Sorry if this has already been discussed/answered, but I wasn't able to find a post addressing the question (my search-fu skill may just be weak).
I noticed in the blog that Seelah's card (http://static1.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderACG/PZO6001-Seelah1.jpg) indicates Wisdom as her Divine skill attribute. In the RPG, Paladins cast using Charisma not Wisdom. So how come Seelah uses Wisdom for Divine? Seoni rightfully uses Charisma for her Arcane. I would think Seelah would likewise use Charisma for her Divine.
Is it a balance issue? I'm having a hard time seeing how having her use Charisma instead of Wisdom could be considered overpowered, seeing how she doesn't get to keep a lot of spell cards in her deck. Did the creators reference the original D&D3.x Paladin instead of Pathfinder's when they created her character card? Was this ever explained? Does Alahazra use Wisdom for her Divine as well?
It just seems incorrect to have her use Wisdom instead of Charisma for her Divine skill. Has anyone tried homebrew rules where they switch her Divine skill to using Charisma? If so, have you noticed any balance issues?
That's interesting... as someone who never played Pathfinder RPG having Paladin use Wisdom for spell-casting seemed normal to me because that is what they [and Rangers] use to cast spells in "classic" RPG.
Ripe wrote: That's interesting... as someone who never played Pathfinder RPG having Paladin use Wisdom for spell-casting seemed normal to me because that is what they [and Rangers] use to cast spells in "classic" RPG. The use of Charisma is specifically a Pathfinder change to the Paladin's spellcasting attribute (D&D3.X used Wisdom). Pathfinder did this because the Paladin was considered a MAD (Multi-Attribute Dependent) class. It required high Strength for combat, Constitution for hit points, Charisma for various abilities (such as Lay on Hands), and Wisdom for spellcasting.
When using a Point-Buy system, this would often lead to the Paladin having to spread their points too thin to be properly effective, and the class tended fair poorly in comparisons made with other classes. By switching the spellcasting to Charisma, the points that used to go to Wisdom could be redistributed to Strength, Constitution, and Charisma. This change allows more efficient Paladin builds.
The reason I find it so odd that the Seelah is using Wisdom for her Divine skill is specifically because the change to Charisma for Paladin spells was a Pathfinder change. It's almost as if the creators of the card game were referencing the old D&D version of the Paladin instead of Pathfinder.
It could also be that they forgot about the change because PF rangers (the only other Core minor casters) still use Wisdom, making it a simple misremembering rather than referencing obsolete material.
Now, the better question is why it will persist in WotR, which has Seelah still being a Wisdom-based divine caster.
Sandslice wrote: It could also be that they forgot about the change because PF rangers (the only other Core minor casters) still use Wisdom, making it a simple misremembering rather than referencing obsolete material.
Now, the better question is why it will persist in WotR, which has Seelah still being a Wisdom-based divine caster.
Yes, I would very much prefer that they fix Seelah to use Charisma for Divine. I'm considering implementing a houserule for any games I run where Divine becomes a "Charisma + 1" skill. Does anyone think there might be a problem with this? I don't think it'd be unbalancing, but I'd like the opinions of people who've played more than I have (only first two scenarios).
This is a very interesting question! The answer depends on which Seelah you're talking about: the new one for Wrath of the Righteous or the original from Rise of the Runelords.
Here's the original Seelah:
http://static1.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderACG/PZO6001-Seelah1.jpg
If you make Divine based off charisma, then the obvious perk is that her divine skill rolls a d10 instead of a d8. This means that you boost her divine rolls by an average of +1 generally, and by an additional +1 for each blessing played. In the long run, that's a nontrivial buff.
The not-as-obvious downside is that wisdom is a better stat than charisma. There are a lot more cases of "Roll a hard check, if you fail b#~~+&@& happens" for wisdom than for charisma. Thus, a Seelah putting points in wisdom to boost her divine skill, as compared to a Seelah putting points into charisma to boost her divine skill, will be slightly better off.
All in all, the benefit outweighs the drawback, but not by much.
Here's the new Seelah:
http://static1.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderACG/PZO6020-Seelah1.jpg
For this one, moving divine over to charisma represents a much more clear cut case of simply making the character noticeably stronger. As it stands, Seelah has to choose between buffing charisma to boost her hero power and diplomacy, or buffing wisdom to boost divine. If you put divine under the same heading as the others, you add +1 to her divine rolls AND increase the value of putting skill feats into charisma.
The usual disclaimer applies: this is a cooperative game, so you should play it however you want. That said, it's worth noting that the new Seelah will be substantially buffed by putting Divine under charisma, so if that's something that concerns you, then don't do it. For the original Seelah, it's not as big of a deal.
Nothing prevents replacing Divine:WISDOM+1 by Divine:CHARISMA+0 and there would be no unbalancing boost.
But it's just me as usual....
Ah, I never even saw the new Seelah. I didn't realize it would be different from the old one.
Basically, I was going to balance Charisma's d10 vs. Wisdom's d8 by changing Divine from a "Wisdom +2" to a "Charisma +1". That reduction to the static bonus coupled with the fact that you can only increase Charisma by a total of "+2" vs Wisdom's "+3" should've made for a fairly balanced trade-off, I felt.
But yes, I agree. The new Seelah clearly would benefit a lot from moving Divine over to Charisma. She has Diplomacy, a total of +4 potential to Charisma, and a power that utilizes her Charisma. That's too much of a benefit in this case for me to see a simple way to make her Divine use Charisma instead of Wisdom.
And I don't like the idea of making her Divine skill be "Charisma +0". AFAIK, there's no character with a skill set as "[Attribute] +0". Though, I suppose you can add a power instead that says "You may use your Charisma skill for any checks listing the Divine skill. You are considered to have the Divine skill." Like I said, though, I don't think I'm going to be switching it to Charisma, due to potential balance issues.
Changing the original Seelah's Divine: Wisdom +2 to Divine: Charisma +1 seems like a great idea. It would hardly affect the overall strength of the character at all.
I've been wondering why Wisdom instead of Charisma for a while, too. I also kind of just figured maybe whoever designed her remembered the old 3.5 paladin spellcasting instead of the new Pathfinder version.
But aside from that, I was also surprised that Seelah gets her Divine skill right away instead of having to spend feats on it like Harsk does. Rangers and paladins are both 4th level spellcasters, that that's a little odd, too. Although there is a ranger in the class deck that gets spellcasting right away. I'm interested to see if all of the paladins in their class deck are going to have their Divine skills right away or not and if one or two might actually cast with Charisma like they should.
pluvia33 wrote: I've been wondering why Wisdom instead of Charisma for a while, too. I also kind of just figured maybe whoever designed her remembered the old 3.5 paladin spellcasting instead of the new Pathfinder version.
But aside from that, I was also surprised that Seelah gets her Divine skill right away instead of having to spend feats on it like Harsk does. Rangers and paladins are both 4th level spellcasters, that that's a little odd, too. Although there is a ranger in the class deck that gets spellcasting right away. I'm interested to see if all of the paladins in their class deck are going to have their Divine skills right away or not and if one or two might actually cast with Charisma like they should.
That was my first impression too. I was frankly surprised when the new Seelah also had Wisdom, as I felt it was a perfect opportunity to show it was a thing that Paladins could do.
I'm not sure if this Seelah is Lone Shark saying officially that in PACG Paladins have Wisdom as their casting stat, or if it's just Seelah.
Every other class I think that casts from CHA in the RPG except for Paladins cast from CHA in the PACG. Seoni and Alahazra do (RotR and S&S respectively), and Balazar has been shown to do so in the previews. Crowe gets a power feat to cast from CHA as well.
I think the reason Lone Shark decided to put Seelah's Divine stat into WIS as opposed to CHA is a balance reason: Paladins aren't supposed to be better at spellcasting than Clerics are.
Of course, when you have a character like Class Deck Kyra that has d10+2 Melee and d10+2 Divine... (neither of them has Favored Card Type Weapon so they aren't specced exclusively for fighting.)
I wouldn't sweat it too much. Seelah has 1 spell to start and 3 spells max in her deck so she's not being counted on to do a ton of spellcasting anyway. I wouldn't take Attack spells in her deck (because the support spells are too necessary).
And remember what Chad and Mike said: just because the PACG is based on the RPG doesn't mean that everything in the RPG maps directly onto the PACG.
zeroth_hour wrote: Every other class I think that casts from CHA in the RPG except for Paladins cast from CHA in the PACG. Seoni and Alahazra do (RotR and S&S respectively), and Balazar has been shown to do so in the previews. Crowe gets a power feat to cast from CHA as well.
First, there's a little bard who is angry at you right now....
zeroth_hour wrote: I think the reason Lone Shark decided to put Seelah's Divine stat into WIS as opposed to CHA is a balance reason: Paladins aren't supposed to be better at spellcasting than Clerics are. As far as the balance theory goes, they could have easily given Seelah a d8 Charisma and a d10 Strength instead. It actually would have made more sense, too. Should a paladin really have a Chraisma die of the same size as the bard and a lower strength die than some clerics?
zeroth_hour wrote: I think the reason Lone Shark decided to put Seelah's Divine stat into WIS as opposed to CHA is a balance reason: Paladins aren't supposed to be better at spellcasting than Clerics are. It's not make-or-break for me, but they could have done something like give her a d8 Cha and Divine: Charisma +1. She'd be able to cast, but be in no danger of outshining the clerics.
Yeah, I personally found the Paladin's stat array surprising. The Paladin has always been a mostly martial class. The I would've had STR d10, DEX d4, CON d8, INT d4 WIS d8, CHA d8, with Melee: STR +2, Diplomacy: Charisma +2, Divine: Charisma +1. This puts the Paladin just behind the Barbarian and Fighter in pure melee ability (in Rise of the Runelords, anyway, not sure about anything after), while offering a decent Diplomacy and Divine.
For your home game, I don't see why it would hurt switching Divine from +2 Wis to +1 Chr. The Paladin class deck won't be out for months and there's nothing that says you have to use that variant character.
Having the Divine skill under Wis is actually a benefit to Seelah since too many of the best characters already focus on charisma. Sorcs, bards, oracles are all popular and I find that when there are too many characters focusing on CHR, they feel redundant. There are only so many locations that have allies.
YMMV
Jason S wrote: For your home game, I don't see why it would hurt switching Divine from +2 Wis to +1 Chr. The Paladin class deck won't be out for months and there's nothing that says you have to use that variant character.
Having the Divine skill under Wis is actually a benefit to Seelah since too many of the best characters already focus on charisma. Sorcs, bards, oracles are all popular and I find that when there are too many characters focusing on CHR, they feel redundant. There are only so many locations that have allies.
YMMV
Well, I don't own the PACG, yet. I was just doing some research before I buy. I'm planning on getting the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous set instead of Rise of the Runelords, and I agree with the previous statement that the new Seelah can't be as easily converted to use Charisma while maintaining balance.
Also, the Wrath of the Righteous set will be fairly WIS heavy, between the Cleric, Shaman, Inquisitor, and Hunter, as well as the Paladin. Only the Sorcerer and Summoner will be CHA, though the Bloodrager will likely have a decent CHA score, much like the Paladin's WIS score. Neither I nor the other players will have the Bard or Oracle as options, since they're not included in that set.
Quote: Yeah, I personally found the Paladin's stat array surprising. The Paladin has always been a mostly martial class. The I would've had STR d10, DEX d4, CON d8, INT d4 WIS d8, CHA d8, with Melee: STR +2, Diplomacy: Charisma +2, Divine: Charisma +1. This puts the Paladin just behind the Barbarian and Fighter in pure melee ability (in Rise of the Runelords, anyway, not sure about anything after), while offering a decent Diplomacy and Divine. I find d8 for Strength with Melee: Str +2 to be just right. I'll admit that I never played Pathfinder RPG but in "classic" RPG even when I played Paladin, I never put more then 14 [and I'd usually put just 12] in Strength due to his "good" BAB.
Charisma was always Paladin's main ability score [going as far back as 1st Edition D&D!] due to almost all of his class abilities are Charisma based, followed by Wisdom with Constitution and Strength fighting for 3rd place with Constitution usually winning. In the end, it would usually depend on how good I'd roll for my ability scores since we never use Point buy system, it's usually one of the 4d6 [or 3d6, if we want to challenge ourselves] variants...
jikl2001 wrote: Well, I don't own the PACG, yet. I was just doing some research before I buy. I'm planning on getting the upcoming Wrath of the Righteous set instead of Rise of the Runelords, and I agree with the previous statement that the new Seelah can't be as easily converted to use Charisma while maintaining balance. The box set that you purchase is irrelevant. You can easily download and use the Rise of the Runelords Seelah if you want. There wouldn't be any balance issue with RotRL Seelah. Even Wrath Seelah, it wouldn't be significant. It obviously bothers you since you asked about it.
Ripe wrote: I find d8 for Strength with Melee: Str +2 to be just right. I'll admit that I never played Pathfinder RPG but in "classic" RPG even when I played Paladin, I never put more then 14 [and I'd usually put just 12] in Strength due to his "good" BAB.
Charisma was always Paladin's main ability score [going as far back as 1st Edition D&D!] due to almost all of his class abilities are Charisma based, followed by Wisdom with Constitution and Strength fighting for 3rd place with Constitution usually winning. In the end, it would usually depend on how good I'd roll for my ability scores since we never use Point buy system, it's usually one of the 4d6 [or 3d6, if we want to challenge ourselves] variants...
Wow, just noticed how much I wrote. Here's the TL;DR:
TL;DR - Charisma-based Paladin is sub-optimal in Pathfinder RPG. Nothing wrong with going that route, but usually you want to make sure you have the right gaming group, or else that could cause problem.
Yes, in 1st and 2nd edition D&D/AD&D Charisma was the Paladin's main ability score, requiring a 17 to even play a Paladin. In Pathfinder RPG (upon which the card game is based), though, unless you're going for an archer build, Strength should be your primary attribute.
Yes, nothing stops you from making Charisma your main attribute, but it is completely sub-optimal. The Paladin doesn't get enough spells, and her Charisma-based abilities are far from strong enough to counter a weak Strength score in her effectiveness. Unless you're playing in a game with little combat and a lot of social encounters, making Charisma instead of Strength the primary attribute for the Paladin is generally going to result in a significantly weaker character. And Pathfinder, like "the world's oldest fantasy RPG", is primarily a combat RPG. It wouldn't have one of the most intricate combat mechanics for RPGs and base its XP on monsters slain if it wasn't.
And the paladin's high BAB is precisely the reason you should loading up on Strength (or Dexterity as an archer). That high BAB is telling you, "hey, I'm a martial class, expect to me to be hitting things a lot". You don't pick a wizard, see his low BAB, and go, "oh, his BAB is low, so I should shore it up with a high Strength score." No, you go, "his BAB is low, so I probably won't be hitting things, so I should probably avoid putting a lot of points in Strength."
Like I said, though, nothing stops you from putting all those points in Charisma. And if you have a group that encourages that sort of play, more power to you. I think that's fantastic if you have a group like that, I really do. But if you play in the typical Pathfinder/"world's oldest fantasy RPG" group, where you have a couple optimizers, you're going to run into some issues.
You won't be able to keep up in combat, and a lot of people tend to feel dissatisfied when they realize their teammates are doing an average of 150 damage per combat while they're barely pulling 50 (and these numbers won't be an exaggeration if you're only putting 12 points into Strength while your teammates put 18). The encounters will probably have to be made easier to account for the fact that you have one or more ineffective characters in your party, so those optimizers will probably make the encounters trivial, which makes the game less enjoyable for everyone involved. These kinds of things can really detract from the group's enjoyment of the game.
It really does depend upon your gaming group, but if you're in a gaming group that prefers heavy roleplay and little combat, Pathfinder probably isn't the best choice of RPG. There are other systems out there that are better suited for that kind of game. Pathfinder is an RPG that focuses on combat, and its players tend to keep that in mind when building their characters.
You mentioned you never played Pathfinder before, so I'm just giving you some background based on my knowledge of the system and my experience playing it. I hope that it didn't come off as me being harsh or anything, cuz that was not the intention at all. I just wanted to provide you with the reasons that I (as Pathfinder veteran) was surprised that Strength wasn't higher than Charisma. I don't think there's anything wrong with them choosing to go the way they did, as the card game is not the RPG, even if it's based on it, and Charisma does seem to play a significant role. I was just personally surprised.
Jason S wrote: The box set that you purchase is irrelevant. You can easily download and use the Rise of the Runelords Seelah if you want. There wouldn't be any balance issue with RotRL Seelah. Even Wrath Seelah, it wouldn't be significant. It obviously bothers you since you asked about it. Oh, I didn't realize they were available for download. I just noticed the character sheets were available for download with the characters information all printed on them. Well, in that case I'll offer the option to switch the RotR Seelah to Charisma to any body who may want to play her. I still think the balance of the WotR Seelah will be thrown off too much to offer that option for her, though.
It only bothers me as far as the fact that it creates an inconsistency between the RPG and the card game. It really doesn't bother me all that much, particularly because I personally have no intention of playing Seelah. The paladin has been my second to least favorite class since as far back as I can remember (and I've been playing the "world's oldest fantasy RPG" for over 2 decades now). Only the bard ranks lower on my list.
The flavor of the classes just never appealed to me. With the bard, I just never could personally get into the whole "[sing/perform music] while in battle" concept. As for the paladin, I've just never been very good with the LG alignment. It runs too counter to my own mentality. My groups have regularly told me that I play the CE alignment better than pretty much anyone else they have ever met, and I've made a habit of playing the "Belkar" of the group.
As I said, I never played Pathfinder RPG so I had no idea it was that focused on combat... and I'm afraid you're correct, Pathfinder is not something my group would enjoy since we prefer to have a balance between combat and role-playing [which is probably why we also enjoy various Storyteller RPG's].
And in that game, having +2 [or +3] to attack is nowhere near as important as having +2 [or +3] on saves... especially since we consider any roll of 1, 2 and 3 to be automatic fail. Which tend to get ugly when faced with "save or die" type of poison.
Then again, two of my most enjoyable times playing Paladin was in Ravenloft and Planescape settings... there is just something about being more or less disliked or outright hated by almost every NPC you encounter [even other LG ones in Planescape!]
Ripe wrote: As I said, I never played Pathfinder RPG so I had no idea it was that focused on combat... and I'm afraid you're correct, Pathfinder is not something my group would enjoy since we prefer to have a balance between combat and role-playing [which is probably why we also enjoy various Storyteller RPG's].
And in that game, having +2 [or +3] to attack is nowhere near as important as having +2 [or +3] on saves... especially since we consider any roll of 1, 2 and 3 to be automatic fail. Which tend to get ugly when faced with "save or die" type of poison.
Then again, two of my most enjoyable times playing Paladin was in Ravenloft and Planescape settings... there is just something about being more or less disliked or outright hated by almost every NPC you encounter [even other LG ones in Planescape!]
My favorite campaign setting was Dark Sun, and paladins aren't even an option in that setting. Wizards had the big distinction of being the hated class, but it was less "more or less disliked" and more "frothing-at-the-mouth hatred", since wizards were the ones that turned Athas into a hellscape.
And even though I like Pathfinder, I generally prefer story-heavy games. The Storyteller system and Savage Worlds are the systems I most tend to use in the games I run. I have a particular love of the Pulp era (1920s/1930s), so I tend not to use Pathfinder or any of the d20 systems when I GM. I play plenty of Pathfinder, but I rarely run them.
jikl2001 wrote: It only bothers me as far as the fact that it creates an inconsistency between the RPG and the card game. It really doesn't bother me all that much, particularly because I personally have no intention of playing Seelah. The paladin has been my second to least favorite class since as far back as I can remember (and I've been playing the "world's oldest fantasy RPG" for over 2 decades now). Only the bard ranks lower on my list. Haha, me too, I've tried to play Paladins and can't. However in the card game Seelah and bards are actually quite good. I treat the RPG and ACG completely separately.
jikl2001 wrote: As I said, I never played Pathfinder RPG so I had no idea it was that focused on combat... and I'm afraid you're correct, Pathfinder is not something my group would enjoy since we prefer to have a balance between combat and role-playing [which is probably why we also enjoy various Storyteller RPG's]. I think it depends entirely on the GM, the gaming group, the scenario, or the campaign. You could have an entire session about roleplaying if you really wanted. Even though Pathfinder society is typically action orientated, I've had an entire 5 hour session punctuated by a single combat.
jikl2001 wrote: TL;DR - Charisma-based Paladin is sub-optimal in Pathfinder RPG. Nothing wrong with going that route, but usually you want to make sure you have the right gaming group, or else that could cause problem. Just FYI for anyone else, this is really not an accurate statement. A charisma-heavy Paladin is better defensively than a strength-heavy Paladin. Better saves, more lay on hands, and more spells. Better skills mostly, and higher DCs on spells and channel energy for. More damage with Strength, and better to-hit when not smiting (since Charisma adds there). Really a pretty even trade overall from a mechanics side. Role-play wise, just depends on if you want to be the strong knight more or the leader knight more. Lancelot vs. Arthur.
In response to the Str/Cha debate, I don't think that's really the question we're discussing here. The confusing point is that, in the card game, Paladins cast with Wisdom, as they did in 3e. In Pathfinder RPG, though, their casting, along with most of their other class bonuses, was moved to Charisma. So the quesetion is not whether Str or Cha is the better stat, but whether Wis or Cha should be used for their Divine checks.
Hmmm... I'll admit that I don't pay enough attention to the Paladin class to be anywhere near the definitive authority on Paladin builds. I've just personally never seen a combat efficient Charisma-based Paladin build. Yes, Charisma grants higher saves, more spells, higher spell DC, and more ability uses, but as far as I can tell, none of those things really help you enough in combat to counteract a low Strength score.
But yeah, I've completely derailed the original topic of this thread. Sorry about that. Mostly I was curious to see if the game designers ever gave official response on why Seelah uses Wisdom for Divine. Hmm... I think I'll just post a comment on the blog post from Chad on Seelah, and see if I can get a response.
This was my decision early on. The early call on Seelah was that she needed a high Charisma for ally-marshalling purposes. But we didn't want her to have a high Divine skill, because that was reserved for the province of clerics and druids. Paladins aren't great spellcasters, just supportive ones. So our compromise was to make Seelah's spellcasting based her moderate Wisdom score.
This will not necessarily be the case with all versions of Seelah, or all paladins. Then again, it might be.
Mike Selinker wrote: This was my decision early on. The early call on Seelah was that she needed a high Charisma for ally-marshalling purposes. But we didn't want her to have a high Divine skill, because that was reserved for the province of clerics and druids. Paladins aren't great spellcasters, just supportive ones. So our compromise was to make Seelah's spellcasting based her moderate Wisdom score.
This will not necessarily be the case with all versions of Seelah, or all paladins. Then again, it might be.
Awesome! Thanks for the explanation. That does make perfect sense (and I find it somewhat interesting that the very reason that it was switched to Cha in Pathfinder is why it was switched back for the ACG - the fact that it synergized well with her other abilities)
Sweet, thanks for the official answer! That's really all I wanted to know, just to satisfy my curiosity. Thank you.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
So, from a design aesthetics perspective, would Divine: Charisma + 0 be workable, in your mind? It's a little weird and could confuse people new to the game, but it seems like something that could be used in the design space.
Don't see why it would be weird...
The designers have proposed that a few times. I've shot it down every time, for reasons I can't completely articulate.
Because reasons, clearly.
Perhaps it's because there's no such thing as being trained in a skill at 0 ranks in the RPG - which +0 would simulate.
Since PACG extends the notion of "skill" to such things as Divine and Melee, the same would apply: trained is always at least a +1.
That's what I'd think anyway. :)
Because then the floodgates of possibilities like Diplomacy: Charisma -1 or something would apply?
zeroth_hour wrote: Because then the floodgates of possibilities like Diplomacy: Charisma -1 or something would apply? Yeah, maybe this.
Or Diplomacy: Charisma x 2 or Diplomacy: Charisma / 2.
Or the even more dangerous Diplomacy: Charisma / 0. When you make a Diplomacy check with that skill, the game returns an error.
Diplomacy : Charisma -10 +d20 ? :-)
I'm not sure why having a Skill +0 is a bad thing, there's still quite an advantage to having skills in general, especially how they pertain to various buffs from allies and items.
I'd (personally) rather see Seelah with Divine + 0 (or +1 in RotRL)under Charisma rather than Divine +2 under Wisdom.
It's probably a mostly cognitive dissonance thing, to prevent people from going like "well why the heck does this even exist?" And yeah, in S&S for example, there's plenty of characters who wouldn't mind a Craft +0, but that might twist the balance by making these skills more liberally handed out.
As someone who doesn't know jack about Pathfinder, Seelah's Wisdom +2 Divine suits me just fine (except when recharging Major Cure. :D)
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion
|
