D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoenixRivers
Since the Spellblade only works on spells that target the wielder, other spells that are redirected from a spellblade are not eligible to be absorbed by another spellblade.
Actually the exact wording of the text, suggests that the Spellblade changes the target itself entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGtF
direct it at a new target as a free action.
__________________ Trissociate: 3.5 Homebrew Base Class. Mix & match abilites & templates to make virtually any sort of character!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
I may have an infinite loop for it (I'm sure everyone's come to it but no-one's posted) Twin or Repeated spells, each one becomes two, or stack for double the fun.
Away from books, tell me if there are any flaws in the plan.
__________________
Current Overly Ambitious Project: Customizing Angels/Demons for each deity, providing hosts of mortal servants.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mentalist
I may have an infinite loop for it (I'm sure everyone's come to it but no-one's posted) Twin or Repeated spells, each one becomes two, or stack for double the fun.
Away from books, tell me if there are any flaws in the plan.
Well the reading of the text can be taken that you retarget the effect that you absorb. So if someone hits you with twinned Spell X, you get 2 instances of Spell X in your Spellblade, rather than 2 twinned instances.
__________________ Trissociate: 3.5 Homebrew Base Class. Mix & match abilites & templates to make virtually any sort of character!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by herrhauptmann
So I guess targeted spells that are Save or Die, Save or Lose, and Save and still suck. But a lot of the ones which spring to mind for me are aura or area effects. Like blasphemy
Not sure I'd use it on dispel/greater dispel. At least for a warrior character. It's the area effect version which greatly screws a warrior. The targeted spell affects the spells on a creature, can be used to dismiss a summoned creature, or to dispel an individual item.
The spell blade can't be used against the area effect, and the counterspell version I think is the most common use of dispel/greater dispel.
Say what? The targetted version can try to dispel ALL buffs, AND suppress all magic items. It RUINS a character's build, if it goes off, and at the very best leaves you useless for a few rounds.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
I have a mental image of a party sleeping around their campfire in the woods. Two familiars are volleying a dozen fireballs back and forth with a pair of spellblades, keeping them "warm" for their sleeping masters. The rogue and the cleric are on watch with them, and are so used to the zip-zap-foop of energy back and forth, they're largely ignoring it.
But the familiars sure are attracting the attention of other things with their light show. A pack of them jumps out of the darkness, crits one of the familiars, and it dies. "Ow!" says the one wizard, suddenly waking up. Everyone rolls initiative, and wonders if the rogue can dive on that fully charged spellblade laying on the ground before it releases a dozen fireballs on the PC's and monsters alike!
__________________
.
Ding, You've Got Trophies!
Spoiler
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist but you have ceased to live. - Samuel Clemens
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeminiZero
Well the reading of the text can be taken that you retarget the effect that you absorb. So if someone hits you with twinned Spell X, you get 2 instances of Spell X in your Spellblade, rather than 2 twinned instances.
I could see how you'd read it that way, I see it as you absorb the spell itself, metamagic and all. Like I said no books for reference, I'll have to come back to it when I get home.
Maybe outfit the Emerald Legion with them. (Speaking o' which you wouldn't happen to have the previous incarnations of that project would you? I'd like something not quite so invincible)
__________________
Current Overly Ambitious Project: Customizing Angels/Demons for each deity, providing hosts of mortal servants.
Last edited by The Mentalist : 05-09-2010 at 10:32 PM.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by term1nally s1ck
Say what? The targetted version can try to dispel ALL buffs, AND suppress all magic items. It RUINS a character's build, if it goes off, and at the very best leaves you useless for a few rounds.
Only if you Chain it. A targeted Dispel Magic can target 1 creature or 1 object. If you go with the creature, you can make an attempt at all of the buffs on him, but his gear is all separate targets for purposes of the spell and is entirely untouched. If an object is targeted, well, 1 object is targeted. All the personal buffs are fine and most of the gear is left alone. It can suck to have a particular item disactivated (Boots of Flying/Ring of Freedom of Motion/Mind Blank come to mind as favorite subjects) but you should be generally ok.
Area Dispels.. are kind of weird. They'll take one buff and leave magic items alone.. unless your buffs are on your items, in which case you can also have one buff taken off each of your items. So that can suck pretty hard if your party makes heavy use of Greater Magic Weapons and Magic Vestments, especially if you're using them to qualify for augment crystals (but then, if you're using this as a regular party buff, you should have CL boosts and dispel-resistance items used when casting to make most dispels unthreatening.)
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Another issue:
Spell Immunity in D&D is pretty particular (and peculiar). When you have immunity to a spell, the mechanic for it is "unbeatable SR". Therefore, if a spell does not allow SR (such as Reciprocal Gyre, or Greater Dispel Magic), you cannot be immune to the spell.
The Spellblade does not explicitly contradict this, so there's reasonable arguments for making it unable to grant immunity to spells that do not allow Spell Resistance.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mentalist
(Speaking o' which you wouldn't happen to have the previous incarnations of that project would you? I'd like something not quite so invincible)
The Strengths section provides a fairly comprehensive overview of which template provides which immunities. Just remove a particular template to remove a particular immunity (or set of immunities).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoenixRivers
Spell Immunity in D&D is pretty particular (and peculiar). When you have immunity to a spell, the mechanic for it is "unbeatable SR". Therefore, if a spell does not allow SR (such as Reciprocal Gyre, or Greater Dispel Magic), you cannot be immune to the spell.
It doesn't say it grants "Spell Immunity" to a certain spell. It says you are "immune to a single spell". I would argue that it is in fact, not referring to the Spell Immunity mechanism. It is simply uses the word "immune" because there is no other simpler way to describe a single spell having no effect on you. The fact that the blades are based off spell turning rather than spell immunity also supports this intepretation.
__________________ Trissociate: 3.5 Homebrew Base Class. Mix & match abilites & templates to make virtually any sort of character!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeminiZero
It doesn't say it grants "Spell Immunity" to a certain spell. It says you are "immune to a single spell". I would argue that it is in fact, not referring to the Spell Immunity mechanism. It is simply uses the word "immune" because there is no other simpler way to describe a single spell having no effect on you. The fact that the blades are based off spell turning rather than spell immunity also supports this intepretation.
"Spell Immunity" and "Immune to a Spell" are functionally identical. Look at the reading of the spell "Spell Immunity".
Yes, it's based on Spell Turning.
No, it's not identical to it. For one, Spell Turning does not retarget the effect. For another, Spell Turning bounces it immediately. For another, spell turning has limits. For a final part, spell turning does not make you immune to a spell.
It's IRRELEVANT what the base spell for creating it is. What is relevant is the exact reading of the text. All instances of Spell immunity (or immunity to spells) apply to SR: Yes spells only. Check the Golem's Immunity to Magic entries, or any other, as well as the base text for immunity to spells. In order to be considered a deviation from the standard, it must explicitly state that it can apply to spells which do not allow SR. In that case, it's an exception, and can be considered primary source for its effect. However, it does not contradict the restrictions for immunity.
When a creature is immune to a spell, it gets unbeatable SR to that spell, by RAW. That means that spells that do not check for SR are not possible to grant immunity to (though you can be immune to their effects, such as being immune to fire as a defense against an Orb of Fire.)
The argument that being immune to a spell is not a form of spell immunity is not only hair-splitting, it's incorrect hair-splitting.
Last edited by PhoenixRivers : 05-10-2010 at 05:17 AM.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
@Phoenix
actually, the demi-lich in the ELH wasn't updated and retained its old immunity, so while it was the intention of the designers to make all instances of immunity to magic equal to unbeatable spell resistance, they didn't do it thoroughly enough. As the spellblade enchantment, like the demi-lich's, doesn't have any limits (which are clearly stated in the explanatory texts of both the golems' magic immunity and in the spell), it should probably be considered to be the demi-lich kind of spell immunity.
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
@Phoenix
actually, the demi-lich in the ELH wasn't updated and retained its old immunity, so while it was the intention of the designers to make all instances of immunity to magic equal to unbeatable spell resistance, they didn't do it thoroughly enough. As the spellblade enchantment, like the demi-lich's, doesn't have any limits (which are clearly stated in the explanatory texts of both the golems' magic immunity and in the spell), it should probably be considered to be the demi-lich kind of spell immunity.
Ah, so in the absence of any text referencing or correllating this 6000gp ability with the epic ability of an epic creature, we should automatically make the correlation ourselves, and grant the same level of power to a 6000gp enchantment?
No. Unless an ability explicitly states that its spell immunity applies to SR: No spells, it DOES NOT. That's RAW. That's the only valid interpretation of this RAW. For a Spell immunity to apply to SR: Yes spells, it needs EXPLICIT text to that effect.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
I agree that this is sensible, but this is not what the text says.
1) there are two kinds of spell immunities in the game, one is unbeatable SR, the other is not.
2) Spellblade doesn't specifically say it is unbeatable SR, as all other instances where spell immunity is unbeatable SR do.
3) Therefore, Spellblade confers real immunity, regardless of what other creature/ability bestows it.
(By the way, there are other instances besides the demi-lich one that went unnoticed. The Savage Species flesh golem racial progression still has the old immunity, as does the Rakshasa.)
And it's 6000 for one spell. That's hardly the same as the epic every spell in existence. You'll have to get lots of spellblades to achieve that...
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
I agree that this is sensible, but this is not what the text says.
1) there are two kinds of spell immunities in the game, one is unbeatable SR, the other is not.
2) Spellblade doesn't specifically say it is unbeatable SR, as all other instances where spell immunity is unbeatable SR do.
3) Therefore, Spellblade confers real immunity, regardless of what other creature/ability bestows it.
I agree that your interpretation is what you WANT to be true, but THIS is what the actual text says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spell Immunity
A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity.
The Spellblade grants spell immunity. It is conditional to "One selected spell". We're on the same page so far. Now apply the next part. "Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity."
Now, you're arguing that since other effects are redundant, and reiterate this, that effects which do not reiterate this do not apply it.
That's not how rules work. There are two kinds of spell immunity, true.
Ones which follow the text that I quoted above, and ones that explicitly make exceptions to it.
Spellblade is not the latter. Therefore, it must necessarily be the former. Full stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
(By the way, there are other instances besides the demi-lich one that went unnoticed. The Savage Species flesh golem racial progression still has the old immunity, as does the Rakshasa.)
Does the Savage species Flesh Golem explicitly state that it applies to spells that are SR: No?
Does the Demilich? NO. The demilich is not immune to "spells". It is immune to "all magical and supernatural effects". Guess what? That explicitly includes effects which are SR:No.
It is different from a spellblade.
Next time you want to correlate an epic creature's ability with the ability of a chump change item, please make sure that the wording is at least similar. A demilich does not have spell immunity. It has immunity to magic effects. All of them. Regardless of SR. The two abilities are not even REMOTELY similar.
Incidentally, this also means that it cannot heal itself with Harm, as it is immune to the effect. (if it was treated as unbeatable SR, however, it could, because you automatically overcome SR for any spell that you cast)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
And it's 6000 for one spell. That's hardly the same as the epic every spell in existence. You'll have to get lots of spellblades to achieve that...
True. However, "every spell in existence" does not apply, since that's not the demilich's wording. It's immune to just about every magical and supernatural effect. That is the wording, and the difference is significant.
Last edited by PhoenixRivers : 05-10-2010 at 06:45 AM.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
I'm not as invested in this topic as you seem to think. I don't want one interpretation to be true, I just wrongly believed one to be true and argued the point. Now you proved me wrong. Fair enough
To explain why I first shared JZs opinion:
I made the mistake of equating spell immunity with magic immunity.
Both the Demi-Lich template and the Golem Racial progression confer Magic immunity, not spell immunity, which not only includes SR:No spells, but also all kinds of other stuff.
(If you're interested, the entry in the flesh golem progression is
Magic Immunity (Su): At 9th level, a flesh golem
becomes immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural
abilities (except fire, cold, and electricity effects, as
described in the Energy Vulnerability entry). This ability
supersedes the golem’s spell resistance ability.)
The Rakshasa has spell immunity, though:
Spell Immunity (Su): Starting at 4th level, a rakshasa is
immune to all effects of all 1st-level spells. As it advances in
level it becomes immune to higher-level spells. Like spell
resistance, a rakshasa may suppress this ability in order to
accept its own spells or spells from allies.
This Spell immunity makes an explicit exception to the spells it applies to (it applies to all spells).
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to rakshasa spell immunity, I conceed
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
I'm not as invested in this topic as you seem to think. I don't want one interpretation to be true, I just wrongly believed one to be true and argued the point. Now you proved me wrong. Fair enough
To explain why I first shared JZs opinion:
I made the mistake of equating spell immunity with magic immunity.
Both the Demi-Lich template and the Golem Racial progression confer Magic immunity, not spell immunity, which not only includes SR:No spells, but also all kinds of other stuff.
(If you're interested, the entry in the flesh golem progression is
Magic Immunity (Su): At 9th level, a flesh golem
becomes immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural
abilities (except fire, cold, and electricity effects, as
described in the Energy Vulnerability entry). This ability
supersedes the golem’s spell resistance ability.)
The Rakshasa has spell immunity, though:
Spell Immunity (Su): Starting at 4th level, a rakshasa is
immune to all effects of all 1st-level spells. As it advances in
level it becomes immune to higher-level spells. Like spell
resistance, a rakshasa may suppress this ability in order to
accept its own spells or spells from allies.
This Spell immunity makes an explicit exception to the spells it applies to (it applies to all spells).
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to rakshasa spell immunity, I conceed
Savage species Rakshasa was superceded by the SRD entry. Notice anything?
No spell immunity, for one. And it was replaced by what?
SR 27.
Look at that. Spell immunity replaced by Spell Resistance. Imagine that. Are we looking for more correlation between SR and Spell Immunity? Thanks for arguing that case.
Oh, and Here's flesh golem. Monster classes based on monsters that were updated are no more valid than interpretations of haste that grant extra standard actions.
Last edited by PhoenixRivers : 05-10-2010 at 07:18 AM.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
The big difference? Haste was actually updated, the racial progressions were not. Unless updated, 3.0 material stays valid. Racial Progression =/= Monster Manual entry.
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
The big difference? Haste was actually updated, the racial progressions were not. Unless updated, 3.0 material stays valid. Racial Progression =/= Monster Manual entry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage Species, Monster Classes
As noted above, a monster class has a maximum number of levels equal to its starting ECL. At the highest level for the class, the monster character should have all the powers and abilities of the base creature, as given in the Monster Manual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster Classes, preface
On the pages that follow are monster classes designed to be compatible with the corresponding monsters in the
Monster Manual. They were built with the same methodology used for the minotaur class described in Chapter 3 of this book. Each class has a number of levels equal to the monster’s starting ECL. As a monster attains new
levels in its class, it becomes gradually more powerful (just as a member of any other class does) until it attains the maximum level in its class and thereby gains all the abilities of the creature as described in the Monster
Manual.
This is the primary source for monster classes. While the tables for the classes do provide useful tools, ultimately, the final level of a monster class provides the person who takes it with all the abilities of the creature as described in the Monster Manual.
While Savage Species wasn't updated (due in part to the entire book being a mental abortion by the designers of the game; the equivalent of Highlander 2, best apologized for and then ignored, in hopes that everyone will forget it ever existed), the monster manual was.
The rules for monster classes explicitly state in more than one location that monster classes, over the course of the class, provide a character with the abilities of the monster entry. When the monster entry is updated, so too must the final level of the monster class, to comply with existing rules.
The biggest difference is trying to use 3.0 patchwork of one potential rules abuse which mentions "all spells" to justify one that does not.
"Choose a spell" (spellblade's wording) does not necessitate SR: No spells. The other examples, which are inclusive of all spells of a certain level or below, do.
This means that even if you are correct about the savage species progression, it bears no relevance to the spellblade.
So congratulations on arguing a point that has no relevance whatsoever on the original argument I made.
Last edited by PhoenixRivers : 05-10-2010 at 07:52 AM.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Uh, hello? You were the one who continued arguing after I conceded.
I thought you were starting a new argument, about wether the progressions offer these abilities or not. If you don't wish to continue that discussion (which I agree would derail the thread), I'm fine with that.
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
I propose you reread my post.
I explicitly said that my post only served to explain why I made the mistake I had made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
To explain why I first shared JZ's opinion:
I made the mistake of equating spell immunity with magic immunity.
My very last sentence in the relevant post was
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to rakshasa spell immunity, I conceed.
How you can argue that this isn't a concession, I don't understand.
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
I propose you reread my post.
I explicitly said that my post only served to explain why I made the mistake I had made.
My very last sentence in the relevant post was
How you can argue that this isn't a concession, I don't understand.
Because your point is invalid. If it referred to Rakshasa spell immunity, it would be talking about the Updated Monster manual entry... Not the abortion that was monster classes.
Even if it explicitly stated that it functioned as the monster class entry, the monster class entry no longer complies with the rules for monster class entries.
So even in your concession, you're incorrect in multiple ways.
It's like if I said "blueberries are yellow.
See? The sky on a clear day is yellow too. But since blueberries aren't the same shade of yellow as the sky, I concede."
Using a completely incorrect reasoning for explaining why your incorrect view is incorrect is still incorrect.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Phoenix, I conceded that the spell immunity conferred by the spell blade is the same as the normal ability. Why do you try to keep arguing? It was a hypothetical situation. It's not the case. It doesn't matter. Please understand that I didn't continue to try to make a point with that remark.
I made a mistake by referring the rakshasas spell immunity instead of the rakshasa racial progression's immunity. Obviously, my wording of the hypothetical version was not correct. I will update it, and all your concerns with the incorrectness of my concession should be gone.
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to the spell immunity of the rakshasa racial progression, I conceed.
It doesn't refer to this one instance of that kind of spell immunity in a rather low-regarded book. So we don't have anything to discuss.
Unless you really want to drag me into a discussion about the legality of 3.0 rules material that wasn't updated.
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
Phoenix, I conceded that the spell immunity conferred by the spell blade is the same as the normal ability. Why do you try to keep arguing? It was a hypothetical situation. It's not the case. It doesn't matter. Please understand that I didn't continue to try to make a point with that remark.
Was my wording of the hypothetical version not explicit enough? I will update it then.
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to the spell immunity of the rakshasa racial progression, I conceed.
It doesn't refer to this one instance of that kind of spell immunity in a rather low-regarded book. So we don't have anything to discuss.
Unless you really want to drag me into a discussion about the legality of 3.0 rules material that wasn't updated.
I don't want to drag you into anything. Even in the current statement, there is a conflict between the classes you presented and the rules for monster classes.
You're now saying, "I concede that lemons are yellow because bratwurst is made of cotton candy."
Your point is utter nonsense, and shows a complete and shows exactly why Savage Species isn't allowed... well, pretty much anywhere. It's contradiction after contradiction, poorly thought out material, and, as I hinted at before, WotC's mental poop. Yeah, it feels good when it comes out, but that doesn't change the fact that it's utter crap.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aharon
Why do you try to keep arguing?
Because you keep replying to him.
Best way to stop an argument, if you really concede, is just to stop talking. Continuing to post in response is just going to provoke more responses, and it will turn into a frustrating loop.
More on topic, I like this exploit. I think the next thought should be, what happens if you get two Intelligent Item spellblades. Could they maintain it on their own?
(In fact, could an intelligent spellblade and its wielder maintain a loop on their own?)
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
@Vael
That would probably be the wise thing to do, but I actually would like this to be resolved in a way that doesn't feel like I'm wrong even after conceding
@Phoenix
Then let's just forget about Savage Species. It isn't relevant in any way to our discussion, and I will again reformulate my last sentence:
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to a kind of spell immunity that includes immunity to spells that don't allow spell resistance, I conceed.
That should convey what I meant, and we don't have to discuss that pile of mental poop
Or do you still spot any incorrectness?
__________________
By clicking this link, you open a pop-up, but I get a eurocent for my current wish, the 5th book of the Wheel of Time series. Please note that this only works if you leave the pop-up open until it has finished loading. Thank you!
RSS Feeds: 
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
