Don't get me wrong, I like the math approach, but...
8.33 = what damage die? A d12's average damage is 6.5, 2d6's is 7, and a d10 is 5.5. Are you doing something to reflect rerolling 1's and 2's but keeping a rerolled 1 or 2? By my math that only makes a d12 worth 6.9, 2d6... uhhh my head hurts, but I doubt it would rocket up to 8.33.
3.5 = a d6 (so, shortsword). 4.5 for a d8 should be considered, since you're comparing a build that is likely to have Dual Wielder if that's what it's being built for
B is pretty much never going to be less than 2, because people don't make attacks with a stat they suck at. 3-5 is a realistic baseline for B without counting magic. The only other static modifiers that are really worth planning for are the Dueling fighting style and Barbarian rage, which work so differently that I'm not sure how to figure for them (Dueling will only apply to mainhand B's and only if at least one other mainhand B is made without it, while Rage can apply to all B's, but...). Other static modifiers can exist (lategame warlock invocation, an oathbreaker paladin lategame ability), but are so rare to not be worth really talking about. But additional damage die or effects on a hit are myriad, and probably beyond the ability of this math to quantify unless you did some sort of broad analysis of how many on-hit-dice are likely to be tacked onto a hit at the different tiers (sounds exhausting).
How the heck would you ever get two off-hand attacks per three main weapon attacks? The only ability that provides two attacks with a bonus action is a Monk's flurry of blows, and that isn't really relevant in the TWF vs 2H discussion you're plotting out.
The fighter is the only martial character whose attacks-per-main-action scale up beyond 2, so it isn't really right to talk about that changing with tier, unless this is a discussion that's only meant to be useful for Fighters.Even then, the ratio goes 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, and finally 4:1 at 20th, so I don't understand what these weird 3:2 are meant to be.
You aren't trying to weight in making more attacks vs. fewer attacks as effective average damage (to reflect possibility of a crit or a miss), because again, phoooooommmm my head would explode if I even tried that. Just pointing it out, lots of low damage attacks may do higher damage than single big hit/miss swings, even before considering multiple attacks' ability to apply more B's.
Okay, all of that aside... Lets talk fighters, and use 3 for B (just a regular old starting 16/17 Strength like most folks will have), going up to 4 at level 4 and 5 at level 6-8ish. We'll use a Greataxe with GWF style (6.9) versus Shortswords with TWF style (3.5 each) to keep it feat-free and easy peasy.
At level 1, Greataxe does 6.9+3=9.9. Shortswords do (3.5+3)x2=13. TWF wins.
At level 5, Greataxe does (6.9+4)x2=21.8. Shortswords do (3.5+4)x3=22.5. TWF wins.
At level 11, Greataxe does (6.9+5)x3=35.7. Shortswords do (3.5+5)x4=34. GWF wins.
At level 20, Greataxe does (6.9+5)x4=47.6. Shortswords do (3.5+5)x5=42.5. GWF wins.
If the TWF picks up a second fighting style and can splash duelist in there, they'd add another 2-4 damage for cheesing that like I described, but it will probably lock them out of having 4 attacks at 20 (unless it was Champion, in which case, all of this math doesn't work anyway because the Champion is crit fishing and will want TWF even more). But that's nothing in the face of the GWM guy taking Great Weapon Master, which does tons of damage to certain enemies with AC ranges in a certain ratio, and nothing otherwise. But but the TWF guy could be using 4.5's for longswords with Dual Wielder, so....
TLDR: Math like this is too complex with too many variables to do anyone much good.
8.33 is 2d6, reroll 1-2, keep the new roll even if it's a 1 or a 2, which is exactly the way the rule say to do it. There is a 2/6 chance to roll a 1 or a 2, and on average it increases from 1.5 to 3.5, so the net value is 2 * 2/6 = 2/3 (per die rolled, so +1.33 on two dice). On a d12 it's only a 2/12 chance to roll a 1 or 2, and on average increases it from 1.5 to 6.5, so it's +10/12 per die rolled, or +0.83 on one die.
I specifically said without feats. Adding feats makes math harder, though I can go into it.
I got 2 offhand per 3 main hand by averaging across multiple rounds. In a five round combat where you were unable to off hand attack during one round and got one opportunity attack you got a total of 6 main weapon attacks, 4 off hand attacks, for a ratio of 3:2.
Agreed you need to run analysis separately for different classes, particularly because different classes have different bonuses. Fighters are relatively easy.
Huh, when I try to do the 2d6 thing I get 7.8 instead of 8.33, but I'm probably doing maths wrong. The first roll of each d6 is (3+4+5+6=18) plus the reroll (1+2+3+4+5+6=21)/10=3.9, x2 dice for 7.8?
Oh wait maybe it should be average of a d6 is 3.5, and 1 gives you a roll and 2 gives you a roll instead of its base value, so it's 3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6/6=4.17, x 2 dice = 8.34?
Okay, I get it now. So GWF is still a little lower at 1st, but eclipses TWF from 5 on.
There's a part of me that thinks dueling style should just preclude holding anything in the off hand;
That's what I figure. For a duellist that second hand is for balance, holding drinks (and not spilling them), giving flowers to admirers, giving obscene gestures to hecklers, swinging off chandeliers or rigging, and of course for holding damsels.
That would be a pretty big debuff to sword and shield fighters, unless you rework the Protector fighting style or add a new one.
If Defense or Protection styles are not adequate substitutes, that is a pretty strong indication that dueling style is badly balanced (it is not, however, strong enough to be viable without a shield, so you'd need to rework all three).
That would be a pretty big debuff to sword and shield fighters, unless you rework the Protector fighting style or add a new one.
If Defense or Protection styles are not adequate substitutes, that is a pretty strong indication that dueling style is badly balanced (it is not, however, strong enough to be viable without a shield, so you'd need to rework all three).
I have a player in my game who just made level 3 fighter and took Eldritch Knight. He was Sword + Shield, but now keeps his offhand free for casting and keeps the Shield spell prepared if he feels he needs it. He'll buy plate once he can afford it.
I have a player in my game who just made level 3 fighter and took Eldritch Knight. He was Sword + Shield, but now keeps his offhand free for casting and keeps the Shield spell prepared if he feels he needs it. He'll buy plate once he can afford it.
Eldritch knight kinda favors great weapon, because a two handed weapon only takes two hands to attack with, you can hold it with a one handed grip when you want to cast a spell.
I have a player in my game who just made level 3 fighter and took Eldritch Knight. He was Sword + Shield, but now keeps his offhand free for casting and keeps the Shield spell prepared if he feels he needs it. He'll buy plate once he can afford it.
Eldritch knight kinda favors great weapon, because a two handed weapon only takes two hands to attack with, you can hold it with a one handed grip when you want to cast a spell.
I always assumed combat is a constant back and forth of feints and jabs. So I don't see how you'd be able to effectively maneuver around in combat holding a great sword in one hand. Either the sword's in your scabbard or you're holding with two hands.
Anyone else see it that PC can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand in combat until they decide to do their attack action?
I have a player in my game who just made level 3 fighter and took Eldritch Knight. He was Sword + Shield, but now keeps his offhand free for casting and keeps the Shield spell prepared if he feels he needs it. He'll buy plate once he can afford it.
Eldritch knight kinda favors great weapon, because a two handed weapon only takes two hands to attack with, you can hold it with a one handed grip when you want to cast a spell.
I always assumed combat is a constant back and forth of feints and jabs. So I don't see how you'd be able to effectively maneuver around in combat holding a great sword in one hand. Either the sword's in your scabbard or you're holding with two hands.
Anyone else see it that PC can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand in combat until they decide to do their attack action?
The description of the Two-Handed property explicitly says "This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."
Anyone else see it that PC can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand in combat until they decide to do their attack action?
Absolutely. There is no rule anywhere that says a two-handed weapon must be held with two hands at all times. It's only when attacking with it.
Ok, still seems weird that in the middle of combat you can ‘hold’ a two handed weapon not ready to attack, and then switch to attack, and then not again. But not a big deal.
I feel this comes into territory of wielding vs wearing. If you wear a shield you get the AC bonus If you wield a shield you get the 1d4 dmg of improvised weapon (and maybe dual wielding.)
Look at it like captain America. He either wears the shield for defense. Or he wields it by smashing skulls or throwing it around. Within the game rules you shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.
So I was just looking into the rule to see if the Weapon Master and Dual Wielder feats could work together with using a shield as an improvised weapon with a bonus action, and I have come to the conclusion that they do not.
Here's why.
Chapter 5: Equipment > Weapons > Improvised Weapons "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
"Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
►At no point in this section of the rules is an improvised weapon ever described as a simple or martial weapon, or as a weapon at all other than being labelled as an "improvised weapon". It in fact clarifies that an improvised weapon is an "object" that is used to make an "attack." It is not a "weapon" used to make an "improvised attack" (which is not a term used in the games rules). ► Jeremy Crawford has gone on to clarify this by saying the following: "An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise." This would dictates that a shield does not count as a weapon for any purpose until it is first used to make an attack, and only counts as a weapon—an improvised one—during that instant, and not before or after.
Weapon Master • "You gain proficiency with four weapons of your choice. Each one must be a simple or a martial weapon."
► Shields do not are not listed as simple or martial weapons. Improvised weapons do not count as simple or martial weapons.
Dual Wielder • You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. • You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. • You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one
► The rules for Two-Weapon Fighting state: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." The Dual Wielder feat does not change this rule other than to allow melee weapons that are not light. Shields do not count as one-handed melee weapons. ► The prerequisite to using an object as a weapon with this feat requires that the object be a weapon first. Shields therefore must count as weapons first to be used to make an attack in this way. They however, do not. Shields only count as weapons after a player chooses to use it to make an attack, meaning that the order of operations is the reverse of what is required to use a shield with Two-Weapon Fighting. ► A shield counts as armor, and is neither drawn nor stowed using your object interaction. It is armor that is either donned or doffed as an action, per the rules listed in chapter 5 in the section describing armor. ► Shields do not normally count as melee weapons. Taking this feat would technically allow you to gain the benefits of a shield and gain a +1 to AC, only during the exact moment that you make an attack with a shield. The only time this could possibly be useful, is if you are targeted by an attack while you are making an attack, possibly from a creature that held its action to attack you at the moment you make an attack.
BONUS
Tavern Brawler "You are proficient with improvised weapons." ► Being proficient with improvised weapons allows you to add your proficiency bonus to attacks made with improvised weapons, however it does not make an improvised weapon into a simple weapon, or force objects that are used as improvised weapons to count as weapons outside of the instance in which they are used as improvised weapons.
In conclusion, until there is a way to make shields count as weapons normally, they can not be used to make attacks outside of using your Action to do so. Bummer...
-Jety_Lefr
I did once have a DM that let me use a Spiked shield to deal damage on a bonus action with the Shield Master feat though. It wasn't within the strict rules of the game, but I was grateful for the allowance to deal damage instead of shoving a creature.
Takes an awful lot of complicated analysis to justify ignoring that “weapon” is right in the name, they’re used to make weapon attacks, and are described in a section on weapons. The simplest answer isn’t always the right one, but suffice to say this feels excessively complex all for the sake of supporting an undesirable outcome not required by any plain rule language, truly a “crisis of your own making.”
That being said, they certainly aren’t simple or martial weapons, so there may well be features and abilities that don’t utilize them. But if you go that route and start reading all mentions “weapon” to be “[simple or martial] weapon”, be prepared to have some difficult mental gymnastics to get Natural Weapons treated any differently.
On the other hand, the idea that “not-a-weapon” must be a weapon because it has the word “weapon” right in the name takes quite a different type of mental gymnastics. Using the title only leave us thinking chill touch is a melee attack cold damage spell.
Justified or not, neither position really is so significant that it matters which you choose. I, personally, think trying to use game features clearly designed for weapons with not-a-weapon items falls into the category of “ridiculous, unintended cheese that won’t fly at my table.”
"Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus." - Improvised weapons
The player handbook is pretty clear that the DM is in charge on the classification. If the DM rules a shield to be a light martial weapon and benefits apply then they do. It's not exactly RAW or RAI but it's sure as hell RAF.
Always make sure to bring your intent to use shields as weapons up at session 0 and check that everyone is cool with it.
The nail in the coffin is unfortunately Jeremy Crawford's declaration that an improvised weapon is only a weapon when being improvised to act as one. However, as sage advice is not RAW feel free to ignore that declaration.
If improvised weapons would otherwise count as weapons all the time, then everything and anything counts as a weapon all the time, which could be fun for a lot of reasons (TCoE monk weapon, Pact of the Blade, Smites), and I'd certainly enjoy playing games where that's an option, sometimes.
An interesting fact about the way the Attack Action is described in Chapter 9: Combat, or at least based on my memory of my most recent reading of it, is that a "weapon attack" is only a term used as a result of making an "attack" with a "weapon," and is not in and of its self, a kind of action. Scrutinizingly RAW, this is why "objects" that are not "weapons" can be used to make attacks, which is what causes the wording of the rules to be overwritten for improvised weapons to act as weapons. It is the same kind of rule wording interaction that allows unarmed strikes (attacks without weapons) to count as "weapon attacks." It's all very interesting mechanical literature nonsense, and I love it.
8.33 is 2d6, reroll 1-2, keep the new roll even if it's a 1 or a 2, which is exactly the way the rule say to do it. There is a 2/6 chance to roll a 1 or a 2, and on average it increases from 1.5 to 3.5, so the net value is 2 * 2/6 = 2/3 (per die rolled, so +1.33 on two dice). On a d12 it's only a 2/12 chance to roll a 1 or 2, and on average increases it from 1.5 to 6.5, so it's +10/12 per die rolled, or +0.83 on one die.
I specifically said without feats. Adding feats makes math harder, though I can go into it.
I got 2 offhand per 3 main hand by averaging across multiple rounds. In a five round combat where you were unable to off hand attack during one round and got one opportunity attack you got a total of 6 main weapon attacks, 4 off hand attacks, for a ratio of 3:2.
Agreed you need to run analysis separately for different classes, particularly because different classes have different bonuses. Fighters are relatively easy.
Huh, when I try to do the 2d6 thing I get 7.8 instead of 8.33, but I'm probably doing maths wrong. The first roll of each d6 is (3+4+5+6=18) plus the reroll (1+2+3+4+5+6=21)/10=3.9, x2 dice for 7.8?
I dunno, I'm almost definitely doing that wrong.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh wait maybe it should be average of a d6 is 3.5, and 1 gives you a roll and 2 gives you a roll instead of its base value, so it's 3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6/6=4.17, x 2 dice = 8.34?
Okay, I get it now. So GWF is still a little lower at 1st, but eclipses TWF from 5 on.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's what I figure. For a duellist that second hand is for balance, holding drinks (and not spilling them), giving flowers to admirers, giving obscene gestures to hecklers, swinging off chandeliers or rigging, and of course for holding damsels.
That would be a pretty big debuff to sword and shield fighters, unless you rework the Protector fighting style or add a new one.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If Defense or Protection styles are not adequate substitutes, that is a pretty strong indication that dueling style is badly balanced (it is not, however, strong enough to be viable without a shield, so you'd need to rework all three).
I have a player in my game who just made level 3 fighter and took Eldritch Knight. He was Sword + Shield, but now keeps his offhand free for casting and keeps the Shield spell prepared if he feels he needs it. He'll buy plate once he can afford it.
Eldritch knight kinda favors great weapon, because a two handed weapon only takes two hands to attack with, you can hold it with a one handed grip when you want to cast a spell.
I always assumed combat is a constant back and forth of feints and jabs. So I don't see how you'd be able to effectively maneuver around in combat holding a great sword in one hand. Either the sword's in your scabbard or you're holding with two hands.
Anyone else see it that PC can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand in combat until they decide to do their attack action?
The description of the Two-Handed property explicitly says "This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."
Absolutely. There is no rule anywhere that says a two-handed weapon must be held with two hands at all times. It's only when attacking with it.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Ok, still seems weird that in the middle of combat you can ‘hold’ a two handed weapon not ready to attack, and then switch to attack, and then not again. But not a big deal.
I'd just homebrew it.
Requirements : Sheild Master
Optional: two weapon fighting to add ability mod to sheild bash
Small/light sheild : 1d4 damage + dex mod if you take two weapon fighting
Big/Heavy sheild : 1d6 damage + str mod if you take two weapon fighting
I mean, obviously you're in the realm of homebrew, but what is a small/light shield, etc.?
I feel this comes into territory of wielding vs wearing.
If you wear a shield you get the AC bonus
If you wield a shield you get the 1d4 dmg of improvised weapon (and maybe dual wielding.)
Look at it like captain America. He either wears the shield for defense. Or he wields it by smashing skulls or throwing it around.
Within the game rules you shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.
So I was just looking into the rule to see if the Weapon Master and Dual Wielder feats could work together with using a shield as an improvised weapon with a bonus action, and I have come to the conclusion that they do not.
Here's why.
Chapter 5: Equipment > Weapons > Improvised Weapons
"Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
"Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
►At no point in this section of the rules is an improvised weapon ever described as a simple or martial weapon, or as a weapon at all other than being labelled as an "improvised weapon". It in fact clarifies that an improvised weapon is an "object" that is used to make an "attack." It is not a "weapon" used to make an "improvised attack" (which is not a term used in the games rules).
► Jeremy Crawford has gone on to clarify this by saying the following: "An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise." This would dictates that a shield does not count as a weapon for any purpose until it is first used to make an attack, and only counts as a weapon—an improvised one—during that instant, and not before or after.
Weapon Master
• "You gain proficiency with four weapons of your choice. Each one must be a simple or a martial weapon."
► Shields do not are not listed as simple or martial weapons. Improvised weapons do not count as simple or martial weapons.
Dual Wielder
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one
► The rules for Two-Weapon Fighting state: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." The Dual Wielder feat does not change this rule other than to allow melee weapons that are not light. Shields do not count as one-handed melee weapons.
► The prerequisite to using an object as a weapon with this feat requires that the object be a weapon first. Shields therefore must count as weapons first to be used to make an attack in this way. They however, do not. Shields only count as weapons after a player chooses to use it to make an attack, meaning that the order of operations is the reverse of what is required to use a shield with Two-Weapon Fighting.
► A shield counts as armor, and is neither drawn nor stowed using your object interaction. It is armor that is either donned or doffed as an action, per the rules listed in chapter 5 in the section describing armor.
► Shields do not normally count as melee weapons. Taking this feat would technically allow you to gain the benefits of a shield and gain a +1 to AC, only during the exact moment that you make an attack with a shield. The only time this could possibly be useful, is if you are targeted by an attack while you are making an attack, possibly from a creature that held its action to attack you at the moment you make an attack.
BONUS
Tavern Brawler
"You are proficient with improvised weapons."
► Being proficient with improvised weapons allows you to add your proficiency bonus to attacks made with improvised weapons, however it does not make an improvised weapon into a simple weapon, or force objects that are used as improvised weapons to count as weapons outside of the instance in which they are used as improvised weapons.
I did once have a DM that let me use a Spiked shield to deal damage on a bonus action with the Shield Master feat though. It wasn't within the strict rules of the game, but I was grateful for the allowance to deal damage instead of shoving a creature.
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
Takes an awful lot of complicated analysis to justify ignoring that “weapon” is right in the name, they’re used to make weapon attacks, and are described in a section on weapons. The simplest answer isn’t always the right one, but suffice to say this feels excessively complex all for the sake of supporting an undesirable outcome not required by any plain rule language, truly a “crisis of your own making.”
That being said, they certainly aren’t simple or martial weapons, so there may well be features and abilities that don’t utilize them. But if you go that route and start reading all mentions “weapon” to be “[simple or martial] weapon”, be prepared to have some difficult mental gymnastics to get Natural Weapons treated any differently.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
On the other hand, the idea that “not-a-weapon” must be a weapon because it has the word “weapon” right in the name takes quite a different type of mental gymnastics. Using the title only leave us thinking chill touch is a melee attack cold damage spell.
Justified or not, neither position really is so significant that it matters which you choose. I, personally, think trying to use game features clearly designed for weapons with not-a-weapon items falls into the category of “ridiculous, unintended cheese that won’t fly at my table.”
The player handbook is pretty clear that the DM is in charge on the classification. If the DM rules a shield to be a light martial weapon and benefits apply then they do. It's not exactly RAW or RAI but it's sure as hell RAF.
Always make sure to bring your intent to use shields as weapons up at session 0 and check that everyone is cool with it.
@chicken_champ
The nail in the coffin is unfortunately Jeremy Crawford's declaration that an improvised weapon is only a weapon when being improvised to act as one. However, as sage advice is not RAW feel free to ignore that declaration.
If improvised weapons would otherwise count as weapons all the time, then everything and anything counts as a weapon all the time, which could be fun for a lot of reasons (TCoE monk weapon, Pact of the Blade, Smites), and I'd certainly enjoy playing games where that's an option, sometimes.
An interesting fact about the way the Attack Action is described in Chapter 9: Combat, or at least based on my memory of my most recent reading of it, is that a "weapon attack" is only a term used as a result of making an "attack" with a "weapon," and is not in and of its self, a kind of action. Scrutinizingly RAW, this is why "objects" that are not "weapons" can be used to make attacks, which is what causes the wording of the rules to be overwritten for improvised weapons to act as weapons. It is the same kind of rule wording interaction that allows unarmed strikes (attacks without weapons) to count as "weapon attacks." It's all very interesting mechanical literature nonsense, and I love it.
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit