5E Rules You'll Be Adopting for Pathfinder


4th Edition


So we have largely switched to 5E at my table, but Pathfinder is still my first love and I would like to get at it again someday. That being said, there are some things I will definitely be instituting in any future games:

SNEAK ATTACK - I have mentioned elsewhere how much better 5E sneak attack is. I'll definitely be ditching 30 ft limits, the flanking complications, and will double dice on a crit. (Undecided on whether to limit it to once per turn with the changes? Open to suggestions.)

TWO HANDED POWER ATTACK - I am ditching the STR+1/2 and bonus PA damage for two handed weapons. I never realized how much it locks players in until I played without it.

Any of you bringing some rules back to your PF games?


As a DM, I'd like to help Boss action-economy by introducing legendary actions & lair actions to certain Pathfinder monsters. I'd be really interested to hear the experiences of other DMs who have tried this.


We put in place short rests to spend HD to regain hps... And subsequently don't give CLW wands out like candy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All of them?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Definitely Legendary Actions and Lair Actions. Probably Long and Short Rests, possibly modified.

Definitely separating Swift Actions and Immediate Actions into 2 different pools of action (you get both per round). Probably adding a new feat called Sudden Spell that allows you to use an immediate action to cast a spell, possibly requiring Quicken Spell to qualify, increasing the spell slot by 4 or 5 levels.

Possibly incorporating "Arcanist-like spellcasting" for all spellcasters, using cleric/wizard spellcasting tables for oracle/sorcerers, with the inclusion of Sorcery Points.


I'm still having a blast with 5e, not sure I'll ever go back. If I played PF again, I'd probably allow rogues to sneak attack with one ally adjacent to their target, including with ranged attacks.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, I'm sticking with 5Ed too. It's just so elegant. PF is just so fiddly.


Legendary actions for monsters, so solo creatures don't get overwhelmed by PC action economy advantage.

======

For the most part 5E mechanics don't translate very well to Pathfinder, because the two systems are radically different. Let rogues deal sneak attack damage without flanking is cool - but without having inherent attack bonuses to compensate for the average BAB and TWF penalties, they'll still struggle in combat. (I just give them a bonus to attack when sneak attacking equal to their SA dice as a house rule, which pretty much launches them from "why am I bothering?" to "Hey! I can do damage!")

SmiloDan wrote:
Yeah, I'm sticking with 5Ed too. It's just so elegant. PF is just so fiddly.

As a player, I love 5th edition for the elegance and ease of balance between party members. As a GM, I prefer Pathfinder for its robust world, creature and encounter building tools, and largely use a version thereof when I'm designing for 5E anyway.

...In hindsight, 5th edition would have been much, much better served if they had worked on all three books together and released them in one hit, rather than sequentially. In theory the "give each time for editing" sounds good... but the editing still wasn't great, and what it meant is that they released the PHB (and even MM) before they had a complete system, and thus the DMG is... wonky... as it is trying to reverse engineer the stuff already released.

In reality it wasn't a technical decision, it was a commercial one: Getting the books out and for sale sequentially as they're finished means faster returns with lower investment, and spreading out the release encourages more reliable sales of MM and DMG as their target audience will have replenished their spending money.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, literally the only rule-system I don't like in 5th Edition is the willy-nilly monster creation "rules." I wish 5th Edition monster creation "rules" was systematic. I LOVE that Pathfinder differentiates monster types, and that the monsters follow the same rules as PCs (BAB, HD, Saves, Skills, Save DCs, etc.).

I wish that 5th Edition had standardized the monster rules. Just giving rough guidelines for AC & HP & average damage per round is pretty lame. Even the rule for size-based HD (which sounds cool in theory) is totally bypassed by the hit point guidelines. Heck, even kobolds have multiple hit dice.


SmiloDan wrote:

Yeah, literally the only rule-system I don't like in 5th Edition is the willy-nilly monster creation "rules." I wish 5th Edition monster creation "rules" was systematic. I LOVE that Pathfinder differentiates monster types, and that the monsters follow the same rules as PCs (BAB, HD, Saves, Skills, Save DCs, etc.).

I wish that 5th Edition had standardized the monster rules. Just giving rough guidelines for AC & HP & average damage per round is pretty lame. Even the rule for size-based HD (which sounds cool in theory) is totally bypassed by the hit point guidelines. Heck, even kobolds have multiple hit dice.

Yeah... I'm not really sure what the point of the size-based HD was, given that ultimately hit dice are just something you pile on until it has about the number you want.

Going completely off-topic and rambling about the 5E monster design chart:

Overall: The idea of the chart is not to draw a line across a given CR and use them as target numbers... because it doesn't work. It could be designed to work that way, and would be much easier to use... but it isn't.

Armor Class: AC accounts for 25% of a creatures effective CR, but starts at AC 13 (or less) at CR0 and caps out at AC19. Yet monsters have ACs below 13 (and unless the party is level 13+ it does make a difference), and many monsters have ACs over 19, some of which aren't even high CR (a Hobgoblin Warlord is CR6, for example, and has AC20).

The assumption behind this is (I believe) that a PC will gain +6 to their attack bonus (2 from stat boosts, 4 from proficiency) over 20 levels, so it used an AC range of 6 across all the CRs. The problem is that while this might be suitable for an "average target number", that is not what the chart is intended for - it's intended as a guide to balancing HP vs AC to determine an appropriate amount of defence for a creature, and thus having a range of only 6 skews things immensely, as even a point of AC can be considered 'equivalent' to a ton of HP, or pouring on more attack and damage.

Hitpoints: HP scaling is... strange, to say the least. Watch:

    CR 0: 1-6hp (Range 6, Average 3.5)
    CR 1/8: 7-35hp (Range 29, Average 21)
    CR 1/4: 36-49 (Range 14, Average 42)
    CR 1/2: 50-70 (Range 21, Average 60)
    CR 1: 71-85 (Range 15, Average 78)
    CR 2-19: +15 per CR
    CR 20-30: +45 per CR

That is suggesting that a ruffian with 7 hitpoints and one with 35 hitpoints (and the same stats otherwise) are equivalent in challenge. Then there is also the scaling being practically exponential in the lowest CRs, then plateauing off, which drives down the CR of lowbie monsters to offset loading them up on a lot more offense than you would expect.

Example: A creature with AC 13, 35hp with a +6 attack bonus and 32 average damage (Say, two attacks for 2d12+3 each) and the Recklessness ability works out as CR 1, a Medium Encounter for a party of 1st level characters. Where a Medium Encounter "has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources". Noting that such a creature could easily just have one attack that deals an average of 32 damage and instantly kills any 1st level PC it hits, and still be the same CR. Basically, unless it loses initiative and the party blows some of their meager spell slots, someone is going to die. And you're expected to go through ~6 of them a day.

Personally I would advocate a greater range in both AC and finer HP scaling, and bring the deadliness of low level monsters (per the table) down to reasonable levels. I appreciate WotC seem to prefer the idea of skipping levels 1 and 2 and starting at 3rd where possible... but really.

Attack: Starts at +3 at CR 0. Honestly, while it might not seem like a big deal to account for +2 (or +1, or +0) it does actually make a significant difference given the bounded accuracy. +3 against an AC18 fighter is a 30% chance to hit whereas +1 is a 20% chance to hit - the former hitting the fighter roughly 50% more and thus doing damage 50% more often than the latter.

The scaling is also rather bizarre and doesn't really match how monsters are designed/published... listing by attack bonus this time:

    +3 : CR0 to CR2 (Range of 6)
    +4 : CR3 (Range of 1)
    +5 : CR4 (Range of 1)
    +6 : CR5 to CR7 (Range of 3)
    +7 : CR8 to CR10 (Range of 3)
    +8 : CR11 to CR15 (Range of 5)
    +9 : CR16 (Range of 1)
    +10: CR17 to CR20 (Range of 4)
    +11: CR21 to CR23 (Range of 3)
    +12: CR24 to CR26 (Range of 3)
    +13: CR27 to CR29 (Range of 3)
    +14: CR30 (Range of 1)

The progression jumps around a lot. It's conceivable that the reason for the CR3-5 rapid increase is because the writers expected that to be about the point that people swap out their chainmail for plate (which is about +2 AC), but I don't find that a particularly compelling reason.

Noting that +15 and above are "Off the chart". Examples of such creatures include: Solars, Empyreans, most ancient dragons, the Tarrasque and so on.

Damage: This has a bit more logic to it, in that it starts off small and increases in increments that have some consistency to them. Specifically, below CR 1 it increases in increments of +2 per CR, and between CR1 and CR20 it increases by +6 per CR. This makes it substantially easier to use, and less prone to producing weird results due to spikes and plateaus in the numbers.

The scaling is... well, harsh. For low CR creatures the average damage is literally twice that of an equivalent Pathfinder monster. This isn't because the 5E PCs are substantially tougher, but rather a result of CR not really meaning the same thing in each system, despite the encounter creation table suggesting otherwise.

Generally speaking monster average damage per round is about equal to 60-90% of a fighter's (level = CR) hitpoints. This ratio is actually highest from about 1st-5th level, though it picks up again around 17th-20th, suggesting the scaling is actually weighted towards low level encounters being deadlier/rocket tag. That said, most monsters actually go for higher attack and AC and lower HP and damage. Which suggests that adjusting the scaling (and that of the other entries) could easily have resulted in a table where drawing a line across a CR is something one actually wants to put on the table.

Also, the Fighter HP vs Monster Damage ratio is actually much smoother if you simply scale back the early progression: CR0 = 0-1; CR1/8 = 2; CR1/4 = 3-4; CR1/2 = 5-6; CR1 = 7-10; And then +6 per CR from there. It pretty much keeps it in the 60-75% band.

....

TL;DR: Pathfinder's approach to monster and encounter design is a lot more robust, and less prone to producing abject silliness.

While I appreciate that 5E lends itself towards GM empowerment, I generally want published GM tools to be a lot more helpful than I find those in the DMG >_<

/Rant

Please. Continue.


Yolande d'Bar wrote:
As a DM, I'd like to help Boss action-economy by introducing legendary actions & lair actions to certain Pathfinder monsters. I'd be really interested to hear the experiences of other DMs who have tried this.

I personally don't like legendary actions, so can't speak to those. If I'm too worried about the big bad not getting enough actions, I add minions or give the big bad the agile mythic template.

But I use lair actions a lot. "The room goes at zero initiative" being a fairly common spice for my encounters even before 5e.

It's a huge help remembering that the room does cool stuff and usually ends up giving good excuses for the PCs to move around some. But I use it for everything from lava to non-euclidean magical effects to panicked crowds. It's a great tool for the box.

Cheers!
Landon

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Raynulf wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

Yeah, literally the only rule-system I don't like in 5th Edition is the willy-nilly monster creation "rules." I wish 5th Edition monster creation "rules" was systematic. I LOVE that Pathfinder differentiates monster types, and that the monsters follow the same rules as PCs (BAB, HD, Saves, Skills, Save DCs, etc.).

I wish that 5th Edition had standardized the monster rules. Just giving rough guidelines for AC & HP & average damage per round is pretty lame. Even the rule for size-based HD (which sounds cool in theory) is totally bypassed by the hit point guidelines. Heck, even kobolds have multiple hit dice.

Yeah... I'm not really sure what the point of the size-based HD was, given that ultimately hit dice are just something you pile on until it has about the number you want.

** spoiler omitted **...

While you're right about all of that, the one thing I really like about 5th Edition monster "design" is how monsters generally have relatively low AC & high HP. This means that PCs can usually hit (which is fun, since it's fun to be successful and not miss), but the monsters still have staying power (since they have a lot of hit points). I haven't done an analysis of PF hit point averages vs. 5Ed hit point averages for each CR, but I have a feeling 5Ed has a lot more HP and a lower AC in general.


SmiloDan wrote:


While you're right about all of that, the one thing I really like about 5th Edition monster "design" is how monsters generally have relatively low AC & high HP. This means that PCs can usually hit (which is fun, since it's fun to be successful and not miss), but the monsters still have staying power (since they have a lot of hit points). I haven't done an analysis of PF hit point averages vs. 5Ed hit point averages for each CR, but I have a feeling 5Ed has a lot more HP and a lower AC in general.

AC is tricky, as it actually winds up working very differently in the two systems due to A) Iterative attacks; B) Touch Attacks; and C) Very different PC damage output. For example: In Pathfinder monsters generally have a touch AC of around 12 to 13, and this number is typically lower at higher CRs, meaning that anyone aiming for touch AC will hit on a 2. Comparatively in 5E spellcasters are targeting the same AC as everyone else and running at a much higher miss chance, but typically higher damage (excluding metamagic & trait insanity in PF).

Overall, the combination of HP + AC vs PC attack bonuses and damage results in 5E monsters generally being much tougher to kill than Pathfinder monsters - generally by a factor of 2-3. For a solo creature this is actually a good thing - you want them to be around long enough for everyone to participate - but when you start dealing with groups of monsters, I generally find it gets somewhat torturous if you don't have a lot of AoE spells on hand.

Alternative method of handling group encounters:

By default, the DMG has an iterative system for working out how tough an encounter is (NB: But not its XP value, as that doesn't change) by a scaling factor that increases with the number of relevant monsters in an encounter. E.g. Two monsters are 3 times as dangerous as one, and three monsters are 6 times as dangerous as one.

As an alternative to this system, which basically serves to build encounters that are acknowledged as being really rough on the PCs without appropriate XP to compensate, I've been experimenting with reducing individual monster hitpoints by the XP scaling factor. For the above example, if I use 2 creatures, I reduce their hitpoints by a third, and if I use 3 creatures, I reduce their individual hitpoints by half. While this means that, now and then a well-placed fireball nukes them with ease, generally what happens is that the fight is more dangerous, but doesn't turn it into a battle of attrition.

Also, if I use more than 4-5 creatures, I'll usually split them up in initiative, as it helps spread their damage out over the entire round and let PCs respond to it more easily.

I don't think it's an ideal solution... but so far it's been more enjoyable for my table. That and the concept that using 3 low CR creatures can be "as difficult" as a high CR creature but only give half the XP... irks me a little :P

Don't get me wrong, I think 5E did a MUCH better job with monster defence mechanics. Damage resistance and magic resistance not only fulfill their purpose, but I find they provide a better experience at the table for players and GM alike while also being less math/dice rolls. Okay. Except for lycanthropes and their immunity to nonmagical or non-silvered weapons. This would have been handled much better as regeneration that is turned off by silver, in my opinion.

The flip side is that monster damage is, on the whole, also much higher, with the overall result being that a 5E monster "feels" more like a Pathfinder monster between 2 to 3 CRs higher. This isn't really a problem (you get the hang of what your group can handle between rests after a bit), unless you try to use the encounter building and adventuring day guidelines in the DMG, which favour a level of brutality not generally seen in Pathfinder/3.5.


I have fallen sooooo out of love with Pathfinder since I started reading 5th edition. My PCs didn't know what an optimized build was, didn't break the game, and thought they were awesome. But they weren't and I really really had to be gentle with them or they would end up dying constantly (which is why they thought they were awesome).

But with 5e having the restrictions it does, reigning things in all around, it makes for a much nicer ruleset to work with, plus the difference between 1st and 3rd tier characters isn't nearly as steep.

While I cannot wait for 5e to add loads of stuff, I am really happy that it doesn't look like the bounds will be horribly broken and that keeps things balanced.


Oxylepy wrote:

I have fallen sooooo out of love with Pathfinder since I started reading 5th edition. My PCs didn't know what an optimized build was, didn't break the game, and thought they were awesome. But they weren't and I really really had to be gentle with them or they would end up dying constantly (which is why they thought they were awesome).

But with 5e having the restrictions it does, reigning things in all around, it makes for a much nicer ruleset to work with, plus the difference between 1st and 3rd tier characters isn't nearly as steep.

While I cannot wait for 5e to add loads of stuff, I am really happy that it doesn't look like the bounds will be horribly broken and that keeps things balanced.

Some 5E GMing advice:

1) Be careful with magic items. Very careful.

One of the pillars of 5E as a system is the concept of bounded accuracy: the numbers (attack, AC, saves, DCs, etc) are inherently constrained and that keeps the playing field a lot more level and makes hitting those numbers relatively easy. That is, until you drop magic items into the mix, as a number of them break bounded accuracy and push the game where it is not meant to go. Specifically, I'd advise (extreme) caution with the following:

  • Girdle of Giant Strength
  • All tomes and manuals
  • Potion of giant strength
  • Bracers of Defence
  • Bracers of Archery
  • Ring of Protection
  • Cloak of Protection
  • Amulet of Constitution (Okay, it's not called that, but that's what it does).
  • Flametongue weapons

The last one seems an odd one to put in, but an average of +7 damage per hit is huge in 5E. Same deal with the bracers of archery, given that bows can already be magic weapons and don't need an additional damage boost.

2) There are a handful of things the PCs can bring to the table that radically change how things play out, and make life dramatically easier for the party.

One is the 3rd level cleric spell spirit guardians. Generally speaking whether or not this spell is active determines how the encounter will go, as it is devastating against larger numbers of opponents.

The other is the Barbarian, and specifically the Bear totem barbarian. While raging they have resistance to all damage except psychic, extending their already large hitpoint pool into the realms of absurdity. A competent player with a bear-barbarian literally halves the damage the monsters deal to the party.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

My cleric uses bless and spirit guardians A LOT. I have to choose between them because they're both Concentration spells, but they're very significant spells. Bless is particularly potent due to Bounded Accuracy, and it's useful as both an offensive buff and a defensive buff. Spirit guardians combined with the Dodge action can make a cleric in heavy armor and shield a mobile impenetrable bastion of doom. I used it kill 60 ogres in one encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bearbarian + Sentinel + Polearm Master

Good luck, DM.

Using the cleave through rules makes groups much easier to handle since you don't have "dead damage" that doesn't get applied to anything and it makes martial classes AoE by default.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Our two-weapon fighting eldritch knight has a flame tongue, and when he uses Action Surge, it does an extra 12d6 points of damage per round. (We're 13th level, so he gets 3 attacks on his Attack action)

If he hits on every attack, he does 7d8+12d6+35+1 (his off-hand weapon is "JUST" a +1 battle axe, and he has a Strength of 20).

Woah....


It's beginning to look like my group may very well just switch to 5th edition entirely. Our resident groaned is currently behind the screen, and he is pretty much converted. The guy who runs the most is starting to lean in that direction as well - attracted by the simpler math and fighters getting their Mojo back after 3rd and variants.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I would also give more "buff" spells swift action casting times.

But 5th Edition is really elegant and easy to play.

I think if I was going to "Pathfinderize" 5th Edition at all, I would replace Skill Proficiency with Skill Points. 2 Skill Points given for every Skill Proficiency you would normally get at 1st level, and half that amount given at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17.

So you could select the minimum number of skill proficiencies and keep them maximized, or you could dabble if you wish to. They could also be used on tool proficiencies and/or gaining additional languages. This would also help some multiclass concepts.


hiiamtom wrote:

Bearbarian + Sentinel + Polearm Master

Good luck, DM.

Using the cleave through rules makes groups much easier to handle since you don't have "dead damage" that doesn't get applied to anything and it makes martial classes AoE by default.

Even that isn't an issue. I mean, its just damage and maybe a bonus action attack.

I fine with martials having these nicer options. The only thing I don't like is that the other fighting styles don't match up. To remedy this, I give the duelist an extra +2 damage at level 11, and TWF an extra attack on the bonus action at level 11. I've run the numbers before, and this helps a lot towards the power disparity of GWM. GWM is stil a bit better (but not by much), but then it's also a feat investment.

I really don't believe there's any option or combination of options that a martial character can take that makes them so OP that the GM needs luck to create a good game for them and the rest of their party. Casters are still more powerful simply in terms of options and narrative power. Sure, the disparity has been massively reduced, but it's not non-existent.


bookrat wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:

Bearbarian + Sentinel + Polearm Master

Good luck, DM.

Using the cleave through rules makes groups much easier to handle since you don't have "dead damage" that doesn't get applied to anything and it makes martial classes AoE by default.

Even that isn't an issue. I mean, its just damage and maybe a bonus action attack.

I think you missed the presence of Sentinel.

  • A creature that enters the barbarian's reach (10ft) provokes an attack of opportunity.
  • A creature hit by an attack of opportunity immediately has its speed reduced to 0 for the remainder of the turn. If it does not have reach 10ft or greater, it cannot attack, nor can it make an OA against the barbarian when he moves 5ft further away (rinse and repeat).
  • A creature that manages to close with the barbarian cannot move away unless the barbarian misses him with his OA, as even the disengage action does not prevent the OA.
  • A creature that attacks someone other than the barbarian is also subject to an OA, which once again locks them down.
  • If a flying creature does not have Hover and is hit by an OA from the barbarian before it is able to move, it will fall out of the sky, taking appropriate falling damage.
  • On top of all of that, the bearbarian is resistant to all damage except psychic while raging, and can make a bonus action extra attack with full Str+Rage damage, adding both high damage and immense toughness to the battlefield control.

Now, if you're throwing a bunch of lower CR creatures at the PCs, this isn't much of an issue. If you're throwing a big solo beastie, however, the barbarian can largely lock them down because there is no defence against Sentinel except freedom of movement - no save, no size limit. I've seen this both as a player and a GM, and it is every bit as powerful as it sounds.


Ranulf, I'm not saying you're doing it wrong given the thread title, but it's important to remember that you have to use your reaction to make an OA in 5e, so only one of the several options you list is possible per turn. Given the differences between AoO in PF and Reactions it 5e, it's a very fiddly feat to adapt to PF. Of course this is PF we're talking about, so an equivalent feat chain is probably out there somewhere already.


Raynulf wrote:
I think you missed the presence of Sentinel.

You're right, but it's still fine. That just means that martial characters actually have crowd control options now - against a single opponent. A single opponent vs a group of PCs has always been a challenge for the single opponent. Doesn't really change much. :)

Plus, it costs two ASIs, so it's a worthy investment.

I'm not saying it ain't powerful, I'm just saying that it isn't an issue for creating a good game with a good story. And it ain't so powerful that it puts the character up to teir 2.


Raynulf wrote:
bookrat wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:

Bearbarian + Sentinel + Polearm Master

Good luck, DM.

Using the cleave through rules makes groups much easier to handle since you don't have "dead damage" that doesn't get applied to anything and it makes martial classes AoE by default.

Even that isn't an issue. I mean, its just damage and maybe a bonus action attack.

I think you missed the presence of Sentinel.

  • A creature that enters the barbarian's reach (10ft) provokes an attack of opportunity.
  • A creature hit by an attack of opportunity immediately has its speed reduced to 0 for the remainder of the turn. If it does not have reach 10ft or greater, it cannot attack, nor can it make an OA against the barbarian when he moves 5ft further away (rinse and repeat).
  • A creature that manages to close with the barbarian cannot move away unless the barbarian misses him with his OA, as even the disengage action does not prevent the OA.
  • A creature that attacks someone other than the barbarian is also subject to an OA, which once again locks them down.
  • If a flying creature does not have Hover and is hit by an OA from the barbarian before it is able to move, it will fall out of the sky, taking appropriate falling damage.
  • On top of all of that, the bearbarian is resistant to all damage except psychic while raging, and can make a bonus action extra attack with full Str+Rage damage, adding both high damage and immense toughness to the battlefield control.

Now, if you're throwing a bunch of lower CR creatures at the PCs, this isn't much of an issue. If you're throwing a big solo beastie, however, the barbarian can largely lock them down because there is no defence against Sentinel except freedom of movement - no save, no size limit. I've seen this both as a player and a GM, and it is every bit as powerful as it sounds.

Ah, thicket of blades/Stand still builds from 3.5. Looks like they updated to 5e. yes, it is indeed VERY powerful! :)


I don't use AoO in my 5e games, so, meh...


Terquem wrote:
I don't use AoO in my 5e games, so, meh...

That's fair.

I came from 2nd edition and I found the concept of the AoO to be really, really weird: A 1st level fighter with a rapier can attack and kill one commoner a round if they just stand there. Or are paralyzed. But if they run up and try to punch him (i.e. fight back) he can kill two per round. If he has Dex 18 and Combat Reflexes he can kill Six per round, as long as they're not paralyzed and fight back, or try to move.

I know what they were going for, but the actual mechanic is a bit wonky.


Not to mention that because they made so many things provoke an AoO, it slows combat horrendously.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5E Rules You'll Be Adopting for Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition