What's the craziest stuff your players have tried to get you to allow?Monkey Grip. It was a feat in one of the splat books that allowed you to wield weapons larger than normal or use a two-handed weapon one handed. It was always used so someone could cheese a dual-wielding Greatswords or Great Axes. Ugh.
Not really super-crazy, but it comes up EVERY FREAKING GAME FOR EVERY FREAKING CHARACTER...
How is doing exactly what the feat intends 'cheese'? Besides, I think it was almost always a DPR loss when it came down to it, the feat was not worth the increase in damage dice and additional -2 penalty.
EDIT: Thinking back, I don't think that Monkey Grip allowed a two-handed medium weapon to be wielded one-handed by a medium creature. They did that in NWN2 because of lack of sizing, but in D&D it was just one-handed large weapons one-handed for a medium creature.
If I remember correctly (always suspect), it was introduced at almost the same time as some comic of anime characters with which everyone was enamored. Those characters were shown whirling through their opponents with giant axes or swords that were as big as themselves.
If the mechanic had been introduce a year earlier or later, I don't think it would have been nearly as big a deal..
.
Monkey Grip. It was a feat in one of the splat books that allowed you to wield weapons larger than normal or use a two-handed weapon one handed. It was always used so someone could cheese a dual-wielding Greatswords or Great Axes. Ugh.So... basically a Weapon Specialization (+2 damage on average)? If you forget all the restrictions and penalties, that is.
This is not crazy, this is not overpowered, and considering that Monkey Grip did in fact feature a -2 penalty, taking it was and is nerfing your character for the sake of pure flavor.
It wasn't so much that it was powerful (though it could be with a full BaB and high strength class that rarely missed anyway), the issue was more that it seemed the build of choice for every 2nd or 3rd character. I remember one time having 3 of them in the same party. It got kinda old to seem the same thing all the time.
A player once wanted to create a bow with true strike on it.
It was indeed published. Halfling only bow, price about 20k, casts true strike as a standard action, so usable every other round.
Had a character that owned one. Best use for it was popping things under concealment, since with no power attack you didn't do anything for damage.
Knowledge Devotion would have been balanced if it had given melee types bonuses to using it. Instead, it was basically another caster only skill better then what melees could get. Just, ugh.
==Aelryinth
There was a random 3pp feat book that one of my players like. The only feat I allow from 3.5 into pathfinder is from that book. I think it was something like "colorize spell." Basically it lets you rearrange the colors and make stuff look BA, if the spell allows a saving throw and your opponents failed you get a +2 bonus to intimidate. +0 spell level. That's not too bad, I permit that because it lets my players have things like green fireballs and red lightning bolts.
As for stuff people have tried to push past me, I have a player that tries to get me to allow the book of vile darkness... every... single... game.
Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?
I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.
There was a random 3pp feat book that one of my players like. The only feat I allow from 3.5 into pathfinder is from that book. I think it was something like "colorize spell."
Do you remember the name and publisher of the book? I would be very interested in this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.
The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.
|
Divine Metamagic and related abilities is probably the worst thing from 3.x that comes up from my players from time to time. That was one mess I'm happy to leave behind.
A lot of the other stuff they ask for I'm usually able to oblige; Dreamscarred's psionics are awesome and well balanced so I have no problem direcring players who want 3.5-style psionics there, and I wrote the conversion for Magic of Incarnum for when that comes up.
Hmmm....
I also get requests for the 3.5 style of Wildshape, but I usually tell players "No" or "Sure, if you're willing to trade out another major class feature, like spellcasting".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who bought way too many splatbooks he no longer needs, it'd be nice to get an inverse of this thread—what are some 3.x things that are pretty great for conversion?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.
The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.
You forgot to mention that all the bows the orcs have are super-duper cursed with lots of drawbacks and requirements, including worshiping the orc deity, changing the wielder's name to "NPC orc mook [number]" ranks in <orc-only skill>, must be used to kill a living creature each day, in the hands of an <orc> who <is/isn't> [choose one] a spellcaster {of specified type, if applicable}, while within 100 miles of <particular site>, that it look ridiculous, continually emits an unpleasant sound {omit this for stealthy orcs}, and takes <ability score damage> {with appropriate save}.
If you don't fulfill all those qualifications, you must make a Use Magic Device check for each that you fail to have each time you wish to use the item, and you take -2 levels, and will slowly transform into the "NPC orc mook [number]" anyway (including gender, race/kind, alignment, etc. being changed as necessary to match the orc the bow belonged to). ((With the corollary and understanding that, once that happens, you become an NPC - I mean, it's right there in the name - and your character sheet becomes the GMs.))
All that, so it's actually really cheap for the orcs to mass-produce, so their wealth can be spent on similarly-altered other items! >:D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the Reserve Feats, and the Close Wounds Spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who bought way too many splatbooks he no longer needs, it'd be nice to get an inverse of this thread—what are some 3.x things that are pretty great for conversion?
Start a new thread.
Reserve feats will probably top the list for casters.
==Aelryinth
I already started a lot of threads in the last couple days. I need to break the habit.
I think the only 3.5 material that was mentioned in any of our pathfinder games was Monkey Grip which was immediately laughed away in a sweeping "nope" and then the allowance of my Fighter taking the Chevallier Prestige class which was allowed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss Healing Lorecall.
Healing Lorecall was a second-level cleric* divination spell that lasted for one minute/cleric level. While it was active, you would be able to use Cure Wounds spells to remove certain conditions based on how many ranks of Heal you had. If you had 5 ranks, Cure Wounds would remove dazed, dazzled, and fatigued. If you had 10 ranks, you could also deal with exhausted, nauseated, and sickened. Also, while Healing Lorecall was active, you used your total ranks in Heal instead of your cleric level to determine how well Cure Wounds worked (you're still subject to the spell's built-in caster level limit.)
Unfortunately, this feat got a little devalued when Pathfinder came out, because they changed how skill points worked. And the Merciful Healer cleric came out, but I do very much like the Merciful Healer and would like to play one during Wrath of the Righteous.
*Or second-level druid spell, or first-level ranger spell, but let's face it, they have better things to prep.
Persistent Spell
Battle Jump
|
|
Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.
The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.
If you really want to drive home how cheesy it is, use ratfolk or wererats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to drive home how cheesy it is, use ratfolk or wererats.Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.
The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.
My PCs actually did get a bow that is sort of true strike and I think they haven't even used it much.
It was a bow that 5/day could grant +5 to hit and negate concealment as a swift action, or give +20 to hit as a standard. They thought it was pretty cool but I don't even remember if they've used it yet (I think they gave it to the Paladin as a backup for when his sword & board routine isn't lookin' so hot).
If you really want to drive home how cheesy it is, use ratfolk or wererats.Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.
The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.
My PCs actually did get a bow that is sort of true strike and I think they haven't even used it much.
It was a bow that 5/day could grant +5 to hit and negate concealment as a swift action, or give +20 to hit as a standard. They thought it was pretty cool but I don't even remember if they've used it yet (I think they gave it to the Paladin as a backup for when his sword & board routine isn't lookin' so hot).
I don't get why people would think that a command activated true strike would be imbalanced or even good at all.
You will be giving up at least a standard action attack(or more likely a full attack) in order to make an attack next round almost certainly hit. Unless you are missing > 50% of the time on attacks or are burning expensive magic ammo this is a good way to lower DPR for no real benefit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to drive home how cheesy it is, use ratfolk or wererats.Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.
The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.
My PCs actually did get a bow that is sort of true strike and I think they haven't even used it much.
It was a bow that 5/day could grant +5 to hit and negate concealment as a swift action, or give +20 to hit as a standard. They thought it was pretty cool but I don't even remember if they've used it yet (I think they gave it to the Paladin as a backup for when his sword & board routine isn't lookin' so hot).
I don't get why people would think that a command activated true strike would be imbalanced or even good at all.
You will be giving up at least a standard action attack(or more likely a full attack) in order to make an attack next round almost certainly hit. Unless you are missing > 50% of the time on attacks or are burning expensive magic ammo this is a good way to lower DPR for no real benefit.
Oh, I definitely agree. Being able to cast true strike is pretty meh. Heck, I used the psionic version called inevitable strike to create the bow, which features the option for a "lesser" +5 to hit (instead of +20) as a swift action and even then it's far from overpowered.
Actually spending a standard action to preform a "super-aim" is kind of a cool feature (but you really don't get much mileage out of it since full-attacking is king).
This is not crazy, this is not overpowered, and considering that Monkey Grip did in fact feature a -2 penalty, taking it was and is nerfing your character for the sake of pure flavor.
And that flavor is *cheese.*
This is so frustrating to me, because I recently saw a thread around here somewhere where someone talked about his character who somehow dual-wielded greatswords in a Pathfinder game. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how he did it (and shaking my head at the ridiculous image). No one else called him out on it. I wish I had. Now I can't find the thread.
On topic: Does anyone else think dastana from 3.5 was overpowered? (I think it was from the Arms and Equipment Guide or something). My DM at the time said so.
Contributor
|
This is not crazy, this is not overpowered, and considering that Monkey Grip did in fact feature a -2 penalty, taking it was and is nerfing your character for the sake of pure flavor.
And that flavor is *cheese.*
This is so frustrating to me, because I recently saw a thread around here somewhere where someone talked about his character who somehow dual-wielded greatswords in a Pathfinder game. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how he did it (and shaking my head at the ridiculous image). No one else called him out on it. I wish I had. Now I can't find the thread.
On topic: Does anyone else think dastana from 3.5 was overpowered? (I think it was from the Arms and Equipment Guide or something). My DM at the time said so.
My 3.X books are buried. Can you remember what it did? The name rings a bell...
This is not crazy, this is not overpowered, and considering that Monkey Grip did in fact feature a -2 penalty, taking it was and is nerfing your character for the sake of pure flavor.
And that flavor is *cheese.*
This is so frustrating to me, because I recently saw a thread around here somewhere where someone talked about his character who somehow dual-wielded greatswords in a Pathfinder game. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how he did it (and shaking my head at the ridiculous image). No one else called him out on it. I wish I had. Now I can't find the thread.
I'm pretty sure you can do it in Pathfinder by using Titan Fighter and Titan Mauler. You take massive hit penalties, though.
EDIT: Excuse me, that would be Large Greatswords. You can dual-wield Greatswords with just Titan Mauler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not crazy, this is not overpowered, and considering that Monkey Grip did in fact feature a -2 penalty, taking it was and is nerfing your character for the sake of pure flavor.
And that flavor is *cheese.*
This is so frustrating to me, because I recently saw a thread around here somewhere where someone talked about his character who somehow dual-wielded greatswords in a Pathfinder game. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how he did it (and shaking my head at the ridiculous image). No one else called him out on it. I wish I had. Now I can't find the thread.
On topic: Does anyone else think dastana from 3.5 was overpowered? (I think it was from the Arms and Equipment Guide or something). My DM at the time said so.
If I understand it correctly, a dastana give a +1 armor bonus that stacks with armor bonuses from the best light armor (chainmail). And if I am not mistaken, assuming the 3.5 rules work the same as the PF rules, possible to enchant with an enhancement bonus to it's AC which shouldn't conflict with a regular armor enhancement.
It is pretty stupid for characters that wear light armor only. Basically a must have item for anyone who can benefit from it.
Yeah, I think that's what dastana does. If I remember correctly, I had a lightly armored character and I wanted to use them in lieu of a buckler (not in addition to). If memory serves, yeah, they could be enchanted--and possibly they would stack with shields/bucklers, so I can see why that would be a problem. But my thought was to say you can use either dastana *or* a shield, but not both--like wearing 3 magic rings.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the dastana and the chahar-aina from Oriental Adventures both gave a +1 bonus to Armor Class that stacked with your existing armor (so long as your armor was padded armor, leather armor, or chain shirt.) They could both be further enhanced like armor.
The dastana required Light Armor Proficiency and the chahar-aina required Medium Armor Proficiency.
Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.How do you connect green lightning to "we're playing a video game?"
I know that personally, "green lightning" makes me think primarily of Luke Skywalker at the end of the Vong War (that would be a book, not a video game; we've never gotten any sort of game of that era) and to a much lesser extent the villains of the Bazil Broketail series (that would, again, be books).
Because I'm OCD. If I let a player do something like that, it means I need to think about that kind of stuff for every NPC I make from then on out. Furthermore, I'd feel compelled to come up with systems, guidelines, and justifications for that kind of personalization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of my players know anything about 3.5. My bookshelves of old content lay quietly moldering. :(
Damn shame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I'm OCD. If I let a player do something like that, it means I need to think about that kind of stuff for every NPC I make from then on out. Furthermore, I'd feel compelled to come up with systems, guidelines, and justifications for that kind of personalization.Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.How do you connect green lightning to "we're playing a video game?"
I know that personally, "green lightning" makes me think primarily of Luke Skywalker at the end of the Vong War (that would be a book, not a video game; we've never gotten any sort of game of that era) and to a much lesser extent the villains of the Bazil Broketail series (that would, again, be books).
That must be really rough. As a GM, I refluff descriptions of stuff constantly. It keeps the game fresh and interesting. It's often a rather efficient way to add a little indirect personality to certain characters.
For example, the goblin sorcerer Grex "Jum-Jum", who's summoned riding horse via the mount spell looked like a rainbow-colored donkey. Or a drow wizard whose empowered fireball threw blue and orange flames. None of these things affect the game mechanically in any way, shape, or form, beyond just making the game more fun and/or cool.
In your game do all longswords look the exact same too? How do you reconcile the extreme amount of OCD-irritation that occurs from seeing Pathfinder art depicting things like staffs and swords differently, even though they all share the same statistics?
Why has your head not exploded yet over the way armor looks? (o-O)
Divine Metamagic and related abilities is probably the worst thing from 3.x that comes up from my players from time to time. That was one mess I'm happy to leave behind.
This.
Divine metamagic, persistent spell, and a bag of nightsticks almost made me quit.
The bag of nightsticks didn't work, but divine and persistent was indeed a powerful combo. Just one or two buff spells lasting all day was a big gamechanger for clerics.
==Aelryinth
That must be really rough. As a GM, I refluff descriptions of stuff constantly. It keeps the game fresh and interesting. It's often a rather efficient way to add a little indirect personality to certain characters.
For example, the goblin sorcerer Grex "Jum-Jum", who's summoned riding horse via the mount spell looked like a rainbow-colored donkey. Or a drow wizard whose empowered fireball threw blue and orange flames. None of these things affect the game mechanically in any way, shape, or form, beyond just making the game more fun and/or cool.
In your game do all longswords look the exact same too? How do you reconcile the extreme amount of OCD-irritation that occurs from seeing Pathfinder art depicting things like staffs and swords differently, even though they all share the same statistics?
Why has your head not exploded yet over the way armor looks? (o-O)
The physical stuff doesn't bother me because it's trivial to imagine and justify cosmetic stuff. Any craftsman can put her own unique touches on a sword or what have you.
Magic is different, since it has no mundane or contextual reference. If one wizard's fireball is orange and another's is green, why? Do they know slightly different versions of the same spell? Are the spells exactly the same, but cast slightly different? Is it something inherent to the wizards themselves? What about spontaneous spellcasters?
Next, how does that affect spellcraft checks to recognize spells? Is it the same, or should it be different, and why?
It's just more effort than it's worth.
Your armor comment scares me. Is there something wrong with the way armor looks? Should my head explode?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The physical stuff doesn't bother me because it's trivial to imagine and justify cosmetic stuff. Any craftsman can put her own unique touches on a sword or what have you.
Can they? How far can they deviate before it's not the same weapon? If I put a cool spike on the end of my sword, like the Uruk-hai in the Lord of the Rings movies, is it no longer a longsword (even if the spike is purely decorative)?
Magic is different, since it has no mundane or contextual reference.
Why is magic different, exactly? The fact there is no reference to exactly what magic looks like or how it works only implies that there should be even more variation. You're dealing with an intangible thing. There is no tangible standard that you can compare it to.
It doesn't matter if the fireball is blue, green, orange, black, or white. It doesn't matter if when you cast lightning bolt a phantom image of a blue dragon's head appears around your hand for the short instance of the spell. It doesn't matter if the cone of cold spell looks like a winter's blizzard or sub-zero's ice from Mortal Kombat or a flood of frozen-spirits sweeping over the cone's area. What matters is each spell deals X d6 damage in Y area with a DC Z reflex save for half. >_>
If one wizard's fireball is orange and another's is green, why? Do they know slightly different versions of the same spell? Are the spells exactly the same, but cast slightly different? Is it something inherent to the wizards themselves? What about spontaneous spellcasters?
Actually, yes, there is in fact evidence that it is just that. See, knowing a spell doesn't mean you even know or use the same words as the next guy using a spell. Just because your Sorcerer knows Fireball and has vocal and somatic components and such doesn't mean he gets to recognize that somebody else (including another sorcerer) is casting fireball). For that, he must make a successful Spellcraft check.
In the same vein, wizards have variances in the way their spells are written, and spells transcend language barriers. A wizard can find a goblin's spellbook of fingerpaintings, interpret their meaning with a successful Spellcraft check and then scribe them into their scroll using whatever formula fits best for them.
That much is strait out of the book. This literally means that every single utterance of a given spell is slightly different from user to user, otherwise there would be no interpretation involved. The wizard or sorcerer would just know the components of the spell they cast every day when some other dude decides he's casting Jum-Jum's Rainbow Ass of Pride, but no, he needs a successful Spellcraft check to realize he's casting mount.
Next, how does that affect spellcraft checks to recognize spells? Is it the same, or should it be different, and why?
It's just more effort than it's worth.
If by more effort you mean...using the rules exactly as they already are for near infinitely more stylistic options for PCs and villains...uh...sure? I already pointed out how Spellcraft actually suggests and supports that spells have noteworthy variances between casters. Otherwise you'd only need spellcraft checks to recognize spells you didn't know, since obviously if that mage-guy is making finger formation #21 and invoking the spirit of Madlar the Firefiend, he's most certainly going to be casting scorching ray, and you know this because you just did the same thing three rounds ago.
...Oops, wait, you failed your Spellcraft check. Turns out it was a fireball. Oh sheeeeeeeeet! Hit the deck!!
Your armor comment scares me. Is there something wrong with the way armor looks? Should my head explode?
Well armor in D&D/PF has a rather extreme level of variance. Some of them aren't even real armors (studded leather does not actually exist and never has existed).
I mean, look at the iconic Fighter, Valeros. His armor is listed as being a breastplate. The core description of a breastplate is:
Breastplate: Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal.
Whereas Valeros' Armor is clearly made of multiple interlocking pieces of metal, some padded or leather waistcloths, a pair of bracers, and shoulder guards.
If your OCD becomes a problem when simply trying to imagine a thing that doesn't exist and is not defined as being a different color, how on earth does it not send you into writhing convulsions when here is a thing that is explicitly said to be a certain way and here's a visual example of it not being that thing?
I mean, for the rest of us, we just look and say "Hey, probably has stats like a breastplate. Ship it!", but I'm curious how you handle it when it's so brazenly imaginative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.renaissancefestival.com/forums/index.php?topic=7777.0
In regards to armor, studded leather was actually more like splint mail... the studs were rivets holding metal bits in place underneath...
As for spells, I assume regional variants... Some dude up north came up with a spell that, while mechanically is Fireball, looks like an explosion of some sort, complete with illusory rock bits flying out and the smell of burning gunpowder... meanwhile, down south, someone came up with the same spell, only it looks purple and summons the fires of hell, complete with faint wailing demon voices and stench of sulfur upon casting.
Both are fireball, both produce effects that are identifiable as fire, but are regional variants of the same spell.
I've always done it this way, I didn't realize others treated the spells as 100% static, having all come from a single source... to me, THAT approach is odd.
Heck, in the Inner Sea Gods book, in magic items, there is a staff that looks like two intertwined snakes that allows casting of magic missile, and they DESCRIBE how the missiles look like snakes, one black, one white...
To answer the original question though, the entire Tome of Battle. Ugh.
It's one thing to try to balance martial vs casters, it's another to turn martials into casters.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the original question though, the entire Tome of Battle. Ugh.
It's one thing to try to balance martial vs casters, it's another to turn martials into casters.
I sir have the Tomb of Battle. Casters it ain't.
Brutal Throw comes up plenty at the table for martial characters who want better ways to deal ranged damage. The prerequisites are low for the amount of awesome it gives.
I've seen some DMs ban it in 3.5 because it made dexterity focused ranged combat an even less viable option. Now that pathfinder archers are way better damagewise I don't see any problem with asking for this feat.
With regard to the visual effects of spells, I think it is fun to occasionally throw in something different. Maybe most of the time one person's fireball looks just like the next guy's. But every now and then it is fun to throw in something more interesting.
I once played an Elven Fighter/Mage whose last name was "Goldenstar" (cheesy, perhaps, but I liked it). Whenever he cast Magic Missile, the missiles looked like golden stars with glittering gold trails. This was first edition and my DM at the time made me spend time and gold to do research just to change the visuals like that. But I did it and it was worth it to me to give that character a sort of "signature" spell.
In the Rise of the Runelords game that I'm GMing, I have an NPC Cleric of Desna to be the group's healer (no one wanted to play a Cleric). Since she has the Travel domain, she can cast "Fly". So whenever she casts "Fly" I have it so that it looks like she sprouts large blue/green diaphanous butterfly wings. It fits with being a follower of Desna and it doesn't change the power of what that spell can do. It also helps to distinguish a Cleric's version of Fly from other Fly spells. It also adds flavor and reinforces that Clerics of different deities are different.
On topic--I really, *really* liked Reserve Feats for spells.
I sir have the Tomb of Battle. Casters it ain't.To answer the original question though, the entire Tome of Battle. Ugh.
It's one thing to try to balance martial vs casters, it's another to turn martials into casters.
Am I thinking of another book?
There are classes that can do stuff like make a fire snake on the ground... but they aren't spellcasters...
Nope, I got it right. This summarizes my feelings on the book perfectly:
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Weeaboo_Fightan_Magic
Sorry for not actually linking, my html powers are not strong.
This summarizes my feelings on the book perfectly:"The_Book_of_Weeaboo_Fightan_Magic" (found on 1d4chan)
Sorry for not actually linking, my html powers are not strong.
For the record, it's:
[ url = www.google.com ] Link to Google! [ / url ]
with the spaces removed, becomes
Hope that helps!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just feels icky... fighters shouldn't be like that...
Your opinion has been noted.