Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Amaranthine Witch's page

230 posts (324 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I think I really wanted to find a way to make pure aether worthwile and I wanted it to be the dimensional ripper. As is I still can't find it in me not to expand into another element.

As I was doing the dishes I thought of a thing I would expect the dimensional ripper to do, going to other planes. If a wild talent I think it would be too situational... maybe folded into an improved long distance travel that granted greater teleport and plane shift as an 8th level talent?

I can't seem to find composite blast training anywhere. If you meant composite blast technique I don't see how you can get void blast... unless you go void/aether into composite blast techique for void blast? But then you delay your awesome telekinetic powers to lvl 15 and I don't think you can take enough aether wild talents to make telekineis awesome?

It's a trade of utility for damage then?
Because a void/void dimensional ripper (or a light/light one if you add it) will have much more damage while light will still get the utility of the illusions and if I remember correctly, time/time still deals more damage while having really good utiliy.
EDIT: I think it's good that only single element can do that (more damage, less diversity) but not that aether cant.

So, I love the dimensional ripper (anything that makes aether more awesome is golden), but I've noticed aether doesn't get a composite with this archetype, is that intended?

I don't understand the last sentence of Hyper-dimensional blast: what does it mean when it says "the object used for this blast
cannot be thrown"?

Do you think it would be too much to give a free upgrade to greater teleport at lvl 16 in the long distance travel wild talent?

Psychic Boost is the psychic equivalent to inspired spell and wild arcana? And what does the 10th tier ability do for me if I'm a kineticist?

Is there some kind of schedule for the releases of this product?

Sorry for your loss.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope, araneas already cast as 5th level sorcerers, so the 2 sorcerer levels make her cast like a 7th level sorceress.

If presented with the opportunity to turn back he refused is he really a he or is she a she or she/he really doesn't care about gender?

This reminds me of a support article for one of the Adventure Paths that details some Gray Maidens. There's one that was a man that obtained a girdle to infiltrate the Gray Maidens and rescue his sister (IIRC), after Ileosa's defeat, she stayed a woman, as she didn't feel the need to be a man again.

There is an error in the Anemos ranged attack entry: thunderstorm blast is listed as bludgeoning and air blast as half bludgeoning half electricity, when the reverse is true.

Shaserai would go dual path hierophant/champion.

Shaserai will be a destined bloodrager//time oracle that will go into hierophant and dual path into champion.

I think there's a feat for using natural attacks on a monk's flurry?

EDIT: It seems I'm blind, as I didn't see there was already an oracle/sorcerer. I'll think of something else.

I'd like to play in this campaign, as Shaserai, an aasimar oracle/sorcerer hierophant with dual path into archmage. I'll post the crunch and backstory later.

Meh, I have to withdraw my interest, as I'll no longer be free in the afternoons.

Good luck all!

So, there's no oracle? Can I make one?

Then I'll go with a witch or a sorcerer. When would you start playing? Also, I'm not a native English speaker so my pronunciation may be a bit off sometimes, would that be a problem?

Tomorrow I'll submit a half-orc spirit guide oracle.

I'm interested, I used to play D&D via maptools and text chat, but it's been a while. How long would the game sessions be?

I really liked the book, more than Death's Heretic, specially because it shows us truly new places. My only issue is the ending for Roshad and Bors.

It doesn't feel like it's the goal of the Iridian Fold (and from descriptions in the book, they were making good pace toward it), and I'd say Salim has the mojo to put Roshad in a new body, seeing as he isn't actually dead.

I don't remember where I found a link to this video (I really hope it wasn't here, or I'll feel like a moron) but I really liked it:

Eu nao quero voltar sozinho

S'mon wrote:
Lamashtu isn't going to be a big fan of non-procreative sex. But she's the mother of monsters, I'd think she would work around that - maybe a female Lamshtite priestess might spontaneously grow male genitalia in order to impregnate a female consort/victim, the kind of thing that happens in Japanese hentai. Likewise a male victim/consort might find himself impregnated, with something nasty growing in his bowels/stomach.

IIRC, the second thing is canon.

I can't edit my last post, so I'll continue here:

And I think that whatever it is that corrupted Dou-Bral, it could not have taken Shelyn. It's noted that she is uniquely resistant to the Whisperer of Souls' influence, and she doesn't seem to have a drop of bitterness or resentment in her (she even keeps his brother's old divine realm in case he gets better, despite the fact that he attacked her and turned their father into a tortured monstrosity). In contrast, Dou-Bral was jealous of his half-sister for being "better" (in spite of being younger?) (My theory is that in opposing Rovagug, and witnessing the death of so many gods, he became a little broken, leading to his confrontation with Shelyn and allowing whatever twisted him a foothold into his mind).

Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I would love to know what Zon-Kuthon was like before his transformation. You know, what he was a god of, his old domains, old favored weapon, etc.

It is an interesting notion.

It might be interesting to totally reverse his current Domains;

Darkness becomes Sun
Death becomes Healing
Destruction becomes Protection
Evil becomes Good
Law becomes Chaos

Another option would be to consider which gods didn't exist back when Zon-Kuthon was Dou-Bral, and therefore which Domains were less represented;

No Cayden Cailean, Iomedae or Norgorber (yet) means that there were openings for Chaos x2, Charm x2, Death, Evil, Glory, Good x2, Knowledge, Law, Strength, Sun, Travel, Trickery.

Glory, Good, Knowledge, Strength and Sun might fit well for what was once one of the more locally prominent Taldan gods, along with sister Shelyn, covering Domains that were later filled in by the new Starstone Scions, and befitting a god whose Taldan people would have gone on to events like the Armies of Exploration, and yet not overlap too much with his sister (avoiding Charm and Protection, for instance).

And... I've totally talked myself out of just reversing his current Domains, and like this second idea better. :)

I kinda like the idea of Dou-Bral originally being more of a darkly romantic god, completing a sort of yin-yang relationship with Shelyn that was much more stable and healthy than the current situation. Perhaps with a touch of the Byronic? That could have led to their falling out that resulted in him leaving and getting ZK'ed?

That could also mean Shelyn had to step up and pull double duty for representing the kinds of love and beauty her brother used too. Or that if it had been her that ran into whatever got her brother, she could have wound up being a twisted goddess very different from Zon-Kuthon...


According to Gods and Magic, Dou-Bral is older than Shelyn, and she joined him in watching over love, music, art and beauty. Then they argued and went to the spaces between the planes where he became Zon-Kuthon.

Mechalibur wrote:

One thing that I wonder about the Risen Guard... where are the Forthbringers getting all those diamonds? Let's say there are around 100 members of the Risen Guard (doesn't seem that unreasonable), that's a total exense of 500,000gp worth of diamonds, not counting ones who have been brought back multiple times.

Also, a level 20 cleric/wizard/mystic theurge... I wonder if she's the most powerful priest of Nethys in the whole Inner Sea region.

If I remember correctly, the Ruby Prince is a great summoner and binder, so it's likely that he gets them shipped from the elemental plane of Earth.

And I think you're right, she might be the most powerful priest of Nethis, but that's hardly unusual, as it was Nethis' might that enabled the establishment of the empire of Ancient Osirion.

There is an error in Table 12: Theurge. At level 8th it indicates +6/+2/+6 as it's saving throws, when it should be +2/+2/+6

What I meant is: the summoner gets maze, summon monster VIII and dominate monster as 6th level spells. Can I get a summoner scroll of those spells and learn them as 6th level spells as well?

4d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 1, 4) = 12=>11
4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 3, 6) = 11=>10
4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 6, 3) = 20=>17
4d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 5, 3) = 15=>14
4d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 1, 2) = 11=>10
4d6 ⇒ (3, 1, 5, 6) = 15=>14

Interested in playing a witch.

I have read parts of the book (as my main interest was the Theurge), and although I like it, I have a few concerns.

Both the Theurge and the White Necromancer lack interesting class features:

-All the Theurge's class features are about spells. I think it needs more flavorful options, probably linked with knowledge, research or metamagic.

-Given the extremely limited spell list of the White Necromancer, it has too few class features, as it is right now, I think I'd never play a white necromancer over a sorcerer, an oracle or a witch. I'd either beef up the casting or the class features.

We need some kind of guide on spell levels for the Theurge, as it is right now, I see nothing that impedes me of finding scrolls made by a summoner or a paladin and get plenty of spells at a reduced spell level.

Also, the Paper Talisman ability of the Six Talismans Monk has a save of 1/2 the level plus Wisdom modifier. Shouldn't that be 10 plus 1/2 the level plus wisdom modifier?

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
So I'm curious about other LGBT folks: How long did it take you to realize you weren't 'normal,' and was it a single moment of epiphany or a gradual realization?

I became aware that I liked men when I was 14-15, after discovering yaoi anime, because neither in my village nor the city where I went for my secondary education there wasn't any mention of homosexuality (despite my favorite aunt being a lesbian, which I found out later). Then I realized that I found my tennis instructor hot and I was in love with my male best friend.

After a time I realized that most of the time I didn't feel a man, and although I knew about trans people, most of the time I didn't feel female either. It wasn't until a year ago or so that I found out about gender fluidity, and it felt as the right way to describe me.


Could someone who already has it post the level and tier progression?

Dotting for interest.

Annabel wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:

How nice of you to tell those poor misguided asexuals that the fact they don't want to have sex is a product of the way they were brought up, and if they had lived in a different socitey they'd get the joys of sex. [/SARCASM]

And I'm not really defending him, I'm just saying that while making a joke (and I'd like you to explain to me why it's so offensive to you) may be bad, saying "let's space him!" is certainly no better.

If you don't understand the idea of social construction, don't talk about it. That is the simplest solution.

To say something is socially constituted is not to say that it is learned. To claim that one is "asexual" requires that notions about sexuality and sexual sexual desire be socially constituted in such a way that the utterance "I am asexual" is intelligible. Asexuality, homosexuality, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, straight and heterosexuality are all socially constituted. The blithe claim that appealing to a biomedical authority of essential asexuality doesn't change the fact that the idea of "asexuality" is socially constituted. Even biomedical knowledge is socially constructed. This is often a difficult pill for folks to swallow, but it has been supported by sociology and philosophy of science for over fifty years.

And you are (and are still) defending him: see your response to Vivianne Laflamme.

And the suggestion to "space him" was actually put forth by the President of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol, under suspicion of "scummery" because the joke (and subsequent deflection) constituted an instance of marginalizing queer folks. I think the important term here is "scum," which clearly references scum-like behavior. There are plenty of decent cis people, many of which I am sure Laura Roslin would be uninterested in putting out the airlock.

BTW: I am still uninterested in respectability politics.

Me: you reject asexuality?

You: No, I reject the claim that it's biologically determined
Me: How is it determined, then?
You: It's socially constituted, obviously. <-- which I took to mean determined by upbringing (sorry, English is not my first language)
Me: /sarcastic rant about how sexuality is not a result of upbringing/
You: If you don't know what you're talking about shut up.

So you're answering "society puts names on things" (if that's not what it means you'll have to explain it to me again) when I asked "if sexuality is not biological, what it is?"?

Annabel wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Annabel wrote:
No, I reject the claim that it's biologically determined.
How is it determined, then?

It's socially constituted, obviously.

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Annabel wrote:
Generally, cisgender heterosexuals have a difficult time recognize their privilege, and in turn do things like make "jokes" at the expense of queer folks.
I know that, but that image does not say "cisgender heterosexual" and gay men and lesbians may be (and most are) cisgendered. And it's still inappropriate.

Yes, and on the occasions that cisgender gay men and lesbians perpetuate the oppression of trans men and women, they are being bad people too. But it's worth noting that the oppression of queer folk isn't a product of a few "bad gays." It arises out of the dominance of cisgender heterosexuals, and the marginalization of all others.

Are you really having a hard time seeing how the "joke" about gender ambiguous dwarves wasn't a dig at non-heterosexual/cisgender conforming individuals, which makes up the group of people generally referred to as queer folk? If you don't understand the "humor," don't defend it.

I'm not that interesting in getting into a respectability debate here with you. I'm not going to play into these politics of turning straight heterosexuals into the victims of queer villainy. If you don't understand the message, just let it go.

How nice of you to tell those poor misguided asexuals that the fact they don't want to have sex is a product of the way they were brought up, and if they had lived in a different socitey they'd get the joys of sex. [/SARCASM]

And I'm not really defending him, I'm just saying that while making a joke (and I'd like you to explain to me why it's so offensive to you) may be bad, saying "let's space him!" is certainly no better.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
And it's still inappropriate.
So you didn't have anything to say when Astral Wanderer was making jokes at the expense of gay and bisexual men and women, but you are stepping in to defend cisgender people from an image macro?

You mean this?

Astral Wanderer wrote:
Have you looked at Dwarves? Well, they looked at one another, and since they can't tell their men from their women, they probably reproduce only to swell their numbers and with the least possible contact.

Considering that most people are heterosexual and I'd never want to do the deed with a woman, I don't see why it's so offensive making a joke about heterosexual people not wanting to have sex with people of the same gender as them (altough it's still a little weird).

Annabel wrote:
No, I reject the claim that it's biologically determined.

How is it determined, then?

Annabel wrote:
Generally, cisgender heterosexuals have a difficult time recognize their privilege, and in turn do things like make "jokes" at the expense of queer folks.

I know that, but that image does not say "cisgender heterosexual" and gay men and lesbians may be (and most are) cisgendered. And it's still inappropriate.

Annabel wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Annabel wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Have you looked at Dwarves? Well, they looked at one another, and since they can't tell their men from their women, they probably reproduce only to swell their numbers and with the least possible contact.
What's wrong with androgyny?
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Have you looked at Dwarves?...
So your explanation of dwarven heterosexism is that you cannot imagine why a woman would want to have sex with another woman or a man would want to have sex with another man?

Guys, your passive-aggressive attitude is going to gain mythic tiers.

Not every joke means that someone would shoot down homosexuals or whatever.
I think you understand that the only humor to be found in your "joke" was as the expense of gay men and lesbians. Good dodge though.

I don't see the connection between cis/trans and gay men and lesbians (leaving aside that the text of that image is not cool).

Annabel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Annabel wrote:

The two women dwarfs explicitly stated, (in dwarven) that they were deeply in love. "Deeply" having special meaning to dwarves, who value notions of depth because they live underground.

They do have sex, and that sex is lesbian dwarf sex. And this is being labeled a perversion.

I whole-heartedly agree with them: they are suffering under a sex-negative, heterosexist society. The sex-negativity coming from the clearly restrictive social norms surrounding sexuality. And the heterosexism (homophobia) coming from the fact that the only socially legitimated sexual acts are allowed under the ostensibly "natural" purposes of "breeding."

OK. You are clearly rejecting the theoretical premise of this thought experiment: that dwarves lack interest in sex.

You seem to be assuming that dwarves really must have the same variety and intensity of sexual desire that real humans do, but that it's being socially repressed.
As such, I wouldn't use this approach to dwarves in a game with you. (Or probably at all. It's a neat idea, but I'm not really sure where to go with it.)

I'm actually rejecting the premise that "sex activity" is something that is biologically determined.

There seems to be this underlying notion that feelings of "disgust" or ideas about "perversion" are somehow built into human(oid) biology: that whenever dwarf feels disgusted by these two women, that disgust is due to some sort of "natural" (and moral") wrongness of their sexual relations.

And it is you who are assuming that dwarves have a more narrow range of sexual desire than humans.... Or is it that we are both making all of this up on the fly because it is all made up?

I was just asserting that there will be dwarves (maybe even a sexual minority of them) who don't fit normative dwarven standards, and thus will face marginalization because of their sexuality....

Sooo... you reject asexuality?

The problem with the dwarf scenario isn't the asexuality. It's, as rooboy said, that they're unlikely to have evolved to that stage (asexuality is the norm) or been created that way, and conflating asexuality with aromanticity.

chaiboy wrote:

I've been digging into the various types of slavery and you could put different kinds into alignment context. Here is a really rough attempt at it.

I of course left my notes but will try to put what i could remember into this list.

LG would only have bondage. That is you sell yourself into bondage in order to pay a debt or are forced into bondage to pay off a loan or other debt, such as a criminal activity. Basically you have a choice to enter such a situation. You have various rights for proper treatment

LN would be serfdom/Thrall. You and your family are born into it and are tied by location or work until such time as you can buy or freedom. If you want to change jobs or leave family to become a soldier then someone has to buy your obligation. It is almost like a work contract. you stay until you pay it off or someone else does. You have some rights against being mistreated but not many.

LE would be chattel slavery. You were forced into bondage and have no rights. Your owner has rights over you as if you where their property. There is little way for you to escape this situation. There is no way to buy your freedom since you are considered a thing not a being. You have no rights at all.

NG would be a type of bondage but a gentleman's agreement. no formal rules exist but the word of your master and you and the agreement both of you struck up. There are no formal rules just your master's compassion in how you are treated and it will be good. Pure business with workers over profit.

N, True Neutral would be serfdom/thrall. Maybe you where taken in battle or you where born into it. You don't have a formal way of getting out of this situation but you could in time convince your master to free you. either by deed or money. You would find you are treated based on how the master can get the most out of you. So treatment will be even handed and not harsh unless necessary. The only rule is what the master wants. Pure business with profit and sustaining the workers.

NE. Chattel slavery. This is...

I agree with pretty much every assessment, except the CG one. CG people wouldn't keep slaves, chaos=freedom, good=empathy, and that is incompatible with slavery.

Drejk wrote:
Dallimar wrote:
So, a little background. One of the players in my group wants to play a paladin of Arodan, gaining his power through faith in the teaching of the dead god rather than from a deity itself, but he may be taking the Touched by Divinity trait and, for our home game, I think it would be a great turn to have him be the son of Arodan (I'll be working up to a campaign later that involves this as the central theme).

Remember that (unless you as GM change the way the setting works for your game) on Golarion faith itself does not grant power (or Razmir wouldn't be so desperate to buy longevity elixirs) so believing that Aroden is not dead won't bestow actual power.

With being child of Aroden there might be a small problem of timing if playing in default campaign year, unless the character would be half-elf, elf or member of other long-lived race... Of course extended lifespan can be sign of the human character's divine heritage in the first place...

The only divine caster that requires a god is the cleric, the others, including the paladin and the inquisitor may or may not have one. He could be a paladin that follows the teachings of Aroden but with a more benign touch (Aroden is LN). He also should have been in stasis for some time, as Aroden has been dead for more than a hundred years.

Keign wrote:

Obviously, I enjoy the idea of having an anti-spellcaster facet to this class...

Feedback Loop(Su): When you successfully dispel a spell, you may channel energy back through it to its caster. By spending a point from your Arcane Reservoir as a part of your dispelling action, you deal 1d6 Force damage per level of the spell to it's caster. For example, dispelling Mage Armor would deal 1d6 of damage, and dispelling Haste would deal 3d6 Force to the caster. Will negates.

Copycat(Su): When you successfully identify a spell being cast which you are capable of casting, you may spend one point from your Arcane Reservoir on your next turn to prepare it in a spell slot of the appropriate level, either replacing another spell which you had already prepared or preparing it in a previously un-prepared slot. This is a move action which provokes an attack of opportunity. You must have the new spell in your spellbook in order to prepare it in this way.

Feedback Loop is really underpowered. The damage is abysmal, it's a will save to negate (the strongest save for all casters), and the DC will be low (it works off charisma). I think Copycat is fun, but it may make the arcanist too versatile.

Up-thread it was suggested making the old counterspell exploit an advanced form of the actual counterspell exploit, and I have to say I wouldn't take it either, unless there's an Extra exploit feat. Then I'd grab both the same level, and not spend two levels with an exploit I wouldn't use. Instead I'd make it a chain: See Magic -> Filter Spell -> Counterspell (the old version, stating it doesn't work with Parry Spell) -> Counter Drain

Filter Spell would be something like: if the arcanist identifies a spell as it's being cast, she may spend a point from her arcane reservoir to reduce the caster level of that spell by 1 (minimum 1).

andreww wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Why would anyone take the counterspell exploit now? If you want to counterspell your enemy's highest level spell, you have to be three levels higher than him. When was the last time the enemy casters where underleveled compared to the party?

Because enemies dont always lead off with their highest level spells.

Because if you have the spell you are using then it still counts.

Because at higher levels because they are also quickening a lower level spell as well as casting a hugher level one for improved action economy.

The first I don't agree with (except for buff spells), the second is highly unlikely, as you have few spells known. The third one I agree, sort of.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Side note- I'm willing to bet the Arcanist Iconic will be female. The witch and wizard are male so it would balance the female casters.

I don't see how you can mistake the witch for a man.

Why would anyone take the counterspell exploit now? If you want to counterspell your enemy's highest level spell, you have to be three levels higher than him. When was the last time the enemy casters where underleveled compared to the party?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mikaze, I've made this for you, as a thank you for being so generous and generally fantastic. Maybe it's not very good, but this year is all I can do. (If you want the original file, send me a PM and I'll pass it to you)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Mikaze, Mike, you're awesome!

If it's possible I'd like to ask for the Book of Heroic Races: Reapers and Cackle of the Gnolls.

It's fantastic of you to do this Mikaze, many thanks.

Lormyr wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Karzoug's Ioun Stones are in page 421 of the Anniversary Editon. They are called Thassilonian Ioun Stones and are minor artifacts.

I understand that. I am questioning if there was some official FAQ or errata for Seekers of Secrets that in some fashion invalidates those ioun stones for purchase. If there is, it is not known to me and I would like a chance to read it.

The ones Karzoug possesses as artifacts are in all ways identical to the non-artifact versions PCs can purchase from Seekers. Perhaps there was a clerical error somewhere, or this issue was simply overlooked between the time of RotRL orginal printing --> Seekers or Secrets --> RotRL AE, or maybe Karzoug is just intended to have "super special" ioun stones.

I am at the moment less concerned about that than I am if these ioun stones were errata'd at some point to not be purchasable.

As far as I know, they remain separate items, despite the variants having the same names and the same powers. The fact that Karzoug's are artifacts makes them immune to dispel magic and antimagic field, and makes mage's disjunction less useful (and potentially dangerous to the caster).

Robert A Matthews wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Claxon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
the people who are writing these characters in aren't the core "developers", they're just writers.

Except for when they are the Core developers?

B2 has Soulbound Doll which are Constructs with Rage.

Except Souldbound Doll specifically is stated to have:

Susceptible to Mind-Affecting Effects (Ex) The weakened conviction of a soulbound doll's soul makes it susceptible to mind-affecting effects, despite the fact that it is a construct.
Which includes morale effects.
And even if they didn't have that ability, the soulbound doll's rage is the spell, not the ability, and only if they are CN.
Why does it matter if it is the Rage spell instead of the Barbarian's rage? They both grant morale bonuses.
It matters because the rage spell may target people other than the caster (in fact 1 creature per 3 levels), so it wouldn't be out of place as a spell-like ability for a construct.
The only thing allowing it is the Susceptible to Mind-Affecting Affects. The rage spell still grants a morale bonus. A bonus that constructs normally receive no benefit from.

And I'm telling you the soulbound doll doesn't need to cast it on itself, more likely it casts it on other people.

1 to 50 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.