimental modules, not as the main feature of a base class.

That's a big difference.

Agreed, but (Devil's Advocate here...) it was in the DMG and part of the core rules. Conversion rules for AD&D to Met. Alpha and Boot Hill... I doubt anyone used them though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Blackmoor...Temple of the Frog.

Androids and blasters. As did Barrier Peaks. Its been around from 1ed, nothing new.

As others have said, it's been around, but it's been around as elements in occasional experimental modules, not as the main feature of a base class.

That's a big difference.

Agreed, but (Devil's Advocate here...) it was in the DMG and part of the core rules. Conversion rules for AD&D to Met. Alpha and Boot Hill... I doubt anyone used them though!

Again: "Here's a weird thing you can do" as opposed to "Here's another base class".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder has rules for weapons from the Stone Age all the way up to the Victorian Period. There is absolutely no need for a campaign to use them all in the same setting.

I am primarily a GURPS player and the problem is even worse with that system - it includes just about every genre and setting you can imagine, with consequently a huge range of technologies. Some players in a pseudo-Renaissance setting will still see rules for AK-74s and think, 'whoa, I'll buy one of them', before being gently reminded that they do not exist in the campaign setting.

Like the OP, I grew up with 1st Ed. AD&D. This was before I become more interested in history, mind, so I didn't see the anachronisms of plate armour (which was platemail, mail and plate in the late C13th style, in those days) being used alongside halberds and heavy crossbows (depending on your interpretation of 'halberd' and 'heavy' crossbow, of course).

Firearms is a big step for any pseudo-Medieval world, fantasy or not, and the addition of advanced firearms does not sit well with me. I can accept early muskets and hand cannon, but not six-guns. If players want to run about like Jesse James in a party with Conan, Gandalf and Sir Bedevere then so be it, I'm not the arbiter of what happens at other people's tables. Luckily, my group doesn't like firearms in the game, and (aside from an IC experimentation by a gadgeteer dwarf) we haven't used them.


Zhayne wrote:
redcelt32 wrote:
Androids: Yeah they are in Numeria, however the race is an optional race, not core as a PC race.

All races are optional races.

And for the billionth time, Eberron does not have robots. Warforged are Golems.

Yes, but Golarion very much does have "Robots" in the Inner Sea Bestiary. Nobody on Golarion knows how to make them, but they come out of the crashed ship in Numeria along with the androids. Plus, don't forget that... huge... Scorpitron that roams around in the wilds of Numeria...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Did the OP get his question answered to his satisfaction? And did he discuss it with his GM to see what house rules/tweaks are being used?


I played a Grippli Gunslinger. Pistol wielding rootin tootin frog from the Mwangi Jungles. Hopsalotapus was the name. Met my fate at the top of a tower fighting a demon. Wizard in the group cast a lightning bolt bounced off the wall hit my boys and me and we all blew sky high. Demon got dead though.


Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
If you hate guns that much, you're going to love the fact that the official default setting has androids.
I just died a little inside.

I'm afraid Reign of Winter might kill you, then... ^_^

Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Doug OBrien wrote:
Out of curiosity, do rapiers also bug you?

Me? We'll yes frankly but what else is a skinny wristed elf to use? I mean how long can he old up Gnort's 50lb broadsword. ;>)

I know they are an anachronism but they fit the High fantasy genre. So I squint and call it a short sword.

I say screw that. Seriously, don't define your genres so narrowly. High Fantasy goes far further than what Tolkien did.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Reign of Winter is just awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ad&d the Forgotten Realms books had stats for an arquebus and a pistol. In that setting black powder was invented by one of the gnome deities to give a big middle finger to mages. It was later reprinted in the arms & equipment guide.

Now then rule of thumb, if you don't like the idea of firearms... don't use them! Sounds bad but it's not. I've run TWO pirate games, Skull & Shackles a published adventure, and we only had one gunslinger for a brief period of time. It's not like they are necessary, firearms are very optional and personally I prefer my swords and sorcery without guns. But hey, why not have them. They don't turn the tables upside down until you bring out double barrel firearms because those are just all kinds of wrong.

Silver Crusade

To the original poster, yes. You are worrying too much.

As has been pointed out Dungeons&Dragons has guns... AD&D had guns... 2nd Edition AD&D had guns... 3rd Edition had guns...

Why do people seem shocked to find that Pathfinder has guns? It's not new. It's not innovative. It's same old same old.

Also, having guns in Pathfinder is not anachronistic because Golarion is not Earth and thus Earth timelines are irrelevant when determining if somethings chronological inconsistency.

Now I understand everyone may not be playing in Golarion but unless you are playing on Earth in a specific timeline that is intended to mimic historical accuracy and then, for some reason, seed in elements from a different time period with the express intention of creating an anachronism then nothing in your game can be said to be anachronistic.

Bottom line... NOTHING in the setting is anachronistic. Not guns, not printing presses, not Numerian tech... nothing. Why? Because everything detailed in the setting fits the chronology of the setting, thus it cannot be said to be an anachronism.


I think the problem is got so much guns but in the gunslinger class .
All the versions of D&D have had guns but never a specific class that specialised in them
Just my observation


My biggest issue with guns in a blades and magic type game is the mechanics. They almost always seem to be so primitives as to be useless or so advanced as to make using anything else suspect. (Yes, I know that matches real life, but it doesn't necessarily make for a good gaming experience.)

I have to say I feel the PF version (at least if you don't allow the advanced guns) is better than most. I see some people wanting to play a gun wielding hero. The are pretty effective, but not so much that everyone else feels useless. The way they managed it is (in my opinion) a bit odd and counter intuitive. But it works.

So I don't have a real problem with allowing guns at my table.


Look what happened to the Samurai

51 to 92 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Guns All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.