I think it makes sense that the 13A Barbarian needs to wait until X point in the battle to rage, because their rage is waaaay more powerful than it is in say 5E. If I'm remembering right, the Barbarian in 13A rolls 2d20 take the highest on attack rolls while raging, with a 25% chance to crit.
No doubt it might still be boring, but for some people that simplicity is exactly what they want. Just raw passive power. One of my friends played a champion fighter in 5E for that same reason. He's a mechanically adept player, but he just wanted to be a guy who attacked a lot and crit more frequently.
No doubt it's always better to try to give multiple options within each class though.
As much as this talk of 13th Age is giving me nerdgasms, I've been watching Being Human (the US version because the UK one has the werewolf and vampire actors flipped from how they look) and I was thinking about Werewolf, Vampire, and Force and Destiny. One of the things that doesn't translate well, at least for me, was Humanity. Like... why would I do things that would purposely lower it? In Force and Destiny, they allow you to draw on the Dark Side to gain boost to your actions and I was thinking, what if you could sell your humanity to do the same? So for a vampire, you might start with 7 Humanity, which means killing people is still wrong to you, but when the time comes, the beast within, the hunger, becomes too strong, too tempting and you sell your Humanity for a extra dice or a guaranteed success and getting Humanity back is hard. Maybe the games does that in some fashion but I've never played Vampire and felt the need to become a monster except when my blood was low because I spent too much of it fighting baddies.
I think if the barbarian had some unarmed options, that would be interesting. Like if the barbarian was unarmed, he could grab an enemy he's engaged with and that enemy has -4 to attacks until it disengages or the barbarian lets go, basically the barbarian grabbing a guy and headbutting him to death. Or some sort of Terror ability that stuns enemies or causes them to run away because a massive screaming barbarian is rushing at them.
I think most games would benefit from serious consideration of unarmed as a "weapon," rather than just a thing people can theoretically do.
It's pretty immaterial how someone is doing damage except when your entire martial advantage is premised on the idea of disarming other martial characters. In which case you might want to give things some further consideration.
This is one of the things I like most about 13th Age: it abandons convention when convention makes less sense than the other choice. Daggers doing 1d8 damage in the hands of a Rogue makes a lot of sense. So should a fist-first Barbarian doing d10 unarmed.
I know a lot of people like the chase of a broken build facilitated by having 170 different weapons that are all virtually identical to each other except that your DM didn't notice the bill-guisarme is, for no reason anyone can fathom, a Simple weapon rather than a Martial one. I find that, at the very least, stupid. Counterproductive is more the norm.
But I also find less is more with mechanics these days. Build the default as simply as possible and then present complexity options. That's the way.
Yeah I've looked at those and there's some good stuff there, but ultimately the barbarian needs more options round-to-round
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, simply because of the sheer joy two people at my table have when playing barbarians BECAUSE of how simple they are to play and smash things with. You start adding a bunch of stuff, and you're going to rip that joy from them. Don't steal the joy!
For me it's less about splatbooks and more about Unearthed Arcana style stuff. One thing I really liked about essentials is that it gave players the ability to drastically simplify the design of the character they were playing. While I think only streamlined options are bad, I do think some of the options should be more streamlined.
The 5th ed Fighter is actually a quite good example. A range of options, varying in complexity.
I don't see how more options is ever a bad idea. It creates diversity, which is something we are told is great in America! Unless it's pizza then it's Stuff Crust Meat Lovers or nothing. I'm curious to seeing @Denada's ideas on what to add to the classes look like.
I think Barbarians would be cooler if they were a bit like the Monk class had sex with the Hulk. So when you first rage, you gain one rage rank. Hitting enemies (or taking damage) would raise your Rage by 1, missing lowers it by one. Each rank opens up new rages but if your rage rank drops below 1, you stop raging, but there can be abilities that can trigger rage, like if a nearby ally becomes staggered or his health drops below 0, you can rage as a free action if you aren't already raging, otherwise gain a rage. Or if you aren't raging and you are hit with a critical attack, you immediately start raging. You could do like Monk forms and have different types of rages as talents with a list of rages inside them.
I don't see how more options is ever a bad idea. It creates diversity, which is something we are told is great in America! Unless it's pizza then it's Stuff Crust Meat Lovers or nothing. I'm curious to seeing @Denada's ideas on what to add to the classes look like.
Added complexity is more work for the GM. More options increases the chances that some sort of weird interaction leads to an unbalanced synergy which is bad for the game. Finally there is just option paralysis to consider, boot up the 4th edition character creator and you're given a list of a couple hundred feats. That is not a positive thing.
I think Barbarians would be cooler if they were a bit like the Monk class had sex with the Hulk. So when you first rage, you gain one rage rank. Hitting enemies (or taking damage) would raise your Rage by 1, missing lowers it by one. Each rank opens up new rages but if your rage rank drops below 1, you stop raging, but there can be abilities that can trigger rage, like if a nearby ally becomes staggered or his health drops below 0, you can rage as a free action if you aren't already raging, otherwise gain a rage. Or if you aren't raging and you are hit with a critical attack, you immediately start raging. You could do like Monk forms and have different types of rages as talents with a list of rages inside them.
My initial take is you want to reverse that or else it is very much a "Win more/Lose more" mechanic. Maybe make misses increase rage and hits lower it and that could balance out a bit more. That feels more in keeping with the fiction to me as well.
I don't see how more options is ever a bad idea. It creates diversity, which is something we are told is great in America! Unless it's pizza then it's Stuff Crust Meat Lovers or nothing. I'm curious to seeing @Denada's ideas on what to add to the classes look like.
Added complexity is more work for the GM. More options increases the chances that some sort of weird interaction leads to an unbalanced synergy which is bad for the game. Finally there is just option paralysis to consider, boot up the 4th edition character creator and you're given a list of a couple hundred feats. That is not a positive thing.
I think Barbarians would be cooler if they were a bit like the Monk class had sex with the Hulk. So when you first rage, you gain one rage rank. Hitting enemies (or taking damage) would raise your Rage by 1, missing lowers it by one. Each rank opens up new rages but if your rage rank drops below 1, you stop raging, but there can be abilities that can trigger rage, like if a nearby ally becomes staggered or his health drops below 0, you can rage as a free action if you aren't already raging, otherwise gain a rage. Or if you aren't raging and you are hit with a critical attack, you immediately start raging. You could do like Monk forms and have different types of rages as talents with a list of rages inside them.
My initial take is you want to reverse that or else it is very much a "Win more/Lose more" mechanic. Maybe make misses increase rage and hits lower it and that could balance out a bit more. That feels more in keeping with the fiction to me as well.
It make work better if misses increase rage, using rage powers spend rage, and doing basic attacks let you bank the rage, neither use nor lose it. Then Barbarian Rage isn't so much something you "activate" but more of a passive power that's part of the class itself. TO THE GOOGLE DOC!
Nanananana RAGEMAN!
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
For me it's less about splatbooks and more about Unearthed Arcana style stuff. One thing I really liked about essentials is that it gave players the ability to drastically simplify the design of the character they were playing. While I think only streamlined options are bad, I do think some of the options should be more streamlined.
The 5th ed Fighter is actually a quite good example. A range of options, varying in complexity.
My issue there is that in that case, the more complex options are actually distinctly worse than the bland "pure performance" option (which I recognize is somewhat ironic for DnD, where it's usually the opposite case). They also all fundamentally play extremely similarly anyway, because they are all built around maximizing results from basic attacks every round anyway.
I do agree with Essentials though, because the Knight and Slayer were basic, but competitive options, against the more complicated initial 4E fighter. Plus they also competently fitted their respective role, even if the Knight had some serious issues against certain enemies it was one of the best secondary defenders a party could have. 4E Essentials I feel is a much better example of having non-complex classes that came from more complicated initial ones, because nearly all of their results worked and achieved power levels comparable to their original archetypes.
@Denada have you considered letting your center player just straight up cherry pick from the Druid talent list? There's a lot of good stuff there that I could see rangers using. Terrain-based spellcasting, attack powers, and the animal companion stuff that rangers already get.
Mostlyjoe13Evil, Evil, Jump for joy!Registered Userregular
I want to say, I'm happy the Godbound Kickstart is such a success. Even though in my excitement to post about it, mistakes were made and dragon titties were exposed. *facepalm*
Anyrate. I find it hilarious that I'm more likely to get my copy of Godbound than my copy of Exalted 3E now. I'm so burned out on Onyx Path now.
I'm running an impromptu 13th Age game in like 15 mins, need one-shot plot hook idea!
The previous Baron has come back to life in the graveyard and is sending undead into town. Oddly they have killed nobody except guards who have confronted them and keep hittingthe new Barons estates or properties.
Turns out the new Baron murdered the old one and that's why he's come back from the dead. His undead servants are no threat, instead they are searching for evidence to exposethe Old Barons murder before he can rest.
Yeah, my two players from my normal game has decided they was to reboot with new characters and now I'm going full panic as I wasn't ready for this. I'm thinking that Baron but I'm going to wait until I see their Icon Relationships before concerting the story.
@Denada here's my thoughts on your 13th Age PC issues:
Ranger
I would basically drop the animal companion talent and offer instead a version of the Paladin talent "Divine Domain" but using the Druid talent list instead. The Shifter talent is the only one I'd probably not allow them to take this way, maybe the elemental caster talent. I'd probably also say they can only spend one talent like this initially (just like the Paladin talent), but can use their 5th or 8th talent to "upgrade" a talent to Adept. The Warrior Druid is a little tricky, for the "benefits" it offers I'd maybe have the "no opportunity attacks" apply to ranged attacks, or maybe keep it as-is. The benefits to AC, base hit points, and one-handed weapons are all pretty useless, which makes the Adept version of the talent not really worth it (at Adept you get to choose 3 benefits from those, the opportunity attack benefit, and no penalty for shields). Honestly if you don't already have a druid I'd probably let the ranger just spend one talent and gain both the opportunity attack and shield benefits (how often does a ranger use a shield, really?) and go ahead and give them adept level flexible attacks (all of which are per-battle). I don't see it really breaking anything. The other druid talents - Animal Companion, Terrain Caster, and Wild Healer - all fit fairly well with various different interpretations of the ranger from different games, so I'd let any of those fly as-is no issues.
Paladin
There's a couple ways to go here. If you don't have a fighter in your party, you can probably let them spend a talent to have access to fighter flexible attacks. Maybe one less than a normal fighter would and/or lagging one level behind on maneuver levels available. If you do have a fighter, a lot of the bard flexible attacks work for a paladin as well. If you already have both a bard and a fighter in your party, take a look at the commander, they get Tactics that are quick action and usually recharge, and they usually key off Charisma, so it's thematic. A Paladin/Commander is actually pretty damn thematic (except Commanders need a talent for heavy armor), so your Paladin may be interested in multiclassing Commander as well (if they seem like the type to like an interrupt-heavy version of the warlord from 4e, this is a good idea to offer). Of course there's also the Divine Domain talent and/or Cleric Training to get access to cleric-y stuff, which may also suit them. This is probably the "best" problem to have, as there's a lot of different ways to approach solving it.
Barbarian
This one gets tricky. I'd say the Fighter solution for the paladin is certainly an option (although probably not the bard), and if your Ranger doesn't want Warrior Druid stuff you can offer it to the barbarian instead. If you really wanna just say fuck it I want my Barbarian to have all the fun, then just offer them the Fighter maneuver progression, full-steam, and say they can also take Druid flexible attacks as well. Maybe they can only use fighter maneuvers out-of-rage, maybe they can only use Druid ones in-rage, maybe vice versa, maybe free-for-all.
Honestly if you don't have a fighter in your party I don't feel like there'd be anything wrong with telling all three players "here's the list of flexible attacks for the Fighter and the Druid, pick (however many a Fighter of that level would get) and have fun."
There's some other, fairly wonkier ideas I could come up with if you're still interested in 1- continuing to play 13th Age and 2- wanna collab on it at all. And I'm sure anything you port in from 4e is probably gonna be just fine as well.
Speaking of 13th Age, has anybody here tried the multiclassing rules from 13 True Ways, and if so, how do they feel? Glancing over the rules, they seem like they'd give a decent feeling of power, since you basically get 2 full classes just a level behind, but I'm also afraid the separation of stuff is going to make it feel like you're pressing a button to switch between classes, instead of having them melded organically. Just curious how it feels in action. I have an arcane trickster rogue type concept I want to play, and I don't know if the next game I'm a player in will be D&D5 or 13A.
MC in 13A is very front-loaded. You get a lot from go but you gain stuff more slowly than others, and you'll never actually hit 10th level (which only translates into fewer 9th level stuff). That said, I haven't actually done combat with one, but there's some good synergies and you can definitely pick some neat combinations.
For an arcane trickster, there's a rogue talent that basically say "Cha=Int" for rogues. That's definitely useful, and they combine well with bards and wizards, so you've got options.
Interestingly, for a bard/rogue, the talent I mentioned (Cunning) means that "Dex/Cha=Int" instead (for rogue stuff only, since no crossover), which means you can basically be single stat. For shenanigans, combine with Loremaster from the bard talent list and you basically use Int for anything that calls for Dex, Cha, or Int, for either class. All for the "low, low price" of only two of your three talents. Although you do also get 4 extra points of backgrounds, which is cool (or 2 and an extra icon die for either Lich King, or Archmage). and if you don't care about your feat you can, at that point, also get a +1 MD (although there's really so very many other things to spend your feat on that are arguably a lot better).
e: the nice part is that the bard is considered a weapon-using class, so your d8 daggers remain so, at least for rogue attacks (it's not really made clear, though your DM should allow it).
Thanks @Tox I'll see how that looks after doing some reading. The group is taking the whole month of April off so I've got plenty of time to hash this out.
I'm a huge fan of the L5R RP system (as some of my previous posts have indicated). I also really like the setting, Rokugan, but I finally feel like branching out and making my own thing, take that DM plunge into "homebrew".
I absolutely love the blending of Eastern and Western settings, movies like The Warrior's Way, Sukiyaki Western Django or games like Red Steel 2. To that end I want to run a campaign with a similar "Samurai Western" feel using the L5R ruleset. Gun and katana fights in a Western frontier with mystical monk powers and martial arts? Yes please.
Ruleswise the only thing I have to write in is rules for firearms, which should be pretty simple. The biggest thing is crafting the setting. Not sure whether to have the clans in "officially", as just renamed versions of themselves or to rewrite them as different organizations in the frontier. My immediate idea for a rewrite is to take the Crab clan and make them a militaristic religious organization that seeks to defend the frontier from demons and witches, basically exorcists with martial training (bushi) or magic powers (shugenja). Keep the original concept (guard against the Shadowlands) and work it into the new setting. So instead of having the "Shadowlands" be a definitive place in my setting, oni and other monsters are a threat to anywhere on the frontier.
Then I also have to decide whether to base the starting adventure off of Seven Samurai / Magnificent Seven or the Quick and the Dead, both of which are great stories to use as a base to jump off of.
I think the biggest challenge may be keeping the importance of speech, and other non combat, skills. It might be too tempting to keep it all shootouts and sword fights, but there needs to be a use for other stuff.
Players stumble into a cave with the idol of a long forgotten Dark God. Dark God tells them if they sacrifice the entire village in his name, he will give them great power. If players are hesitant, have god order then to fall down on their knees before him for a taste of the power, and give whoever does a nice stat boost. Its a oneshot, so being overpowered is no problem.
At the end when the players have sacrificed the entire village, the dark god says only one can have his full power and makes the players fight to the death to become his right hand. Winner becomes the main villain of the next good campaign you run.
I didn't see it in drivethru's store. Are they using Drivethru as their fulfillment service? I think the 13th Age Strike! pdfs I've gotten have gone through as zero cost items on Drivethru.
I didn't see it in drivethru's store. Are they using Drivethru as their fulfillment service? I think the 13th Age Strike! pdfs I've gotten have gone through as zero cost items on Drivethru.
Yeah, I believe they are?
At least thats what the email indicated.
Apparently they hired a real editor and they're waiting on that to come back before hitting publish.
The party has a collective dream, the Crusader appears to them, bloody and beaten down. "Avenge me..." With those words, the Emperor appears behind him and slays the Crusader who dissolves into blood wisps that dissipate into thin air. When they've awoken, they each find a token of the Crusader on the floor next to them; a blackened greatsword that transformed into a blacked steel version of the wielder's favorite weapon, a bloodstained gauntlet that when worn creates an tower shield made of crimson blood that weighs absolutely nothing, the full plate armor of the Crusader himself, an brutish looking rod that seems to leak the sounds of screaming demons when brought near to the ear, a cloak that flows majestically without wind and never gets in its wearer's way.
As soon as the players pick up the tokens, the armies of the Crusader surround them. "The Crusader is dead! Long live the Crusader!" They chant...
Posts
No doubt it might still be boring, but for some people that simplicity is exactly what they want. Just raw passive power. One of my friends played a champion fighter in 5E for that same reason. He's a mechanically adept player, but he just wanted to be a guy who attacked a lot and crit more frequently.
No doubt it's always better to try to give multiple options within each class though.
It's pretty immaterial how someone is doing damage except when your entire martial advantage is premised on the idea of disarming other martial characters. In which case you might want to give things some further consideration.
This is one of the things I like most about 13th Age: it abandons convention when convention makes less sense than the other choice. Daggers doing 1d8 damage in the hands of a Rogue makes a lot of sense. So should a fist-first Barbarian doing d10 unarmed.
I know a lot of people like the chase of a broken build facilitated by having 170 different weapons that are all virtually identical to each other except that your DM didn't notice the bill-guisarme is, for no reason anyone can fathom, a Simple weapon rather than a Martial one. I find that, at the very least, stupid. Counterproductive is more the norm.
But I also find less is more with mechanics these days. Build the default as simply as possible and then present complexity options. That's the way.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, simply because of the sheer joy two people at my table have when playing barbarians BECAUSE of how simple they are to play and smash things with. You start adding a bunch of stuff, and you're going to rip that joy from them. Don't steal the joy!
The never ending debate about splat books really.
The 5th ed Fighter is actually a quite good example. A range of options, varying in complexity.
I think Barbarians would be cooler if they were a bit like the Monk class had sex with the Hulk. So when you first rage, you gain one rage rank. Hitting enemies (or taking damage) would raise your Rage by 1, missing lowers it by one. Each rank opens up new rages but if your rage rank drops below 1, you stop raging, but there can be abilities that can trigger rage, like if a nearby ally becomes staggered or his health drops below 0, you can rage as a free action if you aren't already raging, otherwise gain a rage. Or if you aren't raging and you are hit with a critical attack, you immediately start raging. You could do like Monk forms and have different types of rages as talents with a list of rages inside them.
Added complexity is more work for the GM. More options increases the chances that some sort of weird interaction leads to an unbalanced synergy which is bad for the game. Finally there is just option paralysis to consider, boot up the 4th edition character creator and you're given a list of a couple hundred feats. That is not a positive thing.
My initial take is you want to reverse that or else it is very much a "Win more/Lose more" mechanic. Maybe make misses increase rage and hits lower it and that could balance out a bit more. That feels more in keeping with the fiction to me as well.
It make work better if misses increase rage, using rage powers spend rage, and doing basic attacks let you bank the rage, neither use nor lose it. Then Barbarian Rage isn't so much something you "activate" but more of a passive power that's part of the class itself. TO THE GOOGLE DOC!
Nanananana RAGEMAN!
My issue there is that in that case, the more complex options are actually distinctly worse than the bland "pure performance" option (which I recognize is somewhat ironic for DnD, where it's usually the opposite case). They also all fundamentally play extremely similarly anyway, because they are all built around maximizing results from basic attacks every round anyway.
I do agree with Essentials though, because the Knight and Slayer were basic, but competitive options, against the more complicated initial 4E fighter. Plus they also competently fitted their respective role, even if the Knight had some serious issues against certain enemies it was one of the best secondary defenders a party could have. 4E Essentials I feel is a much better example of having non-complex classes that came from more complicated initial ones, because nearly all of their results worked and achieved power levels comparable to their original archetypes.
Could be worth a look?
I feel like rangers and druids have always had a similarity. Kinda like clerics and paladins
...ish
Anyrate. I find it hilarious that I'm more likely to get my copy of Godbound than my copy of Exalted 3E now. I'm so burned out on Onyx Path now.
King Roland has been kidnapped by the orcs. Are you a bad enough adventurer to rescue Roland?
The previous Baron has come back to life in the graveyard and is sending undead into town. Oddly they have killed nobody except guards who have confronted them and keep hittingthe new Barons estates or properties.
Turns out the new Baron murdered the old one and that's why he's come back from the dead. His undead servants are no threat, instead they are searching for evidence to exposethe Old Barons murder before he can rest.
A twist! Roland hired the Orcs to kidnap him so he could get away from the throne and join the circus like he always wanted!
Ranger
Paladin
Barbarian
Honestly if you don't have a fighter in your party I don't feel like there'd be anything wrong with telling all three players "here's the list of flexible attacks for the Fighter and the Druid, pick (however many a Fighter of that level would get) and have fun."
There's some other, fairly wonkier ideas I could come up with if you're still interested in 1- continuing to play 13th Age and 2- wanna collab on it at all. And I'm sure anything you port in from 4e is probably gonna be just fine as well.
It is a delicious pie...
For an arcane trickster, there's a rogue talent that basically say "Cha=Int" for rogues. That's definitely useful, and they combine well with bards and wizards, so you've got options.
Interestingly, for a bard/rogue, the talent I mentioned (Cunning) means that "Dex/Cha=Int" instead (for rogue stuff only, since no crossover), which means you can basically be single stat. For shenanigans, combine with Loremaster from the bard talent list and you basically use Int for anything that calls for Dex, Cha, or Int, for either class. All for the "low, low price" of only two of your three talents. Although you do also get 4 extra points of backgrounds, which is cool (or 2 and an extra icon die for either Lich King, or Archmage). and if you don't care about your feat you can, at that point, also get a +1 MD (although there's really so very many other things to spend your feat on that are arguably a lot better).
e: the nice part is that the bard is considered a weapon-using class, so your d8 daggers remain so, at least for rogue attacks (it's not really made clear, though your DM should allow it).
I absolutely love the blending of Eastern and Western settings, movies like The Warrior's Way, Sukiyaki Western Django or games like Red Steel 2. To that end I want to run a campaign with a similar "Samurai Western" feel using the L5R ruleset. Gun and katana fights in a Western frontier with mystical monk powers and martial arts? Yes please.
Ruleswise the only thing I have to write in is rules for firearms, which should be pretty simple. The biggest thing is crafting the setting. Not sure whether to have the clans in "officially", as just renamed versions of themselves or to rewrite them as different organizations in the frontier. My immediate idea for a rewrite is to take the Crab clan and make them a militaristic religious organization that seeks to defend the frontier from demons and witches, basically exorcists with martial training (bushi) or magic powers (shugenja). Keep the original concept (guard against the Shadowlands) and work it into the new setting. So instead of having the "Shadowlands" be a definitive place in my setting, oni and other monsters are a threat to anywhere on the frontier.
Then I also have to decide whether to base the starting adventure off of Seven Samurai / Magnificent Seven or the Quick and the Dead, both of which are great stories to use as a base to jump off of.
I think the biggest challenge may be keeping the importance of speech, and other non combat, skills. It might be too tempting to keep it all shootouts and sword fights, but there needs to be a use for other stuff.
Villagers have a Pie.
It is a delicious pie...
Players stumble into a cave with the idol of a long forgotten Dark God. Dark God tells them if they sacrifice the entire village in his name, he will give them great power. If players are hesitant, have god order then to fall down on their knees before him for a taste of the power, and give whoever does a nice stat boost. Its a oneshot, so being overpowered is no problem.
At the end when the players have sacrificed the entire village, the dark god says only one can have his full power and makes the players fight to the death to become his right hand. Winner becomes the main villain of the next good campaign you run.
trololol
At least thats what the email indicated.
Apparently they hired a real editor and they're waiting on that to come back before hitting publish.
The party has a collective dream, the Crusader appears to them, bloody and beaten down. "Avenge me..." With those words, the Emperor appears behind him and slays the Crusader who dissolves into blood wisps that dissipate into thin air. When they've awoken, they each find a token of the Crusader on the floor next to them; a blackened greatsword that transformed into a blacked steel version of the wielder's favorite weapon, a bloodstained gauntlet that when worn creates an tower shield made of crimson blood that weighs absolutely nothing, the full plate armor of the Crusader himself, an brutish looking rod that seems to leak the sounds of screaming demons when brought near to the ear, a cloak that flows majestically without wind and never gets in its wearer's way.
As soon as the players pick up the tokens, the armies of the Crusader surround them. "The Crusader is dead! Long live the Crusader!" They chant...
But I bet it would take mere seconds for someone to go "oh but I have a negative relationship with the Crusader, soooo"
It does beg the question, why did the Crusader choose them? Perhaps some sort one last spit in the eye from beyond the grave?