Frustrated with Square Concepts and Round Rules


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 183 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only person who thinks that knowing what is in the AP has absolutely no bearing on what characters I bring to the table.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, going into strength of thousands knowing that it gave you the wizard archetype or the druid archetype under the free archetype rules and knowing that this is a good AP for diplomatic solutions made me want to play a Summoner (Charisma class) with the druid archetype and the leaf order (since that's the one that gives you diplomacy) so I made sure my eidolon was a plant (since leaf order.) Beyond "the plant guy who knows about plants who is wise about nature and good at making connections with people" I was willing to just let the story play out.

It's more about "making sure your character fits with the themes of the AP" than "making sure you can handle whatever is going to happen."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

I (again) find it varies a lot by AP. Sometimes the backgrounds will make me think of new and interesting concepts for my character, sometimes the backgrounds seem totally redundant or obvious.

In PF2 there is almost always absolutely no mechanical advantage to taking the AP backgrounds over the already existing ones. At one level I think thats good (it makes the flavour the only thing I really have to worry about), at another level I miss the "bribe" that PF1 AP backgrounds had to get the players to all select one :-). I mean, I'd take one without the bribe if one was interesting, but I still like the small power boost :-).

Have I mentioned that my Roleplaying Side and my Powergaming side both exist and sometimes are in conflict with each other? :-)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

I (again) find it varies a lot by AP. Sometimes the backgrounds will make me think of new and interesting concepts for my character, sometimes the backgrounds seem totally redundant or obvious.

In PF2 there is almost always absolutely no mechanical advantage to taking the AP backgrounds over the already existing ones. At one level I think thats good (it makes the flavour the only thing I really have to worry about), at another level I miss the "bribe" that PF1 AP backgrounds had to get the players to all select one :-). I mean, I'd take one without the bribe if one was interesting, but I still like the small power boost :-).

Have I mentioned that my Roleplaying Side and my Powergaming side both exist and sometimes are in conflict with each other? :-)

Yes there is. AP background lores are far more likely to come up compared to generic background lores. How much that matters will vary based on how your GM handles DC reductions and your generic build, but odds are they will help you identify some enemies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

I (again) find it varies a lot by AP. Sometimes the backgrounds will make me think of new and interesting concepts for my character, sometimes the backgrounds seem totally redundant or obvious.

In PF2 there is almost always absolutely no mechanical advantage to taking the AP backgrounds over the already existing ones.

I’m not interested much at all in their mechanics; I like having a pre-established hook for each character, and that’s what they do. Outlaws of Alkenstar has Backgrounds that give everyone their own unique reason to hate the antagonists, and that’s worth more to me than any Skill Feat. I’m very curious to see what they pitch for Blood Lords.

D&D 4e briefly flirted with a mechanic called Themes, a sort of super-Background that granted extra mechanical goodies; lots of them were generic/broad, but the Neverwinter Campaign Setting had hyper-specific ones, and Neverwinter adventures actually had bespoke encounters, impacts, and other reactivity for individual Themes from the book. One of them was that you were a spy whose handler betrayed your allies and was then killed, leaving you friendless and very confused in a foreign city; another had you as a lost heir to the throne of the city, lacking proof of your bloodline to challenge the illegitimate Duke with.

I’m a sucker for specificity.

Scarab Sages

pauljathome wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

I (again) find it varies a lot by AP. Sometimes the backgrounds will make me think of new and interesting concepts for my character, sometimes the backgrounds seem totally redundant or obvious.

In PF2 there is almost always absolutely no mechanical advantage to taking the AP backgrounds over the already existing ones. At one level I think thats good (it makes the flavour the only thing I really have to worry about), at another level I miss the "bribe" that PF1 AP backgrounds had to get the players to all select one :-). I mean, I'd take one without the bribe if one was interesting, but I still like the small power boost :-).

Have I mentioned that my Roleplaying Side and my Powergaming side both exist and sometimes are in conflict with each other? :-)

When I GM, I make a list of backgrounds that I think are suitable for the adventure. I tell my players that if they pick from that list, they can boost any two ability scores of their choice rather than the ones the background would normally be restricted to. They can also ask to change the granted skill & skill feat.

I used this to help a player create a really cool background for their poppet PC in Night of the Gray Death.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

I (again) find it varies a lot by AP. Sometimes the backgrounds will make me think of new and interesting concepts for my character, sometimes the backgrounds seem totally redundant or obvious.

In PF2 there is almost always absolutely no mechanical advantage to taking the AP backgrounds over the already existing ones.

I’m not interested much at all in their mechanics; I like having a pre-established hook for each character, and that’s what they do. Outlaws of Alkenstar has Backgrounds that give everyone their own unique reason to hate the antagonists, and that’s worth more to me than any Skill Feat. I’m very curious to see what they pitch for Blood Lords.

D&D 4e briefly flirted with a mechanic called Themes, a sort of super-Background that granted extra mechanical goodies; lots of them were generic/broad, but the Neverwinter Campaign Setting had hyper-specific ones, and Neverwinter adventures actually had bespoke encounters, impacts, and other reactivity for individual Themes from the book. One of them was that you were a spy whose handler betrayed your allies and was then killed, leaving you friendless and very confused in a foreign city; another had you as a lost heir to the throne of the city, lacking proof of your bloodline to challenge the illegitimate Duke with.

I’m a sucker for specificity.

I want to have both useful Skill feat and enticing backstory linked to the AP.

I am now wondering if the PG's writer has enough info to determine which skill feat would be beneficial in the AP and which would be dead weight.

At least, I would like to have powerful / always useful skill feats in the AP-specific backgrounds, like Battle Medicine or Titan Wrestler, so that I don't have to choose between specific backstory and optimized build.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
A character's mechanics, or future mechanics, can definitely help tell the story of the character. So much so that the AP they are in could be ancillary, or even irrelevant.

To each their own. But that's exactly the kind of things I want to avoid as much as possible as it can lead to a subpar experience for me and an early character retirement.

If I have to commit to a few years of gaming, I don't want the story to be ancillary or worse irrelevant to my character development. It's actually quite the opposite, if I can develop a character who's development is entangled with the story of the AP, this is just a thousand times better.

Silver Crusade

keftiu wrote:


I’m not interested much at all in their mechanics; I like having a pre-established hook for each character, and that’s what they do. Outlaws of Alkenstar has Backgrounds that give everyone their own unique reason to hate the antagonists, and that’s worth more to me than any Skill Feat.

I just hope they learned from Crimson Throne and that antagonist survives the second session :-).


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, going into strength of thousands knowing that it gave you the wizard archetype or the druid archetype under the free archetype rules and knowing that this is a good AP for diplomatic solutions made me want to play a Summoner (Charisma class) with the druid archetype and the leaf order (since that's the one that gives you diplomacy) so I made sure my eidolon was a plant (since leaf order.) Beyond "the plant guy who knows about plants who is wise about nature and good at making connections with people" I was willing to just let the story play out.

It's more about "making sure your character fits with the themes of the AP" than "making sure you can handle whatever is going to happen."

Science experiment. Boom character backstory done. I'm not joking either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Am I the only person who thinks that knowing what is in the AP has absolutely no bearing on what characters I bring to the table.

Most of the time, it has no bearing for me. It really depends on the theme of the AP and how appropriate my current "wanna-play" character is. I have so many character ideas I'm not gonna contort backstory all to hell to play a something that just isn't a good fit.

For example, I'm playing a Ratfolk Construct Rider Alchemist in an Iron Gods game. Construct Rider is banned in PFS and is anachronistic enough that it was frowned on (effectively banned) in my home group. IG was probably the only chance I had to play one and not ruffle any feathers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I 100% prefer characters tailored to an AP's theme and setting. My favorite part of each one is the unique Backgrounds in the Player's Guide!

I (again) find it varies a lot by AP. Sometimes the backgrounds will make me think of new and interesting concepts for my character, sometimes the backgrounds seem totally redundant or obvious.

In PF2 there is almost always absolutely no mechanical advantage to taking the AP backgrounds over the already existing ones.

I’m not interested much at all in their mechanics; I like having a pre-established hook for each character, and that’s what they do. Outlaws of Alkenstar has Backgrounds that give everyone their own unique reason to hate the antagonists, and that’s worth more to me than any Skill Feat. I’m very curious to see what they pitch for Blood Lords.

D&D 4e briefly flirted with a mechanic called Themes, a sort of super-Background that granted extra mechanical goodies; lots of them were generic/broad, but the Neverwinter Campaign Setting had hyper-specific ones, and Neverwinter adventures actually had bespoke encounters, impacts, and other reactivity for individual Themes from the book. One of them was that you were a spy whose handler betrayed your allies and was then killed, leaving you friendless and very confused in a foreign city; another had you as a lost heir to the throne of the city, lacking proof of your bloodline to challenge the illegitimate Duke with.

I’m a sucker for specificity.

I adored the theme mechanic, its the number 1 reason my group uses Free Archetype, because themes felt really great as something that was layered on top of your class power set and it has a similar effect on the game as a whole.

Archetypes fill this role really well overall in PF2e, both the generic ones (Dandy, Undead Master, etc.) and the specific ones (Butterfly Blade, Living Monolith, Knight Vigilant) depending on your preferences or use case. If in a published campaign they can link you into the fabric of that specific plot line in a neat way, or just to a specific part of the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A good character isn't the one that best fits with the other characters at the table and it isn't the one painstakingly written to fit the adventure, it's the one that you can RP well and can see yourself being interested in months down the road. You don't need 14 pages of backstory and 100 back and forth messages with the DM to get it perfect. Just ensure that you've left some dangling threads at the end of your character's personal plot for the DM to tie back to the game at hand.

A lot of players that want to be helpful can actually annoy the GM by monopolizing their time. If the GM doesn't seem concerned about your character fitting in, then you shouldn't either. Just do what the GM asks you to do, clarify if you need to, and stop overthinking things.

Liberty's Edge

TBT my first 3.5 character was for Living Arcanis. She oozed with flavor and was awesomely good at her shtick (social encounters). But she was so bad at fighting that she was useless most of the RL time we spent on playing.

A concept and character you're passionate about is not enough. You also need to feel you're not a dead weight that the other characters have to carry most of the time.

Thankfully, in PF2, any character will be viable unless you purposefully build them not to be.

And the AP guides + discussing with the GM will be quite enough to make sure your character gets the chance to shine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

TBT my first 3.5 character was for Living Arcanis. She oozed with flavor and was awesomely good at her shtick (social encounters). But she was so bad at fighting that she was useless most of the RL time we spent on playing.

A concept and character you're passionate about is not enough. You also need to feel you're not a dead weight that the other characters have to carry most of the time.

Thankfully, in PF2, any character will be viable unless you purposefully build them not to be.

And the AP guides + discussing with the GM will be quite enough to make sure your character gets the chance to shine.

I figured that was implied by "can see yourself being interested in months down the road". If your character isn't useful for a large chunk of IRL time each session, that's going to make sustaining interest difficult for most players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
I Ate Your Dice wrote:

A good character isn't the one that best fits with the other characters at the table and it isn't the one painstakingly written to fit the adventure, it's the one that you can RP well and can see yourself being interested in months down the road. You don't need 14 pages of backstory and 100 back and forth messages with the DM to get it perfect. Just ensure that you've left some dangling threads at the end of your character's personal plot for the DM to tie back to the game at hand.

A lot of players that want to be helpful can actually annoy the GM by monopolizing their time. If the GM doesn't seem concerned about your character fitting in, then you shouldn't either. Just do what the GM asks you to do, clarify if you need to, and stop overthinking things.

Thanks for this explanation. Someone had to tell what a good character is and how to interact with one's GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've just read the Outlaws of Alkenstar Player's Guide, and I have to recognize that the Player's Guides are all very different from one another.

Because this one is absolutely fabulous and exactly what I expect from a Player's Guide. It gives you 2 nemeses and backgrounds that are directly linked to these nemeses. On top of that, you have a list of recommended alignments, ancestries, classes, languages, skills and even skill feats.
If the information in there is correct (which I assume considering how detailed it is), it's by far the best Player's Guide I've ever read. I mean, with that I can make a character who's indubitably interested in running the campaign till the end, I can be sure that my skills and abilities will be useful, we can double down on important skills among the party, have thematic ancestries, and so on.

That's a gem. Good job Paizo. I hope you'll be able to maintain this quality.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I've just read the Outlaws of Alkenstar Player's Guide, and I have to recognize that the Player's Guides are all very different from one another.

Because this one is absolutely fabulous and exactly what I expect from a Player's Guide. It gives you 2 nemeses and backgrounds that are directly linked to these nemeses. On top of that, you have a list of recommended alignments, ancestries, classes, languages, skills and even skill feats.
If the information in there is correct (which I assume considering how detailed it is), it's by far the best Player's Guide I've ever read. I mean, with that I can make a character who's indubitably interested in running the campaign till the end, I can be sure that my skills and abilities will be useful, we can double down on important skills among the party, have thematic ancestries, and so on.

That's a gem. Good job Paizo. I hope you'll be able to maintain this quality.

Medicine is not noted as a useful skill, nor is Battle Medicine a recommended feat.

So, yes there are good ideas here but it can really be improved.

There are threads about this specific PG with all the debate already for anybody interested (rather than derailing this one).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Medicine is not noted as a useful skill, nor is Battle Medicine a recommended feat.

The Player's Guide just tells you what is useful to complete the AP, not what is useful for your party to be functional.

The Raven Black wrote:
So, yes there are good ideas here but it can really be improved.

You're hard on it. It's the best Player's Guide I've ever read so far.

The Raven Black wrote:
There are threads about this specific PG with all the debate already for anybody interested (rather than derailing this one).

You are the one derailing this thread, I was just using this Player's Guide as an example of what I like.

Also, it looks like I'm not the only one to find this Player's Guide fabulous. There is a lot of praise in the thread for very few gripe (and only about Medicine). So I don't think it's much controversial to say it is excellent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

I've just read the Outlaws of Alkenstar Player's Guide, and I have to recognize that the Player's Guides are all very different from one another.

Because this one is absolutely fabulous and exactly what I expect from a Player's Guide. It gives you 2 nemeses and backgrounds that are directly linked to these nemeses. On top of that, you have a list of recommended alignments, ancestries, classes, languages, skills and even skill feats.
If the information in there is correct (which I assume considering how detailed it is), it's by far the best Player's Guide I've ever read. I mean, with that I can make a character who's indubitably interested in running the campaign till the end, I can be sure that my skills and abilities will be useful, we can double down on important skills among the party, have thematic ancestries, and so on.

That's a gem. Good job Paizo. I hope you'll be able to maintain this quality.

Medicine is not noted as a useful skill, nor is Battle Medicine a recommended feat.

So, yes there are good ideas here but it can really be improved.

There are threads about this specific PG with all the debate already for anybody interested (rather than derailing this one).

It also doesn't tell you to raise your key ability score to 18. It gives advice specific to the adventure, not general optimization. (Also Medicine and Battle Medicine aren't mandatory. Having some degree of healing in and out of combat is, but inventors can get pretty far out of searing restoration as an example.)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:


You're hard on it. It's the best Player's Guide I've ever read so far.

I don't think you can really fully evaluate how good a Players Guide is until you have either finished or at least read (GM only) the entire AP. Certainly the first 2 or 3 volumes in it (as there are often very significant tonal and mechanical shifts from volume to volume).

There have been guides in the past that led one to create characters that really were fairly poor fits for the AP. And that fact would often not be known until a fair bit through the AP


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Medicine is not noted as a useful skill, nor is Battle Medicine a recommended feat.
The Player's Guide just tells you what is useful to complete the AP, not what is useful for your party to be functional.

Yeah, if Medicine isn't going to come up as part of the AP, I can't see why it would be recommended for character creation. There are other (sometimes better) ways to get by without it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


You're hard on it. It's the best Player's Guide I've ever read so far.

I don't think you can really fully evaluate how good a Players Guide is until you have either finished or at least read (GM only) the entire AP. Certainly the first 2 or 3 volumes in it (as there are often very significant tonal and mechanical shifts from volume to volume).

There have been guides in the past that led one to create characters that really were fairly poor fits for the AP. And that fact would often not be known until a fair bit through the AP

Agreed, but this certainly makes more of an effort than most player's guides. It is possible they screwed it up but they at least tried more than prior APs.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:

I don't think you can really fully evaluate how good a Players Guide is until you have either finished or at least read (GM only) the entire AP. Certainly the first 2 or 3 volumes in it (as there are often very significant tonal and mechanical shifts from volume to volume).

There have been guides in the past that led one to create characters that really were fairly poor fits for the AP. And that fact would often not be known until a fair bit through the AP

Sort of disagree with this sentiment. A player's guide should be aimed at helping a PC get in the door and get started with the adventure, but the adventure itself should take it from there.

Honestly the notion of a player's guide giving you advice on how to build your fresh level 1 character so they're ready for whatever happens in book 6 feels kind of wrong to me. Doing that negatively impacts the flow of the adventure itself, because you shouldn't be getting insight in advance to major plot twists and developments, imo.

A player's guide not preparing you for books 3-6 is not only fine, but arguably a good thing since it leaves room for growth and development.


Yes the trick to have a character that is mechanically and narratively involved in the story as it progresses, is to have your character adapt to the ongoing narrative.

See previous point about not planning your character's too far ahead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Its worthwhile for player guides to give you the broad strokes that stay true across the bulk of the books, as well.

"This AP is on a fast timer, you shouldn't expect much downtime." Is a very useful thing to know to avoid making a Crafting centric character.

"This AP frequently pushes the pace between encounters, investing in more efficient recovery between encounters will be important" is to me another very important aspect, that will help make characters and narrative mesh better. This one is something the characters could adapt to over levelup, so its not as critical to have known in advance, but if its something that isn't true in book one, but becomes true for practically all later books, I feel it should be stated up front before people plan (if only tentatively) a full build.

"This AP frequently takes you far from civilization, survival and crafting will be more important than usual."

Similarly if an AP strongly encourages diplomatic or stealth solutions to problems, that's worth mentioning as a guiding principle., since otherwise players will make characters that will probably default to brute-forcing everything.

Those can also be more of a session zero question for the GM as well -- since I feel a lot of GMs like to push the pace (both on the overarching timer and on the per encounter timer) for narrative reasons and that's a fine choice, but one that should be known up front.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Honestly the notion of a player's guide giving you advice on how to build your fresh level 1 character so they're ready for whatever happens in book 6 feels kind of wrong to me.

That's also not what I expect from a Player's Guide. But a lot of them don't even guide you through book 1.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm preparing to play Frozen Flame and I'll point out some things that I think the Players Guide did well and some it did poorly to illustrate what I want from a Players Guide.

Good:
It gives enough background that it lets me create a character that will fit. Most of this is reasonably obvious but spelling it out has value. It points out the way that the group is different than others in accepting a wider range of characters and that is very worthwhile (I can then decide HOW strange a character I want to propose).

Meh:
The backgrounds are all pretty boring. Oh, I can be a herder. Or a hunter. Would NEVER have occurred to me :-). Ex Crusader is about the only one that isn't 100% obvious and unnecessary.

Bad:
It hints that acquiring some gear will be difficult but that is all. Just hints. I have no clue if a character than intends to wear heavy armor (especially plate mail) is a possibility at all. But that is something I really want to know at character creation since it directly impacts how much I invest in dexterity, whether I go sword and board, etc. It also doesn't tell me how much downtime I have so I don't know if crafting my own armor is an option.

Yes, I an ask the GM but
a) That relies on the GM having read enough to know
b) The entire purpose of the Players Guide is to reduce/eliminate how much the players have to ask the GM about things.

At this point of time (character creation) I'd be giving it a C+ or a B-.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Thank you, that's a pretty helpful breakdown of where it, er...breaks down for you. I don't necessarily agree with your points, but I now have a better idea of what you mean.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
I don't think you can really fully evaluate how good a Players Guide is until you have either finished or at least read (GM only) the entire AP.

Sort of disagree with this sentiment. A player's guide should be aimed at helping a PC get in the door and get started with the adventure, but the adventure itself should take it from there.

Honestly the notion of a player's guide giving you advice on how to build your fresh level 1 character so they're ready for whatever happens in book 6 feels kind of wrong to me. Doing that negatively impacts the flow of the adventure itself, because you shouldn't be getting insight in advance to major plot twists and developments, imo.

A player's guide not preparing you for books 3-6 is not only fine, but arguably a good thing since it leaves room for growth and development.

I'm not asking for as much as you think I'm asking for. But some things you pretty much need to know about at character creation.

For example, if you're going to NEED good social skills to get through book 4 of the AP then I really hope that I get some warning. Because there is nothing I can do to make my Cha 8 Dwarf even approximate competence if I only find out at level 11. In PF1 I could suddenly throw massive resources at the problem (Cha headband, skill focus feat, lots of skill points) and do from hopeless to not all that bad over a level or so but I can't do that in PF2.

As another example, it would be nice if the Players Guide for an AP billed as concentrating on a circus pointed out that the circus is actually a quite minor part of the AP and almost completely just forms the backdrop of your adventures. That characters should be actively discouraged from spending too many resources on their circus abilities.


It's also useful to know the general timeline of when certain enemy types will crop up in an adventure. This was more important in PF1E, where that was the ranger's whole shtick, but it's creeping in to PF2E now as well with archetypes like Undead Slayer.

I was in a game of Strange Aeons once, and its player's guide recommended that aberrations would be a good favored enemy to pick. Our ranger picked them. We had to stop playing around book five, life got in the way, and up to that point I believe the grand total of aberrations we had fought in the AP was ... three. It was endlessly frustrating to our ranger. (Granted that was also a problem with the creature type system of the previous game. Lots of things that could reasonably have been aberrations were instead outsiders, monstrous humanoids, or oozes.)

151 to 183 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Frustrated with Square Concepts and Round Rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.