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

Aranna's page

2,110 posts. Alias of Min2007.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Take it from me making chains is not going to work, no GM will let you get away with it even if it is RAW legal.

So where does it fail? Probably on the real market side. No one wants to buy the chains. You COULD set up shop to sell them yourself (or hire a shopkeeper to do it) but that could take years and the wages and building upkeep would dramatically lower your massive windfall.

If you want the market to absorb this then there ARE ways... make a good that the people normally import and sell it at reduced prices. It could still take weeks to unload and you are going to have the guys who import the stuff putting a price on your head. But if you can survive the assassins, go for it.


Anzyr wrote:
While Psionic style is much much more common.

Is it? We have three classic authors and many others who used Vancian style... I am wondering what authors used psionic style? I can't think of any. I admit I haven't read many novels in the last decade maybe this is a new thing I missed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Edit: Stop with the food!

Come now everyone loves food. It is the one thing we are all addicted to.

:p


sunshadow21 wrote:
The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.

Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.


Same with the Mithral chain shirt; no armor check penalties. Even mages can wear them though they do have a small spell failure chance, but that can be magiced away. Giving you nice armor for your wizardlings.


Yes. But that was the grand idea of it if I remember my history correctly. They made the modules, then the developers played those modules, and finally they wrote that play through into novels. So it probably comes across very close to the module.


Scythia wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Monsters SHOULD be run intelligently. Unless they are literally described as mindless. Orcs and Goblins have been relentlessly attacked by the more civilized races for millennia and they are still around so YES they would have excellent tactics and good battle instructors.

Or they breed like rats.

You know, those creatures seen as pests and enemies of humanity for millennia that we haven't wiped out despite our best efforts. If we can't eliminate them, I doubt fantasy world humans could eliminate goblins & orcs. Both are quite willing to live in filth infested warrens that few humans would willingly go near, both feed on the scraps and refuse of civilization, and both reproduce rapidly. While rats are far from stupid, they don't use any kind of real tactics aside from "hide!" and "dash!", but they do fine for themselves.

Except rats are tiny things that can live happily in areas we can't reach. Goblins and Orcs are much much larger. A real world equivalent might be wolves and wolves survive by avoiding human lands. As humans expand we tend to wipe out any enemies we find and wolves have been hunted out of existence in many areas. In my own state they had to import wolves from other wild areas to help keep the deer population down, since we hunted down all our native wolves.

Orcs I usually run as a prmative culture often borrowing ideas from Klingons. Goblins I run as cowardly but cruel. Very different than the brave Golarion goblins.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

Actually I don't ok most things. Past experience has taught me that most* of what a player wants to bring in IS cheese walking and talking. And no I don't always know it when I see it. Many things seem pretty reasonable until you actually see it in action in combination with other reasonable things at medium to high levels. So I have to look at things very carefully and compare it to other, at least, semi-optimal builds before I bring it in.

Having said that, I found the DSP psionincs a pleasant surprise. Potentially powerful? Yes. But not excessively so when compared to other baseline things that are allowed.

And as I said before. I love the way the system works.
.
.

Aranna wrote:
I have always said since psionics is better, why not just ditch the spell casting classes and go straight psionics in your games. ...
Seriously considering that for the next campaign I GM. About 90% sure that I will if I can get Herolab packages for the psionics books.

Awesome, you sound like a good GM.

Let us know how it goes, please.


Comedic goblins? The Golarion writers play too much Magic the Gathering.


I loved most of Death Gate Cycle... except the part where they turn a powerful female mage into a helpless captive; it made no sense.


I would rule that the player can do whatever they want... but I would simply assign a +0.5 STR bonus on off hand attacks for each off hand used; so two off hands wielding a two handed sword would do +1x STR mod instead of the +1.5x STR mod that a primary and off hand would combine for. And yes that means the primary hand adds in +1x STR when used.


I suspect those numbers are off... mainly because I bet a large percentage fall into more than one category.


FLite wrote:

I have a Gnome with a -5 to most charisma skills, heading toward -7.

He basically is a socially unpleasant gnome (CHA 9 Blight Druid -1) covered in sores and bad smells (wasting oracle -4) Sometimes with green goo dripping out his ears (Clear Ear -2)

At what point does just having him around make the other PC's diplomacy checks harder?

As long as you avoid doing any diplomacy yourself the best is no effect at all and the worst you could do is apply a situational penalty on their rolls depending entirely on how you play this role or who your group is talking to.


Orthos wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Scythia wrote:
NoncompliAut wrote:
Aranna wrote:
LOL if I had a nickle for every time a player mooched food.
I host a game and provide food for the other players & the GM (We're a small group). No matter what it is (grapes, unshelled walnuts, chips, cherries, tangerines), it will all be gone by the end of the session. I am very tempted to serve Brussels sprouts, just for experimental purposes.
Maybe if you cover them in nacho cheese sauce, or ranch dip, or Doritos powder.
Hmmm... good idea. Normally I grill chopped brussel sprouts and use them on sandwiches instead of lettuce. But serving them with a cheese sauce might be tasty as well; although I would use real cheese.
Do a fondue type thing?

Exactly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
NoncompliAut wrote:
Aranna wrote:
LOL if I had a nickle for every time a player mooched food.
I host a game and provide food for the other players & the GM (We're a small group). No matter what it is (grapes, unshelled walnuts, chips, cherries, tangerines), it will all be gone by the end of the session. I am very tempted to serve Brussels sprouts, just for experimental purposes.
Maybe if you cover them in nacho cheese sauce, or ranch dip, or Doritos powder.

Hmmm... good idea. Normally I grill chopped brussel sprouts and use them on sandwiches instead of lettuce. But serving them with a cheese sauce might be tasty as well; although I would use real cheese.


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
It isn't weaksauce nor will someone do a very good job incorporating psionics on only 15 minutes of reading. Aranna's rule of good game mastery #1: Know the Rules. If you want to incorporate psionics you will need to be well versed NOT JUST on the mechanics involved in spending psi points and manifesting powers BUT you will also need a strong knowledge of all the various powers that will come up in play PC or villain. And if you want to make psionics shine then you will also need to learn all those tricky little bits that you can combo up with psi powers. That's a lot of learning for some GMs who may be happy with things the way they already are.

By this line of reasoning, every time new spells are published the GM suddenly doesn't comprehend magic anymore, since not only does he have to know how magic works, but he must also need strong knowledge of all spells and their combos.

No, I don't think so. All I need to know how magic works is the Magic chapter in the core rulebook, just like all I need to know how Psionics works is the Psionic Powers chapter in the psionics book. From there, I have the needed knowledge to incorporate any power that is published.

Quote:
Take for example how many times people bring up the fact that not knowing the limit to how much you can pump a power breaks the game... That's a lot of GMs and players getting the basic mechanics wrong and I bet they spent far more than 15 minutes on the rules.

I'd be willing to take that bet, especially since the explanation of how augmenting a power (IE - spending more points on the power) explains the limit. In fact, it has never proved anything other than how people won't read rules before they try to pretend to be experts on them.

Quote:
PS: Options are fine... I just prefer tightly themed games. Just a preference it isn't superior just different.
You should probably remove a good half of the core classes and most splat material, including new classes, as there is much overlap between them, only...

Now your being deliberately difficult. A GM who has mastery of spells doesn't lose that when new spells come out. They just wisely don't include them in their game until they have had time to review them and decide for themselves if they will fit.

As for the bet you will probably lose... most of these people probably spend at least an hour perusing the various powers they can get. And most of them probably at least spent 15 minutes skimming through how powers work.

As for options: I have done that to good effect before. It depends on the theme I am going for... horror? I probably remove many of the classes that specialize in slaughtering undead or keeping people healthy. Gives them good reason to fear the night. So yes with a psionics themed game I would remove the spell casters.


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I have always said since psionics is better, why not just ditch the spell casting classes and go straight psionics in your games. Which is great in theory... now the hard part; finding a GM that not only hasn't banned psionics but knows them well enough to pull this off. Because that is probably the biggest reason psi gets banned anyway; GMs don't know the new system well enough to incorporate it into their game.

It takes about 15 minutes to become capable of adjudicating psionics, so that's a weaksauce excuse. That said, there's a very good reason that I haven't bothered to just change all my campaigns over to psionics as the only form of magic...because there's not much point in it.

Options are good. I find it's just less work for more gain to let everyone have their cake.

It isn't weaksauce nor will someone do a very good job incorporating psionics on only 15 minutes of reading. Aranna's rule of good game mastery #1: Know the Rules. If you want to incorporate psionics you will need to be well versed NOT JUST on the mechanics involved in spending psi points and manifesting powers BUT you will also need a strong knowledge of all the various powers that will come up in play PC or villain. And if you want to make psionics shine then you will also need to learn all those tricky little bits that you can combo up with psi powers. That's a lot of learning for some GMs who may be happy with things the way they already are.

Take for example how many times people bring up the fact that not knowing the limit to how much you can pump a power breaks the game... That's a lot of GMs and players getting the basic mechanics wrong and I bet they spent far more than 15 minutes on the rules.

PS: Options are fine... I just prefer tightly themed games. Just a preference it isn't superior just different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

LOL if I had a nickle for every time a player mooched food.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monsters SHOULD be run intelligently. Unless they are literally described as mindless. Orcs and Goblins have been relentlessly attacked by the more civilized races for millennia and they are still around so YES they would have excellent tactics and good battle instructors.


I may be a bit of a newbie to comics having only recently read Ms Marvel... BUT I like that they made Thor a woman. It is as much a title as it is a name, the original Thor will probably still be called Thor, and the new Thor will also have her own real name; just her super hero name will be "Thor". This also makes a lot more sense than creating a new super hero with a hammer and lightning powers because this ties her into a long and glorious history and gives her back story instant depth. Hopefully bringing in old Thor readers as well as the batch of new ones who like the idea.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have always said since psionics is better, why not just ditch the spell casting classes and go straight psionics in your games. Which is great in theory... now the hard part; finding a GM that not only hasn't banned psionics but knows them well enough to pull this off. Because that is probably the biggest reason psi gets banned anyway; GMs don't know the new system well enough to incorporate it into their game.


Yeah I absolutely love Word Crimes.


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I can only assume that you mean the 8th level Kineticist power psionic telekinetic sphere, which does create a telekinetic barrier that is pretty much impervious to damage and stuff. The thing is, this is the description for the power.

Psionic Telekinetic Sphere wrote:
As the telekinetic sphere spell, except as noted here.

Notice something funny about this? It's a power that mimics a spell of the same level, except the power is harder to get (you either have to be a 15th level kineticist, or a 17th level anything else with a feat tax). Even then, it's hardly that amazing as it specifically notes that it can be taken apart with a rod of cancellation, rod of negation, disintegrate or -- ooh, ooh, get this one -- a targeted dispel magic. That's right, dispel magic breaks it.

Sorcery indeed. :P

A dispel needed to roll to take it down and since we were like just hitting early epic levels at this point that wasn't an easy roll to make. Oh the GM did take it down on me a couple times with disjunction I believe but that didn't really detract from it's usefulness.
An 8th level spell/power should be useful. :P

I think the concern was two fold; not only was it (mostly) impenetrable in 3.5e but I could use it once or twice in at least six or more encounters. Which was our typical number of encounters before resting.


Ashiel wrote:

I can only assume that you mean the 8th level Kineticist power psionic telekinetic sphere, which does create a telekinetic barrier that is pretty much impervious to damage and stuff. The thing is, this is the description for the power.

Psionic Telekinetic Sphere wrote:
As the telekinetic sphere spell, except as noted here.

Notice something funny about this? It's a power that mimics a spell of the same level, except the power is harder to get (you either have to be a 15th level kineticist, or a 17th level anything else with a feat tax). Even then, it's hardly that amazing as it specifically notes that it can be taken apart with a rod of cancellation, rod of negation, disintegrate or -- ooh, ooh, get this one -- a targeted dispel magic. That's right, dispel magic breaks it.

Sorcery indeed. :P

A dispel needed to roll to take it down and since we were like just hitting early epic levels at this point that wasn't an easy roll to make. Oh the GM did take it down on me a couple times with disjunction I believe but that didn't really detract from it's usefulness.


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
And if combat turned badly we could hide in my restored impenetrable shield
What sorcery is this? O.o

Not sorcery silly, it was a psionic power... some sort of kinetic barrier if I recall correctly that stopped all attacks regardless of type. I had three free uses from my races 3/day psi power and plenty of points to keep it going after that.

Lol, whut? :P

Is that a serious response?

Wizard's have a similar spell I believe but can't use it this frequently.


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
And if combat turned badly we could hide in my restored impenetrable shield
What sorcery is this? O.o

Not sorcery silly, it was a psionic power... some sort of kinetic barrier if I recall correctly that stopped all attacks regardless of type. I had three free uses from my races 3/day psi power and plenty of points to keep it going after that.


We have included Psionics twice in our campaigns... a third time I tried to get Dreamscarred's version for PF approved but no luck there.

Attempt one was with that underpowered 3e book. I played the psion and by mid level I was wishing I could be a sorceress instead. Psionics got banned for being useless.

The next inclusion came much later and lovable mr munchkin wanted to add the 3.5e psionics into his already high level game, and since I had just retired my twice fallen paladin archer I got to be the first guinea pig again. I made a catgirl psion and absolutely dominated every combat. Even with my LA penalties for the custom race my psion was able to take point into each dangerous situation and watch the enemy fall back in dismay as they encountered my impenetrable shield which I would only drop after they wasted some good attacks on me, and once my companions were into place to dish out a lot of hurt themselves I would drop the shield and then we just mopped the bad guys up as a team. Rinse and repeat for the next room. If I got hurt I could quickly heal myself and not bother the over worked cleric. And if combat turned badly we could hide in my restored impenetrable shield to fully recuperate before restarting the fight. Of course the next campaign psionics were banned again, this time for being too good.

I hear the PF ones are better balanced but I do have some concerns... unfortunately I may have to wait for an online game to actually try them.


Yes a character gen / group building session would have solved SO much here. Let them bounce ideas between you and each other and even link their backgrounds together. In the end you (hopefully) get a balanced team of heroes who know each other and have a common background and history in the campaign setting.


Mapleswitch wrote:
Fotta wrote:

In all fairness, this happened in a purposefully difficult and gritty campaign. We were okay with the ruling, and able to get it fixed...mostly.

A monk was attacking an enemy knight, and rolled a 1. The DM used a crit fumble chart he found online, The rolled result was "Attacker is disarmed"

Monk: Not bad since I don't have a weapon to drop.

DM: Nah. We'll just disarm you literally. he cuts off both your hands.

... that chart is for vorpal weapons back in 2nd edition....

And that wouldn't disarm a monk who can still kick, elbow, head butt, ect...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nimon wrote:

Player says "Can my girlfriend play?"

Player means "Can you explain every aspect of the game in detail every session until she gets frustrated because she can not grasp the very rudimentary concepts of the game and when leaves can I blame you for it?"

Sexism? Girls play the game, we enjoy the game, we CAN understand the game. We don't need mr boyfriend to hold our hand and explain over and over how to play our own character...


I must have been sheltered then... I wasn't aware he was cranking out albums. I just happened upon a link to his new stuff while reading a web comic and was like wow. I wonder why I don't see his albums in the store?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I first heard this crazy stuff when I went to college. Now he is back with new stuff.

Here he is!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He did one for 1-3 as well:
Enjoy


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I personally can't stand having stats below 10 on my characters. So while it might be optimal to drop my warrior's Cha and Int to 7, I will never do it. Other people will. So our cookie cutters will be different.
While there's a certain romance to having PCs have average or less than average numbers in some abilities and having them overcome these drawbacks to become heroes, I prefer my heroes to be on the "superhero" side of things. Like TOZ, I don't like stats below ten.

This is certainly also true. And it is the source of the unfairness in point buy. If two players are playing the same concept and one of them doesn't wish to buy down their stats while the other one is eager to buy down his stats it results in a situation where the player buying down has more points to spend on his primary attributes than his sidekick who didn't.


RDM42 wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Hama wrote:

I've been looking over the PCs from several of my previous campaigns that I ran, and all of them had one thing in common. Very very similar ability scores.

While, yes, point buy is there to mitigate injustice and make PCs relatively similar in ability, it gives them a sort of uniformity which is beginning to annoy me.

Any thoughts?

One of the most heard complaints about the Point Buy system is cookie cutter stats. That is if the concepts are similar the characters will probably have identical stats. This is because there is an optimal set of scores for each concept and THAT is what you have to buy if you wish to play that concept.

There are two statements here ...

There is an optimal set of scores for each concept.
True.

But you don't have to have just that optimal set of scores in order to play the concept. The game doesn't self destruct if a character is not the one optimal set of scores.

Yes and no. By going suboptimal you are accepting a character who won't perform as well. Not many people want to be less effective. So you are kind of stuck with the optimal set.


Quark Blast wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:
I've never heard of Dragonlance,...
"You lucky bas***d! You lucky, lucky bas***d!" :D

He is lucky indeed. He can read the original Dragonlance trilogy and experience those awesome books for the first time!


yellowdingo wrote:

Try 2d6+1 per stat roll and play as zero level normal humans...

Let players earn one stat point per level.

This is horrible advice. you would need roughly 12 levels just to get to straight 10s... More likely everyone would just play SAD characters and pile that one stat and leave the rest at around 8 (the average of that method).


tsuruki wrote:

I cant beleive i didnt know this trhead existed, its great!

HAs anyone mentioned Kill-la-kill yet? Its in the vein of Panty-Stocking mixed with Gurren Lagann, i highly reccomend it who like shows with energy and style. Every character in the show is a viable player character / villain, even the villains.

Read back a ways it gets mentioned.

I will reprint my take on Kill-la-Kill:
And I did watch all of Kill la Kill... Though I almost quit the idiotic show after episode 2. Still after the boyfriend said "Keep watching it gets better" I found myself liking the characters by the end... and that redeemed the show for me. The only part of the show I didn't see coming a mile away was when

Spoiler:
They reveal that the two are sisters

definitely worth watching even if it doesn't rank among the best anime.


Hama wrote:

I've been looking over the PCs from several of my previous campaigns that I ran, and all of them had one thing in common. Very very similar ability scores.

While, yes, point buy is there to mitigate injustice and make PCs relatively similar in ability, it gives them a sort of uniformity which is beginning to annoy me.

Any thoughts?

One of the most heard complaints about the Point Buy system is cookie cutter stats. That is if the concepts are similar the characters will probably have identical stats. This is because there is an optimal set of scores for each concept and THAT is what you have to buy if you wish to play that concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rolling is very fun.

Two methods that I recommend are:

1- My favorite; Organic. This is where you roll 4d6drop in order and afterwards you can swap one stat with another (this keeps most concepts playable). It also means you might end up with a strong wizard or a charismatic fighter.

2- Everyone rolls a set of stats and you can pick the set you wish to use from among everyones sets. This IS even fairer than point buy and is perhaps the fairest method I have ever seen.

and 3- combine the two methods above for completely fun and totally fair play.


Epic Arbane, totally epic.


Maybe there should be a Pathfinder version of this? Maybe cap PF point buy at a 16?


I don't know Laithoron maybe you've had MUCH luckier players than I have seen typically with 4d6drop. But even I must admit a 16 on a set of 4d6drop scores is fairly common. It is often balanced by a spread of lackluster or low scores. But I have also seen players who couldn't manage better than a 14 as their highest rolled score. That unpredictability is both an asset and major drawback to rolling; making it really really hard to set an equivalent PB level for it. BUT most accurately the average stat IS 12.24 for 4d6drop... making a 15PB not far from the mark (most of the time). And that "most of the time" is the tricky part.

BUT debates have raged for more years than I have probably been gaming over rolled stat inequality.

I was more curious about how people liked this version of Point Buy? Is buying higher stats than 15 a deal breaker?


I was looking at the D&D next basic rules and noticed the following things about stat generation: elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8) has been added as a standard for new characters right along side rolling 4d6drop, and the optional point buy system is now far more balanced.

And by balanced I mean you get 27 points with all stats starting at 8 like the old D&D PB, but 14 and 15 cost 2 points each AND you can't buy a stat higher than 15 before racials. That last bit is very new to me. And I am curious how people might react about it. The more I think about it the more I like it... It may do more to equalize SAD vs MAD than anything I have seen done before.

IS this the future of Point Buy? Is that good?


RDM42 wrote:
An odd way to do it. {snip} And usually the pcs can absorb a short temporary penalty that the majority of the npcs won't.

I bolded the part that is in my experience the lie. Have you read some of the typical critical fumble results? Cut off an arm or leg, put out an eye, smash your weapon to pieces, ect. All of which have long term debilitating consequences for any PC that doesn't have a well prepared cleric or wish wizard standing right behind them.

Now if GMs used far more sedate results like: -1 to your next attack, -1 to your AC for the round, or simply drop your weapon where you are standing; then I can see that such things wouldn't be a big deal.


RDM42 wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Yeah critical fumble tables are crazy bad for PCs.

It isn't that NPCs do or don't make more rolls, it IS that after a bad roll the next NPC just steps over the remains of the former one while if a PC makes a bad roll then they have to suffer with the consequences sometimes for quite a while.

And meanwhile there is one less opponent on the board. Arguably existance failure is a worse penalty.

GMs have a limitless supply of new NPCs. If there are too few on the board for a proper challenge the GM can just add more. If there are too few PCs on the board it usually just makes things harder for the survivors.


Yeah critical fumble tables are crazy bad for PCs.
It isn't that NPCs do or don't make more rolls, it IS that after a bad roll the next NPC just steps over the remains of the former one while if a PC makes a bad roll then they have to suffer with the consequences sometimes for quite a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All IPAs are too hoppy. I think that they are historically made that way on purpose to survive the trip to India.

I am definitely one of the people who don't like IPAs.


Yeah I kinda wish I had picked a better game to watch... poor Brazil.


Things all my characters get at some point:
- Ladies Hand Mirror: {custom item} Prestidigitation at-will 900gpv
- Mithral Armor magicked to as high a bonus as I can afford: cost varies.
- Continual Flame cast on a hair ribbon: usually about 50gpv up to about 100gpv. It is an everlasting light source which can be tied into my hair or onto any object for a versatile light source.
- Vibro Weapons: +1 sonic weapons (if available) if not then corrosive, electrical, flaming, or frost in that order of preference.
- Boots of Levitation
- Endure Elements clothing
- Hat of Disguise (mostly to make my clothes always look new and in the latest style- but it has other uses; like setting up some aliases for use in a variety of situations)
- Travel Cloak (if the GM is allowing 3e items) -it keeps you dry and can become a tent and has daily food and a bottomless flask of either cold water or hot tea.
- magic containers of any type from bags of holding to portable holes but typically a Hewards Handy Haversack.

at level 1 I can usually afford the flame ribbon, and I add to the list as I level up. Usually completing the list fairly quickly depending on the GM of course.

1 to 50 of 2,110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.