Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 69
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Energy Substitution rules question

    So I was talking with a guy I know in D&D and he complained about the DM of the game he's in not letting his Electricity Substituted Fireball disperse the cloud from an Obscuring Mist spell like a normal Fireball should.

    I mean, I suppose it's not entirely without merit because Energy Substitution only changes the energy type of the spell, and high-voltage electricity seems it'd do as good a job of burning the mist away as fire to be honest, but at the same time the examples given in the Obscuring Mist entry are Fireball, Flame Strike, and Wall of Fire - which sounds like the RAI is very much intended it to be about burning it away with fire.

    I think the guy's a bit of a rules-lawyer and I don't have the details of their game, but the argument itself seems ambiguous enough to ask here in the forum.
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)

    Extended signature here.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.
    If a spell has a secondary effect, the altered spell still has that effect. For example, a shout spell can deafen creatures and deals extra damage to crystalline creatures; if fire is substituted for sonic energy in a shout spell, creatures can still be deafened and crystalline creatures still suffer extra damage. Sometimes a spell's minor effects are directly related to the spell's energy, for example, a flaming sphere can set items afire, but a purely sonic or acidic flaming sphere does not.
    This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Yeah I saw that, but knowing my friend he'd probably argue that since it's not worded like that in Complete Arcane his ruling should be right.

    I mean it's a fairly clear-cut RAI instance if you ask me, but I'm guessing that the current rules aren't quite as concrete?
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)

    Extended signature here.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Obscuring mist should still be dispersed. Energy substitution does not remove the explosive quality of fireball and obscuring mist explicitly allows explosive effects to disperse it.

    Electrical explosions are a thing. Sonic booms, implosion caused by rapid contriction due to loss of heat, and balls of acid rapidly expanding can all cause a shockwave.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Obscuring mist should still be dispersed. Energy substitution does not remove the explosive quality of fireball and obscuring mist explicitly allows explosive effects to disperse it.
    Fireball has no explosive component - RAW there is no shockwave and (almost) no blast pressure.

    As for the substitued spell what obscuring mist says is this:
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell’s area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage.
    So, it's not a property of fireball that it burns away obscuring mist, it's a property of obscuring mist that fire spells burn it away - so an energy substituded fireball will not do this.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    So, it's not a property of fireball that it burns away obscuring mist, it's a property of obscuring mist that fire spells burn it away - so an energy substituded fireball will not do this.
    Agreed. A fire energy substituted cone of cold would likewise burn away said obscuring mist imo.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    Fireball has no explosive component - RAW there is no shockwave and (almost) no blast pressure.
    A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
    A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell’s area.
    "Explosive" is not a quality that is defined by the rules. You have explosive bursts and spreads. Nor is it a quality only available to fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    As for the substitued spell what obscuring mist says is this:

    So, it's not a property of fireball that it burns away obscuring mist, it's a property of obscuring mist that fire spells burn it away - so an energy substituded fireball will not do this.
    We say sunlight burns away fog, but it isn't actually burning it. The only qualities needed to "burn away" the mist is either fiery or explosive.
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-02-21 at 05:13 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Yes, but Fireball isn't an explosion - maybe some sonic spells would count, but not that.
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)

    Extended signature here.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    "Explosive" is not a quality that is defined by the rules. You have explosive bursts and spreads. Nor is it a quality only available to fire.
    Presumably, any spell affected with the explosive spell feat or whose name and/or description mentions or implies a forceful explosion (such as explosive runes) is explosive.
    "Technically correct" is the best kind of correct.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Yes, but Fireball isn't an explosion - maybe some sonic spells would count, but not that.
    It's right there in the spell text. By definition, an explosion doesn't have to create a forceful pressure wave. Explosion of color, explosion of taste, etc. Obscuring Mist doesn't say anything about explosive force. Only that the effect has to be explosive. Fireball is described as an explosion and therefor energy substitution changes the spell into an explosion of a different energy type. This satisfies the condition of obscuring mist.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Seto's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

    This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.
    Honestly, I find this quote more confusing than helpful. In terms of in-game logic, it seems obvious to me than Shout's propensity to deafen people and hurt crystalline creatures IS "directly related to the spell's energy". It deafens people because it is sonic (duh).
    In general, while I can easily imagine an-energy substituted Cone of Cold, it's much harder to visualize a non-sonic Shout. What's a cold Shout and why would it deafen people if a cold Fireball doesn't set them on fire?

    Of course, deafening and damaging crystalline creatures is not a minor effect of Shout. It's barely even secondary: it's a main draw of the spell. In terms of game balance, it's unfair to take that away when a player energy-substitutes it.
    So, taking the rules quote you provided, I find it clearer to just ignore everything they said about being "directly related to the spell's energy", and just emphasize the distinction they make between "primary/secondary effects" and "minor effects". The former always stays, the latter doesn't apply if it was directly related to the spell's energy.

    So, back to OP: is clearing away Fog Cloud a minor effect of Fireball? Pretty clearly, yes. Is it directly linked to it being fire? This could go either way. The argument for "yes" is the fact that every spell described as blowing it away is a fire spell. The argument for "no" is the explosive quality of Fireball.
    Avatar by Mr_Saturn
    ______________________
    • Kids, watch Buffy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bard1cKnowledge
    Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."
    My True Neutral Handbook, a resource for creating and playing TN characters.

    Check out my extended signature and the "Gitp regulars as..." that I've been honored with!

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Except that virtually no blast pressure means it's not really much of an explosion per se, I guess. It sounds like it's more the actual heat that does the damage.

    Which incidentally means it must be pretty damn hot; IRL most of the injuries people get from explosions are from shrapnel I think?
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)

    Extended signature here.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

    This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.
    Wouldn't that quote also imply that my Acid Fireball now bypasses SR?

    I mean, if setting things on fire is a minor/basic poverty of fire, then ignoring SR is that of acid.
    Last edited by Gruftzwerg; 2021-02-23 at 06:14 AM.
    Orochimaru, the ultimate villain
    El Mariachi dual double-hand-crossbow action
    Papa Smurf a Redcap Lion of Talisid (ubercharger/gish)
    Hellfire Escalation Glaivelock a Killer Kobold build
    Hammerdin of Moradin a guide to epic hammer throwing
    Almighty Claw of Malar monk/warlock gish (with minor DBZ-SSJ fluff)
    TO: BoBaFeat Body outside Body & Void Disciple 4 to break the game.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Troll in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Seto View Post
    So, back to OP: is clearing away Fog Cloud a minor effect of Fireball? Pretty clearly, yes. Is it directly linked to it being fire? This could go either way. The argument for "yes" is the fact that every spell described as blowing it away is a fire spell. The argument for "no" is the explosive quality of Fireball.
    Except there is nothing in the fireball spell description that say it clears away fog clouds and the like.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
    You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
    The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
    Material Component
    A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.
    Fireball clearing away obscuring mist is a minor effect of obscuring mist (fireball doesn't clear fog cloud - that takes a strong wind).
    Last edited by Khedrac; 2021-02-23 at 08:36 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    Wouldn't that quote also imply that my Acid Fireball now bypasses SR?

    I mean, if setting things on fire is a minor/basic poverty of fire, then ignoring SR is that of acid.
    Not really. The Energy seed doesn't automatically gain "SR - No" simply because you picked Acid for it:

    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/energy.htm

    Nor does the Mastery of Elements Archmage High Arcana specifically grant "SR - No" to spells that were originally "SR - Yes".

    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/archmage.htm

    It just so happens that PHB Acid spells tend to be "SR - No" - there's nothing about the Acid energy type that guarantees "SR - No".

    A better example of a "minor property of the energy type" - whether the spell does full damage to objects or not.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-02-23 at 08:56 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Seto's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    Except there is nothing in the fireball spell description that say it clears away fog clouds and the like.


    Fireball clearing away obscuring mist is a minor effect of obscuring mist (fireball doesn't clear fog cloud - that takes a strong wind).
    Right, I meant Obscuring mist. And I'm aware the text about that minor effect is found in Obscuring Mist, not Fireball, but the argument is the same regardless: is that due to Fireball being fire, or due to being Fireball, a 3rd-level-spell exploding in a 20ft area burst for 1d6/CL damage, Reflex half? I'd honestly be comfortable with either ruling. It's really a corner case anyway. Due to the fact that every spell that clears Obscuring Mist is a fire spell, I'd probably lean towards the direction that Electricity Fireball doesn't do that, but I don't feel very strongly about that ruling.
    Avatar by Mr_Saturn
    ______________________
    • Kids, watch Buffy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bard1cKnowledge
    Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."
    My True Neutral Handbook, a resource for creating and playing TN characters.

    Check out my extended signature and the "Gitp regulars as..." that I've been honored with!

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Given "Fiery or explosive" can we agree that all spells modified with the Explosive Spell metamagic feat will scatter it?
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    PirateGirl

    Join Date
    Jun 2020

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

    This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.
    I would actually argue the opposite. If I was analyzing a statute in real life, and the 2020 language of a statute omitted a sentence that had appeared in a mostly-the-same 2005 statute that had expired, I'd say the absence indicates legislative intent to make the old sentence null and void.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Except that virtually no blast pressure means it's not really much of an explosion per se, I guess. It sounds like it's more the actual heat that does the damage.

    Which incidentally means it must be pretty damn hot; IRL most of the injuries people get from explosions are from shrapnel I think?
    Fireball says it melts copper, which means it must be at least 1085C/1985F.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    d6 Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Simple science and seen effects. I agree with the DM.

    We see electric discharge in the form of 🌩 lightning inside clouds. They are not destroyed or diminished by internal lightning strikes. So since clouds are fog lightning does get rid of mist.
    9 wisdom true neutral cleric you know you want me in your adventuring party


  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    I agree with the player. Obscuring Mist says a 'fiery or explosive' spell disperses it. Fireball is 'an explosion of flame'. With energy substitution, the spell is now an 'explosion' of whatever. The DM just made a snap judgement, didn't read through the spells, and doesn't want to change their mind.

    Also, yes, the newer feat replaces the old feat.

    I'd also say real clouds are both much bigger and much less magical than an Obscuring Mist spell, so they don't make a great comparison.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    The Energy Ball psionic power also has that "explosion of energy" phrasing:

    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/p...energyBall.htm

    but the ability to substitute, is built in rather than requiring a feat.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    It sounds like the rules aren't iron-clad enough to make a 100% consistent judgement excluding intentional bad faith interpretations I guess, then?
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)

    Extended signature here.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by danielxcutter View Post
    Except that virtually no blast pressure means it's not really much of an explosion per se, I guess. It sounds like it's more the actual heat that does the damage.

    Which incidentally means it must be pretty damn hot; IRL most of the injuries people get from explosions are from shrapnel I think?
    An explosion is simply the violent expansion of something. That violent expansion does not actually have to be harmful to be an explosion, nor does it have to create a pressure wave. This means that that the displacement caused by the effect is a valid reason for the fog not to be in the area.

    As for lightning in the clouds...that is no where near an explosion. It's the accumulation of enough energy to forceful discharge along a path of least resistance. A example that might be easier to understand would be like a dam breaking. Water spreads out within the confines of the valley and into tributaries until the energy/mass has equalized with the surrounding environment.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    The thunder created by a real-life lightning bolt, is caused by the rapid expansion of air. It could be characterised as the air imploding.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder


    But D&D separates lightning from thunder. By RAW, D&D magic lightning doesn't even make noise unless the DM chooses to rule that it does.

    So I'd rule that a D&D magic lightning bolt does not scatter an obscuring mist.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-02-23 at 11:10 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    But D&D separates lightning from thunder. By RAW, D&D magic lightning doesn't even make noise unless the DM chooses to rule that it does.
    Hence why the explosion of fireball isn't removed by simply changing the damage type. Magic can do what it wants. As the explosion of fireball isn't an inherent quality of fire damage, unlike catching things on fire, changing the energy type would not remove that quality.

    Is it that hard to picture an orb of electricity spell expanding to the area size of fireball in a fashion fast and disorderly enough to be considered violent?
    Last edited by Darg; 2021-02-23 at 12:54 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    I agree. The psionic example IMO shows that you can have energy balls that are not fire but are still "explosive" - without the "shove things aside ability that the Explosive Spell feat does.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    Wouldn't that quote also imply that my Acid Fireball now bypasses SR?

    I mean, if setting things on fire is a minor/basic poverty of fire, then ignoring SR is that of acid.
    Acid doesn't ignore SR inherently. Acid spells tend to be conjurations while other energy spells are generally evocations, and that is the factor that matters where spell resistance is concerned. The means by which an acid arrow is created may be magical, but the acid itself is no more magical than, say, a flask of acid from the equipment section in the PHB. Acid damage dealt by evocation spells is still subject to spell resistance, and there are even a few acid conjurations that allow for spell resistance against them.

    A major benefit to substituting a spell's energy damage for acid would be to deal more damage to objects. Fire and electric damage are halved before applying hardness and cold damage deals only 1/4 damage before hardness, while acid effects deal full damage minus hardness. If anyone were to try creating a spellcaster who specializes in ranged magical sundering or something, energy substitution (acid) would be practically essential to their build.
    "Technically correct" is the best kind of correct.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaern View Post
    energy substitution (acid) would be practically essential to their build.
    Energy Substitution (Sonic) is also a good choice.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    danielxcutter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Seoul
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Energy Substitution rules question

    Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
    Energy Substitution (Sonic) is also a good choice.
    Unfortunately the newer(and therefore default) version doesn’t let you select sonic.

    Man, psionic blasting is so much less of a hassle, now that I think of it.
    Cool elan (no not that kind) Illithid Slayer by linkele.

    Editor/co-writer of Magicae Est Potestas, a crossover between Artemis Fowl and Undertale. Archive Of Our Own FanFiction.net DeviantArt
    We also have a TvTropes page!

    Currently playing: Red Hand of Doom(campaign journal)

    Extended signature here.

Posting Permissions

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