Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!


Rules Discussion

251 to 300 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thematically, druids and wizards should have equal mastery of material essence spells. What should differentiate them is that the druid's magic is vital and the wizard's magic is mental.

How is this a rules question?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grumpus wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Kevil wrote:
Does multiple attack penalty apply to spells with DC? Or you can throw fireballs without penalty after the attack with the sword?
No, MAP only applies to attack rolls, spells or otherwise. It alters absolutely nothing else.

This isn't exactly right, there are spells with no attack rolls that have a DC, that DO count toward MAP. Such as Chill Touch, Goblin Pox, Spider Sting. Basically if the spell has the "ATTACK" trait then it counts toward your MAP penalty regardless of whether you actually roll an attack.

Fireball does NOT have the attack trait, so there would be no penalty on that particular spell.

Yeah, derp, should have said Attack Trait, was too focused on “MAP does not negatively affect this spell”.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have rules questions! I'll start by trying to avoid the super nitty gritty ones...

Q1: Can animal companions use magical items without the companion trait?

Q2: Can specific magic shields be made with special materials for more HP/Hardness?

Q3: Have you considered a framework for making powerful races (like Dragons) into playable ancestries?

Q4: Will there be rules for creating custom weapons (like a trait weighting system)?

Q5: Can a familiar with the Manual Dexterity ability use their hands to wield a weapon, wand, or bomb?

These are a bit more nitty gritty.

Q6: Hypothetically, if you added a weapon with a magazine, like a repeating crossbow, would that count as a reload 0 weapon for feat requirements?

Q7: The Ranger ability "Wild Stride" is obtained at level 11, but is required for the "Terrain Master" level 8 feat. Is this intentional?


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Thematically, druids and wizards should have equal mastery of material essence spells. What should differentiate them is that the druid's magic is vital and the wizard's magic is mental.

How is this a rules question?

Emphasis added. It's a rules question because either:

  • the developers think they're equal - in which case, please explain the reasoning for this assertion,
  • OR the developers didn't bother making them equal - in which case, why is Transmuter even in the book? They could've saved space and put something useful in the book.

  • Silver Crusade

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Just because Wizard’s don’t have Wild Shape (which they’ve never had) doesn’t mean they’re not useful.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    NemoNoName wrote:

    Jason Bulman said in interview with Queue Times that they realise Necromancers don't have the tools to be special, and they plan to alleviate it.

    Is there similar plans for other casters, for example Transmuters?
    Why put all specialist Wizards in Core Rulebook if you couldn't make them a reasonable choice?

    I know you hate transmuter wizards but this doesn't really seem like the right thread for it.


    Rysky wrote:
    Just because Wizard’s don’t have Wild Shape (which they’ve never had) doesn’t mean they’re not useful.

    Don't want Wild Shape as Wizard. Stop misrepresenting what I said. Wild Shape is just a Transmutation-related power Druids get on top of pretty much all Transmutation spells Wizards get.

    Whereas Transmuter Wizards only get something similar at level 8 (with their Advanced Focus Spell), and then it's fairly meh. Hence, what is the point of them including a Transmuter Wizard in the book?

    Squiggit wrote:
    NemoNoName wrote:

    Jason Bulman said in interview with Queue Times that they realise Necromancers don't have the tools to be special, and they plan to alleviate it.

    Is there similar plans for other casters, for example Transmuters?
    Why put all specialist Wizards in Core Rulebook if you couldn't make them a reasonable choice?

    I know you hate transmuter wizards but this doesn't really seem like the right thread for it.

    I don't hate Transmuter Wizards, I love them. That's why I so strongly dislike what has been done to them in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

    Silver Crusade

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Because Transmutation is a school of magic.

    Wizard's thing isn't being the best at magic, it's that they're learned Arcane casters.

    That Druids exist doesn't make Transmuters useless. (I mention Wild Shape because it seems to be a point of contention here)


    Rysky wrote:
    Because Transmutation is a school of magic.

    So what? They should've not presented any specialised Wizards, or maybe only a few. In fact, in one of my previous posts I referenced a video where Jason Buhlman, the person in charge of Pathfinder, acknowledges the fact Necromancers are flavourless in this edition and promises goodies for them in future. Hence my questions.

    A bad option now is worse than no option until later.

    Rysky wrote:
    Wizard's thing isn't being the best at magic, it's that they're learned Arcane casters.

    1) not sure when I asked that they be best at magic, I just asked they don't be worse than another class when they specialise in something.

    2) What are actually Wizards supposed to be good at? Being learned Arcane caster is not a niche. Druid is a learned Primal caster, yet they also get actual extra powers, and additional proficiencies, all which create flavour and give it power. They even get a bonus skill over the Wizard! Wizards are tied with Sorcerers for worst proficiency progressions, except Sorcerers at least get full Simple Weapon proficiency.
    Have you noticed there's feats that interact with any of the thesis past the basic interactions?

    Another fun fact: Did you know that Wizards can't even properly utilise the feat Unconventional Weaponry without multiclassing into Fighter?


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    NemoNoName: This thread is for asking a question to see if you can get an answer during a stream. It's not for debates. If this is a subject you wish to debate, another thread for that purpose is where it should be done.

    Rysky: If you keep replying, this debate will just take over the thread making new questions harder to find. ;)

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    I keep mixing this and the specific thread for it up, my bad.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:
    I keep mixing this and the specific thread for it up, my bad.

    No worries, it happens to me too when there are multiple threads talking about the same thing. Maybe it'll be you reminding me next time. :)


    The human ancestry feat General Training has the line "Special You can select this feat multiple times, choosing a different feat each time." If I must choose a different feat each time, is it intended that I am unable to use two General Trainings to take Armor Proficiency twice to go from, say, no armor proficiency to light armor to medium armor proficiency?

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    UndeadViking wrote:
    Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:
    Franz Lunzer wrote:
    Take a look at the Falling rules.
    These Look fun. One Flying Character Vs Army. Flyer has a bag of holding full of bags of caltrops. Flies 1500 ft above army, and starts dumping the bags of caltrops out on top of the troops below. Safely out of bow/spell range hundreds of spiked objects fall to the ground making troops have to perform dozens of reflex saves to avoid 187 dmg on a success, 375 dmg on a fail, and 750 dmg on a crit fail. on the off chance that someone should actually survive, they are now also surrounded by a field of caltrops to cross!
    This rule is in need of tweaking, Paizo! ;)

    "Landing exactly on a creature after a long fall is almost impossible." CRB 464


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Domain spells like fire ray and healer's blessing have the cleric trait—even when a champion gains them as devotion spells from the Deity's Domain feat. Is it intentional that such a spell does not gain the champion trait? Are you able to tell us about any plans for interactions with focus spells' class traits in the future?


    New to Pathfinder, so my apologies if the answers to the following issues should be obvious. I’m running into confusion regarding Skeleton Abilities (Bestiary pg 298). First, Screaming Skull says “jaws attack” and gives range, but there’s no entry for jaws attack type in the attack stats section below. Also, Explosive Death gives dmg but doesn’t designate a target DC for the reflex save. Any guidance would be much appreciated.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
    Turrowa wrote:
    New to Pathfinder, so my apologies if the answers to the following issues should be obvious. I’m running into confusion regarding Skeleton Abilities (Bestiary pg 298). First, Screaming Skull says “jaws attack” and gives range, but there’s no entry for jaws attack type in the attack stats section below. Also, Explosive Death gives dmg but doesn’t designate a target DC for the reflex save. Any guidance would be much appreciated.

    These abilities do need a bit more rules text, but I think for Explosive Death we should just take the Level-based DCs.


    Is there a distinction between an attack with a grasping appendage with the unarmed trait and a weapon with the free-hand trait? If not, could the free hand trait be added to the relevant attacks in place of the unarmed trait for clarity?

    A similar question, are monk style attacks free hand?

    Following that, are all instances of the "fist" weapon, such as those gained from polymorph spells and used by monsters, identical to the one listed in the weapon chart? Specifically, do they belong to the brawling group?


    ErichAD wrote:
    Is there a distinction between an attack with a grasping appendage with the unarmed trait and a weapon with the free-hand trait? If not, could the free hand trait be added to the relevant attacks in place of the unarmed trait for clarity?

    Unarmed attacks aren't weapons while weapon attacks are: this matters for actions that specify weapon.

    ErichAD wrote:
    A similar question, are monk style attacks free hand?

    As long as they are unarmed and are described as using a hand/arm this applies: "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon."

    ErichAD wrote:
    Following that, are all instances of the "fist" weapon, such as those gained from polymorph spells and used by monsters, identical to the one listed in the weapon chart? Specifically, do they belong to the brawling group?

    I'd say "fist" is just like saying "shortsword": the traits and other things mtch the weapon no matter what the base damage is.


    graystone wrote:
    Matthew Downie wrote:

    The rules seem to suggest that you can fit 70 days of rations in a single belt pouch. Is this a typo?

    No, belt pouches can only hold 4 L, so 28 days rations. It can also hold 4 javelins, 4 sets of winter clothes, 4 pup tents, 4 bucklers or 4 Sawtooth Saber...

    I find it more interesting that a whole halfling can fit in my backpack with 1 bulk to spare even if the backpack in being worn by another halfling...

    Honestly that is not too surprising. My frame pack could easily hold a halfling with room to spare.


    Is it intentional that, while real dragons can speak and cast spells, a PC in dragon form cannot? The spell only says "you have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions". In PF1, polymorphing into a dragon explicitly allowed you to speak and provide verbal and somatic components, just not material.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    graystone wrote:
    ErichAD wrote:
    Is there a distinction between an attack with a grasping appendage with the unarmed trait and a weapon with the free-hand trait? If not, could the free hand trait be added to the relevant attacks in place of the unarmed trait for clarity?

    Unarmed attacks aren't weapons while weapon attacks are: this matters for actions that specify weapon.

    As long as they are unarmed and are described as using a hand/arm this applies: "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon."

    My question concerns how your second rules quotation impacts the first question.

    If:
    "a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon"
    then an unarmed strike with a fist or grasping appendage can, when not wielding something or otherwise being used:
    "use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand."

    Am I missing something that makes this not true?

    edit: This is possibly irrelevant as I can't be sure that you can do anything more than basic strikes with weapons granted by polymorph as you are restricted to specific attacks rather restricted to using those weapons when ever you make a strike.


    "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon." I'm reading that as referring to "doesn’t take up a hand". As such, nothing about it being a weapon applies, as the start of unarmed states "An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon". What this boils down to is this:

    A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed.
    You can use the hand covered by You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.

    The rest isn't needed as it states in unarmed "It also doesn’t take up a hand".


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    So you'd say that the only carry over is that you can't use an unarmed strike with a grasping appendage if you are using that appendage for holding something or you are otherwise using that hand? That leaves the line, "it doesn't take up a hand" in a bad spot.

    I think you're probably right though. That would make grasping unarmed attacks and free-hand attacks essentially 0+ hands weapons.


    It seems likely that when the staff preparation rules and the multiclass archetypes' spellcasting Breadth feats say "able to cast spells of the appropriate level" and "highest level of spell you’re able to cast", they should probably say "level of spell slot you're able to cast", as allowing them to key off the automatically max-heightened level of mere focus spells or cantrips would seem unintentionally strong.

    However, the magic warrior archetype feat Nameless Anonymity lets you cast nondetection heightened to the same wording of "highest level of spell you can cast". Unlike the two former examples, if we interpreted this as "highest level of spell slot you're able to cast", I think it would then become unintentionally weak, as a 20th-level ki monk's nondetection would be 1st-level, easily counteracted by just a 2nd-level detect magic cantrip--beside the fact that nondetection only exists at a minimum of 3rd spell level and can't be undercast at 1st or 2nd.

    Nameless Anonymity's wording should probably be clarified to "half your level your rounded up".


    Is the additional damage die added by the fatal weapon trait specifically a "weapon damage die" for the purpose of calculating a pick's critical specialization effect? It seems likely because the deadly trait calls out its die as a "weapon damage die", but fatal's wording is not quite as clear.


    Syri wrote:
    Is the additional damage die added by the fatal weapon trait specifically a "weapon damage die" for the purpose of calculating a pick's critical specialization effect? It seems likely because the deadly trait calls out its die as a "weapon damage die", but fatal's wording is not quite as clear.

    Extra dice from anything but striking runes are not affected by stuff that counts weapon dice. There's a sidebar in the weapons chapter saying

    Quote:

    Counting Damage Dice

    Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune. They don’t count extra dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like.


    Blave wrote:
    There's a sidebar

    Why D:


    Q1: When do you start falling at the end of a High/Long Jump? Is it immediately after you finish the action?

    For example, can someone try to perform a High Jump (2 actions) and then immediately use the Grapple action (1 action) to grab onto a flying enemy?

    Before someone brings up Flying Kick or Fantastic Leap: both of them specify that you fall immediately after the action (as far as I know no rule mentions that you fall immediately after a high jump, for example). So does that prove that since one feat specifies that you fall immediately, then the general rule is that you do not?
    Not to mention that both Flying Kick and Fantastic Leap seem to fall in line with the general design philosophy of class feats that just merge actions, instead of allowing you to do something completely different. For example, I'm pretty sure that Fantastic Leap simply *merges* Jump and Strike, just how Sudden Charge simply *merges* Stride, Stride and Strike, or how Running REload *merges* Interact and Stride.

    Q2: Do you take falling damage if you succeed on a High Jump? Seems kinda unintentionally hilarious, if someone can just kill themselves by being *very good* at jumping and not failing any checks. That being said, I can't find any rules that'd suggest that you don't take falling damage.


    Is the Redeemer reaction Glimpse of Redemption intended to work on mindless creatures, and all champion reactions intended to be able to provide their resistance even in an antimagic field?


    Q: Can the Champion's Blade Ally class feature providing the effect of Shifting be used to turn a 1-handed weapon into a shield with a boss or spikes attached? As it merely provides the effect of a property rune but doesn't count as a etched rune itself (doesn't apply against the etched property rune limit, for one thing), this seems both sensible and thematic.


    The Impersonate skill use says creatures can "use the Seek action to attempt Perception checks against your Deception DC". That's Playtest text that should be updated to say Sense Motive, not Seek, right?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Reldan wrote:
    Q: Can the Champion's Blade Ally class feature providing the effect of Shifting be used to turn a 1-handed weapon into a shield with a boss or spikes attached?

    No, shifting can only shift your weapon into the shape of another weapon, and neither a shield nor a shield bash is a weapon. There would only be a chance that you could convince your GM to let you shift your weapon into a lone shield boss or handful of shield spikes, which would be useless detached from a shield.


    Synaptic pulse's text contradicts itself saying first it affects enemies, then that it affects any creatures; and the fact that it has a range seems to contradict the fact that its area is an emanation which is supposed to originate from you.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:
    I struggle to intuit a reason why the game would present the option to hurt ourselves for no benefit

    I mean it's not intended to be something you buy into. It's meant to be a limitation on how long you can sustain the same casting of a spell.

    Not sure why my post ended up above the post I was quoting.


    Generally, "Sustaining a Spell for more than 10 minutes (100 rounds) ends the spell and makes you fatigued". Many players misread(?) this rule as saying that, at the cost of fatiguing yourself, you are allowed to extend the spell to just a 101st round before the spell then ends. But the RAW seems to state that attempting to Sustain the Spell actually fails to Sustain the Spell, thus fatiguing you for no benefit. I struggle to intuit a reason why the game would present the option to hurt ourselves for no benefit--is the former interpretation a misreading, or is there not meant to be any risk/reward mechanic?


    Squiggit wrote:
    Quote:
    I struggle to intuit a reason why the game would present the option to hurt ourselves for no benefit
    I mean it's not intended to be something you buy into. It's meant to be a limitation on how long you can sustain the same casting of a spell.

    I and some other users who were talking it over on the r/Pathfinder_RPG Discord server think a rule that would read more intuitively to the majority of players could simply have gone, "Spells normally cannot be Sustained for more than 10 minutes. A spell with an otherwise listed duration such as "sustained up to 1 minute" or "sustained up to 1 hour" cannot be Sustained longer than its listed duration." People then wouldn't try to overcome the limitation because this rule would clearly state that they can't try, which is exactly what most any reader would assume is just the meaning of the words "up to", so I think it'd be helpful to hear from the devs on the function they intended for this fatigue rule to add to the game.


    Syri wrote:
    Is the Redeemer reaction Glimpse of Redemption intended to work on mindless creatures, and all champion reactions intended to be able to provide their resistance even in an antimagic field?

    The only Tag i see is champion.

    So it seems something which is going to work on everything, and even in a antimagic field.

    About the mindless creatures is definitely clear if you thibk about the champion class.

    Think about the typical champion enemies

    - Dragons
    - Demon
    - Undeads

    Because of the oaths we can state that they are enemies which champions are used to fight. It is a fact.

    Because of that, you will be dealing also with undeads. And many of em are without a mind.

    So, the reaction is going to work on mindless creatures too.

    And because of that, it WILL work on mindless creatures which are not undeads.

    You could think of them facing some primordial instinct instead of a doubt of being guilty.

    About the antimagic field, it is simply not a magical act, because of the missing tag.


    Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Question: When a character gains an additional ability boost after first level, is the modifier retroactive?

    Example: Character starts with a CON bonus of +2, which gives him some N+2 hit points at each level up. At level five, he increases his CON by 2, which increases his bonus by 1. So for his fifth level HP increment, he gets N+3 HPs. Question is, does he get an additional 4 HP, effectively giving him the +3 CON bonus retroactively for the four levels when he didn't have it?

    If the answer is yes, what is the rationale for it?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I don't think HP are temporally fixed "accomplishments", they are reflection of present character level. CON giving bonus per character level is affecting all of your current level, not just future "accomplishments" of HPs, so it is not matter of "retroactivity". If your CON was lowered it would also lower ALL of your level-scaled HPs.


    Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    So everything about a character is mutable? Not sure I like that idea.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm pretty sure that ability score modifiers have never not been retroactive, so I can't say I see the problem there.

    Yes, though, this is specifically detailed in the Levelling Up section:

    Quote:
    If an ability boost increases your character’s Constitution modifier, recalculate their maximum Hit Points using their new Constitution modifier (typically this adds 1 Hit Point per level). If an ability boost increases your character’s Intelligence modifier, they become trained in an additional skill and language. Some feats grant a benefit based on your level, such as Toughness, and these benefits are adjusted whenever you gain a level as well.


    Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Bleh. I looked for something like that before I posted. Twice. And I missed it. Twice. :-(

    Still not sure I like it, but at least I know it's RAW.


    Hey, d'you guys know that the giant octopus has -3 Int? Is that a typo? [url]https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=315[/url]

    Ed Reppert wrote:
    Still not sure I like it, but at least I know it's RAW.

    Heh, PF1e and 5e both use this same retroactive HP rule because it's easier for everybody to check everybody's math if you don't have to care which levels you had 12 Con at and which levels you had 14 Con at. Otherwise, auditing characters could be hell for Organized Play GMs, or any player at all who's just trying to learn the game and understand how a pregen's stats add up.


    Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Not familiar with 5e, but I should have remembered that from PF1. Of course, it didn't make much sense to me then, either. I understand the "checking the math" problem, I guess, though it doesn't bother me; I'm pretty decent at arithmetic, though I balk at certain aspects of "higher math". :-)

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
    Syri wrote:

    Hey, d'you guys know that the giant octopus has -3 Int? Is that a typo? link

    Giant Octopus has an Int modifier of -3, so it's INT score is 4 or 5, just as it's CHA is -2, so the score is 6 or 7.

    And I don't think it's a typo.
    Animals in PF2e can have INT scores above 2: "It typically doesn’t have an Intelligence ability modifier over –4, can’t speak languages, and can’t be trained in Intelligence-based skills."


    If you 'Follow the Expert' in an activity that is proficiency level gated (Requires Trained, Expert, etc.) - can you make the check at all? The rules say you get to add your level even if Untrained, but it does not make a suggestion on whether this check is possible for you.

    In other words, are you considered 'Trained+' for that purpose because the expert experience rubs on you, or is it just a +level bonus for activities that you would be able to perform regardless?


    Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    I would say that you can make the check even if you haven't passed its "gate" normally. "Follow the expert" means you're benefitting from his proficiency. Note that you only get half the effect of his training proficiency bonus, so even with the boost from his proficiency you may well fail the check.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

    If I'm a wild shaped character, I'm limited to the attacks of the chosen form due to this wording:

    Animal Form, or any form spell wrote:
    One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.

    If as a wild shaped character I enter into one of the restrictive stances, like crane stance, I have this wording:

    Crane Stance wrote:
    You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to AC, but the only Strikes you can make are crane wing attacks.

    Reading strictly, these two requirements disallow one another, leaving you unable to make any strikes at all. Is this intended? Or is one intended to have priority?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Q: The are precise, imprecise and vague senses. I've seen senses marked as precise and as imprecise, but never as vague. What are vague senses?

    Q: If a sense doesn't mention if it is precise/imprecise (like lifesense), which is it?

    251 to 300 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream! All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.