The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
Pathfinder Is Still Bad
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 317, 318, 319, 320  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion...
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Eikre
Knight


Joined: 03 Aug 2009
Posts: 490

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

momothefiddler wrote:
That said, it seems a bit disingenuous to use "lances and spears are the same" as the base an argument on whether lances can be used to Power Attack.


It's a good thing that literally nobody is doing that, then.

In the imaginary instance that anybody at all was confused about whether you can power attack with a lance, the answer is predicated on it being a melee weapon, nothing more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eni
NPC


Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Voss wrote:
Actually... this is more complicated than you seem to think. PF power attack is tightly capped, but the point-for-point damage benefits are better, especially for one handed weapons: +2 damage for each -1. 3.5 power attacks is +1 dmaage for each -1 for one handed weapons (which is how lances are used when mounted). So depending on level, your gendarme player is going to have to take a much higher attack penalty to squeeze out damage bonuses.

If your players are at 8th level, they can currently take -3 for +6 (which is then doubled for lance charge), but if you switch to 3.5, they'd have to take -6 for +6, but could go up to -8, +8. The big problem with the PF version for players is level has so much weight on the damage cap.
In pathfinder even if you wield it as a one handed weapon, you still get the 2h power attack bonus. A -3 would result in +9 damage.

Harime Nui wrote:
You're right that it's not that significant. I'm just pissed expertise is a feat tax for so much and they made it virtually pointless. If a player's gonna turtle at least have them be a little okay at turtling?
Why not just remove it from the game then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eni
NPC


Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Paizo even wrote a FAQ for the lance:
Quote:
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

Keep in mind the pathfinder rules are oddly specific at times. The rules state that while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
If the rules would have said you'd treat it as a one-handed weapon, you'd use this FAQ instead:
Quote:
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.


Covent wrote:
Mounted combat FAQ is another bad knee jerk due to ragelancepounce
Nah, this was the FAQ to deal with ragelancepounce:
Quote:
Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, it doesnít makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesnít have the benefit of the chargeís momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesnít state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didnít need to be addressed.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMatticus
Prince


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 4942

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The Pathfinder FAQ may be the single worst D&D product ever written. It's free and yet no where near worth what it costs, which in this case is my sanity.

Last edited by DSMatticus on Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CapnTthePirateG
Duke


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 1440

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Paizo wrote:

No, it doesnít makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesnít have the benefit of the chargeís momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesnít state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didnít need to be addressed.)


Wow, there is so much wrong with this answer it's kinda hilarious. The Core Rulebook was based off a system where you actually could do this via splats, so why the hell they didn't assume their rules expansion would eventually cover this (it's the same damn people!) is completely beyond me. Second, I'm pretty sure an attack is an abstraction rather than "one sword swing" , so I legitimately don't see why you are equating impact -> your only attack ever. Third, even if we need multiple impacts to count as attacks, you are on a horse with the weight of your horse and your plate-mail wearing ass behind it. You could make an argument that your attack knocks your opponent back enough so that your lance hits him again, without any momentum loss whatsoever! Twist the lance when you've impaled the guy, I don't even care. This is one of those "realism" arguments that is traditionally made at gaming tables when no one knows what they're talking about so literally anything goes if you can convince your fellow neckbeards. The actual rules don't support this position at all!
_________________
OgreBattle wrote:
"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Slade
Master


Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 296

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

CapnTthePirateG wrote:
Paizo wrote:

No, it doesnít makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesnít have the benefit of the chargeís momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesnít state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didnít need to be addressed.)


Wow, there is so much wrong with this answer it's kinda hilarious. The Core Rulebook was based off a system where you actually could do this via splats, so why the hell they didn't assume their rules expansion would eventually cover this (it's the same damn people!) is completely beyond me. Second, I'm pretty sure an attack is an abstraction rather than "one sword swing" , so I legitimately don't see why you are equating impact -> your only attack ever. Third, even if we need multiple impacts to count as attacks, you are on a horse with the weight of your horse and your plate-mail wearing ass behind it. You could make an argument that your attack knocks your opponent back enough so that your lance hits him again, without any momentum loss whatsoever! Twist the lance when you've impaled the guy, I don't even care. This is one of those "realism" arguments that is traditionally made at gaming tables when no one knows what they're talking about so literally anything goes if you can convince your fellow neckbeards. The actual rules don't support this position at all!


Exactly, if I am not wrong, Pounce is a Barb rage power so it is literally within the Core Rulebook of Pathfinder.

So what the heck were they saying about not within it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zugschef
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I've never understood this urge to nerf things. It's like these people don't want you to have fun with something the don't like. From a design standpoint I'd argue it's almost always better to improve something else instead of hitting stuff with the nerf bat. And I'm not talking about broken mechanics. You fix those.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mask_De_H
Duke


Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Posts: 1774

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It's easier to nerf than to buff, and players/DMs really don't like it when they're upstaged.
_________________
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pixels
Knight


Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 393

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Ideally the developers would have an expected power curve. Deviating from that too much will upset your encounter design (and mention player enjoyment), and since you've sold a bunch of adventures to your customers that is a problem. Too little power is bad design but is somewhat self-healing. Players simply won't pick those character options, or when they do some DMs will take pity and give them an item fix. Too much power is more difficult because you can't rely on players to not pick awesome character options. You need rules to patch it - and if the developers themselves don't do it then individual DMs will, and a bunch of them will Do It Wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mechalich
Knight-Baron


Joined: 04 Nov 2015
Posts: 661

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Pixels wrote:
Ideally the developers would have an expected power curve. Deviating from that too much will upset your encounter design (and mention player enjoyment), and since you've sold a bunch of adventures to your customers that is a problem. Too little power is bad design but is somewhat self-healing. Players simply won't pick those character options, or when they do some DMs will take pity and give them an item fix. Too much power is more difficult because you can't rely on players to not pick awesome character options. You need rules to patch it - and if the developers themselves don't do it then individual DMs will, and a bunch of them will Do It Wrong.


In addition, it is generally much easier for a GM - in terms of labor effort - to modify a party of 3-6 characters to up their power level to match the preset monster statblocks rather than to modify every monster encounter to match overpowered PCs. There's only one party, and there are hundreds of premade monsters and NPCs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27077

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:

In addition, it is generally much easier for a GM - in terms of labor effort - to modify a party of 3-6 characters to up their power level to match the preset monster statblocks rather than to modify every monster encounter to match overpowered PCs. There's only one party, and there are hundreds of premade monsters and NPCs.


This is totally wrong. Adding a few gobllins to major set piece encounters is so easy you don't even have to tell the other players you are doing it.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hogarth
Prince


Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 4478
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:
This is totally wrong. Adding a few gobllins to major set piece encounters is so easy you don't even have to tell the other players you are doing it.

It depends how you're breaking the power curve. For instance, if the PCs have ACs so high that no creature in the Bestiary can hit them, then adding moar gobllins is a waste of time.

Of course, you can always apply the terrible GM solution:
  • PC ACs are too high? All monsters suddenly get a mysterious +20 to attacks.
  • PCs doing too much damage? All monsters suddenly get triple HP.
  • PC spells have high DCs? All monsters automatically succeed on saves for the first couple of rounds.

    Last edited by hogarth on Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:24 am; edited 1 time in total
  • Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Slade
    Master


    Joined: 09 Nov 2010
    Posts: 296

    PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    hogarth wrote:
    FrankTrollman wrote:
    This is totally wrong. Adding a few gobllins to major set piece encounters is so easy you don't even have to tell the other players you are doing it.

    It depends how you're breaking the power curve. For instance, if the PCs have ACs so high that no creature in the Bestiary can hit them, then adding moar gobllins is a waste of time.

    Of course, you can always apply the terrible GM solution:
  • PC ACs are too high? All monsters suddenly get a mysterious +20 to attacks.
  • PCs doing too much damage? All monsters suddenly get triple HP.
  • PC spells have high DCs? All monsters automatically succeed on saves for the first couple of rounds.


  • Sure, in melee physical attacks, but can't you just give the goblins alchemy items like Alchemist fire?
    Now, you ignore their armor and hit touch.
    Heck, in pathfinder, you got ranged touch (bottled lightning, Tangleburn bag, Star Candle Firework),
    grenades (like burst jar, fuse grenades, pellet grenades),
    and melee touch (Flame fountain Firework)
    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/alchemical-weapons/

    Now, they don't add Stat mod to damage for the attacks, but those gobbos still hit.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Whipstitch
    Prince


    Joined: 29 Apr 2011
    Posts: 2951

    PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Power creep and escalation isn't an idiot proof approach by any means but it sure as hell beats taking people's toys away since it can at least lead to a sense of accomplishment when the PCs smash foes that are nominally above their pay grade.
    _________________
    bears fall, everyone dies
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    hogarth
    Prince


    Joined: 27 May 2009
    Posts: 4478
    Location: Toronto

    PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Slade wrote:
    hogarth wrote:

    It depends how you're breaking the power curve. For instance, if the PCs have ACs so high that no creature in the Bestiary can hit them, then adding moar gobllins is a waste of time.

    Of course, you can always apply the terrible GM solution:
  • PC ACs are too high? All monsters suddenly get a mysterious +20 to attacks.
  • PCs doing too much damage? All monsters suddenly get triple HP.
  • PC spells have high DCs? All monsters automatically succeed on saves for the first couple of rounds.


  • Sure, in melee physical attacks, but can't you just give the goblins alchemy items like Alchemist fire?

    Giving all monsters the ability to target touch AC is not really any different from giving all monsters +20 to hit (except for the aesthetics, I suppose).
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Whipstitch
    Prince


    Joined: 29 Apr 2011
    Posts: 2951

    PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    hogarth wrote:

    Giving all monsters the ability to target touch AC is not really any different from giving all monsters +20 to hit (except for the aesthetics, I suppose).


    It does kinda matter how you get there though. PCs have eyeballs so statting up Goblin Elites so that they come with legit gear like chain shirts, a bandolier full of acid flasks and a warg mount to kite you with isn't a bait 'n' switch dick move in the same way that that giving pitchfork wielding goblin peasants equivalent secret super powers would be. Gauging how tough critters are is already a serious problem in D&D land even without going the 4e route of giving everything stat blocks that bear no relation to similarly armed opponents.
    _________________
    bears fall, everyone dies


    Last edited by Whipstitch on Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:03 am; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    hogarth
    Prince


    Joined: 27 May 2009
    Posts: 4478
    Location: Toronto

    PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Whipstitch wrote:
    [..]Goblin Elites so that they come with legit gear like chain shirts, a bandolier full of acid flasks and a warg mount to kite you[..]

    At that point you're starting to stray away from the assertion that it's super-easy to add a few goblins to any encounter to challenge PCs, though.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Kaelik
    ArchDemon of Rage


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 12079

    PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    hogarth wrote:
    Whipstitch wrote:
    [..]Goblin Elites so that they come with legit gear like chain shirts, a bandolier full of acid flasks and a warg mount to kite you[..]

    At that point you're starting to stray away from the assertion that it's super-easy to add a few goblins to any encounter to challenge PCs, though.


    No you aren't, and that's because you are dumb and you completely failed to understand the point.

    If the PCs are level 18, it's really easy to add a few Vrocks. If the PCs are level 6 it's really easy to add a few goblins.

    It's not that it's easy to add goblins because they are CR 1/4. It's easier to add additional enemies period, and you can add a few of whatever is balanced to be an extremely minor threat but still take up time, actions, and resources to kill while posing a minor but not insignificant threat.

    And the only "problem" with the PCs fighting an EL 12 encounter instead of an EL 10 encounter is that they feel like more of a badass after having a more engaging combat.
    _________________
    "DSMatticus" wrote:
    Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
    That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
    Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
    TOZ
    Duke


    Joined: 29 Oct 2008
    Posts: 1148

    PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    And the best part is you can add a bunch of lower level mooks for free and they will serve a purpose. Either they have an annoying tactic that can do something to the PCs and force some consideration for them in party tactics, or they might be cannon fodder that tricks them into wasting an action or resource before they realize there is no threat. And if they realize the mooks aren't a threat, GOOD, they are rewarded for playing smart. Not everything has to be a finely tuned encounter, sometimes the PCs deserve to steamroll something.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Prak
    Serious Badass


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 16118

    PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    FrankTrollman wrote:
    Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
    Seerow wrote:


    Most notable thing I can remember about that variant is that it makes haste effectively useless (since haste just raises the cap on number of attacks you can gain instead of giving you a free attack...


    Yikes, I assumed it worked like two weapon fighting in that it just fave you an extra hit if you hit once. Alright, let's just say that it just gives you an extra hit then if you hit at least once.

    EDIT AFTER UNFUCKING QUOTE TAGS: I suppose I could just allow all attacks on a full attack. Just considering a rule that reduced die rolls a bit, but I'm thinking just allowing characters to do all their attacks on an attack action would be the simplest.


    The Pathfinder Unchained one-roll attack routine is basically gibberish. It doesn't really interact properly with stuff like Two Weapon Fighting or Rapid Fire, it screws people who prioritize damage bonuses over to-hit bonuses (like sneak and power attackers), it completely fucks anyone who tries to defend themselves with armor class, and it makes rending beasts like the Girallon into inescapable death blenders.

    If that sounds like it pretty much takes every viable weapon-based character to the woodshed for punishment beatings... you're almost right. I think the San Diego Supercharger doesn't much care. But the shield fighter, the archer fighter, and the ninja all cry tiny tears.

    It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to make a new edition where people rolled one attack roll on their turn like 4th edition D&D. But you do have to rewrite all the warrior archetypes around that premise. Like the Tome of Battle, and not at all like Pathfinder Unchained.

    -Frank


    Could I get a bit more nuance on this? I'm increasingly looking at doing more of a one-shot "go ahead and have your stable of characters" episodic model since it's getting so hard to get a group of people that can all show up on the same day, every week. I'd really like to make combat quicker to resolve so that it doesn't take up entire sessions.

    I'm toying with a sort of "For every X your attack roll exceeds your target's AC, you get a hit, up to your max attacks" and maybe doing a simplified damage roll where you figure out your minimum, average, 3/4 max and max damage, write them down, and roll a single die to determine which number you tell me.

    Brainstorming under the cut-
    Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


    Granted, it could use some copy editing, but I think it at least integrates well with core stuff.
    _________________
    Dean, on Paranoia wrote:
    The book is a hardbound liars paradox.


    Winnah wrote:
    No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.


    FrankTrollman wrote:
    In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

    You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Ice9
    Duke


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 1525

    PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Adding extra enemies is easy, but depending on in what way the PCs are off the power curve, it might not help.

    If the problem is that their defense is at untouchable levels, then additional goblins (or whatever) aren't going to accomplish jack shit. If they have area attacks that kill everything, then additional foes don't matter unless you have the perfect terrain. If their damage is at one-shot levels, then they can still take out any major foes in round 1 and spend the rest of the time mopping up.

    I ran a halfway high-op campaign a couple years ago, with nobody even pushing all that hard (there weren't any fully optimized casters, for example), and even that took a lot of extra work in customizing foes and encounter design (and a complete disregard for the CR system), and would have been even worse if I was trying to use published adventures. If they'd gone whole hog? I could see that hitting the threshold of "too much damn work, I give up".

    So while Paizo sets their threshold far too low, there still is a point where it's better to tone the PCs down than beef everything else up.


    Last edited by Ice9 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:49 am; edited 2 times in total
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Slade
    Master


    Joined: 09 Nov 2010
    Posts: 296

    PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2017 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    So, less complaining and more fascinated:
    Druids can now have swarm familiars instead of animal companions. Also turn into a swarm at 12th.
    Issue is why they decided they must be familiars instead of companions?

    Sadly, since they are familiars, if vermin like house centipede they lose mindless traits, have Int, and gain 1 feat (since no longer mindless).

    One of choices is cats. You can be a crazy cat lady with a swarm of cats.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Orca
    Knight-Baron


    Joined: 12 Jul 2009
    Posts: 623

    PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    The swarm monger bonds with one creature which they can turn for a minute/level into a swarm. That creature needs to be small enough to be a component of a swarm, hence the familiar instead of animal companion. Not that fascinating really?
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Eikre
    Knight


    Joined: 03 Aug 2009
    Posts: 490

    PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    Yeah but that's dumb.

    Nobody playing Imhotep or The Pain wants a certain special bug friend who they can talk to and take particularly good care of, they just want to be walking around with a terrible seething tide of horror skittering around under their skin, full-time. The animal companion style of "little utility, just motherfucking" fits the model better.

    I mean, I guess somebody might play a Disney princess and agree to specific animal friends and be willing to abide by a five-minute limit on the swarm they get for their respective musical numbers, but then they still aren't interested in just getting a horde comprised only of squirrels. You want the forest to answer with whatever's at hand; birds, chipmunks, elk, bears. Whatever. Also, Cinderella and Princess Allura actually have a little ensemble cast of rodent buddies. Basically, the model for these guys is better if they have an itty-bitty swarm of a dozen or so moderately intelligent creatures that can cooperate to pick the lock on the prison door or help them assemble an outfit for the royal ball, and then when they wanna summon the rampage for a few minutes they can have that, too.
    _________________
    This signature is here just so you don't otherwise mistake the last sentence of my post for one.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Voss
    Prince


    Joined: 07 Mar 2008
    Posts: 3759

    PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

    I have no idea you think paizo would be aiming to model any of those cases. Or that they'd be able to even if they wanted to.

    There are at least a half dozen ways of getting swarms already in the rule set. It isn't even a high level thing for the most part, and often fuck off useless once you move past bandits and orcs., as even minimal AOE takes care of a lot.


    The little ensemble cast is handled by pack lords and brood master summoners
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion... All times are GMT
    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 317, 318, 319, 320  Next
    Page 318 of 320

     
    Jump to:  
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group