GradonSilverton Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 I'm needing to create a Armor to represent Spell Resistance in a game... I've looked at a few options to create it and focused on the following... Magic Armor - Magic Resistance Power Defense OAF Only vs. Magic Damage Resistant Real Armor Normal Mass .... This seem acceptable of does anyone else have an idea? I want it to seem virtually magic reistant and have thought about a Dispell Magic Armor.... The Players will be focusing on this Armor during the adventure and will be required to find a work around... I'm basing the armor off of Chain Mail with a 6 Defense rating for normal attacks also.... Any help would be appreciated... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 2 cents I'm guessing that the 'OAF' bit is a typo, 'cause it doesn't seem like chain mail would be terribly accessible... Depending on how much of a factor the cost of this thing is (and if there's a chance the players may get ahold of it), I think I'd go with Dispel, any power with a magic special effect (+2), area effect - 1 hex (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2), always on (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), independent (-2)... Hmmm. That works out to, um, 3 points per d6. Of course, the person wearing the armor can't use magic (or magic items), unless, of course, you tossed personal immunity on it. If it's something you don't want the players to have, you could always make it a personal focus. Just some thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: 2 cents Originally posted by Blackout I'm guessing that the 'OAF' bit is a typo, 'cause it doesn't seem like chain mail would be terribly accessible... Depending on how much of a factor the cost of this thing is (and if there's a chance the players may get ahold of it), I think I'd go with Dispel, any power with a magic special effect (+2), area effect - 1 hex (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2), always on (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), independent (-2)... Hmmm. That works out to, um, 3 points per d6. Of course, the person wearing the armor can't use magic (or magic items), unless, of course, you tossed personal immunity on it. If it's something you don't want the players to have, you could always make it a personal focus. Just some thoughts. Yes OAF was a typo....as for players getting a hold of it...if they do, they will be praying they have big balls if they want to keep it....back story is that this bit of Armor is the most sought after Armor in the Area (think roughly the size of South America) which has made a appearance in their neighborhood (its owned by a group of Wizards who try to keep it protected and safe .... for some reason (dont have it yet), the Wizards need to move the Armor and hire Adventures as escorts .... Needless to say, the Armor will be taken and the Players will then try to track it down and return it .... or some variation of this .... now I wont make it so the players cant have it ... in fact It would be REAL interesting if they decided to run with it ... not only do the Wizards come in mass, but so does every adventurer for hire and personal gain ... talk about the Big Red Flashing Arrow Above their head .... I like your layout though ... I'd like to see more options on this one before I decide to go with one due to the nature and importance of this Equipment in the Campaign world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourtFool Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: Re: 2 cents Originally posted by GradonSilverton ...as for players getting a hold of it...if they do, they will be praying they have big balls if they want to keep it.... No, no, no! Players = no armor or shield. Not this armor. Not chain mail. Not any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: Re: Re: 2 cents Originally posted by CourtFool No, no, no! Players = no armor or shield. Not this armor. Not chain mail. Not any. Now now... keep your comments to the correct Thread...this isn't the Feats thread mind you. And for the record, no one...absolutly no one.... should have this armor....unless they are my Villian, then its AOK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: Re: 2 cents Originally posted by GradonSilverton Yes OAF was a typo....as for players getting a hold of it...if they do, they will be praying they have big balls if they want to keep it....back story is that this bit of Armor is the most sought after Armor in the Area (think roughly the size of South America) which has made a appearance in their neighborhood (its owned by a group of Wizards who try to keep it protected and safe .... for some reason (dont have it yet), the Wizards need to move the Armor and hire Adventures as escorts .... Needless to say, the Armor will be taken and the Players will then try to track it down and return it .... or some variation of this .... now I wont make it so the players cant have it ... in fact It would be REAL interesting if they decided to run with it ... not only do the Wizards come in mass, but so does every adventurer for hire and personal gain ... talk about the Big Red Flashing Arrow Above their head .... I like your layout though ... I'd like to see more options on this one before I decide to go with one due to the nature and importance of this Equipment in the Campaign world. One reason for the wizards moving it could be the "Big Red Flashing Arrow" the armor represents. The wizards endeavor, at all costs, to keep the location of the armor a secret. Somehow the most recent hiding place for it has been compromised, and they have to move it to a new location. This works especially well if the players don't know what it is they've been hired to guard. I can just imagine the look on my players' faces (when I've had players, that is) when they find out that the thing thats been stolen and that they have to retrieve makes their magic useless. Which, of course, is only revealed to them after the thing's been taken. Depending on how dependent your players' characters are on magic (and magic items), the armor could be a double edged sword if you remove the personal immunity. They could wear the armor and, sure, they'd be "immune" to magic, BUT they couldn't use any themselves. Kind of a neat idea all around. I may steal...um...borrow that one myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: Re: Re: 2 cents Originally posted by Blackout One reason for the wizards moving it could be the "Big Red Flashing Arrow" the armor represents. The wizards endeavor, at all costs, to keep the location of the armor a secret. Somehow the most recent hiding place for it has been compromised, and they have to move it to a new location. This works especially well if the players don't know what it is they've been hired to guard. I can just imagine the look on my players' faces (when I've had players, that is) when they find out that the thing thats been stolen and that they have to retrieve makes their magic useless. Which, of course, is only revealed to them after the thing's been taken. Depending on how dependent your players' characters are on magic (and magic items), the armor could be a double edged sword if you remove the personal immunity. They could wear the armor and, sure, they'd be "immune" to magic, BUT they couldn't use any themselves. Kind of a neat idea all around. I may steal...um...borrow that one myself. Woah now... to quote a genius of our time... Homer Jay Simpson.... Patent Pending.. Patent Pending....Patent Pending!!!! As for your idea....i was leaning on those line....Magic is very special in this world and there might be 1 member of the 7 person group who can use it offensively....and the Wizards really like to think they are a bit better than others, thus NO ONE can get their hands on this.... Im my playing with the idea after reading your post...here's my quick version... Cost Power END 29 Armor: Dispel 12d6: Magic, Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Expanded Effect (All Powers Simultaneously; +2) (162 Active Points); Independent (-2), STR Minimum (15-17; -3/4), STR Min. Cannot Add/Subtract Damage (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) Powers Cost: 29 Not sure about the 12d6....but I want this to be REAL powerful stuff.....and there is no personal immunity.....I'm working on the Bad Guy who they will fight for it and imagine a Ogre like character (not in look but mass, ect.) with 18 STR, Speed 3, wielding a 2 Handed War Flail.... bonus to DC on the Flail.... I'm starting to like this guy... alot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Here’s my take n this: Armor: Drain 10d6: Magic, Area Of Effect (explosive; +1/2), 1 recoverable charge lasting one year (+1 1/2), Expanded Effect (All Powers Simultaneously; +2) (400 Active Points); Independent (-2), Focus: expendable, difficult/dangerous to recover, OIF (-1 1/2), Always On (-1/2), Real armour (-1/4) Real cost: 76 active points!!! EEK! You can see why there are not a lot of these around! Here’s the rationale for the changes. I have swapped out Dispel for Drain. This is because a 12 d6 dispel will generate approximately 42 active points of dispel – in short, it will normally bounce an 8 DC attack, but a 9 DC attack will fry ya most of the time and a 10DC attack will fry ya 99% of the time. If this is going to be a major magical mcguffin, something that won’t stop a 6d6 Explosive EB (AKA basic fireball spell) doesn’t sound so impressive. With Drain, you reduce the power of incoming magic by approx 35 points – so many spells will have some effect - but a greatly weakened one. For example a 3d6 RKA lightning bolt which would normally be a real threat, would suddenly become a 1/2 d6 attack that will probably just bounce off the player’s mundane defences! Not only that but spells with persistent effects – even really big ones – will be severely weakened if the armour is around them for very long. Just the thing for smashing ancient wards, releasing unnameable evils and that sort of thing…. I changed area effect 1 hex to area effect explosive. It costs the same and gives the guy in the middle the same protection, but if you can’t use your own magic while this thing is on, then you might as well hurt your opponent’s power at the same time, yes? I changed the reduced END to 1 continuing charge for two reasons. The first is, the persistant power needs to be made continuous if it is to counter multiple incoming attacks, without attention from the player – otherwise, all you have is one really long lasting dispel, increasing the cost somewhat. Continuing charges however stay around in the affected area between phases and are assumed to affect everyone in the area – and it’s marginally cheaper. Reason 2 is more evil – if the players run off with the device, after a period of time (depending on when it was last charged, which is up to the GM) it stops working! It requires something expendable, difficult and dangerous to get it going again – I suggest putting a little locket on the front which needs to be refilled with ashes from a lich’s corpse or something similar. That way the GM can remove the item from play if it is wreaking havoc with the game. Alternatively if the players run off with the item, and you want to let them keep it, the charge makes a nice plot hook to get them moving – when the item runs out of power, they’ll probably want another charge…. Finally, I removed the STR min and STR does not add limitations, as being inappropriate – STR doesn’t add to either dispel or drain. If you want to make the armour really heavy and difficult to wear, make it a bulky focus for a further –1/2. Personally I wouldn’t bother – it’s enough of a mixed blessing as it is. As for the adventure thread, two possibilities spring to mind. The first is simply that the mages have hidden it away as suggested – you certainly wouldn’t want someone turning up in this thing if you were a magic user – and are moving it to a more secure hiding place. Obviously, it’s a very valuable item, so it’s not like they are going to throw it in the ocean. The other option is that they want to use it. Unlike dispel, drain has a lasting effect – so you could sit this item in the vicinity of a ward you cannot break, or a monster you want to smear, drain it down – and then move the armour away, so that you can get to work with your own powers, while the opponent’s powers are diminished. This has the added appeal that the mages will be wanting some tough adventuring types to carry the armour – after all, they won’t want the job, and they cannot use magic to transport it…. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 I'd suggest Suppress instead of Drain because a) it's cheaper and it doesn't need the long-term aspect of Drain. It also needs to be Continuous, so: Magic Resistance: Suppress 5d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Variable Effect (All Powers Simultaneously; +2) (137 Active Points); Only vs. effects targeting armor or its wearer (-1), No Range (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), No cumulative effect (-1/2) Power Cost: 34 Add STR Min, etc. to taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feywulf Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 If it is only meant to affect the wearer of the armor, how about using damage shield instead of area:hex? That would negate the use of no range limitation, but then you wouldn't need the +2 all magic simultaneously. You'd use +1/4 any magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGreen Posted February 21, 2003 Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 cents Originally posted by GradonSilverton Now now... keep your comments to the correct Thread...this isn't the Feats thread mind you. And for the record, no one...absolutly no one.... should have this armor....unless they are my Villian, then its AOK! Heh, yes the feats thread has dissolved into people going on about how nasty PCs are... Gosh.. in my campaign spell resistance is usually just a bit of all defenses with the "only versus magic" limitation. And anybody taking a power "usable against others" has power defense as a defense automatically. So this armor would stop healing spells or beneficial abilities as well, hunh? I don't think the PCs would WANT it! -DG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2003 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 cents Originally posted by DarkGreen Heh, yes the feats thread has dissolved into people going on about how nasty PCs are... Gosh.. in my campaign spell resistance is usually just a bit of all defenses with the "only versus magic" limitation. And anybody taking a power "usable against others" has power defense as a defense automatically. So this armor would stop healing spells or beneficial abilities as well, hunh? I don't think the PCs would WANT it! -DG You are absolutly correct...thats why this Armor is so important to the Wizards...They have found no way to destroy it, they are afraid of it and who might get it, and more importantly, they are afraid of how it was made and by whom...does this person still live, can he create other things like this, etc.!?!?!?!?!?!? As for the Feats Thread it started good...a post followed by some critiques....another post, more critiques....then all hell broke loose.... I just posted a few feats of my own to see if we can real it back in, although I expect more hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by feywulf If it is only meant to affect the wearer of the armor, how about using damage shield instead of area:hex? That would negate the use of no range limitation, but then you wouldn't need the +2 all magic simultaneously. You'd use +1/4 any magic. By dropping the Hex to a Shield, It opens itself up to Entangles, Blast, Etc that are Area Effect.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 OK...here's the 2 competitors.... Cost Power END 25 Armor: Dispel 12d6: Magic, Expanded Effect (One At A Time; +1/4), Inherent (+1/4), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (108 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) 30 Anti Magic Armor: Suppress 10d6, Variable Effect (One Power At A Time; +1/4), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (150 Active Points); Independent (-2), No Range (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), No Cumulative Effect (-1/2), OIF (-1/2) Here's a few note on the build...Please correct me if I'm wrong here.... 1. Many were suggesting "All Powers Simultaneously". Due to the nature of the Non-Targeting of the Armor, I do not see the need for anything more than 1 power...Since every time the Armor is hit it, in effect, has a new attack roll (which it does not have to make). 2. Area of Effect 1 Hex As said above...this will protect Area Effect Attacks The rest should be self explanitory.... ok now, any more suggestions....a vote....comments...etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted February 22, 2003 Report Share Posted February 22, 2003 Issue with "one power at a time" -- actually, two issues. 1) If you're hit with a Multiple Power Attack, you're out of luck. 2) Technically, the character (or something) has to choose what the power is targeting each Phase (or each time it is used). IMO, saying "the power I'm being hit with" isn't acceptable, so you'd have to build something with a Detect and a Trigger. That's why I favor the +2 version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by Geoff Speare Issue with "one power at a time" -- actually, two issues. 1) If you're hit with a Multiple Power Attack, you're out of luck. I'm thinking that MAgical powers will be sigle power attacks.... 2) Technically, the character (or something) has to choose what the power is targeting each Phase (or each time it is used). IMO, saying "the power I'm being hit with" isn't acceptable, so you'd have to build something with a Detect and a Trigger. That's why I favor the +2 version. Since the power targers Magic powers, any magic that hits it is the target.... Am I all wrong here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 If you choose to target one power at a time, you have to choose what power, as pointed out. So if Mage #1 throws his lightning bolt (RKA + flash vs sight and hearing) you can choose to be burned or deaf, but you can't avoid both powers. Worse, if his apprentice then throws an entangle on the same phase, well, you're going to be tied up for a while... I'd go for the +2 "all powers of a special effect" - especially since it's a GM's magical guffing built out his limitless pool of XP.s :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by Markdoc I'd go for the +2 "all powers of a special effect" - especially since it's a GM's magical guffing built out his limitless pool of XP.s :-) sssssshhhhhhh! We dont like to talk about that around here! But the more I've thought, you are correct (along with those that pointed it out origionally).... +2 it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbarron Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by GradonSilverton OK...here's the 2 competitors.... Cost Power END 25 Armor: Dispel 12d6: Magic, Expanded Effect (One At A Time; +1/4), Inherent (+1/4), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (108 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) 30 Anti Magic Armor: Suppress 10d6, Variable Effect (One Power At A Time; +1/4), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (150 Active Points); Independent (-2), No Range (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), No Cumulative Effect (-1/2), OIF (-1/2) The rest should be self explanitory.... ok now, any more suggestions....a vote....comments...etc. I am concerned that a bad role using either of these powers would allow spells to hit the owner pretty hard. That doesn't seem particularly impressive to me. If I were going to build this for my campaign, I would use damage reduction. Anti-Magic Chainmail: 5 Armor (6 PD / 6 ED) (18 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) (added to Secondary Value) 17 Magic Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75% (60 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) Now granted, making this be a "Magic" damage reduction might bother some purists, but there is an easy enough work around. Just buy the physical, mental and energy reductions, then limit them by "only vs. Magic." Building it with Damage Reduction would still be letting damage through, it just wouldn't ever be very much. If letting absolutely no damage leak through to the player is the intention, I'd recommend just piling on resistant defenses, only vs. magic, in combination with the supress. I wouldn't do it that way for my game, but I can see how that might work from the description you gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 You could apply the Standard Effect Rule to either of the armors to avoid the chance of bad rolls. p 72 FREd. The Dispelling Armor would dispel any magical power of 36 points or less. The Supression Armor would reduce any magical power by 30 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by sbarron I am concerned that a bad role using either of these powers would allow spells to hit the owner pretty hard. That doesn't seem particularly impressive to me. If I were going to build this for my campaign, I would use damage reduction. Anti-Magic Chainmail: 5 Armor (6 PD / 6 ED) (18 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) (added to Secondary Value) 17 Magic Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75% (60 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) Now granted, making this be a "Magic" damage reduction might bother some purists, but there is an easy enough work around. Just buy the physical, mental and energy reductions, then limit them by "only vs. Magic." Building it with Damage Reduction would still be letting damage through, it just wouldn't ever be very much. If letting absolutely no damage leak through to the player is the intention, I'd recommend just piling on resistant defenses, only vs. magic, in combination with the supress. I wouldn't do it that way for my game, but I can see how that might work from the description you gave. I had not thought about the Damage reduction route....what I would probably due is GM rules it 100% for 80 Normal and 160 Resistanet cost.... As for the purist....I looked it up..P. 95 5th Ed.....there is a Magic Example on the side bar so they can eat it! I'm also going to think about the post about the standard effect..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Shadowpup You could apply the Standard Effect Rule to either of the armors to avoid the chance of bad rolls. p 72 FREd. The Dispelling Armor would dispel any magical power of 36 points or less. The Supression Armor would reduce any magical power by 30 points. The more I think about this, if I go this way, Supress is not correct...IT doesn't fit the concept correctly.... The standard effect rule is a interesting thought.... Only problem I see is cost....I'd need to be able to dispell massive amounts of Active Cost....and since Dispell is all or nothing...Thats ALOT! But I am getting closer....thanks for the help to everyone that has posted....keep the ideas coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by sbarron I am concerned that a bad role using either of these powers would allow spells to hit the owner pretty hard. That doesn't seem particularly impressive to me. If I were going to build this for my campaign, I would use damage reduction. Anti-Magic Chainmail: 5 Armor (6 PD / 6 ED) (18 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) (added to Secondary Value) 17 Magic Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75% (60 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) Now granted, making this be a "Magic" damage reduction might bother some purists, but there is an easy enough work around. Just buy the physical, mental and energy reductions, then limit them by "only vs. Magic." Building it with Damage Reduction would still be letting damage through, it just wouldn't ever be very much. If letting absolutely no damage leak through to the player is the intention, I'd recommend just piling on resistant defenses, only vs. magic, in combination with the supress. I wouldn't do it that way for my game, but I can see how that might work from the description you gave. Aahhh... I unfortunatly have found a problem with the damage reduction... From the FAQ Q: For a specialized form of Damage Reduction, like Magic Damage Reduction, would it apply to Entangles, Flashes, and the like? A: No, no more so than normal Damage Reduction reduces the effect of Entangles or Flashes. It just reduces actual damage. This would unfortunatly not allow the defense against the magic as hoped... as above, a entangle would still be successful....great thought though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradonSilverton Posted February 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Shadowpup You could apply the Standard Effect Rule to either of the armors to avoid the chance of bad rolls. p 72 FREd. The Dispelling Armor would dispel any magical power of 36 points or less. The Supression Armor would reduce any magical power by 30 points. Since I can invoke the Evil GM Clause, I have come up with this.... Cost Power END 167 Armor: Dispel 50d6: Magic (Standard Effect Rule (3 Auto Per Die)), Inherent (+1/4), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Expanded Effect (All Powers Simultaneously; +2) (712 Active Points); Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) Powers Cost: 167 ....Thats dang expensive, but that Dispells a 150 Active Point Attack..... I wish there was another way to pull this off....I can still imagine a power over that and dont want to just "Make the Magic attack unsuccessful....." I remember a Fuzion "Invulnerbility"....and thats what I need.....any more suggestions or thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Well, if you're gonna invoke the Evil GM Clause, just go all the way. Don't worry about the points and just have it do what you want it to do. Anyway you slice it, this thing's gonna have massive amounts of active points... And, really, isn't this - more or less - just a McGuffin? (Ya know. That's something that should be included in the GMing hints section of future books... A character building option open ONLY to GMs called a McGuffin Bonus. Kinda like a villain bonus, only better.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.