| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1iserithFeb 16, 2015 9:26:30 | Philosophy Behind Rules and Rulings 02/16/15
Read and discuss. |
| #2NevvurFeb 16, 2015 10:40:31 | I wish more people would follow his three-step ruling analysis -- first RAW, then RAI, finally RAF -- rather than focus solely on RAW like some religious extremist interpreting his book of choice.
Further on down the post... was anyone expecting dramatic changes? What constitutes dramatic here? I suppose something like a class rewrite (I'm looking at you Ranger) would be pretty dramatic, but what about changing feats? Doesn't sound like we'll get any mechanical changes to the system, other than to possibly rewrite RAW to express RAI.
In any case, I hope the "straightforward corrections" ends some of the marathon word parsing that happens around here. |
| (Reply to #2)OoftaMeg |
|
| #4bawylieFeb 16, 2015 13:38:15 | Sort of an evolution from prior thinking wherein codification was the byword.
Anyway it's the right direction - one that emphasizes and works with the experiences unique to RPGs |
| #5ShirebrokFeb 16, 2015 13:43:02 | I had been looking forward to something like this. And it looks like Jeremy will have a good approach, too. I can't wait for next Monday. |
| #6ShasarakFeb 16, 2015 14:19:49 |
|
| #7VahnyuFeb 16, 2015 14:22:00 |
|
| (Reply to #6)Shirebrok |
|
| #9Plaguescarred4Feb 16, 2015 15:00:16 | I look forward to next month Sage Advice! I like the fact that Jeremy acknowledge RAW, RAI & RAF as different method of rules interpretations. I hope he address every rules question from those 3 angles. For exemple;
|
| #10pukunuiFeb 16, 2015 15:20:14 |
|
| #11NoonFeb 16, 2015 18:57:37 |
|
| #12bawylieFeb 16, 2015 20:34:14 | No, that doesn't make any sense. |
| #13melloredFeb 16, 2015 21:12:43 | Extremest runs by RAIW, or "rules as I want". |
| #14lawrencehoyFeb 16, 2015 21:27:27 |
|
| #15Storyteller-ZeroFeb 16, 2015 21:28:57 | My personal philosophy is to follow the ways of RAP - Rules As Pie.
nom nom |
| #16NoonFeb 17, 2015 0:13:02 |
|
| #17lawrencehoyFeb 17, 2015 1:50:39 |
|
| #18joeburgosFeb 17, 2015 5:39:41 |
|
| (Reply to #17)Coredump00 |
|
| #20OrietFeb 17, 2015 7:44:15 |
|
| #21edwin_suFeb 17, 2015 8:13:45 | In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.
Isen't RAW and RAI not aligning a design failure ? To me if a rules RAI and RAW don't align the ruke should be put on the list to be updated ot erratad to solve the problem. |
| #22bawylieFeb 17, 2015 9:41:28 | It's not strictly a failure - IMO there's a balancing act between clarity and utility. For some folks, who prefer more of one and less of the other, that conflict requires discussion of the RAI.
In any case, I evaluate these thing by my general standards: "Scripture" (or RAW), "Tradition" (how I've done it & seen it done), "Reason" (something like RAI or common sense) & "Goals of Play." No one metric is more important to me than any other - like I said above, it's a bit of a balancing act. |
| #23BloodscytheFeb 17, 2015 9:57:34 | I definitely think it's a step in the right direction. It says what most of us have thought about it already... RAW is a good primer, but sometimes the RAW isn't what was intended, so there will be clarification, and sometimes RAW and RAI need to take a backseat to the true design of the game, and that's RAF. Players and DMs work together to make and keep the game fun even if that means changing every rule in the book.
The DM is key... I was surprised though to read "players also interpret the rules...", as I've always been one to leave all rules interpretation up to the DM. There are no table arguments about what a rule means when there's only one person making the decision.
I look forward to what he has to say. |
| #24melloredFeb 17, 2015 11:21:24 |
|
| (Reply to #22)Coredump00 |
|
| #26pukunuiFeb 17, 2015 11:14:00 |
|
| (Reply to #26)Bloodscythe |
|
| #28DaveDashFeb 17, 2015 12:38:12 | I think the lack of concise rules in 5e is it's biggest issue. |
| #29ShirebrokFeb 17, 2015 13:01:00 |
|
| (Reply to #28)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #23)Satyrn |
|
| #32VahnyuFeb 17, 2015 18:32:40 |
|
| (Reply to #28)OoftaMeg |
|
| #34MistwellFeb 17, 2015 20:10:17 |
|
| #35FFSAAFeb 17, 2015 20:23:01 |
|
| #36lawrencehoyFeb 17, 2015 22:23:31 |
|
| #37DaveDashFeb 18, 2015 2:37:13 | Clearer rules = more consistency = better player experience. Especially for those of us who are gamists as opposed to storytellers. I get the concept of vague rules, but I think in reality it only works for a certain style of table, and there is still huge demand for the more gamist style. 3e, 4e, and pathfinder all totally dwarf 5e in terms of popularity and that probably isn't going to change. A lot of people out there like playing the game in role playing game, and games need clear rules. It's also easier on a DM to have a smaller set of solid concise rules and allowing DMs to house rule those very fringe cases, because there's lots of precedent already in the ruleset, as opposed to vague rules and just let the DMs sort it out. However it takes power out of the DMs hands, and again, if your a storyteller than directly threatens your story I suppose. |
| #38lawrencehoyFeb 18, 2015 4:38:24 |
|
| (Reply to #37)OoftaMeg |
|
| #40bawylieFeb 18, 2015 7:27:12 | I think the big difference here is between guidelines and hard&fast axioms. We've moved away from axioms because of the precision required (which is why we get laws written in "legalese.").
Guidelines though, ought to be reasonably clear as much as feasible, while also being ignorable without detriment (again, as much as feasible).
By designing guidelines, we get a rules set that functions to empower and enable a DM's vision for their game. By designing axioms we get a system that turns x into y. And it's fantastic at doing it, but x to y isn't enough. (I say that because we have an open market place of games across all sorts of platforms and media and there isn't one system or game everyone has in common. So demand must be broad).
Anyway, for me it's down to this: Playstyle doesn't matter (apart from personally), game agendas are forge waffle (untested, unverified, exclusionary, and utterly gibberish), and system Doesn't Matter (again, we play ALL sorts of crap in all kinds of format). In the end, what matters is value, entertainment, & agency. I think it's wise to sell a D&D that's designed to accomodate and empower and enable your game - however you make your game. Tighter restrictions and more axiomatic language may have a low return on benefit. While a more broad guideline can handle several uses. |
| #41VahnyuFeb 18, 2015 7:43:33 |
|
| (Reply to #41)OoftaMeg |
|
| #43melloredFeb 18, 2015 8:59:39 | My errata balance suggestions. (or houserules, redesign, or whatever you want to call it).
(big ones) Simulacrum: Cannot cast simulacrum, wish, or regain hit points outside the lab. (can't cast level 7 spells?) Conjure X: Creatures do not have any 1/day spells or spell like effects. (not neccicaraly the best fix..) Quicken: Can't use another non-cantrip spell or invocation.
(moderate ones) Charger: Deal extra damage equal to 2x your proficency. Sharpshooter: -3 to hit, +6 damage. Martial Adept: 2 dice. Beastmaster: Give beast hit dice. Level 2: revivify beast spell. 1 action: touch Component: A scrap of fur, fang, or tooth belonging to the creature. If a beast died in the last minute, it comes back to life with 1 HP At higher level: At level 3, the beast could of died in the past day. At level 4, the beasts regenerates missing body parts. At level 5, you don't need the beasts body, it regenerates from the fur. Grappler: Can grapple creatures 2 sizes larger. As an attack, you can try and pin someone. Crossbow Expertise: When you use an attack action to attack with a different one handed weapon.... Greatweapon Master: -3 to hit, +6 damage.
(Minor ones) Medium Armor Mastery: +1 AC, no penalty to sealth. Elemental Adept: Reroll 1's. Use the new result. Rangers: Get's extra prepared spells based on sub-class. Beastmaster: 1: animal friendship. 2: revivify beast (see above) 3: conjure animals. 4: stone skin. 5: dominate beast. Hunter: 1: Hunter's Mark 2: Pass without a trace 3: Nondetect 4: Freedom of Movement 5: Tree Stride
Discussion thread here. |
| #44VahnyuFeb 18, 2015 9:06:24 |
|
| (Reply to #44)OoftaMeg |
|
| #46VahnyuFeb 18, 2015 9:37:21 |
|
| #47OoftaMegFeb 18, 2015 11:04:33 | Slightly out of order ...
|
| #48edwin_suFeb 18, 2015 11:58:43 |
|
| (Reply to #36)Coredump00 |
|
| #50ModusPonensFeb 18, 2015 12:08:10 |
|
| (Reply to #41)Coredump00 |
|
| #52DaveDashFeb 18, 2015 12:15:41 | Here's the thing. When we played (Core only) 3rd edition there was a small list of "This is how we rule this in our games". Everything was done by the book. Any new player knew exactly what the "contract" was for our games and there were no surprises. Players knew exactly what they were getting into when building a character. I think the designers really are stuck in the mindset of D&D as a narrative game where the DM is the director of the play, harking back to the 1e days. Whether this actually pays off beyond great core book sales (based on Nostalgia) is yet to be seen. |
| #53iserithFeb 18, 2015 12:28:15 |
|
| #54DaveDashFeb 18, 2015 12:43:44 | Nope. 4e is waaaay too slow at higher levels, and I much prefer 3 & 5s class system to 4e powers based system. |
| (Reply to #52)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #55)DaveDash |
|
| (Reply to #56)Satyrn |
|
| (Reply to #57)DaveDash |
|
| #59abs1nthFeb 18, 2015 16:16:28 | "Fifth edition now belongs to the thousands of groups playing it. It would be inappropriate for the design team to use errata as a way to redesign the game."
This line struck me as very odd. What does that even mean? If the game now belongs to the masses, how would changing it matter? Especially weird when the next sentence talks about possible future redesigns.
Anyway, very excited about the prospect of these columns. I think it'll be fascinating to get insights particularly on RAI on some of the weirdly worded rules, not because that will influence the way I rule at my table but because I want to understand where they were coming from when they wrote them. Was really dying for him to give an example when the article just ended. .__. |
| (Reply to #56)OoftaMeg |
|
| #61abs1nthFeb 18, 2015 17:10:51 |
|
| (Reply to #59)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| (Reply to #60)DaveDash |
|
| (Reply to #59)Tony_Vargas |
|
| #65RhennyFeb 20, 2015 5:31:43 | I think examples of options are fun to read and often inspire creativity. I hope Jeremy's column provides that rather than canonizing rulings. |
| (Reply to #65)OoftaMeg |
|
| #67Tony_VargasFeb 25, 2015 13:24:58 |
|
| (Reply to #34)CCS |
|
| #69SirAntoineApr 21, 2015 23:19:20 | 5th Edition does make an attempt to encourage the DM to experiment with rule modifications, including adjusting the hit points of monsters during combat, and other things, and this is a good thing. I like how Mr. Crawford says the best DM's are able to adjust the game "on the fly", and the attempt to make adjustments for particular groups of players to find what will make them happiest. This article and the new edition do give the DM some more lattitude when making their decisions. It's needed badly in my opinion because there are people who call this cheating, or they expect the DM's rulings to worsen the game with the feeling that RAW is "90% or more likely the best," because either they just like it a lot or they feel "professional designers" know much better.
In my opinion, until you are an experienced DM, you can pin yourself down with rules and procedures you might never like very much if you try too hard to run the game RAW or RAI. The designers were just gamers, too, when they wrote the books. Most of the work was put into it long ago, in the earlier editions, yet the new edition has few of the old rules. I would encourage people to use the older editions more, even if they are also trying to run 5th Edition RAW or RAI, out of a high regard for the new edition. Beware players who believe in a one-true-way to run the game, and anyone who will accuse you of cheating or dishonesty for adjusting dice rolls, hit points, or anything else. You, as DM, can make these decisions. You may hear "don't change something without a good reason". Just to experiment is a good enough reason, and you can change your own rulings and adjustments as the situation calls for it, or if you decide one is better than another.
Some players want a "Session 0," where you establish what the campaign will be like, and they may have highly particular expectations. It is best to answer questions honestly in such a session, but remember you can take the position of being flexible and free to experiment if you want. You may not know, today, whether you want to adjust something, and during the game, it's not always good to interrupt play to announce and discuss what you did. Someone asked me once, at a session 0, how I handled death in the game. I asked him what he meant, and seemed to be concerned with whether the game would be too easy, with easy resurrections or maybe even delayed death rules. It was 3rd Edition, which I don't normally run, but I agreed to run it for his group because they wanted to find a DM. The group didn't get past the first actual session, after session 0, because of difficulties in my personal life which made me have to cancel, but it was difficult to answer this question about death. Over the years, my players have faced death many times, and they feel I run a very hard game, but I felt they should try the campaign and see if they like it, rather than try to pin down what style there would be. |
| #70KangodoApr 22, 2015 2:31:48 |
|
| #71DiffanApr 22, 2015 2:37:44 | RAW is often preferred because then everyone's expectations on the game, the possible outcomes, and the level of chance are similar. I can look at my Strength 14 Fighter and, based on the rules for jumping, decide if a 20-ft. leap over a chasm is worth the risk based on the rules on jumping. If I have no clue on the possible outcome (besides simply making it or falling to certain death) then chances are I'm not going to try. DM rulings need to be clear and consistent, which IME, isn't always the case. DM #1 might allow a PC to bull rush a monster of larger size with no penalties while DM #2 applies Disadvantge and DM #3 says no because it's x-amount of lbs. more than the PC weighs. And next session it changes because the DM forgot the last time. |
| #72kalilApr 22, 2015 4:22:07 |
|
| #73KangodoApr 22, 2015 4:38:31 |
|
| #74iserithApr 22, 2015 6:20:25 | D&D 5e demands a good DM or the game experience may suffer. It also demands you know your DM better than you know the rules. Like it or lump it. |
| #75kalilApr 22, 2015 7:11:54 |
|
| #76iserithApr 22, 2015 7:28:48 |
|
| #77kalilApr 22, 2015 7:33:56 | Knowing your DM and acting accordingly _is_ gaming the DM. |
| #78iserithApr 22, 2015 7:39:48 |
|
| #79kalilApr 22, 2015 8:01:33 | You are still "gaming the DM" in the sense that you make your informed descisions based on your apriori information about the DM's preferences, pet peeves and DMing style. While you might not be trying to mind game him your are still playing a game of social manipulation. I find this game boring. I want to go on grand adventures and kill dragons, not spend my time second guessing of this particular DM has a pet peeve for firing into melee or not. Thus I prefer games with clear and consise rules that gives DMs and players alike a solid ground upon which to play their game. I have no idea why I would want to pay a professional game designer to make a unstable morass that requires constant adjudication to even function sensibly (opaque darkness;I am looking at you). |
| #80iserithApr 22, 2015 8:10:01 |
|
| #81kalilApr 22, 2015 8:23:14 |
|
| #82OrethalionApr 22, 2015 8:27:21 |
|
| #83iserithApr 22, 2015 8:33:03 |
|
| #84iserithApr 22, 2015 8:34:41 |
|
| #85kalilApr 22, 2015 8:35:52 |
|
| #86iserithApr 22, 2015 8:39:46 |
|
| #87kalilApr 22, 2015 8:45:59 |
|
| #88kalilApr 22, 2015 8:48:29 |
|
| #89WuzzardApr 22, 2015 8:56:10 | If you are the type of player that is always looking for that edge that helps you make the best possible mechanical choices to influence the outcome of the game/encounter, you probably prefer a game with lots of system mastery, because then you can become its master and your are more likely to succeed. You probably then notice, that in a game without so much system mastery, that relies on DM rulings, where the DM can invent new rules on the spot to handle new situations, that beyond just knowing the DM's rules or the DM's pattern or philosophy in devising rules, given the simple fact that the DM can invent a rule for each situation, there is the possibility of subtle DM manipulation that you can employ to get even a greater edge. And in that way of thinking, because its possible, and might even easily be doable given the particular DM, then why wouldn't you or someone else use it? If its possible, then its meant to be used, right?
|
| #90ChrisCarlsonApr 22, 2015 8:59:24 |
|
| #91iserithApr 22, 2015 9:11:51 |
|
| #92UngeheuerLichApr 22, 2015 9:22:35 | I´d like some more clear rules (surprise especially) and some rules changed a little (grapple vs larger opponents), but overall it is really easy to rule at the table. |
| #93kalilApr 22, 2015 9:33:41 |
|
| (Reply to #92)bawylie |
|
| #95kalilApr 22, 2015 9:37:04 |
|
| #96iserithApr 22, 2015 9:43:55 |
|
| #97kalilApr 22, 2015 9:50:39 |
|
| #98bawylieApr 22, 2015 10:01:26 | I think rulings go both ways. If you'll permit an example.
PC is scaling a cliff. Per RAW, they climb at half their movement speed. Jerks, atop the cliff, are raining debris on our climbing PC.
DM makes a ruling. DM decides the rocks inhibit the climbing, so the PC must make a strength (athletics) check to proceed. OR DM decides to handle the rocks as improvised weapon Attacks and resolve them in that fashion. OR both. The rocks automatically hit and damage the PC who cannot effectively defend themselves, and also proc a Strength (athletics) check for progress. OR a strength saving throw!
In any event, the DM decides what rules (if any) to bring to bear and whether or not actions succeed or fail automatically and whether or not checks are apropos (along with who makes those checks and what DC). |
| #99Brock_LandersApr 22, 2015 10:27:56 |
|
| #100iserithApr 22, 2015 11:06:42 |
|
| #101DiffanApr 22, 2015 14:57:32 | For me it's not so much the DM is empowered to make rulings but when those rules are implemented or changed. If I want to do something and the DM makes an adjudication, I'd like to know what that is before my character does said action, not after the fact. For example if I'm playing a wizard and we're underwater and I cast Fireball, if the DM takes the stance that fireballs don't work underwater then I shouldn't have that spell slot used and should be able to change my decision to something else. In pre-WotC days some DMs were strict about player actions, and if you did something you failed on because you and the DM weren't on the same page, well that was a learning experience for you. |
| (Reply to #101)Ramius613 |
|
| #103iserithApr 22, 2015 16:16:21 |
|
| #104ShasarakApr 22, 2015 17:41:30 |
|
| (Reply to #103)Diffan |
|
| #106iserithApr 22, 2015 18:09:56 |
|
| #107OrethalionApr 22, 2015 19:06:50 |
|
| (Reply to #107)Diffan |
|
| #109OrethalionApr 22, 2015 21:09:59 |
|
| #110SatyrnApr 22, 2015 21:15:59 | Diffan, I'm curious. If your DM had decided that your character didn't know fireball wouldn't work, and then went on to describe the spell's failure in a more interesting way, a way that suggested your wizard just learned something new, would that have worked for you, been fun?
I'm asking, because that's how I'd want to handle it as DM. |
| #111SirAntoineApr 22, 2015 22:16:56 |
|
| #112SirAntoineApr 22, 2015 22:27:43 |
|
| #113SirAntoineApr 22, 2015 22:35:45 |
|
| #114SirAntoineApr 22, 2015 22:47:13 |
|
| (Reply to #110)Diffan |
|
| #116SirAntoineApr 22, 2015 22:50:44 |
|
| #117kalilApr 22, 2015 22:55:44 |
|
| (Reply to #111)Diffan |
|
| #119KangodoApr 23, 2015 2:34:05 |
|
| #120SirAntoineApr 23, 2015 3:14:06 |
|
| #121SirAntoineApr 23, 2015 3:22:24 |
|
| #122KravellApr 23, 2015 4:30:04 |
|
| (Reply to #120)Diffan |
|
| #124BoldItalicApr 23, 2015 6:42:59 | What would it mean if a DM was said to be "gaming" the players? And would it be good or bad? |
| #125iserithApr 23, 2015 7:10:17 |
|
| #126WuzzardApr 23, 2015 7:35:22 |
|
| #127OrethalionApr 23, 2015 8:06:45 |
|
| #128OrethalionApr 23, 2015 8:11:56 |
|
| #129MechatarrasqueApr 23, 2015 10:48:09 | I prefer the "dude, your wizard is underwater. Y'know fire and water, are you sure you want him to do that? Really sure?" approach.
|
| #130OrethalionApr 23, 2015 10:59:01 |
|
| #131WuzzardApr 23, 2015 11:27:53 |
|
| #132kalilApr 23, 2015 11:34:49 | Why are we applying muggle physics to magical spells all of a sudden? It is much less of a stretch to imagine a fireball under water than to imagine a fireball spell in the first place. |
| #133sandvirmApr 23, 2015 11:42:41 |
|
| (Reply to #128)Diffan |
|
| #135OrethalionApr 23, 2015 11:49:01 |
|
| #136OrethalionApr 23, 2015 11:52:00 |
|
| (Reply to #127)Diffan |
|
| #138iserithApr 23, 2015 12:13:21 |
|
| #139OrethalionApr 23, 2015 12:32:24 |
|
| (Reply to #122)bawylie |
|
| #141Coredump00Apr 23, 2015 13:27:12 | As a DM, I would not let a fireball work 'normally' underwater. If there was big difference (didn't work at all, only did 1/2 damage, etc.) I would expect the caster to know this, and would inform the caster beforehand. If there was a minor difference, or if the situation was not a common situation (instead of underwater, maybe there was a magical snowstorm, or whatever) then the caster may not know it wouldn't work. (or perhaps an Arcana check...etc.) |
| #142BoldItalicApr 23, 2015 13:41:07 | Wouldn't it be more fun if fireballs did work underwater and then left all the water in the area of effect heavily obscured by bubbles for 1 hour? It's more interesting than saying "no". |
| (Reply to #139)Diffan |
|
| #144OrethalionApr 23, 2015 13:47:04 |
|
| #145GwaithadorApr 23, 2015 18:13:09 | Back to the fireball question. I have to disagree with the initial premise. Why is it assumed that the wizard ever had the occassion to use a fireball spell underwater against a Sahuagin? It may be the first time the wizard had ever encountered a Sahuagin or managed to venture underwater and confronted a foe. There's no reason to assume he had prior knowledge that the fireball would not work in those conditions either through his own experience or from prior instruction. I suppose I'd be more inclined to give the wizard an Arcana check before his casting of the spell. A success, and he knows it would not work based on his prior knowlege. Failure? And well, he casts the spell and learns from his mistake and gains knowledge he can use in the future. |
| #146iserithApr 23, 2015 18:23:07 |
|
| (Reply to #146)Diffan |
|
| #148SirAntoineApr 23, 2015 22:34:18 |
|
| #149BoldItalicApr 23, 2015 22:42:45 | Fireballs do work underwater, I've just tried it from a boat in Waterdeep harbour and killed three small sharks and a lobster. But there are side-effects I need to warn you about. The good news is, they have WiFi here on the elemental plane of steam. The bad news is, they also have mephits and I'm out of spell slots ... |
| #150SirAntoineApr 23, 2015 23:46:07 |
|
| #151DraconesApr 24, 2015 7:35:24 | Fireballs work underwater in Pathfinder. So it's not an obvious thing that they wouldn't work in 5e.
Players shouldn't have to guess at the physics of the game world because it then becomes a game of "guess the DM's intent/mood/thinking process". How the game rules interact with the world should be obvious and clear to everyone sitting at the table. |
| #152Coredump00Apr 24, 2015 8:12:51 | I don't think the issue should be if it is obvious to the player, but if it should be obvious to the Character.
It seems reasonable to me that in the course of studying magic (and the fireball spell in particular) that the wizard learns that it doesn't work underwater. Barring that, it seems reasonable that the wizard learns enough about magical fire and water to know it would not work Barring that, it seems reasonable that the wizard actually tested this out at some point to find out. Barring that, it seems reasonable that the wizard would at least know that he isn't sure if it would work. I would rule that the wizard knew the answer, but at least allow for the uncertainty to call for an ability check.
But the situation we had is the player was under the impression that the wizard 'knew' the spell would work, and the DM (implicitly) agreed that the Wizard would have no idea that it might not work.
|
| #153MechatarrasqueApr 24, 2015 8:23:10 | The other reason (beyond not wasting resources) for the DM to ask the player if they really want their PC to do something is that sometimes DM's are inconsistent (I will admit to doing that on occassion), and it is better to catch and resolve inconsistencies while the stakes are low, i.e., before the action is completed. So if the DM asked "do you really want to cast fireball underwater?", and someone says "you let him do it two session ago", followed by "I did? Oh shoot, I remember that, oh well, never mind, shoot the fire ball."
|
| #154SirAntoineApr 24, 2015 16:08:01 |
|
| #155SirAntoineApr 24, 2015 16:09:21 |
|
| #156NoonApr 25, 2015 19:47:47 |
|
| #157WuzzardApr 25, 2015 21:44:18 |
|
| #158RCanineApr 26, 2015 12:56:57 |
|
| #159KravellApr 30, 2015 7:52:26 |
|
| #160bawylieApr 30, 2015 9:44:12 | It's weird for the first 2-3 fights. People want to iron out how to strategize and anything unfamiliar is odd. But then it sets in and is fun. |