D&D price lists

Re: Whack-iness

Damon Griffin said:
I don't know if 3e does this, but I believe earlier editions of the game took the position that the weights of various items were a measure not only of the item's actual weight, but also its bulk. Bulky or oddly-shaped lightweight items would take up a greater portion of a character's total encumbrance allowance than compact lightweight items, but the simplest way to reflect this was just to list the item as being heavier than was actually the case.

This, I can not believe. No way does a 5# Handaxe bulk more than a 4# Longsword.

But I'm sure it's true in many cases that the designers just didn't have any idea what a given object was likely to weigh, and didn't bother to find out.

This I can believe, but ignorance on such a topic is easily curable. When I saw the 5# Handaxe, I did some quick research, and found that it was out of whack. The weights for other weapons are even worse!...

I think it more likely that WotC's intent was to limit the number of weapons PCs could have, by penalizing them with weight penalties! YMMV.

Personally I've always been a little bothered by the notion that all wood is assumed to have the same weight, density, hardness and so forth; and the same is true for stone. While I do not expect the game to give stats for 20 different kinds of each material, it would not have been unreasonable to expect perhaps three categories of each, covering such widely different woods as balsa, birch and teak; or such stones as pumice, limestone and marble.

Agreed. One might even base such upon... oh, say... the hardness scale developed for rocks?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Archade said:
Edward III's son, the Black Prince had a "sword of war" roughly equivalent to a Bastard Sword that weighed 5 lbs.

A German Zweihander (three-handed sword) measuring 6 1/2 feet in length, that is kept at the Tower of London museum weighs a whopping 9 lbs.

An occasional five pound sword I have no problem with, especially a two-hander or "hand-and-a-half" sword. A five pound handaxe, I do.

Note that the largest sword you can find reference to (outside of Goliath's in The Bible) is 9#... That's still a long way from the 15# listed for the 3e Greatsword. And look what the Germans called it... a "three-handed" sword. The Housecarls who bore them stood at over seven feet tall, too.

Bulk does not explain the excess weight. Certainly not in all cases. Again, there is no way that a Handaxe (with sheath) is bulkier than a Longsword with sheath, hangers, and belt.
 


Well if your going to have PC that don't have the reccomended amount of resources for their level, then things will be different. They'll be treated more like itinerant workers.


Those resource totals, like everything else, are only guidelines. There are any number of good reasons why a character might not have access to the recommended amount at any given time.

The PHB price list should merely indicate an average or typical price for the goods and services listed, but there is a reasonable limit to how much those prices can vary, and on what factors the variance can be based on.


I think it's the only way to view the price list. It's easier to accept as a guideline for how much resources ceratin things should aborb from the PC's resource pool.


What I'm saying is that the existing price list should be corrected, so that it will be a representative list of average prices for goods and services. I don't believe it accomplishes that goal in its present form.


Again, by the rules, if the guy's 2nd level he's got what... 450 gp i think? worth of goods. If he's traveling, he's got them on him.


Unless he's recently been robbed. Or the DM hasn't been keeping up with the recommended resource totals. Or he's paying massive amounts of tuition to a bardic college somewhere.

Even if he does have the whole 450gp with of goods with him, some of it will almost certainly be in the form of small, easily concealed items like potions and gems or possibly even platinum coins; your NPC should not be able to assess my net value on the basis of things he can't see. Your NPC doesn't have access to a DMG table that tells him that "by the rules" my character ought to have 450gp on him.

Also, it does not follow that a character will take everything he owns with him when he travels. This is especially true of higher level characters, who mave probably started to acquire treasure in the form of artwork, valuable mundane commodities like fine wine or bolts of silk, and perhaps land or other property. I don't carry all my cash with me when I travel because it would be silly to do so -- I want to limit my possible losses if robbed, and in any event what use would I have for 10,000gp in the wilderness? It'll be safe in the chest in my room at my patron's villa until I return.


Is the Bard leaving his finest clothes and the majority of his coin somewhere then? People talk, it may take a while, but word will get around. Someone know how much he has, or has a good idea.


Omniscient NPCs...Joe, I really must never run a PC in one of your games. Word may get around eventually, but only if the bard stays around long enough. You've been arguing that the inflated prices make sense for PCs who are just passing through; the all-seeing, all-knowing merchants spot an easy mark the instant he arrives in town, accurately assess his net worth based on a gaming rulebook none of them has ever seen, and charge him several times what any local would have to pay for the same item. Having been thus fleeced, the PC immediately leaves town. No one had time to gather any information about him, but then no one needed to. The NPC merchants simply "knew" what he could afford.


Basically, to try and bargain too hard, to try and get a price closer to what the locals get, is very rude.


Actually, I can see that, but if you accept the PHB price list as valid, then you and I differ on what counts as acceptably close. I can expecting to pay an increase of 25% to 50% on many items as a matter of course (possibly more for some items, maybe a little less for others), and that I could be thought rude if I try to bargain for less. I cannot see that it's be legitimate to consider me rude for refusing to pay ten times what the locals do, for anything. Rude works both ways.



Pretend its not a luxury item. Pretend its a car, or a loaf of bread and you've got a better example.


Not really seeing the difference here. If I know what the car is worth, based on book value less depreciation, I'm not going to give the dealer many thousands of dollars more than that, just because I can figure out a way to make the payments. Yes, I have to have a car. But I don't have to singlehandedly pay for the dealer's personal vehicle in order to get one. He has to make a profit to stay in business, but if I feel like he's taking unreasonable advantage of me, I'm not doing business with him.



NPC don't matter. PCs are real humans playing a game. The game is designed around them.


Hey, maybe I should play with your group after all, because I've always wanted to try a game that was run by an AI supercomputer. We still play the old fashioned way, where the PCs are characters run by the human players, and the NPCs are characters run by the human DM.

A game designed to tell a group of players that they are the only people in the world who matter, and that they may therefore do as they like with no fear of moral consequences, is going to produce a large crop of serious sociopaths.


I fully understand wanting a system of prices that integrate evenly with PC and NPC interactions. It seems to "sit" better with me as well. However, that's not the price list we were given.


Hence the recommendations at the beginning of this thread to change the price list.

Rule Zero means if you find something in the book that makes no sense to you, you don't have to spend time and energy trying to explain that rule, you can just toss it out and replace it with something that does make sense to you.

Its on the back of your shirt too. "Kick me Hard, I love Economics"

I have now changed my shirt. The new one features Pinky and the Brain, and reads "Isn't it about time you started seeing things my way?" :)
 

Re: Re: Whack-iness


Agreed. One might even base such upon... oh, say... the hardness scale developed for rocks?

No, the Mohs scale wouldn't really be suitable for this. I doubt the "it's only a game! leave stupid science out of it!" crowd would tolerate more than three categories of stone being introduced into their rules, and Mohs uses 15 rankings.

More to the point, it only rates hardness, and the weight of the different stone types would be equally important when calculating the number of stone blocks per wagon load, etc.
 

One thing is, that most medieval labourers (the type that get 1sp per day in D&D) could not afford to get married or have children.
Try having farmers and the like getting 1gp per day (Profession +4, taking 10), and then they can afford a fair bit.

Geoff.
 

jgbrowning said:
It does mean quite a lot. You either
1.have enough money to support yourself independant of the land
2. you have enough land elsewhere to be separate from it
or
3. you have a business that you can be absent from.

Strangeness, if not coupled with only itinerant work clothes means you have a lot of fiscal resources.

Hardly. MOST Peasants had weapons, other than clubs. MOST of the Men-at-Arms weapons were BASED upon agricultural implements! A woodcutter or charcoal burner has an axe, farmers have "corn knives" (AKA Machettes), sickles, scythes, flails, ad nauseum. Many peasants (and all Yeomen) had bows. EVERYONE had knives (because you ate with them, and other tableware was uncommon, at best, save perhaps, wooden spoons)!

So, in walks a hunter, with bow, knife, handaxe, pack, and maybe some leather armor for keeping the thorns off his hide. He gets charged more for "weapons"? He's got nothing uncommon to the area, he could be a vagabond, for all the shopkeeper knows. Do travellers with their hiking staves get charged more, too? They could be poor farmers on holy pigrimage, for all the shopkeeper knows...

Next, in walks my Ranger PC. He has a handaxe, longknife, bow and arrows, backpack, and glamered armor that looks like normal clothes... and the shopkeep can know to overcharge me because...?

No, you said it, yourself: This is there to allow the GM "Hand-waving", so they can set any price they want. All the rest is mere chicanery to try to prop it up. Meanwhile, the rest of us still want a more accurate equipment list, even if it's along the lines of "Item A: 5-7 Silver Pieces". Pick any Medieval period. Hey, "...and a 10' Pole" looks pretty good!

Furthermore, the "Touristas-Pricing" arguement is unsupported (nay, even over-ridden) by the Crafting rules. Nope, the PHB prices need to reflect the prices peasants can buy for. IF there are any assumptions in the equipment lists, such as "Weight is actually bulk", or "Prices are maximum prices; peasants pay 1/10th", I think they should be stated, even if it's in a "Behind the Curtain" in the DMG, somewhere.

;-p
 

Damon Griffin said:
What I'm saying is that the existing price list should be corrected, so that it will be a representative list of average prices for goods and services. I don't believe it accomplishes that goal in its present form.

I don't think i've made my point very well. Representative list based upon what? History? What time period and what region?

Making a list that is representative of one of these place/times by default makes a list that less representative of other places. If you made a new pricing list based upon Italian 14th century prices, you've really messed up anyone playing in a different place/time. Perhaps more than the current list, perhaps not.

Internal consistancy as mentioned by Agback is a more serious issue. However even that concept of consistancy comes from a hsitorical place or time. Like I mentioned earlier, if you're playing an Aztec based DnD game, the lists are totally useless.

This is the primary reason for my DC idea. It allows the DM to modify the item lists according to different reasons. Economic, time/place, whatever reason you need.

Unless he's recently been robbed. Or the DM hasn't been keeping up with the recommended resource totals. Or he's paying massive amounts of tuition to a bardic college somewhere.

Abberations are still aberations, even with good role-playing reasons. The game is designed to support an assumed amount of wealth. PCs are rich in DnD. If you don't like that as a DM you just rule 0 and go from there. But when speaking of the game, we have to use the base assumptions for meaningful conversation.

Even if he does have the whole 450gp with of goods with him, some of it will almost certainly be in the form of small, easily concealed items like potions and gems or possibly even platinum coins; your NPC should not be able to assess my net value on the basis of things he can't see. Your NPC doesn't have access to a DMG table that tells him that "by the rules" my character ought to have 450gp on him.

To continue your role playing idea... that bard is part of a society, even though he may not be part of one particular locals's society. He'll more than likely use some of his wealth in demonstration so that other people will give him the time of day. He'll know that when you look like you have some amount of wealth, you get more respect (even as a stranger) than you do if you don't have any wealth.

Also, it does not follow that a character will take everything he owns with him when he travels. This is especially true of higher level characters, who mave probably started to acquire treasure in the form of artwork, valuable mundane commodities like fine wine or bolts of silk, and perhaps land or other property. I don't carry all my cash with me when I travel because it would be silly to do so

You'd carry a lot more of your money with you if you couldn't access a bank in every town or if you had no creditcards. Generally PCs are wandering heroes for a great part of their carreer, and a significant portion of their wealth is on their person if for no other reason than one: it's safer there.

-- I want to limit my possible losses if robbed, and in any event what use would I have for 10,000gp in the wilderness? It'll be safe in the chest in my room at my patron's villa until I return.

more than likely, you'd turn that 10k into something useful (magic) rather than leave it sitting around. PCs may have stashes of cash as you describe at various points in their carreer, but those are usually converted into something that helps them survive.

Omniscient NPCs...Joe, I really must never run a PC in one of your games. Word may get around eventually, but only if the bard stays around long enough. You've been arguing that the inflated prices make sense for PCs who are just passing through; the all-seeing, all-knowing merchants spot an easy mark the instant he arrives in town, accurately assess his net worth based on a gaming rulebook none of them has ever seen, and charge him several times what any local would have to pay for the same item.

The innkeeper assesses people's personality for a living. Also, unless your bard is deliberatly attempting to obscure his wealth by staying in the worst places possible. He's probably already staying in an 5sp-2gp a day inn. Even when he's just passing through, where he's staying is an indicator of wealth. Smart shopkeepers find out that information quickly. Smart shoppers find ways of not telling.

Having been thus fleeced, the PC immediately leaves town. No one had time to gather any information about him, but then no one needed to. The NPC merchants simply "knew" what he could afford.

Rule 0 the idea of "tourist price" for situations where you think it doesn't fit. It does fit a lot of situations, probably more than it doesn't, and its a passingly good apology for the pricing in the PHB.

Actually, I can see that, but if you accept the PHB price list as valid, then you and I differ on what counts as acceptably close. I can expecting to pay an increase of 25% to 50% on many items as a matter of course (possibly more for some items, maybe a little less for others), and that I could be thought rude if I try to bargain for less. I cannot see that it's be legitimate to consider me rude for refusing to pay ten times what the locals do, for anything. Rude works both ways.

Yes rude works both ways, but the PC is the one who wants something. The shopkeeper is doing fine without the PC.


Not really seeing the difference here. If I know what the car is worth, based on book value less depreciation, I'm not going to give the dealer many thousands of dollars more than that, just because I can figure out a way to make the payments.

Ok i'll break the anology down better.

1. PCs don't have access to book value information. If they try to ask the locals, the locals are only going to give them the inflated price because that's what they're going to be charged.

2. Imagine that you couldn't find a car dealer that would sell to you for less than the "thousands of dollars more" than you're willing to pay. If you can't find an alternative (which is the first thing people try to do) you will end up paying that price. It's like getting food at one of those all-day concerts all the time. There are no legal alternatives.

Yes, I have to have a car. But I don't have to singlehandedly pay for the dealer's personal vehicle in order to get one. He has to make a profit to stay in business, but if I feel like he's taking unreasonable advantage of me, I'm not doing business with him.

Again, if every other merchant is going to offer you the same price, you'll eventually have to if you really need the item. You may expect a Big Mac to cost $.99 cents, but if you're trying to get one in Hawaii, you have to expect differently.

I'll pull out one final India story. When there,Ii got giardia and had to visit a doctor. I got a docter visit and 14 days worth of two different antiboitics (one was Cipro) for $20. And I was still probably paying twice as much as an Indian. Now why are you paying so much for your doctor visits? Its because you don't have a choice, just like most PCs. The reasons for not having a choice are different, but the outcome is similar.

Hey, maybe I should play with your group after all, because I've always wanted to try a game that was run by an AI supercomputer. We still play the old fashioned way, where the PCs are characters run by the human players, and the NPCs are characters run by the human DM.

Mearly pointing out that the times where a DM has to make rolls for NPC-NPC interactions are rare, and they are only done because of the eventual effect the outcome has upon the PCs.

A game designed to tell a group of players that they are the only people in the world who matter, and that they may therefore do as they like with no fear of moral consequences, is going to produce a large crop of serious sociopaths.

Without the PCs, its really hard to have a DnD game. They are the focus of the game world. They are the reason why everyonce can play the game. The DM is just as important, because he's equally important in the creation of the game.

Hence the recommendations at the beginning of this thread to change the price list.

Rule Zero means if you find something in the book that makes no sense to you, you don't have to spend time and energy trying to explain that rule, you can just toss it out and replace it with something that does make sense to you.

Agree 100%. Now on to your idea of changing the price list.
Problems i see with that are:

1. You need to decide upon the technology level and relative place/time comparison upon which to base your new costs.
2. You'll have to proportionally change PC starting gold.
3. You'll have to change spell componants costs proportionally to maintain balance of cost/effect.
4. You'll have to make new levels of expected PC/NPC wealth.
5. You'll need to change item creation rules to reflect this new economic balance.
6. You'll need to change the expected treasure per encounter to match the new basis.
7. Unless you did something simple (like changing GP into SP, which is perhaps the easiest thing) you'll need to playtest to make sure that things have the balance people are expecting out of 3e.

Its much less effort to assume the PCs are being overcharged, and that the DnD base world has a larger amount of specie than the historical medieval period than it is to make all these changes.

And to bring the argument full circle... the pricing of the items is fine as is. They don't reflect a funtioning economy because they don't have to, they are only there to drain PC resources. If you want to try and make them "more realistic" by changing base prices all you may succeed in doing is making the prices more realistic for one particular place/time in the historical period.

Even if you simply try to balance out the numbers (As Agback noted about internal consistancy), you're simply going to make a set of base assumptions that suits you more, but is still based upon a particular set of place/time assumptions.

For a long time in mesopotamia, building wood was almost as valuable as the noble metals. If I use your new lists, or if i use the currant lists, this fact won't be included.

If I use a DC pricing modifier system I can do it on the fly.

Are you going to be around at Gen Con? I'd love to speak with you for a while, it would be cool.

joe b.
 

Olive said:
This isn't what I'm saying at all. To me it always seems that things are insanely cheap. Other people go on and on about how 1sp per day for an unskilled worker means they couldn't eat or have a place to live because pub meals and a room in an inn cost more than an sp per day. The prices don't not make sense to me.

<Snip!>

I think the point is that most farmers don't buy anything. This is a feudal system, not a capitalist one. The means of exchange for most people is barter, and they would not be buying chickens but farming them, not buying fire wood but gathering it etc. Very few people in this society would be going out and buying anything. advenuturers, as travellers in an age where travel is unheard of except for the fabulously wealthy are exceptions to the rule, almost proto capitalists relying on abstract means of exchange rather than hard work and barter.

In order to barter, one must first have something of value to barter. In order to farm chickens, one must first purchase some chickens or chicks, and then feed them. In order to cut firewood, one must first have an axe. Whether farmers barter, or go gather sticks to sell on the highway and then go spend the money thus earned, the effect is still the same. He cannot cut wood without the axe. The axe costs 5 GP. He earns 1 SP/day (which, according to the PHB would buy low quality food for one person for one day). From this, he must feed himself, his wife, his family, his chickens, his mule (unless he can pull the plough, himself), any other farm animals, pay for the plough and any other tools, and save 50 day's worth of wages (whether in grain, egg money, etc.), so that he can save up to buy the axe...

Okay, let's assume the wife helps, and they have four boys and two girls. Mom and the girls grow a garden, which produces no monetary increase, but does provide food and cooking herbs, in season. Let's say that all three, together, with all household tasks, add 1 SP/day (average) to the family... During the spring they add little, but during summer and autumn, the garden provides some food. During the winter, then card and spin wool into thread (assuming they have an expensive spinning wheel, which the farmer may or may not be able to make). Maybe the wife can make girdles, which she sells to a shopkeep, who sells them in his store.

Meanwhile, the four sons add an average of 2 SP/day, working with dad on the farm. Thus, the total family income is 4 SP/day. Assuming that the children eat 1/2 as much as the adults, they need 5 SP/day to stay afloat, and more than that to save for the axe to chop firewood...

So, two kids die, because 1 SP is lacking. Their work is now gone, and the family's output drops by about 1 SP/day, so two more die... This cycle continues until the farmer's wife dies, at which point the farmer can sustain himself on 1 SP/day, as long as he buys nothing, ever.

Of course, sooner or later, his tools will wear out. He is bartering for a subsistence-level living, and cannot replace anything without doing without food.

If this were the way things really worked, then peasants should be a dying breed, and getting people to "work for food", and go down into the dungeon with you should be easy! They're doomed, anyway!

What I wonder about is, how did Grandpa get the money to start being a farmer, anyway? Did he, by long trial and error, make his own spinning wheel and plough? Even today, with lathes and other machines, a simple spinning wheel costs over $300. What a plough costs, I couldn't say, but it would've been more, back then, made by hand. And those chickens! And that axe to cut wood with! And horseshoes for the mule! And FORGET EVER being so rich as to have saved enough goods to have bartered for a wagon!

So how do farmers do it, in 3e? :eek:

Oh, yeah,... It's magic! :rolleyes:
 

Invalid Assumptions

jgbrowning said:
Again, by the rules, if the guy's 2nd level he's got what... 450 gp i think? worth of goods. If he's traveling, he's got them on him.

<Snip!>

Is the Bard leaving his finest clothes and the majority of his coin somewhere then? People talk, it may take a while, but word will get around. Someone know how much he has, or has a good idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the innkeeper offered to "help" the bard get a better deal on various things. :D

Actually the vegetables at Market A only cost the locals 2. But most PCs would never know that. And even if they did, they wouldn't get that price because they are very wealthy in comparison to the shopkeeper.

So in other words, you are assuming that ALL sellers of goods ALWAYS make their Appraise rolls, and ALL PCs ALWAYS fail their Listen checks...

If the "La Touristas" rule fits your campaign, and you like it, that's your biz; be happy!

[Note to self: Do not play in JG's games!]
 

Steverooo said:
Hardly. MOST Peasants had weapons, other than clubs.

No they didn't. Most peasants were forbidden by their lord to own weapons. Agricultural instruments that may be used as weapons were different. Most peasants had a hard time feeding themselves and their families, more-the-less had the ability to purchase weapons.

MOST of the Men-at-Arms weapons were BASED upon agricultural implements! A woodcutter or charcoal burner has an axe, farmers have "corn knives" (AKA Machettes), sickles, scythes, flails, ad nauseum.

The'se aren't weapons the woodcutter or charcoal burner has. They're agricultural/craft instruments that can be used as weapons.

Men-at-Arms are a small part of the population of most medieval time periods. They're also usually part of some government function, be it in the service of the budding proto-state or just as a nobles bodyguard.

Many peasants (and all Yeomen) had bows.

Outside of England/Isles this is very far from true. Inside the isles its not necessarily true as it depends heavily upon what time period your talking about. People were required/requested :D to practice with bows, but that's a far cry from assuming they had the right (or the income, for that matter) to own bows. Most of the bows were owned by someone on the nobility chain. Those bows were often lent out for practice and returned afterward.

Inside cities, things varied a lot from place to place and time to tiem.

EVERYONE had knives (because you ate with them, and other tableware was uncommon, at best, save perhaps, wooden spoons)!

So, in walks a hunter,

Whoa, slow down... I assume your speaking about England, given the bow bit.

Hunting was the sport of the noble, the landowners. Ok, this guy may be a forester for the king or a powerful noble.

with bow, knife, handaxe, pack, and maybe some leather armor for keeping the thorns off his hide. He gets charged more for "weapons"? He's got nothing uncommon to the area, he could be a vagabond, for all the shopkeeper knows.
If the guys a hunter, he's not a vagabond. He'll be known in the area. Everyone will be familiar with him, and more than likely, have had some prior dealing with him. It was unusual for most people to travel more than 20 miles from their home.

If he's traveling with some nobleman to help with a hunt, everyone will be aware of him.

Next, in walks my Ranger PC. He has a handaxe, longknife, bow and arrows, backpack, and glamered armor that looks like normal clothes... and the shopkeep can know to overcharge me because...?

Okay, now we're entering a fantasy world. Magic changes everything.

No, you said it, yourself: This is there to allow the GM "Hand-waving", so they can set any price they want. All the rest is mere chicanery to try to prop it up. Meanwhile, the rest of us still want a more accurate equipment list, even if it's along the lines of "Item A: 5-7 Silver Pieces". Pick any Medieval period. Hey, "...and a 10' Pole" looks pretty good!

Furthermore, the "Touristas-Pricing" arguement is unsupported (nay, even over-ridden) by the Crafting rules.

using one of the most broken skills as an overiding point is questionable. again the skill was designed for PC approximation, not as a statement of a funtioning economy.

Nope, the PHB prices need to reflect the prices peasants can buy for.

"Members of the peasantry trade mostly in goods, bartering for what they need and paying taxes in grain and cheese." PHB, page 96.

The entirety of chpt 7 deals only with PCs and equipment except for the Wealth and Money and Selling Loot bit. Assuming that the prices "need" to reflect what the peasants are paying is a design misinterpretation.

IF there are any assumptions in the equipment lists, such as "Weight is actually bulk", or "Prices are maximum prices; peasants pay 1/10th", I think they should be stated, even if it's in a "Behind the Curtain" in the DMG, somewhere.

;-p [/B]

I didn't say there were unstated assumptions, I merely said that I view a "tourist price" as a reasonable explaination for what i see as inflated prices besed upon holdovers from previous editions and questionable scholarship. Not that real scholarship is needed in a RPG price list. Utility is the most important aspect.

And I'll post the same pondering I said before. I'm playing a DnD game set in mesopotamia. Any list of pricing you come up with will be just as useless as what we have now. It doesn't even have to be that drastic, I'll just play a game set in northern scotland.

Any price list isn't going to fit, it isn't even going to be internally consistant in a useable manner given its based upon a set of assumptions that may not be appropriate for the gaming environment.

You don't like the current list because it doesn't fit a "medieval" environment. That's why I like the DC bit, its easy. DnD is not based upon medieval assumptions of economy and culture. That's why I wrote a book offerring advice about how you can make DnD seem more medieval.


joe b.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top