|
Blooming Brilliant posted:Okay cool, thanks for explaining To expand a bit on reactions: DMG page 252 has a section on the timing of reactions. In a nutshell, unless the reaction itself is very explicit about it, it occurs after the trigger finishes.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Why is your immediate reaction to a general rule to try and split it into different parts and granularise each part? Not only that, but parts that pertain only to the specifics of an abstraction of combat as opposed to making an attempt at viewing the scenery as a person, or better, a writer of fiction, would? It seems like you're struggling to think outside of this being some kind of wargame, and are then arguing that 4e is better because it provides the wargame goods. You're splitting it apart into "is it a buff, is it a damage boost or does it do interesting things with the battle lines?" Instead of thinking "does it actually encourage people to think of something novel to do?" I'm asking for the game mechanics to encourage people to break out of the "I did it because it's the specific thing written on my character sheet" type thinking and your response is "but 5e doesn't create the roles I expect in my wargames" Why is your immediate response to being fact checked to immediately go on an irrelevant offensive? And why on earth do you think working out "What is this person trying to do with their improvisation?" is somehow the mark of someone who's not understanding the scenery as a person would or a writer would? It is in fact the reverse. "It's an improvised action therefore it should get a set identical generic bonus" is in fact the mark of a lovely author who doesn't give a drat about continuity. Finally why in the name of the little black pig do you think that novelty for novelty's sake is a good thing? Do you have a not so secret desire to play a fishmalk? You claim to have taken part in real life wargames - did you ever try "improvising" by dressing yourself in a bunny suit and waving a sign saying "please shoot me"? Because that would be a novel improvisation - novel in part because it would just get the wearer shot. Or do you not actually believe that? Instead what you want is a game to be just a little more cinematic than it actually is. As for mechanics to encourage people to break out of what is written on their character sheets as has been repeatedly pointed out to you D&D is not the game you want. And as I have pointed out 4e actually has the rules you want - unlike any other edition. D&D is a game which, in any edition, has literally hundreds of defined actions that are defined, all of which take resources. These actions are called spells - and they automatically work. And they also have finicky requirements and fiddly rules. It is also a fiddly enough game that the difference between hitting someone with a sword and an axe actually matters. Do I think it matters or even should matter? No. I think 13th Age and Dungeon World alike did the right thing by making damage dice dependent more on your class than on your weapon. Azza Bamboo posted:Even if the numbers and the pages somehow tick every technical box, 4e failed to make itself feel less regimented in your options. But you're not going to address that because 4e is your lord and saviour and that's fair enough. You can read John chapter 5 page 42 as much as you want, it doesn't change the lived experience, and in the end that's what brings people to church. If you choose to believe it's the GM's fault and that your bride system can't possibly go wrong then go for it. There's a funny thing about that word "feel". Feelings are personal. There's a second thing about that word "feel" - a lot of feelings are based on familiarity. In my personal lived experience 4e is far the best form of D&D to encourage improvising. That yours differs doesn't change the lived experience. The thing is I can point out why. I can also point out why 4e frequently didn't achieve what it should in your experience. The published adventure design was terrible, and I am not exaggerating when I say that Keep on the Shadowfell may have been the worst D&D adventure ever made (at least The Forest Oracle was entertaining). It was also released as a buggy beta. And that you are as ever coming up with strawmen like "the system can't possibly go wrong" then that's your issue. Literally no one has said that. What has been said is that among D&Ds 4e is the best at doing what you claim to want. But there are other games that are better than D&D - D&D after all started out as a hacked tabletop wargame. To repeat. D&D is not the game you claim to want. Of the D&Ds 4e provides the best tools to do what you claim to want. And IME the best way to introduce e.g. Fiasco or a couple of other games to the table (I recommend Crash Pandas; playing racoons trying to win a street car race and Critical Role has a playthrough) is to wait until one player is ill then use them as fill-in one shots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:I get the feeling these forums have a boner for a certain system and at that point I may as well be offering the word of Mohammad at a pentecostal church. You’re just wrong about a lot of stuff and are getting called out on it. There’s a thread for older editions, one for rpg theory, and one to pick a system to find a certain playstyle. Can you go poo poo up one of those?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
if the metric is now "poo poo up the correct thread" Does it not strike anyone that the 5e thread is populated with mostly 4e apologists? The point I've stressed over and over again is that DnD 5e had what I wanted during its development and then made it less workable. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:as ever coming up with strawmen neonchameleon posted:you think that novelty for novelty's sake is a good thing? Do you have a not so secret desire to play a fishmalk?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:A real Fighter and an Essentials Fighter both have two at-wills and a per-encounter to start, but the former also has a Daily. Each is equally capable of mindless "I hit him" play, where they just use their most generically useful at-will over and over again (iirc this would be Reaving Strike for the battlemaster, while the Slayer has to make the opaque choice between +2 hit and +2 damage for some reason). On the other hand, each starts with four ways to hit someone, because the Slayer has to choose between two Stances and then choose whether to Power Strike. You're making a textbook mistake of assuming that someone wanting to say "I hit it" is ever going to switch stances. IME they don't. So no they don't have to make that choice - they make it in character creation. Normally the +1 to hit. They certainly don't have to pick at the moment of the attack. Power Strike is triggered on a hit so you don't decide until you've hit. You make one decision at the moment of attacking - who to attack. quote:I appreciate that the "flowchart" mode works better for some people than the "hand of cards" mode of taking your turn, but A) that's not universally true But it's true for a group of people - which strongly overlaps with those that just want to decide who to hit. This group had in previous editions just played a fighter which worked for AD&D and at low levels worked in 3.X. I don't know how many there were or are but there was one in my main D&D 4e group. quote:and B) you could probably give someone a battlemaster flowchart to follow if they wanted. This didn't work - largely because they would have to look at the flowchart which would take them out of what they were doing. "Who do I hit" is fine. As I say this is not theory, it is based on experience including one of the members of my main D&D 4e group (a group that had been running since 1990 although I was a late joiner). quote:"simple" Essentials classes often made them fiddlier to play than characters who could just pick a single power, fire it off, and follow its instructions top to bottom. That word "often" covers a whole lot of ground. In particular it covers the ground of "characters the players don't want to play". It also is a lot easier to remember something when you are doing it all the time than when you only occasionally do it. "Intricate" isn't the same as "Analysis Paralysis"
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:The point I've stressed over and over again is that DnD 5e had what I wanted during its development and then made it less workable. 800lbs gorillas aren't usually nimble though? At least there's partial progress in your direction, and really more so (as ever) if the DM is flexible enough. I wasn't really following the playtest because I was very partial to 4th and wasn't interested in where things looked to be going, but now that I'm running a 5E game in spite of myself I'm finding that advantage gives a lot of space for me to reward my players for improvising tricks that aren't on their sheets, which they do pretty often (in part because 5E narrowed the range of rewards available for the tricks that are on their sheets, but as someone who burned out on juggling arcane stacking rules and a hundred different bonuses over a decade ago I count this as a positive.) Is it all the way to what you want? No, but other games exist for that and considering what D&D has historically been and that this edition is explicitly a reactionary backlash it was closer than I ever thought they would get. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:800lbs gorillas aren't usually nimble though... That's true, and I agree fully with this post. I also think that streamlining as much as they did oddly made things broader because the simplifications represent bigger grey areas that can be interpreted, which is why I've been so indignant about splitting the end results into smaller pieces again. As much as others have said it's a trap to think rules lite lubricates roleplay, I'd say it's a trap to think more specified options broadens the possibilities compared with having just a wide open hole front row and center. I mean the extreme endpoint would just be a freeform writing Collab with no specific rules where literally anything can happen. I wouldn't want that. I have some experience in freeform RP and it either descends into attention seeking chaos or enough rules and expectations that it effectively becomes a one off system. I think 5e makes a lot of great compromises especially given how much it conserves of previous editions. I just miss the brief moment where advantage was primarily in the hands of people's creativity instead of in the hands of their class abilities. Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jul 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:if the metric is now "poo poo up the correct thread" Does it not strike anyone that the 5e thread is populated with mostly 4e apologists? 1. "Apologists" would imply that people outside of the pitiable internet poisoned think 4e has something to apologize for. 2. A lot of people can like two, three or sometimes even four or more things at once!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
I did say I had fun with 4e. I'd play it again if the table ever went back but those guys all talk hate on the system. We did steal the parts we liked, such as the minion rule and we're talking about having saving throws go back to being an attack roll against a score rather than a save on the character's part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:I did say I had fun with 4e. I'd play it again if the table ever went back but those guys all talk hate on the system. Why it's like you're within reach of understanding why people bring it up in here! Because it's got lots of useful parts to steal or adapt! Especially to prop up the relatively anemic design space of 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Let me tell you about blast processing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Narrowed choices for the next module we run to SKT or Curse of Strahd. I feel like Storm Kings is pretty straightforward about what I'll need to do. Any tips or things I oughtta know in advance of running Strahd?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:That's true, and I agree fully with this post. I also think that streamlining as much as they did oddly made things broader because the simplifications represent bigger grey areas that can be interpreted, which is why I've been so indignant about splitting the end results into smaller pieces again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
I'm actually a player in SKT right now. We're close to the end, finding the guy. If you're GMing my suggestion for changing the game would be to have the character zephyros explain to the party that king hecaton is missing so that the party actually have some inkling about the wider story at the beginning. Otherwise a bunch of nothing happens and there's only that reason to be involved at the very end. Also to have the party go to the barbarian relics prior to seeing the allfather so that you square it off in a round trip rather than going back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Narrowed choices for the next module we run to SKT or Curse of Strahd. I feel like Storm Kings is pretty straightforward about what I'll need to do. Any tips or things I oughtta know in advance of running Strahd? There are a few DMs Guild products that work hard to fix issues with CoS but I found this guide series helpful: https://www.elventower.com/curse-of-strahd-guide/
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Narrowed choices for the next module we run to SKT or Curse of Strahd. I feel like Storm Kings is pretty straightforward about what I'll need to do. Any tips or things I oughtta know in advance of running Strahd? CoS is both a sandbox and a meatgrinder, so it requires some careful handling to run it and not just TPK your party when they pick a fight with a coven of Night Hags at level 4. It's also completely disconnected from whatever "base" setting you're running, so by default there are zero ties into character's backstories, if that's important to your party you'll need to do it all yourself. It's also pretty dark with some pretty nasty subject matter at times, so make sure your party is okay with that. There's also precious little guidance on what to do with Strahd himself, which is a huge part of the campaign. I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to run CoS unless you've got a decent amount of experience under your belt. It's kind of more like a kit to build an adventure - it's okay but has a bunch of rough edges if you follow the instructions as written, but gets much better if you do a bit of customization. There are a ton of resources on the internet for it, but honestly I kind of don't like a lot of them - a lot of the most popular ones really crank up the grimdark, over and above what's already in the module.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:You're making a textbook mistake of assuming that someone wanting to say "I hit it" is ever going to switch stances. IME they don't. So no they don't have to make that choice - they make it in character creation. Normally the +1 to hit. They certainly don't have to pick at the moment of the attack. Power Strike is triggered on a hit so you don't decide until you've hit. You make one decision at the moment of attacking - who to attack. A battlemaster can make the same decision, though. They can just always use Reaving Strike. If you do that, it’s much more obvious that you’re simply neglecting to perform calculations that could help the group if you bothered with them, but it’s no less true. I do like Power Strike and wish there were real Fighter powers with that implementation, though. quote:But it's true for a group of people - which strongly overlaps with those that just want to decide who to hit. This group had in previous editions just played a fighter which worked for AD&D and at low levels worked in 3.X. I don't know how many there were or are but there was one in my main D&D 4e group. I believe you, but I think this is largely a trick of presentation, because “uhh... I hit him again” is in fact doing the same disservice to their party whether or not they’re on an Essentials class. They actually should be considering target and stance and so on from turn to turn - they just don’t realize they’re ignoring it. It IS true that the difference between unconsidered and considered play is lower because the difference between at-will and limited power use is lower. quote:That word "often" covers a whole lot of ground. In particular it covers the ground of "characters the players don't want to play". It also is a lot easier to remember something when you are doing it all the time than when you only occasionally do it. "Intricate" isn't the same as "Analysis Paralysis" What I’m saying is that a Slayer using Power Strike or especially an Elementalist using Escalation is actually assembling a very complicated ad-hoc power as they go, and end up having to like add discrete squares to an AoE or implement weapon-specific extra on-hit effects and so on, and deciding whether to do that even if you’ve already hit isn’t trivial. People playing these classes at this level are on fact making complicated decisions that might cause them analysis paralysis if simply phrased differently. So I think that Essentials actually did offer some innovation in the realm of presentation and spacing out decision-making but did not actually offer “simpler” characters for real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Yeah, saying the slayer is simple is transparently nonsensical. I can vividly remember building the simplest +numbers feats and stances only slayer I could at like level... 5 or so... and it still taking 10+ minutes to explain everything it could do to a new player.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is due to advantage being the only real tool in the 5E toolkit for situational bonuses, again a (justified, just went too far) backlash against the bajillion situational bonuses of 3.x and 4E. So you can't have abilities that give you bonus like this while quick thinking gives you a bonus like this. The root cause is that the D20 system has only one meaningful modifiable channel, which is how likely you are to succeed against the DC. If you want a game where you can gain situational advantages without it devolving into a billion +Xs you're going to need something with additional channels. Either some kind of points (like FATE or *world) or multiple channels of success (Like Genesys)  It has made for some neat narrative stuff too in describing actions. The seasoned streetfighter wasn't tricked by the ole bag of sand in the eyes when you roll a 1 on the advantage die, but when you roll an 8, the stupid goblin was totally caught off guard!We don't let advantage die stack (just roll the largest die) but I really like the idea of rolling all that apply and taking the highest number like the Boons/Bane from SotDL that someone mentioned earlier. Thanks for sharing that. If there are advantage and disadvantage die involved, you still add whatever you rolled on the relevant advantage die and subtract whatever you rolled on the disadvantage die, so everything counts. So far we all really like the system and it doesn't seem to have hopelessly broken anything, but we aren't playing super powergamey DnD. It has made me hate 5e a good bit less, and made a lot of spells *ahem* fairy fire feel less broken to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
This is an official Idiot King post. I'm sorry I was not online all of yesterday and much of today, because I'm now a page or two late to the edition wars poo poo flinging posts. Azza Bamboo: It is OK for you to have bounced off 4th edition and also OK for you to ask about ways you can do certain things in 5th; and if people suggest 4th did those things better it's OK for you to disagree. But: you need to be calm and respectful about your disagreements and not to make angry block caps posts that kind of poo poo up the thread. It's also always going to go badly if you go into a thread and accuse the people in that thread of having a uniformly-shared bias against you. Even if you think it's true (and it usually isn't), it's just positioning yourself as against-the-community and that's inflammatory and counterproductive. Everyone else: It's OK for Azza Bamboo to not like 4th edition, for reasons they can or can't fully articulate, or even for reasons that you think are bogus. It's OK for you to explain your position and point out ways that 4th may have supported what you are interpreting AB to be asking for, but it's also OK for AB to disagree, and ultimately edition wars never end with a full capitulation from one side, so it's best not to expect that. However, please try to be patient and polite even if someone is raising points that have been refuted in past conversations for years and years. The new person might not be raising precisely the same points, probably hasn't seen all those past arguments, might not be articulating exactly what they mean, may percieve themselves as being piled-on if there's a bunch of posters all going at them, and some patience and slack is the best strategy for producing a worthwhile conversation. Basically: please cut each other some slack and be respectful, even if you can't reach an agreement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This is an official Idiot King post. Hey this is a good Idiot King post that is helpful and good. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
So in one of my regular online games we've been joking about being speedrunners since we just kind of go instead of waiting to figure out what we're supposed to be doing. Today we pulled a sequence break by getting a formerly-imprisoned dragon to charge a hole all the way to the Plot Device we've been trying to reach for weeks. It was pretty great!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 11:48
|
|
cowboy
|
So it came to my attention that there's an idea to redefine Sorcerers as CON-based Spellcasters and I am 100% for it, but what would that realistically look like in game? Has anyone done it? Does it work out well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
I've seen recommendations to fold STR and CON together, since STR is otherwise a fairly "weak" stat (only really relevant for strength-based melee and Athletics checks; few relevant saves). I haven't heard of having a CON caster though. CON is already a pretty good stat, as everyone wants HP and there's a few very important saves tied to it. If you made it also a caster stat then you'd see casters with a lot of stat versatility -- they'd max their CON and then they wouldn't really have anything else they need stats for so they'd just kinda put them wherever. Really, half the reason of having the mental stats be caster stats is so you have to make that tradeoff of being good at physicality or good at casting. So if you did this, it'd be a big enabler for allowing dual physical/caster classes that would otherwise be too MAD to be worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:So it came to my attention that there's an idea to redefine Sorcerers as CON-based Spellcasters and I am 100% for it, but what would that realistically look like in game? Has anyone done it? Does it work out well? i have no idea where this movement is, it seems cool and fun to play with but bear in mind it would be comically overpowered as you would basically have constitution for health, damage(on some archetypes), spellcasting, and saving throws. this single attribute nature will allow you to easily maximize your main stay with freedom to do whatever else you want. as a downside, you lack many of the multiclassing options sorcerer comfortably slides into(except a 2 level fighter dip) and your ability to be a face in theory is worse. if you allow a character to do this, you are raising the power level of your game and should buff your other players to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:So it came to my attention that there's an idea to redefine Sorcerers as CON-based Spellcasters and I am 100% for it, but what would that realistically look like in game? Has anyone done it? Does it work out well? I mean, 4e did that with some varieties of warlock. It works out pretty well, and has the added benefit of making a sorcerer's concentration very hard to disrupt and making them beefier. It would also have the side effect of making sorcadin and sorlock no longer as easy for optimizers to pull off optimizers (albeit still very doable and likely worth it). But as pointed out above, it does make the Sorcerer incredibly SAD, and with concentration being the only real tool to reign in spellcasters, it may be to powerful in this addition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
3rd Edition psionics had each ability score tied to a type of psionics. Psychokinesis/kinetics was tied to Constitution. 3rd Edition psionics was weird/broken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
I should note I don't allow multiclassing in my games, so that would prevent the Sorlock/Eldritch Knight nonsense, but you're right that it would very probably make them offensive beasts. I like that tbh, as it's not that hard to find abilities/monsters who can gently caress with a CON-prioritized Sorc in other ways. I'll have to try it and report back, eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I've seen recommendations to fold STR and CON together, since STR is otherwise a fairly "weak" stat (only really relevant for strength-based melee and Athletics checks; few relevant saves). I haven't heard of having a CON caster though. Personally I wouldn't fold STR and CON, I'd just give STR more stuff to do, and having things target Strength saves/checks is a hidden power of a lot of weirder spelles/abilities (Bigby's Hand/Max's Earthen Grasp come to mind).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I think a Con Sorceror would be fine in a game without multiclassing. I'm not a huge fan of 5e sorcerors though. Too many downsides, not enough positives relative to other classes now that nobody has to memorize any more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not a huge fan of 5e sorcerors though. Too many downsides, not enough positives relative to other classes now that nobody has to memorize any more. I found the best way to deal with Warlocks is use the Survival rules where Short Rests take 8 hours and Long Rests take 1 week, so Warlocks become much more useful on excursions. I'm hoping making the stat for Sorcerers different from CHA will help in a similar way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
i meant to write up an idea for a blood magic reimagining of a CON sorcerer that spends HP and hit die to fuel things like metamagic. never got around to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
They would get more powerful and make concentration saves much easier.
nelson fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jul 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Any thoughts on how I should set up Contingency? I am thinking Contingency: Resilient Sphere but I am not sure how to best trigger it. I could have it so I just snap my fingers while blinking just my right eye, I have a Ring of Free Movement so I think I'm suitably secure against being paralyzed, and I assume something as simple as snapping my fingers can be done either as a free action or as a reaction? Basically I'd like flexibility in the cases of either falling onto spikes/lava/acid and need something to keep me alive while I figure it out. Or about to get hit by something really big, like a rock, a battering ram, a dragon trying to BBQ me and so on. Or would something like False Life at 5th level be better and just trigger it when I hit 0 or less hit points? I figure in the former situation with resilient sphere, when combined with something like Blink/Dimensional Door etc, I can have as long as I maintain concentration I think? Have a sorta safe spot to retreat to as long as no one has disintegrate prepared to delete it. And Blink doesn't require concentration and as a divination wizard with Lucky I can probably if I need to always insure I roll 11+ to hide back in the Ethereal Plane?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, I think a Con Sorceror would be fine in a game without multiclassing. Honestly  , a lot of people talk about how bad Ranger got hit (which it did, Ranger is easily in the worst shape) but outside of your action abuse scenarios with Quicken/Twinned Sorc is basically the Worst Spellcaster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
I used to have a plate wearing dwarf draconic sorc/forge cleric that was incredibly stout, having just CON as a casting stat would have been amazing
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
FFT posted:3rd Edition psionics had each ability score tied to a type of psionics. Psychokinesis/kinetics was tied to Constitution. 3.0, specifically. The 3.5 psionics system was much better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Strength-based sorcs is really amusing to me for some reason. Just hulked-out DBZ guys casting Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern by flexing really hard at the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Strength-based sorcs is really amusing to me for some reason. Just hulked-out DBZ guys casting Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern by flexing really hard at the enemy. You used to be able to do this in Pathfinder 1e and it was loving RAD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:52
|
|