Knee-jerk reactions from the Advanced Class Guide


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 905 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I know Paizo prefers to use full-color art, with minimal art reuse, but the discussion of pagefitting causing trouble is making me think of those oft-reused sketches inside WotC's 3.5-era softcovers. You know, the ones with no real context other than be dungeon-dressing?

It might occasionally be useful to be able to say "Instead of inventing a new feat between R and T, let's use that picture of the pseudodragon hugging a skull again."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Really, when it comes down to it, Lore Warden is a problem for PFS, just as Crane Wing was.

Crane Wing was obviously a broken feat in all forms of play. Stop spreading those vile untruths.

bite +20 (4d6+22/19–20 plus grab)

Shadow Lodge

The Lore Warden is a problem in PFS? News to me.


My only complaint is that I would like more of the same, but I feel that way about pretty much all Paizo products. I haven't read it all thoroughly, but there's a lot I like. It's been available to subscribers a week and a half and available for retail purchase almost a week, I haven't seen any 'broken' build threads. I'm guessing a lot of time went into making cool new stuff that doesn't break the game when combined with other material. There are occasional threads about 3.5 bloat, but my complaint with 3.5 bloat was combinations that were extremely powerful (mostly prestige class combinations).

I suspect a few months of PFS play will give a better idea of balance. Some PFS players I've met are serious about optimization. But even over-optimization looks to be handled by ACG. Most of the new classes look relatively easy to make effective. I stand with the Rynjian school of thought on the Swashbuckler, but while Swashbuckler could have been done better imo it make the concept of Dread Pirate Robert/Captain Jack Sparrow (and other concepts) playable without needing four or five books.

I suspect that Pathfinder Unchained will revise core classes a bit, maybe upgrading the Fighter and Rogue to be more like an ACG class. And I suspect some of things we'd still like to see (ARG FCBs, Tech Guide archetypes for ACG classes) will be released in Inner Sea sourcebooks. I spend about 25% of my entertainment budget on RPG stuff and end up homebrewing most of the adventures I run, but enjoy all the books and PDFs I buy from Paizo.

Shadow Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:

I know Paizo prefers to use full-color art, with minimal art reuse, but the discussion of pagefitting causing trouble is making me think of those oft-reused sketches inside WotC's 3.5-era softcovers. You know, the ones with no real context other than be dungeon-dressing?

It might occasionally be useful to be able to say "Instead of inventing a new feat between R and T, let's use that picture of the pseudodragon hugging a skull again."

Don't really have an issue with that. To be honest, I really wish we have an option like the Lite version of the book that removed all the art, that wasn't needed for rules, particularly the new chapter pages. But, that being said, I didn't at all mind the 3.5 art or how it was reused. Paizo actually does this a lot too with their smaller books and products.


Personally i think the feat "Divine Protection" were a welcome sight for my Oracle.

But i see a few spells that could be considered "Anti-player" such as the +10 reflex save spell that could be used against fireball happy players or similar.

Also, finally a "Chaotic Paladin" with the bloodrager, and that class is just sick combined with the feat that basically gives you a pesudo evasion ( if you save from a spell you absorb it into your rage )


DM Beckett wrote:
The Lore Warden is a problem in PFS? News to me.

Purely anecdotal, but it seems whenever I see someone complaining about some maneuver build in PFS, it's usually the Lore Warden or the Tetori at fault.

Tetori grapple everything, while the Lore Warden will disarm/trip all of the humanoid opponents, or use Dirty Trick to make a joke of enemies (especially once Dirty Trick Master comes online).

However, in combat with non-humanoid, or flying, or natural attack creatures, the Lore Warden is at a much more distinct disadvantage as his maneuvers may have no effect.

I've seen issues with people complaining about Lore Wardens using Whirlwind Attack + Disarm (or Trip) on a Dex build to Whirlwind Disarm everything within reach, effectively neutering the encounter.

It's not nearly the problem that Crane Wing was, but the Lore Warden has a distinct leg up in maneuvers with PFS because so many enemies are of humanoid races that wield weapons.

Outside of PFS, maneuvers are a lot harder to pull off because creatures get to double dip size bonuses on their CMD (size adds to strength and CMD) making harder and harder to land a maneuver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*cries a single tear for all the wizards who are having their role usurped by those dastardly lore wardens*

Seriously, the Lore Warden doesn't do anything the God Wizard doesn't do better, he just does it in a more mundane fashion.

As a note: Dirty Trick Master is PFS illegal. Whirlwind Attack cannot be used to do more than one maneuver in a turn unless you're a Dirty Fighter, which is also banned in PFS. It sounds like most of the problems people are having are due to not following the rules...


Arachnofiend wrote:


As a note: Dirty Trick Master is PFS illegal. Whirlwind Attack cannot be used to do more than one maneuver in a turn unless you're a Dirty Fighter, which is also banned in PFS. It sounds like most of the problems people are having are due to not following the rules...

? You can perform a maneuver in the place of a weapon attack.


Scavion wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


As a note: Dirty Trick Master is PFS illegal. Whirlwind Attack cannot be used to do more than one maneuver in a turn unless you're a Dirty Fighter, which is also banned in PFS. It sounds like most of the problems people are having are due to not following the rules...
? You can perform a maneuver in the place of a weapon attack.

Not dirty trick...not sure if thatis what she meant.

Dark Archive

Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Tels wrote:
From a design standpoint, the Lore Warden is a bad archetype because it swaps defensive abilities for offensive abilities.

No. From a design standpoint the Lore warden is a great archetype because it add a valuable, cool, themathic AND balanced option to the game.

From a design standoint is bad to trade mediocre abilities for mediocre abilities and make a mediocre class into a mediocre archetype, as have happened so many times with rogue archetypes.

Er... no. As a general rule of thumb when it comes to archetype design, you are supposed to swap like for like. That's what every designer has said when asked for advice on building archetypes. Sometimes it's Ok to swap it for something else, but you should try not to increase it's overall power.

I am not saying I agree with this statement. I honestly think the Lore Warden is a great archetype. But, from what I've read/heard other designers (including SKR and Jason Bulmahn) say, is that the Lore Warden is too good as an archetype because it violates the general rule of thumb, and tends to increase the over all power of the class.

The Lore Warden can deal damage just as well as the basic fighter can, and it's also better than the Fightr at all combat maneuvers. If he does it right, he'll have nearly the same AC as the Fighter, more skill points, and more combat potential.

In many ways, the Lore Warden is completely superior to the baseline Fighter, the only aspect the Lore Warden really loses in, is the capability to wear heavy armor. Which isn't much of a problem for the Lore Warden as he can function fairly well in light armor.

In the case of the Fighter, I don't see a single problem with giving them archetypes that are better than the baseline class. It needs all the help it can get.


Huh... Knew you couldn't with Dirty Tricks and thought that applied to all maneuvers for some reason.

My main point stands, though.


Arachnofiend wrote:

*cries a single tear for all the wizards who are having their role usurped by those dastardly lore wardens*

Seriously, the Lore Warden doesn't do anything the God Wizard doesn't do better, he just does it in a more mundane fashion.

As a note: Dirty Trick Master is PFS illegal. Whirlwind Attack cannot be used to do more than one maneuver in a turn unless you're a Dirty Fighter, which is also banned in PFS. It sounds like most of the problems people are having are due to not following the rules...

I'm just saying what I've seen. Nearly every time I've ever seen someone complain about a maneuver character, it's always either the Lore Warden or the Tetori.

I don't subscribe to the idea the Lore Warden is too powerful. I'm just pointing out what the designers have said about it supposedly being too powerful.

Did PFS specifically ban Whirlwind Disarm/Sunder/Trip? Because, otherwise, it's entirely legal. Disarm/Sunder/Trip are the three maneuvers that can be substituted for a normal weapon attack. Anytime you make a weapon based attack roll, you can substitute one of the above maneuvers. This includes Monk Flurry of Blows, TWF, Full Attacks, Whirlwind Attack or even Cleave attacks.

Seranov wrote:
In the case of the Fighter, I don't see a single problem with giving them archetypes that are better than the baseline class. It needs all the help it can get.

While true, it's considered bad design to do so, and yes, I'm well aware that Paizo says they don't want to marginalize core classes, and then keeps putting out books that do so.


I consider that their consideration about what is bad desing is bad.


Nicos wrote:
I consider that their consideration about what is bad desing is bad.

Why are you even playing this game then?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I consider that their consideration about what is bad desing is bad.
Why are you even playing this game then?

Considering the vastness of the product that is Pathfinder, I think you can like some things and dislike others. I as well, believe it's somewhat silly a consideration as well.

Plus there are loads of reasons why you could be playing a game you don't particularly like a whole lot. Maybe it's the only game in the area you can find, or it's the game your friends play and you don't want to be left out.

Pathfinder has a lot of good in it. It's just got a few festering bits that could be tended to.


Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I consider that their consideration about what is bad desing is bad.
Why are you even playing this game then?

Well, if you ask I don't play the dozens of worthless archetypes the game have. I play the ones I consider to be good or a least decents.

If you tell me that to have 10 awful rogues archetypes is "good" because powercreep or whatever I will have to say Hell no

Lantern Lodge

Humans, Half Orcs and Half elf's FCB for Shaman help. Speaker for the Past , I am intrigued by...


I wanted to comment that Pummeling Style is the best thing ever to me, but my brain got sidetracked by some power level talk. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Anyways, Monks getting pounce is pretty huge.


I have no idea how Divine Protection got published in its current form. No idea at all.


I am going to defend the Lore Warden.

The problem with archetypes is that you either burden them with useless, cutesy stuff, or you make a specialized version of the generalist that is the base class, which amps up the power by definition, because Pathfinder is about build investment.

Fighter was needing a boost in power, so I'm glad the Lore Warden gave them an alternative.

I hope they make more similar archetypes.

By the way, if anyone's read People of the Stars, the new Kasatha Ranger archetype is sick awesome, too bad it is clearly Kasatha only... it stacks perfectly with the Guide and Skirmisher archetypes for an uber archer 3:


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I consider that their consideration about what is bad desing is bad.
Why are you even playing this game then?

Because the times they completely ignore their "rules for design" (which is the majority of the time) they can actually make good material.


Rynjin, why are you not spinning backflips over monkpounce? You should be rejoicing!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, part of the problem with the fighter (and therefore lore warden) is that each individual class feature is so low impact it's hard to actually remove something and then add a new feature in without it being underwhelming or changing the fighter to the point of unrecognizability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rynjin, why are you not spinning backflips over monkpounce? You should be rejoicing!

I'm very happy it exists.

But even THAT is plagued by typos and editing mistakes, unclear language and all the other problems endemic to this blasted book.

I'll tell you what would have saved space for the rest of that Cleric archetype, removal of all the redundant or useless lines of text scattered through the book.


my knee-jerk reactions?

pummeling style, taking it what i believe is intended (unarmed strikes) i love it SO FREAKING MUCH.

blood rager, what i truly wanted for a martial spellcaster.

brawler, a SAD non alignment restricted monk with full bab and is able to wear light armor? be still my beating heart! (ok its not exactly a monk, but its damned good)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My knee-jerk reaction after eying through it at a friend's for a little bit is "wow, paizo has hit a new low mark".

Though really, I've felt that way with basically every core line book since UM. On the other hand, their adventure paths have gotten better or better.

Which is saying something, as that's the way they started out - good at making adventures, decent at rules.

At this point I feel they're fantastic at adventures and downright awful at rules.

Not to say everything in the book is bad, but the amount of badly-written content in their rulebook is staggeringly high, matching the worse parts of the 3.5 splat at this point.

The last rulebook I bought was UC, and every released book makes me more assured that was the right choice. I'm still buying AP's though.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

My knee-jerk reaction after eying through it at a friend's for a little bit is "wow, paizo has hit a new low mark".

Though really, I've felt that way with basically every core line book since UM. On the other hand, their adventure paths have gotten better or better.

Which is saying something, as that's the way they started out - good at making adventures, decent at rules.

At this point I feel they're fantastic at adventures and downright awful at rules.

Not to say everything in the book is bad, but the amount of badly-written content in their rulebook is staggeringly high, matching the worse parts of the 3.5 splat at this point.

The last rulebook I bought was UC, and every released book makes me more assured that was the right choice. I'm still buying AP's though.

Same here. The AP's are awesome, but their rules books leave a lot of head-scratching and furled eyebrows...


My initial reaction is that the feats presented here are positively insane. Especially for barbarians and bloodragers. With Reckless Rage and Power Attack on a level 1 human rage-user, you can do up to 2d6+16. Plus, it seems like it's easy to give the bloodrager a lot of power without even a dedicated build as long as you've got abyssal bloodline and a courageous weapon.

Divine Protection is going to more than likely get widely banned at a lot of the tables I see. It's just nuts.

That being said, I'm not necessarily against this book. It does seem like the power creep has hit, but if Unchained can rise the tide for the underpowered classes and reconfigure encounters to be more challenging (there was a guide for this I saw that showed an even fight was a CR equivalent of APL+4, so maybe they could at least acknowledge this or inform GMs), then it aught to balance out.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Speaking to the point about the Ecclesitheurge, I would have preferred that they leave out the artwork in favor of presenting the complete archetype. The dwarf is super cool looking, but presenting an incomplete archetype is not an acceptable trade-off. The dwarf takes up 1/4 of the page. Cheapy, who authored the archetype, stated that the ability was cut to add reasonable explanatory text to other abilities, which is a great reason to make a change like that. That said, I'm sure that the BotF ability that was cut could fit within 1/4 of a page. If it was short, it could reasonably have been included by scaling the art down or, if too long for that, by adding fluff text in place of the artwork to ensure sufficient page fill.


My main knee jerk reactions:

- Replace the bloodrager spell list with the magus spell list. Made much more sense.

- Replace inquisitor's studied combat with slayer's studied target. I didn't like it in the playtest and I don't like it now. More so as it makes quick study a must have.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
I know Paizo prefers to use full-color art, with minimal art reuse, but the discussion of pagefitting causing trouble is making me think of those oft-reused sketches inside WotC's 3.5-era softcovers. You know, the ones with no real context other than be dungeon-dressing?

I'd rather see reused stock art and good text than magnificent art and badly-written text. Especially because I don't use the art in-game.


I think Divine Protection was meant to be a feat tax to make the Warpriest into a makeshift paladin, but with only letting warpriests take it the feat seemed weak so they expanded on it.


master_marshmallow wrote:
I think Divine Protection was meant to be a feat tax to make the Warpriest into a makeshift paladin, but with only letting warpriests take it the feat seemed weak so they expanded on it.

Intended for Warpriests... so it keys off their dump stat?


Squiggit wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I think Divine Protection was meant to be a feat tax to make the Warpriest into a makeshift paladin, but with only letting warpriests take it the feat seemed weak so they expanded on it.
Intended for Warpriests... so it keys off their dump stat?

Specifically the Champion of the Faith archetype which uses Charisma as a secondary stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
I know Paizo prefers to use full-color art, with minimal art reuse, but the discussion of pagefitting causing trouble is making me think of those oft-reused sketches inside WotC's 3.5-era softcovers. You know, the ones with no real context other than be dungeon-dressing?
I'd rather see reused stock art and good text than magnificent art and badly-written text. Especially because I don't use the art in-game.

More so when the books mostly sit in (on?) the shelves while the real gaming uses the online databases.


Umbranus wrote:


More so when the books mostly sit in (on?) the shelves while the real gaming uses the online databases.

That varies from group to group though. In our group, there's a "no electronics during game time" rule/guideline that we tend to follow the best we can, because it makes focusing easier.

Though I still agree, good text + mediocre art > bad text + fantastic art.


I also remember a question I had about Daring Champions and Swashbucklers. Is there any reason why you can't go two-weapon fighting as one of those? Precise Strike would be good for when you only have a standard action to spare, but otherwise isn't a full attack action with two weapons the better call than one with only Precise Strike?


aceDiamond wrote:
I also remember a question I had about Daring Champions and Swashbucklers. Is there any reason why you can't go two-weapon fighting as one of those? Precise Strike would be good for when you only have a standard action to spare, but otherwise isn't a full attack action with two weapons the better call than one with only Precise Strike?

Normally yes, but in it's current form TWF sucks.


All the art has hooves! Spread the words!


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

THe Ecclesitheurge situation is particularlly bad. We have an entire page of the book that is, to say the less, of really low value.

As with other things in the book (like dex to damage with rapiers), I think the right thing to do is to release pdf with the missing/correct information to fix this problems, at least until there is 2nd printing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
Speaking to the point about the Ecclesitheurge, I would have preferred that they leave out the artwork in favor of presenting the complete archetype. The dwarf is super cool looking, but presenting an incomplete archetype is not an acceptable trade-off. The dwarf takes up 1/4 of the page. Cheapy, who authored the archetype, stated that the ability was cut to add reasonable explanatory text to other abilities, which is a great reason to make a change like that. That said, I'm sure that the BotF ability that was cut could fit within 1/4 of a page. If it was short, it could reasonably have been included by scaling the art down or, if too long for that, by adding fluff text in place of the artwork to ensure sufficient page fill.

Quick clarification, just so everyone is on the same page. I don't know why it was cut. I gave what I suspected to be the reasons. I don't feel like the reasons actually matter though, as just about everything that gets sent in gets changed in some way or another.

This sort of issue has happened in the past. One case was the Vivisectionist's suggested discoveries. I believe another time was regarding some of Jason Nelson's archetypes from UCombat or the APG. Things get changed in development all the time, for myriad reasons, all legitimate. Sometimes, abilities referencing the old mechanics don't get scrubbed. Hell, write a class and go through 9 revisions of it, and you'll see how easy it is to miss this sort of thing. I had a class I wrote a while ago that, right before I sent it to the publisher, I did 3 final reads, and on the third read, I saw a reference to an ability from the first draft. Every single freelancer will have experiences like this (except maybe Russ Taylor).

It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
alternis sol wrote:
Zark wrote:

BTW, one of the things that really annoyed me was the lack of mage armor on the Shaman spell list. How are you going to keep the Pet alive?

ACG pg 47. wrote:


Spirit Animal...
... The shaman’s spirit animal also
grants her special powers. This ability uses the same rules
as the wizard’s arcane bond class feature and is treated
as a familiar (see pages 78 and 82 of the Core Rulebook),
except as noted below.
I think it is suppose to act like a familar so i don't think it should leave your shoulder, body, or really be anywhere that it could get attacked. so basically keep it hidden so the enemy can't kill it would be my guess.

I didn't give my spirit animal DR 5/Adamantine and Fast Healing 1 to sit on my shoulder damn it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My knee-jerk reaction? I bought this book for reckless rage so far, there's other good stuff but they keep going in a direction that is left-field of what I want. I want good archetypes, not useless filler types, leave them out; I just get sick looking at over a hundred feats and finding only a few good crunch ones. It just seems to me like the old classes are going to be on life support until they get unleashed or whatever next year; I guess I was hoping for more archetypes than mutagen this and divine that; did they fire the people who made the invulnerable rager or the quiggong monk? Where is the creativity with the rules and options we've been hearing about, it's all just mixing and matching what we already have. Don't get me wrong, these new classes seem fun and all, hell I've been waiting for a viable assassin for years; but where's the beef? I feel like they wasted a lot of page space on utter garbage and facile choices, and we are still left starving for some crunch.
Like I said, it's a first-take; I may feel differently later but the first impression left me sick at wasting 40 bones.
Last thing, there where some awesome items though, just too few considering the wasted space within.


aceDiamond wrote:
I also remember a question I had about Daring Champions and Swashbucklers. Is there any reason why you can't go two-weapon fighting as one of those? Precise Strike would be good for when you only have a standard action to spare, but otherwise isn't a full attack action with two weapons the better call than one with only Precise Strike?

Absolutely the case, yes. Particularly since you still get the benefit of Precise Strike on those rounds where you can't full attack (nicely canceling out what's usually one of the downsides to two weapon fighting). You still need to buy two weapons, but hey, enjoy your extra panache flow.


The only sticking point is that Slashing Grace, as written, doesn't work for Light weapons. So you have to do one of the following:

- Convince your DM to allow Slashing Grace to include Rapiers and Light Weapons. This may well have been the original intent by the developers, as the reason for making this a feat (and not a Swashbuckler class feature) was to make it available to more classes. The feat currently only works for Swashbucklers and archetypes that gain Swashbuckler Finesse anyways. It also leads to the absurd situation that you can use Slashing Grace with a battleaxe but not a dagger.

- Spend yet another feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency for Sawtooth Sabres. Unfortunately these are 19-20 crit range weapons, so not ideal for panache generation.

- Shell out for Agile enhancements on both weapons. This is expensive, (unaffordable until level 7 at the very earliest, if you skimp on spending elsewhere) and damage is halved for the off-hand weapon.


Dokomo wrote:
alternis sol wrote:


I think it is suppose to act like a familar so i don't think it should leave your shoulder, body, or really be anywhere that it could get attacked. so basically keep it hidden so the enemy can't kill it would be my guess.

I didn't give my spirit animal DR 5/Adamantine and Fast Healing 1 to sit on my shoulder damn it.

not sure how you got DR and fast healing (haven't looked to close at the class) but your pet is probably fine to make a nuisance of itself (enemies view of your pet) at lower levels.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Jack Assery wrote:

*** I guess I was hoping for more archetypes than mutagen this and divine that; did they fire the people who made the invulnerable rager or the quiggong monk? Where is the creativity with the rules and options we've been hearing about, it's all just mixing and matching what we already have. Don't get me wrong, these new classes seem fun and all, hell I've been waiting for a viable assassin for years; but where's the beef? I feel like they wasted a lot of page space on utter garbage and facile choices, and we are still left starving for some crunch.

***

Yeah, the archetypes in this book continually leave me perplexed. Some of them are really cool options that have needed to exist for a while now, like the Bolt Ace. Others are weird (like the Blade Adept which is apparently specifically intended for Eldritch Knights?), and some are just bad (like the Feral Hunter), or were poorly edited and reconstructed during development (looking at you Ecclesitheurge).

Even the really good ones I have a hard time thinking of as original, like the Vanguard, who cuts out the skill bonuses of the Slayer and replaces them with an upgraded version of the Cavalier's Tactician.

Hmmm...
That may be my biggest hang-up. It feels like the best executed archetypes are the ones that really should have been slam-dunks anyway and didn't require a lot of ingenuity to bring together. These need to be in there and should and do form the backbone of the materials. But all of the really new or original archetypes fall flat, either due to editing, balance, or some other issue. Feral Hunter should have and could have been really good, but instead it gutted the best and most original features of the Hunter class replacing them with mediocre to poor options that look like they were edited by someone who hadn't actually read through the Hunter recently. What we were left with was a poor man's druid where we could have had something really cool.


Will McCardell wrote:


It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)

Few?

Just because someone else did it worse, does not make this book better.

250 pages isn't even a lot of pages. I've seen 800 page novels with less blatant editing mistakes than this.


Rynjin wrote:
Will McCardell wrote:


It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)

Few?

Just because someone else did it worse, does not make this book better.

250 pages isn't even a lot of pages. I've seen 800 page novels with less blatant editing mistakes than this.

I don't know how you could possibly think that's a valid comparison.

751 to 800 of 905 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Knee-jerk reactions from the Advanced Class Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.