| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many unique characters do you see in your games? That is, are they original concept builds, or are they cookie cutter clones of the various online guides?
I ask because now that I've played numerous 2nd Edition games across several groups, I'm seeing far more of the latter. I was wondering if it was just me, or if there really is some sort of trend developing that is squashing creativity in favor of mechanical effectiveness as dictated by someone else.
*Cries out in mock old man voice*
"These young whipper snappers just don't seem to think for themselves anymore!" /JK
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only speak for my group, but I don't see people using guides to make the most optimized character. At least in 2e, 1e it almost felt required. My group just tends to make whatever sounds fun (Or try to remake a character from a movie/anime/video game).
Myself, personally, I use to reference guides alot in 1e. 2e, I find myself looking more at fun creative builds rather than guides. I don't know if you check who likes your posts, but I spend alot of time in your character creation thread haha
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have felt that some of the more vocal/voracious consumers in some online communities have been swinging more towards "if its not optimized its wrong" attitudes in their discussion, but haven't seen the builds themselves representing that attitude.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm disappointed. I had hoped that this was a thread about Gingerbread Golems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes the game does silo you into certain builds when you choose a subclass, then you take the feats that require that subclass, so you might end up avoiding other feats at those levels (since it's kind of a bummer to take a lower level feat with a higher level slot.)
Like if you're playing a Dragon Instinct Barbarian you're probably taking breath at 6, wings at 12, and maybe transformation at 16. Basically every Witch takes Basic Lesson at level 2. A construct Inventor probably has its level 4, 8, and 14 feats spoken for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as my players are close to each other in damage, they'll try to do different things. Depends on the players focus.
I have one player that loves witches when he plays a caster for no other reason than he likes having a 1 action hex cantrip option. Once he picks his base witch, then he can go in any direction. He really hates the familiar though. Doesn't even try to make it do anything interesting.
I'm seeing a lot of build variation myself in PF2 as long as the base class is interesting. Base class plus weapon choice determine damage ability for martials. Everything else is more cosmetic or alternate ways to do damage.
I'm am seeing the usual high value spell choices taken, but after those are taken then I'm seeing some variation.
Some players have class preferences for building their concepts.
There has been a lot of variation in our group. Main classes no one wants to play are the wizard, summoner, investigator, and gunslinger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many unique characters do you see in your games? That is, are they original concept builds, or are they cookie cutter clones of the various online guides?
My approach is to offer new players the guides. Generally my players insist on something different each time.
Next game I am going to be asking them to reconsider a couple of specific builds, just on the grounds we have seen it too much.
I'll be playing some variant rules too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the living world i'm in I see a lot of cookie cutter builds but I also see people experimenting within those builds or doing wacky and experimental things. so a mix I would say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played with... somewhere around 20 people by now? I think? And I've yet to encounter any obvious cookie-cutter builds. Most players, when they see what PF2 can do, go full tilt on either expressing their roleplay concept mechanically or making a funny joke build. At most, I'd say maybe a fifth of the people I've played with were even slightly interested in optimizing (although everyone DOES appreciate being effective; but wanting your funny/personal idea to function properly as part of the team is a far cry from Flickmace Georg).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm disappointed. I had hoped that this was a thread about Gingerbread Golems.I was hoping for something about crafting gingerbread constructs, or someone statting up an actual Gingerbread Army monster.
This is why the Summoner is so cool. Everyone can have their own Gingerbread man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most players, when they see what PF2 can do, go full tilt on either expressing their roleplay concept mechanically...
That's good to read. Really warms my heart. Though there is nothing wrong with optimization (we all find our own ways to fun), too much focus upon it can be detrimental to everyone's overall enjoyment of the game in any number of ways.
This is why the Summoner is so cool. Everyone can have their own Gingerbread man.I'm disappointed. I had hoped that this was a thread about Gingerbread Golems.I was hoping for something about crafting gingerbread constructs, or someone statting up an actual Gingerbread Army monster.
A psychic with Thoughtform Summoning could summon gingerbread construct creations. XD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most players, when they see what PF2 can do, go full tilt on either expressing their roleplay concept mechanically...That's good to read. Really warms my heart. Though there is nothing wrong with optimization (we all find our own ways to fun), too much focus upon it can be detrimental to everyone's overall enjoyment of the game in any number of ways.
Examples ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
not for me.
Maybe due because the master makes us meet difficult enemies, maybe
because enemy hit with critical often, and you don't hit if roll less then 14 .. but if you don't make an optimized character you just die or fell hopeless.The rigid math behind pathfinder 2e forces you to search for the optimized build anytime and anywhere. Has anyone ever had fun with an elemental sorcerer with high intelligence and dexterity and normal charisma? especially at low levels? You are practically useless ...
I don't think it's PF2's fault but the system, if in the hands of someone who follows the rules slavishly, doesn't help at all in the construction of funny characters, only the optimized ones work and can help the group.
BHH
You raise a question: What means optimized?
Having 18 in your main stat can be considered optimized by some players when for other players it's just basic. After all, what's that concept of a stupid Wizard? Sure, it's funny, but I'd be surprised of a system where every build are balanced including the most preposterous ones.Another question is: What is a cookie-cutter build?
People looking online for builds definitely exist. But in PF2, you don't need much system mastery to create a competitive character. So I don't think there are many people using online builds like they used to in PF1.
On the other hand, some builds are quite common. If you want to play a Bomber Alchemist, you have some leeway but the core of your build will be set in stone the moment you choose your class and Research Field. So it's hard to know if it's a cookie-cutter build or if it's just the system pushing you in a specific direction.
My experience (quite a bunch of characters, maybe a hundred as of know) is that you see both very classical characters and very weird ones. It mostly depend on the player. Some players are playing classical fantasy characters (elven archer, greatsword barbarian, super intelligent wizard) and others like to mess up with the game as it let you do it without punishing you much.
I realize my answer is not really an answer...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Examples ?Most players, when they see what PF2 can do, go full tilt on either expressing their roleplay concept mechanically...That's good to read. Really warms my heart. Though there is nothing wrong with optimization (we all find our own ways to fun), too much focus upon it can be detrimental to everyone's overall enjoyment of the game in any number of ways.
When it becomes about having the highest numbers in the party.
When it invalidates another party member.
When it's no longer about increasing the level of fun within the party.
When it completely breaks the GM's campaign, or even just makes them work harder than they should.
To name a few.
There's loads more of 'em, but one common thread is that it's usually not an issue unless taken to some sort of extreme.
not for me.
Maybe due because the master makes us meet difficult enemies, maybe
because enemy hit with critical often, and you don't hit if roll less then 14 .. but if you don't make an optimized character you just die or fell hopeless.The rigid math behind pathfinder 2e forces you to search for the optimized build anytime and anywhere. Has anyone ever had fun with an elemental sorcerer with high intelligence and dexterity and normal charisma? especially at low levels? You are practically useless ...
I don't think it's PF2's fault but the system, if in the hands of someone who follows the rules slavishly, doesn't help at all in the construction of funny characters, only the optimized ones work and can help the group.
BHH
Can't say that's been my experience. As long as you're not deliberately making a bad character, and don't have a killer GM constantly throwing level 2+ stuff at you, you're probably going to do okay. I've even heard people say that it's hard to die at higher levels.
Having 18 in your main stat can be considered optimized by some players when for other players it's just basic. After all, what's that concept of a stupid Wizard? Sure, it's funny, but I'd be surprised of a system where every build are balanced including the most preposterous ones.
The stupid wizard concept is more or less what I mean when I'm referring to an intentionally bad character.
I dont really consider starting with an 18 in your primary stat as optimizing, nor do I think plugging a 16 to be the lack of optimization. A 14 or lower might make me wonder what you're about though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully this post and the one above will serve to clear up a few things.
What means optimized?
For the purposes of this discussion, let's treat optimizing as the practice of increasing numerical values, or minimizing any negatives, of one's character to achieve a specific personal goal or goals.
What is a cookie-cutter build?
For the purposes of this discussion, let's go with any character that was not created from the player's original thought and that emulates a well-known online build from which it was knowingly taken.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there's nothing wrong with saying "I want to do [thing] how do I do [thing] as best as I can" and sometimes the answer is obvious- you want to be an archer, you pick a class with archer feats and take them.
It's just that there's a big difference between "I want to be good at archery" and "I want to kill the boss in one round before it can act." The former is fun and good, the latter is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is a cookie-cutter build?For the purposes of this discussion, let's go with any character that was not created from the player's original thought and that emulates a well-known online build from which it was knowingly taken.
Do you know of any such build? Because I know some discussions about super efficient PF1 build, but in PF2 I haven't seen anything like that. I've seen, of course, build proposition in discussions. But just to answer a player, not really to show off a good build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know there aren't actually any optimization guides for classes with full builds and such. Largely it's sample flavor/concept builds if anything.
There are a few here and there that have been fully fleshed out in various threads, but mostly you just see discussions on the merits of taking certain feats or groups of feats rather than full builds with feats, items, spells, etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, it's not possible to make a build optimization guide in PF2 that is doing more than stating the obvious.
PF2 has nearly entirely removed combos. Sure, you can find a feat here and another one there that combine themselves well, but actual combos like you could find in PF1, extremely few (I know exactly 2 of them (and I consider myself the father of one (yeah, I brag a little bit))).
The lack of combo is the main reason why system mastery is no more important at build stage in PF2. So in my opinion it's a blessing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the way optimization guides in PF2 work is:
- Identify what things a given class is good at (and also not good at).
- Explain how to leverage the various options the class has in order to be good at the thing that you chose to be good at and also what options help cover up your weaknesses
Like you don't want to build a rogue as a tank, or a barbarian as a archer. But explaining that the fighter can be Kings of AoO, so if you've decided to pick up a reach weapon, you'll probably want combat reflexes and lunging stance but what other feats are good here is something that's useful to explain.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, it's not possible to make a build optimization guide in PF2 that is doing more than stating the obvious.
PF2 has nearly entirely removed combos. Sure, you can find a feat here and another one there that combine themselves well, but actual combos like you could find in PF1, extremely few (I know exactly 2 of them (and I consider myself the father of one (yeah, I brag a little bit))).
The lack of combo is the main reason why system mastery is no more important at build stage in PF2. So in my opinion it's a blessing.
Yes the combos are fairly simple and none are so strong they overshadow the rest of the game. There are moderate synergies and more than a few traps. The guides are just to get people thinking about what is possible. They are obvious but only because of your experience. They aren't always to new players. They are there for those who want some inspiration. They aren't for everyone. Just the people who like to review other peoples ideas.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya know I saw someone say, "you wouldn't want to build a rogue as a tank", and yet I did that earlier this year and it worked quite well for itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya know I saw someone say, "you wouldn't want to build a rogue as a tank", and yet I did that earlier this year and it worked quite well for itself.
I agree. It is not a bad idea to armour up a Ruffian or a Thief with heavy armour. Maybe even some shield feats via bastion. Shield and shortsword works fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the combos are fairly simple
I don't think they are simple, I think they don't really exist anymore. You speak of "moderate synergies" and I think the word synergy is more accurate than combo.
In PF2, I see only 2 combos (right now):
- Scout Charge + Fencer Swashbuckler, for the ability to use Dexterity on a Panache check. It opens up pure Dexterity Swashbuckler which is class design breaking on paper, but Scout Charge is not good enough to make the combo that strong.
- Bombs + Animal Companion support abilities asking for a Strike that deal damage. Makes the Debilitating Bomb feat line obsolete.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the combos are fairly simpleI don't think they are simple, I think they don't really exist anymore. You speak of "moderate synergies" and I think the word synergy is more accurate than combo.
In PF2, I see only 2 combos (right now):
- Scout Charge + Fencer Swashbuckler, for the ability to use Dexterity on a Panache check. It opens up pure Dexterity Swashbuckler which is class design breaking on paper, but Scout Charge is not good enough to make the combo that strong.
- Bombs + Animal Companion support abilities asking for a Strike that deal damage. Makes the Debilitating Bomb feat line obsolete.
I'm not going to debate langauge outside the rules themselves. Your two examples are useful but I don't see them as worthy of some special category.
Scouts Charge is nice and yes you are making a feint based on Dex so at +1 for half your levels. At the cost of an action? I mean Ageless Patience is better and many don't like that. The Fencer is not a style I like mechanically as you are much better off gaining flatfooted in some way that doesn't involve a roll, or so it helps the rest of your party. Fencer needs more of a boost than this.
Splash damage from a thrown bomb strike and Animal Companions abilites that trigger on Strike damage rather than on a Strike hitting. So even if you miss the Strike they have their effect. Yes that is cute. It is a big list: Bat, Beetle, Bird, Boar, Cat, Crocodile, Monitor Lizard, Moth, Pangolin, Scorpion, Shadow Hound, Terror Bird, Triceratops, Wolf. Technically I agree it works, though I see some GMs objecting anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to debate langauge outside the rules themselves.
Well, I can at least give you my meaning of "combo": it's a synergy between 2 seemingly unrelated things that gives you more than the sum of its parts.
Scouts Charge is nice and yes you are making a feint based on Dex so at +1 for half your levels.
The goal of this combo is to dump Charisma on a Fencer, not to get a +1 every half levels.
But Scout Charge is not good so the combo is not strong at all.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya know I saw someone say, "you wouldn't want to build a rogue as a tank", and yet I did that earlier this year and it worked quite well for itself.I agree. It is not a bad idea to armour up a Ruffian or a Thief with heavy armour. Maybe even some shield feats via bastion. Shield and shortsword works fine.
Mine was a Ruffian Rogue with Champion dedication. Between skill feats, class feats that I used to apply status effects, sneak attack for big damage, and my champion reaction reducing damage(and letting people step or break free from being grappled) I easily drew attention to myself and away from my allies.
I did have another front-liner with me but they werent really a traditional tank either. they were a warpriest with champion dedication (as well).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the combos are fairly simpleI don't think they are simple, I think they don't really exist anymore. You speak of "moderate synergies" and I think the word synergy is more accurate than combo.
In PF2, I see only 2 combos (right now):
- Scout Charge + Fencer Swashbuckler, for the ability to use Dexterity on a Panache check. It opens up pure Dexterity Swashbuckler which is class design breaking on paper, but Scout Charge is not good enough to make the combo that strong.
- Bombs + Animal Companion support abilities asking for a Strike that deal damage. Makes the Debilitating Bomb feat line obsolete.
There are a few. They aren't particularly easy to find, though, and they also don't tend to be super-powerful when you *do* find them. Still, they exist.
- the one I keep coming back to, with stumbling strike plus archetyping into fencer swashbuckler for Combination Finisher (or doing the same thing with a swashbuckler archetyping into monk, for a stronger overall effect that comes online later and costs more in feats). Three attacks in two actions with surprisingly manageable hit penalties, and you're recharging your panache on a free action.
- In general, cha-monks grabbing racial attack cantrips, especially Electric Arc.
- Archetyping into Flames Oracle with any of a variety of ways of dealing fire damage easily and consistently - alchemist, Flame Druid, kineticist if they keep that aura, and so forth. Of course, this is even better as a goblin.
- the psychic-powered Starlit Span magus
- Tyrant archtyping into Bulwark in order to get Shield Warden so that he can qualify for Shield of Grace and thus trigger his Champion reaction off of stepping in front of an attack intended for someone else.
- Barbarian who archetypes into Life Oracle for the focus spell, and then sits in the back with Raging Thrower for damage, firing off Renewed Vigor to repeatedly soak the damage that they're getting from their friends.
- Magus going elf for elemental wrath in order to have a spell that they can cast through spellstrike without provoking
- The rifle-toting investigator/gunslinger, so that you can use thosse deadly dice to really exploit those moments when you know for a fact that your next shot is going to be a crit.
- It is by this point so well-known as to be cliche, but I'd argue that "human paladin with flickmace" would qualify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
- Magus going elf for elemental wrath in order to have a spell that they can cast through spellstrike without provoking
...
Huh, verbal only. That's neat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see some like, broad strokes "cookie cutter" options, but I'm not sure if that's even really the righ way to describe them. Like is a bomber alchemist taking quick bomber or a giant barbarian taking giant's stature a cookie cutter build or someone just taking obvious options related to their character's theme and mechanics?
In my opinion, it's not possible to make a build optimization guide in PF2 that is doing more than stating the obvious.
While I mostly agree with you, in broad strokes I'd include anything that involves moving against some internal class mechanic to be an example of optimization worth discussing. Stuff liked Fire Ray Magus (admittedly a bit depreciated by psychic now) or investigators with greatswords or halberds aren't immediately obvious and somewhat contradict what appears to be the 'intended' way to play the class.
Admittedly none of these are particularly complicated either compared to optimization tricks in other games, but I still think they're generally notable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-gnome's with flickmaces certainly strike me as one cookie-cutter option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, verbal only. That's neat....
- Magus going elf for elemental wrath in order to have a spell that they can cast through spellstrike without provoking
...
The damage is low though. You can extend it with Burn It. The spash damage is nice and leads to all sort of things with Flame Druid and Fire Oracle....
It's funny, because just a few days after answering to this discussion I've been invited to a Westmarches-style PF2 campaign running for quite some time with players I don't know (for the most part).
And looking at the characters played, there are 34 registered Fighters and a single Alchemist. 5 classes making for 49% of the characters and 5 classes making for 4% of the characters.
So I think I've found your gingerbread army, Ravingdork.
It looks like it's really a question of group dynamic. My main group doesn't care too much about optimization and PF2 very close balance allow them to play nearly everything they like. And this group... well, I still have to get used to them but it looks like they have a strong video game logic (I overheard them speaking about meta, which is quite funny as the concept can't really exist in TTRPGs).
So, the Gingerbread army is composed of Fighters, Rogues, Champions, Clerics and Bards: It looks like a World of Warcraft set up to me (healer, tank, damage dealer, with just the Bard added because it's very strong even if it's the rarest of all 5 ginger classes).
I'll see if I can blend in with my damage-oriented Summoner with his fallen Angel Eidolon (I'm a bit of a brat sometimes) and then give you more information about the Gingerbread Army.
Out of the 8 to 10 people I regularly game with, only one of them has ever read one of those guides, let alone used one.
To be fair if I was making a character for a game that will have a constantly shifting set of party members, I'd probably make something that's always going to work.
My other main database of classes played is a PFS group and people are playing every type of characters all across the board.
And the latest discussion in this new group build channel explains how you must remain dependent on the other classes and avoid playing a character that is fully autonomous as it's "unfair".
So, I don't feel it's a question of reliance on others. If I had to guess, I think the second group expects more reliance on others than my PFS standard group.
The damage is low though. You can extend it with Burn It. The spash damage is nice and leads to all sort of things with Flame Druid and Fire Oracle....Huh, verbal only. That's neat....
- Magus going elf for elemental wrath in order to have a spell that they can cast through spellstrike without provoking
...
So... are you playing a goblin adopted by elves, or an elf adopted by goblins?
Might be best to go with the goblin, so that you can get the heritage fire resist... especially if you're planning on oracle shenanigans. Unfortunately, while a goblin with a fiery acid splash is great for the Flames Oracle starter focus spell (and, indeed, that's a combo to seriously consider for playing as a Flames Oracle), putting it on a magus chassis makes it less great. The melee Magus really does get value out of their focus spells. The Oracle trick is significantly better on someone who isn't using that focus point for anything else.
Also, Acid Splash, in any form, can be really really nice in the low-to-mid levels when confronted with one or more swarms.
|
Non-gnome's with flickmaces certainly strike me as one cookie-cutter option.
So I'm pretty new to PFS. I've played four sessions, and in those four sessions I saw a human wielding a flickmace twice.
Never saw it used before in home or online games.
Oh, but in those two games, the character using the flickmace was my own: an Inventor. It's possible online discussion about the flickmace put it on my radar in the first place (kind of hard to say), but I chose it for this character specifically because it's wacky. I was a little disappointed when I realized it's not eligible to be an Innovation, and waffled between switching weapons and switching to armor innovation. I went with the latter--I liked the image too much to give it up.
He designed his weapon himself. The fact that it bears resemblance to a traditional gnomish weapon he'd never heard of before annoys him.
Although come to think of it he can't actually make a flickmace because he doesn't have the formula. I should correct that, even if I doubt it will ever come up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair if I was making a character for a game that will have a constantly shifting set of party members, I'd probably make something that's always going to work.My other main database of classes played is a PFS group and people are playing every type of characters all across the board.
And the latest discussion in this new group build channel explains how you must remain dependent on the other classes and avoid playing a character that is fully autonomous as it's "unfair".
So, I don't feel it's a question of reliance on others. If I had to guess, I think the second group expects more reliance on others than my PFS standard group.
The thing with PFS is that it has a reputation for minimal difficulty. It's also not as likely to be played by people with home games. If this group is familiar with pf1 and pf1 character building, that disclaimer about unfair builds makes perfect sense. Similarly, those people who made a study of pf1 will naturally study pf2 and gravitate to the big 4 (fighter, rogue, cleric, bard) just off the most shallow research. Champion is a natural extension of this with their legendary AC as it slots very easily into the idea of a "tank" character.
As a side note, of course pf2 has a metagame, just like pf1 did. It's not the same sort of metagame that a tcg or mmo or moba would have but it's there. The most obvious parallel would be something like strategies for the unfair difficulty in owlcat's pf1 games. The same ideas used there are direct adaptations of pf1 character and team building theorycrafting with extra accounting for the quirks of the games themselves. If there were a pf2 game the same sort of thing would happen.
As a side note, of course pf2 has a metagame, just like pf1 did. It's not the same sort of metagame that a tcg or mmo or moba would have but it's there. The most obvious parallel would be something like strategies for the unfair difficulty in owlcat's pf1 games. The same ideas used there are direct adaptations of pf1 character and team building theorycrafting with extra accounting for the quirks of the games themselves. If there were a pf2 game the same sort of thing would happen.
A meta supposes 2 things TTRPGs don't have:
- A group. A meta exists inside a group, it's this group meta and there's no overarching meta (outside the mind of those who thinks they know better). As TTRPG groups are loosely connected groups, it means a ton of loosely connected metas.- A common experience. PFS, APs, homegames are all different experience and as such have different metas.
So, speaking of meta in the case of a TTRPG is roughly invalid. You can try to determine a meta meta, by finding the commonalities between metas, but that wouldn't help much as groups are at different levels of understanding of the game and as such a lot of groups are still in the "casters are weak" meta while on these boards we have moved on long time ago.
As a side note, speaking more with this new group, I think their main issue is that they lack experience with casters. As such, they get obliterated at high level, blame the casters for that (which is true, as their casters are inexperienced) so no one plays caster anymore and they get trampled even more. The perfect example of how a meta can spiral out of control and become detrimental to the overall success of a group.
It could also just be some general assumptions about RPG trends. Fighters and Rogues were popular in PF1 and are highly popular in 5e. Fighter analogs are highly popular in cRPGs and MMOs too.
I think to some extent the trend is pretty irrespective of game balance or class functionality.
|
I think my favorite take on flickmace build I've seen was castlevania reference, because I was so amused by Belmont reference x'D (I've only seen two(and half because character died and came back as skeleton so they used one hand to wield other hand wielding flickmace afterwards for 15 reach) though, other one was dual wielding them which is also not cookie cutter build because cookiecutter one would be having shield in other hand)
But yeah, I don't think build guide builds are that common in practice but I think newbies often try out game like that when they are unsure of how to make character and they ask reddit advice or such. People who have played game enough usually realize there is no real need to use guides in this game
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it's nice to read other people's opinions on why feats are good or not good, because maybe they thought of something I didn't.