Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 30 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5202122232425262728293031323334353637383940 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 900 of 1524
  1. - Top - End - #871
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    Seems the writers of the ELH simply forgot their own rule that BAB does not increase after 20th level. I can picture a correction with some awkward wording that adds the epic attack bonus to the BAB for the purposes of this feat, but as it stands... yeah, the feat does nothing.
    Maybe this general rule?
    Epic Attack Bonus
    Any time a feat, prestige class, or other rule refers to your base attack bonus (except for gaining additional attacks), use the sum of your base attack bonus and epic attack bonus.

  2. - Top - End - #872
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    Maybe this general rule?
    Oops, missed that. In that case, yeah, the feat works just fine and dandy. Still underwhelming, like lots of epic non-magic stuff, but it works.

  3. - Top - End - #873
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Crossposted from another thread Dhampir characters can die of old age during chargen:
    Quote Originally Posted by AbsolutGrndZer0 View Post
    While the errata document is okay, anyone else with the actual PDF notice the glaring issue they left? They only changed the starting age to 20, yet left the dice rolls alone!!!

    Which MEANS... that a dhampir wizard is at LEAST 30 years old and can be up to 80 years old, making him venerable and quite possibly (especially if 71+) needing the GM to immediately make a roll to see if he's already dead.. This is based on the STARTING AGE TABLE.
    Also, the dysfunction with Mutation Warrior's mutagen, where it didn't give any benefit when consumed because the Mutation Warrior isn't an alchemist, may have just been fixed by errata.
    Last edited by Bucky; 2015-07-31 at 12:39 AM.
    The gnomes once had many mines, but now they have gnome ore.

  4. - Top - End - #874
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PRAK

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    I had an odd thought, one that doesn't really fit here but doesn't fit at all anywhere else.

    By RAW a half dragon has a breath weapon. The damage on this breath weapon is invariably 6d8. A half dragon titan has the same breath weapon as a half dragon mouse. Now, by RAW any half dragon creature has it's breath weapon simply by virtue of being a half dragon.

    Dragon hatchlings can use their breath weapon immedately upon hatching. Logically then a half dragon human can use it's breath weapon immedately upon being born. Midwifery in D&D dangerous.

    By RAW roughly 85% of the world population of humanoids are first level commoners.

    And you thought that a two year old's temper tantrum was bad in the real world. In D&D a half dragon child is likely to kill anyone nearby every time it gets upset. Not to mention starting fires or melting holes in the walls.
    Niven's Laws, #5
    If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.

  5. - Top - End - #875
    Troll in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Fortunately, Unholy Scions are the only creatures that are even discussed before early adulthood.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  6. - Top - End - #876
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by The Viscount View Post
    Fortunately, Unholy Scions are the only creatures that are even discussed before early adulthood.
    Are you sure about that? Blooded One template (Unapproachable East, page 61):
    The blooding process can be applied only to a young creature (any creature that has not yet reached the age of adulthood for its race).

  7. - Top - End - #877
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by The Viscount View Post
    Fortunately, Unholy Scions are the only creatures that are even discussed before early adulthood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    Are you sure about that? Blooded One template (Unapproachable East, page 61):
    Huh, so a blooded one can only be made from a young creature, but the only way to get a hold of a young creature with stats is for it to be an Unholy Scion. The Blooded One is a template for another template. BWOOONG, dawg.

    If you ever come across that thought-experiment that is wearing full plate made out of live babies, not only is it not evil to attack your armored foe, paladins would be able to smite the exceptionally evil babies too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  8. - Top - End - #878
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    If you ever come across that thought-experiment that is wearing full plate made out of live babies, not only is it not evil to attack your armored foe, paladins would be able to smite the exceptionally evil babies too.
    There's a blackguard in the BoVD (I think) that does something very similar; they have 8 orphans chained to them in each of their adjacent spaces, and a reach weapon.

  9. - Top - End - #879
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Pathfinder:

    A Shaman with the the Witch Variant Multiclass can't qualify for Extra Hex even if they want to use it for another Shaman hex.
    Please use they/them/theirs when referring to me in the third person.
    My Homebrew (PF, 3.5)
    Awesome Bone Knight avatar by Chd.
    Spoiler: Current Characters
    Show
    Cassidy Halloran, Human Scout
    William Gamache, Human Relic Channeler Medium
    Spoiler: Quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by AGrinningCat View Post
    Lay on hands? More like Lay your Eyes on this sick elbow drop!

  10. - Top - End - #880
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    If a dragon falls on you (perhaps by way of reversed greater seek the sky) it does no damage because it's not an object but a creature (which are explicitly not objects), and only objects deal falling damage when they land on you. An exception is made if it's dead. If it dies from the fall, it's in the process of changing from creature to object when it would deal damage to you, and no-one knows whether or not you actually take any damage.

  11. - Top - End - #881
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Necroticplague's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    If a dragon falls on you (perhaps by way of reversed greater seek the sky) it does no damage because it's not an object but a creature (which are explicitly not objects), and only objects deal falling damage when they land on you. An exception is made if it's dead. If it dies from the fall, it's in the process of changing from creature to object when it would deal damage to you, and no-one knows whether or not you actually take any damage.
    Dead creatures are objects? I thought they were still creatures, just with the Dead condition.
    Avatar by TinyMushroom.

  12. - Top - End - #882
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Necroticplague View Post
    Dead creatures are objects? I thought they were still creatures, just with the Dead condition.
    Certain creatures can damage creatures by falling on them with their Crush (Ex) attack, which dragons actually have at a certain size. The dysfunction here could be that a dead dragon doesn't deal damage when falling on someone because it can't take a standard action.

    As for creatures and their corpses as objects, the best RAI I can derive is that creatures possess their body parts as objects. When a creature dies, it becomes much easier to remove those objects from the creature. The creature no longer has control or possession of the objects that make it up and they can then be used in different ways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  13. - Top - End - #883
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    Certain creatures can damage creatures by falling on them with their Crush (Ex) attack, which dragons actually have at a certain size. The dysfunction here could be that a dead dragon doesn't deal damage when falling on someone because it can't take a standard action.

    As for creatures and their corpses as objects, the best RAI I can derive is that creatures possess their body parts as objects. When a creature dies, it becomes much easier to remove those objects from the creature. The creature no longer has control or possession of the objects that make it up and they can then be used in different ways.
    RAI? Are you talking about the Italian TV network? That's gotta be it, because the alternative doesn't really hold much ground in a Dysfunctional Rules thread (I kid, of course, I'm trying to make sense of what was on the designer's mind all the time.)

  14. - Top - End - #884
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    RAI? Are you talking about the Italian TV network? That's gotta be it, because the alternative doesn't really hold much ground in a Dysfunctional Rules thread (I kid, of course, I'm trying to make sense of what was on the designer's mind all the time.)
    It's sort of a Rule Zero justification, really. Not even a rule on its own, but a way to make sense of what isn't written in the rules.

    Creatures have body parts. Various healing/ resurrection spells mention being (un)able to restore these body parts. Body parts can (somehow) be removed. Removed body parts can be used as objects. The objects aren't alive anymore. It must be that a dead creature has objects on its lootable corpse that include the inanimate and dissected corpse itself. Squid's Go-Pro. :p

    Bear in mind that this crude rule patch technically allow loot an entire corpse from a creature. This could mean that the creature still exists as an undefined rules 'article' and reviving it without any kind of body and may get weird. I wish somebody else had thought this out- my brain got looted.
    Last edited by No brains; 2015-08-02 at 10:40 PM. Reason: minor grammar+added thought
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

  15. - Top - End - #885
    Troll in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    It's sort of a Rule Zero justification, really. Not even a rule on its own, but a way to make sense of what isn't written in the rules.

    Creatures have body parts. Various healing/ resurrection spells mention being (un)able to restore these body parts. Body parts can (somehow) be removed. Removed body parts can be used as objects. The objects aren't alive anymore. It must be that a dead creature has objects on its lootable corpse that include the inanimate and dissected corpse itself. Squid's Go-Pro. :p

    Bear in mind that this crude rule patch technically allow loot an entire corpse from a creature. This could mean that the creature still exists as an undefined rules 'article' and reviving it without any kind of body and may get weird. I wish somebody else had thought this out- my brain got looted.
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.

    Re: reviving without body parts, isn't that what a ghost is?
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    Quote Originally Posted by Lvl 2 Expert View Post
    So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Jake View Post
    What's the word for 'fear of being eaten by a mounted bear in half-plate' again? Because that's the one I have.

  16. - Top - End - #886
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    PHB 157 says to "Assume you share your mount's space during combat." A pixie on the back of a great wyrm suddenly takes up space as though she were colossal during combat.

  17. - Top - End - #887
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    How is that dysfunctional? The pixie and/or the dragon can move in such a way that the pixie can attack all cubes adjacent to the cubes the dragon occupies.

    In spaces the dragon would not fit, the pixie on the dragon would not fit either, but it could dismount and thus pass through the narrow space.
    Last edited by Andezzar; 2015-08-04 at 12:03 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #888
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    It also means that the pixie can hit anything that is within the dragon's space. It could by by the dragon's back leg but still hit something near the dragon's front claw.
    See my Extended Signature for my list of silly shenanigans.

    Anyone is welcome to use or critique my 3.5 Fighter homebrew: The Vanguard.

  19. - Top - End - #889
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Two combatants 35 feet apart, on opposite sides of that great wyrm, can both attack it at once (assuming melee weapons with 5' reach). That does make sense. However, under this rule, they can both also attack the pixie riding the dragon. Two people, 35 feet apart, both using short-reach melee weapons, attacking the same pixie. Get the problem?

    I also wonder how does that interact with the reach of Tiny or smaller weapons. That pixie can't attack anything other than its own mount, right? Which does make sense, but just making sure.

  20. - Top - End - #890
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    I also wonder how does that interact with the reach of Tiny or smaller weapons. That pixie can't attack anything other than its own mount, right? Which does make sense, but just making sure.
    The pixie can't attack anything unless they share a space. If the pixie is treated as sharing the space of the dragon and the dragon shares any space at all with another creature, it can attack that creature even though it may be 10' away.
    Last edited by illyahr; 2015-08-04 at 12:28 PM.
    See my Extended Signature for my list of silly shenanigans.

    Anyone is welcome to use or critique my 3.5 Fighter homebrew: The Vanguard.

  21. - Top - End - #891
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    Two combatants 35 feet apart, on opposite sides of that great wyrm, can both attack it at once (assuming melee weapons with 5' reach). That does make sense. However, under this rule, they can both also attack the pixie riding the dragon. Two people, 35 feet apart, both using short-reach melee weapons, attacking the same pixie. Get the problem?
    It stretches verisimilitude a bit, but the rule works as written. At some point during the opponents' turns the pixie will be close enough. Neither the pixie nor the dragon stand still in their space.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    I also wonder how does that interact with the reach of Tiny or smaller weapons. That pixie can't attack anything other than its own mount, right? Which does make sense, but just making sure.
    Pixies are small fey so they have 5 ft reach. Smaller creatures would only be able to attack creatures in the mount's space, which other creatures generally aren't allowed to enter.

  22. - Top - End - #892
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Qwertystop's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    So the assumption, then, is that if something is riding a mount several sizes larger than it, the rider is scampering all over the mount?
    Quote Originally Posted by jamieth View Post
    ...though Talla does her best to sound objective and impartial, it doesn't cover stuff like "ask a 9-year-old to tank for the party."
    My Homebrew

  23. - Top - End - #893
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    I think the assumption is that the mount is moving around.

  24. - Top - End - #894
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Qwertystop View Post
    So the assumption, then, is that if something is riding a mount several sizes larger than it, the rider is scampering all over the mount?
    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    I think the assumption is that the mount is moving around.
    It's both I think.

  25. - Top - End - #895
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Andezzar View Post
    It stretches verisimilitude a bit, but the rule works as written.
    Yes, and drowning rules "Work", they just lead to utterly stupid results. They don't "Crash the game", they just end up with something which doesn't make any sense.

  26. - Top - End - #896
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Andezzar View Post
    It's both I think.
    So... if that pixie (yeah, Small, not Tiny, my bad) decides to do a Whirlwind Attack, its dragon mount spins the pixie around like a carnival ride so it can get to all enemies all around the dragon's space?

  27. - Top - End - #897
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    No, it's the dragon that spins ;)

    You are right, somehow the pixie gets to all the locations where it can attack the adjacent squares.

    Jormengand omitted the "For simplicity, " part of the quote. So it seems the writers acknowledged that in some cases this would look weird. Without that rule however, a medium rider on a large mount would only be allowed to attack 5 squares:
    X X X O
    X R M O
    X M M O
    O O O O
    X: attackable squares
    O: squares out of reach of the rider
    R: space occupied by the rider and the mount
    M: space occupied by the mount.

    Of course the rider can occupy one of the other three squares the mount occupies but that would not change the number of attackable squares.
    That seem much weirder.
    Last edited by Andezzar; 2015-08-04 at 01:30 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #898
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Of course, neither rule makes much sense, though actually having to choose a side of your mount makes some level of sense (have you ever tried attacking someone to your left while mounted and wielding a sword in your right?), but it doesn't stop being a dysfunction just because it's assumed for simplicity, or because the obvious alternative is also dysfunctional.

    Next dysfunction:

    A weaponís size category isnít the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weaponís size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
    There are two problems here. One is that a medium greatsword both is and isn't medium. The second is that a diminutive shortsword or fine longsword, as well as a fine shortsword, occupy two different nonexistent size categories.

  29. - Top - End - #899
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Of course, neither rule makes much sense, though actually having to choose a side of your mount makes some level of sense (have you ever tried attacking someone to your left while mounted and wielding a sword in your right?), but it doesn't stop being a dysfunction just because it's assumed for simplicity, or because the obvious alternative is also dysfunctional.
    I have not fought from horseback (who does that these days) but there are techniques that enable The rider to strike targets on his left side. Look at this drill video. They are also doing attack on the left side.
    On top of that don't forget there is no facing in D&D (except in variant rules), so it does not matter whether the rider does a left side attack or turns the mount and attacks to his right side.

  30. - Top - End - #900
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Why am I here?

    tongue Re: Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.

    Re: reviving without body parts, isn't that what a ghost is?
    THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO HEAR! I might just sig that first line, if you don't mind.

    I hope the demented sense it made came from the bizarre logic I used and not my hideous grammar there. I edited that post three times and I still messed up conjugating the "loot" sentence. I guess I took a few points of INT damage just trying to think of my reasoning.

    As for the ghost, it needs a +5 LA template and/or however Ghostwalk does it. Ghosts technically have more to them than their base creatures... I think I feel that INT damage coming back.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    Two combatants 35 feet apart, on opposite sides of that great wyrm, can both attack it at once (assuming melee weapons with 5' reach). That does make sense. However, under this rule, they can both also attack the pixie riding the dragon. Two people, 35 feet apart, both using short-reach melee weapons, attacking the same pixie. Get the problem?

    I also wonder how does that interact with the reach of Tiny or smaller weapons. That pixie can't attack anything other than its own mount, right? Which does make sense, but just making sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    The pixie can't attack anything unless they share a space. If the pixie is treated as sharing the space of the dragon and the dragon shares any space at all with another creature, it can attack that creature even though it may be 10' away.
    Quote Originally Posted by SirKazum View Post
    So... if that pixie (yeah, Small, not Tiny, my bad) decides to do a Whirlwind Attack, its dragon mount spins the pixie around like a carnival ride so it can get to all enemies all around the dragon's space?
    I like where this is going.
    Last edited by No brains; 2015-08-04 at 06:57 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    This thread, Questions that can't be answered... Answered by RAW by No brains, is Epic.
    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    That is so stupid it's hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    ...I've clearly been playing D&D for too long, because that made a demented kind of sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by that_one_kobold View Post
    And this is why I love D&D

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •