D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[Perseus]

Unfortunately this ability doesn't actually do that: it doesn't protect you from enemy attacks, meaing you'll get more than just some scratches; and in every other edition a high-level fighter would do enough damage to one-shot these enemies anyway.

(edit) I should also say that while the sheet is pretty, it's not very convenient to use; form over function.

Yup and I kinda expect them to change it before releasing it.

Perhaps with a change they could put in something like...

@Level 20: Anytime you take HP damage by a creature that has a (CR, HD, or Level... whatever they will eventually use for Monster levels...) lower than 20 that damage is minimum damage. (or perhaps 1 HP/hit). This applies to spell, ranged, and martial damage.

This will give the Fighter the scratches but won't be that scary unless there is a crazy crazy amount...


Edit: I just read the rules on Brew Potion an Scribe Scroll and I really like how they attempt to limit the number that the Mage can actually use... Which they still get a crazy ton of them but hey it might be a step in the right direction...

Now to explain to WoTC that Druids shouldn't gain spells over 65th level since they apparently are a Gish.

[Morty]

Here's WotC's problem:

On the one hand they have a vociferous community of players that scream bloody murder about how Fighters can't have Daily Powers or possess magical-like powers ala the Tome of Battle or 4th Edition because they aren't realistic, explainable or "right." One the other hand, WotC has another equally vociferous community that screams about balance between classes and how every class should have magical-like powers because that's "easier to balance."

WotC literally cannot please these two groups at the same time because, while both want a fun game, they are going about it in opposite manners. The best WotC can do is try to manage both sides' expectations. Right now that means Fighters do not get powers ala 4E or ToB but they do gain "light powers" like Action Surge and Second Wind. The Fighter also gets more attacks and a better attack bonus, which helps differentiate him from the other melee classes AND helps bring his power level up.

This concept also holds true with the Wizard but that class is slightly easier to manage because there are more knobs WotC can twist without setting off warning bells in the community.

There's so very much more you can do with 'light' abilities than WotC is willing to try.

[Perseus]

Holy crap I just realized why Wizard of the Coast changed the name of the Wizard to Mage.

No it isn't for a throwback... It is so that "Wizard" isn't the last class listed in the class section. Sneaky bastards....

[obryn]

Honestly, I think it's a pretty huge improvement overall from the last packet. I was not expecting them to shake up the design so much.

There's still some rough parts, as expected - the level 20 fighter bit is, indeed, pretty bad - but overall? Way better. Heck; you can make your Fighter 4e-style sticky with a feat.

-O

[Perseus]

Honestly, I think it's a pretty huge improvement overall from the last packet. I was not expecting them to shake up the design so much.

There's still some rough parts, as expected - the level 20 fighter bit is, indeed, pretty bad - but overall? Way better. Heck; you can make your Fighter 4e-style sticky with a feat.

-O

Hey finally a mechanical effect to go along with my Dwarven Fighter who always had the booze sweats! The party always called him Sir Sticky in the last few playtest...

I wish they would get rid of Racial Ability Score adjustments and just leave them to the classes. *sigh*

[Drachasor]

Here's WotC's problem:

On the one hand they have a vociferous community of players that scream bloody murder about how Fighters can't have Daily Powers or possess magical-like powers ala the Tome of Battle or 4th Edition because they aren't realistic, explainable or "right." One the other hand, WotC has another equally vociferous community that screams about balance between classes and how every class should have magical-like powers because that's "easier to balance."

WotC literally cannot please these two groups at the same time because, while both want a fun game, they are going about it in opposite manners. The best WotC can do is try to manage both sides' expectations. Right now that means Fighters do not get powers ala 4E or ToB but they do gain "light powers" like Action Surge and Second Wind. The Fighter also gets more attacks and a better attack bonus, which helps differentiate him from the other melee classes AND helps bring his power level up.

This concept also holds true with the Wizard but that class is slightly easier to manage because there are more knobs WotC can twist without setting off warning bells in the community.

I think there is a massive middle ground that could be mined for abilities. Give it a different system than magic and one that doesn't superficially look the same and you'll get very few people objecting. That's my bet anyhow.
Probably also want to just focus on mechanics and boring names too.

The biggest problems people had with ToB are the following. 1. It had 9 levels of abilities, just like magic! 2. Flowery prose (even if realistic even in western history). 3. A handful of abilities. Sure, you had people complaining about other bits, but such bits didn't come up as much -- and notably 1/day abilities that many non-magic PrCs had didn't generate any scorn.

And 4E as far as abilities go. 1. System was just like magic, because WotC ignored the fact 3.5 showed you CAN have a wide variety of mechanics that are about equal in power. 2. Some of the abilities. Beyond that there was just all the other 4E problems.

There's a pretty huge middle ground that 4E, DDN, and Paizo aren't exploring (because all the games are lame, I guess).

[Knaight]

I'm liking the character sheet - it's a bit odd, but it seems like getting used to it would be easy, and the way it is organized seems pretty workable, on top of it looking nice. That it also happens to be the one thing not designed by WotC and instead found from a contest is...not particularly surprising.

On the other hand, there are a number of other things that are a bit annoying. Anything with an AC that can only be hit on a 20 can only be critted, which is kind of dumb. The typical base would deal acid damage - though I'll be the first to admit that this only bothers me because I'm a huge chem nerd. Hit points are a bit odd - the first half don't represent injury, the second half minor injury, and the last one a real hit. This means that by the description guidelines, fighting with even one major wound is out, which is off, and damage from falls that doesn't drop people below half HP doesn't make much sense at all. With that said, there are also nice things - I like the death saving throw system, I quite like the current charm mechanics, and there are other upsides.

Also, the advantage and disadvantage rules are still ridiculous. I think my favorite absurd combination is how being incompetent with a weapon (nonproficiency) stops mattering if you're prone. Because apparently, when you're knocked down you're just as good with some random thing you find as the weapons you're trained in. If you know how to use a crossbow and don't know how to throw axes, the obvious way to equalize them is by laying down. Even if that would logically impose far more of a penalty on throwing something than shooting a crossbow. Also, if you are using a heavy weapon while small, not knowing how to use it apparently doesn't penalize you further.

On equipment in general - I still have major quibbles, but there are improvements. Weights are less stupid (10 pound axes are still around, but there are at least fewer high weight weapons, though the 110 pound plate armor is pretty absurd as well), the "oriental" weapons are all japanese, because apparently the rest of east asia doesn't have weapons, including China.

On feats - Feats are looking like they are actually good for once. The likes of weapon proficiency is bundled with lots of weapons, cover ignoring, range penalty ignoring, and multi-attacking. Heavy armor proficiency is bundled with DR. Also the toughness equivalent is basically a double helping of improved toughness, which is actually significant.

[Felhammer]

I think there is a massive middle ground that could be mined for abilities. Give it a different system than magic and one that doesn't superficially look the same and you'll get very few people objecting. That's my bet anyhow.
Probably also want to just focus on mechanics and boring names too.

The biggest problems people had with ToB are the following. 1. It had 9 levels of abilities, just like magic! 2. Flowery prose (even if realistic even in western history). 3. A handful of abilities. Sure, you had people complaining about other bits, but such bits didn't come up as much -- and notably 1/day abilities that many non-magic PrCs had didn't generate any scorn.

And 4E as far as abilities go. 1. System was just like magic, because WotC ignored the fact 3.5 showed you CAN have a wide variety of mechanics that are about equal in power. 2. Some of the abilities. Beyond that there was just all the other 4E problems.

There's a pretty huge middle ground that 4E, DDN, and Paizo aren't exploring (because all the games are lame, I guess).

I think it is a very delicate balance WotC has to maintain because the people who loathe "magic-like" abilities are very loud and very obstinate (just as much, if not more than the crowd favoring Balance).

Their issues usually center on the idea that it is ridiculous that a Fighter can only pull off a special move once an encounter. No matter the amount of fluff you generate to justify it, they don't like it. Dailies are even worse (and to be fair, they make no sense in-world for martial/mundane classes).

I think the middle ground that can be mined would be a small number of "special moves" that can be refreshed, like the ToB maneuvers. The real trouble is a) making those feel like feats of martial prowess and not like spells and b) figuring out a good refresh mechanic.

The cool thing is that WotC could easily release new Fighter Paths later on that focus on such things, so it isn't necessarily something that needs to be ready from the outset. To be honest, it might be better that way since WotC will have a better grasp of the system by then.

Baring ToB style maneuvers, what other kind of easily explainable and understandable "powers" could a Fighter have? He could definitely use an ability like Sure Strike (bonus to hit but does less damage). I could see him having a power to whack an enemy on the head to impose the equivalent of the stunned/dazed condition (or just disadvantage). Maybe a counter attack ability where if an enemy misses you by a lot, you get to make an Opportunity Attack (or a free attack) X-number of times per day? An ability where the Fighter just straight up gain advantage for an action. Channeling the Warlord, the Fighter could have "powers" to help his allies position themselves (free moves) and attack better (free advantage for an attack). There's a lot of things you could do with the Fighter when you start delving into team work, like distracting an enemy (sacrificing your action) to give an ally advantage on their attack or harassing an enemy so that they have disadvantage on attack rolls against everyone except you.

There are definitely things WotC could try here that don't set off that realism-ometer.

[Knaight]

Baring ToB style maneuvers, what other kind of easily explainable and understandable "powers" could a Fighter have? He could definitely use an ability like Sure Strike (bonus to hit but does less damage). I could see him having a power to whack an enemy on the head to impose the equivalent of the stunned/dazed condition (or just disadvantage). Maybe a counter attack ability where if an enemy misses you by a lot, you get to make an Opportunity Attack (or a free attack) X-number of times per day?

The gladiator abilities actually seem like a pretty good template - you have an attack rider, provided you make a secondary roll against an ability score bonus. That could certainly be expanded upon, along with stuff along the lines of the defensive options seen, from the active defenses to something like your counter example.

As for 1/day abilities gaining scorn - they did. Rage certainly got targeted for this, among other things. It probably doesn't matter for most of the market, but some people (myself included) certainly prefer not having them. That said, I'm not likely to be part of the market in the first place.

[Somebloke]

I can definitely see my group getting up in arms about the lack of option at first level- apart from race and stats, two 1st level Druids are essentially the same.

[Drachasor]

I think it is a very delicate balance WotC has to maintain because the people who loathe "magic-like" abilities are very loud and very obstinate (just as much, if not more than the crowd favoring Balance).

Their issues usually center on the idea that it is ridiculous that a Fighter can only pull off a special move once an encounter. No matter the amount of fluff you generate to justify it, they don't like it. Dailies are even worse (and to be fair, they make no sense in-world for martial/mundane classes).

I think the middle ground that can be mined would be a small number of "special moves" that can be refreshed, like the ToB maneuvers. The real trouble is a) making those feel like feats of martial prowess and not like spells and b) figuring out a good refresh mechanic.

The cool thing is that WotC could easily release new Fighter Paths later on that focus on such things, so it isn't necessarily something that needs to be ready from the outset. To be honest, it might be better that way since WotC will have a better grasp of the system by then.

Baring ToB style maneuvers, what other kind of easily explainable and understandable "powers" could a Fighter have? He could definitely use an ability like Sure Strike (bonus to hit but does less damage). I could see him having a power to whack an enemy on the head to impose the equivalent of the stunned/dazed condition (or just disadvantage). Maybe a counter attack ability where if an enemy misses you by a lot, you get to make an Opportunity Attack (or a free attack) X-number of times per day? An ability where the Fighter just straight up gain advantage for an action. Channeling the Warlord, the Fighter could have "powers" to help his allies position themselves (free moves) and attack better (free advantage for an attack). There's a lot of things you could do with the Fighter when you start delving into team work, like distracting an enemy (sacrificing your action) to give an ally advantage on their attack or harassing an enemy so that they have disadvantage on attack rolls against everyone except you.

There are definitely things WotC could try here that don't set off that realism-ometer.

You drastically overestimate the problem.

People didn't complain about daily abilities on non-magical martial PrCs. People didn't complain about the Action Surge that Fighters in DDN have had (depending on the beta test). People didn't complain about Barbarian rages. Or rather, it isn't that no one complained about these things, but rather very few people did and the abilities were accepted.

90% or more of the ToB maneuvers are not anything people would complain about either. It was largely the prose and unnecessary parallels to the magic system (discipline/schools and levels with said prose probably REALLY did it more than the maneuver system itself). Heck, the maneuver mechanic, divorced from the disciplines and maneuver levels, was considered quite realistic by a lot of people familiar with martial arts.

It's more like there's a threshold here. Some people have a lower threshold than others. There's not likely any ONE thing that does it most of the time, but rather a cumulation of aspects that push things above what someone is willing to handle. That's why we see so many things that are just as "unrealistic" as the TOB accepted with little to no comment.

Edit: I'm not saying this would make everyone happy, but it would probably make the vast majority happy. No game is going to make everyone happy, and they're obviously insane to think they can do that. The whole idea they can make a modular system is pretty ridiculous. All the major optional rules I've ever seen for D&D created major problems unless you adjusted a number of other things.

[Person_Man]

I think the middle ground that can be mined would be a small number of "special moves" that can be refreshed, like the ToB maneuvers. The real trouble is a) making those feel like feats of martial prowess and not like spells and b) figuring out a good refresh mechanic.

I can think of at least 6 off the top of my head:

1) Once you use X, you cannot use it again until you've taken a short rest. (Essentially an Encounter ability, but without the metagame dissonance of calling it an Encounter ability).

2) Once you use X, you cannot use it again until you've taken a long rest. (Essentially a Daily ability, but without the metagame dissonance of calling it an Daily ability).

3) Combat Expertise: At first level you gain 1d6 martial damage die each round. You gain an addition 1d6 martial damage die every... When you successfully hit a target with a melee or ranged attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can spend any or all of your martial damage dice to deal extra damage. Roll those dice, and add their total to the damage dealt by that attack. Martial damage dice that are not expended by the end of a round are lost, and are not accumulated from round to round. Now create a bunch of abilities and/or Feats that require X martial damage dice in order to activate them. (Basically at-will abilities, but scaled, and interchangeable with bonus damage for people who don't want to use the alternate abilities).

4) After successfully hitting and damaging an enemy (or kill an enemy, or whatever), you gain 1 Adrenaline point. You may spend 1 point of Adrenaline to use the X ability. Successfully hitting an enemy with the X ability does not give you additional Adrenaline points. (Basically you have to power up the ability to use it. Though I think this would work better with Barbarians as part of the Rage mechanic).

5) After you've used the X ability, attempts to use it again on the same creature have Disadvantage. Or, after use use the X ability, attempts to use it on any creature that has seen you use it have Disadvantage. (In other words, using an ability depends on surprising your enemy with it - once they've seen it, they're no longer taken off guard by it. This encourages the PC to use other abilities, but doesn't require it).

6) You may only use X ability against Y opponents. (Prone, Stunned, Grappled, Disadvantaged, etc. Triggered abilities will be very hard to use every round).

[1337 b4k4]

Unfortunately this ability doesn't actually do that: it doesn't protect you from enemy attacks, meaing you'll get more than just some scratches; and in every other edition a high-level fighter would do enough damage to one-shot these enemies anyway.

It is worth keeping in mind however that at level 20, your fighter doesn't go down if you can make a DC 15 Saving throw with advantage (51% assuming 10 CON, 64% with CON 14, 75% with CON 18 and 79% with CON 20). Even better if you have a paladin at your back.

That said, I do think that final ability needs some work. My thought is to change it such that when you hit an enemy with 100 HP or less, it must make a DC 10 + the difference between it's level/HD and your fighter's level CON check or die. Basically it's Power Word Kill for fighters, except with a chance of not working since it can occur every hit rather than 1 / day

All in all, I agree with Obryn's opinion, this is whole packet is a pretty significant step forward.

[Perseus]

I have a question that I probably should have had during the first or second packet.

Why didn't they call Thunder Damage... Sonic Damage? The explanation of Thunder Damage sounds as if it is nothing more than Sonic attack, because well it is.

Have they explained this in one of their post on the WoTC forum about the game?

[Raineh Daze]

I have a question that I probably should have had during the first or second packet.

Why didn't they call Thunder Damage... Sonic Damage? The explanation of Thunder Damage sounds as if it is nothing more than Sonic attack, because well it is.

Have they explained this in one of their post on the WoTC forum about the game?

Because Thunder Damage sounds more impressive?

[Morty]

I still find it hilarious how they managed to get ranger combat styles in there despite saying they won't be coming back. That's some serious dedication to an old and pointless mechanic.

[Felhammer]

You drastically overestimate the problem.

People didn't complain about daily abilities on non-magical martial PrCs. People didn't complain about the Action Surge that Fighters in DDN have had (depending on the beta test). People didn't complain about Barbarian rages. Or rather, it isn't that no one complained about these things, but rather very few people did and the abilities were accepted.

90% or more of the ToB maneuvers are not anything people would complain about either. It was largely the prose and unnecessary parallels to the magic system (discipline/schools and levels with said prose probably REALLY did it more than the maneuver system itself). Heck, the maneuver mechanic, divorced from the disciplines and maneuver levels, was considered quite realistic by a lot of people familiar with martial arts.

It's more like there's a threshold here. Some people have a lower threshold than others. There's not likely any ONE thing that does it most of the time, but rather a cumulation of aspects that push things above what someone is willing to handle. That's why we see so many things that are just as "unrealistic" as the TOB accepted with little to no comment.

Edit: I'm not saying this would make everyone happy, but it would probably make the vast majority happy. No game is going to make everyone happy, and they're obviously insane to think they can do that. The whole idea they can make a modular system is pretty ridiculous. All the major optional rules I've ever seen for D&D created major problems unless you adjusted a number of other things.

I honestly do not see how you can claim that people do not complain about anything you are mentioning. We have spent 6 years debating these issues on the WotC Forums, this forum, ENWorld and hordes of other forums. Maybe you haven't been in the trenches as long as I have but these concerns are not conjured up recently, nor will they disappear by applying a different veneer.

The Warblade has a Maneuver that does static +100 damage. People who are disinclined to like the idea of martial characters doing seemingly magical acts look at that and gasp. The fact that a Fighter in 4th edition is incompetent enough to only use his signature move once a day blows their minds.

There is a threshold argument to be made but you cannot lead off by claiming that people didn't complain quite bitterly about these issues.

I honestly don't think threshold is necessarily the direction you should look to since that is completely variable. However, we pretty much know the 3.5 Fighter is too bland for most and the ToB/4E Maneuver Power Classes are definitely the top end of acceptable. Obviously any middle ground you carve out has to be found between those two extremes.

Once you figure out where you want the threshold to be, you need to decide on presentation. The ToB style spell list was maligned, as was the 4E card system. If people don't like martial powers to look like spells or "WoW style buttons" then they need to be written out in the class' description like any other class ability. You sneak maneuvers into the game by disguising them as class abilities, which very few people object to (look at 3.5 PrCs).

I can think of at least 6 off the top of my head:

1) Once you use X, you cannot use it again until you've taken a short rest. (Essentially an Encounter ability, but without the metagame dissonance of calling it an Encounter ability).

2) Once you use X, you cannot use it again until you've taken a long rest. (Essentially a Daily ability, but without the metagame dissonance of calling it an Daily ability).

Sneaky!

4) After successfully hitting and damaging an enemy (or kill an enemy, or whatever), you gain 1 Adrenaline point. You may spend 1 point of Adrenaline to use the X ability. Successfully hitting an enemy with the X ability does not give you additional Adrenaline points. (Basically you have to power up the ability to use it. Though I think this would work better with Barbarians as part of the Rage mechanic).

That feels like a really good barbarian mechanic!

5) After you've used the X ability, attempts to use it again on the same creature have Disadvantage. Or, after use use the X ability, attempts to use it on any creature that has seen you use it have Disadvantage. (In other words, using an ability depends on surprising your enemy with it - once they've seen it, they're no longer taken off guard by it. This encourages the PC to use other abilities, but doesn't require it).

Oooo, I really like that from a flavor perspective. You'd just need to define what "seen" means. For ease of use, probably any creature present in the same encounter when you attempted the maneuver, you know to avoid the whole "How was the Goblin looking at me when he was obviously looking at the cleric!?" kind of arguments. When you give feedback make sure to pass this mechanic along to WotC

6) You may only use X ability against Y opponents. (Prone, Stunned, Grappled, Disadvantaged, etc. Triggered abilities will be very hard to use every round).

This is a very cool mechanic. The abilities can be fairly powerful because the trigger for the abilities isn't supposed to be common. I can see it becoming a bit abusive if people hyper focus on that one maneuver (like a trip fighter) but on the whole, I like this one a lot.

[Perseus]

Because Thunder Damage sounds more impressive?

Thunder actually doesn't sound all that impressive, unless you have a god like Thor...

I still find it hilarious how they managed to get ranger combat styles in there despite saying they won't be coming back. That's some serious dedication to an old and pointless mechanic.

Well the old combat styles of 3.5/PF had to be used against specific creatures. The D&D Next combat styles are less about specific enemies and more about what you have learned from fighting those creatures.

A Ranger with one combat style (Dragon) isn't completely boned against undead or against aquatic half-elves...

I think where they went with the Ranger was actually a good direction. It is leaps and bounds beyond anything they previously had.

[Raineh Daze]

Thunder actually doesn't sound all that impressive, unless you have a god like Thor...

Thunderbolts and lightning, very, very frightening me.

[Morty]

I'm not talking about the favoured enemies, which are better than they used to be. I mean that the dragon-slaying style gives you a bonus to ranged attacks and the horde-slayer style gives you a bonus to two-weapon fighting... which means that as of the current playtest package, the ranger still needs to pick between being an archer and fighting with two weapons. Why can't WotC just let go of that old nonsense?

[Felhammer]

I'm not talking about the favoured enemies, which are better than they used to be. I mean that the dragon-slaying style gives you a bonus to ranged attacks and the horde-slayer style gives you a bonus to two-weapon fighting... which means that as of the current playtest package, the ranger still needs to pick between being an archer and fighting with two weapons. Why can't WotC just let go of that old nonsense?

But the styles make sense now as they are tied directly to the kind of enemies they will be slaying.

You don't spend years training to become a great knife fighter if your end goal is to slay Dragons!

Plus, why can't the Ranger spend his normal feats to become better at fighting with different styles of combat?

[Morty]

But the styles make sense now as they are tied directly to the kind of enemies they will be slaying.

You don't spend years training to become a great knife fighter if your end goal is to slay Dragons!

I'm not sure why I can't play a dragon-slaying dwarven Ranger with a greataxe or an orc-hunting elven Ranger with a longbow.

Plus, why can't the Ranger spend his normal feats to become better at fighting with different styles of combat?

If they feel like wasting a class feature, sure.

[Turalisj]

Thunderbolts and lightning, very, very frightening me.

Ma ma mia ma ma mia!

[Perseus]

I'm not sure why I can't play a dragon-slaying dwarven Ranger with a greataxe or an orc-hunting elven Ranger with a longbow.



If they feel like wasting a class feature, sure.

Because WoTC is actually being realistic about something for once? There are certain styles that one uses to hunt down different prey.

When hunting deer you need a different gun then when hunting elephants...

When hunting turkeys you shouldn't wear bright colors because they can see them but when hunting deer you can wear a neon vest because they can't tell neon orange from a hole in the ground.

You go ahead and fight a Dragon (being play half smartly) while using a great axe and see how many attacks you get in... And how many attacks it gets in on you. The Longbow isn't just so you can shoot it and do damage but it keeps you at a distance from the Dragon where you are normally safer.

[Morty]

And what's the justification for the horde-slaying path giving you bonuses to two-weapon fighting?

[Perseus]

And what's the justification for the horde-slaying path giving you bonuses to two-weapon fighting?

Because hordes attack you in hordes and you need to attack multiple enemies at once.

It represents the agile two weapon fighting type that weaves their way through the battle field slaying multiple foes with each weapon.

If you are surrounded by enemies and injure one of them enough maybe they will leave the fight? Maybe you pose a threat to more than one creature at a time they won't run past you and hit the party mage?

[Felhammer]

I'm not sure why I can't play a dragon-slaying dwarven Ranger with a greataxe or an orc-hunting elven Ranger with a longbow.



If they feel like wasting a class feature, sure.

You can run around slaying Dragons with a Great Axe, you just have to purchase those feats on your own rather than have them given to you.

[navar100]

Holy crap I just realized why Wizard of the Coast changed the name of the Wizard to Mage.

No it isn't for a throwback... It is so that "Wizard" isn't the last class listed in the class section. Sneaky bastards....

I think they want to test their new copy editor. Eventually they'll change mage back to wizard and ask the copy editor to fix the wording and see what happens.

[Raineh Daze]

Because hordes attack you in hordes and you need to attack multiple enemies at once.

Get a bigger sword or an axe? They sound a lot more helpful for keeping the horde at bay than a one-handed thing and some tiny little dagger.

[Kurald Galain]

Ma ma mia ma ma mia!

Wiz Of The Coast has a dungeon set aside for me, for meee, for meeeeeeee!